transition classes: a viable alternative for the at-risk child?

8
Psychology in rhe Schools Yakme 21. Ocrober. 1984 TRANSITION CLASSES: A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE FOR THE AT-RISK CHILD? GILBERT R. GREDLER University of South Carolina Increased interest in the child “not ready” for reading has led to the use of a number of instructional options, of which the transition class is one. Efficacy of transition room programs is reviewed and importance of teacher attitudes is discussed. Educators will need to examine current educational practices in order to reduce the school failure rate. THE TRANSITION ROOM CONCEPT For several years, American schools have used the device of the transition room for the educational placement of young children considered unready for the regular first- grade experience. Alternatively referred to as a transition room, a readiness room, or a junior first grade, the concept is that extra time is the prime variable needed for these children and that they must be separated from the regular class in order to make ade- quate academic progress. The belief is that the transitional year also will aid children to mature emotionally, socially, and intellectually, and, thus, they will be better able to cope with academic tasks. Implementation of a transition class requires that decisions be made in several critical areas. These decisions include: the criteria for the selection of the children, the type of curriculum to be utilized, length of the program to be implemented, and criteria for graduation from such a program. However, surprisingly little research has been un- dertaken concerning the viability of the transition classroom. It is, therefore, important to review and evaluate important studies in this area. Historical Background Transition classes were utilized in a number of large city schools in the 1940s, but the concept did not spread widely at that time (Harris, 1970). In 1950, McDaid studied the transition room program in the Detroit city schools. In a review of the results of such a program in 116 elementary schools, McDaid found that, over a period of three years, the children performed no better in regular classes than did a control group. In fact, the transition room-eligible children who remained in the regular class achieved at a significantly higher level in reading. In the Quincy, Illinois, schools, Liddle and Long (1958) devised a transition room primarily to help low SES children who were having difficulty with the regular school program. Children were placed in the transition room for a variable time period depend- ing on their progress in the program. Emphasis was on efforts to integrate the child back into the regular school without necessarily being held back a year. Liddle and Long report that such a program was of value in improving the academic performance of many of the children. Griffin and Reinherz (1969) recommended the use of the transition room for children in the Qujncy, Massachusetts, schools. The most important aspect of their study was documentation of the high retention rate of low SES children in that particular school system. In one state program, Hagaman (1947) indicated that children were in- troduced again to a kindergarten-type curriculum, a program which they had already been through the previous year. School reading activities were not initiated. Reprint requests should be sent to Gilbert R. Gredler, Dept. of Psychology, University of South Carolina, 463 Columbia, SC 29208.

Upload: gilbert-r-gredler

Post on 06-Jun-2016

215 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Transition classes: A viable alternative for the at-risk child?

Psychology in rhe Schools Yakme 21 . Ocrober. 1984

TRANSITION CLASSES: A VIABLE ALTERNATIVE FOR THE AT-RISK CHILD?

GILBERT R. GREDLER

University of South Carolina

Increased interest in the child “not ready” for reading has led to the use of a number of instructional options, of which the transition class is one. Efficacy of transition room programs is reviewed and importance of teacher attitudes is discussed. Educators will need to examine current educational practices in order to reduce the school failure rate.

THE TRANSITION ROOM CONCEPT For several years, American schools have used the device of the transition room for

the educational placement of young children considered unready for the regular first- grade experience. Alternatively referred to as a transition room, a readiness room, or a junior first grade, the concept is that extra time is the prime variable needed for these children and that they must be separated from the regular class in order to make ade- quate academic progress. The belief is that the transitional year also will aid children to mature emotionally, socially, and intellectually, and, thus, they will be better able to cope with academic tasks.

Implementation of a transition class requires that decisions be made in several critical areas. These decisions include: the criteria for the selection of the children, the type of curriculum to be utilized, length of the program to be implemented, and criteria for graduation from such a program. However, surprisingly little research has been un- dertaken concerning the viability of the transition classroom. It is, therefore, important to review and evaluate important studies in this area. Historical Background

Transition classes were utilized in a number of large city schools in the 1940s, but the concept did not spread widely at that time (Harris, 1970). In 1950, McDaid studied the transition room program in the Detroit city schools. In a review of the results of such a program in 116 elementary schools, McDaid found that, over a period of three years, the children performed no better in regular classes than did a control group. In fact, the transition room-eligible children who remained in the regular class achieved at a significantly higher level in reading.

In the Quincy, Illinois, schools, Liddle and Long (1958) devised a transition room primarily to help low SES children who were having difficulty with the regular school program. Children were placed in the transition room for a variable time period depend- ing on their progress in the program. Emphasis was on efforts to integrate the child back into the regular school without necessarily being held back a year. Liddle and Long report that such a program was of value in improving the academic performance of many of the children. Griffin and Reinherz (1969) recommended the use of the transition room for children in the Qujncy, Massachusetts, schools. The most important aspect of their study was documentation of the high retention rate of low SES children in that particular school system. In one state program, Hagaman (1947) indicated that children were in- troduced again to a kindergarten-type curriculum, a program which they had already been through the previous year. School reading activities were not initiated.

Reprint requests should be sent to Gilbert R. Gredler, Dept. of Psychology, University of South Carolina, 463 Columbia, SC 29208.

Page 2: Transition classes: A viable alternative for the at-risk child?

464 Gilbert R . Gredler

In the average transition room program, children are generally selected at the end of kindergarten. While school psychologists play a part in some programs, usually the teacher is the dominant force in the selection and identification of children eligible for the transition room. A large number of schools in the United States utilize some version of a transition room program today. McDaid (1950) describes a phenomenon that currently is common; i.e., the strong feelings and convictions of school personnel that the transi- tion room experience will automatically be of value to the child. School personnel often state that the main reason for introducing such a program into the schools is that it reduces school failures. They also maintain that transition room students are better prepared for regular class; yet few, if any, studies have been conducted in the school systems to provide data for such assertions.

The Value of Transition Room Placement: Recent Studies In-depth analysis of the operation of the transition room is provided in a number of

important doctoral dissertations. Bell (1 972) reviewed the academic progress of children who were placed in transition rooms in a Detroit suburban school district. She compared their achievement with that of children who were designated “at-risk” but were placed in a regular first-grade class. Children were identified as lacking in readiness on the basis of three factors: kindergarten teachers’ opinions, the Anton Brenner Test of School Readiness, and PPVT scores. The progress of 64 children placed in transition rooms of six elementary schools was contrasted with that of the 12 children with similar educational and psychological characteristics who entered the regular first-grade program in a seventh elementary school. Achievement test scores of both groups of children were compared at the end of the first year of regular class placement. She also studied the self-concept of these children.

Bell found that children placed in the regular first grade made greater achievement gains than did the children placed in the readiness room program. She states, “One may conclude that the program of study for this group (i.e., the regular class) proved to be more effective than did that of the readiness room program . . . in developing competence in reading” (p. 1 10).

The children also were tested as to achievement at the end of the second school year on the Stanford Achievement Test. Once again, Bell found that the children who were eligible for the transition room program, but remained in the regular school program, performed at a satisfactory level on the achievement test. While the differences in achievement level did not reach statistical significance, 9 of 10 test scores on the Stanford Early School Achievement Test and the Stanford Achievement Test were found to be at a higher level for the children who had attended regular class instead of the transition room.

Such results indicate that the at-risk child fared relatively well within the regular class structure in this school system. In addition, these children had reached this level of competence in one year less time.

Proponents of the transition room concept say that such a program enables the children to build a stronger foundation of reading skills and, therefore, they will be able to function subsequently at a higher level of achievement (Bell, 1972). But Bell did not find that such a development occurred within the two-year period of her study. Bell questions the philosophical premise of the transition room program which states that a “slower pace of instruction within the smaller, homogeneous group (is) the most effective way to develop readiness for children who (do) not appear to be ready for first grade. . .”

