MX Mom | isk The
PPSM+ KW Phe
Kit -

Sample of student work: the North Carolina Grades 1 and 2 Assessment

Age continuum. Special needs wentitication starts with the most severe—and
most easily recognizable—-problems and then identifies children with milder
problems as they get older. Children with severe disabilities such as deafness,
blindness, severe mental retardation, and multiple physical disabilities are usually
identified within the first year of life by parents and physicians. Universal
screening of all intants is not recommended, becaus
sments are accurate at too early an age, but every child should have access
toa regular health care provider. and children should be promptly reterred if
parents and physicians see that they are not reaching normal developmental
milestones.

sensory and cognitive

A referral mechanism contributes to the accuracy of follow-up assessments by
serving as an additional data source and checkpoint. As children enter preschool,
individual children with possible developmental delays should be referred tor
in-depth assessment. Some mild disabilities may only become apparent in the
school context or, in fact, mar y be a problem because of the demands of the
school setting. Again, indications of problems should lead to referral for m-depth
assessment. Universal hearing and vision screening programs are usually targeted

for Kindergarten or first grade to ensure contact with every child. Such programs
are intended to cheek for milder problems and disabilities that have gone
undetected. For example, if a child has not received regular health checkups,
routine kindergarten screening may uncover a need tor ¢

20 ”



Norms: Statistics or data that summarize the test performance of specified groups such ay
test Cikers of various ages or grades.

Normal variation: Reters to the range of performance levels that, in addition to the average
Cormean) performance, ts typical for children of a specific age or grade.

Observation: A systematic wav to collect data hy watching or listening to children during
IN ACO ITN,
Portfolio: An organized and purposeful collection of student work and sel-assessments
coflected over time to demonstrate student learning. A portfolte assessment is the process of
es luating strdent achievement based on porttalios,

Readiness test: A test used to evaluate a studera’s Preparedness for a specific academic
program.
Reliability
$AsLinges of measuremient—for example, whether results are consistent across raters, times
OE Measurement, OF sets of test eras.

Phe degree to which a test or assessment measures consistently across different

creening: Selecting individuals on a preliminary test who are in need of more therough
evaluation.

Sereening test: A test used asa tise step my identifying children whe may be in need of
spestilyervices Tf potential problent is suggested by the results of a screening test, then at

child should be referred tor. a more complete assessment and diagnosis.

Social indicators A statisti (usually nota student test result) used te Teport on wt sactetal
condition. such as the fate of infant mortality, teen Pregnancy. or school dropouts.

Speciai education: As defined by regulations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education
“Vet. spectal education ts the spectally destened instruction that public schouls are required

to otter ether na separate or regular Chisstoom to meet the unique nceds of a child with a
clrsability,

andardized test or asse:

S ements Stindardization reters to.4 set of consistent procedures tor
administering and scortng 4 testor assessment. Standard
scoes compatable across individuals

ZAUON Ty Necessary Co make test

Test: A tormal procedure for ehoitmy responses so as to mest

capabilities of a student or eroup,

e the performance and

Validity: The accuracy oft test or isessment in measuring what it was intended to measure.
Vahahity is deteemimed by the extent to which interpretations and de
scotes aire Warninted and suppotted by independent evidence.

istons based an test

Mie Donnell £0, Mchaughtin, Mob. & Moron, B (Eds). (1997) Ediectmg one and all.
Stadents teath disabilities and standards-based reform. Washinton, DC: National -

aademy Press.

MeL anuhbn, MAW, & Shepard, LA. (1995), Improve education dowugh standards-based
refemn Stantord CA: National Academy of Education.

