Demanding Full-day Kindergarten
Edelman, Marian Wright . Sun Reporter ; San Francisco, Calif. [San Francisco, Calif]06 Dec 2012: L5.
ProQuest document link
ABSTRACT (ABSTRACT)
Public education in America is built on the foundation of equal opportunity for all children. But while most
Americans think of all children as having access to a robust K-12 education syatem, in many places full-day
kindergarten is a huge missing half step in the early learning continuum Research comparing full-day kindergarten
("Full-Day K") and half-day kindergarten suggests the children benefit more from developmentally appropriate FullDay K. Full-Day ? plays a vital role in children's educational development, boosting cognitive learning, creative
problem-solving, social competence, promoting positive school outcomes including faster gains on literacy and
language measures, better attendance through the primary grades, and higher academic achievement in later
grades.
As the expectations for kindergarten in the Common Core Standards show, kindergartners across the country also
are being expected to meet more rigorous academic benchmarks than ever before just like students in every other
grade. The case for making kindergarten equal to every other school day seems obvious. Yet too many children
aren't given an opportunity to attend kindergarten for a full school day. Instead, access to Full-Day ? is more like
playing a game of chance in which the lottery of geography and income determine who wins. Millions of children
are the losers.
Some school districts have voluntarily chosen to provide Full-Day ? for all students funded through local taxes.
Others comstruct a hodge-podge of funding to provide Full-Day ? for some students dependent on factors such as
whether a family qualifies for tuition assistance based on family income or whether the child is at risk of school
failure. In 12 states, some children can access Full-Day ? only if their parents pay tuition for the half of the day not
covered by public funds.
FULL TEXT
About 4 million American children celebrated a very big milestone this fall-their first day of kindergarten. Far too
many were already a step or more behind their peers. If we want all of our children to be school-ready so that they
can become college-, career-, and workforce-ready, it's long past time to offer universal quality prekindergarten
followed by universal full-day kindergarten in the United States.
A while back the bestselling book All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten touched a chord with its
simple messages: Share everything. Clean up your own mess. Don't take things that aren't yours. Say you're sorry
when you hurt somebody.
But those kinds of lessons sound very quaint today as 45 states and the District of Columbia move towards
implementing Common Core Standards that shift the focus for kindergarteners to mastering a new list of skills
such as solving addition and subtraction world problems, describing measuriable attributes of objects (such as
length or weight), analyzing and comparing two- and three-dimensional shapes, using informal language to
describe their similarties, differences, parts, and other attributes, spelling simple words phonetically, drawing on
knowledge of sound-letter relationship and participating in shared research and writing projects.
For too many kindergartens, though, one thing is still a throwback to the old days: going to school for only half a
day. In order to master the skills covered in the Common Core Standards, the amount of time a kindergartener gets
to go to school each day can vary from as little as 2 1/2 hours to a full day of six hours. As even a 5-year-old can
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 1 of 4
see, that's not fair. It's time to stop demanding performance from children we do not give the supports they need to
succeed.
Public education in America is built on the foundation of equal opportunity for all children. But while most
Americans think of all children as having access to a robust K-12 education syatem, in many places full-day
kindergarten is a huge missing half step in the early learning continuum Research comparing full-day kindergarten
("Full-Day K") and half-day kindergarten suggests the children benefit more from developmentally appropriate FullDay K. Full-Day ? plays a vital role in children's educational development, boosting cognitive learning, creative
problem-solving, social competence, promoting positive school outcomes including faster gains on literacy and
language measures, better attendance through the primary grades, and higher academic achievement in later
grades.
As the expectations for kindergarten in the Common Core Standards show, kindergartners across the country also
are being expected to meet more rigorous academic benchmarks than ever before just like students in every other
grade. The case for making kindergarten equal to every other school day seems obvious. Yet too many children
aren't given an opportunity to attend kindergarten for a full school day. Instead, access to Full-Day ? is more like
playing a game of chance in which the lottery of geography and income determine who wins. Millions of children
are the losers.
Consider these facts:
Only 10 states and the District of Columbia require by statute that school districts provide publiclyfunded Full-Day
K. An additional 34 states require school districts to provide half-day kindergarten, and 6 don't require school
districts to provide kindergarten at all.
Some school districts have voluntarily chosen to provide Full-Day ? for all students funded through local taxes.
Others comstruct a hodge-podge of funding to provide Full-Day ? for some students dependent on factors such as
whether a family qualifies for tuition assistance based on family income or whether the child is at risk of school
failure. In 12 states, some children can access Full-Day ? only if their parents pay tuition for the half of the day not
covered by public funds.
States and school districts across the country have cut or delayed funding for Full-Day ? as budgets have
tightened because of the recession.
Unequal access to publiclyfunded full-day and full-week high quality kindergarten programs means too many
young children lose a critical opportunity to develop and strengthen foundational skills necessary for success in
school and lifelong learning. Many children who attend full day pre-K programs find themselves cut back to half
days in kindergarten, which becomes a huge setback for them and hardship for their working families. And
although a year of instructional time for kindergartners varies from 540 to 1,080 hours, the expectation of mastery
of the Common Core Standards is the same from state to state and district to district no matter how much class
time the children receive. If implementation of the rigorous Common Core standards is to succeed, Full-Day ? can
no longer be viewed as an optional add-on, enrichment, or intervention program. It must become a stable part of
the pre-K- 3rd grade early learning continuum inevery state and school district.
What are children in your state - or your neighborhood - getting? Policymakers at all levels of government can help
make Full-Day ? a reality for all children in urban, suburban, and rural districts. Join CDF in our campaign to make
this happen. Kindergarteners like to try to do lots of things all by themselves but they need adults to help speak up
for Full-Day K.
AuthorAffiliation
By Marian Wright Edelman
NNPA Columnist
AuthorAffiliation
Marian Wright Edelman is president of the Children's Defense Fund whose Leave No Child Behind® mission is to
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 2 of 4
ensure every child a Healthy Start, a Head Start, a Fair Start, a Safe Start and a Moral Start in life and successful
passage to adulthood with the help of caring families and communities. For more information go to www.
childrensdefense.org.
DETAILS
Subject:
Kindergarten; Skill development; Academic achievement; School districts; Access to
education
Location:
United States--US
Ethnicity:
African American/Caribbean/African
Publication title:
Sun Reporter; San Francisco, Calif.
Pages:
L5
Number of pages:
1
Publication year:
2012
Publication date:
Dec 6, 2012
Publisher:
Sun Reporter
Place of publication:
San Francisco, Calif.
Country of publication:
United States, San Francisco, Calif.
Publication subject:
African American/Caribbean/African, Ethnic Interests
Source type:
Newspapers
Language of publication:
English
Document type:
Commentary
ProQuest document ID:
1264426590
Document URL:
http://login.ezproxy1.lib.asu.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/12
64426590?accountid=4485
Copyright:
Copyright Sun Reporter Dec 6, 2012
Last updated:
2012-12-29
Database:
Ethnic NewsWatch
LINKS
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 3 of 4
Get It! @ ASU, Get It! @ ASU
Database copyright 2018 ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved.
Terms and Conditions
Contact ProQuest
PDF GENERATED BY SEARCH.PROQUEST.COM
Page 4 of 4
A Developmental Perspective on Full- versus Part-Day Kindergarten and Children's
Academic Trajectories through Fifth Grade
Author(s): Elizabeth Votruba-Drzal, Christine P. Li-Grining and Carolina MaldonadoCarreño
Source: Child Development, Vol. 79, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug., 2008), pp. 957-978
Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Society for Research in Child Development
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/27563532
Accessed: 17-01-2018 04:20 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Society for Research in Child Development, Wiley are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Child Development
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 04:20:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Child Development, July/August 2008, Volume 79, Number 4, Pages 957-978
A Developmental Perspective on Full- Versus Part-Day Kindergarten and
Children's Academic Trajectories Through Fifth Grade
Elizabeth Votruba-Drzal
Christine P. Li-Grining
University of Pittsburgh
Loyola University Chicago
Carolina Maldonado-Carre?o
University of Pittsburgh
Children's kindergarten experiences are increasingly taking place in full- versus part-day programs, yet important
questions remain about whether there are significant and meaningful benefits to full-day kindergarten. Using the
Early Childhood Longitudinal Study's Kindergarten Cohort (N = 13,776), this study takes a developmental
approach to examining associations between kindergarten program type and academic trajectories from
kindergarten (ages 4-6 years) through 5th grade (ages 9-12 years). Full-day kindergarten was associated with
greater growth of reading and math skills from fall until spring of kindergarten. Initial academic benefits
diminished soon after kindergarten. The fade-out of the full-day advantage is in part explained by differences in
the children who attend part- and full-day kindergarten as well as school characteristics.
Over the past 35 years, kindergarten programs in the
United States have been transformed. When states
2006). Existing research on the benefits of full-day
kindergarten has largely been conducted outside the
and localities began implementing publicly funded developmental literature, where studies have focused
kindergarten in the 1960s and 1970s, they consisted mostly on the educational aspects of full-day kinder
mostly of part-day programs and focused on easing
young children's transitions to school by providing
opportunities to socialize and play in group settings.
Fewer than 15% of all 5-year-olds attended full-day
programs in the 1970s (Elicker & Mathur, 1997). In
recent years, the number of children attending full
day kindergarten programs has nearly doubled. At
the beginning of the 1980s, just over 25% of U.S.
children in kindergarten attended full-day programs
(Burriss, 2000). By the end of the 1990s, this number
grew to more than 55% (Walston & West, 2004).
As the number of children in full-day kindergarten
programs has grown, so too has research compar
garten (Lee et al., 2006) or the policy debates sur
rounding full-day kindergarten (Cannon, Jacknowitz,
& Painter, 2006). Though effects on children's devel
opment are of primary interest in studies of full
day kindergarten programs, developmental models
and analytic techniques have rarely been used in
research comparing full- and part-day kindergarten.
Grounded in bioecological theory, the goal of this
study was to contribute a developmental perspective
to the literature on kindergarten program type
(Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Bronfenbrenner & Morris
2006). Using data from the Early Childhood Longitu
dinal Study's Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K), we
are our own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Spencer
examine whether kindergarten program type is linked
to initial gains in children's achievement trajectories,
after taking into account important characteristics of
out-of-school contexts and heterogeneity in the devel
opment of academic skills. Furthermore, we consider
how long into the elementary school years the advan
tage of full- versus part-day kindergarten lasts.
for their comments on prior drafts of this manuscript. We also thank
Are There Benefits to Attending Full-Day Kindergarten?
ing the effects of full- and part-day kindergarten on
children's academic achievement (for a review,
see Lee, Burkam, Ready, Honigman, & Meisels,
The research reported in this article was made possible by
a fellowship from the Spencer Foundation. The views expressed
Foundation. We thank Emma Adam, Lindsay Chase-Lansdale, Tom
Cook, Greg Duncan, Bob Pianta, Fred Morrison, and Sean Reardon
Mathilda du Toit for technical support she provided for the HLM
software. Any errors that remain are ours. A special thank you is
also extended to the children and families who participated in the
Early Childhood Longitudinal Study's Kindergarten Cohort.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Elizabeth Votruba-Drzal, Department of Psychology, University of
Though some investigations on the benefits of
attending full-day kindergarten have not found
Pittsburgh, 4123 Sennott Square, 210 South Bouquet Street,
? 2008, Copyright the Author(s)
pitt.edu.
