Category: Kindergarten

Abstract

The purpose of this report is to show the benefits of learning more than one language among kindergarten children. The document was requested by preschool establishments that are planning a marketing campaign to increase the level of enrolment. The research identified a number of benefits associated with bilingualism among the target population.

The advantages include enhanced creativity, concentration, and cognitive benefits. To ensure that parents understand the importance of this concept, kindergartens can create open days in schools, print brochures, and send out emails with detailed information on bilingualism.

Introduction

Bilingualism is the ability to use more than one language (Averil 2014). Research shows that the world is moving from monolingualism to bilingualism. Consequently, the number of bilinguals will increase in the coming years.

Reports by the American Community Survey, for example, reveal that more than 21% of children below the age of five in the US can converse in a language other than English at home (Bari 2015). The continuous trend of teaching kindergarten children more than one language has prompted scholars to come up with various views on its importance. Some consider bilingualism to be advantageous, while others deem it as detrimental.

The purpose of this report is to analyse the benefits of learning two languages among kindergarten children. In addition, marketing methods on how to increase the number of children enrolled in school will be highlighted in this document. The report was requested by bilingual kindergartens that are planning a marketing campaign to increase the number of children enrolled into the institutions. The primary sources of information for the report were articles and books on bilingualism.

Findings

People are surrounded by language everywhere in the society. According to Baker (2011, p. 89), language is used to share feelings and thoughts. In addition, it helps people to identify and connect with those around them, as well as understand culture. Various findings on the benefits of bilingualism among kindergarten children were made in this research.

Main Point 1: Cognitive Benefits to Kindergarten Children

Majority of the worlds population is bilingual or multilingual. According to a research carried out by the European Commission in 2006, it was found that 56% of individuals can use more than one language (Viorica & Shook 2012). The world has witnessed a number of technological advancements in the recent past. The innovations have enabled medical experts to examine how bilingualism interrelates with changes in cognitive and neurological systems.

The figure below shows the percentage of bilingual speakers in the world:

Some parents associate bilingualism with confusion. However, research reveals that the ability to speak two languages has various cognitive benefits to children. Such children can learn new words with ease. When a word is mentioned, the youngsters do not hear the entire term at once (Bialystok, Craik & Luk 2012).

The sounds relayed are received in a sequential manner. However, before the utterance is finished, the brain activates loads of words to match the new term. The activation process among bilingual kindergarten children is higher and faster. The reason is because they are not limited to one language. They are able to approach the world from a different view, which helps them to better read and write (Averil 2014).

Main Point 2: Bilingualism among Kindergarten Children Enhances Creativity

Kindergarten children who are bilingual are more creative and better at tackling complex problems (Bari 2015). Their understanding of more than one language enables them to use information in new ways. When faced with complex language-related or arithmetic tasks, bilingual kindergarten children outperform their monolingual counterparts. Research reveals that bilingual children perform tasks better and in creative ways compared to monolinguals.

Creativity is associated with the ability to expand ones thinking capacity. Baker (2011, p. 113) notes that kindergarten children who can speak more than one language are not limited to a single perspective of the world. Bilingualism opens the door for new ideas.

Consequently, such kindergarten children are able to think outside the box. Through enhanced creativity, bilingual kindergarten children can switch between different tasks faster compared to monolinguals. The finding indicates that bilinguals are better at multitasking. They outperform monolinguals on assignments that tap into executive functions (Bari 2015).

Main Point 3: Bilingualism Enhances Concentration among Kindergarten Children

Teaching children two languages helps them to concentrate on relevant information and overlook distractions. In addition, bilinguals engage better with other kindergarten children (Viorica and Shook 2012). The ability to manage two languages sharpens the brain. As such, the pre-school children develop the ability to retain and focus on tasks with fewer distractions compared to monolinguals. In addition, they are able to shift attention better and faster when required.

When kindergarten children understand two languages, they must learn to block out one of them when conversing or listening to the other. Doing this regularly helps them to be more attentive. Bilingual kindergarten children engage better with classmates compared to monolinguals (Bialystok, Craik & Luk 2012). The reason is because they are not limited to the use of one language.

Conclusion

The ability to use two languages among kindergarten children has numerous benefits, which outweigh the limitations. During the course of this research, bilingual preschool kids were found to have capabilities that are lacking among their monolingual classmates.

The benefits associated with bilingualism in kindergartens include the ability to concentrate on tasks and avoid distractions, enhanced concentration, and creativity. In addition, bilingualism enhances the cognitive abilities of kindergarten children (Viorica & Shook 2012). Preschool kids who speak more than one language also relate better with their classmates.

Promoting Bilingualism among Kindergarten Children: Recommendations

1. The kindergartens should make brochures. The leaflets should contain detailed information on the benefits of teaching children more than one language. For example, bilingualism is associated with creativity. Cases of successful and famous people can be included. Such persons can be added by acquiring information on how bilingualism has helped them achieve what they desired.
2. The kindergartens should hold events and invite parents. The affairs include open days at schools where parents and guardians come to witness activities carried out by both bilingual and monolingual preschool kids. During such events, kindergarten children can be grouped and allocated similar tasks to the monolinguals to see which party performs better. The schools can also use the platform to explain that bilingualism has mental benefits to children.
3. Kindergartens should send an email to parents and include pictures with scientific research on how bilingualism leads to better concentration. The school can get email addresses by asking the parents to log into their childrens school portals. In addition, kindergartens should introduce special price offers because this recommendation will take time and cost. As a result, they will be able to attract more parents.

Bibliography

Averil, G 2014, RUMACC raising children in more than one language: transitioning from a bilingual kindergarten to school. Web.

Baker, C 2011, Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism, 5th edn, Multilingual Matters, Bristol, UK.

Bari, W 2015, Bilingualism as a life experience: what were learning about the last cognitive effects of speaking two languages. Web.

Bialystok, E, Craik, F & Luk, G 2012, Bilingualism: consequences for mind and brain, Trends in Cognitive Sciences, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 240-250.

Viorica, M & Shook, A 2012, The cognitive benefits of being bilingual. Web.

Introduction

Background Study

Literacy ability of learners is a major concern for educators. It is commonly agreed that the literacy ability of an individual is highly influenced by early childhood learning. Kindergarten is the first educational institution where formal education is introduced and where education foundation of an individual is formed. Due to the importance of early childhood education, there have been a lot of researches aimed at improving this education. Reading and understanding the meaning of words is a major concern for education. As it is discovered in various researches, early failure in literacy leads to long term literacy problems. These observations suggest that building a good literacy foundation in children is the most important step toward ensuring literacy (Foorman, Chen, Carlson, Moats, Francis & Fletcher, 2003, p. 291). Research studies in the recent past have shown correlation between phonemic awareness and literacy. This research study wants to use quantitative method to find the relationship between phonic awareness and early word recognition in kindergarten children.

