Full-Day Kindergarten Programs

The Demographics of Full-Day Kindergarten

Well over 3.3 million children attend kindergarten in the United States, nearly as many children as attend first grade (Smith et al., 1994, p. 54). In 1993, about 54% of kindergarten teachers taught full-day classes, and about half of kindergartners attended full-day programs. Two-thirds of full-day kindergarten teachers taught in high-poverty areas, while fewer than one-third (29%) taught in schools with a low incidence of poverty (Heaviside et al., 1993). Teachers of classes with high minority enrollments were also more likely to teach full-day classes than were teachers of classes with low minority enrollments (67% versus 43%). State aid for all-day students is often used to fund full-day kindergarten. One reason for the high ratio of full-day to half-day kindergarten programs in high-poverty and high-minority schools is that state and federal funding for at-risk students is often used to supplement all-day funding, since all-day programs typically require extra classroom space, increased staffing for special services and programs, and additional classroom kindergarten teachers (Fromberg, 1992; Housden & Kam, 1992).

Full-day kindergarten is also popular because it eliminates the need to provide buses and crossing guards at mid-day. A higher proportion of kindergarten teachers taught full-day classes in rural areas in 1993 (66%) than in city schools (59%), in towns (53%), or in schools in the urban "fringe" (39%) (Heaviside et al., 1993).

Research on Effects of Full-Day Kindergarten

Research studies confirm that attendance in full-day kindergarten results in academic and social benefits for students, at least in the primary grades (Cryan et al., 1992; Karweit, 1992). Early studies seemed to offer little reliable evidence one way or the other because they used small samples or unique populations, failed to use rigorous standards, or concentrated almost exclusively on academic outcomes (as opposed to children's attitudes toward school, for example).

Cryan et al. (1992), however, are among the researchers who have found a broad range of effects, including a positive relationship between participation in full-day kindergarten and later school performance. After comparing similar half-day and full-day programs in a statewide longitudinal study, Cryan et al. found that full-day kindergartners exhibited more independent learning, classroom involvement, productivity in work with peers, and reflectiveness than half-day kindergartners. They were also more likely to approach the teacher and they expressed less withdrawal, anger, shyness, and blaming behavior than half-day kindergartners. In general, children in full-day programs exhibited more positive behaviors than did pupils in half-day or alternate-day programs.

Results similar to those of Cryan et al. have been found in other studies (Holmes and McConnell, 1990; Karweit, 1992). These positive effects and the academic gains in the first years of school support the value of developmentally appropriate full-day kindergarten.

Characteristics of Effective Full-Day Kindergarten Programs

Observers of trends in kindergarten scheduling argue that changing the LENGTH of the kindergarten day begs the underlying issue: creating developmentally and individually appropriate learning environments for ALL kindergarten children, regardless of the length of school day (Karweit, 1992; Katz, 1995).

Full-day kindergarten allows children and teachers time to explore topics in depth; reduces the ratio of transition time to class time; provides for greater continuity of day-to-day activities; and provides an environment that favors a child-centered, developmentally appropriate approach. Recent research indicates that, compared to children in didactic programs, children in child-centered kindergarten programs rated their abilities significantly higher, had higher expectations for success on academic tasks, and were less dependent on adults for permission and approval (Stipek et al., 1995).

Experts urge teachers, administrators, and parents to resist the temptation to provide full-day programs that are didactic rather than intellectually engaging in tone. Seat work, worksheets, and early instruction in reading or other academic subjects are largely inappropriate in kindergarten. By contrast, developmentally appropriate, child-centered all-day kindergarten programs:

• integrate new learning with past experiences through project work and through mixed-ability and mixed-age grouping (Drew & Law, 1990; Katz, 1995) in an unhurried setting;
• involve children in first-hand experience and informal interaction with objects, other children, and adults (Housden & Kam, 1992);
• emphasize language development and appropriate preliteracy experiences;
• work with parents to share information about their children, build understanding of parent and teacher roles, emphasize reading to children in school and at home, and set the stage for later parent-teacher partnerships;
• offer a balance of small group, large group, and individual activities (Katz, 1995);
• assess students' progress through close teacher observation and systematic collection and examination of students' work, often using portfolios; and
• develop children's social skills, including conflict resolution strategies.

Conclusion

Recent research supports the effectiveness of full-day kindergarten programs that are developmentally appropriate, indicating that they have academic and behavioral benefits for young children. In full-day programs, less hectic instruction geared to student needs and appropriate assessment of student progress contribute to the effectiveness of the program. While these can also be characteristics of high-quality half-day programs, many children seem to benefit, academically and behaviorally, from all-day kindergarten. Of course, the length of the school day is only one dimension of the kindergarten experience. Other important issues include the nature of the kindergarten curriculum and the quality of teaching.

References

Cryan, J., R. Sheehan, J. Weichel, and I.G. Bandy-Hedden. (1992). Success Outcomes of Full-day Kindergarten: More Positive Behavior and Increased Achievement in the Years After. EARLY CHILDHOOD RESEARCH QUARTERLY 7(2, June): 187-203. EJ 450 525.

Drew, M., and C. Law. (1990). Making Early Childhood Education Work. PRINCIPAL 69(5, May): 10-12. EJ 410 163.

Fromberg, D.P. (1992). Implementing the Full-Day Kindergarten. PRINCIPAL 71(5, May): 26-28. EJ 444 288.

Gullo, D. (1990). The Changing Family Context: Implications for the Development of All-Day Kindergartens. YOUNG CHILDREN 45(4, May): 35-39. EJ 409 110. Heaviside, S., E. Farris, and J. Carpenter. (1993).

PUBLIC SCHOOL KINDERGARTEN TEACHERS' VIEWS ON CHILDREN'S READINESS FOR SCHOOL. CONTRACTOR REPORT. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. ED 364 332.

Holmes, C.T., and B.M. McConnell. (1990). Full-day versus Half-day Kindergarten: An Experimental Study. Unpublished paper. ED 369 540.

Housden, T., and R. Kam. (1992). FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN: A SUMMARY OF THE RESEARCH. Carmichael, CA: San Juan Unified School District. ED 345 868.

Johnson, J. (1993). LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT: ALL DAY KINDERGARTEN PROGRAM 1991-1992. FINAL EVALUATION REPORT. ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION ACT CHAPTER 1. Columbus, OH: Columbus Public Schools, Department of Program Evaluation. ED 363 406.

Karweit, N. (1992). The Kindergarten Experience. EDUCATIONAL LEADERSHIP 49(6, Mar): 82-86. EJ 441 182.

Katz, L.G. (1995). TALKS WITH TEACHERS OF YOUNG CHILDREN. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. ED 380 232.

Lofthouse, R.W. (1994). Developing a Tuition-Based, Full-Day Kindergarten. PRINCIPAL 73(5, May): 24,26. EJ 483 346.

Smith, T., G. Rogers, N. Alsalam, M. Perie, R. Mahoney, and V. Martin. (1994). THE CONDITION OF EDUCATION, 1994. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics. ED 371 491.

Stipek, D., R. Feiler, D. Daniels, and S. Milburn. (1995). Effects of Different Instructional Approaches on Young Children's Achievement and Motivation. CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 66(1, Feb): 209-223. EJ 501 879.