See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233755787

Educators' Views of Pre-Kindergarten and Kindergarten Readiness and

Transition Practices

Article  in  Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood · September 2006

DOI: 10.2304/ciec.2006.7.3.213

CITATIONS READS

54 1,159

3 authors, including:

Sukhdeep Gill
Pennsylvania State University
29 PUBLICATIONS   2,026 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Head Start REDI View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Sukhdeep Gill on 20 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, Volume 7, Number 3, 2006

Educators’ Views of Pre-Kindergarten and

Kindergarten Readiness and Transition Practices

SUKHDEEP GILL & DIXIE WINTERS

The Pennsylvania State University, York, USA
DIANE S. FRIEDMAN
United Way of York County, York, USA

ABSTRACT The transition from pre-kindergarten (center-based programs for four-year-olds) to

kindergarten is a critical milestone with far-reaching consequences for children and their families
because positive transition and school readiness are integrally linked as predictors of future school
success. This study was conducted to explore the existing kindergarten readiness and transition
practices in a local county, to examine educators’ perspectives regarding factors influencing readiness
and transition, and to explore their perceptions of the parents’ role in these domains. A semi-structured
survey was mailed out to 129 school districts and pre-kindergarten programs in the county; 86 returned
them. The results indicated that kindergarten and pre-kindergarten programs were equally focused on
child readiness as far as development of academic skills was concerned. Compared to pre-kindergarten,
kindergartens were more involved in information-sharing activities associated with school transition.
The importance of the role of family as well as of the communication between family and school was
noted as an area of challenge. Follow-up action and implications are discussed in light of these results.

For all children, the transition to formal schooling is a noteworthy milestone with far-reaching
consequences. It initiates a critical period of adjustment in children’s lives. Sometimes described as
a ‘rite of passage’, school transition is a turning point in every child’s life (Christensen, 1998) and is
considered ‘one of the major challenges children have to face in their early childhood years’
(Victorian Department of School Education, 1992, p. 44). Kagan (1999) and Pianta & Cox (2002) call
it ‘a big deal’ and a ‘landmark event’ for children, their families, and school educators. Further
highlighting its significance, Pianta & Kraft-Sayre (1999) suggest that transition to school ‘sets the
tone and direction of a child’s school career’ (p. 47). Entwisle & Alexander (1998) and Shore (1998)
suggest that successful transition promotes children’s positive feelings about school and formal
education, about authority figures and conformity, and about their own intellectual competency
and popularity. Finally, Bailey (1999) summarizes the importance of school transition, stating: ‘If no
other objectives are accomplished ... it is important that children have a feeling of perceived
competence as learners’ (p. xv).
Traditionally, before children entered formal elementary school between the ages of six and
eight, they were taken care of by parents or other members of the extended family (Groark et al,
2002). The number of children going through early childcare and education (ECCE) settings before
formal school entry has been on the rise worldwide, especially in the USA (Bogard & Takanishi,
2005), in response to several societal factors including a decline of informal social support systems,
the rise of nuclear and single-parent families, and economic needs necessitating both parents or
single parents to join the workforce (Groark et al, 2002). This necessity to seek group care outside
the home has complicated the process of school transition in that ECCE settings have become
significant partners in children’s school readiness and successful transition from home to school.
Conceptually, it is possible to think of kindergarten as a part of ECCE, especially because entry to
formal elementary school is generally not mandated until children reach the age of six to eight

213
Sukhdeep Gill et al

years in the USA. However, the explicit academic and social goals of the kindergarten environment
are quite different from those of home or preschool. As a result, both children and families may
experience the shift as a major transition (Connors & Epstein, 1995; Pianta & Kraft-Sayre, 1999).
Therefore, children’s transition from preschool to kindergarten warrants attention. Although the
years from birth to formal school entry comprise ‘the preschool period’, in this article we focus on
‘pre-K’ (pre-kindergarten), the year prior to kindergarten entry, to examine educators’ views of
school readiness and school transition.
Educators and policy makers in the USA and elsewhere agree that a smooth transition from
one educational setting to the next is a critical component of school readiness that may not only
predict children’s future school success, but may also set the tone for their behavior and coping
skills throughout their lives (Doherty, 1997). Children who are ready to meet kindergarten
expectations when they start school are more likely to experience success throughout their lives by
completing high school, finding employment, and making positive contributions to society as
productive citizens. Children who are not ready at school entry are more likely to repeat a grade,
need special education services, and leave school prior to graduation (Doherty, 1997).
Historically, studies of school readiness have either examined child predictors of school
success (Pianta & McCoy, 1997; Meisels, 1999; Ramey & Ramey, 1999) or focused on readiness as a
function of the ‘sending’ settings, which are expected to shoulder the major responsibility of
preparing the youngsters for the next stage (Petriwskyj et al, 2005). Recently, the field has started to
shift away from blaming the child or seeking the evidence of school readiness only through child
indicators. In its 1995 position statement, the National Association for the Education of Young
Children (NAEYC) stated that school readiness should not be determined solely by the capabilities
of the child. According to the NAEYC (1995): ‘The traditional construct of readiness unduly places
the burden of proof on the child ... it is the responsibility of the schools to meet the needs of
children as they enter school’ (p. 1). Thus, instead of placing the burden of readiness on children,
educators are being challenged to reconsider traditional beliefs about the school’s role in helping
young children continue to learn and succeed in the school culture (Katz, 1991; Crnic & Lamberty,
1994; Dockett & Perry, 2002). In this regard, a growing body of research is concentrating on
expanding the scope of school readiness to include (1) schools that are ready for children (Dockett
& Perry, 2002); (2) multidirectional communications and connections among settings; and (3)
recognition of sociocultural contexts as contributory factors (Bronfenbrenner, 1986; Pinderhughes
et al, 2001; Bogard & Takanishi, 2005).
Getting schools ready to receive children requires an understanding of what is expected of
children at school entry and what current transition-related policies and practices are in place. As
Early et al (2001) note, readiness on the part of schools includes their making connections with
families, communities, and preschool settings; establishing and sustaining long-term relationships;
and making concerted efforts of appropriate intensity. Such effective communication requires a
clear statement of the existing practices. Therefore, seeking information about current practices
and expectations is a prerequisite to accomplishing these goals. It is the key to creating awareness
and promoting collaborative thinking across the settings that are charged with getting children
ready and those that receive them. Such awareness and communication at the local level is
important because (1) population characteristics, needs, and challenges are likely to differ from one
geographic area to another (Raver, 2002); (2) as yet, there is little consensus about the definition of
school readiness and its markers (Dockett & Perry, 2002); and (3) there are wide variations in
school entrance policies and expectations (Saluja et al, 2000; Vecchiotti, 2003). For example, every
community in the USA has a public school system responsible for educating children at the
elementary and secondary levels. Federal and state agencies set standards for local public schools,
but local community school boards of education actually administer the schools. Among thousands
of different public school jurisdictions, educational procedures and standards, including
kindergarten attendance, vary widely across the country (Vecchiotti, 2003). While public school is
compulsory in all states, kindergarten attendance is mandatory in only 12 states. Typically, public
school in the USA begins with kindergarten for five-year-olds, although only eight states actually
have a compulsory school age of five. Compulsory attendance in other states ranges from ages five
to eight (Vecchiotti, 2003).

