readiness to learn - peel district school...

Readiness to Learn:Early Development Instrument (EDI)

Dixie Bloor Neighbourhoods

Mississauga, Ontario

May 2003

Paul Favaro, Ph. D.Chief of Research & EvaluationPeel District School Board

Kathleen Russell, M. Sc.Research Co-ordinatorUnderstanding the Early YearsPeel District School Board

Elana Gray, M. Sc.Research OfficerPeel District School Board

National Library of Canada Cataloguing in Publication

Favaro, PaulReadiness to learn : early development instrument (EDI) : Dixie Bloor neighbourhoods, Mississauga,

Ontario: understanding the early years / Paul Favaro, Elana Gray, Kathleen Russell.

ISBN 1-55038-181-4

1. Readiness for school--Ontario--Mississauga. 2. Dixie Bloor (Mississauga, Ont.) I. Gray, Elana II. Russell, Kathleen (Kathleen Margaret) III. Peel District School Board. IV. Title.

LB1132.F39 2003 372.21 C2003-902299-4

Cover illustration: Robert Hutchinson, CommunicationsLayout: Ken ChanPrinted by: Peel Board Printing Services

Using this Report

Any not-for-profit organization may freely copy and use this report to promote public understanding of children's needs and services. Please acknowledge Paul Favaro, Elana Gray, and Kathleen Russell as authors and the Success by Six Community Coalition of Peel Region as the sponsor.

For additional details about the study, please contact the Peel District School BoardResearch and Evaluation Department

This report may also be found on the internet:www.peelschools.org

Understanding the Early Years Early Development Instrument for Dixie Bloor 1

Contents

Study Highlights.............................................................................3Acknowledgements ........................................................................5Introduction....................................................................................7Understanding the Early Years Project ...........................................................................7The Neighbourhoods of Dixie Bloor.................................................................................7The School Readiness Construct ......................................................................................8

Methodology ...................................................................................9The Early Development Instrument.................................................................................9Characteristics of the Participants .................................................................................10Statistical Analysis ...........................................................................................................10

Results ...........................................................................................11Teacher Variability in EDI Scores ..................................................................................11EDI Comparisons Between Dixie Bloor Communities .................................................12Junior Kindergarten Attendance Effect ........................................................................14English as a Second Language (ESL) Effect .................................................................15Gender Effect ...................................................................................................................16

Discussion and Implications........................................................17Limitations of the Study ..................................................................................................17Level of School Readiness in the Dixie Bloor Neighbourhoods ...................................18Impact of Background Characteristics on School Readiness ......................................18Redefining the Concept of School Readiness.................................................................19Policy Implications for School Readiness ......................................................................20Conclusion ........................................................................................................................21

References.....................................................................................23Appendix A...................................................................................27School Profiles: EDI Results ...........................................................................................27

Applewood Community...............................................................29Applewood Community...................................................................................................31Burnhamthorpe Public School .......................................................................................33Dixie Public School ..........................................................................................................35Mother Teresa Catholic School.......................................................................................37Silverthorn Public School................................................................................................39St. Basil Catholic School..................................................................................................41St. Thomas More Catholic School ..................................................................................43

Glenforest Community ................................................................45Glenforest Community ....................................................................................................47Forest Glen Public School ...............................................................................................49Havenwood Public School ...............................................................................................51St. Alfred Catholic School ...............................................................................................53St. Sofia Catholic School .................................................................................................55Sts. Martha and Mary Catholic School..........................................................................57

Understanding the Early Years Early Development Instrument for Dixie Bloor2

Lakeview Community..................................................................59Lakeview Community......................................................................................................61Lakeview Park Public School .........................................................................................63Neil C. Matheson Public School......................................................................................65St. Edmund Catholic School ...........................................................................................67Westacres Public School..................................................................................................69

Early Development Instrument:

Mississauga's Dixie Bloor Neighbourhoods

Study Highlights

Understanding the Early Years (UEY) is a national initiative that was designed to provide research-based information to communities in order to build their capacity to make policy and program decisions that best serve families with young children (aged birth to six years). This project identifies factors within communities that influence child development and family well-being. It also gathers information about the readiness to learn of children in the community.

This report is based on the research conducted in the Dixie Bloor Neighbourhoods of Mississauga, Ontario. The neighbourhoods of Dixie Bloor are located in the eastern half of Mississauga's south-east quadrant. Dixie Bloor is comprised of three distinct communities: Applewood, Glenforest, and Lakeview. This report provides the results of the readiness of children in these communities to transition from kindergarten to Grade 1. The students' level of readiness to learn was assessed in five domains: (1) physical health and well-being; (2) social competence; (3) emotional maturity; (4) language and cognitive development; and (5) communication skills and general knowledge.

The results of the Early Development Instrument (EDI) indicated that three quarters of the children in Dixie Bloor were ready to make the transition from kindergarten to Grade 1. Children in Dixie Bloor scored the highest in physical health and well-being, followed by language and cognitive development, social competence and emotional maturity.

The Lakeview community had the highest scores on each of the five EDI developmental domains. The Glenforest community had the lowest scores in each EDI domain. The Applewood community had EDI scores between Lakeview's high scores and Glenforest's low scores.

Glenforest had the highest percentage of children not ready for school (31%), followed by Applewood (26%) and Lakeview (23%). School readiness is about children growing socially, emotionally, physically, and intellectually. Children should be ready and eager to learn by the time they reach first grade.

