La municipalidad y los demás órganos y entes de la

It is argued that a coherent theory of school readiness is lacking in current literature (Snow, 2006). This chapter provides a synthesis of theorizing school readiness, an overview of this study’s guiding theoretical framework, and its application for examining school readiness and kindergarten preparation in the broader contexts of social class, race, and gender. Concepts and tenets of ecological theory, cultural capital, critical race theory (CRT), and feminist thought informed how this study was undertaken. A complete discussion of the development and progression of theories is beyond the scope of this chapter. The crux of this chapter outlines theoretical concepts and tenets comprising this framework. It also provides an integrative summary of the four perspectives that emphasizes their intersectionality and contributions to a textured discussion of school readiness.

Theorizing School Readiness: A Historical Recap

In the early years of compulsory education, determination of school readiness grew largely from a maturationist framework. According to this framework, only mature children could benefit from school. The maturationist framework still guided the field in the 1900s. “Reading readiness” was overwhelmingly defined in terms of a child’s maturity level and mental age, despite dissenters arguing that the effectiveness of instruction and other environmental factors also played roles in early school performance (Durkin, 1966).

School readiness shifted from a general concern with reading among American

schoolchildren to the need to prepare low- income and minority children for the rigors of formal education during the mid and late 1960s. Theoretically, early educational experiences were increasingly viewed as equally important for promoting school success as a child’s chronological age during this period through the 1980s. Popular belief during this time was that schools assist

children in overcoming negative influence of their family environments by providing them with marketable social and academic skills (Church & Sedlak, 1976). Researchers and policy analysts have begun to connect the maturationist perspective with others perspectives such as the

evolutionary developmental view (Snow, 2006). In this tradition schools are considered socially constructed environments that should be ready to receive children. Researchers argue that biologically determined and universal cognitive skills are promoted in environmental activities and early experiences (Snow, 2006).

An ecological framework has also been put forth to theorize school readiness (Pianta, 2002; Snow, 2006). The National Center for Early Development and Learning (NCDL) Ecological Model was developed in an effort to understand the process of transitioning into kindergarten (Pianta, Rimm-Kaufman, & Cox, 1999). The model takes into account the

influence of contexts (family, classroom, community). Snow (2006) contends “school readiness is best understood as an interaction between the development status and the numerous elements of a child’s environment” (p. 30). Furthermore, Pianta (2002) notes that the process of readiness is highly complex and involves multiple relationships and contexts in which young children are embedded and have experiences.

In current research, poverty and minority group status prevail as prominent risk factors for developmental and school maladjustments. Research postulated relationships between

background variables such as race, class, and gender and children’s performances on assessments of school readiness. As a result models of “risk” and deficit are overwhelmingly represented in school readiness literature. In-depth examinations of mechanisms and social processes

impacting school readiness that perpetuate disparities so often reported in the literature are lacking. Carlton and Winsler (1999) highlight the need for a paradigm shift in order to better

understand readiness. The authors suggest that “assumptions upon which most of the current readiness practices are based are faulty and questionable” (p. 343). They contend current readiness paradigms can have negative consequences for young children. This study’s

theoretical framework represents an effort to broaden the existing paradigms. It sought to move beyond outlining models of risk to understanding processes and mechanisms of risk factors that perpetuate school readiness advantages and disadvantages.

I drew upon diverse theoretical tenets to further theorize preparing children for kindergarten and related disparities. The ecological model offered a broad framework for examining conceptions of kindergarten preparation in multiple developmental contexts. The concept of cultural capital offered a lens to explore specific mechanisms of social class that impact school readiness. Critical race theory was incorporated to examine issues of race and school readiness. Lastly, feminist thought was incorporated to understand the complexities of gender. Combined, these perspectives provided the theoretical framework.

Ecological Theory

The ecological theory provided the foundation of this study’s framework. Researchers note the model’s fit for understanding school readiness processes and contextual elements related to preparing children for school (Pianta et al., 1999; Snow, 2006). Here, Urie Bronfenbrenner’s (1979) ecological model was drawn upon because it offered a means to pay special attention to family, school, community, policy, and other sociopolitical environments in which school entry was embedded as well as the interplay between these systems. The concepts of ecosystem and levels fit well with this study’s focus on highlighting multiple developmental contexts. Also, social interaction, a central feature of the ecological model (White & Klein, 2002), was essential in theorizing school readiness.