214
Educators’ Views of Readiness and Transition Practices

Further, in Pennsylvania the compulsory school age is eight years, and kindergarten
attendance is not mandatory. Kindergarten programs are established and maintained by local
school boards within the jurisdictions of counties [1], but once a kindergarten is established, it then
becomes an integral part of the elementary school program and must be treated as such. Moreover,
each local school board determines its own entrance requirements in accordance with the
Pennsylvania State Board of Education regulations (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2000).
Mostly, elementary schools tend to be smaller in size and serve local neighborhoods, in contrast to
one or two schools at the middle or high school level that bring children from several elementary
schools together. Acceptance of children to public schools depends upon the geographic location of
a family’s residence (Vecchiotti, 2003). Therefore, differences in expectations for school readiness
could compromise a child’s successful transition to first grade even if a family changed residence
within a small geographic area.
Preschools are even more dispersed within neighborhoods. These centers may provide
services to children for several years from birth until kindergarten entry. Some childcare programs
enroll only three-year-olds, but a majority also offer infant and toddler care, ending with the pre-K
year. Recently, the federal government’s policies have placed heavy emphasis on the importance of
literacy (Bierman et al, in press) so that children’s preparation to read is viewed as one of the key
goals of the pre-K and kindergarten years (Wesley & Buysse, 2003). In response, working towards
the enhancement of academically oriented skills is likely to encourage a narrow definition of
readiness in contrast to recent findings that advocate for a broader and more holistic view of it
(Raver, 2002). How these recent developments have shaped educators’ perceptions of skills that
should be inculcated before formal school entry is, therefore, a question that warrants examination.
The pre-K year within preschool programs is increasingly geared towards teaching specific
skills that are considered important to prepare children for kindergarten entry. Kindergarten
programs look to receive children who are socialized to be in a more formal environment and, at
the same time, serve as a bridge for their entry to the first grade (Vecchiotti, 2003). As such, pre-K
and kindergarten programs are two steps in children’s successful transition to the first grade.
Therefore, both settings are likely to gain from synergy in their policies and practices within the
local context.
In addition to continuity between ECCE programs and formal schools, a smooth transition
from home to school is important (Shore, 1998). The childcare and educational setting, be it pre-K,
kindergarten, or elementary school, cannot succeed in adequately preparing children for school
entry in isolation from home. Although researchers and policy makers alike have advocated for
effective home–school partnerships to promote children’s well-being (Bronfenbrenner, 1979;
Connors & Epstein, 1995; Epstein, 1996), historically, the power balance between home and school
has been tipped in favor of schools (McDermott & Rothenberg, 2000). Although not quite the ivory
towers, schools still wield significant authority over what to teach, how to educate young children,
and what parents need to do to play a supportive role. Within schools, teachers are viewed as
‘experts’ who know what is best for children. They are responsible for teaching, managing, and
evaluating children as well as for communicating children’s progress/status to parents, who are
generally invited to share (and promote) the school’s agenda with regard to expectations and
accomplishments. Such a power imbalance is likely to be even stronger in communities with highly
mobile families, immigrant families, or those with limited financial clout because there is little
cohesiveness and collective power under such circumstances (Marcon, 1999).
Further, researchers have noted that parents’ beliefs play an important role in shaping
children’s early experiences and that children are likely to learn those skills that are prized within a
culture (Harkness & Super, 1992) which may not be synchronized with the requirements of the
mainstream educational system. Therefore, changing cultural, social, and educational diversity
requires a rethinking of the parents’ role in their children’s preparation for school. Hence, we
explored educators’ perceptions of school-readiness skills, transition practices and barriers, and the
parents’ role in these domains. The specific objectives of the study were to (1) identify the existing
kindergarten readiness and transition practices in a county in the USA; (2) explore evidence of
communication between preschools and kindergartens regarding children’s kindergarten transition
activities; (3) identify barriers to successful transition as perceived by educators; and (4) explore
educators’ perceptions of the parents’ role in school readiness and transition.

215
Sukhdeep Gill et al

Participants and Procedures

A semi-structured survey was mailed to 57 schools (in 16 school districts) and 72 pre-K programs in
the county. Questions focused on skills taught at pre-K and kindergarten levels (14 yes/no items
covered a range of topics such as separation from parents, counting, naming colors, following
directions, and recognizing feelings), transition plans and activities (15 yes/no items covered
common practices cited in the literature such as holding an open house, sending letters, visiting
home/preschool, making informal contact with school, and bringing children to kindergarten), and
perception of the parents’ role in school transition from pre-K to kindergarten (open-ended
questions). The survey was developed locally with input from experts. Some of the above-
mentioned items were adapted from the Early Care and Education Provider Survey (Etheridge et
al, 2002).
School principals and directors of pre-K programs were asked to pass the survey on to the
person they recognized as being the most knowledgeable about, or who was in-charge of school
readiness and transition activities. Follow-up phone calls were made to those schools and pre-K
programs that did not respond within a month. As a result, 86 surveys were returned, indicating a
response rate of 67%, which is acceptable and typical of the data collection strategy used (Schutt,
1999; Hager et al, 2003). A total of 44 schools and 42 pre-K programs returned the surveys. A
majority of the surveys were filled out by administrators within the schools (n = 37) or childcare
settings (n = 40), as compared to only nine classroom teachers (seven from schools and two from
pre-K).
Responses to the open-ended questions regarding barriers and the parents’ role were coded in
a three-step procedure. Investigators developed initial coding categories after examining the range
of responses. A coder was then asked to code all of the responses into specified coding categories.
Disputes and ambiguities in the categories were addressed to develop a final set of coding
categories. For example, we identified four main categories of barriers based on the thematic
analyses of the transcripts: the child’s readiness (lack of maturity, understanding of expectations,
and experiences in a structured setting), parent issues (inconsistent parenting, parents’ lack of
understanding of expectations, separation issues, attitude, and lack of participation), family
circumstances (cultural and sociodemographic), and communication between pre-K and
kindergarten (differences in philosophy, size, environment, and expectations). Subsequently, three
coders, blind to the objectives of the study, were asked to code the actual responses into specified
categories. Interrater reliabilities were established among the three coders. Cronbach’s alpha
ranged between 0.83 and 0.96 for different items for the three coders. Frequencies and percentages
were computed to aggregate categorical data. In addition, the chi-square test was used to examine
the significance of differences, where applicable.

