1. © 2008 Jackie Lasek by Jackie Lasek ED 703.22 Spring 2008 Kindergarten’s Youngest Children: A study of relative age and the effects of academic redshirting

2. © 2008 Jackie Lasek Table of Contents Introduction Statement of Problem Literature Review Research Hypothesis Methods Participants Instruments Experimental Design Procedure Results Discussion Implications

3. © 2008 Jackie Lasek Introduction Statement of the Problem New York Times Magazine articleNew York Times Magazine article No Child Left Behind Act and age of accountability Kindergarten is the new First Grade The researcher was one of the youngest students

4. © 2008 Jackie Lasek Introduction Review of Related Literature Theoretical Frameworks Maturational Piaget Sociocultural Vygotsky Jean Piaget Lev Vygotsky

5. © 2008 Jackie Lasek Introduction Review of Related Literature An academic gap exists Oshima & Domaleski (2006); Bedard & Dhuey (2006); March (2005); Stipek & Byler (2001); NICHD (2007) A social/emotional gap exists Thompson, Barnsley & Battle (2004); Stipek (2002); Dhuey & Lipscomb (in press)

6. © 2008 Jackie Lasek Introduction Review of Related Literature Redshirting Advantages Datar (2006); Taylor (2003); West, Meek, Hurst (2000) Redshirting Disadvantages Holloway (2003); Lincove & Painter (2006); Stipek (2002); Lane, Medford, & Knorr (2005); Marshall (2003); NAECS/SDE (2001); Crosser (1998); Ede (2004); Wallingford & Prout (2000)

7. © 2008 Jackie Lasek Introduction Review of Related Literature Socioeconomic Implications Frey (2005); Datar (2006); Holloway (2003); Bedard & Dhuey (2006); Crosser (1998) Unsure of Implications Malone, West, Flanagan, & Park (2006); Graue & DiPerna (2000); McDonald (2001); Noel & Newman (2003)

8. © 2008 Jackie Lasek Introduction Statement of the Hypothesis Academic redshirting and relative age will adversely affect, both academically and socially, the youngest student in each of two kindergarten classrooms at a public school in Brooklyn, NY.

9. © 2008 Jackie Lasek Methods Participants Classroom 1: Teacher 1, Student 1, Student 3, Mother 1, Mother 3 Classroom 2: Teacher 2, Student 2, Student 4, Mother 2, Mother 4

10. © 2008 Jackie Lasek Methods Instruments Parent Consent Form Parent Affective Test Student Affective Test Teacher Affective Test Teacher Evaluation Kindergarten Math Assessment 2

11. © 2008 Jackie Lasek Methods Experimental Design Pre-experimental design: One-shot case study, XO Classroom 1: X 1 O Classroom 2: X 2 O Known sources of invalidity Internal: History, maturation, mortality External: no known sources

12. © 2008 Jackie Lasek Methods Procedure Length: 3 months (February 2008 - April 2008) February: permission granted March: Parent Affective Test, Student Affective Test, Teacher Affective Test, Teacher Evaluation April: Kindergarten Math Assessment 2

13. © 2008 Jackie Lasek Results Parent Affective Test Student Affective Test Teacher Affective Test Teacher Evaluation Kindergarten Math Assessment 2 Correlations found

14. © 2008 Jackie Lasek r xy = 0.806

15. © 2008 Jackie Lasek r xy = 0.819

16. © 2008 Jackie Lasek Discussion Parent Affective Test Supports Dhuey & Lipscomb (in press) Invalidity: history, instrumentation, ecological, selection-treatment Student Affective Test Does not support Stipek & Byler (2001); Marshall (2003) Invalidity: history, maturation, instrumentation, ecological, selection-treatment, experimenter

17. © 2008 Jackie Lasek Discussion Teacher Affective Test Supports Dhuey & Lipscomb (in press); Does not support Oshima & Domaleski (2006); Stipek & Byler (2001) Invalidity: history, instrumentation, ecological, selection-treatment, experimenter Teacher Evaluation Supports Ede (2004); West et al. (2000) Does not support Marshall (2003) Invalidity: history, instrumentation, ecological, experimenter

18. © 2008 Jackie Lasek Discussion Kindergarten Math Assessment 2 Supports Oshima & Domaleski (2006); Ede (2004) Stipek & Byler (2001); March (2005); Datar (2006a) Does not support Lincove & Painter (2006) Invalidity: history, instrumentation, experimenter

19. © 2008 Jackie Lasek Implications Academic and social differences exist Be aware of bias Accommodate all needs and levels Leadership opportunities for all Further research needed