LORRIE A. SHEPARD AND MARY LEE SMITHl

Synthesis of Research onSchool Readiness andKindergarten RetentionThere will always be a group of youngest childrenwho lag somewhat behind their kindergarten andfirst grade classmates; the problem is relative.Before we create a plethora of new programs, weneed to think twice about trying to "solve"a problem that is invariably cured bythe passage of time.

should children who remain, unreadyfor first grade be kept in kindergartenvery September in the United Great diversity in cognitive develop- or special transition programs for anStates more than three million ment and social maturity creates a extra year?

children begin formal schooling teaching problem that educators are Current educational reforms and thewith their first day of kindergarten. constantly trying to resolve. Should desire to raise standards have intensi-These children differ tremendously in the school district change its entrance- hed the problems of differential readi-their readiness to learn and their abili- age policy to remove the youngest ness. Third grade exit requirements arety to follow directions. Many of the children? Can these apparent differ- translated into uniform expectations foryoungest children-those who just ences in readiness be assessed and second graders, which in turn dictatemade the entrance-age cutoff date- used to decide who should be in absolute standards for first graders andseem barely ready to meet the expec- school and who should not? If schools then kindergartners. At both the statetations of school are obliged to admit all students, and local level, many policymakers are78

EIU)CATIONAI. LEW)ERsHIP

contemplating testing programs to de-termine who is prepared to begin andto leave kindergarten.

Several bodies of research informthese issues of entrance age, schoolreadiness, and early-grades retention.In some cases common-sense impres-sions about what works are at oddswith the accumulated evidence. Whatfollows is a summary of relevant re-search and policy implications.

The Problem of BeingYoungestNumerous researchers and reviewershave addressed the question of within-grade age effects, especially for firstgrade. When the children who areyoungest in their grade are comparedwith their older classmates, they arenearly always less successful (Beattie1970, Bigelow 1934, Carroll 1963, Da-vis et al. 1980, Green and Simmons1962, Hall 1963, Halliwell and Stein1964, Kalk et al. 1981, King 1955)However, the achievement differencesthat are "statistically significant" inthese studies are not necessarily verylarge. For example, based on samplesizes of 8,500 per grade, Davis, Trim-ble, and Vincent (1980) found thatchildren who were fully six years oldwhen they entered first grade werenine percentile points ahead of chil-dren who were only five when theystarted first grade

Similarly, we also found that firstgraders who were in the youngestthree months of their class scored onaverage at the 62d percentile in read-ing compared to the oldest three-month children who were at the 71stpercentile (Shepard and Smith 1985).(In math, the difference was only 6percentile points.) Thus, a major pointto be made when we are consideringpractical rather than statistical signifi-cance is that achievement differencesbetween the oldest and youngest firstgraders are small, on the order of 7 or8 percentile points.

We further analyzed the age trend infirst grade by ability strata (Shepardand Smith 1985). There was virtuallyno difference in achievement betweenthe oldest and youngest age groups forchildren who were above the 75th or50th percentile points of their respec-tive age intervals. The overall agetrend seemed to come almost entirely

from the children who were below the25th percentile of their respective agegroups. Although one would not wishto draw any policy conclusions basedon only one study, it should be notedthat the disadvantage of achievementexperienced by some younger chil-dren in relation to older classmatesmav more likely be a combination ofyoungness and low ability.

A second major point, looking overa number of research studies, is thateven the small disadvantage of young-ness eventually disappears, usually byabout third grade. From analysesbased on National Assessment data.Langer, Kalk, and Searls (1984) notedthat the effects of being old or youngin grade tended to diminish as gradelevel increased. For Halliwell andStein (1964) to find achievement dif-ferences between the oldest and youn-gest fifth graders is the exceptionamong research studies rather thanthe rule In our own research, wefound no difference in math achieve-ment or in reading achievement be-tween the oldest and youngest chil-dren in either the third or fourthgrade (Shepard and Smith 1985).Miller and Norris (1967) found that adifference between the oldest andyoungest children on readiness mea-sures was no longer apparent at theend of second, third, or fourth grades.

"A major point to bemade when we areconsidering practicalrather thanstatisticalsignificance is thatachievementdifferences betweenthe oldest andyoungest firstgraders are small, onthe order of 7 or 8percentile points."

NOVEMBER 1986

Thev attributed the lack of differencesdue to age to the effectiveness of anungraded program in inditidualizingreading instruction. Their observationabout individualization may have wid-er import. In reviewing the Literatureon age effects. Weinstein (1968-69)proposed that whether an initial defi-cit for young first graders would per-sist into higher grades depended onthe attitudes and expectations of teach-ers in responding to the ability rangeof normal first graders.

