Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, Volume 3, Number 1, 2002

Who’s Ready for What?

Young Children Starting School

SUE DOCKETT & BOB PERRY

University of Western Sydney, Australia

ABSTRACT Each year, as children start formal schooling, there are discussions
between parents and educators about children who are, or are not, ‘ready for
school’. The first section of this article examines issues of readiness, definitions
of readiness, and considers some implications of decisions about children’s
readiness status. Following this, and in the context of different perspectives of
readiness, the views of Australian children, parents and educators are
considered. These views indicate some similarities between the expectations of
parents and educators, and some differences between what children and adults
regard as important in the transition to school. Implications for early childhood
education and educators are considered.

Introduction
Early childhood educators have a range of beliefs and understandings about
school readiness and the role of this in the early childhood curriculum. Some
educators embrace the concept wholeheartedly and design complex
programmes to help children fit into the school environment. Others express
concerns at the nature of the change experienced by children as they start
school, and call for schools to be ready for children, rather than children ready
for schools.
The Starting School Research Project has investigated children’s
transition to school over a number of years (Perry et al, 2000). The project
involves the major stakeholders in early childhood education in New South
Wales (NSW), Australia (that is, peak bodies, employers, government
departments, unions, parent organisations and children) in a process of
identifying the perceptions and expectations of children, parents and educators
as children start school. The current phase of the project involves the
development and implementation of contextually relevant transition
programmes in diverse locations across NSW. Within this phase, the project
team is working with groups in a range of communities across the state to

67
Sue Dockett & Bob Perry

develop and implement responsive transition to school programmes, based on

a series of guidelines developed through the project (Dockett & Perry, 2001).
Key outcomes of this collaboration have been a heightened awareness of the
processes involved in working collaboratively, through genuine partnerships,
with community groups (Dockett et al, 2001), and validation of the Guidelines
for Effective Transition Programs that have been generated through the research
project.
One of the major focus areas for the project has been to discuss with all
stakeholders in the transition process the issues that are important for them as
children start school. Some differences among groups of stakeholders have
emerged. For example, discussions with children have identified an emphasis
on school rules and understanding the rules of school, in order to operate
effectively within that context (Dockett & Perry, 1999a), and parents and
teachers in country and city areas have expressed some different levels of
concern as children start school (Dockett et al, 2000). During discussions with
parents and teachers [1] – which are conducted as informal focus group
interviews – a common topic has been perceptions of children’s readiness for
school. It has been clear that definitions of readiness vary, as do the ways of
assessing readiness. Often, comments are made about children’s ages, gender,
maturity and physical stature. Opinions vary as to if, or why, any of these
factors are important in considering readiness.
After these issues were first raised in a series of pilot studies (Perry et al,
1998), an extensive questionnaire was developed and distributed to parents
and educators in each of the community group locations across NSW during
the period 1998-2000. In addition, more interviews were conducted with focus
groups of parents, educators and children, in order to elaborate and detail
some of the issues raised in questionnaire responses. Analysis of several
questions from these questionnaires has indicated an overall high level of
similarity between parents and teachers across some areas, such as what
parents can do before children start school in order to help prepare them for
school (Perry & Dockett, 2001) and who should be involved in the transition
to school programme (Dockett, 2001). These results are useful in discussing
transition programmes with parents and teachers, and useful to compare with
children’s views. However, they do not provide strong indications of how
these adult participants perceive readiness and the implications of readiness for
children starting school.
This article reports analysis of a further item in the questionnaire and
from this, considers notions of readiness, their theoretical constructs and
practical implications. It is a recognition that we need to have some serious
and open debate about what we expect and mean by a focus on readiness, as
well as an awareness of potential uses and misuses of the term. It relates some
of the issues that have been debated nationally and internationally. The beliefs
of educators about readiness comprise the first section of this article.
Following this, we explore some of the results of the Starting School Research

68
 YOUNG CHILDREN STARTING SCHOOL

Project relating to what children, parents and educators consider is important

as children start school. Implications for practice conclude the article.
In the context of discussions of readiness, this article highlights two
elements missing from much of the readiness research: the involvement of
children and the importance of relationships. Children have long been ‘objects
of inquiry’; that is, research has been ‘done’ on children. Research into starting
school is but one example, where children have been observed, tested and
assessed at various points, as a means of evaluating their adjustment to the
school environment (for example, Harradine & Clifford, 1996; Margetts, 1997).
The importance of these studies is not in question. However, such studies do
not seek to identify or understand issues from children’s perspectives. There is
the potential for research to become a reflection of the researcher’s perspective
or orientation, and not necessarily a reflection of what matters to children.
Such research tells us a great deal about some things, but it does not let us into
the world of the child: ‘Researchers often reduce the complex realities of
children’s lives to scores on instruments and questionnaires, to counts of
individual behaviours, or to behaviours in contrived settings’ (Graue & Walsh,
1998, p. 3). The Starting School Research Project aims to record and report the
realities of life for children as they start school. One aim is to try to understand
what the experiences are like for children and, based on this, how we can
improve what is done within transition programmes and experiences. To this
end, this article seeks information from child as well as adult participants in the
transition to school.
The second element relates to the importance of relationships in
transition. Several researchers have emphasised the importance of friends and
friendships as children start school (Faulkner & Miell, 1993; Ledger et al, 2000),
with children’s ability to form meaningful relationships being related not only
to their successful transition to school, but also to their later school careers
(Ladd et al, 1999; McClelland et al, 2000). Despite this, popular expositions of
readiness rarely highlight relationships to the same extent as a series of skills
needing to be mastered in order to attain a state of school readiness (Sweet &
Perceval, 1996; Irvine, 2000; Taal, 2000).

Background
The focus on school readiness has been intense in some countries. The first
National Education Goal in the USA, proclaimed in 1991, states that ‘All
children in America will start school ready to learn’ (National Education Goals
Panel, 1991). Kagan (1999) reports that the focus of this goal has shifted from
ready to learn to ready for school. Shore (1998) notes that this goal has been
embraced by groups of parents expressing concerns that ‘their children are
starting school unprepared for the tasks that await them’ and kindergarten [2]
teachers who suggest that between 10 and 30% of children ‘are not ready to
learn in their classrooms’ (p. 2).

