Aust. Educ. Res.

(2014) 41:109–124
DOI 10.1007/s13384-013-0126-8

Preparatory teachers’ perceptions of school readiness:

a survey of Victorian teachers

Tanya Serry • Christine Imms • Elspeth Froude •

Beverly Joffe • Chyrisse Heine • Celeste Merrigan

Received: 18 May 2012 / Accepted: 26 August 2013 / Published online: 14 September 2013
 The Australian Association for Research in Education, Inc. 2013

Abstract This study surveyed perspectives held by school teachers regarding

factors that contribute to successful transition to school. In addition, this study
explored practices in place to enhance children’s transition to school. Participants
were self-nominated, preparatory teachers from publicly funded primary schools in
Victoria, Australia. From 250 surveys sent to randomly selected Melbourne
metropolitan schools, 153 were returned (61.2 % return rate). Numerical data were
analysed descriptively and responses to open-ended questions were coded and
analysed to derive common themes. All respondents identified formal processes
used to assist children to transition into the first year of primary school. They also
identified various child-related factors they considered important for school readi-
ness. Factors fell broadly into cognitive, social, self-care, emotional and language
domains. When asked, the majority of educators felt that age was a critical factor.
Less commonly identified issues were those related to the children’s physical
abilities, and their capacity to engage in learning tasks. Whilst factors identified
were broad, there was a relative consistency across respondents. These findings

T. Serry (&)
C. Imms
E. Froude
B. Joffe
C. Heine
C. Merrigan

La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
e-mail: t.serry@latrobe.edu.au

C. Imms
Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

E. Froude
Australian Catholic University, Sydney, NSW, Australia

B. Joffe
Southern Cross University, Lismore, NSW, Australia

C. Heine
Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

123
110 T. Serry et al.

contribute to the discourse in regards to identifying and consistently applying

strategies to support children’s successful transition into school.

Keywords School readiness
Preparatory year
Successful transition

School teacher
Preschool teacher

Introduction

Starting formal schooling is a critical milestone for children’s learning. Readiness

for school entry, together with processes designed to assist transition, exert
significant influence on how children adjust and thrive. Teachers and parents are
likely to share the objective of ensuring all is done to make school entry a positive
experience. Teachers who engage with children in the first year of schooling are
well placed to share impressions of factors (they believe) contribute to children’s
school readiness. Teachers are able to view each child’s functioning in relation to
that of other children within the classroom and obtain a composite idea of criteria
required for entry to school and successful functioning within the classroom.
Although capabilities of the majority of children within a class may provide one
way of establishing expectations for individual children, relying solely on such a
yardstick, potentially overlooks heterogeneity within the group and particular needs
of each child. While prep teachers may not necessarily initially contribute directly
to decisions regarding a child’s readiness for schooling, the views these educators
gain from observations of behaviours, once the child is already in school, has the
potential to offer insights regarding the notions of ‘school readiness’ and ‘transition
to school’. This paper provides information about an investigation that involved
preparatory teachers’ perceptions of school readiness to contribute further insights
to this topic.

The concept of school readiness

School readiness is a term used to denote the point in development when a child is
ready to enter full-time school, which in Australia is around 5 years of age. It is
accepted that the way a child transitions into school can impact on their school
success (Luster and McAdoo 1996). School readiness is described as ‘‘… the
capacity to simultaneously learn and cope with the school environment…’’ (Gesell
Institute of Child Development 1987, p. 7). According to Ladd et al. (2011), a child
entering school faces a different physical context, processes, types of interaction,
social groups and rules, to those he/she has experienced before the point of school
entry. Hence these authors suggest a social component of school readiness, positing
the importance of being able to engage in pro-social, interactional and relational
behaviour with peers and teacher, which in turns assists adjustment and learning in
school. Such suggestions are in keeping with similar ones raised by authors such as
Ripich and Spinelli (1985) and Tattershall and Creaghead (1985), who stress for
instance, the importance of children needing to know the rules of classroom
discourse. School readiness has been described as a multi-factorial construct, taking

123
Preparatory teachers’ perceptions of school readiness 111

into account the child’s behavioural, developmental, and cognitive skills that are
considered necessary for entry to a school environment (Forget-Dubois et al. 2009).
Links are beginning to be made between notions such as successful transition to
school (and the ability to engage in learning in the context of the classroom) with
the ability to self regulate emotions; a phenomenon related to the construct of
resilience (Eisenberg et al. 2010).
Decisions on a child’s school readiness are frequently based on age (Crnic and
Lamberty 1994). In most states in Australia, this is easily operationalised, however,
the cut-off dates for school entry vary between states. For example in Victoria, a
child must be 5 years of age by 30th April compared to 30th June in New South
Wales and the 1st of January in Tasmania. Although the age criterion is present for
all Australian states, children may be ‘held over,’ that is, kept in preschool or
kindergarten for an additional year at age 3 or 4 years despite being the correct
chronological age for school entry. Legally, children do not have to enter school
until the age of 6 years. In Victoria, the first year of full-time school is called the
‘preparatory’ or ‘prep’ year. Prior to this year many, although not all, children
attend Kindergarten at age 3 and/or 4 years usually on a part-time capacity. In this
paper the terms prep and kindergarten will be used to refer to those formal education
settings and their respective teachers. The term preschool will be used to indicate
the period of time prior to formal school entry at prep, and may include
kindergarten, agency-based child-care or other family based day-care.

Determining school readiness

School readiness, together with related assessments and interventions, continue to

be topical areas of consideration for teachers, parents and allied health profession-
als. Yet decisions regarding school readiness cannot be taken lightly, especially in
light of cautionary views such as those of Scarpati and Silver (1992), pertaining to
risks related to potentially ‘‘… inaccurate and misleading assumptions about how
preschoolers will perform later in school…’’ (p. 262). Determining school readiness
is unlikely to be a straightforward process, despite a broad range of informal and
formal assessments (including standardised and criterion referenced measures)
being available to support the process (Scarpati and Silver 1992). According to the
Victorian Early Years Learning and Development Framework document (Depart-
ment of Education and Early Childhood Development 2009), important factors
linked to engagement and success in education include the child’s sense of identity,
connectedness, wellbeing and confidence. These ‘child factors’ or dispositions are
complex concepts that are difficult to measure, and this policy document does not
refer to empirical research to support this statement. The DEECD framework also
posits that by school entry, children are expected to be able to communicate, learn,
think and relate to others. Some of these constructs (e.g. thinking) also present
challenges with respect to measurement. Further, it is not clear who should be
responsible for implementing and evaluating these measurements. Nonetheless, the
ability to measure factors considered pivotal to the child’s engagement and success
in school makes it possible to obtain a profile of the child’s strengths and
weaknesses early on. Such information could support decisions about school entry

123
112 T. Serry et al.

and inform processes required for enhancing school transition. It could also justify
initiatives to create and maintain optimal environments and mechanisms to assist
the child’s adjustment, wellbeing and progress within school. For instance, early
intervention could be implemented to address particular ‘at risk’ presentation or
behaviours. For the child who has already entered school, an informed teacher,
cognisant of the need to address any, or all of these factors and alerted to do so,
could strive to do so proactively and be consistently responsive to the needs of a
particular child and to what Dockett and Perry (2004, p. 219) refer to as ‘signifiers
of … unsuccessful transition’ Teachers of children in the first year of school are well
placed to contribute to specific guidelines of school readiness based on their
experience of curriculum and classroom expectations and experiences.

Preschool and school based teachers’ perceptions of readiness

In a study conducted in 1995, Johnson et al. investigated American year-one-of-

school teachers’ perceptions relating to the critical skills needed for school entry. In
this study, teachers from rural, urban and suburban settings (n = 176) rated the
importance of a range of skills across the following domains: gross motor function,
fine motor function, general knowledge and readiness, language and social. They
were also asked to identify the ten most essential skills needed for successful school
entry. Teachers listed: toileting independently, following simple rules and
procedures in the classroom with reminders, engaging in meaningful dialogue,
saying own birthday, telephone number, complete address and name of primary
caregiver, feeding self with a fork, using 5–6 word sentences, separating easily from
primary caregiver, naming nine colours when shown a model, cutting on a straight
line and a circle, reading print and spelling own first name. Wesley and Buyesse
(2003) also explored the notion of ‘the ready child’ with year-one-of-school
teachers in America. Data, collected within focus groups, emphasised the
importance of social/emotional development and communication skills and notably,
a reduced emphasis on academic skills. This more recent research highlights that the
child’s capacity to engage in a comfortable and productive manner in the new
learning environment, based on physical, motor, cognitive, language and social
emotional development is an important consideration for readiness (Zuckerman and
Halfon 2003).
Commencing the first year of school is an important milestone in a child’s life.
To reduce the challenges that may arise for many children and parents, it is essential
to have a greater understanding of the developmental and skill requirements
expected of children. In turn, such information could assist education and health
professionals support children prior to school entry through skill development and
transition planning, especially when children with specific needs are identified. This
is particularly important in states around Australia where state-governed preschool
and school education systems are not part of the same jurisdiction. The aim of this
study was to explore the perspectives of prep teachers in Victoria, Australia and to
describe current practices and strategies used to facilitate successful transition to
school. This study also aimed to investigate prep teacher’s opinions regarding

123
Preparatory teachers’ perceptions of school readiness 113

factors that influence a child’s school readiness. This descriptive study used survey
methods to meet the aims.

