Case Studies of the Early 

Implementation of Kindergarten
 

Entry Assessments
 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of
 

Kindergarten Entry Assessments
 


 

August 2016 

Prepared for: 

Policy and Program Studies Service
 

U.S. Department of Education
 

400 Maryland Avenue, SW
 

Washington, DC 20202
 

Prepared by: 

Shari Golan, Ph.D.
 

Michelle Woodbridge, Ph.D.
 

Betsy Davies-Mercier, Ph.D.
 

SRI International
 

Carol Pistorino, Ph.D.
 

Decision Information Resources, Inc.
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. ED-PEP-11-O-0090 with SRI 

International. Erica Lee served as the contracting officer’s representative. The views expressed herein do not 

necessarily represent the positions or policies of the U.S. Department of Education. No official endorsement by the 

U.S. Department of Education of any product (e.g., commercial assessment product or curriculum), commodity, 

service or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred. For the reader’s convenience, 

this publication contains information about and from outside organizations, including hyperlinks and URLs. 

Inclusion of such information does not constitute an endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education. 

U.S. Department of Education 

John B. King, Jr. 

Secretary 

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development 

Amy McIntosh 

Deputy Assistant Secretary 

Delegated Duties of Assistant Secretary 

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Jennifer Bell-Ellwanger 

Director 

August 2016 

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to 

reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, 

Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, Case Studies of the Early Implementation 

of Kindergarten Entry Assessments Final Report, Washington, D.C., 2016. 

This report is available on the Department’s website at: 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.html. 

Availability of Alternate Formats 

Requests for documents in alternate formats such as Braille or large print should be submitted to the Alternate 

Format Center by calling 202-260-0852 or by contacting the 504 coordinator via email at om_eeos@ed.gov. 

Notice to Limited English Proficient Persons 

If you have difficulty understanding English you may request language assistance services for Department 

information that is available to the public. These language assistance services are available free of charge. If you 

need more information about interpretation or translation services, please call 1-800-USA-LEARN (1-800-872­

5327) (TTY: 1-800-437-0833), or email us at: Ed.Language.Assistance@ed.gov. Or write to: U.S. Department of 

Education, Information Resource Center, LBJ Education Building, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington, D.C. 

20202. 

Content Contact: 

Erica Lee 

202-260-1463 

erica.lee@ed.gov 
 

 

Contents
 

Exhibits................................................................................................................................................ v
 

Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................................. vii
 

Note to Reader ................................................................................................................................. viii
 

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................ ix
 

Key Findings............................................................................................................................................. ix
 

Study Design and Limitations ................................................................................................................... x
 

Summary of Findings ............................................................................................................................... xi
 

Recommendations for Policymakers and Administrators.....................................................................xvii
 

1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1
 

Study Questions........................................................................................................................................ 5
 

Study Design and Methodology ............................................................................................................... 5
 

Limitations of This Report ........................................................................................................................ 7
 

Overview of the Report ............................................................................................................................ 7
 

2. State KEA Snapshots ........................................................................................................................ 9
 

Maryland .................................................................................................................................................. 9
 

Oregon.................................................................................................................................................... 15
 

Pennsylvania........................................................................................................................................... 20
 

Washington ............................................................................................................................................ 25
 

3. Development and Adoption ........................................................................................................... 35
 

Gathering Stakeholder Input about KEAs............................................................................................... 35
 

Prioritizing KEA Selection Criteria........................................................................................................... 36
 

Pilot Testing and Field Testing KEAs ....................................................................................................... 37
 

Enacting Legislation to Support Widespread KEA Implementation ....................................................... 38
 

4. State Support for Teacher Training and Preparation....................................................................... 41
 

Building KEA Training Models to Prepare Teachers ............................................................................... 41
 

Promoting Consistent Collection of KEA Data........................................................................................ 43
 

5. District Experiences with Early KEA Implementation ...................................................................... 45
 

Meeting State KEA Participation Requirements..................................................................................... 45
 

Monitoring KEA Data Completion .......................................................................................................... 45
 

Assessing Kindergarten Students During Their First Weeks of Schooling..............................................46
 

Making Suitable Accommodations for Students from Special Populations...........................................47
 

Avoiding Duplication in Kindergarten Assessments ............................................................................... 49
 

Using Technology to Inform KEA Observations and for KEA Data Entry ................................................ 50
 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments iii 
 

 

 

 

 

Using Local Funding to Reduce KEA Burden........................................................................................... 52
 

6. KEA Data Use by States, Districts, and Schools ............................................................................... 53
 

Accessing and Using Public and Internal KEA Reports ........................................................................... 53
 

Using KEA Results to Inform Future Policy and Program Decisions ....................................................... 55
 

Using KEA Results to Understand Individual Student Needs ................................................................. 56
 

Avoiding Misuses of KEA Results ............................................................................................................ 57
 

Sharing KEA Information and Results with Parents................................................................................ 57
 

Sharing KEA Results With Preschool Programs ...................................................................................... 58
 

7. Challenges and Potential Solutions................................................................................................. 61
 

Engaging in a Continuous Improvement Cycle Informed by Stakeholders ............................................ 61
 

Clarifying and Communicating the Intended Purposes of the KEA ........................................................ 62
 

Reducing Burden of KEA Implementation.............................................................................................. 64
 

Involving Teachers as Trainers and Experts to Build Buy-in and Local Expertise...................................64
 

Developing Tools and Guidelines to Help Ensure Consistent KEA Administration ................................ 65
 

Improving Guidance, Training, and Resources for Implementing KEAs with Special Populations.........66
 

Supporting Use of Data .......................................................................................................................... 67
 

Using KEAs to Engage Parents in Supporting Children’s School Readiness............................................ 68
 

Informing Efforts to Further Strengthen Early Childhood Programs and Policies ................................. 69
 

8. Conclusions.................................................................................................................................... 71
 

References......................................................................................................................................... 75
 

Appendix A: Study Design and Methodology...................................................................................... 77
 

Appendix B: Student Characteristics .................................................................................................. 85
 

Maryland ................................................................................................................................................ 86
 

Oregon.................................................................................................................................................... 88
 

Pennsylvania........................................................................................................................................... 90
 

Washington ............................................................................................................................................ 92
 

Appendix C: KEA Characteristics......................................................................................................... 95
 

Maryland ................................................................................................................................................ 96
 

Oregon.................................................................................................................................................. 101
 

Pennsylvania......................................................................................................................................... 103
 

Washington .......................................................................................................................................... 105
 

Appendix D: Fall 2014 KEA Data Findings in the Readiness Domains: Maryland and Washington ..... 109
 

Maryland .............................................................................................................................................. 110
 

Washington .......................................................................................................................................... 114
 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments iv 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibits
 

Exhibit S.1. KEA Information At-a-Glance by State ..................................................................................... xii
 

Exhibit 1. Example Skills Measured and Items Used on KEAs by School Readiness Domains ...................... 4
 

Exhibit 2. Maryland (MD) KRA Timeline........................................................................................................ 9
 

Exhibit 3. Percentages of Maryland Students Demonstrating Kindergarten Readiness............................. 14
 

Exhibit 4. Percentages of Maryland Students from Special Populations Demonstrating Kindergarten
 

Exhibit 10. Percentages of Washington Students from Special Populations Demonstrating
 

Readiness .................................................................................................................................................... 14
 

Exhibit 5. Oregon (OR) KA Timeline ............................................................................................................ 15
 

Exhibit 6. Average Scores on Oregon’s KA Segments ................................................................................. 20
 

Exhibit 7. Pennsylvania KEI Timeline........................................................................................................... 21
 

Exhibit 8. Washington WaKIDS Timeline..................................................................................................... 25
 

Exhibit 9. Percentages of Washington Students Demonstrating Kindergarten Readiness......................... 30
 

Kindergarten Readiness .............................................................................................................................. 30
 

Exhibit 11. Summary of State KEA Characteristics...................................................................................... 32
 

Exhibit 12. Summary of State KEA Characteristics, Continued ................................................................... 33
 

Exhibit A-1. Number of Participating Schools by EL and Poverty Stratifications ........................................ 80
 

Exhibit A-2. Number of Interviews by Respondent Roles........................................................................... 81
 

Exhibit B-1. 2014–15 State Enrollment Characteristics — Maryland ......................................................... 86
 

Exhibit B-2. 2014–15 District Enrollment Characteristics of Study Sample Sites — Maryland................... 86
 

Exhibit B-3. 2014–15 School Enrollment Characteristics of Study Sample Sites — Maryland ................... 87
 

Exhibit B-4. 2014–15 State Enrollment Characteristics — Oregon............................................................. 88
 

Exhibit B-5. 2014–15 District Enrollment Characteristics of Study Sample Sites — Oregon ...................... 88
 

Exhibit B-6. 2014–15 School Enrollment Characteristics of Study Sample Sites — Oregon.......................89
 

Exhibit B-7. 2014–15 State Enrollment Characteristics — Pennsylvania.................................................... 90
 

Exhibit B-8. 2014–15 District Enrollment Characteristics of Study Sample Sites — Pennsylvania.............90
 

Exhibit B-9. 2014–15 School Enrollment Characteristics of Study Sample Sites — Pennsylvania..............91
 

Exhibit B-10. 2014–15 State Enrollment Characteristics — Washington ................................................... 92
 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments v 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit B-11. 2014–15 District Enrollment Characteristics of Study Sample Sites — Washington ............92
 

Exhibit B-12. 2014–15 School Enrollment Characteristics of Study Sample Sites — Washington .............93
 

Exhibit C-1. Common Language Standards KRA 1.5 Content ...................................................................... 96
 

Exhibit C-2. OregonKindergartenAssessment(2015–16) Student Operational Blueprint Content
 

Coverage.................................................................................................................................................... 101
 

Exhibit C-3. Pennsylvania’s KEI Domains and Indicators and Associated State Standards.......................103
 

Exhibit C-4. WaKIDS Domains and Objectives Assessed in Fall 2014 and Fall 2015 .................................105
 

Exhibit D-1. Percentages of Maryland Students Demonstrating Kindergarten Readiness: Language
 

and Literacy............................................................................................................................................... 110
 

Exhibit D-2. Percentages of Maryland Students Demonstrating Kindergarten Readiness: 

Mathematical Thinking ............................................................................................................................. 111
 

Exhibit D-3. Percentages of Maryland Students Demonstrating Kindergarten Readiness: Social 

Foundations .............................................................................................................................................. 112
 

Exhibit D-4. Percentages of Maryland Students Demonstrating Kindergarten Readiness: Physical 

Well-Being and Motor Development........................................................................................................ 113
 

Exhibit D-5. Percentages of Washington Students Demonstrating Kindergarten Readiness:
 

Language ................................................................................................................................................... 114
 

Exhibit D-6. Percentages of Washington Students Demonstrating Kindergarten Readiness:
 

Literacy...................................................................................................................................................... 115
 

Exhibit D-7. Percentages of Washington Students Demonstrating Kindergarten Readiness:
 

Mathematics ............................................................................................................................................. 116
 

Exhibit D-8. Percentages of Washington Students Demonstrating Kindergarten Readiness:
 

Social-Emotional ....................................................................................................................................... 117
 

Exhibit D-9. Percentages of Washington Students Demonstrating Kindergarten Readiness:
 

Physical ..................................................................................................................................................... 118
 

Exhibit D-10. Percentages of Washington Students Demonstrating Kindergarten Readiness:
 

Cognitive ................................................................................................................................................... 119
 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments vi 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acknowledgments 

We are especially grateful to the participating state officials, district administrators, kindergarten 

teachers, other kindergarten entry assessment assessors, and preschool directors for their cooperation 

in participating in interviews as part of data collection for this study. Without their efforts, this report 

and its many findings would not have been possible. We also would like to acknowledge the thoughtful 

contributions of the members of our technical working group, Eugene Garcia, Mary McLean, Megan 

McClelland, Sam Meisels, and Jason Sachs. Finally, we wish to thank several individuals who contributed 

to the completion of this report. We thank the entire SRI International study team who helped collect 

and analyze data, and prepare this report. In particular, we thank our (1) state study leaders — Betsy 

Davies-Mercier, Kaily Lee, Teresa McCaffrey, and Michelle Woodbridge; (2) site visitors — Ashley 

Campbell, Nyema Mitchell, Kate Ferguson, Diego Garcia, Sara Gracely, and Codie Kane, and (3) 

programming and technical support staff — Cyndi Williamson, Roxanne Jones, and Mimi Campbell. We 

also would like to thank the staff of Decision Information Resources, Inc. for their assistance with the 

study. In particular, we thank Carol Pistorino, Scott Peecksen, and David Getman. 

Although we appreciate the assistance and support of these individuals, any errors in judgment or fact 

are the responsibility of the authors. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments vii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note to Reader 

This report is not intended to reflect best practices or to be a policy document. Findings in this report 

are based on descriptive case studies in four states and describe conditions as they existed at the time 

of data collection. Researchers did not assess the extent to which state, district, and school practices 

described in this report are consistent with laws administered or enforced by the U.S. Department of 

Education including, but not limited to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

(Title VI), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504), Title II of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (Title II), and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). The inclusion of a 

description of state, district, or school practices in this report does not necessarily mean that these 

practices comply with these laws or that the U.S. Department of Education has approved these 

practices. 

For additional information about the requirements under Title VI, Section 504, or Title II, please contact 

the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), U.S. Department of Education by email at OCR@ed.gov or call OCR’s 

Customer Service Team at 1-800-421-3481; TDD 1-800-877-8339. 

For additional information about requirements under the IDEA, please contact the Office of Special 

Education and Rehabilitative Services at: 1-800-421-3481; TDD1-800 877 8339. 

https://osep.grads360.org 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments viii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary 

States increasingly are incorporating Kindergarten Entry Assessments (KEAs)1 into their comprehensive 

assessment systems with the goal of helping educators identify gaps in children’s competencies, target 

instruction to children’s individual needs, engage parents to better support their child’s learning, and 

identify needs for expanding and improving early learning opportunities. In 2010, seven states collected 

KEA data for the purposes of aggregating data at the state level (Daily, Burkhauser, and Halle 2010). By 

2014, 29 states were engaged in development and use of KEAs with support from federal programs such 

as Race To the Top-Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) grants and Enhanced Assessment Grants (EAG). 

This descriptive study examines the development and early implementation of KEAs in 12 districts and 

23 schools within four RTT-ELC states (Maryland, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington) during the 

2014–15 school year. This was the first year of KEA implementation in Maryland and Pennsylvania, the 

second year of KEA implementation in Oregon, and the third year of KEA implementation in Washington, 

so findings reflect the early implementation of these assessments. The study is intended to help states 

learn from the experiences of other states as they work to develop and implement their own KEAs and 

to use KEAs to improve instruction and learning. 

Key Findings 

•	 State officials and stakeholders in all four case study states considered multiple criteria when 

developing or adopting KEA measures: reliability and validity, appropriateness for all students, 

usefulness for informing classroom instruction, usefulness for informing early learning policies 

and program improvement, feasibility of administration by teachers, and cost. 

•	 The four states trained teachers on KEA administration through self-paced webinars, in-person 

presentations, and train-the-trainer models. A majority of the interviewed teachers said the 

training prepared them to administer the KEA to students, though many teachers reported that 

they had difficulty in determining what were appropriate accommodations for English learner 

(EL) students2 and students with disabilities3 and indicated that they needed further assistance. 

1	 Some states call these kindergarten entry inventories rather than assessments, but both terms refer to similar 

kinds of measures. For simplicity, this report uses the generic term kindergarten entry assessment to 

encompass both kindergarten assessments and inventories. As defined by the RTT-ELC Notice Inviting 

Applications (NIA), a “kindergarten entry assessment” is an assessment that: is administered to children during 

the first few months of their admission into kindergarten; covers all Essential Domains of School Readiness; is 

used in conformance with the recommendations of the National Research Council reports on early childhood 

(National Research Council, 2008); is valid and reliable for its intended purposes and for the target populations; 

and is aligned to the state’s early learning and development standards. Essential Domains of School Readiness 

means the domains of language and literacy development, cognition and general knowledge (including early 

mathematics and early scientific development), approaches toward learning, physical well-being and motor 

development (including adaptive skills), and social and emotional development. Additionally, the NIA states 

that “results of the assessment should be used to inform efforts to close the school readiness gap at 

kindergarten entry, to inform instruction in the early elementary school grades, and to inform parents about 

their children’s status and involve them in decisions about their children’s education. This assessment should 

not be used to prevent children’s entry into kindergarten or as a single measure for high-stakes decisions.” 2	 Interviewers used the term “English learners” when asking respondents about this population, but some 

respondents preferred the term “dual language learner students” or “DLL students,” because in early 

childhood, all children are learning English. This report uses the term “EL students.” 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments ix 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 District officials reported working to reduce the burden associated with KEA data collection 

and entry by purchasing new technology, providing staffing assistance to teachers with KEA 

administration, and omitting or delaying other assessments. 

•	 Although the majority of interviewed teachers reported that they had not yet used formal 

KEA reports to inform their instructional practices, a few teachers said that the impressions 

they gained while administering the KEA helped them to understand their students’ 

strengths and needs and to assign students to instructional groups. 

•	 District administrators and teachers identified challenges with administering KEAs with EL 

students and students with disabilities, using KEA results to inform instruction, and sharing 

KEA data with parents;4 they suggested that state officials could address these challenges by 

providing explicit training on these topics, on-site coaching, and tailored reports to help 

educators use and share the data. 

Study Design and Limitations 

This study addressed the following questions: 

1.	 How did the four case study states develop or adopt KEAs? 

2.	 How did the four states train teachers to administer KEAs and to what extent did teachers feel 

prepared to do so? 

3.	 What were the KEA implementation experiences of the 12 case study districts? 

4.	 To what extent did the states, districts, and schools in the study use KEA results to inform policy 

and practice? 

5.	 What challenges did the case study sites experience with KEAs, and what strategies did sites use 

or suggest using to address these challenges? 

To address these questions, the study team conducted document reviews, telephone interviews with 

state respondents and preschool directors, and in-person interviews with district administrators, 

principals, kindergarten teachers, and other KEA assessors. 

Data collection. Data collection occurred between January and June 2015 in the four case study states 

and in the 12 districts and 23 schools in those states. This sample size enabled the study team to explore 

the range of strategies that these states, districts, and schools were using to implement KEAs. The study 

team drew a purposive sample of three school districts from each state, stratified as urban, suburban, 

and rural. Then the study team drew a sample of schools with both high concentrations of poverty and 

significant concentrations of EL students, as well as schools with lower concentrations of poverty and EL 

students. Participating preschool programs provided public or private early care and education at or 

near the selected schools. 

The study team completed 201 interviews across the four states — specifically, interviews with 33 state 

agency representatives, 48 district representatives (including 13 professional development 

3	 Interviewers used the term “children with developmental delays or disabilities” when asking respondents about 

this population. Respondents used other various terms, including “children with special needs” and “children 

receiving special education.” This report uses the term “students with disabilities.” 4	 This report uses the term “parents” when discussing schools sharing KEA results because that is the term used 

in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA); schools may share KEA results with natural parents, 

guardians, or other individuals acting as a parent in the absence of a parent or guardian under FERPA. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments x 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

coordinators), 20 principals and one vice principal, 53 kindergarten teachers, five other KEA assessors, 

and 41 preschool program directors. The study team used structured debrief guides and cross-case 

analysis meetings to identify themes and verify evidence for findings. 

Study limitations. The case study findings in this report are not representative of or generalizable to all 

districts and schools within or beyond the case study states. The findings are a snapshot in time from fall 

2014 and early 2015, and therefore respondents may have reported on activities and circumstances that 

have since changed. In some cases, interview respondents had not participated in early discussions 

about the selection or development of KEAs and, therefore, were not able to provide detailed 

information about their KEAs’ historical foundations. Further, the study team did not evaluate the 

validity or reliability of the selected or developed KEA measures or their administration processes. 

Although the state and district experiences described in this study are not generalizable to other sites, 

state and district policymakers and administrators may use the study findings to inform their own KEA 

plans by considering the common challenges and potential solutions identified; the tradeoffs of various 

KEA strategies; and the numerous logistical steps undertaken in adopting, implementing, and using a 

KEA to inform policy, program improvement, and instruction. 

Summary of Findings 

Development and Adoption 

State officials and stakeholders in all four case study states considered multiple criteria when 

developing or adopting KEA measures: reliability and validity, appropriateness for all students, 

usefulness for informing classroom instruction, usefulness for informing early learning policies 

and program improvement, feasibility of administration by teachers, and cost. 

KEA leadership teams in the case study states engaged a wide range of stakeholders in the KEA selection 

process such as researchers, experts in assessment and psychometrics, experts in assessment and 

education of students with disabilities and EL students, local administrators, elementary and preschool 

educators, early learning advocates, and community representatives. Leadership teams worked with 

stakeholders initially to prioritize the selection criteria for KEA measures and then, in some cases, to 

review potential measures. Over a multi-year process, these teams continued to examine KEA properties 

and feasibility, solicit feedback from practitioners, and refine the instrument, its administration, and 

reporting procedures to support continuous improvement. Recognizing that a single assessment tool 

may not fully meet all of the desired criteria, decision-makers in all four case study states focused on 

developing or selecting instruments that were psychometrically sound, aligned with state standards, 

affordable, and not too burdensome for teachers to administer (see Exhibit S.1 for an overview of the 

KEA tools used in the four case study states). 

In all four case study states, KEA development or adoption began with pilot tests of the 

selected KEAs to assess the reliability and validity of assessment items, implementation 

feasibility, and teacher training needs; these studies resulted in revisions of KEA instruments 

and in modifications to training protocols, procedures, and resources. 

Before full-scale KEA implementation, researchers in all case study states conducted pilot tests, field 

tests (i.e., small-scale studies), or both, with teachers in a subset of schools. In three case study states 

(Maryland, Oregon, and Pennsylvania), the pilot tests were conducted after the state had developed or 

selected its KEA. The Washington pilot test involved testing three different instruments to inform the 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments xi 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

final selection of the Teaching Strategies GOLD® (GOLD®) for the whole child assessment component of 

the state’s KEA, followed by a field test of a customized version of the selected assessment. At a 

minimum, the pilot tests involved teachers assessing students using the selected KEA and providing 

feedback through surveys, focus groups, or interviews. In addition, researchers in the case study states 

conducted parent surveys and interviews (Washington), student interviews (Maryland), school 

administrator surveys (Oregon and Pennsylvania), document reviews (Oregon), and direct observations 

of KEA administration (Oregon). These studies resulted in revisions to KEA instruments and procedures 

and in modifications to training protocols and resources. 

Exhibit S.1. KEA Information At-a-Glance by State 

Kindergarten 

Readiness 

Assessment (KRA) 

Kindergarten 

Assessment (KA) 

Kindergarten Entry 

Inventory (KEI) 

Washington 

Kindergarten 

Inventory of 

Developing Skills 

(WaKIDS) 

KEA tool 

State Maryland Oregon Pennsylvania Washington 

Language and 

literacy, socialemotional, math, 

and physical 

development 

Early literacy, early 

math, and 

approaches to 

learning 

Language and 

literacy, socialemotional, math, 

approaches to 

learning, and 

physical 

development 

Language and 

literacy, socialemotional, math, 

cognitive, and 

physical 

development 

Domains 

assessed 

Selected response, 

performance, and 

observational 

items developed 

by state 

Selected response 

and performance 

items from 

easyCBM; 

Observational items 

from Child Behavior 

Rating Scale 

Observation based 

on rubric developed 

by state 

Observation based 

on rubric from 

GOLD® 

Types of 

items 

63 31 34 36 Number of 

items 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments xii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

State Support for Teacher Training and Preparation 

The four states trained teachers on KEA administration through self-paced webinars, inperson presentations, and train-the-trainer models. A majority of the interviewed teachers 

said that the training prepared them to administer the KEA to students, though many teachers 

reported that they had difficulty in determining what were appropriate accommodations for 

EL students and students with disabilities and indicated that they needed further assistance. 

In the four case studies, state staff or state-funded contractors developed and offered trainings for 

teachers on how to implement their KEAs using carefully scripted training and administration materials 

and resources. The state-developed trainings for teachers on KEA implementation took different 

forms—from online self-paced webinars to in-person presentations. These trainings addressed various 

topics—from detailed administration procedures to data reporting guidelines, but they typically 

included more focus on administration and data entry than on data use. The majority of interviewed 

teachers reported feeling prepared for administering the KEA and for using the secure web-based data 

systems overall, but they wanted more training on assessment strategies for EL students and students 

with disabilities, access to bilingual assessors and special education experts, and more opportunities for 

collaboration with colleagues on general KEA implementation and use. 

To promote the collection of consistent data, state officials from all four case study states 

required teachers and other KEA assessors to complete a proficiency exam before 

administering KEAs. 

In Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington, teachers completed proficiency exams that compared their 

own ratings of students’ knowledge, skills, and behaviors with experts’ ratings. In Oregon and Maryland, 

teachers also completed a proficiency test of knowledge about the state’s KEA assessment. In Oregon 

and Washington, state officials also reported monitoring teachers’ progress toward completing KEA 

administration tasks by the required deadlines and checking for data anomalies (e.g., teacher reports of 

extraordinarily high or low scores) in their KEA data systems; however, none of the respondents 

reported monitoring the actual KEA administration practices of teachers or assessors with students. 

Teachers raised concerns about inconsistencies in timing of assessments’ administration across 

classrooms that could result in inaccurate ratings of students’ knowledge and skills. Several teachers 

interviewed who collected KEA data within the first few weeks of school believed this timing may have 

produced inaccurate results because children were not yet comfortable with their teachers and 

classrooms to perform their best. Several teachers in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington also 

reported concerns about variations between results from observational measures collected over a 

seven- to eight-week window: Students’ skills might show dramatic growth between the third and 

eighth weeks of school, yet their ratings would not reflect this growth. 

District Experiences with Early KEA Implementation 

KEA participation rates varied across states reaching 95 to 98 percent in the two states that 

required administration for all kindergarten students, while being much lower in the two 

states that limited the requirement to certain types of schools (13 percent and 44 percent). 

Three case study states (Maryland, Oregon, and Washington) had legislative requirements for districts 

and schools to participate in the KEA and achieved widespread implementation. Maryland and Oregon, 

states that required KEA administration for all kindergarten students, achieved KEA participation rates of 

98 percent and 95 percent, respectively. In Washington, where the KEA was required only in stateCase Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments xiii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

funded full-day kindergarten classrooms (which represents 44 percent of the state’s kindergarteners), 

52 percent of the state’s kindergarten students participated. In Pennsylvania, the state education 

department only required Title I focus and priority schools5 to participate, and 13 percent of the state’s 

kindergarten students participated. Of the 215 public schools whose teachers participated in the KEI, 

116 were Title I focus schools or priority schools (54 percent); teachers in some schools that were not 

Title I focus or priority schools participated as mandated by their district. 

District officials reported working to reduce the burden associated with KEA data collection 

and entry by purchasing new technology, providing staffing assistance to teachers with KEA 

administration, and omitting or delaying other assessments. 

A combination of both state and federal funds supported the development and the majority of the 

implementation costs (such as training and material costs) of the KEAs in the case study states. School 

and district respondents, however, reported that they were cognizant of the additional demands that 

KEA training, administration, and data entry placed on their teachers, so they invested local funding to 

support teachers with their new responsibilities and to minimize the burden where they could. District 

officials reported that they used local funds to provide aides to monitor the classroom during KEA 

administration, coaching support, or technology resources to make data submission easier and faster. 

For example, the majority of district officials in Maryland and Washington reported purchasing tablets 

(i.e., mobile personal computers with touchscreen interfaces) for data collection, and IT staff in 

Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington uploaded student demographics (e.g., student identification 

number, gender, birthdate) into KEA data systems to streamline data entry for teachers. However, 

respondents reported some challenges with using the technology, such as hardware or software 

malfunctions or the system lacking capacity to accommodate large numbers of concurrent users. 

Teachers across districts in all four case study states reported that having an extra pair of hands in the 

classroom during administration of the KEA—a teacher’s aide or substitute teacher—helped facilitate 

KEA implementation. A few teachers found it helpful when their district eliminated other kindergarten 

assessments during KEA administration. Yet the majority of district administrators and teachers 

interviewed across all districts in all case study states reported continuing with other assessments in 

addition to their state KEAs, because the assessments were part of district benchmark systems or 

teachers needed additional information beyond what their state KEA was providing. 

KEA Data Use by States, Districts, and Schools 

Although the majority of interviewed teachers reported that they had not yet used formal KEA 

reports to inform their instructional practices, a few teachers said that the impressions they 

gained while administering the KEA helped them to understand their students’ strengths and 

needs and to assign students to instructional groups. 

Authorized district staff and teachers had access to online school, classroom, and student-level reports 

in Pennsylvania and Washington. Maryland, Oregon, and Washington placed state- and district-level KEA 

reports and data tables on public websites. However, the majority of district administrators and 

Priority and focus schools are schools identified by a State in accordance with its approved request for flexibility 

under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 

2001 (ESEA flexibility). Generally speaking, under ESEA flexibility, priority schools are the lowest-performing five 

percent of Title I schools and focus schools are Title I schools with large within-school gaps between 

high-achieving subgroups and low-achieving subgroups and schools with one or more subgroups with low 

achievement or graduation rates. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments xiv 

5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

teachers reported obstacles to using KEA results to inform policy and practice. District administrators 

and teachers reported not using the available data to inform their practices, policies, or programs 

because they were unaware of the reports, found them difficult to understand and use, or received the 

reports too late in the school year to be useful. Teachers in states with available real-time reports were 

either unaware of this capability or did not find the reports meaningful. Respondents in Oregon and 

Pennsylvania also reported not receiving the results in an easily understandable format and not having 

the time or skills to analyze the data. 

Despite not using KEA reports to inform their instructional practices, a few teachers said that 

administering the KEA helped them to become acquainted with and group their students. In 

Pennsylvania and Washington, interviewed teachers also relied on impressions they had from observing 

students for the KEA (as opposed to using KEA ratings or scores) to group students by ability level for 

instruction and to identify students who might need additional help with social-emotional skills. In 

Pennsylvania, a few teachers reported that making observations of students for the KEA helped them 

become acquainted with their students, with the inventory typically affirming what teachers perceived 

about their students’ entering skills. A teacher in Washington discussed altering her expectations about 

a students’ writing progress after administering the KEA. 

Most official communications about KEAs mentioned the explicit intention of sharing KEA 

results with parents and preschool programs, but district officials and teachers reported 

delays in receiving results, concerns about data sharing, and a lack of meaningful and usable 

reports to share with these stakeholders. 

Teachers in 11 of the 12 districts reported that they did not share KEA results with parents. Teachers in 

Maryland and Pennsylvania reported that data were not available in time to share with parents at 

parent-teacher conferences, but a few teachers in Pennsylvania shared observations they had made 

during the KEI administration. Despite the intention to share data in the future with parents, the 

majority of teachers interviewed across districts in Maryland reported that they saw no use in sharing 

the KEA results with parents, because the KEA did not offer helpful information beyond what teachers 

shared from other assessments. The majority of interviewed teachers from Oregon had not seen KA 

results themselves, and one district respondent further reported that the district administration was 

reluctant to share results with parents in order to avoid an “anti-testing” backlash. Only one district, 

Washington’s urban district, reported sharing summary KEA reports with parents (as their fall report 

card). These teachers provided parents with the assessment results and discussed the results during fall 

parent-teacher conferences. A few teachers interviewed in this district, however, reported that parents 

did not attend these conferences or showed little interest in the KEA findings. 

In addition, the majority of the directors of preschool programs associated with the selected case study 

schools had little or no awareness of the KEAs or their results. Respondents from Head Start or districtoperated programs reported greater awareness of the KEAs than interviewed directors from private 

preschool programs, but directors from all types of programs expressed interest in the KEA and wanted 

additional information about the results and how they could use them to collaborate with kindergarten 

teachers. None of the respondents in Maryland, Oregon, or Pennsylvania reported that they had 

procedures currently in place to involve the preschool community, but a few district and school 

administrators in Washington reported that initial meetings had occurred between preschool and 

kindergarten teachers to build relationships and joint professional development opportunities. Although 

none of the respondents had personally participated in these meetings, one principal in Washington 

discussed plans to create a feedback loop to include preschool teachers who worked on her school site 

in sharing KEA data. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments xv 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Challenges and Potential Solutions 

District administrators and teachers identified challenges with administering KEAs with EL 

students and students with disabilities, using KEA results to inform instruction, and sharing 

KEA data with parents; they suggested that state officials could address these challenges by 

providing explicit training on these topics, on-site coaching, and tailored reports to help 

educators use and share the data. 

Teachers in all four states reported feeling confused about the procedural guidelines for using KEAs with 

EL students, and teachers in three states (Maryland, Oregon, and Pennsylvania) reported feeling unsure 

about whether and how to provide accommodations during KEA administration to students with 

disabilities. Teachers suggested that trainers provide more direction on the use of tools meant to help 

teachers determine accommodations (e.g., decision trees and guidelines), more instruction on 

administration practices with special populations, and in-class monitoring of and real-time support for 

KEA administration from experts in assessing EL students and students with disabilities. Even with 

written guidance about administering KEAs to students from these populations, teachers in Maryland, 

Oregon, and Pennsylvania reported disagreeing with or having challenges following the provided 

guidance and decision-making processes for allowable and suitable supports. 

Despite the availability of KEA data reports, district administrators and teachers reported not using the 

data to inform their practices, policies, or programs or sharing them with parents and preschool 

providers. State officials and trainers suggested that teachers and principals may benefit from explicit 

training on how to use KEA data to inform instruction. Additionally, KEA data reports should be userfriendly, with the findings closely tied to concrete actions such as specific instructional strategies. 

District administrators and teachers reported that they needed training to increase their awareness of 

available KEA data reports and materials that could be useful to share with parents. State and district 

officials suggested that KEA data reports must be comprehensible and useful to the preschool 

community for widespread use. 

