### May 2 , 2014 

# U.S. Department of Education **PPSS TO 17: Case Studies of the Implementation and Use of Kindergarten Entry Assessments**  

# Supporting Statement Part B: Collection of **Information Employing Statistical Methods**  **Second Draft OMB Package** 

Contract Number GS- 10F- 0554N; Order Number ED - PEP - 11 - O -0090 SRI Project P22275.4 6 1

**Submitted to:** Erica Lee Policy and Program Studies Service Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development U.S. Department of Education 400 Maryland Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20202 **Prepared by:** Teresa McCaffrey, Kaily Yee, Shari Golan, and Tracy Huang SRI InternationalOMB Number and EDICS Tracking Number: (XXXX) 1875 -XXXX

Supporting Statement Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ii 

## Contents B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods ................................ ................................ ....... 1 B.1. Sampling Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 1 B.2. Procedures for the Collection of Information ................................ ................................ ............ 4 B.4. Test of Procedures and Methods ................................ ................................ ............................... 8 B.5. Consultations on Statistical Aspects of the Design ................................ ................................ .... 9 References ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 10 Appendices A. Data Collection Matrix and Protocols B. Copy of Federal Register Notice ( Placeholder) C. Consent Form D. Recruitment Materials E. Document Review Protocol F. Observa tion Protocol G. State Version Interview Protocol H. District Version Interview Protocol I. Principal Interview Protocol J. Kindergarten Teacher Interview Protocol K. Test Administrator Interview Protocol L. PreK Educator Interview ProtocolOMB Number and EDICS Tracking Number: (XXXX) 1875 -XXXX

Supporting Statement Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods iii 

## Exhibits Exhibit 1. Number of Schools by Recommended Stratifications Across States ................................ ........... 3 Exhibit 2. Recommended District Stratific ations ................................ ................................ .......................... 3 Exhibit 3. Recommended School Stratifications ................................ ................................ ........................... 3OMB Number and EDICS Tracking Number: (XXXX) 1875 -XXXX

Supporting Statement Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods 1 

## Supporting **Statement, Part B Paperwork Reduction Act Submission**  **B. Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods B.1.**  **Sampling Design** The objectives of t his study are to document the processes, accomplishments, challenges, and solutions of four states impl ementing KEAs and to share what they have learned with federal and state policymakers and the field. Of particular interest is to identify what is working well in states at the forefront of KEA implementation. Data collection will occur in four states impl ementing KEAs and 12 districts and 24 schools nested within those states. This sample size, as determined by the scope of work, will enable the study team to explore a range of strategies that states, districts, and schools are using to implement KEAs. 

### Sampling Criteria Selecting States for the Study In consultation with the Department of Education and Health and Human Services, the study team used the following criteria to narrow down the number of states for inclusion in the study. T he case study states must first meet four basic criteria to ensure relevancy to federal and state policymakers: 1. The state’s KEA covers all five domains of school readiness. 2. The state is implementing its KEA in the beginning of kindergarten and not at the exit of prekind ergarten ( PreK ) . 3. The state is planning to be in full implementation of KEA by fall 2014. 4. The state is not part of the North Carolina KEA- EAG consortium to avoid a conflict of interest . SRI International, the principal researcher on this Task Order, is helping North Carolina and its nine partner states to enhance their KEA as part of their KEA- EAG. Applying these criteria reduced the potential sample of eligible case study states to t en : CO, IL, KY, MD, MA, MN, NM, OH, PA and WA. In addition to meeting these fundamental criteria, the Department and HHS further recommended that at least one of the selected states represent one of the following: 5. An RTT- ELC grantee state (CO, IL, KY, MD, MA, MN, NM, OH, PA, WA) 6. A n on– RTT- ELC grantee state (None of these states met all the criteria.) 7. An EAG state (MD, MA, OH) 8. A u ser of a commercially available KEA assessment tool (e.g., TS- GOLD: CO, MA, WA; WSS: MD, MN; and DRDP -SR: IL) 9. A u se r of a KEA assess ment tool developed by the state (NM, OH, PA) Four states — Maryland, Illinois, Washington, and Pennsylvania — met the fundamental and recommended criteria for participation in the case studies and also provide useful variation on the many key KEA design eleme nts. If any of the suggested states decline or are unable to participate in the case study, other options exist that may suitably replace them (e.g., Ohio for Maryland, Colorado for Washington, Massachusetts for Illinois, New Mexico for Pennsylvania ). Fina lly, states are in flux as they develop and refine their KEAs. Before finalizing the selection of states, the study team will verify thatOMB Number and EDICS Tracking Number: (XXXX) 1875 -XXXX

