8084 Dis2 Module 1

1

Introduction

High-quality early education produces long-lasting benefits (Schweinhart & Weikart 1997; National Re- search Council & Institute of Medicine 2000; Peisner- Feinberg et al. 2000; National Research Council 2001; Reynolds et al. 2001; Campbell et al. 2002). With this evidence, federal, state, and local decision makers are asking critical questions about young children’s educa- tion. What should children be taught in the years from birth through age eight? How would we know if they are developing well and learning what we want them to learn? And how could we decide whether programs for children from infancy through the primary grades are doing a good job?

Answers to these questions—questions about early childhood curriculum, child assessment, and program evalu- ation—are the foundation of the joint position statement from the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE).

Overview

This document begins by summarizing the position of NAEYC and NAECS/SDE about what is needed in an effective system of early childhood education—a system that supports a reciprocal relationship among

curriculum, child assessment, and program evaluation. Next, the document outlines the position statement’s background and intended effects. It describes the major trends, new understandings, and contemporary issues that have influenced the position statement’s recom- mendations. With this background, the document then outlines the principles and values that guide an inter- connected system of curriculum, child assessment, and program evaluation. We emphasize that such a system must be linked to and guided by early learning stan- dards and early childhood program standards that are consistent with professional recommendations (NAEYC & NAECS/SDE 2002; NAEYC 2003).

Next, key recommendations, rationales, and indica- tors of effectiveness are presented for each of these components, accompanied by frequently asked ques- tions. Although the recommendations and indicators will generally apply to children across the birth–eight age range, in many cases the recommendations need developmental adaptation and fine-tuning. Where possible, the position statement notes these adapta- tions or special considerations. To further illustrate these developmental considerations, each component is accompanied by a chart (pp. 19-26) that gives ex- amples of how the recommendations would be imple- mented with infants and toddlers, preschoolers, and kindergarten-primary grade children. This resource concludes by describing examples of the support and resources needed to develop effective systems of curriculum, child assessment, and program evaluation.

Early Childhood Curriculum, Assessment, and Program Evaluation

Building an Effective, Accountable System in Programs for Children Birth through Age 8

POSITION STATEMENT

WITH EXPANDED RESOURCES

This resource is based on the 2003 Joint Position Statement of the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE). It includes the statement of position, recommendations, and indicators of effectiveness of the position statement, as well as an overview of relevant trends and issues, guiding principles and values, a rationale for each recommendation, frequently asked questions, and developmental charts.

Position Statement Adopted November 2003

2

The Position

The National Association for the Education of Young Children and the National Association of Early Child- hood Specialists in State Departments of Education take the position that policy makers, the early childhood profession, and other stakeholders in young children’s lives have a shared responsibility to

• construct comprehensive systems of curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation guided by sound early childhood practices, effective early learning standards and program standards, and a set of core principles and values: belief in civic and democratic values; commitment to ethical behavior on behalf of children; use of important goals as guides to action; coordinated systems; support for children as individu- als and members of families, cultures,1 and communi- ties; partnerships with families; respect for evidence; and shared accountability. • implement curriculum that is thoughtfully planned, challenging, engaging, developmentally appropriate,2

culturally and linguistically responsive, comprehensive, and likely to promote positive outcomes for all young children. • make ethical, appropriate, valid, and reliable assess- ment a central part of all early childhood programs. To assess young children’s strengths, progress, and needs, use assessment methods that are developmentally appropriate, culturally and linguistically responsive, tied to children’s daily activities, supported by profes- sional development, inclusive of families, and con- nected to specific, beneficial purposes: (1) making sound decisions about teaching and learning, (2) identifying significant concerns that may require focused intervention for individual children, and (3) helping programs improve their educational and developmental interventions. • regularly engage in program evaluation guided by program goals and using varied, appropriate, conceptu- ally and technically sound evidence, to determine the extent to which programs meet the expected standards of quality and to examine intended as well as unin- tended results.

• provide the support, professional development, and other resources to allow staff in early childhood programs to implement high-quality curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation practices and to connect those practices with well-defined early learning standards and program standards.

Position Statements’ Intended Effects

In developing and disseminating position state- ments, NAEYC, NAECS/SDE, and their partner organizations aim to

• take informed positions on significant, controver- sial issues affecting young children’s education and development3 —in this case, issues related to curriculum development and implementation, the purposes and uses of assessment data, and benefits and risks in accountability systems for early childhood programs.

• promote broad-based dialogue on these issues, within and beyond the early childhood field.

• create a shared language and evidence-based frame of reference so that practitioners, decision makers, and families may talk together about early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation and their relationship to early learning standards and program standards.

• influence public policies—in this case, those related to early childhood curriculum development, adoption, and implementation; child assessment practices; and program evaluation practices—one by one and as these fit together into a coherent educational system linked to child outcomes or standards.

• stimulate investments needed to create acces- sible, affordable, high-quality learning environ- ments and professional development that support the implementation of excellent early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation.

• build more satisfying experiences and better educational and developmental outcomes for all young children.

1 The term culture includes ethnicity, racial identity, economic class, family structure, language, and religious and political beliefs, which profoundly influence each child’s development and relationship to the world.

2 NAEYC defines developmentally appropriate practices as those that “result from the process of professionals making decisions about the well-being and education of children based on at least three important kinds of information or knowledge: what is known about child development and learning…; what is known about the strengths, interests, and needs of each individual child in the group…; and knowledge of the social and cultural contexts in which children live” (Bredekamp & Copple 1997, 8–9).

3 In this context, development is defined as the social, emotional, physical, and cognitive changes in children stimulated by biological maturation interacting with experience.

3

Trends and Issues

Since 1990, significant trends and contemporary issues, research findings, and new understandings of and changes in practice have influenced early childhood education. Many changes have had positive effects on the field and on the infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and kindergarten-primary children who are enrolled in early childhood programs. Other changes are less positive, raising concerns about how they may affect children’s development, learning, and access to services.

To provide a context for the recommendations that follow, we outline some of these issues.

1. The contexts and needs of children, families, programs, and early childhood staff have

changed significantly.

A snapshot taken today of the children and families served by our country’s early childhood programs would look very different from one taken in 1990. Many more children would appear in the picture, as ever- higher proportions of children attend child care, Head Start, preschool, family child care, and other programs (Lombardi 2003; NIEER 2003). In more and more fami- lies, both parents work, further increasing the demand for child care, especially for infants and toddlers (Paulsell et al. 2002; Lombardi 2003). These changes in families’ needs have influenced staffing patterns, hours of care, and other characteristics of programs for children before school entry, while also affecting the experiences children bring with them to kindergarten, first grade, and beyond.

The diversity of the U.S. population continues to expand, creating a far more multiethnic, multiracial, multireligious, and multicultural context for early childhood education. By the year 2030, 40 percent of all school-age children will have a home language other than English (Thomas & Collier 1997). Early childhood programs now include large numbers of immigrant children and children born to new immigrant parents, young children whose home language is not English, children living in poverty, and children with disabilities (Brennan et al. 2001; DHHS 2002; Rosenzweig, Brennan, & Ogilvie 2002; Annie E. Casey Foundation 2003; Hodgkinson 2003; U.S. Census Bureau 2003). These demographic trends have implications for decisions about curriculum, assessment practices, and evalua- tions of the effectiveness of early childhood programs.

Over the past decade, programs serving young children and families have also changed. Full-day and full-year child care and Head Start programs have expanded. Early Head Start did not exist in 1990, and few states offered prekindergarten programs either on a universal or targeted basis. In contrast, Early Head Start

in 2003 served approximately 62,000 low-income children from birth through age three (3 percent of the eligible children) and their families (ACF 2003), and 42 states and the District of Columbia had invested in prekindergarten programs based in or linked with public schools (Mitchell 2001), although most served relatively small numbers of children identified as living in poverty and at risk of school failure. Full-day kin- dergarten is now common in many school districts; in 2002, 25 states and the District of Columbia funded full- day kindergarten, at least in districts that chose to offer these services (Quality Counts 2002). Head Start programs increasingly collaborate with other early education programs, including state-funded pre- kindergarten programs, community-based child care providers, and local elementary schools (Head Start Program Performance Standards 1996; Lombardi 2003). Any new recommendations with respect to early childhood curriculum, child assessment, and program evaluation must take this expanded scope into account and must recognize the difficulties of coordinating and evaluating such a diverse array of programs.

National reports and government mandates have raised expectations for the formal education and training of early childhood teachers, especially in Head Start and in state-funded prekindergarten programs (National Research Council 2001; ASPE 2003). Teachers today are expected to implement more effective and challenging curriculum in language, literacy, mathemat- ics, and other areas and to use more complex assess- ments of children’s progress (National Research Council 2001). Both preschool teachers and teachers in kinder- garten and the primary grades are expected to introduce academic content and skills to ever-younger children. These expectations, and the expanding number of early childhood programs, make the field’s staffing crisis even more urgent, since the increased expectations have not been matched by increased incentives and opportunities for professional development.

The early childhood field lacks adequate numbers of qualified and sufficiently trained staff to implement appropriate, effective curriculum and assessment. Turnover continues to exceed 30 percent annually (Whitebook et al. 2001; Lombardi 2003), and compensa- tion for early childhood educators continues to be inadequate and inequitable (Laverty et al. 2001). The staff turnover rate is greatly affected by a number of program characteristics, including the adequacy of compensation. All early childhood settings—including public-school-based programs—are experiencing critical shortages and turnover of qualified teachers, especially in areas that serve children who are at the highest risk for negative outcomes and who most need outstanding teachers (Keller 2003; Quality Counts 2003).

4

2. Evidence has accumulated about the value of high-quality, well-planned curriculum and

child assessment.

In recent years, national reports and national organi- zations’ position statements have sounded a consistent theme: Although children’s fundamental needs are the same as ever, children, including the youngest children, are capable of learning more—and more complex— language, concepts, and skills than had been previously thought (National Research Council 2000; National Research Council & Institute of Medicine 2000; National Research Council 2001; Committee for Economic Development 2002).

We now have a better understanding of the early foun- dations of knowledge in areas such as literacy, math- ematics, visual and performing arts, and science. In each of these areas, new research (for example, NAEYC & IRA 1998; National Research Council 1998; NAEYC & NCTM 2002) has begun to describe the sequences in which children become more knowledgeable and com- petent. This research is increasingly useful in designing and implementing early childhood curriculum. Well- planned, evidence-based curriculum, implemented by qualified teachers who promote learning in appropriate ways, can contribute significantly to positive outcomes for all children. Yet research on the effectiveness of specific curricula for early childhood remains limited, especially with respect to curriculum effects on specific domains of development and learning and curriculum to support young children whose home language is not English and children with disabilities.

3. State and federal policies have created a new focus on early childhood standards, curriculum,

child assessment, and evaluation of early childhood programs.

Today, every state has K–12 standards specifying what children are expected to know and be able to do in various subject matter and/or developmental areas (Align to Achieve 2003). Head Start now has a Child Outcomes Framework (Head Start Bureau 2001), and a recent survey (Scott-Little, Kagan, & Frelow 2003) found that 39 states had or were developing standards for children below kindergarten age. As in the K–12 stan- dards movement, states are beginning to link curricu- lum frameworks to early childhood standards (Scott- Little, Kagan, & Frelow 2003). Especially in the arena of literacy, both federal and state expectations emphasize the need for “scientifically based research” to guide curriculum adoption and evaluations of curriculum effectiveness.

The trend toward systematic use of child assess- ments and program evaluations has also led to higher stakes being attached to these assessments—in prekindergarten and Head Start programs as well as in kindergarten and the primary grades, where state accountability systems often dominate instruction and assessment. State investments in pre-K programs often come with clear accountability expectations. At every level of education, in an increasingly high-stakes climate, programs unable to demonstrate effectiveness in improving readiness or creating positive child outcomes may be at risk of losing support.

4. Attention to early childhood education has sometimes led to misuses of curriculum,

assessment, and program evaluation.

Good intentions can backfire (Meisels 1992). In response to expectations that all programs should have a formal or explicit curriculum, programs sometimes adopt curricula that are of poor quality; align poorly with children’s age, culture, home language (Tabors 1997; Fillmore & Snow 2000), and other characteristics; or focus on unimportant, intellectually shallow content (National Research Council 2001; Espinosa 2002). In other cases, a curriculum may be well designed but may be implemented with teaching practices ill suited to young children’s characteristics and capacities (Bredekamp & Copple 1997). And few programs, districts, or states that adopt a particular curriculum track to see whether that curriculum is being implemented as intended and with good early childhood pedagogy.

Assessment practices in many preschools, kindergar- tens, and primary grade programs have become mismatched to children’s cultures or languages, ages, or developmental capacities. In an increasingly diverse society, interpretations of assessment results may fail to take into account the unique cultural aspects of children’s learning and relationships. As with curricu- lum, assessment instruments often focus on a limited range of skills, causing teachers to narrow their curricu- lum and teaching practices (that is, to “teach to the test”), especially when the stakes are high. An unin- tended result is often the loss of dedicated time for instruction in the arts or other areas in which high- stakes tests are not given.

In the press for results and accountability, basic tenets of appropriate assessment, as expressed by national professional organizations (for example, NASP 2002; AERA 2000; AERA, APA, & NCME 1999), are often vio- lated. Assessments or screening tools may fail to meet adequate technical standards (Glascoe & Shapiro

5

2002), or assessments designed for one purpose (such as to guide teaching strategies) may be used for entirely different and incompatible purposes (NAEYC & NAECS/SDE 2002; Scott-Little, Kagan, & Clifford 2003). An example is the use of screening results to evaluate program effectiveness or to exclude children from services.

Summary

In the years since the publication of NAEYC’s and NAECS/SDE’s original position statement on early childhood curriculum and assessment (1990), much more has become known about the power of high- quality curriculum, effective assessment practices, and ongoing program evaluation to support better out- comes for young children. Yet the infrastructure of the early childhood education system, within and outside the public schools, has not allowed this knowledge to be fully used—resulting in curriculum, assessment systems, and program evaluation procedures that are not of consistently high quality. An overarching concern is that these elements of high-quality early education— curriculum, child assessment, and program evalua- tion—are often addressed in disconnected and piece- meal fashion.

The promise of a truly integrated, effective system of early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation is great. Although much is not yet known, greater research knowledge exists than ever before, and policy makers are convinced that early education is the key to later success, especially for our most vulnerable children. Despite disagreements about how best to use this key, early childhood educators today have unprec- edented opportunities.

In taking advantage of these opportunities, clear principles and values are essential guides. Before turning to specific recommendations, the next section of this document proposes nine such principles.

Guiding Principles and Values

• Belief in civic and democratic values The values of a democratic society guide the position

statement’s recommendations. Respect for others; equality, fairness, and justice; the ability to think criti- cally and creatively; and community involvement are valued outcomes in early childhood programs. Deci- sions that affect young children, families, and programs involve stakeholders in democratic, respectful ways.

• Commitment to ethical behavior on behalf of children NAEYC’s Code of Ethical Conduct (NAEYC 1998) empha-

sizes that decisions about curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation must “first, do no harm”—never de- nying children access to services to which they are en- titled and always creating opportunities for children, fami- lies, and programs to experience beneficial results. • Use of important goals as guides to action

Clear, well-articulated goals that are developmentally and educationally significant—including early learning standards and program standards—direct the design and implementation of curriculum, assessment, and evaluation. These goals are public and are understood by all those who have a stake in the curriculum/ assessment/evaluation design and implementation. • Coordinated systems

The desired outcomes and content of the curriculum, the ways in which children’s progress is assessed, and the evaluation of program effectiveness are coordinated and connected in a positive, continuous way. • Support for children as individuals and as mem- bers of families, cultures, and communities

Curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation support children’s diversity, which includes not only children’s ages, individual learning styles, and tempera- ments but also their culture, racial identity, language, and the values of their families and communities. • Respect for children’s abilities and differences

All children—whatever their abilities or disabilities— are respected and included in systems of early educa- tion. Curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation promote the development and learning of children with and without disabilities. • Partnerships with families At all ages, but especially in the years from birth through age eight, children benefit from close partner- ships and ongoing communication between their families and their educational programs. • Respect for evidence

An effective system of curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation rests on a strong foundation of evidence. “Evidence” includes empirical research and well-documented professional deliberation and consen- sus, with differing weights given to differing types of evidence. • Shared accountability

NAEYC and NAECS/SDE believe that professionals are indeed accountable to the children, families, and communities they serve. Although many aspects of children’s lives are outside the influence of early

6

childhood programs, staff and administrators—as well as policy makers—must hold themselves accountable for providing all children with opportunities to reach essential developmental and educational goals.

Recommendations

This section presents recommendations for each of three critical elements of an effective system: curricu- lum, child assessment, and program evaluation. Each recommendation is followed by a rationale or justifica- tion. Next are listed indicators of effectiveness—what someone would be likely to see if the recommendation were well implemented. Because the position statement addresses the full birth–eight age range, appropriate distinctions are made wherever possible about how the recommendation or related indicators would be imple- mented with infants and toddlers, preschoolers, and kindergarten-primary children. A set of frequently asked questions is presented for each recommendation, and developmental charts provide examples that further elaborate these points.

Curriculum

Key Recommendation

Implement curriculum that is thoughtfully planned, challenging, engaging, developmentally appropriate, culturally and linguistically responsive, comprehensive, and likely to promote positive outcomes for all young children.

Rationale

Curriculum is more than a collection of enjoyable activities. Curriculum is a complex idea containing multiple components, such as goals, content, pedagogy, or instructional practices. Curriculum is influenced by many factors, including society’s values, content standards, accountability systems, research findings, community expectations, culture and language, and individual children’s characteristics.