Several district and school respondents expressed uncertainty about the usefulness of the KEA 

to serve all its intended purposes; they suggested simplifying and strengthening the messages 

about the purpose of KEAs to build buy-in for statewide administration and use of data by 

districts, schools, preschools, and parents. 

State officials across all case study states communicated multiple purposes of their KEAs. One major 

purpose was to measure school readiness consistently to inform state-level investments in early 

learning. Another was to identify students’ strengths and needs to inform preschool and kindergarten 

teachers’ professional development and classroom instruction. In addition, in all four states, state 

officials intended for KEA results to provide parents with information about their children’s learning and 

development. In contrast to the various purposes reported by state officials, district and school 

respondents in all four states most often reported that the primary purpose of KEAs was to provide a 

state snapshot of kindergarten entry skills for state-level planning. Teachers in the case study states that 

mandated participation often viewed it as a compliance task rather than an activity designed to benefit 

their classroom instruction. For example, in Maryland and Oregon, several interviewed teachers 

reported that they viewed the KEA as yet one more required assessment in addition to others that were 

either mandated by district administrators or deemed more useful to educators. 

There was a disconnect between the stated objectives of the KEAs and actual practice, especially related 

to the access of KEA results, interpretation of data, and use of data to inform practice and improve 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments xvi 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

programs. Respondents in Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington suggested that clear communication 

about expected uses of the KEAs prior to full implementation would have increased buy-in among 

kindergarten teachers and the preschool community. A couple of Washington state and district officials 

thought that demonstrating that one tool could serve multiple purposes would bolster the argument for 

administering it statewide, but two respondents (one at a district and one at the state) reported that 

overstating the KEA’s use to accomplish some purposes may have undermined support within schools. 

Similarly, several state, district, and school respondents in Oregon suggested that better communication 

in the initial development and adoption stage about the KEA’s purpose and intended uses would have 

supported teachers’ understanding about and acceptance of the KEA. Likewise, state respondents in 

Pennsylvania suggested that future messages aimed at teachers must be explicit about the KEA’s 

benefits and uses, and reassure teachers that it is not a high-stakes assessment or a teacher evaluation. 

Recommendations for Policymakers and Administrators 

Interviewed state officials, district administrators, and teachers in the four case study states and 12 

districts shared several important lessons they learned from launching a statewide KEA. Researchers 

analyzed themes that emerged across the sites and developed the following recommendations for 

states and districts to consider as they work towards a statewide KEA: 

•	 To develop a statewide KEA system, be prepared for a multi-year process and iterative rollout, including pilot testing and gathering feedback from a wide range of stakeholders 

(including groups expected to use the data such as representatives from districts, schools, 

preschools, and parents, as well as individuals with expertise in psychometrics, students 

with disabilities, and EL students) on KEA selection and later on implementation and 

reporting. 

•	 To increase buy-in for using KEA results, be clear about how the KEA will and will not be 

used by early childhood programs, kindergarten teachers, school administrators, and 

parents, and build structures (e.g., dedicated time for intended users to review findings), 

training, and reports associated with the intended uses. 

•	 To increase the utility and accuracy of KEA data for all students and to meet federal 

requirements for assessing students with disabilities participating in state and districtwide 

assessments,6 place a high priority on selecting KEA tools that have an adequate 

developmental range to capture skills of all students and that have been shown to be valid 

and reliable particularly for EL students and students with disabilities. 

•	 To reduce burden of data collection and entry on teachers, eliminate other kindergarten 

assessments that inventory the same skills and serve the same purpose of the KEA, and 

provide assistance with data entry by employing additional staff and technology tools. 

•	 To adequately prepare teachers to administer KEAs with EL students and students with 

disabilities, provide teachers with explicit training, coaching, and guidance on the 

administration of KEAs with these populations, including appropriate accommodations 

consistent with federal regulations,7 as well as access to bilingual assessors and special 

education experts. 

•	 To support the use of KEA results to inform instruction, develop user-friendly and timely 

reports closely tied to instructional decisions. 

6 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; 34 CFR §300.16). 7 Ibid. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments xvii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 To support the use of KEA results with parents, develop timely reports that teachers can 

share with parents that describe children’s strengths and identify particular skills that 

parents and other family members can support at home. 

•	 To support the use of KEA results in preschool programs, include preschool practitioners in 

the development of KEA reports that identify instructional areas in which early learning 

programs could help children be better prepared for kindergarten; reports should also 

provide data that can inform state and district investments to increase access and the 

quality of early learning programs, such as identifying geographic areas where students who 

demonstrate gaps in preparedness reside. 

•	 Provide training and coaching to teachers, district and school administrators, and preschool 

directors with information on the use of relevant KEA reports, and make sure they are 

aware of and able to access reports. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments xviii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Introduction 

Children begin kindergarten with a range of skills and abilities, whether they transition from preschool 

programs, family child care arrangements, or directly from home. Many children from low 

socioeconomic status groups, however, enter kindergarten with fewer school readiness skills than their 

more advantaged peers (Lee and Burkam 2002), and gaps in early numeracy, early literacy, and socialemotional skills at school entry predict difficulties in later academic performance (Duncan et al. 2007). 

States increasingly are incorporating Kindergarten Entry Assessments (KEAs)1 into statewide 

comprehensive assessment systems with the goal of helping educators identify gaps in children’s 

competencies, target instruction to children’s individual needs, engage parents to better support their 

children’s learning, and identify needs for expanding and improving early learning opportunities. In 

2010, seven states collected KEA data for the purposes of aggregating data at the state level (Daily, 

Burkhauser, and Halle 2010). By 2014, 29 states were engaged in development and use of KEAs with 

support from federal programs such as Race To the Top-Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC)2 grants and 

Enhanced Assessment Grants (EAG).

3 

Although many states have begun to develop and adopt KEAs, adopting and implementing a KEA is a 

complex, multiyear undertaking. Most states continue to work on improving implementation 

procedures and systems for using KEA data and could benefit from learning from the experiences of 

other states. Therefore, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) and the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) used RTT-ELC national activities funds to finance this study to better understand 

the development and early implementation of KEAs in four states: Maryland, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and 

Washington. All four states are RTT-ELC grantees and Maryland leads a consortium of EAG states.4 

The RTT-ELC program defines “Kindergarten Entry Assessment” as an assessment that: 

•	 Is administered to children during the first few months of their admission into kindergarten; 

•	 Covers all Essential Domains of School Readiness;

5 

•	 Is used in conformance with the recommendations of the National Research Council reports 

on early childhood (National Research Council, 2008); and 

•	 Is valid and reliable for its intended purposes and for the target populations and aligned to 

the state’s early learning and development standards. 

Accordingly, the RTT-ELC Notice Inviting Applications states that “results of the assessment should be 

used to inform efforts to close the school readiness gap at kindergarten entry, to inform instruction in 

1	 Some states are developing kindergarten entry inventories rather than assessments but both terms refer to 

similar kinds of measures. For simplicity, this report uses the generic term kindergarten entry assessment to 

encompass both kindergarten assessments and inventories. 2 2011 RTT-ELC Notice Inviting Applications, 76 FR 53563, available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011­

08-26/pdf/2011-21756.pdf 3 EAG KEA Notice Inviting Applications, 78 FR 31359, available at https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-05­

23/pdf/2013-12212.pdf 4	 No state using a KEA without an RTT-ELC grant met all of the selection criteria for inclusion in this case study, as 

explained in the Study Design and Methodology section of this report. 5	 As defined by the RTT-ELC Notice Inviting Applications, Essential Domains of School Readiness means the 

domains of language and literacy development, cognition and general knowledge (including early mathematics 

and early scientific development), approaches toward learning, physical well-being and motor development 

(including adaptive skills), and social and emotional development. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 1 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the early elementary school grades, and to inform parents about their children’s status and involve 

them in decisions about their children’s education. This assessment should not be used to prevent 

children’s entry into kindergarten or as a single measure for high-stakes decisions.” 

When implementing assessments—including KEAs—districts and schools must comply with Title VI of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the federal civil rights law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, 

color, or national origin by recipients of federal financial assistance.6 Additionally, districts and public 

schools must comply with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) and Title II of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (Title II), the federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination on the 

basis of disability, by recipients of federal financial assistance in the case of Section 504, and by public 

entities, in the case of Title II, regardless of receipt of federal funds.7 States and school districts also 

must comply with Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the federal law that 

provides assistance to states, and through them to local school districts, to assist in providing special 

education and related services to eligible students with disabilities.

8 

Expert research panels and key organizations dedicated to child advocacy and research also have 

provided guidance for states in selecting and using assessments to help ensure they will produce useful 

information for their intended purposes and populations based on evidence and wisdom from the field 

(Council of Chief State School Officers 2011; Division for Early Childhood 2014; National Research 

Council 2008; Snow 2011). State and district administrators can use KEA results to shape early learning 

policies and programs. For example, policymakers and early learning administrators can use KEA results 

about specific learning domains, subgroups of students, or early learning programs to direct investments 

and improvements in early learning programs (e.g., professional development to improve instructional 

quality or expansion of high-quality preschool programs) so that more children will arrive at school with 

the desired skills. Elementary principals and kindergarten teachers can use KEA results to target 

instruction to children’s strengths and needs and to enlist parents and other family members in 

supporting children’s learning of particular skills (Schilder and Carolan 2014). Like all assessments of 

young children, KEAs are valuable only to the extent that they provide valid and useful data for 

6	 As to English learner (EL) students, for example, in order to comply with Title VI, school districts and schools 

must take affirmative steps to ensure that EL students can meaningfully participate in their educational 

programs and services. To meet these obligations, school districts must use appropriate and reliable evaluation 

and testing methods that have been validated to measure EL students’ English language proficiency and 

knowledge of core curricula. Additional information about districts’ and schools’ obligations to EL students is 

available in a 2015 Dear Colleague Letter on EL students and limited English proficient parents, jointly issued by 

the Department of Education and the Department of Justice (available at 

http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-el-201501.pdf). 7	 Section 504 and Title II require that students with disabilities be afforded an opportunity to participate in an 

aid, benefit, or service, such as a KEA, that is equal to that afforded to individuals without disabilities, including 

with any needed accommodations. 8	 IDEA 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. The regulations for Part B of the IDEA are in 34 CFR part 300. Under IDEA, a free 

appropriate public education (FAPE) must be made available to each eligible child with a disability beginning at 

the child’s third birthday. FAPE includes the provision of special education and related services, at no cost to 

parents, in conformity with an individualized education program (IEP). IDEA also requires that all children with 

disabilities be included in all general state and districtwide assessment programs, including assessments 

described in section 1111 of the ESEA, with appropriate accommodations and alternate assessments where 

necessary and as indicated in their respective IEPs. 20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(16) and 34 CFR §300.160. Accordingly, 

IDEA-eligible students must be included in statewide or districtwide kindergarten entry assessment programs, 

with appropriate accommodations and alternate assessments where necessary. See also 20 U.S.C. 

1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(VI) and 34 CFR §300.320(a)(6). 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 2 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

stakeholders (e.g., parents,9 teachers, administrators, and policymakers) (Council of Chief State School 

Officers 2011). Therefore, teachers and administrators require training and resources to accurately 

implement KEAs. Teachers and administrators also need training on how to use the results to improve 

classroom instruction. 

Thus, KEA results can be used to improve early learning programs and to engage parents of young 

children attending these programs so that more children start kindergarten prepared to succeed, to help 

identify and target instruction for children who are behind in the essential domains of school readiness, 

and to identify needs for expanding and improving early learning opportunities. In addition, elementary 

school principals and kindergarten teachers can use KEA results to target instruction to children’s 

learning and development needs and to engage parents and other family members in supporting 

children’s learning of particular skills. 

State officials may opt to use or adapt existing KEA measures or to develop their own KEAs, and they 

may choose among various approaches for teachers or other school staff to collect KEA data, such as by 

conducting direct assessments, interviewing parents, observing children in natural or structured 

settings, and analyzing student work (see Exhibit 1 for a sample of the skills and items included in the 

KEA measures of the four case study states). Appendix C presents all of the specific skills and items used 

to measure children’s proficiency by the four case study states. 

This report discusses the experiences of state officials, district administrators, and educators in four 

states that were early adopters of KEAs and had implemented them in fall 2014. This was the first year 

of KEA implementation in Maryland and Pennsylvania, the second year of KEA implementation in 

Oregon, and the third year of KEA implementation in Washington, so findings reflect the early 

implementation of these assessments. At the time of the study these states were still in the process of 

refining implementation procedures and had not yet begun to use the KEA data on a wide scale. 

Understanding how these states’ officials, district administrators, and educators developed, 

implemented, and used the results of KEAs, including the challenges they encountered and their 

strategies for overcoming them, will be invaluable for the many state KEA leadership teams engaged in 

or interested in implementing KEAs. Thus, state and district leaders considering developing or revising a 

KEA may be interested in the challenges and potential solutions case study respondents identified. 

This report uses the term “parents” when discussing schools sharing KEA results because that is the term used 

in the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which is the federal privacy law that applies to 

education records maintained by public schools and school districts at the elementary and secondary level; the 

term “parent” in FERPA is defined to mean a natural parent, a guardian, or an individual acting as a parent in 

the absence of a parent or a guardian. Schools must obtain written parental consent to share a child’s KEA 

results with other individuals, unless an exception to the requirement of written parental consent applies. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 3 

9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 1. Example Skills Measured and Items Used on KEAs by School Readiness Domains 

School 

Readiness 

Domain Example Skill, Ability, or Disposition Example Items 

Physical well­ • Physical abilities (e.g., gross and fine Teacher rating of the student’s ability to: 

being and motor motor skills) • Demonstrate locomotor skills with 

development • Physical development (e.g., growth control, coordination, and balance during 

(including patterns of height and weight) active play (e.g., running, hopping, 

adaptive skills) • Health status (e.g., the ability to see and 

hear) 

jumping). 

• Use a three-finger grasp of dominant 

hand to hold a writing tool. 

Social and • Knowledge of personal feelings and Teacher rating of student’s ability to: 

emotional those of others • Demonstrate awareness of self and one’s 

development • Ability to develop positive relationships 

• Interpersonal skills needed to maintain 

positive relationships with adults and 

peers 

own preferences. 

• Express emotions appropriately to adults 

and peers. 

• Distinguish between appropriate and 

inappropriate ways to resolve conflict. 

Approaches to • Self-control/self-regulation Teacher rating of the student’s ability to: 

learning • Persistence 

• Attention to task 

• Reflection 

• Interest in learning 

• Complete work effectively. 

• Show curiosity and motivation. 

• Attend to tasks, activities, projects, and 

experiences for an extended period of 

time, even if challenging and despite 

interruptions. 

Language • Expressive speech (e.g., communication) Teacher rating of the student’s ability to: 

development • Receptive skills (e.g., listens and • Express thoughts, feelings, and ideas, 

and early understands others, vocabulary) speaking clearly enough to be 

literacy • Early literacy skills (e.g., print awareness, 

phonological awareness, letter 

recognition, text comprehension) 

understood by most audiences. 

• Act upon or responds to dominant 

spoken language showing understanding 

of intent. 

• Write name. 

Direct assessment: 

• The student has 60 seconds to identify as 

many letters as he or she can. 

Cognition and • Cognitive competencies like early Teacher rating of the student’s ability to: 

general mathematical skills (e.g., number sense, • Directly compare and describe two 

knowledge classification, discriminating shapes and 

colors, simple patterns, size, location, 

and time) 

• Basic problem-solving skills (e.g., 

acknowledging similarities and 

differences) 

objects with a measurable attribute (e.g., 

length, size, capacity, and weight) in 

common, using words such as 

"longer"/"shorter." 

Direct assessment: 

• The student counts the number 

sequence to 20. 

• The student uses number cards arranged 

in a line to count and then determines 

what number comes before or after a 

specific number. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 4 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study Questions 

This study addressed the following questions: 

1.	 How did the four case study states develop or adopt KEAs? 

2.	 How did the four states train teachers to administer KEAs and to what extent did teachers feel 

prepared to do so? 

3.	 What were the KEA implementation experiences of the 12 case study districts? 

4.	 To what extent did the states, districts, and schools in the study use KEA results to inform policy 

and practice? 

5.	 What challenges did the case study sites experience with KEAs, and what strategies did sites use 

or suggest using to address these challenges? 

Study Design and Methodology 

In consultation with ED and HHS, the study team used the following criteria to identify states for 

inclusion in the study: 

1.	 The state’s KEA is comprehensive and covers all or most of the five essential domains of school 

readiness as defined in the RTT-ELC program: (a) language and literacy development; (b) 

cognition and general knowledge, including early mathematics and early scientific development; 

(c) approaches toward learning; (d) physical well-being and motor development, including 

adaptive skills; and (e) social and emotional development. 

2.	 The state KEA leadership team was implementing its KEA at the beginning of kindergarten and 

not at the exit of preschool. 

3.	 The state KEA leadership team was planning full implementation of its KEA by fall 2014. 

In addition to meeting these fundamental criteria, ED and HHS further recommended that at least one 

of the selected states represent each of the following: 

4.	 a Race To the Top-Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) grantee state; 

5.	 a non–RTT-ELC grantee state; 

6.	 an Enhanced Assessment Grant (EAG) state; 

7.	 a user of a commercially available KEA assessment tool; and 

8.	 a user of a KEA assessment tool developed by the state KEA leadership team and/or associates. 

Maryland, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington met all the fundamental criteria. None of the states 

that met the fundamental criteria was a non–RTT-ELC state. Although all four case study states were 

RTT-ELC grantees, they were from different RTT-ELC cohorts. Two of the states were part of an EAG 

consortium: Maryland had an EAG with a consortium of seven states. Oregon was part of a nine-state 

consortium with North Carolina, but the Oregon KEA leadership team implemented a KEA developed 

independently of the consortium in 2014. Finally, KEA leadership teams in Oregon and Washington used 

commercially available assessment tools, whereas KEA leadership teams and associates in Maryland and 

Pennsylvania developed their own assessment tools. The variation among the selected states on the 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 5 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

many key KEA design elements enabled the study team to learn about a wide array of strategies and 

implementation experiences.10 

To address the study questions, the study team conducted document reviews, telephone interviews 

with state respondents and preschool directors, and in-person interviews with district administrators, 

principals, kindergarten teachers, and other KEA assessors. 

Data collection occurred between January and June 2015 in the four case study states and in the 12 

districts and 23 schools in those states. This sample size enabled the study team to explore the range of 

strategies that states, districts, and schools were using to implement KEAs. The study team drew a 

purposive sample of three school districts from each state, stratified as urban, suburban, and rural. Then 

the study team drew a sample of schools with both high concentrations of poverty (i.e., schools with 

more than 75 percent free or reduced-price lunch program enrollment) and significant concentrations of 

English learner (EL) students (i.e., schools with more than 30 percent EL enrollment),

11 as well as schools 

with lower concentrations of poverty and EL students. Participating preschool programs provided public 

or private early care and education at or near the selected schools. Through this stratification method, 

districts and schools were identified that served students with diverse characteristics that would be of 

interest to ED and HHS. 

The study team completed 201 interviews across the four states — specifically, interviews with 33 state 

agency representatives, 48 district representatives (including 13 professional development 

coordinators), 20 principals and one vice principal, 53 kindergarten teachers, five other KEA assessors, 

and 41 preschool program directors. Structured debrief guides and cross-case analysis meetings were 

used to identify themes and verify evidence for findings. Appendix A presents additional information 

about the study design, methodology, and analyses. 

Wherever possible, the study team indicated the proportion of respondents sharing particular 

viewpoints either by specifying quantities (e.g., one or two respondents) or by using general terms 

according to the following definitions: a “few” applies to at least three respondents or a small minority 

of respondents (e.g., four of 30); “several” applies to at least seven respondents out of a large sample 

pool (e.g., 30 respondents); and the “majority” applies to more than half of the respondents within a 

respondent group. 

The study team shared excerpts of the state snapshots (Chapter 2) with officials of each participating 

state in May to June 2016, who reviewed these portions of the draft report for accuracy and provided 

clarification as needed. 

10	 For full disclosure, Oregon is part of the North Carolina Kindergarten Entry Assessment-Enhanced Assessment 

Grant (KEA-EAG) consortium. SRI International, the principal researcher for this study, is helping North Carolina 

and its nine partner states enhance their KEA as part of the KEA-EAG project. Oregon implemented an 

independent KEA in 2013 and 2014, so the activities reported here are those of its independent KEA. To avoid a 

potential conflict of interest, this document does not report on the KEA the North Carolina KEA-EAG partners 

developed. 11	 Interviewers used the term “English learners” when asking respondents about this population, but some 

respondents preferred the term “dual language learner students” or “DLL students,” because in early 

childhood, all children are learning English. This report uses the terms “EL students.” 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 6 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Limitations of This Report 

This is a descriptive study based on self-reported data from interviews with purposively selected 

personnel at purposively selected sites and information gathered from publicly available documents. 

Findings from the selected sites are not representative of or generalizable to all districts and schools 

within or beyond the case study states. Further, the findings are a snapshot in time from fall 2014 and 

early 2015, and therefore respondents may have reported on many activities and circumstances that 

have since changed. In some cases, interview respondents had not participated in early discussions 

about the selection or development of KEAs and therefore were not able to provide detailed 

information about their KEAs’ historical beginnings. Further, the study team did not evaluate the validity 

or reliability of the selected or developed KEA measures (for use in the general population or with 

special populations) or their administration processes. Finally, the inclusion of a description of school or 

district practices in this report does not signify that ED and HHS have approved these practices. 

Still, state and district policymakers and administrators can use the study findings to inform their own 

KEA plans by considering the common challenges and potential solutions identified, the tradeoffs of 

various KEA strategies, and the numerous logistical steps undertaken in adopting, implementing, and 

using a KEA to inform policy, program improvement, and instruction. 

Overview of the Report 

This report provides findings related to the selection and early implementation of KEAs across Maryland, 

Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington. Chapter 2 provides snapshots of the case study states’ 

experiences with their KEA. Then the report covers cross-site findings related to the study questions: 

(1) development and adoption of a KEA at the state level; (2) state support for teacher KEA training; 

(3) district officials’ and teachers’ KEA implementation experiences; (4) state, district, and school use of 

KEA data; and (5) challenges in KEA adoption, implementation, and use and potential solutions. Chapters 

3 through 6 include several callout boxes with “Practice Highlights” to emphasize examples of practices 

undertaken in case study states that may be helpful to consider when planning for statewide 

implementation of a KEA. The last chapter presents conclusions, including key findings, 

recommendations, and ideas for additional research that could further inform KEA efforts. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 7 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2. State KEA Snapshots 

The development and adoption of KEAs, their implementation, and the use of KEA results were situated 

in states’ unique experiences with early learning programs and assessments and their local needs. The 

state snapshots describe the unique contexts and experiences of each of the case study states. A 

summary at the end of this chapter presents characteristics of KEAs across states. 

Maryland 

This snapshot begins with a broad timeline depicting the development and implementation of 

Maryland’s KEA, called the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA) (Exhibit 2), followed by 

background information on the kindergarten students in Maryland and in the sampled districts and 

schools. The snapshot then reports on how Maryland officials developed the KEA and trained teachers 

to collect KEA data, how district administrators and teachers implemented the KEA, and on 

communication and the early use of KEA findings. 

Exhibit 2. Maryland (MD) KRA Timeline 

Initiation 

of MMSR 

Award of 

RTT-ELC 

Conceptual 

Development 

Field 

Testing 

Statewide 

Implementation 

2001 

MD institutes MD Model for 

School Readiness (MMSR) to 

assess all incoming 

kindergarteners. 

With RTT-ELC funds, MD revises 

MMSR to align with Maryland 

College and Career-Ready 

Standards for K-12 Instruction. 

MD field tests the KRA. 

MD Consortium uses Enhanced 

Assessment Grant funds to 

develop the Early Childhood 

Comprehensive Assessment 

System. 

2012–2013 

MD implements the KRA 

statewide. 

2014 

2010 

2013–2014 

Maryland Student Characteristics 

Maryland serves more than 67,000 kindergarten students, half (51 percent) of whom are eligible for free 

or reduced-price meals. The population of students is diverse. Forty-one percent of the elementary 

school population identifies as White, followed by Black (35 percent), Hispanic (14 percent), and Asian 

(6 percent) (Appendix B).

12 

This case study included three Maryland school districts, one urban, one rural, and one suburban. 

Among the case study districts, the majority of students were eligible for free or reduced-price meals in 

both the urban (75–100 percent) and rural (50–75 percent) districts. A majority of students in the urban 

12	 Throughout this report, Black or African American students are denoted as "Black" and Hispanic or Latino 

students are denoted as "Hispanic.” 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 9 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

district was Black (75–100 percent). In each district, 5–20 percent of students were students with 

disabilities. 

Within each district, the study team selected two schools according to the criteria discussed in the 

“Selecting Districts and Schools Within the Four Case Study States” section of Appendix A. Although on 

average none of the three district populations had a significant number of students designated as EL 

students (i.e., each had fewer than 5 percent), the two suburban schools specifically selected for the 

study had a significant percentage of EL students; in one school, more than 30 percent of students were 

EL students, and in the other, 5–30 percent of students were EL students. In both urban schools, 75–100 

percent of students were Black, and in both suburban schools, 25–50 percent of students were Hispanic. 

Each school also served students with disabilities (5–20 percent). Appendix B presents additional 

information about kindergarten student characteristics in Maryland statewide and in the selected case 

study districts and schools. 

Maryland Kindergarten Readiness Assessment Background 

Maryland teachers have implemented a state-mandated KEA since 2001.13 In 2012, with support from 

an RTT-ELC grant and in collaboration with the Ohio Department of Education, a leadership team in the 

Maryland State Department of Education began developing a statewide comprehensive early childhood 

education assessment system. This system, named Ready for Kindergarten (R4K), included both a 

formative Early Learning Assessment for children ages 36 to 72 months and the Kindergarten Readiness 

Assessment (KRA), a summative snapshot of children’s school readiness levels at kindergarten entry. The 

state departments designed the KRA to include both direct and indirect assessment, to align with the 

Maryland College and Career-Ready Standards, and to be supported by technology (i.e., tablets and 

touch-screen technology). 

In 2013, with support from an EAG and in partnership with a consortium of five other states, staff from 

the Maryland State and Ohio Departments of Education enhanced the R4K by aligning it with the 

standards from the other states, refining the technology components, and improving the professional 

development resources offered within the system. 

Purpose of Maryland’s KRA 

The purpose of the KRA is to support and advance children’s early learning and academic achievement. 

The intended purposes of the KRA findings are to: 

• Inform prior early education and care stakeholders. 

• Identify individual children’s strengths and needs and recommended supports for children. 

• Assist teachers in data-driven instructional decision making at the school and classroom levels. 

• Provide families with information about their children’s learning and development. 

Source: Maryland State Board of Education 2015a. 

13	 The Judith P. Hoyer Early Care and Education Enhancement Program established the Maryland Model for 

School Readiness (MMSR), the original statewide KEA, in 2000. The legislative bills are available at 

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2000rs/fnotes/bil_0009/hb1249.PDF and 

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2000rs/fnotes/bil_0003/sb0793.pdf 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 10 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The KRA assesses four domains: language and literacy, social foundations, mathematics, and physical 

well-being and motor development. The KRA comprises three types of assessment items: selected 

response items, performance task items, and observational-rubric items. The KRA administered in fall 

2014 had 63 items aligned with the Maryland College and Career-Ready Standards (Appendix C). 

In fall 2014, teachers administered the KRA to almost all (98 percent) of Maryland’s more than 67,000 

kindergarten students. 

Development and Adoption of the KRA 

Officials from the Maryland State and Ohio Departments of Education involved multiple stakeholders 

(including contracted researchers, national experts, local school system leaders and teachers, and staff 

from the Maryland State Department of Education divisions of special education, curriculum and 

assessment, and EL students) in the process of developing and field-testing the KRA, creating 

technology-supported platforms for training and administration, and disseminating information about 

school readiness results. These stakeholders participated in various working groups, such as a Sensitivity 

and Bias working group, a Content working group, and a Technical Advisory working group. 

Officials from the Maryland State Department of Education employed independent researchers to 

conduct interviews with teachers and students to gather feedback on implementation, a pilot test, and a 

field test of the first version of the KRA in 2013.

14 Officials of the Maryland State Department of 

Education used this feedback to develop and refine the KRA items, the online reporting system, and the 

training process for statewide administration in fall 2014. Principles of universal design guided the 

development of the KRA. When researchers evaluated the final KRA items for difficulty, discrimination, 

and internal consistency, they found the tool had “excellent” overall internal consistency: Cronbach’s 

alpha for the overall KRA was .94, and Cronbach’s alphas for the domains ranged from .78 to .91 

(Maryland State Board of Education 2015b). The KRA developers also reviewed and omitted items with 

cultural bias. 

State Training of Teachers to Collect KRA Data 

Staff from the Maryland State Department of Education met with officials in each of Maryland’s 24 

school districts to introduce the KRA and offer guidance about technological needs for implementing the 

system. Officials at the Maryland State Department of Education adopted a train-the-trainer model to 

prepare kindergarten teachers for administering the KRA. District trainers attended a three-day, statehosted KRA training at which they completed their certification; subsequently, they provided two days 

of face-to-face training (or blended face-to-face and online training) and follow-up support to teachers 

in their local districts, including an online learning community portal and other digital teacher resources. 

The majority of teachers interviewed for the case study reported that the training was adequate, even 

though neither the finalized instrument nor configured tablets were available before training. The 

Maryland State Department of Education required teachers to complete and pass a content exam and to 

meet a minimum cut-score on a rating simulator before they were certified to administer the KRA; state 

and district officials reported conducting minimal monitoring of KRA administration. 

14 Additional information about the pilot and field tests of Maryland’s KRA is available at 

http://marylandpublicschools.org/stateboard/boardagenda/10282014/Tab%20K1_K2_K3_RTTT_LearningChalle 

ngeGrantMemo.pdf 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 11 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To support teachers in administering the KRA to students with disabilities15 or EL students, staff at the 

Maryland State and Ohio Departments of Education developed a tiered decision-making process for 

identifying and implementing individualized supports. According to the states’ guidelines, “level the 

field” supports (e.g., braille, sign, or gestural language) can be used to address the unique requirements 

of an EL student and a student with disabilities and to assist them in demonstrating their knowledge and 

skills, but level the field supports do not necessarily include all supports outlined in the student’s IEP. 

KRA administration guidelines do not allow teachers to sight translate the KRA into other languages or 

for students to respond in languages other than English, but they do allow for other supports for EL 

students, such as pointing at items to provide clarification. 

District and School Implementation of the KRA 

The majority of teachers across the visited districts reported completing the KRA in fall 2014 by the 

eighth or tenth week of school. The Maryland State Department of Education required teachers to 

complete the KRA by October 30, but respondents in the three case district districts reported receiving a 

week-long extension because KRA materials, including tablets, arrived late. District administrators 

reported that not all teachers needed the extra time to complete the KRA. Teachers interviewed across 

all three districts reported spending up to 1.5 hours per student to administer and score the KRA, with 

data entry considered the most time-consuming part. Consequently, teachers reported that finding the 

amount of time needed to conduct the KRA early in the school year was challenging. However, a few 

teachers reported that KRA administration provided them with valuable one-on-one time with their 

students. 

Interviewed teachers reported that when districts had the capacity to offer aides and substitute 

teachers in their classrooms, the KRA administration process was more manageable. Respondents in the 

suburban and rural districts reported that they replaced or delayed other assessments that were also 

typically administered during the beginning of the school year in an effort to reduce additional burdens. 

District and teacher respondents reported that using tablets increased student engagement in the KRA 

tasks and eased some aspects of administration; however, they also reported technological problems 

including unreliable Wi-Fi connections and log-in difficulties. 

A few interviewed district administrators and teachers across all three districts shared the belief that the 

KRA was difficult to administer with students with disabilities, because the KRA administration 

guidelines prohibited certain accommodations (e.g., simplifying the language of the script or providing 

prompts). Educators in the urban and suburban districts noted that the KRA results might inaccurately 

portray a student with language differences as delayed in their skill development. 

Communication and Use of the KRA 

In May 2015, the Maryland State Board of Education released a public data report, available on its 

website, which summarized the results from the first year of KRA implementation statewide and by 

county (Maryland State Board of Education 2015a). Staff at the Maryland State Department of Education 

issued the KRA data after state officials and kindergarten teachers from Maryland and Ohio established 

cut scores (i.e., the number of correct items required for a student to be considered “ready” in a 

15 Interviewers used the term “children with developmental delays or disabilities” when asking respondents about 

this population. Respondents used various terms, including “children with special needs” and “children 

receiving special education.” This report uses the term “students with disabilities.” 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 12 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

particular domain). (See KRA Results from 2014–15, below, for additional information on defining 

readiness.) 

Respondents from the Maryland State Department of Education reported that they anticipated that the 

data would be available earlier in subsequent school years, which officials deemed critical for teachers’ 

use of the results.16 In August 2015, officials at the Maryland State Board of Education released a study 

report that used data findings from the KRA to assess the kindergarten readiness of students who 

participated in learning centers associated with designated Title I school zones (Maryland State Board of 

Education 2015c). 

Because data were not available until May, district and teacher respondents had not yet used the results 

at the time of the case study interviews in April 2015 and had not shared findings with the early 

childhood education community. However, district respondents reported anticipated uses for the KRA 

data in future years, including adjusting curricula, identifying professional development areas for 

teachers, and identifying geographical areas that could benefit from access to additional preschool 

programs. Teachers reported wanting to share results with parents and engage with preschool programs 

about entering students’ needs and strengths. 

