The effect of pre-school education on academic performance in primary school: a case study of grade one pupils in Botswana

International Journal of Educational Development 22 (2002) 169–180www.elsevier.com/locate/ijedudev

The effect of pre-school education on academic performancein primary school: a case study of grade one pupils in

Botswana

A.A. Taiwo a,*, J.B. Tyolob

a University of Botswana, Gaborone, Botswanab Serowe College of Education, Serowe, Botswana

Abstract

Evidence abounds in the literature of a direct link between pre-primary education and academic performance in theprimary school. The salutary effect of the ‘Head start’ programme inaugurated in the United States of America in theearly 1960s on the academic performances of its beneficiaries in the lower primary is such a piece of evidence. Premisedon this commonality between pre-primary education and academic achievement in the primary school, the study aimedat finding out whether there were significant differences in the performances of Botswana grade one pupils with pre-school education experience and their counterparts without such an experience on selected tasks in English language,mathematics and science. Using purposive sampling technique for school selection, a total of 120 grade one pupilswere randomly selected for the study from four selected primary schools in Botswana. In addition, 20 grade one teachersfrom the study schools participated in the study. For data collection purpose, each pupil-subject was individually inter-viewed for about 20 min on the study tasks; and the opinions of the twenty teachers on the subject of the study wassampled by the use of a questionnaire. The results of the study indicated that pupils with pre-school education experiencesignificantly out-performed their counterparts without such experience in all the three school subject areas surveyedby the study. This trend of the impact of pre-school education on academic achievement at the early primary schoollevel was corroborated by the opinions of the primary school teachers. The paper concluded by observing that pre-school education equips children with pre-requisite skills which make learning in grade one easier and faster for childrenso exposed. 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Pre-school education; Academic performance; Pre-school experience; Grade one pupils; Impact of pre-school education;Pre-requisites skills; New entrants into primary schools; Early childhood programme; Selected tasks in English language, Mathematicsand science

1. Introduction

Research evidence suggests that new entrantsinto primary schools are better prepared for the

* Corresponding author.

0738-0593/02/$ - see front matter 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S0738 -0593(01 )00020-7

school environment and that they do make betteruse of school resources if they have been exposedto pre-school education prior to their entry into theregular school system (Myers, 1992). This is prob-ably not unexpected as such exposure would haveprepared the new intakes for the ‘world of school’because of the similarities between pre-school and

170 A.A. Taiwo, J.B. Tyolo / International Journal of Educational Development 22 (2002) 169–180

regular school environments. Pre-school educationis known to foster the development of some basicsocial skills and young learners lacking such skillsrisk ‘peer rejection’ and ‘academic failure’ (Knightand Hughes, 1995). It has been observed, forexample, that pupils with pre-school experiencetend to feel much more at home than their counter-parts without such an experience during their firstfew days in school. Furthermore, most of them sel-dom cry and demand to go back home with theirparents on their first day in school. Evidenceabounds in the literature (Adams and Sandfort,1992; Myers, 1992; Smith and James, 1975) tosupport the view that pre-school education engen-ders supportive climate for fast adjustment to class-room environment in the primary school. This isknown to result in smooth transition from the‘social world’ of the home to the somewhat ‘ formalworld’ of the school.

The inauguration of the ‘head start’ programmenationally in the United States in the early 1960swith the specific goal of compensating for poorhome conditions of children from disadvantagedhomes was based on such evidence (Brown, 1985;Butler, 1970; Hechinger, 1986; Payne et al., 1973;Tizard, 1975). The ‘head start’ programme wasadjudged to have a salutary effect on its benefici-aries as the products of the programme were foundto have enhanced IQ scores and to adjust well tothe school environment soon after their exposureto the programme (Tizard, 1975). Similar pro-grammes in Ireland (Kellaghan, 1977) and in theUnited Kingdom (Nall, 1982) yielded similarresults. The same trend has been observed in theearly childhood programmes established in tencountries in four continents of the world by theBernard van Leer Foundation (1999). On theAfrican continent, the Bernard van Leer Foun-dation (1994) identified day-care centres usuallymanaged by non-governmental organizationsand/or communities as a preferred mode for formalearly childhood education but cautioned on theneed for blending the ‘ traditional’ with the ‘mod-ern’ to guarantee the desired results.