A few studies have contributedgreatly to the impression that theproblem of being youngest is graveand potentially devastating. Thesestudies note that children who areyoungest in their class are more likelyto repeat a grade (Langer et al. 1984,Uphoff 1985). to be referred to specialeducation (DiPasquale et al. 1980),and to be labeled as learning disabled(Diamond 1983, Maddux 1980).

Gredler (1980) urged caution, how-ever, in the interpretation of theselater indicators since thev are moresusceptible to teacher biases than areachievement tests. Referral rates andretention decisions are influenced bythe opinions of teachers who mighteither expect young children to havedifficultv or decide not to retain a childwho is already older. We conducted astudy to see whether kindergartenteachers consider such factors as achild's age when they form judgmentsabout the likelihood of success in firstgrade or the desirability of retention(Shepard and Smith 1985). In a policy-capturing experiment, 68 percent ofkindergarten teachers gave some im-portant weight to age in their recom-mendations for retention or promo-tion (with sex, physical size, socialmaturity, and academic skills held con-stant). In practice this means that achild lagging behind at the end ofkindergarten might be recommendedto repeat kindergarten if he were fivevears and nine months old. But a childwith equally deficient skills who wasalready six years and eight months oldwould be passed to first grade. Clearlyif teachers are more willing to holdback younger children, retention datacannot be used to evaluate the effect ofyoungness.

Current research in special educa-tion is also consistent with the inter-pretation that higher referral rates for

-9

iAot Relllliarlch oa Sd"MA Mead~

"When the otf b O ~n ngesl t l n theia first I'5d"When the children ,(Onbi chlkdren whoximse =

who are youngest in t ly~ nt r, tau n a."lSpractaed df find " the m Ma`WtY or etiYiotheir grade are aN dr Uwratd rete

getin each grde Unwarranited~ orri ~ l

;etenal a rento de.`compared with their studaentsare h youn" later ... ance agehincreed

may have negative noly Kindeer Mudents in ,a inolder classmates, on eAt-rance-.e Poic.M ong rte n -Aer St-'hav atothesy arenthey are nearly over the oast 30n Yearsung kiadrPte Regardeas yfs ath

lw old befor--'e I- ctober t .' childr solutio'n l= to a-esfive years berouireragent, however, t .age is a temporarysuccessful. However, entrance ug te , ralsna thi.in '"e en-~' to

sliht disadvu'". "-L.- rather tha anaasl-e- rent n areh ngrobblenr that is relative tart hhn ny paethe achievement problm tht ,s rie .athe .r o st th .ho . .. Ma. .aen thd t m'-

P' ' _,nvolunar//Y waiting )' _t.~.=,I :a extra year so , - en ts. Thesen !oLseren mena, eOcoarentsf rue,d~~~~~~~~~~o ~.:ciffdrencotoe~~ ~s arat-risk $.oup? ged:., Further"dre

not necessarily . her, ren o e in and ie neutthennvery Lenrge . 9ourai int5' age di-n used tovery large." ch.uildr en abyd no nc urea b~ Y~-:~,ts' aSgfoenl iidiilere~, mthis poii i '-Y -f sctioo. Mary ol the

On a ,u' ,,'ia b ·incwrease s k m:tfi I irig children's readun for other I r

plac nd evaluate children were eIo r tests, .' ihrs oraninstrutiction- .... wtthoults a t. me te coplete first

,reel child-in to spi reteo-al By ' nth e t .'? t.oOn kindergarten and first R tein do not oup.ed

grade children who have repeated kinderarte nege ~.nm ortin repning a.Otw n~son students ".hey do, h~wev, d chZMI O ~gpv der. boschOOl. There is no acThievee well the extra year ii insfirst grade and, regardless Of howwet.h...ex.the child still pays an emotional cost

yone hlde ihna rd a ha col aes ilngt fi

younger children within a grade can that schools are so willing to affix abe explained by teacher expectations handicapped label to a child who isand the slightly lower average achieve- slightly behind in achievementment of the youngest children. Pugach In summary, the "age effect" litera-(1985) found that children are placed ture does verify that children who arein special education in mildly handi- youngest in their first grade class are atcapped categories largely on the basis a slight disadvantage. This is hardlyof teachers' referrals, and that teachers surprising since an 11-month periodhave in mind a need for one-to-one of growth and development is a signif-instruction or other remedial services icant portion of a lifetime for six-year-rather than a scientific conception of olds. However, the difference betweenhandicap. In a study of learning dis- oldest and youngest children is small-abled children, we found that only 43 er than popularly believed, only aboutpercent were validly identified, the 7 or 8 percentile points on achieve-majority of children labeled LD had ment tests. Furthermore, most studiesother learning needs, from very seri- show that the age effect disappears byous to extremely mild, which were about third grade. Whether and howgenerally served by additional instruc- soon the age effect disappears de-tion once the child was placed in pends on the responsiveness of thespecial education (Shepard and Smith school program to individual differ-1981, 1983). Given the widely ac- ences. Differential referral and reten-k,owledged fallibility of the LD label, tion rates for children who were thethere is no reason to believe that youngest when they entered schoolchildren who are youngest in their are not valid indicators of the young-grade develop real handicaps. There ness problem because they are con-is, however, genuine cause for alarm taminated by teacher beliefs about