KRA Results from 2014–15 

The Maryland State Board of Education presented KRA results according to three levels of readiness, 

defined according to the state’s standards for kindergarten. According to a technical report, the state 

team used a “bookmarking” standard-setting process to establish the criteria for these levels (Maryland 

State Board of Education 2015b). A panel of teachers and early learning specialists reviewed the KRA 

items, presented in order of difficulty as determined by student performance in the 2014–15 KRA 

administration, to identify distinctions between levels of readiness. Panelists placed a bookmark 

between the two items that they believed separated the skills of students with emerging readiness (i.e., 

students with limited foundational skills and behaviors that prepare them for the kindergarten 

curriculum) from those of students with approaching readiness (i.e., students who demonstrate some 

foundational skills and behaviors that prepare them for the kindergarten curriculum); they placed a 

second bookmark between the two items they believed separated the skills of students with 

approaching readiness from those of students demonstrating readiness (i.e., students who demonstrate 

the foundational skills and behaviors that prepare them for the kindergarten curriculum). 

The 2014–15 KRA results revealed that nearly half (47 percent) of all students displayed the 

foundational skills assessed, demonstrating readiness for kindergarten. More than one-third (36 

percent) were approaching readiness and 17 percent of students were assessed as emerging readiness. 

More than half of White students (57 percent), Asian students (53 percent), and students of two or 

more races (52 percent) demonstrated full readiness, in contrast to lower percentages of Black students 

(43 percent), Pacific Islander students (35 percent), and Hispanic students (27 percent; Exhibit 3). 

Students with disabilities, EL students, and those from low-income families had lower school readiness 

than Maryland kindergartners as a whole (Exhibit 4). In particular, one-fifth (20 percent) of EL students 

and one-fifth (20 percent) of students with disabilities demonstrated school readiness. More than onethird (36 percent) of students who came from low-income households demonstrated readiness for 

16 A Maryland state official confirmed during a review of excerpts from this report that the Maryland Department 

of Education made KRA data available earlier in the 2015–16 school year. Teachers could access individual 

student reports two weeks after the close of KRA administration, and the department released the public data 

report in February 2016. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 14 

kindergarten (Maryland State Board of Education 2015a). Appendix D presents additional data findings 

on the readiness of Maryland’s students in each of the four domains by student characteristics. 

Exhibit 3. Percentages of Maryland Students Demonstrating Kindergarten Readiness 

Exhibit Reads: Nearly half (47 percent) of all Maryland kindergarten students demonstrated skills indicating full kindergarten readiness. 

SOURCE: Data from Maryland State Board of Education 2015a. 

Exhibit 4. Percentages of Maryland Students from Special Populations Demonstrating 

Kindergarten Readiness 

Exhibit Reads: Twenty percent of EL students in Maryland demonstrated skills indicating full school readiness. 

SOURCE: Data from Maryland State Board of Education 2015a. 

47 

57 

43 

27 

53 

35 

40 

52 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

Total 

Population 

White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific 

Islander 

American 

Indian/ 

Alaska 

Native 

Two or 

more races 

Percent of students who 

demonstrated readiness 

20 20 

36 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

English learners Students with disabilities Low-income students 

Percent of students who 

demonstrated readiness 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oregon 

This snapshot begins with a broad timeline depicting the adoption and implementation of Oregon's KEA, 

called Kindergarten Assessment (KA) (Exhibit 5), followed by background information on the 

kindergarten students in Oregon and in the sampled districts and schools. The snapshot then reports on 

how Oregon officials adopted the KEA and trained teachers to collect KEA data, how district 

administrators and teachers implemented the KEA, and on communication and the early use of KEA 

data. 

Exhibit 5. Oregon (OR) KA Timeline 

1997–2008 

Teacher surveys of school 

readiness administered (1997, 

2000, 2002, 2004, 2006. 2008) 

until suspended in 2009. 

Oregon Department of 

Education (ODE) and partners 

develop process to select 

measure that will answer 

policy questions. 

Review of instruments in use 

in OR and U.S.; ELC approval 

of recommended tools; 

pilot test. 

House Bill 4165 directs ODE 

and Early Learning Council 

(ELC) to jointly develop the OR 

Kindergarten Assessment (KA). 

2012 

State Board of Education 

directs all districts to 

administer the KA beginning 

in the 2013-14 school year. 

2013–2014 

2010 2012–2013 

K Teacher 

Survey 

Planning 

Process Legislation 

Selection 

and 

Adoption 

Statewide 

Implementation 

Oregon Student Characteristics 

Oregon serves nearly 42,000 kindergarten students, half (51 percent) of whom are eligible for free or 

reduced-price meals. Across the state, about two-thirds of kindergarten students identify as White 

(64 percent), and nearly one quarter of students identify as Hispanic (22 percent) (Appendix B). 

This case study included three Oregon districts, one urban and two rural. Across the districts, 25–75 

percent of students were eligible for free or reduced-price meals. All three districts had student 

populations who predominately identified as White. In one rural district, Hispanic students identified as 

the second largest ethnic group (25–50 percent). In the urban district, 5–30 percent of students were EL 

students, and in each district 5–20 percent were students with disabilities. Within each district, the 

study team selected two schools according to the criteria in the “Selecting Districts and Schools Within 

the Four Case Study States” section of Appendix A. The urban schools served significant percentages of 

EL students (more than 30 percent) and students eligible for free or reduced-price meals (75–100 

percent). The urban district and the rural district each had a school serving significant percentages of 

Hispanic students (25–50 percent). In one suburban school, more than 20 percent were students with 

disabilities; in the other five schools, 5–20 percent were students with disabilities. Appendix B presents 

additional information about kindergarten student characteristics in Oregon statewide and in the 

selected case study districts and schools. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 15 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oregon Kindergarten Assessment Background 

A statewide, voluntary teacher survey of school readiness preceded the KA. During several school years 

between 1997 and 2009, Oregon kindergarten teachers completed a survey, rating each of their 

students on indicators representing the five essential domains of school readiness. Due to concerns 

about rigor, validity, response rate (i.e., few districts participated in the survey), and use of the results, 

state officials discontinued the survey in 2009. In 2012, House Bill 4165 became law and called for the 

development, piloting, and implementation of a statewide KEA by fall 2013. The State Board of 

Education further adopted Oregon Administrative Rule (OAR) 581-022-2130 in 2013, which mandated 

administration of the KA to all entering kindergarten students beginning in the 2013–14 school year. 17 

Teachers in Oregon schools subsequently implemented the Oregon KA during the 2013–14 and 2014–15 

school years to all students enrolled in public kindergarten classrooms. 

Supported by state funds and federal Race to the Top funds, and led by the Oregon Department of 

Education, Oregon’s KA has three segments that each focus on Oregon’s Early Learning Framework 

domains and K–12 state standards: early literacy, early math, and approaches to learning. Officials at the 

Oregon Department of Education adopted early literacy and early math measures from the University of 

Oregon’s easyCBM assessment, which provides benchmarks and progress monitoring for math and 

literacy skills in kindergarten through eighth grade. The early literacy measure addresses letter names 

and sounds that can be administered in English or Spanish. The Oregon guidelines state that a student 

who qualifies for English Language Development services and speaks Spanish should take both the 

Spanish and the English literacy components of the KA. The early math segment contains multiplechoice items addressing numbers and operations, and assessors can read instructions in English or 

Spanish. Classroom teachers or other trained assessors can administer the easyCBM any time through 

the sixth week of school, but the Oregon Department of Education encourages teachers to complete 

these segments in the first three weeks. 

Purpose of Oregon’s KA 

The intended purposes of the KA findings are to: 

•	 Provide local and statewide information to state-level policymakers, communities, schools, and families 

about the literacy, math, self-regulation, and interpersonal skills of entering kindergarteners. 

•	 Provide essential information on Oregon’s entering kindergarteners’ strengths and to identify gaps in key 

developmental and academic skills to inform early learning and K–12 systems decisions and to target 

instruction, professional development, resources, and supports on the areas of greatest need. 

•	 Provide a consistent tool to be used across the state to identify opportunity gaps in order to inform 

schools, districts, early learning hubs, communities, and policymakers about how to allocate resources to 

the communities with the greatest need and to measure progress in the years to come. 

Source: Oregon Department of Education 2015a. 

17 The KA legislation is available at 

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2012R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB4165/Enrolled. The Oregon 

Administrative Rule is available at 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0ahUKEwjggd3Pnp7NAhVS6mM 

KHcqGAf8QFghEMAY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ode.state.or.us%2Fsuperintendent%2Fpriorities%2F2013­

march-8-kindergarten-readiness-assessment-oar.doc&usg=AFQjCNFO8F7yREYGIoPxpYxCqSodkWWIQ&sig2=xL-db_uGbeZ9Rxik8V87Cw&bvm=bv.124272578,d.cGc 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 16 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To assess children’s approaches to learning, Oregon teachers complete an observational assessment 

adapted from the Child Behavior Rating Scale (Bronson, Goodson, Layzer, and Love 1990) during the first 

six weeks of school. This measure includes items on behavioral self-regulation and interpersonal skills 

that correspond with the approaches to learning and social and emotional domains of the state’s early 

learning framework (Oregon Department of Education 2015a) (Appendix C). 

During the 2013–14 and 2014–15 school years, teachers completed the KA with more than 40,000 

kindergartners each year, representing about 95 percent of entering public school kindergarten 

students. 

Development and Adoption of the KA 

According to state respondents, members of the governor’s administration drove the initial discussion 

for a KA in 2011 in an effort to show the need for increased investments in early childhood education. 

Goals for a KA also included collecting information on students’ strengths and needs to inform 

classroom instruction, identifying early achievement gaps, and using a consistent measure of school 

readiness to inform statewide investments and policy. 

In 2012, members of the Oregon Department of Education‘s Early Learning Council appointed a 

Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA) work group to identify and recommend a KA for statewide 

administration in fall 2013. Two university researchers (one from Oregon State and one from the 

University of Oregon) conducted initial psychometric reviews of nearly 30 potential KEA instruments, 

including assessment of the instruments’ reliability, predictive validity for third-grade outcomes, and 

validity with culturally diverse populations. Based on their review, these researchers made 

recommendations to the KRA work group, which then got feedback from a broader group of 

stakeholders on the recommended scales. Stakeholders included preschool and kindergarten teachers, 

district administrators, researchers, and members of children’s advocacy groups. 

The KRA work group and researchers selected the composite assessment approach (comprising the 

easyCBM and adapted Child Behavior Rating Scale) over a portfolio assessment approach because of its 

predictive value for future academic success, psychometric rigor, and appropriateness for all children, 

including EL students and students with disabilities. Practical considerations included cost, potential 

burden on teacher and student time, and alignment with current practices in Oregon kindergartens. The 

easyCBM is a progress monitoring tool designed for ongoing use with students in kindergarten through 

eighth grade. 

In 2012, the Ford Family Foundation funded a pilot test of the KA that included school observations of 

KA administrations in schools, document reviews, and teacher feedback (Furrer and Greene 2013). As a 

result of the study, the KRA work group oversaw adaptations to the instrument and implementation 

procedures and developed additional resources for assessors. After the 2013 and 2014 administrations, 

Oregon Department of Education advisors examined KA implementation and results and made further 

recommendations, such as piloting other early literacy measures.18 

State Training of Teachers to Collect KA Data 

Officials at the Oregon Department of Education developed and implemented a train-the-trainer model 

for the KA. District test coordinators used an Oregon Department of Education-developed web-based 

18	 During the review of the report excerpts, an Oregon state official confirmed that a pilot study of alternative 

early literacy measures was done in fall 2015. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 17 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

training module to train teachers in their respective districts during the professional development days 

preceding the start of school. The training topics covered an overview of the KA, administration details, 

decision trees to determine eligibility for accessibility supports for students with disabilities and EL 

students, and security practices. After completing the online module, the test coordinators completed a 

proficiency test. After training, district test coordinators and regional help desks provided ongoing 

support for teachers and other assessors. 

Officials at the Oregon Department of Education created a decision tree to help KA assessors provide the 

appropriate supports for EL students and students with disabilities. If an EL student qualified for English 

Language Development services and spoke Spanish, the student took both the Spanish and the English 

literacy components of the KA. Students who spoke a language other than English or Spanish had to take 

the KA in English. Students with disabilities that had specific supports on their Individualized Education 

Programs (IEPs)19 received those accommodations during KA administration, but an IEP was not 

necessary for consideration of additional supports if a teacher believed a student might need additional 

supports. Administrators could provide any students for whom a need had been indicated by an 

educator or team of educators with appropriate accessibility supports to reduce or eliminate their 

learning challenges as specified in the decision tree, such as simplifying language in the directions or 

pointing to each answer choice. 

District and School Implementation of the KA 

Interviewed school and district staff reported that the KA was quick and easy to administer, that support 

staff were available to assist with the literacy and math assessment components, and that the 

approaches to learning segment aligned well with current teaching practices and interests. However, 

interviewed teachers and administrators across districts expressed concerns about the timing of 

administration of the literacy and math assessments, conducted upon first arrival at school. The majority 

of interviewed teachers reported administering the math and literacy components of the KA when 

families visited during the three to five transition days that proceeded school or during the first week of 

school. They reported that this was a poor introduction for students who may be nervous about 

interacting with their teachers and peers, which may affect their ability to perform their best. 

Several interviewed teachers and a few school administrators also expressed concerns about the 

appropriateness of administering and the accuracy of the KA results with EL students and students with 

disabilities, and they reported needing more training and supports to provide the recommended 

accommodations (e.g., simplifying the language of the script or providing prompts). 

KA assessors submitted paper forms with individual students’ results to school or district staff, who then 

submitted the data electronically to the Oregon Department of Education. All staff at the district and 

school levels reported minimal monitoring of KA implementation and minimal concerns about 

administration irregularities. 

19 IDEA’s IEP requirements are in 34 CFR 300.320-300.324. Among other required information, each child’s IEP 

must include a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services to 

be provided to the child, or on behalf of the child, to enable the child to advance appropriately toward attaining 

his or her annual goals and to be involved and make progress in the general education curriculum, or for 

preschool children participation in appropriate activities. 34 CFR 300.320(a)(4). With regard to participation in 

assessments, each child's IEP must include a statement of any individual appropriate accommodations that are 

necessary to measure the student's academic achievement and functional performance on State and 

districtwide assessments, consistent with IDEA section 612(a)(16). 34 CFR 300.320(a)(6)(i). 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 18 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Communication and Use of the KA 

State administrators with the Oregon Department of Education made the KA data available on its 

website, in the state’s longitudinal data system, and to districts. According to a state administrator, the 

Oregon Department of Education published and distributed KA results in early 2015. However, none of 

the respondents (including state, district, and school staff and preschool directors) reported 

understanding how to use the data to explore policy or demographic trends or to inform instruction. 

Respondents said they found the data difficult to use in the provided Microsoft® Excel files and had not 

received training on how to use the data. 

The majority of interviewed teachers reported that they used other assessment results they felt were 

more useful than the KA results for informing instruction and tracking progress. Several teachers and 

preschool teachers who were familiar with the KA reported that they found its content inappropriate 

developmentally and academically for incoming kindergartners, the timing of the KA too early in the 

school year to collect reliable and accurate data on students’ knowledge and skills, or the KA too narrow 

in focus. 

A few staff in the rural districts reported having some preliminary communication with parents about 

the KA, but interviewed district and school staff across districts said that they had little or no 

communication about the KA with parents during the implementation phase. Respondents across all 

districts likewise reported that parents did not receive KA results. 

KA Results from 2014–15 

Officials at the Oregon Department of Education reported results separately for the three KA segments: 

approaches to learning, early mathematics, and early literacy (Exhibit 6). On the approaches to learning 

segment, kindergarten students’ scores averaged 3.6 in self-regulation and 3.9 in interpersonal skills, 

with a total average of 3.7 on a 5-point scale.20 When compared across racial and ethnic subpopulations, 

the total average scores on approaches to learning ranged from 3.5 for Black students to 3.9 for Asian 

students. On the early mathematics segment, students averaged 8.0 correct items out of 16 items across 

the state. When compared across racial and ethnic subpopulations, the total average scores on early 

mathematics ranged from 6.9 for Hispanic students to 9.2 for Asian students. On the early literacy 

segment, students averaged 17.7 items correct on English letter names in one minute and 6.6 items 

correct on English letter sounds in one minute. EL students averaged 3.0 items correct in Spanish letter 

names in one minute. When compared across racial and ethnic subpopulations, the total average scores 

on English letter names ranged from 8.9 for Hispanic students to 28.7 for Asian students, and the total 

average scores on English letter sounds ranged from 2.8 for Hispanic students to 11.5 for Asian students. 

The presentation of the 2014–15 KA results on the Oregon Department of Education website did not 

contain any further interpretation of the scores (Oregon Department of Education 2015b). Suggested 

20 On the 5-point scale for the Approaches to Learning segment, 1 = the child never exhibits the behavior 

described by the item, 2 = the child rarely exhibits the behavior described by the item, 3 = the child sometimes 

exhibits the behavior described by the item, 4 = the child frequently/usually exhibits the behavior described by 

the item, and 5 = the child always exhibits the behavior described by the item. More information about the KA 

scoring rubric is available in the Oregon Kindergarten Assessment Report Overview (Oregon Department of 

Education 2015b). 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 19 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

uses for the results of the KA and cautions on interpreting the findings appear in the Oregon 

Kindergarten Assessment Report Overview (Oregon Department of Education 2015a).21 

Exhibit 6. Average Scores on Oregon’s KA Segments 

Subgroup 

ATL
 

Selfregulation
 

Average 

rating 

(1-5) 

ATL 

Interpersonal 

skills 

Average 

rating 

(1-5) 

ATL
 

Total
 

Average 

rating 

(1-5) 

EM 

Numbers 

and 

operations 

Average 

number 

correct 

(0-16) 

EL 

English 

letter 

names 

Average 

number 

correct 

(0-100) 

EL 

English 

letter 

sounds 

Average 

number 

correct 

(0-100) 

EL 

Spanish 

letter 

names 

Average 

number 

correct 

(0-100) 

Total population 3.6 3.9 3.7 8.0 17.7 6.6 3.0 

White 3.6 3.9 3.7 8.4 20.2 7.7 1.7 

Black 3.4 3.7 3.5 7.2 18.5 5.9 a 

Hispanic 3.5 3.9 3.6 6.9 8.9 2.8 3.0 

Asian 3.7 4.1 3.9 9.2 28.7 11.5 a 

Pacific Islander 3.5 3.8 3.6 7.1 13.3 3.8 a 

American Indian/ 

Alaska Native 3.5 3.8 3.6 7.3 14.3 4.5 1.5 

Two or more races 3.6 3.9 3.7 8.3 21.1 7.8 a 

English Learners 3.4 3.9 3.6 6.5 6.7 1.8 2.9 

Special Education 3.0 3.4 3.1 6.7 11.5 3.3 1.8 

Low Income 3.5 3.9 3.6 7.4 13.2 4.2 3.0 

Exhibit Reads: On average, kindergarten students scored 3.6 on a scale of 1 to 5 on the self-regulation items of the approaches to learning
 

segment of the KA.
 a

Sample size equals 0.
 

NOTE: ATL = Approaches to Learning; EM = Early Mathematics; EL = Early Literacy.
 

SOURCE: Data from Oregon Department of Education 2015b.
 

Pennsylvania 

This snapshot begins with a broad timeline depicting the development and implementation of 

Pennsylvania's KEA, called the Kindergarten Entry Inventory (KEI) (Exhibit 7), followed by background 

information on the kindergarten students in Pennsylvania and in the sampled districts and schools. The 

snapshot then reports on how Pennsylvania officials developed the KEA and trained teachers to collect 

KEA data, how district administrators and teachers implemented the KEA, and on communication and 

the early use of KEA findings. 

21	 In fall 2015, after the completion of this case study data collection, Oregon Department of Education and the 

Early Learning Division convened stakeholders to develop interpretive guidance based on three years of 

available KA data. They devised a developmental continuum including three benchmark levels to categorize 

students’ skills: Developing, Approaching, and Demonstrating and Above. More information is available in the 

Executive Summary for Interpretive Guidance and the Overview Report for Interpretive Guidance on the 

Oregon Department of Education website at http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?=3908 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 20 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 7. Pennsylvania KEI Timeline 

2011 

Office of Child Development and 

Early Learning (OCDEL) convenes 

stakeholders for planning and 

design process; starts series of 

pilot studies on KEI protocol 

originally called “SELMA.” 

OCDEL conducts additional field 

testing and psychometric studies 

of revised KEI tool and webbased data system. 

2013 

OCDEL uses RTT-ELC funds to 

support data system 

enhancements and validation 

studies to expand KEI 

implementation. 

2015 

OCDEL conducts field 

testing and psychometric 

studies of refined KEI tool. 

2012 2014 

Focus and priority schools 

and some volunteer 

districts implement KEI. 

Planning 

and Design 

Pilot and 

Field 

Testing 

Pilot and 

Field 

Testing 

Initial 

Implementation 

Validation 

and 

Expansion 

Pennsylvania Student Characteristics 

Pennsylvania serves more than 126,000 kindergarten students, nearly half (48 percent) of whom are 

eligible for free or reduced-price meals. The majority of the elementary school population identifies as 

White (68 percent), followed by Black (15 percent) and Hispanic (10 percent) (Appendix B). 

This case study included three Pennsylvania school districts, one urban, one rural, and one suburban. In 

the urban district, the majority of elementary school students identified as Black (50–75 percent), and 

almost one in five identified as Hispanic. Nearly all students in the urban district were eligible for free or 

reduced-price meals (75–100 percent), as were 25–50 percent of students in the suburban and rural 

districts. More than 20 percent of students in the suburban and rural districts were students with 

disabilities, as were 5–20 percent of students in the urban district. For the urban and suburban districts, 

the study team selected two schools according to the criteria in the “Selecting Districts and Schools 

Within the Four Case Study States” section of Appendix A. In 2014–15, Pennsylvania’s KEA, the 

Kindergarten Entry Inventory (KEI), was voluntary for most of the state’s schools, and very few rural 

districts implemented it; in the rural district selected for the case study, only one school implemented 

the KEI. In both schools selected from the urban district, 5–30 percent of students were EL students. 

Also, significant percentages of students in these schools were Hispanic (25–50 percent) and Asian (25– 

50 percent). More than 20 percent of students in one suburban school were students with disabilities; in 

the other schools 5–20 percent were students with disabilities. Appendix B presents additional 

information about kindergarten student characteristics in Pennsylvania statewide and in the selected 

case study districts and schools. 

Pennsylvania Kindergarten Entry Inventory Background 

Pennsylvania’s Kindergarten Entry Inventory (KEI) is a state-developed inventory that is optional for 

most schools but mandatory for Title I focus and priority schools.22 The KEI is not an assessment but 

22	 Priority and focus schools are schools identified by a state in accordance with its approved request for flexibility 

under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 21 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

rather an observational tool for reporting student outcomes, and it aligns with the Pennsylvania 

Learning Standards for Early Childhood and the Pennsylvania K–3 Core Standards. A team from 

Pennsylvania’s Office of Child Development and Early Learning led the development of the KEI to collect 

consistent information on cognitive and noncognitive competencies of students at kindergarten entry. 

Staff from the Office of Child Development and Early Learning anticipated that such data could aid 

teachers in providing high-quality standards-based instruction and in curriculum planning and could also 

inform preschool policies, the professional development of kindergarten and preschool teachers, and 

parents. 

Purpose of Pennsylvania’s KEI 

The intended purposes of the KEI are to: 

•	 Offer teachers an instructional strategy for understanding and tracking students’ proficiency 

across both cognitive and noncognitive domains at kindergarten entry. 

•	 Align to the Pennsylvania Early Learning Standards and Pennsylvania Core, and therefore 

complement and help improve existing assessments and teaching practices. 

Source: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Education 2015. 

The inventory contains 30 indicators that align with a subset of the standards that developers and 

researchers deemed to be most relevant to school readiness. These indicators address the following 

domains: (1) social and emotional development, (2) language and literacy, (3) mathematics, 

(4) approaches to learning, and (5) health, wellness, and physical development. Teachers use a rubric to 

mark students’ level of mastery on each of the indicators based on observations of their demonstrated 

behaviors. Four additional health and wellness indicators, not aligned with standards, record the 

number of days the student has been overdressed or underdressed for the weather, sent to the nurse 

for illness, absent, or late to school (Pennsylvania Office of Child Development and Early Learning n.d.) 

(Appendix C). 

State funds supported the KEI’s original design, piloting, and initial implementation (with minimal 

support from federal funds from Elementary and Secondary Education Act [ESEA] Titles I and II during 

the early design phase). Starting in 2014, a portion of RTT-ELC grant funds supported the development 

of a data system and technical assistance and will fund a validation study. According to state 

respondents, the Office of Child Development and Early Learning expects that the KEI will ultimately be 

sustainable with state resources, without reliance on federal grant money. 

The Office of Child Development and Early Learning mandated administration of the KEI only for 

kindergartens in Title I focus schools and priority schools; staff in other districts participated voluntarily 

or by the requirement of their district. In 2014, teachers in 215 public schools in 21 districts 

administered the KEI to approximately 16,000 students, about 13 percent of the state’s kindergarten 

enrollment. Of the 215 public schools that participated in the KEI, 54 percent (n = 116) were Title I focus 

schools or priority schools. 

2001 (ESEA flexibility). Generally speaking, under ESEA flexibility, priority schools are the lowest-performing five 

percent of Title I schools and focus schools are Title I schools with large within-school gaps between highachieving subgroups and low-achieving subgroups and schools with one or more subgroups with low 

achievement or graduation rates. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 22 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Development and Adoption of the KEI 

From 2011 to 2013, staff from the Office of Child Development and Early Learning convened a wide 

range of stakeholders — staff from Pennsylvania’s Department of Education and Bureau of Early 

Learning Services, national experts, educators, teachers of EL students, and researchers — to develop 

the KEI (see Exhibit 7 for the KEI timeline). They also convened a kindergarten advisory group (composed 

of district representatives, kindergarten teachers, administrators, and parents) to discuss the purpose 

and content of the KEI, surveyed districts to identify assessment tools already in use, and held 

conferences with tool developers to discuss calibrating instruments with state standards. 

Between 2012 and 2014, staff from the Office of Child Development and Early Learning conducted a 

series of pilot tests on the KEI.23 The KEI leadership team hired a contractor to conduct psychometric 

analyses and also gathered iterative feedback from teachers on the KEI content, feasibility, and usability 

and its data entry system. The leadership team from the Office of Child Development and Early Learning 

used the findings to refine the indicators, finalize the KEI, and inform training materials. An analyst 

contracted by the Office of Child Development and Early Learning deemed that the internal reliability of 

the indicators was acceptable for the overall tool and for all the domains. 

State Training of Teachers to Collect KEI Data 

Staff from the Office of Child Development and Early Learning developed online KEI teacher training 

webinars and materials, offered in-person trainings at districts’ request, and required teachers to pass 

proficiency standards before KEI administration. Of the three online webinars in the training series, the 

majority of case study teachers reported viewing the introductory webinar or the webinar on 

administration, but none of the interviewed teachers was aware of the third webinar that discussed 

available KEI reports and how to use findings to guide instruction. 

Staff from the Office of Child Development and Early Learning contracted with the Central Susquehanna 

Intermediate Unit24 to develop and maintain the KEI data system and provide districts and schools with 

technical assistance on data entry and reporting. Several respondents reported challenges in working 

with the data system—primarily related to system navigability and capacity. 

In all districts, interviewed teachers reported that they did not receive any specific training on the use of 

the KEI with EL students or students with disabilities and developmental delays. 

School and District Implementation of the KEI 

Following state requirements, interviewed teachers reported completing the KEI within the first 45 

calendar days of school and data entry within the next seven calendar days. Respondents reported 

challenges with administering the KEI at a time when teachers were establishing routines and building 

relationships with students. Interviewed teachers could not estimate specific amounts of time spent 

23 The Office of Child Development and Early Learning’s website includes three reports from the pilot tests, 

detailing the results of psychometric testing, at 

http://www.ocdelresearch.org/Reports/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=/Reports/Kindergarten Entry 

Inventory %28KEI%29&FolderCTID=&View=%7B5EEC6855-F8A8-486E-B6E0-FE6B9FDEBE2E%7D 

24 Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit (CSIU) is one of Pennsylvania’s 29 Intermediate Units (IU), established 

in 1971 by the Pennsylvania General Assembly, to operate as regional educational service agencies to provide 

cost-effective, management-efficient programs to Pennsylvania school districts (Pennsylvania Association of 

Intermediate Units). See https://www.paiu.org/ius.php 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 23 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

making KEI observations in various authentic settings, but in two districts, teachers entered the KEI 

ratings into the data system and estimated spending between two and 10 hours per classroom on that 

task. In one district, an administrative assistant spent approximately four hours per classroom entering 

the KEI data. 

Suburban and urban district and school administrators reported offering additional training and 

resources to teachers based on the availability of local resources (e.g., optional summer trainings, 

individualized assistance from expert administrators, teacher tool kit), as well as time for KEI data entry 

and access to technical assistance. Not all interviewed teachers, however, reported being aware of these 

additional supports. 

Administration guidelines within KEI training materials indicated that teachers’ observations could 

incorporate various sources of evidence including work samples, videos, photographs, assessments, and 

input from other school staff and parents. Interviewed teachers reported using some input from other 

professionals but did not engage parents to inform their KEI ratings. 

Teachers gathered information for the KEI on EL students and students with disabilities with some 

adaptations (e.g., providing structured activities to observe particular skills in students with disabilities, 

using adaptive devices, such as providing students with fidget cushions), but they were not always 

knowledgeable about resources available from their local districts to support the administration with 

these special populations. Interviewed administrators and teachers reported minimal monitoring of KEI 

implementation beyond ensuring that teachers met the KEI deadline. 

Communication and Use of the KEI 

Across the districts, interviewed teachers reported that they did not receive formal communication or 

training about their use of KEI data for informing instruction. Rather, teachers reported believing that 

the KEI’s purpose was to provide a statewide snapshot of skills that children had at kindergarten entry. 

However, a few interviewed teachers reported that, even without using data reports, they benefitted 

from the process of collecting evidence for the KEI, because it helped them get acquainted with students 

and informed their initial instructional grouping of students. 

Teachers interviewed across all districts reported that they did not collect information from parents 

specifically to inform the KEI, and that the KEI data reports were not available in time to share with 

parents at conferences in December. However, a few teachers reported that they used knowledge 

gained from the KEI administration to communicate with parents about their children’s skills, especially 

those related to social-emotional development. 

The majority of preschool directors who were interviewed reported receiving little to no information 

about the KEI. Those who worked in Head Start or district-funded programs had more awareness of the 

KEI than private preschool directors. 

State, district, and school respondents reported that they had not used reports from the KEI; district and 

school respondents attributed the lack of data use to not knowing how to access the data in the system 

and challenges with the reporting format. Staff from the Office of Child Development and Early Learning 

reported plans for data system enhancements to make data reporting and use easier, and district 

respondents discussed possibilities for integrating KEI data into local data systems to increase access. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 24 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KEI Results from 2014–15 

The Office of Child Development and Early Learning did not release results from the 2014–15 KEI 

implementation but planned to make timely data analysis and dissemination of results a higher priority 

in future KEI administrations. Likewise, according to the data system vendor, educators from a few 

schools and districts requested reports of local KEI findings, but district administrators did not release 

the 2014–15 results publicly. 

Washington 

This snapshot begins with a broad timeline depicting the development and implementation of 

Washington’s KEA, called Washington Kindergarten Inventory of Developing Skills (WaKIDS) (Exhibit 8), 

followed by background information on the kindergarten students in Washington and in the sampled 

districts and schools. The snapshot then reports on how Washington officials developed and adopted 

the KEA and trained teachers to collect KEA data, how district administrators and teachers implemented 

the KEA, and on communication and the early use of KEA findings. 

Exhibit 8. Washington WaKIDS Timeline 

2009 

Legislature appropriates 

funds to identify and 

evaluate a KEA process. 

Advisory team and 

committees review tools, 

select GOLD®, and develop 

WaKIDS administration 

process. 

Legislature passes SB5427; 

WaKIDS is voluntary in statefunded full-day kindergartens 

this school year. 

Washington Kindergarten 

Inventory of Developing Skills 

(WaKIDS) is piloted and 

evaluated. 

2010–2011 

WaKIDS is mandatory in all 

state-funded full-day 

kindergartens this school 

year. 

2012–2013 

2009–2010 

2011–2012 

Legislation 

Planning 

and 

Selection 

Piloting Voluntary 

Implementation 

Statewide 

Implementation 

Washington Student Characteristics 

Washington serves more than 81,000 kindergarten students, nearly half (46 percent) of whom are 

eligible for free or reduced-price meals. The majority (57 percent) of the elementary school population 

identifies as White, and more than one in five (22 percent) elementary school students identifies as 

Hispanic (Appendix B). 

This case study included three Washington school districts, one urban, one rural, and one suburban. In 

all case study districts, the majority of students were eligible for free or reduced-price meals. In each 

district, 5–20 percent were students with disabilities, and 5–30 percent of students were EL students. 

The suburban and rural districts served significant percentages of Hispanic students (25–50 percent). 

Within each district, the study team selected two schools according to the criteria in the “Selecting 

Districts and Schools Within the Four Case Study States” section of Appendix A. The urban and suburban 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 25 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

districts included schools with significant percentages of students designated as EL students; in both 

urban schools and in one suburban school, more than 30 percent of students were EL students. Each 

district had a school with a large concentration of students who identified as Hispanic (25–50 percent in 

the urban and rural districts, and 50–75 percent in the suburban district). In one suburban school, more 

than 20 percent of students were students with disabilities; in the other five schools, 5–20 percent were 

students with disabilities. Appendix B presents additional information about kindergarten student 

characteristics in Washington statewide and in the selected case study districts and schools. 

Washington Kindergarten Inventory of Developing Skills Background 

The 2011 state legislature passed Senate Bill 5427, which required that teachers administer the 

Washington Kindergarten Inventory of Developing Skills (WaKIDS) in all state-funded full-day 

kindergarten classrooms beginning in fall 2012.

