View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Moving beyond Point in Time Estimates: Using Growth Models to Understand When PreK Convergence Happens, How, and for Which Skills

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Moving beyond Point in Time Estimates: Using Growth Models to Understand When PreK Convergence Happens, How, and for Which Skills
Language: English
Authors: Meghan McCormick (ORCID 0009-0009-5774-7395), Emily Hanno (ORCID 0000-0002-9136-4293), Christina Weiland, Tiffany Wu, Mirjana Pralica, JoAnn Hsueh, Alexandra Giles, Catherine Snow, Jason Sachs
Source: Child Development. 2025 96(4):1354-1372.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 19
Publication Date: 2025
Sponsoring Agency: Institute of Education Sciences (ED)
Contract Number: R305N160018
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Elementary Education
Kindergarten
Primary Education
Grade 1
Descriptors: Enrollment, Preschool Children, Kindergarten, Young Children, Academic Ability, Executive Function, Interpersonal Competence, Social Development, Emotional Development, Grade 1, Language Skills, Mathematics Skills
DOI: 10.1111/cdev.14240
ISSN: 0009-3920
1467-8624
Abstract: This study examines associations between enrollment in high-quality PreK and growth in children's (N = 422; M[subscript age] = 5.63 years; 47% female; 15% Asian, 19% Black, 30% White, 31% Hispanic; 5% other or mixed race) academic, executive functioning, and social-emotional skills across kindergarten (2017-2018) and first grade (2018-2019). Associations between PreK enrollment and language and math skills were sustained through first grade. More convergence between PreK enrollees and non-enrollees in language skills occurred during first grade than kindergarten. Convergence patterns were stronger in math during kindergarten than in first grade. There were no associations between PreK enrollment and executive functioning by spring of first grade; most convergence occurred in first grade. All other associations were null by first grade.
Abstractor: As Provided
IES Funded: Yes
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1475573
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF-KbxjgWCJ65QzIGm-Piz2AAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDOUAJ3eIUcPnJDLK5AIBEICBmkDUlNw6prB1WpFYy-vpdvmML0lEDHmFJ6yyngBnUFIYpTXNEgL1_k7nkVZ8kB4DYYOIQC1au2rTjSW5f88Dw7StSwgjyAfU3Q5GXboi1RuB039jECpz3-INTOSVIOM9SgFqAfxXsEFzPeB29dFOU7aGbHJN7dKL9D0QrMZ578j7ghqRZzlQ4U9baCIXk0eHgivSN-XT85xDNiU=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186282409;cdv01jul.25;2025Jul02.02:52;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186282409-1">Moving Beyond Point in Time Estimates: Using Growth Models to Understand When PreK Convergence Happens, How, and for Which Skills </title> <p>This study examines associations between enrollment in high‐quality PreK and growth in children's (N = 422; Mage = 5.63 years; 47% female; 15% Asian, 19% Black, 30% White, 31% Hispanic; 5% other or mixed race) academic, executive functioning, and social–emotional skills across kindergarten (2017–2018) and first grade (2018–2019). Associations between PreK enrollment and language and math skills were sustained through first grade. More convergence between PreK enrollees and non‐enrollees in language skills occurred during first grade than kindergarten. Convergence patterns were stronger in math during kindergarten than in first grade. There were no associations between PreK enrollment and executive functioning by spring of first grade; most convergence occurred in first grade. All other associations were null by first grade.</p> <p>Keywords: convergence; fadeout; growth; outcomes; PreK</p> <p>An expanding number of American children and families—over 2 million in 2021—rely on publicly funded PreK programs for safe and affordable child care and to strengthen children's learning and development (Chaudry et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref1">17</reflink>]; Friedman‐Krauss et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref2">28</reflink>]). Support for continued expansion of these programs is rooted in evidence that contemporary, scaled PreK programs (typically focused on 4‐year‐olds but increasingly extending to 3‐year‐olds) can boost children's academic, executive functioning (EF), and social–emotional skills (SE) at the start of elementary school. However, the evidence is mixed on whether these initial impacts endure beyond kindergarten entry. Several studies have documented a phenomenon widely described as "fadeout" or "convergence" wherein the initial differences between the skills of children who do and do not enroll in PreK diminish rapidly (e.g., Hill et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref3">39</reflink>]; Lipsey et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref4">42</reflink>]). The field of early childhood research continues to grapple with why this pattern happens and how to make better investments in early learning that support enduring impacts.</p> <p>An increasingly popular hypothesis to explain fadeout and convergence theorizes that only impacts on <emph>certain types of skills</emph> are likely to endure (Bailey et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref5">4</reflink>]; Rittle‐Johnson and Schneider [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref6">59</reflink>]; Snow and Matthews [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref7">64</reflink>]). This work theorizes that there are likely certain skills that early learning programs affect in the longer term, but these skills typically are not captured in most PreK evaluations because they are often more difficult to directly teach and measure (Johnson et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref8">40</reflink>]). Relatedly, certain PreK programs—because they vary in their focus of instruction—may not target the types of skills most likely to promote enduring effects. In line with these theories, there is a growing evidence base—conducted across distinct programs and sites—examining how PreK fadeout and convergence patterns differ by program instructional content and the skills that are targeted and measured (e.g., Ansari et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref9">2</reflink>]; Burchinal et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref10">12</reflink>]; Johnson et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref11">40</reflink>]; McCormick et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref12">49</reflink>]). However, few studies consider outcomes across academic and non‐academic domains in parallel. And most of the literature (excepting recent work by Burchinal et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref13">12</reflink>]; Burchinal et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref14">13</reflink>]; Carr et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref15">16</reflink>]) considering skill domains in tandem has examined <emph>point‐in‐time differences</emph> between students who do and do not enroll in a given PreK program. This approach does not account for the <emph>development</emph> of these skills over time, making it challenging to determine when convergence patterns are most salient.</p> <p>To address these gaps, the current study considers when, how, and for which skills PreK convergence occurs in one high‐quality example—the Boston Public Schools prekindergarten program (BPS PreK). Specifically, we simultaneously estimate point‐in‐time differences in academic, EF, and SE skills between PreK enrollees and non‐enrollees at the start and end of kindergarten and end of first grade and consider <emph>growth trajectories</emph> for both groups across distinct time periods using a piecewise approach. Doing so allows us to compare patterns across outcomes, explore when fadeout or convergence occurs, and determine the specific types of skills for which PreK benefits are most likely to persist. We conduct this study in the context of the BPS PreK program—a model that targets this full range of skills (Weiland and Yoshikawa [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref16">69</reflink>]). Findings shed light on developmental processes during PreK and beyond, with implications for strengthening educational investments.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-2">PreK Enrollment and Children's Development Through Early Elementary School</hd> <p>Children develop and grow through interactions within their proximal learning environments (Bronfenbrenner and Morris [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref17">11</reflink>]). PreK programs—which can be funded by federal, state, and local governments, private entities, or by parents—are designed to be interaction‐rich contexts that allow young children to connect with peers and non‐familial adults, while engaging in cognitively stimulating activities (Hanno, Jones et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref18">34</reflink>]). Although these programs tend to boost children's skills in the short term (Phillips et al. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref19">54</reflink>]), the literature on the <emph>persistence</emph> of PreK effects is more inconsistent. Evidence from a small set of now decades‐old studies demonstrates impressive impacts on long‐term outcomes like educational attainment and employment (Campbell et al. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref20">14</reflink>]). Yet, work on contemporary scaled PreK programs typically finds initial differences between enrollees and non‐enrollees at kindergarten entry that shrink quickly (e.g., Ansari et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref21">2</reflink>]; Bassok et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref22">8</reflink>]; Bingham et al. [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref23">10</reflink>]; Hill et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref24">39</reflink>]; Little [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref25">45</reflink>]) with some (e.g., Bassok et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref26">8</reflink>]; Hill et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref27">39</reflink>]) finding no lasting differences by third grade. Key exceptions to that trend, however, include recent work by Johnson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref28">40</reflink>]) and Barnett and Jung ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref29">6</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-3">Fadeout or Convergence? Building Evidence on How and When Skills Develop</hd> <p>This phenomenon of diminishing differences in the skills of PreK enrollees and non‐enrollees has widely been labeled "fadeout" (Bailey et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref30">4</reflink>]). This framing, however, may misrepresent the actual pattern in observed skills between the two groups. Fadeout implies that there are declines in the development of PreK enrollees over time, wherein attenders grow rapidly during PreK, but then their rate of development declines in elementary school and their abilities regress (Abenavoli [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref31">1</reflink>]). This conceptualization ignores the role that the development of non‐enrollees might play in explaining observed differences. Due to having less exposure to instructional content and a classroom‐based environment before kindergarten, these children may simply experience faster growth in certain skills when they are initially exposed to this content and context, an alternative developmental process described as "catch up" (Barnett [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref32">5</reflink>]). Under this scenario, PreK enrollees might learn basic math skills like counting and number identification during kindergarten, maintaining what they have already learned. Researchers in the field have proposed "convergence" to describe this phenomenon because it reflects declines in PreK enrollees' development <emph>and</emph> increases in non‐enrollees' growth.</p> <p>Despite widespread calls to understand the developmental processes that result in fade out or convergence (Phillips et al. [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref33">54</reflink>]), there are two key reasons why many studies are unable to shed light on why these patterns occur. First, studies are often unable to estimate an initial impact immediately after the PreK program (an initial observed difference to later fadeout or converge) and then measure that same outcome across multiple subsequent occasions. Indeed, there are numerous studies that estimate initial effects of PreK (Ansari and Winsler [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref34">3</reflink>]; Nores and Jung [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref35">51</reflink>]; Weiland and Yoshikawa [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref36">69</reflink>]) or longer term outcomes (Gormley et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref37">30</reflink>]; Hill et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref38">39</reflink>]; Johnson et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref39">40</reflink>]), but that lack longitudinal data to examine development. A second challenge is that even when studies do have multiple, sequential years of comparable outcome data, they often employ analyses that estimate point‐in‐time group‐based differences, rather than considering growth rates (Barnett and Jung [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref40">6</reflink>]; Bassok et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref41">8</reflink>]; Johnson et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref42">40</reflink>]). For example, in the most recent work on Boston PreK (Moffett et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref43">50</reflink>]), authors estimated group‐based differences in fall and spring separately for a similar number of outcomes. Although this approach offers insights into the differences between the skills of PreK enrollees and non‐enrollees at each time point, it does not illuminate whether changes in skills differ across grades and groups. Having this information is central to describing the nature of children's gains and determining whether we observe the patterns of fadeout or convergence.</p> <p>Growth models that explicitly examine developmental processes can directly address these challenges. This approach can simultaneously estimate differences in levels and growth rates over time for PreK enrollees and non‐enrollees. It further allows for comparison of growth rates across distinct developmental periods. Recent work suggests that significant convergence in literacy skills occurs during kindergarten (Weiland et al. [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref44">68</reflink>]). However, in the absence of information about growth rates for PreK enrollees and non‐enrollees in kindergarten and in subsequent grades, it is unclear the extent to which convergence occurs across years for a broader range of skills. While previous studies have utilized growth modeling to understand phenomena such as "summer slide," few studies have applied a growth modeling approach to shed light on trends related to PreK fadeout or convergence. A recent exception is a study by Carr et al. ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref45">16</reflink>]) that used growth modeling to examine literacy development among kindergartens who did and did not attend North Carolina's NC Pre‐K program. The present study builds on this approach by taking a more comprehensive look across child outcomes and across multiple grade levels.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-4">Skill Type and PreK Fadeout and Convergence</hd> <p>In addition to understanding when and how convergence or fadeout occur, there is an increasing emphasis on understanding why these patterns occur (Abenavoli [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref46">1</reflink>]; McCormick et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref47">48</reflink>]). As noted earlier, an increasingly popular hypothesis is that the rate and extent of PreK convergence may depend on skill type, with certain skills being less likely to converge quickly than others. Specifically, Bailey et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref48">4</reflink>]) coined the term "trifecta skills" to describe the types of skills that PreK is likely to have enduring effects on. These skills are (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref49">1</reflink>) malleable to intervention; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref50">2</reflink>) fundamental for later outcomes; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref51">3</reflink>) unlikely to have otherwise developed in the absence of intervention. Vocabulary could be considered a "trifecta" skill because early interventions offering language‐rich environments can boost children's receptive and expressive vocabulary (malleable; Puma et al. [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref52">56</reflink>]; Wong et al. [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref53">70</reflink>]); early vocabulary skills lay the foundation for future language and literacy skills (fundamental; Hemphill and Tivnan [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref54">37</reflink>]); and because vocabulary is something that cannot be quickly or easily taught, it is perhaps unlikely that children who do not experience a high‐quality language environment via a PreK program will be able to develop the vocabulary skills they miss out on (not likely to develop in the absence of the intervention). In contrast, alphabet knowledge would not be a trifecta skill because although it can be directly taught (malleable) and is critical for future literacy development (fundamental), it is likely that children who do not enroll in PreK will master basic alphabet knowledge through other experiences (at home or in later schooling).