week 1

Jalapeno91

chp2b.pdf

Home >Education homework help >week 1

2Foundation of Assessment in Early Childhood

ziggy_mars/iStock/Thinkstock

Pretest

1. Young children have needs and development trajectories that are similar to those of older children. T/F

2. Families should be actively involved in the assessment of young children. T/F 3. There is a specific model for early intervention that should be systematically implemented for all

young children who need early services. T/F 4. Young children are assessed in a similar manner and according to similar principles as older

children. T/F 5. Young children often cannot read or write, which means they cannot be assessed. T/F

Answers can be found at the end of the chapter.

Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different 2.1

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, you should be able to:

ሁ Explain how serving very young children is different from serving older children—legally, professionally, developmentally, demographically, philosophically, and by service model.

ሁ Analyze the different legal, professional, developmental, demographic, philosophical, and service model implications of assessment for very young children.

ሁ Discuss similarities in assessment practices across early childhood and K–12 programs.

Rachel and Malik are new parents. Their twins, Sasha and Miken, are 6 months old, and the last half a year has been filled with firsts for the babies and their parents. Sasha started sitting up at 4 months and has now started crawling. Miken has just started sitting up and is attempting to pass toys from one hand to the other. They both enjoy when their parents sing to them. The twins generally sleep at similar times, but lately Sasha has been restless in the night, wanting more than the regular 2:00 a.m. feeding. Miken sleeps well at night, sometimes sleeping 8 hours, but he often takes very short naps during the day. Malik and Rachel sometime worry that Miken is overly tired. Although the twins are alike in many ways, they are also very different.

Malik and Rachel had tried for more than a year to get pregnant and were very excited when they found out they were having twins. They attended every prenatal class they could find and took every step possible to ensure a healthy pregnancy. Rachel had a safe and relatively easy delivery when she was full term. Even with all their preparations and planning, bringing the twins home heralded many surprises for which the new parents were not prepared. They had expected to manage the feedings, sleep patterns, and diapers, but Miken’s chronic diaper rash and Sasha’s early teething (at 4 months) were examples of the many things that were not cov- ered in any of their prenatal classes or books.

Now that the babies are 6 months old, the time since bringing them home seems like a blur. One thing that is very clear is that no matter how much people plan to be parents, there are still many unexpected joys and challenges. Through the occasional struggles, Rachel and Malik are trying to focus on all the amazing things their children learn each day and the very unique ways that Miken and Sasha are each discovering and interacting with the world as they grow and change.

Introduction This chapter discusses assessment that is specifically targeted toward the character and needs of very young children. In order to be most successful, practitioners must understand the factors that make assessment of very young children unique, as well as the procedures used to take these differences into account.

2.1 Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different In the past, early childhood programs have largely been allowed to chart their own course, without a great deal of interference from political and special-interest groups. However, in 2007 Public Law 110-134, the Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act, was passed,

Section 2.1Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different

requiring Head Start, a federally funded early childhood program (discussed later in this chapter), to prepare young children to be “school ready.” Since then, the U.S. government has made a dramatic commitment to provide more comprehensive and high-quality early child- hood education services that are intended to prepare young children for kindergarten. When children are equipped for the demands of kindergarten, they are more likely to be success- ful throughout their schooling and lives. In fact, “evidence suggests that more than half the achievement gap found in later school years already is present at kindergarten entry” (Ste- dron & Berger, 2010, p. 1). As EC programs have worked to prepare young children for their schooling to come, assessment has become increasingly important.

The recent focus on assessment in early childhood has gained momentum for a variety of rea- sons. For one, assessments are used to document children’s academic progress and ultimate “readiness” for kindergarten. Additionally, data collected from assessments can be used to make comparisons across schools, districts, and states, which can inform policy and prac- tice. These data can also be used to study the impact that early childhood education invest- ments have on long-term outcomes (Stedron & Berger, 2010). Finally, comprehensive testing of young children is viewed by state education agencies as a critical part of ensuring quality instruction in early learning settings, since developmentally appropriate assessments help inform practitioners about both teaching and learning (Fowler et al., 2008).

In 2014 no state had yet developed a comprehensive assessment program for early child- hood, although several states performed kindergarten assessments (Schilder & Carolan, 2014; National Conference of State Legislatures, 2015). As the potential value of and demand for early childhood testing grows, policy makers and EC professionals must ensure that the testing methods being employed are developmentally appropriate for young children. Very young children and the services they are provided are different from older children and the services they receive; assessment must therefore be different as well.

Perhaps no one understands these differences better than early childhood education (ECE) professionals. This term includes certified professionals such as teachers; early interven- tion specialists; speech, occupational, and physical therapists; health and legal profession- als; social and behavioral specialists; paraprofessionals and dedicated volunteers; admin- istrators; and preservice professionals. All of these professionals play an important role in serving and assessing very young children and the programs designed to meet their needs. They know that assessment in early childhood education is a complex undertaking, since it is impacted by many elements that are unique to young children. For example, philosophy, pedagogy, service model, and children’s age are just a few of the areas that set early childhood apart from later stages of development. A foundation for understanding ECE assessment can be developed by looking more closely at key elements that impact young children and the assessments used when working with them.

Early Intervention One of the primary functions of assessing infants and toddlers is to document children’s academic, social, and emotional growth and development. In the case that a child shows indications of a difficulty or delay, it is ideal that these possible struggles are identified and addressed as early as possible. This support is referred to as early intervention. These services to infants and toddlers are grounded in a family-centered approach based in the home, which is babies’ and toddlers’ natural learning environment and where family mem- bers provide the nurturing and experiences that support development. Therefore, the more

Section 2.1Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different

self-determined families are in meeting their children’s needs, the more likely they are to provide rich opportunities for social, communication, physical, and cognitive growth.

Although self-determination plays an important role in positive outcomes for the child, it is also critical that families receive support from ECE professionals; this helps equip them with the skills necessary to meet the child’s needs. The family-centered approach pro- vides this support by coaching family members through home visits, rather than providing direct services to children. Although ECE professionals may not provide support directly to the child receiving early intervention, they collaborate closely with families in order to build on the family’s strengths and best encourage the child’s success. Additionally, ECE professionals track children’s progress and assess family needs that should be targeted for support, as well as appraise progress and provide feedback to families so as to build their self-efficacy.

Routines-Based Learning The dominant philosophy in early intervention is routines-based learning (McWilliam, 2010). Rather than a clinical model of intervention that isolates particular behaviors and skills for targeted intervention, routines-based learning aims for authenticity by being conducted in the context of the natural daily activities in which infants, toddlers, and families engage. ECE professionals help family members see ways to integrate opportunities to advance growth (in language, social, emotional, motor, and cognitive domains) during play, at meals, at bedtime, and so on. Authentic assessment (observation and feedback) is the most useful formative tool to measure both children’s and family members’ behaviors in routine-based learning (Bag- nato, Neisworth, & Pretti-Frontczak, 2010).

An example of this sort of family-centered, routines-based approach can be illustrated by looking at Charlie, a 2-year-old who is struggling with language. Charlie’s speech is fre- quently fragmented, and others have a hard time understanding him. Consequently, he gets very angry when he is unable to express himself at home, often resorting to hitting or kick- ing his siblings. Seeing that Charlie needs language support, his ECE professional enlists the help of a speech therapist, Kathy, to assist Charlie’s parents with early intervention.

Kathy visits Charlie’s home and observes his regular interactions with his parents over the course of an evening. She targets dinnertime as a consistent event each day during which con- versation can be modeled by Charlie’s parents and Charlie can be encouraged to participate. Kathy talks with Charlie’s parents about ways in which to involve Charlie in the dinner con- versation and to actively build on the words that Charlie offers, rather than trying to speak for him. Kathy also coaches Charlie’s parents to specifically encourage Charlie’s improved skills, so that as his communication improves he understands what behaviors should be continued and which should be minimized.

Kathy visits Charlie and his family every other week for 6 weeks to observe how Charlie’s language is developing and to offer feedback to support the family. As Charlie becomes more successful at home, he begins to develop conversational skills such as turn taking and com- municating needs. These skills transfer to other family settings and improve his behavior and interactions with siblings. This type of early intervention—that is, family centered and routines based—acknowledges that children and their families have different needs. Specific, tailored interventions must be provided to each family in order to foster the most success. To

Section 2.1Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different

this end, it is vital to remember that young children are developmentally, neurologically, and demographically different from older children.

Young Children Are Different Historically, very young children have not always been viewed as different from older chil- dren. However, over the past century, research and shifting societal views have illuminated clear distinctions that set young children apart, not only from older children but from other young children of different developmental stages. These distinctions impact young children developmentally, neurologically, and demographically.

Developmental Differences Within early childhood, infants are developmentally different from toddlers, who are develop- mentally different from preschoolers. Because of these developmental differences, measure- ment methods need to adapt to children’s developmental maturity, and ECE professionals should understand that assessments used with kindergarteners may not be developmentally appropriate for toddlers. For example, in early childhood, we know that receptive language is usually far more advanced than expressive language, meaning babies, toddlers, and pre- schoolers often know more than they are able to say. Although older students are primarily assessed through written and verbal language, it is not feasible to use the same means to assess young children. Instead, educators and ECE professionals must draw inferences about what a child understands, and those inferences must be based on observations of naturally occurring and contrived tasks.

An ECE teacher can quickly design a checklist of developmentally appropriate, standards- based skills for individual or whole-class use. For a teacher working with infants, a check- list may consist of items such as “distinguishes primary caregiver from others,” “responds to familiar voices,” and “watches other children,” since these are all common developmen- tal skills observed in infants. Figure 2.1 illustrates what this checklist might look like for an individual.

Figure 2.1: Individual checklist for common developmental skills observed in infants

ሁ Using developmental milestones for infants, toddlers, and preschoolers, ECE professionals can develop their own checklists to quickly assess the development of individual children.

Child’s name

Skill Yes No

Distinguishes primary caregiver from others

Responds to familiar voices

Watches other children

Date

Observer’s name

Section 2.1Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different

A similar checklist for use with an entire group or class of children could look like Figure 2.2.

Figure 2.2: Group checklist for common developmental skills observed in infants

ሁ To assess a group of children instead of an individual child, the checklist should have a place to list each child’s name and a space to record yes or no below each milestone.

Observer’s name

Child’s name Responds to familiar voices

Distinguishes primary caregiver from others

Watches other children

Date

Such checklists allow ECE professionals to assess very young children’s skills in the context of typical interactions during the day, at home or in child care. They also offer ECE professionals the opportunity to create situations in which to observe children’s development, such as plac- ing two infants near each other to see if either will notice the other.

