an analysis of parental understandings regarding
TRANSCRIPT
AN ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL UNDERSTANDINGS
REGARDING KINDERGARTEN READINESS
A Dissertation
Presented to
The Faculty of the Education Department
Carson-Newman University
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Education
By
Erin Mekkaoui
April 2020
Copyright © 2020 Erin Mekkaoui
iii
Dissertation Approval
Student Name: Erin Elizabeth Mekkaoui
Dissertation Title:
AN ANALYSIS OF PARENTAL UNDERSTANDINGS
REGARDING KINDERGARTEN READINESS
This dissertation has been approved and accepted by the faculty of the Education Department,
Carson-Newman University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Doctor of
Education.
Dissertation Committee:
Dissertation Chair: Dr. Steve A. Davidson
Methodologist Member: Dr. P. Mark Taylor
Content Member: Dr. Tony Dalton
Approved by the Dissertation Committee: April 9, 2020
iv
Abstract
This qualitative study sought to explore parental understandings of kindergarten readiness
and how those understandings aligned with student performance. Data were collected through
parent surveys, kindergarten student screening tool scores, and five parent interviews. Through
interviews, participants identified social skills, letter and number identification, a disposition to
learn, and self-care as important factors of kindergarten readiness. Parents identified pre-
kindergarten attendance, home activities, and extracurricular activities as ways they prepared
their children for kindergarten. Parents expressed concerns over school and classroom
expectations, as well as student-specific academic skill deficits. Data showed that skills parents
placed emphasis on as important for kindergarten readiness were the same skills students scored
high in on the kindergarten screening tool. Skills on which parents did not place emphasis were
also skills in which student scores were lower. The results indicated that what parents found
essential to readiness were among the things students did well in, supporting the need for
parental buy-in and education.
v
Dedication
This is dedicated to my Noah. Throughout this, I have said this dissertation is just as
much yours as it is mine. You came into the world on your own terms as I was beginning the
last year in my program. Even though your babyhood got off to a much rockier start than any of
us were anticipating, you have shown us what an intelligent and strong boy you are from the very
beginning. You spent so many hours as a newborn sitting with me or napping on me while I
wrote. You are too little now to understand or even remember this journey, but know that YOU
are what kept me going. There were many times I wanted to give up, but your joy, your laughs,
and your smiles motivated me to continue to press forward when it felt impossible. You are the
reason behind everything, and I love you more than you will ever know.
This is also dedicated to my brother Tyler Crouch, who passed away very suddenly and
unexpectedly as I was finishing my dissertation. Tyler, there are so many things I want to say to
you right now. You were a shining light in my life. We went through so much together and you
were always there—in the good and the bad. I have so many memories of you that I will cherish
always. I will remember you as the boy that just wanted to make people laugh and help make the
world a better place, and you did that. You made me a better person, and I know you changed so
many lives through your kindness and your servant heart. I know you are in a better place now,
probably watching NASCAR, cutting hair, painting, and drinking coffee like always. I am so
thankful for the short 23 years we had together, and I am so grateful you were here to walk me
down the aisle. I see so much of you in Noah, especially in his love and joy for life. I know that
he has an angel watching over him.
vi
Acknowledgements
Thank you to my husband, Sam, who was the reason I had the courage to begin. Thank
you for believing in me. To my parents, grandparents, and in-laws—thank you for always
supporting my dreams. You have kept Noah entertained for countless hours, cooked us food,
kept our house clean, been a shoulder to cry on, and much more. Mom, thank you for
continually pushing me and helping me find my own way.
To Kathryn DuBray, Stefanie Gonzalez, Darcy Holcomb, and Rachel Limerick—you are
the best friends and cheerleaders. You have been a balancing force amid chaos. I am so grateful
for your friendships.
Thank you to the best kindergarten team ever, TeiAndrea Conwell, Crystal Emery, Janna
Jones, Rachel Limerick, Kayla Marinell, Casey Moore, Kallye Walley, Nikki Ware, and Connie
Weathers. Our conversations were often the much needed comic relief I needed when things got
tough. You supported me through this process and I know how blessed I am to have found you
all.
Thank you to the incredible faculty of the Tennessee Tech University education and
human ecology departments for their guidance and support throughout the years. To Dr. Martha
Howard, Dr. Rebekah Marcum, Dr. Leann Shipley, and Dr. Amber Spears—I hope one day I can
be half the educators you are. Thank you to Marta Johnson and Dora Simpson for the friendship
and support since I “flew the nest.”
I would also like to thank my dissertation committee, Dr. Steve Davidson, Dr. Tony
Dalton, and Dr. P. Mark Taylor for their assistance and patience throughout this process. I have
learned so much from all of you.
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract ......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ...................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ...................................................................................................................... vi
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction ................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 2
Purpose and Significance of the Study ............................................................................... 3
Theoretical Foundation ....................................................................................................... 3
Rationale for the Study ....................................................................................................... 4
Research Question .............................................................................................................. 5
Researcher Positionality Statement..................................................................................... 5
Definition of Terms............................................................................................................. 6
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................... 7
CHAPTER TWO: Review of the Literature .............................................................................. 8
History of Kindergarten ...................................................................................................... 9
Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development .................................................................... 11
Understanding Kindergarten Readiness ............................................................................ 12
Five Domains of Kindergarten Readiness ........................................................................ 13
Language and literacy development. .................................................................... 13
Cognition and general knowledge. ....................................................................... 13
Approaches toward learning. ................................................................................ 14
Physical well-being and motor development. ....................................................... 15
Social and emotional development. ...................................................................... 15
viii
Tennessee’s School Readiness Model .............................................................................. 16
Ready communities. .............................................................................................. 17
Ready schools. ...................................................................................................... 18
Ready families. n.d.a). ......................................................................................... 19
Ready children. ................................................................................................... 19
Influences and Risk Factors for Kindergarten Readiness ................................................. 20
Age of entry. ......................................................................................................... 21
Retention. 2010). ................................................................................................... 22
Redshirting. ........................................................................................................... 23
Preschool experience. ........................................................................................... 23
Shifts in expectations. ........................................................................................... 26
Gender, race, and socioeconomic status. .............................................................. 26
Stakeholder Perceptions of Kindergarten Readiness ........................................................ 27
Student perceptions of readiness. .......................................................................... 27
Parent perceptions of readiness. ............................................................................ 28
Teacher perceptions of readiness. ......................................................................... 29
Differences in stakeholder perceptions of readiness ............................................. 31
Summary of Review of the Literature .............................................................................. 32
CHAPTER THREE: Methodology ........................................................................................... 34
Research Question ............................................................................................................ 34
Description of the Specific Research Approach ............................................................... 34
Research Design................................................................................................................ 34
Data Collection ................................................................................................................. 35
ix
Student screening tools. ........................................................................................ 35
Parent surveys.. ..................................................................................................... 36
Parent interviews ................................................................................................... 37
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 38
Description of the Study Participants and Setting ............................................................ 39
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions ................................................................... 39
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 40
Summary of the Methodology .......................................................................................... 40
CHAPTER FOUR: Presentation of the Findings .................................................................... 42
Descriptive Characteristics of Participants ....................................................................... 42
Data Presentation .............................................................................................................. 44
Study Findings .................................................................................................................. 45
Parent survey results.. ........................................................................................... 45
Read 20 Kindergarten Screening Tool results. ..................................................... 46
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 49
General kindergarten readiness ............................................................................. 51
Preparation for kindergarten.. ............................................................................... 52
Student specific skill deficits. ............................................................................... 53
Summary of the Results .................................................................................................... 55
CHAPTER FIVE: Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations ................................. 57
Conclusions ....................................................................................................................... 57
Implications....................................................................................................................... 60
Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 61
x
Summary of the Study ...................................................................................................... 61
References .................................................................................................................................... 63
Appendix A .................................................................................................................................. 76
Appendix B .................................................................................................................................. 91
Appendix C .................................................................................................................................. 96
Appendix D ................................................................................................................................ 101
Appendix E ................................................................................................................................ 103
xi
List of Tables and Figures
Table 4.1 Student Age and Pre-Kindergarten Attendance............................................................ 43
Table 4.2 Student and Parent Demographics ............................................................................... 43
Table 4.3 Parent Survey Results ................................................................................................... 46
Table 4.4 Read 20 Kindergarten Screening Tool Results ............................................................. 47
Table 4.5 Parent and Student Kindergarten Readiness Levels..................................................... 48
Figure 4.1 Data Sorted in Levels of Coding……………………………………………………..50
1
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction
First and Palfrey (1994) established that child development was not a linear process but
one that varied from child to child. Likewise, kindergarten readiness varied from child to child,
depending on the children’s prior experiences (Fantuzzo, Rouse, McDermott, Childs, & Weiss,
2005). On the internet, news pieces, blogs, articles, checklists, tips, tricks, and anecdotes existed
on how to help children prepare for entry into kindergarten (American Federation of Teachers,
2016; Gartrell, 2019; Mayo Clinic, 2019; National Center for Learning Disabilities, n.d.;
Svensen, 2019; Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth, n.d.a), yet only 26 states had
formally developed a definition of kindergarten readiness as of 2016 (Pierson, 2018).
A perception existed within the United States that kindergarten teachers solely focused on
learning the alphabet and how to count (Alvarez, 2015). In actuality, kindergarten readiness
encompassed more than just the mastery of one or two isolated skills (National Association for
the Education of Young Children [NAEYC], 2009). Kindergarten readiness encompassed the
overall influences and skills across multiple skill areas that contributed to students’ success in
kindergarten, including language and literacy development, cognition, approaches to learning,
social-emotional development, and physical development (U.S. Department of Education, n.d.).
Furthermore, “Readiness doesn’t mean just knowing the academic basics. It means a child has a
willing attitude and confidence in the process of learning: a healthy state of mind” (Gartrell,
2019, para 1). Readiness also encompassed more than children. According to the NAEYC
(2009), “School readiness, in the broadest sense, is about children, families, early environments,
schools, and communities” (p. 1). Families and experiences strongly impacted children’s
development coming to school (NAEYC, 2009). The longer a student was behind in school, the
2
lower the chance of catching up later (American Federation of Teachers, 2016). For these
reasons, this researcher explored parents’ understandings regarding kindergarten readiness.
Statement of the Problem
Parents reported feeling shocked by the expectations upon their children entering
kindergarten (Alvarez, 2015). Wildenger and McIntyre (2011) reported that parents felt the need
for more information related to kindergarten expectations and students’ current skill level while
transitioning to kindergarten. Wildenger and McIntyre (2011) concluded that this could indicate
a lack of full understanding between skill level and expectations. The disconnect between
perceptions and expectations meant that students entered kindergarten already behind (U.S.
Department of Education, 2015). Students who entered kindergarten below grade expectations
found it challenging to keep up with peers, which increased the likelihood of ending the
academic year below grade level (Children’s Reading Foundation, n.d.). Students who started
kindergarten behind academically composed the largest set of school dropouts before graduation,
with only 12% of attending a four-year college (Children’s Reading Foundation, n.d.).
Furthermore:
Schools don’t create the multi-year achievement gap seen on the first day of kindergarten.
The achievement gap happens when there is a preparation gap in a child’s earliest years.
But when children enter school, the gap created before kindergarten typically follows
them year after year. So students who are behind, stay behind. (Children’s Reading
Foundation, n.d., para 2)
Parents reported regrets about having little knowledge of how to aid their children in the
transition to kindergarten, which demonstrated a need for parental education in how to prepare
students and families (Quick, 2018). By exploring parents’ understandings tied to kindergarten
3
readiness, this researcher offered insight into how schools can better educate parents to prepare
the children prior to kindergarten.
Purpose and Significance of the Study
The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the relationship between
kindergarten students’ performance across multiple areas of development (e.g., gross motor, fine
motor, cognitive, language, and social-emotional) and parents’ understandings of kindergarten
readiness. Understanding existing patterns of parent beliefs aided in educating parents so parents
could influence students’ readiness for kindergarten (Quick, 2018). Quick (2018) found that
when parents understood the expectations necessary for their children to be successful in school,
the parents showed an increased willingness to further engage in their students’ learning.
Theoretical Foundation
Vygotsky’s theory of the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) formed the theoretical
framework for this study. “ZPD explains that learning begins socially and is consequently
internalized” (Nordlof, 2014, p. 45). ZPD provides a model for teachers to scaffold learning by
observing students’ understanding and then adjusting instruction accordingly (Nordlof, 2014).
Vygotsky utilized four stages to describe ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978). These included Stage I, where
capacity begins through practice and assistance (Vygotsky, 1978). The learner moved to Stage
II, where the learner provides his own assistance and capacity is developed (Vygotsky, 1978).
By Stage III, the learner had developed to the point that the learning or action was internalized
(Vygotsky, 1978). Stage IV encompassed a regression to previous stages (Vygotsky, 1978).
These stages functioned within a recursive loop.
To Vygotsky, true education was not learning specific knowledge but the development of
learning abilities (Vygotsky, 1986). Vygotsky (1986) believed the key to intelligence was the
4
ability to use multiple types of psychological tools. Through these psychological tools, humans
could extend mental abilities just as physical tools extended physical abilities (Vygotsky, 1986).
McLeod (2019) explored the difference between what a learner could accomplish independently
and what the learner could do with assistance (McLeod, 2019). Instruction was not too difficult
or too easy but rather just challenging enough to help students develop new skills by building on
those already established (McLeod, 2019).
This researcher sought to make connections between the level children performed within
their ZPD across multiple skill areas, including gross motor, fine motor, cognitive, language, and
social-emotional, and how the parents viewed the mastery of skills within those areas. If
development was not linear as previously established by First and Palfrey (1994), then students
developed differently and required different scaffolding. Students were more receptive to this
method of targeted instruction because it focused on the next logical step in skill development
for each child (Knestrick, 2012). Applying Vygotsky’s theory of ZPD, children who entered
kindergarten at a below-average readiness level would require more targeted scaffolding from
the teacher to build upon the existing skills to reach the grade level expectation by the end of the
year. Similarly, students who entered kindergarten with an above-average readiness level would
also require different and more concentrated scaffolding to continue acquiring skills beyond
grade level expectation (Vygotsky, 1986). Knowing the students’ ZPD was crucial in helping
teachers more effectively guide students (Knestrick, 2012).