Ecosystems and Levels

The ecosystems in which humans exist are central. Interactions within broad biological and social contexts influence individuals’ development. Development occurs “in context” of social and environmental dependencies. An ecosystem or environment is defined as “an arrangement of mutual dependencies in a population by which the whole operates as a unit and thereby maintains a viable environmental relationship” (Hawley, 1986, p. 26).

Multiple structures exist within ecological environments. Bronfenbrenner (1979) organized varying contexts into systems represented by “a nested arrangement of concentric structures each contained within the next” (p. 22). Figure 3-1 is an illustration of

Bronfenbrenner’s concentric structures. The microsystem is a network of “patterns of activities, roles, and interpersonal relations experienced by the developing person in a given face-to- face setting with particular physical and material features and containing other persons with

distinctive characteristics of temperament, personality and systems of personal belief”

(Bretherton, 1993, p. 22). The mesosystem is described as a connected group of microsystems in which the individual directly participates (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Exosystems are settings that do not require a child’s direct participation, but can indirectly influence development by directly affecting others with whom they interact (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Finally, macrosystems encompass collective norms and values, cultures of larger society and subgroups, and the variations that exist (Bretherton, 1993; Bronfenbrenner, 1979; McAdoo, 1993; White & Klein, 2002).

At the microsystem level, the explanation that parenting and family life influence school readiness was examined. Examinations of the relationships and interactions between primary caregivers and preschool-age children and explorations of young children’s activities within their

families were possible at this level. Examining the mesosystem revealed connections and disconnections between home and school perceptions of school readiness and preparing children for school. Kindergarten transition activities were also explored to assess home-school

connectedness. Within this system, parents’ perceptions and children’s familial experiences were considered in concert with educators’ and schools’ expectations. It was instrumental in examining kindergarten preparation within the larger ecosystem. The exosystem offered space to highlight the indirect ways local institutions and community resources potentially impact school readiness and kindergarten transitions. Finally, examining macrosystems allowed perceptions of the impact of social class, race, and gender on school readiness and transitioning into kindergarten to be examined. Analyzing the four ecological systems provided a textured view of children’s experiences prior to and upon entering formal schooling (Pianta, 2002; Pianta et al., 1999). They highlighted how these socially constructed realities influenced kindergarten preparation.

Interaction and Interplay Between Ecological Structures

The ecological model was also useful for theorizing about families and the development of its members (White & Klein. 2002). O ne assumption of the ecology of human development is that the social interaction that takes place within parent-child relationships is important

(Bretherton, 1993; Bronfenbrenner, 1979). This was especially relevant in exploring preparing children for kindergarten. Within the ecological model, families are central and considered important allies in encouraging school readiness (Pianta et al., 2002). In their interactions with family members preschool-aged children learn to relate to others, patterns and norms of social interaction, and how to process the intentions and behaviors of others in the future. Educational socialization and learning also take place. Current studies broadly characterize parenting

practices and interactions with young children that impact school readiness. This theory allowed for examinations of micro-level processes that take place between family members and young children during their daily routines and interactions, which can impact school readiness.

Bronfenbrenner (1979) was more concerned with these systems’ interrelatedness and the influence they had on development than with identifying processes that took place within one system or another. Accordingly to Bronfenbrenner, “a child’s ability to learn in school may depend no less on how he or she is taught than on the existence and nature of ties between the school and the home” (p. 3). For example, when discussing preschool-aged children’s ecological transitions from home into school, the congruency between family and educator perceptions can be examined in terms of connections and disconnections between contexts. Figure 3-2 is a pictorial representation of this study’s concern with points of connection and disconnection between the levels of systems. The ways that parenting and family life, home-school connectedness, community resources, and systems of stratification and education policy converge and diverge was of primary concern in this study.