</p> <p>More recently, the early childhood field has drawn on the constrained skill theory—developed by Paris ([<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref55">52</reflink>]) and built on by Snow and Matthews ([<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref56">64</reflink>]) in relation to early language and literacy intervention—to consider how other dimensions of skill type affect PreK fadeout and convergence (Johnson et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref57">40</reflink>]; McCormick et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref58">49</reflink>]). In this conceptualization, academic and cognitive skills exist on a continuum running from more constrained to more unconstrained. (Note that other non‐academic skills like EF and SE skills have not been discussed in relation to constrained skill theory so this earlier work only applies to academic outcomes at this time.) More unconstrained skills are those that continue to develop over the course of the lifespan and can never fully be mastered (Paris [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref59">52</reflink>]). They are often harder to assess and directly change, as compared to constrained skills. More constrained skills are those that have a ceiling and are likely to be fully mastered. It is often the case that trifecta skills tend to be more unconstrained. For example, vocabulary—typically measured by an assessment like the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (Dunn and Dunn [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref60">25</reflink>])—could be considered a more unconstrained skill that develops over the life course, as there are always more words to know. In contrast, alphabet knowledge and recognition of sight words—which could be measured in part with an assessment like the Woodcock Johnson Letter Word ID subtest (Woodcock et al. [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref61">71</reflink>])—can be considered more discrete, constrained skills that can be directly taught and mastered in English when children know all 26 letters and can recognize a targeted set of sight words.</p> <p>When considering the lasting effects of PreK, the benefits may be more likely to persist across time if programs target skills that are "trifecta" and more unconstrained, in addition to foundational and more constrained skills. Several recent studies of PreK programs have adopted a deeper measurement approach and found some evidence for this pattern (Ansari et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref62">2</reflink>]; Burchinal et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref63">12</reflink>]; Johnson et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref64">40</reflink>]; McCormick et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref65">49</reflink>]). A brief published by the IES‐funded Early Learning Network reported that across studies done in Virginia, Boston, North Carolina, and Ohio, PreK programs were more likely to have lasting effects on outcomes like vocabulary (more unconstrained) through the end of kindergarten as opposed to foundational literacy skills (more constrained) (Pianta et al. [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref66">55</reflink>]). Yet, there is certainly more to learn on this skill type hypothesis given other work demonstrating mixed results. A recent study of the Tulsa PreK program found that there were lasting benefits through the end of first grade on certain constrained (phonological awareness) and unconstrained (sentence structure) skills but also no lasting effects on other constrained (letter word identification) and unconstrained (vocabulary) skills (Johnson et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref67">40</reflink>]). Continuing to explore skill type—taking developmental processes into account—can help move this discourse forward (Ansari et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref68">2</reflink>]; Burchinal et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref69">12</reflink>]; Johnson et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref70">40</reflink>]; McCormick et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref71">49</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-5">Expanding the Focus on Skill Type to Non‐Academic Domains</hd> <p>Much of the empirical and theoretical work on this topic has focused on academic outcomes. Several studies of PreK programs, however, have explored effects on non‐academic skills, with an understanding that early education interventions target foundational cognitive, social, and emotional skills (Ansari et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref72">2</reflink>]; Burchinal et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref73">12</reflink>]; Johnson et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref74">40</reflink>]). The evidence base on the benefits of PreK in these domains is more mixed than work on academic impacts, finding that PreK programs may not even boost these skills in the short term. Moreover, behavioral regulation, task engagement, and SE skills are often key targets in kindergarten (Engel et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref75">27</reflink>]). If students who enroll in PreK start kindergarten performing better than non‐enrollees in these areas, it is likely that the non‐enrollees will quickly develop them after being exposed to daily routines—and behavioral supports—in kindergarten.</p> <p>Others have argued that these types of skills may be key mechanisms linking PreK enrollment to outcomes into adulthood (Heckman et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref76">36</reflink>]). This theory suggests that PreK programs support skills like foundational motivation, in‐school behaviors, and task engagement in middle childhood, in turn setting students up for longer term success not necessarily on things like test scores but on the academic behaviors associated with positive adult outcomes like taking the SAT, graduating from high school, and enrolling in college (Gray‐Lobe et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref77">31</reflink>]; Moffett et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref78">50</reflink>]). To date, however, there is limited empirical evidence for this theory, with most recent studies finding full convergence on behaviors and SE skills by the end of kindergarten (Ansari et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref79">2</reflink>]; Burchinal et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref80">13</reflink>]). Even so, it is possible that the benefits of PreK on these domains could emerge later or that earlier studies have not fully measured the right skills at the right times with sensitive enough measures.</p> <p>Uniquely, EF, which includes inhibitory control, cognitive demand, and working memory, demonstrates some PreK benefits as children move through elementary school. Ansari et al. ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref81">2</reflink>]) studied a large public PreK program and found lasting positive associations for EF through the end of kindergarten but not behavioral or SE skills. It is also possible that EF skills do not operate in the same "fadeout and convergence" pattern typically observed for academic skills. Moffet et al. ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref82">50</reflink>]) found no association between BPS PreK and children's EF at the start of kindergarten. However, there were positive, statistically significant associations for cognitive flexibility and working memory at the end of kindergarten. An evaluation of the Building Blocks PreK math curriculum conducted in New York City observed a similar pattern (Mattera et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref83">47</reflink>]). These patterns motivate exploration of development for PreK enrollees and non‐enrollees to better understand the nature of fadeout and convergence across skills.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-6">Exploring Growth in Skills After Enrollment in the BPS PreK Program</hd> <p>To examine the patterns of convergence in this way, it is important to study a program that has high instructional quality and is using curricula that target the skills of interest. The current study addresses this need by using data collected on students who attended BPS PreK, which implements two evidence‐based curricula: an adapted version of Opening the World of Learning (Schickedanz and Dickinson [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref84">61</reflink>]), a language and literacy curriculum that includes SE skills component in each unit, and Building Blocks (Clements and Sarama [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref85">19</reflink>]), an early mathematics curriculum that also promotes language by requiring children to explain their mathematical reasoning. BPS PreK occurs in public schools, co‐located with later elementary school grades. Play‐based instruction focuses on extending children's learning and deepening their understanding of language, literacy, and mathematical concepts through problem‐solving and peer interaction. The district provides PreK teachers with some curriculum‐specific training and in‐class support from experienced coaches. Professional development to support model fidelity and improve teacher practice is another core part of the approach. Since 2012, the district has also implemented a curricular and professional development approach—called <emph>Focus on Early Learning</emph>—to align the full PreK—2nd grade period so that children can continue building on learning gains as they move across elementary school (McCormick et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref86">48</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-7">The Current Study</hd> <p>This study aims to answer the following research questions (RQs):</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> What is the association between attending the BPS PreK program and children's academic, EF, and SE skills through first grade?</item> <p></p> <item> To what extent was BPS PreK attendance associated with differential growth in academic, EF, and SE skills across kindergarten and first grade?</item> </ulist> <p>This work has implications for the design of early intervention programs themselves (e.g., are there certain types of foundational, more unconstrained skills that PreK programs could more effectively target?) and of subsequent experiences through elementary schools (e.g., are there grades in which schools should more effectively build on the skills of PreK enrollees?).</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-8">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186282409-9">Participants</hd> <p>The sample for the current study consists of 422 students attending the BPS kindergarten program during 2017–2018 and then transitioning into first grade during 2018–2019. Participants in this study include those who have at least one data point in kindergarten and one in first grade. (See Appendix S1 for attrition rates by group and between PreK enrollees and non‐enrollees.) Within our focal sample for this study, <emph>N</emph> = 288 students (68%) enrolled in the BPS PreK program during the 2016–2017 academic year. The remaining <emph>N</emph> = 134 (32%) students were in another type of care and are considered BPS PreK "non‐enrollees" About 63% (<emph>N</emph> = 85) of the second group attended some other center‐based care during their 4 year old year (including <emph>N</emph> = 39 who were enrolled in a CBO connected to BPS; see below) and 37% (<emph>N</emph> = 49) stayed home with a family member, babysitter, or attended home‐based childcare.</p> <p>The demographic characteristics of the study sample are presented in Table 1. The study was designed to enroll students who, as a group, would be representative of the population of BPS kindergarten students. The majority of students in the study sample were eligible for free or reduced‐price lunch, and the students were diverse with respect to racial and ethnic background and parental education, among other characteristics. There were demographic differences between BPS PreK enrollees and non‐enrollees, as discussed in more detail below. The elementary schools were generally representative of the broader population of BPS schools. However, students enrolled in the study tended to be more economically advantaged than the broader population of students enrolled in the district (see Appendix S1: Table A1). This relates to students who enroll in BPS PreK in general being less likely to be eligible for free and reduced‐price lunch and more likely to be White (see Shapiro et al. [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref87">63</reflink>] for more information). We also compared the characteristics of students who had assessment data in the fall of K (<emph>N</emph> = 508; reported on in McCormick et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref88">49</reflink>]) to those who attrited from the study over time (<emph>N</emph> = 86) by BPS PreK enrollment status. As illustrated in Appendix S1: Table A2, the characteristics of the attrited versus retained groups were similar within the PreK enrollment group (but continued to vary for BPS PreK enrollees vs. non‐enrollees).</p> <p>1 TABLE Sample demographic characteristics for full sample and subgroups of interest.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Characteristic</th><th align="center">Full sample</th><th align="center">BPS PreK enrollees</th><th align="center">BPS PreK non‐enrollees</th><th align="center">Sig. diff.</th></tr><tr><th align="center"><italic>M</italic> or %</th><th align="center">SD</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic> or %</th><th align="center">SD</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic> or %</th><th align="center">SD</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Student demographic characteristics</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Child age (fall of K)</td><td align="center">5.63</td><td align="center">0.29</td><td align="center">5.63</td><td align="center">0.29</td><td align="center">5.62</td><td align="center">0.30</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Eligible for free or reduced‐price lunch</td><td align="center">0.54</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.51</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.61</td><td align="center" /><td align="center"><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Female</td><td align="center">0.47</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.45</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.51</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Dual language learner</td><td align="center">0.49</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.47</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.53</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Asian</td><td align="center">0.15</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.13</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.21</td><td align="center" /><td align="center"><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Black</td><td align="center">0.19</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.16</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.24</td><td align="center" /><td align="center"><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Hispanic</td><td align="center">0.31</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.31</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.31</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Other race</td><td align="center">0.05</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.06</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.03</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">White</td><td align="center">0.30</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.34</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.22</td><td align="center" /><td align="center"><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Parent demographic characteristics</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Age of mother when child was first born</td><td align="center">27.50</td><td align="center">6.94</td><td align="center">28.31</td><td align="center">6.87</td><td align="center">25.81</td><td align="center">6.83</td><td align="center"><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Total household size</td><td align="center">4.25</td><td align="center">1.12</td><td align="center">4.21</td><td align="center">1.34</td><td align="center">4.32</td><td align="center">1.24</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Parent works full‐time</td><td align="center">0.88</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.89</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.87</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Parent married</td><td align="center">0.60</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.62</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.55</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Parent age</td><td align="center">36.97</td><td align="center">6.98</td><td align="center">37.38</td><td align="center">7.00</td><td align="center">36.08</td><td align="center">6.89</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Parent ed.: high school diploma/GED or less</td><td align="center">0.29</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.27</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.34</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Parent ed.: some college/technical or vocational cert.</td><td align="center">0.26</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.23</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.32</td><td align="center" /><td align="center"><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Parent ed.: 4‐year degree</td><td align="center">0.20</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.22</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.15</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Parent ed.: > 4‐year degree</td><td align="center">0.25</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.28</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.18</td><td align="center" /><td align="center"><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note:</emph> Full sample, <emph>N</emph> = 422; BPS PreK enrollees, <emph>N</emph> = 288; BPS PreK non‐enrollees, <emph>N</emph> = 134.</p> <ulist> <item>2 † <emph>p</emph> < 0.10.</item> <item>3 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.05.</item> <item>4 ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.01.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0186282409-10">Procedure</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186282409-11">School and Classroom Recruitment</hd> <p>In 2016, before the start of the PreK year, we randomly selected 25 public schools to participate in the study from the 76 schools in the district offering PreK. Twenty‐one agreed. We used one school as a pilot school for developing new measures, and the remaining 20 schools made up the public school sample in the first study year. We also selected 10 of the 11 community‐based organizations (CBOs) in Boston implementing the BPS PreK model to participate in the study, and they all agreed. Students from CBOs were enrolled in the study and participated in assessments and are treated as comparison group students in the study (non‐BPS PreK). At the time of the study, Boston had not moved to a universal mixed‐delivery PreK system (that occurred in fall of 2019).