INFORMATION TO USERS

This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.

The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.

1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity.

2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame.

3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.

4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department.

5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed.

University M iotxilm s International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 8503984

Beery, Michele Manifold

KINDERGARTEN ENTRY: A STUDY OF TRANSITION

The Ohio Slate University Ph.D. 1984

University Microfilms International300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106

Copyright 1984 by Beery, Michele Manifold All Rights Reserved PLEASE NOTE:

In all cases this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy. Problems encountered with this document have been identified here with a check mark V .

1. Glossy photographs or pages ______

2. Colored illustrations, paper or print ______

3. Photographs with dark background ______

4. Illustrations are poor copy \/

5. Pages with black marks, not original copy i /

6. Print shows through as there is text on both sides of page ______

7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several pages \/

8. Print exceeds margin requirements ______

9. Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine ______

10. Computer printout pages with indistinct print ______

11. Page(s) ______lacking when material received, and not available from school or author.

12. Page(s) ______seem to be missing in numbering only as text follows.

13. Two pages numbered ______. Text follows.

14. Curling and wrinkled pages ______

15. Other______

University Microfilms International KINDERGARTEN ENTRY: A STUDY OF TRANSITION

DISSERTATION

Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for

the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate

School of The Ohio State University

By

Michele M. Beery, B.S., M.Ed.

*****

The Ohio State University

1984

Reading Committee: Approved By

Dr. C. Ray Williams

Dr. Diane Chapman Dr. E lisa Klein

Dr. P atrick McKenry .sor Educati Theory and Practice © Copyright

Michele M. Beery 1984 To my family and friends,

(big and l i t t l e ) who have changed me by their being,

and have helped me adjust

to the transitions in my life. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I could never have made the transition from teacher to researcher alone. Many people gave real, physical help and/or moral support so that my developmental task of

"dissertation" might be completed.

I would like to acknowledge the contributions of my reading committee. Thanks go to my major advisor, Dr. C.

Ray Williams for his guidance throughout the course of my graduate study. He taught me that there are no simple ques­ tions or easy answers in human development. He challenged me to pursue this research topic, which originated with my reading of Bronfenbrenner's works, suggested by Dr. Williams.

I would like to express my regard and gratitude to Dr. Diane

Chapman, whose input, support, and encouragement have been immeasurable. Her respect for learning and belief in learners are an inspiration. I have Dr. Elisa Klein to thank for teaching me the importance of developing a sound knowledge base to support educational practice. She has helped me combine the roles of teacher and researcher. Much of the help with the quantitative aspects of this study came from

Dr. P atrick McKenry. He has also enhanced my knowledge of, and respect for, parents and families in our contemporary society. I gratefully appreciate the contributions of

ii i these people to this dissertation and to my personal and professional development. 1 am obliged to mention the specific contributions of a few friends and colleagues to this project. My friend, Carol Arnold, offered me my first insight into how parents really feel about teachers and schools. Betty Hutchinson’s unwavering confidence in me and her constant insistence that I push forward have changed my life. In addition, she has served as my model of an outstanding teacher of young c h il­ dren. The help of Dr. Ellen Martin-Huff with this study has been immense. She allowed me to follow her in every step of her own research pertaining to kindergarten entry. We shared articles, experiences, and anxieties. She offered numerous suggestions which have enhanced the quality of this study.

Dr. Steven Rust led me through the statistical analysis of the data, for which I am truly grateful. I would like to thank Becky Rust tor her editorial help and Jacquie Furnish for typing and retyping.

My family has played an important role in my development in general, and with this project in particular. My husband,

Fred, has spent hours encouraging and consoling me, and they will never be forgotten. He has given new meaning to the phrase "constant faith and abiding love." My family, especially my parents, have instilled in me love of learning. They have always provided a safe base from which I could explore my world and its possibilities. Finally, 1 must thank the children and their parents who participated in this research study. I owe a special debt of gratitude to the parents of Robbie, Amy, Matthew and Becky who graciously put up with my presence, and patiently answered all of my questions. I also deeply appreciate the cooperation of the school district super­ intendents and kindergarten teachers, whose interest in this problem and belief in the value of educational research have made this project possible.

v VITA

A pril 23, 1955 .... Born - Springboro, Ohio

1976 ...... B.S., Miami University, Oxford, Ohio

1977-1981 ...... Kindergarten Teacher, Miami Trace Schools, Washington C.H., Ohio

1980 ...... M.Ed., Miami University, Oxford, Ohio

1981-1982 ...... University Fellow, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1982-1983 ...... Graduate Teaching Associate, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio

1984 ...... Second Grade Teacher, Miami Trace Schools, Washington C.H., Ohio

1984 ...... Director, Early Childhood Enrich- • ment Center, Batavia, Ohio

FIELDS OF STUDY

Major Field: Early Childhood Education

Studies in Early Childhood Education. Professor C. Ray Williams Studies in Language Development. Professor Diane L. Chapman Studies in Child and Family Development. Professors Elisa L. Klein and Patrick McKenry TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page DEDICATION...... ii

ACKNOWLEDG MENTS...... i i i

VITA ...... vi LIST OF TABLES...... ix

LIST OF FIGURES...... xiv

Chapter

I. THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM...... 1

Problem Statement ...... 1 Background ofthe Problem ...... 2 Procedures ...... 9 Related Issues ...... 16 Organization of the Report ...... 17

I I . THE REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...... 19

Problem Statement ...... 19 Introduction ...... 20 Families and Transitions ...... 22 Children and School Adjustment ...... 31 Parents' Adjustment to Children's Initial School Entry ...... The School and A djustm ent...... 58 C o n c lu s io n ...... 64

I I I . METHODOLOGY...... 67

Problem Statement ...... 67 Methodological Rationale ...... 68 S u b j e c t s ...... 74 Instrumentation ...... 78 Data Collection ...... 80 Data Analysis ...... 87 C o n c lu s io n ...... 92

vii TABLE OF CONTENTS — Continued

Chapter Page IV. SURVEY RESULTS ...... 94

Problem Statement ...... 94 Introduction ...... 95 Survey Results ...... 96 Results of Statistical Procedures ...... 127 Summary ...... 132

V. CASE-STUDIES: A DESCRIPTION OF TRANSITION . . 140

Problem Statement ...... 140 Introduction ...... 141 Descriptions of Participants ...... -J-£3 Domains ...... Conclusions ...... 199 VI. DISCUSSION...... 203 203 Problem Statement ...... S u r v e y ...... 204 Case-Studies ...... Implications ...... 214 L im itations of the S t u d y ...... 224 APPENDIXES A. Instrument: Pilot T est ...... 226 B. Instrument ...... 241

C. Correspondence to Parents ...... 253 D. Sample of F ield N otes ...... 260 E. Sample of Transcribed Interview ...... 265

F. Robbie's Letter/Word Inventory ...... 271

G. Multiple Regression Correlation Coefficients. 273 REFERENCES...... 276

viii LIST OF TABLES

Table Page 1 Observation Schedule ...... 82

2 Interview Schedule ...... 86

3 Parents' Responses to Ql: Child Looks Forward to Going to School ...... 96

4 Parents' Responses to Q2: Child Feels "Grown U p " ...... 97

5 Parents' Responses to Q3: Child Can Be Trusted With Responsibility ...... 98

6 Parents' Responses to Q4: Child is Helpful . . . 98 7 Parents' Responses to Q5: Child is in a Bad M ood ...... 99

8 Parents' Responses to Q6: Child is Indepen­ dent ..... 99

9 Parents' Responses to Q7: Child Likes School . . 100 10 Parents' Responses to Q8: Child Does Not Want to Go to School ...... 100

11 Parents' Responses to Q9: Child Talks ...... 101

12 Parents' Responses to Q10: Child Asks Ques­ tions - 101

13 Parents' Responses to Qll: Child's Small Muscle Skills Improving ...... !02

14 Parents' Responses to Q12: Child is Affec­ tionate 102

15 Parents' Responses to Q13: Child Watches T e le v is i o n ...... 103

16 Parents' Responses to Q14: Child Tries New Experiences ...... 103

ix LIST OF TABLES - Continued

Table Page

17 Parents’ Responses to Q15:Child Plays with Children of Own Age ...... 104

18 Parents' Responses to Q16: Child is Com­ petitive 104

19 Parents' Responses to Q17: Child is Interested in School-Related Tasks at Home ...... 105

20 Parents' Responses to Q18: Child Plays Pretend...... 106 21 Parents' Responses to Q19: Child Shares ...... 106 22 Parents' Responses to Q20: Child Uses New Words ...... 107

23 Parents' Responses to Q21: Child Acts More Like a Boy or G irl ...... 107

24 Parents' Responses to Q22: Child is Developing New Interests ...... 108 25 P arents' Responses to Q23: Child Obeys Parent/ C aregiver ...... 108

26 Parents' Responses to Q24: Child Misbehaves. . . 109 27 Parents' Responses to Q25: Child Talks Back. . . 109

28 Parents’ Responses to Q26: Child Gets Along with Siblings ...... HO 29 Parents' Responses to Q27: Child Hits Others . . 110

30 Parents' Responses to Q28: Child Uses Language Parent/Caregiver Prefers He or She Did Not Use...... HI

31 Parents' Responses to Q29: Child Wants to Be Like Other Children . HI

32 Parents' Responses to Q30: Child Wants to Invite Friends to Family's House ...... 112

x LIST OF TABLES - Continued

Table Page 33 P arents' Responses to Q31: Biggest Change in Child's Attitudes and Behavior Since School E ntry ...... 112

34 Parents' Responses to Q32: Has There Been Anything in Particular Which Has Helped Your Child Adjust to Going to School ...... 113 35 Parents' Responses to Q32a: Special Factors Which Have Helped Children Adjust to Going to School ...... 114

36 Parents' Responses to Q33: Parents' Anxiety About Child Going to School...... 114 37 Parents' Responses to Q34: Parents’ Concern About "L etting Go: of C hild ...... 115 38 Parents' Responses to Q35: Parents' Sadness About Child Going to School ...... 116

39 Parents' Responses to Q36: Parents' Sadness That Child Has a L ife Which Does Not Include Parent ...... 117

40 Parents' Responses to Q37: Parents' Belief That Child is at a Good Age ...... 118 41 Parents' Responses to Q38: Parents Think About What They Want Out of Life . 118 42 Parents' Responses to Q39: ...... Parents' Relation­ ship with Child Improving ...... 119 43 Parents' Responses to Q40: Parents Plan to Spend a Special Time with Child...... 120

44 Parents' Responses to Q41: Parents' Concern About Child Learning Different Values at School ...... 120 45 Parents' Responses to Q42: Parents' Resent­ ment of Teacher's Influence on Child 121

xi LIST OF TABLES - Continued

Table Page 46 Parents' Responses to Q43: Parents' Concern About Influence of Other Children on Child. . . . 121

47 Parents' Responses to Q44: Parents' Belief That Teacher Thinks of Them as "Bad Parents" If Child Misbehaves at School ...... 122

48 Parents' Responses to Q45: Parents' Belief That Teacher Has Bad Opinion of Them if Child Has Trouble Learning...... 123 49 Parents' Responses to Q46: Parents' Worry About Child To and From School ...... 124

50 Parents' Responses to Q47: Parents' Worry That Child Might Not Do Well in S c h o o l...... 124

51 Parents' Responses to Q48: Biggest Change for Parents Since Child Started School ...... 125

52 Parents' Responses to Q49: Has There Been Anything in Particular Which Has Helped Parent Adjust to Child Being in School ...... l^ 6 53 Parents' Responses to Q49a:Special Factors Which Helped Parents Adjust to Having Child Go to School ...... T ...... 126 54 Means, Standard Deviations and t-Values of Parents' Responses to the Changes in Children Subscale ...... 129

55 Means, Standard Deviations and t-Values of Parents' Responses to the Changes in Parents S u b s c a le ...... 130

56 Means, Standard Deviations and t-Values of Parent Groups' Repsponses on the Changes in Children Subscale ...... 131

57 Means, Standard Deviations and t-Values of Parent Groups' Responses on the Changes in Parents Subscale ...... • 132

xii LIST OF TABLES - Continued

Table Page

58 Means, Standard Deviations and F-Values of Parents' Responses to the Changes in Children 133 Subscale ......

59 Means, Standard Deviations and F-Values of Parents' Responses to the Changes in Parents S u b s c a le ...... 134

60 Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient Between Parents' Responses on the Changes in Children and Parents Subscales ...... 135 61 Multiple Regression Analysis of the Predictor Variables and Scores on the Children and Parents Subscales ...... 136 62 Correlation Coefficients of Predictor Variables Used in Multiple Regression for Children Subscale ......

63 Correlation Coefficients of Predictor Variables Used in Multiple Regression for Parents Subscale ...... LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 Child's Ecosystem ...... 23 2 Systems Interaction ...... 23

3 Stages of Crisis Recovery ...... 30 4 Amy's Kindergarten Classroom ...... 1^3 5 Becky's Kindergarten Classroom ...... 130

6 Matthew's Kindergarten Classroom ...... 137

7 Robbie's Kindergarten Classroom ...... 1^2

xiv CHAPTER ONE

THE NATURE OF THE PROBLEM

Problem Statement

The purpose of this study is to describe the nature of k in d erg arten entry as a tra n s itio n phenomenon for c h il­ dren and families. The specific goals of the study are:

1. to describe any changes in children's attitudes and behavior which parents attribute to be the result of kinder­ garten entry; 2. to describe any changes in parents' attitudes and behavior which parents a ttr ib u te to be the re su lt of children's entry into kindergarten; 3. to identify strategies kindergarten children employ in the adjustment process associated with kindergarten entry;

4. to explore the nature of the relation­ ship, if any, between parents' attitudes and behavior with regard to school entry and children's kindergarten adjustment;

5. to determine any differences in the kindergarten adjustment process on the basis of children's age, gender, preschool experience, birth order, type of tra n sp o rta tio n to and from school and kindergarten schedule; and parents' socioeconomic status, marital status and employment status;

6. to describe any existing patterns of initial school adjustment which may emerge from the data.

1 Background of the Problem

The Child Nearly all American children experience initial school entry. Children's school entry and adjustment are important for several reasons. Adjustment is a normal, necessary, on­ going process by which humans cope w ith l i f e 's s itu a tio n s

(Tibbie, 1959). School entry may constitute a child's first major adjustment experience. It is at least likely to be the first major transition in a child's life which is man­ dated by the society via its institution, the school, rather than initiated by a child's family (Martin-Huff, Note 3,

1982). A positive experience with early adjustments may serve as a prototype for all future adjustments (Klein,

1980). On the other hand, problems with early adjustment tend to persist throughout a lifetime (WesLman, Rice &

Bermann, 1976). Fortunately, most children eventually adjust to going to school (Anderson, 1976). However, the research indicates that about 25 percent (Chazan & Jackson, 1971; Hughes,

Pinkerton & Plewis, 1979) of all normal children experience some difficulty with initial school entry and adjustment.

Thirteen to fourteen percent of all children have problems related to school entry which are moderate to severe and re­ quire some special attention (Chazan & Jackson, 1971;

Hughes et a l., 1979). Moore (1966) figured the incidence of school adjustment problems to be much higher. He reports that 80 percent of normal children experience some problems

and 40 percent have significant problems with school entry.

Despite the near universality and the importance of

this event, very little is now known about school entry as a transition phenomenon for children. Only one study was

found which investigated the relationship between children'

initial school experience and their attitudes and behaviors

Stendler and Young (1950) examined the impact of beginning

first grade upon the socialization of young children as

reported by mothers. They found that in general, children

looked forward to going to school and liked i t very much.

Positive changes in children's self-concepts and behaviors

were reported.

Until the time of school entry, home, fam ily, and

possibly the child care center are a child's primary con­

texts of development. Upon school entry, however, children

are introduced to a new environment with its own unique

traditions, a distinct social order and an exclusive set of

participants. Children are expected to perform the new

role of student, in the new social setting of school

(Gracey, 1967).

Bronfenbrenner (1979a) refers to events in which a person's position is altered as the result of a change in role or setting as "ecological transitions." The ecologi­ cal transition of school entry is a process of mutual accommodation between children and everyone who interacts with them. Therefore, the tra n s itio n phenomenon of school

entry involves not only kindergarten children. It also

necessitates changes in children’s existing relationships

with parents, siblings and family, as well as the formation

of new school-oriented relationships with teachers and p e e rs .

Since no suitable theoretical definition of school

adjustment could be found, it was necessary to compile the

following statement based on related literature. For the purpose of this research school adjustment is defined as fo llo w s:

School adjustment is the ongoing process chil- dren undergo upon school entry, whereby they employ exisLing s tr a te g ie s of coping and/or develop new coping strategies in order to meet the physical, social, emotional and intellec­ tual demands of the new environment of the school.

School adjustment also involves changes in children's pri­ mary relationships. For example, parents, who are directly involved in children's entry into school, must alter their relationship with their child when the child goes to school.

It is possible that some aspects of school adjustment, such as changes in children’s behavior and attitudes, may seem negative or even regressive. An example is a child's crying or thumb sucking upon separation from parents at the school bus or classroom door. However, for the pur­ poses of this study even these apparently undesirable changes will be classified as coping strategies and will therefore, be considered productive for normal healthy children. Coping strategies include any changes in

children’s attitudes or behavior which seem to help them

meet the demands of going to school.

It cannot be ignored that some children experience

severe disturbances upon school entry. Such extreme

difficulty with school has been termed "school phobia."

Children with school phobia may exhibit attitudes and

behaviors which are counterproductive as far as school

adjustment, either because of their nature or duration. It is not within the scope of this study either to explore

school phobia, or Lo provide a precise means of distinguish­

ing between normal and abnormal conditions, or maladjustments.

The purpose of this study is Lo explore the school adjust­ ment process of normal children entering kindergarten.

School entry necessitates children's separation from

parents or caregivers. Coping with separation is, therefore, one of the adjustments children and primary caregivers have to make to function effectively. The issues of separation and attachment will then be addressed, but only as one of the many possible factors related Lo school adjustment.

The Family Children do not grow and develop in isolation. Rather, ch ild ren are members of family systems, as well as the more global "ecosystem" (Hobbs, 1978). The ecosystem includes

the family, but also involves the school and community. According to the systems' approach to family study, any change in an individual family member causes other changes within the family system (Feiring & Lewis, 1978). The normally functioning family attempts to maintain equili­ brium by adjusting to, or coping with, changes in individual members. The "fam ily l i f e cycle" (H ill & Rodgers, 1964) describes life patterns experienced by all families which are characterized by predictable and expected stages of development. A fam ily l i f e cycle event includes phenomena such as a marriage, the birth of a child or children's entry inLo school. Although school entry is an expected, often even an anticipated event, evidence indicates that it creates stress within the family, particularly among parents (Hock, McKenry, Hock, T riolo & Stew art, 1980;

Hock, Stewart & M artin-H uff, Note 2, 1982; Klein and Ross,

1958). VJhen children enter school for the first time, other family members may find i t necessary Lo modify existing roles, or to acquire new ones. These role adjust­ ments involve changing intra-familial relationships as well as establishing the home-school relationship. Role modifi­ cation associated with a transition event creates a potentially stressful situation for the family. Rapoport

11963) considers school entry to be one ot several developmental tasks in normal family life. Such pre­ dictable, stressful events which are experienced by all families have been termed ,'aevelopmental"or "normative”crises

iBoss, 1980). These critical points may lead either to

resolution and growth, or to maladaption and subsequent deterioration ot the family system I Boss, 1980). In 1964, Hill and Rodgers suggested that insight into

family dynamics might be gained ty studying families during

the period of initial contact outside of the home on the

part of children. Public school entry is an experience of

th is type which occurs to most fa m ilie s. Yet to d a te , few

investigators have examined the relationship between school

entry and changes in parents' and families' attitudes and

behavior. Parents' feelings surrounding school entry have been the primary focus of the existing literature on this

subject iHock et al., Iy8l); Hock et al., Note 2, 1982; Klein

& Ross, 1958). The specific findings of these studies will be presented in Chapter Two; however, in general, parents often experience a variety of feelings including sadness, anxiety and nostalgia when their children go to school. Children's school entry is a milestone in the lives of parents and families, as well as in the lives of children.

Many of the anxieties expressed by parents concern­

ing school entry involve anticipated changes in children's attitudes and behavior iK'lein & Ross, 1958). Certain observable changes may be due, at least in part, to chil­ dren’s normal maturation (Rapoport, Rapoport, Sterlitz & Kew, 1977; S tendler & Young, 1950). Such changes which coincide with school entry may have more to do with chil­ dren's being of school age than with their being in school

(Radi, 1973). Other changes may be attributable to specific aspects of the initial school experience such as the exposure to a group of children of similar age, the introduction of new experiences and the influence of school personnel as authority figures outside of the family (S tendler & Young, 1950).

The School

Even though the school entry phenomenon has become so routine to them, many schools and their personnel recognize the importance of initial school entry. This is evidenced by the adoption of such procedures as home visits by teachers, previsits by children, staggered entry and in­ viting parents to accompany children on the first day of school. Indeed, part of the rationale behind kindergarten is to prepare children for school to help ensure that they may be successful in the remainder of their school ex­ perience (Headley, 19b5). The current interest and emphasis on the importance of the early years of children's develop­ ment have also contributed to the amount of attention given to children's first experiences. School personnel are in a unique position to observe how groups of children adjust to school. Most of the in­ formation concerning school entry and adjustment is based on the reports of school personnel iChazan & Jackson, 1971; Coleman, Wolkind & Ashley, 1977; Hammond & Skipper;

1962; Hughes et a l. 1979; Thompson, 1975). The schooi- oriented intormation has been beneficial in helping school personnel plan and implement programs to meet the adjust­ ment needs of groups of beginning school ch ild ren . However, restricting data on school entry to the school setting has its disadvantages. Children are in school only a few hours each day. Also the routineness ot school entry for school personnel, along with the use of adjustment rating scales, may cause school personnel to miss some important aspects of the school entry and adjustment phenomenon. Certainly school personnel are not usually in the position to observe how children's school entry affects their parents and fam ily .

Procedures

This study has oeen designed to focus on normal school entry and adjustment. Indeed, most children eventually ad­ just to school lAnderson, 1976). The purpose of this study is to describe the school adjustment process of such chil­ dren. The results may also provide insight into the problems experienced by the approximately 25 to 80 percent (Chazan &

Jackson, 1971; Hughes et a l. 1979; Moore, 1966) of normal c h ild re n .

The existing research on school entry has tended to locus on children in the context of home or school, but it is possibly the interaction between these settings and their 10 members which is most important (Bronfenbrenner, 1979a).

Children do not exist at home or at school, but move daily between these two co n tex ts.

The combination oi quantitative and qualitative methods

have been recommended (Cook & R eichardt, 1971) because they are complementary. Both kinds of data collection

procedures have been employed in this study in an effort to

get a more comprehensive view of the school entry phenomenon.

The case-studies were intended to furnish depth to the under­

standing of the phenomenon. Research questions guided the observations and interviews. The survey was designed to contribute breadth and to make it possible to generalize the study results. Both questions and hypotheses were generated to direct this portion of the study. Each data base should be beneficial in interpreting and analyzing the other data.

Research Questions The following questions are addressed with data from the survey results:

1. What are the differences, if any, in the school adjustment process on the basis of children's age, gender, preschool experi­ ence, birth order, type of transportation to and from school and kindergarten schedule; and parents' socioeconomic status, marital status, and employment status?

2. What is the nature of the relationship, if any, between parents' attitudes and behavior with regard to school entry and children's kindergarten adjustment? Data from the qualitative aspect of the present study will pertain to this question: ,

3. What is the nature of any existing patterns of initial school adjustment?

Both sources of data will be used to answer the remaining research questions:

4. What are the changes, if any, in children's atti­ tudes and behaviors following kindergarten entry?

5. What are the changes, if any, experienced by parents and families following children's kindergarten entry?

Research Hypotheses 1.0 Children's adjustment to kindergarten and the changes in parents' attitudes and behavior are positively related.

1.1 Older kindergartners adjust more easily to school than do younger children.

1.2 Girls adjust more easily to kindergarten than boys. 1.3 Children with preschool experience adjust more easily to kindergarten than children without such experience. 1.4 L ater born ch ild ren adjust more e a sily to kindergarten than first-born children.

1.5 Children whose parents take them to school adjust more easily to school than children who ride the school bus. 1.6 Children enrolled in a half-day kindergarten program adjust more easily than those who attend an alternate, ful 1-day program.

1.7 Children from families with higher socio­ economic status adjust more easily to kinder­ garten than children from lower status fami- 1 i e s . 1.8 Children whose parents are married adjust more easily to kindergarten than children whose parents are single.

1.9 Children from families whose head of house­ hold is employed adjust more easily to kindergarten than children from families experi encing unemployment.

Operational Definition

1. Kindergarten adjustment was explored by parents' responses on the Changes in Children and Parents with School Entry questionnaire (Beery, Note 1, 1982).

Subjects

Survey. The parents of 100 kin d erg arten ch ild ren were randomly selected from teachers' rosters to receive questionnaires. These subjects were chosen from the approximately 400 kindergarten children and their parents in a rural, Mid-West county, which includes two school districts. The population was selected on the basis of the two school superintendent's willingness to cooperate with the study. It should be noted that the existing studies on school entry and adjustment have been conducted primarily in urban or suburban settings. Comparisons be­ tween this study and others should, therefore, be made cautiously.

Case-studies. Four case-study children and their families were selected from parents who volunteered to participate in the observational and interview aspects of this study. Volunteers were solicited from parents who 13 were in attendance at the school sites on their children's first day of school. Of those who volunteered, the four families identified for study were chosen because they met following criteria:

1) two children and families from each of the two school d i s t r i c t s ;

2) one child from each session or schedule (morning, afternoon, Monday-Wednesday and Tuesday-Thursday);

3 j one boy and one girl from each school d i s t r i c t ; 4) range of family constellation patterns Ioldest, youngest, middle and only c h ild re n ), and 5) children and parents who seemed, from the te ac h e rs' comments and the researcher's observations, not to be extremely upset by school entry.

Instrument A survey instrument was designed by the researcher specifically for the purpose of this study. The Changes in

Children and Parents with School Entry questionnaire iBeery,

Note 1, 1982) has two parts (Appendix B). One section asses­ ses parents' perceptions of the changes in children's atti­ tudes and behavior since beginning school. The other part explores how parents think their child’s school entry has changed their own attitudes and behavior, and their family life. The 60-item instrument consists of 45, five-point

Likert scale item s, each of which is followed by space and encouragement for comments. There are tour open-ended ques­ 14 tions about school entry. The remaining 11 questions per­ tain to demographic information about children and families.

The questionnaire was self-administered. The overall

Cronbach alpha reliability statistic was calculated to be .85.

Subscale scores for children and parents were obtained by summing the item scores in each section of the questionnaire. Subscale scores, as well as frequency distributions on each

item were used m data analysis.

Data Collection

Survey procedures. Eight weeks into the school year

questionnaire packets were mailed to the parents of 100

randomly selected kindergartners. Each packet contained two

copies of the Changes in Children and Parents with School Entry questionnaire lone for each parent), one Ohio State pencil, a self-addressed, stamped envelope and a cover letter bearing the endorsement of the respective superintendent of

schools. (See a copy of the letter in Appendix C.) Direc­

tions for completing the questionnaire were on the survey cover. Parents or caregivers were asked to complete the

questionnaires independently, without discussing their responses until they had returned them.

Observation procedures. Anecdotal observations of the four case-study children were made daily in the schools during the f i r s t two weeks of school. Weekly observations of each child were continued through the fifth week of school.

Each child was observed once in the sixth, seventh or eighth 15 week. Children were observed in their homes at the time of the interviews with their parents. Children’s actions, interactions, and vocalizations were recorded as accurately as possible in the form of field notes. Interview procedures. Audiotaped interviews with parents were scheduled at the parents' convenience on alternate weeks, through the eighth week of school. The interviews focused on parents’ perceptions of changes in their child's behavior and attitudes; changes in their own behavior and attitudes and changes in family life with their child's kindergarten entry.

Survey analysis, frequency tables for each Likert question on the Changes in Children and Parents with School

Entry questionnaire were made and the data has been dis­ cussed. Four statistical procedures were employed. A

Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient (Kerlinger, * 1973) was calculated to determine the relationship between changes in children's attitudes and behavior and changes in parents' attitudes and behavior with school entry. Another

Pearson correlation was calculated to examine the relation­ ship between mothers’ and fathers' responses on the ques­ tionnaire. Multiple regression analyses (Kerlinger, 1973) were used to measure the influence of the entire set of child and parent variables on each of the subscale scores and the total survey scores. T-tests and analysis of variance were also calculated to investigate possible differences in survey responses on the basis of demographics. 16 Responses to the open-ended questions were categorized, tallied for frequency, and presented in tables. Explanations and discussion have been provided where appropriate. Observation and Interview Analysis

Domain analysis (Spradley, 1979, 1980) has been the method of analyzing the qualitative data. Domain analysis involves searching for patterns in the data, beginning soon after the onset of data collection. Once the data Degins to fall into identifiable patterns, these patterns or domains are used as a system to collect, categorize and interpret additional data. The taxonomy of the domains and the relationships between domains werethen explored.

Related Issues

The results of this study should benefit children, parents, school personnel, family professionals, and school policy makers. By being better informed, parents and school personnel will be better prepared to plan and implement programs to facilitate the adjustment of kinder­ garten children and their families to school entry.

Children's school adjustment, the family's functioning and the home-school relationship may be enhanced.

It is the goal of this researcher that this study will help school personnel and policy makers recognize both the wide range of individual differences in the school adjustment process, as well as the "ripple effect" of a child's kingergarten entry into the family and neighborhood. They may use this understanding to develop flexible programs designed to meet children and families half-way. For example, instead of requiring children to comply with school's rigid standards, they might adapt the p h y sical, in te lle c tu a l, social and emotional demands of school Lo accommodate the individual child's cababili- ties and needs. School personnel could take the initiative in providing children and families with links between home and school, as they begin to appreciate the differences between these two s e ttin g s . They might also reach out to include parents and families in the kindergarten experience

Family professionals may use information from this study to help families who may be experiencing difficulties at the time of school entry to grow and develop from this life task. The results of this study should also provide in­ sight into the dynamics of healthy families which are functioning and adjusting normally.

Organization of the Report

Because qualitative and quantitative research methods have been combined in this study, the report is organized into six chapters. Chapter Two consists of a comprehensive review of the theoretical and research literature pertaining to school entry and adjustment.

Detailed descriptions of the data collection and analysis procedures are presented in Chapter Three. Chapter Four contains the results of thesurvey questionnaire and 18 analysis, and Cnapter Five includes the results of the analyses of the case-study. In Chapter Six the unique contribution of each data source toward the understanding of kindergarten adjustment is explained and relationships between data are discussed. Chapter Six also concludes this report with a discussion oi the value of this study within the context of the broader spectrum of education, and child and family development.

In order to understand kindergarten adjustment it is necessary to consider a wide variety of influences and relationships. It is difficult even to separate out these factors tor the purpose ot discussing them. In the following chapter literature from the fields of human ecology, child development, and family study have sometimes been artificially isolated. At other points the integration and comparison of literature and ideas from different theoretical origins has been the goal. In each instance, an attempt has been made to show the relationship of these works to the current study. CHAPTER TWO

THE REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Problem Statement.

The purpose of this study is to describe the nature of kindergarten entry as a transition phenomenon for children and families. The specific goals of the study are:

1. to describe any changes in children's attitudes and behavior which parents attribute to be the result of kinder­ garten entry;

2. to describe any changes in parents' attitudes and behavior which parents attribute to be the result of children's entry into kindergarten;

3. to identify strategies kindergarten children employ in the adjustment process associated with kindergarten entry;

4. to explore the nature of the relation­ ship, if any, between parents' attitudes and behavior with regard to school entry> and children's kindergarten adjustment;

5. to determine any differences in the kindergarten adjustment process on the basis of children's age, gender, preschool experience, birth order, type of transportation to and from school, and kindergarten schedule; and parents' socioeconomic status, marital status9 and employment s ta tu s ;

6. to describe any existing patterns of initial school adjustment which may emerge from the data.

19 20 Introduction

When children go to school for the first time they are expected to perform the new role of student in a new setting, the school (Gracey, 1959). In order to accomplish this task successfully, children must first be able to separate from beloved caregivers and familiar settings for extended periods of time. They must be capable of meeting the physical, s o c ia l, em otional, and in te lle c tu a l demands made of them by the teacher, peers, or the school setting itself. Finally, they must be able to move s k illf u lly in and out of th is new role of student as they travel daily from home to school and back again. Bronfenbrenner (1979) refers to any individual's change in role or setting as a "ecological transition." As such, school entry is a process of mutual accommodation be­ tween children and everyone with whom they interact in a relationship.

Children have little or no training which enables them to assume the role of student, except, of course, their family life and perhaps some preschool, daycare or play group experience. Previous research seems to indicate that kinder­ garten and public school are different from most preschool experiences, at least as perceived by children and the society

(O sterlin d , 1980; S tendler & Young, 1950; Thompson, 1975).

Adjustment to "real school" is a unique experience. As for parental assistance, often the only preparation parents have for helping children adjust to school is that they, them­ 21 selves were once students (Radi, 1973). Some parents have

direct involvement with the school and they may consequently be better able to prepare children for what to expect.

Older siblings and neighborhood children may be helpful in

informing children about teachers and school; however,

"veteran" students have also been known to tease or threaten kindergarten entrants about the mean teacher, the tough

playground bully, the strict rules, and the unreasonable

expectations which await them at school (Klein & Ross,

1958).

Most children eventually undergo the process of school adjustment (Anderson, 1976). There is, however, a wide range of individual differences with regard to timing,

strategy, and eventual degree of success. Children's

school adjustment is undoubtedly influenced by their family relationships, especially with parents. Evidence also shows, that family members, especially parents, are in turn affected by children's initial school experience (Hock et al. , 1980; Klein & Ross, 1958). The following review of the literature pertaining to developmental transitions in family life, children's initial school adjustment, parental re­ actions to children's school entry, and the school's potential role in the adjustment process are presented as justification for this research endeavor. 22 Families and Transitions

School entry is a transition event which occurs in al­ most all American families with children. For children, transitions in education are of vital importance according to Palmer (1971):

Whether they are made with ease and confidence and the eager anticipation of a new challenge, or with anxiety and distress, can colour for a long time a child’s response to his new environ­ ment (p. 37).

For the family, critical transition points in normal family development, such as children going to school for the first time, are "points of no return" (Rapoport, 1963) which lead either to "resolution and growth or to maladaptation and sub­ sequent deterioration of the [family] system" (Boss, 1981, p. 445). School entry may appear to be an event which happens to children; however, because of the relationships and affilia­ tions children have established prior to coming to school, school entry affects all of the "systems" of which children are members. Children are the center of their own "ecosys­ tem" (Hobbs, 1978). The ecosystem is a dynamic network of individuals, organizations, relationships and salient elements of the environment with which children either interact directly or which influence them indirectly in "second-order" effects (Bronfenbrenner, 1973). CQMWUNIT

Figure 2. Child's Ecosystem (Hobbs. 1 978. p. 757

A kindergarten child's ecosystem might include parents

or caregivers, siblings, home, grandparents, teachers,

school, peers, other significant adults and perhaps neigh­ bors. child care setting, church, pets and so forth. As Ih number of elements or individuals increase, the number of p o ssib le re la tio n s h ip s in crease more (F eiring and Lewis.

1978;.

(the mother-father-child triad)

Figure 2. Systems Interaction (p. 226 24 Thusj the whole of a system is greater than the sum of its parts. Any change in one member of the system necessitates change by every other member, th e re fo re , the model becomes extremely complex. The complexity is fu rth e r compounded when one considers that every other individual in children’s ecosystems exists in their own system of relationships, of which the child is only one member.

Each ecosystem is only a subsystem, existing within the larger context of family, neighborhood, and community.

These are likewise nested within the county, state, nation, and society at large. Almost every move or decision at any level of the system will somehow directly or indirectly affect children and their families.

Extrafamilial factors of the ecological con­ text in which the family exists affect the parents1 and childrens' behavior and shape their experiences (Davis, 1979, p. 90-91).