Page 3: Transition classes: A viable alternative for the at-risk child?

Transition Classes 465

(p.121). It is also important to note that 93% of the at-risk children who were mainstreamed were promoted to the second grade, while only 20% of the transition room children were promoted to the second grade at the end of their transition room year.

Central to all transition room programs are the strong feelings and attitudes of the teachers that such a program will definitely enhance the child’s self-concept, as well as academic performance. According to Bell, the teachers and principals in her study made such comments as, “The children can go at their own pace;” “The children will do better in first grade;” “Readiness really works;” “Few children who go from the readiness room program to the second grade are successful;” “Kids are turned on as learners;” “The children have the security of a small group;” “We don’t want the kids to feel that they’re a failure;” “The program has been wonderful for these beautiful people” (Bell,

The results of Bell’s research indicate that just the opposite occurred with the group of children she studied. That is, when the scores on the self-concept tests were compared, the transition room children showed a loss of self-esteem and self-confidence compared to the at-risk children who were mainstreamed.

Some transition room proponents would say that a one- or two-year study of these children is insufficient to ascertain if a true payoff exists, and that possibly real differences might show up later in the children’s school career. However, it would seem reasonable to expect measurable achievement gains at the end of a one- or two-year study.

In a recent study, Talmadge (198 I) investigated the value of the transition room that had been in existence for 12 years in a Washington State school system; 102 of 424 kindergarten children were identified by their teachers at the end of the school year and recommended for transition room placement. Talmadge was investigating a number of correlational relationships among family environmental factors, cognitive factors, behavior rating scores, transition room placement, and early reading achievement. Of main interest here are Talmadge’s findings in regard to transition room placement.

Children were placed in a transition room on the basis of a low score on the Metropolitan Readiness Test and recommendation of the teacher. Following their one- year placement in the transition room, the children were promoted to first grade.

Talmadge states that his results challenge the value of transition room placement. After statistical control for cognitive ability/reading readiness, Talmadge found that children who had been in a transition room and thus had had two years of school were no better in reading achievement than younger children who had had only one year of school.

In another study, Raygor (1972) investigated the progress of young children in the Roseville, Minnesota, schools. She argues strongly for the value of retention and the use of the transition room. Of 62 children recommended for kindergarten retention and whose parents had agreed to such placement, a random sample of 37 was drawn for placement in a transition room program; the other 25 remained in kindergarten for a sec- ond year. At the same time, another 30 children, also recommended for kindergarten retention but whose parents refused to allow such placement, were promoted to the regular first grade. These children made up the “potential first-grade failure” group. A random sample of children. who attended the regular kindergarten and first-grade programs also was included as part of the assessment process.

In the numerous comparisons made at the end of the treatment program, Raygor found no differences in academic achievement between the transition room children and

1972, pp.104-106).

Page 4: Transition classes: A viable alternative for the at-risk child?

466 Gilbert R . Gredler

the kindergarten retained children at the end of either first grade or third grade. When the test results of the “potential first-grade failures” (i.e., children who had been promoted to first grade despite a recommendation of kindergarten retention) were com- pared with those of the transition room and retained kindergarten children, a number of interesting results were found. Raygor noted that “potential first-grade failures” per- formed significantly lower on the Stanford Achievement Test than did the transition room or retained kindergarten students. All children had been in first grade one year before they were tested. When teacher ratings of these three groups of children were com- pared at the third- and fourth-grade levels, the only significant difference in achievement found was that ofreading achievement, which was in favor of the transition room and retained kindergarten children. No significant differences in teacher ratings were noted for overall academic achievement, arithmetic achievement, and language achievement level.

