View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Great Start Readiness Program and Children's Academic Achievement: A Longitudinal Study

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Great Start Readiness Program and Children's Academic Achievement: A Longitudinal Study
Language: English
Authors: Huang Wu (ORCID 0000-0002-7423-8447), Jianping Shen (ORCID 0000-0003-4610-4166), Xin Li (ORCID 0000-0002-6564-2704), Megan Russell Johnson, Huilan Y. Krenn
Source: Early Childhood Education Journal. 2025 53(5):1419-1434.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 16
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Preschool Education
Elementary Education
Grade 1
Primary Education
Grade 2
Grade 3
Descriptors: State Programs, School Readiness, Preschool Education, At Risk Students, Preschool Children, Academic Achievement, Urban Schools, Achievement Gains, Elementary School Students, Reading Achievement, Mathematics Achievement, Achievement Tests, Growth Models, Grade 1, Grade 2, Grade 3
Geographic Terms: Michigan
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Measures of Academic Progress
DOI: 10.1007/s10643-024-01680-2
ISSN: 1082-3301
1573-1707
Abstract: Michigan's Great Start Readiness Program (GSRP) is a state-funded pre-K program that serves at risk four-year-old children across the state. Utilizing longitudinal data from 1,394 children in a mid-sized urban school district, we conducted regression analyses and piecewise linear growth models to examine the growth trajectory of GSRP children and non-GSRP children at each grade level from kindergarten to third grade in both reading and math. The results of regression analyses showed that, after accounting for other variables, participation in GSRP was statistically significantly associated with higher scores on Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) measures at various time points, ranging from 0.22-0.46 standard deviations (SD) in math and 0.31-0.49 SD in reading. The results of piecewise linear growth models illustrated that GSRP children had a statistically significantly faster monthly growth rate than non-GSRP children during the kindergarten year. However, the growth rates were not significantly different during the first, second, and third grade.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1470491
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEf6S1zQRq8lvF4rJm9uG0zAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDI-VngQwe-NO7LcZgQIBEICBm0vkY05w7E76Me9ePqrl4g-vNk4C534DCQmo1sWrMm-gH-G7qtXI8MpIRbiKWkE7uI4KmjA46XpR0sKjdCot9VgVoBIfyU8oZqI5jL3mOq5SI8ki3Nuh0Ko9z8l1XlQSBelbCSxejQ-aHiaY45Aw1HcK8QIvsoq7UJ3QBKln4E7oTUB8wyHX2y-3dF-6iLdDsSgeScRuv280s41P
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0185036390;5mx01jun.25;2025May12.06:06;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0185036390-1">Great Start Readiness Program and Children's Academic Achievement: A Longitudinal Study </title> <p>Michigan's Great Start Readiness Program (GSRP) is a state-funded pre-K program that serves at risk four-year-old children across the state. Utilizing longitudinal data from 1,394 children in a mid-sized urban school district, we conducted regression analyses and piecewise linear growth models to examine the growth trajectory of GSRP children and non-GSRP children at each grade level from kindergarten to third grade in both reading and math. The results of regression analyses showed that, after accounting for other variables, participation in GSRP was statistically significantly associated with higher scores on Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) measures at various time points, ranging from 0.22–0.46 standard deviations (SD) in math and 0.31–0.49 SD in reading. The results of piecewise linear growth models illustrated that GSRP children had a statistically significantly faster monthly growth rate than non-GSRP children during the kindergarten year. However, the growth rates were not significantly different during the first, second, and third grade.</p> <p>Keywords: Public preschool; Long-term effects; Early childhood education; Piecewise linear growth model; Program evaluation</p> <p>Copyright comment Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</p> <hd id="AN0185036390-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Early care and education (ECE) programs have long been considered as significant contributors to child development and key tools in mitigating educational inequalities. For example, research conducted by Raver et al. ([<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref1">31</reflink>]) found that children who attended an ECE program had fewer behavior problems and better self-regulation skills than those who did not attend such a program. A meta-analysis study of 123 studies also found that children who participated in ECE programs showed improvements in school readiness, cognitive, and social-emotional development compared to those who did not participate in ECE programs (Barnett, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>]). As a crucial part of the ECE system, universal preschool for four-year-old children, has been a critical discussion in the United States for many years. This discussion has led to a rapidly growing amount of state-funded preschool enrollment, as well as an increase in the total state funding for preschool programs over the past two decades until the COVID-19 pandemic (Barnett et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref3">4</reflink>]; McCoy et al., [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref4">23</reflink>]). The pandemic reversed two decades of progress in expansion, leading to substantial nationwide decreases in the enrollment and investment in state-funded preschools. Afterward, the enrollment in state-funded preschool rebounded in most states and nationally by 13%, although it still has not achieved the same level as the year before the pandemic. Nevertheless, when compared to the school year of 2001–02, the total of state spending for pre-K has increased from $4.52 billion to $9.90 billion in 2021–22, and the number of children enrolled has also doubled, rising from 695,383 to 1,526,116 children (National Institute for Early Education Research, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref5">26</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref6">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>With the expanding public investment, understanding the impacts and benefits of universal preschool programs for children is particularly crucial for policymakers and educators. Evaluating the impact of existing programs enables policymakers to make more informed decisions about resource allocation to enhance these programs. Previous studies have shown that preschool programs have a positive short-term impact on children's development, specifically evident by the time children enter kindergarten. However, the mid- and long-term benefits of these programs remain inconclusive (Barnett & Jung, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref7">3</reflink>]; Blau, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref8">5</reflink>]). In this study, using data from a mid-sized urban school district, we examined the relationship between participation in Michigan's Great Start Readiness Program (GSRP) and student achievement. Michigan's GSRP is a state-funded preschool program catering to four-year-old children from low-income families. The effect of GSRP has only been examined to a limited extent. We extend previous efforts by applying regression analyses and piecewise linear growth models to examine patterns of children's academic development trajectories in reading and math from kindergarten to the third grade among children who participated in the GSRP and those who did not.</p> <hd id="AN0185036390-3">Literature Review</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0185036390-4">Effects of Early Care and Education on Children's Development</hd> <p>The effects of ECE programs on a child's cognitive and social-emotional development has been widely examined (Burchinal et al., [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref9">6</reflink>]; Gormley et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref10">11</reflink>]). Burchinal et al. ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref11">6</reflink>]) reviewed various types of ECE programs, including center-based care, home-based care, and pre-kindergarten programs, examined their effects, and discussed the factors that contribute to high-quality ECE programs. Their study found that overall, ECE programs have significant positive effects on children's development, particularly for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. However, they cautioned that policymakers and educators must ensure the quality and access of ECE programs to maximize their benefits for all children. Additionally, Peisner-Feinberg et al. ([<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref12">29</reflink>]) investigated the relationship between ECE quality and children's cognitive and social development from preschool to the second grade. Using a sample of 373 children from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds enrolled in ECE programs across four different states in the United States, their study demonstrated that ECE program participation was positively related to children's cognitive and social development. Specifically, children who received high-quality ECE programs had better language and cognitive skills, more positive social behavior, and fewer behavior problems than those who attended low-quality ECE programs.</p> <p>Studies have also examined the longitudinal effects of ECE programs, particularly for those children from disadvantaged backgrounds. For example, the Abecedarian Project followed a group of low-income, mostly African American children from infancy through their mid-30 s, beginning in 1970. The study found that children who participated in ECE programs scored higher on IQ tests, performed better in math and reading assessments, attained higher levels of education, and had lower rates of becoming teenage parents than those who did not participate in such ECE programs (Campbell et al., [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref13">8</reflink>]). Similarly, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development followed a diverse group of children from infancy through their teenage years to understand the long-term impacts of ECE programs. The study illustrated that children who spent more time in ECE programs showed better cognitive and language skills, fewer behavior problems, and higher social-emotional development than those who spent less time in such programs (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref14">28</reflink>]). In a recent meta-analysis of 22 experimental and quasi-experimental studies conducted between 1960 and 2016, McCoy et al. ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref15">23</reflink>]) found that participation in ECE is associated with lower rates of special education placement and grade retention, and an increased likelihood of graduating from high school.</p> <p>While numerous studies have demonstrated the potential benefits of high quality ECE programs on children development, especially for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, studies have also suggested that the effectiveness of these programs can vary. As Barnett ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref16">2</reflink>]) suggested in a review, "A broad range of early educational interventions are found to produce meaningful, lasting effects on cognitive, social, and schooling outcomes. However, all interventions are not equally effective. Two major U.S. programs perform relatively poorly" (p. 975). The features and quality of the program can influence the efficacy of ECE programs (Barnett, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref17">2</reflink>]; Camilli et al., [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref18">7</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0185036390-5">Publicly Funded Preschool Program for Four-Year-Old Children</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0185036390-6">Development of Publicly Funded Preschool Programs for Four-Year-Old Children in the US</hd> <p>Across the United States, many state-funded preschool programs serve four-year-old children. According to the NIEER State of Preschool Yearbook, in the 2021–22 school year, over 1.26 million four-year-old children were enrolled in state-funded preschool programs across the country. This figure represents about 32% of all four-year-old children, compared to only 14% in the 2001–02 school year (National Institute for Early Education Research, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref19">27</reflink>]). Notably, the District of Columbia, Florida, Oklahoma, Vermont, Iowa, West Virginia, and Wisconsin had the highest preschool enrollment for four-year-old among others. During the 2021–22 school year, DC served 83% and each of the other six states served above 60% of their four-year-olds. However, it is worth noting that these states had previously served more than 70% of their respective populations before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. To name a few examples, Oklahoma was the second state in the nation to offer free preschools to all 4-year-old children, beginning in 1998. During the 2021–22 school year, the Oklahoma Early Childhood Four-Year-Old Program received about 184 million dollars in state funding and served 38,450 children, constituting 65% of all state four-year-old. In Virginia, the Virginia Preschool Initiative (VPI) was established in 1995 with the aim of providing care for at-risk 4-year-olds. The VPI program received $106 million in state funding and served approximately 22,275 (20%) children during the 2021–2022 school year. Similarly, the Tennessee Voluntary Pre-K (VPK), initiated in 2005, enrolled 19% of the state's population, with state funding totaling $83 million in the 2021–22 school year. On the flip side, six states still lack a state-funded preschool program, including Idaho, Indiana, Montana, New Hampshire, South Dakota, and Wyoming (National Institute for Early Education Research, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref20">27</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0185036390-7">Short- and Long-term Effects of Preschool for Four-Year-Old Children</hd> <p>Numerous studies have examined the short-term impacts of preschool programs on the cognitive development and kindergarten readiness of four-year-old children (e.g., Gormley et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref21">11</reflink>]; Harden et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref22">14</reflink>]; Montrosse-Moorhead et al., [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref23">25</reflink>]; Sulik et