This article was downloaded by: [New York University]On: 11 October 2014, At: 00:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rere20

LENGTH OF INFANT SCHOOL ANDACADEMIC PERFORMANCEJoan Barker LunnPublished online: 09 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Joan Barker Lunn (1972) LENGTH OF INFANT SCHOOL AND ACADEMICPERFORMANCE, Educational Research, 14:2, 120-127

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013188720140204

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

LENGTH OF INFANT SCHOOL AND ACADEMICPERFORMANCEJOAN BARKER LUNN

AN EXAMINATION WAS MADE of the effects of length of infant schooling on academic performance whenseason of birth was held constant. The results indicate that the number of terms spent in the infantschool affects the performance of summer-born children, those having spent only six terms there doingworse than those having spent a longer period. Analysis by social class and school type, whetherstreamed or not, revealed the same tendency. It is suggested that the poorer performance of summer-born children with the least school experience is unlikely to be purely due to their short infant schooling.It is more probably due to other associated factors, such as the age position effect, streaming, and theeffects of teacher expectation and lower motivation, which operate throughout the junior school.

A child's date of birth or age is related to hisacademic performance—and although this factis widely known and accepted, it is oftenignored in the school setting. In theory, mostteachers would expect, and make allowances for,academic differences between eight- and nine-year-olds. In practice, the general assumption isthat within a school year-group children are ofthe same age. Teachers do not make allowancesfor, nor are they aware of, individual differences,even where there is a twelve-months' gap betweenthe oldest and youngest child in the class. Thusteachers tend to regard the 'oldest' children, whoreceive the highest marks, as the brightest.Evidence that teachers make insufficient allow-ance for age differences has accumulated froma number of sources. Bouri and Barker Lunn(1969), comparing teachers' ability ratings ofpupils with their performance on a verbalreasoning test, found that there was a markedtrend for the ability of the 'oldest' pupils in theclass to be over-estimated and that of the 'young-est' to be under-estimated in comparison withtheir classmates. This work was carried out insmall schools and although the same trend wasobserved in classes of one year-group, it was mostpronounced in classes of a wide age-span.

Indirect evidence of the same phenomena canbe obtained from studies in large streamed

junior schools. A number of researchers (Pape,1956; Jackson, 1964; Jinks, 1964; Freyman,1965; Sutton, 1967; Barker Lunn 1967a, 1967b,1970) have noted the tendency for an over-allocation of 'older' children, or those born in theautumn, to the A-streams or top ability classes,and an under-allocation of these children to B- orC-streams. Usually, the average age of childrenin different streams decreases from the A to thebottom streams; also if streams are examined byseason of birth the tendency is for the majorityof A-stream children to be autumn-born and theoldest of the year group and the majority ofthose in the lowest streams to be summer bornand the youngest of the year group. Jackson(1964) and Barker Lunn (1970) have also shownthat the greater the number of streams in theschool, the greater the age difference between thetop and bottom streams.

A contributory factor to the differences in agebetween streams would seem to be the failure ofheadteachers in allocating children to differentstreams, either to make an age allowance or touse standardized tests which have a built-inage allowance. In a survey (Barker Lunn, 1967a),heads were asked what criteria they used forassigning pupils to different streams. The mostpopular method at seven plus when pupils firstentered junior school, was to allocate to streams

120

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

59 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

on the basis of infant-school records. Only abouta quarter took age into account, and a largenumber used no objective tests (i.e. standardizedtests.) Schools preferred to stream on the basis ofan assessment of the child's work as reported bythe infant school and only a minority usedcriteria such as age and standardized tests whichwould diminish the younger child's disadvantage.

Further evidence of the bias against 'younger'children is obtained from a study of pupils in the'wrong' stream.1 Barker Lunn (1970) found thatchildren in the 'wrong' stream and who shouldhave been in a higher ability stream tended to bethe youngest in the year group. Those who shouldhave been in a lower ability stream tended to bethe oldest in the year group. This study reflectsthe failure of teachers to take age into accountwhen assessing a child's ability.