Rationale for the Study
Based on the literature review, the researcher discovered a lack of research on students’
kindergarten readiness and parent understandings of kindergarten readiness in highly diverse,
low socioeconomic areas. Existing studies lacked focus on parents’ beliefs and perceptions of
5
readiness as these applied to their children. The body of research centered around teacher
perceptions and how stakeholders defined readiness skills (Bell, 2013; Bressler, 2011; Butler,
2017; Cappelloni, 2010; Kane, 2014; Pooler, 2019; Simerly, 2014; Vallacchi, 2019). The
researcher believed that this study added to the body of knowledge in this area due to the lack of
research regarding parents’ perceptions of children’s’ kindergarten readiness, as parental beliefs
had a significant influence over children’s’ background knowledge and experiences. Comparing
parents’ beliefs with student readiness scores provided a broader picture of how well parents’
views aligned with children’s’ abilities and how well parents understood kindergarten readiness
expectations in this school setting.
Research Question
Friedman (2015) defined a research question:
A statement about an area of concern, a condition to be improved upon, a difficulty to be
eliminated, or a troubling question that exists in scholarly literature, in theory, or in
practice that points to the need for meaningful understanding and deliberate investigation.
(p. 26)
This researcher used the following research question to provide focus during the study: What are
the relationships between parents’ views and their children’s readiness for kindergarten?
Researcher Positionality Statement
At the time of the study, the researcher was a kindergarten teacher with four years of
classroom experience in an urban school district in East Tennessee. Three and a half years
occurred in one highly diverse Title I school, and one semester took place in a private school.
The researcher oversaw the organization of kindergarten screenings for the entire grade level one
6
of the four years. The researcher held the core belief of the need for a strong kindergarten
foundation.
To control for bias, the researcher did not administer parent surveys or student screening
tools. Before assigning students a classroom teacher, nine kindergarten teachers administered
surveys and student screening tools. After classroom teachers were assigned, the researcher
collected and reviewed the results of parent surveys and student screening tools then selected
student and parent matches based on discrepancies in survey results and student performance on
the kindergarten screening tool. The parent survey mirrored the items on the student screening
tool. Parents completed the survey independently, and kindergarten teachers conducted student
screening tools for each student over several days during the summer and at the beginning of the
academic year.
Definition of Terms
In this section, the researcher defined key terms utilized in this study. Terms were
defined to ensure a common understanding of key terminology within the research (Simon &
Goes, 2013).
Kindergarten. Kindergarten referred to “a form of education for young children that
serves as a transition from home to the commencement of more formal schooling” (Bell, 2013,
p. 9).
Readiness. Readiness described a child’s ability to acquire skills in five skill areas:
physical well-being, social and emotional development, approaches to learning, language
development, and cognition and general knowledge (Stedron & Berger, 2010).
Zone of proximal development. Vygotsky (1978) described ZPD as “the distance
between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the
7
level of potential development as determined through problem-solving under adult guidance or in
collaboration with more capable peers” (p. 86).
Organization of the Study
This qualitative study included five chapters. In Chapter One, the researcher introduced
the topic, gave background, and provided the purpose of the study. In addition, the researcher
provided the research question, discussed the theoretical foundation, and defined key terms. In
Chapter Two, the researcher reviewed and synthesized the previous literature regarding
kindergarten readiness and parent perceptions of readiness. In this chapter, the researcher
provided the history of the evolution of kindergarten, discussed the theories of Vygotsky in
relation to kindergarten, explored the five domains of readiness, examined Tennessee’s School
Readiness Model, reviewed influences and risk factors for readiness, and explored stakeholder
understandings of readiness. In Chapter Three, the researcher described the methodology and
described the population, techniques, and procedures of the study. Limitations and delimitations
were also discussed. This chapter also included a description of data analysis. In Chapter Four,
the findings of the study were shared. In the final Chapter Five, the researcher discussed the
results and drew conclusions from the results along with presenting implications and suggestions
for future research.
8
CHAPTER TWO: Review of the Literature
Berns (n.d.) argued that children’s school success started from birth. As the expansion of
academic standards and rigor increased within the classroom, schools responded by increasing
expectations placed on students (Svensen, 2019). Svensen (2019) suggested that students were
expected to know more than in the past as it related to academics, which was why students’
foundational years in school were so significant. Development, especially in young children,
was not always linear (First & Palfrey, 1994). Children grew in predictable patterns but often
developed at different rates (Zemelman, Daniels, & Hyde, 2005). These disparities existed due
to many reasons, and instruction needed to be differentiated to reach all students at each
individual developmental stage (Zemelman et al., 2005).
In the literature review, this researcher:
● provided historical context on the evolution of kindergarten;
● discussed the theories of Vygotsky in relation to kindergarten;
● explained kindergarten readiness;
● explored readiness and its five domains;
● explained Tennessee’s School Readiness Model;
● reviewed influences and risk factors for readiness; and
● explored differences in stakeholder perceptions of readiness.
Examining the literature as it related to kindergarten readiness aided teachers and other
stakeholders in better understanding others’ perceptions of readiness to better assist students and
families.
9
History of Kindergarten
The idea of kindergarten, or children’s garden, originated in Germany by theorist
Friedrich Frobel, who opened the first organized school for young children in 1837 in
Blakenburg, Germany (Eschner, 2017; Fromberg, 2006). Froebel thought young children should
have exposure to school to encourage them to learn about the world and do so through
imaginative play (Eschner, 2017). Froebel also thought that the school day began with songs and
that teachers should be women, as he viewed teaching as an extension of mothering (Eschner,
2017).
Almost 20 years later, Margarethe Schurz established the first full-day kindergarten in the
United States in 1856 (Fromberg, 2006). She taught in German and utilized circle time with her
students, a practice that continued in classrooms throughout the United States into the 21st
century (Fromberg, 2006). Just a few short years later, Elizabeth Peabody opened the first
English speaking kindergarten in the United States in 1860 (Fromberg, 2006). She encouraged
students to bring their favorite books, taught them using manipulatives and games, and
encouraged physical activity (Eschner, 2017). The first public kindergarten opened in St. Louis,
Missouri, in the 1870s. By 1880, over 400 kindergartens in 30 states across the country existed
(Eschner, 2017).
By the end of the 19th century, many social services and religious institutions offered
free kindergarten to working families as a form of childcare (Fromberg, 2006); however, until
the 20th century, most kindergartens existed as private programs (Fromberg, 2006). At the turn
of the 20th century, the child study movement began and focused mainly on child-centered
education (Fromberg, 2006). This model of kindergarten continued through the 1950s, which
10
was government-funded in part to create jobs and childcare during times of war (Fromberg,
2006).
In the later part of the 20th century, kindergarten took on a more academic focus
(Fromberg, 2006). During this time, full-day programs became commonplace but still
incorporated play as a means of stress relief from the more formal academic time (Fromberg,
2006); however, public policies during this time began to emphasize high stakes testing, which
began to reduce play in the classroom (Fromberg, 2006). “Children now spend far more time
being taught and tested on literacy and math skills than they do learning through play and
exploration, exercising their bodies, and using their imaginations (Miller & Almon, 2009, p. 11).
The days of unstructured play and discovery within public kindergarten classrooms existed only
in the past (Miller & Almon, 2009). In a typical day, kindergarteners spent four to six times as
much time on literacy and math instruction or testing as free play, which averaged 30 minutes or
less (Miller & Almon, 2009). Students remained under immense pressure to meet
developmentally inappropriate expectations and participate in high stakes testing. Miller and
Almon (2009) suggested that earlier instruction of academic skills, however, did not lead to more
significant outcomes long term.
As of 2006, kindergarten teachers were more likely to expect students to enter
kindergarten already knowing letters, numbers, and colors than just 10 years prior (Bassok,
Latham, & Rorem, 2016). Teachers cited curricular demands, support from administrators, and
lack of time added to the focus on literacy and math over play (Miller & Almon, 2009).
Furthermore, teachers were more likely to believe that students should begin formal instruction
in literacy and math in preschool and kindergarten (Bassok et al., 2016). The percentage of
educators that believed children should learn to read in kindergarten jumped from 31% in 1998
11
to 65% in 2006 (Bassok et al., 2016). Additionally, students remained less likely to have
exposure to physical education, music, art, science, and social studies (Bassok et al., 2016).
Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development
The theories of Vygotsky shaped early childhood education across Europe and the United
States (Kozulin, Ageyev, Gindis, & Miller, 2003). At the core of Vygotsky’s theories was the
idea that learning was fundamentally social and cultural rather than an individual occurrence
(Kozulin et al., 2003). One of the most popular concepts utilized in modern education was
Vygotsky’s ZPD (Kozulin et al., 2003). Vygotsky defined the ZPD as “the distance between the
actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of
potential development as determined through problem-solving under adult guidance or in
collaboration with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86).
Vygotsky categorized his theory of ZPD in three different ways—developmental,
applied, and metaphoric (Kozulin et al., 2003). Developmental explained psychological
functions; applied explained differences in individual and aided abilities; and metaphoric
connected daily concepts with scientific concepts provided by educators (Kozulin et al., 2003).
Vygotsky held the belief that it was not teaching that could alter development regardless of age
or at any point in time. Learning led to development when taking place within children’s ZPD
along with proper scaffolding, or help children received over time while acquiring a new skill
(Leong & Bodrova, n.d.; Mishra, 2013). This help was ever-changing and continually adjusted
to fit the children’s needs (Mishra, 2013). Furthermore, the type of scaffolding needed to aid
development took on a different appearance depending on the children’s age (Leong & Bodrova,
n.d.). With the right types of interactions, children might have achieved readiness before they
might have otherwise (Aubrey & Riley, 2018). Skills outside children’s ZPD continued to lag,
12
even with the most rigorous instruction, due to the children not being developmentally ready to
acquire the skill (Leong & Bodrova, n.d.).
According to Vygotsky (2016), “. . . play is not the predominant form of activity, but is,
in a certain sense, the leading line of development in the preschool years” (p. 6). During play,
children copied adults and the way the adults conducted themselves, which prepared children for
future responsibilities (Aubrey & Riley, 2018). Thus, play helped children acquire skills to
function within our society (Aubrey & Riley, 2018). Following Vygotsky’s ZPD, play evolved
throughout childhood for children to continue to mature and acquire new skills (Bodrova,
Germeroth, & Leong, 2013). To retain information, children constructed it mentally through
interactions with the environment around them and peers (Semmar & Al-Thani, 2015).
Understanding Kindergarten Readiness
What did it mean to be ready for kindergarten? Surprisingly, there was no nationwide
definition of kindergarten readiness or school readiness (Pierson, 2018). Across the United
States, approximately 4 million children began kindergarten each year (U.S. Department of
Education, 2015). Cox (2008) stated that readiness “has to do with a student's current
preparedness to work with a prescribed set of knowledge, understanding, and skill” (p. 53). Bell
(2013) defined school readiness as “having the ability to cope with the school environment
without undue stress” (p. 9), having in common with Cox that kindergarten readiness was not a
singular skill nor solely academic in nature. Each state, district, school, teacher, and parent had
different ideas of what it meant to truly be ready to enter school. As of 2016, only 26 states
formally adopted a definition of kindergarten readiness, with six more in process to adopt a
description (Pierson, 2018).
13
Five Domains of Kindergarten Readiness
The U.S. Department of Education (n.d.) defined the five domains of school readiness:
language and literacy development, cognition and general knowledge, approaches toward
learning, physical well-being and motor development, and social and emotional development.
Language and literacy development. Language and literacy development involved the
development of language and literacy knowledge, as well as English language development
(Isaacs et al., 2015). Language and literacy development encompassed children’s ability to use
language to communicate needs and wants (Bell, 2013). Early language attempts eventually
developed into the ability to speak in words and sentences (Tennessee Department of Education,
2013). By acquiring language processes, children eventually communicated with others to share
ideas, feelings, and thoughts (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). Development in communication
during this time also helped children lay the foundation for written language, as language
proficiency was considered one key predictor for success in school (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009;
National School Readiness Indicators Initiative, 2005). Exposure to books aided children in
making connections between spoken words and print (Tennessee Department of Education,
2013). Consistent exposure to conversation, books, and music aided development in this area
(Tennessee Department of Education, 2013).
Cognition and general knowledge. Cognition and general knowledge encompassed
logic and reasoning, mathematics knowledge and skills, science knowledge and skills, social
studies knowledge and skills, abstract thought, and imagination (Isaacs et al., 2015; National
School Readiness Indicators Initiative, 2005). Cognitive development occurred when children
acquired information necessary to think logically (Bell, 2013). Development in cognition
occurred when young children learned the information necessary to think logically, which
14
allowed them to put things in order to make sense of it (Bell, 2013). Cognitive development
during this phase of early childhood was vital because this was when children gained
mathematical and logical thinking (Bell, 2013; Patrianakos-Hoobler, Msall, Marks, Huo, &
Schreiber, 2009). Children developed a more solid understanding of numbers and operations,
patterns and relationships, spatial relationships, geometry, measurement, mathematical
reasoning, observation, questioning, and investigating (Patrianakos-Hoobler et al., 2009).
Children constructed learning concepts and operations, including cause and effect, classification,
and logical reasoning (Passe, 2010).
Approaches toward learning. Approaches to learning encompassed children’s learning
style, as well as habits, attitudes, and creative arts expression (Isaacs et al., 2015; Kagan &
Moore, 1995). Chick (n.d.) stated, “The term learning styles is widely used to describe how
learners gather, sift through, interpret, organize, come to conclusions about, and store
information for further use” (para. 1). Much like adults, young children exhibited differences in
the way they learn (Bell, 2013). For example, individuals mastered skills at different speeds. As
children displayed curiosity, they became eager to display a sense of wonder and enthusiasm as
they learned and make connections between prior and new learning (National School Readiness
Indicators Initiative, 2005; Passe, 2010; Tennessee Department of Education, 2013). Over time,
interest in learning and discovering new things increased, as did the level of difficulty and
complexity of materials (Passe, 2010; Tennessee Department of Education, 2013). Time spent
focused on an activity also increased, as did the level of persistence (National School Readiness
Indicators Initiative, 2005; Tennessee Department of Education, 2013). As children discovered
new learning, they began to take risks and try new strategies to solve problems (Passe, 2010;
15
Tennessee Department of Education, 2013). Approaches toward learning encompassed
exploring tasks with flexibility and engaging in role-play with imagination (Passe, 2010).
