Massachusetts Kindergarten
Entry Assessment Pilot
Panel Discussion: Board of Early
Education and Care Meeting
February 14, 2012
1
RTTT-ELC focuses on five key areas of reform:
2
1.
Establishing Successful State Systems by building on the State’s existing
strengths, ambitiously moving forward the state’s early learning and
development agenda, and carefully coordinating programs across agencies
to ensure consistency and sustainability beyond the grant;
2.
Defining High-Quality, Accountable Programs by creating a common
tiered quality rating and improvement system that is used across the state
to evaluate and improve program performance and to inform families about
program quality;
3.
Promoting Early Learning and Development Outcomes for
Children to develop common standards within the state and assessments
that measure child outcomes, address behavioral and health needs, as well
as inform, engage and support families;
4.
Supporting A Great Early Childhood Education Workforce by
providing professional development, career advancement opportunities,
appropriate compensation, and a common set of standards for workforce
knowledge and competencies; and
5.
Measuring Outcomes and Progress so that data can be used to inform
early learning instruction and services and to assess whether children are
entering kindergarten ready to succeed in elementary school.
Closing the Achievement Gap:
Accountability for Quality and Outcomes
Teacher
Quality
Program
Quality
(QRIS)
Community
and Family
Context
Child
Outcomes
(formative and
summative
assessment)
The Commonwealth’s Bold Vision: Core Elements
of the Early Childhood Information System





4
Family Engagement
 Parental Consent
 Core Child Level Data
 Self- Assessment Data
Child Development Screening and Assessment Data
 Collected through ASQ, EVT, PVT, Social and Emotional Test,
Woodcock-Johnson
Interagency Data Sharing
 Interagency Service Agreements (ISAs)
 Key risk and protective factors
Strength and Risk Analyses
 Pull and match child-level data from above data sources
 Report out on child-level critical strength and risk factors
Communication
 General communication to all families on general child development
advice and guidance and information on community events and
resources
 Targeted communication to families with children having 3 or more
risk factors on other state agency resources and community
supports to alleviate risks
EEC Comprehensive Assessment Strategy
Access to growth and developmental screenings and assessments
for all children
Screening Assessments
Program Environment
Norm
Referenced
Summative
Assessment
Adult/Child
Interactions
Formative
Assessment
Estimated 450,000 children: in communities, EEC programs,
and schools – including Child Find, CFCE programs
Screening and Assessment Types
Massachusetts Early Learning and Development (MELD) assessment system

MELD is a system of screening and assessment for children from birth to third grade, including the Massachusetts
Kindergarten Entry Assessment (MKEA), that aligns seamlessly with the Massachusetts Comprehensive
Assessment System (MCAS)
Screening:

Ages and Stage Questionnaire (ASQ), and Social-Emotional version (ASQ-SE)
Formative Assessment:

Work Sampling System,

Teaching Strategies-GOLD

High Scope COR
Diagnostic Inventories

Battelle Developmental Inventory – 2 (EI)
Kindergarten Entry Assessment

The state will implement the Massachusetts Kindergarten Entry Assessment (MKEA) to produce a common
statewide measure of children’s school readiness.

The state will train kindergarten teachers on the use of formative assessment as a measure of school readiness
and the effective use of data to inform instruction and curriculum planning through state Readiness Centers.

The state will also conduct psychometric testing, such as item analysis, of approved assessment tools to develop a
common statewide kindergarten readiness metric.
Norm Referenced

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT)

Woodcock-Johnson, and the Expressive Vocabulary Test (EVT)

Two fine motor tests and one gross motor test to be developed
6
QRIS

Child observation

Assessments of environmental quality

Teacher-child interactions

Formative assessments of children's learning progress
Community Based Informal Screening: Help Me Grow
Ages and Stages Questionnaires (ASQ)
Ages and Stages Questionnaire Third Edition (ASQ-3)
Ages and Stages Questionnaire Social-Emotional (ASQ:SE)
7
•
Resources will be provided to 107 Coordinated Family and
Community Engagement grantees, licensed and licensed exempt
early education and care programs, and public schools to participate in
assessment.
•
Help Me Grow supports parents as their child’s first teacher,
through four (4) components:
•
Child Growth and Development Education
•
Resources for Pediatricians
•
Statewide Telephonic Access
•
System Data Collection
•
The Child Growth and Development Education component provides
universal child growth and development education opportunity
using evidence-based screening tools (ASQ & ASQ:SE).
•
Using parental consent, data can be used to measure growth
overtime and linked to the child’s longitudinal record, with the option to
opt-out and continue services
Benefits of ASQ
8

Ongoing monitoring of development: ASQ uses 21 age-specific
ASQ questionnaires to watch for and catch developmental delays in 5
domains; communication, gross motor, fine motor, problem solving and
personal-social. And there are 8 age-specific questionnaires to watch
for social-emotional delays that may not be detected in a single
screening.