Based on the use of developmentally appropriate assessments, ECE professionals can deter- mine what skills should be targeted with individual children using developmentally appropri- ate curriculum. With the downward movement of academic curricula for higher elementary

grades into the early childhood environment, there is concern that developmentally appropriate learning will be pushed aside in favor of curriculum that supports testing. Despite this push, there is still the opportunity to determine how best to introduce academics, and that path should be determined by developmentally appro- priate practices that are grounded in research.

There is strong evidence that the introduction of mathematics constructs, for example, should be matched to a child’s Piagetian stage of cognitive development (Hattie, 2009). Piaget pro- posed four stages of development: sensorimotor (ages 0 to 2), preoperational (ages 2 to 7), concrete operational (ages 7 to 11), and formal operational (ages 11 and up). Understanding that a child is still in the preoperational stage, an ECE teacher might focus math instruction on counting and sorting concrete objects, rather than working extensively with equations and abstract representations, which can be tackled during the concrete operational stage. Consequently, understanding which stage a child is in may be just as important as choosing appropriate materials and tasks.

Reflection Suppose a preschool teacher has the following daily schedule: circle time, prereading, swim- ming, premath, prewriting. Is this a developmen- tally appropriate curriculum? Why or why not?

http://www.psychologycharts.com/piaget-stages-of-cognitive-development.html

Section 2.1Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different

The connection between development and academics is more relevant for math than read- ing, though still quite important in reading. Both mathematics and reading are based on the ability to think serially—as in counting or in acting out a story sequentially (Sarama, Lange, Clements, & Wolfe, 2012). Matching academic tasks to developmental stages requires ECE personnel to know young children deeply, which can be accomplished through many levels of assessment that may include formal and formative strategies that illustrate how they think.

A second implication of this evidence is that different children will be at different levels within an academic curriculum. The Piagetian-match advantage no longer holds if all children of the same age are given the same materials, tasks, and instruction, as is sometimes the case when overly academic curriculum is pushed into early learning environments. When chronological, or same-age, peers are all given the same materials, tasks, and instruction, many of the chil- dren will be mismatched with one or more of these components. Thus, any assessment that follows will be inaccurate and/or ineffective.

On the other hand, aligning instruction to match individuals’ needs rather than their chrono- logical age or grade level has been shown to enhance children’s ability to benefit from inter- vention. For example, at-risk infants and toddlers who received individualized intervention guided by regular, simple, and brief assessments of progress experienced faster development and greater resilience to conditions such as poverty and abuse than did children who did not receive data-based intervention (Carta, Greenwood, Baggett, Buzhardt, & Walker, 2012). In another study, individualizing reading instruction to match kindergarten students’ literacy and language skills resulted in significantly higher achievement in reading (correct inter- pretation of letter combinations as words), letter naming, phonemic awareness, and decod- ing) than when students of the same grade received undifferentiated reading instruction (Al Otaiba et al., 2011). Aligning instruction to children’s developmental and academic levels eliminates artificial barriers such as age and grade level, allowing children to learn as swiftly as they are able.

Neurological Differences During very early childhood, children experience a phenomenon known as neuroplasticity, which is characterized by the rapid growth of neurons and new neural connections. This rapid growth allows brain tissue to change and adapt to human experiences more easily than at any other time in development.

Interestingly, this has two seemingly contradictory implications. First, very young brains are particularly vulnerable to adverse conditions that result in impaired cognitive development, ADHD, anxiety, and delayed executive functioning (the ability to manage cognitive processes such as memory and problem solving), all of which are associated with behavior problems (Shonkoff, 2011). Second, neuroplasticity makes very young children susceptible to the posi- tive benefits of protective and loving relationships within stable and stimulating environ- ments (Shonkoff, 2011). Shonkoff ’s (2009) point in describing this apparent paradox was to suggest that early childhood education should be dedicated to ensuring that children have the best chance of developing strong emotional self-regulation through responsive caregiving, which will provide a buffer against the neurological impairments described above.

This paradox has three implications for assessment. First, because young brains are so pliant and vulnerable, it is essential that educators use assessment in developmentally appropri- ate ways that will nurture the child and provide a safe means through which to fulfill the

https://faculty.washington.edu/chudler/plast.html

Section 2.1Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different

demands of the assessment. Second, the quickly developing brain suggests that assessments should be conducted frequently, both to measure progress and to identify lags in develop- ment as early as possible. Infrequent assessment may result in lost opportunities as a child slides further behind, making it more challenging to catch up. This is the time period during which early intervention holds its greatest promise.

Finally, for children at risk because of adverse conditions, high-pressure learning and assess- ment are likely to be counterproductive because of the increased test anxiety associated with high-stakes testing (Segool, Carlson, Goforth, von der Embse, & Barterian, 2013). Already neurologically fragile, these young children will be further stressed and unlikely to accurately perform well. They will thus be unlikely to adequately demonstrate their capabilities when put under pressure to perform on rigidly constructed and timed tests. These students are far better served through more informal assessment procedures, such as observation and teacher–child engagement, which can provide a more detailed and informed picture of the child’s progress and are far less stressful for the child.

Additionally, as children mature neurologically, their ability to attend to a task or attend together with another person to a task (joint attention) becomes longer and more flexible (Bruner, 2014). Traditional assessments of older children rely heavily on sustained attention, and most standardized tests require that a child attend closely to the cues given by a profes- sional assessor. Consequently, the shorter attention and developing joint attention of very young children are important considerations when selecting and using assessment tools.

Demographical Differences The demographics of very young children are also different than school-aged children, as described in the State of America’s Children report (Children’s Defense Fund, 2014a). In 2014 for the first time, the majority of children in the United States under age 2 were children of color. These same children are also the poorest Americans: One in 3 of these children lived in poverty, more than twice the figure for all Americans.

A related phenomenon is the growing rate of homelessness among children under age 6. In 2012 children 6 and under represented 34% of all homeless Americans, and they are the fastest growing segment of this disenfranchised group (Fantuzzo, LeBoeuf, Brumley, & Perl- man, 2013). Children of color are significantly more likely to experience the effects of pov- erty, extreme poverty, teenaged parents, abuse and neglect, and infant mortality (Children’s Defense Fund, 2014a).

These demographic data illustrate the need to adopt a pluralistic philosophy, one that incor- porates multiple approaches. They also justify the facilitation of early intervention and pre- school experiences that support vulnerable children and their families. In addition to paying special attention to the ways in which vulnerable children are assessed, family assessment

should be conducted in ways that honor the dignity of parents and build trusting relationships. In this way ECE professionals can develop deep understanding of a family’s strengths and also areas in which services and support will help build their self-efficacy. Rapidly changing demographics highlight the importance of selecting tools for assessment that are free of cultural and racial bias.

Reflection Are there cultural, racial, or language differences that you think would not create the conditions for bias in assessing young children and their families?

http://www.childrensdefense.org/zzz-child-research-data-publications/state-of-americas-children/index.html

Section 2.1Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different

The Ages of ECE Are Different Early childhood generally encompasses children from birth to age 8. As has been discussed, during those 8 years there is tremendous growth and development, which has led to sub- groups within ECE. Children’s differences are so great during these 8 years that each sub- group is in reality a different discipline.

Birth to Age 3 The youngest children served in early childhood are infants and toddlers. Legally, this group has been defined as encompassing birth to age 3. Even within this group, infants up to about 11 to 13 months are very different from toddlers aged 11 to 24 months. Once infants begin to talk and walk (typically around age 12 months), they interact with the world very differently than babies do (see Table 2.1).

Table 2.1: Comparative development between typical abilities of 6-month-old infants and 18-month-old toddlers

Infant (6 months) Toddler (18 months)

Language Makes vowel sounds; knows name Says approximately 50 single words; follows one-step instructions

Gross motor Sits with support Walks up steps

Fine motor Starts to pass things from one hand to the other

Scribbles

Social Recognizes those who are familiar Simple pretend play

Cognition Gazes at objects with interest Uses ordinary objects correctly (phone, shoes, book)

Self-care Holds bottle Eats with a spoon

Growth (girls/boys)

Weight: 16 to 17.8 pounds Length: 25.7 to 26.5 inches

Weight: 24 to 26 pounds Length: 31.7 to 32.5 inches

Source: Adapted from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2010.

Consequently, assessment strategies may be more direct and interactive as children make this transition to toddlerhood. The basis for measuring progress for infants and toddlers is typi- cally based on long-established norms or milestones for developmental progression across domains (for example, social–emotional, cognitive, language, motor, self-help, temperament, and sensory). However, the natural environment for infants and toddlers is their home, and assessment is often equally balanced between the child and the child’s environment. Spe- cifically, this may include observational assessment of (a) family strengths in nurturing, (b) family resources, (c) environmental risk, and (d) progress in family self-efficacy. For instance, an ECE professional may perform a home visit in order to observe and assess (a) how a care- giver interacts with a child to show care and concern; (b) if the family has access to adequate, healthy food; (c) if the family lives in a space that allows the child room to safely develop physically; and (d) how the family goes about pursuing appropriate supports through com- munity services.

http://www.cdc.gov/parents/infants/milestones.html

Section 2.1Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different

Finally, birth-to-age-3 intervention is multidisciplinary: Children and their families receive services from educational professionals (which may include developmental specialists, speech and language therapists, and behavioral specialists); health officials (which may include com- munity health and physical or occupational therapy); sensory specialists (if needed, visual and hearing); and social services (which may include mental health and financial support). Sometimes, all or most of these services are under one roof, but often they are not. Conse- quently, families may be less likely to access multiple services or may not be aware that mul- tiple services exist.

Furthermore, even when services are housed together, communicating assessment informa- tion and collaborative planning is central to making the most of these early years. For exam- ple, if a family has been referred by the child’s teacher for a visual screening and the screening indicates that the child has a vision impairment and will need glasses, it may be important for this information to be shared with the appropriate social service agency in order to secure financial support in purchasing glasses. If this communication is insufficient, the family might not be able to afford the glasses, and the child’s vision will go uncorrected.

Preschool (Ages 3 to 4) At age 3, children may transition away from early intervention programs and begin a pre- school program, which usually serves them until they are eligible for kindergarten (usually from age 5 to 6). The types of preschool programs available to children vary by state and the needs and resources of children and their families. For example, many states now serve all or most 4-year-olds in pre-K programs. Head Start is available to children who are economically at risk, private preschool programs are available to children whose parents can pay tuition, and preschool special education programs provide public school services to children identi- fied with developmental delays and disabilities. Families may also choose to provide at-home learning opportunities during the preschool years. The many choices in the preschool years result in a diverse group of children entering kindergarten.

Because children develop very rapidly between ages 3 and 5, learning priorities shift along this continuum as children move toward kindergarten readiness. Until preschool, most assessment and early intervention initiatives are family centered and routines based. Once a child enters preschool, ECE professionals work to balance family context with classroom expectations and objectives.

