|
|
Are 5-year-old children ready to learn at school? Family income and home environment contexts
Household income level, family structure, and parental education
Readiness to learn at school and household income
Readiness to learn at school and home environment
Daily reading and number use
Positive parent–child interaction
Participation in sports and physical activities
Lessons in music, art and other art activities
Readiness to learn, home environment, and household income
When do differences in readiness to learn develop?
Conclusion
As children enter formal schooling, willingness and readiness to learn
can make a difference in their school performance. Are all children equally
willing and ready to learn? A recent report using data from the National
Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY)
found that household income was a significant predictor for many of the
measures of 5-year-old children’s readiness to learn at school: children
from more affluent families were better prepared to learn at school than
children from lower-income families. The study also found that activities
in a child’s home environment, such as daily reading, high positive parent–child
interaction, participation in organized sports, as well as lessons in physical
activities and the arts, predicted greater readiness to learn. Children
in lower-income households were less likely to have exposure to these activities;
however, those who did were more ready to learn than those who did not.
This article highlights the results regarding the effects of home
environment activities and their influence on children’s readiness to learn,
by income level, as presented in Eleanor Thomass report Readiness
to Learn at School Among Five-year-old Children in Canada.
The NLSCY includes many questions that attempt to assess readiness to learn at school. The following 11 readiness measures are considered:
- receptive vocabulary
- communication skill
- number knowledge
- copying and symbol use
- attention
- work effort
- curiosity level
- self-control of behaviour
- co-operative play
- independence in dressing and
- independence in cleanliness.
Receptive vocabulary, number knowledge, and copying and symbol use were assessed through direct measurements: i.e., the children were asked to perform certain tasks to measure their knowledge or skill. The other items were measured by asking the person most knowledgeable about the child, usually the mother, questions about skill or behaviour.1
The National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY) is a long-term study of children that follows their development from birth to early adulthood. Begun in 1994, the NLSCY is conducted by Statistics Canada and sponsored by Human Resources and Social Development Canada. It is designed to collect information about factors influencing the social, emotional, and behavioural development of children, as well as monitor the impact of these factors on their development over time.
In her report, Thomas studied all of the 5-year-olds in the third longitudinal
cohort of the NLSCY. These children were born between April and December 1997
and were 5 years old as of December 31, 2002. At the time of the interview,
they ranged from 57 to 65 months old. Altogether, 3,923 children were included
in the sample, representing approximately 360,000 Canadian 5-year-olds. Due
to the sample selection procedure, no children who were born in the first four
months of the year were included in the study; therefore, conclusions apply
to a population of 5-year-olds that is relatively young.
In this study, household income level was measured as the ratio of household income to the relevant low-income cut-off level (LICO) for each family. Families with income levels below the LICO are those who devote a larger share of income to the necessities of food, shelter, and clothing than the average equivalent family. Household income was divided into four groups: Level 1 represented households with incomes below the LICO, Level 2 represented those with incomes between the LICO and less than 2 times the LICO, Level 3 represented those with incomes between 2 times the LICO and less than 3 times the LICO, and Level 4 represented those with incomes 3 times the LICO or more.
For example, using the 2002 matrix of low-income cut-offs, a family of four living in a rural area would be considered to be living below the LICO if their after-tax income was $19,908. Alternatively, if a family of four lived in an area with a population of 500,000 or more and had an after-tax income of $30,433, they would be considered to be living below the LICO.2
The household income levels of the children’s families varied considerably. In 2002, 16% of 5-year-old children were living in very low-income households, those with a household income level of 1. The largest percentage of children, 38%, was concentrated in Level 2 households. Twenty-seven percent of 5-year-old children lived in Level 3 households; 19% lived in Level 4 households.
Most of the children, 85%, lived in a two-parent family; the rest lived with one parent. For 36% of the children, the education level of the reporting parent, usually the mother, was high school graduation or less. The parents of the other 64% had some postsecondary education, including a college diploma or university degree.
Household income was a significant predictor of six of the eleven measures of readiness to learn among 5-year-old children. When it came to receptive vocabulary, communication skill, knowledge of numbers, copying and using symbols, attention, and co-operative play, children from lower-income households scored lower than those from more affluent households. However, the study found no differences in the other measures: household income level was not related to a child’s work effort, level of curiosity, self-control of behaviour, independence in dressing, or independence in cleanliness at age 5.
Early success in school is predicted by the abilities, behaviours, and attitudes
that young children bring with them as they enter school for the first time.
Understanding how these attributes develop for children at various income levels
and, in turn, how they contribute to a child’s
readiness to learn at school, can offer insights into how to maximize children’s
potential, regardless of family income.