</p> <p>We asked all PreK teachers assigned to general education or inclusion classrooms in the 20 schools to participate in the study in the fall of 2016. We randomly selected one classroom serving 4‐year‐old students in each CBO to participate. Ninety‐six percent (<emph>N</emph> = 51) of teachers across public schools (<emph>N</emph> = 20) and CBOs (<emph>N</emph> = 10) agreed. We followed sample children into kindergarten (2017–2018), where we also recruited the non‐BPS PreK attenders for comparison, and then into first grade (2018–2019). We collected student assessment data across 44 schools and 94 classrooms in kindergarten and 30 schools and 68 classrooms in first grade.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-12">Student Recruitment</hd> <p>Eighty‐one percent of all children in participating classrooms had parent consent. Of the children with parent consent, the team randomly selected 50% (~6–10 per classroom) to participate in student‐level data collection activities. In kindergarten, we then enrolled 78% of students in participating classrooms who had not attended the public school BPS PreK program in the 2016–2017 academic year. This group represents all children who consented to the study and were confirmed by the district to have not attended BPS PreK in the prior year. This group included children who attended a CBO implementing the BPS model during their 4‐year‐old year, as well as children who attended a private child care center or Head Start center or did not experience any formal center‐based PreK as a 4‐year‐old. Of that total sample (<emph>N</emph> = 508), about 83% of students (<emph>N</emph> = 422) also participated in assessments in first grade and are included in the current analysis. See Appendix S1: Table A2 for description of retained versus attrited students by BPS PreK enrollment.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-13">Direct Assessments</hd> <p>We trained research staff to reliability and then collected direct assessments of academic skills in the fall and spring of kindergarten (2017–2018), and the spring of first grade (2019). On average, there were 194 days (SD = 22) between assessments in the fall and spring of kindergarten and 383 days (SD = 27) between assessments in the spring of Kindergarten and spring of first grade. We used the Pre‐Language Assessment Scale (PreLAS; Duncan and DeAvila [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref89">24</reflink>]) Simon Says and Art Show tests in kindergarten to determine the administration language for a subset of assessments (Barrueco et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref90">7</reflink>]). In kindergarten, 12 students did not pass the preLAS; only four did the Spanish assessment in the spring. We did not administer preLAS in first grade due to high English proficiency. The team administered two assessments at only a subset of time points: we captured the Backward Digit Span in the spring of kindergarten and first grade and the Woodcock Johnson Letter Word Identification in the spring of first grade only.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-14">Teacher Reports on Students</hd> <p>We asked teachers to complete a short report on each participating student's behaviors and SE skills in the fall and spring of kindergarten and the spring of first grade. Of the 422 students in the study, 344 (82%) had completed teacher reports in the fall of kindergarten, 399 (95%) in the spring of kindergarten, and 337 (80%) in the spring of first grade.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-15">Parent Surveys</hd> <p>In the fall of 2016 and 2017, we contacted consenting parents of all students selected for the study sample to complete a 20‐min survey. We translated surveys into Spanish, Vietnamese, and Mandarin. All parents received a $25 gift card for completing the survey. Ninety‐four percent of students in the current study had a parent who completed the survey in 2016 or 2017. We used survey data for certain demographic covariates (see below).</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-16">Administrative Data From the School District</hd> <p>We accessed administrative records from the BPS district on students' demographic characteristics, history of enrollment in the BPS PreK program, and classroom and school membership at the end of each year.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-17">Measures</hd> <p>We provide information on measures used to capture children's skills in this section. As discussed earlier, we delineate only whether measures of academic skills (literacy, language, math) are more constrained or unconstrained.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-18">Experience in Early Childhood Education</hd> <p>In the fall of 2017, we asked parents to report where their child spent the majority of his or her time during a regular week during 2016–2017. We then coded these responses to describe whether children were primarily enrolled in the BPS school PreK program, a non‐public PreK program (e.g., Head Start, private child care center, CBO PreK program), or did not attend formal PreK (e.g., stayed at home with a parent, family member, friend, or attended a home‐based child care). We confirmed these categorizations through online searches of the reported programs coupled with follow‐up calls to centers. We also used district data from 2017–2018 to identify children as being a BPS PreK enrollees if they had been enrolled for 89 days or more (at least half the year), consistent with the methodology from previous causal work on BPS PreK (Weiland and Yoshikawa [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref91">69</reflink>]). From this information, we created a variable assigning a 1 to BPS PreK enrollees and a 0 otherwise.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-19">Language Skills</hd> <p>We used the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test IV (PPVT IV; Dunn and Dunn [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref92">25</reflink>]) to assess children's receptive language skills in the fall and spring of kindergarten and the spring of first grade. The PPVT IV is a nationally normed measure that is widely used and is considered an assessment of more unconstrained skills. The test has excellent split‐half and test–retest reliability, as well as strong validity evidence (Dunn and Dunn [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref93">25</reflink>]). It requires children to choose (verbally or nonverbally) which of four pictures best represents a stimulus word. We used the PPVT raw score as our outcome. We assessed all children on the PPVT, regardless of whether they passed the PreLAS language screener, to have an equivalent measure of language skills in English across the sample.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-20">Literacy Skills</hd> <p>We used the <emph>Woodcock Johnson Letter‐Word Identification</emph> (WJLWID) subtest to assess students' literacy skills in first grade spring. The WJLWID assesses letter naming and word decoding skills by asking children to identify a series of letters and words presented in isolation and is considered an assessment of more constrained skills. It is nationally normed, widely used, and reliable (e.g., Wechsler [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref94">66</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-21">Math Skills</hd> <p>We first used the Woodcock Johnson Applied Problems III (WJAP; Woodcock et al. [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref95">71</reflink>]) subtest to assess math skills in kindergarten fall and spring and first grade spring. We assessed Spanish‐speaking children who did not pass the PreLAS language screener using the Spanish language version from the Batería III Woodcock Muñoz (Schrank et al. [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref96">62</reflink>]). In both languages, the assessment requires children to perform calculations to analyze and solve arithmetic problems. Its estimated test–retest reliability for 2‐ to 7‐year‐old children is 0.90 (Woodcock et al. [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref97">71</reflink>]). We use <emph>W</emph> scores, with English and Spanish combined. The WJAP is considered an assessment of more constrained skills.</p> <p>We also used the Research‐based Early Mathematics Assessment (REMA; Clements et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref98">21</reflink>]) to assess math skills in kindergarten fall and spring and first grade spring. The REMA is a hands‐on, one‐on‐one assessment that measures core mathematical abilities of children ages 3–8. Assessors code not only whether the child answered each item correctly but also the difficulty of the strategy used to respond. The alpha reliabilities for the total scores (referred to as <emph>t</emph> scores) range from 0.92 to 0.94 (Sarama et al. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref99">60</reflink>]) with good evidence of validity (Clements et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref100">21</reflink>]). The REMA is considered an assessment of more unconstrained skills.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-22">Working Memory</hd> <p>To assess children's short‐term memory, which is a developmental precursor to the working memory component of EF, we used the categorical score of the Forward Digit Span (FDS) measure in fall and spring of kindergarten and spring of first grade (Gathercole and Pickering [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref101">29</reflink>]). Children are asked to repeat a string of numbers in order. A score of "0" indicates that a child was unable to pass the practice test (child given two attempts to repeat two numbers forward), a score of "1" indicates that the child passed the practice test but could not complete the first test trial, and a score of "2–6" indicates how many digits the child could repeat in order (children who do not pass the practice—4% in our sample—are marked missing). FDS demonstrates high correlations with other related memory tasks (Carlson et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref102">15</reflink>]), as well as solid test–retest reliability (<emph>r</emph> = 0.73; Lipsey et al. [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref103">43</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the spring of kindergarten and first grade (but not fall of kindergarten due to concerns about assessment burden for students), we also assessed students' working memory using the Backward Digit Span (BDS) assessment. This task is similar to the FDS except children are asked to repeat numbers in reverse order (8% did not pass practice and were treated as missing). BDS also has strong test–retest reliability (<emph>r</emph> = 0.83; Waters and Caplan [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref104">65</reflink>]). For both FDS and BDS, we used the Spanish version if students did not pass the PreLAS. These two assessments for working memory are considered to measure more unconstrained skills.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-23">Inhibitory Control and Cognitive Flexibility</hd> <p>We also used the percent correct for two subscales (incongruent and mixed trials) of the Hearts and Flowers (HFs) assessment to assess the inhibitory control and cognitive flexibility subdomains of EF, respectively. In this task, children either press a key on the same side of an image appearing on a screen (if they see a heart) or the opposite side of the image (if they see a flower). In the incongruent trials, children are only presented with flower images, which measure inhibitory control. In the mixed trials, children are presented with both HFs, so they must switch between hitting a button on the same or opposite side of the image, measuring cognitive flexibility. This measure has demonstrated adequate reliability scores for children ages 4–14, with Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.70 to 0.87 for the mixed and incongruent trials (Davidson et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref105">22</reflink>]). Students who did not pass a practice trial (2%–7% in kindergarten depending on time point and measure) were treated as missing. All students passed the practice in spring of first grade. In kindergarten, we administered the assessment in Spanish for students who did not pass PreLAS.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-24">SE Skills and Behaviors</hd> <p>To measure SE skills and externalizing and internalizing behaviors, teachers completed reports on every student in both the fall and spring of kindergarten and the spring of first grade using the Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS; Gresham and Elliott [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref106">32</reflink>]). This measure asked teachers to complete a battery of Likert scale questions that have been previously validated to form constructs. We measured students' cooperation, engagement, self‐control, externalizing behavior, and internalizing behavior (Gresham and Elliott [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref107">32</reflink>]). Given high correlations between the subscales for cooperation, engagement, and self‐control (<emph>r</emph> = 0.82–0.89), we combined these three subscales to create one overall composite score (<emph>α</emph> = 0.92–0.94 across time points). The externalizing and internalizing behavior domains also had high internal consistency across time (<emph>α</emph> = 0.89–0.93).</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-25">Task Orientation</hd> <p>Finally, teachers reported on each student's task orientation skills using one subscale from the Teacher‐Child Rating Scale (TCRS; Hightower et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref108">38</reflink>]). This established construct consisted of five questions and had high internal consistency (<emph>α</emph> = 0.94–0.96).</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-26">Child and Family Characteristics From Administrative and Survey Data</hd> <p>Demographic characteristics came from administrative data provided by the district and from the parent surveys. Child‐level characteristics included children's race or ethnicity (Black, Hispanic, Asian, or Other Race or Ethnicity, coding 1 if the child fell into the indicated category and 0 otherwise with White as the reference category), eligibility for free or reduced price lunch (FRPL: 1 if eligible; 0 if not), sex (1 = female; 0 = not female), and dual language learner (DLL) status (DLL = 1 if parent language other than English spoken at home; 0 otherwise). We used the child's birthdate to calculate child age on September 1, 2017. These characteristics were all included as student‐level covariates in predictive models.</p> <p>We also created a series of covariates for family characteristics, which included dummy variables indicating whether there was at least one parent in the home working full‐time (35 h/week a more), parent marital status (married or living with partner = 1), and parental education (high school diploma/GED or less, some college or 2‐year degree, and 4‐year degree, with graduate work or graduate degree as the reference group). We also used continuous variables to describe the age of the child's mother at her first birth, the number of people living in the household, and the parent respondent's age in the fall of PreK. The team created the above covariates in ways that were consistent with the prior research on these data to maintain replicability. We included these covariates in all analytical models since they have been shown to predict children's outcomes (Reardon and Portilla [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref109">58</reflink>]) in prior work.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-27">Analytic Approach</hd> <p>This study was designed to explore associations between enrollment in BPS PreK and target child outcomes. All analyses are treated as exploratory.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-28">Missing Data</hd> <p>Overall, there was little missing data. All students had complete data on demographic child‐level information provided by the district. Up to 20% were missing one or more variables from the parent survey, 3% were missing at least one assessment in kindergarten and 4% in first grade, 19% were missing teacher reports in kindergarten and 20% in first grade. We used multiple imputation to handle missing covariate data. See Appendix S2 for details.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-29">Descriptive Analysis</hd> <p>We first examined descriptive statistics on demographic variables and assessment scores at each time point for BPS PreK enrollees and non‐enrollees. We used independent samples <emph>t</emph>‐tests to explore whether the groups differed across these variables.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-30">Piecewise Growth Modeling</hd> <p>For the 10 outcomes available at three time points, we used piecewise growth modeling, considering differential growth between the fall and spring of kindergarten and between the spring of kindergarten and spring of first grade, to examine how enrollment in BPS PreK was associated with both mean levels (RQ1) and growth in (RQ2) outcomes. Examination of unconditional models and intraclass correlations (ICCs) revealed that three‐level models with time (Level 1) nested within students (Level 2) nested within groups representing unique kindergarten and first grade school combinations (Level 3) were most appropriate. This approach takes into account group‐based movement between schools and the fact that some students were grouped together across years. The model ignores classroom membership because the variance explained by the classroom was negligible across outcomes.</p> <p>We regressed each time‐varying outcome on indicators (coded 1/0) for spring of kindergarten and spring of first grade. The intercept represents the mean score in the fall of kindergarten, and the coefficients on the time point indicators represent the difference in the outcome between that time point and the fall of kindergarten. This model also includes an indicator for enrollment in BPS PreK (1/0) and all child and family characteristic covariates, as well as <emph>interactions</emph> between BPS PreK and the spring of kindergarten and spring of first grade time points. When fitting the growth models, we allowed the intercept to vary randomly across students and for growth to vary randomly across students between fall and spring of K. The model also allows the intercept to vary randomly across unique school groups.