25 The WaKIDS has three mandatory components: 

(1) Whole-Child Assessment, an authentic assessment of a broad range of kindergarteners’ skills, 

adapted from Teaching Strategies® GOLD® (GOLD®); (2) Family Connection, a family meeting for parents 

and kindergarten teachers to share information at the beginning of the school year; and (3) Early 

Learning Collaboration, activities to promote connections between preschool and kindergarten 

teachers. The customized fall 2014 WaKIDS version of the GOLD® had six domains (social-emotional, 

physical, language, cognitive, literacy, and mathematics), composed of 19 objectives with 36 

dimensions. Kindergarten teachers observe a student in the classroom, usually on an ongoing basis in 

the first two months of school, while the students are performing a variety of specific tasks in individual, 

small, and large group settings (as appropriate). Teachers then rate the child’s skill levels on a 

developmental progression on the GOLD® assessment system (State of Washington Office of 

Superintendent of Public Instruction, n.d.) (Appendix C). 

Purpose of Washington’s WaKIDS 

The intended purposes of the Whole-Child Assessment component (i.e., GOLD®) of WaKIDS are to: 

•	 Help kindergarten teachers plan classroom instruction and individualize educational supports for 

each student. 

•	 Engage, welcome, and partner with families and inform them about children’s learning strengths 

and needs. 

•	 Inform decisions about early learning and K–12 education policy and investments at the
 

community, district, and state levels.
 

• Inform early childhood education providers about children’s learning strengths and needs. 

Source: Washington Kindergarten Inventory of Developing Skills n.d. 

The state legislature, the federal RTT-ELC grant, the Washington Department of Early Learning, the 

Gates Foundation, and Thrive Washington collectively funded the administration of WaKIDS since the 

2012–13 school year. The Gates Foundation has also provided funds to the Educational Service Districts 

and to three selected school districts for WaKIDS implementation, training, ongoing teacher support, 

and data-sharing sessions. 

25 The WaKIDS legislation is available at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5427&year=2011 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 26 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In 2014–15, kindergarten teachers administered WaKIDS to more than 43,000 students, 52 percent of all 

kindergarteners in Washington, representing almost all kindergarteners in state-funded full-day 

kindergarten classrooms (who account for 44 percent of Washington’s kindergartners) and additional 

kindergartners from other classrooms (i.e., not full-day) in several districts and schools that volunteered 

to participate in WaKIDS. 

Development and Adoption of WaKIDS 

The political and educational impetus for the KEA began in 2009. The selection and piloting process took 

about two years to complete. 

A state leadership team, including representatives from Washington’s Department of Early Learning and 

Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction, involved many stakeholders in formulating the WaKIDS 

framework, piloting multiple KEA tools, and selecting the GOLD® instrument for the Whole -Child 

Assessment component. Stakeholders included parents, preschool administrators and specialists, K-1 

teachers, EL and content (mathematics and reading) specialists, district assessment coordinators, 

members of tribal nations, foundation staff, cultural specialists, principals, child development and 

reading specialists, researchers, and teacher union representatives. Stakeholders participated in 

planning committees that led components of the design and implementation process, including the 

Oversight Committee, Work Team, State Advisory Team, Theoretical Advisory Committee, and Technical 

Advisory Committee. 

According to state respondents, the primary factors that drove Washington’s selection of GOLD® were 

that (1) many early learning programs were already using it, (2) it was aligned with Washington’s Early 

Learning Guidelines and the Essential Domains of School Readiness, and (3) it had an emphasis on the 

whole child, with special emphasis on social-emotional skills. Teachers rate students on the GOLD® 

according to developmental progressions that enable them to categorize the skills of children on a broad 

continuum, inclusive of students with disabilities. 

In pilot tests, researchers from the University of Washington confirmed its high content validity but also 

identified administration issues related to interrater reliability with the customized WaKIDS’ version of 

GOLD®, especially for EL students.26 

State Training of Teachers to Collect WaKIDS Data 

Administrators from the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction provided training and technical 

assistance for kindergarten teachers through a statewide regionally based network of WaKIDS trainers 

located at Washington’s nine Educational Service Districts. Training comprised a mandatory two-day 

training for teachers new to WaKIDS and an optional one-day training for returning teachers. The 

training covered conducting observational assessments within normal classroom time, rating student 

skills on the GOLD® developmental progression, gathering and uploading evidence to the online system, 

and understanding and sharing results with parents. 

26	 The WaKIDS website presents additional information about the pilot tests, including a preliminary pilot report 

and a secondary pilot report, which are available at http://www.k12.wa.us/WaKIDS/pubdocs/WaKIDS_UW 

2010PreliminaryReport.pdf and at http://www.k12.wa.us/WaKIDS/pubdocs/WaKIDSUWReport2011.pdf 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 27 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

District and School Implementation of WaKIDS 

All district officials reported that they monitored the KEA data system for teachers’ compliance in 

meeting the annual October 31 submission deadline. State and district officials also reported checking 

the data system for data anomalies, such as extraordinary high or low scores, but no respondents 

reported monitoring the in-class administration processes of teachers. 

Teachers in all case study districts actively implemented Family Connection meetings, and all sources 

verified that this component was effective in engaging parents in discussions about their children’s 

strengths and needs and ways to support learning at home and at school. 

The majority of interviewed teachers across the districts reported that the length of the GOLD® tool, the 

requirement to complete it in the first seven weeks of school, and the continued use of other local 

assessments made implementation challenging. Teachers reported that GOLD® administration took a 

significant portion of their instructional days to complete during the first seven weeks of school, and 

data entry required at least one to two full days. The teachers needed to establish classroom and 

behavioral management routines, and it was difficult to concentrate on one student or a small group of 

students and leave the others working independently during this orientation and administration period. 

Interviewed teachers felt the GOLD® was appropriate for students with disabilities because the tool’s 

wide span of developmental levels allowed teachers to observe and rate students with sufficient 

accuracy on their level of abilities without having to provide accommodations. However, these teachers 

did not necessarily have experience yet in administering GOLD® to the full continuum of students with 

disabilities. The majority of teachers questioned the accuracy of GOLD® in assessing the skills of EL 

students; teachers indicated a concern that the students’ capacities to comprehend directions and 

adequately perform queried tasks hampered their ability to demonstrate their true skills. Furthermore, 

only a few teachers reported having access to translators. 

District staff and teachers reported uneven levels of comfort with using the GOLD® online data entry 

and reporting system. Two of the three case study school districts purchased tablets so that their 

teachers could use the GOLD® web-based application, but the majority of interviewed teachers reported 

that they still preferred to use pencil and paper to record their observations. 

Communication and Use of WaKIDS 

Although a primary purpose for selecting the GOLD® was to inform classroom instruction, the majority 

of the interviewed teachers recalled only minimal training on the use of data. Teachers interviewed 

thought the primary use of the data was to inform state early learning efforts and policymaking, not to 

inform their classroom instructional practices. However, a few interviewed teachers found utility in the 

GOLD® assessment for their curriculum planning. 

GOLD® results were available in a variety of reports in an online system, but several teachers reported 

not accessing reports, and the majority of interviewed principals examined a limited number of reports, 

if any, because they found the online system to be complicated and time-consuming to use. 

Teachers from Washington’s urban district used GOLD® reports (the Diagnostic Summary Report) as the 

kindergarten students’ first (fall) report cards, replacing the standard report cards. The report showed 

parents which skills their children had at school entry and what activities would help the students meet 

the end-of-the-year standards. A few interviewed teachers reported that their students’ parents showed 

little interest in the GOLD® findings at parent-teacher conferences. Teachers interviewed in the 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 28 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

suburban and rural districts reported that they infrequently shared results with parents or did so in an 

abbreviated way because they felt the reports were too overwhelming or not useful. 

The Early Learning Collaboration component of WaKIDS (i.e., activities to promote connections between 

preschool and kindergarten teachers) has been the least actualized of the three components, largely 

because of logistical and legal challenges. State and district officials who were interviewed reported that 

certain federal privacy laws and regulations27 and other data access and confidentiality restrictions 

hampered the state’s and districts’ abilities to link and share individual preschool and kindergarten 

student GOLD® data. 

WaKIDS Results from 2014–15 

For each item on the GOLD®, assessment developers identified certain levels along the developmental 

progress that correspond to widely held expectations for each age or grade level, including kindergarten 

readiness levels. These specific item levels are then converted into score ranges on each of the six 

domains of the WaKIDS customized version of the GOLD® that correspond to expectations for 

kindergarten readiness.28 The GOLD® data system provides “Readiness Benchmark Reports” based on 

these calculations—and these reports form the basis for WaKIDS results released on the Office of 

Superintendent of Public Instruction Washington State Report Card website.29 

The 2014–15 WaKIDS results revealed that approximately 40 percent of all entering kindergarten 

students displayed the foundational skills across all six domains of the GOLD®, indicating they were fully 

ready for school. An additional one-third (32 percent) of students demonstrated readiness in four or five 

of the six domains. A higher percentage of Asian students (43 percent), White students (49 percent), and 

students of two or more races (47 percent) demonstrated full readiness, in contrast to a lower 

percentage of Hispanic students (25 percent), American Indian or Alaska Native students (34 percent), 

and Black students (39 percent; Exhibit 9). Students with disabilities, EL students, and those from lowincome families demonstrated lower school readiness than Washington kindergartners as a whole 

(Exhibit 10). In particular, about one-fifth of students with disabilities (17 percent) and EL students (21 

percent) demonstrated full school readiness, and less than one-third (31 percent) of students from lowincome households demonstrated full school readiness (State of Washington Office of Superintendent of 

Public Instruction n.d.). Appendix D presents additional data findings on the readiness of Washington’s 

students in each of the six domains by student characteristics. 

27 Namely the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g and 34 CFR Part 99. 28 Additional information about established cut-scores on the GOLD® is available at 

http://www.k12.wa.us/WaKIDS/Materials/pubdocs/WaKIDSCutScoresFAQ_TSGOLD2015.pdf 29 The OSPI Washington State Report Card is available at 

http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/WaKidsDetailPage.aspx?domain=WaKIDS&year=2014-15&wakidsyr=2013­

14&schoolId=1&waslCategory=1&numberOrChart=1&yrs=2014-15%29 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 29 
 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 9. Percentages of Washington Students Demonstrating Kindergarten Readiness 

40 

49 

39 

25 

43 

30 34 

47 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

Total 

Population 

White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific 

Islander 

American 

Indian/ 

Alaska 

Native 

Two or 

more races 

Percent of students who 

demonstrated readiness 

Exhibit Reads: Forty percent of all Washington kindergarten students demonstrated skills indicating full kindergarten readiness. 

SOURCE: Data from State of Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction n.d. 

Exhibit 10. Percentages of Washington Students from Special Populations Demonstrating 

Kindergarten Readiness 

21 17 

31 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

English learners Students with 

disabilities 

Low-income 

students 

Percent of students who 

demonstrated readiness 

Exhibit Reads: Twenty-one percent of EL students in Washington demonstrated skills indicating full school readiness. 

SOURCE: Data from State of Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction n.d. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 30 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

KEA Characteristics in Summary 

The selected KEA leadership teams in the case study states provided variation in the types of KEA 

systems they adopted and key features of implementation (see Exhibit 11). KEA leadership teams in the 

case study states began implementing their KEAs in different years. The 2014–15 school year was the 

first year of implementation in two states and the second or third year in the other two states. State 

leadership teams also varied according to whether they made their KEAs mandatory or optional; 

legislation in two states required that the KEA be conducted with all kindergarten students, one state 

legislature required that it be conducted with close to half its kindergarten students (those enrolled in 

state-funded full-day classes), and in one state the KEA was optional except for the small percentage of 

students in Title I focus and priority schools. In three states, federal funding from RTT-ELC supported 

development, refinement, and implementation of KEAs, but KEA leadership teams also relied on other 

sources of state and federal funding. 

KEA leadership teams in the case study states chose different assessment tools: KEA leadership teams in 

two states chose to use commercially available assessment tools that they slightly modified, and 

leadership teams in the two other states decided to develop their own assessment tools. In all the case 

study states, KEAs assessed early literacy, math, and social-emotional skills; KEAs in three of the states 

also assessed language, cognitive approaches to learning, and physical health and development. 

KEA leadership teams in all states considered the psychometric properties of the adopted instruments. 

Leadership teams in the two states selecting commercially available assessment tools reviewed vendor 

documentation and research reports on the internal reliability, criterion validity, construct validity, and 

predictive validity (i.e., the ability of the instrument to predict academic performance in third grade) 

prior to selecting their instruments. KEA leadership teams in all four states used pilot test data to 

examine the psychometric rigor of the instruments when administered in a sample of schools in their 

states, including examining internal reliability, item difficulty, item-to-total correlations, and 

dimensionality of the measures. In the next chapter, the section “Pilot Testing and Field Testing KEAs” 

discusses how state teams used findings from these psychometric analyses to refine the KEA 

instruments. 

KEA leadership teams in the four states used different combinations of assessment methods; in two 

states they heavily relied on observation methods, in one state they relied equally on both observation 

and direct assessment, and in one state they relied mostly on direct assessment but included a socialemotional observation measure. In three of the states, KEA leadership teams aimed to have most of 

their KEA assessments done by the sixth week of the school year or later; in one state, district 

administrators encouraged teachers to collect data on an earlier timetable. It was difficult for teachers 

who conducted observations to estimate the amount of time it took them over the multiple-week 

observation window to complete the assessments, but the estimates varied from 15 minutes per child 

to more than an hour per child. The states’ leadership teams and assessment administrators also used 

technology differently: In one state KEA assessors used technology solely for data entry, in one state 

they used technology to gather data as well as enter data, and the data system in two states had the 

capacity to provide real-time access to reports once data were entered. 

In two of the states, KEA leadership teams used train-the-trainer models to provide professional 

development to their KEA administrators, whereas in one state, training was primarily by regional 

trainers, and in another state it was primarily online. Finally, KEA leadership teams in three of the states 

selected assessment tools that could be conducted in Spanish if the teacher or another KEA assessor at 

the school had the appropriate language skills. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 31 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 11. Summary of State KEA Characteristics 

Maryland Oregon Pennsylvania Washington 

Name of KEA 

system 

Kindergarten 

Readiness Assessment 

(KRA) 

Kindergarten 

Assessment (KA) 

Kindergarten Entry 

Inventory (KEI) 

Washington 

Kindergarten 

Inventory of 

Developing Skills 

(WaKIDS) 

Year first 

implemented 2014 2013 2014 2012a 

statewide 

Optional or 

mandatory 

Mandatory for all 

public school 

kindergarten 

classrooms 

Mandatory for all 

public school 

kindergarten 

classrooms 

Optional for most 

schools; mandatory 

for Title I focus and 

priority schools 

Mandatory for all 

state-funded fullday kindergarten 

classrooms; 

optional for halfday kindergarten 

classrooms 

Number 

(percentage) of 

kindergarten 

children in state 67,000 (98%) 40,000 (95%) 16,000 (13%) 43,000 (52%) 

assessed in fall 

2014 

Funding sources RTT-ELC and EAG State funds, RTTELC 

State funds, ESEA 

Titles I and II funds, 

RTT-ELC 

State funds, private 

funds, RTT-ELC 

Developer of 

assessment 

Developed by 

Maryland State and 

Ohio Departments of 

Education with 

support from WestEd 

Modified 

easyCBM 

assessment and 

Child Behavior 

Rating Scale 

Developed by 

Pennsylvania 

educators and 

stakeholders 

Modified GOLD® 

Domains 

assessedb 

Language and literacy, 

mathematics, social 

foundations, and 

physical well-being 

and motor 

development 

Early literacy, 

early 

mathematics, and 

approaches to 

learning 

Language and 

literacy, 

mathematics, 

approaches to 

learning, social and 

emotional, and 

health, wellness, and 

physical 

development 

Language, literacy, 

mathematics, 

cognitive, social 

emotional, and 

physical 

development 

Method of 

assessment 

Observation and 

direct assessment 

Observation and 

direct assessment Observation only Observation only 

Types of items 

Selected response 

items, performance 

task items, and 

observational-rubric 

items 

Multiple-choice 

items and teacher 

checklist 

Teacher 

observational ratings 

on a rubric 

Teacher 

observational 

ratings on a rubric 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 32 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit 12. Summary of State KEA Characteristics, Continued 

Maryland Oregon Pennsylvania Washington 

Number of Items 63 31 34 36 

Timing of KEA 

Completion First 8–10 weeks First 3–6 weeks First 6.5 weeks First 7 weeks 

Teacher time spent 

on data collection 

and entry per class 

30–45 hours 

(1–1.5 hours per 

child) 

6–10 hours 

(15–20 minutes per 

child) 

Observations of 

students in large 

groups, small 

groups, and oneon-one sessions in 

authentic settings 

over 45 days. 

Estimated two to 

ten hours for data 

entry. 

Observations of 

students in large 

groups, small 

groups, and oneon-one sessions 

during typical 

classroom day over 

seven weeks. 

Estimated one to 

two days required 

for data entry. 

Technology uses Data collection and 

data entry Data entry Data entry, online real-time reports 

Data entry, online 

real-time reports 

Training model Train the trainer Train the trainer 

Online training and 

webinars and inperson trainings by 

request 

Regionally based 

network of trainers 

and Teachers on 

Special Assignment 

in large districts 

KEA can be 

administered in 

Spanish 

No Yes Yes (for most 

indicators) Yes 

a

Washington’s WaKIDS was mandatory in all state-funded full-day kindergarten classes beginning in fall 2012. In 2014–15, 44% of kindergarten 

students attended full-day state-funded kindergarten classes. In 2015–16, expanded funding for full-day kindergartens resulted in required 

WaKIDS administration to 72% of kindergarten students. In 2016–17, 100% of kindergarten students will be eligible to receive state-funded fullday kindergarten, which will increase the number of WaKIDS participants by 23,000 students. 

b

The case studies states’ KEAs differ somewhat in how they define domains. For example, Oregon’s KA includes social-emotional skills and selfregulation under the approaches to learning domain, but the Pennsylvania KEI includes social-emotional skills as a separate domain from 

approaches to learning. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 33 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. Development and Adoption 

The process for developing or adopting KEAs across all four case study states involved multiple activities, 

including gathering input on the purpose and content of KEAs, prioritizing selection criteria, and field 

testing and pilot testing selected assessment tools. Legislation in three of the case study states 

supported state teams in achieving widespread KEA implementation. 

Gathering Stakeholder Input about KEAs 

In all four case study sites, state officials sought the input of stakeholders such as 

researchers, experts in assessment and psychometrics, local administrators and 

educators, early learning advocates, and community representatives in the selection of 

KEAs. 

Recognizing that KEAs are useful only to the extent that they provide meaningful data for stakeholders, 

leadership teams in the case study states involved a wide range of stakeholders in the development and 

adoption process. In all case study states, participating stakeholders included elementary and preschool 

educators, university and other researchers, experts in assessment and psychometrics, experts in 

assessment and education of students with disabilities30 and EL students, and representatives from 

advocacy and child interest groups. In Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington, community members, 

including parents, contributed to early discussions about the design or adoption of a KEA. In addition to 

within-state stakeholders, Maryland officials partnered with officials at the Ohio Department of 

Education and collaborated with five other states during the development of the KRA. 

In all case study states, stakeholders collaborated 

with state KEA leadership teams (usually staff from Highlighted Practice 

state early learning or early education departments) 

Stakeholders (including elementary and preschool in committees or work groups. State teams in educators, researchers, community group Maryland and Washington convened stakeholders in members, and other experts) collaborated with multiple working groups that concentrated on state KEA leadership teams to review and provide specific content areas or tasks. For example, ongoing feedback on KEA content, appropriateness, Maryland stakeholders participated in a Sensitivity administration feasibility, and adaptations. 

and Bias working group, a Content working group, 

and a Technical Advisory working group. In 

Washington, stakeholders participated in planning and advisory committees including a WaKIDS Work 

Team, State Advisory Team, Oversight Committee, Theoretical Advisory Committee, and Technical 

Advisory Committee. 

Stakeholders’ roles included identifying relevant research findings, assessing the tradeoffs associated 

with various KEA approaches (e.g., developmental appropriateness of observational measures, efficiency 

and consistency of direct measures), making recommendations for specific tools and item content, and 

assessing the feasibility of proposed KEAs. In three case study states (Maryland, Oregon, and 

Washington), stakeholders reviewed existing assessment instruments (including content and 

30	 Interviewers used the term “children with developmental delays or disabilities” when asking respondents about 

this population. Respondents used various terms, including “children with special needs” and “children 

receiving special education.” This report uses the term “students with disabilities.” 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 35 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

psychometric properties) and made recommendations for potential assessment scales and items. In 

contrast, stakeholders in Pennsylvania helped design a new instrument by identifying the state 

standards most relevant to school readiness and drafting associated indicators for a kindergarten 

readiness inventory. In each case study state designated stakeholders reviewed items for 

appropriateness and cultural sensitivity. Likewise, in all four case study states, school administrators and 

teachers participated in pilot tests, surveys, or focus groups, providing input on topics such as which 

assessments they were currently implementing and the feasibility of particular assessment approaches. 

Despite these stakeholder engagement efforts in the initial selection process, the majority of district and 

school respondents in all the case study states reported being unaware of the stakeholder involvement 

in KEA selection and development. Rather, local respondents typically perceived the process as a topdown directive, with little input from local educators. In contrast, educators who participated in pilot 

tests in Pennsylvania felt included in the process of KEA development and advocated for their district to 

participate voluntarily. 

Prioritizing KEA Selection Criteria 

Officials and stakeholders in all four case study states considered multiple criteria during 

the development or adoption of their state’s KEA, including the reliability and validity of 

the measure, appropriateness of the measure for all students, usefulness for informing 

classroom instruction, usefulness for informing early learning policies and program 

improvement, feasibility of administration by teachers, and cost. 

Across case study states, early discussions among state leadership teams and stakeholders about KEAs 

emphasized selecting or adopting an assessment that could provide information to inform instruction, 

professional development, and early learning policy. Respondents in all case study states also reported 

that having an objective and psychometrically sound KEA was of utmost importance. Accordingly, 

Oregon and Washington stakeholders eliminated measures that were not objective and 

psychometrically sound. Maryland and Pennsylvania developers pilot-tested and revised newly 

developed measures to ensure satisfactory reliability. Likewise, stakeholders sought and chose 

measures that were aligned with state early learning standards (Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington) 

or K–12 standards (Maryland), and stakeholders in two states considered the ability of measures to 

predict third-grade or future academic performance (Oregon and Maryland). 

State respondents in Maryland and Washington further reported the use of developmentally 

appropriate practices as a priority, and state respondents in Pennsylvania and Washington discussed the 

need for a KEA to emphasize the whole child—particularly social-emotional skills. 

State respondents in all the case study states expressed concern that the selected KEA be appropriate 

for diverse populations within their state, and researchers in three case study states (Oregon, 

Pennsylvania, and Washington) specifically included special populations, such as EL students or students 

with disabilities, in pilot tests. No state respondents, however, reported that effective use of the KEA 

with special populations was ultimately a top priority in selecting and adopting the KEA. Documentation 

on the two commercially available KEAs (selected by Washington and Oregon) did not specify the 

expected performance of students with disabilities on these measures, but the GOLD® (adapted for use 

in Washington) includes a broad range of developmental capacities that allows teachers to account for 

emerging skills, including those of students with disabilities. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 36 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Practical considerations in the selection and adoption of KEAs included cost, burden, and teachers’ 

approval. For example, in Pennsylvania, state respondents reported that they were committed to 

offering a free or low-cost inventory to support sustainability and create buy-in for a kindergarten entry 

inventory that would be voluntary for most schools. The KEAs in Oregon and Washington included 

measures that teachers in those states already used and endorsed. For example, Washington officials 

reported that they ultimately opted for the standardized instrument GOLD®, in part, because teachers 

and parents gave it favorable reviews during a field test and it was in widespread use in Washington’s 

preschools. Oregon state officials reported that, in addition to requiring fundamental technical 

characteristics, they prioritized the feasibility of administration (e.g., a brief assessment) and cost over 

other criteria, such as having a more comprehensive assessment that went deeper into assessed 

domains or covered additional domains. 

Decision-makers in all four case study states recognized that a single assessment tool could not meet all 

criteria fully. They opted to develop or select a KEA instrument that was psychometrically sound, aligned 

with state standards, affordable, and not too burdensome for teachers. 

Pilot Testing and Field Testing KEAs 

In all four case study states, researchers conducted pilot tests of the KEAs to assess the 

reliability and validity of assessment items, implementation feasibility, and teacher 

training needs. 

Before full-scale KEA implementation, researchers in all case study states conducted pilot tests, field 

tests (i.e., small-scale studies), or both, with teachers in a subset of schools. In three case study states 

(Maryland, Oregon, and Pennsylvania), the pilot tests were conducted after the state had developed or 

selected its KEA. The Washington pilot test involved testing three different instruments to inform the 

final selection of the GOLD®, for the whole child assessment component of the state’s KEA, followed by 

a field test of a customized version of the selected assessment. 

In 2013, the Maryland State Department of Education conducted a pilot test of the KRA with 23 teachers 

in 16 schools and a field test with 80 teachers in 28 schools. The Ford Family Foundation funded a pilot 

test of Oregon’s KA in 2012, which included the participation of educators in 16 schools. To inform the 

design of its Kindergarten Entry Inventory, Pennsylvania’s Office of Child Development and Early 

Learning oversaw a small preliminary study and three pilot tests between 2012 and 2014, with numbers 

of participating educators ranging from 27 to 219. In 2010–11, researchers from the University of 

Washington’s Department of Childcare Quality and Early Learning collected data on three assessment 

instruments from participants from 115 classrooms in 63 schools and then conducted a field test of the 

selected GOLD® instrument involving 54 teachers from 42 schools. 

At a minimum, pilot test activities involved teachers assessing students using the KEA and providing 

feedback through surveys, focus groups, or interviews. In addition, Washington researchers conducted 

parent surveys and interviews, researchers in Maryland collected student input by using a think-aloud 

method (i.e., cognitive interview) while conducting assessments, and researchers from Pennsylvania and 

Oregon collected feedback from school administrators. The Oregon pilot test also included document 

reviews and direct observations of KEA implementation in schools. Finally, officials in Maryland and 

Pennsylvania sought teachers’ feedback specifically on their use of technology to collect or record data. 

These studies resulted in revisions to KEA instruments and procedures and in modifications to training 

protocols and resources. Researchers in all case study states used pilot test data to examine the 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 37 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

psychometric properties (e.g., reliability and validity) of the KEAs and to refine the instruments or 

training procedures accordingly. For example, in Washington, researchers documented the KEA’s high 

content validity but also uncovered an issue related to interrater reliability: teachers rated typically 

developing native English-speaking students more reliably than students who were non-native English 

speakers or not typically developing. As discussed in the next chapter, Washington’s Office of the 

Superintendent of Public Instruction subsequently provided additional written guidance for teachers on 

assessing EL students (State of Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction 2015). 

Pennsylvania researchers used results of internal reliability analyses to revise the KEI’s health, wellness, 

and physical development items, finding acceptable reliability of the revised domain in a subsequent 

pilot test. In Oregon, analyses of item difficulty prompted the elimination of items that were considered 

too advanced for entering kindergartners. Oregon officials also noted considerable variability across 

schools in the timing of the assessment, which threatened its validity as a measure of kindergarten entry 

skills; consequently, they established a statewide requirement for the KA administration time frame. 

Pilot test reports from three states (Pennsylvania, Oregon and Washington) documented that 

participating educators generally expressed satisfaction with the feasibility of administration and 

potential usefulness of the KEA, but teachers’ feedback also prompted changes to instruments and 

procedures. For example, teachers in Washington’s pilot test reported concerns about the length of the 

full original GOLD® and the burden to collect so much data in the early weeks of school; therefore, work 

group members abbreviated the tool before the 2012 implementation, excluding several domains and 

objectives. Pennsylvania’s pilot test participants similarly reported concerns about the length of the 

instrument, prompting developers to eliminate indicators from the final version. 

In all case study states, teacher feedback also informed the modification and addition of training 

protocols and resources. For example, Maryland officials revised the training protocol after the pilot test 

and before the 2014 implementation. Similarly, Oregon officials developed additional resources to 

support the use of the KEA with EL students and increased teacher training opportunities and 

requirements. 

Enacting Legislation to Support Widespread KEA Implementation 

Three case study states (Maryland, Oregon, and Washington) had legislative requirements 

for districts and schools to participate in the KEA and achieved widespread 

implementation. 

Respondents in three case study states (Maryland, Oregon, and Washington) reported that the 

legislative basis for the identification and administration of their KEA was a primary factor in its 

widespread implementation. In Maryland31 and Oregon,32 legislation required all teachers statewide to 

31 The legislation establishing Maryland’s statewide KEA is available at 

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2000rs/fnotes/bil_0009/hb1249.PDF and 

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/2000rs/fnotes/bil_0003/sb0793.pdf 32 The KA legislation is available at 

https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2012R1/Downloads/MeasureDocument/HB4165/Enrolled. The Oregon 

Administrative Rule adopted by the State Board of Education, is available at 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&ved=0ahUKEwjggd3Pnp7NAhVS6mM 

KHcqGAf8QFghEMAY&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ode.state.or.us%2Fsuperintendent%2Fpriorities%2F2013­

march-8-kindergarten-readiness-assessment-oar.doc&usg=AFQjCNFO8F7yREYGIoPxpYxCqSodkWWIQ&sig2=xL-db_uGbeZ9Rxik8V87Cw&bvm=bv.124272578,d.cGc 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 38 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

administer the KEA. In contrast, in Washington, the KEA was mandatory only in state-funded full-day 

kindergarten classes (which served about 44 percent of all kindergarten students in Washington at the 

time).33 Pennsylvania did not enact legislation, but the Office of Child Development and Early Learning 

mandated administration of the KEI in fall 2014 for kindergarten students in Title I focus and priority 

schools. In 2014, about 13 percent of Pennsylvania’s kindergarten students participated in the KEI, 

including students in the Title I focus and priority schools, students in schools of districts that required 

participation, and students in schools that participated voluntarily. 

In Oregon and Washington, state legislation (enacted in 2012 and 2009, respectively) required the 

development and pilot testing or evaluating of a state KEA. An Oregon administrative rule adopted by 

the State Board of Education further specified that the KA must be appropriate for all children, including 

EL students and students with disabilities, and that it must align with Oregon’s early learning standards 

and the K–12 state standards. 

In addition to ensuring the development and adoption of a state KEA, legislation also promoted related 

activities to align with or support the KEAs, such as revamping early childhood services, adopting early 

learning frameworks, and supporting family partnerships and training infrastructure. Maryland’s 

legislature adopted its original KEA, the Maryland Model for School Readiness,34 in 2000 to promote 

early learning standards, offer guidance on instruction for all early learning and development programs, 

support assessment of children’s development and learning, provide consistent and high-quality 

professional development, and engage families in preparing their children to enter kindergarten with 

critical skills and knowledge. The Oregon legislature passed legislation in March 2012 that charged the 

Oregon Early Learning Council, in addition to developing and pilot testing a KEA, with revamping the 

coordination of early childhood services and aligning them with the P–20 system. In Washington, KEA 

legislation included support for regional KEA teacher trainings and the use of three school days for 

kindergarten teachers and students’ families to meet. 

A larger proportion of kindergarteners participated in KEAs in the case study states with legislative 

mandates than in the state for which participation was mostly optional. State respondents reported that 

having legislation helped with district and school participation and compliance, but they noted that 

building buy-in and providing timely and useful data to districts were also necessary to develop broad 

support. State officials in both Washington and Oregon, for example, reported a need to build buy-in 

from educators by improving and expanding communication and training, providing useful data to the 

districts and teachers, and aligning the data explicitly with teacher needs. 

In Pennsylvania, the Office of Child Development and Early Learning purposefully expended resources to 

create buy-in among districts and schools to encourage their voluntary participation; however, state 

respondents reported that these efforts needed to expand in future KEI administrations. State staff and 

stakeholders produced communication campaigns, videos, a statewide listserv and newsletter, and 

informational flyers and brochures intended for educators and parents, but the majority of interviewed 

teachers reported having had no introduction to the KEI before their training. Several Pennsylvania 

teachers reported sentiments similar to those of teachers in the other case studies states with legislated 

mandates—that the KEI was primarily a compliance task. As in the other case study states, Pennsylvania 

state and district respondents also reported a need to dedicate additional resources to provide data in 

usable formats immediately to districts and to help teachers understand how to use the data. 

33 The WaKIDS legislation is available at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?bill=5427&year=2011 34 Maryland Model for School Readiness assessment was a 30-item portfolio assessment tool that used work 

samples and teacher observations to assess children’s skills in seven domains at kindergarten entry. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 39 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. State Support for Teacher Training and Preparation 

Leadership teams in the four case study states supported their school districts in implementing KEAs by 

building infrastructure and resources to train teachers to administer KEAs and promoting teachers’ 

collection of consistent data through certification or reliability tasks. 

Building KEA Training Models to Prepare Teachers 

State staff or state-funded contractors developed and offered trainings for teachers on 

how to implement their state KEAs. 

The state-developed trainings for teachers on KEA implementation took different forms—from online 

self-paced webinars to in-person presentations—and addressed various topics—from detailed 

administration procedures to data-reporting guidelines. District staff in two states (Oregon and 

Maryland) participated in KEA train-the-trainer sessions and subsequently facilitated teacher trainings in 

their local districts and schools; teachers in these states also had access to state-funded webinars and 

regional help desks or other in-person support to assist with KEA administration procedures. In 

Washington, a statewide regional structure of trainers offered in-person trainings to kindergarten 

teachers, with the support of districtwide coaches funded by some larger school districts to provide 

guidance on KEA implementation. Pennsylvania state staff produced online KEA webinars for use by all 

teachers in participating schools and offered additional in-person trainings at district request. 

Pennsylvania teachers could self-train online at any time before the school year began. 