Easy to use: ASQ is well-regarded as parent friendly and easy to
use; the questionnaires are color-coded by age, written at a 4th–6thgrade reading level, and accompanied by simple illustrations to
enhance understanding

Makes the most of parents' expert knowledge: ASQ calls for the
involvement of parents as partners in their child's development,
assessment, and intervention

Saves time & money: The ASQ questionnaires take 10–15 minutes
for parents to complete and 2–3 minutes to score. ASQ is a one-time
purchase, the materials in the user's guides can be reproduced as
many times as needed

Resource for families and early educators: Using the ASQ tool(s),
families and educators can use their observation of children to set
goals for individual instruction
MKEA Participating Districts
Massachusetts Kindergarten Entry
Assessment: Pilot Participation
Cohort
Districts Students
Teachers
Cohort 1 24
Approx. 17,500 Approx. 874
1. Boston
12. Mattapoisett
2. Brookline
13. Medford
3. Chelsea
14. New Bedford
4. Everett
15. Northhampton
5. Holyoke
16. Pittsfield
6. Lawrence
17. Rochester
7. Lowell
18. South Hadley
8. Lowell Community
19. Southbridge
Charter School
20. Springfield
9. Ludlow
21. Taunton
10. Lynn
22. Ware
11. Marion
23. Watertown
24. Worcester
9
Goals Of Pilot Project

Identify Districts’ project Teams;

Develop of Memoranda of Understanding;

Identify the assessment tool that will be used;

Identify and define Teams the unique needs to customize the supports
needed over the course of this project ;

Resources Available:

Substitutes

Purchase of the selected formative assessment tools and cost for
online participation

Professional Development for Kindergarten and Preschool teachers
• Use of tool
• Use of Data
10

Identifying the level and type of professional development support
needed regarding the utilization of the development tool and the data;

Develop your timelines and project goals for implementation
September 2012.
Overview of the Assessment Tools
11
Teaching
Strategies GOLD
High Scope - COR
Work Sampling
System
Social/Emotional
√
√
√
Physical
√
√
√
Cognitive
√
√
√
Language
√
√
√
Approach to Learning
√
√
√
Easy to Administer
Yes, with 3 day
training
Yes, with 2-3 day
training
Yes, with 1-3 day
training
Parent Involvement
Receive a “Family
Conference Form”
Receive summary
forms
Receive summary
report
Reliability/Validity
Yes
Yes
Yes
Issues Raised by Participants
Technology:

Opportunity to view/train online components of each tool before making decision:

Potential need to purchase computers/laptops for teachers to do online reporting
Funding:

Will online license be “attached” to number of children; this may affect cost in large classes

Is there a budget limit?

Can funding be used to purchase computers, cameras or other electronic devises?

Is this effort funded for the whole four years or is it a point in time project?
Professional Development:

Consider importance of time and training needed for this project to be effective

Consider implications of MKEA on Teacher Evaluations

Consider Smart Goals for teachers

Clarify that programs will not be asked to switch tool later
Timelines:

Allow flexibility with proposed timelines/plans

Do all teachers need to be involved by September or can we stagger implementation?

Timeline is a concern. Some Kindergarten classrooms have up to 30 plus students. They
already do math/reading assessments and screening.
12
Programmatic:

Does this include preK – K substantially separate classrooms?

How does this work with required assessments used for Special Education?

Need to help districts determine which assessment tool best fits into their practice

It’s harder to do Work Sampling in the public schools. Are there ways to better incorporate it?

How can assessments be blended so they are not just adding another tool for teachers to use
Timelines
March 2, 2012
 Identify Professional Development Needs
 Create a plan for Professional Development and submit for review
 Identify need for resources including substitutes for
implementation and make a request to EEC
March 15, 2012
 Hold a webinar for teachers on the three tools before March 15th
 Choose Assessment
 Conduct District Wide Kick-Off meeting for Project with PreKGrade 3 staff
April 15, 2012
 Professional Development Plans approved
May 1, 2012
 Identify Locations to use assessment
June 30,2012
 All teachers have access to the tool
 Teacher, classrooms and specific schools have been identified for
implementation
 Information is reported to EEC
13
MKEA Investments

Early Learning Challenge Funds

“Measuring Growth through the Massachusetts
Early Learning and Development Assessment
System (Birth to Grade Three)”
• $4.5M total over four years
• $1.9M for assessment kits and license
• $820K of this for substitute teachers

“Measuring Growth by Developing a Common
Metric for Kindergarten Entry Assessment”
• $575K/two years (January-December 2013)
• $325K Year One
• $250K Year Two

14
State Funds – $200K to support MKEA in
FY12 Supplemental Budget
Panelist Discussion
15

Overview of your school/district

School plans for participation in the
MKEA

Perspectives on the opportunity to
participate

Any fears/concerns about participating
Appendix
16
Issues Raised by Participants
Technology:

Opportunity to view/train online components of each tool before making decision:

The 3 tools are available on-line for a 30 day free trial.