Supporting Statement Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods 2 they plan to fully implement their KEA in fall 2014 statewide and that all five domains of school readiness will be assessed. 

### Selecting Districts and Schools Within the Four Case Study States After the study team has reached agreement with the Department on the selection of four states and has secured permission from each SEA to conduct the study, it will begin selecting three districts within each selected state and two schools within each of those districts. The sample will be limited to public school districts with noncharter, regular schools 1 that have kindergarten enrollment . The study team will purposively select the districts and schools within each state. The selection will be informed by a district and school sampling frame based on selected demographic variables (Exhibit 1) a nd by recommendations from the SEA and district contacts regarding districts and schools at the forefront of KEA implementation. This stratification process will ensure that the state case studies represent a variety of schools and student groups and focus on districts and schools fully implementing their states’ KEAs. The steps to identify the districts and schools are described below. At the district level within each state, the study team will draw a purposive sample of three school districts stratified by urbanization characteristics: city, suburban, and rural/town. By including districts from communities that vary in urbanization in each state, the study team can capt ure variations and issues in KEA implementation that may be related to community characteristics (e.g., types of challenges in family engagement, access to PreK and early learning programs). At the school level, the study team will draw a sample of school s with high concentrations of poverty and/or English learner (EL) students and schools with lower concentrations of poverty and EL students. Many of the schools with a high percentage of EL students may also have a high percentage of students living in poverty because the public schools in which EL students are concentrated have, on average, a substantially greater proportion of students qualifying for free or reduced - price school lunches ( Fry, 2008 ) . The study team emphasized schools with a high concentration of students living in poverty and/or stu dents identified as EL because students in these groups tend to start kindergarten with lower school readiness skills than peers in other schools ( Halle et al., 2009 ) . Preschools includ ed will be P reK programs serving 4-year-old children located at or near the selected schools. The resulting sampling frame is a three - category district- level urbanization stratification by three category school - level demographic stratification , resulting in a total of nine cells ( Exhibit 1 ). Across the states and school - level stratification will be eight schools from each type of urbanization district (city, suburban, and rural/town). Across the states and district - level stratification will be nine high - p overtyenrollment schools, nine high - EL- enrollment schools, and six schools with neither high poverty nor high EL enrollment. The KEA implementation case studies will enable the study team to see how states may be using KEAs to better understand and addres s achievement gaps (e.g., improving early learning programs to better address areas in which students are not ready).

1 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/specia l program emphasis schools” (http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/commonfiles/glossary.asp).OMB Number and EDICS Tracking Number: (XXXX) 1875 -XXXX

Supporting Statement Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods 3



### Exhibit 1 **. Number of Schools by Recommended Stratifications Across States**  **School enrollment City district**  **Suburban district Rural/town**  **district Total Schools**  High poverty enrollment (above 75%) 3 3 3 9 High EL enrollment (above 30%) 3 3 3 9 Neither high poverty nor high EL enrollment 2 2 2 6 Total schools 8 8 8 24 Within each state, the distribution of districts by urbanization will be the same, with one district from each urbanization category ( Exhibit 2 ). In contrast, the distribution of schools by student demographics (i.e., high - poverty-enrollment schools, high - EL- enrollment schools, and schools with neither high poverty nor high EL enrollment) will differ across states ( Exhibit 3 ). As six schools from each state will be included in the study, each state will fill only si x of the nine cells in Exhibit 1 . Exhibit 3 shows how the distribution of each state’s six sch ools may vary by state. Therefore, the study team will need to examine the selection of schools in a district together with the selection of schools in other districts both within and across states to ensure coverage of all nine shaded cells in Exhibit 1 .



