Kindergarten Entry Assessments and Early Learning Challenge Grants

Early Learning Challenge Collaborative: a partnership between BUILD and First Five Years Fund

a partnership between BUILD and First Five Years Fund


Kindergarten Entry Assessments and Early Learning Challenge Grants

Some Basics

Presented by:Charles Bruner, CFPC andCatherine Scott-Little, UNCG

Moderated by:Eboni Howard, AIR

September 16, 2011


Presentation Areas

• KEA Definition• Key Purposes and Requirements• What the Scoring Advantage Means • Criteria for Assigning Points• Types of Assessment Instruments• Observational Assessment Examples• Components of a KEA System• Required Dual Use• Developing a “High Quality” Plan• Developing a Budget (that doesn’t break the grant or state budget)

• Final Thoughts


KEA Definition

• Is administered during the first few months of kindergarten;

• Covers all five Essential Domains of School Readiness;

• Upholds recommendations of the NRC reports on early childhood;

• Meets additional criteria for appropriate assessments;

• Is not to be used to prevent children’s entry into kindergarten.


Key Purposes and Requirements for Developing a KEAPurposes:• Inform instruction and services in the early elementary grades• Inform efforts to close the school readiness gap at kindergarten entry

Aligned with:• Early learning and development standards across five domains

Meet tests for:• Validity, reliability and appropriateness of use• Use with English language learners and children with disabilities

Part of:• Statewide longitudinal data system/state early childhood data system

To be administered:• As a common, statewide assessment• Beginning no later than the start of school year 2014-15

Funded:• In significant part, with Federal or State resources other than those available under

this grant


What the Scoring Advantage for KEA Means

• KEA is one option under Criteria E (40 points total).

• Selecting KEA is to state’s scoring advantage if it can score 70% in developing a high quality plan to implement one.

• If KEA is selected, states also will want to reference it in other parts of their plan (A1, A2, C2, C3,and Priority 4a, in particular).

• In general, GO FOR IT!


KEA in the Context of Efforts to Improve Children’s Educational Success

KEA

Birth………………………….XXX………………………..Eight

Look Back

Use as part of early learning and

development system improvement

Step Forward

Use as part of K-3 instruction and

services development

Review the referenced NRC reports for appropriate (and inappropriate) uses!


Criteria for Assigning Points for KEA (E1)

• Whether each element of the selection criterion is implemented or planned

• The quality of the implementation or plan• The extent to which the different types of Early

Learning and Development Programs in the State are included and addressed

• The extent to which the unique needs of the State’s special populations of Children with High Needs are considered and addressed


Types of Assessment Instruments

• Direct assessments (assessments administered directly to child)

• Observational assessments (assessments through ongoing observation of child)

• Parental reports or assessments (particularly on special needs or health concerns, but can be broader)

• Requirement that KEA cover five domains leans toward conducting an observational assessment (which may be complemented by direct assessment and parent reports).


Commercial Observational Assessment Examples: Touching Five Domains

WSS **

Maryland

GOLD Assessment

California

PVDP

# Items 30 39 37+2

Social & Emotional Development

Approaches to Learning

Language and Literacy

General Cognition

Physical Health and Motor Development

Cultural and Linguistic Appropriateness item

** Maryland adapted the WSS, using a portion of its items. There are many state variations in the use of WSS.


Components of a KEA System1. Common KEA instrument(s) used statewide2. Training/professional development to kindergarten

teachers to administer and use3. Application to inform practice in kindergarten4. Safeguards in place to ensure appropriate use of the

data5. Software and electronic storage of information at the

elementary school level6. Electronic transfer of information into statewide data

system7. Incorporation of electronic information into statewide

data system8. Application at the state level to inform efforts to close

kindergarten readiness gaps


Required Dual Use and Implementation• Possible “look back” uses

– To track state progress or changes in children’s general well being and readiness over time

– To identify service gaps that need to be addressed– To identify area where there are additional needs for

strategy development• Possible “step forward” uses

– To inform instruction by letting teachers and administrators know classroom needs

– To inform instruction by being part of ongoing individual student instruction (most beneficial if tied to other reports and parent teacher conferences)

– To inform K-3 standards and practice (Priority 4)


• Requires careful consideration of the instruments selected (because most instruments are not designed for dual purposes)

• Requires buy-in and ownership from multiple stakeholders

• Requires teachers recognize why it is important• Must demonstrate alignment with other teaching

activities for children

Implications for Dual Uses


Options in Selecting KEA Approach

• Chose/adapt an existing commercial assessment and justify its ability to meet all conditions and negotiate on costs, ownership, and use

• Develop own state assessment (new or adaptation/revision)

• Work as part of a “cross-state consortium” to develop assessment or core elements of assessment

Some Considerations• Value in having tool that can be scored, analyzed, and

evaluated on an ongoing basis at classroom and state level

• Value in considering parent observations as complement to KEA assessment


Developing a “High Quality” Plan

• State doesn’t need to have a KEA in place – will be scored on developing a “high quality plan” to build one.

