Getting ready for school

Sue Dockett, Bob Perry, Danielle Tracey

Faculty of Education, University of Western Sydney Macarthur

Abstract

In recent years, there have been calls, both within Australia and

abroad, to ensure that children come to school ‘ready to learn’. This

paper is the first in a series which will explore what is meant by this

term by different groups of people and the ways in which the beliefs

underpinning such a term influence decisions such as when children

start school, the classes they enter and whether or not they progress

annually.

In this initial investigation, groups of parents, school teachers and

children associated with two schools in suburban Sydney were asked to

identify elements of school readiness and the ways in which they could

be identified. This paper will consider differences and similarities in

the responses of these groups and note implications for the development

of transition programs into compulsory schooling.

Introduction

This paper reports on a pilot project designed to investigate the

perceptions, interpretations and notions of the term ‘school readiness’

held by the groups of people most involved in the transition of

children from settings prior to compulsory schooling to that compulsory

schooling. It follows the tradition of collecting data about school

readiness from teachers and parents (Margetts, 1996) but differs from

these studies by collecting data from those most affected by the

transition Ð the children.

The term ‘school readiness’ is used by all the adult stakeholders in

the transition of children into compulsory schooling. However, there is

sufficient evidence (Griffin & Harvey, 1995; Kagan, 1992; May &

Kundert, 1997; Senate Employment, Education and Training References

Committee, 1996) to suggest that the term is used by different groups

of people to mean different things. This pilot project is the initial

step in trying to reconcile these differences and to establish some

consensus about what it means for children to be ready for school.

After reporting the findings of the pilot project, this paper outlines

an ambitious research program for the next few years which will

constitute a comprehensive study of the notion of school readiness. As

such, the research has the potential to inform the future development

of transition to school programs.

Background

On several occasions within the last decade, the rhetoric of school

readiness has been used in calls for children to come to school Òready

to learnÓ (for example, Carrick, 1989, Rice, 1997). This view is

echoed in the first national goal for education in the United States of

America that Òby the year 2000 every child in America should start

school ready to learnÓ (Boyer, 1991, p. 5). While the goal of having

children start school ready to learn is praiseworthy, this statement

has proved problematic as a guide to policy implementation. As one

example, Kagan (1993) suggests that ‘school readiness’ and ‘readiness

to learn’ may be seen as quite different, if complementary, notions,

with readiness for learning relating to the developmental level at

which the learning of specific material is regarded appropriate, and

readiness for school focussed on specific skills children may be

required to possess at a given time. Viewed in this way, Kagan posits

that "readiness for learning is a gate-opener; readiness for school is

a gatekeeper" (1993, p. 67).

To add to the confusion, there are still more definitions and

approaches to school readiness. The maturational view of readiness,

based on GessellÕs theory of development (Gesell, Ilg & Ames, 1968),

describes development in terms of predictable stages guided by

childrenÕs internal maturation. From this theoretical perspective it

is assumed that environmental factors have little impact on development

and that, because the developmental stages are predictable and

universal, they can be assessed (Graue & Shepard, 1989). The first of

these assumptions leads to the conclusion that the perceived failure of

children in a given context is a function of inappropriate demands made

on children who are not yet ready. The second assumption provides the

basis for the development of tests of readiness which are, in reality,

tests of development.

In contrast, Vygotskian theory (Vygotsky 1978, 1982) contends that

learning precedes development. Children, as ‘ever ready learners’,

grow into the intellectual life around them and are stimulated by it.

So, in marked contrast to prevailing maturationist notions that

advocate keeping children out of school until they are deemed ready,

Vygotskian theorists advocate placing children in rich learning

situations as a means of hastening development (Kagan, 1992).

One result of the debate about what constitutes readiness for school

has been to consider, or in the case of Australia to re-consider, the

issue of school entry age. In the US, the National Association for the

Education of Young Children (1990) has cited age as the only equitable

criterion for school entry. Kagan (1993) suggests that this may be one

way to bypass the inequitous situations whereby a child may be deemed

ready to enter school X, but not school Y, because they use different

criteria to assess readiness. However, she cautions against the

assumption that children of the same age will form a homogeneous group.

While each state in Australia uses age as the criterion for school

entry, there is no common age of entry across Australia (Senate

Employment, Education and Training References Committee, 1996).

Recently, there have been calls for a common school entry age across

the country (Schools Council, 1992; Senate Employment, Education and

Training References Committee, 1996). These calls seem to have little

to do with the assumption that age of school entry equates with

readiness, but a great deal to do with the ease of transition from

state to state and the comparability of provision for young children,

as indicated by the following recommendation of the Senate Employment,

Education and Training References Committee:

The Committee recommends that the governments of the Commonwealth,

States and Territories devise consistent nomenclature and descriptors

for the years of early childhood and of compulsory schooling. This will

entail: ... a common starting age for, and a common date of eligibility

for entry to, compulsory schooling, and similarly for the year before

compulsory schooling ... (1996, p. 40)

The challenges involved have resulted in many different definitions of

school readiness. Some are based on assessments of development (such

as the Gessell School Readiness Test, Ilg, Ames, Haines & Gillespie,

1978) and others have incorporated a range of skills. For example,

Blackman (1988) and Davidowitz (1988) have conceived the construct of

school readiness as mainly embodying academic and motor skills. More

recently, however, school readiness has been operationalised as a

multidimensional concept in which the child’s cognitive, social,

physical and emotional development is considered (Immroth & Viki, 1994;

Peters & McLeod, 1997; Quay, Kaufman-McMurrain, Minore & Steele, 1997).

