Collateral Damage of the “No Repetition” Policy

License Creative Commons

Paco Benítez

“If we want an inclusive society, let us not tolerate functional illiteracy”

(Gregorio Luri, 2024: 128)

The title of this article, as well as its opening quotation, is taken from the latest book by philosopher, educator, and former primary, secondary, and university teacher Gregorio Luri. In this work, Luri examines the growing trend in contemporary education of lowering academic demands and nowadays student performance while simultaneously inflating grades artificially. Building on this outstanding analysis, the purpose of this article is to briefly examine the negative consequences of the prevailing notion that academic repetition must be avoided at all costs—a view widely promoted by pedagogical orthodoxy and embedded in the Spanish educational regulations. According to Article 16 (Promotion) of Royal Decree 217/2022 of 29 March, which establishes the structure and minimum requirements for compulsory secondary education:

“Repetition of a school year shall be considered an exceptional measure, undertaken only after all ordinary measures of reinforcement and support to address the student’s learning difficulties have been exhausted. In any case, a student may repeat the same year only once and a maximum of twice during compulsory education“.

This regulation is further compounded by the significant pressure exerted by educational inspectors and some school leadership teams on teachers to ensure that no student repeats, not even once. To examine this phenomenon, this article will present scientific evidence from cognitive psychology regarding the learning process and motivation, as well as verifiable empirical data. These will be illustrated with insights drawn from the daily classroom experience of teachers today.

Scientific knowledge on the cognitive mechanisms governing memory and learning strongly supports the importance of prior knowledge as a foundation for understanding new concepts (Ruiz Martín, 2019). Teachers must ensure that students have this foundational knowledge before introducing new material. Consequently, it is evident that students who move on to a new academic year without having mastered essential content and skills (a widespread practice in current secondary education) are often completely lost in the following year.

Moreover, as Héctor Ruiz Martín explains in his remarkable book How Do We Learn? A Scientific Approach to Learning and Teaching (2019), as well as in his masterful lecture at CaixaForum Zaragoza in March 2022, emotional factors such as motivation are also critical to effective learning. Prior knowledge again plays a pivotal role, not only facilitating the acquisition of new knowledge but also significantly influencing students’ motivation and self-efficacy. Motivation drives students to devote more time, effort, and attention to learning, thereby improving outcomes. Two primary factors modulate motivation: interest (generated either from the intrinsic value students ascribe to the subject or the extrinsic consequences of learning, such as grades, peer recognition, or relationships with parents and teachers) and expectations.

While it has traditionally been thought that interest is the dominant factor in motivation, this is not entirely true. Increasingly, teachers encounter classrooms where a large proportion of students exhibit significant curricular gaps in most subjects. This situation arises from moving on students to the next grade without equipping them with the necessary competences or providing adequate support in subsequent years. Let us acknowledge that “support” does not imply expecting teachers to personalise their instruction for 25-30 different levels within a single classroom, as proposed by pedagogical utopians who have never set foot in a school. Rather, it requires constant in-class support from specialised staff (e.g., special education teachers, teaching assistants, or co-teachers), resources that are conspicuously absent in most schools.

As Héctor Ruiz asserts: “Few things are as demotivating as making an effort and not achieving the goal. Anticipating negative emotions makes it likely that we will lose the motivation to learn. We are motivated to pursue learning goals we believe we can achieve with the effort we are willing to make. Therefore, our estimation of whether the effort will be worthwhile is crucial to our motivation“. Students who are automatically promoted despite lacking the foundational knowledge required for subsequent learning are often trapped in a cycle of frustration. They consistently encounter learning experiences where the cognitive load on their working memory is overwhelming, thereby limiting their progress. While opponents of repetition frequently argue that it causes emotional harm, one might question whether the greater harm lies in the repeated blows to a student’s sense of self-efficacy as they struggle daily in a classroom environment without adequate pedagogical support (as is often the case today). Self-efficacy and educational success are mutually reinforcing, but the influence of the latter is even more significant (Muijs and Reynolds, 2017). When students experience continual failures that they recognise are due not to a lack of effort but to insurmountable difficulties, their motivation to learn diminishes, ultimately disappearing altogether (Wigfield and Eccles, 2000). In such cases, not even interest in the subject matter can sustain their motivation, as they are overwhelmed by the circumstances.

