Citation
Early school entry and later school success

Material Information

Title:
Early school entry and later school success the impact of a school district's early entrance policy
Portion of title:
Impact of a school district's early entrance policy
Creator:
Frunzi, Kay Louise
Place of Publication:
Denver, CO
Publisher:
University of Colorado Denver
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xiii, 251 leaves : forms ; 29 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
School age (Entrance age) -- Colorado ( lcsh )
Academic achievement -- Colorado ( lcsh )
Academic achievement ( fast )
School age (Entrance age) ( fast )
Colorado ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 235-251).
Thesis:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Doctor of Philosophy, Educational Leadership and Innovation
General Note:
School of Education and Human Development
Statement of Responsibility:
by Kay Louise Frunzi.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
34289383 ( OCLC )
ocm34289383
Classification:
LD1190.E3 1995d .F78 ( lcc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
EARLY SCHOOL ENTRY AND LATER SCHOOL SUCCESS:
THE IMPACT OF A SCHOOL DISTRICTS
EARLY ENTRANCE POLICY
by
Kay Louise Frunzi
B.A., Goshen College, 1968
M.A., University of Colorado at Boulder, 1977
A thesis submitted to the
Faculty of the Graduate School of the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Educational Leadership and Innovation
1995


This thesis for the Doctor of Philosophy
degree by
Kay Louise Frunzi
has been approved
by
Date


Frunzi, Kay Louise (Ph.D., Educational Leadership and
Innovation)
Early School Entry and Later School Success: The Impact of
a Schools District Early Entrance Policy
Thesis directed by Assistant Professor Nancy Sanders
ABSTRACT
This study investigates the effects of the early
entrance policy in Littleton Public Schools, Colorado, on
subsequent student success. The study looks at the
relationship among teachers beliefs and attitudes
regarding early entry, their reported use of developmentally
appropriate practices in their classrooms, and measures of
success of the early entry children in school.
The research design includes a matched pairs
investigation of 25 early entry children matched with their
grade equivalent peer group. Data were obtained through
interviewing and surveying teachers, administering the
Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised, and inspecting
students cumulative records.
The research results show that the districts
screening procedures were successful in screening bright
children to enter school early. The test data indicate that
m


the early entry children are achieving significantly higher
academically than their matched regular entrance peers in
the area of math (P<.05); and are doing as well in the areas
of reading and language.
The teachers on the whole viewed the early entry
children as being more delayed than their matched regular
entry peers in the social, maturity, and leadership areas.
Forty percent of the teachers interviewed and surveyed
indicated that they do not agree with the districts early
entrance policy. No relationships were found between
teachers beliefs or teachers espoused developmental^
appropriate practices and students academic achievement.
This study could not address the developmental issues, as
there was not consistency in treatment across grade levels.
Few of the early entry children had continuous
developmentally appropriate opportunities.
Should a school district endorse the practice of
allowing selected children to enter school early? After
completing this study, I conclude that the question can not
be answered with a simple yes or no. If the children
are carefully selected to enter school early, if the teachers
have a positive attitude toward young children, and if the
classrooms are developmentally appropriate, the chances of
IV


the early entry childrens success are great. If these
conditions are not in place, the chances of success of the
early entry children are at risk.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the
candidates thesis. I recommend its publication.
Signed
v


CONTENTS
FOREWORD.................................................XII
CHAPTER
1. THE PROBLEM OF EARLY ENTRY..............................1
Background of the Problem............................4
Teacher Beliefs and Developmentally Appropriate
Practices as Mediating Variables...........................8
Focus of the Study...................................9
Theoretical Rationale...............................12
Research Questions..................................18
Methods.............................................19
Implications of the Study...........................19
Organization of the Thesis..........................20
2. REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH................................22
Age of Entry........................................23
History of Entry Age..........................24
Delaying Entrance into School.................26
Entrance at a Given Age.......................27
Age of Entry Summary..........................30
Criteria for School Entrance........................30
Chronological Age.............................30
vi


Mental Age........................................32
Intelligence......................................34
Social and Emotional Development..................36
Gender............................................37
Physiological Development.........................38
Summary of Criteria for School Entrance...........38
The Youngness Effect....................................39
Student Academic Achievement......................39
Retention Referrals...............................41
Special Education Referrals.......................42
Gifted/Talented Referrals.........................43
Summary of the Youngness Effect...................43
Effects of Early Admission on Selected Children....44
Academic Achievement and Social/Emotional
Development.......................................45
Summary on Effects of Eariy Admission on
Selected Children...............................48
Attitudes About Early Admission.........................49
Teacher Attitudes.................................49
Administrator Attitudes...........................51
Summary of Attitudes on Early Admission..........51
Review of Literature Summary............................51
vii


3. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...................................55
Research Questions...................................55
Research Design......................................56
The Research Setting.................................59
The Research Subjects................................61
Data Collection......................................66
Current Teacher Interviews.....................68
Past Teachers Surveys.........................72
Student Achievement Data.......................74
Student Documentation..........................75
Data Analysis........................................76
Start List of Codes............................76
Teacher Interviews.............................79
Past Teacher Surveys...........................79
Developmental^ Appropriate Categories..........79
Student Documents..............................80
Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised............81
Themes and Patterns............................82
Reliability....................................83
Research Methodology Summary.........................84
4. RESEARCH RESULTS.......................................86
Differences Between Early and Regular Entry
Students........................................86
vm


Interviewed and Surveyed Teachers
Research Results...............................86
Wide Range Achievement Test- Revised
Results........................................98
Iowa Test of Basic Skills Results.............100
Cognitive Ability Test Results................102
Report Card Scores Results....................103
Summary of Differences Between Early and
Regular Entry Students......................106
Relationship Between Teachers Beliefs
and Early Entry Childrens Success................107
Summary of Relationship Between Teachers
Beliefs and Early Entry Childrens Success..117
Relationship Between Teachers Developmental
Practices and Early Entry Childrens Success..118
Developmental Practice Placement............119
Developmental Practices and Student
Achievement.................................126
Developmental Practices and Teachers
Reports on Student Achievement Compared
with the Test Data Results..................128
Report Card Grades Compared to Test Data....142
Developmental Practices and Teachers
Opinions and Beliefs........................143
IX


Summary of Relationship Between Teachers
Developmental Practices and Early Entry
Childrens Success...........................150
Summary of Research Results........................152
5. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS.........................158
Discussion of the Findings.........................158
Early Entry and Matched Regular Entry
Childrens Performance.......................158
Teacher Beliefs and Student Performance......166
Developmental Practices and Student
Performance..................................168
Implications of the Findings.......................171
Early Entry Children.........................171
Teachers Perception of Children.............171
Teachers Espoused Developmental^
Appropriate Practices........................172
Is This What We Want?........................173
District Policy..............................176
Suggestions for Future Research..............179
APPENDIX...........................................181
A. Littleton Public Schools Early Entrance Policy
Procedures.........................................181
x


B. NAEYC Guidelines for Developmental^
Appropriate Practice................................185
C. Definition of Terms.................................190
D. Parent Informed Consent Letter......................194
E. Teacher Informed Consent Letter.....................196
F. Teacher Interview Guide.............................199
G. Past Teacher Survey.................................202
H. Codes Used for Data Collected.......................207
I. Teacher Interview Coded Questions...................220
J. Indicators of Developmental^ Appropriate
Practices from the Teacher Interviews...............224
K. Indicators of Developmentally Appropriate
Practices from the Teacher Surveys..................226
L. Profile of an Early Entry Child.....................228
M. Comparison of Coding of Teacher Interviews
Between Myself and Three Independent Coders........231
N. Comparison of Teacher Interviews with Surveys
on the Assignment of Teachers to
Developmentally Appropriate Categories .......234
REFERENCES...............................................235
xi


FOREWORD
As a parent I watched my young daughter, whose birth
date is September 7th, struggle through school. When she
entered kindergarten she was taller than her classmates
and was reading fluently. Her kindergarten, first grade, and
second grade teachers told me that she was very bright, but
that she was immature and did not complete her work. We
moved when she was in third grade, and considered keeping
her back a year so she would no longer be comparatively
immature. However, she was still a very tall child and was
functioning academically at or above grade level. We
decided to go ahead and put her into third grade.
My childs struggles continued throughout her
elementary, middle school, and high school years. She
graduated from high school this past year, more immature
Xll


than many of her peers. She had high ability, but ended her
high school with a grade point average of only 2.1.
Throughout my childs schooling, I wanted to know
what to think about her difficulties. I read the literature on
the youngness effect and on bright young children, but this
did not satisfy me. I did this study partially from a
personal standpoint of wanting some answers about my
young daughters lack of success in school.
Now, after studying young children in school, I know
more about the issues involved in young childrens schooling
and about how very complicated the issues are. I know now
why researchers can not answer the simple questions about
the age at which children should enter school or the impact
of early entrance on young children.
Xlll


CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM OF EARLY EISTTRY
Some school districts have early entrance programs
for kindergarten and first grade children to start school.
Most do not. Some research suggests that children entering
school younger have academic problems that last throughout
their school careers (Baer, 1958; Beattie, 1970; Forester,
1955; Hall, 1963; Reynolds, Birch, & Tuseth, 1962). School
personnel tend to be in favor of a firmly defined age-
grading system (Peterson & Ayabe, 1982; Robinson &
Weimer, 1990), yet, school entry age differs. Within the
United States the entry age varies, with the cut-off dates
varying from July 1 to January 1.
In recent years we have seen contradictory pressures
on the school system. Some families are anxious for their
children to enter public school early, while other families
intent on raising high achievers are "redshirting" (delaying
school entrance) for their children, especially their boys. In
addition, there are increasing numbers of children surviving
premature births whose chronological age and birthdates
allow them to be eligible for school, but who are
1


biologically less mature. These factors result in a broader
range of ages and abilities in the classroom (Robinson &
Weimer 1990).
What is readiness? Early entrance and how younger
children do in school are issues that are being discussed
across the nation (Boyd, 1989; Braga, 1969; Breznitz &
Tultsch 1989; Campbell, 1984; Davis, Trimble, & Vincent,
1980; Diamond, 1983; DiPasquale et al., 1980; Maddux,
1983; Obrzut, Nelson, & Obrzut, 1984; Olson, 1989; Peterson
& Ayabe, 1982; Sweetland & DeSimone, 1987). Researchers
look for the effects of readiness on later school outcome
measures. Policy makers debate readiness, frequently
advocating changes in the entrance age so that children are
older when they enter school. Teachers discuss readiness
as they rank students and make instructional and placement
decisions. Parents question readiness as they make
decisions about when to begin their children in
kindergarten.
The policy questions about early entrance to school
and readiness have also been topics of debate in the
Littleton School District, Colorado. This study investigates
the effects of the early entrance policy in Littleton Public
Schools on subsequent student success through grade five.
2


