i

IMPROVING THE READING ACHIEVEMENT OF KINDERGARTEN STUDENTS:

A STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF KINDERGARTEN TIME SCHEDULE ON

W
LONGITUDINAL READING ACHIEVEMENT
IE
EV

by

SHANE M. BASSETT
PR

FACULTY RESEARCH COMMITTEE:

Chair: Beth LaForce, Ph.D.

Members: Gary Railsback, Ph.D.
Scott Headley, Ph.D.

Presented to Educational Foundations and Leadership Department

and the Graduate School of George Fox University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Doctor of Education
7/30/2008
 UMI Number: 3400051

All rights reserved

INFORMATION TO ALL USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed,

W
a note will indicate the deletion.

IE
EV

UMI 3400051
PR

Copyright 2010 by ProQuest LLC.

All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.

ProQuest LLC
789 East Eisenhower Parkway
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346
 i
Abstract

This research project investigated the effect of kindergarten time schedule on the reading

achievement of an intact sample (n=156), and three stratified sub-samples of high-risk

(n=53), mid-risk (n=59), and low-risk learners (n=44). Students entering kindergarten at

five Reading First schools in September 2004 (n=435) were randomly assigned to full-day

kindergarten (FDK) or half-day kindergarten (HDK). Students were pre-tested using the

Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS); Letter Naming Fluency and

W
Initial Sounds Fluency subtest scores were added together to form a pretest composite
IE
score. The achievement of the intact sample (n=156) was followed through June 2007. The

students were post-tested at the end of second grade using the Stanford Achievement Test,
EV
Tenth Edition (SAT-10) and DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (ORF) measure; the raw

scores of these two measures were added together to form a posttest composite

score/dependent variable. Students were administered DIBELS three times each year, and
PR

the SAT-10 at the end of each year. Independent samples t-tests performed on the whole

sample’s (p < .01) pretest scores indicated initial group differences favoring FDK; a t-test

performed on the high risk sub-sample’s (p < .01) pretest scores indicated initial group

differences favoring HDK. From the middle of kindergarten until the end of second grade,

FDK students outperformed their HDK peers on every DIBELS and SAT-10 measure. On

the middle of first grade DIBELS ORF, on the end of second grade DIBELS ORF, and on

the kindergarten, first, and second grade SAT-10 measures, the FDK students in the whole

sample (p < .01), and in the high-risk sub-sample (p < .01 to p < .05) significantly
 ii
outperformed the HDK students. ANCOVA results on the whole sample (p < .01) and t-test

results on the high-risk sub-sample (p < .01) favor FDK. Multiple regressions performed on

the whole sample (p < .01) and high-risk sub-sample (p < .05) indicate that the FDK time

condition had a significant effect on the dependent variable after controlling for pretest

scores and initial demographics. The researcher discusses implications of the results for

teachers, principals, school district resource assignment and state policy development in

regard to full-day kindergarten expansion.

W
IE
EV
PR
 iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables................................................................................................................... v
List of Figures................................................................................................................vi
CHAPTER 1 ...................................................................................................................1
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the problem ............................................................................................................................. 3
Research questions ....................................................................................................................................... 3
Definition of terms ....................................................................................................................................... 4
Limitations and delimitations....................................................................................................................... 4
CHAPTER 2 ...................................................................................................................9

W
Review of the Literature................................................................................................................. 9
Conclusions about alternate-day kindergarten........................................................................................... 10
Early research comparing half-day and full-day kindergarten conditions................................................ 12
Research from the 1990s favoring half-day kindergarten/showing no significant difference ................. 17
IE
Research from the 1990s favoring full-day kindergarten.......................................................................... 18
Summary research favoring full-day kindergarten.................................................................................... 22
Recent research on the relative effectiveness of time schedule on student achievement......................... 25
Specific research about full-day kindergarten for children at high-risk of reading failure ...................... 33
EV
Conclusions from the literature review...................................................................................................... 36
CHAPTER 3 .................................................................................................................38
Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 38
Research questions ..................................................................................................................................... 38
PR