These influences include the physical features and charac­ teristics of the immediate environment and neighborhood; employment status and socioeconomic status of the family; the family's social network and degree of cultural isolation or integration; social and institutional structures such as schools, community, media and governmental agencies as well as the society's cultural-ideological patterns and values

(Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Davis, 1979; Keniston, 1977). Hence, children's ecosystems are constantly changing.

Even c h ild re n 's own m aturation and development necessitate change in the system. Although the system is 25 constantly changing it is characterized by a tendency to maintain stability (Feiring & Lewis, 1978). The necessary adjustments are made to attempt to balance flexibility and stability- The concept of adjustment may be viewed from either a mechanical or a biological-evolutionary perspective. Psy­ chologists and developmentalists have tended to favor the latter model of adjustment (Tibbie, 1959). It is complex because it involves intricate organizations of inter­ relationships. Normal adjustment involves coping with situations in which individuals must choose for themselves among the alternatives, without simply following the pre­ scription of authority. Adjustment is a continual, dynamic

"process of accommodation of individual idiosyncracies to [meet] expectations (Tibbie, 1959, p. 199). It is not an end product to be attained but an equilibrium toward which to- strive. Maladjustment, then, is almost a normal condition of man. Tibbie concludes that it is the responsibility of educators to ensure that maladjustments are serviceable.

With regard to school entry, this may be accomplished by capitalizing on children's and families' existing coping strategies and perhaps by intervening to suggest alternative means of coping.

Prior to school entry the home and family stand out as the main centers of activity in the children's ecosystems (Hobbs, 1980). Until then the family, home, and possibly child care center are children's primary contexts of

development. According to the developmental approach to family study, the family is a system in its own right—a system

of positions composed of reciprocal roles which have been defined in terms of familial or societal norms (Hill, 1964).

The family is a unity of interacting personalities. It

develops through a life cycle of predictable stages, or

categories, which are determined by factors such as family

size and the age composition of the family's members

(Rodgers, 1962). At each stage the family members, as a

group and individually, are faced with developmental tasks,

one of which is school entry (Boss, 1980; Duvall, 1957, Hill,

1964). A successful achievement of developmental tasks or

"growth responsibilities" that arise at certain stages of

life, leads to satisfaction and success with later tasks.

Failure to resolve developmental tasks leads to unhappiness

in the family, disapproval by society, and difficulty with

later tasks. The tasks originate with physical maturation

of family members and so c ie ta l pressures and p riv ile g e s .

The developmental task involves a set of norms or role ex­

pectations, and it is the family's function to help members resolve and grow from the experience. Some developmental tasks like the birth of a new sibling may occur before children go to school, so the family may already have some experience in dealing with transition events. With school entry ch ild ren become deeply involved in tran sactio n al 27 relationships outside of the family, probably for the first time (Hill, 1964).

Considerable insight into family dynamics may be gained by a more intensive study of families dur­ ing this period of initial extensive contact out­ side of the home on the part of children (p. 195). Normative family stress may be expected whenever com­ ponents of the family system are changed (Boss, 1980). In a healthy family this stress can be an impetus for growth and adaptation. As a result of children's normal develop­ ment and maturation, along with society's mandate that five year-olds belong in school, the healthy family varies its structure at the time of school entry in order to maintain its functions. Alternately, a family which is already plagued with other unresolved tasks, stress, and role re­ structuring due to divorce, remarriage, or the recent arrival of a new sibling, for example, may well experience school entry as a developmental level crisis (McMurrain,

1975). Developmental crises are not uncommon and the family itself is often unaware of these because family members are usually able to maintain normal behavior. The individual family members and the family group are, however, characterized by stress and anxiety. The consequences of developmental crises are usually not immediate and probably no child or family is going to suffer irreperable damage from school entry alone. However, the basic health of the family and its members might be threatened so that there are implications of the family's present behavior on future needs 28 and behavior. The recommended intervention is support, empathy, reassurance, unconditional positive regard, inter­ personal' warmth, communication of feelings, maximizing potential, and focusing on individual and family strengths

(McMurrain, 1975). Hill's (1949) family crisis model illustrates how stress, a family's resources to deal with change, and pre­ vious experiences affect the way a family deals with a transition like school entry:

A + B + C = X

where A = a potentially crisis producing stressor event, like school entry

B = a family's resources, financial and psychological, for dealing with the event, including family inte­ gration characteristics and family adaptability

C = how the family defines or perceives the event based on values, beliefs and past experiences with this or related events

X = the way a family deals with a • stressor event

Some of the family resources (B) which might affect how a family deals with school entry include socioeconomic status, the existence of close supportive relationships, physical health of family members, and a community's involvement with schools. For example, Hock et a]. (1980) found that parents of lower socioeconomic s ta tu s experienced more sadness and anxiety when their children went to school. Support and 29 communication with a spouse also influence the impact of

school entry. In the same study Hock et al. (1980) dis­ covered that fathers generally agreed with mothers concerning feelings about school entry, presumably because they talked with one another. Friends and relatives who are available to listen and provide "moral" support are a psychological resource for parents or school age children, especially if they have had children go to the same school which the kindergarten entrant will attend. Peers can be a viable psychological support for the kindergarten children as well.

The family's definition (C) of school entry will depend on children's unique personalities and family member's past experiences with school. Children's characteristics such as age, sex, ordinal position, preschool experience, in­ clination toward learning, ability to separate from care­ givers, and the tendency to relate to strangers affect the family's view of school entry. How parents view their role and their relationship with their children is also a factor.

For example, if parents see themselves as the only sig­ nificant adults in children's lives then separation may be stressful, and there may be jealousy when teachers or even friends begin to play a role in children's lives at school.

If parents feel that children are "little ambassadors"

(Gal insky, 1981) of their family, they may feel that their expertise as parents will be evaluated on the basis of children's performance at school. Parents' and siblings' 30 prior experiences with school and other societal institutions, good or bad, cannot be ignored as influencing factors in defining school entry. The family's life goals and aspirations determine their attitude toward education. All of these feelings, attitudes, and beliefs may either help or hinder children's, as well as the child's family's adjustment to school entry.

The adjustment peri

(Hill, 1958). Hill depicts this time-limited, phase-oriented phenomena lik e th is :

C risis

Recovery

Disorganization

Figure 3. Stages of Crisis Recovery

Klein and Ross (1958) confirmed the time-limited transition period of kindergarten entry. They termed the phases which they discovered: 1) anticipatory concerns,

2) relief that the waiting was finally over and the child was off to school, 3) attempts at role redefinition and 31 reconstitution of meaningful parent-child Lies, 4) re­

storation of equilibrium. This final phase, or "getting

back to normal" was found to occur usually in the fifth or

six th week follow ing school en try . In summary, school entry c la s s if ie s as a developmental

task for children and their families. As such it necessi­

tates change in the family system. The relationship between

children and their context of development is a reciprocal one.

Individuals and elements of children's ecosystems affect

children, and children conversely influence their environments

and everyone in them. With any adjustment some degree of

stress and anxiety can be expected as the system and its

members s triv e to balance f le x ib i l i t y and s ta b i l i t y . I t is

to be anticipated, though, that the developmental phase of

school entry is time-limited and is characterized by ordered

stages of reorganization and recovery.

Children and School Adjustment

Despite the near universality of school entry, there

is a paucity of literature pertaining to the adjustment pro­

cess of normal children. The few existing studies which

relate to school adjustment view it primarily as an outcome measure re la te d to other c h a ra c te ris tic s of ch ild ren (Hughes

et al., 1979). These studies vary greatly as to their definition of school adjustment, experiental backgrounds and ages of children, theoretical orientation, and research 32 methodology. The following evidence concerns children age two to ten years, with most of the data dealing with three to five year-olds. The School Age Child

Many of the changes which occur in children and their lives once they are in school have less to do with being in school than with being school age (Radi, 1973). Five and six year-olds have sometimes been described as difficult, aggressive, explosive and demanding. Their behavior can be fresh, nasty, insulting, impudent, bratty, rude and argumentative (Stendler & Young, 1950). Parents sometimes feel that this is a particularly difficult or trying time with children (Galinsky, 1981).

On the basis of mothers’ reports, ...overactivity, oversensitiveness, specific fears, tempers and ex­ cessive reserve [are] particular characteristics of the behavior problems [of] five-six year-olds (Chazan & Jackson, 1971).

Increased physical prowess contributes to children's feeling

"big" and important. Their cognitive competence is the source of new emotions and ways of dealing with others (Rapoport,

1977). The result is a less egocentric and more social being who has an increasingly rigid sense of morality. Language has developed to the point that children can use it as a tool to negotiate with others, and to help deal with events and relationships in their own minds.

However, the experience of going to school for the first time is, in itself, a highly significant event both in children's minds and in the consideration of our educationally 33 oriented society. School entry is a milestone in children's development. Some of the characteristics of school age children may well be the result of the transition of school entry such as: the exposure to a large group of children of similar age, the introduction of new experiences and activities, and the influence of school personnel as authority figures outside of the family (Stendler &

Young, 1950).

No theoretical definition for school adjustment could be found in the literature. The trend has been for each research study to operationally define adjustment as a readiness or rating scale score. School adjustment has historically been identified with children’s intellectual capacities, specifically in terms of "readiness.” This is, no doubt, due at least in part to the work of Ilg and Ames

(1965) which related school readiness to school success.

Readiness, however one chooses to define it, is another rather nebulous concept, and therefore fails to shed any direct light on the nature of adjustment. So, for practical reasons, the concept of readiness per se, in what­ ever way it applies to adjustment, will not be considered here. However, cognitive capability in general, or chil­ dren’s attitudes and behavior in response to the intellectual demands of schooling, cannot be dismissed so easily. The cognitive aspect of adjustment has been repeatedly examined 34 (Hammond & Skipper, 1962; Thompson, 1975). The conclusion has been that cognitive capability is directly related to adjustment to school. At least two other aspects of children’s develop­ ment have been shown to be in te g ra lly re la te d to school ad­ justment. These are social adjustment and emotional maturity.

Medinnus (1963) believes that adjustment has remained such an unexplored area because of problems with assessing these two ✓ areas. Measures of emotional and social maturity are generally difficult to formulate. However, this explanation gets back to operationally defining adjustment via assessment, and although this has been the approach most often taken in research, the adjustment measures vary so greatly that comparisons cannot be made between them.

Usually adjustment rating scales consist of items which could be categorized as: 1) academic competence, 2) social adjustment, 3) emotional maturity. Most often these scales are completed by children's teachers based on behavior observed in the classroom setting. Teachers compare the be­ havior of individual children to what is considered by them to be "normal" for a particular age. Some parent report measures have also been employed to assess school adjustment. They have taken either the form of rating scales similar to those which teachers are asked to complete (Klein, 1980) or parent interview s (Moore, 1966).

Aside from readiness tests and adjustment scales, an alternative to the problem of operationally defining school 35 adjustment, for research has been to count the incidence of behavior problems and difficulties associated with school entry and to describe them (Chazan & Jackson, 1971; Coleman, Wolkind & Ashley, 1977; Hughes et al., 1979;

Moore, 1966). The approach has provided valuable informa­ tion; however, it is not a very positive approach to d efining a phenomenon which is believed to occur in all normal children.

A third research technique has been to describe the coping strategies of ordinary children as they enter the new context of the school (Bloom-Fleshbach, B1oom-Fleshbach

& Gaughran, 1980). This approach appears to be the most helpful in reaching a consensus definition of school adjust­ ment based on all of the available literature and research.

The results are often presented in case-study form, describ­ ing strategies children employ in order to cope with the new school situation.

Based on the available literature the following state­ ment regarding the definition of school adjustment has been com piled:

School adjustment is the ongoing process children undergo upon school entry, whereby they employ existing strategies of coping and/or develop new coping strategies in order to meet the physical, s o c ia l, em otional, and in te lle c tu a l demands of the new environment of the school. School Adjustment Difficulties

Even though most children eventually adjust to going to

school (Anderson, 1976), school entry is clearly a period of increased tension tor children. The incidence of school adjustment difficulties varies from study to study. Both Hughes et al . (1979) and Chazan and Jackson 11971) report that between 24 and 25 percent of normal children experience some difficulty with school adjustment. The sp e c ific symptoms they mention include an in a b ility to persist in an activity without help from the teacher, problems using and understanding language, and difficulties with fine motor control. Both studies report that 13 to 14 percent of children exhibit problems severe enough to warrant attention. Hughes et a i. (1979) mention emotional disturbance and inability to "concentrate" as the primary coping difficulties of this group. The primary school adjust­ ment problem of the subjects in the Chazan and Jackson (1971) study was "restlessness." Moore (1966) reports statistics which are much higher. Eighty percent of normal children in his longitudinal study experienced some adjustment difficul­ ties and 4U percent had problems of moderate to marked severity. The specific problems found among this group were, in order of frequency: reluctance to go to school (which was sometimes attributed to overdependence), difficulties with teacher or work, dislike of meals, objections to toilets, Lrouble with other children, and finally, reluctance to participate in physical education. Many of the adjustment difficulties experienced by children at the time of school entry have to do with separation from caregivers and assimilation into the new group. Speers, McFarland, Arnaud and Curry (1y71) observed three year olds entering nursery school over a period of six years. They concluded that normal children regress temporarily to earlier sub-phases of the separation- individuation process upon school entry. Children ex­ perienced a strong need for the physical presence and active interest of their mothers during this period. Most children •» eventually worked through this time with help and support from parents and school staff. Feldbaum, Christenson and

O’Neal (1980) describe the behavior of newcomers in the first week of preschool as high in spatial isolation and off-task behavior. Even when these three year-olds were on task they were not doing what their peers were doing, they were not

’’with" the group. This type of cautious, testing behavior means that children were trying to figure out their new . environment. They were assimilating the rules of participa­ tion and testing relationships with authorities and peers.

In short, they were assimilating new information and accom­ modating what they already knew in order to become full- fledged members of th is new social system called "school."

Speers et al. (1971) go so far as to predict that children who fail to regress, to step back and take stock, to "test the educational waters," may already have developed problems which might threaten future development. 38 The Process of School Adjustment Only one study could be found which directly addressed

children's initial school adjustment as a process .of changing

attitudes and behavior. Stendler and Young (1950) explored

the impact of beginning first grade upon the socialization of

250 children as reported by their mothers. Mothers wereinter­

viewed just prior to the beginning of school and at two months

into the school year, with a follow-up at eight months. In

general, children looked forward to going to school with a

high degree of favorable anticipation. They experienced a

change in self concept toward feeling "big" and important.

Children's behavior improved with school entry with regard to

responsibility, helpfulness, good humor, independence, and to some extent, self control. This trend toward improved be­

havior continued into the follow-up study for all

characteristics except patience (Stendler & Young, 1951a).

The authors gave no conclusive explanation for this

exception. No change was found in children's attitude toward maternal authority. However, some change in parental status was evident. Parents no longer appeared as onmipotent in

children's eyes. Children generally liked school and their

teacher very much at two months, and their feelings remained the same at eight months. The greatest adjustment children faced involved social relationships. Difficulties included aggressiveness of other children, exclusion from a desired group and experiencing different standards of good and bad. 39 Different patterns of adjustment were evident in that some

"problem" children improved and others did not.

A second study dealt with changes in children's

attitudes and behavior, but only secondarily (Klein & Ross,

1958). The real purpose of this study was to describe

kindergarten entry as a study of role transitions, primarily

for the 54 parents, 45 mothers and nine fathers who par­

ticipated in the group interviews. Predictably parents'

reports dealt more with items of children's behavior than with parent-child or parent-parent interaction:

All parents noted signs of increased stress or tension the first few weeks [of kinder­ garten] and some children reported directly to parents that they were or had been apprehensive during this time (p. 64).

These tensions were expressed in a wide range of individual

differences including: 1) physical reactions such as

stomach upsets, 2) regressive behavior like bed-wetting and

thumb sucking, 3) increased i r r i t a b i l i t y evident in physical

conflicts with siblings and verbal "freshness" with parents,

4) increased dependence on mothers, 5) generalized signs of

tension such as worried expressions, and changes in the amount

of verbalization, even a reluctance to go to school.

Factors Related to School Adjustment

Age. Hammond and Skipper (1962) identified 520 first- graders according to their very high or low adjustment scores.

A significant positive relationship was found between chronological age and high adjustment status, a finding which is re p lic a te d by Medinnus (1961) and M artin-Huff (Note 3, 1982). In a longitudinal study of 100 children from age

three Lo five years, Coleman et a l. (1977) concluded that

symptoms of behavior d isturbance and adjustment to. school decreased with age. Moore (1966), in another longitudinal

study, followed 164 normal children from birth to eleven years and found the difficulties adjusting to primary school decreased with age. Younger children in Klein’s (1980) study of two through fiv e year-olds i n i t i a l l y experienced more difficulties adjusting to group care; however, by three months they had, for the most part, overcome them. As children mature they seem to have fewer difficulties adjust­ ing to school, perhaps because of the development of a widening range of coping strategies learned through previous experiences and interactions. Gender. Gender is a frequently considered factor with regard to school adjustment. Some studies have concluded that boys have considerably more problems than girls (Martin-Huff,

Note 3, 1982), especially with regard to coping with personal needs, physical coordination and fine motor control, (Hughes et al., 1979) and restlessness and aggressiveness (Chazan &

Jackson, 1971). Moore (1966) qualified his findings by re­ porting that boys have more school difficulties than girls, but only after age seven or eight. Boys who were only children had the most school adjustment problems in Moore's study. Coleman et a l . (1977) found no sig n ific a n t differen ces on the basis of gender in the relationship between behavior disturbance at home, and adjustment to school at any age. 41 However, school behavior and adjustment difficulties were

linked to overactivity at home for boys, and with separation

difficulties in girls. Osterlind (1980) reported no

significant differences between the adjustment of girls and

boys entering kindergarten on the basis of whether they had

preschool experience or not.

Feldbaum et a l. (1980) observed that female newcomers in

the preschool were more teacher-oriented than boys. After

four weeks the new boys approximated host levels of inter­

action but girls remained spatially isolated, object-oriented,

and engaged in high levels of on-task behavior which were not

in synchrony with their peers. On the contrary, the five and

six year-olds studied by Chazan and Jackson (1971) exhibited

withdrawn behavior to the same extent, but these children were

older and were not observed over time as the preschoolers were. In a three-month study of three year-old boys and girls by Klein and Roddy (1979), children beginning group care exhibited

equivalent patterns of adjustment. One explanation was that

all of the children had working mothers so that there were possibly fewer sex stereotypes among this group. In the same

study adjustment increased with age for males. The evidence on sex differences in adjustment is in­

conclusive. The findings seem to be re lated to age,

individual personality traits, school expectations, and other circumstances. 42 Preschool experience. Thompson (1975) had teachers ra te the adjustment of 353 children entering infant school. About half of them had some preschool experience, and these children received better ratings, but only on the cognitive measures.

No differences were found with regard to social or emotional adjustment on the basis of preschool experience in this study. Osterlind (1980) concluded that preschool experience was associated with greater social and emotional maturity in kindergartners, but preschool attendance made no significant impact on the academic or social adjustment of the children in kindergarten. In addition, although preschool made no difference in academic potential, it was significantly related to reading readiness ability in kindergarten. Martin-Huff

(Mole 3, 1982) found that preschool experience contributed to physical adjustment such as large and fine motor skills.

Hammond and Skipper (1962) found that attendance in kinder­ garten was significantly related to high adjustment scores from teachers in first grade.

All preschool programs are different. The extent to which the preschool program matches the kindergarten program probably plays an important part in children's adjustment. Evidently though, there is enough difference between any pre­ school program and kindergarten or first grade, at least as perceived by children, that even children with preschool experience have to undergo an adjustment process, because kindergarten is "real school"C hildren are asked again to 43 risk separation for new horizons which have not yet been defined" (Anderson, 1976, p. 19). Some preschool experiences seem to help ch ild ren meet the in te lle c tu a l demands of kindergarten and maybe even the physical demands. Some pre­ school programs help with easing the emotional or social adjustment associated with separation from caregivers and assimilation into a new situation. Children who experience adjustment problems in nursery school do tend to have adjust­ ment problems ini later school life and these problems tend to be of the same order according to Westman, Rice and Bermann

(1976), who followed 130 children through high school. The stability of adjustment difficulties over time has also been noted by Coleman et a l . (1977) and Hughes et al . (1979). Socioeconomic status. Chazan and Jackson (1971) ob­ served no differences between the school behavior problems of

726 children in the "deprived" and "settled working class."

But in comparing the behavior of children of deprived and middle class, the deprived children had significantly more problems, and these were related to restlessness and aggressiveness. This study was conducted in Wales, where very little difference was found between rural and urban children. Hammond and Skipper (1962) concluded that first grade adjustment, as evaluated by teachers, was positively related to socioeconomic status, but Moore (1966) found that children of manual labor or working class parents had significantly fewer adjustment problems than any other group. 44 Since parents had to volunteer to be in Moore's longitudinal

study, all families were educationally oriented. -In light

of the model fo r c ris e s proposed by H ill (1949), i t seems that socioeconomic status directly affects a family's resources to

deal with a transition event or developmental task.

Family size and constellation. Contrary to the finding

of Moore (1966) that males who are only-children have high

incidences of school adjustment problems, Hammond and Skipper

(1962) found no significant relationship between adjustment

and family size, or children's ordinal position in the

family. They speculated that perhaps the quality of family relationships is a more important consideration than family demographics. Moore also reported significantly fewer problems in six to eight year-olds who had siblings, whether older or younger. Martin-Huff (Note 3, 1982) explained that later born children in her sample may have had higher adjustment scores because they had been familiarized with the school and with school work by older siblings, who sometimes even had the same kindergarten teacher.

Individual differences. Individual differences in cognitive capability, social development, emotional maturity, and unique personality traits all seem to be related to how children adjust to school. Cognitive capability seems especially well documented as a contributor to adjustment.

Medinnus (1961) calculated a high positive relationship be­ tween first grade adjustment and intelligence quotient. 45 According to Hammond and Skipper (1962) there is a significant positive relationship between adjustment status and scores on reading readiness tests. Of course, the cognitive•prerequisites for school adjustment depend on the intellectual demands of the specific kindergarten program. Medinnus (1961) warns that although intelligence plays a significant role in children's adjustment, it does not solely account for the variance in adjustment scores. He suggested consideration of emotional maturity as a factor. Some aspects of emotional maturity have a cognitive basis. Egocentrism, children's inability to decenter and take the perspective of another, is a cognitive competence. In a study of normal fourth graders at three months into the school year, Burka and

Glenwick (1978) found that egocentrism was negatively related to classroom adjustment for both boys and girls and was negatively related to peer group status for boys. With girls, egocentrism was associated with shy, anxious behavior and with boys it manifested itself in "acting out" and often resulted in learning difficulties. Since egocentrism is related to cognitive development it is reasonable to assume that cognitively precocious five and six year-olds who are less egocentric than their peers, might adjust more easily to school. Children's ability to manipulate language and alter interaction patterns in the new context of school was related to adjustment in a case-study done by Mart in-Huff (Note 3, 1982). 46 Temperament has also been associated with school adjust­

ment. Klein (1980) discovered a negative relationship

between activity level of children ranging from two to three

years old who were adjusting to group care. Scholom, Zucker

and Stollack (1979) found infant temperament, specifically mood, to be related positively to adjustment in four year-old girls. No significant relationship between temperament and adjustm ent was reported fo r boys. In a d d itio n , i t seemed that girls adjusted better if they were similar in temperament to both parents, but father-son heterogeneity was related to adjustment in boys.

Parents and caregivers. Certain parental behaviors and attitudes have been associated with children's adjustment.

Scholom et a l. (1979) found that maternal mood was signifi­ cantly related to adjustment in children across sexes. Dif­ ferent patterns of parental nurturance and control affected three year-olds' separation responses with nursery school entry (B1oom-Fleshbach et a l., 1980). Case-studies revealed that the nature of parental differences, and the father-child relationship, in particular, were associated with the quality of nursery school adjustment. Parents' personalities may influence adjustment indirectly.

For example, one result of immaturity in a parent's person­ ality may be an overdependent child, a characteristic often associated with poor school adjustment (Moore, 1966). Klein 47 (1980) emphasized the importance of caregivers altering

their standards of adjustment to match children's developmental

le v e ls.

Parental attitudes, especially mothers' attitudes toward

their children, their role as parents, and their attitudes

about education in general, are related to children's adjust­

ment (Martin-Huff, Note 3, 1982). For example, Martin-Huff

found that mothers' anxieties about separation were negatively

related to children's adjustment. Children who perceive their

parents as supportive of school life, whether they are indeed

supportive or noL, utilize their abilities more fully than

those children who perceive parents as less supportive (Fox,

L ip p ett & Schmuck, 1964).

Apparently parents' perceptions of school adjustment based on children's home behavior, are not very similar to teachers' appraisals of school adjustment based on children's

school behavior. Medinnus (1963) found that parents' de­

scriptions of the values and behaviors of their five year-olds were not highly predictive ofschildren's adjustment to first grade. Coleman et a l. (1977) found that mothers' perceptions of symptoms of d istu rb ed behavior of c h ild re n at th ree to four years had "no prognostic significance" for later school adjustment. They hypothesized that children may behave quite

differently at home and at school, or parents and teachers may

perceive identical behavior in very different ways. In 48 addition, teachers have other children of similar age con­ stantly available to use as a comparison for "normal" behavior and parents do not usually have this resource.

School-related factors and adjustment. Generally, children who join an existing class or an on-going group of children, such as in instances where there is a September and a January reception class, have more difficulties in adjust­ ment (Hughes et al.,1979). However, a child joining a group individually, such as on their birth date, may adjust more easily (Palmer, 1971) because the teacher and peers are able to give this child special attention. Larger class size is speculated to inhibit adjustment (Hughes et al.,1979; Moore,

1966), but this has not yet been documented by research.

Many problems with school adjustment are possibly caused by the teacher, the organization of the school and societal pressures related to education (Moore, 1966), but again this lacks verification to date. Fox et al. (1964) report a positive relationship between children's perceived liking status with the teacher and peers, and children's self concept utilization of ability, outgoingness, and attitude toward sch o o l.

To summarize, school adjustment is a period of increased tension for children. They may exhibit a brief period of regressive behavior associated with separation and assimila­ tion into the new role of student, but this is generally followed by an overall liking of school and a trend toward improved, or at least mature behavior. The factors which 49 appear to be clearly related to children's school adjustment are children's age, preschool experience, socioeconomic status, cognitive ability, temperament, parents' attitudes, parenting style and school factors, such as the policy of staggered entry.

A factor which is probably not directly related to school adjustment is parents' perceptions of children's school adjust­ ment. The evidence on the relationship between children's school adjustment and children's gender, family size, and constellation is inconclusive.

Parents' Adjustment to Children's Initial School Entry

Children's school entry constitutes an ecological transi­ tion for parents as well as for children. "It's not easy to be the parent of a kindergartner" (Raum, Note 4, 19 ). Some parents perceive that their position of authority in child­ ren's lives is threatened. They are expected to reinforce the children's learning at home, but children say that the parent

"doesn't do it right." Children's carry-over of school rules and routines into the home can cause ridiculous situations, such as lining up to use the bathroom and raising hands for permission to speak at the dinner table.

Parents Feelings About School Entry

Often parents experience what Galinsky (1981) calls

"push-pull" feelings about children's school entry. They want their children to be independent, yet they want their children to continue to need them. They sometimes feel as if they are losing control over the children and their world 50 as il widens to include school, teachers, and peers.

Whether parents like it or not, because our society has mandated it, the delegation of the function of educating their children shifts from the family to the institution called school (Rapoport, 1977).

There are many expectations associated with school entry. Sometimes parents are surprised that, instead of the joy and pride that they expected to feel, they experience sadness or depression as a reaction to separation from their children (Rapoport, 1977), and jealousy and resentment as the teacher gains a position of authority in the children's lives

(LightiooL, 1981). Teachers are sometimes too busyfeeling

"judged" by parents to notice, but parents often feel that teachers and schools are evaluating them on the basis of their children's performance at school (Galinsky, 1981; Radi, 1973;

Rapoport, 1977). Children are often seen as representatives of their families, almost as "little ambassadors" (Galinsky, 1981 .)

A study by Klein and Ross (1958) addressed kindergarten entry as a study of role transitions for family members. Fifty-four volunteer parents, representing 46 families, participated in weekly group interviews over a six week period following school entry. They concluded that: Kindergarten entry is an emotionally hazardous circumstance in that if represents a time-limited transition period marked by increased tension within the family group (p. 26). Parents were surprised, and even a bit disconcerted, about 51 the rapidity with which children learned new skills and

developed new ways of relating to their parents. rParental

concerns fell into these groups: 1) anticipatory tensions

which involved factors in children's histories and present

situations which might help or hinder adjustment, 2) reac­

tions to separation which ranged from let down and vague dis­

satisfaction to confusing sadness when parents had expected to

feel relief and happiness that their children were growing up, 3) value conflicts such as conformity versus individuality, restraint from aggression versus defending one's self, and

learning to get along with the opposite sex versus premature cross-sex relationships, 4) changes in the parental role itself. These changes included direct annoyance with children for holding the teacher up as an authority, expression of feelings of inadequacy when compared to the teacher, annoyance with children or the school due to feelings of being "left in the dark" about some things pertaining to school, and direct criticism of the teacher for mishandling some classroom crisis, usu ally regarding someone e l s e 's ch ild . Klein and Ross concluded If appears that the transition period is marked by a regular sequence of phases in the adaptation process as reflected by the emotional reactions of the parents (p. 26).

These phases were: 1) anticipatory concerns, 2) relief that the waiting was finally over and the child was successfully off to school, 3) attempts at role redefinition and reconstruction of meaningful parent-child ties, 4) restoration of equilibrium.

Hock et a l. (1980) examined children's school entry as a 52 stressful event in the lives of fathers. Forty fathers of kindergartners who were part of a larger longitudinal study particapted in telephone interviews within five days of children's first day of school. "More than 50 percent of the fathers reported feeling anxious about their child's entry into school" (p. 469). Twenty-five percent of the fathers reported "a lot" of anxiety and 28 percent reported "some" anxiety concerning children's school entry. Mothers' reported about the same degree of anxiety, with 22 percent reporting

"a lot" and 40 percent reporting "some" anxiety surrounding school entry. Communication between parents was given as a possible explanation for this congruence of parents' feelings.

The three dependent measures: anxiety, sadness, and duration of sadness, correlated significantly. Fathers' sadness was negatively correlated with confidence in the good quality of children's school experience. Confidence in good quality ex­ perience was positively related to a father's closeness with his ch ild . Hock et a l. (Note 2, 1982) did a survey of mothers of children entering public school for the first time, either in kindergarten or first grade, in order to investigate the critical ness of the school entry period in establishing the parent-school relationship. The survey was conducted one month before school began, so anticipatory tensions'were of primary interest. They found that the period of school entry was indeed an important family life cycle event.

Mothers' feelings, expectations, and beliefs about the 53 effects of school entry were classified according to three

main themes: 1) nostalgia, 2) life cycle eventv 3) letting go. The authors state:

[School entry] is a time when parents are particularly in need of and receptive to information and suggestion—a time when they are most lik e ly Lo act on in v ita tio n s to participate in school activities (p. i ). t They go on to say th a t: while most mothers expressed sadness about their child's going to school, they also seemed ex cited and happy - th e ir over­ whelming response toward the school i t s e l f was p o sitiv e (p. 3-4).

Anticipatory tensions tend to be related to the family's definition of school entry, the stressor event (C) in Hill's

(1949) model. The areas discussed by the parents in the Klein and Ross (1958) study were: 1) the expectations and atti­

tudes fostered by older siblings and neighborhood children,

2) the nature and extent of children's experiences with other children, 3) the availability of neighborhood friends in the kindergarten itself, 4) the degree to which

children were geared toward educational goals, 5) the

degree to which families had anticipated the nature of

school adjustment in discussions with children and had

used appropriate books and specific ways of relating

children to the school environment, such as trips to the

grounds, meeting the teacher and visiting the kindergarten

class. Some concern focused on real or imagined physical 54 dangers, such as transportation to and from school, older children bullying the kindergartners, and the safe use of playground equipment.

However, the more general and probably more fundamental concern about rejection, criticism and attack [from children] were expressed in all [of the parent interview] groups (p. 66).

The "nostalgia" described in the Hock et al . (Note

1982) study is somewhat p a ra lle l to what Klein and Ross

(1958) termed "reactions to separation." For a long time separation research has dealt only with children's responses.

More recently, with the growing awareness of the reciprocal nature of relationships, mothers', and even fathers', reactions to separation are being considered. The period of nostalgia involves parents' feelings of sadness because they are "losing their baby." This may even be a rehearsal for the feelings which parents will experience when children are grown and leave home. Some parents may feel r e l i e f to be away from their children for a short time. After all, society says that five year-olds are supposed to be away from their parents, for their own good. And still others may feel guilt over the relief itself, feeling that good parents should want to spend as much time as possible with their children (Radi, 1973).

School entry has been discussed as a life cycle event.

However, children's school entry is a life marker, a milestone for parents as well as children. It is a time when parents are likely to reexamine their own life goals 55 and aspirations to see if they are where they expected to

be by the time "when the kids are in school." Mothers,

especially those who have not previously been employed out­

side of the home, may use th is time to try something new.

Some may seek employment and others might pursue a hobby.

Factors Related to Parents* Adjust­ ment to Children's School Entry Just as with children's adjustment, certain factors affect the adjustment of parents to children's school entry.

Socioeconomic status. Very few studies have examined factors related to parents' adjustment to school entry, but

Stendler and Young (1951b) did look at social class differ­ ences in parental attitudes toward education. No social class differences were found with regard to criticism of the school in two interviews with 250 mothers of first-graders. Higher socioeconomic status was associated with children's attendance at preschool, their academic preparation for school and parents' higher educational aspirations for their children. Middle socioeconomic status was associated with attaching the most emphasis to report cards and teachers' reports as evaluation of children. Upper-class parents regarded report cards with some reservation and continued to hold higher standards for their children. It was necessary for parents of children in predominately lower- class schools to attend a teacher conference in order to receive a report of children's performance. Most lower- 56 class parents did not attend*the conference, giving excuses related to time or distance from the school, without transportation to get there.

Hock et a l. (1982) concluded that mothers and fathers of lower socioeconomic status experienced more sadness and anxiety, and their sadness persisted for a longer period of time. H ill's (1949) model} which suggested that lower status families have fewer resources (B), both financial and psycho­ logical, to deal with stressful events might be a plausible explanation for this relationship. Financial strains involved with school entry might include purchasing children's clothes, shoes and school supplies, paying for workbooks, and possibly applying for free or reduced lunches, or milk. Since socio­ economic status is a direct function of employment status, it is reasonable to assume that families facing unemployment, another stressor event, would also have fewer resources for dealing with school entry)and they Loo would be more prone to stress and anxiety at this time.

Regardless of socioeconomic status or type of family structure, most parents are deeply committed to ensuring the well-being of their children (Bronfenbrenner, 1979b).

Most families are doing the best they can under difficult circumstances; what I edu­ cators] should try to do is change the circumstances, not the families (p. 849).

Psychological support systems. Although no studies could be found which address this issue directly, it is probable that parents who have a spouse, close friend or 57 relative with whom to discuss their feelings can use their.

as a valuable psychological resource (B) during this period of adjustment. This person's support capability might be enhanced if they have had some positive experience with school entry which they are able to share, such as having had a child go to the same school as the kindergarten entrant will attend. A few studies have considered marital status as a factor of school adjustment and some have chosen to include only two parent families in their study, for example Martin-Huff (Note 3, 1982). Both Hock et a l. (1982) and

Martin-Huff (Note 3, 1982) concluded that mothers' and fathers' separation attitudes are positively related, and

Hock et a l. (1982) suggested that communication between mothers and fathers about their feelings might explain this congruence. It would be interesting to see if single parents find psychological support from individuals other than spouses.

Parent's Educational Experiences and Attitudes

Martin-Huff (Note 3, 1982) discovered that both mothers' and fathers' anxiety about separation from children with school entry was less if they valued education. Certainly parents' own experiences in school (C) affect their definition of school entry.

In summary, parental anxiety and sadness about children going Lo school is normal. Indeed, some degree of parental concern is, more than likely, desirable. An apathetic parent 58 could hardly motivate children toward school adjustment and eventual school success. The ambivalence experienced by parents can be productive if it spurs them to rede-fine their role as parents and to reconstruct their relationship with the children.