Even more significant was the fact that when the “potential failure” group was com- pared with a random sample of regular class children at the end of the fourth grade, only two of 10 subtests from the Stanford Achievement Test results were found to be statistically significant in favor of the regular fourth graders. Raygor comments on the findings by stating: “The results suggest that, if supplemental services had been available to this group, they might have been able to compete with their peers more successfully” (p. 137). Raygor’s study points up the fact that initial test differences in reading in favor of transition room and kindergarten children were not sustained through three to four years of schooling.

Matthews (1977) investigated the effects of transition room placement on a group of children in the Alton, Illinois, school system. The experimental group consisted of 163 children who were placed in a transition room program for a year. Their academic progress was compared with a number of different control groups in the second and third grades. One control group consisted of 60 children who qualified for transition room placement, but were not enrolled in such a class either because of lack of space or paren- tal objections. Another control group was made up of a random sample of children who were progressing normally in a regular class. A third control group consisted of 45 children who had been retained in the first grade. The last control group consisted of regular class children who entered kindergarten one year later than the experimental group and other control groups.

Test data indicated that transition room placement did not result in achievement in second or third grade similar to that of regular class children. “Potential first-grade failures” who had been placed in regular class were achieving at a relatively higher rate in the second or third grades than children who had been retained in first grade. Consistent differences between these two groups were found on seven of 10 of the achievement test comparisons at the third-grade level in favor of the “potential first-grade failure” children who were mainstreamed. The obvious implication is that the retention of students was not an effective method for improving school achievement.

In the second-grade transition room, children did not perform significantly better than the retained children or at-risk students who remained in the regular class; and again in the third grade, the transition room children did not perform significantly better on the total achievement battery than did at-risk children who were mainstreamed.

In the third grade, the transition room children attained a significantly higher total achievement score than did those children who had been retained; but transition room placement did not help those children who had been identified as academically deficient

Page 5: Transition classes: A viable alternative for the at-risk child?

Transition Classes 467

to catch up and perform at the same level in the third grade as the average student. The Matthews study is one of the most important projects carried out on the effects

of transition room placement. The relatively large sample of children involved, the careful delineation of the experimental group, and the follow-up of the children over a period of three years, all add to the significance of the educational findings. Transition Room Placement vs. Individualization within the Regular Class

The overall impression obtained from these studies is that the transition room, as currently operated in the American school system, does not result in adequate progress in reading skills for the children so placed. This conclusion is borne out of one of the most recent studies of the effectiveness of transition room placement. Leinhardt (1980) under- took a study of transition room progress in the Pittsburgh public school system that is important because it is one of the few that utilizes a predominantly black population. Transition room-eligible children who were integrated into a regular first-grade class were divided into two groups. One group was taught with a specially devised in- dividualized reading program within the regular classroom, and the other group was taught using regular basal instructional material. The progress of these two, groups of children also was compared with that of children placed in a self-contained transition room who were taught using the individualized reading program.

Results of the year-long program indicated that children eligible for a transition room placement but placed, instead, in a first-grade class outperformed transition room- eligible children in the same regular class but who were given only conventional classroom instruction. The integrated children taught with specialized materials also out- performed students who were given the special instructional program but were placed in the transition room. Leinhardt attributes these results to a combination of (a) the specialized instructional curriculum that was used and (b) the fact that the children were integrated into a regular classroom setting.

The most valuable contribution of the Leinhardt study is the description of the ways in which the instructional climate differed in the two settings. Transition room children received an average of 2% hours a week less reading instruction than the transition room- eligible children placed in the regular class and, of course, less reading material was covered in the transition room (50.4 lessons vs. 26.8 lessons). In addition, the regular class teachers tested their children 15 more times frequently, while the transition children were not tested at all. All this was accomplished despite the fact that the adult/student ratio was three times higher in the transition room.

The Leinhardt study highlights a number of facets of transition room programs that have long been surmised by some investigators. Such programs may be watered down too much; negative expectations of school personnel may contribute to the poor educational outcomes (i.e., “We know they haven’t matured; therefore, we can’t really do too much with them in class this year.”). However, because of the very small number of transition room-eligible children placed in a regular class and involved in a specialized curriculum ( N = 9 ) , replication of the study is recommended.