69
Sue Dockett & Bob Perry

One outcome of this goal has been the identification of several

dimensions to be considered when determining a child’s ‘readiness for school’.
While the following general categories are suggested, there remains
considerable difficulty in operationalising notions of ‘readiness’. Some of these
issues are highlighted later in the article. The dimensions included in
consideration of a child’s readiness are:

physical well-being and motor development;

social and emotional development;
approaches towards learning;
language usage; and
cognition and general knowledge. (National Education Goals Panel,
Technical Planning Group, 1995)

Different Views of Readiness

What is meant by readiness varies according to the theoretical perspective
adopted by different people. Readiness is a term that is not clearly defined and
yet it influences many decisions about children (Kagan, 1990). Graue (1998)
describes readiness as ‘a murky idea integrally tied to our ideas about how
children develop and what we can do to support that process’ (p. 13). The role
of readiness in school entry has also been raised, with Griffin & Harvey (1995)
reporting a preference among some school principals for children to attain a
‘certificate of readiness’ before being considered eligible to start school.
Meisels (1999) list four conceptions of readiness, derived from different
theoretical bases.

The maturationist view. This view understands that ‘children have inner time
clocks for development, and that readiness is influenced ... by biology’ (May &
Kundert, 1997, p. 74). This view is often associated with the work of Gessell. It
holds that ‘children are ready to learn when they are ready’ (Meisels, 1999,
p. 47) and that preparing children for school involves allowing their natural
potential to unfold. This view holds that this process of unfolding cannot be
accelerated, so there is little to be done to facilitate readiness.
Following from this, children’s failure to demonstrate readiness is
perceived to be a problem for the individual child. If development is biological,
then the cause of any problem must lie with the individual, rather than the
environment or those around the child. Responses to issues of readiness
reflecting this view often refer to children as needing ‘more time’ to become
ready; sometimes the phrase used is ‘the gift of time’ (Gessell Institute of
Human Development, 1982). The time is needed for children to develop
greater emotional, social and intellectual maturity.

The environmental view. This view equates readiness for school with the
behaviours and learning demonstrated by children. In Meisels’s (1999) words:

70
 YOUNG CHILDREN STARTING SCHOOL

readiness is commensurate with knowing colours, shapes, one’s address, and how
to spell one’s name; with identifying one object which is similar to another that is
embedded in an array of dissimilar objects; and with counting to 10, saying the
letters of the alphabet, and behaving in a polite and socially expected manner ...
this approach concentrates on what the child can do and how the child behaves.
(p. 47)
This view contrasts to the maturationist view by focussing exclusively on the
external evidence of children’s learning of skills and knowledge that prepares
them for the experience of school. Programmes to teach readiness focus on the
skills and knowledge deemed to be necessary to operate in school. Children
who do not demonstrate these skills and knowledge can be directed to a form
of special programme. In this view, readiness ‘is an absolute state of affairs
(Meisels, 1996) – an end point that children and teachers can strive for – and
the criteria for readiness are stable and universal’ (Meisels, 1999, p. 48). In
other words, children are either ready for school, or they are not. If not ready,
the skills and knowledge they lack can be identified and then taught.

The social constructivist view. This view steers away from the perspectives that
readiness is either inherent in the child (the maturationist view) or the
demonstration of a specified set of behaviours (the environmental view).
Rather, this view sees readiness as embedded in the child’s social and cultural
context. Graue (1992) highlights this view as she defines readiness in terms of
‘a set of ideas or meanings constructed by people in communities, families and
schools as they participate in the kindergarten experience’ (p. 226). In this way,
perceptions of readiness are generated in a specific context and have meaning
only in that context. The beliefs, expectations, understandings and experiences
of those in the school, and the community in which the school exists, largely
determine definitions of readiness for that context. In other words, readiness
means different things in different situations, and children could be ‘ready’ for
one type of school experience, but not another. This view accepts variability in
development without regarding it as a deficit.

The interactionist view. This view encompasses elements of each of the previous
views. It regards readiness as a relative term which focuses on the interaction
between the characteristics of the child and the characteristics of the
environment in which the child lives. Each influences the other. In this view,
readiness:
can be applied to individual children [but] it is not something in the child, and it
is not something in the curriculum. It is a product of the interaction between
children’s prior experiences, their genetic endowment, their maturational status,
and the whole range of environmental and cultural experiences that they
encounter. (Meisels, 1996, p. 410)
In this view, relationships between the child and the school are instrumental in
promoting readiness. The child is regarded as contributing to their own

71
Sue Dockett & Bob Perry

learning and development and to the environment in which they live and
operate. In turn, the environment and those within it are credited with having
a reciprocal influence on the child. An example of the interactionist view is the
ecological model of transition described by Pianta et al (1999). In this model, ‘a
child’s transition to school is understood in terms of the influence of contexts
(for example, family, classroom, community) and the connections among
these contexts (e.g. family–school relationships) at any given time and across
time’ (p. 4).

Assessing Readiness
The views individuals hold about readiness affect the ways they determine
readiness.
The maturational view understands that each child’s development will
unfold in a predetermined way, but according to a sequence of stages. Hence,
while development cannot be hurried, assessments can be made about which
stage a child is at, and from this, decisions can be made about whether a child
should start school or spend a further year getting ready for school.
A variety of assessment tools, such as the Gessell School Readiness Test
(Hains et al, 1980), have been used as the basis for these decisions. There is
considerable debate as to the validity and reliability of these tests (Graue &
Shepard, 1989; Meisels, 1999). There is also evidence that the ‘gift of time’ does
not make a great deal of difference to the academic performance of most
children who are kept out of school because they are deemed ‘unready’
(Shepard, 1989; Morrison et al, 1997). In contrast, one study has reported that,
in later years, children who are held back from school exhibit more
behavioural problems than their peers (Byrd et al, 1997).
The environmental view of readiness lends itself to the measurement of
skills and knowledge. Checklists of school readiness skills would fall into this
category. A major criticism of tests of readiness is that they assess skills in
isolation and out of context. Further, Meisels (1999) contends that many tests
of school readiness lack validity, with a high chance of misclassification. This is
particularly so if children are male, from a minority group, and young in
relation to peers. Such tests and checklists determine whether children have a
particular array of skills or knowledge – they do not focus on children’s
potential to learn.
The social constructivist view recognises social and cultural variations in
definitions of readiness. In adopting this view, Graue (1992) advocates an
approach to readiness that does not focus on individual children. Rather, it
focuses on community agreement about what readiness means and how it can
be demonstrated. This means that educators, parents and other members of
the community need to work together to establish what is important for
children in that particular context.
The interactionist view promotes the assessment of readiness in the
context of relationships. This view asserts that because relationships are

72
 YOUNG CHILDREN STARTING SCHOOL

reciprocal, and take time to develop, readiness cannot be assessed by

considering the child alone, or by a one-off test before a relationship is
established. Rather, interactions need to be assessed over time, through
strategies that involve children, parents and teachers making judgements
about learning. Meisels (1999) argues that readiness cannot be:
based on a brief evaluation of core skills that should be achieved by all children, or
as a result of maturation. Rather, readiness is something to be demonstrated by
children in situ, over time, and differently when teachers are systematically
prepared to observe, document, and evaluate it and to apply community-based
standards. (p. 58)

Issues in Assessing Readiness

A number of issues are raised by these views of school readiness and its
assessment.

