### 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 A: Justification **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 A: Justification ii 

## Contents A. Justification
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 1 A.1. Circumstances Requiring the Collection of Data
................................ ................................ .... 1 A.2. Purposes and Use of Data
................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 3 A.3. Use of Information Technology to Reduce Burden
................................ ................................ 4 A.4. Efforts to Identify and Avoid Duplication
................................ ................................ ................ 4 A.5. Efforts to Minimize Burden on Small Businesses or Other Entities
................................ ........ 4 A.6. Consequence if the I nformation Is Not Collected or Collected Less Frequently
.................... 4 A.7. Special Circumstances ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 4 A.8 Federal Register Comments and Persons Consulted Outside of Agency.
................................ 4 A.9. Payment to Respondents ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 5 A.10. Assurances of Confidentiality
................................ ................................ ............................... 5 A.11. Justification for Questions of a Sensitive Nature
................................ ................................ .. 6 A13. Estimate of Cost Burden to Respondents ................................ ................................ .............. 8 A14. Estimate of Annualized Costs
................................ ................................ ................................ . 9 A.15. Change in Ann ual Reporting Burden ................................ ................................ ................... 10 A.16. Plans for Tabulation and Publication of Results
................................ ................................ . 10 A.17. Expiration Date Omission Approval ................................ ................................ .................... 11 A. 18. Exceptions ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 11 References
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 12 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 ProtocolOMB Number and EDICS Tracking Number: (XXXX) 1875
-XXXX

Supporting Statement Part A: Justification iii 

## Exhibits Exhibit 1. Evaluation Questions ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 2 Exhibit 2. National Experts in the Technical Work Group ................................ ................................ ............. 5 Exhibit 3. Expected Time Burden by Part icipant ................................ ................................ ........................... 8 Exhibit 4. Estimated Cost of Participants’ Time
................................ ................................ ............................ 9OMB Number and EDICS Tracking Number: (XXXX) 1875
-XXXX

Supporting Statement Part A: Justification 1 

## Supporting Statement, Part A **Paperwork Reduction Act Submission A. Justification**  A.1. Circumstances Requiring the Collection of Data In the last decade, interest has increased in implementing Kindergarten Entry Assessments (KEAs) to better understand individual children’s strengths and needs, plan instruction, pinpoint areas for program improvement and staff development, and evaluat e the effectiveness of prekindergarten (P reK ) programs to inform program planning and improvement. To this end, through the Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge (RTT
- ELC) initiative, the federal government made funds ava ilable for states to propose a comprehensive approach to improving the quality of early childhood education programs, including the use of a KEA. All 20 states that have received RTT- ELC grants to date plan to implement a KEA statewide by the end of their grant. In addition to the RTT
- ELC initiative, the Department’s competition for Enhanced Assessment Grants (EAG) funded three consortia of states to further develop existing KEAs . This exp anded federal funding on KEA development and implementation to another nine states and the District of Columbia. Finally, states that did not receive federal funding are also developing KEAs. However, while many states are working toward KEA adoption and i mplementation, currently “no state in the nation has a complete comprehensive assessment system” ( Schilder & Carolan, 2014 )
. The types of KEAs and their stage of development range within states. For instance, all 14 states that received RTT
- ELC gran ts from the Department plan to implement a statewide KEA by the end of their grant. The first nine states that received RTT- ELC funds agreed to begin implementation of their KEAs by the 2014– 15 school year . Most states from the other RTT- ELC grantee cohorts will implement in later years. All states that received RTT
- ELC funding are required to follow the set of federal guidelines in the RTT- ELC applicat ions, including us e of a KEA that covers all the Essential Domains of School Readiness, follows guidelin es of the National Research Council reports on assessment of young children , is aligned with its state’s Early Learning and Development Standards, and is valid and reliable for the intended purposes and target populations, including English l earners and ch ildren with disabilities and other special needs. The RTT
- ELC also mandates that the KEA be administered during the first few months of kindergarten, the results be reported to statewide data systems, and the KEA be funded in significant part with federal or state resources other than those available under the RTT
- ELC gra nt. However, because the Department does not require a specific assessment tool, mode of administration, teacher training requirements, or ways data and results are shared, great variation in KEA implementation across states is likely to result. The next few years are a critical juncture in the selection and implementation of KEAs. States are making numerous decisions about implementation of selected KEAs, including the selection of the assessment, choices about its administration, and decisions about how the KEA data and results will be used ( Golan, Petersen, & Spiker, 2008 ) . Other a reas that states will consider are the primary purposes each state has identified for its KEAs, what type of KEA to adopt or develop, meeting the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse students and students with disabilities, supporting the administration of the KEA and use of the data produced to inform instruction , how the KEA will become part of a comprehensive assessment system ( Howard, 2011 ) , and ensuring alignment wi th the state’s intended purpose
. The purpose of the KEA implementation case studies is to document the processes, accomplishments, challenges, and solutions of four states implementing KEAs, and to share what state, district, and school personnel have learned with federal and state policymakers, and practitioners in the field. Th eseOMB Number and EDICS Tracking Number: (XXXX) 1875
-XXXX

