Educational Perspectives / 47

Assessing School Readiness

On the surface, it appears that it should be quite simple immaturity, poor social skills, and difficulties working as
to identify the characteristics of a child who is ready for part of a group.
school and then to assess whether or not any given child has In an attempt to rectify the problem of children who
these characteristics. But readiness is a difficult construct were not ready for school, states, school districts, and
and one that has been the topic of great debate. Assessment individual schools have responded in a variety of ways.
of readiness is even more challenging. Policies such as Goals Proposed solutions have included raising the entry age for
2000, and more recently No Child Left Behind (2001), have kindergarten, creating extra year-long programs for children
contributed to bringing the issues of school readiness and not ready for more academic demands, and failing or retain-
assessment of school readiness to the forefront. A variety of ing children who do not meet kindergarten expectations.
concerns surround the topic of assessing school readiness. Although the recommendation for children to repeat kinder-
These include 1) the ability of educators, parents, admin- garten came from teachers, there was a nationwide influx
istrators, and policy makers to articulate an agreed upon of formal readiness tests utilized during the 1980’s to make
definition of readiness, 2) coming to an understanding and critical decisions about school placements (Sheppard, 1997).
agreement on appropriate and ethical methods of assess- The current NCLB legislation has also led to a significant
ing readiness, and 3) agreement as to how the information increase in testing nationwide. Given its immense potential
gained will be used. impact on the lives of children, readiness testing continues to
be a controversial issue of great concern to early childhood
Origin of Readiness Assessments professionals.
Early childhood education is inextricably linked to
the larger educational realm and is therefore affected by Defining School Readiness
the trends and policies that govern “formal” schooling. One of the issues surrounding the assessment of school
During the 1980s, “high-stakes” testing in the upper grades readiness is defining what it means for a child to be ready
contributed to the development of skills-driven curricula in for school. Defining school readiness is problematic because,
kindergarten classrooms. As a result, children in the early by virtue of giving it a definition, we presume that children
grades were exposed to classroom curricula “characterized need to know and be able to do certain things before they
by long periods of seatwork, high levels of stress, and a can enter school, and that these can be measured in a reliable
plethora of fill-in-the blank worksheets” (Sheppard, 1994, and accurate way. Nevertheless, in a society and a profession
p.207). This meant that children as young as five needed to that is often driven by results and measurements, a defini-
come to school equipped with the social, physical, and cogni- tion of school readiness is essential. Only through a clearer
tive maturity required to endure and succeed in rigorous, understanding of the construct of readiness can we begin to
skill-driven educational settings that were inappropriate and find appropriate ways to assess it.
inconsistent with the learning and developmental needs of The National Association for the Education of Young
young children. Children (NAEYC) asserts in a position statement on school
An unfortunate, yet logical, result of trickle-down readiness (1995) that any discussion of school readiness
academics was that children were entering kindergarten must consider at least three critical factors: (1) the diversity
unprepared for the grueling tasks that greeted them. In of children’s early life experiences, (2) the wide variation
1995 Pinata and La Paro (2003) conducted a survey of more in young children’s development and learning, and (3) the
than 3500 kindergarten teachers. They found that teachers degree to which school expectations of children entering
reported that one-third of their students have problems mak- kindergarten are reasonable, appropriate, and supportive of
ing adjustments to kindergarten. The students’ difficulties individual differences. The NAEYC further states, that it is
included following directions, inadequate academic skills, the “responsibility of schools to meet the needs of children
48 / Educational Perspectives

