Currey Angela

HEAD START: THE EFFECT OF HALF DAY AND EXTENDED DAY
PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS ON LANGUAGE AND LITERACY DEVELOPMENT
Angela N. Currey
B.S., Psychology, 1999
M.S., Psychology, 2000
Ed.S. School Psychology, 2001
Submitted to the Graduate Department and Faculty

of the School of Education of Baker University in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Education
in
Educational Leadership.
April, 2008
Copyright 2008 by Angela N. Currey

Clinical Research Study Committee
__________________________________________
Major Advisor
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
__________________________________________
ii
ABSTRACT
With the emphasis on academic achievement and literacy development, preschool
programs are finding new and different ways to prepare students for kindergarten. Numerous
studies have identified the importance of preschool and its lasting effect on literacy and
language development. This study used Head Start preschool classrooms to see if differences
existed in the language and literacy skill development between preschoolers attending
extended day programs and those attending half day programs. Seventy-one preschoolers
from the extended day classrooms and 34 students from the half day classrooms were utilized
in the study. T-tests for dependent means were conducted to determine the differences
between the half day and extended day classrooms upon entry to the program. The results
indicated students in the extended day program scored significantly higher in the area of
language than students in the half day program. Factorial Analyses of Variance (ANOVA)
were conducted to determine the effect of length of preschool day on literacy and language
development as measured by the Learning Accomplishment Profile – 3rd Edition (LAP-3).
The study focused on the areas of pre-writing and language scores from the LAP-3 as these
are the components that make up the early literacy development score. Students in the half
day program made significantly more gains in the area of language than students in the
extended day program. Hispanic students and males made significantly more gains in the
areas of language and pre-writing development. All students in half day and extended day
Head Start classrooms made gains in the areas of pre-writing and language development,
emphasizing the importance of early childhood education in emergent literacy.
iii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this project to my family, friends and colleagues who have supported me
through the years. To my husband, Mike, your support and encouragement has been the
guiding strength throughout the course of my program. To my boys – Mitch, Brett and Josh –
I hope to instill in you the love for lifelong learning and the importance of education. Thank
you for your understanding. You have brought more joy to my life than one could ever
imagine. To my parents, brother and sister-in law, you have been there to support my walk
through life from the very beginning. To all of you, please accept my love, thanks and
gratitude for all of your support. Most importantly, I dedicate this project to all the students I
have worked with in the past eight years. You are what drive me to strive for excellence and
to never doubt the importance of education.
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Without my faith in the Lord and His path for me, none of this would have been possible.
Dr. Amison – Thank you so much for your guidance and support as my advisor and
committee chairperson. Your enthusiasm for my project and knowledge of at-risk children
provided me with the guidance I needed.
Dr. Frye – As the leader of our program, you have provided me with the skills
necessary to become a successful administrator and leader. Your support throughout the
course of the program and this project has made this journey incredible for me.
Drs. Henry and Veatch – Thank you so much for your words of wisdom and advice as
part of my committee. Your experience with the process and guidance pushed me to strive
for excellence.
Dr. Krawitz – You brought more sanity to this project than anyone else with your
statistical brilliance and enthusiasm. You said it best when the learning was not about the end
result of this project, but the process. I learned more about this process because of you. Your
love for research made this process one of the greatest learning experiences of my career.
Peg Waterman – Thanks for your patience and understanding with the many
questions and help needed to finalize this project.
To Kim Sill, Paula Rock and the Head Start Staff – Thank you so much for sharing
the data from your incredible program. Your dedication to at-risk students is admirable and
leads to the education of children that would not have had the opportunity to do so without
your support.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………….iii
Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………….iv
Acknowledgments…………………………………………….……………………………… v
Table of Contents……………………………………………..………………………………vi
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………..viii-ix
Chapter One: Introduction and Rationale……………………………………………………..1
Background……………………………………………………………………………9
Purpose of Study……………………………………………………………………..11
Research Hypotheses………………………………………………………………...12
Limitations and Delimitations………………………………………………………..13
Assumptions………………………………………………………………………….13
Definition of Terms…………………………………………………………………..14
Outline of the Study………………………………………………………………….15
Chapter Two: Review of Literature………………………………………………………….16
Head Start…………………………………………………………………………….17
Emergent Literacy……………………………………………………………………23
Chapter Three: Methods...…………………………………………………………………...30
Research Hypotheses………………………………………………………………...30
Participants……………………………………………………………………….…..31
Instrumentation: Learning Accomplishment Profile – 3rd Edition…………………..34
Procedures……………………………………………………………………………39
Design………………………………………………………………………………..39
vi
Chapter Four: Results..............................................................................................................41
Preliminary Analyses...................................................................................................41
Analyses of Hypotheses...............................................................................................44
Hypothesis 1.....................................................................................................44
Hypothesis 2.....................................................................................................45
Hypothesis 3.....................................................................................................46
Hypothesis 4.....................................................................................................47
Hypothesis 5.....................................................................................................48
Hypothesis 6.....................................................................................................50
Chapter Five: Interpretations and Recommendations..............................................................53
Recommendations……………………………………………………………58
Works Cited.............................................................................................................................59
Appendices...............................................................................................................................66
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Figure 1: Children Under Age 6 Living in Low-Income Families............................................2
Figure 2: Achievement Gap as Children Begin Kindergarten...................................................3
Figure 3: Kindergarten and Preschool Participation..................................................................5
Figure 4: Preschool Participation by Income: 2001...................................................................6
Figure 5: National Head Start Student Enrollment....................................................................8
Figure 6: Population Growt.....................................................................................................10
Figure 7: Olathe District Schools Demographics....................................................................11
Figure8: Head Start Student Half Day Demographics 2006-2007..........................................33
Figure 9: Head Start Student Extended Day Demographics 2006-2007…………………….34
Figure 10: Learning Accomplishment Profile and Head Start Outcome Framework Score
Reports.....................................................................................................................................37
Figure 11: Language Skills Upon Entry to Program...............................................................41
Figure 12: Pre-Writing Skills Upon Entry to Program............................................................42
Figure 13: Hispanic Students’ Language Skills Upon Entry to Program................................43
Figure 14: Hispanic Students’ Pre-Writing Skills Upon Entry to Program.............................43
Figure 15: Growth in Pre-Writing Skills in Half and Extended Day Programs......................44
Figure 16: Growth in Language Skills in Half and Extended Day Programs..........................45
Figure 17: Hispanic Students’ Growth in Language Skills in Half and Extended Day
Programs..................................................................................................................................46
Figure 18: Hispanic Students’ Growth in Pre-Writing Skills in the Half and Extended Day
Programs..................................................................................................................................47
Figure 19: Growth in Pre-Writing Skills in Male and Female Students……………………..49
viii
Figure 20: Interaction of Gender and Programs in Pre-Writing Skills....................................50
Figure 21: Growth in Language Skills in Male and Female Students.....................................51
Figure 22: Interaction of Gender and Programs in Language Skills.......................................52
ix
1
CHAPTER ONE: Introduction and Rationale
Poverty impacts millions of children in the United States. Although current statistics
of children in poverty is not exact, approximately 18% of children in the United States are
considered poor (“Demographics for Low Income Children 1). The National Center for
Children in Poverty (NCCP) has compiled current data to represent the overwhelming trend
of children, particularly children under the age of 6, living in poverty. According to NCCP,
poverty is defined as “Income below the federal poverty level (FPL), $20,000 per year for a
family of four in 2006” (1). In the state of Kansas there are 391,733 families, with 687,481
children; out of the 391,733 families, 36% of all families in Kansas meet the criteria for low-
income families (Demographics for Low Income Children 1).
In addition to the rise of low-income families, the younger the age of children, the
more likely they live in poverty. According to the NCCP, 21% of children under the age of 3
are living in poverty compared to 15% of children ages 13 to 17. While the number of
children living in poverty declined in the 90’s, in the past few years children under the age of
6 living in poverty increased by 16% (see Figure 1).

2
Figure 1
Children Under Age 6 Living in Low-Income Families
Children in poverty are not provided with the same opportunities as their middle class
peers. While families not in poverty have adequate preschools and health care available, such
opportunities are not as prevalent for families in poverty. According to Gershoff, “The more
income a family has, the better their children do academically, socially, and physically” (3).
This was one of the founding reasons Head Start was developed.
Head Start was started in 1965 when legislation was passed to develop early
childhood programs for at-risk families. Head Start was designed to give preschool children a
“head start” to catch up to their middle-class peers (George 21). Despite its implementation
over 40 years ago, the achievement gap between students from middle to upper class
backgrounds and those in poverty is increasing, likely due to the increasing number of
children in poverty (Gershoff 3). Children in poverty are behind students in the areas of
reading, math and overall development (see Figure 2).

3
Figure 2
Achievement Gap as Children Begin Kindergarten
In 2006 Laundry, Swank, et al. reported that, “Over the last 10 years, almost 40% of
the nation’s fourth graders and 60% of children growing up in poverty have failed to meet
basic literacy standards” (306). While there are at-risk programs available for children in
elementary schools, the key to closing the achievement gap with the children in poverty is in
early intervention. Children at age 4 who live below the poverty line are 18 months behind
same age peers and the gap is still present at age 10 (Klein and Knitzer 1). Children who fall
this far behind, even before they enter kindergarten will continue to fall short of established
literacy standards. In addition, these children not meeting literacy standards are more likely
to be retained or identified for special education. Long-term those students are more likely to
4
drop out of high school, be unemployed, abuse drugs, or become pregnant in teenage years
(McGill-Franzen, Lanford, and Adams 455).
Research has shown that early intervention is the key to closing the achievement gap.
Garrett and Kelley report a child’s early experiences have a marked influence on the structure
and physiology of the developing brain (267). Preschool prepares children in the way they
transition from activity to activity and interacting with peers. Academically, children gain
pre-literacy skills such as the acquisition of language, vocabulary and early mathematics
skills which are an integral part of kindergarten. The general routines expected of a
kindergartener, such as raising one’s hand to speak, working at centers for various activities
for a specified amount of time, and understanding the basic rules of a classroom are skills
needed for kindergarten (Garrett and Kelley 267).
Participation in early childhood programs has grown steadily in the past 30 years. As
shown in Figure 3, the number of three year olds attending preschool has grown from
approximately 2% in 1965 to 40% in 2002 (Barnett and Yarosz 5). In addition, they report
the growth in preschool participation is not due to an increase of mothers going back in to the
workforce, but rather due to the growing demand on education (2).