Definitions and issues about the sources and pur- poses of curriculum have been debated for many years (Hyson 1996; Dahlberg, Moss, & Pence 1999; Marshall, Schubert, & Sears 2000; Goffin & Wilson 2001; Eisner 2002). Whatever the definition, good, well-implemented early childhood curriculum provides developmentally appropriate support and cognitive challenges and,

therefore, is likely to lead to positive outcomes (Frede 1998). A recurring theme in recent research syntheses has been that curriculum in programs for infants through the primary grades must be comprehensive, including attention to social and emotional competence and positive attitudes or approaches to learning (Peth- Pierce 2001; Raver 2002). Another emphasis is on the implementation of curricula providing cultural and lin- guistic continuity for young children and their families.

The position statement reflects the view that “cur- riculum that is goal oriented and incorporates concepts and skills based on current research fosters children’s learning and development” (Commission on NAEYC Early Childhood Program Standards and Accreditation Criteria 2003). But what should children learn through this curriculum? The answer is influenced by children’s ages and contexts. For example, for babies and tod- dlers, the curriculum’s heart is relationships and informal, language-rich, sensory interactions. For second graders, relationships continue to be important as a foundation for building competencies such as reading fluency and comprehension. And for young children of all ages, the curriculum needs to build on and respond to their home languages and cultures.

Researchers have found that young children with and without disabilities benefit more from the curriculum when they are engaged or involved (Raspa, McWilliam, & Ridley 2001; NCES 2002). Particularly for younger children, firsthand learning—through physical, mental, and social activity—is key. At every age from birth through age eight (and beyond), play can stimulate children’s engagement, motivation, and lasting learning (Bodrova & Leong 2003). Learning is facilitated when children can “choose from a variety of activities, decide what type of products they want to create, and engage in important conversations with friends” (Espinosa 2002, 5).

Widespread agreement exists that curriculum— including early childhood curriculum—should be based on evidence and evaluated for its effectiveness (Na- tional Research Council 2001). However, claims that specific curricula are research based—that is, evidence exists that these curricula are effective—are often not supported. A program can select a specific “research- based curriculum” for use with its enrolled children— confident that it is the right choice, when in reality the curriculum was shown to be effective with children who are older or younger, or who differ in culture or lan- guage, from the children for whom the curriculum is now being adopted. Other programs or school districts may adopt a curriculum for one specific area, such as reading or mathematics, with little regard for how that

7

curriculum aligns with, or is conceptually consistent with, other aspects of the program. The National Research Council (2001) warns that such a piecemeal approach can result in a disconnected conglomeration of activities and teaching methods, lacking focus, coherence, or comprehensiveness.

However, a body of longitudinal evidence does describe the long-term effects of some specific curricu- lum models or approaches—with benefits identified for curricula that emphasize child initiation (Schweinhart & Weikart 1997; Marcon 1999, 2002) and curricula that are planned, coherent, and well implemented (Frede 1998; National Research Council 2001). Evidence is also accumulating about development, learning, and effec- tive early childhood curriculum in specific areas such as language and literacy (Hart & Risley 1995; Whitehurst & Lonigan 1998; Dickinson & Tabors 2001) and mathematics (NAEYC & NCTM 2002). Despite this evidence, there is still much we do not know. The forthcoming results of several federally funded programs of research on early childhood curriculum and other studies may help educators make better- informed decisions when adopting or developing curriculum. The goal is not to identify one “best” curriculum—there is no such thing—but rather to identify what features of a curriculum may be most effective for which outcomes and under which conditions.

Indicators of Effectiveness

• Children are active and engaged. Children from babyhood through primary grades—

and beyond—need to be cognitively, physically, so- cially, and artistically active. In their own ways, children of all ages and abilities can become interested and engaged, develop positive attitudes toward learning, and have their feelings of security, emotional compe- tence, and linkages to family and community supported. • Goals are clear and shared by all.

Curriculum goals are clearly defined, shared, and understood by all stakeholders (for example, program administrators, teachers, and families). The curriculum and related activities and teaching strategies are designed to help achieve these goals in a unified, coherent way. • Curriculum is evidence-based. The curriculum is based on evidence that is develop- mentally, culturally, and linguistically relevant for the

children who will experience the curriculum. It is organized around principles of child development and learning. • Valued content is learned through investigation, play, and focused, intentional teaching.

Children learn by exploring, thinking about, and inquiring about all sorts of phenomena. These experi- ences help children investigate “big ideas,” those that are important at any age and are connected to later learning. Pedagogy or teaching strategies are tailored to children’s ages, developmental capacities, language and culture, and abilities or disabilities. • Curriculum builds on prior learning and experiences.

The content and implementation of the curriculum builds on children’s prior individual, age-related, and cultural learning, is inclusive of children with disabili- ties, and is supportive of background knowledge gained at home and in the community. The curriculum sup- ports children whose home language is not English in building a solid base for later learning. • Curriculum is comprehensive.

The curriculum encompasses critical areas of devel- opment, including children’s physical well-being and motor development; social and emotional development; approaches to learning; language development; cogni- tion and general knowledge; and subject matter areas such as science, mathematics, language, literacy, social studies, and the arts (more fully and explicitly for older children). • Professional standards validate the curriculum’s subject- matter content.

When subject-specific curricula are adopted, they meet the standards of relevant professional organiza- tions (for example, the American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance [AAHPERD], the National Association for Music Education [MENC]; the National Council of Teachers of English [NCTE]; the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM]; the National Dance Education Organization [NDEO]; the National Science Teachers Association [NSTA]) and are reviewed and implemented so that they fit together coherently. • The curriculum is likely to benefit children.

Research and other evidence indicates that the curriculum, if implemented as intended, will likely have beneficial effects. These benefits include a wide range of outcomes. When evidence is not yet available, plans are developed to obtain this evidence.

8

1. What are curriculum goals?

The goals of a curriculum state the essential desired outcomes for children. When adopting a curriculum, it is important to analyze whether its goals are con- sistent with other goals of the early childhood pro- gram or with state or other early learning standards, and with program standards. Curriculum goals should support and be consistent with expectations for young children’s development and learning.

2. What is the connection between curriculum and activities for children?

Whether for toddlers or second graders, a good cur- riculum is more than a collection of activities. The goals and framework of the curriculum do suggest a coherent set of activities and teaching practices linked to standards or expectations—although not in a simple fashion: Good activities support multiple goals. Together and over time, these activities and practices will be likely to help all children develop and learn the curriculum content. Standards and curricu- lum can give greater focus to activities, helping staff decide how these activities may fit together to ben- efit children’s growth. Appropriate curriculum also promotes a balance between planned experiences— based on helping children progress toward meeting defined goals—and experiences that emerge as out- growths of children’s interests or from unexpected happenings (for example, a new building is being built in the neighborhood). While these experiences are not planned, they are incorporated into the program in ways that comply with standards and curriculum goals.

3. What are the most important things to con- sider in making a decision about adopting or developing a curriculum?

It is important to consider whether the curriculum (as it is or as it might be adapted) fits well with (a) broader goals, standards, and program values (assuming that those have been thoughtfully devel- oped), (b) what research suggests are the significant predictors of positive development and learning, (c) the sociocultural, linguistic, and individual character- istics of the children for whom the curriculum is in-

tended, and (d) the values and wishes of the families and community served by the program. While some- times it seems that a program’s decision to develop its own curriculum would ensure the right fit, caution is needed regarding a program’s ability to align its cur- riculum with the features of a high-quality curriculum (that is, to address the recommendation and indicators of effectiveness of the position statement). Consider- able expertise is needed to develop an effective cur- riculum—one that incorporates important outcomes and significant content and conforms with research on early development and learning and other indicators noted in the position statement—and not merely a col- lection of activities or lesson plans (see also FAQ #7 in this section).

4. What should be the connection between curricu- lum for younger children and curriculum they will encounter as they get older?

Early childhood curriculum is much more than a scaled- back version of curriculum for older children. As em- phasized in Early Learning Standards (NAEYC & NAECS/SDE 2002), earlier versions of a skill may look very different from later versions. For example, one might think that knowing the names of two U.S. states at age four in preschool is an important predictor of knowing all 50 states in fourth grade. However, know- ing two state names is a less important predictor than gaining fundamental spatial and geographic concepts. Resources, including those listed at the end of this document, can help teachers and administrators be- come more aware of the curriculum in later years. With this knowledge, they can think and collaborate about ways for earlier and later learning to connect. Commu- nication about these connections can also support chil- dren and parents as they negotiate the difficult transi- tions from birth–three to preschool programs and then to kindergarten and the primary grades.

5. Is there such a thing as curriculum for babies and toddlers?

Indeed there is, but as the developmental chart about curriculum suggests, curriculum for babies and toddlers looks very different from curriculum for preschoolers or

Early Childhood CURRICULUM: Frequently asked questions

(continued on page 9)

9

first-grade children. High-quality infant/toddler pro- grams have clear goals, and they base their curricu- lum on knowledge of very early development. Thus a curriculum for children in the first years of life is focused on relationships, communicative competencies, and exploration of the physical world, each of which is em- bedded in daily routines and experiences. High-qual- ity infant/toddler curriculum intentionally develops lan- guage, focusing on and building on the home language; promotes security and social competence; and encour- ages understanding of essential concepts about the world. This lays the foundation for mathematics, sci- ence, social studies, literacy, and creative expression without emphasizing disconnected learning experi- ences or formal lessons (Lally et al. 1995; Lally 2000; Semlak 2000).

6. When should the early childhood curriculum begin to emphasize academics?

There is no clear dividing line between “academics” and other parts of a high-quality curriculum for young chil- dren (Hyson 2003a). Children are learning academics from the time they are born. Even infants and toddlers are beginning—through play, relationships, and infor- mal opportunities—to develop the basis of later knowl- edge in areas such as mathematics, visual and per- forming arts, social studies, science, and other areas of learning. As children transition into K–3 education, however, it is appropriate for the curriculum to pay fo- cused attention to these and other subject matter ar- eas, while still emphasizing physical, social, emotional, cognitive, and language development, connections across domains, and active involvement in learning.

7. Should programs use published curricula, or is it better for teachers to develop their own curricu- lum?

The quality of the curriculum—including its appropri- ateness for the children who will be experiencing it— should be the important question. If a published, com- mercially available curriculum—either a curriculum for one area such as literacy or mathematics or a compre- hensive curriculum—is consistent with the position statement’s recommendations and the program’s goals and values, appears well suited to the children and families served by the program, and can be imple-

mented effectively by staff, then it may be worth con- sidering, especially as a support for inexperienced teachers. To make a well-informed choice, staff (and other stakeholders) need to identify their program’s mission and values, consider the research and other evidence about high-quality programs and curricula, and select a curriculum based on these understand- ings. Some programs may determine that in their situ- ation the best curriculum would be one developed spe- cifically for that program and the children and families it serves. In that case—if staff have the interest, exper- tise, and resources to develop a curriculum that in- cludes clearly defined goals, a system for ensuring that these goals are shared by stakeholders, a system for determining the beneficial effects of the curriculum, and other indicators of effectiveness—then the program may conclude that it should take that route.

8. Is it all right to use one curriculum for mathemat- ics, another for science, another for language and literacy, another for social skills, and still another for music?

If curricula are adopted or developed for distinct sub- ject matter areas such as literature or mathematics, coherence and consistency are especially important. Are the goals and underlying philosophy of each cur- riculum consistent? What will it feel like for a child in the program? Will staff need to behave differently as they implement each curriculum? What professional development will staff need to make these judgments?

9. What’s needed to implement a curriculum effectively?

Extended professional development, often with coach- ing or mentoring, is a key to effective curriculum imple- mentation (National Research Council 2001). Well- qualified teachers who understand and support the curriculum goals and methods are more likely to imple- ment curriculum effectively. So-called scripted or teacher-proof curricula tend to be narrow, conceptually weak, or intellectually shallow. Another key to success is assessment. Ongoing assessment of children’s progress in relation to the curriculum goals gives staff a sense of how their approach may need to be altered for the whole group or for individual children.

Early Childhood CURRICULUM: FAQ (cont’d)

10

Assessment of Young Children

Key Recommendation

Make ethical, appropriate, valid, and reliable assess- ment a central part of all early childhood programs. To assess young children’s strengths, progress, and needs, use assessment methods that are developmentally appropriate, culturally and linguistically responsive, tied to children’s daily activities, supported by profes- sional development, inclusive of families, and con- nected to specific, beneficial purposes: (1) making sound decisions about teaching and learning, (2) identifying significant concerns that may require focused intervention for individual children, and (3) helping programs improve their educational and developmental interventions.

Rationale

Assessment components and purposes. Often people think of assessment as formal testing only, but assess- ment has many components and many purposes. Assessment methods include observation, documenta- tion of children’s work, checklists and rating scales, and portfolios, as well as norm-referenced tests. Consensus has developed around the four primary and distinctive purposes of early childhood assessment, best articu- lated in the work of the National Education Goals Panel (Shepard, Kagan, & Wurtz 1998). Issues concerning two of these purposes are the focus of this section of the position statement: (1) assessment to support learning and instruction and (2) assessment to identify children who may need additional services (Kagan, Scott-Little, & Clifford 2003). Two other purposes—assessment for program evaluation and monitoring trends and assess- ment for high-stakes accountability—will be discussed in the next recommendation, on Program Evaluation and Accountability.

High-quality programs are “informed by ongoing systematic, formal, and informal assessment approaches to provide information on children’s learning and development. These assessments occur within the context of reciprocal communications with families and with sensitivity to the cultural contexts in which chil- dren develop” (Commission on NAEYC Early Childhood Program Standards and Accreditation Criteria 2003, np). For young bilingual children, instructionally embedded assessments using observational methods and samples of children’s performance can provide a much fuller and more accurate picture of children’s abilities than other methods. Individually, culturally, and linguistically appropriate assessment of all children’s strengths, developmental status, progress, and needs provides

essential information to early childhood professionals as they attempt to promote children’s development and learning (Meisels & Atkins-Burnett 2000; Stiggins 2001, 2002; McAfee & Leong 2002; Jones 2003).

When assessment is directed toward a narrow set of skills, programs may ignore the very competencies that have been shown to build a strong foundation for suc- cess in areas including but not limited to academics (National Research Council & Institute of Medicine 2000; Raver 2002). Furthermore, poor quality or poorly admin- istered assessments, or assessments that are culturally inappropriate, may obscure children’s true intellectual capacities. Many factors—anxiety, hunger, inability to understand the language of the instructions, cultur- ally learned hesitation in initiating conversation with adults, and so on—may influence a child’s perfor- mance, creating a gap between that performance and the child’s actual ability, and causing staff to draw inaccu- rate conclusions that can limit the child’s future oppor- tunities.

Screening considerations. Research demonstrates that early identification and intervention for children with or at risk for disabilities can significantly affect outcomes (Shonkoff & Meisels 2000). Thus, early childhood pro- grams play an important part in helping to identify con- cerns. Brief screening measures have been shown to be helpful in selecting children who may need further evalu- ation (Meisels & Fenichel 1996), but only if the screen- ing tools meet high technical standards and if they are linked to access to further professional assessment.

Considerations in using individual norm-referenced tests. In general, assessment specialists have urged great caution in the use and interpretation of standard- ized tests of young children’s learning, especially in the absence of complementary evidence and when the stakes are potentially high (National Research Council 1999; Jones 2003; Scott-Little, Kagan, & Clifford 2003). All assessment activities should be guided by ethical principles (NAEYC 1998) and professional standards of quality (AERA, APA, & NCME 1999). The issues are most pressing when individual norm-referenced tests are being considered as part of an assessment system. In those cases, the standards set forth in the joint state- ment of the American Educational Research Associa- tion, the American Psychological Association, and the National Center for Measurement in Education (AERA, APA, & NCME 1999) provide essential technical guid- ance. The “Program Evaluation and Accountability” section of this revised position statement discusses these issues in more detail.

11

Improving teachers’ and families’ assessment literacy. Teacher expertise is critical to successful assessment systems, yet such expertise is often lacking (Horton & Bowman 2002; Hyson 2003b; Scott-Little, Kagan, & Clifford 2003). Assessment literacy has been identified as a major gap in the preservice and inservice prepara- tion of teachers (Stiggins 1999, 2002; Barnett 2003 ). Families are frequently given too little information about the purposes and interpretation of assess- ments of their children’s development and learning (Popham 1999, 2000; Horton & Bowman 2002; Lynch & Hanson 2004).

Indicators of Effectiveness

• Ethical principles guide assessment practices. Ethical principles underlie all assessment practices.

Young children are not denied opportunities or ser- vices, and decisions are not made about children on the basis of a single assessment. • Assessment instruments are used for their intended purposes.

Assessments are used in ways consistent with the purposes for which they were designed. If the assess- ments will be used for additional purposes, they are validated for those purposes. • Assessments are appropriate for ages and other charac- teristics of children being assessed.

Assessments are designed for and validated for use with children whose ages, cultures, home languages, socioeconomic status, abilities and disabilities, and other characteristics are similar to those of the children with whom the assessments will be used. • Assessment instruments are in compliance with profes- sional criteria for quality.

Assessments are valid and reliable. Accepted profes- sional standards of quality are the basis for selection, use, and interpretation of assessment instruments, including screening tools. NAEYC and NAECS/SDE support and adhere to the measurement standards set forth by the American Educational Research Associa- tion, the American Psychological Association, and the National Center for Measurement in Education (AERA, APA, & NCME 1999). When individual norm-referenced tests are used, they meet these guidelines. • What is assessed is developmentally and educationally significant.

The objects of assessment include a comprehensive, developmentally, and educationally important set of goals, rather than a narrow set of skills. Assessments are aligned with early learning standards, with program goals, and with specific emphases in the curriculum.

• Assessment evidence is used to understand and improve learning.

Assessments lead to improved knowledge about children. This knowledge is translated into improved curriculum implementation and teaching practices. Assessment helps early childhood professionals understand the learning of a specific child or group of children; enhance overall knowledge of child develop- ment; improve educational programs for young children while supporting continuity across grades and settings; and access resources and supports for children with specific needs. • Assessment evidence is gathered from realistic settings and situations that reflect children’s actual performance.

