Quantitive Article Review Assignment Due in 48 Hours

260

A

oinciding with increases in pre-kindergarten enrollment and the number of parents working outside of the home, full-day kindergarten (FDK)

has become exceedingly popular in the United States (Gullo & Maxwell, 1997). The number of students attend- ing FDK classes in the United States rose from 30% in the early 1980s (Holmes & McConnell, 1990) to 55% in 1998 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000), reflecting societal changes and newly emerging educational priorities. Whereas kindergarten students were required to perform basic skills, such as reciting the alphabet and counting to 20, they are now expected to demonstrate reading readiness and mathematical reasoning while maintaining the focus and self-control necessary to work for long periods of time (Nelson, 2000).

In contrast, the popularity of half-day kindergarten (HDK) has decreased for similar reasons. For example, par- ents prefer FDK over HDK for the time it affords (Clark & Kirk, 2000) and for providing their children with further opportunities for academic, social, and personal enrich- ment (Aten, Foster, & Cobb, 1996; Cooper, Foster, & Cobb, 1998a, 1998b).

The shift in kindergarten preferences has resulted in a greater demand for research on the effects of FDK in com- parison with other scheduling approaches (Gullo & Maxwell, 1997). Fusaro (1997) cautioned that “Before a school district decides to commit additional resources to

FDK classes, it should have empirical evidence that chil- dren who attend FDK manifest greater achievement than children who attend half-day kindergarten” (p. 270). According to the literature, there is mounting evidence that supports the academic, social, and language develop- ment benefits of FDK curricula (Cryan, Sheehan, Wiechel, & Bandy-Hedden, 1992; Hough & Bryde, 1996; Karweit, 1992; Lore, 1992; Nelson, 2000). Successful FDK programs specifically extend traditional kindergarten objectives and use added class hours to afford children more opportunities to fully integrate new learning (Kar- weit, 1992). Furthermore, most education stakeholders support FDK because they believe that it provides acade- mic advantages for students, meets the needs of busy par- ents, and allows primary school teachers to be more effec- tive (Ohio State Legislative Office of Education Oversight [OSLOEO], 1997).

Length of School Day

According to Wang and Johnstone (1999), the “major argument for full-day kindergarten is that additional hours in school would better prepare children for first grade and would result in a decreased need for grade retention” (p. 27). Furthermore, extending the kindergarten day provides educational advantages resulting from increased academic emphasis, time on task, and content coverage (Karweit, 1992; Nelson, 2000; Peck, McCaig, & Sapp, 1988). Advo- cates of FDK also contend that a longer school day allows teachers to provide a relaxed classroom atmosphere in which children can experience kindergarten activities in a less hurried manner (McConnell & Tesch, 1986). Karweit (1992) argued that consistent school schedules and longer school days help parents to better manage family and work responsibilities while providing more time for individual- ized attention for young children.

Address correspondence to R. Brian Cobb, College of Applied Human Sciences, Colorado State University, 222 West Laurel Street, Fort Collins, CO 80521. (E-mail: [email protected])

Copyright © 2006 Heldref Publications

Comparing Longitudinal Academic Achievement of Full-Day and

Half-Day Kindergarten Students

JENNIFER R. WOLGEMUTH R. BRIAN COBB MARC A. WINOKUR Colorado State University

ABSTRACT The authors compared the achievement of children who were enrolled in full-day kindergarten (FDK) to a matched sample of students who were enrolled in half-day kindergarten (HDK) on mathematics and reading achieve- ment in Grades 2, 3, and 4, several years after they left kindergarten. Results showed that FDK students demonstrat- ed significantly higher achievement at the end of kindergarten than did their HDK counterparts, but that advantage disap- peared quickly by the end of first grade. Interpretations and implications are given for that finding.

Key words: academic achievement of full- and half-day kindergarten students, mathematics and reading success in elementary grades

C

NANCY LEECH University of Colorado-Denver

DICK ELLERBY Poudre School District

May/June 2006 [Vol. 99(No. 5)] 261

Critics of FDK express concern that “children may become overly tired with a full day of instruction, that children might miss out on important learning experi- ences at home, and that public schools should not be in the business of providing ‘custodial’ child care for 5-year- olds” (Elicker & Mathur, 1997, p. 461). Peck and col- leagues (1988) argued that some FDK programs use the extra time to encroach on the first-grade curriculum in an ill-advised attempt to accelerate children’s cognitive learning. However, in a 9-year study of kindergarten stu- dents, the Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corporation (EVSC; 1988) found that school burnout and academic stress were not issues for FDK students. Others conclude convincingly that the events that occur in classrooms (e.g., teacher philosophy, staff development), rather than the length of the school day, determine whether curricula and instruction are developmentally appropriate for young students (Clark & Kirk, 2000; Elicker & Mathur, 1997; Karweit, 1994).

Parent Choice

A critical factor driving the growth of FDK is greater parent demand for choice in kindergarten programs. Although surveys of parents with children in HDK often mention the importance of balancing education outside the home with quality time in the home, Elicker and Mathur (1997) found that a majority of these parents would select a FDK program for their child if given the opportunity. However, Cooper and colleagues (1998a) found that parents of FDK students were even more sup- portive of having a choice of programs than were parents of HDK students.