Results along similar lines were obtained in astudy of small junior schools (Bouri and BarkerLunn, 1969); here it was found that children pro-moted tended to be the oldest of the year groupand those demoted to be the youngest.

Related to a child's age or season of birth is thenumber of terms he spends in the infant school. InEngland and Wales a child normally starts schoolduring or after the term in which he is five.Infant schools thus generally admit three intakesof children a year. Promotion to the junior school,however, takes place only once a year, whichresults in children having varying lengths ofinfant schooling. So autumn-born children havemore schooling than spring and summer-bornchildren in the same school year. The extent ofthese differences is shown in a survey of about15,000 children (Barker Lunn, 1967a) whichindicated that only 26 per cent had completed afull nine terms in the infant school; 26 per centhad had only six terms in the infant school. Inother words, this latter group had had a wholeyear less. Twenty-four per cent of the childrenhad had seven terms and the remaining 24 percent eight terms.

Since there is a relatively high correlation

1This was based on the overlap in achievement scoresbetween streams within a school; children obtaining higherscores than those in a higher ability stream, and thoseobtaining lower scores than those in a lower ability streamwere identified as in the wrong stream. An allowance wasmade for test score unreliability (see Barker Lunn, 1970,pp. 89-95, for details).

between season of birth and length of infantschooling (r = -66), it is not surprising thatseveral researchers (Jackson, 1964; Barker Lunn,1967b, 1970), have noted the tendency forA-streams to have more children with nineterms infant schooling and to have relativelyfewer children with six terms. In lower abilitystreams, ESN schools (Bookbinder, 1967), andremedial classes (Barker Lunn, 1967b), the trendis reversed: children here having had only ashort time in the infant school. Nearly 40 per centof children in remedial classes (Barker Lunn,1967b) had missed a year in the infant school, andhad spent only six terms there.

In addition to the age factor, difference inlength of infant schooling is an obvious explana-tion for the apparently poorer school performanceof summer born children (see Pidgeon and Dodds,1961; Williams, 1964; Jinks, 1964; Jackson,1964; Pidgeon, 1965; Barker Lunn, 1967a and1970). Pidgeon (1965) says 'itis not an unreason-able assumption that children who have receivedmore schooling will have learned more, andhence when examined will produce betterperformances'.

Another explanation which cannot be entirelydismissed is that children born at different timesof the year are not of equal mental ability—thoseborn in the summer being in fact mentallyinferior to those born in the autumn. There is aconsiderable body of research which examinesthe relationship between season of birth andintelligence. It is not proposed to review it here(see Chrimes, 1970), but the main studies (Pintnerand Forlano, 1933 and 1939; Fitt, 1941; Roberts,1944; Orme, 1962 and 1963) indicate a slightmental superiority among those born in thesummer. This finding, therefore, does notprovide an explanation for the poor schoolperformance of summer-born children—at thesame time it does not necessarily conflict with theabove, since the summer-born can be bothmentally superior and at a disadvantage inschool because of their age.

Evidence that the summer-born do badly inschool because of their age and shorter infantschooling, rather than because of their inferiornatural ability, comes from a study of localeducation authorities in which school admissiondates differed from those in other parts of the

121

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

59 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

country. Both Jackson (1964) and Brown (1969)showed that when qualifying dates were changedso that children born in the summer becamethose with the longest period in the infant school,these children predominated in the A-streamsand were at an advantage in secondary selection,whereas the autumn-born suffered a disadvantage.

Although age and length of infant schoolingappear to be the major causal factors, it ispossible that other secondary factors arising fromthe former exacerbate the poor performance ofthe summer-born. Williams (1964) suggested the'age group position' effect: summer-born childrenare usually the youngest in the class and it ishighly likely that the academic standarddemanded of the class will be more difficult forthese younger children to achieve. This, Shearer(1967) suggests, could have a negative effectmotivationally.

