Preschool Assessment Essay

This paper addresses the many questions the superior/ stove educational enquiry Foundation has received about examination four-year-olds. Our reasons for sharing this paper with early chelaishness practitioners, policy drawrs, and p atomic number 18nts is three-fold (a) to digest basic pedagogics about the terms and issues skirt judgement (b) to add an empirical and pragmatic perspective to what end some clocks be an impassioned debate and (c) to affirm our commitment to doing what is outgo for early days children and supporting those who develop the programs and policies that deed on them.High/Scope believes child sound perspicaciousness is a vital and necessary component of altogether gamey woodland early childhood programs. sagaciousness is key to to a lower aimstand and support issue childrens t alone(prenominal)ing. It is as headspring essential to document and evaluate how effectively programs argon meeting their educational invites, in the broa dest sense of this term. For sagaciousness to occur, it essential(prenominal) be feasible. That is, it mustiness meet reasonable criteria regarding its efficiency, cost, and so on.If assessment tramps an un delinquent centre on programs or evaluators, it leave alone non be under pay backn at all and the lack of entropy allow hurt all concerned. In entree to feasibility, however, assessment must also meet the demands of ecological stiffness. The assessment must addresses the criteria outlined below for informing us about what children in reliable programs argon reading and doing e real day. Efficiency and ecological rigourousness argon non mutually exclusive, but must some clock cartridge holders be balance against one another.Our challenge is to find the best balance under the conditions disposed and, when necessary, to work toward altering those conditions. Practically speaking, this actor we must continue to serve children using research-based physical exerci ses, fulfill mandates to secure program resources, and improve assessment functions to offend realize our ideal. This paper sets forth the criteria to be considered in striving to make early childhood assessment adhere to these highest standards. Background The concern with assessment in the early childhood field is not new.Decades of debate are summarized in the content Association for the Education of Young electric razorren (NAEYC) publication attain Potentials Appropriate Curriculum and Assessment for Young electric shaverren (Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1992). This position statement has notwithstanding been expanded in a new document titled first Childhood Curriculum, Assessment, and architectural plan Evaluation Building an Effective, Accountable System in Programs for Children Birth by Age 8 (www. naeyc. org/resources/position_statements/pscape. asp).1What is new in this ongoing debate is the heightened attention to turn up unripened children as a means of holding pr ograms accountable for their learning. Assessment in the Classroom (Airasian, 2002) offers the hobby definitions Assessment is the run of collecting, synthesizing, and interpreting randomness to aid classroom decision-making. It ac associations breeding gathered about pupils, instruction, and classroom climate. exam is a formal, systematic procedure for gathering a sample of pupils behavior. The results of a test are use to make generalizations about how pupils would harbour acted in homogeneous but youthful behaviors. exam is one form of assessment. It usually makes a series of command requests to children to perform, within a set stream of time, extra(prenominal) tasks formulateed and look ated by braggart(a)s, with pre assignd correct answers. By contrast, alternative forms of assessment may be spotd either by adults or children, are more open-ended, and oft look at performance over an overlayed period of time. Examples admit objective observations, portfol io analyses of one-on-one and collaborative work, and teacher and provoke ratings of childrens behavior.The period testing initiative focuses primarily on literacy and to a lesser consequence numeracy. The rationale for this initiative, advanced in the No Child Left rotter Act and supported by the report of the topic Reading decorate (2000), is that unseasoned children should acquire a prescribed body of experience and pedantic skills to be ready for school. Social domains of school readiness, while also touted as essential in a series of field of study interrogation Council reports (notably drill hole to Learn, 2000a and Neurons to Neighborhoods, 2000b), are admittedly uncomplete as widely mandated nor as testable as their academic counterparts.Hence, whether justified or not, they do not figure as prominently in the testing and account susceptibility debate. This information paper responds to questions creation asked of early childhood leaders about the use and misu se of testing for preschoolers 3 to 5 eld old. This result is not merely a reactive gesture nor an attempt to advance and defend a specific position. Rather, the paper is intended as a resource to provide information about when and how preschool assessment in general, and testing and other forms of assessment in particular, potful be take into accountly utilize to inform policy decisions about early childhood programming.As a framework for providing this information, High/Scope accepts 2 realities. First, testing is, will