Setting ......................................................................................................................................................... 39
Participants ................................................................................................................................................. 40
Human subjects safeguarding .................................................................................................................... 41
Instrumentation........................................................................................................................................... 42
Research design.......................................................................................................................................... 46
Role of the researcher................................................................................................................................. 47
Procedures .................................................................................................................................................. 47
Data analysis procedures............................................................................................................................ 50
CHAPTER 4 .................................................................................................................61
Results............................................................................................................................................. 61
Initial mean differences in achievement of the intact groups.................................................................... 62
Longitudinal mean differences in whole sample and sub-sample achievement....................................... 65
Pretest-posttest analysis with ANCOVA and t-tests ................................................................................. 72
Pretest-posttest analyses on whole sample ........................................................................................... 72
Pretest-posttest analyses on high-risk sample....................................................................................... 73
Pretest-posttest analyses on mid-risk sample........................................................................................ 74
Pretest-posttest analyses on low-risk sample........................................................................................ 74
Multiple regression analysis....................................................................................................................... 78
Multiple regression results for whole sample....................................................................................... 81
Multiple regression results for high-risk sample .................................................................................. 82
 iv
Multiple regression results for mid-risk sample ................................................................................... 83
Multiple regression results for low-risk sample ................................................................................... 84
Summary of results..................................................................................................................................... 85
CHAPTER 5 .................................................................................................................87
Discussion ....................................................................................................................................... 87
Comparison of results to past research ...................................................................................................... 88
Length of study...................................................................................................................................... 90
Stratification of sample into risk categories.......................................................................................... 91
Methodology.......................................................................................................................................... 91
Limitations.................................................................................................................................................. 94
Implications ................................................................................................................................................ 95
Teacher and school level resource assignment..................................................................................... 95
School district resource assignment...................................................................................................... 97
Regional and statewide resource assignment and policy ..................................................................... 99
Future research ......................................................................................................................................... 101
Conclusions .............................................................................................................................................. 103

W
References...................................................................................................................104
APPENDICES............................................................................................................116
Appendix A .................................................................................................................116
IE
Appendix A.1................................................................................................................................ 116
Appendix A.2................................................................................................................................ 117
EV
Appendix A.3................................................................................................................................ 118
Appendix A.4................................................................................................................................ 119
Appendix A.5................................................................................................................................ 120
Appendix A.6................................................................................................................................ 121
PR

Appendix A.7................................................................................................................................ 122

Appendix A.8................................................................................................................................ 123
Appendix A.9................................................................................................................................ 124
Appendix A.10.............................................................................................................................. 125
Appendix A.11.............................................................................................................................. 126
Appendix A.12.............................................................................................................................. 127
Appendix B .................................................................................................................128
 v

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Percent of Students in Each Demographic Category: Initial Sample and

Intact Whole Sample……………………………………………………...53

Table 2 Measures of Beginning, Middle and End of Kindergarten, First, and Second

Grade……………………………………………………………………...55

Table 3 Initial Group Differences by Time Condition and Risk Level ……………63

W
Table 4 Mean Stanine Rankings of Students on the Standard Achievement Test,

Tenth Edition (SAT-10) by Time Condition and Risk Level……………..68

Table 5
IE
Mean Scores on DIBELS ORF1 and ORF2 by Time Condition and Initial

Risk Level………………………………………………………………...69
EV

Table 6 Mean Scores on Composite Pretest/Posttest Scores by Time Condition and

Initial Risk Level………………………………………………………….76

PR

Table 7 SPSS Coding for Each Variable Included in the Multiple Regression

Analysis…………………………………………………………………...79
 vi

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Research Design…………………………………………………………..60

Figure 2 Initial Group Differences by Time Condition……………………………..64

Figure 3 Initial Group Differences by Time Condition and Initial Risk Level……..64

Figure 4 Longitudinal SAT-10 Whole Group by Time Condition………………….70

W
Figure 5 SAT-10 Reading Achievement by Time Condition and Initial Risk Level

…………………………………………………………………………….70

Figure 6
IE
Longitudinal DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency by Time Condition and Initial

Risk Level………………………………………………………………...71
EV

Figure 7 DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency Achievement by Time Condition and Initial

Risk Level………………………………………………………………...71
PR

Figure 8 Pretest/Posttest Analysis Whole Group By Time Condition……………...77

Figure 9 Pretest/Posttest Analysis by Time Condition and Initial Risk Level……...77