Focus on Age
A focus on maturity often includes discussion on the age of school entry.
Children who are described as ‘immature’ or ‘not ready for school’ are often
those who are the youngest to start school (Kagan, 1990). In some Australian
research, a clear preference for children to be at least five years of age at school
entry has been expressed (Davies & North, 1990), on the basis that children
have had ‘additional time to mature socially and emotionally’ (Griffin &
Harvey, 1995, p. 30). This is despite evidence that age is not an absolute
predictor of a child’s success in school (Graue, 1993; Morrison et al, 1997;
Richardson, 1997). Regardless of the age designated as the accepted school
starting age, there will be variation in the age of children starting school at any
one time. Raising the entrance age does not change the situation of having
children of different ages starting school at the same time. Even if it did, age is
not necessarily the only, or the best, predictor of developmental level (Graue,
1993).
Some studies have reported that younger children do not perform as well
as their peers in kindergarten (for example, Crosser, 1991), while other studies
argue that there are either no differences, or very minor differences only,
related to entry age (for example, DeMeis & Stearns, 1992). Some other studies
indicate that additional factors interact with age to have significant
implications for starting school. For example:

some – but not all – studies of gender indicate that younger boys are
perceived to be at greater risk of academic failure than older boys or girls
(Gredler, 1980);

73
Sue Dockett & Bob Perry

young children from high socio-economic status backgrounds tend to be

perceived as performing better than young children from backgrounds of
lower socio-economic status (Shepard, 1997);
younger children who attended pre-school are perceived to be as competent
as their older peers (Gullo & Burton, 1992); and
teachers treat younger children differently from their older peers (DeMeis
& Stearns, 1992).

These findings suggest that age alone is not necessarily a predictor of the
success of a child’s start to school.

Delayed School Entry

In a number of instances, children who are eligible to start school have their
entry delayed. Often, this is related to the maturational view that children
need some more time to mature or that children who are near to the cut-off
date for eligibility would benefit from extra time to develop their skills in
comparison with their peers (Bredekamp & Shepard, 1989). In other instances,
children’s entry to school is delayed on the basis of judgements from staff in
the school or prior-to-school setting, or on recommendations made as a result
of performance in some form of readiness or screening test (Kagan, 1990).
These situations may be associated with quite different groups of
children. On the one hand, parents who choose to keep their children out of
school for an extra year tend to be middle-class parents who wish to secure an
educational advantage for their child by having them be in the older, rather
than younger, age range in the class (Bredekamp & Shepard, 1989; Bellisimo et
al, 1995). These families may have access to high-quality pre-school services
and can ensure that their child has a stimulating year. Parents from less
advantaged backgrounds may not have the choice of paying for pre-school for
an extra year, and so send their children to school at the earliest possible age.
Zill et al (1997) also note problems when parents from lower socio-economic
status backgrounds are advised to keep children out of school for a further
year on the basis of readiness testing, as ‘children who may benefit ... from
structured learning environments are instead being turned away’ (p. 4).
The first of these practices has been dubbed ‘redshirting’ in the US
literature, and is defined as a process whereby ‘5-year-olds sit out a year so that
as 6-year-olds they will be more mature (and more competitive) in
kindergarten’ (Shepard, 1997, p. 88). Australian research has identified similar
patterns of delayed entry, noting an increase in the school entry age across
several years, directly related to gender, geographic location and family
income (Routley & de Lemos, 1993). Typically, the pattern is reported among
middle-class parents and in relation to boys (Shepard et al, 1989), fuelled in
part by popular commentary which promotes the view that boys would
benefit by starting school a year later than girls, based on their ‘slower

74
 YOUNG CHILDREN STARTING SCHOOL

developing fine-motor skills and cognitive skills generally’ (Biddulph, 1997,

p. 128).
There are several concerns about the effects of delayed school entry,
both for the individuals and the groups of children involved. On an individual
level, there are questions as to whether the extra year has any long-term
effects. Given the variations in development in the early childhood years,
children change rapidly, so that a child who appeared ‘unready’ for school at
one point could very well demonstrate ‘readiness’ very soon after. At the
group level, having a generally older group of children enter kindergarten can
lead to an increase in teachers’ expectations for the whole group. In this
instance, children who are younger seem even more different from their older
classmates.
de Cos (1997) identifies some consequences of delayed school entry,
including a widening of the range of chronological ages in the kindergarten
classroom, with children starting school at the minimum and maximum ages;
and the teaching style used in the classroom tends to be geared to the needs of
the older children. These issues are highlighted by Zill et al (1997), who note
that the removal of younger children from kindergarten classrooms and the
inclusion of older and more academically able children in those same
classrooms increase the differences among children. In such situations, they
argue that ‘the older children will tend to set the pace and establish the norms,
whereas those who entered when eligible may appear to be behind’ (p. 4).

Escalation of the Curriculum

The inclusion of older children in the kindergarten may increase pressure on
kindergarten teachers to implement a more formal academic programme
(Routley & de Lemos, 1993). In part, this comes from children being more
knowledgeable and skilled, as they have had more experiences when they
come to school, and in part, this could come from parents who have chosen to
delay school entry, wanting a more challenging curriculum for their children
(Shepard, 1997). There are indications that teachers tend to focus on the older
children in the class (Shepard & Smith, 1988) and that they tend to omit from
the curriculum the things that only a few children do not know or have not
experienced (Graue, 1992). When these tendencies are combined, it is easy to
see how the younger, less socially advantaged child may be considered to be
having difficulty keeping up with the rest of the class, and how any perceived
problems then become located with the child, or the family, rather than the
school or in the relationships between children, families and school.
Bellisimo et al (1995) note that ‘as expectations increase for what
students must do to prove readiness, more children are deemed by their
parents to be not ready for the demands of Kindergarten’ (p. 205; emphasis in
original). Yet, there is also evidence that experience in school has a much
greater effect on children’s progress than age (Meisels, 1999).

