Kindergarten in a Large Urban District

Abstract

Using data from 82 classroom observations conducted in a large urban school district, we explore how kindergartners spend their time in general and across schools serving children from lower and higher income households. Consistent with prior research, we find that kindergartners spend the majority of instructional time on reading and mathematics, with little time devoted to other subjects. On average, 2.5 hours are spent on noninstructional activities such as transitions. Kindergartners in lower income schools spend more time on reading and mathematics and experience more noninstructional time. They also spend substantially less time being physically active and have fewer opportunities to choose their own activities than their peers in higher income schools.

Keywords

descriptive analysis early childhood elementary schools instructional practices observational research urban education

For decades, kindergarten has been the entry point to formal schooling, serving as the transition from childcare or preschool to the K–12 education system for most young children in the nation. As such, the kindergarten year has the potential to shape children’s expectations for, and attitudes toward, schooling. Furthermore, academic gains made during kindergarten are highly predictive of later outcomes (e.g., Claessens et al., 2009; Duncan et al., 2007). Despite its importance, however, there is relatively little empirical evidence documenting children’s experiences. Most of the research published on kindergarten in the past 15 years has been based on the nationally representative Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten (ECLS-K), and ECLS-K:2011 cohorts. While the ECLS-K has many strengths, kindergarten data for the more recent cohort are now more than 10 years old. Furthermore, the study relies on a single teacher survey administered during the spring of kindergarten for information on instruction, and it likely misses important nuances regarding the kindergarten experience. Given the pivotal role that kindergarten plays in the transition to formal learning, a more detailed investigation of time use in kindergarten, using observational data, is warranted.

Studies using the ECLS-K have explored both instructional time and content coverage, finding that teachers report placing a greater emphasis on reading than mathematics and that they emphasize rudimentary mathematics content (Claessens et al., 2014; Engel et al., 2013; Engel et al., 2016). Bassok, Latham, and Rorem (2016) document substantial changes to the kindergarten day between the 1998–1999 and 2010–2011 school years. Kindergarten teachers surveyed in spring 2011(ECLS-K:2011) describe kindergarten as substantially more academic in nature than what their counterparts reported in the spring of 1999 (ECLS-K), with sizable increases in reported time on reading and mathematics (Bassok, Latham, & Rorem, 2016; Engel et al., 2016). The increased emphasis on math and reading coincided with decreases in reported time spent on other subjects, including art, music, and science.

Bassok, Latham, and Rorem (2016) also find that teachers serving large numbers of non-White students and students from households with low income report more time on academics, a more didactic approach to instruction, and less access to center-based, hands-on learning experiences than their counterparts serving more White and/or affluent students. Furthermore, they find that these differences across contexts increased substantially between 1999 and 2011, documenting that instruction can change markedly over a relatively short time frame.

Despite the useful and intriguing information produced using these data sets, studies using the ECLS-K cohorts to understand kindergarten classroom experiences rely entirely on a single teacher survey administered in the spring of kindergarten. Surveys can be unreliable for gathering information on instructional practices (Rowan et al., 2009). Individuals can have difficulty recalling and accurately describing events that do not occur in close proximity to a survey’s administration (Mayer, 1999). Furthermore, when teachers complete surveys, they may not be using a shared understanding or vocabulary and thus may interpret questions in substantively different ways (e.g., one teacher might report learning to tell time as math while another might consider it literacy). Conducting classroom observations, with trained observers, eliminates recall error and also helps ensure that reporting is consistent and comparable across observations.

Classroom observations can also provide a more comprehensive depiction of instruction. The strengths of large-scale single-point-in-time surveys covering a broad range of topics lie in their breadth as opposed to depth. While extremely useful for “taking the pulse” of a nationally representative sample, they are not designed to capture a nuanced or complete picture of children’s experiences in school. For example, aside from teacher survey items on meals and recess, the ECLS-K does not collect information on the quality or quantity of noninstructional time students experience in school. While the ECLS-K provides information about the average amount of time teachers report devoting to particular subjects, it does not provide information on what children experience during any given day or how those daily experiences vary across classrooms.

There have been few observational studies of kindergarten. La Paro et al. (2009) used observational snapshots of approximately 700 kindergarten classrooms in six states during the 2002–2003 school year to compare instruction in kindergarten and preschool. They found that most kindergarten instructional time was spent on literacy and mathematics and that kindergarteners spent more time in whole group instruction and less time in centers than preschoolers (La Paro et al., 2009). Stipek (2004) observed that kindergarten and first grade teachers serving larger proportions of students of color and/or from households with low income were more likely to engage in didactic teaching practices than their counterparts in schools serving students from households with higher income. While informative, data for these studies were collected nearly 20 years ago. Furthermore, neither study involved full-day classroom observations.

Finally, with the exception of Bassok, Latham, and Rorem (2016) and Stipek (2004), there is limited evidence regarding whether and how kindergarteners’ experiences vary across school contexts. Non-White students and students from households with low income, on average, start kindergarten with lower levels of academic skills and knowledge than their White and higher income counterparts (Bassok, Finch, et al., 2016; Reardon & Portilla, 2016). These average differences are typically maintained or widen as children progress through school (Reardon, 2011). On a variety of measures, children from households with low income begin school in “lower quality” elementary schools where quality is defined in terms of student achievement, school resources, teacher qualifications, or school and neighborhood conditions (Lee & Burkam, 2002). However, relatively little is known about how day-to-day school experiences vary systematically for kindergarteners from higher versus lower socioeconomic status households.

More recent, detailed evidence on the kindergarten experience is needed to inform policy and practice. The current study aims to fill that gap using data collected over 3 years in a large urban school district. Analyzing data from 82 full-day observations of kindergarten classrooms in 34 schools, this article explores how kindergarten students spend their day and addresses the following questions:

How much time is devoted to instructional content and how is time distributed across various content types?

How much noninstructional time is there across the kindergarten day and how is that time spent?

How is time distributed across different instructional groupings (e.g., whole group vs. small group)?

Does the kindergarten day differ across classrooms in schools serving students from lower- versus higher-income households?

Similar to studies using the ECLS-K, we explore how instructional time is spent in kindergarten classrooms. In contrast to prior research using the ECLS-K, however, we are able to accurately document detailed information about instructional content, including the amount of time devoted to activities involving more than one subject area (e.g., reading and science) and how noninstructional time is spent.

Although there is no consensus regarding what content is most important to cover in kindergarten or what an optimal kindergarten day should look like, the content that children are exposed to is important. A range of early skills, including mathematics, literacy, and self-regulation skills, are predictive of future success (e.g., Claessens et al., 2009; Duncan et al., 2007). Furthermore, exposure to social studies and science provides opportunities to both build content knowledge in these areas and to apply mathematics and literacy skills across content areas. Increased content-area knowledge can produce gains in reading achievement and comprehension (Rawson & Kintsch, 2002, 2004; Romance & Vitale, 2001). Beyond academic content, activities that build gross motor skills and encourage physical activity are important for child health, well-being, and cognitive development (Chaddock-Heyman et al., 2014; Datar & Sturm, 2004; Pellegrini & Bohn, 2005; Ramstetter et al., 2010; Sibley & Etnier, 2003). Thus, exposure to a range of content and activities in kindergarten is likely desirable.