To identify and support a cadre of trainers and technical assistance providers, case study state 

representatives reported that they called on existing state and local resources. For example, the 

Maryland State Department of Education asked every district to identify staff who had prerequisite skills 

and knowledge in assessment of young children and adult learning strategies. These nominated trainers 

then attended a three-day state-hosted KRA training session, and upon completion, state funds 

supported their provision of two days of face-to-face training (or blended face-to-face and online 

training) and follow-up support to teachers in their districts. Similarly, the staff from the Oregon State 

Department of Education provided training on KA administration to district test coordinators of each of 

Oregon’s 197 school districts through a web-based module. Then district test coordinators facilitated the 

training of their local teachers during the professional development days preceding the start of school 

using the same web-based training module. In Washington, the Office of Superintendent of Public 

Instruction contracted with GOLD® to assist state staff in offering professional development to statefunded trainers organized across all nine Educational Service Districts, in addition to Teachers on Special 

Assignment35 funded by some large school districts. These Educational Service District staff and 

Teachers on Special Assignment then provided the WaKIDS training (in the summer) and follow-up and 

technical assistance support (throughout the school year) for kindergarten teachers in their respective 

regions or districts. 

Contractors (e.g., Johns Hopkins University Center for Technology in Education contracted by Maryland), 

state staff (e.g., Oregon Department of Education and Pennsylvania Office of Child Development and 

35 According to the district’s collective bargaining agreement, teachers on Special Assignment are licensed 

teachers who are assigned to perform duties other than classroom instruction. The assignment may include 

(among other activities) working on special programs, instructional coaching, and/or curriculum development. 

The term of assignment (i.e., one year or less or more) is based on the nature of the project, program, and/or 

funding. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 41 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Early Learning staff), or a combination of the two (e.g., GOLD® in collaboration with Washington’s Office 

of Superintendent of Public Instruction staff) developed the KEA training content and modules. Main 

topics typically were (1) reviewing the purpose of the KEA, (2) discussing how to administer the KEA, and 

(3) interpreting and using KEA data, including a small amount of information about communicating 

assessment results to parents. The duration of the training varied across case study states, participants 

(i.e., new or veteran teachers), and format (i.e., in-person or online modules), but typically teachers 

participated in training for one or two days. In Washington, the Office of Superintendent of Public 

Instruction provided the districts a flat-rate stipend to support teachers’ participation in the training. In 

Maryland, district funds supported teachers’ participation, usually by offering the training during one of 

the designated district professional development days before the start of school. The majority of 

teachers across the participating districts also reported that they had access to additional assistance 

after training. For example, case study states funded the support of regional help desks staffed by 

administrators who were experienced with the KEA, or local districts provided coaches to answer 

questions by email and phone about administration procedures. 

The majority of teachers interviewed in the case study reported that the state-provided 

training prepared them to implement the KEA, but that additional training and support 

could improve teachers’ consistency and efficiency. 

The majority of teachers interviewed across the participating school districts reported that the training 

content was comprehensive, adequately explained the purpose and domains of the KEA, and provided 

them with the opportunity to walk through the steps of KEA administration. However, trainers in two 

Maryland districts held trainings in spring 2014 before the finalization of assessment materials and 

technology applications, and teacher respondents from these districts reported their dissatisfaction with 

not being able to rehearse their administration with actual items or with preprogrammed touch screens. 

The majority of interviewed teachers also reported that although they were generally well prepared to 

administer the KEA with typically developing students, they struggled with providing appropriate and 

equitable accommodations for students with various needs, such as EL students and students with 

disabilities. Given those challenges, teachers reported wanting more training on assessment strategies 

for EL students and students with disabilities and more opportunities for collaboration with colleagues 

around KEA implementation and use with those populations. Interviewed teachers offered some 

suggestions for strengthening the trainings, such as trainers providing additional examples of allowable 

accommodations for students with disabilities and providing well-tested strategies for accurately 

measuring the skills of EL students. This report more fully discusses teachers’ suggestions in the 

Challenges and Potential Solutions chapter. 

State officials, district administrators, and teachers across Pennsylvania and Washington also expressed 

a desire for more opportunities during training sessions for educators to ask questions, discuss methods 

and strategies, and collaborate with their colleagues. Similarly, Oregon state respondents reported that 

the online training for teachers was convenient but not sufficient to ensure proficiency and fidelity to 

assessment protocols. Finally, trainers in all four case study states offered spring and summer training 

sessions, and district respondents in all the states reported challenges with this timing, particularly with 

finding resources and time to train newly hired or reassigned kindergarten teachers in the fall. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 42 
 

 

 

 

 

Promoting Consistent Collection of KEA Data 

To promote consistent collection of KEA data, state officials from all four case study states 

and other KEA assessors required teachers to complete a proficiency exam before 

administering KEAs. 

State officials in both Oregon and Pennsylvania reported that they instructed assessors to complete a 

proficiency test before administering the KEAs. Maryland and Oregon’s training modules both included a 

10-item proficiency test of KEA knowledge; the Pennsylvania exam compared teachers’ KEI ratings on 

two case study vignettes with expert ratings. In Maryland and Washington, teachers completed 

certification exams via online video clips of student performances, where their own ratings of the 

students’ knowledge, skills, and behaviors were compared with experts’ ratings on the KEA domains. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 43 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. District Experiences with Early KEA Implementation 

This chapter includes findings from interviews in 12 districts and 23 schools about KEA implementation, 

including findings related to district monitoring of KEA administration, the timing of the KEA, 

administering the KEA to special populations, avoiding duplicative assessments, and using technology to 

gather and enter KEA data. 

Collectively across the case study states, district officials and teachers reported a relatively smooth 

implementation of the KEAs, facilitated by the use of existing assessment policies and training practices, 

carefully scripted training and administration materials and resources, and secure web-based data 

systems. Consequently, teachers and assessors across the four case study states successfully gathered 

data on thousands of kindergarten children (67,000 in Maryland, 40,000 in Oregon, 16,000 in 

Pennsylvania, and 43,000 in Washington). 

Meeting State KEA Participation Requirements 

KEA participation rates varied across states, reaching 95 to 98 percent in the two states 

that required administration for all kindergarten students, while being much lower in the 

two states that limited the requirement to certain types of schools (13 percent and 44 

percent). 

Three case study states (Maryland, Oregon, and Washington) had legislative requirements for districts 

and schools to participate in the KEA and achieved widespread implementation. Maryland and Oregon, 

states that required KEA administration for all kindergarten students, achieved KEA participation rates of 

98 percent and 95 percent, respectively. In Washington, where the KEA was required only in statefunded full-day kindergarten classrooms (which represents 44 percent of the state’s kindergarteners), 

52 percent of the state’s kindergarten students participated. In Pennsylvania, where the state education 

department only required Title I focus and priority schools36 to participate, 13 percent of the state’s 

kindergarten students participated. Of the 215 public schools whose teachers participated in the 

Pennsylvania KEI, roughly half were Title I focus schools or priority schools (116 schools, or 54 percent); 

some districts required all of their schools to participate in the KEI. 

Monitoring KEA Data Completion 

The majority of district officials monitored, via their KEA data systems, teachers’ progress 

toward completing KEA tasks by the required deadlines, but none reported monitoring or 

evaluating the KEA administration practices of teachers with their students. 

36	 Priority and focus schools are schools identified by a State in accordance with its approved request for flexibility 

under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 

2001 (ESEA flexibility). Generally speaking, under ESEA flexibility, priority schools are the lowest-performing five 

percent of Title I schools and focus schools are Title I schools with large within-school gaps between 

high-achieving subgroups and low-achieving subgroups and schools with one or more subgroups with low 

achievement or graduation rates. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 45 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All district officials in Maryland and Washington and one district in Pennsylvania reported that they 

monitored their KEA data systems for teachers’ 

progress toward completing and submitting data Highlighted Practice 

collection by the required deadlines. Furthermore, in 

Oregon and Washington, state and district officials District officials monitored KEA data for anomalies, 

also reported checking for data anomalies (e.g., such as extraordinarily high or low scores. 

teacher reports of extraordinarily high or low scores) 

in their data systems. One Washington district official reported that this helped them to identify some 

teachers’ misunderstanding of GOLD®’s developmental progression rating system; as a result, district 

officials convened a regional WaKIDS meeting and identified a need for teacher training on the concept 

of a developmental continuum and how to measure students’ skills accurately on an observational tool. 

However, none of the case study district respondents reported that they monitored or evaluated the 

assessors’ KEA administration practices that actually occurred in schools. 

Assessing Kindergarten Students During Their First Weeks of Schooling 

Several teachers expressed concerns that the early time frame affected the accuracy of 

the KEA results and that the amount of time required interfered with their efforts to 

establish classroom routines and positive relationships with students; however, a few of 

these teachers also said that administering the KEA provided valuable one-on-one time 

with each student and helped them identify students’ individual knowledge and skills 

early in the school year. 

Teachers in all four case study states reported completing their KEAs within the first two months of the 

school year. The Maryland State Department of Education required teachers to administer the KRA 

between the first week of school (late August) and the end of October; teachers in all of the case study 

districts received a one-week extension because KRA materials, including tablets (i.e., mobile personal 

computers with touch-screen interfaces), arrived at schools late. Oregon assessors completed the KA 

within three to six weeks from the start of school, depending on the KA component. Pennsylvania 

teachers completed the KEI in the first 45 calendar days of the school year and data entry within the 

next seven calendar days; teachers in one selected district received an extension for data entry. In 

Washington, teachers administered the GOLD® within the first seven weeks of school, with a data entry 

submission deadline of October 31. 

Teachers reported that this administration timeline was challenging because the assessments often 

came before they had a chance to establish positive relationships with students that they felt were 

important to ensuring the accuracy of the KEA results. For example, the majority of Oregon teachers 

reported that they believed the administration timetable for the KA was not conducive to promoting a 

positive early school experience or optimal performance on the assessment, especially for students who 

had not attended preschool or were nervous in their initial interactions with teachers or peers. Several 

teachers in three case study states (Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington) reported that children’s 

skills changed during the observation assessment window and expressed concern that this made the 

data less accurate in assessing current levels of ability, depending on when the snapshot of the students’ 

skills occurred. 

Similarly, district respondents in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington reported that observing and 

rating students required significant teacher time during a critical period when teachers were 

establishing classroom and behavioral management routines. Furthermore, several teachers reported 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 46 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

that they found it difficult to focus on one student or a small group of students and leave the others 

working independently during this orientation period. For example, one Maryland teacher from the 

urban district questioned: 

Why are we as kindergarten teachers faced with giving this test when it’s measuring how they were 

prepared? We are taking up our instructional time and our routine setting and getting the children ready 

for school, giving an assessment that doesn’t give us any data or drive our instruction. 

In contrast, a few teachers in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington reported that administering the 

KEA provided them valuable one-on-one time with each student; in turn, that helped them to get 

acquainted with their students and identify their new students’ individual knowledge and skills early in 

the school year. One teacher interviewed in the rural Pennsylvania district described how administering 

the KEI early in the school year affected her classroom instruction: 

[The KEI] helped me in my teaching because I know...[after] week one who knows what 

letters, who doesn’t...you have a road map, really, for the entire year of where you need to 

go based on individual children. 

Making Suitable Accommodations for Students from Special Populations 

Teachers in all four states reported feeling confused about the procedural guidelines for 

using KEAs with EL students, and teachers in three states (Maryland, Oregon, and 

Pennsylvania) reported feeling unsure about whether and how to provide 

accommodations for students with disabilities. 

By 2014, leadership teams in three of the case study states (Maryland, Oregon, and Pennsylvania) 

provided guidance on administering KEAs with EL students. Maryland’s tiered decision-making process37 

and Oregon’s decision tree38 both applied to EL students. The Maryland instructions encouraged KRA 

administrators to collaborate with the student’s English for Speakers of Other Languages teacher to 

identify the student’s level of English proficiency and associated need for supports. For example, 

students with lower levels of English proficiency were allowed to respond to the KRA with gestures and 

to answer questions with only one or two words in English. Students with higher levels of English 

proficiency were expected to be able to respond without these supports. The Oregon guidelines stated 

that an EL student who qualified for English Language Development services and spoke Spanish should 

take both the Spanish and the English literacy components of the KA. All other students (i.e., those who 

spoke English or another language other than Spanish) took only the English version of the literacy 

component. Pennsylvania’s written instructions39 provided guidance about the KEI’s use with EL 

students, including allowing students to demonstrate competence through nonlanguage strategies for 

some indicators; all but three KEI indicators related to the English alphabet and conventions of language 

could be assessed in students’ home languages. 

37 Maryland’s Guidelines on Allowable Supports for the KRA are available at: 

http://pd.kready.org/data/ck/sites/116/files/MD_KRA%20Guideline%20final%20rv.pdf 38 Oregon’s Accessibility Decision Tree for the 2014-15 KA is available at 

http://www.ode.state.or.us/wma/teachlearn/testing/admin/ka7_decision_tree_20130522.pdf. Oregon’s 

Accessibility Manual is available at 

http://www.ode.state.or.us/teachlearn/testing/admin/alt/ea/updates/oregonaccessibilitymanual.pdf 39 A Guide to Using the Pennsylvania KEI is available at: https://www.csiutg.org/kei_manual.pdf 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 47 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Similarly, officials from these same three states developed written guidelines for administration of the 

KEA with students with disabilities. For example, the Maryland State Department of Education 

developed a tiered decision-making process for identifying and implementing individualized supports for 

students with disabilities. According to these guidelines, “level the field” supports (e.g., braille, sign 

language, or gestural language) could be used to address the unique needs of students with disabilities 

and assist them in demonstrating their true knowledge and skills. Similarly, the Oregon Department of 

Education created a decision tree to help KA assessors provide the appropriate supports for students 

with disabilities. The decision tree indicated that students with specific vision, hearing, or language or 

communication needs should receive accommodations (e.g., sign language, simplified directions, or 

large print versions) during KA administration. Although an IEP was not necessary for Oregon teachers to 

provide additional supports during the KA, Pennsylvania’s KEI administration guidelines stated that 

teachers should provide accommodations that were specified in students’ IEPs and Section 50440 plans, 

and a few teachers reported designing activities specifically to observe students with disabilities on KEI 

indicators. In Maryland, the level the field supports that teachers could offer did not necessarily include 

all supports outlined in students’ IEPs. 

Still, even with written guidance, several interviewed teachers in the selected Maryland, Oregon, and 

Pennsylvania districts reported disagreeing with or having challenges following the provided guidance 

and decision-making processes for allowable and suitable supports. Respondents expressed concerns 

that inconsistent administration practices and a lack of access to translators and use of accommodations 

could jeopardize the tool’s accuracy of findings with these populations. For example, interviewed 

teachers in Maryland expressed concern about accuracy of the KRA findings given that KRA 

administration guidelines did not allow teachers to sight translate the KRA into other languages or for 

students to respond in languages other than English. Multiple interviewed teachers across Maryland 

also expressed concern that the KRA was not accurate for some students with disabilities, because there 

were limited allowable supports for KRA administration compared with supports provided by their IEPs. 

Interviewed teachers in Oregon also reported that they struggled with providing appropriate and 

equitable accommodations for students with various needs and that there was a lack of bilingual 

assessors available to administer the Spanish version to eligible students. In Pennsylvania’s urban 

district, two interviewed teachers reported using few accommodations because students were not 

typically identified for special education until second grade. These teachers also reported confusion and 

concern about differentiating students’ language differences from developmental delays. 

None of the interviewed teachers in Washington recalled any attention devoted in their training or 

instructions to administering GOLD® with students with disabilities or EL students, and only a few 

interviewed teachers reported access to additional in-class supports (e.g., translators) to assist with 

assessing EL students. Even without training or instructions on administering the GOLD® to students 

with disabilities, all interviewed teachers in Washington reported that they believed the GOLD® was 

appropriate for that population because of the GOLD®’s comprehensive and standardized measure of 

students’ capabilities. Teachers rate students on the GOLD® developmental progressions, which allow 

them to indicate a broad range of students’ skill levels, including those of students with disabilities, 

without necessarily having to provide accommodations. However, the majority of the interviewed 

teachers felt that the GOLD® was difficult to use with EL students, and that it resulted in scores that 

were probably not accurate reflections of students’ true abilities. Teachers indicated a concern that the 

40 School districts often record the elements of an individual student’s free appropriate public education under 

Section 504 in a document, typically referred to as a “Section 504 Plan.” A Section 504 Plan often includes the 

regular or special education, related aids and services, and accommodations a student needs, and the 

appropriate setting in which the student should receive those services. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 48 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

students’ capacities to comprehend directions and adequately perform queried tasks hampered their 

ability to demonstrate their true skills, and only a few teachers reported having access to translators. For 

example, a school administrator in an urban district reported that translation support is needed, but she 

was unsure it was universally available: 

I want to know if a kid can count to 10, and I don’t care if it’s in English or Spanish. Kids
 

should be allowed to use their first language so we can get at certain skills. But this requires
 

administering the test in children’s home language. We have that support in this school, but I
 

don’t know how universal that is.
 

Washington state respondents reported that resources and supports for the use of GOLD® with EL 

students and students with disabilities would become a greater focus after the basic components of 

their KEA system had been rolled out. Washington’s Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction 

released additional written guidance on assessing EL students in spring 2015.41 

Despite the availability of guidelines and Highlighted Practice 

resources, the majority of interviewed teachers 

District officials offered support for teachers across all four case study states reported a desire administering the KEA to EL students and students with for more support for administering the KEAs with disabilities, such as consultation with ESL and special EL students and students with disabilities, education teachers. 

including training and having access to 

translators and special education resource 

teachers. Although a few case study district officials reported that they offered support to teachers of EL 

students and students with disabilities (e.g., consultation from bilingual counseling assistants or English 

as a Second Language [ESL] teachers, coaches with expertise in special education), few interviewed 

teachers knew about or made use of these resources. 

Avoiding Duplication in Kindergarten Assessments 

State officials in the case study sites reported that to minimize burden, they encouraged 

district administrators to omit or delay other district-mandated assessments that were 

duplicative of the KEAs, but district administrators continued to require the 

administration of other assessments in addition to the KEAs. 

The majority of district administrators and teachers across all districts in all case study states reported 

continuing with other assessments in addition to their state KEAs, because the assessments were part of 

district benchmark systems, or because teachers needed additional information beyond what their state 

KEA was providing to inform their instruction. 

Although administrators in Maryland’s suburban district and Oregon’s urban district eliminated the fall 

administration of the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills® (DIBELS®), district and school 

41	 The Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction-WaKIDS website includes a resource page 

(http://www.k12.wa.us/WaKIDS/Materials) that posted a revised document in May 2015 titled “Guidance for 

WaKIDS Teachers Working with English Language Learners.” The two-page flyer listed six major guidelines, 

including (1) observe students in multiple opportunities using their home language, (2) seek assistance from 

someone who the district has verified to be fully proficient in the student’s home language to assist with 

activities and interpret responses, and (3) observe physical skills first and language-based skills later in October. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 49 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

respondents noted that teachers still administered 

DIBELS® in the winter and spring academic periods. A 

few interviewed teachers reported that they found it 

helpful when their district eliminated duplicative 

assessments such as DIBELS® during KEA 

implementation period. The majority of interviewed 

teachers in these states, however, reported that they 

Highlighted Practice 

District officials omitted duplicative assessments 

and synchronized other assessments conducted in 

addition to the KEA. 

continued to administer other curriculum-based or portfolio assessments repeatedly throughout the 

year because they felt the findings were more useful than the KEA snapshot, which could only provide 

short-term instructional guidance. Teachers reported that progress monitoring and curriculum-based 

measures that were used multiple times throughout the year were useful for informing instruction, 

creating instructional groups, setting goals for teacher evaluations, and tracking student progress. 

Interviewed teachers in Oregon reported that having a brief and highly focused assessment such as the 

KA was not useful for informing instruction. 

Similarly, across all case study districts in Pennsylvania, teachers reported continuing to use assessments 

such as DIBELS® and locally developed curriculum-based math and literacy tools, and a few teachers 

reported using the results from those assessments to inform KEI ratings. However, because the deadline 

to complete the KEI was early in the school year, teachers reported that only other assessments 

conducted within the first weeks of school could inform KEI ratings. 

In Washington, district officials in all case study sites continued to require the use of other assessments, 

such as standards- or curriculum-based direct assessments (e.g., DIBELS®, Measures of Academic 

Progress®, portfolio assessments), either simultaneously with the GOLD® or subsequently in the 

following academic periods. Urban district officials made concerted efforts to synchronize and align the 

GOLD® with their Kindergarten Portfolio assessment, which tracked student growth according to 

Washington state K-12 Learning Standards after the fall GOLD® administration. Still, according to 

teachers across all the case study districts, the serial administration of different assessments was 

onerous and made it difficult for them to attend to and use the GOLD® results, because their focus had 

to be shifted immediately to conducting other assessments. 

Using Technology to Inform KEA Observations and for KEA Data Entry 

In three of the states (Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington), teachers and 

administrators reported having some challenges with technology and with the significant 

time needed to enter data, and the majority of teachers chose not to use digital evidence 

(e.g., videos, sound clips, and photographs) to inform KEA ratings. 

Teachers and assessors in all four case study states successfully gathered and entered data on thousands 

of kindergarten children using secure web-based data systems. In two states (Maryland and 

Washington), teachers entered all KEA data into statewide data systems. A few teachers interviewed in 

these states had access to tablets to facilitate data collection and entry, but this technology did not 

always work reliably, and teachers reported varying levels of comfort with technology. All interviewed 

district officials in Oregon and one in Pennsylvania reported that they had school or district staff 

available to enter KEA data into state data systems on behalf of teachers. However, in all states, 

entering data into online systems took significant time, with estimates varying from a total of 15 hours 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 50 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for one entire rural district in Oregon to two to 10 hours per classroom in Pennsylvania and Washington 

to one hour per assessment in Maryland. 

To minimize burden of data entry on teachers as well as to support KEA administration, the majority of 

Maryland and Washington district administrators in the case studies provided teachers with tablets for 

KEA data collection. In Maryland, teachers could submit KRA data from the tablets directly to the state’s 

online reporting system (the system also automatically saved KRA responses that students recorded on 

tablets), but teachers reported that this feature did not work reliably during the first year of 

implementation. In addition, the data system lacked the capacity to accommodate large numbers of 

concurrent users, sometimes causing system outages and requiring teachers’ reentry of the data. 

Teachers whose districts did not provide tablets for data collection and teachers whose tablet 

applications malfunctioned reported that they recorded students’ responses on paper and entered KEA 

ratings data at a later time. 

In Washington, two out of three case study school districts purchased tablets so that their teachers 

could use the GOLD® web-based application to gather evidence for their students’ ratings (e.g., take 

photographs or videos) and to minimize later data entry; however, the majority of teachers still 

preferred to use pencil and paper to record their observations, which they later entered into the online 

system. A few teachers noted specific difficulties using aspects of the GOLD® online system, but they 

also consistently reported that the state vendor resolved any technology issues in a timely manner. 

As noted above, Oregon and Pennsylvania district or school personnel other than teachers entered KEA 

data into statewide data systems. In each of the six visited schools in Oregon, KA assessors submitted 

paper forms with individual students’ results to district or school staff (such as a district test coordinator 

or an administrative assistant), who then entered and submitted the data electronically to a web-based 

data entry system — either separately for each student or through a mass upload of aggregated data. In 

Pennsylvania’s suburban district, a district administrative assistant compiled the teachers’ ratings from 

paper forms and entered them into the KEI database. 

In Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington, Highlighted Practice 

teachers completed some or all of their own KEA To reduce administration burden, district officials data entry. In Pennsylvania’s selected rural and employed other school or district staff to enter KEA urban districts, teachers entered their ratings into data on behalf of teachers. the KEI data system directly, and teachers resorted 

to using some personal time to complete this task. 

State respondents as well as several teachers and administrators interviewed from Pennsylvania’s urban 

district reported that the data system had insufficient capacity to accommodate more than 100 

concurrent users, and teachers experienced repeated incidents of the system crashing, particularly 

during districtwide dedicated teacher preparation periods. Maryland teachers in all three districts 

reported that data entry was the most time-consuming part of administration and that glitches with the 

web-based system sometimes hampered the process. Washington teachers received a release day to 

enter GOLD® ratings, but several teachers interviewed across districts reported that data entry still ran 

into their instructional preparation or personal time. 

In Pennsylvania and Washington, teachers could use digital evidence to inform their KEA ratings, but the 

majority of teachers chose not to do so. In Washington, teachers could collect a variety of evidence to 

justify skill ratings, including photographs, sound clips, and videos. Likewise, Pennsylvania’s KEA training 

materials allow for a variety of evidence sources to inform teachers’ ratings, including videos and 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 51 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

photographs. However, the majority of interviewed teachers across the Washington case study districts 

indicated that they rarely submitted more than work samples along with the required observation note 

explaining why they selected a particular rating for each student. Interviewed teachers in Pennsylvania 

reported relying mainly on their own observations in school for evidence and occasionally on feedback 

from support staff and other teachers; none reported including digital media as part of the KEA 

observations. 

Using Local Funding to Reduce KEA Burden 

State funding covered most costs associated with KEA implementation in all four case 

study states, but officials in the majority of case study districts reported that local funds 

were used to reduce burden on teachers by providing aides to monitor the classroom 

during KEA administration, coaching support, or technology resources to make data 

submission easier and faster. 

As described in Chapter 2, State KEA Snapshots, a combination of both state and federal funds 

supported the development and the majority of the implementation costs (such as training and material 

costs) of the KEAs in the case study states. School and district respondents, however, reported that they 

were cognizant of the additional demands that KEA training, administration, and data entry placed on 

their teachers, so they invested local funding to support teachers with their new responsibilities and to 

minimize the burden where they could. 

For example, all of the case study districts in Maryland and two in Washington purchased tablets for 

data collection and entry, and IT staff in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington uploaded student 

demographics (e.g., student identification number, teacher, gender, birthdate) into KEA data systems to 

streamline data entry for teachers.42 The interviewed urban district administrators in Pennsylvania also 

reported using local funds for development and printing of additional KEI resource materials for 

teachers and for compensation for teachers who trained peers. 

The majority of Maryland, Oregon, and Washington district staff reported that they used classroom 

aides or substitute teachers to provide classroom supervision and release time for teachers while they 

administered or entered KEA data. Interviewed teachers across districts in all four case study states 

reported that having an extra set of hands in the classroom during administration of the KEA — a 

teacher’s aide or substitute teacher — was very helpful, if not instrumental, to the success of KEA 

implementation. For example, when teachers administered items one-on-one with students, aides could 

monitor and support the rest of the class so that teachers could seamlessly administer KEAs without 

interruption. 

42 Maryland districts were responsible for 60 percent of the cost of tablets and the Maryland State Department of 

Education paid the rest. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 52 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6. KEA Data Use by States, Districts, and Schools 

State officials provided access to KEA results using different methods, including posting public reports on 

websites, sending data files to district administrators, and supporting online data systems that 

generated real-time classroom and student-level reports for teachers. Administrators across the states 

and districts reported that in the early phases of KEA implementation, only a few held preliminary 

discussions about the use of KEA results to inform policy and practices. Respondents in all case study 

states reported barriers to using the results systematically, including variations in timing of the data 

release and obstacles to sharing KEA results with parents and preschool programs. 

Accessing and Using Public and Internal KEA Reports 

The public could access state- and district-level KEA reports and data tables on public 

websites in three of the four case study states (Maryland, Oregon, and Washington), and 

authorized district staff and teachers could access online school, classroom, and studentlevel reports in two of the states (Pennsylvania and Washington). 

State officials in three of the case study states (Maryland, Oregon, and Washington) made results from 

the 2014 KEA available widely through data tables on public websites or reports. In May 2015, the 

Maryland State Department of Education released a KRA public data report (Maryland State Department 

of Education 2015a) that summarized the results of the KRA statewide by student subgroups and for 

each of the state’s 24 school districts. In December 2014, the Oregon Department of Education posted 

to its website Microsoft® Excel tables displaying KA results statewide and for each district and school 

and by student gender and ethnicity. In spring 2015, the Oregon Department of Education further 

provided district and school data files to district administrators, and in October 2015 the Oregon 

Department of Education posted to its website additional KA results on economically disadvantaged 

students, EL students, and students with disabilities (Oregon Department of Education 2015b). Similarly, 

Washington’s Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction provided statewide WaKIDS data online that 

could be disaggregated by district and student characteristics (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, EL and special 

education status, low income), as well as a fact 

sheet summarizing the results (State of Washington 

Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction n.d.). Highlighted Practice 

Administrators from the case study’s urban and State websites provided summary reports of KEA 

suburban districts in Washington provided GOLD® findings that could be disaggregated by student 

data on district websites that could be characteristics (e.g., race/ethnicity, economic 

disaggregated by school, region, and student disadvantage, or special education). 

characteristics (e.g., gender, race/ethnicity, special 

education status). 

In contrast, as of December 2015, the Pennsylvania Office of Child Development and Early Learning had 

not published results from the 2014 KEI. In January 2015 state respondents reported that the focus of 

the first year of the KEI was on administration, but that they expected to put greater emphasis on data 

use and dissemination in future years. The state contractor provided KEI data findings to districts and 

schools on request, though the state contractor reported that very few districts and schools requested 

reports. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 53 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In addition, authorized district officials and teachers had access to real-time reports in Pennsylvania and 

Washington. The online KEA data entry systems used in those states had the capacity to provide a 

variety of real-time reports including student- and classroom-level data. 

The majority of district administrators and teachers interviewed across the selected states 

reported several obstacles to using the KEA results, one being that they could not easily 

access or interpret the data in a timely manner for instructional decisions. 

Respondents in two states (Maryland and Oregon) discussed the impact of timing on the limited use of 

KEA data by educators. In Maryland, state officials issued the KRA data after state officials and 

kindergarten teachers from Maryland and Ohio established cut scores (the number of correct items 

required for a student to be considered “ready” in a particular domain) for the new KRA tool. The delay 

led a few Maryland teachers to question the value of using KRA data to inform curriculum and 

instructional decisions or sharing results with parents late in the school year; teachers received reports 

on individual students in May and June of 2015. With cut score standards established, Maryland state 

respondents anticipated that the data would be available earlier in subsequent school years.43 Likewise, 

according to a state administrator, the Oregon Department of Education made a concerted effort to 

distribute 2014 KA results soon after the fall administration, because teachers had expressed frustration 

with the timing of the release of the KA results from the 2012–13 school year, which occurred in spring 

2013, and made the data irrelevant for current classroom practices. Despite the earlier release of the 

2014 data, the majority of case study respondents in Oregon did not use KA findings. 

Respondents in two states (Oregon and Pennsylvania) also reported not having staff who could analyze 

the KEA raw data and confusion about interpreting and using data tables. The Oregon Department of 

Education’s website provides a Kindergarten Assessment Report Overview with suggestions for how 

state, district, school, and student-level data can be used. Respondents across the selected Oregon 

districts, however, expressed a lack of understanding of how to use KEA data to examine demographic 

trends, to inform instruction, or to consider policy implications. Interviewed district staff in both 

Pennsylvania and Oregon further reported difficulty in using the data in the provided format (Microsoft® 

Excel tables), as well as the unavailability of staff with skills to assist in analyzing and interpreting the 

data files. According to a respondent from a Pennsylvania district that had requested and received a 

data file, 

Not having a team here to deal with data, we did not use the results. It was an 

implementation year and tools came too late in a not-usable format. We’re looking at it now 

to make long-term decisions. The big challenge is not having the state design canned reports 

ahead of time—I think that was a lost opportunity. 

Washington teachers in one case study district used Highlighted Practice 

reports from the online GOLD® system as the 

students’ fall reports cards to discuss during parentteacher conferences. However, the majority of 

interviewed teachers in case study states that had 

One district used KEA reports as the students’ fall 

report cards to discuss during parent-teacher 

conferences. 

43	 A Maryland state official confirmed during a review of excerpts from this report that the Maryland Department 

of Education made KRA data available earlier in the 2015–16 school year. Teachers could access individual 

student reports two weeks after the close of KRA administration, and the department released the public data 

report in February 2016. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 54 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

online real-time reports (i.e., Pennsylvania and Washington) reported that they were unaware of the 

reports, unfamiliar with data system navigation processes or uses for the data, or that the systems or 

data were not operational when they needed the information (e.g., in time for parent conferences). 

A few teachers also expressed confusion about expected uses of the data, especially in the midst of all 

other data collection efforts. As one teacher in Washington explained, 

I’ve never looked at the results. I can’t remember if anyone ever told me to do so. Am I 

supposed to look at how my kids measure up against other kids?...I didn’t think about using 

WaKIDS data because, as soon as it ends, I need to start collecting report card data. 

All interviewed principals in Washington knew that the GOLD® online system could provide abundant 

data and reports; however, the majority of interviewed principals used the system only to monitor 

teachers’ completion of data submissions. They reported challenges with the data format and a lack of 

time for other analyses. 

District respondents in Oregon and Pennsylvania further reported that their local district data systems 

provided data in a more useful format than the statewide KEA data systems. An administrator in Oregon 

suggested that the KA data would be more useful if it were represented in the district’s data dashboard 

and if the results were compatible with the local data system that contains additional assessment 

results. A district administrator in Pennsylvania likewise reported that the local district data system 

provided faster aggregated results and better graphing capabilities than the KEI data system. 

Using KEA Results to Inform Future Policy and Program Decisions 

One case study state (Washington) had begun to analyze KEA data and hold preliminary 

discussions about how the findings could inform policy and resource allocation. 

State and district officials in Washington had preliminary discussions about some of the implications of 

their WaKIDS results. For example, a state respondent reported having used an examination of GOLD® 

results disaggregated by race/ethnicity and region to illustrate issues of racial equity and gaps in access 

to preschool experiences across districts. Based on WaKIDS results, state officials deployed statewide 

professional development resources to preschool and kindergarten teachers and education materials to 

parents. One case study district communicated the findings of WaKIDS to their school board and parent 

community to illustrate students’ local achievement profiles and district resource needs. 

