A comparative analysis of Full-day kindergarten vs. Half-day kindergarten in Jessamine Co.

1. A comparative analysis of Full-day kindergarten vs. Half-day kindergarten in Jessamine Co. Lu Settles Young Fall 2012

2. An Overview of the Study • Worked with Kentucky’s P20 Data Collaborative to access Explore and Plan test scores for students in three FDK cohort groups in Jessamine County and the results of their HDK peers • Analyzed these results to determine if there was a significant difference in the scores of the two groups • Surveyed parents of FDK students in May 2012 • Conducted a focus group with 7 JELV teachers who have taught both FDK and HDK

3. Jessamine Kindergarten History • Opened the Jessamine Early Learning Village in fall 2000 for all preschool and kindergarten students in the district • Conducted a lottery in 2000, 2001, and 2002 to select up to 100 students each year to participate in a pilot FDK program; all other students attended HDK • Conducted only HDK programs from 2003 through 2009. • Began offering all students FDK in fall 2010; have continued to offer an elective HDK program as well

4. Why the Study? • FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS: • The move to FDK costs the district an additional $569,000 in operating expenses each year • The state only provides SEEK funding for half-day K • BOARD MEMBER EXPRESSED CONCERN • Kentucky’s focus on COLLEGE- and CAREER-READINESS for All students • SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE is needed to determine if FDK is the best investment of additional resources.

5. My Hypotheses • Null Hypothesis: That the Explore and Plan scores between the FDK students and the HDK students would not be statistically different. Why? Because: • The length of time between the kindergarten experience and the Explore at grade 8 and Plan at grade 10, making it virtually impossible to account for all the variables; • FDK expectations were never tied to outcomes on College-readiness assessments.

6. My 2nd Hypothesis 2. That most parents prefer FDK over HDK and most early childhood educators believe that FDK is a better option than HDK.

7. Data Sets 1. Explore and Plan data for FDK students compared to HDK students • Survey of current kindergarten parents – 77 respondents 3. Focus Group with seven Jessamine teachers who have taught both FDK and HDK

8. KY P20 Data Collaborative • Sometimes referred to as Kentucky’s “Data Mart” • Joint effort of KDE, CPE, EPSB, and Education/Workforce Cabinet • Goal: to create a system that securely links data together from early childhood, K-12, postsecondary, teacher licensure and preparation and other sources that allows the state to develop a broader understanding about the educational process as a seamless system

9. Data Collection/Review Process • Submit a request by email to P20 Data Collaborative detailing the nature of the data mining needed • Submit all the information housed locally (names, dates of birth of all students who were in the 3 FDK cohort groups) • Approve and sign non-disclosure agreement

10. 3 Cohorts of FDK Students

11. The Report

12. Independent Samples Test All Students

13. Implications for Further Study Page 3 of the report (Cohort 2) – Would it be possible to run separate t-tests on the Free/Reduced Lunch students in Jessamine full-day K compared to Jessamine half-day K for Explore 2010 and Plan 2012? I would like to see the t-test for that subpopulation of students on those two tests as it appears that there might be a greater statistical difference there than on other rows of the reports.

14. Students with an IEP on file

15. Students with Free/Reduced Lunch

16. Limitations of the Study • A few members of each cohort could not be found. • Because some of the students were no longer Jessamine students, I could not have access to all raw student data. • Because the data were owned/run by the P20 Data Collaborative, I could not dig further into the numbers, e.g. taking the test scores out two decimal points, running additional t-tests.

17. Parent Survey Results • Sent home link to parent survey in May 2012 • There were 662 kindergarten students in the district that month; we asked that one person per household complete the on-line survey. • 77 parents completed the survey for a return rate of approximately 11%.

18. 1. FDK was a better option for my child than HDK would have been.

19. 2. FDK was more manageable for my family than HDK would have been.

20. 3. FDK provided my child with better educational opportunities than he/she would have received in HDK.

21. 4. My child is better prepared for first grade because of FDK.

22. 5. If I had it to do all over again, I would still have chosen FDK for my child.

23. 6. The choice of FDK or HDK should be left up to individual parents.

24. 7. I have an older child (or children) who attended HDK at the Jessamine Early Learning Village.

25. 8. When I compare my children’s experiences in FDK and HDK, I believe that FDK is the better option.

26. Parent Open-Ended Responses – Advantages of FDK

27. Parent Open-Ended Responses- Disadvantages of FDK

28. Teacher Focus Group Results Seven Teachers – all have taught HDK and FDK in Jessamine County (and other locations) with the following years of experience:

29. All 7 Teachers believe: • FDK is better for most students, but not all. • Offering an HDK option with transportation is a good approach. • An even better approach would be to offer even more variety: FDK, HDK, an combination program that would allow certain students to phase from HDK to FDK based on needs/readiness.

30. Teachers described the benefits of FDK as follows: • More time for learning • noting that they had as little as 90 minutes per day for core content in HDK and as many as 300 minutes in FDK • with 90 minutes per day for reading alone. • More time for interventions and support for struggling students • including students with disabilities and English learners.

