MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W316287983

Full-Day Kindergarten: A Step towards Breaking the Cycle of Poverty in Indiana

2008· article· en· W316287983 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lisa M. Brooks

Notice bibliographique

RevueScholar Commons (University of South Carolina) · 2008
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueDiverse Education Studies and Reforms
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCycle of povertyPovertyLegislatureWorkforceQuarter (Canadian coin)Investment (military)Economic growthPolitical scienceEconomicsGeographyPoliticsLaw
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

I. INTRODUCTION An educated workforce is the single most important factor in the role of the national, state and local governments in preventing a cycle of poverty.1 In 2007, Indiana sought to do its part in helping at-risk citizens by funding full-day kindergarten within its public school system.2 Indiana House Enrolled Act No. 1001 created a grant program providing progressive funding for full-day kindergarten programs in Indiana schools from 2007-2008 through 2008-2009.3 With this action, Indiana has taken a positive step to alleviate the cycle of poverty and this action should serve as a model for other states. In 2004, 11.1 percent of all Indiana residents lived in poverty.4 Of that percentage, 15.7 percent of those were under the age of eighteen and 19.8 percent were under the age of five.5 These statistics suggest that the cycle of poverty will continue to perpetuate among nearly twenty percent of Indiana's youth. Indiana's investment in education may help to break this cycle and assist at-risk children and low-income mothers by improving chances for quality education and employment opportunities. This note will examine the history of full-day kindergarten in Indiana, the legislative requirements for program funding, the proven benefits of full-day kindergarten, and the full-day kindergarten program's power to break the cycle of poverty in Indiana. II. FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN IN INDIANA AND LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR FUNDING As early as 2003, one quarter of all kindergarten students in Indiana attended full-time kindergarten.6 In 2004, an analysis of full-day kindergarten systems was performed by the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy for the Indiana Association of Public School Superintendents.7 This study revealed that significant academic progress was made among participants in school districts that had established fullday kindergarten programs.8 Particularly, full-day kindergarten students excelled in mathematics, reading, handwriting and spelling.9 Individual school districts also implemented their own full-day kindergarten task forces in the face of the funding legislation. One such school district, located in Brownsburg, Indiana, had previously implemented a charter full-day kindergarten system in 2001.10 The collection of data from this full-day system and other full-day systems resulted in promising conclusions. Specifically, full-day students excelled over half-day students in written skills, reading skills, and word recognition.11 To qualify for funding provided by the current legislation, schools must participate in an application process.12 The program requires schools to report their expenditures and establish a required curriculum. Moreover, the program allows schools to charge parents for the privilege of attending full-day programs.13 Funding is available to all schools that properly abide by the grant rules.14 III. THE BENEFITS OF FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN The benefits of full-day kindergarten have been widely researched. Though there are some discrepancies in how far reaching these benefits are, academic benefits to children enrolled in full-day kindergarten programs include scholastic achievement, higher standardized test scores, and lower grade retention rates.15 With regard to scholastic achievement, there is evidence that students who attend full-day kindergarten earn higher grades throughout middle school than those who attend half-day kindergarten.16 Moreover, students attending full-day kindergarten receive higher standardized test scores for two years after participation in the program.17 Finally, with regard to grade retention, full-time kindergarten students are less likely to repeat a grade between kindergarten and third grade after completing the program.18 These encouraging results are certainly not perfect.19 Some studies find that the benefits to full-day participants are minimal or short-lived. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,320
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,637

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,001
Communication savante0,0040,001
Science ouverte0,0020,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,025
Tête enseignante GPT0,244
Écart entre enseignants0,219 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2008
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueScholar Commons (University of South Carolina)Même sujetDiverse Education Studies and ReformsTravaux en français237 207