lflllllllllljflljlllllljllljjlllllllljlllllll

Michigan 3 tare
University

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled
A Comparison of
high Risk hindergartners' Readiness Scores
as Evaluated by Their Mothers and Teachers

presented by
Peggy Savage Dunn

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

ILA. flggreeinFamily and Child

Sciences

 

- a 7:2: 4"
acacia karat/a2?

Major professor

,. /'
Date 17/”? ‘6 ,/ 7 5/

0-7639

OVFRDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY
PER ITEM

Return to book drop to remove
this checkout from your record.

 

"is
”the? H 2mm

1'0 H’f E E
‘FEB 08 2002
0411 02

 

 

A COMPARISON OF
HIGH RISK KINDERGARTNERS' READINESS SCORES
AS EVALUATED BY THEIR MOTHERS AND TEACHERS

By

Peggy Savage Dunn

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Family and Child Sciences

1979

ABSTRACT
A COMPARISON OF

HIGH RISK KINDERGARTNERS' READINESS SCORES
AS EVALUATED BY THEIR MOTHERS AND TEACHERS

By
Peggy Savage Dunn

Problem

How best to determine a child's readiness to begin school has long
been a topic of disagreement among educators. Such factors as mental
age, self-concept, IQ, physical development and tooth eruption age
have been considered but chronological age is most often used by school
systems. In Michigan the child who will be five years old as of
December first of the year he begins school is determined ready to begin
school. But as chronological age is sometimes deceptive as a deter-
minant of a child's readiness to have success in school disagreements
arise between parents, teachers and administrators as to whether a given
child actually is ready for school. Thus, the purpose of this study was
to give some indication of whose subjective assessment of a child's
readiness to start school is more likely to agree with scores of a
readiness test, the mother of that child or the child's kindergarten
teacher. The study also was to indicate numerical differences in the
evaluative scores by the mother and teacher. Finally, the possible
differences in the scores of mothers of boys and the mothers of girls
were explored.
Methods

Taking a developmental approach, the level of school readiness was

considered as crucial to the child's success for the rest of his

Peggy Savage Dunn
academic career and thus of import in kindergarten. As the child with
an autumn birthday is younger and, therefore, possibly further behind
in development than his January peer, it was the September, October
and November birthday age group that was considered "high risk" and
was focused on for testing.

The Anton Brenner Developmental Gestalt Test of School Readiness
(BGT) was used during the eighth week of school to indicate the
readiness score for thirty autumn birthday children. The Ready or Not?
Checklist (Austin and Lafferty, 1968) was used as a structure for
ascertaining the parent's and teacher's subjective opinion of the
child's readiness level. Using a two dependent variable t-test the
mean scores of parents and teachers were compared. The Pearson Product
Moment Correlation was used to determine correlation coefficients for
the parents and the teachers and these coefficients were analyzed
through the use of the Fisher Z-transformation. Finally, a two inde-
pendent variable t-test was used to compare the mean score for the
mothers of boys and the mean score for the mothers of girls. The level
of significance was set at .05 for all the tests.

Conclusions

 

The two dependent variable t-test showed the parents to be signi-
ficantly higher evaluators of school readiness than the teachers. That
is, their mean score was 7.5 points higher than the teachers' mean score.

The Pearson Product Moment Correlation revealed the teachers to
have a significant correlation with the children's readiness scores
on the Anton Brenner Test. The mothers' correlation coefficient was

not significant. The Fisher Z-transformation showed these correlation

Peggy Savage Dunn
coefficients to be significantly different. But the two independent
variable t-test did not indicate a significant difference in the

readiness evaluation score of mothers of boys and mothers of girls.

This thesis is dedicated to my parents, Richard J. Savage and
Anna 8. Savage, whose lifelong pursuit of education for them-

selves and their family has been my example and my inspiration.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to eXpress her very sincere appreciation to all
those who have aided in completion of this study:

To Dr. Eileen Earhart for her time, consideration and guidance
in the formulation of the study.

To Dr. Donald Melcer, Dr. Marjorie Kostelnik and Mrs. Jeanne
Brown for their thoughtful suggestions and additions to the content
of the study.

To Dr. Mary Andrews and Boonreang Kajornsin for their invaluable
assistance in helping me through the confusion of statistics involved
in the study.

To all of the families and teachers who took part, to the school
system who trusted my discretion in handling the project and to Vice-
rPrincipal Kay Hannah who managed to cut the red tape.

To my assistant and good friend, Joyce Goddard, without whom the
data collection would have been next to impossible.

A special thanks to my husband, Marvin Dunn, whose loving and

unwavering encouragement convinced me to carry on.

iii

CHAPTER I - THE PROBLEM

CHAPTER II - REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

CHAPTER III - DESIGN OF THE STUDY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ......................... .

Need .............................
Purpose ...........................
Hypotheses . . ....................
Importance of the Study ...................
Assumptions .........................
Limitations . ........................
Conceptual Definitions ...................
Conceptual Orientation ...................
Overview ..........................

The Importance of Readiness .................
Chronological Age as a Determinant of School Readiness .
When Parents and Teachers Evaluate Readiness ........

The Sample .........................
Readiness Evaluation Instruments ..............

The Anton Brenner Developmental Gestalt Test of
School Readiness - BGT (Brenner, 1964) .......
Administration Format of the BGT ..........

Ready or Not? Readiness Checklist (Austin and

Lafferty, l968) ...................
Administration Format of Ready or Not? Checklist .
Testable Hypotheses .....................
Data Analysis ........................
Summary ...........................

CHAPTER IV - ANALYSIS OF RESULTS .................

Hypothesis Testing .....................
Smmmy. ... . ......................

CHAPTER V - SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ...............

Summary ...........................
Conclusions and Discussion .................
Implications for Further Research ..............

iv

Page

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page
APPENDICES ............................ 53
Appendix A - Preliminary Permission Letter to Parents . . . . 53
Appendix B - Reminder Letter to Parents ........... 55
Appendix C - Fisher Z-Transformation ............ 56
Appendix D - Test Data ................... 57
BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................... 58

LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 4.l Results of two dependent t-test ............ 40
Table 4.2 Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients . . . . 41

Table 4.3 Results of two independent variable t-test ...... 42

vi

CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM

Need
In Michigan the child who is five years old as of December first

is determined by law to be ready for kindergarten. The public school
law (l978—79) reads as follows:

In a school district where a provision is made for

kindergarten work, a child, a resident of the

district, is entitled to enroll in the kindergarten

if the child is at least five years of age as of

December first of the school year of enrollment.

(p. 129)
This results in children whose birthdays fall in the autumn months of
September, October and November starting school when they are four years
old. Readiness and maturity are highly individual, and their attainment
is not completely dependent on chronological age achievement. Any
young child stands the chance of not being ready for the requirements
of public school. But these children of four years, born in autumn,
can reasonably be considered "high risk". Ames (l967) puts it very
succinctly:

Our findings have been that so long as the kindergarten

and first grade curriculums remain more or less as they

are in our school systems, the average girl needs to be

fully five before starting kinder arten and the average

boy fully five and a half. (p. 1?

Questions are often raised as to whether the high risk kindergartner

should start school in the fall when s/he is four years old or wait

until s/he is five. This question may be raised by the parent before

2

the child starts school or the kindergarten teacher in the early months
of the school year. Determination of readiness will most likely be
made by these individuals. But there is seldom time, staff or materials
available to determine the child's readiness level. Even with test
data, other factors may seem to negate or override the test results.

The decision may ultimately, therefore, be made by personal, highly
subjective evaluation by teacher and/or parent.

In this case the mother and the kindergarten teacher may not
discern the same level of readiness for the child and questions arise
as to who is more accurately evaluating the child. As this decision
may result in the child starting school before s/he is ready or waiting
an extra year when, in fact, s/he is perfectly ready for school, it is

important to know who is most likely to make the more accurate evaluation.

m

The purpose of this study is to indicate whose subjective assessment
of a high risk kindergartner's school readiness is more likely to be
accurate, the mother's or the kindergarten teacher's. The study also
indicates the differences in the evaluative scores of the child's
mother and kindergarten teacher and whether there would be a difference

in the mother's score for a male or female child.

Hypotheses

 

The following hypotheses will be tested:
Hypothesis 1:
Mothers of autumn birthday kindergarten children and kindergarten

teachers will perceive the readiness level of the children
differently.

Hypothesis 2:

 

The score of the kindergarten teacher for the child will
correlate more closely with that of an objective readiness score
than will the score of the mother.

Hypothesis 3:

 

The mothers of male children and the mothers of female children
will score their children differently on a subjective readiness
checklist.

Importance of the Study

 

This project is important for the following four reasons. First,
a review of literature and research in this area indicates a lack of
study concerning how readiness is determined by mothers and teachers
and how their evaluations compare. Many articles are written in
professional journals and parent magazines alike concerning what
factors should be considered by mothers evaluating their child's
readiness for kindergarten. Articles also instruct them in how to
prepare their child for school. But studies of how mothers do, in
fact, evaluate their children are limited. Secondly, the child who
begins school too early or before s/he is ready for academic rigors
encounters problems that may follow him/her throughout his/her school
career. Missing a concept at one level of study may cripple growth
in several areas. For instance, the child who does not learn that
sounds are the building blocks of our oral langauge and that these
sounds can be represented on paper by symbols called letters which
follow predictable patterns, is going to have ongoing decoding problems
and perhaps a reading disability. Therefore, a good start in school,
sound in the basics of prereading and premathematics, is imperative.

Because of this, it is important for schools to have systems of

4
identifying kindergartners who are not ready and for understanding how
that decision is made.

A third reason indicating the importance of the project is related
to the second. Standardization tests are not always used to determine
readiness for school. The school system that does not offer prekinder-
garten activities for evaluating children is trusting subjective
parental judgment to determine readiness when all the parent may be
considering is chronological age. This study sheds light on how
accurate that decision may be.

