Proficiency or Penalty? Grade Retention Policy and Its Implications for English Learners in Utah
One common goal of public education is to ensure all students reach academic mastery. In fact, most U.S. states have agreed upon a set of aligned standards of mastery through the Common Core. To that end, it may make sense to lawmakers that students repeat third grade and get another ‘at bat’ if they weren’t able to reach reading proficiency. This theory of change— accountability in action— has prompted many states to reinforce their literacy legislation with retention provisions. Eighteen states, including the District of Columbia, require grade retention for nonproficient third graders with varying good cause exemptions. Oklahoma and Utah both added retention requirements in their 2026 literacy legislation. Our study seeks to determine whether the theory of change used by lawmakers aligns with existing research on grade retention.
In the aftermath of burgeoning grade retention policies, scholars and stakeholders are questioning whether retention will improve outcomes, or if it will become another reform that unintentionally punishes marginalized families. By interviewing stakeholders in one of Utah’s most diverse school districts, Granite, we aimed to answer the following question: what are the long-term implications of retention provisions in Utah's literacy legislation for third graders? Through qualitative interviews and a literature review on the impacts of grad retention, we found that rather than targeting evidence-based interventions, the policy risks displacing responsibility onto families least equipped to absorb it.
Utah's Literacy Ambitions
Utah is a rapidly growing state with a largely homogenous population. It has grown 21.8% in the last decade, becoming slightly more diverse in racial makeup. Currently, 72% of its 3.5 million residents are white and 17% are Hispanic. In comparison with national averages, Utah holds its own with strong literacy scores. The 2022 NAEP reading report card shows that only eight states scored a higher percentage than the national average of 32% at or above proficiency, Utah being one of them at 37%. These scores, in part, have resulted from a history of commitment to literacy from various Utah actors.
Utah’s current Governor, Spencer Cox, has made his dedication to education clear since coming into office in 2021. The 2022 Read to Succeed Initiative, or SB 127, was passed with a goal to bring state third grade reading proficiency from 46.5% to 70% by 2027. To pair with the legislative mandate, in August 2025, the Utah State Board of Education set the third-grade proficiency benchmark score to a 750 Lexile. This Lexile score is aligned to the 75th percentile of U.S. third grade students.
Put simply, Utah expects their third graders to score in the 75th quartile of the nation’s third graders to be on grade level. This guidance along with the legislature’s continued mandates on percentage of students meeting proficiency shows high expectations for literacy in Utah. However, some stakeholders are concerned about the feasibility of these marks, stating that using state third grade reading scores as predictors for college readiness and high school dropout rates miscommunicate literacy to Utahns who hear that only 50% of students are proficient — a figure inflated by the state's unusually high benchmark threshold.
Despite these efforts, Utah policy leaders did not see the growth necessary to reach their proficiency goal. Reports on reading proficiency like in figure one show that third grade rates only increased from 48% to 50.3% from 2022 to 2025 respectively. In response, in January 2026, Governor Cox announced in his State of the State address that his first legislative priority will be early literacy, claiming that “nearly half of Utah’s third graders are not reading at grade level” and calling “literacy ‘moral infrastructure’ essential to freedom, opportunity, and self-governance.” Additionally, Cox endorsed retention despite its unpopularity, claiming that “It’s hard… people don’t love that. But in Mississippi, if you’re not reading on third grade level at the end of third grade, you stay in third grade.” With the governor’s full support, SB 241 was passed in the 2026 legislative session, and is set to take effect on July 1, 2026.
SB 241 moved the goalpost from 70% proficiency by 2027 to 80% by 2030. With this shift, the legislature added additional provisions to support science of reading instruction, teacher preparation, literacy support staff, and language “requiring retention in grade 3 except in cases of certain good cause exemptions.” Utah lawmakers involved the state board of education in several requirements throughout the bill, including creating a panel for science of reading research, and approving a reading benchmark assessment to be used statewide. This benchmark will be administered three times during the school year to students in k-3. The scores are mandated to be communicated to parents.
The proposed theory of change is that retention will allow Utah students to be adequately supported in their literacy progress. However, not all stakeholders agree that retention will fix Utah’s literacy rates. University of Utah researcher Brandley posits that longer term investments like teacher support and intensive reading intervention would be more effective.