Notional Assocation forthe Education of Young Chikdren. (L988). NAEYC postion
spttement on standandized testing of young children 3 through 8 years of -age. Young Chidren

BO aD AT
4i

38



States considering early childhood assessments to monitor trends (Purpose 3, a
low-stak. Y of program accountability) could, however, work to ensure that the
content of assessments used for Purpose 1 is closely aligned with the content of the
statewide assessment. For example, as part of developing continua of proficiencies in
the carly grades that lead to attainment of state performance standards in Grade 3
or Grade 4, states could develop model instructional units with accompanying
ssessments to be used as part of the learning process. Such materials could he made
lable to local districts to aid in curriculum improvement and statf development,
bat would not be formally administered as part of a state as
differences in technical requirements, the exact same assessment would not he used
for Purpose | and Purpose 3, but the two types of assessments could be developed in
parallel so that they would be conceptually compatible and mutually supportive.

essment. Because of

My Fingers

Abnt when | was three
years old Iwas coming
out of the grocery store.
We went to put the bags in
the car The grocery man was
cout to close the turk when
1 put my fingers inthe way!
Mom and him gasped bout
right when if was coming
down] moved my fingers |

My om scid that it was
my garding angel that moved
my fingers away.

Sample of student work: the North Carolina Grades 1 and 2 Assessment

3 oe



teachers are now actively involving children in sharing their acccmplishments
with parents during conferences. Parents also want and need good information
about how their child is doing. Although teachers collect much more information
than can he shared with parents, samples of student work and teacher appraisals
of each child’s progress should be shared on a regular basis as part of an ongoing,
reciprocal relationship hetween professionals and parents. Documentation of
children’s work with accompanying evaluations helps parents learn about the
curriculum and appropriate expectations, as well as their own child's performance.
Exchange of informa

ion can also be the occasion for parents to offer observations
on similar or dissimilar behaviors ead skills displayed in home and school contexts.

Principals and primary-grade teachers may also work together to review
instructiona sments to make sure that the school’s programs are succeeding
in helping young children meet developmental and academic expectations.
Although external accountability testing should be postponed until third grade
because of the difficulties in testing young children, grade-level teams of teachers
and school administrators can u

> instruction:

Lassessments for purposes of
internal, protessional accountability to make sure that children who are struggling
receive special help, to identify needs for further professional training, and to
improve curricula and instruction.

Policymakers at the state and district level are not the audience for the results of
classrooni-level assessments. However, policymakers have a legitimate interest in
knowing that such assessinents are being used at the school level to monitor
student learning and to provide targeted learning help, especially for children who
are expertencing learning difficulties, such as learning to read. While external
accountability testing is not appropriate for first and second graders, policymakers
may wish to require that schools have plans in place to monitor student: progress
and to denuty and serve children in need of more intensitied help.

Technical requirements. In order for assessments to support learning and
development, the content of classroom assessments must be closely aligned with
what children are learning, and the timing of assessments must correspond to the
specitic days and weeks when children are learning particular concepts. Often,
this means that informal assessments are made by observing children during an
instructional activity. To use

sessment information effectively, caregivers and
teachers must have enough knowledge about child development and cultural

vartations to be able to understand the me:
ton a developmental continuum. One ¢

aning of achikl’s response and to locate
ample of how children’s writing typreally
develops from scribbles to letters to partially formed words to complete sentences
is Shawn on pave & Teachers must Know not only the typical progression: of
children’s growing proficiency, but abo must be sufficiently familiar with age and
urade expectations to Know when partially formed words would be evidence of
Precectous performance and when they would be evidence of below-expectation:
performance that requires spectilattention and intervention, More tornial

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 1



——————=———— EE
Ee

the Early Childhood Age Continuum (Birth to Age 8)

Kindergarten 1stgrade 2nd grade 3rd grade
§ 8 7 8 years Beyond age 8

i I if

Teachers use both formal and informal
assessments to plan and guide
instruction.

All children should be screened at
school entry for vision and hearing
needs and checked for immunizations.

Some mild disabilities may only become
apparent in the school context. Districts
and states must by law have sound
teacher and parent referral policies, so
that children with potential disabilities
are referred for in-depth assessment.

Beginning at age §, it is possible to use
direct measures, including measures
of children’s early tearning, as part ofa
comprehensive early childhood assess-
ment for monitoring trends. Matrix
sampling should be used to ensure
technical accuracy and to provide safe-
guards for individual children. Because
of the cost of such an assessment,
states or the nation should pick one
grade level for monitoring trends in
early childhood, most likely kinder-
garten or first grade.