In 1988, the Board of Education in Littleton Public Schools
in Littleton, Colorado, revised the policy regarding
admission age requirements for kindergarten and first grade
to allow children to enter school early.
Early Admittance: Students whose birth dates fall
between September 16 and November 15 of the current
school year may be assessed by district personnel for
consideration of entrance into kindergarten/first
grade. Such assessment shall be a developmental
approach (cognitive, physical, emotional, social),
utilizing the Littleton Public School's assessment
process. The cost of the assessment shall be borne by
the parent or guardian. (Littleton Public School Policy
JECA, 1988, pp. 2-3)
Procedures were developed and approved in accordance with
the policy. (See Appendix A for a list of the procedures for
implementing the early admission policy.)
Littleton School District implemented an early
entrance program from 1988 through 1992. It was not
utilized from 1992-1994 because of school district budget
constraints. The Littleton Board of Education charged a
committee to study the effects of the early entrance policy
and to bring recommendations to the Board. There has been
controversy about the early entrance program. Some people
in the district support it; however, some teachers and
administrators feel that the program hurts, rather than
3


helps, children. The Assistant Superintendent of
Instruction encouraged me to undertake this study of early
admittance policy and practice to investigate the effects on
students.
Background of the Problem
In this country, chronological age has been used
almost exclusively as a criterion for initial school
entrance. The Research Division of the National Education
Association (1968) conducted a survey of 479 school
districts in the United States to determine the age that
school districts entered children for kindergarten.
The most frequently reported minimum entrance age
requirement was five years of age by December 1 and
the second most frequent mentioned age was five by
January 1. (p. 2)
In 1968, only seven states allowed local school
districts to determine the entrance age to school, and 30
states made provisions for districts to make exception to
admission policy (Wolfe & Kessler, 1987). Today, most
school districts in Colorado hold September 15th as the
cutoff date. However, several school districts in Colorado
have June or July cutoffs.
4


Elkind (1986) claimed that in the 1970's and 1980's
the changing life styles of American families; women in the
work force, divorce, and advanced technology resulted in
high pressured academic preschool programs and earlier
entrance age to school. Elkind (1986) concluded that the
entrance age varies from state to state and that it is
determined by economic, political, and social factors much
more than by what is best for children.
For many years people have been concerned about the
question of what is the best age at which to start children
in school. Parents and educators are particularly confused
about the effects of early entry into school. On the one
hand, parents (with educators approval) are putting young
children into school as early as possible; on the other hand,
parents (also with the support of educators) are
"redshirting" their children in order to gain an additional
year of maturation (Olson, 1989).
Most of the research on success of young children in
school compares standardized test scores and grades of the
younger children with the older children. The research
conducted in this fashion, called the youngness research,
overwhelmingly indicates that the older children do better
than the younger children in school. However, this research
5


is limited in its ability to address the question about the
appropriate age of school entry, because it simply compares
young childrens achievement test scores with older
childrens test scores. As Shepard and Smith (1986)
pointed out that any cutoff for entry to school, regardless
of when it is, will result in children whose birthdates are
close to the date to be nearly a year different in age.
Brayman and Piersel (1987), in a review of the
literature on early entrance, concluded the following:
In general, the literature is pessimistic about
academic achievement and social/emotional
adjustment of early entrants. The exception to this
seems to be when screening procedures are required
to identify children with exceptional ability and to
eliminate from early entrance children likely to have
adjustment difficulties, (p. 179)
There has been extensive research on the achievement
and social/emotional development of children selected to
enter school early. The research is mixed as to the effects
of early admission on selected children into school. Davis
et al.,(1980) wrote the following about the research
conducted on children selected to enter school early:
Research generally consists only of identifying groups
of gifted children who entered school early and
comparing their achievement levels with non-gifted
children who did not enter early. Equal or better
6


achievement by the gifted group is then taken to be
evidence that early entry is not harmful to the gifted.
While such research is instructive, it provides no
information about whether the achievement of such
early entering gifted children would be even higher if
they had entered later rather than early, (p. 16)
Hall (1963) reviewed the research on early entrance of
children in school and concluded the following:
Most investigators who advocated early entrance
ignored the fact that they were comparing the
achievement of a group from which pupils of high
ability have been removed. Further, the investigators
seemed little disturbed by the fact that, though the
early entrance group was carefully selected, the
achievement of the group generally was not
outstanding, but only a little above average, (p. 393)
The research overwhelmingly finds that teachers
oppose early entrance of children to school (Braga, 1969;
Gredler, 1980; Jackson, Famiglietti, & Robinson, 1981;
Newland, 1976; Peterson & Ayabe, 1982; Shepard & Smith,
1986). However, the research leaves the question
unanswered of whether teachers expectations and beliefs
about the relationship between childrens age and
performance influence how successful children are in
school.
7


Teacher Beliefs and Developmental^ Appropriate Practices
as Mediating VariablesThe literature does not indicate what
happens to early entry children in school. That might
explain the mixed
findings in the research. Teacher beliefs and practices are
important determinants of student experiences in school.
The Littleton policy emphasizes a developmental screening
process. The National Association for the Education of
Young Children (NAEYC, 1990) position statement on
developmental^ appropriate practices states that the
curriculum must address the needs of the individual child,
rather than requiring that the child conform to a pre-
existing set of expectations. The Association outlined
learning as being equally important among the areas of
physical, emotional, social, and cognitive development (p.
2). (See Appendix B for guidelines for developmental^
appropriate practices that support the NAEYC position.) The
Association advocates that the developmental
appropriateness has two dimensions: age appropriateness
and individual appropriateness.
1. Age appropriateness. Human development research
indicates that there are universal, predictable
sequences of growth and change that occur in children
during the first nine years of life. These predictable
8


changes occur in all domains of development-
physical, emotional, social, and cognitive. Knowledge
of typical development of children within the age span
served by the program provides a framework from
which teachers prepare the learning environment and
plan appropriate experiences.
2. Individual appropriateness. Each child is a unique
person with an individual pattern and timing of
growth, as well as individual personality, learning
style, and family background. Both the curriculum and
adults interactions with children should be
responsive to individual differences. Learning in
young children is the result of interaction between
the childs thoughts and experiences with materials,
ideas, and people. These experiences should match the
childs developing abilities, while also challenging the
childs interest and understanding, (p. 2)
Teachers attitudes are important for the success of
children who enter school early. Teacher attitude toward
early entry admission were found to be generally negative
(Braga, 1969; Gredler, 1980; Newland, 1976; Peterson &
Ayabe, 1982). Gredler (1980) suggested that teachers may
inadvertently discriminate against their younger students,
because of their attitude that the younger students are not
as ready to learn as the older students.
Focus of the Study
This study investigates the relationship among teachers
attitudes about early entry, their reported use of
9


developmental^ appropriate practices in their classrooms,
and the childrens success in school; comparing early
entrants with normal age children. The purpose of the study
is to investigate teacher beliefs and practices as mediating
variables affecting the success of early entry children in
school. This research examines the tension between the
readiness approach, where children are ready or not ready
for a fixed school program versus an approach where
schools are ready for the children, regardless of the
readiness levels.
The research literature on early entrance assumes
that all schools and teachers are alike. This research study
does not answer the question of what age children should
enter school, but it sheds light on the dynamics among local
school readiness policy, teacher beliefs about readiness,
teacher practices, and students success in school. This
study furthers the research in the area of the academic and
social/emotional effects on children who were screened and
selected to enter school early. It adds a new dimension to
the past research as it looks at young children in a broader
way than previous research has done.
This is a case study of an early entrance policy in one
district. Policies represent tradeoffs and compromises
10


(Dye, 1992). The study examines what the tradeoffs are for
an eariy entrance policy and under what conditions an early
entry choice may be made. It investigates whether the
decisions about early entry should include consideration of
the developmental appropriateness of the classroom
practices that the children will experience.
In contrast to the predominant research methods in
early entry studies that primarily use correlation designs,
this study uses several sources of data to investigate
relationships among the variables being investigated. The
data include school records and tests of the early entry and
matched pair children in the district; interviews with all
current teachers, and surveys of all past teachers that the
early entry children had. The design uses matched pairs of
students to compare the effects of early entry. The
analysis of teacher beliefs and practices, as mediating
variables, is exploratory rather than designed to confirm
the findings.
In contrast to a typical quantitative research design,
this investigation does not start with a preset hypothesis
that predicts relationships between an independent and a
dependent variable. The literature review of Chapter two
indicates that a simple quantitative casual approach does


not capture the complexity of the problem. Consequently,
this study takes a conceptually and methodologically
broader look at the impact of an early entrance policy.
Theoretical Rationale
There is considerable concern regarding childrens
readiness to enter school. The readiness issue gained
national attention when the President and the nations
governors adopted readiness as a national education goal;
by the year 2000, all children in America will start school
ready to learn (Southern Regional Educational Board, 1989).
When the issue of at what age children should enter
school is examined, readiness is relative to whatever cutoff
age is set. If the cutoff date for starting school is
December 1, then children bom in November are young
relative to those born in December in the same grade.
Children bom in November who are judged to be ready for
school will be the youngest in their cohort. The relative
effect is the same no matter where the cutoff is set.
Readiness may not be something within a child that
can be measured in a standardized manner and used
uniformly by decision makers. In the past, readiness was
perceived as a theoretical pull between two primary


concepts: readiness to learn and readiness for school
(Kagan, 1990). Readiness to learn, supported by
developmentalists, promoted the position that the internal
timing determines the childs readiness for school and that
it cannot be rushed. The child will at some point in time
automatically show signs of readiness for school (Gredler,
1992).
Readiness for school is seen as a construct that
embraces specific cognitive and linguistic skills (e.g.
identifying letters, numbers, and colors; counting and
copying a square). Readiness for school promoted a fixed
standard of physical, intellectual, and social development
to enable children to fulfill school requirements (Kagan,
1992).
Kagan (1992) claimed that the concept of
maturational readiness emerged from the readiness to learn
and readiness for school constructs. She described
maturational readiness as:
sanctioning a fixed school entry standard that
children should attain prior to school entry (from the
readiness-for-school construct) but also
acknowledging that children should be given time to
develop according to their individual time clocks
(from the readiness-to-learn construct), (p. 48)