### Exhibit 2 **. Recommended District Stratifications City**  **Suburban Rural/town**  **Total** State 1 1 1 1 3 State 2 1 1 1 3 State 3 1 1 1 3 State 4 1 1 1 3 Total 4 4 4 12



### Exhibit 3 **. Recommended School Stratifications High poverty**  **enrollment High EL**  **enrollment Neither high poverty**  **nor high EL enrollment Total**  State 1 2 2 2 6 State 2 3 2 1 6 State 3 2 2 2 6 State 4 2 3 1 6 Total 9 9 6 24OMB Number and EDICS Tracking Number: (XXXX) 1875 -XXXX

Supporting Statement Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods 4 

### District and School Data Sources and Definitions Publicly available data sources from the Common Core of Data (CCD) and statewide school data from the four selected states will provide district- and school - level information to help inform selection. The study team will obtain the most recent publicly ava ilable district and school data for the four selected states from the CCD. 2 The most recent year of data available is school year 2010– 11. Data will be used to group districts and schools using the following definitions:  **Urbanization** — To define the district- level urbanization categories, the study team will use the urbanization characteristics in the CCD: city, suburban, town, and rural. 3 The study team will combine the categories of town and rural to form three urbanization categories: city, suburban, and town and rural. Town is combined with the rural category because they both have the same subcategories to describe their distance from an urbanized area (i.e., fringe, distant, and remote).  **High concentration of poverty** — High poverty enrollment will be define d as schools where more than 75 percent of the students are eligible for free and reduced - price lunch program. This definition of high - poverty schools was used in the 2010 Condition of Education report published by the Department (U.S. Department of Edu cation, 2010). Data will likely come from statewide school data from the four selected states.  **High concentration of EL students** — High EL student enrollment will be define d as schools where more than 30 percent of the students are identified as EL students ( U.S. Department of Educ ation, 2010 ) . This cut point is based on the finding that 53 percent of EL students attend schools with an EL student population of 30 percent or greater ( August & Shanahan, 2008 ) . Student EL enrollment at school level is not available in CCD and will likely come from statewide school data from the four selected states.  **Neither high poverty nor high EL con centrations**  —This category wil l be defined as schools with 75 percent or fewer students who are eligible for the free and red uced - price lunch program and 30 percent or fewer students who are identified as EL students. 

### B.2. **Procedures for the Collection of Information**  To learn more about KEA implementation in the four participating states in the case studies, the study team will engage in four different data collection activities: ( 1) a review of documents (e.g., planning guides, state or local reports, tech nical or training manuals) from the four selected states, ( 2) observations of selected trainings and meetings on how to administer KEAs and how to use KEA results, ( 3) phone interviews with relevant staff at the state and district levels, and ( 4) in - person interviews with relevant staff at the school level. 

### Review of Documents from Four Selected States The study team will gather state and local documents from representatives and key informants from the four participating states, from training events and meetings hosted in the selected sites, and from federal, state, and district websites. The study team will capture essential information from each of the documents using a document review protocol (Appendix E ) . The study team will use the document

2 CCD data are available at https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/elsi/ . 3 Urbanization is determined by the urban - centric locale code in the C CD. The CCD uses four urbanization categories: city, suburb, town, and rural. In addition, the CCD includes four categories to describe the population size of the district’s city or town (i.e., la rge, midsize, small, and fringe). U rban districts will be di stricts that are coded in CCD as c ity large, city midsize, and city small; suburban districts will comprise categories of suburb large, suburb medium, and suburb small; and r ural will comprise districts coded as town fringe, town distant, town remote, r ura l fringe, rural distant, and rural remote.OMB Number and EDICS Tracking Number: (XXXX) 1875 -XXXX

