The research, published in the journal Large-scale Assessments in Education, was led by Samuel Falcon of the University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria together with Yuney Santos of Mid Atlantic University. Rather than looking only at test scores, the team turned its attention to what the authors call psychoeducational resources: the relational, motivational, and emotional assets that determine whether a student can actually use a second chance when one is offered. The study draws on the Spanish sample of PISA 2022, the Programme for International Student Assessment, which in Spain covered 29,775 students aged 15 to 16. Of these, 5,642 students, or 18.95 percent, had repeated a grade at least once, a striking figure when set against the OECD average of around 9 percent.

Spain is an unusually important laboratory for this question. Retention there has long been more frequent than in most other wealthy countries, persisting even through reforms intended to curb it. In PISA 2022, 22 percent of Spanish 15-year-olds reported having repeated a grade after entering primary school. That means retention is not a marginal intervention affecting a small and exceptional group; it is a routine feature of the educational trajectory of a large share of Spanish adolescents. Understanding what that experience does to students, beyond their mathematics and reading scores, therefore matters for an entire generation.

The methodological challenge is that students are not randomly assigned to repeat a grade. Retained students tend to differ from their promoted peers before the decision is ever made: in the Spanish sample they came from families with lower economic, social and cultural status, had fewer years of early childhood education, were more likely to be first-generation immigrants, more likely to be male, and more likely to have been born late in the year, a well-known relative-age effect. A naive comparison of retained and non-retained students would therefore confound the effect of retention with these pre-existing differences. To address this, the researchers used propensity score matching, a statistical technique that estimates each student’s probability of being retained from observed background characteristics and then pairs each retained student with a non-retained student of similar probability.

The matching procedure was unusually careful. The team tested several specifications, including generalised full matching and nearest-neighbour matching at 1:1 and 1:2 ratios with various calipers, and settled on 1:1 nearest-neighbour matching without replacement, which kept every retained student in the analysis while achieving excellent balance. After matching, the mean of the maximum absolute standardised mean differences was 0.026 for the original covariates, well below the conventional 0.10 threshold, and 0.074 even for higher-order and interaction terms. Missing values in the background covariates were handled through multiple imputation across five datasets, with estimates pooled using Rubin’s rules. The analyses also incorporated PISA’s complex survey design, combining matching weights with the final student weights and 80 replicate weights using balanced repeated replication with Fay’s adjustment.

The seven outcomes spanned three domains. School integration was captured by sense of belonging and perceived quality of student-teacher relationships. Learning-related resources included self-directed learning self-efficacy, perseverance, and curiosity. Emotional functioning was measured through emotional control and stress resistance, indices drawn from the OECD framework on social and emotional skills. The results were strikingly consistent in direction. After matching and adjustment, retained students scored significantly lower on six of the seven resources, with associations surviving a Benjamini-Hochberg false discovery rate correction across outcomes.

The largest differences appeared in the learning-related domain. Self-directed learning self-efficacy, students’ confidence in managing their own learning tasks independently, showed the biggest gap, with an effect size of d = -0.27, followed by perseverance at d = -0.25. Curiosity was lower as well (d = -0.12), while the relational and emotional differences were smaller: sense of belonging (d = -0.07), student-teacher relationships (d = -0.09), and emotional control (d = -0.09). Only stress resistance showed essentially no difference, with an effect size of -0.01 and a regression coefficient of exactly zero that was nowhere near statistical significance. Sensitivity analyses using alternative matching specifications reproduced the same pattern, suggesting the findings are not an artefact of one particular matching choice.

There is a deep irony in the two largest effects. The entire rationale for retention is that an extra year gives students time to master content they could not grasp the first time. But that rationale presupposes students who feel capable of organising their own learning, who persist when tasks become difficult, and who remain open to new ideas. The study suggests retained students are precisely the ones who report being weakest in these resources. The authors interpret this as consistent with retention being embedded in a longer history of academic struggle, in which the relationship with effort and academic agency may already be fragile. Repeating a grade, in this light, may not rebuild that relationship; it may simply extend a trajectory in which students feel less and less competent at steering their own learning.

