Grade repetition

Grade repetition and its effects are controversial issues that still have not reached a consensus in the literature.

On the one hand, proponents of repetition view it as a second chance and a motivational tool for students who have not mastered the curriculum over the year to catch up and avoid accumulating learning difficulties throughout their schooling (Kyereko et al., 2022). The positive impact of repetition on learning achievement has indeed been confirmed by some research that showed progress in learning outcomes, especially in the early grades (Alet, 2010; Gomes-Neto and Hanushek, 1994; Ministry of Education (Rwanda) and UNICEF, 2017). In the early grades, repeating a grade also gives children more time to develop social maturity and to be better prepared for the next grades (Brophy, 2006; Ndaruhutse et al., 2008).

On the other hand, opponents of repetition argue that numerous studies have demonstrated either short-lived benefits or negative impacts on learning outcomes (Ikeda and García, 2014; UIS-UNESCO, 2012). In particular, repetition has often been associated with a higher probability of dropping out (Brophy, 2006; Ndaruhutse et al., 2008; Schumann, 2012). High repetition rates also signal poor internal efficiency of the educational system with increased costs and a waste of resources. Retaining many students in a grade leads to large class sizes and age heterogeneity, which are difficult to manage for teachers and necessitate supplementary resources, in addition to negatively affecting repeaters’ self-esteem and motivation (Brophy, 2006; Sunny et al., 2017; UIS-UNESCO, 2012). As the risks of repetition are higher for vulnerable children (e.g., socioeconomically disadvantaged children, children with disabilities, working children), resorting to repetition may only exacerbate existing learning disparities as it is often not accompanied by remedial support for these students (Choi de Mendizábal et al., 2018; Ndaruhutse et al., 2008).

Although repetition has shown mixed results in research, there are strong indicators that, as it currently stands in developing countries, it generates more costs than benefits (Brophy, 2006; Schumann, 2012). Yet, although there is a wide variation in repetition rates worldwide, repetition is more common in developing countries than developed countries (UNESCO, 2020). High repetition rates are of particular concern in such contexts since they exert additional pressure on already fragile education systems. Thus, there is an urgent need to seek less harmful alternatives to repetition or at least explore ways repetition can be useful and effective.

Promising policy options

Regulating grade repetitions

According to UIS-UNESCO (2012), the way repetition is applied may have different implications: “when used selectively in more developed education systems, it can help support learning; but when used indiscriminately, it can lead to high dropout rates and poorly performing education systems” (2012: 57). It is therefore crucial that a repetition policy establishes detailed criteria and guidance for administrators, schools, teachers, and students. These criteria may fall into two main categories: attendance and performance (Ndaruhutse et al., 2008). Other parameters, such as behavior, might be included (Ikeda, 2011). Clarifying concepts should also help improve the monitoring and measurement of repetition, which is often under-reported in developing countries (UIS-UNESCO, 2012).

Decisions for repetition should be supported by evidence on academic performance and student progress (e.g., Light’s Retention Scale) and based on a reflection on the implications for the student’s well-being and educational trajectory (Hernandez-Tutop, 2012). Actors involved in those decisions should be specified. In developing countries, it is not rare that teachers decide on repetitions unilaterally, which can pave the way for arbitrary decisions, especially as they may not have the qualifications, data, and assessment instruments to support them (Brophy, 2006; UIS-UNESCO, 2012). In OECD countries, a broader range of stakeholders participate in the decision-making process: in many instances, the teaching staff of the whole school has a collective discussion which sometimes requires parents’ consent to be validated (Ikeda, 2011).

Several arrangements can be made to regulate repetition. A first requirement is to make sure that the qualification standards are realistic and do not cause unnecessary bottlenecks even when students provide a reasonable amount of effort in their studies (Brophy, 2006). Secondly, it might be necessary to ease the conditions for promotion by giving pupils a second chance to pass. For instance, in Estonia, potential repeaters are given additional work at the end of the year in the subjects they failed (European Commission. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, Borodankova, and Almeida Coutinho, 2011). A maximum number of times a pupil can repeat years could be prescribed within a level of education (e.g., primary, secondary) like in some OECD countries, or repetitions may only be allowed between sub-cycles as was done in Burkina Faso, Niger, and Mali (Ndaruhutse et al., 2008; UIS-UNESCO, 2012). Another possibility was explored in Rwanda, where schools must respect a maximum percentage of repetitions per grade (5 percent) (Ministry of Education (Rwanda) and UNICEF, 2017).

Providing more and better learning opportunities

Repetition does not in itself solve the problem of low achievement as it is influenced by a multitude of factors at different scales (e.g., individual, community, national levels) (Brophy, 2006; Kyereko et al., 2022). Providing more and better learning opportunities is the only way to address the deeper causes of repetition, whether out-of-school or in-school.

Interventions on out-of-school factors should aim to address the causes of low attendance and premature or late entry into primary education, which primarily affect vulnerable children who are also those most at risk of repetition. These include removing direct and opportunity costs of schooling and implementing social protection programs (e.g., school meals, healthcare) (Sunny et al., 2017; Young Lives, 2020).

