monitoring community progress on school readiness :

Monitoring community progress on School

Readiness: The Early

Development Instrument

World Bank, May 2008

Early years matter:They set the stage for further development

Overview School readiness and the EDI School readiness as a child-level indicator

Uses of the EDI data International data

Readiness to learn concept

All children are born ready to learn:

the neurosystem is pre-programmed to develop various skills and neuropathways, depending on the experience it receives.

Readiness for schoolRefers to the child’s ability to meet the task demands of school, such as:

being comfortable exploring and asking questions,

listening to the teacher, playing and working with other children, remembering and following rules.

In short, it is the ability to benefit from the educational activities that are provided by the school.

Reliably reflects a broad concept of development Population level indicator Useful at macro and micro-levels

School readiness is an indicator of child development in a community

Domains of school readiness

Physical health and well-being Social competence Emotional maturity Language and cognitive development Communication skills and general knowledge

Early Development Instrument (EDI)

Allows to put child development outcome at the same indicator level as birth rate or survival

Completed by teacher (early childhood educator)

104 items grouped into five domains

Context sections relevant to the local context

Items adaptable to the local language/context

Purposes of the EDI

Report on populations of children in different communities

Monitor populations of children over time

Predict how children will do in elementary school

Physical Health and Well-being

SUBDOMAINS Physical readiness for school day

- e.g., arriving to school hungry Physical independence- e.g., having well-coordinated movements Gross and fine motor skills- e.g., being able to manipulate objects

Social CompetenceSUBDOMAINS Overall social competence- e.g., ability to get along with other children

Responsibility and respect- e.g., accept responsibility for actions Approaches to learning- e.g., working independently Readiness to explore new things- e.g., eager to explore new items

Emotional MaturitySUBDOMAINS Pro-social and helping behaviour

- e.g., helps other children in distress Anxious and fearful behaviour- e.g., appears unhappy or sad Aggressive behaviour- e.g., gets into physical fights Hyperactivity and inattention- e.g., is restless

Language and Cognitive Development

SUBDOMAINS Basic literacy- e.g., able to write own name Interest in literacy/numeracy and memory

- e.g., interested in games involving numbers Advanced literacy- e.g., able to read sentences Basic numeracy- e.g., able to count to 20

Communication Skills and General Knowledge

(No subdomains)Ability to clearly communicate one’s own needs and understand others

Clear articulation Active participation in story-telling (not necessarily with good grammar and syntax)

Interest in general knowledge about the world

Reliability and validity

Reliability and validity

Basic psychometric properties (Janus & Offord 2007)

Predictive validity (data from Quebéc, BC, and Ontario, also LSAC)

Cultural relevance and validity

Factors increasing the vulnerability risk

Child health (low) 2.35 Gender (boy) 2.32 Income (low) 2.02 Family status (not intact)1.83 Age (younger half) 1.36 Literacy (looking at books) 1.35

Parent smoking 1.29

Janus & Duku, 2007

Predictor of Grade 1 achievement

% variance (Total)

EDI to Grade 1 33.8% (33.8%) EDI above age, sex, SES 23% (36%) EDI above direct cognitive,language and “readiness” screen5% (50%)

Source: Forget-Dubois et al. 2007

The Cost of Vulnerability: Percent ‘Failing to meet expectations’ & Percent ‘Not Passing’ on Grade 4 FSA’s

# of Vulnerabilities % Failing to meet % Not passing (kindergarten) expectations

Numeracy0 7.5 12.31 11.8 22.22-3 18.7 33.84-5 27.5 55.6

Reading0 13.6 17.81 26.7 33.92-3 29.5 43.14-5 48.4 68.3 Hertzman 2008

Vulnerability on EDI and Grade 6 outcomes

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Reading Writing Math

012 or more

Percentage of Grade 6 students not meeting provincial standards in relation to number of vulnerabilities in Kindergarten (EDI)TDSB, 2007

N of domains with low scores:

Reflects a broad concept of development Population level indicator Useful at macro and micro-levels


Some Canadian data on the EDI

Not ready: children who score low in one or more of the five domains of the EDI

“Low” - in the lowest 10 percent of the population within their site

Specific for domain Specific for site Norms available for comparison

Readiness to Learn at School by Family Income (N=2039)

05

10152025303540

very poor poor not poor well-off

% vulnerable

Source: NLSCY/UEY 1999-2000; EDI 1999-2000

31.929.1

23.1

13.7

%

School readiness and Grade 3 by neighbourhood affluence

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Lowest20%

21-40% 41-60% 61-80% Above80%

Neighbourhood Affluence

Per

cent

Mean % vulnerable in kgtn

Reading

Writing

Math

% below standard in Grade 3 in:

% vulnerable in kindergarten

0

510

15

20

2530

35

Lowest25%

25-50% 51-75% Over75%

Community 1

%

0

510

15

20

2530

35

Lowest25%

25-50% 51-75% Over75%

Community 2

Neighbourhood affluence

Reflects a broad concept of development Population level indicator Useful at macro and micro-levels


Information from the EDI

Average scores for groups of children in five domains/16 subdomains

Percentages of children who are at risk for not doing well in school:

- for each domain- overall

Percentage of Students Vulnerable on One or More scales of the EDI Based on Provincial cutoffs, Wave 1

Percentage of Students Vulnerable on One or More Scales of the EDI Based on Provincial cutoffs, Wave 2

