Nationally and internationally, grade retention is a highly controversial measure to homogenize students with different competencies. In Germany, some federal states (e.g., Hamburg and Berlin) have already abolished grade retention. In Bavaria and Bremen, however, grade retention rates are above the national average (2.3%, Statistisches Bundesamt (Destatis), 2018). Empirical evidence on the effectiveness of grade retention is still insufficient, but the tendency of effects is rather neutral (Fabian, 2020; Goos et al., 2021).
While retention decisions are generally based on academic performance, grades and absences from school (EURYDICE, 2011), student characteristics (Krohne et al., 2004; Gröhlich & Bos, 2007; Klapproth et al., 2015) and school context factors (Bless et al., 2004; König & Darge, 2010; Hong & Raudenbush, 2005; Klapproth et al., 2015) also influence retention or promotion.
Our study focuses on identifying school-level factors influencing retention rates using data from NEPS - Starting Cohort 3 (NEPS-Network, 2024). Separate analyses are conducted for waves 1 (n=104) and 3 (n=180). Retention rates are calculated as the z-standardized ratios of retained students to total enrollment. Predictor variables are stepwise integrated into regression models. All analyses are conducted using R 4.3.3 (R Core Team, 2024).
In Wave 1, retention rates were higher at intermediate tracks (B=.45, p<.10), in urban regions (B=.37, p<.10), in public schools and in states 3 (B=1.07, p<.10) and 12 (B=1.44, p<.10). In contrast, teacher time for consultative meetings (B=-.08, p<.05) was negatively associated with grade retention. Beyond this, grade retention rates were lower in all-day schooling (B=-.43, p<.05).
In Wave 3, higher grade retention rates were associated with a higher proportion of students with a migration background (B=.21, p<.10) as well as for those at academic (B=.56, p<.10) and intermediate tracks (B=1.05, p<.00). Multi-track schools (B=.73, p<.05), schools in urban areas (B=.54, p<.05), as well as the dependency of funding on numbers of student enrollments (B=.23, p<.05) also showed positive associations. State 4 also had an association (B=.77, p<.10) with the retention rate, while larger schools exhibited lower rates (B=-.18, p<.10).
In conclusion, some states showed higher grade retention rates even after accounting for control variables. Grade retention rates were higher in schools compared to private ones. Interestingly, schools whose funding is dependent on number of student enrollments had higher grade retention rates, despite this often leading to a decline in enrollment due to students’ (mostly downwards) track changes. In future analyses, we plan to include also socio-spatial data.