Stephanie Lytle: No retention benefits

January 21, 2014 

Regarding the Jan. 10 news article “3rd-grade pupils to take 36 mini-tests”: Obviously Sen. Phil Berger did no research on the pros and cons of retention for children with this new third-grade reading law

My son was recommended to be retained in first grade. I did researched the subject, having no opinion either way, just wanting to do what was right for my son. I found every journal article I could and spoke to countless education professionals, every source came back with the same answer: Retention benefits no child in the long run.

The only pro to retention is a benefit in the next year or two, but then a student is back where he started because the problem that caused the child to not succeed in school was never addressed. My son was tested for learning disabilities; he has multiple learning issues, including dyslexia.

I want all parents with a struggling child to know they can insist that their child be evaluated for learning differences. The schools must test children if parents insist. If I had not, my son would be one of the many children held back this year with no long-term benefit to him.

Stephanie Lytle


News & Observer is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service