3. Community asset mapping

The AEDI community planning process

1. Identifying areas of particular need

e.g. Mission Australia funds 3 year play group, language program & mums group at school

4. Mobilising community action

2. Assessing the local distribution of children’s developmental vulnerability

Ways to use the EDI - basic info

Aggregation of results Macro-level: global picture for a city, state, country

Micro-level: schools, neighbourhoods, non-geographic communities

Ways to use the EDI - comparisons

Geographic areas Identified groups Groups based on program attendance Comparisons of the range of scores- Example: average % vulnerable- Community 1 22% 5.7% to 26.5%- Community 2 28% 10.5% to 46.7%

Macro-level indicators (e.g., GDP) Country, city, etc. statistics (e.g., education)

Differences among areas in outcomes for youth or adults (e.g., school drop-out, PISA, adult employment)

Environmental and geographical variables (local: e.g., parks, and global: e.g., pollution)

Cultural differences (e.g., type of nutrition, promotion of independence)

Ways to use the EDI - associations

Neighbourhood-level indicators of risk: socioeconomic, environmental, developmental

Example: Social Risk Index - a sum of risk (1) or no risk (1) level at 9 characteristics

0-2 low SRI, 3-6 moderate SRI, 7-9 high SRI

Combination of SRI and EDI results

Ways to use the EDI - associations

Toronto

Montréal

Can the EDI be adapted?

Used in several other countries with minimal changes

Subscale identification allows for valid shortening

Room for adjusting items to ensure relevance to local context

EDI Internationally Translated/adapted in: Australia, Chile, Egypt, Holland, Indonesia, Jamaica, Jordan, Kenya, Kosovo, Mexico, Moldova, Mozambique, New Zealand, Turkey, US (Washington state counties, currently further adaptation ongoing through UCLA)

Translated: China

Steps in adapting to local context

Experts’ feedback regarding the relevance of items

Possible change: within limits of the subdomains for comparability

Pilot implementation with teachers/ECE

Local validity assessment

Requirements for implementation

Entire groups of children are involved

Respondents know the child in an early learning setting

Respondents capable of interpreting the questions:

- minimal training - provision of a written interpretation “guide”

Social Competence – Overall Social Competence

Canada 2000/04

Normative

Jamaica

2005

Australia2003

Chile

2004

Seattle

2004Overall social/emotional dev

0.712 0.580 0.619 0.567

0.736

Gets along with peers 0.738 0.554 0.667 0.559

0.575

Cooperative 0.610 0.550 0.558 0.508

0.690

Plays with various children

0.559 0.555 0.534 0.432

0.666

Self-confidence 0.319 0.412 0.242 0.269

0.349

Cronbach’s alpha 0.862 0.818 0.837 0.807

0.878

% Variation explained 66.47 60.16 61.53 58.79

69.00

Emotional Maturity – Anxious & Fearful Behaviour

Canada Jamaica

Australia

Chile

Seattle

Upset when left 0.205 0.213 0.208 0.111

0.206

Seems unhappy 0.345 0.540 0.386 0.460

0.361

Fearful 0.588 0.459 0.597 0.596

0.530

Worried 0.576 0.449 0.574 0.561

0.576

Cries a lot 0.279 0.181 0.285 0.367

0.297

Nervous 0.360 0.307 0.455 0.455

0.390

Indecisive 0.235 0.291 0.276 0.364

0.247

Shy 0.197 0.405 0.284 0.332

0.156

Cronbach’s alpha 0.808 0.798 0.839 0.834

0.803


44.94

Language & Cognitive Development –interest literacy/numeracy & memory

Canada Jamaica

Australia

Chile

Seattle

Handles a book 0.370 0.405 0.357 0.310

0.249

Identifies letters 0.441 0.390

0.422 0.437

0.338

Sounds to letters 0.218 0.421 0.188 0.272

0.168

Write own name 0.611 0.645 0.593 0.481

0.558

Experiments writing 0.594 0.601 0.587 0.492

0.548

Cronbach’s alpha 0.779 0.807 0.751 0.784

0.705


48.89

Relationship of the EDI with SES indicators

-Canada: low-income cut-off (4 categories)

-Australia: disadvantage index (6 categories)

-Jamaica: Asset Index (# assets) – quartiles

-Kosovo: household financial situation in relation to ability to buy food and clothes (4 categories)

-Mexico: Asset Index - 4 categories

Canada: % vulnerable by SES

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

very poor poor not poor well-off

% vulnerable

Source: NLSCY/UEY 1999-2000; EDI 1999-2000

31.9 29.123.1

13.7

%

Australia: % vulnerable by SES

35.327.6 26.3 24

18.711.2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Bottom10%

10-25% 25-50% 50-75% 75-90% Top 90%

% vulnerable

%

Jamaica: % vulnerable by SES

% Vu

lner

able

SES

47.4

34.2

21.1 18.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

% vulnerable

Kosovo: % vulnerable by SES

% Vu

lner

able

56.3

43.2 4030.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

% vulnerable

Mexico: % vulnerable by SES%

Vuln

erab

le

27.3 23.917.5 16.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Very poor Poor Not poor Poor

% vulnerable

Reminder….

• [email protected]

• www.offordcentre.com/readiness

For more information:

monitoring community progress on school readiness :

Documents