assign mod1 8083

Blog Post 1

Posted by   Kristina Doles  at Sunday, March 13, 2022 10:02:05 PM

In Georgia, there is not one set of standards for all early childhood learning, but rather a set of standards and domains for Georgia Pre-Kindergarten called the Georgia Early Learning and Development Standards (GELDS), and the Georgia Performance Standards (GPS) which are called Georgia Standards of Excellence (GSE) for grades K-12, which are organized by subject area.  These standards were developed using the National Common Core standards. So Kindergarten and first grade would be subject to the GSE and Pre-K would be subject to the GELDS.  In my school, we have students from Pre-K through fifth grade so we are subject to both sets of these standards, however, I only teach students in grades K through fifth so I only have personal experience with the GSE. The GELDS were developed with children from birth to age five in mind and they address the question, “What should children from birth to age 5 know and be able to do?” (Georgia Department of Care and Early Learning, n.d., 2022). The GELDS are designed to serve as a framework for learning of skills, behaviors, and concepts that children develop and these standards are assessed using a work sampling assessment system (Georgia Department of Care and Early Learning, n.d., 2022). The GELDS prohibit the use of standardized assessments, worksheets, and summative assessments, but rather focus on providing work sample assessments that are obtained as a part of students daily classroom activities that are chosen and evidenced by the student throughout the school day. The teachers use a checklist to determine mastery of various skills but each student’s proof of mastery is varied and based on their own interactions and work samples, which can also include photographs and videos. The GELDS are designed to be flexible so that they can accommodate the individual learning styles, interests, cultures, and rates of development of every Georgia Pre-K student. On the other hand, the GSE are developed using content area frameworks and they are assessed using a variety of formative and summative assessments, including the Georgia Milestones assessment, which is a standardized summative assessment that is used as a gateway assessment for third, fifth, and eighth graders.  Evidence of mastery of GSE standards will not generally be as flexible or individualized as the GELDS.

While these standards are designed around requirements for what students should know and be able to do, the NBPTS standards are designed for teachers to examine their practice and the way they deliver instruction and utilize assessment to plan for a positive impact on student learning and growth for their class as a whole and for individual children (NBPTS, 2012).  The NAEYC holds the position that assessments must be developmentally appropriate, culturally and linguistically responsive, and individualized enough to recognize educational or developmental interventions that may be needed for each student (2003)  and that assessments should lead to improved knowledge about each individual child and that knowledge should be used to develop curriculum, interventions, and teaching program (NAEYC, 2003, p.11). This is not the case with the GPS since these standards are more of a generalized plan of what the majority of students should know and when they should know it by, rather than taking into account the development, needs, or culture of individual students. Assessments should be developed with the idea of what they are actually being used to determine: student and teacher performance or programmatic, systematic, professional development and individual needs (Hallam, et al., 2014) and this is not often the case with standardized summative state required assessments.  These assessments should be designed with the goal of identifying instructional targets as a basis for planning developmentally-appropriate, “beneficial learning programs for young children with special needs in a natural, inclusive environment” (Bagnato, 2011, p.244).  Keeping this in mind, suggestions for improvement for the GPS would be to have different levels of standards that consider the learning level, disabilities, giftedness, and culture of all students instead of expecting every fifth grader in the state of Georgia to be performing at the same level in each subject area in the spring of each year.  Another suggestion I would make is to take into consideration disabilities and cultural barriers when considering certain test scores as gateway assessments to permit a student to move on to the next grade level. 

Questions:

1. How can a student with a documented learning disability be penalized for not performing at or above grade level on a formal, standardized summative assessment that is used to determine promotion to the next grade?

2. What is a policy that could be developed that would allow students with disabilities to fall under different requirements for promotion during these gateway years for the Georgia Milestones assessment?

3. Can the GSE standards be modified so that there is more flexibility for showing mastery of these standards through student work samples, in a format that is similar to the GELDS, or would this be too hard to manage?

Assessments can be powerful tools that are used to help individual children to be able to be a part of the learning environment that is best for them; unfortunately this is not always how the assessments are developed or used and this may go back to the development of the standards used for that state and particular ages of students.

References

Posted by   Simon Kim  at Sunday, March 13, 2022 2:42:44 PM

An excellent research study conducted by Deborah Stipek of Stanford University published in September 2018 entitled “Early Childhood Education in California'' clarifies that the state has many excellent providers for certain segments of the large population but that other segments are found to be neglected or underprovided. This research shows the State of California has a complex array of different arrangements for preschool aged children which is incohesive in form and fragmented with some children deriving benefits from the system while others are being denied benefits from the same system (Stipek, 2018). For the area of assessment, the State of California is lacking alignment with those high standards for assessment established in the 2003 Joint Position Statement of the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE). The State of California’s assessment standards are also falling short of “Standard V, Assessing Children’s Development and Learning,” provided in the third edition of the Early Childhood Generalist Standards by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). 