Advocates of maturational readiness (Ames, 1967;
Donofrio, 1977; Gesell & Gesell, 1946; Halliwell, 1966;
Hedges, 1977; Moore & Moore, 1977; Uphoff & Gilmore,
1985) considered development to be a prerequisite for
learning. Premature instruction was discouraged until the
child was developmentally ready to learn. Educators from
the maturational model promoted keeping the child out of
school until ready, having higher entrance ages, retaining
the child, and using pre-readiness and transition rooms.
Readiness was perceived as a characteristic within the
individual child that developed as the child grew. Readiness
was seen as having a measurable capacity that could be
assessed and used to make educational decisions for
instruction and placement.
When examined empirically, teachers applied widely
discrepant judgments of readiness. A child in one class
might be deemed ready for school, while the same child in
another class would be considered not ready (Graue, 1990).
This study builds on the theory that learning precedes
development, advanced by Lev S. Vygotsky in the early
1930s. Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist and theoretician,
developed a socio-cultural theory of learning. Vygotskys
theory is a view of readiness that includes the childs
14


culture and the nature of the interaction between the child
and knowledgeable members of the culture (Gredler, 1992).
This theory suggests that children have at least two
developmental levels: their actual developmental level that
is established as a result of already completed
developmental cycles, and their potential level of
development. Vygotsky terms the area between the two as
zone of proximal development (Kagan, 1990, p. 274). This
theory suggests the idea that tasks can be learned in
collaboration with a more knowledgeable peer or adult to
reach new levels of development. Children grow into the
intellectual life around them and their development is
stimulated by learning. This view suggests that children,
as ever-ready learners, need to be in environments in which
their learning and development will be nurtured. This
construct of readiness transfers the focus of readiness
from whether children are ready for schools to whether
schools are ready for children.
Graue (1990) viewed readiness in terms of the related
policy issues. Graue reported that in the past, readiness
was seen as a characteristic of a child which needed to be
assessed to determine whether that child could benefit
from school experiences. In the last five years there has


been a shift in the way that readiness is represented in the
literature. Readiness is being discussed more in terms of
the policy implications and in terms of the teacher beliefs
that influence instructional and policy decision making.
This study does not view readiness and school entry
as an inherent characteristic. Readiness and school
entrance are viewed from a Vygotskian perspective.
Some teachers construct a belief that readiness is
something children develop and the only question is whether
students are ready for a fixed school program. Most of the
research views readiness that way. If this is the case, then
schools should not accommodate very young children until
they become ready on their own for school.
If readiness is instead constructed as something that
teachers develop in students through their classroom
practices, then schools should be ready for students at
whatever level they enter. If this is the case, then students
who are ready in some ways for school work can be
accommodated through developmental^ appropriate
practices.
Therefore, it is important to know if teachers see
readiness as their responsibility through developmentally
appropriate methods, or see readiness as the childs
16


responsibility. The teachers beliefs and their practices
become intervening variables, mediating the effects of
early entry on later school progress.
If, as the literature indicates, teachers believe that
early entrance is not good for students, they may not
provide the necessary developmentally appropriate
practices to make early entry successful. If some children
get developmentally appropriate methods and some do not,
this might account for the mixed results in the research on
early entry.
This study also builds on the work of Beal (1991),
which looked at the espoused beliefs of kindergarten
teachers concerning developmentally appropriate practices
and teacher behavior in the classroom. She compared the
teachers' beliefs to their teaching practices. She defined
developmentally appropriate curriculum as:
curriculum that matches the individual needs and
interests of the child; supports learning as an
interactive process between the child and the
environment; views the child as an active, self-
directed learner; and treats all areas of
development with equal importance, (p. 15)
Beal found consistency between the teachers' beliefs
about what is appropriate curriculum (as inferred from
their interview responses and the artifacts) and their


observed behavior in the classroom. These findings indicate
that one can use teacher beliefs about developmental^
appropriate practice as a legitimate proxy for teacher
practices. This study, therefore, examines teacher beliefs,
rather than using more costly observation of teacher
behavior, to investigate the relationship between
deveiopmentally appropriate classroom practices and
student achievement.
Research Questions
The following research questions are used to guide
this study:
1. What are the academic and social differences
between students who entered school early and other
students who entered school according to the state
approved date of September 15 in subsequent grades?
2. Is there a relationship between teachers espoused
beliefs concerning early entry and how successful the
children are in school?
3. Is there a relationship between teachers espoused
practices regarding deveiopmentally appropriate
instructional techniques and how successful the children
are in school?
18


Methods
This is a case study about the effects of one school
districts early entrance policy on 26 children who were
screened and selected to enter school early over a five-year
period. The study inspects the relationships among the
attitudes of teachers regarding early entry, their reported
use of the developmental^ appropriate practices in their
classrooms, and measures of success of the early entry
children in school.
The study utilizes a matched-pairs design to compare
children selected to enter school early with their grade
level peers. The effects of the school district policy is
investigated through teacher interviews, teacher surveys,
student testing, inspection of student records, and the
matched pairs comparison.
Implications of the Study
This study on the effects of a district's early entrance
policy is relevant to three audiences for the specific
reasons of practice, policy, and individual placement. First,
the implications are relevant to educators responsible for
determining practices and procedures for early entry of
children in schools. The study raises awareness of
administrators and teachers about the academic and


social/emotional effects on children who enter school early
so school personnel can make more informed decisions
regarding early entrance practices.
Second, this study helps policy makers understand the
implications of early entrance policies in their school
districts. It particularly helps the Littleton School District
look at the effects of its early entrance program on the
children who entered early under this policy, so that
decisions are made that most benefit children. This
research is applicable to other school districts that have or
are considering early entrance programs.
Third, this study helps educators make more informed
decisions about readiness by looking at the nature of school
programs. Educators can assess the school programs as a
factor in determining if the young children will be
successful in those programs.
Organization of the Thesis
Chapter one describes the trends in the early entry
field and the conceptual framework which guide this study.
Chapter two is the literature review, divided into five
sections: age of entry, criteria for school entrance, the
youngness effect, effects of early admission on selected
children, and attitudes about early admission. Chapter
20


three describes the methodology used in this research. It
describes how students were selected, and what and how
data were collected and analyzed. Chapter four contains the
results of the research. Chapter five explains the results
outlined in chapter four related to the broader literature
and the implications for further research. (Appendix C
provides a definition of terms used in this study.)
21


CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH
Chapter one briefly describes the trends in the early
entry field and the conceptual framework which guide this
study. To ground this study, a more in-depth discussion of
the issues related to early entrance and the trends that
have emerged are presented in this chapter. The field of
early entrance to school has diverse aspects which are
described in the following five sections of the review:
1. Age of Entry describes how states, school districts,
and parents determine at what age children should begin
school. This section discusses the conflicting beliefs that
children should be ready prior to entering school versus that
the school should be ready for the child.
2. Criteria for School Entrance describes the various
criteria that have been used to determine childrens
entrance into school and the effect of criterion on
children's success in school. The criteria described in this
section are chronological age, mental age, intelligence,
social and emotional development, gender, and physiological
development.
22


3. The Youngness Effect summarizes research comparing
the performance of the youngest and oldest children at
various points in their school careers.
4. Effects of Early Admission on Selected Children
explores what the literature says about how children who
were screened to enter school early do academically and
socially/emotionally.
5. Attitudes about Early Admission describes the
literature on teachers' and administrators' attitudes about
children entering school early.
For the purposes of this study, only studies reported
after the Bigalow (1934) study were reviewed. The
literature review was limited to studies undertaken in the
United States.
Age of Entry
A continuing issue in educational policy is the age at
which children should begin formal education. The age that
children enter school has varied across countries and within
the United States. Educational research on school entry age
is based on underlying views about childrens growth and
development. Attitudes about what age children should
enter school range on a continuum from a fixed date to
flexible entrance.
23


History of Entry Age
The question of what age children should start school
has been debated for many years. Normally, admission to
school in the United States is based on a specified
chronological age, with admission allowed only at the
beginning of the school year. However, there is no uniform
standard in the United States for the age of children to
enter school. The birthdate criterion varies from state to
state and from one school system to another. This practice
of basing school entrance on a specified chronological age
has been criticized for failing to take into account differing
rates of cognitive and social/emotional development among
children.
McGee and Hills (1978) conducted a historical study
and concluded that the time of entry into public schooling
was not well thought out. He stated that current school
entrance age practices came from tradition and were based
on the needs of the society at a given time. He found that
entry age, the school year, and the school day were set
pragmatically in the United States to meet the needs of an
agricultural society.
24


Devault, Ellis, and Vodicka (1957) described the
historic view of the Infant or Primary School, which
flourished after 1818, as being the first school to admit
children at age six (p. 12). Wolfe and Kessler (1987)
contended that the age admission standard set by the Infant
or Primary School continued virtually unchanged throughout
the next century (p. 3).
There has been a national trend to gradually raise the
entrance age for kindergarten and first grade. Reports by
Educational Research Service (1963, 1968, 1975), Freeman
(1990), Hampleman (1959), Shepard and Smith (1986), and
Wolfe and Kessler (1987) indicated a trend away from the
November/December birthdate deadline to an earlier
entrance date deadline.
In 1978, 25 states (48.9 percent) had a September/
October cut-off; by 1986, this number had grown to 33
states (64.7 percent) reporting an August/
September/ October deadline. (Wolfe & Kessler, 1987,
p. 3)
There is also a national trend in states allowing local
school districts to determine entrance age to school.
In 1978 only four states allowed local school
districts to determine the entrance age to school; in
1986, seven states made provisions or local district
determination. In 1978, 16 states (31 percent) made
provisions for exceptions to entrance age policy,
25


while in 1986, 36 states (70 percent) made provisions
for an exception to admission policy. (Wolfe &
Kessler, 1987, p. 4)
Delaying Entrance into School
Delaying children's entrance to school comes from the
developmentalist philosophical perspective that
chronological age is not sufficient to determine whether
children are ready for successful school experiences.
Children's admission is delayed until the children are ready
to perform. When a child is judged not ready for school, the
parent elects to delay the child's entrance to school in order
to give the child the advantage of age and maturity. This
practice is called redshirting.
The practice of delaying entrance to school began with
the belief that many children are over placed in school,
meaning they have not reached a readiness stage of
cognitive development for the grade level in which they are
placed. According to Ames (1967), from one-third to one-
half of the children now attending primary and elementary
schools may be over placed. Ames advocated that if a child
is not ready, postponement or retention is the preferred
solution.
26


In a review of the research on school admission
Hedges (1977) wrote,
It is doubtful how anyone could read through this mass
of research and conclude other than that
approximately half of our youngsters are over placed
for the grade they are in and would have benefited by
entering later, (p. 117)
Educational researchers that hold this view (Ames,
1967, 1974, 1986; Donofrio, 1977; Halliwell, 1966; Hedges,
1977; Moore & Moore, 1977; Uphoff & Gilmore, 1985) view
school readiness from a maturational view. The
maturational oriented people, who advocate delaying
entrance to school, believe that the child should be delayed
in entering school until the child is developmental^ ready
for the demands of formal schooling.
Entrance at a Given Age
Advocates of enrolling children at a given age believe
that the school should be ready for the child, not that the
child must fit into the school. This perspective assumes
that a child is always ready to learn and that the learning
environment must be appropriate for the child. These
advocates (Gray, 1985; Gredler, 1992; Hitz & Richter, 1993;
Kagan, 1992; Meisels, 1992; Shepard & Smith, 1986) write
27


that the school must take children where they are and meet
their individual needs in a developmental^ appropriate way.
In a review of research and policy options, Gray
(1985) concluded the following:
* Chronological age is a useful criterion for school entry
because it clearly states the obligations of the government
for the provision of educational services for its citizens
and it is administratively convenient.
* Although much of the research literature denotes higher
mean achievement for older children than for younger
children in the primary grades, satisfactory achievement
was found for the majority of younger children.
* Many handicapped children who are in need of specialized
educational services are not served until they enter school.
Raising the entry age would increase the delay of provision
of such services.
* Disadvantaged children, who are in special need of early
educational services, would be hampered in skill
development by delay in entrance age.
* Overall the research literature does not support raising
the entrance age (pp. 10-11).
When people advocate that students entrance be
delayed a few months to give time to mature they forget
28


that those few months equate to nine to twelve months for
some children.
Up to a year's delay for a child attending a good
preschool and/or having other enriching experiences
might not be of critical importance. However, for
special needs children (those from environments
which are deficient in the socialization and cognitive
experiences of more affluent children, children with
limited-English-speaking parents and handicapped
children), a year's delay would further increase the
discrepancy between them and their more advantaged
peers (Gray, 1985, p. 10).
Researchers advocating that children be accepted into
school based on their legal age say that denying children
entry to school for reasons other then age have no apparent
benefit. They say that schools should meet the differing
needs of the children, refuting the belief that children must
be ready for the school program.
Shepard and Smith (1986) wrote that the youngness
problem is relative, not absolute.
Because the youngness problem is relative, raising the
entrance age would provide only a temporary solution
to the perceived problem. In a district with a
September 1 cutoff, children with summer birthdays
are deficient compared to their classmates. If the
district responds by adopting a July 1 cut-off, in a
short time normative comparisons will readjust and
children with May and June birthdays will be at risk.
(Shepard & Smith, p. 82)
29


