Massachusetts Department of Early Care and Education Alignment Study

December 11, 2012

Sharon Lynn Kagan, Ed.D. Catherine Scott-Little, Ph.D.

Jeanne L. Reid, Ed.D.

Presentation Overview

Part I: Background and Purpose of the Study Part II: Methods Part III: Major Findings So Far Part IV: Recommendations

Part I:Background and Purpose of

the Study

Background for the Study

Massachusetts is engaged in an ambitious effort to improve the quality of its early childhood services.

Central to these efforts is a focus on creating the highest quality early learning and development standards for young children.

The standards articulate multi-domain expectations for children’s growth and support continuity in early education from birth through kindergarten.

Background for the Study

This vision requires standards that are:– Aligned with each other, so that they express cohesive

expectations for early development;– Aligned with other milestone documents, such as the

Common Core and Head Start Child Development Early Learning Framework (HSCDELF); and,

– Aligned with the assessments used in early childhood programs throughout the state.

This is hard to do!

Purpose of the Study Therefore, the Department commissioned an

alignment study. When complete, the 18-month study will

present detailed analyses of:– Alignment of the Massachusetts toddler,

preschool, and kindergarten standards;– Alignment of the preschool standards and the

HSCDELF; and,– Alignment of the standards with three assessment

instruments used in the state.

Work Completed So Far

So far, we have completed the first two parts of the study:– An analysis of the content of the infant/toddler,

preschool, and kindergarten standards, and,– An analysis of the alignment of the older toddler,

preschool, and kindergarten standards, and the preschool standards with the HSCDELF.

Part II:Methods

Focus for Today’s Presentation

Today we will focus on three of Massachusetts’ questions:– How does the content of the older toddler standards

compare to the the preschool standards?– How does the content of the preschool standards

compare to the the kindergarten standards?– How does the content of the preschool standards

compare to the HSCDELF?

The Terms We Use: Horizontal Alignment

Horizontal alignment refers to the consistency of standards and assessments within a given age cohort (e.g., Preschool and the HSCDELF).

Standards

4-year-olds

Curricula Assessment

The Terms We Use: Vertical Alignment

Vertical alignment refers to the consistency of standards between age cohorts (e.g., Toddlers vs. Pre-K).

Standards

Pre-K

K

ToddlersAssesments

The Documents We Used

The Early Learning Guidelines for Infants and Toddlers (May 2011) – older toddlers (22 to 33 months)

The Guidelines for Preschool Learning Experiences (April 2003) in all domains except English Language Arts and Mathematics

The Kindergarten Learning Experiences (April 2008) in all domains except English Language Arts and Mathematics

The Curriculum Framework for English Language Arts and Literacy (March 2011): Standards for Pre-K and Kindergarten

The Curriculum Framework for Mathematics (March 2011): Standards for Pre-K and Kindergarten

Alignment Analyses To analyze alignment, we created a construct template:

– Provides an objective and thorough metric for collecting data. – Enables us to compare items across age levels and documents, and even

different types of documents.– Brings a new level of consistency and precision to the analysis.

The construct template organizes all the content from the standards into five domains:– Physical Development and Motor Skills– Social and Emotional Development– Approaches Toward Play and Learning– Language and Communication Development– Cognitive Development and General Knowledge

Alignment Analyses

We looked at both match and quality:– Match looks at how well indicators are aligned.– Quality looks at whether indicators are age-appropriate and complete.– Can have well matched indicators, but they may not be high quality.

We analyzed alignment on three parameters:– Balance– Coverage/Depth – Difficulty

The Parameters: BALANCE The percentage of all indicators devoted to each

domain.– Do the documents exhibit the same balance across the

five domains? – Does one document emphasize some domains

more/less than another document? – Do the documents cover the different domains

sufficiently?

The Parameters: BALANCE

Document A

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

12.7% 14.8% 15.3% 20.2% 37.0%

Balance Analysis: Document A

Physical Development and Motor Skills

Social and Emotional De-velopment

Approaches Toward Play and Learning

Language and Communica-tion Development

Cognitive Development and General Knowledge

The Parameters: COVERAGE/DEPTH The percentage of indicators within the domain

focused on each construct.– To what extent do the documents address individual

constructs? – Do the documents emphasize constructs to the same

degree? – Do the documents cover the constructs with sufficient

thoroughness? – Are there constructs absent from one or both documents

that should be considered for inclusion?

