Year 3 Full Day Kindergarten Summary Reportannual.tvdsb.ca/assets/year-3-full-day... · Year 3 Full Day Kindergarten Summary Report: 2010 – 2013 . Full Report Introduction . In

Prepared by Research and Assessment (June 2014) Page 1 of 35

Year 3 Full Day Kindergarten Summary Report: 2010 – 2013

Full Report Introduction

In 2010, the province of Ontario began the five year implementation of the new Full Day Kindergarten (FDK) program. FDK is a full day, two year, play-based education program that provides both an Ontario Certified Teacher as well as a certified Early Childhood Educator in the classroom and offers integrated before and after school programs for early learners. Prior to the start of FDK in Ontario, research from other provinces and countries had supported the idea of a full day program for 4- and 5-year old children (Baskett, Bryant, White, & Rhoads, 2005; Cooper, Batts Allen, Patall, & Dent, 2010; Schroeder, 2007). Since the implementation has begun, preliminary research has provided some support for the program as well (Janus, Duku, & Schell, 2012; Pelletier, 2012a; Pelletier, 2012b; Pelletier, 2014a, Pelletier, 2014b; Vanderlee, Youmans, Peters, & Eastabrook, 2012). The purpose of this report is to examine the impact of the province wide FDK program on students in the Thames Valley District School Board. Since Year 1 of FDK implementation, Research and Assessment Services has collected and analyzed data in order to gain a better understanding of the impact of this program. The research was designed to answer the following research questions:

(1) Do parents of FDK and non-FDK students differ in their experiences with and perceptions of the Kindergarten program or in their ratings of their children’s skills during the JK school year?

(2) Do teachers’ ratings of SK students’ physical, social, emotional and cognitive development differ for FDK and non-FDK students?

(3) Do FDK and non-FDK students differ in phonological awareness and early reading development in SK, Grade 1 or Grade 2?

(4) Are gender differences in early literacy development different for FDK and non-FDK students?

(5) Is the gap in early literacy development between at-risk and not at-risk students different for FDK and non-FDK students?

This report presents the results of parent perceptual data that focuses on their perceptions of the Kindergarten program and their ratings of their children’s skills, teacher perceptual data related to students’ early development, and student achievement data in phonological awareness and early reading. Part 1 of this report presents results of the Fall and Spring Kindergarten Parent Survey for parents of Junior Kindergarten students in the first three years


of FDK implementation (2010-2011, 2011-2012, and 2012-2013). The survey results presented in this report compare parents of Junior Kindergarten students who were enrolled in FDK to parents of students in the traditional Kindergarten program. Part 2 of this report presents student achievement results for Senior Kindergarten, Grade 1 and Grade 2 students in the first three years of FDK implementation. The student achievement results presented in this report compare students who were enrolled in the FDK program for one or both of their Junior and Senior Kindergarten years to students who were in the traditional Kindergarten program for both years of Kindergarten. Previous and current results have indicated very few small differences between families with children enrolled in the two traditional half-time Kindergarten programs (Full Day Alternating Days and Half Day Every Day). Furthermore, the sample size for students in the Half Day program is significantly smaller (8.9% of the total sample) than that of the Alternating Day students (50.3% of the total sample) and FDK students (40.8% of the total sample). Therefore, for the purpose of this report, results have been combined for the two traditional half-time programs and all findings are presented comparing families with children in a traditional half-time program (No FDK) to families with children in the new full-time program (FDK).

PART 1: PARENT SURVEY

Introduction The purpose of the Kindergarten Parent Survey is to gain important information from a parent/guardian perspective about students’ early learning experiences. Previous research has demonstrated the importance of children’s early academic and social experiences with their families (Lever & Sénéchal, 2011; Saint-Laurent & Giasson, 2005; Sénéchal & Young, 2008). Parent perceptual data from the Kindergarten Parent Survey contributes to our understanding of the impact of the FDK program from the parents’ perspective.

Method Measures

Kindergarten Parent Survey (Fall). The Fall survey was developed by Research and Assessment Services in consultation with the TVDSB program department. The survey includes 6 sections containing questions pertaining to child and family demographics, the academic, physical and social experiences that children have before starting school, parents’ ratings of their children’s cognitive, physical, social and emotional development at the beginning of Kindergarten, and parents’ beliefs about school and academics.


Kindergarten Follow-Up Parent Survey (Spring). The Spring survey was developed

by Research and Assessment Services in consultation with the TVDSB program department. The survey includes 6 sections containing questions about the academic, physical and social experiences that children have during Kindergarten, parents’ ratings of their children’s cognitive, physical, social and emotional development at the end of Kindergarten, parents’ beliefs about school and academics, and parents’ perceptions of their children’s Kindergarten program experience. Procedures During each year of FDK implementation, parents and guardians from all TVDSB schools were invited to complete the Kindergarten Parent Survey in the Fall of their child’s Junior Kindergarten year. In Year 1, a sample of JK parents who completed the Fall survey were asked to complete a follow-up survey in the Spring of their child’s Junior Kindergarten year. In year 2 and 3, all parents who completed the Fall survey were invited to complete the Spring survey. In order to compare responses from the start to the end of JK, only results from the sample of parents and guardians who completed the survey at both time points are presented in this report. Participants The survey analyses involved three cohorts of students. Students who began JK in Year 1 (2010-2011) are referred to as “Cohort 1b”, those who began JK in Year 2 (2011-2012) are referred to as “Cohort 2” and those who began JK in Year 3 (2012-2013) are referred to as “Cohort 3”. Students who began SK in Year 1 (Cohort 1a) were included in the achievement analyses in Part 2 of this report. However, it was determined that it would not be appropriate to compare survey responses of parents of SK students to those of parents of JK students. Therefore, students from Cohort 1a were not included in the Parent Survey analyses. Throughout the first three years of FDK implementation, a total of 3715 parents and guardians of Junior Kindergarten children completed both the Fall and the Spring surveys. During the first two years, the majority of parents had children who were not enrolled in the FDK program (referred to as “No FDK”). During year 3, the number of parents who had children in FDK (referred to as “FDK”) was slightly larger than the number for the traditional program. These proportions are representative of the board proportions and reflect the small number of TVDSB schools that had the FDK program in Years 1 and 2 (19 and 25 elementary schools, respectively) and the larger number of schools that had the program in Year 3 (61 schools). See Table 1 for sample counts and percentages for the first three cohorts of JK parents who completed the Fall and Spring Parent Survey.


