8084MOD2DISCUSSION

1

Discussion - Module 2 Part 2

COLLAPSE

Top of Form

Part 2

Societal, Political, and/or Economic Factors

Assessment decisions can be very controversial. Stakeholders have different views when it comes to assessments. Some parents feel that too much time is spent on assessments, and some parents feel that assessments are needed to know whether or not their child is making progress. Some teachers think that there should be more time spent on instruction within the classrooms and less time on assessments. In order to know whether or not students are making progress and whether the programs being used are effective, program evaluations must be performed. Epstein (2003) stated that the purpose of education is to promote healthy development. Early development depends on the structural and process elements of the program. National Association for the Education of Young Children (n.d.-a) mentioned in Standard 4 that assessments benefit children and help teachers by making informed decisions and program improvement. Assessments must be appropriate for each child’s development level and age. In standard 7, programs must involve families in their child’s educational growth, establish relationships built on mutual trust and respect, and allow families to participate in the program (National Association for the Education of Young Children, n.d.-a). In standard 8, the society and/or community can help a program by providing resources to families that support the healthy development of children and their learning.

The Impact

Controversy has impacted the effectiveness of early childhood programs by assessments. Programs are being held accountable for their performance. If funding is provided and the program is not performing well, the program loses that funding. Early intervention can also compensate for the effectiveness of early education programs. Early Childhood Education supporters argue that disadvantaged children behind on their developmental dimensions compensate for those conditions prior to entering any EC program (Besharov et al., 2020).

References

Besharov, D. J., Call, D. M., & Scott, J. M. (2020). PROTOCOL: Early childhood education programs for improving the development and achievement of low-income children--A Systematic Review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16(3).     

Epstein, A. S. (2003). Holding your program accountable: Introducing high/scope’s new preschool program quality assessment (PQA). High/Scope ReSource, A Magazine for Educators, 11–14. https://web.archive.org/web/20150321075739/http://www.highscope.org/file/Assessment/PQA.pdf

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (n.d.-a). The 10 NAEYC program standards.

Part 2

Whitney Farley 

WFarley Discussion - Module 2 Part 2

COLLAPSE

Top of Form

            The ongoing controversy that surrounds common core state standards and standardized assessment within the k-12 system is beginning to trickle down towards the field of early care and learning. This trickle-down effect stems from societal, political, and economic factors. Federal and state entities that have adopted the common core standards for k-12 have begun to consider how these established standards can link to early childhood standards (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2003). With the assessment piece of program evaluations, governmental agencies can utilize the data to their advantage to drive the creation of common core standards and standardized assessment practices for early childhood programs. As early childhood professional leaders, we are often divided between the concept of knowledge for understanding and knowledge for advocacy. Knowledge for understanding focuses directly on what we do not know while knowledge for advocacy focuses on what we know (Shonkoff, 2004). When it concerns societal, political, and economic factors, knowledge for advocacy can be skewed towards the outcome desired by the entity. In a well-meaning nature, the early childhood field would be governed by the concept of knowledge for understanding and how all stakeholders can come together to provide equitable outcomes for the healthy development of all children. I believe that through knowledge for advocacy, many societal, political, and economic entities use program assessment data against programs to push their own agenda.

            This has severely impacted the perceived effectiveness of early childhood programs. By pushing the common core agenda onto early childhood programs, societal, political, and economic entities have shown their disregard for the developmentally appropriate learning practices that are the foundation of our field, thus potentially diminishing the effectiveness of early childhood programs. We as early childhood professionals are knowledgeable of what it takes to ensure that our youngest learners are afforded healthy opportunities to learn and grow. When policy makers and governmental agencies try to devalue and diminish our programs, we must act as advocates for our children. Reliable and valid data from the assessment piece of program evaluations that assess children on the full spectrum of developmental domains can serve as a source of knowledge for understanding.

References

Shonkoff, J. (2004). Evaluating early childhood services: What’s really behind the curtain. The Evaluation Exchange, 10(2), 3-4.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2003). Early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation: Building an effective, accountable system in programs for children birth through age 8. https://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/CAPEexpand.pdf.

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form