EDu CATlONAL LEA)ERSHIP

I

age. However, the increased probabili-ty for younger children to be heldback or placed in special educationshould be of concern in and of itselfbecause these actions may have nega-tive consequences greater than theslight achievement disadvantage thatprompted them. (See reviews byHolmes and Matthews 1984, regardingthe negative social-emotional effects ofnonpromotion, and by MacMillan andMeyers 1979 on the elusive phenome-non of special education stigma.)

Entrance-Age PolicyOver the past 30 years the nationaltrend has been slowly but surely toraise the age for entrance to kinder-garten. In 1958 most states requiredkindergartners to be five years old byDecember I or January 1 (EducationalResearch Service 1958). Surveys ofschool districts in 1963 and 1968 re-ported that when the entrance age waschanged, it was nearly always raised,requiring that children be a month ortwo older to start school (EducationalResearch Service 1963, 1968). In 1968the dominant policy was a date afterNovember 30, but 25 percent of theschools had moved to September orOctober I dates. By 1975 the percent-age with September or October 1 cut-offs had increased to 35 percent (Edu-cational Research Service 1975),although admission dates after No-vember 30 remained the most preva-lent district practice.

In 1985 a survey of states (ratherthan districts) revealed an even moresubstantial shift in policy. Now thedominant practice is to require thatchildren be five before October 1 tostart kindergarten; only 20 percent ofthe states (mostly in the northeast)have entrance cutoffs after November30 (Education Commission of theStates 1985). Missouri has elected toraise its entrance age a month eachyear so that in 1987 children must befive byJuly 1. In Colorado several localdistricts have also adopted June orJulycutoffs (Management InformationServices 1982). These continuations ofthe long-term trend into summerdates suggest that national entrancepolicies will not necessarily stabilizeonce they accommodate to the Sep-tember rather than mid-year norm.Earlier and earlier cutoff dates haveraised the average age of kindergart-

ners. A child who might have been inthe older half of the class in 1958might now be one of the youngestchildren in some kindergarten Classes.

Rhetoric surrounding decisions toraise the school entrance age has fo-cused almost entirely on the unreadi-ness of the youngest children. Willmoving the entrance age solve theproblem of voungness? If childrenmust be fully five before the start ofkindergarten, will short-term and po-tentially long-term learning problemsbe prevented? Obviously many policy-makers believe so. But for entrance-age change to be the solution, theyoungness dilemma must be an abso-lute problem rather than a relativeone. In other words, the cognitive andsocial demands of kindergarten mustbe fixed in such a way that thev areconsistent with what five-and-a-half-vear-olds can do but are too much forchildren who are just barely five. Ad-

vocates seeking to raise the entranceage construe the problem in this way.All of the research evidence, however,offers a convincing case that theyoungness problem is relative, not ab-solute.

The youngest children are at a dis-advantage whether they enter schoolat 4 7 vears of age in a district with aFebruary cutoff, at 4.9 in a district witha December entrance age, or 5.0 in adistrict where September I is thedeadline. Several authors have point-ed out the absurdity of seeking an"optimal" age for first grade readinessif the children who are the "success-ful" group in one context are the"young-unsuccessful" group in anoth-er district only because of their rela-tive age in comparison to their respec-tive classmates (Gredler 1975,Weinstein 1968-69).

The relative nature of the age effectis also seen between countries. The

os u prrbn to hosf raad"neM d, UsA school supnerntmenrd Zelmob ote oT rrding rle for deterrnnv,, est al t l aoru t t, .

°n hou a te9v used 8 1

NovEMBER 1986 81

El"A second majorpoint, looking over anumber of researchstudies, is thateven the smalldisadvantage ofyoungnesseventuallydisappears,usually by aboutthird grade."

International Study of Achievement inMathematics (Husen 1967) found that"children with birthdays toward theend of the school year tend to do lesswell in all countries" (p. 228). This wastrue in England where the mandatoryage of school entry was five and inFinland and Sweden where compul-sory attendance does not begin untilage seven. To contest the idea thatolder entrance ages would be a pana-cea for differential readiness, Gredler(1975, 1980) cited several studies in--cluding those by Malmquist (1958)and Jinks (1964). Speaking of youngerseven-year-olds in Sweden, Malmquistlamented that large differences in in-tellectual development made it impos-sible for the same method of teachingto be effective with all the pupils. In aBritish study, Jinks (1964) again foundthat teachers praised the learning abil-ities of their older pupils, who wouldhave been the youngest children inthe United States.

