Annual self-assessment
The three data streams the standard names, in one view: aggregated child assessment, professional development, and family engagement, each evaluated against progress toward the school readiness goals.
Stream one — aggregated child assessment data
Spring result against each goal's own target
Two goals read from the Cognitive area with different targets, so the Cognitive column appears once with the stricter of the two shown. The goal-by-goal table is on the school readiness page.
The aggregation basis
Aggregated separately by age band and restricted to children with a finalized checkpoint at all three points. Subgroup results below ten children are suppressed.
Stream two — professional development data
Credentials and coaching
Did coaching reach the classrooms that needed it?
The self-assessment question is not how much professional development was delivered but whether it reached the classrooms that needed it. The lowest-scoring band received the most coaching, which is the pattern a reviewer expects to see.
Stream three — family engagement data
Family services and engagement
The standard ties family engagement to school readiness progress specifically through the item on discussing a child's assessment results, which is why that item is broken out by center beside this.
Assessment conversations by center
Sunrise fall below 80%, which is a self-assessment finding rather than a data problem.
What the reviewer will ask for
| Required evidence | Source | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Written school readiness goals, measurable and aligned to the framework | Program records | Complete |
| Documentation of alignment to receiving district kindergarten expectations | District kindergarten entry criteria | PartialScientific Reasoning has no corresponding goal |
| Child assessment data aggregated at three points, by age band | Assessment system | Complete |
| Analysis of assessment data by ELOF central domain | Assessment system with the ELOF crosswalk | Complete |
| Comparison to an external benchmark where one exists | Publisher technical manual | Complete |
| Assessment results disaggregated by subgroup (dual language learners, IEP, age) | Assessment system joined to the MIS | Complete |
| Developmental screening completed within 45 days of enrollment | MIS, PIR C.27-C.28 | Complete |
| CLASS observation results by classroom and by domain | Observation records | Complete |
| Professional development plans for staff not meeting qualifications | MIS, PIR B.4-B.5 | PartialFour teachers not yet enrolled in a degree program |
| Coaching records linked to identified classroom need | Program records, PIR D.1-D.2 | Complete |
| Family engagement data tied to school readiness progress | MIS, PIR C.44.j | Complete |
| Written improvement plans for each identified gap | Improvement tracker | Complete6 plans |
| Documented progress on prior-year findings | Improvement tracker, prior year | Complete7 tracked |
| Evidence the self-assessment was shared with the governing body | Meeting minutes | ScheduledMay 28 |
| Evidence the self-assessment was shared with the Policy Council | Meeting minutes | ScheduledMay 12 |
| Community assessment data informing program design | Community assessment | Complete |
| Annual report to the public including audit and enrollment data | Fiscal records and the MIS | Complete |
Seventeen items, 13 of them producible from the connected systems today. The 2 partial items are the ones a program has to write rather than query: an alignment document and a set of professional development plans. Knowing which is which before the review window opens is most of the work.
The self-assessment is scheduled for the Policy Council on May 12, 2026 and the governing board on May 28, 2026. Both bodies read the same figures as this page, computed from the same records, so a question asked in one meeting can be answered with the same number in the other.