The relational findings matter for a similar reason. Retained students are typically separated from their original peer group, placed with younger classmates, and carry a visible marker of prior failure in front of teachers and peers. Cross-national PISA evidence has repeatedly shown that repeaters report lower belonging, and the Spanish data confirm this pattern even after matching on background characteristics. Interestingly, the picture on emotions was mixed: retained students reported more difficulty regulating irritation, anger, and frustration, yet showed no difference in general stress resistance. The authors suggest these two constructs capture distinct aspects of emotional functioning, and that retention may be more closely tied to emotional regulation in challenging situations than to a general tolerance for pressure, though they caution that this interpretation requires longitudinal testing.

The researchers are careful about what their design can and cannot show. Because the data are cross-sectional and observational, the results are adjusted associations, not causal effects. The propensity score model could not account for prior achievement, attendance, learning difficulties, behaviour, teacher judgements, or the school-level practices that shape retention decisions, so residual confounding is likely. There is also no way to know whether retained students already had lower belonging or perseverance before repeating, or whether the differences emerged afterwards. Missing data posed a further complication, particularly for self-directed learning self-efficacy, where questionnaire routing tied to COVID-19 school closures left 34 percent of observations unavailable, and missingness was consistently higher among retained students. Even so, the consistency of the pattern across six outcomes, three domains, and multiple matching specifications is difficult to dismiss.

The policy implications are sobering. If repeating a grade is meant to be a second opportunity, the study suggests that time alone does not create the conditions for recovery. The authors argue that retention should not be treated as an intervention in itself, and they point to candidate domains for future support research: transition planning after retention, monitoring of school belonging, teacher guidance aimed at rebuilding academic confidence, and structured help for self-regulated learning, with particular attention to self-directed learning self-efficacy and perseverance, the two resources showing the largest gaps. More broadly, the findings reinforce a growing argument that evaluations of grade retention should not be restricted to test scores. Whether students remain connected to school, confident in managing their learning, and emotionally equipped to continue may ultimately determine whether the extra year helps or harms, and those dimensions are invisible in achievement data alone. For a country where nearly one in five adolescents repeats a grade, that is a message worth taking seriously.

Subject of Research: Associations between grade retention and psychoeducational resources among Spanish students in PISA 2022

Article Title: Grade retention and psychoeducational resources: evidence from PISA 2022 using propensity score matching

Article References: Falcon, S., & Santos, Y. (2026). Grade retention and psychoeducational resources: evidence from PISA 2022 using propensity score matching. Large-scale Assessments in Education, 14(1), Article 48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-026-00323-9

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1186/s40536-026-00323-9

Keywords: grade retention, PISA 2022, propensity score matching, psychoeducational resources, school belonging, student-teacher relationships, self-directed learning self-efficacy, perseverance, curiosity, emotional control, Spain, educational psychology

The study adopted an interpretivist qualitative design, drawing on semi-structured interviews and brief questionnaires with 24 participants: 11 adolescents aged 15 to 17, six caregivers and seven educators, recruited across both public and private schools in Gauteng. This triangulated design matters methodologically. By capturing the perspectives of learners, the adults responsible for them at home and the professionals responsible for them at school, the researchers could trace how breakdowns in one part of the system were experienced elsewhere in it. Thematic analysis of the transcripts identified distrust in educational and support systems as a central theme underpinning sustained disengagement — a disengagement that persisted well beyond the formal end of pandemic restrictions.

Theoretically, the authors frame their analysis through Bronfenbrenner’s Bio-ecological Systems Theory, which situates adolescent development within nested layers of context, from immediate relationships with teachers and caregivers to the broader policies and institutional structures that shape those relationships. The framework helps explain why a pandemic-era policy failure is not simply an administrative problem: when distal systems — education departments, health services, social support structures — behave inconsistently, the instability propagates inward, destabilising the micro-level relationships on which teenagers depend for psychological security. The researchers pair this with the principles of Trauma-Informed Care, an approach that treats behavioural signs of distress as adaptations to adversity rather than defiance, and that emphasises safety, trustworthiness and predictability as prerequisites for recovery.