Physical well-being and motor development. The physical well-being and motor
development domain covered factors such as health status, growth, disabilities, physical abilities,
and conditions relating to before, at, or after birth (National School Readiness Indicators
Initiative, 2005). Children learned about the world through feeling and moving (Newman &
Kranowitz, 2012). As children grew, the environment offered new opportunities for movement
(Petersen, Adams, & Gillespie, 2016). The more opportunities to move, the more engagement in
an activity (Newman & Kranowitz, 2012). “Healthy children are more able to engage in the full
range of life experiences that promote early learning. Children’s motor skills and coordination
have an important influence on their cognitive and social-emotional development, as well as their
academic achievement” (National School Readiness Indicators Initiative, 2005, p. 22).
Social and emotional development. Social and emotional development referred to
children’s ability to interact with others, their capacity for self-regulation, children’s perceptions
of themselves, abilities to understand the feelings of others, and the ability to express their own
feelings (National School Readiness Indicators Initiative, 2005). When young children
developed social and emotional skills, functioning within school settings became easier (Kagan,
Moore, & Bredekamp, 1997). “Emotional health and social competence enable children to
participate in learning and form good relationships with teachers and peers” (National
School Readiness Indicators Initiative, 2005, p. 22). Social and emotional skills included skills
such as respecting the rights of others, relating to peers appropriately, a willingness to give and
receive support, and treating others as one would like to be treated (Kagan et al., 1997). Social
competence, which included skills such as sharing, helping, and positive peer interactions, was
16
cited by teachers as part of being ready for kindergarten, often due to a lack of self-regulation
(Stratton, Webster, Reid, & Stoolmiller, 2008). Unfortunately, as more and more children
entered school with deficits in emotional and social competence, they became at risk for
academic failure, school absences, noncompliance, oppositional behavior problems, and
delinquency (Stratton et al., 2008).
Tennessee’s School Readiness Model
The National School Readiness Indicators Initiative (2005) described four factors in its
“Ready Child Equation” (p. 12). These factors included ready families, ready communities,
ready services, and ready schools (National School Readiness Indicators Initiative, 2005). These
components were recognized by early childhood leaders nationally as components that
influenced children’s readiness. Leaders recognized that school readiness must address three
components, including “children’s readiness for school, school’s readiness for children, and the
capacity of families and communities to provide developmental opportunities for their young
children” (National School Readiness Indicators Initiative, 2005, p. 12).
Tennessee’s School Readiness Model, which was based on the work of the National
School Readiness Indicators Initiative, emphasized three parts of school readiness (Tennessee
Commission on Children and Youth, n.d.a)—family, community, and school—all working
together to support children’s development (Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth,
n.d.a). The model defined readiness as “a condition that exists when communities, schools, and
families collectively create a nurturing environment for child development starting at birth”
(Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth, n.d.a, para. 2). Tennessee’s School Readiness
Model related to this research because this study was conducted in a Tennessee school district.
17
Ready communities. Tennessee’s School Readiness Model defined a ready community
as one with high expectations for organizations related to children’s health, like social services,
healthcare providers, other family services, businesses, local government, and religious
organizations (Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth, n.d.a). Communities supported
these organizations by collaborating with them to strengthen their ability to serve families
(Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth, n.d.a). The goal was to support long term
success through the provision of affordable access to childcare, learning opportunities, and other
services (Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth, n.d.a).Communities provided access to
high-quality childcare (Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth, n.d.a). These center-
based programs achieved high ratings through the Department of Human Services or were
accredited by the NAEYC, National Association for Family Child Care, or other state-approved
organization (Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth, n.d.a). High-quality programs
developed policies to support the development of the whole child, including social-emotional
development, nutrition, and physical development. Teachers prepared to work with families and
schools within the community through high-quality professional development opportunities that
were suited to the changing needs of a community (Tennessee Commission on Children and
Youth, n.d.a). Teachers encouraged communication and collaboration at schools with families
where students would eventually attend kindergarten, building relationships within the
community (Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth, n.d.a).
Agencies were encouraged to provide services pertaining to physical and mental health,
as well as family support (Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth, n.d.a). Caregivers of
children with disabilities or delays were identified and helped through services like the
Tennessee Early Intervention System, which provided services to children with disabilities and
18
developmental delays from birth to age three (Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth,
n.d.a; Tennessee Department of Education, 2020). Health departments provided opportunities
for immunizations and preventative education (Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth,
n.d.a). Community partners worked to support families and increased awareness of abuse
(Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth, n.d.a). Public areas, like parks, libraries, and
museums, offered learning experiences for young children (Tennessee Commission on Children
and Youth, n.d.a). Businesses, religious organizations, and other facilities were required to
develop smoke-free, child-friendly facilities, offer healthy food options, and support family
activities (Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth, n.d.a). Community leaders gathered
data to assess the status and used this to improve program planning (Tennessee Commission on
Children and Youth, n.d.a).
Core indicators for ready communities included the percent of children in poverty;
supports for families with young children; and percentage of children with lead poisoning
(National School Readiness Indicators Initiative, 2005). Emerging indicators included
percentage of families with high housing costs; number of children with emergency housing
services; percentage of children living in neighborhoods with high poverty rates (National
School Readiness Indicators Initiative, 2005).
Ready schools. Schools provided students with an appropriate transition into
kindergarten with high-quality learning opportunities that build confidence and knowledge
(Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth, n.d.a). Policies supported the development of
the whole child, including physical and social-emotional domains (Tennessee Commission on
Children and Youth, n.d.a). Assessments occurred using state standards and expectations
communicated through a variety of methods to families, including newsletters, parent-teacher
19
conferences, and weekly reports (Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth, n.d.a).
Teachers focused on children’s strengths and displayed sensitivity to cultural and individual
differences (Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth, n.d.a). Families engaged as
partners in their children’s education and teachers worked to involve families on multiple levels
on an on-going basis (Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth, n.d.a). Schools
communicated in students’ native languages in order to communicate more effectively with
families (Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth, n.d.a). Teachers participated in
professional development that further developed skills required to work with diverse families
(Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth, n.d.a).
Ready families. Family engaged with their children through positive interaction to help
the children develop communication skills through reading daily, engaging in conversations, and
exposing children to learning opportunities within the community (Tennessee Commission on
Children and Youth, n.d.a). Families advocated for children and participated in early education
events (Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth, n.d.a). Families tracked their children’s
progress and scheduled wellness visits (Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth, n.d.a).
Consumption of healthy foods was encouraged, as they promoted cognitive growth (Tennessee
Commission on Children and Youth, n.d.a). Ready families recognized the family was their
children’s first teacher and strived to maintain a safe and supportive environment that fostered
self-esteem, confidence, and self-control (Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth, n.d.a).
Ready children. Children prepared for school not only academically but also socially,
emotionally, and physically according to the Tennessee Early Childhood Early Learning
Developmental Standards (Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth, n.d.a). This included
listening to stories, discussing events, understanding routines, asking questions, relating to adults
20
and peers, and enjoy activities such as running, drawing, or pretend play (Tennessee Commission
on Children and Youth, n.d.a). In a checklist provided by the state, additional suggestions
included being able to adapt to unfamiliar situations, follow directions, complete one activity at a
time, and gradually sit for longer periods of time (Tennessee Commission on Children and
Youth, n.d.b). Additionally, it was recommended that children be able to take turns, put on
clothing independently, tie shoes, and handle responsibilities, such as picking up toys and setting
the table (Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth, n.d.b).
Influences and Risk Factors for Kindergarten Readiness
School readiness was influenced mainly by families, early environments, and
communities (NAEYC, 2009). As families sought high-quality learning programs, many found
that access was primarily restricted based on factors relating to geography, race, and income
(U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Rothstein (2004) stated the following:
A five-year-old who enters school recognizing some words and who has turned pages of
many stories will be easier to teach than one who has rarely held a book. The second
child can be taught, but, with equally high expectations and effective teaching, the first
will more likely pass a reading test than the second. So the achievement gap begins.
(p. 19)
According to Ackerman and Barnett (n.d.), “Studies show[ed] that differences in children’s
cognitive, language, and social skills upon entry to kindergarten are correlated with families’
poverty status, parents’ educational levels or ethnic backgrounds, and children’s health and
living environments” (p. 11). Additionally, the authors stated:
Although none of these risk factors ‘guarantees’ that children will not be ready for
kindergarten, children from low-income or less-educated families are less likely to have
21
the supports necessary for healthy growth and development, resulting in lower abilities at
school entry. (Ackerman & Barnett, n.d., p. 11)
Berns (n.d.) stated that the foundation for kindergarten readiness began during the prenatal
period while the brain developed. Berns (n.d.) argued that by addressing the disparities from
one’s earliest moments, deficits children had due to poverty or lack of parental education could
be addressed before children ever reached kindergarten.
Many children started kindergarten already behind, sometimes up to a year or more
behind classmates (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Reports across the nation indicated
that more than half of kindergarten students were not ready for kindergarten, and in many states,
the number was larger than half (Bowie, 2019; Kelley, 2018; Mader, 2013; Moreno, 2019). For
many, beginning kindergarten already behind their peers initiated a vicious cycle of continually
playing catch up to acquire the skills necessary to move onto the next grade level. Children of
low-income families on average began kindergarten already 12 to 14 months behind peers in
pre-literacy and language skills (U.S. Department of Education, 2015).
Age of entry. Entrance age policies indicated policies held by states or school districts
on the age requirement for children to begin kindergarten (Graue, 2011). Over time, the entrance
age was adjusted to require children to be older when entering kindergarten (Graue, 2011). The
kindergarten entrance date moved slowly from January to September in many states (Graue,
2011); however, in some states, it was earlier than this. For example, in Tennessee, the cutoff
date is August 15 (Tennessee Department of Education, n.d.), meaning children must turn five
years old on or before August 15 of any year to enter kindergarten for that academic year.
Conversely, this also meant that sometimes children with late summer birthdays began
kindergarten at age four. Though attempting to address problems of children starting school
22
when they were not quite ready, evidence suggested that these date changes did little to affect
achievement. Fletcher and Kim (2016) discovered no effect of entry date on educational
outcomes by 12th grade. Earlier entry dates reduced the standard deviation of test scores
(Fletcher & Kim, 2016). These findings supported that earlier cut off dates showed improvement
in achievement at the state level (Fletcher & Kim, 2016). Elder and Lubotsky (2009) suggested
that positive relationships associated with entrance age and achievement more likely reflected
skill accumulation before entering school than an actual heightened ability to learn.
Retention. West (2012) indicated that unless children have a strong reading foundation
by 3rd grade, the rest of their education may be a struggle. This led some educators and families
to turn to retention as a solution. Retention was the practice of low performing students
repeating a grade level the following academic year (Dong, 2010). Retained students received
additional interventions in the following academic year to help master underdeveloped academic
skills (West, 2012). In the 1960s, the push for social promotion, or students continuing onto the
next grade level with peers regardless of academic achievement, gained popularity (West, 2012);
however, with each wave of standards-based reform in the 1980s and again in the early 2000s,
retention rates increased (West, 2012). Evidence suggested that any positive effects of retention
are not sustainable long term (Dong, 2010). Additionally, retained students were more likely to
drop out of school and have worse social-emotional outcomes than peers who were promoted
(West, 2012). Andrew (2014) found a causal effect of retention in early grades and high school
completion, and suggested that retention, even in kindergarten, scarred the educational career of
many students. Furthermore, when students were retained on the basis of ability, maturity, or
parent involvement, the achievement of the student continued to reflect those reasons (West,
2012).
23
Redshirting. Some families chose to delay entry into kindergarten with the idea that this
would aid in children’s overall readiness. This process was known as academic redshirting or
kindergarten redshirting (Bassok & Reardon, 2013). Redshirting took place more frequently
with white males born in the months leading up to kindergarten entry dates and children from
higher socioeconomic backgrounds (Jones, 2012). Research was mixed on exactly how effective
or ineffective this practice was (Bassok & Reardon, 2013; Lin, Freeman, & Chu, 2009).
Research showed that older students had higher academic achievement than younger students in
the same grade level (Dougan & Pijanowski, 2011). Redshirting and retention caused the student
to be one of the oldest in the class (Dougan & Pijanowski, 2011). Dougan and Pijanowski
(2011) argued in favor of redshirting versus retention, as evidence suggested that any benefits of
redshirting and retention were not the same because retention was often associated with more
negative emotions. Jones (2012) found that redshirted students had positive feelings regarding
the experience, as did their parents. In contrast, the non-redshirted group reported fewer positive
feelings. The perceived life satisfaction, or the global evaluation of a person’s life as measured
by the Multidimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale, of redshirted boys was higher than
those that were not (Jones, 2012).
Preschool experience. High-quality programs tended to have more significant effects
than targeted programs, or programs established explicitly for students with the greatest needs
(Barnett, Brown, & Shore, 2016). The purpose of these programs was that students who
participated in high-quality programs could close school readiness gaps (Barnett et al., 2016).
U.S. President Barack Obama expanded access to preschool in his 2013 Preschool for All
proposal (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Investment in early learning increased by $6
billion from 2009 to 2016 (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). As of 2014, of the 41 states
24
with state-funded preschool programs, nine served more than 50% of all four-year-olds, and 11
states served less than 10% (Pre-Kindergarten Task Force, 2017). The majority of state-funded
programs served students through a combination of public school and non-school settings, like
childcare centers, private nursery schools, and Head Start programs (Pre-Kindergarten Task
Force, 2017). Funding for state preschool programs split between federal, state, and local
governments (Parker, Diffey, & Atchison, 2018). States commonly utilized general funds, block
grants, and state funding formulas to fund preschool programs (Parker et al., 2018). Some states
also used state sin taxes—acquired through sales of alcohol, tobacco, gaming, lotteries, tobacco
settlements, and non-lottery gambling—to fund preschool programs (Parker et al., 2018). As of
2016, only three states in the United States offered universal preschool, or preschool offered to
everyone regardless of income (Barnett et al., 2016). Oklahoma and West Virginia offered
preschool to almost all students but not enough to be considered true universal programs (Barnett
et al., 2016). As of 2018, 43 states offered some type of state-funded preschool (Swaak, 2018).