Granite School District
The student population demographics of Granite School District offer a deeper understanding of what SB 241 might mean at local levels. Relative to the state’s demographic structure (72% white and 17% Hispanic), Granite School District’s (GSD) student body is composed of 44% white students and 41% Hispanic students. In comparing state literacy proficiency scores, Utah’s 37% literacy proficiency rate lessens to 32% of students meeting proficiency in GSD. GSD made commitments to improve these scores through concerted funding, capacity building, and support system efforts. The district says their “two overarching strategic goals [for] Granite School District are to increase graduation rates and to increase literacy and numeracy proficiency.”
What the Research Says on Grade Retention
Research indicates mixed results for whether retention begets academic improvement. While there might be short-term gains, some studies show that those gains tend to fall off over the course of that student's educational career (Shepard & Smith, 1990), and a meta-analysis of 63 studies found that only 14% showed significant positive gains for retained students compared with promoted students (Holmes, 1989). A longitudinal study in Chicago found that retained students scored significantly lower in reading and math than their promoted peers — specifically eight months lower in reading and six months lower in math — and the effects of early grade retention (grades 1–3) were similar to those of later retention (grades 4–7), further suggesting that retention alone does not address the root of the problem (Reynolds, 1992; McCoy & Reynolds, 1999).
Beyond academics, grade retention is associated with an increased likelihood of dropping out of high school, increased aggression during adolescence, and elevated long-term anxiety in boys, with retained students showing anxious, inattentive, and disruptive behaviors even when retention occurred in primary school (Jimerson et al., 2002; Pagani et al., 2001).
The issue of retention efficacy is compounded by equity concerns, as the majority of retained students are from marginalized backgrounds; a study analyzing Michigan's third-grade reading retention laws found that an economically disadvantaged EL has only a 30% chance of passing the M-STEP, with even lower odds for Arabic and Spanish speakers (Winke & Zhang, 2019).
Teachers Weigh In
The research on retention’s limitations is not lost on the educators implementing it. Granite School District teachers echoed these findings consistently across interviews, raising concerns that fell into three clear patterns. For anonymity, these teachers are referred to as teacher A, B, C, and D.
1. Retention is a band-aid solution that doesn't address root causes
All four teachers expressed skepticism that retention addresses the underlying reasons students fall behind, pointing instead to socioeconomic factors, parental involvement, and early intervention as the real levers. In teacher A’s interview, he talked a lot about how out-of-class factors affect his students’ reading performance. He stated that his students' reading level “has a lot to do with things outside of their control, often where it's about class and race and parents ability, which ties in with class, but ties like it's their parents ability to read with them when they're younger… I feel like those are really the causes.” So when it came to discussing retention for third graders who aren’t proficient, A posited that "It feels like a band-aid solution. It doesn't feel like it's addressing root issues of what's happening, like why aren't students getting to that level by the time they need to."
In agreement with A’s opinions on retention being a surface-level solution, teacher B stated that "Just saying, yeah, we'll just retain them — that isn't a fix." Teacher C said: "I don't think there's one bit of research that says retention is effective...there are so many other ways you can address the problem without retaining kids." All teachers expressed that retention targets students’ actions in school, instead of targeting the problems outside of school that cause low literacy scores.
2. The social and emotional cost of retention is a serious concern
Retention has been linked with disruptive and anxious behaviors in students all the way into secondary levels (Jimmerson & Ferguson, 2007; Pagani et al., 2001). Our qualitative findings aligned with this literature, as all four teachers raised concerns about the isolating and demoralizing effects of retention on students, particularly on peer relationships and self-esteem. Teacher B, a literacy coach for a Granite elementary school, shared her concerns about specific students she’s worked with that would be demoralized by being held back. She said that “if the only thing you're looking at is a reading score and you're not looking at anything else, how are you really doing what's in the best interest of that child?” She asked deeper questions of how retention will detriment students' social and emotional growth as well: "You've gotta be careful about who you retain, because sometimes, socially, it would be a very bad thing to retain a student...what is it going to do to their self-esteem? What is it going to do to them emotionally?" From a middle school perspective, teacher A and D both proposed that students already hold negative associations to learning when they’re behind, which affects their attitude and expectations for themselves.
