Parts_B_and_C_ECLS-K2011_Spring_2nd_Grade_Data_Collections_For_Kashka

Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods

B

Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010-11 (ECLS-K:2011)

Spring Second-Grade National Data Collection, Third-Grade Tracking and Recruitment, Fourth-Grade Tracking

OMB Clearance Package

# 1850-0750 v.12

Supporting Statement

Part B & C

Prepared by

National Center for Education Statistics

U.S. Department of Education

August 23, 2012

Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods

B

This submission requests an update of the most-recent previously obtained clearance for the ECLS-K:2011 spring first-grade and fall 2012 second-grade data collection (OMB No. 1850-0750 v.10 & 11). This current submission describes the procedures for the spring second-grade data collection, which has been informed by the experiences and results of the ECLS-K:2011 kindergarten and first-grade data collection rounds, the ECLS-K:2011 pilot tests, and the ECLS-K kindergarten, first-grade, and third-grade data collection rounds.

B.1 Universe, Sample Design, and Estimation

Section B.1.1 includes information on the study universe of interest and the sampling plan implemented in the base year of the national study. Section B.1.2 describes the precision requirements and target sample sizes set out for the study. Section B.1.3 discusses the sample design for the spring second-grade data collection.

B.1.1 Universe and Sample Design

The universe for the ECLS-K:2011 includes all children attending kindergarten or of kindergarten age being educated in ungraded settings in the 2010-11 school year in the 50 States and the District of Columbia. The sample design for the ECLS-K:2011 kindergarten year produces a sample that is nationally representative of this population of children in the United States. In the base year (i.e., kindergarten year), children were selected using a multistage probability design. In the first stage, 90 primary sampling units (PSUs) that are counties or groups of counties were selected with probability proportional to size (PPS). In the second stage, public and private schools offering kindergarten programs or programs for children of kindergarten age in an ungraded setting were selected, also with PPS, within the sampled PSUs. This stage included oversampling of private schools to ensure that the sample included enough students attending private schools to generate reliable estimates about them. The third-stage sampling units were children in kindergarten programs and five-year-old children (i.e., children of kindergarten age) in ungraded schools and classrooms. Children were selected within each sampled school using equal probability systematic sampling. Asians, Native Hawaiians, and Other Pacific Islanders were sampled at a higher rate so as to achieve a minimum required sample size in order to generate reliable estimates for them. Although they were oversampled as one group, the numbers of completed interviews for children in the Asian group and children in the Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander group were large enough in the kindergarten year to produce estimates for each of these two groups separately.

Only base-year respondents¹ will be included in the sample in the spring second-grade data collection. The data collection is referred to as the second-grade data collection because most of the study children are expected to be in second grade in the spring of 2013. However, children will be included in the data collection regardless of their grade at the time of data collection. Due to the high cost of following children who change schools (i.e., “movers”), children who move from the school they attended in kindergarten will be subsampled for follow-up and inclusion in later rounds of collection. The subsampling rate will be around 50 percent but may vary between rounds by children's characteristics in order to preserve large enough groups of sampled children that are of particular analytical interest (e.g., language minority children, i.e. children from a home in which the primary language is not English).

B.1.2 Precision Requirements and Sample Sizes

An objective of the ECLS-K:2011 is to obtain a minimum level of reliability for estimates pertaining to the cohort as a whole as well as for analytical subgroups, such as Asians, Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders, Blacks, Hispanics, private school kindergartners, and language minority children. Four precision requirements for the survey are identified and form the basis for the base year sample design and plans for the subsequent rounds. These requirements are the ability to do the following:

• Measure a relative change of 20 percent in proportions across waves;

• Measure a relative change of 5 percent in a mean assessment score across waves;

• Estimate a proportion for each wave with a coefficient of variation (CV) of 10 percent or less; and

• Estimate a mean assessment score for each wave with a CV of 2.5 percent or less.

The precision requirements that drive the sample design, which are the same as those used in the ECLS-K, are related to the ability to estimate changes over time and the precision of estimates in the grade 5 data collection for the sample as a whole, as well as for subgroups of analytic interest. The ECLS-K:2011 sample design began with the assumption, based on the ECLS-K experience, that at least 10,300 completed cases would be needed by the end of fifth grade to satisfy the study's precision requirements.

For the ECLS-K:2011, the minimum subgroup sample size is determined by first solving for the sample size needed to achieve the precision requirements under simple random sampling with 100 percent overlapping samples between waves using the formula:

where n is the sample size per wave, α is the significance level, β is the power term, z has the standard normal distribution, is the correlation between two waves, P₁ and P₂ are the two proportions being compared, Q₁=1- P₁, Q₂=1-P_2,, , and . When α=0.05, β=0.80, =0.75, P₁=0.30, and P₂=0.36, the sample size needed per wave is 241.² Assuming a design effect of 4 (based on the ECLS-K), this subgroup sample size would need to be further increased by a factor of 4 to 964, since the effective sample size is equal to the sample size actually obtained divided by the design effect.

The assumptions used to arrive at the sample size by the end of the longitudinal study include the completion rates for the child assessments, as well as the rates at which children move from the base-year sampled school to other schools, the rates at which the movers will be subsampled after the base year (children who changed schools between fall and spring kindergarten were not subsampled), and the rates at which the subsampled movers are expected to be located. A complete case, also referred to as a respondent, is a child who has a completed child assessment or a completed parent interview. For the ECLS-K:2011, an original sample of 900 responding schools (720 public and 180 private) with an average sample size of 23 children in each school was expected to yield approximately 20,700 sampled children (18,630 participating students, assuming a 90 percent response rate) in the base year. However, during the first round of data collection in the kindergarten year, the sample was smaller than expected due to a lower-than-expected school cooperation rate, and also due to slightly lower kindergarten enrollment in the schools than was expected based on enrollment data from NCES’s Common Core of Data and Private School Survey universe data files. In order to achieve a number close to the original target for participating schools, refusing schools were substituted with newly sampled schools and an attempt was made to obtain the new schools’ participation. The study ended the base-year data collections with a sample of about 18,175 kindergarten children, about 455 children fewer than expected.

The original sample design for the ECLS-K:2011 used information about the movement of ECLS-K children after each data collection year and how successful the study was at locating the children to calculate the sample sizes and mover subsampling rate that would be necessary to meet precision requirements. In the ECLS-K, children who moved to another school (but not necessarily residence) were followed at a rate of 50 percent in grade 1, slightly higher in grade 3 so that all language minority children were retained, and slightly lower in grade 5 to accommodate a reduction in the overall sample size. The grade 5 subsampling rates varied according to child characteristics with the highest rate applied to language minority children. For the ECLS-K:2011, the mover rate after first grade is 23 percent, i.e., 23 percent of students have moved out of their original sample school. This rate is 2 percentage points lower than the rate used to estimate the sample size at the end of fifth grade (which is also the rate used to calculate the mover subsampling rate). As such, the overall mover subsampling rate will remain 50 percent for students who are not part of sample protection.. Students in the sample protection group, i.e., students who have or have had an IEP or IFSP and language minority students, there will be no subsampling of movers; all movers in these groups will be followed with certainty.

In order for the sample size at the end of the grade 5 follow-up to be approximately 10,300, which is the number needed to meet the study precision requirements for the cohort as a whole, the study may need to follow students who move into other schools at a rate higher than 50 percent in the third-grade data collection or later (as discussed in the next section). With the sampling rates for subgroups of interest described in the next section, the fifth-grade sample size should be large enough to generate estimates that satisfy the precision requirements for each of the subgroups as well.

The four precision requirements are of equal importance for Hispanics, Blacks, and children of other races who are not part of the Asian or Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander groups. However, these subgroups do not have an impact on the determination of the oversampling rates for special groups because their expected sample sizes exceed the required sample size for meeting the precision requirements.

B.1.3 Sample Design for the Spring Second-Grade Data Collection

The base sample for the spring second-grade data collection will include all students who are considered respondents for the base-year data collection and who have not moved outside of the United States or died. All the respondents in the base year who remain in their original school (i.e., the school in which they were sampled) or who move to a “destination” school will be followed with certainty. A destination school is one to which at least four children from original schools that terminate in kindergarten or first grade transfer.³

While ideally the study would follow all base-year respondents who move from their original schools into a school that is not considered a destination school sometime between the spring of kindergarten and the spring of second grade, it is expensive to do. Significant effort must be made to locate students in their new schools and to obtain permission to assess them in their new schools. As the study progresses, student mobility has a more serious impact on the cost of collecting data because the number of schools children attend increases. The most expensive children to survey are movers⁴ because collecting data on movers requires additional efforts to get permission from the entities from which permission is required (e.g., from new districts and school administrators). Also, cost per completed case is increased when there are fewer children per school, and it is often the case that when children change schools, they are the only study child in the school to which they moved. In the ECLS-K:2011, approximately 5 percent of children sampled in the beginning of kindergarten were not in the same school at the end of the 2010-11 school year, i.e., they moved between fall kindergarten and spring kindergarten. By the end of first grade and prior to the start of second grade, the percentage of students who moved out of their original sample schools (at any point after fall kindergarten) increased to 23 percent. As noted above, this is 2 percentage points lower than the assumed rate that was used in estimating the final sample size. We expect that 34 percent of students sampled in kindergarten will not be in the same school by the end of second grade.

Due to cost considerations, the subsampling strategy used for first grade will be used again for second grade. First, three groups of movers will be followed with certainty in the spring second-grade data collection: students whose home language is not English (language minority (LM) students), students who have had or currently have an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or who had an Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP), and students who were sampled for the fall first- and fall second-grade data collections. The remaining movers (i.e., the movers who are not LM/IEP/IFSP children or part of the fall subsamples), will be subsampled for following at a rate of 50 percent. Thus, these movers have a 50 percent chance of being included in the spring second-grade collection. Subsampling movers is implemented by subsampling 50 percent of the non-protected students in each of the sampled schools to be followed into their new schools if they move from their original school. This same mover subsampling strategy will be used for the spring collections in third through fifth grade, unless response rates in later rounds are lower than expected and an increase in the subsampling rate is needed to obtain target sample sizes.

B.2 Procedures for the Collection of Information

Section B.2.1 describes the data collection procedures for the spring second-grade data collection.

B.2.1 Spring Second-Grade Data Collection

The spring second-grade data collection will include direct child assessments, height and weight measurement, parent interviews, and school administrator and teacher (both regular classroom and special education) questionnaires. Computer assisted interviewing (CAI) will be the mode of data collection for the child assessment and the parent interview. School administrator and teacher data will be collected via hard-copy self-administered questionnaires.

Advance School Contact. At the beginning of the 2012-13 school year, school coordinators⁵ will be sent two packets. Both packets will be sent via Federal Express with a signature requirement. The first package will include a letter describing the study activities planned for the spring and the role of the school coordinator. The second package will include the list of participating children who will be assessed in the spring and instructions for completing any missing information. The list of children is sent separately from the other study materials so that, in the event of loss, the children in the list are not associated with the study, thereby protecting their identity as study participants. Team leaders⁶ will work with the school coordinators to discuss the logistics of the spring assessment visit. Additionally, team leaders will confirm whether the children on the list sent to the school are still enrolled in the school. If the school coordinator informs the team leader that a child has moved to a new school, the team leader will attempt to get the child’s new school information from the school coordinator. Team leaders will also determine:

• Assessment Dates. The team leader will discuss the schedule for data collection with the school coordinator. The dates for the assessment schedule will be set, making sure to avoid conflicts with any special events in the school’s calendar.

• Assessment Location. The locations within the school where the assessments will take place will also be determined. The goal will be to identify assessment locations that provide as little distraction as possible, that protect the privacy of the children, and that are as nondisruptive of the school routine as possible.

• Identify Teachers of Sampled Children. Team leaders will ask the school coordinator to identify the ECLS-K:2011 children’s regular classroom teachers and, if applicable, special education teachers of the sampled children.

Team leaders will make a telephone call to each school coordinator to discuss these issues. If a new school is identified for any of the sampled children, a study information packet will be sent to the school administrator of the new school and he or she will be contacted by telephone in order to recruit the school into the study and identify a school coordinator. The team leader will then work with the school coordinator to schedule an assessment date, determine an assessment location, and identify the teacher (or teachers) of the sampled child. Throughout these pre-assessment activities, positive and cooperative working relationships with school personnel and the school community will be maintained.

During the pre-assessment call, team leaders first will address any questions that the school coordinator or school administrator may have. A primary goal of the pre-assessment call is to determine the logistical arrangements for conducting data collection within the school. A checklist of the arrangements that need to be agreed upon and the tasks to be completed will guide the pre-assessment call. At the time of the pre-assessment call, the team leader will also collect classroom teacher information so that questionnaires can be prepared and given to the children’s teachers in the spring.

In the spring, team leaders will call the school coordinators prior to the assessment visit to confirm the logistical arrangements for the data collection within the schools. Team leaders will also ask about the organization of instruction for grades 3, 4, and 5 (if those grades are contained in the participating school) – self-contained classrooms with a single teacher teaching multiple subjects; team teaching where two or more teachers collaborate to teach multiple subjects to a single classroom; or departmentalized instruction where students have different teachers for different subject matter courses. This information will enable us to make a more informed decision about the questionnaire structure to use for the teacher questionnaires in the third-, fourth-, and fifth-grade data collections.⁷

The spring second grade hard-copy questionnaires will be mailed to each school coordinator for distribution at least 2 weeks prior to the school’s scheduled assessment visit.

Child Assessment

Typically, the assessment visit will take between 1 and 3 days in each school. The number of days for the visit will depend on several factors, such as the number of participating children at the school, any restrictions on the assessment schedule (e.g., assessments only in the morning), and the amount of space available for simultaneous assessments. The length of the assessment visit will be worked out with the school coordinator during the pre-assessment call. Generally, the assessment team that visits the school will include the team leader and two assessors, though sometimes an additional assessor or two will participate in an assessment visit when a larger number of children needs to be assessed in a shorter time frame due to the school calendar. There will be one team per PSU. The assessment team will arrive at the school on the appointed first day of assessments and, following any of the school’s required check-in procedures, immediately contact the school coordinator. The team leader will introduce the assessors to the school coordinator. The procedures to be used during the on-site data collection period will be discussed with the school coordinator to ensure there is a common understanding of those procedures. The team leader also will confirm that all sampled children are still enrolled in the school as of the assessment day and determine which children are at school that day. New school contact information will be obtained for any children who may have left the school after the preassessment call.

The team leader and assessors will be taken by school personnel to the assessment area(s), which they will arrange to remove potential distractions as much as possible and establish a comfortable environment for conducting the assessment. They will set up the assessment materials and log in to the child assessment CAI program on the laptops that they will carry with them. All field staff will be provided with backup batteries, cords, etc., to ensure that data collection activities are not disrupted by equipment problems.

