| A Comparison of the Reading Performance Of First Grade Students After Full-Day and Half-Day Kindergarten |
Background:
The
kindergarten movement has undergone a variety of transitions as the influence
of educational, social, and psychological theories have evolved. What educators
are currently debating in this area may well be a rediscovery of something that
had been implemented before the turn of the century (Bryant & Clifford,
1992; Caldwell, 1989).
Kindergarten has a 176 year history. The birth of kindergarten was in 1837 by Frederick Froebel, a German philosopher and educator. He believed that children after the age of three should be placed in the care of a properly trained governess for a portion of the day. Froebel Òviewed education as supporting development and emphasized self-directed activities that fostered the child's innate curiosity and sense of social responsibilityÓ (Olsen & Zigler, 1989, p. 170). He rigidly prescribed the use of materials focusing on fine motor skills, which he devised for his school (Bryant & Clifford, 1992). Froebel focused little attention on the length of the kindergarten day (Holmes & McConnell, 1990). In 1856, Froebel's student, Margaret Schurz, introduced the first kindergarten for German-speaking students in the United States in Wisconsin. From Wisconsin the kindergarten philosophy spread to Boston in 1860 where Elizabeth Peabody opened the first private, English-speaking kindergarten. By 1873, the first public kindergarten was opened in St. Louis by Susan Blow and by the 1880Õs there were hundreds of kindergartens in the public schools throughout the United States (Bryant & Clifford, 1992). In this country, kindergarten started as a full-day program (Holmes & McConnell, 1990; Karweit, 1992; Naron, 1981) and continued with this format until World War II. Because of the shortage of qualified teachers and building space, the growing birthrate, and the feeling that 5-year-olds were not mature enough for a full-day program, the half-day kindergarten schedule became popular (Puelo, 1988). Many methods and theories have come and gone, yet most have been found to support the concept of a full-day kindergarten program (Bryant & Clifford, 1992). Theorists currently suggest that large blocks of time are required for optimal learning conditions during the early years.
ÒVygotsky believed that mental functions are acquired through social relationships in which adults scaffold for children when necessary, stepping back at the appropriate time and allowing youngsters to internalize activities, emulate behaviors, and incorporate them into existing structures of knowledge. Providing opportunities for this type of process learning requires large blocks of time for exploration, and a variety of experiences and materials. This is not always possible in the constraints of a half-day programÓ (Morrow, Strickland, & Woo, 1998, p. 11).
Connecting
such theories to literacy development in early childhood is critical.
Developmental programs should draw from theorists such as Vygotsky whose
theories have far reaching implications for the education of young children
(Walsh, 1989, Ruddell & Ruddell, 1994). Many studies have shown the
positive effect of intervention in children's language development, as well as,
problem solving abilities, and a variety of cognitive skills. This is also a
time when
children begin their drive
towards independence as well as develop their self-esteem, social awareness,
and peer interactions. Healthy focus on the development of these areas during
the first year of schooling will prove integral to future academic and social
functioning (Magnani & Galvin,1995; West, Denton, & Reaney, 2001).
Reasons:
A
five-year-oldÕs brain is most receptive to learning, and can be exposed to a
broader curriculum that can be offered in a full-day program (Alber-Kelsay,
1998; Holmes & McConnell, 1990). According to recent research in early
childhood development, this is the time in a childÕs life when the brain is
most receptive to learning. It is imperative that the child of five be given an
education, which is developmentally appropriate, which will be immediately
satisfying, and which will help to build good foundations from which to build
his future education. Stimulating activities help a young brain build the
neural connectors that will carry learning and independent thought
(Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children, 2000). Through these education
practices, the child would be able to develop all the physical, mental, social,
and emotional support needed now and in the future (Harrison-McEachern, 1989;
Holmes & McConnell, 1990). The early years of a childÕs life are critical
for building the foundations for later school learning, not only in the
social-emotional development of a child, but also in the development of
critical cognitive skills that are needed for reading and writing. We now know
that children can learn to an acceptable mastery when provided with appropriate
instruction presented at their developmental level. The use of diagnosis and
remediation as part of the teaching-learning strategy will help the teacher
recognize the childÕs stages of learning and supply the appropriate learning
experience for all kindergarten children, regardless of the length of the
school day (Harrison-McEachern, 1989; Karweit, 1992; Naron, 1981).
ÒAs all too many curricula are oriented to learning products (knowing shapes and colors, numbers and letters, and so forth) rather than to learning processes (how to think, how to solve problems), it is inevitable that these children are going to appear ready for something other than what many schools traditionally offerÓ (Caldwell, 1989, p. 264).