The “no repetition” policy, coupled with the removal of grade thresholds for promotion under the LOMLOE, also negatively impacts students’ extrinsic motivation. Grades play a significant role in driving students to learn by providing instrumental value, such as access to higher education, recognition and personal prestige within their peer group, and improved familial relationships. However, in the current educational framework, where grades hold little consequence for promotion, students are less inclined to exert effort. This diminishes their chances of discovering and developing intrinsic interest in subjects they might otherwise have been motivated to explore through extrinsic incentives (Hidi and Renninger, 2006). Just as an all-inclusive car rental insurance policy leads to driver complacency and higher accident rates, this educational “no-failure guarantee” encourages students to relax their efforts, knowing there will be no consequences.

Ironically, the “no repetition” policy, that champions inclusion, ultimately creates classroom groups where such inclusion fails to materialise. Classrooms increasingly consist of students with vast disparities in academic levels, harming those with the greatest learning challenges. Inclusion, as it is often simplistically portrayed, suggests that if a teacher fails a student, it is because the teacher has not been able to adapt to the individuality of each one of them. On the other hand, it is considered that as long as students share the same physical space, inclusion is achieved. However, when in the same classroom there are students who are two or more academic years behind in various subjects, as is increasingly common nowadays, it becomes impossible for them to academically integrate with the rest of the group. As Mestre and Fernández Liria (2024: 85) observe:

“Such students can only receive individualised attention and, at most, work alongside their peers. However, they cannot intellectually engage with the majority of what transpires in the classroom”.

This lack of academic integration frequently leads to social exclusion, as these students feel alienated from their peers and the broader classroom context.

This creates a classroom dynamic that harms all learners, as the overall level of academic rigour inevitably suffers. As Javier Mestre, a Spanish Language and Literature secondary school teacher and professor, astutely points out:

“Repetition is a legitimate resource that has proven useful in many cases. Teachers do not make students repeat a year to ‘punish’ them but because it is the best available option to help them genuinely engage with the curriculum at a given level. Perhaps it is because we continue to believe that classes should operate at a more or less standard level according to each grade within the system, and that the teacher instructs a group rather than a heterogeneous collection of individuals with activities tailored to each of them” (Mestre and Fernández Liria, 2024: 81). Otherwise, the intellectual training function of schools, which enables learners to access knowledge, is completely undermined. This practice of automatic promotion, combined with the existence of publicly funded private schools, results in educational segregation that drives many middle-class families away from public education due to declining standards (Fernández Liria et al., 2023).

Blaming teachers for Spain’s high repetition rates compared to other European countries is unfair, given the substantial differences between educational systems. While Spain’s repetition rate for lower secondary students stands at approximately 7% (compared to the EU average of just over 2%), many European countries implement differentiated academic and technical pathways at younger ages than 16—e.g., 10 in Germany and Austria, 14 in Belgium and the Netherlands (European Commission, 2022). In this regard, it is worth noting that within the Spanish education system, there exists the option of basic vocational training cycles available from the age of 15, which could provide an alternative pathway for students with a significant academic gap. However, many students and their families are often reluctant to engage in these programmes (likely because, in many cases, a considerable proportion of their students display behavioural issues, which does little to improve their reputation). Additionally, in many schools, particularly smaller or rural institutions, this educational option is not available.

What options remain, then, for students who have moved on through school years without mastering basic skills and find themselves academically lost and frustrated? As I mentioned in a previous article addressing the erosion of teacher authority, such students frequently transform into those exhibiting disruptive behaviour, further deteriorating classroom discipline and the overall learning environment. Thus, this policy of “no repetition” not only negatively impacts the individual students who are ostensibly “benefiting” from automatic promotion, but it also indirectly undermines the learning experience of the entire class. Research highlights the critical importance of a positive classroom climate, mutual respect, and group cohesion for effective learning (Lemov et al., 2022).