In the early years of preschool, there is a heavy emphasis on play-based learning and devel- oping social skills, language competency, and motor refinement. Toward the latter part of preschool education, the curriculum skews more heavily toward linguistic–cognitive skill development, though still in the context of play- and project-based activities. Lately, this cogni- tive emphasis includes more explicit academic curricula and activities. Assessment outcomes must parallel this shift in emphasis, both in terms of summative and formative measurements.

Kindergarten to Grade 3 (Ages 5 to 8) Once children are enrolled in public kindergarten, they come under the umbrella of the public school system, which provides comprehensive, mandatory education for all children across all states. However, children from kindergarten through the third grade (K–3) are still in early childhood and developmentally much more immature than their older peers. Although most kindergarten curricula are designed with this in mind, each following grade is less so. This

Section 2.1Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different

is because most K–3 academic curricula focus on basic skills, and as children develop, more complex concepts are introduced.

For example, in the first few years of elementary school, the curriculum emphasizes learning to read, whereas after third grade it emphasizes reading to learn. This shift is troublesome for those children who have not yet learned to read. Dictated by Common Core Standards, K–3 educators must take into account both high-stakes testing and demands to leave no child behind by the end of third grade. Both preschool and K–3 educators are responsible for mak- ing sure that students are ready for their next learning endeavor. However, preschools focus on preliteracy, premath, and early writing skills, whereas K–3 settings use more research and evidence-based curricula and strategies to support students’ growth and development in those same content areas so that they are indeed reading to learn and using math in a func- tional way upon moving into fourth grade.

Additionally, young elementary students continue to mature and be susceptible to curricula that emphasize social–moral, emotional resilience, and linguistic competence. Although these developmental priorities may not be a part of the explicit curriculum, they are certainly rele- vant to the “hidden” curriculum—the unspoken values and beliefs of a school’s culture. Young children who are exposed to stories with highly moral underpinnings are more susceptible to the suggested morality. Consequently, it is important to understand that an emphasis on developmentally appropriate practices in K–3 supports the assessment priority that children mature at different rates. This requires child-centered, fine-tuned monitoring that is associ- ated with teaching responses that adjust to these varied levels of progression.

To a large extent, educational service options for children in early childhood are dictated by the public’s willingness to fund early intervention by passing state and federal legislation. Laws that regulate federal or state funding can either mandate or permit early childhood pro- grams for specific (such as economic at-risk) or general (universal pre-K) children and their families. Because the needs of children and their families differ significantly from infancy to early elementary school, and from early childhood to later school ages, laws have been writ- ten to reflect these differences.

The Laws Are Different As evidence of a new national focus on early childhood, in 2014, 46 states proposed a total of 900 different ECE bills, 110 of which passed across 34 states (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2014). The focus of these bills ranges from child care quality to funding to gov- ernance. In addition to these bills, there are several important federal laws unique to ECE, each of which has implications for assessment. Some of these laws were written to provide the framework for delivery of services to infants and toddlers, preschoolers, and young ele- mentary students. Others are more regulatory, providing guidelines for program compliance (such as the amount and quality of services delivered and to whom services are provided).

Special Education Under IDEIA and Public Law 99-457 The Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 is the latest reautho- rization of the law relating to serving children with disabilities. Although versions of this law date back to 1965, most educators refer to the 1975 authorization (Education for All Handicapped Children Act, Public Law 94-142) as the origin of the federal mandate and funding of services for children with disabilities. Over the years, the law has undergone

Section 2.1Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different

multiple congressional reauthorizations associated with changes in its name and services. Currently, it is titled Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, or IDEIA, Pub- lic Law 108-466.

Under Public Law 94-142, services to infants, toddlers, and preschoolers with disabilities were permitted, with some federal funding available. However, it was not until revisions to the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1986 that the federal government became serious about this population by passing Public Law 99-457. Under these regu- lations, states are required to serve all children with disabilities, including preschoolers from ages 3 to 5 (Section 619 of Part B) and all infants and toddlers with developmental disabilities (Early Intervention, or Part C). States may also, at their discretion, serve infants and toddlers who are at risk for developmental disabilities. Since 1986 the number of 3- to 5-year-old preschoolers served under Section 619 has tripled; 735,000 were served in 2013, and 370,000 infants and toddlers were served in 2013 under Part C (Council for Exceptional Children, 2013).

Children become eligible under Part B, Section 619 by either (a) meeting the federal criteria for being a “child with a disability,” which includes having intellectual disabilities; hearing, visual, orthopedic, or speech/language impairments; a specific learning disability; emotional disturbance; autism; a traumatic brain injury; or other health impairment; or (b) at the dis- cretion of states, meeting the criteria for children ages 3 to 9 with a developmental delay in one or more developmental areas that include cognitive, social–emotional, physical, speech or language, or adaptive behaviors.

Infants and toddlers (birth through age 2) become eligible for Part C services by either (a) meeting the developmental-delay criteria for children ages 3 to 9 in one or more develop- mental areas; (b) having a biological or medical condition that establishes a high probability of later developing a disability, even if no delay is present upon referral—this biological risk may include children with genetic (for example, Down syndrome), metabolic (for example, phenylketonuria), chronic health (for example low birth weight and HIV-AIDS), sensory (for example, visual and hearing impairments), and neurological (for example, cerebral palsy) risk factors; or (c) at the discretion of states, being at risk due to environmental condi- tions such as poverty, homelessness, or child safety issues (eight states currently serve this population).

Each state determines its own criteria for eligibility for each of the three early intervention categories. Across the nation, the number of infants and toddlers (birth through 2 years) served ranges from 1.48% to 6.96%, revealing that some states are providing more compre- hensive services than others (Rosenberg, Robinson, Shaw, & Ellison, 2013). Some states are much more restrictive in permitting eligibility under Part C, a policy that ironically limits ser- vices to those children with the most severe disabilities (McManus, Magnusson, & Rosenberg, 2014). In 2015 only five states served at-risk children, and all but one of these states (New Mexico) required that three to five risk factors be present in order to be eligible; two of four U.S. territories (American Samoa and Guam) serve infants and toddlers who are at risk (Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center, 2015).

Assessment plays two major roles in early childhood special education. First, children who are referred for services must become eligible through specified assessment procedures.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-100/pdf/STATUTE-100-Pg1145.pdf

Section 2.1Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different

Second, assessment procedures are used formatively and summatively to monitor progress and make instructional decisions, in the same way assessment is used for children with- out disabilities. As a part of IDEA, assessment practices must meet the regulatory require- ments that strive to ensure fairness and objectivity in the process of identifying and serving young children. The following legal requirements for assessment pertain to both Section 619 and Part C:

• Descriptions of children’s “present level of performance” must be based on valid assessments.

• Goals and objectives must be derived from descriptions of present performance. • Assessments must be conducted in the native language used in the child’s home. • Cultural and racial bias must be eliminated in assessment instruments, administra-

tion, and scoring. • Tools must be valid and reliable. • Professionals must use more than one assessment in making eligibility for services

decisions (IDEA, 2004).

Those assessing children must be qualified to do so according to professional and state regu- lations. Professional qualification standards set for administering and interpreting assess- ments ensure the rights of children and their families are protected. There is a four-step eligibility determination process to which the professionals and the programs in which they serve must adhere:

1. Consent to screening and evaluation. Programs must provide parents with written notification, in their native language, of intent to screen, and they must be informed of their rights.

2. Screening. Parents must consent to the screening in writing and must be given writ- ten notification of the outcomes.

3. Comprehensive evaluation. Parents must again be notified in writing of the intent to evaluate a child for eligibility for special education services, and parents must give their consent for further evaluation.

4. Development of a child’s plan. When children are eligible for special services under IDEA, a unique educational plan is created by parents and professionals that legally commits these parties to specified services and educational priorities. Although slightly different for infants and toddlers than children ages 3 to 21, the plans detail children’s current skills, intervention targets to be achieved by year’s end, and special services needed to achieve these goals (see Table 2.2). Individualized Family Service Plans (IFSPs) are used for infants and toddlers, and Individualized Educa- tion Programs (IEPs) are used for preschoolers. Both IFSPs and IEPs are legal docu- ments created through a partnership between families and special education pro- grams that define a child’s current level of performance, where a child is expected to be at the end of each year, and the services that will be provided to help a child reach these goals. Programs have 45 days to complete notifications, assessment, and development of plans.

Section 2.1Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different

Table 2.2: Comparison of IFSPs to IEPs

Planning Factors

Individualized Family Service Plan (birth to 3)

Individualized Education Plan (ages 3 to 21)

Description of behaviors

Describes current levels of development based on assessment

Describes current levels of performance based on assessment

Identifying concerns With parents’ consent, may include information about families (resources, needs, priorities) associated with meeting the needs of child served

Parents are involved in identifying concerns and priorities for child; family information is not included

People involved With the help of professionals, families decide on intervention priorities

Team, including parents, decides on educational goals

Goals Includes 6-12-month goals, timelines, and a plan to assess progress

Includes 12-month goals, timelines, and a plan to assess progress and report to families

Plan for environment Plan for implementation in natural environments

Plan for inclusion in least restrictive environment (participating with children without disabilities to the greatest extent possible)

Plan for services Specifies early intervention coordinator and other professionals, services, and organizations that enable families to meet a child’s unique needs

Specifies special education, accommodations, related services, and other supports needed to meet a child’s unique needs

Plan for transition Transition plan from early intervention to next services (for example, Head Start, pre-K program)

Transition plan from public education to adult environments from age 16

Source: Adapted from PACER Center, 2011.

Under Part C, the term evaluation is used to describe the process of determining eligibility for services, and assessment is legally defined as the procedures used to develop and modify a child’s IFSP. There may be overlap between evaluation and assessment. In addition to the legal requirements specified above, assessment information that is unique to Part C includes:

• assessment of family resources, priorities, and concerns for the child with special needs,

• assessment of the child’s natural environments in which the child will be served, and • assessment that is completed by a multidisciplinary team, which is defined as two

individuals who represent two distinct disciplines (such as speech therapy and men- tal health).

These assessments are necessary when working with very young children because they are critical to providing family-centered, routines-based, early intervention.

Section 2.1Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different

Person-First Language Professionals who serve children with disabilities have the opportunity to send the message early that these children are valued for their individuality and humanity above all else. The fact that some young children may have a disability is of secondary importance. The way that professionals communicate about such individuals reveals what they value about them.

In the past, language about disabilities tended to be careless, even cruel. For example, it was once common to refer to children with disabilities as cretins, idiots, cripples, feeble- minded, and retarded. It was also common (and still is) to use phrases like “retarded boy” or “blind child,” which places the disability first and the person second. When we use this type of language—known as disability-first language—we send the message that a child’s disabilities overshadow everything else about them. As a consequence, humanity separates these children in our minds, our schools, our work, and our communities. By changing the language to emphasize children’s humanity, we may begin to change our treatment of children.