To influence teaching strategies or to identify chil- dren in need of further evaluation, the evidence used to assess young children’s characteristics and progress is derived from real-world classroom or family contexts that are consistent with children’s culture, language, and experiences.

• Assessments use multiple sources of evidence gathered over time.

The assessment system emphasizes repeated, systematic observation, documentation, and other forms of criterion- or performance-oriented assessment using broad, varied, and complementary methods with accomodations for children with disabilities.

• Screening is always linked to follow-up. When a screening or other assessment identifies

concerns, appropriate follow-up, referral, or other intervention is used. Diagnosis or labeling is never the result of a brief screening or one-time assessment.

• Use of individually administered, norm-referenced tests is limited.

The use of formal standardized testing and norm- referenced assessments of young children is limited to situations in which such measures are appropriate and potentially beneficial, such as identifying potential disabilities. (See also the indicator concerning the use of individual norm-referenced tests as part of program evaluation and accountability.)

• Staff and families are knowledgeable about assessment. Staff are given resources that support their knowl-

edge and skills about early childhood assessment and their ability to assess children in culturally and linguis- tically appropriate ways. Preservice and inservice training builds teachers’ and administrators’ “assess- ment literacy,” creating a community that sees assess- ment as a tool to improve outcomes for children. Families are part of this community, with regular communication, partnership, and involvement.

12

1. What is the connection between curriculum and assessment?

Curriculum and assessment are closely tied. Class- room- or home-based assessment tells teachers what children are like and allows them to modify curriculum and teaching practices to best meet the children’s needs. Curriculum also influences what is assessed and how; for example, a curriculum that emphasizes the development of self-regulation should be accompanied by assessments of the children’s ability to regulate their attention, manage strong emotions, and work produc- tively without a great deal of external control.

2. What should teachers be assessing in their classrooms? When and why?

The answers to these questions depend, again, on the program’s goals and on the curriculum being used. But all teachers need certain information in order to under- stand children’s individual, cultural, linguistic, and de- velopmental characteristics and to begin to recognize and respond to any special needs or concerns. The most important thing is to work with other staff and administrators to develop a systematic plan for assess- ment over time, using authentic measures (those that reflect children’s real-world activities and challenges) and focusing on outcomes that have been identified as important. The primary goal in every case is to make the program (curriculum, teaching practices, and so on) as effective as possible so that every child benefits.

3. How is assessment different for children of vary- ing ages, cultures, languages, and abilities?

The younger the child, the more difficult it is to use as- sessment methods that rely on verbal ability, on fo- cused attention and cooperation, or on paper-and-pen- cil methods. The selection of assessments should include careful attention to the ages for which the as- sessment was developed. Even with older children (kin- dergarten–primary age), the results of single assess- ments are often unreliable for individuals, since children may not understand the importance of “doing their best” or may be greatly influenced by fatigue, temporary poor health, or other distractions. Furthermore, in some cul- tures competition and individual accomplishment are discouraged, making it difficult to validly assess young

children’s skills. For young children whose home lan- guage is not English, assessments conducted in En- glish produce invalid, misleading results. Finally, chil- dren with disabilities benefit from in-depth and ongoing assessment, including play-based assessment, to en- sure that their individual needs are being met. When children with disabilities participate in assessments used for typically developing classmates, the assess- ments need adaptation in order for all children to dem- onstrate their competence (Meisels & Atkins-Burnett 2000; Sandall, McLean, & Smith 2000; McLean, Bailey, & Wolery 2004).

4. How should specific assessment tools or mea- sures be selected? Is it better to develop one’s own assessments or to purchase them?

Thorough discussion of early learning standards, pro- gram goals and standards, and the curriculum that the program is using will guide selection of specific assess- ment measures. In a number of cases, curriculum models are already linked to related assessments. It is important to think systemically so that assessments address all important areas of development and learn- ing. This may seem overwhelming, but the same as- sessment tool or strategy often gives helpful informa- tion about multiple aspects of children’s development. Other important considerations are whether a particu- lar assessment tool or system will create undue bur- dens on staff or whether it will actually contribute to their teaching effectiveness. Issues of technical adequacy are also important to examine, especially for assess- ments used for accountability purposes. Special atten- tion should be given to whether an assessment was developed for and tested with children from similar backgrounds, languages, and cultures as those for whom the assessment will be used. When selecting assessments for children whose home language is not English, additional questions arise; for example, are the assessment instruments available in the primary lan- guages of the children who are to be assessed? Given these challenges, it seems tempting to develop an as- sessment tailored to the unique context of a particular program. However, beyond informal documentation, the difficulty of designing good assessments multiplies. Those who plan to develop their own assessment tools

Child ASSESSMENT: Frequently asked questions

(continued on page 13)

13

need to be fully aware of the challenges of standardiz- ing and validating these assessments.

5. What is screening and how should it be used?

Screening is a quickly administered assessment used to identify children who may benefit from more in-depth assessment. Although screening tools are brief and appear simple, they must meet strict technical stan- dards for test construction and be culturally and linguis- tically relevant. Only staff with sufficient training should conduct screening; families should be involved as im- portant sources of information about the child; and, when needed, there should always be referrals to fur- ther specialized assessment and intervention. Screen- ing is only a first step. Screening may be used to iden- tify children who should be observed further for a possible delay or problem. However, screening should not be used to diagnose children as having special needs, to prevent children from entering a program, or to assign children to a specific intervention solely on the basis of the screening results. Additionally, screen- ing results should not be used as indicators of program effectiveness.

6. What kind of training do teachers and other staff need to conduct assessments well?

Professional development is key to effective child as- sessment. Positive attitudes about assessment and “assessment literacy” (knowledge of assessment prin- ciples, issues, and tools) are developed through col- laboration and teamwork, in which all members of an

early childhood program come to agree on desired goals, methods, and processes for assessing children’s progress. In addition, preservice programs in two- and four-year higher education institutions should provide students with research-based information and oppor- tunities to learn and practice observation, documenta- tion, and other forms of classroom-level assessment (Hyson 2003b). Understanding the purposes and limi- tations of early childhood norm-referenced tests, includ- ing their use with children with disabilities, is also part of assessment literacy, even for those not trained to administer such tests.

7 . H o w s h o u l d f a m i l i e s b e i n v o l v e d i n assessment?

Ethically, families have a right to be informed about the assessment of their children. Families’ own perspec- tives about their child are an important resource for staff. Additionally, families of young children with dis- abilities have a legal right to be involved in assessment decisions (IDEA 1997). Early childhood program staff and administrators share the results of assessments— whether informal observations or more formal test re- sults—with families in ways that are clear, respectful, culturally responsive, constructive, and use the lan- guage that families are most comfortable with.

Child ASSESSMENT: FAQ (cont’d)

14

Program Evaluation and Accountability

Key Recommendation

Regularly evaluate early childhood programs in light of program goals, using varied, appropriate, conceptually and technically sound evidence to determine the extent to which programs meet the expected standards of quality and to examine intended as well as unintended results.

Rationale

With increased public investments in early childhood education come expectations that programs should be accountable for producing positive results (Scott-Little, Kagan, & Clifford 2003). The results of carefully designed program evaluations can influence better education for young children and can identify social problems that require public policy responses if children are to benefit. Program evaluations vary in scope from a relatively informal, ongoing evaluation that a child care center might conduct to improve its services, to large scale studies of the impact of statewide prekindergarten initiatives (Gilliam & Zigler 2000; Schweinhart 2003), to district and statewide evaluations of children’s progress in the early grades of school. As part of this effort, program monitoring is an important tool for judging the quality of implementation and modifying how the program is being implemented.

The higher the stakes for programs and public invest- ments, the more critical and rigorous should be the standards for evaluation design, instrumentation, and analysis, although this is not always the case (Henry 2003; Scott-Little, Kagan, & Clifford 2003). Evaluation specialists (for example, Shepard, Kagan, & Wurtz 1998; Jones 2003) emphasize that the goals of program evaluation are different from the goals of classroom-level assessment intended to improve teaching and learning. These specialists further emphasize that many instru- ments originally designed for one purpose cannot be validly used for other purposes. When such efforts are undertaken, special attention is needed to issues of sampling and aggregation (Horm-Wingerd, Winter, & Plocfchan 2000; Scott-Little, Kagan, & Clifford 2003).

Of particular importance is the issue of alignment—in this case, alignment of evaluation instruments with the identified goals of the program and with the curriculum or intervention that is being evaluated. Mismatches between program goals and evaluation design and instruments may lead to erroneous conclusions about the effectiveness of particular interventions (Yoshikawa & Zigler 2000; Muenchow 2003).

More and more states are using data about children’s outcomes as part of a system to evaluate the effective- ness of prekindergarten and other programs. In this climate, clear guidelines are essential—guidelines about the technical properties of the measures to be used as well as the place of child-level data within a larger system that includes other data sources, such as assessments of classroom quality, parent interviews, or community-level data (Love 2003). Several issues have been discussed extensively: (1) the risk of misusing child outcome data to penalize programs serving the most vulnerable children, especially when no informa- tion is available about the gains children have made while in the program (Muenchow 2003); (2) the poten- tial misuse of individually administered, norm-refer- enced tests with very young children as a substitute for, and as the sole indicator of, program effectiveness (Yoshikawa & Zigler 2000); (3) the risk of using data from assessments designed for English-speaking, European American children to draw conclusions about linguistically and culturally diverse groups of children; and (4) the risk of conducting poor quality evaluations because little investment has been made in training, technical assistance, and data analysis capabilities. Any effective system of program evaluation and accountabil- ity must take these issues into consideration.

Indicators of Effectiveness

• Evaluation is used for continuous improvement. Programs undertake regular evaluation, including

self-evaluation, to document the extent to which they are achieving desired results, with the goal of engaging in continuous improvement. Evaluations focus on processes and implementation as well as outcomes. Over time, evidence is gathered that program evalua- tions do influence specific improvements. • Goals become guides for evaluation.

Evaluation designs and measures are guided by goals identified by the program, by families and other stake- holders, and by the developers of a program or curricu- lum, while also allowing the evaluation to reveal unin- tended consequences. • Comprehensive goals are used.

The program goals used to guide the evaluation are comprehensive, including goals related to families, teachers and other staff, and community as well as child-oriented goals that address a broad set of devel- opmental and learning outcomes. • Evaluations use valid designs.

Programs are evaluated using scientifically valid designs, guided by a “logic model” that describes ways

15

in which the program sees its interventions having both medium- and longer-term effects on children and, in some cases, families and communities. • Multiple sources of data are available.

An effective evaluation system should include multiple measures, including program data, child demographic data, information about staff qualifica- tions, administrative practices, classroom quality assessments, implementation data, and other informa- tion that provides a context for interpreting the results of child assessments. • Sampling is used when assessing individual children as part of large-scale program evaluation.

When individually administered, norm-referenced tests of children’s progress are used as part of program evaluation and accountability, matrix sampling is used (that is, administered only to a systematic sample of children) so as to diminish the burden of testing on children and to reduce the likelihood that data will be inappropriately used to make judgments about indi- vidual children. • Safeguards are in place if standardized tests are used as part of evaluations.

When individually administered, norm-referenced tests are used as part of program evaluation, they must be developmentally and culturally appropriate for the particular children in the program, conducted in the

language children are most comfortable with, with other accommodations as appropriate, valid in terms of the curriculum, and technically sound (including reliability and validity). Quality checks on data are conducted regularly, and the system includes multiple data sources collected over time. • Children’s gains over time are emphasized.

When child assessments are used as part of program evaluation, the primary focus is on children’s gains or progress as documented in observations, samples of classroom work, and other assessments over the duration of the program. The focus is not just on children’s scores upon exit from the program. • Well-trained individuals conduct evaluations.

Program evaluations, at whatever level or scope, are conducted by well-trained individuals who are able to evaluate programs in fair and unbiased ways. Self- assessment processes used as part of comprehensive program evaluation follow a valid model. Assessor training goes beyond single workshops and includes ongoing quality checks. Data are analyzed systemati- cally and can be quantified or aggregated to provide evidence of the extent to which the program is meeting its goals. • Evaluation results are publicly shared.

Families, policy makers, and other stakeholders have the right to know the results of program evaluations.

PROGRAM EVALUATION and ACCOUNTABILITY: Frequently asked questions

1. What is the purpose of evaluating early child- hood programs? The primary purpose of program evaluation is to im- prove the quality of education and other services pro- vided to young children and their families.

2. What is accountability?

The term accountability refers to the responsibility that programs have to deliver what they have been de- signed to do and, in most cases, what they have been funded to do. Accountability usually is emphasized when programs such as prekindergartens, public school programs, or Head Start have received local, state, or federal funds. In those cases the public has a legitimate interest in receiving information about the re- sults obtained.

3. What standards of quality should be used in evaluating programs that serve young children?

Attention should be given to the goals that the program itself has identified as important. National organizations (such as NAEYC through its accreditation standards and criteria), state departments of education, and oth- ers have developed more general standards of qual- ity. In addition, comprehensive observation instru- ments and other rating scales are widely used to obtain data on program quality. The advantage of using such measures, or participating in a national ac- creditation system, is that the program is evaluated against a broad set of criteria that have been devel- oped with expert input.

(continued on page 16)

16

4. Is it necessary for all programs serving young children to be evaluated?

Programs differ in size, scope, and sponsorship. For some, regular evaluation is a requirement and condi- tion of continued support. However, all programs serv- ing young children and their families should undergo some kind of regular evaluation in order to engage in continuous self-study, reflection, and improvement. In large-scale state assessments (for example, of state prekindergarten programs), some data may be col- lected from all programs, while a smaller sample may participate in an intensive scientific evaluation with ap- propriate comparison groups (Schweinhart 2003).

5. What components should a program evaluation include?

Evaluation should always begin with a review of the program’s goals and, where relevant, its mandated scope and mission. In every case the evaluation should address all components of the program as designed and as delivered. In other words, evalua- tion should include attention to the processes by which services and educational programs are delivered as well as to the outcomes or results. Outcomes, especially child outcomes, cannot be understood without knowing how effectively educa- tional and other services were actually implemented.

6. Who should conduct program evaluations?

This depends on the scope and purpose of the evaluation. In some cases, program staff themselves are able to gather the information needed for review and improvement. However, greater objectivity is obtained when evaluations are conducted by others, often through in-depth interviews or discussions with staff and families. In high-stakes situations, it is not desirable for those who have a direct investment in the outcome of the evaluation to be involved in collecting and analyzing data.

7. What kinds of support are needed to conduct a good evaluation?

Adequate resources are essential, so that program evaluation does not drain resources from the actual delivery of services. Consultation about the design of the evaluation is helpful, as is assistance in gathering and interpreting data. Print and Web-based resources are available to those just getting started in thinking about program evaluation (ACYF 1997; Gilliam & Leiter 2003; McNamara 2003; Stake 2003). Support systems or facilitation projects are available to help programs that are preparing for accreditation or other evaluative reviews.

8. How should data gathered in a program evalua- tion be analyzed?

Once again, the purpose of the evaluation and the scope of the program and the evaluation itself will in- fluence the answer to this question. Both quantitative and qualitative methods are appropriate and useful, depending on the questions being asked. Returning to the central questions of the evaluation will guide analy- sis decisions, since the results will help answer those questions.

9. How should information from a program evalu- ation be used?

As described earlier, program evaluation data are in- tended to improve program quality. In an open process, results are shared with stakeholders, who may include families, staff, community members, funders, and oth- ers. Objective discussion of strengths and needs in light of the program’s goals and mission will help guide de- cisions about changes that would create even higher quality and more effective service delivery.

PROGRAM EVALUATION and ACCOUNTABILITY: FAQ (cont’d)

17

Data from program monitoring and evaluation, aggre- gated appropriately and based on reliable measures, should be made available and accessible to the public.

Creating Change through Support

for Programs

Implementing the preceding recommendations for curriculum, child assessment, and program evaluation requires a solid foundation of support. Calls for better results and greater accountability from programs for children in preschool, kindergarten, and the primary grades have not been backed up by essential supports. All early childhood programs need greater resources and supportive public policies to allow the position statement’s recommendations to have their intended effects.

The overarching need is to create an integrated, well- financed system of early care and education that has the capacity to support learning and development in all children, including children living in poverty, children whose home language is not English, and children with disabilities. Unlike many other countries (OECD 2001), the United States continues to have a fragmented system for educating children from birth through age eight, under multiple auspices, with greatly varying levels of support, and with inadequate communication and collaboration (Lombardi 2003). Several examples illustrate the kinds of supports that are needed.

Teachers as the key. As expectations for professional preparation and for implementing high-quality curricu- lum and assessment systems rise (National Institute on Early Childhood Development and Education 2000; National Research Council 2001), the early childhood field faces persistent low wages and high turnover (National Research Council 2001; Whitebook et al. 2001; Quality Counts 2002; Lombardi 2003). Yet research continues to underscore the role of formal education and specialized training in producing positive outcomes for children (National Research Council 2001), as well as less tangible teacher qualifications such as curiosity about children, willingness to engage in collaborative inquiry, and skilled communication with culturally and linguistically diverse families and administrators. Finding and keeping these highly qualified profession- als, and ensuring a diverse and inclusive work force, will require significant public investment.

Standards for preparing new teachers. NAEYC’s standards for early childhood professional preparation (Hyson 2003b) describe the knowledge, skills, and dis- positions that higher education programs should de-

velop in those preparing to teach young children. Those standards are fully consistent with and support the position statement’s recommendations concerning cur- riculum and assessment. Expanded professional devel- opment resources will help better prepare higher edu- cation faculty to develop these competencies, using current, evidence-based information and practices. Strong accreditation systems create incentives for insti- tutions to align their two-year, four-year, and graduate programs with these kinds of national standards.