The current study documents the amount of time devoted to instructional versus noninstructional activities. A number of studies have demonstrated the importance of instructional time for academic achievement (Andersen et al., 2016; Fryer, 2014; Jensen, 2013; Kikuchi, 2014; Parinduri, 2014), finding that more time on instructional content leads to greater learning gains. We quantify noninstructional time, detail how noninstructional time is spent, and describe variation across classrooms in noninstructional time.

Finally, the current study documents instructional grouping in the kindergarten classrooms we observed. Prior research indicates that when compared with whole group instruction, small groups offer more opportunities for individualization, hands-on activities, and peer interaction (Webb, 1991; Yackel et al., 1991). Small group instruction is particularly appropriate for young children, because it can provide opportunities for increased quantity and quality of student-teacher interactions and facilitates language acquisition and comprehension (Wasik, 2008; Phillips & Twardosz, 2003).

Positive teacher-child relationships and one-on-one interaction with adults are important prerequisites for learning in early childhood (Bowman et al., 2001). Studies consistently find that small group instruction has positive impacts on student achievement (e.g., Slavin et al., 2010). At the same time, small group student-led activities (e.g., center time) provide opportunities for students to practice important academic, social, emotional, language, and self-regulation skills (Bodrova & Leong, 2006; Skinner, 2018; Vygotsky, 1978). Unlike prior research using the ECLS-K, the current study documents not only the types of instructional grouping used by teachers but also the context in which different groupings are employed. For example, we can distinguish between small groups led by a teacher, small groups that involve students working in pairs, or small groups that are part of center time activities.

We provide an empirical summary of time use across classrooms, including a comparison between students attending schools serving predominantly higher or lower income populations. Furthermore, our results include qualitative descriptions of school days we observed, portraying the day-to-day experiences of kindergarteners. This descriptive study of kindergarten in a large urban district answers the questions we pose while also raising new ones. Our intent is to provide new insights to inform policy, practice, and future research.

Method

Sample

Our observations were conducted in one of the 25 largest school districts in the nation. The district is diverse and decentralized. Schools are able to choose from several approved ELA (English language arts) and math curricula, which align with both Common Core and state learning standards. These include Pearson’s ReadyGen Phonics, Wilson Language Training Foundations for kindergarten ELA instruction, and Eureka and GoMath! for kindergarten mathematics instruction. Teachers and schools have autonomy with regard to curricular decisions. Guidance from the district states,

Starting from the structure of curriculum programs, teachers can make important decisions about what curricular components to select, omit, and refine and how to adapt the program to meet their students’ needs (such as by adding/changing context in a problem).

District professional development is decentralized as well. Schools are encouraged to articulate professional development goals and to form teams dedicated to instruction and leading instructional improvements but are given wide latitude in these areas. State policy for the district where our study took place requires schools to provide 120 minutes of physical education per week to all students, and K–3 students are supposed to be physically active every day.

Full-day kindergarten is universal, and the district does not conduct school readiness assessments.

Timeline

Table 1 provides information on the study’s data collection timeline. The study team conducted a total of 82 full-day observations, in 47 kindergarten classrooms, across 3 years. Thirty observations were conducted during Wave 1 (2015–2016 school year), 15 during Wave 2 (2016–2017 school year), and 37 during Wave 3 (2018–2019 school year).¹ Half of the observations were conducted in the fall (November–mid-December) and half in the spring (late February-early April). When possible, during each wave of data collection, the same teachers were observed in both fall and spring. However, in each of the three waves, almost all of the teachers we observed were new to the study; only four teachers were observed in more than 1 year.

Table 1

Sample Size and Timeline for Full-Day Kindergarten Classroom Observations (n = 82)

		SSLI Schools (n = 24)		SSHI Schools (n = 8)
Wave	Year	Observations	Classrooms	Observations	Classrooms
Wave 1	2015–2016	30	17	—	—
Wave 2	2016–2017	15	10	—	—
	2017–2018	—	—	—	—
Wave 3	2018–2019	20	10	17	10
Total		65	37	17	10

Note. SSLI = school serving students with lower income; SSHI = school serving students with higher income.

School sample

The primary sample for the study consists of 24 schools serving students from households with low income. The 24 schools were participating in a larger study of early childhood education. To be eligible for participation in that study, schools had to serve a student body where at least 70% of students were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL). Schools were blocked by geographic location, and a randomized list of schools was generated within each block. Schools were then asked to participate in that random order. A large majority of recruited schools agreed to participate.

During Wave 3, the 2018–2019 school year, we conducted observations in an additional eight schools from the same district that served a large majority of students from households with higher income. We added these schools to compare the kindergarten day across schools serving students from different backgrounds. Ten schools were randomly selected from city schools serving student populations with fewer than 34% of students eligible for FRPL. As with the original 24 schools, we generated a randomized list of eligible schools and recruited schools in that random order. While 10 schools originally agreed to participate, we conducted observations in a total of eight, as two principals later opted out of the study.

We refer to the two sets of classroom observations as coming from schools serving students with higher income (SSHIs) or schools serving students with lower income (SSLIs). Conducting classroom observations in SSHI and SSLI classrooms within a single district allows us to make within-district comparisons, holding geography, urbanicity, state, city, and district-specific instructional factors constant (e.g., state and district mandates, curricular expectations).

Classroom selection

After school administrators consented to participate, the study team met with eligible teachers to provide study information, obtain consent, and gather scheduling information. All kindergarten teachers in the 32 schools, with the exception of those assigned to classrooms designated special education and those where instruction was conducted entirely in a language other than English, were recruited to participate in the study. The teacher consent rate across the three waves of observations was 72%.²

Sample school composition

Table 2 shows the average sample school composition in SSLIs and SSHIs. In SSLIs, an average of 93% of students were eligible for FRPL, and the vast majority came from traditionally underserved racial/ethnic groups. On average, half of students in the SSLIs were Hispanic, 41% were Black, and approximately 5% were White. Fewer than 2% were Asian, and less than 2% indicated race/ethnicity as “more than one.” On average, 14% were English language learners. Parent teacher association (PTA) expenditures in these 24 schools averaged $15,000 in 2018–2019.

Table 2

School-Level, Teacher, and Classroom Descriptives for Sample Schools and District

Descriptives	SSLI Schools (n = 24)	SSHI Schools (n = 8)	District
School-level demographics (% and describing students unless noted otherwise)^a
Race/ethnicity
White	5	49	15
Black	41	5	25
Asian	2	15	15
More than one	1	8	5
Hispanic	50	12	40
English learners	14	3	15
Special education	22	15	20
FRPL eligible	93	13	70
PTA expenditures^b	$15,000	$780,000	—
Sample teacher and classroom demographics (% except years teaching and average students per class)^c
Race/ethnicity
White	30	56	—
Black	20	0	—
Asian	0	33	—
Hispanic	0	11	—
More than one	50	0	—
Female	100	89	—
Years teaching	18	15	—
Average students per class	18	23	—
Classroom aide	30	50	—

Note. Percentages and means rounded to nearest whole number, district information rounded to nearest 5. District-level demographics reported for 2018–2019 school year. SSLI = school serving students with lower income; SSHI = school serving students with higher income; PTA = parent–teacher association; FRPL = free or reduced-price lunch.