Age of Entry Summary
Parents, educators, and researchers encouraged the
trend for states and local school districts to require that
children be older upon entrance to school, based upon the
belief that older children are more successful in school and
younger children have more difficulty in school. Others
advocated that raising the age of entrance to school would
simply make a different group of children the youngest and
would not solve the problem. These educators believe that a
child is always ready to learn and that the learning
environment must be appropriate for the child.
Criteria for School Entrance
Many studies have been conducted on the various
criteria for early entrance into school and the effects of
the criteria on the success of children entering school.
These criteria have included chronological age, mental age,
intelligence, social and emotional development, gender, and
physiological development.
Chronological Age
Chronological age has been the major criterion used in
admitting children to school. This practice of admittance
30


to school is to simply enroll the child when the child
reaches a certain age. The primary strength of school entry
on chronological age is that it is equitable, is
administratively easy and is clear cut. It cannot be
considered subjective, arbitrary, or discriminatory.
Kagan (1990) concluded that readiness should provide
equity of access.
Chronological age should be used as the primary entry
standard for young children. .It is the only legally and
ethically defensible criterion for determining school
entry, (p. 276)
Hedges (1977) summarized the research on
chronological age as the criterion for admittance for normal
children, (excluding the disabled and the gifted children).
1. It remains the most commonly used criterion and it
promises to remain the most commonly used criterion
for some time. By itself, it is not adequate to insure
the parent that his/her child will succeed in first
grade.
2. It is only a very general indicator that suggests
that older "normal" children will, given school tasks,
tend to do better with those tasks than they would
have a year earlier.
3. It is administratively the most straightforward
and most objective criterion in the sense that it is
discrete and measurable.
4. It does not resolve all the administrator's
admission problems.


5. In all cases additional criteria other than age
should be used in some combination in making
individual decisions about the child.
6. It is crucial to make an individual decision in those
schools in which the child must fit into and adapt to
the school rather than the schools being prepared to
adapt to him.
7. It is unwise for school administrators to rely so
heavily on this one single criterion because the
evidence is that many children encounter difficulty
from being entered too young, (p. 25)
Some educators (Braga, 1971; Goodlad, 1955; Hedges,
1977; Peterson & Ayabe, 1982) held that a policy based on
entrance age alone overlooked individual differences and
discriminated against exceptional children. There is a
difference in opinion among researchers as to what the
magic cut-off date should be that children enter school.
Most researchers agree that age alone should not be the
criteria for school entrance. Regardless of when the cut off
date is for school entrance, there will still be a full year of
difference in chronological age between the younger and the
older children.
Mental Age
Some researchers advocate mental age as a more
reliable criteria for entrance into school than chronological
32


age. Hedges (1977) describes the implications for entering
children based upon mental age.
If the findings and conclusions about a mental age of
six and a half are accepted as reasonable, the
implications are startling. Brought into direct
question is the current policy in the majority of
states of admitting children at age six or younger.
The child with an IQ of 100 would have to be fully
six and a half years old by September of the year in
which he is admitted in order to have a mental age of
six and a half. All children with IQs less than 100
would have to be more than six and a half years old to
have such a mental age. . To be on the safe side, all
parents with children in this normal range but
having less than 100 IQ, should enter their children a
year later than the common entry age of 6 years, by
January 1. On the other end of the IQ continuum, the
parent with a child having an IQ of 115 and a mental
age of six years and six months could probably enter
the child as young as five years and eight months of
age without undue concern, other factors such as
emotional, physical and social development being
reasonable normal, (p. 28)
Some researchers (Bigalow, 1934; Dickinson & Larson,
1963; Hampleman, 1959; Hedges, 1977; Mueller, 1955;
Stake, 1960) recommended a minimum mental age of six and
one half for children to start school. Ahr (1967) suggested
that when looking at early admission for high ability
children an extrapolated, estimated mental age of seven


years should be used. Hedges (1977) summarized the
research about the criterion of mental age.
1. Half a century of research has reported mental age
as a significant factor to be included in determining
the readiness of a child for entry to first grade.
2. By itself, mental age is not sufficient to assure
the parent that his/her child will succeed in first
grade.
3. To maximize the probability of success in first
grade, the mental age should be 6 years, 6 months or
more.
4. Those school systems which are admitting children
who are 6 years old by January 1 of the academic year
in which they are admitted, are admitting more than
half of the children in the school population when
their mental ages are less than the recommended 6
years, 6 months. This is risky; it means children will
encounter failure who could have had a successful
experience.
5. In all instances, criteria other than mental age
should also be considered in combination in the
making of individual decisions.
6. In school systems which administer intelligence
tests, mental age is a straightforward and reasonably
objective criterion, (p. 28)
Intelligence
Intelligence has been used to predict academic
success. Bigelow (1934) did a study on how the IQ of a
child is predictive of the child's success in school. The
study concluded that children who were below six years at
34


the beginning of first grade and had an IQ below 110 had a
small chance for success in school. Children between the
ages of six years and six years four months with the same
IQ had a high chance to succeed (p.187). Other researchers
(Dickinson & Larson, 1963; Nimnicht, Sparks, & Mortenson,
1963) had similar findings of students with higher IQs
being more successful in school than children with lower
IQs. However, Halliwell (1966) found indications that very
bright children with IQs over 130 did not appear to gain
from early school entrance. Hedges (1977) described IQ as a
criterion for admission to school.
1. IQ is an inadequate criterion by itself. .
2. Despite the criticism in recent years about the
discriminating characteristics of IQ tests, IQ remains
one indicator of success. .
3. Of children with the same IQ, the somewhat older
child has the advantage in mental age and in
physiological development.
4. Other things being equal, the truly gifted children
will do better than the "regular* or "normal" children.
At the same time, when compared against themselves,
had they waited another year, the underage children
who are very bright are apt not to be a full year
farther along in achievement.
5. IQ is an administratively feasible criterion.
However, because of its labeling effects, IQ is not as
desirable a criterion as mental age. (p. 33)
35


Social and Emotional Development
Social and emotional development is related to
success in school. Some researchers (Broward County,
1974; Devault et al., 1957; Hedges, 1977; Hemphill, 1953;
King, 1955) contended that while the younger children may
do well academically, they may have more social and
emotional problems than children who start school at an
older age. Hedges (1977) summarized the research on social
and emotional criteria for school entrance.
1. Some young, bright children do succeed with early
entry, in their adjustment as well as their
achievement.
2. As the entry age is lowered, the odds increase that
the child will have more difficulty than he would have
had at a somewhat older age.
3. Careful and intensive screening on all factors is a
must to maximize the probability that those entered
early will be able to cope.
4. IQ by itself is not a guarantee that the child is
ready socially or emotionally.
5. The kind of program the child is going to be placed
into is a significant factor to be considered in early
entry.
6. Children evidence behaviors that if detected,
enable their reassignment or withdrawal from the
school program.
7. The age relative to the ages of the others is a
factor, (p. 57)
36


Gender
Studies indicate that boys develop later than girls
(Dewitt, 1961; Gredler, 1980; Hall, 1963; Moore & Moore,
1977). The debate among educators has long been whether
the entrance age to go to school should be later for boys
than for girls. A number of researchers (Ames, 1967; Baer,
1958; Hall, 1963; Hedges, 1977; Pauley, 1951) advocated an
older entrance age for males as a solution for the differing
maturation rate between males and females. Some
researchers (Braga, 1971; Clark, 1959; Peterson & Ayabe,
1982; Worchester, 1956) claimed that having different
entrance dates for males and females would be unwise.
Hedges (1977) summarized the research on the
criterion of gender in student entrance to school.
1. Sex is a necessary criterion, but not a sufficient
one.
2. There are differences in rate of development of
boys and girls, differences that are significant at age
six. These differences tend to diminish over time so
that somewhat after puberty, they have disappeared.
3. We are not sure how much of the differences that
do exist are cultural against genetic.
4. The overlap between the sexes is great but the
variation within each sex is even greater.
5. Any arbitrary cutoff date, older for boys than girls,
would discriminate against some boys and also
against some girls.
37


6. The incidence of reading problems in the
elementary grades seems consistently to be higher for
boys than for girls, (p. 40)
Physiological Development
Some people advocate that physiological development
should be considered in admitting children to school early.
Hedges (1977) summarized the research on physiological
development as a criterion for entrance into school.
1. Children develop normally at vastly different
heights and weights and the significance of these
outside of how they effect the child's peers . have
little or nothing to do with his reading readiness.
2. There is evidence that both development of wrist
bone and stage in teething are related to the total
developmental pattern of the child.
3. There is evidence of a developmental pattern in the
facility with which the eyes can deal with the printed
word.
4. As with the previously discussed criteria, by
themselves these factors do not add up to a
physiological age index that can be used with
assurance, (p. 48)
Summary of Criteria for School Entrance
A number of criteria used to determine readiness for
children to enter school have been investigated, including
the following: chronological age, mental age, intelligence,
social and emotional development, gender, and physiological
38


development. Each of the criteria was found to have a
relationship to school success.
Some researchers advocated that no single criterion
is a reliable indicator of success by itself. Dewitt (1961)
held that each individual must be considered in the decision
to enter a child early or later. The research literature
indicated that it is necessary to look at the combination of
criteria in making educational decisions about when a child
is ready to enter school.
The Youngness Effect
There is considerable research comparing the
academic performance of younger children with their older
peers, called the youngness effect. The literature looks
at retention referrals, special education referrals, and
gifted referrals of the younger children compared with their
older peers.
Student Academic Achievement
Research has been conducted comparing the
performance of the youngest and oldest children at various
points in their school careers. Most research on the success
of young children in school compares standardized test
scores and grade scores of the younger children with the


older children. This research, called the youngness
research, overwhelmingly indicates that older children
perform better academically in school than their younger
classmates (Beattie, 1970; Bigalow, 1934; Carroll, 1963;
Crasser, 1991; Davis et al., 1980; Green & Simmons, 1962;
Gullo & Burton, 1992; Hall, 1963; Halliwell & Stein, 1964;
King, 1955). The research also indicates that the youngest
children have more social/emotional difficulties than their
older classmates (Broward County, 1974; Devault et al.,
1957; Hemphill, 1953; King, 1955).
Some researchers (Langer, Kalk, & Searls, 1984; Miller
& Norris, 1967; Smith & Shepard, 1987) claimed that the
differences between the youngest and oldest students were
not as large as educators believed, and the gap usually
disappeared after third grade.
Smith and Shepard (1987) found that the youngest
child in a classroom achieves slightly lower than the oldest
child (p. 133). Their analysis showed that the oldest and
youngest children were separated by about nine percentile
ranks on first grade tests, but by third grade oldest and
youngest were indistinguishable.
Brayman and Piersel (1987) in a review of the
literature on early entrance concluded the following:
40