Person-first language reverses the syntax, placing the person before the disability (Snow, 2007). For example, someone using person-first language would say “infant with visual impairment,” or “child with autism,” or “girl with behavioral disability.” It is also important to avoid using words that suggest that a person is their disability, such as “Glen is a quad.” The same is true of language that diminishes personhood, such as “Bella is bound to a wheelchair,” which suggests that the wheelchair and the child are one and the same; rather, it is better to say, “Bella uses a wheelchair.”

Entities associated with disabilities are also vulnerable to insensitive language, such as “Jill attends a special education school” when Jill actually attends a school that serves children with handicaps; or “Ms. Graham is a handicapped teacher” when Ms. Graham is actually a teacher (without a handicap) who works with children with special needs.

Person-first language aims to give all individuals with disabilities or special needs the respect they deserve. Words can be powerful, and ECE professionals should model language that supports and respects very young children, particularly those with disabilities.

Critical-Thinking Questions

1. How might ECE professionals foster person-first language with families who have become accustomed to using counterproductive language, such as referring to their “disabled daughter” or “autistic son”?

2. Person-first language has come into use within the past 20 years. What do you think are some reasons that it came into use when it did?

Head Start and Early Head Start In 1965 President Lyndon Johnson passed legislation aimed at reducing poverty in the United States. Johnson’s War on Poverty was designed to reduce the nation’s poverty level, which at the time was greater than 20%. New research at the time indicated that education had a positive impact in reducing poverty, so part of Johnson’s approach to combating poverty was to focus on creating a comprehensive child development program. With this in mind, a pre- school program for children from low-income families called Head Start was implemented in

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs

Section 2.1Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different

order to help break the cycle of poverty by providing social, emotional, health, and nutritional support to children and their families.

As it was created to do, Head Start continues to prepare children for school by enhancing social, emotional, and cognitive development for 3- to 4-year-olds from low-income families at or below the federal poverty level. Children from low-income families, as well as dual lan- guage learners (DLLs), are at a higher risk of achievement gaps. In 2013 approximately one third of the 900,000 children in Head Start were DLLs, and another 10% were children with disabilities (Administration for Children and Families, 2013). Part of the Head Start legisla- tion mandates that 10% of the available slots be reserved for preschoolers with disabilities, regardless of whether they meet the income criteria.

In another effort to provide aid to low-income families, Early Head Start was developed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 1995 to provide services to families of infants, toddlers, pregnant women, and their families who are eligible based on low family income. The primary intent of Early Head Start is to nurture healthy child–parent attach- ments and to help families access a full range of services to meet family needs. A third, though rarely mentioned, Head Start program is Indian Head Start, which provides additional and specialized programs and services for eligible families of Native American and Alaska Native children. In particular, these programs work to maintain strong relationships with tribes and foster preservation of cultures, customs, and native languages.

Head Start outcomes research has consistently shown impressive short-term gains in achieve- ment and IQ (approximately a .5 standard deviation benefit) and smaller but significant gains in social–emotional, self-regard, and academic engagement (Ludwig & Phillips, 2008). How- ever, research has failed to convincingly demonstrate that participation had a lasting effect on student achievement after the first grade (Head Start, 2012). In response, Head Start estab- lished several reform priorities, with two that directly relate to assessment and a broader con- nection to school reform for older students. With school readiness as the foremost priority, Head Start recast itself as a learning organization that (a) is characterized by a commitment to using data for continuous improvement to further strengthen outcomes, and (b) develops appropriate assessments and helps programs use their results to guide practice (Head Start, 2012). The hope is that these new priorities will inform policy and create strong outcomes for Head Start children that will be evident beyond first grade.

Although Head Start has been the primary agency in terms of federal and state-supported ECE programs, new state pre-K programs, home visit programs, and federal programs (such as Race to the Top’s Early Learn- ing Challenge) have added additional service options for young children and families. Although this array of programs has the potential to serve many more chil- dren, there is also the challenge of aligning the multiple agencies in terms of standards, outcome assessments for children, and programs and data management systems.

Pre-K Legislation Most states currently fund pre-K services for 4-year olds, though there is considerable vari- ability in the scope of services provided. Some states provide targeted services to subgroups

Reflection Since their inception, Early Head Start and Head Start programs have been criticized for having a lack of convincing evidence that they make a difference. Most of this discussion is based on short- and long-term assessment data. What is another way to convince the public of the importance of these programs?

Section 2.1Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different

of children while others provide universal services to all preschoolers (Dotterer, Burchinal, Bryant, Early, & Pianta, 2013). Often, children from low-income households are the focus of targeted services. However, universal pre-K for all 4-year-olds allows early learning standards to be consistently implemented and fosters kindergarten readiness for all.

In an attempt to lessen the variability in state programs, President Barack Obama used his 2013 State of the Union address to issue a call for universal pre-K in all states (Best & Cohen, 2013). Although 53 programs in 40 states and Washington, D.C., provided state-funded pre-K in the 2012–2013 school year, 31 of these programs had an income requirement, which means that most middle- and upper-class families must pay for the early education their chil- dren receive (National Institute for Early Education Research, 2013). The Strong Start for America’s Children Act (a 2013 proposal that remains under consideration) would target all 4-year-olds whose families earn below 200% of the federal poverty level; it would also focus on improved quality of services through existing child care programs, including but not lim- ited to Head Start and Early Head Start.

Under the proposed act, $100 million would be made available to eligible local education agencies and community-based providers that have partnerships with these agencies, includ- ing child care programs, pre-K, and kindergarten programs that serve low-income children between birth and age 5 (Children’s Defense Fund, 2014b). Some of the priorities of this act are community collaboration, services to homeless and migrant children and families, dual language learners, and children in foster care. The act defines a high-quality pre-K program as one that:

• serves children who turn 3 or 4 by the eligibility determination date (as used for school eligibility in the community in which the child is involved);

• requires high staff qualifications, including a bachelor’s degree for teachers; • adheres to evidence-based maximum class size and child–instructional staff ratio; • maintains evidence-based health and safety standards; • offers a full-day program; • provides developmentally appropriate, evidence-based curricular and learning envi-

ronments that are aligned with the state’s early learning standards; • offers salaries comparable with K–12 teacher salaries; • provides high-quality professional development for staff members; • provides accessible comprehensive services, including health, mental health, dental,

vision screening, referrals, assistance in obtaining services (when appropriate), fam- ily engagement, nutrition, and other support services as determined in a local needs analysis; and

• provides ongoing program evaluation (Committee on Education and the Workforce Democrats, 2013).

Although the last point in the list directly confirms the federal commitment to assessment in both school-age programs and early childhood services, many of the other criteria speak to this commitment as well. For example, defining a high-quality program as one that “pro- vides developmentally appropriate, evidence-based curricular and learning environments that are aligned with the state’s early learning standards” implies that assessment will be an ongoing part of the program as the state’s early learning standards are implemented. As with other federal EC programs, funding supplied by the Strong Start Act is linked to assessment outcomes.

http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/bill/strong-start-americas-children-act-2013

Section 2.1Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different

Challenge Complete the following chart with details about the laws that affect ECE.

Characteristics Public Law 99-457: Part C

Public Law 108-446: Part B Preschool

Early Head Start Head Start

Eligible Children

Ages

Services

Refer to the Appendix for the answers.

The Professional Organizations Are Different Because ECE is a distinct field with many unique philosophies, needs, and concerns, numer- ous organizations have emerged as sources of professional support and ECE advocacy. These groups offer a variety of services that range from professional development opportunities to academic publications, all of which are intended to strengthen ECE professionals’ indi- vidual practices and ECE as a whole. The National Association for the Education of Young Children and the Division for Early Childhood are among the largest and most influential ECE organizations.

National Association for the Education of Young Children The National Association for the Education of Young Children is the leading professional orga- nization for those who serve children from birth to age 8. The mission of the NAEYC is to foster high-quality educational experiences for all young children and to support all ECE pro- fessionals (NAEYC, 2014). This organization not only leads the field in articulating priorities related to the education of young children, it is the primary accrediting body that evaluates the quality of early childhood programs.

Early childhood education has long stood apart from public school programs, mainly because funding sources were private or distinctly different from those that support older students. Thus, early childhood philosophy, curricula, teaching practices, and assessment methods evolved to be uniquely geared toward the specific needs of young children. Because school- age children have different needs, system elements (such as philosophy, curriculum, and so on), though similar, need to be different from those of early childhood.

With this in mind, the NAEYC strives to support what is most developmentally appropriate for young children while simultaneously fostering alignment with the K–12 spectrum of aca- demic expectations. Consequently, the NAEYC philosophy has come to embrace the inclusion of readiness skills in ECE such as early literacy, vocabulary expansion, and mathematics into the curriculum, but not as taught through didactic or direct instruction. Rather, it is believed that readiness skills can be learned through integrated play activities. Because of the yawn- ing differences between early childhood educational practices and those intended for older

http://www.naeyc.org/

Section 2.1Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different

students, it is clear that assessment methods will also need to vary—both in terms of outcome priorities and methods of assessment. Still, the reader will find much consistency between best assessment practices outlined by the NAEYC (2009a) and those discussed in Chapter 1 (see Table 2.3).

Table 2.3: Comparison of assessment practices

NAEYC developmentally appropriate assessment practices

Typical assessment practices for fourth grade and beyond

Focus on progress toward developmental goals. Focus on progress toward academic standards.

Teachers continuously (moment-to-moment) assess children to improve teaching and learning.

Teachers use formative assessment throughout the school year; children are assessed yearly through state standardized testing.

Methods are appropriate to the developmental status of a child and include observations, interviews, children’s work samples, and performance on authentic work.

Methods are standardized and often only include state testing information.

Focus less on what children can do independently, but what they can do with assistance from other children or adults; thus, assessment takes place as children participate in groups.

Focus on what children can do independently.

Family and child self-assessment are included in decision making.

Family and child self-assessment are rarely included in decision making.

Source: NAEYC, 2009a.

Division for Early Childhood Many early childhood services are devoted to children with disabilities and their families. The leading organization that sets priorities for early intervention and preschool education for this population is the Division for Early Childhood (DEC), a special-interest group that is part of the Council for Exceptional Children. Although the DEC is explicit about its alliance with the NAEYC in terms of the positions it takes regarding curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation, the organization focuses specifically on the needs of very young children at risk and those with disabilities.

The DEC has been expansive in its articulation of best practices for assessment of infant, tod- dlers, and preschoolers with disabilities, and of their families. In fact, the DEC identifies no fewer than 46 different recommended practices for early intervention and early childhood special education. Below are the 11 major assessment recommendations:

1. Practitioners work with each family to identify unique preferences for assessment processes.

2. Practitioners work as a team with the family and other professionals to gather assessment information.

3. Practitioners use assessment materials and strategies that are appropriate for the child’s age and level of development and accommodate the child’s sensory, physical, communication, cultural, linguistic, social, and emotional characteristics.

http://www.dec-sped.org/

http://dec.membershipsoftware.org/files/Recommended%20Practices/DEC%202014%20Recommended%20Practices.pdf

Section 2.1Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different

4. Practitioners conduct assessments that include all areas of development and behav- ior to learn about the child’s strengths, needs, preferences, and interests.

