Research Information (1): Can refusing early entry harm children?
Research Information (2): From material used to prepare position paper
My comments for the DTAC position paper on early entry
Research Information (3): New studies since the position paper was written
Dear Amy,
In the early entry packet you have just sent me, there is a letter from Anita McClanahan, [of the Oregon Dept. of Education] which says, in part, "Currently there is no substantial research to support a position that entering a child early benefits the child in the long term. Also there is no evidence that developmentally advanced children will be harmed if they are not allowed to enter school."
I do not recommend early entry for every gifted child, and I agree that there are often better solutions, but, having researched this issue myself, I am concerned because I believe that this does not accurately represent the existing research about this issue. The only way that it could be justified is to quibble about what might constitute "substantial" research. I am writing to you because I think that sending out this statement would mean misinforming many parents.
In addition, the letter quotes Ms. Mclanahan as saying "there is no evidence that developmentally advanced children will be harmed if they are not allowed to enter school"
She is on somewhat stronger ground here, since there is very little evidence either way on this issue, but I believe that Miraca Gross's book "Exceptionally Gifted Children" does provide strong evidence that "advanced" children are seriously harmed when they are not accelerated appropriately. Early entry, of course, is not the only possible method for achieving acceleration.
I am enclosing below excerpts from nationally recognized experts in this field. I am also enclosing an excerpt from the background document on "early entry" that I prepared for DTAC. The two major studies I cited in that report seem to still be considered the most definitive in the area.
I am also including additional research information that I have obtained since writing the background document.
I believe that the position outlined in my own comments, below, which were prepared for the DTAC position paper committee is much closer to the research consensus on this issue than the one from the state. To be honest, I am dismayed that a state employee who is presumably offering professional advice to school districts throughout the state would write such a misleading comment.
I do agree ... that it is extremely difficult to obtain reliable test information for very young children. ... this process can only be successful when the children are carefully screened and evaluated. I simply feel that the comment that "there is no substantial research to support a position that entering a child early benefits the child in the long term" is inaccurate and should not be sent out to parents who have to make this difficult decision.
My own feeling, supported by many other authors, is that gifted children are better off when they are grouped with other children who are both intellectual and age peers. Unfortunately, in the real world, most parents do not have this option, and we are left to choose between greater and lesser evils. Early entry may be less than ideal, but it is not necessarily the greater evil.
Cordially,
Margaret DeLacy
Miraca Gross, Exceptionally Gifted Children (1993) reported on an exceptionally careful and thorough study of 15 highly gifted children and found that (p.260)
"When the children's scores on the sub-scales of the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory are compared, it can be seen that, while the total self-esteem scores of most of the children fall within the normal range, the majority record scores on the social self-peers subscale which are significantly below the mean for age-peers of average ability. Research suggests that an awareness of the differnces between themselves and the majority of their age peers can have a depressing and demotivating effect on the intellectually gifted. ... the exceptionally gifted children in this study differ from their age-mates on almost every variable examined. The children are aware that they are disliked and rejected by their classmates and this intensifies existing problems of self-concept.... There are readily identifiable differences between the levels of self-esteem of students who have been radically accelerated and those who have been retained with their age-peers or with children only 12 months their senior. General self-concept and social self-concept are very much stronger in radical acceleands. Children whose educational programme requires them to work at academic levels which do not provide adequate intellectual challenge show disturbingly depressed levels of self-esteem and motivation." [emphasis by M.E.D.]
In "Selection of Candidates for Early Admission to Kindergarten and First Grade" (1991, in Southern and Jones, eds. Academic Acceleration of young children), Nancy Robinson and Linda Weimer wrote:
when we examine the literature dealing with early school entry for children who have been carefully evaluated.... comprehensive reviews tend to produce optimistic expectations.... A review by Proctor et. a. (1986) includes 21 studies, some comparing early entrants with their unselected classmates and others comparing them with matched samples. Of the first group, 16 of 17 studies found early entrants the equal of or surpassing their classmates in achievement, with several studies showing progressive imrpovement.... Especially significant were the several studies of early entrants who were in junior and senior high schools; the students were excelling academically, participating in numerous extracurricular activities, and exhibiting strong, positive self-concepts. Perhaps best known is one by Hobson (1963), who followed a group longitudinally and found that by high school, the early entrants exceeded their classmates by 2 to 1 in honors, awards, and other graduation distinctions despite greater involvement in extracurricular activities (including athletics and social honors as well as more athletic pursuits).