5
Figure 3
Kindergarten and Preschool Participation
Research has supported the positive effects of early childhood programs on the
development of early literacy skills. Early instruction benefits children from all socio-
economic classes both academically and socially. Since the implementation of Child Find,
nearly all states have implemented early childhood standards to reduce the achievement gaps
(Hebbeler, Smith, and Black 104). The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative
Services reports, “Child Find is a component of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) that requires states to identify, locate, and evaluate all children with disabilities, aged
birth to 21, who are in need of early intervention or special education services” (1).
Although school districts are required to provide special education services to children aged
birth to 3, school districts are not required to establish preschool programs (Taylor, White,
and Kusmierick 134).
Early experiences in social development, pre-literacy skills, and pre-math skills
prepare children of all socio-economic classes. However, most low-income students do not
6
have access to these early pre-school experiences (see Figure 4). To help provide these early
experiences to children living in poverty, the federal government initiated the Head Start
preschool program in 1965.
Figure 4
Preschool Participation by Income: 2001
Source: Barnett, W. Stephen, and Donald Yarosz. “Who Goes to Preschool and Why Does it
Matter?” (August 2004). Issue 8, Preschool Policy Matters. National Institute for Early
Education Research.
When implemented in 1965, Head Start’s focus was primarily on social development,
and not on the cognitive development or academic readiness skills (Laundry, Swank, Smith,
et al. 307; Shaul 6). According to the Administration of Infants and Children, the purpose of
Head Start has changed to include all areas of development. They reported, “Head Start is
designed to foster healthy development in low-income children,” then further stated Head
Start programs, “deliver a range of services, responsive and appropriate to each child's and
7
each family's heritage and experience, that encompass all aspects of a child's development
and learning” (1).
In the 2005 fiscal year, 7,931 students were nationally enrolled in Head Start
programs. According to the Administration for Infants and Children “The Head Start
program has enrolled more than 23 million children since it began in 1965,” (1). Enrollment
has tripled since 1980 (see Figure 5).

8
Figure 5
National Head Start Student Enrollment
National Head Start Student Enrollment
1000000
900000
800000
700000
Num ber of students enrolled
600000
500000
400000
300000
200000
100000
0
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Source: "Head Start Program Fact Sheet." Administration for Infants and Children. 26
September 2006. <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/hsb/research/2006.htm>.
Research currently shows the structure of preschool programs is not helping to close
the achievement gap (Shaul 12). As a result, some states are implementing extended or full
day programs. While some states are starting to implement full day programs, most are still
using half day programs because of the funding available for Head Start (Shaul 12). The
9
states implementing the full day programs are using creative means (grants, care funding,
etc) to supplement the state funds to implement these programs (Shaul 12).
While daycare programs may offer care for up to 10 hours a day, preschool and pre-
kindergarten programs are generally offered as little as two to three hours per day, for two or
three days a week (Barnett 3). In 2004 Taylor, White, and Kusmierick found, “Even though
most people believe that longer or more intensive early intervention services will be more
effective, there often are objections when it is suggested that a particular early intervention
be delivered for more hours per week,” (130). A study conducted by George revealed no
significant differences between students attending half day and full day classrooms from fall
to spring assessment results, but both groups reached a ceiling effect which could have
impacted the results. Taylor, White, and Kusmierick and George both indicated further
research in this area is needed (3, 102).
Background
This study takes place in the medwest in a growing and thriving suburban school
district. In the past 40 years, student enrollment in the school district has quadrupled (see
Figure 6).
10
Figure 6
Population Growth
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Year
Source: “District History”. 13 August 2007.
http://www.districtschools/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=209&Itemid=26
Of the 25,000 students in the district, 16.02% are economically disadvantaged and so qualify
for free and/or reduced lunch. The student population is primarily Caucasian students;
Hispanic students make up the second largest group in the district (see Figure 7).
11
Figure 7
District Demographics
Source: “Report Card 2005-2006”. Kansas State Department of Education. 2006. 15 June
2007. <http://online.ksde.org/rcard/district.aspx?org_no=D0233>.
A recent change in the district’s Head Start program has been the amount of time
preschoolers are attending. While two of the classrooms remained half day programs, four
classrooms moved to extended day programs lasting six hours compared to four in the half
day programs. With the recent change, the Head Start administration is interested in data to
support the continued use of extended day programs.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of the study is to see if differences exist in the language and literacy skill
development between preschoolers attending extended day programs and those attending half
day programs. The study is an attempt to provide the Head Start administration data to
support continuation of the extended day program in a suburban school district in the
12
Midwest. The researcher is intending to collect evidence to support the research hypotheses
listed below.
Research Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1
Students attending the extended day program demonstrate more growth in Pre-
Writing skills than students attending the half-day program as measured by the Learning
Accomplishment Profile 3rd Edition at the 0.05 level of significance.
Hypothesis 2
Students attending the extended day program demonstrate more growth in Language
development than students attending the half day program as measured by the Learning
Hypothesis 3
Hispanic students attending the extended day program demonstrate more growth in
Language development than Hispanic students attending the half day program as measured
by the Learning Accomplishment Profile 3rd Edition at the 0.05 level of significance.
Hypothesis 4
Pre-Writing development than Hispanic students attending the half day program as measured
Hypothesis 5
Male students attending the extended day program do not demonstrate more growth
in Pre-Writing development than female students attending the half day or extended day
13
programs as measured by the Learning Accomplishment Profile 3rd Edition at the 0.05 level
of significance.
Hypothesis 6
in Language development than female students attending the half day or extended day
of significance.
Limitations and Delimitations
As with any study there are limitations. One limitation of this study is the make-up of
the sample used in the study. All of the children in the sample come from one school district.
Results will not be generalized to other school districts. A second limitation is the inequality
of the sample size between children enrolled in half day and extended day programs.
The following are assumptions noted in the study.
Assumptions
1. All teachers in the extended day and half day programs teach the same Head Start
curriculum.
2. Students were assessed with the Learning Accomplishment Profile 3rd Edition
according to standardization procedures.
3. Students were assessed with the same form of the Learning Accomplishment Profile
3rd Edition.
4. Students were assessed individually with the Learning Accomplishment Profile 3rd
Edition.
14
Definition of Terms
Cognitive Development – For the purpose of this study, cognitive development is a child’s
“development of knowledge, skills and dispositions, which help them to think about and
understand the world around them” (Kadlic and Lesiak 10).
Emergent Literacy – For the purpose of this study, emergent literacy, “consists of the skills,
knowledge, and attitudes that are presumed to be developmental precursors of conventional
forms of reading and writing” (Lonigan, et al. 596).
Extended Day Program – For the purpose of this study, the extended day program is
comprised of Head Start classrooms with students attending from 8:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Monday through Thursday.
Half Day Program – For the purpose of this study, the extended day program is comprised of
Head Start classrooms with students attending from 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Monday through
Thursday.
Language Development – For the purpose of this study, language development, “includes the
ability to understand and use vocabulary, to put words together in grammatically appropriate
phrases and sentences, to use words together to covey meaning, and to use language flexibly
to meet the demands of differing social contexts” (Landry and Smith 135).
Phonemic Awareness – For the purpose of this study, phonemic awareness involves “the
understanding that individual segments of sound at the phonemic level can be combined
together to form words” (Phillips and Torgesen 102).
Poverty - According to NCCP, poverty is defined as “Income below the federal poverty level
(FPL), $20,000 per year for a family of four in 2006” (1).
The organization of the study is as follows.

