Search for a command to run...
Since the establishment of the National Education Goals in the late 1980s, professionals have been trying to determine not only the meaning of school but also the methods to assess and ensure for all children beginning school (Meisels, 1999). Competing philosophies of school have resulted in failed attempts to obtain a consensus for the term (Kagan, 2003; National Association of Early Childhood Specialists; NAECS, 2000). In addition, changes in the philosophical and social approaches to kindergarten education have influenced parent and educator views of (Welch & White, 1999). Kagan (1992) acknowledged that professionals within the field of education have failed to obtain an operational definition of school readiness, and the term is often associated with a high degree of ambiguity. Despite the lack of agreement among professionals regarding school readiness, parents have been charged with the responsibility of preparing their children for school and making subsequent school decisions. Parent beliefs about school influence how parents prepare their children for school (Brooker, 2003; Graue, 1992; NAECS, 2000; Pelletier & Brent, 2002; Shepard & Smith; 1985, Stipek, Milburn, Clements, & Daniels, 1992; Wesley & Buysse, 2003). In addition, parent beliefs about school influence their support of school and community programs (Snow, 2006). The purpose of the current study was to examine the reliability and structural validity of the measure of parental beliefs about school used in the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998-99 (ECLS-K). Readiness: Complexity, Dimensions, and Consequences Welch and White (1999) explained that the complexity of school stems from the lack of agreement among stakeholders as to how to operationally define the construct. Snow (2006) identified the lack of a coherent theory that specifies each component of school as one of the main challenges to defining school readiness. Several national panels and school experts, however, have proposed definitions. For example, Shore (1998) reported the objectives and recommendations of the Goal 1 Ready Schools Resource Group, a subcommittee of the National Education Goals Panel. Members of this subcommittee indicated that the construct of readiness encompassed five dimensions of early learning and development: (a) physical well-being and motor development, (b) social and emotional development, (c) approaches toward learning, (d) language usage, and (e) cognition and general knowledge (Prince, 1992; Shore, 1998). Kagan (1992, 2003) outlined two predominant constructs of school readiness: to learn and for school. Readiness to learn is described as the level of development in which an individual of any age can acquire new tasks (Kagan, 1992). Readiness to learn reflects the fluidity of educational contexts and the idea that learning can be fostered. Readiness for school however, has been regarded as a more finite construct, embracing specific cognitive and linguistic skills (Kagan, 1992, p. 48). Supporters of this construct of view educational contexts as static and believe that is expected rather than fostered (Kagan, 1992). Kagan (2003) explained that parents and politicians associate this construct with being ready to learn to read. Kagan (1992) also proposed a third concept, maturational readiness, which includes to learn and for school. Kagan defined maturational as the entry level of development that children should attain prior to beginning school (i.e., for school) and as the recognition that children must be given time to develop according to their developmental timetable (i.e., to learn). Advocates for maturational seek to ensure that a child is not placed in an educational environment that exceeds current developmental capabilities, and they support practices such as tests (Kagan; NAECS, 2000). …