As a general concept, ‘readiness’ refers to a state of preparedness through that an organism is set to act or respond (e.g., sexual readiness) or to benefit from experience. Applied to development, it can be considered to be the age-related capacity of the individual to function effectively in specific situations. In practice, developmental readiness proves difficult to pin down with a generally acceptable definition as it consists of complex set of both abilities and attitudes. This is no more evident than in the case of ‘school readiness’, which Jerome Bruner in his book Towards a theory of instruction (1966) considered it to be “… a mischievous half-truth … largely because it turns out that one teaches readiness or provides opportunities for its nurture, but one does not simply wait for it.” (p. 29). What he was criticizing here was a nativist (or maturational) stance with regard to developmental readiness that assumes when children attain a level maturity enabling them to sit quietly, concentrate on their work and cooperatively interact with their peers, then they are ready to start school. At the other extreme, there is more behavioristic interpretation of developmental/school readiness that focuses on external evidence of progress in learning (e.g., with regard to reading and simple arithmetic). Whatever stance is adopted, including those between these two extremes, developmental assessment across a number of domains constitutes a crucial tool in concluding whether or not a child is ready to start formal schooling. Typically, such domains include physical and motor development, social and emotional development, language development and communication, cognition and general knowledge, and attitudes toward learning.
See Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development, Competence (psychology), Developmental screening, Gesell’s developmental schedules (or scales), Nativism, Sensitive period