The Parameters: COVERAGE/DEPTH

Health

Nutrition

Physical fitness

Knowledge for participation in physical education

Physical state regulation

Self care

Development of the senses

Orientation to stimuli

Sensory integration

Spatial awareness

Gross motor skills

Fine motor skills

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

28%

4%

8%

0%

4%

4%

4%

8%

4%

4%

12%

20%

33.3%

0.0%

0.0%

6.7%

0.0%

13.3%

6.7%

0.0%

6.7%

26.7%

6.7%

Coverage/Depth Analysis: Document B and Document C: Physical Development and Motor Skills

Document CDocument B

Percentage of Indicators within the Domain

Con

stru

cts

The Parameters: DIFFICULTY

Comparing the level of cognitive demand in pairs of indicators across documents.– Do the levels of difficulty of indicators in the documents

match? – Do the documents represent a cohesive progression of

difficulty over time?

The Parameters: DIFFICULTY

9.1%

31.8%

27.3%

31.8%

Difficulty: Document D and Document E: The Arts

Document E more difficult than Document D (-)

Equal difficulty (=)

Document D more difficult than Document E (+)

Document D much more difficult than Document E (++)

Indicator Pairs (n=22) Unpaired IndicatorsDocument D: 0Document E: 5

(n=7)

(n=7)

(n=6)

(n=2)

Summary of the Alignment Study

We developed a construct template as a means to bring comparability and consistency to the data.

We used three parameters (Balance, Coverage/Depth, and Difficulty) to answer the questions that were asked by the Department.

This allowed for multiple complex analyses as a basis for answering the Department’s questions.

Part III: Major Findings So Far

Major Findings #1

Massachusetts has a solid set of standards that address the birth-through-five age continuum.

The Department has made a good effort to align its standards across a broad age spectrum and with seminal documents, particularly the Common Core.

Major Findings #2

Balance The toddler standards are quite balanced across the five

domains in the construct template. The preschool and kindergarten standards place more

emphasis on Cognitive Development, particularly the subject areas, and less attention on Social-Emotional Development and Approaches Toward Play and Learning.

The tension between an academic and holistic orientation-- not unique to Massachusetts--is thus evident in the toddler, preschool, and kindergarten standards.

Major Findings #2

MA Toddlers

MA Preschool

MA Kindergarten

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

22.6%

16.3%

8.7%

21.0%

2.6%

1.7%

13% 20.2%

28.8%

38.4%

23.4%

52.3%

51.2%

Balance Analysis: MA Toddlers, MA Preschool, and MA Kindergarten

Physical Development and Motor SkillsSocial and Emotional De-velopmentApproaches Toward Play and LearningLanguage and Communica-tion DevelopmentCognitive Development and General Knowledge

Percentage of All Indicators

Major Findings #3

Balance

The HSCDELF and preschool standards align well on Language and Communication.

The preschool standards place a somewhat greater emphasis on Physical Development and a much greater emphasis on Cognitive Development than the HSCDELF.

The HSCDELF places a much greater emphasis on Social-Emotional Development and Approaches Toward Play and Learning than the preschool standards.

Major Findings #3

MA Preschool

HSCDELF

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%

16.3%

12.8%

2.6%

12.1%

28.8%

31.5%

52.3%

36.2%7.4%

Balance Analysis: MA Preschool and the HSCDELF

Physical Development and Motor SkillsSocial and Emotional De-velopmentApproaches Toward Play and LearningLanguage and Communica-tion DevelopmentCognitive Development and General Knowledge

Percentage of All Indicators

Major Findings #4

Coverage/Depth

The coverage of specific constructs was generally good in the toddler standards, with only a few missing constructs, such as nutrition and vocabulary.

There were more constructs missing in the preschool and kindergarten documents, with several missing constructs related to physical fitness, social-emotional development, approaches toward play and learning, and the cognitive processes.

Major Findings #4

Cause and effect

Reasoning

Conjecture, hypothesizing and guessing

Perspective taking

Representation

Reflection on thought processes

Planning and intentionality

Adaptability of thought processes

-20% 0% 20% 40% 60%

14%

0%

0%

0%

0%

0%

3%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

1%

0%

0%

0%

Coverage/Depth Analysis in the Cognitive Processes: MA Toddlers and MA Preschool

MA PreschoolMA Toddlers

Percentage of Indicators within the Domain

Cons

truc

ts

Major Findings #5Coverage/Depth

Alignment between the HSCDELF and Massachusetts preschool standards is pretty good in some areas, such as physical development.