All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2008/7904-0011
Pittsburgh, PA 15260. Electronic mail may be sent to evotruba@
Journal Compilation ? 2008, Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 04:20:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
958 Votruba-Drzal, Li-Grining, and Maldonado-Carre?o
differences between children enrolled in full- versus
part-day programs, more studies have documented
significant benefits of full-day kindergarten for child
ren's academic skills (for a review, see Lee et al., 2006).
When compared to children attending part-day kin
dergarten, those attending full-day kindergarten tend
to perform better on tests of reading, math, and
science achievement, and have lower levels of special
education placements and grade retention (Cannon
et al., 2006; Clark & Kirk, 2000; Cryan, Sheehan,
Wiechel, & Bandy-Hedden, 1992; Elicker & Mathur,
1997; Entwisle, Alexander, Cadigan, & Pallas 1987;
Gullo, 2000; Gullo, Bersani, Clements, & Bayless, 1986;
Kaplan, 2002; Karweit, 1992; Lee et al., 2006; Walston &
West, 2004; Weiss & Offenberg, 2002). Overall, these
advantages tend to be small to moderate.
A Developmental Approach to Studying Full-Day
Kindergarten
Noticeably absent from existing research on the
benefits of full-day kindergarten have been the voices
of developmental scholars, which is rather surprising,
given the developmental nature of this policy ques
tion. At the core of discussions about kindergarten
program type is the question of whether full-day
kindergarten is associated with meaningful differ
ences in children's individual achievement trajecto
ries during the kindergarten year and beyond, net of
other important contexts that shape their develop
ment. Developmental theory and analytic techniques
are poised to make an important contribution to this
policy discussion (Foster & Kalil, 2005). Developmen
tal science highlights both the multicontextual nature
of environmental influences on children's lives and the
heterogeneity of developmental trajectories. By incor
porating these two core tenets of developmental
psychology into our analysis of kindergarten program
type, we hope to strengthen our understanding of the
benefits of full-day kindergarten attendance to child
ren's academic achievement.
Recognizing multiple contexts of children's
development. Almost 30 years ago, Bronfenbrenner
(1979) advanced the field of child development by
introducing Ecological Systems Theory, which recog
nizes the embeddedness of children's lives in multi
ple contexts. In what subsequently became known as
the bioecological model of human development,
Bronfenbrenner argued for the study of child devel
opment in ecological context or, as he stated so clearly,
"in the actual environments in which human beings
lived their lives'" (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006,
p. 794). Although children's experiences in school
play a prominent role in shaping their development
throughout middle childhood, other contexts includ
ing families and nonparental care settings have
important influences on children's development.
Yet, studies comparing full- versus part-day kinder
garten have not sufficiently taken into account the
influences of these out-of-school settings.
Studies have repeatedly demonstrated that fami
lies represent the most influential context in child
ren's lives (Coleman, 1966; National Institute of Child
Health and Human Development [NICHD] Early
Child Care Research Network, 2002). An important
aspect of families' lives that has received notably less
attention in the literature on full-day kindergarten is
the cognitive stimulation parents provide for their
children. Yet, learning experiences in the context of
the home environment play a central role in shaping
the development of children's academic skills during
the preschool and early elementary school years
(Morrison, Bachman, & Connor, 2005). Global meas
ures of cognitive stimulation in the home environ
ment have been linked to children's vocabulary,
reading, and math skills (Bradley, Corwyn, Burchinal,
McAdoo, & Garcia Coll, 2001; Smith, Brooks-Gunn, &
Klebanov, 1997). These measures cover a broad range
of learning experiences including the frequency with
which parents read to children; teach them letters,
numbers, and shapes; and provide them with cogni
tively stimulating toys.
One salient dimension of families' lives that has
been addressed in research on full-day kindergarten
is the economic condition of children's households
(e.g., Cannon et al., 2006). One fifth of young children
in the United States live in poverty (National Center
for Children in Poverty, 2006), which prior studies
have consistently identified as a risk factor for
children's academic and cognitive skills (Dearing,
McCartney, & Taylor, 2001; Duncan & Brooks-Gunn,
1997; McLoyd, 1998; Patterson, Kupersmidt, & Vaden,
1990; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; Votruba-Drzal, 2006).
Children from economically disadvantaged house
holds tend to experience less consistent, supportive,
and cognitively stimulating caregiving than those
from middle- and upper-class families (Votruba
Drzal, 2003, 2006). Moreover, children from low
income households face a variety of risk factors that
threaten their health and development. They are, for
example, more likely to be raised in a single-parent
household, have a teenage mother, experience family
instability, and grow up in a neighborhood character
ized by high levels of violence (Brooks-Gunn, Kleba
nov, & Liaw, 1995; Evans & English, 2002; Rutter,
1981). Particularly detrimental to children's academic
competence is economic hardship that occurs during
early childhood, as economic gaps in early academic
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 04:20:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Full- Versus Part-Day Kindergarten 959
achievement tend to continue and to exacerbate in
middle childhood (Alexander, Entwisle, & Dauber,
kindergarten year when compared to part-day kin
Olson, 1997; Votruba-Drzal, 2006).
vantage of attending part-day kindergarten was
greatly diminished by first grade and completely
dergarten enrollment. After the kindergarten year,
1993; Duncan & Brooks-Gunn, 1997; Duncan, Brooks
however, part-day kindergarten children caught up to
Gunn, Yeung, & Smith, 1998; Entwisle, Alexander, & their full-day kindergarten counterparts. The disad
Beyond the home environment, child-care settings
have become increasingly important contexts for
children's development, as women have entered the
eliminated by the spring of third grade.
Much of the literature examining associations
labor force in higher numbers. Several characteristics
of child-care settings have been linked to the devel
between kindergarten program type and academic
ments play in shaping children's development, these
out-of-school contexts have been left largely unexam
ined in studies of full- versus part-day kindergarten.
ized change models) taken before and after exposure
achievement has been limited to two repeated assess
ments and has, therefore, not been able to account for
opment of children's academic skills over time,
including the number of hours per week children the variability in children's growth in academic
are in care (Bogenschneider & Steinberg, 1994; Bro
achievement when comparing the achievement out
berg, Wessels, Lamb, & Hwang, 1997; Brooks-Gunn, comes of part-day kindergarteners to full-day kinder
garteners. Furthermore, a focus on two repeated
Han, & Waldfogel, 2002; Field, 1991; Harvey, 1999;
NICHD, 2000; Votruba-Drzal, Coley, & Chase assessments cannot adequately capture the shape of
Lansdale, 2004) and the type of care that children children's academic trajectories. In short, research in
experience, with center-based care being linked to this area has conceived of child development as
better academic performance than home-based set occurring uniformly and incrementally across chil
tings and parental care (Broberg et al., 1997; Caughy,
dren. Indeed, nearly all studies of kindergarten pro
DiPietro, & Strobino, 1994).
gram type have relied on the analysis of two waves of
achievement scores (e.g., change models or residual
Despite the roles home and child-care environ
This may be especially problematic in regard to
studying kindergarten program type because part
day kindergarteners likely spend the majority of their
time in home and child-care settings. If children's
experiences outside school are related to their aca
demic skills and their parents' selection of kindergar
ten, then the failure to take these important contexts
into account when considering the effects of full
versus part-day kindergarten may produce mislead
ing results.
Mapping trajectories of achievement. A central con
cept in developmental science is the notion that
children's development is characterized by unique
to full- versus part-day kindergarten to identify
associations between children's full- versus part-day
kindergarten attendance and academic achievement.
In doing so, studies have conceptualized full- versus
part-day kindergarten's effects on children's devel
opment as providing incremental gains to achieve
ment that are accrued between the beginning and the
end of the kindergarten year and have not been able to
provide detailed information about when the advan
tages of full-day kindergarten attendance subside.
Though the analysis of change scores has benefits
for reducing potential sources of bias (Allison, 1990;
Willett, 1988), they are characterized by significant
limitations that have been reviewed extensively in the
literature (Rogosa, Brandt, & Zimowski, 1982; Singer
trajectories, with some children developing at faster
& Willett, 2003; Willett, 1988). Among the most
of existing studies that have followed children
not recognize two central concepts in developmental
science: that child development is heterogeneous and
rates than others across time (National Research
Council and Institute of Medicine, 2000). A handful
beyond kindergarten suggest that although there are
initial benefits to full-day kindergarten, these advan
tages do not persist after the early years of elementary
school. These studies show that the academic disad
vantages of part-day kindergarten fade out sometime
between first and third grade (Karweit, 1987; Ohio
State Legislative Office of Education, 1997; Weiss &
Offenberg, 2002). For example, in a recent study using
nationally representative data and rigorous analytic
techniques, Cannon et al. (2006) found that full-day
kindergarten participation was related to modestly
higher reading and math scores at the end of the
significant limitations are that these approaches do
that patterns of child development are more accu
rately portrayed by careful estimation of trajectories
of individual growth rather than by simple change
scores.
Over the past 20 years, there has been a reorienta
tion in developmental research from what Willet
(1988) refers to as a focus on change to more nuance
models of growth. Advances such as hierarchic
linear modeling (HLM) have paved the way for more
precise estimation of children's individual-specific
growth trajectories (Burchinal & Appelbaum, 1991
Burchinal, Nelson, & Poe, 2006; Raudenbush & Bryk,
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 04:20:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
960 Votruba-Drzal, Li-Grining, and Maldonado-Carre?o
2002; Singer & Willett, 2003). These approaches to
children entering kindergarten in the fall of 1998
measuring development, however, have not yet been
applied to the question of whether full-day kinder
using a multistage probability sample design, where
the primary sampling units (PSU) were geographic
areas consisting of counties or groups of counties, the
garten has meaningful implications for children's
achievement trajectories. Nevertheless, these meth
ods are an integral part of a developmental perspec
tive because they recognize the heterogeneous nature
of development. Here, we specifically use HLM to
determine whether full-day kindergarten enrollment
is related to steeper growth in individual-specific
achievement trajectories during the kindergarten year
and to gain a more precise estimation of the duration
of the full-day kindergarten advantage.
second-stage sampling units were schools within
PSUs, and the final stage sampling units were stu
dents within schools. In total, nearly 22,000 kinder
garteners throughout the United States participated
in the study in the fall of 1998. The ECLS - K collected
base-year data in the fall of kindergarten in 1998 and
the spring of kindergarten in 1999. Four waves of data
have been collected beyond the kindergarten year.
These have taken place in the fall and spring of first
grade, the spring of third grade, and the spring of fifth
Research Goals
Individual differences in children's achievement
trajectories, across the kindergarten year and beyond,
stem from a unique constellation of child, school,
home, and child-care characteristics (National
Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2000;
Pianta, Rimm-Kaufman, & Cox, 1999). Guided by
a developmental approach that highlights this het
erogeneity and contextual embeddedness of child
ren's lives, the aim of this study was to examine
whether kindergarten program type explains indi
vidual differences in children's academic trajectories
from kindergarten through fifth grade, net of salient
aspects of children's home and child-care experi
ences. This study begins by providing a rich descrip
tion and comparison of children attending full- and
part-day kindergarten. Next, it considers whether
full-day, as opposed to part-day, kindergarten atten
dance is linked with greater initial growth of reading
and math skills during the kindergarten year after
taking into account the influences of important char
acteristics of children's home and child-care settings.
It then considers how long these benefits are sus
tained by examining trajectories of student achieve
ment from the spring of kindergarten through the end
of fifth grade.
Method
grade. The ECLS - K planned to collect data from all
children at each wave of the study, with the exception
of the fall of first grade, when data were collected only
from a representative 30% of the entire sample of
schools. Each school year of the survey information
was collected from parents, teachers, and school
administrators. Parent interviews were conducted
by telephone or in person for families without a tele
phone, and teachers and school administrators were
surveyed through self-administered questionnaires.
The data were collected across several domains and
include multimethod, multisource, in-school assess
ments of children's cognitive development as well
as measures of family, school, and classroom charac
teristics that have been associated with children's
development.
Sample
The sample that was used in this study consists of
first-time kindergarteners who remained in the same
type of kindergarten program (full or part day)
throughout the kindergarten year, who were in kin
dergarten for at least 4 days per week, and who had at
least one valid observation in reading and in math from
kindergarten through fifth grade. Only children who
had a valid sampling weight (C1PW0) were included
in the sample. Altogether, 13,776 children were
included in our sample. This represents 78% of the
entire sample of children for whom ECLS-K recali
brated the item response theory score (IRT) assess
The data for this study come from the Early Child
hood Longitudinal Study - Kindergarten Class of
ment scores from kindergarten through fifth grade.
cohort of children (U.S. Department of Education,
National Center for Education Statistics, 2001). The
dren who repeated kindergarten (n = 675), those who
switched program type (n = 240), those who were not
in kindergarten for at least 4 days per week (n = 389),
1998-1999 (ECLS-K), a nationally representative
ECLS-K was designed to study relations among
children's developmental trajectories and their fam
ily, preschool, and school experiences. The sample
was selected to be nationally representative of all
The number of children dropped from our sample
because of our exclusion criteria are as follows: chil
those who did not have a valid math or reading
assessment (n = 79), and those with a sampling weight
of 0 or missing weight (n = 2,501).
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 04:20:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Full- Versus Part-Day Kindergarten 961
Of the 13,776 children included in the sample, 64%
and 68% had valid reading and math scores, respec
tively, for five or six waves of data from the fall of
kindergarten through the spring of fifth grade, and
31% and 29% had valid reading and math scores,
respectively, for three or four waves of data. An
extensive set of 17 covariates are included in our
analyses that reflect important characteristics of chil
dren and their in-school and out-of-school contexts.
Of the 13,776 children in our sample, 87% had valid
1989; Woodcock & Mather, 1989, 1990). Both direct
cognitive batteries have been shown to have good
internal consistency. The reading assessment tests
a broad range of children's language and literacy
skills, including letter recognition, receptive vocabu
lary, and reading comprehension. Items on the math
ematics assessment are aimed at measuring general
mathematical skills, with questions on topics such as
number sense, properties, measurement, and spatial
sense.
data on all the 17 covariates. Statistical comparisons of
An important prerequisite for growth modeling
to have an outcome variable measured on a consiste
important covariates showed that they were more
disadvantaged across several dimensions. For exam
metric over time (Singer & Willett, 2003). To facilit
longitudinal analyses of children's academic achie
children who had missing child assessments or
ple, they were more likely to be of an ethnic minority
background, scored slightly lower on academic skills,
and their parents tended to be less educated and to
have incomes at or below the poverty line.
Traditional approaches to handling missing data,
ment, the ECLS-K calculated IRT scores, whi
estimate children's performance as if they had bee
administered the whole set of assessment questions
The first set of IRT scores were created for childre
such as listwise deletion or mean imputation, have
participating in the kindergarten and first-gra
rounds of data collection. As children aged and t
been criticized for biasing estimates, misrepresenting
statistical power, and leading to invalid conclusions
assessments were expanded in third and fifth grad
the ECLS - K recalibrated the IRT scores from all pri
(Acock, 2005; Rubin, 1987; Widaman, 2006). There
fore, missing data were imputed for the present study
using multiple imputation by chained equations
(ICE), which was implemented in Stata (Royston,
2004). Multiple imputation was performed in Stata
to create five complete data sets that included both the
independent and the dependent variables in our
models. The primary analysis for this study was
performed using HLM 6.04 (Raudenbush, Bryk,
Cheong, Congdon, & du Toit, 2004). Following impu
tation, the five data sets were imported into HLM,
which was then used to conduct separate analysis for
each set of plausible values. Based on the relative
efficiency calculation by Rubin (1987), five multiple
imputations were deemed sufficient. Parameter esti
mates were averaged and standard errors were com
puted in HLM 6.04 using standard techniques
described by Raudenbush et al.
Measures
Academic achievement. Academic achievement in
math and reading was measured in school using
individualized, direct cognitive assessments de
signed by the ECLS - K. Several items on the assess
ment were adapted from existing instruments that
have been shown to be reliable and valid measures of
children's cognitive and academic development, such
as the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Bat
tery, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, and the
Peabody Individual Achievement Test (Dunn &
Dunn, 1981; Dunn & Markwardt, 1970; Markwardt,
waves of data to make longitudinal compariso
possible (U.S. Department of Education, Nationa
Center for Education Statistics, 2005). Here, we u
the recalibrated fifth-grade IRT scores, which is
keeping with prior studies of academic growth usin
the ECLS-K (e.g., Kaplan, 2002; McCoach, O'C
nell, Reis, & Levitt, 2006; Ready, LoGerfo, Burkam,
Lee, 2005).
Kindergarten and school experiences. The primary
independent variable of interest in these analyses i
kindergarten program type, which is represent
with a dichotomous indicator for whether childr
were enrolled in part- versus full-day kindergarten
Reports of children's kindergarten program ty
were obtained during interviews with kindergart
teachers. A teacher-reported indicator of wheth
a child changed teachers during the kindergart
year was included as well. Several basic scho
demographic characteristics were also included
these analyses, including school type, region, a
urbanicity. School type was coded with a dumm
variable that indicated whether children attend
private versus public schools. The school's ge
graphic location was modeled with dummy variable
indicating whether the child lived in the Northeast
(omitted from the model as the comparison group)
Midwest, South, or West. Finally, schools' urbanic
was represented with variables indicating wheth
the schools were located in suburbs/large town
(omitted), central cities, or small towns /rural areas
Out-of-school contexts. This investigation focused
on four dimensions of out-of-school contexts: quali
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 04:20:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
962 Votruba-Drzal, Li-Grining, and Maldonado-Carre?o
of cognitive stimulation in the home, household
poverty, and type and extent of child care. First,
parents were asked about several different types of
learning activities that took place in children's home
environments during a typical week. Items were
adapted from reliable measures of children's home
learning environments that have been widely used
and validated in the literature, such as the Home
Observation for Measurement of the Environment
a vocational or technical program, bachelor's degree,
and advanced degree. Maternal age at first birth was
measured in years, and the number of children
younger than 18 years living in the household was
used as an estimate of parents' household caretaking
responsibilities. Parental marital status was repre
sented with dummy variables indicating whether
parents were married (omitted), never married, sep
arated/divorced, or widowed. Dummy variables
(HOME) Inventory (Caldwell & Bradley, 1979). For were also included for children who lived with non
most items, parents rated the frequency with which
children engaged in particular learning activities,
such as reading books, singing songs, and listening
to music, on a 4-point scale (1 = not at all and 4 = 3 to 6
times a week). Dimensions of children's home learning
biological or adoptive parents, and for whether a non
English language was the primary language spoken
at home.
Finally, children's individual characteristics were
obtained during parent interviews in kindergarten.
Gender was represented with a dummy variable, and
the age at which children started kindergarten was
environments that were measured by these items
include the level of academic guidance and support
provided to children; the degree to which children measured in months. Child race/ethnicity was rep
engaged in new activities and explored and discussed
new ideas; and the amount of language stimulation
children experienced. Factor analyses were per
formed to create a composite measure, which was
calculated by taking a mean of 24 items asked in the
fall and spring of kindergarten (oc = .80). Second,
family economic resources were represented with
a dummy variable indicating whether or not children
lived in households with incomes below the poverty
line during kindergarten.
The third and fourth aspects of out-of-school con
texts were type and extent of child care, which were
measured during kindergarten and during the year
resented with a series of dummy variables reflecting
whether children were of a Hispanic, non-Hispanic
Black, non-Hispanic White (omitted), non-Hispanic
Asian, non-Hispanic Native American, or multiethnic
background. An indicator of low birth weight was
used to represent whether children weighed less than
5.5 pounds at birth.