Finally, mothers and teachers do not always assess the child's
readiness the same. In some instances one party feels that the child
is not ready for school and should perhaps wait another year before
entering kindergarten but the other party is sure that the child is
prepared for what is expected. Therefore, it is important to know
who is more likely to be making an accurate assessment of the child.

This project gives some indication of that.

AssumptiOns

 

The following assumptions underlie this study:
1. Readiness for school is crucial to the child's success for the rest
of his academic career.
2. Children with autumn birthdays are more likely not to be ready to
begin school than older classmates.
3. School readiness can be determined by an objective testing
instrument.
4. School readiness is often determined by subjective decision making

by the child's mother and/or teacher.

Limitations

 

This study is limited to a minimal sample in a small Michigan town
and, therefore, generalization is not appropriate. Forty-two children
and their parents were sent letters asking them to take part in the
study. Ten parents did not respond and could not be contacted. TWO
reSponded negatively and one of those was very hostile. These parents,
whose reasons for not participating are mostly unknown, were, therefore,
not accounted for in the study.

Another very valuable group was missing from the study. The
sample included only autumn birthday children who were enrolled in the
school system's kindergartens. Any child whose parents took the
initiative to wait another year until the child was five to begin school
was not available. These parents could have made a difference in the
results of the study.

The validation procedures of the study were limited in two ways
through the instrumentations used. The Ready or Not? Checklist (Austin
and Lafferty, 1968), used to give structure to the teachers' and
mothers' evaluations, is meant to be used with the child at hand to
respond to the examiner. For this study it was used as a subjective
recall device without the child taking part. Secondly, the Anton Brenner
Developmental Gestalt Test of School Readiness (Brenner, 1964) was the
only instrument used to give an objective score for school readiness.

The study was further limited in that there has not been extensive
previous research regarding how teachers and mothers perceive the
readiness of a group of kindergartners. In the five studies that were

located, three used the Pre-School Attainment Record. This resulted in

6
only a very vague picture of how the two groups actually view and
determine readiness.

The time of year that the study was done limits it as well. The
testing was done in early November. The reflection of the teacher's
effect on the children would not yet be clearly defined. Therefore,
the teachers' evaluations are more objective; the parents' evaluations
subjective. This limitation is develOped further in the discussion of

theory later in this chapter.

Conceptual Definitions

 

In the interest of clarity it is necessary to define two of the
terms which have already been used extensively in this paper and will
continue to be used. The first is fairly clear cut and simple to
define while the other is considerably more elusive. As noted earlier,
"high risk kindergartner" refers to the child who was born in the month
of September, October or November. This child would be five years old
before the prescribed date of December first of the year he started
school but would be only four years and nine, ten or eleven months in
September when s/he began kindergarten. Mawhinney (1964) studied 387
children who were tested and approved for early entrance in kindergarten
(having fifth birthday before the end of January). Although these
children were admitted on the basis of superior potential scores,
follow-up of these children found they had not achieved as expected.
Thirty point six percent were considered poorly adjusted. Only 4.6%
were judged to be outstanding leaders while 74.4% were considered to be
entirely lacking in leadership. Twenty-four point four percent were

superior academically while 25.3% were either below average or had

7
repeated a grade. It would seem that entering superior-potential
students may reduce their achievement to average at best. It is further
substantiated by Ames (1974) and King (1955) that the younger child
is often at risk for success in school.

Readiness for school is a highly complex concept. It can be
defined in many different terms and with discrepant concerns. Factors
which have historically been considered important include chronological
age; intelligence quotient; visual perception skills; physiological
age in terms of teething, height, weight, wrist size, and vision;
mental age; or a common aggregate of qualities termed "maturity".

Authors use different terms to refer to readiness. 119 and Ames
(1972) call it "behavior age". Behavior age is defined as the age at
which the child behaves in accordance with the norms for each of the
developmental factors. Moore and Moore (1972) have introduced the
term Integrated Maturity Level or IML. They define IML as the "point
at which the developmental variables (affective, psychomotor, perceptual
and cognitive) within the child reach an optimum peak of readiness in
maturation and cooperative functioning for out-of—home group learning
experience."

Readiness in this paper, in simple terms, refers to the child's
ability to handle the tasks which will be required of him by the school.
It is his functional potentiality or state of development which will
enable him to successfully relate to school demands. The level of
ability to integrate and incorporate learnings from early years of life
into the demands of school training determine the child's readiness for
school and while this takes place at a cognitive level it is reflected

in social and emotional behavior.

8

Conceptual Orientation

There is no one theory that can explain why two concerned adults
can look at the same child and arrive at different conclusions as to
that child's readiness for school. Differing views of what "readiness"
means probably has a lot to do with the confusion. Swiss psychologist,
Jean Piaget (1896), noted for his work with nursery school children,
showed that there are distinct lines of development and that quite
early in a child's life social factors in combination with the child's
physiological develOpment influence a child's perception and thought
processes. No amount of training or instruction can enable a person to
function in a given way before he is biologically ready. Brenner (1950)
concurs with Piaget's theory. He feels that perceptual-conceptual
development is a principal factor in personality development, learning
and readiness for school. Growth, development and learning take place
through interaction between an individual and his environment. When the
kindergarten teacher considers the ability to perform certain cognitive
tasks as requisite to success in the kindergarten room, the child who
has not reached that developmental level is better off not in the
situation.

Boszormenyi-Nagy's (1973) theory on family bonds and learning
offers a different view of readiness and sheds light on why a parent
may consider a child ready for school when the teacher may not. His
idea is that learning is, in effect, an act of giving and must be pre-
ceded by developmental nurturing. Most important for school learning is
that the child must be capable of transferring the “giving" from parent
to teacher. Perceptions of readiness by the kindergarten teacher are

developed early in the year or possibly even in the spring at

9
kindergarten round-up. Without time for the nurturing development it
is easy to see why the perception of parent and teacher are different.

More traditional is readiness in terms of skills. Paradis and
Peterson (1975) predict success in school when the child's skills match
with what he is asked to do. The child who is lacking in required
skills will not achieve academic skills. It is curriculum in this case
which is the determiner of readiness. And it is the teacher who is
the determiner of curriculum. Since the parent is not as familiar
with the curriculum expectations she may feel that the child has the
skills required not recognizing the teacher's differing expectations.
This could account for differing scores.

The part that ego, both of the parent and of the teacher, plays
cannot be overlooked. Anyone who works with the young child shapes
that child to some extent. They may see the child's performance as
a reflection of their skill at positively or negatively affecting other
human beings. The parent is almost always closer to the child than
is the teacher. The parent sees nearly five years of her affect on
that child. The teacher, however, has only a short-lived relationship
with the youngster—-at the time of this study, about eight weeks. A
lower assessment is very likely to be harder for the parent who has a
strong identification with the child. Unless a very strong identifi-
cation has developed with the child and the teacher it is likely to be
less personally devastating to the teacher to give the most objective
opinion of the child's readiness. Our society tends to equate a lack
of skill with a lack of intelligence, rather than as a lack of
development. The parent who feels this way may have trouble giving her

child a low rating.

10
These four approaches provide the theoretical foundation for this
study. The interplay of the four views accounts for how methods and
study were conceived, how analysis has developed and how the need and

limitations of the study were recognized.

m
Chapter II includes a review of recent literature pertinent to
the study of school readiness. A description of the sample, opera-
tional measures, hypotheses in testable form and analysis procedures
are found in Chapter III. In Chapter IV the gathering and analysis of
data including interpretation of results is explained and Chapter V is
a summary of the study with conclusions and recommendations for further

study.

CHAPTER 11
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

In the review of the literature for this project, several guide-
lines were followed. First of all, it was decided to concentrate mainly
on research done and reports written in the 1970's. It was, however,
necessary to follow up on some earlier sources. Most of the infor-
mation on the Anton Brenner Gestalt Test was taken from sources
written in the late fifties. In other cases, studies done in this
decade referred to earlier studies which were also researched. And,
finally, several earlier books and articles were chosen in order to do
more in-depth study of certain authors. Therefore, an almost equal
balance between pre- and post-1970 research was used.

Secondly, the research considered is not always concerned with
kindergarten entrance but instead refers to first grade entrance.

This is because many school systems do not offer public school kinder-
garten. First grade is then the child's first school experience. This
makes a small amount of difference in considering readiness factors
because first grade readiness includes reading readiness while kinder-
garten readiness commonly does not. As other aspects of school
beginnings are much the same, this literature is included.

The review of the literature is organized into four parts. The
first is "The Importance of Readiness". "Chronological Age as a

Determinant of School Readiness" is discussed in the second part. The
11

12
third section covers the scant research done on "When Parents and

Teachers Evaluate Readiness". The final section is a "Summary".

The Importance of Readiness

 

Shirley Zeitlen (1976) identified three categories of children who
experience early learning difficulties. These are:

1. "Slow bloomers"--children with uneven or irregular
maturation (these children eventually catch up);

2. The persistently immature who consistently remain
behind in the maturation process;

3. The perceptually handicapped, brain injured, environ-
mentally deprived, etc., children who have a variable
outcome depending on the quality and quantity of environ-
mental encounters.

This research is concerned with the first two categories. The percep-
tually handicapped have special problems which need highly trained,
specialized help and assistance while the needs of the inmature are
very different. Banas (1975) highlighted these needs:

When we ask, 'What is his readiness for tasks he
will be expected to handle?‘ we are told that
children develop abilities at different rates,

each individual having his own time schedule, the
range of 'normal development' being as wide as
several years for some skills. The child that
develops slowly is called 'immature' and we are
told that he 'will outgrow it', (whatever 'it'

is). We also learn that skills are developmental
in that one step must precede a more advanced step.