The value of ongoing professional development. Although not replacing formal education, ongoing professional development is another key to helping staff implement evidence-based, effective curriculum and assessment systems for all children, responding to children’s diverse needs, cultures, languages, and life situations. All staff—paraprofessionals as well as teachers and administrators—need access to profes- sional development and to professional time and opportunities for collaboration that enable them to develop, select, implement, and engage in ongoing critique of curriculum and assessment practices that meet young children’s learning and developmental needs. Time and resources for collaborative profes- sional development now are often limited, both in public schools and in child care settings.

Research has identified many characteristics of effective staff development (National Research Council 2000; NAESP 2001; NSDC 2001; Education World 2003), yet much “training” still consists of one-time workshops with little follow-up, coaching, or mentoring (National Research Council 2000). The design and delivery of professional development often ignore the diversity of adult learners who vary in prior experience, culture, and education. In addition, little time is available for program staff—teachers, administrators, and others— to meet around critical issues of curriculum and assessment, or to prepare for program evaluations in a thoughtful way (National Research Council 2000). And once program evaluations are completed and results are available, public policies often fail to support needed improvements and expansion of services at the program, district, or state level—especially if the costs of the assessments themselves are absorbing resources needed in cash-strapped states and cities (Muenchow 2003).

Even well-qualified staff need ongoing, job-embedded professional development to help them better under- stand the curriculum, adapt curriculum to meet the learning needs of culturally and linguistically diverse children and children with disabilities, and design more effective approaches to working with all children. A key issue is creating genuine “learning communities” of

18

staff, within and across programs, who can support and learn from one another and from the wider professional environment as they implement integrated systems of curriculum and assessment. Resources beyond early education settings (for example, community cultural and civic resources such as arts organizations and libraries) can be tapped to supplement and enrich staff professional development opportunities.

Administrators’ needs. Whether they are elementary school principals, child care directors, or Head Start coordinators, administrators hold the key to effective systems of curriculum, assessment, and program evalu- ation. Administrators are often the primary decision makers in adopting curriculum and assessment sys- tems, arranging for staff development, and planning program evaluations. For administators, intensive and

ongoing professional development is essential—often participating in the same training provided to staff to create a shared frame of reference. This professional development needs to address administrators’ varied backgrounds, work settings, and needs. For example, some elementary school administrators have not yet had opportunities to gain insights into the learning and developmental characteristics of young children. Oth- ers may be well grounded in infant/toddler or preschool education yet have had little opportunity to communi- cate with and collaborate with other administrators whose programs serve children as they transition from Head Start or child care into public schools.

A shared commitment. As these examples show, many challenges face those who want to provide all young children with high-quality curriculum, assess- ment, and evaluation of early childhood programs. Public commitment, along with significant investments in a well-financed system of early childhood education and in other components of services for young children and their families, will make it possible to implement these recommendations fully and effectively.

Developmental Charts

Although the recommendations in the position state- ment are applicable to all programs serving children from birth through age eight, some of the specifics may differ. Therefore, the next section contains developmen- tal charts that provide brief but not exhaustive ex- amples of ways in which each recommendation of the position statement would be implemented in programs for infants and toddlers, preschoolers, and kindergar- ten-primary age children.

The following charts are included:

• Curriculum in Programs for Infants, Toddlers, Pre- schoolers, Kindergartners, and Primary Grade Children • Assessment in Programs for Infants, Toddlers, Pre- schoolers, Kindergartners, and Primary Grade Children • Program Evaluation and Accountability in Programs for Infants, Toddlers, Preschoolers, Kindergartners, and Primary Grade Children

Position Statement Revisions Committee

Lindy Buch, Co-chair Maurice Sykes, Co-chair Susan Andersen Elena Bodrova Jerlean Daniel Linda Espinosa Dominic Gullo Marlene Henriques Jacqueline Jones Mary Louise Jones Deborah Leong Ann Levy Christina Lopez Morgan Joyce Staples Marilou Hyson, NAEYC Staff Peter Pizzolongo, NAEYC Staff

19

G oa

ls f

oc us

o n

ch ild

re n’

s de

ve lo

pm en

t as

t he

y le

ar n

ab ou

t th

em se

lv es

a nd

o th

er s,

a s

w el

l a s

w ay

s to

c om

m un

ic at

e, th

in k,

an d

us e

th ei

r m

us cl

es .

G oa

ls fo

r i nf

an ts

a dd

re ss

s ec

ur ity

, r es

po ns

iv e

in te

ra ct

io ns

w ith

ca re

gi ve

rs , a

nd e

xp lo

ra tio

n.

G oa

ls f

or t

od dl

er s

ad dr

es s

in de

pe nd

en ce

, ne

ed f

or c

on tr

ol ,

di sc

ov er

y, a

nd b

eg in

ni ng

s oc

ia l i

nt er

ac tio

ns .

G oa

ls fo

cu s

on c

hi ld

re n’

s ex

pl or

at io

n, in

qu iry

, a nd

e xp

an di

ng vo

ca bu

la rie

s.

G oa

ls a

dd re

ss c

hi ld

re n’

s ph

ys ic

al w

el l-b

ei ng

a nd

m ot

or d

ev el

- op

m en

t; so

ci al

a nd

e m

ot io

na l d

ev el

op m

en t;

ap pr

oa ch

es t

o le

ar ni

ng ;

la ng

ua ge

d ev

el op

m en

t; an

d co

gn iti

on a

nd g

en er

al kn

ow le

dg e.

E xp

er ie

nc es

p ro

vi de

fo r k

no w

le dg

e an

d sk

ill le

ar ni

ng in

li te

ra cy

, m

at he

m at

ic s,

s ci

en ce

, s oc

ia l s

tu di

es , a

nd th

e vi

su al

a nd

p er

- fo

rm in

g ar

ts .

C U

R R

IC U

L U

M i

n p

ro g

ra m

s fo

r in

fa n

ts ,

to d

d le

rs ,

p re

sc h

o o

le rs

, ki

n d

er g

ar tn

er s,

a n

d p

ri m

ar y

g ra

d e

ch ild

re n

In fa n ts / T o d d le rs

P re s c h o o le rs

K in d e rg a rt e n / P ri m a ry

P O

S IT

IO N

S TA

TE M

E N

T R

E C

O M

M E

N D

A TI

O N

: Im

pl em

en t

cu rr

ic ul

um t

ha t

is t

ho ug

ht fu

lly p

la nn

ed ,

ch al

- le

ng in

g, e

ng ag

in g,

d ev

el op

m en

ta lly

a pp

ro pr

ia te

, c ul

tu ra

lly an

d lin

gu is

tic al

ly re

sp on

si ve

, c om

pr eh

en si

ve , a

nd li

ke ly

to pr

om ot

e po

si tiv

e ou

tc om

es fo

r a ll

yo un

g ch

ild re

n.

G oa

ls f

oc us

o n

ch ild

re n’

s em

er ge

nt k

no w

le dg

e an

d sk

ill s

in a

ll su

bj ec

t m at

te r a

re as

, i nc

lu di

ng la

ng ua

ge a

nd li

te ra

cy , m

at he

m at

- ic

s, s

ci en

ce ,

so ci

al s

tu di

es ,

he al

th ,

ph ys

ic al

e du

ca tio

n, a

nd t

he vi

su al

a nd

p er

fo rm

in g

ar ts

.

G oa

ls c

on tin

ue t

o ad

dr es

s al

l de

ve lo

pm en

ta l

ar ea

s in

cl ud

in g

so ci

oe m

ot io

na l d

ev el

op m

en t.

an d

ap pr

oa ch

es to

le ar

ni ng

(“ ha

b- its

o f m

in d”

).

C ur

ri cu

lu m

th at

is th

ou gh

tf ul

ly p

la nn

ed :

W ha

te ve

r th

e ch

ild re

n’ s

ag es

, c ur

ric ul

um g

oa ls

li nk

w ith

im po

rt an

t d ev

el -

op m

en ta

l t as

ks a

nd a

re c

om pr

eh en

si ve

in s

co pe

. T ea

ch in

g st

ra te

gi es

a re

ta ilo

re d

to c

hi ld

re n’

s ag

es , d

ev el

op m

en ta

l ca

pa ci

tie s,

la ng

ua ge

a nd

c ul

tu re

, a nd

a bi

lit ie

s or

d is

ab ili

tie s.

A m

aj or

s hi

ft as

c hi

ld re

n m

ov e

in to

k in

de rg

ar te

n an

d th

e pr

im ar

y gr

ad es

is to

w ar

d gr

ea te

r fo

cu s

on s

ub je

ct m

at te

r ar

ea s,

w ith

ou t i

gn or

in g

th ei

r de

ve lo

pm en

ta l f

ou nd

at io

ns .

C ur

ri cu

lu m

t ha

t is

c ha

lle ng

in g

an d

en ga

gi ng

: Fo

r al

l a ge

s th

e cu

rr ic

ul um

le ad

s ch

ild re

n fro

m w

he re

t he

y ar

e to

n ew

ac co

m pl

is hm

en ts

w hi

le m

ai nt

ai ni

ng th

ei r

in te

re st

a nd

a ct

iv e

in vo

lv em

en t.

C on

te nt

th at

is e

ng ag

in g

fo r

ch ild

re n

of d

iff er

en t

ag es

c ha

ng es

w ith

d ev

el op

m en

t a nd

w ith

n ew

e xp

er ie

nc es

, r eq

ui rin

g ca

re fu

l o bs

er va

tio n

an d

ad ap

ta tio

n.

C hi

ld re

n ca

n us

e th

ei r

w ho

le b

od ie

s an

d th

ei r

se ns

es a

s th

ey m

an ip

ul at

e to

ys a

nd o

th er

s af

e ob

je ct

s an

d en

ga ge

in p

la y

al on

e, w

ith a

p rim

ar y

ca re

gi ve

r, an

d at

ti m

es w

ith o

r n ea

r o th

er in

fa nt

s.

C hi

ld re

n’ s

en th

us ia

sm fo

r ex

pl or

in g

is s

up po

rte d

by m

at ch

in g

th ei

r in

te re

st s

w ith

c ha

lle ng

in g

cu rr

ic ul

a.

Fo r

to dd

le rs

, c ur

ric ul

um a

ls o

fo cu

se s

on th

ei r

em er

gi ng

a bi

li- tie

s to

p la

y w

ith o

th er

c hi

ld re

n.

C ur

ric ul

um f

ac ili

ta te

s ch

ild re

n’ s

co ns

tr uc

tio n

of k

no w

le dg

e th

ro ug

h th

ei r i

nt er

ac tio

ns w

ith m

at er

ia ls

, e ac

h ot

he r,

an d

ad ul

ts .

C ur

ric ul

um p

ro m

ot es

e xp

er ie

nc es

in w

hi ch

c hi

ld re

n’ s

th in

ki ng

m ov

es f

ro m

t he

s im

pl e

to t

he c

om pl

ex ,

fro m

t he

c on

cr et

e to

th e

ab st

ra ct

.

C ur

ric ul

um p

ro vi

de s

op po

rtu ni

tie s

fo r c

hi ld

re n

to in

iti at

e ac

tiv i-

tie s,

a s

w el

l a s

fo r

te ac

he r

in iti

at io

n an

d sc

af fo

ld in

g.

C ur

ri cu

lu m

l ea

ds t

o ch

ild re

n’ s

re co

gn iti

on o

f th

ei r

ow n

ac hi

ev em

en ts

.

C ur

ric ul

um p

ro m

ot es

c hi

ld re

n’ s

de ve

lo pi

ng a

tti tu

de s

as “

le ar

n- er

s” —

us in

g th

ei r

cu rio

si ty

, c re

at iv

ity , a

nd in

iti at

iv e.

C ur

ric ul

um p

ro vi

de s

ex pe

rie nc

es in

w hi

ch c

hi ld

re n

us e

or al

a nd

w rit

te n

la ng

ua ge

, m at

he m

at ic

al a

nd s

ci en

tif ic

th in

ki ng

, a nd

in ve

s- tig

at or

y sk

ill s

to b

ui ld

a k

no w

le dg

e ba

se a

cr os

s di

sc ip

lin es

a nd

ex pa

nd th

ei r

sk ill

s re

pe rto

ire .

C u

rr ic

u lu

m l

e a

d s

to c

h ild

re n

’s r

e co

g n

it io

n o

f th

e ir

o w

n co

m pe

te nc

e.

(c ha

rt c

on tin

ue d

on p

ag e

20 )

T h

e i

n fo

rm a

ti o

n i

n t

h is

c h

a rt

i s

b a

se d

o n

t h

e r

e c

o m

m e

n d

a ti

o n

s o

f th

e N

A E

Y C

-N A

E C

S /S

D E

P o

si ti

o n

S ta

te m

e n

t o

n C

u rr

ic u

lu m

, A

ss e

ss m

e n

t, a

n d

P ro

g ra

m E

v a

lu a

ti o

n (

w w

w .n

a e

y c

.o rg

/ re

so u

rc e

s/ p

o si

ti o

n _s

ta te

m e

n ts

/p sc

a p

e .p

d f)

. T

h e

c h

a rt

p ro

v id

e s

e x

a m

p le

s o

f w

a y

s in

w h

ic h

t h

e r

e c

o m

m e

n d

a ti

o n

s o

f th

e N

A E

Y C

-N A

E C

S /S

D E

P o

si ti

o n

S ta

te m

e n

t o

n C

u rr

ic u

- lu

m ,

A ss

e ss

m e

n t,

a n

d P

ro g

ra m

E v

a lu

a ti

o n

c a

n b

e i

m p

le m

e n

te d

i n

p ro

g ra

m s

fo r

in fa

n ts

/ to

d d

le rs

, p

re sc

h o

o le

rs ,

a n

d k

in d

e rg

a rt

e n

/p ri

m a

ry a

g e

c h

il d

re n

. T

h e

e x

a m

p le

s c

a n

b e

st b

e u

n d

e rs

to o

d w

it h

in t

h e

c o

n te

x t

o f

th e

f u

ll p

o si

ti o

n s

ta te

m e

n t.

20

C U

R R

IC U

L U

M c

h a rt

( c o

n t’

d )

C ur

ri cu

lu m

th at

is c

om pr

eh en

si ve

: W ha

te ve

r t he

c hi

ld re

n’ s

ag es

, t he

c ur

ric ul

um a

tte nd

s to

a b

ro ad

ra ng

e of

d ev

el op

m en

ta l a

nd le

ar ni

ng o

ut co

m es

— ac

ro ss

d om

ai ns

a nd

s ub

je ct

m at

te r a

re as

a nd

in cl

ud in

g ex

pe rie

nc es

th at

p ro

m ot

e ch

ild re

n’ s

no nv

io le

nt b

eh av

- io

r a nd

c on

fli ct

re so

lu tio

n. F

or o

ld er

c hi

ld re

n, th

e cu

rr ic

ul um

p ay

s gr

ea te

r a tte

nt io

n to

s pe

ci fic

c on

te nt

a re

as b

ut w

ith ou

t e ve

r i gn

or in

g so

m e

do m

ai ns

in fa

vo r o

f a n

ar ro

w s

et o

f o th

er o

ut co

m es

.

C ur

ric ul

um i

nc or

po ra

te s

ch ild

re n’

s re

la tio

ns hi

ps w

ith t

he ir

ca re

gi ve

rs a

nd ro

ut in

es (e

.g .,

sl ee

pi ng

, d ia

pe rin

g/ to

ile tin

g) a

s op

po rtu

ni tie

s fo

r le

ar ni

ng ,

as w

el l a

s th

ro ug

h ex

pe rie

nc es

in w

hi ch

c hi

ld re

n pl

ay w

ith o

bj ec

ts , t

he ir

ca re

gi ve

rs , a

nd (i

nc re

as -

in gl

y) e

ac h

ot he

r.

C ur

ric ul

um p

ro vi

de s

a co

nt ex

t in

w hi

ch t

ea ch

er s

us e

th ei

r kn

ow le

dg e

ab ou

t e ac

h ch

ild to

p la

n op

po rtu

ni tie

s fo

r le

ar ni

ng ac

ro ss

d om

ai ns

— ph

ys ic

al w

el l-b

ei ng

a nd

m ot

or d

ev el

op m

en t;

so ci

al a

nd e

m ot

io na

l d ev

el op

m en

t; ap

pr oa

ch es

t o

le ar

ni ng

; la

ng ua

ge d

ev el

op m

en t;

an d

co gn

iti on

a nd

g en

er al

k no

w le

dg e.

C ur

ric ul

um fa

ci lit

at es

c hi

ld re

n’ s

le ar

ni ng

th ro

ug h

in di

vi du

al a

nd sm

al l a

nd la

rg e

gr ou

p ex

pe rie

nc es

th at

p ro

m ot

e ph

ys ic

al w

el l-

be in

g an

d m

ot or

d ev

el op

m en

t; so

ci al

a nd

e m

ot io

na l d

ev el

op -

m en

t; ap

pr oa

ch es

to le

ar ni

ng ; l

an gu

ag e

de ve

lo pm

en t,

in cl

ud -

in g

se co

nd -la

ng ua

ge d

ev el

op m

en t;

an d

co gn

iti on

a nd

g en

er al

kn ow

le dg

e.

C ur

ric ul

um p

ro vi

de s

a co

nt ex

t i n

w hi

ch c

hi ld

re n

le ar

n th

ro ug

h m

ea ni

ng fu

l e ve

ry da

y ex

pe rie

nc es

, in

cl ud

in g

pl ay

. W

ith in

t hi

s co

nt ex

t, va

rio us

a ca

de m

ic d

is ci

pl in

es a

re a

dd re

ss ed

— in

cl ud

- in

g m

at he

m at

ic s,

li te

ra cy

, s ci

en ce

, s oc

ia l s

tu di

es , a

nd th

e ar

ts .

C ur

ric ul

um a

nd r

el at

ed in

st ru

ct io

n ar

e in

cr ea

si ng

ly f

oc us

ed o

n he

lp in

g ch

ild re

n ac

qu ire

d ee

pe r u

nd er

st an

di ng

o f i

nf or

m at

io n

an d

sk ill

s in

s ub

je ct

a re

as (e

.g .,

la ng

ua ge

a nd

li te

ra cy

, s ci

en ce

, m at

h- em

at ic

s, s

oc ia

l s tu

di es

, a nd

v is

ua l a

nd p

er fo

rm in

g ar

ts )

w ith

in a

co m

pr eh

en si

ve s

et o

f d ev

el op

m en

ta l o

ut co

m es

.

