USA: +1(669)289-8683 
Sign in
Week 6 Writing Assignment
This week you are going to research four types of preschools:
1.
Montessori
2.
Waldorf
3.
Reggio Emilia
4.
High Scope
For each preschool type I want you to write about the history, mission, theory/ideas/vision, materials children use, environment, and teacher qualifications. You may include anything else you find interesting. Be prepared to present your findings to the class.
To receive full credit, assignment must be doubled spaced, 12 point font, 4 (1 page per school ) pages, and turned in by due date. Proper grammar and English must be used. Please have someone proof read your paper in order to catch errors.
Read and Browse in depth.. this link as important information from what we are told..( I dont see it )
http://www.thinktonight.com/WPPSI_s/306.htm
PDF # 1 is what we need to use for our homework assignement on this.. PDF is something I found preparing for my research hypothesis on School readiness, it may assist with outside the box thinking of how these schools apply there history, mission, theories and idea as well as materials to the everlasting question, of what is school readiness and how it applies to Corproate Kinder-Culture and the socioeconomic percentages of KRT scores, the PAT association, the NYSEC testing, and the benefits of sometype of Pre KinderGartner educational program before the kindergartner expirence begins. ( IE headstart)
Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development 1
©
2
00
4
Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development
Rimm-Kaufman S
School Transition and School Readiness:
An Outcome of Early Childhood Development
SARA RIMM-KAUFMAN, PhD
University of Virginia, USA
(Published online February 2
5
, 2004)
Topic
School transition
Introduction
Recent research has redefined what it means for a child to “be ready” for kindergarten.
This primary objective of Goals 2000 set by the National Education Goals Panel1 was “to
insure that all children enter school ready to learn.” Historically, views on readiness have
placed differing levels of priority on children’s social and academic preparedness.
Subject
Researchers have been examining the topic of school transition and readiness for several
decades. The recurrent questions emerge: What does it mean to be ready for school? How
do different stakeholders prioritize different aspects of school readiness? What are the
antecedents of school readiness? This short report summarizes evidence on the school
transition and readiness with the goal of describing stakeholders’ definitions of readiness,
characteristics of child readiness, and readiness as an outcome of early childhood
experiences.
Problems
Children and their families experience a large discontinuity as they make the transition
into kindergarten. This shift is notable despite the fact that more than 80% of American
children received care on a regular basis from a non-parental caregiver prior to this
transition.2 The change in priorities and the heightened academic rigour present
challenges to children as they begin their formal education.
The current educational climate in the U.S. has furthered the experience of discontinuity
for American children. The emphasis on accountability has forced a “push down
curriculum” in which children are expected to perform at higher academic levels at earlier
ages. The transition to kindergarten has become an increasingly visible issue as federal
and state governments consider the merits of federally funded preschool programs.
Further, the children entering kindergarten are different from those of a generation ago;
they are increasingly diverse with regard to racial, ethnic, economic and language
backgrounds.
3
SCHOOL TRANSITION
School readiness leads to school success. Research suggests that children’s school
outcomes, especially achievement, remain remarkably stable after the first years of
school.4,5 Further, there is evidence that interventions are more likely to be successful in
the early school years.
6
As a result of this evidence, researchers, policy-makers, educators
and parents are grappling with what it means for children to be “ready” for school.
Research Context
Numerous large-scale studies currently target the success of the transition to school as a
key outcome variable: the Head Start Transition Study,7 the National Education
Longitudinal Study,8,9 the NICHD Study for Early Child Care,10 and the National Center
for Early Development and Learning.11,12
Three main bodies of literature have informed discussions about school readiness. The
first body is based on large-scale surveys that examine the views of stakeholders
(kindergarten teachers and parents, for example) on their perception of school readiness.
The second body of research examines definitions of school readiness by considering the
relative importance of cognitive skills, social and self-regulatory skills and chronological
age. The third body of literature examines school readiness and child outcomes in the
early years of school as a function of early educational experience and family social
processes.
Key Research Questions
Key research questions include: How do teachers and parents define readiness? What are
the cognitive, social, self-regulatory and chronological markers of school readiness?
What are the child-care and home contexts associated with school readiness?
Research Results
What is Readiness: Teachers’ and Parents’ Definitions
Studies have examined the definition of readiness among different stakeholders in the
kindergarten transition process. A national survey of kindergarten teachers conducted by
the National Center for Educational Statistics showed that teachers identified “ready”
children as those who are physically healthy, well-rested and well-fed; able to
communicate needs, wants and thoughts verbally; and curious and enthusiastic in
approaching new activities. Surprisingly, teachers did not attach particular importance to
specific numeracy and literacy skills. Parents, in contrast, typically define readiness in
terms of academic abilities, such as the ability to count or know the alphabet.13 A study
conducted by the National Center for Early Development and Learning appraises
readiness by examining teachers’ judgments on children’s school transition, showing that
almost half of children entering school experienced some difficulty with the transition to
kindergarten. Problems following directions were the most commonly cited problem
among kindergarten teachers.14
Readiness as Defined by Cognitive, Social, Self-Regulatory and Chronological Markers
Research on school readiness has focused on the links among cognitive, social, self-
regulatory and chronological markers of readiness. Early signs of cognitive ability and
maturity have been shown to be linked to children’s performance in school, and for this
Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development
©2004 Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development
Rimm-Kaufman S
2
SCHOOL TRANSITION
reason, this highly intuitive approach to assessing readiness has been used as an
indication that a child is prepared for the school environment.15 Meta-analytic work by La
Paro and Pianta16 shows that preschool and kindergarten cognitive assessments predict,
on average, 25% of variance in early elementary school (kindergarten, first or second
grade) cognitive assessments, supporting the importance of cognitive indicators, but also
suggesting that other factors account for most of the variance in early school outcomes.
Other research points to the link between children’s learning-related social skills and
academic performance. For example, children’s social adjustment to kindergarten has
been shown to be linked to their performance and involvement in school during the
kindergarten school year,17,18 and children’s work-related skills (e.g. the degree to which
children show compliance with instructions) are closely related to school success.19
Research also points to the importance of self-regulation in predicting school readiness.
Blair20 proposes a neurobiological definition of school readiness and suggests that self-
regulatory skills provide the foundation for many of the behaviours and abilities required
in kindergarten. Ability to attend selectively, show appropriate social responses and stay
engaged in academic tasks are all implicated as factors that contribute to and define
“school readiness.”
Children’s age is also a marker of school readiness insofar as it indicates maturity in the
cognitive, social and self-regulatory domains. Research on the effect of age is mixed. For
example, some studies suggest that while there is some advantage for children in being
slightly older upon the transition to kindergarten, these effects disappear by third
grade.21,22
What are the antecedents of “readiness”?
There is research demonstrating that attributes of children’s child-care environment
contribute directly to their transition and adjustment to school. Quality preschool or child-
care predicts ease of kindergarten adjustment,23 enhances pre-academic competencies,
strengthens social and self-regulatory skills24 and reduces the likelihood of some negative
outcomes, such as grade retention.25 Higher caregiver training and lower child-staff ratio
were also associated with cognitive competence prior to school entry.26 These effects
appear to be even more pronounced among children exposed to high-risk conditions.27
Most recent evidence supports a dose response, in that children who spend more time in
non-maternal child care environments show greater conflict and externalizing problems
in kindergarten.10
Family processes also influence children’s competencies as they enter school. Quality of
parent-child relationships, specifically parental sensitivity and stimulation, have a clear
and frequently documented correlation with early school success.28-32 Parents’ behaviours
toward their children and the stimulation, materials and routines they provide in the home
environment are key aspects of family factors that have substantial effects on children’s
adjustment to the first months and years of school.33,34
Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development
©2004 Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development
Rimm-Kaufman S
3
SCHOOL TRANSITION
Conclusion
The evidence suggests that school readiness is an important factor for predicting
children’s success in school and that the characterizations of school readiness are multi-
dimensional. Teachers and parents have different definitions of school readiness –
teachers emphasize readiness in a social domain, whereas parents emphasize academic
readiness. Research on which of these definitions is most closely linked to school success
shows moderate stability of cognitive indicators of school readiness, as well as the
importance of children’s abilities in other domains. Research shows that social and self-
regulatory abilities provide a foundation for academic success and that chronological age,
alone, is not an effective indicator of school readiness. Early predictors of school success
point to the contribution of positive peer relationships and sensitive and stimulating
family processes, and, in some respects, quality child-care environments.
Implications
These findings have implications for policy and practice. Programs designed to prepare
children for kindergarten need to consider the ways in which they teach social and self-
regulatory skills, as well as enhance cognitive abilities.35 Often, the expansion to social
skill development requires a more contextually-sensitive approach to easing the transition
to school, in that parents and teachers need to view themselves as key contributors of
social as well as academic adjustment.11
Awareness of the multi-dimensionality of readiness is key for practitioners. Because
parents and teachers do not agree on the definition of school readiness, transition
practices are needed to help families and schools agree on appropriate ages for school
entry and develop congruent expectations for the kindergarten year. Given the increased
diversity in U.S. schools and the heightened academic rigour of the early years of school,
extra resources allocated toward such transition practices may benefit children, especially
those at risk for early school problems.
To learn more on this topic, consult the following sections of the Encyclopedia:
• How important is it?
• What do we know?
• What can be done?
• According to experts
REFERENCES
1. National Education Goals Panel. National education goals report executive
summary: Improving education through family-school-community partnerships.
Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel; 1995.
Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development
©2004 Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development
Rimm-Kaufman S
4
http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/en-ca/school-transition/how-important-is-it.html
http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/en-ca/school-transition/what-do-we-know.html
http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/en-ca/school-transition/what-can-be-done.html
http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/en-ca/school-transition/according-to-experts.html
SCHOOL TRANSITION
2. West J, Denton K, Germino-Hausken E. America’s Kindergarteners. Statistical
Analysis Report. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement; 2000.
3. Zill N, Collins M, West J, Germino-Hausken E. Approaching Kindergarten: A
Look at Preschoolers in the United States. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics; 1995. NCES 95-280
4. Alexander KL, Entwisle DR. Achievement in the first 2 years of school: Patterns
and processes. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development
1988;53(2).
5. Entwisle DR, Alexander KL. Early schooling and social stratification. In: Pianta
RC, Cox MJ, eds. The Transition to Kindergarten. Baltimore, MD: Paul H.
Brooks Publishing; 1998:13-38.
6. Ramey CT, Ramey SL. Intensive educational intervention for children of poverty.
Intelligence 1990;14(1):1-9.
7. Ramey SL, Ramey CT. Early educational intervention with disadvantaged
children—To what effect? Applied and Preventive Psychology 1992;1(3):131-
140.
8. Meisels SJ, Liaw FR. Failure in grade: Do retained students catch up? Journal of
Educational Research 1993;87(2):69-77.
9. Meisels SJ. Discussant for individual differences in the transition to school:
Language, literacy, and context. In: Vernon-Feagans L. Individual Differences in
the Transition to School: Language, Literacy, and Context. Symposium
conducted at: Meeting of Society for Research in Child Development; April, 1997.
Washington, DC: Society for Research in Child Development; 1997.
10. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. Does amount of time spent in child
care predict socioemotional adjustment during the transition to kindergarten?
Child Development 2003;74(4):976-1005.
11. Rimm-Kaufman SE, Pianta RC. An ecological perspective on the transition to
kindergarten: A theoretical framework to guide empirical research. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology 2000;21(5):491-511.
12. Pianta RC, La Paro K, Payne C, Cox JJ, Bradley R. The relation of kindergarten
classroom environment to teacher, family, and school characteristics and child
outcomes. Elementary School Journal 2002;102(3):225-238.
13. United States Department of Education. Readiness for kindergarten: Parent and
teacher beliefs. Statistics in brief. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement; 1993.
NCES 93-257. Available at: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/web/93257.asp. Accessed
January 19, 2004.
14. Rimm-Kaufman SE, Pianta RC, Cox MJ. Teachers’ judgments of problems in the
transition to kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 2000;15(2):147-
166.
15. Meisels SJ. Assessing readiness. In: Pianta RC, Cox M, eds. The Transition to
Kindergarten: Research, Policy, Training, and Practice. Baltimore, MD: Paul
Brooks Publishers; 1999:39-66.
16. La Paro K, Pianta RC. Predicting children’s competence in the early school years:
A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research 2000;70(4):443-484.
Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development
©2004 Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development
Rimm-Kaufman S
5
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs93/web/93257.asp
SCHOOL TRANSITION
17. Ladd GW, Price JM. Predicting children’s social and school adjustment following
the transition from preschool to kindergarten. Child Development
1987;58(5):1168-1189.
18. Ladd GW. Having friends, keeping friends, making friends, and being liked by
peers in the classroom: Predictors of children’s early school adjustment? Child
Development 1990;61(4):1081-1100.
19. McClelland MM, Morrison FJ, Holmes DL. Children at risk for early academic
problems: The role of learning-related social skills. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly 2000;15(3):307-329.
20. Blair C. School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological
conceptualization of children’s functioning at school entry. American
Psychologist 2002;57(2):111-127.
21. Kinard E, Reinhertz H. Birthdate effects on school performance and adjustment:
A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Research 1986;79(6):366-372.
22. Stipek D, Byler P. Academic achievement and social behaviors associated with
age of entry into kindergarten. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology
2001;22(2):175-189.
23. Howes, C. Can the age of entry into child care and the quality of child care predict
adjustment in kindergarten? Developmental Psychology 1990;26(2):292-303.
24. Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study Team. Cost, quality and child
outcomes in child care centers, Technical report. Denver, Colo: University of
Colorado at Denver, Department of Economics, Center for Research in Economic
and Social Policy; 1995.
25. Zill N, Collins M. Approaching kindergarten: A look at preschoolers in the
United States. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of
Educational Research and Improvement; 1995. NCES No. 95-280. Available at:
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs95/95280 . Accessed January 19, 2004.
26. NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. Child-care structure, process and
outcome: Direct and indirect effects of child-care quality on young children’s
development. Psychological Science 2002;13(3):199-206.
27. Bryant DM, Burchinal M, Lau LB, Sparling JJ. Family and classroom correlates
of Head Start children’s developmental outcomes. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly 1994;9(3-4):289-304.
28. Estrada P, Arsenio WF, Hess RD, Holloway SD. Affective quality of the mother-
child relationship: Longitudinal consequences for children’s school-relevant
cognitive functioning. Developmental Psychology 1987;23(2):210-215.
29. Comer JP, Haynes NM. Parent involvement in schools: An ecological approach.
The Elementary School Journal 1991;91(3):271-277.
30. Ramey CT, Campbell FA. Poverty, early childhood education, and academic
competence: The Abecedarian experiment. In: Huston AC, ed. Children in
poverty: Child development and public policy. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press; 1991:190-221.
31. Pianta RC, Harbers K. Observing mother and child behavior in a problem solving
situation at school entry: Relations with academic achievement. Journal of
School Psychology 1996;34(3):307-322.
Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development
©2004 Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development
Rimm-Kaufman S
6
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs95/95280
SCHOOL TRANSITION
Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development
©2004 Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development
Rimm-Kaufman S
7
32. Connell CM, Prinz RJ. The impact of childcare and parent-child interactions on
school readiness and social skills development for low-income African American
children. Journal of School Psychology 2002;40(2):177-193.
33. Bradley RH, Caldwell BM, Rock SL. Home environment and school
performance: A ten year follow up and examination of three models of
environmental action. Child Development 1988;59(4):852-867.
34. Belsky J, MacKinnon C. Transition to School: Developmental Trajectories and
School Experiences. Early Education and Development 1994;5(2):106-119.
35. Raver CC. Emotions Matter: Making the case for the role of young children’s
emotional development for early school readiness. SRCD Social Policy Report
2002;16(3). Available at:
http://harrisschool.uchicago.edu/About/publications/working-
papers/pdf/wp_02_06 . Accessed October 25, 2007.