However, it is a fact that, at a prescribed age,

the child is, 1) required to enter a formal academic
settin , 2) is expected to behave in a prescribed
way, 3) is expected to perform specific skills to

an established criterion, and 4) is required to
learn a set amount of material in a certain span

of time, whether he is ready or not. (p. l)

 

These children are a high risk in kindergarten. They are the ones

who, because of problems of development and/or experiential learning

13
are least able to meet the expectations of schools as they are now.
The operative words, however, are "as they are now". Paradis and
Peterson (1975) reviewed three readiness studies and summarized:
The three studies presented emphasize the need for
teachers to assess each individual child's readiness
skills. Following the assessment of skills, teachers
should tailor programs to meet skill deficiencies...
Unfortunately, experience suggests that a limited number
of teachers actually diagnose each child's readiness
skills. In other cases, all pupils progress as a
group through the program regardless of background
brought to school. (p. 448)

A child has success in school when there is a match between what
he is asked to do and what he is able to do. There are, in other words,
two components to high risk: that which the school requires of the
child and that which the child brings to the school. Readiness makes
up a major part of the last component.

Experts and research through the years have disagreed on what is
essential for a child to be ready for school. Chronological age is
the most common determinant and will be discussed in the second part
of this section. But Cole (1950) quoted an English schoolmaster of
the 1500's who recognized age as a poor criterion of school readiness:

One of the first questions is at what age children
should be sent to school, for they should neither
be delayed too long, so that time is lost, nor
hastened on too soon, at the risk of their health.
The rule, therefore, must be given according to
the strength of their bodies and the quickness of
their wits jointly. What age should be I cannot
say, for ripeness in children does not always come
at the same time. (p. 269)

An interest in mental age caught fire in the fifties. But the
appropriate mental age for learning was as hard to agree on as appro-
priate chronological age has been. Hall (1963) suggested between six

years four months and six years six months. This accords with earlier

14

studies, but later studies and their appropriate mental age for learning
range from six to seven years. Hedges (1977) thoroughly researched the
reviews of the past fifty years and concluded "By itself, mental age is
not sufficient to assure the parent that his/her child will succeed in
first grade" (p. 28). He similarly diSposed of IQ (p. 33), SEX (p. 40)
and physiological development (p. 48) as being unreliable indicators.
He concluded finally:

No single criterion has been found to be a suffi-

ciently reliable indicator, whether chronological

age, mental age, IQ, physiological development or

social or emotional maturity. It is apparently

necessary to examine these criteria in combination

in making educational decisions about a youngster.
p. 64

Anton Brenner (1959) was more decisive. He feels that perceptual-
conceptual development is a principal factor in personality development,
learning and readiness for school. Growth, development and learning
take place through interaction between an individual and his environment.
Brenner stated:

The more a child is able to perceive, to incor-
porate experience into developing behavior and
to analyze and synthesize into increased degrees
of differentiation and specification, the more
he is ready for school. (p. 27)

Readiness, then, is readiness for a task or a multitude of tasks.
It includes the functional potentiality of the child to relate to
school.

Hoffman's (1957) study of eighteen upper and middle class kinder-
gartners upholds Brenner's readiness discussions. Through home inter-
views and readiness tests he evaluated the changes and consistencies in

growth for the children from fall to the following Spring. He concluded

that the children's ability to analyze, discriminate and differentiate

15
were all-important to their school success. Further, he found that
physical factors and age were not significantly important.

Brenner and Samelson (1959) did research which puts the theory of
his definition into practical perspective. They observed ten children
during the early kindergarten weeks to determine the precursory affect
of early behavior on first grade performance. In seventeen all-morning
observations, the kindergarten children were rated for transactions with
objects, symbols, peers and teachers or other adults. Analysis of the
five rated by teachers as most successful and the five rated as least
successful in first grade resulted in the identification of the
following behavior components (p. 140):

Successful

 

--personally secure and skilled in interpersonal
relations

--intellectually curious, self-directing

--enjoys doing what is right and meeting others'
expectations

--models life towards adult image

--desire to be superior and compete successfully

Less Successful

 

--strong fears and anxieties

--unobtrusive and immature

--restless and “on the go"

--angry and can't accept behavior limits

--fears competition and failure and avoids

circumstances which invite it
Flynn (1975) also examined behavioral components of readiness for

school. His study was conducted with 132 four year old black migrant
children. He defined readiness as "the adequacy of existing capacity
in relation to the demands of a given learning task" (p. 40). The
children in his study were tested by four black female psychologists on

cognition, delay of gratification, risk taking, self-concept and

16
self-control. He found that only self-control accounted for a signi-
ficant proportion of achievement growth variance for boys. For girls,
delay in gratification and strong self-concept were significant components
of readiness.

Vincent, Bright and Dickason (1976) also found self-concept to be
important in their studies of readiness. They felt that the lack of
discrimination and response skills was what was holding back 53
students assessed as being "not ready" for school on the Metr0politan
Readiness Test. The children were tutored for two hours per day mixing
lessons with Earn/Spend cards and pleasure activities. At the end of
that year and at the end of second and third grade the children were
tested with the California Achievement Test. The results were signi-
ficant (p < .05) for achievement in the next two years. They concluded
that through reinforced academic work and pleasure activities desirable
study and social habits were achieved, thus heightening readiness
scores. They further concluded:

With appropriate planning and implementation
preschool programs apparently can be very
effective in developing readiness skills in
socially/educationally deprived children. (p. 253)

School readiness emerges from research then as an amalgamation of
different behavioral and cognitive components. In making the progress
through personality differentiation and increasing objective reality
perception the child begins to organize, interpret and associate what
he has learned with what he encounters. Reality perception depends on
the develOpmental level at which one is located in his ability to
perceive and conceptualize reality, internal and external. This is

perceived by others as mature or immature in relation to others--in the

l7
kindergartner's case, usually, others of the same age. These behaviors
and levels can be measured through instruments. Zeitlein (1976)
pointed out that there are over a thousand instruments which are
available for screening and diagnosis of young children, and new ones
appear in the literature regularly. They can be described in six
categories: published tests, teacher observation tests, parent
instruments, parent surveys, information gathering question instruments,
physical examinations and devised tests. But even the developers of
these tests do not always agree on what is most important for school
readiness. In his exploration of readiness tests, Rude (1973) cited
Calfee (1970) as feeling these skills to be prerequisite to reading
readiness (p. 488):
--matching of visual forms
--auditory-phonetic identification
--letter-sound association
--vocabulary knowledge
--general achievement
Venezky (1970), on the other hand, chose these:
--attention to letter order
--attention to orientation
--attention to word detail
--picture sound learning
--sound matching
--sound blending
Perceptual development progresses from diffuse, undifferentiated
totality perception to more differentiated, clearly structured
"objective" reality perception, according to Brenner (1959). All
children go through this progression. But they go through it at
different rates. Banas stated (1975):
Readiness is not an even development. Thus,
a child may be ready for visually presented
tasks but unready for auditory ones. He may

be well endowed intellectually but unready
to perform a task the expected length of time.

18

If he does not have the readiness to handle

a task to the criteria set forth as 'average',
he may be given an unsatisfactory 'grade',

an unsmiling face, or extra work; consequently,
an adverse chain reaction with teacher, student
and parent may develop. After repeatedly trying
and failing he may respond by withdrawal and
inattention. In this case, the stage may be
set for failure and frustration unless someone
intercedes and recognizes his readiness level
...It is vital, therefore, to assess what a
particular child is ready to do. (p. 2)

Brenner (1975) quoted Dr. Joseph A. Johnston, Chief of the

Department of Pediatrics at Henry Ford HOSpital in agreement:
Introducing a child to a new learning experience
before he is capable of making progress sufficient
to satisfy him may result in such serious frustra-
tions that motivation and interest are permanently
depressed...Disinclination of certain children
towards reading, arithmetic, etc. can often be
traced directly to early frustrating experiences
in these activities. (p. 115)

Brenner (1959) says the ability to differentiate leads to the
child paying attention to l) differentiation within a field or object,
2) size, form and color and 3) to proportion and frequency of rela-
tionships from which deve10p number concepts. This brings order and
meaning. The extent to which they are used indicates readiness.

Roberts (1976) in discussing reading readiness and Piaget's theory
of conservation says that readiness for academic tasks is signaled by
"...the cognition that certain properties (quantity, number, length,
etc.) remain invariant (are conserved) in the face of certain transfor-
mations." In other words, the child needs to conserve in order to
learn math, reading, science and other skills. She went on to say:

Research...has shown that instruction presented
before a child has acquired the developmental
competencies is useless. Once the child has the

competencies, instruction of many varied types
appears to be affective. (p. 249)

19
In summary, school attendance and successful completion of tasks
by the kindergartner are directly dependent on that child having reached
a certain level of readiness. Readiness for school means that the
child is equipped to handle the demands of school. What determines that
readiness is now commonly agreed on as being a certain level of ability
to differentiate and analyze new situations on the basis of previously

learned experiences.

Chronological Age as a Determinant of School Readiness
Chronological age has been used to determine school entrance for
centuries but many experts feel it is a poor indicator of readiness.
It is used because administratively it is the most feasible and easily
accounted for criterion. Hirst (1970) stated:

Public school entrance age becomes entangled in
opposing educational philosophies and may become

an administrative expediency. Conflicting opinions
and some research claim certain minimum ages for
academic success. Advocates of early childhood
education question the desirability of demanding
children meet school requirements. Programs

should meet the requirements of the children is

the claim. (p. 547)

Because there is such wide-spread dissatisfaction with chronological
age as the sole criterion for school entrance, much research has been
done on its import.
Ames and Chase (1974) stated:

More important for later schooling than anything

you may teach him in his preschool years is to be

as certain as you can be that before he begins

kindergarten or first grade he is actually mature

enough to do so. (p. 171)
Their feeling is that if you must use age alone as a criterion then

girls should be fully five years old and boys fully five and one-half

 

 

20
years old before beginning school. They based this on a study conducted
by the Gesell Institute in Weton, Connecticut schools. The Gesell
Behavior Examination was given to all kindergarten, first and second
graders in the fall of 1957, 1958 and 1959. The results were startling.
They found that only 37% of the children were fully ready when they
started school. Forty-three percent were questionably ready for kinder-
garten and were definitely not ready for promotion. TWenty percent
were definitely not ready for kindergarten. Tests on the first and
second graders found that one-third were not ready for that grade.
Secondly, it was found that the "not ready" children did not catch up
in the following years. Finally, they found a high correlation between
fall prediction and June evaluation.

