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 P22275.461

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 International
OMB 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. Observation 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 Protocol
OMB 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 Stratifications.......................................................................................... 3

Exhibit 3. Recommended School Stratifications........................................................................................... 3
OMB 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 this study are to document the processes, accomplishments, challenges, and solutions 

of four states implementing 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 implementing 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. The 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 

prekindergarten (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 ten: 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 non–RTT-ELC grantee state (None of these states met all the criteria.)

7. An EAG state (MD, MA, OH)

8. A user of a commercially available KEA assessment tool (e.g., TS-GOLD: CO, MA, WA; WSS: 

MD, MN; and DRDP-SR: IL)

9. A user of a KEA assessment 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 elements. 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). Finally, states are in flux as they 

develop and refine their KEAs. Before finalizing the selection of states, the study team will verify that 
OMB 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 schools1that 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) 

and 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 capture 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 schools 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 students 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 included will be PreK 

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 threecategory 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-povertyenrollment 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 address 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/special 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 six of the nine cells in Exhibit 1. Exhibit 3 shows how the 

distribution of each state’s six schools 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 24
OMB 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 available district and school data for the four selected 

states from the CCD.2The 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 defined 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 Education, 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 defined as schools 

where more than 30 percent of the students are identified as EL students (U.S. Department of 

Education, 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 concentrations—This category will be defined as schools 

with 75 percent or fewer students who are eligible for the free and reduced-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, technical 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 CCD. 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., large, midsize, small, and 

fringe). Urban districts will be districts that are coded in CCD as city large, city midsize, and city small; suburban districts will comprise

categories of suburb large, suburb medium, and suburb small; and rural will comprise districts coded as town fringe, town distant, town 

remote, rural 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 working on KEA planning and implementation;

 State and local outreach/communication plans; and

 Training 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,

administration methods, 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 interpret 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 in 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 trainthe-trainer session and a selected session in which teachers are trained. The observation protocol has 

been designed to record both categorical and descriptive information witnessed in training events. For 

example, the observation protocol will document the number and roles of training participants and 

trainers, the duration of the training/meeting, the strategies used during the training, and any 

evaluation procedures and findings, as available (e.g., training evaluation forms). Observers will also

provide a descriptive summary of the training event and their perceptions of the quality and impact of 

the training 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 case 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 team will work closely 

with the selected SEAs to consider a range of suitable trainings to observe in early fall 2014 or spring 
OMB 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, online). 

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. Interviews 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 using the 

state interview protocol (Appendix G) or district interview protocol (Appendix H) with both structured 

and semistructured questions. Semistructured and open-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. 

Scheduling state-level interviews will begin as soon as the study team receives OMB clearance. The 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 the 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 phone 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 interviews. After finalizing the selection of schools with 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 PreK teachers from PreK 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 PreK 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), kindergarten teachers (Appendix J), PreK program directors or teachers (Appendix K), other test 
OMB 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-recorded 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 districts and 

schools. Having a team of staff members conduct the district and principal interviews together provides 

each study team member with a broader perspective of the district and a similar context for conducting 

the teacher interviews independently. Furthermore, by having study team members interview the 

teachers and PreK program staff separately, the team can reach more respondents in a cost-effective 

and time-efficient 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 qualitative 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 research 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 immediately 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 decisionmaking 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

administrators 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, the 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 team 
OMB 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 district 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, find 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, the district study team leaders will follow up email correspondence with a call to answer the

district administrators’ questions and to provide further encouragement to participate. If a district 

declines to participate, 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 contact 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 

also 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 10 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

study. 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 

through 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 they are clearly understood and 

provide options that reflect pilot respondents’ experiences. Study team members will take detailed 
OMB 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 agreed 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 650-859-4007.
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. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, 

National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from 

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/analysis/2010-index.asp