5. Practitioners conduct assessments in the child’s dominant language and in addi- tional ones, if the child is learning more than one language.

6. Practitioners use a variety of methods, including observation and interviews, to gather assessment information from multiple sources, including the child’s family and other significant individuals in the child’s life.

7. Practitioners obtain information about the child’s skills in daily activities, routines, and environments such as home, center, and community.

8. Practitioners use clinical reasoning in addition to assessment results to identify the child’s current levels of functioning and to determine the child’s eligibility and plan for instruction.

9. Practitioners implement systematic ongoing assessment to identify learning tar- gets, plan activities, and monitor the child’s progress, so as to revise instruction as needed.

10. Practitioners use assessment tools with sufficient sensitivity to detect child prog- ress, especially for a child that has significant support needs.

11. Practitioners report assessment results so they are understandable and useful to families (DEC, 2014).

Many of the DEC’s recommendations are in line with what would be expected of sound ECE assessment in general. Because the DEC advocates for children with special needs, its expec- tations are more specific to its population. For example, the NAEYC indicates that families should be involved as a source of information if a child’s screening indicates a possible learn- ing disability (NAEYC, 2015). The DEC’s recommendations take this a step further, since the children for whom it advocates have already been identified as having special needs. There- fore, the DEC stresses family involvement throughout the assessment process, because the early intervention that young children need is very much family oriented. This involvement exceeds using families as simply a source of information and can range from enlisting the sup- port of family members in selecting the assessment that they feel will be most successfully used with their child to encouraging families to allow ECE professionals into their homes so they can observe and assess the child’s in the natural environment.

To understand its positions on assessment, it is helpful to understand the DEC’s central tenets for service. The organization is very concerned that children with special needs be included in natural ECE environments. It also stresses the need for services to center on the family’s culture and language, and it promotes the overall health and well-being of all young children with special needs. To this end, the DEC promotes early identification and developmentally appropriate approaches to supporting young children with developmental delays, disabili- ties, and challenging behaviors.

In addition to the assessment recommendations, the DEC articulates several assumptions about ECE personnel who conduct assessment. To competently promote optimal outcomes for young children with disabilities, those at risk of disabilities, and their families, ECE per- sonnel should (a) be thoroughly grounded in developmentally appropriate practices; (b) know professional, legal, and regulatory requirements; (c) act in compliance with the DEC’s code of ethics; and (d) continually increase knowledge, skills, and ethics via ongoing high- quality professional development (DEC, 2014).

Section 2.1Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different

The Philosophy Is Different Because of the developmental differences among very young children as compared to older children, there are multiple philosophies associated specifically with ECE that are geared toward fostering the healthiest learning environments for young children. Early childhood philosophy places great value on learning through carefully scaffolded and contextually natural experiences. Each philosophical approach to ECE has implications for different out- come priorities, types of assessment, and assessment procedures. For example, as previously discussed, family-centered, routines-based learning is particularly effective for early inter- vention. The following approaches to teaching and learning all have specific purposes and assessments as well. Although each philosophy can be used independently, they can also be implemented in concert with each other.

Developmentally Appropriate Practice Developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) is grounded in research-based approaches to teaching in which teachers make intentional choices in order to meet children where they are. The NAEYC uses DAP as the basis for all its work and supports DAP as the foundation for best practices in ECE. There are three core considerations that the NAEYC identifies with regard to using DAP. First, in order for teachers to be intentional when making decisions, they must possess a strong knowledge of child development, including what skills are appropri- ate at specific ages and during specific stages. Second, DAP is grounded in getting to know each child as an individual through ongoing interactions, observations, and assessments, and making choices based on this knowledge. Third, culture and family context play a critical role in determining DAP. Furthermore, the NAEYC identifies 12 principles of child development and learning with regard to DAP, including the importance of secure relationships and play (NAEYC, 2009a).

In addition to the three core considerations and the 12 principles of child development and learning, the NAEYC identifies five guidelines for effective teaching. The fourth of these guide- lines specifically addresses assessment of children’s development and learning. The NAEYC very specifically outlines the following nine qualities of DAP and the assessment of young children:

1. Sound assessment happens continually over time and is used to guide instruction, work with families, and improve teaching.

2. Developmentally appropriate educational goals are the focus of assessment. 3. Formative assessment is systematically used to inform and improve planning and

instruction. 4. Developmentally appropriate assessments are used to meet the needs of individual

learners through a variety of assessment methods. 5. Teachers assess what children can do independently and with support from others. 6. Families and the children themselves also contribute to a program’s overall

assessment. 7. Assessments are only used for the purpose for which they are designed and must be

reliable and valid. 8. Major decisions are based on a body of evidence from multiple assessments. 9. If an assessment indicates a child may have a special need, the appropriate steps are

taken for additional follow-up and/or referral (NAEYC, 2009a).

http://www.naeyc.org/dap/12-principles-of-child-development

http://www.naeyc.org/dap/5-guidelines-for-effective-teaching

Section 2.1Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different

Clearly, the NAEYC takes the position that assessment in ECE is not only unique and valuable but also vital to implementing developmentally appropriate practices and the success of indi- vidual children, their families, ECE professionals, and ECE programs.

Play-Based Learning Play is not just the natural activity of early childhood; play provides a medium through which children develop important foundational competencies that transform them into lifelong learners. When play opportunities and interactions are carefully structured, educators can enhance children’s cognitive connections, vocabulary breadth, social–emotional and behav- ioral maturity, and creative problem-solving skills. This approach is referred to as play-based learning and is at the core of most early intervention and preschool curricula.

In a play-based preschool program, children are given a variety of activities from which to choose and the autonomy to engage in self-directed discovery. In this setting, one might see three children working to construct a “zoo” in the block space while two other children “cook” in the dramatic play space. On the other side of the room, two more children could be experi- menting with bubbles at a water table. Each of these children are exploring and discovering at their own unique stages of development. Consequently, it is critical that assessment be tailored to fit play-based learning.

Observation and documentation are crucial when assessing children in play-based learning environments. The documentation can be collected in a portfolio to document growth over time. Generally, conventional forms of assessment are rigid and standardized, and expect all children to complete the same assessment. For example, an early literacy assessment might ask children to identify the front of a book, point to the title, and demonstrate how to turn the pages to progress through the story. In a play-based classroom, the teacher can observe children throughout the day as they interact with books or text strategically placed through- out the room. The teacher can make anecdotal notes about which children have secured early concepts about book handling and which have not.

In the case of the preschool described above, a conventional form of assessment (such as answering questions on a worksheet) will not helpfully enhance the teacher’s understanding of what the children have learned or can do. For example, the teacher might have all chil- dren complete a worksheet in which there are a variety of two-dimensional shapes and the students are asked to color all the circles red. However, the teacher would collect far more valuable information from simply observing the children’s play and noting any time a child referred to a shape (“I need a triangle block for the top of the tiger’s cage,” “Let’s fold the nap- kins like rectangles,” “When I use the square bubble wand, the bubble still turns out round!”). This form of assessment is developmentally appropriate and allows children to demonstrate their capabilities and needs through natural, play-based interactions.

Observation and documentation in play-based learning also allow the evaluation of many skills that cannot be easily assessed through conventional means, such as communication skills and cultural understandings. Where it might be difficult to test turn taking in conver- sation, this skill can easily be observed in play. Furthermore, children’s social development can also be supported and documented when children engage in play-based learning. When observation and documentation are regular and ongoing, rich information can be collected

Section 2.1Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different

to demonstrate what children have accomplished and to identify ways in which they need further support.

Although anecdotal records and/or portfolio artifacts are both highly appropriate means for assessing play-based learning, they are sometimes time-consuming to generate. Another appropriate yet less time-intensive form of assessment when evaluating children involved in play-based learning is a checklist. As discussed previously, checklists can be easily con- structed to observe a single individual or a group of children. Once constructed (or selected, since many ECE checklists already exist), a teacher can quickly observe students and check off or date skills that are displayed during play-based interactions.

It should be noted that some parents take issue with children “just playing all day” and worry that a play-based environment is not academic enough or fails to adequately prepare their young children for kindergarten. ECE professionals are responsible for being highly intentional in constructing environments and curriculum that foster learning through play. In addition, it is critical to communicate with parents so they understand the philosophy of play-based learn- ing, its developmental appropriateness, and all the ways in which children learn through play. ECE professionals and parents must talk regularly, both formally (such as at parent–teacher conferences) and informally (such as when parents drop off or pick up their children), so par- ents are aware of the progress their children are making toward becoming school ready.

Project-Based Learning Project-based learning can combine both inquiry (discovery learning) as well as embed- ded direct instruction of important cognitive principles (Schmidt, Rotgans, & Yew, 2011). For example, a project-based approach to learning to answer the question “What is snow?” might consist of children interacting with snow in different ways (such as tasting, playing, building, melting, and so on) so as to experience its properties, followed by a teacher-led discussion about snow during which the teacher offers facts and clarifies misconceptions. In addition to play, most preschool programs structure in-depth learning around projects that are designed to be collaborative and to foster interpersonal skills such as cooperation, group decision mak- ing, synergy, and conflict resolution. In this example, a project might be to build a snowman while documenting each phase with pictures and stories about the different states of snow— thereby answering the question “What is snow?”

The project-based approach to learning is aligned with 21st-century learning priorities and is now being widely adopted by many K–12 schools as they alter their curricula to align with the Common Core Standards. Because project-based learning prioritizes and values inquiry and allowing children to make their own discoveries, it also naturally aligns with the constructiv- ist philosophy, an approach to learning in which children construct their own understanding based on their prior knowledge and new experiences.

As with play-based learning, observation, documentation, and checklists are all reasonable forms of assessment for documenting learning in a project-based setting. One difference between play-based and project-based learning with regard to assessment is that project- based learning often results in a culminating event or exhibition that showcases the learning that students did over the course of the project. When documented thoroughly, the project itself from start to finish becomes its own sort of portfolio, showing how students’ ideas grew and changed over the course of the exploration.

Section 2.1Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different

Although play- and project-based learning are both developmentally appropriate, the role of the teacher is slightly different within each approach. In a play-based environment, the teacher will heavily focus on setting up the space and creating rich play opportunities to scaf- fold goals and outcomes. In a project-based environment, the teacher’s intentions are focused on a three-phase exploration, which moves from selecting a topic to implementing an inves- tigation to documentation and sharing, which requires more formal planning (Helm & Katz, 2011). Because of the more structured planning associated with project-based learning, more formal assessments can be embedded throughout the project, but it is better suited to indi- vidual, authentic assessments.