In choosing to start boys and girls at different ages, Ames and
Chase agreed with research by other authors. Pauley (1951) studied
thousands of Tulsa, Oklahoma youngsters' records for sex differences
and legal school entering age and concluded that (p. 9):

1. Boys usually develop in nearly all respects
more slowly than girls...much of the research
in sex differences indicates...that the entering
age for boys should be raised three or more months.
2. In all likelihood the mental hygiene of many
inmature boys and their parents will be improved
if a later entering age can be established for
boys than girls.
3. Psychologists are quite well agreed that on the
average, maturity is reached about two or
three years earlier by girls than by boys.

Pullen cited Packard (1972) in even stronger terms:

If the world of education is to reflect physiolo-
gical reality, the entering age for boys into

first grade should be raised so that, as long as
there are mixed classes, they will be one-half year
older than the girls in those same classes. This

might reduce some of the humiliation of boys at
the onset of their educational experience. (p. 20)

21

However, Braga (1971) disagreed in saying:

The question occasionally is asked whether
different admissions policies should be followed
for boys and girls, since in several ways boys
seem to mature more slowly than girls...however,
most other researchers have not found sufficient
evidence of general difference between the
achievement of boys and girls to justify such a
decision. (p. 38)

Brenner (1959) found no correlation for sex as a variable in his
factor analysis of 118 children. He concluded:

On the basis of the findings of our factor
analysis and considerations like these we would
not be able to support the idea that girls should
begin school a year or half a year earlier than
boys .

Hedges (1977) explained the discrepancy in conclusions of different
authors by suggesting that dealing with different samples could vastly
change results. The clinicians were apt to be studying youngsters
referred to them because of previous troubles. A different slant is
achieved if instead a diversified sample in a classroom is studied.

Hirst's (1970) study to identify and determine the relationship
between possible readiness predictors and first and second grade
achievement grew out of a frustration with age as criterion for school
entrance. She tested 300 kindergarten children in nine schools which
she grouped by sex, socio—economic status, age, 10, and readiness
scores. Instruments used included the W150, Torrance's Test of Crea-
tivity, Teacher's rating, Metropolitan Readiness Test, Sociometric and
Gesell Developmental. She found that the education of the child's
mother, physical skills and socio-economic status was a predictor
variable for second grade success. Kindergarten teacher's rating was
predictive of first grade and second grade reading achievement, but age

was not found to be a predictive or readiness variable at all.

22

King's (1955) study of 104 children makes it possible to compare
qualitative and quantitative effects that chronological age at entrance
has on sixth year achievement. In their sixth school year, fifty-four
children who were five years, eight months to five years, eleven months
when entering school were compared on the Stanford Achievement Test to
fifty children who were six years, five months to six years, eight
months at school entrance. The results showed that the majority of
younger children were not achieving optimum academic achievement. The
younger group had ten retentions as opposed to one retention in the
older group, and all but three were boys. There was a significant
difference (p < .05) in achievement between the older and younger group
in the older group's favor.

Studies have been conducted to compare early school entrants to
normal entrants on achievement. An early entrant is a child who has
been allowed to enter school earlier than the usual entrance age.

Early entrance is allowed according to varying criterions in different
school systems. In the McLeod and Leong study (1972) in Saskatchewan,
Canada, 126 highly gifted children were entered into school early
because of their adjudged high success potential on the Revised Stanford-
Binet Intelligence Scale (Form L-M). When tested later on the Vineland
Social Maturity Scale and the Metropolitan Readiness Test, they found
no significant differences in achievement or social adjustment between
the early entrants and their classmates. However, "rejectees",
students who had started early but either drOpped out of school that
year or were retained in kindergarten and thus were in their own age
group, were found to be significantly better achievers than their

classmates. Starting gifted children early only succeeded in making

23
them average performers instead of above average as they might have
been. Studies by Birch (1954), Hamalainen (1952) and the IACE (1964)
showed similar results.

Baer (1958) studied students in Kansas City to determine whether or
not an early starter has the same problems as a child who waits a year
to begin school. Seventy-three children with November/December
birthdays were matched with seventy-three children with January/February
birthdays on IQ, sex, and the school they entered. In their eleventh
school year, the students were compared on size, grade level attained,
number of problems marked on the SRA Youth Inventory and their Guilford-
Simmerman Temperament Survey Score. The overage students were signifi-
cantly different in the following areas (p. 17):

--taller but not heavier

--more successful in maintaining grade progression

--had higher marks in grades one through eight

--higher scores in achievement tests
This led Baer to conclude that while underage students may make average
progress, the average student is likely to make better school progress.

After an extensive literature review of research on entrance age
and school success, Halliwell (1966) concluded:

In view of the facts that at any grade level the
early entrant is approximately seven months
behind his control in achievement, that deSpite
an extra year of schooling the early entrant is
only three months superior in achievement to the
regular entrant at a particular age and that
approaches to acceleration have resulted in
superior achievement for younger pupils both
in terms of age and grade the conclusion of
the present reviewer is that the advantages of
postponing early entrance to first grade
programs as they are presently conducted is
very real. (p. 401)

The concept develops, then, that if age is to be used successfully

as a criterion for school entrance, then school curriculum must change.

24

Today's schools, all too often, as stated earlier, expect the child to
be ready for the school, not vice versa. Kost (1972) quotes Radler and
Kephart in this regard:

When Johnny or Suzie enter the first grade at

the age of six (or kindergarten at the age of

five) they are expected to bring into the

classroom with them a background of experience

and achievement, a compliment of skills...But

for the child who is lacking some or all of

the skills he is assumed to have, the first

grade is nothing short of tragedy. (p. 16)

A kindergarten screening program in Delaware (1977-78), after
observing the devastating effect of their curriculum on children who
were not ready for their demands, has changed their design and the
kindergarten programs. Using the KAPS, or Kindergarten Assessment
Profile and Skills Survey, each preschooler is assessed in the areas of
auditory perception, visual perception and motor, cognitive and language
skills. No child is excluded from kindergarten on the basis of his
developmental level but instead the teachers use the findings of the
screening to tailor instruction to meet needs.

This mind frame is echoed by Zeitlein (1976) who stated:

...The assumption that 'waiting another year'

will solve all problems is not often valid.

These are children whose development is adequate,
but whose maturation process is immature, who
would not be harmed and maybe helped by another
year at home, assuming that the home is supportive
and stimulating, but who would profit more by
beginning school in an environment that will take
him at his level and begin academic growth from
there. (p. 177)

In conclusion, Ammons and Goodlad (1955), after their review of

literature entitled "When to Begin: DimenSions of the First Grade

Entrance Age Problem", said:

25

If a school is designed to expose children to

a succession of carefully graded tasks beginning
with the first grade, then the question of when

(at what age) children are best prepared to

tackle these tasks is appropriate. To the degree
children are held back from beginning these tasks
they will have less difficulty in accomplishing

them and the school may take whatever questionable
credit is forthcoming...If, however, a school is
designed to assist a child with those problems his
development and culture present then we had better
turn our attention where it belongs: the develop-
ment of a curriculum that encompasses these problems
in such a way that a child beginning school at the
time society sees fit to decree, will achieve maxi-
mum benefit from the environmental resources of that
school. (p. 26)

When Parents and Teachers Evaluate Readiness
The relative lack of research concerning the ability of teachers
and parents to serve as subjective evaluators of kindergarten readiness
highlights the importance of this study. Five studies were reviewed
and three of these dealt with the PAR, Preschool Attainment Record.
The earliest study of the PAR was in 1969. The PAR is an aid in
estimating the developmental levels in children for their first seven
years. Since the instrument calls for interview reporting to obtain
information about the child's usual behavior there is inherent danger
of potentially biased observations. For this reason it is best used
when access to children is difficult or impossible or when a rough
measure is needed for grouping. Stedman (1969) stated:
...It is important to note that in the use of
such tests, there is a tendency for parents
or reporters to inflate scores by reporting
higher levels of accomplishment than the child
is capable of attaining. (p. 488) ‘

Stedman gave the PAR to the teachers and mothers of seventeen

disadvantaged and socially deprived children. There were eight boys

26
(average chronological age 67.25 months) and nine girls (average
chronological age 68.66 months). His results showed that mothers rated
boys significantly higher than did teachers (p < .05) but there was no
difference in their rating of girls. Discrepancies were found in the
area of rapport, manipulation and communication.

Blair (1970) did another study to ascertain the accuracy of
reporters on the PAR. Using ten middle class boys (average chronological
age 55 months) and ten middle class girls (average chronological age
54.9 months) the parents and teachers were interviewed for their
estimated Attainment Quotient. Again, mothers were found to rate boys
significantly higher (p < .02) with no difference in the girls' ratings.
This time discrepancies were in the areas of ideation, information and
communications. Blair suggested that a possible reason for the varying
areas of discrepancy could be the difference in background of the two
groups. He suggested further that the significant difference found in
the boys could be attributed to one or more of three factors (p. 300):

--higher expectations for boys

--acceptable behavior repertoires more limited for boys

--teacher's perceptions distorted because of behavior
style

Lederman and Blair (1973) recently compared predictive level of
the mother and teacher ratings on the PAR. The mothers and two teachers
of fourteen girls on a Title III program were given the standardized
PAR interview. The Metropolitan Readiness Test was then given to the
children. Results showed that teacher's ratings were more accurate
(r = .69 as compared to r = .46 for mothers). They concluded that

mother's ratings were of little value to assess behavioral deficiencies

in children. They further suggested that the mother's ratings were

27
biased by what the child had done in one exceptional instance rather
than his usual behavior. Finally they stated:
The present investigation also suggests that one
major goal of a preschool program should be to
assist parents to appraise more realistically
their child's current capabilities. This may be
accomplished with individual conferences, small
group sessions with parents and teacher, and
visitation by parents to their child's class-
room. (p. 95)

A study in Wisconsin (1976) had very different results. In a
program set up to see whether parents'reports alone could provide
significant information about the likelihood of their child's mastery
of basic kindergarten readiness tasks the Minnesota Child Development
Inventory (MCDI) was given to the mothers of fifty-nine children. The
following May each child was given the Wide Range Achievement Test
(WRAT), the Lippincott Reading Readiness Test (LRRT) and the Metro-
politan Readiness Test. The results showed substantial correlations in
the mother's ratings and the children's achievement on the tests. The
highest results were found in the Language section of the M001 where
the score accounted for 56% of the variance in the WRAT. They found
similar results between the LRRT and the M001 which they attributed to
the WRAT and the LRRT being so similar in content. They concluded that
67% of the population would be within 3.4 raw score points of the post-
kindergarten WRAT score.