In the case of Botswana, pre-school education isnot part of the formal system of education yet. Thegovernment of Botswana, however, appreciates thevalue of pre-school education as contained in its

policy on pre-primary education in its national pol-icy on education. This states inter alia that:

Government recognizes the need to developeffective and comprehensive policy on pre-pri-mary education ‘with a view to linking it to theformal education system in the long run’… .However, at the present time government cannotcommit itself to the provision of pre-primaryeducation on a universal basis given the scaleof government commitment for the other areasof support (Revised National Policy on Edu-cation, 1994, p. 7).

The import of this is that pre-primary education isnot universally provided for in the nation’s 10-yearbasic education programme. But that notwithstand-ing, the government has put in place a national pol-icy (National Policy on Day Care Centres, 1980)to guide the development and the running of pre-school facilities in the country. Currently, pre-pri-mary education is provided mainly by a few pres-tigious private primary schools as adjuncts to theirprimary education programmes at exorbitant feesfor the children of the well-to-do; and by privateindividuals, non-governmental organizations(NGOs), local councils and professional organiza-tions through day-care centres for the children ofthe ‘ordinary’ people. These day-care centres con-stitute ‘more than 90 percent of early childhoodeducation programmes’ in the country and they goby a variety of names such as ‘creches, nurseryschools, kindergartens, pre-school or simply day-care centres’ (Bar-on and Jacques, 1999). It shouldbe added in passing that, by and large, the curriculaof the day-care centres in the country focus on thedevelopment of basic social skills, toileting skills,basic numeracy skills, basic writing skills, basicoral communication skill in English language etc.

A number of studies had been undertaken inBotswana (Otaala et al. 1982, 1989; Kuru Develop-ment Trust, 1995) to gauge the impact of day-careprogrammes in the country. In an evaluation studyof the impact of day-care programmes carried outby Otaala et al. (1989), the researchers concludedthat the products of the programmes were betterprepared for primary school environment andenjoyed smoother transition to primary school

171A.A. Taiwo, J.B. Tyolo / International Journal of Educational Development 22 (2002) 169–180

classroom environment. Similar conclusions werereached about the impact of a sister programme[tagged Child-to-Child programme — a pro-gramme in which older children from the first threegrade levels of the primary school help prepareyounger children (mainly their siblings) for schoolentry the following year while they in turn improvetheir cognitive development] in the country as aninternational survey of 70 countries in 1987 foundBotswana’s Child-to-Child programme, among afew others, to be effective in preparing children forprimary school education (National Commissionon Education, 1993) and by a ‘survey on the effectsof preschool on Basarwa primary school childrenin the Ghanzi district of Botswana’ (Kuru Develop-ment Trust, 1995).

2. Research problem

In the light of the above, the study aimed atfinding out whether there were significant differ-ences in the performances of Botswana grade onepupils with pre-school experience and theircounterparts without such an experience on selec-ted tasks in English language, mathematics andscience. And for an in-depth study of the researchproblem, the study was guided by the followingresearch questions:

1. Is there a significant difference in performancebetween Botswana grade one pupils with pre-school education experience and their counter-parts without such an experience in selectedtasks in English language, mathematics andscience during their first few weeks in the pri-mary school?

2. Is there a significant difference in performancebetween the two groups of pupils in the individ-ual subject areas of English language, math-ematics and science during the same period?

3. Is there a significant difference in the perform-ance of the male subjects with pre-school edu-cation experience and their counterparts withoutsuch an experience in the three subject areasduring the same period?

4. Is there a significant difference in the perform-ance of the female subjects with pre-school

background and those of them without such abackground in the three subject areas during thesame period?

5. What are Botswana grade one teachers’ opi-nions regarding the academic performance andthe social adjustment level of the two groups ofpupils in primary school?

3. Research methodology

3.1. Research design

The nature of the study dictated the employmentof a survey technique for data collection. In parti-cular, a comparative survey method which allowedperformance comparison between the two studygroups was used with a view to obtaining pertinentdata from the study samples and presenting theresearch findings there from without the manipu-lation of the subjects of the study (Cohen andManion, 1994).

