"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". - Albert Einstein

As this school year finishes, most children will be looking forward to moving on to the next year in the autumn. But a number of children will be held back to repeat the same year. These numbers can be surprisingly high in many countries, with the OECD's 2009 Pisa study showing that the average percentage of 15 year olds who had repeated a year at least once across all EU countries was 7.7 % in primary education and 10.4 % in lower secondary education. So if so many children are repeating years, at a cost that can account for as much as 10 % of the total education budget, there must be strong evidence that this is an effective and beneficial practice. But is there?

The assumption behind grade retention is that, by repeating a year, children do better in acquiring and consolidating knowledge, skills and competences than by progressing with their peer group. Eurydice's 2011 study on Grade Retention shows that a variety of reasons are used to justify the practice, including low attendance rates, poor results and the judgement that a child is not yet 'mature' enough to proceed to the next grade.

However, research evidence is very strongly stacked up against this policy approach, pointing to a range of negative outcomes. While some children may appear to benefit from being held back in the short term, many 'grade repeaters' are likely to suffer a negative and long-lasting impact on their academic, emotional and behavioural development, increasing the risk of further academic failure and early school leaving. As children coming from disadvantaged backgrounds are more likely to repeat years, the practice also widens social inequity. So with a wealth of research demonstrating the ill-effects of grade retention, why does the practice persist? Thinking of Einstein's quote, is this a form of educational insanity?

The widespread use of grade retention in so many education systems suggests that either research evidence is not known or that it is ignored. In Europe, grade retention is permitted in most countries, but its actual use varies considerably. The highest percentages of grade retention can be found in Belgium (French Community), Spain, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Portugal. Eurydice's report shows that all these countries take some formal measures to limit the extent of grade retention, but that the practice still continues at alarmingly high rates. Decision-makers – teachers, school principals and parents – therefore appear to be ill-informed about the potential negative effects of the practice. If this is the case, there is clearly a major communication issue for the social science research community to address, while teacher training systems should also consider their role and responsibility. However, perhaps research evidence is known but simply ignored, suggesting that attitudes, beliefs and practice are simply very resistant to change.

There are, however, signs that things are improving. Some countries, including Finland and Sweden, take a more supportive approach to children facing learning difficulties – finding ways to accompany and address individual problems. Good practice examples, such as the Belgian Décolâge project, can also be found even in the worst performing systems. But could change come quicker? In an era where politicians claim to make policy on the basis of evidence, isn't it time to pay attention to the research evidence, and simply put an end to a practice that doesn't work?

Authors: David Crosier and Orla Colclough