Children who were male, designated as ESL, and who did not attend a junior kindergarten program were the least ready to make the academic transition from kindergarten to Grade 1. These findings demonstrate the importance of gender, junior kindergarten attendance, and ESL support on children's early childhood development and their level of readiness to learn.

Early Development Instrument:

Mississauga’s Dixie Bloor Neighbourhoods


Helping communities support school readiness is a complex social policy issue. In Dixie Bloor, four social policy areas have been identified for improving school readiness: (1) early identification and intervention of vulnerable children; (2) English as a second language support for children and families during pre-school and kindergarten; (3) expansion of junior and senior kindergarten to a universal full day program, and (4) closure of the gender gap through better engagement of boys in the formative years of schooling.

Kindergarten is a critical period in children's early school experience. It sets children on a path that influences their subsequent learning and school success. Kindergarten is the first step in the journey through the world of formal schooling. Supporting children's early school experience requires innovation and the active engagement of government, community, family, and education organizations.


Many individuals and organizations have contributed to the design and conduct of the readiness to learn components of the Understanding the Early Years (UEY) project in the Dixie Bloor Neighbourhoods of Mississauga.

Gratitude is expressed to the parents, children, and kindergarten teachers who generously gave their time to complete the Early Development Instrument (EDI). This report would not have been possible without their full and active participation.

We would like to thank the Success by Six Peel Community Coalition, the UEY Action Group Steering Committee, the Peel District School Board, and the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, for working together to help increase our understanding of the first six years of child development in the Region of Peel. Their support is greatly appreciated.

Appreciation is also extended to Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) for funding the project, as well as to all Research and Evaluation personnel at the Peel District School Board who worked on various aspects of the project.

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements


Introduction

Understanding the Early Years Project

The Understanding the Early Years (UEY) project was developed by Human Resources Development Canada (HRDC) in response to the growing body of literature indicating that a child’s first six years of development significantly affect learning, behaviour, and the foundation for long-term physical and emotional well-being, and are related to future academic and employment success. UEY was designed to identify neighbourhood and social factors in the community that impact child growth and development.

UEY consists of three components: (1) a program inventory detailing local services for families with young children; (2) an assessment of senior kindergarten students' readiness to learn, as measured by the Early Development Instrument (EDI); and (3) a community mapping study for identifying community risk factors, strengths, and assets.

The UEY project in Mississauga Dixie Bloor has four key partners: The Success By Six Community Coalition of Peel Region, the Peel District School Board, the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board, and HRDC. The Success by Six Community Coalition of Peel is the project's community sponsor. It is a regional coalition of community agencies committed to providing services and assistance to families with children aged birth to six years. The other two key partners in the project are the two local school boards. HRDC is the funding organization.

This report contains the school readiness results based on the Early Development Instrument (EDI). The EDI was collected for all children attending Public and Catholic Schools in Dixie Bloor during the 2000-2001 academic year.

The neighbourhoods of Dixie Bloor are located in the eastern half of Mississauga's south-east quadrant. This area of Mississauga is bounded by Cawthra and Tomken Roads in the west, Etobicoke Creek (City of Toronto limits) in the east, Eastgate Parkway and Burnhamthorpe Road in the north, and Lake Ontario in the south. The Dixie Bloor neighbourhoods are subdivided into three communities: Lakeview (all areas south of Dundas Street); Applewood (all areas north of Dundas Street and west of Dixie Road), and Glenforest (all areas north of Dundas Street and east of Dixie Road).

The Neighbourhoods of Dixie Bloor

0 2.5 kilometres

5

Highway 407

Highw

ay 410

Highway 401

Nin

th L

ine

Highway 409

Highw

ay 427

City of Mississauga

Highway 403 Applewood Community Glenforest

Community

Lakeview Community

Etobicoke C

reek

Queen Elizabeth Way

Win

ston

Chu

rchi

ll B

oule

vard

k

Lake Ontario

kilometres

Map 1: Understanding the Early Years School Communities


In 1996, there were 79,369 people residing in the Dixie Bloor neighbourhoods. Of this population, there were 6,705 children aged birth to six years. Applewood had 2,365 children aged 0 to 6, with dense clusters of children on the immediate north side of Dundas Street. Glenforest had 2,850 children aged 0 to 6, with dense clusters of children residing in neighbourhoods along Bloor Street. Lakeview had 1,490 children aged 0 to 6, with dense clusters of children in pockets along Lakeshore Road.

Dixie Bloor is a high-density, urban community with many families and children. It is relatively affluent as measured by average household income. It compares favourably with national averages on several social indicators: education, mobility, lone parent families, and employment. Dixie Bloor has great socio-economic, linguistic, and cultural diversity. The majority of Dixie Bloor is residential, with clusters of retail and industrial spaces scattered throughout the community (see Favaro, Russell, & Gray, 2003 for a complete description of the Dixie Bloor communities).

The School Readiness Construct

The term readiness is one of the most frequently used labels in discussions of early childhood education and school outcomes (Meisels, 1999). School readiness refers to a child's ability to meet the task demands of school and to assimilate the curriculum content at the time of entry into the formal school system (Kagan, 1992; LaParo & Pianta, 2000). Early childhood researchers, practitioners, and educators agree that understanding the transition to school process and the child's experience in school requires moving beyond the traditional academic definition of school readiness. It is necessary to consider factors such as motivation and social skills in its definition (Entwisle, Alexander, Cadigan, & Pallas, 1986). A more recent expansion of the definition of school readiness emphasizes the importance of the school being ready for the child (Belsky & Mackinnon, 1994). These studies highlight the importance of factors other than just academic success in the conceptualization and definition of readiness to learn.