3.2. Population and sample selection

The population of the study comprised grade onepupils in Botswana public primary schools(Setswana medium schools) during the beginningof the school year in January 1999. A preponder-ance of the pupils whose ages ranged between sixand eight years had never seen the inside of a class-room before their admission into grade one classesat the beginning of that school year because pre-school education services which are normally pro-vided by NGOs, women’s groups, churches andinterested individuals to the children of ordinaryBatswana fell outside the 10-year basic educationservices provided free by the government of Bots-wana. The population of the study comprised chil-dren of low-income parents or of the so-called‘masses’ . The preponderance of the population didnot have access to pre-school education because ofthe non-universalization of pre-primary education;and the limited number of them that did, did sobecause of the importance their parents attached tothis level of education which motivated them topay the nominal fees charged by the voluntary bod-


ies offering day-care centre facilities for childrenfrom disadvantaged homes.

For sample selection, purposive sampling tech-nique was used to select three geographical areasfor the study. These are Gaborone (to representurban settings), Tlokweng (to represent peri-urbansettings) and Mahalapye (to represent rural areas).From each of the three areas selected, four publicprimary schools were randomly selected; and onegrade one class was then randomly selected fromeach of the participating schools. In all, 12 gradeone classes in 12 schools representing the threegeographical areas (of urban, peri-urban and ruralareas) participated in the study. The selection ofthe classes was then followed by the stratificationof the pupils in each of the classes into two strataconsisting of the pupils who had been exposed topre-school education and those that had not beenexposed prior to their admission into grade oneclasses. Because of the limited number of pupilswith pre-school background experience in each ofthe 12 selected classes, five pupils with such anexposure were randomly selected from each of thetwelve selected grade one classes. In like manner,simple random technique was used to select fivepupils each per class from the other stratum (i.e.those without pre-school education experience). Bydoing so, the study sample consisted of a total of120 grade one pupils made up of 60 pupils withpre-school exposure and the rest without such anexposure from the 12 grade one classes in 12 pub-lic primary schools in Botswana. In addition topupil sample, 20 grade one teachers were randomlychosen from the 12 selected schools to participatein the study.

3.3. Instrumentation

Two instruments: (i) pupil assessment instru-ment; and (ii) teachers’ questionnaire used for datacollection were constructed by the researchers dueto non-availability of suitable instruments for thestudy. Details of the construction exercise are pro-vided below.

3.3.1. Pupil assessment instrumentThe construction of the pupils’ assessment

instrument was influenced by the works of Blenkin

and Kelly (1992), Good (1977) and Gull (1994).According to these authors, the basic purpose ofassessment in childhood education setting is todetermine the child’s developmental functioningcapability or to determine what knowledge and/orskills the child has acquired as a result of specificchildhood education experience. They opined thatthe starting point in assessing such a child is tofocus on what he/she can do and not on whathe/she is expected to be capable of doing. It is forthis reason that the focus of assessment in earlychildhood period is on the basic processes ofobserving, classifying, measuring, making things,using numbers etc.

Based on the above, the construction of thepupils’ assessment instrument concerned itselfwith finding out whether or not a grade one pupilis able to:

(i) state his/her name correctly(ii) name identified parts of his/her body(iii) follow simple instructions (such as clapyour hands)(iv) count numbers up to ten(v) recognize numbers from one to ten(vi) match number of objects with numerals(vii) identify common geometrical shapesaround the classroom(viii) name at least five different colours(ix) identify colours of identified objects inthe classroom(x) recite the first five letters of the alphabet(xi) sort given coins according to the pictureson them(xii) classify given objects as either light orheavy(xiii) order linear objects by their lengths(xiv) compare objects(xv) contrast objects

The above exercise led to the construction of a 15-item pupils’ assessment instrument consisting offive English-related items, five mathematics-related items and five science-related items.

3.3.2. Teachers’ questionnaireThis consisted of both close-ended and open-

ended items requesting information on their view


about the importance of pre-school education andtheir opinions about the academic and socialadjustment differences, if any, between primaryschool pupils with pre-school education back-ground and their counterparts without such anexperience.