To cite this document:
Rimm-Kaufman, S. . School transition and school readiness: An outcome of early childhood development
In: Tremblay RE, Barr RG, Peters RDeV, eds. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development [online].
Montreal, Quebec: Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development; 2004:1-7. Available at:
http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/documents/Rimm-KaufmanANGxp . Accessed [insert date].
Copyright © 2004
http://harrisschool.uchicago.edu/About/publications/working-papers/pdf/wp_02_06
http://harrisschool.uchicago.edu/About/publications/working-papers/pdf/wp_02_06
http://www.child-encyclopedia.com/documents/Rimm-KaufmanANGxp
- Sara Rimm-Kaufman, PhD
University of Virginia, USA
Topic
Introduction
School Readiness
Running head: SCHOOL READINESS
Effect of Early Childhood Education Programs on
School Readiness
Cynthia R. Allen
August, 2009
A dissertation submitted to the Education Faculty of Lindenwood University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of
Education
School of Education
UMI Number: 33906
4
4
All rights reserved
INFORMATION TO ALL USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,
a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI 3390644
Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.
All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
ii
Acknowledgements
Thank you to Dr. Terry Reid for his continued support and encouragement to go
into the administration field and for his constant faith and positive attitude with the
encouraging words to ―hang in there‖ and to persevere through the dissertation process.
Thank you to the following people for their leadership, support, readership,
guidance, and encouragement through the doctorate program: Dr. Cooper, Dr. Neeley,
Richard Henson, and Danny Humble.
Thank you to Malissa, Lisa, and my staff for continued positive support, patience,
and understanding throughout the writing process.
A special thank you to my husband, Dervid, for never giving up the faith because
without his loving support and enduring patience, this journey could not have taken
place.
iii
Abstract
A specific assessment for testing readiness skills is lacking for children entering
kindergarten. This study investigates the influence of early education programs on
school readiness and differences between male and female school readiness screening
scores upon students‘ entrance into kindergarten. The study uses 321 school readiness
screening scores of students in grades
kindergarten
through 1
2
th
grade from a rural school
district with the population of approximately 540 students located in Southwest Missouri.
A causal-comparative study was performed on the data compiled from student
records. An unpaired t-test using a two-tailed P-value hypothesis test revealed there is a
significant difference between the school readiness screening scores of the kindergarten
students who participated in any type of early childhood education program and the
kindergarten students who did not participate in any type of early childhood education
program. The null hypothesis was rejected. Most research shows that high quality early
childhood education promotes academic success for children. This portion of the study
supported
the research of previous studies regarding early childhood education.
An unpaired t-test using a two tailed P-value hypothesis test revealed there was a
no significant difference between the school readiness screening scores of the
kindergarten female and male students upon their entrance into kindergarten. The null
hypothesis was accepted. Most research in the area of gender leads to a difference in male
and female
achievement. This portion of the study did not reveal the same findings.
i
v
Table of Contents
Abstract………………………………………………………………………………….. iii
Table of Contents…………….. …………………………………………………………………………….. iv
List of Tables .………………………………………………………………………………………………
viii
List of Figures ……………………………………………………………………………………………………
i
x
Key to Abbreviations…………….. ………………………………………………………………………….x
Chapter I – Introduction……… ……………………………………………………………………………….1
Background of the Problem ………………………………………………………………………….1
Statement of the Problem ……………………………………………………………………………..4
Rationale for Study……. ……………………………………………………………………………..4
Independent Variable ………………………………………………………………………………….5
Early Education Programs …………………………………………………………………5
Dependent Variable …………………………………………………………………………………….5
School Readiness Screening Scores …………………………………………………….5
Hypotheses…………. ………………………………………………………………………………….5
Null Hypothesis #1 …………………………………………………………………………..5
Null Hypothesis #2 …………………………………………………………………………..5
Limitations of Study ……………………………………………………………………………………6
Definition of Terms……………………………………………………………………………………..7
Summary……………. …………………………………………………………………………………8
Chapter II – Review Of Literature ………………………………………………………………………….10
Background of Study ………………………………………………………………………………..10
v
Theory ……………………………………………………………………………………………….14
Early Childhood Programs ……………………………………………………………….14
What is Readiness? …………………………………………………………………………22
Pursuing Assessments of Readiness ………………………………………………….27
Delayed Entry into Kindergarten ………………………………………………………35
Poverty and School Readiness ………………………………………………………….42
Social Competence and School Readiness …………………………………………43
Transition to School ………………………………………………………………………..45
Summary……………. ……………………………………………………………………………….46
Chapter III – Method………….. ……………………………………………………………………………….48
Introduction…………… …………………………………………………………………………….48
Subjects…………………… ……………………………………………………………………….49
Sampling Procedure…. ………………………………………………………………………………49
Research Design……………………………………………………………………………………..50
Independent Variable ………………………………………………………………………52
Early Education Programs …………………………………………………….52
Dependent Variable ………………………………………………………………………..52
School Readiness Scores……………………………………………………….52
Hypotheses………………. …………………………………………………………………………52
Null Hypothesis #1 …………………………………………………………………………52
Null Hypothesis #2 …………………………………………………………………………52
vi
Research Setting……………………………………………………………………………………..53
Statistical Treatment of Data ………………………………………………………………………56
Summary………………. ……………………………………………………………………………57
Chapter IV – Results …………………………………………………………………………………………….57
Introduction…………. ……………………………………………………………………………….58
Participants…… ……………………………………………………………………………..58
Results and Analysis of Data ………………………………………………………………………60
Early Childhood Programs Comparison …………………………………………….60
Early Education versus No Early Education ………………………………………………….66
Unpaired t-test ……………………………………………………………66
Null Hypothesis #1 …………………………………………………………………………67
Results and Analysis of Data ………………………………………………………………………67
Gender Score Comparison ……………………………………………………………….67
Gender………………. ……………………………………………………………………………….73
Unpaired t-test ………………………………………………………………………………..73
Null Hypothesis #2 …………………………………………………………………………73
Results and Analysis of Data ………………………………………………………………………75
Deductive Conclusions ………………………………………………………………………………79
Summary………… ……………………………………………………………………………………79
Chapter V – Discussion ………………………………………………………………………………………..81
Introduction………….. ………………………………………………………………………………81
Implication for Effective Schools ………………………………………………………………..81
Recommendations…… ………………………………………………………………………………83
vii
Summary……………….. …………………………………………………………………………..84
Null Hypothesis #1 ………………………………………………………………………..84
Null Hypothesis #1 Summary …………………………………………………………..85
Null Hypothesis #2 ………………………………………………………………………..85
Null Hypothesis #2 Summary …………………………………………………………..85
References …………………………………………………………………………………………………………..86
Vita …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….96
viii
List of Tables
Table 1 Demographics: Study Site of High School Data ……………………… 54
Table 2 Early Education Programs vs. No Early Education Programs
Statistics …………………………………………………………………………. 61
Table 3 Female and Male School Readiness Statistics ………………………… 70
ix
List of Figures
Figure 1
Mean
Scores of Early Education vs. No Early Education …………. 60
Figure 2
Mean Percentile
and Standard Deviation of Early Education vs. No
Early Education ……………………………………………………………….. 63
Figure 3 Standard Error of Mean by Early Education and No Early
Education ……………………………………………………………………….. 65
Figure 4 Mean Scores by Gender ……………………………………………………… 69
Figure 5 Mean and Standard Deviation by Gender ………………………………. 71
Figure 6 Standard Error of Mean by Gender ………………………………………. 72
Figure 7
Percentage
of Female and Male Retainees (1995-2008) ……………… 75
Figure 8 Percentage of Female and Male Academic Red Shirts (1995-2008) . 76
Figure 9 Percentage of Female and Male R ed Shirts and Retainees (1995-
2008) ………………………………………………………………………………. 77
Figure 10 Total Percentage of Retainees and Academic Red Shirts ………….. 78
x
Key to Abbreviations
APR Annual Performance Attendance
MAP Missouri Assessment Program
AYP Adequate Yearly Progress
GED General Educational Development
PAT Parents as Teachers
LDA Learning Disabilities Association of America
MODESE Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
NCLB No Child Left Behind
Chapter I–
Introduction
Effect of Early Childhood Programs on School Readiness
Background of the Problem
“Young children develop rapidly, frequently experiencing tremendous change
and growth physically, cognitively, linguistically, and socially‖ (Learning Disabilities
Association of America [LDA], 1999, p.1). ―Preschoolers seem to race from one
milestone to the next. Nevertheless, the rate of growth and development among young
children varies greatly‖ (Kostelc & Koprowski, 2001 p. 12). The LDA
reported,
―Research studies indicate early intervention can make a significant difference in a
child‘s development‖ (1999, p.
1).
Recent research by Kostelc and Koprowski (2001) on brain development and its
link to behavior validates the critical nature of early care and education reported:
Scientists and Educators have come to realize that it is the combination of genetic
and environmental influences—nature and nurture—that ultimately determines a
baby‘s makeup. The environment plays a pivotal role in brain development.
Optimal brain growth depends on good health, positive experiences with
caregivers, and opportunities for appropriate stimulation. Adequate sleep is
important for brain development, so consistent routines that provide enough sleep
and quiet times are essential. The baby‘s early experience cause physical changes
to the brain that will tremendously impact later life. Parents and caregivers, as
School Readiness 2
designers of their child‘s world play the most important role in helping the baby‘s
brain make these connections. Parents and primary caregivers provide the kinds
of experiences that lay the groundwork for the child‘s abilities in learning,
language, relationships, motor functions, and emotions. (
p. 3)
In The National Center for Family & Community Synthesis Report, (Boethel,
2004) revealed that ―child care and early childhood education are considered separate in
purpose and approach. For healthy development needed for learning, young children need
both nurturing relationships and cognitive stimulation in their child care or preschool
environments as well as at home‖ (p. 16).
Many research studies investigate the early childhood years, before any type of
formal education begins. Knowing what a child has learned from early experiences and
assessing this knowledge has become an important aspect of early childhood programs.
Shepard, Taylor, and Kagan‘s survey (as cited in Saluja, Scott-Little, & Clifford, 2000)
reported information collected regarding assessment. This survey showed ―fewer states
reported using standardized assessment of children and assessment data to make
placement decisions for children‖ (p. 14). According to Sharon Kagan (1999), ―It is
doubtful that the early childhood community can sidestep the issue of readiness
assessment with the ever-increasing emphasis on improved school performance and
program accountability‖ (as cited in Saluja et al., 2000, p. 14).
States are developing their own frameworks for school readiness, with guidance
provided by the National Education Goals Panel, the National Association for the
Education of Young Children (NAEYC), and other national efforts. The NAEYC (1995)
noted
School Readiness 3
The commitment to promoting universal school readiness requires addressing the
inequities in early life experience so that all children have access to the
opportunities that promote school success; recognizing and supporting individual
differences among children…and establishing reasonable and appropriate
expectations of children‘s capabilities upon school entry. (p. 1)
Walmsley, Walmsley, and Brown (1996) wrote about their insights into
kindergarten:
The approaches to kindergarten taken over the years spring from different
conceptions of early childhood education, have different ideas about what should
be accomplished, and conduct the daily routines of teaching in varied ways. A
traditional kindergarten simply prepares children for reading and writing. In the
traditional readiness program, children must master certain skills to successfully
use their language: listening, speaking, reading, and writing. It‘s assumed the first
two develop at home, but reading and writing are ―school‖ skills. The
developmentally appropriate approach has become popular since the NAEYC
made it its official policy in the late 1980s. This approach treats kindergarten as
an extension of children‘s preschool activities. It views literacy as a continuum
that starts at birth and continues throughout schooling and beyond. (pp 1-2)
Katz‘s (1997) research on the early learning of children states that early learning
indicates
early experience has lasting effects
early childhood is the critical period of neurological development
all children enter early childhood programs with active minds
School Readiness 4
early childhood is the critical period in social development.
―Because of these conclusions, school readiness has been identified as the highest
priority of education reform‖ (as cited in Edwards, 1999 p. 3).
Statement of Problems
1.
Is there a significant difference between school readiness screening scores
of pre-kindergarten students who participated in any type of early
childhood educational programs and the pre-kindergarten students who did
not participate in any type of early childhood education program?
2. Is there a significant difference between school readiness screening scores
of pre-kindergarten male and female students upon their entrance into
kindergarten?
Rationale for Study
The researcher has been an educator for 30 years in a small rural school located in
southwest Missouri. Students with academic difficulties were observed throughout the
years with many questions remaining unanswered as to the cause or ways to improve
academic success. Accountability of student achievement in the No Child Left Behind
Act will magnify these types of academic difficulties faced by educators. Even though
there is a great deal of research in this area, this school district had encountered a five
year period when the Parents as Teachers (PAT) and preschool programs were utilized
less than in previous years. The Board of Education expressed its concern for students
who were left without the services of the early childhood education programs because
their parents chose not to accept extra help for their children. The author took the
opportunity to research the children of the school district to see if there was a significant
School Readiness 5
difference in school readiness screening scores of the pre-kindergarten students who
participated in any type of early childhood education programs such as Parents as
Teachers, Title I Preschool, and Early Childhood Special Education Preschool and the
pre-kindergarten students who did not participate in any type of early childhood
education program. Another element of the research was to discover if there was a
significant difference between school readiness screening scores of pre-kindergarten male
and female students upon their
entrance into
kindergarten.
Independent Variable
Early Education Programs.
The types of early education programs [if any] that the students participated in
before their entrance into kindergarten.
Dependent Variable
School Readiness Screening Scores.
Scores from the screenings that were administered to pre-kindergarten students
before their entrance into kindergarten.
Hypotheses
Null Hypothesis # 1. There is no significant difference between the school
readiness screening scores of the pre-kindergarten students who participated in any type
of early childhood education programs and the pre-kindergarten students who did not
participate in any type of early childhood educational program.
School Readiness 6
Null Hypothesis #2. There is no significant difference between the school
readiness screening scores of the pre-kindergarten male and female students upon their
entrance into kindergarten.
Limitations of Study
The purpose of this causal-comparative study is to research school readiness
scores of 321 students in kindergarten through 12
th
grade in this small rural school
located in southwest Missouri. Limitations of the study include the screening tool that
was given to the students before entry into kindergarten. The screening tool changed
three times during the period of time the kindergarten through 12
th
-grade students were
screened. The screening tools used were the Scholastic Kindergarten Readiness Test
(KRT), the Developmental Indicators for Assessment of Learning (DIAL-3), and the
Missouri Kindergarten Inventory of Developmental Skills (KIDS).
The screenings of students entering kindergarten were conducted by a number of
teachers from the elementary school. In the early years of this study, parent volunteers
helped with the school screenings. The subject school is the only elementary building in
the school district. The subject district had a total student population of approximately
540 during the 2008-2009 school year. The school readiness screening
scores were
chosen if there was appropriate information in the student‘s permanent record to attain
scores of the pre-kindergarten screenings. The student population came from the same
geographic/socio-economic area and could possibly affect the variable on which the
groups were compared.
School Readiness 7
In causal-comparative research, the independent variable is not under the
experimenter‘s control. The random assignment of subjects to a classification cannot be
done. The researcher must take the values of the independent variable as they come. The
attempt is to establish that values of the independent variable have a significant effect on
the dependent variable. The dependent variable in a study is the outcome variable. This
research involves group comparisons. Causal-comparative studies are good at identifying
relationships between variables, but they do not prove cause and effect. (Fraenkel, &
Wallen, 2006, pp. 370-372)
Definition of Terms
Academic Redshirting. This term is applied to young children whose parents wait a year
to enter their child into kindergarten to give extra time for socio-emotional,
intellectual or physical growth and to improve their likelihood of success.
