Effects Of All-Day, And Half-Day Kindergarten Programming On Reading, Writing, Math, And Classroom Social Behaviors

A study was conducted to compare the relative effects of three different kindergarten schedules on children’s achievement in reading, writing, and math and prosocial classroom behaviors. Subjects included 47 children attending all-day kindergarten, 56 children attending alternateday kindergarten, and 44 children attending half-day kindergarten. Individual achievement tests were administered in a pre-posttest procedure. Analysis of covariance showed the all-day kindergarten group scored significantly higher in reading, with no significant differences in math and writing. Multivariate analysis of covariance for the 14 subscales of classroom social behaviors on the Hahnemann Elementary Behavior Rating Scale (HEBS) (Spivak & Swift, 1975) showed significant differences between groups, with the half-day children exhibiting higher scores on classroom behaviors that facilitate learning and lower scores on negative behaviors. Possible reasons for these differences and implications of developmentally appropriate practices, teachers’ theoretical orientation to reading instruction, and parent survey information are discussed. Changing economic and social conditions has caused many school districts to modify kindergarten programming. Teachers, parents, administrators, and school boards are challenged with meeting the physical, social, and cognitive needs of five-year-olds amid the realities of diminishing fiscal resources and the need for all-day professional child care. These pragmatic factors have led educators to seek empirical evidence to guide kindergarten decision making. The studies that presently exist fail to directly compare the relative effects of all three kindergarten schedules—all-day, every day; half-day, every day; and all-day, alternate days (hereafter referred to as all-day, half-day, and alternate-day, respectively)–on the same variables. The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to use multiple data collection techniques to compare academic achievement and prosocial classroom behaviors of children attending all-day, alternate-day, and half-day kindergarten programs. The children were administered individual standardized reading and math assessments in a pre-post procedure. Writing development was assessed using an informal instrument individually administered in the fall and spring. Kindergarten teachers evaluated individual classroom social behaviors using a standardized rating scale. Teachers’ theoretical orientation to reading instruction was assessed. A questionnaire distributed by kindergarten teachers at parent-teacher conferences was used to survey parents’ literacy backgrounds and behaviors. The level of use of developmentally appropriate practices was measured using an informal classroom observational rating scale developed from the Nebraska Kindergarten Paper (1984) and consistent with the National Association for the Education of Young Children’s (NAEYC) guidelines (Bredekamp, 1987). In the past, the primary concern in kindergarten programming change has been to ensure that children continue to receive the same number of contact hours each year. On the basis of reviews and critiques of kindergarten programming research (Jalongo, 1986; Karweit, 1987; Puleo, 1988), it was predicted that the quantity of time children spent in school would be far less significant than the quality of the kindergarten experience. It was further hypothesized that assessing the level of developmentally appropriate classroom practices, teachers’ theoretical orientation to reading instruction, early child care and educational experiences of children and the literacy contributions of parents would provide a lens to see what good instructional practice can look like in a nurturing kindergarten learning environment that is academic in a more appropriate way than traditional instruction. A review of the literature revealed that this study established bench marks for kindergarten programming research not met to date by other published studies. This study, conducted within one school district using a common kindergarten curriculum, used individually administered standardized assessments in a preposttest procedure to compare the relative effects of three different kindergarten schedules (all-day, alternate-day, and half-day) on children’s cognitive and social performance. The formal measures were substantiated with informal assessment data providing a comprehensive overview of the whole child. Research Favoring Half-Day Kindergarten Programs Few research studies demonstrate superiority of the half-day schedule over other programs (Gullo, Bersani, Clements, & Bayless, 1986). Pigge (1979) reported that children attending the half-day schedule scored significantly higher on the Metropolitan Reading Readiness Test than statistically matched peers in an alternate-day program. Wenger (1978), in one of the only kindergarten programming studies utilizing prepost data, reported that the morning half-day group scored significantly higher than the afternoon half-day group or the alternate-day group on the Walker Readiness Test. Research Favoring Alternate-Day Kindergarten Programs In recent years, school districts that have modified the traditional kindergarten program to an all-day, alternate-day schedule have done so in an effort to save on transportation costs (fuel and drivers’ salaries) and to avoid complicated transportation schedules (Minnesota State Department of Education, 1972; Cleminshaw & Guidubaldi, 1979; Ulrey, Alexander, Bender, & Gillis, 1982). Research studies have generally shown that alternate-day programming is at least as academically effective as half-day schedules (Cleminshaw & Guidubaldi, 1979; Gomowich, Volker, & Landry, 1974; Gullo et al., 1986; Gullo & Clements, 1984; Minnesota State Department of Education, 1972; Mouw, 1976; Schulz, 1981; Smith, 1980; Ulrey et al., 1982). Gornowich et al. (1974) conducted a study involving 787 kindergarten students over a four-year period. Data were collected from half-day programming the first three years and