Childers and Matusiak (1972) did research to see if a prior
selection of five behavior factors corresponded to the parents' descrip-
tion of their own children. Teacher ratings of overall adjustment for
school were also considered. Three hundred eighty-four four and five

year old children were observed for hyperactivity, dependency, aggres-

siveness, peer adjustment and adult relationships. They were given one

28
of the following ratings:

- should not have entered kindergarten

probably will need two years in kindergarten
below average but to be advanced to first grade
average performance in kindergarten

above average in kindergarten

excellent prognosis for success in first grade
and/or is ready to learn to read

1
2
3
4
5
6

The Metropolitan Achievement Test was then given at the end of the
year. Teacher rating of overall performance produced correlations of
statistically significant magnitude (p < .01). None of the five parent
rating variables was correlated significantly with measures of either
first grade or kindergarten achievement. Of the five variables,
hyperactivity, dependency and aggressiveness were insignificantly
related to first grade achievement while adjustment and adult relation-
ships were significantly related. In their discussion, Childers and
Matusiak concluded that the teacher's impressions of a child's potential
in school is influenced most by her impression of the child's social
effectiveness.

In conclusion, this limited amount of research suggests a need to
look further into the relation between parent and teacher ratings.
Research shows teachers to be fairly accurate assessors of children's
readiness for school and possible future achievement. However, studies
relating to the parents' ability or lack of ability to assess readiness

and teachers' abilities in relation to tests are limited.

Summary
In this chapter school readiness and how it should be determined

has been discussed. Readiness was found to be commonly considered to

be the match between what a child will be asked to do in school and

29
what he is able to do (Paradis and Peterson, 1975). Mental age, IQ, sex,
physiological development and perceptual-conceptual develOpment have
all at one time or another been used to determine school readiness.
Social behavior (Flynn, 1975) and self-concept (Vincent et_al,, 1976)
have been studied in depth with no one component universally agreed
upon. However, a certain level of ability to differentiate and analyze
new situations on the basis of previously learned experiences are the
most p0pular criteria among researchers.

Chronological age is the most commonly used criterion by school
systems to determine school starting date. Researchers and school
administrators cannot, however, agree on what is the most appropriate
age. Research supports not only differing ages but even one age for
girls to start school and another age for boys (Ames and Chase, 1974).
Pauley (1951) and Pullen (1972) both cite research to agree with
separate entrance ages for boys and girls but Braga (1971) and Brenner
(1959) disagreed, stating that there is not sufficient evidence to
justify different entrance ages.

King (1955) studied 104 children and found that children who were
six years, five months to six years, eight months at school entrance
had achieved significantly better school performance in sixth grade
than children who were five years, eight months to five years, eleven
months. Early entrants to school were found by McLeod and Leong (1972)
to have average performance records although they were admitted early
because of their high performance potential. Baer (1958) reports
similar results. All authors agree that if age is used to determine
school entrance, than curriculums must encompass and allow for a wide

spectrum of readiness levels.

30
The ability of parents and teachers to evaluate readiness in
children is poorly researched and includes many avenues for further
exploration. There is slight evidence that teachers are good predictors
of school readiness and future school achievement. But there is
conflicting research on the parent as a readiness predictor and much
more research needs to be done on how parents and teachers compare with

readiness test results.

CHAPTER III
DESIGN OF THE STUDY

This chapter is comprised of four areas: description of sample,
selection and description of instruments, listing of testable hypotheses

and data analysis procedures.

The Sample

 

The study took place in a small town (population under 3500) in
southeastern Michigan. The community has grown in the last ten years
from a quiet, rural farm town to a bursting, so-called "bedroom
.community" for workers in Detroit and their families. The sudden
growth of the area has been attributed to a large extent to "white
flight" of suburban Detroiters who do not wish their children bused and
are drawn to the area's many lakes and recreational properties.

Tightly controlled building and zoning codes are limiting who can afford
to move there, however. There is very little industry. The community
is largely white, middle class with the average new-house price running
around $65,000. The shift seems to be from mostly farmers to mostly
salaried or hourly employees, and the school officials watch with
interest to see what difference this will make in school issues. The

1977 bond issue and the 1978 millage, part of which was needed to build

31

32
and equip a new elementary school, both passed easily. However, a
millage in June of 1979, which was needed to staff that school, was
defeated.

The high school is a Class B school but will soon be re-evaluated
as a Class A school. The school system includes one high school, one
middle school and three elementary schools. The fourth elementary was
expected, prior to the millage defeat, to open in September of 1979.
Because of overcrowding in the elementary schools, all but two of the
kindergartens have been forced to move into available classrooms in
the middle school building for the last two years. The possible effect
of this two year occupancy has not been studied. In addition to the
three kindergarten classrooms in the middle school the school system
Operates two more kindergartens in an old two room schoolhouse in the
country.

The average size for the kindergartens is twenty-five students
giving a population of approximately 250 kindergartners for the school
system. Because of the interest in the high risk kindergartner with
an autumn birthday for this project, forty-two children were selected
for the study. These forty-two fulfilled the sample criterion of
being between four years, eleven months and four years, nine months as
of September of 1978. A permission request letter (Appendix A) was
sent through the mail to the parents of these forty-two children. A
reminder note (Appendix 8) went home from school with children whose
parents had not responded. If no response had been received to the two
notes, the parent was called by telephone to encourage participation.

Thirty-three responses were received. Only two responses were negative.

33
One child contracted chicken pox the week of testing and had to be
dropped from the study leaving a sample of thirty children - eleven

boys and nineteen girls.

Readiness Evaluation Instruments

 

Two instruments were used to test readiness. The first was to
establish a readiness score for the child and the second was to guide
the parents and teachers in their evaluation of the child. The two
instruments were the Anton Brenner Gestalt Test of School Readiness and
the Ready or Not? Checklist.

The Anton Brenner Developmental Gestalt Test
of SchoOT Readiness -TBGT (Brenner, 1964)

 

 

This instrument was used to evaluate the child's perceptual
development. There are five tasks involved which are copying of ten
dots, copying of a sentence, draw-a-man, number producing ability
activity, and number recognition activity. Three to eight minutes are
required to administer the test. When used in Detroit area schools,
the scores correlated well with the following tests (r factors following
instrument names): Sangren Information Test (.82), Pitner-Cunningham
Primary Mental Ability Test (.52), Metropolitan Readiness Test (.72),
and Goodenough Draw-A-Man Test (.40). The scores also correlated at
.81 with teacher ratings.

High correlation with other tests was a major factor considered
in choosing the BGT. Other reasons included:

1. Ease of.administration - the test takes very little time to

administer. Professionals are not needed for actninistration

but instead trained volunteers may be used.

34
2. Appropriateness - the test does not measure home influences,
motivation, personal enhancing or conflicting home or group
factors which might have been objectionable for the families
involved. It is largely non-verbal and multidimensional in
scope.
3. Standardization - the test has been standardized and scores

can be correlated with the parent/teacher evaluations.

Administration Format of the BGT

 

During Thursday of the ninth week of school the children were taken
from the classroom to a quiet location to be given the BGT. A trained
assistant and the project coordinator did all the testing in one day
with the absentees tested on Friday. All thirty of the sample children
were tested in those two days.

Ready or Not? Readiness Checklist (Austin
and Lafferty, 1968)

 

 

Ready or Not? is a checklist of developmental skill levels
covering growth and age, general activity related to growth, practical
skills, remembering, understanding, general knowledge and attitudes and
interests. It is for children four to six years old and takes fifteen
to thirty minutes to complete. Three instruments were used by Austin
and Lafferty in the development of the checklist. The Stanford-Binet
Intelligence Scale, Form L-M Third Revisions (Terman and Merrill, 1960)
provided mental age and 10 data. The Metropolitan Readiness Test,

Form R and S (Mildreth and Griffiths, 1950) provided reading readiness
scores, number readiness scores and total readiness scores. The Cassel
Child Behavior Rating Scale (Cassel, 1962) provided teacher ratings for

self-adjustment scores, social adjustment scores and school adjustment

SCOY‘ES .

35
The results showed that the Ready or Not? Checklist correlated

well with the Wide Range Achievement Test (Jastak and Bijou, 1946;

Jasket and Jasket, 1965) for children after first and second grade.

Other reasons for choosing the Ready or Not? Checklist included:

1.

Ease of administration - the test was meant for use by parents
and teachers. It does not require training to administer and
takes a relatively short amount of time to complete.
Subjectivity - it can be used as a recall test for parents and
teachers. The checklist was not given to the child as a test
but rather to find the mother's and teacher's opinion of the
child's level and skills. In most cases the child was not
present.

Standardization - the test has been standardized and includes
approximate intervals for determining readiness level. These
scores can be correlated with the scores of the objective BGT.
Appropriateness - completion of the Checklist reveals infor-
mation concerning developmental spacial perception and the
child's ability to analyze, discriminate and differentiate
learned information. The checklist does not include questions
concerning affective, personal information such as family
income, child's IQ or similar information. This was important
in making the checklist acceptable to the families involved

and the school system's administration.