The fragmentation of the early childhood education system in the State of California impacts the assessment standards and processes as shown in this research done by Stipek. For example, even though California does have a Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) to help programs assess and improve quality, the participation rate is only 28% among licensed day-care and infant centers, and a dismal 6.8% among license-exempt programs (Stipek, 2018).  It is evident that this low participation rate in QRIS is because California does not provide financial incentives for participation in QRIS and for improving quality ratings (Stipek, 2018). In addition, this research reveals that California does not advertise quality ratings and does not provide differential funding for higher quality programs as other states have done with significant successful outcomes (Stipek, 2018). Another major shortcoming found in this research study is that the State of California lacks a centralized data collection system for early childhood education facilities and daycare centers which compounds the fragmentation and lack of clarity in the data that would be necessary to evaluate and assess areas that need improvement in upgrading the quality of education being received by younger children in the state (Stipek, 2018). Also, due to this lack of a centralized data collection system, there is no means to assess teacher preparation and quality of teacher instruction thereby blocking efforts to improve teacher preparation and training for better student outcomes (Stipek, 2018). These major failings and flaws in California's assessment area for early childhood education come into even sharper relief when comparing them to policies with NAEYC principles of child development and the learning that informs practice based on the NBPTS Standard V.

The recommendations for assessment of early childhood education programs, curriculum, and teacher methods provided by the 2003 Joint Position Statement of the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE) include those assessment methods that can be considered focused on young children’s strengths, progress, and needs, and connected to the children’s daily activities and linked to specific, beneficial purposes including making sound decisions for teaching and learning, identifying significant concerns which may require focused intervention for individual children, and improving educational and developmental interventions for the programs (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2003). The indicators of effectiveness of assessment clarify even further that the State of California must significantly improve this area for early childhood education. For instance, the NAEYC suggests that indicators of effectiveness of assessment include ethical principles guiding assessment processes and methods, assessment instruments being used for their intended purposes, assessments that are age and culturally appropriate for the young children being assessed, assessment evidence is used to understand and improve learning, assessments are gleaned from multiple sources over time, screening is linked to follow-up, staff and families are knowledgeable of assessments, and what is assessed is developmentally and educationally significant for young children (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2003). To support those indicators of effectiveness of assessment from NAEYC, Haslip and Gullo (2018) assert that greater accountability among early childhood instructors can only be pursued if they are adequately and effectively assessed against the appropriate professional standards.These researchers also point out that effective assessment methods should involve parents and children to align them individually with each child’s developmental and educational needs and progress. The fragmentation of the State of California’s system for early childhood education and lack of a centralized data collection system means that these indicators of effectiveness are difficult to obtain and examine in a professional manner to improve the quality of the programs, teachers, and children’s outcomes.   

The State of California’s assessment area is not aligned with Standard V, “Assessing Children’s Development and Learning” provided in the third edition of the Early Childhood Generalist Standards by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). In this valuable resource for the assessment area for younger children’s education progress and outcomes, early childhood education teachers need to be aware of the research, standards, theory, and best practices related to the ongoing, daily assessment process of young children over a variety of areas in their development and learning (NBPTS, 2012). For example, they need to employ pre-assessments at the beginning to establish baselines for each child and then begin to keep records and portfolios of progress and achievement across different areas of development and learning (NBPTS, 2012). Furthermore, early childhood education teachers need to also aptly use checklists and rubrics to establish clear criteria for specific learning tasks and physical development skills while also engaging in meaningful conversations about outcomes with children and their parents (NBPTS, 2012). These multiple assessments are ongoing and focus on evaluating the whole child in collaboration with the child and parents. Most importantly, early childhood education teachers need to be aware and skilled at administering these assessments correctly and accurately to derive the right and best information from the children they are teaching (NBPTS, 2012).

The educator’s three questions posed from this information comparing and contrasting these assessment methods and recommendations from NAEYC and NBPTS with the State of California’s assessment failings and shortcomings are:

1. What measures can be taken to resolve the severe fragmentation of California’s early childhood education system?

2. Can California’s young childhood teachers be required to be certified to master these daily assessment protocols and methods framed in NBPTS Standard V?

3. Can the centralizing of the data collection system of young childhood education facilities and daycare centers provide an excellent first step in improving the assessment area in the state?

All in all, the landscape of early childhood education is rapidly changing in the United States and is globally driven by positive and negative trends and through increased understanding of child development, professionalization of the early childhood workforce, research exposing deficiencies in existing educational systems, public and private funding, improved policy-making and widespread advocacy can help improve the quality of early childhood education (Haslip & Gullo, 2018).

References

Haslip, M. J., & Gullo, D. F. (2018). The changing landscape of early childhood education: Implications for policy and practice. Early Childhood Education Journal, 46(3), 249-264.