School-level student demographics averaged across 2014–2015 to 2018–2019. ^bPTA expenditures are for the 2018–2019 school year. Among SSLI Schools, one school was an outlier. Without that school, PTA expenditures for SSLI schools averaged less than $8000. ^cSample teacher demographics were collected only for 2018–2019 via teacher self-report.

Among the SSHIs, on average, 13% of students were FRPL eligible and 49% were White. Approximately 15% were Asian, 5% were Black, 12% were Hispanic, and around 8% indicated race/ethnicity as “other.” On average, 3% of students in these schools were identified as English language learners. Average PTA spending among the SSHI schools in 2018–2019 was $780,000, over 50 times greater than expenditures in SSLIs.³

Teacher participants

As shown in the bottom panel of Table 2, among the SSLIs, sample classrooms averaged 18 students and one teacher during observations, with 30% of classrooms also having a teacher’s aide for at least some portion of the school day. On average, sample teachers had approximately 18 years of teaching experience. Thirty percent of teachers were White, 20% percent were Black, and 50% reported more than one race/ethnicity. In the SSHIs, the average number of students per classroom was 23, and 50% of classrooms had an aide. Teachers reported an average of 15 years of teaching experience; 56% were White, 33% were Asian, and 11% identified as Hispanic.

Data Collection Training and Procedures

Full-day kindergarten classroom observations were conducted by trained observers, including the study’s principal investigators, professional research associates, postdoctoral researchers, and graduate students. All observers completed a 2-day training that provided extensive guidance and practice using the observation protocols, and were required to pass a certification test with at least 80% reliability. Ten percent of field observations were double-coded, with observations conducted by two certified observers to ensure fidelity in implementing the observation protocol.

Measures

We used an adapted version of the Narrative Record Observation for Classrooms (Farran & Bilbrey, 2004) to track and record time use. The Narrative Record is a semistructured protocol for recording all activities that occur during a classroom observation. It provides a “running record” of the day. Using the protocol, observers record instructional episodes. Each episode is logged with a narrative description and start and end times. Observers also indicate the instructional content (e.g., math, gross motor, none) and activity type (e.g., whole group or small group instruction, meal) for each episode. A new episode is recorded when teachers switch content (e.g., from reading to mathematics or from science to no instructional content) or activity type (e.g., from whole class instruction to individual seatwork), and that new activity or content lasts for at least 1 minute.

The Narrative Record includes the following instructional content codes: Literacy/language, Math, Science, Social Studies, Social-Emotional, Art/Music, Gross Motor, Mixed Content (multiple types of content delivered simultaneously or each type for under a minute in quick succession), and No Content (e.g., transitions, meals). Detailed definitions and examples for each code are provided in Supplemental Appendix Table 1 (available on the journal website). Here, we note that to code an instructional episode as Mixed Content, multiple types of content would have been occurring simultaneously or for under a minute each (e.g., during morning meeting students sing, take attendance, hear announcements, and discuss the calendar with each activity lasting less than a minute; varied activities in small groups that include both math and science; center time). If students read a book focused on a particular content area (e.g., science), reading time was coded as language/literacy. Discussion and activities related to the book were coded with the relevant content code (i.e., science).

The following codes for activity type were used: Whole Group, Small Group, Seat Work (students completed work or tasks such as worksheets, workbooks, silent reading on their own), Meal, Transition (any time the teacher and students switched, waited, or prepared for an activity and that transition lasted at least 1 minute), and Out (any time at least 75% of the class was outdoors). Detailed definitions for each of these codes are provided in Supplemental Appendix Table 1 (available on the journal website).

Observers typically followed the lead teacher. However, when the lead teacher left their students (i.e., during lunch, when they had a prep period, or when students were taught by a different teacher for particular content), observers followed the class. If students were in multiple settings (e.g., a small group of students were pulled out for special education services or English language instruction), the observer stayed with the majority of the class.

We utilize the narrative descriptions that accompany the subject and grouping codes for the qualitative descriptions of classroom activities provided in our vignettes and in the discussion section of the article.

Analysis

For each content code and activity type, we calculated summary statistics (mean; standard deviation; 25th, 50th, 75th percentiles; minimum and maximum values) separately for each wave and school type (SSLI or SSHI). Not all observations lasted exactly the same amount of time. Students were occasionally dismissed early and some schools had slightly different schedules. Therefore, we standardized minutes to reflect a 365-minute school day, the average across the 82 observations. Deviations from 365 minutes tended to be small with a maximum difference of 10 minutes.

When we analyzed the data collected during the first two waves of observations (n = 45), we found that the vast majority included a substantial amount of time with no instructional content (approximately 2.5 hours of a 6-hour-day). To further understand these results, we conducted additional analyses and developed a set of more detailed codes to describe noninstructional time. These include (a) start or end of school day transitions (e.g., taking off coats, packing backpacks, lining up to wait for bell); (b) transitions within or between lessons (e.g., switching from whole class instruction to seat work and thus moving from the floor to sit at tables and taking out materials); (c) moving to or from special classes, meals, or recess; typically involving lining up and often including waiting in the classroom, lunchroom, outdoors, or in hallways; (d) meals (i.e., breakfast, lunch, and/or snack, including preparation and cleanup); (e) behavioral management; and (f) other (e.g., a child getting sick, the teacher taking a call from the main office).

In coding observations from our third and final wave of data collection (n = 37), when we added the eight SSHIs, we found that a substantial amount of time during SSHI classroom observations was spent on mixed content. Detailed analysis of these results led to the development of three mixed content subcodes. These include (a) morning meeting, including calendar time; (b) center time during which children rotated to or selected from center options that included different or varied content; and (c) miscellaneous, which often involved activities that targeted two or more content areas, such as singing (art/music) and dancing (gross motor), or involved students working on varied content at their seats (e.g., some students reading books, some working on math worksheets, and others drawing pictures).

Results

Instructional Content

Figure 1 summarizes how the school day was spent during the 65 full-day kindergarten observations conducted in the 24 SSLI schools. Table 3 provides additional details about time use. The first two columns of Table 3 describe results from the 65 observations we conducted in SSLIs during the three waves (Wave 1, 2015–2016; Wave 2, 2016–2017; and Wave 3, 2018–2019). The second set of columns present information on how time was spent across the 17 observations conducted in SSHI classrooms during Wave 3 (2018–2019). The final columns in Table 3 report mean differences between SSLI and SSHI kindergarten classrooms. We note that we did not test for statistical significance of mean differences between SSLI and SSHI classrooms as our school and classroom samples are not probability samples and are therefore not designed for drawing statistical inferences.