The definition employed by the US group formed to consider

implementation of the national goal of readiness also utilises a

multidimensional framework which encompasses physical well-being, motor

development, social and emotional development, individual approaches

toward learning, language use, cognition and general knowledge (Kagan,

1993).

Given the diversity in definitions of readiness, it is not surprising

that groups of people believe that different elements are important.

Responses from parents and teachers reported by Lewitt and Baker (1995)

revealed both agreements and differences in what each constitutes as

important elements for a child’s school readiness. The majority of

teachers (more than 75%) indicated that being physically healthy,

rested and well nourished was essential, while parents were much more

likely than teachers to report that academic skills were important for

school readiness. Both groups reported that communication skills,

enthusiasm and social skills such as being able to take turns were

important. In another study of teachers from school and non-school

early childhood settings, Hains, Fowler, Schwartz, Kottwitz &

Rosenkoetter (1989) reported that the major determinants of school

readiness for both groups were social interaction, communication,

instruction following, conduct and self-care. Davies & North (1990)

found that the most frequently mentioned determinants of school

readiness for their sample of Kindergarten teachers were self-help,

social, communication and cognitive skills, in that order. It seems

that definitions of readiness depend upon the perspectives of those

using the term (Griffin & Harvey, 1995; Kagan, 1992, 1993; May &

Kundert, 1997).

Lewit & Baker (1995) attempt to define school readiness as the notion

of readiness for learning to a standard of physical, intellectual and

social development that enables children to fulfil school requirements

and to assimilate a schools curriculum. There is little agreement as

to what the standard should be. As a result, there is a lack of

reliable and accepted tools for measuring the school readiness of

individual children, and the meaning of the available data is often

debated. This situation is well summarised by Kagan (1993) when she

says "you can’t measure what you can’t define" (p. 70).

The study reported in this paper recognises the considerable

differences among the major adult stakeholders about the meaning of

school readiness. It seeks to explore these differences and to

incorporate into this discussion a consideration of the views of some

of the children who are the objects of this confusion. In doing so,

this study utilises a grounded theory approach which does not rely on

pre-determined categories of responses from participants, unlike most

of the reported research (for example, Immroth & Viki, 1994; Quay et

al, 1997). Hence, in two major waysÐthe involvement of children and

the use of open-ended responses gathered through related grounded

theory approachesÐthis study represents a departure from past studies.

Pilot study

The research questions underpinning this pilot project were the

following.

What do different groups of people - children, parents / guardians,

school teachers and school executive - understand by the term ‘school

readiness’?

What criteria are used by these different groups of people to determine

when children are ‘ready for school’?

Whose responsibility does each of these different groups of people feel

it is to get children ‘ready for school’?

What does each of these different groups of people feel should happen

to get children ‘ready for school’?

What does each of these different groups of people regard as the

elements of successful transitions to school?

What criteria are used by each of these different groups of people to

measure the success of transitions to school?

What does each of these different groups of people expect to happen

when children start school?

What expectations does each of these different groups have of the other

groups when children start school?

The researchers have developed a very strong collaborative relationship

with two schools in the south western suburbs of Sydney. Through these

schools, arrangements were made to conduct focus group interviews

(Minichiello, Aroni, Timewell & Alexander, 1995) with groups of

parents/guardians, school teachers, including school executive, school

children and children who had not yet commenced school. The numbers in

the sample are shown in Table 1.

GroupNumberMaleFemaleSchool children1310Children not yet at

school21Parents / Guardians311School teachers, including

executive014 Table 1 Sample for pilot project interviews

Each of the focus group interviews was conducted by one of the

researchers with another processing notes. Adult groups consisted of

between three and five people, and child groups consisted of two to

three children. With the permission of the participants, the

interviews also were recorded on audio tape. Interviews lasted for

approximately 30 to 45 minutes for each of the adult groups and 10 to

15 minutes for the children. The same questions were asked of each

group, with suitable modifications for the groups of children. All

participants were encouraged to explore issues of relevance to them.

While the focus group interviews covered all of the research questions,

the analysis of results presented in this paper considers only the

first two of theseÐthe understanding among the different groups of the

term school readiness and the criteria used to determine this.

Results

Data from the focus group interviews which was pertinent to the first

of the research questions were analysed to determine possible

categories of comment. Five major categories arose from this analysis

which, after some discussion among the researchers, were labelled:

knowledge, adjustment, skill, disposition and rules.

Knowledge: Responses were coded as knowledge if they made reference to

ideas, facts or concepts that needed to be known in order to enter

school. Such comments included reference to children being able to

count, recognise letters and words and read their name. Typically,

these comments were made in the context of children getting a start on

‘school learning’.

Adjustment: Responses were coded as adjustment if they encompassed

notions of social adjustment to the school context. Typical of this

category were comments about children being able to feel comfortable in

their separation from their parent/guardian, being able to get on with

large groups of children and being confident in their interactions with

adults and peers.

Skill: Responses were coded as skill oriented if they referred to small

units of action that could be observed or inferred from observable

behaviour (Katz & Chard, 1989). Typically, skills that demonstrated a

level of independent action were mentioned, such as children being able

to tie their shoelaces, toilet and dress themselves.

Disposition: Responses were allocated to the category of disposition if

they incorporated comments about children's attitudes to school or to

learning. Comments about children being happy, enthusiastic, bored or

interested in school or learning were included in this category.