Method

Participants

Eligible participants were self-nominated, qualified prep teachers. There were no

other inclusion or exclusion criteria. To ensure a wide sample of teachers from
different schools, only one survey form was mailed in hard copy to each school.
Completion of the survey was taken as consent to participate in the research.
Information that would identify the participant was not requested or recorded. There
was no direct incentive for eligible participants to complete the survey. Instead, the
letter of introduction stated that one of the participating schools would be randomly
selected to win a book prize. Ethical approval was gained from the La Trobe
University Human Ethics Committee where the research was conducted and the
Victorian Education Department.

Survey tool

Data were collected using a purpose-designed survey that prep teachers were asked
to complete. The survey explored four key areas that are described in Table 1. As
the focus of the survey was on school-wide practices and opinions, demographic
data regarding the prep teachers themselves was not collected. Sections A, B and C
comprised mainly open-ended questions with some forced choice ‘Yes/No’ items.
Section B also contained a 4-point Likert scale question, which contained 15 items
related to school readiness factors. Section D consisted entirely of closed questions.

Procedure

After initial piloting of the survey, a package was posted to 250 randomly selected,
state government schools across metropolitan Melbourne, Australia. The survey
package contained (i) a brief explanation about our research, along with an
invitation to participate; (ii) the ‘Determining School Readiness’ survey and (iii) a

Table 1 Key areas explored in the purpose-designed survey of prep teachers

Section The processes used by prep teachers to evaluate preschool children’s readiness to transition
A into school
Section Developmental factors about a given child that prep teachers considered important for
B successful transition into school
Section Issues and practices they used to identify and assist children who may not be ready to
C commence school the following year and
Section The characteristics of the composition of participating prep- grades from each school
D

123
114 T. Serry et al.

stamped, return self-addressed envelope. Before the mail out, each school was
assigned a number from 1 to 250 in order to track whether participants had
responded from each school. For schools where no response had been received, a
reminder was sent out along with a new survey package. Following the reminder
mail-out, no further contact was made with individual schools. Like School Group
ratings were used to determine the spread of socio-economic need within
participating schools. The Like School Group scale ranks schools from 1 to 9
with regard to the amount of government funding and assistance they receive; the
higher the schools’ Like School Group ranking, the more assistance they receive,
indicating greater socio-economic need.

Data analysis

Due to the nature of the data collected via our ‘Determining School Readiness’
survey, both descriptive statistics and thematic analyses were conducted. Descrip-
tive statistical analyses were supported by PASW, statistical package for the social
sciences, Version 17 (www.spss.com). Thematic analysis was undertaken for all
open-ended questions. To do so, at least two members of the research team per-
formed an independent thematic analysis on the data. This was followed by team-
based discussions to reach a consensus and thereby, derive core themes to address
the research inquiry.

Results

Characteristics of respondents’ preparatory grades

All respondents were prep grade teachers working in public primary schools in
metropolitan Melbourne. From 250 surveys sent to randomly selected schools, 153
(61.2 %) were returned after one mailed reminder. Schools from each of the nine
Like School Groups were represented and there was no evidence of a difference
between those responding and those not, in Like School Group rating clusters (see
Table 2 and footnote). Table 2 provides descriptive information regarding class
sizes, number of prep-grades within the school and the composition of the prep-only
or composite prep grades. The mean number of prep-grades per school was 3.05
(SD = 1.3), with a mean of 20.52 (SD = 3.6) children in each grade. Most classes
(83.7 %) contained only prep children.

Getting ready to go to school

Participants from all 153 schools indicated that their school ran a formal orientation
process that was designed to facilitate transition to school. Processes used for
evaluating a child’s readiness to go to school included discussions with kindergarten
teachers, completion of checklists or surveys by kindergarten teachers, interviews
and consultations. The majority of respondents indicated that they held formal
transition days, where kindergarten children could attend their chosen school, and/or