Almost half of state-funded preschool programs were only available to low-income families
(Parker et al., 2018). Targeted programs were inherently unfair because children of similar
circumstances did not always receive the same services (Parker et al., 2018). These operated at
lower costs, whereas universal programs cost more because they served more children (Barnett
et al., 2016).
Barnett et al. (2016) indicated that students who attend preschool were less likely to drop
out of school, get arrested, repeat grades, or require special education services. Dual language
learners showed substantial benefits in English proficiency and other academic skills
(Pre-Kindergarten Task Force, 2017). Economically disadvantaged and dual language learners
appeared to benefit the most from preschool (Pre-Kindergarten Task Force, 2017); however,
25
middle-class students showed benefits, too (Potter, 2017). Zaslow et al. (2016) found that
programs must be high-quality to be most beneficial. The researcher suggested changing the
meaning of dosage, or amount of time a student received instruction, from hours and days, to
actual time spent participating. Additionally, children with larger dosages, for example attending
two years of Head Start instead of one year, possessed more robust vocabularies as well as more
advanced literacy skills at the end of kindergarten (Zaslow et al., 2016).
Lipsey, Hofer, Dong, Farran, and Bilbrey (2013) conducted a study in conjunction with
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, and the Tennessee Department of Education. In
this study, researchers found that spending more money on preschool did not guarantee the
academic success of students (Lipsey et al., 2013). The researchers found that gains made by
students in preschool often faded by 1st grade and disappeared entirely by 3rd grade (Lipsey et
al., 2013). The researchers stressed that policymakers must have a clear strategy for success
before adding additional funding to preschool programs due to inconsistencies in program
implementation and quality (Lipsey et al., 2013). The authors continually stressed the
importance of high-quality programs, noting that all programs were not created the same (Lipsey
et al., 2013).
One commonality from the literature on preschools was the importance of high-quality
preschools for maximum benefit (Barnett et al., 2016; Lipsey et al., 2013; Zaslow et al., 2016).
Programs held accountable with assessment, quality teachers, consistent curricula,
developmentally appropriate practices, and adequate professional development were considered
high-quality (Barnett et al., 2016; Lipsey et al., 2013; Zaslow et al., 2016). To be effective, a
program must be considered high-quality, which did not include programs solely focused on
26
childcare or not providing instruction (Barnett et al., 2016; Lipsey et al., 2013; Zaslow et al.,
2016).
Shifts in expectations. Bassok and Rorem (2014) found that in 1998, 31% of teachers
felt children should learn to read in kindergarten. In 2006, this was up to 65% (Bassok &
Rorem, 2014). Additionally, time spent on literacy increased from 5.5 hours to 7 hours, a 25%
increase (Bassok & Rorem, 2014). Time spent on social studies, science, music, art, and
physical education decreased (Bassok & Rorem, 2014). This is despite research that indicated
teachers were more likely to believe children came to love school and learning through play
(Hines, 2017). LeFevre (2012) explained that teachers’ educational philosophies often reflected
teaching practice but were limited by outside influences such as other teachers, administrators,
parents, and district-mandated curricula.
Gender, race, and socioeconomic status. Matthews, Ponitz, and Morrison (2009)
studied gender differences in self-regulation in kindergarteners. This connected to five areas of
achievement: math, general knowledge, letter-word identification, expressive vocabulary, and
sound awareness (Matthews et al., 2009). Teacher reports and direct objective measures
assessed students’ self-regulation over a two year time span (Matthews et al., 2009). Females
outperformed males in both (Matthews et al., 2009). While differences in self-regulation became
obvious, no significant gender differences were found in achievement outcomes when measured
by the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement; however, researchers found that poor self-
regulation eventually led to difficulties in school, as previous research indicated a wider
achievement gap between genders in late elementary school, likely due to the inability to pay
attention or remain focused on a given task (Matthews et al., 2009). Curran and Kellogg (2016)
discovered no gender gap in kindergarten science achievement and only a small gender gap by
27
first grade. This suggested that the gap widened later in the schooling process. Kelly (2010)
examined readiness advantages and disadvantages across multiple areas, including low and
middle-income families and African American home and school contexts in the Midwest.
Through interviews, the researcher found that multifaceted and multidimensional expectations of
readiness existed (Kelly, 2010). The U.S. social structure allowed some children to better meet
evolving expectations in school (Kelly, 2010). Curran and Kellogg (2016) found a significant
achievement gap in science within the first two years of school by race and ethnicity using data
from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. These gaps were statistically significant when
controlling for student characteristics (Curran & Kellogg, 2016).
Stakeholder Perceptions of Kindergarten Readiness
Stakeholder perceptions included students, parents, and teachers. While research existed
on all three, the research was most extensive on teacher perceptions. Research on parent
perceptions existed, but was undeveloped in the area of comparing to student performance. The
majority of studies located identified skills and qualities parents found important in kindergarten
readiness; however, these skills and qualities were not applied to their own children.
Student perceptions of readiness. DiSanto and Berman (2012) examined perceptions of
Canadian preschool children regarding kindergarten. This study was the sole study located by
this researcher regarding student perceptions of readiness. DiSanto and Berman (2012) based
this study on the framework of the new sociology of childhood. In addition to this framework,
the researchers also utilized Mayall’s (2002) theory that children were considered part of a
minority social group because they are not active in decisions that affect them. DiSanto and
Berman’s (2012) study focused on 105 children across 42 preschool classes, in an urban setting,
with the children coming from diverse cultural backgrounds. Children were asked questions
28
about kindergarten, such as what they thought they might need to know, what rules might exist,
what kind of help they might need, and what differences exist between pre-kindergarten and
kindergarten (DiSanto & Berman, 2012). The researchers discovered three themes within their
work—play versus academics, becoming older but still requiring help, and rules (DiSanto &
Berman, 2012). When it came to academic expectations, many students did not expect a
significant difference between preschool and kindergarten and voiced an expectation to play in
kindergarten (DiSanto & Berman, 2012). The researchers noted that few children had an
awareness of any academic expectations of kindergarten; however, several mentioned work or
homework as a requirement for going to kindergarten (DiSanto & Berman, 2012). The study
concluded that children should contribute to their own kindergarten transition, as they can
formulate their own ideas to help ease the change (DiSanto & Berman, 2012).This study was
unique because it solely examined the children’s beliefs and perceptions about kindergarten and
readiness for school. Minimal research existed that focused solely on perceptions of readiness as
it related to pre-kindergarten students. While not developmentally appropriate to expect children
of this age to have an awareness of expected skills, it was essential to take into account
children’s perceptions as they related to entering school to present a realistic picture of what
kindergarten entailed.
Parent perceptions of readiness. Two themes emerged from the literature regarding
parent perceptions of kindergarten readiness. These themes included changing expectations;
Belfield and Garcia (2014) used self-reported survey data from the National Household
Education Surveys from 1993 and 2007 to examine changes in school readiness and the
expansion of preschool over time. Results showed a significant increase in academic
development as reported by parents; however, few changes in the fundamental indicators of
29
effort occurred, leading researchers to conclude that parents expected more from their children
without increased effort levels (Belfield & Garcia, 2014). Additionally, expectations of
kindergarten students increased over time, and parents placed greater emphasis on readiness
(Belfield & Garcia, 2014). Quick (2018) found that parents believed attendance in preschool or
daycare academically and behaviorally prepared children for kindergarten. The research
supported the notion that if parents understood the expectations placed on their children, they
could engage them and actively participate in their learning (Quick, 2018). Parents also reported
regrets in having little knowledge of how to aid their students in transitioning into kindergarten
(Quick, 2018). Xia (2016) found that authoritative parenting was related to school readiness and
significantly influenced overall readiness when controlling for gender and income (Xia, 2016).
Authoritarian and permissive parenting negatively correlated to readiness (Xia, 2016).
Furthermore, home-based involvement significantly influenced readiness when controlling for
gender and income (Xia, 2016).
Teacher perceptions of readiness. Teacher perceptions of readiness encompassed the
most common theme among research relating to kindergarten readiness. This possibly occurred
because teacher perceptions were more easily obtained than those by students, parents,
administrators, or other stakeholders due to ease of access. Additionally, researchers noted a
large proportion of parental participants included teachers, thus further supporting this notion.
Within the research on teacher perceptions of kindergarten readiness, two significant themes
emerged. These themes included the importance of social-emotional development and preschool
attendance as a method of kindergarten preparation. Within the body of research, teachers noted
they placed significant emphasis on social-emotional skills or noted that students were often
lacking more in these skills than others. Cappelloni (2010) examined teachers’ perceptions of
30
readiness based on 43 characteristics and skills within concepts of early learning based on the
National Educational Goals Panel framework. Results indicated that kindergarten teachers
placed more emphasis on social and emotional development and approaches to learning than on
academic skills (Cappelloni, 2010). Similarly, Kane (2014) studied perceptions of pre-
kindergarten and kindergarten teachers and discovered that teachers expressed concerns with
social-emotional, literacy, and fine motor skills. Kindergarten teachers also reported wide ranges
in abilities of students entering kindergarten (Kane, 2014). Vallacchi (2019) explored teachers’
perceptions of readiness as well as instructional grouping structure within the classroom setting.
The results indicated that most teachers found that students possessed the skills necessary to
succeed in kindergarten; however, all kindergarten classes had students with deficits
academically, socially, or emotionally (Vallacchi, 2019). Pooler (2019) discovered that teachers
felt that students should enter kindergarten with basic social, academic, and behavioral skills to
function appropriately. A lack of social or academic skills were viewed as more challenging
than any other (Pooler, 2019). The research also suggested that students with exposure to some
type of readiness program entered kindergarten more well equipped (Pooer, 2019).
Pre-kindergarten attendance was found to be a significant factor in success on readiness
assessments, indicating to teachers that students were more prepared for kindergarten. Simerly
(2014) conducted a nonexperimental quantitative study in two rural school districts in East
Tennessee. Previous preschool experience had the greatest impact on kindergarten readiness
according to teachers, followed by age and socioeconomic stations (Simerly, 2014). Gender was
not perceived as having an impact (Simerly, 2014). Teachers perceived that readiness could be
measured accurately through readiness tests (Simerly, 2014). Bressler (2011) conducted a study
and found students who attended pre-kindergarten programs were more likely to test higher on
31
readiness assessments. Furthermore, differences occurred between how pre-kindergarten
teachers perceived readiness and kindergarten teachers’ perceptions (Bressler, 2011).
Pre-kindergarten teachers were more likely to believe that students were more prepared for
kindergarten than kindergarten teachers (Bressler, 2011). Many kindergarten teachers expressed
perceptions that students were not ready for kindergarten (Bressler, 2011). This indicated that
there was a disconnect between what pre-kindergarten and kindergarten teachers felt students
should master before kindergarten entry. Pre-kindergarten teachers were also more likely to
believe students were less at-risk than kindergarten students (Bressler, 2011). Kindergarten
teachers were not as confident as pre-kindergarten teachers regarding educational barriers or
obstacles (Bressler, 2011). Butler (2017) conducted a qualitative study on readiness utilizing a
narrow approach and interviews. The purpose of the study was to explore teacher perceptions
and beliefs of school readiness (Butler, 2017). The research revealed a disconnect between
curricula in preschool and kindergarten (Butler, 2017), similar to the disconnect between pre-
kindergarten teachers and kindergarten teachers perceptions as noted by Bressler (2011).
Differences in stakeholder perceptions of readiness. Within the body of research,
differences in stakeholder perceptions when compared were explored. The most significant
theme within this area was that there were differences in what skills or skill areas parents,
teachers, and administrators viewed as important for a student to possess to be ready for
kindergarten. Kloss (1996) conducted the sole study located that focused on teacher, parent, and
administrator perceptions of readiness across 14 school districts. Results of the study indicated
that all groups had varying interpretations, but teachers and parents were more likely to have
similar understandings in the areas of readiness and testing (Kloss, 1996). Administrators and
teachers were more likely to have similar levels of understanding regarding the birth date and
32
entry requirements, curriculum, and readiness testing (Kloss, 1996). Overall, participants
identified physical well-being and emotional maturity most frequently as components of
readiness (Kloss, 1996). Cross (2017) conducted a qualitative study that examined the
perceptions of parents and teachers on kindergarten readiness. Results showed differences in
how parents and teachers perceived kindergarten readiness in the areas of social-emotional
development, literacy, and communication (Cross, 2017). No significant differences found in
what made children ready for school, but there were significant differences in the perception of
the importance of the qualities needed to be ready for kindergarten (Cross, 2017). Hatcher,
Nuner, and Paulsel (2012) conducted a qualitative study in the southwestern United States that
utilized interviews focused around beliefs of kindergarten readiness. From the interviews, six
themes became apparent: readiness as social and emotional factors, readiness as specific
school-related skills, readiness as language and literacy skills, the role of preschool in preparing
children for kindergarten, assessment and home/school communication, and anxiety about
kindergarten and readiness (Hatcher et al., 2012). Researchers found that parents were more
likely to name specific skills (Hatcher et al., 2012). Parents also demonstrated anxiety regarding
the transition and expectations of kindergarten (Hatcher et al., 2012).
Summary of Review of the Literature
Information contained in the literature review originated from peer-reviewed articles,
dissertations, books, the Tennessee Department of Education, and the U.S. Department of
Education. The literature review encompassed multiple themes, including the historical context
of kindergarten, the theories of Vygotsky and the impact on kindergarten, understanding
readiness, exploring Tennessee’s School Readiness Model, review of influences and risk factors
for readiness, and stakeholder perceptions of readiness. From the literature, kindergarten
33
readiness did not encompass a singular concept or idea. This may have caused stakeholders to
use different terms and possess varying expectations on what the meaning of ready.
Kindergarten readiness contained multiple factors, including the children’s development, but also
the family, school, and community. Readiness gaps were difficult to close because they
depended on more than the quality of the teacher or the curricula. This literature review
provided a more accurate picture of kindergarten readiness when parent understandings were
applied to each participant’s child and the measure of readiness. As the landscape of
kindergarten and education in general evolved, research was necessary for the areas where such
changes occur. The force behind the current study included such observations.
34
CHAPTER THREE: Methodology
In this chapter, the researcher described the qualitative methods used to complete the
research related to parents’ understandings of kindergarten readiness and students’ actual level of
readiness. The research findings contributed to the literature regarding school readiness and
stakeholder perceptions.