Table 1: Counts and Percentages for Survey Sample by Year of FDK Implementation, Cohort, and Kindergarten Program

Year Cohort No FDK FDK Total 1 (2010-2011)* 1b* 199 (79.0%)* 53 (21.0%)* 252 (100.0%)* 2 (2011-2012) 2 1182 (71.7%) 466 (28.3%) 1648 (100.0%) 3 (2012-2013) 3 817 (45.0%) 998 (55.0%) 1815 (100.0%)

Total 2198 (59.2%) 1517 (40.8%) 3715 (100.0%) * Sampling process used in 2010-2011 and thus fewer students for the survey sample

Results

Demographics Families from the two Kindergarten programs (“FDK” and “No FDK”) were compared on a number of important demographic variables to ensure that there were no significant differences between the groups that may account for differences in responses to the survey questions. Chi-Square analyses were conducted to determine whether there were differences between the Kindergarten program groups in terms of children’s sex (male or female), sex of the parent who completed the survey (male or female), children’s early or late birth month (January to September or October to December), number of children in the home (one child or more than one child), first child attending school (other children attending school or no other children attending school), language spoken in the home by the child and parent (English or another language), moved in the last year (in the same neighbourhood for the last year or moved in the last year), single parent (two or more adults living in the home or one adult living in the home) and parents’ education (with or without a university degree). Table 2: Chi-Square Statistics for Demographic Results

Variable Cohort

1b 2 3 Child Sex χ²(1) = .55, p = .459 χ²(1) = .45, p = .504 χ²(1) = .78, p = .378

Parent Sex χ²(1) = 4.71, p = .030 χ²(1) = .03, p = .871 χ²(1) = 1.18, p = .277 Child Birth Month χ²(1) = 2.81, p = .094 χ²(1) = 1.83, p = .177 χ²(1) = .00, p = .951

Number of Children χ²(1) = 1.39, p = .238 χ²(1) = 1.56, p = .211 χ²(1) = 3.36, p = .067 First Child Attending School χ²(1) = 1.78, p = .183 χ²(1) = 2.61, p = .106 χ²(1) = .67, p = .413

Family Language χ²(1) = .48, p = .490 χ²(1) = .36, p = .550 χ²(1) = 5.71, p = .017 Moved in the Last Year χ²(1) = .28, p = .594 χ²(1) = 1.03, p = .310 χ²(1) = .02, p = .883

Single Parent χ²(1) = 1.59, p = .207 χ²(1) = 1.99, p = .158 χ²(1) = .22, p = .639 Parent University Degree χ²(1) = 1.48, p = .223 χ²(1) = .19, p = .662 χ²(1) = 2.55, p = .111

Spouse University Degree χ²(1) = 1.86, p = .173 χ²(1) = 1.10, p = .294 χ²(1) = .16, p = .690 Note: Required significance level is .005 when Bonferroni correction is applied


For Cohort 1b (see Figure 1 for means), Cohort 2 (see Figure 2 for means), and Cohort 3 (see Figure 3 for means), the results indicated that there were no significant demographic differences between the Kindergarten program groups. See Table 2 for Chi-Square statistics for each cohort. Figure 1: Cohort 1b Demographic Results by Kindergarten Program

Figure 2: Cohort 2 Demographic Results by Kindergarten Program

50

87.8

26.1

86.2

55.1

8.5 12.1

9

65.7

74.9

44.2

98

15.1

92.3

65.4

5.7 9.4

3.8

56.6

65.4

0

20

40

60

80

100

Child Female

Parent Female

Child Late Birth

Month

Two or More

Children

First Child Attending

School

Family Language

Not English

Moved in last year

Single parent

Parent* No Degree

Spouse* No Degree

% of Families

Demographic Variable

No FDK FDK

49

93.1

21

88

51.3

8 12.1

8

66.7

74.9

47.2

92.9

24

85.7

55.7

7.1

14

6

65.6

77.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

Child Female

Parent Female

Child Late Birth Month

Two or More

Children


School

Family Language

Not English

Moved in last year

Single Parent

Parent* No Degree

Spouse* No Degree

% of Families


No FDK FDK


Figure 3: Cohort 3 Demographic Results by Kindergarten Program

* “Parent” refers to the parent or guardian who completed the survey and “Spouse” refers to the partner or spouse of the parent who completed the survey. 91.9% of the respondents indicated that they were their child’s mother, 7.3% were their child’s father, and 0.8% identified themselves as “someone else”.

Program Perceptions & Experiences In the Spring of their children’s Junior Kindergarten year, parents were asked to indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with a number of statements about their children’s experiences in Kindergarten. Chi-Square analyses were conducted to determine whether there were differences in how parents of children in the two Kindergarten programs responded to each question. Results are presented for families with children who were in FDK compared to those with children who were not in FDK. Preliminary analyses indicated that there were very few differences between the three cohorts. Therefore, parent responses from each of the three cohorts were combined for the purpose of this analysis. The counts and percentages of parents who agreed or strongly agreed with the statements, as well as the p values for each of the Chi-Square analyses are presented in Table 3. The results indicated that parents of children from both Kindergarten programs generally reported positive experiences in JK throughout the first three years of FDK implementation. However, results from item “j” indicated that a substantial number of parents from both programs did not agree that the amount of time that their child spends at school is appropriate for his/her age (ranging from 32.5% - 32.6%). Results from items, “k”, “l”, “m”, and “n” show that some parents from both program groups expressed concern with their children’s fatigue at the end of the school day (ranging from 31.5% - 35.3% of parents), with getting their children to and from Kindergarten (ranging from 19.9% - 25.9% of parents) and with making child care arrangements for when children are not at school (ranging from 18.7% – 24.3% of parents).

51.8

91.9

22.8

85.5

52.6

9.7 12.5

7.6

64

73.6

49.7

93.3

22.6

88.4

54.6

6.6

12.8 7

60.3

72.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

Child Female

Parent Female

Child Late Birth Month

Two or More

Children


School

Family Language

Not English

Moved in last year

Single Parent

Parent* No Degree

Spouse* No Degree

% of Families


No FDK FDK


There was a significant difference between Kindergarten program groups for two items (“n“ and “q”). Significantly more parents of children who were in the traditional Kindergarten program indicated that it is difficult to make child care arrangements for the time(s) that their child is not at school. Significantly more parents of FDK children compared to parents of non-FDK children indicated that their children learned a great deal about literacy in Kindergarten. However, it should be noted that almost all parents from both Kindergarten program groups agreed or strongly agreed with this statement. Table 3: Counts, Percentages, and p Values for Parents’ who Agreed or Strongly Agreed with the Statement

Survey Item No FDK FDK p value Count % Count %

(a) My child benefited socially from attending Kindergarten. 2110 96.3% 1472 97.1% .188

(b) My child benefited academically from attending Kindergarten. 2092 95.7% 1470 97.4% .010

(c) It is important to speak positively about school to my child. 2174 99.4% 1499 99.1% .440

(d) My child looks forward to attending school. 1954 89.4% 1318 87.2% .038

(e) School routine has been good for my child. 2047 94.0% 1411 93.6% .620

(f) My child is comfortable in a school classroom. 1919 90.1% 1318 89.9% .820

(g) My child has had difficulty adjusting to the rules and routines of Kindergarten.

218 10.1% 153 10.2% .880

(h) My child has had difficulty adjusting to the other children in Kindergarten.

165 7.5% 121 8.0% .593

(i) My child has had difficulty adjusting to the academic demands of Kindergarten.