There is agreement that phonemic awareness plays a major role in success in reading. Phonemic awareness has also been associated with certain reading disability. Phonemic awareness is used synonymously with phonological awareness, phonetic awareness, acoustic awareness, phonemic categorization, auditory analysis, and phonemic segmentation (Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2002, 302). These synonyms suggest the meaning of the term; however, some authors try to differentiate phonemic awareness from the other terms. Bryant and Goswami claim that phonemic awareness is the ability to recognize individual phonemes while phonological awareness constitute broad awareness including awareness of rhyme and syllables. Various scholars have differing definitions of phonemic awareness. Blachman and Ball define phonemic awareness as the awareness that spoken words are made up of individual sounds; the ability to identify the individual phonemes of a word (Ball & Blachman, 1991, p. 46). Stanovich prefers to use phonological awareness but emphasizes on the level or sensitivity of phonological awareness.

The role of phonics in learning how to read had drawn various opinions in the past. However, various researches in the recent past have supported the importance of phonics instructions in reading (Foorman, Chen, Carlson, Moats, Francis & Fletcher, 2003, p. 302). Inspired by the conclusive findings, there have been calls for phonic instructions to be included in educational policy and practice. In past twenty years there has been agreement on various aspects of reading success and failure. Mann and Hurford have observed that level of phonemic awareness determine whether an individual will be a good or a bad reader in the future (Hurford, Schauf, Bunce, Blaich & Moore, 1994, p. 378). They also suggest that phonemic awareness differentiates good reader from challenged readers. Stanovich claims that phonic instructions help to increase sensitivity to rhyme and alliteration (Ball & Blachman, 1991, p. 52). He see phonological awareness as a process that increases sensitivity from a word to syllables and then to individual phonemes. Besides, there have been various longitudinal studies that have shown correlation between phonemic awareness and reading progress.

Phonemic knowledge is more concerned with word structure rather than its meaning. In phonemic instruction, the sound of individual phonemes is emphasized rather than the meaning of words. The instructions try to make a reader aware of the correspondence between spelling and sound. Instead of viewing words as a compact sound stream, readers are made aware of individual sounds that make up the sound of a word. Many scholars agree that phonemic awareness is a process that starts from shallow to deep awareness.

Phonemic awareness is different from the ability to differentiate the sounds of two different words. Although they are different, the ability to differentiate the sounds of two words shows a level of phonemic awareness (Hurford, Schauf, Bunce, Blaich & Moore, 1994, p. 379). Audio discrimination constitutes the ability to hear the difference in the sounds of different words. On the other hands, phonemic awareness constitutes analysis of individual sounds that make up the sound of a word. In most reading instructions, the meaning on words is emphasized other than analysis of individuals sounds that make up the words.

Phonemic awareness can be very useful to reading and literacy. Phonemic awareness has been ignored in young children despite of the fact that ability to differentiate individuals sound can help in pronouncement and reading. Before children differentiate the different sound of sentences, they should be able to appreciate that sentence are made up of discrete word sounds (Al Otaiba & Fuchs, 2002, p. 311). In addition, they should be able to appreciate discrete sounds that constitute a word. Blachman warns that word awareness should not be assumed even in older children (Ball & Blachman, 1991, p.49). However, he feels that word consciousness could be taught easily at early age.

Research Questions

This research will try to answer the following questions:

1. What is phonemic awareness?
2. Why is phonemic awareness important to kindergarten children?
3. How can phonemic awareness instructions on kindergarten children influence their reading?

Aims and Objectives

The aim of this research is to assess phonemic awareness in kindergarten children and how it influences their reading ability. The aim will be achieved by the following objectives:

1. To find out the influence of individual childs background to phonemic awareness.
2. To find out the influence of phonemic instruction to phonemic awareness in kindergarten children.
3. To Obtain the relationship between phonemic awareness and reading progress.

Purpose of the study

Many research studies show correlation between phonemic awareness and reading awareness. Some research studies have also showed a correlation between early phonemic awareness to future reading progress of an individual. Besides, there have been calls for phonemic awareness instructions to be included in educational policy and a practice. Despite of many research on phonemic awareness, there are limited research on phonemic awareness in kindergarten children. The current research attempts to contribute to this field by looking at phonemic awareness in kindergarten children.

As Blachman and Ball note, majority of early reading problems are contributed by low phonemic awareness. It is hoped that understanding relationship between phonemic awareness and early childhood education will help to maximize the importance of phonemic awareness in reading. Kindergarten education forms the foundation for further education, ability to establish good reading foundation at this level can help to overcome many reading challenges in the future. The findings of this research will provide useful data that can help in improving education policy. The findings will also be a good foundation for further research on phonemic awareness and other related issues.

Definition of terms

• Phonemic awareness: In this research phonemic awareness refers to the ability of an individual to identify and control the smallest unit of sound in a word.
• Kindergarten: In the paper, kindergarten refers to the first educational institution for young children before they join primary school.
• Word recognition: Refers to the ability of an individual to correctly distinguish a written word.
• Reading: A cognitive process where an individual identify and obtain the meaning of a word, sentence or paragraph.

Methodology

Participants

All participants will be kindergarten children with age between 4 and 6. Two hundred participants picked from various kindergartens in the country will be chosen. The participants will be divided into two groups: experimental group and control group. Phonemic awareness training will be provided to experimental groups while no training will be provided to control group. Pre-test and post-test will be conducted on participants from both groups at around the same time. Pre-test will be conducted at the beginning of the academic year while post-test will be conducted at the end of the same academic year. A one-on-one test will be used for every participant.

Data collection and analysis

All the data for the study will be picked from the 200 kindergarten children. Data will be recorded depending on the level of phonemic awareness of a participant. The test will include word reading, picture naming, syllable identification, rhyme detection and phoneme identification. The data collected will indicate how well a participant read a word, identify phoneme and other tests. T-test and ANOVA analysis will be conducted on the collected data in order to show the correlation between research variables.

Procedure

All participants will be assessed twice, at the beginnings and at the end of the academic year. Trained assessors will conduct a one-on-one test on the participants at their respective kindergarten. The assessors will record data from every participant.

Summary

There have been various research studies that show correlation between phonemic awareness and reading ability. As phonemic awareness influences reading ability, phonemic training can help to improve reading. Phonemic awareness in kindergarten children has limited studies. By understanding the level of phonemic awareness in kindergarten children and the effect of phonemic awareness training, useful conclusions can be made.

Reference

Al Otaiba, S. & Fuchs, D. (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy intervention: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 300-316.

Ball, E. & Blachman, B. (1991). Does phoneme awareness training in kindergarten make a difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling. Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 49-66.

Foorman, B., Chen, D., Carlson, C., Moats, L., Francis, D., & Fletcher, M., (2003). The necessity of the alphabetic principle to phonemic awareness instruction. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 16, 289-324.