Research Question
The researcher used the following research question to guide this study: What are the
relationships between parents’ views and their children’s readiness for kindergarten?
Description of the Specific Research Approach
In this qualitative study, the researcher examined parents’ perceptions regarding
kindergarten readiness. The researcher collected data from three sources (i.e., student screening
tool scores, parent surveys, and parent interviews) to achieve triangulation. Nine kindergarten
teachers administered parent surveys via pen and paper in the classroom setting. They collected
screening tool data based on student performance on the district-mandated Read 20 Kindergarten
Screening Tool, an instrument developed in partnership between the school district and the Read
20 organization (Read 20, n.d.). For this study, the researcher used this extant data to determine
which parents to interview. The researcher interviewed parents that had discrepancies in how the
parents perceived the children’s kindergarten readiness and how the children performed on the
screening tool.
Research Design
This qualitative research study focused on parents’ perceptions of kindergarten readiness
as compared to the readiness of their children using data collected through surveys, interviews,
and artifacts. A qualitative method was chosen in order to gain deeper insight into parental
35
understandings. The parent survey, which mirrored items on the Read 20 Kindergarten
Screening Tool, measured parental beliefs about how ready the parents felt their children were
for kindergarten. The scores from the Read 20 Kindergarten Screening Tool measured student
performance across multiple domains of learning, including gross motor, fine motor, cognitive,
language, and social-emotional.
Data Collection
Student screening tools. Nine kindergarten teachers assessed individual students using
the Read 20 Kindergarten Screening Tool (see Appendix A) over several days during the
summer and at the beginning of the academic year. During the administration of the screening
tool, neither parents nor the researcher was present. Teachers prompted students to answer or
perform each item on the screening tool. Teachers recorded responses on each student’s answer
page. Teachers added the raw scores from each domain to reach an overall score. Students could
earn up to 155 points on the screening tool. Based on the instructions on the screening tool, a
score of 100 or less meant a student was off-target according to district expectation. Scores from
101 to 131 indicated the student was approaching target, and scores from 132 to 155 indicated
the student was on target. Student screening tool scores were recorded in Excel by each domain
and an overall score. Using this measurement tool, teachers assessed the following abilities of
students:gross motor: Teachers prompted students to stand on one foot, walk in a straight line,
and touch right hand to left foot and left hand to right foot without moving feet while
maintaining balance. Students earned up to 5 points in this area.
• fine motor: Teachers observed how students held a pencil while completing writing
tasks. Teachers prompted students to trace solid and dotted lines without lifting the pencil, write
36
the first name with appropriate upper-case and lower-case letters, and cut with scissors while
holding a piece of paper with the other hand. Students earned up to 10 points in this area.
• cognitive: Teachers prompted students to identify colors, letter names, letter sounds,
numbers, and shapes. Teachers asked students to produce rhyming words, count to 20, and state
first and last names. Students earned up to 70 points in this area.
• language: Teachers prompted students to identify objects in pictures, articulate
appropriate sounds in words, identify initial sounds, make comparisons, repeat sentences, and
retell a three-part story. Teachers evaluated students based on how well they could follow
simple directions. Students earned up to 70 points in this area, comprised of 46 points in
phonemic awareness and 24 points in oral language.
• social-emotional: Teachers rated students on how well the students maintained
self-control, handled books, communicated needs and wants, and understood sharing. Teachers
rated students on five items based on observation and parental input. Students could earn up to 5
points; however, points in this area did not count toward the overall score, as per the directions
of the Read 20 Kindergarten Screening Tool.
Parent surveys. The parent survey (see Appendix B), which mirrored items on the
Read 20 Kindergarten Screening Tool, measured parents’ beliefs about how ready the parents
felt their children were for kindergarten. The researcher aligned survey items to each section and
items on the Read 20 Kindergarten Screening Tool, which was administered by kindergarten
teachers. An interpreter translated the survey into Spanish (see Appendix C) due to the high
population of English language learners at this school. Nineteen parents completed an initial
survey in person in the classroom setting.
37
Parent interviews. The researcher compared screening tool scores to the parent survey,
which mirrored the screening tool items and matched each parent and child result. The
researcher did not choose to interview parents with screening tools and surveys that aligned in
score and parent perception, as those parents appeared to have a mostly accurate view of the
children’s performance. This researcher coded screening tools and surveys that had significant
discrepancies based on the types of discrepancies. The researcher classified the discrepancy as
minimal if the parent responded in such a manner that answers still placed the student in the
same performance band as the student performed. For example, if a parent did not accurately
answer all items according to how her child performed, but both data sources still considered the
child on target, then these responses were set aside.The researcher paired parent surveys and
student screening tool scores to determine which families to interview. Inconsistencies between
parents’ perceptions and the children’s performance on the screening tool were designated for
further review and interview. These pairs of results included instances where the child
performed based on one performance level; however, the parent responses indicated the child
was performing at least one level above or below. Parent responses were color-coded and
separated based on themes. Themes were determined by how the parent responded to the survey
and interview when compared to their child’s screening tool results. The researcher identified
possible connections by organizing data thematically. For example:
• The student performed on target with a score of 132 to 155 on the screening tool, but
the parent responses indicated the child was performing off target or approaching target.
• The student performed off target with a score of 100 or less on the screening tool, but
the parent responses indicated the child was performing as approaching target or on target.
• The student scores and parent responses largely matched each other.
38
The researcher conducted five audio-recorded interviews in-person with parents (see
Appendix D). The researcher completed interviews within two weeks in the classroom setting.
The researcher asked the parents nine open-ended questions about their children’s abilities and
performance. The researcher utilized field notes and reflections during each interview.
Data Analysis
During each phase, the researcher utilized member checks. Member checks involved
“recycling analysis back through at least a subsample of respondents” (Lather, 2003, p. 191).
Member checks were completed to further clarify parent responses to interview questions. The
researcher provided a summary of the interpretation to participants for feedback. To establish
credibility and consistency, the researcher utilized peer debriefing on an ongoing basis. Lincoln
and Guba (1985) defined peer debriefing as “a process of exposing oneself to a disinterested peer
in a manner paralleling an analytic session and to explore aspects of the inquiry that might
otherwise remain only implicit within the inquirer’s mind” (p. 308). Early childhood colleagues
of the researcher were consulted to review data. Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggested using audit
trails, “a residue of records stemming from the inquiry” (p. 319), to organize and review data.
Documents were organized and filed in a designated locked cabinet. The researcher stored
digital recordings of interviews, transcripts, field notes, and notes in an encrypted file.
Data from interviews were first open-coded to discover themes and distinct categories.
Open coding involves identifying distinct concepts and categories of data to become the
foundation of the analysis (Biddix, 2009). Parent responses were color-coded and sorted by
themes. Following this, axial coding established possible relationships between concepts.
During axial coding, the researcher used concepts and categories to explore relationships
39
between the codes (Biddix, 2009). Themes were narrowed and possible relationships were
identified through common words and phrases.
Description of the Study Participants and Setting
This study was conducted with a convenience sample from a school with an enrollment
of 1,042 students, 47 classroom teachers, 13 support staff, and three administrators. The school
housed pre-kindergarten through grade 5. The school makeup was 2.3% Asian, 31.2% African
American, 28.9% Hispanic, 0.9% Native American, and 36.8% Caucasian students. The school
population contained 14.9% English language learners and 13.1% of students with disabilities.
Additionally, 57.4% of students were considered economically disadvantaged, 6.7% were
considered homeless, and 0.6% were in foster care. There were more male students (52.7%)
than female students (47.3%). There were nine kindergarten classes at this school. After
reviewing discrepancies in initial survey and screening tool data from 19 parents, participants
were narrowed to five parents and their children.
The school district’s Director of Research and Accountability granted permission to
conduct the research. Parents signed informed consent forms for themselves and their children
to participate in this research (see Appendix E). Carson-Newman University’s International
Review Board granted permission before the researcher conducted the study. To ensure
confidentiality, no names or identifying information were reported.
Limitations, Delimitations, and Assumptions
Limitations included elements beyond the researcher’s control that possibly affected the
outcome of a study (Simon & Goes, 2013). This study was limited by timing, as it was essential
to have some sort of understanding of parent perceptions before students becoming fully
immersed in kindergarten. Timing was critical so that data reflected an accurate picture of
40
student performance at kindergarten entry. Waiting until students become fully immersed in
school would not have offered an accurate picture of student performance because students likely
would have received targeted instruction on specific skill deficits after school has started.
Delimitations resulted from choices made by the researcher, which could have impacted
the results of the study (Simon & Goes, 2013). Delimitations to the study included population,
which was a convenience sample of the researcher’s kindergarten classroom in one East
Tennessee school district. The grade level was restricted to kindergarten only due to the intent of
the research and focused on students and families within the researcher’s kindergarten
classroom.
Assumptions in research resulted from beliefs about the research that were necessary to
conduct this research (Simon & Goes, 2013). Because this study was qualitative, the data may
be subjective and interpreted differently by others. The assumption was that participants
answered questions truthfully and to the best of their ability. It was assumed that participants
understood the questions posed to them.
Ethical Considerations
Participant names and responses were not published or released and remained
confidential. To ensure objectivity, screening tools were not administered by the researcher but
by nine other kindergarten teachers. Member checks were conducted on an on-going basis to
provide clarity and deeper understanding of participant interviews.
Summary of the Methodology
This researcher conducted a qualitative study that examined parents’ perceptions of
kindergarten readiness and compared these perceptions to their children’s actual readiness score.
Permission was granted by the school system and Carson-Newman University’s International
41
Review Board to conduct research. Data were collected from 19 students and their parents,
beginning with a student screening tool, parent survey, and parent interviews. The researcher
matched student screening tools to parent surveys to determine differences in readiness levels.
Five parents were interviewed that had differences in how the children scored on the screening
tool and how the parent rated them on the survey. Data were coded and organized by themes to
answer the research question for the study.
42
CHAPTER FOUR: Presentation of the Findings
The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the relationship between
kindergarten students’ performance across multiple domains of development (e.g., gross motor,
fine motor, cognitive, language, and social-emotional) and parents’ perceptions of kindergarten
readiness. The data and information collected in this study provided a deeper understanding of
how parents viewed kindergarten readiness. While many researchers previously focused on
stakeholder perceptions of kindergarten readiness, this study compared parental perceptions to
actual student performance. One research question guided the study: What are the relationships
between parents’ views and their children’s readiness for kindergarten?
The researcher gathered data from three sources, including surveys, artifacts, and
interviews. Nineteen parents responded to surveys on their perceptions of their children’s
kindergarten readiness. The researcher matched parent surveys to student artifacts from the Read
20 Kindergarten Screening Tool. Pairs that resulted in the same level of readiness between the
parent and child were not used in the study because those parents appeared to have an accurate
view of the children’s kindergarten readiness level. Five pairs of parent surveys and student
screening tool results remained that had one level or more difference in readiness. Five parents
of kindergarten students participated in one-on-one interviews to further explore how parental
views aligned with student performance. Interviews provided participants an opportunity to
share their perspectives through nine open-ended questions related to the research question.
Descriptive Characteristics of Participants
The setting for this study was a school within a large, diverse school district in East
Tennessee that served approximately 1,000 students. The researcher utilized a convenience
sample from one kindergarten classroom. Students had a mean age of 5 years, 4.2 months at
43
kindergarten entry with a range of 5 years, 0 months to 5 years, 10 months (see Table 4.1). Four
students completed a pre-kindergarten program. No students had previously been retained in
kindergarten or had a diagnosed special need at the time of assessment.
Table 4.1
Student Age and Pre-Kindergarten Attendance
Student Chronological age at kindergarten entry Pre-kindergarten attendance
1 5y, 8m Yes
2 5y, 1m Yes
3 5y, 2m Yes
4 5y, 0m No
5 5y, 10m Yes
Average 5y, 4.2m
Of the five student participants, four were Caucasian, and one was African American.
Four parent participants were Caucasian, and one was African American. Participants included
four male kindergarten students, one female kindergarten student, four mothers, and one father
(see Table 4.2).
Table 4.2
Student and Parent Demographics
Male Female Caucasian African American
Students 4 1 4 1
Parents 1 4 4 1
44
Data Presentation
The researcher administered a survey (see Appendix B) to 19 kindergarten parents in the
classroom setting. Each item mirrored the items on the Read 20 Kindergarten Screening Tool
and encompassed five domains of development, including gross motor, fine motor, cognitive,
language, and social-emotional. Parents rated each item as agree or disagree. Next, 19 students
were assessed using the Read 20 Kindergarten Screening Tool (see Appendix D) as part of a
district mandate. Raw scores from the screening tool were compared to answers on the parent
survey to identify discrepancies. Answers to survey questions were converted to point values
that mirrored the kindergarten screening tool. Raw scores on both the parent survey and
kindergarten screening tool were converted into three readiness levels: on target, approaching
target, or off target. Assessments and surveys from two students and families that transferred
schools after kindergarten began were not considered for interviews. Seventeen survey and
assessment pairs remained. Of those 17, those with one level or more difference between the
kindergarten screening tool and parent survey were selected for the interviews.
Five parents were interviewed in the classroom setting. Interviews were audio-recorded
on a mobile phone. The interview process consisted of nine open-ended questions (see
Appendix E) based on the research question. During the interview process, the researcher
completed field notes. In the interview, parents were asked in what ways they felt their children
were prepared or not prepared for kindergarten. Parents were also asked to identify specific
skills for kindergarten readiness, and in what activities their children participated to prepare for
kindergarten.
The researchers took steps to ensure fidelity, including member checks, peer debriefing,
and audit trails. Member checks were completed to explain and correct misconceptions. These
45
checks occurred during interviews when the researcher asked for clarification or reiterated to
deepen the understanding of the response. Peer debriefing was completed by other professionals
not directly involved with this study. Peers reviewed transcripts, drafts, and the final report to
validate the researcher’s findings. Documents, including completed parent surveys, were
organized and locked in a designated filing cabinet. The researcher stored digital files, including
completed screening tools, interview recordings, and transcriptions, in an encrypted file.
After the initial period of data collection and transcription of interviews, interview data
were color-coded and sorted through open, axial, and selective coding. Open coding categorized
the raw data based on common themes. The researcher utilized axial coding to determine the
relationships between those themes. Similar words and phrasing across interviews were
identified to create specific categories.