Besides the possibility of poor pupil motivation,another factor which could contribute to therelatively poor performance of the summer bornis 'teacher expectancy'. The tendency for teachersto regard their 'young' pupils as less able wasnoted earlier and it could well be that thestandard expected from these pupils is below theiractual potential. If this is so, their academicprogress is likely to be adversely affected sincethere is evidence from Rosenthal and Jacobson(1968) which suggests that underestimation of achild's ability is self-fulfilling.

Most writers in this field have concentrated onthe two major factors—variations in age andlength of infant schooling—as the explanationfor the relationship between school performanceand season of birth. Apart from Bookbinder(1967), whose sample was restricted to ESNchildren, little attempt has been made to separateout the effects of age and length of infant school-ing in order to throw some light on the relativeimportance of these two factors. The aim of thepresent study is to determine the effects oflength of infant schooling on the academicperformance of children when date of birth is heldconstant.

Research designThe present investigation was based on data

from the Streaming Research in Primary Schoolsproject of The National Foundation for Educa-

tional Research. The sample involved approxi-mately 4,000 children from 72 junior schools inall parts of England (for further details, seeBarker Lunn, 1970).

The earlier research had examined children'sacademic performance by means of a battery ofattainment tests; only two of these were used forthe present problem: the English and ProblemArithmetic tests. Each of these was suitable forchildren aged seven to ten plus and the same or aparallel version of the test was administered at theend of each junior school year. (For furtherdetails of the tests, see Barker Lunn, 1970.)

For analysis purposes the children wereclassified jointly by their season of birth: 'autumnspring or summer, and by the number of terms,they had spent in the infant school (six or less,seven, eight or nine). Since the school admissiondates varied from one local education authorityto another resulting in the August-born being theoldest in some areas and the youngest in others,children born in August were omitted from theanalysis. The months of birth of the children inthe sample fell within an eleven-month period.

The definitions of the seasons of birth were asfollows:

(i) Autumn—born September to December1955

(ii) Spring—born January to April 1956(iii) Summer—born May to July 1956.The children were also categorized according

to social class. The reason for this was that pre-vious research (Barker Lunn, 1970; Postlethwaite,1967; Chrimes, 1970) suggested differentialeffects for upper and lower social class groups.Also a number of writers (Jinks, 1964; Sutton,1967; Shearer, 1967; Bookbinder, 1967) havepointed to the possibility that the disadvantagesof being summer-born are more pronouncedamong the less able—since there is a relationshipbetween social class and academic performanceone would expect working-class pupils, whotend to be the less able, to be more adverselyaffected under such circumstances.

Two social class groups were formed: (i) anupper group comprising children whose father'soccupation was professional, managerial, clericalor skilled (i.e. social classes 1, 2 and 3 of theRegistrar-General's Classification of Occupa-

122

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

59 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

tions); and (ii) a lower group which includedthose pupils whose father's occupation was semi-skilled or unskilled (i.e. social classes 4 and 5).Analyses were carried out within these two socialclass groups as well as overall. (For further socialclass details see Appendix 4, Barker Lunn, 1970.)

Since results could be affected by type ofschool organization, separate analyses werecarried out for four groups of schools:

(i) schools allocating to classes by ability(i.e. streamed);

(ii) schools allocating to classes by age (i.e.non-streamed but grouped by age);

(iii) schools allocating to classes by someother method (i.e. non-streamed);

(iv) overall.Table la and lb show the overall sample.Twelve groups were examined separately, the

children being classified by social class and typeof school organization (see Table 1). For eachgroup, comparisons were made between themean English and Problem Arithmetic test scoresof children having varying lengths of infantschooling when date of birth was held constant.The means were in the form of age adjustedstandardized scores. Separate analyses werecarried out on the scores obtained by trie childrenwhen they were aged 7 + , 8 + , 9+ and 10 + .