alternateday schedules the fourth year. Scores on the Metropolitan Reading Readiness Test indicated significant differences favoring the alternate-day group. Cleminshaw and Guidubaldi (1979) compared the relative effects of half-day and alternate-day kindergarten schedules on children’s academic skills and social competency. They reported significant differences favoring the alternate-day children in academic skills as measured by the Metropolitan Reading Readiness Test and in social competency as measured by the Kuhn Social Competence Scale. In a longitudinal study of the effects of alternate-day and half-day kindergarten programming on academic and affective variables, Smith (1980) found that alternate-day children scored significantly higher on the Metropolitan Reading Readiness Test and on two affective variables—social maturity and self-security—using the Self-Observation Scale. No significant differences were found between the half-day and alternate-day kindergarten groups on any variables at the fourth grade level. Gullo et al. (1986) reported that children from alternate-day kindergarten schedules were rated significantly lower by their teachers on negative social behavior factors than children from all-day and halfday kindergarten programming on the Hahnemann Elementary School Behavior Rating Scale. Research Favoring All-Day Kindergarten Programs Three reviews synthesizing the comparison research regarding all-day kindergarten programs found the effect of all-day kindergarten programming on basic academic skills to be positive (Karweit, 1987; Puleo, 1988 Stinard, 1982). In a study critiquing all-day kindergarten research for methodological limitations and general weaknesses, Puleo (1988) reported no quantitative evidence supporting significant differences regarding effects on social, emotional, and developmental factors. However, a range of anecdotal accounts of the benefits of all-day programming existed. Stinard (1982) found that in 33 comparisons of academic achievement of kindergarten children involved in eight studies, 85% favored all-day kindergarten programming, none favored half-day programming, and 15% of the studies reported no differences between the two groups. Karweit (1987) used a "best-evidence synthesis" technique to categorize existing kindergarten programming research by each study’s methodological rigor. She found that although underachieving and disadvantaged students benefited from receiving the additional instruction provided by allday schedules, the benefits were found to be short-term measures with no demonstrated long-term effects. Gullo et al. (1986) conducted a study of 216 students to compare the relative effects of three different kindergarten schedules on children’s end-of-year achievement and prosocial classroom behaviors. No significant differences were found among the three groups on a test of entry level development. At the end of the year, the children in the all-day kindergarten schedule scored significantly higher than either of the other two groups on the total score of the Metropolitan Reading Readiness Test. Nieman and Gastright (1975) conducted a longitudinal study comparing the effects of preschool and all-day kindergarten experience with preschool and half-day kindergarten experience on children’s academic performance. The children with preschool and all-day kindergarten backgrounds scored significantly higher on achievement measures, with these differences being maintained through the second grade. Research Favoring No Differences in Kindergarten Programs In the literature, four studies reported no significant differences in achievement between children attending half-day and alternate-day kindergarten programs. Gullo (1990) reported no significant differences between teachers’ ability to assess children’s end-of-year achievement in half-day and all-day schedules when comparing all three types of kindergarten programming. Mouw (1976) reported no significant differences between half-day and alternate-day groups using The Cognitive Abilities Test to compare academic performance. Ulrey et al. (1982) used a control-comparison design to investigate school performance and parent satisfaction. No significant differences in achievement and behavior between the groups were found. However, parental dissatisfaction appeared to increase in the alternate-day program. Gullo and Clements (1984) found no significant differences between half-day and alternate-day kindergarten groups on achievement variables using the Metropolitan Reading Readiness Test. Summary of Previous Research Kindergarten programming research to date contains a number of weaknesses. Few studies contained pretest measures to establish differences in children’s entry level development. The use of random selection of children from a variety of settings to account for teacher, curriculum, school, cultural, or individual differences was not evident. All studies to date used group achievement testing to measure academic performance of kindergarten students. Many of the comparison studies were done across school districts without regard to a common kindergarten curriculum or use of developmentally appropriate classroom practices. Finally, only one other study has utilized a comparison of the relative effects of all three different kindergarten schedules on both children’s academic and social competence (Gullo et al., 1986) without extrapolating from other studies. The present study was designed to counteract the limitations found in the existing research in the following ways: (a) all three types of kindergarten programming were directly compared on the same variables; (b) pretest procedures were used to determine children’s entry level development; (c) individual standardized tests were administered in a risk-free environment for young children; (d) individual assessment measures were used in reading, writing, and math; (e) classroom prosocial behaviors were assessed by kindergarten teachers who were well acquainted with the social competence of their students using a standardized rating scale; (f) anecdotal data were collected to triangulate formal assessment measures.