DOCUMENT RESUME ED 272 267 PS 015 488 AUTHOR Shepard, Lorrie A.; Smith, Mary Lee TITLE Boulder Valley Kindergarten Study: Retention Practices and Retention Effects. INSTITUTION Boulder Valley Public Schools, CO. PUB DATE Mar 85 NOTE 216p. PUB TYPE Reports - Research/Technical (143) EDRS PRICE M701/PC09 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Chronological Age; *Educational Benefits; Educational Policy; Educational Research; Emotional Adjustment; Grade 1; Kindergarten; *Learning Readiness; *Parent Attitudes; Primary Education; Reading Achievement; *Retention (Psychology); *School Holding Power; *Teacher Attitudes IDENTIFIERS Boulder Valley Public Schools CO; Gesell School Readiness Test ABSTRACT Having implemented a policy that allowed schools to retain children in kindergarten an extra year, the Boulder Valley Public School District in Colorado conducteda study to determine the cognitive and emotional benefits of retention in kindergarten andthe characteristics that led to decisions about retention. The study involved a research review of existing literature,an examination of first grade outcomes, and interviews with parents and teachersto determine their perceptions about young children and their readiness for first grade. The study revealed that (1) theuse of Gesell tests to make individual placement decisions cannot be defendedon the basis of existing research; (2) the existing research doesnot show either academic or social-emotional benefit from retaining immature children; (3) the finding of no benefit on mostmeasures and only a one-month gain in reading raises serious questions about the efficacy of an extra year in kindergarten; (4) data from parents didnot indicate that there was an average benefit of retentionor two-year kindergarten programs on children's academicprogress; (5) diversity existed among the kindergarten teachers with respect to whatthey believed about child development and the bestways to educate young children; (6) beliefs about development were related to retention practices, and seemed to be shared withina school building; (7) kindergarten teachers believed retention and other two-year programs" had benefits that outweighed their risks; and (8) teachers in the same school usually had very similar policies in terms of the kinds of pupil characteristics that should lead to kindergarten retention. It was concluded that two-year kindergarten programsare an ineffective solution to the problem of escalating expectationsin kindergarten. Six pages of referencesare included. Appendixes contain a first-grade rating form for teachers,a parent interview schedule, coding categories for teacher interview analysis, and instructions for case reviews. (HOD) US DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATION Office of Edustional Ralism,' and Improvement EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) This dorumnt has been reproduced as received from Imo person or organization originating It )14Minor changes have been made to improve eproduction Quality Points ol view or opinions stated in this docu- ment do not necessarily represent official OERI position or policy BOULDER VALLEY KINDERGARTEN STUDY: RETENTION PRACTICES AND RETENTION EFFECTS IP Lorrie A. Shepard, Ph.D. and Mary Lee Smith, Ph.D. Assisted by Evelyn 0. Belton-Kocher, Nancy L. Commins, Marla G. C. Diaz, and Mary Catherine Eliwein Laboratory of Educational Research University of Colorado, Boulder "PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY L0vrtt. R Slqvcveci TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) BOULDER VALLEY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Boulder, Colorado March 1985 CONTENTS Executive Summary and Policy Implications 1 Chapter 1. Existing Research: A Policy Summary 13 Chapter 2. First Grade Outcome Study 73 Chapter 3. Report of Parent Survey 90 Chapter 4. Teacher Perceptions about Young Children and Their Education . 123 Chapter 5. Teacher Judgments about Readiness 178 References 193 Appendices 199 Shepard, L.A. and Smith, M.L. (1985, March). Boulder Valley Kindergarten Study: Retention Practices and Retention trrects. Boulder, CO: Boulder Valley Public Schools. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS The Kindergarten Study was initiated by the Director of Elementary Education and the Early Childhood Committee. In 1982-83, elementary schools in the Boulder Valley differed markedly in the extent to which childrenwere assigned to an extra year of school before first grade. In some schools 25% of the children were retained in kindergarten (withas many as 38% recommended to re,aat kindergarten). In other schools 0% were retained. At present, two Boulder schools have developmental kindergartenprograms. In these schools, potential kindergarteners are given the Gesell Developmental Test in the spring or summer before school andare assigned either to a prekindergarten class (Level I) or to a regular kindergarten (Level II). It is expected that LevelI kindergarteners will then spend the followingyear in regular kindergarten. One of these schools also has a pre-first grade class in which children judged unready for first grade spendan extra year. Other schools have informal programs where children repeat regular kindergarten. All of these practices are reported to the districtas kindergarten retentions and are included in what we mean by two-year kindergarten programs. The purposes of this study were to examine theprocess whereby children are retained in kindergarten ard to measure the effects of two-year kindergarten programs. The study was guided by the following research questions: 1. What are the cognitive and emotional benefits ofretention in kindergarten? 2. What are the characteristics of children that leadto retention decisions? To the extent that teachers differ in their philosophy about retention, how might these differences by typified? 3. Is age related to retention decisions and subsequent academic performance? Would a different entrance age lead to fewer retentions or more success in school? 4. What is the predictive validity of the Gesell SchoolReadiness Test and other selected readiness measures? 5. How is time spent in developmental and transitionalclassrooms? 6.If a student is to be retained, is kindergartenthe best year? A summary of relevant research was provided inChapter 1for those research questions that could not be investigated locally. In addition, data that addressed question 5 could not be analyzed in the availabletime. The study report is organized into chapters,each representing a separate research component. The major findings for each chaptercan be summarized as follows: Chapter 1. Existing Research: A Policy Summary Five separate bodies of researchwere reviewed. Age effects The literature on "age effects" consistently showsthat first graders who are youngest in their class have slightly lower achievement than the oldest first graders (by 5-10 percentile points). The "age effect" disappears by third grade so that relatively young children withina grade are no longer at a disadvantage. The analyses of Boulder Valley achievement data revealthat the local age effect is consistent with that summarizedfrom previous research. A change in entrance age is not recommendedon the basis of these findings. The "youngness" problem is always relative. The slight 41 disadvantage of the youngest first gradersexists whether the entrance age is February 1 or September 1. A problem of "escalating standards"was identified. Kindergartens become more and more demanding in response to an older populationwith more preschool experience. As kindergarten expectations begin to lookmore like expectations for first grade, some five-year-oldsmay not be ready for the more advanced work that has become the norm. Raising the entrance age or retaining children perpetuates the problem since standardsare continually raised on the basis of what the older and more experienced childrencan do. Only solutions tiAt address excessive demands and therange of individual differences are likely to be effective. e Philosophies about readiness The Gesell developmental point of viewwas summarized. Gesell theory holds that children's readiness for any given task is determined by biological maturation. Attempts made to teach children before theyare ready will be ineffective and will cause serious harm to their social and emotional development. The Gesell philosophy is based on nativistor hereditarian theory and is contrasted with environmentalist, behaviorist learning theory, which was also summarized. More modern conceptions of cognitive development have replaced these extreme theories and are more interactional; i.e., the joint influence of both environment and heredity on learning is acknowledged. More recent research based on Piaget's conception of development (which differs from Gesell's) gives more importance to learning experiences in determining therate of development. Based on what we now know about learning and development, it is clear that children should not be pushedway beyond their developmental level. However, it is also ill-advised to withhold instructionor "teach down to children who are developmentally young. Cognitive stimulation is essential for children to progress from one developmental level tothe next. IP The Gesell School Readiness Tests The Gesell tests are intended toassess a child's developmental age and are used to screen children into developmental kindergartensor tc determine readiness for first grade. The Gesell tests do not have adequate reliability for makingimportant individual decisions. In the only study available, the standarderror of measurement was so large