75
Sue Dockett & Bob Perry

Role of Early Childhood Services

On the basis of increasing emphasis on children being deemed ‘ready’ for
school, there are questions as to the role of early childhood services in
preparing children for school. Surveys of pre-school and school teachers reveal
some similarities as well as some differences about what is considered
important in such preparation. In one example, Hains et al (1989) have
reported that teachers in the first year of school and pre-school teachers had
different expectations of what is required for children to make a successful
transition to school, with pre-school teachers placing more emphasis on skills
and kindergarten teachers focusing more on children’s ability to function
within a classroom environment.
Just as teachers in various settings may have different expectations about
what is important for children starting school, so, too, do parents and teachers.
Lewit & Baker (1995) report that the majority (more than 75%) of teachers
involved in their study indicated that being physically healthy, rested and well
nourished was essential, while parents were much more likely than teachers to
report that academic skills were important in order for children to be
considered ready to start school. Both groups reported that communication
skills, enthusiasm and social skills such as being able to take turns were
important. More recent Australian research has indicated that parents regard
the primary aim of early childhood services as facilitating children’s social and
emotional development, with preparation for school and academic skills being
considered secondary (Lockwood & Fleet, 1999; Page et al, 2001). The
potential for working together across early childhood services and school has
long been regarded as important in promoting a successful transition to school
(Parr et al, 1993; Briggs & Potter, 1995). However, such collaboration can be
difficult when different issues are regarded as important.

Readiness: an overview
There is much talk about children being ready to start school, but not much
agreement as to what ‘being ready’ actually means. Much of what we believe
about readiness relates to what we believe about children, learning and
teaching. While it is clear that age and readiness are not the same thing, there
has been consistent pressure in the USA and in some states of Australia to raise
the entry age for starting school. Children who are kept out of school for an
extra year tend to be those whose parents wish to give them a head start by
having them be among the oldest in the group, or those who are deemed too
immature to cope with the demands of school. Each situation gives rise to a
series of implications and expectations as children start school.
The next section of the article considers beliefs about readiness and what
is important as children start school. It draws on several studies of teachers’
and parents’ views of readiness and compares these with some of the issues
already addressed. This discussion raises questions about what is considered

76
 YOUNG CHILDREN STARTING SCHOOL

important in relation to children starting school and identifies some

implications for practice.

Beliefs about Readiness

Several studies have investigated parents’ and teachers’ beliefs about school
readiness (for example, Hains et al, 1989; Davies & North, 1990; Lewit &
Baker, 1995; Harradine & Clifford, 1996). Some similarities, as well as some
differences, between the beliefs of parents and kindergarten teachers have
been reported. In addition to the differences reported in the previous section,
Knudsen-Lindauer & Harris (1989) reported that parents placed more
emphasis on academic skills such as counting and writing than did teachers,
while teachers emphasised curiosity more than parents. Similar results were
reported by West et al (1993).
In their report, Heaviside et al (1993) indicated that a majority of over
1300 kindergarten teachers surveyed in the USA believed that being physically
healthy, rested and well nourished was the most important factor in assessing
children’s readiness. Other important factors were children’s ability to
communicate needs, wants and thoughts verbally, and showing curiosity and
enthusiasm for approaching new activities. These results are repeated in the
work of Lewit & Baker (1995).
Things that were not considered as important were:

good problem-solving skills;

ability to identify primary colours and basic shapes;
knowledge of the alphabet;
ability to count to 20.

Yet, these are the items that appear often on assessments of school readiness.

Methodology: what do Australian parents,

educators and children say is important about starting school?
As part of an ongoing study of children’s transition to school (Dockett &
Perry, 1999b; Perry, et al, 2000), groups of children, parents and educators
(both in prior-to-school and school settings) were asked what was important to
them as children started school. This was achieved through a series of
interviews with children, and interviews and questionnaires with parents and
teachers.
From a pilot study, an extensive questionnaire focussing on issues of
children starting school was developed and distributed in 15 locations within
NSW. These represented a cross-section of locations based on the variables of
geography, socio-economic status, cultural diversity and special needs of
children. The analysis for this article is based on a return of 578 questionnaires
– approximately 34% response rate – and specifically considers the responses

77
Sue Dockett & Bob Perry

to the question, ‘List the first five (5) things that come into your mind when
you think about a/your child starting school’.
Further data reported in this article were collected from 50 children aged
between four and a half and five and a half years of age. The children were
interviewed in small focus groups, in two schools, within four weeks of
starting at that school. Both schools were located in the south-western region
of Sydney. One was a private girls’ school and the other a public co-
educational school. Both schools served diverse communities. Each interview
followed a standard format, using open-ended questions and some prompts, if
required. The children were asked to describe what happened when they
started school, to explore their experiences and reactions, and to describe what
was important for them as they started school. As well, they were encouraged
to pursue areas of their own interest in relation to the topic.
Several trends emerged from analysis of some aspects of the
questionnaire and interview data. These have been reported elsewhere
(Dockett & Perry, 1999a; Dockett et al, 2000; Perry et al, 2000). One of the
major outcomes of this analysis was the generation of several categories of
response, using the principles of grounded theory (Miles & Huberman, 1994).
A confirmatory factor analysis supported the categorisation listed below.
Responses from children and adults were coded according to the following
categories:

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

school
Adjustment: social adjustment to the school context, including interpersonal
and organisational adjustment
Skills: small units of action that could be observed or inferred from observable
behaviour
Disposition: children’s attitudes towards, or feelings about, school or learning
Rules: fitting in with the school and school expectations
Physical: physical attributes, needs or characteristics of children, including
issues about safety, health and age
Family issues: issues related to family functioning or involvement with the
school
Educational
Environment: concern about the nature of the school environment.

Results
Responses were received from 280 teachers (189 from schools; 53 in prior-to-
school settings; 7 other; and 31 responses omitting this information) and 298
parents (108 with a child about to start school; 165 with a child who had just
started school; 20 other; and five responses omitting this information). As
respondents were asked to ‘list the first 5 things that come to mind when you
think about your child starting school’, there were potentially 2890 responses

78
 YOUNG CHILDREN STARTING SCHOOL

in total. The actual number of responses was 2562: 1298 from parents and 1264
from teachers. In calculating the percentage frequencies, these actual totals
have been used. A total of 321 codeable responses were obtained from the 50
children interviewed. Percentages referred to below are from this number.
Responses classified as non-codeable included repetitions of a response, ‘Don’t
know’, comments that were not relevant to the interview and responses which
were not audible. The frequency of responses for parents, teachers and
children, coded according to the derived categories of response, are presented
in Table I.