204 9.4% 126 8.4% .301

(j) The amount of time that my child spends at school is appropriate for his/her age.

1445 67.5% 1001 67.4% .950

(k) When my child comes home from school he/she is exhausted. 677 31.5% 528 35.3% .017

(l) At the start of the school year, it was easy for me to make arrangements for my child to get to and from Kindergarten.

1617 74.1% 1184 78.4% .003

(m) During the school year it has been easy for me to get my child to and from Kindergarten.

1664 77.1% 1202 80.1% .029

(n) It is difficult for me to make child care arrangements for the time(s) that my child is not at school.

524 24.3% 281 18.7% .000*

(o) My child is socially ready to move to the next grade. 1999 91.9% 1392 92.4% .533

(p) My child is academically ready to move to the next grade. 1915 90.7% 1364 92.2% .119

(q) My child learned a great deal about literacy in Kindergarten this year.

2058 94.1% 1457 96.4% .002*

(r) My child learned a great deal about numeracy in Kindergarten this year.

2024 92.5% 1432 94.5% .022

(s) My child learned a great deal about how to interact with other children in Kindergarten this year.

2018 92.1% 1426 94.1% .016

* Significant at the .003 level (required significance level when Bonferroni correction is applied)


Parents’ Program Preference Parents of JK students were asked to indicate which Kindergarten program was overall best for their child and their family. A Chi-Square analysis was conducted to determine whether differences exist in program preference between parents with children in the different Kindergarten programs and from different cohorts. The percentages of parents who indicated that the FDK program was overall best for their child and family are presented in Figure 4. Figure 4: Parents’ Preference for Kindergarten Program by Child’s Current Kindergarten Program and Cohort

For Cohort 1b, there was no significant difference between parents with children in FDK and parents with children not in FDK in the proportion of parents who preferred FDK to the traditional Kindergarten program. The majority of parents from both program groups preferred FDK. However, for Cohorts 2 and 3, significantly more parents of children in FDK compared to parents of children not in FDK indicated that FDK was overall best for their child and family. FDK continued to be the preferred program among the majority of parents from both program groups in both year 2 and 3. These results suggest that throughout the first three years of FDK implementation, the majority of parents have preferred the FDK program, regardless of which program their child attended.

56.6

61.6 63.5

61.9

71.2

85.1 83.5 83.5

59.7

68.3

74.5 70.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

Cohort 1b Cohort 2 Cohort 3 3 Cohorts Combined

% of parents

who prefer

FDK

Cohort

Child Not in FDK Child in FDK All


There were also significant differences over time in the proportion of parents who believed that FDK was overall best for their child and family, with significantly more parents preferring FDK in Year 2 compared to Year 1 and in Year 3 compared to Year 2. Despite this trend, in Year 3 there continued to be a substantial number of parents from both programs (25.5%) who did not prefer FDK. Chi-Square analyses are presented in Table 4. Table 4: Chi-Square Statistics for Parents’ Preference for Kindergarten Program

Comparisons Cohort χ² df p value

Program Group Comparisons (Child in FDK vs. Child Not in FDK)

1b 3.60 1 .058 2 84.11 1 .000* 3 93.60 1 .000*

3 Cohorts Combined 201.77 1 .000*

Cohort Comparisons for Both Program Groups

(Cohort 1b vs. Cohort 2 vs. Cohort 3)

Cohort 1b – Cohort 2 7.20 1 .007* Cohort 2 – Cohort 3 16.22 1 .000* Cohort 1b – Cohort 3 24.09 1 .000*


It should be noted that results were almost identical to those presented above when parents were asked to indicate which program is best for their child’s social development, which is best for their child’s academic development, and which Kindergarten schedule best fits their family’s lifestyle. Parents’ Program Preference Related to Availability A Univariate Analysis of Variance was conducted to determine whether parents’ program preference was related to the number of hours that they would be available to spend with their Kindergarten child if s/he was not at school. Means for each group are presented in Figure 5 and statistics are presented in Table 5. The results indicated that there was a significant difference in the average number of hours that parents who preferred different Kindergarten programs were at home. Specifically, parents who preferred the FDK program had significantly fewer day-time hours available to spend with their children than those who did not prefer the FDK program. The amount of time that partners/spouses were available to spend with their children did not significantly differ for families who preferred different Kindergarten programs. Table 5: Univariate Statistics for Parents’ Mean Day Time Hours Available Related to Program Preference

F Statistic df p value Parent 289.04 1 .000*

Partner/Spouse 2.67 1 .102 * Significant at the .001 level


Figure 5: Parents’ Mean Day Time Hours Available by Preference for Kindergarten Program

* “Parent” refers to the parent or guardian who completed the survey and “Partner/Spouse” refers to the partner or spouse of the parent who completed the survey. For 91.9% of respondents, the “parent” was the child’s mother.

Survey Results: Perceptions of Children’s Skill Levels Parents were asked to rate their children’s current skill level for a number of academic, social and emotional areas of development in both the Fall and Spring of their children’s Junior Kindergarten school year. Rankings were based on a 5-point scale with 1 representing the lowest skill level and 5 representing the highest skill level. Mean difference scores (the mean rating in the spring minus the mean rating in the fall) were calculated for parents of FDK and non-FDK children. A Multivariate Analysis of Variance was conducted to determine whether the mean difference scores were significantly different for parents with children in the two Kindergarten programs. Preliminary analyses indicated that group differences did not vary by cohort. Therefore, parent ratings from each of the three cohorts were combined for the purpose of this analysis. Mean difference scores for parents of FDK and non-FDK children, multivariate statistics, and p values are presented in Table 6.

4.13

6.33

2.06 2.23

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Prefers FDK Does Not Prefer FDK

Mean Hours

Available

Parents' Program Preference

Parent* Partner/Spouse*


Table 6: Parents’ Mean Difference Scores for their Children’s Skills, Multivariate Statistics, and p Values

Skill Area Specific Skill No FDK FDK F df p value

Literacy

(a) Knowledge of letter names. .47 .57 10.17 1, 3227 .001**

(b) Knowledge of letter sounds. .58 .66 7.27 1, 3227 .007**

(c) Familiarity with books (e.g. where to start reading on the page, direction of text).

.37 .44 4.81 1, 3227 .028*

(d) Understanding the meaning of pictures, symbols, logos.

.15 .24 10.85 1, 3227 .001**

(e) Understanding the meaning of simple written words.

.60 .76 18.77 1, 3227 .000***

(f) Representing his/her own ideas with drawings. .31 .38 4.13 1, 3227 .042*

(g) Printing letters. .59 .70 9.49 1, 3227 .002**

(h) Printing his/her name. .68 .76 4.95 1, 3227 .026*

(i) Printing simple words (e.g., Mom, cat). .86 1.04 21.69 1, 3227 .000***

Numeracy

(j) Counting and recognizing numbers (e.g., counting to ten, identifying the number '5').

.29 .35 4.20 1, 3227 .041*

(k) Understanding number relationships (e.g., showing the number '3' using three fingers).