€  eachers, and schoois accountable

Before age 8, standardized achievement
measures are not sufficiently accurate
to be used for high-stakes decisions
about individual children and schools.
Therefore, high-stakes assessments
intended for accountability purposes
wt should be delayed until the end of third
grade (or preferably fourth grade).

aq 21



Bibliography
Bredekamp, S.. & Copple. C. (Eds). (1997). Det
childhoud programs (Rev. ed). Washington, DC
Young Children.

lopmentally apprapmate practice m early
National Association for dhe Education of

British Columbia Ministry of Education. (1991). Principles of assessment and evaluation.
Primary Program Foundation Document. Available in adapted form in Nebraska
Department of Education. (1994). Nebruska/lowa Primary Program: Growmg and learnmg mi
the heartland (pp. 95-108). Lincoln, NE: Author.

California Department of Education, Child Development Division, (1992, July). Appropriate
aosessment practices for young children. [Program Advisory]. Sacramento: Author.

Federal Interageney Forum on Child and Family Sta
national mdicators of well-bemg. Washington, DC

tics. (1997). Amerteu’s children: Kex
Government Printing Otfice.

Gredler, G.R. (1992). School readies: Assessment and educational issues. Brandon, VT:
Clinteal Poy chology Publishing Co.

Greenspan, S.L. & Meisels S.J. (1996), Toward a new vision for the developmental
assessment of infants and young children. In §.J. Menels & E. Feniched (Eds.), Net tstony
Jor the developmental assessment of mfants and young children, Washington, DC: ZERO TO
THREE: The National Center for Infants, Toddlers, and Famultes.

High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. (1992), High/Seape Child Obsert ation Record
(COR) forages 2-6, Ypstlant. Ml: High/Scope Press.

Hills, TAC, (1997), Finding what is of value in programs for voung children and their
families. In C. Scefeldt & A. Galper (Eds.), Contmumg isties m carly childhood education
(ind ed. pp. 293-313). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Ine.

Halls, TAY, (1992). Reaching potentals through appropriate assessments. [a S. Bredekamp
& T. Roseerant (Eds), Reaching potentials: Appropriate curricula and assessment for young
chidven (pp. 43-03). Washington, DC: National Assecration for the Educanon of Youns
Children.

Kuwan, SiL.. Moore, E., & Bredckamp, S. (Eds). (1995, June). Reconsidering children’s early
development and learnmg: Toward common uetes and vocabulary, Goal 1 Technical Plannmg
Group Report 95-03, Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel.

Kauan. S.L.. Rosenkoetter, 8. & Cohen, N. (1997). Considering child-based resudty for soung
children: Defmutons, destrabilits, feasibility, and newt steps. Based on Issues Forums on Childe
Based Results, sponsored by the WAY, Kellogg Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of
New York, and Quality 2000: Advaneing Early Care and Education. New Haven, CT: Yale
Bosh Center in Child Development and Soctal Poltes.

Linghorst. BEE 1989, April), A constoner’s gtade: Assessment m carly childhood educanon
Portland, OR: Northwest Reetonal Educational Laboratory

Menels. Sf (90), Deanne meanmetil measurements for carly childhood. fn BL.
Mallory & RS. New (Ed), Diversity or eaily childhood education. A call for more melesire
theory. practice. and polies (pp. 205-225). New York: Teachers College Press.

Menel. S

JL GQ989), High-stakes testing in kindergarten. Fdrecutional Leadership 4607: 1022

Menels. S.J. (987). Uses and abuses at developmental screening and school readiness
testing. Yornty Children 42: 4-6, 08-73.

Menels, Sh. cath Athins-Burnert, 8. (994). Derelopmental srcenmy mi carly chillhoal: AV

ac

BEST COPY AVAILABLE . 39



TITLE II—NATIONAL EDUCATION RE-
FORM LEADERSHIP, STANDARDS, AND
ASSESSMENTS

PART A—NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS PANEL
SEC. 201. PURPOSE.