• State doesn’t have to start from scratch.• State has time to build ownership and to test

prototypes and elements.• The process itself can lead to the understanding

and support needed to ensure KEA is useful at the school and state level.


High Quality Plan (1) – Key Goals

• To inform efforts to close the school readiness gap– How data will be used to look at subpopulations and target

areas• To inform instruction and services in the early

elementary school grades– How kindergarten teachers will use the data to inform

instruction for children in their classroom– Potential for extending early development and learning

approach into kindergarten and creating better alignment with early childhood programs

– Potential for informing early elementary guidelines and practice to incorporate five domains (Priority 4a)


High Quality Plan (2) – Key Activities• Planning process

• Resources that can inform plans for the KEA• Analysis of alignment with early learning and development

standards• Legislation and/or regulations that may be needed and how

to enact them• Actual KEA System

• Instrumentation (and issues that must be considered)• By whom and when the KEA will be administered• Training that will be needed• Administrative procedures and safeguards

• Preparing for Implementation• Pilot testing the instrument, administrative procedures, and

training• Building data management systems• Preparations for scaling the KEA up (including plans for

implementation to be phased in).


High Quality Plan (3) – Timeline, Parties Responsible, and Finances

• Realistic timeline, including key milestones, for implementing each key activity– Must implement the KEA in a public school kindergarten in 2014-

15 school year– Need to allow time for a planning process, instrument

development/procurement, piloting, testing the data system, and planning scale-up activities

– Want to show capacity to implement as expeditiously as possible• Party or parties responsible for implementing each activity

– Need to demonstrate that state has sufficient persons with expertise to carry out the activities

– May be important to demonstrate the planning process will involve stakeholders at different levels and with different roles

– Good to demonstrate commitment across the executive and legislative branches of government

• Appropriate financial resources to support successful implementation of the plan


High Quality Plan (4) – Scoring Criteria• Plans for how the State will address the needs of the different types

of Early Learning and Development programs, if applicable.– States could describe how the data from KEA will inform early

learning and development instruction and identify where children are doing well and where children in the state demonstrate less competence or gaps in the services they have received

• How the State will meet the needs of Children with High Needs, as well as the unique needs of special populations of Children with High Needs– States could describe how the unique needs and characteristics

of Children with High Needs will be considered when planning and implementing the KEA, and how data from the KEA will be used to address services for Children with High Needs.


Developing a Budget for the KEA (that doesn’t break the grant or State budget)• Instrument selection/development and costs

– Many development costs represent in-kind costs from stakeholders in developing the High Quality Plan

• Training and professional development for KEA administration– This is key to making the assessment effective but also should

be part of training and professional development investments in kindergarten teachers (who will be the administrators)

• LEA cost in administering, scoring, using, and reporting to state– These costs are not unique to KEA but apply to developing the

statewide longitudinal database overall• State cost in receiving, aggregating, and using the data

– These costs are not unique to KEA but apply to developing the statewide longitudinal database overall


Possible Funding Sources for the KEA

• Grant itself• In-kind commitment of planning efforts and

activities• Funding from Sections 6111 and 6112 of ESEA• Funding from IES/longitudinal database

development and use• Funding for information system development at

LEAs


Demystifying KEA – Co-Presenters’ 1963 Kindergarten Report Card

• First report card after two months of kindergarten year

• Covered five domains

• Scored as 1-2-3 (beginning, developing, mastering)

• Incorporated observational and direct assessment items

• Shared with parents at parent-teacher conference

• Used for instructional purposes

• Not a “high stakes” testing tool


Additional Advice

While the RTT-LC application separates the KEA (E1) from the comprehensive assessment system (C2) …

– It is important to think of the KEA as a part of the comprehensive assessment system that links the early development and learning system with the K-12 education system.

– This may be achieved through discussing KEA and its integration within A1 and A2, C2 and C4 and Priority 4a, as well as in E1.


Conclusion

States have much to gain by planning for/implementing a KEA

– Substantial points in the RTT ELC– Useful information on the status of children as they

enter kindergarten– Improved instruction in kindergarten– Improved services and outcomes for High Needs

Children

Careful planning, significant resources, and careful implementation will be needed to realize the potential benefits of the KEA.


About the PresentersCharles Bruner, Ph.D.

Executive Director

Child & Family Policy Center

Director

Build Research and Evaluation

505 5th Avenue, Suite 404

Des Moines, IA 50309

515-280-9027

[email protected]

www.cfpciowa.org

www.finebynine.org

www.buildinitiative.org

Catherine Scott-Little, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

Human Development and Family Studies

School of Health and Human Sciences

University of North Carolina at Greensboro

PO Box 26170

Greensboro, NC 27402-6170

336 256-0132

[email protected]