State officials in the other three case study states reported not having yet used KEA results for informing 

policies and practices, but respondents in all four states shared their plans to use KEA data to identify 

needs for additional preschool programming. For example, a few district respondents interviewed 

across the selected sites in Maryland reported their intentions to use KRA data to identify geographical 

areas in the district where children could benefit from access to additional preschool programs. In 

Oregon, a few state respondents reported that the KA could eventually help guide decisions about early 

learning investments and resources as well as curricula to support students’ needs. Washington state 

respondents shared that they planned to develop a WaKIDS Feedback Report that will share aggregate 

level WaKIDS data with early learning providers. Similarly, Pennsylvania state respondents indicated that 

they planned to produce state-level data reports and use KEI data to improve programming in 

kindergartens and preschool programs and migrate KEI data into the statewide longitudinal data system 

to enable examination of long-term benefits of preschool on later school outcomes. As one state official 

reported, 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 55 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The KEI focuses all of our office’s initiatives, it’s the hinge between the 0–5 and K–3 worlds. It
 

gives an opportunity at the state and local level to bridge gaps and have discussions from
 

the P–3 context.
 

Using KEA Results to Understand Individual Student Needs 

Although the majority of interviewed teachers reported that they had not yet used formal 

KEA reports to inform their instructional practices, a few teachers said that the 

impressions they gained while administering the KEA helped them to understand their 

students’ strengths and needs and to assign students to instructional groups. 

A few teachers in three states (Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington) discussed benefits of 

administering a KEA early in the school year as they were getting to know their students. For example, a 

few teachers interviewed in the selected suburban and rural districts in Maryland reported that 

administering the KRA gave them one-on-one time with each student that helped them to identify 

students’ individual knowledge and skills early in the school year. 

A few teachers reported that administering the KEA changed or affirmed their understanding of 

individual students’ strengths and needs. In Pennsylvania, a few teachers reported that making 

observations of students for the KEI helped them become acquainted with their students, with the 

inventory typically affirming what teachers perceived about individual students’ entering skills. 

An urban teacher in Washington articulated how she used information gained early in the year from 

WaKIDS to tailor instruction for an individual student: 

I had one child who couldn’t hold a pencil when he walked in the door. He couldn’t apply
 

pressure. It was good for me to use WaKIDS to see where he was and what his next steps
 

would be as he developed. It reminded me that I couldn’t expect him to start writing the
 

week after I gave him instruction. I made plans for this child based on his data. When we did
 

centers, I made sure he was at the Play-Doh table, practicing manipulation.
 

In two states (Pennsylvania and Washington), interviewed teachers also reported using evidence 

gathered for the KEA to group students by ability level for instruction and to identify students who might 

need additional help with social-emotional skills. 

In contrast, the majority of interviewed district and school staff in Oregon, who typically assessed 

students before or during the first week of school, reported that they had not gained any useful 

knowledge from conducting the KA. In fact, a few of the interviewed teachers reported that the one-onone, highly structured nature of the KA felt uncomfortable to them, and that they preferred assessing 

students while playing informally with them as they do with other assessments. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 56 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Avoiding Misuses of KEA Results 

State and district administrators and teachers interviewed in all four case study states 

reported a clear understanding of how KEA findings should not be used, such as to 

prevent children from entering kindergarten, to determine special education eligibility, or 

to evaluate the quality of specific preschool programs. 

Across the four case study states, nearly all Highlighted Practice 

interviewed teachers and administrators reported State officials developed training protocols that understanding that the KEA was a tool for identifying clearly and concretely instructed KEA users about students’ competencies at kindergarten entry, rather the potential misuses of KEA data. than a screening or diagnostic tool or one that could 

prevent students from entering kindergarten. 

Provisions for RTT-ELC and EAG-KEA grants also state that results should not be used to prevent 

children’s entry into kindergarten or as a single measure for high-stakes decisions. To promote 

consistency and clarity of purpose, the Oregon Department of Education developed training protocols 

and materials with clear instructions about avoiding potential misuses of KA data — namely, to screen 

students or to evaluate preschool programs. Across the three selected Oregon districts, interviewed 

educators reported strictly following these guidelines. 

Similarly, almost all interviewed Washington teachers and administrators readily identified that GOLD® 

results should be used as one piece of observational data that captures students’ needs for additional 

services and supports. These teachers and administrators affirmed, however, that the assessment 

results could identify areas of concern for individual students that teachers should be aware of, work on 

individually with the student, and possibly discuss with parents. 

Sharing KEA Information and Results with Parents 

The majority of interviewed teachers reported that they did not share KEA information or 

results with parents because of the delayed release of the KEA findings and concerns 

about how they might perceive the assessment and the results. 

The majority of interviewed teachers across three of the states (Oregon, Maryland, and Pennsylvania) 

reported providing little or no introductory information about their KEAs to parents. In Oregon, teachers 

in two of the selected districts provided introductory information about the KA, such as pamphlets or 

letters describing the KA as a standardized assessment of baseline skills, or presented information at 

family advisory meetings or during informal discussions with parents during transition days before the 

start of school. In contrast, interviewed teachers in Maryland and Pennsylvania generally reported 

sharing no introductory information about their KEAs with parents. 

In contrast, Washington’s WaKIDS process includes a Family Connection component, and all case study 

teachers reported meeting with parents early in the school year to discuss how they would be 

measuring students’ strengths and needs using GOLD®. However, teachers in 11 of the 12 districts 

reported that they did not share KEA results with parents. Teachers in Maryland and Pennsylvania 

reported that data were not available in time to share at parent-teacher conferences, but a few teachers 

in Pennsylvania shared observations they had made during the KEI administration. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 57 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even when results were available, respondents reported not wanting to share KEA findings in their 

communication with parents. Maryland’s KRA training protocol included a focus on communicating 

results to parents, and district respondents reported their intention to share KRA results at conferences 

to engage and make plans with parents to support their children’s education. Yet the majority of 

Maryland teachers across districts reported that they saw no use in sharing the KRA results with parents, 

because the KRA did not offer helpful information beyond what teachers shared from other 

assessments. As discussed above, the majority of interviewed teachers from Oregon had not seen KA 

results themselves, and one district respondent further reported that the district administration was 

reluctant to share results with parents in order to avoid an “anti-testing” backlash. 

Across the case study states, teachers in only one district, Washington’s urban district, reported sharing 

summary KEA reports with parents, as their fall report card. These teachers provided parents with the 

assessment findings printed from the GOLD® online system and discussed the findings with them if they 

attended the fall parent-teacher conferences. A few teachers reported in their interviews that many of 

their parents did not attend these conferences or showed little interest in the GOLD® findings. 

Sharing KEA Results With Preschool Programs 

Even though most official communications about KEAs mentioned the explicit goal of 

sharing KEA results with preschool programs to inform program improvements, the 

majority of the directors of preschool programs associated with the selected case study 

schools had little or no awareness of the KEAs or their results. 

In all four case study states, the majority of interviewed preschool program directors reported receiving 

little to no information about the KEAs. In three states (Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington), 

interviewed directors of district-funded preschool or Head Start programs were more likely than 

interviewed directors of private preschool programs to have some knowledge of their respective KEAs, 

such as its purpose to create linkages between early childhood programs and kindergarten and to 

educate parents about expectations for school readiness. In contrast, the majority of private preschool 

program directors had not heard of their state’s KEA before being contacted for the case study. 

Despite varying levels of awareness, preschool program directors interviewed in all four states 

expressed interest in learning more about their state’s KEA and its usefulness to the preschool 

community. Interviewed kindergarten teachers in Maryland and Pennsylvania reported an interest in 

using KEA data in the future to promote dialogue with the preschool- to third-grade community and 

inform professional development. 

In contrast, a few preschool program directors in Oregon and Washington questioned the validity or 

usefulness of the KEA data. One interviewed Head Start director in Oregon suggested that the KA may 

be less valid than other assessments used in the state, citing lower scores for students on the KA’s early 

literacy and math components than on comparable GOLD® measures administered in preschool. Other 

preschool program directors in Oregon who were familiar with the KA reported that it was too academic 

to use at the beginning of kindergarten and that the administration of the KA did not align with the early 

childhood community’s philosophy of developmentally appropriate practices. Similarly, in Washington a 

few directors of state-funded preschool programs reported that they were aware of the use of GOLD® in 

kindergartens but were skeptical about its results adding value beyond the GOLD® data collected by 

state-funded preschool programs at the end of preschool. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 58 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

District administrators, principals, and kindergarten teachers mentioned challenges they faced when 

trying to connect with preschool program directors around KEA activities and results, including finding 

meeting locations, lack of alignment of content and standards (i.e., early learning standards versus K–12 

standards), and a lack of a reporting format that presented data in ways that were useful to both 

preschools and elementary schools. 

State and district respondents in Washington further reported their unsuccessful efforts to date to link 

the GOLD® individual student data collected in preschool and kindergarten. They reported that the 

Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)

44 and other data access and confidentiality 

restrictions hampered their abilities to connect and act on the data to inform and improve early 

education. 

None of the respondents in Maryland, Oregon, or Pennsylvania reported that they had procedures 

currently in place to involve the preschool community, but a few district and school administrators in 

Washington reported that in the planning phase of the Early Learning Collaboration component of 

WaKIDS, initial meetings had occurred between preschool and kindergarten teachers to build 

relationships and joint professional development opportunities. Although none of the respondents had 

personally participated in these meetings, one principal from the urban district in Washington discussed 

plans to create a feedback loop to include preschool teachers who worked on her school site in sharing 

GOLD® data. 

44	 The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 CFR Part 99) is a federal law that protects 

the privacy of student education records. The law applies to all educational agencies and institutions that 

receive funds under an applicable program administered by the U.S. Department of Education. For more 

information see http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/fpco/ferpa/index.html 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 59 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7. Challenges and Potential Solutions 

State officials, district administrators, school staff, and preschool directors identified a number of 

challenges and potential solutions in KEA adoption, implementation, and use of results. Educators in 

states, districts, and schools planning to implement KEAs may benefit from considering the challenges 

and potential solutions identified in this exploratory case study. 

Engaging in a Continuous Improvement Cycle Informed by Stakeholders 

Challenge: State respondents reported that the KEA adoption, implementation, and use of 

the results were iterative processes that required continuous adjustments. 

Potential solution: State respondents reported that careful planning, review, and 

feedback that engaged various stakeholder perspectives was a critical process in KEA 

rollout that required dedicated infrastructure and funding. 

Officials in the state departments charged with leading the KEA efforts in all four case study states 

reported that their KEA content or administration process changed each year based on experiences and 

stakeholder feedback. Just as state officials began their KEA selection process by engaging a variety of 

stakeholders in articulating KEA priorities and reviewing potential KEA tools and processes, they 

reported continuing to ask stakeholders, including district staff, teachers, and assessment experts, for 

feedback to refine their assessment items, training, administration processes, data entry procedures, 

and reports. 

Before implementation, state officials engaged technical experts to help reduce the length of the 

assessment tools and identify items that might be problematic, in terms of sensitivity or bias. For 

example, prior to statewide administration in fall 2014, the Maryland State and Ohio Departments of 

Education leadership team worked with assessment experts, researchers, technology staff, and 

professional development providers to review the first version of KRA items with the goal of reducing 

administration burden while maintaining valid and reliable results. The team eliminated KRA items 

deemed too difficult, time intensive, and less critical to the evaluation of kindergarten readiness. 

State officials also systematically gathered feedback from district and school staff after each year of 

implementation. Maryland officials reported that as a result of teacher feedback from surveys and focus 

groups after the fall 2014 KRA, the KEA leadership team planned to provide additional training on the 

use of data, reduce the length of time between KRA administration and receipt of results, and consider 

shortening the length of the KRA again. 

Similarly, Pennsylvania’s Office of Child Development and Early Learning hosted in-person focus groups 

in December 2014 to gather feedback from participating teachers and administrators about the first full 

KEI implementation. Pennsylvania’s Office of Child Development and Early Learning also surveyed 

district administrators via email about KEI implementation and supports. Feedback included suggestions 

that the state KEA leadership team was considering, such as improving the usability of the data entry 

system, collecting additional student demographic information (e.g., home language, preschool 

experience), and providing more guidance for use of the KEI with EL students. 

Likewise, after the 2013 and 2014 administrations of the KA, the Oregon Department of Education 

sought feedback and recommendations from a Kindergarten Assessment Content and Advisory Panel, 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 61 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

which included educators, administrators, early learning professionals, Oregon Department of Education 

staff, and researchers. The panel issued a number of recommendations including improving the current 

measure to address a “floor” effect (i.e., most students’ assessment ratings fell in the very low ranges), 

pilot testing a new literacy component in fall 2015, developing and implementing a new data system in 

2016–17, and providing detailed guidance for data interpretation. Additionally, in February 2015, a 

subset of the panel’s members convened a Kindergarten Spanish Literacy Workshop, which reviewed 

the content, administration, and scoring procedures of the Spanish version of the KA, offering 

recommendations to make the content and instructions more developmentally appropriate. As a result 

of the panel’s input, officials in the Oregon Department of Education reported that they planned to field 

test four other early literacy measures in 2015–16.45 

Washington’s Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction convened a committee with the directive to 

recommend changes to the objectives assessed within the 2014 WaKIDS version of the GOLD®. To help 

the committee select the objectives and dimensions to be included in the fall 2015 version, the state 

surveyed teachers and asked them to rank each GOLD® objective and dimension based on its value in 

guiding instruction. Similarly, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction staff ranked each objective 

and dimension based on its connection to the Washington State K-12 Learning Standards. Based on this 

information, the committee added new objectives and dimensions to the WaKIDS GOLD® in the social 

emotional, language, and cognitive domains, and omitted other objectives and dimensions across all six 

domains — modifying the WAKIDS version from a total of 19 objectives with 36 dimensions to 20 

objectives with 31 dimensions. Because adaptations may affect the measure’s validity and the 

comparability of results across years of administration, the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction 

reported that two psychometricians reviewed the recommended slate of objectives and dimensions 

before final approval to ensure that the 2015 WaKIDS assessment would still be reliable and valid for the 

intended purposes and populations. 

Clarifying and Communicating the Intended Purposes of the KEA 

Challenge: Several district and school respondents and a few preschool directors 

expressed uncertainty about the usefulness of the KEA to serve all its purposes for all the 

intended audiences. 

Potential solution: State officials realized it was critical to simplify and strengthen their 

messages about the purpose of their KEAs to increase buy-in for statewide administration 

and use of data by parents and staff in districts, schools, and preschools. 

State officials across all case study states communicated multiple purposes of their KEAs. One major 

purpose was to measure school readiness consistently to inform state-level investments in early 

learning. Another was to identify students’ strengths and needs to inform preschool and kindergarten 

teachers’ professional development and classroom instruction. In addition, in all four states, state 

officials intended for KEA results to provide parents with information about their children’s learning and 

development. 

In contrast to the various purposes reported by state officials, district and school respondents in all four 

states most often reported that the primary purpose of KEAs was to provide a state snapshot of 

45	 During the review of the report excerpts, an Oregon state official confirmed that a pilot study of alternative 

early literacy measures was done in fall 2015. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 62 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

kindergarten entry skills for state-level planning. Teachers in the case study states that required 

participation often viewed it as a compliance task rather than an activity designed to benefit their 

classroom instruction. For example, in Maryland and Oregon, several interviewed teachers reported that 

they viewed the KEA as yet one more required assessment in addition to others that were either 

mandated by district administrators or deemed more useful to educators. 

Issues also arose in Washington over the tension between the concurrent desires to use WaKIDS results 

for a statewide snapshot and to use them to inform classroom instruction, because the different 

purposes implied different data collection practices. A few respondents at the state, district, and school 

levels of the Washington sites advocated for the administration of the GOLD® a second time during the 

school year to help teachers assess student growth and adapt instruction, but other research and district 

staff disagreed about the use of data for that purpose. Reported reasons for their concerns included the 

unsuitability of the tool to assess growth on the Washington State K–12 Learning Standards (i.e., GOLD® 

age bands only run to 72 months and are intended to show kindergarten readiness, not year-end 

achievement), the subjective nature of the administration (i.e., it is conducted by the classroom 

teacher), and the time commitment and burden for even a single administration of the GOLD®. 

Respondents in Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington suggested that clear communication about 

expected uses of the KEAs prior to full implementation would have increased buy-in among kindergarten 

teachers and the preschool community. A few Washington state and district officials thought that 

demonstrating one tool could serve multiple purposes would bolster the argument for administering it 

statewide, but two respondents (one at a district and one at the state) reported that overstating the 

KEA’s use to accomplish some purposes may have undermined support within schools. After the initial 

implementation in fall 2014, Washington state officials documented a simple and clear message about 

the expected uses of the GOLD® on the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction’s website: 

“WaKIDS provides a snapshot of where Washington’s kindergartners are in their development early in 

the kindergarten school year. These data help inform state and district-level decisions about education 

policy and investments, and classroom decisions about individualized learning.”46 

Several state, district, and school respondents in Oregon suggested that better communication in the 

initial development and adoption stage about the KA’s purpose and intended uses would have 

supported teachers’ understanding about and acceptance of the KA. Similarly, although staff from the 

Pennsylvania’s Office of Child Development and Early Learning used multiple methods to communicate 

with districts and schools about the KEI (e.g., communications through a statewide listserv and 

newsletter, informational flyers and brochures, and participation of state staff at conferences and 

educational forums), state respondents suggested that future messages aimed at teachers must be 

explicit about the KEI’s benefits and uses, as well as reassuring to teachers that it is not a high-stakes 

assessment or a teacher evaluation. In Washington, an urban school administrator suggested that 

teachers needed communication to understand the difference between testing students for 

accountability and observing students’ skills for instructional purposes: 

Testing is villainized in early learning, but people don’t seem to understand that GOLD® isn’t 

about testing — it’s about observation. Addressing this misconception is important. 

46 The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction’s website is at 

http://www.k12.wa.us/WaKIDS/About/default.aspx 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 63 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reducing Burden of KEA Implementation 

Challenge: Several local educators reported that KEA administration and data entry were 

time consuming. 

Potential solution: District administrators reduced burden on teachers by changing 

administration schedules of other assessments, providing teacher aides to supervise 

classrooms while teachers focused on assessing children, and providing technology tools 

to assist with data entry. 

State, district, and school respondents in all four case study states suggested that it was important to 

clarify expectations about the roles, responsibilities, and required time commitments of district 

administrators and teachers in administering KEAs. 

Additionally, district respondents recognized that teachers needed graduated support to become 

familiar with their new roles and responsibilities, and that with time and experience, the burden usually 

decreased. For example, a few interviewed teachers in Pennsylvania who had administered the KEI in 

pilot tests and urban district officials in Washington recognized that the burden had lessened as 

teachers became more experienced with their KEA. A few of these respondents suggested assuring 

teachers that administration would become less time intensive as teachers became more familiar and 

comfortable with the assessment. Pennsylvania district administrators discussed the importance of also 

communicating to principals about the potential burden that KEI administration placed on teachers so 

that the principals could provide helpful support and resources. 

District officials reported that they used several strategies that teachers reported were helpful with 

reducing their burden, such as coordinating schedules with other kindergarten assessments, dropping 

duplicative kindergarten assessments, providing classroom aides or coaches who could keep students 

productive while teachers focused on one-on-one assessments, and purchasing tablets to support more 

efficient data collection and entry. 

Involving Teachers as Trainers and Experts to Build Buy-in and Local Expertise 

Challenge: Teachers reported the need for on-site and real-time support with KEA
 

administration. 

Potential solution: Across the case study states, teachers and district administrators who 

were experienced with the KEAs promoted the benefits of the assessments with less 

involved peers, provided on-site training and implementation tips, supported continuous 

quality improvement, modeled how to use data, and advocated for sustaining the KEAs’ 

use. 

State teams who provided teachers and district administrators with leadership roles in pilot tests and 

training reported that this strategy promoted buy-in and built local capacity, including on-site expertise. 

For example, Pennsylvania and Washington teachers who participated in the KEA pilot tests created a 

knowledgeable team of teacher leaders who could promote buy-in for the purposes of the KEA and 

provide useful suggestions for KEA implementation within local districts and schools. A few interviewed 

teachers in Washington reported that teachers had formed informal support networks within the school 

to exchange activity ideas or materials that could be used to administer GOLD®, and they cited this as a 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 64 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

supporting factor in their efficient implementation of GOLD®. Also, teachers at two Washington schools 

where a former teacher was employed as a trainer communicated more clear and consistent 

expectations and had greater buy-in for KEA implementation than teachers interviewed at the four 

other Washington school sites. The on-site support offered by the GOLD®-trainer (i.e., the former 

teacher in two schools) encompassed in-class support, customized materials, mentorship, and 

facilitation of support networks with other teachers. In two Pennsylvania districts, teachers who had 

participated in pilot tests personally led the effort to implement the optional KEI in their schools, and 

interviewed teachers in these schools reported having opportunities to collaborate with peers and being 

satisfied with the KEI implementation in general. 

The train-the-trainer models used in Maryland and Oregon were also effective for providing teachers 

with on-site support from their own colleagues. Further, state and district administrators across the case 

study sites reported that the teachers were the most credible advocates, the most informative critics, 

and the most effective providers of relevant supports to other teachers in ways that could sustain 

implementation efforts and build local capacity. 

Developing Tools and Guidelines to Help Ensure Consistent KEA Administration 

Challenge: School respondents raised concerns about the timing of assessments and 

inconsistencies in the KEA administration schedules across classrooms. 

Potential solution: Teachers suggested the development and use of prescriptive KEA 

administration guidelines to increase consistency in observation timing. 

Several teachers across the case study states mentioned that they believed the data they collected 

within the first few weeks of school may have produced inaccurate results because children were not 

yet comfortable with their teachers and classrooms to perform their best. This concern was particularly 

strong in Oregon, where teachers administered some components of their KA during transitional days 

before the official start of school. Administrators and teachers across districts suggested that delaying 

administration of the KEA until students and teachers had established comfortable classroom routines 

and relationships, and specialists had identified language and accessibility needs and accommodations, 

could increase the validity of the assessment results. 

Case study teachers also reported concerns about variations between results from observational 

measures collected over a seven- to eight-week window: Students’ skills might show dramatic growth 

between the third and eighth weeks of school, for example, yet their ratings collected in the first or 

second week would not reflect this growth. Teachers and the district trainer in the urban district of 

Washington suggested the use of weekly administration calendars, which could support teachers to 

implement a similar timeline for observing students’ skills on each of the KEA domains, thereby creating 

more consistency in the focus and timing of observations across classrooms. Interviewed teachers 

suggested, for example, that the calendar could specify activities to assess the GOLD® literacy domains 

in the first few weeks of school, followed by activities to support the assessment of the math domains in 

the next week, and so on. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 65 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Improving Guidance, Training, and Resources for Implementing KEAs with Special Populations 

Challenge: Teachers reported they did not have the training and resources needed to 

ensure accurate KEA results for EL students. 

Potential solution: Teachers suggested that trainers provide more direction on how to 

determine the language of assessment, more instruction on administration practices with 

EL students, and real-time support for KEA administration from bilingual assessors. 

As discussed in earlier chapters, the extent to which the KEA was proven valid and appropriate to use 

with special populations was not the top priority in selection and adoption of the KEAs. However, state 

and district administrators in the case study states, recognizing the challenges of KEA administration 

with diverse populations, offered teachers guidelines and some supports for implementation of KEAs 

with EL students. In all the case study states, however, interviewed teachers reported that they did not 

fully understand the EL guidelines, and a majority were uncertain about assessment procedures with EL 

students. The case study teachers communicated a desire for more support, including explicit 

instruction during KEA trainings about administering KEAs with EL students and additional on-site 

administration support from bilingual teachers. 

Respondents in all four case study states mentioned that they lacked access to translators or Spanishspeaking assessors when those supports were allowed. None of the Washington teachers reported 

receiving training on administering GOLD® with EL students. Teachers in Maryland reported concerns 

about the accuracy of the KRA for EL students, because teachers provided instructions only in English, 

and students were expected to respond only in English. One Maryland teacher recommended additional 

training on use of the KRA with EL students: 

For schools that do have a high EL [population], there should have been a more intensive training, 

maybe examples with those students. Like they did with the computer, they showed us a video of a girl 

doing the assessment and taught us how to score it. It would’ve been great to see that with [EL] 

students. 

State officials discussed efforts to improve the clarity of guidelines and availability of resources. For 

example, state respondents in Washington reported that resources and supports for the use of GOLD® 

with EL students would become a greater focus after the basic components of their KEA system had 

been rolled out. The Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction released additional written guidance 

on assessing EL students in spring 2015 (State of Washington Office of Superintendent of Public 

Instruction 2015). The two-page flyer provided guidelines that directed teachers to (1) observe students 

in multiple opportunities using their home language, (2) seek assistance from someone who the district 

has verified to be fully proficient in the student’s home language to assist with activities and interpret 

responses, and (3) observe physical skills first and language-based skills later in October. 

Challenge: Teachers reported they did not have the training and resources needed to 

ensure accurate KEA results for students with disabilities. 

Potential solution: Teachers suggested that trainers provide more direction on the use of 

tools to determine appropriate accommodations (e.g., decision trees and guidelines), 

more explicit instruction on administration practices with students with disabilities, and 

real-time support of KEA in-class administration from experts in special education. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 66 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Despite the availability of decision trees in Oregon, guidelines in Maryland, and written instructions in 

Pennsylvania to support administration practices, district and school respondents across states were 

often unaware of their availability or unsure about whether and how they could provide certain 

accommodations to students in these special populations. Maryland teachers reported challenges with 

following the decision process to identify appropriate “level the field” supports, and uncertainty about 

whether or not using the allowable supports resulted in accurate assessment of students with 

disabilities. The case study teachers reported a desire for more support, including explicit instruction 

during KEA trainings about administering KEAs with students with disabilities, clear guidelines about 

allowable and appropriate accommodations by each disability category and student need, and 

additional on-site administration support from special education teachers. 

Supporting Use of Data 

Challenge: Establishing cut-off scores during the first year of KEA implementation caused 

delays in releasing data findings for that initial year. 

Potential solution: State officials realized the importance of clearly communicating 

realistic expectations about data availability to district officials and teachers during the 

initial KEA rollout. 

In some cases, state officials did not make KEA data reports available to districts and teachers at the 

time of the case study visit in spring 2015, because they were still establishing cut-off scores to 

determine “readiness.” As discussed in Chapter 6, KEA Data Use, interviewed teachers from Maryland 

and Pennsylvania had not received KEA results by spring 2015 (except for those teachers in Pennsylvania 

who personally accessed online class- and student-level data). Maryland state officials reported a 

commitment to providing more timely data reports to teachers in future KRA administrations. An official 

in Pennsylvania reported that widespread and public sharing of the 2014–15 KEA data was never 

intended, but that administrators in districts and schools who requested data reports received them, 

and data reporting would be a high priority in the future. Without timely access to the data, however, 

several teachers across the case studies states questioned the utility of the KEA data beyond the 

purpose of a state snapshot. As a Pennsylvania urban district administrator explained, 

State policymakers don’t see how much the data are needed in real time. KEI data are stale 

in two to three weeks; they’re not usable at all after that. 

Therefore, greater communication about the expected delays in the first year and planned schedules for 

releasing data findings in subsequent years may help avoid teacher disappointment during a critical 

period for building teacher buy-in for KEAs. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 67 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Challenge: Despite the availability of KEA data reports, state officials, district 

administrators, and teachers reported not using the data to inform their practices, 

policies, or programs. Respondents reported that the data were not available in a userfriendly, easily interpretable format, and teachers received no guidance regarding use of 

data to inform instruction or program improvement. 

Potential solution: State officials and trainers suggested that teachers and principals may 

benefit from explicit training on how to use KEA data to inform instruction. Additionally, 

KEA data reports must be user friendly, with the findings closely tied to concrete actions 

such as specific instructional strategies. 

As of spring 2015, KEA state leadership teams of Maryland, Oregon, and Pennsylvania had not analyzed 

the KEA data for lessons about the effectiveness of their early learning investments, gaps in school 

readiness skills for students overall and by subgroup characteristics, identification of professional 

development needs, and other areas to target for program and policy improvements. At the district 

level, administrators who did have access to KEA data reports in Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington 

often reported that the format of the reports made them difficult to use, and that the district and 

schools lacked staff to analyze the raw data to produce useful findings. Similarly, despite some data 

findings being available online to teachers in two states (Pennsylvania and Washington), the majority of 

teachers interviewed did not know how to access these data or reported that the data were available 

too late in the school year to be of use in instructional planning. 

To encourage kindergarten teachers to use KEA data to inform instructional practices, one state 

administrator in Washington suggested that state and district officials may need to provide focused 

training on how KEA results are related to specific actions teachers can take during instruction. The state 

administrator also reported that discussions about results at the regional level would not be sufficient to 

produce changes in teacher behavior; administrators would need to provide educators with customized, 

local results that could identify specific areas for improvement. 

Respondents across the states emphasized a desire for training and coaching that intentionally focuses 

on the use of KEA data to develop curricular action plans and provides tools and example instructional 

activities in response to certain KEA findings. In addition, state and district respondents suggested that 

data would be useful in user-friendly formats that enabled teachers to comprehend, interpret, and use 

the data to inform curriculum and instruction and in a timely manner. 

Using KEAs to Engage Parents in Supporting Children’s School Readiness 

Challenge: Although state officials in all four case study states specified that sharing KEA 

results with parents to engage them in their children’s learning was a major objective, the 

majority of interviewed local administrators and teachers had not shared results with 

them. 

Potential solution: District administrators and teachers reported that they needed explicit 

training to increase their awareness of available KEA data reports and materials that 

could be useful to support family engagement and learning at home. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 68 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Family engagement is an explicit goal of the KEA for all the case study states, yet in the majority of case 

study districts, teachers rarely shared KEA information or results with parents. In fact, in three of the 

case study states (Maryland, Oregon, and Pennsylvania), respondents reported having only minimal 

early discussions with parents to introduce and describe the KEAs. Washington’s WaKIDS was the only 

KEA in the case study to include a Family Connection component, which involved teachers meeting with 

parents early in the school year to discuss children’s strengths and needs and ways to support learning 

at home and at school. All interviewed teachers in Washington reported appreciating the opportunity to 

learn from parents about their students’ interests, strengths, and needs and communicate with parents 

about ways to support learning at home. 

Across the 12 case study districts, only one (in Washington) reported sharing KEA results with parents (in 

the form of the students’ fall report cards). Even though parents in Washington provided information to 

teachers as part of the Family Connection component of WaKIDS, teachers did not share the results of 

GOLD® with parents in two of the three selected districts. 

The reasons teachers across all the case study the districts reported for not sharing the results with 

parents were (1) that teachers received the KEA results too late in the year for them to be relevant, (2) 

the timing did not align with teacher-parent conferences, (3) teachers did not think parents would be 

interested in KEA results or find them useful, and (4) district officials and teachers were concerned 

about parents’ perceptions of assessments of young children. For example, an interviewed respondent 

from one district noted that there was an “anti-testing” backlash that they tried to avoid provoking, so 

they were reluctant to release KEA results to parents. 

District officials suggested that teachers need training and templates to support the sharing of KEA 

results with parents, guardians, or other family members if permissible under applicable privacy laws. 

Several teachers in states with systems that offered real-time reporting capabilities reported that they 

were unaware of these reports, which could have been shared with parents at parent conferences. 

Informing Efforts to Further Strengthen Early Childhood Programs and Policies 

Challenge: Despite the documented goal of sharing KEA results and their implications for 

program improvements with preschool programs, state and local administrators and 

practitioners had not yet made significant connections with preschool programs 

concerning the use of KEA results. 

Potential solution: State and district officials suggested that preschool practitioners 

should be engaged at the beginning of the KEA planning and implementation process, and 

that KEA data reports must be comprehensible and useful to the preschool community for 

widespread use. 

The majority of respondents in the case study districts and schools reported not having connected with 

local preschool program directors or practitioners about KEA results. Several district and school 

respondents reported being unsure of how to engage their local preschools, and that they faced 

numerous challenges when trying to collaborate with preschool providers on KEAs. The majority of 

preschool directors interviewed, especially those from private programs, reported receiving little or no 

information about the KEAs, and they were interested in learning how their state’s KEA could inform 

professional development and linkages with the K–3 community. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 69 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A few state respondents interviewed in Washington and Pennsylvania reported that they had missed a 

valuable opportunity to engage the preschool community deeply in early discussions about 

implementation of the KEAs and their potential benefits. They recognized that preschool providers are 

familiar with state early learning standards and observational assessment procedures, and they could 

have supported kindergarten teachers in administration practices and interpretation of KEA data. 

In 2013–14, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation awarded nine school districts in Washington with onetime funding to pilot innovative WaKIDS implementation strategies and share lessons learned across the 

educational community, including with preschool providers. Reports released in spring 2015 by the 

Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction and participating districts suggested that the following 

strategies enhanced connections with early learning partners: (1) kindergarten teachers visited early 

learning programs in neighboring communities to observe preschool classroom instruction, share 

successful instructional approaches, and invite preschool teachers to kindergarten transition nights 

hosted by the school; (2) kindergarten-preschool teacher teams reviewed GOLD® data together and 

discussed what they learned about the entering kindergarten students’ characteristics; and (3) the 

district offered preschool teachers free shared professional development with kindergarten teachers 

conducted by a local community-based agency that had established credibility and the trust of the local 

early educator community (State of Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction n.d.). 

District reports documented that the strategies helped kindergarten and preschool teachers build 

relationships, develop mutual respect, and better understand the complexities of early learning and 

child development. As stated in the report on one district participating in the implementation study, 

“the joint venture between early learning and kindergarten teachers helped to develop a method of 

sharing data, information, and strategies that assisted families and students become better prepared for 

the rigors of kindergarten.”47 

47 Individual district report available at 

http://www.k12.wa.us/WaKIDS/Materials/pubdocs/RochesterSDEarlyLearningCollabReport2-27-15.pdf 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 70 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8. Conclusions 

It takes time to build large-scale assessment systems such as KEAs that produce the information in 

formats that support state officials’ multiple goals. At a relatively early stage in their KEA 

implementation, state officials, district administrators, and local educators in the four case study states 

had already accomplished a great deal, including engagement with a broad range of stakeholders in 

their selection or development of a KEA measure; refinement of KEA measures and processes based on 

pilot tests; implementation of training systems that enabled teachers to gather KEA data on thousands 

of children; development of secure online data entry systems; and preparation of reports, in some 

states, for sharing with districts and teachers. 