In general, the literature is pessimistic about
academic achievement and social/emotional
adjustment of early entrants. The exception to this
seems to be when screening procedures are required
to identify children with exceptional ability and to
eliminate from early entrance children likely to
have adjustment difficulties, (p. 179)
Retention Referrals
Researchers have frequently used retention as an
indicator of academic success. The research is fairly
consistent in indicating that the younger child is more
prone to being retained than the older child (Bigalow, 1934;
Hall, 1963; Langer et al., 1984; Olson, 1989; Uphoff, 1985;
Weinstein, 1968-69).
In fall 1982, 22.6 percent of the Summer children
were retained in the first grade as compared to only
12 percent of the Fall children. The next year, 7.5
percent of the Summer children failed to be promoted
out of the second grade as compared to 5.4 percent of
the Fall children. In fall 1986, 1.3 percent of the
previous year's fifth grade Summer children were not
promoted to Grade Six. Among Fall children the
comparable failure rate was .7 percent. (Olson, 1989,
p. 5)
Retention research needs to be evaluated with caution
because retention is susceptible to teacher biases.
Retention decisions are influenced by the opinions of
teachers who might either expect younger children to have
41


more difficulty in school or decide not to retain a child who
is older (Gredier, 1980; Langer et al., 1984; Shepard &
Smith, 1986; Uphoff & Gilmore, 1985; Weinstein, 1968-69;
Wolfe & Kessler, 1987).
Shepard and Smith (1986) conducted a study on
teacher attitudes toward retention. They found that 68
percent of kindergarten teachers surveyed said that they
considered age important in recommending retention or
promotion, assuming that other factors were the same.
Special Education Referrals
Researchers (Diamond, 1983; DiPasquale et al., 1980;
Elkind, 1983; Maddux, 1983; Swartz & Black, 1981;
Weinstein, 1968-69) looked at special education referrals
in younger students as compared to older students and found
that younger students were more often referred for special
education services. Shepard and Smith (1986) studied
children who were labeled learning disabled and found that
only 43 percent were validly identified.
Younger children within a grade can be explained by
teacher expectations and the slightly lower average
achievement of the youngest children. . Given the
widely acknowledged fallibility of LD label, there is
no reason to believe that children who are youngest in
their grade develop real handicaps. (Shepard & Smith,
1986, p. 80)


The research is not conclusive as to whether the younger
children truly have learning disabilities or if the Learning
Disability label is given erroneously
Gifted/Talented Referrals
Research has been conducted to examine the
relationship between entrance age and gifted referrals.
Maddux (1983) examined a group of 188 children who had
been labeled as gifted in order to determine whether there
was a correlation of entrance age and gifted placement. It
was found that over 60 percent of gifted children were
entered school late. In Robinson and Weimars research
(1990) it was concluded that young children in a grade are
less often nominated for special programs designed for
academically gifted children (p. 3).
Summary of the Youngness Effect
The research overwhelmingly indicates that older
children perform better academically in school than their
younger classmates. However, some researchers found the
margin of difference in academic performance between the
youngest and oldest students was not as large as some
educators believed. The range of the difference found was
about nine percentile points and the gap usually disappeared


after third grade. The youngest children tend to exhibit
more social/emotional difficulties than their older
classmates.
The research consistently indicates that the younger
child is more likely to be retained than the older child.
However, the research is not conclusive as to whether the
retentions were due to the childrens lack of academic
success or a result of teacher bias regarding young children.
Many researchers claimed that there were more
special education referrals in younger students as compared
to older students. However, the research is not conclusive
as to whether the younger children truly have more learning
disabilities or if the learning disability label is given
erroneously.
Minimal research was conducted to compare the
relationship between entrance age with gifted referrals.
The older children are more likely to be recommended to
gifted programs than the younger children.
Effects of Early Admission on Selected Children
There is research on comparisons of younger and older
children (called the youngness research), and there is other
research that specifically looks at the children who were
44


selected to enter school early. The research findings differ
for the two different subjects of study.
Academic Achievement and Social/Emotional Development
There has been extensive research on the academic
achievement and social/emotional development of children
selected to enter school early. The research is mixed as to
the effects of early admission on selected children into
school.
Many researchers claimed mentally advanced children,
who have been properly screened for early entrance, rated
as well as, or better than, their classmates academically
(Ahr, 1967; Alexander & Skinner, 1980; Birch, 1954; Braga,
1969; Devault et al., 1957; Hebbeler, 1983; Hobson, 1962;
Holbrook, 1962; Marwell & Marwell, 1983; McCandless,
1957; Miller, 1957, 1962; Monderer, 1953; Mueller, 1955;
Obrzut et al., 1984; Ogletree, 1973; Pennau, 1981; Reynolds
et al., 1962; Worchester, 1956).
Some researchers (Baer, 1958; Beattie, 1970;
Forester, 1955; Hall, 1963; Mawhinney, 1964; Montz, 1985;
Weiss, 1960) found that mentally advanced children who
enter school at a younger age encounter academic
disadvantages. Some researchers (Hall, 1963; Hebbeler,
45


1983; Holbrook, 1962; Ogletree, 1973) found that bright
children who entered school early had more
social/emotional problems than older students.
Oevault et al., (1957) and Mawhinney (1964) looked at
the comparison of younger with older childrens leadership
capabilities. They found the underage children did not show
the leadership qualities that older children showed.
Although many researchers came to the conclusion
that early entrance was positive for the children; after
closer inspection, it becomes evident that much of the
research considered performing average as being
successful. This raises the question of whether high-
ability children performing average can be viewed as
successful.
Hall (1963) reviewed the research on early entrance
of children in school.
Most investigators who advocated early entrance
ignored the fact that they were comparing the
achievement of a selected group with the achievement
of a group from which pupils of high ability had been
removed. Further, the investigators seemed little
disturbed by the fact that, though the early entrance
group was carefully selected, the achievement of the
group generally was not outstanding, but only a little
above average, (p. 393)
46


Davis et al. (1980) wrote
Research generally consists only of identifying groups
of gifted children who entered school early and
comparing their achievement levels with non-gifted
children who did not enter early. Equal or better
achievement by the gifted group is then taken to be
evidence that early entry is not harmful to the
gifted. While such research is instructive, it provides
no information about whether the achievement of such
early entering gifted children would be even higher if
they had entered later rather than early, (p. 16)
Some studies (Alexander & Skinner, 1980; Baer, 1958;
Birch, 1954; Braga, 1969; Hobson, 1948; 1962; Marwell &
Marwell, 1983; Miller, 1957; Monderer, 1953) indicated that
the academic achievement of the younger children increased
with the progression through the grades. Some early
entrants have adjustment problems in the primary grades,
but the problems disappear in the upper grades.
Hitz and Richter (1993) raised the question of if early
entrance for the developmental^ advanced children
promotes inequity.
Children who have had the best preschool experience-
most likely those who come from middle- and upper-
income homes are the most likely to meet the
readiness criteria and enter school early, giving them
yet another and patently unfair- advantage, (p. 11)
From the early entrance research, it is apparent that
there is no clear-cut answer regarding the effects that
47


early admission to school has on selected children's
academic and social/emotional adjustment. The research
conducted on early admission into school basically consists
of studies which compare early entrants with their
unselected classmates or studies which compare early
entrants with regular entrants who are matched on one or
more variables.
Research with children carefully selected for early
entry, produces much more optimistic expectations. A
number of reviews of the literature have concluded
that selected early entrants tend to equal or surpass
their classmates in achievement and to equal them in
adjustment, although some find hints of mild
adjustment problems at the very beginning. . To be
sure, only a few studies have compared early entrants
with non-accelerated children matched for ability and
no one has ever done (or probably ever will do) a
random-assignment study. (Robinson & Weimer, 1990,
p. 3)
Summary on Effects of Early Admission on Selected
Children
The early entrance research is mixed as to the effects
of early admission on selected childrens academic and
social/emotional adjustments. Many researchers found that
mentally advanced children who had been properly screened
for early entrance rated as well as, or better, than their
older classmates. Some researchers found that mentally
48


advanced children who entered school at a younger age
encountered academic and social/emotional disadvantages
and did not show the leadership capacities that older
children showed. The research indicates that the academic
achievement increases and adjustment problems decrease
with the progression through the grades.
The majority of research studies compared early entry
children with regular entry children regardless of ability.
Only a few studies matched the children for ability. Most of
the research defined successful early entrants as those
children performing academically at the average level.
Attitudes About Early Admission
The literature suggests that teacher and
administrator attitudes may effect the success of early
entrance children in school. Teacher and administrator
attitudes regarding early entrance to school are examined.
Teacher Attitudes
Braga (1969) surveyed teachers to investigate their
attitudes toward early admission. Teacher attitudes
toward early entry admission were found to be generally
negative. A large percent of teachers did not favor early
admission. The teachers were requested to evaluate the
49


children in their classes on criteria of success in school.
Whereas the results from the teacher rating indicated no
significant difference between the early entrant students
and their classmates, the same teachers claimed that the
children admitted early did not adjust well academically,
socially, or emotionally. Braga (1969) concluded,
'Obviously, the teachers' attitudes toward early admission
were based on mis-conceptions rather than fact" (p. 44).
Gredler (1980) suggested that teachers may
inadvertently discriminate against the younger students
because of their attitude that the young students are not as
ready to learn as the older students and by structuring
instruction to the needs of the older students.
One of the main difficulties the younger child meets
in a North American school is the teacher's
expectation that because he is younger and male he
automatically is going to have difficulties in school. .
Changing the reference group or the cut-off date to
require children to be older when entering school
would merely change the group which is the
youngest. If teachers were to continue to act on their
expectation that the younger children have problems, a
new group of "younger entrants" would become the
problem group. (Gredler, 1980, p. 8)
The belief that teachers oppose early entry of children is
supported by other researchers (Jackson, Famiglietti, &
50