15
Outline of the Study
Chapter 2 provides the background of Head Start and theoretical framework of
emergent literacy in early childhood education. Chapter 3 provides a detailed description of
the research hypotheses, the participants involved in the study, the instrument and statistical
analyses used in the study. Chapter 4 provides the results of a factorial Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) conducted to determine the effect of language and pre-writing skills on the two
groups, half day and extended day programs and ANOVAs conducted with Hispanic and
Caucasian students to determine the effect of half day and extended day groups on pre-
writing skills, and the effect of half day and extended day programs on language skills.
Chapter 5 provides a summary of the results presented in Chapter 4 and a discussion of the
conclusions reached. Limitations of the study and areas of future research are discussed.
16
CHAPTER TWO: Review of Literature
The following is research supporting the effects of Head Start on early literacy and
language development.
“A widespread hope for early intervention is that children could be placed on a
normative developmental trajectory and thus continue to show optimal development after
early intervention ends. In this view, early intervention functions as an inoculation” (Ramey
and Landesman 4). Early intervention looks different depending on the program. Children
participate in Mothers Day Out programs at their local church, community preschool settings,
or in at-risk programs such as Head Start.
Head Start was established in 1965 to provide comprehensive services such as
nutritional, educational, social and early childhood development, for children living in at-risk
conditions for children ages 3 to 5. The Administration for Children, Youth and Families of
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) currently oversees the Head Start
program. According to HHS 90% of families involved with Head Start must meet income
guidelines at or below the official Federal poverty guideline (130).
With the reauthorization of Head Start in 1998 the focus shifted from providing
developmentally comprehensive services to that of preparing children for the academics of
K-12 schooling. To do so, the Bush Administration encouraged the refining of curriculum to
the emphasis on language, literacy, and numerical components of academics (Roskos and
Vukelich 300). Numerous policies were also implemented with the reauthorization of Head
Start. For example, the content of literacy was defined to include oral language, phonological
awareness, print awareness and alphabet knowledge (Roskos and Vukelich 301). Along with
17
the reauthorization came a wealth of research focusing on the effects of Head Start, new
interventions being implemented, and the length of the school day.
Head Start
The Administration for Children, Youth and Families developed the Head Start
Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) to monitor the quality and effectiveness of
Head Start programs (Zill and Resnick 349). In 2001 three cohorts were involved in a
longitudinal FACES study. Zill and Resnick reviewed the results from the second cohort
which consisted of 2800 children from 43 different Head Start programs nation-wide. The
FACES assessment battery included norm-referenced and criterion-referenced tests
measuring outside-in emergent literacy skills, inside-out emergent literacy skills, and
emergent numeracy skills. “Inside-out” emergent literacy skills consist of tasks such as early
writing, psychomotor tasks, and letter-word identification; outside in emergent literacy skills
includes vocabulary, color-naming, and book knowledge (Zill and Resnick 349).
When reviewing the data for this cohort fall to spring, Zill and Resnick found
significant gains in the areas of vocabulary and letter word identification, p<.0001,
respectively. In the areas of early writing and early math, there was significant growth,
p < .05. The researchers also noted there were significant differences within the sample upon
entry into Head Start. Those who scored in the lower quartile with early literacy and math
skills made significantly more gains than those who came to Head Start with average or
above-average skills (Zill and Resnick 355).
The researchers then examined the effect of one year compared to two years of
attendance in the Head Start program. Zill and Resnick (2001) reported, “The achievement of
the 2-year Head Start children was significantly higher than those of children who attended
18
only 1 year, both at graduation from Head Start and at the end of kindergarten” (356). After
examining the number of years that children attended the program, the researchers identified
differences between the Head Start programs. One particular factor noted was the length of
the classroom day. Although the majority of children participated in half programs, the
researchers found children who participated in full day programs made greater gains in book-
knowledge, early writing and color-naming (Zill and Resnick 363).
In 2001, another longitudinal study was conducted by Dickinson, et al. examining the
relationship between phonological abilities and print knowledge with Head Start students
beginning at age 3. When evaluated in fourth and seventh grades, moderate correlations of
oral language with decoding and reading comprehension were found. Dickinson, et al. later
conducted a study in 2004 with 533 Head Start students to determine the relationship
between receptive vocabulary, phonological awareness, and print knowledge. The
researchers found a moderate correlation of r >.40 between receptive vocabulary with
phonological sensitivity and literacy; they recommended including integrating receptive
vocabulary, phonological sensitivity, and literacy into a literacy program for preschoolers
(Dickinson, et al. 400).
Hawken, Johnston, and McDonnell (2005) surveyed 273 Head Start preschool
teachers to determine their current views and practices related to emergent literacy. They
designed a ten page survey; once the suvey was validated, it was mailed to a stratified,
random sample of preschool teachers. Two hundred seventy-three of the 500 surveys mailed
were returned. Strategies used by teachers were divided into five literacy domains from the
Head Start Child Outcomes Framework, which included: knowledge and appreciation, print
19
awareness and concepts, phonological awareness, alphabet knowledge, and early writing
(Hawken, Johnston, and McDonnell 235).
In the area of book knowledge and appreciation, more than 75% of the teachers
surveyed were having children retell stories, and 89% of the teachers reported having
children practice holding books correctly and turning pages correctly (Hawken, Johnston,
and McDonnell 236). In the area of alphabet knowledge, 81.3% of teachers reported
encouraging play with the alphabet such as in puzzles or with magnetic letters on a daily
basis. In the area of Phonological Awareness, 80.3% of the teachers reported having children
identifying initial sounds in words daily. In the area of Early Writing, more than 97% of the
teachers reported students using a variety of writing tools at least once or twice a week
(Hawken, Johnston, and McDonnell 236). Overall, the results of the survey indicated Head
Start teachers are using a variety of research-based strategies related to emerging literacy
(Hawken, Johnston, and McDonnell 236).
In 2006 Dickinson, McCabe and Essex reported, “Longitudinal research indicates that
high-quality interventions during the preschool years can have enduring effects on a broad
range of developmental outcomes” (12). Wasik, Bond and Hindman conducted a study in
2006 to determine whether an intensive language and literacy intervention would have a
similar effect in Head Start preschools with disadvantaged children. Two Head Start centers
consisting of 207 children were participants in the study. One hundred thirty-nine were in the
intervention group and 68 were in the control group. The teachers in the intervention group
were trained on three components of a book reading training module which consisted of:
asking questions, building vocabulary and making connections (Wasik and Bond 66). All
children were evaluated with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) and the
20
Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test in the fall and spring. In addition, they were
asked to identify the letters of the alphabet.
The results revealed children in the intervention group had significantly larger
vocabularies. To evaluate receptive language, the researchers conducted a one-way Analysis
of Covariance (ANCOVA) on the post-test scores of the PPVT-III. Students from the
intervention group had significantly larger vocabularies. When an ANCOVA was conducted
on alphabet scores, children in the control group scored significantly better than children in
the intervention groups. When the researchers compared the children of the control and
intervention groups, the scores on the pretest for both receptive and expressive language
indicated there was no significant difference between the groups at the start of the
intervention.
Wasik, Bond and Hindman (2006) reported,
Given the fact that children from high-poverty homes have deficient
vocabularies because of their having relatively infrequent communicative
exchanges with their primary caregivers, it is important that these children
have increased opportunities to express themselves in school (70).
The authors argue the time children spend in school should be used to further develop their
vocabulary and the emergent literacy skills necessary for the future.
In 2006 Landry, et al. examined the relationships among teacher education, length of
preschool day, and a curriculum focused on language and literacy on Head Start programs.
Twenty Head Start sites were utilized in the study and 3703 children were randomly selected
from the 12,000 children in the centers to participate in the study. Child outcomes were
measured by the Developing Skills Checklist, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test III
21
(PPVT-3), the Expressive Vocabulary Test (EVT), the Preschool Language Scale (PLS-3)
and Social-Emotional Scale. When examining the effects of the length of school day,
children’s understanding of language and alphabet knowledge was greater in the full day
preschool than the half day preschool program (317). In addition, children had greater gains
for phonological awareness during the second year of the study.
The results of Landry et al’s research is further supported by a study in Dickinson, et al.
Dickinson, et al. stated,
There is evidence that phonological sensitivity, other language skills, and
print knowledge are interrelated in the years before children begin
receiving reading instruction, and there is evidence these relationships
persist as children begin learning to read (347).
In 1988 Lee, Brooks-Gunn, and Schnur conducted a longitudinal study with 969
children attending Head Start programs, other preschools or no preschool. The researchers
first looked at differences between cognitive abilities and demographics. Children from Head
Start had mothers with significantly less education, spent less time getting ready to become
mothers, were less likely to have father involvement, and lived with more children or adults
in the homes than those in the comparison groups (Lee, Brooks-Gunn, and Schnur 496).
All children in Lee, Brooks-Gunn, and Schnur’s study were evaluated with the
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, the Caldwell Preschool Inventory, the Motor Inhibition
Test, and the Eight-Block Sorting Task in the spring prior to preschool and the end of their
first preschool year. On the PPVT, the Caldwell Preschool Inventory and Motor Inhibition
Test, students scored significantly higher than the students who had either no preschool
experience or other preschool experience. On the Eight-Block Toy Sort the Head Start
22
students scored significantly higher than students with no preschool experience, but not more
than students who had attended other preschools (Lee, Brooks-Gunn, and Schnur 502).
In 1990 Lee, et al. conducted a longitudinal follow-up study with the effects of Head
Start on black children at the end of their kindergarten year. Six hundred forty-six black
kindergartners were evaluated with the Cooperative Primary Test, which is utilized to assess
verbal achievement. The Children’s Embedded Figures Test and the Raven’s Colored
Progressive Matrices Test were used to measure perceptual reasoning. The children in the
study were compared to other black kindergartners who had no preschool experience or
another preschool program experience.
The researchers found at the end of the kindergarten year, children who attended Head
Start scored higher than those who had not attended preschool on the California Preschool
Competency Test (Lee, et al. 502). In 1990 Lee, et al. stated, “We interpret this as indicating
that disadvantaged black children benefit from any preschool experience compared to none at
all” (504). Although the study specifically addressed black children, the researchers reported
they do not believe the findings are restricted solely to black children. They recommended
further research into the effects of Head Start with other minority groups. And lastly, they
reported to close the achievement gap between disadvantaged and advantaged children there
needs to be programs available that go beyond short-term interventions (Lee, et al. 504).
Despite the implementation of preschools and Head Start programs for at-risk
students, we are still not meeting the needs of these students to prepare them for academic
success. Dickinson, McCabe and Essex reported,

23
Powerful forces have created and continue to sustain an early childhood
educational system that is falling short of providing the kind of support
children from low-income backgrounds require. We are making hopeful
advances in our endeavor to enrich the preschool experiences of children,
but far more must be done to improve their classrooms and communities if
we are to take full advantage of the window of educational opportunities
provided us by biology (23).
Research of full day programming in Head Start is limited. However, the following
research supports the role of emergent literacy in preschool children and the importance of
exposure to the Cumulative Language Perspective. According to Poe, et al., “This approach
[Cumulative Language Perspective] posits that oral language skills such as vocabulary,
phonological awareness, syntax, and discourse are interrelated skills that lay the foundation
for emergent literacy and subsequent reading skills” (316).
Emergent Literacy
According to Lonigan, “the developmental precursors to reading before children enter
a formal school environment” are often referred to as emergent literacy (79). In 2000
Lonigan and his colleagues evaluated 96 preschoolers from early to late preschool and 97
children from late preschool to kindergarten to determine the significance of emergent
literacy skills. The authors reviewed research that ultimately determined that children who
lagged behind with reading skills at the earlier grades would have continued difficulties in
later years. They defined emergent literacy as, “[Emergent Literacy] consists of the skills,
knowledge, and attitudes that are presumed to be developmental precursors of conventional
forms of reading and writing” (Lonigan, et al. 596). The researchers conducted a study with
24
preschoolers using phonological sensitivity measures, a rhyme oddity task and an alliteration
oddity direction test; a blending task, and oral language and cognitive ability measures
(including the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – Revised, the Expressive One-Word Picture
Vocabulary Test, and the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities). In addition, they were
evaluated with letter knowledge measures, environmental print measures, print concepts
measure, and word decoding measures (Lonigan, et al. 601).
The authors conducted Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs) and determined that in
relation to phonological sensitivity, the older students scored significantly higher than the
younger students, p < .001. Although children’s phonological sensitivity relates to decoding
skills and later reading skills, other skills such as print concepts and the ability to read
environmental print did not predict later reading skills. The only two predictors of later
reading skills found in the two samples of preschoolers were phonological sensitivity and
letter knowledge (Lonigan, et al. 611).
Other researchers have looked into the relationship between phonological sensitivity
and letter knowledge, as well. According to Anthony, et al’s research in 2006, “Research
with school-age children has identified three interrelated phonological processing abilities
that are important for reading and writing: phonological awareness, phonological memory,
and efficiency of phonological access to lexical storage” (240).
In 2004 Schatschneider, et al. conducted a longitudinal analysis with 945 children
who had entered kindergarten. The researchers examined the students’ reading outcomes at
the end of first and second grades. The researchers sought to determine: the language
variables involved in predicting reading outcomes; the impact of reading fluency to
kindergarten assessments; and the relationship of phonological awareness skills to reading