 1

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Full-day kindergarten implementation is on the rise in the United States. According

to Robinson (1987), 39 states offered half-day kindergarten (HDK) in 1986 and eight states

provided full-day kindergarten (FDK). By 1990, 40% of the kindergarten population was

W
attending full-day kindergarten (Kauerz, 2005). By 2005, 63% of kindergarten students

were enrolled in a full-day kindergarten program (Kauerz, 2005). According to DeCesare

IE
(2004), demand for full-day kindergarten is increasing due to parents’ belief that full-day

kindergarten will help their children better adjust and perform in school, and meet the need
EV

for high-quality, affordable child-care for working, and single parents. Parrett (2005) and

Tirado (2001) have reported that full-day kindergarten is one intervention among many that
PR

has been absolutely essential to improving the achievement realities of the severely high-

risk populations that they studied.

One of the major issues affecting any school district as they begin to implement a

full-day kindergarten program is determining how to assign students to full-day

kindergarten. Given limited resources that make it impossible to provide full-day

kindergarten to all children, how would a school district determine which students to allow

into a full-day kindergarten program?

In one medium sized school district, where the current study took place, the School

Board implemented one full-day kindergarten class at each district school. Teachers,
 2
parents, and administrators had differing ideas about how to assign students to the full-day

kindergarten program. There was no consistent opinion between any of these groups. The

senior administration preferred a lottery system of assignment. The rationale for this point

of view rested in their belief that parents would perceive a system based on need as unfair.

Most teachers, on the other hand, suggested a system based on need, where the most high-

risk students would receive full-day kindergarten. More affluent parents preferred the full-

day schedule because it could ease their child-care expenses, and they knew it would be a

way for their students to get a head start in academic subjects. Many working-class parents

W
simply wished to lower their child care expenses. Parents from lower-SES families

preferred a needs-based system they knew would benefit their children. In short, there was
IE
a great deal of divisiveness around how to assign students to full-day kindergarten. These

positions were based on assumptions, opinions, and emotions, with little reference to any
EV

research about appropriate assignment of students to full-day kindergarten.

When the school district decided that they could afford to fund one full-day
PR

kindergarten classroom at each school, they also decided to use this opportunity to compare

the achievement of these students to those in the traditional half-day program. Thus, the

school district randomly assigned registered students from each school into full-day and

half-day kindergarten until the full-day kindergarten at each school was 50% full. Then,

they filled the remaining 50% of slots in each full-day kindergarten class with randomly

assigned students who were registered by the day before school started in September 2004.

Late registrants were placed into half-day kindergarten classes. The school district asked

the researcher to track the achievement of this class of kindergarten students at least

through the end of second grade. The current researcher presented the preliminary findings
 3
to the School Board at Spring 2004, Winter 2005, Spring 2006, and Fall 2006 meetings.

Based on the Spring 2004 findings, which showed that full-day kindergarten benefited

children from all No Child Left Behind (NCLB) sub-groups, the school district

implemented full-day kindergarten in all elementary schools in the district. This research

study constitutes the final quantitative evaluation of the original intervention, and will

inform the continued implementation of full-day kindergarten in the school district and

others like it. It is hoped that this study will shed light on the effects of the full-day

kindergarten intervention through the end of second grade.

W
Statement of the problem

The general purpose of this research study was to provide quantitative data in
IE
regard to full-day kindergarten implementation, rigorous data analysis, and well-conceived

implications and recommendations, in order to inform the improvement of the achievement

EV

realities of high-risk learners by implementing a full-day kindergarten. More specifically,

the purpose of this study was to compare the longitudinal effect of full-day kindergarten
PR

and half-day kindergarten time schedules on the reading achievement of high-risk, mid-

risk, and low-risk kindergarten students over a three year period, while controlling for

initial group differences and differences in curriculum.

Research questions

Thus, there were three research questions that extended from the overall purpose of

this research:

1. What comparative effect does full-day kindergarten have on the reading

achievement of high-risk, mid-risk, and low-risk kindergarten students?

2. Does this effect persist through the end of second grade?

 4
3. Does time condition still have an effect on second grade reading

achievement after controlling for the effect of initial demographics, initial

risk level, and pretest scores?

Definition of terms

1. An alternate-day schedule is defined as when students attend three full days one week

and two full days the next week with the remaining days off, or attend two full days each

week with a half-day schedule on Wednesday, for a total of five full days of instruction

over two weeks.

