1. Less Is More? An Application of Propensity Score Stratification to First-Grade Retention Mieke Goos, Jan Van Damme, Patrick Onghena and Katja Petry SREE 2010

2. 1. Introduction Starting point: –Many young children struggle in elementary school –Countries deal with these early problems in a different way –Internationally frequently applied measure = grade retention

3. 1. Introduction Grade retention in Flanders: –Relatively high rate For example: PISA 2003

4. 1. Introduction –Relatively high rate … especially in Grade 1  About 7% of Flemish children repeat Grade 1 –Socially approved by educators, policy makers and parents → being a grade retainee in Flanders has a different connotation than for example in the US (negative overtone) –No formal rules regarding grade promotion (no national/state standardized test procedures) → retention decision = joint decision by teacher and parents

5. 1. Introduction Research question: –Is Grade 1 retention an effective practice or not? Focus of this study: –children’s psychosocial growth throughout elementary school

6. 2. Method Subjects: representative sample from the Flemish SiBO-project –3624 first-graders, of which 298 were retained –222 classes –121 schools followed until Grade 6

7. 2. Method Instruments –Psychosocial growth: Teacher questionnaire  rated yearly by the teacher  items on a 1 to 6 point Likert scale  7 subscales Social skills Popularity among classmates Aggressive behavior Hyperactive behavior Asocial behavior Dynamic-affective attitudes and skills Independent participation School well-being Self-confidence

8. 2. Method Instruments (continued) –Propensity of repeating Grade 1  official records  achievement tests  Standard Progressive Matrices  teacher questionnaire about the child  parent questionnaire  teacher questionnaire about teacher didactics  school staff questionnaire 68 prior student characteristics 59 prior class characteristics 42 prior school characteristics

9. 2. Method Analyses: 4-steps-procedure –Step 1: identification of ‘true’ confounders of Grade 1 retention  prior student, class and school characteristics  that are related to both treatment (i.e., Grade 1 retention) and outcome (i.e., children’s individual psychosocial growth) –Step 2: estimation of propensity scores based on these confounders  3-level logistic regression analysis (students – classes – schools)

10. 2. Method Analyses: 4-steps-procedure (continued) –Step 3: decile stratification  10 strata of equal size –Step 4: estimation of average psychosocial effects  3-level curvilinear growth curve analyses (measurements – students – schools)

11. 2. Method Analyses: 2 comparison strategies –Same-grade approach = comparing retainees with their younger grade-mates –Same-age approach = comparing retainees with their age-mates who were promoted to a higher grade

12. 2. Method A Research year 1 (age 7) Research year 2 (age 8) Research year 3 (age 9) B 3 rd grade C 2 nd grade D E 1 st grade Grade retention F H G Promotio n Cohort 1 Cohort 2 (not in SiBO dataset)

13. A Research year 1 (age 7) Research year 2 (age 8) Research year 3 (age 9) B 3 rd grade C 2 nd grade D E 1 st grade Grade retention F H G Promotio n Cohort 1 Cohort 2 (not in SiBO dataset) 2. Method SAME-GRADE COMPARISON

14. A Research year 1 (age 7) Research year 2 (age 8) Research year 3 (age 9) B 3 rd grade C 2 nd grade D E 1 st grade Grade retention F H G Promotio n Cohort 1 Cohort 2 (not in SiBO dataset) 2. Method SAME-AGE COMPARISON

15. 2. Method Analyses: 2 comparison strategies (continued) –Why? ~ 2 different questions  How do Grade 1 repeaters, at the cost of one extra year of education, develop in comparison to younger children with whom they will eventually finish elementary school? SAME-GRADE APPROACH  How would Grade 1 retainees have developed, had they been promoted to Grade 2 instead? SAME-AGE APPROACH

16. 3. Results Propensity scores –based on 52 prior student characteristics Promoted students M = -4.47 Retained students M = -0.12

17. 3. Results Propensity score stratification –Cut-offs for strata based on overlap –Division into 10 strata of equal size

18. 3. Results –Within-stratum balance in propensity score = ≠ ≠

19. 3. Results –Within-stratum balance in 97% of the observed pre-retention student, class and school characteristics → Retained and promoted children within a certain stratum are equivalent (within sampling fluctuations) in terms of risk factors preceding retention

20. 3. Results Same-grade comparisons –On average:  during their retention year, Grade 1 retainees show a similar psychosocial functioning in comparison to younger grade- mates who are at similar risk of being retained  but … over time they (mostly) grow significantly slower  they end up showing more hyperactive behavior, feeling less well at school etc. ! One exception: popularity among classmates

21. 3. Results

22. sign

23. 3. Results

24. sign

25. 3. Results sign

26. 3. Results sign

27. 3. Results ! One exception ! sign

28. 3. Results Same-age comparisons –On average:  Grade 1 repeaters would have developed a similar or even better psychosocial functioning, had they been promoted to Grade 2 instead, both in the short and long run

29. 3. Results sign

30. 3. Results

31. sign

32. 3. Results

33. sign

34. 3. Results sign

35. 3. Results sign

36. 4. Conclusions and discussion Overall, Grade 1 retainees do not seem to benefit much from their retention year –over time they grow slower compared to grade- mates, making them end up feeling less well at school etc. at the end of elementary school –while they would have developed a similar or even better psychosocial functioning, had they been promoted to Grade 2 instead → Practical implication: Our results call the practice of Grade 1 retention in Flanders into question

37. 4. Conclusions and discussion Future research is needed –Sensitivity analyses –Other outcome: growth in math and reading skills –Moderating effects: provision of additional support

38. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2ND BIENNIAL MEETING OF THE EARLI SPECIAL INTEREST GROUP 18 “Educational Effectiveness: Models, Methods and Applications” Leuven, Belgium 25-27 August 2010 http://www.sigee2010.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keynote lectures by Prof. Dr. Stephen Raudenbush, Prof. Dr. Robert E. Slavin, Prof. Dr. Jürgen Baumert and Prof. Dr. Jan-Eric Gustafsson

39. Thank you for your attention! Any suggestions or comments are welcome: mieke.goos@ped.kuleuven.be