Because the youngness problem isrelative, raising the entrance agewould provide only a temporary solu-tion to the perceived problem. In adistrict with a September 1 cutoff, chil-dren with summer birthdays are defi-cient compared to their classmates. Ifthe district responds by adopting aJuly1 cut-off, in a short time normativecomparisons will readjust and chil-dren with May and June birthdays willbe at risk.

only good and no ill effects couldcome from this practice (A Gift of Time1982). In the absence of evidence,however, greater caution might be ad-visable. Anecdotally, we know thatchildren who are over-age for theirgrade are very aware of being older(Shepard and Smith 1985), but theattitudinal effects of being oldest ordifferent have not been studied sys-tematically Parents should at leastconsider the possibility of too littlechallenge as well as too much chal-lenge. Longer-term problems that weknow about from the retention litera-ture might also be considered, such asa girl reaching puberty in fourth gradeor a 19-year-old young man beingunwilling to finish high school

Even if there is little research evi-dence about what parents should do,there is a firmer basis for saying whatdistricts should do. Districts shouldnot encourage parents to keep theiryoung five-year-olds at home. If a dis-trict or school gives this kind of advice,the result will very likely be an in-crease in the heterogeneity of kinder-garten and first grade classrooms be-cause middle-class parents are morelikely to follow the advice. Just as"Sesame Street" widened the gap between middle-class and poor children(Cook et al. 1975), middle-class fam-ilies will be more able to know aboutand take advantage of this educationalwisdom. In our study of kindergartenretention, many lower socioeconomic

Indiidual Decisions vs. families resisted an extra year of (half-School Policy day) kindergarten specifically becauseStates and local districts cannot solve mothers could not afford to stay homethe youngness problem by raising the or to pay for preschool (Shepard andentrance age because they would Smith 1985). In one school where themerely create a new youngest group youngest children were systematicallyBut should parents individually con- asked to repeat kindergarten, all thesider holding out of school a child parents of children with the highestwho is just past the cutoff? Marv par- readiness skills agreed and the parentsents have obviously already made this of children with the lowest skills re-decision since there are significantly fused. As a consequences the diversityfewer children in the first month past f the irst grade class was dramaticallythe cutoff than in any other month increased the following year.(Shepard and Smith 1985). Very likely, Thus, school districts should notparents believe that by waiting a year foster a hidden policy of encouragingtheir child will have the benefit of parents to keep their young five-year-being the oldest in the class. There are olds at home; the parents who areno controlled studies available on this most likely to heed this advice do notolder age group Advocates who ad- necessarily have the least ready chil-vise parents to keep their children at dren. Teaching problems associatedhome another year cite the youngness with great diversity in kindergartensresearch summarized here; they claim will increase, not diminish.

82 EDICATIONAL LEADERSHIP

I

Assessing ReadinessIf a uniform entrance age cannot ad-dress the problem of differential readi-ness, is it possible to measure readi-ness directly? Can a test be used todecide who should stav out of schoolor who should be placed in a less-demanding kindergarten program?Numerous school readiness or screen-ing instruments exist. Many are intend-ed specifically to assess reading readi-ness, but others include a broaderarray of social and developmentalskills relevant to a child's adjustmentin school

What should a school superinten-dent or state legislator-who is notinterested in psychometric propertiesor validit, coefficient--know aboutschool readiness measures? First,there is one overriding rule for deter-mining test validity: validity dependson how a test is used. In the case ofschool readiness measures, this meansthat some tests might be perfectlygood for teachers to use in makingday-to-day instructional decisions butwould not be good enough (technical-hI or in a court of law) to be used toplace a child in a special school pro-gram. The more crucial the decisionfor an individual child, the greater arethe demands for test validity evidenceand due process

"The 'age effect'literature verifiesthat children whoare youngest intheir first gradeclass are at a slightdisadvantage ...hardly surprisingsince an 11-monthperiod of growthand development isa significant portionof a lifetime for six-year-olds."

Scientific knowledge underlyingreadiness assessment is such that noneof the existing tests is sufficiently accu-rate to justify removing children fromtheir normal peer group and placingthem in special two-year programs. Inpart the lack of high correlations withlater school success is caused by theinstability of the very traits we areseeking to measure. Four- and five-year-olds experience developmentalbursts and inconsistencies that defynormative charts. In addition, the cog-nitive domains that can be sampled atyounger ages are only moderately re-lated to the cognitive skills demandedlater by reading and other academictasks.