Results
Three major themes from the survey are addressed in this article. First, we describe the current
practices followed to promote school readiness and transition as reported by educators from pre-K
and kindergarten. This is followed by educators’ views about barriers to successful transition and
perceptions of the parents’ role in school transition.

Current Readiness and Transition Practices

Skills that promote school readiness. Pre-K and kindergarten programs were similar with regard to the
emphasis placed on the development of specific skills. Almost all of the pre-K and kindergarten
programs (ranging from 95% to 100%) focused on academic skills such as counting to 10, naming
colors and shapes, recognizing letters of the alphabet, and prewriting activities such as tracing and
drawing. Both reported similar curricular practices in the use of written manuals, program guides,
written lesson plans or a specific curriculum (see Table I for details).
In addition to academic skills, teaching children to follow directions, to cooperate with the
teacher, and to work independently were also equally and highly emphasized by both pre-K and
kindergarten programs. Almost all of the respondents reported teaching these skills. Focus on
socio-emotional development and interpersonal skills was evident as all respondents mentioned

216
Educators’ Views of Readiness and Transition Practices

that their program taught children to play cooperatively with other children, recognize feelings,
and appreciate their own and other cultures. These findings indicate that pre-K as well as
kindergarten programs view the development of socio-emotional and interpersonal skills as
important components of school readiness.

Skill taught Kindergarten Pre-kindergarten Significance level

% %
Separate from parents 73 98 χ2 (1, n = 83) = 10.03*
Read many words 98 63 χ2 (1, n = 82) = 16.09*
Hop, skip, and move to music 100 95 n.s.
Recognize many letters of the alphabet 98 100 n.s.
Prewriting (coloring figures with lines, 100 98 n.s.
drawing shapes, tracing)
Work independently 98 100 n.s.
Recognize feelings 95 100 n.s.
Appreciate their culture and other cultures 95 95 n.s.
The names of many colors and shapes 100 100 n.s.
Play cooperatively with other children 100 100 n.s.
Count to 10 100 100 n.s.
Cooperate with teacher 100 100 n.s.
Follow directions 100 100 n.s.
*p < 0.01.
Table I. Range of skills taught to promote school readiness.

Pre-K and kindergarten programs indicated significant differences in the area of reading and
separation issues, however. Compared to kindergarten programs (73%), significantly more pre-K
2
programs (98%) reported that they help facilitate children’s separation from parents (χ [1, n = 83]
= 10.03; p < 0.01). A significantly higher number of kindergarten programs (98%) focused on the
2
teaching of reading several words (χ [1, n = 82] = 16.09; p < 0.01) compared to 63% of the pre-K
programs (see Table I).

School transition practices and activities. A majority of the respondents reported screening children
before school entry. These assessments included speech (70%), hearing (36%), vision (33%), and
developmental screening (61%) of the prospective enrollees. The respondents who mentioned the
specific nature of developmental screens noted the use of assessment tools such as Draw-A-Person,
DIBELS (Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills), and Brigance Screens. Very few
kindergarten and pre-K programs reported having a formal kindergarten transition plan in place
(14% and 8% respectively). Of those that reported having formal plans, a majority (four of the
kindergartens and three of the pre-K programs) used formal assessments to measure outcomes for
children entering kindergarten.
When respondents were asked to report the current school transition activities in their
setting, several trends became evident. First, compared to pre-K programs, kindergarten programs
reported a significantly higher involvement in several information-sharing activities related to
school transition, such as sending information to the child and/or family by way of brochures or
flyers (50% and 98% respectively; χ [1, n = 76] = 22.80; p < 0.05), letters (67.6% for pre-K and 95%
2

for kindergartens; χ [1, n = 77] = 9.72; p < 0.05), and making a phone call to the child (5.6% for pre-
2

K and 44% for kindergartens; χ [1, n = 75] = 14.32; p < 0.05). Table II provides full details.
2

Similarly, compared to pre-K programs, significantly more kindergartens reported

coordinating kindergarten registration (33.3% and 92.5% respectively; χ [1, n = 76] = 28.90; p <
2

0.05), bringing preschool children to visit their public schools (87.2% for kindergartens and 21.6%
for pre-K; χ [1, n = 76] = 33.01; p < 0.05), and helping to inform parents about kindergarten
2

readiness and expectations (97.6% for kindergartens and 84.2% for pre-K; χ [1, n = 79] = 4.35; p <
2

0.01). When compared with the results from a statewide survey of these practices (Etheridge et al,

217
Sukhdeep Gill et al

2002), the local schools reported having a higher percentage of these transition activities in place
(see Figure 1).

Transition activity Kindergarten Pre-kindergarten Significance level

% %
Send flyer or information brochure to the 98.0 50.0 χ2 (1, n = 76) = 22.80**
family
Send a letter to the child/ child’s parents 95.0 67.6 χ2 (1, n = 77) = 9.72**
Make a phone call 44.6 5.6 χ2 (1, n = 75) = 14.32**
χ (1, n = 76) = 28.90**
2
Coordinate kindergarten registration 92.5 33.3
χ (1, n = 76) = 33.01**
2
Bring preschool children to visit their 87.2 21.6
public schools
Help inform parents about kindergarten 97.6 84.2 χ2 (1, n = 79) = 4.35*
readiness and expectations
Hold a meeting with the family and child 65.0 44.4 n.s.
Visit the child’s home 4.9 5.4 n.s.
Principal visits community preschools and 27.5 22.2 n.s.
programs for four-year-olds
Kindergarten teachers visit community 22.2 21.6 n.s.
preschools and programs for four-year-olds
Make informal contacts with kindergarten 56.4 48.6 n.s.
teachers about children
Talk with kindergarten teachers about 60.0 68.4 n.s.
social and academic skills to prepare
children for school
Participate in joint training for pre-K and 23.1 39.5 n.s.
kindergarten
χ (1, n = 77) = 27.27**
2
Open house for parents and children 100.0 49.0
χ (1, n = 77) = 4.43*
2
Other 83.0 27.5

*p < 0.01; **p < 0.05.