Category Parent Teacher Child responses

responses responses
No. % No. % No. %
(of 1298) (of 1264) (of 321)
Knowledge 19 1.5 55 4.4 38 11.8
Adjustment 410 31.6 445 35.2 38 11.8
Skills 57 4.4 153 12.1 5 1.6
Disposition 168 12.9 163 12.9 103 32.1
Rules 57 4.4 31 2.5 106 33.0
Physical 132 10.2 95 7.5 29 9.0
Family issues 85 6.5 40 3.2 1 0.03
Educational 240 18.5 130 10.3 1 0.03
environment
Other 130 10 152 12

Table I. Frequency of responses in each category for parents, teachers and children.

These data reflect many of the findings from overseas research. Similar
concerns were expressed by parents and teachers, with both groups indicating
that issues related to children’s adjustment were rated most important.
Adjustment in this sense refers to the child’s social adjustment, their ability to
function as part of a group and to successfully meet their own needs, and
respond to the needs of others, within that group. From interviews with
parents and teachers, some subtle differences among these two groups
emerged. Teachers tended to emphasise ‘organisational’ adjustment – for
example, children’s ability to adjust to the school context by fit[ting] into the group,
listening and taking turns, sitting still and making their needs known. The focus of
parents was about how their child would perceive and be perceived by others
– interpersonal adjustment. Would the child, for example, know how to talk to
the teacher; would they make friends; separate easily; would someone get to
know their child individually; or would their child ‘stick out’ as different? A
strong message from parents was that they wanted their child to be accepted
as a member of the class group, but they also wanted to know that someone
would get to know their child as an individual.

79
Sue Dockett & Bob Perry

When children referred to adjustment issues, their comments canvassed

differences between pre-school and school settings, as well as the things that
happen at school – for example, not having a sleep at school in the afternoon.
Children’s main concerns were categorised under the headings of rules and
disposition. Responses were coded as rules if they were explicitly stated as
rules – for example, Don’t run; You’re not allowed to hit; and Don’t pinch someone
else’s lunch. It may well be that children respond to new and unfamiliar
situations by seeking out the rules of operation, as their way of adjusting to the
new environment. If this is the case, each group of respondents was concerned
with the adjustment issues involved in entering new contexts. In comparison,
there was little emphasis on specific knowledge and skills, such as those found
in many readiness programmes, or approaches to preparing children for
school.
Despite being overwhelmingly positive about starting school, children
were adamant that they needed to know the school rules in order to function
well within the school and, in particular, to keep out of trouble. For children, a
critical part of getting ready for school was to find out about these rules and
the major difficulty children expressed about starting school was that they did
not know the rules. When asked what they would tell one of their friends who
was about to start school, all children cited lists of rules. There was no
mention of questioning the rules. Rather, there was an assumption that when
they came to school, children were required to follow the rules. As well as
those listed above, rules that were cited included the following.
Have to line up at the dots.
We sit on the floor and when we hear the triangle, then we have to stop.
Put your hat away, then your bag, then you have to come and sit on the floor.
Can’t touch the piano.
Stay in your own proper chair.
Don’t be cheeky.
Have to have a uniform and a hat.
Know to sit down or stand up if the teacher says.
Not allowed to run away.
The consequences of breaking the rules were also discussed, with the most
common sanctions being to have ‘time out’ or being sent to the principal. Each
of these consequences was regarded as dire by the children concerned, few of
whom had experienced them. Knowledge of the sanctions seemed to come
from older siblings, parents and teachers. One possible explanation for
children’s mention of rules is that the lead-up to starting school often involves
conversations with adults, and older children, based on ‘you’ll have to be able
to do/know x when you go to school’.
Dispositions were mentioned often by children. Children used words
such as happy, excited and scared to express their feelings. In the context of
dispositions, they emphasised the importance of friends and making friends –
school was a place to be with friends. Children who described themselves as

80
 YOUNG CHILDREN STARTING SCHOOL

being unhappy at school indicated that this was because they had no friends, or
no one would play with them. In other words, school was a good place to be if
children had friends, or felt that they had the opportunity to make friends.
Several children indicated that some knowledge was required in order to
start school. Comments referred to knowing how to count properly, knowing your
name and knowing how to read. While this knowledge was reflected in
comments from parents and teachers, the rate of response in this category was
much less for the adults than the children. Further, teachers mentioned the
category of knowledge much more often than parents, indicating that teachers
regarded it as more important for children to demonstrate such knowledge
than parents. This finding contrasts with that of some other studies, such as
Knudsen-Lindauer & Harris (1989), who reported very little focus on
knowledge among teachers.
Factors relating to physical attributes, age, health and safety were
mentioned most frequently by parents. Most responses in this category came
from parents whose children had already started school, suggesting that these
were ongoing concerns, sometimes even more prevalent once children started
school. There was a focus on age, with parents and teachers both indicating
that the older children were when they started school, the better. Teachers
expressed a clear preference for children to be older rather than younger than
five when they started school, and several parent comments reflected the
popular commentary that it was particularly negative for boys to start school if
they were young (that is, aged four and a half at the beginning of the school
year), or likely to be the youngest in their class group.
Children also mentioned issues in this category. Of interest for them was
the idea that they were big kids and that only big kids can go to big school. Several
commented on the importance of being aged five, and others on becoming big
through such things as eating vegetables. One child noted that it was important
to eat breakfast every morning so you have enough energy to play. A strong focus for
some children, in terms of physical issues, related to interactions with the
other children at school, notably the big kids. Big kids were reported to be the
source of comfort – particularly older siblings and buddies – as well as angst.
Kindergarten children reported feeling scared in the playground, because
that’s where the big kids were. Reasons for feeling scared of the big kids included
a fear of getting hurt – you might get run over; a sense of being overwhelmed by
the number and associated noise of large numbers of older, larger, children;
and a fear of getting into trouble, which links with the focus on rules.
Of the adult respondents, more teachers than parents mentioned skills as
important. The types of skills mentioned were similar, with the most frequent
being the children’s ability to toilet themselves independently, dress themselves and
care for their own things. The stronger teacher focus on skills suggests that they
value children who are independent and accept responsibility for their own
actions and possessions. In some ways, this also relates to adjustment in that
teachers support and encourage actions that enhance individual children to
function as part of a group, and part of that means operating without the