LegallEthical Considerations According to Oakes (1983), the only successful court challenges to grouping and

tracking to date have been in situations where grouping procedures have resulted in a specific identifiable racial grouping. However, it would seem that transition room programs that result in grouping according to sex also would be in danger legally. The majority of transition room children are boys; if a transition room placement program

Page 6: Transition classes: A viable alternative for the at-risk child?

468 Gilbert R . Gredler

results in sex separation for long periods of time (i.e., one year), such a program might be risky from a legal point of view. It would seem that integration of the sexes should be considered at least as desirable as integration of racial groups within the school system.

Oakes identifies other factors that must be considered in any grouping practice: (a) There are fewer role models available for these children than when grouped with achiev- ing students. (b) Frequently, low-track assignments are not preferred by teachers and often less experienced teachers are assigned to these less-preferred groups. (c) Is the classification system used for placement of these at-risk children a valid and reliable one?

In regard to this last point, one study demonstrated a lack of correspondence between the group label and subsequent classroom performance. O’Donnell (1968) demonstrated that the Gesell label of “immature” and “mature” learner did not cor- relate with the academic progress made by two groups of children in the first grade.

The burden of proof falls on the school system to justify why such children need a special class placement; thus, automatic repetition of kindergarten or first grade or tran- sition room placement with automatic placement the next year in first grade may not fulfill the requirement of an appropriate education for a child with special needs. Accord- ing to Stroup and Zirkel (1983), courts probably will look at a retention decision when such decision is based on the application of a single criterion applied mechanically. Oakes (1983) suggests that a due process hearing might be considered necessary before a child’s educational status can be changed from a regular class setting. And, if the program carries a label that it is one for “slow” learners, questions may be raised legitimately as to whether the program does offer equal educational opportunity.

Hoever, it is not argued that transition room programs are automatically suspect legally or educationally. It would seem that school personnel could, with some minor modifications, make such programs of more value educationally and less hazardous legally by following these suggestions: 1. Introducing a carefully worked out classification system for placing the children in a

transition room program, 2. Carefully monitoring the children’s progress during the academic year, 3. Introducing a system of continuous reintegration of children who make adequate

progress during the academic year into the first grade and promoting children to the second grade who qualify at the end of the year.

In many instances, children are not tested at the end of the transition room year and are automatically placed in a first-grade class. Another approach that would help lessen the legal attack on transitiorl rooms would be to pay much more specific attention to the kind of program being given to these children. Analysis of the curricula of transition room programs leads to the conclusions stated previously that frequently they are watered- down kindergarten programs and give the child little opportunity to gain reading skills. Other Alternatives to Helping the At-Risk Child

Other approaches to helping the young child at-risk should be reviewed by school personnel, one of which is to extend the kindergarten program to a full day. Using such an approach, Oliver (1980) compared the progress of children who attended a full-day expanded kindergarten with that of a control group of children who attended the regular one-half day kindergarten. Children were equated on the basis of chronological age and prereading ability level. Average time spent per week on prereading activities in the full- time kindergarten was 9.75 hours vs. 6.98 hours for the half-day kindergarten. The time

Page 7: Transition classes: A viable alternative for the at-risk child?

Transition Classes 469

period for this particular program involved a total of 100 days, which was 55% of the total school year. Both groups were instructed using the Durrell-Murphy Sound Start Program. Results obtained indicated a higher level of performance by the children in the full-day kindergarten in the areas of letter recognition, letter name sounds, writing letters from dictation, and matching syntax. It is especially important to note that boys scored as high as girls on the phonics inventory posttest that was administered. This program was carried out in eight Title I elementary schools in the Cambridge, Massachusetts, school system. The instructional program was quite effective for both half-day and full- day kindergarten children; two-thirds reached or exceeded the phonics inventory norms for the top one-third of beginning first-grade children.