</p> <p>To address our first RQ, we calculated mean differences between BPS PreK enrollees and non‐enrollees in the fall of kindergarten, spring of kindergarten, and spring of first grade. We used the ESTIMATE statement following the SAS GLIMMEX procedure to test whether calculated differences were statistically significant. We chose the GLIMMEX procedure in particular because it would allow us to estimate and directly compare the slopes for student growth using the ESTIMATE option in SAS (this option is not available for other procs in SAS for multi‐level modeling); results from PROC GLIMMIX are identical to PROC MIXED when specifying continuous outcomes. We specified the model to allow random effects to covary with each other. We then calculated standardized associations by dividing the parameter estimates by the standard deviation of the outcome (denoted by SD).</p> <p>To address our second RQ, we conducted a follow‐up set of analyses and used resulting coefficients from models to calculate the unique growth rate for PreK enrollees and non‐enrollees between fall and spring of kindergarten and between spring of kindergarten and spring of first grade. We used the ESTIMATE statement in SAS to examine whether there were differential growth rates for BPS PreK enrollees and non‐enrollees. See details on the approach for conducting the analysis in Appendix S3.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-31">Multilevel Regressions</hd> <p>There were two outcomes where we did not have access to three time points of data; the WJLWID was only available in the spring of first grade and the BDS was only collected in the spring of kindergarten and first grade. Even though this restricted our ability to use growth modeling, we retained these outcomes as they captured unique domains. We fit two‐level multi‐level models regressing each outcome on an indicator for BPS PreK and the full set of child and family characteristic covariates. The model included a random intercept for school group. These models only allow us to address RQ1 for these outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-32">DLL Subgroup Analysis</hd> <p>Because approximately half of our sample was dual language learners, we included an exploratory analysis to examine variation in associations between BPS PreK attendance and growth in children's skills by DLL status. We used the same growth and multi‐level regression models but included three‐way interactions between DLL status, the indicators for time points, and the indicator for BPS PreK enrollee.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-33">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186282409-34">Descriptive Analysis</hd> <p>We found differences in the demographic characteristics of children who enrolled in BPS PreK and those who did not. As illustrated in Table 1, BPS PreK enrollees were significantly less likely than non‐enrollees to be eligible for free lunch, more likely to be White, less likely to be Black, more likely to have parents who were married, and more likely to have a parent with more than a 4‐year degree. Table 2 compares the unadjusted academic, EF, behavior, task orientation, and SE assessment scores at each time point for both groups. BPS PreK enrollees generally outperformed non‐enrollees on academic skills at each time point, although differences grew smaller over time. There were differences favoring BPS PreK enrollees on EF skills in the fall and/or spring of kindergarten, but none were significant in first grade. Note that all statistics were run through Stat Check and confirmed to be accurate.</p> <p>2 TABLE Descriptive statistics for child outcomes, by enrollment in BPS PreK program.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Variable of interest</th><th align="center">Fall of K</th><th align="center">Spring of K</th><th align="center">Spring of 1st</th></tr><tr><th align="center">BPS PreK enrollees</th><th align="center">BPS PreK non‐enrollees</th><th align="center">Sig. diff.</th><th align="center">BPS PreK enrollees</th><th align="center">BPS PreK non‐enrollees</th><th align="center">Sig. diff.</th><th align="center">BPS PreK enrollees</th><th align="center">BPS PreK non‐enrollees</th><th align="center">Sig. diff.</th></tr><tr><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center">SD</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center">SD</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center">SD</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center">SD</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center">SD</th><th align="center"><italic>M</italic></th><th align="center">SD</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Academic skills</td></tr><tr><td align="left">PPVT raw score</td><td align="center">100.05</td><td align="center">25.57</td><td align="center">81.73</td><td align="center">30.33</td><td align="center"><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn8" /></td><td align="center">111.70</td><td align="center">24.61</td><td align="center">96.00</td><td align="center">28.74</td><td align="center"><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn8" /></td><td align="center">126.87</td><td align="center">23.08</td><td align="center">116.85</td><td align="center">23.47</td><td align="center"><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn8" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">WJ Letter‐Word Identification W score</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">461.44</td><td align="center">35.74</td><td align="center">451.33</td><td align="center">35.32</td><td align="center"><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">WJ Applied Problems W score</td><td align="center">431.20</td><td align="center">21.59</td><td align="center">417.93</td><td align="center">23.82</td><td align="center"><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn8" /></td><td align="center">444.32</td><td align="center">19.18</td><td align="center">435.05</td><td align="center">19.18</td><td align="center"><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn8" /></td><td align="center">462.51</td><td align="center">18.11</td><td align="center">455.90</td><td align="center">17.13</td><td align="center"><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn8" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">REMA t‐score</td><td align="center">42.22</td><td align="center">4.93</td><td align="center">39.12</td><td align="center">5.82</td><td align="center"><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn8" /></td><td align="center">45.44</td><td align="center">4.58</td><td align="center">42.94</td><td align="center">4.87</td><td align="center"><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn8" /></td><td align="center">50.62</td><td align="center">4.84</td><td align="center">48.68</td><td align="center">4.73</td><td align="center"><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn8" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Executive functioning skills</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Digit Span Forward categorical score</td><td align="center">3.74</td><td align="center">0.93</td><td align="center">3.45</td><td align="center">0.83</td><td align="center"><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">4.03</td><td align="center">0.77</td><td align="center">3.75</td><td align="center">0.89</td><td align="center"><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">4.31</td><td align="center">0.89</td><td align="center">4.18</td><td align="center">0.74</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Digit Span Backward categorical score</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">2.67</td><td align="center">0.73</td><td align="center">2.41</td><td align="center">0.79</td><td align="center"><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">2.78</td><td align="center">0.77</td><td align="center">2.71</td><td align="center">0.82</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Hearts and flowers (cognitive flexibility) %</td><td align="center">0.74</td><td align="center">0.21</td><td align="center">0.69</td><td align="center">0.21</td><td align="center"><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="center">0.83</td><td align="center">0.19</td><td align="center">0.73</td><td align="center">0.23</td><td align="center"><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn8" /></td><td align="center">0.88</td><td align="center">0.16</td><td align="center">0.84</td><td align="center">0.20</td><td align="center"><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">Hearts and flowers (inhibitory control) %</td><td align="center">0.87</td><td align="center">0.23</td><td align="center">0.84</td><td align="center">0.27</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.94</td><td align="center">0.14</td><td align="center">0.91</td><td align="center">0.21</td><td align="center"><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td><td align="center">0.97</td><td align="center">0.11</td><td align="center">0.95</td><td align="center">0.17</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">Social–emotional skills, behaviors, and task orientation</td></tr><tr><td align="left">TCRS task engagement (1–5)</td><td align="center">3.53</td><td align="center">1.07</td><td align="center">3.18</td><td align="center">1.11</td><td align="center"><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /></td><td align="center">3.71</td><td align="center">1.05</td><td align="center">3.53</td><td align="center">1.12</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">3.73</td><td align="center">1.08</td><td align="center">3.50</td><td align="center">1.08</td><td align="center"><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /></td></tr><tr><td align="left">SSIS internalizing behaviors (1–4)</td><td align="center">1.36</td><td align="center">0.43</td><td align="center">1.59</td><td align="center">0.52</td><td align="center"><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn8" /></td><td align="center">1.37</td><td align="center">0.40</td><td align="center">1.46</td><td align="center">0.43</td><td align="center"><xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /></td><td align="center">1.38</td><td align="center">0.40</td><td align="center">1.41</td><td align="center">0.37</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">SSIS externalizing behaviors (1–4)</td><td align="center">1.49</td><td align="center">0.52</td><td align="center">1.51</td><td align="center">0.50</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">1.46</td><td align="center">0.50</td><td align="center">1.41</td><td align="center">0.48</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">1.44</td><td align="center">0.50</td><td align="center">1.44</td><td align="center">0.43</td><td align="center" /></tr><tr><td align="left">SSIS social skills</td><td align="center">3.16</td><td align="center">0.56</td><td align="center">3.07</td><td align="center">0.56</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">3.27</td><td align="center">0.52</td><td align="center">3.29</td><td align="center">0.53</td><td align="center" /><td align="center">3.22</td><td align="center">0.58</td><td align="center">3.19</td><td align="center">0.51</td><td align="center" /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>5 † <emph>p</emph> < 0.10.</item> <item>6 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.05.</item> <item>7 ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.01.</item> <item>8 *** <emph>p</emph> < 0.001.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0186282409-35">RQ1: Associations Between BPS PreK and Skills Through Spring of First Grade</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186282409-36">Academic Skills</hd> <p>Table 3 summarizes findings from fully controlled models estimating differences in outcomes between BPS PreK enrollees and non‐enrollees. Table 4 also includes growth rates in academic skills by PreK enrollment. As illustrated in Table 3, there were moderate to large, statistically significant associations between BPS PreK and language and math skills in the fall (PPVT: <emph>γ</emph> = 13.42, SE = 2.31, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, SD = 0.44; WJAP: <emph>γ</emph> = 10.14, SE = 2.06, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, SD = 0.43; REMA: <emph>γ</emph> = 2.28, SE = 0.50, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, SD = 0.39) and spring of kindergarten (PPVT: <emph>γ</emph> = 10.89, SE = 2.24, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, SD = 0.38; WJAP: <emph>γ</emph> = 6.17, SE = 1.75, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, SD = 0.32; REMA: <emph>γ</emph> = 1.72, SE = 0.42, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, SD = 0.35). Examining simple percentage change in the standardized association across time (change in standardized association divided by the earlier time point's standardized association), we found that these standardized associations decreased between fall and spring by 26% on the WJAP, 14% on the PPVT, and 10% on REMA. The new findings from the current study center on the outcomes in first grade spring illustrated in the final set of columns in Table 3. There were sustained associations between BPS PreK and language (PPVT: <emph>γ</emph> = 5.53, SE = 2.12, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01, SD = 0.24) and math (WJAP: <emph>γ</emph> = 3.87, SE = 1.72, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05, SD = 0.23; REMA: <emph>γ</emph> = 1.20, SE = 0.44, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01, SD = 0.25) through first grade. The magnitudes of these associations were generally smaller than in kindergarten but were still moderately sized. The standardized associations for PPVT and WJAP declined by about 45% between fall of kindergarten and spring of first grade, while REMA was reduced by about 35%. There was also a trend‐level association between BPS PreK and literacy skills measured on the WJLWID literacy assessment (<emph>γ</emph> = 6.69, SE = 3.43, <emph>p</emph> < 0.10, SD = 0.19), suggesting some possible lasting benefit of BPS PreK on that domain albeit with a smaller magnitude. However, we cannot examine fadeout or convergence on this measure because it is not equivalent to the DIBELS (Elliott et al. [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref110">26</reflink>]) used to assess literacy skills in kindergarten in earlier work.</p> <p>3 TABLE Model‐based estimates: Associations between enrollment in BPS PreK and child outcomes across time.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Outcomes of interest</th><th align="center">Fall of K</th><th align="center">Spring of K</th><th align="center">Spring of 1st</th></tr><tr><th align="center"><italic>γ</italic></th><th align="center">SE</th><th align="center"><italic>γ</italic></th><th align="center">SE</th><th align="center"><italic>γ</italic></th><th align="center">SE</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Academic skills</td></tr><tr><td align="left">PPVT raw score</td><td align="center">13.42<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn12" /></td><td align="center">2.31</td><td align="center">10.89<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn12" /></td><td align="center">2.24</td><td align="center">5.53<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn11" /></td><td align="center">2.12</td></tr><tr><td align="left">WJ Letter‐Word Identification W score</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">—</td><td align="center">6.69<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn9" /></td><td align="center">3.43</td></tr><tr><td align="left">WJ Applied Problems W score</td><td align="center">10.14<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn12" /></td><td align="center">2.06</td><td align="center">6.17<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn12" /></td><td align="center">1.75</td><td align="center">3.87<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /></td><td align="center">1.72</td></tr><tr><td align="left">REMA t‐score</td><td align="center">2.28<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn12" /></td><td align="center">0.50</td><td align="center">1.72<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn12" /></td><td align="center">0.42</td><td align="center">1.20<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn11" /></td><td align="center">0.44</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Executive functioning skills</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Digit Span Forward categorical score</td><td align="center">0.19<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /></td><td align="center">0.09</td><td align="center">0.18<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /></td><td align="center">0.08</td><td align="center">0.04</td><td align="center">0.09</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Digit Span Backward categorical score</td><td align="center" /><td align="center" /><td align="center">0.23<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn11" /></td><td align="center">0.08</td><td align="center">0.02</td><td align="center">0.08</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Hearts and flowers (cognitive flexibility) %</td><td align="center">0.04<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /></td><td align="center">0.02</td><td align="center">0.08<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn12" /></td><td align="center">0.02</td><td align="center">0.03</td><td align="center">0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Hearts and flowers (inhibitory control) %</td><td align="center">0.02</td><td align="center">0.03</td><td align="center">0.03<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn9" /></td><td align="center">0.02</td><td align="center">0.01</td><td align="center">0.01</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Social–emotional skills, behaviors, and task orientation</td></tr><tr><td align="left">TCRS task engagement (1–5)</td><td align="center">0.26<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn10" /></td><td align="center">0.11</td><td align="center">0.11</td><td align="center">0.10</td><td align="center">0.13</td><td align="center">0.12</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SSIS internalizing behaviors (1–4)</td><td align="center">−0.18<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn12" /></td><td align="center">0.05</td><td align="center">−0.05</td><td align="center">0.04</td><td align="center">0.01</td><td align="center">0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SSIS externalizing behaviors (1–4)</td><td align="center">0.00</td><td align="center">0.06</td><td align="center">0.09<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn9" /></td><td align="center">0.05</td><td align="center">0.05</td><td align="center">0.06</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SSIS social skills</td><td align="center">0.08</td><td align="center">0.06</td><td align="center">−0.05</td><td align="center">0.05</td><td align="center">−0.02</td><td align="center">0.06</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>9 † <emph>p</emph> < 0.10.