Administration Format of Ready or Not? Checklist

During the tenth week of school, conferences were held between

parents and teachers to discuss the kindergartner's progress and

performance in the first nine weeks. The teachers filled out the

36
checklists on the two evenings preceding the conferences. The mothers
(no fathers chose to take part in the conferences) were asked to come
to their parent conference fifteen minutes early. During this time
interlude, prior to talking to the teacher, the mother filled out the
checklist to the best of her recollection. All of the mothers answered
each statement on the checklist. Although the teachers could not be
sure of the answer to question #39 - "Do you have books, magazines and
newspapers in your home that your child looks at?“ - because of the
area's socio-economic level, it was assumed that this question could be
answered "Yes". (All of the mothers did check "Yes" in response to

question #39.)

Testable Hypotheses

 

The following hypotheses were tested in this study:
H - Null hypothesis: No difference will be found in readiness scores

as evaluated by parents and teachers of "high risk" kindergartners.

Symbolically:
H0: up ‘ “t
H]: up f “t
where “p = parent score mean
“t = teacher score mean
H2 - Null hypothesis: The correlation coefficient for the parents'
scores and the children's readiness score will not be different
from zero.
Symbolically:
Ho: ppc = 0
H1 ppc f O

37

where p

pc = population coefficient for parent

evaluations and children's BGT readiness
scores.
H3 - Null hypothesis: The correlation coefficient for the teachers'

scores and the children's readiness scores will not be different

from zero.
Symbolically:
H0: ptc = O
H]: ptc f 0
where ptc = population coefficient for teacher evalua-

tions and BGT readiness score.

H4 - Null hypothesis: No difference will be found between the population
correlation coefficient of parents' scores and children's BGT
readiness scores and the population correlation coefficient of

teachers' scores and children's BGT readiness scores.

Symbolically:
H0 ptc = 0pc
“1‘ ptc I ppc
where p = parent correlation coefficient

pc

p
tc
H5 - Null hypothesis: No difference will be found between the mean

= teacher correlation coefficient

score of readiness as evaluated by mothers of boys and the mean

score of readiness of girls as evaluated by their mothers.

Symbolically:
H0: “pb = “p9
H1: “pb I “vs
where “pb = boys' mean score evaluated by parent
u = girls' mean score evaluated by parent

P9

38

Data Analysis

 

The data obtained from the sample subjects on both instruments
were coded, key punched on computer cards, and verified with the aid
of a staff member of the Office of Research Consultation (ORC) at
Michigan State University. The computer program used for analyzing
the data was the Northwestern University Statistical Package for the
Social Sciences (SPSS). The inferential statistical tests used were
a two dependent variable t-test, the Pearson Product Moment Correlation
Coefficient and a two independent variable t-test.

The statistical procedures were used to test the difference in
the teachers and parent scores with respect to Hypothesis 1, the
correlation of scores with respect to Hypotheses 2 and 3 and the
difference between parents of male and female children with respect to
Hypothesis 5. In addition, to test if the population correlation
between teacher and child was greater than the population correlation
between parent and child the Fisher Z-transformation was used (Appendix
C). This statistical test was used to strengthen the relative intensity
of relationship between the two factors as determined by the Pearson

Product Moment Correlation.

Summary

After obtaining the sample names the Anton Brenner Developmental
Test of School Readiness was given to the thirty children to obtain a
readiness score for each child. The parents and teachers then filled
out the Ready or Not? Checklist to indicate their opinion of the child's

readiness level. Using a two dependent variable t-test, the Pearson

39

Product Moment Correlation Coefficient, a two independent variable

t-test and the Fisher Z-transformation the results were then analyzed.

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS OF RESULTS

In this chapter the examination and analysis of the data are
presented. The hypotheses are examined in the same order as they were

tested. The data in Appendix D were used to test all five hypotheses.

Hypothesis Testing

 

The data from Table 4.1 were used to test Hypothesis 1. H]: No
difference will be found in readiness scores as evaluated by parents

and teachers of "high risk" kindergartners.

Table 4.1. Results of two dependent t-test.

 

Mean S.D. S.E. t-value d.f. P

 

Parent Score 37.3548 7.432 1.333
Teacher Score 29.8710 8.936 1.605

5.96 30 .000

 

Using the mean scores for the Parent's checklist and the Teacher's
checklist a two dependent variable t-test was run. The t-value score
of 5.96 wiU1a probability .000 was significant at p < .05. H1 was

rejected.

40

41

The data from Table 4.2 were used to test H2, H3 and H4.

Table 4.2. Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients.

 

Children's Scores

Parents' Score .1002
(30)
.299

U?
ll

Teachers' Score .5796
(30)
.001

(I)
ll

 

H2: The correlation coefficient for the parents' scores and the
children's readiness scores will not be different from zero.
Using p > .05 the significant value for testing would be S = .299.
The parents' correlation coefficient was .1002 for the child's BGT
score and the Parents' Ready or Not? Checklist score. .1002 is not

significant and therefore H2 cannot be rejected.

H3: The correlation coefficient for the teachers' scores and the
children's readiness scores will not be different from zero.
Again using p > .05 the significant value for comparison of the

children's BGT and the teachers' Ready or Not? Checklist would be

S = .001. The correlation coefficient of .5796 is significant; there-

fore, the null hypothesis for H3 can be rejected.

H4: No difference will be found between the population correlation for
parent scores and children's actual readiness scores and population
correlation of teachers' scores and children's actual readiness

SCOY‘ES .

42

Because H2 was not rejected and H3 was rejected, some assumptions
can be made concerning the relationship of the two correlations. To
strengthen this relative intensity the Fisher Z-transformation (Appendix
C) was used to compare the two population correlation coefficients. With
p > .05 the significant value to reject would be X = 1.65. The X score
from the Fisher Z-transformation, 2.046, was significant and therefore
the hypothesis was rejected.

The data in Table 4.3 were used to test H5.

Table 4.3. Results of two independent variable t-test.

 

 

Mean S.D. S.E. t-value d.f. P
Boys 37.4545 3.142 .947
-1.84 28 .076
Girls 39.2632 2.232 .512

 

H5: No difference will be found between the mean score of readiness
as evaluated by mothers of boys and the mean score of readiness of
girls as evaluated by their mothers.
The results of the two independent variable t-test on the parent
scores for girls and boys, .076, shows the sex of the child to be not

significant at p < .05 level. H5 cannot be rejected.

Summary

On the basis of analysis of data hypotheses 1, 3 and 4 can be
rejected. Hypotheses 2 and 5 cannot be rejected. The significance of

these results are discussed in the next chapter.

CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

This chapter presents a summary of the study, the conclusions and
discussion of the implications of the results and recommendations for

possible action and further study.

Summary

The purpose of this study was to give some indication of whose
subjective assessment of a child's readiness to start school is more
likely to agree with scores of a readiness test, the mother of that
child or the child's kindergarten teacher. The study also was to
indicate numerical differences in the evaluative scores by the mother
and teacher. Finally, the possible differences in the scores of mothers
of boys and the mothers of girls were explored.

Taking a developmental approach, the level of school readiness
was seen as crucial to the child's success for the rest of his academic
career and thus of import in kindergarten. As the child with an autumn
birthday is younger and, therefore, possibly further behind in develop-
ment than his January birthday peer, it was the September, October and
November birthday age group that was focused on for the testing.

The Anton Brenner Developmental Gestalt Test of School Readiness
(BGT) was used during the ninth week of school to indicate the readiness

score for thirty autumn birthday children. The Ready or Not? Checklist
43

44

(Austin and Lafferty, 1968) was used as a structure for ascertaining
the parent's and teacher's subjective opinion of the child's readiness
level. Using a two dependent variable t-test the mean scores of
parents and teachers were compared. The Pearson Product Moment
Correlation was used to determine correlation coefficients for the
parents and the teachers and these coefficients were analyzed through
the use of the Fisher Z-transformation (Appendix C). Finally, a two
independent variable t-test was used to compare the mean score for the
mothers of boys and the mean score for the mothers of girls. The
level of significance was set at .05 for all the tests.

The two dependent variable t-test showed the parents to be signi-
ficantly higher evaluators of school readiness than the teachers.
That is, their mean score was 7.5 points higher than the teachers' mean
score.

The Pearson Product Moment Correlation revealed the teachers to
have a significant correlation with the children's readiness scores
on the Anton Brenner Test. The mothers were not shown to have a
significant correlation with the children's scores. The Fisher Z-
transformation (Appendix C) showed these correlation coefficients to be
significantly different. But the two independent variable t-test did
not indicate a significant difference in the readiness evaluation score

of mothers of boys and mothers of girls.

Conclusions and Discussion

 

This discussion takes place in the same order as the hypotheses
have been presented throughout the study with a general discussion of

the study as a whole at the end.

45

The relationship between the parents' score and the teachers'
score for the child's readiness level was of concern in Hypothesis 1.
As discussed in the review of the literature, regardless of developmental
level, readiness level, or school curriculum a child has success in
school only when there is a match between what s/he is asked to do and
what s/he is able to do. There are, therefore, two components involved
that can be changed if the child is not successful in school. Either
the teacher must make different demands on the child or the child's
abilities must change. In this study the children as a group did not
meet the five teachers' basic criterion for readiness to perform at
a successful level for their classrooms. Their mean score of 29.8 on
the Ready or Not? Checklist translates to a state of readiness on the
standardization tables labeled "Readiness Doubtful". These were the
five pe0ple who would determine what the children needed to do for
success in kindergarten and they felt as a group they were not ready
to perform that way. On the other hand, the parents' score of 37.35
translates to a state of readiness labeled "Readiness Very Probable"
on the standardization tables. The parents felt the group was ready
for kindergarten expectations. Understanding this difference requires
a look into the orientation of each group.

Stedman (1960) states, in discussing the Preschool Attainment
Record (PAR), a subjective evaluative device, that "there is a tendency
for parents or reporters to inflate scores by reporting higher levels
of accomplishment than the child is capable of attaining" (p. 45).