Having established tools, infrastructures, and processes for gathering KEA data, interviewed state 

officials reported that they next planned to focus on using KEA results to inform improvements and 

investments in preschool instruction and on training teachers to use results to inform instruction. 

Further, state officials planned to address several challenges that teachers encountered with KEA 

administration with EL students and students with disabilities and that hindered the use of KEA results 

for their many intended purposes. Finally, the lessons learned by these state officials, district 

administrators, and teachers in the case study sites suggest broader recommendations for practice and 

research to be considered by those interested in using KEAs to improve learning and outcomes for 

young children. 

Accomplishments and Challenges 

In all the case study states, KEA leadership teams developed decision-making and implementation 

infrastructures that enabled them to gather KEA data on kindergarten children statewide or on children 

in particular types of kindergarten programs and to generate public and/or restricted reports of KEA 

results. The state leadership teams engaged a broad range of stakeholders (e.g., researchers, local 

administrators and elementary and preschool educators, early learning advocates, and community 

representatives) to guide the development or selection and ongoing refinement of their KEAs. The KEA 

leadership teams also established well-documented assessment processes, tools, training materials, and 

secure web-based data systems to collect data on their kindergarten students. The state leadership 

teams developed trainings for teachers on KEA implementation that addressed various topics focused 

mostly on administration procedures and data submission guidelines. As a result, the majority of 

teachers interviewed felt prepared to gather and enter data on most of their kindergarten students. The 

public could access state- and district-level KEA reports and data tables on public websites in three of 

the case study states (Maryland, Oregon, and Washington), and authorized district staff and teachers 

could access online school, classroom, and student-level reports in two of the states (Pennsylvania and 

Washington). 

In addition, the state KEA leadership teams identified from experience and stakeholder feedback how 

they could strengthen their KEA implementation. For example, they identified the need to clarify their 

messages about the purposes of KEAs with teachers (i.e., to inform instruction and engage parents, as 

well as inform decisions about early learning investments and programs), and to build understanding of 

how assessments can be developmentally appropriate and integrated with, rather than considered an 

activity separate from, learning opportunities. State KEA leadership teams and district officials 

responded to teachers’ concerns about the amount of time required to implement KEA assessments and 

planned to change assessment requirements, provide teacher aides to supervise classrooms during KEA 

administration, and provide technology tools to assist with data entry. Teachers reported a need for 

more training on and clarification of administration processes to support appropriate and accurate 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 71 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

implementation of KEAs for EL students and students with disabilities. Teachers also reported they 

would like support from special education experts and bilingual assessors at their schools. 

While launching these multifaceted KEA systems, KEA leadership teams tended to focus their efforts 

more on addressing core administration issues (e.g., teacher training, data collection, and data entry 

systems) and less on developing reports and supporting the use of data. Accordingly, interviewed district 

and school staff reported that KEA implementation went fairly smoothly, but that several obstacles 

hindered their use of KEA results, including lack of access to, awareness of, or difficulty interpreting 

available data. Without experiencing the value of the KEA results, the majority of interviewed teachers 

questioned whether the KEAs delivered on the intended purpose of supporting instruction, and teachers 

continued to use other assessments to guide their instruction. 

Recommendations for Policymakers and Administrators 

Interviewed state officials, district administrators, and teachers in the four case study states and 12 

districts shared several important lessons they learned from launching a statewide KEA. Researchers 

analyzed themes that emerged across the sites and developed the following recommendations for 

states and districts to consider as they work towards a statewide KEA: 

•	 To develop a statewide KEA system, be prepared for a multi-year process and iterative rollout, including pilot testing and gathering feedback from a wide range of stakeholders 

(including groups expected to use the data such as representatives from districts, schools, 

preschools, and parents, as well as individuals with expertise in psychometrics, students 

with disabilities, and EL students) on KEA selection and later on implementation and 

reporting. 

•	 To increase buy-in for using KEA results, be clear about how the KEA will and will not be 

used by early childhood programs, kindergarten teachers, school administrators, and 

parents, and build structures (e.g., dedicated time for intended users to review findings), 

training, and reports associated with the intended uses. 

•	 To increase the utility and accuracy of KEA data for all students and to meet federal 

requirements for assessing students with disabilities participating in state and districtwide 

assessments,

48 place a high priority on selecting KEA tools that have an adequate 

developmental range to capture skills of all students and that have been shown to be valid 

and reliable for EL students and students with disabilities. 

•	 To reduce burden of data collection and entry on teachers, eliminate other kindergarten 

assessments that inventory the same skills and serve the same purpose of the KEA, and 

provide assistance with data entry by employing additional staff and technology tools. 

•	 To adequately prepare teachers to administer KEAs with EL students and students with 

disabilities, provide teachers with explicit training, coaching, and guidance on the 

administration of KEAs with these populations including appropriate accommodations 

consistent with federal regulations,

49 as well as access to bilingual assessors and special 

education experts. 

•	 To support use of KEA results to inform instruction, develop user-friendly and timely reports 

closely tied to instructional decisions. 

48 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; 34 CFR §300.16). 49 Ibid. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 72 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

•	 To support the use of KEA results with parents, develop timely reports that teachers can 

share with parents that describe children’s strengths and identify particular skills that 

parents and other family members can support at home. 

•	 To support the use of KEA results in preschool programs, include preschool practitioners in 

the development of KEA reports that identify instructional areas in which early learning 

programs could help children be better prepared for kindergarten; reports should also 

provide data that can inform state and district investments to increase access and the 

quality of early learning programs, such as identifying geographic areas where students who 

demonstrate gaps in preparedness reside. 

•	 Provide training and coaching to teachers, district and school administrators, and preschool 

directors with information on the use of relevant KEA reports, and make sure they are 

aware of and able to access reports. 

Recommendations for Future Research 

Statewide KEAs are a new and rapidly developing practice, and the availability of assessment tools for 

young children is growing. Additional knowledge among state officials, district administrators, and 

teachers from implementation, pilot tests, and field experiences will continue to accrue in the next few 

years. Therefore, more research on the implementation and uses of KEAs as they evolve and mature 

may help the field identify potentially valuable practices and solutions to common challenges. For 

example, researchers could conduct studies to address the following: 

•	 the alignment of the stated purposes for implementing a KEA with the supports available to 

promote them and the actual use of KEA data for those purposes; 

•	 the extent that KEA tools and administration processes accurately assess the school 

readiness skills of EL students and students with disabilities; 

•	 the reliability and fidelity of KEA teacher observations and strategies associated with higher 

reliability (e.g., suggested authentic small-group or individual-student activities that may 

elicit demonstration of specific skills, recommended schedules for assessing specific skills, 

and closer in-class monitoring and coaching); 

•	 the extent that customized versions of the commercially available tools meet psychometric 

indicators of quality; 

•	 the ability of KEAs to predict later academic achievement; 

•	 the relationship between the quality of preschool programs as measured by state quality 

rating and improvement systems (QRIS) and KEA results; 

•	 the extent and ways results are shared with parents and guidance on effective strategies for 

sharing results with parents to increase engagement and children’s learning at home; 

•	 the status of teacher beliefs, attitudes, and expectations regarding sharing data with 

families and their implications for family engagement in children’s learning and 

development; 

•	 the extent and ways KEA results influence instruction in preschool and kindergarten 

classrooms and guidance on effective strategies (e.g., types of reports and training) 

associated with teachers’ higher levels of data use; 

•	 the utility, validity, and feasibility of using repeated administrations of KEA tools to assess 

student growth throughout the school year; 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 73 
 

•	 the extent thatKEA results influence public support for and investment in expanding highquality preschool programs and quality kindergarten; and 

•	 the extent and ways in which KEA results increase connections, alignment, and 

improvements between early learning programs and the K–12 system. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 74 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References 

Bronson, M. B., B. D. Goodson, J. I. Layzer, and M. J. Love. 1990. Child Behavior Rating Scale. Cambridge, 

MA: Abt Associates. 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Education. 2015. Pennsylvania Kindergarten Entry 

Inventory Cohort 1 (2014) Summary Report. http://www.education.pa.gov/Documents/K12/Assessment and Accountability/Kindergarten Entry Inventory/Pennsylvania Kindergarten Entry 

Inventory Cohort 1 - 2014 Summary Report.pdf 

Council of Chief State School Officers. 2011. Moving Forward with Kindergarten Readiness Assessment 

Efforts. A position paper of the Early Childhood Education State Collaborative on Assessment and 

Student Standards. Available at http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED543310.pdf 

Daily, S., Burkhauser, M., and Halle, T. 2010. A review of school readiness practices in the states: early 

learning guidelines and assessments. Early Childhood Highlights (Child Trends), 1(3). 

http://www.childtrends.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/2010-14-SchoolReadinessStates.pdf 

Division for Early Childhood. 2014. DEC Recommended Practices in Early Intervention/Early Childhood 

Special Education 2014. http://www.dec-sped.org/recommendedpractices 

Duncan, G. J., C. J. Dowsett, A. Claessens, K. Magnuson, A. C. Huston, P. Klebanov, L. S. Pagani, L. 

Feinstein, M. Engel, J. Brooks-Gunn, H. Sexton, K. Duckworth, and C. Japel. 2007. School Readiness 

and Later Achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43: 1, 428. 

Furrer, C., & Green, B. L. (June 2013). Oregon Kindergarten Assessment Fall 2012 Pilot Process 

Evaluation: Key Findings and Recommendations. Unpublished technical report for Oregon 

Department of Education, Salem, OR. 

Lee, V. E., and David T. Burkam. 2002. Inequality at the Starting Gate: Social Background Differences in 

Achievement as Children Begin School. Washington, DC: EPI. 

Maryland State Board of Education. 2015a. Readiness Matters: The 2014–2015 Kindergarten Readiness 

Assessment Report. 

http://marylandpublicschools.org/MSDE/divisions/child_care/early_learning/docs/ReadinessMatter 

s2014-2015.pdf 

———. 2015b. Readiness Matters: The 2014–2015 Kindergarten Readiness Assessment, Ready for 

Kindergarten: Maryland’s Early Childhood Comprehensive Assessment System. 

http://marylandpublicschools.org/MSDE/divisions/child_care/early_learning/docs/KRA2014­

15TEchnicalReport.pdf 

———. 2015c. The Association Between Judy Center Services and Kindergarten Readiness. 

www.marylandpublicschools.org/msde/newsroom/publications/docs/JudyCenterReport22015.pdf 

National Research Council. 2008. Early Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How. Committee on 

Developmental Outcomes and Assessments for Young Children, C. E. Snow and S. B. Van Hemel, 

editors. Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of 

Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 75 
 

 

 

 

 

Oregon Department of Education. 2015a. Oregon Kindergarten Assessment Report Overview. 

http://www.ode.state.or.us/gradelevel/pre_k/kasdoverviewfinal.pdf 

———. 2015b. Statewide Kindergarten Assessment Data Reporting. 

http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?=3908 

Pennsylvania Office of Child Development and Early Learning. n.d. A Guide to Using the Pennsylvania 

Kindergarten Entry Inventory. https://www.csiutg.org/kei_manual.pdf 

Schilder, D., and M. Carolan. 2014. State of the States Policy Snapshot: State Early Childhood Assessment 

Policies. New Brunswick, NJ: Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes. http://ceelo.org/wpcontent/uploads/2014/03/CEELO_policy_snapshot_child_assessment_march_2014.pdf 

Snow, K. 2011. Developing Kindergarten Readiness and Other Large-Scale Assessment Systems: 

Necessary Considerations in the Assessment of Young Children. Washington, D.C.: National 

Association for the Education of Young Children. 

http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/research/Assessment_Systems.pdf 

State of Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction. 2015. Guidance for WaKIDS teachers 

Working with English Language Learners (ELL). http://www.k12.wa.us/WaKIDS/Materials 

———. n.d. Washington Kindergarten Inventory of Developing Skills. http://www.k12.wa.us/WaKIDS/ 

———. n.d. Washington Kindergarten Inventory of Developing Skills: Individual District Reports and a 

State Summary Report. http://www.k12.wa.us/WaKIDS/ Materials/default.aspx 

Washington Kindergarten Inventory of Developing Skills. n.d. Characteristics of Children Entering 

Kindergarten. 

http://www.k12.wa.us/WaKIDS/pubdocs/CharacteristicsofChildrenEnteringKindergarten-English.pdf 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 76 
 

Appendix A: Study Design and Methodology 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 77 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study Design and Methodology 

Sampling Design 

Data collection occurred in four states implementing KEAs and in 12 districts and 23 schools in those 

states. This sample size enabled the study team to explore the range of strategies that states, districts, 

and schools were using to implement KEAs. 

Selecting States for the Study 

In consultation with the Departments, the study team used the following criteria to identify states for 

inclusion in the study that would be relevant to federal and state policymakers: 

1.	 The state’s KEA is comprehensive and covers all or most of the five essential domains of 

school readiness as defined in the RTT-ELC program: (a) language and literacy development; 

(b) cognition and general knowledge, including early mathematics and early scientific 

development; (c) approaches toward learning; (d) physical well-being and motor 

development, including adaptive skills; and (e) social and emotional development. 

2.	 The state KEA leadership team was implementing its KEA at the beginning of kindergarten and 

not at the exit of preschool. 

3.	 The state KEA leadership team was planning full implementation of its KEA by fall 2014. 

In addition to meeting these fundamental criteria, the Departments further recommended that at least 

one of the selected states represent each of the following: 

4.	 a Race To the Top-Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC) grantee state; 

5.	 a non–RTT-ELC grantee state; 

6.	 an Enhanced Assessment Grant (EAG) state; 

7.	 a user of a commercially available KEA assessment tool; and 

8.	 a user of a KEA assessment tool developed by the state KEA leadership team and/or 

associates. 

Maryland, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington met all the fundamental criteria. (The study team also 

considered Illinois and Ohio as additional states that met the fundamental criteria.) None of the states 

that met the fundamental criteria was a non–RTT-ELC state. Although all four case study states were 

RTT-ELC grantees, they were from different RTT-ELC cohorts: Maryland and Washington were Phase 1 

grantees, Oregon was a Phase 2 grantee, and Pennsylvania was a Phase 3 grantee. Two of the states 

were part of an EAG consortium: Maryland had an EAG with a consortium of seven states. Oregon was 

part of a nine-state consortium with North Carolina, but the Oregon state KEA leadership team 

implemented a KEA developed independently of the consortium in 2014. Finally, KEA leadership teams 

in Oregon and Washington used commercially available assessment tools, whereas KEA leadership 

teams and associates in Maryland and Pennsylvania developed their own assessment tools. The 

variation among the selected states on the many key KEA design elements enabled the study team to 

learn about a wide array of strategies and implementation experiences.50 

50 For full disclosure, note that Oregon is part of the North Carolina Kindergarten Entry Assessment-Enhanced 

Assessment Grant (KEA-EAG) consortium. SRI International, the principal researcher for this Task Order, is 

helping North Carolina and its nine partner states enhance their KEA as part of the KEA-EAG project. Oregon 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 78 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Selecting Districts and Schools Within the Four Case Study States 

After the study team secured permission from each state education agency to conduct the study, 

researchers selected three districts in each selected state and two schools within each of those 

districts.51 The sample was limited to public school districts with noncharter, regular schools52 that had 

kindergarten enrollment. 

At the district level within each state, the study team drew a purposive sample of three school districts 

stratified by urbanicity characteristics: urban, suburban, and rural. The Oregon case study included two 

rural districts and no suburban district. The two invited suburban districts declined to participate, but a 

second rural district expressed interest in participating. 

At the school level, the study team drew a sample of schools with both high concentrations of poverty 

(i.e., schools with more than 75 percent free or reduced-price lunch program enrollment) and significant 

concentrations of EL students (i.e., schools with more than 30 percent EL enrollment), as well as schools 

with lower concentrations of poverty and EL students (see Exhibit A-1). Participating preschool 

programs served four-year-old children at or near the selected schools. Through this stratification 

method, the study team attempted to identify districts and schools that served students with diverse 

characteristics that would be of interest to the Departments, but findings from the selected sites are not 

representative of or generalizable to all districts and schools within or beyond the case study states. 

has been implementing an independent KEA for the past two years, however, so the activities reported here 

are those of its independent KEA. To avoid a conflict of interest, this document does not report on the KEA the 

North Carolina KEA-EAG partners developed. 51	 One rural district in Pennsylvania had only one school that implemented the KEA in 2014, so only that school 

could be selected. 52	 A “regular school” refers to “a public elementary/secondary school providing instruction and education services 

that does not focus primarily on special education, vocational/technical education, or alternative education, or 

on any of the particular themes associated with magnet/special program emphasis schools.” 

(http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/commonfiles/glossary.asp) 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 79 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit A-1. Number of Participating Schools by EL and Poverty Stratifications 

High poverty 

enrollment 

(above 75%) 

Significant EL 

enrollment 

(above 30%) and 

high poverty 

Neither high 

poverty nor 

significant EL 

enrollment Total 

Maryland 2 2 2 6 

Oregon 2 2 2 6 

Pennsylvania 1 2 2 5 

Washington 2 2 2 6 

Total 7 8 8 23 

During the recruitment process, officials at 10 districts declined to participate. (In one state, officials at 

eight districts declined because the timing of recruitment in that state required that site visits take place 

in May, a time in the school year when schedules were already full.) Once the participating districts were 

identified, all schools invited to participate agreed to do so. 

Data Collection 

To learn more about KEA implementation in the four states participating in the case studies, the study 

team engaged in two data collection activities: (1) a review of documents (e.g., planning guides, state or 

local reports, technical or training manuals) from the four selected states and (2) interviews with staff at 

the state, district, and school levels. 

Review of Documents From Four Selected States 

The study team gathered state and local documents from representatives and key respondents from the 

four participating states and from federal, state, and district websites. The study team captured 

essential information from each of the documents using a document review protocol. The study team 

used the document review protocol to record the types of materials collected, the intended audiences 

(e.g., parents, teachers, school administrators, general public), the sources (e.g., website, training, 

district representative), and the contents of the documents. Documents reviewed included 

•	 relevant KEA legislation, regulation, policies, and guidance documents produced by state 

agencies; 

•	 KEA design and specification documents, technical manuals, and reports produced by State 

Advisory Councils, contractors, or university researchers working on KEA planning and 

implementation; 

•	 state and local outreach and communication plans; and 

•	 training and administration materials. 

The study team organized the contents of the reviewed documents in a document review protocol 

according to the following topics: (1) information about the KEA assessment tool (e.g., the purpose of 

KEA, the selection process, domains of assessment, availability of the tool in multiple languages, 

accommodations allowed for students with disabilities), (2) information about administration of the KEA 

(e.g., assessment timeline and frequency, administration methods, numbers and percentages of various 

types of staff who participated in professional development for the KEA, information and training 

support provided to parents, teachers, and school administrators), and (3) use of KEA results (e.g., 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 80 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

recipients of KEA results, data storage and tracking procedures, information provided to parents, 

teachers, and school administrators). 

Interviews 

To learn about KEA implementation from various perspectives, study team members interviewed 

•	 state respondents (e.g., RTT-ELC coordinators; state superintendents; individuals 

responsible for state assessments, professional development, and state data systems; 

individuals from the state department of health and human services; and nongovernmental 

researchers, advocates, and foundation representatives who were involved in the selection 

of the KEA); 

•	 district respondents (e.g., directors of early learning, directors of assessment, and 

superintendents); 

•	 professional development coordinators or providers; 

•	 school respondents (e.g., principals, kindergarten teachers, and other KEA assessors); and 

•	 preschool program directors from programs located near the case study elementary 

schools. 

The study team conducted interviews between January 12 and June 19, 2015. Interviews lasted 20–60 

minutes for each respondent, depending on the respondent’s role, and the study team audio-recorded 

interviews with consent from the participant. The study team developed a semistructured interview 

protocol for each type of respondent, piloted all interview protocols with fewer than 10 people, and 

revised the protocols on the basis of this testing. Two researchers typically conducted each interview. 

Exhibit A-2 displays the number of interviews completed by respondent type for each state. 

Exhibit A-2. Number of Interviews by Respondent Roles 

State District 

PD 

Coordinator Principal* 

Kindergarten 

Teacher 

KEA 

Assessor 

(Other 

than 

Teacher) 

Preschool 

Director Total 

Maryland 8 9 5 5 14 0 12 53 

Oregon 7 8 3 5 14 3 9 49 

Washington 10 9 3 6 12 1 12 53 

Pennsylvania 8 9 2 5 13 1 8 46 

Total 33 35 13 21 53 5 41 201 

Note: A total of 201 interviews were completed with 195 respondents. Six district respondents also held 

the role of professional development (PD) provider or preschool director and participated in a separate 

interview for each of their roles. Two selected state respondents and one selected principal declined to 

participate. District staff and other respondents assisted with selection and recruitment of some 

preschool directors, so the number of preschool directors who declined participation is unknown. 

* Count includes one vice principal who was interviewed in place of a principal who was unavailable for 

an interview. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 81 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Phone interviews. Phone interviews were conducted with state respondents, district professional 

development providers, and directors from preschool programs linked with case study schools. In a few 

cases, the study team interviewed in person professional development providers who were on-site at 

visited districts or schools. Interviewers used a customized interview protocol for each of the 

respondent types: state interview protocol, preschool director protocol, and professional development 

provider protocol. All protocols included both structured and semistructured questions. 

Researchers worked with the state’s RTT-ELC main grant contact to identify seven state respondents 

who were most knowledgeable about KEA decision-making, implementation, and use of data. The study 

team interviewed at least seven state respondents in each state. 

To learn about the supports that educators and other KEA assessors received to administer KEAs and use 

the data to inform classroom practice, the study team conducted a phone interview with one 

professional development provider in each district who delivered training. 

Phone interviews were also conducted with two to four directors from preschool programs located at or 

near the case study schools in each district. To identify preschool programs, the study team asked the 

district early childhood director, the principals of the case study schools, and the regional Head Start 

director for the names of preschool programs that served children attending the case study schools. To 

capture the experiences of a variety of preschool programs, the interviews included preschool program 

directors from Head Start programs, district-funded prekindergarten programs, and private preschools, 

when possible. 

On-site interviews. Two study team members visited each district over a two-day site visit to interview 

district and school respondents. Before these meetings, lead district case study researchers contacted 

the district superintendent to request nominations for three key respondents and two alternates (e.g., 

the superintendent or assistant superintendent of instruction, early learning director, assessment 

director or person responsible for overseeing the collection of KEA data) to participate in district 

interviews. District case study researchers also worked with district staff to arrange for in-person 

interviews with principals, kindergarten teachers, and other staff who help administer the KEA in their 

schools. Researchers conducted the district- and school-level interviews using the customized interview 

protocols for respective roles, as appropriate. 

Analysis 

Ongoing Analyses 

The study team conducted ongoing qualitative analyses of the case study data — beginning before each 

site visit, continuing on site, and proceeding through the drafting of internal case study reports and 

cross-site analysis. Analysis began before researchers conducted their first interviews, when the site 

visitors reviewed relevant documents. During visits, they discussed and debriefed with each other about 

what they were learning in their interviews. Researchers documented their findings in debrief guides 

after completing their site visits and participated in multiple cross-case analysis meetings to refine the 

study’s overall conclusions; those processes are described below. 

Debrief Guides 

The study team used the same debrief guides to summarize data across multiple interviews in a given 

setting (e.g., state, district) to capture important contextual information and to generate some initial 

interpretations of the data. The debrief guides mapped to all the study questions and subtopics 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 82 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

addressed in the interview protocols. The study team used two separate debrief guides: one to 

summarize state interviews and one to summarize interviews in a district and its schools. The debrief 

guides provided the interviewers with a consistent and structured format to document qualitative 

findings supported by illustrative quotations or citations from documents. Each state and district study 

team completed a debrief guide as soon as possible (within a few days) after completing phone 

interviews and district and school site visits. 

Cross-Case Analysis Meetings 

Each state case study leader prepared a draft state summary outline using the state and district debrief 

guides to document state perspectives and similarities and differences across the districts. All study 

team members who collected data within a state then participated in cross-case analysis meetings. At 

each meeting, the researchers reviewed the draft summary outline, discussed the accuracy of general 

conclusions, identified any potentially important findings that the initial state summary did not yet 

capture, and weighed the available evidence from each district to support findings. The purpose of the 

analysis meetings was to provide the study team with the opportunity to compare, contrast, and 

synthesize findings from the district-level cases regarding evaluation questions. 

Final Cross-Site Report 

The state case study leader refined the draft state summary outline on the basis of feedback received at 

the cross-case analysis meeting and from the principal investigator’s review of the debrief guides and 

findings. The case study leader worked with the case study team to refine the general conclusions and 

to examine the level of evidence for each finding. The case study teams eliminated findings with less 

evidence or collapsed them with other relevant findings and produced a state-level summary for each of 

the research questions. The state-level summaries were the basis for the identification of cross-site 

themes and unique state examples. The study team shared excerpts of the state snapshots (Chapter 2) 

with officials of each participating state in May–June 2016, who reviewed these portions of the draft 

report for accuracy and provided clarification as needed. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 83 

 

Appendix B: Student Characteristics 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 85 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maryland 

The following exhibits present data on student characteristics statewide (Exhibit B-1), for each of the 

three Maryland case study districts (Exhibit B-2), and for each of the schools selected per district 

(Exhibit B-3). Exhibits B-2 and B-3 present data in ranges to ensure confidentiality of the case study 

participants. 

Exhibit B-1. 2014–15 State Enrollment Characteristics — Maryland 

Characteristic 

(K) Enrollment (#) 67,548 

Total Elementary School Enrollment (#) 866,169 

Race/Ethnicity (%) 

White 41 

Black 35 

Hispanic 14 

Asian 6 

Pacific Islander 0 

American Indian/Alaska Native <1 

Two or more races 4 

Free or Reduced-Price Meals (%) 51 

English Learners (%) 11 

Students with Disabilities (%) 11 

Exhibit B-2. 2014–15 District Enrollment Characteristics of Study Sample Sites — Maryland 

Characteristic District 1: 

Urban 

District 2: 

Suburban 

District 3: 

Rural 

(K) Enrollment (#) 7,304 6,308 398 

Total District Enrollment (#) >10,000 >10,000 2,500–10,000 

Race/Ethnicity (%) 

White 0–<25 50–<75 50–<75 

Black 75–100 0–<25 0–<25 

Hispanic 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Asian 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Pacific Islander 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

American Indian/Alaska Native 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Two or more races 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Free or Reduced-Price Meals (%) 75–100 25–<50 50–<75 

English Learners (%) 0–<5 0–<5 0–<5 

Students with Disabilities (%) 5–<20 5–<20 5–<20 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 86 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit B-3. 2014–15 School Enrollment Characteristics of Study Sample Sites — Maryland 

Characteristic 

District 1 

Urban 

School 1 

District 1 

Urban 

School 2 

District 2 

Suburban 

School 1 

District 2 

Suburban 

School 2 

District 3 

Rural 

School 1 

District 3 

Rural 

School 2 

K Enrollment (#) 50–<100 100–<150 100–<150 100–<150 50–<100 50–<100 

Total School Enrollment (#) 201–400 600+ 600+ 600+ 600+ 401–600 

Race/Ethnicity (%) 

White 0–<25 25–<50 0–<25 25–<50 50–<75 50–<75 

Black 75–100 25–<50 0–<25 25–<50 0–<25 25–<50 

Hispanic 0–<25 0–<25 25–<50 25–<50 0–<25 0–<25 

Asian 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Pacific Islander 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

American Indian/Alaska Native 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Two or more races 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Free or Reduced-Price Meals (%) 75–100 0–<25 50–<75 50–<75 50–<75 75–100 

English Learners (%) 0–<5 0–<5 >30 5–30 0–<5 5–30 

Students with Disabilities (%) 5–<20 5–<20 5–<20 5–<20 5–<20 5–<20 

Sources: Individual district and school webpages are not reported to ensure case study participants’ 

confidentiality. (1) Race/ethnicity data and state-level free or reduced-price meals: http://www.mdreportcard.org 

(2) All other data: http://reportcard.msde.maryland.gov/downloadindex.aspx?K=99AAAA 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 87 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oregon 

The exhibits that follow present data on statewide student characteristics (Exhibit B-4), district level 

demographics for the Oregon case study districts (Exhibit B-5), and data on school enrollment 

characteristics of case study sites (Exhibit B-6). Exhibits B-5 and B-6 present data in ranges to ensure 

confidentiality of the case study participants. 

Exhibit B-4. 2014–15 State Enrollment Characteristics — Oregon 

Characteristic 

(K) Enrollment (#) 41,645 

Total Elementary School Enrollment (#) 570,857 

Race/Ethnicity (%) 

White 64 

Black 2 

Hispanic 22 

Asian 4 

Pacific Islander 1 

American Indian/Alaska Native 2 

Two or more races 5 

Free or Reduced-Price Meals (%) 51 

English Learners (%) 10 

Students with Disabilities (%) 13 

Exhibit B-5. 2014–15 District Enrollment Characteristics of Study Sample Sites — Oregon 

Characteristic District 1: 

Urban 

District 2: 

Rural 

District 3: 

Rural 

(K) Enrollment (#) 4,000–4,500 1–<500 1–<500 

Total District Enrollment (#) >10,000 2,500–10,000 2,500–10,000 

Race/Ethnicity (%) 

White 50–<75 75-100 50–<75 

Black 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Hispanic 0–<25 0–<25 25–<50 

Asian 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Pacific Islander 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

American Indian/Alaska Native 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Two or more races 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Free or Reduced-Price Meals (%) 25–<50 50–<75 25–<50 

English Learners (%) 5–30 0–<5 5–30 

Students with Disabilities (%) 5–<20 5–<20 5–<20 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 88 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit B-6. 2014–15 School Enrollment Characteristics of Study Sample Sites — Oregon 

Characteristic 

District 1 

Urban 

School 1 

District 1 

Urban 

School 2 

District 2 

Rural 

School 1 

District 2 

Rural 

School 2 

District 3 

Rural 

School 1 

District 3 

Rural 

School 2 

(K) Enrollment (#) 50–<100 100–<150 50–<100 50–<100 50–<100 1–<50 

Total School Enrollment (#) 401–600 >600 201–400 201–400 401–600 401–600 

Race/Ethnicity (%) 

White 0–<25 50–<75 75–100 50–<75 50–<75 50–<75 

Black 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Hispanic 25–<50 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 25–<50 

Asian 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Pacific Islander 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

American Indian/Alaska Native 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Two or more races 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Free or Reduced-Price Meals (%) 75–100 75–100 50–<75 75–100 25–<50 50–<75 

English Learners (%) >30 >30 0–<5 5–30 5–30 5–30 

Students with Disabilities (%) 5–<20 5–<20 5–<20 >20 5–<20 5–<20 

Sources: Individual district and school webpages are not reported to ensure case study participants’ 

confidentiality. (1) Enrollment and race/ethnicity (state, district, school): 

http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?=3225 (2) English learners (state): 

http://www.ode.state.or.us/data/annreportcard/rptcard2014.pdf (page 5). (3) Free or reduced-price meals: 

http://www.ode.state.or.us/sfda/reports/r0061Select2.asp (4) English learners and students receiving special 

education (reported as students with disabilities in K-3 (district and school). 

http://www.ode.state.or.us/data/reportcard/reports.aspx (5) Students receiving special education (state) 

(Reported as students with disabilities): http://www.ode.state.or.us/data/annreportcard/rptcard2015.pdf 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 89 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pennsylvania 

The following exhibits present data on student characteristics statewide (Exhibit B-7), for each of the 

three Pennsylvania case study districts (Exhibit B-8), and for each of the schools selected per district 

(Exhibit B-9). Exhibits B-8 and B-9 present data in ranges to ensure confidentiality of the case study 

participants. 

Exhibit B-7. 2014–15 State Enrollment Characteristics — Pennsylvania 

Characteristic 

(K) Enrollment (#) 126,784 

Total Elementary Student Enrollment (#) 1,739,559 

Race/Ethnicity (%) 

White 68 

Black 15 

Hispanic 10 

Asian 4 

Pacific Islander <1 

American Indian/Alaska Native <1 

Two or more races 3 

Free or Reduced-Price Meals (%) 48 

English Learners (%) 11 

Students with Disabilities (%) 16 

Exhibit B-8. 2014–15 District Enrollment Characteristics of Study Sample Sites — Pennsylvania 

Characteristic District 1: 

Urban 

District 2: 

Suburban 

District 3: 

Rural 

K Enrollment (#) 10,000–15,000 1–<500 1–<500 

Total District Enrollment (#) >10,000 2,500-10,000 <2,500 

Race/Ethnicity (%) 

White 0–<25 75–100 75–100 

Black 50–<75 0–<25 0–<25 

Hispanic 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Asian 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Pacific Islander 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

American Indian/Alaska Native 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Two or more races 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Free or Reduced-Price Meals (%) 75–100 25–<50 25–<50 

English Learners (%) 5–<30 0–<5 0–<5 

Students with Disabilities (%) 5–<20 >20 >20 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 90 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit B-9. 2014–15 School Enrollment Characteristics of Study Sample Sites — Pennsylvania 

Characteristic 

District 1 

Urban 

School 1 

District 1 

Urban 

School 2 

District 2 

Suburban 

School 1 

District 2 

Suburban 

School 2 

District 3 

Rural 

School 1 

K Enrollment (#) 50–<100 50–<100 50–<100 50–<100 50–<100 

Total School Enrollment (#) >600 401–600 401–600 401–600 401–600 

Race/Ethnicity (%) 

White 0–<25 0–<25 75-100 75-100 75-100 

Black 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Hispanic 25–<50 25–<50 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Pacific Islander 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

American Indian/Alaska Native 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Asian 25–<50 25–<50 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Two or more races 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Free or Reduced-Price Meals (%) 75–100 75–100 25–50 25–50 25–50 

English Learners (%) 5–<30 5–<30 0–<5 0–<5 0–<5 

Students with Disabilities (%) 5–<20 5–<20 5–<20 >20 5–<20 

*Not available. 