Developmental Indicators for the Assessment of Learning (DIAL-3). A type of assessment
that provides scores for Motor Area, Concepts Area, Language Area, Self-Help
Development, and Social Development. The DIAL-3 indicates behavioral
observations as well as a Parent Questionnaire. The percentile ranks and standard
scores are provided.
Head Start. A national program that promotes school readiness by enhancing the social
and cognitive development of children through the provision of educational,
health, nutritional, social, and other services to enrolled children and families.
Kindergarten Inventory of Developmental Skills (KIDS). A screening battery developed
by a State Task Force on Early Childhood Screening. The areas that are assessed
are Number Concepts, Language Concepts, Auditory Skills, Visual Skills, Paper
School Readiness 8
and Pencil Skills, and Gross Motor Skills. A parent questionnaire is included to
obtain information regarding the child‘s development.
Kindergarten Readiness Test (KRT). A test that assists in determining a student‘s
readiness for beginning Kindergarten. The fundamental purpose of the KRT is to
determine the extent to which competencies have been developed. The subtests
are Vocabulary, Identifying Letters, Visual Discrimination, Phonemic Awareness,
Comprehension and Interpretation, and Mathematical Knowledge. The KRT
levels of readiness can be used for diagnostic assistance. The levels of readiness
are related to percentiles and stanines.
Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA). The largest non-profit volunteer
organization advocating for individuals with learning disabilities. LDA advocates
for over three million students of school age with learning disabilities and for
adults affected with learning disabilities.
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). An act of 2001 that became a directive for education
reform when it was signed into law by President George Bush in January of 2002.
It was created to improve reading and math scores at schools across the nation;
the law re-authorized a number of federal programs targeted at education reform.
Parents As Teachers (PAT). A national program designed to provide the information,
support, and encouragement that parents need to help their children develop
optimally during crucial early years of life.
Title I Preschool. A federally funded program providing services to children with
developmental needs, ages three to five (non-kindergarten) years of age. Services
School Readiness 9
are provided at no cost to eligible children. Eligibility is determined through a
developmental screening process.
Summary
This study was conducted to investigate the effect of early education childhood
programs on school readiness screening scores received by pre-kindergarten students
upon their entrance into kindergarten. This study also investigates the differences of
school readiness screening scores of the male and female students upon their entrance
into kindergarten. The problems that are investigated:
Is there a significant difference between school readiness screening scores
of pre-kindergarten students who participated in any type of early
childhood education programs and the pre-kindergarten students who did
not participate in any type of early childhood education program?
Is there a significant difference between school readiness screening scores
of pre-kindergarten male and female students upon their entrance into
kindergarten?
School Readiness 10
Chapter II—Review of Literature
Background of Study
―Missouri has a proud history in early childhood education. St. Louis is the home
of the first public school kindergarten in the United States, which was founded in 1873 by
Susan Blow, a disciple of Friedrich Froebel‖ (Missouri Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education [MODESE], 2005, p. 5). ―Susan Blow opened the first public
kindergarten because she believed a kindergarten system would improve the dropout rate
for children because they would be starting school at an earlier age‖ (Wikipedia
Foundation, 2009, p. 2). ―Historically, the role of kindergarten was focused on
socialization; a majority of children today have experience in early care and group
settings prior to entering kindergarten‖ (West, Denton, and Reaney, 2001,
p. 1).
West et al. (2001) noted ―to enrich the picture of children‘s first experience in
formal education—the kindergarten year—we need to understand the knowledge and
skills children possess as they enter kindergarten and we need to gain insight into how
children‘s knowledge and skill develop‖ (p. 2). ―Children bring with them a vast range of
early childhood experiences, skills, and knowledge. Some live with a mother and father,
others live with grandparents or a single parent. Some speak English; others speak a
language other than English‖ (Dunne, 2005 p. 1). ―As early as kindergarten entry,
children demonstrate diversity in their approaches and behaviors toward learning‖ (West,
Denton, Germino & Hausken, 2000, p. 3).
School Readiness 11
According to the U.S. Department of Education Resource Team on National Education
Goal 1 (1991),
Children‘s first learning experiences should lay the foundation for success in
school and in adult life. Ideally, children who are ready to succeed in school are
healthy, immunized against disease, well-nourished, and well-rested. Their early
experiences have given them a start in learning to cooperate, exercise self-control,
express their thoughts and feelings, and follow rules. They are trusting and have a
feeling of self-worth. They explore the world around them actively and approach
tasks with enthusiasm. They are motivated to learn. In preparing young children
for school, parents, community members, and educators should join together to
help all children move closer to these ideals. (p. 2)
According to Kostelc and Koprowski (2001), ―The preschool years are a time of
tremendous learning, as children use their senses and their emerging powers of deduction
to learn about their world‖ (p. 31). ―Children‘s readiness for school isn‘t merely a
measure of whether they know their ABCs or how to read, it‘s an indication of how well
their physical, social, and emotional needs have been met prior to reaching the school‘s
front steps‖ (Voices for America‘s Children, 2005, p. 3). ―Adults may watch their play
and exploration and think that ‗real learning‘ doesn‘t begin until the formal instruction of
an elementary school classroom… children construct knowledge through hands-on
learning that provides the foundation for successful academic learning‖ (Kostelc and
Koprowski, 2001, p. 31).
―There are windows of opportunity during which the brain is developing for
certain activities, such as language, speech, movement, or reading. Each of the brain‘s
School Readiness 12
systems (vision, hearing, language, emotions, and motor) has its own window of
opportunity‖ (Kostelc & Koprowski, 2001, p. 21).
In brain research, Bruer (1997) emphasized the rapid increase of synapse
that connect neurons in the brain, starting in infancy and continuing into later
childhood. Until age ten, a child‘s brain contains more synapses than at any other
time in his/her life. Early childhood experiences fine-tune the connections by
reinforcing and maintaining synapses that are repeatedly used and snipping away
unused synapses. During this time of high synaptic density and experiential fine-
tuning is a critical period in a child‘s cognitive development. It is the time when
the brain is particularly efficient in acquiring and learning a range of skills.
During this critical period, children can benefit most from rich, stimulating
learning environments. If, during this critical period, we deprive children of such
environments, significant learning opportunities are lost forever. (p. 4)
―Brain development proceeds in waves, and the timing of the windows is different
for each skill a child develops. Children reared in conditions of great deprivation and
neglect have smaller, less active brains than children who encounter the richness of daily
life in an active, supportive family‖ (Kostelc & Koprowski, 2001, p. 2
2).
―Jean Piaget championed a way of thinking about children that provided the
foundation for today‘s education-reform movements … his influence on education is
deeper and more pervasive‖ (Papert, 1999, p. 2). ―Piaget didn‘t believe that development
must be stimulated by children‘s interactions with the world around them and the people
with whom they come in contact. Interactive stimulation rather than age or maturation
alone contributes to development and readiness…‖ (Marshall, 2003, p. 2). ―Piaget‘s
School Readiness 13
revered by generations of teachers inspired by the belief that children are not empty
vessels to be filled with knowledge but active builders of knowledge—little scientists
who are constantly creating and testing their own theories of the world‖(Papert, 1999, p.
2).
There are several ideas concerning readiness and how children learn. L. S.
Vygotsky (1978) described how ―learning, development, and readiness for new learning
often require guidance and instruction, not just the passage of time…learning and often
teaching precede development. New knowledge and skills result from support or
scaffolding by an adult or expert peer‖ (as cited in Marshall, 2003, p. 2). ―Relationships
between teachers and families are important and help build environments that nurture
children‘s growth and development. Positive relationships formed through warm,
sensitive, and responsive care help children feel valued and gain more from their learning
experiences‖ (NAEYC, 2006, p. 1). ―The point is not that children need to be ready for
school, but that schools need to be ready to guide, support, and instruct each child,
regardless of the skills or knowledge a child brings. Age is largely irrelevant‖ (as cited in
Marshall,
2003, p. 2).
―The earliest years of a child‘s education are fundamentally formative, and
throughout the world, governments and educators are investing their respective resources
in the development and enhancement of learning opportunities for young children‖
(Walsh & Gardner, 2005, p. 2). ―The kindergarten year marks a period of rapid change in
the ways children think about themselves and the world around them‖ (Bredekamp &
Copple, 1997). ―This change is influenced by both developmental factors (e.g., age,
maturation) and environmental factors (e.g., schooling, home educational activities, and
School Readiness 14
family resources). Children acquire knowledge and skills that will prove integral to their
future success in school and in life‖ (West et al., 2001, p. v).
The need for positive relationships has been identified as another feature of an
experiential learning environment. emphasized that
…day to day engagement of children and adults in shared activities contributes to
the rapid progress of children in becoming skilled participants in the intellectual
and social lives of their society…like social interaction and social arrangements
are an essential aspect of child development, without which it would be
impossible to conceive of a child developing‖ (as cited in Walsh & Gardner,
2005, p. 5).
―Young children need knowledge and new experiences to develop and thrive.
Schools offer a plethora of learning and development opportunities for children‖ (West et
al., 2001, p. xii).
Theory
Early Childhood Programs.
Bailey (2001) pointed out findings that ―investments in high-quality early
childhood education can increase readiness for school and provide long-term social
benefits, particularly for low-income and minority children and those whose parents have
little education‖ (p. 3). ―Parents as Teachers [PAT] was developed in the 1970s when
Missouri educators noted that children were beginning kindergarten with varying levels
of learning readiness. It is designed to enhance child development and school
achievement through parent education accessible to families‖ (Parents as Teachers
[PAT], n. d., p. 1).
School Readiness 15
Parents as Teachers began in 1981 in Missouri as a pilot project for the first-time
parents of newborns. ―PAT was funded from the Missouri Department of Elementary and
Secondary Education and the Danforth Foundation. Parents as Teachers services were
available to all residents through every school district beginning in 1985‖ (Pfannenstiel &
Zigler, 2007, p. 5).
―Since 1984, Missouri is the only state that mandates parent education and family
services for every school district for children from birth to kindergarten entry. The
program enhances child development and school achievement through parent education
accessible to all families‖ (MODESE, 2005, p. 5).
―Parents as Teachers families come in all configurations, from all socio-economic
levels, and from rural, urban and suburban communities. The program is adaptable to fit
community needs. It is a national model, but a local program. Family participation is
voluntary‖ (PAT, n. d., p. 1). ―The parents are the teachers, supported by professional
parent educators who suggest ways parents can effectively teach and nurture their young
children. Parents as Teachers vision is that all children will learn, grow and develop to
realize their potential‖ (PAT n. d., p. 8). ―Parents as Teachers mission is to provide the
information, support, and encouragement parents need to help their children develop
optimally during the crucial early years of life‖ (PAT, n. d., p. 1).
School Readiness 16
Thirteen outcome studies have been conducted regarding the PAT programs since
1984. Outcome data have been collected on more than 16,000 children and parents. Some
important PAT goal outcomes were
Parents as Teachers children are more advanced than comparison
children in language, problem solving, and other cognitive abilities,
and social development.
PAT children score higher on kindergarten readiness tests and on
standardized measures of reading, math, and language in the
elementary grades.
PAT children score higher on kindergarten readiness tests and on
standardized measures of reading, math, and language in the
elementary grades.
PAT children scored significantly higher on standardized measures of
reading and math at the end of first grade than did comparison
children. (Parents as Teachers, 2002, pp. 6-8)
―The Parents as Teachers Born to Learn model provides visit screenings, group
meetings, and connection to a resource network designed to maximize the impact that
parents have as their children‘s first and most influential teachers‖ (PAT, 2002, p. 5).
―The Parents as Teachers partner with Even Start programs to provide literacy and
language development services. A great deal of historical evidence demonstrates the
connections between low adult literacy, family poverty and the academic performance of
children living in poverty‖ (Parents as Teachers, n.d., [online]).
School Readiness 17
In a PAT research summary, Pfannenstiel & Zigler (2007) reported from a 2006
study of Missouri children who participated in Parents as Teachers and other early
childhood experiences. Researchers investigated the impact of pre-kindergarten services
on Missouri children‘s readiness for school and performance on state assessments at the
end of early elementary years, are the children who were investigated. The results were
assessed for school readiness by their kindergarten teachers using a School Entry Profile.
The key findings of this research were
Participation in Parents as Teachers predicts children‘s school readiness
and third grade achievement, regardless of income level.
Parents in the Parents as Teachers program read more frequently to their
young children and were more likely to enroll their children in preschool,
both which were positively linked to school readiness and later school
achievement.
A large
percentage
(82%) of poor children who participated with high
intensity in both Parents as Teachers and preschool entered kindergarten
ready to learn, as compared to only 64% of poor children who had no
involvement in either service. (p. 2)
Children in poverty who participated with high intensity in Parents as
Teachers and preschool, with a minimum of two years in Parents as
Teachers and one year in preschool, were ready for kindergarten as were
their non-poverty peers with no preschool experience or PAT
participation. (pp. 4-5)
School Readiness 18
A similar pattern emerged for more affluent children. Parents as Teachers
combined with preschool showed promise for narrowing the much-
discussed achievement gap between low income students and more
affluent students. (p. 2)
The Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education publication
about Parents as Teachers (2005) stated ―Missouri continues to lead the nation as the only
state that mandates and financially supports a universal access parent education
program
for its young families. PAT has spread to the other 49 states … with more than 3000
program sites‖ (p. 33). ―Parents as Teachers has a long history of evaluation research
that reflects positive outcomes and long term impacts for families, young children, and
communities. There is continuous evaluation and research about outcomes for the
children and parents served by PAT‖ (PAT, n.d., p. 12).
With the PAT and other research, it is evident that children come into formal
education with variability in their knowledge, skills, and behaviors. Perhaps these
children lack the opportunities to express their abilities. Even though this variability is
considered normal as children enter school, all schools must be ready to address these
differences.
The NAEYC‘s (1995) position statement on school readiness stated, ―Early
intervention services provide families with an array of comprehensive support services to
help them provide the rich environment so critical for early learning of the children. The
federally funded Head Start program is an example of this type of program‖ (p. 3).
School Readiness 19
The position statement discussed successful, effective intervention plans with
somewhat different themes that some states already had in place that were successful..
Effective intervention efforts have several key elements:
They provide comprehensive services to ensure that a wide range of
individual needs is met;
they strengthen parents‘ roles in supporting their children‘s development
and learning; and
they provide a wide array of firsthand experiences and learning activities
either directly to children or through parent participation. (NAEYC, 1995,
p. 3)
The Federal No Child Left Behind Act emphasized literacy and math skills, while
reauthorization bills for Head Start called for the development of education performance
standards. Research has found that ―investments in high-quality early childhood
education can increase readiness for school and provide long-term social benefits,
particularly for low income and minority children and those whose parents have little
education‖
(Bailey, 2001, p. 3).
According to Olson (2005), ―The National Research Council recommends that all
states draft content standards for early years education programs. American children
under age 5 are spending part of their day in care outside of the home. Most states now
fund or are creating preschool programs‖ (p. 2).
One problem that surfaced was the achievement gap of minority students.
Flaxman (2003) reported on two research studies conducted involving closing the
achievement gap of minority and immigrant students. These studies were conducted by
School Readiness 20
Ferguson and Ogbu. Their research findings on how to better help minority students
academically was as follows: Ferguson felt the students should be ―encouraged to meet
the demands of academic work by changing classroom practice,‖ while Ogbu felt that
students should be ―helped to modify parts of their identity that reject school success,
through caring individuals and institutional practices‖ (pp. 4-5).
When speaking about high quality early education, Olson (2005) discussed the
positive qualities of high-quality early childhood education. He noted,
It enhances school readiness and reduces racial and ethnic achievement
gaps. Short-and long-term studies show strong evidence pointing to the benefits of
high-quality early childhood education, and how to achieve them. (p. 2)
At-Risk children who participate in high-quality, center based programs
have better language and cognitive skills in the first few years of elementary
school than do similar children who did not have such experiences. They tend to
score higher on math and reading tests, and they are less likely to repeat a grade,
drop out of school, need special education or remedial services, or get into trouble
with the law in the future. They also tend to complete more years of education and
are more likely to attend a four-year college. (p. 1)
―Highly effective preparation for formal schooling is vital to shrinking the sizable
academic gaps that already exist for these students when they enter kindergarten‖
(Bailey, 2001, p. 3).
