View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Understanding Educator Perceptions in Assessment of Kindergarten Children's Development

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Understanding Educator Perceptions in Assessment of Kindergarten Children's Development
Language: English
Authors: Natalie Spadafora, Rita Jezrawi, Stefanie De Jesus, David Cameron, Magdalena Janus
Source: Early Childhood Education Journal. 2026 54(1):205-221.
Availability: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Tests/Questionnaires
Education Level: Early Childhood Education
Elementary Education
Kindergarten
Primary Education
Preschool Education
Descriptors: Kindergarten, Preschool Teachers, Teacher Attitudes, Teacher Student Relationship, Parent Teacher Cooperation, Teacher Education, Racism, Gender Bias, Social Bias, Foreign Countries, Child Development, Socioeconomic Status
Geographic Terms: Canada
DOI: 10.1007/s10643-024-01807-5
ISSN: 1082-3301
1573-1707
Abstract: Race-related data are not routinely collected as part of the Canadian kindergarten teacher reported Early Development Instrument (EDI) data collection even though they could be used to inform provision of supports for students and educators. Therefore, the goal of our exploratory study was to gather an understanding of teacher perceptions regarding the assessment of items on the EDI in the context of children's race, gender, and family status and teacher positionality. We conducted a series of four focus groups with educators (kindergarten teachers and designated early childhood educators) from a school board in Ontario, Canada. The major themes identified were: (1) intersections of social identity; (2) systemic biases and preconceived expectations; (3) educator reflections on feelings, attitudes, and circumstances; (4) teacher-child-family relationships; and (5) teacher training, education, and administrative resources. Our findings suggest that educators' assessment may be influenced and informed by their perception of their own and their students' identity. Potential of a bias might be reduced by adequate training and education.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1503775
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwG6dPNPwAy0Om4tikVu4B22AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDMgYvyGzHsPFIwVCnwIBEICBm495LqIoeMWNUcPCwSdUIphRtlfxmV088ur3e-YqQkL-IXiZHo9hXE6Hk2dIN_eERw6m5yG9fvP9vFxubx2rVFq5Ai7l30IlvZ8YhxlK2tbRAkZbGPxC5FPH9pOqXSBlKKY0-QwNwE3OKoTUI_rV056f6nz2W9HGbuWS-gwTOv7M4L1bYdS5SIqONaAxpbMco2LONJvrmak79R5L
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0191072484;5mx01jan.26;2026Jan27.05:19;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0191072484-1">Understanding Educator Perceptions in Assessment of Kindergarten Children's Development </title> <p>Race-related data are not routinely collected as part of the Canadian kindergarten teacher reported Early Development Instrument (EDI) data collection even though they could be used to inform provision of supports for students and educators. Therefore, the goal of our exploratory study was to gather an understanding of teacher perceptions regarding the assessment of items on the EDI in the context of children's race, gender, and family status and teacher positionality. We conducted a series of four focus groups with educators (kindergarten teachers and designated early childhood educators) from a school board in Ontario, Canada. The major themes identified were: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) intersections of social identity; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) systemic biases and preconceived expectations; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref3">3</reflink>) educator reflections on feelings, attitudes, and circumstances; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref4">4</reflink>) teacher-child-family relationships; and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref5">5</reflink>) teacher training, education, and administrative resources. Our findings suggest that educators' assessment may be influenced and informed by their perception of their own and their students' identity. Potential of a bias might be reduced by adequate training and education.</p> <p>Keywords: Educator Perceptions; Kindergarten; Assessment; Children; Education Specialist Studies In Education</p> <hd id="AN0191072484-2">Introduction</hd> <p>Educators' assessments of learners are key for monitoring their progress and play a critical role in teaching and learning (Ontario Ministry of Education, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref6">32</reflink>]). Therefore, educators play a large role in adopting culturally responsive pedagogy, engaging in school policies, and challenging racism and ableism (Connor, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref7">7</reflink>]). Research exploring teachers' perceptions of student skills has focused largely on adolescents and has mainly been conducted in the United States (e.g., Kozlowski, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref8">21</reflink>]; Riegle-Crumb & Humphries, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref9">39</reflink>]). An important aspect to consider also is the positionality of the educator; defined as their normative frame of reference including knowledge, beliefs, goals, and strategies, it can significantly impact the student learning experience (Banks, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref10">4</reflink>]). Disparities in academic achievement are impacted by differential treatment by teachers based on ethnic or racial background, including teachers having different expectations when assessing racially diverse students (e.g., Tenenbaum & Ruck, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref11">46</reflink>]). To date, there has been limited research exploring the area of teacher assessment in relation to race at the kindergarten level, particularly in Canada.</p> <p>In Canadian research to date, the association between elementary student learning outcomes and student identity has been explored through the collection of racial identity-based data. Robson and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref12">40</reflink>]) found that Black, Latinx, and Southeast Asian students had lower academic achievement, higher identification of special education needs, and were more likely to be enrolled in applied-level courses when compared to White students. Unequal outcomes also extend to school discipline. Students of Black, Indigenous, Middle Eastern, or multiple racial identities were disproportionately more likely to be expelled from school than their White counterparts (Zheng & De Jesus, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref13">51</reflink>]). More recently, Parekh et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref14">35</reflink>]) study showed that racialized students were less likely to be perceived as "Excellent" in their achievement and learning skills than White students, despite doing well academically. To our knowledge, no such work has been done with teachers and the Canadian kindergarten population.</p> <p>As young children are learning about race, diversity, or other identity markers within early childhood education settings and amongst peers, learning spaces also need to meet the needs of diverse student populations and can do this by reflecting on their held assumptions, beliefs, or social locations (Abawi & Berman, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref15">1</reflink>]). The absence of identity-based data collection in Canadian educational institutions makes it difficult to identify disparities in child development and interconnected forms of systemic oppression, develop effective policies, gauge whether mandates to enhance equity and inclusion are working, and decision makers are unable to accurately assign targeted strategies intended to mitigate barriers to student success or healthy child development (George et al., [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref16">12</reflink>]). Inequities are sustained without the collection, analysis, and mobilization of identity-based data in community-centered ways to enact meaningful action.</p> <hd id="AN0191072484-3">Role of Teacher Expectations and Positionality</hd> <p>Educators' assessments of learners remain critical to teaching, learning, and monitoring progress (Ministry of Education, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref17">32</reflink>]). Consequently, educators have a responsibility to recognize their historical legacy, challenge racism and ableism, rethink special education and adopt culturally responsive pedagogy (Connor, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref18">7</reflink>]). Cultural responsiveness means having an awareness of one's own cultural identity and views about difference, and the ability to learn, pivot, and build on the varying cultural and community norms of students (Connor, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref19">7</reflink>]). A vital component of teacher awareness of cultural diversity is their critical reflection (Acquah & Commins, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref20">3</reflink>]), which in turn allows them to establish positionality.</p> <p>The social positionings (broadly seen as a mixture of identities, roles, and power dynamics) of students and educators affect how they view the classroom and participate (Acevedo et al., [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref21">2</reflink>]). For example, teachers' race and language affected how they taught, noticed students' mathematics participation, and influenced them to think more critically about how to provide more equitable education access and incorporate their students' identities and cultures into the learning process (Wager, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref22">48</reflink>]). However, some teachers believe in <emph>teaching subjects well</emph> without explicit consideration of students' social differences (Wager, [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref23">48</reflink>]). This may be related to teacher expectations of how students ought to perform. When teachers have high expectations of students, students may show improved behavior and performance (Rosenthal & Jacobson, [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref24">41</reflink>]). Racial congruency has also been shown to influence teachers' perceptions as same-race students tend to be assessed more favourably than different-race ones, which begins as early as kindergarten (Ouazad, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref25">34</reflink>]).</p> <p>Longitudinal research from the United States found that high school students of teachers who had higher expectations about their future success were more likely to graduate from post-secondary education, but high school teachers had lower expectations of racialized students and students from low socioeconomic status (Boser et al., [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref26">5</reflink>]). A recent integrative review based on data from the United States found that teacher biases in treatment, referrals, disciplinary action, and social interactions were present from kindergarten to grade twelve, and were associated with student race, ethnicity, physical appearance, and disability status (Childs & Wooten, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref27">6</reflink>]). Regardless of teacher intent, research on teacher assessments suggests that assessments are susceptible to bias and mirror broader colonial, racist, and meritocratic ideologies (Connor, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref28">7</reflink>]; de Araujo, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref29">9</reflink>]; Löfgren & Löfgren, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref30">26</reflink>]). It is therefore important to understand how teacher assessment and perceptions play a role in the early years (i.e., kindergarten).