Analytic Approach
Setting the stage for this investigation, we first
sought to depict a national descriptive portrait of
children attending full- versus part-day kindergarten.
prior to kindergarten. Prekindergarten type of care
To test whether there were significant differences
between these two groups of children, no constant
(omitted), Head Start, other center care, relative care,
nonrelative care, or multiple types of care. Type of
dummy indicator for kindergarten program type as
Family and child characteristics. Several family and
individual characteristics that are important for child
garten program type in the proportion of individuals
falling into each particular category. This descriptive
analysis was performed in Stata, with Huber - White
standard error corrections (Huber, 1967) to take into
account the nesting of children within schools, and
sampling weights were applied.
was represented categorically by dummy variables
indicating whether children were in parental care
regression analyses were performed, with the
the only independent variable, and achievement
care during kindergarten was modeled categorically measures, family and child characteristics, and school
by dummy variables reflecting whether children were demographic characteristics as dependent variables.
in parental care (omitted), center care, relative care, When testing for differences in family and child
nonrelative care, or multiple types of care. The characteristics that were represented categorically
average hours per week of care during kindergarten
(e.g., race, parental education), each category was
and the year prior to kindergarten were each repre
tested as a separate dependent variable to determine
sented continuously.
whether there were significant differences by kinder
ren's developmental trajectories were included in
these analyses to further test the robustness of the
linkage between kindergarten program type and
children's academic trajectories. All these measures
were obtained during parental interviews in kinder
garten. Parental education was represented categori
cally as the highest level of education attained by
either parent. Categories include less than a high
school diploma (omitted), a high school diploma,
Next, to examine whether there were initial and
long-term benefits to attending full-day kindergarten,
we estimated three-level models (Raudenbush &
Bryk, 2002) in HLM 6.04 using full information maxi
mum likelihood estimation and sampling weights
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 04:20:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Full- Versus Part-Day Kindergarten 963
(Raudenbush et al., 2004). At Level 1 were children's
estimated to explain the heterogeneity in trajectories
achievement scores, which were nested within indi of academic achievement.
vidual children at Level 2, who were nested within
Equations 2 through 4 were used at Level 2 to
schools at Level 3. Children's academic trajectories model variability in the Level 1 parameters:
were estimated using piece wise growth models. To
nOi = ?oo/ + ?oi/KTi/ + ?o2/FTzy + ?03;Qy + ?04yFzy
consider whether full-day kindergarten was initially
beneficial to the growth of children's academic skills
+ ?05;CCPKzy + ?oo/CCIQy (2)
during the kindergarten year, the first trajectory
measured growth from the fall of kindergarten to
*H; = ?lO; + ?ll;KTiy + ?12;FTzy + ?^Qy + ?14;-F/y
the spring of kindergarten. To examine how long
+ ?15/CCK// + r1// (3)
these initial benefits to achievement growth were
sustained, the second trajectory measured growth
from the spring of kindergarten to the spring of fifth
grade. The form of the Level 1 equation can be seen in
Equation 1:
Ytij = noij + 7ii/;Time ltij + 7C2lyTime2iy + efzy. (1)
We created Time 1 and Time 2 to track growth
across kindergarten and from the spring of kinder
garten through the spring of fifth grade, respectively.
The time of each assessment was measured as the
number of months that had passed since September
1,1998, because the exact start of the school year was
not available in the public release data. There was
great variability in the month in which each of the
K2ij = ?20; + ?21;KT(/ + p22;FTz7 + ?23/Ci;
+ ?24;^ + ^;. (4)
Here, the initial level of academic achievement was
modeled as a function of kindergarten program type
(KTy), and a series of child (Qy), family (Fz;), pre
kindergarten child care (CCPKzy), and kindergarten
child-care (CCKzy) characteristics. The time of the
child assessment at the fall of kindergarten (FTzy)
was included as a predictor as well because children
who were assessed later in the school year tended to
have more advanced academic skills than did those
assessments took place; for example, the fall of
kindergarten assessments took place between Sep
who were assessed earlier. All independent variables
in the Level 2 equation for the intercept were mea
sured in kindergarten. The two slope parameters
ment, and the Time 2 variable was centered at the
independent variables, with the exception that only
child-care characteristics in kindergarten were used
to predict the kindergarten slope. Also, no child-care
characteristics were used to model variability in the
coefficient on Time 2 because child-care experiences
tember and December. Therefore, the exact number
of months that had passed at the time of the assess
ment was used to yield greater precision in estimat
ing the growth trajectories. The Time 1 variable was
centered at the time of the fall kindergarten assess
time of the assessment at the spring of kindergarten.
Thus, academic achievement at time t for child / in
school j was modeled as a function of the academic
achievement of child i in school ; at the fall of
kindergarten (7i0zy), his or her per month growth of
achievement skills during the kindergarten year
(itiij), and his or her monthly growth rate from the
spring of kindergarten until the spring of fifth grade
fey).
We began our growth trajectory analyses by
estimating unconditional growth models, with the
coefficients on the slopes in the Level 1 equation
estimated as random. The Level 1 intercept and
Level 2 intercept predicting the Level 1 intercept
were fixed due to model convergence problems
(Dearing et al., 2001). The remaining intercepts of
the Level 2 equations were estimated as random, and
the slope coefficients of the Level 2 equations were
fixed at Level 3.
After finding significant variability in the Level 1
and Level 2 parameters, conditional models were
were estimated as a function of this same set of
are less relevant in predicting achievement growth
after children are in school full time. Except for the
indicator for kindergarten program type (KT^), which
was coded as 1 for part-day programs and 0 for full
day programs, all independent variables at Level 2
were centered on the grand mean for the sample, so
that the intercepts at Level 2 represent adjusted means
for the average study participant in full-day kinder
garten (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002).
At Level 3, we introduced a set of school-level
demographic characteristics. Equations 5 through 7
were used to predict the Level 2 intercepts:
?ooy = Tooo + YooiST; + Yoo2#; + Yoos^; (5)
?ioy = Yioo + YioiST; + Yi02^; + Ji03Uj + uioj (6)
?20; = ?200 + 7201 ST/ + y202Rj + 7203^/ + u20j- (7)
Specifically, school type (ST), geographical region
(R), and urbanicity (Li) were used to model the
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 04:20:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
964 Votruba-Drzal, Li-Grining, and Maldonado-Carre?o
intercepts of the Level 2 equations. However, the
Level 2 slope coefficients were fixed at Level 3 and
did not include any predictors because we had no
a priori hypotheses about how school characteristics
would moderate the influence of the Level 2 indepen
dent variables.
The conditional growth models were built in three
steps. In the first model, academic growth trajectories
at Level 1 were estimated as a function of whether
children attended part-day kindergarten at Level 2. In
the second model, important characteristics of child
ren's out-of-school contexts were taken into account,
with quality of cognitive stimulation in the home,
household poverty status, and type and extent of
child care added as covariates at Level 2. In the third
and final model, other family and child characteristics
were included at Level 2 and school characteristics
added at Level 3 as an additional test of the robustness
of the association between kindergarten program
type and children's achievement trajectories.
Results
Are There Significant Differences Between Children
Attending Full- Versus Part-Day Kindergarten?
garten. Children attending part-day kindergarten
programs spent more hours in child care, had a higher
likelihood of receiving nonrelative home-based child
care, and had a lower likelihood of receiving relative
home-based child care. In contrast, during the year
prior to kindergarten, children in part- and full-day
kindergarten had somewhat similar child-care expe
riences. However, part-day kindergarteners spent
about 6 hr less in nonparental care per week, were
less likely to have attended Head Start, and more
likely to be cared for in a nonrelative home-based
child-care setting, when compared to full-day kinder
garten students.
In addition to contextual differences, children
enrolled in part- versus full-day programs varied in
terms of their individual characteristics. The most
notable of these differences was in the racial compo
sition of the two groups of children. More specifically,
a greater proportion of children in part-day kinder
garten were of Hispanic, non-Hispanic White, Asian,
and multiracial backgrounds, and a smaller propor
tion were of non-Hispanic Black and Native American
race/ethnicity, in comparison to full-day kindergar
teners. These differences were moderate to large in
magnitude. For example, 7% of part-day kindergar
teners were of non-Hispanic Black ethnicity, whereas
22% of full-day kindergarteners fell into this category.
Laying the groundwork for our multivariate anal
yses, we first consider whether significant differences
exist between students enrolled in part- and full-day
kindergarten. Descriptive information for the sample
Children in part-day kindergarten entered school
when they were slightly younger and less likely to
the top row, 45% (n = 6,202) of children were enrolled
in part-day kindergarten and 55% (n = 7,57A) in full
achievement at the fall of kindergarten did not differ
significantly By the spring of kindergarten, the math
skills of the two groups of children were statistically
indistinguishable. Still, children in full-day kinder
garten outscored their part-day kindergarten counter
as a whole as well as for subgroups of children by
program type can be found in Table 1. As shown in
day kindergarten.
Regarding family and household characteristics,
the poverty rate among part-day kindergarten stu
dents was 6% lower than that for full-day kindergar
ten students. Among part-day kindergarten students,
the highest level of parental education was slightly
greater, the proportion of children from married
parent households was higher, and the percentage
of children from households with parents who had
never been married was lower. Not surprisingly,
based on these socioeconomic differences, the quality
of cognitive stimulation in the home environments of
part-day kindergarten students was about one tenth
of 1 SD higher than that of their peers. A greater
percentage of children in part-day kindergarten (14%)
versus full-day kindergarten (9.8%) came from a
non-English-speaking household.
Moving on to child care, part- and full-day kinder
garteners had different experiences during kinder
have been of low birth weight compared to children in
full-day kindergarten. There were no significant dif
ferences in child gender by program type.
Furthermore, children's mean levels of academic
parts in reading by one tenth of 1 SD. By the fall of first
grade, children's achievement did not vary across
program type and remained similar, until the spring
of third grade, when part-day kindergarteners out
scored full-day kindergarteners on the math and
reading skills measures by one tenth of 1 SD. This
disparity grew slightly in the spring of fifth grade.