__ It is the purpose of this part to establish a bipartisan mecha-
nism for—

SEC. 207, EARLY CHILDHOOD ASSESSMENT.

(a) IN GeweraL.—The Goals Panel shall su the work of
its Resource and Technical Planning Groups on | Readiness
(hereafter in this section referred to as the “Groupe”) to improve
the methods of assessing the readiness of children for school that
would lead to alternatives to currently used early childhood assess:
men

(>) AcTrvittes.—-The Groups shall—

(1) develop a model of elements of school readiness that
addres a broad range of early childhood developmental needs,
including the needs children with disabilities;

(2) create clear guidelines regarding the nature, functions,
and Snes of early childhood assessments, including assesement
formate that are appropriate for use in culturally and i

ness;

(3) monitor and eae early childhood anoeseraenta,
including ability isting aseessmen: provide vali
information on the 1y sOlnoae of thildren for school; and

(4) monitor and report on the long-term collection of data
on the status of young children to improve policy and practice,
including the need for new sources of data necessary to assess
the broad range of early childhood developmental needs.

(c) ADvice.—The Groups shall advise and assist the Congress,
the Secretary, the Goals Panel, and others regarding how to improve
the assessment of young children and how such assessments can
improve services to children.

(d) Report.—The Goals Panel shall provide reports on the
work of the Groups to the appropriate committees of the Congress,
the Secretary, and the public.

OV

BEST COPY AVAILABLE


Combining Assessment Purposes

There isa natural tendency for policymakers and educators to want to use
assessment data tor more than one purpose. The cost of developing new
assessments would be better justified if the results could be used for muluple
Purposes, and if teachers and children yo to the trouble of participating in an
sessment, it would be desirable to get as much use from the data as possthle.
Many parents, teachers, and policymakers also want a combined syotem so that
individual student results can he compared to standards set by the state or district.
However, these destres for efficient use of assessment results must be weighed
against the abuses that have occurred in the past when instruments designed for
one purpose were misused for another.

Often, tts a mistake to combine purposes. This és true etther because the
different purposes require different assessment content or because the technical
requirements tor cach purpose are quite different. In the examples that follow, we
consider the combinations of purposes that have most often occurred in Practice,
erther in early childhood settings or in state assessment programs. In the first case,
educators and policymakers frequently confuse the use of instruments intended for
Purpose Eand Purpose 2, thinking that it ts legitimate to do so because both
tnvolve assessments of individual children. They are not aware, however, that the
two purposes require different content as well as ditferent levels of technical rigor.

Sumilarhy, it seems reasonable to use the same aysessmenty to serve Purposes 1, 3,
and 4on the grounds that all three involve measures of learning outcomes.
However, reporting individual student and school-level data for accountability
purposes (Purpose 4) requires a higher level of technical accuracy than the other
two purposes, a level of accuracy that cannot be attained in large-scale programs
for children vounger than age 8. Therefore, the Resource Group has made quite
different recommendations hetore and after Grade 3 regarding the feasibility of
including accountabilt

uses of assessment data.

Individual assessments, Purposes 1 and 2. In the past, screening measures
intended as a tirst step in referral for special-needs identification have been
mused for mstructional purposes. For example, screening instruments designed to
resemble short-form 1Q tests have heen used inappropriately to plan instruction or
to hold children out of kindergarten. Although it would be possible, in theory, to
develop assessments that could be used legitimately for both classroom assessment
and sercening for special needs (Purposes | and 2), extensive investment would be
required to develop both curricularly relevant assessment content and empirical
norms for evaluating disability.

To support teaching and learning (Purpose 1), assessment tasks should he as
clovely ted to the local preschool or primary curriculum as possible. For Purpose 2,
when clintciins are trying to make inferences about ability to learn and/or the
existence of a posible disability, 1Q tests and other developmental measures have
traditionally been designed to be as “curriculum free” as posstble. The intention is

32 UU

BEST COPY AVAILABLE



18

wd



document any changes in levels of student performance. Assessments designed to
monitor trends could be used to monitor progress toward Goal | or to answer the

question, “How is my state doing compared to the United States, another state, or
Germany and other industrialized nations?”

Program evaluation refers to large-scale evaluation studies such as the evaluation
of preschool, Head Start, or Title 1 programs. Program evaluations help to
document the quality of program delivery and to determine whether programs are
effective in achieving intended outcomes. In this sense, the uses of data under
Purpose 3 hold programs “accountable” and hold states “accountable” for the
adequacy of social conditions and services to young children. However, hecause
the use of data to judge national or state programs entails consequences for the
programs rather than for individuals, it is still relatively low-stakes for the
individual children, teachers, schools, or local early childhood programs involved.
Because of very different implications for technical safeguards, the Goal 1 Early
Childhood Assessments Resource Group has drawn a sharp distinction between
monitoring and prograne evaluation uses of data and the high-stakes accountability
uses of ass) sments deseribed in Purpose 4, which entail consequences for
individuals.

Audience. Policymakers are the primary audience for aggregate assessment data.
Trend data and results of program evaluation

re also important to the public

al service providers with particular responsibility for
improving programs. For example, national evaluations of Head Start provide
evidence to Congress of the benefits of early educational interventions, which
ensures continued funding as well as the establishment of related programs, such as
Early Head Start and Even Start. In addition, more detailed evidence gathered as
part of Head Start demonstrations and evaluations gives feedback to the system,
and can be used for subsequent improvement of the overall Head Start program.
For example, early evaluations documented and reinforced the importance of
Parent involvement in accomplishing and sustaining program goals. Similarly, the
data from Goal | activities can be used to inform the public regarding the overall
status of America’s young children, as well as identifying where services are needed
to foster children’s optimal development.

and to educators and sac

Technical requirements. Because of their use in making important policy decisions,
large-scale assessment dita must meet high standards of technical accuracy. For
example, ff policy changes are going to be made because reading scores have gone
up or down, tis essential that the reported change be valid, and not an artifact of
Measurement error or changes in the test. One of the difficulties, for example, of
using teacher opmion surveys to report on kindergartners’ readiness for school is
that changes over time could be happening because children are becoming more
or less ready or because teachers’ expectations of readiness vary or are changing.
Because of ther visthility, state and national assessments also serve important
svinbolic functions. For example, when the NAEP results are reported, they are
often aceompanted by sample problems illustrating what students at each age

24 wt
wt



oti

Appropriate Uses and Technical Accuracy of Assessments Change Acros

Birth

+o

2
1
T

fw

4
1
T

Purpose 1: Assessing to promote children’s learning and development

Parents and caregivers observe
and respond as children develop
language and physical skills.

Parents, caregivers, and preschool
teachers use direct measures, including
observations of what children are
learning, to decide what to teach next.

Purpose 2: Identifying children for health and special services

All children should be screened regu-
larly for health needs, including hearing
and vision checks, as part of routine
health care services.

Many serious cognitive and physical
disabilities are evident at birth or soon
thereafter. As soon as developmental
delays or potential disabilities are sus-
pected, parents and physicians should
seek in-depth assessments.

Children entering Head Start and
other preschool programs should be
screened for health needs, including
hearing and vision checks.

Individual children with possible
developmental delays should be
referred for in-depth assessment.

Purpose 3: Monitoring trends and evaluating programs and services

Because direct measures of

children’s language and cognitive
functioning are difficult to aggregate
accurately for ages from birth to 2, state
reporting systems should focus on
living and social conditions that affect
learning and the adequacy of services.

Assessments, including direct and
indirect measures of children’s physical,
social, emotional, and cognitive
development, could be constructed

and used to evaluate prekindergarten
programs, but such measures would
not be accurate enough to make
high-stakes decisions about

individual children.

Purpose 4: Assessing academic achievement to hold individual student

20

BEST COPY AVAILABLE



to use the most generic tasks possible, so that all Children trom a wide variety of
backgrounds will be equally familiar with the content of the assessment. OF course,
this has not always worked even when seemingly timiliar content wiry used; hence
the problems of cultural bras.

