View the full 2011-2012 EDI Community Profile Report for Wichita

Transcription

EA R LY D E V EL O PME N T
I N S TRU M E NT ( E D I)
C OM MU N I TY PRO FIL E
WI C HITA C OU N TY, TE XA S
FO R BU R K BU R N E TT A ND
WI C HITA FA L L S
SCHOOL YEAR 2011-2012
We would like to express our appreciation to the kindergarten teachers in Wichita
County for collecting the EDI information that is used in this report. Their work will heavily
inform local planning efforts and result in meaningful progress to improve school readiness.
Prepared by: UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities. For information
regarding this report, contact [email protected]
The EDI is part of a national initiative called Transforming Early Childhood Community Systems
(TECCS), developed to help match proven school readiness solutions with the unique needs
faced by communities. TECCS represents a partnership between the UCLA Center for Healthier
Children, Families and Communities and the United Way Worldwide.
The TECCS initiative is supported by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the communities in which
TECCS is being implemented.
The UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and Communities, under license from
McMaster University, is implementing the Early Development Instrument with its sub licensees
in the US. The EDI is the copyright of McMaster University and must not be copied, distributed
or used in any way without the prior consent of UCLA or McMaster
For questions regarding licensing, email: [email protected]
© McMaster University, The Offord Centre for Child Studies
Table of Contents
A. INTRODUCTION
1
Purpose
1
Overview of contents
1
Contacts and resources
1
B. BACKGROUND
2
The TECCS Initiative
2
Description of the EDI
2
Table 1. Description of EDI Developmental Domains
3
Understanding EDI results
4
Limitations of the data
5
School district participation rates
6
Table 2. Percent of Schools Participating in the EDI by School District, 2012
Geographic boundaries used for reporting results
6
6
Table 3. EDI Participation Rates by Neighborhood, 2012
8
Figure 1. Number of EDI Checklists in Analysis, 2012
9
C. MAPPED RESULTS BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA
10
Figure 2. EDI Map Legend
10
Figure 3. Ranges Used in the EDI Maps for the Percent of Children Vulnerable
11
Child developmental outcomes
12
Map 1 – Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains
13
Map 2 – Children Vulnerable in the Physical Health and Well-being Domain
15
Map 3 – Children Vulnerable in the Social Competence Domain
17
Map 4 – Children Vulnerable in the Emotional Maturity Domain
19
Map 5 – Children Vulnerable in the Language and Cognitive Development Domain
21
Map 6 – Children Vulnerable in the Communication Skills and General Knowledge Domain
23
Map 7 – Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Proportion of Vulnerabilities by
Domain
25
Map 8 – Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Percent of Families with Children in
Poverty
27
Map 9 – Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Percent of Single Parent Families
29
Map 10 – Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Years at Current Residence
31
Map 12 – Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Community Assets
35
Map 13 – Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Child Care Sites
37
D. DATA TABLES BY GEOGRAPHIC AREA
39
Five domains of child development
39
Table 4. EDI Community Profile Summary, 2012
Percentage of children vulnerable and very ready by domain & geographic area
40
43
Table 5. EDI Domain: Physical Health and Well-being, 2012
43
Table 6. EDI Domain: Social Competence, 2012
44
Table 7. EDI Domain: Emotional Maturity, 2012
46
Table 8. EDI Domain: Language and Cognitive Development, 2012
47
Table 9. EDI Domain: Communication Skills and General Knowledge, 2012
49
Overview of sub-domains
51
Table 10. EDI Sub-domain: Physical Health and Well-being
51
Table 11. EDI Sub-domain: Social Competence
52
Table 12. EDI Sub-domain: Emotional Maturity
52
Table 13. EDI Sub-domain: Language and Cognitive Development
53
Table 14. EDI Sub-domain: Communication Skills and General Knowledge
53
Sub-domain scores by geographic area
54
Table 15. EDI Sub-domain: Physical Health and Well-being, 2012
54
Table 16. EDI Sub-domain: Social Competence, 2012
56
Table 17. EDI Sub-domain: Emotional Maturity, 2012
58
Table 18. EDI Sub-domain: Language and Cognitive Development, 2012
60
Table 19. EDI Sub-domain: Communication Skills and General Knowledge, 2012
62
Multiple Challenge Index
Table 20. Percentage of Children with Multiple Challenges on EDI, 2012
Descriptive characteristics of the children by geographic area
64
64
66
Table 21. Gender, Age, ELL, and IEP Status of EDI Participants, 2012
66
Table 22. Race/Ethnicity of EDI Participants, 2012
68
Table 23. Previous Child Care Arrangement of EDI Participants, 2012
69
E. GLOSSARY OF TERMS
72
APPENDIX
75
Appendix A. EDI Items by Domain and Sub-domain
75
Appendix B. Description of EDI Maps
79
A. Introduction
Purpose
The Early Development Instrument (EDI) Community Profile provides local policymakers and
key community stakeholders with local level information on children’s developmental
outcomes during the kindergarten year. The Profile maps the information on children’s
development by geographic area (such as neighborhoods or census tracts) along with other
indicators including socio-demographic characteristics and community assets in order to help
understand possible factors contributing to the observed outcomes in children. The EDI
Community Profile is designed to mobilize and engage local leaders around a data-driven and
action-oriented process to inform local planning and improvement activities. The Profile helps
early childhood stakeholders look back to assess how to support school readiness and to look
forward to plan programs and improve systems that will help children succeed throughout the
school years and beyond. Over time, the data in the Profile can be tracked to help assess the
impact of past investments made on behalf of young children and families and to demonstrate
the importance of sustaining resources dedicated to early childhood.
Overview of contents
Section B: Background, first provides some context about how the EDI is part of a national
initiative to engage communities around a data-driven process to improve developmental
outcomes for children. This section then describes the EDI and how to understand and
interpret the maps and tables including a discussion of the school district participation rates,
the geographic boundaries that were used for reporting data and the limitations that should be
kept in mind when interpreting and using the data for local planning and improvement
activities.
Section C: Mapped Results by Geographic Area, provides a quick and user-friendly way for
communities to reflect on the differences in child outcomes across the local community. The
EDI maps highlight where children are doing better or worse in particular geographic and
developmental areas and how community level assets (such as early childhood and family
support services) relate to community level developmental outcomes for children.
Section D: Data Tables by Geographic Area, provides a more detailed understanding of
children’s developmental outcomes and their demographic characteristics by geographic area.
Section E: Glossary of Terms, defines common terms found throughout the Profile.
Contacts and resources
Below are some key contacts and resources for learning more about the EDI:
For questions regarding the EDI Community Profile, please contact [email protected].
1
For information about TECCS, the EDI and the Center for Healthier Children, Families and
Communities, visit, www.teccs.net and www.healthychild.ucla.edu
For information about the United Way Worldwide, visit www.liveunited.org and
www.bornlearning.org
For information on how the EDI has been used in Canada, visit the websites at the Offord
Centre for Child Studies (http://www.offordcentre.com/) and the Human Early Learning
Partnership (HELP) (http://www.earlylearning.ubc.ca/).
For information on how the EDI is used in Australia, visit the Centre for Community Child
Health’s website (http://www.rch.org.au/australianedi/index.cfm?doc_id=6210).
B. Background
The TECCS Initiative
Transforming Early Childhood Community Systems (TECCS) is a national initiative developed
through a partnership between the UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and
Communities (UCLA CHCFC) and the United Way Worldwide. The goal of TECCS is to improve
the school readiness of all children in a community by regularly measuring and mapping
developmental progress at a population level. This information is used to mobilize local
partners around a data driven process to inform the development of early childhood service
systems. TECCS has four core components: 1) Measurement and Mapping; 2) Community
Engagement; 3) Shared Learning Network; and 4) Targeted, Place-Based Systems Improvement.
The TECCS initiative is supported by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the communities in which
TECCS is being implemented.
TECCS is comparatively new to the United States and is currently in its fourth year of
implementation. In Year 1 (2009), it was piloted in California’s Orange and Los Angeles
Counties. In Year 2, TECCS expanded to 14 sites including cities in California, Florida, Louisiana,
Michigan, Mississippi, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington. By Year 3, 18 sites
participated involving over 800 teachers, 18,000 kindergarten students in 67 school districts.
Now completing a fourth year, a total of thirty 30 communities are participating in TECCS. Over
the course of the past four years, EDI information has been collected on over 49,000
kindergarten students.
Description of the EDI
The EDI Community Profile uses the Early Development Instrument (EDI) developed by Dan
Offord and Magdalena Janus at the Offord Centre for Child Studies at McMaster University in
Canada. As part of TECCS, the UCLA CHCFC is under license from McMaster University to
implement the EDI with sites in the US. The EDI has 103 core items and is an observational
checklist, based on recall that is completed by kindergarten teachers on each child in their class.
2
Teachers typically fill out the EDI in the second half of the school year.1 The EDI requires
approximately 10-15 minutes per child to complete. Information collected using the EDI is
reported at a group level (e.g. for a census tract, neighborhood, city, etc) and is never reported
on individual children or used as a screening or diagnostic tool for children.
The EDI contains five core domains which are described in Table 1, along with a count of the
number of items included in each domain. These domains are further divided into sub-domains,
which are explained in Section D, “Overview of sub-domains.” Appendix A lists the items
comprising each domain and sub-domain.
Table 1. Description of EDI Developmental Domains
Domain
Description
Number of Items
Absence of disease or impairment, access to adequate
and appropriate nutrition, and gross and fine motor skills.
Necessary gross and fine motor abilities to complete
common kindergarten and first grade tasks, including
items such as controlling a pencil or turning pages
without tearing the pages.
13
Children need to meet general standards of acceptable
behavior in public places, control their behavior,
cooperate with others, show respect for adult authority,
and communicate feelings and needs in a socially
acceptable manner.
26
Emotional maturity is characterized by a balance between
a child’s curiosity about the world, an eagerness to try
new experiences, and some ability to reflect before
acting. A child who is fearful and reluctant to engage in
new activities misses learning opportunities that are
seized upon by a child with a positive approach to life.
30
Language and
Cognitive
Development
Language skills refer to vocabulary size and a child’s
ability to name letters and attend to the component
sounds within words. Cognitive skills involve the ways in
which children perceive, organize, and analyze
information.
26
Communication Skills
and General
Knowledge
Children must be able to understand verbal
communications with other adults and children and to
verbally communicate experiences, ideas, wishes, and
feelings in a way that can be understood by others.
8
Physical Health and
Well-being
Social Competence
Emotional Maturity
1
Publisher requires that the EDI be completed no earlier than the third month of the school year and no later
than the eighth month of the school year.
3
Understanding EDI results
The EDI Community Profile depicts the percent of children “vulnerable” and “very ready” by
geographic area for each of the five developmental domains. To calculate these percentages,
four analytic steps were followed: 1) Determined which EDI records were valid for analysis; 2)
Calculated the average score per record on each of the five domains; 3) Applied the normative
population cutoffs (established in 2009-2010) to each record valid for analysis; and 4) Created
the derived variables to determine each child’s vulnerability and very ready status by domain.
These steps are explained further in the paragraphs below.
Determined which EDI records were valid for analysis. The following two criteria were applied:
a) Child must have been in the classroom for more than one month; and b) The EDI must have
at least four of the five domains completed by the kindergarten teacher. The percent of
records valid for analysis for this EDI Community Profile is listed later in this report (see Figure
1).
Scored each record. For each record, an average score on each of the five domains was
calculated by adding up the scores for all of the core items in that domain and dividing by the
total number of core items comprising the domain. This average score then allows each record
to be compared to the normative population cutoffs, specifically the “vulnerable” and “very
ready” cutoffs, which are described below.
Applied the normative population cutoffs. The normative population cutoffs were determined
using school year 2009-2010 data to set a representative benchmark which helps to compare
how children are doing developmentally both across sites and across years. To establish these
cutoffs, an average score for each domain was first developed per child with data valid for
analysis (N=10,244). The averages for all records valid for analysis were then sorted from
lowest to highest to determine the 10th and the 75th percentile population cutoffs for each
developmental domain. The 10th percentile is the EDI score below which 10% of the children
are found and this corresponds to the “vulnerable” category. The 75th percentile is the EDI
score below which 75% of the children are found and this corresponds to the “very ready”
category.
Created derived variables. Derived variables were created using the publisher’s proprietary
syntax to determine the vulnerability and very ready status of each child on each domain.
Children are defined as “vulnerable” in a domain if the mean of his/her EDI items for that
domain falls at or below the 10th percentile population cutoff. Conversely, children in this
report are “very ready” in a domain if the mean of his/her EDI items for that domain falls at
or above the 75th percentile cutoff.
In order to use the EDI results for effective local planning and improvement efforts, it is
important to consider a variety of factors that will further the understanding about what is
4
working in neighborhoods for young children. For instance, it is important to consider EDI data
in light of other important indicators that can help explain the potential reasons for the
observed outcomes in child development. To do this, planners should consider community
characteristics such as the percent of families living in poverty or the degree of linguistic
isolation. They should also consider community assets such as investments made by the region
that are dedicated to young children and the quantity, quality and accessibility of services. This
information can provide insight into how service inputs in a community relate to the
developmental outcomes observed for children and to identify potential service gaps as well as
the areas where investments appear to be working.