Finally, there were several significant differences in
school characteristics by kindergarten program
type. For example, a greater proportion of children
in full-day kindergarten (54.7%) versus part-day
kindergarten (14.1%) attended schools located in
the South, whereas a lower proportion of full-day
kindergarteners attended schools located in the West,
Northeast, and Midwest. Full-day kindergarteners
also had somewhat higher rates of private versus
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 04:20:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Full- Versus Part-Day Kindergarten 965
Table 1
Descriptive Statistics by Kindergarten Program Type
Part-day kindergarten
students (n = 6,202),
Full-day kindergarten
students (n = 7,574),
M or % (SE)
M or % (SE)
50.4% (50.0)
51.4% (0.7)
50.4% (0.6)
57.8% (49.4)
14.0% (34.7)
16.9% (37.5)
5.5% (22.7)
3.0% (17.2)
2.8% (16.5)
7.0% (25.6)
63.4% 1.8)
3.5% 0.4)
1.4% 0.2)
3.0% 0.3)
6.3% 0.4)
54.0% (1.8)
22.3% (1.6)
15.7% (1.2)
2.6% (0.3)
3.4% (0.7)
2.1% (0.2)
7.9% (0.4)
5.2% (22.3)
5.0% 0.7)
5.9% (0.6)
Full sample3
(N = 13,776), M or % (SD)
Characteristics
Child characteristics
Male
Race
Non-Hispanic White***
African American***
Hispanic**
Non-Hispanic Asian*
Native American**
Multiracial**
Low birth weight**
Age of entry***
Changed teacher during kindergarten
Family and household characteristics at kindergarten
Below poverty level***
65.4 0.1)
19.3% (39.4)
16.8% 1.0)
24.1 0.2)
23.2% (1.1)
9.3% ;o.8)
10.2% (0.6)
29.3% (0.9)
32.0% (0.8)
18.2% (0.8)
10.2% (0.8)
24.0 (5.5)
Highest parental education
Less than high school
High school degree***
Vocational/technical program
Bachelor's degree**
Advanced degree
Marital status
9.0% (28.6)
25.4% (43.5)
32.6% (46.9)
21.1% (40.8)
11.9% (32.4)
Divorced/separated*
Widowed
Never married***
Adoptive/no biological dad***
Non-English home language**
Number of children in household
Home learning environment**
Child-care characteristics at prekindergarten
Hours of care per week***
Parental care
Head Start***
Center care
Relative home-based care
Nonrelative home-based care***
Multiple types of care
Child-care characteristics at kindergarten
Hours of care per week***
Parental care**
Center care
Relative home-based care**
Nonrelative home-based care***
Multiple types of care
Kindergarten characteristics
Region
Midwest**
Northeast*
West***
21.9%1.6)
65.8 (4.1)
Maternal age at first birth (years)**
Married***
6.9% ;o.8)
71.1% (45.4)
13.0% (33.6)
0.8% (9.0)
12.9% (33.5)
2.3% (14.9)
12.7% (33.3)
2.5 (1.2)
0.0 (0.4)
25.4 (21.7)
18.1% (38.5)
9.1% (28.8)
43.8% (49.6)
13.9% (34.6)
10.1% (30.1)
5.0% (21.9)
23.9%0.9)
33.5%;0.9)
21.4% ;o.9)
11.9%:o.9)
73.8%1.0)
12.7%:o.6)
0.7% 0.1)
11.2%0.7)
1.6% 0.2)
14.3%1.2)
66.1 (0.1)
23.3 (0.2)
66.0% (1.2)
14.1% (0.5)
1.0% (0.1)
15.7% (0.9)
3.2% (0.3)
9.8% (0.8)
;o.o)
2.5 (0.0)
0.0 (0.0)
22.3 0.4)
19.0% 0.7)
7.4% 0.7)
28.3 (0.4)
2.5
0.0
0.0)
12.4% 0.5)
5.1% 0.3)
17.7% (0.7)
12.2% (0.9)
43.3% (1.1)
13.4% (0.5)
8.2% (0.5)
5.2% (0.3)
51.9% (50.0)
17.3% (37.8)
18.7% (39.0)
10.0% (30.0)
2.1% (14.2)
11.4 0.3)
50.0% 0.9)
17.4% 0.9)
17.0% 0.7)
13.5% 0.6)
2.1%0.2)
53.3% (0.8)
16.7% (0.8)
20.4% (0.7)
7.6% (0.4)
2.0% (0.2)
25.6% (43.6)
18.6% (38.9)
22.7% (41.9)
21.1% 2.2)
35.6% 2.6)
9.3 (13.8)
41.7%1.2)
14.5%0.6)
29.2%2.4)
7.9 (0.2)
19.5% (1.9)
15.3% (1.8)
10.5% (1.4)
(Continued)
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 04:20:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
966 Votruba-Drzal, Li-Grining, and Maldonado-Carre?o
Table 1
Continued
Part-day kindergarten
students (n = 6,202),
Full-day kindergarten
students (n = 7,574),
M or % (SE)
M or % (SE)
33.2% (47.1)
20.6% (40.4)
14.1% (1.9)
10.5% (1.4)
54.7% (2.5)
17.0% (1.7)
40.8% (49.2)
20.8% (40.6)
38.5% (48.7)
40.0% (2.4)
18.7% (2.0)
41.3% (2.4)
39.1% (2.2)
22.7% (2.1)
38.2% (2.3)
29.3
40.1
29.4
41.5
48.4
71.3
(0.3)
(0.4)
(0.9)
(0.6)
22.6
33.4
40.2
57.2
90.4
(0.2)
(0.3)
(0.6)
(0.5)
(0.6)
Full sample3
(N - 13,776), M or % (SD)
Characteristics
South***
Private school**
Urbanicity
Central city
Rural
Large town
Child outcomes
Reading
29.7
41.4
48.6
72.4
118.4
139.5
Fall of kindergarten
Spring of kindergarten**
Fall of first grade
Spring of first grade
Spring of third grade*
Spring of fifth grade**
Math
Fall of kindergarten
Spring of kindergarten
Fall of first grade
Spring of first grade
Spring of third grade**
Spring fifth grade***
23.1
33.6
40.6
58.0
92.1
(10.1)
(13.8)
(17.9)
(22.4)
(25.0)
(23.2)
(8.9)
(11.6)
(13.8)
(16.8)
(21.5)
113.5 (21.4)
(0.2)
(0.3)
46.9 (0.7)
71.6 (0.6)
118.8 (0.8)
140.1 (0.9)
22.8
32.7
39.6
(0.2)
(0.3)
(0.7)
57.6 (0.4)
92.8 (0.6)
114.6 (0.8)
116.2 (0.9)
137.3 (1.1)
111.2 (0.9)
Note. Significance levels reflect the statistical significance of differences between students in part- and full-day kindergarten.
aDescriptive statistics for the full-sample are unweighted.
Tp < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
public school enrollment when compared to part-day
kindergartener students. In sum, several differences
emerged between children attending full- and part
day kindergarten; however, when differences were
detected, they tended to be modest in magnitude.
Does Attending Full-Day Kindergarten Yield Benefits to
Children's Academic Achievement?
Moving on to our analyses of children's academic
trajectories, we estimated math and reading trajecto
ries from the fall of kindergarten until the spring of
fifth grade, in order to address the question of
whether full-day kindergarten attendance explained
variability in children's development. We began by
estimating unconditional growth models, which are
given in Table 2. Here, it can be seen that the math and
reading scores for the average child in the sample at
the fall of kindergarten were 23.155 and 29.372,
respectively. Examining the coefficients on the two
slope terms, it can be seen that the slopes of children's
achievement trajectories were somewhat steeper
between the fall and the spring of kindergarten,
compared to the slopes of trajectories between the
spring of kindergarten and fifth grade. The two slope
terms in the unconditional growth models were
correlated .80 for math and .66 for reading. Chi-square
tests revealed that there was significant variability
between individuals' achievement trajectories.
Given that children were heterogeneous in their
academic trajectories, we next estimated conditional
models of student achievement trajectories from the
fall of kindergarten to the spring of fifth grade, with
results for math displayed in Table 3 and findings for
reading shown in Table 4. In Model 1 of Tables 3 and
4, an indicator of part-day kindergarten was used to
predict the intercepts and slopes of children's
achievement trajectories. Consistent with the descrip
tive analysis, there were no significant differences
related to kindergarten program type at the fall of
kindergarten, as indicated in Panel A. However, as
shown in Panel B, the coefficients on the part-day
indicator for the first slope in the piecewise growth
models show that from fall to spring of the kinder
garten year, the math and reading skills trajectories of
children in part-day kindergarten were characterized
by slightly slower rates of growth. More specifically,
the math and reading skills of the average child in
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 04:20:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Full- Versus Part-Day Kindergarten 967
Table 2
Kindergarten Program Type and Academic Trajectories From Fall of
Kindergarten Through Spring of Fifth Grade
Reading Math
Coefficient SE Coefficient SE
Intercept
Intercept 29.372*** 0.181 23.155*** 0.170
Time Ia
Intercept 2.803*** 0.033 2.329*** 0.042
Time 2b
Intercept 1.672*** 0.013 1.339*** 0.014
aRate of change during the kindergarten year.
bRate of change from the spring of kindergarten until the spring of
fifth grade.
24
***p < .001.
48
Time (Months)
part-day kindergarten grew by 2.189 and 2.632 per
month, respectively, whereas the respective growth
rates for full-day kindergarteners were 2.435 and
2.930. By the end of the kindergarten year, children
in full-day kindergarten outscored part-day kinder
garteners by one fifth of 1 SD in math and reading.
To consider whether the benefits of full-day kin
dergarten are sustained through the spring of fifth
grade, we examined the coefficients on the second
slope term in our piecewise growth models, which are
found in Panel C of Model 1 of Tables 3 and 4. These
suggest that the initial benefits of full-day kindergar
ten for the growth of achievement trajectories were
not sustained beyond the kindergarten year. Indeed,
the positive and significant coefficients on the part
day indicators for the second slope coefficients sug
gest that from the spring of kindergarten through fifth
grade, the academic skills of children in part-day
kindergarten grew at a slightly faster rate than did
those of children in full-day kindergarten. Figure 1
illustrates the reading growth curve trajectories of
children by kindergarten program type from the fall
of kindergarten through the spring of third grade
based on this first conditional model. The plot of
children's math skills looks nearly identical. Here, it
can be seen that although full-day kindergarten was
associated with a small academic advantage across
the kindergarten year, the achievement trajectories of
children in part- and full-day kindergarten converge
soon after children leave kindergarten. Indeed, Fig
ure 1 shows that the advantage of full- versus part
day kindergarten has faded out by the spring of third
grade, with the two groups diverging and the part
day kindergarteners pulling ahead. Though not
shown here for parsimony, the divergence continues
into the spring of fifth grade.
Figure 1. Kindergarten program type and reading achievement
trajectories from fall of kindergarten to spring of third grade.
In Model 2 of Tables 3 and 4, measures of children's
out-of-school contexts were introduced, including the
quality of cognitive stimulation in the home environ
ment, household poverty status, and the type and
extent of nonparental care during kindergarten and
the year before kindergarten entry. These factors were
significantly related to children's achievement in the
fall of kindergarten. More specifically, children who
experienced high-quality home environments and
nonparental care in the year before kindergarten (with
the exception of Head Start enrollment), and those
from nonpoor households tended to start school with
higher levels of reading and math skills. The intro
duction of these variables as predictors of the inter
cept revealed a significant difference in achievement
between children in part- and full-day kindergarten
that favored full-day kindergarten students, though
this association was only marginally significant for
math achievement.