ResultsFirst, it is interesting to note in Tables la and

lb the close relationship (r = -66) betweenseason of birth and length of infant schooling. Themajority of autumn-born children spent nineterms in the infant school, the spring-born

Table la: Number of children having an English testscore at 7+ , 8+ , 9 + and 10-f- according toseason of birth and length of infantschooling

Number of Termsin Infants

Six terms or lessSeven termsEight termsNine terms

Total

Autumn

8860

365842

1,355

SEASON

Spring

127518589159

1,393

OF BIRTH

Summer

5534335047

1,083

Total

7681,0111,0041,048

3,831

Table lb: Number of children having a ProblemArithmetic test score at 7-f, 8+, 9+ and10+ according to season of birth andlength of infant schooling

Number of Termsin Infants

Six terms or lessSeven termsEight termsNine terms

Total

Autumn

8961

356836

1,342

SEASON OF BIRTH

Spring Summer

129502600157

1,388

5464284747

1,068

Total

764991

1,0031,040

3,798

spent seven or eight terms and the summer-bornhad only six or seven terms. So even with asample of over 3,500 children, the number ofautumn-born and summer-born children experi-encing respectively a short and long time in theinfant school is rather small. Perhaps because ofthis, the results failed to confirm a number ofexpected trends.

Although there was a non-significant tendencyoverall for mean scores to increase with thenumber of terms of infant schooling (see Table 2)

Table 2: Mean English and Problem Arithmetic scores of children according to time spent in the infant schoolat ages 7+ , 8+ , 9+ and 10+

NUMBER OF TERMSSIX TERMS

OR LESS SEVEN TERMS EIGHT TERMS NINE TERMSSIGNIFICANCE

LEVEL

English MeanScore at

ProblemArithmeticMean Score at

7+8+9+

10+

7+8+9+

10+

99-7599-3999-2999-16

99-2398-4098-6998-84

100-70100-2599-6499-45

99-7499-2398-6099-12

99-56100-26100-1299-45

99-0599-4298-7799-14

*NS = non-significant

123

99-78101-00100-5399-93

99-7399-8199-1899-58

NS*NSNSNS

NSNSNSNS

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

59 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

Table 3a: Mean English test scores obtained by summer-born children with varying lengths of infant schoolexperience

NUMBER OF TERMS IN INFANTS AT 7+ AT 8+ AT 9+ AT 10+

Six terms or less (N == 553)Seven terms (N = 433)Eight terms (N = .r~Nine terms (N =

= 50)= 47)

99-40101-51101-49104-87

98-72101-06104-30102-81

99-0999-59

104-50102-72

98-7699-45

102-77101-42

Significance level F test 5% 1% 1% 5%

Table 3b: Mean Problem Arithmetic test scores obtained by summer-born children with varying lengths ofinfant school experience

NUMBER OF TERMS IN INFANTS AT 7+ AT 8+ AT 9+ AT 10+

Six terms or less (N = 546)Seven terms (N = 428)Eight terms (N = 47)Nine terms (N = 47)

Significance level F test

*NS = non-significant

98-78100-30101-10103-63

NS*

97-94100-41101-58102-33

1%

98-4799-2399-46

102-09

NS

98-7799-20

101-69101-47

NS

this effect was by no means so apparent withinspecific seasons of birth.

The effects of length of infant schooling withinseason of births were non-significant, except forsummer-born children. Table 3 above showsthat the mean English test scores, and in one casethe problem arithmetic test scores of summer-born children with varying lengths of infantschooling were significantly different: in allcases there was a tendency for the lowest meanscores to be obtained by those children who hadhad the least infant schooling (six terms or less).The mean scores of children with nine terms'infant schooling were not consistently higher thanthe scores of those with eight term's infant schoolexperience—the sample of children in each ofthese groups, however, was too small to allow anyconclusions to be drawn.