Study Findings
In this section, parent survey results and student screening tool results were discussed.
Results were compared to determine differences in perceived levels of readiness between parents
and readiness levels of students.
Parent survey results. On average, parents rated students high across all five domains
in the survey: gross motor, fine motor, cognitive, language, and social-emotional. The average
score was 5 out of 5 points for gross motor; 8 out of 10 points for fine motor; 68 out of 70 points
for cognitive; 67.6 out of 70 points for language; and 5 out of 5 points for social-emotional. The
social-emotional scores were assessed on the Read 20 Kindergarten Screening Tool but were not
included in the overall raw score as per the directions on the assessment. As such, social-
emotional domain scores did not affect the assigned readiness level for either the parent survey
or the screening tool score. Four parents rated their students on target. One parent rated his
46
student as approaching target. The average overall raw score was 148.2 out of 155 points
placing students on target on the parent survey (see Table 4.3).
Table 4.3
Parent Survey Results
Parent
Gross
motor
Fine
motor
Cognitive
Language
Social-
emotional
Total
raw
score
Readiness
level
1 5 10 70 70 5 155 on target
2 5 10 70 70 5 155 on target
3 5 5 60 58 5 126 approaching
target
4 5 5 70 70 5 150 on target
5 5 10 70 70 5 155 on target
Average 5 8 68 67.6 5 148.2 on target
*The Read 20 Kindergarten Screener did not include social-emotional scores in the
overall raw score.
Read 20 Kindergarten Screening Tool results. On the Read 20 Kindergarten
Screening Tool, students averaged 5 out of 5 points for gross motor; 8.4 out of 10 points for fine
motor; 47.5 out of 70 points for cognitive; 50.8 out of 70 points for language; and 4.4 out of 5
points for social-emotional. Social-emotional scores were assessed on the Read 20 Kindergarten
Screening Tool but were not included in the overall raw score as per the directions on the
assessment. As such, social-emotional domain scores did not affect the students’ assigned
readiness level. Three students were classified as approaching target. One student was classified
as on target and one as off target. The average overall raw score was 111.7 out of 155 points,
47
which placed students as approaching target on the Read 20 Kindergarten Screening Tool (see
Table 4.4).
Table 4.4
Read 20 Kindergarten Screening Tool Results
Student
Gross
motor
Fine
motor
Cognitive
Language
Social-
emotional
Total
raw
score
Readiness
level
1 5 10 40 49 2 104 approaching
target
2 5 9 47.5 64 5 125.5 approaching
target
3 5 9 65 52 5 132 on target
4 5 4 26 35 5 69 off target
5 5 10 59 54 5 128 approaching
target
Average 5 8.4 47.5 50.8 4.4 111.7 approaching
target
*The Read 20 Kindergarten Screener did not include social-emotional scores in the
overall raw score.
Social-emotional. Parents indicated students were capable of all skills related to social-
emotional development checklist. Students, on average, scored high in the social-emotional
domain of the Read 20 Screening Tool. All but one student could demonstrate each behavior on
the checklist successfully. The data from the parent survey and student screening tool indicated
that students were prepared for kindergarten in the area of social-emotional development. These
data demonstrated that what parents found essential to readiness were among the things students
did well in, supporting the need for parental buy-in and education.
48
Fine motor. Students scored similarly to how parents rated them in the fine motor domain of the
Read 20 Kindergarten Screening Tool. Two parents felt that their children could not write their
names correctly with a capital first letter and lower-case for the remaining letters. Most students
completed each task successfully. One student could not trace a line from left to right without
lifting the pencil. A second student struggled with holding a pencil correctly during writing
tasks, writing his first name with a capital first letter and lower-case letters for the remaining
letters, and cutting with scissors while holding the paper with the other hand. Gross motor.
Students scored the exact score parents rated them in the area of gross motor. This is the only
area this occurred in this study.
Cognitive and language. While parents rated students high in the areas of cognitive and
language on the Read 20 Kindergarten Screening Tool, students did not perform as well in these
areas. Students on average knew 27.4 out of 52 letter names, 9 out of 26 letter sounds, could
identify 8.8 numbers 0-10, could count 15.6 out of 20 numbers, and could discriminate 4.4 letters
and numbers out of 8. Students demonstrated some knowledge of letters and numbers but not
skill mastery. Three parents rated the student one level higher than the student performed on the
screening tool. One parent rated the student one level lower than the student performed on the
screening tool. One parent rated the student two levels higher than the student performed on the
screening tool (see Table 4.5).
Table 4.5
Parent and Student Kindergarten Readiness Levels
Parent survey
readiness level
Read 20 Kindergarten
Screening Tool readiness level
Readiness level
difference
1 on target approaching target 1
49
Table 4.5 (continued)
2 on target approaching target 1
3 approaching target on target 1
4 on target off target 2
5 on target approaching target 1
Data Analysis
Data analysis for this research included open-coding, axial coding, and selective coding
(see Figure 4.1). Parent responses were initially color-coded and then open-coded. Open-coding
allowed for patterns to be established in interview data. Data were divided into similar
categories to determine patterns and identify outliers. Axial coding allowed the data from the
open codes to be further generalized into themes. Selective coding further organized the data in
order to articulate an understanding of the findings of the study.
Following the administration of parent surveys and kindergarten student screening tools,
five parents were selected for interviews. The researcher asked nine open-ended questions based
on the research question. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. Parent responses were
color-coded and subsequently open-coded to discover themes. Axial coding and selective coding
were used to narrow the themes and determine their relationships. Three general themes
emerged from parent interviews: general kindergarten readiness, preparation for kindergarten,
and student-specific skill deficits.
50
Figure 4.1
Data Sorted in Levels of Coding
Open Coding Axial Coding
number and letter
recognition
self-care
social skills
curiosity and
eagerness
pre-k attendance
extra-curricular
activities
home activities
Preparation for
kindergarten involves
multiple resources and
methods.
school expectations
classroom
expectations
academic skills
Selective Coding
Skills parents
identified as important
for kindergarten
readiness were also
the skills students
excelled at.
Parents placed more
emphasis on
number/letter
recognition and
school/classroom
expectations in
relation to their own
child.
Parents believed that a
student needed to have
a basic understanding
of numbers/letters,
possess basic self-
care, social skills, and
a desire to learn to be
ready for kindergarten.
Raw Data
“some ABCs, as many as
you can…some
numbers”
“…he needs to be potty-
trained first”
”like on the social
side…being able to
interact and be
comfortable”
“He has always been one
to ask questions, and so
just the curiosity aspect”
“The fact that he went to
pre-k helped him a lot.”
“Interactions with kids
her age…she started
dance class when she
was two. Shas been in
church, kids groups…”
”like on the social
side…being able to
interact and be
comfortable”
“We pick two books at
night…that’s our routine.
I think doing that and
being consistent with
it…”
“I don’t know as a parent
that I knew how to
prepare him or his body
for, you have to go sit
quietly…”
“learning how to walk in
a line and be quiet and
follow directions”
“I think she was right on
top of where she needed
to be. Letters, numbers,
behavior
expectations…She was
ready.”
51
General kindergarten readiness. Parents identified social skills, early academic skills,
disposition toward learning, and self-care skills as the skills necessary for students to be ready
for kindergarten.
Social skills. Four parents reported that social skills were important for readiness. These
competencies included skills necessary to function within a classroom, such as following
directions, respecting personal space, meeting behavior expectations, and learning how to get
along with others. Parent 1 stated that she felt it was more important to know how to function
within the classroom independently than to know letters and numbers. Parent 3 stated the
following:
If it makes sense, basic human being-ness. Literally how to function. Can you follow
simple directions? Can you come into a place and know that for one, the adult is in
charge? I think they have to be able to accept that no means no. Sharing, and I don’t
necessarily mean like a toy, I mean sharing space, sharing ideas, and sharing the class is a
big deal. If they can’t possess that, then the greater good of teaching can’t take place.
Parent 2 believed that “kindergarten is more about being ready by behaviors and
expectations and emotional learning.” Parent 5 stated that while she acknowledged that all
children learned differently, she believed it was important for students to be “able to interact and
be comfortable interacting.”
Early academic skills. Three parents reported that early academic skills, such as
counting to 10 and knowledge of the alphabet, as important. Parent 2 said students should be
able to recite the alphabet, write some of the letters, and be able to count to 10 at the beginning
of kindergarten. Parents also noted that one skill they focused on with their children before
kindergarten was learning the alphabet or learning how to sing the alphabet song.
52
Disposition to learn. Two parents reported that eagerness and curiosity about learning
were essential to kindergarten readiness. Parent 4 said, “The creative side, imagination” was
important to kindergarten readiness. Parent 4 also stated that he knew his child was ready for
kindergarten because “…he kept asking me. He was basically telling me he was ready to go and
he’s doing great in daycare and he’s at that age.” Parent 5 reported that she encouraged her
child’s curiosity by answering questions he had about topics that came up in daily conversations.
She felt that this natural curiosity aided in her child’s strong desire to learn and overall readiness
for kindergarten. Both parents reported that it was important for them to develop and encourage
their children’s natural curiosities to help them be excited about learning.
Self-care skills. One parent reported self-care skills as a factor of readiness. Parent 3 felt
students must know how to use the restroom independently as part of being ready for
kindergarten. Self-care skills also included the ability to complete routine daily tasks
independently, such as getting dressed, putting on a coat, and eating.
Preparation for kindergarten. Parents were asked what activities they completed to
prepare their children for kindergarten. Parents identified pre-kindergarten attendance,
extracurricular activities, and home activities as ways they prepared their children for school.
Parents felt that pre-kindergarten attendance and home activities were most important for
kindergarten preparation.
Pre-kindergarten attendance. Four parents identified pre-kindergarten attendance as a
factor of readiness for their children. Parent 3 stated, “The fact that he went to pre-k helped him
a lot. They taught him how to count from one to, I believe it was 50. He knew his ABCs.”
Parent 1 stated that she felt her child would do well in kindergarten based on the child’s success
in pre-kindergarten. Parents reported they felt that pre-kindergarten not only prepared students
53
academically but in other ways, also. Parents felt that pre-kindergarten prepared their children
socially as well as aided in the development of self-care skills and independence. Parent 3
labeled this term as “school etiquette,” meaning students learned how to stand in line, follow
directions, and complete basic tasks independently. Parent 2 cited “structured and routine” as
reasons pre-kindergarten attendance helped with her child’s readiness.
Home activities. Four parents identified home activities as a factor of readiness. These
activities included watching educational television shows together, reading together before bed,
building with blocks and Legos, drawing, painting, making arts and crafts, completing puzzles,
practicing the alphabet and sight words, and completing educational activity books together.
Home activities also included non-academic activities, such as spending quality time and playing
together inside and outside. Overall, parents felt that engagement in their children’s lives aided
in overall readiness for kindergarten.
Extracurricular activities. One parent identified extracurricular activities as a factor of
readiness. These included religious activities such as church camps and kids’ groups and sports
like dance lessons and gymnastics. Parent 2 felt this exposure to other children and adults helped
her child learn how to interact with others. This exposure taught her appropriate responses to
conversations with peers, which aided in the social skills necessary to be successful in
kindergarten.
Student specific skill deficits. While all five parents expressed concerns over their
children’s skills in at least one area when entering kindergarten, all five stated that the child
overall was ready to enter kindergarten. These specific skill deficits included academic skills and
the difficulty in meeting school and classroom expectations.
54
Academic skills. Three parents noted specific academic skills they were concerned about
regarding their children’s abilities upon beginning kindergarten. One parent reported that the
child struggled with comprehension when given directions, staying on task, and a short attention
span. Another parent reported that the child struggled with articulation and felt that that
impacted kindergarten readiness. Another parent reported that her child struggled in math and
often reversed numbers; however, despite identifying these areas of concern, parents generally
believed that their children were ready to begin kindergarten. These specific concerns were not
seen or assessed in the Read 20 Kindergarten Screener.
School and classroom expectations. All five parents stated that they believed their
children were ready for kindergarten; however, two parents stated that kindergarten expectations
were higher than previously expected upon entering kindergarten. Parents reported that they felt
parents, in general, do not have a full understanding of what is expected of their students when
entering kindergarten. Parents reported they felt this way because many people do not realize
how much kindergarten and school have changed since they attended elementary school
themselves. Parent 3 stated the following:
They’re kids, they’re babies, they are somebody’s baby. They wake up stressed. They
are five, and they are stressed. This is what parents and people need to understand. They
are kids, and they are stressed. We need to realize that the tests that we think measure the
teachers are not what measure the teachers.
Parents identified the physical expectations of kindergarten as one that students struggled
with significantly. Physical expectations included sitting still for more extended periods than
expected in pre-kindergarten and quietly sitting while waiting for school to begin. Additionally,
one parent noted the emotional responses that came with the transition to kindergarten. She
55
stated that her student had a difficult time adjusting to sitting quietly and waiting for school to
being. She further stated that as a parent, she did not know how she could have prepared him for
that. When discussing the differences between pre-kindergarten and kindergarten, Parent 3 felt
that the differences between the two created a more difficult transition for the child in the
beginning.
When they’re in that constant routine, and they already know what is expected along with
nap time. When you go to kindergarten, don’t expect this. You’re going to have to do
work all day long. When they get to car ride along, they’re all head-butting the floor
because they’re sleepy. It’s not that they’re doing it in a behavioral way, it’s that their
little heads are out because they are used to nap time in pre-k. It’s a big place for a little
guy. It’s scary, and I don’t think I knew how to prepare him for that.
Summary of the Results
In this study, the researcher sought to explore parent perceptions of kindergarten
readiness. Data were collected from three sources, including parent surveys, student artifacts,
and parent interviews. Results of the parent survey indicated that most parents felt their children
were performing on target upon kindergarten entry. Results of the Read 20 Kindergarten
Screener indicated that students, on average, performed on a readiness level consistent with
approaching target. Four parents rated their children higher than the children performed on the
screening tool. One parent rated their child lower than how the child performed on the screening
tool. Through interviews, parents identified the areas of social skills, self-care, early academic
skills, and disposition to learn as areas of importance for general kindergarten readiness. Parents
identified pre-kindergarten attendance, home activities, and extracurricular activities as ways to
56
prepare students for kindergarten. Parents identified specific academic skill deficits and school
and classroom expectations as areas their students struggled with upon entering kindergarten.