It is also important to consider EDI data in light of both the percent and the actual number of
children vulnerable in a community. This is important because in comparing communities, it
may be that in one community, there is a relatively high percent vulnerability, but this may
translate to a small number of children; whereas in another community, there may be a lower
percent of vulnerability but this translates to a much larger number of children falling into the
vulnerable category.
Without thoughtful consideration of factors such as these, planners run the risk of drawing
erroneous conclusions. For instance, redirecting funding from neighborhoods that are showing
a lower percent of children vulnerable to those with a higher percent of children vulnerable
may not be appropriate when the higher risk community only involves a very small number of
children or when the lower risk community has achieved these results because of sustained and
effective prevention and/or intervention programs. In this latter case, redirecting resources
away from lower risk communities could regrettably result in defunding strategies that are
actually achieving positive outcomes for children.
Limitations of the data
For the EDI Community Profile to accurately reflect children’s development by geographic area,
it is important to achieve a near census of all children living in each neighborhood. To achieve a
census, it is necessary for all schools serving each neighborhood to participate in the EDI data
collection effort. We conducted a series of randomized samples of individual child data and
have discovered that the vulnerability rates are consistent when at least 70% of children living
in the target community have completed EDIs. Though it is often difficult to achieve a full
census, we considered data to most likely be representative of children in a community when at
least 70% of children participate in a given geographic area. Where this 70% threshold was not
met, we have made note to the reader in the maps and data tables that caution is warranted in
interpreting the results. We have provided Table 3 to indicate the percent of children living in
each geographic area that have an EDI valid for analysis.
We have also noted cautions in interpreting data for neighborhoods that have a small number
(N). While we do not report data for geographic areas with fewer than 10 valid EDI records,
some sites nevertheless have a small N with slightly more than 10 records valid for analysis.
5
School district participation rates
The EDI Community Profile reflects data collected by participating kindergarten teachers during
the 2011-2012 school year. In addition, data were combined from the prior two years for
schools that exclusively participated in 2009-2010 or 2010-2011 but did not participate in 20112012. By combining data from schools over three consecutive years, the Profile provides a more
complete picture of the community results. Table 2 shows the percent of schools from each
district that participated in the EDI data collection effort, as well as the number and percent of
EDI questionnaires valid for analysis that were collected in that district. Though the data are
collected by kindergarten teachers (and each school receives a confidential school report for
children in their school), the data in this Profile are not depicted by school. Rather, this report
depicts the data by the neighborhood in which the child resides. Since the goal of the EDI is to
achieve a near census of all children living in the community, it is recommended that all schools
serving each neighborhood participate in the EDI data collection effort. Table 2 can be used in
conjunction with Table 3 to help target recruitment activities and bring additional schools into
the EDI data collection effort as a key strategy to increase the representativeness of the data
and ultimately to achieve a near census of all children living in the community.
Table 2. Percent of Schools Participating in the EDI by School District, 2012
Number of
Participating
Schools1
Number of
Schools in
Districts2
Percent
Participation
Number and
Percent of EDI
Questionnaires
Valid for
Analysis1
Burkburnett ISD
3
3
100%
251 (97%)
Christ Academy School
1
1
100%
15 (100%)
Wichita Falls ISD
16
16
100%
973 (84%)
Total
20
20
100%
1,239 (86%)
1.
The EDI Community Profile reflects data collected by participating kindergarten teachers during the
2011-2012 school year. In addition, data were combined from the prior two years for schools that
exclusively participated in 2009-2010 or 2010-2011 but did not participate in 2011-2012.
2.
As reported in the District Profile.
Geographic boundaries used for reporting results
To facilitate both communitywide and more localized planning efforts, the EDI Community
Profile presents the data by local geographic boundaries, such as neighborhoods or an
aggregation of census geographies within the city or county. UCLA CHCFC worked with
communities to identify the most relevant geographic boundaries to use in this report. Criteria
which guided the selection of geographic boundaries included that they should be:
1) Contiguous (no gaps and no overlapping boundaries); 2) Small enough to identify distinct
populations of children but large enough to represent a distinct, community defined
6
neighborhood; 3) Useful from a local planning perspective; 4) Consistent with census lines to
maximize data analysis opportunities; and 5) Inclusive of the entire target geography.
The maps in this report are based on the geographic boundaries established by sites. In
communities that chose to use the neighborhood as their geographic boundary, local
policymakers and community members were advised to define the neighborhood as a distinct
and relatively small geographic area. In some cases, community defined neighborhoods were
developed by working with local partners to convene neighborhood groups to jointly define
neighborhood boundaries. UCLA used these neighborhood boundaries to create GIS
(Geographic Information Systems) shape files for the EDI data maps.
Table 3 shows the EDI participation rate for each geographic area that was within the larger
target geography for the local initiative. The EDI participation rate was calculated based on
dividing the total number of kindergarten students living in the geographic area that had valid
EDI records (the numerator) by the estimated total number of kindergarten age children living
in the geographic area (the denominator). Estimates for the denominator come from the 2010
Census.
It is recommended that communities achieve at least a 70% EDI participation rate. Ideally, the
EDI is designed to be a near census of all children and therefore all schools serving children in
the geographic area should collect EDI data. A double asterisk in Table 3 next to the name of
the geographic area indicates locations where fewer than 70% of kindergarten age children had
EDIs valid for analysis. In these cases, results may not be representative of all children living
there and therefore it is recommended that additional schools serving children in that area are
recruited into the EDI data collection effort to increase the EDI participation rate.
For reasons of confidentiality, where fewer than 10 valid EDI records were available for a given
geographic area, this area (e.g. neighborhood) was suppressed (i.e. not reported). These
neighborhoods are shaded in gray in Table 3. Fewer than 10 records can occur if the
neighborhood has a very small kindergarten population or if there was a low EDI participation
rate from the schools serving children living in the neighborhood.
7
Table 3. EDI Participation Rates by Neighborhood, 2012
Neighborhood Name (% Participation)
Airport (>100%)*
I 44 East / 240 South (81%)
Sheppard AFB (11%)**
Bonny Homes (91%)
I 44 West / 369 South (5%)**
Sikes Addition (62%)**
Brook Village Area (79%)
Indian Heights (81%)
South Sam Houston (62%)**
Central Burk (89%)
Kickapoo (60%)**
Southridge (>100%)*
Colonial Park (20%)**
Lucy Park (55%)**
Southwest Burk (93%)
Country Club (29%)**
Lynwood East (92%)
Stadium (61%)**
Country Club Cottages (58%)**
Lynwood West (84%)
Stone Cliff (92%)
Dog Patch (>100%)*
Meadow Lake Addition (78%)
Sunnyside (63%)**
Downtown (38%)**
Midwestern Farms (62%)**
Sunset Terrace (32%)**
East I 44 / South 240 (86%)
Missile Road Housing Addition (91%)
Tanglewood Area (36%)**
Eastside (46%)**
Morningside (58%)**
University Park North (>100%)*
Eastside Outskirts (7%)**
North 240 / South Sycamore (66%)**
University Park South (90%)
Edgemere (94%)
North Central Burk (>100%)*
Wellington Estates (56%)**
Elizabeth (70%)
North Sycamore 1177 / Red River (62%)**
West Central Burk (95%)
Faith Village (90%)
Northeast Burk (85%)
West I 44 Burk (85%)
Fillmore Addition (97%)
Northside (82%)
Western Hills (>100%)*
Floral Heights (62%)**
Northwest Burk (79%)
Westmoreland (95%)
Fountain Park (81%)
Nunnely Place (83%)
Wichita Gardens (25%)**
Freedom Estates (90%)
Rancho Vista Estates (89%)
Hatton (>100%)*
Sam Houston (96%)
Shaded cells indicate that the geographic area has fewer than 10 valid EDI records.
* EDI participation rates that exceed 100% are likely due to population fluctuations not captured in the census. Population data may be under
counted or over counted by the census based on inconsistent citizen participation.
** Census estimates indicate that EDI data was collected on less than 70% of kindergarten age children living in this geographic area and
therefore caution is warranted as the results may not be representative of all kindergarten age children living here.
8
Figure 1 below illustrates the total number of EDIs collected and how the final N presented in
this Community Profile was derived. We provide this information to help local EDI coordinators
determine why some data had to be excluded from the analysis and how to target data
collection improvement efforts in the future.
Below are a few explanations worth noting:
“Geocoded” records are those that were able to be located on a map.
“Not geocoded” are those records that either had incomplete home addresses or addresses
that could not be located on the address locator data file, potentially because they were
located on newly created roads that were not yet included in national databases or because
more than one location was identified for the address.
“Other” records are those not valid when: the student was in the class less than one month; the
student moved out of the school or classroom; the teacher did not specify whether the child
was in the class for at least one month; or the parent opted out.
“Mapped records” are those that were used to create the EDI maps and tables in this report.
“Suppressed” are those that were not mapped because the child either resides in a
neighborhood with less than 10 EDI records or resides outside of the study area
Figure 1. Number of EDI Checklists in Analysis, 2012
Number of EDI
records collected
1,438
Records valid for
analysis
1,239
(86.2%)
Geocoded records
1,146
(79.7%)
Mapped records
1,059
(73.6%)
Records not valid for
analysis
199
(13.8%)
Not geocoded
records
93
(6.5%)
Teacher left 2 or
more domains of
Checklist incomplete
6
(0.4%)
Other
193
(13.4%)
Suppressed records
87
(6.1%)
Resides outside of
the study area
11
(0.8%)
Resides in
neighborhood with
<10 records
76
(5.3%)
9
C. Mapped Results by Geographic Area
The EDI data are mapped by geographic area, such as by neighborhood or census tract. The EDI
maps also overlay other indicators including socio-demographic characteristics and community
assets in order to help understand the factors contributing to the observed outcomes in
children. The maps are designed to provide early childhood stakeholders with data for
communities to reflect on where children are doing better or worse in particular geographic
and developmental areas and how community level assets (such as early childhood and family
support services) relate to community level developmental outcomes for children. The first set
of maps (Maps 1-7) present the EDI data by geographic area and then the second set of maps
(Maps 8-13) overlay EDI data with a variety of other socio-demographic indicators and
community assets.
The maps assign each geographic area into one of five, color-shaded categories that represent
increasing levels of vulnerability rates in that community. The legend in Figure 2 is used for all
EDI maps and shows that the darker shades of green indicate a higher percentage of children
vulnerable and the lighter shades of green indicate a lower percentage of children vulnerable.
Figure 2. EDI Map Legend
Each category of shading represents a range of values for the percent of children vulnerable in a
neighborhood. The white box in the legend indicates that no children from that neighborhood
participated in the EDI or that data were suppressed because fewer than 10 children had EDI
data that were valid for analysis.
10
The range of values, unique to each of the five developmental domains, was established using
standard deviations. To calculate the standard deviations, the national average percentage of
children vulnerable for a neighborhood was calculated for each domain. The break points for
the range values were set using 0.5 standard deviations from the national average. The
national average is interpreted as what would be the expected norm for any given
neighborhood, based on the national data collected in 2010. In the legend shown in Figure 2,
the expected norm corresponds to the shade of green that lies in the middle of the scale (i.e.
the third shaded box from the top). This range is 0.25 standard deviations below and 0.25
standard deviations above the national average, thus creating a range of 0.5 of the standard
deviation. The other four shades of green in the legend have a 0.5 standard deviation range as
well. The two shaded boxes appearing above the middle box (expected norm) reflect
neighborhoods doing increasingly better than the expected norm (i.e. progressively smaller
percentages of children with vulnerability). Conversely, the two shaded boxes appearing below
the middle box reflect neighborhoods doing increasingly worse than the expected norm (i.e.
progressively larger percentages of children with vulnerability).
Figure 3 below shows the actual ranges used in the EDI maps for the percent of children
vulnerable in each of the five developmental domains and for the measure of vulnerable on
two or more domain. These were used to create the shading schemes in the EDI maps. Note
that range values differ across domains because the expected norm differs by domain.
Figure 3. Ranges Used in the EDI Maps for the Percent of Children Vulnerable
Physical
Health and
Well-being
Social
Competence
Emotional
Maturity
Language and
Cognitive
Development
Communication
and General
Knowledge
Developmentally
Vulnerable on 2
or More Domains
0% - 6%
0% - 4%
0% - 5%
0% - 4%
0% - 4%
0% - 7%
7% - 11%
5% - 8%
6% - 9%
5% - 8%
5% - 8%
8% - 12%
12% - 15%
9% - 12%
10% - 14%
9% - 13%
9% - 12%
13% - 16%
16% - 20%
13% - 16%
15% - 18%
14% - 17%
13% - 16%
17% - 21%
21% or more
17% or more
19% or more
18% or more
17% or more
22% or more
11
Child developmental outcomes
Maps 1-7 present the EDI data by geographic area. Below is a list of the maps in this section:
Map 7 – Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Proportion of
Vulnerabilities by Domain
Community indicators and assets
Maps 8-13 present the EDI data overlaid with a variety of other socio-demographic indicators
and community assets. All of the socio-demographic and community assets are overlaid onto
the same base EDI map which depicts the proportion of children vulnerable on two or more
developmental domains.