Hurford, D. Schauf, J., Bunce, L., Blaich, T., & Moore, K. (1994). Early identification of children at risk for reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 371-382.

Kindergarten transition (KT) is a critical topic in early education that has been studied with attention to the role of psychological support, parental engagement, and transition-related challenges. Sheridan et al. (2020) offer a good source to explore KT as their study systematically assesses and summarizes almost 250 parents practices in the pre-KT and KT periods and such activities implications for childrens success. According to their research, the students chances of adapting to the kindergarten environment successfully depend on the degree of parental involvement in fostering the childs early literacy competencies and communicative abilities (Sheridan et al., 2020). Thus, the familys contributions to minimizing KT-related difficulties are enormous.

Also, KT becomes more complicated as a result of psychological adjustment challenges and unmanaged stress. Jiang et al. (2021) present another good source for studying KT since their case study explores more than 680 kindergarten students KT-related difficulties and assesses each areas individual influence. The areas of concern during KT include socializing, self-organization, learning, and participating in group work (Jiang et al., 2021). Based on the analysis of teachers reports, KT-related challenges affect all students without exception, and over 25% of children experience difficulties in all adaptation-related areas (Jiang et al., 2021). Therefore, KT is a stressful period for any child and should be approached in a way that minimizes negative affect.

KT should be handled to recognize emerging learners limitations and avoid cognitive overloads in kindergarten settings. According to chapter five of the course text, kindergarten-age childrens executive function and memorizing strategies are rather undeveloped (Beyer & Lazzara, 2020). In my opinion, in the KT process and when preparing a child for entering a new educational setting, it is of vital importance to account for age-specific developmental characteristics. Specifically, making sure that the expectations imposed on new kindergarten students are realistic is essential.

References

Sheridan, S. M., Koziol, N., Witte, A. L., Iruka, I., & Knoche, L. L. (2020). Longitudinal and geographic trends in family engagement during the pre-kindergarten to kindergarten transition. Early Childhood Education Journal, 48(3), 365-377. Web.

Jiang, H., Justice, L., Purtell, K. M., Lin, T. J., & Logan, J. (2021). Prevalence and prediction of kindergarten-transition difficulties. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 55, 15-23. Web.

Introduction

Christmas is one of the most popular and beloved American national holidays. Originally Christmas was intended to commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ, but nowadays, it turned into a family holiday for everyone. Every year on December 25, millions of Americans meet with their friends and relatives to share special Christmas dinners, which include roast turkey, ham, pies, and other tasty foods. People give holiday gifts, decorate their houses with lights, and put up customary Christmas trees.

The Christmas celebrations help create a festive mood for New Year. On December 31, New Years Eve, Americans gather again to share delicious meals and have fun. People make wishes and prepare for a fresh, happy start to the New Year full of exciting hopes and dreams.

Columbus Day

American history could have been much different if the famous explorer Christopher Columbus had not discovered our continent. However, he and his followers risked undertaking a dangerous journey and eventually found American shores. Their bravery gave a start to the history of our country, as the first European settlers followed Columbus quite soon and established their colonies on American soil.

Columbus Day is especially honored by Italian and Catholic American communities proud of the explorers birthplace and faith.

Columbus Day is observed every year on the second Monday of October. All government offices are closed that day, and many Americans can enjoy a day off from work.

Independence Day

On July 4, 1776, Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence, giving birth to the independent United States and the American nation.

Soon celebrations on the Fourth of July had become a patriotic tradition that honored the bravery of the first American Revolutionaries. With time, Independence Day turned into a popular family holiday.

Every year many Americans get together with their friends and families, set off fireworks that remind them of rockets used by Revolutionaries, and enjoy outdoor barbecues and fine summer weather. People listen to patriotic anthems and wave star-spangled flags. The Fourth of July has become a symbol of unity and pride for being American and living in this country.

Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving is another example of an American holiday that has become a fine family tradition. Originally, Thanksgiving was celebrated by individual American colonies and states as a symbol of cooperation and trust between the settlers and Native American peoples.

Abraham Lincoln was the first U.S. President who made Thanksgiving a national holiday observed each November. Since then, Americans have celebrated Thanksgiving on the fourth Thursday in November. People cook delicious meals and share them with their friends and family members. Americans also engage in volunteering and helping each other, following an example set by Native Americans who helped the struggling settlers.

Turkey has become a symbol of Thanksgiving, and many Americans think Thanksgiving turkey is the most important part of the holiday meal.

Labor Day

Labor Day, observed on the first Monday of September, has become one of the most respected holidays in our country. Just over a century ago, many Americans had to work 12-hour shifts and 7-day working weeks. Little children also had to work in factories, mines, and other unsafe places instead of going to school and playing with friends.

However, people stood against the unfair system and began to protect their human dignity and rights by organizing rallies and strikes. On several occasions, workers took unpaid time off and held parades of protest. Eventually, the government had to intervene and satisfy workers demands for decent labor conditions.

The modern Labor Day commemorates the bravery of American workers who won their rights. On the first Monday of each September, Americans remember their determination with fireworks, parades, and public rallies.

Washingtons Birthday (Presidents Day)

George Washington was a hero of the American Revolution and the first President of the United States. After Washingtons death, individual U.S. states and cities began to commemorate his memory. By the end of the 19th century, February 22, Washingtons birthday, had become a national holiday.

However, several national holidays were later moved from their original dates to specific Mondays. This act was convenient for many Americans, who got more three-day weekends throughout the working year. The observance of Washingtons birthday was moved to the third Monday of February, becoming a national day for celebrating all past and present U.S. presidents.

Martin Luther King Day

Dr. Martin Luther King is the second man in American history honored with a national holiday. George Washington forged the independent United States in the flame of Revolution to deserve this honor. Martin Luther King dedicated his life to the struggle for equal rights and justice for all U.S. citizens. Despite his tragic death, the memory of the heroic civil rights activist lives in the hearts and minds of many Americans.

After decades of legal struggle, every U.S. state agreed to observe Martin Luther King Day on the third Monday of each January. Kings nonviolent, peaceful resistance to injustice and inequality eventually received well-deserved recognition and commemoration. The holiday in honor of Dr. King affects public and private institutions across the whole country.

Memorial Day

On Memorial Day, the American nation honors all men and women who died while serving in the U.S. military. Americans observe Memorial Day by visiting war memorials and cemeteries, participating in parades, and holding family meetings. Memorial Day is observed on the last Monday of each May, marking the beginning of summer.

Memorial Day emerged soon after American Civil War when U.S. citizens started to gather and commemorate fallen soldiers on both sides. A century later, the tradition grew into a national holiday in honor of all fallen American servicemen and servicewomen. Americans of all ages come to war memorials and cemeteries to decorate graves with national flags and flowers. On Memorial Day, the American nation remembers the bravery and sacrifice of people who fought and died for our country.