The function and form of the
kindergarten experience must be reexamined. Parents want a kindergarten program
that reflects the reality that their children have spent three to four years in
preschool or day care and now need something that is different from what
previous kindergarten programs had offered.
ÒWe listened to you. We provided early stimulation and enrichment. We chose quality rather than warehousing our children in their early childcare. And our children have done just what you said they would do. They have learned more, and theyÕre ready to move on. Now the ball is in your court. ItÕs your turn to respond with a school environment more appropriate than what was available twenty years agoÓ (Caldwell, 1989. p. 264).
In addressing which is the
best environment for young children, the redevelopment of the full-day
kindergarten program has come into focus in the United States. The past
function of the kindergarten program was to provide children with their first
school experience, but now that is the role of the prekindergarten, nursery
school, or day care experience. There are some children that will come to
kindergarten without being involved in any type of school experience and the
kindergarten program must be able to provide for the needs of all children.
Kindergarten children in todayÕs society enter school with diverse
experiences/backgrounds and abilities giving them a much wider range of
capabilities and a need for a program that will provide them with more
opportunities to develop not only academically, but also responsibility for
themselves and their actions (Harrison-McEachern, 1989). This new function of
kindergarten has led to a specific controversy between the full-day and
half-day kindergarten schedules (and developmental kindergarten and full-day
alternate-day, though not compared in this focus). Some researchers state that
what we call these programs matters little, but what really matters is what we
offer the children in them (Caldwell, 1989; Clark, 2001). This concept has
surfaced in the decisions effecting public school kindergarten policies. The
importance of early childhood education for later performance in school has
been realized. A focus on full-day or all-day kindergarten, which lengthens the
amount of time children spend in school each day and varies from four to eight
hours, is being revisited. Some researchers feel that extended time in school
allows more time for the development of school readiness skills, which are of
great concern to parents and educators (Harrison-McEachern, 1989; Nelson, 2000;
Olsen & Zigler, 1989). Others express concern that full-day kindergarten
has changed the expectations of what children should know upon entering first
grade and that a developmentally appropriate full-day kindergarten should be
a
half-day of hands-on learning activities in the morning and a nap/ quiet time
in the afternoon or an in-school day care setting, which does not often happen
in full-day kindergarten programs (Elkind, 2001; Olsen & Zigler,1989).
ÒTodayÕs child has become the unwilling, unintended victim of overwhelming
stress- the stress borne of rapid, bewildering social change and constantly
rising expectationsÓ (Elkind, 2001, p. 3).
Research:
In
comparing these two kindergarten schedules, research has focused on various
aspects such as: academic achievement outcomes; social behaviors; and teacher
and parent responses. The earlier research on this focus has been criticized
for having small and specialized samples, variability of the length of day,
insufficient control of curricula, teacher effects, pretest differences between
groups, and not following rigorous research standards (Clark, 2001; Cryan et
al., 1992; Karweit, 1992; Gullo, 2000; Olsen & Zigler, 1989; Rothenberg, 1995).
Even though there appears to be no shortage of research on the effects of
full-day and half-day kindergarten on the social behavior and academic
achievement of children, much controversy lies in the quality of the research
studies themselves. Skeptics of full-day kindergarten find the studies
inconclusive or lacking in significant gains indicated by the research
(Alber-Kelsay, 1998) and inadequate selection control. There has also been
discussion among the experts that the research Òhas not been scientifically
rigorous and that it is therefore premature to determine if the findings are
positive as the studies have reportedÓ (Morrow, Strickland, & Woo, 1998,
p.l4). More recent studies have produced more control for the confounding
variable conditions, making some reviewers feel that the results are sufficient
to form a basis for decisions about full-day and half-day kindergarten even
though the designs of the research could be improved (Cryan et al.,1992). Taken
as a whole, the research concerning full-day versus half-day kindergarten
programs can appear ambiguous about their effectiveness. Some studies vary both
in the significance to which they find full-day or half-day kindergarten to be
beneficial and in the question of the quality of the programsÕ designs.
One
of the primary areas of interest of parents, educators, and researchers is the
effect of full-day versus half-day kindergarten programs on academic
achievement. Research has been done using standardized assessments such as the
Metropolitan Reading Readiness Tests (Cryan et al. 1992; Gullo, 1990; Phillips,
Norris, & Mason, 1996) and the California Achievement Test
(Holmes & McConnell,
1990; Phillips, 1996), standardized portfolio assessments (Alber-Kelsay, 1998),
and observational/ authentic assessments such as Marie ClayÕs Observation
Survey (da Costa, 2001; McConnell & Tesch, 1986; Morrow, Strickland, &
Woo, 1998; Wang & Johnstone, 1999) and report cards (Elicker, 2000; Jones,
Pollock, & Marockie, 1988; Wang & Johnstone, 1999) in order to
determine the effectiveness of full-day kindergarten on academic achievement.