Supporting Statement Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods 5 review protocol to document the types of materials collected, the intended audiences (e.g., parents, teachers, school administrators, or the general public), the sources (e.g., website, training, district representative), and the contents of the documents. The documents reviewed will vary by site but will include , at a minimum :  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 work ing on KEA planning and implementation ;  State and local outreach/communication plans; and  T raining materials. The contents of the reviewed documents will be organized into topics including : ( 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, and accommodations allowed for children with disabilities ), ( 2) information about administration of the KEA (e.g., assessment timeline and frequency, admin istration method s, and information and training support provided to parents, teachers, and school administrators ), and ( 3) use of KEA results (e.g., recipients of KEA results, data storage and tracking procedures, and information provided to parents, teachers, and school administrators ) . All collected documents will be stored on a secure website to facilitate sharing and analysis by the study team . Before all phone interviews and site visits, data collection staff will review background documents on their sites, including state KEA requirements and guidelines, federal applications/proposals, and progress reports that describe KEA plans and activities. This background preparation is essential to use interview time efficiently, to in terpret respondents’ answers, and to probe more deeply on relevant topics. During site visits, interviews, and observations, team members will gather additional documents for review and archiving, as relevant and suggested by key informants. 

### Observations To learn about the types of supports that educators and other KEA assessors receive to build capacity to administer KEAs and use the data to inform practice, the study team will observe a sample of six training sessions and capture their observation data i n a consistent way using the observation protocol (Appendix F ) . When a train -the -trainer model is used, the study team aims to observe both the train the -trainer session and a selected session in which teachers are trained. The observation protocol has bee n designed to record both categorical and descriptive information witnessed in training events. For example, t he o bservation protocol will document the number and roles of training participants and trainers, the duration of the training/meeting, the strate gies used during the training, and any evaluation procedures and findings, as available (e.g., training evalua tion forms). Observers will also provide a descriptive summary of the training event and their perceptions of the quality and impact of the traini ng including participant engagement and interaction , clarity of presentation, and degree of responsiveness to participant needs . The study team will begin scheduling the observations once the Department approves the selected states to participate in the c ase study and the study team has received OMB clearance . At this point, the study team will contact the states to inform them about the study purpose and requirements and to inquire about their districts’ training and implementation schedule. The study tea m will work closely with the selected SEAs to consider a range of suitable trainings to observe in early fall 2014 or springOMB Number and EDICS Tracking Number: (XXXX) 1875 -XXXX

Supporting Statement Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods 6 2015 that represent the range of training models (e.g., train the trainer, instructor led) and training formats (e.g., in person, o nline). 

### Interviews To learn about KEA implementation from various perspectives, study team members grouped within state teams will interview five state - level respondents per state by phone, three district- level respondents per district by phone, and six school - level respondents per school in person (discussed below) , for a total of 200 interviews. I nte rviews will take 45–90 minutes to complete, depending on the respondent, and will be audio - recorded with consent from the participant. **Phone interviews.** Phone interviews will be used for state - level and district- level respondents usi ng the state interview protocol (Appendix G) or district interview protocol (Appendix H) with both structured and semistructured questions . Semistructured and o pen - ended questions will gather rich descriptions of activities, challenges, accomplishments, factors that influenced implementation choices, and lessons learned. Structured questions with discrete response categories will allow for systematic collection of data that can be easily compiled and compared across respondents at the state, district, and school levels. Schedul ing state - level interviews will begin as soon as the study team receives OMB clearance. T he state case study leader will first work with the state early childhood specialist to identify state - level respondents most knowledgeable about KEA decision - making, implementation, and use of data (such as the state superintendent and individuals responsible for state assessments, professional development, and state data systems). A final set of five potential (and two alternate) participants will be nominated, and th e state case study leader will initiate communication with selected participants to gain consent and schedule interviews at convenient times. The state case study lead together with a second study team member will conduct the state - level interviews by phon e using interview protocols for SEA- level respondents. All interviews will be audio - recorded with participant consent and last approximately 90 minutes. The district case study lead will contact the district superintendent to request nominations of three key informants and two alternates (e.g., the superintendent or assistant superintendent of instruction, early learning director, and assessment director or person responsible for overseeing the collection of KEA data ) to participate in district- level interviews. The case study leader will then work with his or her study team to begin the process of communicating with nominated interview participants and scheduling interviews. The district case study leader and a second study team member will conduct the districtlevel interviews together by phone using the district- level staff interview protocol. All interviews will be audiotaped with participant consent and last approximately 60 minutes each. **On -** **site i nterviews.**  After finalizing the selection of schools wi th district staff, the same two study team members who conducted the district interviews will work with the principals at each of the study schools to identify all of their kindergarten teachers and other staff who help administer the KEA in their schools and P reK teachers from P reK programs linked to the selected school sites (e.g., on campus or nearby ) . A sample of names will be drawn from the full list of relevant staff if there are more staff members than needed in a given respondent role. The two study team members will spend one day visiting each case study school ( school visits within the same district will be conducted on consecutive days). At each school, interviews will be conducted with the principal, two kindergarten teachers, two teachers from P reK programs linked to the school , and a test administrator if people other than teachers are involved in collecting KEA data. Interviews will be guided by interview protocols designed for the various school - level staff members : principals (Appendix I) , ki ndergarten teachers (Appendix J) , P reK program directors or teachers (Appendix K) , other testOMB Number and EDICS Tracking Number: (XXXX) 1875 -XXXX