Although some parents expressed concern about the length of time that children were away from home, most were content with the option of FDK (Nelson, 2000). In addition to the belief that FDK better accommodates their work schedules (Nelson), “parents of full-day chil- dren expressed higher levels of satisfaction with program schedule and curriculum, citing benefits similar to those expressed by teachers: more flexibility; more time for child-initiated, in-depth, and creative activities; and less stress and frustration” (Elicker & Mathur, 1997, p. 459). Furthermore, Cooper and colleagues (1998a) found that parents of full-day students were happy with the increased opportunities for academic learning afforded by FDK programs.

Student Achievement

Most researchers who compared the academic achieve- ment levels of FDK and HDK kindergarten students found improved educational performance within FDK programs (Cryan et al., 1992; Elicker & Mathur, 1997; Holmes & McConnell, 1990; Hough & Bryde, 1996; Koopmans, 1991; Wang & Johnstone, 1999). In a meta-analysis of FDK

research, Fusaro (1997) found that students who attended FDK demonstrated significantly higher academic achieve- ment than did students in half-day programs. Hough and Bryde (1996) matched six HDK programs with six FDK pro- grams and found that FDK students outperformed HDK stu- dents on language arts and mathematics criterion-referenced assessments. In a study of 985 kindergarten students, Lore (1992) found that 65% of the students who attended a FDK program showed relatively stronger gains on the reading and oral comprehension sections of the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills. In a 2-year evaluation of a new FDK program, Elicker and Mathur (1997) reported that FDK students demonstrated significantly more progress in literacy, mathe- matics, and general learning skills, as compared with stu- dents in HDK programs. However, some researchers have not found significant differences between the academic achievement of students from FDK and HDK programs (e.g., Gullo & Clements, 1984; Holmes & McConnell, 1990; Nunnally, 1996).

Longitudinal Student Achievement

Evidence supporting the long-term effectiveness of FDK is less available and more inconsistent than is its short-term effectiveness (Olsen & Zigler, 1989). For example, the EVSC (1988) reported that FDK students had higher grades than did HDK students throughout elementary and middle school, whereas Koopmans (1991) found that the “significance of the differences between all-day and half- day groups disappears in the long run [as] test scores go down over time in both cohorts” (p. 16). Although OSLOEO (1997) concluded that the academic and social advantages for FDK students were diminished after the sec- ond grade, Cryan and colleagues (1992) found that the pos- itive effects from the added time offered by FDK lasted well into the second grade.

Longitudinal research of kindergarten programming conducted in the 1980s (Gullo, Bersani, Clements, & Bay- less, 1986; Puleo, 1988) has been criticized widely for its methodological flaws and design weaknesses. For example, Elicker and Marthur (1997) identified the noninclusion of initial academic abilities in comparative models as a failing of previous longitudinal research on the lasting academic effects of FDK.

Study Rationale

In 1995, the Poudre School District (PSD) implemented a tuition-based FDK program in addition to HDK classes already offered. Although subsequent surveys of parent sat- isfaction revealed that FDK provided children with further opportunities for academic enrichment (Aten et al., 1996; Cooper et al., 1998a, 1998b), researchers have not deter- mined the veracity of these assumptions. Thus, we con- ducted the present study to address this gap in the empiri- cal evidence base.

262 The Journal of Educational Research

Research Questions

Because of the inconclusiveness in the research litera- ture on the longitudinal academic achievement of FDK versus HDK kindergarten students, we did not pose a priori research hypotheses. We developed the following research questions around the major main effects and interactions of the kindergarten class variable (full day vs. half day), covariates (age and initial ability), and dependent variables (K–5 reading and mathematics achievement).

1. What difference exists between FDK and HDK kinder- garten students in their mathematics and reading abili- ties as they progress through elementary school, while controlling for their initial abilities?

2. How does this differential effect vary, depending on student gender?

Method

Participants

The theoretical population for this study included stu- dents who attended elementary schools in moderately sized, middle-to-upper class cities in the United States. The actual sample included 489 students who attended FDK or HDK from 1995 to 2001 at one elementary school in a Col- orado city of approximately 125,000 residents. Because this study is retrospective, we used only archival data to build complete cases for each student in the sample. Hence, no recruitment strategies were necessary.

Students were enrolled in one of three kindergarten class- es: 283 students (57.9%) attended half-day classes (157 half-day morning and 126 half-day afternoon) and 206 stu- dents (42.1%) attended full-day classes. Student ages ranged from 5 years 0 months to 6 years 6 months upon entering kindergarten; overall average age was 5 years 7 months. The total study included 208 girls (44.0%) and 265 boys (56.0%). The majority of students received no monetary assistance for lunch, which was based on parent income (89.0%, n = 424); 49 students (10.0%) received some assis- tance. Twenty-six students (5.3%) spoke a language at home other than English. The majority of students (90.5%, n = 428) were Caucasian; 31 students (6.3%) were Hispan- ic; and 14 students (2.8%) were African American, Native American, or Asian American. Those data reflect the com- munity demographics within the school district. Because of the potential for individual identification based on the small numbers of students within the various ethnic groups and those receiving lunch assistance, our analyses excluded ethnicity and lunch assistance as control variables.