Once the assessment areas have been set up and assessors are ready to begin work, the school coordinator will introduce the ECLS-K:2011 team members to the teacher(s) whose children will be assessed. The teacher, in turn, will introduce the assessors to the class. Assessors will then escort the sampled children to the assessment areas, one-by-one, and conduct each 60-minute assessment. As discussed in Section A, the assessments will consist of the following: a direct cognitive assessment of reading, mathematics, science, and executive functioning, and measurement of children's weight and height, which will be obtained using instruments and equipment brought by the assessors.

Unlike the kindergarten and first-grade cognitive assessments, the cognitive assessment fielded in second-grade will not include a language screener, assessment of English basic reading skills, or a Spanish assessment, as it is expected that by second grade most, if not all, children will be proficient enough in English to be assessed in English.

After completing the assessment, the child will be returned to the classroom and the next sampled child will be assessed. At the end of each day, the data for completed assessments will be transmitted electronically to a central database by each team leader and assessor.

It is expected that some children will be absent from school when the assessments are scheduled. Certain days throughout the field period will be designated as days on which some field staff will have no assessments scheduled, so that staff can conduct make-up assessments on those particular dates. Attempts will be made to conduct a make-up assessment for all children absent on their school’s assessment day at some point during the field period.

If a school refuses to participate (e.g., the school has changed its mind and no longer wishes to participate in the ECLS-K:2011) and attempts to convert the school’s refusal are unsuccessful, then the study will attempt to assess the sampled children outside of the school. Other circumstances where a child may be assessed outside of school include sampled children transferring into a school that never agreed to participate in the study or into a school in a district that refused to allow its schools to participate.  Additionally, some ECLS-K:2011 children may no longer be enrolled in a school and will instead be homeschooled.  In each of these situations, we will attempt to assess the child outside of school.

Prior to assessing a child outside of school, the assessor will contact the parent to confirm that the child is enrolled in a school that has not agreed to participate in the study for the current round of data collection (referred to as a refusal school). If the parent informs the assessor that the child has transferred out of a refusal school, the assessor will collect information about the school into which the child has transferred (referred to as a transfer school), and attempts will be made to assess the child in the transfer school. However, if it is determined that the child either attends a refusal school (or school in a refusal district) or is homeschooled, the assessor will ask the parent when and where he or she would like the assessment to take place. Possible locations for the child assessment include a library, an after-school program location, or the child’s house. The assessor will try to accommodate the preferences of the parent as much as possible.

Teacher and School Administrator Questionnaires

During the advance school contact, the team leader will identify the teachers of the sampled children who will be asked to complete questionnaires and enter the teachers’ names into the field management system (FMS),⁸ creating a link between each sampled child and his or her teacher. This linking system was first developed and used successfully for the ECLS-K and is currently being used in the ECLS-K:2011 data collections.

Teachers will be sent a set of materials approximately 2 weeks prior to the assessment visit. These materials will consist of a letter describing the ECLS-K:2011 and a copy of the ECLS-K:2011 brochure,⁹ one teacher-/ classroom-level questionnaire, one questionnaire for each sample child the teacher teaches, an incentive check, and instructions for completing the questionnaires and returning them to the school coordinator.

Distributing the Teacher and School Administrator Questionnaires. In the spring second-grade collection, teachers will be asked to complete self-administered questionnaires about their background, curriculum, and instructional practices.¹⁰ Teachers of sampled children will also be asked to complete child-level questionnaires about the ECLS-K:2011 children in their classrooms, which indirectly assess the children’s socioemotional and cognitive skills. The teacher questionnaires will provide data from a source who has first-hand knowledge of the child and his/her abilities. As described above, the team leader will work with the school coordinator to identify the teachers of the ECLS-K:2011 children during the advance school contact phone call. Based on this information, child-level questionnaires will be mailed to the school coordinator for distribution and collection. The average number of children per teacher is expected to be about 6; teachers will receive an incentive of $7 per child-level questionnaire, for an average incentive of $42 per teacher. The incentives will be included in the package of informational materials the teachers receive in the spring. Team leaders will collect completed teacher questionnaires, with assistance from the school coordinator, during the assessment visits. Once all questionnaires have been collected, the team leader will mail the completed questionnaires to the home office via Federal Express. If there are any questionnaires that are not completed by the last day of assessments in the school and hence require follow-up collection, the team leader will collect the remaining questionnaires and mail them to the home office.

In the spring, the teachers or service providers of sampled children who are receiving special education services, i.e., special education teachers, will be asked to complete questionnaires about their background and qualifications. They also will be asked to answer questions about the types of services the ECLS-K:2011 child receives in a separate child-level questionnaire. The special education questionnaires will be distributed and collected in the same manner as the regular classroom teacher questionnaires described above. The special education teachers will be offered an incentive of $7 per child-level questionnaire, and the expectation is that each special education teacher will complete two child-level questionnaires, on average. The incentives will be included in the package of instruments the special education teachers receive in the spring.

Also in the spring, school administrators will be asked to complete a self-administered questionnaire. Information about the school administrator, the staff, and the school building will be collected through this questionnaire. The questions about school characteristics may be completed by a designee, but the study requests that the administrator complete the section about his/her characteristics him or herself. The school administrator questionnaire will be mailed to the principal or school administrator in advance of the spring assessment visit; on the first day of assessments at the school, the team leader will remind the school coordinator of the need to complete this instrument. The team leader for each school will collect the school questionnaire during the on-site assessment visit. School administrators will receive a $25 incentive for completing the questionnaire, which will be attached to the school administrator questionnaire during the spring data collection. If the school questionnaire has not been completed by the beginning of the last day on-site for assessments, the team leader will remind the school coordinator about the questionnaire once more. If the school questionnaire still is not completed by the time the team has finished its assessment work at the school, the team leader will ask for a specific date from the school coordinator and/or school administrator by which the school administrator will complete the questionnaire. Follow-up will continue until the questionnaire has been received.¹¹

Parent Interview

The ECLS-K:2011 field staff will be trained to conduct both the child assessments via CAI and the telephone interviews with parents using a computer assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) instrument. Having the same staff members conduct the child assessments and the parent interview better links the activities that take place in the school with the parent interviews, which may in turn promote greater parent participation. Similarly, an effort is made to have the same staff members interview the same parents and/or assess the same children that they worked with in previous rounds (as long as the prior interaction was positive). The list of parent interview cases assigned to each field staff member will be loaded on the laptops when field staff receive them, with new cases being transmitted as they become available (e.g., when a parent interview case gets transferred from one interviewer to another).

Flexibility in Scheduling Interviews. Procedures for conducting telephone interviews at times that are most convenient for parents and that allow sufficient flexibility will be used. To establish initial contact with a parent of a sampled child, field staff will be trained to place two day, three evening, and two weekend calls over a 2-week period. If, after these seven call attempts, no contact has been made with the parent by telephone, the field staff will visit the child’s home to explain the study and attempt to complete an in-person interview. Once telephone contact is established, up to seven additional calls will be made to complete the parent interview. If the interview is still not completed after seven calls and the respondent has not actively refused to participate, the field staff will attempt an in-person interview. During the last few weeks of data collection, cases that have not yet been contacted or completed will be attempted as in-person interviews to improve response rates.

Non-English Interviewing. The ECLS-K:2011 sample includes a substantial number of children from households in which the parents speak a language other than English as their primary language. In order to include these families in the ECLS-K:2011, special measures are required. Based on the data from the recent spring 2012 first-grade data collection, Spanish is spoken in the majority of these households. Of the 12,992 completed spring 2012 parent interviews, 1,582 were completed in a foreign language. Of those, 1,410 (or 89%) were completed in Spanish. Therefore, as was done for the ECLS-K:2011 kindergarten and first-grade data collections, the parent interview will be fully translated into Spanish and field staff will be recruited who are bilingual in Spanish and English to conduct parent interviews in Spanish. A number of Asian and other languages were also identified in the fall kindergarten data collection as spoken by parents of sampled children, but in much smaller numbers. It is cost-prohibitive to develop a full translation of the parent interview for less common languages, identify and train bilingual staff that represent all languages spoken by ECLS-K:2011 families, and send this staff out for extensive travel across PSUs. Therefore, the primary approach for conducting parent interviews in non-English, non-Spanish languages in the ECLS-K:2011 has been to identify someone in the household or community to provide a translation during the administration of the parent interview. All translators must sign an affidavit of nondisclosure prior to working on the project. Over the course of the kindergarten and first-grade data collections, interpreters have been identified for the less common languages that are spoken by sampled children’s parents; they will serve as interpreters for the spring second-grade data collection as needed. If a household or community translator is not available, another approach we can employ is to identify bilingual staff working in Westat’s Telephone Research Center (TRC) to conduct parent interviews. This approach was used for telephone interviewing in another NCES study (the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort (ECLS-B)). Another approach used by the ECLS-B was to identify an interpreting service to obtain interpreters for about 20 languages who were connected in a three-way conference call with an English-speaking interviewer and the respondent. Evaluations of the quality and cost of data obtained in this way have established that it can be an efficient way to collect data from respondents who speak less common languages.

B.3 Methods to Secure Cooperation, Maximize Response Rates, and Deal with Nonresponse

This section describes methods for securing cooperation and gaining consent for the spring second-grade round of the ECLS-K:2011 and the methods that will be used to maximize completion rates for child assessments, parent interviews, and teacher questionnaires in this round.

A major challenge in any survey today is obtaining high response rates, and this is even more important in longitudinal surveys where nonresponse can occur at multiple time points. As in most longitudinal surveys, attrition is closely associated with those persons who move between waves; however, as mentioned earlier, “moving” in the ECLS-K:2011 is defined as a change in the school the sampled child attends, whether or not the child’s residence changes. In ECLS-K, 25 percent of children changed schools between kindergarten and first grade, and by the fifth-grade round, 56 percent of children were in different schools than they were in for kindergarten. By the end of the spring first-grade data collection, the percent of students who moved out of their original sample schools (at any point after fall kindergarten) was 23 percent.

The main problem associated with nonresponse is the potential for nonresponse bias in the estimates produced using data collected from those people who do respond. Bias can occur when the people who do respond are systematically different from the people who do not. Two approaches that will be used to reduce the potential for bias are designing the data collection procedures and methods wisely to reduce nonresponse (e.g., being flexible in scheduling parent interviews) and using statistical methods of sampling and weighting to reduce the effect of nonresponse on the estimates. While the statistical approaches are important in controlling biases and costs, the data collection procedures and methods are at the heart of a successful longitudinal survey.

B.3.1 Gaining Cooperation from a Variety of Sources

Cooperation issues loom large in any major school-based survey today. The demands of required testing, which have increased since the enactment of ESEA 2002, may reduce time for and willingness to participate in voluntary studies like the ECLS-K:2011, such that districts and schools may be increasingly less likely to cooperate. Parents are increasingly skeptical about the value of surveys and non-required tests for their children. Teachers are heavily burdened and often reluctant to spend time on non-teaching activities. The additional burden of a longitudinal survey (and the need to communicate clearly to parents and schools the expected burden of participation in a longitudinal survey) makes securing cooperation even more challenging. The kindergarten and first-grade rounds of the ECLS-K:2011 are paving the way for concerted follow-up efforts in later rounds by collecting high quality data that will help maintain cooperation and track movers.

The data collection plan approaches the school as a community. We aim to establish rapport with the whole community—principals/administrators, teachers, parents, and children. The school community must be approached with respect and sensitivity to achieve high response rates and maintain cooperation for future rounds of data collection.

The ECLS-K:2011 field staff have been trained that all tasks—securing school and teacher cooperation, and completing child assessments and parent interviews—are but different aspects of a single case in their assignment, which is their responsibility to complete. Therefore, field staff will be responsible for conducting the direct assessments as well as the parent interviews and any required followup on the teacher and school administrator questionnaires. Also, incentives have proven to be effective tools in achieving high response rates, and we plan to offer monetary incentives to various respondents, as described in section A.9.

Based on the experience from the ECLS-K, most families who participate in kindergarten continue to participate in the later rounds, presumably because they feel invested in the study. Similarly, schools typically continue to participate once they participate in one round. The fact that parents have given consent to the longitudinal study is an incentive for schools to continue participating. In addition, the school coordinator is instrumental in maintaining school participation and recruiting new teachers into the study in later rounds.

B.3.2 Methods to Maximize Response Rates

Parent Interviews

There are four main areas that can be focused on in order to maximize completion rates for the parent interviews: (1) flexibility in scheduling interviews, (2) non-English interviewing, (3) locating parents of children who transfer schools, and (4) avoiding refusals, including converting initial refusals to completed interviews.

Flexibility in Scheduling Interviews. Effective calling patterns are essential for achieving high response rates on all telephone surveys. Previous experience shows that individual respondent schedules (work, classes, recreational activities, vacations, etc.) have a more negative effect on response when call attempts are limited to a short time span. A larger percentage of the cases that are noncontacts after the first call attempt will be converted to a successful contact if the call attempts are distributed across a longer time span. Completion rates improve when interviewers call on different days of the week and at varying times of the day and evening.

To establish initial contact with a parent of a sampled child, field staff will be trained to place two weekday, three evening, and two weekend calls over a 2-week period. These calls will be made in a nonsequential set of targeted time periods called “time slices.” The time slices and required number of calls are as follows:

	Required Number of Calls
Weekday 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.	1
Weekday 3 p.m. to 6 p.m.	1
Weekday 6 p.m. to 9 p.m.	1
Weekday 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.	1
Weekday 7:30 p.m. to 9 p.m.	1
Saturday or Sunday, 10 a.m. to 8 p.m., on separate weekends	2

If after seven call attempts no contact has been made with the parent, the field staff will be instructed to review the case with the team leader for additional instruction on how to proceed. The team leader may instruct the field staff to do one or more of the following: (1) send a letter to the parent; (2) contact the school coordinator to see if the school can help or offer any insight into contacting the parent; (3) attempt to contact the parent using alternative contact information or methods listed for the parent, if any (i.e., call another phone number, send an email, or fax); (4) contact the nonresident parent, if applicable; (5) assign the case to another field staff member for a fresh approach and a new voice; or (6) conduct an in-person visit to the parent’s home.

Once contact is established, up to seven additional calls will be made to complete the parent interview. If the interview is not completed after these seven additional calls and the respondent has not explicitly refused, the field staff may be instructed by their team leader to attempt an in-person interview. During the last few weeks of data collection, noncontact and uncompleted cases will be visited in-person as appropriate to improve response rates.

Non-English Interviewing. In the spring first-grade data collection the ECLS-K:2011, 12 percent of the 12,992 completed parent interviews were conducted in a language other than English. To achieve high response rates, it is important that study procedures work to include these parents to the greatest extent possible. As described in the data collection procedures section, we will hire and train field staff who are bilingual in Spanish and English to conduct fully translated parent interviews in Spanish and use home and community interpreters, as available, for interviews in non-English, non-Spanish languages. As mentioned above, if a household or community translator is not available, another approach we can employ is to identify bilingual staff working in Westat’s Telephone Research Center (TRC) to conduct parent interviews.