An alternative method of assessment for special-needs dentficarion would

be to use dynamic assessment, where ability to learn is evaluated over time by

providing focused learning opportunities interactively with assessment. Dynamic
assessment techniques have not yet been sufficiently developed to permit their
dissemmation for widespread use. Even school psychologists and other spectatists
(would need extensive training to use dynamic assessment with curriculum-aligned
assessment tasks. We should also note that assessment materials intended for use mn
making spectal education placement dectstons would require normative data and
an empirical basis to support interpreting low perfortnance as evidence ott
dnability, and would have to meet the more stringent reliability and validin,
standards for Purpose 2. In the meantime, the most ippropenite policies are those
that prevent the misuse of existing wstrument.

Assessments of learning outcomes for Grade 3 and above, Purposes 1, 3, and +.
At higher grade levels, states have attempted to develop meastires of icadennie
outcomes that coukl be used for individaal instructional decistons, reporting ot
state-level achievement trends, and school agcountability, Kentucky's tre of
chissroom porttolios tor school andl state reporting bs one ste heoxample Use of
asesments for multiple purposes requires Mg DEE ANE HAY Este ne af resources Fo
ensure that the technical requirements tor cach purpose are satsticd. Phere may
also be some sacrifices required trom the desten that would be optimal tor each
purpose separately, Tn the Kentucky example. the intention to use results for school
and state-level Compartons requires that the tasks or entries 11 the pottfalios be
the same ter a given grade and subject matter. Such standandizanen, of curricular
expectations woukd not be possible nattonally or i states without a state
curriculum, Use for accountability purposes abo requires standardization of scoring
across schools and rigorous external checks to mike sure that the data beme
aweregated from classrooms are comparable. There are many benetits to this
articulated, multipurpose assessment system, butt also requites substantial
INVestTMENt af Tesaurees.

A
the inherent difficulties of assessing voung children accurately, and the hemhtened
problems and technical requirements of lughestakes testing, the Resource Group:

essments of learning outcomes before Grade 3, Purposes | and 3. Beate of

has recommended agaist accountability uses of assessment data betore the end of
Grade 3. For the same reasons, tt is unworkable to attempt to combine assessments
for Purpose Land Purpose 4 for carly grade levels. Assessments could not at the

Same ume be flexible and informal enough ta be useful to teachers ar day-to-day

teaching and learning and sall meet the technical requirements of relabrlity,
standardization, comparability, validity, and furrness that must be satistied for
accountability reporting,

33



Purpose 2. Identifying children for health and
special services

Kindergarten 1st

2nd = 3rd grade

Birth 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 years
| | n | N | |
qT ! | T T i} t

All children should be
screened regularly for
health needs, including
hearing and vision checks,
as part of routine health
care services.

Many serious cognitive
and physical disabilities
are evident at birth or
soon thereafter. As soon
as developmental delays
or potential disabilities are
suspected, parents and
physicians should seek
in-depth assessments.

Definition of purpose. Assessments d

Children entering Head
Start and other preschool
programs should be
screened for health needs,
including hearing and
vision checks.

Individual children with
possible developmental
delays should be referred
for in-depth assessment.

scribed in Purpose Tare used by

All children should be
screened at school entry
for vision and hearing
needs and checked for
immunizations.

Some mild disabilities
may only become
apparent in the school
context. Districts and
states must by law have
sound teacher and parent
referral policies, so that
children with potential
disabilities are referred for
in-depth assessment.

regivers

and teachers as part of supporting normal learning and development. Assessments
used for Purpose 2 help to identify special problems and to determine the need for
additional services beyond what regular caregivers can provide. The purpose of
identitication is to secure special services. Purpose 2 refers to identification of
disabilines such as blindness, deafness, physical disabilities, speech and language
impairment, serious emotional disturbance, mental retardation, and specific
learning disabilities. It also refers to more routine checks for vision, hearing, and
immunization to ensure that appropriate health services are provided.