be, and in fact al ship modality has been, use to answer questions about the effectiveness of early childhood interventions. Since early childhood programs attempt to increase childrens knowledge and skills in specific sate areas, evaluators defend traditionally use testing, along with other assessment strategies, to determine whether these educational objectives have been achieved. Second, program accountability is essential, and testing is one in effect( p) means of measuring it.Numerous research studies show that high attribute programs put up enhance the academic and lifetime achievement of children at lay on the line of school failure. This conclusion has 2 resulted in an infusion of public and hidden dollars in early education. It is reasonable to ask whether this investment is achieving its goal. Testing after part play a role in answering this accountability question. With this humans as a background, this information paper becomes to address two questions.First, precondition the current pervasive use of testing and itsprobably expansion, when and under what conditions can this type of assessment be utilise appropriately with preschool-age children? That is, what characteristics of tests and their constitution will guarantee that we do no harm to children and that we do do adults acquire valid information? Second, given that unconstipated the closely(prenominal) well-designed tests can provide only limited info rmation, how can we maximize the use of non-test assessments so they too add valuable information over and above that dominateed through exchangeable testing procedures?General Issues in Assessment Uses of Child AssessmentAssessment can provide four types of information for and about children, and their parents, teachers, and programs. Child assessment can 1. Identify children who may be in need of specialized services.Screening children to determine whether they would benefit from specific interventions is appropriate when parents, teachers, or other professionals suspect a problem. In these cases, assessments in several link up domains are then usually administered to the child. In addition, data from parents and other adults abstruse with the child are considered in determining a diagnosis and lean of treatment.2. Plan instruction for individuals and groups of children. Assessment data can be used by teachers to support the development of individual children, as well as to plan instructional activities for the class as a whole. In addition, information on developmental give can and should be personad with parents to befriend them understand what and how their children are learning in the classroom and how they can extend this learning at home. 3. Identify program improvement and staff development inevitably. Child assessments can provide shaping evaluation data that benefit program and staff development.Findings can point to areas of the computer programme that need advertise articulation or resources, or areas where staff need professional development. If children in the classroom as a whole are not making progress in certain developmental domains, it is possible that the curriculum needs revision or that teachers need some additional training. In conducting formative evaluations, child data are best combined with program data that assess overall quality, fidelity to curriculum implementation standards, and specific teaching practices. 4. Eval uate how well a program is meeting goals for children.It is this fourth purpose, sometimes called outcome or summative evaluation, that is the primary focus of this paper. 3 stock that it is the program, not the child, who should be held accountable. Although data may be collected on individual children, data should be aggregated to determine whether the program is achieving its in demand(p) outcomes. These outcomes may be set upd by the program itself and/or by national, state, or district standards. How the outcomes are measured is determined by the inextricable link amid curriculum and assessment.Ideally, if a curriculum has clear learning objectives, those will drive the form and content of the measures. Conversely, thoughtful design of an appropriate assessment tool can encourage program developers to consider what and how adults should be teaching young children. Reliability and Validity Any formal assessment tool or method should meet imparted criteria for validity and dependableness (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council of Measurement in Education, 1999).Reliability is defined as how well various measurements of something agree with each other, for example, whether a group of similar test items or two observers terminate the same items have similar results. Validity has several dimensions. Content or face validity refers to how well an instrument measures what it claims to measure ecological validity refers to the authenticity of the measurement setting and construct validity deals with the measures conceptual integrity. In assessing young children, two aspects of validity have special importancedevelopmental validity and predictive validity.Developmental validity means that the performance items universe measured are developmentally suitable for the children being assessed. Predictive validity means the measure can predict childrens later school success or failure, as defined by ac hievement test scores or academic luffments (on-grade, retained in grade, or placed in special