Below is a list of the maps in this section.
Map 8 – Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Percent of Families
with Children in Poverty
Map 9 – Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Percent of Single
Parent Families
Map 10 – Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Years at Current
Residence
Map 11 – Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Percent of Children
Enrolled in Preschool/Nursery School
Note: Please see Appendix B for a description of maps 7-13.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Map 7 – Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Proportion of Vulnerabilities by Domain
25
26
Map 8 – Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Percent of Families with Children in Poverty
27
28
Map 9 – Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Percent of Single Parent Families
29
30
Map 10 – Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Years at Current Residence
31
32
Map 11 – Children Vulnerable on 2 or More Developmental Domains with Percent of Children Enrolled in Preschool/Nursery
School
33
34
35
36
37
38
D. Data Tables by Geographic Area
The tables in this section offer a more detailed look at children’s developmental outcomes and
provide a description of their demographic characteristics by geographic area.
Five domains of child development
Table 4 shows for each area, the number (N) and percent of children by EDI domain that are
considered developmentally vulnerable, meaning they scored at or below the 10th percentile
vulnerability cutoff. The second to last column shows the number and percent of children who
were vulnerable on two or more developmental domains. Additionally, the last column displays
the number and percent of children who were very ready on four or more domains; that is,
they scored at or above the 75th percentile for at least four out of the five domains. The
bottom row lists the total results for all of the children living in the community with completed
EDIs.
39
Table 4. EDI Community Profile Summary, 2012
Proportion of Children Developmentally Vulnerable by Domain
Neighborhood Name
N*
Physical
Health and
Well-being
N (%)
Social
Competence
Emotional
Maturity
N (%)
N (%)
Language and
Cognitive
Development
Communication
Skills and General
Knowledge
Developmentally
Developmentally
Vulnerable on 2+
Domains
Very Ready on 4+
Domains
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
Airport
19
3 (16%)
4 (21%)
3 (16%)
4 (21%)
5 (26%)
5 (26%)
1 (5%)
Bonny Homes
21
0 (0%)
2 (10%)
2 (10%)
2 (10%)
1 (5%)
2 (10%)
1 (5%)
Brook Village Area
32
3 (9%)
2 (6%)
1 (3%)
2 (6%)
3 (9%)
2 (6%)
3 (9%)
Central Burk
14
3 (21%)
2 (14%)
5 (36%)
2 (14%)
0 (0%)
3 (21%)
0 (0%)
Dog Patch
29
1 (3%)
1 (3%)
2 (7%)
4 (14%)
4 (14%)
3 (10%)
2 (7%)
Downtown **
24
1 (4%)
3 (13%)
1 (4%)
1 (4%)
2 (8%)
2 (8%)
2 (8%)
East I 44 / South 240
15
2 (13%)
1 (7%)
1 (7%)
1 (7%)
2 (13%)
1 (7%)
4 (27%)
Eastside **
43
5 (12%)
3 (7%)
9 (21%)
6 (14%)
4 (9%)
7 (16%)
4 (9%)
Edgemere
37
2 (5%)
1 (3%)
1 (3%)
2 (5%)
3 (8%)
3 (8%)
10 (27%)
Faith Village
48
5 (10%)
9 (19%)
8 (17%)
7 (15%)
6 (13%)
9 (19%)
8 (17%)
Fillmore Addition
23
3 (13%)
1 (4%)
1 (4%)
0 (0%)
1 (4%)
2 (9%)
6 (26%)
Floral Heights **
56
2 (4%)
2 (4%)
1 (2%)
3 (5%)
5 (9%)
2 (4%)
5 (9%)
Fountain Park
15
1 (7%)
2 (13%)
3 (20%)
2 (13%)
1 (7%)
2 (13%)
0 (0%)
Freedom Estates
45
4 (9%)
7 (16%)
8 (18%)
5 (11%)
3 (7%)
8 (18%)
9 (20%)
Hatton
12
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (8%)
1 (8%)
1 (8%)
1 (8%)
2 (17%)
I 44 East / 240 South
18
2 (11%)
2 (11%)
3 (17%)
1 (6%)
0 (0%)
2 (11%)
5 (28%)
Indian Heights
26
1 (4%)
1 (4%)
2 (8%)
3 (12%)
4 (15%)
4 (15%)
5 (19%)
Kickapoo **
36
5 (14%)
1 (3%)
5 (14%)
5 (14%)
4 (11%)
4 (11%)
6 (17%)
Lynwood West
18
3 (17%)
6 (33%)
8 (44%)
3 (17%)
4 (22%)
7 (39%)
3 (17%)
Meadow Lake Addition
34
1 (3%)
2 (6%)
4 (12%)
4 (12%)
1 (3%)
3 (9%)
5 (15%)
Midwestern Farms **
11
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (9%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
4 (36%)
Missile Road Housing
Addition
27
1 (4%)
3 (11%)
3 (11%)
2 (7%)
3 (11%)
3 (11%)
6 (22%)
40
Proportion of Children Developmentally Vulnerable by Domain
Neighborhood Name
N*
Physical
Health and
Well-being
N (%)
Social
Competence
Emotional
Maturity
N (%)
N (%)
Language and
Cognitive
Development
Communication
Skills and General
Knowledge
Developmentally
Developmentally
Vulnerable on 2+
Domains
Very Ready on 4+
Domains
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
N (%)
North 240 / South
Sycamore **
11
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (9%)
North Central Burk
15
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
2 (13%)
2 (13%)
1 (7%)
1 (7%)
1 (7%)
Northside
37
0 (0%)
2 (5%)
6 (16%)
3 (8%)
5 (14%)
4 (11%)
10 (27%)
Northwest Burk
11
1 (9%)
0 (0%)
2 (18%)
1 (9%)
0 (0%)
1 (9%)
0 (0%)
Nunnely Place
19
1 (5%)
3 (16%)
3 (17%)
0 (0%)
1 (5%)
3 (16%)
6 (32%)
Rancho Vista Estates
21
3 (14%)
3 (14%)
3 (14%)
3 (14%)
1 (5%)
3 (14%)
4 (19%)
Sam Houston
35
3 (9%)
1 (3%)
2 (6%)
2 (6%)
1 (3%)
2 (6%)
4 (11%)
Sikes Addition **
13
1 (8%)
1 (8%)
1 (8%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (8%)
3 (23%)
South Sam Houston **
10
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (10%)
0 (0%)
2 (20%)
Southridge
12
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (8%)
1 (8%)
0 (0%)
1 (8%)
5 (42%)
Southwest Burk
16
0 (0%)
1 (6%)
1 (6%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (6%)
5 (31%)
Stadium **
49
2 (4%)
5 (10%)
5 (10%)
2 (4%)
5 (10%)
6 (12%)
12 (24%)
Stone Cliff
28
1 (4%)
1 (4%)
4 (14%)
3 (11%)
4 (14%)
3 (11%)
4 (14%)
Sunnyside **
29
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
2 (7%)
1 (3%)
1 (3%)
0 (0%)
2 (7%)
Sunset Terrace **
11
1 (9%)
1 (9%)
4 (36%)
1 (9%)
0 (0%)
1 (9%)
1 (9%)
University Park North
10
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (10%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
3 (30%)
University Park South
29
2 (7%)
2 (7%)
5 (17%)
3 (10%)
2 (7%)
2 (7%)
5 (17%)
Wellington Estates **
12
0 (0%)
1 (8%)
1 (8%)
2 (17%)
0 (0%)
1 (8%)
5 (42%)
West Central Burk
28
1 (4%)
3 (11%)
5 (18%)
1 (4%)
0 (0%)
3 (11%)
5 (18%)
West I 44 Burk
12
0 (0%)
1 (8%)
1 (8%)
1 (8%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Western Hills
27
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
8 (30%)
Westmoreland
21
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
1 (5%)
1 (5%)
1 (5%)
6 (29%)
1,059
64 (6%)
80 (8%)
121 (11%)
88 (8%)
80 (8%)
109 (10%)
183 (17%)
Community-wide
Data Source: Teacher Reported EDI Checklist
41
* N is the number of checklists valid for analysis received for a geographic area. The actual N for each domain may be lower (refer to Tables 5-9
for the N by domain).
** Data collected on < 70% of children living in this geographic area and therefore caution is warranted as the data may not be representative of
all children living here.
42
Percentage of children vulnerable and very ready by domain & geographic area
Tables 5-9 show the percentage of kindergarteners who are categorized as vulnerable and very
ready in each EDI domain by geographic area. A child is considered developmentally vulnerable
if their EDI score is at or below the 10th percentile. Conversely, a child is considered to be very
ready if their EDI score is at or above the 75th percentile. The “N” column is the number of EDI
Checklists with data valid for analysis in that specific domain.
Table 5. EDI Domain: Physical Health and Well-being, 2012
Neighborhood Name
N
% of Children
Developmentally
Vulnerable
Airport
19
16%
11%
Bonny Homes
21
0%
24%
Brook Village Area
32
9%
16%
Central Burk
14
21%
7%
Dog Patch
29
3%
14%
Downtown
24
4%
21%
15
13%
40%
Eastside
43
12%
26%
Edgemere
37
5%
38%
Faith Village
48
10%
33%
Fillmore Addition
23
13%
48%
Floral Heights
56
4%
27%
Fountain Park
15
7%
27%
Freedom Estates
45
9%
42%
Hatton
12
0%
42%
18
11%
44%
Indian Heights
26
4%
46%
Kickapoo
36
14%
33%
Lynwood West
18
17%
33%
34
3%
32%
Midwestern Farms
11
0%
55%
Addition
27
4%
44%
North 240 / South Sycamore
11
0%
18%
North Central Burk
15
0%
7%
Northside
37
0%
41%
Northwest Burk
11
9%
27%
Nunnely Place
19
5%
53%
% of Children Very
Ready
43
21
14%
38%
Sam Houston
35
9%
26%
Sikes Addition
13
8%
31%
South Sam Houston
10
0%
50%
Southridge
12
0%
42%
Southwest Burk
16
0%
31%
Stadium
49
4%
65%
Stone Cliff
28
4%
43%
Sunnyside
29
0%
45%
Sunset Terrace
11
9%
45%
10
0%
70%
29
7%
24%
Wellington Estates
12
0%
50%
West Central Burk
28
4%
18%
West I 44 Burk
12
0%
0%
Western Hills
27
0%
78%
Westmoreland
21
0%
86%
1,059
6%
36%
Community-wide
Table 6. EDI Domain: Social Competence, 2012
Neighborhood Name
N
% of Children
Developmentally
Vulnerable
% of Children Very
Ready
Airport
19
21%
26%
Bonny Homes
21
10%
33%
Brook Village Area
32
6%
19%
Central Burk
14
14%
14%
Dog Patch
29
3%
24%
Downtown
24
13%
25%
15
7%
20%
Eastside
43
7%
21%
Edgemere
37
3%
41%
Faith Village
48
19%
13%
Fillmore Addition
23
4%
43%
Floral Heights
56
4%
20%
Fountain Park
15
13%
20%
Freedom Estates
45
16%
24%
44
Neighborhood Name
N
% of Children
Developmentally
Vulnerable
Hatton
12
0%
33%
18
11%
22%
Indian Heights
26
4%
42%
Kickapoo
36
3%
22%
Lynwood West
18
33%
17%
34
6%
26%
Midwestern Farms
11
0%
36%
Addition
27
11%
15%
11
0%
36%
North Central Burk
15
0%
13%
Northside
37
5%
35%
Northwest Burk
11
0%
27%
Nunnely Place
19
16%
37%
21
14%
24%
Sam Houston
35
3%
17%
Sikes Addition
13
8%
31%
South Sam Houston
10
0%
30%
Southridge
12
0%
42%
Southwest Burk
16
6%
50%
Stadium
49
10%
43%
Stone Cliff
28
4%
18%
Sunnyside
29
0%
28%
Sunset Terrace
11
9%
9%
10
0%
40%
29
7%
24%
Wellington Estates
12
8%
42%
West Central Burk
28
11%
18%
West I 44 Burk
12
8%
25%
Western Hills
27
0%
67%
Westmoreland
21
0%
57%
1,059
8%
28%
Community-wide
% of Children Very
Ready
45
Table 7. EDI Domain: Emotional Maturity, 2012
Neighborhood Name
N
% of Children
Developmentally
Vulnerable
% of Children Very
Ready
Airport
19
16%
26%
Bonny Homes
21
10%
14%
Brook Village Area
32
3%
22%
Central Burk
14
36%
14%
Dog Patch
29
7%
45%
Downtown
24
4%
25%
15
7%
40%
Eastside
43
21%
19%
Edgemere
37
3%
38%
Faith Village
48
17%
27%
Fillmore Addition
23
4%
30%
Floral Heights
56
2%
18%
Fountain Park
15
20%
40%
Freedom Estates
45
18%
22%
Hatton
12
8%
33%
18
17%
28%
Indian Heights
26
8%
42%
Kickapoo
36
14%
31%
Lynwood West
18
44%
22%
34
12%
24%
Midwestern Farms
11
9%
73%
Addition
27
11%
33%
11
0%
18%
North Central Burk
15
13%
40%
Northside
37
16%
43%
Northwest Burk
11
18%
18%
Nunnely Place
18
17%
33%
21
14%
24%
Sam Houston
35
6%
40%
Sikes Addition
13
8%
38%
South Sam Houston
10
0%
40%
Southridge
12
8%
50%
46
Neighborhood Name
N
% of Children
Developmentally
Vulnerable
Southwest Burk
16
6%
38%
Stadium
49
10%
35%
Stone Cliff
28
14%
25%
Sunnyside
29
7%
17%
Sunset Terrace
11
36%
36%
10
0%
40%
29
17%
21%
Wellington Estates
12
8%
58%
West Central Burk
28
18%
39%
West I 44 Burk
12
8%
42%
Western Hills
27
0%
44%
Westmoreland