W
2. A full-day schedule occurs when students attend all day, every day.

3. A half-day schedule is when students attend kindergarten for a half day five times per
IE
week, either in the morning or afternoon.

4. The operational definition of comparable instructional programs refers to the programs

EV

that have been prescribed and monitored at the schools participating in the study. The

students in this study attended schools that have reading programs that are prescribed and
PR

monitored under Reading First grant assurances.

5. The operational definition of reading achievement means the scores on the Dynamic

Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills’ (DIBELS) measures and the total reading raw

score or stanine ranking on the Stanford Achievement Test, Tenth Version (SAT-10).

6. The operational definitions of high-risk, mid-risk, and low-risk are arbitrarily defined by

cut-off scores on the kindergarten DIBELS measures administered in fall 2004.

Limitations and delimitations

There are several key limitations to this study. Limitations are defined here as

threats to internal validity. First, during the duration of the study, the researcher was in a
 5
direct leadership role in the school district in question, and was deeply involved in

implementing and measuring the effects of a wide array of programs connected to this

study. The chance of researcher bias affecting the outcome of this study is high,

considering the position of leadership the researcher held in the organization.

Second, the random assignment process was inherently flawed. There were two

registration periods during which participants enrolled in kindergarten. Families who were

more informed at navigating the school system may have been the first to register in the

first registration period. The more informed parents usually come from higher SES groups.

W
As a result, membership in full-day kindergarten could have been populated at 50% of

capacity by this first group of higher SES registrants. The second registration period
IE
probably brought in more diverse students, which is why the school district populated the

remaining half of the full-day kindergarten classes from students in the second registration
EV

period. It is widely believed that the most high-risk students usually register after the school

year has begun. All of these extra registrants, who registered after the second registration
PR

period ended, were automatically placed in half-day kindergarten. This could possibly have

resulted in a potentially larger number of lower-SES students populating the half-day

kindergartens, which may skew the comparison of achievement between full-day and half-

day kindergarten groups. The data analysis has accounted for this limitation by examining

initial group differences by risk level, and by controlling pretest scores, but there was no

effort to control for initial group differences on initial cognitive ability.

Third, there are potential history and mortality issues with the research sample.

Although there is an intact sample, the school district redrew its’ boundaries between the

2004-2005 school year and the 2005-2006 school year. Practically, this means that there
 6
may have been several students who were in a non-Reading First school during

kindergarten in 2004-2005, but transferred to a Reading First school in 2005-2006. This

greatly affects the control over curriculum that was secured in kindergarten by the Reading

First grant assurances. Children entering Reading First schools from non-Reading First

schools had a fundamentally different kindergarten experience. The researcher has

controlled for this factor by only including students who entered into the five Reading First

schools in fall 2004. Mortality will only be partially controlled by looking at the intact

sample, which will have scores across all years of the study. There was no way to

W
determine, however, the effect of an unequal number of half-day and full-day students

leaving the school district. IE

Finally, there may be maturation effects due to the fact that students were so young

when they were first pre-tested, and were much older, developmentally, in second grade.
EV

There may have been many interventions that occurred between the beginning of

kindergarten and the end of second grade that may have matured students’ reading abilities,
PR

and also muddied the clear effect of time schedule on student reading achievement.

There are also several delimitations that have occurred in this study. Delimitations

are defined here as threats to external validity or external generalization.

First, researcher bias is a risk because there was only one researcher collecting the

data and analyzing it.

Second, the achievement scores in this research study were taken from schools that

were under the Oregon Reading First Grant Assurances. The Reading First Grant is a

federal grant program under the No Child Left Behind Act that provides money to schools

to implement scientific, research-based reading programs in a school-wide implementation

 7
model (Kame’enui, Simmons, Coyne, & Harn, 2003). The grant assurances were both

comprehensive and specific. Although the grant assurances provided a set of controlled

conditions almost impossible to achieve under normal circumstances in public schools -

such as paid grade level team meetings once a month for the entire K-3 teaching staff - this

same high level of control has led to limited generalization. Results may only be

generalizable to the school district in question, or to similar school districts under similar

grant assurances.