Children’s readiness to learn at school has been linked to their experiences in the home and community, including the quality of their relationships with parents, educational activities at home, and opportunities to participate in group activities with peers, whether in recreational or educational contexts. The next part of this article looks at early childhood experiences—the experiences children have before entering school that might set the stage for their readiness to learn in later years. The focus here is on the home environment and how it relates to household income.
Children who receive cognitive stimulation in the home tend to succeed in early school years and to be more ready to learn. Two early home learning activities were captured in the NLSCY: daily reading to the child and daily encouragement of the use of numbers by the child.
On average, 62% of parents reported reading to their child daily. However, children in the two lower income levels were read to less than those in the two higher income levels. Fifty-five percent of children in Level 1 households were read to daily, compared with 65% of children in Level 4 households (Chart 1).
Chart 1
Percentage of 5 year-old children at four household income levels who were read to daily and who were encouraged to use numbers on a daily basis, 2002
Sources: Table 1.
Teaching numbers to preschoolers can be as easy as handing them a plate of cookies and asking them to share the cookies among friends. Such a simple activity encourages children to use numbers and see their relevance in day-to-day activities. Indeed, 60% of parents in this study reported that they encouraged their child daily to use numbers in everyday activities. While some variations in daily number use were reported by different household income levels, statistically significant variation was only present between Level 2 households (57%) and Level 4 households (65%).
Children who experience positive interactions with a nurturing, involved parent
have better school and social outcomes than those who do not. In her
report, Thomas studied whether positive parent–child interactions also predicted
readiness to learn at school for 5-year-old preschool children. In the NLSCY,
positive parent–child interaction was assessed using several questions. The
survey asked how often parents praised their child or did something special
with their child that the child enjoyed. It asked how often they talked with
their child for fun for five minutes or more and how often they played sports
and games or shared hobbies with their child. It also asked how often parents
laughed with their child. This interaction could be as simple as a parent
telling their child “Good job!” after they’ve tidied up their toys, or spending
time colouring or doing a puzzle with their child. High levels of positive
parent–child interaction were reported for more than 82% of children. While
some variation existed between income levels, the only statistically
significant variation occurred between children in Level 1 households, 79%,
and those in Level 3 households, 86%. Positive parent–child interaction, then,
is linked, but only weakly, to the household income level of the child.
Children who participate in sports and other physical activities are more likely to be ready for school than less active children. The report found a pattern of increasing participation in sports and physical activities as income levels increased (Chart 2): children in Level 1 households participated less in sports and physical activities than their peers in the higher income groups. However, the gap in participation rates was more pronounced for some types of activities than others.
Unorganized sports without a coach or instructor were the most popular activities reported for 5-year-olds. These activities also showed the smallest participation gap between the lower and higher income levels. Overall, more than 65% of children were reported to have participated weekly in this type of activity—about seven out of ten children at the two higher income levels and about six out of ten children at the two lower income levels. Because unorganized sports pose little or no financial cost for coaches, equipment, or facilities, these activities are, not surprisingly, almost equally popular for children at different income levels.
Participation in organized sports—activities that involve a coach or instructor such as soccer, t-ball, and hockey—were the second most reported activities for 5-year-old children. On average, almost five out of ten children participated weekly in some form of organized sport. Participation varied considerably by income level. Children in Level 4 households had the greatest weekly participation, at 67%; children in Level 1 households had a participation rate of 23%. This 44 percentage-point difference is not surprising given that activities with a coach or instructor tend to have registration fees, equipment costs, and other associated expenses. Families with a Level 1 income are those who need to devote a large share of the household income to daily necessities, so sports activities may not be affordable.
A similar pattern across income levels was found for participation in lessons
in physical activities, such as dance, gymnastics, swimming, or martial
arts. While overall participation in these types of activities was lower
than for unorganized and organized sports, children from lower-income households
were much less likely to participate than those in higher income households:
only 18% of children from Level 1 households reported weekly participation
whereas 47% of those with from Level 4 households participated weekly. Again,
the differences among the income groups may reflect, in part, the high cost
of these activities.
Chart 2
Percentage of 5 year-old children at four household income levels who participated in unorganized sports, organized sports, and lessons in physical activities on a weekly basis, 2002
Sources: Table 2.
Five-year-olds were less likely to participate in lessons in music, art, and other art activities than in other kinds of activities. Overall, 14% of children participated weekly in arts-related lessons. Children in Level 4 households had a higher weekly participation rate (18%) than those in Level 2 households (10%). Otherwise, variations in participation rates were not significant.
The broad overview of children’s preschool experiences, including cognitive
stimulation in the home, positive parent–child interaction, and participation
in sports, physical activities, and lessons in the arts, paints a picture
of increasing participation and involvement as incomes rise. The differences
between children in lower-income families and more affluent families
were more pronounced for some activities than for others, perhaps reflecting
both the costs of the activities themselves and the constraints on parental
time and energy caused by financial disadvantage in the lower-income
households.