Robinson, 1981; Newland, 1976; Peterson & Ayabe, 1982;
Shepard & Smith, 1986).
Administrator Attitudes
Robinson and Weimer (1990) concluded from their
research that administrators are basically opposed to the
practice of allowing children to enter school early. This
finding was supported by Hamalainen (1952); Mawhinney
(1964); Newland (1976); and Proctor, Feldhusen, and Black
(1986).
Summary of Attitudes on Early Admission
The research overwhelmingly supports the premise
that teachers oppose early entrance of children to school.
The research indicates that administrators support a
uniform entrance age to school. The question that is not
answered is, do teachers' negative attitudes toward early
entrance effect the success of children who enter school
early?
Review of Literature Summary
Educational research on school entry age is based on
underlying views about child growth and development.
Comparisons of entry age requirements indicate a national


trend by states and local school districts for children to be
older upon entrance to kindergarten and first grade. Some
educators contended that raising the age of entrance will
simply make a different group of children the youngest.
A number of criteria are used to determine readiness
for children to enter school, including the following:
chronological age, mental age, intelligence, social and
emotional development, gender, and physiological
development. Each of the criteria was found to have a
relationship to school success. Some researchers advocate
that no single criterion is a reliable indicator of success by
itself, resulting in the necessity to look at a combination of
criteria in making educational decisions about when a child
is ready to enter school.
Research (called the youngness research) comparing
the performance of the youngest and oldest children
overwhelmingly indicates that older children perform
better academically in school than their younger
classmates. Some researchers found that the margin of
difference in academic performance between the youngest
and oldest students was not as large as some educators
believed and the gap usually disappeared after third grade.
52


The youngest children tend to exhibit more social/emotional
difficulties than their older classmates.
The research consistently indicates that the younger
child is more likely to be retained and/or referred for
special education than the older child. However, the
research is not conclusive as to whether this is because of
childrens lack of academic success or a result of teacher
bias regarding young children. Older children are more
likely to be recommended to gifted programs than younger
children.
The early entrance research on children selected to
enter school early provides no clear-cut answer regarding
the effects of early admission to school on selected
childrens academic and social/emotional adjustment. Many
researchers found that mentally advanced children who had
been properly screened for early entrance rated as well as,
or better than, their older classmates. Some researchers
found that mentally advanced children who entered school
at a younger age encountered academic and social/emotional
disadvantages and did not show the leadership capacities
that older children showed. The research indicates that the
academic achievement increases and adjustment problems
decrease with the progression through the grades. Most of
53


the research defines successful early entrants as those
children performing academically at the average level.
The research overwhelmingly supports the premise
that teachers oppose early entrance of children to school.
Administrators support a uniform entrance age to school.
The majority of research studies compared early entry
children with regular entry children regardless of ability.
Only a few studies matched the children for ability.
Research generally consists only of identifying groups
of gifted children who entered school early and
comparing their achievement levels with non-gifted
children who did not enter early. Equal or better
achievement by the gifted group is then taken to be
evidence that early entry is not harmful to the gifted.
While such research is instructive, it provides no
information about whether the achievement of such
early entering gifted children would be even higher if
they had entered later rather than early. (Davis et al.,
1980, p. 16)
Robinson and Weimer (1990) concluded that only a few
studies compared early entrants with non-accelerated
children matched for ability (p. 3).
54


CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This study is guided by three research questions and
develops multiple sources of data to answer the questions.
The design focuses on matched pairs of students in one
school district. The data include student achievement,
information from school records, teacher interviews, and
teacher surveys.
Research Questions
This study investigates the effects of a school
district's early entrance policy on children who were
screened and selected to enter school early (i.e. less than
five years of age on September 15 of their kindergarten
year). The investigation addresses the policy issue of early
entrance into school and looks at the social and educational
implications of such a policy. It inspects the relationship
among the attitudes of teachers regarding early entry, their
reported use of the developmentally appropriate practices
in their classrooms, and measures of success of the early
entry children in school compared with matched children
who entered school at the regular age.


The following research questions are used to guide
this study:
1. What are the academic and social differences
between students who entered school early and other
students who entered school according to the state
approved date of September 15 in subsequent grades?
2. Is there a relationship between teachers espoused
beliefs concerning early entry and how successful the
children are in school?
3. Is there a relationship between teachers espoused
practices regarding developmentaliy appropriate
instructional techniques and how successful the children
are in school?
Research Design
The research design includes a matched-pairs
investigation. Children who were screened and selected to
enter school early from 1988 to 1990 were matched based
on gender, grade level, current teacher, socioeconomic
status, and school. In this study the population of 25 early
entry children are matched with 25 of their grade
equivalent peer group.
56


The literature review of Chapter two substantiated
that focusing on a quantitative approach alone to assess
students' success in school results in mixed findings.
Consequently, this study takes a broader look at the impact
of the different facets of an early entrance policy. The
study includes a combination of qualitative and quantitative
research methods. The structure and focus of the design are
based on the research questions.
The data collected were information on:
- the students academic achievement
- the students social skills
- the students behavior tendencies
* the students leadership abilities
- the students maturity levels
- the teachers perceptions regarding early entry
- the teachers reported developmental^ appropriate
practices
The data were collected from the following sources:
- student Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised
scores
- student cumulative records
- current teacher interviews
- past teacher surveys
57


The data collected were compiled as a triangulation
method to verify the validity of information from each
source. The data included in the triangulation included:
teacher interviews, teacher surveys, achievement
screenings, and the review of student documentation
records.
In order to obtain standardized, current data on the
academic achievement levels of the students who were
selected to enter school early and on their matched pairs,
the Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised (WRAT R) was
administered. Data were collected from the students
cumulative records to obtain Iowa Test of Basic Skills
(ITBS) scores and report card data in order to get a historic
perspective on the childrens achievement in school.
Recommendations for retention, placement in
gifted/talented classes, and placement in Chapter and
special education programs were investigated.
The researcher interviewed the current teachers of
the early entry students and the matched students to
collect information about the children, to solicit teachers'
attitudes toward early entrance, and to learn about
teachers' espoused developmental practices in the
classroom. The teacher interviews provided information
58


about the students academic achievement, social skills,
leadership abilities, behavior tendencies, and maturity
levels.
All past teachers of the students who were selected
to enter school early were surveyed to obtain a picture of
the childrens total educational experiences. Data collected
in the surveys of the past teachers provided information on
the teachers assessment of the early entry childrens
academic achievement, social skills, leadership abilities,
behavior tendencies, and maturity levels. The data also
provided information on the teachers' attitudes toward
early entrance and the teachers' perceptions of how their
instruction reflects developmental appropriate practices.
The Research Setting
This is a case study of one district investigating the
effects of the school districts early entrance policy on the
students who entered school early. Littleton School
District in Colorado was the setting for the research. The
district had an early entrance policy in place from 1988
through 1991. By focusing on a single Colorado school
district, institutional procedures are limited and
consistent.
59


Littleton is a first ring suburb south of Denver,
Colorado. The school district consists of 28 square miles
located in Arapahoe County. It is a mid-sized district
ranking 11th in student population of the 176 Colorado
school districts, with an enrollment for 1994-95 of 15,700
students. The ethnic distribution is as follows: Asian- 3%;
African-American- 1%; Native-American- .75%; Hispanic-
4%; White- 91%.
Littleton Public Schools has 22 schools. There are 15
elementary schools which house grades kindergarten
through grade five. There are four middle schools servicing
grades six through eight. There are three high schools in
Littleton Public Schools servicing grades nine through
twelve. Special services are provided for 1,950 gifted/
talented students, 1,299 special education students, and 95
English-as-a-Second-Language students.
Littleton Public School has a staff with a high level of
experience and postgraduate education. The 960 teaching
staff and 650 support staff are led by an administrative
staff of 56.5. Over 64% of the districts educators have
earned masters degrees or above and the average teaching
experience is 16 years.
60


Students in Littleton Public Schools perform well
overall compared to state and national norm-referenced
tests and consistently score in the 60th and 70th
percentiles. 85% of Littleton Public School's graduates go
on to higher education.
The Research Subjects
Goetz and LeCompte (1984) suggest that to select
research subjects, the researcher identify the relevant
population for investigation using criteria based on a
theoretical base or some other consideration (p. 64). The
population of children selected in this study consists of all
children who were identified in the district screening as
ready to enter school early, who entered school early, and
who are still in the district. I chose to focus on the early
entrance children in one district for this study so that I
could investigate the effects of the early entrance policy in
a more extensive way than previous research was
conducted.
A narritive summary of the early entrance program in
Littleton Public School from 1988 through 1991 is as
follows:


Students entering in year one. In 1988, parents of 14
children applied for early entry into school. Only 9 of the
children attended the week-long district observation class
that was used to observe the children to determine if they
were ready to enter school early. Of the 9 children who
attended the observation class, 6 children were approved
for early entry. Of the 6 children who entered school early
in 1988, 5 are still enrolled in the district, but only 3 of
them are included in this study. The 2 who entered early
but are not in the study, are not included because
permission could not be obtained from the parents of the
children, and the current teachers of the children would not
participate in interviews.
Students entering in year two. In 1989, parents of 21
children applied for early entry into school. Four children
were denied entry to the observation class based on lower
ratings on the Seattle Parent Questionnaire. Four other
children were withdrawn from consideration prior to the
observation class. One of the children who was withdrawn
ended up entering school early anyway. Of the 13 children
who attended the observation class, 5 children were
approved for early entry into kindergarten and 5 children
were approved for early entry into first grade. In October, 1
62


students parents chose to put their child back from first
grade into kindergarten. Of the 10 children who entered
school early in 1989, 4 are still enrolled in the district and
all 4 are included in this study.
Students entering in year three. In 1990, parents of 24
children applied for early entry into school. Two
children were denied entry to the observation class based
on lower ratings on the Seattle Parent Questionnaire.
Parents of 2 other children withdrew their applications
prior to the observation class. Of the 20 children who
attended the observation class, 12 children were approved
for early entry into kindergarten and 3 children were
approved for early entry into first grade. Of the 15 children
who entered school early in 1990, 8 are still enrolled in the
district and all 8 are included in this study.
Students entering in year four. In 1991, parents of 21
children applied for early entry into school. The parents of
1 child withdrew the application prior to the observation
class. Of the 20 children who attended the observation
class, 13 children were approved for entry into kindergarten
and 1 child was approved for early entry into first grade. Of
the 14 children who entered school early in 1991, 10 are
63


still enrolled in the district and all 10 are included in this
study.
There were 27 children who participated in the
district screening procedures and were still enrolled in the
school district at the time of the data collection. Of these
27 children, 2 children were dropped from the study because
permission could not be obtained from the parents to study
the children, and the teachers of the children would not
consent to participate in the study.
A breakdown by grade level and gender of the 25
students still in the district who entered school prior to
the official district entrance date, shows that there are six
males and nineteen females in the group. See Table 3.1.
Table 3.1
Students Included In the Study
1st Grade 2nd Grade 3rd Grade 4th Grade 5th Grade
9 children 5 children 6 children 3 children 2 children
1 male 1 male 2 males 1 male 1 male
8 females 4 females 4 females 2 females 1 female
The early entry children who are included in this study
are enrolled in schools throughout the Littleton Public
School District. Children who went through the district
screening and were recommended to enter school early, but
64