Sources: Individual district and school webpages are not reported to ensure case study participants’ 

confidentiality. (1) Enrollment, race/ethnicity (state, district school): http://www.education.pa.gov/Data-andStatistics/Pages/Enrollment%20Reports%20and%20Projections.aspx#.V3GZmTWuNLp (2) Free or reduced-price 

meals (state and district): http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/Map/2720-school-lunch--students-eligible-forfree-or-reduced-price-lunch?loc=40&loct=2#2/any/true/1460/any/10325/Orange/ (3) Free or reduced-price meals 

(school): National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data: http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/ 

(4) English learners and special education: www.paschoolperformance.org/ 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 91 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Washington 

The following exhibits present data on student characteristics statewide (Exhibit B-10), for each of the 

three Washington case study districts (Exhibit B-11), and for each of the two schools selected per district 

(Exhibit B-12). Exhibits B-11 and B-12 present data in ranges to ensure confidentiality of the case study 

participants. 

Exhibit B-10. 2014–15 State Enrollment Characteristics — Washington 

Characteristic 

(K) Enrollment (#) 81,206 

Total Elementary School Enrollment (#) 1,074,057 

Race/Ethnicity (%) 

White 57 

Black 4 

Hispanic 22 

Asian 7 

Pacific Islander 1 

American Indian/Alaska Native 1 

Two or more races 7 

Free or Reduced-Price Meals (%) 46 

English Learners (%) 10 

Students with Disabilities (%) 13 

Exhibit B-11. 2014–15 District Enrollment Characteristics of Study Sample Sites — Washington 

Characteristic District 1: 

Urban 

District 2: 

Suburban 

District 3: 

Rural 

(K) Enrollment (#) 2,000–2,500 1,500–2,000 1–500 

Total District Enrollment (#) >10,000 >10,000 2,500–10,000 

Race/Ethnicity (%) 

White 25–<50 25–<50 50–<75 

Black 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Hispanic 0–<25 25–<50 25–<50 

Asian 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Pacific Islander 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

American Indian/Alaska Native 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Two or more races 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Free or Reduced-Price Meals (%) 50–<75 50–<75 50–<75 

English Learners (%) 5–<30 5–<30 5–<30 

Students with Disabilities (%) 5–<20 5–<20 5–<20 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 92 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exhibit B-12. 2014–15 School Enrollment Characteristics of Study Sample Sites — Washington 

Characteristic 

District 1 

Urban 

School 1 

District 1 

Urban 

School 2 

District 2 

Suburban 

School 1 

District 2 

Suburban 

School 2 

District 3 

Rural 

School 1 

District 3 

Rural 

School 2 

(K) Enrollment (#) 50–<100 50–<100 50–<100 1–<50 50–<100 1–<50 

Total School Enrollment (#) >600 401–600 201–400 201–400 401–600 1–200 

Race/Ethnicity (%) 

White 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 25–<50 25–<50 50–<75 

Black 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Hispanic 25–<50 25–<50 50–<75 0–<25 25–<50 0–<25 

Asian 0–<25 25–<50 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Pacific Islander 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

American Indian/Alaska Native 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Two or more races 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 0–<25 

Free or Reduced-Price Meals (%) 75–100 75–100 75–100 50–<75 50–<75 50–<75 

English Learners (%) >30 >30 >30 5–30 5–<30 5–<30 

Students with Disabilities (%) 5–<20 5–<20 5–<20 >20 5–<20 5–<20 

Sources: Individual district and school webpages are not reported to ensure case study participants’ 

confidentiality. (1) Enrollment and race/ethnicity: http://www.k12.wa.us/dataadmin/, October Enrollment Report, 

downloaded Oct1_School Level_20141210.xls. (2) Free or reduced-priced meals: 

http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us/DataDownload.aspx, Demographic Data Downloads, Demographic Information 

by School, downloaded 1_2_Demographic Information by School.xls. (3) English learners: 

http://data.k12.wa.us/PublicDWP/web/Washingtonweb/DataTables/EllDTViewer.aspx, select latest year, all 

Educational Service Districts, all districts, all schools, enrollment as of May, downloaded 

Number_of_English_Language_Learners_(ELL).xls (4) Students receiving special education (state, district, and 

school): http://reportcard.ospi.k12.wa.us 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 93 

 

Appendix C: KEA Characteristics 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 95 
 

 

 

 

 

 

SocialFoundations (SF) Social Emotional Awarenessand Expression of Emotion

SocialFoundations (SF) Social Emotional 

SocialFoundations (SF) Social Emotional Relationshipswith Adults 

SocialFoundations (SF) Social Emotional Relationshipswith Adults 

SocialFoundations (SF)

 

SocialFoundations (SF) Approachesto Learning / Executive

Functioning Self-Control

SocialFoundations (SF) Approachesto Learning / Executive

Functioning 

SocialFoundations (SF) Approachesto Learning / Executive

Functioning Persistence 

SocialFoundations (SF) Approachesto Learning / Executive

Functioning 

SocialFoundations (SF) Approachesto Learning / Executive

Functioning WorkingMemory 

SocialFoundations (SF) Approachesto Learning / Executive

Functioning WorkingMemory 

SocialFoundations (SF) Approachesto Learning / Executive

Functioning 

SocialFoundations (SF) Approachesto Learning / Executive

Functioning Initiative 

SocialFoundations (SF) Approachesto Learning / Executive

Functioning 

SocialFoundations (SF) Approachesto Learning / Executive

Functioning Cooperation with Peers

SocialFoundations (SF) Approachesto Learning / Executive

Functioning Cooperation with Peers

SocialFoundations (SF) 

SocialFoundations (SF) Social Studies ResponsibleBehavior 

Maryland 

Exhibit C-1 excerpted from “Kindergarten Readiness Assessment. Readiness Matters,” pages A3-A6 (Maryland State Department of 

Education 2015b). 

Exhibit C-1. Common Language Standards KRA 1.5 Content 

Domain Strand Learning Progression Standard (yellow) 

Essential Skill and Knowledge (white) 

Social 

Foundations (SF) Social Emotional Awareness and Expression of Emotion Recognize and identify emotions of self and others. 

Express, understand, and respond to feelings (emotions) of self and others. 

Relationships with 

Adults 

Look to adults for emotional support and guidance. 

Seek security and support from familiar adults in anticipation of challenging situations. 

Request and accept guidance from familiar adults. 

Approaches to 

Learning / Executive 

Functioning 

Self-Control Manage the expression of feelings, thoughts, impulses, and behaviors. 

Demonstrate the ability to delay gratification for short periods of time. 

Persistence Demonstrate the ability to persist with a task. 

Focus on an activity with deliberate concentration despite distractions and/or 

temptations. 

Working Memory Demonstrate the ability to retain and apply information. 

Follow routines and multistep directions. 

Use prior knowledge and information to assess, inform, and plan for future actions and 

learning. 

Initiative Seek and gather new information to plan for projects and activities. 

Express a desire to learn by asking questions and seeking new information. 

Cooperation with Peers Demonstrate cooperative behavior in interactions with others. 

Interact with peers in complex pretend play, including planning, coordination of roles, and 

cooperation. 

Share materials and equipment with other children, with adult modeling and support. 

Social Studies Responsible Behavior Demonstrate understanding of rules and responsible behavior. 

Explain how rules promote order, safety, and fairness. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 96 
 

 

 

 

Language and Literacy 

(LL)

Reading Story/Text

Comprehension 

Language and Literacy 

(LL)

Reading Story/Text Comprehension 

Language and Literacy 

(LL)

Reading Story/Text

Comprehension 

Language and Literacy 

(LL)

Reading 

Language and Literacy 

(LL)

Reading Phonological Awareness 

Language and Literacy 

(LL)

Reading Phonological Awareness 

Language and Literacy 

(LL)

Reading Phonological Awareness 

Language and Literacy 

(LL)

Reading 

Language and Literacy 

(LL)

Reading Phonics and Letter

Recognition

Language and Literacy 

(LL)

Reading Phonics and Letter

Recognition 

Language and Literacy 

(LL) 

Language and Literacy 

(LL)

Speaking and Listening Communication 

 

Language and Literacy 

(LL)

Speaking and Listening Communication

Language and Literacy 

(LL) 

Language and Literacy 

(LL)

Writing Emergent Writing 

Language and Literacy 

(LL)

Writing Emergent Writing 

Common Language Standards KRA 1.5 Content 

Domain Strand Learning Progression Standard (yellow) 

Essential Skill and Knowledge (white) 

Language and 

Literacy (LL) Reading Story/Text Comprehension 

Comprehend and respond to interactive read-alouds of literary and informational 

text. 

Before interactive read-alouds, make predictions and/or ask questions about the text 

by examining the title, cover, illustrations/photographs, graphic aids, and/or text. 

During interactive read-alouds, listen and ask and answer questions as appropriate. 

After interactive read-alouds, respond by retelling the text or part of the text in an 

appropriate sequence, using discussions, re-enactment, drawing, and/or writing as 

appropriate. 

Phonological 

Awareness 

Demonstrate understanding of spoken words and sounds (phonemes). 

Identify initial and final sounds in spoken words. 

Identify, blend, and segment syllables in spoken words. 

Recognize rhyming words in spoken language. 

Phonics and Letter 

Recognition Know and apply letter-sound correspondence and letter recognition skills. 

Demonstrate basic knowledge of one-to-one letter-sound correspondences by 

producing the most frequent sound for some consonants. 

Recognize and name some upper- and lowercase letters. 

Speaking and 

Listening Communication Communicate effectively in a variety of situations with different audiences, purposes, and formats. 

Speak or express thoughts, feelings, and ideas clearly enough to be understood in a 

variety of settings. 

Participate in conversations with adults and peers, staying on topic through multiple 

exchanges and adding appropriate ideas to support or extend the conversation. 

Writing Emergent Writing Produce letter-like shapes, symbols, letters, and words to convey meaning. 

With modeling and support, print letters of own name. 

With modeling and support, print meaningful words with letters and letter 

approximations. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 97 
 

 

 

Language and Literacy 

(LL) 

Language and Literacy 

(LL)

Language Grammar 

Language and Literacy 

(LL)

Language Grammar

Language and Literacy 

(LL)

Language 

Language and Literacy 

(LL)

Language

Vocabulary 

 

Common Language Standards KRA 1.5 Content 

Domain Strand Learning Progression Standard (yellow) 

Essential Skill and Knowledge (white) 

Language Grammar Demonstrate beginning understanding of the conventions of standard English 

grammar and usage when engaged in literacy activities. 

Use familiar nouns and verbs to describe persons, animals, places, events, actions, etc. 

Use frequently occurring prepositions (e.g., "to," "from," "in," "out," "on," "off," "for," 

"of," "by," "with"). 

Vocabulary Use words acquired through conversations and shared reading experiences. 

Determine the meanings of unknown words/concepts using the context of 

conversations, pictures that accompany text, or concrete objects. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 98 
 

 

 

 

Mathematics Counting and Cardinality Number Sense 

(MA) Counting and Cardinality Number Sense 

 

Mathematics Counting and Cardinality Number Sense 

(MA) Counting and Cardinality Number Sense

 

Mathematics Counting and Cardinality Number Sense 

(MA)

 

 

Mathematics Operations and Algebraic

Thinking NumberOperations 

(MA)

 

Mathematics Measurement and Data Classification

(MA) Measurement and Data Classification 

 

Mathematics Measurement and Data 

(MA) Measurement and Data Measurement

 

Mathematics Measurement and Data Measurement

(MA)

Mathematics Geometry Shapes

(MA) Geometry Shapes 

Common Language Standards KRA 1.5 Content 

Domain Strand Learning Progression Standard (yellow) 

Essential Skill and Knowledge (white) 

Mathematics 

(MA) 

Counting and 

Cardinality Number Sense Know number name, count sequence, and relationships among number, numeral, and quantity. 

Count the number sequence to 20. 

Use number cards arranged in a line to count and then determine what number 

comes before or after a specific number. 

Identify, without counting, small quantities of items (1–3) presented in an 

irregular or unfamiliar pattern (subitize). 

Demonstrate understanding that the last number spoken tells the number of 

objects counted; respond correctly when asked “how many” after counting 

concrete objects. 

Name written numerals and pair them with concrete objects. 

Operations and 

Algebraic Thinking Number Operations Understand addition as putting together and adding to, and understand subtraction as taking apart and taking from. 

Use manipulatives to find the amount needed to complete the set. 

Measurement and 

Data Classification Sort, classify, and compare objects. 

Sort multiple groups by one attribute (e.g., “all blue, all red, all yellow” or “all bears, all 

cats, all dogs”). 

Count to identify the number of objects in each set, and compare 

categories using comparison vocabulary (e.g., "greater"/"more than," "less 

than," "same"/"equal to"). 

Measurement Describe and compare measurable attributes. 

Directly compare and describe two objects with a measurable attribute (e.g., 

length, size, capacity and weight) in common, using words such as 

"longer"/"shorter," "heavier"/"lighter," or "taller"/"shorter." 

Order objects by measurable attribute (e.g., biggest to smallest). 

Geometry Shapes Describe two- and three-dimensional shapes. 

Match similar shapes when given a variety of two- and three-dimensional shapes. 

Use names of two-dimensional shapes (e.g., square; triangle; circle) when identifying 

objects. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 99 
 

 

 

 

Physical Well- Being 

and Motor

Physical Education Coordination–Large

M t Physical Well- Being 

and Motor

Development (PD)

Physical Education Coordination–Large

Motor 

 

Physical Well- Being 

and Motor

Development (PD)

Physical Education 

Physical Well- Being 

and Motor

Development (PD)

Physical Education Coordination–Small

M otor 

 

Physical Well- Being 

and Motor

Physical Education Coordination–Small M otor 

Physical Well- Being 

and Motor

Development (PD)

 

 

Physical Well- Being 

and Motor

Health Safety and Injury 

Physical Well- Being 

and Motor

Health Safety and Injury 

Physical Well- Being 

and Motor

Health

Physical Well- Being 

and Motor

Development (PD)

Health Personal Care 

Tasks

 

Common Language Standards KRA 1.5 Content 

Domain Strand Learning Progression Standard (yellow) 

Essential Skill and Knowledge (white) 

Physical WellBeing and Motor 

Development (PD) 

Physical Education Coordination–Large 

Motor Demonstrate the ability to use large muscles to perform a variety of physical skills. 

Show fundamental movement by demonstrating spatial concepts in movement 

Demonstrate locomotor skills with control, coordination, and balance during active 

play (e.g., running, hopping, jumping). 

Coordination–Small 

M otor 

Demonstrate the ability to use small muscles to perform fine motor skills 

in play and learning situations. 

Use classroom and household tools independently with eye-hand coordination to 

carry out activities. 

Use a three-finger grasp of dominant hand to hold a writing tool. 

Health 

Safety and 

Injury 

Prevention 

Demonstrate the ability to apply prevention and intervention knowledge, 

skills, and processes to promote safe living, in the home, school, and 

community. 

With modeling and support, identify and follow basic safety rules. 

Identify ways adults help to keep us safe. 

Personal Care Tasks Demonstrate personal health and hygiene practices. 

Independently complete personal care tasks (e.g., washing hands before eating 

and after toileting). 

Source: http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/msde/divisions/child_care/early_learning/docs/KRA2014-15TEchnicalReport.pdf 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 100 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oregon 

Exhibit C-2 excerpted from the “Kindergarten Oregon Assessment Specifications, 2015–16,” pages 24-25 (Oregon Department of Education). 

Exhibit C-2. Oregon Kindergarten Assessment (2015–16) Student Operational Blueprint Content Coverage 

Score Reporting Categories (SRC) 

Operational 

Assessment: 

Total Item 

Count 

Operational 

Assessment: 

Range of Possible 

Scores 

Assessment Segment One: Early Literacy 

Timed segment includes two measures for all students: 

1. English Letter Names: The student views a chart with upper and lowercase letters. This is a timed fluency 

measure. The student has 60 seconds to identify as many letters as he/she can. 

100 0-100 

2. English Letter Sounds: The student views a chart with upper and lowercase letters and some letter blends. 

This is a timed fluency measure. The student has 60 seconds to make as many letter sounds as he/she can. 100 0-100 

• Early Spanish Literacy: Spanish Letter Sounds only administered to officially identified English Learners taking 

the Oregon KA whose language of origin is Spanish. The student views a chart with upper and lowercase letters 

and some letter blends. This is a timed fluency measure. The student has 60 seconds to identify as many letter 

sounds as he/she can. 

For additional guidance on identification and reporting, please see Executive Numbered Memo 009-2013-14­

Proper Identification of Spanish-Speaking English Learners for the Kindergarten Assessment. 

100 0-100 

Assessment Segment Two: Early Math 

This assessment has two sample items and 16 items. It is not timed. Students view items that include counting, 

simple addition, simple subtraction, and recognizing number patterns. The assessment is multiple choice, students 

choose their answer by pointing or verbalizing from three possible answers. For instance, a student might see a 

row of five stars and the assessor would ask “How many?” point to or say the answer. 

16 0-16 

Assessment Segment Three: Approaches to Learning 

The Child Behavior Rating Scale has 15 items that teachers score based on observation of the student in the 

classroom during regular classroom activities and routines. The scale focuses on approaches to learning, selfregulation, and social-emotional. For instance, items are similar to this sample: “Completes work effectively.” The 

teacher uses a five-point scale, ranging from never exhibits the behavior to always exhibit the behavior. 

15 15-7 5 

Operational Assessment Item Total 

291 total possible score; 391 possible score, if including Early Spanish Literacy 

231 

331 

15-291 

15-391 

Source: http://www.ode.state.or.us/wma/teachlearn/testing/dev/testspecs/archive/asmtkindergartentestspecs_1415.pdf 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 101 

 103 

 

Social and Emotional 

Development

 

Social and Emotional 

Development

Social and Emotional 

Development

 

Language and 

Literacy

 

Language and 

Literacy 

Language and 

Literacy

Language and 

Literacy

 

 

Language and 

Literacy

Language and 

Literacy

 

Language and 

Literacy

Language and 

Literacy

 

 

Language and 

Literacy

 

 

Language and 

Literacy

Language and

Literacy 

 

 

Pennsylvania 

Exhibit C-3. Pennsylvania’s KEI Domains and Indicators and Associated State Standards 

Domain Indicator Standard 

Social and Emotional 

Development 1. Emotional regulation Student expresses emotional appropriately to adults and peers. 

2. Self-awareness 

Student demonstrates awareness of self and 

one’s own preferences. 

3. Conflict resolution Student distinguishes between appropriate and 

inappropriate ways to resolve conflict 

4. Behavior regulation Student is aware of limits and expectations and 

adjusts behavior accordingly. 

Language and 

Literacy 5. Print concepts/letters Student recognizes and names some upper and lower case letters of the alphabet. 

6. Print concepts/words Student recognizes that letters make words and 

that words convey meaning. 

7. Phonological awareness Student demonstrates understanding of spoken 

words, syllables, and sounds. 

8. Phonics Students associates letters with their sounds 

9. Text analysis Student demonstrates comprehension of text, 

both informational and literature. 

10. Text structure Student demonstrates knowledge of text 

structure. 

11. Stages of writing Student demonstrates age appropriate writing 

skills. 

12. Writing process 

Student engages in the writing process by 

choosing a topic of focus and then dictates, 

draws, or writes a related story. 

13. Expressive language 

Student expresses thoughts, feelings, and ideas, 

speaking clearly enough to be understood by 

most audiences. 

14. Receptive language 

Student acts upon or responds to dominant 

spoken language showing understanding of 

intent. 

15. Collaborative communication Student participates in collaborative 

conversations with peers and adults. 

16. Conventions of English language 

Student demonstrates command of the 

conventions of Standard English when speaking. 

ELL/DLL students should be scored on their 

English proficiency for this indicator. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 
 

 

104 

 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

Mathematics 

 

Approaches to 

Learning

 

 

Approaches to 

Learning

 

 

Approaches to 

Learning 

Approaches to 

Learning 

 

Health, Wellness, and 

Physical Development

 

 

 

 

Other 

 

Other 

Other 

Pennsylvania’s KEI Domains and Indicators and Associated State Standards 

Domain Indicator Standard 

Mathematics 17. Counting Student knows the count sequence. 

18. Naming numbers Student knows number names. 

19. Operations and algebraic 

thinking 

Student understands addition as putting together 

and adding to, and understands subtraction as 

taking apart and taking away. 

20. Identifying shapes Student identifies shapes. 

21. Positional words Student shows understanding of the relative 

position of objects. 

22. Measurement Student uses measureable attributes to compare 

objects. 

23. Data Student classifies, counts, and compares 

quantities. 

Approaches to 

Learning 24. Curiosity and initiative Student shows interest in a growing range of topics, ideas, and tasks. 

25. Stages of play 

Student uses play to construct knowledge, plan 

and meet goals, and negotiate interactions with 

others. 

26. Engagement, attention, and 

persistence 

Student attends to tasks, activities, projects and 

experiences for an extended period of time, even 

if challenging and despite interruptions. 

27. Task analysis Student organizes complex information and 

thought into small steps and goals. 

28. Reasoning and problem solving Student attempts to accomplish challenging tasks 

by employing different strategies as needed. 

Health, Wellness, 

and Physical 

Development 

29. Control and coordination: fine 

motor 

Student demonstrates coordination, strength, 

and muscle control when manipulating small 

objects or tools. 

30. Control and coordination: gross 

motor 

Student demonstrates coordination of body 

movements. 

Other 

31. Number of days the student has 

been overdressed or 

underdressed 

Not applicable 

32. Number of days the student has 

been sent to the nurse for 

illness 

Not applicable 

33. Number of days the student has 

been absent 

Not applicable 

34. Number of days the student has 

been late to school 

Not applicable 

Source: https://www.csiutg.org/kei_manual.pdf 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 
 

 

105 

 

Social Emotional Regulates own emotions and behaviors 

Social Emotional Regulates own emotions and behaviors 

Social Emotional

Social Emotional Establishes and sustains positive relationships 

Social Emotional Establishes and sustains positive relationships 

Social Emotional Establishes and sustains positive relationships

Social Emotional

 

Social Emotional Participates cooperatively and constructively 

in group situations 

 

Physical 

Physical

Physical 

Physical Demonstrates fine-motor strength and 

coordination 

Washington 

Exhibit C-4. WaKIDS Domains and Objectives Assessed in Fall 2014 and Fall 2015 

Domain Objective Dimension 2014 2015 

Social 

Emotional 

1. Regulates own emotions and 

behaviors Manages feelings X 

Follows limits and expectations X X 

Takes care of own needs 

appropriately X X 

2. Establishes and sustains positive 

relationships Forms relationships with adults 

Responds to emotional cues 

Interacts with peers X X 

Makes friends X 

3. Participates cooperatively and 

constructively in group 

situations 

Balance needs and rights of self and 

others X 

Solves social problems X 

Physical 4. Demonstrates traveling skills X X 

5. Demonstrates balancing skills X X 

6. Demonstrates gross-motor 

manipulative skills X 

7. Demonstrates fine-motor 

strength and coordination Uses fingers and hands X X 

Uses writing and drawing tools X X 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 
 

 

 

106 

 

Language Listens to and understands increasingly 

complex language 

Language 

Language Uses language to express thoughts and 

needs 

Language Uses language to express thoughts and needs 

Language Uses language to express thoughts and needs 

Language 

Language Uses appropriate conversational and other 

communication skills

 

Cognitive Demonstrates positive approaches to learning 

Cognitive Demonstrates positive approaches to learning 

Cognitive Demonstrates positive approaches to learning 

Cognitive Demonstrates positive approaches to learning

Cognitive 

Cognitive Remembers and connects experiences

Cognitive 

Cognitive 

 

Cognitive Uses symbols and images to represent something not 

present

WaKIDS Domains and Objectives Assessed in Fall 2014 and Fall 2015 

Domain Objective Dimension 2014 2015 

Language 8. Listens to and understands 

increasingly complex language Comprehends language X 

Follows directions X 

9. Uses language to express 

thoughts and needs 

Uses an expanding expressive 

vocabulary X 

Speaks clearly X X 

Uses conventional grammar X 

Tells about another time or place X 

10. Uses appropriate conversational 

and other communication skills Engages in conversations X X 

Uses social rules of language X 

Cognitive 11. Demonstrates positive 

approaches to learning Attends and engages X 

Persists X 

Solves problems X X 

Shows curiosity and motivation X 

Shows flexibility and inventiveness in 

thinking X 

12. Remembers and connects 

experiences Recognizes and recalls X X 

Makes connections 

13. Uses classification skills X X 

14. Uses symbols and images to 

represent something not present Thinks symbolically X 

Engages in sociodramatic play 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 
 

 

 

107 

 

Literacy Demonstrates phonological awareness, 

phonics skills, and word recognition

Literacy Demonstrates phonological awareness, 

phonics skills, and word recognition 

Literacy 

Literacy Demonstrates knowledge of the alphabet 

Literacy 

 

Literacy Demonstrates knowledge of print and its 

uses 

Literacy 

 

Literacy Comprehends and responds to books 

and other texts 

Literacy Comprehends and responds to books 

and other texts

Literacy 

Literacy Demonstrates writing skills 

 

 

Mathematics Uses number concepts and operations 

Mathematics Uses number concepts and operations 

Mathematics

Mathematics Explores and describes spatial relationships 

and shapes 

WaKIDS Domains and Objectives Assessed in Fall 2014 and Fall 2015 

Domain Objective Dimension 2014 2015 

Literacy 

15. Demonstrates phonological 

awareness, phonics skills, and 

word recognition 

Notices and discriminates rhyme X X 

Notices and discriminates alliteration X 

Notices and discriminates discrete 

units of sound X X 

16. Demonstrates knowledge of the 

alphabet Identifies and names letters X X 

Identifies letter-sound 

correspondences X X 

17. Demonstrates knowledge of 

print and its uses 

Uses and appreciates books and other 

texts 

Uses print concepts X X 

18. Comprehends and responds to 

books and other texts 

Interacts during reading experiences, 

book conversations, and text 

reflections 

X 

Uses emergent reading skills X X 

Retells stories and recounts details 

from informational texts X 

19. Demonstrates writing skills Writes name X X 

Writes to convey ideas and 

information X 

Mathematics 20. Uses number concepts and 

operations Counts X X 

Quantifies X X 

Connects numerals with their 

quantities X X 

21. Explores and describes spatial 

relationships and shapes Understands spatial relationships 

Understands shapes X X 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 
 

 

 

Mathematics

WaKIDS Domains and Objectives Assessed in Fall 2014 and Fall 2015 

Domain Objective Dimension 2014 2015 

Mathematics 

(continued) 22. Compares and measures X 

23. Demonstrates knowledge of 

patterns 

Source: http://www.k12.wa.us/WaKIDS/pubdocs/QAaboutChangesWaKIDSObjectives.pdf 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 108 
 

Appendix D: Fall 2014 KEA Data Findings in the Readiness Domains:
 

Maryland and Washington
 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 109 
 

 

 

 

 

Maryland 

The following exhibits present data on the percentages of students demonstrating kindergarten readiness in each of the four domains measured 

by Maryland’s KRA: Language and Literacy (Exhibit D-1), Mathematical Thinking (Exhibit D-2), Social Foundations (Exhibit D-3), and Physical 

Well-Being and Motor Development (Exhibit D-4). 

Exhibit D-1. Percentages of Maryland Students Demonstrating Kindergarten Readiness: Language and Literacy 

47 

58 

45 

23 

47 

37 

41 

52 

16 

35 

22 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

Percent of Students who

Demonstrated Readiness 

Total 

Population 

White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific 

Islander 

American 

Indian/ 

Alaska 

Native 

Two or 

more races 

English 

learners 

Low income Students 

with 

disabilities 

Exhibit Reads: Nearly half (47 percent) of all Maryland kindergarten students demonstrated skills indicating kindergarten readiness in language and literacy. 

SOURCE: Data from Maryland State Board of Education 2015b. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 110 
 

 

 

Exhibit D-2. Percentages of Maryland Students Demonstrating Kindergarten Readiness: Mathematical Thinking 

42 

53 

36 

24 

52 

30 34 

45 

19 

30 

21 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

Percent of Students who

Demonstrated Readiness 

Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or English Low income Students 

Population Islander Indian/ more races learners with 

Alaska disabilities 

Native 

Exhibit Reads: More than forty percent (42 percent) of all Maryland kindergarten students demonstrated skills indicating kindergarten readiness in mathematical thinking. 

SOURCE: Data from Maryland State Board of Education 2015b. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 111 
 

 

Exhibit D-3. Percentages of Maryland Students Demonstrating Kindergarten Readiness: Social Foundations 

50 

57 

46 

39 

55 

47 44 

53 

34 

43 

25 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

Percent of Students who

Demonstrated Readines 

Total 

Population 

White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific 

Islander 

American 

Indian/ 

Alaska 

Native 

Two or 

more races 

English 

learners 

Low income Students 

with 

disabilities 

Exhibit Reads: Half (50 percent) of all Maryland kindergarten students demonstrated skills indicating kindergarten readiness in social foundations. 

SOURCE: Data from Maryland State Board of Education 2015b. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 112 
 

 

Exhibit D-4. Percentages of Maryland Students Demonstrating Kindergarten Readiness: Physical Well-Being and
 

Motor Development
 

54 

58 

51 

46 

62 

49 

53 

57 

42 

48 

26 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

Percent of Students who

Demonstrated Readiness 

Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or English Low income Students 

Population Islander Indian/ more races learners with 

Alaska disabilities 

Native 

Exhibit Reads: More than half (54 percent) of all Maryland kindergarten students demonstrated skills indicating kindergarten readiness in physical well-being and motor development. 

SOURCE: Data from Maryland State Board of Education 2015b. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 113 
 

 

 

Washington 

The following exhibits present data on the percentages of students demonstrating kindergarten readiness in each of the six domains measured 

by Washington’s WaKIDS whole child assessment: Language (Exhibit D-5), Literacy (Exhibit D-6), Mathematics (Exhibit D-7), Social-Emotional 

(Exhibit D-8), Physical (Exhibit D-9), and Cognitive (Exhibit D-10). 

Exhibit D-5. Percentages of Washington Students Demonstrating Kindergarten Readiness: Language 

70 

79 

73 

57 

62 

58 

68 

79 

47 

64 

39 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

Percent of Students who

Demonstrated Readiness 

Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or English Low income Students 

Population Islander Indian/ more races learners with 

Alaska disabilities 

Native 

Exhibit Reads: Seventy percent of all Washington kindergarten students demonstrated skills indicating full kindergarten readiness in language. 

SOURCE: Data from State of Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction n.d. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 114 
 

 

 

Exhibit D-6. Percentages of Washington Students Demonstrating Kindergarten Readiness: Literacy 

79 

87 

83 

66 

81 

70 

77 

85 

61 

72 

63 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

Percent of Students who

Demonstrated Readiness 

Total 

Population 

White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific 

Islander 

American 

Indian/ 

Alaska 

Native 

Two or 

more races 

English 

learners 

Low income Students 

with 

disabilities 

Exhibit Reads: Nearly eighty percent (79 percent) of all Washington kindergarten students demonstrated skills indicating full kindergarten readiness in literacy. 

SOURCE: Data from State of Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction n.d. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 115 
 

Exhibit D-7. Percentages of Washington Students Demonstrating Kindergarten Readiness: Mathematics 

53 

64 

56 

35 

62 

42 

47 

62 

31 

43 

36 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

Percent of Students who

Demonstrated Readiness 

Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or English Low income Students 

Population Islander Indian/ more races learners with 

Alaska disabilities 

Native 

Exhibit Reads: More than half (53 percent) of all Washington kindergarten students demonstrated skills indicating full kindergarten readiness in mathematics. 

SOURCE: Data from State of Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction n.d. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 116 
 

 

Exhibit D-8. Percentages of Washington Students Demonstrating Kindergarten Readiness: Social-Emotional 

74 77 74 71 

76 

72 

68 

76 

69 70 

49 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

Percent of Students who

Demonstrated Readiness 

Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or English Low income Students 

Population Islander Indian/ more races learners with 

Alaska disabilities 

Native 

Exhibit Reads: Nearly three-quarters (74 percent) of all Washington kindergarten students demonstrated skills indicating full kindergarten readiness in the social-emotional domain. 

SOURCE: Data from State of Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction n.d. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 117 
 

 

Exhibit D-9. Percentages of Washington Students Demonstrating Kindergarten Readiness: Physical 

78 79 77 76 

82 

78 77 80 77 

73 

59 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

Percent of Students who

Demonstrate Readiness 

Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or English Low income Students 

Population Islander Indian/ more races learners with 

Alaska disabilities 

Native 

Exhibit Reads: More than three-quarters (78 percent) of all Washington kindergarten students demonstrated skills indicating full kindergarten readiness in the physical domain. 

SOURCE: Data from State of Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction n.d. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 118 
 

 

Exhibit D-10. Percentages of Washington Students Demonstrating Kindergarten Readiness: Cognitive 

74 

81 

74 

65 

74 

63 

71 

79 

61 

68 

51 

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

Percent of Students who

Demonstrate Readiness 

Total White Black Hispanic Asian Pacific American Two or English Low income Students 

Population Islander Indian/ more races learners with 

Alaska disabilities 

Native 

Exhibit Reads: Nearly three-quarters (74 percent) of all Washington kindergarten students demonstrated skills indicating full kindergarten readiness in the cognitive domain. 

SOURCE: Data from State of Washington Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction n.d. 

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 119 


Case Studies of the Implementation and Use of Kindergarten Entry Assessments 122

The Department of Education’s mission is to promote
 

student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness
 

by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.
 

www.ed.gov