</item> <item>10 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.05.</item> <item>11 ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.01.</item> <item>12 *** <emph>p</emph> < 0.001.</item> <item>4 TABLE Model‐based estimates: Examination of growth rates in academic skills between kindergarten and first grade by BPS PreK enrollment.</item> </ulist> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Outcome and growth rate</th><th align="center"><italic>γ</italic></th><th align="center">SE</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">PPVT raw score</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in K for BPS PreK enrollees</td><td align="center">11.87<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="center">0.71</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in K for BPS PreK non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">14.40<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="center">1.05</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in K growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−2.53<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn13" /></td><td align="center">1.27</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in 1st grade for BPS PreK enrollees</td><td align="center">15.27<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="center">0.76</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in 1st grade for BPS PreK non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">20.62<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="center">1.09</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in 1st growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−5.35<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="center">1.33</td></tr><tr><td align="left">WJAP W score</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in K for BPS PreK enrollees</td><td align="center">13.18<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="center">0.86</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in K for BPS PreK non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">17.15<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="center">1.26</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in K growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−3.97<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn14" /></td><td align="center">1.52</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in 1st grade for BPS PreK enrollees</td><td align="center">18.42<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="center">0.81</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in 1st grade for BPS PreK non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">20.73<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="center">1.16</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in 1st growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−2.31</td><td align="center">1.41</td></tr><tr><td align="left">REMA t‐score</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in K for BPS PreK enrollees</td><td align="center">3.30<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="center">0.21</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in K for BPS PreK non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">3.86<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="center">0.31</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in K growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−0.56</td><td align="center">0.37</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in 1st grade for BPS PreK enrollees</td><td align="center">5.22<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="center">0.18</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in 1st grade for BPS PreK non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">5.74<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn15" /></td><td align="center">0.26</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in 1st growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−0.52</td><td align="center">0.32</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>13 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.05.</item> <item>14 ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.01.</item> <item>15 *** <emph>p</emph> < 0.001.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0186282409-37">Executive Functioning</hd> <p>Table 3 summarizes findings from fully controlled models estimating differences in outcomes between BPS PreK enrollees and non‐enrollees. Table 5 includes growth rates in executive function and SE skills by PreK enrollment. We observed statistically significant associations between enrollment in BPS PreK and working memory on the FDS in fall (<emph>γ</emph> = 0.19, SE = 0.09, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05, SD = 0.23) and spring of kindergarten (<emph>γ</emph> = 0.18, SE = 0.08, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05, SD = 0.20) and BDS in spring of kindergarten (<emph>γ</emph> = 0.23, SE = 0.08, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01, std. association = 0.29). There were also associations between BPS PreK and HF cognitive flexibility in the fall (<emph>γ</emph> = 0.04, SE = 0.02, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05, SD = 0.21) and spring of kindergarten (<emph>γ</emph> = 0.08, SE = 0.02, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, SD = 0.34) with standardized associations either fully sustained or growing bigger across kindergarten. Examination of data collected in first grade revealed no lasting differences between BPS PreK and EF at the end of first grade.</p> <p>5 TABLE Model‐based estimates: Examination of growth rates in EF, SE, behaviors, and task orientation skills by BPS PreK enrollment.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Outcome and growth rate</th><th align="center"><italic>γ</italic></th><th align="center">SE</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">Hearts and flowers inhibitory control (flowers task)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in K for BPS PreK enrollees</td><td align="center">0.07<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn19" /></td><td align="center">0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in K for BPS PreK non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">0.06<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn18" /></td><td align="center">0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in K growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">0.01</td><td align="center">0.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in 1st grade for BPS PreK enrollees</td><td align="center">0.02<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn17" /></td><td align="center">0.01</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in 1st grade for BPS PreK non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">0.05<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn18" /></td><td align="center">0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in 1st growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−0.02</td><td align="center">0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Hearts and flowers cognitive flexibility control (mixed task)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in K for BPS PreK enrollees</td><td align="center">0.08<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn19" /></td><td align="center">0.01</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in K for BPS PreK non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">0.05<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn18" /></td><td align="center">0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in K growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">0.03</td><td align="center">0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in 1st grade for BPS PreK enrollees</td><td align="center">0.05<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn19" /></td><td align="center">0.01</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in 1st grade for BPS PreK non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">0.10<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn19" /></td><td align="center">0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in 1st growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−0.05<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn17" /></td><td align="center">0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Digit span forward categorical score</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in K for BPS PreK enrollees</td><td align="center">0.28<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn19" /></td><td align="center">0.06</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in K for BPS PreK non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">0.29<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn19" /></td><td align="center">0.08</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in K growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−0.01</td><td align="center">0.10</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in 1st grade for BPS PreK enrollees</td><td align="center">0.29<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn19" /></td><td align="center">0.06</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in 1st grade for BPS PreK non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">0.43<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn19" /></td><td align="center">0.08</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in 1st growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−0.14</td><td align="center">0.10</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SSIS social skills</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in K for BPS PreK enrollees</td><td align="center">0.11<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn19" /></td><td align="center">0.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in K for BPS PreK non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">0.24<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn19" /></td><td align="center">0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in K growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−0.13<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn18" /></td><td align="center">0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in 1st grade for BPS PreK enrollees</td><td align="center">−0.08<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn17" /></td><td align="center">0.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in 1st grade for BPS PreK non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−0.10<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn17" /></td><td align="center">0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in 1st growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">0.03</td><td align="center">0.06</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SSIS internalizing behaviors</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in K for BPS PreK enrollees</td><td align="center">−0.02</td><td align="center">0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in K for BPS PreK non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−0.15<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn19" /></td><td align="center">0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in K growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">0.13<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn18" /></td><td align="center">0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in 1st grade for BPS PreK enrollees</td><td align="center">0.03</td><td align="center">0.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in 1st grade for BPS PreK non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−0.03</td><td align="center">0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in 1st growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">0.06</td><td align="center">0.06</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SSIS externalizing behaviors</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in K for BPS PreK enrollees</td><td align="center">−0.03</td><td align="center">0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in K for BPS PreK non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−0.12<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn19" /></td><td align="center">0.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in K growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">0.09<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn17" /></td><td align="center">0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in 1st grade for BPS PreK enrollees</td><td align="center">0.00</td><td align="center">0.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in 1st grade for BPS PreK non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">0.05</td><td align="center">0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in 1st growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−0.04</td><td align="center">0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Task engagement</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in K for BPS PreK enrollees</td><td align="center">0.20<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn19" /></td><td align="center">0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in K for BPS PreK non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">0.35<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn19" /></td><td align="center">0.07</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in K growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−0.15<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn16" /></td><td align="center">0.09</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in 1st grade for BPS PreK enrollees</td><td align="center">−0.02</td><td align="center">0.06</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Growth in 1st grade for BPS PreK non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−0.04</td><td align="center">0.09</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in 1st growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">0.02</td><td align="center">0.11</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>16 † <emph>p</emph> < 0.10.</item> <item>17 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.05.</item> <item>18 ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.01.</item> <item>19 *** <emph>p</emph> < 0.001.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0186282409-38">SE Skills</hd> <p>Although there were some initial associations between BPS PreK and SE skills at the start of kindergarten (task orientation: <emph>γ</emph> = 0.26, SE = 0.11, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05, SD = 0.23; internalizing behaviors: <emph>γ</emph> = −0.18, SE = 0.05, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001, SD = −0.34), these associations were not sustained in the spring of kindergarten or first grade. See the bottom panel of Table 3.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-39">DLL Subgroup Analysis</hd> <p>We found no differences by DLL status between BPS PreK enrollment and academic, EF, or SE skills through spring of first grade. This mirrored work done with this sample exploring outcomes through spring of kindergarten only (McCormick et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref111">49</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-40">RQ2: To What Extent Was BPS PreK Enrollment Associated With Differential Growth in Academic,...</hd> <p>Table 6 provides findings from models showing differences in growth between BPS PreK enrollees and non‐enrollees. In Table 6, the "Diff. in K growth" slope refers to the estimated difference between skills in the fall of kindergarten and the spring of kindergarten, and the "Diff. in 1st growth" slope refers to the estimated difference between skills in the spring of kindergarten to the spring of first grade. Appendix S4 presents a more detailed set of findings from these models that includes all model coefficients and variance terms. Appendix S5 then illustrates results with a series of figures showing differential growth in skills across these time periods.</p> <p>6 TABLE Model‐based estimates: Examination of differential growth rates in skills between BPS PreK enrollees and non‐enrollees.