3.3.3. Validation of research instrumentsThe pupils’ assessment instrument was face vali-

dated for suitability and relevance by a three-mem-ber panel of early childhood educators. Furthervalidation of the instrument was carried out by‘ test-trying’ it in a pilot study in one grade oneclass in one of the urban schools not selected forthe study. A total of ten grade one pupils (half ofwhom had pre-school exposure) took part in thepilot study. Feedback from the pilot study was usedto re-sequence the items of the instrument to ensurethat items were listed according to their difficultylevels with the easier items coming first in each ofthe three categories of the instrument. The modi-fied 15-item instrument is contained in AppendixA for ease of reference.

The teachers’ questionnaire was also face-vali-dated by the same three-member panel of earlychildhood educators. They unanimously concurredthat the instrument is robust enough to elicit therequired information from the pupils’ teachers (SeeAppendix B).

3.3.4. Reliability determinationThe reliability determination of the pupils’

assessment instrument was carried out using test–retest technique. This was done by administeringthe modified instrument twice on another group often grade one pupils. In line with literature, theintervening period between the two administrationsof the instrument was set at two weeks. Areliability coefficient of 0.75 resulted from thisexercise for the instrument.

3.4. Data collection

Data for the study were collected during the firstthree weeks of the 1999 school year when no for-mal teaching had started in any of the selectedclasses. Prior to data collection, permission wassought and obtained from the relevant arms of the

Ministry of Education to conduct the study; and theheadteachers of the selected schools were briefedadequately about the purpose of the study and themodality for data collection. Each participatingpupil was individually interviewed in the mothertongue and in rudimentary commands in Englishlanguage by one of the researchers using the pupilassessment instrument as a guide. The teachers’responses to the subject matter of the study wereobtained through the administration of copies ofthe teachers’ questionnaire on the participating tea-chers.

3.5. Data analysis

Data for the study were analysed by means ofboth descriptive and inferential statistical tech-niques. Qualitative data analysis procedure wasalso employed. Highlights of the analyses carriedout are given below.

3.5.1. Pupils’ assessment instrumentOn the basis of one point for each correct pupil

response to the 15-item pupils’ assessment instru-ment, t-test analysis was carried out for the resol-ution of research questions 1–4.

3.5.2. Teachers’ questionnaireThe open-ended questions in the teachers’ ques-

tionnaire were analysed qualitatively. The teachers’responses to the close-ended items of the question-naire were ignored in the consideration for the res-olution of research question 5 because of the lackof consistency in the responses of the teachers tothe items.

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Overall performance in the three subjectareas

Pupils with pre-school experience out-performedtheir counterparts without such a background in thethree subject areas of English language, mathemat-ics and science as depicted by Table 1 below.

The statistical t-test computed to test for signifi-cant difference between the means of the two


Table 1Overall performance of grade one pupils with and without pre-school education background in the three subject areas

School-type Mean Standard No. ofbackground deviation pupils

Pre-school 46.39 11.11 60Non-pre-school 27.78 6.74 60

groups of pupils yielded a value of 10.18, whichwas found to be significant at 0.01 level. Thismeant that there was a significant differencebetween the pupils with pre-school backgroundand their counterparts without such a backgroundin the three subject areas covered by the study.This finding shows that children with pre-schoolbackground significantly out-perform theircounterparts without such a background. The find-ing is in agreement with the finding by Otaala etal. (1989) concerning the impact of day-care pro-grammes. The researchers reported that childrenattending day-care programmes performed better inprimary school than their counterparts withoutsuch a background.

Children who have gone through some form ofearly childhood intervention tend to acquire certainbasic skills, which enable them to make an easiertransition into primary school environment. Thesechildren continue to have this advantage at least forthe first few years during their period of schooling(Myers, 1992).

The point must be stressed that the observed dif-ference between the two groups was not due toidentifiable pre-determining family backgroundfactors (such as the pupils’ parental socio-econ-omic and education background) but to the natureof the pre-school experiences the pupils wereexposed to. In fact, the pupils are children of poorparents who cannot afford the high fees charged bypre-schools for the children of socio-economicallyadvantaged parents. But because of the importancethese poor parents attach to this level of education,they are motivated to pay the nominal fee chargedby the bodies offering day-care facilities for thechildren of the disadvantaged. Many such centresin the country “depend almost entirely for their

operational costs on a small annual grant theyreceive from their councils and on the (very small)fees they can charge parents” (Bar-on and Jacques,1999). It is significant to note that the “very smallfees” many such pre-schools in the country chargeare less than US$ 20 per term per child; and thatnone of the pre-schools covered by the studycharge more than US$ 50 per term per child.