Although a program can be strictly play- or project-based, it is increasingly common to see ECE programs that embrace both philosophies and use them in conjunction. In these settings, play will occupy large portions of the day, as will project exploration. The balance between play and projects can be mutually beneficial, since topics for projects can evolve out of play and project exploration can offer a context for play. Because the methods for assessment are virtually the same for both, it is very manageable for ECE professionals to navigate assess- ment in an environment that uses both philosophies. For example, a single checklist could be used when observing a child during play or project work in order to document the child’s skills/development across time and tasks.

Language- and Communication-Centered Approach A final and important early childhood philosophy is the language- and communication-cen- tered approach. This approach focuses on building language competency and social skills. Research has shown that rich, positive, verbal interactions between caregivers and infants and toddlers forms a buffer against certain environmental factors (such as poverty, low maternal education, poor quality child care) that are associated with poor outcomes (Vernon-Feagans & Bratsch-Hines, 2013). These interactions are most beneficial when they are child directed; in infants, this was once referred to as “motherese” but is now more commonly called “infant- directed speech.” Furthermore, language competency is the best predicator of school achieve- ment and social success (Nelson, Welsh, Trup, & Greenberg, 2011; Suskind et al., 2013).

ECE professionals regard language competency and social skills as critical to human develop- ment (Nelson, Welsh, et al., 2011; Russell, 2012). It is through language and social interac- tions that children explore the world, and they construct new understandings through these interactions. Consequently, a child who struggles with language or social skills will likely have other difficulties, since language and social interactions foster many other skills. For example, a child who cannot communicate her needs might develop behavioral issues that stem from feeling frustrated by not being able to have her needs met.

Because language and social skills are so vital to learning in general, it is important to assess them early and accurately. Many standardized tools are used to measure language skills from birth to school age. Although these can provide important information for eligibility and program monitoring, formative observations of childhood interactions during play pro- vide a richer and more authentic means of monitoring progress. Social skills can often be assessed by interviews, but individually designed charting systems that are aligned with spe- cific learner objectives are perhaps the most helpful tools for assessing children with social skill issues (see Figure 2.3).

Section 2.1Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different

Figure 2.3: Example of a charting system for behavioral intervention

ሁ This graph shows how many outbursts Winston makes with and without an intervention strategy in place. In the first baseline phase, he has 12 to 16 outbursts, which drop to 4 immediately and eventually to 0 during the first intervention. When intervention is removed in the second baseline, his outbursts increase again, though not to the original level—this demonstrates that it is the intervention that is responsible for the reduction in outbursts and not something else. Finally, the effects of the first intervention are replicated in the last intervention, where outbursts drop to near zero.

Winston: Behavioral Outbursts

Intervention

7 8 9 10 11 12654321

Days

N u

m b

e r

o f

b e

h a

vi o

ra l o

u tb

u rs

Baseline Baseline Intervention

Charting systems are used to track change across time in a way that makes growth visible. Charts can be as simple as a bar graphic that can be filled in as children make gradual prog- ress toward a goal. More sophisticated charts include bar or line graphs that show how much change has occurred and at what rate. By looking at a bar graph, children, parents, and profes- sionals can immediately see if progress is acceptable or if changes need to be made. Charts turn words and numbers into pictures, which are easier to interpret. Children also find it motivating to literally see what they have learned.

To illustrate, suppose Ms. Perry worked with 5-year-old Ariah for several weeks on number naming and was making little progress. Ms. Perry created a chart that looked like a moun- tain with a cherry on top and allowed Ariah to fill in a section of the mountain each day the child showed improvement. Ariah’s progress picked up rapidly when she was able to see her progress toward reaching the cherry. Each time she worked with Ms. Perry, Ariah could name more numbers and was able to color in more of the chart. Ms. Perry then showed and talked to Ariah about the amount of progress made (“Wow, Ariah, look how much of the mountain is covered up—that means you are really working hard to learn your numbers. You only have a little more to go before you reach the cherry on top!”).

Section 2.1Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different

The Services Models Are Different Infants and toddlers, preschoolers, and K–3 children are served by a wide array of providers, within and across age groups. Examples include the following:

• Some services are privately funded, others are nonprofit organizations, and others receive (at least some) local, state, and/or federal funding.

• Programs vary by delivery model. Prominent options include home visits, clinical programs, center-based or virtual classrooms, or combinations of these.

• Some programs are universal, serving all children of a particular age (such as 4-year- olds, 5-year-olds, or 6- to 8-year-olds), whereas others are targeted to one or more subgroups of children (such as children with disabilities, children from low-income families, dual language learners, or children who are homeless).

• Some programs are for infants and toddlers (for example, Part C and Early Head Start), some are only for 3- to 5-year-olds (pre-K), and others are for school-aged children (K–8).

• Programs vary by their level of care. Some provide babysitting and private in-home child care, while others provide intensive programs staffed by multidisciplinary teams that may include educators, speech therapists, social workers, health care professionals, psychologists, and physical or occupational therapists.

• Programs vary by philosophy of education (such as academic, Montessori, reli- giously sponsored, constructivist, and Reggio).

The differences in service models described above have implications for assessment. For example, state-sponsored programs must follow state-approved priorities for assessment, whereas private and nonprofit programs may follow their own dictates to a greater extent. In addition, real-time, remote assessments have become possible as new approaches to teach- ing and learning—such as virtual classrooms—have evolved. With regard to philosophy, an assessment used in one setting may be not only ineffective but actually inappropriate in another. It is clear that for now, at least, ECE is more a kaleidoscope than a master plan.

The Pedagogy and Curriculum Are Different Because philosophy sets a framework for instruction, there is naturally some overlap between philosophy and curriculum. Child-directed learning, which is driven by children’s individual needs and interests, is central to play-based, project-based, and language-based philosophies. Although child-directed learning strongly aligns with developmentally appropriate practice and ECE philosophy, there is conflicting information about whether it is successful in K–12 programs. Some research indicates that teacher-led and student-sensitive teaching is more effective for older students than student-led programs (Hattie, 2009).

As mentioned, the role of early childhood education is to put children on the path toward edu- cational success. The once disparate entities serving very young children and older children are increasingly working from the same playbook, paving the way for a future in which there is a seamless transition from early intervention to pre-K to K–12 (NAEYC, 2009a). However, there remains a clear difference between readying children for academic instruction and aca- demic instruction itself.

The philosophy of early childhood—one of nurturing and developing self-efficacy—runs counter to the stressful conditions of teaching to be tested and testing itself (Madaus & St. John, 2012). Early childhood programs provide the groundwork for social and behavioral

Section 2.1Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different

maturity—referred to as self-regulation—as well as metacognitive and early academic readi- ness, or being prepared for academic instruction (such as phonemic awareness in literacy). Thus, using high-stakes testing procedures with very young children may be counterproduc- tive, as these focus on standardized methods that are not effective when assessing learning through child-centered approaches. As high-stakes test- ing for older students narrows the curriculum to focus on skills that are aligned to the tests, important early childhood curricular practices, such as sensitivity to development and child interest, risk being lost in pur- suit of test preparation.

This loss of curricular practices has already happened in kindergarten programs, in which play is now less common than traditional academic instruction (Nicolopoulou, 2010). The same loss of play is beginning to occur in pre-K programs as well (Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff, Berk, & Singer, 2009). The gradual decline of the inclusion of play in the ECE curriculum has major implications for ECE educators as they struggle to implement academic content with children who may not be cognitively, emotionally, or physically ready.

The Tools of Assessment Are Different Given the many ways in which early childhood education is different from K–12 education, it makes sense that the tools of assessment are different, too. Assessment practices must mirror teaching and learning priorities. As early childhood education remains committed to devel- opmentally appropriate philosophies and practices, formal tools (including standardized screening, diagnostic, and ability tests) are typically based on developmental progressions.

More specifically, different ECE assessment tools are based on an underlying theory of devel- opment (for example, Vygotsky’s social learning theory, Piaget’s cognitive stage theory, Kolb’s learning styles and experiential learning theory, Gesell’s maturational theory, Skin- ner’s behavioral theory, or the relatively new work in brain-behavior theory). Standardized, curriculum-referenced, and standards-based assessments are similarly aligned with respec- tive developmental theory benchmarks. These formal assessments are often administered as interviews or through a series of brief testing sessions, which is much different than the paper–pencil, multihour standardized testing administered to older children.

Because curricular foci are different, assessment of social and emotional competencies, lan- guage development, play behavior, and personal independence skills tend to involve standard measurements that use unique ECE-specific tools (such as social competency) or are part of more general ECE assessments that cover all developmental domains. Some assessments are similar to those used for older children but are modified for young children. An example is a functional behavioral assessment (FBA). This is used to identify why a child might engage in behaviors that interfere with his or her learning and/or the learning of others, or behaviors that impact his or her safety and the safety of others. FBA procedures for very young children would follow the same principles as those for older children, but their implementation would be modified to take into account factors such as maturation of joint attention, environmental conditions, and developmental and language skills.

Figure 2.4 illustrates one part of an FBA: the interview. Two patterns emerge in this example. First, Jude’s aggressive behaviors are frequently triggered by frustration when things are not going his way. Second, his mother consistently responds to Jude’s aggression by threatening

Reflection How do child-centered learning and academic readiness priorities work with each other?

http://www.toolsofthemind.org/philosophy/vygotskian-approach/

http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cognition/piaget.html

http://www.simplypsychology.org/learning-kolb.html

http://www.gesellinstitute.org/about-us/gesell-theory/

http://www.kidsdevelopment.co.uk/bfskinnersbehaviouraltheory.html

http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/fba/

Section 2.1Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different

to take away privileges—a consequence that does not seem to have an impact. Based on this preliminary analysis in which Jude received attention only when he acted out, one might hypothesize that Jude is communicating a need for social attention. Further analysis to test this hypothesis is needed to complete the FBA.

Figure 2.4: Sample FBA observation ሁ This FBA shows patterns of behavior as well as the antecedent behaviors and their consequences.

An antecedent is something that happens before a behavior and serves as a trigger, and consequences are events that happen immediately after behavior that maintain behaviors. In this example, small frustrations (antecedents) trigger outbursts such as throwing and shouting and are usually followed (consequences) by threats. Appropriate behaviors go without consequences.

Student:

Time BehaviorAntecedent Consequences

12:00– 12:02

12:02– 12:04

12:04– 12:06

12:06– 12:08

12:08– 12:10

Jude throws train car.Train set; train falls off track.

Mom: “Jude, if you throw the car again, I will take it away.”

Jude hits brother.Brother walks across room and knocks train off tracks.

Mom: “Don’t hit, Jude. If you do that again, you will go to your room.”

Jude makes train sounds and continues playing.

Train stays on track. None

Jude �xes train and resumes play.

