Association of a Full-Day vs Part-Day Preschool Intervention With School Readiness, Attendance, and Parent Involvement | Child Development | JAMA | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.170.64.36. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Braveman  P, Gottlieb  L.  The social determinants of health: it’s time to consider the causes of the causes.  Public Health Rep. 2014;129(suppl 2):19-31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
2.
Manning  M, Homel  R, Smith  C.  A meta-analysis of the effects of early developmental prevention programs in at-risk populations on non-health outcomes in adolescence.  Child Youth Serv Rev. 2010;32(4):506-519.Google ScholarCrossref
3.
Karoly  LA, Kilburn  MR, Cannon  JS.  Early Childhood Intervention: Proven Results, Future Promise. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corp; 2005.
4.
Campbell  FA, Ramey  CT, Pungello  E, Sparling  J, Miller-Johnson  S.  Early childhood education: young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian project.  Appl Dev Sci. 2002;6(1):42-57.Google ScholarCrossref
5.
Schweinhart  LJ, Montie  J, Xiang  Z, Barnett  WS, Belfield  CR, Nores  M.  Lifetime Effects: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation; 2005.
6.
Barnett  WS, Carolan  ME, Fitzgerald  J, Squires  JH.  The State of Preschool 2012: State Preschool Yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research; 2012.
7.
US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Conditions of education: kindergarten entry status: on-time, delayed-entry, and repeating kindergartners; 2013. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/pdf/coe_tea.pdf.February 15, 2014.
8.
Heckman  JJ.  Skill formation and the economics of investing in disadvantaged children.  Science. 2006;312(5782):1900-1902.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Loeb  S, Bridges  M, Bassok  D, Fuller  B, Rumberger  RW.  How much is too much? the influence of preschool centers on children's social and cognitive development.  Econ Educ Rev. 2007;26(1):52-66.Google ScholarCrossref
10.
Valenti  JE, Tracey  DH.  Full-day, half-day, and no preschool effects on urban children’s first-grade reading achievement.  Educ Urban Soc. 2009;41(6):695-711.Google ScholarCrossref
11.
Robin  KB, Frede  EC, Barnett  WS. Is more better? the effects of full-day vs half-day preschool on early school achievement. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research; 2006.http://nieer.org/resources/research/IsMoreBetter.pdf. January 23, 2012.
12.
Reynolds  AJ.  Success in Early Intervention: The Chicago Child-Parent Centers Program and Youth Through Age 15. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press; 2000.
13.
Reynolds  AJ, Temple  JA, Robertson  DL, Mann  EA.  Long-term effects of an early childhood intervention on educational achievement and juvenile arrest: a 15-year follow-up of low-income children in public schools.  JAMA. 2001;285(18):2339-2346.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Reynolds  AJ, Temple  JA, Ou  SR, Arteaga  IA, White  BAB.  School-based early childhood education and age-28 well-being: effects by timing, dosage, and subgroups.  Science. 2011;333(6040):360-364.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Reynolds  AJ, Temple  JA, White  BA, Ou  S, Robertson  DL.  Age-26 cost-benefit analysis of the Child-Parent Center early education program.  Child Dev. 2011;82(1):782-804.Google ScholarCrossref
16.
Human Capital Research Collaborative.  Implementation Fidelity of Midwest CPC Expansion: Years 1 and 2. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota; April 2014.
17.
Human Capital Research Collaborative. Program requirement and guidelines, Midwest Expansion of the Child-Parent Center Program, Preschool to Third Grade. Minneapolis: Human Capital Research Collaborative; 2012. http://humancapitalrc.org/midwestcpc. March 1, 2014.
18.
Teaching Strategies Inc. Teaching Strategies GOLD Assessment System: Technical summary. Summary Findings of a Study Conducted by the Center for Educational Measurement & Evaluation. Charlotte: University of North Carolina at Charlotte; 2011.
19.
Lambert  R, Kim  D, Burts  D.  Technical Manual for the Teaching Strategies Gold Assessment System. 2nd ed. Charlotte: University of North Carolina Center for Educational Measurement & Evaluation; 2013.
20.
Soderberg  JS, Stull  S, Cummings  K,  et al. Inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity study of the Washington Kindergarten Inventory of Developing Skills (WaKIDS). http://depts.washington.edu/cqel/IRCV.php. August 14, 2014.
21.
Lambert  R, Kim  D, Burts  D.  Evidence for the Association Between Scores From the Teaching Strategies Gold Assessment System and Information from direct Assessments of Child Progress. . Charlotte: University of North Carolina Center for Educational Measurement & Evaluation; 2013.
22.
Lambert  RG, Kim  D, Burts  DC.  Using teacher ratings to track the growth and development of young children using the Teaching Strategies GOLD Assessment System.  J Psychoed Assess. 2014;32(1):27-39.Google ScholarCrossref
23.
Balfanz  R, Byrnes  RV.  Chronic Absenteeism: Summarizing What We Know From Nationally Available Data. Baltimore, MD: Center for Social Organization of Schools, Johns Hopkins University; 2012.
24.
Ou  S, Mersky  JP, Reynolds  AJ, Kohler  KM.  Alterable predictors of educational attainment, income, and crime: Findings from an inner-city cohort.  Soc Serv Rev. 2007;81(1):85-128.Google ScholarCrossref
25.
Ou  S, Reynolds  AJ.  Predictors of educational attainment in the Chicago Longitudinal Study.  Sch Psychol Q. 2008;23(2):199-229.Google ScholarCrossref
26.
Reynolds  AJ, Ou  SR.  Paths of effects from preschool to adult well-being: a confirmatory analysis of the child-parent center program.  Child Dev. 2011;82(2):555-582.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
SPSS Inc.  Advanced Statistics 22. New York, NY: IBM; 2013.
28.
Hoffman  JP.  Generalized LINEAR MODELS: An Applied Approach. New York, NY: Pearson; 2003.
29.
Diggle  P, Heagerty  P, Liang  K, Zegler  S.  Analysis of Longitudinal Data.2nd ed. New York, NY: Oxford; 2002.
30.
Hubbard  AE, Ahern  J, Fleischer  NL,  et al.  To GEE or not to GEE: comparing population average and mixed models for estimating the associations between neighborhood risk factors and health.  Epidemiology. 2010;21(4):467-474.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Little  RJ, Rubin  DB.  Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. New York, NY: Wiley; 1987.
32.
Lipsey  MW, Wilson  DB.  Practical Meta-Analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2001.
33.
Koh  HK, Blakey  CR, Roper  AY.  Healthy People 2020: a report card on the health of the nation.  JAMA. 2014;311(24):2475-2476.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
34.
Yves  H, Maltais  C, Thompson  K.  Effects of a full-day preschool program on 4-year-old children.  Early Child Res Pract.2007;9(2):1-20.Google Scholar
35.
Reynolds  AJ.  One year of preschool intervention or two: does it matter?  Early Child Res Q. 1995;10(1):1-31.Google ScholarCrossref
36.
Arteaga  I, Humpage  S, Reynolds  AJ, Temple  JA.  One year of preschool or two: is it important for adult outcomes?  Econ Educ Rev. 2014;40:221-237.Google ScholarCrossref
37.
Ramey  CT, Bryant  DM, Wasik  BH, Sparling  JJ, Fendt  KH, LaVange  LM.  Infant Health and Development Program for low birth weight, premature infants: program elements, family participation, and child intelligence.  Pediatrics. 1992;89(3):454-465.PubMedGoogle Scholar
38.
Hill  JL, Brooks-Gunn  J, Waldfogel  J.  Sustained effects of high participation in an early intervention for low-birth-weight premature infants.  Dev Psychol. 2003;39(4):730-744.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
39.
Reynolds  AJ, Englund  MM, Hayakawa  C,  et al.  Assessing the Validity of the Minnesota School Readiness Indicators. St Paul: Minnesota Department of Education; 2011.
40.
Reynolds  AJ, Temple  JA, Ou  SR,  et al.  Effects of a school-based, early childhood intervention on adult health and well-being: a 19-year follow-up of low-income families.  Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2007;161(8):730-739.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
November 26, 2014