as they enter school and to provide whatever services are In 1988, Gnezda and Bolig conducted a survey of fifty
needed in the least restrictive environment to help each child states, which found that four states mandated testing spe-
reach his or her fullest potential” (p. 1). In order to address cifically to determine a child’s readiness for school before
the learning needs of children in an appropriate and ethical kindergarten, and that testing was mandated by local school
way, individual states, local school districts, and individual districts in twenty-six states. In addition, the survey found
schools should define school readiness in a manner that that readiness testing before first grade was mandated in
includes all of the above critical factors stated by the NAEYC. six states and locally in thirty-seven states. Furthermore,
Their position statement on school readiness suggests, like they found that readiness testing was predominantly a local
the definition presented in the state of Hawai‘i’s statement on practice with minimal control by state agencies. The most
readiness (see Harris article), that school readiness is not the disturbing finding from their survey was that screening tools
sole responsibility of the child, and that schools in turn need which should be used as a first step in identifying children
to be ready to receive children at the developmental levels at with special needs and readiness tests that were intended for
which they enter school. instructional planning were frequently used interchangeably
and for purposes which they were not designed for. One of
Traditional Uses of Readiness Assessment the indicators of effective assessment included in NAEYC’s
Traditionally, readiness assessment tools have been used position statement states that assessment instruments should
for a variety of sometimes questionable and controversial be used for their intended purposes. Educators should be sure
purposes. The practice of “academic red shirting” is one that the assessments being used are designed to provide the
outcome of readiness assessments. This concept is based on specific information that they need.
the practice of “athletic red shirting” which allows college More recently, Saluja, Scott-Little, and Clifford (2000)
athletes to mature physically while protecting their years conducted a study to see how states define and assess readi-
of eligibility. In this scenario, a child who does not perform ness for kindergarten. At that time, no state had any formal
adequately well on a readiness assessment upon entry to definition of school readiness other than age of eligibility.
kindergarten is asked to sit out a year, with the justification Eighteen states reported that they were using some kind of
that the following school year, the child will be more mature screening or assessment when children enter kindergarten.
and better equipped to succeed in kindergarten (Sheppard, Twenty-six states reported that they do not mandate readiness
1997). The results of readiness assessments are also used assessment but that local districts have the discretion to assess
to retain children in kindergarten an extra year if they do children prior to kindergarten or upon entry. In addition,
not perform up to the standards needed for them to enter twelve states reported that the data collected is used to inform
first grade. Sheppard (1997) refers to this as kindergarten instruction; seven states used data for school improvement;
“flunking” or retention. The decision to retain a child in kin- six states reported that data is used for screening purposes
dergarten should be made jointly after a discussion between and to identify children with special needs and developmental
parent and teacher, and should be based upon multiple delays; and four states reported that local districts decide how
factors. However, readiness tests have traditionally been to use the information.
used to keep children from being promoted to the next grade The NAEYC position statement on curriculum, assess-
level with little parental input. Readiness tests have also ment, and program evaluation argues that we must make
been used inappropriately as a tool to identify children with “ethical, appropriate, valid, and reliable assessment a central
special needs and for placement in specific kinds of remedial part of all early childhood programs.” The organization also
classroom settings—a purpose that they are not designed urges that assessment be used for beneficial purposes to in-
to fulfill. Determination of whether a child should receive clude (1) making sound decisions about teaching and learning,
special education services requires a comprehensive evalu- (2) identifying significant concerns that may require focused
ation of all aspects of the child’s development. Readiness intervention for individual children, and (3) helping programs
assessments, however, are designed for use in improving and improve their educational and developmental interventions.
informing instruction and planning within the classroom. As we proceed, in Hawai‘i, to implement readiness assessment
Unfortunately, they are seldom put to this appropriate and instruments, it is essential that we honor these guidelines
worthwhile use. and make a conscious effort to utilize information gained
 Educational Perspectives / 49

from these assessment tools in a meaningful manner that is kindergarten to first and second grade. The results of their
beneficial to all children. analysis indicate that the average correlation of the child’s
academic/cognitive functioning test results in preschool
with performance in the early elementary years was only .43.
The Ability of Readiness Assessments to Predict
School Success In the social skills area, there was a .32 correlation with per-
formance in the early elementary years. Overall, they found
Before deciding what kind of readiness assessment to
that readiness assessments predicted only about 20 % of the
use, it is critical to decide what is being assessed and what
variability in children’s academic performance in school and
the information will be used for. These questions should
10 % of the variability in children’s social performance in
guide the type of assessment instrument used with young
school. These results offer little support for testing children
children. Maxwell and Clifford (2004) argue that in order
in preschool to predict school readiness and school success.
to choose a readiness assessment tool, some key questions,
Readiness tests have some important limitations which
such as the definition of readiness, the purpose for assessing
educators and policy makers should be aware of. First of
readiness, and the characteristics of the children being as-
all, because each assessment tool is designed for a specific
sessed must first be answered. According to Lori Shepard,
purpose and should not be used for other purposes, schools
Measurement specialists will always tell you
must be clear about their purposes in doing an assessment
that test validity depends on test use. A test may be
and choose an appropriate assessment tool. Secondly, each
valid for one purpose and not for another; it may
school readiness assessment tool is designed with an explicit
even have adequate reliability for some uses but be
or implicit definition of school readiness and therefore, indi-
too inaccurate to support other more critical deci-
viduals who wish to assess children must be clear on their
sions. Therefore, to judge the technical adequacy of
own definition of school readiness before they can choose
readiness tests, it is essential to know their purpose.
an appropriate assessment tool. Lastly, assessment tools are
(1997, p. 92).
only as good as the individuals actually implementing the
Carlton and Winsler (1999) argue that readiness tests assessment and interpreting the data. Therefore, training
can be classified into two categories: tests that measure is necessary for individuals who conduct the assessment if
developmental milestones and tests that measure academic it is to be used accurately and appropriately (Maxwell and
knowledge. Two of the more popular and widely used Clifford, 2004).
readiness tests are the Gesell School Readiness Test, which
measures developmental milestones, and the Metropolitan State Efforts to Address the Assessment
Readiness Test, which measures academic knowledge. Most of School Readiness
studies have found that these widely used readiness tests Awareness of the importance of providing a clear defini-
are “relatively poor predictors of future success and that tion of school readiness and of appropriate assessment has
typical assessment practices lack sufficient validity and reli- become a critical issue for children and early childhood pro-
ability for making placement decisions” (Carlton & Winsler, fessionals due to the increasing demands for standards-based
1999, p.340). With the Gesell test, for example, only half the measures and an increasing demand for accountability in the
children who were potential kindergarten failures were ac- preschool and early years. The Maryland Model for School
curately identified, even though seventy-eight percent were Readiness (MMSR) provides an example of a school readi-
identified using teacher judgment (Sheppard & Smith, 1986). ness framework intended to support teachers and improve
In general, readiness tests have not shown much promise, assessment and instructional techniques to support young
yet we continue to use them to make important decisions for children’s readiness for school (Maryland State Department
children and their school experience. of Education, Final Report, 2003-04). The framework includes
Pianta and La Paro (2003) conducted a meta-analysis assessment, instruction, family communication, and articula-
of seventy longitudinal studies that involved more than tion among programs. It utilizes the Work Sampling System
3,000 children in order to determine how well assessments as an assessment tool to help teachers document and assess
predicted children’s social and academic competence during children’s skills, knowledge, and behavior across multiple
the transition from preschool to kindergarten and from domains. This comprehensive approach makes use of a
50 / Educational Perspectives