The inclusion of this important set of variables as
predictors of the kindergarten slope term resulted in
a 26% and 19% reduction in the association between
kindergarten program type and children's math and
reading skills trajectories, respectively, during the
kindergarten year, highlighting the importance of
these contexts for children's development. Together,
cognitive stimulation in the home environment and
the poverty status of the child's household were
responsible for a modest decrease in the magnitude
of the part-day coefficient. More specifically, the math
and reading skills of children from impoverished
households grew at slower rates than did those of
children in households above the federal poverty
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 04:20:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
968 Votruba-Drzal, Li-Grining, and Maldonado-Carre?o
Table 3
Kindergarten Program Type and Math Trajectories From Fall of Kindergarten to Spring of Fifth Grade
Model 1
Coefficient
Panel A. Intercept
Model 3
Model 2
SE
Coefficient
SE
Coefficient
SE
0.174
0.246
0.203
0.245
23.553***
-0.706**
-0.885***
2.165***
0.147
0.203
0.195
0.198
0.371
0.295
0.380
0.428
0.498
0.008
0.278
0.290
0.360
0.559
-0.421
1.676***
0.361
1.106**
0.782f
-0.001
-0.075
-0.330
0.144
-0.054
0.564***
-0.811*
0.054
0.345
0.266
0.355
0.406
0.008
0.247
0.253
0.318
0.483
0.022
0.339
0.142
Hispanic
-1.870***
-1.800***
0.228
0.264
Non-Hispanic Asian
Native American
-2.801***
Intercept 22.987*** 0.240 23.241***
Part day 0.358 0.319 -0.416*
-3.604***
3.997***
Poverty
Home learning environment
Hours per week in child care3
-0.012*
-1.196**
Head Start3
Center care3
3.365***
0.965*
Relative home-based care3
Nonrelative home-based care3
2.857***
1.934***
Multiple types of care3
Hours per week in child careb
-0.015f
0.392
Center careb
Relative home-based careb
Nonrelative home-based careb
-0.980*
0.489
-0.064
Multiple types of careb
Age of entry
Changed teacher during kindergarten
0.005
Male
Race
African American
0.000
1.773**
Multiracial
Low birth weight
Maternal age at first birth (years)
Highest parental education
High school degree
Vocational/technical program
Bachelor's degree
Advanced degree
Marital status
Divorced / separated
Widowed
Adoptive/no biological dad
Non-English home language
Number of children in household
Midwest
West
South
Central city
Rural
0.506
1.006*
1.796***
0.142***
0.917**
2.061***
3.944***
5.871***
0.269
0.281
0.333
0.398
-0.642**
-1.047
0.209
0.732
-0.752*
-0.259***
0.184
0.895**
0.420
0.323
0.067
0.285
0.306
0.049
Private
0.459
0.453
0.434
0.239
0.019
-0.536*
-1.501**
Never married
0.005
0.233
0.295
1.434***
-0.261
?1 222***
0.296
0.210
0.230
2.483***
-0.153**
0.042
0.047
0.039
0.032
Panel B. Time Ie
Intercept 2.435*** 0.048
Part day -0.246*** 0.060
Poverty
Home learning environment
2.461
-0.183***
-0.072f
0.112**
0.045
0.048
0.037
0.038
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 04:20:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
-0.077*
0.106**
Full- Versus Part-Day Kindergarten 969
Table 3
Continued
Model 2
Model 1
Coefficient
SE
Coefficient
-0.001
Hours per week in child careb
Center careb
Relative home-based careb
Nonrelative home-based careb
-0.028
-0.006
0.057
0.071
Multiple types of careb
Age of entry
Changed teacher during kindergarten
Model 3
SE
Coefficient
SE
0.001
0.044
0.040
0.053
0.091
-0.000
-0.015
-0.035
0.062
0.017
0.027***
-0.101
0.001
0.041
0.039
0.050
0.090
0.003
0.120
0.072**
0.025
Male
Race
African American
-0.447***
-0.132**
-0.112
-0.087
-0.191*
Hispanic
Non-Hispanic Asian
Native American
Multiracial
0.046
0.048
0.073
Maternal age at first birth (years)
0.002
0.079
0.079
0.047
0.003
Highest parental education
High school degree
Vocational /technical program
Bachelor's degree
Advanced degree
Marital status
0.075
0.201***
0.280***
0.414***
0.048
0.052
0.062
0.071
-0.120*
Low birth weight
Midwest
-0.013
0.026
-0.074
-0.097
-0.068
-0.002
0.252***
South
Private
0.324***
-0.015
Divorced / separated
Widowed
Never married
Adoptive/no biological dad
Non-English home language
Number of children in household
0.148*
West
-0.048
Central city
Rural
Panel C Time 2d
-0.111*
1.310***
0.065***
Intercept
Part day
Poverty
Home learning environment
Age of entry
Changed teacher during kindergarten
0.015
0.009
1.316***
0.059***
-0.126***
0.037*
0.014
0.008
0.009
0.012
Male
Race
African American
Hispanic
Non-Hispanic Asian
Native American
Multiracial
Low birth weight
Maternal age at first birth (years)
0.038
0.132
0.047
0.083
0.055
0.011
0.055
0.060
0.061
0.054
0.041
0.051
-0.004***
-0.031
0.061***
0.014
0.008
0.009
0.011
0.001
0.020
0.007
-0.088***
-0.006
0.040**
-0.052*
-0.018
-0.028*
0.003**
0.012
0.011
0.015
0.021
0.021
0.012
0.001
1.328***
0.038***
-0.067***
0.007
(Continued)
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 04:20:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
970 Votruba-Drzal, Li-Grining, and Maldonado-Carre?o
Table 3
Continued
Coefficient
Model 3
Model 2
Model 1
SE
Coefficient
SE
Highest parental education
High school degree
Vocational/technical program
Bachelor's degree
Advanced degree
Marital status
Coefficient
SE
0.039**
0.099***
0.138***
0.158***
0.014
0.012
0.015
0.016
0.003
-0.016
-0.012
-0.006
0.003
-0.007*
-0.024*
-0.017
Divorced / separated
Widowed
Never married
Adoptive/no biological dad
Non-English home language
Number of children in household
Midwest
West
South
-0.010
Private
-0.041***
0.005
-0.027*
Central city
Rural
0.011
0.037
0.013
0.023
0.013
0.003
0.011
0.013
0.013
0.010
0.009
0.012
3Child-care characteristics at prekindergarten.
bChild-care characteristics at kindergarten.
cRate of change during the kindergarten year.
dRate of change from the spring of kindergarten until the spring of fifth grade.
xp < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
threshold, whereas the achievement trajectories of
children from more stimulating home environments
increased at steeper rates during the kindergarten
year. After taking these differences into account, the
disadvantage of attending part-day kindergarten
appeared modestly smaller. Contrary to our hypoth
esis, kindergarten child-care characteristics did not
emerge as significant predictors of achievement
trajectories during the kindergarten year.
The introduction of out-of-school contexts also
slightly decreased the part-day kindergarten advan
tage for children's achievement trajectories from the
spring of kindergarten to the spring of fifth grade.
Indeed, the coefficient on the part-day kindergarten
indicator for the second slope of children's math and
ipated that by the end of the kindergarten year, children
in full-day kindergarten outscored part-day kinder
garteners by 0.11 of 1 SD for math and 0.15 of 1 SD for
reading, which is one half to one quarter of a reduction
in the expected gain based on the first set of conditional
models.
In Model 3 of Tables 3 and 4, an extensive set of
potentially confounding factors were added as pre
dictors of children's achievement trajectories, with
child and family characteristics added to the Level 2
equations and school characteristics added at Level 3.
The introduction of this comprehensive set of control
variables resulted in slight increases in the association
between kindergarten program type and academic
achievement at the fall of kindergarten. More impor
reading trajectories fell by about 9% with the introduc
tantly, however, it led to further reduction of the benefit
tion of the additional measures into the analysis. Again,
of full-day kindergarten for the growth of academic
skills during kindergarten. Indeed, the part-day kin
dergarten coefficients on the kindergarten slope terms
in the prior conditional models decreased 16% and 8%
for math and reading, respectively. The quality of
cognitive stimulation in the home environment and
family poverty status were responsible for this reduc
tion. This suggests that the convergence of the achieve
ment trajectories of children in part- and full-day
kindergarten may in part be explained by the lower
levels of poverty and the more stimulating home
environments of children enrolled in part-day, as
opposed to full-day kindergarten programs. Based on
this second set of conditional models, it can be antic
children's home environment and their household
poverty status continued to be significantly associated
with achievement trajectories during kindergarten,
though the sizes of these coefficients dropped with
the inclusion of the more comprehensive set of
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 04:20:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Full- Versus Part-Day Kindergarten 971
Table 4
Kindergarten Program Type and Reading Trajectories From Fall of Kindergarten to Spring of Fifth Grade
Model 1
Coefficient
Panel A. Intercept
Model 2
SE
Coefficient
Intercept 29.455*** 0.259 29.714***
Part day -0.216 0.343-1.008*
?3.449***
Poverty
4.576***
Home learning environment
Hours per week in child care3
-0.009
-1.568**
Head Start3
3.758***
1.047*
2.607***
Center care3
Relative home-based care3
Nonrelative home-based care3
2.155**
Multiple types of care3
Hours per week in child careb
-0.003
-0.061
Center careb
Relative home-based careb
Nonrelative home-based careb
-1.304***
Multiple types of careb
Age of entry
Changed teacher during kindergarten
0.006
-0.720
Model 3
SE
0.200
0.285
0.222
0.282
0.007
0.433
0.352
0.479
0.542
0.631
0.009
0.313
0.330
0.459
0.614
Coefficient
SE
29.962***
0.183
0.259
0.228
0.234
-1.081***
-0.829**
2.697***
-0.002
-0.992*
1.812***
0.419
0.797
0.802
0.005
-0.631*
-0.863**
-0.237
-0.626
0.444***
-0.527
Male
Race
African American
0.069
3.409***
0.333
0.322
0.704
0.287
?1 427***
0.153***
0.667
0.283
0.021
1.173***
2.235***
4.000***
6.453***
0.278
0.285
0.355
0.466
-0.870***
0.227
1.046
0.283
0.458
0.488
0.077
0.341
0.383
0.316
0.362
0.247
0.295
Non-Hispanic Asian
Native American
-2.029**
Highest parental education
High school degree
Vocational/technical program
Bachelor's degree
Advanced degree
Marital status
Divorced/separated
Widowed
-0.062
-0.675*
Never married
-1.116*
Adoptive/no biological dad
Non-English home language
Number of children in household
Midwest
West
-1.123*
?0.729***
-0.003
1.255**
0.346
1.661***
-0.576*
-1.339***
South
Private
Central city
Rural
Panel B. Time Ie
Intercept 2.930*** 0.047
Part day -0.298*** 0.073
Poverty
Home learning environment
2.970***
-0.243***
-0.290***
0.328***
0.043
0.062
0.046
0.050
0.401
0.162
-0.945**
Low birth weight
Maternal age at first birth (years)
0.025
?1.449***
Hispanic
Multiracial
0.007
0.417
0.337
0.470
0.513
0.602
0.010
0.288
0.311
0.445
0.569
3.030***
-0.243***
-0.178***
0.253***
0.587
0.042
0.063
0.049
0.045
(Continued)
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 04:20:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
972 Votruba-Drzal, Li-Grining, and Maldonado-Carre?o
Table 4
Continued
Model 1
Coefficient
Model 3
Model 2
SE
Coefficient
SE
Coefficient
Hours per week in child careb
Center careb
Relative home-based careb
Nonrelative home-based careb
-0.003
0.002
-0.001
0.059
0.058
Multiple types of careb
Age of entry
Changed teacher during kindergarten
0.052
0.064
0.115
-0.093
-0.059
0.017
-0.032
-0.020
0.089
-0.024
0.031***
-0.272*
-0.257***
Male
Race
-0.313***
-0.1141
African American
Hispanic
0.368***
Non-Hispanic Asian
Native American
-0.216f
-0.011
-0.171*
Multiracial
Low birth weight
Maternal age at first birth (years)
0.004
Highest parental education
High school degree
Vocational/technical program
Bachelor's degree
Advanced degree
Marital status
0.154**
0.331***
0.445***
0.624***
Divorced / separated
Widowed
Adoptive/no biological dad
Non-English home language
Number of children in household
0.184*
Rural
-0.124
1.639***
0.073***
Intercept
Part day
Poverty
Home learning environment
Age of entry
Changed teacher during kindergarten
0.014
0.011
1.646***
0.066***
-0.149***
0.042***
0.014
0.010
-0.012
0.009
Male
Race
African American
1.655***
0.055***
0.078***
Non-Hispanic Asian
Native American
Multiracial
-0.005
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 04:20:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
0.064
0.070
0.088
0.055
0.070
0.015
0.079
0.090
0.081
0.088
0.059
0.076
0.014
0.010
0.012
0.010
0.001
-0.093***
0.014
-0.043f
Maternal age at first birth (years)
0.057
0.010
-0.097***
Low birth weight
0.066
0.099
0.121
0.100
0.067
0.004
-0.002*
-0.009
-0.015
-0.026t
-0.080***
Hispanic
0.069
0.105
0.234**
0.136
-0.029
Panel C Time 2d
0.105
0.033
-0.219*
0.095
Central city
0.055
0.061
0.112
0.004
0.050
0.178
-0.1201
-0.062***
Midwest
West
South
Private
0.002
0.057
-0.037
0.070
-0.231***
Never married
SE
0.005
0.002**
0.023
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.023
0.016
0.001
Full- Versus Part-Day Kindergarten 973
Table 4
Continued
Model 1
Coefficient
Model 2
SE
Coefficient
Model 3
SE
Highest parental education
High school degree
Vocational/technical program
Bachelor's degree
Advanced degree
Marital status
Divorced / separated
Widowed
Coefficient
SE
0.087***
0.139***
0.191***
0.207***
0.017
0.016
0.018
0.009
0.012
0.041
0.013
0.023
0.014
-0.034
0.002
Never married
0.034
-0.025f
Adoptive/no biological dad
Non-English home language
Number of children in household
-0.013***
0.000
-0.038*
-0.016
0.004
-0.006
-0.028f
Midwest
West
South
Private
Central city
Rural
0.020
0.003
0.014
0.015
0.014
0.013
0.010
0.014
3Child-care characteristics at prekindergarten.