These studies have determined that the most significant positive effect of
full-day kindergarten programs is its benefit for children at risk for academic
failure or of being retained, from bilingual homes, and low socioeconomic
status (Caldwell, 1989; Clark, 2001; da Costa, 2001; Damian, 1997; Fromboluti,
1988; Harrison-McEachern, 1989; Housden & Kam, 1992; Jones, Pollock, &
Marockie, 1988; Karweit, 1992; Nelson, 2000; Puleo, 1988; Olsen, 1989;
Pascopella, 2001; Puelo, 1988). However, recent research of the 1990Õs has
demonstrated more consistent positive academic outcomes for all children
participating in the full-day kindergarten programs (Chmelynski 1998; Cryan et
al.,1992; Elicker & Mathur, 1997; Fusaro, 1997; Hough & Bryde, 1996;
Naran, 1981; Wolf & Kessler, 1987;) and some longitudinal studies
demonstrated that the academic achievements lasted beyond the second grade
(Cryan et al.,1992; Elicker & Mathur, 1997; Gullo, 2000). Of the studies
examined that showed either no significant difference or mixed effects in
academic achievement, the study appeared to be either of a short duration or
from a middle/upper middle class area (Alber-Kelsay, 1998; Hatcher &
Schmidt, 1980; Hildebrand, 2001; Holmes & McConnell, 1990; Olsen &
Zigler,1989).
Another
area of interest in full-day and half-day kindergarten programs is the result
of the research on social behavior. Assessments to determine the achievement of
behavior on full-day and half-day kindergarten programs have been done through
observations (Cryan et al., 1992; Elicker, 2000; Gullo, 2000; McConnell &
Tesch, 1986; Wang & Johnstone,1999) and published tests such as the
Hahnemann Elementary Behavior Rating Scale (HEBS) (Cryan et al.,1992; Gullo,
1990; Gullo & Maxwell, 1997; Hildebrand, 2001). Positive results on
studentsÕ behavior were found in (Cryan et al.,1992; Gullo & Maxwell, 1997;
Wang & Johnstone,1999). Some results of the research on social behavior,
which were found to be negative or inconclusive for full-day kindergarten, were
also found in the review of the research (Hatcher & Schmidt, 1980;
Hildebrand, 2001; Hough & Bryde, 1996; McConnell & Tesch, 1986).
However, the research demonstrates that there does appear to be a clear
relationship between kindergarten schedule and classroom behavior. Some of
these behaviors observed, valued by educators, included those of children being
more involved; more independent learning and originality; and less likely to be
shy and withdrawn, seemed to be demonstrated more significantly by full-day
kindergarteners than their half-day counterparts.
The
studies also show that children who attended full-day kindergarten were less
likely to be retained, had fewer Chapter 1 referrals, and had higher attendance
during the first three years of school than the half-day kindergarten children
(Cryan et al.,1992; Elicker & Mathur,1 997; Gullo, 2000; Hough & Bryde,
1996; Puelo, 1988). It appears that parents approach full-day kindergarten more
seriously and are more reluctant to have child miss a day of school, as
observed by the better attendance records of full-day kindergarteners than
those of half-day (Hough & Bryde, 1996).
Review
of the research on the teachersÕ responses to full-day kindergarten
demonstrated that the students exhibited greater levels of productivity and
independence during full-day kindergarten. These students engaged in less
irrelevant talk and exhibited more positive feelings about school and were rated
less withdrawn and more likely to approach the teacher for help (Cryan et al.,
1992). Teachers also felt that children who stayed full-day usually did better
ontheir work and they were not rushed (Housden & Kam, 1992; Hough &
Bryde, 1996). The teachers teaching full-day kindergarten were able to
significantly and positively determine the ratings of achievement for their
students in the areas of auditory, visual, and language assessments (Gullo,
1990). Studies also state that teachers find full-day kindergarten allows a
positive environment to support the problems that kindergarten teachers face
with the differences in readiness levels in the children they teach. The
full-day kindergarten program allows them time to regularly evaluate their
studentsÕ progress in order to diagnose their strengths and weaknesses to
direct the instruction in order to emphasize cognitive learning for all
children (Wolf& Kessler, 1987; Naron, 1981).