Teachers Page

The eBook composed as a part of this assignment allows a social studies teacher to provide kindergarten students with knowledge and skills defined by the State of Texas (2017) in the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for Kindergarten (TEKS) standard.

According to Section b) of Paragraph 113.11, Part A, a kindergarten student is expected to understand that holidays are celebrations of special events and be able to explain the reasons for patriotic holidays. Additionally, a student must be able to identify the customs associated with particular national and patriotic holidays (State of Texas, 2017). This eBook acknowledges kindergarten students with several patriotic and customary holidays celebrated in the United States. As a result, students develop the competence of distinguishing between various holidays, which acts as an important part of the American cultural code.

Resources

Classful. (n.d.). [Kindergarten social studies].

Clipartkey. (n.d.). [Thanksgiving turkey].

Clipart World. (n.d.). [George Washington Presidents Day].

LA Loft Blog. (n.d.). [Labor Day celebration]. Web.

Scar, K. (2018). [Placing flags on Memorial Day].

State of Texas. (2017). Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills for kindergarten.

Veski, R. (n.d.). [Independence Day poster].

Stay Happening. (n.d.). [Image of Christmas bauble].

Wallpapers. (n.d.). [Three ships Columbus Day greeting card].

Wyborn, C. (n.d.). [Martin Luther King].

Introduction

While play naturally occurs during childhood, its presence in early childhood development research was relatively unheard of until the twentieth century (Farné 2005). Much of the research on play within developmental psychology has been inspired by the theoretical writings of Vygotsky (1978). During play, when it is spontaneous and child-initiated, he argued, children exercise control over their own activity, set themselves appropriate challenges, and create their own ‘zone of proximal development’ within which learning is most powerfully enhanced. Karpov (2005) supports this notion by stating that in play, children are required to regulate their own behavior, making it a significant factor in their development of self-regulation. For example, a number of studies reviewed have demonstrated children being able to perform tasks in play at significantly higher levels than in non-playful contexts. Researchers continue to look at the play and its effect on early childhood development, including the use of play as a pedagogical practice for academic learning (Roskos and Christie 2011).

While it is evident that the research supports the importance of play in kindergarten classrooms, differences in this perspective begin to emerge when we consider the role of play in children’s learning. For example, some advocate for the use of strictly child-directed free play, while others argue for the use of play as a tool in the overall development of kindergarten students (Bergen 2009; Ginsburg 2007). Some view play as beneficial in kindergarten as it pertains to the social and personal development of students (Eberle 2014), while others describe the role of play in the development of academic skills (Riley and Jones 2010).

While many researchers and policymakers alike agree that play is important to children’s development, these claims are not without controversy. For example, Lillard and colleagues challenge the role of pretend play in the development of both the social and emotional, and academic domains, stating: “that existing evidence does not support strong causal claims about the unique importance of pretend play for development” (2013, p. 1). Despite these challenges, research into the value of play has informed the development of curricular policies that mandate the use of play-based learning pedagogies while maintaining high academic standards.

Furthermore, Puteh and Ali (2013) reflect on how the lack of a common definition of play makes it challenging to provide specific recommendations for educators to advocate a play-based approach in kindergarten classrooms in the face of increasing demands on academic skills. In addition, different teachers perceive play differently in practice which further complicates the implementation of play-based learning in classrooms.

Research Problem

In the current educational climate, teachers are required to strike a balance between mandated academic learning and developmentally appropriate play-based pedagogical practices (Jenvey and Jenvey 2002; Martlew, Stephen, and Ellis 2011; Whitebread and O’Sullivan 2012). The benefits of play to children’s development and academic learning are often discussed in the research. However, inconsistencies in differing perspectives concerning the purpose of play in educational settings make it challenging for teachers to determine how to productively integrate play-based pedagogies into their classrooms. This then leads kindergarten teachers to face the challenge of balancing traditional developmental programming and contemporary academic standards.

At present, research and policy documents in Canada are lacking an explicit and consistent definition of play-based learning. Additionally, there is a lack of consistent research findings that describe how play can be used to develop academic skills (Lillard et al. 2013). Despite these inconsistencies in definitions and proposed enactments of play-based learning, in 2010 the Government in the province of British Columbia began the transition to full-day kindergarten, following the lead of other Canadian provinces. This current policy mandates this pedagogical approach, leaving teachers to determine how best to translate this mandate into practice.

Accompanying this shift into a full-day framework, the Ministry of Education in British Columbia released a new kindergarten curriculum document. This new document differs from the previous document in its emphasis on the use of play-based learning in the kindergarten classroom, while still maintaining the high academic expectations of its predecessors. The document identifies the use of play as a means for learning that taps into the “natural curiosity” and creative energy of the student and is accompanied by the belief that play and academic development are not mutually exclusive. The document goes on to explore the various forms play takes in the classroom (e.g. constructive play), the use of play through an inquiry lens, as well as the real-life contexts of play-based learning. However, a review of the document reveals that it does not provide teachers with an operationalized definition of play-based learning that explicitly describes how it can support both social and academic development through play.

This literature review will take a uniquely Canadian perspective that will address the lack of consensus in the definition of play-based learning, inconsistent teacher perspectives in play, and how these discrepancies in perspectives about play complicate the implementation of play-based learning in kindergarten classrooms in British Columbia, Canada.

Definition of Play

While most would agree that play is beneficial in early education, it is still difficult to conceptualize the concept of play. Many who attempt to define play suggest that it is not characterized by a single feature, but rather is multifaceted (Smith and Vollstedt 1985; Jenvey and Jenvey 2002).

From a psychological perspective, Eberle (2014) has identified six basic elements of play, defining play as a voluntary process prompted by emotional experiences and pleasure. This understanding of play as a function of the disposition of the individual is one that is widely agreed upon (Pui-Wah and Stimpson 2004; Jenvey and Jenvey 2002). Others have considered the benefits of play from the neurological perspective, noting play’s sensory and neurotransmitter stimulation advantages, its connection to brain size and activity, and general cognitive development (Rushton, Juola-Rushton, and Larkin 2010; Pellis, Pellis, and Himmler 2014).

The relationship between play and cognitive development is also described differently in the two theories of cognitive development which dominate early childhood education-Piagets and Vygotsky’s. Piaget (1962) defined play as assimilation, or the child’s efforts to make environmental stimuli match his or her own concepts. The Piagetian theory holds that play, in and of itself, does not necessarily result in the formation of new cognitive structures. Piaget claimed that play was just for pleasure, and while it allowed children to practice things they had previously learned, it did not necessarily result in the learning of new things. In other words, the play reflects what the child has already learned but does necessarily teach the child anything new. In this view, play is seen as a ‘process reflective of emerging symbolic development, but contributing little to it’ (Johnsen & Christie, 1986, p. 51).