education) during the elementary grades. Over the daylong term, predictive validity can even refer to such outcomes as adult literacy, callment, or avoiding criminal activity.In Principles and Recommendations for wee Childhood Assessments, the National Education Goals table (1998) noted that the younger the child, the more difficult it is to beat reliable and valid assessment data. It is particularly difficult to assess childrens cognitive abilities accurately before age 6 (p. 5). Meisels (2003) claims research demonstrates that no more than 25 per cent of early academic or cognitive performance is predicted from information obtained from preschool or kindergarten tests (p. 29).Growth in the early years is rapid, episodic, and highly influenced by environmental supports. Performance is influenced by childrens turned on(p) and motivational states, and by the assessment conditions th emselves. Because these individual and situational factors affect reliability and validity, the Panel recommended that assessment of young children be pursued with the necessary safeguards and caveats about the the true of the decisions that can be drawn from the results. These procedures and cautions are explored below. 4 Testing.Appropriate Uses of Testing Standardized tests are used to obtain information on whether a program is achieving its desired outcomes. They are considered objective, time- and cost-efficient, and suitable for making quantitative comparisons. Testing can provide valid data when used appropriately and matched to developmental levels. Moreover, tests can act as teaching tools by providing a windowpane into what children already know and where they need more time, practice, and/or help to improve. Creating a valid assessment for young children is a difficult task.It must be meaningful and authentic, evaluate a valid sample of information learned, be based on p erformance standards that are genuine benchmarks, avoid positive cut-off scores or norms, and have authentic scoring. The context for the test should be rich, realistic, and enticing (Wiggins, 1992). It is therefore incumbent upon the creators of assessment tools to design instruments thatunlike staged drills resemble natural performance. If these conditions are met, young children are more in all probability to recognize what is being asked of them, thus increasing the reliability and validity of the results.Criteria of tested and Valid Preschool Tests Both the content and administration of tests must respect young childrens developmental characteristics. differently the resulting data will be uncomplete reliable nor valid. Worse, the testing experience may be negative for the child and perhaps the tester as well. Further, the knowledge and skills measured in the testing situation must be transferable and relevant in real-world settings. Otherwise the information gathered ha s no practical value. To scram meaningful data and minimize the risk of creating a harmful situation, tests for preschool-age children should quit the occuring criteria1. Tests should not make children feel anxious or scared. They should not threaten their selfesteem or make them feel they have failed. Tests should acknowledge what children knowor have the potential to learn instead than penalizing them for what they do not know. 2. Testing should take place in, or simulate, the natural environment of the classroom. It should avoid placing the child in an artificial situation. Otherwise, the test may measure the childs response to the test setting rather than the childs ability to perform on the test content. 3.Tests should measure real knowledge in the context of real activities. In other words, the test activities as well as the test setting should not be contrived. They should resemble childrens mean(a) activities as closely as possible, for example, discussing a book as the adult reads it. Furthermore, tests should measure broad concepts rather than narrow skills, for example, alphabetic and letter knowledge sampled from this domain rather than familiarity with specific letter chosen by the adult. 5 4. The tester should be someone familiar to the child.Ideally, the person administering the test would be a teacher or another adult who interacts continuously with the child. When an immaterial researcher or evaluator must administer the test, it is best if the individual(s) pass along time in the classroom beforehand, becoming a familiar and cozy figure to the children. If this is not feasible, the appearance and demeanor of the tester(s) should be as similar as possible to adults with whom the child regularly comes in contact. 5. To the extent possible, testing should be conducted as a natural part of insouciant activities rather than as a time-added or pullout activity.Meeting this criterion helps to satisfy the earlier standards of a familiar plac e and tester, especially if the test can be administered in the context of a normal part of the daily routine (for example, assessing book knowledge during a regular reading period). In addition, testing that is integrated into standard routines avoids placing an additional burden on teachers or detracting from childrens instructional time. 6. The information should be obtained over time. A one encounter, especially if brief, can produce inaccurate or distorted data.For example, a child may be ill, hungry, or distracted at the flake of testing. The test is then measuring the childs interest or willingness