Mapping Early Child Development

1
Mapping Early Child Development

• School District 36
• Surrey
• Summary 2003

Summary information is derived from The Early
Child Development Mapping Project This
project is administered by the Human Early
Learning Partnership (HELP) with funding from the
BC Ministry of Children and Family Development
2
What is the Early Child Development Mapping
Project?

• Includes mapping of
• childrens readiness for school,
• socioeconomic characteristics of communities,
• location of community assets (e.g. location of
  child care centres, literacy programs, etc).
• Helps communities monitor early child development
  and create effective community-based responses
  that support the needs of children and families.

3
Mapping School Readiness

• Measuring childrens readiness for school is
  important because it reflects childrens early
  development and it can predict their performance
  later in life.
• A key component is the Early Development
  Instrument (EDI), a research tool that assesses
  childrens readiness to participate in and
  benefit from school activities.

4
The Early Development Instrument (EDI)

• The EDI is a checklist that kindergarten teachers
  complete for each child in their class after they
  have known them for several months.
• The EDI has been found to be valid for use with
  children from different cultures, including
  Aboriginal children.
• Results from the EDI can only be interpreted at
  the level of school or neighbourhood.
  Individual assessment is not done.

5
Five EDI Subscales

• The EDI measures a childs development in 5
  areas
•       communication skills and general knowledge,
•       emotional maturity,
•       language and cognitive development,
•       physical health and well-being,
• social competence.
• Children who score in the bottom 10 of all
  scores are considered vulnerable within the
  given developmental area.

6
Where has the EDI been administered in BC?
7
For School Districts which participated in the
EDI mapping project

• we have prepared neighbourhood maps to show
  results of EDI mapping. (these follow in this
  slide show)
• we will prepare maps illustrating socioeconomic
  characteristics of the community. (later in the
  Fall, 2003)
• with assistance from communities, we will
  generate and post electronic maps of community
  assets.

8
Number of Students tested on the Early
Development Instrument (EDI) by Study Area
Surrey
9
Neighbourhoods and EDI data for k-students

• Neighbourhood Name EDI completed ( of
  K-students)
• Crescent Heights 80
• Elgin/White Rock 229
• Semiahmoo Peninsula 42
• Panorama Ridge 202
• Strawberry Hill 550
• Newton 355
• Cloverdale 151
• Clayton 160
• Guildford 227
• Fleetwood 316
• Whalley 400
• Bridgeview 122
• Bolivar Heights 142
• Fraser Heights 208

10
Kindergarten Students with EDI data Per
Neighbourhood
11
Across neighbourhoods, what is the pattern of
vulnerability with respect to readiness to learn?

• For each subscale, there are three types of maps
  depicting readiness to learn data for
  k-children
• - map of average scores per subscale,
• - map of proportion of k children vulnerable
  per subscale,
• - map of proportion of k children vulnerable per
  subscale
• based on Vancouver cutoffs.
• What are the differences between these maps?

12
Maps of average scores for each subscale - these
maps represent average raw scores for k students

• How are average scores derived?
• For each question of each subscale, values are
  assigned, then a mean (average) is calculated
  for subscale questions and the subscale as a
  whole.

For example, for the Communication subscale,
questions 1-7 and 41 of Section B of the EDI as
well as question 26 of Section C would make up
this subscale. - these questions would be
assigned values from 0.0 2.5 5.0
10.0 very poor average good
excellent - means would be calculated for the
questions and an average score would be derived
for this subscale
13
Maps of proportion of k students vulnerable -
these maps show bottom 10 of scores per
subscale.

• How are percentiles calculated?
• To determine the bottom 10 or vulnerable
  children, a cut-off value is derived from the
  means of the questions for subscales.
• The cut-off separates the bottom 10 of values
  from those percentiles above.
• Scores which fall below the cut off, are
  categorized as vulnerable or at risk with
  respect to development in a particular area.

14
Why are some maps based on Vancouver cutoffs?

• Vancouver cutoffs are used to provide standard
  categories to which other areas can compare.
• The Vancouver EDI sample was large and its size
  (statistically) was capable of averaging the high
  and low values, providing representative values.
• Applying the at risk cut off values derived
  from Vancouver to other samples helps put other
  data into context.
• Areas with smaller samples could be subject to
  bias, whereas Vancouver EDI results showed a
  spectrum less subject to sampling bias.

15
Communication Skills and General Knowledge

• This subscale measures
• ability to clearly communicate ones own needs
  and understand others,
• clear articulation,
• active participation in story telling,
• interest in general knowledge about the world.