moved out of the Littleton school district are not included.
Table 3.2 shows a breakdown of the early entry children, the
year they entered school, the grade they were in at the time
of data collection, and the school that they attended:
Table 3.2
Year Entered, Grade, Gender, and School
Early Entry Yr. Entered/ Grade Gender School Attend
Student 1 1 989-90/3rd male A school
Student 2 1 991 -92/1st female B school
Student 3 1991 -92/1 st female C school
Student 4 1991 -92/2nd female C school
Student 5 1 989-90/4th female C school
Student 6 1 991 -92/1 st male D school
Student 7 1 988-89/5th male D school
Student 8 1 990-91 /3rd female E school
Student 9 1 991 -92/1st female E school
Student 10 1990-91/3rd female E school
Student 11 1990-91/2nd female F school
Student 12 1 991 -92/1 st female G school
Student 13 1 989-90/3rd female G school
Student 14 1 988-89/4th female G school
Student 15 1990-91 /2nd male H school
Student 16 1 990-91 /3rd male I school
Student 17 1 991 -92/1st female J school
Student 18 1991 -92/1 st female J school
Student 19 1 991 -92/1 st female J school
Student 20 1 989-90/2nd female K school
Student 21 1 988-89/5th female K school
Student 22 1991 -92/1 st female L school
Student 23 1990-91/2nd female L school
Student 24 1 990-91 /3rd female L school
Student 25 1 989-90/4th male L school
The matched pairs design required the selection of 25
additional children. Goetze & LeCompte (1984) described
65


sampling as a researcher choosing a subset of a larger group
so as to adequately represent the larger group (p. 66). In
this study the population of 25 early entry children are
matched with 25 of their grade equivalent peer group. The
children are matched based on gender, grade level, current
teacher, socioeconomic status, and school. The students
were matched to ensure that they were from the same
socioeconomic status using the students eligibility for the
federal free and reduced lunch program.
Student files were inspected to match each early
entry child with a child of the same sex, same socio-
economic status, same classroom, and with as many of the
same teachers in the past as possible.
Permission was received from the parents for the
students to be given the WRAT-R achievement assessment,
and permission was obtained from the teachers to
participate in the study. (See Appendix D and E for the
student and teacher permission forms.)
Data Collection
Teachers of the early entry students and the matched
students were interviewed for approximately 45 minutes.
The interviews focused on collecting information about the
children, soliciting teachers' attitudes toward early
66


entrance, and collecting teachers' espoused developmental^
appropriate practices in the classroom.
Surveys of the past teachers of the early entry
children provided information about how teachers assessed
the childrens academic and social/emotional progress. The
data also provided information on the teachers' attitudes
toward early entrance and the teachers' perceptions about
how their instruction reflected developmental appropriate
practices.
The Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised data
provided standardized, current assessments of the
childrens academic achievement. The Iowa Test of Basic
Skills and report card data gave a historical perspective on
the childrens academic achievement in school.
The data collected were compiled as a triangulation
method to verify the validity of information from each
source on how the early entry children were doing in school
compared to their matched peers. Denzin (1968) stated that
triangulating with various data sources helps to verify the
researcher's perceptions, ensuring that meanings are
examined, rather than assumed.
67


Current Teacher Interviews
Open-ended interviews were conducted with the
current teachers of the children who entered school early in
order to elicit teachers' perceptions on how the early entry
children and how the matched regular entry children were
doing. The interviews elicited teachers espoused
developmental^ appropriate practices and teachers beliefs
regarding early entry. The interviews were conducted at
the teachers schools during scheduled appointments.
The interview structure chosen for this study was the
scheduled standardized interview method outlined by Denzin
(1968). The scheduled standardized interview is an orally
administered questionnaire with all participants being
asked the same questions in the same order. The probes are
also standardized. This interview method was selected in
order to keep the questions constant for all respondents so
the results could be readily compared.
Spradley (1979) suggested that there are three forms
of interview questions: descriptive questions, structural
questions, and contrast questions. The interview includes
all three forms of questions. Descriptive questions allow
respondents to describe the children and their beliefs in
their own language (p. 131). An example of a descriptive
68


interview question used is, "Tell about your experiences
with children who entered school early or who were young.
Structural questions are more specific and focus the
respondents' answers (p. 131). An example of a structural
interview question used is, Describe how (student) is
doing in school in the social, academic, behavior, maturity,
and leadership areas. Contrast questions help discover the
respondents' specific meaning of an event (p. 160). An
example of a contrast question used is, Talk about the
connection between how (student) is doing in school and
your own teaching practices.
The interview questions ensure the "comparability in
content" as outlined by Schatzman and Strauss (1973, p. 75).
Ensuring comparability in content means asking the
teachers who were interviewed similar questions so that
comparisons can be made from their responses during data
analysis. An example of interview questions used that
ensure comparability in content are, Describe how
(student) is doing in school in the social, academic,
behavior, maturity, and leadership areas, and How would
you rank (student) in comparison with the other children
in your class in the social, academic, behavior, maturity,
and leadership areas?
69


The interview questions were designed to be open-
ended and non-judgmental. Special attention was given to
not pose closed questions that could simply be answered,
yes or no.
The teachers were asked in the interviews to describe
how the early entry and matched regular entry children
were doing in the social, academic, behavior, maturity, and
leadership areas. Socially was defined as how the student
gets along with peers in and outside the classroom, if the
child has friends, and the childs social skills.
Academically was defined as how the student is performing
in reading, math, and language arts. Behaviorally was
defined as, how the student behaves in and outside of class,
how the child follows class and school rules and
expectations. Maturity was defined as, how the student
accepts responsibility, handles problems, and reacts to
every day activities. Leadership was defined as how the
student initiates thought and activities with peers and
directs peers in play or work.
The teachers ranked the early entry and matched
regular entry students in comparison with the other
students in the social, academic, behavior, maturity, and
leadership areas, using the terms below grade level, at


grade level, and above grade level. Questions were asked
of the teachers to describe their experiences with young
children and their attitudes toward the school district
policy of allowing children to enter school early. The
teachers were requested to describe the connection
between how the early entry children were doing in school
and their own teaching practices. The teachers explained
their classroom practices in the following areas:
- grouping practices
- seat work assignments
- active exploration
- student choice
- student interaction with adults and other children
- curriculum based on students interests
- real life learning
The above list of developmental^ appropriate practice
areas were taken from Bredekamps (1987) book,
Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood
Programs Serving Children from Birth Through Age 8 .
The teachers were asked in the interview to state
what their recommendations would be if they could go back
in time, knowing what they know now about the childrens


performance in school, and advise the parents as to whether
they should start the children early or not.
The interviews were audio taped and later
transcribed. The teacher interviews were analyzed by
question, aggregated across teachers. (See Appendix F for
the current teacher interview form.)
Past Teachers* Surveys
Data were collected through surveys given to past
teachers of the early entry research subjects. The surveys
followed Goetze and LeComptes (1984) format of
confirmation instruments. The purpose of confirmation
surveys is to assess the extent to which participants hold
similar beliefs or have comparable behaviors. Confirmation
surveys are used when the investigation involves large
numbers of participants who cannot be interviewed
individually. Since confirmation surveys use formal
instrumentation, they can be used by other investigators for
the replication of studies to compare the results with other
larger groups (p. 121).
This study builds on Beals (1991) findings. When
comparing kindergarten teachers beliefs concerning
developmental approach of instruction to their actual
72


teaching practices, Beal found consistency between the two.
Her findings indicate that one can use teacher beliefs about
developmentally appropriate practices as a legitimate proxy
for teacher practices. This study, therefore, uses espoused
teacher beliefs obtained through interviews and surveys,
rather than observing teacher behavior, to investigate the
relationship between developmentally appropriate
classroom practices and students success in school.
Surveys were sent to all past teachers of the children
who were selected to enter school early. The teachers
ranked the early entry students from when they were in
their classes based on the following: social skills, academic
achievement, behavior tendencies, maturity levels, and
leadership abilities on a scale of below grade level", at
grade level, or above grade level. The teachers were
asked to respond to 15 developmentally appropriate
statements on their classroom practices using a scale of
always, frequently, sometimes, seldom, and
never. An example of a developmentally appropriate
statement is, Rank how you encourage children to make
choices in learning activities. In addition, the teachers
were requested to describe their beliefs on childrens
readiness to enter school.
73


There were two open-ended questions. (1) What is
your opinion of the district policy of screening children to
allow some to enter school earlier than the state approved
date of September 15? (2) Is there a difference in how you
conduct your classroom with the child who entered early
and is young? If so, how, specifically?
Many of the questions on the past teachers surveys
were identical to the questions asked at the present
teachers' interviews. The similarity was designed so
results could be compared across teachers at different
points in the students schooling. (See Appendix G for the
past teacher survey.)
Student Achievement Data
In order to obtain a valid, current assessment on the
students' academic achievement, the Wide Range
Achievement Test-Revised (WRAT-R), was administered to
the children who entered school early and to their matched
peers. The WRAT-R was chosen as it provides a reliable,
standardized score on how the children are doing
academically in the curricular areas of reading, spelling,
and math and it is simple to administer and score.
Written permissions were obtained from the parents
of the children who entered school early and the parents of


the matched regular entry children. Of the 25 children who
entered early, permission was obtained to administer the
WRAT-R to 23 of the children. Of the 25 children who were
matched regular entry children, permission was obtained to
administer the WRAT-R to 20 of the children. Arrangements
were made with the respective schools to pull the children
during the school day to administer the WRAT-R.
Student Documentation
Goetz and LeCompte (1984) suggested that collection
of artifacts be used as part of data-collection strategies (p.
153). The data collected for this study included
information from the students' personnel records in order to
gather historical data on the childrens achievement in
school.
The district report cards were collected in order to
compare the historical progress of the children who were
selected to enter school early and the matched regular entry
children. Standardized test data were collected for each
child who had the Iowa Test of Basic Skills given.
Retention referrals, student review referrals, Chapter I
placements, and gifted referrals of the screened children
were investigated to get a picture of their experiences in
school.


