Early School Entry Is Essential for
Many Gifted Children

by Craig Howley

At least since the appearance of the classic study of school readiness by Morphet and Washburne (1931), and doubtless long before, educators have debated the issue of when children should start school. Nevertheless, "readiness," as Dr. Lilian Katz notes, remains an elusive construct. Parents and teachers have known from the beginning of this debate, however, that some children do benefit from schooling sooner than others.

The success of early school entry stems from two characteristics: first, the intellectual orientation of the home (Bloom, 1985) and second (to the extent that it is distinguishable from the first), the developmental characteristics of the child (Roedell, Jackson, and Robinson, 1980). In the case of gifted children, standardized tests capture data related to these characteristics.

Gifted children learn rapidly, and for them in particular, the instruction most schools provide moves too slowly (Rogers, 1986). Fortunately, most states now make provisions for the identification of gifted children, and most rely on IQ tests for this purpose (Howley, 1986). Whatever the dubious uses of IQ tests (Gould, 1981), they do reliably identify very able children who can move rapidly through schools as they exist—rather than schools in some idealized, and perhaps unattainable, future state. Courts have consistently upheld the use of IQ tests for this purpose (Zirkel and Stevens, 1986).

For many of these young children, early entry into kindergarten and first grade is essential (Pendarvis, Howley, and Howley, 1990; Rogers, 1986). It is not only legally defensible, but also able to be challenged by parents exercising due process rights when denied (Howley, 1986; Zirkel and Stevens, 1987).

Acceleration takes many forms, including early entry to school, and is one of the most evident success stories in American education (Braga, 1971; Daurio, 1979; Kulik and Kulik, 1984; Rogers, 1986). If we insist that all children enter school at the same time, what is to prevent us from applying that principle to acceleration at all ages? Indeed, many schools seem to take exactly that position in practice [see Howley (1987) for a description of the normative view that would apply such a rigid position to all children]. As a result, full-year accelerations are still remarkably difficult to arrange for very able children at any age (Howley, 1987; Stanley, 1986).

How can educators tell when early entry is beneficial for apparently able children? First, educators need to approach the entire question flexibly. Administrators, in particular, need to exert leadership. They need to credit acceleration as an effective and widely applicable option for gifted children, and cultivate its use on that basis. For all children—but especially gifted children—the position that the only legally and ethically defensible criterion for school entry is whatever date is set by district policy or state regulation is simply not viable.

Second, educators need to involve parents in planning and carrying out early entry placements. This effort will inevitably require some training for both parents and staff. If parents, teachers, and the bright young children who concern them communicate about the issues and endorse the effort, early entry arrangements proceed more smoothly.

Third, on a more mundane level, orderly procedures for considering options and developing plans need to be designed and followed. In many cases, the placement procedures used in special education will be technically adequate, but educators need to voice and act upon knowledge that acceleration is appropriate and necessary for many very able students—that is, for most of the gifted and for quite a few other able students as well.

Finally, typical readiness indicators (such as print awareness, familiarity with books, and early reading and math skills), especially in combination with identified giftedness, can help parents and educators decide between early entry to kindergarten and early entry to first grade.

None of the preceding points is meant to suggest that social, emotional, and physical characteristics are irrelevant. Christopherson (1981), in advocating developmental placement, provides some guidelines for considering the issue. His rule of thumb is that the young gifted child should "exceed the 33rd percentile of older children for social and emotional development and the 10th percentile for physical development" in comparison to students in the new placement (p. 41).

Social, emotional, and physical considerations are usually not impediments to the successful acceleration of able youngsters. A more common experience is that able students who languish in the lockstep of age-grade placement become bored, frustrated, and cynical at early ages. In such straits, some children amuse themselves by instigating trouble among classmates.

Of course, when parents and educators accelerate students, they should expect minor adjustment problems. Such problems are normal, and informed and caring adults will take responsibility for solving the difficulties that arise. The fact that some adults have difficulty accepting such responsibility should not be a barrier to early entry and other forms of acceleration.

Obviously, some accelerated placements will not work out. With respect to social and emotional development, in particular, children in these circumstances must be protected from the tendency of adults to regard them as failures. The failure to accelerate able students, though much less visible than the risk of unsuccessful placement, does much greater damage to more students.

Bloom, B. (1985). Developing Talent in Young People. New York: Ballantine Books.

Braga, J. (1971). "Early Admission: Opinion Versus Evidence." The Elementary School Journal, 72: 35-46.

Christopherson, S. (1981). "Developmental Placement in the Regular School Program." G/C/T, (19): 40-41.

Daurio, S. (1979). "Educational Enrichment versus Acceleration: A Review of the Literature." In W. George, S. Cohn, and J. Stanley (Eds.), Educating the Gifted: Acceleration and Enrichment, 13-63. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Gould, S. (1981). The Mismeasure of Man. New York: Norton.

Howley, C. (I 986). Intellectually Gifted Students: Issues and Policy Implications. Charleston, WV: Appalachia Educational Laboratory. ED 296 569.

Howley, C. (1987). "It's Controversial, but 'Acceleration' Could Bring Gifted Kids Up to

Full Speed." American School Board Journal, 174 (6): 32-33, 40.

Kulik, J. and C. Kulik (1984). "Effects of Accelerated Instruction on Students."

Morphet, M. and C. Washburne (1931). "When Should Children Begin to Read?" The Elementary School Journal, 31: 496-503.

Pendarvis, E., A. Howley, and C. Howley (1990). The Abilities of Gifted Children. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Roedell, W., N. Jackson, and H. Robinson (1980). Gifted Young Children. New York: Teachers College Press.

Rogers, K. (I 986). Review of Research on the Education of Intellectually and Academically Gifted Students. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota State Department of Education. ED 268 761.

Stanley J. (April 1986). "The Urgent Need for an Academic Focus." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. ED 277 205.

Zirkel, P. and P. Stevens (1986). "Commentary: The Law Concerning Public Education of Gifted Students." West's Education Law Reporter, 34: 353-367.

Craig Howley is Co-Director of the ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools.

This article was originally published in ERIC Review, volume 2 number 1, 1992, pp. 19-20. The ERIC Review is published three times a year by ACCESS ERIC with support from the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OEIR). For more information about the ERIC Review or for a free subscription to the ERIC Review, contact:

ACCESS ERIC
800-538-3742
E-mail: accesseric@accesseric.org
URL: http://www.eric.ed.gov

Return to the Virtual Library page.
Return to the ReadyWeb Home Page.