It can be seen from Table 1, and Table 3above, that the number of children in each cellvaried greatly. Since it was possible that anytrends in the cell means might be obscured bysuch fluctuating frequencies, it was decided toestimate correlations1 between the mean scoresof children and length of infant school experiencewithin season of birth. The correlation coefficientsprovided additional evidence of a strong relation-ship between the length of infant schooling andmean scores obtained among the summer-born.

It would seem that length of infant schooling hasan effect over and above month of birth forsummer-born children.

Analysis by social class revealed the sameeffect: whatever his social class, the summer-bornchild with minimum infant schooling seemed tobe at a slight disadvantage. It had been hypothe-sized (see page 122) that the discrepancy betweenscores of summer-born and autumn-born childrenwould be greater for working-class than middle-class children,2 but there was no evidence ofthis.

An examination within school types of themean scores of children of different ages, withvarying lengths of infant school experience,showed no significant differences, althoughthere was a non-significant tendency in all typesof school for summer-born children who hadspent only six terms in the infant school to obtainlower scores than those who had had seventerms.3*4

1The frequencies in each cell were used as weights in thecalculations. The mean standardized score for each cell wascorrelated with the number of terms in the infant school.

2Chrimes (1970) points to Douglas and Ross' work(1965), also to Postlethwaite's work which suggests this.

•In streamed schools this reached the 5 per cent level ofstatistical significance on the English test at 7 + .

*No consistent pattern was found within school types by-social class.

124

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

59 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

DiscussionThe research examines the effect of length of

infant schooling on academic performance whenage is held constant. The results indicated thatthe number of terms spent in the infant schoolaffected the academic performance of summer-born children: those having spent only sixterms there doing worse than those having spent alonger period. Short infant schooling thereforeseems to be an additional handicap to that ofbeing the youngest in the year group.

Attention must be drawn here, however, todifferences in mean test scores across birthgroups. Although the mean standardized testscores of the summer-born who had spent onlysix terms in the infant school were always lowerthan the scores of those born in the autumn withthe maximum infant schooling, the differenceswere relatively small.1 But a comparison of themost school experienced autumn-born (i.e. nineterms) with those summer-born children who hadspent seven terms in the infant school revealeda tendency for the latter 'younger' children toobtain slightly higher standardized test scores.This was even more pronounced for those witheight or nine terms infant schooling and whowere summer-born.2 These results suggest thatstandardized test scores, which incorporate anage allowance, may not, on the one hand,compensate sufficiently those summer-born child-ren with the minimum number of terms in theinfant school but may, on the other hand, over-compensate summer-born children with themaximum length of infant schooling.

Before drawing firm conclusions, however, oneneeds to know more about those summer-bornchildren who had a longer infant schooling thanwould be expected. Why did nine per cent of thesummer-born start school so early and have eightor nine terms in the infant school ? In other words,why did they start school when they were onlyfour years old? Were they exceptionally brightchildren—were they more able to start with?Likewise, the seven term children—did they have

1With the exception of English test scores at 7+ . Thiscould be because the tests for the 7+ age group werestandardized on this sample when they were seven. This wasnot the case at the other ages.

2The number of children in these two groups examinedtogether was approximately 100.

a longer infant schooling than the six termchildren simply because they were slightly olderor because they were brighter or more ready forschool ? Before one can draw definite conclusionsin this area, more information is needed.

