Understanding How Ontario's Full-Day Early Learning Kindergarten Works for Families: Building A Program Theory Based On Parents' Voices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ontario’s Full-Day Early Learning Kindergarten (FDELK) represents a bold policy shift in North America, with its conceptualization and delivery of a universal, integrated early learning program. Informed by service integration goals, the FDELK combines early education and care into a seamless early learning program for 4- and 5-year olds. The current study explored parents’ perspectives and program participation experiences to develop a theory of change for FDELK. Relative to our understanding of program effects, causal mechanisms that help explain how and why programs work are not well understood. By asking parents to attribute observed outcomes to program participation experiences, the goal was to identify key pathways through which program participation influenced outcomes not only for children, but also for parents and families. Building on the research experience of local service integration initiatives, this study used an innovative method to build a theory of change for FDELK. Qualitative methods were used to explore parents’ perspectives about their: (1) use of the FDELK program and salient features that were most helpful to them (inputs), (2) benefits and challenges associated with participating in FDELK (outcomes), and (3) program participation experiences that were perceived to contribute to identified outcomes (processes). Using transcribed parent interview data collected from 21 FDELK families, texts pertaining to these three topics were thematically coded in NVivo. Using research and theory as a starting point and a guide throughout the analytic process, patterns of causal linkages between input>process>outcome themes were examined. Following analysis, a three-pathway FDELK theory of change model captured how program participation experiences contributed to a range of child-, parent-, and family-level outcomes. The findings point to the strengths and weaknesses of the design and implementation of FDELK during year 1. More broadly, the study contributes to our understanding of how and why integrated early childhood programs work for families, and furthers our understanding of how parents navigate early childhood services to meet the needs of their family. It also offers a novel methodology for generating theories of change and capturing parent engagement processes. Implications for research, practice, and policy are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".