He considers such inflation inherent to parental reporting and considers
the statement so self-evident as to not require further explanation or

discussion. This study seems to bear witness to that phenomenon.

46
Studies by Lederman and Blair (1973) with the PAR and the Metropolitan
Readiness Test suggested that mother's ratings were biased by what the
child had done in one exceptional instance rather than his/her usual
behavior. This could help explain score differences in this study.
Successful school performance depends not merely on a child's ability
to recognize and name correctly the letter "A" one time but to be able
to do it every time s/he is asked. The mothers, in rating their
children, may not have taken that difference into account.

Boszormenji's (1973) theory must be reexamined in light of the
findings of this study. His belief of learning taking place only when
the child can transfer the act of "giving" from his parent to his
teacher would suggest that perhaps the children in the study learned
and performed differently at home with the nurturing parent than at
school with the still somewhat unfamiliar teacher. The mother has
seen how her child learns a new task under her guidance and assumes
that that ability is being transformed to the school setting. The
teacher has had only frustrating failures in teaching a new task and
has not observed the child in a successful learning situation. She,
then, labels the child as not ready to learn.

The relative accuracy of the parents and the teacher as predictors
of the child's readiness was of concern in H2, H3 and H4. According
to this study's results, the teachers were accurately predicting
readiness as measured against the readiness score of the BGT. The
parents were not accurate reporters of readiness. Brenner's test
reflects his orientation that perceptual-conceptual development is a
principal factor in readiness for school and that growth, development

and learning, all three, not any one separately, take place through

47
interaction between an individual and his/her environment. Again,
because the parent has observed this process for five years her percep-
tion may be colored differently when approaching academic experiences
for the child. The BGT correlates well with other readiness tests (see
discussion of instruments in Chapter III) and is, therefore, accepted as
a true indicator of readiness. So the parents' poor correlation
coefficient might best be explained by their unfamiliarity with kinder-
garten expectations and other kindergartners' abilities. This would
support Blair's (1970) research. He attributed discrepancies in the
areas of ideation, information and communications to the difference in
background of the two groups. Most parents have had close contact
with at most a handful of four and five year old children and rarely
at the same time so they could not compare developmental level. The
teachers in this study had many years of experience with kindergarten
and/or preschool children and had seen hundreds of four and five year
old children, usually in large groups, making comparisons easy. Their
curriculums are presumably based on the average ability and readiness
level of the children they have observed over the years. It is much
easier for teachers to make an accurate assessment of how well a
child will succeed, i.e., his readiness level, in the classroom than
for the mothers of limited background. The results of this study
support all the research found and reported in Chapter II except the
study done in Wisconsin (1976). In that study the parents were found
to have good correlation (parents' scores accounted for 56% of the
variance on the WRAT) with the children's achievement on readiness
tests. One explanation for the variance in results could be the more

extensive training given the parents in that study in an attempt to

48
make them accurate reporters of readiness. Because the scores were
used for group placement of the children in kindergarten situations
the parents were carefully briefed on what information was needed and
the criterion for reporting. In making them more aware of the require-
ments of readiness the parents were apparently better clued as to the
criterion that the kindergarten teachers used.

Hypothesis 5 was concerned with the relationship between the
evaluation of readiness level by the mothers of boys and mothers of
girls. This study did not support other research in the area of boys
and girls readiness levels as evaluated by their parents. Stedman
(1969) and Blair (1970) both found boys to be rated higher than girls.
The findings of this study did not agree with their research. This
discrepancy in findings would indicate a need for further study in this
area.

Overall the results of this study revealed that teachers are
better predictors of kindergarten readiness than were mothers of those
kindergartners. While this is attributable to many factors, other
research suggests that level of experience is a very important factor.'
Teachers are the formulators of the curriculum. They have more
experience with kindergarten age children, having seen and worked
with hundreds. Therefore, the two components of readiness and success,
that the child be able to do what s/he is asked to do, make the teacher
the more accurate judge of readiness level. The implications of this
project are important to parents. Whether a discussion with the
teacher involves considering retention, stopping school and waiting
for the next year or just a warning of the troubles the child is likely

to encounter in the coming years, the parents might keep in mind that

49
the kindergarten teachers in this study and in several others were
accurate predictors of readiness; better indeed than the parents.
While it cannot be argued in most cases that no one knows the child
better than his mother in social or emotional terms, the teacher may
have the edge from her greater experience when it comes to academic
success.

The study has implications for teachers as well. While it is not
necessary to unleash a generation of supposedly infallible experts
upon unsuspecting parents of this country, this study should give the
hesitant but experienced teacher confidence in her ability to deal
with the situation accordingly. However, in view of the divergent
Opinions of what school readiness means and the fact that a number of
the children in the five classrooms in this study were considered "not
ready" for kindergarten, perhaps the emphasis should be placed not on
more retentions of these children or in holding them back from starting
school for another year. Instead, thought should be directed to
changing curriculums in kindergarten to accommodate youngsters who
qualify chronologically to begin school regardless of readiness level.
This would be in keeping with research done in Delaware (1977) where
officials sought to break the devastating and long-term effect their
curriculums were having on children who were not ready for school.
Rather than changing entrance requirements they completely overhauled
their screening design, using it for skill group placement rather than
to reject kindergartners, and have seen positive results in later
years. Thought in this direction may be helpful since Michigan lawmakers
show no inclination to shift from chronological age as the school

entrance determiner.

50

Implications for Further Research

Further research in this area might best be served by revising the
size and composition of the sample. By limiting the group to autumn
birthday children the sample was necessarily smaller than preferred.
This study could be done with no limitation placed on birthday composi-
tion. The entire kindergarten population could be studied in much the
same way as this project was conducted. Analysis could then take place
comparing grOUps according to birthday or other variables.

A larger sample would offer another avenue of research. This
sample included five teachers. Had their entire class been included,
analysis could have been done to determine if there existed any difference
in the teachers themselves as evaluators; i.e., whether the most
experienced teacher was a better judge of readiness than the least
experienced. As it was, the small size of this sample kept comparisons
of the teachers' abilities from being feasible.

A major group was missing from this sample. The group of children
who had autumn birthdays but whose parents had kept them out of school
was not available. It would have been fascinating and perhaps highly
significant to discover the difference in subjective evaluation of
readiness level by the parents of these children as compared to the
autumn birthday children who did start school. The reasons given by
the eleven parents who refused or simply did not respond could shed
light on that group as well.

The reliability of the present data might have been increased by
securing the same information from another source. One Ready or Not?
Checklist was distributed to each family and all were completed by the

mother of the child. The addition of a second checklist would increase

51
the reliability of the data and most likely secure much needed data
on the father's subjective evaluation of the child's readiness for
school. Reliability could also have been increased by dropping the
score of child #28 whose BGT score of eight may have skewed the results.

All of the teachers in this study were experienced teachers. The
least experienced had taught seven years of Head Start and two years of
kindergarten. The most experienced had taught kindergarten for twenty-
seven years. All but one was also a mother. Different results might
be obtained by repeating the study with less experienced teachers.

While this study does not dwell on the different factors involved
in readiness, it does begin to reveal the importance of considering
social and intellectual development as separate but equally important
factors in evaluating school readiness. Lack of develOpment in these
areas may not be best served by the child staying home for another
year, but kindergarten may not be the answer either. The alternatives
of a play group, nursery school, or a library program, where available,
would give the child increased and diverse stimulation for both social
and intellectual growth without subjecting the youngster to the addi-
tional demands of the school setting. The home or public school
should not be seen as the only alternatives when other resources are
available. Future research might delve more deeply into this area in
considering readiness.

Finally, one of the major limitations of the review of the
literature for this project, and one which underscores the importance
of the study, was the lack of previous work done in this area. Most
of the studies found have used the Preschool Attainment Record so even

the available information was limited. Future research might focus on

52
using other available recording methods or indeed on developing an

original and more accurate evaluation instrument.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A
PRELIMINARY PERMISSION LETTER TO PARENTS

APPENDIX A

PRELIMINARY PERMISSION LETTER TO PARENTS

October 19, 1978

Dear a

 

Because your child has an autumn (September, October or November)
birthday he/she is one of the youngest children in his/her class.
Younger children often have special needs in school settings. While I
teach first grade at Village Elementary School here in Pinckney, for

my Masters work at Michigan State University I am interested in studying
how parents and teachers view the needs and readiness of these younger
kindergartners. I hope that the results of this study will help both
kindergarten and first grade teachers to plan for meeting the needs of
the ”autumn babies" in their rooms.

If you would be willing to help in this study I will contact you,

asking that you come ten minutes early to your parent/teacher conferences
in November. During this time you would fill out a checklist of your
child's skills such as copying figures, letters, etc. Your child's
teacher will fill out the same checklist and during the week prior to
conferences your child will be given a short readiness test much like

the one given at Kindergarten Round-up.

I sincerely hope that you will give serious consideration to taking part
in this study. While neither your name nor your child's name will be
used in conducting or reporting this study and your individual answers
will be kept confidential, the results of the study may help not only
your child but future children with autumn birthdays. Furthermore, I
would be happy to furnish a short summary of the study results to you
for your own information.

If you have any questions about my plans, please feel free to call me
before 9:00 or after 3:30 at Village Elementary School, 878-6423.

I am happy to talk further about this. Regardless of your decision,
please let me thank you in advance for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Peggy S. Dunn
First Grade Teacher

53

54

Please return to your child's kindergarten teacher before Oct. 25.
I would be willing to participate in this study with my child.
I would like to learn more about this study.

I would rather not be a part of this study.

Signature

 

Phone #

 

Please send me a short summary of the study results.

APPENDIX B
REMINDER LETTER TO PARENTS

APPENDIX B

REMINDER LETTER TO PARENTS

October 25, 1978

Dear .

This is just a reminder that I need your reply to my study proposal on
Monday, October 25. I hope that you will make every effort to return
the slip that day. If you have lost the original note, then please
return this one instead.

Your time and effort are appreciated.

Sincerely,

Peggy S. Dunn

I would be willing to participate in this study with my child.
I would like to learn more about this study.
I would rather not be a part of this study.

Signature

 

Phone #

 

___Please send me a short summary of the study results.

55

APPENDIX C
FISHER Z-TRANSFORMATI ON

APPENDIX C

FISHER Z-TRANSFORMATION

 

 

z' - z'
x = 1 2 m Z(O,l)
/ 1 + T
/ n1-3 n2-3

From: Statistical Methods in Research, Palmer 0. Johnson, 1949, p. 53.

 

56

APPENDIX D
TEST DATA

APPENDIX D

TEST DATA

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parent Teacher Parent Teacher
Sex & Check- Check- Sex & Check- Check-
I.D. # BGT list list I.D. # BGT list list
1M 62 4O 40 16M 38 37 30
2F 46 43 38 17F 20 35 14
3F 46 42 32 18F 32 42 28
4F 46 39 31 19F 29 41 18
5F 52 41 36 20M 43 32 33
6F 66 37 41 21M 50 33 27
7F 57 39 22 22F 51 38 32
8F 33 42 38 23M 57 38 32
9F 50 38 21 24M 58 37 37
10M 56 39 39 25F 64 4O 32
11F 48 41 33 26M 42 41 28
12M 61 42 35 27F 35 37 37
13F 22 37 24 28F 8 39 23
14M 16 35 20 29F 50 38 37
15M 40 38 36 30F 68 37 30
Ready or Not? Checklist BGT Total Scores
Number of
Items Approximate BGT Total
Answered State of Readiness Score Readiness
"Yes" For School uartile Range* Level
40 to 43 Read'gggfirggas°"ably First 0-24 LOW
35 to 39 Readiness Very Probable Second 25-39 AVERAGE
31 to 34 Readiness Questionable Median 40 AVERAGE
26 to 30 Readiness Doubtful Third 40-54 AVERAGE
25 or below Readiness Unlikely Fourth 55-80 HIGH

 

 

57

*For October Testing

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ames, Louise Bates, and Frances L. 119. "Every Child in the Right
Grade," Instructor. November, 1963. pp. 7, 111.

 

Is Your Child in the Wrong Grade? (New York: Harper and Row,

—“"i967).

, and John A. Chase. Don't Push Your Preschooler. (New York:
Harper and Row, 1974).

 

 

Ammons, Margaret P. and J. I. Goodlad. "When To Begin: Dimensions
of the First Grade Entrance Age Problem." Childhood Education.
September, 1955. 21-26.

 

Ankey, Paul, and Robert Sund. Piaget for Educators (Columbus, Ohio:
Merrill Publishing Co., 1976).

 

Baer, Clyde J. "The School Progress and Adjustment of Underage and
Overage Students." Journal of Educational Psychology, February,
1958. 17-19.

 

Banas, Norma, and I. H. Wills. Identifying Early Learning Gaps.
(Atlanta: Humanics Press, T975).

 

Behrmann, Polly. "Is Your Child Ready for School?" Journal of Learning
Disabilities. May, 1972. 291-294.

 

 

Birch, Jack W. "Early School Admission for Mentally Advanced Children."
Exceptional Children. December, 1954. 84-87.

 

Blair, John. "A Comparison of Mother and Teacher Ratings on the Pre-
school Attainment Record of Four Year Old Children." Exceptional
Children. December, 1970. 299-300.

 

Boszormenye-Nagy, Ivan. Invisible Loyalties (New York: Harper and Row,
1973 .

 

Braga, Joseph. "Early Admission: Opinion Versus Evidence." Elementary
School Journal. October, 1971. 35-46.

 

 

Brenner, Anton. "Nature and Meaning of Readiness for School." Merrill-
Palmer Quarterly. Spring, 1957. 114-135.

 

58

59

. "Reality Perception, Perceptual Differentiation and Readiness
for School." Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. Summer, 1958. 197-209.

. "A New Gestalt Test for Measuring Readiness for School."
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. Fall, 1959. 27-51.

 

, and N. M. Samelson. "Kindergarten Behavior and First Grade
Achievement." Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. Spring, 1959. 140--.

 

Buttram, Joan, and R. W. Covert. "Prediction of School Readiness and
Early Grade Achievement by Classroom Teachers." Paychological
Measurement. Summer, 1976. 543-546.

 

 

Childers, Perry, and I. Matusiak. "Social-Emotional Maturity Corre-
lates of Achievement and Adjustment in Kindergarten and First
Grade." Paychology in the Schools. October, 1972. 396-403.

 

Cole, Luella. A History of Education: Socrates to Montessori. (New
York: Rinéhart and Company, 1950).

 

Flynn. "Behavioral Components of School Readiness." Journal of Experi-

 

mental Education. Fall, 1975. 40-45.

 

Forness, Steven R., D. Gutherie and K. Nihira. "Clusters of Observable
Behavior in High-Risk Kindergarten Children." Psychology in the
Schools. July, 1975. 263-268.

Hall, Robert Vance. "Does Entrance Age Affect Achievement?" Elemen-
tarySchool Journal. April, 1963. 391-396.

 

Halliwell, Joseph W. "Reviewing the Reviews on Entrance Age and School
Success." Journal of Educational Research. May-June, 1966.
395-401.

 

Hamalainen, Arthur E. "Kindergarten-Primary Entrance Age in Relation
to Later School Adjustment." Elementary School Journal. March,
1952. 406-411.

 

Hays, William L. Statistics for the Social Sciences. (Holt, Rinehart
and Winston, Inc., 1973).

 

Hedges, William D. At What Age Should Children Enter First Grade.
(Ann Arbor: University Microfilms,T1977).

Hefferman, Hellen and V. E. Todd. The Kindergarten Teacher. (Boston:
D.C. Heath and Company, 1960).

 

Hirst, Wilma E. "Entrance Age-~A Predictor Variable for Academic
Success?" Reading Teacher. March, 1970. 547-555.

 

Hofman, Helmut. "Behavior Patterns in Kindergarten and First Grade."
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, Spring, 1957. 136-144.

 

60

119, Frances L. and L. B. Ames. School Readiness Behavior Tests Used
at the Gesell Institute. (New York: Harper and Row, 1972).

 

Illinois Association for Childhood Education. "The Relationship of
Entrance Age to Pupil Progress.“ Childhood Education. March,
1964. 384-384.

 

Johnson, Palmer 0. Statistical Methods in Research (Harcourt Brace,
1949 .

 

King, Inez. "Effect of Age on Entrance into Grade One Upon Achievement
in Elementary School.“ Elementary School Journal. February, 1955.
331-336.

 

Kost, Mary Lee. Success or Failure Begins in the Early School Years.
(Springfield: CharTes C. Thomas, T972).

 

Lederman, Edward, and J. R. Blair. "Comparison of the Level and Pre-
dictive Level of Preschool Attainment Record Ratings Obtained from
Teachers and Mothers." Psychology in the Schools. October, 1973.
392-395.

 

Mawhinney, Paul E. "We Gave Up on Early Entrance." Michigan Educa-
tional Journal. May, 1964. 25.

 

 

McCarty, Mary Dianne. "Those First Days of School." Education.
Summer, 1975. 377-380.

McLeod, J., M. D. Markosky, and C. K. Leong. "A Follow-Up of Early
Entrants to Elementary Schools." Elementary School Journal.
October, 1972. lO--.

 

Michigan Compiled Laws Annotated. Vol. 17A. Cummulated Annual Pocket
Part, 1978-79. (St. PEUl: West Publishing Company).

 

Moore, Raymond S., R. Moon and D. R. Moore. "The California Report:
Early Schooling for All?" Phi Delta Kappan. June, 1972.
615-621.

, and D. R. Moore. "How Early Should They Go To School?" Child-
hood Education. October, 1973. 14-20.

 

 

, and D. R. Moore. Better Late than Early: A New Approach to
Your Child's Education. Readers Digest Press. (New York: ET P.
DDtton, Inc., 1975).

 

Nurse, Joanne. "Testing for Readiness." Early Years. February, 1977-78.
62-63 8 69-.

 

Paradis, Edward and Joseph Peterson. "Readiness Training Implications
for Research." Reading Teacher. February, 1975. 445-448.

 

61

Pauley, Frank. "Sex Differences and Legal School Entrance Age.“
Journal of Educational Research. September, 1951. 1-9.

 

Pullen, James R. "Starting Kindergarten Too Soon." School and
Community. May, 1972. 20-21.

 

Roberts, Kathleen P. "Piaget's Theory of Conservation and Reading
Readiness." Reading Teacher. December, 1976. 249-.

 

Rude, Robert T. "Readiness Tests: Implications for Early Childhood
Education." The Readigg Teacher. May, 1973. 572-580.

 

Stedman, Ronald J. "A Comparison of Ratings by Mothers and Teachers
on the PAR of 17 Five Year Old Children." Exceptional Children.
February, 1969. 488-489.

 

Vincent, Jerry, R. L. Bright and J. B. Dickason. "Effects of the WIST
Reading Readiness Program on First Grade Readiness and Later
Academic Achievement." Journal of Educational Research. March,
1976. 250-253.

 

Zeitlin, Shirley. Kindeggarten Screening, (Springfield: Charles C.
Thomas, 1976).

 

Author Unknown. "Prediction of Kindergarten Reading Success from
Preschool Report of Parents." ngchology in the Schools. July,
1976. 304-308.

 

Author Unknown. "Screening: More Important than Ever." Early Years.
February, 1977-78. 32-35.

 

Readiness Assessment Instruments

 

The Anton Brenner Developmental Gestalt Test of School Readiness.
(Los Angeles: Western PsychOTogical Services).

 

Austin, John and J. C. Lafferty. Ready or Not? The School Readiness
Checklist. (Muskegon: ResearCh Concepts, 1968).