21
0%
38%
1,058
11%
31%
Community-wide
% of Children Very
Ready
Table 8. EDI Domain: Language and Cognitive Development, 2012
Neighborhood Name
N
% of Children
Developmentally
Vulnerable
Airport
19
21%
21%
Bonny Homes
21
10%
24%
Brook Village Area
32
6%
13%
Central Burk
14
14%
7%
Dog Patch
29
14%
17%
Downtown
24
4%
13%
15
7%
33%
Eastside
43
14%
28%
Edgemere
37
5%
57%
Faith Village
48
15%
25%
Fillmore Addition
23
0%
17%
Floral Heights
56
5%
16%
Fountain Park
15
13%
0%
Freedom Estates
45
11%
29%
Hatton
12
8%
8%
18
6%
50%
% of Children Very
Ready
47
Neighborhood Name
N
% of Children
Developmentally
Vulnerable
Indian Heights
26
12%
12%
Kickapoo
36
14%
47%
Lynwood West
18
17%
28%
34
12%
35%
Midwestern Farms
11
0%
55%
Addition
27
7%
44%
11
0%
18%
North Central Burk
15
13%
13%
Northside
37
8%
38%
Northwest Burk
11
9%
18%
Nunnely Place
19
0%
47%
21
14%
24%
Sam Houston
35
6%
20%
Sikes Addition
13
0%
46%
South Sam Houston
10
0%
40%
Southridge
12
8%
67%
Southwest Burk
16
0%
50%
Stadium
49
4%
33%
Stone Cliff
28
11%
32%
Sunnyside
29
3%
14%
Sunset Terrace
11
9%
18%
10
10%
30%
29
10%
41%
Wellington Estates
12
17%
25%
West Central Burk
28
4%
39%
West I 44 Burk
12
8%
17%
Western Hills
27
0%
15%
Westmoreland
21
5%
14%
1,059
8%
28%
Community-wide
% of Children Very
Ready
48
Table 9. EDI Domain: Communication Skills and General Knowledge, 2012
Neighborhood Name
N
% of Children
Developmentally
Vulnerable
% of Children Very
Ready
Airport
19
26%
26%
Bonny Homes
21
5%
24%
Brook Village Area
32
9%
34%
Central Burk
14
0%
21%
Dog Patch
29
14%
21%
Downtown
24
8%
29%
15
13%
40%
Eastside
43
9%
26%
Edgemere
37
8%
41%
Faith Village
48
13%
19%
Fillmore Addition
23
4%
43%
Floral Heights
56
9%
32%
Fountain Park
15
7%
33%
Freedom Estates
45
7%
27%
Hatton
12
8%
58%
18
0%
28%
Indian Heights
26
15%
35%
Kickapoo
36
11%
44%
Lynwood West
18
22%
33%
34
3%
44%
Midwestern Farms
11
0%
45%
Addition
27
11%
37%
11
0%
45%
North Central Burk
15
7%
13%
Northside
37
14%
38%
Northwest Burk
11
0%
45%
Nunnely Place
19
5%
58%
21
5%
57%
Sam Houston
34
3%
41%
Sikes Addition
13
0%
46%
South Sam Houston
10
10%
50%
Southridge
12
0%
50%
49
Southwest Burk
16
0%
50%
Stadium
49
10%
51%
Stone Cliff
28
14%
29%
Sunnyside
29
3%
55%
Sunset Terrace
11
0%
27%
10
0%
50%
29
7%
45%
Wellington Estates
12
0%
92%
West Central Burk
28
0%
25%
West I 44 Burk
12
0%
17%
Western Hills
27
0%
67%
Westmoreland
21
5%
62%
1,058
8%
38%
Community-wide
50
Overview of sub-domains
Four of the five domains are divided into multiple sub-domains and one domain
(Communication Skills and General Knowledge), is treated as a single sub-domain. Together,
the five domains consist of a total of 16 sub-domains. For the sub-domain analysis, children are
categorized as either “not ready,” “somewhat ready,” or “ready” for school. Cutoffs for these
three sub-domain categories have been determined by the publishers at the Offord Centre, and
are not based on the population cutoffs used in previous tables to determine whether a child is
vulnerable or very ready in a domain. While the term "very ready" (used in the context of the
five EDI domains) and the term "ready" (used in the sub-domains) are similar, the percentages
of the population who fall within these categories can be different because they measure
different levels of the construct and because different methods are used to calculate them. A
child is categorized as "very ready" in a domain based on his/her mean score in comparison to
our national sample, whereas the cutoff for "ready" in a sub-domain has been determined by
Offord Centre and is not linked to our national sample.
Tables 10-14 list the skills and abilities that children typically have in the “not ready for school”
and “ready/somewhat ready for school” categories for each sub-domain. Children who fall in
the “not ready for school” category are considered to have developmental challenges in that
area. Each sub-domain represents one aspect of a child’s development. While some domains
represent skills that a child in kindergarten is expected to have already mastered based on
his/her developmental age (e.g. physical independence), others represent areas of
development that are still emerging (e.g. pro-social behavior).
Table 10. EDI Sub-domain: Physical Health and Well-being
Sub-domain
Not Ready for School
Ready/Somewhat Ready for School
Physical readiness
for school work
Children have at least sometimes
experienced coming unprepared for
the school day by being dressed
inappropriately, coming to school late,
hungry, or tired.
Children who never or almost never
experienced being dressed
inappropriately for school activities,
coming to school late, hungry, or tired.
Physical
independence
Children range from those who have
not developed one of the three skills
(independence, handedness,
coordination) and/or suck a thumb to
those who have not developed any of
the skills and suck a thumb.
Children who are independent looking
after their needs, have an established
hand preference, are well coordinated,
and do not suck a thumb/finger.
Gross and fine
motor skills
Children range from those who have an
average ability to perform skills
requiring gross and fine motor
competence and good or average
overall energy levels, to those who
have poor fine and gross motor skills,
overall energy levels, and physical skills.
Children who have an excellent ability
to physically tackle the school day and
have excellent or good gross and fine
motor skills.
51
Table 11. EDI Sub-domain: Social Competence
Sub-domain
Overall social
competence with
peers
Children who have average to poor
overall social skills, low self-confidence
and are rarely able to play with various
children and interact cooperatively.
Children with excellent/good overall
social development, very good ability
to get along with other children and
play with various children, usually
cooperative and self-confident.
Respect and
responsibility
Children who only sometimes or never
accept responsibility for actions, show
respect for others and for property,
demonstrate self-control, and are
rarely able to follow rules and take care
of materials.
Children who always or most of the
time show respect for others and for
property, follow rules and take care of
materials, accept responsibility for
actions, and show self-control.
Approaches to
learning*
work neatly, independently, are rarely
able to solve problems, follow class
routines and do not easily adjust to
changes in routines.
Children who always or most of the
time work neatly, independently, and
solve problems, follow instructions and
class routines, easily adjust to changes.
Readiness to
explore new
things
show curiosity about the world or an
eagerness to explore new books, toys
and games.
Children who are curious about the
surrounding world, and are eager to
explore new books, toys and games.
* The “approaches to learning” sub-domain was previously referred to as “independence and
adjustment.”
Table 12. EDI Sub-domain: Emotional Maturity
Sub-domain
Prosocial and
helping behavior
Children who never or almost never
show most of the helping behaviors;
they do not help someone hurt, sick or
upset, do not spontaneously offer to
help, or invite bystanders to join in.
Children who often show most of the
helping behaviors: helping someone
hurt, sick or upset, offering to help
spontaneously, and invite bystanders
to join in.
Anxious and
fearful behavior
anxious behaviors; they could be
worried, unhappy, nervous, sad or
excessively shy, indecisive; and they
can be upset when left at school.
Children who rarely or never show
most of the anxious behaviors, they are
happy and able to enjoy school, and are
comfortable being left at school by
caregivers.
Aggressive
behavior
aggressive behaviors; they get into
physical fights, kick or bite others, take
other people’s things, are disobedient
or have temper tantrums.
Children who rarely or never show
most of the aggressive behaviors; they
do not use aggression as means of
solving conflict, do not have temper
tantrums, and are not mean to others.
52
Sub-domain
Hyperactive and
inattentive
behavior
hyperactive behaviors; they could be
restless, distractible, impulsive; they
fidget and have difficulty settling into
activities.
Children who never show most of the
hyperactive behaviors; they are able to
concentrate, settle to chosen activities,
wait their turn, and most of the time
think before doing something.
Table 13. EDI Sub-domain: Language and Cognitive Development
Sub-domain
Basic literacy skills
Children who do not have most of the
basic literacy skills: they have problems
with identifying letters or attaching
sounds to them, rhyming; may not
know the writing directions and even
how to write their own name.
Children who have all of the basic
literacy skills: know how to handle a
book; can identify some letters and
attach sounds to some letters; show
awareness of rhyming words; know the
writing directions; and are able to write
their own name.
Interest in
literacy/numeracy
and memory
Children who may not show interest in
books and reading, or math and
number games, or both; and may have
difficulty remembering things.
Children who show interest in books
and reading, math and numbers; and
have no difficulty remembering things.
Advanced literacy
skills
Children who have only up to one of
the advanced literacy skills; who cannot
read or write simple words or
sentences; and rarely write voluntarily.
Children who have at least half of the
advanced literacy skills: reading simple,
complex words or sentences; writing
voluntarily writing simple words or
sentences.
Basic numeracy
skills
Children who have marked difficulty
with numbers; cannot count, compare,
or recognize numbers; may not be able
to name all the shapes and may have
difficulty with time concepts.
Children who have all of the basic
numeracy skills: can count to 20 and
recognize shapes and numbers;
compare numbers; sort and classify;
use one-to-one correspondence; and
understand simple time concepts.
Table 14. EDI Sub-domain: Communication Skills and General Knowledge
Sub-domain
Communication
skills and general
knowledge
Children who range from being average
to very poor in effective
communication, may have difficulty in
participating in games involving the use
of language, may be difficult to
understand and may have difficulty
understanding others; may show little
general knowledge and may have
difficulty with their native language.
Children who have excellent or very
good communication skills; can
communicate easily and effectively, can
participate in story-telling or
imaginative play, articulate clearly,
shows adequate general knowledge,
and are proficient in their native
language.
53
Sub-domain scores by geographic area
Tables 15-19 show for each geographic area, the number (N) and percent of children who are considered not ready, somewhat
ready, and ready in each of the sub-domains.