123
Preparatory teachers’ perceptions of school readiness 115

Table 2 Descriptive statistics from N = 153 respondents

Characteristic Frequency N (%) Mean (SD) Range

Number of prep grades in school – 3.05 (1.3) 1–7

Size of prep grades – 20.52 (3.6) 7–36
Composition of prep grade 128 (83.7) – –
Prep children only 22 (14.3)
Composite prep-grade 1 2 (1.3)
Multi-age class rooma 1 (0.7)
Team-taught class roomb
Like school group ratingc 51 (39.8)
1–3 37 (28.9)
4–6 40 (31.3)
7–9
a
Multi-age classroom = class with children from three or more different grades
b
Team-taught classroom = classroom with two or more grades in same room taught by two or more
teachers
c
Proportions of respondent schools in each grouping was very similar to the proportions in each
grouping of non-respondent schools [Group 1–3: n = 51(41.8 %); Group 4–6: n = 34 (27.8 %); Group
7–9: n = 36 (29.5 %)]

where prep teachers, and in some instances prep or older ‘buddy’ students, visited
kindergarten classrooms to assist in orientation and familiarisation. In addition,
parent information evenings were also commonly held. Many teachers reported that
their school had a close working relationship with local kindergartens and that this
assisted them to identify children considered at risk of not being ready for school.
Almost all prep teachers (n = 150; 98 %) indicated that the orientation process
enhanced school transition. In particular teachers commented that the process was
valuable for meeting parents, discussing parent and school expectations and
identifying any goals or strategies that may need to be in place to smooth the
transition experience of the child. The majority of prep teachers (n = 111; 72.5 %)
reported that they believed the orientation processes used at their school assisted in
determining school readiness, while 39 teachers (25.5 %; 2 % missing data) did not.
Those respondents who did not agree that the orientation process assisted in
determining school readiness, indicated that the decision to attend school was
frequently already made by this time, or that there was insufficient time available to
make an assessment of the child’s overall readiness for school.
Discussions were commonly held about individual children’s readiness for
school (n = 131; 85.6 %), however respondents indicated that these conversations
did not always contribute to the decision regarding whether a child should transition
to school or not. Of the 131 prep teachers who did discuss individual children, 52
(39.7 %) indicated such a process did not contribute to decision-making. This was
predominantly because the decision had already been made. Moreover, they
indicated the purpose of the discussion was to assist transition, not to decide
whether a child should proceed to prep-grade. In some cases, the prep-teacher’s

123
116 T. Serry et al.

opinion was not sought, nor was it considered in regard to whether transition should
occur. In addition, some teachers indicated that for privacy reasons, they did not
have access to information about the transition decision. There were a further 49
(37.4 %) teachers who indicated the discussion did contribute to decision-making.
The final 30 (22.9 %) provided more equivocal responses, indicating the discussions
contributed sometimes, but not at other times. These teachers indicated that the
discussions were helpful for planning for special cases and future funding, for goal
setting and organising class groupings.
Respondents were also asked to provide suggestions regarding alternate
processes that might be used to facilitate the transition to school. Most teachers
(n = 133; 86.9 %) suggested that their current processes could be improved, and in
particular that there could be greater liaison between kindergartens and schools, and
in addition, a more formal process for determining school readiness. Many prep
teachers reported that they needed more detailed information about each child prior
to them entering school. Suggested mechanisms for obtaining this information
included kindergarten teacher-completed checklists and assessment or screening of
specific skills by kindergarten teachers or other professionals. Suggestions for
improving the liaison between school and preschool personnel included increasing
the amount of time prep teachers were able to observe children in the kindergarten
setting, as well as increased opportunity for discussion between prep teachers and
parents of kindergarten children. Specific suggestions included having a nominated
transition coordinator and formal reporting between the kindergarten and school.
Increasing the age-of-entry for all children was also suggested as a mechanism that
would assist with successful transition.

Factors that prep teachers consider important for school readiness

In terms of factors related to children’s development and maturation, prep teachers

identified cognitive, social, self-care, emotional, receptive language, physical and
learning readiness factors as important from the list of options provided in the
questionnaire. The most consistent responses were in relation to cognitive and self-
care readiness. Overwhelmingly, respondents indicated that they expected that
children be toilet trained at the commencement of prep-grade. The ability for
children to dress themselves (except tying shoelaces) was also deemed important, as
was being able to care for personal belongings and eat snacks and lunch
independently. Examples of cognitive readiness included the ability to attend and
concentrate, and in some cases teachers provided explicit time criteria for these
abilities such as attending or concentrating for 5, 10 or 20 min. Other examples
included academic skills related to number awareness (1–10), the alphabet and
knowing one’s name and how to write it. A few teachers mentioned knowledge of
print but did not specify details.
In terms of children’s social readiness, the ability to share and take turns with
peers was highly valued in regards to school readiness. Other key attributes included
being able to play with others, to interact positively and to engage both with
children and adults. Factors related to being able to separate from parents
confidently and without anxiety were thought to be important, and were coded