</p> <hd id="AN0191072484-4">The Kindergarten Years</hd> <p>Given the impact that teacher perceptions can have on assessment, it is important to begin to understand it, as early as during the first years of formal schooling (i.e., kindergarten in Canada). In kindergarten, teacher perception and judgment of students' skills, based on their observations and evaluation of children's completed work, is a key component of the measurement of children's academic progress. Teacher judgements are reliable sources in determining early learning difficulties (Taylor et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref31">45</reflink>]). In one study, children identified by teachers to have early academic, social, and behavioural concerns demonstrated similar issues in grade one (Taylor et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref32">45</reflink>]). Teachers may conduct assessments <emph>of</emph> learning to relay data to families or assessments <emph>for</emph> learning to inform future classroom practices (Pyle et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref33">37</reflink>]). To do this, teachers may work with the child side-by-side in an embedded format to assess their academic and developmental learning, observe them playing alone or with peers, or withdraw the child from class to conduct formal literacy assessments, using checklists and anecdotal notes to keep track of their assessments (Pyle et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref34">37</reflink>]). In Ontario, teachers have used traditional assessment tools like observation, questioning, and some technology (e.g., photos, apps) but are reported to not be entirely confident in their assessment competencies in play-based contexts and experience challenges with balancing provincial academic standards and their child-focused play-based pedagogy (Pyle & DeLuca, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref35">36</reflink>]). One assessment used widely in kindergarten in Canada is the Early Development Instrument (EDI; Janus & Offord, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref36">18</reflink>]) which is a teacher-completed assessment of children's ability to meet age-appropriate developmental expectations at school entry.</p> <hd id="AN0191072484-5">The Early Development Instrument</hd> <p>In a context unique to Canada[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref37">1</reflink>], many provinces endorse collection of teacher-reported data on child development in the second half of the kindergarten year, using the Early Development Instrument (EDI, Janus & Offord, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref38">18</reflink>]). Since education in Canada lays in the realm of each province, the EDI was designed to be developmentally-based, rather than reflecting curriculum-based tasks and goals. Hence, it covers five broad domains of child development relevant and easily observable in 4–6 year-olds. Unlike other purported measures of "school readiness", its purpose is not to provide a diagnosis of an individual child for the purpose of placement or instructional decisions (Keating, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref39">19</reflink>]) and individual scores are not formally used to assign grades or promote students. Instead, even though the EDI is completed by kindergarten teachers for every individual child, the results are reported at aggregate, school- and community-levels and are not used for quality or accountability. Rather, school districts and community organizations use the results to inform preventive and service programming (Guhn et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref40">13</reflink>]). In contrast to standardized educational assessments in the United States, the Canadian ones do not, as a rule thus far, include information on the child's race or ethnicity (Parekh et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref41">35</reflink>]).</p> <p>The EDI is a holistic instrument that encompasses five areas of development: Physical Health and Well-Being, Social Competence, Emotional Maturity, Language and Cognitive Development, and Communication Skills and General Knowledge. Data are collected for each child in the classroom through the teacher's rating on a standard set of 103 items. In Ontario, EDI data have been collected routinely every 3 years since 2004 in all publicly funded school boards, representing approximately 90% of all 5-year-olds within a given cohort. The demographic information collected with the EDI includes child's sex at birth, first language, and the language learner status (English or French, depending on the school board's language of instruction), but no race or ethnicity. The dearth of racial data is a gap in knowledge that has been pointed out as a major drawback in the understanding of child development (Janus, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref42">17</reflink>]), especially in contrast to data collected in the US where this demographic information is more widely available (e.g., Halfon et al., [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref43">14</reflink>]). As the EDI is explicitly based on teachers' observations, it is important to understand what roles educator positionality and the assessment process itself play in educator perceptions of child behaviour and school readiness.</p> <hd id="AN0191072484-6">Current Study</hd> <p>The overall aim of the current study was to understand whether and how educator perceptions (specifically with regards to race) may play a role in kindergarten assessment. The two main objectives were: one, to examine the perceptions of kindergarten educators with respect to student identity and two, to investigate teacher positionality and perceptions of student demographics in the completion of EDI assessment items.</p> <hd id="AN0191072484-7">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191072484-8">Theoretical Framework</hd> <p>The philosophical worldviews that guided this study were constructivist and advocacy/participatory paradigms consistent with the qualitative research approach which focused on socially constructed reality and multiple truths shaped by social factors as well as mixed voices and living knowledge (Lincoln et al., [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref44">27</reflink>]). The critical consciousness practitioner inquiry was used to guide focus group discussions and identify power-attained and power-suppressed factors in the context of their professional lives (Marshall & George, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref45">28</reflink>]). A critical consciousness inquiry encourages professionals to question their actions and attitudes, identify their positionality, challenge dominant ideas, stereotypes, or identities, disrupt deficit-based narratives, and consider intersecting identities and other races and ethnicities in all lesson and resource planning which supports all learning styles (OSSTF, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref46">33</reflink>]; Radd & Macey, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref47">38</reflink>]; TDSB, [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref48">47</reflink>]). A cultural responsiveness lens was also used to frame the discussion of the EDI assessment items selected by educators to reflect on their positionality in rating EDI items. Our research took a collaborative approach. Specifically, our team of researchers partnered with the research team at a large school board in Ontario with diverse students. Both parties worked together throughout the research process from study conception to finalizing of results.</p> <hd id="AN0191072484-9">Participants and Procedure</hd> <p>In Ontario, kindergarten consists of full day, play-based learning that students attend 5 days a week. Each class has an educator team, comprised of a teacher and a designated early childhood educator (DECE). Teachers have knowledge of the curriculum and are responsible for student learning (including assessments and evaluations) and reporting to parents. DECEs have knowledge of early childhood development and help promote children's overall development by participating in the planning of age-appropriate activities (Ontario Ministry of Education, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref49">32</reflink>]). The research team at the school board purposefully recruited our sample, and participation was voluntary for interested educators. Each educator provided consent to participate prior to the study and at the beginning of each focus group. To be eligible to participate, educators had to have previously participated in cultural responsiveness initiatives and administered the EDI at least once. The sample of participants who volunteered to participate for the study ended up consisting of 5 kindergarten teachers and 1 early childhood educator, all of whom remained in the study for the entire duration. All participants in our focus group were female, taught schools in urban neighbourhoods, and 5 of the 6 were racialized.</p> <hd id="AN0191072484-10">Data Collection</hd> <p>The project builds on an established partnership between our research institute and the school board's research and development team. The school board has developed structures and is employing ongoing efforts to dismantle deeply entrenched racism in Canadian institutions, for example with professional training on critical conscious practitioner inquiry (CCPI; West-Burns, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref50">49</reflink>]). The participants were aware of the reasons for conducting our research and that the research team was responsible for the EDI national research program.</p> <p>We used a focus group approach for the current study as it best emphasized the social processes of our research phenomena and enabled us to examine what individuals thought about the topic in a social setting with participants who share a similar group identity (as educators) and who may share other identities with one another (e.g., parenthood, racial identity) that could be deemed sensitive (Cyr, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref51">8</reflink>]). The data were collected in a series of four focus groups that were conducted online via Zoom (both audio and visual recordings) during the educators' working hours at their schools. The focus groups were approximately 90 min in length and were completed between October and December 2022. We did not collect demographic characteristics of the participants to match to their responses, however throughout the focus groups, the participants did mention their own identities influencing their perceptions. We used a focus group guide with semi-structured questions that reflected the study objectives. The first focus group was a time to build relationships with the educators, and to ask broad questions to begin the conversation and get the educators thinking about the project objectives. The focus group guide included questions of the educators' positionality, exploration of their experiences completing the EDI, and specific EDI items that were difficult to rate (Appendix A). Follow up focus group guides (weeks 2–4) were created each week by the research team upon reflecting on topics mentioned by the educators the week before. The same group of educators participated in each focus group. The interviewer made field notes during and after the focus groups. The recorded audio files were transcribed automatically using NVivo (v. 13; 2020) software. The audio transcript documents were anonymized and double-checked by a research assistant for accuracy. A transcript-based analysis was conducted electronically in Microsoft Word by a graduate research assistant.</p> <hd id="AN0191072484-11">Data Analysis</hd> <p>The analysis was based on an iterative line by line coding using a general inductive approach and constant comparative analysis focused on pattern identification (Cyr, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref52">8</reflink>]; Kreuger & Casey, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref53">23</reflink>]). The goals of the analysis were to identify patterns in the data and if similar themes were present in multiple questions or groups (Cyr, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref54">8</reflink>]). The analysis began from reading all transcripts in entirety and reviewing the study's purpose. Initial impressions and relevant sections were noted. At the beginning of each focus group, the moderator recapped the previous focus group's themes, and the recaps also informed the analysis. We used the critical consciousness practitioner inquiry and cultural responsiveness lens mentioned previously to delve further into discussions of how educators evaluate students, mitigate bias, and interpret certain student behaviours or expectations that may be rooted in cultural differences (for example, we asked what sections of the EDI were difficult to rate and why). The focus groups were analyzed chronologically, and the analysis was organized based on the research questions asked in each group. Quotes were selected that illustrated the themes and findings. Open coding of short descriptive words and phrases that were important to the research question being asked or another question in the focus group were coded (Kreuger & Casey, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref55">23</reflink>]; Williams & Moser, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref56">50</reflink>]). After reading each transcript, codes were grouped into broader categories of axial codes reflecting similar concepts (Doody et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref57">11</reflink>]). The open and axial coding analysis was conducted by a graduate level research assistant with work experience and academic training in qualitative analysis. The moderator reviewed the open and axial codes and discussed any disagreement on codes with the research assistant to revise and reach agreement. From axial codes in each focus group, the research assistant and moderator created and refined selective codes that reflected the patterns and themes present within and across focus groups, and that highlighted comparisons. Participants and partners were involved with reviewing the research, keeping in line with the dissemination principle of community-based participatory research (Israel et al., [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref58">16</reflink>]). They contributed to the Methods and Results section by reviewing and providing feedback or corrections at a final discussion meeting (Fall 2023).