C ur

ric ul

um h

el ps

c hi

ld re

n re

co gn

iz e

th e

co nn

ec tio

ns b

et w

ee n

an d

ac ro

ss d

is ci

pl in

es a

nd d

om ai

ns .

C ur

ric ul

um -b

as ed

e xp

er ie

nc es

e nc

om pa

ss a

v ar

ie ty

o f

ac tiv

e st

ra te

gi es

in w

hi ch

in di

vi du

al s

or s

m al

l g ro

up s

ex pl

or e,

in qu

ire ,

di sc

ov er

, d em

on st

ra te

, a nd

s ol

ve p

ro bl

em s.

C ur

ri cu

lu m

t ha

t is

d ev

el op

m en

ta lly

a pp

ro pr

ia te

a nd

c ul

tu ra

lly a

nd li

ng ui

st ic

al ly

r es

po ns

iv e:

W ha

te ve

r th

e ch

ild re

n’ s

ag es

, cu

rr ic

ul um

fi ts

w el

l w ith

th ei

r d ev

el op

m en

ta l l

ev el

s, a

bi lit

ie s

an d

di sa

bi lit

ie s,

in di

vi du

al c

ha ra

ct er

is tic

s, fa

m ili

es a

nd c

om m

un iti

es , a

nd cu

ltu ra

l c on

te xt

s. C

ur ric

ul um

s up

po rts

e du

ca tio

na l e

qu ity

fo r c

hi ld

re n

w ho

a re

le ar

ni ng

a s

ec on

d la

ng ua

ge . C

ur ric

ul um

fo r y

ou ng

er ch

ild re

n m

ak es

c ul

tu ra

l c on

ne ct

io ns

p rim

ar ily

t hr

ou gh

r el

at io

ns hi

ps ,

da ily

r ou

tin es

, an

d “r

itu al

s” ;

ol de

r ch

ild re

n be

ne fit

f ro

m m

or e

ex pl

ic it

in co

rp or

at io

n of

c ul

tu ra

lly re

le va

nt m

at er

ia ls

a nd

fr om

to pi

c- ce

nt er

ed a

s w

el l a

s in

te gr

at ed

le ar

ni ng

o pp

or tu

ni tie

s.

C ur

ric ul

um a

dd re

ss es

th e

w id

e va

ria tio

ns in

in fa

nt s’

a nd

to d-

dl er

s’ in

te re

st s,

t em

pe ra

m en

ts ,

an d

pa tte

rn s

of g

ro w

th a

nd de

ve lo

pm en

t.

C ur

ric ul

um p

la nn

in g

an d

im pl

em en

ta tio

n em

ph as

iz e

un de

r- st

an di

ng o

f a nd

re sp

ec t f

or h

om e

cu ltu

re , e

ffo rts

to in

co rp

or a-

te h

om e

va lu

es a

nd p

ra ct

ic es

, an

d di

sc us

si on

w ith

f am

ili es

ab ou

t d iff

er en

ce s

be tw

ee n

th ei

r e xp

ec ta

tio ns

a nd

th os

e of

th e

pr og

ra m

.

In te

gr at

io n

ac ro

ss s

ub je

ct m

at te

r a re

as is

h ig

h, w

hi le

s om

e “fo

- cu

si ng

” is

a pp

ro pr

ia te

( e.

g. ,

ex pe

rie nc

es d

ev ot

ed t

o le

ar ni

ng ab

ou t p

rin t a

nd n

um be

rs ).

C ur

ric ul

um p

la nn

in g

an d

im pl

em en

ta tio

n— in

cl ud

in g

th e

us e

of “p

ro ps

” fo

r pl

ay a

nd o

th er

r ep

re se

nt at

io ns

— em

ph as

iz e

ex pe

- rie

nc es

th at

re fle

ct th

e ch

ild re

n’ s

cu ltu

re s

an d

cu ltu

ra l v

al ue

s.

C ur

ric ul

um fo

cu se

s on

a c

on tin

uu m

o f l

ea rn

in g

in to

pi c

ar ea

s an

d in

te gr

at io

n ac

ro ss

d is

ci pl

in es

. T he

c ur

ric ul

um a

ls o

fa ci

lit at

es a

d- ap

ta tio

n of

in st

ru ct

io n

fo r

ch ild

re n

w ho

a re

h av

in g

di ffi

cu lty

a nd

fo r

th os

e ne

ed in

g in

cr ea

si ng

c ha

lle ng

es .

C hi

ld re

n le

ar n

w ay

s to

d ev

el op

c on

st ru

ct iv

e re

la tio

ns hi

ps w

ith ot

he r

pe op

le a

nd r

es pe

ct fo

r in

di vi

du al

a nd

c ul

tu ra

l d iff

er en

ce s.

(c on

tin ue

d on

p ag

e 21

)

In fa n ts / T o d d le rs

P re s c h o o le rs

K in d e rg a rt e n / P ri m a ry

21

C ur

ric ul

um p

ro vi

de s

ex pe

rie nc

es t

ha t

le ad

t o

do cu

m en

te d

ev i-

de nc

e th

at c

hi ld

re n

ar e

ac qu

iri ng

im po

rta nt

c om

pe te

nc ie

s in

li t-

er ac

y, m

at he

m at

ic s,

s ci

en ce

, v is

ua l a

nd p

er fo

rm in

g ar

ts , a

nd o

th er

su bj

ec t m

at te

r a re

as —

as w

el l a

s co

nt in

ui ng

to d

ev el

op c

og ni

tiv e,

ph ys

ic al

, a nd

s oc

io em

ot io

na l c

om pe

te nc

ie s.

T he

se o

ut co

m es

a re

ap pr

op ria

te fo

r ch

ild re

n’ s

ag es

a s

w el

l a s

th ei

r in

te re

st s

an d

th e

co m

m un

iti es

in w

hi ch

th ey

li ve

.

C hi

ld re

n de

m on

st ra

te p

os iti

ve a

tti tu

de s

to w

ar d

le ar

ni ng

a nd

th ei

r in

cr ea

si ng

u nd

er st

an di

ng o

f k ey

c on

ce pt

s, s

ki lls

, a nd

to ol

s of

in -

qu iry

o f

th e

su bj

ec t

m at

te r

ar ea

s; t

he ir

ap pl

ic at

io n

of t

he se

u n-

de rs

ta nd

in gs

to v

ar io

us s

itu at

io ns

; a nd

th ei

r u nd

er st

an di

ng o

f t he

co nn

ec tio

ns a

cr os

s di

sc ip

lin es

.

C U

R R

IC U

L U

M c

h a rt

( c o

n t’

d )

C ur

ri cu

lu m

th at

p ro

m ot

es p

os iti

ve o

ut co

m es

: W ha

te ve

r t he

c hi

ld re

n’ s

ag es

, t he

c ur

ric ul

um is

s el

ec te

d, a

da pt

ed , a

nd re

vi se

d to

pr om

ot e

po si

tiv e

ou tc

om es

fo r c

hi ld

re n.

O ut

co m

es in

cl ud

e bo

th im

m ed

ia te

e nj

oy m

en t a

nd n

ur tu

ra nc

e an

d lo

ng er

-te rm

b en

ef its

. C ur

- ric

ul um

fo r y

ou ng

er c

hi ld

re n

pa ys

s pe

ci al

a tte

nt io

n to

th os

e ke

y de

ve lo

pm en

ta l o

ut co

m es

s ho

w n

to b

e es

se nt

ia l t

o la

te r s

uc ce

ss —

no t f

oc us

in g

si m

pl y

on e

ar lie

r v er

si on

s of

s pe

ci fic

a ca

de m

ic s

ki lls

.

C ur

ric ul

um p

ro m

ot es

e xp

er ie

nc es

th at

le ad

to d

oc um

en te

d ev

i- de

nc e

th at

in fa

nt s

an d

to dd

le rs

a re

le ar

ni ng

a bo

ut th

em se

lv es

an d

ot he

rs , c

om m

un ic

at in

g th

ei r

ne ed

s to

r es

po ns

iv e

ad ul

ts ,

ga in

in g

un de

rs ta

nd in

gs o

f ba

si c

co nc

ep ts

, an

d de

ve lo

pi ng

m ot

or a

nd c

oo rd

in at

io n

sk ill

s ap

pr op

ria te

fo r

th ei

r ag

es .

O ut

co m

es a

ls o

in cl

ud e

ev id

en ce

th at

e ac

h ch

ild is

d ev

el op

in g

a se

ns e

of tr

us t,

se cu

rit y,

a nd

, i nc

re as

in gl

y, in

de pe

nd en

ce .

C ur

ric ul

um p

ro vi

de s

ex pe

rie nc

es th

at le

ad to

d oc

um en

te d

ev i-

de nc

e th

at p

re sc

ho ol

er s

ar e

ac qu

iri ng

a nd

a pp

ly in

g kn

ow le

dg e

an d

sk ill

s in

p hy

si ca

l w el

l-b ei

ng a

nd m

ot or

d ev

el op

m en

t; so

- ci

al a

nd e

m ot

io na

l d ev

el op

m en

t; ap

pr oa

ch es

to le

ar ni

ng ; l

an -

gu ag

e de

ve lo

pm en

t; an

d co

gn iti

on a

nd g

en er

al k

no w

le dg

e— as

w el

l as

m or

e sp

ec ifi

c sk

ill s

im po

rt an

t fo

r la

te r

sc ho

ol su

cc es

s.

C hi

ld re

n de

m on

st ra

te p

os iti

ve a

tti tu

de s

to w

ar d

le ar

ni ng

a nd

th ei

r i nc

re as

in g

ab ili

tie s

to re

pr es

en t t

he ir

ex pe

rie nc

es in

a v

a- rie

ty o

f w ay

s (e

.g .,

th ro

ug h

dr aw

in g/

pa in

tin g,

d ic

ta tin

g/ w

rit in

g, an

d dr

am at

ic p

la y)

.

In fa n ts / T o d d le rs

P re s c h o o le rs

K in d e rg a rt e n / P ri m a ry

22

A S

S E

S S

M E

N T

in p

ro g

ra m

s fo

r in

fa n

ts ,

to d

d le

rs ,

p re

sc h

o o

le rs

, ki

n d

er g

ar tn

er s,

a n

d p

ri m

ar y

g ra

d e

ch ild

re n

P O

S IT

IO N

S TA

TE M

E N

T R

E C

O M

M E

N D

AT IO

N :

M ak

e et

hi ca

l, ap

pr op

ria te

, va

lid ,

an d

re lia

bl e

as se

ss m

en t

a ce

nt ra

l p ar

t of

a ll

ea rly

c hi

ld ho

od p

ro gr

am s.

T o

as se

ss y

ou ng

ch ild

re n’

s st

re ng

th s,

p ro

gr es

s, a

nd n

ee ds

, u se

m et

ho ds

th at

a re

d ev

el op

m en

ta lly

a pp

ro -

pr ia

te , c

ul tu

ra lly

a nd

li ng

ui st

ic al

ly re

sp on

si ve

, t ie

d to

c hi

ld re

n’ s

da ily

a ct

iv iti

es , s

up po

rte d

by p

ro fe

ss io

na l d

ev el

op m

en t,

in cl

us iv

e of

fa m

ili es

, a nd

c on

ne ct

ed to

s pe

ci fic

, b en

ef ic

ia l

pu rp

os es

: m ak

in g

so un

d de

ci si

on s

ab ou

t t ea

ch in

g an

d le

ar ni

ng ; i

de nt

ify in

g si

gn ifi

ca nt

co nc

er ns

th at

m ay

re qu

ire fo

cu se

d in

te rv

en tio

n fo

r i nd

iv id

ua l c

hi ld

re n;

a nd

h el

pi ng

p ro

- gr

am s

im pr

ov e

th ei

r e du

ca tio

na l a

nd d

ev el

op m

en ta

l i nt

er ve

nt io

ns

A ss

es sm

en t

th at

i s

de ve

lo pm

en ta

lly a

pp ro

pr ia

te a

nd c

ul tu

ra lly

a nd

l in

gu is

ti ca

lly r

es po

ns iv

e: W

ha te

ve r

th e

ch ild

re n’

s ag

es ,

th e

fo cu

s of

t he

a ss

es sm

en t

is c

on si

st en

t w

ith t

he p

ro gr

am ’s

g oa

ls f

or c

hi ld

re n.

T he

a ss

es sm

en t

sy st

em in

co rp

or at

es m

et ho

ds th

at h

av e

be en

v al

id at

ed fo

r us

e w

ith c

hi ld

re n

w ho

se a

ge s,

c ul

tu re

s, h

om e

la ng

ua ge

s, s

oc io

ec on

om ic

s ta

tu s,

a bi

lit ie

s an

d di

sa bi

lit ie

s, a

nd o

th er

c ha

ra ct

er is

tic s

ar e

si m

ila r

to th

os e

of th

e ch

ild re

n w

ith w

ho m

th e

as se

ss m

en ts

w ill

b e

us ed

. A ss

es s-

m en

t m et

ho ds

in cl

ud e

ac co

m m

od at

io ns

fo r c

hi ld

re n

w ith

d is

ab ili

tie s,

w he

n ap

pr op

ria te

. A ss

es sm

en t o

f o ld

er c

hi ld

re n

re lie

s m

or e

on d

ire ct

m ea

su re

s an

d fo

rm al

m et

ho ds

.

A ss

es sm

en ts

fo cu

s on

c hi

ld re

n’ s

st at

us a

nd p

ro gr

es s

in th

ei r

ab ili

tie s

to le

ar n

ab ou

t t he

m se

lv es

a nd

o th

er s,

c om

m un

ic at

e, th

in k,

a nd

u se

th ei

r m

us cl

es .

A ss

es sm

en t m

ea su

re s

en su

re te

ac he

rs ’ r

ec og

ni tio

n of

s im

ila r

kn ow

le dg

e an

d sk

ill s

ac ro

ss d

iff er

en ce

s in

c ul

tu ra

l r ep

re se

n- ta

tio n

an d

in co

rp or

at e

fa m

ili es

’ h om

e va

lu es

, la

ng ua

ge s,

e x-

pe rie

nc es

, a nd

r itu

al s.

A ss

es sm

en ts

f oc

us o

n ch

ild re

n’ s

ex pl

or at

io n,

in qu

iry a

cr os

s di

sc ip

lin es

, a nd

e xp

an di

ng v

oc ab

ul ar

ie s.

A ss

es sm

en t m

ea su

re s

ad dr

es s

ch ild

re n’

s ph

ys ic

al w

el l-b

ei ng

an d

m ot

or d

ev el

op m

en t;

so ci

al a

nd e

m ot

io na

l d ev

el op

m en

t; ap

pr oa

ch es

to le

ar ni

ng ; l

an gu

ag e

de ve

lo pm

en t;

an d

co gn

iti on

an d

ge ne

ra l k

no w

le dg

e.

M ea

su re

s al

so e

ns ur

e te

ac he

rs ’ r

ec og

ni tio

n of

s im

ila r

kn ow

l- ed

ge a

nd s

ki lls

a cr

os s

di ffe

re nc

es in

c ul

tu ra

l r ep

re se

nt at

io n

an d

in co

rp or

at e

cu ltu

ra lly

b as

ed e

xp er

ie nc

es ,

in cl

ud in

g fa

m -

ily v

al ue

s an

d la

ng ua

ge s.

A ss

es sm

en ts

c on

tin ue

to a

dd re

ss b

ro ad

d im

en si

on s

of d

ev el

op -

m en

t y et

a re

in cr

ea si

ng ly

fo cu

se d

on th

e co

nt in

uu m

o f l

ea rn

in g

in to

pi c

ar ea

s as

w el

l a s

in te

gr at

io n

ac ro

ss d

is ci

pl in

es —

la ng

ua ge

an d

lit er

ac y,

m at

he m

at ic

s, s

ci en

ce , s

oc ia

l s tu

di es

, h ea

lth , p

hy si

- ca

l e du

ca tio

n, a

nd v

is ua

l a nd

p er

fo rm

in g

ar ts

.

Te ac

he rs

in vo

lv e

ch ild

re n

in e

va lu

at in

g th

ei r

ow n

w or

k.

A ss

es sm

en t

m ea

su re

s en

su re

t ea

ch er

s’ r

ec og

ni tio

n of

s im

ila r

kn ow

le dg

e an

d sk

ill s

ac ro

ss d

iff er

en ce

s in

c ul

tu ra

l r ep

re se

nt at

io n

an d

in co

rp or

at e

cu ltu

ra lly

b as

ed e

xp er

ie nc

es ,

in cl

ud in

g fa

m ily

va lu

es a

nd la

ng ua

ge s.

(c ha

rt c

on tin

ue d

on p

ag e

23 )

In fa n ts / T o d d le rs

P re s c h o o le rs

K in d e rg a rt e n / P ri m a ry

T h

e i

n fo

rm a

ti o

n i

n t

h is

c h

a rt

i s

b a

se d

o n

t h

e r

e c

o m

m e

n d

a ti

o n

s o

f th

e N

A E

Y C

-N A

E C

S /S

D E

P o

si ti

o n

S ta

te m

e n

t o

n C

u rr

ic u

lu m

, A

ss e

ss m

e n

t, a

n d

P ro

g ra

m E

v a

lu a

ti o

n (

w w

w .n

a e

y c

.o rg

/ re

so u

rc e

s/ p

o si

ti o

n _s

ta te

m e

n ts

/p sc

a p

e .p

d f)

. T

h e

c h

a rt

p ro

v id

e s

e x

a m

p le

s o

f w

a y

s in

w h

ic h

th e

r e

c o

m m

e n

d a

ti o

n s

o f

th e

N A

E Y

C -N

A E

C S

/S D

E P

o si

ti o

n S

ta te

m e

n t

o n

C u

rr ic

u lu

m ,

A ss

e ss

m e

n t,

a n

d P

ro g

ra m

E v

a lu

a ti

o n

c a

n b

e i

m p

le m

e n

te d

i n

p ro

g ra

m s

fo r

in fa

n ts

/t o

d d

le rs

, p

re sc

h o

o le

rs ,

a n

d k

in d

e rg

a rt

e n

/p ri

m a

ry a

g e

c h

il d

re n

. T

h e

e x

a m

p le

s c

a n

b e

st b

e u

n d

e r-

st o

o d

w it

h in

t h

e c

o n

te x

t o

f th

e f

u ll

p o

si ti

o n

s ta

te m

e n

t.