Let us consider two very popularreadiness batteries, the Gesell SchoolReadiness Tests and the MetropolitanReadiness Tests. The Gesell purportsto measure developmental age and isrecommended bv its authors forscreening children into developmen-tal or two-year kindergarten programs.Numerous reviewers have stated thatthe Gesell tests do not meet the stan-dards of the American PsychologicalAssociation for validity, reliability . ornormative information (e.g., Kaufman1985, Shepard and Smith 1985); yetthe tests are used in hundreds ofschool districts to make placementdecisions. Only one study has everbeen done reporting a reliability coef-ficient for the Gesell (Kaufman andKaufman 1972); in that study the errorof measurement was so large that afour-and-one-half developmental agescore could not be reliably distin-guished from a five-vyear-old score, butthis is precisely the difference that isused to decide who should start kin-dergarten and who should not. Onestudy was undertaken to evaluate thepredictive validity of the Gesell (Woodet al 1984). Although the test has whatsounds like a creditable agreementrate with teacher judgments (78 per-cent), in fact, when the children identi-fied as "potential kindergarten fail-ures" were examined, only ,af wereaccurately identified For every potentialfailure accurately identified there was asuccessful child falselv identified Thisproblem of predictive inaccuracy is notunique to the Gesell but occurs with all ofthe readiness measures because theyhave moderately good but not very highpredictive validiies.

NOVEMHER 1986

"A British studyfound that teacherspraised the learningabilities of theirolder pupils, whowould have been theyoungest children inthe United States."

In an extended review of the techni-cal properties of the Gesell tests. wefound that thev "lack discriminant va-liditn from IQ tests" (Shepard andSmith 1985). Although the Gesell testsclaim to measure developmental age,thev essentially measure the samething that IQ tests measure (Jensen1969. 1980). Changing the name ofwhat the test measures has profoundpolicy implications. Many decisionmakers would be villing to hold outof school or place in a two-year trackchildren who are "developmentallyyoung." It is much less defensible tohold out of school children who arebelow average in IQ. especially since adisproportionate sl, re of these chil-dren will come from low socioeco-nomic backgrounds

The Metropolitan Readiness Testsare among the technically best mea-sures available (Ravitch 1985). TheMetropolitan is not advertised, howev-er. for the purpose of sorting childreninto ready and unready groups. Ratherit is intended to help teachers organ-ize instruction. For example, a kinder-garten teacher might plan differentactivities for children who are readv tolearn letter sounds than for children

83

II

"School districtsshould notencourage parentsto keep their youngfive-year-olds athome; parents whoare most likely toheed this advice donot necessarily havethe least readychildren."

who cannot make auditory discrimina-tions. If the Metropolitan were to beused to place children in special two-yearprograms, it would fare slightly betterthan the Gesell, since its predictive corre-lations are higher, but would still pro-duce many identification errors.

The fact that screening programswill misidentify many children raisesthe question of whether it is better tocatch unready children even if many ofthose identified will be falsely labeled.The answer depends on the benefit(or harm) of the special placement. Asimilar lesson was learned in the fieldof special education. The NationalAcademy Panel on Selection and Place-ment of Students in Programs for theMentally Retarded noted that if specialeducation were unambiguously a ben-efit, there would be no dispute overthe validity of identification and place-ment procedures (Heller et al. 1982).The validity of readiness tests is entwined with the validity or effective-ness of special programs.

It is not possible, then, to makehighly accurate assessments of schoolreadiness. Most test publishers arecareful about the claims they make fortheir tests, suggesting that they beused to help teachers plan instruction.If children are classified into readyand unready groups on the basis of atest, a number of identification errorswill occur. How school systems shouldproceed knowing that readiness mea-sures are fallible depends on the ben-efit of special programs.

cally with their "behavioral and matu-rational peers" (p. 351).

Extra-year programs are effectivelylike repeating kindergarten evenwhen the curriculum is altered fromone year to the next. Certainly, parentswho are asked to agree to these place-ments struggle with the implicationsof "retention" regardless of whetherthey accept the arguments for the pro-gram (Shepard and Smith 1985) Onemight look to the extensive researchliterature on nonpromotion or graderetention to evaluate extra-year pro-grams. The majority of parents andeducators believe that grade repetitionis an effective solution for academicfailure and social immaturity (Byrnesand Yamamoto 1984). Yet researchfindings are almost uniformly nega-tive. When retained children werecompared to equally low achieverswho were promoted, the socially pro-moted pupils were consistently aheadon both achievement and social-emo-tional measures (Holmes and Mat-thews 1984, Rose et al. 1983). Contraryto popular beliefs, repeating a gradedoes not help students gain groundacademically and has a negative im-pact on social adjustment and self-esteem, Ironically, reviewers have alsofound that the practice of holding chil-dren back does not increase the ho-mogeneity of classrooms (Bossing andBrien 1979, Haddad 1979).