</p> <hd id="AN0191072484-12">Research Team and Reflectivity</hd> <p>Our lead author facilitated the focus groups. She has a PhD in Child and Youth Studies, and is an early career researcher with experience in both qualitative and quantitative analyses. The project builds on an established partnership with our research institute, the school board, and their research and development team. The school board has developed structures and ongoing efforts to dismantle deeply entrenched racism in Canadian institutions, for example with professional training on critical conscious practitioner inquiry (CCPI; West-Burns, [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref59">49</reflink>]). The participants were aware of the reasons for conducting the research and that the research team was responsible for the EDI national research program. Throughout her time working with the participants, rapport was developed and participants became progressively comfortable sharing their experiences, asking questions and building off one another's thoughts and perspectives. Potential biases as a result of the researchers' positionalities were mitigated by adopting a diverse team, a team-based analytical approach, and involving participants and partners in the analytical phase to ensure their perspectives were accurately represented.</p> <hd id="AN0191072484-13">Results</hd> <p>Our results focus on the main themes that were present in all four focus groups with quotations that illustrate the themes. Quotations are identified by speaker number, page number in the transcript, and focus group number. The major themes identified were: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref60">1</reflink>) intersections of social identity; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref61">2</reflink>) systemic biases and preconceived expectations; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref62">3</reflink>) teacher reflections on feelings, attitudes, and circumstances; (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref63">4</reflink>) teacher-child-family relationships; and (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref64">5</reflink>) teacher training, education, and administrative resources (See Table 1).</p> <p>Table 1 Categories, themes, and quotations regarding teacher positionality</p> <p> <ephtml> <table rules="groups"><thead><tr><th align="left"><p>Axial codes (Categories)</p></th><th align="left"><p>Theme</p></th><th align="left"><p>Quotes</p></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left"><p>• Resource equity</p><p>• Gender and gendered behaviour</p><p>• Race and racialized behaviour</p><p>• Categorizing student behaviour</p><p>• Making inferences of emotions and needs</p><p>• Cultural differences</p><p>• Diversity in religious and personal preferences</p><p>• Exploring gender identity</p><p>• Socioeconomic status</p><p>• Residential location</p><p>• Varied school readiness</p><p>• Holistic representation of child</p><p>• Family dynamics</p><p>• Child's sociodemographic background</p></td><td align="left"><p>Intersections of social identity</p></td><td align="left"><p>"For me, I'd say the like colleague's views of the black boy... a black boy's behavior versus an Asian boy having the same behavior, but it's viewed differently. That happens a lot. It happens way more than it should. And then Asian girls are like the saints of it all, like they just they get, you know, nobody gives a second look. And if an Asian girl has a certain behavior, it's oh my goodness, this must be her first time ever having that kind of behavior like we don't see it...All the referral sheets are usually a black boy who is in trouble for behaviors that are deemed aggressive or disruptive." (S2, p.9, FG2)</p><p>"Sometimes I see those things even, you know, like let's say the boys are more into like the rough play or the rough housing or the aggressive play. And you know, sometimes we set our expectations differently or even in talking and communicating with parents like parents are like, 'well, the boys will be boys' or that type of thinking." (S5, p.12, FG2)</p><p>"The more you get to know the families, the more you have that level of comfort because they might not want to tell you either like, Oh, 'I'm fine, I have them'. Indoor shoes is another one. Like, how many shoes are we asking for? So that's a tricky one, too. As much as we say indoor shoes, outdoor shoes. I know it's an equity issue, like outdoor snowpants and all that." (S6, pg.5. FG2)</p><p>"I was thinking about Section B, because depending on your school, you're thinking of how some of them have come into the building, their knowledge, their background information, even their language. And I think certain sections would be different in different schools. The school readiness, for a lack of a better term, might be vastly different in some areas in the as opposed to others. So I think about that even for like Section B and even Section C when they specifically ask about 'demonstrates special literacy skills or talents' or is able to count to 20. I've been in various schools and that would be different amongst different communities." (S3, pg.7, FG3)</p><p>"Depending on where you are in the city. Your economic background has a lot to do with it... Many of the children go to Saturday classes, so they will get a lot of extra help with math and language because their parents have them either in Kumon or something, because they can afford to do that. And so we always have to be aware of everything. And so therefore, you have to praise all of the children, some children, you're praising them because they didn't cry when you were working with them, you're praising them because they tried and some you're praising them because, well, oh, you're really, really good at this. But we have to sort of praise them all equally because not everyone has access to Saturday classes or after school programs where they can get extra help." (S4, pg. 6, FG4)</p><p>"I find that race and gender play a lot into academics. So, the Asian girl is usually really good at art and math and science, and they end up being the valedictorian in the Grade five graduation consistently year after year. The Asian boy will get the math award. You know the you know, the brown boy from like, you know, India or somewhere else, will get the like the principal's award, like they're well-behaved and then the black children always get perseverance right. Like 'you persevered at the end and you pushed through', but they don't really get the academics right. They're not really the top math or the top reader. They're not getting the writing awards and there's predominant there's a lot in my school, 90% black, so it's really telling that the sprinkling of the other races will always advance academically...And it was clear it was very clear that everybody at the June award was predominantly black and they were male and they were getting perseverance. And it's because they were left to be last because of their behaviors. They just weren't seen seeing their academics and the September, October awards that were the children of Asian descent that were getting all of those awards." (S2, P.6, FG4)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>• Sympathy and empathy</p><p>• Impact of teacher bias on educational journey</p><p>• Systemic issues and bias by teachers</p><p>• Unique needs of children</p><p>• Fairness and equity</p><p>• Understanding cultural differences in expectations of development and behaviour</p><p>• Providing opportunities for healthy lifestyle and development</p><p>• Systemic racial biases by teachers</p><p>• Childrens' access to additional programming</p><p>• Prior expectations of academic achievement based on race/gender</p><p>• Unequal treatment of students</p><p>• Different behaviours in different settings</p><p>• Making and challenging assumptions</p></td><td align="left"><p>Systemic biases and preconceived expectations</p></td><td align="left"><p>"There is a stark reality of the fact that race, gender, even socioeconomic status is affecting the way in which we view our students and how they are treated within our board. And it's something interesting where we think of the communities that we work in and not all schools are created equal. When we talk about fundraising opportunities, when we think about how much one school is able to have like technology in all of their spaces. Meanwhile, at one point in time, I have to share six iPads with basically 100 kindergartners. So when we think about what is equity and we think about how we're reaching all of our students, these are things that are so much bigger than kindergarten educators feel we can tackle because it's a board wide problem." (S2, p.12, FG2)</p><p>"I think it's so interesting that in kindergarten, we just assume that kids know how to do certain things like you were just saying, like crossing your legs and just how it does need to be taught. Like some of the simplest things need to be shown and modeled and not like, you know, on go like you show them once and then they're like, 'Oh, like, that's how you want me to sit.' So it's just that assumption and the bias that we come in with that they already just know how to do stuff like that. So thank you for bringing up that idea. And also the parent voice, right? Like for him to say, Well, this is why." (S3, p.5, FG3)</p><p>"I would encourage any new educator in kindergarten to really make sure they understand the child's background like where they're coming from. If you understand the family dynamics, you know, I think it will help you to sort of fill out the EDI with a little less bias and to focus on the child in front of you as well. I know it seems like an oxymoron, like you're thinking about the child's background and you're thinking of the child in front of you." (S4, p.15, FG4)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>• Initial overwhelm with EDI</p><p>• Improvement and comfortability with EDI over time</p><p>• Overthinking EDI questions</p><p>• Adapting teacher practices</p><p>• Worry about uncertainty to some questions</p><p>• Worry about portraying child inaccurately</p><p>• Holistic representation of child in several settings</p><p>• Using work experience to inform teaching</p><p>• Past familiarity and comfortability with documentation</p><p>• Teacher knowledge and scope</p><p>• Difficulty defining and generalizing ratings</p><p>• Putting self in parent's shoes</p><p>• Parenthood</p><p>• Educators' racial and family backgrounds</p><p>• Emotions involved in assessing child</p><p>• Awareness and acceptance of biases</p><p>• Reflecting on and challenging biases</p><p>• Personal histories</p><p>• Remaining objective</p><p>• Teacher positionality</p><p>• Providing representation for the child</p><p>• Cognitive and emotional biases affecting ratings</p><p>• Child directed programming versus adult directed questions</p></td><td align="left"><p>Reflections on feelings, attitudes, and circumstances</p></td><td align="left"><p>"I'm just agreeing upon what others are saying the social/emotional. And I think sometimes it's not that it's challenging, and it's just like with particular students, you kind of feel inside, you don't want to label that child and those emotions tend to get in the way." (S6, P.4, FG3)</p><p>"I think that you can't completely turn off your bias, but you can also reflect on why you may have them and govern yourself accordingly if that makes sense. But parent interviews is one of those eye-opening moments for most of us as educators, because it puts things into perspective. Sometimes our bias is that