Intervention

We excluded from the study students who switched dur- ing the academic year from FDK to a HDK (or vice versa). FDK comprised an entire school day, beginning at 8:30 a.m.

and ending at 3:00 p.m. HDK morning classes took place from 8:30 a.m. to 11:15 a.m.; HDK afternoon classes occurred from 12:15 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. FDK recessed at lunch and provided a 30-min rest period in the afternoon when students typically napped, watched a video, or both. HDK students also recessed but did not have a similar rest period. Both kindergarten programs employed centers (small ability-based groups) as part of their reading and mathematics instruction, and all kindergarten teachers met weekly to discuss and align their curriculum. The amount of time spent on reading instruction was two or three times greater than that dedicated to mathematics.

Reading curriculum. The kindergarten reading curriculum was based predominantly on the Open Court system, which emphasizes phonemic awareness. Students learned to seg- ment and blend words by pronouncing and repronouncing words when beginnings and endings were removed. Teach- ers also included daily “letters to the class” on which stu- dents identified the letters of the day and circled certain words. Teachers also read stories to students, helped stu- dents write capital and lowercase letters and words, and encouraged them to read on their own and perform other reading activities. Teachers expected the students to know capital and lowercase letters and their sounds, and some words by sight when they completed kindergarten.

Mathematics curriculum. The kindergarten mathematics curriculum was predominantly workbook based and integrat- ed into the whole curriculum. Students worked with mathe- matics problems from books, played number games with the calendar, counted while standing in line for lunch and recess, and practiced mathematical skills in centers. Once a week, the principal came into the kindergarten classes and taught students new mathematics games with cards or chips. The games included counting-on, skip-counting, and simple addition and subtraction. Students were expected to leave kindergarten knowing how to count and perform basic numerical operations (i.e., adding and subtracting 1).

Measures

Initial reading-ability covariate. When each participant entered kindergarten, school personnel (kindergarten teacher or school principal) assessed them for their ability to recognize capital and lowercase letters and to produce their sounds. This letter-knowledge assessment requested that students name all uppercase and lowercase letters (shown out of order) and make the sounds of the uppercase letters. Students received individual testing, and school personnel recorded the total number of letters that the student identi- fied correctly out of a possible 78 letters. Letter-name and sound knowledge are both essential skills in reading devel- opment (Stage, Sheppard, Davidson, & Browning, 2001). Simply put, theory suggests that letter-name knowledge facilitates the ability to produce letter sounds, whereas let- ter-sounding ability is the foundation for word decoding and fluent reading (Ehri, 1998; Kirby & Parrila, 1999; Trieman,

May/June 2006 [Vol. 99(No. 5)] 263

Tincoff, Rodriguez, Mouzaki, & Francis, 1998). Predictive validity is evidenced in the numerous studies in which researchers have reported high correlations (r = .60 to r = .90) between letter-naming and letter-sounding ability and subsequent reading-ability and achievement measures (Daly, Wright, Kelly, & Martens, 1997; Kirby & Parrila, 1999; McBride-Chang, 1999; Stage et al.).

Initial mathematics ability covariate. When the students entered kindergarten, school personnel (kindergarten teacher or school principal) assessed their initial mathe- matics ability. The assessment consisted of personnel ask- ing students to identify numbers from 0 to 10. They record- ed the total number that the student named out of a possible 11. The ability to recognize numbers and perform basic numerical operations, such as counting to 10, is rec- ognized as important indicators of kindergarten readiness (Kurdek & Sinclair, 2001). Researchers have shown that basic number skills (counting and number recognition) in early kindergarten predict mathematics achievement in first grade (Bramlett, Rowell, & Mandenberg, 2000) and in fourth grade (Kurdek & Sinclair).

K–2 reading fluency dependent variable: One–minute reading (OMR) assessment. The school principal assessed K–2 read- ing achievement by conducting 1-min, grade-appropriate reading samples with each student at the beginning and end of the school year. The kindergarten reading passage con- tained 67 words, the first-grade passage had 121 words, and the second-grade passage included 153 words. Students who finished a passage in less than 1 min returned to the begin- ning of the passage and continued reading until the minute expired. The principal recorded the total number of words that a student read correctly in 1 min. Students who read passages from grades higher than their own were excluded from subsequent analyses.

The OMR is a well-known curriculum-based measure of oral fluency that is theoretically and empirically linked to concurrent and future reading achievement (Fuchs, Fuchs, Hosp, & Jenkins, 2001). Scores on the OMR correlate high- ly with concurrent criteria (r = .70 to .90; Parker, Has- brouck, & Tindal, 1992). Evidence of oral fluency criterion validity includes high correlations with teacher student- ability judgments (Jenkins & Jewell, 1993), standardized student achievement test scores (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Maxwell, 1988; Jenkins & Jewell), reading inventories (Parker et al., 1992), and reading-comprehension tests (Hintze, Shapiro, Conte, & Basile, 1997; Kranzler, Brownell, & Miller, 1998).