To all intents and purposes, members of thestudy population, whether with or without pre-school education, could at best be classified as“ordinary children” . They all invariably end up inthe free public primary schools provided by thegovernment after their sojourn in such pre-schoolswhile their counterparts from socio-economicallyadvantaged homes continue their education in theirrespective high-fee paying schools popularlyreferred to as “English medium nursery & pri-mary schools” .

It should be pointed out too that even thoughthere is no policy on national minimum standardsfor programme offerings of these “early childhoodcare and education services” in Botswana now(Bar-on and Jacques, 1999), abundant opport-unities are provided by many a centre for the chil-dren of socio-economically disadvantaged parentsto interact with one another and to engage in awide variety of activities such as using pencils andcrayons, making things, learning the alphabets andnumerals, classifying things according to colourand/or shape etc.

Milbank and Osborn (1987) observed that in apre-school setting, as children interact with theirpeers and engage in a wide variety of activities,their cognitive development is stimulated. Thisadvantage perhaps came to the fore in the resultsof the subjects of this study in English language,mathematics and science tasks where the pre-school graduates significantly out-performed theircounterparts without pre-school background in allthe three subject areas.

Based on the above discussion, it is logical toascribe the observed difference between the twogroups of the study sample to the nature of thepre-school experiences they were exposed to ratherthan to the socio-cultural background from whichthey were drawn.


4.2. Performances in the individual subject areas

In addition to the overall performance of thestudy sample in the three subject areas, the per-formances of the pupils with pre-school back-ground and their counterparts without pre-schoolbackground in the individual subject areas ofEnglish language, mathematics and science fieldedstatistically significant results at 0.01 level of sig-nificance in favour of the group with pre-schoolexperience as contained in Table 2 below.

From the results contained in Table 2 above, themean differences in the performances of the twogroups of pupils in the subject areas of Englishlanguage, mathematics and science were not dueto chance but to the inherent difference betweenthe two groups. These significant differencesbetween the two groups underscore the salutaryeffect of pre-school education on its recipients asthe differences turn out to be in their favour. Inall the three subject areas, pre-school backgroundseems to impact positively on academic perform-ance in grade one in conformity with the findingby Otaala and his co-workers in 1989.

4.3. Overall performance in the three subjectareas by gender

The analyses carried out to determine whetherthere were any differences in the overall perform-ance in the three subject areas between boys withand without pre-school background on the onehand and between girls with and without pre-school background, on the other yielded the fol-lowing results.

Table 2Performances of grade one pupils with and without pre-school education background in English language, mathematics and science

Subject areas School-type Mean scores Standard deviation No. of pupils Computed t-valuesa

English language Pre-school 14.24 5.20 60 10.24Non-pre-school 6.15 3.16 60

Mathematics Pre-school 16.42 3.92 60 7.70Non-pre-school 10.34 4.70 60

Science Pre-school 15.73 3.62 60 7.54Non-pre-school 11.28 2.80 60

a All are significant at 0.01 level (with tabled t-value=2.61 at df=118).

As can be seen from Table 3, both mean differ-ences (for the male group and the female group)in the three subject areas are significantly differentin favour of the group with pre-school background.These results further buttress the fact that pre-school education has a salutary effect on the earlyeducation of the child (Otaala et al., 1989).

4.4. Teachers’ views on the subject

The pupils’ teachers’ views were sought on thesubject to provide additional evidence for therationalization of the emerging results. Using open-ended questions, the teachers were requested toindicate their views as to whether it was importantfor children to go through pre-school before com-ing into grade one. Their views were also soughton observable academic and adjustment differencesbetween pupils with pre-school background andthose without. All the respondents agreed that itwas important for all children to go through pre-school. The teachers’ comments on first graders’performance, based both on their observation andexperience, supported the finding that pupils withpre-school experience tend to out-perform theircounterparts without such a background in gradeone. They claimed that pupils with pre-school edu-cation experience are better prepared for primaryschool education in that they would have acquiredsome pre-reading skills, counting skills and finemotor cum social skills during their pre-schooleducation. They opined that the acquisition ofthese skills put the pre-school group ahead of theother group in communicating, counting, and hold-


Table 3Performances of male pupils with and without pre-school education background vis-a-vis their female counterparts

Gender School-type background Mean scores Standard deviation No. of pupils Computed t- aluesa

Boys Pre-school 44.82 11.83 31 6.65Non-pre-school 27.79 7.54 29

Girls Pre-school 48.13 10.19 28 7.86Non-pre-school 27.77 9.79 32

a Both are significant at 0.01 level (with tabled t-value=2.65 at df=58).

ing pencils and crayons as well as in writing anddrawing.

Two major themes merged from the teachers’responses. These centred on the following:

1. Familiarity with the school environment.2. Acquisition of some basic skills from pre-

school.

4.4.1. Familiarity with the school environmentThe respondents indicated that when children

went through pre-school before admission intograde one classes, they tended to become easilyadapted to the classroom situation and the schoolenvironment as a whole. Because they are used tothe school set-up, they socialize easily with boththe teacher and other children. Due to this favour-able adjustment, learning seems to be easier forthem than for those without pre-school experience.In support of this observation, the verbatimresponses of some of the teachers are reproducedbelow for ease of reference.

Teacher 1: “Yes, it is very important because itsets them ready for standard one. They can eas-ily follow instructions and are used to manypeople” .Teacher 2: “Pre-school pupils are used toschool. They don’ t cry. They know whatschool is” .Teacher 3: “ It is important for children to gothrough pre-school because it helps them tosocialize with others to know what is requiredof them in school” .Teacher 4: “They get used to coming to school,unlike those that come straight from home” .

Teacher 5: “Children from pre-school classescome with some skills and they already knowmost things about school life” .

The above is consistent with the findings from thestudy by Bigala et al. (1993) about the learningneeds of Botswana children in standards one andtwo when the researchers found that:

Children with pre-school experience were aheadin learning tasks than those without. They coulddraw, read, sing and sort objects. They knewhow to hold pens…. They were confident andwell adjusted to the school environment (p. 13).

4.4.2. Acquisition of some basic skills from pre-school

In response to the second question, the teachersstated the differences in learning characteristicsbetween pupils with pre-school and those withoutpre-school experience as follows:

(a) Pre-school graduates: From the teachers’responses, it was noted that pre-school graduateswere able to communicate freely with the teacherand their classmates. They brought with them frompre-school some pre-reading skills, which enabledthem to be fast in doing some related tasks. Mostof them could respond to instructions in Englishlanguage and had fully developed some fine motorskills in that they could, for example, hold crayonsand pencils correctly.

(b) Non-pre-school graduates: It was gleanedfrom the teachers’ responses that children withoutpre-school background were shy, scared of speak-ing to the teacher and other children. They couldnot hold crayons and pencils properly and were shy


to communicate freely. To support this, some ver-batim statements from the teachers are repro-duced below:

Teacher 1: “Pre-schoolers learn fast becausethey understand what is needed in class. Thosewithout pre-school background are shy, whisperwhen they speak and sometimes use vulgar lan-guage” .Teacher 2: “Pre-schoolers perform most activi-ties basing on what they got from pre-school butthe other group base on nothing” .Teacher 3: “Pre-school children freely partici-pate in class but those without pre-school needto be attended fully” .Teacher 4: “Those with pre-school backgroundcan communicate freely, can write their namesand can respond to simple commands inEnglish. Those without the background are shy,can’ t hold crayons properly and can’ t writetheir names” .Teacher 5: “Pre-school ones often learn fast andshow interest whenever given some work to do.The children who didn’ t go to pre-school alwaysneed most of the teacher’s help” .

All in all, the results indicated a marked differencein performance between the two groups of learnersdue to pre-school experience or lack of it. Childrenwith pre-school experience have an advantage overthe other group of children (that is, those withoutpre-school experience) because they are alreadyused to the school setting. They have pre-requisiteskills for learning which boost their performancein grade one. The grade one teachers find it easyto work with pre-school graduates as they are eas-ier to teach. As a result, the grade one teachersexpress the concern that if all the country’s chil-dren went through pre-school before their admis-sion into primary school, teaching would be easierfor them. Below are some verbatim statementsmade by some of the teachers in support of pre-school education.