everybody has time. But now that you know that there is no time or that they just may not even have a space for that. How do you move forward from that? And I think that's the importance of when you reflect and think about yourself as an educator, how you can serve all of your students, that you take those moments to use what you know and help you in your practice." (S3, p.2, FG4)</p><p>"Can we really mark without our own internal biases? I think we hope not to. But just like we've been talking about, how we view our students is a bit of a bias. How much we care for them is a bias. Bias doesn't always have to be negative. It can just be something that you feel towards that family or that student, and it makes you think about them when you go to mark. So, if you can take that away completely, then I say you're the most amazing human being ever." (S3, p.11, FG4)</p><p>"And it's sad. Like, you know, I see a lot of black boys coming into the office. The ones that came in a few years ago was like, 'What is going on here?' Like it was, it was very sad and it was very hurtful for me. You know, having a son who is black, like, 'Wow, this is this is what's happening,' and this was only a few years ago. So I just feel like we have to really take a step back and look at what we're doing and how we can program better and not look at as, 'oh, they're aggressive', but what is it they need right now that we're I'm not providing, you know, so it's not a one size fits all. We can't all teach everybody exactly the same" (S6, p.10, FG2)</p><p>"Sometimes when you fill out the EDI, the the older version anyway, you would feel almost like you couldn't put the child into a category. It wasn't as simple or as black and white as yes or no or maybe, sometimes like, for instance, the question of disobedience. If your child is on the spectrum right, then it's not really disobedience, it's that child learning how to express themselves. But you know, is the child is obedient. Maybe? Then you feel guilty based on what you write. So sometimes it's, you know, the wording is is a little bit tricky. And depending on whether or not the child has an exceptionally, you kind of almost don't know to put yes or no." (S5, p.14, FG1)</p><p>"We have training around how to look at things because we have to incorporate the native way of life in everything that we do at our school. And so it, but somehow it doesn't, for me, change the way I would complete the EDI because once again, I do have to turn something off in order to complete it. So it kind of forces me to just look directly at the question and not bring in some of those other pieces that I may be aware of." (S5, pg.20, FG2)</p><p>"I think being able to have more than just a 'yes or no' option is always a better bet, because then you at least know that you're not really pigeonholing or putting the student in just one box. It just gives you an opportunity to be more holistic instead of the one or two times. Like, sometimes they're late. Yes, they're late, but we have kids that are late every single day. So yeah, that's a yes. But on an average, if this kid is only late once a year, 'sometimes' might be more appropriate than no right?" (S3, pg.15, FG3)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>• Passion for teaching</p><p>• Being part of child's developmental growth</p><p>• Using curriculum to support children</p><p>• Information seeking</p><p>• Techer-child relationships</p><p>• Teacher-family communication</p><p>• Teacher-family relationships</p><p>• Asking questions</p><p>• Connections with families</p><p>• Supporting children in the classroom</p><p>• Family experiences and pressures</p><p>• Understanding child's behaviour</p><p>• Knowledge making and sharing with parents</p><p>• Praising all students</p><p>• Teacher expertise knowing whole child</p><p>• Difficulty assessing non-responsive students</p><p>• Continuous assessments of strengths</p></td><td align="left"><p>Teacher-child-family relationships</p></td><td align="left"><p>"If they go outside and they don't have the right clothes, even if we provide the right clothes, they may not have the laundry facilities because a lot of the students are living in motels. And again, like the parents have signed off on us having food for them and hot lunches because they've literally said, I don't have food. So there's so many things that are happening here and what we want to provide. And also like, yeah, here's a pair of snow pants, but if they get soaked. Like, how is that fair to ask their caregivers to wash the clothing and do all of this." (S2, p.4, FG2)</p><p>"There's something about a teacher knowing a whole child versus a direct assessment on math skills or something like that. You know, a good day from a bad day. You know, if the child is has helping behavior and if if an assessment, if someone came in to assess a child on a given day, maybe like you said, that child did not have breakfast, had a big blowout with the parents in the morning. They aren't getting the holistic child. They are getting a child on a certain day. Whereas I think you get the child and you know in your gut who are helping children, who exhibit wonderful pro-social skills, some struggle. So all of those pieces is why we actually come to educators and push every year to have it done with educators because there's something about seeing a whole child, all year or most of the year, and not just on certain days, so that's great feedback." (S7, p.21, FG2)</p><p>"You have to continue assessing and evaluating so that you have the most up to date documentation on that child so that you can speak to their strengths and not their deficits." (S4, pg.9, FG4)</p><p>"I think for Section C, we know that sometimes in classrooms like when there's, you know, two people or three people in the classroom that a child might respond better to one of the educators, right? So for listens attentively, I might say, yeah, that child, you know, listens attentively most of the time. And my teaching partner might say, Oh, like, no, that's that's sometimes or that's somewhat true. So I think those things can just based on the relationship or the different personalities, those things can vary." (S2, pg. 19, FG1)</p></td></tr><tr><td align="left"><p>• Collaboration with other educators</p><p>• Educator input</p><p>• Anticipating EDI information needs</p><p>• Education and training</p><p>• Environmental factors</p><p>• Teacher motivation and satisfaction</p><p>• Addressing resource issues</p><p>• Using EDI to inform practice</p><p>• Disconnect between EDI and tangible policy changes</p></td><td align="left"><p>Training, education, and administrative resources</p></td><td align="left"><p>"The teachers have to buy into it as well. It can't just be something, another thing to do and another thing to accomplish in your days. So there really has to be know adequate time provided to complete them in an accurate and fair way. Yeah, right. And then also to see it kind of also come full circle, like you mentioned, like, you know, the reports coming back and us seeing, you know how it's being used and what the, you know, the ratings and those type of things are." (S4, pg.19, FG4)</p></td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0191072484-14">Theme 1: Intersections of Social Identity</hd> <p>Educators agreed that children's social identity and sociodemographic characteristics impact how their skills and behaviors are interpreted by educators, and thus have an impact on how children are treated within the school system. We found that there was agreement on biases towards children's sociodemographic characteristics that affect interpretations of student development and behavior. Gender, race, culture, socioeconomic status, residential location, family resources, and parental knowledge impact how students are perceived academically and behaviorally which has implications for their educational journeys. Educators also explored how their own social identities and statuses impacted their teaching styles, how they related to their students' and families, and how they assess/re-assess student skills and behaviours. For example, educators were aware that their work experience, racial identity, and parenting identity (commonly referred to as "mom lens") impacted their connections with students and families. In a sense, they felt more connected with families when they became parents and held more sympathy and empathy for family circumstances. They also wanted to be a positive representation of their social identities to other children of the same race. Wanting to leave a positive impact on students, one educator stated:I always go into it thinking, 'Yes, I know my position as a Black woman, as a mom, as, you know, like just someone in my forties', you know, all these kinds of things. I've been in the building for 22 years, like, what is my position in this space and how do I want students to go home and talk about, do I want them to say, 'Oh my goodness, my teacher's horrible, she's mean.' I recognize the children that look like me, that are looking at me for the model, the representation. I recognize the children that don't look like me, that have probably never seen a lot of people that look like me. And how do they take me on? Right, so I'm going to leave an imprint on them one way or the other. For me, I'd like it to be a positive one (S5, pg.3, FG4).</p> <p>This quote demonstrated a first step towards critical consciousness through exposure to diversity (Landreman et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref65">24</reflink>]), enabling educators to act in support of social change as they reflect on their interactions with students of similar or different racial identities.</p> <p>School readiness and economic background was also a minor theme in this section. Teachers acknowledged that some families have more economic resources than others to enrol their children in extracurricular learning programs anddepending on your school, you're thinking of how some of them have come into the building, their knowledge, their background information, even their language. And I think certain sections [of the EDI] would be different in different schools. The school readiness, for a lack of a better term, might be vastly different in some areas in the board as opposed to others (S3, pg.7, FG3).</p> <hd id="AN0191072484-15">Theme 2: Systemic Biases and Preconceived Expectations</hd> <p>Educators discussed the potential consequences of racial and gender biases in the classroom and how biases are systemic in nature, both in implicit and explicit ways. They reflected on their own ways of knowing, and believed they and their colleagues carried preconceived, implicit ideas about how children of a certain gender or race are expected to behave and thus are treated differently within the school system, for example, students may experience differential exceptions or punishments, which signals a power dynamic in educator-student interactions. These preconceived expectations of children linger as new cohorts enter the school system and are judged based on prior experiences and generalizations, suggesting a need to deconstruct patterns of marginalization that occur at institutional, instructional, and personal levels (Ontario Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref66">31</reflink>]). In this way, educators worry about how learning, academic achievement, and future success are affected by systemic biases on a board-wide level, even as young as kindergarten. Some recalled stories of hearing other teacher's biases in phrases such as "boys will be boys" and such assumptions go unquestioned and accepted, leaving dominant narratives intact (Radd & Macey, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref67">38</reflink>]). The educators acknowledged how personal histories and traumas inform those preconceived expectations. For example, they have assumptions of the skills and knowledge that children should arrive to kindergarten with and assumptions of their overall developmental health as they presented in one setting rather than in other settings or at home, which may reflect their own Western cultural beliefs, that they then have to challenge and address. The move towards critical consciousness was brought up as the educators discussed their own roles in student success by "checking their biases daily" and challenging their automatic thoughts about how children of a certain race or gender generally behave or ought to behave:Checking the ego right, which a lot of educators don't do. I am the gatekeeper of knowledge and I teach you, right, like for you to acknowledge that mom did that at home, you know, because we're sharing the teaching role. It's not just us that teach them. They come in with knowledge, right? And a lot of educators don't give them that knowledge. And then there's that whole philosophy about what if it's the first report card, you don't get the E's because there's no room for them to grow. Like what kind of nonsense is that? What do you mean if the child is an E than the child is an E, but they say, 'Oh, well, there's no room for them to grow' so that the teacher's bias and the teacher's pedagogy on who gets what when also plays in play with the child getting the marks (S5, pg.9, FG4).