FIRST-GRADE ENTRYAGE
IN A SAMPLE OF CHILDREN
LABELEDLEARNING DISABLED
Cleborne D. Maddux
Abstract. First-grade entry ages were determined for all LD children in grades
one through twelve in a large special education cooperative. The children were
classified as early, medium, or late entering. U.S. Census data were consulted to
determine the expected frequencies in each of these categories. It was found
that there were more early-entering and fewer late-entering children in this sample
than would be expected if entry age were a chance variable. Though more
research is needed, the results of this study suggest the possibility that children
who enter first grade early may be more likely to be labeled LD than children
who enter when they are older.
The study reported here represents an
attempt at determining whether groups of
learning disabled children consist of more
children who entered first grade at relatively
young ages than children who were relatively
older when they began first grade. A
"maturational lag" perspective of learning
disabilitieswould suggest such an occurrence.
If such is the case, the finding would have
implications for parental and administrative
decision making, particularlywith regard to
school-entry age for children exhibiting early
signs of learning disabilities.
Applying the concept of maturationallag to
learning disabilitiesis not new (Bender, 1957;
Bryant, 1972; deHirsh, Jansky, & Langford,
1966; Gallagher, 1966; Koppitz, 1971;
Slingerland,1971; and Wepman, 1967.) Ross
(1976) has recently brought focus to this
CLEBORNE D. MADDUX, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Clinical Education, Sam
Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas.
Volume 3, Spring 1980
79
Sage Publications, Inc.
is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to
Learning Disability Quarterly
®
www.jstor.org
Downloaded from ldq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 19, 2016
view by formulating a theory of developmental lag based on examinations of a
number of studies. Senf (1969) conducted a
series of studies which suggest that the ability
to attend differentiateslearning disabled from
normal children. Rourke and Czudner (1972)
and Czudner and Rourke (1972) found that
young children with cerebral dysfunction
(clinic group) were significantly poorer in
selective attention than young normal, old
normal, and old clinic children. These
studies, plus similar findings by Pick, Christy
and Frankel (1972) and others led Ross
(1976) to the theory that some learning
disabled children suffer from a delay in the
development of selective attention. Wong
(1979) suggests that this theory "appears to
provide a creditable account for the development of learning disabilitiesin some learning
disabled children"(p.653).
Outside the field of learning disabilities,
a substantial body of literature deals with
the relationship of school-entrance age to
academic achievement and/or adjustment.
Ames (1977), for example, suggests that
immaturity is the most common cause of
difficultyin school. Results of research on this
question are contradictory, with some researchers concluding that early entrance has a
detrimental effect on students (e.g., Carroll,
1963; Carter, 1956; Weiss, 1962), while
others conclude that early entrance is either
not harmful, or is actually beneficial (e.g.,
Braga, 1971; Hobson, 1948; Miller, 1957).
Reviews of this research include Evans
(1974), Gabbard(1960), Green and Simmons
(1962), Halliwell (1966), Pressey (1949),
Reynolds (1962), and Worcester (1956).
Much of the contradictory nature of the
findings is due to deficiencies in method
including the failureto control for intelligence.
However, there is substantial (though not
unanimous) agreement that: "among unselected children entering kindergarten and
firstgrade, the younger ones generally do not
achieve or adjust as well as those who
are older" (Reynolds, 1962, p. 8).
Since achievement and adjustment variables play a role in the diagnosis of learning
disabilities, and since chronological age
remains the chief criterion for school entrance in most states, the research hypothesis
80
LearningDisabilityQuarterly
for the present study was that in a given
group of children labeled learning disabled,
there would be more children who were
relatively young when they entered first
grade, than children who were older firstgrade entries.
PROCEDUREAND RESULTS
Subjects
Birth dates and educational histories were
obtained for all children labeled learning
disabled in a large special education cooperative near a major midwestern city. The
constituents of this cooperative are from a
predominantly rural middle-class background,
with very few minoritystudents.
Method
State law requires that children be at least
6-0 by September 1 of the year they enter
first grade. The children were divided into
three groups. Early entries (EE) were born in
August, July, June, and May and were ages
6-0, 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3, respectively, when
they entered firstgrade; medium entries (ME)
were born in April, March, February, and
January, and were ages 6-4, 6-5, 6-6, and
6-7 at entry; late entries (LE) were born in
December, November, October, and September, and were ages 6-8, 6-9, 6-10,
and 6-11 at entry.
Of the 374 children, 176 were in grades
1-4, 141 were in grades 5-8, and 57 were
in grades 9-12. Only 17 definitely did not
attend kindergarten. At least 92 had been
retained at least once (no data available
regarding retention for 35 children). The
mean age of the children as of September
1 of the year of the study (1977) was 10.72,
while the mean grade level placement was
5.09. The mean grade placement at the time
of LD diagnosis was 3.74.
