Your article, "3rd-Grade Retention Isn’t Really About Kids — It’s About Adults Who Teach Them" is an advocacy rather than an analysis. You need to make it clearer that you work for an organization that advocates 3rd-grade retention. The premise that retention is more for adults is speculative.
The Florida study (Green and Winters) has been called into question by researchers who found much smaller effects when selection bias was better controlled. Darling-Hammond found that countries with high-performing school systems achieve results without relying on retention. The disproportionate effect on minority and low-income families is noted but then ignored. You ignore all other aspects of the Mississippi school improvement model, such as teacher training and interventions to remediate lagging achievement. Comparing Mississippi to Oklahoma and South Dakota without recognizing the different contexts in each state is misleading.
You make it a binary decision, either retain or promote socially, and ignore social promotion with intensive interventions. The long-term effects of retention have shown that its effects fade by middle school and culminate in high rates of dropping out of school. You have not established that retention itself, rather than the accompanying interventions, drives the outcomes you cite.
Early and effective interventions by highly trained teachers are a better solution.
You need to read my article again! 1. I don't work for ExcelinEd, I just happen to agree with them on a few things. 2. The Florida study I cite is not the one you mention. It's this one: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31406/w31406.pdf 3. I talk about all the other things Mississippi did in my original article... and that's the point. The point of a 3rd grade reading policy is *not* really about retention, it's really about all the other things it triggers. Where we might disagree is that I think the retention policy helps *cause* those other good things whereas you seem to believe they will happen no matter what.
Your article, "3rd-Grade Retention Isn’t Really About Kids — It’s About Adults Who Teach Them" is an advocacy rather than an analysis. You need to make it clearer that you work for an organization that advocates 3rd-grade retention. The premise that retention is more for adults is speculative.
The Florida study (Green and Winters) has been called into question by researchers who found much smaller effects when selection bias was better controlled. Darling-Hammond found that countries with high-performing school systems achieve results without relying on retention. The disproportionate effect on minority and low-income families is noted but then ignored. You ignore all other aspects of the Mississippi school improvement model, such as teacher training and interventions to remediate lagging achievement. Comparing Mississippi to Oklahoma and South Dakota without recognizing the different contexts in each state is misleading.
You make it a binary decision, either retain or promote socially, and ignore social promotion with intensive interventions. The long-term effects of retention have shown that its effects fade by middle school and culminate in high rates of dropping out of school. You have not established that retention itself, rather than the accompanying interventions, drives the outcomes you cite.
Early and effective interventions by highly trained teachers are a better solution.
You need to read my article again! 1. I don't work for ExcelinEd, I just happen to agree with them on a few things. 2. The Florida study I cite is not the one you mention. It's this one: https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w31406/w31406.pdf 3. I talk about all the other things Mississippi did in my original article... and that's the point. The point of a 3rd grade reading policy is *not* really about retention, it's really about all the other things it triggers. Where we might disagree is that I think the retention policy helps *cause* those other good things whereas you seem to believe they will happen no matter what.
Can you please gift the NYT link?
Yes! Try this: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/upshot/look-up-district-test-scores.html?unlocked_article_code=1.iVA.rPPZ.Hd_PGDCp1QPB&smid=url-share