Parents
had greater satisfaction with the schedule and curriculum in full-day kindergarten
programs than half-day kindergarten programs. Some of the benefits both
teachers and parents agreed on were: more flexibility, more time for
child-initiated, in-depth, and creative activities, and students showed less
stress and frustration. Although parents were concerned about fatigue during a
full-day program, it was determined not to be an issue (Clark, 2001). Parents
also seemed to take the full-day kindergarten program more seriously as shown
by the better attendance records for these students which resulted in better
chances for success in first grade (Elicker & Mathur, 1997; Hough &
Bryde, 1996; Housden & Kam, 1992). Parents also felt that it was better for
children to be in one learning environment all day because it reduced the
number of transitions the children would experience in a normal day (Clark,
2001; Housden & Kam, 1992; Rothenberg, 1995). In the Elicker & Mathur
(1997) research 100% of the full-day parents and 72% of the half-day parents
indicated on a questionnaire that they would select the full-day program, if
given the opportunity, for their child.
In
researching my focus on the impact of full-day kindergarten on a first gradersÕ
ability to learn to read, I found that the reading performance of first-grade
students
after full-day and half-day kindergarten programs showed that students
who
attended
full-day
kindergarten scored significantly higher in reading achievement
(Damian, 1997: Fromboluti, 1988; Harrison-McEachern, 1989; Hough & Bryde,
1996; Pennsylvania Partnerships, 2000). Results showed that childrenÕs
knowledge of early literacy concepts increased during full-day kindergarten,
and
that
this improved studentsÕ reading achievement for the next 4 years (Phillips
& Mason, 1996; Puelo, 1988).
As
demonstrated through the research, children who come to kindergarten able to
read have already had more than 1,000 hours of ÔinformalÕ literacy encounters
(Cunningham & Allington, 1999). These encounters develop positive attitudes
and understanding about the nature of reading and writing. ÒA mismatch between
the literacy acquired at home and the literacy required to participate
fruitfully in beginning-kindergarten language instruction is virtually assured
for many childrenÓ (Phillips & Mason, 1996, p. 175). This suggests the need
of a literacy-rich home environment for all of our students. In order for this
to happen, it is necessary to take this information further and provide this
same type of literacy-rich environment in their kindergarten classrooms.
ÒLiterate home simulation kindergartens provide this foundation for all
children and help to narrow the gap between the children who arrive with the
least and the most advantaged backgroundsÓ (Cunningham & Allington, 1999,
p. 27). The previous experiences of the children should direct the instruction
of the kindergarten curriculum. This is an important issue, which should not be
ignored. Recent research supports the effectiveness of full-day kindergarten
programs that are developmentally appropriate, indicating that they have
academicand behavioral benefits for young children. In full-day programs, less
hurried instruction that is geared to student needs and appropriate assessment
of student progress contribute to the effectiveness of the program. The nature
of the kindergarten curriculum and the quality of the teaching are other
important issues concerning this experience. Balance among the roles of a
teacher as observer, link between home and school, model, nurturer,
instructor/facilitator, and program planner must be implemented. A role found
in the practice of an exemplary kindergarten teacher is the use of systematic
observation, or child-watching as a basis for understanding individual children
and their program needs. This observation must then be interpreted so that an
appropriate program can be planned and implemented for each child. Teacher
roles, beliefs, and practices impact a kindergarten program (Corter &
Park,1993). While these roles can be found in high-quality, half-day programs
as well, many children seem to benefit, academically and behaviorally, from
full-day kindergarten. The length of the school day is only one dimension of
the kindergarten experience.
I
have tried to capture some of the key issues facing the implications of
full-day versus half-day kindergarten in relation to its impact on reading
performance. It is clear that a developmentally appropriate curriculum is the
most important element in planning a kindergarten program. After such a
curriculum is planned, discussion concerning the length of the school day can
then be considered. A famous Gesell philosophy states that placing a child in
an extended kindergarten program is viewed as giving him or her Òthe gift of
timeÓ. The Ògift of timeÓ is not only for students but teachers and parents as
well (Walsh, 1989). The future of full-day kindergarten will depend on the
outcomes produced by further reliable research. It is obvious to most, that the
quantity of time spent in school is far less significant than the quality of
the kindergarten experience. It would therefore be beneficial to research what
constitutes a quality kindergarten curriculum and focus the research on
full-day and half-day kindergarten programs with this exemplary curriculum.
Examining the advantages and disadvantages of the different kindergarten programs
in terms of quality would also suggest strategies for improvement. The
possibility that a child could receive more developmentally appropriate and
Òindividualized help, is insufficient. It must actually occur in order for a
kindergartener to gain benefitsÓ (Jalongo In Alber-Kelsay, 1998, p. 25). ÒThe
major challenge facing kindergarten is to provide developmentally and
individually appropriate learning environments for all kindergarten children
so
that they are prepared for first gradeÓ (Alber-Kelsay, 1998, p. 25).
ÒAll-day kindergarten has the potential of being a blessing or a bane for young children. This will depend on which type of pressures prevail in influencing the development of the all-day kindergartenÓ (Gullo, 1990, p. 39).