Table 15. EDI Sub-domain: Physical Health and Well-being, 2012
Physical readiness for school day*
Neighborhood Name
Physical independence*
Ready
N
Not
Ready
5%
95%
19
0%
100%
21
3%
97%
0%
100%
29
0%
24
4%
15
Eastside
43
Edgemere
Faith Village
Gross and fine motor skills
Ready
N
Not
Ready
Somewhat
Ready
Ready
5%
95%
19
68%
11%
21%
0%
100%
21
43%
29%
29%
32
16%
84%
32
56%
25%
19%
14
21%
79%
14
64%
14%
21%
100%
29
3%
97%
29
52%
24%
24%
96%
24
4%
96%
24
29%
21%
50%
13%
87%
15
13%
87%
15
33%
0%
67%
7%
93%
43
26%
74%
43
37%
21%
42%
37
0%
100%
37
24%
76%
37
22%
3%
76%
48
4%
96%
48
19%
81%
48
46%
4%
50%
Fillmore Addition
23
4%
96%
23
13%
87%
23
26%
17%
57%
Floral Heights
56
4%
96%
56
9%
91%
56
27%
29%
45%
Fountain Park
15
0%
100%
15
33%
67%
15
40%
27%
33%
Freedom Estates
45
0%
100%
45
18%
82%
45
29%
18%
53%
Hatton
12
0%
100%
12
0%
100%
12
8%
0%
92%
18
11%
89%
18
28%
72%
18
11%
28%
61%
Indian Heights
26
4%
96%
26
15%
85%
26
23%
8%
69%
Kickapoo
36
11%
89%
36
17%
83%
36
31%
14%
56%
Lynwood West
18
0%
100%
18
39%
61%
18
50%
11%
39%
34
9%
91%
34
12%
88%
34
21%
15%
65%
Midwestern Farms
11
0%
100%
11
9%
91%
11
36%
0%
64%
Missile Road Housing Addition
27
4%
96%
27
19%
81%
27
22%
7%
70%
11
0%
100%
11
9%
91%
11
27%
45%
27%
North Central Burk
15
0%
100%
15
13%
87%
15
80%
7%
13%
N
Not Ready
Airport
19
Bonny Homes
21
Brook Village Area
32
Central Burk
14
Dog Patch
Downtown
54
Physical readiness for school day*
Neighborhood Name
Physical independence*
Gross and fine motor skills
N
Not Ready
Ready
N
Not
Ready
Ready
N
Not
Ready
Somewhat
Ready
Ready
Northside
37
0%
100%
37
19%
81%
37
22%
19%
59%
Northwest Burk
11
0%
100%
11
9%
91%
11
45%
18%
36%
Nunnely Place
19
0%
100%
19
21%
79%
19
11%
5%
84%
21
5%
95%
21
5%
95%
21
33%
14%
52%
Sam Houston
35
9%
91%
35
14%
86%
35
34%
9%
57%
Sikes Addition
13
0%
100%
13
38%
62%
13
38%
15%
46%
South Sam Houston
10
0%
100%
10
10%
90%
10
40%
10%
50%
Southridge
12
0%
100%
12
8%
92%
12
25%
25%
50%
Southwest Burk
16
0%
100%
16
6%
94%
16
13%
44%
44%
Stadium
49
0%
100%
49
6%
94%
49
14%
14%
71%
Stone Cliff
28
0%
100%
28
14%
86%
28
21%
14%
64%
Sunnyside
29
0%
100%
29
3%
97%
29
10%
7%
83%
Sunset Terrace
11
0%
100%
11
36%
64%
11
18%
18%
64%
10
0%
100%
10
0%
100%
10
20%
0%
80%
29
3%
97%
29
17%
83%
29
41%
7%
52%
Wellington Estates
12
0%
100%
12
8%
92%
12
8%
8%
83%
West Central Burk
28
4%
96%
28
7%
93%
28
54%
21%
25%
West I 44 Burk
12
0%
100%
12
0%
100%
12
33%
50%
17%
Western Hills
27
0%
100%
27
7%
93%
27
4%
7%
89%
Westmoreland
21
0%
100%
21
5%
95%
21
10%
5%
86%
1,059
3%
97%
1,059
14%
86%
1,059
31%
15%
54%
Community-wide
Data Source: Teacher Reported EDI Checklist. Totals of 99% and 101% are due to rounding.
* The “somewhat ready” category does not apply because the response options on the EDI for these sub-domains were dichotomous (yes/no).
55
Table 16. EDI Sub-domain: Social Competence, 2012
Overall social competence
Neighborhood
Name
N
Airport
19
16%
Bonny Homes
21
10%
Brook Village
Area
32
Central Burk
Dog Patch
Not Somewhat
Ready
Ready
Responsibility and respect
Not Somewhat
Ready
Ready
Ready
Approaches to learning
Readiness to explore new things
N
Not
Ready
63%
19
26%
16%
58%
19
11%
26%
63%
76%
21
10%
19%
71%
21
0%
33%
67%
31%
66%
32
6%
44%
50%
32
6%
25%
69%
7%
36%
57%
14
14%
36%
50%
14
0%
21%
79%
3%
28%
69%
29
3%
34%
62%
29
3%
24%
72%
24
8%
29%
63%
24
8%
38%
54%
24
8%
25%
67%
47%
15
7%
20%
73%
15
13%
33%
53%
15
0%
13%
87%
49%
40%
43
16%
23%
60%
43
14%
40%
47%
43
2%
16%
81%
5%
38%
57%
37
3%
16%
81%
37
8%
14%
78%
37
3%
5%
92%
17%
54%
29%
48
13%
23%
65%
48
19%
29%
52%
48
8%
50%
42%
4%
39%
57%
23
4%
17%
78%
23
4%
30%
65%
23
4%
26%
70%
56
7%
43%
50%
56
2%
18%
80%
56
5%
25%
70%
55
11%
13%
76%
15
7%
47%
47%
15
7%
27%
67%
15
13%
40%
47%
15
7%
7%
87%
Freedom Estates
45
11%
49%
40%
45
16%
18%
67%
45
20%
27%
53%
45
4%
9%
87%
Hatton
12
0%
33%
67%
12
8%
8%
83%
12
0%
17%
83%
12
0%
8%
92%
I 44 East / 240
South
18
6%
39%
56%
18
6%
17%
78%
18
11%
39%
50%
18
0%
6%
94%
Indian Heights
26
4%
35%
62%
26
4%
12%
85%
26
12%
27%
62%
26
0%
15%
85%
Kickapoo
36
8%
44%
47%
36
3%
22%
75%
36
8%
28%
64%
36
8%
22%
69%
Lynwood West
18
39%
33%
28%
18
39%
22%
39%
18
39%
28%
33%
18
0%
22%
78%
Meadow Lake
Addition
34
12%
35%
53%
34
12%
24%
65%
34
6%
38%
56%
34
3%
29%
68%
Midwestern
Farms
11
9%
27%
64%
11
0%
9%
91%
11
0%
9%
91%
11
0%
18%
82%
Missile Road
Housing
Addition
27
4%
48%
48%
27
11%
7%
81%
27
15%
26%
59%
27
0%
19%
81%
Ready
N
42%
42%
19
16%
21%
43%
48%
21
5%
19%
6%
69%
25%
32
3%
14
29%
50%
21%
14
29
14%
52%
34%
29
Downtown
24
17%
25%
58%
East I 44 / South
240
15
7%
47%
Eastside
43
12%
Edgemere
37
Faith Village
48
Fillmore
Addition
23
Floral Heights
Fountain Park
Somewhat
Ready
Ready
N
Not Somewhat
Ready
Ready
Ready
56
Neighborhood
Name
Overall social competence
N
Not Somewhat
Ready
Ready
Responsibility and respect
Ready
N
Not Somewhat
Ready
Ready
Ready
Approaches to learning
N
Not
Ready
Readiness to explore new things
Somewhat
Ready
Ready
N
Not Somewhat
Ready
Ready
Ready
North 240 /
South Sycamore
11
0%
45%
55%
11
0%
0%
100%
11
0%
18%
82%
11
0%
9%
91%
North Central
Burk
15
7%
80%
13%
15
0%
20%
80%
15
0%
27%
73%
15
0%
27%
73%
Northside
37
16%
32%
51%
37
8%
16%
76%
37
11%
35%
54%
37
5%
11%
84%
Northwest Burk
11
9%
45%
45%
11
0%
27%
73%
11
0%
36%
64%
11
9%
9%
82%
Nunnely Place
19
16%
21%
63%
19
16%
5%
79%
19
16%
21%
63%
19
0%
21%
79%
Rancho Vista
Estates
21
10%
52%
38%
21
14%
19%
67%
21
14%
43%
43%
21
5%
14%
81%
Sam Houston
35
6%
51%
43%
35
3%
14%
83%
35
9%
14%
77%
35
0%
11%
89%
Sikes Addition
13
23%
38%
38%
13
0%
31%
69%
13
8%
31%
62%
13
0%
15%
85%
South Sam
Houston
10
0%
50%
50%
10
0%
10%
90%
10
0%
20%
80%
10
0%
20%
80%
Southridge
12
8%
33%
58%
12
0%
25%
75%
12
8%
8%
83%
12
0%
8%
92%
Southwest Burk
16
0%
31%
69%
16
6%
19%
75%
16
6%
31%
63%
16
0%
25%
75%
Stadium
49
8%
27%
65%
49
6%
20%
73%
49
12%
14%
73%
49
4%
18%
78%
Stone Cliff
28
4%
57%
39%
28
7%
32%
61%
28
4%
32%
64%
28
0%
36%
64%
Sunnyside
29
0%
41%
59%
29
7%
10%
83%
29
3%
28%
69%
29
0%
24%
76%
Sunset Terrace
11
18%
45%
36%
11
27%
18%
55%
11
9%
45%
45%
11
0%
18%
82%
University Park
North
10
10%
20%
70%
10
0%
30%
70%
10
0%
50%
50%
10
0%
0%
100%
University Park
South
29
14%
48%
38%
29
3%
24%
72%
29
10%
28%
62%
29
10%
21%
69%
Wellington
Estates
12
17%
25%
58%
12
0%
25%
75%
12
8%
25%
67%
12
0%
8%
92%
West Central
Burk
28
7%
61%
32%
28
11%
11%
79%
28
14%
11%
75%
28
4%
14%
82%
West I 44 Burk
12
8%
50%
42%
12
8%
17%
75%
12
17%
25%
58%
12
0%
17%
83%
Western Hills
27
0%
19%
81%
27
0%
15%
85%
27
0%
4%
96%
27
0%
11%
89%
Westmoreland
21
0%
24%
76%
21
0%
5%
95%
21
5%
5%
90%
21
0%
10%
90%
1,059
9%
43%
48%
1,059
7%
19%
73%
1,059
10%
27%
63%
1,058
3%
19%
78%
Communitywide
57
Table 17. EDI Sub-domain: Emotional Maturity, 2012
Neighborhood
Name
Prosocial and helping behavior
Somewhat
Ready
Ready
Anxious and fearful behavior
Aggressive behavior
N
Not
Ready
Somewhat
Ready
Ready
Hyperactive and inattentive behavior
N
Not
Ready
N
Not
Ready
Somewhat
Ready
Read
y
N
Not
Ready
Somewhat
Ready
Ready
Airport
19
47%
21%
32%
19
0%
11%
89%
19
11%
11%
79%
19
21%
26%
53%
Bonny Homes
21
33%
38%
29%
21
10%
5%
86%
21
10%
5%
86%
21
10%
14%
76%
Brook Village
Area
32
25%
47%
28%
32
3%
6%
91%
32
0%
3%
97%
32
16%
13%
72%
Central Burk
14
36%
50%
14%
14
7%
14%
79%
14
21%
14%
64%
14
43%
7%
50%
Dog Patch
29
24%
14%
62%
29
0%
17%
83%
29
14%
0%
86%
29
17%
17%
66%
Downtown
23
39%
35%
26%
24
4%
4%
92%
24
0%
4%
96%
24
8%
21%
71%
East I 44 / South
240
15
33%
7%
60%
15
0%
7%
93%
15
7%
7%
87%
15
20%
33%
47%
Eastside
39
36%
21%
44%
43
7%
5%
88%
43
23%
16%
60%
43
35%
21%
44%
Edgemere
37
24%
19%
57%
37
8%
3%
89%
37
3%
0%
97%
37
14%
16%
70%
Faith Village
48
33%
27%
40%
48
2%
13%
85%
48
8%
13%
79%
48
23%
17%
60%
Fillmore
Addition
23
30%
30%
39%
23
0%
0%
100%
23
0%
4%
96%
23
13%
9%
78%
Floral Heights
56
45%
21%
34%
56
2%
4%
95%
56
5%
2%
93%
56
20%
16%
64%
Fountain Park
15
20%
20%
60%
15
0%
7%
93%
15
20%
0%
80%
15
33%
7%
60%
Freedom
Estates
45
40%
18%
42%
45
2%
7%
91%
45
18%
7%
76%
45
27%
20%
53%
Hatton
12
50%
17%
33%
12
0%
0%
100%
12
8%
0%
92%
12
17%
33%
50%
I 44 East / 240
South
18
22%
28%
50%
18
6%
6%
89%
18
11%
11%
78%
18
6%
17%
78%
Indian Heights
26
23%
12%
65%
26
0%
4%
96%
26
4%
8%
88%
26
19%
8%
73%
Kickapoo
36
33%
25%
42%
36
0%
6%
94%
36
8%
17%
75%
36
22%
17%
61%
Lynwood West
18
39%
28%
33%
18
22%
22%
56%
18
33%
17%
50%
18
56%
6%
39%
Meadow Lake
Addition
34
32%
29%
38%
34
0%
18%
82%
34
12%
15%
74%
34
26%
32%
41%
Midwestern
Farms
11
9%
9%
82%
11
0%
0%
100%
11
0%
9%
91%
11
9%
9%
82%
58
Neighborhood
Name