</p> <p>One minor theme in this category was the difference between describing a child versus their behaviour. Educators reflected on their concerns with associating a child with negatively worded behaviours and who that may affect most:You have to really think about how things are worded and who that immediately becomes the vision of that particular child. And as we were talking about last time we were together, that's usually Black boys. Defiance and Black boys, I mean, and we across the board is something that we, as educators are constantly talking about and asking our educators in different spaces and in different schools to consider what that looks like and who it might be and who we are and why we think that way. And this would just I could just see it being checked off as defiance for so many of our Black boys. (S3, pg.20, FG3).</p> <p>This acknowledgment that a deficit-based narrative is attached to certain behaviours and identities and that there ought to be an intentional practice to think and challenge this type of thinking.</p> <p>Issues of bias involving race, gender, and socioeconomic status extended beyond individual teacher's perceptions up to the school board, which one participant claimed that these factors areaffecting the way in which we view our students and how they are treated within our board. And it's something interesting where we think of the communities that we work in and not all schools are created equal. When we talk about fundraising opportunities, when we think about how much one school is able to have like technology in all of their spaces. Meanwhile, at one point in time, I have to share six iPads with basically 100 kindergartners. So when we think about what is equity and we think about how we're reaching all of our students, these are things that are so much bigger than kindergarten educators feel we can tackle because it's a board wide problem (S2, pg.12, FG2).</p> <p>This highlights the institutional dimension within culturally responsive education; formal processes of school are questioned by educators as they want to support all learners in their classroom and need to account for differences in student contextual backgrounds and demographics (Ontario Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref68">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>This theme ties into the previous theme of social identity as participants agreed:another student of another race could be doing the exact same thing and it would be deemed as less significant.... But there is a significant difference, especially when you see who's in the office and when we think about it. That's also a way to constantly keep perpetuating systemic racism. It just is what it is. When a Black boy is in the office, he's not learning. He's sitting while the rest of the students are learning. So these are things that we as a board are trying to tackle, but we see it as early as pre-K, and it continues on throughout the years of their educational journey (S3, pg.9, FG2).</p> <hd id="AN0191072484-16">Theme 3: Reflections on Feelings, Attitudes, and Circumstances</hd> <p>Throughout the focus groups, the educators expressed the range of feelings that come up as they complete assessments and interact with their students. Educators also acknowledged that personal feelings (positive or negative), preconceived expectations, and a desire to contextualize information make it difficult to remain objective in assessments. One participant said, "I don't think you can do it without having a bias. I think everything you do your own lived experience and your feelings about a topic come into play" (S5, pg.12, FG4). There was a general desire for educators to provide an environment for marginalized students and to create a judgement-free zone for parents to feel safe expressing their needs. The group identified it as a drawback that personal feelings and strong teacher-student relationships were perceived to impact educators' assessment objectivity. One of the minor themes was that educators also had difficulty with assessing students' socioemotional health as they had to infer students' feelings and needs as opposed to their physical health, which was generally more observable, but that "sometimes it's not that it's challenging, it's just like with particular students, you kind of feel inside, you don't want to label that child and those emotions tend to get in the way." (S6, pg.4, FG3).</p> <p>The process of completing objective assessments caused some feelings of confusion, judgment, and guilt as educators did not want to negatively portray their students' development. Some of the difficulties in the assessment process involved educators' apprehension towards firm yes/no answers and a desire to explain these answers and the child's situation to mitigate judgements:It's sort of like a judgment call 'is a child independent in washroom habits', you know, 'are they too sick, too tired?' I mean, even though those are kind of yes or no answers because we're educators, we sometimes know the back story. And that makes it a little bit difficult sometimes to just put yes or no (S3, pg.3, FG3).</p> <p>The group suggested that options to check off 'sometimes' and open-text boxes would be useful on the EDI:I would still say that, but even though I'm providing them with items, I want you guys to know that this is a need...But sometimes when I'm doing that, I'm like, 'Oh, I wish there was a place to explain it.' It's kind of like a yes or no right doesn't give you the opportunity to kind of go more in depth. It doesn't mean that they're underdressed because the parents don't care or whatever. It's just their situation. I wish we had the opportunity to explain that piece. (S6, pg.6, FG2).</p> <p>The focus groups involved self-reflection or sense-making of circumstances and a re-examination of their place or positionality in relation to their students (Landreman et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref69">24</reflink>]). As parents themselves, the educators also related to parents being judged for their decisions and wanted to be aware of their attitudes about their students' material circumstances or behavioural issues:When it comes to those things, I'm quick, like overdress, underdress, just quick, quick, quick. And because if I sit here and try to apply my feelings to it, then everybody's underdressed. Everybody's overdressed and stuff because, you know, four- and five-year-olds, they lose things anyway, right?... I can't mystify my kids, too, because they're Black children in a predominantly white school and they stand out. So if they don't look the part, they're going to be teased for not having. So I feel like I could be that parent that's judged in that situation." (S4, pg.8, FG2).</p> <p>In a unique case, one participant recounted a personal factor that influenced her ability to be impartial on the EDI for one of her students due to a physically violent situation:I was off on an injury because the child had choked me...I personally could not complete that EDI for that child. So, I had to hand it off to my teaching partner because I thought, you know what? I'm not going to be able to release that personal side of it. So just being unbiased in that way and being fair to give the child the chance because I had my blinders on, it was just going to be one way. So, being honest? (S4, pg. 10, FG1).</p> <hd id="AN0191072484-17">Theme 4: Teacher-Child-Family Relationships</hd> <p>From the previous theme, teachers reflected on their own experiences and circumstances that may impact their perceptions of students. Their desire to contextualize information also extended to information exchange between teacher, family, and child. The consensus about the EDI was that it could be stressful or overwhelming to complete for the first time, particularly because new teachers do not know what information would be needed to answer the questions. They may lack confidence to complete the assessments and seek other information, for example, on what is going on in the child's home that may be affecting their behaviour at school. Some of the minor themes in this category included parent-teacher communication, focusing on the child's strengths, and preparing for EDI completion through information-seeking. Teachers agreed that for some answers they do not always have the information required to fill out the EDI, for example, if they were asked about special talents and skills that they were not in charge of providing (e.g., arts and music classes were taught by another teacher). Given their need for information, the educators in our focus groups highlighted the importance of adjusting their teaching and communication styles to seek out further information on their students from other reliable sources such as parents and teaching partners. This requires strong and trustworthy two-way communication channels between parents and educators. Educators acknowledged the benefits of getting to know children, their families, and sociodemographic backgrounds as it helped them better understand a child's behaviour in the classroom and how to best support them. Having knowledge of the child's family circumstances and the family's needs seemed to reduce bias according to the educators, which ties into developing critical consciousness and cultural responsiveness as they are intentionally establishing relationships with diverse others and making efforts to gain knowledge about other cultures and identities (Landreman et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref70">24</reflink>]; Ontario Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref71">31</reflink>]). Building relationships with families and knowing to ask parents certain questions was important as teachers became familiar with the EDI throughout their teaching career:Hearing what the parents are saying about the children at home versus what you're seeing at school. Often, they don't present the same way at home as they do at school. So just having that like input from the family so that you can really showcase the child and not have just certain assumptions and biases on what they're just presenting at school in a different setting where they may not be comfortable (S4, pg.8, FG1).</p> <hd id="AN0191072484-18">Theme 5: Training, Education, and Administrative Resources</hd> <p>The previous theme illuminated the interactions educators have with colleagues and caregivers to better understand the child they are assessing on the EDI. Dedicated resources, time, attention, and training for kindergarten educators also affected their capacity and capability to assess their students' developmental health. Collaboration and communication with fellow teachers and ECE's were deemed crucial to check biases and share information about a student that may have otherwise been missed by their primary classroom teacher when completing the EDI:The collaboration is important because of things that the ECE would see because they're just as hands on that I might have missed. So, I think if that could be possible to have them be part of it or even for certain points or specific students that they can assist with, that would be great (S3, pg.15, FG1).</p> <p>Collaboration with other educators who taught specialized classes such as music and gym was important to observe a child in a different setting and with a different student-teacher dynamic to check their positionality and ensure a fair assessment of the child. As one participant stated:What I think is really valuable is that we have the opportunity to complete these now like collaboratively because it's really like a puzzle, like a lot of the information, like a lot of the stuff, it's like we don't have the full scope of things unless like we talked to each other about something, talk to the parents, speak to other educators, get different pieces, and then we're like, Oh, OK, that's what it is like. It's really like, just look at things like, you know, in a singular way. We miss a lot of the information (S2, pg.14, FG3).