Locating Parents of Transfer Children. Locating parents of transfer children is critical for maintaining high completion rates for parent interviews overall. It is expected that a substantial portion of participating children will transfer schools between the kindergarten and second-grade data collections. A tracking system database with household contact and school information was developed at the beginning of the study and the sample tracking activities described earlier will be conducted to locate children who transfer schools. While this OMB package requests approval for the spring second-grade national collection, third-grade recruitment, and third- and fourth-grade tracking, long-term study plans are to follow the sample children through fifth grade. Maintenance of this tracking database will be an important activity for the lifetime of the study, with updates of new information occurring through the final data collection round.

Refusal Avoidance and Conversion Procedures. Achieving an acceptable parent response rate will require active and effective refusal conversion efforts. Given that most of the parents will have participated in previous data collection rounds, a key factor in converting refusals is the ability of the team leaders and assessors to clearly and confidently convey the purpose of the repeated data collections and the importance of parents’ continued participation in the study, including the benefits that will be derived from it. This will be a focus of the field staff training. The training materials for averting refusals direct field staff to become thoroughly familiar with the study and include activities designed to help field staff: 1) answer frequently asked questions (FAQs) and respond to respondent objections, 2) draft responses to FAQs in the interviewer's own words, 3) practice saying these responses, and 4) diagnose respondent objections and quickly respond with a response tailored to the objection. The training includes modules on preparing answers for different situations, using the voice effectively, and role-plays between trainers and interviewers and between interviewers. Additional training will cover how to avert refusals, focusing specifically on addressing reasons for refusals on the parent interview component of the ECLS-K:2011 study.

During the parent interview data collection period, team leaders and field managers will review initial refusals (i.e., a refusal by a respondent after the first recruitment effort) with the field staff, putting a particular emphasis on reviewing the interviewer record of calls, which will be available to supervisory staff (i.e., team leaders and field managers) on a weekly basis. If a parent refusal occurs, the interviewer will be instructed to record key demographic information about the refusing respondent (e.g., sex, approximate age) and the respondent’s reason(s) (if given) for refusing to participate. This information will be evaluated by the team leader to determine the best strategy for converting refusals. Cases identified for refusal conversion will be assigned to a select group of field staff identified as possessing the necessary skills to act as refusal converters. During data collection, field managers will hold telephone conferences with the identified field staff to review the refusal conversion procedures and discuss strategies for converting refusals.

Child Assessments

There are two main areas that can be focused on in order to maximize completion rates for the child assessments: (1) conducting make-up assessments with children who are absent on scheduled assessment days and (2) locating transfer children.

Absent Children. It is expected that some children will be absent from school during the time that assessments are scheduled at their school. Days on which some field staff have no assessments scheduled will be set aside throughout the field period so that those staff can conduct make-up assessments. A make-up assessment will be conducted for any child who is unable to be assessed during his/her school’s scheduled assessment day(s) and who can be assessed at some other point during the field period. If an in-school make-up assessment cannot be scheduled, team leaders will contact parents to make arrangements for in-home assessments for these children, if possible.

Locating Transfer Children. As is the case with the parent interview, locating transfer children and the new school in which they are enrolled is critical for maintaining high completion rates for child assessments overall.

There is an additional consideration with locating children who transfer schools, which is the need to contact their new schools and teachers and encourage them to participate (if a child transfers to a school not already participating in the ECLS-K:2011), thereby allowing the children to be assessed in the school. This issue is discussed further in the next section.

School and Teacher Instruments

There are three main areas that can be focused on in order to maximize completion rates for the teacher and school administrator hard-copy instruments: (1) early distribution of instruments to schools and teachers, (2) effective communication of the importance of school administrator and teacher participation to school personnel, regardless of whether they participated in a prior round, and (3) efforts made by field staff to avoid refusals and to convert initial refusals to cooperating respondents.

Early Distribution of Instruments. Feedback from school administrators and teachers in the ECLS-K indicated that there would have been increased study participation if they had had more time to complete the hard-copy instruments. We attribute the high questionnaire response rates achieved in the kindergarten ECLS-K:2011 collection (school administrator questionnaire at 81 percent; teacher questionnaire at 90 percent; special education teacher questionnaire at 82 percent) in part to distributing the questionnaires early in the school year to allow staff sufficient time to complete them. For the spring second-grade data collection, most of the sampled children’s regular classroom and special education teachers, as well as the school administrators, will be identified during the advance school contact in the fall of the second-grade school year. School and teacher questionnaires, along with the incentive checks, will be sent in February of the school year, to allow sufficient time for these respondents to complete and return the instruments to their school coordinator for field staff to collect on assessment day.

Effective Communication with School Staff. The participation of school administrators and teachers (especially new school administrators and teachers, either at schools to which study children have transferred or at schools that participated in the earlier rounds) can be increased by effectively communicating information about the ECLS-K:2011, including the goals of the study, what the study measures, the various study components, why it is important that schools and teachers participate, the study activities to date, study plans for the future, and selected results from the ECLS-K and ECLS-K:2011. Effective respondent materials, as well as telephone contact by school recruiters who are trained to convey this information efficiently and completely, will help maximize the participation of schools to which sample children transfer. In addition, parental consent was recorded for all children who had a completed parent interview in the kindergarten data collection, so a record of consent will be available for their new schools.¹² If children with a completed parent interview move into a new school, his/her recorded consent will be reviewed and verified by project staff and a hard-copy consent form will be produced documenting the recorded consent. This recorded consent should make it easier to recruit new schools and teachers to participate, because they will have written documentation of the parent’s consent for the student to participate in the study.

Avoiding Refusals and Converting Initial Refusals. Team leaders will be trained to maximize the response rates for the hard-copy instruments, which will include being flexible in the timing in which they collect the questionnaires from teachers, following up with the school administrators and teachers to prompt the completion of the questionnaires, and returning to the school after the assessment visit to pick up questionnaires from teachers or school coordinators. Team leaders will be trained to apply the general refusal aversion techniques to the collection of hard-copy questionnaires. These techniques will include analyzing the reasons for refusal, responding appropriately, and using their voice effectively.

District and school personnel have stated that they face increasing demands upon their schools for a variety of noninstructional activities, including requirements for state and district assessments. Sensitivity to these concerns is essential to gaining cooperation for the ECLS-K:2011, and it must be made clear to school system personnel at all levels that the ECLS-K:2011 staff is more than willing to work with them to facilitate their participation with the least burden and disruption possible.

Statistical Approaches to Nonresponse

One of the methods employed to reduce the potential for nonresponse bias is adjustment to the sample weights. If people with certain characteristics are systematically less likely than others to respond to a survey, the collected data may not accurately reflect the characteristics and experiences of the nonrespondents, which can lead to bias. To adjust for this, respondents are assigned weights that, when applied, result in them representing their own characteristics and experiences as well as those of nonrespondents with similar attributes.

As described above, we will subsample movers using a scheme that follows some groups of students at higher rates than other movers to protect the sample sizes and statistical power for analyzing these groups of children. The subsampling in and of itself does not reduce nonresponse bias; rather by subsampling, the same fixed resources can be allocated to a smaller number of children so that higher response rates for subgroups can be achieved. The higher response rates lessen the potential for nonresponse bias to exist in the data.

Response rates will be computed for all the instruments fielded in the study. Data collected through any instrument with a response rate less than 85 percent will be evaluated for nonresponse bias. In addition to comparing the characteristics of respondents and nonrespondents using data that are available from the sampling frames (for example, school type and school locale from the school frame for evaluating bias at the school level, or student background characteristics collected from the school for student sampling for evaluating bias at the student level), we will also compare study estimates to estimates from other available sources that include a similar population (for example, estimates common to the ECLS-K:2011 and the National Household Education Survey). The nonresponse bias analysis will be similar to the analyses conducted for the ECLS-K and that were reported in study methodology documentation (for the most recent ECLS-K methodology report published, see http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2009003).

B.4 Individuals Responsible for Study Design and Performance

The following individuals are responsible for the study design and the collection and analysis of the data for the ECLS-K:2011.

Gail Mulligan, NCES	(202) 502-7491
Chris Chapman, NCES	(202) 502-7414
Jill McCarroll, NCES Karen Tourangeau, Westat Alberto Sorongon, Westat	(202) 219-7002 (301) 251-8265 (301) 738-3597
Christine Nord, Westat	(301) 294-4463
Thanh Lê, Westat	(301) 610-5105

The ECLS-K:2011 Instruments Details

C

C.1 Introduction

This section provides information about the general contents of the ECLS-K:2011 parent interview, the school administrator/principal questionnaire, and the regular classroom and special education teacher questionnaires. Appendices B (Parent Interview), C (School Administrator Questionnaire), D (Teacher Questionnaires), and E (Special Education Teacher Questionnaires) include the final survey instruments for the national spring second-grade data collection.

The design of the ECLS-K:2011 and the survey instruments is guided by a conceptual framework of children’s development and learning that emphasizes the interaction among the various environments which children experience and the resources within those environments to which children have access. For this reason, the study collects information on a wide array of topics, including the characteristics of the child, the child’s family, the community, nonparental care and education arrangements, and the child’s school and classroom environments. The ECLS-K:2011 uses data from multiple respondents (e.g., parents, teachers) so that information about each of the environments children experience can be collected from the people most likely to provide accurate and reliable data. The respondent interviews and questionnaires included for the spring second-grade rounds of the study and the general topics covered in each include:

• Parent Interview—to be administered to parents/guardians of children in the study. In the spring second-grade, the parent interview includes questions about family structure; the primary language spoken in the home; the education of children’s grandparents; parent employment; the home environment; family practices; communication; parent involvement in school; and before-and after- school care. Parents also report on their children’s experiences with peer victimization, physical activity, health, and disabilities.

• School Administrator/Principal Questionnaire—to be completed in the spring second-grade data collection by the school administrator or principal of each school attended by a child in the study. This instrument includes a broad range of questions about the school setting; policies, programs, and practices at the school level and in second grade; and questions about the school administrator/principal and about the teaching staff.

• General Classroom Teacher Questionnaire—to be completed by classroom teachers of children in the study. In spring second-grade, there are two teacher questionnaires. The teacher-/classroom-level questionnaire includes questions about the classroom and student characteristics, class schedules, class materials, instructional practices, and curriculum. It also includes items on the teacher’s background, teaching experience, and attitudes about teaching and the school climate. The child-level questionnaire has questions specifically about each study child and includes the teacher’s assessment of the child’s academic and cognitive abilities, behaviors, and social skills, as well as information about whether the child experiences peer victimization or engages in aggressive behaviors, program placements, and specific services that each child may receive.

• Special Education Teacher Questionnaire—to be completed in the spring second-grade data collection by the special education teacher or service provider for children in the study who have an Individual Education Program (IEP). There are two questionnaires for the special education teacher. The first questionnaire includes questions about the teacher’s background, training, and school assignment. The second questionnaire has questions about the study child who has an IEP, including items about child’s disability and services the child receives.

The data from these instruments can be used in conjunction with the data obtained in the ECLS-K:2011 direct assessments, along with the data from the questionnaires and interviews from previous rounds of the ECLS-K:2011, to answer a wide variety of research questions about how home, school, and neighborhood factors relate to children’s cognitive, social, emotional, and physical development over time. The following sections include research questions that may be addressed with the data from each instrument as well as a discussion of some of the important constructs covered by each instrument.

C.2 ECLS-K:2011 Parent Interview

The children in the ECLS-K:2011 come from a broad range of family and community backgrounds and enter school with widely differing abilities and levels of preparation for school. Understanding these variations and examining the ways in which home and school environments interact in relation to them as children progress through school is a key goal of the ECLS-K:2011. Conducting interviews with parents is central to obtaining the information necessary to measure these constructs over time. The ECLS-K:2011 defines the parent to be interviewed as the child’s parent or guardian in the household who knows the most about the child’s care, education, and health. If the parent or guardian is not available during the field period, or if there is no parent or guardian, another adult who knows about the child’s care, education, and health is selected as the respondent.

C.2.1 Spring Second-Grade Parent Interview

Research questions related to the ECLS-K:2011 spring second-grade parent interview are shown below.

C.2.1.1 Spring Second-Grade Parent Interview: Research Questions

• PQ1: What is the status of children’s development (as defined by cognitive, social, and emotional development; behavior; and physical status measures)? How does children’s development vary by child and family social, demographic, and contextual characteristics at the end of the second-grade year?

• PQ2: How are variations in children’s developmental status (as defined by ECLS-K:2011 cognitive, socioemotional, physical, health, and disability measures) at the end of second grade related to later success in school?

• PQ3: How do family sociodemographic and contextual characteristics influence later success in school within and across outcome domains and within sex and racial/ethnic subgroups?

• PQ4: How do family processes and parenting practices (e.g., home environment, family activities, and cognitive stimulation) relate to children’s developmental status and social and emotional adjustment? How do critical family processes and parenting practices influence later success in school?

• PQ5: How does parental involvement in children’s education relate to school performance over the course of the early grades? Do parental involvement levels differ by family social, demographic, and contextual characteristics? What forms of parent involvement are most influential for children’s outcomes? What school factors are related to parental involvement? How do schools respond to the needs of parents with little or no English proficiency? Are school or teacher practices to involve parents associated with higher levels of parent involvement??

• PQ6: What are children’s patterns of participation in before- and after-school care up to the end of second grade? How do before- and after-school care arrangements differ by family sociodemographic factors, SES, and race/ethnicity? How are these arrangements related to children’s progress through school? How does participation in early care and education in the year before kindergarten relate to participation in before- and/or after-school care during second grade (e.g., in what ways are these arrangements similar or different)?

C.2.1.2      Spring Second-Grade Parent Interview: Construct Coverage

Child Characteristics

The child’s sex, date of birth or age, and race/ethnicity are collected if they are missing data from previous rounds.

• Child’s sex;

• Child’s date of birth or age; and

• Child’s race/ethnicity.

Parent’s Involvement with the Child’s Education

Parental involvement in education has proven to be a critical influence on school outcomes for children (Stallings and Stipek 1986; Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler 1997; Gonzalez-DeHass, Willems, and Holbein 2005). However, parent involvement is not a single construct but rather refers to many diverse types of home-school interaction. One type of parent involvement involves parents working with their child on homework or educational activities at home or arranging for other persons inside or outside the household to help with homework or tutor the child. Other ways that parents are involved with their children’s education is in their interaction with teachers and through participation in organized school activities.

The following data about parent involvement and school practices to involve parents in their children’s education will be collected from the parents:

  

• Parent attendance at parent-teacher conferences and meetings;

• Parent participation in school activities;

• Parent volunteering at the school;

• Barriers to parent participation in school activities;

• Parent's satisfaction with the teachers and school;

• Transportation to school and related issues (for children who have changed schools);

• Frequency the child does homework at home; and

• How often parent or someone else helped the child with homework.

