Readiness to Learn at School Among Five-year-old Children in Canada: Summary and conclusions

Archived Content

Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please "contact us" to request a format other than those available.

Are there differences in readiness to learn between demographic groups?

Girls and boys entered school with equivalent abilities in several areas. They did not differ in receptive vocabulary or in number knowledge, and they were similar in work effort, cooperative play, and independence in cleanliness. However, they differed considerably in several dimensions of readiness to learn. Compared to boys, girls entered school with better communication skills and stronger abilities in copying and symbol use. They scored higher in attention and in self-control of impulsive behaviour, and were rated as higher in independence in dressing. On only one measure were boys rated above girls, and that was in curiosity level.

Children from lower income households did not do as well as those from more affluent households in many of the readiness to learn dimensions. This was true for receptive vocabulary, communication skill, number knowledge, copying and symbol use, attention, and cooperative play. However, no differences were detected between income levels in work effort, curiosity level, self-control of behaviour, independence in dressing, or independence in cleanliness.

Trends for children whose parents had low education levels and for those living in one-parent households were similar to the trends for lower income groups, in part because lower income levels are associated with lower parent education levels and one-parent family structures.

Do home environment variables predict readiness to learn, and if so, do they explain differences between children at different income levels?

Important links were found between readiness to learn measures and several aspects of the home environments of children. Children with high levels of positive interaction with their parents tended to have higher receptive vocabulary scores and higher communication skill scores than others, and to be rated higher in both curiosity and cooperative play. Children who were read to daily did better in receptive vocabulary and number knowledge than those who were not read to daily. Participation in organized sports and in lessons in physical activities were linked to several readiness to learn measures, including receptive vocabulary, communication skill, number knowledge, and copying and symbol use. Participation in lessons in the arts was linked to number knowledge and to copying and symbol use. Finally, children who participated at least weekly in unorganized sports were rated higher in cooperative play than other children.

Some of these relationships between readiness to learn measures and aspects of the home environment may contribute to differences in readiness to learn between children from households with different income levels. As with all correlational data, links among the demographic variables, the home environment variables, and readiness to learn measures do not imply a cause-and-effect relationship. However, some of the links found here are consistent with studies reported elsewhere in the research literature.

As an example, it was found that differences in receptive vocabulary between children from low income households and those from more affluent households may be partly accounted for by differences in how often children were read to. Children in low income households who were read to daily had higher scores in vocabulary than children in low income households who were not read to, just as higher income children did. However, they were less likely to experience daily reading than higher income children. This may help to account for the low vocabulary scores of the lower income children relative to the children from more affluent families.

Other differences between income groups were examined in the same way. Differences in receptive vocabulary score between lower and higher income children were partly accounted for by participation in organized sports and physical activities. Differences in communication skill score between lower and higher income children were partly accounted for by positive parent-child interaction, and by participation in organized sports and physical activities. Differences in number knowledge score between lower and higher income children were in part accounted for by daily reading to the child. For lower income children, number knowledge was predicted by participation in organized sports and lessons in physical activities. This was not the case for children from more affluent households who showed no differences between those who did and did not participate. For copying and symbol use score, participation in organized sports, lessons in physical activities, and lessons in the arts partly accounted for income level differences.

These findings can all be interpreted in the same way: whether children were living in low income or higher income households, 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. However, the fact that the lower income children were less likely to experience the home environment factor may help to explain the difference in readiness to learn scores between the income levels.

When do differences in readiness to learn measures between demographic groups develop?

This report looked back two years to see whether differences in readiness to learn between girls and boys and between lower and higher income level children already existed at age 3, or whether these differences emerged over the preschool period from age 3 to age 5. As shown in Table 3, the clear differences found at age 5 between girls and boys in communication skill and independence in dressing were already evident at age 3, with girls ranking higher than boys on both of these measures. Similarly, the difference in curiosity favouring boys was already evident at age 3. On the other hand, differences in attention and in self-control of behaviour favouring girls were not apparent at age 3, but emerged over the two-year period. A difference in independence in cleanliness was found at age 3, favouring girls, but this difference had disappeared by age 5. In work effort and cooperative play, girls and boys were similar at both ages.

Table 4 shows differences in readiness to learn measures and changes in those differences from age 3 to age 5 according to the income level of children’s households. The clear differences found at age 5 in communication skill and attention favouring children from more affluent households were already apparent at age 3. In contrast, the difference found in cooperative play at age 5 was not in evidence at age 3, but appeared over the two-year period. Affluent children ranked higher than less affluent children in work effort and self-control of behaviour at age 3, but these differences had disappeared by age 5. The lack of difference between income levels in curiosity, independence in dressing, and independence in cleanliness existed at both age 3 and age 5.

Summary

This report provides an overview of Canadian children as they enter school as 5-year-olds. It looks at the collection of abilities, behaviours and attitudes that they bring with them, attributes that are important for early school achievement. The report shows that children vary on some dimensions of readiness to learn at school, according to their sex, their family characteristics, their background and their home environment and experiences. It also shows that some of the differences in readiness to learn may already be evident two years earlier, when the children were 3 years old. Finally, the report indicates factors in the home environment that may contribute to differences among different economic groups. The report adds to what we know about readiness to learn. It provides information that may be useful for policy analysts, teachers, researchers, and parents themselves as they work toward maximizing the potential of preschool children everywhere.