EARLY DEVELOPMENT INSTRUMENT (EDI) NATIONAL SUMMARY OF EDI RESULTS

Transcription

1 EARLY DEVELOPMENT INSTRUMENT (EDI) NATIONAL SUMMARY OF EDI RESULTS 2011

2 Executive Summary The Early Development Instrument (EDI) was developed by Dan Offord and Magdalena Janus at the Offord Centre for Child Studies at McMaster University in Canada. The EDI has 103 core items and is an observational checklist based on recall that is completed by kindergarten teachers on each child in their class in the second half of the school year. Information collected using the EDI is reported at a group level (e.g. for a neighborhood) and is never reported on individual children or used as a screening or diagnostic tool for children. The EDI contains five core developmental domains: 1) Physical Health and Well-being 2) Social Competence 3) Emotional Maturity 4) Language and Cognitive Development 5) Communication Skills and General Knowledge This report provides a summary of participation rates in the 2011 EDI, descriptive characteristics of participating children, and EDI results for all of the sites combined. Key findings include: Participation: Sixty-seven school districts and 226 schools participated in the 2011 EDI. Eightysix percent of participating schools were public schools. Key demographics: The mean age was almost 6 years. The largest proportion of participants was Hispanic, Latino/a (48%), 44% spoke a language other than English as their first language, and 46% were an English Language Learner (ELL). Developmental vulnerability: Overall, 16% of children were vulnerable on two or more domains. 1

3 I. Participation Table 1 highlights how many school districts and schools participated in the 2011 EDI. 1 Additionally, Table 1 shows the number of EDI questionnaires collected, and the number and percent of EDIs that were valid for analysis. For a child s EDI record to be valid for analysis: a) Child must have been in the classroom for more than one month; and b) The EDI must have at least four of the five domains completed by the kindergarten teacher. All of the remaining tables in this document refer to EDI records that were valid for analysis. Table 2 shows participation by school type, and Table 3 lists the number and percent of EDI questionnaires by site. Table 1. Participation in the EDI (2011) Number of participating school districts 67 Number of participating schools 226 Number of EDI questionnaires collected 18,159 Number and percent of EDI questionnaires valid for analysis 17,557 (97%) Table 2. Participation in the EDI by School Type (2011) Private, church-related 81 (0.5%) Public 15,184 (86%) Public, charter 2,261 (13%) Public, magnet 31 (0.2%) Total 17,557 Table 3. EDI Questionnaires by Site (2011) Sites Austin, TX 1,387 (8%) Calhoun, MI 1,708 (10%) Hattiesburg, MS 663 (4%) Magnolia Place, Los Angeles, CA 622 (4%) New Orleans, LA 351 (2%) Orange County, CA 5,170 (29%) Pacoima, Los Angeles, CA 1,365 (8%) South Los Angeles, CA 290 (2%) Spokane, WA 654 (4%) Tampa, FL 263 (2%) Tulsa, OK 1,582 (9%) Ventura, CA 832 (5%) Wayne County, MI 2,670 (15%) All sites combined 17,557 1 Data collected in 2010 was included for sites that had schools that did not participate in 2011 in order to create a more complete picture of the community results. 2

4 II. Descriptive Characteristics of Participants Table 4 includes data on the children that participated in the 2011 EDI data collection effort. We report on gender, mean child age, race/ethnicity, child s first language, English Language Learner (ELL) status, enrollment in the Individualized Education Program (IEP) for children with disabilities, and whether the child was in non-parental child care on a regular basis in the year prior to kindergarten. Note that the N for each characteristic may be lower than the total (N=17,557) due to missing data. Table 4. Descriptive Characteristics of Children Participating in 2011 EDI Gender Male 9,013 (51%) Female 8,533 (49%) Mean age 5 years, 11 months Race/ethnicity African American, Black 3,865 (22%) Asian, Native Hawaiian,or other Pacific Islander 659 (4%) Hispanic, Latino/a 8,304 (48%) White 3,516 (20%) Other 1,063 (6%) First language English 9,849 (56%) Spanish 6,845 (39%) Other 837 (5%) English Language Learner (ELL) status No 9,421 (54%) Yes 8,131 (46%) Individualized Education Program (IEP) status No 16,159 (93%) Yes 1,240 (7%) Non-parental care in year prior to kindergarten No 5,996 (34%) Yes 6,403 (36%) Don t know 5,146 (29%) Total 17,557 Data Source: School district for age and race/ethnicity; teacher-reported EDI Checklist for gender, first language, ELL status, IEP status, and previous childcare. The Other category for race/ethnicity includes children classified as multiracial. Totals may add up to 99% or 101% due to rounding. 3

5 III. Summary of EDI Results Table 5 indicates the number and percent of kindergarteners who were categorized as vulnerable and very ready for all sites combined. A child is considered developmentally vulnerable in a domain if the mean of his/her EDI items for that domain falls at or below the 10 th percentile. Conversely, a child is considered to be very ready in a domain if the mean of his/her EDI items for that domain falls at or above the 75 th percentile. The number for each domain differs due to missing data, and is listed in the Number of EDI Questionnaires column. Table 5. Summary of EDI Results (2011) Number of EDI Questionnaires Vulnerable Very Ready Physical Health and Well-being 17,551 2,437 (14%) 5,249 (30%) Social Competence 17,556 2,062 (12%) 4,302 (25%) Emotional Maturity 17,455 2,072 (12%) 4,770 (27%) Language and Cognitive Development 17,551 2,072 (12%) 4,910 (28%) Communication Skills and General Knowledge 17,556 2,118 (12%) 5,479 (31%) Vulnerable On 2 or More Domains 17,557 2,837 (16%) N/A Very Ready On 4 or More Domains 17,557 N/A 2,359 (13%) Data Source: Teacher-reported EDI Checklist 4