Because of the potential ini

of nearly all sensory and cognitive measures

and the cost of in-depth assessments, identification of special needs usually occurs
in two stages. Screening is the first step in the identification process. It involves a
brief asessment to determine whether referral for more in-depth assessment ts
needed. Depending on the nature of the potential problem, the child is then
referred toa physician or child-study team for a more complete evaluation. For
mental retardation and other cognitive disabilities, the second-stage in-depth
assessment is referred to as a developmental assessment.

Audience. The audience for the results af special-needs assessments are the adults
who work most closely with the child: the spectalists who conducted the
assessment and who must plan the follow-up treatment and interns ention; parents
whe must be invelved in understanding and meeting ther child's needs; and the
preschool or primary grade teacher who works with the child daily and who, most
likely, made the referral seeking extra help.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE "

16



ayo

ssments almost always occur in the context of activities and tasks that are
already familiar, so practice or task familiarity is not at issue. In the clas
context, teachers may well provide help while assessing to take advantage of the
learning opportunity and to figure out exactly how a child is thinking by seeing
what kind of help makes it possible to take the next steps. For teaching and
learning purposes, the timing of assessments makes the most sense if they occur

on an ongoing basis as particular skills and content are being learned. Good
classroom assessment is disciplined, not haphazard, and, with training, teachers’
expectations can reflect common standards. Nonetheless, assessments devised by
teachers as part of the learning process lack the uniformity and the standardization
that is necessary to ensure comparabi accountability purposes.

Similarly, the technical standards for reliability and validity are much more
stringent for high-stakes accountability assessment than for informal assessments
used by individual careg
of accountability a are much greater, 90 the instruments used must be
sufficiently accurate to ensure that important decisions about a child are not made
as the result of measurement error. In addition, accounts
usually “one-shot,” stand-alone ev

ers and teachers to heip children learn. The consequences
sesments

bility assessments are

nts. In contrast, caregivers and teachers are

constantly collecting information over long periods of time and do not make
high-stakes decisions. If they are wrong one day about what a child knows or is
able to do, then the error is easily remedied the next day.

rious Misuses of testing with young children occur when assessments intended
for one purpose are used inappropriately for other purposes. For example, the
content of IQ measures intended to identify children for special education is not
appropriate content to use in planning instruction. At the same time, assessments
designed for instructional planning may not have sufficient validity

ind technical
accuracy to support high-stakes decisions such as placing children ina spectal
kindergarten designated for at-risk children.

An appropriate assessment system may include different assessments for
different categones of purpose, such as:

@ assessments to support learning,
© assessments for identification of spectal needs,
© assessments for program evaluation and monitoring trends, and

© assessments tor high-stakes accountabrlity.

In the sections that follow, the requirements for cach of these assessment

purposes are described. Only under spectral circumstances would be possible to
serve more than one purpose with the same assessment, and then usaally at yreater
cost, because the technical requirements of cach separate purpose must still be
satisted. We address the issue of Combining purposes inthe bist section.

10 ?



Rabbit
he rabbits in my garden.
+, te it eo tat mf a Dad -

i ref garden “The fabet
is not there. He is aone
to the hole with hes babyes..
thebabyned food. HE comes to
the garden, « My Dad is there.
the Yabbit yuns as fast as
Ae can. He mest hem.

@ 9 ® °

Sample of student work: the North Carolina Grades 1 and 2 Assessment

Technical requirements. Accountability assessments may be similar in content to
asesments used for monitoring trends. Both should be comprehensive measures of
important leary coals. At higher grade levels. in tact, some states have school
accountability systems that are abo used to report state and district trends in
achievement. Standards for reliability and validity are more difficult to meer for
accountibility purposes, however, beeause standards for technical aecrauey must he
metat the lowest aut of reporting. Thus, individual student scores must he
sufficiently reliable, instead of past the state or districr mean bene reliable. Because

30 on BEST COPY AVAILABLE



My Husun Apri c@meto

play With me She
playd Based She

Bret Hre ByfT inde Hisname

Sample of student work: the North Carolina Grades 1 and 2 Assessment

blurring of preschool and school effects. However, it kindergarten-year assessment
would have special sampling problems, because participation in kindergarten 1s
voluntary in many states. ACa minimum, accurate interpretation of trend data
would require sampling of children in private kindergartens as well as in public
schools. In addition, regardless of which grade ts used to collect trend data, it would
be important to keep track of demographic characteristics, especially tint: and

second-langu:

n these
factors have substantial effects and could help in interpreting changes m trend data.