Supporting Statement Part A: Justification 2 findings will support the technical assistance efforts of the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) regarding t he implementation of KEAs across the nation. The study’s evaluation questions are organized according to four overarching qu estions regarding KEA adoption, implementation, use of results to inform practice and policy, and lessons learned (Exhibit 1). Sub
- questions are intended to inform the development of data collection protocols and report outlines. A matrix of data collecti on protocol items by evaluation question is in Appendix A. 

### Exhibit 1. Evaluation Questions **I. How have KEAs been developed and adopted by four states at the forefront of using KEAs?**  1. How were KEAs developed or chosen (e.g., timeline, participants, con tent decisions)? a. How were various stakeholders engaged in selecting a KEA? b. For w hat key purposes was the KEA selected or developed? c. What key criteria were used in the selection of the KEA (e.g., cost, burden, use with certain populations, connection to a PreK or K–3 assessment)? d. Why did the state choose an existing KEA measure or decide to develop its own (or some components of its own)? 2. What are the characteristics of the specific KEAs selected? a. What skills and domains are assessed? b. What evidence or types of information are collected (e.g., observation, direct assessments, parent report)? c. Is use of the KEA mandatory or optional for districts? What factors led to that decision? 3. Was the KEA pilot
- and field
-tested? If yes, how, and what was learned about its validity and reliability ? 4. How is the KEA funded (both the up
-front cost and the annual cost) ? W hat is the overall and per
-student cost to implement the KEA? How will funding be sustained? **II. How are KEAs being implemented by 12 school districts within four states at the forefront of using KEAs?**  5. What general information and training on the administration of the KEA are provided to teachers, administrators, and parents? a. What types of training models are used? b. How well prepared were people to administer the KEA? What additional support would have been helpful? 6. How are KEAs administered? a. When are KEAs administered? b. Who administers the KEAs, and what training and support did those individuals receive? c. How much time do the KEAs require of district staff, school administrators, and teachers to implement? d. Are families involved in providing information? If so, how? e. How is technology used to support KEA administration and scoring? f. What strategies are used to help ensure that children with disabilities and English learners are accurately assessed? g. What aspects of the KEA implementation are standardized across districts and schools, and what aspects involve local discretion? 7. How are KEA data shared with the state? (e.g., Are results added to a student longi tudinal data system or another permanent student record?) 8. How, if at all, do states and districts monitor and evaluate the implementation of KEAs? **III. How do these four states and their districts and schools use KEA results to inform policy and prac** **tice?** 9. Who receives the results of the KEAs (e.g., parents, PreK educators, kindergarten teachers, principals and early childhood administrators, the SEA)? a. What information do they receive about the results? b . Who has access to results and in what form and on what schedule? 10. What supporting information or training do stakeholders receive to help them interpret or use the results? 11. How do various stakeholders use KEA results? a. How aware of KEAs are PreK programs and teachers (including PreK, Head Start, community
- based PreK programs, child care)? Do KEAs inform PreK program improvement? b. How, if at all, do teachers use KEA results to inform their classroom practice?OMB Number and EDICS Tracking Number: (XXXX) 1875
-XXXX