In another study, Erskine (1972) attempted to identify key children who would be at-risk for reading. These children then received a diagnostic prescriptive program of reading readiness activities for two 45-minute sessions per week for a total of 16 weeks. An individualized program of readiness activities was suggested for another group of high-risk children, and a diagnostic profile of their needs was given to the teachers. Erskine found that the use of such approaches paid off in improved basic prereading skills.

CONCLUSIONS A. Analysis of the research studies of transition rooms raises questions about the degree of educational “payoff’ obtained with such programs. Research indicates that transition room children either do not perform as well or at most are equal in achieve- ment levels to transition room-eligible children placed in regular classrooms. B. Attitudes of school personnel toward the transition room generally are favorable; yet few, if any, schools have gathered any data to indicate the educational status of children so placed. Statements of faith from school personnel abound. Few programs maintain effective monitoring systems to indicate the progress of the children. C . Although a small teacher/student ratio often exists in the transition room, some research indicates that less time is devoted to academic activities than is given to children who are eligible for the transition room but are placed in the regular class. D. Almost all research investigations, regardless of the statistical findings, emphasize the importance of further educational intervention within the regular class for the educationally at-risk child. E. It is possible to make changes in transition room programs to meet educational and legal objections, and such changes must be considered carefully by school personnel if a transition room is to continue to be used. F. Approaches other than the use of the transition room should be considered by school personnel. Several investigations have demonstrated that changes in the operation of the kindergarten program have resulted in impressive educational gains for children at that age level.

REFERENCES BELL, M. (1912).

ERSKINE, R. G. (1972).

A study of the readiness room program in a small school district in suburban Detroit,

Developing reading potential: Identification and instruction of disadvantaged high- Michigan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University.

risk readers in kindergarten. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Purdue University.

Page 8: Transition classes: A viable alternative for the at-risk child?

470 Gilbert R . Gredler

GRIFFIN, C. L., & REINHERZ, H. Z. (1969). Prevention of the “failure syndrome” in the primary grades:

HAGAMAN, N. C. (1947). Transition first-grade classes and their values. California Journal of Elementary

HARRIS, A. J . (1970). LEINHARDT, G. (1980). Transition rooms: Promoting maturation or reducing education? Journal of

Educational Psychology, 72, 55-6 I . LIDDLE, G., & LONG, D. (1958). Experimental room for slow learners. Elementary School Journal, 59, 143-

149. MATTHEWS, H. W. (1917). The effect of transition education. a year of readiness. and beginning reading in-

struction between kindergarten andjirst grade. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, St. Louis University. MCDAID, E. W. (1 950). A study of an experimental reading readiness program in a large city school system.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Wayne State University. OAKES, J. (1983). Tracking and ability grouping in American schools: Some conditional questions. Teachers

College Record, 84, 800-819. O’DONNELL, C. M. (1968). A comparison of the reading readiness of kindergarten pupils exposed to

conceptual-language and basal reader pre-reading programs. Maine State Department of Education Cooperative Research Project Number 7-8426.

OLIVER, L. S. (1980). The effects of extended instructional time on the readiness for reading of kindergarten children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University.

RAYGOR, B. (1912). A Jive-year followup study comparing the school achievement and school adjustment of children retained in kindergarten and children placed in a transition class. Unpublished doctoral disserta- tion, University of Minnesota.

STROUP, S. W., & ZIRKEL, P. A. (1983). A legal look at the retention-promotion controversy. Journal of

TALMADGE, S. J. (I98 I). Descriptive and predictive relationships among family environments. cognitive characteristics. behavioral ratings, transition room placement, and early reading achievement. Un- published doctoral disseration, University of Orekon.

Implications for intervention. American Journal of Public Health, 59, 2029-2034.

Education, IS, 191-192. How to increase reading ability (5th ed.). New York: David McKay.

School Psychology, 21, 213-217.