The School and Adjustment

It has long been a widely-held assumption that teachers and school personnel can find out about children's family and home life by observing their behavior and attitudes while at school (Raum, Note 4, 19 ). Furthermore, children's background of experiences and values are commonly used to predict adjustment to school and eventual school success. If children's home background is determined to be somehow deficient, or at least different, from the white, middle- class norm of American education, then remedial or enrich­ ment programs are lik e ly to be p rescrib ed . Head S ta rt and

Sesame Street are two popular examples of programs originated from this model.

In light of the reciprocal nature of any relationship,

(Bronfenbrenner, 1979a), the school and its actors likewise bear the potential to influence children's home and family life. Further, observation of children's behavior and atti­ tudes at home following school entry might reflect the influence of the school in the lives of children and fa m ilie s. 59 School Policies and Adjustment The discussion of the effects of school related factors such as entrance schedule, class size, and characteristics of the teacher, are largely based on speculation and there­ fore, are not well documented by research (See School related factors and adjustment under Children and School Adjustment, on p. 48-49 of this chapter.)

Intervention studies pertaining to school entry do, how­ ever, provide some evidence in favor of certain school prac­ tices. Schwartz and Uynn (1971) randomly assigned 104 four year-olds to classes balanced according to sex and pre­ school experience. Accompanied by their mothers, one group group experienced a pre-visit to their classroom. Mothers ot another group of children were encouraged to stay with their children for 20 minutes each day, for as many days as children indicated that they wanted Lheir mothers' presence. All other mothers were required to depart im­ mediately. Prior preschool visits were associated with ease of separation from mothers but the differences were not noticeable after 40 minutes. Either Lhe pre-visit or mothers' continued presence was associated with greater ease of separation than both or neither treatments. Both a pre­ visit and mothers' presence prolonged children's dependence on their mothers. No main effects interacted with sex, and no effects of treatment were evident late in the first ses­ sion or in follow-ups at five weeks. The authors suggested 60 that perhaps the effects were not more dramatic because all of the mothers remained in the building, and because all of the classes began with short one-hour sessions.

In a longitudinal study of two year-olds, Weinraub and

Lewis (1977) randomly assigned mothers as to departure style.

Some mothers were instructed to tell their children of their leaving and quick return, and to give children explicit instructions of what to do in their absence. The other mothers were given no directions for departure. Children two years and older were able to understand language, and they used it to iorm complex cognitive structures with which to interpret the separation event, mothers' departure, and her eventual return. These children were most likely to play and least likely to cry in their mothers' absence.

Weinraub and Lewis told of one five year-old girl who was terrified of being left at kindergarten by her mother. She had spent two years at preschool in a different location without upset. When asked why she was upset, she said it was because she did not know how to get home from school — she had no "cognitive map." The girl was taught the way to and from school and adjustment followed.

Suggestions to facilitate school adjustment are numerous and come from a wide variety of sources. Anderson's (1976) advice to parents was to prepare children for school entry by honestly talking with them about what to expect, to treat school entry as a "given" with no choice of whether or not to go, to resist forcing exuberance from children, and to beware 61 of displaying parental anxiety which might be contagious. In addition to these ideas Palmer (1971) and Strom (1:978) recom­ mended pre-visits and play sessions be arranged for children at the school setting. Several sources suggested that care­ givers be encouraged to stay with children for as long as ch ild ren seem to need them. They could gradually decrease the time spent with children or remove themselves from children’s presence while still remaining close by. Con­ versely, Palmer (1971) recommended a quick, firm departure on the part of the caregiver. The research evidence, as presented above, is inconclusive concerning pre-visits and departure style.

In addition, Palmer (1971) advocated staggered admission, semi-annual reception classes, "family grouping," and flexible scheduling based on children's ages and maturity. A sound argument based on theories of child de­ velopment could, no doubt, be made for each of these practical suggestions but again, the fact remains that none of these ideas have been conclusively substantiated by re­ search .

On the other hand, some of the propositions supported by research seem very impractical. One example is a somewhat successful attempt to train 113 so-called "maladjusted" inner-city four year-olds in problem solving skills, in order to improve benavioral adjustment (Shure, 1979). Many of the thinking skills supposedly "taught" to these children, 62 such as considering alternatives, are the result of cognitive maturity and are usually learned by children withcjuL "train­

ing."

Establishing tHe Home-School Relationship

The only widely held belief which does have research

support is the importance of establishing a coopera* i^e

relationship between home and school, parents and teacher, as a means of facilitating school adjustment. The importance

of links, or bridges, between children's contexts of develop­

ment has been repeatedly emphasized (Bronfenbrenner, 1979a;

Hobbs, 1981; Lightfoot, 1981; Martin-Huff, Note 3, 1981).

Palmer (1971) summarized the conclusion of the Plowden National Survey:

Attitudes of parents toward children's primary school and their interest in his education there, formed the most potent single group of factors affecting the child's attainment - more important ... than either the quality of the school or the circumstances of the home (p. 50).

Hock et a l. (Note 2, 1982) suggested that because school entry defines a time of "heightened interest and receptivity

...it is a critical period in the formation of the parent- school bond" (p. 6). Palmer (1971) agreed that there is no better time for establishing a good home-school relationship than when children are just starting school.

Once again the suggestions for facilitating this rela­ tionship are numerous. Recommendations include meetings and correspondence to let parents know that their ambivalence 63 about school entry is normal, invitations to parents to visit

the school and meet the school personnel before school begins, having school personnel always available to answer-parents'

questions, and encouraging parents to choose ways to be in­ volved in the classroom or school (Hock et al., Note 2,

1982). Most importantly, schools and teachers must truly respect and value the exclusive position of parents and

families in children’s lives (Lightfoot, 1981). They must

find ways to convey this appreciation of parents as

children's first and most important teachers. Even then the

home-school relationship will inevitably involve conflict

because "some measure of difference and dissonnance is not

only historically determined, but is also functional for

[children's] growth and societal change" (Lightfoot, 1981,

p. 101). Increased communication and shared responsibility

can minimize the conflict and contribute to the school

adjustment of children and families. Schools generally prefer to rely on their own internal

resources to cope with adjustment problems (Chazan &

Jackson, 1971). Considering the suggestion that support,

empathy, reassurance, unconditional positive regard, inter­

personal warmth, communication of feelings, maximizing

potential, and focusing on individual and family strengths

are the appropriate interventions for developmental crises

(McMurrain, 1975), schools and their personnel are probably

the best resource for parents and families. Many teachers,

principals and school staff already offer necessary support 64 to children, parents and families without really considering what they are doing. Research is needed to determine which specific school policies are positively related to-adjust- ment so that these might be taken into consideration when planning and implementing school programs.

Conclusion

The literature shows that school entry is an adjust­

ment process for children, their parents, and families.

According to parents, most children show signs of tension

over the first few weeks after school entry. Some children

initially exhibit responses to separation from caregivers,

and exposure to the new setting of school which may be

interpreted as regressive, such as crying or thumb-sucking.

In moderation these behaviors can be considered to be coping behaviors which facilitate future adjustment and develop­ ment. In excess, even coping strategies can be detrimental.

Children's behavior generally improves over the initial

school year, however, and children exhibit an attitude of feeling important as they live up to the expectation that they are finally "big enough to go to school." With children's initial school entry, parents (fathers as well as mothers) experience a period of increased sadness and anxiety which is time-limited and phase oriented. This ad­ justment period on the part of parents usually lasts for five or six weeks as parents reorganize their family's routines and reconstruct their relationship with their children to make room for the outside influence of others, sudh as teachers or peers.

Certain characteristics of children seem to be related to their school adjustment such as chronological age, pre­ school experience, cognitive ability, temperament, and gender although the evidence pertaining to sex differences in relation to adjustment is mixed, as is the information related to children’s ordinal position in the family and family size. In general, it seems that bright, middle- class girls who have been to preschool, and are not too active might adapt more easily to kindergarten than other children. The parental factors which influence children's adjustment to school are socioeconomic status, parenting style, and parents' attitudes concerning their children, their role as parents, and attitudes about education in general. School factors, such as the policy of staggered entry, may affect children’s adjustment, but these have not been documented by research. Socioeconomic status is the only known characteristic of families which may adversely affect parents' adjustment to children's initial school e n try . School entry and adjustm ent is a complex phenomenon which involves two primary contexts of children's develop­ ment, the family, and school systems. It necessitates changes in children's and parents' attitudes and behavior. 66 It also involves changes in relationships. Because the goal of this research is to describe the changes Sssociated with school entry, the data collection and analysis methods used in this study reflect the complexity of the phenomenon.

The following chapter describes the research methods employed in this study and provides a rationale for their use. CHAPTER THREE

METHODOLOGY

Problem Statement

The purpose of this sLudy is to describe the nature of kindergarten entry as a tra n s itio n phenomenon for ch ild ren and families. The specific goals of this study are:

1. to describe any changes in children's attitudes and behavior which parents attribute to be the result of kinder­ garten entry;

2. to describe any changes in parents' attitudes and behavior which parents attribute to be the result of children's entry into kindergarten;

3. to identify strategies kindergarten children employ in the adjustment process associated with kindergarten entry;

4. to explore the nature of the relation­ ship, if any, between parents' attitudes and behavior with regard to school entry and children's kindergarten adjustment;

5. to determine any differences in the kindergarten adjustment process on the basis of children's age, gender, preschool experience, birth order, type of transportation to and from school and kindergarten schedule; and paren ts' socioeconomic status, marital status and employment s ta tu s ;

6. to describe any existing patterns of initial school adjustment which may emerge from the d ata.

67 bt Methodological Rationale

The research reviewed in the preceding chapter illus­ trates the complexity of the school adjustment process.

Patterns, strategies and stages of school adjustment have been identified. Research pertaining to particular charac­ teristics of children and families as they are related to school adjustment have been discussed, and parents' attitudes about children's school entry as it affects their own lives have been described. The existing research on school entry has tended to focus on children within the school setting, but it is possibly the interaction between home and school, as primary contexts of children's development, which is most important.

Bronfenbrenner (1979a) emphasized that:

it is neither necessary nor possible to meet all the criteria for ecological research with­ in a single investigation (p. 14).

It is the goal of this particular study to meet as many of these criteria as possible within the limits of the project. This researcher believes that the combination of research strategies is the best way to obtain a comprehensive and accurate description of the ecological transition of school entry.

Bronfenbrenner proposed that the behavior in any given social setting can best be understood by an observer who has extensive experience in that setting. As a former kindergarten teacher in one of the school districts par­ 69 ticipating in the study, the researcher meets this quali­

fication. He further emphasized that the subjects’

definition of the situation is the key to understanding any

phenomenon. The subjects directly involved with school

entry are teachers, ch ild re n , p arents and family members.

The perceptions ol these participants were recorded in the

following manner.

Teachers' rating scales have traditionally been the measure of children’s school adjustment. Granted, teachers

are probably the best source of information regarding chil­ dren’s classroom behavior. Nursery school teachers were

found to be the best judges of children's relationships with peers and of behavioral eccentricity (U/estman et al. 1976). However, rating scales tend to measure adjustment in terms of good or bad, without consideration of the development of coping strategies which might be serviceable in moderation, or "detrimental in the extreme form" (Bronfenbrenner, 1979a, p. 179). Detailed, in-school observations of children, un­ hampered by the preconceived categories of rating scales, are one way which such coping strategies associated with kindergarten adjustment have been identified in this study.

Teachers are usually unable to observe individual children in such detail due to the demands of other children. There­ fore, a classroom observer is the best source of detailed

descriptionsof coping strategies exhibited by children as

they adjust to school. 70

In addition to the problems associated with rating

scales, there is another reason why teachers are not the

best persons to report cnanges in children's behavior and attitudes with school entry. Children who experience school entry do not exist solely at school. They continue to spend

the majority of their time at home with their parents and

families. Therefore, this researcher believes that parents of kindergartners are the best source of information regarding overall changes in children's attitudes and behavior with

school entry. For example, parents have been able to recog­ nize developmental delays in their own children and to distinguish between such delays and severe behavior distur­

bances (Vahn & Kogan, 1979J. However, parent report measures

have also been criticized for their shortcomings

(Humphreys & Cimenero, 1979J. They often re ly on p aren ts' recollections over long periods ot time. The survey in this study required parents to compare their children's and their own current status to their position only eight weeks e a r lie r . This study focused on the f i r s t eight weeks of school because the research indicates that most children adjust to school by this time (Stendler & Young, 1951aJ; Hughes et a l . 1979; Feldaum et a l. 1980 j. It has been argued that parents are able to report only their own perceptions concerning their children and these perceptions might stray far from reality. It could be argued that parents' perceptions concerning their children 71 and themselves are their "reality." They act and react on the basis of these perceptions. "Perceptions determine attitudes and behavior and are well worthy of consideration in their own right" (Moore, 1966, p. 34).

Finally, parent reports have almost always been used in isolation. The observation of children and families have been conducted only to validate parental reports. In the current study, observations of children and parents and interviews with parents have been conducted to describe and explain parental preports, as well as to validate them.

Moore (1966) summarized the use of parents as informants regarding children's school entry:

[Parents] do not w itness what goes on in school, nor can they be strictly impartial, their attitudes reflect their own school experiences, their feelings about educa­ tion, generally, and the degree of their identification with the child. Neverthe­ less, to dismiss their testimony as worth­ less would be to ignore one side of a question or which truly impartial evidence is scarcely to be had. For teachers also, being human, select what they perceive; and children do not reveal all their feelings to them, or to any investigator operating in the school environment (p. 17).

Bronfenbrenner (1979a) hypothesized that different settings "give rise to distinctive patterns of role, activity and relatio n " (p. 109). Coleman et a l. (1977) believed that children in their study may have behaved quite differently in the situations of home and school. Alternately, they proposed that teachers and parents might perceive the very same behavior in children quite differently. For these 72 reasons it was necessary to observe children at home and at school. Children's activities and relationships with other

people were the focus of these observations. Ecological

differences between home and school were reflected in the

"contrasting patterns of activities, roles and relations"

(Bronfenbrenner, 1979a, p. 183) in the two settings. Parents' attitudes about their children, themselves,

and school, certainly affect children's school adjustment.

The survey and parent interviews resulted in parents'

descriptions of their own attitudes concerning their chil­

dren's school entry. Changes in their relationships with

their children were also explored. In addition, parents'

reciprocal development necessitated by their position in

the"developmental system"(Bronfenbrenner, 1979a) with their

children, was examined.

Besides teachers and parents, children are, of course,

important participants m school entry. In this study,

children's perceptions concerning school entry were

obtained primarily through parents' reports of changes in

th e ir behavior and a ttitu d e s . T eacher's comments about

children were also considered. The researcher had an

opportunity to talk informally with each of the case-

study children concerning their feelings about going to school.

Besides p a re n ts, sib lin g s were the family members most affected by children's school entry. Most of the 73 information about kindergartner's siblings was also revealed in parents' reports. However, the researcher was able to observe three case-study children's inter­ actions with their siblings.

There were two data collection methods used in this study. They are the case-study and the survey question­ naire. The case-studies consisted of observations of four children at school and at home, and interviews with their parents. The purpose of the intensive examination of these few children's school adjustment was to provide depth to the understanding of this phenomenon. Bronfenbrenner

11979a) stated that:

research on ecological transitions - such as... changes in behavior at home as a function of the child's entry into and progress in school... by no means requires a large number of subjects (p. 39).

However, the questionnaire was administered to the parents of 100 randomly selected parent-child groups in order to ensure reliability of the instrument. The purpose of the survey was to provide a broad description of the kinder­ garten adjustment process of a group of children and fa m ilie s .

It is neither necessary nor even possible to obtain a complete picture of the re­ search situation as perceived by the participants (Bronfenbrenner, 1979a, p. 33).

Ecological validity is like adjustment, as described by

Tibbie (1959). It is never actually achieved but it can be approximated. The methods just described have been employed 74 in this study in an attempt to strive toward true ecological research, or the study of the relationships of normal chil­ dren as they make the transition between the natural settings of home and school. The specific research pro­ cedures and analyses are described in detail in the remainder of this chapter.

Subjects

Survey Sample One hundred parent-child groups were randomly selected

from a population of 445 such groups to participate in the

study survey. These 445 kindergarten children represent the entire kindergarten enrollment of both school districts in a rural Mid-West county. The children were divided into 18

classes with ten teachers. Two hundred thirty-four children attended kindergarten daily for two and one-half hours in one

school district. In the other school district, the remaining

211 ch ild ren attended kindergarten a l l day, e ith e r on Mondays,

Wednesdays and alternate Fridays, or on Tuesdays, Thursdays and alternate Friday-s.

Eight of the teachers had double sessions, three in the district with the daily, half-day schedules. Two more of the teachers each taught one half-day session in a single class­ room. All five teachers had double sessions in the d i s t r i c t with the alternate, full-day schedule. 75 Three families were eliminated from the 100 in the original sample* Two of these families moved out of the area before the eighth week of school. The third family decided not to send their child to kindergarten until the following year.

One hundred nine parents or caregivers representing 72 fami­ lies, responded to the survey. Five of these parent-child groups were eliminated for various reasons. One parent re­ turned an incomplete questionnaire; one family moved from one of the school districts in the study to the other; a mother of twins completed one form on each child; two grandmothers' re­ sponses were eliminated from consideration. Usable responses remained for 101 parent.s or caregivers representing 67 families.

The responses included those of 60 mothers, 38 fathers, two step-mothers and one step-father.

Thirty-five ( 52%) of the 67 children were boys. The mean age was 66.7 months with a range from 61 to 78 months. Fifty- three percent had some preschool experience. Sixty-one chil­ dren 191%) rode the bus to and from school. Twenty-eight 1557.J of the 51 children for which sibling data was available were later-born children in their families. Fifty-one percent

i of the children attended the alternate, full-day kindergarten program. Thirty-four couples responded to the survey. Twenty- seven mothers, one step-mother and five fathers returned single questionnaires. Eighty-six of the respondents were married. Eighty-five parents were between the ages of 23 and 76 35 years. Two parents were younger and 14 were older. The mean years of education was 11.9 years with a range from eight to 17 years. The research subjects were from middle or work­ ing class families. The Duncan Socio-economic Index (Mueller and Parcel, ly81), which is based on the occupational status of the head of household, was calculated for each family.

The highest status member for either working parent was assigned as the family’s status. The 14 non-working mothers who returned single questionnaires were not included in this calculation, nor were the 11 families in which neither parent was employed. Forty-seven of the respondents were employed, 36 were homemakers and 19 considered them­ selves to be unemployed. The mean score was 33.1, with a range of 16.8 to 79.5, which indicated a middle-class sample. Case-Study Subjects In one of the school districts, all of the kindergarten classrooms were in one building. In this district, a portion of the first day of school consisted of teachers talking with parents about kindergarten. Kindergarten children were present at the meetings, but they were, for the most part, occupied with activities which their teachers had given them. The re­ searcher explained the parent interview and observation aspects of this study to each group of kindergarten parents, at these meetings. In addition, a letter explaining the study and bearing the endorsement of the superintendent was distributed 77 (See copy of letter in Appendix C.) Twenty-five parents in this district volunteered to participate in this part of the study.

In the other school district parents were encouraged to have their children ride the bus to school on the very first day of school. There was no formal parent-teacher meeting at this time, but parents were invited to meet children at the school as they got off the bus and to see them settled.

In this district there were kindergarten classes in six different buildings. because travel between buildings to observe children was necessary, one building was chosen according to its proximity to the kindergarten building in the other school district. In this district kindergarten chil­ dren entered on a staggered schedule beginning on the first day of school, with half of each class beginning each sub­ sequent day that week. The researcher was present at this building each morning that week to explain the parent inter­ view and observation portions of this study. A copy of the explanation letter, bearing the signature of the super­ intendent was given to each parent who met their child's bus. Six parents in this district volunteered to partici­ pate in this part of the study. Kindergarten teachers in each district were asked to eliminate names of parent-child groups from the lists of volunteer fam ilies i f c h ild re n seemed upset on the f i r s t day of school, or if teachers' knowledge and prior experience with the family led them to believe that the child's kinder- garten adjustment would not be "normal.” The four case-study children were selected on the basis of the following criteria:

1) two ch ild ren from each of the school d is tric ts ., 2) one child from each kindergarten session imorning, afternoon, Monday-Wednesday and Tuesday-Thursday), and 3} one boy and one girl from each district, 4) each child in a different teacher's classroom, and 5) a variety of family constella­ tion patterns (oldest, youngest and only children}.

Both the mean education level (i4.67) and mean employ­ ment status (47.5} were higher for the case-study families than for the total sample. The mean age of the children at the time of the questionnaire mailing 169.2 months) was also s lig h tly higher than the sample mean.

Instrumentation

The Changes in Children and Parents with School Entry

questionnaire iBeery, Note 1, 1982, Appendix B) was designed

especially for this study. Ideas for questions on the

original form came from other school adjustment instruments

and studies (Medinnus, 1961; Schaefer & Bell, 1958; Hock et

a l ., 1980). Tne two subscales assess p aren ts' perceptions

ol changes in lj their child's attitudes and behavior, 2)

parents' own attitudes and behaviors,3} family life since

school entry. There are 45, five-point Likert items, four

open-ended questions, and 11 demographic questions. The ques­

tionnaire was pilot-tested in the fifth week of school with 40

parents of kindergartners, which constituted one class in a 79 rural school district similar to those in the actual study.

The total Cronbach alpha reliability coefficient for the pilot questionnaire was . 85. Some items were deleted to in­ crease reliability, and parents' suggestions for improving the questionnaire's contents and format were considered in the revision for the final form (See Appendix A for original, pilot test form of questionnaire .) The internal consistency of the final instrument was computed using Cronbach's coefficient alpha (Guilford, 1954, p. 385). The combined standardized alpha coefficient for the

study sample on the total Change in Children and Parents with School Entry questionnaire was also .85 with a = .98 on the

Children suhscaie and a = .75 on the Parent subscale.

No interview guide per se was developed for the inter­ views with parents. At the first meeting with parents the

following questions were addressed: 1; What changes, if any have you noticed in your child's attitudes or behavior which you attribute to be the result of the kindergarten experience? How do you teel about these changes?

2) What changes, if any, have you noticed in your own attitude or behavior, or in family life, which you attribute to be the result oi your child's entry into kindergarten? How do you teel about these changes?

At the second meeting with parents the Changes in

Children and Parents with School Entry questionnaire was dis­ cussed item-by-item to see if the questions were pertinent to

each amiiy and child. Parents also contributed feedback

concerning the completion of the questionnaire itself at this 80 time. Parents had been asked to take notes about changes

they noticed between interviews. In the remaining interviews they told anecdotes aDOut the children related to school entry, and asked the researcher specific questions pertaining to the school situation. The researcher reported changes noticed in children’s attitudes or behavior at school, and parents com­ mented on and discussed these changes. Before each interview the researcher reviewed prior interview material and made notes ot topics which warranted follow-up. In addition, situations and observations germaine to one case-study family were men­ tioned to the other families to see if they were pertinent.

Data Collection

Survey procedures. Questionnaire packets were mailed eight weeks into the school year. Each packet contained two copies of the Changes in Children and Parents with School

Entry questionnaire, one Ohio State pencil, a self-addressed, stamped envelope and a cover letter bearing the endorsement of the respective superintendent of schools. The letter explain­ ed the purpose of tne research, the confidentiality ot the responses and the necessity of subject numbers on the ques­ tionnaires (Appendix C). Two questionnaires per family were provided in an attempt to obtain data from both fathers and mothers wherever possible. The mailing date closely followed parent-teacher conferences in each school district since it is usually assumed by schools and teachers that children should have adjusted to school by that tim e. 81 Following Dillman’s (1978J method for mailed sur­ veys, post cards were mailed to all 100 tamilies one week

later as Doth a thanks to those who had already returned

their questionnaires and a reminder to others (Appendix

C). Follow-up letters and second questionnaires were mailed three weeks after the initial mailing (Appendix

C). Third questionnaires and letters were mailed Special

Delivery to nonresponoents seven weeks after the initial mailing. (Copies ot this correspondence is available in

Appendix C .) Eleven weeks after the initial mailing, a random sample of nonrespondents was contacted by telephone and data was collected to compare to data from earlier respondents.

School Observations

Prior to the beginning of school the researcher met with the kindergarten teachers in each school district to explain the purpose of the research and to collect copies ot teacher’s rosters. Permission was obtained to observe in each teacher's classroom. During the first week ot school the study was explained to parents who were present at the school sites. The names ot volunteer families were collected. Observations of groups of children on their first day of school were also made. The case-study families were selected. Observations of the case-study children began in the second week ot school. Each child was observed at least twice a week during the second and third TABLE 1

OBSERVATION SCHEDULE

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

Week I Met parents at school, explained study and collected names 8/22-8/28 of volunteers. Observed first day routine in classrooms as children entered on staggered schedule 9:15-11:15 B 9-11:15 B 9:40-11 A 9:30-10 B 9:30-10 A Week II 11:50-12 R 12:20-2:20 M 11:40-12 R 8/29-9/4 1:15-2 R

8:55-9:30 B 9:40-12 R 4 :4 0 - l l :* 5 A 9-12:30 ft 12:15-12:45 M 11:30-12 R Week III Holiday 9:50-11:45 A 9/5-9/11 1:30-2:30 M

9:05-9:35 B *10:30-11:45 M 10-10:30 A Week IV 9:50-11 R 9/12-9/18 12:15-1 M

10:40-11:30 B Week V 12:55-2 M 9/19-9/25 2:25-3:35 A *4:30-5:30 A

Week VI 1:40-2:45 M 9/2b-10/2 3:05-3:40 A

10:15-11:30 B Week VII 10/3-10/9

*4:50-5:20 R Week VIII (at sitter's) 10/10-10/16

* Indicates observations of children at home, all other observations were at school. A r- Amy B = Becky M = Matthew R = Robbie 83 weeks ot school. They were each observed about once a week

in the fourth and fifth weeks of school. Each child was observed once again in the sixth, seventh or eighth week.

(See Table 1, p. 8?.) A total ot 29 hours was spent in direct observation ot children. Each child was observed tor the following amount ot time:

Amy...... 430minutes Becky ...... 503minutes Matthew...... 460minutes Robbie ...... 345minutes

The participant-observer participates in activities appropriate to the situation and observes people, activities and physical aspects ot the setting (Spradley, 1980J. The researcher did not actually participate in school activities, such as games, play and paper-pencil activities for fear of being obtrusive and interfering with the teachers' purposes.

The investigator did, however, attempt to take the perspective ot a kindergarten child, a newcomer in the school setting.

In the kindergarten classroom the observer was stationed near case-study children. She made detailed written records ot the physical settings, activities, and interactions ot each classroom in relation to the case-study children. Both ob­ jective observations and subjective feelings were recorded in these field notes. The notes consisted of sketches,quotes, events, terms, activities, and perceptions of which the ob­ server was aware in the classrooms. (See a sample of the field notes in Appendix D .) The investigator intervened only 84 to protect safety, yet she responded to requests for partici­ pation from teachers and children. Teachers made no explana­ tion to children of the presence of an observer in the class­ room. No children asked about the observer's presence which was, for the most part, taken for granted. Some friendly acknowledgements from teachers and children accompanied the observer's entrance into classrooms after absences o£ a few days or more.

Following each observation session the notes were reviewed, details were added, the relationships with other observations and parent interviews were noted, and a brief summary of the session was written. Initial observations were broad and descriptive. As domains and specific questions became apparent, observations "focused" on particular aspects of the assimilation of individual chil­ dren into the student role.

Talks with Teachers

There were no formal interviews with the teachers of the case-study children. However, after each school observation, teachers were asked ethnographic questions concerning children's school adjustment as well as about any changes they had noticed in these children. Teachers fre­ quently volunteered comments about any recent contact or communication with children's families. They often saved

’•cute" or unusual anecdotes about the case-study children to share with the observer at this time. 85 Home Interviews The parents of case-study children were interviewed

four times each over the first eight weeks of school. Two

of the two-parent families found it more convenient to

scnedule interviews when they could both be present. The

parents in the third two-parent family were interviewed

separately. All of the interviews in the fourth child's family were conducted with the child's single mother. An unsuccessful attempt was made to contact the child's father

in a neighboring community. (See Table 2,

p. 86.) The interviews were scheduled on alternate weeks at

the parents’ convenience. Each family was interviewed four

times over the first eight weeks of school. They were con­

ducted in children's homes and they lasted for approximately

60 minutes. The sessions were audio-recorded with the

family's permission. There were a few instances where

parents requested that the recorder be turned oft so that

they might talk freely and the researcher obliged. These

comments were usually about other children in their child's

classroom or school.

The ethnographic interviews were open-ended and

loosely structured. The researcher generated possible topics and questions from her observations and interactions with children, parents, and teachers. The researcher initiated

some questions and topics at each interview, but many more

questions resulted from the content contributed by the participants (Spradley, 1979). TABLE 2

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

Meek I Collected names of volunteer families and chose case- 8/22-8/28 study subjects.

*10:00 am A */:00 pm R *]:°P Pm h Week II (mother, only) only) 8/29-9/4 8:30 pm M

* 6:45 pm R Week III (mother, only) 9:00 pm M 9/5-9/11

Week IV 1:00 pm B 7:00 pm R 2:00 pm A 9/12-9/18 (mother, only) (mother, only) 5:00 pm M

*4:30 pro A (after school . 3:00 pm B Week V observation and (father, 9/19-9/18 v?ew\y l n t e r ' only)

Week VI 1:00 pm A 9/26-10/2

Week VII * 1 :00 pm B 10/3-10/9 (mother, only)

Week VI11 *5:30 pm R *6:40 pm M 10/10-10/ 16 (mother, only)

Indicates interviews when children were present tor at least part of the time. A = / »ny' s parents B^ Becky's parents M = Matthew's parents R-Robbie's mother 87 The purpose ot these interveiws were: It to record

parent's perceptions of changes in children's attitudes and behavior, 2) to obtain parents' descriptions of their own

feelings, and adjustments in family life brought on by chil­

dren’s school entry, 3) to check the observer's perceptions

ot changes m children’s attitudes and behavior.

Home Observations

Home observations of children were less rigorous than

school observations. It children happened to be present during parent interviews, their contributions were recorded, (bee Table 2 on p. 86 to see when children were present during interviews.) One home observation was scheduled for each child either immediately before or after school. • The purpose was to observe children's interaction with family members, to compare home and school behavior and to get a glimpse of the family schedule surrounding the school day.

Data Analysis

Quantitative Analysis Scoring. All data were scored and coded. Demographic

intormation about children and families were given numerical

values. Children were divided into: male (1) and female

(2)', with preschool experience (1) and without 12); first­

born ll) or later-born (2); rides bus to and from school

[2) and walks to school (or parent brings child) ll); attends 88 half-day kindergarten (1) or alternate, full-day program

(2). Children's age on the day when the questionnaires were mailed was coded in months. Parents were divided into: married ll) or not married (2); employed (1) or not employed

(2). Parents' socioeconomic status was coded according to the Duncan prestige scale, using the highest status score in cases where both parents were employed.

The Changes in Children and Parents with School Entry survey was divided into two subscaies. The first 30 items pertained to parents'perceptions of changes in children’s attitudes and behavior. The responses on these items were summed. There are 15 questions regarding changes in parents' attitudes, behavior, and family life since their child’s kindergarten entry. Parents' responses to these items were also summed. The responses to the open-ended questions were categorized and tallied. Statistical Procedures

t-Test. T-Tests were conducted to compare subscale summed scores of groups on the bi-level variables of child­ ren's gender, preschool experience, birth order, type of transportation to and from school, kindergarten schedule; parents' marital status and employment status. This test reqtiires interval data and assumes homogeneous variance between groups. Summed scores for the Children and Parent subscales were computed, and the t-Test was used to measure the d iffe re n ce in the means of these two groups of respon- 89 dents on each subscale. The formula (Hopkins & Glass,

1978, p. 240) tests the null hypothesis that there is no

difference between the two means. If a significant differ­

ence is found between groups then the null hypothesis is

re je c te d . Twelve weeks in to the school year a random sample of

four nonrespondents was contacted by telephone. The sur­

vey responses of two of these respondents were recorded at

that time. A third parent refused to participate in the

study. In addition, two questionnaires were returned by

mail 15 weeks into the school year. The four late responses

were compared to the sample data with a t-test. A t-test

was also used to compare the case-study parents' responses

on the questionnaire to the sample data. A final t-test

was calculated to compare mothers' and father's responses.

Analysis of Variance. Anova is used to compare the

means of more than two groups, fo r example, when th e re are more than two le v e ls of an independent v a ria b le . Anova was chosen rather than performing multiple t-Tests because there

is a tendency for multiple t-rTests to show some statistical

significance even when there is no real significance. Like

the t-Test, anova assumes normality, homogeneity of variance and indepedence of observations (Hopkins & Glass, 1978, p.

337). The F statistic must be significant to reject the null hypothesis. Anovas were calculated in this study to compare

subscale summed scores on the variables of children's age,

parents' employment status and socioeconomic status. 90 Bivariate Relationship - Pearson Product-Mpment

Correlation. To determine any relationship between parents'

perceptions of changes in 1) children's attitudes and behav­

io r and 2) p a re n ts' a ttitu d e s , behavior and family l i f e

with school entry, a Pearson product-moment correlation was calculated (Hopkins & G lass, 1978) to compare the summed scores on each subscale (Children and Parents). The two-

tailed test (Hopkins & Glass, 1978, p. 248) tests the sig­

nificance of "r" in order to accept or reject the null

hypothesis.

Multivariate Relationship - Multiple Regression. The

purpose of multiple regression analysis is to account for

more of the variance than is po ssib le with b iv a ria te mea­

sures. The goal is to predict a criterion variable from a

set of predictor variables. The fundamental prediction

formula is (Kerlinger, 1973, p. 612) yields a set of linear

equations, one for each independent variable. The a and b

values are based on the knowledge of x's and y’s, via the

principle of least squares. R, or the multiple correlation

coefficient, is the highest correlation possible between a

least-squares linear composite of the independent variables and the dependent variable (Kerlinger, 1973, p. 616-617).

The significance of the multiple regression coefficient is calculated using the F-test. Multiple regression analysis was used in this study to

relate the following sets of predictor variables to each of the Children and Parent subscale scores on the survey: children’s age, genderpreschool experience, birth order,

type of transportation to and from school, and kindergarten

schedulej parents' socioeconomic status, marital status and

employment status. Observational records, interviews with parents, and

informal conversations with teachers were recorded to described the school adjustment process of four children and th e ir fam ilies.

Domains. The first step in analyzing this data was to identify domains, or categories, in the data as described by Spradley (1979, 1980). The obvious classifications of participants: children, teachers, parents, families, and researcher, emerged in the first several days of the data collection process. Once these domains were determined, observations were "focused" on these areas and data were classified as it was accumulated. The domains were clarified and expanded as the data provided insight. For example, the original domain termed simply "children," was finally divided into the categores of "similarities," "differences" and "changes" in case-study children.

Some c la s s if ic a tio n s became evident a f te r a few weeks of observation. Examples included "siblings," "dangers" and

"links." Other domains were not identified until after all of the data were collected. "Attempts by the school and teachers to facilitate adjustment" and "coping strategics" were two of these. 92 Once all of the data had been classified by domains, the relationships bewteen the domains were studied.

S pradley, (1979) defined these re la tio n s h ip s, or themes, as any tacit or explicit principles recurring in a number of domains, which serve as a relationship among subsystems of meaning. "Themes are a s se rtio n s th a t have a high degree of generality" (Spradley, 1980, p. 141). The themes which were identified in this study illustrate the connec­ tions between the cultural subsystems of the family and the school.

Conclusion

A combination of methods, data collection and analyses have been described in this chapter. This researcher be- lives that the use of these methods together should yield a comprehensive description of the kindergarten adjustment p ro cess.