.19 .24 2.59 1, 3227 .108

(l) Understanding patterns (e.g., two blue blocks, one red, two blue, one red).

.35 .40 2.31 1, 3227 .129

(m) Understanding quantity concepts such as 'more than' and 'less than'.

.31 .37 3.55 1, 3227 .060

Social

(n) Getting along with other children. .10 .09 .08 1, 3227 .782

(o) Playing with other children. .10 .10 .00 1, 3227 .984

(p) Sharing with other children. .17 .13 1.41 1, 3227 .235

* Significant at the .05 level **Significant at the .01 level *** Significant at the .001 level

The results indicated that parents from both groups rated their children higher in the Spring compared to the Fall for all of the skill areas. Fall to Spring changes in parents’ ratings were significantly larger for parents with children in FDK for all of the literacy-related skill areas and one area of numeracy. Parents of FDK and non-FDK children did not differ in their ratings for the other areas of numeracy development or for any of the social skills areas. Parent Involvement Related to Literacy Outcomes A number of bivariate correlations were calculated in order to examine the relationship between parents’ involvement in literacy activities with their children during the Junior Kindergarten year and parents’ perceptions of their children’s literacy skills at the end of the year. Parent responses from each of the three cohorts were combined for the purpose of this analysis.


Results indicated that there were a number of significant (but small) positive relationships between parents’ involvement in literacy activities with their children and their children’s literacy skills. Most of the literacy activities correlated with children’s literacy skills similarly for FDK and non-FDK families. However, for families whose children were enrolled in the FDK program, there were fewer significant relationships between parents reading to their children and their children’s literacy skills. For example, among FDK parents who indicated that they frequently read to their children at home, some FDK parents rated their children high in their ability to print letters, while other FDK parents rated their children low in their ability to print letters, resulting in no significant correlation. Among parents whose children were not in FDK, those who indicated that they frequently read to their children at home tended to rate their children high in their ability to print letters. Pearson correlation coefficients and p values for correlations between parents’ frequency of reading to their child and a number of literacy outcomes are presented in Table 7. Table 7: Correlation Coefficients (and p Values) for Correlations Between Parents’ Reading to Child and Child’s Literacy Skills

Child’s Literacy Skills

Parent Reading to Child

Coefficient p value

No FDK FDK No FDK FDK

Familiarity With Books .22 .14 .000* .000*

Know Letter Names .12 .13 .000* .000*

Know Letter Sounds .15 .08 .000* .003*

Understand Pictures, Symbols .18 .09 .000* .001*

Understand Simple Written Words .16 .06 .000* .020

Representing Ideas with Drawings .11 .04 .000* .140

Printing Letters .10 .07 .000* .012

Printing Name .07 .06 .001* .017

Printing Simple Words .09 .08 .000* .002*


Conclusions from the Parent Survey Demographic analyses indicated that families with children in FDK did not differ from families with children who were in the traditional Kindergarten program on a number of background variables. Given that schools were not randomly selected to begin FDK in years 1, 2 and 3, it was important to evaluate whether demographic differences existed between the two groups.


Very few differences existed in families’ Kindergarten experiences and in parents’ perceptions of the Kindergarten program for children in the different Kindergarten programs. Parents of children from both Kindergarten programs generally reported positive experiences in Kindergarten. Significantly more parents of children in the traditional Kindergarten program experienced difficulty with making child care arrangements for their children outside of school. Significantly more parents of FDK students believed that their child learned a great deal about literacy during their JK year, although both groups showed strong agreement with this item. Parents from both groups generally rated their children’s skills higher in the Spring. FDK parents showed a larger increase from Fall to Spring in their ratings of their children’s literacy skills but not in their ratings of most of the numeracy or social skills. The majority of parents from both Kindergarten program groups preferred the FDK program. Preference for FDK has been stronger among parents whose children are in FDK and has increased among parents from both programs over the three years since FDK began. Parents who preferred FDK to the traditional Kindergarten program typically had fewer day-time hours available to spend with their children. There were a number of significant positive relationships between parents’ involvement in literacy activities with their children and their children’s literacy skills for families from both Kindergarten programs. Parents’ frequency of reading to their child was related to a number of achievement outcomes for children who were not enrolled in FDK but only related to some of the achievement outcomes for children who were enrolled in FDK.


PART 2: STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Introduction Part 2 of this report presents the results of the student achievement analyses comparing students who were enrolled in FDK to those who were in the traditional Kindergarten program. The results of the Early Development Instrument (EDI) for Senior Kindergarten students as well as the results of the Phonological Awareness (PA) assessment for Senior Kindergarten students and the Developmental Reading Assessment-2 (DRA-2) for Senior Kindergarten, Grade 1 and Grade 2 students are presented.

Method

Measures Early Development Instrument (The Offord Centre for Child Studies, McMaster University, 2000). The EDI is a 137-item, teacher administered assessment of students’ readiness to learn at school. The assessment is administered to students near the end of Senior Kindergarten in order to assess their readiness to enter Grade 1. The measure provides a global assessment of students’ development in each of the following five domains: (1) Physical Health and Well-Being, (2) Social Competence, (3) Emotional Maturity, (4) Language and Cognitive Development, and (5) Communication Skills and General Knowledge. The EDI has demonstrated sufficient inter-rater reliability, concurrent validity and convergent validity (Janus & Offord, 2007; Janus et al., 2007). Phonological Awareness (Thames Valley District School Board, 2000). The PA assessment was designed and developed to provide a system level assessment of senior Kindergarten students’ phonological awareness skills. This assessment contains 33 items and is administered to students by trained Speech and Language Pathologists in the Thames Valley District School Board. The PA assessment has been administered to students for the last 14 years and has shown to correlate with other measures of achievement such as Grade 3 EQAO reading and writing. Developmental Reading Assessment – 2nd Edition (Beaver & Carter, 2006). The DRA-2 measures students’ reading proficiency through systematic observation, recording and evaluating of students’ reading performance. This assessment is administered by classroom teachers to students in Senior Kindergarten to Grade 6 in the Thames Valley District School Board. The DRA-2 assessment has demonstrated sufficient content, criterion and construct validity and internal consistency, test-retest, and inter-rater reliability (DRA-2 K-8 Technical Manual, 2011).