16
Average Score on the Communication Skills and
General Knowledge Subscale of the EDI, 2003
17
Proportion of Students vulnerable on the
Communication Skills and General Knowledge
Subscale of the EDI, 2003
18
Proportion of Students vulnerable on the
Communication Skills and General Knowledge
Subscale of the EDI based on Vancouver cutoffs,
2003
19
Communication Skills and General Knowledge
Subscale

• The majority of neighbourhoods had less than 3
  of children within the vulnerable range based on
  Vancouver cutoffs.
• Crescent Heights, Elgin/White Rock, Semiahmoo
  Peninsula, Panorama Ridge and Cloverdale had less
  than 1 of children within the vulnerable range.
• The highest proportion (up to 6) of children
  within the vulnerable range were in the Fraser
  Heights area.
• The range of children vulnerable on this subscale
  within Vancouver (2001) was 0 to 16.

20
Emotional Maturity

• This subscale measures
• pro-social behaviour helping, tolerance,
  empathy
• as opposed to aggressive behaviour, anxiety,
  hyperactivity, inattention, impulsiveness.

21
Average Score on the Emotional Maturity Subscale
of the EDI, 2003
22
Proportion of Students vulnerable on the
Emotional Maturity Subscale of the EDI, 2003
23
Proportion of Students vulnerable on the
Emotional Maturity Subscale of the EDI based on
Vancouver cutoffs, 2003
24
Emotional Maturity Subscale

• There were no children within the Semiahmoo
  Peninsula neighbourhood who were vulnerable
  (bottom 10) on this subscale. Less than
  2.5were found in the Crescent Heights,
  Elgin/White Rock, Clayton and Fleetwood
  neighbourhoods
• Guildford, Whalley, Bolivar and Fraser Heights
  had up to 5.8 of children who were in the bottom
  10.
• The range is the smallest of any of the
  subscales (0 to 5.8). In Vancouver (2001) the
  range was 2 to 16.

25
Language and Cognitive Development

• This subscale measures
• interest in books, reading, and language
• literacy issues
• interest in simple math activities
• numeracy issues.

26
Average Score on the Language and Cognitive
Development Subscale on the EDI, 2003
27
Proportion of Students vulnerable on the Language
and Cognitive Development Subscale of the EDI,
2003
28
Proportion of Students vulnerable on the Language
and Cognitive Development Subscale of the EDI
based on Vancouver cut-offs, 2003
29
Language and Cognitive Development Subscale

• Crescent Heights, Elgin/White Rock and Semiahmoo
  Peninsula had the lowest proportion of children
  within the vulnerable range on this subscale (0
  to 2).
• Higher proportions were seen in Bridgeview,
  Whalley and Bolivar Heights (up to 13).
• The results across the community show lower
  proportions of children vulnerable on this
  subscale as compared to many other communities in
  the province.
• Vancouver (2001) had a range of 0 to 21 of
  children who were in the bottom 10 on the
  Language and Cognitive Development subscale.

30
Physical Health and Well-Being

• This subscale measures
• fine and gross motor development,
• levels of energy,
• daily preparedness for school,
• washroom independence,
• established handedness.

31
Average Score on the Physical Health and Well
Being Subscale of the EDI, 2003
32
Proportion of Students vulnerable on the Physical
Health and Well Being Subscale of the EDI, 2003
33
Proportion of Students vulnerable on the Physical
Health and Well Being Subscale of the EDI based
on Vancouver cutoffs, 2003
34
Physical Health and Well Being Subscale

• Crescent Heights and Elgin/White Rock had less
  than 1 of children vulnerable on this subscale .
• Higher proportions were seen in the Bridgeview,
  Clayton, Bolivar Heights, Fraser Heights and
  Newton neighbourhoods.
• The range within Vancouver (2001) was0 to 22 of
  children vulnerable on this subscale, compared to
  0 to 11 in this district.

35
Social Competence

• This subscale measures
• cooperative and respectful to others,
• able to work within the school environment,
• socially appropriate behaviour during school
  activities,
• self control and self confidence.

36
Average Score on the Social Competence Measure of
the EDI, 2003
37
Proportion of Students vulnerable on the Social
Competence Subscale of the EDI, 2003
38
Proportion of Students Vulnerable on the Social
Competence Subscale of the EDI based on Vancouver
cutoffs, 2003
39
Social Competence Subscale

• Less than 1 of the children in Crescent Heights
  and Semiahmoo Peninsula were in the bottom 10 on
  this subscale.
• Higher proportions were seen in the Bridgeview
  neighbourhood.
• Overall vulnerabilities on this subscale were
  lower than Vancouver. The highest proportion was
  9, compared to 17 in Vancouver.