Dependent variables for reading- and mathematics-achieve- ment-level tests: Reading and mathematics levels. The North- west Evaluation Association (NWEA) developed standard- ized reading-, mathematics-, and science-level tests for the Poudre School District. NWEA generated the tests from a large data bank of items that were calibrated on a common scale using Rasch measurement techniques. The tests mea- sure student performance on a Rasch unit (RIT) scale that denotes a student’s ability, independent of grade level. The elementary school conducted reading- and mathematics-

level tests once a year in the spring with all second- through sixth-grade students who could read and write. NWEA (2003) reported that the levels tests correlate high- ly with other achievement tests, including the Colorado State Assessment Program test (r = .84 to .91) and the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (r = .74 to .84). Test–retest reliability results were similarly favorable, ranging from .72 to .92, depending on grade level and test (NWEA).

Results

Rationale for analyses. We considered several alternatives when we analyzed the data from this study. Our first choice was to analyze the data by using three multiway mixed analyses of covariances (ANCOVAs) with kindergarten group and gender as the between-groups factors and the repeated measurements over time as the within-subjects factor. However, we rejected that analytic technique for two reasons. First and foremost, all three analyses evi- denced serious violations of sphericity. Second, this analyt- ic design requires that all cases have all measures on the dependent variable (the within-subjects factor). That requirement reduced our sample size by as much as 75% in some of the analyses when compared with our final choice of separate univariate, between-groups ANCOVAs.

Our second choice was to analyze the data with three 2 × 2 (Kindergarten Group [full day vs. half day] × Gender) between-groups multivariate analyses of variance (MAN- COVAs) with the multiple dependent variables measures included simultaneously in the analysis. Field (2000) rec- ommended switching from repeated-measures ANCOVAs to MANCOVAs when sample sizes are relatively high and violations of sphericity are fairly severe, as in our situation. Unfortunately, there also are difficulties when researchers use MANCOVAs. First, the analysis and interpretation of MANCOVA are extraordinarily complex and cumber- some. More important, a number of statisticians (e.g., Tabachnick & Fidell, 1996) have counseled against using MANCOVA when strong intercorrelations exist between the dependent measures. Finally, our data violated the homogeneity of covariance matrices, which is an addition- al assumption of MANCOVA.

Our final choice was to conduct separate univariate ANCOVAs with appropriate Bonferroni adjustments to prevent inflation in the Type I error rate. For the OMR, we began our analyses with five 2 × 2 (Kindergarten Group × Gender) ANCOVAs, with initial reading ability as the covariate. We measured OMR at the end of kindergarten and at the beginning and end of first and second grades. The alpha level was set at .01 for each of the five analyses.

For the reading-level analyses, we conducted three 2 × 2 ANCOVAs because reading achievement tests were given in the spring of the second, third, and fourth grades. The alpha level was set at .017 for each of the analyses. For the mathematics levels analyses, we con- ducted three 2 × 2 ANCOVAs with the mathematics

264 The Journal of Educational Research

achievement tests given in the spring of the second, third, and fourth grades. The alpha level was also set at .017 for those analyses.

Assessing assumptions. We began our univariate ANCOVA analyses by testing for univariate and multivariate normality. Univariate normality existed in all 11 analyses, at least with respect to skewness. There were two instances in which uni- variate kurtosis exceeded acceptable boundaries for normali- ty. Although there were a limited number of instances in which multivariate normality was mildly violated, visual inspection of the histograms and Q-Q plots suggested no sub- stantive deviations from normality, except for the OMR test given at the end of kindergarten. Hence, we eliminated the test from our final set of analyses. Given the large sample sizes and the relative robustness of ANCOVA against violations of normality, we proceeded with the remaining 10 ANCOVAs.

We next assessed the assumption of homogeneity of regression slope, which, if violated, generates much more difficulty in the interpretation of the results of the analyses. Neither of the five OMR analyses nor any of the three mathematics levels analyses violated that assumption. However, the third-grade reading-level analysis violated the assumption. Hence, we removed that analysis from the study, leaving only two analyses of reading achievement at the second- and fourth-grade levels.

Finally, we assessed the correlation between the covari- ate and the dependent variable. We began by assuming that the participant’s age (measured in months) might be corre- lated significantly with the dependent variables and should be included in our analyses as a covariate. Tables 1 and 2 show the results of this analysis and that none of the corre- lations were statistically significant. Hence, we did not include age in the analyses as a covariate.

Initial reading and mathematics abilities were the other covariates included in the analyses. Our a priori assumption was that those covariates had to correlate significantly with their appropriate dependent variable to be included in the analyses. As Tables 1 and 2 show, all of the final correla- tions were statistically significant, confirming the propriety of their use as covariates.

Findings

Tables 3, 4, and 5 show the source tables for the OMR, the reading levels, and the mathematics levels, respectively. In each table, the kindergarten grouping independent vari- able is included in the table, regardless of whether it achieved statistical significance. Gender, on the other hand, is included in the source tables only in those analyses in which it achieved statistical significance (second-grade mathematics achievement).