Supporting Statement Part A: Justification 3 c. How, if at all, do principals use KEA results to inform decisions at the school level (e.g., classroom assignment for individual children, budget allocations, curriculum, or professional development)? d. How, if at all, do districts use KEA results to inform curriculum or professional development? e. How, if at all, do states review and use KEA results by student demographic characteristics, school district, or by PreK program? f. How, if at all, do states use KEA results to inform PreK policy, curriculum, or other programmatic dec isions? 12. Are there any policies regarding how KEA data should not be used (e.g., determine promotion or prevent kindergarten entry in any way)? If so, how are these policies communicated and enforced? **IV. What lessons did states, districts, and**  **schools learn about KEA adoption, implementation, and uses?** 13. What lessons can states learn about KEA adoption? For example, what processes were helpful , and what challenges needed to be overcome? 14. What lessons can states, districts, and schools learn about KEA implementation? For example, what implementation challenges were reported by state, district, and school staff, and what efforts did staff undertake to overcome them ? 15. What lessons can sta tes, districts, and schools learn about using KEA results to inform policy and practice?


### A. 2. Purposes and Use of Data The purpose of the case studies is to document the processes, accomplishments, challenges, and solutions of four states at the forefront of implementing KEAs and to share what they have learned with federal and state policymakers and the field. In consultation with the Departments of Education and Health and H uman Services, the study team used the following criteria to narrow down the number of states for inclusion in the study : 1. The state’ s KEA covers all five domains of school readiness. 2. The state is imp lementing its KEA in the beginning of kindergarten and not at the exit of PreK. 3. The state is planning to be in full implem entation of KEA by fall 2014. 4. The state is not part of the No rth 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 t heir KEA as part of their KEA
- EAG. 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. A RTT- ELC grantee 6. A non– RTT- ELC grantee state, if possible 7. A EAG state 8. A u ser of a commerciall y available KEA assessment tool 9. A user of a KEA developed by the state The number of states, districts, and schools follows the guidelines set by the Department in their original performance work statement. The data collected during this study will support the Department’s technical assistance efforts and inform KEA efforts across the nation.OMB Number and EDICS Tracking Number: (XXXX) 1875
-XXXX

Supporting Statement Part A: Justification 4 

### A. 3. Use of Information Technology to Reduce Burden The study team will use information technology to reduce burden on selected states, school districts, and schools in two ways. First, the study team will access state, district, and/or local school web sites to ga ther information about the states, school districts, and schools (e.g
. , demographic data, publicly available information on KEA implementation ). Second , the study team will use th e extant information to refine and tailor interview protocols for each site so that the interviews focus only on issu es not already covered in docume nts. To schedule interviews, the study team will communicate with potential state, district, and school
- level respondents primarily via email. The study team will digitally record phone and in
- person interviews with the permission of the respondent
. The recordings will help reduce errors in field notes by capturing respondents’ verbatim responses, thereby minimizing the study team members’ requests for clarifications after the site visit. 

### A. 4. Efforts to Identify and Avoid Duplication There is limited rese arch on KEA implementation and there are no federal collection efforts that collect the level of detailed information that this study will collect
. The study team will work closely with the relevant offices within the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services to ensure that this collection does not duplicate any upcoming data collection efforts. 

### A. 5. Efforts to Minimize Burden on Small Businesses or O ther Entities The study team anticipates no burden on small businesses because data collection will be limited to state and local education agencies and schools. 

### A . 6. Consequence if the Information Is Not Collected or Collected Less Frequently If the propo sed information is not collected, the federal government will miss the opportunity to provide timely and practical information to local and state policymakers and school and district personnel on the implementation of KEAs, including what is working well a nd the challenges associated with this work and strategies for overcoming them
. The federal government will also lose the opportunity to have information that may help it provide more targeted and effective technical assistance to states on KEA implementat ion. 