A growing body of research supports the theory of developmental systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1980a; Hock et al.,

1980; Hobbs, 1981). Naturally, the focus of the transition of school entry is on the kindergarten child. School entry also necessitates changes and development in those indivi­ duals who share primary relationships with kindergartners, in parents, for example. Other research has emphasized the role of child and family characteristics on school adjust­ ment (Hammond, 1971; Thompson, 1975). These procedures pro- vide a means fo r describing the school adjustment process of children and family members, and for systematically test ing the relationship between selected variables and kinder­ garten adjustment. CHAPTER FOUR

SURVEY RESULTS

Problem Statement

The purpose of this study is to describe the nature of kindergarten enti*v as a tra n s itio n phenomenon io r children and families. The specific goals of this study are:

1. to describe any changes in children’s attitudes and behavior which parents attribute to be the result of kinder­ garten entry;

2. to describe any changes in p aren ts' attitudes and behavior which parents attribute to be the result of children's entry into kindergarten;

3. to identify strategies kindergarten children employ in the adjustment process associated with kindergarten entry;

A. to explore the nature of the relation­ ship, it any, between parents' attitudes and behavior with regard to school entry and children's kindergarten adjustment;

5. to determ ine any d ifte re n c e s in the kindergarten adjustment process on the basis of children's age, gender, preschool experience, birth order, type of tra n sp o rta tio n to and from school and kindergarten schedule; and parents' socioeconomic status, marital status and employment s ta tu s ;

b. to describe any e x istin g p a tte rn s ot initial school adjustment which may emerge /rom the data.

94 95 Introduction

Parents returned the Changes in Children and Parents

with School Entry q u estionnaire (Beery, Note 1, 1982) from

November 1, 1982 to December 31. 1982. This time period

constituted the first semester of the school year. The family-based response rate on the survey was 7^.2% as

questionnaires were returned irom 72 of the 97 available

parent-cnild groups. (Two families in the original sample moved before the eighth week of school. Another family

decided not to send their cnild to Kindergarten until tne

following year.) The response rate for individual parents

was somewhat lower. One-nundred nine of the possible 161 r e ­

spondents. or 67.7'£ returned questionnaires. Data for

statistical analysis consisted of individual parents' scores

on tne Children and Parents subscales of the Changes in Children and Parents with School Entry questionnaire. Four

correlational procedures were used in the survey analysis.

The relationship between groups of parents' scores on the basis of child and family characteristics was tested using

t - t e s t s l i f the v a riab le had two le v e ls; and an aly sis of variance lif the variable had three or more levels;. 1-tests were also employed to compare case-study and late respondents'

scores to those of the sample. The relationship between parents' responses on the Children and Parent subscales

was tested using the Pearson product-moment correlation

coefficient. Multiple regression was chosen to test 96 the relationship between sets of parent and child variables and subscale scores. The .03 signiticance level was selected for all statistical analyses.

The variables considered in this study were children’s age, gender, preschool experience, birth order (first or later Dorn;, type of transportation to and from school and kindergarten schedule; and parents' socioeconomic, marital, and employment status, relationship to child

(mother or father;, participation in the study (sample, case-study or late respondent), and subscale summed scores on the Changes in Children and Parents with School Entry questionnaire. Tnere are 13 variables in all.

The frequencies and percentages of parents' responses to the questionnaire are presented and discussed.

P aren ts' comments regarding the items are also describee.

Survey Results

Each page of the questionnaire was headed with the

sentence stem: Since my child began school: iSee Appendix B >.

TABLE 3 01 Q] Child looks torward l r- going lo school. Relalive AbsoluLe Frequency Frequency (Percent )

Much more S5 A little more 27 2b. /

No change 8 7 .'i

A 1i 111e less ' 6.0

Much IPS! U.C

lot ai 10' 100. t 97 A total of 81 % of parents who responded to the survey

reported that their children looked forward to going to

school more at eight weeks than they did when school began,

with 55% indicating much more favorable anticipation toward

school. Eleven parents felt that children looked forward to school less at eight weeks. A few parents commented tn al th e ir children had "always

wanted to go" to school. One parent wrote that "at first

she was a little afraid but now she loves it." Two parents

mentioned that their children cried and were upset it they

were sick and had to miss school. TABLE 4 02 0? Child feels "grown-ur"

Re 1 a 11 ve AbsolUle Frequency Frequency 1 Fercent '■

Much more AC 39.6

A little more 66 65.5

ho change 15 16.

'lola; in: 10U.C

A total of 85% of parents responded that their children f e lt more "grown up" with school e n try , with 90c in d icatin g

th at ch ild ren f e lt much more grown up. F ifteen parents reported no change in children's self-esteem with school

entry. No parents responded that children felt less grown up. TABLE 5 03 QS Child can be trusted with responsibility

Relative Absolute frequency frequency I Percent ")

Much more 54 53.5

A little more 311 29. / No change jp Is.P * little )es; j 1 .0

io ta i 10: 100. 0 A Lotal ot 83% of parents reported that they trusted

their chiidren with more responsibility since school entry

with 5^"- indicating much more trust in children's responsi

bility. Sixteen parents reported no change in this area.

One parent felt that their child was a little less respons

bl e since school entry.

TABLE 6

Q4 Child is helpful

Relat ive Absolule Frequency Frequency (Percent '

Much more 23 22.8

A l i t t l e more 53 52. i

No change 31 lb. 8

A little less 5 5.0

Much jess 2 3.C

■Jot a) iu; JOO.O

A total oi 75% of parents responded that their children were more helpful at home since going to school. Seventeen parents reported no change in children's helpfulness at home with school enLry. Eight parents responded that

children were less helpful since school entry. TABLE 7 Q5 05 Child i s in a bad mooc

Adjusted Abso)ute Freaueney Frequency (P ercent'

Much more 6 6 .0

A l i t t l e more l ■; 17.0

No change 54 54.0

A little less 1" 12. C Much less 11 n .o

Mi ssing 1

Tola: 10; 10U.0

Fitly- four parents intiicalec no change in children's tendency to be in a bad mood since school entry. A total of 25".-reported an increase in bad moods ana 13"t reported a decrease in bad moods with school entry.

TABLE 8 Q6 Q6 Child is independent

Relative Absolute Frequency Frequency (P ercent)

Much more 2S 28.7

A l i t t l e more 45 44.6

No change 25 24.6

A little less 1 l.l'

Much less _1 1 -I1

Total lOi 1U0.C

Fortv-tive percent ot parents teit that children were a little more independent since school entry. Twenty-mne percent indicated much more independence and 25"* reported n change in children's independence. One parent responded that children were less independent since school entry. TABLE 9 100 Q7 U? l.hila likes srnno!

Kcl at i ve Absol ut e r requcnev Frequency 11'ercent

Much more 57 56.4

A l i t t l e more 2 j 2 0 . f»

No change 15 12.5

A little lest E 7.0

Mi.cn less __2 ?.r

Total 101 luo.r A total of 77/c ot parents leit that their children liked school more at eight weeks than when i t f i r s t began.

Fifty-seven parents reported that children liked school much more with time. Tnirteen percent of parents indicated no change m children's attitude toward scnool and a total of

10% reported that their children liked scnool less with time. One parent commented th at th e ir child "d o esn 't want to miss school." Another parent wrote that their child looked forward to riding the school bus even more than to being in the classroom. This child had developed a particularly close relationship with the bus driver. TABLE 10 Q8 08 Child has days when he or she does not want to go t'i scnool

Adjusted Absolute Frequency Frequency (1crcenl >

Much more 4 4.1

A l i t t l e more 13 13.«

No change 43 43.0

A l i t t l e 1 ess IB m.o

Much less 22 22.0 Missi np _1 ___

Tot al 10! 100.0 101 Forty-three parents reported no change in children's willingness to go to school over time. A total ot 40 parents reported a decline in children's willingness to go to school, with 22?„ indicating much less willingness. A total ot 1 8% of parents felt that their children were even more anxious to go to school at eight weeks than they were when school began. A parent replied, "he wants to go to school on the weekends, if he could." TABLE 11

01 Child talks

Relat ive Absolute Frequency Frequency (Percent 1

Much more 4f 67.5

A l i t t l e more 25 2n.t

No cnanpe 2f 27.7

lola! 101 10U.I)

eight percent of parents believed children talked much more at home since school entry, 257c in­ dicated only a littl e moretal king in children and 28% reported no change in children’s inclination to talk at home with

school entry. No parents responded that children were less ta lk a tiv e . TABLE 12 Q10 01 (' Child asks questions Rclalive Absolute Frequency frequency If’ertent 1

Much more 55 5*.5

A Jit tic more 35 34.7

No ch.mpo 17 11.°

A little less L ii1

total 1U1 101). d 102 A total of 8/7. of parents responded that children asked more questions since school en try , with 53 % indicating much more questioning from children. Twelve percent indicated no change in questioning behavior and one parent felt that their child asked fewer questions. One parent commented that their child had begun to ask how to spell words since going to school. TABLE 13 QH 01J C hild's small muscle sk ills improving

Relat ive Absolute Frequency Frequency (1'ercent •

Much more 65 64.4

A l i t t l e more 3! . J0.'!

No change 3 3.C

A little less _2 LlH

Total 10. 100.1) Sixtv-rour percent of parents indicated that their children's coloring, writing, drawing, and cutting had greatly improved with school attendance and 317c f e lt that these s k ills had improved some. Three parents reported nc change in small motor skills and two parents reported some decline in these areas. Following this question one parent mentioned that their kindergartnerenjoyed piaying school with younger siblings. TABLE 1U Q12 Q12 Child is afieelionale

RclaIive Absolute Frrqucncy Frequency (lerccnt 1

Much more 21 20.F

A lit tie morr 27 26.7

No rhanpc- 44 48.5

A little less _4 4.1

Total 101 Kill. ( 103 Forty-nine parents noticed no change in children's tendency to be aifectionate with school entry. Four parents reported that their children were less affecLionaLe but a total of 4S;C of parents ielt that children were a l i t t l e more or much more a ife c tio n a te at home since going to school. TABLE 15 Q13 01J Child watches television Adjust ed Abso)ut e Frequency Frequency 1 Percent

Much more t 6.0 A little more 17 17.0

No change 5* 5*.1 A little less 17 17.0

Much less e 6.0 Mi ssi ng 2

Tot a! 10i 100.0

Fifty-four parents believed that children watched the same amount of te le v is io n since school entry. Tw enty-three parents reported a decline in television viewing and 23 parents reported an increase. Two parents reported that their kindergartners would rather write and color than watch television. Another parenL mentioned that school entry necessitated an earlier bedtime which cut down on television viewing. TABLE 16 QU 01* Child tries new experiences

Relatlve Adjusted Frequency Frequency (Percent

Much more I* 18.f

A 111 I 1e more 50 4 9.:- ho cnanpc II 31 • •'

Tot a! lh. KIO. C 104 About half of the parents indicated that children were a little more inclined to try new experiences since they

started to school. Another 19% felt that children were much more open to new experiences. Thirty-two parents

reported no change in this area. No parents felt that chil­

dren were less open to new experiences since school entrv. TABLE 17 Q15 Q13 Child plays with other children his or her own age lolher than at scnool•

Relalive Absolute Frequencv Frequency (Fcrcent'i Much more 15 14.?

A 1 i 11 j e more 21 27 .,

No change 5t 5 5. u

A l i t t l e less _2

Total 101 100.C Fittv-five percent ot parents reported no change in children's inclination to play with other children the same age outside of school . A total of 43/o indicated a l i t t l e more or much more in c lin a tio n in th is d ire c tio n .

Two parents reported that their children played with age- mates a little less since school entry.

TABLE 18 Q16 Qlb Child is competitive

Ad iust ed Absoi ut e Frequency Frequency (Percent•

Much more 14 14.1

A l i t t l e more 52 52.5

No change 33 33.3

Mi ssi ng _ 2 ------

J ot al 101 loo.t; 105 Fiftv-two parents- f el i inat their children were a

l i t t l e more com petitive with school entry and anoLher 1A

parents indicated that children were much more competitive.

Thirty-three parentsresponded that there was no change in

this area. No parents indicated that children were less

competitive since they began to go to school. TABLE 19 Q17 01/ Child is interested in school - related tasks at home Relative Absolute Frequency Frequency (Fercent:

Much more 5t 55.i

A little more 31 3?.t

No change A A.C-

A little lest 2 2.1’

Much less 1 .t1

iota! 1 o: 10U.C' A total of 91% of parents reported that children became

more interested in school-related tasks at home following

school entry. Fifty- six parents responded that children were much more inclined in this area. Four parents reported no change and three parents reported a decline in children's in te re s t to do school work at home.

Two parents commented th a t th e ir children enjoyed

"homework." Another mentioned that her kindergartner had used "8,0U0 pieces of paper since school entry." A L'nird parent wrote, "he alwavs asks how to spell words, tries to p rin t them, reads them, and asks what le tte r s s p e ll." 106 TABLE 20 Ql 8 Q1K Child plavs pretend

Adjust ed Absolute Frequency Frequency (Percent)

Much more 3S 3S.0

A Jol more It 18.li

No change At! 40. t'

A 1 i it le less 6 6.0

Much less 1 1 .0

Missing _! -----

lota: iu: 100.0

Forty parents reported no change in children's inclina­ tion to pretend since school entry. A total of 53% of parents telt that children were either a little more or much more inclined to pretend. Seven parents reported that their children pretended less after starting to school. TABLE 21 Ql 9 Old Child shares

Re 3 ative Absolut e Frequency Frequency (Percent' Much more 16 13.? A l i t t l e more 4.’ 4i:.e No change 36 38. t A l i t t l e 1 ess a 6.0

Much less __± 1 .0

lot al 101 loo.o A total of 577o of parents believed children to be a little more or much more willing to share since school entry. Thirty-nine percent reported no change in sharing and five parents felt that children shrred less after going to school. 107 TABLE 22 Q20 Q20 Child uses new word;;

Relative Absolute Frequency Frequency I Percenti

Much more 38 37. P

A l i t t l e more 38 37. (

No cnanpe 21 24.8

Total 101 100.0 A LoLal of 75/c of parents indicated that children used

new words at home with school entry. The group was split

as to whether children used new words much more or a little

more. The remaining 25 parents reported no change in chil­

dren’s vocabulary. TABLE 23 Q21 021 Chilo acts like a boy (if child is a boy) or like a girl (if child is a g irl)

Relative Absolute Frequency Frequency (Percent'

Much more 17 16.8

A l i t t l e more 20 19.8

No change 62 61.4

Much Jess ___2 2.C

Total 10. 100.0 SixLy-one percent of parents reported no change in children's behavior with regard to sex role expectations. Thirty-seven percent of parents felt that children were ex­ hibiting more sex stereotyped behavior since school entry.

Two parents reported mucn more androgynous behavior in children. One mother wrote, "She was a Tom-boy before school—now dolls!" 108 TABLE 2U Q22 C)22 Child if developing new interests

Relative Abso) ut e Frequency Frequency (P ercent 1

Much more 27 26.7

A l i t t l e more 5b 55.4

ho change 16 15.6

A little Jess 1 1 .0 Much lest 1 ■('

Total 101 100.0 A total of 82>c of parent5- believed children to nave developed new interests since school entry. Sixteen parents reported no change in this area and two parents indicated a decline in their child's exploration of new interests and activities. TABLE 25 Q2 2 0^3 Child onoys parent/caregiver Kelative Absolute Frequency Frequency 1 percent i

Much more 7 b.9

A little more 26 27.'

No change 42 41 .6

A little less 15 l8.f

Much more _5 5.0 jotai i o: 1 0 0 . C

lorty-two parents reported no change in children's obedience since school entry. A total of 35/« ol parents indicated an increase in children's obedience and aDout

24'/o reported a decline in this area. 109 TABLE 26 Q24 0 ei> Child mishenaves Aa lusteo Absolute Frequency Frequency iPercent i

much more 7 7.0

A l i t t l e more 23 23.0

No change 43 43.0

A little lest 17 17.0

Much change 10 1 0 .0

Mi ssing _ 2

Total 101 lOu.o Fortv-tnree parents responded that there had Deen no

change in children’s inclination to misbenave at home since

starting to school. Thirty percent indicated a slight or moderate increase in misbenavior and 28°t reported a decline in this area. Parents commenting on this item described children's behavior following school entry as "cocky, showing off and demanding." TABLE 27 Q25 y25 Cniid talks back Ad lusted Absolute frequency Frequency lP ercent•

much more 1^ 14.1

A l i t t l e more *i 4 i .1*

Nr. cnange Iff 28. *

A little less F 8.1

much less 8 8.1

Missing _ 2 .

lota) 101 lo n .o A total ol 55 parents reported that children talked back to them more since school entry. Twenty-eight parents indicated no change in back-talk and lb parents believed that this behavior had decreased. 110 P aren ts' comments p e rta in in g to th is question included terms like "smart alecky" and "mouthy." One parent wrote

"She never talked back until starting to school* TABLE 28 Q 26 Q?t> Cnild pets along witri siblings Ac iustec Absolute Frequency Frequency i tercent

Much more \ 3.2 A l i t t l e more 20 22.6

No change sr- 57.0

A l i t t l e 1 ess ii XI.6

Much less 5 5.4

Mi ssinp _F ----- iota; io: loo.r

Fifty-seven percent of parents reported no change m sibling relationships with school entry. A total of 2 67< indi- catea an improved relationship between siblings and 177 felt that their children did not get along as well with one another. TABLE 29 Q27 Chi la h its other.®

Relative Absoiute Frequency Frequency IFeicent•

Much more 10 9.9

A l i t t l e more 12 11.9

No change 62 bl.4

A little 1 ess 6 5.v

Much less n 10.9

lotai lul 1 00.0 Sixtv-one percent of parents reported no change in children's physical aggression with school entry. A total of 2 2% indicated an increase in hitting but 177c reported a decline in this behavior. Several parents qualiried thuii response to this question by adding, "not that they knew of." TABLE 30 Q2& Q2h Child uses language which parent./cart- piver preierf he or she die not usi Adjust ort Absolute Fieouency Freouent v ipercent ■

Much more 7 7.0

A l it t le more 23 23.C

No change 58 58. C.

A l i t t l e 1 ess o 2.0

Much less 10 10.0 Mi ssing _! ----- lota! 10! 100.0

Fifty-eight parents reported no change in children's use of "bad language." Thirty-one percent indicated an in­ crease in the use of these words and 12% reported a decrease.

Two parents reported that their kindergartners had

"picked up curse words" from other children at school. A n ­

other parent mentioned "slang" and "bad English" and a third parent objected specifically to the child's recent adoption of

" a in ' t ." TABLE 31 Q2^ Q29 Child wants to be like other children Relative Absolute Frequency Frequence (Percent'

Much more 1* 15-f'

A l i t t l e more 35 3A.7

No change AA.>

A little less u *,’(l

Much less. __L Lti' lotal 101 101). 0 Forty-five percent of parents responded that there had been no change toward conformity in their children since going to school. A total of 31% of parents reported s lig h t to moderate changes toward conformity. Five parents felt

that their children were less inclined to be like every­

body e lse .

One parent added that her child had recently become

conscious of his appearance. Two parents believed that

their kindergartners saw that other children "talked back'

or refused to obey and so they thought they could do the same. TABLE 32 Q30 Q30 Child wants to invite friends tc family's house Relative Absolute Frequency Frequency (Percent

Much more 1A 13.*

A 1i t t l e more 3b 35.b

No change 5(' A9.5 Much less _L Id: Total 101 100.1' Almost half of the parents reported no change in thei children's desire to host visits of friends in their home.

Except for one parent who reported a decline in their child's willingness to have guests, the other half of the parents reported an increase in this behavior since school e n try . TABLE 33 Q32 031 What has been thr biggest change in your child's attitudes and behavior since school entry?

Relative Absolute Frequency Frequency (Percent t

Child feels grown up 18 16.5

Child is more inde­ pendent 1* 11 .0

Child wants to learn more 11 10.1 TABLE 33 (Continued' Child does more "nomc work'- 10 9.:

LPhS rowdy/improved behavior 7 6.4

Child is a "know-it- all idemanding■ 7 6.4

Child talks back more 6 5.5

Child listens better 5 4.6

Child is talkative 5 6 .6

Wants to be like other children (including learning bad ideas and bad '. anguage ' 5 4.6

Child has more interests 3 2.6

Child more aggressive 4

Other 20 18.?

lota'. 1(’< 100.0 The miscellaneous responses concerning children were

mixed: liking school, listening less, not being so nervous coming home upset sometimes, having an improved temper, talking about other children, being concerned about appear­ ance, improved speech, moodiness, being out-going, unhappi­ ness, desiring praise, finding out that other children can be cruel (with regard to racial differences), being satisfied, being bored, being lonely at home, enjoying parents' company, appreciating family life, and growing away from parents, aggressiveness, and "mouthiness."

TABLE 34 Q32 032 Anything in particular which has helped child. i 'i i j adjust_ _» :... • to > . going n .,t r

been some particular factor which had helped facilitate

children's school adjustment. These have been categorized and tab u lated : TABLE 35 Q22a 032a Special factors which helped child­ ren adjust to school entry. Relative Absolute Frequency Frequency (Percent'

Previous preschool experi ence 17 24.3

Older siblings in 17 24.3 school (several kindergartners had played school with older siblings prior to school entry

Teacher and her e f ­ forts to facilitate 17 adlus tment 24.3 Friends at school/ old and new 8 11.4

School s ta ff, especially bus driver <■ 5.7

Parents told child school would be fun 4 5.7

Children's eager an­ tic ip a tio n to go to school even before tney were old enough _3 4.3

Total 70 100.0

One parent wrote, "his sister explained it all to him in detail, where it was, what they do. She sold him on it."

Another respondent reported that the child's knowing the teacher before going to school "made a big difference." TABLE 3fr Q33 QJ3 Parents' anxiety about child going to school Relative Absolute Frequency Frequency (Percent '

Much more 26 25.7

A l i t t l e more 30 2V.7

No change 28 27.5

A l i t t l e 1 ess 12 11.<*

Much less 5 L-I lot ai io: 1 . ( 115 A total of 55% of parents reported that they were more

anxious about their child going to school at eight weeks than

they were when school began. Twenty-eight percent reported no change in their own anxiety and a total of 17% indicated that they were less anxious with time.

Several parents wrote comments for th is item. They included:

"She is my baby and 1 w orry."

"I'm glad the learning time is here."

"I'm really glad he is in school and trying to learn but 1 really miss him not being at home and going to work with me."

Two parents were especially concerned about their chil­ dren’s speech problems. Two other parents expressed special concerns pertaining to the "sickness" in our society. One respondent was worried about o th er children "being mean" tp kindergartners. TABLE 37 Q3L y3* Parents’ concern about "letting go" of chilo

Relative Absolute Frequency Frequency iPercent'-

Much more 7 6.9

A l i t t l e more 16 15.f

No change <16 95.5

A little less 16 17. P

Mutn less iy 13.9

Total 101 100.0 Forty- six percent of parents indicated that their

feelings about "letting go" of their child had not changed with school entry. Thirty-two percent responded that this concern had lessened and 23°or enorted th at i t had increased.

Comments on this question were varied:

"I was very concerned about "letting go" but now that she has started 1 feel better about this."

"1 feel she's really ready for school."

"His first day worried me but 1 feel better now."

"Before she started I worried about not being there when sne needed me but now I have faith in her teacher to take care of any problems."

"At first 1 worried quite a bit but now I see how much he enjoys i t and how well h e 's adjusted, 1 don't worry at all!"

"I was at lirst but now 1m O.K." TABLE 3£ Q35 035 Parents' sadness about child going to school

Relative Absolute Frequency F requency I Percent•

Much more - 2.0

A l i t t l e more Q

Nc cnange 51 50.5

A little less lfc 15. f

Much less 2 2. F

Total io: 100.0 Just over half of the parents reported no change in the sadness they experienced with their child's initial school entry. Thirty-nine percent indicated that their sadness de­ creased over time, while 117c indicated that their sadness in­ creased . comments were:

"1 feel h e 's s ta r tin g to grow up and I ’ve missed out on part ot his babyhood." "I hate le ttin g him go but I know he has to 117 go so 1 encourage hire very much."

"1 was sad to see her go and still miss her."

Several parents mentioned that they were sad at first. but were "getting used to the idea." TABLE 39 Q36 Q3fe Parents' sadness that child has a life which does not include parent

Relative Absolute Frequency Frequency (Percent

Much more 3 3.0

A li ctle more 16 15.f

No change e, o 48.5

A li ttle less lu 13.1

Much less i f 18.6

lota: i o; 1 0 0 .( Almost half t4 9/o) of the parents responded that they had experienced no change in their feelings about their child's life away from home and family. A total of 33’; indi­ cated that they were less sad about this over time, with 19‘\ reported much less sadness. About 19% of parentsreported that their sadness about their child's separatelife had in­ creased .

Parents comments on th is item included:

"We seem to include each other more now."

"I've learned to accept the inevitable."

"Sometimes it brings us a little closer."

"1 want her to enjoy herself."

"Children need to have lives separate from parents to develop into well-founded adults." TABLE 40 Q37 Q37 Parents' belief that child is at a good age Adjusted Absolute Frequency Frequency I Percent)

Much more 30 30.3

A l i t t l e more 16 16.2

No change 52 52.5

A little 1 ess 1 1 .0

Mi ssing -----

Total 101 1 00.0 Over half of the parents reported no change in their opinion that their children were at a "good age." A total of 47% indicated that their favorable attitude concerning their child's developmental stage had increased with school entry. One parent responded that this opinion had decreased s li g h t l y .

Several parents commented th a t they enjoyed every stage of their children's development. Other comments were:

"I'm not sure there is a good age."

"I hate to see her grow up."

"five is a difficult age—not grown up but not babies."

"This is the perfect age."

"They do and say such amazing th in g s." TABLE 41 Q38 Q3B Parents think ahcuit what they want out of lif e Relative Absolute Frequency Frequency (Percent)

Much more 29 7B.7

A l i t t l e more 3a 37.6 119 A total of 6 6 “r of the parents reported that they were

giving more thought to their personal life goals since their

child had begun to go to school. One-third of the parents responded that they had experienced no change in this re­ gard. Two parents reported going back to school and one parent mentioned starting a new job since their children started to school. TABLE 42 Q39 03° Parentr' relationship with child improving

Adjusted Absolute Frequence Frequency I Percent

Much more 2: 25.(

A l i t t l e more 3. 3 i.C

No change 3‘ 37.P

A little 1 ess 3 3. li

Much less 1 .0

Mi ssinp 1 ___

Total 101 100.0 ' A total of 59% of parents indicated that they believed that their relationship with their child had improved with school entry. Thirty-seven percent reported no change in the parent-child relationship and four parents indicated a deterioration in the relationship. A few parents commented th a t they had always had good relationships with their children. Others enjoyed doing more "grown up things" in which their children were now able to participate. 12' TABLE A3 Q40 Q40 Parents plan to spend a special time with child

Relative Absolute Frequency Frequency I Percent '

Much more 28 2 7 .7

A l i t t l e more AO 39.6

No chanpe 33 32.7

Total 101 100.0 A total of 67“c of the parents reported an increase in planning a special time to spend with their children

following school entry. Thirty-toree percent reported no change in making such plans.

Several parents reported going over school papers with

ch ild ren when they got home. A couple of parents commented

that they were able to spend less time with their children

since school entry. TABLE 44 Q41 Q41 Parents' concern about child learning different values at school

Relative Absolute Frequency Frequency (Percent 1

Much more 14 13.9

A l i t t l e more 33 37.:

No chanpe 3b 3b .t

A little less IP V. V

Much less _J 7.4

Total 101 1 0 0 .(■ Almost half (527c) of parents indicated that their con­

cern about their children learning different values had

increased with school entry. Thirty-six percent reported no change in th is concern and 18‘L responded th a t they were less concerned about this at eight weeks than they were when school began. 12 1 One parent commented that this was her "main concern" regarding school entry. A few respondents stated that they believed that parents set the standards and established the values which would most influence their children. TABLE A5 Q42 042 Parents' resentment of teacher’s influence on child

Relati vc Absolute Frequency Freouencv (F ercent'

Much more 1 1 .0 2 A l i t t l e more 2 .0

No chanpe 6f 67.3

A little lese • b.«<

Much lest 2'• 22. h

Total io: lUO.C Sixty-eight parents reported no change in their re­ sentment of the teacher’s influence on their child. Thirty percent indicated feeling less resentment, with 23% report­ ing much less resentment. Three parents responded that their resentment of their child's teacher had increased since school began. Several parents commented th at they liked th e ir c h ild 's teacher. Two parents stated that they actually appreciated the teacher's influence on their child. "It's not the teach­ er, it's the other kids," responded another parent. TABLE 46 Q4 3 0*3 Parents* concern about influence ot otncr children on child

Relative Absolute Frequency Frequency (P ercent)

Much more 23 22.8

A little more *2 . t*

No chanpe 29 2K.7 122 TABLE 46 (Continued) A l i t t l e 1ess 5 5.0

Much less £ 2 .0 'lotal 101 100.0

A total of 64% of parents responded that their concern

about the influence of other children on their child had

increased with school entry. Twenty-nine percent reported

no such change in their concern regarding peer pressure.

Seven parents indicated that they were less concerned about

peer influence with time. A parent reported that her child had been "picked on" by

other ch ild re n at school and another in d icated th a t "some

kids are very mean." A few other respondents commented that

their children had learned "bad habits," such as aggressive­

ness and profanity from other children. TABLE 47 Q44 0^4 Parents' belief char teacher would think them "bad parents" if child misbehaves at school

Relative Absol ute Frequency Frequency (Percent1 Mucn more e 5.4 A lit t i t more 15 14.4

No change 5fr 55.4

A little less 5.0

Much 1ess if 16.6 lota; io: 1U0.0

More than half (55%) oi parents reported no change in their belief that their child's teacher might regard them as bad parents if their child misbehaved at school. A total of

247,. were less concerned about this with school entrv and 21% were more concerned about i t with time. 1 o o A couple of parents reacted with surprise to this iterr,. "I never even thought of this," reported one. Another

commented, "I'm not worried about her misbehaving, but 1 do think i t would r e f le c t on me.” TABLE 48 Q4 5 Qith Parents' belief that teacher will have a had opinion of parent if child has trouble learning

Relat ive AbsoluLe Frequenc; Frequency 1 Percent

Much more 1 1.0 A l i t t l e more 15 14.9 No change 62 61.4

A little less 7 6.“

Much less i : 15. h Total 101 100.0 Sixty-one percent of parents indicated no change in their belief that their child's teacher would have a bad opinion of them if their child had trouble learning in school. A total of 23% were less sure of this and 16% were more convinced of this belief at eight weeks into the school year. Several parents reported that they wanted teachers to know that they cared about their children and were interested in their work. "I feel that maybe the teacher thinks we don't spend time trying to help him,11 wrote one parent. ”1 know the teacher will help her,” reported another. A couple of respondents specifically noted that they wanted to be notified if their children had any prob­ lems so that parents could help in any way possible. TABLE 49 Q46 Q46 Parents' worry about child to and from school

Relative Absolute Frequency Frequency (Percent • Much more 22 21. E

A l i t t l e more 2U 23. 8 CM No chanpe 3b ' J

A little less 11 10. 9 Much less K 13.°

lotal 101 100.0 A total oi 46% of parents were more worried about chil­ dren on their way to and from school after children had been in school for eight weeks. Thirty percent reported no change in this regard. A total of 25% indicated that this worry had lessened with school experience.

Some parents relayed incidents in response to this item. Parents were worried about children being teased on the bus, having lunch money stolen and about the "sick" element in our society. Two parents specifically mentioned the recent kidnap and murder of a child in a nearby metro­ politan community. TABLE 50 Q47 Q47 Parents' wur., that child mi phi not do well in school Adjusted Absolute Frcauency Frequencv I Percent 1

Much more 8 8.0

A l it t le more 16 16.0

No chanpe 39 39.0 A little less IS 19.0

Much less 18 1H.0

Mi ssi np —1 lot nl 1 01 100.0 125 After eight weeks of school, 39 parents reported no

change in their belief in their child's capability to do

well in school. A total of 377c of parents were less con­

cerned about their children's school competence with time

and a total of 24°! grew more worried about this. TABLE 51 045 Q4& Biggpst chanpe lor parents since child started school Relative Absolute Freouency Frequency iF*ercent>

More time alone 23 24.0

Realizing child is no longer a baby, allowing inde­ pendence. getting used to their "grown up' attitude 2; 24.(

Adjust schedule and plan time to spend wi th child 21 21.9

Missing the child 2v 2U.F

Change in parent - child activities 3 3.1

Other __6 Total 9fc 100.0 Other changes included parents': increased concern and worry, going back to work, getting used to sharing their child with others, accepting the way the teacher did things at school, and realizing that the child would not have to follow parents' "guidance” at school.

Some parents reported being lonely without their chil­ dren around and others conveyed their enjoyment of time alone.

One parent reported being able to actually spend more time with her child because she was able to get all of her work done while the child was at school. Many respondents commented on the new p a ren t-ch ild a c tiv ity of going over school papers after school each day. TABLE 52 1Z6 Q49 Qu9 has anything in particular helpec parent aoiust to child oping in school’ Adjusted Absolute Frequency Frequency (Percent 1

tes 25 2 6 .C mo 71 Missing _5 _____ Total 101 100.0 Seventy-four percent of parents did not teel that there had been any special ta c to rs which had helped therr. adjust to having their child go to school. TABLE 53 Q49a QuUa Special 1 actors whicn hrioeo parents adjust to having a child go to school.

Relative Absolute Frequency Frequency (Percent'

Child's teacher F 17 .e Older siblings in school 7 15.5 Knowing how much child enjoys school 6 13.3 Communication and cooperation of other family members (especially mother's motner i L b.v Parents' activities U 8.9 Chile's preschool experience 3 b. 7 parent is also a teacher 3 b. 7 Change in parent's work schedule 3 6.7

Child snares school papers/projects with parent 3 6.7

Otner 6 6.9 lot a I U'i 1U0.0 Other factors included were: parent's position as school volunteer, children's school schedule, parents' visits to school, meeting the teacher, knowing that the child has others to play with, having younger children still at home who continue to need care, and just "keeping busy." One mother concluded, "I have become adjusted to ra isin g c h ild ­ ren to enter school. It is the normal way of growing for them and me."

Results of Statistical Procedures

The means and standard d ev iatio n s of subscale scores are presented in Tables Three and Four. A t-test for two related groups (Hopkins & Glass, 1978) was calculated to compare subscale scores on the basis of the variables: child's gender, transportation, respondent's relationship to child, marital status, preschool experience, birth order and kindergarten schedule. The t-values and significance levels are also shown in Tables 34 ana' 55* The null hypothesis of no difference in scores on the basis of par­ ent and child characteristics was rejected in only one in­ stance. Parents reported more changes in children's atti­ tudes and behaviors with school entry if children rode the bus to and from school. Incidental findings including the results of additional t-tests comparing the scores of the sample respondents to those of case-study parents and late respondents are pre­ sented in Tables 56 and 57. In each case there was a failure to reject the null hypothesis. In addition, a t- test calculated to compare mothers' and fathers' responses 128 showed no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n ific a n t d ifferen ces between the two groups.

The means, standard deviations and analysis of variance results (Hopkins & Glass, 1978) comparing subscale scores on the basis of parents' employment status, socioeconomic status and children's chronological age are presented in

Tables 58 and 59. The null hypothesis was accepted in each instance, except for socioeconomic status. The one-way anova calculation resulted in an F probability of

.0 19, however, the Tukey test indicated the difference between socioeconomic groups was not significant at the .05 level.

The lower middle class parents (n=25) who responded to the survey reported fewest changes in children's attitudes and behaviors with school entry.

Bivariate Relationships Pearson Product-Moment Correlations

Correlation analysis measures the degree and direction of the relationshp between two variables (Kerlinger* 1973).