bChild-care characteristics at kindergarten.
cRate of change during the kindergarten year.
dRate of change from the spring of kindergarten until the spring of fifth grade.
]p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
covariates. The introduction of this extensive set of
covariates in Model 3 of Tables 3 and 4 further atten
uated the association between kindergarten program
type and achievement trajectories from the spring of
kindergarten to fifth grade as well. Indeed, compared
to Model 2, 36% of the part-day growth advantage in
math and 17% of the part-day growth advantage for
reading were explained by this set of covariates.
Although child poverty continued to be significantly
related to the second slope term, cognitive stimulation
in the home environment was no longer a significant
predictor. Thus, it appears that differences in poverty
status, not cognitive stimulation in the home environ
ment, may be responsible for explaining the part-day
kindergarten advantage in academic growth from the
spring of kindergarten through fifth grade.
examining the implications of full- versus part-day
kindergarten for children's learning trajectories. Spe
cifically, this investigation recognizes both the hetero
geneity of children's achievement trajectories and the
complex configuration of child, family, and nonpar
ental care factors that affect their developmental
trajectories. In doing so, this study provides impor
tant insights about the size and persistence of the full
day kindergarten advantage and strengthens our
understanding of when and why the full-day kinder
garten advantage seems to fade out soon after the end
of the kindergarten year.
Full- Versus Part-Day Kindergarteners: A Descriptive
Portrait
Our descriptive portrayal of a nationally represen
tative sample of kindergarteners revealed several
Discussion
Full-day kindergarten experiences are becoming
increasingly common for children across the United
States. Yet, there are notable gaps in the literature
regarding whether full-day kindergarten attendance
is advantageous for children's development. This is
the first study to take a developmental approach to
significant, but generally modest, differences in out
of-school dimensions and individual characteristics
of children in part- versus full-day kindergarten
programs. Among the most notable difference is the
racial composition of the two groups of children.
More specifically, a greater proportion of children
in part-day kindergarten were of Hispanic, non
Hispanic White, Asian, and multiracial backgrounds,
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 04:20:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
974 Votruba-Drzal, Li-Grining, and Maldonado-Carre?o
and a smaller proportion were of non-Hispanic Black
and Native American race/ethnicity, in comparison
to full-day kindergarteners. The largest difference
when it came to racial composition was in the pro
portion of children of non-Hispanic Black ethnicity in
each group. This proportion was three times higher
among full-day kindergarteners (22%) when com
pared to part-day kindergarten students (7%). On
the whole, the bivariate analysis suggests that part
day kindergarteners were more advantaged socio
economically; however, the multivariate analyses that
controlled for these differences surprisingly revealed
higher levels of academic achievement at the fall of
two times as much time in school as half-day kinder
garteners, they did not receive two times as much
instruction (Xue, Burkam, & Lee, 2002). For example,
full-day kindergarten teachers spend 5.5 hr per week
in reading and language arts and 3.7 hr in mathemat
ics, whereas part-day kindergarten teachers spend 4.3
hr in reading and language arts and 2.5 hr in math
ematics (Xue et al., 2002). Furthermore, full- and part
day classes are organized in similar ways, in terms
of the proportion of time spent in whole class, small
group, individual, and child-selected activities
(Walston & West, 2002). Additional research on
the heterogeneity of instructional practices and of
kindergarten among children enrolled in full-day teacher - child interactions that occur within part- and
kindergarten. Future research that more carefully full-day kindergarten programs may help identify
models families' selection of full- versus part-day whether characteristics of kindergarten beyond pro
programs for their children is needed to untangle gram type are more successful in promoting student
achievement.
the more complex story detected here.
Benefits of Full-Day Kindergarten Attendance During the
Fading Benefits of Full-Day Kindergarten Attendance
Transition to School
During Early Elementary School
The results of this study concur with the existing
body of research that has largely shown significant
academic benefits of full- versus part-day kindergar
ten programs (e.g., Cannon, Jacknowitz, & Painter,
2006; Clark & Kirk, 2000; Gullo, 2000; Kaplan, 2002;
Perhaps the most troubling finding of the present
study is that the academic benefits of full-day kinder
garten subside soon after children leave kindergarten.
This is congruent with past research that has found
that the academic benefits of full-day kindergarten
are relatively short lived (Karweit, 1987; Ohio State
Legislative Office of Education, 1997; Weiss & Offen
berg, 2002). Unlike prior research, this developmental
Lee et al., 2006; Walston & West, 2004; Weiss &
Offenberg, 2002). Unlike prior studies, however, the
current investigation linked kindergarten program
type not only to levels of academic achievement but
approach paints a more nuanced understanding of
math and reading skills during the kindergarten year
the fade-out of the full-day kindergarten advantage,
both by providing a more precise estimate of when the
fade-out occurs and by shedding light on factors that
also to individual growth trajectories of students'
using data from a nationally representative study.
Without controls for important child, family, and
nonparental care characteristics, full-day kindergar
ten students' achievement grew at a rate that was
0.246 points per month faster in math and 0.298 points
per month faster in reading. This amounted to a mod
est advantage in math and reading achievement,
which was roughly one fifth of 1 SD. After an
extensive set of child, family, school, and nonparental
care characteristics were introduced to the growth
models, the magnitude of the full-day kindergarten
advantage dropped in half for math and by one
quarter for reading, resulting in estimates of the full
day kindergarten advantage that are quite small and
are similar to those found by Cannon et al. (2006) with
these same data.
The modest nature of the full-day advantage may
be attributed to slight differences in the amount and
type of instruction taking place in kindergarten class
rooms. Although teachers participating in the ECLS
K report that full-day kindergarteners spent roughly
are partially responsible for explaining why the
trajectories of children in part- and full-day kinder
garten converge. The fade-out occurs as the trajecto
ries of children in part-day kindergarten grow at
a steeper rate from the spring of kindergarten to the
spring of fifth grade. Our models suggest that the
advantage of full- versus part-day kindergarten fades
out approximately 36 months after the spring of
kindergarten assessment, or in the spring of third
grade. Furthermore, the fade-out appears to be attrib
uted to differences in the children and families that
attend part- and full-day kindergarten, as well as
school characteristics associated with kindergarten
program type. These differences explained 42% of the
part-day kindergarten growth advantage in math
from the spring of kindergarten through the spring
of fifth grade and 25% of the part-day growth advan
tage for reading. Thus, it seems that the greater
selection of children from, for example, economically
disadvantaged households and a non-Hispanic Black
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 04:20:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Full- Versus Part-Day Kindergarten 975
ethnie background contributes to the fade-out of the What is perhaps most concerning is the immediate
full-day kindergarten advantage after the end of the nature of these benefits, which raises questions about
kindergarten year. It is important to recognize, how
whether the cost of full-day as opposed to part-day
kindergarten programs is associated with sufficient
ever, that this study is not able to rule out the threat of
omitted variable bias when examining the fade-out of
benefits for children and society.
the full-day kindergarten advantage during the early
It is difficult based on the existing literature to
elementary school years. Indeed, we are not able to rule determine the cost of full-day kindergarten programs.
out the possibility that it may be an unmeasured
characteristic of parents or children that jointly explain
families' home environment quality and economic
status, which seem to be important in explaining the
fade-out of the full-day kindergarten advantage.
Furthermore, this study fell short of entirely ex
plaining why the growth rates of children attending
part-day kindergarten programs tend to catch up to
their full-day kindergarten counterparts so quickly.