Results
After the children were classified as early,
medium, or late entries, it was necessary
to determine the expected frequency for each
category if entry age were a chance variable.
United States Census Bureau figures reveal
the number of children born in the United
States each month (United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
1975). Such figures were converted to
proportions and averaged for each month for
the five-year period, 1966-1970. The average proportions were divided into three
groups corresponding to the birth months
for early-, medium-, and late-entry groups.
Proportions were summed within each group.
The resulting expected proportions were
.3395 for the EE group, .3178 for the ME
group, and .3427 for the LE group.
Proportions were multiplied by 374 to yield
the expected frequencies for each group. A
chi-square goodness-of-fit test was then
applied. Table 1 presents the observed and
expected frequencies for each group and the
results of the chi-square test.
It is apparent that the observed frequencies
differ significantly from those which would
have been produced by chance alone. In
order to determine whether or not findings
apply across grade levels, the data were
divided into three additional groups: 1) children in grades 1-4 (primarygroup), 2) children in 5-8 (intermediate/junior high group),
and 3) children in 9-12 (high school group).
The ME category was collapsed due to small
size. Consequently, children were recategorized as early entries (birth months March-
August) or late entries (birth months September-February).A separate chi-square test
was conducted for each grade level grouping.
Expected frequencies were derived as in the
previous analysis. Table 2 presents the results
of these analyses.
It is apparent from the significantchi-square
analyses that entry age is important in the
primaryand intermediate/junior high groups.
The same trend is apparent in the high school
group, but the chi-square analysis was not
significant.
DISCUSSION
This study found that children labeled as
learning disabled tend to have entered first
grade early. Such children may be more
likely to be labeled LD than children who
enter when they are older - a conclusion
made tentative by the absence of a normal
control group. The use of census data to
determine expected frequencies, however,
was intended to partially allay this shortcoming.
The disproportionate number of earlyentering children among learning disabled
students was found to persist through grade
TABLE1
Observed and Expected Frequencies and Percentages and Chi-Square Tests
for 374 Early-, Medium-, and Late-Entering Learning Disabled Children
EARLY
Ex.
Ob.
MEDIUM
Ob.
Ex.
LATE
Ob.
Ex.
173(46%) 127(34%) 117(31%) 119(32%) 84(22%) 128(34%)
N
df
X2
374
2
31.94' '
""p<.001
Volume 3, Spring 1980
81
TABLE2
Observed and Expected Frequencies and Percentages and Chi-Square Tests
for 374 Early-and Late-Entering Learning Disabled Children
at Three Levels of Schooling
EARLY
Ob.
LATE
Ex.
Ob.
Ex.
Primary
Intermed./Jr.Hi.
115(65%) 88(50%) 61(35%) 88(50%)
86(61%) 71(50%) 55(39%) 70(50%)
High School
35(61%)
29(51%)
22(39%)
28(49%)
N
df
X2
176
141
1
1
16.52 **
*
6.79
57
1
2.96 n.s.
***p<.001
" p<.01
n.s. = nonsignificant
9, but not at higher grade levels. This
latter finding may imply that maturational
lag plays a significant role in learning disabilitiesthrough junior-high grades, but is less
important in high-school groups. Perhaps
learning disability populations at the highschool level are made up of children whose
problems are purely failure to attain basic
and prerequisite skills such as reading,
computation, etc. Such may be the case if
those secondary students who suffered from
maturationallag either dropped out of school,
had their academic deficits remediated, or
were removed from the LD category for some
other reason.
Since this study was conducted in a state
where school entry is not allowed untilage 6-0,
it is reasonable to assume that replication in
any of the states permitting entry at even
earlier ages would yield even more dramatic
results. Based on such findings states and/or
school districts which allow entry to first
grade priorto age 6-0 might consider revising
this requirement upward. In addition, districts
and/or parents might consider delaying firstgrade entrance for children who would be
early entrants and who show signs of immaturity. Perhaps placement in a special
82
LearningDisabilityQuarterly
preschool intervention program would be
beneficial for such children. Donofrio (1977)
recommends repetition of kindergartenas the
initial and most important step in preventing
failure for early-entering children. School
intervention rather than delayed entrance
has been endorsed by Gredler (1978) who
reviewed selected research and recommended that parents demand first-gradeplacement,
but with appropriate individualized instruction, for young-entering children.
Wide replication is needed before generalizing the findings of the present study.
However, there is a present trend for districts
across the country to "give up" the effort
to operationally define deficits in basic
psychological processes, and to move toward
conceptualizing learning disabilities as synonymous with underachievement. Given the
continuation of this trend, and given the
research literature establishing the tendency
for young-entering children with average I.Q.
scores to achieve less well than older-entering
children of similar ability, it seems logical
to expect that young-entering children will
continue to make up a disproportionately
large part of groups labeled learning disabled,
if present policies are not revised.
