Primary Early Care and Education 

Arrangements and Achievement at 

Kindergarten Entry

NCES 2016-070

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Primary Early Care and Education 

Arrangements and Achievement at 

Kindergarten Entry

JUNE 2016

Amy Rathbun

Anlan Zhang

American Institutes for Research

Thomas D. Snyder

Project Officer

National Center for Education Statistics

NCES 2016-070

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
U.S. Department of Education

John B. King, Jr.

Secretary

Institute of Education Sciences

Ruth Neild

Deputy Director for Policy and Research

Delegated Duties of the Director

National Center for Education Statistics

Peggy G. Carr

Acting Commissioner

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) is the primary federal entity for collecting, analyzing, and reporting 

data related to education in the United States and other nations. It fulfills a congressional mandate to collect, collate, analyze, 

and report full and complete statistics on the condition of education in the United States; conduct and publish reports and 

specialized analyses of the meaning and significance of such statistics; assist state and local education agencies in improving their 

statistical systems; and review and report on education activities in foreign countries.

NCES activities are designed to address high-priority education data needs; provide consistent, reliable, complete, and accurate 

indicators of education status and trends; and report timely, useful, and high quality data to the U.S. Department of Education, 

the Congress, the states, other education policymakers, practitioners, data users, and the general public. Unless specifically 

noted, all information contained herein is in the public domain.

We strive to make our products available in a variety of formats and in language that is appropriate to a variety of audiences. 

You, as our customer, are the best judge of our success in communicating information effectively. If you have any comments or 

suggestions about this or any other NCES product or report, we would like to hear from you. Please direct your comments to

NCES, IES, U.S. Department of Education

Potomac Center Plaza (PCP) 

550 12th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20202

June 2016

The NCES Home Page address is http://nces.ed.gov.

The NCES Publications and Products address is http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch.

This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Statistics under Contract No. ED-IES-12-D-0002 with 

American Institutes for Research. Mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations does not imply endorsement 

by the U.S. Government.

Suggested Citation

Rathbun, A., and Zhang, A. (2016). Primary Early Care and Education Arrangements and Achievement at Kindergarten Entry

(NCES 2016-070). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

Content Contact

Thomas D. Snyder 

202-245-7165

tom.snyder@ed.gov
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Young children experience various types of early care and education environments the 

year before they enter kindergarten. Some children attend center-based arrangements such 

as preschools, childcare centers, or Head Start programs, while others are cared for in 

relatives’ or nonrelatives’ homes or are normally cared for only by their parents (Denton and 

Germino Hausken 2000; Snyder and Dillow 2016). Prior research indicates that children’s 

participation rates in specific types of primary care arrangements and their knowledge and 

skills at kindergarten entry differ in relation to certain characteristics of children and their 

families, including age at kindergarten entry, race/ethnicity, primary home language, and 

mother’s educational attainment (Denton and Germino Hausken 2000; Mulligan, Hastedt, 

and McCarroll 2012). Earlier research also finds evidence of positive associations between 

participation in early care and education (ECE) arrangements and academic skills around the 

time that children begin kindergarten (Bradley and Vandell 2007; Denton Flanagan and McPhee 

2009; Magnuson et al. 2004; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 2002).

This Statistical Analysis Report builds upon prior work by using the most recently available data 

to explore relationships between children’s primary care and education arrangements the year 

before kindergarten and their academic skills and learning behaviors at kindergarten entry, after 

accounting for child and family background characteristics. In the report, ECE arrangements 

are classified into five groups: (1) center-based care (including day care centers, Head Start 

programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early childhood programs), (2) home-based 

relative care, (3) home-based nonrelative care, (4) multiple arrangements (i.e., children who 

spent an equal amount of time in each of two or more types of arrangements), and (5) no ECE 

arrangement on a regular basis (i.e., children who had no regularly scheduled care arrangement 

and mainly received care only from their parents). Information for this report comes from the 

nationally representative National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES) and the Early 

Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K:2011) data collections. 

Data from the NHES cross-sectional sample survey are used to describe trends in participation 

in ECE arrangements that children experience prior to kindergarten entry. The NHES Early 

Childhood Program Participation (ECPP) surveys gather information on children’s participation 

in ECE programs and the characteristics of these arrangements. Parents reported information 

on their child’s participation in different types of ECE arrangements in 1995, 2001, 2005, and 

2012. This report compares estimates of 4- and 5-year-old children’s primary ECE arrangements 

prior to kindergarten entry in 1995 and 2012. Estimates are presented overall and by children’s 

race/ethnicity, their family’s poverty status, and their mother’s educational attainment. 

Data from the ECLS-K:2011 longitudinal sample survey are used to explore relationships 

between primary ECE arrangements the year before kindergarten and academic skills and 

learning behaviors at kindergarten entry. The ECLS-K:2011 collects detailed information on the 

school achievement and experiences of students from the 2010–11 kindergarten school year 

through the spring of 2016, when most of them are expected to be in fifth grade. In the fall of 

2010 and spring of 2011, parents reported information on child and family characteristics and 

their child’s participation in ECE settings the year before kindergarten; children were assessed in 

reading, mathematics, and cognitive flexibility; and kindergarten teachers reported on children’s 

approaches to learning. The report describes the distribution of primary ECE arrangements that 

first-time kindergartners attended in the year before entering kindergarten in the fall of 2010, 
iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

including differences in primary ECE arrangements by characteristics of children and their 

families. The report also describes differences in first-time kindergartners’ academic knowledge, 

skills, and learning behaviors at kindergarten entry relative to their primary ECE arrangement, 

after accounting for children’s sex, age at kindergarten entry, race/ethnicity, family type, primary 

home language, and socioeconomic status (SES). 

All comparisons of estimates were tested for statistical significance using Student’s t test and 

ordinary least squares (OLS) regression, and all differences cited are statistically significant at the 

p < .05 level. No adjustments were made for multiple comparisons.

Did participation in different types of primary ECE arrangements for children ages 

4 and 5 years old who were not yet enrolled in kindergarten in 2012 change compared 

with 1995? 

Figure A. Percentage distribution of children ages 4 and 5 years old who were not yet enrolled in kindergarten, by primary early 

care and education (ECE) arrangement: Selected years, 1995 through 2012

No ECE arrangement

1995 2001 2005 2012

Center-based care Home-based

relative care

Home-based

nonrelative care

Multiple arrangements

0

20

40

60

80

100

10

30

50

70

90

22 21 21 19

55

56 59 58

11 12 12 13 11 10 6 7

1! 2 2 2

Percent

Primary ECE arrangement

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent.

NOTE: A child’s “primary arrangement” was defined as the regular nonparental care arrangement or early childhood education program in which the child spent the 

most time per week. “No ECE arrangement” refers to children who did not attend any ECE arrangement on a regular basis. Center-based arrangements include 

day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early childhood arrangements.“Multiple arrangements” refers to children who 

spent an equal amount of time in each of two or more types of arrangements. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program Participation Survey of the National Household 

Education Surveys Program (ECPP-NHES:1995, 2001, 2005, and 2012). 

Based on information from the NHES, the overall percentage of children ages 4 and 5 years 

old who attended center-based care as their primary ECE arrangement before kindergarten 

entry was higher in 2012 than in 1995 (58 vs. 55 percent), while the percentage of children who 

primarily received home-based nonrelative care as their primary ECE arrangement was lower in 

2012 than in 1995 (7 vs. 11 percent, figure A and table A-1). The overall percentages of children 

receiving home-based relative care as their primary ECE arrangement (13 percent) and those 

with no ECE arrangement on a regular basis (19 percent) in 2012 were not measurably different 

from the percentages in 1995. 
v

Did participation in different types of primary ECE arrangements for fall 2010 firsttime kindergartners in the year before entering kindergarten vary by child and family 

characteristics? 

Figure B. Percentage distribution of first-time kindergartners, by primary type of early care and education (ECE) arrangement 

prior to kindergarten entry and child’s race/ethnicity: Fall 2010

Multiple

arrangements

Home-based

nonrelative care

Home-based

relative care

Center-based care

No ECE

arrangement

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

18

20

28

20

39

24

17

58

56

48

62

28

57

61

13

18

18

15

27

13!

14

8

4

4

2

‡

‡

‡

‡

5

3

3

2

2

3!

Black

White

Asian

Hispanic

Pacific Islander

Two or more races

American Indian/

Alaska Native

Percent

Primary ECE arrangement

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. 

‡ Reporting standards not met (too few cases for a reliable estimate).

NOTE: Estimates weighted by W1_2P0. Estimates pertain to a sample of children who were enrolled in kindergarten for the first time in the 2010–11 school 

year. Primary type of child care arrangement refers to the type of nonparental care in which the child spent the most hours. “No ECE arrangement” refers to 

children who did not attend any ECE arrangement on a regular basis. Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, 

prekindergartens, and other early childhood arrangements. “Multiple arrangements” refers to children who spent an equal amount of time in each of two or more 

types of arrangements. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding and survey item nonresponse.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 

(ECLS-K:2011), Kindergarten–First Grade Restricted-Use Data File. 
vi

Based on information from the ECLS-K:2011, the percentages of fall 2010 first-time 

kindergartners with various primary ECE arrangements the year before kindergarten differed 

by race/ethnicity, SES, family type, and primary home language (figures B and 4, and table A-2). 

For instance, the percentages of first-time kindergartners who received center-based care as their 

primary ECE arrangement the year before kindergarten were lower for Hispanics (48 percent) 

and Pacific Islanders (28 percent) than for Whites (58 percent), Blacks (56 percent), Asians 

(62 percent), American Indians/Alaska Natives (57 percent), and kindergartners of Two or more 

races (61 percent). In addition, about 36 percent of kindergartners from households that spoke 

a language other than English as their primary language had no ECE arrangement on a regular 

basis the year before kindergarten, compared with 18 percent of kindergartners whose primary 

home language was English.

Were differences in first-time kindergartners’ academic skills and learning behaviors 

in the fall of kindergarten related to their primary ECE arrangement the year before 

kindergarten, after accounting for characteristics of kindergartners and their families?

Using information from the ECLS-K:2011, academic skills and learning behavior scores of fall 

2010 first-time kindergartners at kindergarten entry were compared with respect to students’ 

primary ECE arrangements the year before kindergarten. In general, after accounting for 

characteristics of kindergartners and their families, academic skill and learning behavior scores 

were lower for those who did not attend any ECE arrangement on a regular basis and for those 

who primarily attended home-based relative care than for those who primarily attended centerbased care and those who attended multiple ECE arrangements for equal amounts of time.

Figure C. Adjusted fall kindergarten reading score difference, by primary early care and education (ECE) arrangement prior to 

kindergarten entry: Fall 2010

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0

2.4*

0.2

0.8

2.1*

No ECE arrangement

[reference group]

Center-based care Home-based

relative care

Home-based

nonrelative care

Multiple arrangements

Score difference from 

reference group

Primary ECE arrangement

* p < 0.05.

NOTE: The reading score reflects performance on questions measuring basic skills (print familiarity, letter recognition, beginning and ending sounds, rhyming 

words, and word recognition), vocabulary knowledge, and reading comprehension (including locate/recall questions, integrate/interpret questions, and critique/

evaluate questions about text the children were asked to read). Actual scores for all kindergartners range from 6 to 83. Primary ECE arrangement refers to the type 

of nonparental care in which the child spent the most hours. “No ECE arrangement” refers to children who did not attend any ECE arrangement on a regular basis. 

Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early childhood arrangements. “Multiple 

arrangements” refers to children who spent an equal amount of time in each of two or more arrangements. Estimates weighted by W1_2P0. Estimates pertain to a 

sample of children who were enrolled in kindergarten for the first time in the 2010–11 school year.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 

(ECLS-K:2011), Kindergarten–First Grade Restricted-Use Data File.
vii

After accounting for children’s sex, age at kindergarten entry, race/ethnicity, family type, primary 

home language, and SES, the following findings were observed:

• Fall kindergarten reading scores were lower, on average, for children who had no regular 

ECE arrangements the year before kindergarten and for those whose primary ECE 

arrangements were home-based relative care or nonrelative care than for children whose 

primary ECE arrangements were center-based care or multiple care arrangements for equal 

amounts of time (figure C, tables 1, A-4, and A-5). 

• Fall kindergarten mathematics scores were lower, on average, for children who had no 

regular ECE arrangements the year before kindergarten than for children who attended any 

type of ECE arrangement (figure 6, table 1). In addition, children who were primarily in 

home-based relative care also scored lower in mathematics than children who were primarily 

in home-based nonrelative care, center-based care, or multiple care arrangements for equal 

amounts of time (table A-4). 

• Fall kindergarten cognitive flexibility scores were lower, on average, for children who had 

no regular ECE arrangements the year before kindergarten and for those whose primary 

arrangements were home-based relative care than for children who primarily attended 

center-based care (figure 7, tables 1 and A-4). In addition, children who had no regular ECE 

arrangements also scored lower in cognitive flexibility than children who were primarily in 

multiple care arrangements for equal amounts of time. To measure cognitive flexibility, a 

component of executive functioning, children were administered the Dimensional Change 

Card Sort (DCCS), in which they were asked to sort a series of cards into one of two trays 

according to different rules (e.g., by color, by shape).

• Fall kindergarten approaches to learning ratings were lower, on average, for children who 

had no regular ECE arrangements the year before kindergarten than for those who were 

primarily in home-based nonrelative care, center-based care, or multiple care arrangements 

for equal amounts of time (figure 8, table 1). For the approaches to learning measure, 

teachers reported on how students rated in seven areas: attentiveness, task persistence, 

eagerness to learn, learning independence, flexibility, organization, and ability to follow 

classroom rules, with higher scores indicating that a child exhibits positive learning behaviors 

more often.
This page intentionally left blank.
CONTENTS ix

CONTENTS

PAGE

Executive Summary................................................................................................. iii

List of Tables............................................................................................................ x

List of Figures.......................................................................................................... xi

Introduction............................................................................................................. 1

Data Sources ............................................................................................................ 3

National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES)........................................ 3

Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11

(ECLS-K:2011) .................................................................................................. 4

Methodology............................................................................................................ 7

Findings................................................................................................................... 9

Did participation in different types of primary ECE arrangements for children 

ages 4 and 5 years old who were not yet enrolled in kindergarten in 2012 

change compared with 1995?.............................................................................. 9

Did participation in different types of primary ECE arrangements for fall 2010 

first-time kindergartners in the year before entering kindergarten vary by 

child and family characteristics? ........................................................................ 11

Were differences in first-time kindergartners’ academic skills and learning 

behaviors in the fall of kindergarten related to their primary ECE 

arrangement the year before kindergarten, after accounting for 

characteristics of kindergartners and their families?........................................... 15

Summary................................................................................................................ 23

References .............................................................................................................. 25

Appendix A: Reference Tables............................................................................... A-1

Appendix B: Technical Notes and Methodology....................................................B-1

National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES).....................................B-1

Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 

(ECLS-K:2011) ...............................................................................................B-4

Statistical Procedures............................................................................................B-10
x LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE 

1. Estimated coefficients from ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions of 

fall kindergarten reading, mathematics, science, cognitive flexibility, and 

approaches to learning scores for children with no regular early care and 

education arrangement prior to kindergarten entry, by selected child and 

family characteristics: 2010–11 ................................................................. 17

A-1. Primary child care arrangements of 4- and 5-year-old children who are 

not yet enrolled in kindergarten, by selected child and family 

characteristics: Selected years, 1995 through 2012 ...................................A-1

A-2. Percentage distribution of first-time kindergartners, by primary type of 

child care arrangement during the year prior to kindergarten entry and 

selected child, family, and school characteristics: 2010–11 .......................A-2

A-3. Fall 2010 first-time kindergartners’ reading, mathematics, and science 

scale scores, by selected child, family, and school characteristics: 

Fall 2010, spring 2011, and spring 2012..................................................A-3

A-4. Estimated coefficients from ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions of 

fall kindergarten reading, mathematics, science, cognitive flexibility, and 

approaches to learning scores for children whose primary early care and 

education arrangement prior to kindergarten entry was home-based 

relative care, by selected child and family characteristics: 2010–11...........A-5

A-5. Estimated coefficients from ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions of 

fall kindergarten reading, mathematics, science, cognitive flexibility, and 

approaches to learning scores for children whose primary early care and 

education arrangement prior to kindergarten entry was home-based 

nonrelative care, by selected child and family characteristics: 2010–11 ......A-6

A-6. Estimated coefficients from ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions of 

fall kindergarten reading, mathematics, science, cognitive flexibility, and 

approaches to learning scores for children whose primary early care and 

education arrangement prior to kindergarten entry was center-based 

care, by selected child and family characteristics: 2010–11.......................A-7

A-7. Estimated coefficients from ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions 

of fall kindergarten reading, mathematics, science, cognitive flexibility, 

and approaches to learning scores for children whose primary early care 

and education arrangement prior to kindergarten entry was multiple 

arrangements for equal amounts of time, by selected child and family 

characteristics: 2010–11...........................................................................A-8
LIST OF FIGURES xi

LIST OF FIGURES 

FIGURE PAGE

A. Percentage distribution of children ages 4 and 5 years old who were not 

yet enrolled in kindergarten, by primary early care and education (ECE) 

arrangement: Selected years, 1995 through 2012 ........................................iv

B. Percentage distribution of first-time kindergartners, by primary type of 

early care and education (ECE) arrangement prior to kindergarten entry 

and child’s race/ethnicity: Fall 2010 .............................................................v

C. Adjusted fall kindergarten reading score difference, by primary early 

care and education (ECE) arrangement prior to kindergarten entry: 

Fall 2010.....................................................................................................vi

1. Percentage distribution of children ages 4 and 5 years old who are not 

yet enrolled in kindergarten, by primary early care and education (ECE) 

arrangement: Selected years, 1995 through 2012 ........................................ 9

2. Percentage distribution of first-time kindergartners’ primary type of early 

care and education (ECE) arrangement prior to kindergarten entry: 

Fall 2010................................................................................................... 11

3. Percentage distribution of first-time kindergartners, by primary type of 

early care and education (ECE) arrangement prior to kindergarten entry 

and child’s race/ethnicity: Fall 2010 .......................................................... 12

4. Percentage distribution of first-time kindergartners, by primary type of 

early care and education (ECE) arrangement prior to kindergarten entry 

and socioeconomic status (SES): Fall 2010................................................ 14

5. Adjusted fall kindergarten reading score difference, by primary early 

care and education (ECE) arrangement prior to kindergarten entry: 

Fall 2010................................................................................................... 18

6. Adjusted fall kindergarten mathematics score difference, by primary early 

care and education (ECE) arrangement prior to kindergarten entry: 

Fall 2010................................................................................................... 19

7. Adjusted fall kindergarten cognitive flexibility score difference, by 

primary early care and education (ECE) arrangement prior to 

kindergarten entry: Fall 2010.................................................................... 20

8. Adjusted fall kindergarten approaches to learning score difference, by 

primary early care and education (ECE) arrangement prior to 

kindergarten entry: Fall 2010.................................................................... 21
This page intentionally left blank.
INTRODUCTION 1

INTRODUCTION

Young children experience various types of early care and education environments the 

year before they enter kindergarten. Some children attend center-based arrangements such 

as preschools, childcare centers, or Head Start programs, while others are cared for in 

relatives’ or nonrelatives’ homes or are normally cared for only by their parents (Denton and 

Germino Hausken 2000; Snyder and Dillow 2013). Prior research indicates that children’s 

participation rates in specific types of primary care arrangements and their knowledge and 

skills at kindergarten entry differ in relation to certain characteristics of children and their 

families, including age at kindergarten entry, race/ethnicity, primary home language, and 

mother’s educational attainment (Denton and Germino Hausken 2000; Mulligan, Hastedt, and 

McCarroll 2012). 

