Criticisms leveled at readiness tests in general by a variety of early childhood groups and at reading tests in general by reading researchers certainly appear to be valid for traditional paper and pencil reading readiness tests. These reading readiness tests have not kept pace with advances in early literacy instructional techniques, such as those represented by the whole language approach. They assess isolated skills that may have very little to do with whether or not a child is able to gain meaning from print in the environment or can understand the purposes and functions of print. While other tests, such as the Linguistic Awareness in Reading Readiness (LARR) test, the Concepts About Print (CAP) test, and the Test of Early Reading Ability (TERA) represent significant advancements in assessing some of the concepts deemed important in early reading, they, too, have disadvantages which make their use impractical in most cases. Systematized observation, performed by responsible teachers who have a knowledge of reading and writing processes, the developmental process, and observational and record keeping procedures and analysis, represents one very useful tool for assessing growth and development in early reading and for providing information for making the daily instructional decisions that must be made by classroom teachers. Thirty-one references are cited. (RH)