to respond rather than the childs knowledge or ability with respect to the question(s) being asked. If timedistributed measurements are not feasible, then testers should note odd circumstances in the situation (e. g. , noise) or child (e. g. , fatigue) that could render single-encounter results disenable and should either schedule a re-assessment or discount the results in such cases.7. When repeated instances of data gathering are not feasible (e.g. , due to time or budgetary constraints), an attempt should be made to obtain information on the same content area from multiple and assorted sources. Just as young children have different styles of learning, so they will differentially demonstrate their knowledge and skills under varying modes of assessment. For example, a complete and accurate measure of letter knowledge may involve tests that employ both generative and recognition strategies. 8. The length of the test should be minute to young childrens interests and attention spans.If a test is conducted during a regular program activity (e. g. , small-group time), the test should last no longer than is ordinary for that activity. If it is necessary to conduct testing outside regular activities, the assessment period should last 1020 minutes. Further, testers should be sensitive to childrens value and considerment levels, and take a break or continue the test at another day and time if the child cannot or does not want to proceed. 9. Testing for purposes of program accountability should employ appropriate have methods whenever feasible.Testing a representative sample of the children who participate in a program avoids the need to test every child and/or to administer all tests to any one child. Sampling strategies reduce the overall time spent in testing, and minimize the chances for placing undue stress on individual children or burdening individual teachers and classrooms. 6 excerption Child Assessment Methods Alternative forms of assessment may be used by those who have reservations about, or want to supplement, order tests. These other methods often fall under the pennant of authentic assessments.They engage children in tasks that are personally meaningful, take place in real life contexts, and are grounded in naturally occurring instructional activities. They offer multiple ways of evaluating students learning, as well as their motivation, achievement, and attitudes. This type of assessment is consistent with the goals, curriculum, and instructional practices of the classroom or program with which it is associated (McLaughlin & Vogt, 1997 capital of France & Ayres, 1994). Authentic assessments do not rely on unrealistic or arbitrary time constraints, nor do they emphasize instant recall or depend on lucky guesses.Progress toward mastery is the key, and content is get the hang as a means, not as an end (Wiggins, 1989). To document accomplishments, assessments must be designed to be longitudinal, to sample the baseline, the increment, and the preserved levels of change that follow from instruction (Wolf, Bixby, Glenn & Gardener, 1991). Alternative assessment can be more costly than testing. Like their counterparts in testing, authentic measures must meet psychometric standards of show reliability and validity.Their use, especially on a widespread scale, requires adequate resources. Assessors mus t be trained to gratifying levels of reliability. Data collection, coding, entry, and analysis are also time- and cost-intensive. This investment can be seen as reasonable and necessary, however, if the goal is to produce valid information. Alternative child assessment procedures that can meet the criteria of reliability and validity include observations, portfolios, and ratings of children by teachers and parents. These are described below. ObservationsIn assessing young children, the principal alternative to testing is systematic observation of childrens activities in their day-to-day settings. Observation fits an interactive style of curriculum, in which give-and-take between teacher and child is the norm. Although careful observation requires effort, the approach has high ecological validity and intrudes minimally into what children are doing. Childrens activities naturally integrate all dimensions of their developmentintellectual, motivational, social, physical, aesthetic, and so on.Anecdotal notes alone, however, are not sufficient for well(p) assessment. They do not offer criteria against which to judge the developmental value of childrens activities or provide evidence of reliability and validity. Instead, anecdotal notes should be used to complete developmental scales of proven reliability and validity. Such an approach permits children to engage in activities any time and anywhere that teachers can see them. It defines categories of acceptable answers rather than single right answers. It expects the teacher to set the framework for children to savant their own activities.It embraces a broad definition of child development that includes not only language and mathematics, but also initiative, social relations, physical skills, and the arts. It is culturally sensitive when teachers are trained observers who focus on objective, culturally indifferent(p) descriptions of behavior (for example, Pat hit Bob) rather than subjective, culturally soused 7 in terpretations (for example, Pat was very angry with Bob). Finally, it empowers teachers by recognizing their judgment as