One interesting aspect of this study was thefact that greater differences were not foundbetween streamed and non-streamed schools.In streamed schools, the summer-born pre-dominate in lower ability streams and theautumn-born in higher ability streams (BarkerLunn, 1970), thus one would have expected thiseffect to show up as a disadvantage for thesummer-born. Yet this was not the case. Apossible, but unlikely, explanation is that childrenin lower ability streams, in contrast to those inA-streams, receive equally effective teaching,have similar curricula and are equally esteemedin the school so that being in a lower stream hasno detrimental effect on their progress. A moreplausible explanation is that in both streamed andnon-streamed schools there are negative factorswhich adversely affect the summer-born child'sacademic development. The possibility has beensuggested elsewhere (Pidgeon and Dodds, 1961)that in non-streamed schools where classes areformed on the basis of age, the 'older' class in ayear group gives the impression of being the abler,and the children perform accordingly; the class of'younger' less school experienced children, onthe other hand, gives the impression of being aless able group and they too respond according toexpectation. Similarly, in parallel classes in non-streamed schools, the younger summer-bornmembers of the class may be regarded by theirteachers as the less able, while the older autumn-born children, having reached a later stage ofeducational development, come to be seen andto see themselves as 'clever' relative to their'younger' less mature classmates. They perhapsbecome more highly motivated in consequence.It is possible, therefore, that whatever the typeof school organization the youngest members ofthe year group are at a disadvantage.

It is worth noting here the function of the age-adjusted standardized test. During test construc-tion, an examination is made of the mean scores ofchildren born in each month of the year andbased on these a monthly age allowance iscalculated so that the mean scores obtained by

125

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

59 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

those born at different times of the year areapproximately equal. Score differences betweenbirth months may arise as a result of age, lengthof infant schooling, age position effect in class,streaming, teacher expectancy, and motivationalfactors, but whatever the cause their effect will beremoved to some extent by the age allowanceincorporated in the standardized test. How muchthe age allowance is accounting for factorsother than age cannot be ascertained here sinceall of them are so closely related. But what hasgenerally been assumed is that the use of the age-adjusted standardized test removes all biasagainst younger children.

There is sufficient evidence to show that whenassessments of children's ability or academicperformance are based on teachers' ratings orrecommendations, there is a decided bias againstthe youngest children in the year group. Relevanthere is the conflicting evidence concerned withwhether 'younger' children suffer a disadvantagein secondary selection. Jinks (1964) and Freyman(1967) found that they suffered a disadvantagewhile Sutton (1967) and Armstrong (1966),finding only a slight tendency, concluded thatyounger children were not at a disadvantage. Thereason for differing results would seem to lie inthe method of selection; when a combination ofteacher assessments and standardized tests is used,there is a bias; when standardized tests only areused the bias is not so apparent.

Given that 'younger' children obtain lowerschool marks and achieve a lower academicstandard than the older members of their yeargroup, one might ask whether they 'catch up' orimprove relative to 'older' children by the endof the junior school course. This question cannotbe answered fully by the present research design.The use of standardized test scores does not helphere since the incorporated age allowancecorrects or compensates for any differencebetween the scores of children born at differenttimes of the year. Nor are raw test scores muchbetter—if the difference between the scores ofchildren born at different times of the year wereexamined at seven years of age and again at theend of the junior school, it would still be im-possible to tell whether the difference hadincreased or decreased simply because test scoresare not necessarily linear, that is, a difference of

three marks is not necessarily or even likely to beequivalent at the different ages. This problem isfurther complicated if different tests are used atdifferent ages. All that can be said here is that'younger' children apparently do not completely'catch up' with the 'older' ones in a year groupby the end of junior school since an age allowanceis still necessary, although the allowance issmaller at the end than at the beginning of thejunior school. Also, it appears from Table 3 that,even with an age allowance, a short infantschooling among the summer-born still shows itseffects in English at the end of junior school.Whether their lower academic performance atthis age is a direct outcome of length of infantschooling is difficult to determine. More likelytheir poorer performance is due to a multiplicityof more immediate factors, such as age positioneffect, streaming, lower motivation, effects ofteacher expectancy, which, although closelyassociated with the length of infant schooling,operate throughout the junior school. If thelatter were the case altering admission dates toinfant school so that all children spent the samelength of time there might decrease the dis-advantage for 'younger' children slightly, but %

the much more subtle factors mentioned abovewould still operate and there would be no meansof correcting for them.