</p> <p>One issue with the current structure of completing EDI questionnaires is adequate preparation, time, and environment. Teachers need adequate time to complete their assessments taking into consideration that their environment may introduce an element of fatigue affecting their ratings (e.g., teachers having a bad day):When you're doing twenty-six of them, then are you approaching the twenty sixth one as you approached with the same enthusiasm and discernment as the first one, right? So like the child that's at the end or the last few, like, are you just like, trying to get it finished and rushing through it (S4, pg.13, FG4).</p> <p>Educators thought it may be beneficial to attend question and answer informational sessions prior to EDI questionnaire completion and dedicated kindergarten teacher team meetings/training sessions that identify what to look for. One minor theme was the desire to link teacher practices and assessments to tangible results at the school level, for example, increased funding, materials, and student learning opportunities based on the results of the EDI.</p> <hd id="AN0191072484-19">Discussion</hd> <p>Our project examined the educator perceptions, child demographics, and educational assessment with a focus on items on the EDI. Our results suggest that educators have potential race, culture, and gender biases when it comes to assessment as early as kindergarten. The focus group questions and discussions demonstrate self and group reflections of the educator role in creating or mitigating bias and/or power imbalances. The educators in our study emphasized the importance of being aware of potential biases, moving towards critical consciousness within schooling and assessment, and explored the mental and emotional discomfort with objective yes/no evaluations, which may be related to cognitive dissonance from mismatch in values and beliefs stemming from their self-reflections (Landreman et al., [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref72">24</reflink>]). First, educators agreed that both their students' and their own sociodemographic characteristics had the potential to impact individual student assessment. These qualitative findings support previous research suggesting that disparities in academic achievement may be compounded by differential treatment by teachers based on ethnic or racial background, including teachers having different expectations when assessing racially diverse students (e.g., Tenenbaum & Ruck, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref73">46</reflink>]). In the same vein, previous research examining school discipline outcomes found that racialized students were more likely to be expelled and less likely to be perceived as having "excellent" behavior in the classroom (Parekh et al., [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref74">35</reflink>]; Zheng & De Jesus, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref75">51</reflink>]). Throughout the four focus groups, educators talked at length about the systemic biases that are entrenched within the society at large and, therefore, are a part of the school system and classroom setting. This makes it imperative for both researchers and those completing student assessments to attempt to disentangle potential bias of the assessment with systemic biases in overall perceptions of behavior, reflecting the need for increased or continued training identified in the fifth theme.</p> <p>A unique aspect of kindergarten in Ontario is that educators work as a team within the classroom setting. First, while classroom teachers are responsible for completing the EDI, both classroom teachers and the ECE in our focus groups discussed the collaboration and discussion that often occurs between them when completing such assessments and how this helps them reduce their bias. Collaborative teacher-family, teacher-child, and educator-educator relationships were deemed important by our participants which is consistent with other literature suggesting the need for regular and detailed communication between family, preschool, and kindergarten staff at schools especially in the context of transition to kindergarten for children with disabilities (Marsh et al., [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref76">29</reflink>]; Laverick & Jalongo, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref77">25</reflink>]). However in the context of the EDI assessment, this theme raises an important point: the EDI is designed to be completed from the perspective of the teacher and what they witness in a school setting, and not based on hearsay (Janus & Offord, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref78">18</reflink>]). While we acknowledge the importance of strong educator-parent relationships in the development of the child, the information gained from parents should not contribute to child assessment on the EDI. Relatedly, theme 3 on personal reflections on feelings, attitudes, and circumstances, was intertwined throughout all four focus groups with the educators. Along with discussing the importance of having strong relationships with students and their families, educators revealed feeling as if they were judging families or their circumstances when completing the assessment. In particular, questions that have the potential to reflect a poor home life or lower socioeconomic status (e.g., not being dressed properly for school, coming to school hungry) were items that educators discussed having difficulty completing for some students. These concerns highlighted training gaps, as population level data such as those gathered by the EDI are used to help inform where potential needs may be, and thus inaccurate report due to perceived mitigating circumstances might jeopardize the intended use and benefits of data collection (Guhn et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref79">13</reflink>]). Overall, the themes identified here provide an important foundation for future work in the area of bias in assessment in early development.</p> <p>In the third and fourth focus groups, we note that the educators were critically thinking about the developmental milestones on the EDI and how different schools or identity-groups may score differently than others, and the implications of biases on students and student achievement, whereas in the first two focus groups much of the discussion was on their experiences completing the EDI and what factors might affect the ease to which they complete the EDI, the sources of information they use, and their own characteristics/life situations.</p> <p>Our study contributes to a limited body of research focused on potential assessment bias with regards to race, gender, SES, and family dynamics of kindergarten children in Canada. Keating and Hertzman ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref80">20</reflink>]) argue that the socioeconomic gradients in health do not seem to diminish when children start going to school, rather that schools reinforce existing disparities in developmental outcomes, suggesting an institutional bias in the school system that further disadvantages children. This is consistent with findings that show a gendered measurement bias on assessments in certain items such as aggression and disruptive behavior (Split et al., [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref81">42</reflink>]; Horn et al., [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref82">15</reflink>]) and emerging work on disparities in the early childhood education (Stirling-Cameron et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref83">44</reflink>]). Kindergarten pedagogy and teaching philosophies are different from other grades. Working so closely with children and families will inevitably result in subjective and intersubjective influences on teaching and the classroom dynamic.</p> <p>Our study raises questions of how teacher candidates are taught to conduct assessments and how to address their own racial or gender bias and incorporate their perceptions and positionality within the classroom. The participants in this study were aware of biases they held because of their own personal or professional contexts, and of biases they had witnessed from colleagues and the education system more broadly. Implicit bias may also reflect automatic thoughts or feelings that may not be as obvious to the individual (Starck et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref84">43</reflink>]). Though we did not uncover precisely "why" these biases happen (which was beyond the scope of our study), our understanding from the focus groups was that they originate from differences in identities, expectations, values, societal norms, prior experiences, and knowledge. Other research has shown that exposure to bias can be mitigated through a combination of structural (policy) and psychological changes (Okonofua et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref85">30</reflink>]). This involves getting context for students' behaviours and learning/acting in a growth 'mindset' under the belief that students and teachers can improve (Okonofua et al., [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref86">30</reflink>]). While some forms of bias are not preventable (i.e., the unconscious ones), other forms can be reduced through training teachers on how to challenge their biases, for example through ongoing self-reflection, information seeking with families and other educators, and anti-racism workshops that aim to bring awareness and change to systemic and/or personal practices. Implicit and explicit biases are not limited to the teaching occupation and reflect the attitudes of the broader society they are in (Starck et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref87">43</reflink>]). Equity training, critical consciousness practitioner inquiry training, collaborating with critical friends and families, and other forms of structured educational strategies may reduce bias. Training on assessment rules and standards would also limit biases. The awareness of and challenging of potential biases can reduce discrepancies in assessment and academic achievement (Dee & Gershenson, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref88">10</reflink>]). Investing in teacher and pre-service teaching psychological interventions, such as training on empathy, setting high expectations, positive teacher affirmations and feedback towards students would enhance student outcomes and reduce biases (Dee & Gershenson, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref89">10</reflink>]). Importantly, training and professional learning should also emphasize developing teacher critical consciousness through implementing culturally relevant and responsive pedagogy (Kransoff, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref90">22</reflink>]). High quality teacher training and education will lead to more equitable and fair assessments of students.</p> <hd id="AN0191072484-20">Implications, Limitations and Future Direction</hd> <p>The current study adds knowledge on how bias is commonplace in educational settings and how bias could affect student academic achievement as early as kindergarten. It is apparent that educators want children to succeed but may not even be aware that they have biases affecting their perceptions of the behaviours that children present in their classroom. It is not clear from the study to what extent educators act on the biases they have. Educators value the information exchange with other educators and families, and this could have implications for how assessments administered in educational settings are completed. Educators also need space to self-reflect on their own biases and be able to acknowledge when they cannot remain unbiased.</p> <p>The representativeness of our results beyond the immediate group may have been influenced by the school board setting as it had a highly racially, ethnoculturally diverse student population. It would be important to conduct similar work in a range of different communities. Our current study informs future practice and enables future research to expand on understanding the role of educator perceptions when it comes to teacher assessments. For example, teacher positionality could be examined more comprehensively through the collection of teacher demographic information, and direct questions on this topic. Inclusion of student identity information has recently become mandatory for school districts in Ontario in 2023 and many districts are looking for guidance on how to collect and interpret this information. Schools should also consider if they are providing enough opportunities for all children to develop and demonstrate skills and talents within the kindergarten curriculum.