In a definitive experimental study, children who are eligible for early admission would be randomly assigned... No one, however, has undertaken such a study.... There is, however, a very small grup of studies that has made an attempt at control by comparing early entrants with nonaccelerated children matched in ability. Such methods do not escape the selective factors that determine which children were, or were not, accelerated.... Mueller (1955) and Pennau (1981) ccompared early entrants with matched samples one year behind them in school. In Mueller's study, chidlren who ....entered kindergarten early were rated by their teachers in grates 1-5 on traits of achievement, health, coordination, popularity, school attitude, and emotional adjustment. Early entrants were rated as superior on all traits to all other groups.... Pennau (1981) also using a matched sample, found few differences.... One can conclude that early admission is almost certainly not a bad idea, and may even be helpful when selection is careful....
"If it seems likely that a student will be "skipped" at some point during his or her school career, early entry is one relatively simple and painless way to achieve that end. The child does not have to sacrifice one set of friends for another, and the placement is less conspicuous, since the child's schoolmates have no way of knowing about it. However, the difference between a child of four and a half and one of five and a half is much greater than is the difference between a child of fifteen and one of sixteen. Test scores are somewhat unstable for very young children and such "intangibles" as work habits, commitment, and general maturity are hard both to assess and to predict in such young children. There are, therefore, legitimate reasons for caution in promoting early entry, particularlywith children who are especially young for the desired grade. Nevertheless, although Portland obtained a waiver in order to offer Early Entry, its practice appears to be relatively conservative in comparison with recommendations in the research literature. The literature provided by the department states that "studies suggest that 1 1/2 years advancement (the criteria for advanced placement) is necessary for the early entered child to compensate for the age and curriculum differences." However, we have been unable to determine what studies are being referred to: several school districts throughout the country have apparently had successful programs with somewhat less stringent criteria, but so far there does not appear to be any consensus regarding ideal criteria.
In a review of various possible acceleration strategies, Karen Rogers and Richard Kimpston concluded in 1992 that "Early entrance to school appears to be a relatively safe accelerative option for bright children. Social and psychological adjustment were neither enhanced nor threatened by this practice....Psychologically, it makes sense that gifted children who are being cognitively challenged from the beginning of their school careers would encounter fewer adjustment problems than those who encounter such challenges after years of little effort required."
According to information provided by district staff members and supported by existing district studies, the result of Portland's relatively stringent standards has been that the children who have been granted early entry have been extremely successful: many tested not only well above their unaccelerated age-mates but also above their existing classmates. The recommendations to offer early entry have been good ones. In 1987, a [Portland] district study of 24 students who participated in the program found that their mean PALT scores exceeded students who were matched for age and sex but who had not been advanced by approximately one standard deviation.
This is consistent with the findings of a 1986 study by Proctor, Black and Feldhusen who reviewed twenty-one early entry programs across the country. They concluded that "comparisons of early entrants with their unselected classmates found, in general, no negative effects. Comparisons of early entrants with matched samples suggested that early admission may be preferable."
It is worth noting that a number of the studies cited by Proctor, Black and Feldhusen had criteria that were significantly less stringent academically than that required by the Portland School District."
In "Gifted and Talented International" Vol. XI, no 2 (Fall, 1996) Ken McCluskey and others reported on a twenty-four year longitudinal study of early entry to Kindergarten in Selkirk, Manitoba, Canada.
They concluded that although some early entrants did not succeed, "overall,... the results here are supportive of early admission, with 80% of our early entrants holding their own or faring extremely well. A flexible school entry policy appears to provide an opportunity for some students who need it, and may respond." (p.74) The only thing that might make this study less than "substantial" is that only 54 students were followed.