The r-values range from 1.00 (a perfect inverse relationship) to =1.00 ( perfect direct relationship). Pearson product- moment calculation (Hopkins & Glass, 1978) revealed a mod­ erate positive association (r= .44) between parents' re­ sponses concerning their perceptions of changes in their children and changes they perceived in their own attitudes and behavior since school entry. (See Table 60.) Table 54 MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND t-VALUES OF PARENTS' RESPONSES TO THE CHANGES IN CHILDREN SUBSCAI.E

Number of Standard Variable Description Cases Mean Deviation. t-valuea P

Gender Boy 52 82.54 12.89

Girl it 9 83.55 11 .26 -0.42 .675

Transporta­ WalKs/ 8 92.87 5.62 tion Rides with parent

Hus 93 82.18 12.12 4.55 .001

Relationship Mother 62 82.31 10.58

Father 39 84.18 14.22 0./1 .481

Marital Married H6 82.95 12.58 Status Single 13 83.46 9.31 -0.17 .864

Experience Preschool 50 84.82 10.49

hone 51 81.2/ 13.32 1.49 . 140

Hi rth Order First-Born 37 81.51 12.22

Later-Born 36 81.72 12.07 -0.43 .672

Schedule Half-Day 48 82./I 12.97

whole-Day 51) 82.86 11 .44 -0.06 .951

't-values were calculated using 101 degrees of freedom Table 55

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND t-VALUES OF PARENTS’ RESPONSES TO THE CHANGES IN PARENTS SUBSCALE

Number of Standard variable Description Cases Mean Deviation t-valuea P

Gender Boy 52 37.61 7.02

Girl 64 3/.82 6.43 -0.16 .885

Transporta- Walks/ H 61 .00 5.50 11 on Rides with Parent

Hus 13 37.63 7.00 1.72 .1 20

ilclationshl p Motner 62 3/.18 7.56

Fatner 34 38.56 5.82 1.06 .303

Marital Married 86 37.63 6.68 Status Single 13 34.15 4.110 -0.66 .518

Experience Preschool 50 38. H6 6.23

None 51 36.61 7.67 1 .63 .|0b

HI rtn Order H r st-Horn 37 37.62 7.16

Later-Born 3b 36.56 /. 50 0.62 .536

Schedule Half-Day 48 38.10 5.74

whole-Day 50 3/.02 / .86 0. /8 .637 at-values were calculated using 101 degrees of freedom Table 56

MEANS, STANDARD D E V IA T IO N S AND t-V A L U E S OF PARENT GROUPS' RESPONSES ON THE CHANGES IN CHILDREN SUBSCALE

Number of Standard Variable Description Cases Mean Deviatlon t-value

Participation A Sample 101 B3.03 12.OH

Late Respondent 4 87.50 15.67 -0. 56 .61 2

(105 degrees of freednn)

Participation B Sample 101 83.03 12.08

Case Study 7 80.56 4.88 0.99 .34 3

t1U8 degrees of freedom) Table 57

MEANS, STANDARD D EV IA TIO N S AND t-V A L llE S OF PARENT CROUPS' RESPONSES ON THE CHANGES IN I’A REN IS SlIBSCAI.E

Number of Standard V.iri abl e Descri ptlon Cases Mean Devi at I on t-value

Participation A Sample lol 3/. n 6.

I.nte Respondent L( 38.50 6.56 -0.23 .824 (105 degrees of freedonl

Participation B Sample 101 37.72 6.94

Case Study 7 41.71 5.06 -1.47 . 1184 1 108 degrees of freedom) 132 Table 58

MEANS, STANDARD DEVIATIONS AND F-VALUES OF PARENTS’ RESPONSES TO THE CHANCES IN CHILDREN SUBSCALE

Number of Standard Variable Description Cases Mean Deviation F-Valuea F probability

Employment Employed 47 84.66 13.28 Status Homemaker 36 81.64 11 .53

Unemployed 18 81 .55 9.67 0.80 .453

85.9a Socio­ 10.0 - 19.9 16 13.60 economic Status 20.0 - 29.9 25 76.36 12.79

30.0 - 39.9 10 85.00 10.42

40.0 - 49.9 11 88.73 11 .23

50.0 - 59.9 7 87.28 10.47 4 bO.O - 79.9 92.25 5.74 2.90 .019

31 79.93 9.40 Cniid/s bl - 64 months A rc 4 7 84.93 1 3.29 65 - 69 months 84.21 11.38 70 - 73 months 19 4 79.00 1 7.53 1.28 .783 74 - 7B months Table 59

MEANS, STANDARD D EV IA TIO N S AND F-V A LU ES OF PARENTS’ RESPONSES To THE CHANCES IN PARENTS St I HSUALE

Number of Standard Vnri a hi e Description Cases Mean Deviation F-Value*1 F prohabi 11 ty

Employmont Employed 47 38.81 6.97 Status 6.72 Homemaker 36 36.97 7.24 1.15 .321 Unemployed 18 36.33

hocifl­ 10.0 - 19.9 16 36.44 6.98 ee onomi c 8.20 Status 20.0 - 29.9 25 36.80 7.30 30.0 - 39.9 10 38.80 36.28 7.07 a O.O - 49.9 11 1 .90 50.0 - 59.9 7 41 .43 4 4l .00 2.16 0.88 .501 bO.O - 79.9

31 38.52 6.43 • Chi id's bl - 6a months Apr 47 37.74 6.60 65 - 69 montns I 9 36.79 8.38 70 - 73 months 4 35.50 9.25 0.38 . 7h8 7a - 78 months 135

Table 60 PEARSON PKOUUCT-MOMENT CORRELATION COEPFlClENT BETWEEN PARENTS’ RESPONSES ON THE CHANCES IN CHILDREN AND PARENTS SUBSCALES

Changes in Parents

Cnanges in children r = U.i.37

P c .001

n = 101

Multivariate Relationship Multiple Regression Multiple regression is a statistical procedure which determines the relationship between sets of independent variables and a dependent variaDle. The multiple correla­ tion coefficient, R, is an index of the accuracy of a prediction equation. Tne Deta weights are regression co­ efficients which would be oDtained if the predictor variables had equal means and standard deviations. The variables with larger beta weights, negative or positive, are better pre­ dictor variables. Tne independent, or predictor variables, which were entered into the regression equation were: children s gender, age, preschool experience, birth order, type oi transportation to and from school and kindergarten schedulej parents' employment status, marital status, socioeconomic status and relationship to the child. The dependent Table 61 MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF THE PREDICTOR VARIABLES AND SCORES ON THE CHILDREN AND PARENTS SUBSCALES

Beta Weights for Predictors

Parents’ Criterion Multiple Preschool Employment Chi la's Birth Variable CorrelatlonlR) Transportation Experience Status Age Order

Children Subscale . 302~ -0.27 -0.18

Parent -0.14 -0.1b -0.25 -0.21 -0.20 Suhscale .356*

■•■F values were not Found to be significant. 137 variables were the summed scores on the Children and Parent sub­ scales. The predictor variables, individually or in combi­

nation were not significantly related to scores on either

subscales (See Table 61 ).

Summary

Only two of the research hypotheses listed on page 11-12 in Chapter 1 were not rejected. Parents' reports of changes

in children's attitudes and behaviors as they adjusted to

kindergarten and parents' reports of changes in their own

attitudes and behaviors were positively related (Hypothesis

1.0). The Pearson product moment correlation resulted in an

r value of .43. A t-test calculated for the variable of

transportation (Hypothesis 1.5) resulted in a failure to re­

ject the null hypothesis. Parents of children who rode the

bus reported more changes in children's attitudes and behav­

iors with kindergarten entry. The anova statistic for the

hypothesis related to socioeconomic status (Hypothesis 1.7)

yielded some contradictory results. It is possible that the

difference in parents' reports of changes in children's atti­ tudes and behaviors was very nearly s ig n ific a n t a t -the .05

level. The F probability on the one-way test indicated a significant difference,however the Tukey test indicated that

the difference was not significant at the .05 level. Both transportation and socioeconomic status related to parents' responses on only the Changes in Children subscale. The in- 138 dependent variables singly or in combinatin did not suffi­

ciently explain parents* survey responses. The survey results yielded a description of parents' per­ ceptions of changes in their children, themselves and family life with children's kindergarten entry (Research Questions

Four and Five, page 11 in Chapter 1). With school entry, parents frequently reported increases in children's: looking

forward to going to school, feeling "grown up," responsibility, helpfulness, independence, liking school, talking, asking questions, improvement in small muscle skills, trying new experiences, competitiveness, interest in school-related tasks a t home, using new words and developing new in te r e s ts . "No change" was the most common response by parents on the items pertaining to: children's tendency to be in a bad mood, dis­ play affection, watch television, engage in sex-stereotyped behavior, get along the siblings, hit others and use "bad" language. Relatively few parents reported decreases in any of the behaviors listed on the survey. Parents indicate': that they, themselves, thought more about what they wanted out of life, planned a special time to spend with their child, and were more concerned about the influence of o th er ch ild ren on their child, since school began. More than half of the parents indicated that they were more anxious over time. How­ ever, as previously discussed, the comments in d icated th a t the meaning of "anxious" was perceived by some parents to be nega­ tive, and by others to be positive. Many parents did not be­ lieve that their concern about "letting go" or their sadness 139

about their children going to school had changed over time.

Comparisons of mother and father data resulted in no signifi­

cant differences. Nor were differences found in comparisons of either case-studies or late respondents to the sample in

terms of their answers on the questionnaire.

The survey statistics resulted in a description of the perceptions of a selected group of parents with regard to children's kindergarten entry. Statistical procedures iden­ tified relationships that exist between a specific set of child, parent and family variables and parents' reports concerning school adjustment. However, these procedures did not bring to light any specific coping strategies of children or family members. Neither did they illustrate phases of the school ad­ justment process since the survey was administered at only one time. In order to explore these aspects of school adjustment it was necessary to obtain in-depth information about a few case-study children and families over time. Data wore collected primarily from parents but teachers, siblings and children themselves were also informants. Observations of children at home and at school, along with parental inter­ views were the primary procedures. The home-to-school tran­ sitions of four case-study children and families are presented in the following chapter. Both the survey results and the case-studies will be discussed and interpreted in Chapter Six. CHAPTER FIVE CASE STUDIES: A DESCRIPTION OF TRANSITION

Problem Statement

The purpose of this study is to describe the nature of kindergarten entry as a tra n s itio n phenomenon for children and families. The specific goals of the study a r e : 1. to describe any changes in children's attitudes and behavior which parents attribute to be the result of kinder­ garten entry;

2. to describe any changes in parents' attitudes and behavior which parents attribute to be the result of children's entry into kindergarten; 3. to identify strategies kindergarten children employ in the adjustment process associated with kindergarten entry;

4. to explore the nature of the relation­ ship, if any, between parents' attitudes and behavior with regard to school entry and children's kindergarten adjustment;

5. to determine any differences in the kindergarten adjustment process on the basis of children's age, gender, preschool experience, birth order, type of transportation to and from school and kindergarten schedule; and parents' socioeconomic status, marital status and employment status; 6. to describe any existing patterns of initial school adjustment which may emerge from the data. 140 Introduction

Kindergarten adjustment is a complex process'which in­

volves children, parents, siblings, and teachers. Any adjust­

ment means forming new relationships and re-establishing ex­

is tin g ones. Most ch ild re n more or le ss ad ju st to going to

kindergarten in the first several weeks of school. Some pat­

terns and stages of school adjustment have been identified in

the research reviewed in Chapter Two. The administration of

a survey instrument, such as the Changes in Children and Par­

ents with School Entry questionnaire (Beery, Note 1, 1983), yields a description of the adjustment of a group of children

and families. Sometimes individual patterns and strategies of adjustment are lost in such quantitative methods. In addition, the survey was administered to parents at only one point in time. Thus, any existing stages of school adjust­ ment can not be identified from the survey alone.

Observations of individual children and parent inter­ views conducted over the first several weeks of school are ways of compensating for these shortcomings in the survey data. One researcher could not possibly observe every child who participated in this study or interview all of their parents. Therefore, four case-study children and their families were selected from volunteers in the study popula­ tion. Throughout the first eight weeks of kindergarten, these children were observed at school and at home. Each of the children was observed twice at school in boLh the second and 142 third weeks of school. The children were observed once during each the fourth and fifth weeks. They werer observed one last time at school in either the sixth, seventh or eighth week of school. Each c h ild was observed once a t home, e ith e r before or after school (See Table 1 on page 82 in Chapter

Three). On alternate weeks parents were interviewed in their own homes. Each family was interviewed four times over the first eight weeks of school (See Table 2 on page 86 in

Chapter Three.) Children were observed in their homes during the interviews with their parents. Teachers' incidental com­ ments were also recorded.

The data reported here was collected in an attempt to describe patterns, strategies and stages of the successful adjustment of the case-study children and families to kinder­ garten entry. The four children involved in this study and their parents, families, and teachers are described in some detail. The researcher's background is included to provide the reader with some insight into her perspective. The adjustment process of these children and their families is described, as are the coping strategies which children employed in adjusting to kindergarten. The data have been classified according to domains as explained in Chapter Three. Themes, or relationships between the domains, are identified and discussed in Chapter bix. 143

Descriptions of Participants

The Researcher

Bronfenbrenner (1979a) proposed that it is necessary to

know the characteristics of the researcher in order to

evaluate the research. Only then can the reader judge the

researcher's ability to understand the setting and its

participants, and gain insight into the nature of the re­

s e a rc h e r's p ersp ectiv e on the phenomenon.

For ease of discussion, the first person singular will

be used in the remainder of Chapter Three. I am a Ph.D. can­

didate studying early childhood development, language devel­

opment and parent and family education. For four years I

taught kindergarten in one of the school districts which par­

ticipated in this study. I taught in the alternate, full-day

program in the same bu ild in g attended by two of the case-study

children. I am a married, white female from a middle-class

background. I do not have any children yet but I look for­

ward to being a parent. Following completion of this project

I am committed to a position of employment which involves pro­

viding programs for parents and caregivers of children from

birth to age five. This information should help the reader

understand my perceptions of kindergarten adjustment as pre­ sented in this report. I was the sole observer and interviewer in this project.

I collected and analyzed all of the data; however, throughout 144 the study I frequently discussed my findings and inter­ pretations with kindergarten teachers, child and family development specialists, and friends who I believe, to have insight into human nature. Dr. Ellen Martin-Huff, who con­ ducted a study of kindergarten entry and adjustment (Note 3, 1982) a year previous to my own data collection, was a continual source of suggestions concerning the collection and analyses of the following data.

Case-Study Children

The information contained in the following descriptions of the four case-study children originated primarily from my observations of the children at school. Whenever teachers' and parents' comments about children are included, the source is specifically identified.

Amy. Amy was the fourth girl of the five children in her family and she was also the youngest. I taught two of Amy's sisters in kindergarten. The oldest girl was in my class dur­ ing my first year of teaching. Amy's next oldest sister began the school year in my class three years later. She left after one month when the family moved to a neighboring school dis­ trict. They had moved back again by the time Amy started kindergarten and one reason they gave for their return was their preference for the school district. Amy was five years and nine months old when the study began. She had a speech problem tor which she attended speech therapy during the summer prior to school entry and 145

\AJi roov.'- cn . -C 1 . o Oebk Door -Vo"fire escape

Co.rpe+ CS Hi ) c O Ho.rd wood ~E o o i. o c£ ■=£ 1 £ o .

i:J t ■_c

3 cC

D oor -\c | | 1 Tqv/ OheWc:

Figure 4. Amy's Kindergarten Classroom 146 she went to "speech class" at school. Amy had no formal

preschool experience except Sunday school. Her parents felt that she knew more than her brother and sisters did

when they started school because her siblings had "taught

Amy her ABC's and her numbers."

Amy attended school from 9:30 a.m. to 3:45 p.m. on

Tuesdays, Thursdays and alternate Fridays. The bus picked

her up near her house at about 8:45 a.m. Since school

s ta rte d , Amy was u su ally up and dressed by 7:30 a.m. "She

stands at the bus stop and blows Mommy kisses," said her

father. Amy arrived back home at around 4:45 p.m. She got on and off the bus with two of her older sisters but each

girl went to a different school building. One sister was

still on the bus when it stopped to transfer kindergartners from Amy's neighborhood onto the bus which took them to

kindergarten. This same sister met Amy at the transfer point

again in the afternoon. Mother said she might worry more a-

bout Amy riding Lhe bus if her other daughters were not also on the bus.

Amy was in a class of 30 kindergarten children. The teacher, Mrs. H., was a former colleague of mine arid a good friend. She had no full-time help. The school aide was able to assist her sometimes, and Mrs. H. was known for involving volunteers in her classroom. She even occasionally asked me to "help out" when I was in the building to observe. Amy was quiet as she watched, listened to and imitated Mrs. H.

She raised her hand often and when called upon she usually 147 knew the answer. Sometimes Mrs. H. had to ask Amy to repeat

herself because her teacher did not understand Amy's speech.

Mrs. H. ususally indicated that she understood Amy by modeling

the correct pronunciation for her. Amy tried to participate in

the activities of the classroom, even if she was unsure of the content. For example, when first learning the "color song"

Amy would sing the last word of each phrase until she knew the words to the entire song. She usually chose to sit near

Mrs. H. but she also had friends in the class. She knew her best friend, Paula, before school began because Amy's

mother had been Paula's babysitter since the girls were

infants. Amy usually acknowledged Paula's touches or at­

tempts at conversation in the classroom with a smile, but

quickly refocused on Mrs. H. and the business of school.

Amy's father described her as a "leader, not a follower."

Her mother's concern about Amy and Paula being disruptive

because "they're like sisters" was not confirmed. Some­

times the girls planned to dress alike on certain days.

"Paula told me to wear a dress tomorrow," Amy told her

mother. Amy said that she liked school and her teacher very much. The fe e lin g was mutual, as Mrs. H. described Amy as

"precious" and "a good little student." Her parents said

she was excited about going to school each day and told them a lo t about school when she got home. "She comes home and

she just can't shut up," said her mother. Amy bought a hot lunch at school and she usually cleaned her tray. According 148 to her parents she considered the chocolate milk served as an afternoon snack to be a "treat1' since her mother did not buy i t a t home. Amy worked c a re fu lly on her school papers.

If she needed help or clarification, she was not afraid to ask. Sometimes she asked for help nonverbally. Once, for example, she stood in front of me with her hands on her hips and her foot stuck out, waiting for me to tie her shoe.

Amy’s parents expected her to do well in school. In my first interview her mother said "she couldn't wait" to go to school and both parents expressed their confidence in Amy's a b ility : Father: She shouldn't have any problems. She's done it all at home already Iwith her older sistersJ.

Mother: She's bright as far as her ABC's and her numbers and about everything she needs to know to go to school, or start kindergarten. "She’s so proud of her papers," said her mother, who went over them at the kitchen table each afternoon when Amy got off the bus. Amy, who was coloring at the table during this interview, piped in with, "School's fun." She explained my relationship with the school, "Yeah, she's in my class, Mommy."

Amy separated easily from her mother at school on the first day. "She couldn't wait" to go to school and "she didn't cry at all" or show any signs of anxiety, according to her mother. Her father says, "No, she was ready to go to school." Mrs. H. said Amy quickly got inLo the routine of 149 school. Amy cried once about three weeks into school, and it happened that I was there observing at the time. ;Amy was sitting at her table coloring with a red crayon when she stopped, put her name on the paper, put the paper under her school box and began to cry. For the first time I initiated contact with Amy and asked her what was wrong, but she would not tell me. Instead she pulled the paint shirt she was wearing up over her head, and buried her face in her arms on the table. Mrs. H. then noticed Amy and tried to comfort her, but Amy continued to cry until Mrs. H. asked her to hold "Duso" the puppet. At recess Mrs. H. discovered that Amy could not find the new crayons which she had brought with her from home. Mrs. H. promised to find the crayons or get her a new box and Amy agreed. Amy's parents suspected she might have cried because she thought she would be in trouble at home for losing the crayons. Amy became ill with a respiratory infection and missed school for a few days following this incident. Mrs. H. bought Amy a new box of crayons. Her parents picked them up at a conference with the speech

Leacher and took them to Amyswho was still sick. Her mother said Amy was especially "thrilled" when she saw it was a box of 24 crayons. Becky. Becky was five years and eight months old when school began. Upon school entry she could recognize alpha­ bet letters, count objects, write her name and read some words. She also knew the rules of school behavior like 150

“ ------i nn ii Bookohci'jea C u ld b y

W 0 Desk 1 e b

f

K'+chtn i Carpe-t

Door +c tell P ia n o fiecen ; T Otand i "Toy ahe'ivss

Figure 5. Becky's Kindergarten Classroom 151 raising her hand to ask permission to talk. Becky's school

knowledge was, no doubt, enhanced by the fact that Becky's

mother was a kindergarten teacher in a classroom just down

the hall from Becky's room. Becky and her four year-old

brother had spent a lot of time in their mother's classroom

before and after school. In addition, the previous year

Becky had attended the preschool which her brother was

attending this year. Becky's parents were friends with

Becky's teacher and her husband, so Becky had grown up know­

ing both Mr. and Mrs. M. Becky rode lo and from school each morning with her mother, who taught only a morning (9:00 - 11:30a.m.) kinder­ garten session. On Fridays, her mother often picked up Becky’s brother at preschool, and the three ate a sack lunch at school with the other kindergarten teachers. Mrs. M's. husband, who taught junior high physical education in the

same school b u ild in g , sometimes joined them. Becky to ld her mother that she wanted to ride the bus like other children.

Mother reported that this feeling heightened after Becky onco rode home with a friend. Both parents agreed that they would be more concerned about Becky going to school i f she rode the bus. Once they arrived at school Becky rarely saw her mother until it was time to go home.

Mrs. M. described Becky as a "model k in d erg artn er” in her class of almost 30 ch ild re n . Becky was very observant, even to the point of reminding Mrs. M. of a nursery rhyme 152 paper which they had not done one day. This paper had evi­ dently become p a r t of the school day routine for Becky and she noticed its omission. On the first day of school she compared and discovered on her own, "we have the same much girls.and the same much boys." Becky always participated in whatever activity was going on in the classroom. She was creative, for example, in thinking of word games, but when painting she chose to do a rainbow which was one of her te a c h e r's suggestions. She remembered from one day to the next to wear a short-sleeved shirt in which to paint.

Becky followed d ire c tio n s w ell, and looked out for other children to make sure they complied with school rules and procedures. She reminded the boy next to her, "It’s resting tim e." She to ld Mrs. M. when someone was hurting another child, destroying property, or just disobeying the "rules."

Becky was n e a t, c a refu l and conscientious about her work and she seemed to expert other ch ild ren to be the same.

She never was directly unkind to other children during my observations, but she sometimes whispered about someone e l s e 's "messy c o lo rin g ." Becky was playful in the c la s s ­ room and she smiled a lo t. She paid p a rtic u la r a tte n tio n to

Mrs. M. She watched her frequently and listened to her, even when Mrs. M. was engaged in conversations which did not in ­ clude Becky. She often followed Mrs. M. v isu a lly around the classroom. Becky usually chose to sit near her teacher. She very often asked Mrs. M. for help, clarification and approval. 153 For example, she asked for help fastening her pants and said,

"Look at [my paper], Mrs. M." Becky was not afraid to correct

her teacher. For example, Mrs. M. said that the tiger had

" sp o ts." Becky said , "You mean s tr ip e s ." Becky was able to

take nonverbal cues from her teacher. Once she forgot to

raise her hand before speaking. Mrs. M. raised her own hand

and Becky showed she understood by ra isin g her hand and w ait­

ing to be called on to speak. Becky also had peer relationships in her classroom. Her special friend, Miracle, was the only black child in Becky's class. Becky's parents said that they encouraged their child­ ren to accept others regardless of race. Becky's father, a high school coach, often had black players in their home. He described Becky's "fascination" with these boys as a result of

seeing them as "football stars." Miracle and Becky taught each other cheers and sometimes they planned to wear "dresses" or their school mascot T-shirts on certain days. Her mother

said Becky was choosing her own clothes "more and more." She wanted "cheerleading shoes" (black and white saddle oxfords)

because M iracle had some. In spite ot Becky's prior experiences with school and

her familiarity with her teacher, she exhibited some signs

ot anxiety at the beginning of kindergarten. On the first

day she told her mother, "I'm a little shaky." Becky's mother did not remember herself ever using that word, and she

suspected th a t Becky had picked up on the sense of nervous­ 154 ness and anticipation, either from herself, or from the other children at school. Mother: "I'm a little shaky.'1 That was the . word she kept using. And I wondered if she was, I don't believe that she really was. I think it was like that was what she was supposed to be. On the first morning before school, Becky asked her mother if she was allowed to blow her nose at school and if they had to curl her h a ir every day. Becky acted shy when she was supposed to stand and introduce herself to the class. She caved in her chest and whispered her name through her giggles.

For the first few weeks at school she often had the fingers of her right hand in or near her mouth. Her mother mentioned that Becky was tired the first few days of school.

Becky's parents reported that she loved school and her teacher. Many of her papers were displayed on the family's r e f r ig e r a to r , and she showed me a new e d itio n a t each interview. A paper zoo, consisting of animals made at school in preparation for the zoo trip, occupied the nonworking living room fireplace for a few weeks. She played school at home, and made "school materials" such as a card game which she constructed during one of my visits.

Becky knew the student ro le so well that she was able to compensate for flaws in school materials. When the reading teacher asked her to identify the color of a faded yellow construction paper circle, Becky first said "peach."

When the teacher said it was supposed to be the color of 155 the wall, which was obviously yellow, Becky said, "Oh, it's yellow." The black circle had also faded and looked blue, but Becky figured it out. "Oh, she said, "it looks blue but it's really black."

Several incidents occurred during Becky's school entry and adjustment period. Her mother, who was two months pregnant, miscarried. Becky, who had been told about the baby was a little sad and said to her mother, "we really wanted that baby, didn't we?" As far as Becky was concerned though, her mother was never ill, because she did not have to stay in the hospital or miss school. Once Becky told Mrs. M. and the class a story about her grandfather's alligator, which died on the same day he died. Mrs. M. asked Becky's mother about the story, who in turn asked Becky if that was a ''pretend" story. When Becky smiled, her mother suggested that she tell people from now on when a story was pretend. Once Becky rode the bus home with another little girl who she knew from preschool, and who was now in her m other's kin d er­ g arten c la ss. Becky crossed the a is le to wave out the window to her mother, who was standing on the sidewalk. She was evidently very embarrassed when her friend told her that she _ was on the "boys' side of the bus." During the last observa­ tion Becky practically avoided contact with Miracle. When another c h ild asked Becky i f M iracle was coming to her house on th a t day, Becky was adament. "No, and s h e 's not coming any day." Becky's parents had no idea what this was about, but 156 they did mention that Becky had not talked as much about Miracle lately. Becky chose to tell yet another little girl

that a boy in her class had kissed her. Matthew. Matthew was constantly on the move, touching everything and everyone. He was almost always carrying on a conversation. He talked to himself if no one else was available. Me had a slight speech delay including an immature ,,r" (substituted "w" tor "r" sound). Matthew's teach­ er described him as a very imaginative child with a "stu­ pendous” vocabulary. His teacher told me that once Matthew was swinging pretty high on the playground swing set. He said,

"I'm swinging so high 1 can see Jesus. I can see his home."

1 observed Matthew on his way back to his room from visiting the reading teacher, he placed his paper on his shoulders like a cape, and he repeatedly whispered to himself, "I'm flying, I ’m flying," all the way back to his room. Matthew's mother told me that he had had an "imaginary teacher"

since his next older brother went to kindergarten three

years ago.

Matthew was five years and four months old when school

began. He was the youngest of tour children. His mother had

a part-time public relations job for the community college while Matthew was at school (12:00 - 2:30 p»m.) The o ffic e

of the community college was in one wing of Matthew's school

building, so his mother occasionally looked in on his class­

room. However, Matthew usually rode the bus to and from Chalk Board

Q Oe^k “E c£ -X _£ CJ

I»? : o3 t

b+ore

C a rp e t

Da-'i- -b Cubby Haleb hall H I I Loc'v-ert) receded \c\ Vyali

Figure 6. Matthew's Kindergarten Classroom school . Once his father .tried to pick him up after school but

Matthew "wouldn't come" because he wanted to ride the bus with his "pals." According to his parents, Matthew was

anxious to go to school and he really liked it. During a home observation Matthew announced, "I like school better than anything except Jesus." Matthew's mother reported that

he adored Mrs. S., his kindergarten teacher. He frequently

told her she was beautiful, which he pronounced "bootiful."

Once I heard him try to make amends w ith her a f t e r she asked

him to "settle down." "Mrs. S., I love you, you're bootiful," he said. Matthew's mother accompanied the class on the zoo

trip, and noticed that Matthew was "put out" that he could not hug Mrs. S. on the return bus trip because she had an­ other child asleep on her lap. In the classroom Matthew

sought the physical proximity of his teacher. For example, he almost always sat near her on the rug. Matthew told me,

"Mrs. S. lives at the school and all the teachers who teach kids live there." Then he grinned sheepishly and said,

"pretend." Matthew's parents said that he was tired for the first

week of school but it was not noticeable at school.. Matthew

often fidgeted, wiggled, touched other children, blew on

papers or children, made faces, talked without permission, and

experimented with changing his voice and making funny sounds.

During the first couple of weeks of school he. seemed to be

trying hard to be on his very best behavior. His school

behavior was "reserved" in comparison to his home behavior 159 during this time. As time went on Mrs. S. mentioned to me

that his behavior was "horrible1' lately and that he was

"hyper." She commented s p e c ific a lly on the in crease in d is ­

ruptive behavior, especially talking and "silly stuff." He usually colored very carefully and slowly. He also spent a

lot of time watching the almost 30 other children in his class

and talking to himself. Once the teacher asked him to "get

busy" and he raced with the other children at his table to

finish first. This time his work was sloppy. According to

his parents, Matthew learned his ABC's amd numbers from his

older sister and two older brothers. "He's smarter than

they are," laughed his father.

Matthew listened attentively to stories and filmstrips.

He often participated in class, and he almost always knew the

answer which his teacher was seeking. He had a comment for

everything. When Mrs. S. told the children she had a cold, Matthew muttered under his breath, "I noticed." He was help­ ful. He put up chairs for children who forgot, and he wanted to "help" children who did not know an answer. "I'll show her the letters but I won't tell her," or, "I'll give her hints but nothin' else," he said. In his running monologue he corrected other children or changed the situation to please himself. When one child called for "teacher," Matthew mumbled, "Her name's not teacher, it's Mrs. S." When choosing the quietest table toline up first, he whispered, "Matthew's ta b le ," but Mrs. S. chose another ta b le in stead . 160 Matthew had friends at school. "I have one girlfriend and

two b o y frie n d s.” He knew Nicholas before school because the

boys' mothers were friends. He met his girlfriend, Andria, at

school, where she sat at his table. They "blew" at each other,

he hit her on the back, they kicked each other under the table, and I once saw him give her a hug. "My kid's a leader, not a follower," said Matthew's moth­

er. "I beat everybody in the class," bragged Matthew, as he

sat down following the prayer and Pledge of Allegiance. His

parents told me that he was proud of his school papers. He

asked to borrow his mother's scissors with which he cut out

"money", both bills and coins, for his mother "because she's

always broke." Matthew evidently talked a lot about school

at home. "When he gets home he's all yackety-yak about what he did, what he learned, or this little friend did something,"

said his mother, who wondered, "How do [they] get all that in

two and a half hours?" The only incident which came to my attention during

Matthew's first few weeks of school concerned a misunderstand­

ing about his "satchel." Matthew had lost his satchel at home, or at least did not bring it to school one day. Another boy had one just like Matthew's, and Matthew thought the boy had his satchel. Mrs. S. told Matthew to put his papers in his book-bag. He replied that he did not have it. She told him to try to remember to bring it to school. He quietly muttered that iL was at school, but Mrs. S. did not hear him. He seemed contused th at she did not understand. Mrs. S. 161 was busy getting everyone else ready to go home and she did not pursue the situation. Matthew explained my position at

the school to his mother, "She sees if kids have problems."

When I arrived for a home visit Matthew thought I had come

to pick him up to take him to school. The only time

Matthew cried about school was when he was sick and had to stay home tor a tew days.

Robbie. Robbie was five years and eight months old when he went to kindergarten. He was an only child and lived with his mother on her family farm. She had been divorced for about two years and on alternate weekends Robbie visited his father in the next county. When he was with his father,

Kobbie attended a church-based day care. He went to a near­ by babysitter's or to his grandparents' when his mother was working. The babysitter had a daughter in the first grade at Robbie's school. She had attended kindergarten last year, but was in a different kindergarten teacher's class. Robbie's mother was relieved that he got on and off of the bus with her. Said his mother, "I would probably have a heart attack deluxe, [him] getting on the bus not knowing anybody." Robbie told his mother that he would have preferred to get on and off of the bus at his house "like everybody else." Robbie went to school from 9:30 a.m. to 3:45 p.m. on Mondays, Wednesdays and alternate Fridays. He was in the kindergarten classroom which was mine when I taught in this building. In this small room th ere were 12 stu d en ts. 162

Vsl! 'cdowb s h e . I i ■F !

D esk

Ruc\ O O o QD rr <£.— Drrr -jo

■n«'P escape ^ Tru

D»or iohaii Cbojk S.urd I

Figure 7. Robbie's Kindergarten Classroom 1 6 3 Mrs. P., Robbie's teacher, told me that she wished she had "more [students] like Robbie" and then she "wouldn't have any problems." Robbie was observant, he paid special atten­ tion to his teacher and the other children in his class. His behavior was reserved a t school and he seemed more mature than his classmates. In fact, his mother worried that he would be

"bored" in school. When I asked him if he had learned to write his name in school, he replied, "No, I learned it from me!"

He was conscientious about his work,which he finished quickly and carefully. Robbie appeared to have practiced doing "school work" previous to school entry. In his living room he had his own desk, and his mother was surprised that his teacher did not recommend the " fa t" p en cils which she had purchased fo r him to practice with over the summer preceding school entry.

During the first interview Robbie sat at his desk and made an "inventory" of the words which he knew how to write and he gave these to me (See Appendix F). Robbie accepted responsibility. When I arrived on the first day, he had already hung up his jacket and paid his lunch and milk money to the school aide, who was stationed in the upstairs hall. According to his mother, he was es­ pecially pleased and proud to have been given the job of

"milk man" in the first few days of school. Like Matthew, he "helped" other children by "mouthing" the answers if they did not know them.

Robbie usually sat near Mrs. P. and he watched her quite a bit. He initiated conversations with his teacher, asking 1 6 4 for assistance or advice. He had several friends in his

class, but Travis was his "best buddy." Travis was a bright

six year-old, whose parents decided to wait a year to send

him to school. Travis and Robbie sat Logether and they usually finished their work at about the same time.

Like his classmates, Robbie occasionally made faces,tum­ bled on the carpet and pretended to "bite" the other boys. He

sometimes tickled the girls or blew on their hair. However, when Mrs. P. talked he focused on her visually and orally. Robbie seemed tired over the first couple of weeks of sch o o l. He yawned and stre tc h e d freq u en tly but he never fell asleep at "rest time." His mother said that he had to get used to going to bed earlier, and missing some of his usual television programs. Robbie's mother said that he did not tell her very much about school at first. She described him as being "closed mouthed." Because she had no older child­ ren who had been to school and no other contact with school, she asked me many questions concerning the rules and proce­ dures. She did say that some information came "pouring out" of Robbie at bedtime, but she felt that this was more to avoid going to bed than because he really wanted to,"share" his experience with her. As time went on, Robie talked more about school at home, and h is mother v is ite d the school. Robbie's mother described his behavior at separation on the first day of school. At le a s t what I saw of him a t school, he was ju st ready to go in and do whatever he was supposed to do, which I was glad to see." 1 6 5 Robbie "fiddled" with his school box quite a bit in the first few days of school. Robbie told his mother that he did not know the principal and "he didn't want.to” because the only reason you go to her is when "you're bad and get a paddlin'." However, the preceding spring at kindergarten registration, Robbie had a conversation with the principal,

"I'm ready tor kindergarten and my mom's ready tor me to go, too,” he said.

There really were no special incidents pertaining to

Robbie's school entry and adjustment. However, when I observed Robbie a t home, he was a lo t louder, and much more active, talkative and aggressive than he was at school. His mother reported a marked increase in "showing off" at home with school entry. She called this his "only-child syndrome” and was concerned that he might require a lot of attention in class. She mentioned that Robbie's father had recently been dating someone new, and that she felt that he might be vying for attention for that reason.

In actual observation time, I spent less time with

Robbie than with the other children. This may have been just a coincidence, but I did feel like my presence made Robbie's teacher uncomfortable. She was the teacher in my former position in my "old" classroom. I may even have been the one who was uncomfortable with the situation. I am sure that Robbie and his mother had nothing to do with why I spent less time with him. In comparing my descriptions of 1 6 6 Robbie's school entry and adjustment to those of the other

case-study children, I believe his is just as complete.

