The Early Development Instrument: A Kindergarten Readiness

Report
Updated January 2013
“There’s an enormous brain drain being lost in our
country. Children under 5 are not being empowered to
reach their potential and it’s a huge loss to children,
their parents, their community, and our society”
--Neal Halfon, M.D., Director, UCLA Center for Healthier Children,
Families & Communities
“Young children are our last chance at prevention”
--Nina Sazer O’Donnell, Vice President, Education, United Way
Worldwide
2
Project overview
 Data--Early Development Instrument implementation
 Complete EDI in all schools in partner districts in 3
years (2011-3)—approximately 5,000 children
 Move EDI outside Tulsa area (2012-3)
 Action--Using results for system improvement
 Community response in selected neighborhoods (20123)
 School-based responses
3
The Early Development Instrument
 Developed in Canada in 1998 and expanding across US
since 2009
 Population-based (results for neighborhoods and
schools but not individual children)
 Teacher-administered (no child involvement or use of
class time)
 Kindergarten level (first comprehensive and
comparable assessment under grade 3)
 Multi-domain (not just “academics”)
 Evaluations show high reliability, moderate validity,
good predictive validity
4
RESULTS
5
EDI Tulsa Overall Results
3,100 children 2011-12
EDI Domain
All Tulsa
Definitions
Developmentally
“Very Ready”
408 (14%)
75th percentile or higher on 4 or more
of the 5 domains
Developmentally
Vulnerable on 2
or More
Domains
600 (20%) 10th percentile or lower on 2 or more
of the 5 domains
Multiple
Challenge Index
236 (8%)
“Not ready” on 9 or more of the 15
sub-domains
Most are included in
“Developmentally Vulnerable”
6
EDI Sub-domains with High
Vulnerability
EDI Domain
All Tulsa Key sub-domain issues
Vulnerable
Physical Health and
Well-Being
20%
14% not physically ready for school
18% not physically independent
32% not ready in motor skills
Social Competence
15%
18% not ready in approaches to
learning
14% not ready in responsibility and
respect
Emotional Maturity
18%
32% not ready in prosocial/helping
26% not ready in hyperactive and
inattentive behavior
21% not ready in aggressive behavior
Language and
Cognitive Skills
(school-based)
12%
20% not ready in interest in
literacy/numeracy
Communication
Skills and general
knowledge
9%
(no sub-domains)
7
TULSA SUBGROUP
RESULTS
(2011 results only, approximately 1,500 children)
8
Whether Attended Any Pre-K
% Very Ready
% Vulnerable
25%
25%
20%
20%
15%
14%
15%
17%
15%
10%
10%
5%
5%
0%
0%
Pre-K (42% of No Pre-K (58%)
children)
22%
Pre-K*
No Pre-K
* Indicates significantly different from children who did not attend pre-K
9
Whether Enrolled in CAP Age 4
% Very Ready
% Vulnerable
25%
25%
21%
20%
15%
20%
15%
15%
15%
11%
10%
10%
5%
5%
0%
0%
Not CAP (81%
of children)
CAP* (19%)
Not CAP
CAP*
*Indicates results differ significantly from children who were not in CAP at age 4.
Children in CAP at 4 are also significantly less likely to have multiple challenges.
10
% Vulnerable by Preschool
% Vulnerable
25%
20%
23%
18%
15%
14%
15%
12%
10%
5%
0%
No CAP as 3 & No CAP as 3 &
no PreK as 4
PreK as 4
CAP as 3 &
PreK as 4
CAP as 3 &
CAP as 3 &
CAP PreK as 4 non-CAP PreK
as 4
11
% Developmentally Vulnerable
by Domain—CAP Status
25%
20%
15%
10%
CAP at Age 4 (19% of
children)
Not CAP at Age 4 (81%)
5%
0%
12
EDI Maps
13
EDI Maps
 Show results by where children live, not where they go
to school
 Maps that are not included in this presentation also
show domain vulnerability, socioeconomic status,
community assets identified by CAP.
14
% vulnerable on 2+ domains by
neighborhood, central Tulsa
15
% Vulnerable, Physical Health and WellBeing
16
Next Steps
17
Continue EDIs


In Tulsa
 Complete 3rd year EDIs (January-March)
 Review results (November)
 3 years combined
 Can compare with other areas in state for first time
Outside Tulsa
 Expanding in north and southeast Oklahoma this
school year
 Expecting to expand further in 2013-14.
18
Using EDI results to change
systems
 Community continues response (CAP)





Share results with school boards, city leadership, business and
community groups
Use results in ongoing neighborhood efforts (Kendall-Whittier
and Eugene Field)
School-based presentations and discussions
Identifying community partners
Identifying local areas for response
 School response (districts)

Review school-level and neighborhood-level results with faculty,
parents, neighborhood groups and determine next steps (with
CAP assistance if desired)
19
For more information
 Paul Shinn, Public Policy Analyst, CAP
 [email protected]
 (918)855-3638
 Caleb Gayle, Advocacy and Outreach Specialist, CAP
 [email protected]
 (918)629-7039
 TECCS national site (fact sheets, sample documents,
evaluations, local community efforts, etc.)http://teccs.net/
20

similar documents