23

A ss

es sm

en t t

ha t i

s tie

d to

c hi

ld re

n’ s

da ily

a ct

iv iti

es : W

ha te

ve r

th e

ch ild

re n’

s ag

es , a

ss es

sm en

t i nc

or po

ra te

s te

ac he

rs ’ o

bs er

va -

tio n

re co

rd in

gs a

nd o

th er

d oc

um en

ta tio

n, o

bt ai

ne d

du rin

g re

gu la

r cl

as sr

oo m

a ct

iv iti

es , c

ol le

ct ed

s ys

te m

at ic

al ly

a t r

eg ul

ar in

te rv

al s.

W ha

te ve

r t he

c hi

ld re

n’ s

a ge

s, te

ac he

rs o

bs er

ve b

ot h

w ha

t c hi

ld re

n ca

n do

o n

th ei

r o w

n an

d w

ha t t

he y

ca n

do w

ith s

ki llf

ul a

du lt

pr om

pt in

g an

d su

pp or

t. Fo

r yo

un ge

r ch

ild re

n, a

ss es

sm en

t i s

pr im

ar ily

in co

rp or

at ed

w ith

th ei

r pl

ay a

nd in

te ra

ct io

ns ; f

or o

ld er

c hi

ld re

n, a

ss es

s- m

en t m

et ho

ds m

ay b

e m

or e

cl ea

rly d

ef in

ed , s

ep ar

at e

fro m

o th

er a

ct iv

iti es

, a nd

in cl

ud e

so m

e pa

pe r-

an d-

pe nc

il m

et ho

ds .

A S

S E

S S

M E

N T

c h

a rt

( c o

n t’

d )

A ss

es sm

en ts

a dd

re ss

o bs

er va

tio n

re co

rd in

gs a

nd o

th er

p la

y- an

d in

te ra

ct io

n- fo

cu se

d m

ea su

re s.

A ss

es sm

en ts

a dd

re ss

o bs

er va

tio n

re co

rd in

gs a

nd o

th er

fo rm

s of

d oc

um en

ta tio

n re

ga rd

in g

ch ild

re n’

s pl

ay a

nd in

te ra

ct io

ns (e

.g .,

ch ild

re n’

s w

rit in

g sa

m pl

es , g

ra ph

s re

pr es

en tin

g ch

ild re

n’ s

ex pe

rie nc

es w

ith q

ua nt

iti es

).

A ss

es sm

en ts

a dd

re ss

o bs

er va

tio n

re co

rd in

gs ,

co lle

ct io

ns o

f ch

ild re

n’ s

w or

k, a

nd m

or e

fo rm

al a

ss es

sm en

t m

et ho

ds (

e. g.

, te

ac he

rs a

sk in

g ch

ild re

n qu

es tio

ns re

ga rd

in g

th ei

r k no

w le

dg e

of to

pi cs

, c hi

ld re

n’ s

pe rfo

rm an

ce o

n pr

ob le

m -s

ol vi

ng ta

sk s)

.

A ss

es sm

en t

th at

is in

cl us

iv e

of f

am ili

es :

Fa m

ili es

a re

in fo

rm ed

a bo

ut t

he a

ss es

sm en

t of

t he

ir ch

ild re

n (a

t al

l a ge

s) . T

ea ch

er s

ob ta

in in

fo rm

at io

n fro

m p

ar en

ts a

nd s

ha re

in fo

rm at

io n

ab ou

t c hi

ld re

n in

w ay

s th

at a

re c

le ar

, r es

pe ct

fu l,

an d

co ns

tru ct

iv e.

W ith

y ou

ng er

ch ild

re n,

th e

in fo

rm at

io n

th at

is s

ha re

d fo

cu se

s pr

im ar

ily o

n he

al th

a nd

d ev

el op

m en

t. A

s ch

ild re

n be

co m

e ol

de r,

fa m

ili es

s ha

re in

fo r-

m at

io n

th at

a ls

o in

cl ud

es c

hi ld

re n’

s pr

og re

ss in

a ca

de m

ic d

om ai

ns a

s as

se ss

ed in

m or

e fo

rm al

a nd

o fte

n st

at e-

m an

da te

d w

ay s.

Te ac

he rs

a nd

p ar

en ts

s ha

re i

nf or

m at

io n

pe rio

di ca

lly a

bo ut

ch ild

re n’

s en

ga ge

m en

t in

r ou

tin es

( e.

g. ,

be in

g fe

d or

e at

in g)

an d

ex pe

rie nc

es (e

.g .,

pl ay

in g

pe ek

ab oo

o r l

oo ki

ng fo

r h id

de n

ob je

ct s)

.

F or

i nf

an ts

, pa

re nt

s al

so r

ec ei

ve d

ai ly

i nf

or m

at io

n ab

ou t

ch ild

re n’

s ea

tin g,

s le

ep in

g, a

nd e

lim in

at in

g.

Te ac

he rs

a nd

p ar

en ts

s ha

re i

nf or

m at

io n

pe rio

di ca

lly a

bo ut

ch ild

re n’

s pr

og re

ss in

a ll

do m

ai ns

.

Te ac

he rs

a nd

p ar

en ts

w or

k to

ge th

er to

m ak

e de

ci si

on s

re ga

rd -

in g

ch ild

re n’

s le

ar ni

ng g

oa ls

a nd

a pp

ro ac

he s

to le

ar ni

ng .

Te ac

he rs

a nd

p ar

en ts

s ha

re i

nf or

m at

io n

pe ri

od ic

al ly

a bo

ut ch

ild re

n’ s

pr og

re ss

in a

ll do

m ai

ns a

nd d

is ci

pl in

es .

A ss

es sm

en t m

ea su

re s

m ig

ht in

cl ud

e le

tte r

or n

um er

ic al

g ra

de s;

w he

n su

ch g

ra de

s ar

e us

ed , r

ep or

ts to

p ar

en ts

a ls

o in

cl ud

e na

r- ra

tiv e

co m

m en

ts re

ga rd

in g

ch ild

re n’

s le

ar ni

ng a

cr os

s di

sc ip

lin es

.

Te ac

he rs

in fo

rm p

ar en

ts a

bo ut

th e

m ea

ni ng

, u se

s, a

nd li

m ita

tio ns

of th

e re

su lts

o f l

ar ge

-s ca

le a

ss es

sm en

ts .

A ss

es sm

en t t

ha t i

s su

pp or

te d

by p

ro fe

ss io

na l d

ev el

op m

en t:

F or

te ac

he rs

o f a

ll ch

ild re

n fro

m b

irt h

th ro

ug h

ag e

ei gh

t, pr

of es

- si

on al

d ev

el op

m en

t i nc

or po

ra te

s re

se ar

ch -b

as ed

in fo

rm at

io n

re ga

rd in

g as

se ss

m en

t s ys

te m

s an

d m

ea su

re s

an d

in cl

ud es

o pp

or tu

ni -

tie s

fo r

te ac

he rs

to r

ef in

e th

ei r

as se

ss m

en t a

nd a

na ly

si s

sk ill

s. P

ro fe

ss io

na l d

ev el

op m

en t n

ee ds

fo r

te ac

he rs

o f y

ou ng

er a

nd o

ld er

ch ild

re n

ch an

ge fr

om a

m or

e ex

cl us

iv e

fo cu

s on

in fo

rm al

, p la

y- ba

se d

as se

ss m

en t t

o in

cl ud

e kn

ow le

dg e

of fo

rm al

a ss

es sm

en ts

c on

- ne

ct ed

to le

ar ni

ng s

ta nd

ar ds

.

(c on

tin ue

d on

p ag

e 24

)

A ss

es sm

en ts

i nc

lu de

t ea

ch er

s’ o

bs er

va tio

n re

co rd

in gs

o f

ch ild

re n’

s pe

rfo rm

an ce

d ur

in g

in st

ru ct

io na

l a ct

iv iti

es , a

s w

el l a

s ot

he r

do cu

m en

ta tio

n (e

.g .,

ch ild

re n’

s w

rit te

n re

co rd

s of

t he

ir kn

ow le

dg e

an d

sk ill

a cq

ui si

tio n,

s am

pl es

o f w

or k

co m

pl et

ed ).

A ss

es sm

en ts

i nc

lu de

t ea

ch er

s’ o

bs er

va tio

n re

co rd

in gs

o f

ch ild

re n’

s pe

rfo rm

an ce

d ur

in g

ro ut

in es

a nd

a ct

iv iti

es , a

s w

el l

as o

th er

d oc

um en

ta tio

n (e

.g .,

ph ot

og ra

ph s

or v

id eo

ta pe

s of

ch ild

re n

pl ay

in g;

s am

pl es

o f d

ra w

in gs

).

A ss

es sm

en ts

i nc

lu de

t ea

ch er

s’ o

bs er

va tio

n re

co rd

in gs

o f

ch ild

re n’

s pe

rfo rm

an ce

d ur

in g

cl as

sr oo

m e

xp er

ie nc

es , a

s w

el l

as o

th er

d oc

um en

ta tio

n (e

.g .,

ph ot

og ra

ph s

of c

hi ld

re n’

s bl

oc k

co ns

tru ct

io ns

; s am

pl es

o f e

as el

p ai

nt in

gs ).

In fa n ts / T o d d le rs

P re s c h o o le rs

K in d e rg a rt e n / P ri m a ry

24

A ss

es sm

en t

th at

is u

se d

to m

ak e

so un

d de

ci si

on s

ab ou

t te

ac hi

ng a

nd le

ar ni

ng :

W ha

te ve

r th

e ch

ild re

n’ s

ag es

, a ss

es sm

en t

in fo

rm at

io n

is u

se d

to s

up po

rt le

ar ni

ng , c

on si

st en

t w ith

th e

go al

s of

th e

cu rr

ic ul

um . F

or y

ou ng

er c

hi ld

re n,

in fo

rm at

io n

ab ou

t e ac

h ch

ild ’s

g ro

w th

a nd

d ev

el op

m en

t i s

us ed

to m

ak e

de ci

si on

s re

ga rd

in g

po ss

ib le

c ha

ng es

to th

e en

vi ro

nm en

t, in

te ra

ct io

ns , a

nd e

xp er

i- en

ce s.

W ith

o ld

er c

hi ld

re n,

a ss

es sm

en t i

nf or

m at

io n

is a

ls o

us ed

fo r m

ak in

g de

ci si

on s

ab ou

t e ac

h ch

ild ’s

c ur

re nt

u nd

er st

an di

ng a

nd sk

ill s

in c

on te

nt a

re as

, w ha

t h e

or s

he s

ho ul

d be

re ad

y to

le ar

n ne

xt , a

nd in

st ru

ct io

na l m

et ho

ds th

at h

el p

th e

ch ild

re n

m ee

t i m

po rta

nt de

ve lo

pm en

ta l a

nd le

ar ni

ng g

oa ls

A ss

es sm

en t a

dd re

ss es

c hi

ld re

n’ s

ab ili

tie s

to le

ar n

ab ou

t t he

m -

se lv

es a

nd o

th er

s, c

om m

un ic

at e,

th in

k, a

nd u

se th

ei r m

us cl

es .

Te ac

he rs

a dj

us t t

he ir

ro ut

in es

a nd

e xp

er ie

nc es

fo r

ea ch

c hi

ld ba

se d

on a

ss es

sm en

t o f t

he c

hi ld

’s s

ki ll

ac qu

is iti

on , t

em pe

ra -

m en

t, in

te re

st s,

a nd

o th

er fa

ct or

s.

A ss

es sm

en t

ad dr

es se

s ch

ild re

n’ s

ph ys

ic al

w el

l-b ei

ng a

nd m

ot or

d ev

el op

m en

t; so

ci al

a nd

e m

ot io

na l d

ev el

op m

en t;

ap -

pr oa

ch es

t o

le ar

ni ng

; la

ng ua

ge d

ev el

op m

en t;

an d

co gn

iti on

an d

ge ne

ra l k

no w

le dg

e.

Te ac

he rs

d ev

el op

s ho

rt- a

nd lo

ng -r

an ge

p la

ns f

or e

ac h

ch ild

an d

th e

gr ou

p ba

se d

on c

hi ld

re n’

s kn

ow le

dg e

an d

sk ill

s, in

te r-

es ts

, a nd

o th

er fa

ct or

s.

Th e

te ac

hi ng

a nd

le ar

ni ng

d ec

is io

ns th

at a

re m

ad e

on th

e ba

si s

of a

ss es

sm en

t r es

ul ts

in cr

ea si

ng ly

in cl

ud e

a fo

cu s

on h

ow b

es t

to p

ro m

ot e

ac qu

is iti

on o

f lit

er ac

y, m

at he

m at

ic s,

a nd

o th

er c

on -

te nt

-s pe

ci fic

a re

as —

ye t w

ith b

ro ad

er a

ss es

sm en

t r es

ul ts

c on

tin u-

in g

to h

av e

a st

ro ng

in flu

en ce

o n

in st

ru ct

io na

l d ec

is io

ns .

Te ac

he rs

u se

a ss

es sm

en t i

nf or

m at

io n

to d

et er

m in

e w

hi ch

te ac

h- in

g ap

pr oa

ch es

a re

w or

ki ng

, as

w el

l a s

ad ap

ta tio

ns n

ee de

d fo

r in

di vi

du al

c hi

ld re

n w

ho a

re h

av in

g di

ffi cu

lty a

nd fo

r th

os e

ne ed

- in

g in

cr ea

si ng

c ha

lle ng

es .

A S

S E

S S

M E

N T

c h

a rt

( c o

n t’

d )

A ss

es sm

en t t

ha t i

s us

ed to

id en

tif y

si gn

ifi ca

nt c

on ce

rn s

th at

m ay

re qu

ir e

fo cu

se d

in te

rv en

tio n:

W ha

te ve

r t he

c hi

ld re

n’ s

ag es

, he

al th

a nd

d ev

el op

m en

ta l s

cr ee

ni ng

is u

se d

to id

en tif

y th

os e

ch ild

re n

w ho

m ay

b en

ef it

fro m

m or

e in

-d ep

th a

ss es

sm en

t. Ve

ry y

ou ng

ch ild

re n

m ay

b e

sc re

en ed

r eg

ul ar

ly fo

r po

te nt

ia l h

ea lth

p ro

bl em

s an

d de

ve lo

pm en

ta l d

el ay

s. F

or o

ld er

c hi

ld re

n, s

cr ee

ni ng

a nd

fo l-

lo w

-u p

as se

ss m

en t m

ay le

ad to

id en

tif ic

at io

n of

d is

ab ili

tie s

or o

th er

s pe

ci fic

c on

ce rn

s th

at w

er e

no t a

pp ar

en t w

he n

ch ild

re n

w er

e yo

un ge

r. W

he n

di sa

bi lit

ie s

or o

th er

p ro

bl em

s ar

e di

ag no

se d,

a pp

ro pr

ia te

in te

rv en

tio ns

a re

p la

nn ed

a nd

im pl

em en

te d.

A ss

es sm

en ts

fo cu

s on

h ea

lth n

ee ds

a nd

a cq

ui si

tio n

of n

or m

al de

ve lo

pm en

ta l m

ile st

on es

.

S cr

ee ni

ng m

ay b

e co

nd uc

te d

as p

ar t o

f a c

hi ld

’s w

el l-b

ab y

or w

el l-c

hi ld

c ar

e an

d/ or

th ro

ug h

pa rti

ci pa

tio n

in E

ar ly

H ea

d S

ta rt

or o

th er

g ro

up p

ro gr

am s.

A ss

es sm

en ts

c on

tin ue

to fo

cu s

on h

ea lth

n ee

ds a

nd p

os si

bl e

de ve

lo pm

en ta

l d el

ay s.

S cr

ee ni

ng ty

pi ca

lly is

c on

du ct

ed a

s ch

ild re

n en

te r

H ea

d S

ta rt

an d

ot he

r pr

es ch

oo l p

ro gr

am s.

O fte

n, s

ta ff

fr om

t he

se p

ro -

gr am

s re

ce iv

e sp

ec ifi

c tra

in in

g fo

r c on

du ct

in g

th e

as se

ss m

en ts

.

A ss

es sm

en ts

, i nc

lu di

ng v

is io

n an

d he

ar in

g sc

re en

in g,

ty pi

ca lly

a re

co nd

uc te

d fo

r al

l c hi

ld re

n en

te rin

g ki

nd er

ga rte

n.

Fo rm

al s

ch oo

l-d is

tri ct

o r

st at

e- m

an da

te d

sc re

en in

g an

d re

fe rr

al pr

ot oc

ol s

ar e

fo llo

w ed

fo r

al l c

hi ld

re n.

(c on

tin ue

d on

p ag

e 25

)

In fa n ts / T o d d le rs

P re s c h o o le rs

K in d e rg a rt e n / P ri m a ry

25

A ss

es sm

en t i

nf or

m at

io n

is g

at he

re d

pr im

ar ily

th ro

ug h

di re

ct m

ea -

su re

s (a

cr os

s di

sc ip

lin es

).