</p> <p>Practically, our findings will help inform the future training educators receive prior to completing the EDI in Ontario to supplement their current training modules (for example through webinars, or stand-alone modules) and instructional guides, especially for new teachers who did not have an exposure to the EDI in teachers' college, and who need time for training and for completing the assessments. This could include, for example, training on how to remain as objective as possible when completing assessments despite knowledge on family backgrounds, one's own positionality, or one's past experiences with the child. Another recommendation from the discussions to consider is to complete the EDIs for all students in their class over an extended period of time (e.g., multiple weeks) as opposed to trying to do them all at once (e.g., 2 days). This work also opens possibilities for further consideration on how to present or word items on the EDI that may be interpreted differently in other cultures (e.g., presenting 'sometimes' options rather than yes or no). Within the broader educational system in Ontario this work may inform decisions on prevention and intervention strategies employed with pre-service and current educators to reduce bias in the classroom. These strategies may include what was valued by the focus group participants, such as child-focused and strengths-based approaches, gaining more knowledge and understanding of family dynamics and circumstances, and having open channels of communication with other educators and families to fully understand the children in their classroom.</p> <p>The themes identified in the analysis intersected one another. Teacher-to-teacher, and teacher-to-family communication, repeatedly mentioned, were common linkages in each focus group, while the training of teachers and social identities/positions of teachers and students also impacted their classroom experiences, pedagogy, academic expectations, and communication methods. There may have been other themes that we did not pursue due to the exploratory nature of this study and thus limited time, resources, and participants. We were able to observe verbal and non-verbal agreement cues, although the non-verbal cues were limited on video. Though we had positive, welcoming and nonjudgmental interactions among the group members, the group dynamics, environmental setting (workplace-based), and personal nature of the questions may have caused some members to withhold their answers or disagreements. We mitigated some of this by having the moderator follow up with the same questions to encourage all participants to engage with the group and share their answers. Our focus group participants were self-selected based on their interest in the topic and therefore may be different than the average teacher and not representative of the broader educator population. Although the information yielded was rich and insightful, we acknowledge that due to the nature of our study, the sample was small, and therefore future work could further explore these questions in different groups of educators, or quantitively across populations. Nevertheless, due to the wide use of the EDI, our study is an important first step that is likely to inform the understanding of perception and bias in kindergarten assessments.</p> <hd id="AN0191072484-21">Acknowledgements</hd> <p>This research study was funded by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Partnership Grant (#892-2021-3064).</p> <hd id="AN0191072484-22">Declarations</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0191072484-23">Competing interests</hd> <p>The authors have no competing interests to declare.</p> <hd id="AN0191072484-24">Appendix A</hd> <p>Guiding Questions for First Focus Group:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Start with Introductions: Are you a kindergarten teacher or early childhood educator? How long have you been in this profession? What is your favourite thing about teaching kindergarten? If you are comfortable, please also share your positionality statement (i.e., personal factors that might be impacting your own position/perceptions).</item> <p></p> <item> Have you ever completed the EDI before? What was your experience?</item> <p></p> <item> Were there any sections or items on the questionnaire that you felt were generally more difficult to rate compared to others? Why do you think this was this the case?</item> <p></p> <item> Follow-up question: Do you have any suggestions for how this can be improved?</item> <p></p> <item> Were there any sections or items on the questionnaire that you felt were more difficult to rate for some students rather than others? Why?</item> <p></p> <item> Can you tell me about prior teaching experiences or training you might have had that you think informed your judgement when completing the EDI for your students?</item> <p></p> <item> Do you feel your previous experience informed and/or influenced the way you were completing the EDI? Did that happen when you were completing the EDI for some students but not for others? a. Have you used the EDI Guide? Was the EDI guide a useful support to ensure objective completion of each item?</item> <p></p> <item> Were there sections or items on the EDI that you felt were more susceptible to be impacted by your own personal experiences, or that you felt other educators may rate the same children differently then you?</item> <p></p> <item> Follow up question: Why do you think that might be the case?</item> <p></p> <item> What personal factors do you think influenced the way you completed the EDI for each child (e.g., your previous teaching experience, previous assumptions, previous interactions with other students, a particular incident with a child)?</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0191072484-25">Publisher's Note</hd> <p>Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.</p> <ref id="AN0191072484-26"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Abawi ZE, Berman R. Politicizing early childhood education and care in Ontario: Race, identity and belonging. Journal of Curriculum Teaching Learning and Leadership in Education. 2019; 4; 2: 4-13Fctlle%2Fvol4%2Fiss2%2F2&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Acevedo, S. M, Aho, M, Cela, E, Chao, J. C, Garcia-Gonzales, I, MacLeod, A,. & Olague, C. (2015). Positionality as knowledge: from pedagogy to praxis. Integral Review: A Transdisciplinary & Transcultural Journal for New Thought, Research, & Praxis, 11(1), 28–46. <ulink href="http://integral-review.org/backissue/vol-11-no-1-feb-2015/">http://integral-review.org/backissue/vol-11-no-1-feb-2015/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref3" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Acquah, E. O, & Commins, N. L. (2015). Critical reflection as a key component in promoting pre-service teachers' awareness of cultural diversity. Reflective practice, 16(6), 790–805.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref4" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Banks, J. A. (1996). Multicultural Education, Transformative Knowledge and Action: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. Multicultural Education Series.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref5" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Boser, U, Wilhelm, M, & Hanna, R. (2014). The power of the pygmalion effect teachers expectations strongly predict college completion. Center for American Progress. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED564606.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref27" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Childs TM, Wooten NR. Teacher bias matters: An integrative review of correlates, mechanisms, and consequences. Race Ethnicity and Education. 2023; 26; 3: 368-397. 10.1080/13613324.2022.2122425</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref7" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Connor D. J. Who is responsible for the racialized practices evident within (special) education and what can be done to change them?. Theory into Practice. 2017; 56: 226-233. 10.1080/00405841.2017.1336034</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref51" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Cyr, J. (2019). Focus groups for the social science researcher. Cambridge University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref29" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> de Araujo Z. Connections between secondary mathematics teachers' beliefs and their selection of tasks for English language learners. Curriculum Inquiry. 2017; 47: 363-389. 10.1080/03626784.2017.1368351</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dee, T. S, & Gershenson, S. (2017). Unconscious bias in the classroom: Evidence and opportunities.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Doody O, Slevin E, Taggart L. Focus group interviews part 3: Analysis. British Journal of Nursing. 2013; 22; 5: 266-269. 10.12968/bjon.2013.22.5.266</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> George RC, Maier R, Robson K. Ignoring race: A comparative analysis of education policy in British Columbia and Ontario. Race Ethnicity and Education. 2020; 23; 2: 159-179. 10.1080/13613324.2019.1679754</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Guhn M, Janus M, Hertzman C. The Early Development Instrument: Translating school readiness assessment into community actions and policy planning. Early Education and Development. 2007; 18; 3: 369-374. 10.1080/10409280701610622</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halfon, N, Aguilar, E, Stanley, L, Hotez, E, Block, E, & Janus, M. (2020). Measuring Equity From The Start: Disparities In The Health Development Of US indergartners: Study examines disparities in the health development of US kindergartners. Health Affairs, 39(10), 1702–1709.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Horn EP, McCormick MP, O'Connor EE, McClowry SG, Hogan FC. Trajectories of teacher–child relationships across kindergarten and first grade: The influence of gender and disruptive behavior. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 2021; 55: 107-118. 10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.10.003</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Israel, B. A, Eng, E, Schulz, A. J, & Parker, E. A. (Eds.). (2005). Methods in community-based participatory research for health (1st ed).). Jossey-Bass.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Janus, M. (2020, June 19). No data, no problem, no action. Hamilton Spectator. Retrieved from https://<ulink href="http://www.thespec.com/opinion/contributors/2020/06/18/no-data-no-problem-no-action.html">www.thespec.com/opinion/contributors/2020/06/18/no-data-no-problem-no-action.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Janus M, Offord DR. Development and psychometric properties of the Early Development Instrument (EDI): A measure of children's school readiness. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. 2007; 39; 1: 1-22. 10.1037/cjbs2007001</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keating D. Formative evaluation of the Early Development Instrument: Progress and prospects. Early Education and Development. 2007; 18; 3: 561-570. 10.1080/10409280701610937</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keating, D. P, & Hertzman, C. (Eds.). (1999). Developmental health and the wealth of nations: Social, biological, and educational dynamics. Guilford press. Part 1: the gradient effect in developmental health.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kozlowski KP. Culture or teacher bias? Racial and ethnic variation in student–teacher effort assessment match/mismatch. Race and Social Problems. 2015; 7; 1: 43-59. 10.1007/s12552-014-9138-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kransoff, B. (2016). Culturally responsive teaching. A guide to evidence-based practices for teaching all students equitably. Region X Equity Assistance Center.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kreuger, R. A, & Casey, M. A. (2014). Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for Applied Research, vol. Fifth.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Landreman LM, Rasmussen CJ, King PM, Jiang CX. A phenomenological study of the development of university educators' critical consciousness. Journal of College Student Development. 2007; 48; 3: 275-296. 10.1353/csd.2007.0027</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Laverick, D. M, & Jalongo, M. R. (Eds.). (2011). Transitions to early care and education: International perspectives on making schools ready for young children (Vol. 4). Springer Science & Business Media.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Löfgren R, Löfgren H. Swedish students' experiences of national testing in science: A narrative approach. Curriculum Inquiry. 2017; 47: 390-410. 10.1080/03626784.2017.1368350</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lincoln, Y. S, Lynham, S. A, & Guba, E. G. (2011). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences, revisited. In N. K. Denzin, & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The sage handbook of qualitative research (4th ed, pp. 97–128). Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marshall, L. J, & George, R. C. (2021, December 3). 3rd Anti-black racism workshop on positionality and power: How do I uphold inequitable systems? [Webinar]. CAREB-ACCER. https://careb-accer.org</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsh A, Spagnol V, Grove R, Eapen V. Transition to school for children with autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review. World Journal of Psychiatry. 2017; 7; 3: 184-196. 10.5498/wjp.v7.i3.184</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Okonofua JA, Perez AD, Darling-Hammond S. When policy and psychology meet: Mitigating the consequences of bias in schools. Science Advances. 2020; 6; 42: eaba9479. 10.1126/sciadv.aba9479</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ontario Literacy and Numeracy Secretariat. (2013). Culturally responsive pedagogy towards equity and inclusivity in Ontario schools. Ontario Ministry of Education. https://<ulink href="http://www.onted.ca/monographs/capacity-building-series/culturally-responsive-pedagogy">www.onted.ca/monographs/capacity-building-series/culturally-responsive-pedagogy</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ontario Ministry of Education (2010). Growing success.<ulink href="http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/growsuccess.pdf">http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/policyfunding/growsuccess.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ontario Secondary School Teacher Federation [OSSTF] (2021). Critical consciousness questions. https://osstftoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/217-Attach-1-Critical-Consciousness-Checklist.docx.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ouazad A. Assessed by a teacher like me: Race and teacher assessments. Education Finance and Policy. 2014; 9: 334-372. 10.1162/EDFP_a_00136</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Parekh G, Brown RS, Zheng S. Learning skills, system equity, and implicit bias within Ontario, Canada. Educational Policy. 2021; 35; 3: 395-421. 10.1177/0895904818813303</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pyle A, DeLuca C. Assessment in play-based kindergarten classrooms: An empirical study of teacher perspectives and practices. The Journal of Educational Research. 2017; 110; 5: 457-466. 10.1080/00220671.2015.1118005</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pyle A, DeLuca C, Danniels E, Wickstrom H. A model for assessment in play-based kindergarten education. American Educational Research Journal. 2020; 57; 6: 2251-2292. 10.3102/0002831220908800</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Radd, S, & Macey, E. M. (2013). Equity by design: Developing critical consciousness through professional learning. Great Lakes Equity Center. https://greatlakesequity.org/sites/default/files/20130112456_brief.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Riegle-Crumb C, Humphries M. Exploring bias in math teachers' perceptions of students' ability by gender and race/ethnicity. Gender & Society. 2012; 26; 2: 290-322. 10.1177/0891243211434614</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Robson, K, Anisef, P, Brown, R. S, & George, R. (2018). Underrepresented students and the transition to postsecondary education: Comparing two Toronto cohorts. Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 48(1), 39–59.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosenthal R, Jacobson L. Pygmalion in the classroom. The Urban Review. 1968; 3; 1: 16-20. 10.1007/BF02322211</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Spilt, J. L, Koomen, H. M, Thijs, J. T, Stoel, R. D, & van der Leij, A. (2010). Teachers' assessment of antisocial behavior in kindergarten: Physical aggression and measurement bias across gender. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 28(2), 129–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282909340236</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Starck JG, Riddle T, Sinclair S, Warikoo N. Teachers are people too: Examining the racial bias of teachers compared to other American adults. Educational Researcher. 2020; 49; 4: 273-284. 10.3102/0013189X20912758</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stirling-Cameron E, Hickens N, Watson C, Hamilton-Hinch B, Pimentel M, McIsaac JLD. Anti-black racism in the early years: The experiences of black families and early childhood educators in Nova Scotia. Health Promot Chronic Dis Prev Can. 2023; 43; 8: 355-364. 10.24095/hpcdp.43.8.01</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Taylor HG, Anselmo M, Foreman AL, Schatschneider C, Angelopoulos J. Utility of kindergarten teacher judgments in identifying early learning problems. Journal of Learning Disabilities. 2000; 33; 2: 200-210. 10.1177/002221940003300208</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tenenbaum, H. R, & Ruck, M. D. (2007). Are teachers' expectations different for racial minority than for EuropeanAmerican students? A meta-analysis. Journal of educational psychology, 99(2), 253.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Toronto District School Board [TDSB]. (2021). Anti-racism directorate partnership, mid-year report. Black student success and excellence initiative and the pre-kindergarten summer learning program.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wager AA. Noticing children's participation: Insights into teacher positionality toward equitable mathematics pedagogy. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 2014; 45; 3: 312-350. 10.5951/jresematheduc.45.3.0312</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> West-Burns, N. (2015). Exploring critical consciousness in Toronto's urban classrooms: A critical practitioner inquiry approach to Black student achievement. Centre for Urban Schooling, Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto. https://cus.oise.utoronto.ca/UserFiles/File/CUS-OISE-FINALReport-ExploringCriticalConsciousness-July2015.pdf</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams M, Moser T. The art of coding and thematic exploration in qualitative research. International Management Review. 2019; 15; 1: 45-55</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zheng, S. & De Jesus, S. (2017). Expulsion decision-making process and expelled students' transition experience in the Toronto District School Board's caring and safe schools programs and their graduation outcomes. (Research Report No. 16/17–15) Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Toronto District School Board.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0191072484-27"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> The Australian version of the EDI, known as the Australian Early Development Census (AEDC), is implemented once every three years for 5-year-olds enrolled in Australian schools.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Natalie Spadafora; Rita Jezrawi; Stefanie De Jesus; David Cameron and Magdalena Janus</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref66"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref77"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref90"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1503775
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Understanding Educator Perceptions in Assessment of Kindergarten Children's Development
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Natalie+Spadafora%22">Natalie Spadafora</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Rita+Jezrawi%22">Rita Jezrawi</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Stefanie+De+Jesus%22">Stefanie De Jesus</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22David+Cameron%22">David Cameron</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Magdalena+Janus%22">Magdalena Janus</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education+Journal%22"><i>Early Childhood Education Journal</i></searchLink>. 2026 54(1):205-221.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Springer. Available from: Springer Nature. One New York Plaza, Suite 4600, New York, NY 10004. Tel: 800-777-4643; Tel: 212-460-1500; Fax: 212-460-1700; e-mail: customerservice@springernature.com; Web site: https://link.springer.com/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research<br />Tests/Questionnaires
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Early+Childhood+Education%22">Early Childhood Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Primary+Education%22">Primary Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Preschool+Education%22">Preschool Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Kindergarten%22">Kindergarten</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Teachers%22">Preschool Teachers</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Attitudes%22">Teacher Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Student+Relationship%22">Teacher Student Relationship</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parent+Teacher+Cooperation%22">Parent Teacher Cooperation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teacher+Education%22">Teacher Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Racism%22">Racism</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Gender+Bias%22">Gender Bias</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Bias%22">Social Bias</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Development%22">Child Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Socioeconomic+Status%22">Socioeconomic Status</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Canada%22">Canada</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1007/s10643-024-01807-5
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1082-3301<br />1573-1707
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Race-related data are not routinely collected as part of the Canadian kindergarten teacher reported Early Development Instrument (EDI) data collection even though they could be used to inform provision of supports for students and educators. Therefore, the goal of our exploratory study was to gather an understanding of teacher perceptions regarding the assessment of items on the EDI in the context of children's race, gender, and family status and teacher positionality. We conducted a series of four focus groups with educators (kindergarten teachers and designated early childhood educators) from a school board in Ontario, Canada. The major themes identified were: (1) intersections of social identity; (2) systemic biases and preconceived expectations; (3) educator reflections on feelings, attitudes, and circumstances; (4) teacher-child-family relationships; and (5) teacher training, education, and administrative resources. Our findings suggest that educators' assessment may be influenced and informed by their perception of their own and their students' identity. Potential of a bias might be reduced by adequate training and education.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1503775
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1503775
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1007/s10643-024-01807-5
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 205
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Kindergarten
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Teachers
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Student Relationship
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parent Teacher Cooperation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teacher Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Racism
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Bias
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Bias
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Socioeconomic Status
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Canada
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Understanding Educator Perceptions in Assessment of Kindergarten Children's Development
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Natalie Spadafora
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Rita Jezrawi
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Stefanie De Jesus
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: David Cameron
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Magdalena Janus
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1082-3301
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1573-1707
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 54
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Early Childhood Education Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1