Table 3 shows that kindergarten class was statistically significant at the end of kindergarten, F(1, 400) = 35.08, p < .001, at the beginning of first grade, F(1, 261) = 11.43, p < .01, and at the end of first grade, F(1, 194) = 6.26, p < .05. The covariate, as expected, was strongly signifi- cant at all levels, and gender was not statistically signifi- cant at any level in the analyses. Significance levels and the estimates of effect size declined as the participants progressed in school within and across academic years.

Table 4 shows that the covariate was highly significant (as expected) but with no statistically significant effect for either kindergarten class or gender. Table 5 shows a similar pattern in the two preceding tables, with (a) a statistically

TABLE 1. Correlations of Dependent Variables With Initial Reading Ability and Age

OMR OMR OMR end beginning OMR end beginning OMR end

kindergarten Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 2 Grade 2 Level 2 Level 4

Variable r n r n r n r n r n r n r n

Initial reading ability .47** 403 .50** 265 .40** 198 .39** 97 .41** 182 .40** 234 .30** 103

Age .05 453 .03 301 .01 231 .03 105 .07 208 .03 266 –.10 127

Note. OMR = One-Minute Reading. **p < .01.

TABLE 2. Correlations of Dependent Variables With Initial Mathematics Ability and Age

Variable Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

Initial mathematics ability

r .35** .30** .22* n 194 180 120

Age r .03 –.02 –.09 n 264 189 127

*p < .05. **p < .01.

May/June 2006 [Vol. 99(No. 5)] 265

significant covariate, (b) absence of statistical significance for the kindergarten class, and (c) declining estimates of effect size as time in school increased. Gender was statisti- cally significant at the second grade.

Table 6 shows the subsample sizes, means, standard devi- ations, and corrected effect sizes for each of the two kinder- garten alternatives across all dependent measures. The only effect size estimate whose magnitude approaches Cohen’s (1988) standard for minimal practical significance (.25) is the first one reported in Table 6 (.44). That effect size indi- cates that FDK confers a small-to-moderate advantage on reading ability at the end of the kindergarten experience. At the beginning and end of first grade, that advantage is no longer practically significant, although it is still positive.

Beginning in second grade, the advantage in reading and mathematics is neither practically significant nor positive for FDK students.

Follow-Up Interviews

As a follow-up to our analyses, we interviewed the four kindergarten teachers in January 2004, for their views on (a) the kindergarten curriculum, (b) their perceived differ- ences between FDK and HDK programming, and (c) their explanations for the findings that we observed between FDK and HDK students in reading and mathematics achievement. The teachers were women who had taught for 14, 9, 8, and 6 years, respectively. They had previously

TABLE 3. Analysis of Covariance Results for OMR Fluency Tests as a Function of Kindergarten Class, Controlling for Initial Reading Ability

Variable and source df MS f p

OMR (end kindergarten) Kindergarten class 1 14,405.36 32.79 < .001 Initial reading ability 1 59,031.95 134.37 < .001 Error 398 439.33

OMR (beginning Grade 1) Kindergarten class 1 10,339.87 10.76 .001 Initial reading ability 1 96,556.42 100.43 < .001 Error 260 961.42

OMR (end Grade 1) Kindergarten class 1 5,261.69 5.73 .018 Initial reading ability 1 39,604.41 43.15 < .001 Error 193 917.79

OMR (beginning Grade 2) Kindergarten class 1 185.25 .22 .64 Initial reading ability 1 14,922.39 17.45 < .001 Error 92 855.23

OMR (end Grade 2) Kindergarten class 1 100.23 .14 .71 Initial reading ability 1 25,530.89 35.52 < .001 Error 177 718.73

Note. OMR = One-Minute Reading.

TABLE 4. Analysis of Covariance Results for Reading Achievement Tests as a Function of Kindergarten Class, Controlling for Initial Reading Ability

Variable and source df MS f p

Level 2 reading Kindergarten class 1 43.82 .37 .55 Initial reading ability 1 5,496.21 45.79 < .001 Error 228 120.02

Level 4 reading Kindergarten class 1 12.85 .10 .76 Initial reading ability 1 1,265.53 9.50 .003 Error 98 133.22

266 The Journal of Educational Research

taught FDK and HDK kindergarten and had been teaching kindergarten at the elementary school research site for 10, 9, 6, and 4 years, respectively. Two of the teachers were still teaching kindergarten; the other two teachers were teach- ing second and sixth grades, respectively. One teacher admitted that she had a “half-day bias,” whereas another teacher was a “proponent of full-day kindergarten.”

All interviews consisted of open-ended questions and last- ed between 30 min and 1 hr. The interviews were tape- recorded and transcribed and returned to the teachers for review. After approval of the transcripts, we coded the inter- views by using constant comparative analytic techniques

(Strauss & Corbin, 1994), which involved inductively iden- tifying themes and developing written summaries.