### A. 7. Special Circumstances This information collection will not be conducted in a manner that will require using any special circumstances . 

### A. 8 Federal Register Comments and Persons Consulted Outside of Agency. a **. Federal Register Announcement.**  A 60
- day notice to solicit public comments was pu blished in the Federal Register. Once the notice is available, a copy will be inserted in Appendix B . **b. Consultation Outside the Agency** **.** SRI intends to receive consultation through a technical work group (TWG ) of five national experts with knowledge of assessment of young children, transition and school readiness, bilingual development and diverse cultures, and assessment of children with disabilities and other special needs, as well as through school administ rators and kindergarten and PreK teachers (see Exhibit 2)
. The TWG will meet in person twice. These national experts will review and make recommendations on the case study design, data collection tools, and the final report .OMB Number and EDICS Tracking Number: (XXXX) 1875
-XXXX

Supporting Statement Part A: Justification 5



### Exhibit 2. **National Expert** **s in**  **the Technical Work G**  **roup Name**  **Professional Affiliation** Samuel J. Meisels Director, Buffet Early Childhood Institute, University

of Nebraska Megan McClelland Associate Professor, College of Public Health and

Human Sciences, University of Oregon Eugene Garcia Professor Emeritus, Arizona State University Mary McLean Professor and Director of the Early Childhood

Research Center, University of Wisconsin
- Milwaukee Jason Sachs Director of Early Childhood, Boston Public Schools 

### A. 9. Payment to Respondents No payment to respondents will be offered. 

### A. 10. Assurances of Confidentiality The study team will adhere to federal rules regarding the protection of human subjects in research. The study team has a duty to protect all information but particularly anything sensitive or potentially embarrassing to individuals. The following provisions will apply on this project:
 Responses to this data collection will be summarized in an aggregate manner ( e.g. , a cross all schools in a district ) or will be use d to provide examples of KEA implementation in a manner that does not associate responses with a specific individual. The study team may refer to the generic title of an individual (e.g., " district KEA coordin ator”) , but no individual , school or district will be name d .  As part of the case study training, all members of the study team will be trained on data confidentiality. Specifically, the study team members will be trained on how to store data without indiv idual names and how to discuss interview and other case study data only within a team context for analysis purposes.  As part of obtaining consent, study team members will inform each respondent that his or her participation in the project is voluntary, th at respondents may cease participation at any time dur ing the interview, and that their individual responses will be kept confidential , except as may be required by law . The study team will provide this information orally as well as in writing in the conse nt form. All respondents will be asked to sign the relevant consent form ( see Appendix C for a copy of the interview participant consent form )
.  The voluntary nature of project participation, the confidentiality provisions, and consent forms are subject to and overseen by SRI’s Human Subjects Committee for human subjects research.  All electronic data will be stored on SRI’s secure server. Access to the server is password protected, with required changes at regular intervals and strong password elements. Each user’s access is limited, determined by the network administrator.  N ames and addresses will be dissociated from the data as they are entered i nto the study team ’s database and will be use d for data collection purposes only. A unique identification number will be assigned to individuals and sites as data are collected that will be used in printouts that display the data and analysis files. U nique identification numbers will also be used for linking data
. No names,OMB Number and EDICS Tracking Number: (XXXX) 1875
-XXXX