Rules: Responses were coded as rules when they related to fitting in

with the school and school expectations. Comments about children

knowing and being able to conform with the regulations of the school

such as ‘sitting up straight’, ‘having to wear a hat’, ‘listening to

the teacher’ and ‘knowing what the bells are for’ were included in this

category, as were comments about knowing the reward and punishment

systems operating in the school.

Other: A further category of other has been used to include comments

not able to be placed in any of the five defined categories. There

were very few comments in this category (less than 8% of all comments)

and they fell under three main subcategories - physical development (4

comments), age (2) and order of birth (2).

Analysis of the frequency of comments from each of the three groups of

participantsÐchildren, parents and teachersÐin each of the categories

is presented in Table 2.

KnowledgeAdjustmentSkillDispositionRulesOtherTotalChildren3

(10%)02 (7%)022 (76%)2 (7%)29Parents3

(14%)8

(36%)3 (14%)5

(23%)1 (5%)2 (9%)22Teachers3

(6%)24

(44%)9 (17%)14

(26%)04 (7%)54Total9321419238105 Table 2 Frequencies (Percentages of

Group) of Comments in Each Category

While these categories have been derived using a grounded theory

approach to the data, it is interesting to note that they bear some

resemblance, but are not identical, to the four categories of learning

goals enunciated by Katz & Chard (1989, pp. 20-42) and the categories

of other researchers discussed above (Davies & North, 1990; Hains et

al, 1989; Lewit, 1997). The similarities give the researchers

sufficient confidence to continue with the analysis using their

categories. However, the differences highlight the influence of

pre-determined categories and items on the responses of parents and

teachers.

Children

Several patterns are noted from the analysis. The first is that the

children already at school overwhelmingly focussed on the awareness of

rules as essential in being ready for school. Several children

mentioned the importance of Òbringing your best mannersÓ, and the

importance of listening to the teacher and to the school rules. Some

comments indicated familiarity with the reward systems of the school,

with one child noting that if you Òsit up straight you get a merit

awardÓ and another that Òhang up your bag and sit down, youÕll get a

stickerÓ. Others mentioned specific rules such as ÒDonÕt say rude

wordsÓ, ÒYou have to wear your hatÓ, ÒNo running on the asphaltÓ and

ÒDonÕt run, put rubbish in the binÓ. There were some mentions of

knowledge Òspelling some easy words like ÔaÕ and ÔatÕ, know the

alphabetÓ and skills Òtie shoe laces up so you donÕt tripÓ, Òyou have

to know how to go to the toilet before you start schoolÓ, but these

were few (17% combined) when compared with the focus on rules (76%).

Responses allocated to the other category consisted on references to

age (1) Òyou have to be fiveÓ and physical size (1) Òif youÕre little,

you get scared and forget everythingÓ.

One of the children who was to start school at the beginning of the

next school year also mentioned rules as important, noting that you

Òhave to be good or youÕll get a yellow card and ... if you are naughty

go into the cornerÓ. Another preschool child said that to get ready

for school you had to Òwrite your nameÓ, while the third member of the

group was quite concerned that getting ready for school meant Òyou get

a needle before school and it can hurtÓ.

Parents

Parental responses were spread across the categories, with most

responses coded as adjustment (36%), followed by disposition (23%),

knowledge (14%), skills (14%). Only one parent made reference to

children needing to know the rules of school. Single comments relating

to physical attributes and to birth order also were recorded.

Responses emphasising adjustment included reference to the need for

children to be Òable to associate and mingle, play and socialise well

with other kidsÓ, Òable to be without Mum, be away for that length of

time, take instructions from another adultÓ and Òthey have to be

independent, comfortable to be without MumÓ. Children were described

as having the necessary disposition towards school or learning when

they Òwant to learnÓ, Òare eager to participate in gamesÓ or when they

Òsaid ÔI want to learn to read and writeÕÓ. Knowing how to read their

name and write was an indication of school readiness for some parents,

with others mentioning the importance of Òa basic knowledge of the

alphabet and numberingÓ. The skills of toileting independently, tying

shoelaces and dressing independently were noted.

Overall, parents seemed to have a broad perspective on school

readiness. While the major focus was on issues related to social

adjustment, these issues were not considered to the exclusion of

others. Parents were eager to see their children well settled in the

school environment and a sense that the children were happy was a prime

concern for parents. While specific knowledge was mentioned, it was

regarded as a ÔbonusÕ for the children, rather than as essential: ÒIf

they can read their name and write, the teachers like itÓ, Òthey learn

at school, they donÕt need to know that [writing name] before they goÓ.

Teachers

Like parents, teachers reported several dimensions to school readiness.

Adjustment was emphasised in 44% of responses, with disposition (26%)

and skills (17%) also being mentioned frequently. The least mentioned

was knowledge, with only 6% of responses being coded in this category.

Comments relating to physical size (2), age (1) and birth order (1)

made up the responses allocated to the other category.

Teachers were firm in their focus on adjustment, with comments such as

Òsocial skills are the most important. I am not concerned if they are

aware of the alphabet or numbers ... I am more concerned about their

interactions with others ...Ó, Òinteractions with adults and kids [are

most important], they need to be past the tantrumsÓ, and Ò[when they

are ready] they have the ability to separate from their parents, they

understand that their parent goes home, they are socially capable of

being separated from their parentsÓ.