The problems associated with 'younger' child-ren might be alleviated to some extent if teacherswere fully aware of the effects of age differenceswithin a year group; also, if the teaching approachwas geared to the individual, allowing the childto progress at his own rate without beingcompared, positively or otherwise, with hisclassmates (see Pidgeon, 1965). In these circum-stances the younger child (of equal ability as anolder one) would merely be at an earlier stageof development at any given point in time.

ReferencesARMSTRONG, H. G. (1966). 'A comparison of the performance

of summer- and autumn-born children at eleven andsixteen', Brit. J. Educ. Psychol., 36, 72-6.

BARKER LUNN, J. C. (1967a). 'The effects of streaming andother forms of grouping in junior schools—junior schoolsand their types of school organization', New Res. in Educ.,1, 4-45.

BARKER LUNN, J. C. (1967b). 'The effects of streaming andnon-streaming in junior schools', New Res. in Educ., 1, 46-

126

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

59 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014

BARKER LUNN, J . C. (1970). Streaming in the Primary School.Slough: NFER.

BOOKBINDER, G. E. (1967). 'The preponderance of summer-born children in ESN Classes: Which is responsible: ageor length of infant schooling?' Educ. Res., 9, 3, 213-8.

BOURI, J . and BARKER LUNN, J . C. (1969). Too Small toStream. Slough: NFER.

BROWN, C. E. (1969). A letter in Educ. Res. News.CHRIMES, R. B. (1970). 'Date of birth, length of infant

schooling, and junior school children's attainment'.Unpublished MEd thesis, University of Manchester.

DOUGLAS, J . B. and Ross, J . (1965). 'The effect of schoolabsence on primary school performance', Brit. J. Educ.Psychol., 35, 28-40.

FITT, A. B. (1941). Seasonal Influence on Growth, Function andInheritance. New Zealand Council for EducationalResearch.

FREYMAN, R. 'Further evidence on the effect of date of birthon subsequent school performance', Educ. Res., 8, 1, 58-64.

JACKSON, B. (1964). Streaming: An Education System inMiniature. London: Routledge & Regan Paul.

JINKS, P. C. (1964). 'An investigation into the effects of dateof birth on subsequent school performance', Educ. Res., 6,3, 220-5.

ORME, J . E. (1962). 'Intelligence and season of birth', Brit. J.Med. Psychol., 35, 233-4.

ORME, J . E. (1963). 'Intelligence, season of birth andclimate temperature', Brit. J. Psychol., 54, 3, 273-6.

PAPE, N. (1956). 'Accident of birth', Education, 16, 735-6.PIDGEON, D. A. and DODDS, E. M. (1961). 'Length of

schooling and its effect on performance in the juniorschool'. Educ. Res., 8, 1, 3-7.

PINTNER, R. and FORLANO, G. (1933). 'The influence ofmonth of birth on intelligence quotients', J. Educ. Psychol.,24, 561-84.

PINTNER, R. and FORLANO, G. (1933). 'Season of birth andintelligence', J. Genet. Psychol., 54, 353-8.

POSTLETHWAITE, N. (1967). School Organization and StudentAchievement. New York: Wiley.

ROBERTS, J . A. F. (1944). 'Intelligence and season ofconception'. Brit. Med. J., 1, 320.

ROSENTHAL, R. and JACOBSON, L. (1968). Pygmalion in theClassroom: Teacher Expectation and Pupil Intellectual Dev-elopment. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

SHEARER, E. (1967). 'The effect of date of birth on teachers'assessments of children', Educ. Res., 10, 1, 51-6.

SUTTON, P. (1967). 'Correlation between streaming andseason of birth in secondary schools', Brit. J. Educ. Psychol.,37, 3, 300-4.

WILLIAMS, P. (1964). 'Date of birth, backwardness andeducational organization', Brit. J. Educ. Psychol., 34, 3,247-55.

(Manuscript received 20th May, 1971)

AcknowledgementsThe author is grateful to Miss Jill Tarryer for her advice and helpful suggestions.

127

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

00:

59 1

1 O

ctob

er 2

014