In discussions of school readiness, the extent to which family, school, community, and society promo ted common goals for school readiness were examined using this theoretical framework. The ecological theory was a major organizing component of the theoretical framework. The concepts of cultural capital and tenets of critical race theory and feminist thought offered lenses to interpret the ecological system and its structures in this case study.

Cultural Capital

The concept of cultural capital was employed to theorize the influence of social class. Cultural capital is a theoretical concept developed by Pierre Bourdieu to explain the disparities in educational outcomes between students of varying social class. Cultural capital refers to

knowledge of valued cultural tastes and practices (Roscigno & Ainsworth-Darnell, 1999). The concept refers to “attitudes, preferences, formal knowledge, behaviors, goods, and credentials” (Lareau & Weininger, 2003) socially recognized as denoting high status within society.

Appreciating the arts, knowing how to play a musical instrument, and having studied at Julliard are examp les of cultural capital. Cultural capital offered a means to explore how mechanisms and micro- level processes of social class influence kindergarten preparation. This study drew upon the notions of culture as a resource and transmission of cultural capital to examine the role of social class on school readiness advantages and disadvantages.

Cultural Capital as Resource

Much of Bourdieu’s work on cultural capital focused on “high status” cultural resources and tastes within France that indirectly transla ted into high educational achievement. He argued that individuals within society gain advantages through possession of cultural capital. Social scientists have also examined the concept of cultural capital within U.S. society (Barone, 2006; Kingston, 2001; Lareau, 2000; Lareau & Weininger, 2003). Lareau and Weininger (2003) expanded Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital by contributing the notion that cultural capital “allows culture to be used as a resource that provides access to scarce rewards” (p. 567). Within the American system of education, Lareau attempts to go beyond “classical” tastes in art and music to a more general concept in order to understand activation of capital to achieve advantages within contemporary U.S. society. The concept of cultural capital suggests that social class and cultural “tastes” are closely related (Barone, 2006).

A premise of the concept of cultural capital employed in this framework to understanding disparities in academic achievement is the notion that schools are not neutral ecological settings (Barone, 2006; Lareau & Weininger, 2003). Instead, in schools expectations for attitudes and

behaviors are well defined and typically imposed by the dominant class. Cultural capital is exclusive and is “largely the property of the existing elite” (Kingston, 2001, p. 89). When middle class cultural resources are more valued in educational settings than poor and working class cultural resources, educational disparities can result. In other words, possessing cultural capital aligned with schools ’ expectations is a resource for children entering kindergarten. This study explored the alignment of low- and middle-income families’ expectations and kindergarten practices with educators’ expectations to theorize the influence of social class on school

readiness.

Transmission of Cultural Capital

Cultural capital can be “transmitted from one generation to the next” (Lareau &

Weininger, 2003. p. 587). Cultural capital provides resources that interact with schools in ways that can reproduce social inequality (Roscigno & Ainsworth-Darnell, 1999). Lareau (2000) postulated social class as a primary component of cultural capital that influenced children’s education. She contended that social class was a resource that granted parents cultural capital to intervene in their children’s school experiences in ways that yielded educational returns.

Cultural codes can also be passed on to children through social interactions in multiple contexts. This study drew upon the concept of cultural capital to explore perceptions of school readiness and the transition into kindergarten. Cultural capital offered means to explore the role of social class in parents’ perceptions of school readiness and early learning and their abilities to meet educators’ expectations for their incoming kindergarteners. This concept also guided this study in identifying the ways in which parents “activate” cultural capital to prepare their children for school within their everyday lives to yield “profits” at kindergarten entrance.

Critical Race Theory

African Americans have had a unique experience in the United States that begins with compulsory education in the 1830s. It was forbidden by law for enslaved African Americans to read and write. According to Anderson’s (1988) seminal work examining the education of African Americans in the south, “between 1800 and 1835, most of the southern states enacted legislation making it a crime to teach enslaved children to read and write” (p.2), while

simultaneously lobbying for public and free education for American children. Hilliard

contended that “the United States was created as a slave nation, complete with deliberate designs to prevent the education of slaves” and consequently “notions of White supremacy and the inferiority of people of color [led] to student segregation largely based on color” (p.90).