A further type of adjustment was mentioned by teachers: Òbeing able to

concentrate, sit down on the floor and listenÓ, Òfollow directionsÓ,

Òdo as other adults askÓ, Òcan follow basic instructionsÓ, Òthey need

to be able to sit for 10 to 15 minutesÓ and Òthey need to be able to

concentrate, be settled and have their own initiativeÓ. The ability to

operate in a school environment was an element unique to teachersÕ

perceptions of school readiness. This suggests that an important part

of school readiness for teachers is the ability of children to Òfit in"

to the classroom culture and to display skills and abilities that

enable a classroom to function effectively.

Dispositions were mentioned by many teachers, and children were

described as ready for school when they Òrecognise learning and want to

be involvedÓ, Òwant to exploreÓ, Òare motivatedÓ, and Òare interested

in readingÓ.

Most of the skills mentioned by teachers were similar to those referred

to by parents: Òindependence with toiletingÓ; Òcan dress and feed

themselvesÓ; and Òtoilet, tie shoe laces, unwrap lunch and eatÓ.

Additional skills mentioned were Òhave to be able to hold a pencilÓ and

Òcan look after and identify their belongingsÓ. There were few

references to knowledge, however when these did occur, they related to

recognising or writing names and being familiar with books.

Discussion

As in previous studies, several different elements have been identified

that, when combined, contribute to a sense of school readiness.

Parents and teachers were united in their focus on adjustment and

disposition as the major elements of readiness, although particularly

with adjustment, different features were identified. Teachers and

parents emphasised the importance of children separating comfortably

from parents, while teachers alone added that children's abilities to

concentrate, sit for periods of time and use initiative were important.

These last aspects relate to classroom management issues and indicate

that for teachers, being ready for school involves the ability to be a

part of a large group competing for the attention of the one adult.

Not surprisingly, teachers report that the children who are ready for

school are those who do not demand constant attention or take them away

from the group focus of their classroom.

The only category of responses not mentioned by teachers and mentioned

only once by parents, was that of rules. This was the category

mentioned overwhelmingly by children. ChildrenÕs responses are

important in at least two ways. Firstly, they indicate that children

have firm views about what it means to be ready to go to school and

secondly, these views differ considerably from those who make the

decisions about readinessÐtheir parents / guardians and teachers. It

is remarkable that children have not been asked about issues that are

of direct relevance to them, even when programs have been specifically

designed to meet their needs, alleviate their fears and help make the

transition to school a smooth one. In this sense, the positioning of

children reiterates the post-structuralist criticism that what is good

for families is often equated with what is good for children, or in

this sense what is good for teachers is good for children (Mason &

Steadman, 1997). Rayna (1991) is strident in her criticism of the power

of children, describing them as

a large uninfluential section of the community. They do not have

access to the means of exerting power, or protecting their own

vulnerability. They are restricted in the extent to which they can

make decisions about their own lives. They do not play any part in the

processes which determine the policies which affect them. (p. 36)

It would seem that this is the case in the context of school readiness.

Despite the great concerns about the school entry age, as expressed by

peak groups and politicians (Schools Council, 1992; Senate Employment,

Education and Training References Committee, 1996), there was little

reference to age as a decisive factor in school readiness. Reference to

age came from one child who said that children could not start school

until they were five. Other statements about age from teachers

suggested that children should be at least five when they start school,

but there was acknowledgment from the same teacher that readiness could

not be defined by age. Another teacher mentioned age, but more as a

negative influence on considerations of when children were ready for

school, noting that Òkids come to school because they have a birthday.

The majority just arrive and parents assume they will learnÓ.

The blurring of the distinction between readiness to learn and

readiness for school (Kagan, 1993) was evident in several of the

responses. In their reference to dispositions, teachers listed

interest in reading, children's motivation to learn and their eagerness

to explore. The first of these responses relates more to the concept

of readiness for learning, indicating an appropriate time to introduce

a particular content focus for learning. Implicit in this response is

the idea that learning to read occurs at school.

The concept of school readiness described by Kagan (1993) fits more

closely with those examples of adjustment listed by teachers. The

ability to follow directions and concentrate on school tasks relate to

children being ready to Òdo schoolÓ, that is, to "fit in" to the school

culture, rather than their ability to construct particular forms of

knowledge.

None of the responses to questions about defining readiness for school

implied an acceptance of either the maturational or Vygotskian

perspectives of readiness. However, in discussions of grade retention

and related issues both perspectives were mentioned, albeit by only a

few parents and teachers. One parent described her desire to have her

child repeat Kindergarten to allow him more time to get ready for Òthe

onslaught in year 1Ó, a sentiment reflective of the maturational notion

that Òthe gift of timeÓ (Gessell Institute, 1982) would address issues

of readiness. An alternative perspective reflecting the Vygotskian

position that learning occurs at a level slightly beyond the childÕs

independent capabilities, was offered by one of the children who said

Òyou donÕt have to be fantastic at reading. You don't have to know

everything, so they don't need to feel embarrassed, their teacher will

teach themÓ.

Underlying the responses from children, parents and teachers was the

assumption that what happens in school relates to learning and that

children go to school to learn. While this would seem to be a

reasonable assumption, and certainly one that reflects societal

beliefs, it also begs the question of what happens before school. The

connections between what happens in the home life of children, in

preschool or child care and school readiness will be the focus of

further investigations, as outlined below.

Future directions

As mentioned previously, the pilot project reported in this paper is

regarded as the beginning of an extensive research agenda investigating

issues related to school readiness. One of the aims of the pilot

project was to collect data from the key stakeholders in school

readiness in order to inform the development of a questionnaire which

will be distributed initially throughout NSW. Focus group interviews

are planned as a follow-up to the questionnaire, as a means of

enriching the data collected from parents and teachers and in order to

collect data from children who are at school as well as those who have

not yet started school. We are confident that the inclusion of

children's voices and the use of grounded theory, rather than

predetermined lists of readiness attributes, will contribute

significantly to the large body of literature and the development of

practice in the area of school readiness.

References

Blackman, J. H. (1988). Parents face kindergarten dilemma: Where and

when to send their child? The Denver Post, 1-B, 8-B.

Boyer, E. (1991). Ready to learn: A mandate for the nation. Princeton,

NJ: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Carrick, J. (1989). Report of the Committee of Review of New South

Wales Schools. Sydney: NSW Government.

Davidowitz, E. (1988). Is your child ready for kindergarten? Working

Mother, 11(6), 79-83.

Davies, M. & North, J. (1990). Teacher’s expectations of school entry

skills. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 15(4), 44-46.

Gessell Institute of Human Development. (1982). A gift of time. New

Haven CT: Author.

Gessell, A., Ilg, F. L. & Ames, L. B. (1968). The child from five to

ten. London: Hamish Hamilton.

Graue, M. E. & Shepard, L. A. (1989). Predictive validity of the

Gessell School Readiness Tests. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 4,

303-315.

Griffin, M., & Harvey, D. (1995). When do principals and teachers think

children should start school? Australian Journal of Early Childhood,

20(3), 27-32.

Hains, A. H., Fowler, S. A., Schwartz, I. S., Kottwitz, E., &

Rosenkoetter, S. (1989) A comparison of preschool and kindergarten

teacher expectations for school readiness. Early Childhood Research

Quarterly, 4, 75-88.

Ilg, F. L., Ames, L. B., Haines, J. & Gillespie, C. (1978). School

readiness: Behaviour tests used at the Gessell Institute. New York:

Harper & Row.

Immroth, B. & Viki, A.. (1994). Preschool partnerships: School and

public library cooperation to facilitate school readiness. Paper

presented at the 23rd annual conference of the International

Association of School Librarianship, Pittsburgh, PA.

Kagan, S. L. (1992). Readiness past, present and future: Shaping the

agenda. Young Children, 48(1), 48-52.

Kagan, S. L. (1993). Defining, assessing and implementing readiness:

Challenges and opportunities. In Creche and Kindergarten Association of

Queensland (1993). The fabric of families: Weaving the patterns, (pp.

61-81). Brisbane: Author.

Katz, L.G. & Chard, S.C. (1989). Engaging children’s minds: The project

approach. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Lewit, E. M. & Baker, L. S. (1995). School readiness. The Future of

Children, 5(2), 128-139

May, D. C., & Kundert, D. K. (1997). School readiness practices and

children at-risk: Examining the issues. Psychology in the Schools,

34(2), 73-84.

Margetts, K. (1996). Factors impacting on childrenÕs adjustment to the

first year of school. Paper presented at the Australian Research in

Early Childhood Education Conference, Canberra, January 1996.

Mason, J. & Steadman, B. (1997). The significance of the

conceptualisation of childhood for child protection policy. Family

Matters, 46, 31-36.

Minichiello, V., Aroni, R., Timewell, E. & Alexander, L. (1995).

In-depth interviewing. Melbourne: Longman Australia.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (1990).

Position statement on school readiness. Washington, DC: Author.

Peters, R. D., & McLeod, K. H. (1997). The effects of formal and

informal child care on school readiness in low income children. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, Chicago, IL.

Quay, L. C., Kaufman-McMurrain, M., Minore, D. A., & Steele, D. C.

(1997). The longitudinal evaluation of Georgia’s prekindergarten

program: Results from the third year. Paper presented at the annual

meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.

Rayner, M. (1991). Taking seriously the childÕs right to be heard. In

P. Alston & G. Brennan (Eds), The UN ChildrenÕs Convention and

Australia. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission: Sydney.

Rice, A. (1997). School education perspectives. Paper presented at the

Institute of Early Childhood Centenary Conference: Shaping the future

for young children, their families and communities. Sydney.

Schools Council (1992). A stitch in time: Strengthening the first years

of school. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Senate Employment, Education and Training References Committee. (1996).

Childhood matters. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1982). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT

Press.

The support for the continuation of this project through the

University of Western Sydney Macarthur Complementary Research Units

Program is gratefully acknowledged.

AARE, 1997: Getting ready for school Page  PAGE 12

™|

HH*@_ñ_÷9I*xÞ

,
,

/ `

d



'
_Â_Ú

m †


ÐÏࡱá>þ_




þ______________________________SummaryInformation(____________à____________________________________Mô¼
@

Ð{{ù¼
@Ìž{ù¼
áU@¾ï-Microsoft Word 6.0

-4ÐÏࡱá>þ_

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________0l

mw–Þ߇ˆ§°-+TUI' ¼

Ä

Ó

M
á
â
†

‘

’

S

X

_

`

i

°







™

À

#YZ[©ª·¹ºi�

opu}Ý[\/M¦"§"³"¶"Ì"Q-S-b-„-jêì( * _ j ’ "