What participants described, in practice, was a cascade of institutional inconsistencies. Learners reported strained relationships with teachers, in which the rapport that anchors classroom learning had frayed during remote schooling and never fully recovered. Caregivers described weak school–home communication, with schools failing to reach out when adolescents stopped attending or began struggling emotionally, leaving families uncertain where to turn. Educators, for their part, pointed to the near-total absence of school-based psychologists and limited access to psychosocial services, meaning that even when distress was recognised, there was often no professional resource to which a struggling learner could be referred. Layered over all of this were persistent inequalities between school contexts, with under-resourced public schools far less able than wealthier private institutions to rebuild routines, provide counselling or re-establish reliable contact with families after the pandemic.

The psychological consequences of this unreliability were consistent across accounts. Adolescents who experienced schools as unpredictable reported anxiety, emotional withdrawal and a marked reduction in school engagement — not as a momentary reaction to lockdown but as a sustained pattern that outlived the disruption itself. In the language of the study, institutional unreliability functioned as a chronic stressor, one that eroded exactly the sense of safety that adolescents needed in order to re-engage with learning after a collective trauma. The researchers also connect these findings to posttraumatic stress, noting that the pandemic years constituted a period of genuine adversity for young people, and that recovery from adversity depends heavily on whether the surrounding environment restores predictability and support.

The counterfactual embedded in the data is equally instructive. Where schools demonstrated predictability — clear expectations, consistent routines, honest and timely communication — and where relational continuity was maintained between learners and teachers, adolescents reported stronger coping and improved wellbeing. In other words, dependability operated as a protective factor. This is a conceptually significant extension of the South African evidence base, which has documented pandemic-related learning losses and mental health burdens extensively but has less often identified the specific institutional qualities that buffer adolescents against those burdens. The study’s contribution is to name institutional dependability itself — rather than merely resources or curriculum catch-up — as a mechanism worth targeting.

The distinction matters because it changes what a plausible intervention looks like. If the problem were purely material, the answer would be funding alone; the study does not minimise resource gaps, but it shows that trust is built or destroyed through everyday institutional behaviour that costs little to change. Teachers who maintain steady, respectful relationships with learners, schools that communicate proactively with homes when a learner’s engagement slips, administrators who follow through on commitments — these relational practices, the findings imply, carry measurable weight in adolescent mental health, and their absence carries a measurable cost.

From these findings the authors derive a set of practical implications that operate at multiple levels of the system. At classroom level, they recommend embedding trauma-informed practices into daily teaching, so that educators recognise distress and respond with predictability and support rather than punitive escalation. At school level, they call for strengthening school-based psychological services, including the presence of school psychologists, so that referral pathways exist in practice and not only on paper. At the interface between institutions, they urge improved school–home collaboration, formalising communication so that caregivers are partners rather than bystanders. And at policy level, they argue for aligning implementation with sustained monitoring, so that policies designed to support learners are actually delivered consistently — because, in their account, inconsistency itself is the injury.

The South African context sharpens the significance of these conclusions. Gauteng’s schools span an extraordinary range of resource levels, and the pandemic amplified pre-existing inequalities rather than creating new ones. A learner in a well-resourced private school who fell behind or struggled emotionally during lockdown was far more likely to encounter a counsellor, a responsive teacher and a structured re-entry plan than a peer in an under-resourced public school. The study suggests that this differential restoration of institutional support has translated into differential recovery of trust and engagement, meaning that post-pandemic mental health disparities among adolescents partly reflect disparities in institutional dependability. Rebuilding trust, on this view, is not a soft aspiration but a concrete equity intervention.

The research, which received no external funding and was approved by the University of Johannesburg Research Ethics Committee under reference SEM 2-2023-047, was conducted with careful ethical safeguards, including written informed consent from adult participants and parental consent alongside adolescent assent for minors. Its qualitative design and modest sample size mean the findings should be read as an in-depth account of lived experience rather than a statistical generalisation — yet it is precisely this depth that reveals the mechanism quantitative surveys can miss: the slow corrosion of trust when institutions that promised support repeatedly fail to deliver it. As education systems worldwide continue to grapple with post-pandemic absenteeism and adolescent distress, this Gauteng study offers a clear and testable proposition: adolescents re-engage when the systems around them become dependable again, and the work of rebuilding that dependability belongs to classrooms, schools, homes and policymakers alike.