57
CHAPTER FIVE: Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations
The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore the relationship between
kindergarten students’ performance across multiple areas of development (e.g., gross motor, fine
motor, cognitive, language, and social-emotional) and parents’ perceptions of kindergarten
readiness. Previous studies have been completed on kindergarten readiness, but this researcher
located no study that compared the parents’ understandings to the children’s performance. This
study utilized data from parent surveys, student artifacts, and parent interviews. Three themes
emerged in this study: general kindergarten readiness, preparation for kindergarten, and student-
specific skill deficits.
Conclusions
When compared to the Read 20 Kindergarten Screening Tool results, four parents rated
their children higher overall than how the children performed according to overall readiness
level. One parent rated his child lower overall than how the child performed according to the
overall readiness level. Performance on the screening tool and pre-kindergarten experience
varied between children. Of the four students that completed a pre-kindergarten program, three
were considered approaching target and one was on target according to the screening tool. The
student that did not attend or complete a pre-kindergarten program was off target. Table 4.5
provided a comparison of parent and student readiness levels.
Parents were more likely to believe that children performed higher in the areas of gross
motor, fine motor, and social-emotional than other areas. Gross motor parent survey results and
student screening tool scores were an exact match, which was the only assessed area in which
this occurred. Parents were more likely to rate students lower in the areas of cognitive and
58
language than other areas; however, the parent rating was still higher than how students
performed on the screening tool.
The disconnect between student performance in academic areas on the screening tool and
parent surveys may be because parents cited that students needed some knowledge of letter and
number identification. In contrast, the screening tool measured this extensively and required
mastery to obtain a perfect score. Parents did not indicate that their own children, or students in
general, needed mastery of the skill to be prepared for kindergarten. On average, students knew
27.4 letter names, 9 letter sounds, and 8.9 numbers. Parents did not state any other academic
skills as necessary for general kindergarten readiness.
After comparing parent and student data from individual domains, the data showed that
while parents rated students higher than they performed, students performed well on the areas
parents mentioned as necessary to readiness in interviews. While all five parents expressed
concerns over their children’s specific skill deficits when entering kindergarten, these parents
also stated that the children were overall prepared to enter kindergarten. When examining the
parental focus of behavior and independence, students were prepared to enter kindergarten based
on the survey results, screening tool results, and interviews in the areas of gross motor, fine
motor, and social-emotional.
Academically, parents did not have the same ability to gauge readiness. Students were
not as prepared overall the cognitive or language areas. With previous pre-kindergarten
experience cited frequently by parents, parents may have assumed children were prepared due to
attendance and completion only and not based on the quality or rigor of the program.
Additionally, parents cited that students needed to know some letters and numbers, but not all,
59
prior to kindergarten. Students demonstrated familiarity with letters and numbers but not
complete mastery of each skill.
The findings of the study indicated that parents placed more emphasis on gross motor,
fine motor, and social-emotional skills than specific academic skills. Parents found behavior and
motor skills to be more important than academic skills in preparing students for kindergarten.
Data from this study underscored the continuing need for parental buy-in and parental education
on kindergarten expectations, as also established by Quick (2018). The data supported the
inference that parents want to help their students, but they may not fully understand how.
Districts, schools, administrators, and teachers must find ways to help parents understand what
expectations of kindergarten are for students to be fully prepared. Parents found significant
value in working with their students at home and through extracurricular activities to prepare
them for kindergarten. Educating parents on what to work on at home beyond some letter and
number knowledge before and once kindergarten begins aided in filling overall skill deficits.
Additionally, the findings showed that parents emphasized pre-kindergarten attendance as a
factor for readiness. Helping parents understand how to choose high-quality, rigorous pre-
kindergarten programs was crucial to kindergarten readiness. While parental buy-in will not
solve all issues related to skill gaps in kindergarten, the findings showed that it aids in overall
kindergarten readiness.
While teacher perceptions of readiness were previously studied extensively, the findings
of this study shed new light on parent perceptions of readiness of their children (Bell, 2013;
Bressler, 2011; Butler, 2017; Cappelloni, 2010; Kane, 2014; Pooler, 2019; Simerly, 2014;
Vallacchi, 2019). Parents have previously reported regrets about possessing little knowledge of
how to help their children in the transition to kindergarten (Quick, 2018). The findings of this
60
study indicated that if parents are prepared for kindergarten expectations, then the students were
prepared for kindergarten expectations as well. Knestrick (2012) previously established that
knowing the students’ ZPD was crucial in helping teachers more effectively guide students;
however, this also means that having knowledge of students’ ZPD helps pre-kindergarten and
kindergarten teachers aide parents in effectively guiding students, prior to and after kindergarten
entry, in selecting home and extracurricular activities. Finding ways for districts, schools,
administrators, and teachers to communicate in ways that help parents more deeply and
accurately understand kindergarten expectations and their children’s ZPD across multiple skill
areas, beyond basic letter and number knowledge, was key in closing skill deficits before
kindergarten entry and during the kindergarten year.
Implications
Research from this study could be used with similar populations to aid in parent
education about standards and kindergarten expectations. From the data, parents did not fully
understand the skills required for kindergarten. This lack of understanding was an underlying
reason why their students were not as prepared in the same areas when they began kindergarten.
Schools and teachers can implement systems to help educate parents on kindergarten readiness
skills after students pre-register for kindergarten in the spring. While this will not reach every
parent before school begins, it would still reach a large number. Parental education on readiness
could be done as a presentation as part of the pre-registration process or before a summer
kindergarten screening event. This could also be done at the beginning of the year during
phase-in days when parents meet with the administration to go over school procedures or at the
first open house event of the year. While students would have already started school at this
point, readiness education could aid in helping parents further understand what is expected
61
before the first open house or parent-teacher conference night. Additionally, providing parents
with activities related to the areas that student scored the lowest in is advisable. Teaching
parents how better to understand and assess their children’s abilities will aid in overall readiness.
Activities must be hands-on and meaningful, while also easy for parents to understand and
implement. This could include live hands-on demonstrations or activities to use at home, with
multiple examples on how to best support students provided. It is not recommended to simply
provide paper matierals with this information, as parents receive a multitude of this type of
material, at the beginning of the school year especially, and it can be perceived as overwhelming.
In order for the results of this research to fully be applied, it is teachers’ and schools’
responsibility to deliver materials and information in ways that work best for their students and
families.
Recommendations
Further research in this area could include broadening the scope to a larger sample within
the school, district, or region. For this study, one classroom in one East Tennessee school district
was utilized. Extending the assessment and interview process to other schools with different
demographics is advisable to allow for a broader picture of how to best support students and
families. Research on extracurricular activities that students are participating in and how those
activities aid in readiness is advised. Furthermore, exploring how to best communicate this
information with families throughout a given school or district is advisable.
Summary of the Study
One question drove this study: What are the relationships between parents’ views and
their children’s readiness for kindergarten? The findings provided insight into parent perceptions
of kindergarten readiness. The results demonstrated that parental buy-in and education of
62
kindergarten expectations were essential to kindergarten readiness. Skills that parents identified
as necessary for kindergarten were skills in which students excelled. Skills parents did not
identify as crucial for kindergarten were skills on which students did not score as high. The
results of this study show that parental knowledge and buy-in of kindergarten expectations was
key to filling student skill deficits. These findings may provide district leaders, school leaders,
and teachers with new ideas and perspectives on how they can best support students and families
in the transition into kindergarten.
63
References
Ackerman, D., & Barnett, W. (n.d.). Prepared for kindergarten: What does "readiness" mean?
National Institute for Early Education Research. Retrieved from
https://www.academia.edu/3117203/Prepared_for_Kindergarten_What_Does_
Readiness_Mean
Alvarez, B. (2015). The reading rush: What educators say about kindergarten reading
expectations. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Retrieved from
http://neatoday.org/2015/06/19/the-reading-rush-what-educators-say-about-kindergarten-
reading-expectations/
American Federation of Teachers. (2016). Waiting rarely works: Late bloomers usually wilt.
Washington, DC: Greater Washington Educational Television Association. Retrieved
from https://www.readingrockets.org/article/waiting-rarely-works-late-bloomers-usually-
just-wilt
Andrew, M. (2014). The scarring effects of primary-grade retention? A study of cumulative
advantage in the educational career. Social Forces, 93(2), 653–685.
Aubrey, K., & Riley, A. (2018). Understanding and using educational theories. Newbury Park,
CA: SAGE Publications Limited.
Barnett, S., Brown, K., & Shore, R. (2016). The universal vs. targeted debate: Should the United
States have preschool for all? New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education
Research. Retrieved from http://nieer.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/6.pdf
Bassok, D., Latham, S., & Rorem, A. (2016). Is kindergarten the new first grade? American
Education Research Association Open, 2(1), 1-36.
64
Bassok, D., & Reardon, S. F. (2013). “Academic redshirting” in kindergarten: Prevalence,
patterns, and implications. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(3), 283-297.
Bassok, D., & Rorem, A. (2014). Is kindergarten the new first grade? The changing nature of
kindergarten in the age of accountability. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia.
Belfield, C., & Garcia, E. (2014). Parental notions of school readiness: How have they changed
and has preschool made a difference? The Journal of Educational Research, 107(2),
138-151.
Bell, C. M. (2013). Who decides and by what criteria: The impact of the perceptions of
preschool and kindergarten teachers on kindergarten readiness. ProQuest Dissertations
and Theses Global. (1586085694)
Berns, S. (n.d.). Kindergarten readiness begins prenatally. Boston, MA: National Institute for
Children’s Health Quality. Retrieved from https://www.nichq.org/insight/kindergarten-
readiness-starts-prenatally
Biddix, J. (2009). Research rundowns. Retrieved from https://researchrundowns.com/qual
/qualitative-coding-analysis/
Bodrova, E., Germeroth, C., & Leong, D. J. (2013). Play and self-regulation: Lessons from
Vygotsky. American Journal of Play, 6(1), 111-123.
Bowie, L. (2019, January 26). Less than half of Maryland students are ready for kindergarten.
The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved from https://www.baltimoresun.com/education/bs-md-
kindergarten-readiness-20190122-story.html
Bressler, J. A. (2011). Pre-kindergarten and kindergarten teachers' perceptions of kindergarten
readiness. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (868523146)
65
Butler, T. L. (2017). Kindergarten teachers' perceptions and beliefs of school readiness in
kindergarten children. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2010545871)
Cappelloni, N. L. (2010). Kindergarten teachers' perceptions of kindergarten readiness.
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (734662873)
Chick, N. (n.d.). Learning styles. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University, Center for Teaching.
Retrieved from https://cft.vanderbilt.edu/guides-sub-pages/learning-styles-preferences/
Children’s Reading Foundation. (n.d.). What’s the impact? Retrieved from
https://www.readingfoundation.org/the-impact
Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (Eds.). (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early
childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8 (3rd ed.). Washington,
DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Cross, A. J. (2017). An examination of kindergarten readiness perceptions from
Pre-Kindergarten teachers, kindergarten teachers, and parents: A quantitative study of
kindergarten readiness perceptions. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global.
(2023842937)
Cox, S. G. (2008). Differentiated instruction in the elementary classroom. The Education Digest,
73(9), 52.
Curran, F. C., & Kellogg, A. T. (2016). Understanding science achievement gaps by
race/ethnicity and gender in kindergarten and first grade. Educational Researcher, 45(5),
273-282.
DiSanto, A., & Berman, R. (2012). Beyond the preschool years: Children’s perceptions about
starting kindergarten. Children and Society, 26(6), 469-479.
66
Dong, Y. (2010). Kept back to get ahead? Kindergarten retention and academic performance.
European Economic Review, 54(2), 219-236.
Dougan, K., & Pijanowski, J. (2011). The effects of academic redshirting and relative age on
student achievement. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, 6(2),
1-13.
Elder, T. E., & Lubotsky, D. H. (2009). Kindergarten entrance age and children’s achievement
impacts of state policies, family background, and peers. Journal of Human Resources,
44(3), 641-683.
Eschner, K. (2017, May 16). A little history of American kindergartens. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Magazine. Retrieved from https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-
news/little-history-american-kindergartens-180963263/
Fantuzzo, J., Rouse, H. L., McDermott, P., Childs, S., & Weiss, A. (2005). Early childhood
experiences and kindergarten success: A population-based study of a large urban setting.
School Psychology Review, 34(4), 571-588.
First, L. R., & Palfrey, J. S. (1994). The infant or young child with developmental delay. The
New England Journal of Medicine, 330(7), 478–483.
Fletcher, J., & Kim, T. (2016). The effects of changes in kindergarten entry age policies on
educational achievement. Economics of Educational Review, 50, 45-662.
Friedman, A. (2015). Statistics for library and information services: A primer for using open
source software for accessibility and visualization. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.
Fromberg, D. P. (2006). Kindergarten education and early childhood teacher education in the
United States: Status at the start of the 21st century. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher
Education, 27(1), 65-85.
67
Gartrell, D. (2019). Readiness: Not a state of knowledge, but a state of mind. Washington, DC?
National Association for the Education of Young Children. Retrieved from
https://www.naeyc.org/our-work/families/readiness-not-state-knowledge-state-mind
Graue, E. (2011). Are we paving paradise? Educational Leadership, 68(7), 12-17.
Hatcher, B., Nuner, J., & Paulsel, J. (2012). Kindergarten readiness and preschools: Teachers'
and parents' beliefs within and across programs. Early Childhood Research and Practice,
14(2), n2.
Hines, A. (2017). A qualitative case study of parents and teachers views concerning the role of
children's play in school readiness. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
(2016912230)
Isaacs, J., Sandstrom, H., Rohacek, M., Lowenstein, C., Healy, O., & Gearing, M. (2015). How
Head Start grantees set and use school readiness goals. Washington, DC: Urban
Institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/
39136/2000087-how-head-start-grantees-set-and-use-school-rediness-goals-report.pdf
Jones, S. S. (2012). Academic red-shirting: Perceived life satisfaction of adolescent males.
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1022333185)
Kagan, L. S., Moore, E., & Bredekamp, S. (1997). Getting a good start in school. National
Education Goals Panel.