Data Analysis
According to Miles and Huberman (1984), analysis of
data throughout the data collection process allows the
researcher the opportunity to think about the existing data
and generate strategies for collecting new data (p. 49). The
conceptual framework shapes and guides data collection and
data analysis.
Denzin (1968) wrote that triangulating with many
data sources provided corroboration for the meanings that
participants reported. The data collected from the review
of student records were compiled as a triangulation method
to verify the validity of information gained from present
and past teachers reporting on how the early entry children
were doing in school. There is also a triangulation of
teacher interviews, teacher surveys, achievement data, and
documentation review.
Start List of Codes
Miles and Huberman's (1984) start list of codes
methods were used to analyze the data in this study. The
list comes from the conceptual framework, list of research


questions, observation patterns, and identified problem
areas that are in the study (p. 57). The start list was
created following a pilot study conducted in the fall of
1992 on five children who were screened and selected to
enter school early in Littleton Public Schools. In the pilot
study, teachers, students, and parents of five children were
interviewed. After all the data were collected on the
children who were selected to enter school early and on the
matched regular entry children, the list of codes was
revised and expanded.
Data were analyzed in this study utilizing Strauss and
Corbins (1990) open coding, axial coding, and selective
coding system, noting themes and patterns. Open coding
involves conceptualizing and naming the data, categorizing
the concepts, and naming the categories.
During open coding the data are broken down into
discrete parts, closely examined, compared for
similarities and differences, and questions are asked
about the phenomena as reflected in the data. (p. 62)
Open coding was conducted on the interview results of
current teachers and on the surveys of past teachers. (See
Appendix H for a list of the open coding used for this study.)
77


Axial coding puts the data together in new ways by
making connections between a category and its sub-
categories. Strauss and Corbin (1990) defined axial coding
as
a set of procedures whereby data are put back
together in new ways after open coding by making
connections between categories. This is done by
utilizing a coding paradigm involving conditions,
context, action/interactional strategies and
consequences, (p. 96)
The data were organized using axial coding following the
use of open coding. One example of when axial coding was
used was the assignment of teachers into developmental^
appropriate categories based on their responses regarding
their developmentally appropriate practices.
Selective coding involves integrating the categories.
Strauss and Corbin (1990) described selective coding as the
process of selecting the core category, relating it to other
categories, validating the relationships, and filling in
categories that need further development (p. 116). An
example of selective coding used in this study is the
analysis of how the different groups of
teachers, divided by their developmentally appropriate
tendencies, viewed the early entrance policy.
78


Teacher Interviews
Transcripts from the teacher interviews were
organized with all teachers responses printed in aggregate
for each question. The aggregated transcripts were read
and reread to attach codes for teachers responses, using
codes derived from the conceptual framework discussed in
Chapter two. The interviewer assigned one code for each
interviewer response to a question. (See Appendix I for an
example of one interview question coded.)
Past Teacher Surveys
The surveys of past teachers of the children who were
selected to enter school early were categorized and
assigned codes similar to the process used for the teacher
interviews. Many of the questions are the same in the
interviews and the surveys, so a similar coding system was
used for both.
Developmentally Appropriate Categories
Children have a variety of school experiences largely
based upon the teachers that they have. Items were
identified from the interview and survey that were judged
to be related to developmentally appropriate practices. The
79


teacher interview and survey responses were coded based
on the identified developmental^ appropriate practices.
Teachers responses were categorized as agree or
do not agree with developmentaliy appropriate
statements, and as use or do not use developmentaliy
appropriate practices. The teacher responses were
combined to determine the placement of the teachers on a
scale of attitudes about developmentaliy appropriate
practices ranging from developmentaliy appropriate,
somewhat developmentaliy appropriate, and not
developmentaliy appropriate tendencies. (See Appendix J
for a list of indicators of developmentaliy appropriate
practices from the teacher interview. See Appendix K for a
list of indicators of developmentaliy appropriate practices
from the teacher survey.)
Student Documents
The early entry and matched regular entry childrens
report card grades were analyzed. Comparisons were made
of grades given on the end of the year report cards in the
reading, math, and spelling areas for the early and matched
regular entry children. Scores given for work study skills
and behavior for the children were analyzed.
80


Teacher written comments, standardized test data,
and any other relevant information were inspected to get
pictures of the childrens past school experiences.
Retention referrals, student review referrals, Chapter I
placements, and gifted referrals of the screened children
were investigated.
Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised
The student achievement data from the Wide Range
Achievement Test-Revised (WRAT-R) were analyzed. The
scores of the early entry students were compared with the
scores of their matched pairs.
Of the 25 pairs of matched children, only 18 pairs
were represented in the WRAT-R assessment and only 12
pairs in the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) assessment. I
considered using a conversion of scores to use both the ITBS
and WRAT-R, but only gained two additional pairs of
children. I chose to use the WRAT-R scores only. T-tests
were conducted on the WRAT-R percentile scores to
compare the differences between the achievement in the
areas of reading, spelling, and math of the children who
were selected to enter school early and the achievement of
the regular entry matched children.


Themes and Patterns
A Macintosh Excel spreadsheet program was set up to
include all the categories from the childrens profiles. All
coded information, report card information, and test score
results were entered on the spreadsheet program so the
data could be manipulated in multiple ways so themes and
patterns could be readily explored.
The student data were aggregated creating a profile of
each childs school experience. The profile of each child
included the teacher interview coding, the Wide Range
Ability Test-Revised data, the information from past
teachers surveys, the Iowa Test of Basic Skills scores, the
Cognitive Ability Test scores, and the student progress
report information. This profile gave a picture of all the
collected and coded information for each child. (See
Appendix L for a profile of one early entry child.)
The coded data were synthesized to allow themes and
patterns related to readiness and early entrance to emerge.
The themes emerged as patterns from the interview and
survey data of the teacher participants and verified by the
historical data, using analytic induction (Goetz & LeCompte,
1984).
82


Some themes were anticipated by the structure of the
data collection; for example, specific questions were asked
about teacher attitude regarding early entry. Other themes
emerged after repeatedly looking at the data. Impressions
about themes were checked through the use of frequency
counts and narrative data displays.
The analysis has both deductive and inductive
components. The deductive component is the codes derived
from the conceptual framework organizing the selection and
guiding the first order analysis of data. The inductive
component is the task to make sense of the themes and
patterns that emerged from the analysis of the data.
Thematic narratives, using raw data, were developed
to illustrate specific themes that emerged in analysis. The
coding and the thematic narratives were joined to create a
story about the impact of the early entrance policy on the
early entry children.
Reliability
Using a method of analysis by aggregating the
interview transcripts and assigning codes without
identifying the specific teachers who gave the responses
minimized interviewer bias. As the interviewer, I was
looking at the responses of all teachers together, which
83


prevented my identifying the specific teachers as I assigned
codes to the responses.
To ensure reliability of the method used to assign
codes, three teachers not in the study, were asked to
analyze three teacher interview responses. I met with each
of the three independent people and went over how I had
scored one teachers interview responses. The three
teachers independently scored three other teachers
interview responses. A comparison was made between the
way that I coded the teacher interviews and the
independent readers coding of them. The results indicated
a high inter-rater reliability between the way that I
assigned codes and the way the three independent teachers
assigned codes. All raters of the interviewed teachers
responses agreed 93.94 % of the time. (See Appendix M for
the comparison of my coding the teacher interviews with
three independent coders.)
Research Methodology Summary
The research design used for this study included a
matched pairs investigation of 25 students who were
selected to enter school early under Littleton Public
Schools early entrance policy. The Wide Range
84


Achievement Test-Revised was administered and analyzed
to compare the current academic achievement scores of the
early entry children with the matched regular entry
children. Standardized test scores and report card data
were collected from the students cumulative records. The
current teachers of the early and matched regular entry
students were interviewed, and past teachers of the early
entry students were surveyed. Items were identified from
the interview and survey that were related to
developmentally appropriate practices. The teacher
responses were used to determine the placement of the
teachers on a scale of attitudes about developmentally
appropriate practices.
The interview and survey data were analyzed using
Strauss and Corbins (1990) open coding, axial coding, and
selective coding system, noting themes and patterns. All
the student data were aggregated creating a profile of each
childs school experience. The coded data were synthesized
to allow themes and patterns related to readiness and early
entrance to emerge.
85


CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH RESULTS
in this chapter the findings are discussed as they
relate to the research questions and as they compare to the
research presented in the literature review.
Differences Between Early and Regular Entry Students
The first research question is, What are the
academic and social differences between students who
entered school early and other students who entered school
according to the state approved date of September 15 in
subsequent grades? The research findings are separated
into the following categories: interviewed and surveyed
teachers research results, Wide Range Achievement Test-
Revised results, Iowa Test of Basic Skills results,
Cognitive Abilities Test results, and report card scores
results.
Interviewed and Surveyed Teachers Research Results
Comparisons were made between the early and regular
entry children by analyzing the current teachers reports on
the social, academic, behavior, maturity, and leadership.
86


The interviewed teachers were asked, How is (childs
namei doing socially? academically? behaviorally?
maturity wise? leadership ability?. Table 4.1 shows the
current teachers descriptions of the early and matched
regular entry children on each skill area on a scale of
negative, OK, or positive.
Table 4.1
Current Teachers Descriptions:
Percent of Early and Regular Entry Childrens Skills
Early Entry Regular En trv
Negative OK Positive Negative OK Positive
Social 13% 50% 37% 25% 29% 46%
Reading 13% 21 % 66% 8% 33% 58%
Math 13% 37% 50% 8% 46% 46%
Language 13% 21 % 67% 00 25% 67%
Behavior 4% 29% 67% 0s 00 25% 67%
Maturity 21% 50% 29% 4% 42% 54%
Leadership 46% 42% 12% 38% 42% 21%
The current teacher reports indicated that, on the
whole, the teachers described the early entry children as
87


Full Text

PAGE 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 2

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 3

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 4

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 5

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 6

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 7

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 8

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 9

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 10

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 11

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 12

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 13

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 14

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 15

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 16

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 17

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 18

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 19

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 20

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 21

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 22

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 23

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 24

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 25

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 26

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 27

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 28

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 29

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 30

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 31

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 32

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 33

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 34

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 35

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 36

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 37

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 38

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 39

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 40

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 41

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 42

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 43

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 44

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 45

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 46

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 47

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 48

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 49

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 50

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 51

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 52

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 53

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 54

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 55

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 56

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 57

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 58

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 59

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 60

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 61

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 62

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 63

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 64

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 65

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 66

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 67

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 68

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 69

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 70

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 71

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 72

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 73

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 74

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 75

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 76

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 77

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 78

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 79

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 80

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 81

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 82

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 83

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 84

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 85

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 86

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 87

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 88

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 89

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 90

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 91

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 92

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 93

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 94

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 95

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 96

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 97

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 98

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 99

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 100

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 101

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 102

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 103

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 104

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 105

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 106

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 107

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 108

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 109

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 110

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 111

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 112

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 113

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 114

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 115

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 116

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 117

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 118

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 119

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 120

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 121

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 122

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 123

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 124

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 125

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 126

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 127

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 128

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 129

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 130

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 131

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 132

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 133

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 134

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 135

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 136

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 137

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 138

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 139

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 140

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 141

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 142

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 143

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 144

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 145

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 146

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 147

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 148

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 149

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 150

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 151

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 152

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 153

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 154

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 155

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 156

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 157

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 158

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 159

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 160

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 161

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 162

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 163

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 164

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 165

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 166

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 167

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 168

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 169

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 170

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 171

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 172

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 173

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 174

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 175

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 176

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 177

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 178

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 179

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 180

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 181

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 182

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 183

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 184

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 185

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 186

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 187

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 188

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 189

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 190

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 191

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 192

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 193

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 194

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 195

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 196

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 197

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 198

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 199

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 200

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 201

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 202

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 203

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 204

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 205

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 206

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 207

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 208

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 209

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 210

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 211

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 212

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 213

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 214

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 215

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 216

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 217

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 218

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 219

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 220

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 221

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 222

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 223

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 224

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 225

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 226

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 227

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 228

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 229

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 230

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 231

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 232

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 233

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 234

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 235

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 236

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 237

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 238

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 239

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 240

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 241

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 242

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 243

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 244

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 245

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 246

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 247

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 248

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 249

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 250

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 251

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 252

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 253

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 254

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 255

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 256

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 257

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 258

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 259

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 260

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 261

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 262

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 263

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

PAGE 264

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.