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><th align="left">Outcome and growth rate</th><th align="center"><italic>γ</italic></th><th align="center">SE</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">PPVT raw score</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in K growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−2.53<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn21" /></td><td align="center">1.27</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in 1st growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−5.35<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn23" /></td><td align="center">1.33</td></tr><tr><td align="left">WJAP W score</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in K growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−3.97<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn22" /></td><td align="center">1.52</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in 1st growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−2.31</td><td align="center">1.41</td></tr><tr><td align="left">REMA t‐score</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in K growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−0.56</td><td align="center">0.37</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in 1st growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−0.52</td><td align="center">0.32</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Hearts and flowers inhibitory control (flowers task)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in K growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">0.01</td><td align="center">0.03</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in 1st growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−0.02</td><td align="center">0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Hearts and flowers cognitive flexibility control (mixed task)</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in K growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">0.03</td><td align="center">0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in 1st growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−0.05<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn21" /></td><td align="center">0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Digit span forward categorical score</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in K growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−0.01</td><td align="center">0.10</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in 1st growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−0.14</td><td align="center">0.10</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SSIS social skills</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in K growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−0.13<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn22" /></td><td align="center">0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in 1st growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">0.03</td><td align="center">0.06</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SSIS internalizing behaviors</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in K growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">0.13<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn22" /></td><td align="center">0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in 1st growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">0.06</td><td align="center">0.06</td></tr><tr><td align="left">SSIS externalizing behaviors</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in K growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">0.09<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn21" /></td><td align="center">0.04</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in 1st growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−0.04</td><td align="center">0.05</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Task engagement</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in K growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">−0.15<xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn20" /></td><td align="center">0.09</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Diff. in 1st growth: BPS PreK enrollees—non‐enrollees</td><td align="center">0.02</td><td align="center">0.11</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>20 † <emph>p</emph> < 0.10.</item> <item>21 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.05.</item> <item>22 ** <emph>p</emph> < 0.01.</item> <item>23 *** <emph>p</emph> < 0.001.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0186282409-41">Academic Skills</hd> <p>Results from models examining academic skills are presented in the top panel of Table 6. As illustrated, both BPS PreK enrollees and non‐enrollees demonstrated statistically significant growth in language skills across both kindergarten and first grade. Growth rates in language skills, however, were faster for non‐enrollees in both kindergarten (Δ = −2.53, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05) and first grade (Δ = −5.35, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001), indicating that there was a pattern of catch‐up during those time periods. In math, BPS PreK enrollees and non‐enrollees had substantial and statistically significant growth on the WJAP and REMA in both kindergarten and first grade. On the WJAP, non‐enrollees made significantly larger gains than BPS PreK enrollees during kindergarten (Δ = −3.97, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01). However, <emph>differences</emph> in growth on the WJAP across first grade between BPS PreK enrollees and non‐enrollees were not statistically significant, suggesting similar growth rates across groups during first grade. This pattern suggests that the bulk of catch‐up on the WJAP occurs during kindergarten. On the REMA, the differences in growth rates within each grade favored non‐enrollees but were not statistically significant.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-42">EF Skills</hd> <p>Results summarizing models examining EF are presented in the middle panel of Table 6. Both BPS PreK enrollees and non‐enrollees showed statistically significant growth in all measured domains—inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, and working memory—across kindergarten and first grade. We did not observe differential growth in inhibitory control between groups in either year. For cognitive flexibility, we found that BPS PreK enrollees grew slower than their peers during first grade (Δ = −0.05, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05), indicating greater catch‐up in this period than in kindergarten. This pattern was the same for working memory where growth rates between BPS PreK enrollees and non‐enrollees were similar in kindergarten but faster for non‐enrollees in first grade, although this difference was not statistically significant. Overall, however, the pattern suggests that the majority of convergence in EF occurred in first grade.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-43">SE Skills</hd> <p>BPS PreK enrollees and non‐enrollees both had statistically significant growth in social skills and task engagement during kindergarten. However, differences in growth in these domains favored non‐enrollees during kindergarten (social skills: Δ = −0.13, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01; task engagement: Δ = −0.15, <emph>p</emph> < 0.10) (although the difference for task engagement was trend level). Growth rates were similar across groups in first grade. This suggests that the bulk of catch‐up in these domains occurred in kindergarten and convergence was maintained across first grade. Both groups showed negative growth—or losses—in teacher‐reported social skills in first grade, and these rates were similar across BPS PreK enrollees and non‐enrollees. Task engagement did not change for either group during first grade; the slope was not statistically significant for either group.</p> <p>In contrast, while BPS PreK enrollees did not change during kindergarten on teacher‐reported internalizing or externalizing behaviors, non‐enrollees saw reductions in these behaviors over time (internalizing behaviors for non‐attenders: <emph>γ</emph> = −0.15, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001; externalizing behaviors for non‐attenders: <emph>γ</emph> = 0.12, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) with statistically significant differences in these rates between groups in kindergarten (internalizing behaviors: Δ = 0.13, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01; externalizing behaviors: Δ = 0.09, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05). Thus, the catch‐up pattern on behaviors took place in kindergarten. Teacher reports on these behaviors did not change for either group during first grade, with BPS enrollees and non‐enrollees exhibiting similar scores across this period.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-44">DLL Subgroup Analysis</hd> <p>We found no differential growth patterns by DLL status between BPS PreK enrollment and academic, EF, or SE skills through spring of first grade.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-45">Discussion</hd> <p>The current study aimed to advance the field's understanding of patterns related to PreK fadeout and convergence across a broad range of skill types in the context of a high‐quality program. This study is the first to examine the benefits of the BPS PreK program across a broad range of skills as children transition through kindergarten and first grade. There were persistent associations between BPS PreK enrollment and children's language and math skills in the spring of first grade, on the order of about 0.25 SD for each outcome. The magnitude of these differences translates into about 3 months of learning in both outcome domains (Lipsey et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref112">44</reflink>]). There was also a persistent association with literacy skills assessed with the WJLWID subtest, but the finding was only statistically significant at <emph>p</emph> < 0.10.</p> <p>Although findings suggest continued benefits of the program in these learning domains through the spring of first grade, the magnitude of the boost did diminish by 35%–45% across outcomes between fall of kindergarten and spring of first grade. These sustained associations are larger than those reported in the broader literature. Indeed, meta‐analytic work by Li et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref113">41</reflink>]) found the effects of early care and education programs—examined collectively—lose about half of their size within 1 year after the end of treatment and rarely persist more than 2 years. Findings also stand in contrast to work using an experimental design to estimate effects of the state‐wide TN Voluntary PreK program (Lipsey et al. [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref114">42</reflink>]), which found no lasting differences favoring PreK enrollees by the end of first grade in any academic domains. One could theorize that the BPS PreK program is higher quality than the programs studied in the broader literature or a state‐wide program like Tennessee. Indeed, programs across the country typically do not implement evidence‐based curricula (Hanno, Gonzalez, et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref115">33</reflink>]), have as high educational standards for teachers as Boston does (Friedman‐Krauss et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref116">28</reflink>]). Many offer minimal training and coaching to teachers (Maier and Kou [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref117">46</reflink>]). The curricula implemented in Boston focus on providing a rich language environment and exposing students to advanced vocabulary, as well as using evidence‐based pedagogical practices to support a broad range of math, problem‐solving, and critical thinking skills. Targeting language skills via curricula in the context of quality‐supporting structures may drive lasting benefits, compared to global curricula.</p> <p>However, the associations reported here are also substantially smaller than those reported in a study by Johnson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref118">40</reflink>]) using propensity score matching. In that study, the authors found lasting positive associations between attending Tulsa PreK and children's math (SD = 0.40–0.45), phonological awareness (SD = 0.52), expressive vocabulary (SD = 0.36), and sentence structure (0.56) through the end of first grade. Importantly, the Tulsa and BPS PreK programs have typically been described as having similar levels of quality (Phillips et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref119">53</reflink>]). Oklahoma is among the top 10 states in the nation for per‐child spending on public preschool and one of only five states that meet 9/10 of NIEER's program quality benchmarks (Friedman‐Krauss et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref120">28</reflink>]). However, there are important analytic differences between this work and the current study to consider. For example, Johnson et al. ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref121">40</reflink>]) used inverse probability of treatment weighting to estimate Average Treatment on the Control (ATC) effects and compared PreK enrollees to children who did not attend any formal early learning program at age 4. In contrast, the current study compared BPS PreK enrollees to a more typical counterfactual composed of children attending a range of different early learning programs or staying at home, which could be diminishing the magnitude of the associations.</p> <p>In contrast to our academic findings, there were no lasting links between BPS PreK enrollment and any of the behavioral, SE, and approaches to learning that we examined through the spring of first grade. Recent meta‐analytic work has found a similar pattern, showing that PreK impacts on cognitive skills are more likely to persist over time compared to non‐cognitive skills (Hart et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref122">35</reflink>]). This pattern also aligns with findings from the federally funded Early Learning Network, with studies from Virginia (Ansari et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref123">2</reflink>]) and North Carolina (Burchinal et al. [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref124">12</reflink>]) also finding no lasting benefits of PreK programs on behaviors, approaches to learning, and SE as soon as the end of kindergarten. Kindergarten does traditionally focus on helping students learn school routines, exposing all students to same‐age peers, and providing supports when needed to help students function well in school. As such, it is likely that any benefits of PreK on these domains would be likely to converge fairly quickly. Interestingly, we observed negative growth in teacher‐reported social skills among both enrollees and non‐enrollees in first grade. It is possible that these declines are an artifact of differing expectations for social skills in first‐grade classrooms as compared to in kindergarten classrooms.</p> <p>Although we perhaps expected to see convergence on most non‐academic domains, we were somewhat surprised to find no lasting benefit of BPS PreK on EF. The earlier work done in Boston with this sample had found "emergent" benefits on inhibitory control and working memory at the end of kindergarten, and we hypothesized that this would be maintained as children were exposed to the more cognitively demanding context of first grade. However, in line with other recent work (e.g., Johnson et al. [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref125">40</reflink>]; Little [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref126">45</reflink>]) we found the opposite: total convergence on all three EF domains. EF skills, unlike academic skills, were not directly targeted in BPS PreK. It may only be possible to boost EF skills in the longer term when implementing targeted supports and content as has been done in interventions like the Chicago School Readiness Project (Raver et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref127">57</reflink>]) and the Research‐based Developmentally Informed intervention (REDI; Bierman et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref128">9</reflink>]). However, other work has shown that math curricula alone—like the one implemented in BPS—can move young children's EF more than a bundled math and EF approach (Clements et al. [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref129">20</reflink>]). Further research on this topic is thus needed.</p> <p>The null findings across all non‐academic skills suggest there is limited evidence that PreK impacts on these types of outcomes in elementary school are key mechanisms explaining effects in adolescence and early adulthood (e.g., Gray‐Lobe et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref130">31</reflink>]). Investing in a broader range of measures may be important for continuing to figure out why the field observes this "magical resurgence of long‐term effects" (Duncan [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref131">23</reflink>]) despite continuing to observe fadeout or convergence during elementary school.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-46">Understanding When Convergence Is Most Salient for Which Skills</hd> <p>The larger contribution of this work stems from our use of growth modeling to understand when patterns of convergence were most apparent. We found that patterns of convergence looked different for language compared to math skills. Typically, there is a large initial boost that is about halved within a year and then continues to become smaller over time (Li et al. [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref132">41</reflink>]). This pattern held for more constrained literacy skills in Boston before it aligned its PreK—second‐grade curriculum (Weiland et al. [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref133">68</reflink>]). In the current study, however, we found greater evidence of catch‐up in first grade. There are two possibilities for this result. First, the majority of schools implemented <emph>Focus on Early Learning</emph>, a curricular and PD approach to align instruction from PreK to second grade. It could be that kindergarten implementation succeeded in achieving sustained, rich language environments, supporting PreK enrollees to build on earlier learnings. The first‐grade implementation—which was newer at the time of the study—might have been less effective, leading to faster catch‐up.</p> <p>Another explanation could be that BPS PreK non‐enrollees simply needed the full kindergarten year to learn key routines and be exposed to foundational instruction in order to make significant gains in receptive vocabulary. Having developed that baseline in kindergarten, they were then better prepared to take advantage of the instruction supporting rich vocabulary development during first grade, a year with a tremendous focus on teaching key literacy and language skills to ensure all children are able to read competently before moving on to second grade. Taken together, this finding highlights the potential importance of continuing to support exposure to advanced vocabulary and language content for all students—as research has shown that children all benefit from that type of instruction (Claessens et al. [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref134">18</reflink>])—particularly in first grade. Further work examining these trends in a district not actively implementing an aligned curricula model should also be done to see if these findings replicate across settings.