Children in lower-income households were both less likely to experience the activities that were associated with readiness to learn at school and scored lower on a number of the readiness to learn measures than children in more affluent households. This leads to the question of whether activities in the home environment such as daily reading to the child, positive parent–child interaction, and participation in sports and other activities can buffer the association between income and readiness to learn at school. The next part of this article focuses on where improvements in readiness-to-learn scores were found among children in the lower income groups by participation in the home environment activities detailed above.
‘Receptive vocabulary’ is the vocabulary that is understood by a child
when he or she hears the words spoken. In this report, it was measured
using a standard vocabulary test, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT). Children at the lowest income level scored lower than those at
the other three levels, and children at the second lowest level scored
lower than those at Levels 3 and 4 (Chart 3). However, being read to
daily seems to be associated with higher PPVT scores, regardless of income
level. For example, children in the lowest-income households who were
read to daily achieved the same scores as the children in the second lowest
income group who were not read to daily. The relative impact of daily reading
is significantly stronger among the most economically disadvantaged children.
Participation in organized sports and physical activities were other factors that accounted for differences in vocabulary scores between lower- and higher-income
children. Children in low-income households who participated in such activities
scored higher in receptive vocabulary than those who did not.
Chart 3
Receptive vocabulary scores of 5-year-old children at four household income levels who were or were not read to daily, 2002
Sources: Table 3.
Communication skill was measured by a series of questions that asked how
well children could convey their needs, follow instructions, pass messages,
etc. Again, children in the bottom two income levels scored lower than those
in the higher income levels.
Differences in communication skill scores were partly accounted for by the level of positive parent–child interaction, as well as by participation in organized sports and lessons in physical activities. For example, at every income level, those who had high levels of parent–child interaction posted higher communication scores. Children at Level 1 who experienced high levels of positive parent–child interaction had an average score of 10.1; those who did not see high levels of positive parent–child interaction scored 9.5. Children at Level 4 who had high levels of positive parent–child interaction scored 10.9; their counterparts who did not scored 10.1.
Number knowledge was assessed using a standard 30-item test, the Number Knowledge Assessment. In number knowledge, children at the lowest income level had lower scores than children at all other income levels. Children at level 2 differed from children at Level 4, but were on par with children at level 3. Whether children were read to daily accounted for some of the variation in number knowledge between children at the higher and lower income levels. In addition, higher scores were found among children in the three lower income levels who participated in organized sports; however, no link was found between participation in organized sports and the number knowledge scores of those in the highest income level. Also, for children at the two lower income levels, participation in lessons in physical activities was linked with higher number knowledge scores; this was not the case for children from more affluent households.
Children’s ability to copy and use symbols was measured using a standardized test called “Who Am I?” On this test, children from lower-income households scored lower than those from more affluent households. These differences were partly accounted for by participation in organized sports, lessons in physical activities, and lessons in the arts. For example, children at the lowest income level who participated in lessons in physical activities had an average copying and symbol use score of 99.7; those who did not participate averaged 95.6. At the highest income level, a similar pattern appeared with those who participated in lessons in physical activities scoring 106.0 while their counterparts who did not participate averaged 101.9.
It should be noted the relationships found in this study among income level, home environment experiences, and readiness to learn do not imply causality. The home environment variables may have caused the differences in readiness to learn, but readiness-to-learn may also affect the home environment. For example, being read to regularly may give a child good vocabulary; however, if children have a good vocabulary level to begin with, this may encourage parents to read to them more. Other factors not considered in this study, such as the parent’s literacy level, may also explain both daily reading to the child and the child’s good vocabulary level, and may be linked to income.
As discussed above, 5-year-olds from lower and higher income households showed
key differences in six of the eleven readiness-to-learn measures. In an effort
to understand when differences begin to emerge between income groups, the
study looked back to age 3 to see if the differences were already apparent
then, or if they emerged during the preschool years, from ages 3 to 5.
Three of the measures that differed at age 5 had results available for the same children at age 3: communication skill, attention, and co-operative play.
The difference found in communication skill at age 5 favouring children from more affluent households was already apparent at age 3 (Chart 4). Between the ages of 3 and 5, communication skill increased for children at all income levels, but the gap between the levels remained relatively constant. Like communication skill, the difference in attention at age 5 favouring children from higher-income households was already evident at age 3. Unlike communication skill, however, attention did not improve between ages 3 and 5 at any of the income levels. These findings show that differences in communication skill and attention between children at the various income levels developed during the earliest years of the children’s lives, before the age of 3.
Chart 4
Communication skill score at ages 3 and 5, by household income level, 2002
Sources: Table 4.
In contrast, the difference among income groups in co-operative play at age 5 was not apparent at age 3: it developed over the two-year preschool period. The difference came about because children from higher-income households maintained high levels of co-operative play, while those from lower-income households tended to decline in co-operative play.
