Katherine Edwards Minnesotas Kindergarten Entry Profile Pilot Results Background on Minnesotas Assessment History Discuss Context of Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge Outline Minnesotas KEA Revision Design ID: 768273
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Katherine Edwards Minnesota’s Kinderga..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Katherine Edwards Minnesota’s Kindergarten Entry Profile Pilot Results
Background on Minnesota’s Assessment History Discuss Context of Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge Outline Minnesota’s KEA Revision Design Review Results of Pilots Overview
Statutory Requirements for Assessment Birth to Five School Based Preschool Programs Kindergarten Entry Kindergarten Readiness Assessment Reading Well By Third GradeYearly Reporting Minnesota’s Assessment Landscape 2002-2013
Five Broad Goals All children ready for school Closing achievement gap All children reading on grade level at third grade High school graduation College and career ready World’s Best Workforce (2013-present)
Ready Children: According to Minnesota statute, a child is ready for kindergarten when he/she: Is at least 5 years of age by September 1st of the child’s enrollment year ( 120A.20) Has received early childhood screening (121A.17)Has received medically acceptable immunizations (121A.15)Explicit link to statuteExplicit link to standardsInclusive of all learnersMinnesota’s Expectations
Early Learning Standards (ECIPs) Knowledge and Competency Framework Program Standards (School Readiness Program and Parent Aware: Minnesota’s QRIS) Move Towards Standards Alignment
Minnesota’s Early Childhood Standards Called the Early Childhood Indicators of Progress (ECIPs) Have 6 domains Language, Literacy, and Communication Social Emotional CognitiveApproaches to LearningPhysicalArt
Revise Kindergarten Readiness Assessment Allowed for revisionBroadened purpose and goals of the KEA Comprehensive Assessment System Help early learning programs choose and use assessment tools Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge
EC Provider Competency Level Supports for Assessment
Minnesota’s KEA 2.0
Two goals Refocus energy to classroom practice Focus on standards Empirical equivalence to standards Using both early learning and K standards Two broad phasesPhase 1 – alignmentPhase 2 – assessment equivalencyThe KEA pilot
Tools can be piloted and re-piloted Pilot Phases
How do we know what we are measuring? Phase 1 Results
Beginning Kindergarten Assessment Brigance Inventory of Early Development Desired Results Developmental ProfileEarly Learning ScaleTeaching Strategies GoldWork Sampling System Formative Assessment System for Teachers* Tools tested
The pilot process works to identify alignment to standards The process is replicableKindergarten teachers need additional supports to implement Administrators need additional supports to alleviate testing burdenPhase 1 Take Homes
Claims & Proposed Uses Desired Results Developmental Profile (DRDP) Formative Assessment System for Teachers (FAST) Teaching Strategies Gold (GOLD)Work Sampling System (WSS)Domains represent basic components of early development in assessment domainsStrong Strong Strong Strong Provides information of school readiness or future school performance None Moderate Moderate N/A Domains and items are research based N/A Strong Strong Strong Supports instructional planning (formative uses) None None None None Supports communication with parents None N/A None Moderate Supports program evaluation purposes N/A N/A Moderate None Items are sensitive to diverse populations; minimizing potential bias N/A N/A N/A Moderate Supports development of interventions N/A Weak/None Weak None Supports Teacher professional development None N/A N/A N/A Provides school/district leadership with policy related information None N/A N/A N/A Alignment Studies re: CCSS YesYesYesYesAlignment Studies re: MN State StandardsN/AYesYesN/A The Claims
Forms of Evidence for Technical Adequacy Desired Results Developmental Profile (DRDP) Formative Assessment System for Teachers (FAST) Teaching Strategies Gold (GOLD)Work Sampling System (WSS)Teachers document or collect classroom-based work or evidenceYes Yes Yes Yes Internal consistency Partial Yes Yes Yes Stability (test-retest) Reported time delay No Partial No No Inter-rater consistency or agreement No Partial Yes No Item or Score Functioning across subgroups No No Yes Yes Internal Structure Yes No Yes No Correlations with Concurrent Criterion Yes Yes Yes Yes Norming sample sizes None 250 (benchmarking) 3000 None Location of Samples CA Two Midwest states National Unknown Criterion-Referenced or Norm-Referenced CR CR & NR CR CRThe Evidence
GOLD DRDP FAST WSS-MN Social Emotional19/1919/19 19/19 7/19 Approaches to Learning 12/12 9/12 11/12 4/12 Language/ Literacy 21/21 21/21 16/21 13/21 Creativity/ Arts 6/7 1/7 7/7 7/7 Cognitive 27/28 23/28 23/28 4/28 Physical 11/11 0/11 10/11 5/11 TOTAL Indicators 96 73 86 40 Percent Coverage 98% 74% 88% 41% The Standards Coverage
Tool Fit Determination Fit Index TLI RMSEA Number of FactorsDRDPReasonable Fit.94 .13 4 FAST Acceptable fit .91 .09 8 Gold Good fit .96 .08 6 WSS-MN Good fit .99 .06 6 The Fit
Language or Lang/Lit Approaches to Learning Social-Emotional Cognitive PhysicalArtsDRDP.93 N/A .91 .87 N/A N/A FAST .92 .90 .92 .88 .73 .82 Gold .96 N/A .93 .98 .90 N/A Work Sampling .96 N/A .98 .95 .88 .95 Internal Consistency
Cognitive Approaches to Learning Phase 1 results- Relative Difficulty DRDP
Cognitive Language, Literacy, and Communication Phase 1 results- Relative Difficulty TS GOLD
Phase 1 results- Relative Difficulty WSS
Cognitive Language, Literacy, and Communication Phase 1 Replication – Relative Difficulty FAST
How do the tools relate to one another? Phase 2 Results
The DRDP is relatively more difficult than Work Sampling, Gold, and FAST FAST tends to assess a more narrow range of ability The tools do show a relation to one another The tools distinguish differences between subgroups Teachers and Administrators need support on how to interpret results and create actionable plans Phase 2 Take Homes
.5 -1.5 -.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 -2.5 -3.5 4.5 5.5 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 DRDP 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 C C O O N N S S FAST 0 GOLD 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 WSS 1 1 2 2 3 3 C is Concepts of Print O is Onset Sounds N is Letter Naming S is Letter Sounds Language, Literacy, and Communication Map of Rating Scale Points
2 -2 0 4 6 8 -4 -6 10 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 DRDP FAST GOLD WSS 0 0 1 1 3 3 2 2 4 4 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 1 1 2 2 3 3 Social Emotional Map of Rating Scale Points
Consensus on items and measures Rolling enrollment and supports for use Easier planning for districtwide PD Managing expectations Lower proficiency than in earlier studies Report in 2017 Next Steps
Questions?