</p> <p>In contrast to vocabulary, we observed faster convergence in one measure of math—WJAP (more constrained)—during kindergarten than first grade. This aligns with the typical pattern one would observe, but there was perhaps less convergence overall than would have been expected based on similar work. The WJAP does focus on foundational numeracy and arithmetic skills, all of which are a key focus of math instruction in kindergarten (Engel et al. [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref135">27</reflink>]). In contrast, we did not observe statistically significant levels of convergence in either grade on our more unconstrained measure of math skills—the REMA. Notably, some of the skills captured in the REMA—like algebraic thinking and problem‐solving—are named as skills that meet Bailey et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref136">4</reflink>]) definition of "trifecta" skills, meaning that they are fundamental, malleable, and not likely to develop unless children are directly exposed to instruction that targets these skills. It may be important to implement curricula that support a broader range of math skills, including unconstrained aspects, in order to promote PreK benefits through first grade, while also integrating similar instructional practices—targeting skills like geometry, patterning, measurement, and use of data—into early elementary grades (Mattera et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref137">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>As noted earlier, we did not observe any lasting differences between BPS PreK enrollees and non‐enrollees by the end of first grade in EF, despite detecting differences in inhibitory control and working memory at the end of kindergarten. Growth models confirmed that although BPS PreK enrollees grew substantially faster than their peers in these skills during kindergarten, the pattern flipped and non‐enrollees made much larger gains in both outcomes during first grade. It is possible that EF could be a skill domain that is initially malleable to a broad intervention like a public PreK program simply because it supports students to develop foundational skills needed to perform individual tasks in a school‐based environment. However, at its core, EF is a cognitive process that is inherently less malleable than school‐based academic skills (Moffett et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref138">50</reflink>]). In turn, it is perhaps inevitable that children will perform similarly on these tasks regardless of whether they attend high‐quality PreK or not. Even in contexts where students were exposed to early intervention that directly aimed to enhance their EF skills, there is little evidence that these impacts persist in the longer term (Hart et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref139">35</reflink>]). Importantly, once we did observe convergence for an outcome domain, we found that rates of subsequent growth were similar for PreK enrollees and non‐enrollees.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-47">Limitations and Directions for Future Research</hd> <p>Although this study has a number of strengths—including the longitudinal data and modeling approach, the diverse sample, and the broad range of measured outcomes—there are a number of limitations to address in future work. First, students in BPS were not randomly assigned to the PreK program, and the study cannot infer causality. Further research leveraging experimental designs should seek to capture similar longitudinal outcome data to address this limitation. Relatedly, the findings from this study are only generalizable to the BPS PreK program and the students who enroll in public kindergarten in Boston. Second, we lacked a data collection time point in the fall of first grade. Thus, it is impossible to parse out how much of the first‐grade catch‐up is attributed to differences in summer learning compared to in‐school first‐grade learning. Relatedly, because we do not have the fall of first‐grade time point, the growth rate slopes between kindergarten and first grade consider different units of time (although they both estimate a slope—or rate of change). The outcome analysis in this study is limited to kindergarten and first grade. Other work on both the older (Gray‐Lobe et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref140">31</reflink>]) and more contemporary version (Weiland et al. [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref141">67</reflink>]) of the BPS program—leveraging lotteries to address concerns about internal validity—found no lasting impacts on standardized test scores in third grade (although there were emergent effects on outcomes in high school and college in Gray‐Lobe et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref142">31</reflink>]). Further work is needed to continue following the current sample through third grade to compare to that earlier work. Importantly as well, due to changes in measures collected, we did not have the ability to examine growth models for literacy skills or for one of our working memory measures. Future research should seek to address this limitation.</p> <p>Fourth, it is important to note limitations in our assessment measures. While some of the assessment measures were not bound by measurement floors and ceilings (e.g., PPVT, WJ, FDS, BDS), others were (e.g., executive function measures, SE skills). Because of this, we cannot be certain that the assessment measures constrained by floors and ceilings can adequately measure growth. Most of our statistically significant findings were centered on academic skills that do not present these measurement challenges. Still, we should be cautious when comparing growth across assessment measures that utilize differing scales. Additionally, while we have categorized certain assessment measures as tapping into either more constrained or more unconstrained skills, it is important to acknowledge the complexity of skill development within each domain and how a distinction between the constrained and unconstrained features may not always be clear‐cut. This categorization serves as a heuristic rather than a definitive classification, and further work should explore nuance along this continuum.</p> <p>Lastly, the sample size and absence of PreK‐level data pose limitations for fully understanding convergence patterns. Although the sample is demographically diverse, the sample size was not sufficiently powered for subgroup analysis and is not fully representative of the broader district of first grade enrollees. As such, it is unclear if null three‐way interactions between PreK enrollment, time point, and DLL status truly represent a lack of variation in growth for this subgroup, or may be a reflection of the power issue. The study, however, was not originally designed and powered to consider three‐way interactions. Future work taking an equity‐centered approach should seek to consider variation in fadeout or convergence patterns for students from different racial, ethnic, linguistic, and socioeconomic backgrounds. The study of fadeout or convergence could also greatly benefit from future work exploring the measurement of children's skill development during PreK itself.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-48">Implications for Research, Policy, and Practice</hd> <p>Findings have implications for research, policy, and practice. First, it continues to appear fruitful for researchers to consider a broader range of outcomes in evaluations of existing PreK programs, particularly if the goal is to examine patterns of persistence or convergence over time. Examining skills that could be considered more constrained and more unconstrained or could fall into the description of trifecta skills can help build more knowledge on how investments in PreK are likely to benefit students across time. Second, using growth models to simultaneously understand mean differences across time and variation in gains during distinct time periods for PreK enrollees and non‐enrollees can help build understanding of developmental processes contributing to fadeout or convergence. Investing in such methodologies can help address false narratives about fadeout among a broader audience as well.</p> <p>Policymakers and practitioners can also learn from this work as they make decisions about how to invest in early learning. First, considering models like Boston—that explicitly focus on both constrained and unconstrained aspects of academic skills via evidence‐based curricula, training and coaching, and structural requirements that affect teacher quality—may be important for observing sustained benefits for those targeted skills. In particular, enduring positive associations for unconstrained skills suggest the benefits of explicitly targeting these skills in PreK, as well as considering ways to support non‐enrollees in catching up on these foundational skills. Second, understanding instruction in kindergarten and first grade and how it aligns with the skills being taught in PreK may be critical to supporting learning for all students. Kindergarten and first grade are a pivotal time for providing targeted supports for students needing to "catch up" and for leveraging the foundation built by high‐quality PreK experiences to enhance students' pre‐existing skills, particularly for EF and SE development. Policymakers and practitioners should prioritize strategies that foster seamless transitions and alignment between PreK and early elementary education, with a focus on holistic child development. Targeting PD for teachers in elementary school to address diverse needs, enhance exposure to rich vocabulary and more complex math instruction, and integrate research‐backed EF and SE learning curricula may be helpful steps to consider. And investing in structures that allow districts to collect data on students' skills across grades is important for understanding longer term impacts of PreK investments and using data to strengthen instruction.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-49">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>The research reported here was conducted as a part of a study funded by Arnold Ventures and Grant R305N160018—17 from the Institute of Education Sciences to MDRC with subcontracts to the University of Michigan, the Boston Public Schools, and the Harvard Graduate School of Education. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent views of the Institute or the U.S. Department of Education. The work presented in this paper has not been influenced by funder sources. Thanks to the Boston Public Schools, the BPS Department of Early Childhood coaches and staff, the BPS Department of Research, the MDRC team, the HGSE research team, and the University of Michigan research team. The IRBs at the lead and partner organizations approved the human subjects plan prior to the commencement of study activities. The project name is ExCEL P‐3 and the IRB approval number is 860661‐15.</p> <hd id="AN0186282409-50">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data and code necessary to reproduce the analyses presented here are publicly accessible, as are the materials necessary to attempt to replicate the findings. Data, code, and materials are available from ICPSR upon conclusion of the project in 2026. The analyses presented here were not preregistered.</p> <p>GRAPH: Appendix S1.</p> <ref id="AN0186282409-51"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref31" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Funding: The research reported here was conducted as a part of a study funded by Arnold Ventures and Grant R305N160018—17 from the Institute of Education Sciences to MDRC with subcontracts to the University of Michigan, the Boston Public Schools, and the Harvard Graduate School of Education.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0186282409-52"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Abenavoli, R. M. 2019. " The Mechanisms and Moderators of 'Fade‐Out': Towards Understanding Why the Skills of Early Childhood Program Participants Converge Over Time With the Skills of Other Children." Psychological Bulletin 145 : 1103 – 1127. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000212.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref9" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Ansari, A., R. C. Pianta, J. V. Whittaker, V. E. Vitiello, and E. A. Ruzek. 2020. " Persistence and Convergence: The End of Kindergarten Outcomes of Pre‐K Graduates and Their Nonattending Peers." Developmental Psychology 56 : 2027 – 2039. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001115.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref34" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Ansari, A., and A. Winsler. 2022. " The Long‐Term Benefits of Montessori Pre‐K for Latinx Children From Low‐Income Families." Applied Developmental Science 26 : 252 – 266. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2020.1781632.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref5" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bailey, D., G. J. Duncan, C. L. Odgers, and W. Yu. 2017. " Persistence and Fadeout in the Impacts of Child and Adolescent Interventions." Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 10, no. 1 : 7 – 39. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2016.1232459.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref32" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Barnett, W. S. 2011. " Effectiveness of Early Educational Intervention." Science 333 : 975 – 978. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1204534.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref29" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Barnett, W. S., and K. Jung. 2021. " Effects of New Jersey's Abbott Preschool Program on Children's Achievement, Grade Retention, and Special Education Through Tenth Grade." Early Childhood Research Quarterly 56 : 248 – 259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.04.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref90" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Barrueco, S., M. Lopez, C. Ong, and P. Lozano. 2012. Assessing Spanish‐English Bilingual Preschoolers: A Guide to Best Approaches and Measures. Paul H. Brookes Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref22" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bassok, D., C. R. Gibbs, and S. Latham. 2019. " Preschool and Children's Outcomes in Elementary School: Have Patterns Changed Nationwide Between 1998 and 2010? " Child Development 90 : 1875 – 1897. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13067.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref128" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bierman, K. L., C. E. Domitrovich, R. L. Nix, et al. 2008. " Promoting Academic and Social‐Emotional School Readiness: The Head Start REDI Program." Child Development 79 : 1802 – 1817. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2008.01227.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bingham, G. E., C. Phelps, and M. P. Dean. 2023. " Examining the Preschool to First‐Grade Literacy and Language Outcomes of Black Children Experiencing a High‐Quality Early Childhood Program." Elementary School Journal 123 : 367 – 395. https://doi.org/10.1086/723372.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bronfenbrenner, U., and P. A. Morris. 2006. " The Bioecological Model of Human Development." In Handbook of Child Psychology: Theoretical Models of Human Development, edited by R. M. Lerner and W. Damon, 793 – 828. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burchinal, M., T. Foster, K. Garber, L. Cohen‐Vogel, M. Bratsch‐Hines, and E. Peisner‐Feinberg. 2022. " Examining Three Hypotheses for Pre‐Kindergarten Fade‐Out." Developmental Psychology 58 : 453 – 469. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001302.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Burchinal, M., R. Pianta, A. Ansari, J. Whittaker, and V. Vitiello. 2023. " Kindergarten Academic and Social Skills and Exposure to Peers With Pre‐Kindergarten Experience." Early Childhood Research Quarterly 62 : 41 – 52.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Campbell, F. A., C. T. Ramey, E. Pungello, J. Sparling, and S. Miller‐Johnson. 2002. " Early Childhood Education: Young Adult Outcomes From the Abecedarian Project." Applied Developmental Science 6 : 42 – 57.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carlson, S. M., L. J. Moses, and C. Breton. 2002. " How Specific Is the Relation Between Executive Function and Theory of Mind? Contributions of Inhibitory Control and Working Memory." Infant and Child Development: An International Journal of Research and Practice 11, no. 2 : 73 – 92. https://doi.org/10.1002/icd.298.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carr, R. C., J. M. Jenkins, T. W. Watts, E. S. Peisner‐Feinberg, and K. A. Dodge. 2024. " Investigating if High‐Quality Kindergarten Teachers Sustain the Pre‐K Boost to Children's Emergent Literacy Skill Development in North Carolina." Child Development 95 : 1200 – 1217.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chaudry, A., T. Morrissey, C. Weiland, and H. Yoshikawa. 2021. Cradle to Kindergarten: A New Plan to Combat Inequality. 2nd ed. Russell Sage Foundation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Claessens, A., M. Engel, and F. C. Curran. 2014. " Academic Content, Student Learning, and the Persistence of Preschool Effects." American Educational Research Journal 51 : 403 – 434.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clements, D. H., and J. Sarama. 2007. " Effects of a Preschool Mathematics Curriculum: Summative Research on the Building Blocks Project." Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 38 : 136 – 163.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clements, D. H., J. Sarama, C. Layzer, F. Unlu, and L. Fesler. 2020. " Effects on Mathematics and Executive Function of a Mathematics and Play Intervention Versus Mathematics Alone." Journal for Research in Mathematics Education 51 : 301 – 333.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Clements, D. H., J. H. Sarama, and X. H. Liu. 2008. " Development of a Measure of Early Mathematics Achievement Using the Rasch Model: The Research‐Based Early Maths Assessment." Educational Psychology 28 : 457 – 482. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410701777272.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davidson, M. C., D. Amso, L. C. Anderson, and A. Diamond. 2006. " Development of Cognitive Control and Executive Functions From 4 to 13 Years: Evidence From Manipulations of Memory, Inhibition, and Task Switching." Neuropsychologia 44 : 2037 – 2078. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.02.006.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duncan, G. 2015. Opening Address Fade‐Out in Human Capital Intervention: Death, Miracles and Resurrection. SREE Society for Research on Educatoinal Effectiveness: Learning Curves: Creating and Sustaining Gains from Early Childhood through Adulthood.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Duncan, S. E., and E. A. DeAvila. 1998. PreLAS. CBT McGraw Hill.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dunn, L. M., and L. M. Dunn. 2007. Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. 4th ed. American Guidance Service.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Elliott, J., S. W. Lee, and N. Tollefson. 2001. " A Reliability and Validity Study of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills—Modified." School Psychology Review 30, no. 1 : 33 – 49. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2001.12086099.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Engel, M., R. Jacob, A. Claessens, and A. Erickson. 2021. " Kindergarten in a Large Urban District." Educational Researcher 50 : 401 – 415. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X211041586.