Table 3

Average Time Use in Kindergarten for SSLIs, SSHIs, and the Difference Between the Two School Types

	SSLIs Waves 1–3 (n = 65)		SSHIs Wave 3 (n = 17)		Difference (SSLI − SSHI)
Content Type	% of Day	Minutes	% of Day	Minutes	% of Day	Minutes
Instructional time
Core subjects
Literacy	23	85	15	55	8	31
Math	16	57	13	48	2	8
Science	3	9	2	8	0	1
Social studies	1	4	4	15	−3	−12
Other subjects
Social emotional	1	5	1	3	1	2
Art/music	5	19	5	16	1	3
Gross motor	5	18	12	44	−7	−26
Mixed	4	14	15	53	−11	−39
Total instructional time	58	211	67	243	−9	−31
Noninstructional time
Starting or ending the school day	6	22	5	19	1	2
Lesson transitions	9	32	7	24	2	9
Moving to or from specials/recess/lunch	11	38	9	34	1	5
Meals	13	47	9	32	4	15
Behavior management	1	2	0	1	0	1
Other	3	12	4	13	0	−1
Total noninstructional time	42	154	33	122	9	32
Total time during full-day observations	100	365	100	365	0	0

Note. Not all columns sum to 100% due to rounding. Observations were conducted in SSLIs across three waves (2015–2016, 2016–2017, and 2018–2019). We collected data in SSHIs during Wave 3 (2018–2019) only. SSLI = school serving students with lower income; SSHI = school serving students with higher income.

Supplemental Appendix Table 2 (available on the journal website) provides a breakdown of how time was spent during observations separately in each wave. While results from the third wave of observations in SSLI classrooms differ somewhat from the first two waves, the general patterns hold when we compare SSLI and SSHI classrooms in Wave 3 only or when we compare results across all three waves of observations in SSLI schools with results for SSHI schools from Wave 3. We note discrepancies between the third wave and the three-wave average, where relevant. We first report results for SSLI schools, followed by results from SSHI schools and a comparison across the two contexts.

As Figure 1 shows, kindergarten teachers in the SSLI classrooms we observed devoted the majority of instructional time to reading and mathematics. On average, teachers spent 85 minutes per day on literacy and 57 minutes per day on math, more than one third of the school day.

Much smaller portions of the school day were devoted to social studies, science, and social emotional learning, with a total of around 5% of the school day, or 18 minutes, on average, devoted to these content areas. An average of 5% of the day was devoted to art/music. Kindergarteners in SSLIs spent around 5% (18 minutes) of the day engaged in gross motor activities including physical education, recess, and being active in the classroom. In SSLIs across the three waves of data collection, kindergarteners spent 4% of the school day (14 minutes) on mixed content.

Noninstructional Time

During nearly all observations, we witnessed a substantial amount of time where no instruction occurred. Figure 1 shows that an average of 42% of the school day in SSLIs, over 2.5 hours, did not involve instructional content. As we note above, physical education, recess, art, music, and free play were all coded as content and are not considered noninstructional time. Table 3 provides details on how noninstructional time was spent. On average, 22 minutes were devoted to beginning and end of day transitions, 38 minutes were spent transitioning to specials or lunch, and 32 minutes per day were spent on transitions between lessons. More than 25% of the school day in SSLIs was spent on these different types of transitions. Students in SSLI classrooms spent 47 minutes per day, on average, eating or preparing for meals.

Instructional Grouping

Table 4 shows summary statistics for instructional grouping for the four core content areas (reading, math, science, and social studies). Whole class instruction, where the teacher works with the entire class, was the most common instructional grouping we observed. An average of 101 minutes per day, or 65% of instructional time on core subjects, was spent as a whole group in SSLI classrooms.

Table 4

Instructional Grouping During Core Subjects for SSLI and SSHI Classrooms

Grouping	SSLIs Waves 1–3 (n = 65)		SSHIs Wave 3 (n = 17)		Difference (SSLI − SSHI)
	% of Time	Minutes	% of Time	Minutes	% of Time	Minutes
Instructional grouping
Whole group	65	101	64	81	1	20
Seat work	27	42	25	32	2	10
Small group	8	12	11	14	−3	−1
Total time on core subjects	100	155	100	126	0	29

Note. Percentages and means rounded to the nearest whole number and percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding. Core subjects include reading/literacy, math, science, and social studies. SSLI = school serving students with lower income; SSHI = school serving students with higher income.

The seatwork code was used when students worked independently at their seats. This was the second most frequently observed instructional modality, with 27% of instructional time in core subjects (42 minutes per day, on average) spent doing seat work in SSLI classrooms. During seatwork, students often worked in workbooks or on worksheets while teachers walked around the classroom, checking on students and answering questions.

Small group instruction—either the teacher working with small groups of students or students working in small groups independently—was observed infrequently, accounting for only 8% of instructional time across SSLI observations. Instructional grouping did not vary across core content areas.

Figure 2 provides a detailed description of the school day from an observation conducted in a kindergarten classroom in an SSLI during Wave 1. This observation is typical of what we observed in many SSLIs. Both literacy and mathematics instruction were conducted in solid blocks that were composed exclusively of whole group instruction and seatwork, typically involving workbooks or worksheets. There was no break during these lesson blocks, aside from transitions to and from seats to the rug and time spent passing out worksheets and papers. There was virtually no interaction among peers. Limited time was spent on subjects other than literacy and mathematics, beyond a discussion of the seasons and the calendar during the morning meeting and listening to a story about butterflies that did not include any discussion. At the same time, the classroom was orderly and students were engaged with their tasks—at no point was instruction interrupted for behavior management or disciplinary reasons. Finally, during this school day, students did not engage in any gross motor activities. This was the case for nearly one third (32%) of the observations we conducted in SSLI classrooms.

Comparing SSLI and SSHI Kindergarten Classroom Observations

Our final research question compares results from the observations we conducted in SSLI classrooms with results from 17 observations we conducted in eight SSHI schools during Wave 3 of data collection (2018–2019). Although these comparisons are exploratory with a relatively small number of observations from SSHI classrooms, the differences observed are, nonetheless, striking.

Academic content

As Table 3 shows, substantially less time was devoted to reading and math in SSHI classrooms. In SSHIs, 28% of the school day was devoted to literacy and math instruction, compared with 39% in SSLIs. We find time-use to be similar across SSLIs and SSHIs in science, social emotional learning, and art/music.

Gross motor

We find substantial differences between SSLI and SSHI classrooms in the amount of time devoted to gross motor activities. In SSLIs, students engaged for 18 minutes per day, on average, in gross motor activities, with 32% of SSLI observations including no time on gross motor (see Figure 2 for an example). In contrast, students in SSHIs spent an average of 44 minutes per day on gross motor—nearly half an hour more than their counterparts in SSLI classrooms.⁴ Relatedly, across SSLI classrooms, kindergarteners spent an average of 7 minutes of the school day outdoors, compared with an average of around 18 minutes in SSHIs.