Association of a Full-Day vs Part-Day Preschool Intervention With School Readiness, Attendance, and Parent Involvement

Author Affiliations
  • 1Institute of Child Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
  • 2Human Capital Research Collaborative, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
  • 3Department of Applied Economics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
  • 4Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
JAMA. 2014;312(20):2126-2134. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.15376
Abstract

Importance  Early childhood interventions have demonstrated positive effects on well-being. Whether full-day vs part-day attendance improves outcomes is unknown.

Objective  To evaluate the association between a full- vs part-day early childhood program and school readiness, attendance, and parent involvement.

Design, Setting, and Participants  End-of-preschool follow-up of a nonrandomized, matched-group cohort of predominantly low-income, ethnic minority children enrolled in the Child-Parent Centers (CPC) for the full day (7 hours; n = 409) or part day (3 hours on average; n = 573) in the 2012-2013 school year in 11 schools in Chicago, Illinois.

Intervention  The Midwest CPC Education Program provides comprehensive instruction, family-support, and health services from preschool to third grade.

Main Outcomes and Measures  School readiness skills at the end of preschool, attendance and chronic absences, and parental involvement. The readiness domains in the Teaching Strategies GOLD Assessment System include a total of 49 items with a score range of 105-418. The specific domains are socioemotional with 9 items (score range, 20-81), language with 6 items (score range, 15-54), literacy with 12 items (score range, 9-104), math with 7 items (score, 8-60), physical health with 5 items (score range, 14-45), and cognitive development with 10 items (score range, 18-90).

Results  Full-day preschool participants had higher scores than part-day peers on socioemotional development (58.6 vs 54.5; difference, 4.1; 95% CI, 0.5-7.6; P = .03), language (39.9 vs 37.3; difference, 2.6; 95% CI, 0.6-4.6; P = .01), math (40.0 vs 36.4; difference, 3.6; 95% CI, 0.5-6.7; P = .02), physical health (35.5 vs 33.6; difference, 1.9; 95% CI, 0.5-3.2; P = .006), and the total score (298.1 vs 278.2; difference, 19.9; 95% CI, 1.2-38.4; P = .04). Literacy (64.5 vs 58.6; difference, 5.9; 95% CI, −0.07 to 12.4; P = .08) and cognitive development (59.7 vs 57.7; difference, 2.0; 95% CI, −2.4 to 6.3; P = .38) were not significant. Full-day preschool graduates also had higher rates of attendance (85.9% vs 80.4%; difference, 5.5; 95% CI, 2.6-8.4; P = .001) and lower rates of chronic absences (≥10% days missed; 53.0% vs 71.6%; difference, −18.6; 95% CI, −28.5 to −8.7; P = .001; ≥20% days missed; 21.2% vs 38.8%; difference −17.6%; 95% CI, −25.6 to −9.7; P < .001) but no differences in parental involvement.

Conclusions and Relevance  In an expansion of the CPCs in Chicago, a full-day preschool intervention was associated with increased school readiness skills in 4 of 6 domains, attendance, and reduced chronic absences compared with a part-day program. These findings should be replicated in other programs and contexts.

×