Association for Public Policy Analysis & Management

This study reflects the confluence of three U.S. early childhood education “hot topics”: kindergarten entry assessments (KEAs), which typically are administered in the first few months of school as a means for informing teachers’ instruction (Author, 2018); the growing population of students who are considered to be English learners (ELs) (McFarland et al., 2017); and policymakers’ ongoing concern regarding the academic achievement gaps between EL kindergartners and their non-EL peers (García & Weiss, 2017). KEAs have been promoted as having the potential to mitigate these emerging educational achievement gaps by highlighting EL kindergartners’ academic strengths and weaknesses, and in turn, helping teachers better understand their students’ learning needs (Takanishi & Le Menestrel, 2017). Yet, various construct-irrelevant issues can challenge the validity and reliability of KEA data, particularly when assessing children whose home language is not English (Author, 2018).

Study Purpose, Methodology, and Research Questions

With the aim of increasing education policymakers’ understanding about the potential utility of KEAs to generate valid and reliable evidence of EL kindergartners’ knowledge and skills, I conducted a comparative case study (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017) of the state-regulated KEAs used in nine states during the 2017-2018 school year. These KEAs were purposefully selected due to representing variations in assessment approach (direct versus observational measures). The research questions were:

1. Which KEA items (if any) are specific to ELs?
2. What are the direct linguistic accommodations that teachers or kindergartners are permitted to use?

Data for the cases was obtained through a review of documents, including the sample KEAs themselves and their respective administration policies, administrative memos, and annual reports. Analysis of the documents followed the approach advocated by Bowen (2009).

Results and Policy Significance

Analyses of the study’s data demonstrated that the nine sample KEAs have substantive differences in their EL-relevant content and accommodations policies. Although some of these variations may stem from intentional efforts to support the validity of each measure for its original purpose, the study’s results also suggest these measures represent three different profiles along an EL content and accommodations continuum (see Table 1).

These profiles do not represent a definitive judgment regarding the in-practice utility of these measures for informing kindergarten teachers’ EL-focused practice. Yet, in light of the number of ELs entering this nation’s schools, as well as the achievement gaps between ELs and their non-EL peers, this study suggests that policymakers need to carefully consider the potential utility of KEA data to provide evidence of EL kindergartners’ knowledge and skills.

Table 1 KEA Potential EL-Related Utility Profiles

Note: Profiles A, B, and C represent a less-to-more continuum, with Profile A KEAs containing fewer EL-focused items, translated directions and item prompts, and home language use accommodations as compared to Profile B and C KEAs.