Teacher 1: “ I recommend that all children to goto pre-school so that standard one teachers tocater for the same level and pre-schools shouldhave syllabuses” .

Teacher 2: “ It’s useful if all day-care centersteach them the same thing” .Teacher 3: “Every child should go through pre-school so that they are exposed to what is hap-pening in school” .Teacher 4: “All children should start at pre-school so that they have same background atstandard one” .

5. Conclusions, recommendation andimplication

Based on above findings, the following con-clusions can be drawn.

1. Pre-school education equips pupils so exposedwith pre-requisite skills for learning in primaryschool. It was these pre-requisite skills thataccounted for the superior performance of thepupils with pre-school education experience inthe selected tasks in English language, math-ematics and science over their counterpartswithout such an experience.

2. Pre-school education appears to have positiveeffect on its recipients in early primary as pupilswith such an exposure demonstrate superior aca-demic attainment at this level. Consequently,children without such a background performedsignificantly lower in this study than theircounterparts with such an experience. This is thecase because they lack some of the basic skillsand knowledge that their counterparts bring withthem from their pre-school classes to their pri-mary school classes. As a result, pupils withoutpre-school education background tend to adjustmuch slower than their counterparts with suchan exposure to the school environment at leastduring their early days in the primary school.

3. The pupils’ teachers concurred with the notionof the salutary effect of pre-school education onits recipients. They opined that pre-school edu-cation is useful in assisting grade one pupils inthe primary school to learn without tears. Theywere of the opinion that all children should haveaccess to pre-school education because of its


positive effect before admission into grade oneclasses in the regular public primary schools.

Deriving from the findings of this study, it is rec-ommended that Botswana government should worktowards universalizing pre-school education. Thiscould be done by integrating pre-school educationinto the current 10-year basic education policy.The above, no doubt, has a far-reaching impli-cation for primary school teacher preparation inthat its scope and content have to be significantlymodified to cater for pre-school education. Theneed for an enabling policy on pre-primary edu-cation by government to deal with issues such aspre-school curriculum, funding and resources forpre-school education in the country is also under-scored by the findings of this study.

Table 4Pupils’ rating sheet

SCHOOL:AGE:BOY/GIRL:PRE-SCHOOL STATUS:URBAN/Non-URBAN:COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT

A English language Possible scores Actual scores

The child is able to:1 Say his/her own name 12 Name four objects in the classroom in English 43 Name five body parts 54 Recite the first five letters of the alphabet 55 Follow simple instructions in English 5

Total 20B Mathematics1 Count from 1 to 10 52 Recognize numbers 1–5 53 Match number of object with numerals 44 Recognize two geometric shapes in objects around the classroom 25 Sort coins according to their pictures 4

Total 20C Science1 Order 5 objects by length 52 Name any four colours 43 Identify five colours 54 Classify 4 objects as heavy/light 45 Compare and contrast objects 2

Total 20

Appendix A

Table 4.

Appendix B. Grade one teachers’questionnaire

B.1. An Agree–Disagree Scale

Directions:A. This ‘Agree–Disagree Scale’ is designed to

seek your ideas on the impact of pre-school edu-cation on grade one pupils. It would be appreciatedif you could rate as sincerely as possible each ofthe statements below on a five-point scale as towhether you strongly agree, agree, neutral, dis-


Table 5

(a) Gender:(i) Male(ii) Female

(b) Experience as a grade one teacher:(i) Less than 5 years(ii) Between 5 and 10 years(iii) More than 10 years

(c) Your qualification:(i) Diploma(ii) Degree(iii) Other (specify)

Close-ended questions:

Strongly Agree Neutral Disagree Stronglyagree disagree

Pre-school graduates learn everything faster than non-pre-school graduatesNon-pre-school graduates lag behind pre-school graduates inperforming number operationsPre-school graduates are easier to manage in class than non-pre-school graduatesPre-school graduates can already write by the time they getto grade 1Pre-school graduates learn all forms of counting faster thannon-pre-school graduatesPre-school graduates are able to easily sort objects accordingto various attributesPre-school graduates easily follow instructions in EnglishNon-pre-school graduates are less active in class discussionsthan pre school graduates

Open-ended questions:1. Is it important for children to go through pre-school before coming into grade one? Yes/No. (Please give reasons for youranswer.)2. As a grade one teacher, what differences have you observed between children with pre-school background and those withoutin the way they learn?Thank you

agree or strongly disagree with the statements. Ple-ase indicate your preference with a tick in theappropriate column below. At the end, you arerequested to answer the last two questions in thespaces provided.