40
Proportion of Students vulnerable on one or more
subscales of the EDI, 2003
41
Proportion of Students vulnerable on one or more
subscales of the EDI based on Vancouver cutoffs,
2003
42
Proportion of Students who were vulnerable on one
or more subscales

• Children within the Surrey area are developing
  the skills needed to be ready for school. The
  overall proportion of children vulnerable in this
  community is lower than many others in the
  province.
• The Crescent Heights, Elgin/White Rock and
  Semiahmoo Peninsula neighbourhoods had the lowest
  proportion of children vulnerable on any of the
  scales (between 2 and 6).
• Panorama Ridge had between 6 and 11 of
  vulnerable children.
• Between 11 and 14 of children were vulnerable
  on one or more of the subscales in Clayton,
  Fraser Heights, Fleetwood and Cloverdale.
• In Bolivar Heights, Strawberry Hill, Newton,
  Guildford and Whalley the range was 14 to 18.
• The highest proportion of vulnerable children
  (up to 25) was found in the Bridgeview
  neighbourhood.
• The range in Vancouver (2001) was 6 to 38.

43
Socioeconomic Characteristics

• We know that socioeconomic characteristics have
  an influence on the healthy development of
  children.
• The ECD mapping project compiles socio-economic
  information by neighbourhood to help us
  understand differences in childrens
  development.
• The socio-economic data comes from the 2001
  census.

44
Average Family Income

• A higher family income level makes conditions for
  healthy child development more easily accessible.
• For example, access to good quality child care,
  nutritious food, secure housing, and community
  participation improves as income level rises.

45
Percentage of households below LICO
46
Average Family Income Surrey

• In Bridgeview over 30 of families were living
  below the Low Income Cut off at the time of the
  2001 Census.
• This compares with less than 10 of the families
  in the White Rock and Semiahmoo areas.

47
Home Ownership and Mobility

• High levels of mobility may be stressful for
  families and young children.
• Canadian families tend to be quite mobile,
  particularly within more urban neighbourhoods.
• Home ownership suggests a level of stability of
  residence and some economic security.
• Often neighbourhoods with lower levels of
  mobility have higher levels of home ownership.

48
Residential Mobility, last 5 years
49
Mobility in the Surrey Community

• Within each of the neighbourhoods, more than 40
  of the population had lived at a different
  address five years earlier (2001 census).
• Within the Fraser Heights neighbourhood area up
  to 55 of people had moved within the previous
  five years.

50
Child Care

• Good quality child care can positively influence
  developmental outcomes for young children whether
  it is provided in the home or in a child care
  centre.
• Hours spent by parents, extended family, or other
  adult caregivers on unpaid child-care would
  promote a childs readiness for school.

51
Unpaid Child Care Hours
52
Child Care Surrey

• The majority of the neighbourhoods had over 20
  of the population age 15 and over providing more
  than 15 hours of unpaid child care per week.
• The highest proportion was seen in the Strawberry
  Hill neighbourhood where there was over 25 of
  the population in this situation. This
  neighbourhood also had the largest sample of
  kindergarten children (550).

53
Education Levels

• Higher parental education levels tend to have a
  positive impact on the healthy development of
  children.
• Studies have shown that the education level of
  the primary caregiver, often the mother, is of
  particular significance to the childs readiness
  for school.

54
Low Educational Attainment
55
Education Levels Surrey

• Over 20 of the population had not completed
  secondary school in the Bridgeview, Bolivar
  Heights, Newton, Strawberry Hill, Fleetwood and
  Clayton neighbourhoods.
• There was less than 15 of the population who had
  not completed high school in Panorama Ridge and
  between 15 and 17 in Cloverdale and Guildford.

56
Language and Immigration

• Immigration enriches a community, but it may also
  present challenges to the immigrant families.
• Access to services and community supports is
  difficult for immigrants whose first language is
  not English.
• Young children may be delayed in their English
  language acquisition at kindergarten entry.

57
Recent Immigrants to Canada
58
Foreign Mother Tongue
59
Foreign Home Language
60
Language and Immigration Surrey

• Immigration and ESL rates are high in some
  neighbourhoods of Surrey.
• In Strawberry Hill and Fraser Heights over 11 of
  the population had immigrated within the last
  five years.
• Up to 50 of the population in Strawberry Hill
  had a mother tongue of other than French or
  English. Between 35 and 50 in several other
  neighbourhoods in the central part of the
  district.

61
Summary

• Surrey is a community where socioeconomic
  conditions are lower than the provincial average,
  and immigration and ESL rates are high, yet the
  results on the EDI suggest that children are
  developing well.
• The Bridgeview neighbourhood had the highest
  proportion of children vulnerable on the EDI and
  socioeconomically, this neighbourhood is within
  the lower range. However, the overall
  vulnerabilities in this neighbourhood are still
  low compared to other communities in the
  province.
• The Crescent Heights, Elgin/White Rock and
  Semiahmoo Peninsula neighbourhoods showed the
  least number of children vulnerable on the EDI
  and had higher levels of family income and
  education.
• The range of difference in EDI vulnerabilities
  seen within the Surrey school district (2 to 25)
  compares favourably to Vancouver (6 to 38).