REFERENCES
Ames, L. Learning disabilities:Time to check our
roadmaps? Journal of Learning Disabilities,
1977, 10, 328-330.
Bender, L. Specific reading disabilityas a maturational lag. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 1957,
7, 9-18.
Braga, J. Early admission: Opinion vs. evidence.
Elementary School Journal, 1971, 72, 35-46.
Bryant, N.D. Subject variables: definition, incidence characteristics and correlates. In N.D.
Bryant & C. Kass (Eds.), Final Report: LTI in
learning disabilities (Vol. 1). U.S.O.E. Grant
No. OEG-0-71-4425-604, Project No. 127145.
Tucson: Universityof Arizona.
Carroll, M. Academic achievement and adjustment
of underage and overage third graders. Journal
of Educational Research, 1963, 56, 415-419.
Carter,L. The effect of early school entrance on the
scholastic achievement of elementary school children in the Austin public schools. Journal of
Educational Research, 1956, 50, 91-103.
Czudner, G., & Rourke, B.P. Age differences in
visual reaction time of "braindamaged" and normal children under regularand irregularpreparatory intervalconditions. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 1972, 13, 516-526.
deHirsch, K., Jansky, J., & Langford, W.S.
Predicting reading failure. New York: Harper
and Row, 1966.
Donofrio, A. Grade repetition: Therapy of choice.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1977, 10, 349451.
Evans, W.R. School entry age and future adjustment and achievement of inner city children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Connecticut, 1974.
Gabbard, H. Status and trends in early childhood
education. National ElementaryPrincipal, 1960,
40, 218-241.
Gallagher, J.J. Children with development imbalances: A psychoeducational definition. In W.M.
Cruickshank (Ed.), The teacher of brain-injured
children: A discussion of the bases for competency. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press,
1966.
Gredler, G.R. A look at some important factors in
assessing readiness for school. Journal of Learning Disabilities,1978, 11, 284-290.
Green, D., & Simmons, S. Chronological age and
school entrance. Elementary School Journal,
1962, 63, 41-47.
Halliwell, J.W. Reviewing the reviews on entrance
age and school success. Journal of Educational
Research, 1966, 59, 395-401.
Hobson, J. Mental age is a workable criterion for
school admission. Elementary School Journal,
1948, 48, 312-321.
Koppitz, E.M. Children with learning disabilities:A
five-year follow-up study. New York: Grune and
Stratton, 1971.
Miller,V. Academic achievement and social adjustment of childrenyoung for theirgrade placement.
ElementarySchool Journal, 1957, 57, 247-263.
Pick, A.D., Christy, M.D., & Frankel, G.W. A
developmental study of visual selective attention.
Journalof ExperimentalChild Psychology, 1972,
14, 165-175.
Pressey, S.L. Educational acceleration: Appraisals
and basic problems. Columbus: Ohio State University, 1949.
Reynolds, M.C. (Ed.). Earlyschool admissions for
mentally advanced children. The Council for
Exceptional Children, 1962.
Ross, A.O. Psychological aspects of learning disabilities and reading disorders. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1976.
Rourke, B.P., & Czudner, G. Age differences in
auditory reaction time of "brain damaged" and
normal children under regular and irregularpreparatory interval conditions. Journal of Experimental ChildPsychology, 1972, 14, 372-378.
Senf, G.M. An information-integrationtheory and
its application to normal reading acquisition and
reading disability. In N.D. Bryant & C.E. Kass
(Eds.), Leadership TrainingInstitutein Learning
Disabilities:Final Report (Vol. 2). Tucson: Universityof Arizona, 1972, 305-391.
Slingerland, B.H. A multi-sensory approach to
language artsfor specific language disabilitychildren: A guide for primary teachers. Cambridge:
EducatorsPublishingService, 1971.
U.S. Departmentof Health, Educationand Welfare.
Vitalstatisticsof the United States, 1975, Volume
1. U.S. GovernmentPrintingOffice, 1978.
Weiss, R. The validityof early entrance into kindergarten. The Journal of Educational Research,
1962, 56, 53-54.
Wepman, J.M. Neurological approaches to mental
retardation. In R. Schiefelbusch & J. Smith
(Eds.), Language and mental retardation. New
York: Holt, Rinehartand Winston, 1967.
Wong, B. The role of theory in learning disability
research, Part II. A selective review of current
theories of learningand reading disabilities.Journal of LearningDisabilities,1979, 12, 15-24.
Worcester, D.A. The education of children of
above-average mentality.Lincoln, NE: University
of NebraskaPress, 1956.
Volume 3, Spring 1980
83