1. slide 1

2. slide 2

3. slide 3 Risk to Ready begins with the Early Development Instrument Developed in Canada in 1998 and expanding across US since 2009 through the TECCS network Population-based (results for neighborhoods and schools but not individual children) Teacher-administered (no child involvement or use of class time) Kindergarten level (first comprehensive and comparable assessment under grade 3) Multi-domain (not just “academics”) Evaluations show high reliability, moderate validity, good predictive validity

4. slide 4 EDI Content Bullet points DomainSub-domains Physical health and well-beingPhysical readiness for school day Physical independence Gross and fine motor skills Social competenceOverall competence with peers Respect and responsibility Approaches to learning Readiness to explore new things Emotional maturityPro-social and helping behavior Anxious and fearful behavior Aggressive behavior Hyperactive and inattentive behavior Language and cognitive developmentBasic literacy skills Interest in literacy/numeracy Advanced literary skills Basic numeracy skills Communication skills and general knowledge (no sub-domains)

5. slide 5 Which children? This presentation includes data for the first 2 years of 3 150 teachers in 40 schools Approx. 3,000 students (60% of project area kindergarteners) 87% free or reduced price meals (counts TPS only) 60% attended pre-kindergarten in the same district 18% (552) attended CAP early childhood programs 27% English language learners 7% with Individualized Education Plans

6. slide 6 How EDI Results are Reported Domain results ◦ “Very ready”: scoring at or above the 75 th percentile from the 2010 U.S. sample of nearly 18,000 children ◦ “At risk”: scoring at or below the 10 th percentile from the 2010 national sample ◦ “Somewhat ready”: scoring between 10 th and 75 th percentile Overall results ◦ “Very ready”: scoring very ready on 4 or 5 of the 5 domains ◦ “At risk”: scoring developmentally vulnerable on 2 or more domains

7. slide 7 Tulsa and National Results Note: Participation is voluntary and national results do not necessarily represent all children nationally.

8. slide 8 Domain Results

9. slide 9 Risk by Domain Tulsa vs. National Note: Participation is voluntary and national results do not necessarily represent all children nationally.

10. slide 10 By Family Income (TPS Only, Based on Meal Status)

11. slide 11 By Race (TPS Free Meals Only)

12. slide 12 By Gender

13. slide 13 By Special Education

14. slide 14 Teacher Believes Child has Special Need

15. slide 15 Parent Attended Conference

16. slide 16 By Prekindergarten Pre-K includes CAP and public schools.

17. slide 17 ECE Cumulative Impacts TPS Free Lunch Only *Includes 2 years CAP and 1 year CAP + 1 year public pre-k. **Includes CAP and public pre-k. CAP minimum 90 days per year.

18. slide 18 By CAP Participation TPS Free Lunch Only Participated CAP >=90 days. CAP as 3 and any CAP includes Rosa Parks

19. slide 19 CAP Risk by Domain TPS Free Lunch Only Participated CAP >=90 days. CAP as 3 or any CAP includes Rosa Parks

20. slide 20 Correlation with OCCT We examined the correlation between EDI scores and 3 rd grade OCCT scores in the same year at the school level (not the student level) OCCT scores are more correlated with the EDI Very Ready measure than the At Risk measure Correlation Coefficients 3 rd grade % Proficient or Advanced % At Risk on EDI % Very Ready on EDI Math-0.350.45 Reading-0.240.42

21. slide 21 Correlations by Domain % At Risk by Domain 3 rd grade % Proficient or Advanced Physical health and wellbeing Social competence Emotional maturity Language and cognitive development Communication skills and general knowledge Math-0.32-0.20-0.38-0.29-0.09 Reading-0.21-0.11-0.27-0.23-0.02 % Very Ready by Domain 3 rd grade % Proficient or Advanced Physical health and wellbeing Social competence Emotional maturity Language and cognitive development Communication skills and general knowledge Math0.450.250.020.34 Reading0.400.190.000.300.35

22. slide 22 Next Steps 2012-13—Data coming soon ◦ Finished Tulsa partners ◦ 2 districts in Kay County ◦ 2 districts in SE Oklahoma 2013-14—Transitions ◦ Finished in Tulsa ◦ New partners enrolling in SE ◦ Potential expansion in Kay County 22

23. slide 23 For more information Paul Shinn, Public Policy Analyst, CAP ◦ pshinn@captc.org pshinn@captc.org ◦ (918)855-3638 Cindy Decker, Senior Research Associate for Data & Accountability, CAP ◦ cdecker@captc.org cdecker@captc.org ◦ (918) 382-3294 www.risktoready.org Transforming Early Childhood Community Systems ◦ http://www.teccs.net/ http://www.teccs.net/ 23

24. slide 24