Table II. Current school transition activities in kindergarten and pre-K programs.

Figure 1. A comparison of local school transition activities with state-level data.

About half of the kindergarten and pre-K programs (44%–68%) held meetings with the family and
child, made informal contacts with kindergarten teachers about children, or talked to them about
the kinds of social and academic skills needed to prepare children for school. There were no
significant differences between pre-K and kindergarten programs in these areas. In addition, only
about one-fifth of these programs reported that a teacher visited local programs and preschools for

218
Educators’ Views of Readiness and Transition Practices

four-year-old children. Visiting a child’s home as part of the transition activities was rare (5% each,
see Table II).

Barriers to School Transition

Respondents were asked to report barriers to successful transition from pre-K to kindergarten as
well as strategies that facilitate transition. In response to the question ‘What is the biggest barrier to
a child’s smooth transition into kindergarten?’ 50% of the respondents noted that children’s lack of
readiness made school transition a challenging milestone. Most of these comments were associated
with concerns about socio-emotional development. In addition, some of them also mentioned lack
of academic readiness. For example: ‘when a child is sent to kindergarten because he/she fits the
chronological criteria’, ‘[lack of] readiness to separate from parents’ or (in)ability to ‘focus’, ‘no
experience with academics’ or ‘lack of maturity needed to focus’, and inability to ‘sit in a seat for an
extended time frame’. Lack of communication between kindergarten and pre-K was mentioned by
a quarter of the respondents (27%), followed by parents’ issues, such as inconsistent parenting, lack
of awareness about how to prepare their child for school or about registration deadlines, and lack
of parental participation in the transition process.
A wide range of strategies was suggested when asked, ‘What do you see as the best way to
transition a child into kindergarten?’ A third of the responses (31%) included orientation activities
that would familiarize children with the new environment, such as meeting with kindergarten
teachers, visiting schools, and attending summer orientation programs. Overall, they suggested
that in order to be successful, the focus should be on strategies and activities that are spread out
over time so as to allow children to make a gradual transition. As noted by respondents, it is
important to ‘familiarize them with setting, introduce teacher to child early, familiarize with bus,
allow meeting other children’ and that ‘the children should have the opportunity to visit
kindergarten several times before entrance’. ‘The orientation ... and opportunities for the child to
come into the classroom prior to starting school’ was among the strategies mentioned. Other
responses perceived to support school transition included pre-K to kindergarten (12%) and home to
school (11%) communications as well as parent awareness, involvement, and a supportive home
environment (12%). Features that emphasized making connections, understanding the process of
transition, and providing a structured preschool experience (13%), as well as supporting children
through helping them develop social and self-managements skills (11%), far outweighed the use of
screening at kindergarten entry (2%) as an effective school transition strategy. There were no
significant differences in the strategies mentioned by pre-K and kindergarten programs in this
regard. Although the schools and the county represent diverse populations with regard to
economic affluence, rural/urban/suburban setting, and ethnicity, there was no clear difference in
respondents’ views based on such characteristics, indicating that the above-mentioned responses
probably represent all respondents.

Educators’ Perceptions of the Parents’ Role

As noted earlier, the parents’ role in children’s preparation and transitions to school emerged as a
recurrent theme in school representatives’ narrative of factors affecting school transitions. Parents
were seen to have a central role in facilitating school transition through participation in orientation
activities as well as through supporting children’s development, and being aware of the transition
process and expectations for kindergarten. Further, in response to a direct question ‘What do you
see as a parent’s role in a child’s smooth transition into kindergarten?’ half of the respondents noted
that smooth transition depended upon parents playing a proactive role by preparing their child for
school transition, seeking information, and ‘advocating for their child as needed’. The following
quotes illustrate these expectations: ‘Discussing their upcoming experience to prepare the child ...
reading with child’ and ‘Reading to their child, visiting the school, participating in school-related
activities, providing experiences’. Several respondents mentioned reading to the child and
providing related enrichment activities at home as important factors in a child’s smooth transition
to kindergarten.

219
Sukhdeep Gill et al

Another 38% of the respondents noted the role of parental support of their child and
communication with the school. As mentioned by one respondent, parents can play an active role
in a child’s transition to kindergarten by ‘attending school open house, meeting the child’s teacher,
giving ... information about child’s likes, dislikes, strengths and weaknesses’. Providing a consistent
environment, in which the lessons learned in school are reinforced at home, was echoed by several
respondents as noted in the following quotes: ‘The parents’ role is to support the program, show an
interest in their child’s day/activities and emphasize skills at home through fun activities – games
etc.’ and ‘work to enforce skills that have been introduced in the classes’. Another respondent
highlighted the importance of parents’ sustained involvement and preparation of the child over an
extended period of time, and commented that important features of transition include ‘speaking
with the child several months in advance about the transition. Working with the pre-K program to
help their child acquire the skills needed for kindergarten. Helping to foster positive self-esteem and
confidence in their child’.
A small number of respondents mentioned that it would be helpful if parents resolved their
own issues around separation. Parents’ comfort with the transition and management of their own
separation concerns was noted as the foremost issue that parents need to resolve in order to play a
positive and supportive role in their child’s school transition. As stated by one respondent, parents
should ‘be positive and show little anxiety so that the child can feel confident about his/her day’.
Although most of these responses depict a wide range of expectations from parents, a few of
the respondents were cognizant of parents’ constraints, as illustrated by the following quote: ‘some
parents are very involved with their child ... others, whether due to a lack of education themselves
or inability to cope with one more thing, show little or no interest in their child’s development and
preparation for kindergarten’. This respondent also highlighted the need for intervention and
communication through ‘Parent training and information sessions ... [that] would be beneficial to
all involved.’