Studies in both Canada and the United States (Doherty, 1997; Fuchs & Reklis, 1994; Pelletier, Morgan, & Mueller, 1999; Tremblay, Masse, Perron, Leblanc, Schwartzman, & Ledingham, 1992) have repeatedly shown that kindergarten teachers' assessments of children's readiness to learn (which includes general knowledge, fine motor control, ability to take instruction from teachers and to control aggression and anxiety) is the single strongest predictor of academic success in the early grades which, in turn, is a strong predictor of high school completion. As early as grade 3, children who go on to drop out academically are behind academically, have low achievement test scores, and are already starting to become disengaged from school and demonstrate bullying and aggressive behaviour. Such behaviour sets them up for rejection by their peers, an escalating struggle with teachers, and deteriorating self-esteem. Anything that can increase readiness to learn in kindergarten will strongly protect against both premature drop-out and adolescent delinquency. These studies support the conclusion that early identification of students-at-risk in kindergarten is a key strategy in order to deal with these sets of circumstances. Being ready for school gives children the opportunity to benefit from all that school has to offer both academically and socially (Doherty, 1997).


Methodology

The Early Development Instrument

The Early Development Instrument (EDI) was developed by the Canadian Centre for Studies of Children at Risk at McMaster University for assessing school readiness among senior or “year 2” kindergarten (SK) students. The instrument is a teacher checklist designed to measure student readiness to learn at school by assessing five domains of early development: physical health and well-being, social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive development, and communication skills and general knowledge (Janus & Offord, 2000; Janus, Offord, & Walsh, 2001).

The physical health and well-being domain consisted of 13 items inquiring about the child's coordination, motor skills, energy levels, and overall appearance. The social competence domain consisted of 26 items assessing skills such as awareness of acceptable behaviours, co-operation, following routines, respecting others, and working independently. The emotional maturity domain involved 28 items focusing on behaviour management and the ability to concentrate. The language and cognitive development domain included 26 items assessing the child's ability to read and write and demonstrate math skills. The fifth domain, communication skills and general knowledge, consisted of 10 items inquiring about the child's ability to communicate with others and his or her general knowledge. Each of the 5 domains were rated on a scale of 0-10, with a higher score indicating more advanced readiness to learn skills. The EDI also inquired about a variety of background characteristics: age, gender, ESL status, and attendance of junior kindergarten.

Children considered to be the most vulnerable or at risk of future academic failure are ththose whose scores fall in the lowest 10 percentile in the EDI domains. A score in

ththe lowest 10 percentile on one domain of the EDI implies that a child will have issues related to readiness to learn (Janus & Offord, 2000; Janus, Offord, & Walsh, 2001).

The EDI does not provide diagnostic information on individual children, nor does it measure a school's or teacher's performance. The results of the EDI serve as an indicator of the community's capacity to prepare its children, during the preschool years, for learning and entry into school.

The EDI contains more than 70 questions in total. For example:! How often is the child too tired to do school

work?! Would you say that this child is well co-

ordinated?! Would you say this child follows

instructions, accepts responsibility and works independently?

Teachers commented on the child's use of language, communication skills, general knowledge, his or her interest in books, and his or her abilities related to reading and writing.


The information obtained from this assessment will be used to assist educators in planning appropriate programs to support readiness, serve as a predictor of children's development and achievement, and be used as a planning and policy tool to advocate for services and to mobilize community resources. The EDI results will also be used to raise awareness of the impact that children's background characteristics have on their readiness to learn and how these factors link to effective programming.

Characteristics of the Participants

The EDI was completed for all children in the spring of their second year of kindergarten (N=839) in 15 elementary schools in Dixie Bloor. All elementary schools in Dixie Bloor participated in the study. Eight of the elementary schools were from the Peel District School Board, and seven were from the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board. The school readiness to learn profiles for each school participating in the study are presented in Appendix A. The EDI was administered by each student's teacher six months into the school year.

The Dixie Bloor neighbourhoods were sub-divided into three communities which formed the basis of the analyses for this study. The Applewood community is the north-west community of Dixie Bloor and contained 6 schools in which 356 students were assessed. Glenforest, the north-east community, had 5 schools in which 383 students were assessed. The Lakeview community is located in the south of Dixie Bloor and had 4 elementary schools in which 100 SK students were assessed.

The majority of SK children who attended the elementary schools in Dixie Bloor lived in the neighbourhood that encompassed each school's catchment area. However, some children lived outside of the school's catchment area. One school in the Glenforest community had approximately 80% of its students living outside of the school's catchment area at the time of the study, as this school had a Regional Ukrainian program. The EDI was collected on a school-by-school basis and the results reflect the scores of all the children who attended senior kindergarten at the 15 participating schools, regardless of where they lived.

The characteristics of the children in the EDI sample were as follows: 52% were male, 29% were designated as ESL, 37% spoke a language other than English or French, and their mean age was 5.6 years.

Statistical Analysis

Statistical analyses consisted of four procedures. First, a MANOVA and a series of ANOVAs were conducted to determine the level of variability in teachers' EDI ratings between and within schools. Second, a MANOVA determined the mean score differences in the five developmental domains of the EDI among the three communities (Applewood, Glenforest, and Lakeview). Post hoc testing using the Tukey HSD identified the communities that were significantly different. Third, to determine the degree to which children were experiencing problems with readiness to

thlearn skills, the percent of children who scored in the lowest 10 percentile in one or more domain was calculated for Dixie Bloor and each community. Fourth, a MANCOVA (adjusting for age) investigated the effect of three background characteristics on children's readiness to learn skills: gender, ESL designation, and junior kindergarten attendance.