Earlier research also finds evidence of positive associations between participation in early care 

and education (ECE) arrangements and academic skills around the time that children begin 

kindergarten. Results from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort of 2001 

showed that children who participated in regular early care and education arrangements the year 

prior to kindergarten scored higher on the reading and mathematics assessments in the fall of 

kindergarten than their peers who were regularly cared for only by their parents the year prior 

to entering kindergarten (Denton Flanagan and McPhee 2009). Similarly, research conducted 

on the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–99 also found that 

center-based care attendance the year before kindergarten was related to higher reading and 

mathematics skills at kindergarten entry, after controlling for family characteristics and other 

factors that were related to center-based care access and academic performance (Magnuson et 

al. 2004). A separate study conducted by the National Institute of Child Health and Human 

Development (NICHD), the Study of Early Child Care, found that children who received more 

center-based care scored higher on measures of cognitive and linguistic functioning prior to 

kindergarten entry, even after accounting for several child and family background characteristics 

(NICHD Early Child Care Research Network 2002). A review of research on child care and 

well-being, including the type of care received, noted that children who attended center-based 

care arrangements tended to score higher in cognitive functioning, after controlling for family 

demographics and parenting behaviors (Bradley and Vandell 2007). 

This Statistical Analysis Report builds upon prior work by using the most recently available 

data to explore relationships between children’s primary ECE arrangements the year before 

kindergarten and their academic skills and learning behaviors at kindergarten entry, after 

accounting for child and family background characteristics. Information for this report comes 

from the nationally representative National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES) 

and the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K:2011) 

data collections. The ECLS-K:2011 provides a unique opportunity to explore relationships 

between primary care arrangements the year before kindergarten and children’s early academic 

skills because the study collects data in the 2010–11 school year on a nationally representative 

sample of kindergartners through direct assessments of their skills at kindergarten entry, 

interviews with their parents, and questionnaires completed by their teachers. The NHES data 

serve a complementary role by providing nationally representative estimates over time on the 

percentages of children who attended different types of primary care arrangements before 

kindergarten. 
2 INTRODUCTION

This report provides data at the child level, and explores three questions:

1. Did participation in different types of primary ECE arrangements for children ages 4 and 

5 years old who were not yet enrolled in kindergarten in 2012 change compared with 1995? 

2. Did participation in different types of primary ECE arrangements for fall 2010 firsttime kindergartners in the year before entering kindergarten vary by child and family 

characteristics? 

3. Were differences in first-time kindergartners’ academic skills and learning behaviors in the 

fall of kindergarten related to their primary ECE arrangement the year before kindergarten, 

after accounting for characteristics of kindergartners and their families?

In the report, primary ECE arrangements are classified into five groups based on care 

arrangements used on a regular basis: (1) center-based care (including day care centers, Head 

Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, programs for children with disabilities, and 

other early childhood programs), (2) home-based relative care, (3) home-based nonrelative 

care, (4) multiple arrangements (i.e., children who spent an equal amount of time in each 

of two or more types of arrangements), and (5) no ECE arrangement on a regular basis 

(i.e., children who had no regularly scheduled care arrangement and mainly received care only 

from their parents). Children were classified into mutually exclusive groups based on the ECE 

arrangement in which they spent the most time each week on a regular basis to allow for 

comparisons of skills at kindergarten entry across all types of care arrangements.

A limitation of this report is that the primary ECE arrangement and family socioeconomic 

status (SES) variables used in the analyses are only a subset of potential configurations of 

variables that can be compared in relation to children’s academic skills at kindergarten entry. 

Also, the primary ECE arrangement variable allows for comparisons of fall kindergarten skills 

across different types of primary arrangements; however, it does not account for varying 

levels of participation at one or more types of ECE arrangements. For example, two children 

could attend center-based care for the same number of hours each week and yet, because of 

differences in the care arrangements of the children for the rest of the hours in the week, end 

up being classified into two different primary ECE arrangement groups for the purposes of the 

report analyses. If the first child only attended center-based care and then spent the remainder 

of time in parental care, the child would be classified as having center-based care as the primary 

ECE arrangement. In contrast, if the second child attended center-based care for the same 

number of hours as the first child, but spent a greater number of hours in home-based relative 

care each week, this child would be classified as having home-based relative care, not centerbased care, as the primary ECE arrangement. Future research can build upon these initial 

findings by exploring relationships between levels of participation in different combinations of 

ECE settings and skills at the start of kindergarten. In addition, future research could explore 

different aspects of family SES, such as focusing on parental education, household income, 

or poverty status to assess whether certain aspects were more strongly associated with skills at 

kindergarten entry.
DATA SOURCES 3

DATA SOURCES

Data used in this report come from the NHES and ECLS-K:2011. The following section 

provides a description of the NHES and ECLS-K:2011, including information on survey 

content, target population, data collection periods, sample sizes, and response rates. Additional 

details about the NHES and ECLS-K:2011 data and the measures used can be found in 

Appendix B: Technical Notes and Methodology and the NHES (http://nces.ed.gov/nhes/) 

and ECLS (http://nces.ed.gov/ecls/) websites.

National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES)

Using data from the NHES cross-sectional sample, this report describes trends in participation 

in children’s primary ECE arrangements prior to kindergarten entry. In the NHES:1995 Early 

Childhood Program Participation (ECPP) Survey, parents of about 14,000 children from birth 

through age 10 and in third grade or below were interviewed by telephone. In NHES:2001, 

parents of approximately 6,700 children from birth through age 6 who were not yet in 

kindergarten were interviewed by telephone. In NHES:2005, parents of about 7,200 children 

from birth through age 6 who were not yet in kindergarten were interviewed by telephone. 

Mailed questionnaires for the NHES:2012 ECPP were completed by parents for 7,893 children 

from birth through the age of 5 who were not yet enrolled in kindergarten. Parents reported 

information about their household and background characteristics and their child’s participation 

in different types of ECE arrangements in 1995, 2001, 2005, and 2012.

Administrations of NHES prior to 2012 used a random-digit dial sample of landline phones 

and computer-assisted telephone interviewing to conduct interviews. However, due to declining 

response rates for all telephone surveys and the increase in households that only or mostly use 

a cell phone instead of a landline, NHES:2012 was changed to an address-based sample survey 

that was administered with printed questionnaires mailed to the sampled respondents. The 

NHES:2012 sample was selected using a two-stage address-based sampling frame. The first 

sampling stage selected residential addresses, and the second sampling stage selected an eligible 

child from information provided on the household mail screener. To increase the number of 

Black and Hispanic children in the sample, Black and Hispanic households were sampled at a 

higher rate than other households by identifying census tracts with higher percentages of these 

residents. 

The overall weighted response rate for the ECPP survey (the product of the screener weighted 

unit response rate and the ECPP survey weighted unit response rate) was about 66.3 percent in 

1995, about 59.9 percent in 2001, about 56.4 percent in 2005, and about 58.1 percent in 2012. 

This report compares estimates of 4- and 5-year-old children’s primary ECE arrangements 

prior to kindergarten entry in 1995 and 2012. Estimates are presented overall and by children’s 

race/ethnicity, their family’s poverty status, and their mother’s educational attainment. Details 

about the key NHES variables included in the report are presented in Appendix B: Technical 

Notes and Methodology.
4 DATA SOURCES

The NHES estimates in this report were weighted using the probabilities of selection of the 

respondents and other adjustments to account for nonresponse and coverage bias. The weight 

used for NHES:1995 data was EWEIGHT, and the weights used for NHES:2001, NHES:2005, 

and NHES:2012 data were FEWT. The standard errors presented in this report were produced 

using Jackknife 1 replication procedures in the SAS statistical software package.

More information about the NHES, including technical documentation and questionnaires, can 

be found on the NCES website at http://nces.ed.gov/nhes/. 

Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 

2010–11 (ECLS-K:2011)

Using data from the ECLS-K:2011, this report explores relationships between primary ECE 

arrangements the year before kindergarten and academic skills and learning behaviors at 

kindergarten entry. The survey provides detailed information on the school achievement and 

experiences of students throughout their elementary school years. The students participating 

in the ECLS-K:2011 are being followed longitudinally from the kindergarten year (the 2010–11

school year) through the spring of 2016, when most of them are expected to be in fifth grade. 

Approximately 18,200 students participated in the base year collection of the ECLS-K:2011. 

The study is designed to be nationally representative of all students who were enrolled in 

kindergarten or who were of kindergarten age and being educated in an ungraded classroom 

or school in the United States in the 2010–11 school year, including those in public and private 

schools, those who attended full-day and part-day programs, those who were in kindergarten 

for the first time, and those who were kindergarten repeaters. Students who attended early 

learning centers or institutions that offered education only through kindergarten are included 

in the study sample and represented in the cohort. The sample includes children from different 

racial/ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds and children with limited English proficiency. 

Asian and Pacific Islander students were oversampled to assure that the sample included 

enough students of this race/ethnicity to be able to make accurate estimates for these students 

as a group. In addition, the study sample includes children with disabilities. 

This report focuses on data collected in the kindergarten (base year). In the fall of 2010 and 

spring of 2011, parents reported information on child and family characteristics and their 

child’s participation in ECE settings the year before kindergarten; children were assessed in 

reading, mathematics, and cognitive flexibility; and kindergarten teachers reported on children’s 

approaches to learning. 

The ECLS-K:2011 cohort was sampled using a multistage sampling design. In the first stage, 

90 primary sampling units (PSUs) were selected from a national sample of PSUs. The PSUs 

were counties and county groups. In the second stage, public and private schools educating 

kindergartners (or ungraded schools educating children of kindergarten age) were selected 

within the PSUs. Finally, students were sampled from the selected schools. In the third 

stage of sampling, approximately 23 kindergartners were selected from a list of all enrolled 
5

kindergartners (or students of kindergarten age being educated in an ungraded classroom) in 

each of the sampled schools. Asian and Pacific Islander students were oversampled to assure 

that the sample included enough students of this race/ethnicity to be able to make accurate 

estimates for these students as a group.

A total of approximately 780 of the 1,320 originally sampled schools participated during 

the base year of the study. This translates to a weighted unit response rate (weighted by the 

base weight) of 63 percent for the base year. The weighted student unit response rates were 

87 percent for the fall data collection and 85 percent for the spring data collection. The 

weighted parent unit response rates were 74 percent for the fall data collection and 67 percent 

for the spring data collection.

The report describes the distribution of primary ECE arrangements that first-time 

kindergartners attended in the year before entering kindergarten in the fall of 2010, including 

differences in primary ECE arrangements by characteristics of children and their families. 

The report also describes differences in first-time kindergartners’ academic knowledge, skills, 

and learning behaviors at kindergarten entry relative to their primary ECE arrangement, after 

accounting for student and family characteristics including children’s sex, age at kindergarten 

entry, race/ethnicity, family type, primary home language, and SES. Details about the key 

ECLS-K:2011 variables included in the report are presented in Appendix B: Technical Notes 

and Methodology.

The ECLS-K:2011 data are weighted to compensate for unequal probabilities of selection at 

each sampling stage and to adjust for the effects of school, teacher, before- and afterschool 

care provider, child, and parent nonresponse. Estimates for this Statistical Analysis Report were 

weighted by W1_2P0, which is the base-year child weight adjusted for nonresponse to the fall 

or spring parent interview. The standard errors presented in this report were produced using 

Jackknife 2 replication procedures in the SAS statistical software package. 

More information about the ECLS-K:2011, including technical documentation and 

questionnaires, can be found on the NCES website at http://nces.ed.gov/ecls/

kindergarten2011.asp. 
This page intentionally left blank.
METHODOLOGY 7

METHODOLOGY

For the report questions regarding whether participation in primary ECE arrangements 

changed for 4- and 5-year-olds between 1995 and 2012 (question 1) and whether participation 

in different primary ECE arrangements for fall 2010 first-time kindergartners varied by child 

and family characteristics (question 2), comparisons of means and percentages were tested for 

statistical significance at the .05 level using Student’s t test to ensure that the differences are 

larger than those that might be expected due to sampling variation. For the report question 

regarding whether differences in first-time kindergartners’ academic skills and learning 

behaviors in the fall of kindergarten were related to their primary ECE arrangement the year 

before kindergarten, after controlling for selected child and family characteristics (question 3), 

ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analyses were conducted. Independent variables were 

entered simultaneously for each regression analysis. Children with no regular ECE arrangement 

the year before kindergarten served as the reference primary ECE arrangement group for the 

regression table (table 1). Comparisons for other groups (e.g., home-based relative care vs. 

other types of primary ECE arrangements) were conducted using the same regression model, 

with the exception that the reference group was changed so that it was the primary ECE 

arrangement being compared to other primary ECE arrangements (tables A-4 through A-7 

in Appendix A: Reference Tables). Significant regression coefficients generated by the OLS 

procedure indicate the units of change in the dependent variable when comparing one primary 

ECE arrangement group against the reference group, after taking into account all of the other 

independent variables in the model.

Readers are cautioned not to make causal inferences from the data presented here and, when 

making comparisons across time or surveys, to be aware of differences in sample designs 

and data collection procedures. NHES and ECLS-K:2011 estimates are based on samples. 

The sample estimates may differ somewhat from the values that would be obtained from the 

universe of respondents. As sample surveys, NHES and ECLS-K:2011 data are weighted to 

produce population estimates, which are provided in Appendix A: Reference Tables. Since the 

two studies are collected over different time periods and include different age groups, they are 

not directly comparable across demographic and other related variables. 

The standard errors for each estimate are based on the amount of variation in the responses 

and the size of the sample or subgroup for which the estimate is computed. No adjustments 

were made for multiple comparisons. For more information on the methodology used in this 

report, please see Appendix B: Technical Notes and Methodology.
This page intentionally left blank.
FINDINGS 9

FINDINGS

Presented below are findings from the primary ECE arrangement analyses using the NHES 

and ECLS-K:2011 data files. For all questions, children are classified into one of these primary 

ECE arrangement types: (1) center-based care, (2) home-based relative care, (3) home-based 

nonrelative care, (4) multiple arrangements (i.e., children who spent an equal amount of time 

in each of two or more types of arrangements), and (5) no ECE arrangement on a regular 

basis (i.e., children who had no regularly scheduled care arrangement and mainly received 

care only from their parents). Findings for question 1 are based on data collected in the 

NHES ECCP surveys, while findings for questions 2 and 3 are based on data collected in the 

ECLS-K:2011 survey.

Did participation in different types of primary ECE arrangements for children ages 

4 and 5 years old who were not yet enrolled in kindergarten in 2012 change compared 

with 1995? 

Figure 1. Percentage distribution of children ages 4 and 5 years old who are not yet enrolled in kindergarten, by primary early 

care and education (ECE) arrangement: Selected years, 1995 through 2012

No ECE arrangement

1995 2001 2005 2012

Center-based care Home-based

relative care

Home-based

nonrelative care

Multiple arrangements

0

20

40

60

80

100

10

30

50

70

90

22 21 21 19

55

56 59 58

11 12 12 13 11 10 6 7

1! 2 2 2

Percent

Primary ECE arrangement

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent.

NOTE: A child’s “primary arrangement” was defined as the regular nonparental care arrangement or early childhood education program in which the child spent the 

most time per week. “No ECE arrangement” refers to children who did not attend any ECE arrangement on a regular basis. Center-based arrangements include 

day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early childhood arrangements.“Multiple arrangements” refers to children who 

spent an equal amount of time in each of two or more types of arrangements. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program Participation Survey of the National Household 

Education Surveys Program (ECPP-NHES:1995, 2001, 2005, and 2012).
10 FINDINGS

Data collected in the NHES were used to provide information on the prevalence of different 

types of primary ECE arrangements over time for children ages 4 and 5 years old who were 

not yet enrolled in kindergarten. Overall, the percentage of 4- and 5-year-olds who attended 

center-based care as their primary ECE arrangement before kindergarten entry was higher in 

2012 than in 1995 (58 vs. 55 percent; figure 1 and table A-1). However, there were no measurable 

changes in the percentages of children in center-based care between 2012 and 1995 by child’s 

race/ethnicity, family poverty status, or mother’s highest level of education. In contrast, the 

percentage of 4- and 5-year-olds who received home-based nonrelative care as their primary 

ECE arrangement was lower in 2012 than in 1995 overall (7 vs. 11 percent), as well as for 

children in the following subgroups: Black children (2 vs. 8 percent), children from nonpoor1

families (9 vs. 14 percent), children whose mother’s highest level of education was vocational or 

technical school or some college (6 vs. 11 percent), and children whose mother’s highest level of 

education was a bachelor’s or higher degree (10 vs. 15 percent; table A-1). 

The overall percentage of children receiving home-based relative care as their primary ECE 

arrangement in 2012 (13 percent) was not measurably different from the percentage in 1995, 

nor were the 2012 percentages measurably different from the 1995 percentages by children’s 

race/ethnicity, family poverty status, or mother’s highest level of education. Despite an 

apparent difference, the overall percentage of 4- and 5-year-olds who did not attend any ECE 

arrangement on a regular basis in 2012 (19 percent) was not measurably different from the 

percentage in 1995. However, the percentages of children attending no ECE arrangement on a 

regular basis were lower in 2012 than in 1995 for Hispanic children (24 vs. 34 percent) and for 

children from near-poor families (24 vs. 32 percent). 

1 Poverty status is defined in terms of the Census Bureau’s poverty threshold, a dollar amount that varies depending 

on a family’s size and composition and is updated annually to account for inflation. In 2012, for example, the poverty 

threshold for a family of four with two children was $23,283. Poor students are those with family incomes below the 

poverty threshold; near-poor students are those with family incomes ranging from the poverty threshold to 199 percent 

of the poverty threshold; and nonpoor students are those with family incomes at or above 200 percent of the poverty 

threshold.
11

Did participation in different types of primary ECE arrangements for fall 2010 firsttime kindergartners in the year before entering kindergarten vary by child and family 

characteristics? 

Figure 2. Percentage distribution of first-time kindergartners’ primary type of early care and education (ECE) arrangement prior 

to kindergarten entry: Fall 2010

21

55

15

6

3

No ECE arrangement Center-based care Home-based

relative care

Home-based

nonrelative care

Multiple arrangements

Primary ECE arrangement

0

20

40

60

80

100

10

30

50

70

90

Percent

NOTE: Estimates weighted by W1_2P0. Estimates pertain to a sample of children who were enrolled in kindergarten for the first time in the 2010–11 school 

year. Primary type of child care arrangement refers to the type of nonparental care in which the child spent the most hours. “No ECE arrangement” refers to 

children who did not attend any ECE arrangement on a regular basis. Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, 

prekindergartens, and other early childhood arrangements. “Multiple arrangements” refers to children who spent an equal amount of time in each of two or more 

types of arrangements. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding and survey item nonresponse. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 

(ECLS-K:2011), Kindergarten–First Grade Restricted-Use Data File. 

Data collected in the ECLS-K:2011 were used to provide information on children’s 

participation in primary ECE arrangements the year before kindergarten for children who 

started kindergarten in the fall of 2010. Some 21 percent of fall 2010 first-time kindergartners 

received care only from their parents on a regular basis in the year prior to kindergarten and 

did not attend any ECE arrangement (figure 2 and table A-2). The remaining 79 percent of fall 

2010 first-time kindergartners attended some type of regularly scheduled ECE arrangement in 

the year prior to kindergarten: 55 percent primarily attended center-based care arrangements, 

15 percent primarily attended home-based relative care, 6 percent primarily attended home-based 

nonrelative care, and 3 percent primarily attended multiple care arrangements for equal amounts 

of time.
12

Figure 3. Percentage distribution of first-time kindergartners, by primary type of early care and education (ECE) arrangement 

prior to kindergarten entry and child’s race/ethnicity: Fall 2010

Multiple

arrangements

Home-based

nonrelative care

Home-based

relative care

Center-based care

No ECE

arrangement

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

18

20

28

20

39

24

17

58

56

48

62

28

57

61

13

18

18

15

27

13!