Next Steps
Results from this survey and similar previous findings (York Counts Commission, 2004)
underscored the lack of communication among preschools, kindergartens, and parents.
Consequently, the School Readiness Task Force of Focus On Our Future (the early childhood and
education initiative of the United Way of York County) planned a pilot event entitled ‘A, B, C’s: a
beginning conversation about kindergarten transition’. The goal was to hold small group
discussions that would bring all stakeholders together to exchange information and seek direct
input regarding the current and desired school transition practices. In all, 80 participants, including
32 childcare providers, 23 kindergarten teachers, 11 administrators, and 14 parents, participated in
these discussions.
The participants agreed upon the following key recommendations: (1) articulation of
expectations so that all parties would have a clear sense of the readiness skills expected at
kindergarten entry; (2) countywide agreement on what is expected; (3) two-way communication
between pre-K and kindergarten; and (4) partnering with parents, not only to seek their input but
also to respond to their information needs.
To enhance communication, it was suggested that once guidelines were developed, meetings
should be held for parents of an incoming class of kindergarteners to discuss topics such as
curriculum, expectations (behavioral/self-help), immunizations, class size, school district policies,
and readiness indicators. Communication between pre-K and kindergarten, as stated earlier in the
article, was also reiterated. It was agreed that information sharing with regard to open houses,
school visits, and kindergarten tours would assist pre-K teachers to make use of those options.
Some participants advocated for a more involved kindergarten experience for incoming students
that would go beyond a single visit. Replacing kindergarten tours with a one-week or two-week
summer kindergarten camp so that incoming students could become familiar with the setting and
procedures before they came in during the regular school year was recommended. Other strategies
to familiarize the prospective students with their new setting included practice using a school bus
or having them shadow a ‘buddy’ in a kindergarten classroom, and setting aside visitation days
during the summer. Bringing current kindergarten students into pre-K classrooms to read to the

220
Educators’ Views of Readiness and Transition Practices

younger children or to be involved in other joint activities was also suggested. Once in the new
setting, keeping students from a pre-K class together so that they would see some familiar faces in
the new setting might also lower some of the stress of transition. Working with parents, sharing
information, seeking parental input with regard to their information needs, and communicating
expectations for their child were also noted.

Discussion
The major themes concerning school readiness and transition that emerged from the above
initiatives included: (1) the academic focus of the current school readiness and transition practices;
(2) the need to enhance communications across settings; (3) the nature and scope of parents’ roles
in school transition; and (4) the need to involve wider audiences in reshaping thinking about the
concept of readiness as well as the means to successful school transitions.
The results indicated that kindergarten as well as pre-K programs concentrated on the
development of academic skills as a way to prepare children for the next level of schooling,
although they also mentioned encouraging self-management, cooperation, and independence.
Preschool programs looked identical to kindergartens in this regard. Many schools reported the use
of formal assessment procedures that included screening speech, hearing, and vision of the
prospective enrollees. Those who mentioned evaluating ‘overall development’ used standardized
tools aimed at assessing literacy- and pre-literacy-type skills. In addition to academic readiness,
reliance on such assessments indicates a focus on physical health and development, which ensures
that children do not have any physical handicaps that would restrict their academic performance.
These results suggest that academic preparedness stays at the forefront of the readiness skills
deemed important in the preparation of children for a successful transition into the first grade.
Although an important aspect of school readiness, this is a narrow view of readiness and successful
transition. A more comprehensive view is reflected in the recommendations of the National
Education Goals Panel Technical Planning Group on School Readiness, which noted that school
readiness goes beyond academic ability (National Education Goals Panel, 1998) and identified five
domains of development important to a child’s readiness for kindergarten: physical well-being and
motor development; social and emotional development; approaches to learning; language usage;
and cognition and general knowledge (Goal One Technical Planning Group, 1993).
Recognition of the wide range of skills, as stated by the National Education Goals Panel and
as encompassed by ‘readiness’, points to the need to re-examine expectations of children at school
entry. Currently, school entry continues to be guided by age, which assumes a naturally unfolding
view of maturation and readiness (Smith & Shepard, 1988; Kagan, 1990; Meisels, 1999), despite
educators’ cognizance of the individual differences in the rate of development as illustrated in this
study. Adequate preparedness to fit the expectations of formal school therefore refutes the uneven
and multidimensional nature of development by expecting all children to reach the same level of
preparedness in all domains at the same time. Such policies ignore the sociocultural contexts that
shape affordances and opportunities (Vygotsky, 1978; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Vygotsky & Luria,
1993; Carlton & Winsler, 1999; Castro et al, 2004), and are known to impact the content and pace
of children’s learning. The marked individual differences stem from differences in children’s
capacities, backgrounds, and social contexts. It is well recognized by now that predicting children’s
adaptation to kindergarten requires attention to such factors beyond academic preparedness.
Therefore, as Stipek (2002) puts it, ‘the meaningful question is not whether a child is ready to learn
but rather what a child is ready to learn’ (p. 13). However, the current definitions of readiness
emerge from and cater only to white middle-class families. Children from working-class families
who do not meet these criteria are deemed to be lacking in skills. We need to think about the
experiences of children from working-class families from a strengths perspective. Several
researchers (for example, Lareau, 1996; Oakes & Lipton, 1999; McDermott & Rothenberg, 2000;
Lareau & Weininger, in press) note that middle-class and working-class parents differ in their
construction of their role in helping children develop specific skills. In another study, Brooker
(2003) found that not only culturally diverse families but even mainstream working-class families
were ‘at odds with school in their understanding of teaching and learning’ (p. 127). Thus, there is a