In the same article, I also addressed another argument often cited by opponents of grade repetition: that it increases the likelihood of school dropouts. However, when comparing data from regions such as the Basque Country and Aragon with Catalonia and Castilla-La Mancha, this claim appears questionable. The former regions exhibit high graduation rates despite higher repetition rates compared to the latter (Magro, 2023). As Carlos Magro himself points out, the key issue lies in examining “what support measures and interventions are provided to repeating students”. To this, I would add, “and also to those who are automatically promoted without foundational knowledge”. Promoting students without providing resources, reinforcements, or support is a wholly hollow and futile measure. If the aim is to improve statistics and reduce school failure rates, it is not sufficient to merely establish policies and create a system of pressure on teachers to pass everyone (a cheap and shoddy solution). Instead, there is a need for resources that translate into specialised support staff to address the increasing diversity of students encountered in classrooms, alongside a reduction in student-teacher ratios. In other words, greater investment in education is essential if the goal is to bring about meaningful and positive change in the education of our young people. Anything less is nothing more than a sterile and shoddy quick fix.

Another point worth considering is the argument regarding the emotional harm that grade repetition allegedly causes students. This issue warrants a detailed exploration that could easily span an entire article. However, it is pertinent to ask what is better for the development and self-esteem of our young people: learning the life lesson that lack of effort has consequences (and that, even with effort, achieving goals is not guaranteed, thereby building resilience), or continuing to live in a bubble that shields them from challenges and negative experiences, thus hindering their development into independent and responsible individuals? I am unequivocal in my view of which is the better option—not only for them but also for my own children. The current mental health statistics among young people suggest that we are raising a generation of narcissistic, arrogant, fragile, and poorly autonomous individuals. This is not their fault, as they are ultimately the primary victims of this system—a system whose long-term casualty will be the future of our country. As Gregorio Luri aptly notes, “in our context, the word ‘repetition’ immediately evokes potential emotional harm to the student repeating a grade, while ignoring the lifelong harm inflicted on those who complete compulsory education with insufficient comprehension skills to understand even a moderately complex text“ (Luri, 2024: 255).

Finally, and diverging from the evidence-based arguments presented thus far—drawing on empirical data and real-world classroom observations—I allow myself the liberty of forecasting the likely consequences of enforcing the LOMLOE’s objective of awarding qualifications to all students, regardless of their academic achievements or performance. It is not difficult to foresee that if qualifications become so devalued as to lose all meaning, the market will respond by creating private certifications—an inherently unjust development, as access to such qualifications would be restricted to those who can afford them. The policy of “no repetition” may deliver short-term societal satisfaction by appeasing students and their families. However, in the long term, it destroys social mobility. As a result, the most disadvantaged are, once again, those from socioeconomically underprivileged backgrounds, who are condemned to occupy the lowest-paid jobs. Progress or a return to the pre-democratic regime? The choice is yours.

References

Comisión Europea (2022). Structures of the European education systems 2022/23: Diagrams. Eurydice facts and figures. Luxemburg: Publications Office of the European Union

Fernández Liria, C., García Fernández, O. y Galindo Ferrández, E. (2023). Escuela o barbarie. Entre el neoliberalismo salvaje y el delirio de la izquierda. Nueva edición actualizada y aumentada. Madrid, Akal.

Hidi, S. & Renninger, K.A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 111-127.

Lemov, D, Lewis, H., Williams, D. & Frazier, D. (2022). Reconnect: Building School Culture for Meaning, Purpose, and Belonging. Jossey-Bass.

Luri, G. (2024). Prohibido repetir. Una propuesta apasionada para salvar la escuela. Rosamerón, Madrid.

Magro, C. (2023). Algunos datos sobre repetición. En El Diario de la Educación, 12/4/2023 https://eldiariodelaeducacion.com/2023/04/12/algunos-datos-sobre-repeticion/

Mestre J. y Fernández Liria, C. (2024). Escuela y libertad, Akal, Madrid.

Muijs, D. & Reynolds, D. (2017). Effective teaching: Evidence and practice. SAGE Publishing.

Ruiz Martín, H. (2019). How Do We Learn? A Scientific Approach to Learning and Teaching. Barcelona, Graó.

Wigfield, A. & Eccles, J.S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 68-81.

Source: educational EVIDENCE

Rights: Creative Commons