In contrast, Vygotskian theory states that play actually facilitates cognitive development. Children not only practice what they already know-they also learn new things. In discussing Vygotsky’s theory, Vandenberg (1986) remarks that ‘play not so much reflects thought (as Piaget suggests) as it creates thought’ (p. 21). However, when observing children playing in different scenarios, one can identify both theories of play in action. For example, a child could be re-enacting a situation in the dramatic center that is based upon prior knowledge and would thus support Piaget’s theory of play. Another child could construct new knowledge through her play by figuring out how two pieces of a puzzle fit together and thus supporting Vygotsky’s theory. Whether children are practicing what they have learned in other settings or are constructing new knowledge, it is clear that play has a valuable role in the kindergarten classroom. However, as researchers attempt to create concrete definitions of play through differing theoretical lenses, those in education are left with contradictory definitions that can result in challenges to their understanding of the role of play in students’ development, and therefore, the implementation of play-based programs.

The Teacher’s Role in Play

An often-disputed topic in the discussion of play-based learning is the role of the teacher during play, specifically within the context of classroom play-based learning. Many have found that the most effective play-based learning occurs when the teacher, or adult, is there to facilitate and scaffold learning (Martlew, Stephen, and Ellis 2011). Supporting this education-oriented perspective, Bennett, Wood, and Rogers (1997) found that students made greater academic progress when teachers were involved in the play. Bodrova (2008) also found that higher quality learning occurs as a result of teacher scaffolding during play. Conversely, some researchers argue against teacher involvement, asserting that the underlying beliefs and learning goals of teachers could unintentionally direct children’s play away from a context that is genuinely child-centered (Goouch 2008).

How and where play-based learning is implemented in classrooms is to some extent dependent upon how teachers identify their role within that play (Howard 2010). Understanding this, researchers have explored teachers’ uses of play, the role they assume within the play, and their understanding of how their involvement affects students’ learning (Sherwood, and Reifel 2013; Pyle, and Bigelow 2015). While many kindergarten teachers support the use of play-based learning, how this play is implemented lacks consistency and clarity. For example, Pui-Wah and Stimpson (2004), in their exploration of teachers’ knowledge of play-based learning, found that while teachers stated that they incorporated play in their classrooms, their practices did not match true play practices. Instead, play in their classrooms was fixed to specific circumstances and objects and was used separately from actual learning.

This disconnect between what teachers believe they are doing and what they are actually doing goes back in part to the problem described above, the disagreement concerning an appropriate definition of play. In their investigation of teachers’ understanding of play-based pedagogy, Martlew, Stephen, and Ellis (2011) arrived at the same conclusions, a lack of cohesion in teachers’ interpretations of play-based learning translated into teachers’ misunderstandings of their role during play. A theorized explanation for this lack of cohesion is that those who use play-based approaches, for both research and educational purposes, often approach the topic from differing investigative perspectives, such as cognitive, emotional, or pedagogic, that affects the importance that is placed on specific aspects of that play (Howard 2010).

Additionally, while research has demonstrated support for both the development of academic skills and social and emotional development through play, these bodies of literature describe differing roles for teachers. For instance, research demonstrating the connection between play and the acquisition of academic skills emphasizes the role of the teacher in this type of play. Researchers have demonstrated that play can contribute to the learning of academic skills when teacher support is provided either through the construction of the environment or through direct guidance during play (Skolnick Weisberg, Zosh, Hirsh-Pasek, and Michnick Golinkoff 2013). For example, when teachers actively participate in children’s play by assuming an important role (e.g., student as a doctor, teacher as the patient), the teacher can elaborate and extend shared activities by directing students’ attention to particular objects and contribute to the conversation leading to an improvement in vocabulary learning (Van Oers and Duijkers 2013). Further research demonstrates that when teachers play with students, guiding their attention to environmental print, student reading of this environmental print increases (Vukelich 1994). Contrary to the research describing the learning of academic skills in play-based contexts says about the role of teachers in supporting and guiding academic learning during play (e.g., Skolnick Weisburg et al. 2013), research concerning the development of social and emotional skills often emphasizes the importance of providing children with the opportunity to direct their own play, minimizing the role of the teacher (Elias and Berk 2002; Howard 2010; Stipek et al. 1995). The role of the teacher in this type of children’s play is often viewed as more of a facilitator. For example, Goouch (2008) emphasizes the importance of teachers allowing children to determine the objectives of play and resisting the urge to hijack children’s intentions by imposing mandated curricular standards during periods of play. Some researchers state that teachers should closely observe children during play periods not only for assessment purposes but also to facilitate appropriate social interactions and motor behaviors. It is important that children be the decision-makers during play, choosing what and where to play, choosing roles for each player, and choosing how the play will proceed. Occasionally, however, some children will need adult assistance in joining a playgroup, modifying behavior, or negotiating a disagreement. Careful observation will help the teacher to decide when to offer assistance and what form that assistance should take.

The differing teacher roles in play-based contexts compound the challenges teachers face as they integrate play into classroom environments. For teachers must not only determine the type of play to foster in the classroom and the environmental contexts that can support productive play, but they must also determine the extent to which they will involve themselves in these playful contexts.

Explore sounds, rhythms, and language structures with guidance and on their own (e.g., generate rhymes, including nonsense words; identify syllables through actions, such as clapping, manipulate sounds and words in shared, guided, and independent activities, such as singing songs or chants or participating in finger plays).

Listen and respond to others for a variety of purposes (e.g., to exchange ideas, express feelings, offer opinions) and in a variety of contexts (e.g., after read-alouds and shared reading or writing activities, while solving a class math problem, in imaginary or exploratory play; at the learning centers, while engaged in games and outdoor play, while making scientific observations of creatures outdoors). Student Talk: Initially (when taking on the role of parent at the house center) “The baby is crying.” Eventually “Don’tcry, I’ll change your diaper for you.” “I’m making a house. What are you making? I think you should paint yours blue.”

Follow one- and two-step directions in different contexts (e.g., in classroom routines; music, drama, and dance activities; outdoor play; learning centers; large group activities)

Use language in various contexts to connect new experiences with what they already know (e.g., contribute ideas orally during shared or interactive writing; contribute to conversations at learning centers; respond to teacher prompts) Student Talk: “I made a sandcastle like this at the beach.” “I built a fort with my brother like the one in the story.”

Use language to talk about their thinking, to reflect, and to solve problems Teacher Prompts: “I wonder how you knew that.” “How did you figure that out?” “What were you thinking about?”

Use specialized vocabulary for a variety of purposes (e.g., terms for things they are building or equipment they are using) Student Talk: At the block center: “We put a roof on our house.” At the water center: “I poured the water in the funnel.” After listening to a book being read about farming and then creating a farm with blocks: “My silo doesn’t have any grain in it yet.”