Heart Start, a national initiative of Zero to Three, would like attention and
accommodation for school readiness. They want the nation‘s federal, state, and corporate
leaders to ensure that five basic emotional needs shared by every child are met:
School Readiness 21
1. health
2. time for unhurried caring
3. responsive care-giving that results from educated, understanding parents
4. safe and supportive environments that ensure an adequate standard of
living and adequate space in child care settings
5. special help for special families through the integration of local
community services. (Beck, 1993, p. 2)
Bailey (2001) reported that three primary factors have caused new attention on
preschool education:
First, there are concerns about the poor to mediocre quality of many
childcare programs. Research showing that quality is important for all
children has led some to argue that the only way to insure quality at a
national level is to provide a comprehensive program of services for all
young children.
Second, in numerous surveys teachers report that a substantial proportion
of children experience significant problems in transition to kindergarten.
And, finally, the failure of many children to learn to read, the achievement
gap between white children and children of color, and continued evidence
of school failure for many children from low-income families have
resulted in a call for increased attention to early education as one way to
promote later school success for all children. (p. 3)
―Parents who do not send their children to preschool or child care can enhance
their children‘s cognitive development‖ (as cited in Beck, 1993, p. 5).
School Readiness 22
The NAEYC (1995) believes, ―It is the responsibility of schools to meet the needs of
children as they enter school and to provide whatever services are needed in the least
restrictive environment to help each children reach their fullest potential‖ (p. 1).
According to Katz (1992), ―children are more likely to cope successfully with their first
school experiences if they have had positive prior group experiences away from their
homes and familiar adults‖ (as cited in Beck, 1993, p. 4).
Katz (1992) noted, ―All adults who work with small children can strengthen each
child‘s thinking and learning ability by conversing and discussing the world, and giving
children plenty of opportunities and time to work with their peers outside the home
before starting school‖ (as cited in Beck, 1993, p. 6).
Weston (1989) stated, ―Parents are a child‘s first teachers, and families are their first,
and most enduring school‖ (p. 2). Morrow (1995) supported this idea by stating, ―Parents
or caregivers are the teachers that children have for the longest time. They are potentially
the most important people in the education of their children. Research supports strong
links between the home environment and children‘s acquisition of school-based literacy‖
(pp. 6-7).
What is Readiness?
Readiness means different things to different groups of people. There is not a
consensus on what criteria should be used to determine school readiness for children.
―Children are not innately ready or not ready for school. Their skills and development are
strongly influenced by their families and through their interactions with other people and
environments before coming to school‖ (West et al., 2000, p. 62).
School Readiness 23
According to Gnezda and Bolig (1988) ―Readiness should cover all aspects of a
child‘s development and the critical periods of growth from birth through the early school
years. Readiness for school is built on children‘s curiosity and their intellectual, social,
emotional, language, and physical development‖ (Saluja et al., 2000, p. 11). ―Many
children are in non-parental care arrangements the year before kindergarten. Child care
centers and family child care homes are important early environments that affect
children‖ (West et al., 2000, p. 62). Some children are further along than others in skills
that have been acquired in their early years. ―Readiness is not limited to a fixed set of
skills that are presumed necessary for entry into kindergarten or first grade‖ (Gnezda &
Bolig, 1988, p. 10).
In Meisels and Graue‘s work, it was noted that ―readiness connects development
to the requirements of a particular context—in relation to the start of formal schooling, it
depicts the degree to which a child is capable of benefiting from the goals, expectations,
and activities of a kindergarten program‖ (Graue, Kroeger, & Brown, 2003, p. 2).
―It is often assumed that tests exist to reliably determine which children are
‗ready‘ to enter school. Because of the nature of child development and how children
learn, makes it extremely difficult to develop reliable and valid measures of young
children‘s abilities‖ (Meisels, 1987, p. 68). ―Many of the criteria now used to assess
readiness are based on inappropriate expectations of children‘s abilities and fail to
recognize normal variation in the rate and nature of individual development and
learning.‖ (NAEYC, 1995, p. 1).
Meisels (1987) expressed, ―Preschool children, by nature, are not good test-takers‖ (p.
69).
School Readiness 24
Maxwell (2001) said, ―We can improve the fit of the readiness puzzle by
enhancing both the condition of children as they enter school and the capacity of schools
to educate the full range of children enrolled can improve the fit‖ (p. 7).
The task force, Ready for School Goal Team said that the condition of children must
be considered across five domains:
1. Health and physical development
2. Social and emotional development
3. Approaches toward learning
4. Language development and communication
5. Cognition and general knowledge
The team said that the capacity of schools must be considered across four
cornerstones:
1. Knowledge of growth and development of typically and atypically
developing children
2. Knowledge of the strengths, interests and needs of each child
3. Knowledge of the social and cultural contexts in which each child and
family lives
4. Ability to translate developmental knowledge into developmentally
appropriates practice (Maxwell, 2001, p. 7)
As the National Education Goals Panel (1991) presented their position statement
for the National Association of the Education of Young Children, it noted that ―there is
still much debate on what it means to be ready for school. Parents, teachers, school
administrators, policy makers, and politicians are all concerned about young children and
School Readiness 25
whether or not they enter school ready to learn‖ (Kagan, Moore, & Bredekamp, 1995, p.
1).
The National Education Goals Panel position statement recognized that children‘s
early learning and development is ―multidimensional, complex and influenced by
individual, cultural, and contextual variation.‖ Therefore, any discussions of school
readiness must consider at least three critical factors:
1. the diversity of children‘s early life experiences as well as inequity in
experiences;
2. the wide variation in young children‘s development and learning; and
3. the degree to which school expectations of children entering kindergarten
are reasonable, appropriate, and supportive of individual differences.
(Kagan et al., 1995, p. 1)
In the position statement issued by the National Association for the Education of
Young Children (1995), the National Association of Early Childhood Specialists
reported:
Learning does not occur in a rigid sequence of skill acquisition and because wide
variability is normal, it is inappropriate to determine school entry on the basis of
acquiring a limited set of skills and abilities. Schools may reasonably expect that
children entering kindergarten will be active, curious, and eager to learn. They
will know some things about themselves, and will be interested in making friends
and sharing experiences with them. Today, not only do many kindergartens and
primary grades focus on skill acquisitions in the absence of meaningful context,
but the expectations that are placed on children are often not age-appropriate.
School Readiness 26
Whether the result of parental pressures or the push to improve student
performance on standardized tests, curriculum expectations of older children have
been pushed down to earlier grades. Children entering kindergarten are now
typically expected to be ready for what previously constituted the first grade
curriculum. As a result, more children are struggling and failing. Even those
children who have received every advantage prior to school entry find the
inappropriate demands difficult to meet, often experiencing great stress and
having their confidence in their own capacities as learners undermined. (NAEYC,
1995, p. 2)
The Ready Schools Resource Group of the Goals Panel (Shore, 1998) has
outlined ―Ten Keys to Ready Schools.‖ They suggest principles to help every child grow
in competence and meet high expectations:
1. Ready schools smooth the transition between home and school.
2. Ready schools strive for continuity between early care and education
programs and elementary schools.
3. Ready schools help children learn and make sense of their complex and
exciting world.
4. Ready schools are committed to the success of every child.
5. Ready schools are committed to the success of every teacher and every
adult who interacts with children during the school day.
6. Ready schools introduce or expand approaches that have been shown to
raise achievement.
School Readiness 27
7. Ready schools are learning organizations that alter practices and programs
if they do not benefit children.
8. Ready schools serve children in communities.
9. Ready schools take responsibility for results.
10. Ready schools have strong leadership. (p. 5)
The NAEYC (1995) believes that the commitment to promoting universal school
readiness requires
addressing the inequities in early life experience so that all children have
access to the opportunities that promote school success;
recognizing and supporting individual differences among children
including linguistic and cultural differences; and
establishing reasonable and appropriate expectations of children‘s
capabilities upon school entry. (p. 1)
Readiness for kindergarten involves both the child and the instructional situation.
According to Nurss (1987), readiness for kindergarten depends on ―a child‘s development
of social perceptual, motor, and language skills expected by the teacher and on the
curriculum‘s degree of structure, the behavior required by the instructional program, and
expectations of achievement by the end of the program‖ (p. 3).
Pursuing Assessments of Readiness.
As student performance and increased demand for accountability of education
system continues to be on the forefront of political campaigns, the question of a child‘s
abilities to be ready for school remains a topic for discussion. ―Assessing preschool-age
children is challenging. At this age, children‘s development is rapid and uneven, and their
School Readiness 28
development is greatly impacted by environmental factors such as the care they have
received and the learning environments they have experience‖ (Shepard, Kagan, &
Wurtz,1998, p. 7).
Whether it is for measuring school readiness or for other reasons—the question of
the assessment of students is always a major concern when discussing accountability of
the schools. ―States have been left to develop their own frameworks, with guidance
provided by the Nation Education Goals Panel, NAEYC, and other national efforts‖
(Maxwell, 2001, pp. 6-11). Saluja et al., (2000) expressed, ―Understanding the condition
of children as they enter school can provide clues to help parents and teachers understand
children‘s performance later in their school career‖ (p. 12). ―Serious misuses of testing
with young children occur when assessments intended for one purpose are used
inappropriately for other purposes‖ (Shepard, et al., 1998, p. 7).
In 2004, the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) published
an article regarding preschool assessment. It stated that
Childhood assessment is a vital and growing component of high-quality early
childhood programs…it is an important tool in understanding and supporting
young children‘s development…it must employ methods that are feasible,
sustainable and reasonable with regards to demands on budgets, educators and
children…it is essential to document and evaluate program effectiveness. Equally
important, it meet the challenging demands of validity (accuracy and
effectiveness) for young children. It is a balance between efficiency and validity
that demands the constant attention of policymakers – and an approach grounded
School Readiness 29
in a sound understanding of appropriate methodology. (Epstein, Schweinhart,
DeBruin-Parecki, & Robin, 2004, p. 1)
―Historically, the early childhood community has been reluctant to define school
readiness and pursue assessment of young children on a wide-scale basis. There are good
reasons for this position. Assessing young children is theoretically, psychometrically, and
logistically difficult‖ (Saluja et al., p. 13). ―The demand for standard methods to
document children‘s readiness has become increasingly strong despite the difficulties in
assessing young children‖ (Shepard et al., 1998, p. 7).
There have been many policies made by organizations to guide the
processes for the ways children will be assessed. The problem seems to be the
danger of misuse of the data gathered from this testing … ―Data on the condition
of children as they arrive at school are important in interpreting later
accountability measures. This data shows how well early childhood services
perform in raising the developmental level of young children prior to entry into
school‖ (Saluja et al., 2000, p. 13).
―In the mid-1980s, rather than using readiness assessment for placement
decisions, many states were developing readiness assessment systems to profile the
condition of children as they entered school and developed classroom curriculum
activities to better meet the needs of children‖ (Saluja et al., 2000 p. 6).
―Gnezda and Bolig (1988) conducted a national survey to gather information on
pre-kindergarten and kindergarten testing. They reported that state-level efforts to assess
children‘s readiness can be described as a pendulum swinging from standardized
measures in the mid 1980s‖ (as cited in Saluja, et al., 2000, p. 5).
School Readiness 30
In the early 1990s, states began to move away from readiness testing.
Shepard, Taylor, and Kagan (1996) conducted surveys to determine states‘ early
childhood assessment policies and practices. Their study found that ―most states
had made efforts to move away from readiness testing by developing policies
against the use of readiness testing…many states reported efforts to clarify the
difference between readiness testing and screening, and how screening results
should be used‖ (as cited in Saluja, et al., 2000, p. 6).
According to Epstein et al. (2004), the general uses for assessment can be
provided in four types of information for and about their parent, teachers, and programs.
Child assessment can
identify children who may be in need of specialized services.
plan instruction for individuals and groups of children.
identify program improvement and staff development needs.
evaluate how well a program is meeting goals for children.
The quality of an assessment depends in part upon decisions made before any
measure is administered to a child. (p. 4)
―Assessment of children‘s condition at school entrance may play an important
role in accountability measurement, because this information can provide baseline data
against which future data on children can be compared‖ (Saluja et al., 2000, p. 13).
―School readiness assessment typically refers to assessment of young children around
school entry—right before kindergarten, at kindergarten entry or very early in the
kindergarten year. The tools described as school readiness assessments vary in their
purposes and design‖ (Maxwell & Clifford, 2004, p. 2).
School Readiness 31
―Screening programs for children entering school are widespread. Screening is
used to predict which pupils are likely to have problems in regular classrooms. The
screenings may be used to identify students who may be eligible for a particular
program‖ (Hills, 1987, p. 2). Meisels and Tivnan, (1984) indicated that ―screening is
intended for all the children, the measures should be inexpensive, brief, simple to
administer, and easy to interpret. Screening tools require lower predictive power than
diagnostic measures‖ (p. 26). Hills (1987) indicated that ―the terms screening and
assessment are not interchangeable. Screening is a preliminary process for identifying
children who may be at risk of future difficulty in school and those who may have special
needs in learning‖ (p. 2). But Meisels went on to express that ―screening alone is not
sufficient for decisions about a child‘s placement or kind of instruction. Further
assessment is necessary for those decisions‖ (p. 26).
―Developmental and pre-academic skills tests are based on outmoded theories of
aptitude and learning that originated in the 1930s. The excessive use of these tests and
negative consequences of being judged unready focused a spotlight on the tests‘
substantive inadequacies‖ (Shepard, 1994, p. 4). Maxwell (2001) discussed that schools
play a very important role in the pursuit of readiness and how each school may have a
different view of being ready for school. Maxwell and Clifford (2004) discussed,
―Schools are an important piece of the readiness puzzle because…of different
expectations about readiness. The same child with the same strengths and needs can be
considered ready in one school and not ready in another school, regardless of their skills‖
(p. 1).
School Readiness 32
Shepard (1994) proposes, ―Assessments should reflect and model progress toward
important learning goals. Conceptions of what is important to learn should take into
account both physical and social/emotional development, and cognitive domain‖ (p. 6).
There are different ways to look at testing or assessing children as they enter
kindergarten. In a report on assessment issues, the methods of giving readiness tests were
discussed. The tests could be given in a group or individually. Even though individual
testing could cost more, Rock and Stenner (2005) offered these thoughts for the reasons
they think individualized testing is better. ―Administrators…hold the attention and
cooperation of a beginning kindergartner in a one-on-one setting more than in a group.
Small children often enjoy the individual attention they get from the test administrator,
which helps make the scores more accurate‖ (p. 16).
Some studies use time as a factor to study the achievement levels of the students.
Rock and Stenner (2005) give some suggestions as to how to conduct a longitudinal study
that has multiple retesting over a long period of time, perhaps over several
years.
In a longitudinal study, one scheduled to have multiple retesting over several
years, a sizable share of the follow-ups might require one-on-one retesting
because the children scatter as time passes. Starting with a group administration
and then switching to one-on-one follow-ups could cause variance in the data that
would be difficult to quantify. Individualized testing gives children the time they
need to finish the assessment and thus gathers relatively complete information on
each child. It also allows the test to be adapted to some degree to the abilities of
each child. (Rock & Stenner, 2005, p. 16)
School Readiness 33
As Rock and Stenner (2005) have noted, ―A useful test must be reliable, which
means that it will produce essentially the same results on different occasions. Reliability
can be measured in three ways: retesting, equivalent form, and internal consistency‖ (p.
17). Epstein et al. (2004) claimed
We must guarantee that assessment reflects our highest educational goals for
young children and neither restricts nor distorts the substance of their early
learning. The following criteria for a comprehensive and balanced assessment
system that meets the need for accountability while respecting the well-being and
development of young children is as follows:
Require that measures included in an assessment be selected by qualified
professionals to ensure that they are reliable, valid and appropriate for the
children being assessed.
Develop systems of analyses so that test scores are interpreted as part of a
broader assessment that may include observations, portfolios, or ratings
from teachers and/or parents.
Base policy decisions on an evaluation of data that reflects all aspects of
children‘s development—cognitive, emotional, social, and physical.
Involve teachers and parents in the assessment process so that children‘s
behaviors and abilities can be understood in various contexts and so
cooperative relationships among families and school staff can be fostered.
Provide training for early childhood teachers and administrators to
understand and interpret standardized tests and other measures of learning
School Readiness 34
and development. Emphasize precautions specific to the assessment of
young children. (p. 10)
As the demand for standard methods to document the readiness of children and
assess children‘s strengths, the National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in
State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE) updated and reissued the position
statement in 2000. Taken together, these position statements indicate the goals of
readiness assessment:
Benefit children and the adults who work with children
Be used for the purposes for which it is designed
Be valid and reliable
Be age appropriate, using naturalistic observations to collect information
as children interact in ―real-life‖ situations
Be holistic, collecting information on all developmental domains
(physical, social, emotional, and cognitive)
Be linguistically and culturally appropriate
Collect information through a variety of processes and multiple sources
(collection of children‘s work, observations of children, interviews with
children, parent reports, etc.)
Be used to guide instruction and not to determine children‘s placement in
school. (NAECS/SDE, 2000, p.6)
Concerns associated with testing are that the school may rely on a singular measure to
recommend school entry or placement, use them for purposes for which they were not
designed, or use them to determine curricular objectives. It is important that an
School Readiness 35
assessment be used for the purpose it was designed. When a school has defined ―school
readiness‖ and determined the purpose of the assessments, it can then select which
measures to use. (Eddy, 2004, p. 2)
The National Association for the Education of Young Children states the purpose
of assessment should be one or more of the following:
provide a baseline of what information the child knows and needs to learn
assist in planning instruction and use of teaching strategies
evaluate program goals and effectiveness of a program
identify children with special needs (Eddy, 2004, p. 3)
According to Rock and Stenner (2005), ―The best readiness tests are adaptive, which
means that instead of asking every child identical questions, they give children harder
questions if they do well on the early questions and easier questions if they do poorly
early on‖ (pp. 16-17).
Delayed Entry into Kindergarten.
―The starting line for the race to kindergarten has changed … no longer is it a
foregone conclusion that your five year old will start kindergarten in the fall … parents
are deciding to ‗redshirt‘ their children and give them an extra year‖ (Westmoreland,
2008, p. 1). ―School entry is usually based upon birth date. When chronological age is the
criterion, the 12 month age range and individual differences in development and
experience almost always result in a heterogeneous group‖ (Hills, 1987, p. 2). ―Age is
one characteristic that children generally have in common when they start
kindergarten.
However, when children are 5 years old, they vary greatly with regard to their physical,
social, emotional, and cognitive development‖ (Saluja et al., 2000, p. 5).
School Readiness 36
When readiness is an issue for an individual child, two interventions are
frequently suggested that are premised on allowing time for development.
The first, academic redshirting, involves delaying entry to kindergarten so that a
child will have more time to grow and develop. The second, kindergarten
retention, is used for children who are already in the kindergarten context who are
not making adequate progress. A second year in kindergarten provides more time
for maturation and acquisition of skills. (Graue, Kroeger , & Brown, 2003, p. 2)
―There is no clear-cut evidence that delaying kindergarten … will provide some
magical academic advantage. There is so little entrance age evidence, and because some
evidence is conflicting, there is not a strong academic basis for delaying kindergarten
entrance…‖ (Crosser, 1998, p. 3). Meisels (1992) pointed out, ―Small-scale studies of
limited geographic areas suggest that delayed kindergarten entrance involves anywhere
from 9% to 64% of the eligible kindergarten population‖ (as cited in Crosser, 1998, p. 3).
―The beliefs of families, preschool, and kindergarten teachers, school
administrators, and pediatricians concerning the prerequisites for kindergarten influence
decisions about school entry ―(Marshall, 2003 p. 3). As children enter school, they bring
with them a vast array of experiences from their socio-economic culture that may not be
accepted at school. ―Nuclear and extended family relationships and cultural contexts also
affect social behavior. Many children thus may need help in bridging their differences
and in finding ways to learn from and enjoy the company of one another‖ (McClellan &
Katz, 2001, p. 3).
The effects of delaying kindergarten students should be considered when looking
at the children‘s school career in the future. According to Eddy (2004) ―Parents are
School Readiness 37
encouraged to keep in mind that when a child is a year older when he begins
kindergarten, he will also be a year older when he graduates‖ (p. 4).
Both race and economic status affect the quality of education available to
students. Issues of equity are of particular concern in the primary grades. Shore (1998)
reported,
Research shows elementary schools in low-income communities differ in respects
from schools in more affluent communities. There are many factors including
staff characteristics, available resources, scheduling, the availability of before-
and after-school programs, parent involvement, and school climate—may be
affected….of all the children in our nation‘s schools, poor children—no matter
their race or ethnicity –are least likely to profit from traditional schooling. These
children are the most likely to be placed in low academic tracks and the most
likely to be held back in the same grade for more than one year. (p. 14)
Some parents choose to red shirt their children before their entry into
kindergarten. As Crosser (1998) noted, ―Redshirting may be a response to demands for a
high level of school readiness. Proponents of redshirting often point out that there is no
definitive evidence to show that redshirting harms children in the long term‖ (p. 2).
―There is a great deal of speculation that many individuals who were redshirted as
kindergartners may have special needs that were misdiagnosed as immaturity and that
should have been treated by some form of direct intervention other than delayed entry‖
(Malone, West, Flanagan, and Park, 2006, p. 5). According to Marshall (2003), whether
―the decision to redshirt children is made by their parents alone, or with teacher input, the
reasons given are similar to those given for retaining children‖ (p. 5). ―Redshirting has so
School Readiness 38
far failed to provide a clear picture of its short- and long-term effects‖ (Malone et al.,
2006, p. 5). ―Either the child needs more time to mature, or the extra year would give a
lower performing student a chance to catch up to meet the expectations of kindergarten‖
(Marshall, 2003, p. 5). Curricular concerns may … result from redshirting children. As
the kindergarten group grows older through withholding some children from entrance to
school, the focus of instruction typically shifts upward in a response to the needs of the
older students‖ (as cited in March, 2005, p. 10). ―A potentially significant and negative
effect of this upgraded curriculum might jeopardize the success levels of age-appropriate
students because they do not have the cognitive and social maturity to meet these new
and accelerated instructional and behavioral demands‖ (as cited in March, 2005, p. 3).
―This may place the youngest children in a curriculum… at the lowest end of
achievement. The impact of having class peers achieving at a higher rate of success may
have implications for social and emotional issues‖ (as cited in March, 2005, pp. 8-10).
The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) reports
academic redshirting occurs at the rate of about 9% per year among kindergarten-
age children. According to NCES, boys are more likely to be redshirted than girls,
and children born in the latter half of the year are more likely to be redshirted than
those born earlier. The NCES report also shows that white, non-Hispanic children
are more than twice as likely as black, non-Hispanic children to have entered
kindergarten later than their birthdays allowed (as cited in Katz, 2000a, p. 2).
―The effects of redshirting are similar to effects of retention. There is a temporary
advantage to the redshirted child, but these differences are of little practical significance
and usually disappear by grade three‖ (Marshall, 2003, p. 5).
School Readiness 39
Data collected for the large-scale National Household Education Survey, NCES
(1997), indicated that
9% of the first- and second-graders had been held back from kindergarten.
Surveyed parents reported that children who had delayed kindergarten entrance
one year were most likely to have been male (64%), white (73%) and born
between July and December (70%). Compared to children born in the first quarter
of the year, children born in the summer months were twice as likely to have
delayed kindergarten entrance one year after they were first eligible. (as cited in
Crosser, 1998, p. 2)
The position statement on kindergarten trends developed by the National
Association Early Childhood Specialists in the State Department of Education (2000)
states, ―Not only is there a preponderance of evidence that there is no academic benefit
from retention in its many forms, but there also appear to be threats to the social-
emotional development of the child subjected to such practices‖ (as cited in Marshall,
2003, p. 2).
―Schools must be able to offer continuous progress for children through the
primary grades, recognizing that children‘s developmental timetables do not conform to
the yearly calendar‖ (NAEYC, 1995, p. 3). Most states determine regulations regarding
kindergarten entrance age, ―schools place the entry requirement for kindergarten entrance
at about five years. The emphasis on age prerequisites obscures the fact that maturation is
one of many factors that have impact upon academic development‖ (March, 2005, p. 3).
NAEYC, (1995), states that
School Readiness 40
The investment and commitment needed to ensure that every child enters school
ready to succeed and that schools are effective in educating every child will not be
small. We must provide every child with the firm foundation so critical to
learning in school and we must ensure that schools are prepared to meet the needs
of individual children as they arrive at the school door. (p. 3)
―Variation occurs within groups of children regardless of age. Background
experiences and life at home and in the community impact upon school achievement.
Children who are of identical chronological age may show remarkable differences in
academic success‖ (March, 2005, p. 3).
―Gender is assumed to have both a genetic component and reflects influences of
environment and culture. There is evidence of differences in parent and teacher
expectations of boys and girls. Gender may also predispose children to interest in
particular subjects‖ (Zaslow, Calkins, Halle, Zaff, & Margie, 2000, p. 20).
Researchers often investigate differences in preschool children‘s readiness
regarding gender and age. Dunne (2005) reported that ―…the NCES took a close look at
gender and age differences. They found that girls and boys aren‘t that different when they
begin kindergarten … studies of older students found a gender gap in later grades‖ (p. 3).
Temperamental characteristics such as shyness can influence approach to social situations
in the classroom. Cultural patterns predispose children to being familiar with, and
comfortable with, certain modes of interaction into classroom. Dunne (2005) reported
that ―researchers found a significant difference between the oldest and youngest
kindergartners, with older students generally performing one standard deviation above
the mean in all developmental domains assessed‖ (p. 3).
School Readiness 41
Zaslow et al., (2000), states that
There are cultural differences in the degree to which children are expected to
listen to, and receive guidance from, adults as opposed to interacting and
questioning. There are differences in the degree to which children are comfortable
with working independently and with differences in the preferred modality or
approach to learning tasks such as manipulating materials, visual representations
and verbal discussion (p. 20).
In the research of the ―gift of time,‖ small groups of children with delayed
kindergarten entry were studied. The following findings were reported:
It might be helpful to highlight within the developmental approaches of building
on what we know about child development and articulating the responsive act of
teaching in concrete ways…it may just be that the gift of time is too generic to
support the development of individual or groups of children…the gift of time does
not address specific needs or promote agency in teachers. (Graue et al. 2003, p. 9)
According to March (2005) ―The researchers advocate more responsive
approaches and action for specific children. If children are not ready for the
programming, it speaks more about our inability to be inclusive and respond to their
needs than to their particular skills and development‖ (p. 2). ―When children with weak
academic skills predictably struggle in school, children who cannot sit still, are disruptive
in class, or otherwise show poor self-regulation are at greater risk … of other problems
later in life‖ (Olson, 2005, p. 4).
School Readiness 42
Poverty and School Readiness.
Zaslow et al. (2000) reported that the ―large number of young children in poverty
is cause for concern because it has been found that poverty during the first five years of
life is more detrimental than poverty experienced at any other point during childhood or
adolescence‖ (p. 35). Denton and West (2002) reported that ―differences in children‘s
overall achievement linked to their family‘s poverty status, race/ethnicity, and school
type persist from kindergarten through the spring of first grade‖ (as cited in Boethel,
2004, p. 65).
―Poverty before age five is associated with few total years of schooling, so it would
appear a trajectory for school failure and dropout… poverty can influence developmental
outcomes…a home environment unsuitable for early learning and development, physical
dangers for children‖ (Zaslow et al., 2000, p. 35). Bowman, Donovan, and Burns (2001)
concluded,
Young children who are living in circumstances that place them at greater
risk of school failure—including poverty, low level of maternal education,
maternal depression, and other factors that can limit their access to opportunities
and resources that enhance learning and development—are much more likely to
succeed in school if they attend well-planned, high-quality early childhood
programs. (as cited in Boethel, 2004, p. 34)
High risk families are likely to require more intensive services than the typical
parenting intervention programs. Raver, (2003) noted ―a small percentage of young
children in poverty struggle with serious emotional and behavioral disturbance. A range
School Readiness 43
of programs are designed to lower the risk of young children‘s development of serious
problems in families struggling with multiple chronic stressors‖ (p. 3).
Parents in poverty are more often punitive and coercive, and often deal
with their children in a way that lacks support, involvement and
consistency…Poor families often have no choice but to live in undesirable
neighborhoods and their children receive low-quality child care which can have
detrimental effects on child development. While a lot of attention has been
focused on the negative effects of poor neighborhoods on child outcomes during
early childhood, it turns out that much of the impact of poor neighborhoods may
be mediated through the home environment. (as cited in Boethel, 2004, p. 41)
―Parents who provide warm, supportive home environments for their children, who
use appropriate parenting behaviors and who provide stimulating, age-appropriate
learning experiences for their children may be able to off-set the potentially negative
influences of living in an impoverished neighborhood‖ (Zaslow et al., 2000, p. 58).
Social Competence and School Readiness.
―Social development begins at birth and progresses rapidly during the preschool
years. It is clear that early childhood programs should include regular opportunities for
spontaneous child-initiated social play‖ (McClellan & Katz, 2001, p. 1). ―Social and
emotional development are distinguished from each other in that social development
reflects the child‘s social interactions‖ (Zaslow et al., 2000, p. 19). ―Children whose entry
into school has been delayed do not seem to gain an advantage socially … more
drawbacks than advantages are evident‖ (Marshall, 2003, p. 7).
School Readiness 44
Zaslow et. al.(2000) states that
Learning in school occurs through interactions with teachers and peers. Positive
adaptation to school requires of children such social behaviors as the ability to
take turns, to work cooperatively in a group, to show empathy toward others and
assertiveness (e.g., asking questions, assumption of leadership roles) without
aggressiveness. Positive self-concept and the ability to interpret one‘s own
feelings and those of others contribute to positive interactions and engagement in
learning. (p. 19)
When looking at the needs of children and their relationships with others, it is
often evident that their early experiences as children mold their future. According to
McClellan and Katz (2001)
A child‘s long-term social and emotional adaptation, academic and cognitive
development, and citizenship are enhanced by frequent opportunities to strengthen
social competence during childhood. Unless children achieve minimal social
competence by about the age of 6 years, they have a high probability of being at
risk into adulthood. Because social development begins at birth and progresses
rapidly during the preschool years, it is clear that early childhood programs
should include regular opportunities for spontaneous child-initiated social play.
(McClellan & Katz, 2001, p. 1)
Allen and Marotz (2003) noted that researchers suggest that children under the
age of 6 are developmentally less capable of
1. thinking about an event in its entirety
School Readiness 45
2. selecting from a menu of possible behaviors in response to any new,
interesting, or anxiety-inducing event
3. comprehending an event separate from their own feelings
4. modifying their physical reactions in response to change in stimuli (as
cited in Jewett & Peterson, 2003, p. 1).
Hartup (1992) noted,‖ Peer relationships contribute to social and cognitive
development and how we function as adults. The single best childhood predictor of adult
adaptation isn‘t grades or classroom behavior, but rather, the adequacy with which the
child gets along with other children‖ (as cited in McClellan & Katz, 2001, p. 1).
―Children who are generally disliked, who are aggressive and disruptive, who are unable
to sustain close relationships with other children, and who cannot establish a place for
themselves in the peer culture are seriously at risk‖ (as cited in McClellan & Katz, 2001,
p. 1).
Transition to School.
Early childhood educators and parents have varying expectations about the
transition to school. ―Nature of family support for children starting school, teacher
expectations, families, and parent involvement as well as children‘s expectations of
school all have a significant impact on transition experiences‖ (Dockett & Perry, 1999, p.
1). ―Most children entering kindergarten today have much wider experience outside the
home than children of the past. New research about children‘s learning confirms some
historical beliefs about effective educational practices‖ (Egertson, 1987, p. 1).
―Children‘s earliest school performance, including kindergarten performance, generally
sets a pattern for their future success or lack of it‖ (Boethel, 2004, p.vii).
School Readiness 46
Bailey (1999) summarized the importance of transition into school in the
following way,
Kindergarten is a context in which children make important conclusions about
school as a place where they want to be and about themselves as learners vis-à-vis
schools. If no other objectives are accomplished, it is essential that the transition
to school occur in such a way that children and families have a positive view of
the school and that children have a feeling of perceived competence as learners.
(as cited in Dockett & Perry, 2001, p. 2)
Summary
Literature suggests that the early years are the most important years of a child‘s
life. Nature and nurture play a large role in a child‘s first learning experiences. Nature
and nurture also help in forming developmental skills needed in future years. High
quality early childhood education can increase readiness for school and narrow the
achievement gap between low income students and other income students. The definition
of school readiness has not been narrowed down to form a consensus of what it should
mean in the world of education. Most individuals involved in this debate agree that
school readiness should begin at birth and continue through a child‘s early years of
development until kindergarten entry.
As we look into school readiness research, there are a few elements that
continually appear. Most of the children who repeat kindergarten are from disadvantaged
backgrounds. These children probably live in poverty and do not receive any type of
early childhood education. Children who start kindergarten later than their peer group are
held back for academic advantages that may come later in their school career. Other
School Readiness 47
children who start kindergarten later than their peer group are labeled as possibly delayed
and need another year to catch up before their entrance into kindergarten. Most of the
children have been under a caregiver‘s watch rather than the parent(s) during their early
years.
The acts of academic red shirting and retention of kindergarten students is a
controversial issue, whether it is done by parents or school officials. Most research shows
that these methods do not increase academic achievement for an extended time. It isn‘t
known if the extra time will give the delayed students advantages in the future or to
improve their likelihood for a successful future.
School Readiness 48
Chapter III–Method
Introduction
This causal-comparative study analyzed the school readiness screening scores of
pre-kindergarten students who participated in any type of early childhood education
programs and the pre-kindergarten students who did not participate in any type of early
childhood education program. It analyzed the school readiness screening scores of pre-
kindergarten male and
female students upon their entrance into kindergarten.
The purpose of this study was to identify the difference in the school readiness
scores of students who experienced some type of early childhood programs as opposed to
students who did not participate in an early childhood program and the difference in
school readiness screening scores between female and male students involved in this
study. This chapter will describe the subjects, sampling procedure, research setting,
research design/ procedure, and statistical treatment of data. Although the majority of
previous studies and research agree that early childhood programs affect school
readiness, questions remain regarding the lack of participation in the programs that were
offered students in this study and how this affected students in the small rural school.
Researchers from a variety of fields using a variety of testing approaches have
consistently found a gap between the readiness of white children and the readiness
of Black and Hispanic children entering school. The concept of readiness has no
obvious unit of measurement. Lacking such a tool, researchers have used a range
of tests to measure different dimensions of the skills and behaviors—word
comprehension, reading, math, the ability to sit still—that make a child ready to
School Readiness 49
enter school. If a test is accurate, a child‘s score can be used to predict his future
success or achievement. A student who is measured as more ready, should have
greater success in meeting the demands or challenges of school. (Rock & Stenner,
2005, p. 1)
Subjects
The subjects for this study were students who attended a small rural school
district located in southern Missouri. The school population was approximately 540 at the
time the research was conducted. This school was accredited through the Missouri
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. The researcher received permission
to examine each student‘s permanent record in grades kindergarten through 12
th
-grade
from the school‘s Board of Education. The criteria used to choose the school readiness
scores were
the student‘s permanent record must contain school readiness scores as a
part of the screening administered upon entry into kindergarten
the student must be an active student attending school in this school
district.
Sampling Procedure
The subjects for this study were students who are actively attending the school
district. The records were researched during the 2008-2009 school year. The researcher
received permission to examine each of the student‘s permanent records in grades
kindergarten through 12
th
-grade. All student permanent record data were examined
individually to determine if each student‘s permanent record met the criteria for the
study. A permanent record was chosen for this study if it contained school readiness
School Readiness 50
screening test scores and the student was actively attending the school district. School
readiness screening test score information was collected from 321 students. These
students had taken readiness tests as part of the screening process before their entry into
kindergarten. The readiness scores were taken from the following school years–1995-
1996, 1996-1997, 1997-1998, 1998-1999, 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-
2003, 2003-2004, 2004-2005, 2005-2006, 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009.
Research Design
Researchers conduct causal-comparative studies seeking to explore relationships
among variables with an attempt to explain phenomena of interest. The manipulation of
variables by the researcher is not permitted but attempt to explore causation. A causal-
comparative research design was chosen for this study because the investigator attempted
to determine the differences that already existed between groups of students.
This causal-comparative study uses comparison testing procedures to investigate
the possibility of a significant difference between school readiness screening scores of
students who attended some type of early childhood education programs and the school
readiness scores of students who did not participate in any type of early childhood
education program. This causal-comparative study will use comparison testing
procedures to investigate the school readiness screening scores of male students and
female students upon their entrance into kindergarten.
The scores received from the school readiness screening scores were used to
determine the level of school readiness of each student. Every student in grades
kindergarten through 12
th
-grade was used in this study if there was data from assessments
School Readiness 51
that could be used in this research. Students were chosen based on their participation in
the school readiness screening prior to their entrance into kindergarten.
The kindergarten students took the Developmental Indicators for the Assessment
of Learning (DIAL-3) before their entry into kindergarten to determine their level of
kindergarten readiness. The DIAL-3 provides scores for Motor Area, Concepts Area,
Language Area, Self-Help Development and Social Development. The DIAL-3 indicates
behavioral observations as well as a parent questionnaire. The percentile ranks and
standard scores are provided.
The first, second, and third grade students took the Scholastic Kindergarten
Readiness Test (KRT) before their entry into kindergarten. This test assists in
determining a student‘s readiness for beginning kindergarten. The fundamental purpose
of the KRT is to determine the extent to which competencies have been developed. The
subtests are Vocabulary, Identifying Letters, Visual Discrimination, Phonemic
Awareness, Comprehension and Interpretation, and Mathematical Knowledge. The KRT
levels of readiness can be used for diagnostic assistance. The levels of readiness are
related to percentiles and stanines.
The fourth, fifth and sixth grade students took the Developmental Indicators for
the Assessment of Learning (DIAL-3) before their entry into kindergarten to determine
their level of kindergarten readiness. The DIAL-3 provides scores for Motor Area,
Concepts Area, Language Area, Self-Help Development and Social Development. The
DIAL-3 indicates behavioral observations as well as a parent questionnaire. The
percentile ranks and standard scores are provided.
School Readiness 52
The
7
th
-grade,
8
th
-grade,
9
th
-grade, 1
0
th
-grade, 1
1
th
-grade, and 12
th
-grade students
took the Missouri Kindergarten Inventory of Developmental Skills (KIDS) assessment
before their entry into kindergarten. The KIDS test is a screening battery developed by a
State Task Force on Early Childhood Screening. The areas that are assessed are Number
Concepts, Language Concepts, Auditory Skills, Visual Skills, Paper and Pencil Skills,
and Gross Motor Skills. A parent questionnaire is included to obtain information
regarding the child‘s development as part of the screening process.
Independent Variable
Early Education Programs. The types (if any) of early educational programs that
the students participated in before their entrance into kindergarten.
Dependent Variable
School Readiness Screening Scores. Scores from screening the pre-kindergarten
students received before their entrance into kindergarten.
Hypotheses
Null Hypothesis # 1.
There is no significant difference between the school readiness screening scores
of the pre-kindergarten students who participated in any type of early childhood
education programs and the pre-kindergarten students who did not participate in any type
of
early childhood education program.
Null Hypothesis #2.
There is no significant difference between the school readiness screening scores
of the pre-kindergarten male and female students upon their entrance into kindergarten.
School Readiness 53
Research Setting
The population of this small rural school district in southern Missouri has
remained at approximately 540 students in grades kindergarten through 12
th
-grade for the
past 13 years. The district hasn‘t had a sizeable increase or decrease in the student
population in recent years. The district has one elementary school which houses grades
pre-kindergarten through sixth grade and one high school building which contains grades
seventh through twelfth grades.
The January Membership Demographic Data reported by the Missouri
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (MODESE) in 2008 showed the
student population was 540.
The student breakdown (in percentages) by Race and Ethnicity categories in
2004-2008 were
Asian 0.60% to 0.20%, (note a decrease)
Black 4.10% to 0.50%, (note a decrease)
Hispanic 0.90% to 0.70%, (note a decrease)
Indian 1.30% to 1.30%, and
White 93.10% to 97.20%.
During that same school year, the Free/Reduced Lunch percentages were
61.10% in 2004,
61.30% in 2005, 59.50% in 2006,
61.50% in 2007, and
54.50% in 2008.
School Readiness 54
Thus, based on the statistics from the population of free and reduced sub-group of
students, the school qualified as a School-Wide Title I School which served all of the
students in the elementary building. (See Table 1)
Table 1
Demographics: Study Site of High School Data
______________________________________________________________________
Year 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
______________________________________________________________________
Total Enrollment 534 544 566 551 540
______________________________________________________________________
Asian 3 3 3 1 1
Number/Percent 0.60 0.60 0.50 0.20 0.20
Black 2 3 4 3 3
Number/Percent 0.40 0.60 0.70 0.50 0.60
Hispanic 5 7 9 8 4
Number/Percent 0.90 1.30 1.60 1.50 0.70
Indian 7 9 10 6 7
Number/Percent 1.30 1.70 1.80 1.10 1.30
White 497 522 540 533 525
Number/Percent 93.10 96.00 95.40 96.70 97.20
Free/Reduced 319 323 335 339 293
Number/Percent 61.10 61.30 59.50 61.50 54.50
______________________________________________________________________
Note: The source of the data was the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education core data that was submitted by Missouri Public Schools as of October 24,
2008. The January Membership Data was used as the denominator when calculating the
percent.
School Readiness 55
The district has a Title I Pre-School program which serves the students with
indicated needs first. The district also has a Parents as Teachers program, a voluntary
program for parents before their children enter school. During the 2008-2009 school year,
there were 56 students targeted for extra help as At-Risk students in grades kindergarten
through sixth grade. There were 26 students targeted for extra help as At-Risk students in
grades 7-12. The school district initiated an At-Risk program at the beginning of the
2008-2009 school year due to the continued concern about the drop-out rates and low
graduation rates indicated in the APR. The school district is in the second year of School
Improvement because of low subgroup scores on the state testing—Missouri Assessment
Program (MAP).
In order to meet the identified problem areas of the Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP), the school district purchased a software program to help those students who were
at risk of failing in the regular classroom.
Permission was given by the district to use data from the students‘ permanent
records who were currently in grades kindergarten through 12
th
-grade. The Board of
Education and Administrators expressed concern with the PAT program in the years
2000-2005. They were interested in the outcome of the study and encouraged the
research concerning the early childhood programs that serve the district before students
enter kindergarten.
Statistical Treatment of Data
This causal-comparative study uses a t-test for finding the difference in the means
of the school readiness screening scores of the students who attended any type of early
childhood education programs and the students who did not attend any type of early
School Readiness 56
childhood education program. The t-test will also be used to find the difference in the
means of the school readiness screening scores between the male and female students.
The groups of students who will be compared are those students who participated
in some type of early childhood education program before entering kindergarten and
those students who did not participate in any type of early childhood education program
before entering kindergarten. The other groups of school readiness scores compared were
between the male and female students. All of the kindergarten assessments occur in the
spring before entry into kindergarten. This causal-comparative approach began with a
difference in the groups. The researcher will look for possible causes for, or
consequences of, this difference.
Summary
This causal-comparative study analyzed the school readiness screening scores of
pre-kindergarten students who participated in any type of early childhood education
programs and the pre-kindergarten students who did not participate in any type of early
childhood education program and the school readiness screening scores of pre-
kindergarten male and female students upon their entrance into kindergarten. In this
chapter, the method of investigation of the study has been discussed. The statistical data
of the school is important to the study. The study was limited by the demographic
characteristics of the population. The school has a high rate of students who qualify for
the free and reduced breakfast/lunch program. Typically, researchers of early education
programs narrow their studies to areas where there is a highly concentrated population of
poverty level families. This study is unique because it focuses on the rural school setting.
The race and ethnicity categories as well as attendance rates seemed to change very little
School Readiness 57
in the subgroups of the school population during the years studied at this small rural
school district. The results of the causal-comparative study with hypothesis testing will
continue with the analysis of data and the statistical treatment discussion in Chapter IV.
School Readiness 58
Chapter IV—Results
Introduction
This causal-comparative study analyzed the school readiness screening scores of
pre-kindergarten students who participated in any type of early childhood education
programs and the pre-kindergarten students who did not participate in any type of early
childhood education program and the school readiness screening scores of pre-
kindergarten male and female students upon their entrance into kindergarten. The purpose
of this study was to identify the difference in the school readiness scores of students who
experienced some type of early childhood programs and the difference in school
readiness screening scores of the male and female students upon their entrance into
kindergarten.
The independent variable was the types (if any) of early education programs in
which the students participated before their entrance into kindergarten. The dependent
variable was the school readiness screening scores gathered from the screening of each
pre-kindergarten student before their entrance into kindergarten.
Participants.
The school readiness screening scores were collected from a small rural school
located in southern Missouri. The student scores were analyzed to look for a significant
difference in school readiness screening scores of the pre-kindergarten students who
participated in any type of early childhood education programs such as Parents as
Teachers, Title I Preschool, and Early Childhood Special Education Preschool and the
pre-kindergarten students who did not participate in any type of early childhood
School Readiness 59
education program. Another element of the research was to discover if there was a
significant difference between school readiness screening scores of pre-kindergarten male
and female students upon their entrance into kindergarten.
Each student‘s permanent record was reviewed to find all of the students who had
data that could be used for this study in kindergarten through twelfth grade from in the
range of years, 1995-1996 to 2008-2009. Each school readiness screening score was
recorded. The criteria used to choose the school readiness scores were
the student‘s permanent record must contain school readiness scores as a
part of the screening administered upon entry into kindergarten
the student must be an active student attending school in this school
district
Each student‘s percentile score was entered in order to calculate the mean scores
(see Figure 1). For each statistical test, the individual student score was categorized into a
spreadsheet. The two groups being compared are
students who participated in some type of early childhood education
program
students who did not participate in an early childhood education program.
School Readiness 60
Figure 1. Mean Scores of Early Education vs. No Education Programs
Results and Analysis of Data
Early Childhood Programs Comparison.
The school readiness screening score percentiles were averaged (kindergarten
through 12
th
-grade) to create a mean score for each variable in the comparison of early
childhood programs and the school readiness screening scores of students who did not
attend some type of early childhood program. Using GraphPad InStat, version 3.06,
(Motulsky, 2003) the mean scores were entered to calculate a two-tailed P-value test.
52.
5
3
46.44
43
44
4
5
4
6
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
Early Ed No Early Ed
Mean Scores
Early Education vs. No Early
Education
Mean Percentage
School Readiness 61
Table 2 shows the statistical information that was used in the calculations to compare the
students‘ scores.
_______________________________________________________________________
Table 2
Early Education Programs versus No Early Education Programs Statistics
Early Education No Early Education
Program(s) Program(s)
________________________________________________________
Mean 52.53 46.44
Standard deviation 23.63 22.50
Sample size 232 89
________________________________________________________
Standard error
of mean 1.55 2.39
Lower 95%
Confidence interval 49.49 41.69
Upper 95%
Confidence interval 55.57 51.19
________________________________________________________
Minimum 0.0 0.0
Median
50
th
percentile 53 49
Maximum 99 99
________________________________________________________
Normality test
Kosmogorov
and Smirnov (KS) 0.04 0.07
Normality test
P value >0.10 >0.10
Passed normality
Test Yes Yes
________________________________________________________
The P-value is the fraction of all possible results obtained under the null
hypothesis where the difference is as large as or larger than observed. The P-value is used
School Readiness 62
to weigh the strength of the evidence. The P-value answers the question: If the
populations really did have the same mean, what is the probability of observing such a
large difference (larger) between sample means in an experiment of this size? The P-
value is a number between 0 and 1 that reflects the strength of the data that are being used
to evaluate the null hypothesis. A significant P-value threshold was set at 0.05
significance level. A result is considered to be statistically significant if the populations
were identical.
If a result is statistically significant, there are two possible explanations:
The populations are identical, so there really is no difference. By chance,
the result obtained was larger values in one group and smaller values in
the other. Finding a statistically significant result when the populations are
identical is considered making a Type 1 error. If the P-value is defined
statistically significant as P > 0.05, then the type 1 error will be made in
5% of experiments where there really is no difference.
The populations really are different, so the conclusion is correct.
(Motulsky, 2003)
School Readiness 63
Figure 2. Mean Percentile and Standard Deviation of Early Education vs. No Early
Education Programs.
In Figure 2, the standard deviation was calculated to measure the amount of
variability there was from the mean. The mean percentile for the students with some type
of early education was 52.53 and the standard deviation was 23.63. The mean percentile
for the students with no early education was 46.44 and the standard deviation was 22.5.
The students with no early education programs had a lower mean percentile and standard
deviation when compared to the students that had some type of early education program.
52.53
46.44
23.63
2
2.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Early Ed No Early Ed
Mean and
Standard Deviation
Early Education vs. No Early
Education
Standard Deviation
Mean Percentile
School Readiness 64
An assumption test was conducted to determine if the standard deviations (SDs)
were equal. The t-test assumes that the groups come from populations with equal SDs.
The SD quantifies scatter or how much the values vary from one another. The SD does
not change predictably as more data is acquired. The SD quantifies the scatter of the data,
and increasing the size of the sample does not increase the scatter. The SD might go up or
it might go down. It can‘t be predicted. On the average, the SD will stay the same as
sample size gets larger. (Motulsky, 2003)
School Readiness 65
Figure 3. Standard Error of Mean of Early Education programs vs. No Early Education
In Figure 3, the standard error of the mean is the standard deviation of the sample
means for samples taken from the same population. (Bluman, 2007) The t-test assumes
that the data are sampled from populations that follow Gaussian distributions. (Motulsky,
2003)
52.53
46.44
1.
55
2.39
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
Early Program(s) No Early Program(s)
Standard Error of Mean
Early Programs vs. No Early Programs
SEM
Mean
School Readiness 66
The standard error of mean of the students who participated in early childhood
programs is 1.55. The standard error of mean of the students with no early childhood
programs is 2.39.
Early Education vs. No Early Education
Unpaired t-test. The assumption test answered the question, ―Are the standard
deviations equal?‖ The t-test assumed that the means come from populations with equal
SDs thus the following calculations test that assumption.
F = 1.103
P-value = 0.6025
This test suggests that the difference between the two SDs is not significant. This
assumption was tested using the method Kolmogorov and Smirnov, both groups of data
passed the normality test. (Motulsky, 2003) There is no significant difference between the
SDs of early childhood programs and no early childhood programs.
An unpaired t-test was administered using the statistical data to discover if a
significant difference existed between the mean of students who participated in some type
of early childhood education programs and students who did not participate in an early
childhood education program. The unpaired t-test was calculated to answer the following
question, ―Do the means of the students who attended some type of early education
program and the means of the students who did not attend some type of early education
program differ significantly?‖ The two-tailed P-value is 0.0370, which is considered
significant when
t = 2.095, with
319 degrees of freedom, and
School Readiness 67
a mean difference of -0.6092.
The 95% confidence interval of the difference: -11.813 to -0.3700.
Null Hypothesis # 1.
The null hypothesis for Early Childhood Education was, ―There is no significant
difference between the school readiness screening scores of the pre-kindergarten students
who participated in any type of early childhood education programs and the pre-
kindergarten students who did not participate in any type of early childhood education
program.‖ Using the two-tailed P-value hypothesis to test the results, with a significant P-
value threshold set at 0.05 significance level, thus the null hypothesis #1 must be
rejected.
Results and Analysis of Data
Gender Score Comparison.
In a research study on gender differences in learning style preferences, ―research
revealed a gender difference in preferred methods of information delivery and suggested
that the female student population is more diverse than the male population,
encompassing a broader range of sensory modality preferences.‖ ―The researchers
concluded that ―instructors need to be cognizant of these differences and broaden their
range of presentation styles accordingly.‖ (Wehrwein, Lujan, and DiCarlo, 2007, p. 341)
Research studies from the University of Southern California (Hodgins, [online])
reported their findings on the differences in male and female minds:
Female brains mature earlier than males … almost twelve– eighteen months
earlier. Because of this, females, can acquire their complex verbal skills as much
as a year earlier than males. This research reports, quite often, a female will learn
School Readiness 68
to read faster and achieve a larger vocabulary than her male peers, and she may
speak with better grammar. This difference seems to continue throughout
development; in general, female brains develop quicker than male brains. Another
structural difference is the bundles of nerves that connect emotion and cognition.
In females, this bundle is up to 20% larger than in males, giving females better
decision making and sensory processing skills. Because of this difference in size,
females have better verbal communication; males tend to rely heavily on
nonverbal communication; and are less likely to verbalize feelings. (p. 6)
The researcher of this causal comparative study examined and recorded the
information according to if the student was red shirted or retained along with their school
readiness percentile scores. The researcher wanted to see if there were a large percentage
of students who had been delayed for either reason during their kindergarten entry year.
The gender screening score percentiles were averaged (kindergarten through
twelfth grade) to create a mean score for each variable in the comparison of female and
male school readiness screening scores of students. Using GraphPad InStat, version 3.06
(Motulsky, 2003), the mean score was entered to calculate a two-tailed P-value.
School Readiness 69
Figure 4. Mean Scores by
Gender
In Figure 4, the mean scores of the male and female students upon their entry into
kindergarten.
52.4
49.64
48
48.5
49
49.5
50
5
0.5
51
5
1.5
52
52.5
53
Female Screening Scores Male Screening Scores
Mean Percentile Scores
by Gender
School Readiness Mean
Screening Scores
School Readiness 70
________________________________________________________________________
Table 3
Female and Male School Readiness Screening Scores
________________________________________________________________________
Female Scores Male Scores
Mean 52.40 49.64
Standard deviation 23.74 22.94
Sample size 149 172
________________________________________________________
Standard
Error of mean 1.95 1.75
Lower 95%
Confidence interval 48.589 46.208
Upper 95%
Confidence interval 56.21 53.065
________________________________________________________
Minimum 0.0 0.0
Median
50th percentile 54 49.5
Maximum 99 99
________________________________________________________
Normality test
Kosmogorov
and Smirnov (KS) 0.046 0.049
Normality test
P value >0.10 >0.10
Passed normality
Test Yes Yes
________________________________________________________
In Table 3, the statistical information was used in the calculations to compare the
students‘ scores. The mean percentile scores were calculated into one mean score for
females and one mean score for males. The female mean percentile of school readiness
School Readiness 71
screening scores was higher than the mean percentile of school readiness screening scores
of the male students upon entrance into kindergarten.
52.4
49.64
23.74
22.94
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Female Mean Scores Male Mean Scores
Mean and Standard Deviation
by Gender
Standard Deviation
Mean Percentile
Figure 5. Mean and Standard Deviation by Gender
The standard deviation (Figure 5) was calculated to measure the amount of
variability there was from the mean.
School Readiness 72
Figure 6. Standard Error of Mean by Gender
In Figure 6, the standard error of the mean is the standard deviation of the sample
means for samples taken from the same population. (Bluman, 2007) The t-test assumes
that the data are sampled from populations that follow Gaussian distributions or the data
cluster around a mean or average.
(Motulsky, 2003).
52.4
49.64
1.95
1.75
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
Female Mean Scores Male Mean Scores
Standard Error of Mean
by Gender
SEM
Mean
School Readiness 73
Gender
Unpaired t-test. An assumption test answered the following question, ―Are the
standard deviations equal?‖ The t-test assumes that the means come from populations
with equal SDs. The following calculations test that assumption.
F = 1.071
P-value is 0.6631
This test suggests that the difference between the two SDs is not significant. This
assumption was tested using the method Kolmogorov and Smirnov, both groups of data
passed the normality test thus indication that the means come from populations with
equal SDs.
An unpaired t-test was administered using the statistical data to discover if a
significant difference existed between the school readiness mean scores of pre-
kindergarten male and female students upon their entrance into kindergarten. The two-
tailed P-value is 0.2902, which is considered not significant where
t = 1.060 with
319 degrees of freedom, thus
the mean difference = -2.765.
The 95% confidence interval of the difference yields a result of -7.898 to 2.369
(Motulsky, 2003).
Null Hypothesis #2.
The null hypothesis for gender was, ―There is no significant difference between the
school readiness screening scores of the pre-kindergarten male and female students upon
School Readiness 74
their entrance into kindergarten.‖ Given a P-value significance threshold set at 0.05,
using the two-tailed P-value, to test results thus the null hypothesis must
be accepted.
School Readiness 75
Results and Analysis of Data
Figure 7. Percentage of Female and Male Retainees (1995-2008)
In Figure 7, there were 9 females (2.8% of the population) and 17 males (5.3% of
the population) who were retained during the fourteen years of study, from 1995-2008.
The total number of female and male students who were retained out of 321 during that
same period was 26 (8.1% of the population).
2.8
5.3
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Female Retainees Male Retainees
Percentage of Female and Male Retainees
1995-2008
percentage
School Readiness 76
Figure 8. Female and Male Academic Red Shirts (1995-2008)
In Figure 8, there were 3 females (.93% of the population) and 13 males (4.04%
of the population) who were academically redshirted during the years of study from
1995-2008. The total number of female and male students out of 321 students who were
academically redshirted from 1995-2008 was 16 students (4.97% of the population).
0.93
4.04
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
Female Percentage Male Percentage
Female and Male
Academic Red Shirts
1995-2008
Percentage
School Readiness 77
Figure 9. Percentage of Female and Male Red Shirts and Retainees
In Figure 9, there were 12 females (3.73% of the population) and 30 males
(9.34% of the population) who were academically redshirted or retained their
kindergarten year. The total number of female and male students out of 321 students who
were academically redshirted and retained were 42 (13.07% of the population) during the
years of study from 1995-2008.
3.73
9.34
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Female Male
Percentage of Female and Male
Red Shirts and Retainees
1995-2008
Percentage Red Shirts
and Retainees
School Readiness 78
Figure 10. Total Percentage of Retainees and Academic Red Shirts
In Figure 10, the male and female percentages were combined to receive a total
number of percentages of retainees and academic red shirts during the years of the study.
8.1
4.97
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Retainees M/F Academic Red Shirts M/F
Total Percentage of
Retainees and Academic Red Shirts
1995-2008
percentage
School Readiness 79
Deductive Conclusions
Results of this study indicate there is a significant difference in the mean scores of
students who have some type of early childhood education program and the students who
do not have some type of early childhood education program. This supports historical
research of children experiencing some type of education program before they enter
kindergarten. The null hypothesis for this part of the study must be accepted.
Results of this study indicate there is no significant difference in the mean scores
of the male and female students upon their entrance into kindergarten. This does not
support historical research of the difference in male and female students. These
differences could be attributed to the children being from very similar socio-economic
environments. Most families are very similar in their backgrounds—there are very few
children who have different environments from the majority of all of the students.
Summary
A causal-comparative study was performed on the data compiled from student
records. An unpaired t-test using a two-tailed P-value hypothesis test revealed there is a
significant difference between the school readiness screening scores of the kindergarten
students who participated in any type of early childhood education program and the
kindergarten students who did not participate in any type of early childhood education
program. The null hypothesis was rejected. Most research shows that early childhood
education promotes academic success for children. This portion of the study supported
the research of previous studies regarding early childhood education.
An unpaired t-test using a two tailed P-value hypothesis test revealed there was no
significant difference between the school readiness screening scores of the kindergarten
School Readiness 80
female and male students upon their entrance into kindergarten. The null hypothesis was
accepted. Most research in the area of gender leads to a difference in male and female
achievement. This portion of the study did not reveal the same findings.
School Readiness 81
Chapter V—Discussion
Introduction
This causal-comparative research project focused on school readiness. It
examined the effect that early childhood programs (such as Pre-School, Parents as
Teachers, Head Start, etc.) had on school readiness screening scores upon the student‘s
entrance into kindergarten. It also examined the comparison of female and male school
readiness screening scores upon their entrance into kindergarten. The problems that are
investigated included whether there is a significant difference between school readiness
screening scores of pre-kindergarten students and their participation in any type of early
childhood education programs. The study also investigated whether there is a significant
difference between school readiness screening scores of male and female students upon
their entrance into kindergarten. Chapter V will discuss the implication for effective
schools, recommendations, and the summary of this study.
Implication for Effective Schools
As government mandates continue, research will continue to examine issues
regarding school readiness practices, gender equity, and delayed school entrance,
retention of At-Risk students, and red-shirting of kindergarten students. There will be
ongoing intervention programs in the public schools to assist with increased student
achievement. Socioeconomic status, home environment and positive learning
experiences will continue to influence the school readiness of children. Working together
to inform parents of readiness expectations and readiness preparation by schools will
close the gap that currently exists regarding school readiness.
School Readiness 82
The research that was conducted in this study suggests that there is a significant
difference in the scores of students who were enrolled in early childhood education
programs and the students who were not enrolled in any type of early childhood
education programs. The research also suggests that this is no significant difference in the
scores of pre-kindergarten female and male students upon their entrance into
kindergarten. Each region experiences a variety of issues when looking at programs
within the individual schools. There are many variables that come into play when
addressing the issues of early childhood programs and kindergarten readiness.
A pilot study was directed by Kelly Maxwell and Donna Bryant at the University
of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the Fall of 2000 using the new NC School Readiness
Assessment. The pilot gathered information from a statewide sample of more than 1000
children from 200 schools. Information was collected on the five domains of children‘s
development and on key components of schools readiness for children.
The study found that children from lower-income families in North Carolina
entered school with much lower skills in all five major areas of development and
learning. Maxwell stated that one of the major findings from lower-income families and
higher-income families. That gap is illustrated by these findings:
76% of children from lower-income families were rated by their parents as
having very good or excellent health, vs. 91% of children from higher-
income families
82% of the children from lower-income families were rated by their
parents as often or very often seeming eager to learn, vs. 94% of children
from higher-income families
School Readiness 83
28% of children from lower-income families had very low scores on a
measure of social skills, vs. 10% of children from higher-income families
38% of children from lower income families had very low scores on a
language measure, vs. 6% of children from higher-income families
37% of children from lower-income families had very low scores on
measures of early math skills, vs. 9% of children from higher-income
families (Buysse & Winton, 2001, pp. 10-11).
―The quantity and rate of learning in the first few years of life are nothing short of
spectacular. What children learn, how they learn, and how much they learn depend on
many factors. Among the most important factors are the child‘s physical well-being, and
his emotional and cognitive relationships with those who care for him‖ (Katz , 1991, pp.
1-2).
Recommendations
This study was conducted in a small rural school located in Southwest Missouri.
The poverty level of many residents of the area is very high. The free and reduced lunch
rate for the school ranged from 54.50% to 61.50% during the past four years. The
willingness of the parents in these low income environments to accept assistance with the
Parents As Teachers or Preschool programs that are offered but not mandatory is a
concern for the researcher. There is a reluctance of many of these families facing
economic hardships to accept assistance from outside agencies.
There are many different areas that seem to affect the degree of school readiness.
Research of this study could continue with the investigation into the criteria that is used
to determine the definition of readiness, the requirements that are in place for
School Readiness 84
kindergarten entry, the effects of delaying kindergarten entry, and the transition programs
for kindergarteners. The results may be applicable only to this school district represented
in the data. Because this study was representative of a specific school, further research
may be needed such as
what type of students are chosen for alternative education
settings for instruction
does age biases influence the selection of students in alternative instruction
settings for instruction
is there a disproportionate number of special needs students entering school that
are older than their kindergarten cohort group
does chronological age affect academic achievement?
Educators must identify the meaning of school readiness and emphasize the
importance of recognizing traits that have influences on preschool children‘s
development and school success.
Summary
The following null hypothesis was researched during this causal-comparative
study of school readiness:
Null Hypothesis # 1.
There is no significant difference between the school readiness screening scores
of the pre-kindergarten students who participated in any type of early childhood
education programs and the pre-kindergarten students who did not participate in any type
of early childhood education program.
School Readiness 85
Null Hypothesis #1 Summary.
Using and unpaired t-test, a two-tailed P-value hypothesis testing was performed;
a significant P-value threshold was set at a 0.05 significance level. This testing resulted in
the P value of 0.0370, which is considered significant. Testing revealed that there was a
significant difference between the mean scores of students who participate in any type of
early childhood education program and the students who did not participate in any type of
early childhood education program.
Based on the results of the two-tailed P-value testing—the null hypothesis must
be rejected. This finding supports evidence that some type of early education program
helps prepare children for their school years.
The second null hypothesis that was researched during this causal-comparative
study was:
Null Hypothesis #2.
There is no significant difference between the school readiness screening scores
of the pre-kindergarten male and female students upon their entrance into kindergarten.
Null Hypothesis #2 Summary.
Using an unpaired t-test, a two-tailed P-value hypothesis testing was performed; a
significant P-value threshold was set at a 0.05 significance level. This testing resulted in
the P value of 0.2902, which is considered not significant. Testing revealed that there
was a not a significant difference between the mean scores of pre-kindergarten male and
female students upon their entrance into kindergarten. Therefore the null hypothesis must
be accepted.
School Readiness 86
References
Bailey, D. (2001). Pre K at Issue (Report No. 475 933). Chapel Hill, NC: Ed Early
developments Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service Volume 5, Number 1 ED 475 922)
Beck, J. (1993). What Parents and Communities can do to Collaborate. Dimensions,
22(1), 5-8.
Bluman, A. (2007) Elementary Statistics: A Step by Step Approach. Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill Science Engineering.
Boethel, M. (2004). Readiness School, Family, & Community Connections (Annual
Synthesis Report). Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early
Childhood Programs (NAEYC). Washington, DC: National Association for the
Education of Young Children.
Bruer, J. T., (1997). Education and the Brain: A bridge too far. Educational Researcher,
26, 4-16.
Buysse, V., & Winton, P., (2001). Early Developments, School Readiness. Chapel Hill,
NC: North Carolina Univ, Frank Porter Graham. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 473 922)
Crosser, S. (1998). He Has a Summer Birthday: The Kindergarten Entrance Age
Dilemma. Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early
Childhood Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 423 079)
School Readiness 87
Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (1999). Starting School: What matters for children, parents, and
educators (AECA Research in Practice Series, p. 3). Canberra, Australia:
Australian Early Childhood Association.
Dockett S., & Perry B. (2001). Starting School: Effective Transitions (Volume 3 Number
2, p. 2). Sydney, Australia: University of Western Sydney. Retrieved March 4,
2007, from Early Childhood Research & Practice Web site:
http:www.ecrp.uiuc.eduv3n2/dockett.html
Dunne, D. (2005). Study looks for Keys to Early School Success [Electronic version].
Education World.
Eddy, C. (2004). School Readiness. Heartland Area Education Agency.
Edwards, D. (1999, Fall) Public Factors That Contribute to School Readiness. (article)
Madison University of Wisconsin-Madison Retrieved December 8, 2007, from
ECRP Web site: http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v1n2/edwards.html.
Egertson, H. A. (1987). The Shifting Kindergarten Curriculum. Urbana, IL: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 293 630)
Epstein, A., Schweinhart, L., DeBruin-Parecki, A., & Robin, K. (July 2004). Preschool
Assessment: A Guide to Developing a Balanced Approach. National Institute for
Early Education Research (7), 1-11.
Flaxman, E. (2003). Closing the Achievement Gap: Two views from Current Research
(ED 482 919, PP. 1-5). Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education.
Retrieved March 8, 2009, from Eric Digests Web site: www.ericdigests.org
http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v1n2/edwards.html
School Readiness 88
Fraenkel J., & Wallen N. (2006). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education
(Sixth Ed.). New York: McGraw Hill.
Gnezda, T., & Bolig, R. (1988). A National Survey of Public School Testing of
Prekindergarten and Kindergarten Children. Paper presented at the National
Association of State Boards of Education.
Graue, E. M., Kroeger, J., & Brown, C. (2003). The Gift of Time: Enactments of
Developmental Thought in Early Childhood Practice (article). Madison:
University of Wisconsin-Madison. Retrieved February 7, 2009, from ECRP Web
site: http:www.ecrp.uiuc.edu/v5nl/graue.html
Hills, Wilson, T. (1987) Screening for School Entry. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Elementary and Early Childhood. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service ED
281 607)
Hodgins, D. (n.d.). Male and Female Difference. (article). Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania. Retrieved February 7, 2009, from
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/llog/Hodgins/
Jewett, J., & Peterson, K., (2003) Stress and Young Children. Retrieved March 8, 2009,
from ERIC Digest website: www.ericdigests.org
Kagan, S. L ., Moore, E., & Bredekamp, S. (1995). Reconsidering children’s early
development and learning: Toward common views and vocabulary. Washington,
D.C: National Education Goals Panel, Goal 1 Technical Planning Group:
Government Printing Office. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 391
576)
School Readiness 89
Katz, L. G. (1991). Readiness: Children and Schools. Urbana, IL: Eric Clearinghouse on
Elementary and Early Childhood Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 330 495)
Katz, L. G. (1997, Fall) Tomorrow Begins Today: Implications from research. Eric/eece
Newsletter, 9 (2), 1-2
Katz, L. G. (2000a). Academic Redshirting and Young Children. Champaign, IL: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 447 951)
Kostelc J., & Koprowski D. (2001). Linking Neuroscience to Care and Education of
Young Children Prenatal to Kindergarten Entry [Brochure]. St. Louis, MO:
Parents As Teachers National Center.
LDA. (1999). Assessment of Readiness Skills During Early Childhood (LDA). Pittsburg,
PA: Author. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from Learning Disabilities Association of
America (LDA) Web site: http:www.ldaamerica.org
Malone, L., West., J., Flanagan., K., & Park, J. (2006). The Early Reading and
Mathematics Achievement of Children Who Repeated Kindergarten or Who
Began School a Year Late. ies National Center for Education Statistics (Statistics
In Brief). Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Education Institute of Education
Sciences.
March, C. (2005). Academic Redshirting: Does withholding a child from school entrance
for one year increase academic success? Educational Research, 15. Retrieved
January 21, 2009, from http:www.iier.org.au/iier15/march.html
School Readiness 90
Marshall, H. (2003). Opportunity Deferred or Opportunity Taken? An updated Look at
Delaying Kindergarten Entry [Electronic version]. Young Children on the Web,
p. 1-9.
Maxwell, K., (2001). School Readiness. Chapel Hill, NC: Author. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 473 922)
Maxwell, K., & Clifford, R. (2004). School Readiness Assessment. Beyond the Journal,
1-10. Retrieved March 20, 2009, from National Association for the Education of
Young Children Web site: http:www.naeyc.org/resources/journal
McClellan, D., & Katz L. (2001). Assessing Young Children’s Social Competence. In
ERIC Digest (Online, pp. 1-6). Champaign, IL: ERIC Digest. Retrieved March 8,
2009, from www.ericdigests.org
Meisels, S. (1987). Uses and abuses of developmental screening and school readiness
testing. Young Children, 42(2), 68-73.
Meisels, W., & Tivnan, T. (1984) Predicting School Performance with the Early
Screening Inventory. Psychology in the Schools, 21, 25-33.
Missouri Department of Elementary & Secondary Education (MODESE). (2005).
Parents As Teachers Timeline [Brochure]. Jefferson City, MO: Author.
Morrow, L. M. (1995). Family Literacy: Connections in schools and communities. New
Brunswick, MJ: Rutgers University.
Motulsky, H.J. (2003) GraphPad InStat (Version 3.06) [Computer Software], San Diego,
CA: GraphPad Software, Inc.
School Readiness 91
NAEYC. (1995). School Readiness A position statement of the National Association for
the Education of Young Children. In National Association for the Education of
Young Children (Ed.), NAEYC. Washington, DC: Author.
NAEYC. (2000). Still! Unacceptable trends in Kindergarten entry and placement
(position trends). Washington, DC: National Association of Early childhood
Specialists in State Departments of Education. Retrieved March 6, 2007, from
National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of
Education Web site: http:www.naecs.cru.uiuc.edu/position/trends/2000.html
NAEYC. (2006). Quality Programs Nurture Relationships to Enhance Young Children’s
Learning. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved April 4, 2009, from National
Association for the Education of Young Children Web site: www.naeyc.org
National Goals Panel. (1991). The Goal 1 Technical Planning Subgroup report on school
readiness. In School Readiness. Washington, DC: Author.
Nurss, J. (1987) Readiness for Kindergarten. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Elementary and Early Childhood Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 291 514)
Olson, Lynn. (2005). Early Childhood Education: Investing in Quality Makes Sense.
American Education Research Association, Vol. 3 (Issue 2), p. 1-4.
Papert, S. (1999). Scientists and Thinkers, Jean Piaget. (article) New York, NY.
Retrieved February 21, 2009 from Time 100 Web site:
http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/piaget.html.
http://?/?naecs.cru.uiuc.edu/?position/?trends/?2000.html
http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/piaget.html
School Readiness 92
Parents As Teachers National Center. (2001). Linking Neuroscience to the Care and
Education of Young Children Prenatal to Kindergarten Entry [Brochure]. St.
Louis, MO: Author.
Parents as Teachers National Center. (2002). Research Overview and Key Outcomes. St.
Louis, MO: Parents as Teachers National Center. Retrieved February 8, 2009,
from Parents as Teachers National Center
Parents as Teachers National Center.(2005).TIMELINE Parents as Teachers The Events
and People That Made It Happen. St. Louis, MO:Author.
Parents as Teachers National Center. (n.d.). Parents as Teachers Evaluations [Brochure].
St. Louis, MO: Author.
Pfannenstiel J.C., & Zigler, E. (2007) The Parents as Teachers program: its impact on
school readiness and later school achievement (A Research Summary prepared
for Parents As Teachers National Center). St. Louis, MO: Parents as Teachers.
Raver, C. (2003) Young Children’s Emotional Development and School Readiness. In
ERIC Digest (Online, pp. 1-6) Champaign, IL: ERIC Digest. Retrieved March 7,
2007, from http://www.ericdigests.org/2004-1/young.htm.
Rock, D., & Stenner, A. (2005). Assessment Issues in the Testing of Children at School
Entry. In Future of Children (Vol 15, No 1, pp. 15-34) [Electronic version]. The
Future of Children.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in Thinking. Oxford: Oxford Press. p.138
Roopnarine, J. L., & Johnson, J. E. (1993). Approaches to Early Childhood Education.
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
http://www.ericdigests.org/2004-1/young.htm
School Readiness 93
Saluja, Gitanjali., Scott-Little, Catherine., & Clifford, Richard M. (2000). Readiness for
School: A Survey of State Policies and Definitions. Early Childhood Research &
Practice. (ECRP No. ED 446 875) Retrieved March 4, 2007, from
http:www.ecrp.uiuc.edu/v2n2/saluja.html
Shepard, L., (1994) The Challenges of Assessing Young Children Appropriately.Los
Angeles, CA. Retrieved March 20, 2009 from
http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:g5KTkrQXoh4J.www.cse.ucla.edu/products
/parents/.
Shepard, L., Kagan, & Wurtz. (1998). Principles and Recommendations for Early
Childhood Assessments. Washington, DC: National Goals Panel. (No. ED 416
033)
Shore, R. (1998). Ready schools. A Report of Goal 1 Ready Schools Resource Group.
Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel. (No. ED 416 582)
Voices of America. (September, 2005) Translating School Readiness: How to Talk about
Investing in Young Children .Washington, DC Voices for America‘s Children.
Walmsley, & Walmsley, Brown B. (1996). Kindergarten Ready or Not? A Parent’s
Guide. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Heinemann.
Walsh, G., & Gardner, J. (Spring 2005). Assessing the Quality of Early Years Learning
Environments. In ECRP. Champaign: University of Illinois. Retrieved March 4,
2005, from Early Childhood Research & Practice Web site:
http:www.ecrp.uiuc.edu/v7n1/walsh.html.
School Readiness 94
Wehrwein, E., Lujan, H., & DiCarlo, S. (2007) Gender Differences in learning style
preferences among undergraduate physiology students. Detroit, MI. Retrieved
February 27, 2009 from
http://advan.physiology.org/cgi/content/abstract/31/2/153.
West, J. (2000). Children Who Enter Kindergarten Late or Repeat Kindergarten: Their
Characteristics and Later School Performance. Stats in Brief. In NCES (NCES-
2000-039). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics (ED).
West, J., Denton, K., Germino, H. Hausken, E. (2000). America’s Kindergartners:
Findings from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Class of
1998-1999 (NCES). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
West, J., Denton, K., & Reaney, L. (2001). The Kindergarten Year (NCES 2002/023)
[Electronic version]. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Weston, W. (1989). Education and the American family: A research synthesis (pp. 1-3)
New York: University Press.
Westmoreland, N. (2008). Should You ‘Redshirt’ Your Child? (freelance writer). Santa
Rosa, CA: Freelance. Retrieved December 17, 2008, from http:www.family-
life.us/news.php?viewStoryPrinter=181.
Wikipedia, Susan Blow, Retrieved April 5, 2009, from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Blow.
Zaslow, M., Calkins, J., Halle, T, Zaff, J., & Margie, N. (2000). Background for
Community-Level Work on School Readiness: A Review of Definitions,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Blow
School Readiness 95
Assessments, and Investment Strategies. Child Trends. Retrieved September 26,
2008, from http:www.childtrends. org/school readiness/testsr.htm
School Readiness 96
Vita
Cynthia R. Allen has been the Superintendent of the Galena R-II School District
in Galena, Missouri, for the past 3 years. Administrative experience includes two years as
the Elementary Principal, and teaching experiences have included third, fifth, and sixth
grades for 25 years at Galena R-II School District.
Educational studies have resulted in an Education Specialist Degree in
Educational Administration from Lindenwood University, Nixa, Missouri Campus, a
Master of Science Degree in Elementary Education from Missouri State University,
Springfield, Missouri, and a Bachelor of Science Degree in Elementary Education from
College of the Ozarks, Point Lookout, Missouri.