Providing an Extra Year for rruviaing an extraUnready Chddren year before firstSeveral options have been proposed does not solvewhereby schools can provide an extra dyear for children who are not yet the problems it wasready for the demands of first grade. In intended to solve.addition to the possibility of keepingchildren at home, the Gesell Institute children in thesehas suggested that developmentally programs showyoung children can attend a develop-mental or prekindergarten, repeat kin- virtually nodergarten, or attend a pre-first grade academic advantageclass between kindergarten and firstgrade (A Gift of Time 1982). Propo- over equally at-risknents of these alternatives argue that children who havetime itself is the best cure for the not had theproblem of differential readiness. notDonofrio (1977) urged that these "un- extra year.favored" children be allowed to "marktime" until they are in step psychologi-

84 EDIICATIONAL LEADERSHIP

ElI

64iM____t -9 - __ -

Advocates of kindergarten retentionare likely to dismiss the negative find-ings of nonpromotion research be-cause an extra year of kindergarten isintended to prevent failure before itoccurs. Many fewer studies are avail-able on pre-first grade or prekinder-garten programs. Gredler (1984) lo-cated five recent studies evaluating"transition" or pre-first grade classes.In only one of these studies (Raygor1972) was there a benefit or achieve-ment gain for children in the transi-tion program In four studies the tran-sition-room children were no betteroff after an extra year than the "poten-tial first grade failures" who wereplaced in the regular first grade. Bell(1972) found that transition-room children had lower self-esteem and lowerself-confidence than the at-risk chil-dren who were not retained In Raygor's study the initial benefit washedout by third grade

May and Welch (1984) conducted astudy in a school district where chil-dren were placed on the basis of theGesell Screening Test Children whowere identified as developmentallyimmature were recommended to "buya year" and spend an extra year beforesecond grade. If their parents refusedthe recommendation, Immature children were classified as "overplaced"and continued in the traditional gradesequence. The state achievement testat the end of third grade showed nodifferences between the overplacedand buy-a-year group. On the StanfordAchievement Tests given at the end ofsecond, fourth, and sixth grades, therewere likewise no differences betweenthe two groups, one of which had hadan extra year of school. More impor-tantly, on the Stanford there were alsono differences between the at-riskgroups and the rest of the schooldistrict population. Thus, May andWelch concluded that the overplacedchildren were not suffering the learn-ing difficulties predicted by Gesell the-onr, and there was no academic bene-fit from the buy a-year placement.

In our study of two-year kindergar-ten programs, we compared childrenwith an extra year to equally at-riskchildren who did not repeat (Shepardand Smith 1985). At the end of firstgrade the children who had repeatedkindergarten were one month aheadon a standardized reading test. There

NOVE.MBER 1986

"Children cometo school withenormouslydifferent interests,aptitudes, andbackgroundexperiences. Theycannot be made toadapt to a uniformcurriculum."

were no differences between the twogroups on a math achievement testnor on teacher ratings of reading andmath achievement. social maturity,learner self-concept, or attention. Parents of the two groups rated theirchildren the same in first grade pro-gress and relationships with peers:children who spent an extra vear inkindergarten had slightlv worse attitudes toward school.

Despite the promises, providing anextra vear before first grade does notsolve the problems it was intended tosolve Children in these programsshow virtually no academic advantageover equally at-risk children who havenot had the extra year Furthermore.there is often an emotional cost associ-ated with staving back, even whenparents and teachers are verv 'enlight-ened about presenting the decision tothe child (Shepard and Smith 1985).

Policy ConclusionsChildren come to school with enor-mously different interests. aptitudes,and background experiences. Theycannot be made to adapt to a uniformcurriculum. The policy options, whichcommon sense suggests, are consis-tently rejected bv research findings.Changing the entrance age will notcorrect the problems of the youngestfirst graders because a new voungestgroup emerges Children cannot beselected to stay at home or attend a

two-vear kindergarten on the basis of atest, because the tests are not accurateenough: too many children would befalsely diagnosed as "unready." Extra-year programs have not boostedachievement and, contrary to expecta-tion. have hurt rather than helped self-esteem. Therefore, school districtsmust think again before screeningchildren into unsuccessful programson the basis of fallible tests.

There are other alternative solu-tions to the unreadiness problem butthes are not so popular as simpleanswers-a new date, a new test, or anew grade level. As they so often do,workable solutions will depend onteachers rather than policy makers andon programs that respond to chil-dren's individual differences in readi-ness In one study of extra-year pro-grams, the biggest gains were not forthe extra-vear children but for the at-risk children wlho received extra helpin the regular classroom (Leinhardt1980) It is necessan- as well to trv tokeep the !oungness problem in per-spective. The disadvantage of theyoungest first graders is small, after all,only about - or 8 percentile points.And unless it is cast in stone bv alearning disabilit- label or grade re-tention, in most cases it will disappearentirels by the third grade.