Supporting Statement Part A: Justification 6 addresses, or other information that could connect the individual to responses will be used in interview write
- ups or case study reports . The study team will not provide information that associates responses or findings with a subject or district to anyone outside the study team.  All electronic recordings of interviews, interview notes, and other project
- related documents will be stored in secure areas that are accessible only to authoriz ed staff members.  All interview notes, forms, and other hard
- copy documents containing identifiable data will be shredded as soon as the need for this hard copy no longer exists.  All basic computer files will be backed up on secure servers to allow for fil e restoration in the event of unrecoverable loss of the original data. B ackup files will be stored under secure conditions in an area separate from the location of the original data. Because the objective of the project is to provide information that is useful to other practitioners or policymakers striving to improve KEA implementation , it would be valuable to disclose the state name s . Naming the state s will be helpful to others who want to learn more about how the KEA has been implemented and explore whether they might adopt or adapt the strategies or practices to their local contexts. However, as noted above, no individual, school , or district will be named . As the lead in the data collection for the study, SRI will adhere to the Multiple Projects Assurance with the Office of Protection from Research Risks (OPRR) maintained by SRI. SRI's Assurance number is M - 1088 . SRI’s Human Subjects Committee is its official Institutional Review Board charged with responsibility for the review and approval of all research involving human subjects. SRI clears all data collection protocols through the internal Human Subjects Committee as a safeguard to protect the rights of research subjects. 

### A. 11. Justification for Questions of a Sensitive Nature The data collection instruments do not include sensitive questions. However, given that the subpopulation of concern includes English l earner students and students living a t various levels of poverty, it is possible that information on students’ financial, family, and social needs may arise during data collection. In SRI’s experience, teachers and administrators are very careful not to disclose confidential information because they deal with student p rivacy concerns daily. The study team will remind them at the beginning of interviews not to provide sensitive information about themselves or others by name. 

### A . 12. Estimate of Information Collection Burden As described , this request relates to four different data collection activities : ( 1) collection and review of documents (e.g., planning guides, state or local reports, technical or training manuals) , ( 2) observations of selected trainings and meetings on how to administer KEAs and how to use their result s, ( 3) phone interviews with relevant staff at the state and district levels, and (4) in
- person interviews with staff at the school level. The document review and observations should impose a minimal burden on respondents. The document review will primari ly involve collecting state and local documents from websites (e.g., KEA plans and requirements, overviews, reports, and training materials), from the Department (e.g., RTT
- ELC proposals and progress reports), and from key informants from the four particip ating states, districts, and schools (e.g., general information, training materials, and sample reports about KEA results) and materials from observed training events . Observations of trainings should also impose minimal burden on respondents. The study team will reach out to states and districts to gather a list of trainings that might be suitable for observations and workOMB Number and EDICS Tracking Number: (XXXX) 1875
-XXXX

Supporting Statement Part A: Justification 7 with districts and schools to obtain necessary permission to conduct the observations of trainings in which their staff are particip a ting. The study team will observe one to two training sessions per state (a total of six training sessions across the four states ). The study team will be unobtrusive (i.e., quietly observe, take notes, and collect training materials ) and will not interview anyone during the visit . To learn about KEA implementation from various perspectives, the study team will interview five state
level respondents in each of the four states by phone. The study team will also conduct interviews with individuals in three di stricts within each state a nd two schools in each of the se three districts for a total of six schools per state. At the district
- level, the study team will speak with three participants per district by phone and six school
- level participants per scho ol in person. Across all levels, the study team will conduct a total of 200 interviews. Gathering different perspectives from all levels of participation is critical for the study team to understand, authenticate, and convey how different system actors experien ce the implementation of the KEAs. For instance, a state official could discuss how the state intended for kindergarten teachers to use KEA data to inform their classroom practice. However, the kindergarten teachers of that state may not be using the data in the intended way because of a lack of training or logistical problems associated with the reporting of results. If interviews were conducted only with the state officials, data collection would not adequately capture and triangulate information about th e kindergarten teachers’ challenges. In addition to the burden placed on participants that will be interviewed, there will be administrative burden on individuals ( e.g. administrative assistants and secretaries, at the state, district, and school
levels ) to assist the study team in collecting relevant documents for review, setting up interviews with participants, and scheduling observations. Exhibit 3 displays the projected time burden on the various participants .OMB Number and EDICS Tracking Number: (XXXX) 1875
-XXXX