Teacher Variability in EDI Scores

A one-way MANOVA was conducted to determine if there were differences in teacher ratings in the five developmental domains of the EDI between schools that had one, two, or three teachers teaching SK (5 EDI domains x 3 groups). The MANOVA revealed a significant multivariate main effect for the number of teachers teaching SK in a school. (Wilk's Lambda=0.78; F =20.77, p<0.001). Schools that had one (5,764)

teacher teaching SK had significantly higher mean ratings than schools that had two or three teachers teaching SK in four of the five developmental domains: physical well-being (F( )=15.67, p<0.001), social competence (F( )=15.69, p<0.001), 2,770 2,770

emotional maturity (F( )=9.41, p<0.001), and communication and general ,2.770

knowledge (F( )=33.73, p<0.001). Schools that had one or two teachers teaching SK 2,770

had significantly higher ratings than schools that had three teachers teaching SK in the language and cognitive development domain (F( )=24.83, p<0.001).2,770

Further analyses were conducted to determine if the teacher ratings in the five developmental domains of the EDI differed within schools. An ANOVA was conducted for each school that had more than one teacher teaching SK. Eight of the fifteen schools in Dixie Bloor had more than one teacher teaching SK. Each of these analyses revealed a significant main effect for teacher ratings. One school demonstrated significant differences in teacher ratings across all five developmental domains (p values ranged from p<0.001 to p<0.004). Three schools demonstrated significant differences in teacher ratings for the social competence domain (p values ranged from p<0.001 to p<0.03). Three schools demonstrated significant differences for the language and cognitive development domain (p<0.001). Two schools demonstrated significant differences in teacher ratings for the emotional maturity domain (p<0.021). Two schools demonstrated significant differences for the physical health and well-being domain (p<0.012). One school demonstrated significant differences in teacher ratings for the communication and general knowledge domain (p<0.025).

These results demonstrated a high level of inter-rater variability between teachers and how they rated their students on the various EDI developmental domains.

Results


Statistical Analysis

The ANOVA, MANOVA, and MANCOVA are statistical techniques for comparing differences between two or more means or averages. These statistical methods allow us to generalize the results beyond those individuals who were included in the study. Using these tests, we can present more than just descriptive statistics.

These statistical techniques help us identify differences that do not occur by chance alone. The p values presented for each analysis help us determine the probability that these results are due to chance. P values less than (p<0.05) indicate that the observed results are significantly different and not due to chance. If we were to conduct this study again, we would obtain these results 95 out of 100 times.

Table 1: MANOVA Results for Domain Mean Scores for the Dixie-Bloor Communities

Possible mean score from 0-10. Higher scores indicate more advanced readiness to learn skills.*Excludes missing data

EDI Comparisons Between Dixie Bloor Communities

Table 1 presents the mean scores and standard deviations for the five developmental areas for the Applewood, Glenforest, and Lakeview communities. A one way MANOVA conducted with the five EDI developmental domains revealed a significant multivariate main effect for community (Wilk's Lambda=0.853; F 12.62, p<0.001). (5,764)=

Inspection of the univariate effects for community revealed that there were significant differences between the three Dixie Bloor communities for each EDI domain: physical health and well being (F 25.59, p<0.001), social competence (2,770)=

(F 10.11, p<0.001), emotional maturity (F 7.38, p<0.001), language and (2,770)= (2,770)=

cognitive development (F 8.43, p<0.26), and communication and general (2,770)=

knowledge (F 10.00, p<.0001). Tukey's HSD test for comparison of means (2,770)=

indicated that: (1) for the physical health and well being domain, Glenforest had significantly lower EDI scores than either Applewood or Lakeview (p<0.001); (2) for the social competence domain, Lakeview scored significantly higher than either Applewood or Glenforest (p<0.001); (3) for the emotional maturity domain, Lakeview scored significantly higher than Glenforest (p<0.001), but there were no significant differences between Applewood and Lakeview in the emotional maturity domain; ( 4) although there was a significant univariate effect for community (p<.026) for the language and cognitive development domain, Tukey's HSD test did not reveal any significant differences between the three communities on the language and cognitive development domain; and (5) for the communication and general knowledge domain all three communities were significantly different from each other (p<0.001).

Table 1 reveals that Lakeview's mean scores were consistently higher than Applewood's and Glenforest's mean scores across the five developmental domains, and that Glenforest's mean scores were consistently lower than those of the other two communities across all five EDI developmental domains.

Mississauga

Dixie Bloor

Apple wood

Community

Glenforest

Community

Lakeview

Community

(n=839) (n=312)* (n=361)* (n=99)*

(S.D.) (S.D.) (S.D.) (S.D.)

Physical health and

well-bein g8.7 (1.0) 8.9 (0.9) 8.4 (0.9) 9.0 (1.3) p< 0.001

Social competence 8.0 (1.8) 7.9 (1.9) 7.9 (1.7) 8.8 (1.3) p< 0.001

Emotional maturity 8.0 (1.4) 8.1 (1.6) 7.8 (1.3) 8.3 (1.2) p< 0.001

Language and cognitive

development8.1 (2.0) 8.2 (2.0) 7.9 (2.1) 8.3 (1.8) P<0.026

Communication and

general knowledge6.9 (2.3) 7.0 (2.2) 6.5 (2.3) 8.0 (2.2) p< 0.001

EDI DomainStatis tical

Significance

χ χ χ χ


thTable 2 displays the percentage of children scoring in the lowest 10 percentile in 1 or more of the developmental domains. Overall, 28% of all children in the Dixie Bloor

thneighbourhoods had scores in the lowest 10 percentile in one or more domains on the EDI. Within the three communities, Glenforest had the highest percentage of children scoring in this percentile in one or more domains (31%), followed by Applewood (26%) and Lakeview (23%).

thTable 2: Percentage of Children with Scores in the Lowest 10 Percentile on the EDI Domains in the Dixie Bloor Communities

Number of domains where

children scored in lowes t

10th Percentile

Mississauga

Dixie Bloor

(n=839)

Applewood

Community

(n=356)

Glenforest

Community

(n=383)

Lakeview

Community

(n=100)

Only 1 domain 14% 13% 16% 14%

Only 2 domains 5% 5% 5% 4%



All 5 domains 2% 3% 2% 0%

Total (1 or more domains) 28% 26% 31% 23%


Table 3: MANCOVA Results for Age Adjusted Domain Mean Scores for Students Who Attended JK and Students Who Did Not Attend JK

Possible mean score from 0-10. Higher scores indicate more advanced readiness to learn skills.Mean scores have been adjusted for age.

Junior Kindergarten Attendance Effect

A one way MANCOVA conducted with the five developmental areas, with age as the covariate, revealed a significant multivariate main effect for Junior Kindergarten (JK) attendance (Wilk's Lambda=0.91; F =13.28, p<0.001). Table 3 presents the age (5,673)

adjusted mean scores of the five developmental areas for students who attended JK and students who did not attend Junior Kindergarten. Inspection of the univariate effects for junior kindergarten attendance indicates that students who attended JK scored significantly higher than students who did not attend JK in all five of the developmental areas: physical health and well-being (F =6.24, p<0.013), social competence (1,679)

(F =18.73, p<0.001), emotional maturity (F =6.36, p<0.012), language and (1,679) (1,679)

cognitive development (F =48.92, p<0.001), and communication skills and general (1,679)

knowledge (F =46.19, p<0.001). (1,679)

JK No JK

(n=316) (n=364)

(S.D.) (S.D.)

Physical health and well-being 8.8 (1.0) 8.6 (1.0) p<0.013

Social competence 8.4 (1.5) 7.8 (1.9) p<0.001

Emotional maturity 8.1 (1.3) 7.9 (1.5) p<0.012

Language and cognitive development 8.6 (1.6) 7.6 (2.2) p<0.001

Communication skills and general knowledge 7.6 (1.9) 6.5 (2.3) p<0.001

Mean ScoresStatis tical

SignificanceEDI Domain

χ χ


Table 4: MANCOVA Results for Age Adjusted Domain Mean Scores for ESL and Non-ESL Students

Possible mean score from 0-10. Higher scores indicate more advanced readiness to learn skills.Mean scores have been adjusted for age

English as a Second Language (ESL) Effect

A one way MANCOVA conducted with the five developmental areas, with age as the covariate, revealed a significant multivariate main effect for English as a second language (ESL) status (Wilk's Lambda=0.57; F =100.81, p<0.001). Table 4 (5,673)

presents the age adjusted mean scores of the five developmental domains for students who are considered ESL (students for whom English is not their first language, and who need additional instruction in English) and students who are not ESL (students for whom English is their first language or who speak English fluently). Inspection of the univariate effects for ESL status indicates that non-ESL students scored significantly higher than ESL students in all five of the developmental areas: physical health and well-being (F =8.60, p<0.003), social competence (F =33.62, (1,679) (1,6.79)

p<0.001), emotional maturity (F =18.21, p<0.001), language and cognitive (1,679)

development (F =81.03, p<0.001), and communication skills and general (1,679)

knowledge (F =361.20, p<0.001). (1,679)

Non-ESL ESL

(n=484) (n=196)

(S.D.) (S.D.)




Language and cognitive development 8.5 (1.7) 7.0 (2.3) p<0.001


M ean Scores

EDI DomainStatistica l

Significance

χχ


Gender Effect

A one way MANCOVA conducted with the five developmental areas, with age as the covariate, revealed a significant multivariate main effect for gender (Wilk's Lambda=0.94; F =8.4, p<0.001). Table 5 presents the age adjusted mean scores of (5,673)

the five developmental domains for girls and boys in senior kindergarten. Inspection of the univariate effects for gender revealed that girls scored significantly higher than boys in four of the five developmental areas: physical health and well-being (F =10.41, p<0.001), social competence (F =19.26, p<0.001), emotional (1,679) (1,679)

maturity (F =36.13, p<0.001), and communication skills and general knowledge (1,679)

(F =4.19, p<0.041). There were no significant gender differences in the language (1,679)

and cognitive development domain.

Table 5: MANCOVA Results for Age Adjusted Domain Mean Scores for Girls and Boys

Possible mean score from 0-10. Higher scores indicate more advanced readiness to learn skills.Mean scores have been adjusted for age

Girls Boys

(n=317) (n=363)

(S.D.) (S.D.)




Language and cognitive development 8.2 (2.0) 8.0 (2.0) nonsignificant


M ean Scores

EDI DomainStatistica l

Significance

χχ


Discussion and Implications

Limitations of the Study

The data collected and presented in this report represent an important first step in understanding children's readiness to learn in the Dixie Bloor Neighbourhoods of Mississauga, Ontario. The EDI was collected for all second year kindergarten children attending Public and Catholic Schools in Dixie Bloor. Analysis of the EDI results revealed large variations in teacher ratings. That is, analysis of the scores between teachers revealed significant differences in their ratings of students on the EDI. The differences in EDI scores found in this study within and between schools may be due in part to differences across teachers in their EDI rating of individual students. Social desirability response set may have led to teachers systematically under- or over-estimating their students’ level of school readiness.

One of the major limitations of this study is the exclusive reliance on self-report measures of readiness to learn. The study examined teachers' perceptions of students' levels of school readiness. This over reliance on self-report data, coupled with the high variability in teachers' ratings possibly due to social desirability response bias, makes it difficult to draw definitive conclusions about children's level of readiness to learn. However, the results of this study are consistent with findings from studies that have gone beyond just the measurement of self-reported outcomes of early child development and readiness to learn (Belsky & Mackinnon, l994; Connor, 2001; Connor & Brink, 1999; Connor, Norris, & McLean, 2001; Doherty, 1997; Favaro, Russell, & Gray, 2003; Janus, Offord, & Walsh, 2001; Keating & Hertzman, 1999; Kohen, Hertzman, & Brooks-Gunn, 1998; McCain & Mustard, 1999; Meisels, 1998; Morrongiello, 1997; Pelletier, 1999; Pelletier, Morgan, & Mueller, 1999; Statistics Canada, 1996; Willms, 2002a). Findings from these studies indicate that self-reports can be used as a proxy measure of actual levels of school readiness. Future research in this area needs to establish the external validity of the EDI measure for assessing readiness to learn. The development of more externally referenced readiness to learn measures are required particularly with reference to reducing the teacher inter-rater variability found in the EDI measure.

The results of the present study are specific to the Dixie Bloor Neighbourhoods and are not directly generalizable to other sites, communities, environments, or different points in time. EDIs need to be administered at the local school level in order to reflect each school's unique set of contextual environments. Research utilizing a longitudinal design is needed in order to assess how school readiness affects future academic progress and how it is affected by different school and community factors.


Level of School Readiness in the Dixie Bloor Neighbourhoods

This study examined how ready second year kindergarten (SK) students were to begin learning at school by assessing five domains of early development: physical health and well-being, social competence, emotional maturity, language and cognitive development, and communication skills and general knowledge. The Dixie Bloor neighbourhoods were divided into three communities which formed the basis of the analyses for this study: Glenforest, Applewood, and Lakeview.

Children in Dixie Bloor scored highest in the physical health and well-being domain, followed by language and cognitive development, social competence, and emotional maturity. They scored lowest in the communication and general knowledge domain. Children with high physical health and well-being scores are ready to tackle the new day at school, are generally independent, and have excellent fine and gross motor skills. Children with low communication skills and general knowledge scores have poor communication and articulation skills, have poor command of English, have difficulty understanding others and being understood, and have poor general knowledge (Janus & Offord, 2000).

Children in the Lakeview community had the highest scores in each EDI domain compared to the children across Dixie Bloor and in the Glenforest and Applewood communities. The children in the Glenforest community scored the lowest in each EDI domain compared to children across Dixie Bloor and in the Applewood and Lakeview communities. Children in the Lakeview community scored significantly higher than their peers in Glenforest and Applewood in social competence and communication skills and general knowledge, and scored significantly higher than their peers in the Glenforest community in physical health and well-being and emotional maturity.

Overall, three-quarters of the students in the Dixie Bloor community demonstrated that they were ready to learn and make the transition from kindergarten to Grade 1. One-quarter of the students in Dixie Bloor displayed signs of problems in one or more developmental areas of the EDI, placing them at potential risk of future academic failure. The Glenforest community had the highest percentage of children who were not ready for school (31%), followed by Applewood (26%) and Lakeview (23%).

Impact of Background Characteristics on School Readiness

Junior kindergarten attendance, ESL designation, and gender were each found to have a significant impact on children's readiness to learn skills.

Children who attended junior kindergarten (JK) scored significantly higher in all five EDI domains when compared to students who did not attend junior kindergarten. It should be noted that at the time of this study, the Peel District School Board did not offer the junior kindergarten program. The SK students in the Public schools had five months experience in the formal school system prior to the EDI assessment. The Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board students had an entire school year of JK instruction plus five months at the senior kindergarten level prior to the administration of the EDI.


Non-ESL students scored significantly higher than ESL students in all five of the EDI developmental domains. Girls scored significantly higher than boys in the physical health and well-being, social competence, emotional maturity, and communication skills and general knowledge developmental domains. There were no significant gender differences in the language and cognitive development domain.

These findings clearly demonstrate the importance of background characteristics on children's early development and their readiness to learn skills. Specifically, children who were male, designated as ESL, and who did not attend a junior kindergarten program were the least ready to learn and make the transition from kindergarten to Grade 1. This finding indicates that junior kindergarten, ESL support, and a focus on boys' engagement in the kindergarten years are important factors that affect children's readiness to learn.

Redefining the Concept of School Readiness

The concept of school readiness is a general construct and how it should be defined is a controversial topic (American Academy of Pediatrics, 1995; Crnic & Lamberty, 1994; Gredler, 1992; Kagan, 1990, 1992; Meisels, 1999; Pianta & Walsh, 1996; Sheppard & Smith, 1986; Willms, 2002b). School readiness is defined as a set of skills which children are expected to possess when they enter kindergarten or Grade 1. The emphasis is placed on early academic skills which include vocabulary, academic, and cognitive skills development. Additionally, because primary grade (Grades 1 to 3) achievement depends on children's interpersonal skills and children's ability to concentrate, the school readiness construct also includes behavioral measures. Measures of physical health are also typically used to define the construct (Doherty, 1997; Entwisle, Alexander, Cadigan, & Pallas, 1986; Janus & Offord, 2000; Pelletier, Morgan, & Mueller, 1999).

A number of researchers have argued that this conceptualization of school readiness focuses too heavily on factors embedded within the child (Kagan, 1990, 1992; National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1990; Willms, 2002b). This intra-individual factors model does not acknowledge the school's ability and challenges in accommodating the diverse social, emotional, behavioral, and academic needs of students upon entry into the formal school system. This consideration is especially important since children learn at different rates and are ready to learn from birth. Any definition of school readiness that does not take these school-based factors into account is inherently limited. School effectiveness relies, to a large extent, on the school's ability to effectively accommodate and provide instruction to children with varying levels of school readiness (i.e., cognitive, social, behavioural, emotional, and physical development).


Recent discussions of school readiness provide support for a socio-ecological model of school readiness (Crnic & Lamberty, 1994; Graue, 1992; Kagan 1990, 1992; Love, Aber, & Brooks-Gunn, 1992; Meisels, 1999; Pianta & Walsh, 1996; Willms, 2002b). This model focuses on the relationship between family factors and childhood outcomes, which are mediated by community influences. Community factors range from quality child care and pre-school programs, to sport, recreational, cultural, and arts programs. The wider community has been shown to significantly affect childhood development in the early years (Connor, 2001; Doherty, 1997; Favaro, Russell, & Gray, 2003; Keating & Hertzman, 1999; Willms, 2002a). From this perspective, children would be considered ready for school even if they have poor academic skills, as long as there were strong family and community support systems in place and the school was highly flexible and adaptable in its approach to teaching and learning.

The concept of school readiness needs to be redefined. Future conceptualizations need to consider the impact of social and school environmental factors and acknowledge the years of learning and preparedness that occur prior to school entry. School readiness is a continual process of learning and adaptation which applies to children of all ages. The predictive and construct validity of school readiness measures need to be established. In the future, performance-based assessments of readiness need to be developed in order to provide a more ecologically based measure of readiness (Lamberty & Crnic, 1994).

Although methodologically it is easier to conceptualize school readiness as being embodied in the child (e.g., the child has high or low cognitive ability), the school and community model suggests a redefinition of this construct using a broader socio-ecological perspective. School readiness does not belong solely to the child; it is embedded in the social fabric of the community, the social capital of the family, and the school's ability to adapt and accommodate to the child's needs. School readiness needs to be defined within this context. Each level of society has a responsibility in ensuring every child comes to school ready to learn.

Policy Implications for School Readiness

Social policy is concerned with achieving valued outcomes for society with a particular focus on vulnerable groups. Policy discussions need to focus on the prevalence rates of children who are not ready for school as determined by the standardized criteria on the EDI. This discussion concerning children's readiness to learn should identify which policies or interventions reduce the percentage of children who score below the school readiness vulnerability cut-off score on the EDI. Policy discussions need to focus on the prevalence of children who are deemed not ready for school and the factors that are associated with school readiness.

Specifically, children who were male, designated as ESL, and who did not attend a junior kindergarten program were the least ready to make the academic transition from kindergarten to Grade 1. These findings demonstrate the importance of gender, kindergarten attendance, and ESL support on children's early childhood development and their level of readiness to learn. This finding was compounded by the fact that the lowest EDI scores came from communities that were high in socio-economic risk (see Favaro, Russell, & Gray, 2003, for a review).


Assisting communities in becoming environments that support readiness for schooling is a complex social policy issue. It requires innovation, the engagement of government bodies, the active participation of community organizations, and alternate funding sources.

Four social policy areas have been identified for increasing school readiness:

1. Early identification and intervention of vulnerable children. Children need to be identified as early as possible and interventions that support child development need to be universally accessible to children on a community-wide basis.

2. ESL supports for children and families. ESL support is required for children and their families in the first year of the kindergarten program as well as during their pre-school years.

3. Expansion of kindergarten experience. This study supports the expansion of kindergarten from a half-day to a full day program. The expansion of the kindergarten program is critical to enhancing school readiness for all children.

4. Closing the gender gap. Closing the gap in the formative years of schooling is critical to boys' adaptation and success in the latter years of schooling. Resources and instructional strategies need to be developed that engage boys in the learning process. Male role models in the kindergarten years would also be beneficial.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated that three-quarters of the children in Dixie Bloor were ready to learn and make the transition from kindergarten to Grade 1. One-quarter of the children displayed signs of problems, placing them at potential risk of future academic failure. Most of these children resided in areas that were characterized by high proportions of residents with low education levels, low income, high unemployment, and high mobility, relative to national averages. An examination of child and family oriented, community-based programs and services available in Dixie Bloor demonstrated that the majority of these programs were located in close proximity to the areas of greatest need and/or highest potential risk and which correlated with lower school readiness scores (Favaro, Russell, & Gray, 2003).

There were significant differences in the readiness to learn skills among the children in the three communities of Dixie Bloor. In addition, junior kindergarten attendance, ESL designation, and gender were found to have a significant impact on children's readiness to learn skills. By considering these results and further examining the community with respect to its existing strengths and challenges, families and community groups have the information that is necessary to guide the development of community initiatives to enhance the lives of children in Dixie Bloor and improve their developmental outcomes.


References

American Academy of Pediatrics (1995). The inappropriate use of school readiness tests. Pediatrics, 95(3), 437-438.

Belsky, J., & Mackinnon, C. (1994). Transition to school: Developmental trajectories and school experiences. Early Education and Development, 5(2), 106-119.

Boyer, E. (1991). Ready to learn: A mandate for the nation. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Connor, S. (2001). Understanding the Early Years: Early childhood development in North York. Ottawa: Human Resources Development Canada.

Connor, S., & Brink, S. (1999). Understanding the Early Years: Community impacts on child development. Working paper No. W-99-6E. Ottawa: Applied Research Branch, Strategic Policy, Human Resources Development Canada.

Connor, S., Norris, C., & McLean, S. (2001). Understanding the Early Years: Results of the community mapping study in North York. Ottawa: Human Resources Development Canada.

Crnic, K., & Lamberty, G. (1994). Reconsidering school readiness: conceptual and applied perspectives. Early Education and Development, 5(2), 91-105.

Doherty, G. (1997). Zero to six: The basis for school readiness. Research paper No R-97-8E. Ottawa: Applied Research Branch, Strategic Policy, Human Resources Development Canada.

Entwisle, D., Alexander, K., Cadigan, D., & Pallas. (1986). The schooling process in first grade: Two samples a decade apart. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 587-613.

Favaro, P., Russell, K., & Gray, E. (2003). Community mapping study: Dixie Boor Neighbourhoods, Mississauga, Ontario. Mississauga: Peel District School Board.

Fuchs, V.R., & Reklis, M. (1998). Mathematical achievement in eighth grade: Interstate and racial differences. NBER Working Paper No.4784. Stanford, CA.

Graue, M.E. (1992). Social interpretations of readiness. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 225-243.

Gredler, G.R. (1992). School readiness: Assessment and educational issues. Brandon, Vermont: Clinical Psychology Publishing Company.


Janus, M., & Offord, D. (2000). Reporting on readiness to learn in Canada. Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 1, 71-75.

Janus, M., Offord, D., & Walsh, C. (2001). Population-level assessment of readiness to learn at school for 5 year-olds in Canada: Relation to child and parent measures. Paper presented at the annual SRCD meeting, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Kagan, S.L. (1990). Readiness 2000: Rethinking, rhetoric and responsibility. Phi Delta Kappan, December, 272-279.

Kagan, S.L. (1992). Readiness past, present and future: Shaping the agenda. Young Children, 48(1), 48-53.

Keating, D.P., & Hertzman, C. (Eds.). (1999). Developmental health and the wealth of nations: Social, biological, and educational dynamics. New York: The Guilford Press.

Kohen, D.E., Hertzman, C. & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1998). Neighbourhood influences on children's school readiness. Working paper No. W-98-15E. Ottawa: Applied Research Branch, Strategic Policy, Human Resources Development Canada.

LaParo, K.M., & Pianta, R.C. (2000). Predicting children's competence in the early school years: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 70(4), 443-484.

Love, J.M., Aber, J.L., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1994). Strategies for assessing community progress toward achieving the first national goal. Reference no. 8113-110. Princeton, J.J. Mathematics Policy Research Inc.

McCain, M., & Mustard, J.F. (1999). Early years study: Reversing the real brain drain. Toronto: Ontario Children's Secretariat.

Meisels, S. (1998). Assessing readiness. Paper for Synthesis Conference on the Transition to Kindergarten, National Centre for Early Development and Learning. Charlottesville, VA.

Morrongiello, B. (1997). Tapping school readiness in the NLSCY: Measurement issues and solutions. Technical Paper T-98-1E. Ottawa: Applied Research Branch, Human Resources and Development Canada.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1990). NAEYC position statement on school readiness. Young Children, November, 21-23.

Pelletier, J. (1999). A review and an examination of parenting and readiness centres. Toronto, Ontario: Institute of Child Studies, University of Toronto.

Pelletier, J., Morgan, J., & Mueller, M. (1999). Early assessment: Development indices of achievement in kindergarten. Toronto, Ontario: Institute of Child Studies, University of Toronto.


Pianta, R.C., & Walsch, D.J. (1996). High risk children in schools: Constructing sustaining relationships. New York: Routledge.

Sheppard. L.A., & Smith, M.L. (1986). Synthesis of research on school readiness and kindergarten retention. Educational Leadership, 44, 78-86.

Statistics Canada. (1996). Growing up in Canada: National Longitudinal Study of Children and Youth. Ottawa: Human Resources and Development Canada.

Tremblay, R.E., Masse, B., Perron, D., Leblanc, M., Schwartzman, A.E., & Ledingham, J.E. (1992). Early disruptive behavior, poor school achievement, delinquent behavior and delinquent personality: Longitudinal analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 60, 64-72.

Willms, J.D. (Ed.). (2002a). Vulnerable Children: Findings from Canada's National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth. Edmonton, Alberta: University of Alberta Press.

Willms, J.D. (2002b). Measures from the National Longitudinal Study of Children and Youth used in the Understanding the Early Years Reports. Paper prepared for Human Resources and Development Canada Workshop. Ottawa.


readiness to learn - peel district school...

Documents