221
Sukhdeep Gill et al

need to explore the skills and talents that children develop at home, and how school can build on
those strengths.
Although research evidence suggests that children’s early advantage in the
academic/cognitive domain may only be moderately stable (La Paro & Pianta, 2000), educators
continue to focus on these skills. These practices reflect reliance on the development of
traditionally valued skills that have been in place for a long period of time. Recent federal initiatives
(National Education Goals Panel, 1998; Wesley & Buysse, 2003) and the spotlight on accountability
in US schools (Stipek, 2002; Vecchiotti, 2003; McAllister et al, 2005) have further contributed to the
continued focus on academic/cognitive skills. Parents have also been reported to define readiness
in terms of academic skills such as the knowledge of numbers and the alphabet (US Department of
Education, 1993) for several reasons. First, those parents who are unable to care for their children
due to their workforce participation and are forced to enroll them in ECCE programs are likely to
feel reassured that their child is learning in the current educational setting. Acquisition of academic
skills is a tangible measure of learning, is believed to facilitate future academic success (Doherty,
1997; Carlton & Winsler, 1999), and is considered to be a marker of learning by the ‘experts’
(Holloway et al, 1995). Second, because schools have historically pushed academic preparedness,
the parents, committed to children’s academic success, feel the need to advance the same agenda.
In addition, research indicates that low-income minority parents view educational attainment as
the only viable route to upward social mobility (Furstenberg et al, 1993; Holloway et al, 1995; Cole
& Omari, 2003) and therefore may endorse it. There is a need for a paradigm shift away from a
purely academic agenda to include all domains of development of school readiness. This broader
focus, as advanced through national goals, should be supported through concrete practices and
initiatives by policy makers. Advocating for a holistic view of development but rewarding only
literacy-based outcomes is unlikely to change current thinking about school readiness and
transition. Further, the focus will not change unless adequate outreach efforts are mounted to
reach families and broader communities; unless parents are convinced that a successful transition
to school does not hinge only on literacy-based skills; and unless schools are convinced that their
funding is not in jeopardy if they do not show gains in narrowly defined, academically oriented
domains.
With regard to school-transition-related activities, kindergarten programs reported a
significantly wider range of activities compared to the pre-K programs. As presented in the findings,
when compared with the statewide data, local kindergarten programs put in a greater effort to
reach out to families and children. However, the most commonly reported activities were typically
informational in nature. Pianta et al (1999) refer to activities such as sending out information flyers
and letters as ‘low intensity’ activities that are not very effective. Moreover, such activities would
be appropriate only for those families who are in tune with school entry time frames and
expectations, are educated, and do not have language barriers.
Although communication is recognized as one of the key components of a successful
transition (Bailey, 1999), pre-K and kindergarten programs perceived it to be less than optimal. As
stated earlier, the respondents noted effective communication as one of the contributory factors in
successful transition and in building confidence in the activities undertaken during the pre-K year.
In a study of teachers’ perspectives on school transitions, Peters (2002) found that teachers who did
not have direct connection or communication with schools, or were unsure of what happened at
the next level, were less confident in explaining their teaching practices and expressed a need for
each setting to know what the other was doing. Therefore, a dialogue between the ‘sending’ and
‘receiving’ settings (Petriwskyj et al, 2005) is important and should be strengthened. One of the
factors that could help facilitate such communication might be transition plans that are shared
across settings. Only a small number of schools reported formal kindergarten transition plans in
this study. Other programs may benefit from developing systematic plans and time frames of
school transition activities. Prescriptive identical plans and matching activities that would promote
rigidity in practices are not being advocated. Instead, such plans should be developed with the
objective of enhancing communications among settings. A well-thought-out plan of transition that
synchronizes school-transition-related efforts and time frames between pre-K and kindergarten
programs would be useful because it can help to pool resources, offer a wider range of activities
suited to the needs of diverse groups of families, and be more efficient. However, developing such

222
Educators’ Views of Readiness and Transition Practices

coordinated plans requires collaborative work. It may be difficult for educators, especially pre-K
teachers, to leave children in their care to attend networking events or meetings aimed at
developing communications or common plans. Therefore, policy makers must be made aware of
the apparent monetary and personnel needs of pre-K programs if such collaborative activities are to
be undertaken. Another approach would be to explore the use of the electronic media, which
might be an efficient way to coordinate transition activities and to maintain communication
between pre-K programs and schools. Creating websites that focus on local resources and best
practices should also be looked into as a viable strategy in addition to, or as an alternative to, face-
to-face meetings for sharing information, enhancing communication, and promoting consistency in
school transition activities within school districts, if so desired.
How do families fit into the construction and process of school transition? Families were
mentioned in educators’ reports of barriers to successful transition and in their narrative on the best
practices for enhancing transition. All respondents recognized the importance of the role of family
as well as of the communication between family and school, and noted these as challenges. There
seemed to be a chasm between the stated significance of the parents’ input in their child’s school
transition and the current transition practices, in which parents were not seen to have an active
role. The need to bring parents on board with the expectations and requirements set forth by
schools was evident from the educators’ responses with regard to their expectations of the parents’
role as well as in the key themes that emerged from the group discussions in the subsequent
meeting. As noted in the results section, schools mentioned high expectations of parents. Not only
are parents expected to have a positive attitude towards school and their child’s early learning, but
they should also be actively engaged in their child’s learning process. Specifically, parents were
expected to teach the fundamental skills and behaviors to young children, maintain communication
with the school, support teachers as they sought to help children develop the necessary skills, be
helpers in the classroom, and advocate for their cause. Further, although the need to communicate
with parents was recognized, there was little clarity with regard to effective roles for parents or the
specific strategies likely to promote open communication. For example, who would initiate such
interaction? When would parents’ input be sought? How would parents’ concerns be addressed?
Involving parents and the broader community in a dialogue is valuable in gaining families’
perspectives, especially because not all children go through a formal pre-K experience. However,
unless the positioning of schools and teachers can shift, the focus of such exchanges is likely to be
limited to involving parents in the promotion of the school’s agenda. Parents, especially from less
educated, poor, and minority backgrounds, might not feel they can take a strong position if it is not
synchronized with the school’s viewpoint (Keyes, 2002). In addition, as the roles of home and
school became more distinct in the last century, families have been socialized to view schools as
seats of knowledge about what is in the best interest of children. Parents, in general, may not be
inclined to challenge the school’s perspective on these issues. In fact, several researchers have noted
that parents often push for academic learning, and believe that literacy and numeric skills are at the
heart of preparing children for school entry (Peters, 2002).These complex issues need to be
carefully examined by schools. Desiring parents to be partners and be involved in school is a sound
idea, but striking a true partnership is a time-consuming and involved process that requires
sustained engagement with families and changes in school policies and practices that are respectful
of the realities of today’s families.
This brings another broader question about the construct ‘readiness’ to the fore. As already
stated, not all children attend preschool programs before school entry. Some children may be first-
generation learners, especially in the case of many immigrant or minority families. As a result of
such forces, they may not ‘have a history of early experiences from their family/cultural
background’ (Carlton & Winsler, 1999, p. 343) that would prepare them to make a smooth home-
to-school transition and adapt well to the demands of the mainstream educational environment. As
preschools and kindergartens start conversations about readiness and transition with families, they
need to think of ways to reach out beyond those children and families who are already plugged into
the system through ECCE programs. What strategies do schools use to work with children who
enroll without prior experience in an organized educational environment? Future studies should
explore the ways in which teachers handle those children that fall short of the level of academic
competence expected of them at school entry. What partnerships and strategies do they draw upon