Mixed content

We also observed differences across contexts in terms of time spent on mixed content. Students in SSLI classrooms spent less than 15 minutes per day on mixed content. In contrast, students in SSHIs spent more than 50 minutes per day on mixed content (4% vs. 15% of the school day, respectively). We recorded three different types of mixed content—mixed content that occurred during center time, mixed content that occurred during morning meeting, and miscellaneous mixed content.

Table 5 shows the percentage of observations that included the three types of mixed content, as well as the average time spent in each area across all episodes separately for SSLI and SSHI observations. Students in SSHI classrooms spent a substantial amount of time in centers. We recorded center time in 11 of 17, or 65% of SSHI observations. Across the 17 observations, students in SSHI classrooms spent an average of 33 minutes in centers.

Table 5

Classroom Observation Time Coded as “Mixed Content” Across SSLIs and SSHIs

Classroom Observation	SSLI (n = 65)	SSHI (n = 17)
Average time per day on mixed content (min)	14	53
Percent of school day on mixed content	4	15
Breakdown of mixed content time
Centers
Percent of observations	12	65
Average time across all observations (min)	2	33
Morning meeting
Percent of observations	41	76
Average time across all observations (min)	3	8
Miscellaneous (e.g., singing and dancing)
Percent of observations	34	71
Average time across all observations (min)	6	10

Note. SSLI = school serving students with lower income; SSHI = school serving students with higher income.

In many cases, during center time students could choose to engage in activities across multiple content areas. Students were either allowed to change centers as they chose or told to change after a specific amount of time. The teacher sometimes used this time to work with individuals or small groups of students.

Students in SSLI classrooms spent virtually no time in centers—we recorded center time in eight of 65 observations (12%), averaging 2 minutes of center time across all observations. Mixed content during morning meetings and “miscellaneous” mixed content time was observed both more often and for longer periods of time in SSHI classrooms.⁵ However, the large differences across school types we observed in mixed content time are driven by time spent in centers.

Noninstructional time

In SSHI classrooms, about 33% of the school day was spent on noninstructional activities (see Table 3), compared with an average of 42% of the day in SSLIs. We observe the largest difference in noninstructional time between SSLI and SSHI classrooms in time spent on meals. In SSHIs, students spent just over half an hour (32 minutes) eating meals, compared with 47 minutes in SSLIs. These observed differences are driven by two main factors. First, students in SSHI classrooms typically went to recess immediately after lunch. In contrast, students from classrooms in SSLIs often waited in the lunchroom or auditorium for their teachers to pick them up and return to class. Second, SSLIs were more likely to serve breakfast than SSHIs. Breakfast was served during approximately half of SSLI classroom observations, compared with one SSHI observation.

Across all categories, with the exception of “other,” students in SSLI classrooms experienced slightly more noninstructional time than those in SSHIs. Students in SSLI classrooms spent approximately 5 more minutes on activity transitions and 9 more minutes per day on lesson transitions than their peers in SSHIs.⁶

Instructional grouping

Table 4 shows that students in SSLI classrooms spent 101 minutes as a whole group compared with 81 minutes during SSHI observations. And, students in SSLI classrooms spent an average of 42 minutes per day engaged in seatwork, compared with 32 minutes per day in SSHI classrooms.

Time in small groups was similar in SSLI and SSHI classrooms, with students spending an average of 12 minutes per day in small groups in SSLIs compared with 14 minutes in SSHIs. As a percentage of instructional time, SSLI and SSHI classrooms are very similar in terms of grouping. However, students in SSHI classrooms experienced an average of around 30 minutes less time per day on instruction in core subjects (126 minutes compared with 155 minutes in SSLI observations).

Figure 3 provides a detailed description of the school day from an observation conducted in a kindergarten classroom in an SSHI. Several aspects of this record underscore differences across SSLI and SSHI classroom observations. First, students had multiple opportunities to engage in gross motor activities during the day including a full block of physical education at the start of the day and outdoor recess. Furthermore, the students had both center time during a science lesson, which included playing a game, and “free choice time” where they, again, had the opportunity to move around the classroom and were able to choose from a set of play-based activities. There were several opportunities for interactions with their peers including playing a game with dice, working in small groups with the Rekenrek, and for discussion. Students did not work in workbooks or complete worksheets, and there was an entire class period devoted to science. There was also less time devoted to literacy than in the SSLI observation described in Figure 2.

Variability in time use

In addition to comparing average time use across contexts, we explored variability across classrooms. Table 6 reports measures of central tendency (mean, median) and spread (standard deviation, 25th and 75th percentiles, minimum, and maximum) for all of the content areas and overall noninstructional time. We note two striking differences, in terms of spread, between the classrooms we observed in SSLIs and SSHIs. First, we find much more variability in total time devoted to instructional content among our 65 SSLI observations, where the standard deviation for total instructional time was 36 minutes, compared with 12 minutes across the 17 SSHI classrooms. Reflecting this, the minimum time devoted to instruction across all content areas in SSLIs was 126 minutes (just over 2 hours), compared with a minimum of 227 minutes (nearly 4 hours) among the SSHIs. The maximum recorded time spent on instruction among SSLIs was 294 minutes (nearly 5 hours), compared with 266 minutes (around 4.5 hours) in SSHIs. Thus, while SSLIs typically spent more instructional time on core subjects (with the exception of social studies) than SSHIs, total time devoted to instruction, overall, was higher in SSHIs. This difference was driven by time on gross motor and mixed content, as described above.

Table 6

Variability in Time Use Across SSLI and SSHI Kindergarten Classrooms (n = 82)

Content Areas/Time	M	SD	25th Percentile	50th Percentile	75th Percentile	Min	Max
SSLIs (n = 65)
Core content
Literacy	85	32	64	86	107	15	156
Math	57	22	43	54	67	16	153
Science	9	15	0	0	14	0	75
Social studies	4	7	0	0	4	0	53
Other content
Social emotional	5	9	0	0	5	0	44
Art/music	19	19	0	16	35	0	64
Gross motor	18	18	0	17	31	0	60
Mixed	14	17	0	8	22	0	66
Total instructional time	211	36	186	214	231	126	294
Total noninstructional time	153	36	133	152	176	66	254
SSHIs (n = 17)
Core content
Literacy	56	21	40	52	72	16	91
Math	49	24	34	50	67	11	88
Science	8	18	0	0	0	0	57
Social studies	16	13	8	15	21	0	46
Other content
Social emotional	3	5	0	0	3	0	17
Art/music	17	18	0	11	28	0	50
Gross motor	45	27	30	50	60	0	91
Mixed	54	27	49	55	68	0	101
Total instructional time	248	12	241	246	260	227	266
Total noninstructional time	125	14	118	123	135	91	147

Note. SSLI = school serving students with lower income; SSHI = school serving students with higher income.

Similarly, while the interquartile range (spread between the 25th and 75th percentiles) in time devoted to instructional content among the SSHIs is 19 minutes, the interquartile range among SSLI kindergarten observations is 45 minutes. Thus, we observe substantially more variability across SSLI classrooms.