al., [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref24">34</reflink>]). Reports of the state-funded preschool program for four-year-old children in Tulsa, Oklahoma revealed that children who attended the preschool program scored significantly higher in cognitive, language, and math school readiness measures than children who did not attend pre-K (Gormley et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref25">11</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref26">12</reflink>]). Recent research, using causal methodologies, consistently demonstrated that on average students who attend preschool programs for the four-year-old are better prepared for kindergarten than those who do not attend such programs. For instance, using a regression discontinuity (RD) design, Huang ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref27">17</reflink>]) indicated that 9,689 children who completed the Virginia Preschool Initiative, a state-funded preschool programs for the four-year-old, had higher levels of letter name knowledge than those in the early stage of the program. The effect sizes ranged from 0.89 to 1.01 standard deviations (<emph>SD</emph>). Another recent RD study by Harden et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref28">14</reflink>]) found that 554 children who participated in the preschool programs for four-year-old children in Baltimore performed better in various outcomes, including language (0.41–0.74 <emph>SD</emph>), literacy (0.99–1.36 <emph>SD</emph>), and math (0.54–0.71 <emph>SD</emph>) at kindergarten entry compared to 542 children who had not yet participated in the program. However, the study did not find positive results for executive functioning. In a broader and more comprehensive examination of public preschool programs for the four-year-old children, Barnett et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref29">4</reflink>]) utilized a RD approach and instrument variable analysis to evaluate the effects of eight state-funded programs on kindergarten readiness. The effect sizes varied across states' pre-K programs, with weighted average effect sizes of 0.24 <emph>SD</emph> for language (vocabulary), 0.44 <emph>SD</emph> for math, and 1.10 <emph>SD</emph> for emergent literacy. These above studies consistently support positive short-term effects of preschool programs for four-year-old children.</p> <p>The literature on the long-term effects of preschool programs for four-year-old children is still emerging and relatively scarce (Barnett & Jung, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref30">3</reflink>]; Blau, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref31">5</reflink>]; Gray-Lobe et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref32">13</reflink>]; Weiland et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref33">35</reflink>]), and the findings from the available research are inconclusive. Some studies have supported the long-term benefits of public preschool programs for four-year-old children. For example, an early longitudinal study on the Perry Preschool Project, a preschool intervention targeted at impoverished African American children in Michigan, showed that those who received the program had better academic and cognitive outcomes, as well as higher earnings and lower rates of criminal activity, than those who did not receive it (Schweinhart et al., [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref34">32</reflink>]). Data collected from more than 60,000 students in about 1,000 schools who participated in the Virginia Preschool Initiative have also shown the positive effects of preschool programs for four-year-old children. The impacts were significant at kindergarten entry and continued through to the end of first grade (Huang et al., [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref35">18</reflink>]). Furthermore, a study on the long-term effects of New Jersey's Abbott preschool program found a consistent positive association between preschool programs for the four-year-old and student achievement in language arts, math, and science from the third through tenth grades (Barnett & Jung, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref36">3</reflink>]).</p> <p>However, some other studies have presented less optimistic findings, suggesting that positive effects may fade out over time. For instance, in 2015, Hill and colleagues analyzed the third-grade math and reading achievement of two cohorts of students who had participated in a school-based preschool program in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Using a boosted regression and propensity score matching approach to create and compare treatment and control groups, this study found no positive effects for the first cohort. For the second cohort, positive effects were observed for math, but not for reading (Hill et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref37">16</reflink>]). In another study, Lipsey et al. ([<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref38">21</reflink>]) conducted a randomized control trial on a group of low-income children who participated in Tennessee's Voluntary Pre-K (VPK) program and followed them through third grade. This study reported mixed results: preschool participants had higher academic achievement and lower retention rate in kindergarten than non-participants, but those positive effects disappeared, and some even turned negative by the end of third grade (Lipsey et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref39">21</reflink>]). Moreover, Durkin et al.'s study ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref40">9</reflink>]) supported the negative impacts of VPK on follow-up academic achievement and disciplinary outcomes from the third through sixth grades.</p> <p>Studies that used a lottery-based research design to estimate the effect of Boston Public School preschool programs for four-year-old children also reported mixed findings. Based on data from 3,182 children between 2007 and 2011, Weiland et al. ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref41">35</reflink>]) found that the program had positive effects on children's enrollment and persistence in district schools. However, no significant effects were detected on third grade reading and math test scores, grade retention, or special education placement. Gray-Lobe et al. ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref42">13</reflink>]) investigated the program's persisting effects on outcomes beyond elementary schools, including grades 3–10 standardized test scores, college-going, college preparation, and behavioral outcome. Results illustrated that the preschool program led to a reduction in high school disciplinary incidents and had positive effects on high school graduation and college enrollment. However, the program did not demonstrate any noticeable effects on state achievement test scores.</p> <p>In summary, the question of whether the effects of preschool programs for the four-year-old persist over time remains unsolved. It appears that various factors, including program characteristics, outcome measures, location, research design, may influence the results. Therefore, further research is still needed to better understand the long-term impacts of preschool programs for the four-year-old.</p> <hd id="AN0185036390-8">Great Start Readiness Program: The Public Funded Preschool for Four-Year-Old Children in Mich...</hd> <p>Michigan's Great Start Readiness Program (GSRP) is a state-funded preschool program for four-year-old children who are at risk of education disadvantages. GSRP started as a pilot project with 53 sites and 694 four-year-old children in 1985. After nearly 40 years of development, during the 2021–22 school year, GSRP served 35,895 four-year-old children in Michigan, accounting for one third of all four-year-old statewide. It received $249.6 million in funds from the state, supplemented by an additional 121 million from federal recovery funds. (National Institute for Early Education Research, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref43">27</reflink>]).</p> <p>There are three enrollment options for families in GSRP: part-day, school-day, and GSRP/Head Start Blend. Over the thirty years, GSRP enrollment options have shifted from mostly part-day enrollment to mostly school-day enrollment. Children who meet one of the seven eligibility criteria can enroll in GSRP: income, disability or developmental delay diagnoses, challenging behavior, language, parent's educational attainment, abuse/neglect of child or parent, and environmental risk (Michigan Department of Education, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref44">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>The GSRP curriculum emphasizes child-centered and play-based learning. It is implemented by highly qualified teachers. In addition to preschool education, the program provides families with access to health and social services, as well as support for transitions to kindergarten. At the participating site level, all GSRP sites must comply with the licensing rules for childcare centers in Michigan, the Early Childhood Standards of Quality for Prekindergarten (ECSQ-PK), the Preschool Program Quality Assessment (PQA), and have a three-star-level or above based on the Michigan's Great Start to Quality rating system. At the staff level, all GSRP specialists must have a master's degree; lead teachers of GSRP programs must have a bachelor's degree; and associate teachers must have an associate degree (Michigan Department of Education, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref45">24</reflink>]). GSRP is among the five programs that fulfill all 10 NIEER's benchmarks for minimum state preschool quality standards (National Institute for Early Education Research, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref46">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>The effectiveness of the GSRP program has only been evaluated in a limited number of studies, all of which, to our knowledge, are unpublished reports (e.g., Schweinhart et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref47">33</reflink>]; Xiang & Wakabayashi, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref48">38</reflink>]; Wu et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref49">36</reflink>]). These studies have indicated promising outcomes of GSRP. For example, in a study by Schweinhart et al. ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref50">33</reflink>]), the 1995–96 cohort of 338 GSRP participants and 257 non-participants with similar background were followed from kindergarten through high school. The results showed that GSRP participants had higher high school graduation rates, fewer instances of grade repetition, and greater proficiency on the Michigan Merit Examination in grades 11 or 12. In a more recent report, Wu et al. ([<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref51">36</reflink>]) compared 19,026 GSRP participants and 469 children on the waitlist in 2019–20. The results showed that GSRP participants demonstrated higher levels of kindergarten readiness compared to non-participants, regardless of gender, race, or disability status. Using data from an urban school district, in this study, we aim to extend previous research by examining the development trajectories of GSRP participants and non-participants over a longer period of time, from kindergarten through the third grade, and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the potential impact of GSRP.</p> <hd id="AN0185036390-9">Current Study</hd> <p>With the increasing policy emphasis and investment in universal pre-K programs, it is essential to evaluate their effectiveness. Understanding the impact of these programs is crucial for policymakers, educators, parents, and society as a whole, as it can inform decisions about funding, program design, implementation, and the efficient use of funding. Additionally, longitudinal studies of the impact of pre-K programs can shed light on the long-term benefits and potential drawbacks of limited access, allowing policymakers to make informed decisions about future investments. Therefore, continued research on the effects of universal pre-K programs is essential to ensure access for all children.</p> <p>Our longitudinal study followed five cohorts of kindergartners to the end of the third grade to study whether GSRP participants outperformed non-participants by the end of the third grade, and if so, how GSRP participants' growth trajectory compared to that of non-participants by estimating the monthly growth during the kindergarten, the first grade, the second grade, and the third grade, respectively. Specifically, we addressed the following two research questions:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <bold> Research Question 1: </bold> What are the relationships between GSRP participation and student reading and math achievements from kindergarten through the third grade, while controlling for child's characteristics and participation in other ECE programs?</item> <p></p> <item> <bold> Research Question 2: </bold> After adjusting for the child's characteristics and participation in various ECE programs or services, what are the relationships between GSRP participation and monthly achievement growth rates during the four periods of kindergarten, first grade, second grade, and third grade?</item> </ulist> <p>Our study had several strengths when compared to prior research. First, our study was based on a vertically aligned test system, the Measure of Academic Progress (MAP), administered three times a year. Therefore, we were able to model the monthly growth from the entry of kindergarten to the end of the third grade. Second, our research team had access to data on other early childhood education programs in which children participated. This enables us to control the effects of other ECE programs and focus on the impact of GSRP. Third, we conducted the study within a single school district, which reduced the confounding factors in longitudinal studies due to children attending various school districts.</p> <hd id="AN0185036390-10">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0185036390-11">Sample</hd> <p>The sample for the study was drawn from a mid-sized urban school district in Michigan. A total of 1,394 children were in the sample, comprising 296 children in the 2021–22 third grade cohort, 290 in the 2020–21 third grade cohort, 272 in the 2019–20 third cohort, 255 in the 2018–19 third grade cohort, and 281 in the 2017–18 cohort. For each cohort, we were able to construct a longitudinal data file that had children's participation in various ECE programs, demographics, and achievement data from entry into the kindergarten and the end of the third grade.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref52">1</reflink>] The combination of the five cohorts for analysis improves the statistical power of our analysis.