Procedures All students whose parents completed the Parent Kindergarten Survey and provided consent to be included in the achievement analyses were included in the following analyses. Students were grouped into cohorts based on the year that they had entered Kindergarten. Student achievement scores for each of the three measures listed above were analyzed for each separate cohort in order to determine whether differences existed between students in FDK and those in the traditional Kindergarten program. Participants Three cohorts of students were included in the student achievement analyses. The first cohort of students began Senior Kindergarten in Year 1 of FDK implementation (Cohort 1a) and their SK, Grade 1 and Grade 2 scores were analyzed. The second cohort of students began Junior Kindergarten in Year 1 of FDK implementation (Cohort 1b) so both their SK and Grade 1 scores were analyzed. Finally, the third cohort of students began Junior Kindergarten in Year 2 of FDK implementation (Cohort 2) so only their SK scores were included in the analyses. The Cohort 1b and Cohort 2 analyses compared students who were enrolled in FDK for both their JK and SK years (FDK) to students who were enrolled in the traditional program for both years (No FDK). Students from these cohorts who were enrolled in FDK for either their JK or SK year but were in the traditional program for their other Kindergarten year were not included in these analyses since they represented a small number of students and had only received a half dose of the two-year FDK program. The Cohort 1a analyses compared students who were enrolled in FDK for SK only to students who were in the traditional program for both of their Kindergarten years. Students in Cohort 1a were in SK for Year 1 of FDK implementation and therefore, none of these students were in the FDK program for both of their Kindergarten years. This should be considered when interpreting the findings from Cohort 1a. The final sample included a total of 6504 students. There were 2500 students in Cohort 1a, 2191 students in Cohort 1b, and 1813 students in Cohort 2. See Table 8 for sample counts and percentages by cohort and Kindergarten program. Table 8: Counts and Percentages of Sample Participants by Cohort and Kindergarten Program

Cohort No FDK FDK Total 1a 2179 (87.2%) 321 (12.8%) 2500 (100%) 1b 1787 (81.6%) 404 (18.4%) 2191 (100%)

2 1179 (65.0%) 634 (35.0%) 1813 (100%) Total 5145 (79.1%) 1359 (20.9) 6504 (100%)

For all three cohorts, the majority of students had not attended FDK for either their JK or SK year. A smaller number of students had attended the FDK program for either their SK year only


(Cohort 1a) or for both JK and SK (Cohorts 1b and 2). These proportions reflect the small number of TVDSB schools that had the FDK program in Years 1 and 2 (approximately 13% and 18% of elementary schools, respectively) and the somewhat larger proportion that had the program in Year 3 (approximately 47% of elementary schools).

Results Demographics

Families from the two Kindergarten programs (FDK and No FDK) were compared on a number of important demographic variables to ensure that there were no significant differences between the groups that may account for differences in students’ scores. Chi-Square analyses were conducted to determine whether there were differences between the groups in terms of children’s sex (male or female), sex of the parent who completed the survey (male or female), children’s early or late birth month (January to September or October to December), number of children in the home (one child or more than one child), first child attending school (other children attending school or no other children attending school), language spoken in the home by the child and parent (English or another language), moved in the last year (in the same neighbourhood for the last year or moved in the last year), single parent (two or more adults living in the home or one adult living in the home) and parents’ education (with or without a university degree). For Cohort 1b (see Figure 6 for means), Cohort 2 (see Figure 7 for means), and Cohort 3 (see Figure 8 for means), the results indicated that there were no significant demographic differences between the Kindergarten program groups. See Table 9 for Chi-Square statistics for each cohort. Table 9: Chi-Square Statistics for Demographic Results by Cohort

Variable Cohort

1a 1b 2 Child Sex χ²(1) = 1.57, p = .211 χ²(1) = .21, p = .643 χ²(1) = .84, p = .361

Parent Sex χ²(1) = 1.25, p = .264 χ²(1) = .41, p = .520 χ²(1) = .36, p = .550 Child Birth Month χ²(1) = .91, p = .341 χ²(1) = .09, p = .766 χ²(1) = .64, p = .423

Number of Children χ²(1) = .02, p = .902 χ²(1) = 6.50, p = .011 χ²(1) = .39, p = .531 First Child Attending School χ²(1) = .08, p = .779 χ²(1) = .01, p = .912 χ²(1) = 1.45, p = .229

Family Language χ²(1) = 7.62, p = .006 χ²(1) = 2.37, p = .123 χ²(1) = 3.96, p = .047 Moved in the Last Year χ²(1) = .22, p = .638 χ²(1) = .17, p = .679 χ²(1) = .07, p = .792

Single Parent χ²(1) = 3.70, p = .054 χ²(1) = 5.12, p = .024 χ²(1) = 7.72, p = .005 Parent University Degree χ²(1) = .44, p = .509 χ²(1) = 5.37, p = .021 χ²(1) = .41, p = .521

Spouse University Degree χ²(1) = 7.06, p = .008 χ²(1) = 1.43, p = .232 χ²(1) = .75, p = .386 * Significant at the .005 level (required significance level when Bonferroni correction is applied)


Figure 6: Demographic Results for Cohort 1a

Figure 7: Demographic Results for Cohort 1b

Figure 8: Demographic Results for Cohort 2

50.6

91.8

23.5

87.3

52.1

2.9

12.2 10.6

69.8 76.2

46.9

93.6

21

87.1

51.3

7 11.3

7.2

71.6

83.2

0

20

40

60

80

100

Child Female

Parent Female

Child Late Birth

Month

Two or More

Children


School

Family Language

Not English

Moved in last year

Single Parent

Parent No Degree

Spouse No Degree

% of Families


No FDK FDK

49.3

92.2

21.6

84

55.4

6.1 12.4 10.1

70.4 76.2

48

93.2

22.3

89.1

55.7

4.1

13.2

6.4

64.5

73.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

Child Female

Parent Female

Child Late Birth

Month

Two or More

Children


School

Family Language

Not English

Moved in last year

Single Parent

Parent No Degree

Spouse No Degree

% of Families


No FDK FDK

51.1

91.1

21.1

86.7

50.5

6.5 13.3 10.8

70.1 75.7

48.9

91.9

22.7

85.6

53.5

4.2

13.8

6.8

68.7

77.6

0

20

40

60

80

100

Child Female

Parent Female

Child Late Birth

Month

Two or More

Children


School

Family Language

Not English

Moved in last year

Single Parent

Parent No Degree

Spouse No Degree

% of Families


No FDK FDK


Early Development Instrument (EDI): Group Comparison Analyses Senior Kindergarten students from Cohort 1b who were assessed using the EDI in the Spring of the 2011-2012 school year were included in the following analyses. A Multivariate Analysis of Variance was conducted to determine whether children’s EDI scores in each of the five component areas varied by Kindergarten program group. Figure 9: EDI Mean Scores for Each Component Area by Kindergarten Program

The results indicated that there were no significant differences between the program groups in students’ physical, social or emotional development. However, FDK students received significantly higher scores than non-FDK students in Language and Cognitive Skills and in Communication and General Knowledge Skills. See Figure 9 for EDI mean scores and Table 10 for Multivariate statistics. Table 10: Multivariate Statistics for EDI Group Comparison Results

EDI Component Area F df p value Physical Well-Being .44 1, 2149 .506 Social Development .45 1, 2149 .503

Emotional Development 1.18 1, 2149 .277 Language & Cognitive Skills 32.04 1, 2149 .000***

Communication & General Knowledge Skills 11.78 1, 2149 .001** **Significant at the .01 level *** Significant at the .001 level