When questioned about the differences between FDK and HDK, all teachers stated that they would have expected FDK students, in general, to perform better academically than HDK students at the end of kindergarten. They attrib- uted the difference to the increased time that FDK students spent reviewing and practicing material. However, consis- tent with our findings, all teachers were equally doubtful that the differences would last. They believed that the academic disparity between FDK and HDK students would disappear during first through third grades. For example, one teacher

TABLE 5. Analysis of Covariance Results for Kindergarten and Mathematics Achievement Tests as a Function of Kindergarten Class, Controlling for Initial Mathematics Ability

Variable and source df MS f p

Level 2 mathematics Kindergarten class 1 22.53 .22 .64 Gender 1 707.76 6.87 .009 Initial mathematics ability 1 3,485.92 33.82 < .001 Error 248 103.08

Level 3 mathematics Kindergarten class 1 29.74 .34 .56 Initial mathematics ability 1 1,464.35 16.66 < .001 Error 175 87.89

Level 4 mathematics Kindergarten class 1 12.47 .11 .75 Initial mathematics ability 1 756.59 6.37 .013 Error 115 118.79

TABLE 6. Descriptive Information for Statistically Significant Comparisons for Full-Day Versus Half-Day Kindergarten, on all Dependent Variables

Kindergarten class

Half-day Full-day

Dependent variable N M a SD N M a SD ES(d)

OMR (end kindergarten) 220 25.33 23.72 183 37.52 25.03 .50 OMR (beginning Grade 1) 156 44.62 36.57 109 57.61 36.47 .36 OMR (end of Grade 1) 120 84.56 33.50 78 95.87 33.77 ns OMR (beginning Grade 2) 65 62.31 29.96 32 65.54 34.65 ns OMR (end of Grade 2) 108 95.81 28.47 74 97.43 30.53 ns Reading achievement (Grade 2) 137 195.95 12.05 96 196.86 11.77 ns Reading achievement (Grade 4) 70 214.90 11.01 33 214.11 14.11 ns Mathematics achievement

(Grade 2) 151 199.71 11.08 102 199.09 10.86 ns Mathematics achievement

(Grade 3) 109 212.60 9.78 71 213.45 10.09 ns Mathematics achievement

(Grade 4) 82 218.94 11.14 38 219.64 11.09 ns

Note. OMR = One-Minute Reading. aCovariate adjusted means.

May/June 2006 [Vol. 99(No. 5)] 267

stated that “The kids, by third grade, catch up or things kind of level out so I don’t think there’d be much of a difference.”

Although teachers agreed that the FDK advantage prob- ably did not extend past early elementary education, their explanations for the ephemeral differences varied and fell into three general categories: (a) effects of differentiated instruction, (b) individual student development, and (c) individual student attributes.

Differentiated instruction. All teachers, in various ways, suggested that differentiated instruction would need to occur in every grade subsequent to kindergarten to, at least partially, maintain higher achievement levels evidenced by FDK students. When asked to define differentiated instruc- tion, one teacher said:

What it means to me is that I need to meet that child where they are. I mean I need to have appropriate material and appropriate instruction for that child. . . . I need to make sure that they’re getting what they need where they are. . . . But, I think you need to set the bar pretty high and expect them to reach that; on the other hand, I think you need to not set it so high that you’re going to frustrate the kids that aren’t ready.

However, the kindergarten teachers recognized the chal- lenges of using differentiated instruction and were careful not to place blame on first- through third-grade teachers. One teacher stated, “I’m not saying that not everyone does differentiated instruction. But I think that you have to be careful you don’t do too much whole group teaching to a group of kids that’s way past where they’re at.” Although all of the teachers agreed that differentiated instruction would be necessary to maintain differences after kindergarten, not all of them believed that this technique would be singularly sufficient. Some teachers believed strongly that the “level- ing out” was predominantly a result of individual student development or student attributes, or both, rather than teaching methods.

Student development. Two teachers felt that the leveling out of academic differences between FDK and HDK stu- dents by second grade resulted from natural developmental growth occurring after kindergarten. They explained:

You have kids that cannot hear a sound. They cannot hear, especially the vowel sounds. They are not ready to hear those. They are not mature enough to hear those sounds. You could go over that eight billion times and they just aren’t ready to hear those sounds. They go into first grade and they’ve grown up over the summer and . . . it clicks with them. And they might have been low in my class, but they get to first grade and they’re middle kids. They’ve kind of reached where their potential is.

I mean, there’s a big developmental gap in K, 1, 2 and by third grade the kids that look[sic] behind, if they’re going to be average or normal, they catch-up by then. . . . Like some kids in second grade, they still struggle with handwriting and reversal and by now it’s a red flag if they’re still doing that, developmentally everything should be fitting together in their little bodies and minds and they should be having good smooth handwriting and writing in the right direction. And if that’s not happening then that’s a flag. And by third grade

. . . if they’re not forming like an average student then there’s something else that needs to be looked at. So it’s a developmental thing and it’s just when kids are ready.

Yet, both of those teachers acknowledged that HDK students do have to work to catch up to FDK students, citing (a) less time spent on material, (b) differences in FDK and HDK teachers’ instructional philosophies, and (c) lack of familiar- ity with all-day school as disadvantages that HDK students must overcome in first grade to equal their FDK counterparts.