definition of school readiness as a construct inclusive of the The assessment of school readiness should not be
child, family, school, and community. a negative experience for children and families. School
Hawai‘i already has made progress in this area. It was readiness assessments should provide teachers and schools
one of the first states in the nation to enact a statewide defini- with indicators of children’s developmental levels and that
tion of school readiness. Hawai‘i defines readiness as an information should be used to plan instruction and design
interaction between the child, school practices, family, and appropriate learning environments. Assessment of school
community—all critical factors influencing a child’s ability readiness should also be a two-fold process that looks not
to succeed in school. In a 2003 a report to the Hawai‘i State just at where children are developmentally, but also how
Legislature the School Readiness Task Force made recom- well prepared and committed schools are to addressing the
mendations relating to school readiness. These included needs of young children. This implies that schools need to
assessing the readiness of children and schools at the system have teachers and administrators who are knowledgeable
level, supporting preparation and ongoing education of about early childhood education and who understand how
practitioners and administrators, linking K–3 content and children learn and develop skills and knowledge.
performance standards to Hawai‘i preschool content stan-
dards, and establishing a statewide approach to promoting
successful transition from home or early childhood program
to kindergarten.
Recently, the Hawai‘i State School Readiness Assess- References
ment tool (HSSRA) has been developed and implemented Bush, George W. (2001). No child left behind. Washington, DC: Office of
the Secretary (www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs/html).
by the Department of Education. This two-part instrument Carlton, M. P., & Winsler, A. (1999). School readiness: The need for a
(described in detail in the article by Brandt and Grace) is paradigm shift. School Psychology Review, 28, 3, pp. 338–352.
Gnezda, M. T., & Bolig, R. (1988). A national survey of public school
designed to gather system-level data on children’s readiness testing of pre-kindergarten and kindergarten children. Washington:
for school and schools’ readiness for children. The primary National Research Council, National Forum on the Future of Children
and Families.
purpose of this assessment tool is to provide information to Goals 2000: Reforming education to improve student achievement. (1998).
teachers and schools on how to better meet the needs of their Report to Congress. Washington: Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education (ED).
incoming kindergarteners. Maxwell, K. & Clifford, R. (Jan 2004). Research in review: School
readiness assessment. Young Children (www.journal.naeyc.org).
Meisels, S. J., Jablon, J. R., Marsden, D .B., Dichtelmiller, M. L., Dorfman,
A. B., & Steele, D. M. (1995). The work sampling system: An overview.
Conclusion Ann Arbor: Rebus Planning Associates, Inc.
Assessing school readiness is difficult and complex. It Maryland State Department of Education (2000–2001). Children entering
school ready to learn: School readiness baseline information. Final
involves a variety of stakeholders—children, parents, fami- Report.
lies, teachers, administrators, policy makers, and community National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1995). A
position statement, revised. School readiness. (www.naeyc.org/about/
members—each of whom brings their own values, beliefs, positions/pdf/psready98.pdf).
Pianta, R. C., & La Paro, K. (2003). Improving early school success.
and perspectives to the issue of school readiness. Maryland Educational Leadership, pp. 24–29.
and Hawai‘i are two positive examples of states working Saluja, G., Scott-Little, C., & Clifford, R. (2000). Readiness for school: A
survey of state policies and definitions. Early Childhood Research and
to create comprehensive readiness systems that focus on Practice, 2, 2.
children and the ways in which teachers and schools can best Sheppard, L. (1994). The challenges of assessing young children
appropriately. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, pp. 206–212.
meet the needs of their students. They encourage schools,
Sheppard, L. (1997). Children not ready for learn? The invalidity of school
teachers, parents, and administrators to share the responsi- readiness testing. Psychology in the Schools, 34, 2, pp.85–97.
bility of school readiness, and allow for more successful early Sheppard, L. A., & Smith, M. L. (1986). Synthesis of research on school
readiness and kindergarten retention. Educational Leadership, 44, pp.
learning experiences for children. 78–86.