The HSCDELF covers a broader array of constructs that address social and emotional development, approaches toward play and learning, and the cognitive processes.

The HSCDELF devotes a large portion of indicators to English language acquisition; the preschool standards do not.

In Mathematics, neither the HSCDELF nor the preschool standards covers data and mathematics processes.

Major Findings #5

Emotional expression

Self-confidence

Self-concept

Emotional regulation

Behavioral regulation

Moral/character development

Relationships with familiar adults

Relationships with peers

Social skills with adults

Social skills with peers

Recognition of others’ feelings

-20% 0% 20% 40% 60%

25%

0%

0%

0%

0%

25%

0%

0%

0%

25%

25%

11.1%

16.7%

5.6%

5.6%

11 .1%

0.0%

11 .1%

5.6%

5.6%

16.7%

11 .1%

Coverage/Depth Analysis in Social and Emotional Development: MA Preschool and the HSCDELF

HSCDELFMA Preschool

Percentage of Indicators within the Domain

Con

stru

cts

Major Findings #6Difficulty

The progression of difficulty from toddler to preschool was particularly strong, and the progression from preschool to K was good.

There were some examples of equal difficulty between the preschool and kindergarten standards, and some in which kindergarten was much more difficult.

Alignment with the HSDCELF was mixed; in some areas, the HSCDELF was more difficult, while in others, the preschool standards were more difficult.

Major Findings #6

4.3%

29.8%

53.2%

12.8%

Difficulty: MA Preschool and MA Kindergarten: English Language Arts and Literacy

MA Preschool more difficult than MA Kindergarten (-)

Equal difficulty (=)

MA Kindergarten more difficult than MA Preschool (+)

MA Kindergarten much more dif-ficult than MA Preschool (++)

Unpaired IndicatorsMA Preschool: 3

MA Kindergarten: 19

Indicator Pairs (n=47)

(n=2)

(n=14)

(n=25)

(n=6)

Summary In the Massachusetts standards, we found many

examples of good alignment across the age levels, but fewer between the preschool standards and HSCDELF.

The progression of difficulty between the preschool and kindergarten standards was somewhat inconsistent.

Some areas that were under-addressed in the preschool and kindergarten standards:– Social and Emotional Development– Approaches Toward Play and Learning– English Language Acquisition– The Cognitive Processes

Part IV: Recommendations

Next Steps Massachusetts has developed a solid set of standards

to address birth through age five, and made a great effort to align the standards with the Common Core for kindergarten.

This analysis has yielded recommendations regarding revisions that would further strengthen the Massachusetts standards, and we suggest that the Department consider revising the standards with those recommendations in mind.

Solomon’s Dilemma

Our two national documents, the HSCDELF and Common Core, are not very well aligned.

This poses a problem, not only for Massachusetts, but for the entire early childhood field.

Both documents are important and valuable to children and the field of early education.

Recommendations We recommend creating a robust set of standards that does

not ignore either of the national documents, but aligns with them as appropriate within the context of Massachusetts.

Specifically, we suggest adding indicators to the preschool and kindergarten standards to fully address Social and Emotional Development, Approaches Toward Play and Learning, the Cognitive Processes, and English Language Acquisition.

It would also be worth “tweaking” some of the indicators to make the progression of difficulty between the preschool and kindergarten standards more consistent.

The Goal

The revisions would help to:– Improve the alignment of the Massachusetts toddler,

preschool and kindergarten standards, and to improve alignment of the preschools standards with the HSCDELF.

– Improve the quality of the documents and ease the tension between a holistic and academic orientation across the age spectrum.

Where to Begin?

We recommend the Department begin by revising the preschool standards.

Consider using the HSCDELF as a metric (albeit an imperfect one) to improve the quality of the preschool standards, and then revise the toddler and kindergarten standards as needed to improve alignment and quality.

Massachusetts as a Leader Resolving the challenges inherent in Solomon’s dilemma

is not only germane to Massachusetts, but to all the states.

By trying to address this challenge, the Massachusetts standards could become the base for common standards that could be voluntarily adopted by other states.

This would again position Massachusetts at the forefront of early childhood education.

In any case, Massachusetts starts with a solid set of standards for early childhood learning. Bravo, Massachusetts!