Case-Study Families

All four of the case-study families were white, middle-

class families (according to the Duncan rating of socioeco­

nomic status). Becky's parents were both teachers. Matthew's

mother was taking classes toward recertification as an ele­ mentary teacher and his father worked as a foreman in the production of farm machinery. Robbie's mother was also

a certified teacher. She taught evenings at the community

college, but she worked as an accountant for an implement

sales company. Amy’s father was the .frozen food manager in a

locally owned grocery and her mother was a. homemaker. All of the parents indicated that they valued education and had

generally positive feelings about their own school exper­

iences. All of the parents were very cooperative in schedul­

ing interviews and in letting me observe their children in

their homes. Each of the parents conveyed to me that they recognized

their role as their children's first and most important

teachers, especially with regard to values and moral educa­ tion Therefore, they talked about taking their responsibility as parents quite seriously. Their belief that they had done a good job so far as parents, and their conviction to continue to do so was evident. Matthew's p aren ts and Amy's parents readily acknowledged the positive influence of their older

children on their kindergartners, particularly with 1 6 7 "academics" such as letters and numbers. Even though

Matthew’s parents thought of their older children's kindergarten experiences somewhat negatively, they pointed

out the relationship between individual personalities and the kindergarten experience. They indicated that they be­

lieved that Matthew's kindergarten experience suited his per­

sonality and they were delighted. In each family at least one parent pointed out their concern that they might not be "typical." Becky's parents suggested that maybe they were not good subjects because

Becky's mother, as a kindergarten teacher, was so close to the situation. Her father was very busy with coaching during the time of data collection and was, therefore, unable to spend as much time with Becky as "usual." Matthew's mother apologized for the negative feelings she expressed about the school system due to her older children's bad experiences.

"We probably don't sound like any other parents," she said to me on my last visit. She liked Matthew's teacher but, as a former teacher herself, she believed that her other child­ ren's teachers should be doing "better." Robbie's mother, a certified teacher and a single parent, was aware of her uniqueness as a respondent, but she seemed quite comfortable with her situation. When I originally asked Amy's mother if she would be willing to participate in the study, she ex­ pressed the possibility that I might not want to study them because of Amy's speech problem. Since th is data was not in ­ tended to be generalizable anyway, it was not really a concern 1 6 8 that the families be representative. The uniqueness of these children and families has been outlined here so that the

reader may bear them in mind when considering the following

information.

Domains

Certain domains were identified in the observational

and interview data according to the method described by

Spradley 11979, 1980). They are outlined and discussed

h e re :

Children The case-study children were not selected on the basis

of their easy adjustment to kindergarten. However, each of

these four children did adjust quite easily and quickly to

school, according to their teachers and parents. Granted, children who exhibited obvious disturbance with school entry were eliminated from the study, but it was still notable

that all of these children learned the student role so quickly. Some commonalities of the children's attitudes

and behavior began to emerge from the observations. The

parents' reports confirmed these common characteristics of the case-study children.

Common characteristics of children who adjusted easily and quickly to kindergarten. According to parents and teach­ ers and compared to their classmates, all of the case-study children were especially bright, independent, outgoing and confident. Their teachers noted that they had no difficul­ 1 6 9 ties completing the "work” asked of them at school. Parents attributed their children's capabilities to prior exper­ iences. For example, parents reported that older siblings had "taught" Amy and Matthew "school s tu ff" lik e ABC's and numbers. Becky and Robbie had mothers who told me they worked with their children on school-related activities. In addition, Becky and Robbie each had some preschool experiences which included an introduction to "academic" concepts. All four children carried over school activites at home either by playing school, doing "homework," or making games and mater­ ials with school supplies. The children all took pride in their school work which their parents displayed at home. They each noticed and mentioned their satisfaction with teachers' written responses on their work. "You could win Robbie's hear with a smiley face [sticker]," said his mother.

All of these chidren used their verbal competence to help them make friends and establish relationships with their teachers. Each one of them initiated an interaction with me on the first day 1 was in their classroom. None of these children were in awe of their teacher or other adults in the school setting. Each child frequently asked their teacher for help, clarification, or approval. Each child paid particular attention to their teacher in the classroom. They all watched their teachers a great deal of the time, listened whenever they spoke, and tried to be near them whenever possible. The children seemed eager to "please" their teachers with their

"work" and behavior. Each of them attempted to do whatever 1 7 0 their teacher asked of them. Matthew even used flattery and

jokes and Becky sometimes "tattled."

The children participated quite frequently in class.

Even when i t was obvious th a t they did not understand exactly

what was expected of them, they were not afraid to take the

chance of "acting like students." For example, Amy sang only

the parts of the color song which she knew. Gradually they

began to accept and anticipate the "routines" of the school

day and they seemed to find se c u rity in them. Becky even

reminded Mrs. M. that they had forgotten to do the nursery

rhyme paper.

The case-study c h ild re n also spent a good deal of time

watching other children in the class. Each of the four

children made new friends at school. They were all able to interact with other children by touching and talking, but they did not let this interaction interfere with the "business” of school. "I always sit by Paula but we don't talk," said Amy to her parents. For a "best" friend each child chose another child who was doing well in school.

Parents described these children as sensitive and indi­ cated that their feelings were easily hurt. Becky's mother said that the slightest reprimand would "crush her." Accord­ ing to their parents, all of the children liked school very much and "loved" their teachers. Even though Robbie told me once that he did not like school, his behavior showed that he really did. When I asked him what he did not like about it, he replied, "that's just the way."- The children's attitudes 1 7 1 toward school continued throughout the eight week observation and interview period.

Differences in children. Only Robbie did not talk a lot about school at home with his mother. His mother said several times that she "expected" him to come home "bubbling with all this information of everything he'd done." Instead she had to "pry out every little piece of stuff about what goes on." However, in the interviews she revealed that he had, indeed, told her quite a bit, especially as time went on.

In addition, once school started, Robbie's mother was enforcing an earlier bedtime. She intimated that he might be saving information about school until bedtime in order to stay up longer. The boys' school behavior was much more reserved than their home behavior, especially in the first few weeks of school. Gradually Matthew's school behavior became more like his home behavior. Robbie continued to be quieter, more serious and less mobile at school. No obvious differences be­ tween home and school behavior was noted for the girls.

Changes in children's behavior and attitudes with school entry. All of the children's parents felt that their children were excited about going to school. Becky was the only child who indicated that she might be nervous or anxious about school entry when she told her mother she was "shaky" on the f i r s t day. Becky's mother f e l t th a t Becky was expressing something that she thought she was supposed to feel rather than real anxiety. Only during the first week of school 1 7 2 were the children more tired than usual. Parents felt that this was due more to being "too excited to sleep" for a night or two before school started rather than to the physical demands of the school day. Children definitely felt "grown up" because they went to school. Matthew and Amy, in particular, could not under­ stand why they were still the "babies" in their families.

Amy: You always call me baby. Mother: That's 'cause you are my baby. Amy: No, I ain't. I go to school. Mother: You're my baby girl. You'll always be my baby girl no mat­ ter how old you are. Amy: When I get eight years old, I ain't your baby girl. Mother: When you get to be fifty, you'll still be my baby girl. Amy: Huh-uh.

Matthew's mother overheard him talking on the telephone to

her f rie n d 's young c h ild . "I'm a big boy now. I go to

school. You're still a baby. You don't go to school yet." Matthew was not quite ready to give up his "special" posi­

tion in the family. Three weeks into school he came down­

stairs in the morning before anyone but his mother was up.

He climbed into his mother's lap and said:

Mom, do you remember when I was a little kid? I used to always come down and give you a big hug and kiss. I'm gonna start doin' that again 'cause I love you so much.

The children enjoyed the new responsibilities which school offered. Children talked at home about milk or snack

time as a significant school event. Amy's parents said she

liked taking her milk money to school and drinking "choco- 1 7 3 late." Robbie told his mother he was pleased to have been chosen to be the milk man. Becky and Matthew acted

"important" on the days they brought the snack and got to pass it out. The children indicated to their parents that they en­ joyed the new responsibilites that school offered. Child­ ren talked at home about milk or snack as a significant school event. Amy's parents said she liked taking her milk money to school and drinking "chocolate." Robbie told his mother he was pleased to have been chosen to be the milk man. Becky and Matthew acted "im portant" on the days they brought the snack and got to pass it out. Parents felt that all of the children had learned new

vocabulary words at school. Becky came home practicing

"cheers." One day she told her mother she would "tidy up"

her room and her mother said she had never heard her use

that expression before. Matthew's mother relayed her sur­

prise when he told the other children in the station wagon to "keep their heads and hands inside a moving vehicle."

The children told their parents names of the other chil­

dren and of teaching materials, "Duso" the puppet, for

example. Robbie's mother noticed him using "big words" at

his grandparents' and she assumed that he had learned them

at school. Soon after beginning kindergarten the parents

of three of the children noticed them using profanity for

the first time. In each case, however, parents traced the 1 7 4 probable source to other children whom their child knew from outside the school setting. Cross-gender experiences arose at school for all of the children. Matthew had a "girlfriend: what sat beside him and he hugged her, kicked her, and "blew" on her. A boy in

Becky's class kissed her and both Amy and Robbie were in­ volved in episodes of "kiss chase" on the playground at re­ cess . Robbie's mother said he had "more girlfriends than he could count." All of the children had slight changes in their dispo­ sitions, according to their parents. Some of these changes were possibly related to the increased feelings of importance and independence children were experiencing. Robbie's mother described him as a "grump," perhaps due to his tiredness.

She also pointed out an increase in his "showing off."

Matthew's father believed that he, too, had become more of a "show off" since he started going to school. Becky's mother felt that she cried and "whined" more often, especially in dealings involving her younger brother.

Becky's father added that now that her brother was almost as big as she was, and was no longer so easy to manipulate,

Becky got frustrated when playing with him. Her mother added that Becky acted a little more "teachery" or "bossy" w ith her b ro th er and was more " i n s i s t e n t .” Amy’s parents thought that she was also bossier and more territorial with her sisters, especially her next older sister. In addition,

Amy was more demanding and "m outhier" with her p aren ts, they 1 7 5 said. She began to hesitate, shrug her shoulder or put her

nose in the air when asked to do something, almost as if she

was wondering if she really had to do it. "Maybe that's

growing up," said her mother. Amy's mother thought that

Amy used her new reference, "mother" (said with the accent on

the first syllable) when she did not like what her mother told her to do. For the first time, both girls began to pick out their own clothes each morning before they went to kindergarten. Like Becky and Miracle, Amy and Paula would "plan" what to wear to school on c e rta in days. Becky was involved in an episode illustrating peer pressure. Following snack the children at her table were discussing the fact that they were "still hungry." Someone suggested their desire for "candy." Becky said , "Oh, I h ate candy." When the conver­ sation proceeded to "candy cigarettes," however, her position evidently changed. "I love candy cigarettes." Becky's parents did not believe that she had even tasted candy c ig a re tte s . Mother reported th a t Becky wanted to rid e the bus, and Robbie wished he could board the bus at his house and take his lunch to school. Their reasons were that they wanted to be like the other children. Becky did more " ta ttlin g " to Mrs. M. as time went on. Her mother tried to explain to her conditions when it was necessary to tell the teacher, "Honey, if you're not hurt, you don't have to tell every single thing." Her mother expressed her concern about this as well as Becky's increased 1 7 6 "baby talk." After a few weeks of school I noticed that

Becky began to mimic Mrs. M .'s d is tin c t speech and melodic

"school voice." Her parents had also noticed this change but had not associated it with school. At school, her mother f e l t th a t Becky had become more in te re ste d in adult conversations. She f e l t th a t Becky should not hear teach ers' conversation about their students, for example. It seemed to her mother that she was sometimes having to "chase" Becky o ff. All of the children participated in more "school-like" a c tiv itie s at home a f te r school began. At home, Becky's

mother overheard her playing "school" with a first grader, *

but Becky was the teacher. Her mother mocked Becky:

Now, let's go in. You sit here and you sit here. We're gonna' make a card fo r our mommies. You each can have a different color of paper. I'll call your name and yju come over here and pick out what you want.

During an interview Becky came and asked her mother for

"cards like at school" to make a game. Her mother said

that the two of them had recently begun to make recipes,

crafts and experiments out of Becky's "Humpty Dumply

Magazine." ’I've noticed a marked improvement in her color­

ing," added her father. Matthew asked to use scissors at

home with which he made "money" for his mother. During an

interview in his living room Robbie made an inventory of

all the words he knew how to write and gave them to me. His mother said he just started coloring "pretty good." Amy sat

at the kitchen table and colored during two of my meetings 1 7 7 with her parents. "Since school entry it looks like they've

Ismail motor skills] improved," said Amy's mother. Adjustment and Coping Strategies

Aside from individual personality characteristics, the

case-study children in this study exhibited some common

behaviors, or strategies of coping with kindergarten entry.

One of these strategies was the considerable amount of

"watching" behavior. Children spent a lot of time observing

their teachers, in particular, but they also watched other

children. They were able to maintain this "focused atten­

tion" while acknowledging the friendly gestures of their peers. A second noticeable behavior involved children's

participation in the activities of the classrooms. The

case-study children took cues from their teachers and peers. Then they took the risks necessary to "act like students." They participated frequently even when they could only approximate what was expected of them. They often vol­ unteered. The ch ild re n also seemed to be try in g to f i t in by conforming. They wanted to dress like other children, to ride the bus "like everybody else," and they even changed some of their opinions,for example, Becky finally agreeed that she liked candy cigarettes. Parents reported changes in the content of children's language at home with school entry. Three of the children talked a lo t about school at home, mentioning new names and using new words, which their parents were sure they had learned at school. Robbie's mother said he did not talk much 178 about school at first, but after a few weeks he also began

to tell "school stories" and use "school vocabulary." All

of the children "practiced" the role of student at home,

using school supplies to do "school work" or to make school-

like materials. Becky and Matthew also practiced the role

of the "teacher" when they played "school" at home. Becky's mother suggested that she may have been practicng being

"teachery" when she was being bossy and assertive with her

bro th er. Parents' Attitudes About School Entry

Parents almost always reacted to my questions about

changes they had noticed in their children and their family life since school entry the same way, "there were none." As

time went on, however, and we talked more, parents began to

tell me about changes, particularly in the children's behav-

ors and attitudes. In the three two-parent families, fathers and mothers generally agreed with one another concerning the influence of kindergarten on their child, and about their feelings with

regard to their child's school entry. Communication between

parents seemed to be an important reason for this consensus.

Becky's fa th e r, whose schedule was very h e ctic when school began, told me that he relied on Becky's mother to tell him how Becky was getting along in kindergarten. Matthew's

father, who was working a lot of overtime, also depended

on his wife to "fill him in" on Matthew's kindergarten experience. In interviews, Matthew's parents would some­ 1 7 9 times disagree, and they would usually settle it by

comparing Matthew to one or another of his older siblings

with regard to a particular characteristic. Amy's mother

usually took the lead in answering my questions, even though

at our first meeting she told Amy's father to "do all of the

talking." She would ask her husband to confirm her answers

and when he occasio n ally disagreed, she would more or less

change her answer to agree with his. Because of their

schedules, I interviewed Becky's parents separately.

Mothers, in particular, experienced a brief period of

sadness over "losing their babies" when children went to

school. This feeling seemed to peak on the first day of

school when mothers separated from their children at the bus or the school building. Three of the mothers admitted to

"shedding a few tears" but they all said that they tried not to let their children see them crying. The mothers of Amy and

Matthew, both the youngest children in their families, compared their children's school school entry to their older children's kindergarten entry. Matthew's mother said that it was "different" sending her youngest off to school because, "emotionally, he's the last one to go to school." But she quickly added that it was the most difficult to send her oldest child to school. "She wanted to stay home with Mom," but Matthew was

"ready" and anxious to go to school, she added. Amy's father said that Amy was also ready for school but he was

not so sure about her mother's readiness to send her. Her

mother explained: 1 8 0 My last baby gone to school, I it's] heart­ breaking. Oh, I missed them all but I'm m issing h er more than anyone now. She was really ready for kindergarten last year but her b irthday f e ll la te . I also thought, man, if I can keep her home [with mej one more year, why not? Amy's mother indicated that she had been particularly con­

cerned about leaving her at school on the first day because

Amy had cried a couple of times the previous summer when

she went to speech therapy. At preschool registration

Robbie told the principal that he was ready for school

and that his mother was ready for him to go. His mother

said that at the time she was surprised by this announce­

ment because she was not really ready to "let go." Over

the summer she said she became more and more aware th a t he was ready fo r kindergarten and needed some structured learning situations which could be pro­ vided at school.

Parents conveyed their pride in their children accom­ plishments and their pleasure in watching and sharing in c h ild re n 's development. They displayed c h ild re n 's work and were anxious to tell be about each new milestone. At the same time, however, they wanted their children to stay the same.

"You tell me why we don't want them to grow up," said Becky's mother. She continued: You want them to be independent and yet you want them to need you. I've pushed her to know her alphabet and this and that but when the time comes, it's whoa, stay back here.

Parents told me they were pleased with their relationships with their children al this point in time. Their comments 181

indicated that they realized that the parent-child

re la tio n s h ip would eventually become more com plicated.

Even though parents hesitated to describe it as "relief”

exactly, they expressed their satisfaction that their

children were learning new things and that school was an important part of that process. They sensed that their own

independence would increase with their children's, and they

expressed their anticipation for this time.

These parents told me they liked their children's

teachers and had confidence in the quality of their chil­

dren's kindergarten experience. They indicated that they

did not feel "judged” by their children’s teachers, al­

though they did want teachers to know that they cared

about their children and were interested in helping them do

well in school. They supported the teachers in disciplining

their children and said that they wanted to be notified if

their children had any problems in school, academic or behavioral.

Robbie’s mother expressed her annoyance, or at least

frustration, about being "left in the dark" about school. "It's interesting, not knowing what's going on, sitting here at home." From the first interview on she talked about her eagerness to go to school to see what was going on.

Parents discussed the increasing number of outside influences on their children which were initiated by school entry. All of them acknowledged to me the important role of the teacher in their child's life, yet none of them felt that

the teacher-child relationship threatened to usurp their

own position of authority. These parents believed that they

held values similar to those of their children's teachers, and

the parents said that they trusted teachers to use their

"power" with children wisely. Parents expressed concern

though, about the potentially negative influence of peers

with dissimilar values on their children. Their children had

all chosen friends in kindergarten who were from families very

much like their own, so parents did not view friendships as a

problem at this time. Parents spoke of the future when peers might be a negative influence on their children, but they also

reported their confidence that they had started their children

off right, and their conviciton to always be there to contin­ ually guide them. In spite of the confidence they had in them­

selves, parents discussed their uncertainty concerning what to tell children on the issues of aggression and tattling, for

example. Robbie's mothers said that she wanted him to be able to defend himself and Becky's mother wanted her to tell the teacher if someone was being hurt or property was destroyed.

On the other hand, each expressed a concern that they did not want their children to be "bullies" or "tattle-tales."

With school entry children’s worlds expanded greatly.

Part of their lives no longer included their parents and 1 8 3 families. Matthew’s father told about Matthew eagerly greeting a ’’strange" adult in the grocery store. When he asked Matthew who the woman was, Matthew answered that he did not know but she was "from his school." Becky's mother said that now that Becky was in scnool she preferred to play with friends rather than with her younger brother.

Becky evidently enjoyed the social life she experienced separate from her family. She frequently had friends over or she visited them. She also began to ask to use the tele­ phone to call her friends. Children's school entry was a life marker for parents. Becky's mother took a picture of her on the first day of school to remember the occasion. Robbie's mother had to come back to the school on his second day to take his picture because it had rained on the first day of school. Parents re-examined t h e ir own l i f e goals. Amy's mother said she definitely had to find "something to do with her time," either a job during school hours, or volunteer work. Matthew's mother, who had been an elementary teacher before her chil­ dren were born, had planned to work toward her recertifica­ tion when all of her children were in school. She started a year before Matthew was in kindergarten because of "the economy." Although Becky's mother did not consider changing jobs, she told me several times that being the parent of a kindergartner was helping her to be a better kindergarten teacher. Specifically, she had started sending more informal notes home to parents about "cute" things child- 1 8 4 ren said, for example. One day she scheduled painting in her

classroom just to do something "interesting" because Becky had come home so excited the previous day after using her

school scissors for the first time. Becky's father said:

I think it sometimes has a scary effect. She's going to school and th a t means I'm g e ttin g old. And i t ’s hard tor me to comprehend that. Almost six years ago she was just born. And it doesn't seem lik e i t ' s been th a t long.

He mentioned that he and Becky's mother had talked "quite a bit” about how "content" they were with their current posi­

tion in iite. He added, "but it's not like the position has worn itself out. We want to go on."

According to parents, the only changes in family life with kindergarten entry pertained to slight adjustments in

schedule, and the addition of the new parent-child activity

of going over school papers. Amy's parents explained that

since Amy's o ld er sib lin g s were already coming and going to

school at the same time as she was, her kindergarten entry had not changed th e ir ro u tin e very much. Becky was used to

getting ready for preschool the year before, so there was not much change for her either. On.the other hand, Matthew's mother had to be sure to be home at noon to get him ready and send him o ff to school. He came home at the same time as his older siblings. Robbie and his mother experienced major changes in schedule, including an earlier bedtime, since he could no longer rest during the day at the baby­ sitter's. His mother said that she also got him up earlier so he could get his things together, geL organized and eat a 185 "good breakfast." Allot the parents talked about reserving a special time to go over children's school papers as soon as possible after school.

Sibl ings

According to their parents, Matthew's and Amy's older siblings definitely influenced their ability to function in the role of "student," by teaching them the kinds of things they would need to know at school. However, school entry marked a period of increased tension between siblings in the cases ot Amy and Becky. As the girls felt more "grown up" their parents noticed they were bossier, more territorial with their possessions, and more assertive. Amy would say to her next older sister, "You're not my boss." According to

Becky's mother, Becky began to be dissatisfied in playing with " ju s t her b ro th e r." Her mother said th a t when Becky had company, "family was no longer good enough," and her brother was "left out" ot the play.

An in te re s tin g incid en t occurred regarding Amy's next older sister when Amy went to school. 1 had Amy's sister,

Brandi, who is two years older, in kindergarten for only the first month of school. She cried and was upset for the f i r s t couple o f weeks and then seemed to me to have got­ ten "used to school." Brandi's behavior surprised.me because the sister who 1 had in my kindergarten class three years be­ fore had been so "ready" for school. However, the girls' parents said that Brandi never really liked going to school. The family moved and Brandi finished kindergarten in another school district. They had moved back by the time

Amy was to e n te r kin d erg arten and her s is t e r was beginning second grade. Suddenly Brandi talked about school and

’’competed” for her parents' attention by showing them her school papers while they were looking a t Amy's. Amy's parents said that they had done quite a bit of "running around" on school days when th e ir two youngest daughters were still at home. They believed that Brandi never quite adjusted to school because she was thinking about all of the fun Amy and her parents were having while she was in school.

Now that Amy was also in school, Brandi enjoyed it more her­ s e lf .

Dangers

Parents' concern regarding real or imagined dangers to their children become evident in parental interviews. Parents said they were worried about their children and the school bus, even though they trusted the bus drivers. Their concerns focused on children getting on and off the bus, older children "picking" on their children on the bus, and the possibility ot "bad weather." They expressed concern about children getting to and from the bus stop if it was not right in front of their house. Parents' play­ ground concerns consisted primarily of the possibility of children being hurt or "bullied” by older children. Kinder- gartners were outside at the same time as older children in 187 only one of the school districts. In my playground observa­ tions older children tried to include kindergartners in play, and helped them learn to use the play equipment safely. The final concern was the nebulous fear about children

being susceptible to the "sick" society in which we live.

During the data collection period an elementary student was kidnapped and murdered while waling home from school in a nearby metropolitan area. The child's body ws not found for several weeks. Parents referred to this incident spe­ cifically as they described their own sense of "powerless­ ness" to keep their children safe. Children's school entry exemplified to parents that they could not always "be there" to protect their children. Teachers Each of the four kindergarten teachers involved in the study was well liked by both the case-study children and their parents. Three of the teachers were in their forties and had several years of experience teaching young children. The fourth teacher, Mrs. S., was beginning her second year of teaching. Mrs. H.'s classroom, which was in a very old building, was cluttered but comfortable. Collectables, scrap materials and ongoing projects belonging to Mrs. H. and her students were visable around the room. An even mix of commercially prepared and teacher-made materials were displayed along with lots of children's own work. School boxes, containing child- 188 ren's crayons, pencils and scissors, were readily available for children’s use throughout the day, as was paper. The plentiful supply of books and records was used several times a day by Mrs. H. with the whole cla ss and by ch ild ren during their free time. There was a small housekeeping corner with a cupboard, a baby buggy and some dolls in one corner of the room. On a shelf in another corner were bins of blocks, Legos and puzzles. Although there was not an abundance of materials readily accessible to children, there were more in this class­ room than in any of the others in which I observed. In addi­ tion, I observed these children having more free time to ex­ plore their classroom and the materials. Mrs. H.'s desk faced a wall in the far corner of the room. The quiet in this classroom seemed to be a d ire c t re s u lt of Mrs. H.'s own soft- spokeness. She used subtle techniques to get children's .at­ tention, such as whispering. She very often praised, hugged and even kissed her students.

Mrs. M. was firm but pleasant w ith her students. She used some rewards but mostly p raise and "tim e-out" to manage her classroom. Sometimes she wrote children's names on the board and issued check marks according to the assertive disci­ pline plan adopted by her school system. Mrs. M. had lots of tricks" for helping children learn how to use materials. For example, children's first cutting experience in her class con­ sisted of following the strings of baloons drawn on paper, be­ ing carefu l not to "pop" the baloons. Mrs. M.'s classroom was 3.89 a bit crowded but everything ws put away in its own place.

Many commercially prepared posters and photos were displayed on the walls along with some children's work. A choice of toys, mostly games intended fo r two or more ch ild ren to .p lay

together, were available during choice time, which occurred every day immediately after roll call. School boxes were stored in cubbies except when Mrs. M. told children to get them out. Coats and other personal possessions were kept in lockers in the hall. There was a small housekeeping corner in Mrs. M.'s room and piano, which I never saw in use. Mrs. M. used records with the children and a few books were availa­ ble during choice tim e. Mrs. M.'s desk, which formed a divid­ er in the back corner of the room, defined the teacher's space.

Mrs. P.'s class size was relatively small due to the classroom itself. Therefore, she had more of an opportunity to interact with her students individually than did any of the other teachers. She was flexible about the schedule. She often used humor .along w ith p raise as a classroom management strategy. The classroom itself was neat and almost sparsely furnished in order to make room for the children, themselves.

Nearly all of the materials displayed on the brick walls were made by Mrs. P. in one of her graduate courses. There was a housekeeping corner with a cupboard and dishes along with bins of toys and blocks. These were located in the dead-end hallway which lead to the classroom. A shelf containing many books and some wooden puzzles was situated on a rug in one cor­ 190 ner of the classroom. Mrs. P. encouraged children to "get

something from the shelf" during free time, for example, if they finished a task ahead of the rest of the group. Child­ ren's school boxes were on their tables all day long and their personal belongings were kept on hooks in the hall. Mrs. P.'s

desk formed a barrier just inside the classroom door which

diverted traffic on into the room. Mrs. S.'s classroom was neat and very organized. Cubbies

and storage shelves divided off a carpeted corner of the room which was reserved especially for stories and group time. A

cardboard "store" stood in the front of room but I never saw

it being used. Mrs. S. had made a calendar, a helper chart

and many other items to decorate the walls. Several games and clay were available for children to take to their tables during choice time. Children's possessions, except for school boxes, were kept in lockers at the far end of the long hall.

The boxes were stored in cubbies and were only brought out during work time. Mrs. S.'s desk formed a divider in the far corner of the room and it defined space for her materials.

Mrs. S. was the most b e h a v io ristic of the four teach ers. In addition to praise she issued paper tokens shaped like pop­ corn or gum balls. These were redeemed for a popcorn or bubble gum party at the end of the week. She consistently used the school's assertive discipline plan and stuck closely to her scheduled plans. 1 9 1 All of the teachers planned a sizeable portion of their day around the published readiness materials adopted by their respective school district. There was very little time for children to interact with one another in the classroom or to choose their own activities and materials. The classrooms on the a lte rn a te , fu ll-d a y schedule seemed to be more fle x ib le about time. The only interest centers which I observed were the housekeeping corners. The teachers admitted to working hard in the first weeks of school to establish rules and pro­ cedures. They each indicated that if they "started the class off right," then the rest of the year would go more smoothly. Becky's mother defended this "school indictrination" by point­ ing out that people have to stand in lines in the real world. Therefore, learning such procedures was actually preparation for life. In the beginning of school, children were constant­ ly being reminded of the "rules." School-appropriate behavior and "good work" w as verbally praised and rewarded with

"smiley faces" or "stickers," for example. No case-study children received anything more severe than a verbal reminder during any observations. The most severe punishment of any child which I witnessed was withdrawal of a privilege or re­ moval from the setting. My presence in the classrooms may have caused the teachers to give the case-study children a little bit of special attention, but they treated all of their students fairly, in my opinion. 1 9 2 School School represented new knowledge for children and fami­

lies. This included school curriculum, of course, but also names, new routines and a unique way of exchanging and mani­ pulating language which assumed a shared context of meaning. For example, at school, questions were often ambiguous. Once

a teacher asked, "What do we know about eight?" I was com­ pletely puzzled- Evidently the teacher had discussed this

before because one or two children replied, "We have eight crayons in our box." The children were then directed by the teacher to color each of the eight baloons on their paper a

different color. In another classroom, the teacher finished

reading a story about a "messy room." Then she held up a

stack of Lego-like blocks and asked what they were. I thought her point was th a t someone had l e f t them out, making

th e ir room "messy." Instead, the blocks were intended to be

a transition into a discussion of colors and counting. My

notes read, "If I_ didn't know what was happening just this

once, how do kindergartners feel all day long?" At school the teacher determined the content, set the pace and decided how learning should occur. Once one of the case-study children was sitting at a table doing the assigned task of writing her name five times. As the children finished, they began to compare the letters of th e ir names to see who else had the same l e t t e r s , what different sounds the letters made, and the frequency of occurrence of the letters in their names. The teacher, who had been busy helping a child at another table, had no way ot knowing this kind of natural, spontaneous learning was taking place. She told them they were "too noisy" and gave them another paper to complete.

Rules and routines were often exaggerated at school. Ser iousness was rewarded and "silliness," like Matthew's "voices,

was discouraged. The goal of kindergarten seemed to be to make individual children more alike. Teachers told me, "If

only they were all like [so-and-so]." Peer pressure also con­ tributed to this trend toward conformity. Becky's family usu­ ally held hands and looked at one another during mealtime prayers. After a few days at school Becky announced, "We must

fold our hands and bow our heads when we pray." All of her five years she had prayed one way, but after only a few days

of school she was prepared to do it "like everybody else." Sex stereotypes were reinforced ty school procedures

such as always having children line up in a "boys' line" and

a "girls' line," even if the class was not headed for the bathroom. The aisle on the bus also separated the boys from the girls. Out-dated books on manners, for example, were

used without any explanation of more contemporary sex roles.

A clear preference was shown in the classrooms for the Christian religion. Prayers were taught and recited on a

daily basis. On Fridays, children in one classroom were re­

minded to attend Sunday school. The exclusion of Jehovah's 1 9 4 Witness children from the Pledge and prayers was explained by the teacher. The schools assumed children came from two-parent families in which one parent was available during school hours. In­

formation was sent "to the parents of so-and-so" in order to

accommodate parents whose surname was not the same as their

child’s, but the envelope did say "parents." Some evening

conferences were scheduled, but parents who worked in the day

still missed eating lunch with their children at school, and had to make special arrangements to attend birthday parties or to pick up a sick child. "I work and it's hard to go," said Robbie's mother.

Attempts by Schools and Teachers to Facilitate Adjustment

Each school district implemented procedures to help

children make the transition from home to school. In both

districts children attended a preregistration for kinder­ garten in the spring preceding school entry. Children and

their parents could meet kindergarten teachers and school

personnel. However, in the district with a half-day schedule the preregistration was held in a central location, rather than at the actual school building which the children would

attend. In this district entering kindergartners and their parents did not get to see classrooms, restrooms, or witness

actual kindergartners going about their daily routine. A sys­ tem of staggered entry was employed over the first week of 1 9 5 school in both districts. So about one-half of the child­ ren in any one "class" attended each the first and second reg­ ular meetings. The entire class met on the third session.

Teachers in both districts encouraged children to ride the bus on their first day of school so that they might learn the rules, become familiar with their driver and bus number, and get used to the schedule. In each case parents were invited to meet their child's bus at school. In the school district on a half-day schedule the very first day of school consisted of all kindergarten parents bringing their children, leaving them for about an hour of activities in their classroom with their teacher, and re­ turning for a parent-teacher meeting. In the meeting a variety of topics was addressed by teachers, including an overview of kindergarten content, school rules and procedures, bus routes and schedules, and fees tor workbooks and supplies. Parents were invited to ask questions and many of them did. Since these meetings took place in kindergarten classrooms, kindergarten children were still present but most of them kept busy with activities their teachers had given them earlier. Children then came to school alone on the bus according to the staggered schedule, beginning on the second day oi school in this district. In the district with alternate, full—day kindergarten, parents' first invitation to visit kindergarten classrooms came in the sixth week of school. Parents were asked to come 1 9 6 to school in the morning to observe the language arts curric­ ulum in their child's classroom, and then to stay and eat

lunch with their child. In the district on a half-day sched­ ule parents got to meet their child’s teacher on ther first day of school. Although parent in this district had to wait a few weeks, they had an opportunity to observe their children actually interacting in the classroom in the role of "student." After a few weeks of school I observed a teacher in one classroom talking to kindergartners about their feeling much more •’comfortable" now that they had been at school for a while, as opposed to the first few days. This was the only reference I heard teachers make directly to children about the anxiety they might have felt with school entry. In the school district with half-day kindergarten, five of the six kindergarten teachers sent letters to parents every Friday, via kindergarten.students. The sixth teacher corres­ ponded with parents about once a week, whenever she felt like she had "something to tell them." The contents of these let­ ters ranged from reports of what classes were "studying," to reminders about labeling possessions and bringing field trip permission slips. As far as I know, communication between teachers and parents in the other school district was strict­ ly informal, such as notes or telephone calls to individual children's parents about problems or achievements. Eight weeks into the school year parent-teacher confer­ ences were scheduled in both school districts. Parents in 1 9 7 each district were given a choice of scheduling a day or an

evening appointment with their child's teacher.

R esearch er All of the case-study children initiated contact with me

in the school setting even before they had "met" me. All of

the children seemed to take my presence in the classroom pret­ ty much for granted. As Matthew's mother said, I was "just part of the furniture" as far as the children were concerned, because they had never experienced kindergarten without having

me sitting there taking notes. I tried not to let the case- study children know that I was watching them specifically. In

their homes, all of the children were curious about the tape recorder used in the interviews. I showed each of them how it worked, and played back their own voices for them to hear. For parents, I believe I served as a "bridge" between home and school. Robbie's mother, in particular, "pumped" me for information about school procedures. All of the par-^

ents expressed their "curiosity" about the children's school behavior. I know parents were conscious of the tape recorder because a couple of times they asked me to turn it off so

they could talk freely, usually about other children in their child's class. I may have contributed to the case-study children's sense of "importance" with school entry. For ex­ ample, when I arrived at Matthew's house to observe him be­ fore school, he answered the door and called to his mother over his shoulder, "It's O.K., she came to see me." I also 1 9 8 was a "link" between home and school for children. In an in­ terview I asked Robbie why he stood up that day when the teacher called for Deople wearing yellow. He pointed to the little spot of yellow on his belt buckle. The next time I observed, the teacher a=rain called for "yellow." Robbie looked at me, smiled, and then stood up. We hs.cl a joke with one another because of the shared background of experience which we were building.