Student attributes. A final explanation that teachers offered for the leveling out of differences suggested that individual student attributes accounted for student differ- ences in subsequent grades. Three teachers believed that, no matter what kindergarten program students attended, their inherent level of academic ability or level of parent involvement, or both, were most important in eventually determining how individual students would compare with other students. For example,

I think they get to where their ability is, regardless of . . . . You can give them a good start and I think that can make a difference, but a high kid is going to be high whether they were in full or half. And those gray kids, you can give them a boost and they can be higher than maybe they would have been in half-day, you know you can give them a better start.

Thus, these three teachers believed that student attributes, such as inherent ability or degree of parent involvement in their schooling, would ultimately play a more significant role in how students would eventually compare with one another in second and third grades, regardless of whether they attended FDK or HDK programs.

Discussion

What can be determined about the effects of FDK versus HDK kindergarten as a result of our analyses? Children who attend FDK can and do learn more through that experience than do their HDK counterparts. Nonetheless, the addi- tional learning appears to decline rapidly, so much so that by the start of first grade, the benefits of FDK have dimin- ished to a level that has little practical value. That effect was consistent across two measures of reading and one mea- sure of mathematics. The effect also was consistent across gender, given that there was a gender by kindergarten- group interaction in only one of the analyses.

Our findings are consistent with past meta-analytic research (Fusaro, 1997) and high-quality empirical studies (e.g., Hough & Bride, 1996) in that FDK confers initial benefits on academic achievement but that these benefits diminish relatively rapidly (OSLOEO, 1997). We are unclear why the rapid decline occurs, but we offer this insight from several school administrators and teachers with whom we interacted in our discussions of these data:

Teachers in the first few grades are so concerned with students who enter their classes [with] nonexistent reading and math skills that they spend the majority of their time bringing these students up to minimal math and reading criteria at the

268 The Journal of Educational Research

expense of working equally hard with students whose reading and math achievement are above average. Hence, the high- achieving students’ gains at the end of kindergarten gradually erode over the next few years with lack of attention.

We concur with Fusaro (1997) that districts must make their choices involving FDK with a full understanding of what the benefits may be for academic achievement and nonachievement outcomes. Our findings of initial gains place the onus of maintaining those gains on schools and teachers through their own internal policies, procedures, and will to sustain those gains.

Our study, of course, is not without limitations. We stud- ied only one school, albeit over a relatively long period of time, with well-established measures and with reasonably well-equated groups. The greatest reservation we have about the generalizability of our findings clearly focuses on the pre- dicted decline in long-term benefits of FDK for schools, mak- ing it a priority to assure that teachers provide differentiated instruction to all students to advance each one as far as pos- sible during the academic year rather than to move all stu- dents to a common set of expected learning at the end of the academic year. We recognize that school policies, proce- dures, and culture play important roles in the variability in student achievement, regardless of the skill levels of students entering first grade. Although our results will likely general- ize to a wide variety of elementary school children, they also will likely generalize to those children who attend schools whose instructional policies and practices in the early grades are similar to the school in this study.

NOTE

The authors appreciate the thoughtful participation of Suzie Gunstream and the other elementary teachers whose invaluable practicioner insights helped us make sense of the findings.

REFERENCES

Aten, K. K., Foster, A., & Cobb, B. (1996). Lopez full-day kindergarten study. Fort Collins, CO: Research and Development Center for the Advancement of Student Learning.

Bramlett, R. K., Rowell, R. K., & Madenberg, K. (2000). Predicting first grade achievement from kindergarten screening measures: A compari- son of child and family predictors. Research in Schools, 7, 1–9.

Clark, P., & Kirk, E. (2000). All-day kindergarten. Childhood Education, 76, 228–231.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power and analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cooper, T., Foster, A., & Cobb, B. (1998a). Half- or full-day kindergarten: Choices for parents in Poudre School District. Fort Collins, CO: Research and Development Center for the Advancement of Student Learning.

Cooper, T., Foster, A., & Cobb, B. (1998b). Full- and half-day kindergarten: A study of six elementary schools. Fort Collins, CO: Research and Devel- opment Center for the Advancement of Student Learning.

Cryan, J. R., Sheehan, R., Wiechel, J., & Bandy-Hedden, I. G. (1992). Success outcomes of all-day kindergarten: More positive behavior and increased achievement in the years after. Early Childhood Research Quar- terly, 7, 187–203.

Daly, E. J. III, Wright, J. A., Kelly, S. Q., & Martens, B. K. (1997). Mea- sures of early academic reading skills: Reliability and validity with a first grade sample. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 268–280.

Ehri, L. C. (1998). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential for learn- ing to read words in English. In J. L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning reading (pp. 3–40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Elicker, J., & Mathur, S. (1997). What do they do all day? Comprehensive evaluation of a full-day kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12, 459–480.

Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corporation. (1988). A longitudinal study of the consequences of full-day kindergarten: Kindergarten through grade eight. Evansville, IN: Author.

