Whole-day versus half-day kindergarten programme impact in Hong Kong : a longitudinal study of educators' and parents' perceptions, and child outcomes

Abstract

The debate on whether the whole-day or half-day kindergarten programme is more favourable to children has been raging for years, yet no consensus has been reached. The inconclusive research findings have led the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) government to primarily subsidise the half-day programme when launching the Free Quality Kindergarten Education Scheme in 2017, leaving the whole-day programme under-subsidised and under-supplied. Despite widespread public appeal for universalising the whole-day programme, the government maintains that the half-day programme is more ‘adequate and appropriate’ for children, as it fosters a home-school balance. This mismatch between public policy and societal needs had prompted this multi-perspective longitudinal research to comprehensively investigate the whole-day and half-day programmes’ relative impacts on three major stakeholders—educators, parents, and children—to inform policy and practice with culturally relevant empirical data. Study 1 examined the perceptions of educators regarding the ‘value-addedness’ of the whole-day versus half-day programme and how their professional insights could inform parents’ programme selection, using a one-year longitudinal mixed-method design. The principals and teachers (N = 180) completed a questionnaire at the end of the first year of kindergarten (K1), 30 of whom were then interviewed at the end of the second year of kindergarten (K2). The findings revealed that the whole-day programme incorporated structural, curricular, pedagogical, and childcare advantages, but allowed for less parent-child quality time and had higher school fees. Educators believe there is no ‘best’ programme, just a best ‘fit.’ Programme selection should reflect the needs and interests of families and children, while ensuring that children receive quality learning opportunities and enjoy adequate parental involvement. The whole-day programme is suitable for socioeconomically disadvantaged families with limited childcare resources and a less stimulating home environment. The half-day programme, on the other hand, is suitable for more socioeconomically advantaged families that can offer their children adequate childcare and learning resources. Study 2 explored the relation between parental preferences, needs, and decision-making regarding the whole-day versus half-day programme, using a one-year longitudinal design. Three hundred parents were surveyed at the end of K1 and again at the end of K2. The results showed that parents were aware of the distinctive qualities of the two programmes and their programme selection revealed an effortful quest for an optimal home-work-life balance. Three parent profiles—the Slightest Needs, the Moderate Needs, and the Urgent Needs—were identified, differentiated by parents’ education and occupation, monthly household income, and ownership of residence. Parental programme decisions shifted from being socioeconomic-oriented to being education-related. The results imply a problematic ‘either-or’ thinking rationale; parents do not need the ‘best’ programme but the best ‘fit.’ Policy improvement initiatives are urged to cater to evolving societal, familial, and educational dynamics, based on the 4As approach—allocation, affordability, availability, and accessibility. Lastly, Study 3 assessed the impacts of the whole-day versus half-day programme and socioeconomic status on children, using a two-year causal-comparative longitudinal design. A total of 364 children were assessed twice a year for two years, using culturally reliable and valid tools. The results showed that: (1) propensity score matching indicated similarities in socioeconomic factors between the two cohorts; (2) the whole-day programme improved children’s academic (language and cognitive) and physical (balancing and fine motor) skills longitudinally; and, (3) socioeconomic factors, such as parents’ education, maternal occupation, monthly household income, and the presence of domestic help were related slightly to certain academic, social, emotional, and physical outcomes. This study supports the HKSAR government in continuing the half-day-based subsidy; however, given the additional merits of whole-day participation, the 4As approach is recommended for fortifying the policies surrounding the whole-day programme.