Kagan, S. L., & Moore, B. (1995). Reconsidering children's early development and learning:
Towards common views and vocabulary. Washington, DC: National Education Goals
Panel. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED391576.pdf
Kane, N. M. (2014). Analysis of the perceptions of kindergarten readiness of preschool and
kindergarten teachers. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. (1549976359)
68
Kelly, J. N. (2010). The first day of kindergarten: Examining school readiness advantages and
disadvantages across multiple developmental contexts. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Global. (787897970)
Kelley, J. P. (2018, March 5). Local children less ready for kindergarten, new report shows.
Dayton Daily News. Retrieved from https://www.daytondailynews.com/news/local-
children-less-ready-for-kindergarten-new-report-shows/yUrRdqUHzRpNxEiOaeDHzH/
Kloss, L. L. (1996). Kindergarten readiness policies and practices: Perceptions of principals,
teachers, and parents. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. (304267358)
Knestrick, J. (2012). The Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) and why it matters for early
childhood learning. Portland, OR: Northwest Evaluation Association. Retrieved from
https://www.nwea.org/blog/2012/the-zone-of-proximal-development-zpd-and-why-it-
matters-for-early-childhood-learning/
Kozulin, A., Ageyev, V. S., Gindis, B., & Miller, S. M. (Eds.). (2003). Vygotsky's educational
theory in cultural context. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Lather, P. (2003). Issues of validity in openly ideological research: Between a rock and a soft
place. In Y. S. Lincoln & N. K. Denzin (Eds.), Turning points in qualitative research:
Tying knots in a handkerchief (pp. 185-216). Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.
LeFevre, J. (2012). An investigation of how kindergarten teachers' philosophy and perceptions
are interrelated to the actual practice of play in their classrooms. ProQuest Dissertations
& Theses Global. (1937570757)
Leong, D. J., & Bodrova, E. (n.d.). Pioneers in our field: Lev Vygotsky–Playing to learn.
Scholastic. Retrieved from https://www.scholastic.com/teachers/articles/teaching-
content/pioneers-our-field-lev-vygotsky-playing-learn/
69
Lin, H., Freeman, L. S., & Chu, K. (2009). The impact of kindergarten enrollment age on
academic performance through kindergarten to fifth grade. European Journal of Social
Sciences, 10(1), 45–54.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Lipsey, M. W., Hofer, K. G., Dong, N., Farran, D. C., & Bilbrey, C. (2013). Evaluation of the
Tennessee Voluntary Pre-Kindergarten Program: Kindergarten and first grade follow‐up
results from the randomized control design (Research Report). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt
University, Peabody Research Institute.
Mader, J. (2013). Survey: Mississippi kids unprepared for kindergarten. The Hechinger Report.
Retrieved from http://www.rethinkms.org/2013/11/19/survey-mississippi-kids-
unprepared-kindergarten/
Matthews, J. S., Ponitz, C. C., & Morrison, F. J. (2009). Early gender differences in
self-regulation and academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3),
689.
Mayall, B. (2002). Towards a sociology for children: Thinking from children’s lives.
Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press.
Mayo Clinic. (2019). Kindergarten readiness: Help your child prepare. Retrieved from
https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/childrens-health/in-depth/kindergarten-
readiness/art-20048432
McLeod, S. (2019). What is the zone of proximal development? Simply Psychology. Retrieved
from https://www.simplypsychology.org/Zone-of-Proximal-Development.html
Miller, E., & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in the kindergarten: Why children need to play in school.
Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood.
70
Mishra, R. K. (2013). Vygotskian perspective of teaching-learning. Innovation: International
Journal of Applied Research, 1(1), 21-28.
Moreno, L. (2019, June 25). Report: Majority of kids not ready for kindergarten. News Channel
20. Retrieved from https://newschannel20.com/news/local/survey-shows-more-than-half-
of-illinois-children-not-ready-for-school
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2009). Where we stand on
readiness. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/
files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/Readiness.pdf
National Center for Learning Disabilities. (n.d.). Kindergarten readiness indicators: Checklist.
Retrieved from http://www.getreadytoread.org/transition-kindergarten-
toolkit/establishing-readiness/kindergarten-readiness-indicators-checklist
National School Readiness Indicators Initiative. (2005). Getting ready: Findings from the
National School Readiness Indicators Initiative: A 17 state partnership. Providence, RI:
Rhode Island Kids Count.
Newman, J., & Kranowitz, C. (2012). Growing in sync children. Washington, DC: National
Association for the Education of Young Children. Retrieved from
https://www.naeyc.org/resources/pubs/tyc/oct2012/growing-sync-children
Nordlof, J. (2014). Vygotsky, scaffolding, and the role of theory in writing center work. The
Writing Center Journal, 34(1), 45-64.
Parker, E., Diffey, L., & Atchison, B. (2018). How states fund pre-k. Denver, CO: Education
Commission of the States. Retrieved from https://www.ecs.org/wp-content/
uploads/How_States_Fund_Pre-K.pdf
71
Passe, A. (2010). Is everybody ready for kindergarten: A toolkit for preparing children and
families. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.
Patrianakos-Hoobler, A., Msall, M.E., Marks, J. D., Huo, D., & Schreiber, D. (2009). Risk
factors affecting school readiness in infants with respiratory distress syndrome.
Pediatrics, 124(1), 258-267.
Petersen, S., Adams, E. J., & Gillespie, L. G. (2016). Rocking and rolling: Learning to move.
Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Retrieved
from https://www.naeyc.org/resources/pubs/yc/nov2016/learning-to-move
Pierson, A. (2018). Exploring state-by-state definitions of kindergarten readiness to support
informed policymaking. Washington, DC: Regional Educational Laboratory Program.
Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/northwest/blog/kindergarten-
readiness.asp
Pre-Kindergarten Task Force. (2017). The current state of scientific knowledge on
pre-kindergarten effects. Durham, NC: Duke University, Center for Child and Family
Policy. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/
duke_prekstudy_final_4-4-17_hires.pdf
Pooler, J. L. (2019). A qualitative case study investigating teacher perceptions on the challenges
of students lacking kindergarten readiness skills in an urban school district in Ohio.
ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2247304137)
Potter, H. (2017). The benefits of universal access in pre-k and “3-k for all.” New York, NHY:
The Century Foundation. Retrieved from https://tcf.org/content/commentary/benefits-
universal-access-pre-k-3- k/?session=1&agreed=1
72
Quick, M. T. (2018). Factors contributing to behavioral kindergarten readiness: Building better
transitions from preschool to kindergarten. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
(2050603849)
Read 20. (n.d.). Ready for kindergarten? http://read20.org/ready-for-kindergarten/
Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Semmar, Y., & Al-Thani, T. (2015). Piagetian and Vygotskian approaches to cognitive
development in the kindergarten classroom. Journal of Educational and Developmental
Psychology, 5(2), 1-7.
Simerly, J. A. (2014). Teachers' perceptions of students' readiness for kindergarten. Available
from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1547732309)
Simon, M. K., & Goes, J. (2013). Dissertation and scholarly research: Recipes for success.
Dissertation Success, LLC.
Stedron, J., & Berger, A. (2010). NCSL technical report: State approaches to school readiness
assessment. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures. Retrieved from
http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/ncsl-technical-report-state-approaches-to-
school.aspx
Stratton, W., Webster, C., Reid, M., & Stoolmiller, M. (2008). Preventing conduct problems and
improving school readiness: Evaluation of the incredible years, teacher and child training
programs in high risk schools. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(5),
471-488.
Svensen, A. (2019). Kindergarten controversy. Family Education. Retrieved from
http://school.familyeducation.com/kindergarten/parents-and-school/38488.html
73
Swaak, T. (2018, July 17). As universal pre-k struggles to secure a nationwide platform, it finds
hope in cities like Chicago. Chicago, IL: The 74. Retrieved from
https://www.the74million.org/article/universal-pre-k-chicago-national-platform/
Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth. (n.d.a). Tennessee’s School Readiness Model.
Nashville, TN: Kid Central TN. Retrieved from https://www.kidcentraltn.com/education/
school-readiness/tennessee-s-school-readiness-model.html
Tennessee Commission on Children and Youth. (n.d.b). 4 years (57-60 months): Your child
prepares to enter kindergarten. Nashville, TN: Kid Central TN. Retrieved from
https://www.kidcentraltn.com/msg/4-years-57-60-months-your-child-prepares-to-enter-
kindergarten.html
Tennessee Department of Education. (n.d.). Information for parents. Nashville, TN: Author.
Retrieved from https://www.tn.gov/education/early-learning/voluntary-pre-k/voluntary-
pre-k-information-for-parents.html
Tennessee Department of Education (2013). Revised Early Learning Developmental Standards.
Nashville, TN: Author. Retrieved from https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/education/
standards/tnelds/std_tnelds_birth-4yo_bw.pdf
Tennessee Department of Education. (2020) Tennessee Early Intervention System. Nashville,
TN: Author. Retrieved from https://www.tn.gov/education/early-learning/tennessee-
early-intervention-system-teis.html
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). Definitions. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
https://www.ed.gov/early-learning/elc-draft-summary/definitions
74
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). A matter of equity: Preschool in America. Washington,
DC: Author. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/documents/early-learning/matter-
equity-preschool-america.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Obama administration investments in early learning have
led to thousands more children enrolled in high-quality preschool. Washington, DC:
Author. Retrieved from https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/obama-administration-
investments-early-learning-have-led-thousands-more-children-enrolled-high-quality-
preschool
Vallacchi, L. C. (2019). Kindergarten teachers' perceptions of kindergarten. Available from
ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. (2240066297)
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Vygotsky, L. S. (2016). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. International
Research in Early Childhood Education, 7(2), 3-25.
West, M. R. (2012). Is retaining students in early grades self-defeating? Washington, DC:
Brookings. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/research/is-retaining-students-in-
the-early-grades-self-defeating/
Wildenger, L. K., & McIntyre, L. L. (2011). Family concerns and involvement during
kindergarten transition. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 20(4), 387-396.
Xia, X. (2016). Parenting styles, parental involvement and kindergarten children's readiness for
elementary school in Shanghai, China. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses
Global. (1758252301)
75
Zaslow, M., Anderson, R., Redd, Z., Wessel, J., Daneri, P., Green, K., Cavadel, E., . . . &
Martinez-Beck, I. (2016). Quality dosage, thresholds, and features in early childhood
settings: Introduction and literature review. Society for Research in Child Development,
81(2), 1-128.
Zemelman, S., Daniels, H., & Hyde, A. (2005). Best practice: Today’s standards for teaching
and learning in America's schools (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
76
Appendix A
Read 20 Kindergarten Screening Tool
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
Appendix B
Survey Questions - English
92
93
94
95
96
Appendix C
Survey Questions – Spanish
97
98
99
100
101
Appendix D
Parent Interview Questions
102
Parent Interview Questions
1. In what areas did you believe your child was ready for kindergarten?
2. In what areas did you find your child was lacking for kindergarten readiness?
3. What skills do you believe a child needs to possess to be ready for kindergarten?
4. What skills did your child excel at that you feel are necessary to be ready for
kindergarten?
5. What skills did your child struggle with that you feel are necessary to be ready for
kindergarten?
6. What activities did you do with your child to make him/her ready for kindergarten?
7. Are there any other things that you believe contributed to your child’s kindergarten
readiness?
8. Are there any things that you believe hindered your child’s kindergarten readiness?
9. Is there anything else you would like to share regarding your child’s readiness for
kindergarten or kindergarten expectations?
103
Appendix E
Informed Consent
104
Participant Informed Consent Form
Carson-Newman University
Title of Study: Parent Perceptions of Kindergarten Readiness
Principal Investigator: Erin Mekkaoui
Email: [email protected]
You are being asked to take part in a research study. Before you decide to participate in this
study, it is important that you understand why the research is being done and what it will
involve. Please read the following information carefully. Please ask the researcher if there is
anything that is not clear or if you need more information.
Information and Purpose: The study for which you are being asked to participate in is a part of
dissertation research focused on investigating parent perceptions of kindergarten readiness. The
findings will support the knowledge base for future research on parent perceptions of
kindergarten readiness and expectations.
Your Participation in Study Procedures: Your participation in this study will consist of a
survey, your child’s answers and scores on the Read 20 Kindergarten Screening Tool, and
one in-person recorded interview that will likely take no more than 30 minutes of your time.
Your participation is strictly voluntary. There is no penalty for discontinuing participation.
The study will begin in January 2020 and will be completed by April 1, 2020. Audio recording
will be used throughout the research process. These recordings will be kept confidential. Each
participant will be given a pseudonym for the duration of the research. All recorded material
will be kept secure and private. You will have the opportunity to review your responses in the
researcher’s notes upon request at any time during the duration of the research.
Benefits and Risks: There will be no direct benefit to you for your participation in this study.
However, the benefit will be gaining insight regarding parent perceptions of readiness and
student performance on readiness assessments. There are no known risks associated with
participating in the study.
Confidentiality: Your responses will be anonymous. Every effort will be made by the researcher
to preserve your confidentiality including the following:
• Assigning code names/pseudonyms for participants on all research notes and
documents.
• Keeping notes, interview transcriptions, and any other identifying participant
information in a locked file cabinet in the personal possession of the researcher.
Participant data will be kept confidential except in cases where the researcher is legally obligated
to report specific incidents. The researcher will not share your individual responses with anyone
other than the research supervisor.
105
If you have any questions or concerns, please contact the researcher at [email protected], or
her dissertation chair, Dr. Steve Davidson at [email protected].
Subject’s Understanding
• I agree to participate in this study that I understand will be submitted in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the EdD degree in Curriculum and Instruction at
Carson-Newman University.
• I understand that my participation is voluntary.
• I understand that all data collected will be limited to this use or other research-related usage as authorized by the Carson-Newman University.
• I understand that I will not be identified by name in the final product.
• I am aware that all records will be kept confidential in the secure possession of the
researcher.
• I acknowledge that the contact information of the researcher and her advisor have been made available to me along with a duplicate copy of this consent form.
• I understand the data I provide will not be used to evaluate my performance in my
classes.
• I understand that I may withdraw from the study at any time with no adverse
repercussions.
By signing below, I acknowledge that I have read and understand the above information. I am
aware that I can discontinue my participation in the study at any time.
Signature __________________________________________________________
Date __________________________