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 P22275.461

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 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 Information 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 Annual 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 Protocol
OMB 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 Participant........................................................................................... 8

Exhibit 4. Estimated Cost of Participants’ Time ............................................................................................ 9
OMB 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 evaluate the effectiveness of prekindergarten (PreK)

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 available 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 expanded 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 implementation, 

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 grants 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 applications, including use of a KEA that covers all the Essential Domains of School Readiness,

follows guidelines 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 learners and children 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 grant. 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 areas 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 with 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. These
OMB 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 the implementation of KEAs across the nation.

The study’s evaluation questions are organized according to four overarching questions 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 collection 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, content decisions)? 

a. How were various stakeholders engaged in selecting a KEA?

b. For what 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)? What 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 longitudinal 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 practice?

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 decisions?

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 states, 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 Human 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 implementing its KEA in the beginning of kindergarten and not at the exit of 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.

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 user of a commercially 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 websites to 

gather information about the states, school districts, and schools (e.g., demographic data, publicly 

available information on KEA implementation). Second, the study team will use the extant information 

to refine and tailor interview protocols for each site so that the interviews focus only on issues not 

already covered in documents.

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 research 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 Other 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 proposed 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 and 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 implementation. 

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 published 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 administrators 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 Experts in the Technical Work Group

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., across all schools 

in a district) or will be used 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 coordinator”), but no individual, school or district will be named. 

 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 

individual 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, that respondents may cease participation at any time during 

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 

consent 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. 

 Names and addresses will be dissociated from the data as they are entered into the study team’s 

database and will be used 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. Unique 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 authorized 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 file restoration in the event 

of unrecoverable loss of the original data. Backup 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 names. 

Naming the states 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 learner students and students living at 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 privacy 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 results, (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 primarily 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 participating 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 work 
OMB 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 participating. 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 statelevel respondents in each of the four states by phone. The study team will also conduct interviews with 

individuals in three districts within each state and two schools in each of these 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 school 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 

experience 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 

the 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 schoollevels) 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-level participants

State early childhood 

specialist 4 90 6 

Other state-level 

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-level respondents

Superintendent 12 60 12 

Early learning director 12 60 12 

Assessment director 12 60 12 

Administrative assistance in 

providing documents 12 30 6

Administrative assistance in 

scheduling interviews 12 30 6

School-level respondents

Principal 24 45 18 

Kindergarten teachers 48 45 36 

PreK directors/teachers 48 45 36 

Other test administrators 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 valuable, 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

(estimated $)

1

Total Cost

(estimated $)2

State-level respondents

State early childhood specialist 6 45 270

Other state-level respondents (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-level respondents

Superintendent 12 45 540

Early learning director 12 45 540

Assessment director 12 45 540

Administrative assistance in providing 

documents 6 16 96

Administrative assistance in 

scheduling interviews 6 16 96

School-level respondents

Principal 18 45 810

Kindergarten teachers 36 25 900

PreK directors/teachers 36 25 900

Test administrators 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 for the kindergarten 

and preK educators and school-based test administrators were derived from BLS occupation code 25-2010 –

“Preschool and Kindergarten Teachers.” The hourly wages of individuals 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 cost 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. It 
OMB 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 assistance, 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 sessions. 

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 research questions in Appendix A. 

The report will identify cross-site lessons, revealing how practices work on the ground, implementation 

successes 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 participating 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, the 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 characteristics of KEAs: 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. Administration of KEAs: 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 hindered 
OMB 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 and 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 on the Department of Education website. Also, the Department and SRI will identify other 

possible channels for dissemination. The 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. New Brunswick, NJ: Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes.