Tulsa’s Kindergarten Readiness Assessment Pilot Project

PROJECT OVERVIEW& year 1-2 results

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 Worldwide2

Project overviewData--Early Development Instrument

implementationComplete 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 (2012-3)

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 2011-12EDI Domain All

TulsaDefinitions

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-domainsMost are included in “Developmentally Vulnerable”

6

EDI Sub-domains with High Vulnerability

EDI Domain All Tulsa Vulnerab

le

Key sub-domain issues

Physical Health and Well-Being

20% 14% not physically ready for school18% not physically independent32% not ready in motor skills

Social Competence

15% 18% not ready in approaches to learning14% not ready in responsibility and respect

Emotional Maturity

18% 32% not ready in prosocial/helping26% not ready in hyperactive and inattentive behavior21% 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

Pre-K (42% of children)

No Pre-K (58%)

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

14% 15%

% Very Ready

Pre-K* No Pre-K0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

17%

22%

% Vulnerable

9* Indicates significantly different from children who did not attend pre-K

Whether Enrolled in CAP Age 4

Not CAP (81% of children)

CAP* (19%)0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

15%

11%

% Very Ready

Not CAP CAP*0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%21%

15%

% Vulnerable

10

*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.

% Vulnerable by Preschool

No CAP as 3 & no

PreK as 4

No CAP as 3 & PreK as

4

CAP as 3 & PreK as 4

CAP as 3 & CAP PreK

as 4

CAP as 3 & non-CAP PreK as 4

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25% 23%

18%

14%12%

15%

% Vulnerable

11

% Developmentally Vulnerable by Domain—CAP Status

Phys

ical

Socia

l

Emotion

al

Lang

uage

Gener

al0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

CAP at Age 4 (19% of children)Not CAP at Age 4 (81%)

12

EDI Maps

13

EDI MapsShow results by where children live, not

where they go to schoolMaps 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 Well-Being

16

Next Steps

17

Continue EDIsIn Tulsa

Complete 3rd year EDIs (January-March)Review results (November)

3 years combinedCan compare with other areas in state for

first timeOutside Tulsa

Expanding in north and southeast Oklahoma this school year

Expecting to expand further in 2013-14.

18

Using EDI results to change systemsCommunity 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 informationPaul Shinn, Public Policy Analyst, CAP

pshinn@captc.org(918)855-3638

Caleb Gayle, Advocacy and Outreach Specialist, CAPcgayle@captc.org(918)629-7039

TECCS national site (fact sheets, sample documents, evaluations, local community efforts, etc.)- http://teccs.net/

20