Supporting Statement Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods 7 administrators (Appendix L) . These on - site interviews will last approximately 45 minutes to be sensitive to daily school schedules, and each and will be audio - rec orded with participant consent. During their visit, both study team members will be present at the principal and test administrator interviews, but only one study team member will interview each teacher. Thus, two teachers could be interviewed concurrently . This model has been effective in other studies involving similar site visits to district s and schools. Having a team of staff members conduct the district and principal interviews t ogether provides each study team member with a broader perspective of the district and a similar context for conducting the teacher interviews independently. Fu rthermore, by having study team members interview the teachers and P reK program staff separately, the team can reach more respondents in a cost-effective and time -effici ent manner. If school staff members are not available for interviews at the scheduled site visit, they will be interviewed later by phone. 

### Statistical Methodology and Estimation Procedures The document review, observations, and interviews involve qualitati ve data collection. Statistical methodology is not applicable. The study team will quantify the qualitative data collected when this quantification can be done reliably. 

### Degree of Accuracy Needed The study team will do everything possible to maximize the accuracy of the data collected for each of the case studies. All interviews (subject to the permission of the respondent) will be recorded to improve the accuracy of reporting. Furthermore, site visitors will attend detailed training and will review background information before planning their visit to ensure efficient, consistent, and accurate use of the data collection protocols . Accuracy of analysis will be further facilitated through the use of qualitative re search data analysis software that will support reliability across those involved in coding responses . 

### Use of Periodic Data Collection The team will visit each site only one time. 

### B.3. **Methods for Maximizing Response Rate and Dealing with Nonresponse** SRI has extensive experience in gaining access to states, districts, and schools for research purposes. The study team will use a top - down strategy for recruitment, starting at the state level followed by districts and then schools, and begin recruitment imme diately upon OMB approval. The study team will invest time to thoroughly train all research staff involved in recruitment to clearly describe study purposes and requirements and to gain support and endorsement while being mindful of authority and decision making structures at the state, district, and local levels. Upon receiving OMB approval, study team leaders will send a letter to the state superintendent informing him or her of the state’s inclusion in the study (sample letter in Appendix D ) . Key SEA ad ministrators will be copied on the letter, and study team leaders will contact SEA administrators by email to set up a time to discuss the study (including its importance and value), confirm KEA implementation in fall 2014, answer any questions, and obtain agreement to participate. If no response is received from the SEA contact within 1 week, t he study team leaders will follow up email correspondence with a call to answer the SEA administrators’ questions and to provide further encouragement to participate . The study team will also ask the SEA contact to provide a list of districts implementing the KEA in fall 2014 (if implementation is optional) and to designate which of these districts are at the forefront of KEA implementation. Once the study team selects the three districts to include in the study, the study teamOMB Number and EDICS Tracking Number: (XXXX) 1875 -XXXX