81
Sue Dockett & Bob Perry

constant attention of the teacher. On the few occasions that children

mentioned skills, they referred to activities such as packing all the things, getting
dressed and doing up shoelaces.
Issues coded as educational environment were referred to more frequently
by parents than teachers, and on one occasion only by a child. Parents were
most likely to ask questions such as ‘What will he/she be learning?’ and to
consider the impact on their children of the organisation of the school day.
Concerns for or about family were expressed by a small percentage of
both parents and teachers. From teachers came comments about the
importance of considering family background and establishing family–school
communication. From parents came pragmatic issues, such as concerns about
homework, the interaction between home and school – ‘Will I be able to help
at school?’ – and matters of organising the family in order to get children to
school and to meet the expectations of the school. Some parents expressed joy
at not needing to pay for pre-school or childcare fees, whereas others noted
that they needed to pay for uniforms, pocket money and before and after
school care. The hours of school were also mentioned by some parents, and
the impact of organising before and after school care, as well as the fact that
school caused some family reorganisation. Where children had attended long
day care prior to starting school, parents noted the ease of organising only one
form of care over longer hours.
Approximately 10% of responses from parents and teachers were
allocated to the category ‘other’. The majority of these responses consisted of
comments including the term ‘readiness’, which was not explained further.

Readiness
What do these results imply about the concept of readiness and its use in NSW
schools? Firstly, the indications are that the perspectives expressed by parents
and teachers have a lot in common. While there are subtle differences, and
these should not be discounted, there is emphasis from both groups on the
element of adjustment. Specifically, teachers and parents are keen to have
children start school in ways that promote their interactions with other
children and teachers, in positive group situations, where children can assume
independence in expressing their needs. Positive dispositions are closely
aligned with this, in that teachers and parents seem more concerned that
children want to go to school and are happy at school, than they are about
children starting school with an incredible array of skills and knowledge. One
teacher said, ‘I can teach them to read and write, so they don’t need to know
that before they start. I want kids who are happy and want to be here’.
The focus on adjustment issues is similar to that reported by Heaviside et
al (1993), in that physical well-being and communicative ability were
highlighted. It is also in keeping with other Australian studies which have
indicated that parents tend to rate social skills as more important than
academic skills in the early childhood years (Lockwood & Fleet, 1999).

82
 YOUNG CHILDREN STARTING SCHOOL

However, popular literature as well as parent literature from schools reiterates

a skills focus, often listing numerous skills to be mastered in order for children
to be deemed ‘ready for school’. For example, skills such as the following are
listed on several ‘readiness checklists’:

can draw people with three or four recognisable features;

can count own fingers;
can share and take turns; and
can cut and paste with ease (Irvine, 2000).

In considering readiness checklists, it is remarkable that in many of the social

skills listed, young children are expected to be at least as competent,
sometimes more so, than adults. For example, there are many adults who have
trouble dealing with conflict, relating to adults and coping with success and
failure, all attributes suggested by Sweet & Perceval (1996) as components of
school readiness. These skills certainly are important, but they are unlikely to
be developed fully by age five.
Highlighting adjustment, as well as rules and dispositions, links to both
the social constructivist and the interactionist views of readiness. Both of these
views emphasise the importance of context in understanding readiness. The
interactionist view, in particular, emphasises the ways in which children
influence their context, as well the ways in which context impacts upon them.
Teachers and parents, and children, are keen for children to be happy at school
and to ‘fit into’ the school context. Each group identifies different ways in
which they expect this to occur, but nevertheless, becoming comfortable in
the school context is the desired outcome. This view is not necessarily
reflected in the administrative context of starting school – where there remains
a push to develop school screening instruments and indicators of adjustment
to school (Ure, 1998; Margetts, 1999; Clift et al, 2000) – or in the practicalities
of classroom teaching, as teachers are confronted with large groups of children
at the beginning of each school year.
The mention of age as a factor in readiness reflects the popular, as well as
some of the research, literature: that children are more likely to succeed in
school if they are not among the youngest in their class group, particularly if
they are boys. This draws on the maturationist view of readiness, with the
corollary that an extra year away from school will give children the chance to
mature, and hence promote their readiness for school.
While the adult participants in transition to school have some common
areas of focus, children differ in their emphasis. For the children participating
in the Starting School Research Project, knowing the rules and having friends
were the aspects of starting school that mattered most. It is arguable that these
areas form subsets of the category of adjustment. This may well be so.
However, what is important is that the children involved spoke explicitly
about rules, knowing the rules, the consequences of breaking rules and feeling

83
Sue Dockett & Bob Perry

uncomfortable when with other children who did break the rules – notably the
‘big kids’.

Conclusion
The results of this analysis suggest very strongly that we cannot assume that
all the participants in children’s transition to school are focused on the same
things. Any judgements about children’s readiness, or otherwise, can involve
different things for different people. Even when talking about the same general
areas, different people have different understandings and expectations, and
seek to find different things as indicators of a child’s preparedness for starting
school.
Parents, teachers and children are all actively involved in the process of
transition to school and all have different perceptions and expectations about
what is important. If we are to develop effective transition programmes where
the focus is developing meaningful partnerships between teachers, parents and
children, we must take these into account. We cannot ignore any of these
perspectives and expectations, or assume that some are more or less important
than others.
Despite an increasing amount of attention, readiness for school remains a
complex issue. The data reported in this article support Meisels’s (1999) call for
a view of readiness as a ‘process that occurs over time and is not complete by
the first day of Kindergarten’ (p. 62). This view proposes that readiness is more
than a checklist of skills and contextually isolated knowledge and more than a
set of behaviours that enable a child to be regarded as compliant in the
classroom. Rather:
readiness must be conceptualised as a broad construct that incorporates all aspects
of a child’s life that contribute directly to that child’s ability to learn. Definitions
of readiness must take into account the environment, context, and conditions
under which the child acquires skills and is encouraged to learn. Assessment of
readiness must, in consequence, incorporate data collected over time from the
child, teacher, parents and community. (Meisels, 1999, pp. 62-63)
This is an interactionist view of readiness, which emphasises the role of all
participants – including children –in the process of preparing for school. It also
highlights the notion of readiness based on relationships and recognises that
relationships between children, families and educators are crucial to children’s
transition to school. Drawing on this view, the following implications are
offered. Educators are encouraged to:

consider their beliefs about learning and development and how these might
translate into expectations about readiness. For example, not many of us
subscribe to maturationist views of learning and development, yet we hear
these views used to support delayed entry to school;

84
 YOUNG CHILDREN STARTING SCHOOL

review school readiness programmes in the light of beliefs, understandings

and expectations of children;
be aware of the effects of delayed school entry on the expectations of adults
and the pressure on curriculum;
develop transition programmes in consultation with others, to reflect the
broader issues of relationships and context;
avoid expecting more of children than we do of adults. Adults have more
experience and more resources on which to call when meeting new or
different situations. Maybe we should expect adults to make more of the
changes we expect from children;
respect children for who they are and the understandings, skills and abilities
they have. They may not demonstrate the things that adults think are
important, but nevertheless, they have achieved a great deal in all areas by
the time they start school;
avoid the labels of ‘ready’ and ‘unready’. They are generally unhelpful and
focus on the past, rather then the future and children’s learning potential;
communicate with colleagues, parents and children. Success in school, as in
many aspects of life, is about relationships, as well as about what is known,
and the skills one has. The relationships we form with others provide the
basis and the context for just about everything we do. One of the most
worthwhile things we can do as educators and parents is to form and build
upon positive relationships with children, especially during critical change
periods, such as when they are starting school.