90.08 87.08

83.52

92.2

82.56

89.63 86.47

82.64

95.7

86.61

0

20

40

60

80

100

Physical Social Emotional Language & Cognitive

Communication & Knowledge

Mean % Score

EDI Section

No FDK FDK


Early Development Instrument (EDI): Group Comparison Analyses by Sex A Multivariate Analysis of Variance was conducted to determine whether Kindergarten program differences in children’s EDI scores varied by sex. The results indicated that for each area, there was a main effect of sex showing that girls in both Kindergarten program groups scored significantly higher than boys. Kindergarten program differences did not vary by sex for any of the five EDI component areas, with the exception of the physical development area. For physical development, the difference between girls and boys was larger among students not in FDK. There were no other significant differences. See Figures 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 for mean scores for boys and girls and Table 11 for Multivariate statistics. Table 11: Multivariate Statistics for EDI Results by Kindergarten Program and Sex

Component Variables F statistic df p value Physical Sex 10.52 1,2135 .001**

Kindergarten Program x Sex 5.42 1,2135 .020*

Social Sex 43.32 1,2135 .000*** Kindergarten Program x Sex 1.27 1,2135 .260

Emotional Sex 88.23 1,2135 .000***

Kindergarten Program x Sex 1.70 1,2135 .193

Language & Cognitive

Sex 25.80 1,2135 .000*** Kindergarten Program x Sex .60 1,2135 .439

Communication & Knowledge

Sex 31.50 1,2135 .000*** Kindergarten Program x Sex .02 1,2135 .892

* Significant at the .05 level ** Significant at the .01 level *** Significant at the .001 level

Figure 10: EDI Physical Well-Being Results by Kindergarten Program and Sex

92 90 88.3 89.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

No FDK FDK

Mean % Score

Kindergarten Program Group

Girls Boys


Figure 11: EDI Social Development Results by Kindergarten Program and Sex

Figure 12: EDI Emotional Development Results by Kindergarten Program and Sex

Figure 13: EDI Language and Cognitive Skills Results by Kindergarten Program and Sex

90.6 89 83.7 84.1

0

20

40

60

80

100

No FDK FDK

Mean % Score


Girls Boys

87.7 85.9 79.4 79.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

No FDK FDK

Mean % Score


Girls Boys

94 97.1 90.4 94.4

0

20

40

60

80

100

No FDK FDK

Mean % Score


Girls Boys


Figure 14: EDI Communication and General Knowledge Skills Results by Kindergarten Program and Sex

Phonological Awareness (PA): Group Comparisons Students who completed the PA assessment in the Fall and Spring of their Senior Kindergarten year were included in the following analyses. A Multivariate Analysis of Variance was conducted to determine whether children’s Fall and Spring PA scores varied by Kindergarten program group. A Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance was also conducted in order to determine whether there was a difference in children’s Fall to Spring change scores between the Kindergarten program groups. See Table 12 for Multivariate and Repeated Measures statistics and Figures 15, 16, and 17 for group means. Table 12: Multivariate and Repeated Measures Statistics for PA Results

Cohort Season F df p value

1a Fall 2.09 1, 2385 .148

Spring 3.40 1, 2385 .065 Fall-Spring 18.26 1, 2385 .000***

1b Fall 33.29 1, 2189 .000***

Spring 42.75 1, 2189 .000*** Fall-Spring .72 1, 2189 .397

2

Fall 44.87 1, 1772 .000*** Spring 49.51 1, 1772 .000***

Fall-Spring 2.44 1, 1772 .118 *** Significant at the .001 level

85.9 90

79.2 83.6

0

20

40

60

80

100

No FDK FDK

Mean % Score


Girls Boys


Figure 15: Cohort 1a PA Results by Kindergarten Program

For Cohort 1a, the results indicated that there was no significant difference in PA scores in either the Fall or the Spring between the Kindergarten program groups. At both time points, students who were enrolled in FDK did not differ in PA scores from students who were in the regular Kindergarten program. However, a Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance determined that there was a significant difference in children’s Fall to Spring change scores between the Kindergarten program groups. Specifically, FDK students showed significantly larger Fall to Spring growth in PA scores compared to non-FDK students.

57.35

81.44

54.85

83.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

Fall Spring

Mean % Correct

Test Season

No FDK FDK


Figure 16: Cohort 1b PA Results by Kindergarten Program

For Cohort 1b, the results indicated that there was a significant difference in PA scores in both the Fall and the Spring between the Kindergarten program groups. At both time points, students who were enrolled in FDK scored significantly higher than students who were in the regular Kindergarten program. A Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance determined that there was no significant difference in children’s Fall to Spring change scores between the Kindergarten program groups.

55.64

80.45

64.35

88.22

0

20

40

60

80

100

Fall Spring

Mean % Correct

Test Season

No FDK FDK


Figure 17: Cohort 2 PA Results by Kindergarten Program

For Cohort 2, the results indicated that there was a significant difference in PA scores in both the Fall and the Spring between the Kindergarten program groups. At both time points, students who were enrolled in FDK scored significantly higher than students who were in the regular Kindergarten program. A Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance determined that there was no significant difference in children’s Fall to Spring change scores between the Kindergarten program groups.

56.24

80.33

65.54

88.08

0

20

40

60

80

100

Fall Spring

Mean % Correct

Test Season

No FDK FDK


Phonological Awareness (PA): Group Comparisons by Sex Multivariate Analyses of Variance were conducted to determine whether differences between boys and girls varied by Kindergarten program group in the Fall and Spring of the SK year. See Table 13 for Fall and Spring Multivariate statistics and Figures 18, 19 and 20 for Spring PA mean scores by sex. Table 13: Multivariate Statistics for Spring PA Results by Kindergarten Program and Sex

Cohort Test Season Variables F statistic df p value 1a Fall Sex 29.25 1, 2374 .000***

FDK x Sex 1.74 1, 2374 .188 Spring Sex 26.17 1, 2374 .000***

FDK x Sex 1.23 1, 2374 .268

1b Fall Sex 7.84 1, 2175 .005** FDK x Sex .33 1, 2175 .564

Spring Sex 14.36 1, 2175 .000*** FDK x Sex .57 1, 2175 .450

2 Fall Sex 10.73 1, 1766 .001**

FDK x Sex .05 1, 1766 .821 Spring Sex 11.01 1, 1766 .001**

FDK x Sex .02 1, 1766 .892 ** Significant at the .01 level *** Significant at the .001 level Figure 18: Cohort 1a Spring PA Results by Kindergarten Program and Sex

78.89 80.03 84.17

88.24

0

20

40

60

80

100

No FDK FDK

Mean % Correct


Boys Girls


For all three cohorts, the results indicated that sex differences did not vary by program. For both programs, girls scored significantly higher than boys in the Fall and in the Spring. Fall PA mean scores by sex are not presented but sex differences were very similar to the Spring results for all three cohorts. Figure 19: Cohort 1b Spring PA Results by Kindergarten Program and Sex