essential to accurate assessment.PortfoliosOne of the most fitting ways to undertake authentic, meaningful evaluation is through the use of a well-constructed portfolio system. Arter and Spandel (1991) define a portfolio as a purposeful collection of student work that tells the story of the students efforts, progress, or achievement in (a) given area(s). This collection must include student participation in selection of portfolio content, the guidelines for selection, the criteria for judging merit, and evidence of student self-reflection (p. 36). Portfolios describe both a place (the physical space where they are stored) and a process.The process provides richer information than standardized tests, involves multiple sources and methods of data collection, and occurs over a representative period of time (Shaklee, Barbour, Ambrose, & Hansford, 1997). Portfolios hav e additional value. They encourage two- and three-way collaboration between students, teachers, and parents recruit ownership and motivation integrate assessment with instruction and learning and establish a quantitative and qualitative record of progress over time (Paris & Ayres, 1994 Paulson, Paulson, & Meyer, 1991 Wolf & Siu-Runyan, 1996 Valencia, 1990).Portfolios encourage teachers and students to focus on important student outcomes, provide parents and the community with credible evidence of student achievement, and inform policy and practice at every level of the educational system (Herman & Winters, 1994, p. 48). The purposes for which portfolios are used are as variable as the programs that use them (Graves & Sunstein, 1993 Valencia, 1990 Wolf & Siu-Runyan, 1996). In some programs, they are simply a place to store best work that has been graded in a traditional manner.In others, they are used to create longitudinal systems to demonstrate the process leading to the products and to design evaluative rubrics for program accountability. There are also programs that merely have students collect work that is important to them as a personal, non-evaluative record of their achievements. When portfolios are not used to judge ability in some agreed-upon fashion, they are usually not highly structured and may not even include reflective pieces that demonstrate student growth and understanding.Portfolios are most commonly thought of as alternative assessments inelementary and lower-ranking schools. Yet they have long been used in preschools to document and share childrens progress with parents, administrators, and others. For portfolios to be used for program accountability, as well as student learning and reflection, the evaluated outcomes must be aligned with curriculum and instruction. Children must have some choice about what to include in order to feel ownership and pride. Portfolios should document the creative or problem-solving process as they display th e product, encouraging children to reflect on their actions.Conversations with children about their portfolios engages them in the evaluation process and escalates their desire to demonstrate their 8 increasing knowledge and skills. Sharing portfolios with parents can help teachers connect school activities to the home and involve parents in their childrens education. Teacher Ratings Teacher ratings are a way to organize teacher perceptions of childrens development into scales for which reliability and validity can be assessed. Childrens grades on report cards are the most common type of teacher rating system.When completed objectively, report-card grades are tied(p) to students performance on indicators with delineated scoring criteria, such as examinations or projects evaluated according to explicitly defined criteria. In these ways, teacher ratings can be specifically related to other types of child assessments including scores on standardized tests or other validated assessment tools, concrete and specific behavioral descriptions (e. g. , frequency of participation in group activities, ability to recognize the letters in ones name), or global assessments of childrens traits (e. g. , cooperative, sociable, hard-working).Research shows that teacher ratings can have considerable short- and long-term predictive validity throughout later school years and even into adulthood (Schweinhart, Barnes, & Weikart, 1993). name Ratings Parent ratings are a way to organize parent perceptions of childrens development into scales for which reliability and validity can be assessed. Soliciting parent ratings is an thin way for teachers to involve them as partners in the assessment of their childrens performance. The very process of completing scales can inform parents about the kinds of behaviors and milestones that are important in young childrens development.It also encourages parents to observe and listen to their children as they gather the data needed to rate their p erformance. An example of the use of parent ratings is the channel Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) study, in which parents ratings of their childrens abilities and progress were related to measures of classroom quality and child outcomes (Zill, Connell, McKey, OBrien et al. , 2001). Conclusion modern years have seen a growing public interest in early childhood education. Along with that support has come the use of high stakes assessment to justify the expense and apportion the dollars.With so more than at stakethe future of our nations childrenit is imperative that we proceed correctly. Above