Acknowledgment
The research has been supported through a University of Western Sydney
Macarthur Foundation Grant, Complementary Research Unit Grant and
Strategic Initiatives Grant. As well, funds were contributed by the NSW
Department of Education and Training, the NSW Department of Community
Services and the Australian Research Council. These financial contributions
are gratefully acknowledged by the authors, as is the assistance of all members
of the project Advisory Committee and the Starting School Research Project
team. The opinions expressed in the article are those of the authors. An earlier
version of this article was presented at the Queensland Kindergarten and
Crèche Association Annual Conference, 3 July 2000.

Correspondence
Sue Dockett & Bob Perry, School of Education and Early Childhood Studies,
Bankstown Campus, University of Western Sydney, Locked Bag 1797, South
Penrith, DC 1797, Australia (s.dockett@uws.edu.au).

85
Sue Dockett & Bob Perry

Notes
[1] The term ‘teacher’ includes all educators in early childhood settings.
[2] Kindergarten is used here to refer to the first year of school. In New South
Wales, children must be at least five years of age before 31 July, in order to
start the school year in January. Across Australia, various terms are used in
different states, such as Reception (South Australia), Prep (Victoria) and Pre-
Primary (Western Australia).

References
Bellisimo, Y., Sacks, C.H. & Mergendoller, J.R. (1995) Changes over Time in
Kindergarten Holding Out: parents and school contexts, Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 10, pp. 205-222.
Biddulph, S. (1997) Raising Boys. Sydney: Finch.
Bredekamp, S. & Shepard, L. (1989) How Best to Protect Children from Inappropriate
School Expectations, Practices and Policies, Young Children, 44, pp. 14-24.
Briggs, F. & Potter, G. (1995) Teaching Children in the First Three Years of School, 2nd edn.
Melbourne: Longman.
Byrd, R.S., Weitzman, M. & Auinger, P. (1997) Increased Behaviour Problems
Associated with Delayed School Entry and Delayed School Progress, Paediatrics,
100, pp. 654-661.
Clift, S., Stagnitti, K. & DeMello, L. (2000) A Developmentally Appropriate Test of
Kinder/School Readiness, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 25, pp. 22-26.
Crosser, S.L. (1991) Summer Birth Date Children: kindergarten entrance age and
academic achievement, Journal of Educational Research, 84, pp. 40-145.
Davies, M. & North, J. (1990) Teacher’s Expectations of School Entry Skills, Australian
Journal of Early Childhood, 15, pp. 44-46.
de Cos, P.L. (1997) Readiness for Kindergarten: what does it mean? A Review of the
Literature in Response to a Request by Assembly Member Kerry Mazzoni. Sacramento:
California State Library. ED 415 969.
DeMeis, J.L. & Stearns, E.S. (1992) Relationship of School Entrance Age to Academic
and Social Performance, Journal of Educational Research, 86, pp. 20-27.
Dockett, S. (2001) Involving a Range of Stakeholders, in S. Dockett & B. Perry (Eds)
Beginning School Together: sharing strengths, pp. 32-40. Canberra: Australian Early
Childhood Association.
Dockett, S. & Perry, B. (1999a) Starting School: what do the children say? Early Child
Development and Care, 159, pp. 107-119.
Dockett, S. & Perry, B. (1999b) Starting School: what matters for children, parents and
educators? Australian Early Childhood Association Research in Practice, 6, pp. 1-18.
Dockett, S. & Perry, B. (2001) Starting School: effective transitions, Early Childhood
Research and Practice, 3; available at http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v3n2/dockett.html
Dockett, S., Perry, B. & Howard, P. (2001) Community Partnerships: the key to the
starting school research project, paper presented at the Change in Education
Research Group Annual Conference, Sydney, February.

86
 YOUNG CHILDREN STARTING SCHOOL

Dockett, S., Perry, B., Howard, P. & Meckley, A. (2000) What Do Early Childhood
Educators and Parents Think is Important about Children’s Transition to School?
A Comparison between Data from the City and the Bush, in P. Jeffrey & R. Jeffrey
(Eds) Proceedings of AARE/NZARE Conference; available online at:
http://www.swin.edu.au/aare/ confpap.htm/PER99541
Faulkner, D. & Miell, D. (1993) Settling into School: the importance of early
friendships for the development of children’s social understanding and
communicative competence, International Journal of Early Years Education, 1,
pp. 23-45.
Gessell Institute of Human Development (1982) A Gift of Time ... a Developmental Point
of View. New Haven: Gessell Institute of Human Development.
Graue, M.E. (1992) Social Interpretations of Readiness for Kindergarten, Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, pp. 225-242.
Graue, M.E. (1993) Ready for What? Constructing Meanings of Readiness for Kindergarten.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Graue, M.E. (1998) What’s Wrong with Edward the Unready? Our Responsibility for
Readiness, Young Children, 53(2), pp. 12-16.
Graue, M.E. & Shepard, L.A. (1989) Predictive Validity of the Gessell School Readiness
Tests, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 4, pp. 303-315.
Graue, M.E. & Walsh, D. (1998) Studying Children in Context: theories, methods and
ethics. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Gredler, G.R. (1980) The Birthdate Effect: fact or artifact? Journal of Learning Disabilities,
13, pp. 349-244.
Griffin, M. & Harvey, D. (1995) When Do Principals and Teachers Think Children
Should Start School? Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 20(3), pp. 27-32.
Gullo, D.F. & Burton, C.B. (1992) Age of Entry, Preschool Experience, and Sex as
Antecedents of Academic Readiness in Kindergarten, Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 7, pp. 175-186.
Hains, A.H., Fowler, S.A., Schwartz, I.S., Kottwitz, E. & Rosenkoetter, S. (1989) A
Comparison of Preschool and Kindergarten Teacher Expectations for School
Readiness, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 4, pp. 75-88.
Hains, J., Ames, L.B. & Gillespie, C. (1980) The Gessell Preschool Test Manual.
Lumberville, PA: Modern Learning Press.
Harradine, C. & Clifford, R.M. (1996) When are Children Ready for Kindergarten?
Views of Families, Kindergarten Teachers and Child Care Providers, paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association, New York, April.
Heaviside, S., Farris, E. & Carpenter, J. (1993) Public School Kindergarten Teachers’ Views
on Children’s Readiness for School. Washington, DC: US Department of Education,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Irvine, J. (2000) Thriving at School. East Roseville, NSW: Simon & Schuster.
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.