¨!"J"Œ"•"»"Î"##ü÷üîü÷üéæéæéæüäàäàäàäàäàäüäàäàäàäàäàäàäàäàæéæàäàäàäàäàäàäàäàéæéàéàäàäàäàäàäàäàäàäàäàäàäàcI

cV�c V�cI

u
DPU�c U�cI

U�cX#V#v#‚#„#ú#$\$b$­$®$‚%ƒ%„%²%!&#&' '.'/']'^'b'"'

(

(N(x(€(À(Ë())â)ü)L*M*a*r*ß*7+8+l+m+n+y+{+’+ž+Å+Æ+V/W/X/Ú/Û/U0s0ê0ë011â1

ä1N2æ2ö2_2333k3o3T4Z4�4À4ã4,5T5W5`5s5û5ü5d6l6¢6¤6­6Ç6Ð6ýùýùýùýùýùýùýùýùýùýùýùýùýùýöýùýùýùýùýùýùýùýùóîùýùýùýîùýùýùýùýùùýùýùýùýùýùýùýùýùýóùýùýùýùöùé

V�cI

U�cI

U�cV�ccI

c\Ð6[7Š7¨7ª7³7´7µ7¶7à7

888848>8¦8Ñ8å8æ89J9]9e9i9�9„9‰9£9¨9 :

Ñ:Õ:à:

;;ì;í;ò;

<<k<==0=o=©=«=°=²=È=É=Í=->.>ì>í>î>ð>$?C?X?Y?b?"?•?"@•@Þ@à@

•AŸA²AÒA"B;BÀBFCGCPChGmGÑIÙIwM~M‡O�O O¡OÃPÌPêPìPWRûùûùûùûùûùûùöûñûùûùûùûùûùûöûñûùûöûñûùöûñûùûùûùûñûùñöùûùûùûùûùûùûîûùûùûùûùûöñûñûñûùûùûùûñûùûI

V�cI

V�cccI

^WR\R«V¬VÔYÞYßYN_Z_¾acÖcd°i±i·i¹i#o?o³oÅoSpdp/q9qPqVqyrr×rØrCs

Ws\shsÇs×sôs"t1t9tftÐt

u"u{u¢u°uáuïu6vPvÍvïvývdw‰w w§w¯w¶wÀwÇwÏwÔwãwçwïwExg

xixjx°xïx yNz^zêzõz

{:{Y{w{z{©{ó{

|‡| |¯|ð}þ}

~úöôöïìöôöúöôöôöôöôöïöôöôöôöôöôöôöìôéôéôöôöôéôéôöúöúöúöôéôöôöôöôöôöôöúöúöúöôéôöôéôöôéôéôéôöúöV

�cU�c U�cI

ccI

V�cI

\

~
~L~a~Ã~é~ø€]�‡�Å�Ö�
‚

‚‚=‚„‚…‚Ž‚§‚à‚^ƒhƒ°ƒ¿ƒ_ƒ„2„3„4„r„|„€„‡„Ú„Û„……

…

………………•…ýùôùôùòùôùòùòùòùòùòïòïòïòïòìäâÞâÞââÖÒÖÒÖâìÐu
Pc

u
DPccI

c

u
DPcU�cV�c

c V�cI

cI

I

-1DSTno—ÔÕÞ‡"-+& ' M
N
…

†

’

º»



ÞßYZ./µ"¶"Ä Å

"&#&�(‚(m+n+z+Æ+Ç+ý
À!
ý
À!
ý
À!
ý
À!
ý
À!
ý
À!
ý
À!
ý
À!
ý
À!
ú
À!
úÀ!
úÀ!
ú
À!
ú
À!
úÀ!


ú
À!
úÀ!
ú
À!
úÀ!
ú
À!
úú

À!
ú
À!
ú

À!
ú
À!
úÀ!
ú
À!
úÀ!
ú
À!
úú
À!
ôÀ!
ú
À!
ú

À!
ú
À!
úÀ!
ú
À!
úÀ!
ú
À!
ú

À!
ú
À!
ú
À!
ú
À!
ú
À!
v"
,Ç+],Ë,=-§-.‹.ë.V/W/1"1"1)1*1+1017181H1K1

N1ÞÀ!
ÞÀ!
ÞÀ!
ÞÀ!
ÞÀ!
ÞÀ!
ÞÀ!
ÞÀ!
Û
À!
ÛÙ
À!ëÕ
f

ëÕ
Ãëº
Ãë·
f

ëÕ
‹ëÕ
`ë–
`ë·
f

ë’
‹ë’
`ë


¸l»

¾( ÞBz"______


¸l»

¾" Þz"__


!

Ð0ý

4
__

.N1O1j1l1n1o1ƒ1…1ˆ1‰1®1°1³1´1â1ã1C4D4V5W5_5ß
`ëÜ
f

ëØ
‹ëØ
`ë·
`ëÜ
f

ëØ
‹ëØ
`ë–
`ëÜ
f

ëØ
‹ëØ
`ëu
`ës
À!ëp
À!
pÀ!
p
À!
pÀ!
p
À!
p
À!



¸l»

¾( ÞBz"    

¸l»

¾( ÞBz"__  

¸l»

¾( ÞBz" 



¸l»

¾( ÞBz"____ __

_5£6¤688ƒ9„9Ô:Õ:ì;í;ª=«=í>î>•?–?—?¡?¬?²?¾?Ä?Ê?Ð?Ñ?Ú?Ý?ã?å?ì?î?