223
Sukhdeep Gill et al

to help those children catch up? Do they make efforts to identify these children’s strengths?
Reliance on the assessment tools as represented in our study is not likely to help teachers draw
upon the strengths of children who do not come into the program with a plethora of literacy-based
skills under their belts. Answers to these questions need to be sought within a much broader
conception of readiness. When schools get ready to work with such diverse groups of families and
children, then children are more likely to make successful transitions to higher grades. As Brooker
(2003) points out, schools and families must co-construct school transition practices and be aware
of the implications of one setting on the other.
In the end, it is worth reiterating that community-based initiatives that reflect recognition and
desire for change at the grass-roots level are indicative of the collaboration of the key stakeholders.
More often than not, studies are conceptualized and carried out by researchers with little input
from grass-roots-level agencies that are actively involved in and have a stake in the implementation
of policies and practices. In this regard, this effort was unique because the impetus for the study
came from the community rather than from the researchers. As a consequence, the information
generated from the research effort was evaluated and acted upon within a short time frame.
Because such initiatives have a good chance of success, it is important to back them up with the
resources (for example, money, expertise, and manpower) that are needed to translate plans into
practice.

Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the United Way of York County. However, the contents do not
necessarily represent the position of that agency. The authors would like to thank the reviewers for
their insightful comments. We also thank Dr Baljit Kaur, Senior Lecturer at the School of
Education, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, and Dr Harriet Darling, an
Instructor at Penn State University, USA, for their valuable feedback on the earlier drafts of this
article.

Correspondence
Sukhdeep Gill, Pennsylvania State University, 14 Main Classroom Building,
1031 Edgecomb Avenue, York, PA 17403, USA (sgill@psu.edu).

Note
[1] A county is a local level of government that is smaller than a state but generally larger than a city or
town. There are 67 counties in the state of Pennsylvania.

References
Bailey, D. (1999) Foreword, in R.C. Pianta & M.J. Cox (Eds) The Transition to Kindergarten, pp. xv–xvi.
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Bierman, K.L., Nix, R.L. & Makin-Byrd, K.T. (in press) Using Family-focused Interventions to Promote Child
Behavioral Readiness for School, in A. Booth & A.C. Crouter (Eds) Early Disparities in School Readiness:
how do families contribute to successful and unsuccessful transitions into school? Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Bogard, K. & Takanishi, R. (2005) PK-3: an aligned and coordinated approach to education for children 3 to 8
years old, Social Policy Report, 19(3), pp. 1-24.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979) The Ecology of Human Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986) Ecology of the Family as a Context for Human Development: research
perspectives, Developmental Psychology, 22(6), pp. 723-742. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.22.6.723
Brooker, L. (2003) Learning How to Learn: parental ethnotheories and young children’s preparation for
school, International Journal of Early Years Education, 11(2), pp. 117-128.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669760304703

224
Educators’ Views of Readiness and Transition Practices

Carlton, M.P. & Winsler, A. (1999) School Readiness: the need for a paradigm shift, School Psychology Review,
28, pp. 338-352.
Castro, D., Bryant, D., Peisner-Feinburg, E. & Skinner, M. (2004) Parent Involvement in Head Start
Programs: the role of parent, teacher and classroom characteristics, Early Childhood Research Quarterly,
19(3), pp. 413-430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.07.005
Christensen, C. (1998) Managing Children’s Transition to School: a case of multiple perspectives. Paper
presented at the OMEP XXII World Congress, Copenhagen.
Cole, E.R. & Omari, S.R. (2003) Race, Class and the Dilemmas of Upward Mobility for African Americans,
Journal of Social Issues, 59(4), pp. 785-802. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.0022-4537.2003.00090.x
Connors, L.J. & Epstein, J.L. (1995) Parents and School Partnerships, in M.H. Bornstein (Ed.) Handbook of
Parenting, Volume 4, Applied and Practical Parenting, pp. 437-458. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Crnic, K. & Lamberty, G. (1994) Reconsidering School Readiness: conceptual and applied perspectives, Early
Education and Development, 5, pp. 91-105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed0502_2
Dockett, S. & Perry, B. (2002) Who’s Ready for What? Young Children Starting School, Contemporary Issues in
Early Childhood, 3, pp. 67-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2002.3.1.9
Doherty, G. (1997) Zero to Six: the basis for school readiness. Hull, Quebec: Applied Research Branch, Strategic
Policy, Human Resources Development Canada.
Early, D.M., Pianta, R.C., Taylor, L.C. & Cox, M.J. (2001) Transition Practices: findings from a national
survey of kindergarten teachers, Early Childhood Education Journal, 28(3), pp. 199-206.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1026503520593
Entwisle, D.R. & Alexander, K.L. (1998) Facilitating the Transition to First Grade: the nature of transition and
research on factors affecting it, Elementary School Journal, 98, pp. 351-364.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/461901
Epstein, J.L. (1996) Advances in Family, Community, and School Partnerships, New Schools, New Communities,
12(3), pp. 5-13.
Etheridge, W.A., McCall, R.B., Groark, C.J., Mehaffie, K.E. & Nelkin, R. (2002) A Baseline Report of Early Care
and Education in Pennsylvania: the 2002 early care and education provider survey. Pittsburgh: University of
Pittsburgh Office of Child Development & Universities Children’s Policy Collaborative.
Furstenberg, F.F., Belzer, A., Davis, C., Levine, J.A., Morrow, K. & Washington, M. (1993) How Families
Manage Risk and Opportunity in Dangerous Neighborhoods, in W.J. Wilson (Ed.) Sociology and the Public
Agenda, pp. 231-238. Newbury Park: Sage.
Goal One Technical Planning Group (1993) Reconsidering Children’s Early Development and Learning:
toward shared beliefs and vocabulary. Draft report to the National Education Goals Panel. Washington,
DC: National Education Goals Panel.
Groark, C.J., Mehaffie, K.E., McCall, R.B. & Greenberg, M.T. (2002) From Science to Policy: research and policies
in early care and education. University Park: Universities Children’s Policy Collaborative.
Hager, M.A., Wilson, S., Pollak, T.H. & Rooney, P.M. (2003) Response Rates for Mail Surveys of Nonprofit
Organizations: a review and empirical test, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32, pp. 252-267.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0899764003032002005
Harkness, S. & Super, C.M. (1992) Parental Ethnotheories in Action, in I. Sigel, A.V. McGillicuddy-DeLisi &
J. Goodnow (Eds) Parental Belief Systems: the psychological consequences for children, 2nd edn, pp. 373-392.
Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Holloway, S.D., Rambaud, M.F., Fuller, B. & Eggers-Piérola, C. (1995) What Is ‘Appropriate Practice’ at
Home and in Child Care? Low-income Mothers’ Views on Preparing their Children for School, Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 10(4), pp. 451-473. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0885-2006(95)90016-0
Kagan, S.L. (1990) Readiness 2000: rethinking rhetoric and responsibility, Phi Delta Kappan, 72, pp. 272-279.
Kagan, S.L. (1999) Cracking the Readiness Mystique, Young Children, 54(5), pp. 2-3.
Katz, L.G. (1991) Readiness: children and schools, ERIC Digest.
http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/eecearchive/digests/1991/katz91.html
Keyes, C.R. (2002) A Way of Thinking about Parent/Teacher Partnerships for Teachers, International Journal
of Early Years Education, 10(3), pp. 177-191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0966976022000044726
La Paro, K.M. & Pianta, R.C. (2000) Predicting Children’s Competence in the Early School Years: a meta-
analytic review, Review of Educational Research, 70(4), pp. 443-484. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1170778