Field, A. (2000). Discovering statistics using SPSS for Windows. London: Sage. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral fluen-

cy as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5, 239–256.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal measures of reading comprehension. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 20–28.

Fusaro, J. A. (1997). The effect of full-day kindergarten on student achievement: A meta-analysis. Child Study Journal, 27, 269–277.

Gullo, D. F., Bersani, C. U., Clements, D. H., & Bayless, K. M. (1986). A comparative study of “all-day”, “alternate-day”, and “half-day” kinder- garten schedules: Effects on achievement and classroom social behav- iors. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 1, 87–94.

Gullo, D. F., & Clements, D. H. (1984). The effects of kindergarten sched- ule on achievement, classroom behavior, and attendance. The Journal of Educational Research, 78, 51–56.

Gullo, D. F., & Maxwell, C. B. (1997). The effects of different models of all-day kindergarten on children’s developmental competence. Early Child Development and Care, 139, 119–128.

Hintze, J. M., Shapiro, E. S., Conte, K. L., & Basile, I. A. (1997). Oral reading fluency and authentic reading material: Criterion validity of the technical features of CBM survey-level assessment. School Psycholo- gy Review, 26, 535–553.

Holmes, C. T., & McConnell, B. M. (1990, April). Full-day versus half-day kindergarten: An experimental study. Paper presented at the annual meet- ing of the American Educational Research Association, Boston, MA.

Hough, D., & Bryde, S. (1996, April). The effects of full-day kindergarten on student achievement and affect. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.

Jenkins, J. R., & Jewell, M. (1993). Examining the validity of two mea- sures for formative teaching: Reading aloud and maze. Exceptional Chil- dren, 59, 421–432.

Karweit, N. L. (1992). The kindergarten experience. Educational Leader- ship, 49(6), 82–86.

Karweit, N. L. (1994). Issues in kindergarten organization and curriculum. In R. E. Slavin, N. L. Karweit, & B. A. Wasik (Eds.), Preventing early school failure: Research, policy and practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Kirby, J. R., & Parrila, R. K. (1999). Theory-based prediction of early read- ing. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 45, 428–447.

Koopmans, M. (1991). A study of the longitudinal effects of all-day kinder- garten attendance on achievement. Newark, NJ: Board of Education, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Testing.

Kranzler, J. H., Brownell, M. T., & Miller, M. D. (1998). The construct validity of curriculum-based measurement of reading: An empirical test of a plausible rival hypothesis. Journal of School Psychology, 36, 399–415.

Kurdek, L. A., & Sinclair, R. J. (2001). Predicting reading and mathe- matics achievement in fourth-grade children from kindergarten readi- ness scores. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 451–455.

Lore, R. (1992). Language development component: Full-day kindergarten program 1990–1991 final evaluation report. Columbus, OH: Columbus Public Schools, Department of Program Evaluation.

McBride-Chang, C. (1999). The ABC’s of the ABCs: The development of letter-name and letter-sound knowledge. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 45, 285–308.

McConnell, B. B., & Tesch, S. (1986). Effectiveness of kindergarten scheduling. Educational Leadership, 44(3), 48–51.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2000). America’s kindergartners. Washington, DC: Author.

Nelson, R. F. (2000). Which is the best kindergarten? Principal, 79(5), 38–41.

Northwest Evaluation Association. (2003). Reliability estimates and validity evidence for achievement level tests and measures of academic progress. Retrieved March 30, 2003, from http://www.nwea.org/Research/Norm- ingStudy.htm

Nunnally, J. (1996). The impact of half-day versus full-day kindergarten pro- grams on student outcomes: A pilot project. New Albany, IN: Elementary Education Act Title I. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No.

May/June 2006 [Vol. 99(No. 5)] 269

ED396857) Ohio State Legislative Office of Education Oversight. (1997). An overview

of full-day kindergarten. Columbus, OH: Author. Olsen, D., & Zigler, E. (1989). An assessment of the all-day kindergarten

movement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 4, 167–186. Parker, R., Hasbrouck, J. E., & Tindal, G. (1992). Greater validity for oral

reading fluency: Can miscues help? The Journal of Special Education, 25, 492–503.

Peck, J. T., McCaig, G., & Sapp, M. E. (1988). Kindergarten policies: What is best for children? Washington, DC: National Association for the Edu- cation of Young Children.

Puleo, V. T. (1988). A review and critique of research on full-day kinder- garten. The Elementary School Journal, 88, 427–439.

Stage, S. A., Sheppard, J., Davidson, M. M., & Browning, M. M. (2001). Prediction of first-graders’ growth in oral reading fluency using kinder- garten letter fluency. The Journal of School Psychology, 39, 225–237.

Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualita- tive research (pp. 273–285). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.

Trieman, R., Tincoff, R., Rodriguez, K., Mouzaki, A., & Francis, D. J. (1998). The foundations of literacy: Learning the sounds of letters. Childhood Development, 69, 1524–1540.

Wang, Y. L., & Johnstone, W. G. (1999). Evaluation of a full-day kinder- garten program. ERS Spectrum, 17(2), 27–32.