The Effects of Grade Retention on High School Outcomes: Evidence from New York City Schools
Louis T. Mariano; Paco Martorell; Tiffany Berglund (2025). Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v18 n1 p1-31 2025. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1492752
-
examining30,808Students, grades3-12
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: June 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for New York City Public Schools grade retention policy - Mariano et al. (2024))
- Regression Discontinuity Design
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a regression discontinuity design that completely satisfies the integrity of the forcing variable and sample attrition and baseline equivalence standards, and partially satisfies all other required standards.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Graduated high school |
New York City Public Schools grade retention policy - Mariano et al. (2024) vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
2.30 |
30.70 |
Yes |
|
||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Graduated high school |
New York City Public Schools grade retention policy - Mariano et al. (2024) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
34.60 |
38.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Graduated high school |
New York City Public Schools grade retention policy - Mariano et al. (2024) vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
30.90 |
35.60 |
Yes |
|
||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Passed New York City Regents Algebra I assessment |
New York City Public Schools grade retention policy - Mariano et al. (2024) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
20.60 |
19.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
New York City Regents Algebra I assessment |
New York City Public Schools grade retention policy - Mariano et al. (2024) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
58.38 |
55.80 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
High school credits earned |
New York City Public Schools grade retention policy - Mariano et al. (2024) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
23.99 |
29.90 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Highest grade completed |
New York City Public Schools grade retention policy - Mariano et al. (2024) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
9.51 |
9.98 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Chronically absent |
New York City Public Schools grade retention policy - Mariano et al. (2024) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
39.40 |
41.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Chronically absent |
New York City Public Schools grade retention policy - Mariano et al. (2024) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
44.00 |
46.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Chronically absent |
New York City Public Schools grade retention policy - Mariano et al. (2024) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
40.60 |
41.80 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Attendance rate |
New York City Public Schools grade retention policy - Mariano et al. (2024) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
0.00 |
0.89 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Attendance rate |
New York City Public Schools grade retention policy - Mariano et al. (2024) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.01 |
0.88 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Attendance rate |
New York City Public Schools grade retention policy - Mariano et al. (2024) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.01 |
0.86 |
Yes |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Dropped out |
New York City Public Schools grade retention policy - Mariano et al. (2024) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
7.30 |
5.60 |
No |
-- | ||
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Dropped out |
New York City Public Schools grade retention policy - Mariano et al. (2024) vs. Business as usual |
4 Years |
Full sample;
|
17.10 |
16.30 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Dropped out |
New York City Public Schools grade retention policy - Mariano et al. (2024) vs. Business as usual |
5 Years |
Full sample;
|
29.20 |
27.20 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Dropped out |
New York City Public Schools grade retention policy - Mariano et al. (2024) vs. Business as usual |
6 Years |
Full sample;
|
36.70 |
33.10 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Was suspended |
New York City Public Schools grade retention policy - Mariano et al. (2024) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
11.20 |
12.50 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Was suspended |
New York City Public Schools grade retention policy - Mariano et al. (2024) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
10.80 |
10.90 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Was suspended |
New York City Public Schools grade retention policy - Mariano et al. (2024) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
12.40 |
11.40 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of days suspended |
New York City Public Schools grade retention policy - Mariano et al. (2024) vs. Business as usual |
1 Year |
Full sample;
|
0.15 |
1.67 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of days suspended |
New York City Public Schools grade retention policy - Mariano et al. (2024) vs. Business as usual |
2 Years |
Full sample;
|
0.36 |
1.79 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Number of days suspended |
New York City Public Schools grade retention policy - Mariano et al. (2024) vs. Business as usual |
3 Years |
Full sample;
|
-0.14 |
1.98 |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
15% English language learners -
Female: 48%
Male: 52% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
New York
-
Race Black 49% Other or unknown 48% White 3% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 39% Not Hispanic or Latino 61% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 88% No FRPL 12%
Study Details
Setting
The study included all schools in the New York City Public Schools, including charter schools.
Study sample
The study included over 70,000 students in grades 3 through 8 who were subject to New York City’s grade retention policy, scored at the lowest performance level in math or English language arts on the spring assessment, and took the summer assessment. Students exempt from the policy, such as early English learners and some special education students, were not part of the study sample. Between 14,000 and 77,000 students contributed to the analyses, depending on the outcome measure.
Intervention Group
Grade retention is a policy in which students stay in the same grade instead of moving to the next grade when schools decide they are not yet academically ready to advance. Its purpose is to give students more time and instruction on the current grade’s material. In this study, students in the intervention condition were eligible to be retained in grades 3 through 8 under New York City’s promotion policy based on their summer test scores. Students who scored below the threshold on the summer assessments were retained unless a portfolio review or an exemption led to promotion. Among students who scored below the threshold on the summer assessments, about 72% were ultimately retained.
Comparison Group
Students in the comparison condition were not eligible to be promoted to the next grade because their summer test scores were above the threshold.
Support for implementation
The retention policy was part of a broader promotion system that identified struggling students each year and provided extra academic help, such as small-group tutoring during the school day and additional time after school. Students with low scores on the prior spring assessment were eligible for these supports, so students in both conditions could receive added academic services in the following year. The manuscripts did not describe training or staff qualifications for the personnel who delivered summer school, tutoring, or other supports.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Martorell, Paco; Mariano, Louis T. (2018). The Causal Effects of Grade Retention on Behavioral Outcomes. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, v11 n2 p192-216.
-
Mariano, L.T., Martorell, P., & Tsai, T. (2018). The Effects of Grade Retention on High School Outcomes: Evidence from New York City Schools. RAND working paper.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).