Family Structure

Family structure affects the economic, social, and psychological resources available to the family for child rearing purposes. In 2005, 41% of families headed by a single mother were in poverty, compared to 9% of families with married parents (Dunifon and Kowaleski-Jones 2007). Research indicates that a wide range of outcomes for children under 18, including academic performance, mental health, behavior, and relationships with parents and peers are more optimal in families composed of two biological parents who interact with minimal conflict (Dawson 1991; McLanahan and Sandefur 1994; Peterson and Zill 1986; Morrison and Cherlin 1992). Also, having the additional support of another adult appears to be beneficial to children without a second biological parent in their household. Dunifon and Kowaleski-Jones (2007) found that the presence of a residential grandmother in single-mother homes was associated with greater cognitive stimulation and higher reading scores, although this association was only found for White children.

Effects of family structure are not static. Structural conditions need to be looked at over time, because family turbulence—changing schools, residence, family composition, or even early care and education arrangements—can have a negative influence on children’s outcomes (Haurin 1992; Peterson and Zill 1986; Howes and Stewart 1987). However, there is recent evidence suggesting that after accounting for other parental factors, remarriage after divorce may have benefits for children’s academic achievement (Shaff, Wolfinger, Kowaleski-Jones, and Smith 2008). The longitudinal nature of the ECLS-K:2011 makes it ideal for investigating the impact of change in family composition over the course of children’s elementary school years.

The ECLS-K:2011 will gather data on the following aspects of family structure:

    Current household roster;

    Change in family relationship of key parent figures to the child (e.g., became adopted);

    Marital status of the primary caretakers;

    Information about why people who were in the household in a previous round of collection have left the household;

    Tenure at current address (based on how many data collection points the child has the same address); and

    Family structure change and loss (e.g., remarriage, divorce, and death).

     

Parent Characteristics

Basic parental demographic information will include:

    Biological parent’s sex, age, and race/ethnicity (if not collected in a prior round);

• Parent health;

• Parent’s vital status (collected indirectly by asking about contact with a biological/adoptive parent who does not live in the household or collected when a parent/parental figure identified in a previous round is no longer in the household); and

    Parent respondent’s social origins (i.e., parent’s parents’ education level)

 

Immigration Status

Differences have been found in cultural ideals among immigrant groups regarding child-rearing beliefs, the meaning and importance of cognitive ability, and educational objectives in the early grades (Okagaki and Sternberg 1993). To address issues regarding immigration status, the ECLS-K:2011 will gather the following information for focal children in the second grade if it had not already been collected in a kindergarten interview:

    Country of origin for parents and sample child;

    Length of residence in U.S. for parents and sample child; and

    Citizenship of the child.

 

Home Language

It is of interest to know how young children in homes where the primary language is not English become English proficient. One study found that children who started school classified as English language learners, but were reclassified as English proficient later in school, performed similarly on achievement tests compared to those who started school speaking English, and performed better on achievement tests compared to those who were never reclassified as English proficient (Flores, Painter, and Pachon 2009). The parent interview will include questions about the home languages of the study children and the English proficiency of the parents. Researchers can consider the language environment at home along with information from the school and teacher questionnaires about the child’s instructional environment to better understand the interplay of factors related to ELL children’s academic progress.

The parent interview includes questions about:

    Languages spoken in the home

.

Home Environment, Activities, and Cognitive Stimulation

The activities and relationship between parent and child represent the direct linkage between parental characteristics and the child’s development. The parenting practices of the mother are closely associated with the development of the child (Maccoby and Martin 1983), but the practices of the biological father and other parent figures in the household such as step-parents and grandmothers may also be critical (e.g., Dunifon and Kowaleski-Jones 2007).

In the ECLS-K, children’s literacy has been positively correlated with the frequency with which parents read to their children (Almond and Holt 2005; U.S. Department of Education 2000; Sy and Schulenberg 2005) and also with nonliterary, social activities that can contribute to the development of reading skills (e.g., teaching children about nature, doing arts and crafts, parents and children eating breakfast together) (Almond and Holt 2005). Other activities related to children’s reading achievement in the ECLS-K have been the parent telling stories to the child, going to the library, going to museums, and the number of books in the home (Almond and Holt 2005).

Having access to a computer in the home is another valuable resource for children. Based on data from the ECLS-K, 53 percent of kindergartners in the kindergarten class of 1998-99 had a computer at home that they could use and by the third grade 81 percent of them had access to a computer at home. Espinosa et al. (2006) looked at how many children had and used computers at home, in addition to the number of books in the home and the amount of television the children watched. By the third grade, most children had a computer at home, and most of the computers were connected to the Internet. However, children whose parents had a higher education and income level had more access to computers and the Internet, and more books at home, than children whose parents had a lower education level and income. Among those with the lowest socioeconomic status (SES), 46 percent of children used a computer at home. Among those with the highest SES, 96 percent used a computer at home. Also, having a computer available at home and having more books in the home were related to how well children did on the ECLS-K reading and mathematics assessments. The ECLS-K:2011 data will be an important source of information about how children’s environments – especially with regard to computer access and use – have changed over the past twelve years. Because computers are now available in many different forms, including various handheld devices such as cell phones, questions about computer use in the ECLS-K:2011 have been modified to allow for home computers and other electronic devices. Also, in addition to asking about how many hours a day children watch television, the study will also ask about how many hours a day children play video games.

The following ECLS-K:2011 constructs will address research questions concerning how the home environment influences children’s cognitive and social development:

    Frequency of engaging in different activities with the child (e.g., art projects, sports, etc.);

    Frequency of reading to or by the child;

    Availability and use of a home computer;

• Tutoring;

    Child’s activities outside of school hours;

    Trips and outings with the child; and

    Frequency with which the family eats dinner together.

Peer Victimization

A study of bullying by the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) found that 16 percent of middle schoolers reported being bullied (Nansel et al., 2001).  Fewer studies have been done with younger children, but those that have suggest that bullying is experienced by many children and is related to negative outcomes.  Glew et al. (2005) did a study with third through fifth graders and found that 22 percent of children were classified as victims, bullies, or both. Bullies, and children who were both bullies and victims, had lower achievement scores and were more likely to feel like they did not belong at school compared to bystanders.   Kochenderfer and Ladd (1996) found a relation between school adjustment outcomes and victimization, with victimization related to children's loneliness and desire to avoid school.  Given these findings and the current White House anti-bullying initiative, obtaining information about peer victimization, a component of bullying, from parents would be useful to have in a national study about elementary school. The parent interview includes questions about:

    Physical, verbal, and relational peer victimization

Child Care

Research has indicated that the quality of child care received during the early school years has implications for children’s functioning in the elementary school grades. For example, in a sample of children who had been exposed to multiple risks in early childhood, Burchinal et al. (2006) found that early child care quality was related to fewer behavior problems and higher mathematics test scores in the first four years of elementary school. Howes (1988) found that with family characteristics controlled, higher quality early child care (center or family daycare) was predictive of better academic progress and school skills and fewer behavior problems in boys, and of better school skills and fewer behavior problems in girls at the end of first grade. In addition, Peisner-Feinberg and her colleagues from the Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes study (2001) found that high-quality child care was related to children’s language, mathematics, and behavioral competence in the classroom through the first years of schooling.

The quality of early child care has also been related to children’s outcomes beyond elementary school. Using data from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development, Vandell et al. (2010) found that high quality early child care predicted higher cognitive achievement test scores and fewer self-reported externalizing problems among adolescents at age 15. In addition, receiving more hours of early child care by a nonrelative was related to more impulsivity and risk taking at age 15.

Because some studies show lasting effects of preschool programs, while others show that the effects fade over time, Magnuson, Ruhm, and Waldfogel (2007) explored why the effects of child care may persist for some children but not others. Using ECLS-K data, they found that children who attended preschool went to kindergarten with more academic skills (based on child assessments) than those who did not. The positive effects of preschool continued to be shown in the third grade. The achievement of those who did not attend preschool improved over time if they were in small classes in school or had high levels of reading instruction. Children who did not attend preschool did not do as well as those who attended preschool if they were in large classes or had low levels of reading instruction in school. Thus, the effects of preschool attendance on achievement were shown to interact with classroom characteristics in school. Future research can take preschool attendance, classroom characteristics in elementary school, and child care during elementary school into account to examine the relation to children’s achievement.

Throughout the study, the ECLS-K:2011 will collect information on the number, consistency, and variety of formal before- and after-school care arrangements that the children currently experience.

As children move further in to the school-age years, families may rely more often on nonparental care arrangements—particularly self-care. Information on the amount of time that children spend in self-care, both before and after school, will also be collected.

    Participation in early care and education, by type of arrangement (e.g., relative; non-relative; and center-based);

• Time the child spends in care arrangements; and

    Time the child spends in self-care.

 

Parental Discipline, Warmth, and Emotional Supportiveness

Warm, accepting maternal behaviors are positively linked to children’s intellectual and emotional development. Greater warmth and support predict more positive child outcomes, regardless of income level (Moore, Zaslow, Miller, and Magenheim 1995; Gregory and Rimm-Kaufman 2008). One way that parents are warm and emotionally supportive to children is through communication. The ECLS-K:2011 spring-second grade interview will provide an opportunity to examine how parents' listening to their children and encouraging their children to talk and express opinions is related to children's outcomes.

    Parent-child communication

Experts have suggested numerous factors to explain the increased obesity rate among children such as dietary habits, trends in eating out, sedentary activities, and changes in school lunch programs. However, data linking these factors to the recent trends in obesity are needed before policy can direct effective change. Parent interview data from the ECLS-K:2011 about the amount of exercise children get, meals eaten at home, hours spent in sedentary activities such as watching television and playing video games, child behavior, and other measures can be used together to examine factors related to obesity.

The parent interview includes questions on the following topics related to the issue of sedentary behaviors:

    Amount of time the child watches television and plays video games and

    rules around television watching, video watching, and computer use

 

Involvement of the Nonresident Parent

Asking questions about nonresidential parents is of great interest to experts on family involvement. Nearly four out of ten children are born outside of marriage (Ventura 2009). Although one study found that 40 percent of nonmarital births are to mothers who are living with partners, the majority of children born outside of marriage do not live with their fathers (Chandra et al. 2005). The high incidence of divorce and separation in this country leads to more children living apart from one of their parents.

Although many fathers who do not live with their children lose contact with them over time and tend to play a smaller role with their children than do resident fathers, a significant proportion of nonresident fathers do remain involved. Moreover, their involvement is important to children’s lives (Amato and Gilbreth, 1998; Nord, Brimhall, and West 1998; Jackson, Jeong-Kyun, and Franke 2009). Although the majority of nonresident parents are fathers, an increasing number of children have nonresident mothers. For both policy reasons and to understand children’s development, it is important to learn more about both fathers and mothers who live apart from their children.

The following data about nonresident parents will be collected in the spring second-grade round:

   Current contact with biological/adoptive parents no longer living in household.

.

 

Child’s Health and Well-Being

This section includes items to identify children with different kinds of disabilities and to determine whether children with disabilities are receiving services. The presence of disabilities is an important risk factor for children and is related to children’s development and educational experiences in the preschool years as well as their later experiences in school. These items will also provide the data to analyze the accessibility of special education and other programs and plans for disabled children. Other important indices of children’s well-being include rate of growth, physical fitness, health care utilization, and the consequences of the irregular medical care received by some poor school-age children (Newacheck and Hallfon 1988).

The importance of children’s health for school success is well established. Chronic conditions and disabilities, such as hearing impairment and physical handicaps not only “flag” youngsters for administrative attention, they also shape the way that parents, peers, and school personnel relate to the child (Alexander and Entwisle 1988). Even seemingly relatively mild conditions, such as earaches, may affect children’s performance in school if left untreated.

Impairments in hearing can contribute to deficits in speech and language acquisition, poor academic performance, and social and emotional difficulties (Cunningham, et al. 2003). Otitis media is a leading cause of acquired hearing loss. Other contributors include trauma to the nervous system, damaging noise levels, or medications. The American Academy of Audiology notes that 12% of children who are 6 to 19 years old have hearing loss related to noise (e.g., noise that may come from loud toys, stereos, sporting events, movie theaters, bands, etc.) and recommends that children be screened for hearing loss yearly if they are involved in activities that expose them to loud noise (National Hearing Conservation Association 2004). They also recommend that hearing loss be ruled out whenever a child is being considered for special education services (American Academy of Audiology 1997).

Impairments in vision can also lead to learning and socio-emotional difficulties. About one in four school-age children have vision problems including amblyopia (lazy eye), strabismus (crossed eye), and myopia (nearsightedness). Studies find that there are racial and ethnic differences in the prevalence and incidence of refractive disorders. A study of 2,523 children in Birmingham, Alabama found that 33.6 percent of Asian children and 36.9 percent of Hispanic children had astigmatism (Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Ethnicity and Refractive Error Study Group, 2003).

The ECLS-K:2011 will collect the following data addressing children’s current and retrospective health status:

    Overall health;

    Ear infections since first grade;

    Ear aches since first grade;

• Asthma;

• Diagnoses of disabilities and health conditions;

• Vision and hearing problems;

• Exercise/physical activities;

• Services for disabilities;

• Routine health and dental care visits;

• Health insurance coverage including Medicaid;

• Glasses, hearing aids, cochlear implants;

• Prescription medications;

    Behavioral and attention problems;

    Learning problems;

    Emotional or psychological difficulties; and

   Communication problems.

Parent Education

In the spring second-grade parent interview, information will be collected on the highest grade or year of regular school completed by the parent’s father and mother:

    Education of parent’s father and mother.

Parent Employment

Parental employment status affects the amount of material resources available to the child (Jackson, Bentler, and Franke 2006). Meta-analyses of several studies document that socioeconomic status (parent occupation and education) is positively associated with the quality of stimulation that parents provide their children (Gottfried 1984). Information will be collected about the following:

    Parents’ current employment status; and

    Occupation and industry.

 

Welfare and Other Public Transfers

Receipt of welfare benefits, particularly if receipt is long term, reflects a high level of economic deprivation and generally low human capital on the part of the mother (Zill, Moore, Smith, Stief, and Coiro 1991; Bane and Ellwood 1983). McLoyd and Wilson (1991) found that poor single mothers were substantially more likely to be depressed and to provide a nonstimulating environment to their children ages 10 to 17. Subsequently, children of welfare families demonstrate poorer outcomes across a variety of domains, compared to more advantaged children (Moore, Zaslow, Coiro, and Morrison 1993). However, for poor children, the receipt of associated benefits such as Food Stamps, Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), and participation in the Federal school lunch program should have positive implications for their physical health.

One question to be considered is how the pattern of welfare receipt over time affects children’s adjustment to and progress through school. For many children, poverty is not a persistent fact of life but a temporary event (Duncan 1991). In analyzing patterns of poverty among children under 4 for the subsequent 15 years, Duncan and Rodgers (1988) found that black children lived in poverty for an average of 5.5 years, while non-black children lived in poverty 0.9 years. The duration of poverty has been found to have a powerful effect on both cognitive development and behavior among children (Duncan, Brooks-Gunn, and Klebanov 1994).

The following questions address this area:

• Receipt of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF);

 Receipt of Food Stamps, also called SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program), or food benefits on EBT (Electronic Benefit Transfer); and

 Participation in the Federal School Lunch Program.

 

Parent Income and Assets

Family income affects the family’s material standard of living, neighborhood and housing quality, opportunities for stimulating recreation and cultural experiences, and the stress and psychological well-being of the parents. Youngsters from more economically advantaged households tend to be more successful in the primary grades compared to their less advantaged peers (Alexander and Entwisle 1988). Children’s behavior and learning problems exhibited in the early grades are more likely to persist for children from economically disadvantaged families than for children in families with more financial resources (Ackerman, Brown, and Izard 2003).

Because income is a dynamic force rather than a stable background characteristic (Duncan 1991) it will be measured longitudinally in the parent interviews in the ECLS-K:2011.

The spring second-grade parent interview will also include questions about the following areas:

• Total family income for the year; and

• Housing.

C.3 School Administrator Questionnaire

The ECLS-K:2011 will collect data in spring 2013 on school composition, policies, and practices from elementary school administrators in schools attended by ECLS-K:2011 sampled children. The child is the central unit of analysis, and school component data will be used to illuminate the school context of ECLS-K:2011 children and investigate the influence of school and administrator attributes on student outcomes. The school administrator questionnaire is contained in Appendix C. The instrument is very similar to the administrator questionnaires for the ECLS-K, with the exception that questions have been added to the “School Characteristics,” “School Policies and Practices,” and “School Climate” sections to detect school-level effects of provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act. In addition, questions have been added to the “School Policies and Practice,” “School Programs for Particular Populations,” and “Staffing and Teacher Characteristics” sections to address the extent to which schools are implementing a Response to Intervention (RtI) instructional model. RtI has become an increasingly popular educational approach used for the instruction of all students since the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA because the reauthorization allowed for the use of information about students obtained through RtI practices in identifying students with a specific learning disability. The ECLS-K:2011 second-grade administrator questionnaire has two versions: one for schools without a completed administrator questionnaire in the first-grade round and a more streamlined version for schools with a completed first-grade instrument. The items included in the instrument are described in more detail below.

C.3.1 School Administrator Questionnaire: Research Questions

• SAQ1: How does the length of the school year relate to children’s progress, especially cognitive gains?

• SAQ2: How do differences in schools’ basic demographic, enrollment, resource, policy, and organizational characteristics relate to children’s academic and social development in the early elementary school years?

• SAQ3: Are schools’ practices to involve parents associated with higher levels of parent involvement?

• SAQ4: What kinds of services or programs do schools provide to families, children, or community members? How do these relate to children’s academic and socioemotional development?

• SAQ5: How do schools respond to the needs of parents with little or no English proficiency?

• SAQ6: How do neighborhood or community differences relate to children’s cognitive and social development?

• SAQ7: What challenges associated with student behavior, attendance, teacher mobility, and school safety do schools face, and how do these relate to other school characteristics and children’s cognitive and social development?

• SAQ8: How do differences in administrator’s’ background characteristics relate to other school characteristics and practices?

• SAQ9: To what extent do schools use assessments to monitor students’ progress on specific skills and identify those in need of interventions? What kinds of interventions are provided for struggling students and how much staff support and parent communication are there for these efforts?

C.3.2 School Administrator Questionnaire: Construct Coverage

The ECLS-K:2011 will collect data in spring 2013 on school characteristics, facilities and resources, community characteristics and school safety issues, school policies and practices, and school governance and climate from elementary school administrators in schools attended by ECLS-K:2011 sampled children. The child is the central unit of analysis, and school component data will be used to illuminate the school context of ECLS-K:2011 children and investigate the influence of school and administrator attributes on student outcomes.

School Characteristics, Facilities, and Resources

Several characteristics of elementary schools influence children’s educational experiences and may be related to their learning outcomes. For example, school size, average daily attendance, and the numbers of students enrolling in or leaving the school during the school year may influence the stability in classroom membership experienced by an individual student. The number of days the school is in session sets bounds on the instructional time available to children and thus can influence learning outcomes. Grade span dictates the number of school transitions children must make between levels of schooling and the age range of their school peers. In a study using ECLS-K data, Ready and Lee (2007) found that the size of elementary schools, and of classes within schools, independently and negatively influenced children’s learning in literacy and mathematics in both kindergarten and first grade. Farbman (2010) found that schools with expanded school years (that is, schools in which children attended more class days and/or hours per day) were positively related to student achievement.

The type of school attended has important implications for students’ experiences and achievement. Most public elementary schools are not selective, enrolling all children within predefined attendance zones. Private schools, by contrast, typically have some kind of admission policy and therefore can be more selective in their enrollment. Of nonpublic schools, parochial schools, especially Catholic schools, have received the most research attention (e.g., Bryk, Lee, and Holland 1993). Catholic schools tend to have low absenteeism rates and high academic achievement, despite a high level of heterogeneity in the student body. The ECLS-K:2011 data will provide important opportunities to contribute to the literature on effects of school type. Not only will analysts have information about sector, they will also know whether schools include magnet programs, if they are charter schools, and if they are schools of choice.

The composition of the student body will have important consequences for the types of programs and services that schools offer. The diversity of student populations with respect to social and economic background, preparation for school, need for particular services, and levels of proficiency in English has created a number of challenges for schools. The ECLS-K:2011 will allow analysts to examine how schools have responded to student diversity.

In a study using kindergarten through third-grade data from the ECLS-K to examine family, school, and neighborhood factors for the impact of socioeconomic status (SES) on children's reading abilities, Aikens and Barbarin (2008) found that family characteristics, including home literacy and parental involvement in school, had the largest impact on reading ability at the beginning of kindergarten. However, school and neighborhood conditions were more strongly related than family characteristics to SES differences in rates of growth in reading over time. The authors stated that a school’s poverty concentration and number of children with reading deficits in the school was negatively related to individual’s reading outcomes. Like the ECLS-K, the ECLS-K:2011 will be ideally suited for studies that look at academic growth related to school characteristics.

The success (or lack thereof) that the school has had in meeting the goals of NCLB, such as increasing overall student achievement and reducing the achievement gaps between subgroups of students, may have lasting effects on the school, its enrollment, the services it offers, and potentially on its governance.

The other variables in this set provide the “backdrop” for educational processes occurring within the school. Total enrollment, school capacity, sources of funding, and adequacy of the physical facilities define both the size of the population to be served and the resources to do so. Overcrowding can be a serious problem, as can inadequate facilities and low levels of funding. Altogether these variables define important differences between schools.

Elementary schools tend to be smaller, more local, and have larger grade spans than either middle or high schools. The smaller catchment area of elementary schools, combined with the longer grade span, suggests a long-term cumulative influence of the local neighborhood on both children and their schools. School-level characteristics are likely to parallel those for the local neighborhood (demographically, but also, in terms of attitudes, values, and expectations), allowing a long-term, mutual reinforcement less possible in larger, more diverse middle and high schools. The community characteristics items in the school questionnaire focus on school and neighborhood safety. Schools in crime-ridden areas may have to prioritize security within and around the school, preventing outdoor play periods or field trips around the neighborhood.

The neighborhood questions ask about the neighborhood in which the school is located. The data collected in these questionnaires can be combined with Census data that characterize the neighborhood in other ways (by racial composition, crime, income, employment, etc.).

This set of items broadly defines the characteristics and basic resources of the school. These factors help describe the student population, the goals and purposes of instruction, time and resource constraints, and opportunities and resources to meet educational objectives.

These data will allow comparisons of schools that vary by these school characteristics:

• School type (public/private, affiliation, grades, magnet, etc.);

• Length of school year;

• Enrollment and attendance;

• Student demographics: racial/ethnic composition of the student population, language minorities in the student population, enrollment from outside the school’s attendance zone, participation in special education;

• Percentage of children eligible for free or reduced-price meals;

• Receipt of Title I and Title III funding;

• Services and programs/Title I;

• Services and programs/Title III;

• Availability of facilities, resources, and computer labs;

• State assessment data;

• School status relative to Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP);

• Neighborhood problems (racial tensions, gangs, and crime);

• School safety;

• Measures taken to ensure school safety; and

• Recent changes at the school.

School Policies and Practices on Retention and School Uniforms

There are strong opinions on both sides of the issue of the efficacy of retention as a practice aimed at remediating the academic or social difficulties of young children. Schools and school districts mirror this uncertainty, some favoring the use of retention in certain circumstances, others having a “no retention” policy. Most research about retention focuses on children in kindergarten or in first grade, or in high school. There is a lack of research looking at the effect of retention in later elementary school years. Data collected by ECLS-K:2011 on the effect of retention in second grade would help fill that gap. The ECLS-K:2011 will collect data on retention policy and remediation and/or support practices at the school level and gather information about the number of children retained in each class from the teachers at each target grade level. These data will address a number of issues about retention: the effects of retention for individual children, the influence of the proportion of the class that has been retained, and school policies regarding retention.

Although there have been claims that school uniforms better facilitate learning and improve student academic performance, there is little evidence that directly addresses the issue (Yeung, 2009; Bodine, 2003). Two studies actually found negative relationship between adoption of a school uniform policy and student academic performance (Yeung, 2009; Brunsma & Rockquemore, 2003). However, the literature suggests that more quantitative research is needed to better understand the effect of school uniform policies (e.g., Yeung, 2009). The ECLS-K:2011 will allow researchers to use cross-cohort comparisons to more accurately evaluate the effectiveness of school uniform policy on academic outcomes.

The policy topics covered in the school administrator questionnaire include:

• School policy regarding uniforms; and

• Retention policies and practices.

Response to Intervention

Response to Intervention (RtI) is intended to support improved academic achievement for all students. It offers a model for early intervention to prevent failure by identifying students who are struggling in the classroom with the general curriculum. A hallmark of RtI is an integrated system of assessment and monitoring at every stage of the process (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005, Coleman et al., 2006). All students are periodically compared to their classmates, using pre-determined benchmarks or local or national norms. Students determined to be at risk in the area of assessment (e.g., reading, math, behavior) receive a targeted, evidence-based intervention and the student’s progress is monitored. If the student improves, the student returns to general classroom instruction. Frequent monitoring occurs to ensure that progress is maintained following the intervention. If the student does not improve, the student may receive a more intensive intervention. Thus, the approach calls for dynamic assessment that allows practitioners to respond to children’s needs (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). Progress is regularly assessed and can be graphed or charted. Placement in different levels or “tiers” of services is data-driven.

Items related to RtI practices are being included in the school administrator question to obtain information at a national level to better understand the extent to which schools across the country are implementing identified RtI programs or are using practices that would be identified as RtI practices, even if the school has not formally adopted an RtI program.

Topics related to RtI covered in the ECLS-K:2011 school administrator questionnaire include:

• Implementation of an RtI approach at the school;

• Number of years RtI has been used at the school;

• Areas in which RtI is implemented, i.e., reading, mathematics, writing, and behavior;

• Implementation of various RtI-type features at the school (e.g., learning goals, benchmarks);

• Communication with parents about RtI;

• Presence of staff members to train and assist teachers with reading and mathematics instruction, delivery of behavioral supports, and use of assessment data; and

• Number of students evaluated and eligible for an IEP (RtI model or other model).

School-Family-Community Connections

Some schools have responded to community needs for daycare and before- and after-school child care services by offering these services at the school building. Schools may run child care programs themselves or through the Parent Teacher Association or may allow independent child care providers to operate on site. These services may be important for children of working parents; on-site child care allows continuity between the school day and their before- and after-school daycare arrangements.

Parent-school communication may have a number of potential benefits for children’s education. Parents as a visible presence in the school can reinforce the notion that education is a valued community goal. Parents can volunteer as classroom or school aides, freeing the teacher’s time for instruction. Benefits may flow in the other direction as well. When schools actively promote parent involvement and communication, parents may become more involved and more aware of school and classroom activities and of their own child’s instructional program. Strong relationships between schools and parents are associated with positive outcomes for children (Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler 1997; Gonzalez-DeHass, Willems, and Holbein 2005).

The ECLS-K:2011 items that collect information on school-family-community connections include:

• Programs or services for children at the school site;

• School-based programs or services for parents and families; and

• Parent involvement.

School Programs for Particular Populations

Because the ECLS-K:2011 will provide longitudinal data on a nationally representative sample of children, including children with special educational needs, information will be needed on special programs in which children in the study may participate. Because programs serving particular populations can vary in content and organization—differences that may, in turn, have consequences for both children’s opportunities to learn and their progress in school—basic characteristics of these programs need to be documented. Services to families of children in special programs should also be documented. The use of specific staff (e.g., outreach workers, translators, and parent liaisons who conduct home visits), parenting education, and other efforts to involve parents in support of their children’s success in school are among the topics included. These will provide data to address issues of how schools can best serve parents of children with special needs.

Data from the ECLS-K were used to examine the association between the school resources for ELL children and ELL children’s academic growth from kindergarten through fifth grade (Han and Bridglall 2009). The authors found that the initial gap in math scores between ELL children and their English-speaking peers narrowed by fifth grade. This was especially true for ELL children in schools with either a high- or low ELL student concentration. The ECLS-K:2011 will provide current data about schools’ efforts to serve the growing population of ELL children in U.S. schools. The ECLS-K:2011 direct assessments are specially designed to directly assess ELL children’s early English reading abilities, which was not possible in the ECLS-K. This feature will allow for a more thorough understanding of how services for these children relate to their reading growth, regardless of their initial English proficiency. The proportion of ELL children in the second grade and the total school, the number of children receiving bilingual education or ELL/ESL services, and the types of services provided to language minority (LM) families will be collected in the school administrator questionnaire.

Because baseline data were collected during the kindergarten year, a point when many children with disabilities have not yet been identified by schools, ECLS-K:2011 can help to shed light on how children come to be classified as having a particular disability over time. Information on where children with disabilities are served (i.e., in the classroom—“inclusion”—or in special pull-out classes) is also important information to be gathered in ECLS-K:2011. Enabling children to function effectively in a regular classroom setting is a goal of many special education programs. Although some children spend all of their time in separate special education classes or schools, many children move in and out of a regular class daily, receiving services in pull-out classes and returning to the classroom for the rest of the day. The ECLS-K:2011 data on special education placement and practices will provide critical information about the range and effectiveness of options for special education delivery.

The ECLS-K:2011 data on special populations include:

• Delivery of instruction to English Language Learners (ELL) and services for language minority (LM) families;

• Delivery of special education and related services to children with disabilities; and

• Programs for gifted and talented children.

Staffing and Teacher Characteristics

The ECLS-K:2011 school-level data on teacher characteristics will allow researchers to evaluate the importance of the following elements of the teaching staff for children, aside from the characteristics of their own teacher (which will be addressed on the teacher questionnaire):

• Total number of full- and part-time teachers, specialists, nurses, and paraprofessionals;

• Teacher mobility;

• The racial and ethnic composition of teaching staff;

• Professional development for teachers; and

• Monetary incentives for teachers.

Administrator Characteristics

School administrators have many roles and responsibilities: conveying and implementing state and district requirements and initiatives, assuming the role of inspirational leader for the staff, coordinating reform efforts, and managing the day-to-day operations of the school. Many administrators also have additional teaching or administrative duties. How administrators exercise these duties may influence teachers’ motivation, enthusiasm, and commitment to education.

Although literature exists on how leadership skills create conditions conducive to effective schools, few studies addresses the influence of variations in administrators’ characteristics, qualifications, and time use on student outcomes. The following ECLS-K:2011 variables might help explain why certain administrators are especially successful:

• Administrator’s sex, age, and race/ethnicity;

• Administrator’s years at the study school;

• Administrator’s years in the role of principal;

• Administrator’s formal education and training;

• Administrator’s time allocation;

• Administrator’s use of a non-English language; and

• Administrator’s familiarity with students.

C.4      General Classroom Teacher Questionnaires

The ECLS-K:2011 will collect information from the teachers of the sampled children. The primary purpose of these data is to help describe the children’s classroom experiences which may relate to their social and academic development.

In addition, teachers will be asked to provide information on the study participants who are in their classes, completing one form for each ECLS-K:2011 child. The ECLS-K:2011 assessment battery provides an objective assessment of academic outcomes for the nationally representative sample of children. Teachers can provide another perspective, albeit a less objective perspective, on children’s abilities and behavior because they spend a great deal more time with the children under far more routine conditions compared to ECLS-K:2011 assessors.

Because the ECLS-K:2011 collects a very broad range of variables and collects that information longitudinally, it is well-suited to study simultaneously the relationships of several variables and thus assess the relative importance of particular schooling variables compared to other schooling and family background variables on important outcomes.

The ECLS-K:2011 classroom component will ask teachers to provide information on classroom and student characteristics, instructional and evaluation practices, and their teaching qualifications and background.

C.4.1 Spring Second-Grade General Classroom Teacher Questionnaires

C.4.1.1 Spring Second-Grade General Classroom Teacher Questionnaires: Research Questions

• TQ1: How do instructional practices, content coverage, classroom resources, and methods of providing feedback differ across classrooms or schools? What is the relationship of those differences to children’s academic and social development?

• TQ2: How does diversity in the classroom regarding age, race/ethnicity, and sex, and number of second-grade repeaters relate to other classroom characteristics? How do these class-level characteristics interact with children’s own characteristics for the development of academic and social skills?

• TQ3: How do teachers and schools handle the diversity of children’s skills? How are children with special needs (e.g., English Language Learners, gifted and talented students, students with IEPs) taught? How might instructional differences for these students relate to academic and social outcomes?

• TQ4: Do teachers’ characteristics including sociodemographic characteristics, views on school “readiness,” sense of efficacy, job satisfaction, perceptions of school climate, their educational background, certifications, or teaching experience influence children’s outcomes, on average or in interaction with children’s sociodemographic backgrounds?

• TQ5: Do teachers’ practices to involve parents result in higher levels of parent involvement?

• TQ6: How do teacher's relationships with individual students differ?  What is the relationship of those differences to children's academic and social development?

• TQ7: What academic and social-emotional skills and behaviors (including activity level) do teachers report children having as they enter and go through school? Do these vary by family social background characteristics? How do these skills and behaviors change over time?

• TQ8: To what extent do teachers and other school staff use assessments to monitor students’ progress on specific skills and identify those in need of interventions? What kinds of interventions are provided for struggling students and how much staff support and parent communication are there for these efforts?

C.4.1.2     Spring Second-Grade General Classroom Teacher Questionnaires: Construct Coverage

Classroom and Student Characteristics

The total number of children enrolled in a class is a widely used index of instructional quality at all levels of education. Class size is usually considered important because of the constraints it places on teacher-child interactions. The time available for individuation and small-group supervision is reduced as class size increases, and this is widely believed to result in lower student achievement levels. Class size studies are quite prevelant but findings on outcomes related to various class sizes are not consistent. While education researchers and economists debate the benefits of broadscale class size reduction efforts relative to the high costs of implementation, most seem to agree on the benefits of targeted class size reduction policies for select subpopulations of students (Hanushek 2002; Krueger 2002; Rice 2002).

Additionaly, the demographic characteristics and ability-levels of the children in the class as a whole will be collected to support analyses that consider how a child’s learning trajectory might be related to the characteristics of their classmates, which may or may not be similar to their own.

The effort to educate all children in regular education programs presents challenges to teachers at all levels of education. Children with particular needs include those with physical and cognitive disabilities, as well as ELL and gifted and talented children. The ECLS-K:2011 is well-positioned to collect information on how these children are served and the consequences of treatment differences.

In light of the growing number of ELL children in the country, the ECLS-K:2011 has included many items for the teacher about the instructional program for ELL children beyond what was used in the ECLS-K. The range of specific disabilities included under the special education label makes it particularly important to find out how schools and teachers accommodate children with disabilities. As more schools move toward inclusion of children with disabilities in regular classrooms, data evaluating the extent and efficacy of these efforts need to be collected and evaluated. The ECLS-K:2011 also asks teachers about the numbers of children who are frequently tardy or absent and to rate the overall behavior of their class.

Teachers will provide information about classroom and student characteristics including:

• Class time (hours per day, days per week);

• Grade levels of classes the teacher teaches;

• Class demographics: class size, age distribution, race-ethnicity distribution, gender distribution, number repeating grade;

• Number of students who enter or leave during the school year;

• Number of language minority children and English-language learners (ELL) in the classroom;

• Number of children in the classroom receiving particular services or in special programs (e.g., special education services, a gifted and talented program, remedial services);

• Languages used in the classroom;

• Instruction for English language learners;

• Number of children above or below grade level in reading and mathematics;

• Numbers of children with disabilities;

• Number of children tardy or absent on an average day; and

• Overall behavior of the class.

Instructional Activities and Curricular Focus

Several studies suggest that large amounts of free play and unstructured time are negatively related to children’s cognitive and language development (McCartney 1984; Ruopp, Travers, Glantz, and Goelen 1979). A large number of studies have emphasized the importance of “time on task” for student achievement (Greenwood 1991; Greenwood, Arreaga-Mayer, and Carta 1994; Wang, Haertel, and Walberg 1990). Children achieve more (as measured by achievement tests) in classrooms where a higher proportion of time is spent in academic instruction and where they are engaged in their work with few interruptions or few periods of unoccupied time (Crocker and Brooker 1986; Greenwood 1991; Powell 1980; Teddlie, Kirby, and Stringfield 1989). However, engaging in child-directed, imaginative play develops many social, emotional, and cognitive competencies necessary for children’s school success including perseverance, patience, and the ability to imagine the future (Singer and Singer 2006; Bergen and Fromberg 2009). Child development experts have noted that elementary school children have less time to engage in free play as some schools reduce recess time in favor of more instructional time and that this trend may have unintended negative academic consequences (e.g., Pelligrini and Bohn 2005; Bergen and Fromberg 2009) and physical consequences (Datar and Strum 2004). Using ECLS-K data, Datar and Sturm found that only 16 percent of schools had physical education every day in kindergarten. Kindergartners spent almost an hour a week in physical education class (57 minutes), while first-graders on average spent 8.2 minutes more. The study showed that physical education programs helped girls who were overweight, or at risk for becoming overweight, avoid becoming obese.

The research on scheduling and program organization suggests that programs that are carefully planned and structured and offer a balance between adult-directed and child-initiated activities may provide the highest quality environments for children (Hayes, Palmer, and Zaslow 1990). This section of the teacher questionnaire includes items about time for free-play and recess which, in conjunction with items about time for various subject matters and classroom activities, can provide data which may be useful to investigate this issue for today’s children.

In contrast to heterogeneous grouping, teachers may use within-class ability or achievement grouping to place students into smaller groups stratified by achievement, skill, or ability levels (Entwisle 1995; Karweit 1985; Lou et al. 1996; McCoach, O’Connell, and Levitt 2006; Slavin 1987). Compared with whole-class instruction, achievement grouping allows teachers to reduce heterogeneity and target instruction to match students’ current level of knowledge and skills. Children’s reading achievement group placement can determine the amount and type of instruction they receive; it can influence the group process through the amount of disruptions and interruptions; and it can affect teachers’ and parents’ views of children (Entwisle 1995; Slavin 1987). Opponents of achievement grouping express concerns that teachers may develop lower expectations for children in low achievement groups, that children in low achievement groups will fall further behind their higher-achieving classmates and never catch up academically, and that children’s self-esteem will be adversely impacted (McCoach, O’Connell, and Levitt 2006).

The following constructs are used to characterize teachers’ curricular focus and how they organize their classes for instruction:

• Class activities outside of the regular class (lunch, free play, and recess);

• Use of class time, by subject area;

• Use of instructional groupings based on achievement and/or ability, number of groups;

• Additional reading services; and

• Use of homework.

Content Coverage for Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science and Social Studies Instruction

Reading experts recommend that teachers provide instruction in text comprehension that includes skills of retelling stories, responding to questions about story content, and identifying elements of story structure (Morrow, Strickland, and Woo 1999).

ECLS-K:2011 content coverage questions combine content that is included on the ECLS-K:2011 child assessment batteries with other skills delineated by the Common Core of State Standards (corestandards.org), which have been adopted by 42 states and the District of Columbia, as of June 20, 2011. The ECLS-K:2011 teacher questionnaire measures what is taught, how often it is taught, and how it is taught (i.e., using what materials and activities).

The following constructs measure students’ opportunities to learn in various academic subjects.

• Time spent on specific skills in reading/language arts and in mathematics; and

• Topics taught in social studies and science.

Resources/Materials

Use of instructional aides allows for greater individuation of instruction and personal attention. The number of adults and the number of children have been combined in studies focusing on the consequences of teacher-to-student ratios for classroom management and student outcomes.

In schools that are obliged to enroll more children than they were constructed to accommodate, class size may cause serious problems. Similarly, classes are likely to vary in terms of the availability of instructional materials and supplies. Because standards of adequacy for many resources depend on many conditions, it is probably best to ask the teachers about the degree to which they believe various resources are adequately provided to their classes.

The following items are used to characterize a classroom in terms of the availability of adults in the classroom and the adequacy and availability of physical space and materials:

• Classroom aides (paid aides and volunteers);

• Availability, use, and adequacy of instructional materials; and

• Availability of computers and other electronic devices.

Student Evaluation

Formal evaluations include grades, progress reports to parents, portfolios, and report cards. For these mechanisms, the most important variables are the criteria for grading, the frequency of feedback, and whether constructive information about areas of strengths and weaknesses is included. Martínez, Stecher, and Borko (2009) used ECLS-K data and found third- and fifth-grade teachers’ ratings of students mathematics achievement correlated strongly with the direct assessments; however, this relationship varied by certain classroom assessment practices, which suggested that teachers evaluate student performance relative to other students in the school.

The following are measures of child evaluation included in ECLS-K:2011:

• Methods of assessing children’s progress; and

• Uses of standardized tests.

Response to Intervention

While the school administrator questionnaire will provide information about school-wide implementation of Response to Intervention (RtI), the teacher questionnaire will include items targeted at practices and procedures in the second-grade classrooms associated with RtI methodology. The questions are intentionally worded so that information about methods typically incorporated in RtI models will be obtained from the teachers without mentioning RtI by name. This is done so that the implementation of the methods and practices themselves can be measured regardless of the particular terminology adopted by the teacher or school (e.g., some teachers may incorporate RtI methods without referring to them as RtI).

Teachers will be asked to report on the following classroom practices for measuring performance and for delivering instruction to students who are struggling:

• Implementation of various RtI-type features for reading and mathematics (e.g., learning goals, benchmarks, criteria for intervention) in the school’s second-grade classrooms;

• Other staff who provide instruction to students who are struggling;

• Professional development activities covering the use of assessment data for identifying struggling students and for guiding instruction in reading and mathematics;

• Frequency and purposes of assessing students in reading and mathematics;

• Completion of college courses addressing the use of data to inform the choice of academic and behavioral interventions; and

• Assistance and training from other staff for reading and mathematics instruction, delivery of behavior supports, and use of assessment data.

Parent Involvement

Research in recent years has increasingly emphasized the importance of parental involvement in explaining differences in student educational outcomes (Schneider and Coleman 1993; Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler 1997; Gonzalez-DeHass, Willems, and Holbein 2005). Constructs in this area, include the following:

• Communication with parents about children’s performance; and

• Parent involvement in school activities (volunteering, attending meetings, other activities).

Collegial Relations and Opportunities for Professional Development

Much of the recent reform literature has stressed the importance of collegial relations among teachers and of instructional leadership from the principal. One mechanism through which these variables can affect student outcomes is through the greater information available to teachers about alternative conceptions and methods of teaching, as well as details on particular children (Kilgore and Pendleton 1993). Discussions among colleagues can also lead to more clearly defined norms about what should be taught and how it should be taught (Bidwell and Bryk 1994; Talbert and McLaughlin 1994). Strong leadership by the principal is often cited as a key element of effective schools (Edmonds 1979).

Many teachers receive in-service training designed to improve teaching techniques and content knowledge. Although reliable information on the specific content of the programs would be difficult to collect, ECLS-K:2011 can find out about the kinds of in-service training in which teachers have participated.

Another aspect of the schedule is the time allocated for teachers to plan and prepare their daily lessons. Elementary teachers have traditionally had very limited planning time, a point of some concern as reform proposals call for additional work from teachers.

The following constructs measure collegial relations and opportunities for staff development:

• Professional development activities; and

• School leadership.

Teachers’ Views on Teaching, School Climate, and Environment

Teachers’ satisfaction with the amount of autonomy afforded to them and the amount they feel supported has a strong effect on teachers’ overall job commitment and interaction styles with children (Manlove 1993; Rosenthal 1991; Webb and Lowther 1993). A teacher’s sense of professional efficacy is associated with student outcomes. In ECLS-K:2011, teachers’ autonomy, input into school policies, and sense of efficacy will be measured. These can then be used to address questions having to do with how these relate to teaching practices and ultimately to child outcomes, such as the following:

• School climate;

• Job satisfaction; and

• Teachers’ sense of efficacy.

Teacher Background

Teacher demographic variables are mainly of interest in the context of fit with children’s backgrounds. Teacher race/ethnicity and sex may interact with student background variables to produce interesting results on student achievement.

Although studies have found substantial variation in teacher training at the preschool level, the differences tend to be smaller at the elementary level. Moreover, the differences that are found on such conventional yardsticks as highest degree earned and major field of study are at best weakly related to student cognitive outcomes (Hedges, Laine, and Greenwald 1994). Nonetheless, these indicators continue to be used as bases for salary differences and hiring decisions and are included in ECLS-K:2011.

The teacher’s years of teaching experience is considered an important characteristic to schools but there is some research that suggests teacher experience has only weak systematic relationships with student test scores (Hedges, Laine, and Greenwald 1994).

The following demographic, training, and experience variables will be collected as part of ECLS-K:2011:

• Teacher’s sex, age, and race/ethnicity;

• Teacher’s parents’ education level;

• Teaching experience, by school and grade;

• Teacher’s education, including degrees and credentials/licenses;

• Type of teaching certification held;

• Board certification; and

• “Highly Qualified Teacher” status.

Child-Specific: Enrollment Information

The teacher will provide child-specific information about important characteristics of the child’s:

• Current grade level;

• Child’s retention status;

• Length of time child has been enrolled in the classroom; and

• Number of school absences.

Child-Specific: Evaluation of Child’s Skills, Knowledge, and Behavior

Teachers’ reports of children’s academic skills augment the information obtained in the direct cognitive assessments. Teachers will also rate children in their classroom on social skills (including their ability to exercise self-control, interact with others, resolve conflict, and participate in group activities); problem behaviors (e.g., fighting, arguing, anger, depression, low self-esteem, impulsiveness, etc.); and learning dispositions or “approaches to learning” (e.g., curiosity, self-direction, and inventiveness). These important social-emotional behaviors have been incorporated into a wide variety of research done with the ECLS-K data. For example, Ready, LoGerfo, Burkhan, and Lee (2005) found that girls had an advantage in literacy/reading skills in kindergarten and their more positive approaches to learning explained almost two-thirds of the advantage. External behavior problems are more prevalent in boys but this did little to explain the gender gap in reading literacy development in kindergarten.

As mentioned above, few studies on bullying have been done with children of the age of the ECLS-K:2011 sample, but those that have suggest that bullying is experienced by many children and is related to negative outcomes.  Given these findings and the current White House anti-bullying initiative, obtaining information about peer victimization, which is a component of bullying, would be useful to have in a national study about elementary school. Collecting teacher-report data allow for examination of peer victimization in different contexts and reduces the effect of mono-method bias in measuring this construct.

The ECLS-K:2011 will also include measures of executive function. New research in the cognitive and neurological sciences is providing important insights into developmental processes associated with school readiness. Of particular interest is new research on the importance of executive function for learning and academic achievement (e.g., Blair and Razza 2007; Posner and Rothbart 2006). Executive functions are interdependent processes that work together to accomplish purposeful, goal-directed activities and include working memory, attention, inhibitory control, and other self-regulatory processes. Executive processes work to regulate and orchestrate cognition, emotion, and behavior to enable a student to learn in the classroom. For example, executive control involves the ability to allocate attention, to hold information in working memory, and to withhold an inappropriate response (Casey, et al. 2000). Not only are these cognitive and behavioral processes predictive of reading and math achievement (Blair and Razza 2007), but there is also emerging research that indicates that some of these cognitive processes are trainable (Rueda, et al. 2005; Klingberg, et al. 2005) and can be improved upon in regular public school classrooms without costly interventions (Diamond, et al. 2007). Given the increased interest in executive functions, we have included “attention focusing and inhibitory control” to the teacher questionnaire.

Child-specific skills and behaviors covered in the child-level teacher questionnaires are:

• Child’s academic skills in language and literacy, math, and science;

• Social skills rating scale;

• Child’s experiences with peer victimization (as a victim or an agressor);

• Attention focusing and inhibitory control;

• Child’s physical activity level; and

• Child’s academic difficulties.

Child-Specific: Specific Services and Programs

Although some children spend all of their time in separate special education classes or schools, many children move in and out of a regular class daily, receiving services in pull-out classes and returning to the classroom for the rest of the day. The ECLS-K:2011 data on special education placement and practices will provide critical information about the range and effectiveness of various special services. These constructs include:

• Receipt of specific services (pull-out or in-class grouping for regular or remedial services, individual tutoring, ELL services, speech or language therapy, other special education programs, programs for children with behavioral/emotional problems, gifted/talented instruction);

• Child’s ELL status;

• Child’s IEP/IFSP status; and

• Testing accommodations and participation.

Child-Specific: Parent Involvement

Parental involvement in their children’s education can have an important influence on school outcomes for children (Stallings and Stipek 1986; Hoover-Dempsey and Sandler 1997; Gonzalez-DeHass, Willems, and Holbein 2005). Teachers’ report of parents’ participation at school and communication with the teacher can supplement parents’ report of involvement in school to offer a picture of parent involvement from both perspectives.

The ECLS-K:2011 items that collect information on school-family-community connections from the teacher include:

• Parents’ involvement in children’s schools and education; and

• Parent-teacher communication.

Child-Specific: Teacher-Child Relationships

When the child-teacher relationship is warm and free from conflict, children are most apt to have academic and social success in elementary school and this is especially true for children who might otherwise be at risk of academic or social problems in school (Pianta and Steinberg 1992; Peisner-Feinberg et al. 2001). Unlike the ECLS-K, the ECLS-K:2011 will include a measure of the teacher-child relationship which will be used to help researchers further understand the role that this important relationship plays in children’s adjustment to school and learning outcomes.

The teacher will answer questions about:

• Level of closeness between child and teacher; and

• Level of conflict between child and teacher.

C.5 Special Education Teacher Questionnaires

Like their regular classroom teacher counterparts, teachers who provide special education and related services to study participants will be asked to complete questionnaires in the spring second-grade data collection. The first questionnaire gathers data on teacher background, training, experience, and teaching assignment; the items are parallel to those on the teacher questionnaire. On the second questionnaire, teachers are asked to provide information on the study participants with whom they work, completing one form for each ECLS-K:2011 child who has an IEP.

C.5.1 Special Education Teacher Questionnaires: Research Questions

• SEQ1: What are the types of service delivery models in place for special education? How do program variations relate to differences in children’s academic or social development?

• SEQ2: What is the prevalence of different types of disabilities among children in elementary school? What types of services, instructional strategies, and assistive devices are provided to children with different types of disabilities?

• SEQ3: How is inclusion related to children’s progress through the early grades?

• SEQ4: Do teachers’ sociodemographic characteristics and their educational background or experience influence children’s outcomes, on average or in interaction with children’s sociodemographic backgrounds?

• SEQ5: How do teachers and schools handle the diversity of children’s skills? How are children with special needs taught?

• SEQ6: Are teachers’ practices to involve parents associated with higher levels of parent involvement?

• SEQ7: How are children identified for receipt of special education services?

C.5.2 Special Education Teacher Questionnaires: Construct Coverage

Special Education Teacher Background

Information on teachers’ demographic backgrounds, education, certification, and teaching experience are of interest to researchers because they provide contextual information about the child’s learning environment. Other teacher information, such as teacher reports of their professional efficacy and their workload (e.g., number of students they teach, teaching assignment and position), may influence their interactions with students and student outcomes.

The following demographic, training, and experience variables will be collected from special education service providers of ECLS-K:2011 children:

• Teacher’s sex, age, and race/ethnicity;

• Total years teaching experience;

• Total years as a special education teacher;

• Total years teaching experience at the study school;

• Teacher’s education, including degrees, credentials/licenses, certification, and coursework;

• Teacher’s parents’ highest level of education;

• Teaching position and assignment;

• Locations in which the teacher delivers services within the school;

• Teacher’s job satisfaction/sense of efficacy; and

• Teaching student caseload: number of students with IEPs with whom the teacher works during a typical week.

Child-specific: Disabilities and Placement

Holt, McGrath, and Herring (2007) analyzed ECLS-K data to determine when most children entered special education in the early years of elementary school and how long they stayed in the program. Twelve percent of children received special education in at least one grade—kindergarten, first, and/or third grade. Boys, poor children, and children from small towns (compared to children in cities) were most likely to be enrolled in a special education program. The percentage of children receiving special services was higher in third grade than in kindergarten and first grade and the most commonly identified primary disability changed across grade levels. These studies and others conducted with ECLS-K data point to the importance of further research on children’s disabilities and receipt of special services and programs. Such information is best collected from the child’s special education teacher because he or she is most familiar with the child’s IEP plan and the types of services, accommodations, and assistive devices used with the child.

Part B of the special education teacher questionnaire asks the teacher to provide the following student-level information:

• Whether child is receiving special education services through an IEP;

• Teacher’s review of child’s records related to special education services;

• Child’s disabilities;

• Goals contained in the child’s IEP;

• Type and amount of special education and related services the child receives;

• Child’s classroom placement;

• Teaching methods and curriculum materials used with child, including assistive technologies;

• Communications with other teachers about the child;

• Communication with the child’s parents;

• Individual evaluations to develop IEP goals;

• Extent to which the IEP goals have been met; and

• Extent to which child is expected to meet general education goals and participate in grade-level assessments.

References

Ackerman, B., Brown, E., and Izard, C. (2003). Continuity and change in levels of externalizing behavior in school of children from economically disadvantaged families. Child Development, 74(3): 694-709.

Aikens, N., and Barbarin, O. (2008). Socioeconomic differences in reading trajectories: The contribution of family, neighborhood, and school contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2): 235-251.

Alexander, K.L., and Entwisle, D.R. (1988). Achievement in the first two years of school: Patterns and processes. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 53(2): 1-140.

Almond, T., and Holt, J. (2005). What Parents do in the Home and Community that Influences Their Child’s Reading. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Mid-Western Educational Research Association, Columbus, Ohio.

Amato, P.R., and Gilbreth, J.G. (1998). Nonresident fathers and children’s well-being. Unpublished manuscript. Lincoln, NE: Department of Sociology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln.

American Academy of Audiology. (1997). Identification of Hearing Loss & Middle-Ear Dysfunction in Preschool & School-Age Children. Available online at http://www.audiology.org/resources/documentlibrary/Pages/HearingLossChildren.aspx

Bane, M.J., and Ellwood, D. (1983). The dynamics of dependence: The routes to self-sufficiency. Report prepared for Assistant Secretary of Planning and Evaluation, Department of Health and Human Services.

Bergen, D., and Fromberg, D. (2009). Play and social interaction in middle childhood. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(6): 426-430.

Bidwell, C.E., and Bryk, A.S. (1994). How teachers’ work is organized: The content and consequences of the structure of the high school workplace. Chicago, IL: The National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago.

Blair, C., and Razza, R. (2007). Relating effortful control, executive function, and false belief understanding to emerging math and literacy ability in kindergarten. Child Development, 78(2): 647-663.

Bodine, A. (2003). School Uniforms, Academic Achievement, and Uses of Research. The Journal of Educational Research , 97(2), 67-71.

Brunsma, D. L., & Rockquemore, K. A. (2003). Statistics, Sound Bites, and School Uniforms: A Rebuttal to Bodine. The Journal of Education Research, 97(2), 72-77.

Bryk, A., Lee, V., and Holland, P. (1993). Catholic schools and the common good. Cambridge, MA US: Harvard University Press.

Burchinal, M., Roberts, J.E., Zeisel, S.A., Hennon, E.A., and Hooper, S. (2006). Parenting: Science and Practice, 6(1): 79-113.

Burkam, D., LoGerfo, L., Ready, D., and Lee, V. (2007). The differential effects of repeating kindergarten. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 12(2): 103-136.

Burns, M.K., and Ysseldyke, J.E. (2005). Comparison of existing response-to-intervention models to identify and answer implementation questions. The California School Psychologist, 10: 9-20.

Casey, B.J., Giedd, J.N., and Thomas, K.M. (2000). Structural and functional brain development and its relation to cognitive development. Biological Psychiatry 54(1-3): 241-257.

Chandra, A., Martinez, G.M., Mosher, W.D., Abma, J.C., and Jones, J. (2005). Fertility, family planning and reproductive health of U.S. women: Data from the 2002 National Survey of Family Growth. Vital Health Statistics, 23(25).

Coleman, M. R., Buysse, V., and Neitzel, J. (2006). Response and recognition: An early intervening system for young children at risk for learning disabilities. Full report. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Institute.

Collaborative Longitudinal Evaluation of Ethnicity and Refractive Error Study Group. (2003). Refractive error and ethnicity in children. Arch Opthamol, 121(8): 1141-1147.

Crocker, R., and Brooker, G. (1986). Classroom control and student outcomes in grades 2 and 5. American Educational Research Journal, 23(1): 1-11.

Cunningham, M., Cox, E.O., the Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine, and the Section on Otolaryngology and Bronchoesophagology. (2003). Hearing assessment in infants and children: Recommendations beyond neonatal screening. Pediatrics. 111(2): 436-440.

Datar, A., and Sturm, R. (2006). Childhood overweight and elementary school outcomes. International Journal of Obesity, 30(9): 1449-1460.

Dawson, D.A. (1991). Family structure and children’s health and well-being: Data from the 1988 National Health Interview Survey on Child Health. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53(3): 573-584.

Diamond, A., Barnett, S., Thomas, J., and Munro, S. (2007). Preschool program improves cognitive control. Science, 318: 1387-1388.

Duncan, G.J. (1991). The economic environment of childhood. In A.C. Huston (Ed.), Children in poverty (pp. 23-50). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Duncan, G.J., Brooks-Gunn, J., and Klebanov, P. K. (1994). Economic deprivation and early childhood development. Child Development, 65: 296-318.

Duncan, G.J., and Rodgers, W. (1988). Longitudinal aspects of childhood poverty. Journal of Marriage and Family, 50 (4): 1007-1021.

Dunifon, R., and Kowaleski-Jones, L. (2007). The influence of grandparents in single-mother families. Journal of Marriage & Family, 69(2): 465-481.

Edmonds, R.R. (1979). A discussion of the literature and the issues related to effective schooling. Cambridge, MA: Center for Urban Studies, Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Entwisle, D.R. (1995). The role of schools in sustaining early childhood program benefits. The Future of Children, 5(3): 133-144.

Espinosa, L., Laffey, J., Whittaker, T., and Sheng, Y. (2006). Technology in the home and the achievement of young children: Findings from the early childhood longitudinal study. Early Education and Development, 17(3): 421-441.

Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics. (2007). America’s Children: Key National Indicators of Well-Being, 2007. Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Gabarino, J., and Kosteiny, K. (1993). Neighborhood and community influences on parenting. In T. Luster and L. Okagaki (Ed.), Parenting: An ecological perspective (pp. 203-227). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Flores, E., Painter, G., and Pachon, H. (2009, November). ¿Qué pasa? Are ELL students remaining in English? (A Tomás Rivera Policy Institute Full Report). Los Angeles: University of Southern California School of Policy, Planning and Development.

Fuchs, D., and Fuchs, L.S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1): 92-99.

Gonzalez-DeHass, A., Willems, P., and Holbein, M. (2005). Examining the relationship between parental involvement and student motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 99-123.

Gottfried, A.W. (1984). Home environment and early cognitive development: Integration, meta-analyses, and conclusions. In A.W. Gottfried (Ed.), Home environment and early cognitive development (pp. 329-342). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Greenwood, C.R. (1991). A longitudinal analysis of time, engagement, and achievement in at-risk versus non-risk students. Exceptional Children, 57(6): 521-535.

