to those who attend half-day programs are so short-lived that policymakers

should take a hard look at whether the additional cost of full-day programs is

worthwhile, concludes an economist in a recent issue of Economics of

Education Review.

"My findings suggest that, on average, the academic returns associated with

full-day kindergarten are quite low or non-existent," writes Philip DeCicca from

the Department of Economics at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont.

DeCicca analyzed kindergarten and 1st

grade reading and math test scores for children

from 714 schools who attended half-day or fullday

kindergarten programs.

While children in

full-day programs scored higher in reading and

math than their half-day counterparts at the end

of kindergarten, those gains had evaporated by

the end of 1st grade, the researcher reports. This

was true for both girls and boys and black and

Hispanic children. In fact, Hispanic children who

attended full-day kindergarten programs performed

worse at the end of 1st grade than children

who attended half-day kindergarten.

"The estimated pattern of results suggests

that full-day kindergarten substantially raises the

math and reading achievement of children of all

races," the economist writes. "However, these

gains are much smaller in magnitude when measured

via similar tests just one year later. In other

words, the short-run impact of full-day kindergarten

has depreciated considerably by the end of

first grade."

For black children, the short-run gains

seem to be gone by the beginning of first grade,

indicating that the loss is due to "summer fallback",

the economist writes. For white and

Hispanic children the gain seems to erode gradually

during 1st-grade. The declines are shallowest

for whites, he says.

"Given existing socioeconomic

differences between the races, it is possible that

differences in home environment contribute significantly

to the larger losses for Hispanic, and

especially black, children," he writes.

Half-day began during WWII

The history of kindergarten dates back to

the 1800s when it began as a full-day program,

DeCicca writes. During WWII, schools across the

country began to cut their kindergarten classes

back to a half-day in order to free up additional

labor.

Full-day kindergarten reappeared in the

1960s as an intervention to help disadvantaged

children catch up to their peers through additional

schooling. But, now it has gained popularity

among middle class families. Over the past 30

years, the percentage of children in full-day programs

has grown from 10% to just over half of

U.S. kindergartners.

The push for full-day kindergarten has occurred at the state level, DeCicca

writes. Currently, nine state governments mandate full-day kindergarten and 26

provide financial incentives to encourage school districts to provide it.

The rationale for full-day kindergarten is that the more time children spend

in school, the more they will learn, the researcher writes. But, detractors warn

that an early emphasis on academic learning, at the expense of play time, could

harm children emotionally and academically.

Economists have taken little interest in the half-day vs. full-day

kindergarten debate, which is surprising, DeCicca says, in view of the enormous

attention paid to Head Start and its possible effects on outcomes.

Beyond academic benefits, policymakers also need to consider socialization

issues and kindergarten's role as a child care subsidy in evaluating full-day

kindergarten vs. half-day kindergarten, he notes.

"Does full-day kindergarten matter? Evidence from the first two years of

schooling" by Philip DeCicca. Economics of Education Review, Volume 26, Number

1, February 2007, pp. 67-82.