Third, the researcher compiled DIBELS data that had been collected throughout the

W
school district in the fall, winter, and spring across a three-year time period. There could

have been an interaction effect of pre-testing and retesting students three to twelve times
IE
each year using these measures. Because students were tested so many times with DIBELS,

they may have scored higher each time simply due to the fact that they learned how to take
EV

DIBELS better. The results based on DIBELS may not be able to be generalized to a

population that has not been pre-tested with DIBELS or experienced being repeatedly
PR

tested with DIBELS measures over a long period. The same threat exists for SAT-10

testing for the same reasons, although SAT-10 testing took place only once per year, so the

threat is considerably less.

Fourth, the researcher, some teachers, all principals, and all reading coaches knew

that there would be a study comparing the achievement of the experimental and control

groups. The reactive effect of the experimental arrangement on these parties in how they

approached full-day kindergarten implementation may have affected whether the results

can be generalized to a population that is perhaps less favorable or less opposed to the

experimental condition than these specific parties were.

 8
Since the experimental groups were randomly formed, there is no threat of

selection bias beyond those mentioned in the limitations section that would deem the

results less able to be generalized to other populations.

W
IE
EV
PR
 9

CHAPTER 2

Review of the Literature

Before launching into a review of literature, it is necessary to define the different

types of kindergarten scheduling programs that are available to students. There are three

types of schedules that have been studied in the existing research literature. They are half-

W
day, full-day and alternate-day kindergarten schedules. In a half-day schedule, students

attend kindergarten for half of a day five times per week. An alternate-day schedule is
IE
when students attend three full days one week and two full days the next week with the

remaining days off, or attend two full days each week with a half-day schedule on
EV

Wednesday, for a total of five full days in school over two weeks. A full-day schedule

occurs when students attend all day, every day.

PR

This review of literature is organized into six subsections. First, research that

compares the effect of half-day and alternate-day schedules on the reading achievement of

kindergarten students is reported. Second, early research (1970-1989) comparing the effect

of half-day and full-day schedules on student achievement is reviewed. Third, research

completed in the early to mid-1990s that compares the effect of half-day and full-day

schedules on reading achievement is examined across two subsections: research showing

no significant difference between them, and research favoring full-day kindergarten

programs. Next, the summative and meta-analytical studies through 1997 that make

convergent conclusions about the relative effectiveness of half-day and full-day

 10
kindergarten schedules on reading achievement are evaluated. Then, the newest research

published since 1997 is examined. After that, the research on the observed effects of half-

day and full-day schedules on the reading achievement scores of high-risk children is

considered. Finally, the entire research pool is summarized in a concise manner.

Conclusions about alternate-day kindergarten

The results of the research that compare the effects of half-day and alternate-day

schedules on reading achievement are not clear when examined superficially. Two major

studies, for example, used the same instrument to measure achievement and reported

W
different results. On one hand, Cleminshaw and Guidubaldi (1979) found that there are

significant differences in the achievement scores of the two groups, as measured by the
IE
Metropolitan Readiness Test. The alternate-day group’s mean (74.88) was significantly

higher than the half-day group’s mean (66.63). These differences favor a full-day alternate
EV

approach. On the other hand, Clements and Gullo (1984) found that there was no

significant difference between reading achievement scores as measured by the same test.
PR

The alternate day group’s mean (72.00) was not significantly different from the half-day

group’s mean (71.93). Two completely different results from the same instrument merit a

closer look at the methodology used in both studies.

After a thorough reading, one realizes that there are stark differences in the research

designs employed in these studies. Clements and Gullo (1984) used a causal-comparative

design without random selection of participants, while Cleminshaw and Guidubaldi (1979)

used a randomly selected sample. Also, Clements and Gullo (1984) used a pretest-posttest

format to control for initial differences in achievement while Cleminshaw and Guidubaldi

(1979) only administered a posttest. In addition, Clements and Gullo (1984) made little
 11
attempt to control for other variables, while Cleminshaw and Guidubali (1979) went to

great lengths to control extraneous factors. Finally, Cleminshaw and Guidubaldi (1979)

took their participants from four similar schools with different teachers for each of four

treatment groups. There were only fifteen participants in each treatment group. Clements

and Gullo (1984) selected participants from one school and both treatment groups were

taught by the same teachers, but in different years. There were over 90 participants studied

each year. The fact that these studies are so different in their design may explain the

differences in their results despite using the same instrument.