123
Preparatory teachers’ perceptions of school readiness 117

within the emotional-readiness theme. A number of respondents also felt it

important that children be able to cope with school and to have some resilience.
Fewer teachers indicated that language comprehension and expression and physical
skills were important for school readiness. For language readiness, the ability to
communicate verbally, speak clearly, express needs, as well as to listen and follow
instructions were put forward as important factors. The predominant areas
mentioned in the physical readiness theme related to fine motor skills, particularly
being able to manipulate scissors and a pencil. Only a few respondents identified
gross motor skills as important. The learning readiness theme included attributes
identified by teachers as children being able to engage in learning, be persistent,
have a ‘work commitment’, ‘have a go’ and make choices. Interestingly, there were
three respondents who said they had no expectations of children at the time they
entered prep. One respondent added that it was difficult to comment given the
individual profiles of children. This is in contrast to other respondents who felt there
were too many criteria to list.
Teachers were also asked to rank the importance of a range of factors identified
in the literature as important for school readiness. Table 3 reports on the proportion
of teachers who ranked each factor as highly important. Data from this question
support the open-ended responses previously reported and between 98 and 100 % of
respondents identified emotional, self-care and social development as being of very
high importance. Interestingly, although age was identified as being of high
importance by 90 % of teachers when specifically asked, it was not frequently

Table 3 Factors identified in

Factor Sample size High importance
the literature and ranked by
(%)
teachers as being of importance
to school readiness
Emotional 152 100
development
Self-care skills 152 99.3
Social development 150 98.7
Receptive language 152 96.8
Visual skills 151 96.7
Expressive language 152 94.0
Cognitive 145 92.0
development
Age 149 90.6
Fine motor 152 89.5
development
Gross motor 152 78.2
development
Auditory skills 152 64.5
Pre-writing skills 150 57.3
Pre-reading skills 150 57.3
Pre-numeracy skills 150 56.0
English as second 150 44.2
Note: Sample size varied across language
items due to missing responses

123
118 T. Serry et al.

mentioned in the open-ended responses. Gross motor skills were also rarely
identified in open-ended responses yet identified by 78 % of respondents as
important when specifically asked.
When asked to elaborate on their ranking of the importance of factors, the
responses supported the finding that emotional and social development, self-care
and language skills were
Important factors, as illustrated in the following quotes:
Children need to feel safe and secure in order to succeed therefore social and
emotional development is often an indicator in our setting of how children will
perform. Others take up the challenge but take longer to do so.
This sentiment was reflected by a number of participants. In relation to age, it was
felt that the older the child the better. As one respondent reported;
Mostly there is a correlation between very young children and very poor
social and emotional maturity, receptive and expressive language. Those
children really struggle with separating from parents, understanding what is
going on in the classroom and being able to get along with other children.

Importance of age and gender to school readiness

A range of views were expressed about the importance of age as a factor on which
to base school readiness. The majority of teachers indicated that age was the
primary factor for determining school readiness. Some teachers suggested children
needed to be older than 5 years, with 6 or 7 years reported as being preferable.
Younger children were perceived as less mature, and where differences were
identified between boys and girls, maturity was the key factor. Some teachers
reported that age was not relevant, but rather other factors were relevant such as
family support, maturity (separate from age), and the child’s specific cognitive or
social skills. The opinion that age of entry should be consistent across the states of
Australia was also expressed. There were mixed responses to whether the gender of
the child was an important criterion for school entry decisions. For those
respondents who said this was not an important criterion, reasons given included
that gender was only one factor amongst many; that gender had not been an issue
according to their experience; that judgements regarding school readiness should be
individualised and that gender was irrelevant. Conversely, the respondents who said
gender was important indicated that boys were more immature and emotionally
younger than girls; that boys’ speech was less developed and that they ‘used actions
rather than words’. Moreover, boys were perceived to be less able to concentrate
and to have poorer fine motor skills than girls.

Factors that contribute to successful school transition

The two key themes identified as important to successful school transition were
child-based skills and social-environmental supports. Consistent with the data about
school readiness, transition was thought to be more successful if the child had

123
Preparatory teachers’ perceptions of school readiness 119

sufficient emotional, self-care, social, language and motor skills. In addition, the
child’s ability to fit into school routines, their age and maturity were also thought to
contribute to successful transition. In addition to child factors, previous kindergarten
experiences, formal orientation programs, characteristics of school staff and
parental attitudes were also identified as contributing to successful experiences of
school transition.

When starting school doesn’t go well

One measure of successful transition is that the child has settled into school routines
and adapted to the school experience. Figure 1 illustrates the range of time frames
by which prep teachers expected children to have adapted to school. The majority of
teachers expected that children will have adapted to school within the first term (by
6 weeks: n = 22; 14.4 % and by end of term 1: n = 61; 39.9 %).
According to the participants, when the prep year has not gone well, it is possible
to recommend that the child repeat the year. Factors that teachers consider in
making this decision were wide ranging, but tended to focus around academic
progress such as counting and learning letters, social immaturity and cognitive or
more general developmental concerns. Age of the child was also identified as a
factor by 29 (19.3 %) teachers, with younger children being identified as being ‘‘too
young to cope.’’ A few participants reported that their school’s policy was that no
child would repeat a grade (n = 5; 3.33 %) and a further 8 (5.33 %) indicated great
reluctance to hold a child back.

