THE GOAL OF THIS STUDY was to explore the long-term effects of all-day kindergarten programs on children's academic performance. The study used three waves of data from a nationally representative database from the United States, the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS), with the first wave at the beginning of kindergarten and the third wave at the end of the first grade. The average age of the children at the first wave was five years and eight months; at the third wave seven years and three months. The study further examined if these effects vary as a result of teacher curricular activities relating to reading and mathematics. The study conducted three-level longitudinal multilevel analyses using three measures of reading and maths IRT scores, sets of teacher activities in reading and maths, children's age, gender and socioeconomic status. The results indicated that all-day kindergarten children began with significantly higher scores and showed faster growth rates in both reading and math compared with half-day kindergarten children. Importantly, all-day kindergarten teachers had significantly higher frequencies of reading and mathematics activities than did half-day kindergarten teachers. These results suggest an important implication for the potential benefits of all-day programs in the US.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BoardmanM., & KellyM. (2004). Parents' views on kindergarten scheduling and educational provision in Tasmania. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in EducationMelbourne.
2.
ChmelynskiC. C. (1998). All-day kindergarten on the rise. The Education Digest, 64(1), 32–34.
3.
ClarkP. A. (2001). Recent research on all-day kindergarten. Clearinghouse on elementary and early childhood education.Champaign, IL: Eric Digest.
4.
ClarkP. A., & KirkE. W. (2000). All-day kindergarten. Childhood Education, 76(4), 228–231.
5.
CryanJ. R., SheehanR., WiechelJ., & Bandy-HeddenI. G. (1992). Success outcomes of full-day kindergarten: More positive behavior and increased achievement in the years after. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7(2), 187–203.
6.
da CostaJ. L., & BellS. (2000). Full day kindergarten at an inner city elementary school: Perceived and actual effects. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
7.
da CostaJ. L., & BellS. (2001). A comparison of the literacy effects of full day vs. half-day kindergarten. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
8.
DentonK., WestJ., & WalstonJ. (2003). Reading young children's achievement and classroom experiences: Findings from the condition of education, 2003. National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC.
9.
ElickerJ., & MathurS. (1997). What do they do all day? Comprehensive evaluation of a full-day kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12(4), 459–480.
10.
ElkindD. (2001). The cosmopolitan school. Educational Leadership, 58(4), 12–17.
11.
FusaroJ. A. (1997). The effect of full-day kindergarten on student achievement: A meta-analysis. Child Study Journal, 27(4), 269–277.
12.
GoodL. (1996). Teachers' perceptions of the all-day, alternating day kindergarten schedule. Brookings, SD: South Dakota State University.
13.
GulloD. F. (2000). The long term educational effects of half-day vs. full-day kindergarten. Early Child Development and Care, 160(1), 17–24.
14.
HanlineM. F. (1997). Developing a preschool play-based curriculum. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 46(3), 289–305.
15.
HeckR. H., & ThomasS. L. (2000). An introduction to multilevel modeling techniques. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
HolmesT. C., & McConnellB. M. (1990). Full-day versus half-day kindergarten: An experimental study. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.
17.
HoughD., & BrydeS. (1996). The effects of full-day kindergarten on student achievement and affect. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, N Y.
18.
HoxJ. J. (2002). Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19.
IsenbergJ. P., & QuisenberryN. (2002). Play: Essential for all children. Childhood Education, 79(1), 33–39.
20.
JalongoM. R. (2003). The child's right to creative thought and expression. Childhood Education, 79(4), 218–228.
21.
JohnsonJ. (1993). Language development component: All day kindergarten program 1991–1992. Columbus, OH: Columbus Public Schools.
LeeV. E. (2000). Using hierarchical linear modeling to study social context: The case of school effects. Educational Psychologist, 35(2), 125–141.
24.
MagnusonaK. A., RuhmbC., & WaldfogelcJ. (2007). Does prekindergarten improve school preparation and performance?Economics of Education Review, 26(1), 33–51.
25.
McLeanS., HaasN. S., & ButlerB. (1994). Kindergarten curriculum: Enrichment and impoverishment. Early Child Development and Care, 101(1), 1–12.
26.
NataleJ. A. (2001). Early learners. The American School Board Journal, 188(3), 22–25.
27.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2001). User's manual for the ECLS-K base year public-use data files and electronic codebook. Washington, DC: Author.
28.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) (2002). User's manual for the ECLS-K first year public-use data files and electronic codebook. Washington, DC: Author.
29.
NelsonR. F. (2000). Which is the best kindergarten?Principal, 79(5), 38–41.
30.
Ohio State Department of Education (1992). The effects of preschool attendance and kindergarten schedule: Kindergarten through grade four. A longitudinal research study.Columbus, OH: Author.
31.
Ohio State Legislative Office of Education Oversight (1997). An overview of full-day kindergarten. Columbus, OH: Author.
32.
RaudenbushS. W., & BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd edn).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33.
RothenbergD. (1995). Full-day kindergarten programs. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
34.
SaamJ., & NowakJ. A. (2005). The effects of full-day versus half-day kindergarten on the achievement of students with low/moderate income status. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 20(1), 27–35.
35.
TowersJ. M. (1991). Attitudes towards all-day, everyday kindergarten. Children Today, 20(1), 25–27.
36.
VecchiottiS. (2003). Kindergarten: An overlooked educational policy priority. Social Policy Report, 17(2), 3–19.
WalstonJ., & WestJ. (2004). Full-day and half-day kindergarten in the United States: Findings from the early childhood longitudinal study, kindergarten class of 1998–99. Jessup, MD: National Center for Education Statistics.
39.
WangY. L., & JohnstoneW. G. (1999). Evaluation of a full-day kindergarten program. ERS Spectrum, 17(2), 27–32.
40.
WeastJ. D. (2001). Why we need rigorous, full-day kindergarten. Principal, 80(5), 6–9.
41.
WestJ., DentonK., & ReaneyL. (2000). The kindergarten year: Findings from the early childhood longitudinal study, kindergarten class of 1998–99. National Center for Education Statistics.
42.
ZvochK., ReynoldsR. E., & ParkerR. P. (2008). Full-day kindergarten and student literacy growth: Does a lengthened school day make a difference?Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 23(1), 94–107.