A na

ly si

s of

a ss

es sm

en t i

nf or

m at

io n

m ay

le ad

to c

ha ng

es in

te ac

h- in

g ap

pr oa

ch es

fo r

th e

w ho

le g

ro up

, d es

ig n

an d

im pl

em en

ta tio

n of

a ct

iv iti

es fo

r sm

al l g

ro up

s of

c hi

ld re

n, a

nd /o

r ot

he r

as pe

ct s

of th

e pr

og ra

m .

A ss

es sm

en t t

ha t i

s us

ed to

h el

p pr

og ra

m s

im pr

ov e

th ei

r ed

uc at

io na

l a nd

d ev

el op

m en

ta l i

nt er

ve nt

io ns

: I n

al l e

ar ly

c hi

ld -

ho od

p ro

gr am

s, in

fo rm

at io

n is

u se

d to

h el

p te

ac he

rs a

nd p

ro gr

am a

dm in

is tr

at or

s m

ai nt

ai n

an a

w ar

en es

s of

th e

ef fe

ct s

of p

ro -

gr am

a ct

iv iti

es o

n th

e ch

ild re

n an

d fa

m ili

es s

er ve

d. W

ith t

hi s

aw ar

en es

s, im

pr ov

em en

ts t

o pr

og ra

m s

ca n

be m

ad e.

A ss

es s-

m en

t i nf

or m

at io

n fo

r y ou

ng er

c hi

ld re

n pr

ed om

in an

tly a

dd re

ss es

p hy

si ca

l c ha

ra ct

er is

tic s

an d

he al

th is

su es

, m ov

in g

to w

ar d

m or

e di

re ct

m ea

su re

s of

o ld

er c

hi ld

re n’

s kn

ow le

dg e

an d

sk ill

s (e

.g .,

pa pe

r- an

d- pe

nc il

te st

s th

at a

re d

is ci

pl in

e sp

ec ifi

c) .

A ss

es sm

en t d

at a

ar e

co lle

ct ed

re ga

rd in

g im

m un

iz at

io ns

, w el

l- ba

by c

ar e

re ce

iv ed

, a nd

s en

so ry

a nd

p er

ce pt

ua l c

ap ac

iti es

.

A na

ly si

s of

a ss

es sm

en t i

nf or

m at

io n

m ay

le ad

to c

ha ng

es in

p ri-

m ar

y ca

re gi

ve r

re sp

on si

bi lit

ie s,

s ty

le s

of in

te ra

ct io

ns ,

st ra

te -

gi es

to p

ro m

ot e

la ng

ua ge

d ev

el op

m en

t, in

do or

a nd

o ut

do or

e n-

vi ro

nm en

ts , a

nd /o

r ot

he r

as pe

ct s

of th

e pr

og ra

m .

A ss

es sm

en t

in fo

rm at

io n

is g

at he

re d

re ga

rd in

g ph

ys ic

al w

el l-

be in

g an

d m

ot or

d ev

el op

m en

t; so

ci al

a nd

e m

ot io

na l d

ev el

op -

m en

t; ap

pr oa

ch es

t o

le ar

ni ng

; la

ng ua

ge d

ev el

op m

en t;

an d

co gn

iti on

a nd

g en

er al

k no

w le

dg e.

A na

ly si

s of

a ss

es sm

en t i

nf or

m at

io n

m ay

le ad

to c

ha ng

es in

th e

da ily

s ch

ed ul

e, c

ur ric

ul um

a nd

t ea

ch in

g st

ra te

gi es

, st

yl es

o f

in te

ra ct

io n,

in te

re st

a re

a ar

ra ng

em en

ts , o

ut do

or p

la y

ar ea

r e-

so ur

ce s,

a nd

/o r

ot he

r as

pe ct

s of

th e

pr og

ra m

.

A S

S E

S S

M E

N T

c h

a rt

( c o

n t’

d )

In fa n ts / T o d d le rs

P re s c h o o le rs

K in d e rg a rt e n / P ri m a ry

26

P ro

gr am

e va

lu at

io n

an d

ac co

un ta

bi lit

y in

p ro

gr am

s se

rv in

g ki

n- de

rg ar

te n

an d

pr im

ar y-

ag e

ch ild

re n

is ty

pi ca

lly c

on du

ct ed

w ith

in a

sy st

em o

f f ed

er al

, s ta

te , a

nd d

is tri

ct e

xp ec

ta tio

ns .

A lth

ou gh

m or

e ca

pa bl

e of

p ar

tic ip

at in

g in

s om

e ki

nd s

of fo

rm al

as se

ss m

en ts

, c hi

ld re

n si

x to

e ig

ht m

ay s

til l f

ai l t

o sh

ow th

ei r l

ev el

of c

om pe

te nc

e un

de r

te st

in g

co nd

iti on

s, le

ad in

g to

e rr

on eo

us co

nc lu

si on

s ab

ou t p

ro gr

am s

as w

el l a

s in

di vi

du al

c hi

ld re

n.

A cc

ou nt

ab ili

ty s

ys te

m s

fo r

ch ild

re n

th is

a ge

r un

th e

ris k

of r

ei n-

fo rc

in g

a na

rr ow

r an

ge o

f pr

og ra

m g

oa ls

; sp

ec ia

l a tte

nt io

n is

ne ed

ed t

o m

ai nt

ai n

a co

m pr

eh en

si ve

, de

ve lo

pm en

ta lly

a pp

ro -

pr ia

te s

ys te

m t

ha t

fo cu

se s

on p

ro gr

am s

ta nd

ar ds

a s

w el

l a s

le ar

ni ng

s ta

nd ar

ds .

A ss

es sm

en t

of k

in de

rg ar

te n

an d

pr im

ar y

gr ad

e ch

ild re

n us

in g

fo rm

al s

ta nd

ar di

ze d

as se

ss m

en ts

c on

tin ue

s to

b e

pr ob

le m

at ic

. A

lte rn

at e

m et

ho ds

o f

sa m

pl in

g pr

oc ed

ur es

s ho

ul d

be e

m ph

a- si

ze d.

P R

O G

R A

M E

VA L

U A

T IO

N a

n d

A C

C O

U N

TA B

IL IT

Y in

p ro

g ra

m s

fo r

in fa

n ts

, t o

d d

le rs

, p re

sc h

o o

le rs

, ki

n d

er g

ar tn

er s,

a n

d p

ri m

ar y

g ra

d e

ch ild

re n

P O

S IT

IO N

S TA

T E

M E

N T

R E

C O

M M

E N

D A

T IO

N :

R eg

ul ar

ly ev

al ua

te e

ar ly

c hi

ld ho

od p

ro gr

am s

in li

gh t o

f p ro

gr am

g oa

ls , u

s- in

g va

rie d,

a pp

ro pr

ia te

, c on

ce pt

ua lly

a nd

te ch

ni ca

lly s

ou nd

e vi

- de

nc e

to d

et er

m in

e th

e ex

te nt

to w

hi ch

p ro

gr am

s m

ee t t

he e

x- pe

ct ed

s ta

nd ar

ds o

f q ua

lit y

an d

to e

xa m

in e

in te

nd ed

a s

w el

l a s

un in

te nd

ed re

su lts

.

E ff

ec tiv

e pr

og ra

m e

va lu

at io

n an

d ac

co un

ta bi

lit y:

P ro

gr am

s se

rv in

g ch

ild re

n of

a ll

ag es

e ng

ag e

in o

ng oi

ng e

va lu

at io

n in

li gh

t o f

th ei

r i de

nt ifi

ed g

oa ls

a nd

a re

a cc

ou nt

ab le

fo r p

ro du

ci ng

b en

ef ic

ia l r

es ul

ts . A

lth ou

gh m

an y

si m

ila rit

ie s

ar e

fo un

d ac

ro ss

a ll

hi gh

-q ua

l- ity

e ar

ly c

hi ld

ho od

p ro

gr am

s, th

e sp

ec ifi

c st

an da

rd s

of q

ua lit

y us

ed to

e va

lu at

e pr

og ra

m s

(e .g

., pr

og ra

m s

ta nd

ar ds

a nd

e ar

ly le

ar ni

ng st

an da

rd s)

, i ss

ue s

ab ou

t t he

k in

ds o

f e vi

de nc

e th

at a

re m

os t a

pp ro

pr ia

te , a

nd s

pe ci

fic ri

sk s

in he

re nt

in a

cc ou

nt ab

ili ty

s ys

te m

s va

ry de

pe nd

in g

on th

e ag

es o

f t he

c hi

ld re

n se

rv ed

. P ro

gr am

s fo

r ol

de r

ch ild

re n

ar e

m or

e lik

el y

to b

e m

an da

te d

to p

ar tic

ip at

e in

la rg

e- sc

al e

ev al

ua tio

ns u

si ng

n or

m -r

ef er

en ce

d as

se ss

m en

ts ; i

n th

os e

ca se

s, m

ul tip

le s

af eg

ua rd

s sh

ou ld

b e

in p

la ce

, e ns

ur in

g th

at th

e te

st s

ar e

de ve

lo pm

en ta

lly a

pp ro

pr ia

te , c

on du

ct ed

in th

e la

ng ua

ge c

hi ld

re n

ar e

m os

t c om

fo rta

bl e

w ith

, a nd

e m

pl oy

o th

er a

cc om

m o-

da tio

ns a

s ap

pr op

ria te

. A gg

re ga

te d,

n ot

in di

vi du

al , d

at a

sh ou

ld b

e us

ed a

s pa

rt of

a n

ac co

un ta

bi lit

y sy

st em

, a nd

g ai

n sc

or es

s ho

ul d

be e

m ph

as iz

ed ra

th er

th an

“s na

ps ho

ts ” o

f s co

re s

up on

e xi

t f ro

m a

p ro

gr am

.

P ro

gr am

e va

lu at

io n

an d

ac co

un ta

bi lit

y us

es s

ta nd

ar ds

o f q

ua l-

ity (

pr og

ra m

a nd

e ar

ly le

ar ni

ng s

ta nd

ar ds

) th

at a

re s

pe ci

fic to

in fa

nt s

an d

to dd

le rs

a nd

a dd

re ss

th e

de ve

lo pm

en ta

l d om

ai ns

(p hy

si ca

l w el

l-b ei

ng a

nd m

ot or

d ev

el op

m en

t; so

ci al

a nd

e m

o- tio

na l d

ev el

op m

en t;

ap pr

oa ch

es to

le ar

ni ng

; l an

gu ag

e de

ve l-

op m

en t;

an d

co gn

iti on

a nd

g en

er al

k no

w le

dg e)

, as

w el

l a s

th os

e th

at a

re r

el ev

an t t

o al

l p ro

gr am

s.

In e

va lu

at in

g pr

og ra

m e

ffe ct

iv en

es s,

g re

at im

po rta

nc e

is p

la ce

d on

fa m

ily -r

el at

ed g

oa ls

a nd

o ut

co m

es b

ec au

se o

f t he

ir cr

iti ca

l de

ve lo

pm en

ta l s

ig ni

fic an

ce fo

r in

fa nt

s an

d to

dd le

rs .

U se

o f c

hi ld

re n’

s ga

in s

co re

s as

p ar

t o f a

n ac

co un

ta bi

lit y

sy s-

te m

, w hi

le p

re fe

ra bl

e ov

er o

th er

ty pe

s of

c om

pa ris

on s,

s til

l w ar

- ra

nt c

au tio

n be

ca us

e of

t he

w id

e va

ria bi

lit y

an d

un ev

en ne

ss of

e ar

ly d

ev el

op m

en t.

P ro

gr am

e va

lu at

io n

an d

ac co

un ta

bi lit

y at

te nd

s to

a c

om pr

e- he

ns iv

e ra

ng e

of d

ev el

op m

en ta

l a nd

le ar

ni ng

o ut

co m

es , b

ot h

in id

en tif

yi ng

p ro

gr am

g oa

ls a

nd in

e va

lu at

in g

ef fe

ct iv

en es

s.

A s

pr es

ch oo

l p ro

gr am

s in

cr ea

si ng

ly b

ec om

e pa

rt of

s ta

te a

c- co

un ta

bi lit

y sy

st em

s, o

ut co

m es

s ho

ul d

no t b

e lim

ite d

to a

ca -

de m

ic d

is ci

pl in

es b

ut s

ho ul

d in

cl ud

e de

ve lo

pm en

ta l d

om ai

ns —

ph ys

ic al

w el

l- be

in g

an d

m ot

or d

ev el

op m

en t;

s oc

ia l

an d

em ot

io na

l de

ve lo

pm en

t; ap

pr oa

ch es

t o

le ar

ni ng

; la

ng ua

ge de

ve lo

pm en

t; an

d co

gn iti

on a

nd g

en er

al k

no w

le dg

e— as

w el

l as

a dd

re ss

a dh

er en

ce w

ith a

pp lic

ab le

p ro

gr am

s ta

nd ar

ds .

G iv

en th

e di

ffi cu

lty o

f u si

ng fo

rm al

s ta

nd ar

di ze

d as

se ss

m en

ts w

ith p

re sc

ho ol

c hi

ld re

n, a

lte rn

at e

m et

ho ds

a nd

s am

pl in

g pr

o- ce

du re

s sh

ou ld

b e

em ph

as iz

ed .

T h

e i

n fo

rm a

ti o

n i

n t

h is

c h

a rt

i s

b a

se d

o n

t h

e r

e c

o m

m e

n d

a ti

o n

s o

f th

e N

A E

Y C

-N A

E C

S /S

D E

P o

si ti

o n

S ta

te m

e n

t o

n C

u rr

ic u

lu m

, A

ss e

ss m

e n

t, a

n d

P ro

g ra

m E

v a

lu a

ti o

n (

w w

w .n

a e

y c

.o rg

/ re

so u

rc e

s/ p

o si

ti o

n _s

ta te

m e

n ts

/p sc

a p

e .p

d f)

. T

h e

c h

a rt

p ro

v id

e s

e x

a m

p le

s o

f w

a y

s in

w h

ic h

th e

r e

c o

m m

e n

d a

ti o

n s

o f

th e

N A

E Y

C -N

A E

C S

/S D

E P

o si

ti o

n S

ta te

m e

n t

o n

C u

rr ic

u lu

m ,

A ss

e ss

- m

e n

t, a

n d

P ro

g ra

m E

v a

lu a

ti o

n c

a n

b e

i m

p le

m e

n te

d i

n p

ro g

ra m

s fo

r in

fa n

ts /t

o d

d le

rs ,

p re

sc h

o o

le rs

, a

n d

k in

d e

rg a

rt e

n /p

ri m

a ry

a g

e c

h il

d re

n .

T h

e e

x a

m p

le s

c a

n b

e st

b e

u n

d e

rs to

o d

w it

h in

t h

e c

o n

te x

t o

f th

e f

u ll

p o

si ti

o n

s ta

te m

e n

t.

In fa n ts / T o d d le rs

P re s c h o o le rs

K in d e rg a rt e n / P ri m a ry

27

Glossary

This glossary includes brief definitions of some key terms used in the position statement and in this re- source. Definitions are based on common usage in the fields of early education, child development, assessment, and program evaluation. Terms with asterisks are adapted from a recent glossary of standards and assessment terms (see below).

Aggregation: A process of grouping distinct informa- tion or data (for example, combining information about individual schools or programs into a data set describ- ing an entire school district or state).

Alignment: In this context, coherence and continuity among goals, standards, desired results, curriculum, and assessments, with attention to developmental differences as well as connections across ages and grade levels. Alignment includes attention to develop- mental differences as well as connections.

*Assessment: A systematic procedure for obtaining information from observation, interviews, portfolios, projects, tests, and other sources that can be used to make judgments about children’s characteristics.

Assessment Literacy: Professionals’, students’, or families’ knowledge about the goals, tools, and appro- priate uses of assessment.

Child Development: In this early childhood context, development is defined as the social, emotional, physical, and cognitive changes in children stimulated by biological maturation interacting with experience.

Cognition: Includes processes for acquiring informa- tion, inquiring, thinking, reasoning, remembering and recalling, representing, planning, problem solving, and other mental activities.

*Criterion or Performance-Oriented Assessment: Assessment in which the person’s performance (that is, score) is interpreted by comparing it with a prespecified standard or specific content and/or skills.

Culturally and Linguistically Responsive: In this in- stance, development and implementation of early child- hood curriculum, assessment, or program evaluation that is attuned to issues of values, identity, worldview, language, and other culture-related variables.

Culture: Includes ethnicity, racial identity, economic class, family structure, language, and religious and political beliefs.

Data: Factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to make decisions.

Developmentally Appropriate: NAEYC defines develop- mentally appropriate practices as those that “result from the process of professionals making decisions about the well-being and education of children based on at least three important kinds of information or knowl- edge: what is known about child development and learning…; what is known about the strengths, inter- ests, and needs of each individual child in the group…; and knowledge of the social and cultural contexts in which children live” (Bredekamp & Copple 1997, 8–9).

*Documentation: The process of keeping track of and preserving children’s work as evidence of their progress or of a program’s development.

*Early Learning Standards: Statements that describe expectations for the learning and development of young children.

Implementation: In this context, the process of taking a planned curriculum, assessment system, or evaluation design and “making it happen” in ways that are consis- tent with the plan and desired results.

Logic Model: A model of how components of a program or service effect changes that move participating children and families toward desired outcomes.

Matrix Sampling: An approach to large-scale assess- ment in which only part of the total assessment is administered to each child.

*Norm-Referenced: A standardized testing instrument by which the person’s performance is interpreted in relation to the performance of a group of peers who have previously taken the same test—a “norming” group.

Observational Assessment: Assessment based on teachers’ systematic recordings and analysis of children’s behavior in real-life situations.

Outcomes: In this case, desired results for young children’s learning and development across multiple domains.

Pedagogy: A variety of teaching methods or ap- proaches used to help children learn and develop.

Program Evaluation: A systematic process of describ- ing the components and outcomes of an intervention or service.

* Terms adapted from “The Words We Use: A Glossary of Terms for Early Childhood Education Standards and Assessments,” developed by the State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS). Glossary online: www.ccsso.org/projects/SCASS/projects/early_ childhood_education_assessment_consortium/ publications_and_products/2838.cfm.