W
Several years later, Hildebrand (1997) set out to draw some stronger conclusions

about the effect of half-day and alternate-day schedules. The research design that
IE
Hildebrand employed was superior to both of the studies mentioned above for the

following reasons. First, Hildebrand used a pretest-posttest design under quasi-

EV

experimental conditions. Second, her sample size was larger (n=147) and participants were

equally and randomly assigned to the three scheduling conditions: half-day, alternate-day,
PR

and full-day kindergarten. Third, all three middle-class to lower-class groups of students

were subjected to a common kindergarten curriculum, taught by similarly qualified

teachers, under Chapter 1 funding and assistance. Hildebrand used a pretest-posttest design

and conducted an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) on the data to control for the initial

group differences, which were present. Hildebrand used an instrument called the Test of

Early Reading. It was found that there was no significant difference between the reading

scores of students in the alternate-day and half-day schedules, but that the full-day students

exhibited superior achievement. Only a study that was fully experimental could refute the

decisive result of the Hildebrand study.

 12
There is little research outside of the three above-mentioned studies that examines

the effectiveness of alternate-day kindergarten. Thus, this literature review now shifts to an

area of study with a larger research base that is more relevant to the purpose of this study,

the comparative effectiveness of half-day and full-day kindergarten schedules.

Early research comparing half-day and full-day kindergarten conditions

The earliest research on the comparative effects of full-day kindergarten on

academic achievement emerged in the literature in the early 1970s and continued through

1988. Because these studies are over 20 years old or older, their findings are reported, but

W
the discussion of their specific methodological strengths or flaws is limited. It is widely

agreed that the research pre-1988 was rife with methodological flaws (Puleo, 1988; Elicker,
IE
2000; Clark, 2001). Some of these flaws come from small sample size, lack of random

assignment, or lack of pre-testing to control for initial group differences (Baskett, Bryant,
EV

White, & Rhoads, 2005).

As a result of a dissertation study, Johnson (1974) indicated that there was no

PR

statistically significant difference in achievement between a small sample (n=40) of equally

distributed full-day and half-day students on a variety of local measures. Groups of 20

children each were randomly assigned to full-day and half-day kindergarten scheduling

conditions and represented equal numbers of culturally and economically disadvantaged

students. Reading levels were measured at the end of first grade and compared. Johnson

(1974) concluded that no significant differences were found between the two scheduling

conditions as measured by the Walker Readiness Test and the Stanford Early School

Achievement Test. Nieman and Gastright (1975), Alper and Wright (1979), and Oelerich

(1979), on the other hand, all reported in their studies [n=190, n=198, n=25 respectively],
 13
that there was a statistically significant difference in favor of full-day kindergarten as

measured by the Metropolitan Readiness Test. Hatcher, Schmidt, and Cook (1979) reported

no significant difference between the full-day and half-day condition. In short, the research

from the 1970s offers no clear conclusion about the comparative effectiveness of either

schedule. Unfortunately, research from the early 1980s only confounds the researcher in

regard to which time schedule in more effective.

On one hand, there were many studies in the 1980s that showed significant

differences in favor of full-day kindergarten. In a voluntary study of 330 participants,

W
Ziomek and Harris (1980) found that there was a statistically significant difference in favor

of full-day kindergarten based on the scores on the Metropolitan Readiness Test. Adcock
IE
(1980) indicated in a report of a study on 189 kindergarten students, that full-day

kindergarten students achieved significantly higher levels of academic proficiency than

EV

half-day kindergarten students on the Metropolitan Achievement Test. In the same year,

Humphrey (1980) revealed, in a medium-sized school district study (n=179), that full-day
PR

kindergarten students performed significantly higher than the half-day students on the

California Achievement Test, Boehm Test of Basic Concepts, and the Gates-MacGintie

Reading Tests. Hatcher and Schmidt (1980) reported no significant differences in

achievement on the Metropolitan Readiness Test in a study performed on Mexican-

American and Anglo participants. The Evansville-Vanderburg School District (1983)

reported that full-day kindergarten students tended to have higher academic report card

marks, a lower rate of grade retention, and higher standardized achievement test scores.