Greenwood, C.R., Arreaga-Mayer, C., and Carta, J. (1994). Identification and translation of effective teacher-developed instructional procedures for general practice. Remedial and Special Education, 15: 140-151.

Gregory, A., and Rimm-Kaufman, S. (2008). Positive mother-child interactions in kindergarten: Predictors of school success in high school. School Psychology Review, 37(4): 499-515.

Han, W., and Bridglall, B. (2009). Assessing school supports for ELL students using the ECLS-K. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24(4): 445-462.

Hanushek, E.A. (2002). Evidence, politics, and the class size debate. In L. Mishel and R. Rothstein (Ed.), The Class Size Debate. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Harter, S. (1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York: The Guilford Press.

Haurin, R.J. (1992). Patterns of childhood residence and the relationship to young adult outcomes. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 54: 846-860.

Hayes, C., Palmer, J., and Zaslow, M. (Eds.). (1990). Who cares for America’s children? Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Hedges, L.V., Laine, R.D., and Greenwald, R. (1994). Does money matter? A meta-analysis of studies of the effects of differential school inputs on student outcomes. Educational Researcher, 23(3): 5-14.

Holt, E.W., McGrath, D. J., and Herring, W.L. (2007). Timing and Duration of Student Participation in Special Education in the Primary Grades (NCES 2007-043). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Hong, G., and Yu, B. (2007). Early-grade retention and children's reading and math learning in elementary years. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(4): 239-261.

Hoover-Dempsey, K., and Sandler, H. (1997). Why do parents become involved in their children's education? Review of Educational Research, 67(1): 3.

Howes, C. (1988). Relations between early child care and schooling. Developmental Psychology, 24: 53-57.

Howes, C., and Stewart, P. (1987). Child’s play with adults, toys, and peers: An examination of family and child care influences. Developmental Psychology, 23: 423-430.

Jackson, A.P., Bentler, P. M., and Franke, T.M. (2006), Employment and parenting among current and former welfare recipients. Journal of Social Service Research, 33(2): 13-25.

Jackson, A., Jeong-Kyun, C., and Franke, T. (2009). Poor single mothers with young children: Mastery, relations with nonresident fathers, and child outcomes. Social Work Research, 33(2): 95-106.

Judge, S., and Jahns, L. (2007). Association of overweight with academic performance and social and behavioral problems: An update from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Journal of School Health, 77(10): 672-678.

Karweit, N. (1985). Should we lengthen the school term? Educational Researcher, 14(6): 9-15.

Kilgore, S.B., and Pendleton, W.W. (1993). The organizational context of learning: Framework for understanding the acquisition of knowledge. Sociology of Education, 66: 63-87.

Klingberg, T., Fernell, E., Olesen, P., Johnson, M., Gustafsson, P., and Dahlstrom, K. et al. (2005). Computerized training of working memory in children with ADHD: A randomized, controlled trial. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 44: 177-186.

Krueger, A.B. (2002). Understanding the magnitude and effect of class size on student achievement. In L. Mishel and R. Rothstein (Ed.), The Class Size Debate. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Larsen, L.J. (2004). The Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 2003. Current Population Reports P20-551. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Washington, DC.

Luekens, M.T., Lyter, D.M., and Fox, E.E. (2004). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the Teacher Follow-Up Survey, 2000-01 (NCES 2004-301). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Maccoby, E. and Martin, J. (1983). Socialization in the context of the family: Parent-child interaction. In E.M. Hetherington (Ed.), P.H. Mussen (Series Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Socialization, personality, and social development (pp.1-101). New York: Wiley.

Magnuson, K.A., Ruhm, C., and Waldfogel, J. (2007). The persistence of preschool effects: Do subsequent classroom experiences matter? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(1): 18-38.

Manlove, J. (1993). Multiple correlates of burnout in child care workers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8: 499-518.

Martin, J.A., Brady, E., Hamilton, P.D., Sutton, S.J., Ventura, F.M., and Kirmeyer, S. (2006). Births: Final Data for 2004. National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 55, No. 1, Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

McCartney, K. (1984). Effect of quality of day care environment on children’s language development. Developmental Psychology, 20: 244-260.

McCoach, D.B., O’Connell, A.A., and Levitt, H. (2006). Ability grouping across kindergarten using an Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. The Journal of Educational Research, 99 (6): 339-346.

McLanahan, S., and Sandefur, G. (1994). Growing up with a single parent: What hurts, what helps. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

McLoyd, V. and Wilson, L. (1991). The strain of living poor: Parenting, social support, and child mental health. In A.C. Huston (Ed.), Children in poverty: Child development and public policy (pp. 105-135). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mead, S., Vaishnav, A., Porter, W., and Rotherham, A.J. (2010). Conflicting missions and unclear results: Lessons from education stimulus funds. Washington, DC: Bellwether Education Partners.

Moore, K.A., Zaslow, M., Coiro, M.J., and Morrison, D.R. (1993). Tabulations of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth-Child Supplement. Unpublished manuscript prepared for OMB submission for JOBS Observational Study, Washington, DC: Child Trends, Inc.

Moore, K.A., Zaslow, M.J., Coiro, M., Miller, S.M., and Magenheim, F.B. (1995). How well are they faring? AFDC families with preschool-aged children in Atlanta at the outset of the JOBS program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Morrison, D.R., and Cherlin, A.J. (1992). The divorce process and young children’s well-being: A prospective analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, Denver, CO.

Morrow, L.M., Strickland, D.S., and Woo, D.G. (1999). Literacy Instruction in Half- and Whole-Day Kindergarten: Research to Practice. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1998). Learning to read and write. Developmentally appropriate practices for young children. Young Children 53(4): 30-45.

National Hearing Conservation Association. (2004). Crank it down. NHCA Task Force on Hearing Conservation Education for Children and Adolescents, American Academy of Audiology.

Neuman, S.B. (2002). What Research Reveals: Foundations for Reading Instruction in Preschool and Primary Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Newacheck, P.W., and Hallfon, N. (1988). Preventive care use by school-aged children: Differences by socioeconomic status. Pediatrics, 82: 462-468.

Nord, C.W., Brimhall, D., and West, J. (1998). Fathers’ involvement in their children’s school (NCES 98-091). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Okagaki, L., and Sternberg, R.J. (1993). Parental beliefs and children’s school performance. Child Development, 64: 36-56.

Peisner-Feinberg, E., Burchinal, M., Clifford, R., Culkin, M., Howes, C., Kagan, S. (2001). The relation of preschool child-care quality to children's cognitive and social developmental trajectories through second grade. Child Development, 72(5): 1534-1553.

Pellegrini, A.D., and Bohn, C.M. (2005). The role of recess in children’s cognitive performance and school adjustment. Educational Researcher, 34(1): 13-19.

Perrachione, B.A., Rosser, V.J., and Petersen, G.J. (2008). Why do they stay? Elementary teachers’ perceptions of job satisfaction and retention. The Professional Educator, 32(2).

Peterson, J.L., and Zill, N. (1986). Marital disruption, parent-child relationships, and behavior problems in children. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48: 295-307.

Pianta, R., and Steinberg, M. (1992). Teacher–child relationships and the process of adjusting to school. Beyond the parent: The role of other adults in children's lives (pp. 61-80). San Francisco, CA US: Jossey-Bass.

Planty, M., Hussa, W., Snyder, T., Kena, G., KewalRamani, A., Kemp, J., Bianco, K., and Dinkes, R. (2009). The Condition of Education 2009 (NCES 2009-081). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Posner, M.I., and Rothbart, M.K. (2006). Educating the Human Brain. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Powell, D.R. (1992). Families and young children’s school readiness. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Rhodes, C., Nevill, A., and Allan, J. (2004). Valuing and supporting teachers: A survey of teacher satisfaction, dissatisfaction, morale and retention in an English local education authority. Research in Education, 71: 67-80.

Rice, J.K. (2002). Making the evidence matter: Implications of the class size research debate for policy makers. In L. Mishel and R. Rothstein (Ed.), The Class Size Debate. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Rosenthal, M. (1991). Behaviors and beliefs of caregivers in family day care: The effects of background and work environment. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6: 263-283.

Rueda, M.R., Rothbart, M.K., McCandliss, B.D., Saccomanno, L., and Posner, M.I. (2005). Training, maturation, and genetic influences on the development of executive attention. Proceedings from the National Academy of Sciences, 102 (41): 14931-14936.

Ruopp, R., Travers, J., Glantz, F., and Goelen, C. (1979). Children at the center: Final results of the National Day Care Study. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates.

Schneider, B. and J. S. Coleman. (1993). Parents, their children, and schools. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Shaff, K., Wolfinger, N., Kowaleski-Jones, L., and Smith, K. (2008). Family structure transitions and child achievement. Sociological Spectrum, 28(6): 681-704.

Singer, D.G., and Singer, J.L. (2006). “Fantasy and Imagination.” In Doris P. Fromberg and Doris Bergen (Ed.), Play from Birth to 12: Contexts,Perspectives, and Meanings (pp. 371-378). New York: Routledge.

Slavin, R.E. (1987). Ability grouping and student achievement in elementary schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 57 (3): 293-336.

Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., and Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Stallings, J.A., and Stipek, D. (1986). Research on early childhood and elementary school teaching programs. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 727-753). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.

Sy, S., and Schulenberg, J. (2005). Parent beliefs and children’s achievement trajectories during the transition to school in Asian American and European American families. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(6): 505–515.

Talbert, J.E., and McLaughlin, M.W. (1994). Teacher professionalism in local school contexts. American Journal of Education, 102: 123-153.

Teddlie, C., Kirby, P., and Stringfield, S. (1989). Effective versus ineffective schools: Observable differences in the classroom. American Journal of Education, 97: 221-236.

Tudor-Locke, C., Kronenfeld, J.J., Kim, S.S., Benin, M., and Kuby, M. (2007). A geographical comparison of prevalence of overweight school-aged children: the National Survey of Children’s Health 2003. Pediatrics, 120(4): e1043-1050.

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, ESEA Blueprint for Reform, Washington, D.C., 2010.

Vandell, D. Belsky, J., Burchinal, M., Steinberg, L., and Vandergrift, N. (2010). Do effects of early child care extend to age 15 years? Results from the NICHD Study of early Child Care and Youth Development. Child Development, 81(3): 737-756.

Ventura, S.J. (2009). Changing patterns of nonmarital childbearing in the United States. NCHS data brief, no 18. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics.

Wang, M., Haertel, G., and Walberg, H. (1990). What influences learning? A content analysis of review literature. Journal of Educational Research, 84: 30-43.

Webb, N., and Lowther, M. (1993). Organizational commitment of child care providers employed in Centre facilities. Journal of Child and Youth Care, 8: 1-16.

Zill, N., Moore, K.A., Smith, E.W., Stief, T., and Coiro, M.J. (1991). Life circumstances and development of children in welfare families: A profile based on national survey data. Washington, DC: Child Trends, Inc.

1 A student needs to have either a complete parent interview or a child assessment in fall 2010 or spring 2011 to be included in the study as a base-year participant/respondent.

2 The assumptions underlying the calculation of sample size noted here are: a two-tailed test of differences with significance level alpha of 0.05 and power beta of at least 80 percent; estimating proportions of 30 and 36 percent (i.e., a 20 percent relative change); and a correlation between assessment scores from different waves of 0.75. This assumed correlation of assessments comes from experiences in the ECLS-K. Specifically, looking at difference estimates computed between grade 1 and grade 3, and between grade 3 and grade 5 of the ECLS-K, the estimated correlations in assessments between consecutive waves were found to be very high (between 0.72 and 0.98), for an average of 0.75.

3 Except for students repeating kindergarten in the 2011-12 school year, all students enrolled in schools that have kindergarten as their highest grade are de facto movers. Using the information collected during the base year, a list of destination schools for these students was compiled for each school that terminated with kindergarten. Identical procedures were followed for schools that have first grade as their highest grade. If four or more students moved into a primary destination school, they are treated as nonmovers.

4 Movers and nonmovers here refer to movement between schools, not between home addresses.

5 The school coordinator will often be the same school staff member who acted as school coordinator in the kindergarten and/or first-grade data collections. If that person is not available, then a new staff member will be identified by the school administrator to act as a liaison to the study.

6 The team leader is a specially-trained ECLS-K:2011 staff member responsible for communicating with schools and making arrangements for assessment activities; for leading a team of assessors in each school; for conducting assessments him/herself; for recording school, child, parent, and teacher information in the field management system; and for reporting assessment and parent interview production information to the field manager. The field manager is responsible for the management of all data collection activities in a region of approximately 100 schools, including the supervision of approximately 10 assessment teams, quality control, and reporting assessment, interview, and hard-copy production information to the home office field directors.

7 It is expected that there will be a change in the approach to collecting the teacher questionnaire data in third, fourth, and/or fifth grades, based on the experience from ECLS-K. Children in the upper elementary grades often have more than one teacher involved in their instruction. Although in some schools children may be taught in one classroom by one teacher who covers all subjects, it becomes more common for children in these grades to have different teachers for at least a few subject areas, such as reading and language arts, mathematics, and/or science and social studies. This was the experience in ECLS-K. The model used for the teacher questionnaires in the kindergarten, first-grade, and second-grade data collections of the ECLS-K:2011, in which a single classroom teacher received questions about all three core academic subjects in a single questionnaire, may not be the best structure to use in the later grades. The purpose of these questions is to obtain information that will enable us to make a more informed decision about the most appropriate questionnaire structure to use for these later rounds.

8 The Field Management System (FMS) is a secure web-based system designed to help team leaders manage and view their cases, enter and update case information at the school, child, parent, and teacher levels, and communicate information to the contractor’s home office.

9 The ECLS-K:2011 brochure was approved in a previous OMB clearance package that was approved in May 2010.

10 While most students will be in second grade in spring 2013, not all students will be “on-grade.” These data collection activities still apply regardless of the grade level of the student and teacher (i.e., off-grade students will have teacher questionnaires).

11 If questionnaires have to be collected after the school visit is completed, the team leader will stop by the school at a prearranged date to pick up the questionnaires.  However, on rare occasions, arrangements are made with the school coordinator to have them mailed to the home office.  In these cases, the team leader will give the school coordinator a Federal Express mailer and prepaid label to mail back the questionnaires to the home office. Such mailings may occur if a follow-up visit cannot be arranged or if the questionnaires were not completed by the time of the follow-up visit and another visit by the team leader to the school cannot be arranged.

12 Roughly 70 percent of the schools required that the study obtain active parent consent for the child’s participation. Other schools required only passive consent in which the parent is sent a notification consent forms for the parent to return only if s/he objected to the child’s participation. The study followed the consent procedure required by the school or district. If a child transfers from a school that requires passive consent to school that requires active consent, and a recorded consent is not available because the parent interview was not completed for that child, field staff will contact the parent and attempt to obtain a signed consent form.

Early Childhood Longitudinal Study Kindergarten Class of 2010-11	B-0