Interventions on in-school factors concern the measures to alleviate school resource constraints and address the poor quality of school (Gomes-Neto and Hanushek, 1994). Thus, any policy to improve education quality is likely to have a positive impact on repetition rates. This includes allocating resources efficiently (including quality teachers, infrastructure, and teaching materials), ensuring curriculum relevance, or reducing class sizes (Ndaruhutse et al., 2008; Sunny et al., 2017; UIS-UNESCO, 2012). Moreover, expanding educational opportunities is a key lever in reducing repetition. While pre-primary schooling is essential for school readiness and age-for-grade appropriateness, a sufficient supply of post-primary education (including technical and vocational education) should relieve the pressure at the end-of-primary exams and limit voluntary repetition to pass them, which can lead to congestion (Brophy, 2006; UIS-UNESCO, 2012).

Raising awareness and challenging unfounded beliefs

Some countries or schools are characterized by a deeply-rooted “culture of repetition”, whereby repetition is always thought to be preferable for low achievers than promotion and may be applied almost systematically to less performing students regardless of their learning level (UIS-UNESCO, 2012). Teachers may base their pro-repetition opinion on their experience, having observed repeaters improve during the retention year without necessarily seeing that these benefits may fade over time in subsequent grades (Brophy, 2006). Most worryingly, the belief that low-performing students are “naturally bad” and unable to learn and progress sets the stage for self-fulfilling failure and negatively affects teachers’ efforts to support them (Kyereko et al., 2022). In some cases, repetition may also be motivated by a desire to maintain a positive image, especially for private schools (Kyereko et al., 2022).

This ingrained “culture of repetition” partly explains why some countries (whether developed or developing) or schools continue to practice repetition frequently despite legislation restricting it (Choi de Mendizábal et al., 2018; UNESCO, 2020). Regulating repetition must, therefore, be accompanied by enforcement measures and wide communication to ensure adherence to the policy and awareness of the evidence on which it is grounded.

Providing remedial instruction and supportive teaching and learning strategies

Students who are repeating or at risk of repeating need additional support to avoid repetition or to ensure that repetition allows them to catch up. This support can take various forms:

• Create a positive classroom climate and supportive teachers’ attitudes to boost repeaters’ confidence. Appointing them leaders in the class or encouraging their participation are simple strategies to achieve this (Brophy, 2006; Kyereko et al., 2022).
• Closely monitor weaker students’ or repeaters’ participation and work (Brophy, 2006).
• Provide individualized or small-group instruction with the help of teacher assistants, if necessary, and implement changes in the classroom structure, such as pairing weaker students with well-performing classmates (Brophy, 2006; Kyereko et al., 2022; Ndaruhutse et al., 2008).
• Provide additional learning opportunities such as extended-day or year schedules, summer school programs, and tutoring outside regular school time. This strategy was implemented in the USA and proved more cost-effective than repetition (Brophy, 2006; Choi de Mendizábal et al., 2018; Ndaruhutse et al., 2008).
• Vary teaching methods, for example, by assigning different teachers to repeating students (Kyereko et al., 2022).
• Training teachers to work in multi-age and mixed-ability classrooms, accurately assess the need for repetition or promotion and identify special education needs and learning disabilities (Crawfurd, 2021; Kyereko et al., 2022; Social surveys, 2010; Sunny et al., 2017).

Most of these strategies require early intervention. It is much more cost-effective to identify learning difficulties and provide remediation early on than to intervene later when learning gaps have accumulated and changing a student’s trajectory is more difficult (UIS-UNESCO, 2012; UNESCO, 2020). For this reason, widening access to pre-primary education and building foundational skills in reading and numeracy are key to avoiding repetition later in schooling (Social surveys, 2010; UIS-UNESCO, 2012).

Involving parents and caregivers

Involving parents in children’s schooling is key to supporting those at risk of school failure (Brophy, 2006). This can be achieved through collaboration, regular meetings and information, invitations to the classroom, and the provision of materials for tutoring at home (Brophy, 2006; Ndaruhutse et al., 2008). Parents may also encourage their children to explore other areas, which, in turn, can increase their confidence in their school work (Social surveys, 2010).

Other policy options

Automatic promotion

Automatic promotion is the policy whereby students are automatically promoted to the next grade (UIS-UNESCO, 2012). It is implemented in developed countries such as Liechtenstein, Norway, and Sweden and some developing countries like Mauritius, Seychelles, and Zimbabwe (European Commission. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency, Borodankova, and Almeida Coutinho, 2011; Sunny et al., 2017). Automatic promotion may be criticized because it can lower expected standards and negatively impact student achievement by allowing learning difficulties to accumulate in later grades and creating variations in ability within the classrooms (Brophy, 2006; Ministry of Education (Rwanda) and UNICEF, 2017).

Although just like repetition, automatic promotion does not solve the issue of low achievement per se, it remains less harmful than selective repetition and even less so than mandatory repetition (Brophy, 2006). However, automatic promotion must be enhanced with remedial support to struggling students to be effective. The savings from abandoning repetition could be used to implement such programs (UIS-UNESCO, 2012).

An automatic promotion policy does not necessarily imply a ban on repetition, but it may limit its application to cases where it is deemed beneficial to the student (Ndaruhutse et al., 2008). The reform towards automatic promotion must be progressive, especially where a “culture of repetition” is well rooted. For example, the no-repetition policy was abandoned in a dozen Indian states even though it helped reduce dropout rates, especially for poor children (UNESCO, 2020).