25
skills. The found that letter-related skills would be most predictive of later reading skills
(Schatschneider, et al. 268).
At the beginning of kindergarten, children were evaluated in the areas of expressive
syntax and syntactic comprehension. Throughout the kindergarten year, the children were
also administered subtests of the battery developed by Torgesen, et al. related to
phonological awareness; and they were also evaluated by various tools measuring their
alphabet knowledge, rapid naming of objects and letters (RAN), vocabulary, visual-motor
integration, and visual perceptual abilities. At the end of the first and second grade years,
students were evaluated with measures of academic achievement with the Letter-Word
Identification subtest of the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Test Battery and the
Test of Word Reading Efficiency (Schatschneider, et al. 269).
Factors that were most predictive from kindergarten to Grade 1 and Grade 1 to Grade
2 were phonological awareness, knowledge of letter sounds and RAN letters. The predictors
of reading at the end of 2nd grade change with each grade level. Knowledge of letter names
was a significant predictor of reading outcomes at the beginning of kindergarten, but
diminished as a predictor at the end of kindergarten and the end of first grade. In 2004
Schatschneider and his colleagues concluded that, “simply focusing on the correlational
relationships of kindergarten performance and reading outcomes in subsequent grades is not
adequate for deciding which variables are the best predictors” (231).
In 1997 Cunningham and Stanovich provided information about the “Matthew effects
in education”, or as cited in his study, the “rich-get-richer and poor-get-poorer” (934). This
is the basis for their research into the effect early reading acquisition has in later teenage
26
years. If children are poor readers as first graders, Cunningham and Stanovich predicted
they would continue to be poor readers in the 11th grade (935).
A group of 56 first graders were evaluated on their cognitive and reading abilities.
When followed up ten years later, only 27 of those students remained and participated in a
follow up study of their cognitive and reading abilities. In addition, the researchers
examined students’ written vocabulary, the extent of print exposure and their general
knowledge, which was measured in regards to cultural literacy (which was made up of
history, literature knowledge, and cultural knowledge) (Cunningham and Stanovich 939).
The researchers discovered that print exposure was a significant predictor of reading
comprehension, knowledge and verbal ability. They also discovered that 1st grade
comprehension was a predictor of 11th grade knowledge and cultural literacy. Cunningham
and Stanovich (1997) reported, “A fast initial start at reading acquisition might well help to
develop the lifetime habit of reading, irrespective of the ultimate level of reading
comprehension ability that the individual attains” (942).
In 2006 Anthony, et al. took the research a step further in evaluating 147 three to five
year old Spanish speaking children’s phonological awareness, phonological memory, and
phonological access to lexical storage (RAN) (239). Participants in the study were randomly
selected from a population of 719 Spanish speaking children enrolled in Head Start. The
children were evaluated with various subtests from the Spanish Preschool Comprehensive
Test of Phonological and Print Processing (PCTOPPP). The researchers were seeking to
determine whether each of the phonological processing abilities were separate from
cognitive abilities, each other and their relationship with emergent literacy skills (Anthony,
et al. 245).
27
The researchers found through Confirmatory Factor Analysis that phonological
awareness, phonological memory and RAN were greater predictors of emergent literacy
than cognitive ability alone. In addition, relationships were found between the areas.
Phonological awareness and phonological memory overlapped with their predictor of
emergent literacy. Although RAN was considered the greatest predictor of emergent
literacy, in this study it was unrelated to phonological awareness and phonological memory
(Anthony, et al. 262). Whether looking at native Spanish-speaking children or English-
speaking children, these three also noted the relationship of the phonological processing
abilities and language. Anthony, et al. reported in The Handbook of Early Literacy,
The rapid development of language, particularly the emergence of the more advanced
language abilities, may play a pivotal role in the initial organization and subsequent
functioning of varied linguistic-cognitive-affective systems that underpin literacy, as
well as diverse areas of cognition and social development (13).
In 2006 Dickinson, McCabe and Essex discussed how phonological processing
abilities are predictors of emergent literacy. Along with Dickinson, et al., Poe and
colleagues believed in the relationship between language abilities, phonological abilities
and the social relationship from the home environment (Poet, et al. 315). In 2004 Poe, et al.
reviewed longitudinal data from 77 African American children to determine the relationship
between early language and later reading skills at preschool and the end of second grade;
seventy five percent of the children in the study were classified as low-income (315).
The participants were evaluated with measures including the Clinical Evaluation of
Language Fundamentals (CELF) to measure language skills and subtests from the
Woodcock Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery – Revised (Letter-Word Identification and

28
Incomplete Words Scale). In addition, the Home Observation for the Measurement of the
Environment was utilized to gain information about the participants’ home literacy
environment.
Poe, et al. reported:
Longitudinal regression analyses indicate that language at entry to
kindergarten through second grade has a direct association with reading,
and this association became stronger in second grade when reading skills
included assessment of both decoding and comprehension. Language, not
phonemic knowledge, was the best predictor of reading skills in second
grade, the age when children should have acquired basic decoding skills
and many are reading for comprehension (328).
However, their research did show that phonemic knowledge was the best predictor of
reading skills in kindergarten. According to this study, children from low income families
need a family environment rich with literacy, a strong phonemic background in preschool
and kindergarten and a strong language emphasis throughout the preschool through second
grade years (Poe, et al. 327).
McCabe, et al. (2006) stated,
There is evidence that phonological sensitivity, other language skills, and print
knowledge are interrelated in the years before children begin receiving reading
instruction, and there is evidence these relationships persist as children begin learning
to read (347).
In 1999 Bus and IJzendoorn conducted a quantitative meta-analysis determining the
effects of phonological awareness with reading. The researchers selected 36 studies on the
29
effects of phonological awareness training programs and 34 studies examining the effects
on reading. Bus and IJzendoorn found phonological awareness a significant predictor of
reading; it was noted that kindergarten and first graders do not benefit as substantially as
preschoolers with phonological training (412). Programs that focused solely on
phonological awareness training had a smaller effect than programs with a combined
phonological awareness training and letter training. Bus and IJzendoorn concluded, “the
onset of preventive interventions in early childhood seems to be never too early” (412).
Literature documents significant gaps between children from advantaged families and
children of families in poverty or with parents with limited education (Dickinson and
Neuman 1; Dickinson, McCabe, and Essex 11). Those children who are behind when they
start kindergarten do not make up the “gap” to become strong students upon graduation
(Dickinson, McCabe, and Essex 15). Dickinson and Neuman state, “Early childhood literacy
is regarded as the single best investment for enabling children to develop skills that will
likely benefit them for a lifetime, (Dickinson and Neuman 1). Research presented indicates a
need for early intervention in the areas of vocabulary and phonemic processing skills to give
at-risk students a “head start” into a lifetime of literacy.

30
CHAPTER THREE: Methods
This chapter describes the research methods used in the study including demographic
information about the participants, instrumentation, and specific procedures used to
determine children’s developmental growth of literacy and language skills in the half day
compared to the extended day programs in the study.
The study examined the developmental growth of Pre-Writing and Language skills
across the 2006-2007 school year. The purpose of the study is to determine whether
preschoolers attending extended day Head Start classrooms demonstrate more growth in
literacy and language skills than students attending half day programs. The study is an
attempt to support the Head Start extended day program in the district’s decision to change
all classrooms from half day to extended day.
RESEARCH HYPOTHESES
Hypothesis 1
Writing skills than students attending the half day program as measured by the Learning
Hypothesis 2

31
Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 4
Pre-Writing development than Hispanic students attending the half day program as measured
Hypothesis 5
of significance.
Hypothesis 6
of significance.
Participants
Participants in this study attended Head Start classrooms in a suburban district in the
Midwest. To participate in Head Start preschool, families must meet the federal income
guidelines. The federal income guidelines would require a family of four to earn a maximum
of $20,650 per year. There are four extended day classrooms consisting of 71 students who
32
attend six hours per day and two half day programs consisting of 34 students who attend
school for four hours per day.
Parents of children who are eligible for the program are interviewed and asked
questions about their preference for the half day or the extended day program. Families
expressing an interest in the extended day program are interviewed further to see if they as
parents are either attending school or work and whether or not their children receive
assistance through Social and Rehabilitative Services (SRS). Program assignment is based on
parental preference, parental activities during the day and their assistance from SRS. Once
the extended day program is full a waiting list is initiated and admission into the program is
then determined based on the “need.” This “need” may be due to parents attending school or
work during the day or inability to receive childcare assistance through Social and
Rehabilitative Services.
There are 71 students three to five years of age in the extended day program, 37
males and 34 females. In the half day program, there are 34 students, 16 males and 18
females. Of the 34 students, 3 are Caucasian, 23 are Hispanic, 3 are Black and 5 classified as
“Other” (see Figure 8).

