U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Results in Brief:

Case Studies of the Early Implementation of Kindergarten Entry Assessments

August 2016 

States increasingly are incorporating Kindergarten Entry Assessments (KEAs) 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. 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 across four RTT-ELC states (Maryland, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington) in the 2014–15 school year. This was the 

first year of KEA implementation in Maryland and Pennsylvania, the second year of implementation in Oregon, and the third year of 

KEA implementation in Washington, so findings reflect the early implementation of these assessments. 

STUDY 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 LIMITATIONS

The study consisted of document reviews, telephone 

interviews with state agency respondents and local 

preschool directors, and in-person interviews with district 

administrators, principals, kindergarten teachers, and other 

KEA assessors. Data were collected in 12 districts and 23 

schools in Maryland, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and 

Washington between January and June 2015 and include 

information from a total of 201 interviews.

The case study findings in this report are based on a small 

sample and are not generalizable to all districts and schools. 

Additionally, this report is not intended to suggest that the

practices observed constitute “best practices.”iThe report 

findings reflect a snapshot in time, specifically early 

implementation of KEAs, and activities, challenges, and 

solutions may have changed since then. Results from this 

report can be used, however, to inform state and district 

efforts to develop and implement their own KEAs and to 

use KEAs to improve instruction and learning.

HIGHLIGHTS

 State officials and stakeholders 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) students and students with disabilities and indicated 

that they needed further assistance.

 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; 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. 
DEVELOPMENT AND ADOPTION

State officials and stakeholders 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, and feasibility of administration by 

teachers, and cost. Recognizing that a single assessment 

tool may not fully meet all of the desired criteria, decisionmakers 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.

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. At a minimum, the pilot studies involved 

teachers assessing students using the selected KEA and 

providing feedback through surveys, focus groups, or 

interviews. These studies resulted in revisions to KEA 

instruments and procedures and in modifications to training 

protocols and resources.

STATE SUPPORT FOR TEACHER TRAINING AND 

PREPARATION

The majority of teachers reported that state-provided 

online and in-person trainings 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. The state-developed trainings for teachers on 

KEA implementation took different forms—from online selfpaced webinars to in-person presentations. These trainings

addressed various topics—from detailed administration 

procedures to data reporting guidelines, but typically 

included more focus on administration and data entry than 

on data use.

DISTRICT EXPERIENCES WITH EARLY KEA

IMPLEMENTATION

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. 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.

KEA participation varied across states. 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 state-funded full-day 

kindergarten classrooms, 52 percent of kindergarten 

students participated. In Pennsylvania, where participation 

was optional, except for students in Title I schools identified 

for improvement under ESEA flexibility, 13 percent of the 

state’s kindergarten students participated.

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. The 

majority of teachers reported obstacles to using KEA results 

to inform policy and practice, including difficulty accessing 

and understanding KEA score reports.

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.

CHALLENGES AND SOLUTIONS

District administrators and teachers identified challenges 

with administering KEAs to 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.

For example, teachers in three states reported feeling 

unsure about whether and how to provide accommodations 

during KEA administration to students with disabilities.

Several district and school respondents expressed 

uncertainty about the usefulness of the KEA to serve all of 

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. For example, 

some respondents said teachers need to understand that a

KEA is not a high-stakes assessment or a teacher evaluation.

 

i

The study did not assess whether state, district, and school practices described 

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

Department of Education (ED) including, but not limited to, the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Title VI 

of the Civil Rights Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy 

Act. The inclusion of a practice in the report does not necessarily mean the

practice complies with these laws or that ED has approved the practice.