Figure 20: Cohort 2 Spring PA Results by Kindergarten Program and Sex

77.8

86.49 83.18

90.08

0

20

40

60

80

100

No FDK FDK

Mean % Correct


Boys Girls

78.53

86.46 82.31

89.94

0

20

40

60

80

100

No FDK FDK

Mean % Correct


Boys Girls


Phonological Awareness (PA): Group Comparisons for At-Risk Students A Univariate Analysis of Variance was conducted to determine whether differences in children’s Spring PA scores between at-risk and not at-risk students varied by Kindergarten program group. For Cohort 1a, at-risk students were defined as receiving a PA score of 28.81% or less (one standard deviation below the mean) in the Fall of SK. The results indicated that the difference between at-risk and not at-risk students was not significantly different for students who had attended the FDK program and students who were in the regular program. See Figure 21 for Spring PA mean scores and Table 14 for Post Hoc statistics. Figure 21: Cohort 1a Spring PA Scores by Kindergarten Program for At-Risk and Not At-Risk Students

For Cohort 1b, at-risk students were defined as receiving a PA score of 29.02% or less (one standard deviation below the mean) in the Fall of SK. The results indicated that the difference between at-risk and not at-risk students was significantly smaller for students who had attended the FDK program. See Figure 22 for Spring PA mean scores and Table 14 for Post Hoc statistics.

50.57

56.65

88.54 90.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

No FDK FDK

Mean % Correct


At-Risk Not At-Risk


Figure 22: Cohort 1b Spring PA Scores by Kindergarten Program for At-Risk and Not At-Risk Students

For Cohort 2, at-risk students were defined as receiving a PA score of 29.82% or less (one standard deviation below the mean) in the Fall of SK. The results indicated that the difference between at-risk and not at-risk students was significantly smaller for students who had attended the FDK program. See Figure 23 for Spring PA mean scores and Table 14 for Post Hoc statistics. Figure 23: Cohort 2 Spring PA Scores by Kindergarten Program for At-Risk and Not At-Risk Students

52.23

64.73

87.28 91.31

0

20

40

60

80

100

No FDK FDK

Mean % Correct


At-Risk Not At-Risk

48.58

60.01

88.34 91.99

0

20

40

60

80

100

No FDK FDK

Mean % Correct


At-Risk Not At-Risk


Table 14: Univariate Statistics for Spring PA Results by Kindergarten Program for At-Risk and Not At-Risk Students

Cohort Variables F statistic df p value 1a At-Risk 854.02 1, 2383 .000***

FDK x At-Risk 2.40 1, 2383 .122

1b At-Risk 467.09 1, 2187 .000*** FDK x At-Risk 8.83 1, 2187 .003**

2 At-Risk 880.86 1, 1770 .000***

FDK x At-Risk 10.36 1, 1770 .001** ** Significant at the .01 level *** Significant at the .001 level

Developmental Reading Assessment – 2nd Edition (DRA-2): Group Comparisons A series of Chi-Square analyses were conducted to determine whether there were differences in students’ DRA-2 scores between the Kindergarten program groups. See Figures 24, 25, and 26 for mean scores and Table 15 for Post Hoc statistics. For Cohort 1a, in the Spring of SK and the Fall of Grade 1, the results indicated that there was a significant difference between the program groups. For these two time points, a significantly larger proportion of students who attended the FDK program obtained their grade level DRA-2 benchmark compared to students who were enrolled in the regular program. There were no significant group differences in the Spring of Grade 1 or the Fall or Spring of Grade 2. Figure 24: Cohort 1a DRA-2 Results by Kindergarten Program

59.8

68.1

44.5

51.7 47.8

80.3 83.3

50.8 54.6 56.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

SK Spring Gr. 1 Fall Gr. 1 Spring Gr. 2 Fall Gr. 2 Spring

% Obtained Benchmark

Grade & Season

No FDK FDK


For Cohort 1b, in the Spring of SK, the Fall of Grade 1 and the Spring of Grade 1, the results indicated that there was a significant difference between the program groups. For all three time points, a significantly larger proportion of students who attended the FDK program obtained their grade level DRA-2 benchmark compared to students who were enrolled in the regular program. Figure 25: Cohort 1b DRA-2 Results by Kindergarten Program

For Cohort 2, in the Spring of SK, the results indicated that there was a significant difference between the program groups. A significantly larger proportion of students who attended the FDK program obtained their grade level DRA-2 benchmark compared to students who were enrolled in the regular program. Figure 26: Cohort 2 DRA-2 Results by Kindergarten Program

64.4

72.6

46.9

89 89.2

60.4

0

20

40

60

80

100

SK Spring Gr. 1 Fall Gr. 1 Spring


Grade & Season

No FDK FDK

62

82.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

SK Spring


Grade & Season

No FDK FDK


Table 15: Chi-Square Statistics for DRA-2 Results by Cohort and Time Point

Cohort Group χ² df p value

1a SK Spring 48.05 1 .000* Gr. 1 Fall 28.06 1 .000*

Gr. 1 Spring 4.11 1 .043 Gr. 2 Fall .87 1 .350

Gr. 2 Spring 7.56 1 .006

1b SK Spring 91.51 1 .000* Gr. 1 Fall 45.23 1 .000*

Gr. 1 Spring 19.16 1 .000* 2 SK Spring 63.79 1 .000*


Conclusions from the Student Achievement Analyses Students who had been enrolled in the FDK program demonstrated significantly higher achievement scores at the end of SK and at the beginning and end of Grade 1 compared to students who had been in the traditional Kindergarten program. However, by the beginning of Grade 2, there were no significant differences in students’ scores. The gap in phonological awareness skills between at-risk and not at-risk students was significantly smaller for students who had attended the FDK program. Group differences in phonological awareness did not vary by sex. There were no significant differences between the Kindergarten program groups in terms of students’ physical, social or emotional development. However, students who were enrolled in FDK received significantly higher scores in language and cognitive skills and communication and general knowledge skills.

Discussion: Overall Implications and Limitations It is important to acknowledge a number of cautions and limitations associated with this research. While all Kindergarten parents were invited to complete the surveys, only a subset of the parents (approximately 35%) agreed to participate in both the Fall and the Spring and therefore, the parent survey sample may not be representative of the larger Junior Kindergarten population. The potentially biased sample should be considered in interpreting and generalizing results from the parent survey. The measures of student outcomes employed in this research also should be considered as a limitation. The results of one measure of phonological awareness, one measure of reading ability, and a teacher report of early development were analyzed for the purpose of this