all, we must guarantee that assessment reflects our highest educational goals for young children and neither restricts nor distorts the substance of their early learning. This paper sets forth the criteria for a comprehensive and balance assessment system that meets the need for accountability while respecting the welfare and development of young children. Such a system can include testing, provided it measures applicable knowledge and skills in a safe and child-affirming situation.It can also include alternative assessments, provided they too meet psychometric standards of reliability and validity. Developing and implementing a balanced approach to assessment is not an easy or brassy undertaking. But because we value our children and respect those charged with their care, it is an investment worth making. 9 References Airasian, P. (2 002). A ssessment in the classroom. New Y ork Mc Graw-H ill. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council of Measu rement in E ducation. (1 999). S tanda rds for edu cationa l and psy cholog ical testing.W ashington, DC American Psychological Association. Arter, J. A. , & Spande l, V. (199 2). Using p ortfolios of stud ent work in instru ction and a ssessment. E ducational Measurement Issues and Practice, 3644. Brede kamp, S. , & Rosegra nt, T. (Ed s. ) (1992 ). R eac hing Potentials Appropriate Curriculum and Assessment for Young Children . Washington, DC National Association for the Education of Young Children. Graves, D . H. , & Sun stein, B. S. (19 92). P ortfolio p ortraits . New Hampshire Heinemann. Herma n, J. L. , & W inters, L. (199 4). Portfo lio research A slim collection . E duca tional Lea dership , 5 2 (2), 4855.McLa ughlin, M. , & Vogt, M . (1997) . P ortfolios in teacher education . Newark, Delaware International Reading Association. Meisels, S. (2003, 19 March). Can Head Start pass the test? E ducation Week , 2 2 (27), 44 & 29. National A ssociation for the Educa tion of Yo ung Childre n and Na tional Assoc iation of Ear ly Childhoo d Specia lists in State Dep artments of E ducation (2 003, N ovemb er. E arly Childhood Curriculum, Assessment, and Program Evaluation Building an Effective, Accountable System in Programs for Children Birth through and through Age 8 . ) Washin gton, DC Authors. Av ailable online at www. naeyc.org/re sources/position_statements/pscape. asp. N ational E ducation G oals Pane l. (1998). P rinciples and rec ommen dations for early childh ood assessm ents. Washington, DC Author. National R eading P anel. (200 0). T eaching children to read An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research publications on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washin gton, DC National In stitute of Child Health and Human Developm ent, National Institutes of Health. National R esearch C ouncil. (20 00a). E ager to learn Educating our preschoo lers. W ashington, DC National Academy P ress. National R esearch C ouncil. (20 00b).N eurons to neighborhoods The science of early childhood development. Washington, D C National Acad emy Press. Paris, S. G . , & Ayers, L. R . (1994) . B ecom ing reflective s tudents a nd teach ers with po rtfolios and authen tic assessment. Washington DC American Psychological Association. Paulson, F. L. , Paulson, P. R. , & Meyer, C. A. (1991). What make s a portfolio a portfolio? E duca tional Lea dership , 48 (5), 6063. Schweinha rt, L. J. , Barne s, H. V. , & Weika rt, D. P. (19 93). S ignificant benefits The High/Scope Perry Preschool study through age 27 .Ypsilanti, MI High/Sco pe Press. Shaklee, B . D. , Barb our, N. E ., Ambros e, R. , & H ansford, S. J . (1997) . D esigning and using portfolios. Boston Allyn & Bacon. Valencia , S. W. (1 990). A portfolio ap proach to classroom reading asse ssment Th e whys, whats an d hows. T he Reading Teacher , 4 3 (4), 338340. Wiggins, G . (1992) . Creating tests wo rth taking. E duca tional Lea dership , 4 9 (8), 2633. Wolf, D. , Bixby, J. , Glenn, J. , & Gardner, H. (1991).To use their minds well Investigating new forms of student assessment. In G. grandmother t (Ed. ), R eview of research in education, V ol 17 ( pp. 3174). Washington D. C. American Educational Research Association. Wolf, K . , & Siu-Run yan, Y.(19 96). Po rtfolio purpo ses and po ssibilities. J ournal of Adolescent a nd Adult Literacy, 40 (1), 3037. Zill, N. , Conn ell, D. , Mc Key, R. H . , OBrien, R . et al. (2001 , January). H ead Start FACESLongitudinal Findings on Pro gram P erforma nce, Third Progres s Report. W ashington, DC Administration on Children, Youth and Families, U. S. Depa rtment of Health and H uman Services. 10 High/Scope Assessment Resources High/Scope has developed and validated three preschool assessment instruments. Two are for children, one focusing specifically on literacy and the other more broadly on multiple domains of development.The third measure is used to assess and improve the quality of all aspects of early childhood programs. These alternative assessments are described below. Early Literacy Assessment In the settle down of 2004, High/Scope will release the Early Literacy Assessment (ELA), which will evaluate the four key principles of early literacy documented in the Early Reading First Grants and the No Child Left Behind lawmaking phonological awareness, alp habetic principle, comprehension, and concepts about print. Evaluation will take place in a meaningful context that is familiar to children.