87
Sue Dockett & Bob Perry

Knudsen-Lindauer, S.L. & Harris, K. (1989) Priorities for Kindergarten Curricula:

views of parents and teachers, Journal of Research in Child Education, 4, pp. 51-61.
Ladd, G., Birch, S. & Buhs, E. (1999) Children’s Social and Scholastic Lives in
Kindergarten: related spheres of influence? Child Development, 70, pp. 1373-1400.
Ledger, E., Smith, A. & Rich, P. (2000) Friendships over the Transition from Early
Childhood Centre to School, International Journal of Early Years Education, 8,
pp. 57-69.
Lewit, E.M. & Baker, L.S. (1995) School Readiness, The Future of Children: critical issues
for children and youth, 5(2), pp. 1-12.
Lockwood, V. & Fleet, A. (1999) Attitudes towards the Notion of Preparing Children
for School, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 24(3), pp. 18-24.
Margetts, K. (1997) Factors Impacting on Children’s Adjustment to the First Year of
Primary School, Early Childhood Folio, 3, pp. 53-56.
Margetts, K. (1999) Indicators of Children’s Adjustment to the First Year of School,
paper presented at the Australian Research in Early Childhood Education Annual
Conference, Canberra, January.
May, D.C. & Kundert, D.K. (1997) School Readiness Practices and Children At-risk:
examining the issues, Psychology in the Schools, 34(2), pp. 73-84.
McClelland, M., Morrison, F. & Holmes, D. (2000) Children at Risk for Early
Academic Problems: the role of learning-related social skills, Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 15, pp. 307-329.
Meisels, S.J. (1996) Performance in Context: assessing children’s achievement at the
outset of school, in A.J. Sameroff & M.M. Haith (Eds) The Five to Seven Year Shift:
the age of reason and responsibility, pp. 410-431. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Meisels, S.J. (1999) Assessing Readiness, in R.C. Pianta & M.J. Cox (Eds) The Transition
to Kindergarten, pp. 39-66. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
Miles, M.B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994) Qualitative Data Analysis, 2nd edn. Thousand
Oaks: Sage.
Morrison, F.J., Griffith, E.M. & Alberts, D.M. (1997) Nature–Nurture in the
Classroom: entrance age, school readiness, and learning in children, Developmental
Psychology, 33, pp. 254-262.
National Education Goals Panel (1991) The National Education Goals Report.
Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel.
National Education Goals Panel, Technical Planning Group (1995) Reconsidering
Children’s Early Development and Learning: toward common vocabulary. Washington,
DC: National Education Goals Panel.
Page, J., Nienhuys, T., Kapsalakis, A. & Morda, R. (2001) Parents’ Perceptions of
Kindergarten Programmes in Victoria, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 26(3),
pp. 43-50.
Parr, J., McNaughton, S., Timperley, H. & Robinson, V. (1993) Bridging the Gap –
practices of collaboration between home and the junior school, Australian Journal
of Early Childhood, 18(3), pp. 35-42.

88
 YOUNG CHILDREN STARTING SCHOOL

Perry, B. & Dockett, S. (2001) Children Starting School: what should parents and
school teachers do? paper presented at the Australian Research in Early Childhood
Education Annual Conference, Canberra, January.
Perry, B., Dockett, S. & Howard, P. (2000) Starting School: issues for children, parents,
and teachers, Journal of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 7(1),
pp. 41-53.
Perry, B., Dockett, S. & Tracey, D. (1998) At Preschool They Read to You, at School
You Learn to Read: perspectives on starting school, Australian Journal of Early
Childhood, 23(4), pp. 6-11.
Pianta, R.C., Rimm-Kaufman, S.E. & Cox, M.J. (1999) Introduction: an ecological
approach to kindergarten transition, in R.C. Pianta & M.J. Cox (Eds) The
Transition to Kindergarten, pp. 3-12. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
Richardson, L. (1997) Review of Transition from Home to School, Australian Journal of
Early Childhood, 22, pp. 18-22.
Routley, V. & deLemos, M.M. (1993) Changing Trends in School Entry Age in
Victoria, Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 18(2), pp. 30-38.
Shepard, L.A. (1989) A Review of Research on Kindergarten Retention, in
L.A. Shepard & M.L. Smith (Eds) Flunking Grades: research and policies on retention,
pp. 64-78. London: Falmer Press.
Shepard, L.A. (1997) Children Not Ready to Learn? The Invalidity of School Readiness
Testing, Psychology in the Schools, 34(2), pp. 85-97.
Shepard, L.A. & Smith, M.L. (1988) Escalating Academic Demand in Kindergarten:
counterproductive policies, Elementary School Journal, 89, pp. 135-145.
Shepard, L.A., Graue, M.E. & Catto, S.F. (1989) Delayed Entry into Kindergarten and
Escalation of Academic Demands, paper presented at the annual meting of the
American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, March.
Shore, R. (1998) Ready Schools: a report of The Goal 1 Ready Schools Resource Group.
Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel. ED 416 582.
Sweet, L. & Perceval, F. (1996) Start School Smiling. Glen Luce, Victoria: Prentagast.
Taal, R. (2000) Ready for School ... or Not? Elsternwick, Victoria: Wrightbooks.
Ure, C. (1998) The Rites of Passage: assessment in early years, paper presented at the
Australian Association for Research in Education, Adelaide, December.
West, J., Hausken, E.G. & Collins, M. (1993) Readiness for Kindergarten: parent and
teacher beliefs. Statistics in Brief. Washington, DC: National Centre for Education
Statistics.
Zill, N., Loomis, L.S. & West, J. (1997) The Elementary School Performance and
Adjustment of Children Who Enter Kindergarten Late or Repeat Kindergarten:
findings from national surveys. Washington, DC: National Centre for Educational
Statistics. ED 414 076.

89