Critical race theory (CRT) was used to theorize race. CRT emerged among legal scholars (e.g. Cheryl Harris, 1998) in search of a critical interpretation of race and racism in the law and society. It was later introduced into the field of education by Gloria Ladson-Billings and William Tate (Dixson & Rousseau, 2005; Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). CRT specifically offered intellectual space for “uncover[ing] how race and racism operate” (Parker & Lynn; 2002, p.7) to impact the lives of African Americans; while simultaneously taking into account

intersections of socioeconomic status and gender. Critical race theory offers a means for analyzing early educational experie nces and the “school readiness gaps” between African American and White children that went beyond emphasis on child and family deficits by examining the impact of structural constraints within macrosystems. CRT offered a means to explore how race played out to reinforce school readiness disadvantages and advantages. Three major theoretical tenets of critical “race” theory were central in this study: (1) counterstory telling, (2), colorblind ideology and (3) Whiteness as property.

Counterstory Telling

According to Bonilla-Silva, Lewis, and Embrick (2004), stories are basic elements of communication in which individuals narrate their lives and social relationships. Racial ideology, or “ the broad racial framework, or grids, that racial groups use to make sense of the world, to decide what is right or wrong, true or false, important or unimportant” (Bonilla-Silva, et al., 2004, p. 556), is central in understanding the stories people tell about race. Racial ideology is manifested in everyday life through story telling in which dominant, or common sense, logic, about race gives rise. Within the framework of critical race theory, counterstories offer “a means to challenge the dominant story” about race and racism (Dixson & Rousseau, 2005, p. 11) by bringing to bear stories about race told by people of color (Duncan, 2006) in social science research. This study allowed space for multiple voices to be present in discussions of school readiness to include White and African American educators as well as middle- and low- income African American parents.

Colorblindness

The racial ideology of today differs from the Jim Crow era that existed prior to the late 1960s when separate facilities were considered equal and legitimate within the United States psyche (Bonilla-Silva, 2003). Colorblind ideology is now the dominant racial ideology governing social structures and relations in U.S. society (Bonilla-Silva, 2003; Dixson &

Rousseau, 2005). Its function in society is to “make sense of” social life and relationships in the form of narratives and testimonies about race in society (Bonilla-Silva et al., 2004). CRT proponents argue that colorblindness denies the existence of racial discrimination and race as an organizing principle in society today. Colorblind racial ideology suggests racism is an issue of the past and irrelevant to the current social structure. CRT scholars reject colorblind ideology

because race as a social condition impacting individuals in society is ignored. According to Bell (2004) “history’s lessons have not been learned, and even at this late day may not be teachable with color-blindness serving as an attractive veneer obscuring flaws in the society that are not corrected by being hidden from view” (Be ll, 2004). Colorblind racial ideology underpinning the discourse on the “school readiness gap” can be problematized using CRT. It also shed light on how adults perceived the impact of race on children’s transitions into kindergarten.

Whiteness as Property

Lastly, Whiteness as property was incorporated as a key interpretive tool in understanding perceptions of school readiness and transitioning into kindergarten. CRT contends being White conveys benefits and privilege to some while excluding others in educational settings (Dixson & Rousseau, 2005). Harris (1998) contends that historically:

Whiteness defined the legal status of a person as slave or free. White identity conferred tangible and economically valuable benefits and was jealously guarded as a valued possession, allowed only to those who met a strict standard of proof. Whiteness—the right to White identity as embraced by the law—is property if by property one means all of a person’s legal rights (p. 105).

Harris (1998) outlined the ways in which Whiteness as property, in relation to the le gal

definition of the term, granted property holders rights of disposition, rights of use and enjoyment, and rights to protect the reputation and status of property.

Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) highlight the ways in which Whiteness functions as property in educational settings today. Most applicable to this study was the right to exclude on the basis of Whiteness in formal schooling. In general, Whiteness as property pla yed out historically in terms of denial of access to quality public education based on race and the

legitimacy of racially segregated schools that were inherently unequal. Racial disparities in early learning, which continue throughout the course of schooling, exist between African American