14

8

4

4

2

‡

‡

‡

‡

5

3

3

2

2

3!

Black

White

Asian

Hispanic

Pacific Islander

Two or more races

American Indian/

Alaska Native

Percent

Primary ECE arrangement

! Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. 

‡ Reporting standards not met (too few cases for a reliable estimate).

NOTE: Estimates weighted by W1_2P0. Estimates pertain to a sample of children who were enrolled in kindergarten for the first time in the 2010–11 school 

year. Primary type of child care arrangement refers to the type of nonparental care in which the child spent the most hours. “No ECE arrangement” refers to 

children who did not attend any ECE arrangement on a regular basis. Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, 

prekindergartens, and other early childhood arrangements. “Multiple arrangements” refers to children who spent an equal amount of time in each of two or more 

types of arrangements. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding and survey item nonresponse.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 

(ECLS-K:2011), Kindergarten–First Grade Restricted-Use Data File. 
13

It was less common for Hispanic and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander2 children than 

for children from other racial/ethnic groups to attend a center-based setting as the primary 

ECE arrangement the year before kindergarten. The percentages of first-time kindergartners 

who received center-based care as their primary ECE arrangement before kindergarten were 

lower for Hispanics (48 percent) and Pacific Islanders (28 percent) than for Whites (58 percent), 

Blacks (56 percent), Asians (62 percent), American Indians/Alaska Natives (57 percent), and 

kindergartners of Two or more races (61 percent; figure 3 and table A-2). In contrast, the 

percentages of fall 2010 kindergartners who did not attend any ECE arrangement on a regular 

basis the year before kindergarten were higher for Hispanics (28 percent) and Pacific Islanders 

(39 percent) than for Whites (18 percent), Blacks (20 percent), and Asians (20 percent). Also, 

the percentage of Pacific Islander kindergartners with no regular ECE arrangement was higher 

than the percentages for American Indian/Alaska Native kindergartners (24 percent) and 

kindergartners of Two or more races (17 percent).

With respect to home-based care arrangements, higher percentages of Black and Hispanic 

kindergartners (18 percent each) than of White (13 percent) kindergartners and kindergartners 

of Two or more races (14 percent) received relative care as their primary ECE arrangement, 

and the percentage of Hispanic kindergartners receiving relative care was also higher than the 

percentage of Asian kindergartners (15 percent) doing so. The percentage of kindergartners 

who primarily received nonrelative care was higher for White kindergartners (8 percent) than 

for Black (4 percent), Hispanic (4 percent), and Asian kindergartners (2 percent), as well as 

kindergartners of Two or more races (5 percent). 

The percentages of fall 2010 first-time kindergartners who attended various primary ECE 

arrangements did not differ by sex, and few differences were observed with respect to age 

at kindergarten entry. About 12 percent of kindergartners who were more than 6 years old 

at kindergarten entry received home-based relative care as their primary ECE arrangement, 

compared with 16 percent of kindergartners who entered kindergarten when they were 5 to 

51⁄2 years old and 15 percent who entered when they were more than 51⁄2 years old to 6 years 

old (table A-2). On the other hand, 9 percent of kindergartners who were more than 6 years old 

at kindergarten entry received home-based nonrelative care as their primary ECE arrangement, 

compared with 4 percent of kindergartners who entered kindergarten when they were less than 

5 years old and 6 percent who entered when they were 5 to 51⁄2 years old.

2 A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. Used 

interchangeably with the shorter term Pacific Islander.
14

Figure 4. Percentage distribution of first-time kindergartners, by primary type of early care and education (ECE) arrangement 

prior to kindergarten entry and socioeconomic status (SES): Fall 2010

35

20

12

44

54

69

16 17

9

3

7 7

2 3 3

No ECE arrangement

Lower 20 percent Middle 60 percent Highest 20 percent

Center-based care Home-based

relative care

Home-based

nonrelative care

Multiple arrangements

Primary ECE arrangement

0

20

40

60

80

100

10

30

50

70

90

Percent

NOTE: Estimates weighted by W1_2P0. Estimates pertain to a sample of children who were enrolled in kindergarten for the first time in the 2010–11 school 

year. Primary type of child care arrangement refers to the type of nonparental care in which the child spent the most hours. “No ECE arrangement” refers to 

children who did not attend any ECE arrangement on a regular basis. Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, 

prekindergartens, and other early childhood arrangements. “Multiple arrangements” refers to children who spent an equal amount of time in each of two or more 

types of arrangements. Socioeconomic status (SES) was measured by a composite score based on parental education and occupations and household income at 

the time of data collection. Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding and survey item nonresponse. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 

(ECLS-K:2011), Kindergarten–First Grade Restricted-Use Data File. 

It was more common for children from households of high socioeconomic status (SES) 

than for those from households of lower SES to attend center-based settings as the primary 

ECE arrangement the year before kindergarten. Kindergartners’ SES was measured in the 

ECLS-K:2011 by a composite score based on parental education and occupations and household 

income at the time of data collection. Kindergartners living in households in the highest 

20 percent of the SES scale were identified as kindergartners from high-SES households, those 

living in households in the middle 60 percent of the SES scale were identified as kindergartners 

from middle-SES households, and those living in households in the lowest 20 percent of the 

SES scale were identified as kindergartners from low-SES households. About 69 percent of 

kindergartners from high-SES households were in center-based arrangements as their primary 

ECE arrangement, compared with 54 percent of kindergartners from middle-SES households 

and 44 percent of kindergartners from low-SES households (figure 4 and table A-2). In contrast, 

about 35 percent of fall 2010 first-time kindergartners from low-SES households had no ECE 

arrangement on a regular basis the year before kindergarten, compared with 12 percent of 

kindergartners from high-SES households and 20 percent of kindergartners from middle-SES 

households. In terms of home-based ECE arrangements, the percentage of kindergartners 

who primarily received relative care was lower for kindergartners from high-SES households 

(9 percent) than for those from middle-SES (17 percent) and low-SES households (16 percent). 

In contrast, the percentage of kindergartners who primarily received nonrelative care was lower 

for kindergartners from low-SES households (3 percent) than for those from middle- and highSES households (7 percent each).
15

Other household characteristics, such as family type and primary home language, were also 

related to participation in various primary ECE arrangements the year before kindergarten. For 

instance, a higher percentage of fall 2010 first-time kindergartners from two-parent households 

(57 percent) than from mother-only (50 percent) or father-only households (43 percent) attended 

center-based settings as their primary ECE arrangement (table A-2). In contrast, a lower 

percentage of kindergartners from two-parent households (12 percent) than from mother-only 

(24 percent) or father-only households (31 percent) received home-based relative care as their 

primary ECE arrangement. In addition, a higher percentage of kindergartners whose primary 

home language was English (57 percent) received center-based care as their primary ECE 

arrangement than did kindergartners from households that spoke a primary language other than 

English (45 percent). Conversely, 36 percent of kindergartners from households that spoke a 

language other than English as their primary language had no regular ECE arrangement the year 

before kindergarten, compared with 18 percent of kindergartners whose primary home language 

was English. 

Were differences in first-time kindergartners’ academic skills and learning behaviors 

in the fall of kindergarten related to their primary ECE arrangement the year before 

kindergarten, after accounting for characteristics of kindergartners and their families?

Among the many strengths of the ECLS-K:2011 are that it collects not only information 

provided by parents on background characteristics and primary ECE arrangements the year 

before kindergarten but also data directly from kindergartners and teachers on students’ 

performance in different academic areas. In the fall of kindergarten, students were administered 

individual assessments in reading, mathematics, and cognitive flexibility, and kindergarten 

teachers reported on students’ approaches to learning. 

One method of comparing academic skills and learning behavior scores for different groups 

of students is the use of bivariate analyses, which do not account for student background 

characteristics. For example, a t test analysis can be used to determine whether fall kindergarten 

mathematics scores are significantly higher for students who primarily attended center-based care 

(32.0 points) than for those who primarily attended home-based relative care (28.3 points) the 

year before kindergarten (table A-3). However, one of the limitations of such bivariate analyses 

is that they compare information across groups without taking into account the influence of 

other factors that may also be related to differences. 

When comparing ECE arrangements the year before kindergarten with achievement at school 

entry, multivariate analyses—such as ordinary least squares (OLS) multiple regression models—

provide information on whether group differences persist after controlling for other student 

and family characteristics such as kindergartners’ sex, age at kindergarten entry, race/ethnicity, 

household type, primary home language, and SES. Results in the previous section demonstrate 

that kindergartners’ participation in ECE arrangements the year before kindergarten vary with 

respect to characteristics of children and their families. In addition, prior research based on 

the ECLS-K:2011 data indicates that fall 2010 first-time kindergartners’ academic skills in the 

beginning of kindergarten are associated with individual and family characteristics (Mulligan, 
16

Hastedt, and McCarroll 2012). For instance, bivariate analyses in that report indicated that Asian 

first-time kindergartners had higher reading and mathematics scores at kindergarten entry than 

first-time kindergartners of other races/ethnicities, and White first-time kindergartners had 

higher reading and math scores than Black, Hispanic, Pacific Islander, and American Indian/

Alaska Native kindergartners. In addition, Black kindergartners scored higher in reading than 

Hispanic kindergartners, and Pacific Islander kindergartners had higher mathematics scores 

than Hispanic kindergartners. With respect to family characteristics, first-time kindergartners in 

two-parent households had higher reading and mathematics scores at kindergarten entry than 

those in households of different structures, and first-time kindergartners with a primary home 

language of English scored higher in both subjects than those from households with a primary 

home language other than English.

Since ECE arrangements and academic achievement both differ by child and family 

characteristics, multivariate analyses are used in this report to allow for estimation of differences 

in academic skills and learning behaviors at the start of kindergarten by children’s primary 

ECE arrangement the year before kindergarten, after controlling for selected child and family 

characteristics. This section presents results from OLS regression analyses of ECLS-K:2011 

data. These results may provide answers to questions about relationships between primary ECE 

arrangements the year before kindergarten and academic outcomes, in general, and may provide 

an answer to the specific question, “How are kindergartners’ primary ECE arrangements the 

year before kindergarten associated with their reading, mathematics, cognitive flexibility, and 

approaches to learning skills in the beginning of kindergarten, holding other factors, such as 

socioeconomic status, constant?” For each regression model, all independent variables (e.g., sex, 

race/ethnicity) were entered simultaneously, so that relationships between individual independent 

variables and the dependent variable (e.g., fall kindergarten reading score) could be described 

after controlling for the effect of all of the other independent variables in the model.

The following findings present information on relationships between primary ECE 

arrangements the year before kindergarten and academic skills and learning behaviors at 

kindergarten entry, after accounting for children’s sex, age at kindergarten entry, race/ethnicity, 

family type, primary home language, and SES.
17

Table 1. Estimated coefficients from ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions of fall kindergarten reading, mathematics, 

science, cognitive flexibility, and approaches to learning scores for children with no regular early care and education 

arrangement prior to kindergarten entry, by selected child and family characteristics: 2010–11

Variable

Mean reading score1

Mean mathematics 

score2

Mean cognitive 

flexibility score3

Mean approaches to 

learning score4

Coefficient

Standard 

error Coefficient

Standard 

error Coefficient

Standard 

error

Standard 

Coefficient error

Intercept 13.51* (1.521) -7.55* (2.007) 10.15* (0.586) 1.35* (0.119)

Primary type of early care and 

education (ECE) arrangement prior 

to kindergarten entry5

(No regular ECE arrangement)

Center-based care 2.37* (0.230) 2.86* (0.272) 0.38* (0.110) 0.06* (0.017)

Home-based relative care 0.21 (0.255) 0.72* (0.305) 0.16 (0.124) 0.04 (0.021)

Home-based nonrelative care 0.78 (0.437) 2.40* (0.451) 0.33 (0.209) 0.07* (0.025)

Multiple arrangements 2.08* (0.535) 3.06* (0.568) 0.59* (0.212) 0.08* (0.039)

Sex of child

(Male) 

Female 1.04* (0.197) -0.04 (0.219) 0.39* (0.070) 0.31* (0.014)

Age of child at kindergarten entry, 

fall 2010 0.36* (0.022) 0.59* (0.029) 0.06* (0.008) 0.02* (0.002)

Race/ethnicity of child

(White)

Black -0.96* (0.415) -3.51* (0.349) -1.10* (0.153) -0.07* (0.022)

Hispanic -1.54* (0.365) -2.99* (0.307) -0.66* (0.102) -0.01 (0.021)

Asian 6.32* (0.598) 5.53* (0.676) -0.04 (0.175) 0.09 (0.048)

Native Hawaiian/ 

Pacific Islander -2.11 (1.371) -2.74 (1.708) -1.45* (0.601) -0.06 (0.082)

American Indian/

Alaska Native -3.03* (0.553) -3.77* (0.980) -0.61 (0.507) 0.05 (0.068)

Two or more races 0.30 (0.485) -0.46 (0.541) -0.27 (0.144) -0.02 (0.034)

Household type, fall 2010

(Two-parent household)

Single-parent or other 

household type -2.26* (0.197) -2.75* (0.255) -0.25* (0.088) -0.17* (0.018)

Primary home language

(English)

Non-English -2.07* (0.366) -2.59* (0.340) -0.75* (0.144) 0.05 (0.028)

Socioeconomic status (SES)6

(Higher SES percents)

Lowest 20 percent -3.98* (0.275) -5.25* (0.319) -0.50* (0.117) -0.16* (0.023)

* p < 0.05. 1

 Reflects performance on questions measuring basic skills (print familiarity, letter recognition, beginning and ending sounds, rhyming words, and word 

recognition), vocabulary knowledge, and reading comprehension (including locate/recall questions, integrate/interpret questions, and critique/evaluate questions 

about text the children were asked to read). Actual scores for all kindergartners range from 6 to 83 points.

2

 Reflects performance on questions on number sense, properties, and operations; measurement; geometry and spatial sense; data analysis, statistics, and 

probability (measured with a set of simple questions assessing children’s ability to read a graph); and prealgebra skills such as identification of patterns. Actual 

scores for all kindergartners range from 5 to 75 points.

3

 To measure cognitive flexibility, children were administered the Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS) (developed by Philip Zelazo in 2006). Children were 

asked to sort a series of cards into one of two trays according to different rules (e.g., by color, by shape). Actual scores for all kindergartners range from 0 to 

12 points. 4

 The approaches to learning scale is based on teachers’ reports on how students rate in seven areas: attentiveness, task persistence, eagerness to learn, learning 

independence, flexibility, organization, and ability to follow classroom rules. Actual scores for all kindergartners range from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating that 

a child exhibits positive learning behaviors more often.

5

 The type of nonparental care in which the child spent the most hours. “Multiple arrangements” refers to children who spent an equal amount of time in each of two 

or more arrangements.

6

 Socioeconomic status (SES) was measured by a composite score based on parental education and occupations and household income at the time of data 

collection. 

NOTE: The reference category is the first group listed and is shown in parentheses. Estimates weighted by W1_2P0. Estimates pertain to a sample of children 

who were enrolled in kindergarten for the first time in the 2010–11 school year. Two parents may refer to two biological parents, two adoptive parents, or one 

biological/adoptive parent and one other parent/partner. Single parent refers to one biological or adoptive parent only. In households without parents, the guardian 

or guardians may be related or unrelated to the child. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 

(ECLS-K:2011), Kindergarten–First Grade Restricted-Use Data File.
18

Figure 5. Adjusted fall kindergarten reading score difference, by primary early care and education (ECE) arrangement prior to 

kindergarten entry: Fall 2010

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

0

2.4*

0.2

0.8

2.1*

No ECE arrangement

[reference group]

Center-based care Home-based

relative care

Home-based

nonrelative care

Multiple arrangements

Score difference from 

reference group

Primary ECE arrangement

* p < 0.05.

NOTE: The reading score reflects performance on questions measuring basic skills (print familiarity, letter recognition, beginning and ending sounds, rhyming 

words, and word recognition), vocabulary knowledge, and reading comprehension (including locate/recall questions, integrate/interpret questions, and critique/

evaluate questions about text the children were asked to read). Actual scores for all kindergartners range from 6 to 83. Primary ECE arrangement refers to the type 

of nonparental care in which the child spent the most hours. “No ECE arrangement” refers to children who did not attend any ECE arrangement on a regular basis. 

Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early childhood arrangements. “Multiple 

arrangements” refers to children who spent an equal amount of time in each of two or more arrangements. Estimates weighted by W1_2P0. Estimates pertain to a 

sample of children who were enrolled in kindergarten for the first time in the 2010–11 school year.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 

(ECLS-K:2011), Kindergarten–First Grade Restricted-Use Data File.

The ECLS-K:2011 reading assessment measures students’ performance on questions measuring 

basic skills (print familiarity, letter recognition, beginning and ending sounds, rhyming words, 

and word recognition); vocabulary knowledge; and reading comprehension. Possible scores 

on the reading assessment range from 0 to 100 points, with a standard deviation of 9.5 points 

(Tourangeau et al. 2012).

After accounting for child and family background characteristics, fall kindergarten reading 

scores were lower, on average, for children who had no regular ECE arrangements the year 

before kindergarten and for those whose primary ECE arrangements were home-based relative 

care or nonrelative care than for children whose primary ECE arrangements were center-based 

care or multiple care arrangements for equal amounts of time (tables 1, A-4, A-5, and figure 5). 

For example, first-time kindergartners who had no regular ECE arrangement the year before 

kindergarten scored 2.4 points,3

 or 0.25 standard deviations (SD),4 lower in reading than their 

peers who attended center-based care as their primary arrangement and 2.1 points (0.22 SD) 

lower than their peers who had attended multiple ECE arrangements for equal amounts of time. 

3 Children with no regular ECE arrangement the year before kindergarten served as the reference group, with their 

regression coefficient set to zero. Score differences between this group and children with any type of primary ECE 

arrangement were calculated by subtracting the coefficient for the specific primary care type from 0. For example, the 

difference in fall kindergarten reading scores between children with no regular ECE arrangement and children whose 

primary ECE arrangement was center-based care was calculated as 0 – 2.37, indicating that scores were 2.37 points lower 

for children with no regular ECE arrangement.

4 Difference scores are presented in standard deviation (SD) units by dividing the unstandardized regression coefficient 

by the standard deviation of the assessment score. As an example, an unstandardized fall kindergarten reading 

coefficient of 2.37 for kindergartners who attended center-based care the year before kindergarten would be divided by 

the fall kindergarten reading score standard deviation of 9.457 to yield a difference of 0.25 SD.
19

Figure 6. Adjusted fall kindergarten mathematics score difference, by primary early care and education (ECE) arrangement prior 

to kindergarten entry: Fall 2010

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

0

2.9*

0.7*

2.4*

3.1*

No ECE arrangement

[reference group]

Center-based care Home-based

relative care

Home-based

nonrelative care

Multiple arrangements

Score difference from 

reference group

Primary ECE arrangement

* p < 0.05.

NOTE: The mathematics score reflects performance on questions on number sense, properties, and operations; measurement; geometry and spatial sense; 

data analysis, statistics, and probability (measured with a set of simple questions assessing children’s ability to read a graph); and prealgebra skills such as 

identification of patterns. Actual scores for all kindergartners range from 5 to 75. Primary ECE arrangement refers to the type of nonparental care in which the child 

spent the most hours. “No ECE arrangement” refers to children who did not attend any ECE arrangement on a regular basis. Center-based arrangements include 

day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early childhood arrangements. “Multiple arrangements” refers to children who 

spent an equal amount of time in each of two or more arrangements. Estimates weighted by W1_2P0. Estimates pertain to a sample of children who were enrolled 

in kindergarten for the first time in the 2010–11 school year. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 

(ECLS-K:2011), Kindergarten–First Grade Restricted-Use Data File.

The ECLS-K:2011 mathematics assessment measures performance on questions pertaining 

to number sense, properties, and operations; measurement; geometry and spatial sense; data 

analysis, statistics, and probability; and prealgebra skills such as identification of patterns. 

Possible scores on the mathematics assessment range from 0 to 96 points, with a standard 

deviation of 10.9 points (Tourangeau et al. 2012).

Fall kindergarten mathematics scores were lower, on average, for children who had no regular 

ECE arrangements the year before kindergarten than for children who attended any type of 

ECE arrangement (table 1 and figure 6). For example, first-time kindergartners who had no 

regular ECE arrangement the year before kindergarten scored 2.9 points (0.26 SD) lower in 

mathematics than their peers who attended center-based care as their primary arrangement, 

0.7 points (0.07 SD) lower than their peers who received home-based relative care, 2.4 points 

(0.22 SD) lower than their peers who received home-based nonrelative care, and 3.1 points 

(0.28 SD) lower than their peers who had attended multiple ECE arrangements for equal 

amounts of time. In addition, children who were primarily in home-based relative care also 

scored lower in mathematics than children who were primarily in home-based nonrelative care, 

center-based care, or multiple care arrangements for equal amounts of time (table A-4). 
20

Figure 7. Adjusted fall kindergarten cognitive flexibility score difference, by primary early care and education (ECE) 

arrangement prior to kindergarten entry: Fall 2010

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0

0.4*

0.2

0.3

0.6*

No ECE arrangement

[reference group]

Center-based care Home-based

relative care

Home-based

nonrelative care

Multiple arrangements

Score difference from 

reference group

Primary ECE arrangement

* p < 0.05.

NOTE: To measure cognitive flexibility, children were administered the Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS) (developed by Philip Zelazo in 2006). Children 

were asked to sort a series of cards into one of two trays according to different rules (e.g., by color, by shape). Actual scores for all kindergartners range from 0 to 

12. Primary ECE arrangement refers to the type of nonparental care in which the child spent the most hours. “No ECE arrangement” refers to children who did not 

attend any ECE arrangement on a regular basis. Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and 

other early childhood arrangements. “Multiple arrangements” refers to children who spent an equal amount of time in each of two or more arrangements. Estimates 

weighted by W1_2P0. Estimates pertain to a sample of children who were enrolled in kindergarten for the first time in the 2010–11 school year. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 

(ECLS-K:2011), Kindergarten–First Grade Restricted-Use Data File.

Cognitive flexibility, a component of executive functioning, is a measure of children’s ability to 

adjust their behaviors or attention in response to changes in their environment. The Dimensional 

Change Card Sort (DCCS) task measures cognitive flexibility by assessing the extent to which 

young children are able to hold two sets of rules in mind, apply them, and switch between them. 

In this task, children are asked to sort a series of picture cards into one of two trays according 

to different rules. In the first round, children are asked to sort the cards by the color of the 

object on the card; in the next round, they are asked to sort the cards by the shape of the object 

on the card. Then in the final round, the child is to sort by color if the card has a black border, 

and the child is to sort by shape if the card does not have a black border. Possible scores on the 

cognitive flexibility assessment range from 0 to 18 points, with a standard deviation of 3.3 points 

(Tourangeau et al. 2012).

Fall kindergarten cognitive flexibility scores were lower, on average, for children who had 

no regular ECE arrangements the year before kindergarten and for those whose primary 

arrangements were home-based relative care than for children who primarily attended 

center-based care (tables 1, A-4, and figure 7). In addition, children who had no regular ECE 

arrangements also scored lower in cognitive flexibility than children who were primarily in 

multiple care arrangements for equal amounts of time. For example, first-time kindergartners 

who had no regular ECE arrangement the year before kindergarten scored 0.4 points (0.11 SD) 

lower in cognitive flexibility than their peers who attended center-based care as their primary 

arrangement and 0.6 points (0.18 SD) lower than their peers who had attended multiple ECE 

arrangements for equal amounts of time.
21

Figure 8. Adjusted fall kindergarten approaches to learning score difference, by primary early care and education (ECE) 

arrangement prior to kindergarten entry: Fall 2010

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0

0.06*

0.04

0.07*

0.08*

No ECE arrangement

[reference group]

Center-based care Home-based

relative care

Home-based

nonrelative care

Multiple arrangements

Score difference from 

reference group

Primary ECE arrangement

* p < 0.05.

NOTE: The approaches to learning scale is based on teachers’ reports on how students rate in seven areas: attentiveness, task persistence, eagerness to learn, 

learning independence, flexibility, organization, and ability to follow classroom rules. Actual scores for all kindergartners range from 1 to 4, with higher scores 

indicating that a child exhibits positive learning behaviors more often. Primary ECE arrangement refers to the type of nonparental care in which the child spent 

the most hours. “No ECE arrangement” refers to children who did not attend any ECE arrangement on a regular basis. Center-based arrangements include day 

care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early childhood arrangements. “Multiple arrangements” refers to children who spent 

an equal amount of time in each of two or more arrangements. Estimates weighted by W1_2P0. Estimates pertain to a sample of children who were enrolled in 

kindergarten for the first time in the 2010–11 school year. 

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 

(ECLS-K:2011), Kindergarten–First Grade Restricted-Use Data File.

For the approaches to learning measure, teachers reported on how students rated in seven areas: 

attentiveness, task persistence, eagerness to learn, learning independence, flexibility, organization, 

and ability to follow classroom rules, with higher scores indicating that a child exhibits positive 

learning behaviors more often. Research suggests that children who demonstrate positive 

approaches to learning behaviors more frequently perform better academically, on average, in the 

early grades than students who demonstrate these behaviors less frequently (Kena et al. 2015). 

The range of possible values for the fall kindergarten approaches to learning score was 1 to 

4 points, with a standard deviation of 0.7 points (Tourangeau et al. 2012).

Fall kindergarten approaches to learning ratings were lower, on average, for children who had 

no regular ECE arrangements the year before kindergarten than for those who were primarily in 

home-based nonrelative care, center-based care, or multiple care arrangements for equal amounts 

of time (table 1 and figure 8). For example, first-time kindergartners who had no regular ECE 

arrangement the year before kindergarten scored 0.06 points (0.09 SD) lower in approaches 

to learning than their peers who attended center-based care as their primary arrangement, 

0.07 points (0.11 SD) lower than their peers who received nonrelative care, and 0.08 points 

(0.12 SD) lower than their peers who had attended multiple ECE arrangements for equal 

amounts of time. 
This page intentionally left blank.
SUMMARY 23

SUMMARY 

Between 1995 and 2012, there were changes in the percentages of children ages 4 and 5 years 

old who received different types of ECE arrangements as their primary arrangement before 

kindergarten entry. The percentage of young children who attended center-based care as their 

primary ECE arrangement was higher in 2012 than in 1995, while the percentage who received 

home-based nonrelative care as their primary ECE arrangement was lower in 2012 than in 1995. 

The percentages of young children who received home-based relative care as their primary 

ECE arrangement and those who had no regular ECE arrangements and mainly received care 

from their parents the year before kindergarten in 2012 were not measurably different from the 

percentages in 1995.

In fall 2010, the percentages of first-time kindergartners with various primary ECE 

arrangements the year before kindergarten differed by race/ethnicity, SES, family type, and 

primary home language. For instance, the percentages of first-time kindergartners who received 

center-based care as their primary ECE arrangement the year before kindergarten were lower 

for Hispanic and Pacific Islander kindergartners than for White, Black, Asian, American Indian/

Alaska Native kindergartners, and kindergartners of Two or more races. In addition, a higher 

percentage of kindergartners from households that spoke a language other than English as their 

primary language had no ECE arrangement on a regular basis the year before kindergarten than 

did kindergartners whose primary home language was English.

First-time kindergartners’ academic skills and learning behaviors at the beginning of 

kindergarten were related to their primary ECE arrangement the year before kindergarten, after 

taking into account children’s sex, age at kindergarten entry, race/ethnicity, family type, primary 

home language, and SES. For example, kindergartners who had no regular ECE arrangements 

and mainly received care from their parents the year before kindergarten and those whose 

primary ECE arrangement was home-based relative care tended to score lower in reading, 

mathematics, and cognitive flexibility in the fall of kindergarten than their peers whose primary 

ECE arrangement was center-based care. In addition, fall kindergarten approaches to learning 

ratings were lower, on average, for children who had no regular ECE arrangements the year 

before kindergarten than for those who were primarily in home-based nonrelative care, centerbased care, or multiple care arrangements for equal amounts of time. 

Readers are cautioned not to make causal inferences from the data presented here and, when 

making comparisons across time or surveys, to be aware of differences in sample designs and 

data collection procedures. NHES and ECLS-K:2011 estimates are based on sample surveys. 

The sample estimates may differ somewhat from the values that would be obtained from the 

universe of respondents. 
This page intentionally left blank.
REFERENCES 25

REFERENCES

Bradley, R.H., and Vandell, D. (2007). Child Care and the Well-Being of Children. Archives of 

Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 161(7): 669–676. 

Denton Flanagan, K., and McPhee, C. (2009). The Children Born in 2001 at Kindergarten Entry: First 

Findings From the Kindergarten Data Collections of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort 

(ECLS-B) (NCES 2010-005). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education 

Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. 

Denton, K., and Germino Hausken, E. (2000). America’s Kindergartners (NCES 2000-070). 

National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

Kena, G., Musu-Gillette, L., Robinson, J., Wang, X., Rathbun, A., Zhang, J., Wilkinson-Flicker, 

S., Barmer, A., and Dunlop Velez, E. (2015). The Condition of Education 2015 (NCES 2015-144). 

National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC. 

Magnuson, K., Meyers, M., Ruhm, C., and Waldfogel, J. (2004). Inequality in Preschool 

Education and School Readiness. American Educational Research Journal, 41(1): 115–157. 

Mulligan, G.M., Hastedt, S., and McCarroll, J.C. (2012). First-Time Kindergartners in 2010–11: First 

Findings From the Kindergarten Rounds of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 

2010–11 (ECLS-K:2011) (NCES 2012-049). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of 

Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.

NICHD Early Child Care Research Network. (2002). Early Child Care and Children’s 

Development Prior to School Entry: Results From the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. 

American Educational Research Journal, 39(1): 133–164. 

Snyder, T.D., and Dillow, S.A. (2016). Digest of Education Statistics 2014 (NCES 2016-006). 

National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC.

Tourangeau, K., Nord, C., Lê, T., Sorongon, A.G., Hagedorn, M.C., Daly, P., and Najarian, M. 

(2012). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K:2011), User’s 

Manual for the ECLS-K:2011 Kindergarten Data File and Electronic Codebook (NCES 2013-061). 

National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of 

Education. Washington, DC.
This page intentionally left blank.
APPENDIX A A-1

APPENDIX A: REFERENCE TABLES

Table A-1. Primary child care arrangements of 4- and 5-year-old children who are not yet enrolled in kindergarten, by selected child and family characteristics: Selected years, 1995 

through 2012

[Standard errors appear in parentheses]

CHAPTER 2: Elementary and Secondary Education 74

Historical

DIGEST OF EDUCATION STATISTICS 2014

Table 202.35. Primary child care arrangements of 4- and 5-year-old children who are not yet enrolled in kindergarten, by selected child and family characteristics: Selected years, 1995 through 2012

[Standard errors appear in parentheses]

Year and primary

child care arrangement Total

Race/ethnicity Poverty status1 Mother’s highest education2

White Black Hispanic

Asian/Pacific

Islander Other3 Poor Near-poor Nonpoor

Less than

high school

High school/

GED

Vocational/

technical or

some college

Associate’s

degree

Bachelor’s or

higher degree

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1995

Percent of all children ................................. 100.0 (†) 69.2 (1.09) 14.8 (0.79) 10.8 (0.53) 2.4 (0.36) 2.9 (0.46) 25.9 (1.11) 22.5 (1.11) 51.7 (1.28) 12.3 (0.97) 35.3 (1.31) 21.7 (1.10) 7.8 (0.68) 22.9 (0.95)

Percent in all types of care........... 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†)

Parental care only....................................... 21.7 (1.09) 20.9 (1.27) 15.8 (3.24) 33.7 (2.55) 15.5 ! (5.61) 30.0 (7.78) 28.4 (3.03) 32.1 (2.52) 13.8 (1.16) 40.2 (3.32) 26.2 (2.11) 18.9 (2.16) 17.4 (2.87) 9.0 (1.51)

Nonparental care ........................................ 78.3 (1.09) 79.1 (1.27) 84.2 (3.24) 66.3 (2.55) 84.5 (5.61) 70.0 (7.78) 71.6 (3.03) 67.9 (2.52) 86.2 (1.16) 59.8 (3.32) 73.8 (2.11) 81.1 (2.16) 82.6 (2.87) 91.0 (1.51) Primary arrangement

4

Center-based care5 ............................. 55.1 (1.08) 55.0 (1.38) 59.7 (4.21) 44.3 (2.69) 73.7 (7.32) 58.3 (9.02) 51.4 (3.10) 45.4 (2.73) 61.0 (1.72) 41.2 (3.88) 50.0 (2.07) 57.5 (1.85) 57.7 (4.30) 67.4 (2.58)

Nonrelative care .................................. 11.0 (0.86) 12.7 (1.02) 7.8 (1.71) 6.6 (1.72) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) 5.8 (1.18) 9.4 (1.27) 14.3 (1.25) 5.7 (1.69) 9.5 (1.15) 11.1 (1.64) 13.5 (3.15) 14.8 (1.94) Relative care ....................................... 10.8 (0.70) 10.0 (0.75) 14.2 (2.82) 14.7 (1.86) 7.1 ! (3.49) ‡ (†) 11.8 (1.94) 12.3 (1.59) 9.7 (0.93) 11.6 (2.61) 12.1 (0.94) 12.1 (1.87) 10.6 (2.74) 7.1 (1.20)

Multiple arrangements6 ........................... 1.4 ! (0.48) 1.4 ! (0.48) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) 0.8 ! (0.38) 1.2 (0.33) ‡ (†) 2.2 ! (0.93) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) 1.7 ! (0.60)

2001

Percent of all children ................................. 100.0 (†) 62.6 (0.89) 14.5 (0.82) 17.1 (0.73) 2.2 (0.41) 3.7 (0.47) 23.6 (1.26) 20.6 (1.15) 55.8 (1.21) 10.2 (0.67) 32.7 (1.44) 23.8 (1.23) 7.0 (0.66) 26.3 (1.20)

Percent in all types of care........... 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†)

Parental care only....................................... 20.5 (1.00) 20.3 (1.32) 10.6 (2.45) 31.6 (2.35) 22.6 ! (7.97) 10.7 ! (4.34) 25.1 (2.69) 30.0 (2.60) 15.1 (1.35) 35.0 (3.90) 25.0 (2.28) 17.3 (1.98) 14.0 (3.86) 13.3 (1.94)

Nonparental care ........................................ 79.5 (1.00) 79.7 (1.32) 89.4 (2.45) 68.4 (2.35) 77.4 (7.97) 89.3 (4.34) 74.9 (2.69) 70.0 (2.60) 84.9 (1.35) 65.0 (3.90) 75.0 (2.28) 82.7 (1.98) 86.0 (3.86) 86.7 (1.94) Primary arrangement

4

Center-based care5 ............................. 56.2 (1.17) 57.3 (1.48) 63.4 (3.66) 44.1 (2.42) 59.6 (9.47) 62.4 (6.73) 47.4 (3.00) 50.8 (2.33) 61.9 (1.74) 42.6 (3.71) 49.5 (2.64) 59.3 (2.74) 68.0 (4.08) 66.0 (2.68)

Nonrelative care .................................. 9.6 (0.72) 11.5 (1.03) 4.3 ! (1.70) 8.4 (1.59) ‡ (†) 8.5 ! (3.71) 5.2 (1.17) 8.3 (1.48) 12.0 (1.07) 7.0 (1.92) 8.6 (1.39) 8.3 (1.40) 9.7 ! (3.03) 13.1 (1.67)

Relative care ....................................... 12.1 (0.95) 10.1 (0.99) 17.4 (3.64) 13.8 (1.98) 12.6 ! (5.47) 17.0 ! (5.95) 19.5 (3.28) 8.7 (2.02) 10.2 (0.95) 12.5 (3.10) 15.5 (2.02) 12.5 (1.79) 7.8 (2.32) 6.7 (1.26)

Multiple arrangements6 ........................... 1.6 (0.40) 0.7 ! (0.32) ‡ (†) 2.1 ! (0.76) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) 2.9 ! (1.31) ‡ (†) 0.8 ! (0.24) ‡ (†) 1.3 ! (0.61) 2.6 ! (1.27) ‡ (†) 0.9 ! (0.40)

2005

Percent of all children ................................. 100.0 (†) 57.9 (1.14) 14.1 (1.02) 19.1 (0.94) 3.2 (0.58) 5.7 (0.65) 22.2 (1.15) 25.9 (1.48) 51.9 (1.42) 9.3 (0.89) 31.6 (1.61) 20.7 (1.44) 7.4 (0.68) 31.1 (1.25)

Percent in all types of care........... 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†)

Parental care only....................................... 21.1 (1.37) 19.3 (1.69) 13.8 (3.72) 32.6 (2.91) 14.7 ! (5.84) 21.2 (6.06) 25.8 (3.40) 29.7 (2.77) 14.7 (1.60) 36.2 (4.03) 27.4 (3.35) 22.5 (2.94) 14.7 (3.87) 11.2 (1.57)

Nonparental care ........................................ 78.9 (1.37) 80.7 (1.69) 86.2 (3.72) 67.4 (2.91) 85.3 (5.84) 78.8 (6.06) 74.2 (3.40) 70.3 (2.77) 85.3 (1.60) 63.8 (4.03) 72.6 (3.35) 77.5 (2.94) 85.3 (3.87) 88.8 (1.57) Primary arrangement

4

Center-based care5 ............................. 59.2 (1.34) 60.2 (1.86) 66.1 (4.75) 49.7 (3.00) 70.2 (8.60) 57.5 (6.98) 51.8 (3.98) 48.4 (3.21) 67.7 (1.96) 50.6 (3.84) 48.4 (3.15) 57.1 (3.02) 65.7 (5.07) 72.4 (2.17)

Nonrelative care .................................. 5.5 (0.89) 7.3 (1.29) 2.6 ! (1.14) 3.2 (0.80) 3.6 ! (1.70) 2.8 ! (1.32) 4.7 ! (2.14) 3.0 (0.75) 7.1 (1.26) ‡ (†) 5.2 ! (1.64) 5.1 (1.48) 9.5 (2.63) 6.1 (1.52) Relative care ....................................... 12.0 (1.16) 10.7 (1.20) 15.7 ! (4.72) 13.6 (2.22) ‡ (†) 12.0 ! (4.59) 16.0 (3.18) 15.1 (2.98) 8.8 (1.12) 9.6 ! (3.27) 15.9 (2.42) 13.9 (2.62) 6.5 ! (2.68) 8.8 (1.52)

Multiple arrangements6 ........................... 2.2 (0.44) 2.4 (0.51) 1.8 ! (0.86) 0.9 ! (0.40) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) 3.8 (1.07) 1.7 (0.38) ‡ (†) 3.0 ! (0.94) 1.5 ! (0.66) 3.5 ! (1.73) 1.5 (0.44)

2012

Percent of all children ................................. 100.0 (†) 50.6 (1.50) 14.6 (1.05) 23.9 (1.26) 5.2 (0.55) 5.7 (0.68) 22.9 (1.22) 23.6 (1.28) 53.5 (1.30) 16.9 (1.44) 21.3 (1.17) 21.8 (1.28) 8.1 (0.84) 31.9 (1.16)

Percent in all types of care........... 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†) 100.0 (†)

Parental care only....................................... 19.5 (1.43) 18.5 (1.83) 15.3 (3.50) 24.3 (3.38) 19.4 (5.00) 18.9 (5.51) 29.0 (2.87) 23.9 (2.66) 13.5 (1.96) 35.1 (5.53) 23.5 (3.23) 22.0 (2.23) 15.0 (3.11) 7.7 (1.12)

Nonparental care ........................................ 80.5 (1.43) 81.5 (1.83) 84.7 (3.50) 75.7 (3.38) 80.6 (5.00) 81.1 (5.51) 71.0 (2.87) 76.1 (2.66) 86.5 (1.96) 64.9 (5.53) 76.5 (3.23) 78.0 (2.23) 85.0 (3.11) 92.3 (1.12) Primary arrangement

4

Center-based care5 ............................. 58.4 (1.32) 58.5 (1.82) 65.3 (4.10) 52.9 (3.60) 67.0 (5.41) 55.6 (6.52) 49.4 (3.05) 51.4 (3.04) 65.4 (1.88) 45.9 (5.65) 51.9 (3.68) 54.2 (2.93) 63.4 (4.02) 71.1 (1.88)

Nonrelative care .................................. 7.2 (0.72) 9.7 (1.19) 2.4 ! (0.93) 5.5 (1.47) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) 5.2 ! (1.67) 5.9 (1.46) 8.6 (1.04) ‡ (†) 7.9 (1.98) 6.4 (1.33) 7.3 ! (2.24) 9.8 (1.36)

Relative care ....................................... 13.0 (0.96) 11.3 (1.14) 16.3 (3.17) 14.4 (2.36) 10.2 ! (3.64) 15.4 ! (4.69) 14.9 (2.19) 15.6 (2.78) 11.0 (1.37) 12.3 (3.01) 16.4 (2.63) 15.2 (2.26) 9.7 (2.45) 9.3 (1.35)

Multiple arrangements6 ........................... 1.9 (0.33) 1.9 (0.44) ‡ (†) 2.9 ! (1.04) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) 1.5 ! (0.54) 3.2 ! (1.09) 1.5 (0.37) ‡ (†) ‡ (†) 2.2 (0.61) 4.6 ! (1.72) 2.2 (0.63)

†Not applicable.

!Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. 

‡Reporting standards not met. Either there are too few cases for a reliable estimate or the coefficient of variation (CV) is 50 percent or greater.

1Poor children are those whose family incomes were below the Census Bureau’s poverty threshold in the year prior to data collection; near-poor children are those whose family incomes ranged from the poverty threshold to 199 percent of the poverty

threshold; and nonpoor children are those whose family incomes were at or above 200 percent of the poverty threshold. The

poverty threshold is a dollar amount that varies depending on a family’s size and composition and is updated annually to account

for inflation. In 2011, for example, the poverty threshold for a family of four with two children was $22,811. Survey respondents

are asked to select the range within which their income falls, rather than giving the exact amount of their income; therefore, the

measure of poverty status is an approximation.

2Excludes children living in households with no mother or female guardian present.

3Includes persons of all other races and Two or more races.

4A child’s primary arrangement is the regular nonparental care arrangement or early childhood education program in which the

child spent the most time per week.

5Center-based arrangements include day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other early

childhood programs.

6Refers to children who spent an equal number of hours per week in multiple nonparental care arrangements.

NOTE: While National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES) administrations prior to 2012 were administered via telephone with an interviewer, NHES:2012 used self-administered paper-and-pencil questionnaires that were mailed to respondents. Measurable differences in estimates between 2012 and prior years could reflect actual changes in the population, or the

changes could be due to the mode change from telephone to mail. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Detail

may not sum to totals because of rounding.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Program Participation Survey of the National Household Education Surveys Program (ECPP-NHES:1995, 2001, 2005, and 2012). (This table was prepared November 2014.)
A-2 APPENDIX A

Table A-2. Percentage distribution of first-time kindergartners, by primary type of child care arrangement during the year prior 

to kindergarten entry and selected child, family, and school characteristics: 2010–11 

[Standard errors appear in parentheses]

78 CHAPTER 2: Elementary and Secondary Education

Historical

DIGEST OF EDUCATION STATISTICS 2014

Table 202.65. Percentage distribution of first-time kindergartners, by primary type of child care arrangement during the year prior to 

kindergarten entry and selected child, family, and school characteristics: 2010–11

[Standard errors appear in parentheses]

Selected child, family, 

or school characteristic

Percent of first-time kindergartners during the year before starting kindergarten

Total, all children

No regular

nonparental care

Primary type of nonparental care arrangement1

Total, any regular

nonparental care

Home-based care Center-based

care

Multiple

Relative care Nonrelative care arrangements

1 234 5 67 8

Total.................................................................... 100.0 (†) 20.9 (0.82) 79.1 (0.82) 14.9 (0.46) 6.3 (0.36) 55.3 (0.97) 2.5 (0.18)

Sex of child

Male ......................................................................... 100.0 (†) 21.0 (0.91) 79.0 (0.91) 14.3 (0.51) 6.6 (0.38) 55.6 (1.01) 2.6 (0.23)

Female..................................................................... 100.0 (†) 20.8 (0.88) 79.2 (0.88) 15.6 (0.67) 6.0 (0.46) 55.1 (1.13) 2.4 (0.25)

Age of child at kindergarten entry, fall 2010

Less than 5 years old............................................... 100.0 (†) 19.5 (1.88) 80.5 (1.88) 14.4 (1.39) 4.3 (1.19) 59.3 (2.53) 2.5 (0.53)

5 years old to 5 1/2 years old................................... 100.0 (†) 21.5 (0.92) 78.5 (0.92) 15.8 (0.64) 5.9 (0.39) 54.5 (1.09) 2.3 (0.21)

More than 5 1/2 years old to 6 years old.................. 100.0 (†) 20.5 (0.89) 79.5 (0.89) 14.8 (0.62) 6.4 (0.45) 55.6 (1.05) 2.7 (0.26)

More than 6 years old .............................................. 100.0 (†) 21.1 (1.56) 78.9 (1.56) 11.8 (1.15) 8.6 (1.15) 55.8 (2.26) 2.6 (0.63)

Race/ethnicity of child

White........................................................................ 100.0 (†) 18.1 (0.86) 81.9 (0.86) 12.9 (0.57) 8.5 (0.65) 57.8 (1.15) 2.7 (0.25)

Black ........................................................................ 100.0 (†) 19.9 (1.93) 80.1 (1.93) 17.8 (1.29) 3.9 (0.59) 55.5 (2.06) 2.8 (0.47)

Hispanic ................................................................... 100.0 (†) 28.3 (1.28) 71.7 (1.28) 18.1 (0.70) 4.0 (0.43) 47.8 (1.41) 1.8 (0.21)

Asian........................................................................ 100.0 (†) 19.6 (2.37) 80.4 (2.37) 14.6 (1.43) 2.3 (0.57) 61.6 (3.25) 1.8 (0.52)

Pacific Islander......................................................... 100.0 (†) 38.8 (6.02) 61.2 (6.02) 27.2 (7.27) ‡ (†) 27.6 (6.59) ‡ (†)

American Indian/Alaska Native................................ 100.0 (†) 23.5 (3.93) 76.5 (3.93) 13.2 ! (4.58) ‡ (†) 56.7 (2.41) ‡ (†)

Two or more races ................................................... 100.0 (†) 17.2 (2.03) 82.8 (2.03) 13.8 (1.53) 5.2 (0.97) 60.9 (2.51) 2.9 ! (0.93)

Parents’ employment status, fall 20102

Two parents

Both employed full time........................................ 100.0 (†) 8.4 (0.67) 91.6 (0.67) 17.6 (0.89) 12.9 (1.12) 57.1 (1.35) 4.0 (0.47)

One employed full time, one part time ................. 100.0 (†) 16.5 (1.19) 83.5 (1.19) 14.7 (0.85) 7.1 (0.75) 58.8 (1.40) 2.8 (0.38)

One employed full time, one looking for work....... 100.0 (†) 23.6 (2.19) 76.4 (2.19) 16.2 (1.87) 4.6 (0.86) 52.9 (2.82) 2.8 (0.80)

One employed full time, one not in labor force..... 100.0 (†) 33.7 (1.63) 66.3 (1.63) 4.7 (0.49) 1.6 (0.25) 58.9 (1.59) 1.0 (0.22)

Other combination................................................ 100.0 (†) 36.8 (1.48) 63.2 (1.48) 11.7 (1.29) 4.3 (0.90) 45.8 (1.92) 1.5 (0.43)

Single parent

Employed full time................................................ 100.0 (†) 9.5 (0.97) 90.5 (0.97) 29.0 (1.23) 7.9 (0.95) 49.4 (1.39) 4.2 (0.41)

Employed part time .............................................. 100.0 (†) 16.3 (1.75) 83.7 (1.75) 26.6 (1.99) 5.0 (1.14) 49.4 (2.56) 2.7 ! (0.97)

Looking for work................................................... 100.0 (†) 23.0 (2.23) 77.0 (2.23) 17.9 (2.32) 2.8 ! (1.19) 54.7 (2.38) 1.5 ! (0.72)

Not in labor force.................................................. 100.0 (†) 35.2 (2.53) 64.8 (2.53) 14.2 (1.70) ‡ (†) 48.1 (2.69) ‡ (†)

No parent in household............................................ 100.0 (†) 23.4 (2.65) 76.6 (2.65) 16.9 (3.28) 3.7 ! (1.29) 52.8 (4.15) 3.3 ! (1.45)

Parents’ highest level of education3

Less than high school .............................................. 100.0 (†) 37.7 (2.11) 62.3 (2.11) 15.8 (1.21) 3.1 (0.68) 42.5 (2.04) 0.9 ! (0.27)

High school completion............................................ 100.0 (†) 28.3 (1.22) 71.7 (1.22) 19.1 (0.96) 5.1 (0.40) 45.5 (1.25) 1.9 (0.33)

Some college/vocational.......................................... 100.0 (†) 20.2 (0.90) 79.8 (0.90) 18.1 (0.81) 7.0 (0.54) 51.6 (1.30) 3.0 (0.35)

Bachelor’s degree .................................................... 100.0 (†) 14.7 (0.96) 85.3 (0.96) 10.9 (0.69) 6.5 (0.71) 64.8 (1.23) 3.1 (0.31)

Any graduate education........................................... 100.0 (†) 12.9 (1.14) 87.1 (1.14) 8.7 (0.70) 7.6 (0.67) 68.3 (1.38) 2.4 (0.33)

Household type, fall 2010

Two-parent household.............................................. 100.0 (†) 21.5 (0.94) 78.5 (0.94) 12.4 (0.45) 6.9 (0.49) 56.7 (1.14) 2.5 (0.21)

Mother-only household ............................................ 100.0 (†) 17.5 (0.87) 82.5 (0.87) 23.9 (0.90) 5.2 (0.58) 50.4 (1.08) 3.1 (0.32)

Father-only household ............................................. 100.0 (†) 17.5 (2.96) 82.5 (2.96) 30.8 (3.51) 5.8 (1.69) 43.4 (3.66) 2.4 ! (1.16)

Other household type .............................................. 100.0 (†) 23.4 (2.65) 76.6 (2.65) 16.9 (3.28) 3.7 ! (1.29) 52.8 (4.15) 3.3 ! (1.45)

Primary home language

English ..................................................................... 100.0 (†) 18.4 (0.72) 81.6 (0.72) 14.9 (0.56) 7.0 (0.41) 57.1 (0.98) 2.7 (0.21)

Non-English ............................................................. 100.0 (†) 35.6 (2.10) 64.4 (2.10) 14.7 (0.95) 2.9 (0.48) 45.3 (1.84) 1.5 (0.25)

Primary language not identified ............................... 100.0 (†) 22.1 (4.09) 77.9 (4.09) 18.2 (3.74) ‡ (†) 54.2 (4.62) ‡ (†)

Poverty status4

Below poverty threshold........................................... 100.0 (†) 30.4 (1.46) 69.6 (1.46) 16.4 (0.90) 2.6 (0.36) 48.9 (1.46) 1.7 (0.30)

100 to 199 percent of poverty threshold .................. 100.0 (†) 24.9 (1.20) 75.1 (1.20) 16.5 (0.90) 5.0 (0.49) 51.8 (1.40) 1.7 (0.25)

200 percent or more of poverty threshold................ 100.0 (†) 13.5 (0.69) 86.5 (0.69) 12.3 (0.64) 8.7 (0.58) 62.3 (1.12) 3.2 (0.29)

Socioeconomic status5

Lowest 20 percent.................................................... 100.0 (†) 35.2 (1.52) 64.8 (1.52) 15.6 (0.75) 3.4 (0.44) 44.3 (1.28) 1.6 (0.27)

Middle 60 percent .................................................... 100.0 (†) 19.6 (0.71) 80.4 (0.71) 16.9 (0.54) 6.9 (0.45) 53.9 (1.09) 2.7 (0.23)

Highest 20 percent................................................... 100.0 (†) 12.3 (1.13) 87.7 (1.13) 8.7 (0.67) 7.1 (0.56) 69.1 (1.29) 2.7 (0.29)

School type

Public ....................................................................... 100.0 (†) 21.8 (0.80) 78.2 (0.80) 15.8 (0.51) 6.2 (0.35) 53.7 (0.98) 2.5 (0.20)

Private...................................................................... 100.0 (†) 14.5 (1.98) 85.5 (1.98) 8.3 (0.78) 7.0 (0.88) 67.9 (1.69) 2.3 (0.32)

†Not applicable.

!Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30

and 50 percent.

‡Reporting standards not met. Either there are too few cases for a reliable estimate or the

coefficient of variation (CV) is 50 percent or greater. 1The type of nonparental care in which the child spent the most hours. Multiple arrangements refers to children who spent an equal amount of time in each of two or more types of

arrangements. 2Parents who reported working at least 35 hours per week are defined as employed full

time, while those who reported working less than 35 hours per week are defined as

employed part time. Those neither employed nor looking for work are not in the labor force. 3Parents highest level of education is the highest level of education achieved by either of

the parents or guardians in a two-parent household, by the only parent in a single-parent

household, or by any guardian in a household with no parents. 4Poverty status is based on preliminary U.S. Census income thresholds for 2010, which

identify incomes determined to meet household needs, given family size and composition.

For example, a family of three with one child was below the poverty threshold if its annual

income was less than $17,552 in 2010. 5Socioeconomic status (SES) was measured by a composite score based on parental education and occupations and household income at the time of data collection.

NOTE: Estimates weighted by W1_2P0. Estimates pertain to a sample of children who

were enrolled in kindergarten for the first time in the 2010–11 school year. Two parents may

refer to two biological parents, two adoptive parents, or one biological/adoptive parent and

one other parent/partner. Single parent refers to one biological or adoptive parent only. In

households without parents, the guardian or guardians may be related or unrelated to the

child. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity. Detail may not sum to totals

because of rounding and survey item nonresponse. Some data have been revised from

previously published figures.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early

Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K:2011), Kindergarten–First Grade Restricted-Use Data File. (This table was prepared November 2014.)
APPENDIX A A-3

Table A-3. Fall 2010 first-time kindergartners’ reading, mathematics, and science scale scores, by selected child, family, and school characteristics: Fall 2010, spring 2011, and 

spring 2012

[Standard errors appear in parentheses]

CHAPTER 2: Elementary and Secondary Education 234

Skills of Young Children

DIGEST OF EDUCATION STATISTICS 2014

Table 220.40. Fall 2010 first-time kindergartners’ reading, mathematics, and science scale scores, by selected child, family, and school characteristics: Fall 2010, spring 2011, and spring 2012

[Standard errors appear in parentheses]

Selected child, family, or school characteristic

Number of children

(in thousands)

Percentage

distribution

of children

Mean reading score1 Mean mathematics score2 Mean science score3

Kindergarten First grade,

spring 2012

Kindergarten First grade,

spring 2012

Kindergarten,

spring 2011

First grade,

Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Fall 2010 Spring 2011 spring 2012

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 11

Total .................................................................. 3,765 (31.3) 100.0 (†) 37.4 (0.23) 49.9 (0.31) 69.9 (0.31) 30.6 (0.27) 43.5 (0.31) 63.1 (0.31) 21.2 (0.14) 26.8 (0.17)

Sex of child

Male .......................................................................... 1,921 (22.2) 51.0 (0.45) 37.0 (0.26) 49.1 (0.34) 68.7 (0.37) 30.8 (0.33) 43.6 (0.36) 63.6 (0.39) 21.2 (0.15) 27.0 (0.19)

Female...................................................................... 1,843 (23.9) 49.0 (0.45) 38.0 (0.25) 50.8 (0.33) 71.2 (0.33) 30.4 (0.29) 43.5 (0.31) 62.7 (0.32) 21.1 (0.16) 26.6 (0.19)

Age of child at kindergarten entry, fall 2010

Less than 5 years old................................................ 142 (18.3) 3.8 (0.49) 35.0 (0.56) 45.8 (0.75) 65.9 (0.91) 26.0 (0.61) 38.4 (0.73) 57.8 (0.84) 19.2 (0.38) 24.7 (0.41)

5 years old to 5 1/2 years old.................................... 1,594 (28.2) 42.3 (0.57) 36.1 (0.27) 48.4 (0.35) 68.6 (0.37) 28.2 (0.32) 41.4 (0.36) 61.1 (0.39) 20.2 (0.17) 25.7 (0.21)

More than 5 1/2 years old to 6 years old................... 1,681 (26.6) 44.7 (0.66) 38.4 (0.27) 51.1 (0.33) 71.0 (0.37) 32.3 (0.31) 45.1 (0.33) 64.7 (0.34) 21.9 (0.14) 27.6 (0.19)

More than 6 years old ............................................... 347 (16.5) 9.2 (0.44) 40.2 (0.43) 53.2 (0.56) 72.9 (0.52) 35.4 (0.57) 47.8 (0.63) 67.4 (0.56) 22.7 (0.29) 28.9 (0.31)

Race/ethnicity of child

White......................................................................... 1,957 (66.6) 52.0 (1.67) 38.8 (0.30) 51.7 (0.38) 72.4 (0.36) 33.1 (0.34) 46.2 (0.38) 66.7 (0.34) 23.2 (0.14) 29.0 (0.16)

Black ......................................................................... 491 (43.5) 13.1 (1.16) 36.0 (0.32) 47.6 (0.55) 67.0 (0.68) 27.0 (0.34) 38.5 (0.37) 56.7 (0.46) 18.6 (0.30) 23.6 (0.36)

Hispanic .................................................................... 934 (46.2) 24.8 (1.24) 34.5 (0.26) 46.5 (0.30) 65.5 (0.44) 26.3 (0.30) 39.7 (0.35) 58.3 (0.49) 18.3 (0.19) 23.8 (0.23)

Asian......................................................................... 157 (23.8) 4.2 (0.63) 42.2 (0.62) 54.5 (0.73) 74.2 (0.79) 35.8 (0.62) 47.4 (0.45) 67.8 (0.48) 19.8 (0.22) 26.6 (0.28)

Pacific Islander..........................................................

American Indian/Alaska Native.................................

Two or more races ....................................................

29 (4.9)

42 ! (19.6)

154 (9.3)

0.8

1.1 !

4.1

(0.13)

(0.52)

(0.24)

36.1

34.4

39.2

(1.59)

(0.54)

(0.62)

49.0

45.7

51.7

(1.93)

(0.79)

(0.75)

70.0

67.2

71.4

(1.86)

(1.02)

(0.88)

30.1

27.4

32.5

(1.78)

(1.06)

(0.60)

44.9

41.3

45.2

(2.28)

(1.06)

(0.70)

62.1

61.4

64.2

(2.06)

(1.28)

(0.86)

18.9

21.7

22.5

(0.87)

(0.91)

(0.31)

24.8

27.1

28.4

(1.10)

(1.07)

(0.38)

How often child exhibited positive learning behaviors, 

fall 20104

Never ........................................................................ 50 (5.3) 1.4 (0.15) 29.3 (0.48) 37.1 (0.78) 51.8 (1.22) 18.5 (0.67) 28.8 (0.90) 45.1 (1.23) 16.5 (0.51) 20.5 (0.62)

Sometimes................................................................ 915 (23.7) 25.3 (0.52) 33.4 (0.29) 44.7 (0.35) 63.3 (0.44) 25.3 (0.34) 37.9 (0.38) 56.8 (0.45) 19.3 (0.18) 24.3 (0.22)

Often ......................................................................... 1,716 (27.0) 47.5 (0.70) 37.4 (0.23) 50.3 (0.35) 70.9 (0.34) 31.0 (0.32) 44.3 (0.36) 64.2 (0.35) 21.4 (0.16) 27.3 (0.17)

Very often.................................................................. 933 (28.7) 25.8 (0.69) 41.8 (0.38) 55.3 (0.46) 75.9 (0.39) 35.7 (0.38) 48.7 (0.39) 68.8 (0.38) 23.0 (0.15) 29.0 (0.23)

Primary type of nonparental care arrangement prior to 

kindergarten entry5

No regular nonparental arrangement........................ 747 (31.8) 20.6 (0.84) 35.7 (0.32) 48.1 (0.42) 67.7 (0.46) 28.1 (0.38) 41.6 (0.40) 60.8 (0.40) 20.0 (0.18) 25.7 (0.22)

Home-based care

Relative care ......................................................... 555 (18.6) 15.3 (0.50) 35.6 (0.30) 48.5 (0.37) 68.4 (0.46) 28.3 (0.38) 41.6 (0.39) 61.4 (0.46) 20.5 (0.21) 26.2 (0.27)

Nonrelative care .................................................... 228 (15.1) 6.3 (0.41) 37.8 (0.46) 51.0 (0.63) 72.5 (0.53) 32.6 (0.59) 45.8 (0.70) 66.4 (0.59) 22.5 (0.29) 28.3 (0.33)

Center-based care ....................................................

Multiple arrangements .............................................. 2,00788

(41.2)

(6.7)

55.4

2.4

(1.04)

(0.18)

38.6

38.8

(0.25)

(0.53)

50.9

51.8

(0.35)

(0.79)

71.0

72.0

(0.35)

(0.88)

32.0

32.2

(0.30)

(0.56)

44.6

44.9

(0.35)

(0.72)

64.1

65.9

(0.35)

(0.68)

21.6

22.6

(0.17)

(0.39)

27.3

28.6

(0.20)

(0.38) 6 Parents’ employment status, fall 2010

Two parents

Both employed full time......................................... 878 (26.2) 26.1 (0.73) 39.4 (0.26) 52.4 (0.33) 72.8 (0.35) 33.3 (0.32) 46.3 (0.37) 66.2 (0.37) 22.3 (0.15) 28.2 (0.17)

One employed full time, one part time .................. 563 (19.7) 16.7 (0.53) 39.2 (0.44) 52.4 (0.50) 73.2 (0.53) 33.3 (0.49) 46.4 (0.47) 66.5 (0.47) 22.6 (0.18) 28.7 (0.23)

One employed full time, one looking for work........ 143 (10.3) 4.2 (0.30) 36.4 (0.55) 49.2 (0.78) 68.4 (0.86) 29.4 (0.62) 42.3 (0.67) 62.3 (0.70) 20.6 (0.38) 26.3 (0.40)

One employed full time, one not in labor force...... 799 (28.5) 23.7 (0.82) 38.0 (0.39) 50.4 (0.50) 70.6 (0.55) 31.2 (0.44) 44.2 (0.46) 64.2 (0.47) 21.6 (0.20) 27.3 (0.24)

Other combination................................................. 205 (13.1) 6.1 (0.36) 35.9 (0.54) 48.0 (0.64) 66.6 (0.74) 27.5 (0.46) 41.1 (0.49) 59.9 (0.73) 19.7 (0.25) 25.2 (0.33)

Single parent 

Employed full time................................................. 361 (17.6) 10.7 (0.52) 35.8 (0.34) 47.7 (0.48) 67.7 (0.58) 28.1 (0.39) 40.6 (0.50) 60.2 (0.55) 19.9 (0.27) 25.3 (0.31)

Employed part time ............................................... 130 (8.1) 3.9 (0.24) 34.9 (0.39) 47.0 (0.57) 67.6 (0.70) 27.7 (0.57) 40.0 (0.65) 59.9 (0.81) 20.2 (0.33) 25.6 (0.34)

Looking for work.................................................... 102 (9.0) 3.0 (0.27) 33.2 (0.52) 44.7 (0.78) 62.9 (1.21) 24.8 (0.63) 37.0 (0.56) 55.3 (1.10) 18.9 (0.46) 24.1 (0.56)

Not in labor force................................................... 120 (10.9) 3.5 (0.33) 34.4 (0.50) 45.5 (0.61) 64.1 (0.88) 25.8 (0.62) 39.0 (0.79) 56.7 (0.91) 19.4 (0.40) 24.4 (0.56)

No parent in household............................................. 67 (5.9) 2.0 (0.18) 33.7 (0.54) 45.1 (0.71) 64.7 (1.15) 24.9 (0.71) 37.6 (0.81) 55.3 (1.24) 19.7 (0.45) 24.2 (0.57)

Parents’ highest level of education7

Less than high school ............................................... 298 (17.4) 7.9 (0.47) 31.2 (0.33) 42.5 (0.38) 60.1 (0.50) 22.0 (0.44) 35.6 (0.51) 53.5 (0.51) 16.2 (0.21) 21.0 (0.25)

High school completion............................................. 725 (20.3) 19.3 (0.51) 34.0 (0.26) 45.9 (0.33) 65.2 (0.43) 26.2 (0.34) 39.0 (0.32) 58.3 (0.35) 19.0 (0.18) 24.4 (0.19)

Some college/vocational........................................... 1,342 (30.8) 35.8 (0.77) 36.4 (0.21) 49.0 (0.34) 69.4 (0.31) 29.7 (0.29) 42.6 (0.34) 62.3 (0.38) 21.1 (0.14) 26.7 (0.17)

Bachelor’s degree ..................................................... 756 (27.8) 20.1 (0.71) 40.3 (0.31) 53.1 (0.36) 73.8 (0.39) 34.3 (0.29) 47.3 (0.34) 67.3 (0.34) 22.9 (0.16) 28.8 (0.21)

Any graduate education............................................ 633 (27.0) 16.9 (0.71) 43.1 (0.40) 56.1 (0.43) 76.5 (0.38) 37.1 (0.36) 49.9 (0.39) 69.9 (0.36) 24.0 (0.14) 30.3 (0.22)

Household type, fall 2010

Two-parent household .............................................. 2,662 (45.8) 76.6 (0.92) 38.4 (0.26) 51.2 (0.32) 71.4 (0.34) 31.9 (0.31) 45.0 (0.32) 64.8 (0.31) 21.8 (0.13) 27.6 (0.16)

Mother-only household ............................................. 696 (29.8) 20.0 (0.85) 35.0 (0.25) 46.7 (0.38) 66.5 (0.49) 27.3 (0.33) 39.7 (0.37) 59.0 (0.45) 19.6 (0.25) 25.0 (0.29)

Father-only household .............................................. 48 (4.5) 1.4 (0.13) 34.9 (0.69) 46.9 (1.07) 66.3 (1.25) 27.6 (0.74) 40.2 (0.89) 59.3 (1.20) 21.8 (0.45) 25.9 (0.53)

Other household type ............................................... 67 (5.9) 1.9 (0.17) 33.7 (0.54) 45.1 (0.71) 64.7 (1.15) 24.9 (0.71) 37.6 (0.81) 55.3 (1.24) 19.7 (0.45) 24.2 (0.57)

See notes at end of table. See notes at end of table.
Table A-3. Fall 2010 first-time kindergartners’ reading, mathematics, and science scale scores, by selected child, family, and school characteristics: Fall 2010, spring 2011, and 

spring 2012—Continued

[Standard errors appear in parentheses]

235 CHAPTER 2: Elementary and Secondary Education

Skills of Young Children

DIGEST OF EDUCATION STATISTICS 2014

Primary home language

English ...................................................................... 3,140 (40.0) 83.6 (0.70) 38.1 (0.23) 50.8 (0.33) 71.0 (0.32) 31.6 (0.27) 44.4 (0.32) 64.2 (0.32) 22.0 (0.14) 27.8 (0.18)

Non-English .............................................................. 567 (24.0) 15.1 (0.64) 34.0 (0.43) 45.5 (0.51) 64.5 (0.69) 25.4 (0.52) 38.9 (0.53) 57.8 (0.62) 16.4 (0.21) 22.0 (0.28)

Primary language not identified ................................ 48 (6.1) 1.3 (0.16) 34.9 (0.91) 46.8 (1.25) 65.7 (1.74) 27.9 (1.27) 40.3 (1.07) 58.2 (1.59) 18.1 (0.57) 23.8 (0.46)

Poverty status8

Below poverty threshold............................................ 723 (31.8) 22.7 (0.95) 33.6 (0.27) 45.2 (0.34) 63.6 (0.43) 25.4 (0.37) 38.4 (0.41) 56.9 (0.45) 18.3 (0.23) 23.4 (0.28)

100 to 199 percent of poverty threshold ................... 766 (20.7) 24.0 (0.61) 36.2 (0.23) 48.7 (0.43) 69.0 (0.48) 29.2 (0.35) 42.2 (0.42) 61.9 (0.46) 20.6 (0.19) 26.3 (0.23)

200 percent or more of poverty threshold................. 1,702 (41.8) 53.3 (1.16) 40.3 (0.28) 53.1 (0.34) 73.9 (0.33) 34.3 (0.30) 47.1 (0.35) 67.3 (0.33) 23.1 (0.13) 29.1 (0.15)

Socioeconomic status9

Lowest 20 percent..................................................... 694 (26.9) 18.5 (0.71) 32.4 (0.27) 43.6 (0.30) 62.0 (0.42) 23.7 (0.38) 36.8 (0.40) 55.3 (0.42) 17.4 (0.20) 22.5 (0.22)

Middle 60 percent ..................................................... 2,279 (34.5) 60.7 (0.73) 37.0 (0.19) 49.7 (0.31) 70.1 (0.30) 30.4 (0.26) 43.4 (0.31) 63.1 (0.31) 21.3 (0.13) 27.0 (0.16)

Highest 20 percent.................................................... 782 (33.0) 20.8 (0.86) 43.1 (0.39) 56.1 (0.42) 76.5 (0.35) 37.1 (0.31) 49.9 (0.36) 70.1 (0.33) 24.1 (0.14) 30.4 (0.22)

School type

Public ........................................................................ 3,361 (23.4) 89.3 (0.25) 37.2 (0.25) 49.6 (0.34) 69.6 (0.34) 30.2 (0.30) 43.1 (0.33) 62.8 (0.34) 21.0 (0.16) 26.6 (0.19)

Private....................................................................... 404 (11.7) 10.7 (0.25) 39.9 (0.55) 52.3 (0.71) 72.8 (0.81) 34.1 (0.53) 47.3 (0.71) 66.3 (0.74) 22.9 (0.25) 28.5 (0.38)

†Not applicable.

!Interpret data with caution. The coefficient of variation (CV) for this estimate is between 30 and 50 percent. 1Reflects performance on questions measuring basic skills (print familiarity, letter recognition, beginning and ending sounds, rhyming

words, and word recognition); vocabulary knowledge; and reading comprehension, including identifying information specifically

stated in text (e.g., definitions, facts, and supporting details), making complex inferences from texts, and considering the text objectively and judging its appropriateness and quality. Possible scores for the reading assessment range from 0 to 100. 2Reflects performance on questions on number sense, properties, and operations; measurement; geometry and spatial sense; data

analysis, statistics, and probability (measured with a set of simple questions assessing children’s ability to read a graph); and prealgebra skills such as identification of patterns. Possible scores for the mathematics assessment range from 0 to 96. 

3Science was not assessed in the fall of kindergarten. Reflects performance on questions on physical sciences, life sciences, environmental sciences, and scientific inquiry. Possible scores for the science assessment range from 0 to 47.

4Derived from child’s approaches to learning scale score in fall of the kindergarten year. This score is based on teachers' reports on

how often students exhibit positive learning behaviors in seven areas: attentiveness, task persistence, eagerness to learn, learning

independence, ability to adapt easily to changes in routine, organization, and ability to follow classroom rules. Possible scores range

from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating that a child exhibits positive learning behaviors more often. Fall 2010 scores were categorized into the four anchor points on the original scale—1 (never), 2 (sometimes), 3 (often), and 4 (very often)—by rounding the mean

score to the nearest whole number.

5The type of nonparental care in which the child spent the most hours. “Multiple arrangements” refers to children who spent an equal

amount of time in each of two or more arrangements.

6Parents who reported working at least 35 hours per week are defined as employed full time, while those who reported working less

than 35 hours per week are defined as employed part time. Those neither employed nor looking for work are not in the labor force. 7Parents’ highest level of education is the highest level of education achieved by either of the parents or guardians in a two-parent

household, by the only parent in a single-parent household, or by any guardian in a household with no parents. 

8Poverty status is based on preliminary U.S. Census income thresholds for 2010, which identify incomes determined to meet household needs, given family size and composition. For example, a family of three with one child was below the poverty threshold if its

income was less than $17,552 in 2010.

9Socioeconomic status (SES) was measured by a composite score based on parental education and occupations and household

income at the time of data collection.

NOTE: Estimates weighted by W4C4P_2T0. Estimates pertain to a sample of children who were enrolled in kindergarten for the first

time in the 2010–11 school year. Most of the children were in first grade in 2011–12, but 4 percent were in kindergarten or other

grades (e.g., second grade, ungraded classrooms). Two parents may refer to two biological parents, two adoptive parents, or one biological/adoptive parent and one other parent/partner. Single parent refers to one biological or adoptive parent only. In households

without parents, the guardian or guardians may be related or unrelated to the child. Estimates differ from previously published figures

because scores were recalibrated to represent the kindergarten through first-grade assessment item pools and weights were

adjusted to account for survey nonresponse at each data collection wave. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.

Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding and survey item nonresponse.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten

Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K:2011), Kindergarten–First Grade Restricted-Use Data File. (This table was prepared September 2014.)

Table 220.40. Fall 2010 first-time kindergartners’ reading, mathematics, and science scale scores, by selected child, family, and school characteristics: Fall 2010, spring 2011, and spring 2012—Continued

[Standard errors appear in parentheses]

Selected child, family, or school characteristic

Number of children

(in thousands)

Percentage

distribution

of children

Mean reading score1 Mean mathematics score2 Mean science score3

Kindergarten First grade,

spring 2012

Kindergarten First grade,

spring 2012

Kindergarten,

spring 2011

First grade,

Fall 2010 Spring 2011 Fall 2010 Spring 2011 spring 2012

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 11

A-4 APPENDIX A
APPENDIX A A-5

Table A-4. Estimated coefficients from ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions of fall kindergarten reading, mathematics, 

science, cognitive flexibility, and approaches to learning scores for children whose primary early care and education 

arrangement prior to kindergarten entry was home-based relative care, by selected child and family characteristics: 

2010–11

Variable

Mean reading score1

Mean mathematics 

score2

Mean cognitive

flexibility score3

Mean approaches to 

learning score4

Coefficient

Standard 

error Coefficient

Standard 

error Coefficient

Standard 

error Coefficient

Standard 

error

Intercept 13.71* (1.507) -6.83* (2.013) 10.31* (0.581) 1.38* (0.120)

Primary type of early care and 

education (ECE) arrangement prior 

to kindergarten entry5

(Home-based relative care)

No regular ECE arrangement -0.21 (0.255) -0.72* (0.305) -0.16 (0.124) -0.04 (0.021)

Home-based nonrelative care 0.57 (0.443) 1.69* (0.420) 0.16 (0.185) 0.04 (0.027)

Center-based care 2.16* (0.248) 2.14* (0.307) 0.22* (0.076) 0.03 (0.019)

Multiple arrangements 1.87* (0.581) 2.35* (0.619) 0.43 (0.227) 0.04 (0.040)

Sex of child

(Male) 

Female 1.04* (0.197) -0.04 (0.219) 0.39* (0.070) 0.31* (0.014)

Age of child at kindergarten entry, 

fall 2010 0.36* (0.022) 0.59* (0.029) 0.06* (0.008) 0.02* (0.002)

Race/ethnicity of child

(White)

Black -0.96* (0.415) -3.51* (0.349) -1.10* (0.153) -0.07* (0.022)

Hispanic -1.54* (0.365) -2.99* (0.307) -0.66* (0.102) -0.01 (0.021)

Asian 6.32* (0.598) 5.53* (0.676) -0.04 (0.175) 0.09 (0.048)

Native Hawaiian/

Pacific Islander -2.11 (1.371) -2.74 (1.708) -1.45* (0.601) -0.06 (0.082)

American Indian/

Alaska Native -3.03* (0.553) -3.77* (0.980) -0.61 (0.507) 0.05 (0.068)

Two or more races 0.30 (0.485) -0.46 (0.541) -0.27 (0.144) -0.02 (0.034)

Household type, fall 2010

(Two-parent household)

Single-parent or other 

household type -2.26* (0.197) -2.75* (0.255) -0.25* (0.088) -0.17* (0.018)

Primary home language

(English)

Non-English -2.07* (0.366) -2.59* (0.340) -0.75* (0.144) 0.05 (0.028)

Socioeconomic status (SES)6

(Higher SES percents)

Lowest 20 percent -3.98* (0.275) -5.25* (0.319) -0.50* (0.117) -0.16* (0.023)

* p < 0.05. 1

 Reflects performance on questions measuring basic skills (print familiarity, letter recognition, beginning and ending sounds, rhyming words, and word 

recognition), vocabulary knowledge, and reading comprehension (including locate/recall questions, integrate/interpret questions, and critique/evaluate questions 

about text the children were asked to read). Actual scores for all kindergartners range from 6 to 83 points.

2

 Reflects performance on questions on number sense, properties, and operations; measurement; geometry and spatial sense; data analysis, statistics, and 

probability (measured with a set of simple questions assessing children’s ability to read a graph); and prealgebra skills such as identification of patterns. Actual 

scores for all kindergartners range from 5 to 75 points.

3

 To measure cognitive flexibility, children were administered the Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS) (developed by Philip Zelazo in 2006). Children were 

asked to sort a series of cards into one of two trays according to different rules (e.g., by color, by shape). Actual scores for all kindergartners range from 0 to 

12 points. 4

 The approaches to learning scale is based on teachers’ reports on how students rate in seven areas: attentiveness, task persistence, eagerness to learn, learning 

independence, flexibility, organization, and ability to follow classroom rules. Actual scores for all kindergartners range from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating that 

a child exhibits positive learning behaviors more often.

5

 The type of nonparental care in which the child spent the most hours. “Multiple arrangements” refers to children who spent an equal amount of time in each of two 

or more arrangements.

6

 Socioeconomic status (SES) was measured by a composite score based on parental education and occupations and household income at the time of data 

collection. 

NOTE: The reference category is the first group listed and is shown in parentheses. Estimates weighted by W1_2P0. Estimates pertain to a sample of children 

who were enrolled in kindergarten for the first time in the 2010–11 school year. Two parents may refer to two biological parents, two adoptive parents, or one 

biological/adoptive parent and one other parent/partner. Single parent refers to one biological or adoptive parent only. In households without parents, the guardian 

or guardians may be related or unrelated to the child. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 

(ECLS-K:2011), Kindergarten–First Grade Restricted-Use Data File.
A-6

Table A-5. Estimated coefficients from ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions of fall kindergarten reading, mathematics, 

science, cognitive flexibility, and approaches to learning scores for children whose primary early care and 

education arrangement prior to kindergarten entry was home-based nonrelative care, by selected child and family 

characteristics: 2010–11

Variable

Mean reading score1

Mean mathematics 

score2

Mean cognitive

flexibility score3

Mean approaches to 

learning score4

Coefficient

Standard 

error Coefficient

Standard 

error Coefficient

Standard 

error Coefficient

Standard 

error

Intercept 14.28* (1.487) -5.15* (1.961) 10.47* (0.553) 1.42* (0.122)

Primary type of early care and 

education (ECE) arrangement prior 

to kindergarten entry5

(Home-based nonrelative care)

No regular ECE arrangement -0.78 (0.437) -2.40* (0.451) -0.33 (0.209) -0.07* (0.025)

Home-based relative care -0.57 (0.443) -1.69* (0.420) -0.16 (0.185) -0.04 (0.027)

Center-based care 1.59* (0.468) 0.46 (0.472) 0.05 (0.182) -0.01 (0.025)

Multiple arrangements 1.30* (0.620) 0.66 (0.562) 0.27 (0.282) 0.01 (0.035)

Sex of child

(Male) 

Female 1.04* (0.197) -0.04 (0.219) 0.39* (0.070) 0.31* (0.014)

Age of child at kindergarten entry, 

fall 2010 0.36* (0.022) 0.59* (0.029) 0.06* (0.008) 0.02* (0.002)

Race/ethnicity of child

(White)

Black -0.96* (0.415) -3.51* (0.349) -1.10* (0.153) -0.07* (0.022)

Hispanic -1.54* (0.365) -2.99* (0.307) -0.66* (0.102) -0.01 (0.021)

Asian 6.32* (0.598) 5.53* (0.676) -0.04 (0.175) 0.09 (0.048)

Native Hawaiian/

Pacific Islander -2.11 (1.371) -2.74 (1.708) -1.45* (0.601) -0.06 (0.082)

American Indian/

Alaska Native -3.03* (0.553) -3.77* (0.980) -0.61 (0.507) 0.05 (0.068)

Two or more races 0.30 (0.485) -0.46 (0.541) -0.27 (0.144) -0.02 (0.034)

Household type, fall 2010

(Two-parent household)

Single-parent or other 

household type -2.26* (0.197) -2.75* (0.255) -0.25* (0.088) -0.17* (0.018)

Primary home language

(English)

Non-English -2.07* (0.366) -2.59* (0.340) -0.75* (0.144) 0.05 (0.028)

Socioeconomic status (SES)6

(Higher SES percents)

Lowest 20 percent -3.98* (0.275) -5.25* (0.319) -0.50* (0.117) -0.16* (0.023)

* p < 0.05. 1

 Reflects performance on questions measuring basic skills (print familiarity, letter recognition, beginning and ending sounds, rhyming words, and word 

recognition), vocabulary knowledge, and reading comprehension (including locate/recall questions, integrate/interpret questions, and critique/evaluate questions 

about text the children were asked to read). Actual scores for all kindergartners range from 6 to 83 points.

2

 Reflects performance on questions on number sense, properties, and operations; measurement; geometry and spatial sense; data analysis, statistics, and 

probability (measured with a set of simple questions assessing children’s ability to read a graph); and prealgebra skills such as identification of patterns. Actual 

scores for all kindergartners range from 5 to 75 points.

3

 To measure cognitive flexibility, children were administered the Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS) (developed by Philip Zelazo in 2006). Children were 

asked to sort a series of cards into one of two trays according to different rules (e.g., by color, by shape). Actual scores for all kindergartners range from 0 to 

12 points. 4

 The approaches to learning scale is based on teachers’ reports on how students rate in seven areas: attentiveness, task persistence, eagerness to learn, learning 

independence, flexibility, organization, and ability to follow classroom rules. Actual scores for all kindergartners range from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating that 

a child exhibits positive learning behaviors more often.

5

 The type of nonparental care in which the child spent the most hours. “Multiple arrangements” refers to children who spent an equal amount of time in each of two 

or more arrangements.

6

 Socioeconomic status (SES) was measured by a composite score based on parental education and occupations and household income at the time of data 

collection. 

NOTE: The reference category is the first group listed and is shown in parentheses. Estimates weighted by W1_2P0. Estimates pertain to a sample of children 

who were enrolled in kindergarten for the first time in the 2010–11 school year. Two parents may refer to two biological parents, two adoptive parents, or one 

biological/adoptive parent and one other parent/partner. Single parent refers to one biological or adoptive parent only. In households without parents, the guardian 

or guardians may be related or unrelated to the child. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 

(ECLS-K:2011), Kindergarten–First Grade Restricted-Use Data File.
A-7

Table A-6. Estimated coefficients from ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions of fall kindergarten reading, mathematics, 

science, cognitive flexibility, and approaches to learning scores for children whose primary early care and 

education arrangement prior to kindergarten entry was center-based care, by selected child and family 

characteristics: 2010–11

Variable

Mean reading score1

Mean mathematics 

score2

Mean cognitive

flexibility score3

Mean approaches to 

learning score4

Coefficient

Standard 

error Coefficient

Standard 

error Coefficient

Standard 

error Coefficient

Standard 

error

Intercept 15.88* (1.479) -4.69* (1.991) 10.53* (0.571) 1.41* (0.121)

Primary type of early care and 

education (ECE) arrangement prior 

to kindergarten entry5

(Center-based care)

No regular ECE arrangement -2.37* (0.230) -2.86* (0.272) -0.38* (0.110) -0.06* (0.017)

Home-based relative care -2.16* (0.248) -2.14* (0.307) -0.22* (0.076) -0.03 (0.019)

Home-based nonrelative care -1.59* (0.468) -0.46 (0.472) -0.05 (0.182) 0.01 (0.025)

Multiple arrangements -0.29 (0.520) 0.21 (0.598) 0.22 (0.208) 0.02 (0.035)

Sex of child

(Male) 

Female 1.04* (0.197) -0.04 (0.219) 0.39* (0.070) 0.31* (0.014)

Age of child at kindergarten entry, 

fall 2010 0.36* (0.022) 0.59* (0.029) 0.06* (0.008) 0.02* (0.002)

Race/ethnicity of child

(White)

Black -0.96* (0.415) -3.51* (0.349) -1.10* (0.153) -0.07* (0.022)

Hispanic -1.54* (0.365) -2.99* (0.307) -0.66* (0.102) -0.01 (0.021)

Asian 6.32* (0.598) 5.53* (0.676) -0.04 (0.175) 0.09 (0.048)

Native Hawaiian/

Pacific Islander -2.11 (1.371) -2.74 (1.708) -1.45* (0.601) -0.06 (0.082)

American Indian/

Alaska Native -3.03* (0.553) -3.77* (0.980) -0.61 (0.507) 0.05 (0.068)

Two or more races 0.30 (0.485) -0.46 (0.541) -0.27 (0.144) -0.02 (0.034)

Household type, fall 2010

(Two-parent household)

Single-parent or other 

household type -2.26* (0.197) -2.75* (0.255) -0.25* (0.088) -0.17* (0.018)

Primary home language

(English)

Non-English -2.07* (0.366) -2.59* (0.340) -0.75* (0.144) 0.05 (0.028)

Socioeconomic status (SES)6

(Higher SES percents)

Lowest 20 percent -3.98* (0.275) -5.25* (0.319) -0.50* (0.117) -0.16* (0.023)

* p < 0.05. 1

 Reflects performance on questions measuring basic skills (print familiarity, letter recognition, beginning and ending sounds, rhyming words, and word 

recognition), vocabulary knowledge, and reading comprehension (including locate/recall questions, integrate/interpret questions, and critique/evaluate questions 

about text the children were asked to read). Actual scores for all kindergartners range from 6 to 83 points.

2

 Reflects performance on questions on number sense, properties, and operations; measurement; geometry and spatial sense; data analysis, statistics, and 

probability (measured with a set of simple questions assessing children’s ability to read a graph); and prealgebra skills such as identification of patterns. Actual 

scores for all kindergartners range from 5 to 75 points.

3

 To measure cognitive flexibility, children were administered the Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS) (developed by Philip Zelazo in 2006). Children were 

asked to sort a series of cards into one of two trays according to different rules (e.g., by color, by shape). Actual scores for all kindergartners range from 0 to 

12 points. 4

 The approaches to learning scale is based on teachers’ reports on how students rate in seven areas: attentiveness, task persistence, eagerness to learn, learning 

independence, flexibility, organization, and ability to follow classroom rules. Actual scores for all kindergartners range from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating that 

a child exhibits positive learning behaviors more often.

5

 The type of nonparental care in which the child spent the most hours. “Multiple arrangements” refers to children who spent an equal amount of time in each of two 

or more arrangements.

6

 Socioeconomic status (SES) was measured by a composite score based on parental education and occupations and household income at the time of data 

collection. 

NOTE: The reference category is the first group listed and is shown in parentheses. Estimates weighted by W1_2P0. Estimates pertain to a sample of children 

who were enrolled in kindergarten for the first time in the 2010–11 school year. Two parents may refer to two biological parents, two adoptive parents, or one 

biological/adoptive parent and one other parent/partner. Single parent refers to one biological or adoptive parent only. In households without parents, the guardian 

or guardians may be related or unrelated to the child. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 

(ECLS-K:2011), Kindergarten–First Grade Restricted-Use Data File.
A-8

Table A-7. Estimated coefficients from ordinary least squares (OLS) regressions of fall kindergarten reading, mathematics, 

science, cognitive flexibility, and approaches to learning scores for children whose primary early care and education 

arrangement prior to kindergarten entry was multiple arrangements for equal amounts of time, by selected child and 

family characteristics: 2010–11

Variable

Mean reading score1

Mean mathematics 

score2

Mean cognitive

flexibility score3

Mean approaches to 

learning score4

Coefficient

Standard 

error Coefficient

Standard 

error Coefficient

Standard 

error Coefficient

Standard 

error

Intercept 15.59* (1.641) -4.49* (2.073) 10.74* (0.580) 1.43* (0.117)

Primary type of early care and 

education (ECE) arrangement prior 

to kindergarten entry5

(Multiple arrangements)

No regular ECE arrangement -2.08* (0.535) -3.06* (0.568) -0.59* (0.212) -0.08* (0.039)

Home-based relative care -1.87* (0.581) -2.35* (0.619) -0.43 (0.227) -0.04 (0.040)

Home-based nonrelative care -1.30* (0.620) -0.66 (0.562) -0.27 (0.282) -0.01 (0.035)

Center-based care 0.29 (0.520) -0.21 (0.598) -0.22 (0.208) -0.02 (0.035)

Sex of child

(Male) 

Female 1.04* (0.197) -0.04 (0.219) 0.39* (0.070) 0.31* (0.014)

Age of child at kindergarten entry, 

fall 2010 0.36* (0.022) 0.59* (0.029) 0.06* (0.008) 0.02* (0.002)

Race/ethnicity of child

(White)

Black -0.96* (0.415) -3.51* (0.349) -1.10* (0.153) -0.07* (0.022)

Hispanic -1.54* (0.365) -2.99* (0.307) -0.66* (0.102) -0.01 (0.021)

Asian 6.32* (0.598) 5.53* (0.676) -0.04 (0.175) 0.09 (0.048)

Native Hawaiian/

Pacific Islander -2.11 (1.371) -2.74 (1.708) -1.45* (0.601) -0.06 (0.082)

American Indian/

Alaska Native -3.03* (0.553) -3.77* (0.980) -0.61 (0.507) 0.05 (0.068)

Two or more races 0.30 (0.485) -0.46 (0.541) -0.27 (0.144) -0.02 (0.034)

Household type, fall 2010

(Two-parent household)

Single-parent or other 

household type -2.26* (0.197) -2.75* (0.255) -0.25* (0.088) -0.17* (0.018)

Primary home language

(English)

Non-English -2.07* (0.366) -2.59* (0.340) -0.75* (0.144) 0.05 (0.028)

Socioeconomic status (SES)6

(Higher SES percents)

Lowest 20 percent -3.98* (0.275) -5.25* (0.319) -0.50* (0.117) -0.16* (0.023)

* p < 0.05. 1

 Reflects performance on questions measuring basic skills (print familiarity, letter recognition, beginning and ending sounds, rhyming words, and word 

recognition), vocabulary knowledge, and reading comprehension (including locate/recall questions, integrate/interpret questions, and critique/evaluate questions 

about text the children were asked to read). Actual scores for all kindergartners range from 6 to 83 points.

2

 Reflects performance on questions on number sense, properties, and operations; measurement; geometry and spatial sense; data analysis, statistics, and 

probability (measured with a set of simple questions assessing children’s ability to read a graph); and prealgebra skills such as identification of patterns. Actual 

scores for all kindergartners range from 5 to 75 points.

3

 To measure cognitive flexibility, children were administered the Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS) (developed by Philip Zelazo in 2006). Children were 

asked to sort a series of cards into one of two trays according to different rules (e.g., by color, by shape). Actual scores for all kindergartners range from 0 to 

12 points. 4

 The approaches to learning scale is based on teachers’ reports on how students rate in seven areas: attentiveness, task persistence, eagerness to learn, learning 

independence, flexibility, organization, and ability to follow classroom rules. Actual scores for all kindergartners range from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating that 

a child exhibits positive learning behaviors more often.

5

 The type of nonparental care in which the child spent the most hours. “Multiple arrangements” refers to children who spent an equal amount of time in each of two 

or more arrangements.

6

 Socioeconomic status (SES) was measured by a composite score based on parental education and occupations and household income at the time of data 

collection. 

NOTE: The reference category is the first group listed and is shown in parentheses. Estimates weighted by W1_2P0. Estimates pertain to a sample of children 

who were enrolled in kindergarten for the first time in the 2010–11 school year. Two parents may refer to two biological parents, two adoptive parents, or one 

biological/adoptive parent and one other parent/partner. Single parent refers to one biological or adoptive parent only. In households without parents, the guardian 

or guardians may be related or unrelated to the child. Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 

(ECLS-K:2011), Kindergarten–First Grade Restricted-Use Data File.
APPENDIX B B-1

APPENDIX B: TECHNICAL NOTES AND 

METHODOLOGY

The analyses presented in this Statistical Analysis Report are based on data from the National 

Household Education Surveys Program (NHES) and Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, 

Kindergarten Class of 2010–11 (ECLS-K:2011) data collections. This section provides technical 

documentation on the data sources. It presents information on sampling, weighting, response 

rates, and nonresponse bias, as well as the statistical procedures used to conduct the analyses.

National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES)

The NHES is a data collection system that is designed to address a wide range of educationrelated issues. Surveys have been conducted in 1991, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 

2007, and 2012. NHES targets specific populations for detailed data collection. It is intended to 

provide more detailed data on the topics and populations of interest than are collected through 

supplements to other household surveys. NHES data used for this report come from the 1995, 

2001, 2005, and 2012 Early Childhood Program Participation Surveys.

In the NHES:1995 Early Childhood Program Participation (ECPP) Survey, parents of about 

14,000 children from birth through age 10 and in third grade or below were interviewed by 

telephone. In NHES:2001, parents of approximately 6,700 children from birth through age 

6 who were not yet in kindergarten were interviewed by telephone. In NHES:2005, parents 

of about 7,200 children from birth through age 6 who were not yet in kindergarten were 

interviewed by telephone. Mailed questionnaires for the NHES:2012 ECPP were completed 

by parents for 7,893 children from birth through the age of 5 who were not yet enrolled in 

kindergarten. 

Administrations of NHES prior to 2012 used a random-digit-dial sample of landline phones 

and computer-assisted telephone interviewing to conduct interviews. However, due to declining 

response rates for all telephone surveys and the increase in households that only or mostly use 

a cell phone instead of a landline, the data collection method was changed to an address-based 

sample survey for NHES:2012. 

The NHES:2012 sample was selected using a two-stage address-based sampling frame. The first 

sampling stage selected residential addresses, and the second sampling stage selected an eligible 

child from information provided on the household mail screener. To increase the number of 

Blacks and Hispanics in the sample, Black and Hispanic households were sampled at a higher 

rate than other households by identifying census tracts with higher percentages of these 

residents. After the sample was selected, the data were collected using printed questionnaires that 

were mailed to the sampled respondents. 
B-2 APPENDIX B

Questionnaires for the NHES:2012 ECPP were completed for 7,893 children, for a weighted 

unit response rate of 78.7 percent. The overall estimated weighted unit response rate (the 

product of the screener weighted unit response rate of 73.8 percent and the Early Childhood 

Program Participation Survey unit weighted response rate) was 58.1 percent. The overall 

weighted response rate was 66.3 percent for the NHES:1995 ECPP, 59.9 percent for the 

NHES:2001 ECPP, and 56.4 percent for the NHES:2005 ECPP. 

In order to produce unbiased and consistent estimates of national totals, all of the NHES 

estimates in this report were weighted using the probabilities of selection of the respondents 

and other adjustment to account for nonresponse and coverage bias. The weight used for 

NHES:1995 data was EWEIGHT and the weights used for NHES:2001, NHES:2005, 

and NHES:2012 data were FEWT. In addition to properly weighting the estimates, special 

procedures for estimating the standard errors of the estimates were employed because the 

NHES data were collected using a complex sample design. The standard errors presented in this 

report were produced using Jackknife 1 replication procedures in the SAS statistical software 

package. The replicate weights used for NHES:1995 data were ERPL1 through ERPL50, and 

the replicate weights used for NHES:2001, NHES:2005, and NHES:2012 data were FEWT1 

through FEWT80.

Nonresponse bias analyses were conducted for NHES:2001 and NHES:2012 to evaluate 

whether nonresponse at the unit and item levels impacted the estimates. No nonresponse bias 

analysis was conducted for NHES:2005 because the survey and data collection procedures 

were very similar to those in NHES:2001. The methods used in the nonresponse bias analyses 

included but were not limited to evaluating the effect of weighting on estimates, comparing 

estimates generated with adjusted and unadjusted weights, and comparing NHES estimates to 

other sources. The results from both analyses suggest that there is no substantial nonresponse 

bias after adjusting for nonresponse. 

Key NHES variables used in the report

• Primary ECE arrangement (MOSTHRS in NHES:1995, 2001, and 2005 and 

MOSTHRSX in NHES:2012) is a composite variable that indicates the primary nonparental 

care or program arrangement in which the child spends the most hours per week. For 

the purposes of this report, MOSTHRS/MOSTHRSX responses were collapsed into 

five categories of early care and education (ECE) arrangements: (1) center-based care 

(including day care centers, Head Start programs, preschools, prekindergartens, and other 

early childhood programs), (2) home-based relative care, (3) home-based nonrelative care, 

(4) multiple arrangements (i.e., children who spent equal amounts of time in each of two or 

more types of arrangements), and (5) no ECE arrangement on a regular basis (i.e., children 

who had no regularly scheduled care arrangement and mainly received care only from their 

parents). In addition, children whose only arrangements took place less often than once a 

week were coded as having no ECE arrangement on a regular basis. 

• Race/ethnicity (RACEETHN in NHES:1995 and RACEETH2 in NHES:2001, 2005, and 

2012) is a composite variable that indicates the race/ethnicity of the child using mutually 

exclusive categories to code a child as just one race/ethnicity. For this report, categories 
B-3

were collapsed into the following groups: (1) White, (2) Black, (3) Hispanic, (4) Asian, and 

(5) Other (including all other races and Two or more races). For the 1995 data, an additional 

variable (CRACE) was used for determining whether the child was Asian. Race categories do 

not include children of Hispanic ethnicity.

• Family poverty status is a composite variable derived from the total household income 

(HINCOME in NHES:1995, 2001, and 2005 and TTLHHINC in NHES:2012) and 

total household size (HHTOTAL in NHES:1995, 2001, and 2005 and HHTOTALX in 

NHES:2012) of the child. The variable is defined in terms of the Census Bureau’s poverty 

threshold, a dollar amount that varies depending on a family’s size and composition and is 

updated annually to account for inflation. Poor children are those whose family incomes 

were below the Census Bureau’s poverty threshold in the year prior to data collection; 

near-poor children are those whose family incomes ranged from the poverty threshold to 

199 percent of the poverty threshold; and nonpoor children are those whose family incomes 

were at or above 200 percent of the poverty threshold. Survey respondents are asked to 

select the range within which their income falls, rather than giving the exact amount of their 

income; therefore, the measure of poverty status is an approximation.

• Mother’s highest level of education is a composite variable derived from the educational 

attainment of or highest grade completed by the child’s mother or female guardian (children 

living in households with no mother or female guardian present were excluded from this 

analysis). For the purpose of this report, mother’s highest level of education was collapsed 

into the following categories: (1) less than high school,( 2) high school/GED, (3) technical or 

some college, (4) associate’s degree, and (5) bachelor’s or higher degree. Even though NHES 

variables on mother or female guardian’s education changed over time, consistency in coding 

procedures needed to be maintained for this report. Therefore, to determine the child’s 

mother’s highest level of education, variables MOMGRADE and MOMDIPL were used 

for the 1995 data, variable MOMEDUC was used for the 2001 and 2005 data, and variables 

PAR1EDUC, P1EDUC, PAR2EDUC, and P2EDUC were used for the 2012 data. If the 

child was reported to be living in households with two mothers or female guardians in 2012, 

information on the birth or adoptive mother was used for analysis before information on 

the step or foster mother was used, and information on the step or foster mother was used 

before information on the grandmother or other female guardian was used. In cases where 

both mothers or female guardians were of the same type, information on the first mother or 

female guardian as reported on the questionnaire was used for analysis.

More information about the NHES, including technical documentation and questionnaires, can 

be found on the NCES website at http://nces.ed.gov/nhes/. 
B-4

Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class 

of 2010–11 (ECLS-K:2011) 

The ECLS-K:2011 provides detailed information on the school achievement and experiences 

of students throughout their elementary school years. The students participating in the 

ECLS-K:2011 are being followed longitudinally from the kindergarten year (the 2010–11 school 

year) through the spring of 2016, when most of them are expected to be in fifth grade. This 

sample of students is designed to be nationally representative of all students who were enrolled 

in kindergarten or who were of kindergarten age and being educated in an ungraded classroom 

or school in the United States in the 2010–11 school year, including those in public and private 

schools, those who attended full-day and part-day programs, those who were in kindergarten for 

the first time, and those who were kindergarten repeaters. Students who attended early learning 

centers or institutions that offered education only through kindergarten are included in the study 

sample and represented in the cohort. This report focuses on data collected in the kindergarten 

(base year). 

The ECLS-K:2011 places emphasis on measuring students’ experiences within multiple 

contexts and development in multiple domains. The design of the study includes the 

collection of information from the students, their parents/guardians, their teachers, and their 

schools. Information was collected from their before- and after-school care providers in the 

kindergarten year.

The ECLS-K:2011 cohort was sampled using a multistage sampling design. In the first stage, 

90 primary sampling units (PSUs) were selected from a national sample of PSUs. The PSUs 

were counties and county groups. In the second stage, public and private schools educating 

kindergartners (or ungraded schools educating children of kindergarten age) were selected 

within the PSUs. Finally, students were sampled from the selected schools. In the third stage of 

sampling, approximately 23 kindergartners were selected from a list of all enrolled kindergartners 

(or students of kindergarten age being educated in an ungraded classroom) in each of the 

sampled schools.

A nationally representative sample of approximately 18,200 children enrolled in kindergarten 

in the 2010–11 school year participated in the base-year of the ECLS-K:2011. The children 

attended both public and private schools. The sample includes children from different racial/

ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds and children with limited English proficiency. Asian and 

Pacific Islander students were oversampled to assure that the sample included enough students 

of this race/ethnicity to be able to make accurate estimates for these students as a group. In 

addition, the study sample includes children with disabilities.

A total of approximately 780 of the 1,320 originally sampled schools participated during the 

base year of the study. This translates into a weighted unit response rate (weighted by the 

base weight) of 63 percent for the base year. The weighted student unit response rates were 

87 percent for the fall data collection and 85 percent for the spring data collection. The weighted 

parent unit response rates were 74 percent for the fall data collection and 67 percent for the 

spring data collection.
B-5

Eight data collections have been conducted to date: fall and spring of the children’s kindergarten 

year (the base year), fall 2011 and spring 2012 (the first-grade year), fall 2012 and spring 2013 

(the second-grade year), spring 2014 (the third-grade year), and spring 2015 (the fourth-grade 

year). Additional data collection is planned for the spring of 2016. Although the study refers to 

later rounds of data collection by the grade the majority of children are expected to be in (that 

is, the modal grade for children who were in kindergarten in the 2010–11 school year), children 

are included in subsequent data collections regardless of their grade level. 

The ECLS-K:2011 data are weighted to compensate for unequal probabilities of selection at 

each sampling stage and to adjust for the effects of school, teacher, before- and after-school care 

provider, child, and parent nonresponse. Estimates for this report were weighted by W1_2P0, 

which is the base-year child weight adjusted for nonresponse to the fall or spring parent 

interview. In addition to properly weighting the estimates, special procedures for estimating the 

standard errors of the estimates were employed because the ECLS-K:2011 data were collected 

using a complex sample design. The standard errors presented in this report were produced 

using Jackknife 2 replication procedures in the SAS statistical software package. The replicate 

weights used for ECLS-K:2011 data were W1_2P1 through W12P80.

Nonresponse bias analyses were conducted to determine if substantial bias was introduced as a 

result of nonresponse in the kindergarten rounds of data collection. Three methods were used 

to examine the potential for nonresponse bias in the kindergarten data: (1) a comparison of 

estimates from the ECLS-K:2011 schools to those produced using frame data (i.e., data from the 

Common Core of Data and the Private School Universe Survey); (2) a comparison of estimates 

from the ECLS-K:2011 to those from other data sources (for example, the National Household 

Education Surveys Program); and (3) a comparison of estimates produced using weights that 

include adjustments for nonresponse to estimates produced using weights without nonresponse 

adjustments. Findings from these analyses suggest that there is not a substantial bias due to 

nonresponse after adjusting for that nonresponse. 

Key ECLS-K:2011 child and family/household variables used in the report

• Primary ECE arrangement (X12PRIMPK) is a composite categorical variable that 

indicates the type and location of the child’s primary, regular, nonparental care arrangement, 

that is, the arrangement in which the child spent the most hours per week during the year 

before kindergarten. For children with more than one type of child care arrangement, 

the value for X1PRIMPK is identified based on which type of care had the most number 

of hours and where the care (for relative and nonrelative care) was located. If two or 

more child care arrangements were used for the same number of hours, X12PRIMPK 

is set to “two or more types of care with equal hours.” For the purposes of this report, 

X12PRIMPK responses were collapsed into five categories of early care and education 

(ECE) arrangements: (1) center-based care (including day care centers, Head Start programs, 

preschools, prekindergartens, and other early childhood programs), (2) home-based relative 

care, (3) home-based nonrelative care, (4) multiple arrangements (i.e., children who spent 

an equal amount of time in each of two or more types of arrangements), and (5) no 

ECE arrangement on a regular basis (i.e., children who had no regularly scheduled care 

arrangement and mainly received care only from their parents). 
B-6

• Age at kindergarten entry (X1AGEENT) is a continuous composite variable, which was 

created using the date of birth information and parent reports in fall 2010 whether it was the 

child’s first, second, or third (or more) year of kindergarten. For first-time kindergartners, 

the child’s age in months is calculated as of September 1, 2010.

• Race/ethnicity (X_RACETH_R) is a composite variable that refers to the child’s race/

ethnicity using mutually exclusive categories to code a child as just one race/ethnicity. 

For this report, categories were collapsed into the following groups: (1) White, (2) Black, 

(3) Hispanic, (4) Asian, (5) Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, (6) American Indian/

Alaska Native, and (7) Two or more races. Race categories do not include children of 

Hispanic ethnicity.

• Family type (X1HPARNT) is a composite variable based on data collected in the parent 

interview about the number and type(s) of parents living in the household with the study 

child. When study children are living with parent figures (e.g., grandmother and grandfather), 

rather than biological, adoptive, step-, or foster parents, X1HPARNT is coded as “one or 

more related or unrelated guardian(s).” 

• Primary home language (X12LANGST) is a composite variable that indicates whether 

English was the primary language spoken in a student’s home or whether a non-English 

language was the primary language spoken, according to information collected in the parent 

interview. If English was the only language spoken in the home, or if a language other than 

English was spoken in the home but the primary language of the household was English, 

a student is classified as coming from a home in which the primary language was English. 

If a language other than English was the primary language spoken in the home, a student 

is classified as coming from a home in which the primary language was not English, even 

if English was also spoken. In some instances, children lived in a home where more than 

one language, including English, was spoken and the parent respondent could not choose 

a primary language. These children are coded in a third category indicating that a primary 

language was not identified. Children whose parents indicated they spoke more than one 

language equally are categorized in the third category. Interviews were conducted in English 

and Spanish in accordance with the parents’ language preference; 89 percent of the parent 

interviews were conducted in English in the fall of kindergarten. The Spanish interviews 

were administered by bilingual interviewers. A small number of interviews were completed 

with parents who spoke other languages by using an interpreter who translated the English 

questions read by the assessor during the interview.

• Socioeconomic status (X12SESL), or SES, is a composite variable computed at the 

household level using data from parents who completed the parent interview in fall 2010 

or spring 2011. The SES variable reflects the socioeconomic status of the household at 

the time of data collection. The five components used to create the SES were as follows: 

(1) Parent 1/guardian’s education; (2) Parent 2/guardian’s education; (3) Parent 1/guardian’s 

occupational prestige score; (4) Parent 2/guardian’s occupational prestige score; and 
B-7

(5) Household income. When parent respondents reported a household income indicating 

the household was close to or lower than 200 percent of the U.S. Census Bureau poverty 

threshold for a household of its size, the respondents were asked to report household 

income to the nearest $1,000 (referred to as exact income). Because not all households were 

asked to report their exact income, the midpoint of the detailed income range was used to 

compute the SES composite.

Not all parent respondents provided complete education, occupation, and household income 

information; therefore, it was necessary to impute missing values for the SES components 

before computing the SES composite. Imputation was done separately for each component 

using the hot deck method. For missing values that were imputed, a value reported by a 

respondent for a particular component (education, occupation, household income category) 

was assigned or “donated” to a “similar” person who failed to respond to that question. A 

“similar” person is one who has the same characteristic as the donor; these characteristics 

are demographic characteristics chosen to form imputation cells. Cells were defined for each 

imputation by characteristics related to the variable being imputed such as geographic region, 

urbanicity, household type, age, and race. The imputed value for a case with a missing value 

was taken from a randomly selected donor among the respondents within the cell.

After imputation, the occupation variables were also recoded to reflect the average of 

the 1989 General Social Survey (GSS) prestige scores. Occupational prestige level was 

based on information collected about the type of business or industry in which the parent 

worked, the parent’s job title, and the most important activities or duties the parent did for 

the job. Although the GSS prestige scores are from 1989, they are still being used by the 

current GSS. New technology jobs that came into existence since 1989 were appropriately 

coded. Details on the occupation categories and assigned prestige scores can be found in 

the ECLS-K Kindergarten Data User’s Manual (Tourangeau et al. 2012). Occupation was 

imputed only for those in the labor force. Labor force status was determined by a value 

of 1 (35 hours or more per week) or 2 (less than 35 hours per week). If a parent was not 

employed, but reported actively looking for work, the parent’s previous occupation was 

collected and used in the creation of the SES composite. If the parent was not employed 

and not actively looking for work, an occupation was not collected and was not imputed. 

Following imputation, all cases had data for each component variable used to calculate SES.

Note that for households with only one parent present and for parents who are unemployed 

and not looking for work, retired, or not currently in the labor force, not all the components 

are defined. In these cases, the SES is the average of the z-scores of the available 

components.

• Direct assessment scores The ECLS-K:2011 direct cognitive assessment focused on three 

domains in the fall kindergarten round: reading (language use and literacy), mathematics, 

and executive function (working memory and cognitive flexibility). For the reading and 

mathematics assessments, assessors asked the children questions related to images (such 
B-8

as pictures, letters of the alphabet, words, or short sentences for reading or numbers and 

number problems for mathematics) that were presented on a small easel. Children could 

respond by pointing or telling the assessor their answers. They were not required to write 

their answers or explain their reasoning. The executive function component included a card 

sort task that required children to sort cards into trays.

The components of the ECLS-K:2011 assessment administered to children who spoke a 

language other than English at home depended on the children’s performance on a language 

screener used in the fall and spring data collections. All children, regardless of home 

language, were administered the language screener as the first component of the direct 

cognitive assessment. For children whose home language was English, the screener primarily 

served as a warm-up or practice for the rest of the assessment since the items were of low 

difficulty. While the screener also served as a warm-up for children whose home language 

was one other than English, in addition it determined whether the children understood 

English well enough to receive the full direct child assessment in English. Students whose 

home language was one other than English and who did not achieve at least the minimum 

score on the screener were not administered any of the assessments used in the analyses in 

this report.

The assessments in ECLS-K:2011 were more inclusive than most other NCES assessment 

designs because they are individually administered to children and provide an environment 

that meets the accommodations of most children with special needs. Students whose 

Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) indicated that they should not participate in 

standardized assessments were excluded from the assessments. Also, students who required 

an assessment in Braille, students who required a sign language interpreter, and students 

whose IEPs required them to be assessed using large print materials were excluded from 

the assessments because the study did not provide these accommodations. Though these 

exclusions do result in the assessment data not being generalizable to students with these 

particular needs, less than 1 percent of all students were excluded due to needs that were 

not accommodated. To the greatest extent possible, other necessary accommodations (for 

example allowing a health care aid to be present during the assessment) were allowed so that 

students with disabilities could be included.

Because the ECLS-K:2011 is a longitudinal study, the assessments also were designed to 

allow for the measurement of growth in these domains across time. The longitudinal design 

of the ECLS-K:2011 required that the cognitive assessments be developed to support the 

measurement of change in knowledge and skills demonstrated by children from kindergarten 

entry through the spring of fifth grade. Below are brief descriptions of the content of each 

direct assessment measure; more details can be found in the ECLS-K:2011 technical reports 

on the NCES website.

◊	 Fall kindergarten reading scores (X1RSCALK1) were based on an assessment 

that measured students’ performance on questions measuring basic skills (print 
B-9

familiarity, letter recognition, beginning and ending sounds, rhyming words, and 

word recognition); vocabulary knowledge; and reading comprehension. Reading 

comprehension questions asked the child to identify information specifically stated 

in text (e.g., definitions, facts, supporting details), make complex inferences within 

and across texts, and consider the text objectively and judge its appropriateness 

and quality. 

◊	 Fall kindergarten mathematics scores (X1MSCALK1) were based on an 

assessment that measured performance on questions pertaining to number sense, 

properties, and operations; measurement; geometry and spatial sense; data analysis, 

statistics, and probability; and prealgebra skills such as identification of patterns. 

The mathematics assessment was designed to measure skills in conceptual 

knowledge, procedural knowledge, and problem solving.

◊	 Fall kindergarten cognitive flexibility scores (X1DCCSTOT) were based on an 

assessment that obtained information on important cognitive processes associated 

with learning: cognitive flexibility. To measure cognitive flexibility, children were 

administered the Dimensional Change Card Sort (DCCS) (developed by Philip 

Zelazo in 2006). In this task, children were asked to sort a series of 22 picture cards 

into one of two trays according to different rules. Each card had a picture of either 

a red rabbit or a blue boat; one tray had a picture of a red boat and the other had 

a picture of a blue rabbit. Children were asked to sort the cards first by color and 

then by shape. If the child correctly sorted four of the six cards by shape, then he 

or she moved on to a third sorting rule: if the card had a black border, the child 

was to sort by color; if the card did not have a black border, the child was to sort 

by shape. The score used in this report reflects performance across all three sorting 

tasks: color, shape, and border. The developer of the DCCS recommends using this 

score, the overall score, to assess general performance. 

• Indirect assessment scores The child-level teacher questionnaire included seven items, 

referred to as “Approaches to Learning” items, that asked the teachers to report how often 

their ECLS-K:2011 students exhibited a selected set of learning behaviors (keeps belongings 

organized; shows eagerness to learn new things; works independently; easily adapts to 

changes in routine; persists in completing tasks; pays attention well; and follows classroom 

rules). The Approaches to Learning scale score (X1TCHAPP) is the mean rating on the 

seven items included in the scale. Scores range from 1 to 4, with higher scores indicating that 

a child exhibits positive learning behaviors more often.

More information about the ECLS-K:2011, including technical documentation and 

questionnaires, can be found on the NCES website at http://nces.ed.gov/ecls/

kindergarten2011.asp. 
B-10

Statistical Procedures

Comparisons of means and percentages were tested for statistical significance at the .05 level 

using Student’s t test to ensure that the differences are larger than those that might be expected 

due to sampling variation. Adjustments for multiple comparisons were not included. Student’s 

t values were computed to test differences between independent estimates using the following 

formula:

t = E1 − E2

se2 + se2

21

where E1

 and E2 are the estimates to be compared, and se1 and se2 are their corresponding 

standard errors.

There are hazards in reporting statistical tests for each comparison. First, comparisons based 

on large t statistics may appear to merit special attention. This can be misleading because the 

magnitude of the t statistic is related not only to the observed differences in means or 

percentages but also to the number of respondents in the specific categories used for 

comparison. Hence, a small difference compared across a large number of respondents would 

produce a large (and thus possibly statistically significant) t statistic.

A second hazard in reporting statistical tests is the possibility that one can report a “false 

positive,” or Type I error. This error occurs when one concludes that a difference observed in 

a sample reflects a true difference in the population from which the sample was drawn, when 

no such difference is present. Statistical tests are designed to limit the risk of this type of error 

using a value denoted by alpha. The alpha level of .05 was selected for findings in this report and 

ensures that a difference of a certain magnitude or larger would be produced when there was 

no actual difference between the quantities in the underlying population no more than 1 time 

out of 20. When analysts test hypotheses that show alpha values at the .05 level or smaller, they 

reject the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the two quantities. Failing to reject 

a null hypothesis (i.e., detect a difference), however, does not imply the values are the same 

or equivalent.

In addition to t test comparisons, ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analyses were 

conducted to describe the relationship between primary early care and education (ECE) 

arrangements the year before kindergarten and children’s fall kindergarten scores, after 

controlling for selected child and family characteristics. Independent variables were entered 

simultaneously for each regression analysis. Children with no nonparental care the year before 

kindergarten served as the reference primary ECE arrangement group for the regression table 

(table 1). Comparisons for other groups (e.g., home-based relative care vs. center-based care) 

were conducted using the same regression model, with the exception that the reference group 

was changed so that it was the primary ECE arrangement being compared to other primary 

ECE arrangements (tables A-4 through A-7). Significant regression coefficients generated by 

the OLS procedure indicate the units of change in the dependent variable when comparing one 

primary ECE arrangement group against the reference group, after taking into account all of the 

other independent variables in the model. 

www.ed.gov ies.ed.gov