Supporting Statement Part A: Justification 8



### Exhibit **3 . Expected**  **Time Burden**  **by Participant**  **Participant Number of**  **Participants Time per**  **Participant (minutes)**  **Total Time Burden (hours)**  **State -**  **l evel**  **participants** State e arly c hildhood s pecialist 4 90 6 Other state - l evel respondents (e.g., state superintendent, director of assessment, director of professional development, and state data systems director) 16 90 24

Administrative assistance in providing documents 4 30 2 Administrative assistance in scheduling interviews 4 30 2 Administrative assistance in scheduling observations 4 60 4 **District -**  **l evel**  **r espondents**  Superintendent 12 60 12 Early l earning d irector 12 60 12 Assessment d irector 12 60 12 Administrative assistance in providing documents 12 30 6 Administrative assistance in scheduling interviews 12 30 6 **School -**  **l evel**  **r espondents**  Principal 24 45 18 Kindergarten t eachers 48 45 36 Pre K directors/t eachers 48 45 36 Other t est a dministrators 24 45 18 Administrative assistance in providing documents 24 30 12 Administrative assistance in scheduling interviews 24 60 24 **Total 284**  **230 hours**  

### A13. Estimate of Cost Burden to Respondents Although respondents suffer no direct monetary costs for this activity, their time is valuab le, as estimated in Exhibit 4 . The salary used to calculate hourly rates for each group of respondents is based on Bureau of Labor Statistics data from May 2012.OMB Number and EDICS Tracking Number: (XXXX) 1875
-XXXX

Supporting Statement Part A: Justification 9



### Exhibit **4 . Estimated Cost of**  **Participants ’ Time**  **Participant Total**  **Time Burden**  **(hours) Hourly Wage**  **( e**  **stimated $**  **) 1**  **Total Cost** 

**(estimated $) 2**  **State -**  **l evel**  **r espondents**  State e arly c hildhood s pecialist 6 45 270 Other state - l evel r espondents (e.g., state superintendent, director of assessment, director of professional development, and state data systems director) 24 45 1,080 Administrative assistance in providing documents 2 16 32 Administrative assistance in scheduling interviews 2 16 32 Administrative assistance in scheduling observations 4 16 64 **District -**  **l evel**  **r espondents**  Superintendent 12 45 540 Early l earning d irector 12 45 540 Assessment d irector 12 45 540 Administrative assistance in providing documents 6 16 96 Administrative assistance in scheduling interviews 6 16 96 **School -**  **l evel**  **r espondents**  Principal 18 45 810 Kindergarten t eachers 36 25 900 PreK directors/t eachers 36 25 900 Test a dministrators 18 25 450 Administrative assistance in providing documents 12 16 192 Administrative assistance in scheduling interviews 24 16 384 **Total 230**  **hours $6,926** 
1 All estimates are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) , data.bls.gov, retrieved on April 24, 2014. The hourly wages of state
- level and district
- level respondents and principals were all derived from BLS occupation code 11
- 9032 – “Education Administrators, Elementary and Secondary Schools . ” The hourly wages fo r the kindergarten and preK educators and school
- based test administrators were d erived from BLS occupation code 25
- 2010 – “Preschool and Kindergarten Teachers.” The hourly wages of indi viduals providing administrative assistance were all derived from BLS occupation code 43
- 6014 – “Secretaries and Administrative Assistants, Except Legal, Medical, and Executive.” 2 Costs are rounded to the nearest dollar . There is no capital or start
- up co st component to these data collection activities, nor is there a total operation, maintenance, or purchase cost associated with the study. 

### A14. Estimate of Annualized Costs The estimated annualized cost of the study to the federal government is $402,132 . This estimate is based on the total contract cost of $ 871,286, amortized over a 26
- month performance period. ItOMB Number and EDICS Tracking Number: (XXXX) 1875
-XXXX

Supporting Statement Part A: Justification 10 includes costs already invoiced, plus budgeted future costs that will be charged to the government for the study redesign, sampling, data collection, analysis, and reporting. 