Reft-letw-es

Beattie. C. 'Entranc·e Age to Kindergartenand First Grade: Its Effect on Cognitiveand Affc-tise Development of Students."19-0 (ERIC No ED 133 00 )

Bell. M 'A Studs of the Readiness RoomProgram in Small School District in Sub-urban l)etroit. Michigan." Doctoral diss.,Way-ne State tniversitn, 19'2.

Bigelos-. E B "Schtxol Progress of Under-Age Children. Elementart Schoo.loutr-

a/l 22S (1934): 18(-192Bossing. L.. and P Bnen. A Ret'ieu of the

Flernentar ., Scdiool Promotion/Rerention)ilemnnla Murray. Ks: Murras State Uni-

versin. 19-9 (ERIC No ED 212 362.)Bmrnes. D. and K Y amamoto 'Grade Rep

etition \Viess of Parents. Teachers andPrincipals Logan: ttah State tIniversint,1984

Carroll. M L "Academic Achievement andAdjustment of Underrage and OverageThird Graders " lornal of FducaronalResearch ScO (1963): 415-419

CGxook,. T. D, I Appleton. R. F Conner, AShaffer. G Tomkin. and S 1. \Weber'esanwe Streer' Retisrted New' York:Russell Sage Foundation. 195.

85

Davis, B. G., C S. Trimble, and D. RVincent "Does Age of Entrance AffectSchool Achievement?" EemntarySJbooJownal 80 (1980): 133-143.

Diamond, G. H. "The Birthdate Effect-AMaturional Effect" Journal of Learn-ing DigabMls 16 (1983): 161-164.

DiPasquale, G. W., A. D. Moule, and R W.Flkewellig "'IThe Birthdate Effect." Joro-nra o Learning Dfsabilities 13 (1980):234-238.

Donofrio, A. F. "Grade Repetition: Therapyof Choice."Journal of Lrning Disabil-ies 10 (1977): 349-351.

Education Commission of the States No-vember 1985. State Characteristics Kin-derganenr Denver, Colo.

Educational Research Service. 1985 Admis-sion Policies for Kindergarten and FirstGrade, Circular No. 3. Arlington, Va.

Educational Research Service. 1963 En-trance-Age Policies and Exceptions, Cir-cular No. 3. Arlington, Va.

Educational Research Service. 1968. En-trance Age Policies, Circular No S Arlington, Va.

Educational Research Service 1975 Kin-dergarten and First Grade MinimumEntrance Age Policies, Circular No. 5Arlington, Va.

A Gift of Time. New Haven, Conn.: GesellInstitute of Human Development, 1982

Gredler, G. R "Ethical and Legal Dilemmasin the Assessment of Readiness of Chil-dren for School." In Ethical and LegalFactors in the Practice of School Psychol-ogy, edited by G. R Gredler. Harrisburg,Pa.: State Department of Education,1975.

Gredler, G. R "The Birthdate Effect: Fact orArtifact?" Journal of Learning Disabil-ities 13 (1980): 239-242

Gredler, G. R- "Transition Classes: A ViableAlternative for the At-Risk Child?" Psy-chology in the Schools 21 (1984): 463-470.

Green, D R-, and S. V Simmons. "Chrono-logical Age and School Entrance.' Ele-menmtry SchoolJoutnal 63 (1962): 41-47.

Haddad, W D. Educational and EconomicFffects of Promotion and RepetitionPractices. Washington, D C.: The WorldBank, 1979. (ERIC No. ED 195 003.)

Hall, R V. "Does Entrance Age AffectAchievement?" Eementary School Jour-nal 64 (1963): 391-396.

Halliwell,J. W., and B. W. Stein. "A Compar-ison of the Achievement of Early andLate Starters in Reading Related andNon-Reading Related Areas in Fourthand Fifth Grades" Elementary English41 (1964): 631-639.

Heller, K A., W. H. Holtzman, and S. Mes-sick, eds. Placing Children in SpecialEducation: A Strategy for Equity. Wash-

ington, D C.: National Academy Press,1982.

Holmes, C. T., and K. M. Matthews. "TheEffects of Nonpromotion on Elementaryand Junior High School Pupils: A Meta-Analysis" Review of Educational Re-search 54 (1984): 225-236

Hus&n, T., ed International Study ofAchievement in Mathematics Vol 1.Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1967

Jensen, A. R "Understanding Readiness: AnOccasional Paper." Urbana, Ill.: ERICClearinghouse on Early Childhood Edu-cation, 1969. (ERIC No. ED 032 117.)