A second difference highlighted in Table 6 is that students in SSLI classrooms at the 25th percentile spent no time (0 minutes) engaged in gross motor activities. This is the case for nearly a third (32%) of the classrooms we observed in SSLI schools. These kindergarteners did not experience recess, physical education, or any other opportunities to move their bodies during the school day on which they were observed. Furthermore, SSLI classrooms at the 50th percentile spent only 17 minutes a day on gross motor activities. In contrast, students in SSHI classrooms at the 50th percentile spent 50 minutes engaged in gross motor activities, and those at the 25th percentile spent 30 minutes. Only two SSHI classrooms (approximately 12%) that we observed spent no time on gross motor activities.

While these differences are striking, similarities are also noteworthy. Across both SSLI and SSHI contexts, classrooms at the 25th percentile spent no time on science, social emotional content, or art and music. In addition, SSLI classrooms at the 25th percentile spent no time on social studies or mixed content.

Discussion

Our results expand on findings from recent work using the ECLS-K. Similar to Bassok, Latham, and Rorem (2016), we find that kindergarten teachers spend the majority of instructional time on reading and mathematics—with little time devoted to other subjects, including science, social studies, social emotional learning, music, and art. Furthermore, our results are consistent with Bassok, Latham, and Rorem’s (2016) finding that teachers reported spending more time on reading and mathematics in schools serving larger proportions of students of color and from households with low income.

The current study also highlights several important aspects of the kindergarten experience that are beyond the scope of studies using the ECLS-K. First, our observational data reveal that a substantial amount of the kindergarten day is spent on noninstructional activities. Noninstructional activities, as we define them, do not include play, recess, physical education, art, or music. In addition to meals, most noninstructional time is spent on transitions between instructional activities, lunch, and specials. Students in SSLI classrooms spend more time on these noninstructional activities than their peers in SSHI classrooms. This is consistent with prior observational research (e.g., La Paro et al., 2009) and also aligns with prior research that found large amounts of noninstructional time in Chicago (Smith, 2000). We also document substantial variability across classrooms in terms of quantity of noninstructional time, with at least a quarter of SSLI classrooms we observed spending nearly half the day (3 of 6 hours) on noninstructional activities.

Second, we find that students in the SSLI classrooms we observed spend less time on gross motor activities than their peers in SSHI classrooms, consistent with Bassok, Latham, and Rorem (2016). Of potentially greater concern, during many SSLI observations, there was no opportunity for gross motor activity at all. Third, we find that students in SSLI classrooms were less likely to engage in activities involving mixed content, with the most pronounced disparity across SSLI and SSHI classrooms being that SSLI students spent virtually no time doing center-based activities. The instruction we observed in SSLI classrooms typically involved long blocks of whole group instruction and seat work, with few opportunities to work in small groups or with peers.

We discuss these three key findings, extensive noninstructional time, limited gross motor time, and a lack of center-based and free choice time for students in the SSLI classrooms we observed in more detail below.

Noninstructional Time

Downtime and transitions are necessary aspects of any school day. However, the amount of time students spent transitioning to and from activities in the classrooms we observed often involved long stretches where children waited quietly in line or at their seats without engaging in any activity at all, including socialization or play. For example, one class spent an hour and a half in the gymnasium waiting to be photographed on picture day. Another spent 23 minutes waiting to be seated in the auditorium, viewed a short video on social emotional learning, followed by an additional 22 minutes transitioning back to class. During another observation, students were taken to the auditorium after lunch and told to sit quietly. When one kindergartener tried to organize a game of “I Spy” with his classmates, he was reprimanded and told to sit down. These were not isolated instances; 25% of classrooms observed in SSLIs had more than 3 hours of noninstructional time.

Implications. A number of studies have demonstrated the importance of instructional time for academic achievement (Andersen et al., 2016; Fryer, 2014; Jensen, 2013; Kikuchi, 2014; Parinduri, 2014). While it would be unreasonable to expect little to no downtime and transitions in busy kindergarten classrooms, this time could be used to engage students in movement, conversation, or games that would enhance opportunities to learn. Supporting teachers in being reflective about their practices and habits, including how time is used and what happens during noninstructional time, could go a long way in addressing this problem. Staffing may also have contributed to differences across contexts. The SSLI classrooms we observed typically had fewer adults available than did SSHI classrooms. Many examples of extensive waiting or transitions involved times when students were away from the classroom (e.g., in the auditorium for an assembly or in the cafeteria after lunch). With fewer adults available, supervising and engaging students likely presents more of a challenge for teachers in SSLI contexts.

Gross Motor Time

Almost one third of the SSLI classrooms (n = 18) spent no time on gross motor activities during the 6-hour school day, compared with only 12% of SSHI classrooms we observed (n = 2). There were no systematic differences in the physical space available for outdoor activities between SSLIs and SSHIs based on casual observation and a review of architectural designs for the schools where we observed. We did not collect data about weather on the days we observed, but there is no reason to think that weather would have varied systematically between SSLI and SSHI classroom observations. Furthermore, gross motor activities for young children do not require access to the outdoors or even a gymnasium. Kindergarteners can dance, stretch, or exercise guided by a teacher, a video, or an audio recording in their classrooms, in the auditorium, or even while waiting in line. Finally, the observed differences across SSHI and SSLI classrooms do not result from policy. As noted earlier, state policy for the district requires 120 minutes of physical education per week for all students, and K–3 students are supposed to be physically active every day.

We do not know why opportunities for gross motor activities were limited. Anecdotal evidence suggests that teachers in SSLI classrooms may have been reluctant to engage in activities that would result in a lack of control over the class. For example, one teacher, who was leading students in song and exercise, told the students “Do exactly what I do and keep your mouth shut or you sit down.” During a different observation, students went to the gym after lunch, but, rather than engaging in physical activity, they sat along the wall and sang songs with the lunch supervisor and then stood quietly in line to take turns shooting a basket. In physical education during another observation, students went to the gymnasium and sat along the wall while one child at a time ran around the perimeter of the gym. As with noninstructional time, staffing may have been a contributing factor to the differences we observed. Opportunities for gross motor activities after lunch, for example, might have been easier to facilitate if more adults had been available to supervise students in SSLIs.

Implications. These findings are concerning, given the strong evidence regarding the benefits of physical activity. Studies of elementary school–age children find that physical activity and physical fitness are positively associated with both cognitive development and academic achievement (Chaddock-Heyman et al., 2014; Pellegrini & Bohn, 2005), with a meta-analysis on this topic finding a strong, positive, and statistically significant association between physical activity and cognition (effect size = 0.32; Sibley & Etnier, 2003). Furthermore, research finds that recess benefits children’s cognitive, emotional, physical, and social well-being, particularly among boys (Ramstetter et al., 2010). The Council on School Health (2013) notes that, “Even minor movement during recess counterbalances sedentary time at school” (p. 184). Children from households with low income are typically among the least physically active (Chang & Kim, 2017), and our results suggest that schools may be reproducing and reinforcing these disparities.