Ask questions for a variety of purposes (e.g., for direction, for assistance, for obtaining information, for clarification, for help in understanding something) and in different contexts (e.g., during discussions and conversations with peers and adults before, during, and after read-aloud activities and shared reading; while making observations on a class walk; in small groups at learning centers)

Begin to use and interpret gestures, tone of voice, and other non-verbal means to communicate and respond (e.g., respond to non-verbal directions from the teacher; vary tone of voice when dramatizing; name feelings that are expressed in facial expressions in photos or illustrations; recognize when someone is upset).

Describe personal experiences, using vocabulary and details appropriate to the situation Student Talk: Initially “We went out for dinner.” “My dad and I went out for dinner.” Eventually “Last night I went out for dinner with my dad because Mom was busy.”

Orally retell simple events and simple familiar stories in proper sequence Student Talk: Initially “We cooked the apples.” Eventually “First we had to peel all of the apples. Then we cut them up and cooked them. Then we mashed them and ate the apple sauce.” Initially“ Humpty Dumpty fell down and couldn’t get up.” Eventually “Humpty Dumpty was sitting on a wall and he fell down. The king and his men tried to help him but he was too broken and they couldn’t fix him. The end.”

Children are respected, nurtured, and challenged and they are given the variety in their daily schedule in this kindergarten. The surroundings are bright and colorful while the kindergarten classroom looks neat and orderly. The displays on the wall tend to be colorful and fun for young children to reduce anxiety for those separated from their parents for the first time. The outdoor space is available for free play for kids. Outdoor environments give children an opportunity to fulfill their basic needs for freedom, adventure, experimentation, risk-taking and let them just being children.

Besides, every kindergarten emphasizes the development of self-esteem among children. This is the process of helping children be confident in their ability to tackle the challenges of learning. From the observations, student works have created an inexpensive and powerful decoration for the classroom. It gives them a sense of pride and accomplishment.

Furthermore, every kindergarten provides a combination of formal and informal activities for children. Teachers designed different teaching techniques to engage children in active learning. Teachers keep their teaching style lively by using the link and think methodology. It is a useful method in learning and teaching. This methodology helps children to learn and experience new things hands-on and mind. It provides children with an opportunity to learn and practice the essential social, emotional, problem-solving, and study skills that they will use throughout their schooling. Then, they have their own multimedia program as a guideline for the teacher to use for teaching purposes.

Next, the principal and the teachers in every kindergarten are having a positive relationship with young children. They establish a caring and loving atmosphere and provide emotional support to children. From the observations, teachers listen actively to children and provide positive nonverbal communication such as smiling and making eye contact with them.

Besides that, family members are welcomed into the educational program. Information about each child’s progress is routinely shared with parents after the observation for assessment. The kindergarten organized different types of activities that involve parents so that they can actively contribute to the educational goals of their children. Teachers are able to have respectful and collaborative relationships among staff and parents.

Moreover, the kindergarten has the awareness of the importance of safety and cleanliness among children. Fire safety measures should be adequate in kindergarten be prepared proper fire exit plans for children. Regular hand washing is a standard procedure for most classrooms. They also prepared instant hand sanitizer for children to use.

Children spend a lot of time on the floor and it is also a prime spot for safety hazards to arise. From the observations, toys are not kept orderly from one of the playing corners in every kindergarten. A messy playroom makes children hard to find a spot to play and choose a toy to play with since there are too many interesting choices. It also provides a great deal of danger to children. Injuries to the eye, mouth, arms, or legs could happen anytime depending on the toy and the possibilities.

Children are messy creatures but there are ways to encourage children to clean up. In order to make it better, early childhood educators should be role models. They can show children that they value the toys and the environment by packing up and cleaning up the mess together. Make it a habit and routine to clean up together with children.

When all children reach a certain age, and they are no longer so dependent on their parents, it is normal to consider whether you want to send your child to a kindergarten or not. This is an option now widely available in many countries and has many benefits for both the child and the mother and father. Many parents choose to send their child to kindergarten for the supposed benefits it will bring in terms of enhanced learning ability and social skills. In fact, this is one of the main reasons that parents make this decision, believing often quite rightly that teachers who work in kindergarten often know effective ways of helping their child advance and develop more quickly. Having said all that, let’s now talk about magical kindergarten. There is a kindergarten for magical learning just as there is a kindergarten for public school. In every form of learning, you must master the basics before you can move on to more advanced techniques In kindergarten the most primary programs are designed to take children with a variety of social, emotional, and academic needs and work with them based on their strengths.

However we also know that children who start kindergarten with a good grounding in six skill areas have a head start and a higher success rate than children lacking these basic skills. The skills that ease transition into kindergarten and help lead to a successful kindergarten year fall into these basic areas: cognitive skills, listening and sequencing, language skills, fine motor skills, social emotional skills, and gross motor skills. Listening and sequencing are also important skills and this includes the ability to follow simple directions, paying attention, retelling a simple story in sequence, repeating a sequence of sounds, and repeating a sequence of numbers. In addition to the emergent literacy skills connected with cognitive skills, there are also language skills connected to relationships such as big and little, short and tall, more and less, up and down, top and bottom, in and out, over and under, front and back, and slow and fast. If your child has all these skills mastered then they are well on the road to success in kindergarten. Don’t worry if your child has not yet achieved success with all these skills. You can continue to work on the skills right up until the start of school and certainly after school has started you can team with your child’s teacher.

If you’re a kindergarten-going child, you probably know that the beginning of this school year is anything but sweet. It’s not uncommon for kindergarten teacher to share their experiences of nervous and excited parents walking through the door. For the kids, it’s the start of the new adventure of formal learning, and everyone involved including teachers and parents alike wants to get it perfect, or at least most of it. There is an unwritten rule that kindergarten teachers are expected to be fun, structured, disciplined, and full of compassion. Kindergarten teachers are passionate about what they do and they’re honored to be a part of every student’s educational journey. But underneath that steady, comforting smile, most parents are in a state of oblivion about some things that teachers have.

This article sheds light on some of the things every parent should know about kindergarten teachers. Let’s get started:

They Know What They Are Doing – To parents, kindergarten may look like child’s play, but without a bachelor’s degree, you can’t be a kindergarten teacher. Some teachers hold a master’s degree and above, and that number is soaring. Kindergarten teachers have a very particular skill set which they’ve acquired over years of training and teaching. There are certain times when teachers are unable to meet what they want with their own resources, and they reach out to the experts for assistance. To help the student learn more effectively it is common for teachers to tailor their instructions and teaching methods. The point is kindergarten teachers are experts in their fields and they all want the same thing the parents want: the best for the child.

Your Child Is Listening – This is something most of us seem to know all too well but ignore. Your child listens to everything you say and they observe everything happening around them. Whether you’re arguing with your spouse, the profanities you’re uttering, the gory scenes of the horror flick you’re watching, and so. Be rest assured that your kids have seen and heard it all and won’t be reluctant to share it especially when their teacher is reading a story about a magical unicorn saving a princess and how they lived happily ever after. So, to benefit the child’s teacher and their peers, and most importantly, for the good of the kids, be extremely careful of what is happening in their environment.