research. Direct measures of students’ early writing, numeracy, social, emotional, and physical development were not administered. However, parent perceptions of students’ skills in these areas provided some indication of students’ abilities as well. Differences between the Kindergarten program groups that were observed using the direct measures of student achievement (i.e., PA and DRA-2) were substantiated by the findings from the parent ratings of children’s literacy skills that also showed differences between FDK and non-FDK students. Parents of children in the FDK program did not differ from parents in the traditional Kindergarten program in their Fall to Spring ratings of their children’s numeracy and social skills. Teachers also showed no difference in their ratings of FDK and non-FDK students’ social skills. Results from this research suggest that FDK is not having an impact on students’ early numeracy and social skills development. Further research employing direct measures of numeracy and social development is needed to determine the impact of FDK in these areas. Parent survey and student achievement results presented in this report are based on the first three years of implementation of the FDK program only. It is important to acknowledge that implementation measures have not been collected, and therefore it cannot be determined to what extent the program has been implemented according to the new Full-Day Early Learning Kindergarten Program document (Ministry of Education, 2010). It is likely that as the program is implemented in all TVDSB schools, fewer challenges will arise and the program will more accurately reflect the curriculum that is presented in the curriculum document. Findings from this report may be used for planning purposes and to identify challenging areas for both parents and students. The results suggest that parents’ frequency of reading to their children at home is related to a number of literacy outcomes for children in the traditional program, but related to only some outcomes for children in the FDK program. The relationship between parents reading to children and children’s language and literacy development has been well documented in the research literature in a variety of contexts (Hood, Conlon, & Andrews, 2008; Mason, Kerr, Sinha, & McCormick, 1990; Sénéchal & LeFevre, 2002; Whitehurst et al., 1994). The current findings suggest that this relationship may not be as strong among FDK families, perhaps due to the decreased time at home and increased time at school for children in FDK. This complex issue will need to be examined further in order to gain a clear understanding of the nature of this relationship and how it may be impacted by FDK. The majority of parents believe that the FDK program is overall best for their child and family, regardless of the program in which their child is currently enrolled. However, parents from all three of the Kindergarten programs reported positive experiences in Kindergarten. FDK parents generally did not express fewer challenges related to their children’s experiences at school compared to parents of children in the traditional program. Given that all Kindergarten students in TVDSB will be enrolled in FDK in the Fall of 2014, it is important that efforts are made to continue to provide appropriate supports and resources for all parents and children. While the findings from this report provide evidence that FDK has a positive impact on students’ development, results also indicate that FDK seems to have a larger impact on at-risk


students (i.e., those achieving low phonological awareness scores at the beginning of SK). It may be the case that FDK has a unique effect on students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, students who are English Language Learners, students with special needs or students who are struggling academically. Additional research investigating these specific populations is needed in order to determine whether FDK has a unique impact on these students. Finally, although the positive impact of the FDK program on students’ early language and literacy development in the first three years of implementation has been reported both anecdotally by staff and administrators and supported by research-based evidence in this report, the sustainability of the impact is not yet clear. While findings from SK and Grade 1 suggest that the program is having a positive impact (difference of approximately 4% for cognitive areas of the EDI, 8-9% for PA scores, about 20-25% more students reaching DRA benchmark in SK, and about 6-17% more students reaching DRA benchmark in Grade 1), the research suggests that group differences may no longer be significant by the beginning of Grade 2 (only about 3% more students reaching DRA benchmark). The sustainability of the program effects is not yet clear but will be determined based on solid research findings produced over several years of implementation.


References Baskett, R., Bryant, K., White, W., & Rhoads, K. (2005). Half-day to full-day kindergarten: An analysis of

educational change scores and demonstration of an educational research collaboration. Early Child Development and Care, 175(5), 419-430.

Beaver, J. M. & Carter, M. A. (2006). Developmental Reading Assessment, Second Edition (DRA-2). Parsippany,

NJ: Celebration Press, Pearson Education, Inc. Cooper, H., Batts Allen, A., Patall, E. A., & Dent, A. L. (2010). Effects of full-day kindergarten on academic

achievement and social development. Review of Educational Research, 80(1), 34-70. Developmental Reading Assessment – 2nd Edition K-8 Technical Manual. (2011). Pearson Education,

Inc. Hood, M., Conlon, E., & Andrews, G. (2008). Preschool home literacy practices and children's literacy

development: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 252-271.

Janus, M., Brinkman, S., Duku, E., Hertzman, C., Santos, R., Sayers, M., Schroeder, J., & Walsh, C. (2007). The Early Development Instrument: A population-based measure for communities. A handbook on development, properties, and use. Hamilton, ON: Offord Centre for Child Studies.

Janus, M., Duku, E., & Schell, A. (2012). The full day kindergarten early learning program final report. Offord

Centre for Child Studies, McMaster University, Hamilton Ontario, 1-107. Janus, M. & Offord, D. R. (2007). Development and psychometric properties of the Early Development Instrument

(EDI): A measure of children’s school readiness. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 39(1), 1-22. Lever, R., & Sénéchal, M. (2011). Discussing stories: On how a dialogic reading intervention improves

kindergartners' oral narrative construction. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 108(1), 1-24. Mason, J. M., Kerr, B. M., Sinha, S., & McCormick, C. (1990). Shared book reading in an early start program for

at-risk children. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 39, 189-198. Ministry of Education. (2010). The Full-Day Early Learning Kindergarten Program – Draft Version. Toronto. ON. Pelletier, J. (2012a). Key findings from year 1 of full-day early learning kindergarten in Peel. Toronto, ON: Dr. Eric

Jackman Institute of Child Study, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. Pelletier, J. (2012b). Key findings from year 2 of full-day early learning kindergarten in Peel. Toronto, ON: Dr. Eric

Jackman Institute of Child Study, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. Pelletier, J. (2014a). Key findings from year 3 of full-day early learning kindergarten in Peel. Toronto, ON: Dr. Eric

Jackman Institute of Child Study, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. Pelletier, J. (2014b). Ontario’s full-day Kindergarten: A bold public policy initiative. Health & Education, 1-9. Phonolgical Awareness Assessment. (2000). London, ON: The Thames Valley District School Board.


Saint-Laurent, L., & Giasson, J. (2005). Effects of a family literacy program adapting parental intervention to first graders' evolution of reading and writing abilities. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 5(3), 253-278.

Schroeder, J. (2007). Full-day kindergarten offsets negative effects of poverty on state tests. European Early

Childhood Education Research Journal, 15(3), 427-439. Sénéchal, M., & LeFevre, J. (2002). Parental involvement in the development of children’s reading skill: A five-

year longitudinal study. Child Development, 73(2), 445-460. Sénéchal, M., & Young, L. (2008). The effect of family literacy interventions on children's acquisition of reading

from kindergarten to grade 3: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 880-907. The Early Development Instrument. (2000). Hamilton, ON: The Offord Centre for Child Studies, McMaster

University. Vanderlee, M., Youmans, S., Peters, R, & Eastabrook, J. (2012). Final report: Evaluation of the implementation of

the Ontario full-day early learning kindergarten program. St. Catharine’s and Kingston, ON: Brock University and Queen’s University.

Walker, O. L., & Henderson, H. A. (2012). Temperament and social problem solving competence in preschool:

Influences on academic skills in early elementary school. Social Development, 21(4), 761-779. Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Smith, M., & Fischel, J. E. (1994). A picture book

reading intervention in day care and home for children from low-income families. Developmental Psychology, 30(5), 679-689.

Documents

Year 3 Full Day Kindergarten Summary Reportannual.tvdsb.ca/assets/year-3-full-day... · Year 3 Full Day Kindergarten Summary Report: 2010 – 2013 . Full Report Introduction . In