Discussion

This study set out to explore factors that influence school readiness from the
perspective of those who teach children in the first year of school and the processes

Fig. 1 Proportion of teachers

reporting expected time for
children to adapt to school

123
120 T. Serry et al.

used to facilitate school readiness and transition. Factors explored in the current
study included both practical and strategic processes to determine and/or facilitate
school readiness, as well as prep teachers’ views about necessary developmental
attributes that assist children with the transition to school.
It is worth noting the response rate to the survey was high with almost two-thirds
of all surveys being returned. The vast majority of surveys were completed in full.
This involved extended answer questions as well as ‘quick-to-complete’ alternate
choice questions. Based on the response rate and the effort taken by participants, it
is reasonable to assume that the topic of school readiness, when posed to prep
teachers was considered worthy of their attention. In addition, with a similar spread
across Like School Group ratings between respondent and non-respondent schools,
we expect the sample to reflect the views of prep teachers in Victoria.
In their role as prep teachers, the participants of the present study were able to
offer valuable insights because they are the educators attending to children in their
first year of school. As such, these teachers are well qualified to comment on factors
that assist with school readiness. Nevertheless, our results demonstrated that despite
prep teachers’ critical role with these children, many felt somewhat excluded from
the process of contributing to a discussion about whether a given child was in fact
ready to transition into school, despite being in the prime position to do so. When
teachers reflected on specific child-related factors considered important for school
readiness, they conveyed that they highly valued emotional and social skills, self-
care, and language skills.

Practical processes to assist with successful school transition

Engagement in a formal process of orienting preschool children and their parents to

school was found to be a standard procedure for all participants. The ‘transition day’
experience was the most widely used practice whereby the preschool child spent
time at the school as an organised activity. Although virtually all participants
maintained that orientation was valuable to the experience of transitioning into
school, approximately one-quarter of the prep teachers reported that formal
orientation did not assist with decisions regarding school readiness for a given child.
The majority of prep teachers reported that they had been personally involved in
discussions with preschool personnel and possibly parents about the readiness of a
given child to go to school the following year. Nevertheless, there were mixed views
about how helpful these discussions were when it came to determining whether a
child should be held over in preschool. Just over one-third of participants
maintained that these discussions were useful in deciding whether a child should or
should not go to school the following year. Of the remaining two-thirds, many
described a disempowered position since the decision about promoting a child to
prep or holding the child over in kindergarten for a further year had already been
made. Such discussions were perceived by these teachers as focusing on how best to
support the child when s/he arrived at school rather than considering whether the
child was in fact ready to attend school. While such dialogue has an important place,
it is noteworthy that the majority of prep teachers felt that they would like to have a
more active role in determining readiness for school for a given child. Examination

123
Preparatory teachers’ perceptions of school readiness 121

of participants’ suggestions for alternate processes that could facilitate school

transition reflected teachers’ wish for increased opportunities to liaise formally and
share information with kindergarten teachers and parents. Further, many teachers
felt that determining school readiness could be enhanced if they could actively
engage in observation, objective assessment and decision-making about a child for
whom concerns were apparent. Such a finding highlights the sense of disconnection
described by many prep teachers with the ‘system’ when determining school
readiness.

Factors considered important for school readiness

Recently, a number of authors (Dockett and Perry 2004; Lin et al. 2003; Wesley and
Buyesse 2003) have documented a shift from considering age along with literacy
and numeracy as key determiners for school readiness, to placing greater value on
aspects such as emotional, self-care and social skills. Much of the data from the
current study supports this view, suggesting that development of literacy and
numeracy is appropriately considered the task of the school and is not required prior
to school entry. Many of the prep teachers in this study talked about a more global
sense of readiness to learn that was important, with only a few participants
indicating they expected children to have already learned some aspects of early
reading and writing skills such as identifying letter names. Readiness to learn was
described both in behavioural terms, such as being able to sit and concentrate, as
well as in emotional terms, such as having confidence and being resilient; (the latter,
supporting views such as those of Eisenberg et al. 2010). Findings from the current
research endorse the position that prep teachers were not so concerned with what
children had learned prior to school entry, but rather that they entered school with
the capacity to engage, participate and learn within a classroom environment. These
findings, (e.g. the ability to engage), support propositions by authors such as Ladd
et al. (2011) regarding the importance of social readiness for school.
Virtually all participants rated emotional, self-care and social abilities as well as
language skills as having ‘high importance’ for successful transition into school. It
is not surprising that social abilities together with language skills were deemed
important, given the substantial overlap between these two areas. What was
surprising was that, in particular, our participants overwhelmingly revealed a high
regard for children being able to manage their self-care independently. Although
Johnson et al. (1995) highlighted independent toileting as a key requirement for
school readiness, the more current literature has focused on social and emotional
factors (Mashburn and Pianta 2006). The capacity of a prep child to undertake self-
care activities independently has practical implications for managing classroom
curricular and daily activities. Our results indicate that prep teachers want to focus
on other aspects of skill development in the classroom, thus expect that the child
comes to school without the need for assistance to gain independence in personal
self-care. Although it would be a typical developmental expectation that day-time
independent toileting be achieved by 5 years of age, for this to be raised as a key
criterion suggests it is a marker of lack-of-readiness in some children. What is not