### A. 15. Change in Annual Reporting Burden This is a new study/data collection. 

### A. 16. Plans for Tabulation and Publication of Results Two types of reports will be generated from the study, a set of internal state
- level reports and an external cross
-state report. The study team will produce four state - level summary reports for internal use by the Department for informing technical assist ance, and by the study team to highlight potential key themes for the final report. The state
- level reports will integrate data from the document reviews; interviews with state, district, and school staff; and the study team ’ s observations of training sess ions . The study team will also prepare a publicly available final, cross
-state report on lessons from the field that will integrate the results from all data collection activities by the res earch questions in Appendix A . The report will identify cross
-sit e lesson s, revealing how practices work on the ground, implementation success es and challenges, and contextual factors that indicate the applicability of the lessons learned to other states and contexts. An introductory section will briefly describe the pa rticipating states, with more demographic details at the state, district, and school levels supplied in an appendix. Although other themes will likely emerge from the data analysis and reviews by the Department and TWG members, t he final report is expected to contain the following sections :

**Executive Summary:** Summary of the study methods and findings, including a table summarizing key findings from each participating state
. **Chapter 1. Background information**  : The background and need for the study, including the context and interest in KEA assessments, the research questions, and the research design and analysis methods ; short description of each participating state’s demographic profile and KEA implementation status . **Chapter 2. Selection ,**  **development, and ch aracteristics**  **of KEA s**  : A description and analysis of cross - cutting themes and variations in selection and adoption of the KEA that considers how and why the KEA was selected, modified , or created; the goals of using the KEA; the engagement of stakeholders in the selection process; constructs and content measured and types of evidence collected; validity with diverse learners; piloting and field
-testing of the KEA; and funding levels and strategies to implement and sustain the use of KEA
. **Chapter 3. Adminis tration of KEA** **s** : An account of the differences and similarities in implementation of the KEAs across states. This includes training for administrators and teachers on KEA administration, timing of the assessments, who collects data , amount of time spent on KEA administration, involvement of families in providing data, use of technology for implementation , strategies for accurately assessing diverse learners, consistency of use of KEA across districts and states, process for submitting KEA data to the state, and monitoring of KEA implementation. **Chapter 4. Use of KEA data** : Comparisons and contrasts in the ways results are shared with various stakeholders, training and supports for using KEA results, the use of data by various stakeholders, and safeguards to prevent misuse. **Chapter 5. Lessons learned**  **and implications** : Lessons learned from the case studies on state, district, and school efforts to implement KEAs, including factors that supported and hinderedOMB Number and EDICS Tracking Number: (XXXX) 1875
-XXXX

Supporting Statement Part A: Justification 11

KEA implementation, and implications for policymakers, the Department’s technical advisors, assessment developers, early childhood administrators and teachers, and researchers, and next steps in KEA implementation . To be useful to busy district leaders and state policymakers, the report will be practical an d user friendly. Key findings will be distilled, stated clearly and succinctly, and supported with sufficient information to give readers confidence in the findings without overwhelming them with too many details and examples. Practical information such as challenges specific cases faced and their attempts to overcome them and how KEA data were used to inform policy and practice will also provide practitioners with a range of ideas to consider for their own districts and schools. The report will be posted o n the Department of Education website . Also, the Department and SRI will identify other possible channels for dissemination
. T he planned release date for the final report is February 26, 2016 . 

### A. 17. Expiration Date Omission Approval Not applicable. All data collection instruments will include the OMB data control number and data collection expiration date. 

### A. 18. Exceptions Not applicable. No exceptions are requested.OMB Number and EDICS Tracking Number: (XXXX) 1875
-XXXX

Supporting Statement Part A: Justification 12 

### References Golan, S., Petersen, D., & Spiker, D. (2008). Kindergarten assessment process planning report. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Howard, E. C. (2011). Moving forward with kindergarten readiness assessment efforts: A position paper of the Early Childhood Education State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards. Retrieved from http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Publications/ Moving_Forward_with_Kindergarten_Readiness_Assessment_Efforts.html Schilder, D., & Carolan, M. (2014). State of the States policy snapshot: State early childhood assessment policies . Ne w Brunswick, NJ: Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes.