Teachers’ Perspectives on Year Two Implementation of a Kindergarten Readiness Assessment

In this study we examined teachers’ perspectives regarding the second year of implementing a Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA). Using a mixed-methods approach, we focused on the administration process, the perceived benefits of the assessment, and how teachers used the assessment to inform instruction. We also investigated whether these differed by teacher and district characteristics and how KRA experiences were different in the second year of implementation. Research Findings: Teachers generally did not view the KRA as beneficial for instruction or for students, reporting administration difficulties, inadequate KRA content, and limited utility of KRA data for supporting instruction as ongoing barriers to KRA use. Although the administration process seemed to be easier in the second year, teachers still reported it as burdensome, cutting into important beginning of kindergarten activities. Notably, teacher training and experience were associated with perceptions. Practice or Policy: Reasons for perceived lack of utility have important implications for future KRA design and implementation. These include better integration of KRAs into existing assessment systems, recognizing the added burden of KRAs to teachers (particularly at the beginning of kindergarten), and the role that additional training may have in supporting use of KRAs at the local level

Using the new Kindergarten Readiness Assessment: What do teachers and principals think?

This white paper presents the results of a survey completed by teachers and principals in central Ohio concerning their perceptions of Ohio’s new Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA) during its inaugural implementation year. All kindergarten teachers and principals in Franklin County public elementary schools were invited to complete the survey; 150 responded. Although teachers and principals generally reported using assessments, including the previous state-mandated KRA-L screening tool, to guide their instructional decisions, the majority of participants did not perceive that the KRA, in particular, was useful for guiding instruction. Moreover, teachers reported that administering the KRA took away valuable time needed to help students adjust to learning in a formal school setting and create a classroom community. Administration issues, lack of access to the data, redundancy or incompleteness of KRA data, and misconceptions about the purpose of the KRA all seemed to contribute to participants’ dissatisfaction with the KRA. Overall, it seems that teachers are not using the KRA as intended. Our findings do not indicate an adversity to assessment in general. Rather, negative perceptions and/or lack of use seem to be tied to a misunderstanding of the purpose of the KRA and administration issues