Somewhat
Ready
Ready
Aggressive behavior
N
Not
Ready
Somewhat
Ready
Ready
N
Not
Ready
N
Not
Ready
Somewhat
Ready
Read
y
N
Not
Ready
Somewhat
Ready
Ready
Missile Road
Housing
Addition
26
19%
42%
38%
27
4%
7%
89%
27
11%
4%
85%
27
19%
19%
63%
North 240 /
South Sycamore
11
27%
27%
45%
11
9%
0%
91%
11
0%
0%
100%
11
9%
9%
82%
North Central
Burk
15
27%
20%
53%
15
0%
7%
93%
15
20%
0%
80%
15
33%
20%
47%
Northside
37
16%
27%
57%
37
5%
11%
84%
37
14%
5%
81%
37
27%
14%
59%
Northwest Burk
11
27%
45%
27%
11
18%
0%
82%
11
27%
0%
73%
11
18%
9%
73%
Nunnely Place
18
28%
28%
44%
19
0%
11%
89%
18
17%
6%
78%
18
17%
22%
61%
Rancho Vista
Estates
21
24%
38%
38%
21
0%
19%
81%
21
14%
14%
71%
21
33%
5%
62%
Sam Houston
35
20%
23%
57%
35
3%
11%
86%
35
9%
17%
74%
35
14%
17%
69%
Sikes Addition
13
15%
38%
46%
13
0%
8%
92%
13
15%
8%
77%
13
38%
0%
62%
South Sam
Houston
10
20%
10%
70%
10
0%
0%
100%
10
0%
0%
100%
10
20%
0%
80%
Southridge
12
17%
33%
50%
12
0%
0%
100%
12
0%
8%
92%
12
8%
8%
83%
Southwest Burk
16
25%
13%
63%
16
0%
0%
100%
16
31%
0%
69%
16
6%
25%
69%
Stadium
49
29%
29%
43%
49
2%
14%
84%
49
8%
4%
88%
49
20%
12%
67%
Stone Cliff
28
43%
21%
36%
28
0%
0%
100%
28
14%
4%
82%
28
39%
11%
50%
Sunnyside
29
41%
21%
38%
29
0%
0%
100%
29
0%
10%
90%
29
17%
10%
72%
Sunset Terrace
11
45%
18%
36%
11
0%
36%
64%
11
18%
27%
55%
11
36%
9%
55%
University Park
North
10
20%
20%
60%
10
0%
10%
90%
10
10%
20%
70%
10
10%
20%
70%
University Park
South
29
14%
55%
31%
29
3%
24%
72%
29
14%
10%
76%
29
24%
24%
52%
Wellington
Estates
12
25%
8%
67%
12
0%
17%
83%
12
8%
8%
83%
12
8%
8%
83%
West Central
Burk
28
39%
25%
36%
28
0%
7%
93%
28
21%
7%
71%
28
25%
11%
64%
West I 44 Burk
12
25%
25%
50%
12
0%
25%
75%
12
25%
0%
75%
12
25%
17%
58%
Western Hills
27
30%
26%
44%
27
0%
4%
96%
27
0%
4%
96%
27
7%
7%
85%
Westmoreland
21
24%
29%
48%
21
0%
5%
95%
21
0%
5%
95%
21
5%
19%
76%
59
Neighborhood
Name
Communitywide
N
Not
Ready
1,052
30%
Somewhat
Ready
Ready
26%
44%
Aggressive behavior
N
Not
Ready
Somewhat
Ready
Ready
1,059
3%
8%
89%
N
Not
Ready
Somewhat
Ready
Read
y
N
Not
Ready
Somewhat
Ready
Ready
1,058
11%
7%
82%
1,058
21%
16%
63%
Table 18. EDI Sub-domain: Language and Cognitive Development, 2012
Neighborhood
Name
Interest in literacy/numeracy and
memory
N
Not Somewhat
Ready
Ready
Ready
N
Not
Ready
Somewhat
Ready
Ready
Advanced literary skills
N
Not
Ready
Basic numeracy skills
Somewhat
Ready
Ready
N
Not Somewhat
Ready
Ready
Ready
Airport
19
11%
32%
58%
19
32%
5%
63%
19
26%
21%
53%
19
26%
5%
68%
Bonny Homes
21
5%
10%
86%
21
10%
10%
81%
21
5%
5%
90%
21
10%
0%
90%
Brook Village
Area
32
6%
6%
88%
32
13%
13%
75%
32
6%
6%
88%
32
13%
3%
84%
Central Burk
14
14%
7%
79%
14
7%
7%
86%
14
7%
0%
93%
14
14%
0%
86%
Dog Patch
29
10%
28%
62%
29
31%
3%
66%
29
17%
3%
79%
29
10%
14%
76%
Downtown
24
4%
13%
83%
24
25%
4%
71%
24
0%
13%
88%
24
13%
8%
79%
East I 44 / South
240
15
7%
20%
73%
15
13%
20%
67%
15
20%
7%
73%
15
7%
7%
87%
Eastside
43
12%
19%
70%
43
30%
28%
42%
43
16%
7%
77%
43
9%
16%
74%
Edgemere
37
5%
0%
95%
37
16%
3%
81%
37
3%
5%
92%
37
5%
5%
89%
Faith Village
48
13%
13%
75%
48
29%
19%
52%
47
15%
2%
83%
48
13%
4%
83%
Fillmore Addition
23
0%
17%
83%
23
17%
9%
74%
23
0%
0%
100%
23
0%
9%
91%
Floral Heights
56
4%
14%
82%
56
21%
11%
68%
56
7%
4%
89%
56
5%
5%
89%
Fountain Park
15
0%
27%
73%
15
20%
13%
67%
15
20%
7%
73%
15
13%
7%
80%
Freedom Estates
45
7%
9%
84%
45
13%
16%
71%
45
7%
7%
87%
45
11%
2%
87%
Hatton
12
8%
25%
67%
12
17%
8%
75%
12
8%
0%
92%
12
8%
0%
92%
I 44 East / 240
South
18
6%
6%
89%
18
11%
6%
83%
18
6%
6%
89%
18
6%
0%
94%
Indian Heights
26
8%
15%
77%
26
27%
12%
62%
26
15%
12%
73%
26
15%
4%
81%
60
Neighborhood
Name
memory
N
Not Somewhat
Ready
Ready
Ready
N
Not
Ready
Somewhat
Ready
Ready
N
Not
Ready
Somewhat
Ready
Ready
N
Not Somewhat
Ready
Ready
Ready
Kickapoo
36
11%
11%
78%
35
23%
9%
69%
36
11%
6%
83%
36
14%
17%
69%
Lynwood West
18
6%
22%
72%
18
22%
28%
50%
18
11%
0%
89%
18
17%
22%
61%
Meadow Lake
Addition
34
3%
18%
79%
34
24%
3%
74%
34
6%
3%
91%
34
6%
18%
76%
Midwestern
Farms
11
0%
0%
100%
11
18%
9%
73%
11
0%
0%
100%
11
0%
9%
91%
Missile Road
Housing Addition
27
7%
0%
93%
27
11%
0%
89%
27
7%
0%
93%
27
7%
4%
89%
North 240 / South
Sycamore
11
0%
9%
91%
11
9%
9%
82%
11
9%
0%
91%
11
0%
0%
100%
North Central
Burk
15
7%
7%
87%
15
13%
7%
80%
15
27%
0%
73%
15
13%
13%
73%
Northside
37
5%
14%
81%
37
22%
14%
65%
37
19%
3%
78%
37
8%
16%
76%
Northwest Burk
11
9%
18%
73%
11
27%
9%
64%
11
18%
9%
73%
11
18%
9%
73%
Nunnely Place
19
0%
11%
89%
19
16%
21%
63%
19
0%
11%
89%
19
5%
26%
68%
Rancho Vista
Estates
21
14%
10%
76%
21
14%
5%
81%
21
19%
10%
71%
21
14%
0%
86%
Sam Houston
35
0%
20%
80%
35
11%
9%
80%
34
12%
0%
88%
35
3%
9%
89%
Sikes Addition
13
0%
8%
92%
13
8%
23%
69%
13
0%
0%
100%
13
0%
0%
100%
South Sam
Houston
10
0%
10%
90%
10
10%
20%
70%
10
0%
10%
90%
10
0%
0%
100%
Southridge
12
0%
8%
92%
12
25%
0%
75%
12
8%
0%
92%
12
0%
8%
92%
Southwest Burk
16
0%
13%
88%
16
6%
6%
88%
16
0%
0%
100%
16
0%
0%
100%
Stadium
49
4%
8%
88%
49
18%
2%
80%
49
6%
2%
92%
49
4%
4%
92%
Stone Cliff
28
0%
18%
82%
28
32%
7%
61%
28
14%
4%
82%
28
7%
7%
86%
Sunnyside
29
3%
24%
72%
29
10%
28%
62%
29
10%
7%
83%
29
3%
7%
90%
Sunset Terrace
11
0%
18%
82%
11
18%
18%
64%
11
9%
9%
82%
11
9%
18%
73%
University Park
North
10
10%
0%
90%
10
10%
10%
80%
10
10%
20%
70%
10
0%
10%
90%
University Park
South
29
10%
0%
90%
29
17%
7%
76%
29
10%
3%
86%
29
7%
7%
86%
Wellington
12
17%
8%
75%
12
17%
8%
75%
12
8%
17%
75%
12
17%
0%
83%
61
Neighborhood
Name
memory
N
Not Somewhat
Ready
Ready
Ready
N
Not
Ready
89%
28
18%
4%
Somewhat
Ready
Ready
N
Not
Ready
79%
28
7%
7%
Somewhat
Ready
Ready
N
Not Somewhat
Ready
Ready
Ready
Estates
West Central Burk
28
4%
7%
West I 44 Burk
12
8%
17%
75%
12
17%
8%
75%
12
8%
Western Hills
27
0%
0%
100%
27
0%
7%
93%
27
0%
Westmoreland
21
5%
10%
86%
21
10%
0%
90%
21
1,059
6%
12%
82%
1,058
18%
10%
71%
1,057
Community-wide
86%
28
4%
4%
93%
8%
83%
12
8%
0%
92%
0%
100%
27
0%
7%
93%
5%
5%
90%
21
10%
10%
81%
10%
5%
86%
1,059
8%
8%
84%
Table 19. EDI Sub-domain: Communication Skills and General Knowledge, 2012
Communication Skills and General Knowledge
Neighborhood Name
N
Not Ready
Somewhat
Ready
Ready
Airport
19
53%
21%
26%
Bonny Homes
21
43%
33%
24%
Brook Village Area
32
50%
6%
44%
Central Burk
14
50%
29%
21%
Dog Patch
29
52%
21%
28%
Downtown
24
33%
38%
29%
15
27%
20%
53%
Eastside
43
30%
35%
35%
Edgemere
37
24%
22%
54%
Faith Village
48
50%
21%
29%
Fillmore Addition
23
39%
13%
48%
Floral Heights
55
33%
24%
44%
Fountain Park
15
33%
27%
40%
Freedom Estates
45
40%
18%
42%
Hatton
12
17%
17%
67%
18
33%
11%
56%
62
Indian Heights
26
31%
19%
50%
Kickapoo
36
33%
14%
53%
Lynwood West
18
50%
11%
39%
34
26%
21%
53%
Midwestern Farms
11
36%
9%
55%
27
30%
26%
44%
11
27%
18%
55%
North Central Burk
15
53%
20%
27%
Northside
37
35%
22%
43%
Northwest Burk
11
36%
9%
55%
Nunnely Place
19
16%
16%
68%
21
24%
5%
71%
Sam Houston
34
24%
18%
59%
Sikes Addition
13
31%
8%
62%
South Sam Houston
10
30%
0%
70%
Southridge
12
33%
8%
58%
Southwest Burk
16
19%
31%
50%
Stadium
49
18%
18%
63%
Stone Cliff
28
29%
36%
36%
Sunnyside
29
21%
17%
62%
Sunset Terrace
11
45%
27%
27%
10
20%
10%
70%
29
31%
17%
52%
Wellington Estates
12
8%
0%
92%
West Central Burk
28
50%
21%
29%
West I 44 Burk
12
25%
50%
25%
Western Hills
27
4%
19%
78%
Westmoreland
21
14%
19%
67%
1,057
32%
20%
48%
Community-wide
63
Multiple Challenge Index
The Multiple Challenge Index (MCI)2 identifies groups of children who have multiple challenges
and therefore are considered to be experiencing serious problems. Children are categorized as
having multiple challenges when they fall in the “not ready for school” category on nine or
more of the 16 sub-domains (presented in Tables 15-19), which also translates to being
categorized as vulnerable on at least three of the five EDI domains. Table 20 presents the
percent of children in each geographic area who have multiple challenges.
Table 20. Percentage of Children with Multiple Challenges on EDI, 2012
Neighborhood Name
N
Percent with Multiple
Challenges
Airport
19
16%
Bonny Homes
21
0%
Brook Village Area
32
6%
Central Burk
14
7%
Dog Patch
29
3%
Downtown
24
4%
15
7%
Eastside
43
7%
Edgemere
37
3%
Faith Village
48
10%
Fillmore Addition
23
0%
Floral Heights
56
4%
Fountain Park
15
7%
Freedom Estates
45
9%
Hatton
12
0%
18
6%
Indian Heights
26
4%
Kickapoo
36
6%
Lynwood West
18
28%
34
6%
Midwestern Farms
11
0%
Addition
27
7%
11
0%
North Central Burk
15
0%
Northside
37
5%
2
The MCI was developed by the publishers at the Offord Centre for Child Studies.