Before children begin their journey into formal education, differences in readiness to learn at school already exist between those from lower- and higher-income households. At the age of 5, children from lower-income households had lower scores than those from more affluent households in six of the eleven readiness-to-learn measures: receptive vocabulary, communication skill, number knowledge, copying and symbol use, attention, and co-operative play. However, children from all four income levels had similar scores in work effort, curiosity level, self-control of behaviour, independence in dressing, and independence in cleanliness—the other five dimensions of readiness to learn.
Children’s readiness to learn at school has been linked to their experiences
in the home and in the community, including educational activities at
home, the quality of their relationships with parents, and opportunities
to participate in group activities with peers, whether in recreational
or educational contexts.
Regardless of income level, daily reading, high positive parent–child interaction, participation in organized sports, lessons in physical activities, and lessons in the arts were linked with higher scores on readiness-to-learn measures. The fact that children in lower-income households were less likely to experience these positive home environment factors may help to explain the differences in readiness to learn between children at different income levels. However, the study demonstrates that engagement with specific home environment factors may assist children in low-income households by increasing their readiness to learn at school.
Notes
-
For a complete description of the measurements of readiness to learn, see Thomas, Eleanor. 2006. Readiness to Learn at School Among Five-year-old Children in Canada. No. 4. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 89-599MIE. Appendix B.
See Statistics Canada. 2005. Low-income cut-offs for 2004 and low-income measures for 2002. No. 3. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 75F0002MIE.
Tables:
Table 1: Percentage of children at four household income levels who were read to daily and who were encouraged to use numbers on a daily basis, 2002
| Household income |
| Daily reading |
Daily number use |
| Level 1 |
55.4 |
60.4 |
| Level 2 |
59.4 |
56.9 |
| Level 3 |
66.5 |
59.8 |
| Level 4 |
64.9 |
65.1 |
Note: Household income level was measured as the ratio of household income to the relevant low-income cut-off level (LICO) for each family. Household income was divided into four groups: Level 1 represented households with incomes below the LICO; Level 2 represented those with incomes between the LICO and less than 2 times the LICO; Level 3 represented those with incomes between 2 times the LICO and less than 3 times the LICO; and Level 4 represented those with incomes 3 times the LICO or more.
Source: Statistics Canada, National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth 2002-2003.
Table 2: Percentage of children at four household
income levels who participated in unorganized sports, organized sports
and lessons in physical activities on a weekly basis, 2002
| Household income |
| Unorganized sport |
Organized sport |
Lessons in physical activities |
| Level 1 |
58.3 |
23.3 |
18.0 |
| Level 2 |
61.4 |
40.8 |
26.8 |
| Level 3 |
70.5 |
57.4 |
36.2 |
| Level 4 |
71.5 |
66.8 |
46.6 |
Note: Household income level was measured as the ratio of household income to the relevant low-income cut-off level (LICO) for each family. Household income was divided into four groups: Level 1 represented households with incomes below the LICO; Level 2 represented those with incomes between the LICO and less than 2 times the LICO; Level 3 represented those with incomes between 2 times the LICO and less than 3 times the LICO; and Level 4 represented those with incomes 3 times the LICO or more.
Source: Statistics Canada, National
Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth 2002-2003.
Table 3: Receptive vocabulary score of children at four household income levels who were or were not read to daily, 2002
| Household income |
| Not read to daily |
Read to daily |
| Level 1 |
89.8 |
96.5 |
| Level 2 |
95.8 |
102.3 |
| Level 3 |
103.7 |
106.6 |
| Level 4 |
103.4 |
106.7 |
Note: Household income level was measured as the ratio of household income to the relevant low-income cut-off level (LICO) for each family. Household income was divided into four groups: Level 1 represented households with incomes below the LICO; Level 2 represented those with incomes between the LICO and less than 2 times the LICO; Level 3 represented those with incomes between 2 times the LICO and less than 3 times the LICO; and Level 4 represented those with incomes 3 times the LICO or more.
Source: Statistics Canada, National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth 2002-2003.
Table 4: Communication skill score at age 3 and age 5, by household income level, 2002
| Household income |
| Age 3 |
Age 5 |
| Level 1 |
9.2 |
9.9 |
| Level 2 |
9.7 |
10.3 |
| Level 3 |
10.0 |
10.6 |
| Level 4 |
10.2 |
10.7 |
Note: Household income level was measured as the ratio of household income to the relevant low-income cut-off level (LICO) for each family. Household income was divided into four groups: Level 1 represented households with incomes below the LICO; Level 2 represented those with incomes between the LICO and less than 2 times the LICO; Level 3 represented those with incomes between 2 times the LICO and less than 3 times the LICO; and Level 4 represented those with incomes 3 times the LICO or more.
Source: Statistics Canada, National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth 2002-2003.
|