Jensen, A. R. Bias in Mental Testing. NewYork: The Free Press, 1980.

Jinks, P. C. "An Investigation Into the Effectof Date of Birth on Subsequent SchoolPerformance'" Fducational Research 6(1964): 220-225.

Kalk, J. M., P Langer, and D Searls Trendsin Achievement as a Function of Age ofAdmission (Report No. AY-AA-51). Den-ver: National Assessment of EducationalProgress, Education Commission of theStates, December 1981

Kaufman, N L. "Review of the Gesell Pre-school Test ' In The Ninth Mental Mea-surements Yearbook, Vol 1, edited by JV Mitchell Lincoln, Nebr: Buros Insti-tute of Mental Measurements, 1985

Kaufman, A. S, and N L. Kaufman. "TestsBuilt From Piaget's and Gesell's Tasks asPredictors of First-Grade Achievement."Child Development 43 (1972) 521-535

King, I. B "Effect of Age of Entrance IntoGrade 1 Upon Achievement in the Ele-mentary School." lementary ScoolJournal 55 (1955): 331-336

Langer, P.,J M Kalk, and D T. Searls. "Ageof Admission and Trends in Achieve-ment: A Comparison of Blacks and Cau-casians. American Educational Re-searchJournal 21 (1984): 61-78

Leinhardt, G "Transition Rooms: Promot-ing Maturation or Reducing Education?"Journal of Educational Psychology 72(1980): 55-61

MacMillan, D L, and C E. Meyers "Educa-tional Labeling of Handicapped Learn-ers" In Review of Research in Educa-tion, Vol 7, edited by D C BerlinerWashington, D C: American EducationalResearch Association, 1979.

Maddux, C D "First-Grade Entry Age in aSample of Children Labeled LearningDisabled." Learning Disahility Quarterly3 (1980): 79-83

Malmquist, E. Factors Related to ReadingDisabilities in the First Grade of theElementary School Stockholm: Almquist& Wiksell, 1958

Management Information Services "En-trance Age Requirements for Kindergar-ten and First Grade." (Two-page memo.)Aurora, Colo.: Denver Area Superinten-dent's Council, 1982.

May, D C, and E. L, Welch. "The Effects ofDevelopmental Placement and Early Re-tention on Children's Later Scores onStandardized Tests." Psychology in theSchools 21 (1984): 381-385.

Miller, W., and R C Norris "Entrance Ageand School Success." Journal of SchoolPsychology 6 (1967): 47-60

Pugach, M C "The Limitations of FederalSpecial Education Policy: The Role ofClassroom Teachers in DeterminingWho is I andicapped " Journal of Spe-cial lEducation 19 (1985): 123-137

Ravitch, M M. "Review of MetropolitanReadiness Tests, 1976 Edition" In TheNinth Mental Measurements Yearbook,Vol 1, edited hyJ v Mitchell Lincoln,Nebr: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements, 1985

Raygor, B "A Five-Year Follow-lUp StudyComparing the School Achievement andSchxol Adjustment of Children Retainedin Kindergarten and Children Placed in aTransition Class" Doctoral diss, University of Minnesota, 1972.

Rose,J S., F J Medway, V I. Cantrell, andS Il Marus "A Fresh Look at the Reten-tion-Promotion Controversy." Journalof School Psychology 21 (1983) 201-211

Shepard, L A, and M IL Smith "An Evalua-tion of the Identification of LearningDisabled Students in Colorado " Learn-ing Disahility Quarterly 6 (1983): 115127.

Shepard, L A., and M. I Smith BoulderValley Kindergarten Study: RetentionPractices and Retention Effects Boulder,Colo.: Boulder Valley Public Schools,March 1985

Shepard, L A., and M L. Smith with A.Davis, G V Glass, A. Riley, and C VojirFitluation of the Identification of Per-ceptual-Communicative Disorders inColorado Boulder: Laboratory of Educa-tional Research, University of Colorado,February 1981

tphoff, J. K. "Pupil Chronological Age as aFactor in School Failure." Paper present-ed at the annual conference of the Asso-ciation for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment, Chicago, March 1985

Weinstein, I. "School Entrance Age andAdjustment."Journal of School Psychol-ogy 7 (1968-69): 20-28

Wood, C., S. Powell, and R C. Knight"Predicting School Readiness: The Valid-ity of Developmental Age." Journal oflearning Disabilities 17 (1984): 8-11

Lorrtte A. Shepard is Professor, School ofEducation, University of Colorado atBolder, Campus Box 249, Boulder, CO80309. Mary Lee Smith is Professor, Col-lege of Education, Arizona State University,Tempe, AZ 85287.

EDnt ATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Copyright © 1986 by the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. All rights reserved.