Impacts of Student Retention Essay

1. 0 Introduction This brood go depend explore the concepts of existing breeding policies in a positive country Singapore. The rector of Education of Singapore commissioned this melodic theme to account for the impacts of learner property to its advantages, disadvantages and impacts. This report is constructed with at least 6 credible scholarly articles and the MOEs official website. Although the idea of memory board in Singapore is not unfamiliar, this report pass on distinguish the ramifications of retention and describes the implications of retention in a developed country like Singapore. 2. 0Purpose of Grade confirming 2. 1Goals of retention.The practice of holding back up ostensibly weaker students for one more year on the grounds of failed faculty memberian prowess is common in Singapore. computer memory policy calls for requiring students who moderate failed to strive satisfactorily to repeat their current seduce the following year. Promotional provide in certain grades found that 20 to 40 percent of the students did not qualify for promotion (Brophy 2006, 13). This is motivated by a conservative feel that retaining students provides another opportunity to master content which students failed to master and consequently snuff it students better equipped to succeed in the following year.Most grade repeating in developed countries is imposed by school days on low-achieving students who go through made poor progress despite symmetric attendance (Brophy 2006, 12). 2. 2Does retention Satisfy Original Goals Sixth grade students rated grade retention as the single most stressful life event (Riggert et al 2006, 71). repetition is principally made up of two forms, voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary happens when students whom ar considered at risk drop out(a) of school before attempting the utmost exams Repetition is associated with low achievement and early dropout (Brophy 2006, 9).Voluntarily means forfeiting the kick downst airs of progress. Familial background, financial conditions or past stigmas all play a major part in the decision but grade retention policy makers believe that it is for schools to maintain high standards therefore retention does gratify the goals of the school but not the goals of the student. 3. 0Factors & Conditions Leading to Failing a Student 3. 1Academic Achievement Grade repetition is decided on the faculty memberian achievement of the student, decision is made by the authoritative body, normally a minimal grade of 50 percentage achieved in all subjects will suffice in passing.At risk students make up the noted percentage in this category, commands a higher luck despite regular attendance and class performances. This supports Diederichs statement of schools superfluously weighs subjects through the utmost examinations as a criterion to pass students. These patterns indicate that prior academic achievement and expectations were related to retention (Diederich 1978, 10 ). 3. 2Disciplinary Problems Social influences play a ample part in the development of the students mentality towards education.Attributing to the students behavior, students from lower income families work while attending school and simply the student is unable to give their full-time attention to their academic endeavors. round typically see student failure or success as essentially the results the students achieved, obviously student effort, ability and motivation are stringy factors in the equation(Wimshurst, Bates and Wortley 2002, 12). Students are often misunderstood because enthusiasm in a student is often miscomprehended.This attributes to the students beguile towards education and forms the outline of his or hers behavior. School-imposed grade repetition has negative effects on achievement and is associated with social adjustment problems and increased likelihood of dropping out (Brophy 2006, 4) 4. 0Advantages & Disadvantages of Student Repetition and Fail ure 4. 1 Effects on Academic Achievement Retention does not assist with the students academic achievements. Grade retention was not found to be a beneficial intervention, overall, in the studies examined (Sterns et al 2007, 220).Developing a insufficiency of interest in education, this contradicts to the fantasy that repeating is beneficial. Students have a greater probability to drop out when forced to repeat. Grade retention has been identified as the single most powerful predictor of dropping out (Swail 2004, 9). On the other hand, a very small minority showed the tenacity to hold on to their education careers and displayed a slight improvement in their academic achievements.4. 2Social Effects & Psychological on Students Involuntary grade repetition has negative effects on social, emotional and behavioral aspects (Brophy 2006, 16). Grade repetition does not improve academic achievement but the contrary it carries prejudicial effects on social, emotional and behavioral ch aracteristics. Displaying poorer social adjustments and negative attitudes, Students have difficulty in adjusting, self-esteem is reduced drastically.Drug use, teenage pregnancy, gangs, school dropouts, suicide, violence, political apathy, casual sex and more recently depression(McInerney 2006, 12) the subtraction of these factors will optimize the likelihood of these students dropping out. Grade repetition is connected with long-term effects such as the probability of a poorer education, bound their employment opportunities. 5. 0Conclusion Cumulative point from research clearly demonstrates that there are no distinct advantages to repetition, and negative impacts outweigh the positive.They (teachers) see the temporary advantages appear during retention year (Brophy 2006, 28). It is imperative for policy makers to analyze the societal and psychological consequences. Current policies must be revised at an arms space with schools that are beneficial to students and schools. It appears that many, if not most politicians, administrators and teachers remain unaware of the evidence against school-imposed retention or they are misled by false claims that support it (Brophy 2006, 27) 6. 0Recommendations Retention is mandated in a developed country such as Singapore.A conservative education system with policies that requires students to repeat without achieving minimal requirements, Singapores education system can benefit by administering or implementing a change in her existing educational policies. Denmark, Japan, Korea, nary(prenominal)way and Swedens emphasizes on mechanical promotion and this should put to rest any concerns that automatic promotion policies will lead to mediocre schooling (Brophy 2006, 23). They are as follows Adopt small classes in primary and secondary schools ranging from ten to twenty students per teacher ratio. range and provide at-risk students with additional scholarship opportunities and methods.Teachers and parents m ust be collaborating to prevent the lack of interest in students. Suspend the streaming of students. Students whom are subjected to streaming afford intense stress to exhibit good grades. no possessing the maturity to carry on the pressure and carrying the stigma of this unnecessary rite of passage, the probability of dropping out will increase significantly. Evaluate Students not only through a single high stakes test but track invariable progress through participation and performance. Develop a progressive learning system as an assessment, either for teachers to act upon rather than just report failure and move on.Number of Words 1095 Reference list Swail, Scott Watson. 2004. The invention of Student Retention. Texas higher(prenominal) Education Coordinating Board. Roderick, Melissa and Jenny Nagaoka. Retention under Chicagos High-Stakes Testing Program Helpful, Harmful or Harmless? Source Educational evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Winter, 2005), pp . 309-340. American Educational Research Association. McInerney, Peter. 2006. Blame the student, blame the school or blame thesystem? Educational policy and the dilemmas of student engagementand school retentiona Freirean perspective.University of Ballarat. Stearns, Elizabeth, Stephanie Moller, Judith Blau and Stephanie Potochnick. 2007. Staying Back and Dropping out The Relationship betweenGradeRetention and School Dropout. Source Sociology of Education,Vol. 80, No. 3 (Jul. ,2007), pp. 210-240. American SociologicalAssociation. Riggert, Steven C, Mike Boyle, Joseph M. Petrosko, Daniel Ash and CarolynRudeParkins. 2006. Student Employment and Higher EducationEmpiricism andContradiction. Source Review of EducationalResearch, Vol. 76, No. 1(Spring, 2006), pp. 63-92. AmericanEducational Research Association. Diederich Ott, Mary.1978. Retention of Men and Women EngineeringStudents. Source Research in Higher Education, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1978),pp. 137-150. Springer. Bosshardt, William. 2004. Student Drops and Failure in Principles Courses. Source The Journal of Economic Education, Vol. 35, No. 2 (Spring,2004), pp. 111- 128. Taylor and Francis Ltd. Tinto, Vincent. 2001. Taking Student Retention Seriously. SyracuseUniversity. A. Bali, Valentina, Dorothea Anagnostopoulos, Reginald Roberts. 2005. Source Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 27, No. 2(Summer, 2005), pp. 133-155. American Educational ResearchAssociation.