Consistent implementation of state physical activity requirements within the district across schools, encouraging teachers to take up both structured and informal opportunities for physical activity for their students (i.e., using some of the noninstructional time described above), and strategic staffing to ensure that teachers in the earliest grades are adequately supported to meet their students’ needs are possible means for increasing young children’s opportunities to be physically active in school. School leaders might also consider conducting a time-use analysis to support teachers in ensuring that young children have access to gross motor activities and recess.

Center Time

We also found substantial differences in opportunities for center time between SSHI and SSLI classrooms. Resource constraints may have played a role in this disparity. The facilities for the SSHI classes we observed were newer, often including spaces such as science and music rooms. The differences in yearly PTA expenditures (again, averaging $780,000 among the eight SSHIs compared with $15,000 for the 24 SSLIs) alone speak to the contrast between these two sets of schools. The SSHI kindergarten day described in Figure 3 included a trip to the science room where students engaged in science-related centers. This was something that never occurred across all kindergarten observations in SSLIs.

Differences in classroom norms may also have precluded center-based activities. Children in SSLIs were expected to sit quietly during instructional time and to remain seated at their tables or on the rug during whole group instruction. Teachers paused, briefly and often, to remind students to stop squirming, wiggling, or moving. When engaged in seatwork, students were expected to sit with their feet flat on the floor and their bottoms in chairs that were pushed in closely to their table or desk. The clear and systematic expectation in the SSLI classrooms we observed was that students were not to talk to their classmates unless they were instructed to do so. These more regimented classroom environments may have been, in part, a function of the smaller number of adults, making classroom management more difficult.

Implications. There are many ways to structure a classroom, and center time activities may not be the most appropriate, or the most effective, way to deliver instruction in all contexts. At the same time, centers and recess were, in the classrooms we observed, the primary contexts where kindergarteners had some agency in choosing how to spend their time, how to interact with materials, and how to interact with their peers. Without these opportunities, students may miss out on the chance to hone important academic, social, emotional, language, and self-regulatory skills (Bodrova & Leong, 2006; Skinner, 2018; Vygotsky, 1978).

At the same time, researchers must take care not to impose the worldview of the dominant culture on all classrooms, including the assumption that opened-ended, free choice activities are necessarily superior. A more controlled and directed instructional environment may be culturally appropriate in some contexts (Delpit, 1995).

Limitations

Although the current study provides new insight into how time is spent in kindergarten in a large urban school district, we note several important limitations. First, the study was conducted in a single district. While this allows for comparison across schools serving different student populations while holding both state and district factors constant, the extent to which our results generalize to other contexts is unclear. However, several of our findings are similar to results of studies using nationally representative samples (e.g., Bassok, Latham, & Rorem, 2016) and past observational studies of kindergarten (e.g., La Paro et al., 2009).

In addition, the number of observations we conducted in SSHI classrooms is not large (n = 17). More research involving in-depth observations of kindergarten classrooms across a range of settings (e.g., suburbs, small cities) is needed.

Although the schools and classrooms in our sample were recruited to participate in the study in a random order, they were not randomly sampled. We also did not randomly sample the days on which we conducted observations. This was out of respect for the needs and preferences of the kindergarten teachers who graciously allowed us to spend time in their classrooms. Teachers identified dates and times when they were available for observations, and we scheduled accordingly. We were careful to schedule observations on days that were more likely to be typical school days. We did not schedule observations near holidays, breaks, or the beginning or end of the school year. However, it is possible that our results are not representative of the entire school year or of how time is spent in schools and classrooms where we did not observe.

Finally, the current study neither includes outcome data nor does it delve into teachers’ thoughts and intentions. Future research exploring the kindergarten experience would benefit from the inclusion of student outcomes as well as in-depth teacher interviews to determine whether, how, and for whom time use in kindergarten matters most. Future research should also explore factors that might account for the variability we observed in instructional time across SSLIs. Factors to consider include staffing levels, class or school size, teacher demographic characteristics, and differences in teacher training or professional development. There was not sufficient information and/or variability in our study to allow us to explore the role these factors may have played.

Conclusion

Using three waves of kindergarten classroom observational data (n = 65) from schools serving students from households with low income in a large urban school district, we find that nearly 40%, on average, of a 6-hour school day was spent on reading and mathematics instruction with limited time devoted to other subjects. Furthermore, more than 40% of the day was taken up by noninstructional activities, the majority of which involve transitions, with little time left for other subjects, play, or physical activity.

Whether the narrowly focused and academically driven version of kindergarten we observed in SSLI classrooms is optimal for young children during their first year of formal schooling is something that should be explored in future studies. However, as Bassok et al. (2014) note, “Engaging and challenging academic instruction . . . does not have to supplant play or child-initiated activities.” Young children need opportunities to make choices and be physically active while engaged in developmentally appropriate learning experiences. Our study indicates that kindergarten experiences are likely to vary systematically by school context. If, as our results suggest, young children of color and those from households with low income have more sedentary and restrictive classroom experiences, this may be one of a myriad examples of inequitable access to educational opportunities that contribute to persistent inequalities in educational outcomes.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-edr-10.3102_0013189X211041586 – Supplemental material for Kindergarten in a Large Urban District

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-edr-10.3102_0013189X211041586 for Kindergarten in a Large Urban District by Mimi Engel, Robin Jacob, Amy Claessens and Anna Erickson in Educational Researcher

Footnotes

ORCID iD

Anna Erickson

Notes

Authors

MIMI ENGEL, PhD, is an associate professor and Program Chair of Research & Evaluation Methodology at University of Colorado Boulder’s School of Education and is a faculty fellow at the Institute of Behavioral Science, 483 UCB Boulder, CO 80309-0483; mimi.engel@colorado.edu . Her research focuses on evaluating programs, policies, and practices that have the potential to improve educational experiences and outcomes for people from historically marginalized groups.

ROBIN JACOB, PhD, is a research associate professor at the Institute for Social Research and faculty co-director of the Youth Policy Lab at the University of Michigan, ISR-Thompson, 426 Thompson Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-2321; rjacob@umich.edu . Her research focuses on the evaluation of educational interventions and other interventions designed to improve the lives of young people who grow up in low-income households.

AMY CLAESSENS, PhD, is an associate professor and the Gulbrandsen Distinguished Chair in Early Childhood at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, 1000 Bascom Mall, Madison, WI 53706; claessens@wisc.edu . Her research focuses on a range of issues related to early childhood education and care including both policy and practice.

ANNA ERICKSON, MPP, is a project manager in the Youth Policy Lab at the University of Michigan, ISR-Thompson, 426 Thompson Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48104-2321; hartac@umich.edu . Her research focuses on education program evaluation, early childhood mathematics instruction, and the alignment of instructional content and pedagogy between preK and elementary settings.