64
Neighborhood Name
N
Percent with Multiple
Challenges
Northwest Burk
11
9%
Nunnely Place
19
5%
21
14%
Sam Houston
35
3%
Sikes Addition
13
0%
South Sam Houston
10
0%
Southridge
12
0%
Southwest Burk
16
0%
Stadium
49
6%
Stone Cliff
28
0%
Sunnyside
29
0%
Sunset Terrace
11
0%
10
0%
29
7%
Wellington Estates
12
8%
West Central Burk
28
4%
West I 44 Burk
12
0%
Western Hills
27
0%
Westmoreland
21
0%
1,059
5%
Community-wide
65
Descriptive characteristics of the children by geographic area
Tables 21-23 include data on the children in this community with records valid for analysis that
are included in the Community Profile. In Table 21, we report on the number of children with
records valid for analysis (N) in each area, along with their gender, mean child age, English
Language Learner (ELL) status, and enrollment in the Individualized Education Program (IEP) for
children with disabilities. For gender, only data on females is reported due to space limitations.
Table 22 provides for each area the race/ethnicity of participants, while Table 23 provides
information on whether the child was in non-parental child care on a regular basis in the year
prior to kindergarten. Non-parental child care on the EDI is defined as center-based care, care
in the home by someone other than the parent, or care in someone else’s home. Under this
definition, non-parental care could include grandparents or neighbors.
Table 21. Gender, Age, ELL, and IEP Status of EDI Participants, 2012
Students
with ELL
Status
N (%)
Students
with IEP
Status
N (%)
Neighborhood Name
N*
Females
N (%)
Mean Age
(years,
months)
Airport
19
11 (58%)
5 yrs, 10 mo
**
**
Bonny Homes
21
7 (33%)
5 yrs, 10 mo
7 (33%)
**
Brook Village Area
32
7 (22%)
5 yrs, 11 mo
5 (16%)
**
Central Burk
14
7 (50%)
5 yrs, 10 mo
0 (0%)
**
Dog Patch
29
15 (52%)
6 yrs, 0 mo
14 (48%)
**
Downtown
24
11 (46%)
5 yrs, 11 mo
15 (63%)
**
15
8 (53%)
5 yrs, 11 mo
0 (0%)
**
Eastside
43
21 (49%)
6 yrs, 0 mo
**
**
Edgemere
37
10 (27%)
6 yrs, 0 mo
**
0 (0%)
Faith Village
48
24 (50%)
5 yrs, 11 mo
0 (0%)
5 (10%)
Fillmore Addition
23
12 (52%)
6 yrs, 0 mo
**
0 (0%)
Floral Heights
56
20 (36%)
5 yrs, 11 mo
16 (29%)
9 (16%)
Fountain Park
15
12 (80%)
5 yrs, 11 mo
**
**
Freedom Estates
45
22 (49%)
5 yrs, 10 mo
**
6 (14%)
Hatton
12
7 (58%)
6 yrs, 1 mo
**
**
18
9 (50%)
5 yrs, 10 mo
**
**
Indian Heights
26
14 (54%)
6 yrs, 0 mo
**
**
Kickapoo
36
18 (50%)
5 yrs, 10 mo
5 (14%)
**
Lynwood West
18
7 (39%)
5 yrs, 11 mo
0 (0%)
**
Meadow Lake
Addition
34
15 (44%)
6 yrs, 0 mo
**
**
Midwestern Farms
11
9 (82%)
6 yrs, 1 mo
**
**
66
Students
with ELL
Status
N (%)
Students
with IEP
Status
N (%)
Neighborhood Name
N*
Females
N (%)
Mean Age
(years,
months)
Addition
27
15 (56%)
5 yrs, 10 mo
**
**
North 240 / South
Sycamore
11
6 (55%)
6 yrs, 0 mo
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
North Central Burk
15
9 (60%)
5 yrs, 11 mo
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Northside
37
21 (57%)
5 yrs, 11 mo
12 (32%)
**
Northwest Burk
11
**
5 yrs, 9 mo
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Nunnely Place
19
8 (42%)
5 yrs, 10 mo
0 (0%)
**
21
12 (57%)
5 yrs, 11 mo
**
**
Sam Houston
35
20 (57%)
6 yrs, 0 mo
**
**
Sikes Addition
13
6 (46%)
6 yrs, 3 mo
**
**
South Sam Houston
10
6 (60%)
6 yrs, 1 mo
**
0 (0%)
Southridge
12
9 (75%)
5 yrs, 11 mo
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Southwest Burk
16
8 (50%)
6 yrs, 0 mo
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
Stadium
49
30 (61%)
5 yrs, 11 mo
6 (12%)
7 (14%)
Stone Cliff
28
10 (36%)
5 yrs, 11 mo
**
0 (0%)
Sunnyside
29
17 (59%)
6 yrs, 0 mo
**
**
Sunset Terrace
11
**
6 yrs, 2 mo
**
**
10
**
6 yrs, 0 mo
**
0 (0%)
29
16 (55%)
6 yrs, 1 mo
**
**
Wellington Estates
12
6 (50%)
6 yrs, 0 mo
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
West Central Burk
28
14 (50%)
6 yrs, 0 mo
0 (0%)
**
West I 44 Burk
12
8 (67%)
6 yrs, 0 mo
**
**
Western Hills
27
15 (56%)
6 yrs, 0 mo
11 (41%)
**
Westmoreland
21
12 (57%)
5 yrs, 11 mo
**
**
1,059
524 (49%)
5 yrs, 11 mo
143 (14%)
83 (8%)
Community-wide
Data Source: School District data for age; Teacher Reported EDI Checklist for gender, ELL status, and IEP
status.
* Due to missing data, the N may differ by demographic characteristic across neighborhoods.
** To protect student confidentiality, a sample size between 1 and 4 is considered too small to report.
67
Table 22. Race/Ethnicity of EDI Participants, 2012
Race/Ethnicity*
AfricanAmerican,
Black
Asian,
Native
Hawaiian
or other
Pacific
Islander
Hispanic,
Latino/a
White
Other
Airport
**
**
**
12 (63%)
**
Bonny Homes
**
0 (0%)
7 (33%)
12 (57%)
0 (0%)
Brook Village Area
**
0 (0%)
18 (56%)
10 (31%)
**
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
**
10 (71%)
**
Dog Patch
**
0 (0%)
18 (62%)
5 (17%)
**
Downtown
**
0 (0%)
20 (83%)
**
**
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
**
13 (87%)
**
28 (65%)
0 (0%)
8 (19%)
**
**
Edgemere
**
**
**
28 (76%)
**
Faith Village
**
0 (0%)
14 (29%)
30 (63%)
0 (0%)
Fillmore Addition
**
**
10 (43%)
9 (39%)
0 (0%)
Floral Heights
5 (9%)
0 (0%)
30 (54%)
18 (32%)
**
Fountain Park
0 (0%)
**
**
10 (67%)
0 (0%)
Freedom Estates
**
**
5 (11%)
36 (80%)
0 (0%)
Hatton
**
0 (0%)
5 (42%)
**
**
**
**
**
10 (56%)
**
Indian Heights
**
0 (0%)
10 (38%)
13 (50%)
**
Kickapoo
6 (17%)
0 (0%)
8 (22%)
17 (47%)
5 (14%)
Lynwood West
11 (61%)
0 (0%)
**
**
0 (0%)
**
**
**
27 (79%)
**
Midwestern Farms
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
**
9 (82%)
**
Addition
6 (22%)
**
**
17 (63%)
0 (0%)
North 240 / South
Sycamore
**
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
10 (91%)
0 (0%)
North Central Burk
**
0 (0%)
**
11 (73%)
**
Northside
**
0 (0%)
29 (78%)
6 (16%)
0 (0%)
Northwest Burk
**
0 (0%)
**
5 (45%)
**
Nunnely Place
**
0 (0%)
**
11 (58%)
**
**
0 (0%)
**
16 (76%)
0 (0%)
7 (20%)
**
12 (34%)
13 (37%)
**
Neighborhood Name
Central Burk
Eastside
Sam Houston
68
Race/Ethnicity*
AfricanAmerican,
Black
Asian,
Native
Hawaiian
or other
Pacific
Islander
Hispanic,
Latino/a
White
Other
Sikes Addition
0 (0%)
**
**
9 (69%)
**
South Sam Houston
0 (0%)
**
**
6 (60%)
0 (0%)
Southridge
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
**
8 (67%)
**
Southwest Burk
**
**
0 (0%)
10 (63%)
**
Stadium
**
**
**
40 (82%)
**
Stone Cliff
7 (25%)
0 (0%)
**
18 (64%)
**
Sunnyside
6 (21%)
0 (0%)
12 (41%)
11 (38%)
0 (0%)
**
0 (0%)
5 (45%)
**
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
**
0 (0%)
8 (80%)
**
0 (0%)
**
9 (31%)
19 (66%)
0 (0%)
Wellington Estates
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
0 (0%)
11 (92%)
**
West Central Burk
**
**
**
23 (82%)
0 (0%)
West I 44 Burk
**
0 (0%)
**
9 (75%)
0 (0%)
Western Hills
**
**
**
19 (70%)
**
Westmoreland
**
0 (0%)
**
14 (67%)
**
123 (12%)
24 (2%)
279 (26%)
577 (54%)
56 (5%)
Neighborhood Name
Sunset Terrace
Community-wide
Data Source: School District data. The “Other” category includes children classified as
multiracial.
** To protect student confidentiality, a sample size between 1 and 4 is considered too small to
report.
Table 23. Previous Child Care Arrangement of EDI Participants, 2012
Neighborhood Name
Previous Child Care*
Parental
Non-parental
Don’t know
Airport
9 (47%)
7 (37%)
3 (16%)
Bonny Homes
10 (48%)
10 (48%)
1 (5%)
Brook Village Area
7 (22%)
23 (72%)
2 (6%)
**
9 (64%)
1 (7%)
Dog Patch
16 (55%)
13 (45%)
0 (0%)
Downtown
9 (38%)
10 (42%)
5 (21%)
8 (53%)
6 (40%)
1 (7%)
Central Burk
69
Neighborhood Name
Parental
Non-parental
Don’t know
Eastside
19 (44%)
7 (16%)
17 (40%)
Edgemere
9 (24%)
**
27 (73%)
Faith Village
14 (29%)
29 (60%)
5 (10%)
Fillmore Addition
6 (26%)
12 (52%)
5 (22%)
Floral Heights
34 (61%)
14 (25%)
8 (14%)
Fountain Park
10 (67%)
**
2 (13%)
Freedom Estates
11 (24%)
29 (64%)
5 (11%)
Hatton
**
6 (55%)
1 (9%)
**
13 (72%)
3 (17%)
Indian Heights
7 (27%)
6 (23%)
13 (50%)
Kickapoo
14 (39%)
7 (19%)
15 (42%)
Lynwood West
7 (39%)
10 (56%)
1 (6%)
8 (24%)
18 (53%)
8 (24%)
Midwestern Farms
**
6 (55%)
1 (9%)
**
20 (74%)
3 (11%)
**
9 (82%)
0 (0%)
North Central Burk
11 (73%)
**
0 (0%)
Northside
20 (54%)
14 (38%)
3 (8%)
**
6 (55%)
2 (18%)
9 (47%)
6 (32%)
4 (21%)
**
**
15 (71%)
Sam Houston
15 (43%)
9 (26%)
11 (31%)
Sikes Addition
**
7 (54%)
3 (23%)
South Sam Houston
**
7 (70%)
1 (10%)
Southridge
**
**
8 (67%)
Southwest Burk
7 (44%)
9 (56%)
0 (0%)
Stadium
13 (27%)
20 (41%)
16 (33%)
Stone Cliff
7 (25%)
11 (39%)
10 (36%)
Sunnyside
11 (38%)
16 (55%)
2 (7%)
Sunset Terrace
5 (45%)
5 (45%)
1 (9%)
**
**
5 (50%)
**
14 (48%)
11 (38%)
Wellington Estates
**
**
6 (50%)
West Central Burk
14 (50%)
13 (46%)
1 (4%)
West I 44 Burk
5 (42%)
6 (50%)
1 (8%)
Western Hills
14 (52%)
12 (44%)
1 (4%)
Northwest Burk
Nunnely Place
70
Neighborhood Name
Westmoreland
Community-wide
Parental
Non-parental
Don’t know
**
16 (76%)
1 (5%)
377 (36%)
452 (43%)
229 (22%)
** To protect student confidentiality, a sample size between 1 and 4 is considered too small to report
(except for the “don’t know” category).