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Friedman‐Krauss, A. H., W. S. Barnett, K. A. Garver, et al. 2022. The State of Preschool 2021. National Institute for Early Education Research.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gathercole, S. E., and S. J. Pickering. 2000. " Assessment of Working Memory in Six‐and Seven‐Year‐Old Children." Journal of Educational Psychology 92, no. 2 : 377 – 390. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.92.2.377.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gormley, B., D. Phillips, and S. Anderson. 2015. The Long‐Term Effects of Tulsa Pre‐K Program on Academic Outcomes. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gray‐Lobe, G., P. A. Pathak, and C. R. Walters. 2023. " The Long‐Term Effects of Universal Preschool in Boston." Quarterly Journal of Economics 138, no. 1 : 363 – 411. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjac036.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gresham, F., and S. N. Elliott. 2008. Social Skills Improvement System (SSIS) Rating Scales. Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanno, E. C., K. E. Gonzalez, S. M. Jones, and N. K. Lesaux. 2021. " Linking Features of Structural and Process Quality Across the Landscape of Early Education and Care." AERA Open 7 : 23328584211044519. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211044519.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hanno, E. C., S. M. Jones, and N. K. Lesaux. 2021. " Back to Basics: Developmental Catalysts of Quality Improvement in Early Education and Care." Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 8 : 200 – 207. https://doi.org/10.1177/237273222110322.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hart, E. R., D. H. Bailey, S. Luo, P. Sengupta, and T. W. Watts. 2024. " Fadeout and Persistence of Intervention Impacts on Social–Emotional and Cognitive Skills in Children and Adolescents: A Meta‐Analytic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials." Psychological Bulletin 150, no. 10 : 1207.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heckman, J., S. H. Moon, R. Pinto, P. Savelyev, and A. Yavitz. 2010. " Analyzing Social Experiments as Implemented: A Reexamination of the Evidence From the HighScope Perry Preschool Program." Quantitative Economics 1 : 1 – 46. https://doi.org/10.3982/qe8.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hemphill, L., and T. Tivnan. 2008. " The Importance of Early Vocabulary for Literacy Achievement in High‐Poverty Schools." Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 13 : 426 – 451. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824660802427710.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hightower, A. D., W. C. Work, E. L. Cowen, et al. 1986. " The Teacher‐Child Rating Scale: A Brief Objective Measure of Elementary Children's School Problem Behaviors and Competencies." School Psychology Review 15, no. 3 : 393 – 409. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.1986.12085242.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hill, C. J., W. T. Gormley, and S. Adelstein. 2015. " Do the Short‐Term Effects of a High‐Quality Preschool Program Persist? " Early Childhood Research Quarterly 32 : 60 – 79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.12.005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, A. D., A. Partika, A. Martin, D. Horm, D. A. Phillips, and S. S. T. Tulsa. 2023. " A Deeper Dive, a Wider Pool: Preschool Benefits Sustain to First Grade on a Broader Set of Outcomes." Child Development 94, no. 5 : 1298 – 1318. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13928.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Li, W., G. J. Duncan, K. Magnuson, H. S. Schindler, H. Yoshikawa, and J. Leak. 2020. Timing in Early Childhood Education: How Cognitive and Achievement Program Impacts Vary by Starting Age, Program Duration, and Time Since the End of the Program. EdWorkingPaper No. 20‐201. Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lipsey, M. W., D. C. Farran, and K. Durkin. 2018. " Effects of the Tennessee Prekindergarten Program on Children's Achievement and Behavior Through Third Grade." Early Childhood Research Quarterly 45 : 155 – 176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.03.005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lipsey, M. W., K. T. Nesbitt, D. C. Farran, N. Dong, M. W. Fuhs, and S. J. Wilson. 2017. " Learning‐Related Cognitive Self‐Regulation Measures for Prekindergarten Children: A Comparative Evaluation of the Educational Relevance of Selected Measures." Journal of Educational Psychology 109 : 1084 – 1102. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000203.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lipsey, M. W., K. Puzio, C. Yun, et al. 2012. Translating the Statistical Representation of the Effects of Education Interventions Into More Readily Interpretable Forms. National Center for Special Education Research.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Little, M. 2021. " Nationally Representative Evidence on the Association Between Preschool and Executive Function Skills Throughout Elementary School." AERA Open 7 : 23328584211048399. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584211048399.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maier, M. F., and A. Kou. 2019. Professional Development Supports and Teacher Practice in Low‐Income Pre‐K Programs: Strengthening the Diversity and Quality of the Early Care and Education Workforce Paper Series. Urban Institute.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mattera, S. K., R. T. Jacob, C. MacDowell, and P. Morris. 2021. Long‐Term Effects of Enhanced Early Childhood Math Instruction: The Impacts of Making Pre‐k Count and High 5s on Third‐Grade Outcomes MDRC. https://<ulink href="http://www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/MPC%5fHigh5‐3yr%5fImpact%5fReport.pdf">www.mdrc.org/sites/default/files/MPC%5fHigh5‐3yr%5fImpact%5fReport.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCormick, M., S. Mattera, and J. Hsueh. 2019. Preschool to Third Grade Alignment: What Do We Know and What Are We Learning? Policy Brief. MDRC.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCormick, M., C. Weiland, J. Hsueh, et al. 2021. " Is Skill Type the Key to the PreK Fadeout Puzzle? Differential Associations Between Enrollment in PreK and Constrained and Unconstrained Skills Across Kindergarten." Child Development 92 : e599 – e620. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13520.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Moffett, L., A. Weissman, M. McCormick, et al. 2023. " Enrollment in Pre‐K and Children's Social‐Emotional and Executive Functioning Skills: To What Extent Are Associations Sustained Across Time? " Journal of Educational Psychology 115 : 460 – 474. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000782.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Nores, M., and K. Jung. 2019. "Longitudinal Evaluation of West Virginia's Universal Pre‐K." NIEER Report.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paris, S. G. 2005. " Reinterpreting the Development of Reading Skills." Reading Research Quarterly 40 : 184 – 202. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.40.2.3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phillips, D. A., W. T. Gormley, and A. E. Lowenstein. 2009. " Inside the Pre‐Kindergarten Door: Classroom Climate and Instructional Time Allocation in Tulsa's Pre‐K Programs." Early Childhood Research Quarterly 24 : 213 – 228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2009.05.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phillips, D. A., A. D. Johnson, C. Weiland, and J. E. Hutchison. 2017. Public Preschool in a More Diverse America: Implications for Next‐Generation Evaluation Research. Working Paper Series, No. 2‐17. Poverty Solutions, University of Michigan.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pianta, R., M. McCormick, M. Burchinal, et al. 2021. Sustaining the Pre‐K Boost: Skill Type Matters. Policy Brief. Early Learning Network.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Puma, M., S. Bell, R. Cook, et al. 2010. Head Start Impact Study: Final Report. OPRE Report 2012‐45. Administration for Children & Families.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raver, C. C., S. M. Jones, C. Li‐Grining, F. Zhai, K. Bub, and E. Pressler. 2011. " CSRP'S Impact on Low‐Income Preschoolers' Preacademic Skills: Self‐Regulation as a Mediating Mechanism." Child Development 82 : 362 – 378. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2010.01561.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reardon, S. F., and X. A. Portilla. 2016. " Recent Trends in Income, Racial, and Ethnic School Readiness Gaps at Kindergarten Entry." AERA Open 2, no. 3 : 2332858416657343.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rittle‐Johnson, B., and M. Schneider. 2015. " Developing Conceptual and Procedural Knowledge of Mathematics." In Oxford Handbook of Numerical Cognition, 1118 – 1134. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199642342.013.014.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sarama, J., A. A. Lange, D. H. Clements, and C. B. Wolfe. 2012. " The Impacts of an Early Mathematics Curriculum on Oral Language and Literacy." Early Childhood Research Quarterly 27, no. 3 : 489 – 502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.12.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schickedanz, J., and D. Dickinson. 2005. Opening the World of Learning. Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schrank, F. A., K. S. McGrew, M. L. Ruef, and C. G. Alvarado. 2005. Batería III Woodcock‐Muñoz. Riverside Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shapiro, A., E. Maritn, C. Wieland, and R. Unterman. 2019. " If You Offer It, Will They Come? Patterns of Applications and Enrollment Behavior in a Universal Prekindergarten Context." AERA Open 5 : 2332858419848442. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419848442.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snow, C. E., and T. J. Matthews. 2016. " Reading and Language in the Early Grades." Future of Children 26 : 57 – 74. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2016.0012.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Waters, G. S., and D. Caplan. 2003. " The Reliability and Stability of Verbal Working Memory Measures." Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 35 : 550 – 564. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195534.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wechsler, D. 1989. " Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence—Revised." Journal of School Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/t48859‐000.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weiland, C., R. Unterman, A. Shapiro, S. Staszak, S. Rochester, and E. Martin. 2020. " The effects of enrolling in oversubscribed prekindergarten programs through third grade." Child Development 91, no. 5 : 1401 – 1422.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weiland, C., R. Unterman, and A. Shapiro. 2021. " The Kindergarten Hotspot: Literacy Skill Convergence Between Boston Prekindergarten Enrollees and Nonenrollees." Child Development 92 : 600 – 608. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13499.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weiland, C., and H. Yoshikawa. 2013. " Impacts of a Prekindergarten Program on Children's Mathematics, Language, Literacy, Executive Function, and Emotional Skills." Child Development 84 : 2112 – 2130. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12099.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wong, V. C., T. D. Cook, W. S. Barnett, and K. Jung. 2008. " An Effectiveness‐Based Evaluation of Five State Pre‐Kindergarten Programs." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 27, no. 1 : 122 – 154. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20310.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Woodcock, R. W., K. S. McGrew, and N. Mather. 2001. Woodcock‐Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Riverside.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Meghan McCormick; Emily Hanno; Christina Weiland; Tiffany Wu; Mirjana Pralica; JoAnn Hsueh; Alexandra Giles; Catherine Snow and Jason Sachs</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref94"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref96"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref98"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref99"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref102"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref103"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref104"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref105"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref106"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref108"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref113"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref115"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref117"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref119"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref134"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref141"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1475573
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Moving beyond Point in Time Estimates: Using Growth Models to Understand When PreK Convergence Happens, How, and for Which Skills
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Meghan+McCormick%22">Meghan McCormick</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0009-5774-7395">0009-0009-5774-7395</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Emily+Hanno%22">Emily Hanno</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9136-4293">0000-0002-9136-4293</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Christina+Weiland%22">Christina Weiland</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Tiffany+Wu%22">Tiffany Wu</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Mirjana+Pralica%22">Mirjana Pralica</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22JoAnn+Hsueh%22">JoAnn Hsueh</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Alexandra+Giles%22">Alexandra Giles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Catherine+Snow%22">Catherine Snow</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jason+Sachs%22">Jason Sachs</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Child+Development%22"><i>Child Development</i></searchLink>. 2025 96(4):1354-1372.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 19
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: SourceSuprt
  Label: Sponsoring Agency
  Group: SrcSuprt
  Data: Institute of Education Sciences (ED)
– Name: NumberContract
  Label: Contract Number
  Group: NumCntrct
  Data: R305N160018
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+1%22">Grade 1</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Enrollment%22">Enrollment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Young+Children%22">Young Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Ability%22">Academic Ability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Executive+Function%22">Executive Function</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interpersonal+Competence%22">Interpersonal Competence</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Development%22">Social Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Emotional+Development%22">Emotional Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+1%22">Grade 1</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Skills%22">Language Skills</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mathematics+Skills%22">Mathematics Skills</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/cdev.14240
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0009-3920<br />1467-8624
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study examines associations between enrollment in high-quality PreK and growth in children's (N = 422; M[subscript age] = 5.63 years; 47% female; 15% Asian, 19% Black, 30% White, 31% Hispanic; 5% other or mixed race) academic, executive functioning, and social-emotional skills across kindergarten (2017-2018) and first grade (2018-2019). Associations between PreK enrollment and language and math skills were sustained through first grade. More convergence between PreK enrollees and non-enrollees in language skills occurred during first grade than kindergarten. Convergence patterns were stronger in math during kindergarten than in first grade. There were no associations between PreK enrollment and executive functioning by spring of first grade; most convergence occurred in first grade. All other associations were null by first grade.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: CodeSource
  Label: IES Funded
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Yes
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1475573
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1475573
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/cdev.14240
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 19
        StartPage: 1354
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Enrollment
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Kindergarten
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Young Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Ability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Executive Function
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interpersonal Competence
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Emotional Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 1
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Skills
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mathematics Skills
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Moving beyond Point in Time Estimates: Using Growth Models to Understand When PreK Convergence Happens, How, and for Which Skills
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Meghan McCormick
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Emily Hanno
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Christina Weiland
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Tiffany Wu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Mirjana Pralica
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: JoAnn Hsueh
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Alexandra Giles
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Catherine Snow
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jason Sachs
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 07
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0009-3920
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1467-8624
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 96
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Child Development
              Type: main
ResultId 1