33
Figure 8
Head Start Student Half Day Demographics 2006-2007
5 3
3 White
Hispanic
Black
Other
23
Source: Head Start Outcomes Report for Head Start.
Of the 71 students, 36 are Hispanic, 15 are Caucasian, 8 are Black and 12 fall in the “other”
category (including Asian American, Native American, and more than one race) (see Figure
9).
34
Figure 9
Head Start Student Extended Day Demographics 2006-2007
White
Hispanic
Black
Other
Source: Head Start Outcomes Report for Head Start
In both the extended day and half day programs, the majority of the population consists of
Hispanic students. Students who fell in the “other” category consisted of students from
Native American background, Asian, and more than two races.
Instrumentation
Learning Achievement Profile – 3rd Edition
The research instrument used in this study was the Learning Achievement Profile 3rd
Edition (LAP-3). According to Hardin and Peisner-Feinberg, “The LAP was designed to
observe the development of individual children by providing tasks of situations typical of
young children’s development that would interest the child and stimulate an observable
response” (1). The LAP was initially developed in 1969 by Anne Sanford when the Chapel
35
Hill Training Outreach Project was established. The LAP was revised in 1981 (and after that
was known as the LAP-Revised) and in 2004 was termed the LAP-3 (Hardin and Peisner-
Feinburg 3). The LAP-3 is a criterion-referenced tool for children functioning in the 36-72
month age range and is used to screen and evaluate children’s developmental growth in the
areas of gross motor, fine motor, pre-writing, cognitive, language, self-help, and
personal/social development (Hardin and Peisner-Feinburg 3).
Gross motor includes developmental skills such as standing on one foot, catching a
ball, etc. Skills such as copying shapes, copying letters, and writing numbers are skills
assessed in the pre-writing subtest. In the cognitive subtest, students are assessed on
counting, identifying qualitative concepts, identifying positions, etc. Skills such as
identifying pictures, naming objects, and following multi-step directions are included in the
language subtest. Developmental skills assessed in the self-help subtest include brushing
teeth, taking off shoes, putting on clothes, etc. Finally, in the area of personal/social, students
are assessed in a variety of skills including to play with other children is associative play,
identify emotions, etc. (Hardin and Peisner-Feinberg 24).
The LAP-3 is comprised of 383 developmental skills divided across the seven
domains of development (gross motor, fine motor, pre-writing, cognitive, language, self-help
and personal/social). The items are individually administered orally to the students. The
assessment takes 90 minutes to administer to each child. Procedures for each item are
included in the administration manual to ensure standardization and reliability of assessment
results (Hardin and Peisner-Feinburg 13).
The LAP-3 provides two different types of scores. First, the scores are broken down
for each child by each subtest area. Second, milestones (questions from the LAP-3) from
36
each of the subtests are used to develop scores in the domains of Language Development,
Literacy, Math, Science, Creative Arts, Social Emotional, Approaches to Learning, and
Physical Health Development. In 2004 Hardin and Peisner-Feinburg selected the items from
each of the subtests (fine motor, gross motor, pre-writing, cognitive, language, self-help and
personal/social) that most closely corresponded to the abilities of typically developing
children at the developmental age as compared to the Head Start Outcomes Framework (see
“Figure 10”) (14).

37
Figure 10
Learning Accomplishment Profile and Head Start Outcome Framework Score Reports
Domain Domain Element # of Milestones from LAP-3

Milestones Subtests
Language Listening and Understanding 18 Cognitive, Language
Development Speaking and Communicating 29 Cognitive, Language
Literacy Phonological Awareness 6 Language
Book Knowledge and 12 Fine Motor, Language
Appreciation
Print Awareness and Concepts 5 Language
Early Writing 6 Pre-Writing
Alphabet Knowledge 5 Language
Mathematics Number and Operations 34 Cognitive, Pre-Writing
Geometry and Spatial Sense 15 Cognitive, Fine-Motor,
Language
Patterns and Measurements 11 Cognitive
Science Scientific Skills and Methods 10 Cognitive
Scientific Knowledge 10 Cognitive
Creative Arts Music 2 Cognitive
Language
Art 4 Fine Motor, Pre-Writing
Movement 2 Gross Motor,
Personal/Social
Creative Arts Dramatic Play 2 Personal/Social
Social & Emotional Self Concept 9 Personal/Social
Self-Control 8 Personal/Social
Cooperation 9 Personal/Social
Social Relationships 10 Personal/Social
Knowledge of Families and 5 Personal/Social
Communities
Approaches to Initiative and Curiosity 1 Personal/Social
Learning Engagement and Persistence 3 Cognitive
Physical Health and Fine Motor Skills 64 Cognitive, Fine Motor,
Development Pre-Writing
Gross Motor Skills 37 Gross Motor
Health Status and Practices 57 Gross Motor, Self-Help
Source: Head Start Outcomes Report for Head Start.
However, the scores that are used for the domain scores are compiled from the entire
program not divided out by classrooms such as half day or extended day. Because these
38
scores are shown as the program entirety (totaling 105 students) and not broken down by
individual students, subtest scores for literacy and language development were used for the
study instead of the group literacy scores (see Figure 10).
Since literacy is the focus of this study, the researcher examined the two subtest areas
of the LAP-3 that make up the literacy domain. Literacy is divided further into five sub-
domains including Phonological Awareness, Book Knowledge and Appreciation, Print
Awareness and Concepts, Early Writing and Alphabet Knowledge. There are 34 milestones
(items) from the LAP-3 that are used to determine the developmental level for the area of
Literacy. All 34 items are comprised from the Pre-Writing and Language subtests. As
Literacy is defined by milestones from these two subtests, only the individual student scores
(milestones) from Pre-Writing and Language were used in this study. Individual scores are
obtained by the number of milestones the student masters. For example, the Language subtest
is comprised of 69 developmental milestones. If a student demonstrated mastery on 45 items
of the subtest, he would have a score of 45.
A sample of 363 children who participated in center-based preschool programs and
family daycare programs were used to examine the reliability and validity of the LAP-3.
Head Start and public school settings were used in the study based on the 2000 population
projects by the U.S. Census Bureau. Students ranged in age from 30 to 78 months of age.
A Cronbach’s coefficient alpha was obtained to determine the internal consistency of
the LAP-3. Test-retest reliability ranged from .96-.99 and inter-rater reliability ranged from
.81-.98. Criterion validity between the Batelle Developmental Inventory and the LAP-3
indicated strong correlations ranging from .70-.92 in the majority of scales (Hardin and
Peisner-Feinburg 39).
39
Procedures
School district personnel including the Director of Head Start, Head Start Education
Coordinator and Head Start Social Services Coordinator met with the researcher to provide
access to the data for the study. The data collected included student enrollment information
for the 2006-2007 school year, district enrollment from the 2000-2001 school year through
the 2006-2007 school year, and the results of the Learning Accomplishment Profile – 3rd
edition for all Head Start classrooms. All students were individually assessed by the Head
Start Education Coordinator in August, December and May of the 2006-2007 school year.
Permission was obtained from the school district to use the data for the purpose of this study.
The school district requested the letter of approval not be published in the appendix.
Information obtained from the LAP-3 included each child’s demographic information
including: birthday, ethnicity, and gender. Data were compiled by extended day and half day,
by gender, and ethnicity in the areas of Pre-Writing and Language.
Design
Prior to running analyses on the data to test the hypotheses, the researcher examined
the data of students to determine language and pre-writing skills upon entry of the program.
Independent samples t-tests were conducted to compare the language and pre-writing pre-test
scores for the students in the half day and extended day programs for the groups. Factorial
Analyses of Variance (ANOVAs) were conducted to determine the effect of gender and
ethnicity with language scores and pre-writing scores on the two groups, half day and
extended day programs. A factorial ANOVA was chosen due to the study involving two
independent variables tested on two groups. According to Krawitz (2007), “The factorial
ANOVA allows a researcher to look at the individual effects of each independent variable
40
being tested on two or more groups (the main effect) while simultaneously looking at the
effects both independent variables have on each other, through what is called an interaction
effect” (4). In addition, t-tests for dependent means were conducted to measure the growth
from fall to spring in the areas of language and pre-writing skills between half day and
extended day programs. The t-test for dependent means was chosen because it allows the
researcher to determine the difference between pretest to posttest (Krawitz 2). Additional
ANOVAs were not completed on the other subtest areas since the study focuses only on
literacy skills. The scores used in this study were from the Pre-Writing and Language
subtests, because these were the subtests that comprised the literacy domain.
41
CHAPTER FOUR: Results
Preliminary Analyses
Students were placed in the extended day and half day programs based on parent
request. To determine their entry levels in the areas of pre-writing and language, an
independent samples t-test was conducted to determine whether the students in the extended
day differed from the students in the half day program in language at the beginning of the
year. Students in the extended day program had a mean of 39.19 for language compared to
students in the half day program with a mean of 19.7 (see Figure 11).
Figure 11
Language Skills Upon Entry to Program
Mean Standard Degrees of t-value Level of
Deviation Freedom Significance
Half Day 19.7 14.06 33 8.406 .000
Extended 39.19 9.35 70

Day
Students in the half day program started the program significantly lower than students in the
extended day program.
An independent samples t-test was also conducted with the groups to determine if
differences were present in the area of pre-writing. Although the groups differed significantly
with language development, they did not differ significantly in the area of pre-writing (see
Figure 12).
42
Figure 12
Pre-Writing Skills Upon Entry to Program
Half Day 21.44 7.37 33 1.791 .079
Extended 24.08 6.40 70

Day
Students in the half day program (Mean = 21.44) differed slightly than students in the
extended day program (Mean = 24.08), but not significantly.
An independent t-test was also conducted on Hispanics in the areas of language and
pre-writing. Additional t-tests were not completed to determine the entry level of the students
in the Caucasian, Black or Other groups due to small sample size,. However, due to the
greater number of Hispanics in both programs, they were utilized in the study to compare the
differences between the extended day and half day programs in pre-writing and language
skills.
In the area of language, Hispanic students in the extended day program were
significantly higher than the students in the half day program upon entry to the program (see
Figure 13).
43
Figure 13
Hispanic Students’ Language Skills Upon Entry to Program
Half Day 18.13 9.62 22 5.265 .000
Extended 33.77 13.15 35

Day
Students in the half day program (Mean = 18.13) scored significantly higher than the students
in the extended day program (Mean = 33.77) with a t-value of 5.265 which is the p<.01 level
of significance.
In the area of language, Hispanic students in the extended day program differed
significantly than the students in the half day program upon entry to the program (see Figure
14).
Figure 14
Hispanic Students’ Pre-Writing Skills Upon Entry to Program
Half Day 20.26 5.97 22 2.355 .024
Extended 24.88 8.12 35

Day
Students in the half day program (Mean = 20.26) scored significantly lower than the students
in the extended day program (Mean = 24.88) with a t-value of 2.355 which is significant at
the p<.05 level of significance.