3. Early intervention and increased funding are the preferred solutions
Rather than holding students back, all four teachers pointed to earlier intervention, smaller class sizes, better-resourced classrooms, and preschool access as more effective approaches. Teacher C, a career elementary teacher, gave clear program recommendations that she felt would more appropriately support students. "Well-trained paraprofessionals, greater intensive support in K-2, maybe preschool programs, parent awareness — I just think there are so many other ways you can address the problem." Other responses from interviewees includes that "school should start in preschool...if children are not able to be exposed to those words and to literacy so young, then children need to be put in school earlier” and “things like class size and adequate support staff would obviously assist them." Teachers agree with some researchers’ opinion that the best way to ensure long-term success is through individualized student support (Shepard & Smith, 2001; Westbury, 1994). These suggestions, aligned with current research, target interventions that begin earlier than third grade, and extend past retention to build a more sustainable future of educating students before falling behind. These teachers’ voices are not represented in Utah’s legislation.
A Divided District Office
While interviewing Superintendent Horsley, he expressed themes of strong support for SB 241 with rigor, high expectations, and parent involvement. He is “optimistic and excited about implementation” and feels that the legislation is more of a shift in method rather than goals. When asked about how the implementation will affect Granite students, he explained that during the legislative session, he pulled the predicted number of retained third graders in his district. “We tracked about 500 kids. So on average, it's about 10 to 12 kids mostly in impoverished elementary schools. We had one elementary school that had a high—it’s probably one of our larger Multi Language Learning campuses with a high refugee population. They have 26 kids.” This statement shows that Horsley is aware of the intersectional effect of retention on EL students but still believes that retention is the right method to ensure all students are proficient, stating that “getting 500 kids out of the 50,000 up to great reading levels is achievable, so my plan is to just not fail.”
In response to asking how he feels Granite families will react to the legislation, Horsley answered that Granite has done a “good job” with family engagement strategies, and they will need to “help them [parents] understand this new legislation and the impact that if we're not successful, and when I say we're it's not just us, it's together with the family. We're here to support you that grade retention will be required… and I'm optimistic that parents are going to step up and help and support make sure their kids are ready to go.” Many of Superintendent Horsley’s statements reflected high expectations for parents and teachers to take responsibility for their students' literacy.
In Granite Board Member Julie Jackson’s interview, there were more parallels to the teacher’s perspectives than that of Superintendent Horsley’s statements. When asked about the implications of retention in Granite, Julie responded that their plan is to intervene before third grade retention is necessary. She focused on the provisions of SB 241 that encourage administrators to retain students in K-2 grades: “We will not want to retain third graders. We know data shows that retaining third graders significantly lowers their likelihood of graduation. We will intervene long before third grade. We will look to retain kids earlier—in kinder or first grade if we can see the writing on the wall.”
Additionally, when asked how teachers and policymakers can best support literacy rates, Julie simply responded “Lower class size.” She also mentions the gaps in teacher preparation and quality curriculum. It is noteworthy how policymakers’ views on action differ from one another, with the superintendent posing third grade retention as necessary and advantageous, while the Granite board prioritized prior-to-third retention and lowering class size as the best interventions for their students.
The Cost for English Learners
EL students are rarely the focus of legislation—and literacy intervention is no exception. The policy language in SB 241 leaves discrete opportunities for persistent gap-widening instead of closing. Retention exemptions for “an EL [student] with fewer than three years of instruction in the EL program” aim to account for minoritized student groups, and yet data show that the majority of Utahn ELs begin their EL program in kindergarten upon registration, making them ineligible for this exception as they would be three years into the program by third grade. To date, this exemption for retention is the only mention of ELs in Utah literacy legislation.
Based on the literature review and qualitative interview research, SB 241 errs on the dangerous side of strategies promoting equity. Well-intended as it may be, SB 241’s efficacy is a short-term bandage solution. Both the interviews and research studies emphasize the potential repercussions the policy could have, particularly for Granite School District’s students and parents. In addition, the assumption that parents will ‘take things more seriously’ about their student’s literacy is flawed. It blames parents and students instead of utilizing evidence-based interventions that researchers recommend.
Grade retention may feel like accountability in action, but for English Learners in districts like Granite, it functions as a structural penalty: one imposed on the families with the fewest resources to respond to it. Utah's SB 241 arrives with ambition, but without the early intervention funding, equitable exemptions, and reduced class sizes that research consistently identifies as levers of lasting literacy.