31. FDK Benefits (Cont’d) • More practice time • Can go more in-depth with the standards = rigor • More time to devote to non-academic skills like self-efficacy • More time to build relationships with students • Noting that HDK teachers have up to 48 students per day while FDK teachers have a maximum of 24

32. FDK Benefits (Cont’d) • Students make better transitions to 1st grade • Teachers have more time to work through RtI and the special education referral processes • Teachers are better able to broker support services for students and families • Noting that FDK students receive “two hot meals a day” during the school year.

33. Teachers described the challenges of FDK as follows: • Student Fatigue • Program expectations may be less developmentally-appropriate than those of HDK. How? • Need more gross motor time • Schedule is too rigid • Need to find a balance between rigor and play-based learning • Student behaviors are more difficult to manage, perhaps because the children are more tired

34. Teachers described the benefits of HDK as follows: • Teachers had a longer lunch period (between the two sessions) and more time with colleagues • Less instructional planning (repeated the a.m. session in the p.m.) • Student behaviors were less problematic because • They were less tired • Had frequent transitions • Were there less time (‘last nerve’)

35. HDK Challenges: • Teachers being accountable for up to 48 students at one time • Feeling rushed to ‘get it all in’ • Not enough time for: • Core instruction • Support for struggling students • RtI and Special Education Referral processes

36. When asked which students might not need FDK as much as others: • Those students who have better-educated, ‘with-it,’ (often) stay-at-home moms • Those students who have lots of extended learning experiences with their families, e.g., travel, trips to museums, private lessons (music, sports) • Those young 5’s who would benefit from one year of HDK followed by a year of FDK and then on to first grade. One teacher commented: “I didn’t really notice my 4-year-olds at the beginning of the year until I started FDK!”

37. Key Kindergarten Research According to John Hattie in Visible Learning: The overall effect size for specific preschool programs such as kindergarten is d=0.52. • The overall finding is that early intervention programs are more effective if they are • structured • intense • include about 15 or more children • and the children are in the program for up to 13 • hours per week.

38. Kindergarten Research (Cont’d.) The effects, however, reduce over time and thus there is a need for systematic, sustained, and constant attention to enhancing learning if these early gains are to be maximized. Hattie notes that there is support for the claim that “those most in need (disadvantaged students, for example, students from lower socioeconomic areas or minority students) gained the most [from kindergarten].” (p. 58)

39. Kindergarten Research (Cont’d.) Jones (2002) – found that all-day kindergarten had high effects (d=0.56) Fusaro (1997) - found that children attending full-day kindergarten showed significantly greater achievement than those attending half-day. Neiman and Gastright (1981) – found that disadvantaged children who attended preschool and FDK out-performed their counterparts who did not attend preschool and attended only HDK.

40. Kindergarten Research (Cont’d.) Gullo (2000) – found that children in FDK scored higher in mathematics and reading portions of a standardized achievement measure, were less likely to have been retained for a second year in a grade, and were less likely to be absent from school. Cryan et al (1992) – found a range of positive effects of FDK. FDK students, as opposed to HDK students, are more likely to show adequate school progress through their elementary school careers. FDK students exhibit more independent learning, classroom involvement, and productivity in work with peers.

41. Kindergarten Research (Cont’d.) Cryan et al (1992) – determined that “the benefits [of FDK] seemed to last well into the second grade.” Plucker & Zapf (2005) – cited results from Evansville-Vandburgh [Indiana] School Corporation that “by the third grade, students enrolled in full-day kindergarten were performing better than their half-day peers in reading, mathematics, handwriting, spelling, and English.

42. Kindergarten Research (Cont’d.) Specifically regarding disadvantaged populations, Hattie notes that the effects of early intervention programs do decline quickly over time and that “the immediate benefits decline rapidly and largely disappear after 60 months.” (p. 59)

43. Findings As expected, it was not possible to trace the benefits of full-day kindergarten over the years to college- and career-readiness as measured by Explore and Plan. But, a review of research indicates that FDK does, in fact, provide some advantage to some students, namely those of lower socioeconomic status and minority children.

44. Findings (Cont’d.) • Parents strongly prefer FDK over HDK because: • They believe that there are more learning opportunities for their children in FDK; • They believe that FDK better prepares their children for 1st grade; • They believe that the overall FDK experience is better for their child; • of the custodial value that schools hold, especially for working families.

45. Findings (Cont’d.) 3. Teachers see greater benefits from FDK than HDK, but express concern that FDK program expectations may not be as developmentally appropriate as those of HDK Key research findings along with feedback from parents and teachers provide school leaders with a lot of direction regarding the future of FDK in Jessamine County, namely:

46. Findings (Cont’d.) • That we should continue to offer a variety of kindergarten options based on the needs of individual children and the needs/desires of individual families • That we must safeguard our efforts to provide developmentally-appropriate practices in FDK and not succumb to pressure (perceived or real) to be achievement/test-driven

47. Recommendations to the Board We should continue to offer FDK as the default option for all Jessamine children as long as we can afford to do so, but always offering an HDK option for those families who choose the half-day program

48. Recommendations to the Board 2. We should explore other kindergarten alternatives such as an early 5’s program that would provide for HDK for a year with an FDK option for year 2 for targeted students

49. 3. Lastly, if funding were to become an insurmountable challenge, we should continue to offer FDK for children eligible for free/reduced lunch at no cost, providing HDK for those children who are not eligible for free/reduced lunch with FDK available on a tuition basis. Recommendations to the Board(Cont’d.)