44
After examining the data to determine whether the groups identified differed upon
entry to the program, the following hypotheses were tested.
Analyses of the Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1
Writing skills than students attending the half day program as measured by the Learning
A t-test for dependent means was conducted to determine whether a half day or
extended day program impacted growth in pre-writing skills. The following is a summary of
the findings for pre-writing skills (see Figure 15).
Figure 15
Growth in Pre-Writing Skills in Half and Extended Day Programs

Half Day 9.08 5.16 33 1.913 .058
Extended 7.30 4.08 70

Day
The mean is the difference between the post-test and pre-test score representing the
amount of growth over the course of the year. Comparing the means of the two groups,
students in the half-day program (Mean=9.08) made more growth between fall and spring
than those in the extended day program (Mean = 7.30). Although there was not a significant
difference at the p<.05 level, it was close to the level of significance with t103=1.913, p=.058.
This indicates there was a marginally significant difference between the two groups. There is
not enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

45
Hypothesis 2
A t-test for dependent means was conducted to determine the growth in language
skills in the half and extended day programs. The following is a summary of the findings for
pre-writing skills. (see Figure 16).
Figure 16
Growth in Language Skills in Half and Extended Day Programs

Half Day 19.91 10.08 33 6.61 .003
Extended 8.90 6.75 70

Day
Comparing the mean difference scores of the two groups, students attending the half
day program (Mean=19.91) demonstrated more growth in the area of language between the
fall and spring as compared to students attending the extended day program (Mean=8.90).
Students in the half day program gained significantly more in their language skills t103=6.61,
p=.003 than students in the extended day program. There is a statistically significant
difference. Half day students improved more than extended day students, which does not
support Hypothesis 2.
The t-test resulted with t-value of 6.61. When comparing the t-value with the infinite
critical t-value in Salkind’s Table B.2 “t Values Needed for Rejection of Null Hypothesis”,
the obtained t-value at LOS=.05 level is more than the critical value of t=1.645 indicating a
46
rejection of the null hypothesis. This indicates the treatment variable of the half day and
extended day programs differed significantly at the p=.05 level.
Hypothesis 3
When comparing the mean difference scores of the Hispanic students in the extended
day program (Mean = 9.02) to the Hispanic students in the half day program (Mean = 15.82),
there is a difference in the amount of growth in language skills (see Figure 17).
Figure 17
Hispanic Students’ Growth in Language Skills in Half and Extended Day Programs

Half Day 15.82 7.90 22 3.377 .001
Extended 9.02 7.30 35

Day
Students in the half day program gained significantly more in their language skills (p<.01)
than students in the extended day program. Hypothesis 3 is rejected as students in the half
day program demonstrated more growth than students in the extended day program. A
Cohen’s D was calculated and yielded an Effect Size of 0.89 which indicates a large effect
size. This means the groups were different and demonstrated significantly different results in
the area of language in the half day than the extended day program for Hispanic students.
The t-test resulted with a t-value of 3.377. When comparing the t-value with the
infinite critical t-value in Salkind’s Table B.2 “t Values Needed for Rejection of Null
47
Hypothesis” the obtained t-value at the p=.05 level is more than the critical value of t=1.645
indicating a rejection of the null hypothesis. This indicates the treatment variable of the half
day and extended day programs differed significantly at the p=.05 level for Hispanic
students.
Hypothesis 4
Hispanic students attending the extended day program will demonstrate more growth
in Pre-Writing development than Hispanic students attending the half day program as
measured by the Learning Accomplishment Profile 3rd Edition at the 0.05 level of
significance.
When comparing the means of the Hispanic students in the extended day program
(Mean = 6.77) to the Hispanic students in the half day program (Mean = 9.91), there is a
difference in the amount of growth in pre-writing skills (see Figure 18).
Figure 18
Hispanic Students’ Growth in Pre-Writing Skills in the Half and Extended Day Programs

Half Day 9.91 5.59 22 2.526 .014
Extended 6.77 3.94 35

Day
Students in the half day program gained significantly more in their pre-writing skills at the
p<.05 level of significance than students in the extended day program. Hypothesis 4 is
rejected as students in the half day program demonstrated more growth than students in the
extended day program. A Cohen’s d was calculated and yielded an Effect Size of 0.64 which
indicates a large effect size. This means the groups were different and demonstrated
48
significantly different results in the area of pre-writing in the half day than the extended day
program for Hispanic students.
The t-test resulted with a t-value of 2.52. When comparing the t-value with the
infinite critical t-value in Salkind’s Table B.2 “t Values Needed for Rejection of Null
Hypothesis” the obtained t-value at the p=.05 level is more than the t-value of 1.645
indicating a rejection of the null hypothesis. This indicates the treatment variable of the half
day and extended day programs differed significantly at the p=.05 level for Hispanic
students.
Hypothesis 5
of significance.
A factorial ANOVA was conducted to determine the difference in language growth
between males and females in the half day program compared to the extended day program.
The following is a summary of the findings for pre-writing skills (see Figure 19).
49
Figure 19
Growth in Pre-Writing Skills in Male and Female Students
Groups Gender Mean Standard

Deviation
Extended Day Female 7.00 3.80
Male 7.64 4.39
Total 7.30 4.08
Half Day Female 7.05 3.91
Male 11.37 5.53
Total 9.08 5.16
When comparing the means of males and females in the extended day program, there is not
much difference between the scores. However, when comparing the means of males and
females in the half day program, males made more growth than females. When comparing
females from the extended day to the half day program, there was little difference between
the means. However, males demonstrated more growth in the half day program (Mean =
11.37) than males in the extended day program (Mean = 7.64).
The following provides additional information about the treatment groups, gender and
the interaction of the groups and gender (see Figure 20).

50
Figure 20
Interaction of Gender and Programs in Pre-Writing Skills
Source Degrees of F Level of

Freedom Significance
Groups 1 4.40 0.038
Gender 1 7.59 0.007
Groups * Gender 1 4.15 0.044
Total 105
As indicated above, the results indicate an interaction effect of groups and gender
indicates an effect Fdf1, df2 = 4.15, p = .0044 indicating there is an interaction between the type
of program and gender.
A Bonferroni post-hoc comparison was conducted to determine where the difference
lies between the scores. There was an interaction effect between the treatment (half day or
extended day) and gender. Male students in the half day program demonstrated more growth
than females in the half day program.
Hypothesis 6
of significance.
A factorial ANOVA was conducted to determine the difference in language growth
between males and females in the half day program compared to the extended day program.
The following is a summary of the findings for language skills (see Figure 21).
51
Figure 21
Growth in Language Skills in Male and Female Students
Groups Gender Mean Standard

Deviation
Extended Day Female 8.54 7.14
Male 9.29 6.39
Total 8.90 6.75
Half Day Female 20.77 9.95
Male 18.93 10.47
Total 19.91 10.08
When comparing the means of the males and females in the extended day program,
there is little difference between the two. In addition, there is little difference between males
and females in the half day program. However, females in the extended day program
demonstrated less growth (Mean = 8.54) than females in the half- day program (Mean =
20.77). In addition, males in the extended day program demonstrated less growth (Mean =
9.29) than males in the half-day program (Mean = 18.93).
The following provides additional information about the treatment groups, gender and
the interaction of the groups and gender (see Figure 22).

52
Figure 22
Interaction of Gender and Programs in Language Skills
Source Df F Level of
Significance
Groups 1 42.5 0.000
Gender 1 0.10 0.747
Groups * Gender 1 0.597 0.441
Total 105
As indicated above, the results of the interaction effect of groups and gender indicates
there is no effect (F = 0.597) indicating there were no differential effects for treatment (half
day and extended day) for language skills across gender.
There is enough evidence to support Hypothesis 6, indicating there is not a significant
difference between males and females in the extended day program and half day program in
the area of language skills.

53
CHAPTER FIVE: Interpretations and Recommendations
This chapter includes interpretation of the results found in Chapter 4, evaluates the
results found, discusses the implications of the research data, and makes recommendations
for future research.
Prior to running the analyses for each of the hypotheses, the achievement levels for
language and pre-writing skills were examined on the groups including: half day and
extended day for all students, and half day and extended day for Hispanic students. Results
showed students in the half day program differed significantly from students in the extended
day program in language skills upon entry of the program. However, in pre-writing
development students did not differ significantly upon entry of the program. When
determining the difference between the Hispanic students in the half day versus extended day
programs, the students differed significantly in both language and pre-writing skills upon
entry of the program.
The first hypothesis was tested to examine the achievement growth in pre-writing
skills between the half day and extended day program. It was hypothesized that students in
the extended day program would demonstrate more growth in pre-writing skills than students
in the half day program. Although there was not a significant difference between the two
groups, the results indicated students in the half day program demonstrated more growth in
the area of pre-writing than the students in the extended day program. When examining the
growth in both of the programs, it is evident that Head Start programs lead to growth in pre-
writing achievement whether attending a half or extended day programs. This is consistent
with Lee’s, et al. (1990) results when he found that at-risk black children benefit from any
preschool experience compared to none at all (504).