Supporting Statement Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods 8 will ask the SEA contact to help with district and school recruitment by letting the districts know about the study in advance of the study team contacting them. Next, the distr ict study team will contact the district superintendent or assistant superintendent for each district in the sample by email and discuss the study (including its importance and value), confirm KEA implementation in fall 2014, answer district questions, fin d out about any local research approval requirements, and obtain agreement to participate (sample letter in Appendix D ) . If no response is received from the district contact within 1 week, t he district study team leaders will follow up email correspondenc e with a call to answer the district administrators’ questions and to provide further encouragement to participate. If a district declines to participat e, the study team will contact districts on the alternate list. After a district consents to participate, the district study team leader will ask the district superintendent to identify a main district contact with whom the study team will work to identify appropriate staff for the interviews and select and recruit the two schools from the list of potential schools identified by the study team through the sample stratification process described above . If there are local requirements to approve research studies, the study team will follow them and submit the necessary application for conducting research. Once the district has agreed to participate, the study team will ask the district contact to help with school recruitment by letting the school principals know about the study in advance of the study team contacting them. Next, the district study team will cont act the principals at the two target schools by email to describe the study (including its importance and value), confirm KEA implementation in fall 2014, and obtain agreement to participate (sample letter in Appendix D ) . The district study team leaders al so will request a phone call to explain the study, answer the principals’ questions, and discuss the benefits of taking part in the study as well as expected level of effort that will be required of school staff. If the school does not wish to participate, the study team will contact other schools within the district on the alternate list. In small districts where there are no alternate options, the study team may need to recruit a different district from the list of sample districts. In these special cases, the study team will consult the Department to develop an alternative plan. 

### B.4. **Test of Procedures and Methods** The study team will conduct internal piloting of interview protocol items to ensure clarity. Additionally, the study team confirmed that all protocols tie back to the study questions, ensuring the protocols will capture all the necessary information and not ask irrelevant questions . As part of the development process, all interview protocols will be piloted with fewer than 1 0 people and revised on the basis of the testing. In their review of the protocols, TWG members will help identify potential respondents for pilottesting the protocols. It will be important to identify respondents who will not be included in the actual st udy. Therefore, pilot-testing the interview protocol at the state level will require identification of people in a state not selected for the study but that also has a KEA. The study team can supplement TWG members’ suggestions by asking some of the early learning administrators in states implementing KEAs that are not selected for the case studies to help identify potential pilot respondents. For example, SRI staff members have connections with North Carolina and all the states in its KEA- EAG consortium th rough its work with the consortium . Once potential pilot respondents are identified and before using the protocols in the field, study team members will conduct the pilot interviews using a think- aloud technique. Using this strategy, the study team member will ask the interview questions, and pilot respondents will provide answers but also comment on any confusing, inappropriate, or leading questions. The study team will give special attention to the structured questions’ response options to help ensure th ey are clearly understood and provide options that reflect pilot respondents’ experiences. Study team members will take detailedOMB Number and EDICS Tracking Number: (XXXX) 1875 -XXXX

Supporting Statement Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods 9 notes throughout this process, consolidate the findings, and make corresponding changes to the protocols as warranted and agree d on by the project leaders. 

### B.5. **Consultations on Statistical Aspects of the Design** Agency Erica S. Lee, Education Research Analyst, in the Policy and Program Studies Service , Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, at the U.S. Department of Education is the Contracting Officer’s Representative for the study. She can be reached at 202 - 260 - 1463 . 

### Contractors SRI International will be responsible for data collection and analysis, under the direction of Dr. Shari Golan, who can be reached at 6 50 - 859 -4007.OMB Number and EDICS Tracking Number: (XXXX) 1875 -XXXX

Supporting Statement Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods 10 

### References August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2008). Developing reading and writing in second-language learners: Lessons from the Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth . New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates and The International Reading Association. Fry, R. (2008). The role of schools in the English language learner achievement gap . Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center. Halle, T., Forry, N., Hair, E. C., Perper, K., Wandner, L. , Wessel, J., & Vick, J. (2009). Disparities in early learning and development: Lessons from the Early Chilldhood Longitudinal Study - Birth Cohort (ECLS-B) . Washington, DC: Child Trends. Retrieved from http://www.childtrends.org/Files/Child_Trends - 2009_07_10_ES_DisparitiesEL.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2010). The condition of education. Closer look 2010. High -poverty public schools . Washington, DC: U.S. D epartment of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/analysis/2010 - index.asp