123
122 T. Serry et al.

clear from our data is whether the children who are not independent in toileting are
also showing signs of not being ready for school in other areas.
Although the respondents in this study placed weight on emotional, self-care and
social skills in relation to school readiness, age is the established criterion upon
which the decision to go to school is made in an Australian context. It was
interesting to note that neither age nor gender featured in the open responses from
participants when asked to identify factors important for school readiness in an
open-ended format. However, when specifically asked, participants had clear
opinions, typically suggesting that the age of school entry should be consistent
across Australia. Further, there was fairly widespread support for a later starting age
to be mandated. It appeared that age and gender may have been vehicles for
discussing maturity and a capacity to both cope and benefit from school rather than
being factors of importance themselves. Some of the comments teachers made about
boys’ readiness for school, for example that they use actions rather than words,
leaves open the question as to whether schools are ready for boys learning styles,
rather than boys being ready for school.

Clinical and educational implications

While there are formal processes in place to assist the transition to school for
children, the findings of this study suggest that prep teachers are not routinely
involved in the decision making process. The teachers in the present study
expressed a desire to play a more active role in determining whether children are
ready for school. This raises questions regarding prep teachers’ roles in informing
the discussion regarding preschool children’s school readiness. Further, reports of
some teachers in this study, suggests that it is preferable for children to repeat
kindergarten rather than prep. A particular age of entry, may be a necessary but not
sufficient criterion upon which to make the judgement for school entry. If so, clear
guidelines as to what the minimum skill sets are for children, and how to effectively
evaluate these in all children may enable early identification of children ‘at risk’ of
not being ready and thus early provision of targeted support for these children.
Clearer identification of school readiness is likely to involve a broad group of
personnel including educators, medical and allied health professionals as well as
parents and carers who are all key stakeholders in the child’s learning and well-
being (Lara-Cinisomo et al. 2008). Ongoing involvement of preschool professionals
as well as prep teachers in this discussion is necessary to ensure that children
identified as ‘at risk’ are able to access necessary services to enhance their potential.

Limitations and future directions

Findings and conclusions from the current study must be considered in the context
that data were collected only from state government schools in one major city in
Australia. Therefore, only one set of policy guidelines and one funding body were at
play and generalisability of the data must be considered accordingly. It is hoped that

123
Preparatory teachers’ perceptions of school readiness 123

future research will extend these findings in other contexts to provide more
comprehensive knowledge of the experiences and views held by prep teachers
regarding school readiness. Analysis was limited by the fact that an individual
survey response was not linked to its respondent. Therefore, key influences related
to particular teachers’ experiences could not be interpreted. As part of the
requirement to protect participants’ anonymity, we were unable to gather such
information. Further, an online survey, rather than a paper-based survey would have
possibly allowed for greater assurance of participants’ confidentiality.
Findings from the current study were further limited by the fact that only one
participant group served as the data source. To create a more comprehensive and
balanced perspective, the views of kindergarten teachers (currently underway by
authors of this study) and parents would be invaluable. The current study thus
prompts further questions for exploration. In particular, gaining insights from other
key stakeholders such as parents and kindergarten teachers is necessary as a means
of understanding all aspects of determining school readiness.

Acknowledgments This study was supported by a La Trobe University Faculty of Health Science
Grant. We acknowledge the roles and contributions of previous members of the research group, Anne
Ozanne, Patricia Eadie and Linda Santamaria. Deb Benetti supported the data collection process with
great efficiency. We thank the many teachers who took the time to respond to our survey.