÷?ýÀ!
ý
À!
ýÀ!
ý
À!
ýÀ!
ý
À!
ýÀ!
ý
À!
ýÀ!
ý
À!
ýÀ!
ý
À!
ýÀ!
ý
À!
ýÀ!
ý
À!ëù
ëù
»ëù
»ëù
ëù
Öëù
ëù

ëù

ëº

ëù
ë¶
»ë¶
»ë¶
»ë¶ ë¶
Öë¶

ë
>

¸l»

¾d"úŒ

-_¬�q"U__
 ÷?þ?
@@

@

@@@"@$@'@-@4@;@>@?@H@K@P@T@Z@b@ü
ëü

ë½

ë¹
ëü
»ëü
»ëü
»ëü
»ëü ëü
Öëü
Öëü ëü
ëü

ëz

ë¹
ëü
»ëü
»ëü
»ëü
»ëü

ë>

¸l»

¾d"úŒ

-_¬�q"U__
>

¸l»

¾d"úŒ

-_¬�q"U__________________
b@f@l@n@u@x@y@@�@„@‡@Š@�@�@"@"@Þ@ß@ECFCPC
Hü
Öëü
Öëü
ëü
ëü

ë½

ë¹
ëü
»ëü
»ëü
ëü
Öëü

ëü

ëü

ëz

ëw
À!ëw
À!
wÀ!
w
À!
ww

À!
>

¸l»

¾d"úŒ

-_¬�q"U__
>

¸l»

¾d"úŒ

-_¬�q"U__________________

HHÐIÑIÙI(K)KWNXNÂPÃPÌPhRiRzT{T"W"WùWúWÓYÔYßY’]"]½a¾a

ccYcZcžfŸf¯h°hjj±m²m²o³oÅoZsý
À!
ýÀ!
ý
À!
ý
À!
öÀ!
ï
À!
ö

À!
ý
À!
ýÀ!
ý
À!
ý
À!
ýÀ!
ý
À!
ýÀ!
ý
À!
ýÀ!
ý
À!
ýÀ!
ý
À!
ýÀ!
ý
À!
ý
À!
ý
À!
ý
À!
ý

À!
ý
À!
éÀ!
ý
À!
ý
À!
ý
À!
ý

À!
ý
À!
ýÀ!
ý
À!
ýÀ!
ý
À!
ý
À!
ý
À!
ýÀ!
ý
À!
ý
À!
ý
À!
Ð"
"
Ð*Zs[s\shsâsftÑt-u±uvlvþv™wtx

y
zlzY{¿{|°|{}
~‚~êù€Å��‚ƒ›ƒêƒ3„Ú„Û„…………ý
À!
ý
À!
ý÷À!
÷À!
÷À!
÷À!
÷À!
÷
À!
÷À!
÷À!
÷À!


÷À!
÷À!
÷À!
÷À!
÷À!
÷À!
÷À!
÷À!
÷À!
÷À!
÷À!
÷À!
÷À!
÷À!
÷À!
÷À!
÷À!
òÀ!
ò
À!
÷
À!
ðÀ!¾îë
À!¾îî÷
À!




Ð0ýÐ0ý&


K@ñ_Normala "A@ò_¡"Default Paragraph Font-"@
ò-

Footnote Text &@¢

Footnote Referenceh
@

Header

9r
@
"
Footer

9r
)@¢1

Page

Numberl‚
§ª

__
________________ __

__
__

§§§§§§§§§§§ª


‚……

!__
__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

 __
__

‡ \l"Y,„6G@MìX¯e]p‚{‚

Ò¶Â
P
»¦


‚
8;#Ð6WR

~•…CDEFGÇ+N1_5÷?b@
HZs…HIJKLMNO+25;!_€å
Faculty of Education1Macintosh

HD:Temporary Items:Word Work File A 342Faculty of Education"Macintosh

HD:bob:AARE97P3.DOCFaculty of Education"Macintosh

HD:bob:AARE97P3.DOCFaculty of Education"Macintosh

HD:bob:AARE97P3.DOCFaculty of Education"Macintosh

HD:bob:AARE97P3.DOCFaculty of Education"Macintosh

HD:bob:AARE97P3.DOCFaculty of Educationuntitled:DOCKS.97.074Faculty of

Educationuntitled:DOCKS97.074Faculty of Education

A:\DOCKS97.074Faculty

of Education

A:\DOCKS97.074_@FOE (Wing) First FloorLPT2:LEXPSFOE (Wing)

First Floor­
"É_
š
3d

X


Lexmark Optra

PS2FloorXþ


(None)(None)XÂ

ZZ
Øeõ




,
,
XÂ
XXXÂ
°°$Â

€
€€€€€
€
€






F

OE (Wing) First Floor­
"É_
š
3d

X


Lexmark Optra

PS2FloorXþ


(None)(None)XÂ

ZZ
Øeõ




,
,

XÂ
XXXÂ
°°$Â

€
€€€€€
€
€






€
2�2�€€2�2�1�
Times New

Roman

�
Symbol
&�
Arial"
ˆÐh
‰"FÊFÊFáU

œƒ×
"qV

�Ù
$G
Pilot studyFaculty of EducationFaculty of EducationÐÏࡱá>þ_




þ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Ro

ot Entry________

ÀF€dKqù¼
9-S/ù¼
b€
CompObj
____________nWordDocument
________eÝ°O

bjectPool


____`ç7rù¼
`ç7rù¼
________________________________________________

""-

!"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCm_____________________________________________________________________________________________________ý___þ___þ___þ___a

dþ___fghijkl

nopqrstuvwxyz{|}~�SummaryInformation(____________à____________________________________
þ___

þ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________M

ô¼
@*´üŠù¼
@üýg‹ù¼
áU@¨[é-Microsoft Word 6.0

-5ÐÏࡱá>þ_ ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
þ_

____ ÀF"Microsoft Word 6.0 Document

MSWordDocWord.Document.6ô9²qÐÏࡱáþ__
à…ŸòùOh«‘+'³Ù0°

˜Ü
$

H

l

�
´
Ø

ü


D hŒ¶×"Ò
Ïs<411:03 9/10/97

-(C:\MSOFFICE\WINWORD\TEMPLATE\NORMAL.DOT-

Pilot

study-Faculty of Education-Faculty of

Education@†_



,
,
XÂ
XXXÂ
°°$Â

€
€€€€€
€
€







€
O?O?