28

References

ACF (Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). 2003. Head Start program fact sheet. Washington, DC: Author.

ACYF (Administration on Children, Youth and Families). 1997. The program manager’s guide to evaluation. Washington, DC: Author.

AERA (American Educational Research Association). 2000. Posi- tion statement concerning high-stakes testing in preK–12 educa- tion. Washington, DC: Author.

AERA, APA (American Psychological Association), & NCME (Na- tional Council on Measurement in Education). 1999. Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: AERA.

ASPE (Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evalua- tion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). 2003. Strengthening Head Start: What the evidence shows. Washington, DC: Author.

Align to Achieve. 2003. The standards database. Watertown, MA: Author. Online: www.aligntoachieve.org/AchievePhaseII/basic- search.cfm

Annie E. Casey Foundation. 2003. KIDS COUNT data book. Balti- more: Author.

Barnett, W.S. 2003. Better teachers, better preschools: Student achievement linked to teacher qualifications. NIEER Policy Briefs 2. Online: http://nieer.org/resources/policybriefs/2.pdf

Bodrova, E., & D. Leong. 2003. Chopsticks and counting chips: Do play and foundational skills need to compete for the teacher’s attention in an early childhood classroom? Young Children 58 (3): 10–17.

Bredekamp, S, & C. Copple, eds. 1997. Developmentally appropri- ate practice in early childhood programs. Rev. ed. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

Brennan, E., E. Caplan, S. Ama, & O. Warfield. 2001. Child care: Inclusion as enrichment. Focal Point. Portland, OR: Regional Research Institute for Human Services, Portland State Univer- sity. Online: www.rtc.pdx.edu/FPinHTML/FocalPointFA01/ pgFPfa01Inclusive.shtml

Campbell, F.A., C.T. Ramey, E.P. Pungello, J. Sparling, & S. Miller- Johnson. 2002. Early childhood education: Young adult out- comes from the Abecedarian Project. Applied Developmental Science 6: 42–57.

Commission on NAEYC Early Childhood Program Standards and Accreditation Criteria. 2003. Draft NAEYC early childhood program standards. Online: www.naeyc.org/accreditation/nextera.asp

Committee for Economic Development. 2002. Preschool for all: Investing in a productive and just society. New York: Author.

DHHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). 2002. Specialized child care. Washington, DC: Author. Online: http:// aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/isp/ancillary/CHCare.htm

Dahlberg, G., P. Moss., & A. Pence. 1999. Beyond quality in early childhood education and care: Postmodern perspectives. Philadel- phia: Falmer.

Dickinson, D.K., & P.O. Tabors, eds. 2001. Beginning literacy with language: Young children learning at home and school. Baltimore: Brookes.

Education World. 2003. Knowledge loom: Professional develop- ment. Wallingford, CT: Author. Online: www.educationworld. com/a_curr/index.shtml

Eisner, E.W. 2002. The educational imagination: On the design and evaluation of school programs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/ Prentice Hall.

Espinosa, L. 2002. High quality preschool: Why we need it and what it looks like. NIEER Policy Briefs 1. Online: http://nieer.org/ resources/policybriefs/1.pdf

Fillmore, L.W., & C. Snow. 2000. What teachers need to know about language. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, Education Resources Information Center.

Program Monitoring: A tool for judging the quality of program implementation and modifying how the program is being implemented. Frequently part of a regulatory process.

*Program Standards: Widely accepted expectations for the characteristics or quality of early childhood set- tings in schools, early childhood centers, family educa- tion homes, and other education settings.

Referral: In this context, making a recommendation or actual linkage of a child and family with other profes- sionals, for the purpose of more in-depth assessment and planning. Usually follows screening or other preliminary information gathering.

Reliability: The consistency of an assessment tool; important for generalizing about children’s learning and development.

Sampling: In this instance, the use of a smaller number of children or programs (often randomly selected) in large-scale assessments in order to statistically esti- mate the characteristics of a larger population.

*Screening: The use of a brief procedure or instrument designed to identify, from within a large population of children, those children who may need further assess- ment to verify developmental and/or health risks.

Significance (goals/content/assessment): “Significant” curriculum goals, content, or objects of assessment are those that have been found to be critically important for children’s current and later development and learning. (In other contexts, it refers to statistical significance or the likelihood that a research finding was not produced by chance.)

Stakeholders: Those who have a shared interest in a particular activity, program, or decision.

Standardized: An assessment with clearly specified administration and scoring procedures and normative data.

Unintended Consequences: In this context, the results of a particular intervention or assessment that were not intended by the developers and that may have poten- tial—and sometimes negative—impact.

Validity: The extent to which a measure or assessment tool measures what it was designed to measure.

29

Frede, E.C. 1998. Preschool program quality in programs for chil- dren in poverty. In Early care and education for children in pov- erty: Promises, programs, and long-term outcomes, eds. W.S. Bar- nett & S.S. Boocock. Buffalo, NY: State University of New York Press.

Gilliam, W.S., & V. Leiter. 2003. Evaluating early childhood pro- grams: Improving quality and informing policy. Zero to Three 23 (6): 6–13.

Gilliam, W.S., & E.F. Zigler. 2000. A critical meta-analysis of all evaluations of state-funded pre-school from 1977 to 1998: Impli- cations for policy, service delivery and program evaluation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 15 (4): 441–72.

Glascoe, F., & H. Shapiro. 2002. Developmental screening. Pediatric Development and Behavior. Online: www.dbpeds.org/articles/ detail.cfm?id=5

Goffin, S.G., & C. Wilson. 2001. Curriculum models and early child- hood education: Appraising the relationship, 2d ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Hart, B., & T.R. Risley. 1995. Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Brookes.

Head Start Bureau. 2001. Head Start child outcomes framework. Head Start Bulletin 70: 44–50.

Head Start Program Performance Standards. 1996. 45 CFR Part 1304. Online: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/hsb/performance/ index.htm

Henry, G.T. 2003. Assessing school readiness: System design framework and issues. In Assessing the state of state assessments: Perspectives on assessing young children, eds. C. Scott-Little, S.L. Kagan, & R.M. Clifford, 25–35. Greensboro, NC: SERVE.

Hodgkinson, H. 2003. Leaving too many children behind: A demo- grapher’s view on the neglect of America’s youngest children. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.

Horm-Wingerd, D.M., P.C. Winter, & P. Plocfchan. 2000. Primary level assessment for IASA Title 1: A call for discussion. Washing- ton, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Horton, C., & B. Bowman. 2002. Child assessment at the preprimary level: Expert opinion and state trends. Chicago: Erikson Institute.

Hyson, M. 1996. Theory: An analysis (Part 2). In Advances in early education and day care, eds. J. Chafel & S. Reifel, 41–89. Green- wich, CT: JAI.

Hyson, M. 2003a. Putting early academics in their place. Educa- tional Leadership 60 (7): 20–23.

Hyson, M., ed. 2003b. Preparing early childhood professionals: NAEYC’s standards for programs. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Act) Amendments. 1997. 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.

IES (Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Educa- tion). 2003. Preschool curriculum evaluation research. Online: http://pcer.rti.org

Jones, J. 2003. Early literacy assessment systems: Essential ele- ments. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Kagan, S.L., C. Scott-Little, & R.M. Clifford. 2003. Assessing young children: What policymakers need to know and do. In Assessing the state of state assessments: Perspectives on assessing young children, eds. C. Scott-Little, S.L. Kagan, & R.M. Clifford, 5–11. Greensboro, NC: SERVE.

Keller, B. 2003. Question of teacher turnover sparks research interest. Education Week 22 (33): 8.

Lally, J.R. 2000. Infants have their own curriculum: A responsive approach to curriculum planning for infants and toddlers. Head Start Bulletin 67: 6–7.

Lally, J.R., A. Griffen, E. Fenichel, M. Segal, E. Szanton, & B. Weiss- bourd. 1995. Caring for infants and toddlers in groups: Develop- mentally appropriate practice. Washington, DC: ZERO TO THREE.

Laverty, K., A. Burton, M. Whitebook, & D. Bellm. 2001. Current data on child care salaries and benefits in the United States. Wash- ington, DC: Center for the Child Care Workforce.

Lombardi, J. 2003. Time to care: Redesigning child care to promote education, support families, and build communities. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Love, J.M. 2003. Instrumentation for state readiness assessment: Issues in measuring children’s early development and learning. In Assessing the state of state assessments: Perspectives on assess- ing young children, eds. C. Scott-Little, S.L. Kagan, & R.M. Clif- ford, 43–55. Greensboro, NC: SERVE.

Lynch, E., & M. Hanson. 2004. Family diversity, assessment, and cultural competence. In Assessing infants and preschoolers with special needs, 4th ed., eds. M. McLean, D. Bailey, & M. Wolery. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

MENC (National Association for Music Education). 1996. The performance standards for music: Strategies and benchmarks for assessing progress toward the national standards, grades preK–12. Reston, VA: Author. Online: www.menc.org/publication/books/ performance_standards/contents.html

Marcon, R.A. 1999. Differential impact of preschool models on devel- opment and early learning of inner-city children: A three-cohort study. Developmental Psychology 35 (2): 358–75. EJ 582 451.

Marcon, R.A. 2002. Moving up the grades: Relationship between preschool model and later school success. Early Childhood Research and Practice 4 (1). Online: http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4n1/ index.html

Marshall, D., W. Schubert, & J. Sears. 2000. Turning points in cur- riculum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

McAfee, O., & D. Leong. 2002. Assessing and guiding young chil- dren’s development and learning, 3d ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

McLean, M., D. Bailey, & M. Wolery, eds. 2004. Assessing infants and preschoolers with special needs. 4th ed. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

McNamara, C. 2003. Field guide to nonprofit program design, market- ing, and evaluation. Minneapolis, MN: Authenticity Consulting.

Meisels, S.J. 1992. Doing harm by doing good: Iatrogenic effects of early childhood enrollment and promotion policies. Early Child- hood Research Quarterly 7 (2): 155–74.

Meisels, S.J., & S. Atkins-Burnett. 2000. The elements of early childhood assessment. In Handbook of early childhood interven- tion. 2d ed., eds. J.P. Shonkoff & S.J. Meisels, 387–415. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Meisels, S.J., & E. Fenichel, eds. 1996. New visions for the develop- mental assessment of infants and young children. Washington, DC: ZERO TO THREE.

Mitchell, A. 2001. Prekindergarten programs in the states: Trends and issues. Vienna, VA: National Child Care Information Center.

Muenchow, S. 2003. A risk management approach to readiness assessment: Lessons from Florida. In Assessing the state of state assessments: Perspectives on assessing young children, eds. C. Scott-Little, S.L. Kagan, & R.M. Clifford, 13–23. Greensboro, NC: SERVE.

NAESP (National Association of Elementary School Principals). 2001. Leading learning communities: Standards for what principals should know and be able to do. Alexandria, VA: Author. Online: www.naesp.org/llc.pdf

NAEYC. 1998. Code of ethical conduct. Position statement. Wash- ington, DC: Author.

NAEYC & IRA (International Reading Association). 1998. Learning to read and write: Developmentally appropriate practices for young children. Joint Position Statement. Washington, DC: Author.

NAEYC & NAECS/SDE (National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education). 1990. Guidelines for appropriate curriculum content and assessment in programs serving children ages 3 through 8. Joint position statement. Wash- ington, DC: NAEYC.

NAEYC & NAECS/SDE. 2002. Early learning standards: Creating the conditions for success. Joint position statement. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

NAEYC & NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics). 2002. Early childhood mathematics: Promoting good beginnings. Joint position statement. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

30

NASP (National Association of School Psychologists). 2002. Position statement on early childhood assessment. Bethesda, MD: Author. Online: www.nasponline.org/information/pospaper_eca.html

NCES (National Center for Education Statistics). 2002. Children’s reading and mathematics achievement in kindergarten and first grade. Washington, DC: Author. Online: http://nces.ed.gov/ pubs2002/2002125.pdf

NIEER (National Institute for Early Education Research). 2003. Fast facts: National early education and care enrollment trends—Overview. New Brunswick, NJ: Author. Online: http:// nieer.org/resources/facts/index.php?FastFactID=7

NSDC (National Staff Development Council). 2001. Standards for staff development. Rev. ed. Oxford, OH: Author.

National Research Council. 1998. Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficul- ties in Young Children, eds. C.E. Snow, M.S. Burns, & P. Griffin, Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Commission on Behav- ioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: Na- tional Academy Press.

National Research Council. 1999. High stakes: Testing for tracking, promotion, and graduation. Committee on Appropriate Test Use, eds. J.P. Heubert & R.M. Hauser. Washington, DC: National Acad- emy Press.

National Research Council. 2000. How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Committee on Developments in the Science of Learning, eds. J. Bransford, A. Brown, & R. Cocking, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. 2001. Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Committee on Early Childhood Pedagogy, eds. B. Bowman, M. Donovan, & M. Burns, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council & Institute of Medicine. 2000. From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood develop- ment. Committee on Integrating the Science of Early Childhood Development, eds. J. Shonkoff & D. Phillips, Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sci- ences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Neuman, S.B., & D.K. Dickinson. 2001. Handbook of early literacy research. New York: Guilford.

New, R.S. 1999. An integrated early childhood curriculum: Moving from the “what” and the “how” to the “why.” 3d ed. New York: Teachers College Press.

OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Develop- ment). 2001. Starting strong: Early education and care. Paris, France: Author.

Paulsell, D., J. Cohen, A. Stieglitz, E. Lurie-Hurvitz, E. Fenichel, & E. Kisker. 2002. Partnerships for quality: Improving infant-toddler child care for low-income families. Washington, DC: ZERO TO THREE; Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.

Peisner-Feinberg, E., M. Burchnal, R. Clifford, M. Culkin, C. Howes, S. Kagan, N. Yazejian, P. Byler, J. Rustici, & J. Zelazo. 2000. The children of the Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study go to school: Technical report. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center.

Peth-Pierce, R. 2001. A good beginning: Sending America’s children to school with the social and emotional competence they need to succeed. Monograph based on two papers commissioned by the Child Mental Health Foundations and Agencies Network (FAN). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.

Popham, W.J. 1999. Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know. 2d ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Popham, W.J. 2000. Testing! Testing! What every parent should know about school tests. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Quality Counts. 2002: Building blocks for success—State efforts in early childhood education. Education Week 21 (17).

Quality Counts. 2003. The teacher gap. Education Week 22 (17). Raspa, M.J., R.A. McWilliam, & S.M. Ridley. 2001. Child care qual-

ity and children’s engagement. Early Education and Development 12: 209–24.

Raver, C. 2002. Emotions matter: Making the case for the role of young children’s emotional development for early school readi- ness. SRCD Social Policy Report 16 (3). Ann Arbor, MI: Society for Research in Child Development.

Reynolds, A.J., J.A. Temple, D.L. Robertson, & E.A. Mann. 2001. Long-term effects of an early childhood intervention on educa- tional achievement and juvenile arrest: A 15-year follow-up of low-income children in public schools. Journal of the American Medical Association 285 (18): 2339–46.

Rosenzweig, J., E. Brennan, & A. Ogilvie. 2002. Work-family fit: Voices of parents of children with emotional and behavioral disorders. Social Work 47 (4): 415–24.

Sandall, S., M. McLean, & B. Smith. 2000. DEC recommended prac- tices in early intervention/early childhood special education. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Schweinhart, L.J. 2003. Issues in implementing a state preschool program evaluation in Michigan. In Assessing the state of state assessments: Perspectives on assessing young children, eds. C. Scott-Little, S.L. Kagan, & R.M. Clifford, 37–42. Greensboro, NC: SERVE.

Schweinhart, L.J., & D.P. Weikart. 1997. The High/Scope pre-school curriculum comparison study through age 23. Early Childhood Research Quarterly 12: 117–43.

Scott-Little, C., S.L. Kagan, & R.M. Clifford, eds. 2003. Assessing the state of state assessments: Perspectives on assessing young chil- dren. Greensboro, NC: SERVE.

Scott-Little, C., S.L. Kagan, & V. Frelow. 2003. Standards for pre- school children’s learning and development: Who has standards, how were they developed, and how are they used? Greensboro, NC: SERVE.

Semlak, S. 2000. Curriculum in Early Head Start. Head Start Bulle- tin 69: 14–15.

Shepard, L.A. 1994. The challenges of assessing young children appropriately. Phi Delta Kappan 76: 206–12.

Shepard, L., S.L. Kagan, & E. Wurtz. 1998. Principles and recom- mendations for early childhood assessments. Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel.

Shonkoff, J.P., & S.J. Meisels, eds. 2000. Handbook of early child- hood intervention, 2d ed., 387–415. New York: Cambridge Univer- sity Press.

Stake, R.E. 2003. Standards-based and responsive evaluation. Thou- sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stiggins, R. 1999. Evaluating classroom assessment training in teacher education programs. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 18 (1): 23–27.

Stiggins, R. 2001. The unfulfilled promise of classroom assess- ment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 20 (3): 5–15.

Stiggins, R. 2002. Assessment for learning. Education Week 21 (26): 30: 32–33.

Tabors, P.O. 1997. One child, two languages: A guide for preschool educators of children learning English as a second language. Baltimore: Brookes.

Thomas, W.P., & V.P. Collier. 1997. School effectiveness for language minority students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. Child care arrangements for pre- schoolers by family characteristics and employment status of mother: Spring 1999. Survey of income and program participation. Washington, DC: Author.

Whitebook, M., L. Sakai, E. Gerber, & C. Howes. 2001. Then and now: Changes in child care staffing, 1994–2000. Washington, DC: Center for the Child Care Workforce.

Whitehurst, G.J., & C.J. Lonigan. 1998. Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development 69: 848–72.

Yoshikawa, H., & E. Zigler. 2000. Mental health in Head Start: New directions for the twenty-first century. Early Education and Development 11: 247–64.

Copyright © 2003 by the National Association for the Education of Young Children. Contact us at: [email protected]