MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W316287983

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

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

Bibliographic record

VenueScholar Commons (University of South Carolina) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDiverse Education Studies and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCycle of povertyPovertyLegislatureWorkforceQuarter (Canadian coin)Investment (military)Economic growthPolitical scienceEconomicsGeographyPoliticsLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from 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. …

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.320
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.219 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholar Commons (University of South Carolina)Same topicDiverse Education Studies and ReformsFrench-language works237,207