€€O?I?
�
¨
°
€�c-‚-S,T,A?I?O?5�6�À�×�ò�‚‚N‚O‚S‚T‚
©
•…
¶�…†
ž…ˆ!
½…Y/
¾…
Æ…LBÌ…
3„
Í…
½„


¡Ø„
Û„
0¡……1�
Times New Roman

�
Symbol
&�
Arial"
ˆÐh
‰"F’ÊF�ÊF"áU

œƒ×
"qV

�Ù
$G
Pilot studyFaculty of EducationFaculty of EducationÐÏࡱá>þ_


]`
þ___^___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________Ü¥e=

À

e…Ý°6�å8 

 

1¡

;¡

¢

¢

¢»¥ç¢Ô»¥»¥»¥

Ç¥"é¥4»¥°1"¦"¦3¦3¦3¦3¦3¦3¦õ§÷§÷§÷§#¨^x«^Ö®-B°T–°Gô®"

¢3¦CH3¦3¦3¦3¦ô®3¦

¢

¢3¦"¦3¦3¦3¦3¦

¢3¦

¢3¦õ§!¢Jk¢|G¡J‘¡|

¢

¢3¦õ§3¦Â
3¦AUSTRALIAN ASSOCIATION FOR RESEARCH IN EDUCATION

ANNUAL CONFERENCE

BRISBANE, 1997

Getting ready for school

Sue Dockett, Bob Perry, Danielle Tracey

Faculty of Education, University of Western Sydney Macarthur

Abstract

In recent years, there have been calls, both within Australia and

abroad, to ensure that children come to school ‘ready to learn’. This

paper is the first in a series which will explore what is meant by this

term by different groups of people and the ways in which the beliefs

underpinning such a term influence decisions such as when children

start school, the classes they enter and whether or not they progress

annually.

In this initial investigation, groups of parents, school teachers and

children associated with two schools in suburban Sydney were asked to

identify elements of school readiness and the ways in which they could

be identified. This paper will consider differences and similarities in

the responses of these groups and note implications for the development

of transition programs into compulsory schooling.

Introduction

This paper reports on a pilot project designed to investigate the

perceptions, interpretations and notions of the term ‘school readiness’

held by the groups of people most involved in the transition of

children from settings prior to compulsory schooling to that compulsory

schooling. It follows the tradition of collecting data about school

readiness from teachers and parents (Margetts, 1996) but differs from

these studies by collecting data from those most affected by the

transition Ð the children.

The term ‘school readiness’ is used by all the adult stakeholders in

the transition of children into compulsory schooling. However, there is

sufficient evidence (Griffin & Harvey, 1995; Kagan, 1992; May &

Kundert, 1997; Senate Employment, Education and Training References

Committee, 1996) to suggest that the term is used by different groups

of people to mean different things. This pilot project is the initial

step in trying to reconcile these differences and to establish some

consensus about what it means for children to be ready for school.

After reporting the findings of the pilot project, this paper outlines

an ambitious research program for the next few years which will

constitute a comprehensive study of the notion of school readiness. As

such, the research has the potential to inform the future development

of transition to school programs.

Background

On several occasions within the last decade, the rhetoric of school

readiness has been used in calls for children to come to school Òready

to learnÓ (for example, Carrick, 1989, Rice, 1997). This view is

echoed in the first national goal for education in the United States of

America that Òby the year 2000 every child in America should start

school ready to learnÓ (Boyer, 1991, p. 5). While the goal of having

children start school ready to learn is praiseworthy, this statement

has proved problematic as a guide to policy implementation. As one

example, Kagan (1993) suggests that ‘school readiness’ and ‘readiness

to learn’ may be seen as quite different, if complementary, notions,

with readiness for learning relating to the developmental level at

which the learning of specific material is regarded appropriate, and

readiness for school focussed on specific skills chicMurrain, M.,

Minore, D. A., & Steele, D. C. (1997). The longitudinal evaluation of

Georgia’s prekindergarten program: Results from the third year. Paper

presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research

Association, Chicago, IL.

Rayner, M. (1991). Taking seriously the childÕs right to be heard. In

P. Alston & G. Brennan (Eds), The UN ChildrenÕs Convention and

Australia. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission: Sydney.

Rice, A. (1997). School education perspectives. Paper presented at the

Institute of Early Childhood Centenary Conference: Shaping the future

for young children, their families and communities. Sydney.

Schools Council (1992). A stitch in time: Strengthening the first years

of school. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.

Senate Employment, Education and Training References Committee. (1996).

Childhood matters. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University

Press.

Vygotsky, L. (1982). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT

Press.

The support for the continuation of this project through the

University of Western Sydney Macarthur Complementary Research Units

Program is gratefully acknowledged.