Other factors, such as subsequent schooling experi
ences, may be at play. Research on Head Start pro
grams, the federally funded early childhood
education intervention for economically disadvan
taged children, lends support for this hypothesis. Lee
Cost estimates range substantially, even within the
same state. According to Weiss and Offenberg (2002),
who have conducted a cost-benefit analysis of full
day kindergarten in the School District of Philadel
phia, the cost of full-day kindergarten is approxi
mately $2,300 per year per child. Yet, the
Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children (2000) esti
mated the median instructional expense of full-day
kindergarten per pupil to be $5,216. A comprehensive
cost-benefit analysis would be required to evaluate
the relative effectiveness of public investments in
full-day kindergarten as opposed to investment in
other programs for children. To carefully conduct
such an analysis, it would be important to look at
and Loeb (1995) as well as Currie and Thomas (2000)
found that differences in the schooling experiences
subsequent to Head Start participation are important
for understanding why Head Start effects seem to
academic achievement, such as measures of socio
emotional functioning and physical health and well
being. Of course, the other rather obvious benefit of
fade out over time. For example, using data from the
full-day kindergarten that must be taken into account
National Education Longitudinal Study of 1988, Lee
and Loeb found that children who attended Head
Start were educated in schools of significantly lower
quality, defined by social composition, academic
rigor, safety, and social relations, when compared to
counterparts who did not attend preschool and espe
cially when compared to peers who attended other
preschools. Similarly, more socioeconomically disad
vantaged full-day kindergarten students may be
attending schools of lower quality compared to the
quality of schools attended by part-day kindergarten
ers. In other words, differences in children's later
schooling experiences may erode the benefits associ
ated with both Head Start and full-day kindergarten
participation.
other domains of student functioning in addition to
in a systematic analysis is its linkage with parental
employment. Cannon et al. (2006) found that mothers
are more likely to work full time in the kindergarten
year if their children attend full-day kindergarten.
Increases in parental employment benefit society with
higher tax revenue and can boost families' household
income. It may be that these benefits end up being
more important in making the case for full-day
kindergarten in the policy arena than are achievement
gains made by full-day kindergarteners. Although the
present study provides useful information about
associations between kindergarten program type
and two domains of achievement, a more systematic
accounting of the costs and benefits of the program,
similar to what has been conducted for the Perry
Preschool Project (Barnett, 1996; Belfield, Nores, Bar
nett, & Schweinhart, 2006), is necessary to evaluate
Policy Implications
Though it is impossible to reduce the threats of
selection or omitted variable bias entirely with non
experimental data, the results of this study suggest
that the shift from part- to full-day kindergarten
programs occurring across the United States may
have positive implications for students' learning
public investments in full-day kindergarten.
Conclusions
In sum, this study advances the literature on full
versus part-day kindergarten attendance by situating
modest but meaningful differences in the achieve
such programs in a developmental context. Unlike
prior studies in this research area, we recognized
individual differences in children's achievement
ment trajectories of full- and part-day kindergarten
students that favor full-day kindergarten programs.
acteristics, family factors, and nonparental care
trajectories, at least in the short run. Here, we find
trajectories as well as the constellation of child char
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 04:20:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
976 Votruba-Drzal, Li-Grining, and Maldonado-Carre?o
experiences that add nuance and texture to children's
lives. In doing so, this study moved beyond static
views of children's achievement and revealed that
attending full-day kindergarten yielded a modest
benefit to children's academic trajectories over time.
Furthermore, our developmental approach high
lighted the importance of considering not only
whether children attending full-day programs were
able to sustain these benefits but also when children
enrolled in full-day programs no longer maintained
this advantage. Here, we pinpointed that academic
benefits associated with full-day kindergarten
program attendance faded out by the end of the
primary grades. Last, our developmental view
brought children's background characteristics and
experiences into the "foreground" of understanding
differences between children attending full- versus
part-day kindergarten programs. In focusing on the
multifaceted nature of children's lives, we found that
child and family characteristics played noteworthy
roles in why full-day benefits exist and in why these
advantages fade relatively quickly. Incorporating
a developmental perspective into future studies of
policies relevant to young children's educational
experiences may similarly prove fruitful.
References
Acock, A. C. (2005). Working with missing values. Journal
of Marriage and Family, 67, 1012-1028.
Broberg, A. G., Wessels, H., Lamb, M. E., & Hwang, C. P.
(1997). Effects of day care on the development of
cognitive abilities in 8-year-olds: A longitudinal study.
Developmental Psychology, 33, 62-69.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human develop
ment: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecolog
ical model of human development. In R. Lerner
(Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Theoretical models
of human development (Vol. 1, 6th ed., pp. 793-893).
New York: John Wiley.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Han W., & Waldfogel, J. (2002). Maternal
employment and child cognitive outcomes in the first
three years of life: The NICHD study of early child care.
Child Development, 73, 1052-1072.
Brooks-Gunn, J., Klebanov, P. K., & Liaw, F. R. (1995). The
learning, physical, and emotional environment of the
home in the context of poverty: The Infant Health and
Development Program. Children and Youth Services
Review, 17,251-276.
Burchinal, M., & Appelbaum, M. I. (1991). Estimating
individual developmental functions: Methods and their
assumptions. Child Development, 62, 23-43.
Burchinal, M., Nelson, L., & Poe, M. (2006). Growth curve
analysis: An introduction to various methods for ana
lyzing longitudinal data. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, 71(3).
Burriss, K. G. (2000). All-day kindergarten. Childhood
Education, 76, 228-231.
Caldwell, B. M., & Bradley, R. H. (1979). Home observation for
measurement of the environment. Little Rock: Center for Child
First-grade classroom behavior: Its short- and long-term
Development and Education, University of Arkansas.
Cannon, J. S., Jacknowitz, A., & Painter, G. (2006). Is full
better than half? Examining the longitudinal effects of
full-day kindergarten attendance. Journal of Policy Anal
ysis and Management, 25, 299-321.
bles in regression analysis. In C. C. Clogg (Ed.),
Caughy, M., DiPietro, J., & Strobino, D. (1994). Day-care
participation as a protective factor in the cognitive
Alexander, K. L., Entwisle, D. R., & Dauber, S. L. (1993).
consequences for school performance. Child Develop
ment, 64, 801-814.
Allison, P. D. (1990). Change scores as dependent varia
Sociological methodology (pp. 93-114). Oxford, England:
Basil Blackwell.
Barnett, W. S. (1996). Lives in balance: Age 27 benefit-cost
analysis of the High/Scope Perry Preschool Program (Mono
graphs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foun
dation, 11). Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.
Belfield, C. R., Nores, M., Barnett, S., & Schweinhart, L.
(2006). The High/Scope Perry Preschool Program: Cost
benefit analysis using data from the age-40 follow-up.
Journal of Human Resources, 41, 162-190.
Bogenschneider, K., & Steinberg, L. (1994). Mater
nal employment and adolescents' academic achieve
ment: A developmental analysis. Sociology of Education,
67,60-77.
Bradley, R. H., Corwyn, R. F., Burchinal, M., McAdoo,
H. P., & Garcia Coll, C. (2001). The home environment of
children in the United States Part II: Relations with
behavioral development through age thirteen. Child
Development, 72, 1868-1886.
development of low-income children. Child development,
65, 457-471.
Clark, P., & Kirk, E. (2000). All-day kindergarten. Childhood
Education, 76, 228-231.
Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, Office of Education.
Cryan, J., Sheehan, R., Wiechel, J., & Bandy-Hedden, I.
(1992). Success outcomes of full-day kindergarten: More
positive behavior and increased achievement in the years
after. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 187-203.
Currie, J., & Thomas, D. (2000). School quality and the
longer-term effects of Head Start. Journal of Human
Resources, 35, 755 -774.
Dearing, E., McCartney, K, & Taylor, B. A. (2001). Change
in family income-to-needs matters more for children
with less. Child Development, 72, 1779-1793.
Duncan, G. J., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1997). Consequences of
growing up poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
This content downloaded from 129.219.247.33 on Wed, 17 Jan 2018 04:20:18 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Full- Versus Part-Day Kindergarten 977
Duncan, G. J., Brooks-Gunn, J., Yeung, W. J., & Smith, J. R.
(1998). How much does childhood poverty affect the life
chances of children? American Sociological Review, 63,
406-423.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). PPVT-Revised manual.
Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Dunn, L. M., & Markwardt, F. C. (1970). Peabody individual
achievement test manual. Circle Pines, MN: American
Guidance Service.
Elicker, J., & Mathur, S. (1997). What do they do all day?
Comprehensive evaluation of a full-day kindergarten.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 187-204.
Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L., Cadigan, D., & Pallas,
A. M. (1987). Kindergarten experience: Cognitive effects
or Socialization? American Educational Research Journal,
24, 337-364.
Entwisle, D. R., Alexander, K. L., & Olson, L. S. (1997).
Children, schools, and inequality. Boulder, CO: Westview
Press.
Evans, G. W., & English, K. (2002). The environment of
poverty: Multiple Stressor exposure, psychophysiologi
cal stress, and socioemotional adjustment. Child Devel
Lee, V. E., & Loeb, S. (1995). Where do Head Start attend
ees end up? One reason why preschool effects fade out.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17, 62-82.
Markwardt, F. C. (1989). Peabody Individual Achievement
test-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance
Service.
McCoach, D. B., O'Connell, A. A., Reis, S. M., & Levitt
(2006). Growing readers: A hierarchical linear model of
children's reading growth during the first 2 years of
school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 14-28.
McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage
and child development. American Psychologist, 53,
185-204.
Morrison, F J., Bachman, H. J., & Connor, C. M. (2005).
Improving literacy in America: Guidelines from research.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
National Center for Children in Poverty. (2006). Basic facts
about low-income children: Birth to age 6. New York:
National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia
University, Mailman School of Public Health.
opment, 73, 1238-1248.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop
ment Early Child Care Research Network. (2000). The
relation of child care to cognitive and language devel
school behavior and performance. Child Development,
National Institute of Child Health and Human Deve
Field, T. (1991). Quality infant day-care and grade
62,863-870.
Foster, E. M., & Kalil, A. (2005). Developmental psychol
ogy and public policy: Progress and prospects. Develop
mental Psychology, 41, 827-832.
Gullo, D. F. (2000). The long-term educational effects of
half-day vs. full-day kindergarten. Early Childhood Devel
opment and Care, 160, 17-24.
Gullo, D. F., Bersani, C. U, Clements, D. H., & Bayless,
K. M. (1986). A comparative study of "all-day/7 "alter
nate-day," and "half-day" kindergarten schedules: Ef
fects on achievement and classroom social behaviors.
Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 1, 87-94.
Harvey, E. (1999). Short-term and long-term effects of
early parental employment on children of the National
Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Child Development, 35,
445-459.
Huber, P. J. (1967). The behavior or maximum likelihood
estimates under non-standard conditions. Proceedings of
the Fifth Berkeley Symposium on Mathematical Statistics and
Probability, 4,221-233.
Kaplan, D. (2002). Methodological advances in the analysis
of individual growth with relevance to education policy.
Peabody Journal of Education, 77, 189-215.
Karweit, N. (1987). Full or half day kindergarten?Does it
matter? (Report No. 11). Baltimore: Center for Research
on Elementary and Middle Schools, The Johns Hopkins
University.
Karweit, N. (1992). The...
Purchase answer to see full
attachment