54
The second hypothesis examined the achievement growth in language development
between the half day and extended day program. The researcher hypothesized that students in
the extended day program would demonstrate more growth in the extended day program than
the half day program. Results indicated students attending the half day program demonstrated
more growth in the area of language between the fall and spring as compared to students
attending the extended day program. Although the groups differed upon entry to the program,
both groups led to growth in language development. As with the pre-writing skills discussed
earlier, students make gains whether in a half or full day program.
What is not clear at this point is whether the amount of preschool programming
makes a difference. With the groups differing significantly upon entry to the program, it is
not apparent yet whether a longer preschool day makes a difference in language growth in at-
risk students. Wasik, Bond and Hindman (2006) reported that students from high-poverty
homes have deficient vocabularies (70). Given the fact that all of the children in these
programs are from high-poverty homes, this could be an explanation as to why they would
make growth in the area of language no matter how long they were in preschool. Children
from homes limited in communication will increase their language development in any
language-rich environment.
The third hypothesis examined the achievement growth in language development
between the half day and extended day program with Hispanic students. The researcher
hypothesized Hispanic students in the extended day program would gain more pre-writing
skills than students in the half day program. Results indicated students in the half day
program made more growth in language development than students in the extended day
program.
55
As the majority of Hispanic students speak more than one language, one would
anticipate that at-risk bilingual students would make significant gains in their English
language development when exposed to a research-based preschool program. From the
findings it is clear that students make significant gains in language development when
attending a Head Start preschool program. Anthony, et al. (2006) emphasized the importance
of language development in Spanish speaking students. As language development is one of
the precursors to reading, the more exposure Hispanic students have in a language-rich
environment, the more prepared they will be in the elementary years (245).
The fourth hypothesis examined the achievement growth in pre-writing development
between the half day and extended day program with Hispanic students. The researcher
hypothesized Hispanic students in the extended day program would demonstrate more
growth in pre-writing skills than students in the half day program. Results indicated students
in the half day program gained significantly more in their pre-writing skills at the than
students in the extended day program. However, students in both programs made significant
gains in pre-writing development when attending a Head Start preschool.
The fifth hypothesis examined the achievement growth in pre-writing development in
male students compared to female students attending the half day and extended day
programs. The researcher hypothesized males would not demonstrate more growth in Pre-
Writing development and Language development than females. When comparing the means
of males and females in the extended day program, there was not much difference between
the scores. However, when comparing the means of males and females in the half day
program, males made more growth than females. When comparing females from the
56
extended day to the half day program, there was little difference between the means.
However, males demonstrated more growth in the half day program.
Results from the factorial ANOVA indicated males and female students differed in
their level of growth in pre-writing skills. The results of the interaction effect of groups and
gender indicates an interaction between the type of program and gender. It is possible the
reason for more growth from males in half day program could have been due to lack of
exposure to fine motor activities (cutting, writing, etc.) prior to attending Head Start. If
students had little exposure of such activities, the researcher would anticipate students to
have significant growth in that area after a year of exposure in a Head Start preschool.
The sixth hypothesis examined the achievement growth in language development in
male students compared to female students attending the extended day and half day
programs. The researcher hypothesized males would not demonstrate more growth in
language development than females.
When comparing the means of males and females in the extended day program, there
is little difference between the two. In addition, there is little difference between males and
females in the half day program. However, females in the extended day program
demonstrated less growth than females in the half- day program. Females in the extended day
program may have demonstrated less growth due to the significant differences between the
two groups (extended day and half day) upon entry of the program. If the students in the half
day program were behind the students in the extended day program, one would anticipate
more growth with preschool instruction. The same was also true for males. Males in the half
day program demonstrated more growth than males in the extended day program.
57
Results from a factorial ANOVA indicated a main effect for the groups (half day and
extended day programs). Students’ growth in language skills differed depending on the group
they were in. There was a not a main effect for gender which means there was not a
difference between males and females in the treatment groups. The results of the interaction
effect of groups and gender indicates there is no effect indicating there were no differential
effects for treatment (half day and extended day) for language skills across gender. As
indicated before, students make significant growth in language skills when provided in either
type of program.
Results from this study are consistent with George’s (2004) study where the length of
preschool day did not indicate more growth in achievement. However, the results are not
consistent with Zill and Resnick’s (2001) study which found that children who participated in
full-day programs made greater gains in book-knowledge, early writing and color-naming
(363). Although some of the results found in this study indicated the half day program made
more growth than full day program, due to the differences between the groups upon entry of
the program, this assumption can not be made. However, this study did demonstrate the
importance of preschool experience in the area of emergent literacy for all students. Students
demonstrated significant growth in pre-writing skills and language development, which are
two components of emergent literacy. Of the 104 students in the study, all made growths in
the area of language development. Only one student remained at the same level in the area of
pre-writing over the course of the year. No matter how long a child attends a preschool
program, they are likely to make gains in the areas of pre-writing skills and language
development. This is consistent with Dickinson, McCabe and Essex’s (2006) who found that
intervention during the preschool years has a lasting impact on overall development (12).
58
Recommendations
The following are recommendations for future research:
• Longitudinal research of the half and extended day programs in the Olathe District
Schools is recommended. Additional data is needed to determine the true impact of
the length of school day on emergent literacy skills.
• Determine the differences in teacher background such as the number of years
teaching experience and the type of educational training to determine if these impact
the growth in achievement from students in the same type of programming (half day
or extended day).
• Longitudinal research of Head Start students and their reading levels in 3rd grade as
compared to at-risk students who did not attend preschool.
• Longitudinal research of students attending a community preschool to determine the
effect of length of school day on emergent literacy skills.
• Longitudinal research of Head Start students’ social-emotional skills and its
interaction with emergent literacy skills.
• Determine the impact of parents level of literacy understanding on student literacy
results.
• Determine the factors (socio-economic status, parents level of education, participation
in daycare or preschool prior to Head Start, etc.) and their effects on student literacy.
• Determine the impact of a bilingual teaching approach for English Language Learner
students and its effect on student literacy.

59
WORKS CITED
Anthony, Jason L., Jeffrey M. Williams, Renee McDonald, Deborah Corbitt-Shindler,
Coleen D. Carlson, and David J. Francis. "Phonological Processing and Emergent
Literacy in Spanish-Speaking Preschool Children." Annals of Dyslexia 56 (2006):
239-270.
Barnett, W. Stephen, and Donald Yarosz. “Who Goes to Preschool and Why Does it
Matter?” (August 2004). Issue 8, Preschool Policy Matters. National Institute for
Early Education Research.
Bus, A.G. and M. H. van Ijzendoorn. “Phonological Awareness and Early Reading: A Meta-
analysis of Experimental Training Studies”. Journal of Eudcational Pychology 91
(1999). 403-414.
Cunningham, Anne E., and Keith E. Stanovich. "Early Reading Acquisition and Its Relation
to Reading Experience and Ability 10 Years Later." Developmental Psychology 33
(1997): 934-945.
Dickinson, David K., Louisa Anastasopoulos, Allyssa McCabe, Ellen S. Peisner-Feinberg,
and Michele D. Poe. "The Comprehensive Language Approach to Early Literacy: the
Interrelationships Among Vocabulary, Phonological Sensitivity, and Print Knowledge
Among Preschool-Aged Children." Journal of Educational Psychology 95 (2003):
465-481.
Dickinson, David K., McCabe, Allyssa, and Marilyn J. Essex. "A Window of Opportunity
We Must Open to All: the Case for Preschool with High-Quality Support for
Language and Literacy." Handbook of Early Literacy Research. Ed. Susan B.
Neuman and David K. Dickinson. New York: Guilford P, 2006. 11-29.

60
Dickinson, David K. and Susan B. Neuman. Eds. Handbook of Early Literacy Research. New
York: Guilford P, 2006.
“District History”. District Schools. 13 August 2007.
http://www.schools.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=209&Itemi
d=26
Douglas-Hall, Ayana, Michelle Chau, and Heather Koball. “Basic Facts About Low-Income
Children Birth to Age 3”. National Center for Children in Poverty. 2006. 15 June 2007.
<http://www.nccp.org/pub_ecp06b.html>.
Douglas-Hall, Avana, Michelee Chau, and Heather Koball. “Basic Facts about Low-Income
Children Birth to Age 6”. National Center for Children in Poverty. 2006. 15 June
2007. <http://www.nccp.org/publications/pub_680.html>.
Ellsworth, H,M & /L.J. Ames. (Eds). Critical Perspectives on Project Head Start: Revisioning
the Hope and Challenge. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Garrett, Judith N., and Michael F. Kelley. "Early Childhood Special Education." Childhood
Education Mid-Summer 76.5 (2000): 267.
George, Anice. A Quantitative Outcome Analysis Examining the Effects of a Head Start
Preschool Program. Alliant International University, 2004.
Gershoff, Elizabeth. “Low Income and the Development of America’s Kindergartners:
Living at the Edge.” ERIC ED481933. 2003. 22 January 2007
<http://www.eric.ed.gov/>.
Hardin, Belinda J. and Ellen S. Peisner-Feinberg. The Learning Accomplishment Profile
Third Edition – Examiner’s Manual and Technical Report. Kaplan Early Learning
Company, 2004. 1-64.

61
Hawken, Leanne S., Susan S. Johnston, and Andrea P. McDonnell. "Emerging Literacy
Views and Practices: Results From a National Survey of Head Start Preschool
Teachers." Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 25 (2005): 232-242.
“LAP-3 Child Head Start Outcomes Report”. Olathe District Schools. May 2007.
"Head Start Program Fact Sheet." Administration for Infants and Children. 26 September
2006. <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/hsb/research/2006.htm>.
Hebbeler, Kathleen M., Barbara J. Smith, and Talbot L. Black. "Federal Early Childhood
Special Education Policy: A Model for the Improvement of Services for Children
with Disabilities." Exceptional Children 58.2 (2006): 104.
Holahan, Annette, and Virginia Constenbader. "A Comparison of Developmental Gains for
Preschool Children with Disabilities in Self-Contained Classrooms." Topics in Early
Childhood Special Education 20.4.Winter (2000) 224.
Kadlic, Melanie and Mary Anne Lesiak. “Early Reading and Scientifically Based Research:
Implications for Practice in Early Childhood Education Programs.” U.S. Department
of Education. Presented at National Association of State Title I Directors Conference
February 2003.
"Kansas: Demographics of Low-Income Children." National Center for Children in Poverty.
2006. Columbia University. 11 November 2006
<http://www.nccp.org/profiles/KS_profile_6.html>.
Klein, Lisa and Jane Knitzer. "Promoting Early Effective Learning: What Every Policymaker
and Educator Should Know." National Center for Children in Poverty 1 January
2007. Columbia University. 25 January 2007
<http://www.nccp.org/media/pes07a_text.pdf>.
62
Krawitz, Karl. Summary Charts for Statistical Analysis. 2007. 1-4.
Landesman Ramey, Sharon, and Craig T. Ramey. "Early Educational Interventions:
Principles of Effective and Sustained Benefits From Targeted Early Education
Programs." Handbook of Early Literacy Research. Ed. Susan B. Neuman and David
K. Dickinson. New York: Guilford P, 2006. 445-459.
Landry, Susan H., Paul R. Swank, Karen E. Smith, Michael A. Assel, and Susan B.
Gunnewig. "Enhancing Early Literacy Skills for Preschool Children: Bringing a
Professional Development Model to Scale." Journal of Learning Disabilities 39
(2006): 306-324.
Landry, Susan H. and Karen E. Smith. “The Influence of Parenting on Emerging Literacy
Skills.” Handbook of Early Literacy Research. Ed. Susan B. Neuman and David K.
Dickinson. New York: Guilford P, 2006. 135-148.
Lee, Valerie E., Elizabeth Schnur, and J Brooks-Gunn. "Does Head Start Work? A 1-Year
Follow-Up Comparison of Disadvantaged Children Attending Head Start, No
Preschool, and Other Preschool Programs." Developmental Psychology 24 (1988):
210-222.
Lee, Valerie E., J Brooks-Gunn, Elizabeth Schnur, and Fong Ruey-Liaw. "Are Head Start
Effects Sustained? A Longitudinal Follow-Up Comparison of Disadvantaged
Children Attending Head Start, No Preschool, and Other Preschool Programs." Child
Development 61 (1990): 495-507.
Lonigan, Christopher. "Conceptualizing Phonological Processing Skills in Preschoolers."
Handbook of Early Literacy Research. Ed. David K. Dickinson and Susan B.
Neuman. New York: Guilford P, 2006. 77-89.

