Воспитание в ямской системе образования: повторение года без диагностики усугубляет проблемы детей

Ruthlyn James | Repeating children: Psychological scar we refuse to assess Loading article... A parent recently contacted me about her daughter who attends a traditional high school in Kingston. The family was advised that the child should repeat the year because she was not performing at the expected level and needed another year to develop the required skills. No psychoeducational assessment was recommended. No comprehensive learning profile was presented. An explanation was absent regarding which cognitive or academic processes prevented the child from mastering the work. There was no indication that the method of instruction would be changed, that the assessment format would be reviewed, or that a targeted intervention programme would replace the approach that had already failed her. The recommendation was simply to give her another year. The child is suspected of having dyslexia. If that suspicion is correct, how will repeating the same curriculum using the same instructional methods and assessment procedures help address a neurological difference in processing written language? Time does not treat dyslexia.  WITHOUT INVESTIGATION Jamaica’s education regulations permit a school to allow students above Grade 7 to repeat, as long as it does not cause the class to exceed approved enrollment levels or require extra staff. The regulation sets out the administrative conditions under which repetition can happen. It does not seem to require a compulsory psychoeducational review, multidisciplinary assessment, or individualised intervention plan before making the decision. This places significant responsibility on school administrators. That responsibility is too often exercised on the basis of a superficial understanding of failure. The child has not achieved the required average, so they are held back. However, a low average is an outcome, not a diagnosis. It indicates that learning has not been sufficiently demonstrated. It does not explain why. Was the student taught using methods suitable for her learning profile? Does she have difficulties in phonological processing, working memory, processing speed, or expressive language? Was the examination itself accessible? Did it assess her knowledge of the subject, or did it mainly evaluate how quickly she could read, process, and write under timed conditions? PATTY WAS NOT THE CAUSE Years ago, two school boys fought publicly over a patty. One wore the white shirt associated with sixth form. The other wore khaki. They were the same age, entered school together, competed successfully as athletic representatives of their school, and were best friends. From the outside, the incident appeared to be a fight over food. Psychologically, it was about distance. One boy had advanced into sixth form and was visibly wearing the symbol of academic progress. The other had been repeatedly held back. Each year of retention changed not only his grade level but also his relationships with peers, his identity, and his sense of progress in life. Grade retention alters the social structure around a child. Friends progress. Uniforms change. Subjects change. Privileges increase. Conversations shift. The retained student stays with younger peers while watching age mates move into spaces that represent competence, maturity, and potential. Research does not support the casual use of repetition. The Education Endowment Foundation in England reports that, on average, pupils who repeat a year progress about two months less than similar pupils who move on. It also notes that the negative effects are more significant among disadvantaged learners, meaning repetition could reinforce the very inequalities it aims to address. A major systematic review of 84 studies found that the success of grade retention varies by context, but the broader evidence has consistently raised concerns about its academic and psychosocial effects. Older students might experience greater embarrassment, social isolation, and behavioural issues because they become more aware of how they are perceived by peers. WHAT MUST CHANGE Jamaica should consider grade retention as an Exceptional Educational Measure rather than a standard administrative response. Increasing international evidence supports this view. Grade repetition is costly, often ineffective, and can exacerbate educational inequalities. Instead, promote early detection of learning difficulties, ongoing assessment, prompt intervention, and personalised support before failure becomes deeply rooted. Spain has similarly implemented grade repetition as an exceptional measure, recognising its connection to demotivation, disengagement, and early school dropout. Jamaica does not need to fully replicate another country’s education system. Instead, it can adopt the core principles behind these reforms. Before any high-school student is held back, there should be a mandatory review involving parents, teachers, guidance staff, and special education personnel. This should also automatically trigger a psychoeducational assessment. No child should repeat more than once without regional review and an alternative placement or intervention plan. Schools should also be required to demonstrate what will change during the repeated year. Will the child receive structured literacy, assistive technology, alternative assessments, targeted remediation, counselling, a modified curriculum or a vocational pathway? Simply recommending “one more year to build skills” is not an intervention plan.  The Ministry of Education should also collect and publish retention data by school, grade, age, sex, disability status and student outcomes. We need to know how many retained students progress, repeat again, or ultimately leave the education system. Historical national estimates provide a broad picture but cannot reveal what is happening within individual secondary schools today. Repeating a child without investigating the cause of failure is a dangerous act. It gives institutional authority the appearance of action while leaving the learning problem unaddressed. A repeated year should never be a mirror of the failed year. When the school has not changed its methodology, examined the learner’s profile, or provided appropriate intervention, it is no longer reasonable to say that the child has failed again. The system has simply repeated itself. Ruthlyn James is the founding director of Adonijah Group of Schools Therapy and Assessment Centre. Send feedback to [email protected]