It is important to note that they found that the ratings for these students improved as the students entered later grades: students who entered early were rated significantly higher by the end of fifth grade than they had been at the end of the kindergarten year. Many placements that intitially appeared to be failures turned out to be successful in the long run. Therefore, studies such as Foote, below, that test students only at the middle or end of kindergarten may not resolve the issue.
In an essay entitled "Educational Research and Educational Policy: the Strange Case of Acceleration, published in Intellectual Talent, edited by Camilla Persson Benbow and David Lubinski, which appeared in 1996, James Gallagher commented (pp. 85-6):
"Evidence concerning the effects of acceleration on students has been accumulating for more than fifty years....One of the clear differences between educational policy and educational research data involves the date of entrance into school. There is no reason, based on what we know about individual differences and individual growth rates, why a single date, such as a birthday, should be chosen to determine when a person will enter the educational system. Such a date is clearly set for administrative convenience...However, a number of educators... have explored a different policy. ... Three decades ago Reynolds, Birch, and Tuseth (1962) reviewed the research on the effects of early-admittance programs and commented: 'It may be concluded from the research ... that early admission to school of mentally advanced children who are within a year of the ordinary school entrance age and who are generally mature is to their advantage. There are few issues in education on which the research evidence not available is so clear and universally favorable to a particular solution....'"
An ERIC search on the topic "Early Admission" came up with two articles that I had not previously reviewed. One of them was a study of nearly 1,000 eighth grade students, divided between those in gifted classes, accelerated and early entry students, and "regular students." It found that by eighth grade, accelerated students, including early entrants, did not report social isolation, emotional difficulties or behavior problems. Accelerated students and students in gifted classes both had better perceptions of their social relationships and emotional development and fewer behavior problems than regular students. Michael Sayler and William Brookshire, "Social, Emotional, And Behavioral Adjustment of Accelerated Students, Students in Gifted Classes, and Regular Students in Eighth Grade," Gifted Child Quarterly, v. 37 no. 4, Fall, 1993
Elizabeth Foote, "Entrance Age and Visual Motor Integration." came from 1991, and was a study of 81 kindergarteners. It referred to another study that reported that many chronologically young children who had a higher than average IQ failed academically. but I do not know what this other study was. Foote herself study found that older kindergarteners had sigificantly higher scores on a Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration than younger students. I would consider this to be a negative study that should probably be seriously reviewed by the TAG department.
It was a research report, but I cannot find any evidence on the ERIC listing that it was published. Its Eric ID number is ED335131
In "Selection of Candidates for Early Admission to Kindergarten and First Grade" (1991, in Southern and Jones, eds. Academic Acceleration of young children), Nancy Robinson and Linda Weimer wrote:
when we examine the literature dealing with early school entry for children who have been carefully evaluated.... comprehensive reviews tend to produce optimistic expectations.... A review by Proctor et. a. (1986) includes 21 studies, some comparing early entrants with their unselected classmates and others comparing them with matched samples. Of the first group, 16 of 17 studies found early entrants the equal of or surpassing their classmates in achievement, with several studies showing progressive imrprovement.... Especially significant were the several studies of early entrants who were in junior and senior high schools; the students were excelling academically, participating in numerous extracurricular activities, and exhibiting strong, positive self-concepts. Perhaps best known is one by Hobson (1963), who followed a group longitudinally and found that by high school, the early entrants exceeded their classmates by 2 to 1 in honors, awards, and other graduation distinctions despite greater involvement in extracurricular activities (including athletics and social honors as well as more athletic pursuits).
In a definitive experimental study, children who are eligible for early admission would be randomly assigned... No one, however, has undertaken such a study.... There is, however, a very small group of studies that has made an attempt at control by comparing early entrants with nonaccelerated children matched in ability. Such methods do not escape the selective factors that determine which children were, or were not, accelerated.... Mueller (1955) and Pennau (1981) ccompared early entrants with matched samples one year behind them in school. In Mueller's study, chidlren who ....entered kindergarten early were rated by their teachers in grates 1-5 on traits of achievement, health, coordination, popularity, school attitude, and emotional adjustment. Early entrants were rated as superior on all traits to all other groups.... Pennau (1981) also using a matched sample, found few differences.... One can conclude that early admission is almost certainly not a bad idea, and may even be helpful when selection is careful....