Anderson (1985) also found that the “most mature” full day students perform significantly

better than the “most mature” half-day students on the Stanford Early School Achievement
 14
Test (n=60). In a ten-year longitudinal study on a small sample (n=44), Oelerich (1984)

concluded that full-day, every-day kindergarten was the superior condition, given the

results of the Metropolitan Achievement Test. Two large-scale school district studies were

completed by the Madison Metropolitan School District (1985) using voluntary assignment

(n=383), and the New York City Board of Education (1985) using random assignment

(n=1,807). Both concluded that full-day students outperformed half-day students on a

variety of tests measuring academic skills.

On the other hand, other researchers from the early 1980s claim that there are no

W
significant differences between the achievement of students attending half-day and full-day

kindergarten. McClinton and Topping (1981) used unknown sampling techniques, and
IE
Herman (1984) used random assignment (n=66). However, both found that there were no

significant differences between full-day and half-day kindergarten students in achievement

EV

on the California Achievement Test. Robertson (1984) made a comparison of full-day and

half-day student achievement that revealed that neither schedule significantly improved the
PR

achievement of students over the other group. Savitz and Drucker (1984) found that full-

day kindergarten did not lead to higher Test for Analysis and Placement scores (n=19).

Research originating in the late 1980s almost exclusively favors full-day

kindergarten. In a quasi-experimental study performed by the Wilmette, Illinois School

District, for instance, Uguroglu and Nieminen (1986) concluded that there were small

differences in the academic readiness for first grade that the half-day and full-day programs

produced. Similarly, the Pasco School District (1987) found that the full-day kindergarten

program was far more effective than half-time models for students who live in poverty, or

who are of average or above average achievement levels. In a follow-up to the 1983 study
 15
cited above, Evansville-Vanderburg School District (1988) concluded that full-day students

outperformed half-day students on standardized achievement tests. A pilot study (Jones,

1988) in Ohio County School District showed that the additional instructional time in full-

day kindergarten helped children overcome patterns of failure.

With the exception of Johnson (1974), the studies mentioned above are older

studies that are not cited often in the current research literature. There are two studies,

however, from the 1980s that are consistently cited in the current literature. The results of

these two studies are reported below with considerably more analysis than those reported

W
above.

In a longitudinal follow-up study of a school district implementing full-day

IE
kindergarten, Evans and Marken (1983) revealed that there were no achievement

differences between full-day and half-day students across three cohorts of kindergarten
EV

students who were in first, second, and third grade at the time of the study. The sample

involved 174 former kindergarten students from a socio-economically homogeneous

PR

background. They were not randomly selected, but all available students were part of the

sample in this ex post facto design (Airasian & Gay, 2003). The researchers used the

reading subscale of the California Achievement Test to measure reading achievement in

this study. This measure was administered at the end of first, second, and third grade to

students who had been in both kindergarten schedules. There was no significant difference

in the achievement of children from both time schedules. Even though the sample size of

this study is adequate, the conclusion of this causal-comparative study is weak because the

study did not employ random assignment and exercised little control over the independent

variable, which was kindergarten time schedule.

 16
In a study with experimental design, on the interaction between kindergarten

schedules and reading achievement, Sergesketter and Gilman (1988) reported no difference

in the results of half-day and full-day kindergarten schedules on achievement. These

researchers used the Gates-McGintie Reading Test to measure the differences in reading

achievement between four full-day kindergarten groups and four half-day kindergarten

groups that were matched by socioeconomic level. These researchers used random

sampling to select and assign 187 half-day kindergarten students and 223 full-day

kindergarten students to each condition in this experimental posttest-only design. Although

W
the full-day kindergarten scores were higher on both the comprehension and vocabulary

sections of the selected test, data analysis by the authors revealed the results not statistically
IE
significant. Because there was no pretest, the authors could not have ruled out initial

differences, even if the effect was statistically significant.

EV

Puleo (1988) evaluated most of the studies mentioned above in his review and

critique of full-day kindergarten research up to 1988. Puleo came to the conclusion that
PR

most of the studies lacked the methodological rigor needed to draw more clear conclusions

and to conceive stronger implications. At that point in the history of the kindergarten time

scheduling research field, a new generation of researchers continued to focus on comparing

the effectiveness of full-day and half-day kindergarten on student reading achievement, but

with similarly mixed results. More time is spent reviewing these research studies since they

are newer, and have more bearing on this research study. In addition, the researchers often

used stronger or different methodological techniques to reach their conclusions.