Grade retention during compulsory school education in Europe: regulations and practices

Each educational system evaluates its students’ progress during the academic year and implements several strategies to help its struggling students so they can make adequate progress. In many countries, repeating a grade is an option for students who, despite remedial efforts, do not achieve sufficient progress. However, the value and effectiveness of grade retention are at least up for debate. Much research has been done on grade retention’s effects, and most results speak against this practice. Nevertheless, many students worldwide are retained, with frequencies differing substantially across countries.

This report focuses on the regulations and practices that are in effect in 2023 in the 37 national units being part of the Eurydice Network in 2023 (including 27 member states of the European Union and 10 associated states) regarding grade retention in compulsory education. Four different data sources were used to gain insight into these regulations and practices: the website of Eurydice, information gathered through questionnaires administered to educational (law) experts, information obtained from official governmental websites, and information collected via the student questionnaire administered in the PISA studies from 2018 and 2022 (OECD 2020, 2023).

The grade retention regulations of the 37 Eurydice Network national units revealed some interesting commonalities. In all 37 countries considered, grade retention is accompanied by many alternative support mechanisms to help struggling students succeed. These mechanisms range from additional tutoring sessions and specialized programs to more personalized learning plans.

However, there are also remarkable differences between the 37 Eurydice Network national units regarding their grade retention regulations. More specifically, the criteria that trigger grade retention and the decision processes that govern it are as varied as the countries.

The main law-based criterion determining whether a student must repeat a grade is a lack of academic achievement, either in low standardized test scores or in low overall assessment results. Yet, in some countries, criteria such as behavioural issues, school absenteeism, overall developmental difficulties, or personal circumstances are also specified in the legislation. Moreover, in many countries, by law, poor grades at the end of the school year do not always result in grade retention. For instance, teachers may allow students to retake tests, offer them extra work to help them catch up, or enable them to advance (conditionally) in specific circumstances.

The grade retention decision-making process also varies substantially across the 37 national units of the Eurydice Network. In most countries, by law, the decision to retain a student should be taken by the class teacher(s). In some countries, input from additional instructors or school administrators is needed. In a few countries, the involvement of educational specialists (such as educational authorities, educational psychologists, or guidance services) is required.

In all countries, parents or legal guardians should be frequently updated regarding the development of their children. In most countries, parents should be involved in some way if their child’s grade progression is in doubt. Few countries require parents’ permission for their child to be retained. Moreover, in some countries, by law, the decision-making process should be highly collaborative, drawing upon insights from educators, administrators, parents, and students. In other countries, according to the law, specific educational bodies or councils should make grade retention decisions with a more top-down approach.

There are also substantial differences between the 37 Eurydice Network national units regarding their grade retention rates.

Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Germany, Portugal, and Austria appear to have notably high cumulative grade retention rates, with 16% to 27% of the 15-year-old students reporting having been retained at least once. Conversely, Montenegro, Lithuania, Serbia, Türkiye, Iceland, and Croatia show grade retention rates below 2%, as reported by their 15-year-old students. In the Netherlands, the cumulative grade retention rate (by age 15) increased by 6% between 2018 and 2022, whereas in Portugal, Spain, Türkiye, France, Italy, Belgium, and Switzerland, it decreased from about 4% to 9%.

Given the differences in grade retention regulations and rates across the 37 national units of the Eurydice Network, an important question is whether rules and rates are linked.

A detailed look at all the information gathered in this report reveals no simple answer to this question. Looking across the 37 investigated national units, countries with comparable regulations show different rates of grade retention. In primary education, for instance, legislation stating that grade retention is possible (albeit with some restrictions) can lead to rates between as low as 0% and as high as 16%. When the law considers grade retention as an exceptional measure, rates appear between 1% and 14%. Numerous factors might contribute to these variations observed, including the respective country’s infrastructure, the legislative establishment’s duration, the level of detail within the legislation, potential disparities between daily practices and legislative mandates, and cultural influences on both legislation and the practice of grade retention. Looking closer at some countries, it also becomes clear that regulations and rates are still somewhat linked.

In Germany, for instance, some federal states allow grade retention, and some do not. Accordingly, the grade retention rates vary. In France and Spain, a law was passed in 2013 to make grade retention exceptional. France’s cumulative grade retention rate dropped from 28% in 2012 to 11% in 2022. Similarly, in Spain, it fell from 33% in 2012 to 22% in 2022. This trend could indicate the effectiveness of such legal restrictions.

Title
Grade retention during compulsory school education in Europe: Regulations and practices

Institution
Alternatives for Grade Retention – AlteR – Network funded by the European Commission

Authors
Fabian Meissner – Medical School Berlin (ROR) 
Janneke Pepels (ORCID) – Maastricht University (ROR) 
Joana Pipa (ORCID) – Ispa-Instituto Universitário (ROR) 
Mieke Goos (ORCID) – School for Educational Sciences of UHasselt (ROR) 
Barbara Belfi (ORCID) – Maastricht University (ROR) 
Sérgio Gaitas (ORCID) – Ispa-Instituto Universitário (ROR) 
Francisco Peixoto (ORCID) – Ispa-Instituto Universitário (ROR) 
Florian Klapproth (ORCID) – Medical School Berlin (ROR) 

DOI (digital version)
https://doi.org/10.26481/mup.rep.alter.2501.en

Copyright and licensing
© 2025 AlteR – CC BY-NC
The content of this work is licensed under a Creative Commons BY-NC 4.0 International License.

Access to this publication 

• Flipbook (read online)
• PDF (download)

Publication Type and Language
Report – English – Version 1

Publication date
28 February 2025

Subject

Keywords
grade retention, grade repetition, repeating a grade, compulsory schooling, compulsory education, regulations, educational laws, retention rates, eurydice, europe

Related works (translations)

• Klassenwiederholungen während der Pflichtschulzeit in Europa – Gesetzliche Vorgaben und Praxis
• Redoublement pendant la scolarité obligatoire en Europe – Réglementations et pratiques

Citation for this work
Meissner, F., Pepels, J., Pipa, J., Goos, M., Belfi, B., Gaitas, S., Peixoto, F., & Klapproth, F. (2025). Grade retention during compulsory school education in Europe: Regulations and practices. Maastricht University Press. https://doi.org/10.26481/mup.rep.alter.2501.en

Statistics are updated monthly

• Flipbook views: 5
• PDF Downloads: 14

Last update: 06.03.2024