Train becomes derailed.

Jude stops play, kicks train, and runs to other room.

TV is turned on in other room.

None

Mom: “Jude, if you do not get back here and pick up your train set, you cannot watch TV.”

Date: 7/10/14

Parent: Observer: Abby

Activity:

Jude

Jenny

Play time

Other relevant information:

• Jude was interested in impressing the observer with his activities.

• His seizure activity is a serious concern, and hot sunny days can be an issue.

Formative assessment tools used in early intervention do not vary as much in format as they do in the object of their evaluation, because behavior targets, as well as the context in which they may be used, are different for ECE. Informal and ongoing assessments must be aligned accordingly to validly and reliably measure a child’s progress. Because the tools of assess- ment can be complicated (as illustrated in the FBA example), most assessments require train- ing. Early childhood personnel should receive quality training so they can competently use assessments in terms of their content (to understand what is being measured) and also their administration methods (to understand how tools are used).

Section 2.1Assessment in Early Childhood Is Different

The Training Is Different Fewer than 30% of full-time ECE personnel have a bachelor’s degree in a related education field (see Figure 2.5) (Bassok, Fitzpatrick, Loeb, & Paglayan, 2013). Compare this to K–12 educators, 100% of whom hold a bachelor’s degree, and more than 50% of whom hold a master’s degree or higher (Feistritzer, Griffin, & Linnajarvi, 2011). This is not a criticism of ECE personnel; rather, it suggests that many early childhood caregivers and educators may lack formal training in assessment practices. Yet these same ECE personnel are under tremen- dous pressure to use assessment more intentionally in order to inform the learning process, monitor progress, and know when goals have or have not been achieved. Consequently, there is a need for mentoring, in-service training, interagency collaboration, and the adoption of educator-friendly measurements to ensure that assessment takes place and has reliable and valid results that are reached with fidelity.

Figure 2.5: Percentage of early childhood educators with a bachelor’s degree across settings

ሁ The need for additional training, particularly where assessment is concerned, becomes apparent when looking at the number of ECE educators lacking a bachelor’s degree.

1992

2010

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

15%

22% 24%

57% 61%

100% 100%

ECE Home Based ECE Center Based ECE School Based K-12 Public Educators Source: Bassok, Fitzpatrick, Loeb, & Paglayan, 2013.

The NAEYC (2006) articulated expectations for teacher qualifications in the Early Childhood Program Standards. Standard 6.0 is broken into 14 criteria to determine teacher quality, one of which is a credentialing item requiring 100% of teachers to have at least an associate’s degree and 75% to have a bachelor’s degree. Comparing this recommendation with the 2010 statistics in Figure 2.5, you can see that school-based programs are close to achieving this recommenda- tion, though home-based and center-based programs are far from meeting this goal.

The expectation that ECE professionals participate in and provide leadership of local, state, and national advocacy activities is high, as dictated by NAEYC assessment criteria. Yet EC

https://www.naeyc.org/files/academy/file/OverviewStandards.pdf

http://www.naeyc.org/academy/files/academy/file/AllCriteriaDocument.pdf

Section 2.2Assessment in Early Childhood Is Not Significantly Different

personnel also include many noneducators who serve children and their families. Many of these personnel are prepared to conduct assessments specific to their discipline. For exam- ple, a physical therapist will conduct motor assessments, whereas a speech therapist will con- duct communication, language, and perhaps social assessments. When teams of professionals work together, they may or may not work across disciplines to assess, plan, and intervene with children and families. The most successful approach is often a transdisciplinary model of assessment, in which professional boundaries are blurred and all members of the team are capable of some degree of evaluation across domains.

Because of the many ways early childhood education differs from that of older children, assessments must be designed to take into account the nature of these differ- ences. That being said, very young children and their older counterparts also have many things in common. These similarities are reflected in the nature of educa- tion services and in assessment.

2.2 Assessment in Early Childhood Is Not Significantly Different

Although there are special considerations to take into consideration when assessing very young children, EC assessment is actually more similar than different from the assessment of older children. Although ECE personnel need to keep in mind the nuances in assessment explained earlier, they will find that many of the same principles, practices, and tools are used at all levels of education.

The Purposes of Assessment Are the Same The overarching purpose of assessment is to help improve the quality of services so as to enhance children’s potential and guide the practices of EC professionals. More specifically, assessments are used to plan and monitor an individual’s progress, to compare students with each other, to determine if children are eligible for special services, and to evaluate teacher and program effectiveness. Although assessment is but one part of the educational process, it is integral to improving outcomes. Formative evaluation ranks as one of the three most valu- able assets (behind reinforcement of children and instructional quality) in supporting high student achievement (Hattie, 2009).

Standardized assessment is also valuable. In one interesting study, teacher effectiveness rela- tive to student achievement was compared using high-stakes tests and low-stakes tests—tests used to measure progress and guide instruction, but on which no major decisions would be based—which were statistically comparable to each other (Corcoran, Jennings, & Beveridge, 2011). The researchers found that not only did teachers have a greater positive impact on low-stakes test performance, but that this impact persisted across a teacher’s career on low- stakes tests. Meanwhile, this impact dwindled on high-stakes tests. This research suggests that as a mechanism for school reform, high-stakes testing is probably unnecessary and may even be counterproductive. Ironically, it appears that low-stakes standardized tests tend to positively affect teaching quality, though the researchers suggested that more investigation was necessary to determine why this might be.

Reflection What kind of training and support do you feel would best prepare you to become a highly qualified professional in the area of assessment?

Section 2.2Assessment in Early Childhood Is Not Significantly Different

Standardized Tools Are Standardized Tools Although the actual items and administration protocols may be different on screening, devel- opmental-achievement, and ability-testing tools, standardized tools serve the same pur- pose and have the same technical requirements regardless of the targeted population. Part of the assessment process involves carefully selecting standardized tools to fit the purposes described earlier. ECE personnel should review test documentation to determine if they have established validity (that is, if the test does what it is supposed to do in terms of measuring targeted behavior), reliability (if the test measures target behavior consistently or depend- ably), and mechanisms to determine the absence of bias. Sometimes, tools have been selected and purchased by others, and ECE personnel lack the luxury of choosing for themselves. In these cases data gathered by tools that have weak technical documentation should be given light consideration and combined with additional evidence of child performance.

One of the most overlooked aspects of test documentation is cultural, racial, and language representation used in norming tests. If test developers did not include children who are culturally, racially, and linguistically like the children to whom a test is being administered, there might be underlying biases that could impact the results. This is due to the fact that there is no way to compare how children of one cultural, racial, or linguistic background did in comparison to other children when all other variables were controlled, so the test might favor certain children. For example, if test developers only gave a math test to children whose first language is English, they would not know if the test was accessible to children who speak a primary language other than English. Consequently, the nonnative speakers might perform poorly on the math exam, not because they do not understand math concepts, but because they are not fluent in English, and the results might be misinterpreted.

Perhaps the most common reason for administering standardized tests in early childhood is to determine eligibility for special services. As explained earlier, federal requirements are very specific about how assessment for special services is to be conducted. The legal require- ments for serving children with disabilities are the same, with exception of the additional requirements for infants and toddlers to include families.

Formative Assessment Follows the Same Principles Although actual assessments may vary in terms of the weight placed on various methods and the targets of assessment, many of the tools and principles of formative assessment are the same. These principles include:

• aligning the assessment measurement to the target behavior being taught, • conducting frequent, ongoing assessment, • using assessment to provide immediate feedback, • using assessment outcomes to finely tune intervention, • recalibrating assessment fidelity often, and • adopting a team approach.

Regardless of children’s age, formative assessment relies on frequent and targeted measure- ment of change that permits professionals to respond quickly when changes need to be made. Although parents are more likely to be continuously involved in the early years, they always remain an important member of intervention teams. Not only are teams of concerned adults more likely to recognize nuanced changes in children’s development, but team members can work together to find solutions when necessary.

Section 2.2Assessment in Early Childhood Is Not Significantly Different

Other Assessment Trends Are Similar Keeping in mind the unique contextual factors associated with EC assessment, there are a number of similarities in assessment trends that exist from ECE through K–12 and beyond. Generally speaking, these consistencies exist because the trends are grounded in best prac- tices and are important components of assessment regardless of the population with which they are being used.

Authentic Assessment Authentic activities are not new to the field of early childhood education, though articula- tion of and research evidence for routines-based, project-based, problem-based, and other such methods bring clarity to practices that early childhood educators have been using for decades. Similarly, authentic assessment procedures used to measure children’s behavior are the same tools educators use with older children. According to Bagnato and Simeons- son (2009), there are four major differences between authentic assessment and conventional assessment practices:

• Where behavior is measured (in natural contexts, rather than decontextualized test- ing settings)

• What is measured (valuable behaviors that are teachable and functional to a child, rather than behaviors unrelated to the skills needed to function best)

• How behavior is measured (observing behavior while the child is engaged in natural daily activities, rather than contrived testing conditions)

• Who collects assessment data (a member of child’s intervention team rather than an external psychometrist, a psychology technologist who has a limited relationship with the child)

The actual place, behaviors, routines, and persons involved in authentic early childhood assess- ment vary in school-age assessment. Generally, the where, what, how, and who of authentic practices is grounded in the real world regardless of age—real environments, meaningful knowledge and skills, real daily routines, and known persons who conduct assessment. When assessment is authentic, children are likely to be most comfortable and willing to perform at their highest level. Finally, since the purpose of educating children is so they can navigate in the real world, we can best determine if children are learning to do so by conducting assess- ment in natural contexts.

Standards-Driven Curriculum Is Part of the Same Movement Early childhood education is undergoing major changes that are similar in their source (political) and in their objective (higher academic achievement scores) that align with changes in K–12 over the past 15 years. In 1999 only 10 states used early learning stan- dards. Today all 50 states have early learning standards for birth through kindergarten (also referred to as early learning guidelines) (National Institute for Early Education Research, 2012). As with the Common Core Standards, there are two main purposes for developing learning standards: (a) to establish benchmarks, and (b) to foster equity across programs. The implication of these standards is that they will become the basis of assessment and accountability.

http://www.apa.org/ed/schools/cpse/early-learning/states.aspx

Section 2.2Assessment in Early Childhood Is Not Significantly Different

21st-Century Learning Skills Are the Same In many ways early childhood education has been ahead of the game with respect to the 21st- century learning skills of teamwork, critical thinking, communication, creativity and innova- tion, and technology. For example, early childhood pro- grams focus on social skills (teamwork) by fostering cooperative play in the sandbox or block center. The greatest advantage of social play is learning how things work, how to put things together, and how to resolve social- and activity-based problems, all of which sup- port critical thinking in young children.

