Brussels, 08/02/2011 (Agence Europe) - The Eurydice network has published a study into grade retention during compulsory education in Europe, by initiative of the European Commission. The issue is related to the theme of fighting school failure and early school leaving, issues which are very important to the Commission as one of the two key objectives for education under the EUROPE 2020 strategy is to bring the early school leaving rate down below 10%. “I am convinced that this study has produced a valuable inventory of legislation and practices in place regarding pupils' repetition of the school year and that it will be of great interest to policy-makers and practitioners, as well as the wider public”, said Commissioner for Education Androulla Vassiliou.
In all education systems, the pupils' learning progress is assessed throughout the year and various measures are in place to support pupils having problems during the school year to help them to catch up. In many countries, use of grade retention is possible for pupils who have been unable to make the necessary progress. This practice depends on the educational traditions of each country, which is why the criteria for its application vary widely from one country to the next. The Eurydice study analyses the rules in force as regards repeating a school year at primary and general lower secondary level in the member countries of Eurydice (the 27 member states plus Liechtenstein, Norway, Iceland and Turkey). The network has reached the following conclusions: 1) Pupils may fall behind for a year in countries where primary education admission requirements take maturity into account: in some countries, an assessment using maturity and development criteria may delay the pupil's moving from nursery education to primary education. This practice affects a reasonably high rate of children in a number of countries (Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Austria, Romania, Slovakia and Liechtenstein) and reveals strong perceptions that children should reach a predetermined level of maturity in readiness for school. Other countries have this as an option, but it is rarely used (Belgium, Cyprus, Slovenia, Finland and Iceland); 2) Lack of sufficient progress is the most common reason stated in regulations for deciding that pupils should repeat a year: two main scenarios are observed for rules on pupil progression - automatic progression or repeating a year. Automatic promotion is practised by a very small number of countries (Iceland, Norway and the United Kingdom to an extent, but also Bulgaria and Liechtenstein at primary level). In all others, grade retention is allowed, but various kinds of limitation are in place to restrict the use of this measure. In all cases, lack of sufficient progress is the main criterion for grade retention; 3) The opinion of the teachers dominates the decision-making process: in the vast majority of cases, the class teachers have the final decision as to whether a pupil will repeat the year. In a number of countries, the head teachers take this decision. Professionals outside the school may also be called upon to take position. In two thirds of the countries, the parents are involved in the decision-making process if the question of grade repetition arises; 4) Despite similar regulations, grade retention rates vary widely between the European countries: at primary level, some countries have a low rate of grade repetition - Greece (2.0%) and Austria (4.9%) - whereas others have significantly higher repetition rates, such as France (17.8%), Portugal and the Netherlands (22.4%). At lower secondary level, variations between the countries continue, with grade retention rates varying from 0.5% in Finland to 31.9% in Spain.
In conclusion, Eurydice notes that some countries practise a “culture of grade retention”. In countries where it is a recurrent feature, the perception that repeating a year is beneficial for the pupil's learning continues to prevail (this is particularly the case in Belgium, Spain, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Portugal). Adapting the rules on grade retention is not enough to change this view. It needs to be replaced with a different approach to managing pupils' learning problems. The bottom line is that the main challenge lies more in calling certain views and beliefs into question than in changing the rules. (I.L./transl.fl)