Potential need to purchase computers/laptops for teachers to do online reporting

Computers cannot be purchased as part of this project; however software can
be purchased if a computer within the school requires an upgrade to access
the web-based tool.
Funding:

Will online license be “attached” to number of children; considering classrooms have had
increase in children they have enrolled, this may affect cost of license purchase

EEC will fund all tools and licenses required to complete the assessment on
children, even if the classroom size increases year-to-year.
17

Is there a budget limit?

Yes, there is a budget limit. This will be determined after school districts
submit their professional development plans and EEC evaluates the overall
costs. At this time, EEC requests that schools districts submit budgets based
on what they project that they will need for professional development costs.

Can funding be used to purchase computers, cameras or other electronic devises?

Computers cannot be purchased as part of this project; however software can
be purchased if a computer within the school requires an upgrade to access
the web-based tool.

Is this effort funded for the whole four years or is it a point in time project?

Yes
Issues Raised by Participants
Professional Development:

Consider importance of time and training needed for this project to be effective

EEC recognizes that importance of professional development and estimates
that initially 4 days of training will be required and then on-going training
needed to support this effort.
18

Consider implications of MKEA on Teacher Evaluations

At this time, EEC considers this project separate from the teacher evaluation
process.

Consider Smart Goals for teachers

EEC will contact ESE for guidance and input regarding the development of
SMART Goals, however at this time EEC views this project as separate from the
teacher evaluation process.

Clarify that programs will not be asked to switch tool later to have all programs use same tool

EEC expects that programs will be able to stay with whichever tool they chose
and common metrics is planned to be developed across the 3 tools to gather
measurement of success with a Kindergarten Entry Assessment.

Question on P.D. over summer or non public school work hours. Including payment for staff
attending

EEC expects to cover the costs associated professional development for
teachers, whether this cost is related to substitutes for classrooms during the
school year or providing a stipend during the summer months for teachers who
receive training in the tool during the non public school work hours.
Issues Raised by Participants
Timelines:

Allow flexibility with proposed timelines/plans
 Due to measuring the effectiveness of assessing high needs
children, EEC expects that implementation of using the assessment
tool will be at the beginning of the school year in September 2012.
The Kindergarten Entry Assessment is most effective when done
three times a year; fall, winter and spring. EEC recognizes the time
commitment involved in assessing all children three times a year,
therefore we would expect that assessments are completed twice a
year(fall and spring) and strongly encourage completing a third
assessment in the winter.
19

In large districts, do all teachers need to be involved by September or can we
stagger implementation?
 All classrooms need to be involved in the implementation.

Timeline is a concern. Some Kindergarten classrooms have up to 30 plus
students. They already do math/reading assessments and screening. Time is
an issue.
 Assessments should be completed within the first 6 weeks of school
so that information is available at the parent/teacher conferences
in November. EEC believes that parents and guardians of children
are an important component of the children’s learning environment
and using the results from an assessment tool will create a dialogue
with a parent or guardian that will enhance the classroom
experience for both the teacher and child.
Issues Raised by Participants
Programmatic:

Does this include preK - k subs substantially separate classrooms?
 Yes, all children need to be included.
20

How does this work with required assessments used for Special Education?
 The tool can be used to provide supporting documentation for the 3
domains collected in indicator 7, child outcomes.

What guidance can be given to help districts determine what assessments best fit into
their practice. Are they currently using the right tools?
 This is an individual school district’s choice and EEC recommends that
school districts investigate the free 30 day on-line trial of the tools to
determine which best meets their practice.

It’s harder to do Work Sampling in the public schools. Are there ways to better
incorporate it?
 Work sampling is just one of the tools a school can consider and decide
to use. The other tools, High Scope COR or Teaching Strategies GOLD,
may be better suited to a school districts needs.

How can assessments be blended so that they are not just adding another tool for
teachers to use
 EEC recommends that the assessment tools are not blended and that
teachers consider using the assessment tool identified in the
Kindergarten Entry Assessment as the sole source of information about
the child.