</p> <p>Table 1 presents descriptive statistics for a sample of 1,394 children, of whom 572 (41%) participated in the GSRP program. Among GSRP participants, 46% children were female, 26% were White, 43% were Black, 12% were Hispanic, and 3% were Asian, with 70% receiving free and reduced lunch. The average age of GSRP participants by the third grade was 8.49 years old. Among the 822 non-GSRP participants, 48% are female, 36% are White, and 63% received free and reduced lunch, with an average age of 8.57 years old by the third grade. These statistics suggest that a higher proportion of GSRP children come from historically and economically disadvantaged backgrounds than non-GSRP children.</p> <p>Table 1 Descriptive statistics</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2" /><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>GSRP (<italic>n</italic> = 572)</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Non-GSRP (<italic>n</italic> = 822)</p></th><th align="left" colspan="2"><p>Overall (<italic>n</italic> = 1,394)</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>M</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>SD</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Female</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.46</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.48</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.47</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="7"><p>Race/Ethnicity</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> White</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.26</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.36</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.32</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Black</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.43</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.39</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.41</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Hispanic</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.12</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.10</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.11</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Asian</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.03</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.02</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Other</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.17</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.13</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.15</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Free and reduced-price lunch</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.70</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.63</p></td><td char="." align="char" /><td char="." align="char"><p>0.66</p></td><td char="." align="char" /></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Age by third grade</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.49</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.36</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.57</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.43</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.54</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.41</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="7"><p>Reading</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Kindergarten MAP Fall</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>137.97</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.70</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>135.65</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.79</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>136.83</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>8.82</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Kindergarten MAP Spring</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>161.03</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>12.91</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>156.29</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>12.57</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>158.60</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>12.94</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 1st Grade MAP Spring</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>176.77</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13.85</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>170.48</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13.90</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>173.37</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.22</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 2nd Grade MAP Spring</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>183.95</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.34</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>178.92</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>17.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>181.09</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.93</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 3rd Grade MAP Winter</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>186.56</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>17.38</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>180.14</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>17.35</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>182.86</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>17.64</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 3rd Grade MAP Spring</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>192.20</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.73</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>185.93</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>17.34</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>188.56</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>17.35</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="7"><p>Math</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Kindergarten MAP Fall</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>133.46</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>9.99</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>131.36</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10.27</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>132.42</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>10.18</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> Kindergarten MAP Spring</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>162.89</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.56</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>156.55</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.46</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>159.64</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.08</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 1st Grade MAP Spring</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>179.37</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.73</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>174.06</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>16.61</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>176.50</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>15.98</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 2nd Grade MAP Spring</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>185.96</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>13.39</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>182.76</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.41</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>184.14</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.06</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 3rd Grade MAP Winter</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>188.37</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.43</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>184.38</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.82</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>186.08</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.78</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p> 3rd Grade MAP Spring</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>193.21</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>14.74</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>190.14</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>15.15</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>191.42</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>15.04</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0185036390-12">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0185036390-13">Predictor and Control Variables</hd> <p>The predictor for the study is the participation in GSRP, which was dummy coded as "1" for participation in GSRP, and "0" for no participation in GSRP. We controlled for children's participation in various ECE programs such as Home Visit, Playgroup Visit, Raising a Reader, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services Phone Visit, and receiving various services, as well as children's demographic characteristics such as age, gender, race, and student economic disadvantage (SED) (i.e., free and reduced-price lunch status).</p> <hd id="AN0185036390-14">Outcome Measures</hd> <p>For both math and reading achievement, there are six scale scores longitudinally arranged at different points in time (a) entry into kindergarten, (b) the end of kindergarten, (c) the end of the first grade, (d) the end of the second grade, (e) the midpoint of the third grade, and finally (f) the end of the third grade.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref53">2</reflink>] All outcome measures were from Northwest Evaluation Association's (NWEA's) Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) tests, administered to all students in the school district. Table 1 presents the mean and standard deviations of each test in both math and reading, separately for GSRP, non-GSRP participants, and the overall sample.</p> <hd id="AN0185036390-15">Data Analyses</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0185036390-16">Regression Analysis</hd> <p>For the first research question, we conducted regression analyses to examine the relationship between GSRP participation and student achievements in math and reading at various time points from kindergarten entry to the end of the third grade. We controlled for children's demographic characteristics and participation in other ECE services. All outcome measures are standardized so that the differences between GSRP participants and non-participants at various time points are comparable.</p> <hd id="AN0185036390-17">Piecewise Linear Growth Modeling</hd> <p>We conducted piecewise linear growth modeling (Raudenbush & Bryk, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref54">30</reflink>]) to address our second research question by estimating the monthly growth rate on MAP assessment scale scores in each of the four periods of kindergarten, first grade, second grade, and third grade. The monthly growth estimates provides a more dynamic picture of the growth trajectories of GSRP participants. We created a variable, MONTH, to indicate the number of school months before the final assessment point (3rd grade Spring) for each MAP outcome measure. A typical school year is 10 months, with the MAP Fall, Winter, and Spring tests are typically conducted in September, January, and May of each year, respectively in the school district. Therefore, there are about 38 school months from kindergarten Fall to third grade Spring. We set the assessment baseline to the 3rd grade Spring, with the 3rd grade Winter test occurring about four school months before the baseline, and the 2nd grade Spring test occurring 10 months before the baseline, and so forth. Since we aimed to determine whether the GSRP children performed better than their counterparts by the end of the third grade, this coding sets the intercept of regression model for student achievement at the 3rd grade Spring. We also created several variables to represent different time periods. Table 2 shows the details of the coding scheme.</p> <p>Table 2 Coding of school months prior to baseline</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Grade/Tests</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Test month</p></th><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Exposure to School Months Prior Baseline</p></th><th align="left" colspan="4"><p>Coding Scheme for Piecewise Linear Growth Model</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p><italic>P</italic><sub><italic>1t</italic></sub></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>P</italic><sub><italic>2t</italic></sub></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>P</italic><sub><italic>3t</italic></sub></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>P</italic><sub><italic>4t</italic></sub></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Kindergarten MAP Fall</p></td><td align="left"><p>September</p></td><td align="left"><p>-38</p></td><td align="left"><p>-8</p></td><td align="left"><p>-10</p></td><td align="left"><p>-10</p></td><td align="left"><p>-10</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Kindergarten MAP Spring</p></td><td align="left"><p>May</p></td><td align="left"><p>-30</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>-10</p></td><td align="left"><p>-10</p></td><td align="left"><p>-10</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>1st Grade MAP Spring</p></td><td align="left"><p>May</p></td><td align="left"><p>-20</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>-10</p></td><td align="left"><p>-10</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>2nd Grade MAP Spring</p></td><td align="left"><p>May</p></td><td align="left"><p>-10</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>-10</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3rd Grade MAP Winter</p></td><td align="left"><p>January</p></td><td align="left"><p>-4</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>-4</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>3rd Grade MAP Spring</p></td><td align="left"><p>May</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td><td align="left"><p>0</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>We conducted a piecewise linear growth model to divide children's monthly growth trajectory from kindergarten to third grade into four separate periods: kindergarten, first grade, second grade, and third grade. The models can be described as follows.</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msub><mi>Y</mi><mrow><mi mathvariant="italic">ti</mi></mrow></msub><mo>=</mo><msub><mi>π</mi><mrow><mn>0</mn><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>π</mi><mrow><mn>1</mn><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub><msub><mi>P</mi><mrow><mn>1</mn><mi>t</mi><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>π</mi><mrow><mn>2</mn><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub><msub><mi>P</mi><mrow><mn>2</mn><mi>t</mi><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>π</mi><mrow><mn>3</mn><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub><msub><mi>P</mi><mrow><mn>3</mn><mi>t</mi><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>π</mi><mrow><mn>4</mn><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub><msub><mi>P</mi><mrow><mn>4</mn><mi>t</mi><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>e</mi><mrow><mi mathvariant="italic">ti</mi></mrow></msub><mo>,</mo></mrow></math> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph</p> <p>where <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi>P</mi><mrow><mn>1</mn><mi>t</mi><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub></math> </ephtml> , <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi>P</mi><mrow><mn>2</mn><mi>t</mi><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub></math> </ephtml> , <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi>P</mi><mrow><mn>3</mn><mi>t</mi><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub></math> </ephtml> , <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi>P</mi><mrow><mn>4</mn><mi>t</mi><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub></math> </ephtml> are coded variables, as defined in Table 2. This coding scheme allows us to model different monthly growth rates for four periods ( <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><msub><mi>π</mi><mrow><mn>1</mn><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub><mo>-</mo><msub><mi>π</mi><mrow><mn>4</mn><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub></mrow></math> </ephtml> ). Period 1 is Kindergarten Fall to Kindergarten Spring, Period 2 is from Kindergarten Spring to 1st grade Spring, Period 3 is from 1st grade Spring to 2nd grade Spring, and Period 4 is from 2nd grade Spring to 3rd grade Spring. <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi>π</mi><mrow><mn>0</mn><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub></math> </ephtml> represents the achievement of child <emph>i</emph> at third grade Spring. <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi>e</mi><mrow><mi mathvariant="italic">ti</mi></mrow></msub></math> </ephtml> is the random effect at level 1 with variance <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msup><mrow><mi>σ</mi></mrow><mn>2</mn></msup></math> </ephtml> . Both intercept and growth rates are allowed to vary among children.</p> <p>The unconditional model at Level 2 is as follows:</p> <p> <ephtml> <math display="block" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mrow><mtable><mtr><mtd><mrow><msub><mi>π</mi><mrow><mn>0</mn><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub><mo>=</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>00</mn></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>r</mi><mrow><mn>0</mn><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub><mo>,</mo></mrow></mtd></mtr><mtr><mtd><mrow><mrow /><msub><mi>π</mi><mrow><mn>1</mn><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub><mo>=</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>10</mn></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>r</mi><mrow><mn>1</mn><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub><mo>,</mo></mrow></mtd></mtr><mtr><mtd><mrow><mrow /><msub><mi>π</mi><mrow><mn>2</mn><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub><mo>=</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>20</mn></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>r</mi><mrow><mn>2</mn><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub><mo>,</mo></mrow></mtd></mtr><mtr><mtd><mrow><mrow /><msub><mi>π</mi><mrow><mn>3</mn><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub><mo>=</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>30</mn></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>r</mi><mrow><mn>3</mn><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub></mrow></mtd></mtr><mtr><mtd><mrow><mrow /><msub><mi>π</mi><mrow><mn>4</mn><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub><mo>=</mo><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>40</mn></msub><mo>+</mo><msub><mi>r</mi><mrow><mn>4</mn><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub></mrow></mtd></mtr></mtable></mrow></math> </ephtml> </p> <p>Graph</p> <p>where <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>00</mn></msub></math> </ephtml> is the mean intercept, <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>10</mn></msub></math> </ephtml> , <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>20</mn></msub></math> </ephtml> , <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>30</mn></msub></math> </ephtml> , and <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi>β</mi><mn>40</mn></msub></math> </ephtml> are the average growth rates at kindergarten, 1st Grade, 2nd Grade, and 3rd Grade, respectively. <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi>r</mi><mrow><mn>0</mn><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub></math> </ephtml> — <ephtml> <math xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><msub><mi>r</mi><mrow><mn>4</mn><mi>i</mi></mrow></msub></math> </ephtml> are the random effects associated with the intercept and the growth rates at different periods.[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref55">3</reflink>]</p> <p>We then added children background variables, the GSRP indicator, and other ECE program and services variables at Level 2 to estimate the relationship between GSRP participation and intercept, as well as children's learning trajectories at different periods. All models were estimated separately for math and reading achievement using R packages.</p> <hd id="AN0185036390-18">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0185036390-19">What are the Differences Between GSRP Participants and Non-Participants in Student Achievemen...</hd> <p>Table 1 shows that, on average, GSRP students scored slightly higher than non-GSRP students on all reading and math MAP achievement measures. We further examined the relationships between GSRP participation and student achievement scores in math and reading at the six time points from kindergarten entry to the end of the third grade with control of student background and other ECE programs and services variables. The results are assembled into a single table, Table 3 (to save space). Specifically, each cell represents a different regression analysis, with math or reading achievement at a certain timepoint as the outcome measure, participation in GSRP as the predictor, and children's demographics and participation in other ECE programs or services as controls. Each number is the coefficient representing the effect of GSRP on math and reading achievement at a certain time point. In other words, each coefficient in Table 3 came from one regression analysis. The achievement data are standardized within each time point, so that we can compare the size of the effect over time.</p> <p>Table 3 GSRP's effect on math and reading achievement measures at various time points with control for children's characteristics and other programs</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Kindergarten MAP Fall</p></th><th align="left"><p>Kindergarten MAP Spring</p></th><th align="left"><p>1st Grade MAP Spring</p></th><th align="left"><p>2nd Grade MAP Spring</p></th><th align="left"><p>3rd Grade MAP Winter</p></th><th align="left"><p>3rd Grade MAP Spring</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Math</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.25*** (0.06)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.46*** (0.07)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.38*** (0.07)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.27*** (0.06)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.32*** (0.08)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.22** (0.08)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Reading</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.31*** (0.06)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.41*** (0.07)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.49*** (0.07)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.33*** (0.07)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.42*** (0.07)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.41*** (0.08)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The effect in the table was with control for child's characteristics including age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, and other ECE programs and services. Outcome measures were standardized <sups>*</sups><emph>p</emph> <.05; ** <emph>p</emph> <.01; *** <emph>p</emph> <.001</p> <p>The results indicate that, after controlling for children's background and other ECE programs and services, participation in GSRP was statistically significantly associated with 0.22–0.46 <emph>SD</emph> higher scores on MAP math measures at various time points. GSRP students started kindergarten with a higher level of math achievement (0.25 <emph>SD</emph>) compared to non-participants. The difference between GSRP students and non-participants peaked at the end of the kindergarten year (0.46 <emph>SD</emph>), and then gradually tapered off (0.39 <emph>SD</emph> by the end of the first grade, 0.27 <emph>SD</emph> by the end of the second grade, and 0.22 <emph>SD</emph> by the end of the third grade). However, by the end of the third grade, students who had participated in GSRP still achieved statically significantly higher math scores.</p> <p>Similarly, participation in GSRP was statistically significantly associated with higher reading scores on MAP measures at various time points, ranging from 0.31–0.49 <emph>SD</emph>. Students who participated in GSRP began kindergarten with a higher level of reading achievement (0.31 <emph>SD</emph>). The achievement difference between GSRP participants and non-participants was greatest by the end of the first grade (0.49 <emph>SD</emph>). Then, the difference decreased (0.33 <emph>SD</emph> by the end of the second grade and 0.41 <emph>SD</emph> by the end of the third grade). Nevertheless, by the end of the third grade, students who participated in GSRP still demonstrated statistically significantly higher reading scores.</p> <hd id="AN0185036390-20">After Accounting for Child's Characteristics Participation in Various ECE Programs or Service...</hd> <p>This section focuses on whether participation in GSRP was associated with children's monthly growth rate in math and reading achievement during four different periods. Table 4 summarizes results of piecewise linear growth models for math and reading achievement. Please see Appendix Table five for a more detailed table. The results of the final conditional model, including demographic characteristics and participation in various ECE programs and services, suggested that kindergarteners who participated in GSRP had a faster monthly growth rate during the kindergarten year, with a statistically significantly positive monthly growth rate of 0.52. This means that children who participated in GSRP had an accelerated monthly growth rate during the kindergarten year, further widening the gap between GSRP and non-GSRP children. However, participation in GSRP was not associated with higher monthly growth rate during the first, second and third grades. In other words, GSRP participants and non-participants did not differ in their monthly growth rates during the first, second and third grades. The intercept suggested that by the end of the third grade, GRSP children performed 3.18 points higher than their counterparts. The standardized mean difference between GSRP and non-GSRP was 0.21 <emph>SD</emph>, a large effect size according to the benchmark proposed by Kraft ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref56">19</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 4 Summary of the results of the piecewise linear growth modeling on GSRP's effect on student math and reading achievement</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" rowspan="2"><p>Effects</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Math</p></th><th align="left" colspan="3"><p>Reading</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p>Effect</p></th><th align="left"><p>Std. Error</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic>-value</p></th><th align="left"><p>Effect</p></th><th align="left"><p>Std. Error</p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>p</italic>-value</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>Monthly growth rate during kindergarten</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.52***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.12</p></td><td align="left"><p> <.001</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.27**</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.10</p></td><td align="left"><p>.01</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Monthly growth rate during the 1st grade</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>-0.15</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.12</p></td><td align="left"><p>.22</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.16</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.10</p></td><td align="left"><p>.11</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Monthly growth rate during the 2nd grade</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>-0.18</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.10</p></td><td align="left"><p>.07</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>-0.15</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.10</p></td><td align="left"><p>.13</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Monthly growth rate during the 3rd grade</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>-0.04</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.10</p></td><td align="left"><p>.66</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.16</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.11</p></td><td align="left"><p>.15</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>GSRP effect by the end of the 3rd grade</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>3.18***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>0.99</p></td><td align="left"><p> <.001</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>6.56***</p></td><td char="." align="char"><p>1.12</p></td><td align="left"><p> <.001</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>The effect in the table was with control for child's characteristics including age, gender, race, socioeconomic status, and other ECE programs and services <sups>*</sups><emph>p</emph> <.05; ** <emph>p</emph> <.01; *** <emph>p</emph> <.001</p> <p>For reading achievement, the results of the final conditional model, including demographic characteristics and participation in various ECE programs and services, suggested that kindergarteners who participated in GSRP had statistically significantly faster monthly growth rate during the kindergarten year, with a positive monthly growth rate of 0.26. This means that GSRP children surpassed non-GSRP children even more during the kindergarten year. Also, participation in GSRP showed no association with a higher monthly growth rate during the first, second and third grades. The initial advantage of GSRP children, their faster growth rates during the kindergarten, and the absence of significant differences in growth rates during the first, second, and third grades explained why, by the end of the third grade, GRSP children still outperformed non-participants by 6.56 points, corresponding to a standardized effect size of 0.38 <emph>SD</emph>, a large effect size as defined by Kraft's ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref57">19</reflink>]) benchmark.</p> <hd id="AN0185036390-21">Summary and Discussion</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0185036390-22">Summary</hd> <p>We inquired into the relationship between participation in GSRP and student achievement in math and reading from kindergarten entry to the end of the third grade. The findings painted a clear picture that participation in GSRP was not only associated with positive short-term outcomes when children entered kindergarten, but also with long-term outcomes by the end of third grade. Using reading as an example, after controlling for children's demographic characteristics and participation in various ECE programs and services, GSRP children entered kindergarten with 0.31 <emph>SD</emph> higher on reading achievement than non-GSRP children, as measured by MAP. The GSRP program continued to add value to children's growth as they were in kindergarten and first grade. By the end of kindergarten, GSRP children outperformed non-GSRP children by 0.41 <emph>SD</emph>, and by the end of the first grade, this difference increased to 0.49 <emph>SD</emph>. Subsequently, the effect of GSRP diminished to 0.33 <emph>SD</emph> by the end of the second grade but remained stable at 0.41 <emph>SD</emph> by the end of the third grade. All these effects were statistically significant at <emph>p</emph> <.001.</p> <p>The results of the piecewise linear growth modeling provided intriguing insights into the trajectory of GSRP effects over the years. During the kindergarten year, GSRP children exhibited a statistically significant faster monthly growth rate compared to non-GSRP children. In the first grade, GSRP children continued to outpace their peers, although the difference was not statistically significant. This pattern ultimately led to GSRP children outperforming their non-GSRP counterparts, with the disparity reaching its peak by the end of the first grade. Then, GSRP children displayed a statistically non-significant slower monthly growth rate during the second grade and a statistically not-significant faster monthly growth rate during the third grade. By the end of the third grade, GSRP children had achieved 6.56 points (or 0.38 <emph>SD</emph>) advantage over non-GSRP children. The above used reading as an example, and in the case of math, the pattern of GSRP's effects was similar, except that the effect size peaked earlier by the end of the first grade, and the effect sizes were about half of those for reading.</p> <hd id="AN0185036390-23">Discussion</hd> <p>The findings of this study have implications for policy, practice and research. First, the findings support the national movement toward free, full-time preschool. Consistent with much of the existing literature (Ansari et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref58">1</reflink>]; Magnuson et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref59">22</reflink>]), participation in GSRP is shown to have positive relationship with children's math and reading achievement, not only at the entry to kindergarten but also by the conclusion of the third grade. These findings further highlight the significance of the GSRP program, as third grade is recognized as a pivotal turning point, and being successful by the end of the third grade significantly predicts later life achievements (Feister, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref60">10</reflink>]; Hernandez, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref61">15</reflink>]; Lesnick et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref62">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>Second, the discovery of an accelerating growth rate among GSRP children during kindergarten stands out as significant. GSRP took place in the year before kindergarten, leading to the expectation that GSRP children would perform better than non-GSRP children upon entry into kindergarten. Nonetheless, it is particularly noteworthy that GSRP children achieved a faster monthly growth rate than non-GSRP children during kindergarten. This could be attributed to the curriculum, the more institutionalized learning environment, the instilled learning habit, and other knowledge and skills developed during GSRP, which facilitated the faster growth rate during the kindergarten year. Non-GSRP children may have caught up on the above factors after kindergarten, as reflected in the findings that indicate no statistically significant difference in the monthly growth rate between GSRP and non-GSRP children in both math and reading during the first, second, and third grades. These findings on the monthly growth rate point to the importance of adopting a longer time perspective when evaluating the effect of an intervention or a policy.</p> <p>Third, a summary of the above two points of discussion shows a picture of how GSRP children performed better by the end of the third grade. GSRP children had a higher achievement level upon entering kindergarten and experienced accelerated academic growth during the kindergarten year. However, there were no statistically significant differences between GSRP and non-GSRP children in monthly growth rates of math and reading during the first, second, and third grades. Nevertheless, we found that by the end of the third grade, GSRP children continued to outperform non-GSRP children. Therefore, we have elucidated the growth pattern contributing to GSRP's positive effect by the end of the third grade. This finding adds empirical evidence to the discussion regarding the long-term effects of pre-K programs through third grade (Ansari et al., [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref63">1</reflink>]; Hill et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref64">16</reflink>]; Lipsey et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref65">21</reflink>]; Weiland et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref66">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>Fourth, the findings suggest that GSRP enhances equity in educational outcomes. Given the eligibility criteria for participation in GSRP, children in the program are more likely to experience various disadvantages, including factors such as low family income, environment risk, parents with low educational attainment, diagnosed disabilities, language barriers, and other challenges. The findings suggest that GSRP and other similar free, full-time preschool programs could significantly benefit these more disadvantaged students and, consequently, improve educational equity in student outcomes. While our study did not explicitly model the scenario where "at-risk" children did not receive GSRP intervention, the observed patterns over time provide some insights. The advantages of GSRP participants from kindergarten through third grade somewhat fade away as children progress through the school system. This could result from the opportunity gaps within school systems that disadvantage at-risk children. Given this pattern, it is possible that, without GSRP intervention, children who are at risk would likely have started kindergarten with lower achievement levels and could have possibly fallen further behind their peers over time. It is also plausible that the absence of early intervention could lead to a widening of the achievement gap as the educational demands increase through the grades. This pattern suggests that continued support or enrichment after preschool for students at-risk is needed (Lipsey et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref67">21</reflink>]; Yoshikawa et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref68">39</reflink>]).</p> <p>Finally, there are some limitations of this study. Although we used various mechanisms to enhance the validity of the findings, such as sampling from one school district to reduce the district-to-district variation, controlling children's demographic characteristics and participating in various ECE programs or services, employing the same outcome measure that could be psychometrically compared longitudinally over multiple time points, the findings were, ultimately, correlational, rather than causal. In addition, our study focused only on academic outcomes, and other social, emotional, and behavioral outcomes were not included. Future implementation of programs such as GSRP that have significant policy implementations could facilitate studies that would allow causal statements. Moreover, as we have noted repeatedly, our data was from a single mid-sized urban school district. Although our findings provide unique insights, it is important to note that the pattern observed may be context dependent. GSRP is a statewide program delivered to over 30,000 children annually across over 50 ISDs spanning various settings (Wu et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref69">37</reflink>]). Conducting similar research across different districts and settings would better help to understand how GSRP operates within diverse socioeconomic and cultural contexts. Further qualitative analyses on how GSRP and similar programs are adapted and implemented within the districts would shed light on understanding how the program works and why there is a lasting impact in some cases but not in others. Through these analyses, a holistic picture of the potential of these programs will emerge, guiding policymakers and educators in making informed decisions.</p> <hd id="AN0185036390-24">Appendix A</hd> <p>Table 5</p> <p>Table 5 Parameter estimates for the unconditional, child characteristics, and ECE program piecewise linear growth models for math achievement</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Model 1: Unconditional</p></th><th align="left"><p>Model 2: Child Characteristics</p></th><th align="left"><p>Model 3: ECE Programs</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p><italic>Fixed Effect</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>Coefficient (SE)</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>Coefficient (SE)</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>Coefficient (SE)</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="4"><p>Model for initial status</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>190.79*** (0.49)</p></td><td align="left"><p>196.19*** (1.19)</p></td><td align="left"><p>195.18*** (1.24)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Female</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-1.13 (0.96)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-1.10 (0.96)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  SED</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-1.88 (1.03)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-2.10* (1.03)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Black</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-7.65*** (1.14)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-7.97*** (1.14)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Hispanic</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.88 (1.73)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-1.44 (1.75)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Asian</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>3.32 (3.40)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.38 (3.54)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Other</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-2.96 (1.53)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-3.17* (1.54)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Home Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-2.16 (3.77)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Playgroup Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>3.44 (2.41)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  MDHHS Phone Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-12.80 (8.12)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Basic Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-5.69 (8.13)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Community Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>11.27 (12.70)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Education Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-5.73 (11.73)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Health Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-1.67 (10.29)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Raising A Reader</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>1.36 (5.81)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  GSRP</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>3.18*** (0.99)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="4"><p>Model for monthly growth rate at kindergarten</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.40*** (0.06)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.66*** (0.14)</p></td><td align="left"><p>3.47*** (0.15)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Female</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.22 (0.12)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.21 (0.12)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  SED</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.22 (0.13)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.24 (0.13)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Black</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.09 (0.14)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.16 (0.14)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Hispanic</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.06 (0.20)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.15 (0.21)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Asian</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.38 (0.37)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.32 (0.39)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Other</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.18 (0.18)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.1 (0.18)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Home Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.16 (0.40)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Playgroup Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.05 (0.27)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  MDHHS Phone Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>1.14 (0.83)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Basic Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.80 (0.69)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Community Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-1.10 (1.13)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Education Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>1.58* (0.82)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Health Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.74 (0.98)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Raising A Reader</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.17 (0.56)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  GSRP</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.52*** (0.12)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="4"><p>Model for monthly growth rate at first grade</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.74*** (0.06)</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.72*** (0.14)</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.78*** (0.15)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Female</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.08 (0.12)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.08 (0.12)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  SED</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.12 (0.13)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.13 (0.13)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Black</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.14 (0.14)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.12 (0.14)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Hispanic</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.05 (0.20)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.03 (0.21)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Asian</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.55 (0.38)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.71 (0.41)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Other</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.31 (0.18)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.28 (0.18)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Home Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.07 (0.44)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Playgroup Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.17 (0.28)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  MDHHS Phone Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-1.93* (0.86)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Basic Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.93 (0.78)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Community Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.50 (1.17)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Education Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-2.09* (0.97)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Health Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.05 (0.97)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Raising A Reader</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.28 (0.61)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  GSRP</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.15 (0.12)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="4"><p>Model for monthly growth rate at second grade</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.66*** (0.05)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.70*** (0.11)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.79*** (0.12)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Female</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.11 (0.10)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.11 (0.10)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  SED</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.13 (0.10)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.15 (0.10)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Black</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.1 (0.11)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.12 (0.11)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Hispanic</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.15 (0.17)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.23 (0.17)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Asian</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.64* (0.30)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.75* (0.33)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Other</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.18 (0.15)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.22 (0.15)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Home Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.28 (0.42)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Playgroup Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.08 (0.24)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  MDHHS Phone Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.77 (0.89)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Basic Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.38 (0.72)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Community Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.59 (1.02)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Education Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>1.56 (0.85)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Health Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.73 (0.85)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Raising A Reader</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.19 (0.57)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  GSRP</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.18 (0.10)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="4"><p>Model for monthly growth rate at third grade</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.74*** (0.05)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.85*** (0.12)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.88*** (0.13)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Female</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.03 (0.10)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.02 (0.10)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  SED</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.04 (0.10)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.03 (0.11)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Black</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.30** (0.11)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.30* (0.12)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Hispanic</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.03 (0.17)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.02 (0.18)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Asian</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.37 (0.32)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.39 (0.34)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Other</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.04 (0.16)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.04 (0.16)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Home Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.47 (0.43)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Playgroup Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.00 (0.25)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  MDHHS Phone Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-1.19 (1.01)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Basic Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.70 (0.86)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Community Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>1.48 (1.29)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Education Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-1.01 (1.18)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Health Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.85 (1.09)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Raising A Reader</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.20 (0.64)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  GSRP</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.04 (0.10)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Random Effect</p></td><td align="left"><p>Variance Components</p></td><td align="left"><p>Variance Components</p></td><td align="left"><p>Variance Components</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>184.18***</p></td><td align="left"><p>172.16***</p></td><td align="left"><p>169.86***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Growth rate, K</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.48***</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.45***</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.39***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Growth rate, 1st Grade</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.83***</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.83***</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.82***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Growth rate, 2nd Grade</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.66***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.65***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.65***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Growth rate, 3rd Grade</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.38***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.37***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.38***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>Error</p></td><td align="left"><p>57.83</p></td><td align="left"><p>58.08</p></td><td align="left"><p>58.05</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>MDHHS</emph> Michigan Department of Health and Human Services</p> <p> <sups>*</sups> <emph>p</emph> < .05; ** <emph>p</emph> < .01; *** <emph>p</emph> < .001</p> <hd id="AN0185036390-25">Appendix B</hd> <p>Table 6</p> <p>Table 6 Parameter estimates for the unconditional, child characteristics, and ECE program piecewise linear growth models for reading achievement</p> <p> <ephtml> <table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left" /><th align="left"><p>Model 1: Unconditional</p></th><th align="left"><p>Model 2: Child Characteristics</p></th><th align="left"><p>Model 3: ECE Programs</p></th></tr><tr><th align="left"><p><italic>Fixed Effect</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>Coefficient (SE)</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>Coefficient (SE)</italic></p></th><th align="left"><p><italic>Coefficient (SE)</italic></p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left" colspan="4"><p>Model for initial status</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>187.46*** (0.56)</p></td><td align="left"><p>191.39*** (1.35)</p></td><td align="left"><p>189.34*** (1.39)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Female</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>2.36* (1.10)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.38* (1.09)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  SED</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-1.77 (1.18)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-2.02 (1.17)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Black</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-7.24*** (1.30)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-7.78*** (1.28)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Hispanic</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-2.08 (1.96)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-3.09 (1.97)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Asian</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>1.26 (3.83)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.79 (3.95)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Other</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-4.80** (1.74)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-5.34** (1.73)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Home Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-8.52* (4.22)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Playgroup Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.63 (2.71)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  MDHHS Phone Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-17.83 (9.22)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Basic Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.18 (9.14)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Community Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>3.59 (14.06)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Education Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-2.13 (13.02)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Health Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-5.62 (11.51)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Raising A Reader</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>7.03 (6.50)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  GSRP</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>6.56*** (1.12)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="4"><p>Model for monthly growth rate at kindergarten</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.71*** (0.05)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.86*** (0.12)</p></td><td align="left"><p>2.76*** (0.13)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Female</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.15 (0.10)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.14 (0.10)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  SED</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.19 (0.11)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.21 (0.11)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Black</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.05 (0.12)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.02 (0.12)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Hispanic</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.11 (0.17)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.12 (0.18)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Asian</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.35 (0.32)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.37 (0.34)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Other</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.39* (0.16)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.35* (0.16)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Home Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.04 (0.34)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Playgroup Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.12 (0.23)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  MDHHS Phone Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.30 (0.72)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Basic Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.17 (0.60)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Community Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.08 (0.98)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Education Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.91 (0.71)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Health Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.54 (0.84)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Raising A Reader</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.41 (0.48)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  GSRP</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.27** (0.10)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="4"><p>Model for monthly growth rate at first grade</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.51*** (0.05)</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.44*** (0.12)</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.39*** (0.12)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Female</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.11 (0.10)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.11 (0.10)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  SED</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.03 (0.10)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.04 (0.10)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Black</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.00 (0.11)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.01 (0.12)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Hispanic</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.26 (0.17)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.20 (0.17)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Asian</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.24 (0.32)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.34 (0.34)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Other</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.21 (0.15)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.23 (0.15)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Home Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.19 (0.37)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Playgroup Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.07 (0.23)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  MDHHS Phone Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.10 (0.72)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Basic Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.29 (0.65)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Community Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.25 (0.96)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Education Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.61 (0.82)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Health Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.28 (0.80)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Raising A Reader</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.11 (0.51)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  GSRP</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.16 (0.10)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="4"><p>Model for monthly growth rate at second grade</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.69*** (0.05)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.76*** (0.12)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.84*** (0.12)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Female</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.00 (0.10)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.00 (0.10)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  SED</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.07 (0.11)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.09 (0.11)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Black</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.06 (0.12)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.04 (0.12)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Hispanic</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.13 (0.18)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.16 (0.18)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Asian</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>1.04** (0.31)</p></td><td align="left"><p>1.08** (0.33)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Other</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.06 (0.16)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.07 (0.16)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Home Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.14 (0.43)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Playgroup Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.04 (0.24)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  MDHHS Phone Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.39 (0.93)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Basic Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.22 (0.73)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Community Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-1.61 (1.06)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Education Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>1.08 (0.86)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Health Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.3 0(0.88)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Raising A Reader</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.49 (0.57)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  GSRP</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.15 (0.10)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left" colspan="4"><p>Model for monthly growth rate at third grade</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.71*** (0.05)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.83*** (0.13)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.79*** (0.13)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Female</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.07 (0.10)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.06 (0.10)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  SED</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.04 (0.11)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.04 (0.11)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Black</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.37** (0.12)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.38** (0.12)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Hispanic</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.14 (0.19)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.17 (0.19)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Asian</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.05 (0.34)</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.05 (0.36)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Other</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.2 (0.17)</p></td><td align="left"><p>-0.17 (0.17)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Home Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.90 (0.46)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Playgroup Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.20 (0.26)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  MDHHS Phone Visit</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-2.69* (1.11)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Basic Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.26 (0.93)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Community Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>1.83 (1.33)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Education Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.85 (1.27)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Health Service</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>-0.46 (1.15)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Raising A Reader</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.49 (0.69)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  GSRP</p></td><td align="left" /><td align="left" /><td align="left"><p>0.16 (0.11)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p><italic>Random Effect</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Variance Components</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Variance Components</italic></p></td><td align="left"><p><italic>Variance Components</italic></p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Intercept</p></td><td align="left"><p>257.21***</p></td><td align="left"><p>247.38***</p></td><td align="left"><p>237.31***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Growth rate, K</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.55***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.56***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.55***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Growth rate, 1st Grade</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.81***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.81***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.81***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Growth rate, 2nd Grade</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.92***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.92***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.92***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Growth rate, 3rd Grade</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.52***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.52***</p></td><td align="left"><p>0.48***</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>  Error</p></td><td align="left"><p>59.43</p></td><td align="left"><p>58.75</p></td><td align="left"><p>59.03</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p> <emph>MDHHS</emph> Michigan Department of Health and Human Services</p> <p> <sups>*</sups> <emph>p</emph> < .05; ** <emph>p</emph> < .01; *** <emph>p</emph> < .001</p> <hd id="AN0185036390-26">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0185036390-27"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref52" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Ansari A, Lόpez M, Manfra L, Bleiker C, Dinehart LH, Hartman SC, Winsler A. Differential third-grade outcomes associated with attending publicly funded preschool programs for low-income Latino children. Child Development. 2017; 88; 5: 1743-1756. 10.1111/cdev.12663</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Barnett WS. Effectiveness of early educational intervention. Science. 2011; 333; 6045: 975-978. 10.1126/science.1204534</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref7" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Barnett WS, Jung K. Effects of New Jersey's Abbott preschool program on children's achievement, grade retention, and special education through tenth grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2021; 56: 248-259. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.04.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref3" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Barnett WS, Jung K, Friedman-Krauss A, Frede EC, Nores M, Hustedt JT, Howes C, Daniel-Echols M. State prekindergarten effects on early learning at kindergarten entry: An analysis of eight state programs. AERA Open. 2018; 4; 2: 1-16. 10.1177/2332858418766291</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref8" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Blau DM. The effects of universal preschool on child and adult outcomes: A review of recent evidence from Europe with implications for the United States. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2021; 55: 52-63. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.10.009</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref9" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Burchinal M, Magnuson K, Powell D, Hong SSBornstein MH, Leventhal T, Lerner RM. Early childcare and education. Handbook of child psychology and developmental science: Ecological settings and processes. 2015; John Wiley & Sons Inc: 223-267</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref18" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Camilli G, Vargas S, Ryan S, Barnett WS. Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on cognitive and social development. Teachers College Record. 2010; 112; 3: 579-620. 10.1177/016146811011200303</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref13" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Campbell FA, Ramey CT, Pungello E, Sparling J, Miller-Johnson S. Early childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian Project. Applied Developmental Science. 2002; 6; 1: 42-57. 10.1207/S1532480XADS0601_05</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref40" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Durkin K, Lipsey MW, Farran DC, Wiesen SE. Effects of a statewide pre-kindergarten program on children's achievement and behavior through sixth grade. Developmental Psychology. 2022; 58; 3: 470-484. 10.1037/dev0001301</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feister, L. (2013). Early warning confirmed: A research update on third-grade reading. The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Retrieved May 5, 2024 from https://assets.aecf.org/m/resourcedoc/AECF-EarlyWarningConfirmed-2013.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gormley WT Jr, Gayer T, Phillips D, Dawson B. The effects of universal pre-K on cognitive development. Developmental Psychology. 2005; 41; 6: 872-884. 10.1037/0012-1649.41.6.872</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gormley WT, Phillips D, Gayer T. Preschool programs can boost school readiness. Science. 2008; 320; 5884: 1723-1724. 10.1126/science.1156019</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gray-Lobe G, Pathak PA, Walters CR. The long-term effects of universal preschool in Boston. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2023; 138; 1: 363-411. 10.1093/qje/qjac036</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harden BJ, Brett BE, Gross JT, Weiland C, Berne J, Klein EL, Tirrell-Corbin C. Benefits of pre-kindergarten for children in Baltimore, MD. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2023; 64: 1-12. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2023.01.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hernandez, D. J. (2011). Double jeopardy: How third-grade reading skills and poverty influence high school graduation. Annie E. Casey Foundation. Retrieved May 5, 2024 from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED518818.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hill CJ, Gormley WT, Adelstein S. Do the short-term effects of a high-quality preschool program persist?. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2015; 32: 60-79. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.12.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang FL. Does attending a state-funded preschool program improve letter name knowledge?. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2017; 38: 116-126. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.08.002</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Huang FL, Invernizzi MA, Drake EA. The differential effects of preschool: Evidence from Virginia. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2012; 27; 1: 33-45. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.03.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kraft MA. Interpreting effect sizes of education interventions. Educational Researcher. 2020; 49; 4: 241-253. 10.3102/0013189X20912798</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lesnick, J, Goerge, R, Smithgall, C, & Gwynne J. (2010). Reading on grade level in third grade: How is it related to high school performance and college enrollment? Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED517805</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lipsey MW, Farran DC, Durkin K. Effects of the Tennessee Prekindergarten Program on children's achievement and behavior through third grade. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2018; 45: 155-176. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.03.005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Magnuson KA, Ruhm C, Waldfogel J. Does prekindergarten improve school preparation and performance?. Economics of Education Review. 2007; 26; 1: 33-51. 10.1016/j.econedurev.2005.09.008</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McCoy DC, Yoshikawa H, Ziol-Guest KM, Duncan GJ, Schindler HS, Magnuson K, Yang R, Koepp A, Shonkoff JP. Impacts of early childhood education on medium- and long-term educational outcomes. Educational Researcher. 2017; 46; 8: 474-487. 10.3102/0013189X17737739</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Michigan Department of Education. (2023). GSRP Implementation Manual. Michigan Department of Education. Retrieved May 5, 2024 from https://<ulink href="http://www.michigan.gov/-/media/Project/Websites/mileap/Documents/Early-Childhood-Education/gsrp/implementation/implementation%5fmanual.pdf?rev=0ec96c4ac6b4459884b12c1a4a3ceecb">www.michigan.gov/-/media/Project/Websites/mileap/Documents/Early-Childhood-Education/gsrp/implementation/implementation%5fmanual.pdf?rev=0ec96c4ac6b4459884b12c1a4a3ceecb</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Montrosse-Moorhead B, Dougherty SM, La Salle TP, Weiner JM, Dostal HM. The overall and differential effects of a targeted prekindergarten program: Evidence from Connecticut. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2019; 48: 134-145. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.02.006</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Institute for Early Education Research. (2022). The state of preschool 2021. Retrieved May 5, 2024 from https://nieer.org/sites/default/files/2023-10/YB2021_Full_Report.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Institute for Early Education Research. (2023). The state of preschool 2022. Retrieved May 5, 2024 from https://nieer.org/sites/default/files/2023-09/yb2022_fullreport.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (Ed.). (2005). Child care and child development: Results from the NICHD study of early child care and youth development. Guilford Press</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peisner-Feinberg ES, Burchinal MR, Clifford RM, Culkin ML, Howes C, Kagan SL, Yazejian N. The relation of preschool child-care quality to children's cognitive and social developmental trajectories through second grade. Child Development. 2001; 72; 5: 1534-1553. 10.1111/1467-8624.00364</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raudenbush, S. W. & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Sage Publication.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Raver CC, Jones SM, Li-Grining CP, Metzger M, Champion KM, Sardin L. Improving preschool classroom processes: Preliminary findings from a randomized trial implemented in Head Start settings. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2008; 23; 1: 10-26. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2007.09.001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schweinhart LJ, Barnes HV, Weikhart DPFrost N. Significant benefits: The High/Scope Perry preschool study through age 27. Child welfare: Major themes in health and social welfare. 2005; Routledge: 9-29</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schweinhart, L. J, Xiang, Z, Daniel-Echols, M, Browning, K, & Wakabayashi, T. (2012). Michigan Great Start Readiness Program evaluation 2012: High school graduation and grade retention findings. HighScope Educational Research Foundation. Retrieved May 5, 2024 from https://highscope.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/gsrp-2012-report.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sulik MJ, Townley-Flores C, Steyer L, Obradović J. Impacts of two public preschool programs on school readiness in San Francisco. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2023; 62: 194-205. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.07.016</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weiland C, Unterman R, Shapiro A, Staszak S, Rochester S, Martin E. The effects of enrolling in oversubscribed prekindergarten programs through third grade. Child Development. 2020; 91; 5: 1401-1422. 10.1111/cdev.13308</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu, J. H, Akaeze, H. O. & Shereda, A. (2021). Michigan public preschools improve kindergarten readiness: Findings from the Michigan Great Start Readiness Program (GSRP). GSRP state evaluation fact sheet. Michigan State University. Retrieved May 5, 2024 from https://cep.msu.edu/upload/documents/KRA_3rd%20version_FINAL.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu, J. H, Weber, E, Herbowicz, T, Van Egeren, L. A. & Akaeze, H. O. (2022). Great Start Readiness Program State Evaluation 2021–22 Annual Report. Michigan State University. Retrieved May 5, 2024 from https://cep.msu.edu/upload/gsrp/Great%20Start%20Readiness%20Program%20State%20Evaluation%202020-21%20Annual%20Report.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Xiang, Z. & Wakabayashi, T. (2014). Michigan Great Start Readiness Program Evaluation: Lansing School District 2011–2014—Group Equivalency Enhanced Regression Discontinuity Design. Unpublished report submitted to Michigan Department of Education.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yoshikawa, H, Weiland, C, Brooks-Gunn, J, Burchinal, M. R, Espinosa, L. M, Gormley, W. T, Ludwig, J, Magnuson, K, Phillips, D, & Zaslow, M. J. (2013). Investing in our future: The evidence base on preschool education. Society for Research in Child Development.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0185036390-28"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> It is important to note that these five cohorts of students were affected by COVID-19 to vary degrees. The 2017–18 and 2018–19 cohorts were not impacted by COVID-19. However, due to COVID-19, the Spring MAP tested was not conducted during the 2019–2020 school year when the 2019–20 cohort was in third grade, the 2020–21 cohort was in second grade, and the 2021–21 cohort was in first grade.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> It would be more ideal to have Fall, Winter, and Spring achievement data for each grade, but these six measures are the only data available for us to use.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> We lack information about the specific schools attended by students within the school district, rendering a three-level model with repeated measures nested within students nested within schools unfeasible. Additionally, the elementary schools within the district are few in number.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Huang Wu; Jianping Shen; Xin Li; Megan Russell Johnson and Huilan Y. Krenn</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref59"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref60"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref69"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1470491
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Great Start Readiness Program and Children's Academic Achievement: A Longitudinal Study
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Huang+Wu%22">Huang Wu</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7423-8447">0000-0002-7423-8447</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Jianping+Shen%22">Jianping Shen</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4610-4166">0000-0003-4610-4166</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Xin+Li%22">Xin Li</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6564-2704">0000-0002-6564-2704</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Megan+Russell+Johnson%22">Megan Russell Johnson</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Huilan+Y%2E+Krenn%22">Huilan Y. Krenn</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education+Journal%22"><i>Early Childhood Education Journal</i></searchLink>. 2025 53(5):1419-1434.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 16
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– 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="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+1%22">Grade 1</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+2%22">Grade 2</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Grade+3%22">Grade 3</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22State+Programs%22">State Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Readiness%22">School Readiness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22At+Risk+Students%22">At Risk Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academic+Achievement%22">Academic Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Urban+Schools%22">Urban Schools</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Achievement+Gains%22">Achievement Gains</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reading+Achievement%22">Reading Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mathematics+Achievement%22">Mathematics Achievement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Achievement+Tests%22">Achievement Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Growth+Models%22">Growth Models</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+1%22">Grade 1</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+2%22">Grade 2</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Grade+3%22">Grade 3</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Michigan%22">Michigan</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Measures+of+Academic+Progress%22">Measures of Academic Progress</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10643-024-01680-2
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1082-3301<br />1573-1707
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Michigan's Great Start Readiness Program (GSRP) is a state-funded pre-K program that serves at risk four-year-old children across the state. Utilizing longitudinal data from 1,394 children in a mid-sized urban school district, we conducted regression analyses and piecewise linear growth models to examine the growth trajectory of GSRP children and non-GSRP children at each grade level from kindergarten to third grade in both reading and math. The results of regression analyses showed that, after accounting for other variables, participation in GSRP was statistically significantly associated with higher scores on Measure of Academic Progress (MAP) measures at various time points, ranging from 0.22-0.46 standard deviations (SD) in math and 0.31-0.49 SD in reading. The results of piecewise linear growth models illustrated that GSRP children had a statistically significantly faster monthly growth rate than non-GSRP children during the kindergarten year. However, the growth rates were not significantly different during the first, second, and third grade.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1470491
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1470491
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10643-024-01680-2
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 16
        StartPage: 1419
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: State Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Readiness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: At Risk Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academic Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Urban Schools
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Achievement Gains
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reading Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mathematics Achievement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Achievement Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Growth Models
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 1
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 2
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Grade 3
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Michigan
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Measures of Academic Progress
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Great Start Readiness Program and Children's Academic Achievement: A Longitudinal Study
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Huang Wu
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jianping Shen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Xin Li
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Megan Russell Johnson
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Huilan Y. Krenn
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 06
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1082-3301
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1707
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 53
            – Type: issue
              Value: 5
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Early Childhood Education Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1