Don’t Judge Us And We Promise We’ll Do The Same – Kindergartners are amazing storytellers. When they tell a story, they don’t always every detail, so they blissfully fill in with their own details. This happens in the classroom. Your sweetheart will gladly share everything that has happened in the classroom and about us as well. Not everything is right, of course. So let’s make a promise: do not judge us for the occasional disruptions in the classroom, and we’ll promise not to judge you when your kid tells us about the creative language you said when the driver cut you off when driving home last night. Deal?

Your Child Is Not Perfect – Five-year-olds are perfect. They’re strange beings, and yes, they’re supposed to act that way. They’ll eat crayons, lick their friends, and forget to go to the toilet. They’ll shout, throw tantrums, hit other kids, and say mean things. Sure, this doesn’t mean the world will end tomorrow, but it is imperative to acknowledge that these things are not okay. So, if your child did something that isn’t “okay”, please don’t call and apologize every time. Kindergarten is about learning and getting acquainted with new things and, at certain times, the kids do things that don’t work out. When your kid is stuck with some “retribution” at school, by no means, we have done it because their teacher isn’t fond of them or loves them any less. If your child steps out of line, we promise we aren’t judging your parenting skills. Our goal for your child is to learn to be the best they can be and if that leads to them some mistakes along their way, be it.

We Are All In This Together – Let’s be honest: When we discipline your kid, by no means we are attacking them. When we are advising you about something, don’t assume we are judging you. Teachers love to teach and love your children. We aren’t exaggerating when we say that we plan the whole summer to make the school year fun and enjoyable for the kids we haven’t met yet. We miss the children that have stolen our hearts. We won’t forget the kids that have moved somewhere else and we will love them forever. It is true that the love and compassion we have for your kids is incomparable to the parents have for their own kids, but never question for a moment that we don’t have a special place in our hearts for your kids. And last but not the least, we will dream for, make plans, and strive for what’s best and right for every child in our classroom every year.

Project STAR covers kindergarten to third-grade pupils in 80 Tennessee schools launched in the 1985/86 school year. Boyd-Zaharias (1999) emphasizes that all schools in Tennessee, which were able to provide a minimum of one of each of the three different treatment classes, more specifically small (13-17 pupils), regular (22-25 pupils) and regular with a teaching aide (22-25 pupils), were asked to take part in the project to guarantee an unmatched sample. As well as to ensure that students from different backgrounds are included through different types of schools, e.g. rural and inner-city institutions. Participating schools randomly allocated their students and teachers to one of the class types. To compare and analyze the outcome of each Project STAR participant, standardized tests were used, and which results are presented in percentile ranks.

This paper utilizes parts of the data set used by Krueger (1999), more precisely an identifier, a student and teacher background dataset, which were merged into one big dataset. As the project ran over four years and observed the same participating students over this period, the data is presented in a panel format. However, due to the dropouts of pupils and entries of new students during the observation period, it is an unbalanced panel. Fluctuations in the student body of the participating schools create certain limitations and challenges regarding the process of random distribution which led to a large number of missing values as some students were randomized in kindergarten, while others in first grade. Nevertheless, a drop of the missing values would limit the overall effect, so they are included in the following estimations. Krueger (1999) underscores that it should be remembered that kindergarten attendance was optional in Tennessee, which results in a rising number of new STAR participants in first grade. In total, the dataset contains 11,598 observations, i.e. pupils and originally 34 variables. Table 1 shows the means of pupils’ characteristics by treatment status, i.e. assignment to a small, regular or regular aide class in kindergarten and first grade for a student’s first year of participation in the project. An observation of only new STAR participants accounts for the disproportional addition of new students into the experiment over time and thus, will be used in some of the following estimations to control for randomness following Krueger (1999). The means are consistent with Krueger’s (1999) results. In the case of free lunch, the White/Asian, attrition rate and actual class size are almost identical. Here, receiving free lunch is a dummy indicator for the socio-economic status of the pupil’s family, thus their parent’s income, while White/Asian refers to the racial mix in the classes. Angrist and Pischke (2009) point out that the attrition rate relates to the share of pupils leaving the project at one point before finishing third grade. It should generally be noted that kindergarten outcomes are more credible than first-grade outcomes as they do not include the attrition rate problem and are mainly unaffected by the randomization problem. The characteristics of a pupil’s age in 1985 and their average test score in the underlying grade show some differences in comparison to Krueger (1999). This can be explained by the incomplete data used in this paper and the different composition of variables. While Krueger (1999) calculates the age of the students by using values quarterly, this paper calculates them on a yearly basis. Further, the average achieved test scores show slight discrepancies because Krueger (1999) uses the average of three subjects of the “Stanford Achievement Test “(SAT), namely maths, reading and word recognition, while this paper takes the average of the maths and reading SAT only.

Figure 1 illustrates the distribution of the pupils’ average percentile scores for kindergarten and first grade in a kernel density graph for the treatment statuses small and regular without a teaching aide. It is striking that students in smaller-sized classes achieve on average higher test scores in both grades. Beyond that, a comparison of the two grades shows that pupils who joined project STAR in kindergarten generally perform better than the ones joining in the following grade. As a reason for this, Krueger (1999) proposes that there is a high chance of better-performing pupils going to kindergarten in contrast to weaker students traced back to the non-compulsory kindergarten attendance in Texas at the time, similar to weaker-performing students unproportionally added to the sample at a later point.

Figure 1: Density Graph – Distribution of the average math and reading percentile test score

In addition, Table 1 provides the first insights into the successfulness of the desired randomized class assignment and distinctions in class sizes. A full understanding of the presence of an effective randomization process with balanced treatment groups is, according to Angrist and Pischke (2009), usually done by comparing pre-treatment results with treatment results. As project STAR does not include such pre-treatment outcomes, Krueger (1999) examines the question by comparing variables of the three class size groups in means and p-values of F-Tests of equality. Firstly, small classes had an average of 15.4 students in kindergarten and 15.88 students in first grade compared to over 22 in regular-sized classes. This shows that Project STAR was able to create the wanted differences in treatment status. Secondly, the similar values of the means across treatment status in both grades, e.g. White/Asian with a mean of 0.68 in small and regular and a mean of 0.66 in regular aide classes in kindergarten suggest that the random allocation of students turned out to be successful. The joint p-values in the last column of Table 1 support this statement partly as they indicate that there are no significant differences in means of the pupils’ background characteristics in kindergarten, for example, a joint p-value of 0.45 for age. Even though the means of the student background in the first-grade show only slight variances, some of them are statistically significant, e.g. the racial mix dummy variable White/Asian with a joint p-value of 0.00. This might be the result of a random assignment within schools only and not over the whole sample. To investigate random assignment within schools, Table 2 shows differences among treatment groups through the p-values of students’ background and school variables conditional on the school of attendance. The p-values of the students’ background variables with values between 0.28 and 0.45 in kindergarten, respectively 0.12-0.33 in first grade allow rejection of a statistically significant link between those values and the assigned class size at the 10 percent level. This leads to the conclusion that the method of randomly assigning students within schools led on average to balanced treatment groups. THE MODEL AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION

The subsequent model (1) following Krueger (1999) and Schanzenbach (2007) shows the superiority of randomized experiments on the effect of class size on student performance:

Y_ij=〖aS〗_(ij )+ 〖bF〗_ij+ ε_ij (1)

where Y_ij represents the average score of student i in school j, while S_(ij )and F_ijabsorb school, respectively family background effects and ε_ij is a well-behaved error term. Schanzenbach (2007) explains that S_(ij )and F_ij cover information about a student’s life that might be hidden to the researcher, but which possibly have an influence on the variables in the model. Thereby, Schanzenbach (2007) demonstrates that a randomized trial prevents a relation between treatment status and omitted characteristics. Krueger (1999) concludes that this allows an unbiased estimation. To estimate the empirical effect of class size assignment on student performances in the underlying year the subsequent model (2) following Krueger (1999) was used:

Y_ics=β_0+β_1 〖Small〗_cs+β_2 〖REGAIDE〗_cs+β_3 X_ics+a_s+ε_ics (2)

where Y_ics denotes the average test score of pupil i in class c at school s. 〖Small〗_cs and 〖REGAIDE〗_cs are dummy variables reporting small and regular aide class assignments, while X_ics is a vector including student characteristics. a_s captures school effects to control for treatment effects within schools, along with the error term ε_ics which is again assumed to be independent and identically distributed. Firstly, a simple “least-squares”-estimation (OLS) was conducted based on treatment status only, followed by regressions including school-fixed effects and students’ characteristics.

Estimation and analysis

Table 3 displays the regression results. In all estimations across grades and methods, a small class assignment has a greater effect on average test score performance than a regular aide class assignment and reveals statistical significance. Column 1 displays the simple OLS regression without controlling for school effects. The estimation output shows that assignment to a small-sized class improves average test scores ceteris paribus by almost 5 percentage points compared to students in regular-sized classes with an extra teaching aide in kindergarten, respectively 8.5 percentile points in first grade. Additionally, it is noteworthy that assignment to a regular-sized class with an aide shows a negative coefficient in the regression for kindergarten but is statistically insignificant with a p-value of 0.84. An integration of school fixed effects (column 2), only changes the coefficient of the treatment groups to a small extent, more precisely decreases the effect. Krueger (1999) suggests that this is a good indicator for random assignment. Angrist and Pischke (2009) add that this being the case, it is possible to say that the problem of selection on observables dissolves, as the treatment groups and the dependent variable are independent but highlight the presence of causal inference since observed and unobserved factors are well-balanced. The model’s explanatory capacity increases even further through the integration of the background variables. Column 3 shows the estimation results for the regression including student background characteristics and school-fixed effects. Again, the effect of a small class is greater than the regular size treatment with an improvement of percentile test scores of 4.84 percentage points in kindergarten and 6.81 percentage points in first grade. The assignment to a regular aide class is in both grades statistically insignificant. In the two observation periods, the additional covariates decrease the coefficients of the treatment group small but increase the coefficient of regular with an aide. Receiving free lunch lowers average test scores in the observed grades c.p. by more than 10 percentile points compared to those not applicable for full or partly free lunch. Furthermore, free lunch may not only indicate the income of a student’s parents but reflect how much parents foster their child’s educational success. The predicted average score in first grade for White and Asian pupils is c.p. 7 percentile points higher than for Black and Hispanic students, while it is 6.1 percentile points higher in kindergarten. The gender dummy points out that girls perform c.p. 5.63 percentage points higher than boys in kindergarten, whereas the gap between girls and boys in first grade is c.p. 4.45 percentage points. All in all, the regressions demonstrate a greater influence of small class assignments on the average test performance of students than of regular aide assignments, which is consistent with Krueger’s (1999) results. Moreover, the effect of assignment to a regular-sized class with a teaching aide seems to be statistically insignificant. In the regressions above the usage of the OLS and Fixed Effects Model was justified with the random assignment within schools. However, there might be a correlation within the different classes due to a common environment of the students, more precisely getting taught by the same teacher or rather mutual background characteristics like age and being former classmates. Teaching methods and teaching experience of the teacher, for example, have an influence on the learning of students and thus their educational success. This would no longer allow the assumption of a well-behaved error term within the classes, but just across clusters, i.e. schools. Angrist and Pischke (2009) propose to cluster the standard errors to account for the absence of an independently and identically distributed error term. This is of great importance as standard errors specify the precision of estimation. Table 4 shows the same estimations as Table 3 with average test score as the dependent variable and class size as explanatory variables, but with clustered standard errors on class ID for both grades. As expected, the clustered standard errors for small and regular with aide dummies are in both grades higher in comparison to Table 3, for instance, the standard error of a small class for kindergarten without clusters is 0.319 while it is 2.257 taking the correlation within classes into account. Since clustering tolerates correlation within classes, the confidence intervals widen up and thus result in a higher standard error. An additional complication to the above-presented estimations constitutes in the change of treatment group after kindergarten and non-random movements within the observation period. Under these circumstances, it is of interest to see if the initial assignment to a small class, is a good forecast for an actual assignment to a small class in first grade. The estimation output in Table 5 shows that if a pupil was assigned to a small class in kindergarten, he or she was reassigned to a small class in first grade on average by 0.84 percentage points. A high R-squared of 0.68 and a low standard error of 0.009 indicate a high explanatory power of the initial assignment for future assignments. That is to say, that assignment to a small class in kindergarten is a good indicator for future small class size treatment. This outcome allows us to carry out of a “Two-Stages-Least-Squares”-estimation, not only including instrumental variables but also clustered standard errors. Thereby, the initial small class assignment in kindergarten is used as an instrument to explain small class treatment in first grade because it cannot be ruled out that there is no correlation between the error term and the latter, as well as to account for the non-random movements. Krueger (1999) and Schanzenbach (2007) refer this to an “Intent-to-treat setup”. Table 6 presents the output of the estimation on average percentile test scores in first grade for students only who joined Project STAR in kindergarten. Column (1) illustrates the Instrumental Variables-2SLS regression with an only a small class assignment as an additional explanatory variable, while column (2) adds student characteristics. Consistent with the foregone results, students assigned to small classes in first grade perform c.p. over 6 percentile points higher than the ones not receiving a small class treatment. Furthermore, the student background variables are corresponding to the ones presented in Table 3. Additionally, in line with Table 4, the standard errors are higher than in Table 3. Therefore, it is possible to say that non-random transitions did not limit the project outcome.