References

Crnic, K., & Lamberty, G. (1994). Reconsidering school readiness: Conceptual and applied perspectives.
Early education and development, 5(2), 91–105.
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development. (2009), ‘‘Victorian early years learning and
development framework: For all children from birth to eight years.’’, Department of Education and
Early Childhood Development (Ed.). City: State Government of Victoria, Melbourne.
Dockett, S., & Perry, B. (2004). Starting school: Perspectives of Australian children, parents and
educators. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 2, 171–189.
Eisenberg, N., Valiente, C., & Eggum, N. D. (2010). Self regulation and school readiness. Early
Education and Development, 21(5), 681–698.
Forget-Dubois, N., Dionne, G., Lemelin, J., Perusse, D., Tremblay, R. E., & Boivan, M. (2009). Early
child language mediates the relation between home environment and school readiness. Child
Development, 80(3), 736–749.
Gesell Institute of Child Development. (1987). The Gesell Institute responds. Young Children, 42, 7–8.
Johnson, L. J., Gallagher, R. J., Cook, M., & Wong, P. (1995). Critical skills for kindergarten: Perceptions
from kindergarten teachers. Journal of Early Intervention, 19, 315–327.
Ladd, G. W., Herald, S. L., & Kochel, K. P. (2011). School readiness: Are there social prerequisites?
Early Education and Development, 17(1), 115–150.
Lara-Cinisomo, S., Fuligni, A. S., Ritchie, S., Howes, C., & Karoly, L. (2008). Getting ready for school:
An examination of early childhood educators’ belief systems. Early Childhood Education Journal,
35, 343–349.
Lin, H., Lawrence, F. R., & Gorrell, J. (2003). Kindergarten teachers’ views of children’s readiness for
school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 225–237.
Luster, T., & McAdoo, H. P. (1996). Family and child influences on educational attainment: A secondary
analysis of the high/scope Perry Preschool data. Developmental Psychology, 32, 26–39.
Mashburn, A. J., & Pianta, R. C. (2006). Social relationships and school readiness. Early Education and
Development, 17(1), 151–176.
Ripich, D. N., & Spinelli, F. M. (1985). Some conclusions about school talk. In D. N. Ripich & F.
M. Spinelli (Eds.), School discourse problems (pp. 226–259). London: Taylor & Francis.

123
124 T. Serry et al.

Scarpati, S., & Silver, P. G. (1992). Readiness for academic achievement in preschool children. In E.
V. Nuttal, I. Romero & J. Kalesnik (Eds.), Assessing and screening preschoolers: Psychological and
educational domains, Chapter 14 (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Tattershall, S., & Creaghead, N. (1985). A comparison of communication at home and at school. In D.
N. Ripich & F. M. Spinelli (Eds.), School discourse problems (pp. 226–259). London: Taylor &
Francis.
Wesley, P. W., & Buyesse, V. (2003). Making meaning of school readiness in schools and communities.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18, 351–375.
Zuckerman, B., & Halfon, N. (2003). School readiness: An idea whose time has arrived. Pediatrics,
111(6), 1433–1436.

Author Biographies

Tanya Serry is a lecturer and researcher at La Trobe University and honorary research fellow at the
Murdoch Children’s Research Institute. At la Trobe University, she is the leader of paediatric speech and
language team and post-graduate student coordinator. Her research experience is primarily focused on
language development and reading difficulty in young children.

Christine Imms is Professor of Occupational Therapy and Head of School of Allied and Public Health at
the Australian Catholic University. Professor Imms has over 17 years of clinical experience plus 14 years
of academic research experience predominantly in the field of childhood disability. She has over 50
publications and more than $2M(AUD) in grant funds.

Elspeth Froude is the senior lecturer and national course coordinator (Occupational Therapy) and
Assistant Head of School for the North Sydney campus of Australian Catholic University. Elspeth is the
Editor-in-Chief for the Australian Occupational Therapy Journal.

Beverly Joffe is the Speech Pathology Course Coordinator and Discipline Lead within the School of
Health and Human Sciences at the Gold Coast Campus of Southern Cross University. Her master’s
research through the University of the Witwatersrand, addressed assessment of communication in
preschool children, whereas her doctoral research through the University of Melbourne, focused on
speech and language intervention for children via the structured use of music and movement.

Chyrisse Heine is an Audiologist and Speech Pathologist. She is a Lecturer at La Trobe University,
School of Human Communication Sciences and a Senior Research Fellow at Monash University, School
of Primary Health Care. Chyrisse is a Fellow of Speech Pathology Australia and has received the
Audiology Australia Certificate of Outstanding Service. Chyrisse has a special interest in (Central)
Auditory Processing Disorder and is recognized as a national and international expert in this area.

Celeste Merrigan is a Clinical Psychologist in private practice. She has a Masters degree in Educational
& Developmental Psychology and a Doctorate in Clinical Child, Adolescent & Family Psychology. She
provides assessment, therapy for clients across the lifespan from early childhood through to adulthood. Dr
Merrigan is a full member of the Australian Psychology Society.

123