B. Please give the following information aboutyourself by making a tick opposite the appropriateresponse. (Table 5).

References

Adams, G., Sandfort, J., 1992. State investments in childcareand early childhood education. Young Children 47 (6),33–35.

Bar-on, A., Jacques, G., 1999. Early childhood care and edu-cation in Botswana: revisiting the policy on day-carecentres. A consultancy paper for Botswana Ministry of Edu-cation.

Bernard van Leer Foundation, 1994. Building on people’s


strengths: early childhood in Africa. Bernard van Leer Foun-dation, The Hague.

Bernard van Leer Foundation, 1999. Early childhood matters:the effectiveness initiative. The Bulletin of the Bernard vanLeer Foundation, 93, 3–10.

Bigala, J., Seboni, M., Monau, R., 1993. The Learning Needs ofBotswana Children in Standards One and Two. GovernmentPrinter, Gaborone.

Blenkin, G.M., Kelly, A.V. (Eds.), 1992. Assessment in EarlyChildhood Education. Paul Chapman, London.

Brown, B., 1985. Head start: how research changed public pol-icy. Young Children 40 (5), 9–13.

Butler, A., 1970. Current Research in Early Childhood Edu-cation. Elementary–Kindergarten–Nursery Educators,Washington DC.

Cohen, L., Manion, L., 1994. Research Methods in Education.Routledge, London.

Good, R.G., 1977. How Children Learn Science. Macmillan,New York.

Government of Botswana, 1994. The Revised National Policyon Education. Government Printer, Gaborone.

Gull, D.F., 1994. Understanding Assessment and Evaluation inEarly Childhood Education. Teacher’s College Press, NewYork.

Hechinger, F., (Ed.), 1986. A Better Start: New Choices forEarly Learning. Walker and Company, New York.

Kellaghan, T., 1977. The Evaluation of an Intervention Pro-gramme for Disadvantaged Children. NFER PublishingCompany, London.

Knight, A., Hughes, D., 1995. Developing social competencein the pre-school years. Australian Journal of Early Child-hood 20 (2), 13–19.

Kuru Development Trust, 1995. The Challenges of Change: ASurvey on the Effects of Preschool on Basarwa PrimarySchool Children in the Ghanzi District of Botswana. Print-ing and Publishing Press, Gaborone.

Milbank, J.E., Osborn, A.F., 1987. The Effects of Early Edu-cation: A Report from the Child Health and EducationStudy. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Ministry of Education, 1993. Report of National Commissionon Education. Government Printer, Gaborone.

Ministry of Local Government and Lands, 1980. National Pol-icy on Day Care Centres. Government Printer, Gaborone.

Myers, R., 1992. The Twelve who Survive: Strengthening Pro-grammes of Early Childhood Development in the ThirdWorld. Routledge, London.

Nall, S.W., 1982. Bridging the gap: pre-school to kindergarten.Childhood Education 59 (2), 107–110.

Otaala, B.J., Kibria, G., Mwamwenda, K., 1982. Early Child-hood Education in Botswana: A Survey. UNICEF,Gaborone.

Otaala, B.J., Njenga, A., Monau, R., 1989. An Evaluation ofthe Day-Care Programme in Botswana. GovernmentPrinter, Gaborone.

Payne, S., et al., 1973. Head Start: A Tragicomedy with Epi-logue. Behavioural Publications, New York.

Smith, G., James, T., 1975. The effects of pre-school education:some American and British evidence. Oxford Review ofEducation 1 (3), 223–240.

Tizard, J., 1975. The objectives and organization of educationaland day care services for young children. Oxford Reviewof Education 1 (3), 211–220.

Documents

The effect of pre-school education on academic performance in primary school: a case study of grade one pupils in Botswana