Subject of Research: Institutional dependability and adolescent mental health in South African schools after COVID-19

Article Title: Institutional dependability and adolescent mental health in South African schools after COVID-19

Article References: Institutional dependability and adolescent mental health in South African schools after COVID-19. (n.d.). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44192-026-00596-0

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1007/s44192-026-00596-0

Keywords: adolescent mental health, institutional dependability, COVID-19, school disengagement, trauma-informed care, bio-ecological systems theory, South Africa, Gauteng, school psychology, school-home collaboration, educational psychology, trust in institutions

Emotional and professional well-being are increasingly recognized as pivotal elements contributing to effective teaching practices. The study highlights an important trend indicating that teachers who feel cared for are more likely to extend that same sense of care to their students. This cycle of care is fundamental not just for teaching quality, but for the overall atmosphere in educational settings, impacting both academic outcomes and personal growth for students. The implications of these findings resonate deeply with current pedagogical theories that advocate for emotional intelligence as crucial for educators.

Understanding how teachers perceive care is a foundational aspect of this research. Zhaleh and Montazeri uncover views from various educators across Iran, revealing a rich tapestry of experiences and insights. The educators expressed that feeling valued and supported within their work environment directly correlates with their enthusiasm and commitment to teaching. This finding emphasizes the need for educational institutions to foster a culture of support and appreciation, which subsequently cultivates a more engaged and motivated teaching workforce.

The caring behaviors that teachers identified varied significantly, reflecting personal philosophies and cultural contexts. Many participants noted that care in educational institutions extends beyond mere professional obligations; it encompasses emotional connection, mentorship, and a genuine interest in colleagues’ welfare. The impact of such attention can lead to transformative changes within schools, where a shared ethos of empathy and kindness fosters not only improved teacher retention but also enriches student experiences.

Additionally, the study probes the socio-cultural factors that shape Iranian teachers’ perspectives on caregiving. It becomes evident that the educators’ backgrounds, experiences, and the societal framework in which they operate distinctly influence their views. This highlights a crucial element—educational policies must not only focus on standard metrics of success but should also incorporate the emotional health of the teaching body, as this will have lasting impact on future generations of educators and students alike.

Through examining how caring influences teaching practices, the research indicates that when teachers prioritize their own emotional well-being, they create more effective learning environments. Teachers expressed that emotional exhaustion could severely undermine their teaching capabilities, leading to less effective pedagogy and reduced student engagement. These discussions are critical to understanding that teacher burnout not only affects their performance but has cascading effects that can impact students’ educational journeys.

Ultimately, Zhaleh and Montazeri’s research serves as a call to action for educational stakeholders. There is an urgent need for systemic changes to integrate the emotional and psychological needs of teachers into the educational framework. Schools and universities should prioritize teacher wellbeing policies, provide support systems, and create environments where educators feel recognized and valued. Such initiatives will undoubtedly empower educators, improving their interactions with students and fostering a healthier educational ecosystem.

The findings reflect a growing body of research emphasizing the significance of teacher care not only for personal fulfillment but also for promoting a flourishing educational atmosphere. As we seek to educate future generations, it becomes increasingly clear that we must also focus on those who lead the way—our teachers. By investing in their emotional health, we prepare them not only to teach content effectively but to instill values of care, empathy, and resilience among their students.

In conclusion, this comprehensive study sheds light on the vital yet often overlooked aspect of teaching: the necessity of care. As educators continue to negotiate the complexities of modern teaching environments, findings from Iranian EFL teachers underscore the pressing need for supportive educational policies. Creating an environment where teachers feel valued is essential, not just for their benefit, but for the overall betterment of the educational experience for all.

The takeaways from this research extend beyond local contexts; they resonate with global educational trends aiming to reshape how we view the profession. The call for a compassionate approach to teaching is stronger than ever and, if heeded, will lead to a brighter future for both teachers and students across the globe.

Subject of Research: Teachers’ perspectives on the impact of caring in education.

Article Title: A study of Iranian EFL teachers’ perspective about the impact of caring for teachers on nurturing caring teachers.

Article References:

Zhaleh, K., Montazeri, M.R. A study of Iranian EFL teachers’ perspective about the impact of caring for teachers on nurturing caring teachers. Discov Psychol (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s44202-025-00523-4

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI:

Keywords: Teacher Care, Emotional Well-being, Teacher Engagement, Educational Environment, EFL Teachers