Many who read this site regularly know I am not an advocate of all day K for all students.
In 2006 the RAND Corporation released a comprehensive, peer-reviewed report titled: "School Readiness, Full-Day Kindergarten, and Student Achievement" (view it here).
The Summary notes on School Readiness and Reading and Mathematics Achievement:
We found that both academic and nonacademic school readiness skills at entry to kinder-garten were significantly related to eventual reading and mathematics achievement in fifth grade. Controlling for nonacademic readiness skills at kindergarten entry eliminated the black-white achievement gap in reading at the fifth grade, while attending a full-day kindergarten was unrelated to reading performance...In other words, after controlling for nonacademic readiness at kindergarten, children who had attended a full-day program at kindergarten showed poorer mathematics performance in fifth grade than did children who had attended a part-day kindergarten program.In short, K-readiness is the key to future academic success, and when this factor is controlled, full-time K students are equal in reading and worse in math by the time they get to 5th grade than their peers who took part-time K.
To me, this says the investment of dollars on full-day K is not necessary, and further, if we are going to expend funds it ought to be on pre-k readiness programs to help ensure as many students are academically and nonacademically ready for kindergarten as possible.
7 comments:
Ross
Any idea what happens to the messianic scores if they eliminate K all together, start school later for boys, say age 7 and begin all kids in the first grade.
While I respect the RAND corporation, the findings of the study seemed counter intuitive to me so I read the study. The study's findings were that full day kindergarten does not level the playing field for children entering with less academics skills. In fact, the study suggests that instead of extending the day for less adept students, it would be much better if they instruction at a younger age.
The problem with the study and the reason I believe the math scores are lower for the all day K students is covered under the Limitations heading of the study. They realized the study may be a biased by self-selection of the participants. The all day K students were from lower income and less involved parents. That has a huge affect upon achievement through-out life. Quite frankly, I'm extremely surprised that they did not attempt to mitigate this factor. They even come out and say that any future study should do so because it is so important. If it is so important for future studies, why did they leave it out of this one?
I do believe the study does offer some important points:
1. Be involved with your child and with your child's school
2. Start the learning process early.
3. Teach them that learning is a life-long process.
4. Adding hours to their learning day does not 'catch them up' to students who have been better prepared.
5. Parents have much more influence than any school program ever will.
Thorcha
Item 5 is where it all begins. Mom and dad, and particularly Mom, must be there in the early years for the kids. As parents and grandparents, we have all been privy to this fact. Little kids love their moms. So let's keep kids home longer and start them at grade one. The only thing full day K will do is fill the pockets of the teachers union and empty the pockets of the taxpayers. Full day K is a gimmick to do this as well as serve as a baby sitter for working moms. We have to stop abandoning our kids to the damnable governmnet school system.
Thorcha,
I'm glad you read the report and I hope more people do.
I think the "Limitations" section is not designed to refute their own study, but only to point out potential reasons how the result could have been impacted.
The primary reason they indicate is "self-selection" by parents. It did not state that lower income or non-involved parents self-selected, and therefore corrupted the study, it only noted that there was "some evidence" to "suggest" lower-income parents were more likely to send their kids to all day k.
The primary point remains K-readiness is the main driver to academic success, and not all day K.
Under implications they note, "Our analyses reinforce the findings of earlier studies that suggest that full-day kindergarten programs may not enhance achievement in the long term. Furthermore, our study raises the
possibility that full-day kindergarten programs may actually be detrimental to mathematics performance and nonacademic readiness skills."
Read with caution yes, but the main point of my post is that everyone makes the assumption that all day K is good for children, because it makes sense (more time in class equals more learning) and therefore this is an issue of cost. In reality, while counter-intuitive to many, all day K may range from no benefit to detrimental, at a higher cost to taxpayers.
No, the 'Limitations' portion is not there to refute, but rather to C.Y.A. However, it is a serious problem with the study and one they should have addresses.
Think about it. They are saying the more time spent practicing something, the worse the child got at it. It a remarkable statement to make. It does raise serious questions in my mind about any other conclusions they came to.
I think the main point they made - All day K does not "catch up" the less prepared students is valid.
As for the cost benefit of paying for all day K, I do not believe any benefit gained is worth the additional cost.
Oh and Chris I do agree that #5 is where it all begins, but I'm not sure leaving the students home another year is helpful in all situations. (What happens when the mother is an idiot?)
I do agree that school should not be used as a babysitter - All Day K is often used in this way. Hence my problem with the RAND study.
I would take your last statement, "We have to stop abandoning our kids to the damnable governmnet school system." and alter it slightly. "Parents can not expect the schools or government to do their job of raising their children. It's your job to raise your children."
Thorcha
Don't most kids see not only mom but dad as idiots:)I honestly think kids, and particularly boys, need to spend additional time at home. Girls do seem to mature quicker then boys. On top of that, schools are designed for girls today in that there is less time spent outside with physical activity. Boys, for whatever the reason, have a lot more energy that they need to burn off and they are not getting that opportunity at the government schools. Thus we see boys getting into more and more trouble because they act up. This causes them to become disgruntled with school and they leave. Many are not going onto any type of training and lots are staying out of college. This is not a good thing.
Post a Comment