As for a focus on communication, most early childhood programs are language based and fos- ter language development in the context of positive relationships between infants and family, as well as between ECE personnel and children. Through imaginative play, blocks, painting, music, drama, and dramatic reading, very young children encounter the fundamentals of creativity. With regard to technology, EC professionals are thoughtfully cautious about the types (for example, multimedia, computer, tablet, phone) and uses (for example, games, social media, learning applications) for young digital learners (Blackwell, Lauricella, Wartella, Robb, & Schomburg, 2013). Technology in the EC environment is covered more extensively later in this section.

Data-Driven Decision Making The effects of No Child Left Behind are being felt in early childhood as data-driven decision making has entered the conversation. Collecting data is arguably the easiest part of assess- ment, but using data to make decisions is both more challenging and the step that completes the teaching–learning process (Gullo, 2013). Data-driven decision making makes data rel- evant by using the information collected to inform decisions and the course of action. A com- mitment to DDDM should help early childhood professionals improve quality of services to young children without compromising curricular priorities (Gullo, 2013). Examples of DDDM from Head Start are the Head Start Child Development and Early Learning Framework and the Good Start, Grow Smart Initiative, which are used to show progress toward important child outcomes (Jackson, Pretti-Frontczak, Harjusola-Webb, Grisham-Brown, & Romani, 2009).

Response to Intervention Since response to intervention is both an early response and an intervention approach to achievement gaps, it makes sense that the earlier the intervention, the greater chance there is to make a difference. Although RTI was first introduced for K–12 students, it has made its way to the early childhood environment. This movement was facilitated by wide-scale adoption of the early learning standards and aforementioned increased interest in the welfare of very young children (Jackson et al., 2009).

For school-aged children, the three curricular foci of RTI are reading, mathematics, and behav- ior. However, these three priorities are neither sufficient nor a direct fit for preschool and early intervention. Some early educators are working to adapt the RTI model for ECE, with three models emerging: the recognition and response model (Lieberman-Betz, Vail, & Chai,

Reflection Do you think that play-based learning is a valid way to help children develop 21st-century skills? If so, in what way? If not, why not?

http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/hs/sr/approach/cdelf

http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED499401.pdf

http://randr.fpg.unc.edu/

Section 2.2Assessment in Early Childhood Is Not Significantly Different

2013), the Center for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood (Greenwood et al., 2011), and the curricular framework model (Jackson et al., 2009). The fact that three models have

emerged highlights the need to adapt RTI to early child- hood education, based on a general consensus about how those adaptations should look. Nevertheless, there is universal agreement regarding some of the basic ele- ments of RTI in ECE, such as tiered support and prog- ress monitoring that includes both formative and sum- mative information.

Technology Although K–12 programs continually feel inadequate in their efforts to keep pace with the evolution of technology, early childhood educators have been more hesitant about the rush to digitalize (Parette, Quesenberry, & Blum, 2010). Although research tends to find only benefits in areas such as literacy (Burnett, 2010), motivation to learn, and knowledge and understand- ing of the world (Plowman, Stevenson, Stephen, & McPake, 2012), some educators are fearful that too much technology will harm social and behavioral development.

Some ECE personnel have argued that digital curricula are incompatible with developmen- tally appropriate practices (Plowman & McPake, 2013). However, Plowman and McPake (2013) argued that many myths about technology in early childhood are unsupported by actual research. For example, they found no evidence that very young children’s health is affected in a detrimental way, such as becoming obsessed with technology.

Technology innovations are now so powerful, useful, interesting, and affordable, they are available everywhere in young children’s lives, except in many early childhood settings, where traditional educators are either unprepared or unwilling to integrate technology into curricula (Parette et al., 2010). Because curricular decisions are of great importance—not only in what we do but what we do not do—caution regarding technology is not necessarily unwelcome. It is far too early to know the immediate or long-term effects of early immersion in technology.

What we do know already, however, is that for preschoolers, some technology may enhance learning while other technologies and unbalanced use of technology poses a risk to child development (Howard-Jones, 2011). Howard-Jones (2011) cautioned educators to “pay attention” to children for evidence that technology use is harmful (such as violent play, sleeplessness, attention problems, and immature social interactions) or helpful (such as whether it fosters engagement, skill development, digital competency, and peer interac- tions). By paying attention, teachers are in essence being asked to carefully assess children and to continually monitor their progress across behaviors. Making a connection between technology use and children’s outcomes is tricky and requires skillful consideration of the measurements used.

Reflection How does assessment complement standards- based curriculum, data-driven decision making, and RTI so as to support learning in ECE?

http://crtiec.org/

Summary and Resources

Chapter Summary The testing culture that began in earnest with the passage of No Child Left Behind continues to influence early childhood practices. Specifically, the emphasis of high-stakes measurement of achievement and “consequential accountability” has already shifted practices toward aca- demic activities and measurement and away from developmental activities and assessment (Tyler, 2012).

Controversy surrounding reforms is likely to continue for some time, with policy makers arguing for greater emphasis on school readiness and traditional early childhood stakehold- ers continuing to value a child-directed pedagogy (Brown, 2013). Despite the fact that Brown (2013) suggested that there is a readiness within ECE ranks to consider preschool reform, the battle of philosophies will no doubt be heated. A review of the NAEYC’s (2009b) position statement on school readiness illustrates the continued commitment to a developmentally based curricula by stating a preference for both child and teacher directed activities, where children are actively engaged and where the curriculum is based on authentic learning.

As has been discussed in this chapter, young children have a wide range of abilities and fall along a spectrum of development, which impacts each child’s school readiness. Consequently, it is critical that teachers—particularly those who work with young children—understand the importance of sound definitions of behavior—and how to select and use appropriate tools that best capture growth of those behaviors—in order to make intervention decisions that will best support learning.

Posttest 1. Assessment in early childhood has gained momentum for all of the following reasons

EXCEPT . a. data from assessments can be used for comparative purposes b. young children are more capable than previously believed c. data can be used to study the impact of investing in ECE d. assessments are used to document children’s progress

2. Early intervention is grounded in a approach. a. data-driven b. project-based c. family-centered d. standards-based

3. Developmentally appropriate practice is . a. child centered b. teacher directed c. standards based d. grade leveled

Summary and Resources

4. Impaired cognitive development, ADHD, anxiety, and delayed executive functioning are all possible results of . a. early intervention b. excessive assessment c. adverse conditions d. play-based learning

5. Readiness refers to children who . a. are eager to learn b. have purchased the supplies necessary for school c. have passed required exams d. are prepared for academic instruction

6. The overarching purpose of assessment is to . a. monitor teacher practices b. improve the quality of services c. justify public education d. comply with No Child Left Behind

7. ECE personnel should review assessments to ensure that they are all of the following EXCEPT . a. easy to read b. valid c. free of bias d. reliable

8. Formative assessment should be . a. timed b. performed annually c. reported to the state d. frequent and ongoing

9. A major difference between authentic assessment and conventional assessment is .

a. why behavior is measured b. when behavior is measured c. where behavior is measured d. who results are reported to

10. Data-driven decision making is . a. mandated by the state b. used to guide decision making c. primarily used in early intervention d. not used in ECE

Answers: 1 (b), 2 (c), 3 (a), 4 (c), 5 (d), 6 (b), 7 (a), 8 (d), 9 (c), 10 (b)

Summary and Resources

Critical-Thinking and Discussion Questions 1. In what ways do the NAEYC’s and the DEC’s stances on assessment align? In what

ways do they differ? 2. How do ECE professionals work with families during the assessment process and

early intervention? 3. Why is it necessary to approach assessment in early childhood differently than

assessment of older children? 4. In what ways are assessments similar, regardless of the age of the learners? 5. How can ECE professionals ensure that assessment is developmentally appropriate?

Additional Resources Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (Eds). (2010). Developmentally appropriate practice in early

childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8 (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Childhood.

The NAEYC offers a number of books, journal articles and videos specifically related to assessment. http://www.naeyc.org/store/taxonomy/view/1449

Zero to Three is a website provided through the National Center for Infants, Toddlers, and Families. http://zerotothree.org

Answers and Rejoinders to Chapter Pretest 1. False. Young children are different from older children in many ways (including age,

neurological development, and thus, appropriate services). 2. True. It is important to garner family support and participation in assessment of

young children, particularly regarding early intervention. 3. False. Early intervention can be approached in a variety of ways and should be

unique to the child and family. 4. True. Tenets of strong assessment—such as reliability, validity, and being free of

bias—hold true regardless of the age of the child. 5. False. Although young children may not be able to complete paper–pencil assess-

ments, there are a wide range of ways to assess what they know and can do.

Rejoinders to Posttest 1. Data from assessments are being used more and more frequently to compare pro-

grams, study the impact of ECE, and document children’s progress. 2. A family-centered approach is regarded as most beneficial and natural in early

intervention. 3. Developmentally appropriate practice is based on a child-centered approach to

teaching and learning. 4. Adverse conditions can have a variety of negative implications for the young, vulner-

able brain. 5. Readiness refers the degree to which children are ready for academic instruction.

http://www.naeyc.org/store/taxonomy/view/1449

http://zerotothree.org/

Summary and Resources

6. Assessment is intended to improve the quality of services by providing data to guide decision making.

7. It is important that assessments be reliable, valid, and bias free in order to ensure that they are effective.

8. Formative assessment should be frequent and ongoing in order to document chil- dren’s growth over time.

9. Authentic assessment and conventional assessment may have the same reasons for being performed, and timing may make no difference. However, authentic assess- ments are performed in natural settings, whereas conventional measures are not.

10. Data-driven decision making is being used with more frequency in ECE to help guide informed decision making.

Key Terms child-directed learning Learning that is primarily dictated by individual children’s development, needs, and interests.

developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) Intervention practices, including assessment learning, that align intentional teaching choices with meeting children where they are developmentally.

early childhood education (ECE) profes- sionals Individuals who work in the field of education pertaining to young children.

early intervention A service provided to infants and toddlers who show developmen- tal difficulties or delays.

executive functioning Cognitive ability that involves the capacity to organize and plan.

family-centered approach An approach to early intervention based on support in the context of the family.

functional behavioral assessment (FBA) An assessment process used to identify what unsatisfied needs children are communicating through inappropriate behavior.

neuroplasticity The rapid growth of neurons and new neural connections experi- enced by very young children.

person-first language Language that places the person word before the disability word.

play-based learning Learning that is grounded in the philosophy that children learn through play.

pluralistic A philosophy that argues that multiple approaches are most successful in early intervention.

project-based learning Learning that allows children to explore content through projects with supplemental guidance from teachers.

psychometrist A psychology technolo- gist who often administers psychological assessments.

readiness The capability to begin formal schooling, usually in kindergarten.

routines-based learning Learning that provides early intervention support through regular happenings in children’s homes.

transdisciplinary model Evaluation in which members of a team provide numerous assessments that are used together in order to provide a complete picture of the child.