Links In addition to myself, both school districts had parent- teacher conferences, and in one district kindergarten teachers sent weekly letters home to parents. Notes, responses on children's work, and report cards also served as means of com­ municating children's progress to parents. The parents I in­ interviewed indicated their preference for the conference over any other school-initiated methods of relaying information be­ cause they were able to participate by contributing informa­ tion and asking questions. Having older children who had previously attended kinder­ garten was a link for Amy's and Matthew's families. Their par­ ents knew the teachers and school procedures, and could, therefore, better prepare kindergartners for what to expect.

Of course, in Becky's case, the friendship and social contact between her teacher, her teacher's husband and her parents was a link. Her mother always took her to and from school.

Matthew's mother worked in his school building and she some- 1 9 9 times picked him up in the afternoon. Other parents with children at the same school were a source of support and in­

formation. For example, Robbie's mother learned a lot about the school through her contact with Robbie's babysitter, who had been a kindergarten parent the year before. For the children, old friends whom they saw again at school were a link. Matthew already knew Nicholas, and Amy

was very close to Paula, so they were able to continue and elaborate on these existing relationships at school. New school friends and school personnel who children sometimes saw outside ot school, also "connected" home and school,

according to parents. Certainly Becky's familiarity with the

school setting and its participants connected home and

school for her. Using school supplies such as crayons, paper,

and especially scissors, at home seemed to be important to all of the children. It is possible that Robbie maintained phy­ sical contact with his school box for the first few days of school because it was a "bridge" -between home and school.

C onclusion

Each of the four case-study children in this study adjusted easily and quickly to school, according to their parents and teachers. The children shared the personal characteristics of academic competence, independence, con­ fidence, sensitivity, and they were all outgoing and friendly. According to their parents these children were exciLed about going to kindergarten before it began. Once children actually started to school, they enjoyed it very 2 0 0 much and they especially liked their teachers. In the class­ room they carefully watched, listened to, and tried to be

near their teachers. They volunteered often and made an

effort to participate in classroom activities. Children tried to "please" their teachers with their behavior and

their "work." These children were also able to make friends at school. The children practiced the role of "student" at home by using school supplies like crayons, paper and scissors to make school-like materials. Some of them even played school, in which they "tried on" the role of "teacher." Par­ ents reported that going to school made children feel "grown­ up" and important. At first parents did not report very many changes in

their children's behavior and attitudes at home with school entry. Gradually, a few changes become evident. Parents generally agreed with one another about changes in their children, often because fathers relied on mother to "fill them in" on such changes. Children were a little .tired during the first week of school, but parents believed this was due to a few "sleepless nights" from the excitement pre­ ceding school entry, rather than the physical demands of the school day. Three of the four children talked a lot at home about school and their teachers, and eventually the fourth child began to "share" his experiences with his mother. Parents expressed their belief that children's feelings of maturity and importance resulted in some "showing off," 2 0 1 conflicts with siblings, and some hesitation in complying with parents’ requests. Parents spoke of their confidence in their children,

themselves as parents, and in the quality of their child's kindergarten experience. They liked and trusted their child's teacher and discussed the important role of teachers

in their children's lives. Most parents indicated a slight adjustment in their schedule with kindergartners' school entry, and they all participated in the new parent-child activ­

ity of reviewing "school papers." Mothers, in particular, report- eda brief period of sadness and nostalgia over losing their

"babies." This sense of loss peaked on the first day of school with separation of mothers and children at the bus or

school. Parents were proud of their children's accomplishments and growing independence, and yet they spoke of not wanting their children to "grow up." They said that they wanted their children to continue to "need" them. Par­ ents discussed their enjoyment of the current relationships with their children because of children's increasing capabil­ ities and because children knew the "lim its." However, par­ ents were beginning to realize that the parent-child rela­ tionship was getting more complicated due to the outside in­ fluence of peers, other adults, and societal expectations and pressures. They recognized that their children's development necessitated adjustment on their part. Overall, parents view­ ed their children's expanding worlds as a mixed blessing. 2 0 2 Finally, children school entry was a life marker for parents. They spoke of it as a point by which to measure their own lives. They reminisced about children’s babyhoods while they made plans for their future. Kindergarten entry was, indeed, an ecological transi­ tion for children and their parents. Children experienced a change in both role and setting which required adjustment on their part and on the behalf of their families. Some coping strategies and phases related to school adjustment were discovered. These are discussed in Chapter Six. CHAPTER SIX DISCUSSION

Problem Statement

The purpose of this study is to describe the nature of kindergarten entry as a transition phenomenon for children and families. The specific goals of this study are:

1 . to describe any changes in children's attitudes and behavior which parents attribute to be the result of kinder­ garten entry;

2 . to describe any changes in parents' attitudes and behavior which parents attribute to be the result of children's entry into kindergarten;

3. to identify strategies kindergarten children employ in the adjustment process associated with kindergarten entry;

4. to explore the nature of the relation­ ship, if any, between parents' attitudes and behavior with regard to school entry and children's kindergarten adjustment;

5. to determine any differences in the kindergarten adjustment process on the basis of children's age, gender, preschool experience, birth order, type of transportation to and from school and kindergarten schedule; and parents' socioeconomic status, marital status and employment status; 6 . to describe any existing patterns of in itial school adjustment which may emerge from the data.

2 0 3 Survey

The survey results yielded a description of the school adjustment process of a group of kindergartners and their families. In general, parents reported that children felt more ’’grown up” and important with school entry. These feelings were expressed in improved, or at least more mature, behavior, particularly with regard to independence. Children looked forward to school entry with favorable anticipation. Most children continued to enjoy going to school and still liked their teacher at eight weeks. Kin­ dergarten teachers, older siblings and preschool experience were the most frequently mentioned ’’facilitators” of school adjustment for children, according to parents. For parents, the biggest changes associated with children's school entry were slight schedule adjustment, getting used to children's absence from home and altering the parent-child relationship to accommodate children's new "school-oriented” relationships along with children's increased independence. Parents were more concerned about the potentially negative influence of other children at school on their child than they were about teachers' influence. Most parents liked their child's teacher and had confidence in the quality of the kindergar­ ten experience. Mothers, in particular, viewed children's school entry as a life cycle event which was accompanied with some "nostalgia" associated with children's passage out of babyhood. For the most part, though, parents 2 0 5 expressed their confidence, satisfaction and pride in their children and in themselves as they planned for the.future. Parents' perceptions of changes in their children with school entry were moderately related to their perceptions of changes in themselves and in family life (Hypothesis 1.0). Parents reported more changes in children's attitudes and be­ haviors if children rode the bus to and from school (Hypothesis

1.5). No other demographic variables were shown to be statis­ tically significant factors related to school adjustment in this study.

Case-Studies

Several "themes," or relationships between the domains,

which were described in Chapter Five, have been identified. These a re :

Children's Readiness to Accept the Challenge of School Entry with Enthusiasm and Confidence

The first theme focused on the children themselves. Kindergartners were anxious to go to school. They liked

school and their teachers very much. It seemed almost as

if Robbie said that he did not like school because he be­

lieved that this was what he was supposed to say. All of

the children tried to do what was expected of them by their

parents and teachers with regard to school entry. Whenever they could, the children participated in "school," in any v way they knew how. They even practiced the role of student

at home. Going to school made children feel "grown up" and important, according to parents. 2 0 6 Adjustment and Coping Strategies

The children who were observed in this study engaged in a great deal of "watching" behavior when they first

went to school. In particular, they kept their eyes on

their teachers, but they also observed their classmates. It seemed initially that they were standing back to observe

this phenomenon called "school" in order to understand how

to participate appropriately as "students." However, these children did not actually withdraw to observe. They each

took the chances necessary to "act like students" by partici­ pating frequently. In addition, the case-study children seemed to be on

their "best behavior" in school initially. Since their par­ ents described each of them as sensitive children whose feel­

ings were easily hurt, perhaps this "cautiousness" was to a- void "correction" from their teachers. Children also seemed to try to "please" their teachers. Sometimes children car­

ried this to the extreme. Becky, for example, became a "tat- tle-tale" for a while, and Matthew may have interpreted Mrs.

S .'s obvious amusement at some of his comments as encourage­ ment. He began to "talk out of turn" and act "silly" in

ways which were not school-appropriate, according to his

te a c h e r.

The case-study parents and family members adjusted to children's school entry primarily by allowing children more independence. They also made slight alterations in their 2 0 7 schedules and in the types of activities in which they participated with kindergartners. Parents seemed to place particular importance on the time when children arrived home from sc h o o l. They very o fte n s a t down w ith t h e i r kindergartners at this time and reviewed school papers over a meal or snack. Children's new-found sense of im­ portance and maturity may have caused the slightly height­ ened dissonance among siblings which accompanied school entry. Kindergartners became more assertive and territorial at home. Parents reported that children seemed to "show off" at home.

All of these children expressed their desire to do something or have something because "everybody else" did it or had it. Finally, children engaged in an increased amount of "school-like" activities at home following school entry. Subsequent to practicing the student role, parents reported an overall improvement in children's coloring, writing and cutting. The All-Important Role of the Teacher

Children recognized their teachersas the "supreme authority" in the classroom. They watched their teachers, and tried their best to do whatever their teachers asked of them. They sought the physical proximity of their teachers.

Children even tried to "please" their teachers with their behavior and their "work." The incident in which Amy's teacher replaced her lost crayons reinforced her complete 208 trust in her teacher's ability to make everything "all right a g a in ."

Although they did not feel that their own position of authority was actually threatened, parents recognized the im­ portance of the teacher as the "other adult" in their child­

ren's lives. Children frequently used the phrase, "my teacher said," at home. Matthew's mother believed that she could tell him something "a hundred times," but if his teacher told him the same thing once, it would "stick." "It seems like with my children, if their teacher says something, it's gospel," she said. Fortunately, these parents generally agreed with the values extolled by their children's teachers and the school.

Parents felt that even if a teacher qualified a remark as, "only an opinon," it still carried a great deal of weight with children because the source was a "teacher."Specific issues mentioned by parents were smoking, religion and euthanasia. Becky's mother thought that the episode with the prayer showed how pervasive her teacher's authority actually was. What th e te a c h e r says i s so im p o rta n t. What i f the teacher doesn't believe like I do? From everything, praising and prayers at snack ... I personally want it, but if I didn't, that would be a big worry of mine - that my child would have to go through that.

Parents' Acceptance of Childrens' Developing Maturity and Widening World Parents seemed to feel some loss of control over their children and their world with school entry. They were 2 0 9 particularly concerned about the influence of other children

on their child. Peer pressure was beginning already in kin­

dergarten, and parents realized it would increase greatly as their children matured.

There was some sense of "letting go" of their child

with school entry, as well as some "nostalgia," as parents reminisced about their child's infancy. Parents came to the

realization that their "babies" were not so little anymore.

Amy's mother said, "She's growing up. She's in kindergarten.

She's growing away from me." Parents talked about "push-

pull" feelings, of wanting their child to be independent and yet wanting their child to continue to need them.

Parents described their children as being at a "good age,"

because of their increased capability mentally, as well as physically, and their understanding of the "lim its." How­

ever, because of children's developing independence and the new relationships children were establishing with others out­

side of the family, parents believed that their relationship

with their child was becoming more complicated. Parents themselves were having to make adjustment in their parenting

style. Primarily this involved allowing children's inde­ pendence. New issues, like when it was important to "tell

the teacher," and how to defend one's self without being too aggressive, were arising.

Parents enjoyed watching their children grow, and they exhibited pride in their children's accomplishments. At

the same time they wanted their children to remain the 2 1 0

same. They realized that their children were beginning a lifetime of knowing people, going places, and doing things which would would not include them. In some ways this relieved parents because they knew that their own inde­ pendence would increase with their children's. "I want my children to have their own lives," said Becky's father. However, children's independence concerned parents, as well as relieved them. Parents were reluctant to send their children out into the "unknown" alone, especially in light of what they perceived to be the potential dangers awaiting children in our s o c ie ty . Parents had confidence in their children's ability to adjust to, and do well in school, yet they were all curious about their children's behavior at school. "I'd really like to see what she's like at school," said Becky's father. Robbie's mother agreed, "I wonder how he relates to other kids, follows directions, and stuff like that." The re­ searcher became the source of confirmation that indeed, their children were doing fine in school. She also provided the kinds of informal "anecdotes" which parents said they were most anxious to hear. Becky's mother pointed out that parents felt that teachers rarely told them what their child was really like at school. Parents found the information on report cards informative, but what they were really interest­ ed in knowing was whether or not their child smiled, par­ ticipated, had friends, and was liked by the teacher. 2 ! 1 Parents gained a new appreciation for the content and ideas their children were learning at school. Said Matthew's mother about the Pledge of Allegiance,

That is good to hear him say those words. It really makes you think when you hear someone so little say those words. Parents' Confidence in Themselves and the Quality of the kindergarten fcxperlence

Parents felt that they had established values in their child prior to school entry which would carry-over throughout their child's lifetime. They believed in the importance of the early years of child development, as well as in them­ selves, as their children's first and most important teach­ ers. The researcher was a source of support and confirma­ tion that these parents must be doing "something right" because their children were doing well in school. Even though the parent-child relationship seemed to be getting more complicated due to the influence of peers, other adults and societal expectations and pressures in the children's lives, these parents intended to continue "doing their best" a parents. They had no intention ofrelinquishing the responsibility for their children's education to the school or to teachers. Along with having confidence that their children would have a good kindergarten experience, these parents trusted and supported the teachers and the school. Instead of believing that their children could do "no wrong," they were generally realistic about their children's capabilities, and 2 1 2 the possibility that they might, occasionally, "misbehave" at school. They supported the teacher in disciplining their children, and they would follow through with this at home. Parents were reluctant to agree that they felt "judged" by their child's teacher. They even said that the teacher's personal opinion of them was not very important. However, they all wanted teachers to know that they cared about their children, and were interested in helping them do well in school. Becky's mother explained:

I think that's why you worry so much before they go. Like the alphabet, knowing full well, especially me, that that's what we're going to spend the whole year on! So, why am I so worried that she knows it all now? I want the teacher to think she "prepared," that we've taken her on trips, and let her watch the right things on television. The Differences Between Home and School as Con­ texts of Child Development and the Importance of Establishing Links Between Home and School In general, there were more restrictions on behavior and language at school than at home. At school there were many rules to learn and obey in order to participate in the appropriate manner. Context-bound questions, initiated by teachers, were the norm in school. At home, spontaneity and initiative were encouraged, but the goals of school were conformity and routine responses to teachers' cues. Kinder­ garten children not only had to learn the role of student, but they also had to learn to move in and out of the role as they went to school and returned home each day. 2 1 3 Parents of kindergartners were eager for information about school. School personnel, were likewise as anxious to learn about kindergartner's families and experiential backgrounds. Links between home and school, such as child­ ren's school papers, became very important to both children and parents. Parents were committed to maintaining involve­ ment in their children's formal education, even as they had been involved in children's development up to the time of school entry. School entry did, indeed, appear to be a sensitive, if not critical, time in establishing the home- school relationship. Both parents and teachers were recep­ tive to, and acted upon, information from the other at this time. The two-way interaction of the parent-teacher con­ ference was especially appreciated by these parents. Phases of School Adjustment

The process of school adjustment experienced by these children and families seemed to progress in phases, or stages, similar to those identified by Klein and Ross

(1958). Although parent interviews did not begin until the second week of school, parents' "anticipatory concerns" were frequently mentioned. These were related to children's previous separation experiences, prior group and educational experiences and to real, or imagined physical dangers. Child­ ren looked forward to school entry with a high degree of favorable anticipation.

The second phase was not described by case-study parents as "relief," as did the parents in the Klein and Ross study. 2 1 4

Rather, children and parents came to accept the reality and inevitability of school entry. They began to realize that it was "time" for children to go to school. There was a sense of "readiness" among children and parents. The wait­ ing was over and families, both children and parents, were excited that school was about to begin. Third, there was a period of "disorganization" for children and parents once school actually started. Mothers, in particular, experienced a brief period of sadness upon initial separation from their children. Families' schedules were adjusted slightly to accommodate sending children off to school. Children brought new ideas and vocabulary home « from school, and they exercised their new-found status as

"students." Parent-child relationships were modified to allow children more independence, and to make room for the influence of new "significant others" in children's lives.

Children quickly became "experts" concerning school, and their parents had trouble remembering what it had been like when their children were "preschoolers." In general, things "got back to normal" by the fifth or sixth week of school, and "equilibrium" was resumed.

Implications Bronfenbrenner defined an ecological transition as a change in an individuals' role and/or setting. Aside from

the obvious change in setting for the kindergarten child and 2 1 5

the necessity of establishing new teacher-child and child-

child relationships, school entry involved changes in exist­

ing roles and relationships for children and family members.

The i n t e r a c t io n among in d iv id u a ls , e v e n ts and th e home and school settings was of particular interest.

Amy's parents perceived her as more independent and assertive at home following school entry. Their response to this behavior was to "let go" just a little in order to make room in the parent-child relationship for Amy's development. This was a conscious decision for Amy's mother, who had pre­ viously thought of Amy as her "baby." When Amy went to

school her mother considered a part-time job or volunteer work to "fill her time" so she would not miss her daughter as much. Her parents' relationship with her and their pre­ vious experiences with the school district gave them confi­ dence in Amy's ability to succeed in school. Her older sib­ lings had spent time preparing her to meet the academic de­ mands of kindergarten. In addition, Amy's parents had confi­ dence in the school and its associates. They made an tion between Amy's school entry and her older sister's even­ tual school adjustment. At school, Amy established new rela­ tionships with her teacher and peers and accommodated her existing friendship with Paula to suit the new rules and re­ strictions of school.

Becky's parents also commented that she became more in­ dependent and assertive at home following school entry. In 216

addition, she cried more frequently when playing with her younger brother and became especially interested in spending

time with friends outside of the family. Her brother's own physical, cognitive and emotional development may have con­ tributed to the increased number of disagreements between the

two siblings. Her parents positions as teachers in the same

district in which Becky attended kindergarten, was reassuring to them and they trusted the school staff. Becky's mother, in particular, believed that her experience as a parent of a

kindergartner was enhancing her ability to be an effective kindergarten teacher. Although all of the parents interview­

ed alluded to the threat of real or imagined physical dangers

to their children as a result of school entry, Becky's mother specifically mentioned the recent kidnapping and murder of a

school child in a nearby metropolitan area. School proce­ dures carried over to home for Becky, who suddenly announced to her family that, "you must fold your hands and bow your head when you pray."

His mother had planned to begin studying for her recert­

ification when Matthew, her youngest child, went to school. As it turned out, she started back to school a year before Matthew entered kindergarten because of the "economy." His parents believed that Matthew's older siblings had prepared

him to be "smarter" in school than they had been. From the first day of school, Matthew was adept at moving in and out of the school setting. He refrained from his usual level of 2 1 7 activity while at school and went "underground" with some of

his conversation by whispering to others or mumbling to him­

self under his breath. Gradually, over the first few weeks

of school, and as he became more familiar with his teacher, peers and classroom, Matthew's school behavior became more

like his home behavior. His teacher reported that he was

"hyper", silly and frequently talked out of turn. Matthew's father, in particular, noticed that Matthew was more of a "show off" at home following school entry. In spite of their

older children's somewhat negative school experiences, his

parents were pleased because they believed that Matthew's

teacher was just right for him. There was also a discrepancy between Robbie's home and school behavior. However, Robbie continued to be more re­ served at school throughout the eight weeks observation and

interview period. His mother indicated that he was also more of a "show off" at home after starting to kindergarten. She wondered if some of this attention seeking might be related

to the fact that Robbie's father had a new girlfriend. His mother was curious about school and Robbie's experiences there. When he did not share this information with her right

away she became somewhat frustrated. Eventually though,.

Robbie began sharing more with her and she was able to visit

his classroom so her curiosity was satisfied.

The results of this study illustrate the complexity of the interaction of relationships which are associated with a normal, predictable life event. School entry involved not only children, but also family, school staff and community members. A change for a child necessitated other changes for the individuals in the child's ecosystem. The new rela­ tionships of teacher-child, child-child and child-children were established. Children also learned to interact with the physical space and materials unique to the school milieu.

They renegotiated'their existing relationships as their roles changed. Since the expectations of children were different at school than at home, they accommodated their behavior ac­ cordingly. Some of the attitudes and behaviors which were rewarded in school were carried over at home and vice versa. Children adapted their attitudes and behaviors to meet the demands of home and school so they moved in and out of each setting on a daily basis. Even community events, such as the child's murder, influenced the school adjustment process of these children who lived tens of miles away from where the incident actually occurred. School entry, indeed any transi­ tion, involves complex systems of interaction and therefore, no single study can meet all of the conditions of ecological validity. The present study has been an attempt to describe the transition of kindergarten entry for these children and f a m ilie s . The survey and case-study data generally confirm and contribute to the explanation of one another. The relation­ ship found to exist between parents' perceptions of child­ ren's school adjustment and changes noted in themselves and 2 1 9 family life is evidence which supports the family systems theory. In addition, parents conveyed a sense of the in­ evitability of school entry as a significant "life cycle e v e n t. "

Case-study data and parents' comments on the survey help to explain why riding the bus was associated with parents' perceptions of changes in their children with school entry. First, parents reported that riding the bus was significant in children’s> minds. Parents, on the other hand, were especially concerned about the bus, either because of the threat of real physical dangers or the pos­ sibility of kindergartners being teased or tormented. Part of parents' concerns may have stemmed from the fact that very often the bus was the only place where kindergartners interacted directly with older students. In addition, parents' recognized bus drivers' limitations with regard to supervision since their primary responsibility was driving. Finally, children who did not regularly ride the bus either walked to school or rode to school in their parents' cars.

These children's absence from parents was more brief. In many cases, parents accompanied these children to the class­ room door, saw them "safely settled" in an activity and met them again at the conclusion of the kindergarten session.

Thus, parents and children offered psychological support for one another and parents, themselves, linked home and s c h o o l. 2 2 0 Parents, in particular, should be prepared to expect changes in the attitudes and behavior of their children, themselves and family members when children go to school.

They must be assured that change in the direction of indi­ vidual and family development is normal and desirable. Per­ haps teachers or parent groups are the best source of this type of information and support. Parents should likewise be encouraged to seek professional help whenever they are concerned about changes which disrupt normal family func­ tio n in g . The individual classroom teacher's role in children's school adjustment cannot be overemphasized. Parents re­ peatedly mentioned teachers' special attempts to make child­ ren feel "at home" at school. Little things like personal­ ized name tags, a friendly verbal welcome using children's names and attempts to involve children in pleasurable activities with other children were especially important to children in this study. A few parents reported that child­ ren's familiarity with their teacher before school actually started, either through older siblings' school experiences or from kindergarten registration, made a big difference.

Teachers were also instrumental in parents' adjustment to children's school entry. Parents' familiarity with and con­ fidence in their child's teacher, either due to personal experience or hearsay, affected their definition of school entry. Parents were anxious to meet kindergarten teachers and visit children's classrooms, especially if their children 2 2 1 did not talk much about school at home. Without even being

aware that they were doing so, teachers often seemed to provide the psychological support recommended by McMurrain

(1975) as intervention in developmental level crises. Cer­

tainly purposeful efforts should be planned by teachers to

include and involve parents in their children's formal

e d u c a tio n . Family members' previous educational experiences in­

fluenced the way they regarded children's initial school

entry. Parents believed that older siblings, in particular,

contributed to kindergartners' adjustment by "teaching" them

the kinds of information which they would be asked to learn

in school, for example, letters and numbers. Siblings, many of whom had previously attended the same school and had been taught by the same teacher as the kindergarten

entrant, also "filled kindergartners in" on what to expect at school, in terms of rules, procedures and "school work."

Parents referred more often to their older children1s school

experiences than to their own educational backgrounds in re­ lation to how they, themselves, regarded their kindergart­ ners' school entry. Particular types of children seemed to adjust quickly

and easily to school. These children were bright, confident

and outgoing. In addition, they each had some exposure to

kindergarten content prior to going to school. The case-

study children, who all adjusted smoothly to school, made

friends with other children in their classes. Each chose 2 2 2 another capable and confident child for a "best friend."

The future examination of the school adjustment process of children who are not as bright, confident or outgoing as

the case-study children might prove enlightening. In terms of specific educational practices intended to

facilitate school adjustment, this study suggests a few. Certainly, children cannot and should not be pressured to conform to the profile presented here of a "good adjuster." Children's individual differences and unique backgrounds preclude such an attempt at any rate, and must likewise be valued and respected. However, preschool experiences, for­ mal or otherwise, which hold the nurturance of children's

self-concept as a high priority should be supported by parents, teachers, schools and the community at large. In addition, if kindergarten programs are going to continue, as they have, to emphasize "academics," then children with previous exposure to such academic concepts have some advan­ tage. Either kindergarten content should be less paper and pencil oriented, or children should be exposed to, but not pushed to perform, some school-oriented tasks prior to school e n try . The contribution of specific intervention strategies in­

tended to facilitate school adjustment, such as previsits and mothers' presence at school, were not examined per se in

the current study. However, parents felt that meeting the teacher and seeing the classrooms before school actually began was beneficial for both their children and themselves. 2 2 3 As previously mentioned, children who walked to school or rode with a parent frequently experienced parents' presence in the school setting. These parents reported fewer changes in children's attitudes and behaviors. This finding may be interpreted to mean that children who rode the bus did not adjust as easily to school. On the contrary, this researcher believes that change indicates adjsutment. Thus, the children who did not ride the bus were not adjusting as com­ pletely to school entry. It is to be anticipated that the children who walked to school or rode with a parent would experience another peiod of adjustment if and when it be­ came n e c e ssa ry fo r them to r id e th e bus.

Most kindergarten children liked school and their teach­ er eight weeks into the school year. However, it is common for even primary school children to say that they dislike school. Some children even exhibit apathetic or negative attitudes and behavior with regard to school attendance. Another topic for further study,then, would relate to the development of a negative shcool attitude. For example, a potentially valuable investigation might be to see if child­ ren who said they disliked school really meant it sand to examine the factors which influenced them in this opinion.

Language differences between home and school seemed to be the key to the more global distinctions between the two settings as learning environments. Langauge usage was more rigid and structured at school, as was behavior in general. 224 Language learning was initiated and controlled by the teacher. Children's competence, language and otherwise, and their natural desire to learn were often denied at school. In addition, language seemed to serve as both a link between home and school as well as a coping strategy for children.

Vocabulary words and language usage patterns which carried over from one context to the other, and children's inclina­ tion to talk about one settting in the other are other pos­ sible topics for future research.

Limitations of the Study The most obvious lim itation of the present study is the primary reliance on parental report. However, the rationale for this has been explained in Chapter Three.

The complementarity of the survey and the case-studies make up for any possible shortcomings in either research method employed in isolation. Two sacrifices did have to be made in order to make this study a feasible possibility.

First, the focus was narrowed to the child within the contexts of the family and the school systems. The larger context.of community, for example, was neglected except, of course, as current events affected the historical aspect of the findings. In addition, a single point in time was selected to administer the survey, whereas repeated measures over time could possibly have provided more comprehensive data concerning the phases of the adjustment process. A final lim itation which must be considered is the survey 2 2 5 response rate (67.7% for individual parents who represented 74.27, of the families.) Everything practically possible was done to encourage responses, including the provision of an incentive, follow-up correspondence, acceptance of data from a single parent representing, a two-parent household and furnishing additional questionnaires. APPENDIX A INSTRUMENT: PILOT TEST

2 2 6 227

Tt» Ohio SUM Unlverelty Academic Faculty ot Early and Middle Childhood Education osy IMS North High Street Columbus. Ohio 43210 Phone 614 422-1257 September 21, 1982

Dear Parent(s) of

Millions of young children enter public schools in the United States each year. Most of these children and their families eventually adjust to school entry. However, we have only a vague idea of the nature of this adjustment rocess. While I was teaching kindergarten in the Miami ?race Schools (1977-1981), I became interested in parents' comments concerning the effects of their children's first public school experience in their children and their families. 1 am currently a graduate student and Teaching Assistant and I have chosen School Entry as the topic of my research. It is my hope that the findings of this study will provide parents and school personnel with information which may be used to help future kindergartners adjust to school.

You are invited to participate in this study. In a few weeks I will be mailing a survey to a random sample of approx­ imately 150 kindergarten families in County. Initially it is necessary to test the questions with kindergarten parents outside of County. Enclosed are two copies of the questionnaire, one for each parent or guardian living with the child. Please complete the form(s) and return them in the enclosed stamped,self-addressed envelope by September 28, 1982. Your comments for Improving the questionnaire would be especially helpful.

School officials in the School District are aware of this study and have offered their cooperation. However, all information is confidential and anonymous. Findings will not be shared directly with the school or other parents. Your participation in this study is voluntary and will in no way reflect on your child. However, your partici­ pation is deeply appreciated.

I would be most happy to answer any questions you may have. Please call me at (614) 267-5247.

Sincerely WbLL- Michele M. Beery k Graduate Teaching Assistant The Ohio State University

Approved: 9/14/82, bate Superintendent School District

College of Education CHANGES IN

CHILDREN AND

PARENTS WITH

SCHOOL ENTRY

Going to school is an important step for your child. You may have noticed ways in which your child is chang­ ing to adjust to his or her new situation. Please circle the number at the left of the most appropriate response to each question below. Remember that there are no right or wrong answers. It will be most helpful if you select the responses which best reflect your own feelings about changes in your child since he or she began school.

We would like to have information from the parent(s) or guardian(s) with whom the child lives most of the time. If for any reason, information is available from only one parent or guardian, please do not hesitate to send that information alone. If two parents or guardians are completing questionnaires, it is very important that they do so independently without discussing the items until after the questionnaires have been returned. Since my child began school:

1 . he or she looks forward to going to school

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

2 . he or she feels "grown-up"

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

3. he or she can be trusted with responsibility (can be depended on to carry a note to school, for examp'..e)

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE 4 A LITTL1. LESS 5 MUCH LESS

4. he or she is helpful

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

5. he or she Is in a bad mood

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

6 . he or she is Independent

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

7. he or she obeys me

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS Since my child began school:

8 . he or she likes school

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

9. there are days when he or she does not want to go to school

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

1 0 . he or she criticizes the school

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

1 1 . he or she mentions the aggressiveness of other children

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

1 2 . he or she makes friends easily

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

13. he or she is patient

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

1A. he or she talks

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS Since my child began school:

15. he or she is active

1 MUCH MORE Comments 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

16. he or she misbehaves

1 MUCH MORE Comments 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

17. he or she "talks back"

1 MUCH MORE Comments 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

18. he or she asks questions

1 MUCH MORE Comments 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

19. his or her large muscle skills are improving (running, hopping, skipping, Jumping, for example)

1 MUCH MORE Comments 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS on his or her small muscle skills are improving (coloring, drawing, writing, cutting, for example)

1 MUCH m o r : 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LES . 2 1 . he or ahe >.s affectionate

1 MUCH MORI Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS Since my child began school:

2 2 . he or she sleeps

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

23. he or she watches television

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

2A. he or she tries new foods

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

25. he or she tries new experiences

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

26. he or she plays with children his or her own age (other than at school)

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

27. he or she is competitive

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

28. he or she tells lies

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS Since my child began school:

29. he or she steals

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

30. he or she gets along with his or her brother(s) and/or sister(s)

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

31. his or her feelings are easily hurt

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

32. he or she takes an interest in "school related" tasks at home (alphabet letters, numbers and writing his or her name, for example)

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

33. he or she plays "pretend"

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

34. he or she shares

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

35. he or she hits others

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS Since my child began school:

36. he or she is purposely destructive

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

37. he or she uses new words

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

38. he or she uses language which I would prefer he or she did not use

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

39. he or she wants to be like other children

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

40. he or she acts very much like a boy (if your child is a boy) or a girl (if your child is a girl)

1 MUCH MORE Comment s: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

41. he or she is tired

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

42. he or she wants to invite friends to come to our house

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS Since my child began school:

43. he or she is a guest of other families without me

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

44. he or she talks on the telephone

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

45. he or she is concerned with following rules

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

46. he or she is developing new interests

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

47. In your opinion, what has been the biggest change in your child's attitudes and behavior since he or she started to school?

48. Has there been anything in particular which you believe has helped your child adjust to going to school?

1 YES — ) Please explain. 2 NO

Having a child go to school is an Important step for parents as well as the child. Please circle the number to the left of the response which best reflects changes in your own feel­ ings since your child began school'.

49. 1 am anxious about my child going to school:

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS Since my child began school:

50. I am relieved that my child is old enough to go to school

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

51. I think about what I want out of life

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

52. I am concerned about "letting go" of my child

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

53. I am sad about my child going to school

1 MUCH MORE Comment s: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

5A. I am concerned that my child will learn values different from my own at school

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

55. I resent the influence that my child's teacher has on my child

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

56. I am concerned about the influence of other children at school on my child

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS Since my child began school:

57. I believe that my child's teacher will think 1 am a bad parent if my child misbehaves In school

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

58. I am concerned that my child's teacher will have a bad opinion of me if my child has trouble learning

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5J riUbnMUCH LESS

59. I worry about my child on his or her way to and from school

1 MUCH MORE Comment s: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

60. I worry that my child might not do well in school

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

61. I feel like I am no longer "in charge" of my child's life

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS 62. I think my relationship with my child Is Improving

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

63. I am sad that my child has a part of his or her life which does not include me

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 N O CHANCE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS Since my child began school:

64. I plan a special time to spend with my child

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

65. I believe that my child is at a "good age"

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

6 6 . I have had to readjust my schedule

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

67. What has been the biggest change for you since your child began to go to school?

6 8 . Has there been anything in particular which has helped you adjust to your child being in school?

1 YES — > Please explain. 2 NO

In order to analyze your responses to the previous questions it is Important to know the following information concerning your child and your family. Remember that all of this infor­ mation will be kept confidential. Please circle the number to the left of the appropriate response or fill in the information below. ~■~ ~“

69. My child is a

1 BOY 2 GIRL

70. My child usually

1 WALKS TO AND FROM SCHOOL Comments: 2 RIDES THE BUS TO AND FROM SCHOOL 3 RIDES WITH ME TO AND FROM SCHOOL 4 RIDES TO AND FROM SCHOOL IN A CARPOOL 71. My relationship to my child is

1 FATHER 2 MOTHER 3 STEP-FATHER A STEP-MOTHER 5 OTHER — ) Please explain.

72. My employment status is

1 EMPLOYED OUTSIDE OF THE HOME — ) 1 FULL-TIME 2 PART-TIME 2 HOMEMAKER 3 UNEMPLOYED

73. My age is

1 22 YEARS OR YOUNGER 2 23 TO 35 YEARS 3 36 TO A5 YEARS A A 6 YEARS OR OLDER

7A. My marital status is ______

75. My occupation is ______Please be specific

76. My child18 date of birth is ______Month Day Year

77. My child has had some preschool experience

1 YES — ^ Nature of preschool program(s):

Length of time child attended each program:

2 NO

78. Please give the number and ages of your other children

Brothers:

Sisters:

79. OtheT than my child's school entry there have recently been events involving my child and my family which might explain changes in our attitudes and behavior

1 YES —) Please explain. 2 NO

80. The number of questionnaires being returned is

1 ONE — > Please explain. 2 TWO Is there anything else you would like to tell us about changes in children and parents with school entry? If so, please use this space for that purpose. Also, your comments on improving this questionnaire will be greatly appreciated. For instance:

Are the directions clear? Are the questions easily understood? Does the questionnaire itself create a positive impression? How could we make this questionnaire easier to complete? APPENDIX B INSTRUMENT

2 4 1 CHANGES IN

CHILDREN AND

PARENTS WITH

SCHOOL ENTRY

Going to school is an important step for your child. You may have noticed ways in which your child is chang­ ing to adjust to his or her new situation. Please circle the number at the left of the most appropriate response to each question below. Remember that there are no right or wrong answers. It will be most helpful if you select the responses which best reflect your own feelings about changes In your child since he or she began school.