References

Andersen

S. C.

Humlum

M. K.

Nandrup

A. B.

(2016). Increasing instruction time in school does increase learning. Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences of the U S A, 113(27), 7481–7484. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1516686113

Bassok

Claessens

Engel

(2014, June 3). The case for the new kindergarten: Challenging and playful. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/opinion-the-case-for-the-new-kindergarten-challenging-and-playful/2014/06

Bassok

Finch

J. E.

Lee

Reardon

S. F.

Waldfogel

(2016). Socioeconomic gaps in early childhood experiences: 1998 to 2010. AERA Open, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858416653924

Bassok

Latham

Rorem

(2016). Is kindergarten the new first grade? AERA Open, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415616358

Bodrova

Leong

D. J.

(2006). Self-regulation as a key to school readiness: How early childhood teachers can promote this critical competency. In Zaslow

Martinez-Beck

(Eds.), Critical issues in early childhood professional development (pp. 203–224). Paul H. Brookes.

Bowman

B. T.

Donovan

M. S.

Burns

M. S.

(Eds.). (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. National Academy Press.

Brown

Sargard

Benner

(2017). Hidden money: The outsized role of parent contributions in school finance. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education–k–12/reports/2017/04/08/428484/hidden–money/

Chaddock-Heyman

Hillman

C. H.

Cohen

N. J.

Kramer

A. F.

(2014). III. The importance of physical activity and aerobic fitness for cognitive control and memory in children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 79(4), 25–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/mono.12129

Chang

S. H.

Kim

(2017). A review of factors limiting physical activity among young children from low-income families. Journal of Exercise Rehabilitation, 13(4), 375–377. https://doi.org/10.12965/jer.1735060.350

10.

Claessens

Duncan

Engel

(2009). Kindergarten skills and fifth-grade achievement: Evidence from the ECLS–K. Economics of Education Review, 28(4), 415–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2008.09.003

11.

Claessens

Engel

Curran

F. C.

(2014). Academic content, student learning, and the persistence of preschool effects. American Educational Research Journal, 51(2), 403–434. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831213513634

12.

Cope

(2019, November 5). The power of a wealthy PTA. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2019/11/pta-fundraising-schools/601435/

13.

Council on School Health. (2013). The crucial role of recess in school. Pediatrics, 131(1), 183–188. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2012-2993

14.

Datar

Sturm

(2004). Physical education in elementary school and body mass index: Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. American Journal of Public Health, 94(9), 1501–1506. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.94.9.1501

15.

Delpit

(1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New Press.

16.

Duncan

G. J.

Dowsett

C. J.

Claessens

Magnuson

Huston

A. C.

Klebanov

Pagani

L. S.

Feinstein

Engel

Brooks-Gunn

Sexton

Duckworth

Japel

(2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1428–1446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428

17.

Engel

Claessens

Finch

M. A.

(2013). Teaching students what they already know? The (mis) alignment between mathematics instructional content and student knowledge in kindergarten. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(2), 157–178. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373712461850

18.

Engel

Claessens

Watts

Farkas

(2016). Mathematics content coverage and student learning in kindergarten. Educational Researcher, 45(5), 293–300. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16656841

19.

Farran

D. C.

Bilbrey

(2004). Narrative record. Unpublished instrument available from D. C. Farran, Peabody Research Institute, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee.

20.

Fryer

R. G.

(2014). Injecting charter school best practices into traditional public schools: Evidence from field experiments. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(3), 1355–1407.

21.

Jensen

V. M.

(2013). Working longer makes students stronger? The effects of ninth grade classroom hours on ninth grade student performance. Educational Research, 55(2), 180–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131881.2013.801244

22.

Kikuchi

(2014). The effect of instructional time reduction on educational attainment: Evidence from the Japanese curriculum standards revision. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 32(C), 17–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jjie.2014.01.001

23.

La Paro

K. M. L.

Hamre

B. K.

Locasale–Crouch

Pianta

R. C.

Bryant

Early

Clifford

Barbarin

Howes

Burchinal

(2009). Quality in kindergarten classrooms: Observational evidence for the need to increase children’s learning opportunities in early education classrooms. Early Education and Development, 20(4), 657–692. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280802541965

24.

Lee

V. E.

Burkam

D. T.

(2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in achievement as children begin school. Economic Policy Institute.

25.

Mayer

D. P.

(1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21(1), 29–45.

26.

Parinduri

R. A.

(2014). Do children spend too much time in schools? Evidence from a longer school year in Indonesia. Economics of Education Review, 41(August), 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2014.05.001

27.

Pellegrini

A. D.

Bohn

C. M.

(2005). The role of recess in children’s cognitive performance and school adjustment. Educational Researcher, 34(1), 13–19. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X034001013

28.

Phillips

L. B.

Twardosz

(2003). Group size and storybook reading: Two–year–old children’s verbal and nonverbal participation with books. Early Education and Development, 14(4), 453–478. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15566935eed1404_5

29.

Ramstetter

C. L.

Murray

Garner

A. S.

(2010). The crucial role of recess in schools. Journal of School Health, 80(11), 517–526. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1746-1561.2010.00537.x

30.

Rawson

K. A.

Kintsch

(2002). How does background information improve memory for text content? Memory & Cognition, 30, 768–778. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196432

31.

Rawson

K. A.

Kintsch

(2004). Exploring encoding and retrieval effects of background information on text memory. Discourse Processes, 38(3), 323–344. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3803_3

32.

Reardon

S. F.

(2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In Whither Opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 91–116). Russell Sage Foundation.

33.

Reardon

S. F.

Portilla

X. A.

(2016). Recent trends in income, racial, and ethnic school readiness gaps at kindergarten entry. Aera Open, 2(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858416657343

34.

Romance

N. R.

Vitale

M. R.

(2001). Implementing an in–depth expanded science model in elementary schools: Multi–year findings, research issues, and policy implications. International Journal of Science Education, 23(4), 373–404. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690116738

35.

Rowan

Jacob

Correnti

(2009). Using instructional logs to identify quality in educational settings. New Directions for Youth Development, 2009(121), 13–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/yd.294

36.

Sibley

Etnier

(2003). The relationship between physical activity and cognition in children: A meta–analysis. Pediatric Exercise Science, 15(3), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1123/pes.15.3.243

37.

Skinner

(2018). Children’s developmental needs during the transition to kindergarten: What can research on social–emotional, motivational, cognitive, and self–regulatory development tell us? In Mashburn

LoCasale–Crouch

Pears

(Eds.), Kindergarten transition and readiness (pp. 31–57). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90200-5_2

38.

Slavin

Lake

Davis

Madden

(2010). Educator’s guide: Identifying what works for struggling readers. Best Evidence Encyclopedia. Johns Hopkins University, Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education. www.bestevidence.org.

39.

Smith

(2000). Quantity matters: Annual instructional time in an urban school system. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 652–682. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131610021969155

40.

Stipek

(2004). Teaching practices in kindergarten and first grade: Different strokes for different folks. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19(4), 548–568. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.10.010

41.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard Press.

42.

Wasik

(2008). When fewer is more: Small groups in early childhood classrooms. E arly Childhood Education Journal, 35, 515–521. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-008-0245-4

43.

Webb

(1991). Task–related verbal interaction and mathematics learning in small groups. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 366–389. https://doi.org/10.2307/749186

44.

Yackel

Cobb

Wood

(1991). Small–group interactions as a source of learning opportunities in second–grade mathematics. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 22(5), 390–408. https://doi.org/10.2307/749187

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.20 MB