71
E. Glossary of Terms
Children Developmentally Vulnerable
Children are “developmentally vulnerable” in a domain if the mean of his/her EDI items for that
domain falls at or below the 10th percentile cutoff.
Children Very Ready
A child is “very ready” in a domain if the mean of his/her EDI items for that domain falls at or
above the 75th percentile.
Early Development Instrument (EDI)
The Early Development Instrument (EDI), a tool developed by Drs. Dan Offord and Magdalena
Janus of the Offord Centre for Child Studies at McMaster University in Canada, is a population
measure of young children’s development from a teacher-completed checklist. The EDI
Checklist measures five developmental domains:
1) Physical health and well-being
2) Social competence
3) Emotional maturity
4) Language and cognitive skills
5) Communication skills and general knowledge
EDI Checklist
The EDI instrument is a teacher-completed checklist which consists of over 100 questions
measuring the five developmental domains. It also includes questions on child demographics,
special problems, prior child care, and parent involvement in the classroom.
EDI Cutoff
Each of the five domains in the EDI has a population cutoff for “developmentally vulnerable”
and “very ready.” The normative population cutoffs were determined using 2010 data to set a
representative benchmark which helps to compare how children are doing developmentally
both across sites and across years. To establish these cutoffs, an average score for each domain
was first developed per child with valid data (N=10,244). The averages for all records valid for
analysis were then sorted from lowest to highest to determine the 10th and the 75th percentile
population cutoffs for each developmental domain.
Geographic Area
EDI data were mapped by geographic area such as by neighborhood, census tract, or combined
census block groups. Communities were asked to designate the type of geographic areas that
would be used in this Community Profile. The geographic areas selected ideally involve distinct
72
and small geographic areas that community members and local policymakers recognize as their
community/neighborhood.
Multiple Challenge Index (MCI)
The Multiple Challenge Index (MCI) identifies groups of children who have multiple challenges
and therefore are considered to be experiencing serious problems. Children are categorized as
having multiple challenges when they fall in the “not ready” category on nine or more of the 16
sub-domains, which also translates to being categorized as vulnerable on at least three of the
five EDI domains.
Representative Data
Ideally, the EDI is designed to be a census of all children living in an area. Data are considered
representative of the children living in a geographic area if at least 70% of the children living in
that area have a completed EDI. A double asterisk next to the name of the geographic area in
Table 3 indicates that fewer than 70% of five year olds in that area had completed EDIs, and
therefore, the results may not be representative of all children living there. Where fewer than
70% had completed EDIs, it is strongly recommended that additional schools serving the area
are recruited into the EDI data collection effort. The 2010 Census dataset was used to
determine how many kindergarten age children lived in each geographic area.
Sub-Domain
Four of the five domains are divided into multiple sub-domains and one domain
(Communication Skills and General Knowledge), is treated as a single sub-domain. There are a
total of 16 sub-domains. For each sub-domain, children are categorized as “not ready,”
“somewhat ready,” or “ready” for school. Cutoffs (i.e. the range) for these three categories
have been determined by the Offord Centre. Children who are “not ready” had an average EDI
score for that sub-domain that fell in the lowest range. Children who are “somewhat ready”
had an average EDI score for that sub-domain that fell in the middle range. Children who are
“ready” had an average EDI score for that sub-domain that fell in the highest range. Two of the
sub-domains – physical readiness for school work and physical independence – do not have a
“somewhat ready” category.
Suppressed Data
Data for a geographic area were not reported (i.e. suppressed) if fewer than 10 EDI records
valid for analysis were available for that neighborhood. Fewer than 10 records can occur if the
neighborhood has a small child population or there is a low EDI participation rate of schools
serving that neighborhood.
TECCS Initiative
Transforming Early Childhood Community Systems (TECCS) is a national initiative developed
through a partnership between the UCLA Center for Healthier Children, Families and
73
Communities and the United Way Worldwide. The goal of TECCS is to improve the school
readiness of all children in a community by using regular measurement and mapping of
developmental progress at a population level to mobilize local partners around a data driven
process to inform the development of early childhood service systems. TECCS has four core
components: 1) Measurement and Mapping; 2) Community Engagement; 3) Shared Learning
Network; and 4) Targeted, Place-Based Systems Improvement. The TECCS initiative is supported
by the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and the communities in which TECCS is being implemented.
Record Valid for Analysis
For a child’s record to be valid for analysis: 1) Child must have been in the classroom for more
than one month; and 2) The EDI must have at least four of the five domains completed by the
kindergarten teacher.
Very Ready on 4 or More Domains
Children whose EDI score is at or above the 75th on at least four of the five domains.
Vulnerable on 2 or More Domains
Children whose EDI score is at or below the 10th percentile (i.e. are “developmentally
vulnerable”) on at least two of the five domains.
74
Appendix
Appendix A. EDI Items by Domain and Sub-domain
Physical Health and Well-being Domain
A. Sub-domain: Physical readiness for school day
1. Over- or underdressed for school-related activities
2. Too tired/sick to do school work
3. Late
4. Hungry
B. Sub-domain: Physical independence
5. Independent in bathroom habits most of the time
6. Shows an established hand preference
7. Well-coordinated
8. Sucks a thumb/finger
C. Sub-domain: Gross and fine motor skills
9. Proficient at holding a pen, crayons, or a paintbrush
10. Ability to manipulate objects
11. Ability to climb stairs
12. Level of energy throughout the school day
13. Overall physical development
Social Competence Domain
A. Sub-domain: Overall competence with peers
1. Overall social/emotional development
2. Ability to get along with peers
3. Plays and works cooperatively with other children
4. Able to play with other children
5. Shows self-confidence
B. Sub-domain: Respect and responsibility
6. Follows rules and instructions
7. Respects the property of others
8. Demonstrates self-control
9. Demonstrates respect for adults
10. Demonstrates respect for other children
11. Accepts responsibility for actions
75
12. Takes care of school materials
13. Shows tolerance to someone who made a mistake
C. Sub-domain: Approaches to learning
14. Listens attentively
15. Follows directions
16. Completes work on time
17. Works independently
18. Works neatly and carefully
19. Able to solve day-to-day problems by him/herself
20. Able to follow one-step instructions
21. Able to follow class routines without reminders
22. Able to adjust to changes in routines
D. Sub-domain: Readiness to explore new things
23. Curious about the world
24. Eager to play with a new toy
25. Eager to play a new game
26. Eager to play with/read a new book
Emotional Maturity Domain
A. Sub-domain: Prosocial and helping behavior
1. Tries to help someone who is hurt
2. Volunteers to help clear up a mess someone else has made
3. Will try to stop a quarrel or dispute
4. Offers to help other children who have difficulty with a task
5. Comforts a child who is crying or upset
6. Spontaneously helps to pick up objects which another child has dropped
7. Invites bystanders to join a game
8. Helps other children who are feeling sick
B. Sub-domain: Anxious and fearful behavior
9. Is upset when left by a parent/guardian
10. Seems to be unhappy, sad, or depressed
11. Appears fearful or anxious
12. Appears worried
13. Cries a lot
14. Nervous, high-strung, or tense
15. Incapable of making decisions
76
16. Shy
C. Sub-domain: Aggressive behavior
17. Gets into physical fights
18. Bullies or is mean to others
19. Kicks, bites, hits other children or adults
20. Takes things that do not belong to him/her
21. Laughs at other children’s discomfort
22. Disobedient
23. Has temper tantrums
D. Sub-domain: Hyperactive and inattentive behavior
24. Can’t sit still, restless
25. Distractible, has trouble sticking to any activity
26. Fidgets
27. Impulsive, acts without thinking
28. Has difficulty awaiting turn in games or groups
29. Cannot settle into anything for more than a few moments
30. Inattentive
Language and Cognitive Development Domain
A. Sub-domain: Basic literacy skills
1. Knows how to handle a book
2. Able to identify at least 10 letters of the alphabet
3. Able to attach sounds to letters
4. Showing awareness of rhyming words
5. Able to participate in group reading activities
6. Experimenting with writing tools
7. Aware of writing directions in English
8. Able to write his/her own name in English
B. Sub-domain: Interest in literacy/numeracy and memory
9. Generally interested in books
10. Interested in reading
11. Able to remember things easily
12. Interested in mathematics
13. Interested in games involving numbers
C. Sub-domain: Advanced literacy skills
14. Able to read simple words
77
15. Able to read complex words
16. Able to read simple sentences
17. Interested in writing voluntarily
18. Able to write simple words
19. Able to write simple sentences
D. Sub-domain: Basic numeracy skills
20. Able to sort and classify objects by a common characteristic
21. Able to use one-to-one correspondence
22. Able to count to 20
23. Able to recognize numbers 1-10
24. Able to say which number is bigger of the two
25. Able to recognize geometric shapes
26. Understands simple time concepts
Communication Skills and General Knowledge Domain
A. Sub-domain: Communication skills and general knowledge
1. Ability to use language effectively in English
2. Ability to listen in English
3. Ability to tell a story
4. Ability to take part in imaginative play
5. Ability to communicate own needs in a way understandable to adults & peers
6. Ability to understand on first try what is being said to him/her
7. Ability to articulate clearly, without sound substitutions
8. Answers questions showing knowledge about the world
78
Appendix B. Description of EDI Maps
Maps 7-13 present the EDI data overlaid with the proportion of vulnerabilities by domain, as
well as a variety of other socio-demographic indicators and community assets. All of the sociodemographic and community assets are overlaid onto the same base EDI map which depicts the
proportion of children vulnerable on two or more developmental domains.
Map 7 – Proportion of Vulnerabilities by Domain
For each geographic area, this map overlays the proportion of vulnerabilities across the five
domains (shown as the pie chart) on top of the percent of children vulnerable on two or more
domains (shown as the green shaded areas in the background). It is important to make the
distinction between the proportion of vulnerabilities and the percent of children vulnerable
because children are frequently vulnerable on more than one EDI domain. Also, it is helpful to
see which domains represent the largest proportion of vulnerability in a community. Therefore,
the pie charts in this map use the number of vulnerabilities as the denominator as opposed to
the number of children. By doing this, the pie charts represent the proportion of vulnerabilities
by domain in a neighborhood, rather than the proportion of children who are vulnerable in a
neighborhood. Each pie slice is a different color which corresponds to a domain, and indicates
the proportion of total vulnerabilities within that domain. These maps help communities
reflect not only on which geographic areas have the highest need but also, within each
geography, which area of development represents the largest proportion of vulnerability.
Map 8 – Percent of Families with Children in Poverty
Poverty data were taken from the American Community Survey (ACS) 2006-2010 where poverty
status is determined by comparing annual income to a set of dollar values called thresholds that
vary by family size, number of children, and age of householder. If a family’s before tax money
income is less than the dollar value of their threshold, then that family and every individual in it
are considered to be in poverty. For people not living in families, poverty status is determined
by comparing the individual’s income to his or her threshold. The poverty thresholds are
updated annually to allow for changes in the cost of living. They do not vary geographically.
Map 9 – Percent of Single Parent Families
Single parent family data were taken from the American Community Survey (ACS) 2006-2010
where a “single” parent is defined as a parent who is not currently living with a spouse. Single
parents may be married and not living with their spouse, divorced, widowed, or never married.
If a second parent is present and not married to the first, then the child is identified as living
with a single parent.
79
Map 10 – Years at Current Residence
Number of years lived at current residence data were taken from the American Community
Survey (ACS) 2006-2010 from the total population in occupied housing units variable. These
data include both renter and owner occupied housing.
Map 11 – Percent of Preschool/Nursery School Enrollment
Nursery and preschool enrollment data were taken from the American Community Survey (ACS)
2006-2010 dataset. A nursery school is defined as a group or class that is organized to provide
educational experiences for children during the year or years preceding kindergarten. It
includes instruction as an important and integral phase of its program of child care. Private
homes in which essentially custodial care is provided are not considered nursery schools.
Children enrolled in Head Start programs or similar programs sponsored by local agencies to
provide preschool education to young children are counted under nursery school.
Map 12 – Community Assets
Community asset data were compiled from Google maps where a community asset or resource
is anything that is available to support and improve the lives of young children and their
families. Assets may include but are not limited to: early education, social, medical, and
economic services. For purposes of mapping, community assets are the physical locations
where supportive services are provided.
Map 13 – Child Care Sites
Child care site data were accessed from the Texas Department of Family and Protective
Services. The data were organized by site type: Licensed Child Care Centers, Licensed Child
Care Homes, and Registered Child Care Homes.
80

View the full 2011-2012 EDI Community Profile Report for Wichita

Transcription

Similar documents

Textiles Opico SA de CV

EDI WORKFLOW SCHEDULER FOR EXACT MACOLA AND EXACT

130710 DICentral EDI.Amcham.ENG.pptx

Lifewise Health Plan of Oregon EDI Form for ERAs

garden of life - 1 EDI Source, Inc.

Kansas Medicaid ERA EDI Form

Lifewise Health Plan of Washington Premera 837 and 835

Electrodeionization (EDI)

Newsletter April 2014 – Public Edition