225
Sukhdeep Gill et al

Lareau, A. (1996) Assessing Parent Involvement in Schooling: a critical analysis, in A. Booth & J.F. Dunn
(Eds) Family–School Links: how do they affect educational outcomes? pp. 57-64. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Lareau, A. & Weininger, E.B. (in press) The Context of School Readiness: social class differences in time use
in family life, in A. Booth & A.C. Crouter (Eds) Early Disparities in School Readiness: how do families
contribute to successful and unsuccessful transitions into school? Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Marcon, R.A. (1999) Positive Relationships between Parent School Involvement and Public School Inner-city
Preschoolers’ Development and Academic Performance, Social Psychology Review, 28(3), pp. 395-412.
McAllister, C.L., Wilson, P.C., Green, B.L. & Baldwin, J.L. (2005) ‘Come and Take a Walk’: listening to early
Head Start parents on school-readiness as a matter of child, family, and community health, American
Journal of Public Health, 95(4), pp. 617-625. http://dx.doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.041616
McDermott, P. & Rothenberg, J. (2000) Why Urban Parents Resist Involvement in their Children’s
Education, The Qualitative Report, 5(3 & 4). http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR5-3/mcdermott.html
Meisels, S.J. (1999) Assessing Readiness, in R.C. Pianta & M.J. Cox (Eds) The Transition to Kindergarten,
pp. 39-66. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) (1995) NAEYC Position Statement on
School Readiness. http://www.naeyc.org/about/positions/PSREDY98.asp
National Education Goals Panel (1998) National Educational Goals: building a nation of leaders. Washington, DC:
US Department of Education, National Education Goals Panel.
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/negp/page3-3.htm
Oakes, J. & Lipton, M. (1999) Teaching to Change the World. Boston: McGraw-Hill.
Pennsylvania Department of Education (2000) Admission to Kindergarten and Beginners. 24 P.S.§5-503.
Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Department of Education, School Services Unit.
Peters, S. (2002) Teachers’ Perspectives of Transition, in H. Fabian & A.-W. Dunlop (Eds) Transitions in the
Early Years: debating continuity and progression for children in early education, pp. 87-97. London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Petriwskyj, A., Thorpe, K. & Tayler, C. (2005) Trends in Construction of Transition to School in Three
Western Regions, 1990-2004, International Journal of Early Years Education, 13(1), pp. 55-69.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669760500048360
Pianta, R.C. & Cox, M.J. (2002) Transition to Kindergarten, Early Childhood Research and Policy Briefs, 2(2).
http://www.fpg.unc.edu/~ncedl/PDFs/TranBrief.pdf
Pianta, R.C., Cox, M.J., Taylor, L. & Early, D. (1999) Kindergarten Teachers’ Practices Related to the
Transition to School: results of a national survey, Elementary School Journal, 100(1), pp. 71-86.
Pianta, R.C. & Kraft-Sayre, M. (1999) Parents’ Observations about their Children’s Transitions to
Kindergarten, Young Children, 54(3), pp. 47-52.
Pianta, R.C. & McCoy, S.J. (1997) The First Day of School: the predictive validity of early school screening,
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18(1), pp. 1-22.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(97)90011-3
Pinderhughes, E.E., Nix, R., Foster, M. & Jones, D. (2001) Parenting in Context: impact of neighborhood
poverty, residential stability, public services, social networks, and danger on parental behaviors, Journal
of Marriage and Family, 63(4), pp. 941-953. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00941.x
Ramey, S.L. & Ramey, C.T. (1999) The Transition to School for ‘At Risk’ Children, in R.C. Pianta & M.J. Cox
(Eds) The Transition to Kindergarten, pp. 217-251. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Raver, C.C. (2002) Emotions Matter: making the case for the role of young children’s emotional
development for early school readiness, Social Policy Report, 16(3), pp. 3-19.
Saluja, G., Scott-Little, C. & Clifford, R.M. (2000) Readiness for School: a survey of state policies and
definitions, Early Childhood Research and Practice, 2(2), pp. 1-16. http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v2n2/saluja.html
Schutt, R.K. (1999) Investigating the Social World: the process and practice of research. Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge
Press.
Shore, R. (1998) Ready Schools. Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel.
Smith, M.L. & Shepard, L.A. (1988) Escalating Academic Demand in Kindergarten: counterproductive
policies, Elementary School Journal, 89, pp. 135-145.
Stipek, D. (2002) At What Age Should Children Enter Kindergarten? A Question for Policy Makers and
Parents, Social Policy Report, 16(2), pp. 3-16.

226
 Educators’ Views of Readiness and Transition Practices

US Department of Education (1993) Readiness for Kindergarten: parent and teacher beliefs. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Vecchiotti, S. (2003) Kindergarten: an overlooked educational policy priority, Social Policy Report, 17(2),
pp. 3-19.
Victorian Department of School Education (1992) The Ministerial Review of School Entry Age in Victoria.
Victoria, CA: Victorian Department of School Education.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society: the development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. & Luria, A.R. (1993) Studies on the History of Behavior: ape, primitive, and child. Hillsdale:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Wesley, P.W. & Buysse, V. (2003) Making Meaning of School Readiness in Schools and Communities, Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 18(3), pp. 351-375. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0885-2006(03)00044-9
York Counts Commission (2004) Charting a Brighter Future for All: the time is now. York, PA: York Counts
Commission.

227

View publication stats