Mapping Early Child Development

1
Mapping Early Child Development

• School District 78
• Fraser Cascade
• Summary 2002-2003

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 have promising validity
  for use with children from different cultures,
  including Aboriginal children.
• Results from the EDI are only 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 and to illustrate some
  socioeconomic characteristics of the community.
• 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,
2002-2003
Fraser-Cascade
Agassiz-Harrison Fraser Canyon Hope
9
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
  kindergarten 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 cut-offs.
• What are the differences between these maps?

10
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
11
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 cutoff value is derived from the
  means of the questions for subscales.
• The cutoff separates the bottom 10 of values
  from those percentiles above.
• Scores which fall below the cutoff, are
  categorized as vulnerable or at risk with
  respect to development in a particular area.

12
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 cutoff 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.

13
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.

14
Average Score on the Communication Skills and
General Knowledge Subscale of the EDI, 2002-2003

15
Proportion of Students vulnerable on the
Communication Skills and General Knowledge
Subscale of the EDI, 2002-2003
16
Proportion of Students vulnerable on the
Communication Skills and General Knowledge
Subscale of the EDI based on Vancouver cutoffs,
2002-2003
17
Communication Skills and General Knowledge
Subscale

• There were no children within the vulnerable
  range on this subscale in Hope and between 0 and
  2 in Agassiz/Harrison.
• A higher proportion was seen in the Fraser Canyon
  where up to 10 of the children were considered
  vulnerable.
• The proportion of children vulnerable on this
  subscale within Vancouver (2001) ranged from0 to
  16.

18
Emotional Maturity

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

19
Average Score on the Emotional Maturity Subscale
of the EDI, 2002-2003
20
Proportion of Students vulnerable on the
Emotional Maturity Subscale of the EDI, 2003
21
Proportion of Students vulnerable on the
Emotional Maturity Subscale of the EDI based on
Vancouver cutoffs, 2002-2003
22
Emotional Maturity Subscale

• Agassiz/Harrison had the highest proportion of
  children vulnerable on this subscale (7 to 10).
• There were no children within the vulnerable
  range, based on both local and Vancouver cutoffs,
  in Hope.
• The range compares favourably to Vancouver
  (2001) on this subscale. (0 to 10 as compared
  to 2 to 16).

23
Language and Cognitive Development

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

24
Average Score on the Language and Cognitive
Development Subscale on the EDI, 2003
25
Proportion of Students vulnerable on the Language
and Cognitive Development Subscale of the EDI,
2002-2003
26
Proportion of Students vulnerable on the Language
and Cognitive Development Subscale of the EDI
based on Vancouver cut-offs, 2002-2003
27
Language and Cognitive Development Subscale

• At least 6 of the children were vulnerable on
  this subscale in all of the study areas.
• The highest proportion was seen in the Fraser
  Canyon (between 11 and 17).
• The largest area to area difference was seen on
  this subscale.
• The proportion of children vulnerable on this
  subscale within Vancouver (2001) ranged from0 to
  21.

28
Physical Health and Well-Being

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

29
Average Score on the Physical Health and
Well-Being Subscale of the EDI, 2002-2003
30
Proportion of Students vulnerable on the Physical
Health and Well-Being Subscale of the EDI,
2002-2003
31
Proportion of Students vulnerable on the Physical
Health and Well-Being Subscale of the EDI based
on Vancouver cut-offs, 2002-2003
32
Physical Health and Well-Being Subscale

• The lowest proportion of children vulnerable on
  this subscale was in Hope (3).
• Higher proportions were seen in the Fraser Canyon
  where up to 12 of children were vulnerable.
• The range (3 to 12) compares favourably to that
  of Vancouver (2001) where it was 0 to 22.

33
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.

34
Average Score on the Social Competence Measure of
the EDI, 2002-2003
35
Proportion of Students vulnerable on the Social
Competence Subscale of the EDI, 2002-2003
36
Proportion of Students vulnerable on the Social
Competence Subscale of the EDI based on Vancouver
cut-offs, 2002-2003
37
Social Competence Subscale

• Again the lowest proportion of children
  vulnerable was in Hope, yet there was still 5 of
  children within the range in this area.
• The Fraser Canyon had up to 12 of children
  within the vulnerable range.
• This was the smallest area to area difference of
  any subscale.

38
Proportion of Students vulnerable on one or more
subscales of the EDI, 2002-2003
39
Proportion of Students vulnerable on one or more
subscales of the EDI based on Vancouver cut-offs,
2002-2003
40
Proportion of Students Vulnerable on one or more
subscales

• The proportion of children who were vulnerable in
  at least one aspect of their development was
  similar in each of the study areas.
• There was a significant proportion of vulnerable
  children, however, in each of the study areas.
  From a low of 15 in Hope to a high of 20 to 21
  in the Fraser Canyon.
• 15 to 20 of children were vulnerable in
  Agassiz/Harrison.
• The range in Vancouver was 6 to 38.