This study contributes to the Western-normed whole-day versus half-day kindergarten debate with Asian-focused evidence from a longitudinal study on parental perceptions, needs, and decisions in the privatised kindergarten marketplace in Hong Kong. The parents of children attending the whole-day and half-day programmes were surveyed in the first two years of kindergarten. Both programmes were perceived to possess distinctive qualities and parents reflected an effortful quest for an optimal home–work–life balance. Two-step cluster analysis identified three parent profiles – the Slightest Needs, the Moderate Needs, and the Urgent Needs – differentiated by family income, parents' occupation and education, and residence ownership. Finally, logistic regression analyses predicting parental decisions found a shift from a socioeconomic orientation to an educational orientation. The findings indicate that the ‘either or’ thinking in this debate is problematic as what parents need is not the ‘best’ programme but the best ‘fit’. The 4As approach – allocation, affordability, availability, and accessibility, was proposed for policy refinement to cater for evolving societal, familial, and educational dynamics.

Decades of research in the West cannot determine whether the whole-day or half-day kindergarten program is more beneficial to children's development. In Hong Kong, despite strong public demand for the whole-day program, mixed research findings have led the government to support the half-day program only. As a supplement to a large-scale 2-year longitudinal study, this mixed methods study adopted Donabedian's (2003) approach to explore this complex social-educational issue with reference to Hong Kong-Chinese educators’ perceptions of the whole-day kindergarten program. The authors surveyed 180 kindergarten educators from 15 randomly sampled kindergartens and conducted interviews with 30 of these educators one year later. The results showed that the whole-day program allowed for structural, curricular, and pedagogical improvement, enhanced children's development, and eased families’ childcare concerns. The disadvantages, however, were reduced parent–child time and heavier tuition fees. The findings imply that no “best” program exists, only a better program “fit.” Program selection should reflect family preferences and needs while ensuring high-quality learning opportunities and active parental involvement. The whole-day program is recommended for families that lack a stimulating home environment and childcare resources; the half-day program might be a better fit for financially able families with adequate childcare resources. The authors argue that the supply and affordability of the free whole-day program should better match the needs of families. Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.