We would like to have information from the parentis) or guardian(s) with whom the child lives most of the time. If for any reason, information is available from only one parent or guardian, please do not hesitate to send that information alone. If two parents or guardians are completing questionnaires, it is very important that they do so independently without discussing the items until after the questionnaires have been returned. Since my child began school:

1 . he or she looks forward to going to school

1 MUCH MORE Comments 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

2 . he or she feels "grown-up"

1 MUCH MORE Comments 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

3. he or she can be trusted with responsibility (can be depended on to carry a note to school, for example 1

1 MUCH MORE Comments 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

A. he or she is helpful

1 MUCH MORE Comments 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

5. he or she is in a bad mood

1 MUCH MORE Comment s 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

6 . he or she is independent

1 MUCH MORE Comments 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS 7. he or she likes school

1 MUCH MORE Comments 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS Since my child began school:

8 . there are days when he or she does not want to go to school

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

9 . he or she talks

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

10 . he or she asks questions

2 ™ U t S!EMORE Comments: 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

11 his or her small muscle skills are improving * (coloring, drawing, writing, cutting, for example)

1 MUCH MORE 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS 12 . he or she is affectionate

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

13* he or she watches televisi on

1 MUCH MORE Comment s: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

14. he or she tries new experiences

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS Since my child began school:

15. he or she plays with children his or her own age (other than at school)

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

16. he or she is competitive

1 MUCH MORE Comment s: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

17. he or she takes an interest in "school related tasks at home (alphabet letters, numbers and writing his or her name, for example)

1 MUCH MORE Comments 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

18. he or she plays "pretend"

1 MUCH MORE Comments 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

19. he or she shares

1 MUCH MORE Comment s 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LE:)S 5 MUCH LESS 20. he or she uses new words

1 MUCH MORE Comments 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS Since my child began school: 2 1 . he or she acts very much like a boy (If your child Is a boy) or a girl (if your child is a g i r l )

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

2 2 . he or she is developing new interests

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

23. he or she obeys me

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS 24. he or she misbehaves

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

25. he or she "talks back"

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS 26• he or she gets along with his or her brother(s) and/or sister(s)

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

2 7 . he or she hits others

1 MUCH iiORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS Since my child began school:

28- he or she uses language which 1 would prefer he or she did not use

1 MUCH MORE Comment s: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 HO CHANGE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

29• he or she wants to be like other children

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

30. he or she wanLs to invite friends to come to our house

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS 31 . In your opinion, what has been the biggest change in your child's attitudes and behavior since he or she started to school?

32. Has there been anything in particular which you believe has helped your child adjust to going to school?

1 YES Please explain. 2 NO

Having a child go to school is an important step for parents as well as the child. Please circle the number to the left of the response which best reflects changes in your own feel­ ings since your child began school.

Since my child began school:

33. I am anxious about my child going to school

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS Since my child began school:

34. I am concerned about "letting go" of my child

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

35. 1 am sad about my child going to school

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

36. I am sad that my child has a part of his or her life which does not include me (

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

37. I believe that my child is at a "good age"

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 HO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS 38. I think about what I want out of life

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANCE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

39. I think my relationship with my child is improving

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

40* I plan a special time to spend with my child

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS Since my child began school:

61. I am concerned that at school my child will learn values different from my own

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

42. i resent the influence that my child's teacher has on my child

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS 43. I am concerned about the Influence of other children at school on my child

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

44. I believe that my child's teacher will think I am a bad parent if my child misbehaves in school

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

45. I am concerned that my child's teacher will have a bad opinion of me if my child has trouble learning

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS

46. i worry about my child on his or her way to and from school

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 NO CHANGE 4 A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS Since my child began school:

47 . 1 worry that my child might not do well in school

1 MUCH MORE Comments: 2 A LITTLE MORE 3 MO CHANCE A A LITTLE LESS 5 MUCH LESS 48. What has been the biggest change for you since your child began to go to school?

49 . Has there been anything in particular which has helped you adjust to your child being in school?

1 YES — > Please explain. 2 NO

In order to analyze your responses to the previous questions it is important to know the following information concerning your child and your family. Remember that all of this infor­ mation will be kept confidential. Please circle the number to the lefL of the appropriate response or fill in the information below.

50. My child is a

1 BOY 2 GIRL

51. My child usually

1 WALKS TO AND FROM SCHOOL Comments: 2 RIDES THE BUS TO AND FROM SCHOOL 3 RIDES WITH ML TO AND FROM SCHOOL 4 RIDES TO AND FROM SCHOOL IN A CARPOOL

52. My relationship to my child is

1 FATHER 2 MOTHER 3 STEP-FATHER 4 STEP-MOTHER 5 OTHER — > Please explain.

53. My employment staLus is

1 EMPLOYED OUTSIDE OF THE HOME — ) 1 FULL-TIME 2 PART-TIME 2 HOMEMAKER 3 UNEMPLOYED 2 5 1

54. My age is

1 22 YEARS OR YOUNGER 2 23 TO 35 YEARS 3 36 TO 45 YEARS 4 46 YEARS OR OLDER

5 5 . My marital status is

56. My occupation is Please be specific

57. My highest, level/grade of education is ______

58. My child's date of birth is Month Day Year

59. My child has had some preschool experience

1 YES — ■) Nature of preschool program(s):

Length of time child attended each program:

2 NO

Please give the number and ages of your other children 60. Brothers:

Sisters: Is there anything else you would like Lo tell us about changes in your child or yourself which you have exper­ ienced as a result of your child's school entry? If so, please use this space for that purpose.

Your contribution to Lhis effort is very greatly appreciated i

APPENDIX C

CORRESPONDENCE TO PARENTS

253 065 Ramseyer Hall The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio 43210

Dear Kindergarten Parent(s),

While I was teaching kindergarten in County (1977-1981), I became interested in parents' comments concerning the effects of their child's first public school experience on their child and their family. I am currently a graduate student and teaching assistant at The Ohio State University and I have chosen this topic for my research. It is my hope that the findings of this study will provide parents and school personnel with Information which may be used to help future kindergartners adjust to school.

You are invited to participate in this study. In about eight weeks I will be mailing a survey to a random sample of approximately 150 kindergarten families in County. Initially, however, I would like to get to know a few families in order to discover which questions are important to include in the survey. I would like to meet with you and your family at your convenience once a week over the next eight weeks to talk about your child's school experience. I would also like to observe your child in his or her classroom.

School officials in the Schools are aware of this study and have offered their cooperation. However, all Information is confidential and will not be shared with the school or other parents. Your participation in this study is voluntary and will in no reflect on your child. However, your participation is deeply appreciated. If you have any questions please call me at the number(s) below.

Sincerely, '1YkdukwrtV'A.u, Michele M. Beery jk Graduate Teaching Assistant The Ohio State University

614-267-5247 (Home) 614-422-0895 (Office)

Approved: 8/23/82 “"""Bate Superintendent Schools 065 Ramseyer Hall The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio 43210 August 27, 1982

Dear

Thank you for volunteering to participate in the study of parents’ descriptions of changes in children and families as the result of children's initial public school experience. Because so many parents were willing to help I will not be able to talk with you at this time. However, I trust that I may contact you in the future as necessary.

Thank you again.

Sincerely, T n-cJi^ Tn-/iL,-x, Michele M. Beery Graduate Teaching Assistant The Ohio State University 256

Tli* Ohio But* UnhroisHy Academic Faculty ol Eaity and Middle Childhood Education 1945 North High Street Columbue. Ohio 43210 Phone 614 422-1257 October 26, 1982 Dear Parent(s) of

Millions of young children enter public schools in the United States each year. Most of these children and their families eventually adjust to school entry. However, we have only a vague idea of the nature of this adjustment process. While I was teaching kindergarten in the Schools (1977-1981), I became interested in parents' comments concern­ ing the effects of their children's first public school exper­ ience on their children and their families. I am currently a graduate student and Teaching Assistant and 1 have chosen School Entry as the topic of my research. It is my hope that the findings of this study will provide parents and school personnel with information which may be used to help future kindergartners adjust to school.

You are inviLed to participate in this study. I am mail­ ing a survey to a random sample of 1 0 0 kindergarten families in County. These questions have been tested with kinder­ garten parents in County. Enclosed are two copies of the survey, one for each parent or guardian living with the child. If, for any reason, information is available from only one parent or guardian, please do not hesitate to send that Information alone. Please complete the form(s) and return them in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope by November 2, 1982.

School officials in the School District are aware of this study and have offered their cooperation. However, all Individual information is confidential and will not be shared with the school or other parents. The number on the form is an identification system to facilitate the sending of follow-up letters to non-respondents only. Your participation in this study is voluntary and will in no way reflect on your child. However, your participation is deeply appreciated.

I would be most happy to answer any questions you may have. Please call me at (614) 267-5247.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,_ n

Michele M. Beery j Graduate Teaching Assistant The Ohio State University

Approved: 10/20/82 Superintendent . School District College ol Education November 2.1982

Last week a survey seeking your descriptions of changes in your child and yourself as the result of your child's school entry was mailed toyou. Your name was drawn from a random sample of kindergarten families in County. If you have already completed and returned it to us please accept our sincere thanks. If not, please do so today. Because it has been sent to only a small, but repre­ sentative. sample of parents it is extremely important that your responses are included in the study if the results are to accurately represent kindergarten families in County. If by some chance you did not receive a survey, or it got misplaced, please call me right now, collect (614-267-5247) and I will get another one in the mail to you today.

Sincerely.

Michele M. Beery Graduate Teaching Assistant The Ohio State University 065 Ramseyer Hall 2 9 IV. Woodruff Avenue Columbus, Ohio 43210 D ll OMo SUM Unhranlty Academic Faculty o< Early and Mlddla Childhood Education 1945 North High Street Columbus. Ohio 43210 Phone 614 422-1257

November 17, 1982

Dear parent. (s ) of

About three weeks ago I wrote to you seeking your descriptions of changes in your child and yourself as the result of your child's school entry. As of today we have not yet received your completed questionnaire^!.

This study has been undertaken in order to gain school adjustment information from parents which may be used to help future kindergartners and their families.

1 am wriLing to you again because of the significance each questionnaire has for the usefulness of this study. Your name was drawn Lhrough a scientific sampling process in which every kindergarten family in County had an equal chance of being selected. This means that the parents in only one out of every four families in County is being asked to complete this questionnaire. In order for the results of this study to be truly representative of the feelings of all County kindergarten parents it is essential that each person in the sample return their question­ naire. As mentioned in our last letter, information from both parents or guardians is requested. If, for any reason, information is available from only one parent or guardian, please do noL hesitate to send that information alone.

In the event that your questionnaire has been misplaced, a replacement is enclosed.

Cordially, ^icJw nnrv/bu'\ju Michele M. Beery A, Graduate Teaching Assistant. The Ohio State University

Superintendent Schools

College of Education The Ohio SUM UnivariKy Academic Faculty o» Early and Mlddla CMMhood EducaUon 1945 North High Street Columbus. Ohio 432t0 Phone 614 422-1257 December 15, 1982

Dear Parent(s) of

I am writing Lo you about our study of parents' perceptions of changes in their children and Lhemselves with kindergarten entry. We have not yet received your completed questionnaire^).

The large number of questionnaires returned Is very encouraging. However, whether or not we are able to accurately describe the feelings of County parents depends upon you and others who have not yet responded. This is because our past experiences suggest that those of you who have not yet sent in your questionnaire!s) may have quite different feelings than those who have.

This is the first study of kindergarten adjustment which has ever been conducted in County. It is one of only a few such studies anywhere in the country. Therefore, the results are of particular interest to those in the field of early childhood education; researchers, administrators and teachers, as well as parents of young children, like yourselves. The usefulness of our results depends on how accurately we are able to describe the feel­ ings of Fayette County parents.

It is for these reasons that I am sending this via special delivery mail. In case our other correspondence did not reach you, a replacement questionnaire is enclosed. May I urge you Lo complete and return it as quickly as possible.

Your contribution to the success of this study will be appreciated greatly.

Most sincerely,

Michele M. Beery (T Graduate Teaching Assistant The Ohio State University

College ol Education APPENDIX D

SAMPLE OF FIELD NOTES

2 6 0 3 Clryu_> i/v^ /icur, vJ2*ja Toumq &v- MXmndo ■ j £ x- v-fUTdL Mlio UltjJ. C/iooatrL V ’nctid'r) oU^L 0

vJLtofooaut Gh. opiah^TTj

/ u . ^ f t n r d . ~Uf> Jbtsut\LLH.

"UXLtchio ^Ynns.'Sl * (/mrtalc b *' ,

acuCLCTb -

'■•jt. Ci"c^"n'W 3) Jo ” cud U k t t i o dka-vnta. v^udla^

^i'athjyxrrn'4 ol/u/ah

^ ^ <^T b L ^ C^ /^ ctjO O j^ u '-m

CDUdLunrn

"uLbO/tDS \JCLQJL* 'JU.wO tm m od v-TT>v5^^ 4 TjLm^u O K s. v^poonTo

GL. lo coach T u x l CCe.) ~U>I cX aocu CL TijMa.t'DntcLa!) 'nO'V'gTN" 'ojanju etc t

(ft) tu m* on. cruluc-aC. U '/Uju dcnnJL vJLoK/n proto o^natiliA ch) motloto nvn^'uciaJoL t/txt" (OULTTU-t (^jLTYUx 6 O O tlG hii)

sO tok ch. to T fh ^b Ai^LOXjU't ao/ A c c m n v-p^doatil pa^ .t.

o Oh*, tuvw-

'hnra) ’' rWVa). ------—" 3 <30 Wb njoodLdiu-Tn gdUuo oh. v _£x ^i/y\s a. "oha^“vJlja5h.

•~Ymfotnncj 1 qcuo

aJOVAdxT^to ^paji/nx7

Hj) txO h& ^rti " w(Jca'ox to. Jbc guc^ i - i h j J d (Jots. tx> touA OtK/U>

3 -mo \PrvtAodbu-cburno

'■fe) t o " ' ^ b - o f o u______*s) ) Qxodoj CjOjCk £> ism Cflfcdt U?/U/rxjp Oajctto to OJ

25 chjJtdniL/w 2 6 3

'-m " hamolo " ( a o fo ju r o ^ G / y d / a x ) Ck.'Miff)act Ocujp’ YDoJlL " v*> 0 ^ X X m T w I tx-'TUiio

vjLOcdUoUfijLA -T in . Q.bax.1 - t u a o & y o >U'd oLTOfcilxx^

" VTP . ) Xcculcl '-qm jiM t vOctcnX Wtxe-u: \J j t u m u OH j u d . m . 'u j a o h s l d x ' m i x ■cicxxyt^Qrihj . J ^fcu/ipoaiL cri U I'X /Ux££u oLlGLtiJ MO'inaia) "TOn56h.“ VAdp i/o aujuutjuat. \ tX U U M s u ^ULpU" j

''T t-" ITlcxtt^iujj-'o taCv4.\r (“XrtiUo M~u>o u£ruat/\)

XL hFu JJa G K u ?o J x r i L ^pf>^3h. .toJvH^ mv* C W , W o ( o U ' U p \ Oa.uo ”P XUQoritK jctu to v HT\. opuW rxX/rn , G te u m , 0 K ? “ 0 '' uXc&Jvvb" X (juqlo Kao txovn ^Y V ' O.K"

CoJXo .o'3 o h

T X OQ l^) "‘PnitU^X" (Jkut O p 'TVM. K oo ta r .- ,- ) ' l O txJdS Ulk.G/u/yX^ '-Pico G± —h. 'pa r>u- tao^ v- hy Iakyo Oll(j. u p c o i ol X jl 'rU-M^a > u t J a '"U-MjL.h'j (up ^ tc c IxllO

1 h c r u a f 'it d C'i'Y^- GrLu/id '4U o ^'YcuJtb ^a>| ./a. —("aI'd

\3tdU i-pa itu^patd/n^ Jju t •OGX^La/TCj CnO T /Il C a/LfU-‘t

s~~\ tjcu ^~i~xx,i ^ *>. ’~T0\:. K ,;liLiSVio CrT vP aohiidLlrum^abtTia i'Y ltu Qc M X ^ O jiTLq A u -1' UKaiJL/m ''UM cu/^lu

^ obt&foo a t ^-hxo vJL»hct/ v tju/v- ClI OU OrvaJao 4 Gpio ^ J c m , ‘•^c ^hayD vjPxt v_Cda<- ntkih-* • v >

~fvoj,s (Ptf\+Kny "T>obby p —- ""- ~ "I Q vOLhcvj^ - a. r\Lc^

I I ^ v j xASi ^ „ ! . : U M d - , j u x d j n itj.i. v ,*,.• Ol idd u h ^ W l J ^ lCyyi rYh*“Hb Cfoo? APPENDIX E

SAMPLE OF TRANSCRIBED INTERVIEW

2 6 5 2 6 6

'TYt/OfS L f), vO J-xjaa/ujct K l (joou^oLorul h fox am. ^TOcrflj 4) Ou. u>Km h* ^hul- ;hjrru \juSM jutx* LOj oG i tA c o cmJo. ^QxiiOL hih d eru UL LkJcul 0

"II , || | »• *¥* » • • • : * ■ • r * . V * ‘ '! £ 4 ) ’fcyrou> hcnjutjb U su J u ~tvulj "mtfvu.^

** ** ^ . —-»■ [ .»-■•*>1^* «!••> •“ "Ttt l|ju teruujj vtu. bfcjcu? 15. LL-hwh '’W ip !d. l|ju Uaam 'thit i/v OcJTCet? ^

Tx^b.~' ' ’ ‘

"TY\. L |g ^ (jLaarmd it jo am ‘"Tvur h o u > q JU jujl ljtu • CrnL^

TY]a.~UlW i. ^jwwww—^'i-eeeww "*..5-.uJk.^. «•«♦• •* .«• ;... , ^TYV%tk/u Ltou O/roujTuu) ? cn OoucL U>hi/r> llcju U>t/m. O utx Uo^lAuklQju • 0

^ ^ ^ T T \. Ir u t ijpuijJL t>u/n OutAtot/rc^

TYVi Lm t U/> c d J J . , i t ocuu, ,iT)cri“\X duM'Aryu ^jyfa*'». _ ** vlKur>U tK iufu GpoiX) ULooua cUua (Au/j uuuru v5o (jh&d * uou hauA 1l clput 'vj/m to Imx* Oo oianJLaJ.Ohju o b m t m x J H ^ , “O u t r u i 'Ui. 6. ©{Gtu/v^, ht ^ up octTOCw \D^ 0 UJQoOhflAfi.tx> pul 0 hjuim CmUu. buo , uto OOJ.C 2 6 7

0 ^ fchuA o yDerfYU. blruTrt^ m thft/m Ocrnuth^Tn's Qcnnrn Xjo hoppt/yi clo anr> oJUjLnnioJzuj^ * vUfiftLnvb%rjglxrfa B iai th u b U u Uxtu ULo 6 u p p o i t d L -bbbc tWj^^-Utcul * . kJradb LhjL ./uohi thi/rc^ "TO A d . a o j6fu (M/) O^-CAjlo ^ "iam"? ^ 7 © u 6 Q J L a l I a&ooto o c^ ? "txfcufld ^cru. 0 qxxM- i h u o GLc^ood ao^ ^

? Sf' 4tah • vD houLw. a (jet w| (joth 6][~Uuto . tx^L &|j aotujttx|. "lILk IUjljujq J U x dJLL J L operand U fo X tu h j ^ “UK dhoxis- v@ O t h i/v "Cb. vjL nncu^Jj^ GoiGurfT'oUvrcju) /Ucthx T(^.^tX®nS ■“G«a: uinnau^h U> U/rxt^O£a$U~ “u>hax oupaoftftfi. tjo doO» "LOrout Y t t t f l u p p q ^ U ^ k • g o /p tculf^ a a A S L &f pwiSdLJ |m il^tiob^t pa/\i. : oaji/2_a_zucp ywj- vfii^oduuev. Pluo ^hsoO&Jj} -‘ amuo Oo Go ,/UjQhi. Onciu, Ulo ioirvi.. rrtLufx. y X x X sn Cn^ cb^ (A l U iiAa ., <6*ta- mao...^ Onnd vflu U*&, u>tt • "^XU h^Qhjt rtnjo, ULo ryjucjL. u u o o. ikaJ!a ujuvtq QjrvJLcL. Ouhi. vjihcrioo. :-. aujjU. a Lhjj txs_ tnxu nruXi^ 4 v£) h is. (X . teLsborit (Ifam x-. 2 6 8

~tYju gJK hcco a t - Uxa&rnoteLo' Iha. CmxbboQt 1 - OTN thfi.y K CU yjk QjUJUb ^ - tf- -T—. . "HTYt^Wah, \io lU> Y ^-utta Piorr ijuq&fki/ui. -ixJi'ux. g& u jl ifohn othji^ Gn.? QjtJat . thbt..U«- m ns ao Uttuqa. (^W-djiziZ "llKEJ, iJcjiw oo Ufa- "DtiIo“l^^T\Junrg.v.^

'T 1. (juta the (kjuaaoYij.

^TT\. S30, a lx flxjQhi'* i/\iM CjLb t x l ojJL -0£ruJb&_ &r» gLck/yx kL T*x* 0 ______— •*■• (I J

/f^cjl'XTcn the. QmiuKUJLA^rii^o ^ fop*. th a t th a t. / G u U y n t /bmJLr (du/O to o YYU-iOh. th a 6 o m u - t h t T c I cnr\thi Itsuox cUm v W o . od/'miouul Sdojucl ^ /Ohi ojao 'W uhjuu ^ > W ujcijjo . O vSto/ds-dt htU /nh^ / "OhihUA.xatfoj? tLML&f oddUdtudU cm rm U /W H r J I &il (TV' J h*/' thaufu Qat/Tq to 0 U , J QojGboja^ct *' ^Kiru/nh. i/bJi Ihxtj Uu (JuWtb U ? ’ ‘TW (^a Lpu thiM h <£) d c r a to w ju thbJt p. 5 C^ratXjL^xuo ^ . ■ hW ~i^a/u>Vx m , “ "TUi. «_O oajplt ' ...-. (3-0/m^) Q/TJUX l&o Ut"; uat... u V. 0 U juuid trmouCjjjiiijL 1 /lu j uxru&dl ~TY\ vji< 2p. (J tlu u (Jnaudu thxJL pt/ uxjn^JjOL TA. t^v^ituUjihrto thsL tai/nciisf Chxpcr\tavvJLJ & 2 6 9

0 Ohcuiot ea/vu^ cv- 'V. Ca/n O 6a>uj Ocnrvulhji>rCj q Aju w l fc»W?

T P ouAi ! o JIxx ^ jljuU U ^ h., 0 0 aonn U u mroAfc uooJOnxoac pnr\ ' O p / m ooI liu crthjLoh..-' ...(jLOGhtn/or vTbuj Tvua 'fcLQ&o POjuc / hfibd mcio 3 cut ’ . u oflths^ cru/u vjhaJU Uu t/udLh. T P. ^ijjbiL mop. do Ljou Lcht. ? 'P- LUhat oLo P /buaJSJLu cmt&p (W u>Hx-(j\s. jjtcU) q/u OUt/Thq. OhiL KmrUKT U>htL “thMYUc L f r r t aT ^ jm^o T P.’ 5 <3&i7fiq 'it '' vitarcL o u t l^nfluw (jo-hoa rWo oloc ‘ aw odLujdUo * (Ox/rd bi dipp^eooJ'Vpnc, , ( i p-Kji. rs&n \D oCo ijP OJpalSUpnciC Tuto1 CD 'ujfaJjU U dLfo'SQ oi TVUM/1 T^QAdL ou i . JL &L0) T/bJt uuj^,vp>L It\jlqagL, < IKoo i/o tW HjuadultuO m vCixouo len udP/orthi Ch. ______(juQn/ru-Ci. GxCu&W ^ i J h o J C o G u A a J-0 o a Up hi/u. \£}rn AaoJULa dd up uu/ it. Vm /Wxxlu to Lulus. tlf\xo ijB u m ^naiD ^0 /UoiJLu u tb o h 0 Cmdot oulUDd tx Otnnd ryou foud/o to a 'CpaudaU v55ioo^ OoSW^Tu'.' vQ~7UdaULj' ~C^^~atam x ThuT TP. pro orvv^uoatcL uo I hi/i vjucjjUaJUty P . >0 CtcnrOtiJximh Uu typXimn hxo 3o Tnuxdn ttcio to/ Clo Cihjtoo uo/ huo&U 2 7 0

'TlV Lkoh /WxfiJLu. TTvOhe tfOsu/rTus "to o h a /u ox OohcoS. v 5 * ^ A ujcmjucl CJLu ^

fTVi^SJohi. ho>o Oenrru thjunn^vihi Qjq /'yu Ld tcO h o /u .. Ufa*. d fu had- th oo Yvmm., ulk/yu. ctourn to yyju vixviXjL^'vihvu, ujao CLtubUU, (jcru ll'Wu u>noa^ cLudnrxX vJWpLOt ~U b t thn/UL 01t\1 l>~ £) a o l^ ha/r lo'o. Gup da uk Ccrufict Ohau. Gl. '£) 'nnr^oonOhft uucudD uk£Li/nq "Lo d o OL Ijlol'U Ux/nt^QM tju^aoo ^dorit. CX. Oni^ Ufew to J

h n . ^ l W u o u yvs-txoj&di Quyju. hjuuo u x n o lo J^enrn o a b o o t ? mot m , “ bad* totndo ,■J uju&l yuuo fiotncU. Jtilr*. uooido U lx l dcru/rd (jlRjJ thjuui CprruJicrnn \3G-'ujl/o . G-r\si \lx) then tfitdL rn- thoul rum J (jUbtflx H Ucru CLaaxb Pcnu. toi/a

TYVj.TlTb, cn jlu i £ b x o tu u x n a "'rM funy sShiJSKlfihrt not. hrvo "Uien • oPu. Uanm i^u. J PH. "TVb'naio. _ . ------... ------rJ^VPo.. hu/n O hi y o u ! tham. X „ G'h Txul, 11 ucru honcu), "dKtn ffimjLH/pQ (jLpG'OhjLo i>k., C^oruiKnn0 Qujucuj jpjrn UTna.. vTn.v5hi. Ux^ouaiJLj QoJLSLo Cjou * moxTiTru^, (T> U>hcxJL^

m " TTbm* APPENDIX F ROBBIE'S LETTER WORD INVENTORY

2 7 1 *A G > '

1 A fcx k /. * / it \ / I •

r a i i» 0 ) o

Q C v P.-D t< © K APPENDIX G MULTIPLE REGRESSION CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS

2 7 3 TABLE 6 2

COkkELATtOM COEFFICIENT OF PktDJCKM VAklABI.ES USED IN NULTirLE kEGRESSION FOR CHILDREN SUBSCALE

Scur«/ Oulu's tMpIoyscnc Marital Socloaconoalc Vli1**'* [!m ri^!i Orner Children Ccstuer Trdtikporcat lun Statu* Status status mpcrianca uraer

Child's Ceruier 0.04 tra n s p o r ­ t a t i o n - 0.24 - 0.01 upiujr* ■elit S ta t u s - 0.11 - 0.02 0.03 n*i 11 »•* M .it.i* 0.01 0.09 - 0.21 0.07

S..c »«• S la lu a 0. 0/ 0.18 0.1 j 0.09 -11.00

IAKe nl ill > 0.U8 0.20 II.Oi 0. l2 0.16 -0.2S schooiF re - Eapericnce *°‘,A U W-M U.Ob -0.20 kuth O roer 0. 0b 0.12 0. 11/ - 0.19 0.01 - O . l i - 0.11 -0./

s lm lv rg e r JLl-l. UUI u-u* UIU “■>« ut* ll.lll -u.u 274 TABLE 6 3

CUKKklAl ION CUm 'ICItNT OF PKEDlCtUft VARIABLES USED IN MULTIPLE REGRESSION KUR I'AKLNIS SUBSCALE

Score/ child'* Employment Marital soclocconoalc jji10*- riSiiSL Oraer Lhtldren Genuer Tran»portution Statua Statua status experience uroer

iNiii|Htr* lalion O.U '(Mil

ijtp io y - statua -o.n o.u* U.UI

A l t l l 4l .. . . s t «ii n a u . o a u . u v - « . * • o . i >t

,M»i I »• I'I'I'IH M Il .lU llIk 0. 11/ O.iV II. I J - 11. 11* - 0.00

«IIII n ' » Age ( I .I I 0.20 U.UI II.U o.ib - 0.25

achooiP r a - Experience '’-I* 0.25 -O .U - 0.09 0.02 0.06 - 0.19

B irth O ruer O.li? 0.1/ 0.(1/ 0.19 0.01 -O.IS -0.11 -0.02

aiiHlt-igdr- t« n icti.d.ilr “-‘M* »••• U-l» U.04 U .2J t i l 0 - O .I . 275 2 7 6

REFERENCES

Anderson, L.S. When a child begins school. Children Today, 1976, July-August, 16-19. Bloom-Fleshbach, S., Bloom-Fleshbach, J. and Gaughran, J. The child’s tie to both parents: Separation patterns and nursery school adjustment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1980, 50(3), 505-521. Boss, P.G. Normative family stress: Family boundary changes across the life span. Family Relations, 1980, 29, 445-450. Bronfenbrenner, U. Toward an experimental ecology of human development . American Psychologist, 1977, 32,

Bronfenbrenner, U. The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and designl Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 19797 (a)

Bronfenbrenner, U. Contexts of child rearing. American Psychologist, 1979, 34(10), 844-850. (b)

Burka, A. and Glenwick, D. Egocentrism and classroom adjust­ ment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1978, 6(1), 61-60. Chazan, M. and Jackson, S. Behavior problems in the infant school. Journal of Child Psychiatry, 1971, 12(3), 191- 210 . ~ Coleman, J., Wolkind, S. and Ashley, L. Symptoms of behavior disturbance and adjustment to school. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1977, JL8, 201-201.

Cook, T.D. and Reichardt, C.S. Qualitative and quantitative methods in evaluation research. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, 1979. Davis, A.J. Parent child interaction and socialization pro­ cess: A critical analysis of research. Contemporary Education, 1979, 51(2) 86-93. Dillman, D.A. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978. 289 2 7 7 Duvallj E.M. Family development. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1957. (Riv".- ed7y i9 6 2 ) • ------

Feldbaum, C.L., Christenson, T.E. and O'Neal, E.L. An observational study of the assimilation of the new­ comer to the preschool. Child Development, 1980, 51(2), 497-507. —

Feiring, C. and Lewis, M. The child as a member of a family system. Behavioral Science, 1978, 23, 225-233. Fox, R., Lippett, R. and Schmuck, R. Pupil-teacher adjust­ ment and mutual adaptation in creating classroom learning environments! Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, 1964.

Galinsky, E. The six stages of parenthood. New York: Time Books, 1981.

Gracey, H.L. Learning the student role: Kindergarten as aca­ demic bootcamp. In D.H. drong and H.L. Gracey (Eds.) Readings in introductory sociology. New York: Macmillan, 1967.

Guilford, J.P. Psychometric methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw H i l l , 1954. Hammond, S.L. and Skipper, D.S. Factors involved in the adjustment of children entering first grade. The Journal of Educational Research, 1962, 56(2), 89-95.

Headley, N. The kindergarten: Its place in the program of education. New York: The Center for Applied Research in Education, Inc., 1965. H ill, R. Families under stress. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1949. I Hill, R. Generic features of families under stress. Social Casework, 1958, 39(2-3). H ill, R. and Rodgers, R. The developmental approach. In H. Christenson (Ed.) Handbook of marriage and family. Chicago: Rand, McNally and Co., 19647

Hobbs, N. Families, school, communities - ecosystems for children. Teachers College Record, 1978, 79(4), 756-766. — 2 7 8 Hock, E., McKenry, P., Hock, M., Triolo, S. and Stewart. L. Child's school entry: A stressful event in the lives of fathers. Family Relations, 1980, 29, 467-474.

Hughes, M., Pinkerton, G. and Plewis, I. Children's diffi­ culties on starting infant school. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1979, 2013), 187-196. Keniston, K. and The Carnegie Countil on Children All our children: The American family under pressure. Rew York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 197/.

Kerlinger, F.N. Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973.

Klein, H.A. Early childhood group care: Predicting adjust­ ment from individual temperament. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1980, 137(1), 125-131.

Klein, D.C. and Ross, A. Kindergarten entry: A study of role transition. In M. Krugman (Ed.) Orthopsychiatry and the school. New York: American Orthopsychiatric Association, 1958.

Ilg, F.L. and Ames, L.B. School readiness: Behavior tests used at the Gesell Institute. New Vork: Harper and Row, T9G5:------

Lightfoot, S.H. Toward conflict and resolution: Relationsips between families and schools. Theory Into Practice, 1981, 20(2), 97-104.

McMurrain, T. Intervention in human crisis: A guide for helping families in crisis. Atlanta: Hu.manics Press, T 9 7 5 . ------

Medinnus, G.R. The development of a first-grade adjustment scale. Journal of Experimental Education, 1961, 30(2), 243-248"

Medinnus, G.R. Parental Q-sort descriptions of five-year- olds as predictors of first grade adjustment. The Journal of Educational Research, 1963, 57(2), 63^71.

Moore, T. D ifficulties of the ordinary child in adjusting to school. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1966, 7, 1 7 -3 8 '.

Mueller, C.W. and Parcel, T.L. Measures of socioeconomic status: Alternatives and recommendations. Child Development, 1981, 52, 13-30. 2 7 9 Osterlind. S.J. Preschool impact on children: Its sustaining effects into kindergarten. Educational Research Quarterly, 1981, 5(4), 2 1 -3 0 1

Palmer. R. From home to infant school. In R. Palmer Start- ing school: A study in policies. London: University of London Pres,, 1971.

R adi, S.L. Mother's day is over. New York: Charter Hons?. 1973. *

Rapoport, R. Normal crisis, family structure and mental health. Family Process, 1963, 2.

Rapoport, R. and Rapoport, R. Fathers, mothers and others. London: Routledge and Kagan Paul Ltd., 1977. Rodgers, R.H. Improvements in the construction and analysis of family life cycle categories. Kalamazoo: Western Michigan Univer., 1962. Schaefer, E.S. and Bell, R.Q. Development of a parental attitude research instrument. Child Development, 1958, 29, 339-361. Scholom. A., Zucker, R.A. and Stollack, G.E. Relating early childhood adjustment to infant and parental tempera­ ment. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 1979, 7(3), 297-3081 Schwarz, J.C. and Wynn, R. The effects of mothers' presence and previsits on children's emotional reaction to starting nursery school. Child Development, 1971, 42, 871-881. Shure, M.B. Real-life problem-solving thinking and social adjustment: Intervention for preschool and kindergarten children. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 1979, 13(1), 68-78. Speers, R. W., McFarland, M.B., Arnaud, S. and Curry, N. Recapitulation of separation-individuation processes when the normal three-year-old enters nursery school. In J. McDevitt (Ed.) Separation-individuation: Essays in honor of Margaret Manler. New York: International University Press, 1971. Spradley, J.P. Participant observation. Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1980.

Spradley, J.P. The ethnographic interview. Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 19/y. 2 8 0 Stendler, C.B. and Young, N. The impact of beginning first grade upon socialization as reported by mothers. Child Development, 1950, 21(4), 241-260. Stendler, C.B. and Young, N. Impact of first grade entrance upon socialization of the child: Changes after eight months of school. Child Development, 1951, 22(2), 1 1 3 - 122. S te n d le r, C.B. Social class differences in parental attitude toward school at Grade I level. Child Development, 1951, 22(1), 37-46.

Strom, R.D. Getting ready for school. In R.D. Strom Growing together: Parent and child development. Montery, Calif.: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co7, 1978.

Thompson, B. Adjustment to school. Educational Research, 1975, 17(92), 128-136.

T ib b ie , J.W. The concept of adjustment. The New Era, 1959, 198-204.

Weinraub, M. and Lewis, M. The determinants of children's responses to separation. Society of Research in Child Developments Monographs, 1977, 42, 1-78.

Westman, J.C., Rice, D.L. and Bermain, E. Nursery school behavior and later school adjustment. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1976, J7, 725-731. REFERENCE NOTES

1. Beery, M. Changes in children and parents with school entry. Research questionnaire designed for doctoral dissertation entitled Kindergarten Entry: A Transition for Children and Families, 1982. 2. Hock, E., Stewart, L. and Martin-Huff, E. School entry: A critical period in the development of the parent-school relationship. An unpublished study, 1982.

3. Martin-Huff, E. Parental and contextual influences on children's early adjustment to kindergarten. A doctoral dissertation, The Ohio State Unversity, 1982. 4. Raum, E. R e fle c tio n s : K in d erk in d . Newspaper article, source unknown.

281