63
Lonigan, Christopher J., Stephen R. Burgess, and Jason L. Anthony. "Development of
Emergent Literacy and Early Reading Skills in Preschool Children: Evidence From a
Latent-Variable Longitudinal Study." Developmental Psychology 36 (2000): 596-
613.
McGill-Frazen, Anne, Cynthia Lanford, and Ellen Adams. "Learning to Be Literate: A
Comparison of 5 Urban Early Childhood Programs." Journal of Educational
Psychology 94 (2002): 443-464.
Nelson, K. (1996). Language in Cognitive Development: The Emergence of the Mediated
Mind. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Neuman, Susan B. "The Knowledge Gap: Implications for Early Education." Handbook of
Early Literacy Research. Ed. Susan B. Neuman and David D. Dickinson. New York:
Guilford P, 2006. 29-40.
Phillips, Beth M. and Joseph K. Torgesen. “Phonemic Awareness and Reading: Beyond the
Growth of Initial Reading Accuracy.” Handbook of Early Literacy Research. Ed.
Susan B. Neuman and David D. Dickinson. New York: Guilford P, 2006. 101-112.
Poe, Michele D., Margaret R. Burchinal, and Joanne E. Roberts. "Early Language and the
Development of Children's Reading Skills." Journal of School Psychology 42 (2004):
315-332.
“Report Card 2005-2006”. Kansas State Department of Education. 2006. 15 June 2007.
<http://online.ksde.org/rcard/district.aspx?org_no=D0233>.
Roskos, Kathleen., Carol Vukelich. “Early Literacy Policy and Pedagogy.” Handbook of
Early Literacy Research. Ed. Susan B. Neuman and David D. Dickinson. New York:
Guilford P, 2006. 295-308.

64
Scarborough, H S. "Connecting Early Language and Literacy to Later Learning Disabilities."
Handbook of Early Literacy Research. Ed. Susan B. Neuman and David K.
Dickinson. New York: Guilford P, 2001. 97-110.
Schatschneider, Christopher, Jack M. Fletcher, David J. Francis, Coleen D. Carlson, and
Barbara R. Foorman. "Kindergarten Prediction of Reading Skills: a Longitudinal
Comparative Analysis." Journal of Educational Psychology 96 (2004): 265-282.
Shaul, Marnie. United States. Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.
Preschool Education: Federal Investment for Low-Income Children Significant but
Effectiveness Unclear. Washington, D.C.: 2000.
Stanovich, Keith E., Anne E. Cunningham, and Dorothy J. Feeman. "Relationship Between
Early Reading Acquisition and Word Decoding with and Without Context: a
Longitudinal Study of First-Grade Children." Journal of Educational Psychology 76
(1984): 668-677.
Taylor, Matthew, Karl White, and Alice Kusmierek. "The Cost-Effectiveness of Increasing
Hours Per Week of Early Intervention Services for Young Children with
Disabilities." Early Education and Development 4 (1993): 238-255.
Torgesen, J K., R K. Wagner, C A. Rashotte, E Rose, P Lindamood, and T Conway.
"Preventing Reading Failure in Young Children with Phonological Processing
Disabilities: Group and Individual Responses to Instruction." Journal of Educational
Psychology 91 (1999): 579-593.
Wasik, B A., and M A. Bond. "Beyond the Pages of a Book: Interactive Book Reading and
Language Development in Preschool." Journal of Educational Psychology 93 (2001):
243-250.
65
Wasik, Barbara A., Mary A. Bond, and Annemarie Hindman. "The Effects of a Language
and Literacy Intervention on Head Start Children and Teachers." Journal of
Educational Psychology 98 (2006): 63-74.
Zill, Nicholas, and Gary Resnick. "Emergent Literacy of Low-Income Children in Head
Start: Relationships with Child and Family Characteristics, Program Factors, and
Classroom Quality." Handbook of Early Literacy Research. Ed. David K. Dickinson
and Susan B. Neuman. New York: Guilford P, 2006. 347-371.
“The State of Preschool: 2004 State Preschool Yearbook.” National Institute for Early
Education Research. 2004. The State University of New Jersey. 1 January 2007.
<http://nieer.org/yearbook2004/pdf/yearbook.pdf>.
66
APPENDIX A
Letter of Approval from the University Institutional Review Board
19 March 2007
Angela N. Currey
Graduate School of Education
Baker University
Dear Ms. Currey:
The Baker University IRB has reviewed your research project application (M-0037-0307-
0319-G) and approved this project under Exempt Review. As described, the project
complies with all the requirements and policies established by the University for protection
of human subjects in research. Unless renewed, approval lapses one year after approval date.
The Baker University IRB requires that your consent form must include the date of approval
and expiration date (one year from today). Please be aware of the following:
1. At designated intervals (usually annually) until the project is completed, a Project Status
Report must be returned to the IRB.
2. Any significant change in the research protocol as described should be reviewed by this
Committee prior to altering the project.
3. Notify the OIR about any new investigators not named in original application.
4. Any injury to a subject because of the research procedure must be reported to the IRB
Chair or representative immediately.
5. When signed consent documents are required, the primary investigator must retain the
signed consent documents for at least three years past completion of the research activity.
If you use a signed consent form, provide a copy of the consent form to subjects at the
time of consent.
6. If this is a funded project, keep a copy of this approval letter with your proposal/grant
file.
Please inform Office of Institutional Research (OIR) or myself when this project is
terminated. As noted above, you must also provide OIR with an annual status report and
receive approval for maintaining your status. If your project receives funding which requests
an annual update approval, you must request this from the IRB one month prior to the annual
update. Thanks for your cooperation. If you have any questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
Marc L Carter, PhD

Chair, Baker University IRB
CC: Willie Amison; file

Currey Angela

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Currey Angela

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Currey Angela

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HEAD START: THE EFFECT OF HALF DAY AND EXTENDED DAY

PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS ON LANGUAGE AND LITERACY DEVELOPMENT

Submitted to the Graduate Department and Faculty

Copyright 2008 by Angela N. Currey

With the emphasis on academic achievement and literacy development, preschool

development as measured by the Learning Accomplishment Profile – 3rd Edition (LAP-3).

emphasizing the importance of early childhood education in emergent literacy.

to never doubt the importance of education.

provided me with the guidance I needed.

questions and help needed to finalize this project.

Chapter One: Introduction and Rationale……………………………………………………..1

Limitations and Delimitations………………………………………………………..13

Outline of the Study………………………………………………………………….15

Chapter Two: Review of Literature………………………………………………………….16

Chapter Three: Methods...…………………………………………………………………...30

Instrumentation: Learning Accomplishment Profile – 3rd Edition…………………..34

Chapter Five: Interpretations and Recommendations..............................................................53

Figure 1: Children Under Age 6 Living in Low-Income Families............................................2

Figure 2: Achievement Gap as Children Begin Kindergarten...................................................3

Figure 3: Kindergarten and Preschool Participation..................................................................5

Figure 4: Preschool Participation by Income: 2001...................................................................6

Figure 5: National Head Start Student Enrollment....................................................................8

Figure 6: Population Growt.....................................................................................................10

Figure 7: Olathe District Schools Demographics....................................................................11

Figure8: Head Start Student Half Day Demographics 2006-2007..........................................33

Figure 9: Head Start Student Extended Day Demographics 2006-2007…………………….34

Figure 11: Language Skills Upon Entry to Program...............................................................41

Figure 12: Pre-Writing Skills Upon Entry to Program............................................................42

Figure 13: Hispanic Students’ Language Skills Upon Entry to Program................................43

Figure 14: Hispanic Students’ Pre-Writing Skills Upon Entry to Program.............................43

Figure 19: Growth in Pre-Writing Skills in Male and Female Students……………………..49

Figure 21: Growth in Language Skills in Male and Female Students.....................................51

Figure 22: Interaction of Gender and Programs in Language Skills.......................................52

CHAPTER ONE: Introduction and Rationale

income families (Demographics for Low Income Children 1).

6 living in poverty increased by 16% (see Figure 1).

Children Under Age 6 Living in Low-Income Families

reading, math and overall development (see Figure 2).

Achievement Gap as Children Begin Kindergarten

(McGill-Franzen, Lanford, and Adams 455).

needed for kindergarten (Garrett and Kelley 267).

workforce, but rather due to the growing demand on education (2).

Kindergarten and Preschool Participation

and Kusmierick 134).

Early experiences in social development, pre-literacy skills, and pre-math skills

preschool program in 1965.

Preschool Participation by Income: 2001

and learning” (1).

has tripled since 1980 (see Figure 5).

National Head Start Student Enrollment

National Head Start Student Enrollment

September 2006. <http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/hsb/research/2006.htm>.

research in this area is needed (3, 102).

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Source: “District History”. 13 August 2007.

support the continued use of extended day programs.

Purpose of the Study

Accomplishment Profile 3rd Edition at the 0.05 level of significance.

Accomplishment Profile 3rd Edition at the 0.05 level of significance.