Status, age, and preschool experience, because chang:

. ‘
: He eo 4k 1 a

1. Before age 3, large-scale assessment systems designed to inform educational and
soctal policy dectsions about voung children should focus on social indicators
that measure the conditions of learning. Direct measures of learning outcomes
for 3- and f-vear-alds Gan be developed and used in large-scale program

evaluations, such as Head Start, Even Start, and Title fin the preschool vears.

ntrolled conditions and using matrey:
sampling. Results should not be reported tar individual children.
i i}

but must be administered under ¢

Bewmniny at ae 3. 10s possible to use direct measures, including measures of
children’s learning, as part of a comprehensive early childhood system te,
moniter trends. Matis sampling procedures should be used to ensure technical
accuracy and at the same time protect against the misuse of data to make
deerstons about mdivedual children. Because such systems are costly to
inplement
Monitormy learning trends in early Childhood, most likely either kindergarten

itesor the nation should prok one grade level tor purposes of

or first grade

ar 27

iw)



Because young children learn in ways and at rates different from older children
and adults, we must tulor our assessments accordingly. Because young children
come to know things through doing as well as through listening, and because they
often represent their knowledge better by showing than by talking or writing,
paper-and-pencil tests are not adequate. Because young children de not have the
experience to understand what the gouls of formal testing are, testing interactions
m

se:

y be very difficult or impossthle to structure appropriately, Because young
children develop and learn so fast, tests given atone point in time may not give a
complete picture of learning. And because young children’s achievements at any
point are the result of a complex mix of their ability to learn and past learning
opportunities, it is a mistake to interpret measures of past learning
what could be learned.

evidence of

For these reasons, how ¥

> assess young children and the principles that frame
such assessments need spectal attention. What works for older children or adults
will not work for younger childrens they have unique needs that we, as adults, are
obliged ta recognize tf we

are to optimize their development.

Recent Assessment Issues
Educators and child development spectilists have long recogni:

sd the uniqueness of
d the carly childhood field. Early
educators have observed and recorded children’s behavior naturalistically, watching

children in their natural environments as youngsters carry out evervd:
These obser

the early years. Informal assessment has characte

V activities,
tons have proven effective tor purposes of chronicling children’s
development, co

taloging their accomplishments, and tailoring programs and
activities within the classroom to meet young children’s rapidly changing need:

Recently, however, there has been an meredse in fornval assessments and testing,
the results of which are used to make “high stakes” decisions such as tracking
youngsters inte high- and low-abiliry groups, (mis Mabeling or retaming them, er

ining test results to sort children into or out of kindergarten and preschools. In
many cases, the instruments developed for one purpose or even one age group of
children have been misapplied to other groups. As a result, schools have often
identified as “not vet ready"

for kindergarten, of as “too immature” for group
settings, large proportions af youngsters (aften boys and non-English speakers)
who would benefit enormously trom the tes

ning epportunities provided in these
settings. In particular, because the alternative treatment is often inadequate,
screening out has fostered mequities, widening and perpetuaring—the gap
between youngsters deemed ready and unready.

, 7 BEST COPY AVAILABLE



Introduction

mericans want and need good information on the well-being of young
2 dx children. Parents want to know if ther children will be ready for school.
Teachers and school administrators want to know if their programs are effective
and if they are providing children the right programs and services. Policymakers
want to know which program policies and expenditures will help children and
their families, and whether they are effective over time. Yet young children are
notoriously difficult to assess accurately, and well-intended testing efforts in the
past have done unintended harm. The principles and recommendations in this
report were developed by advisors to the National Education Goals Panel to help
carly childhood professionals and policymakers meet their mformation needs by
assessing young children appropriately and effectively.

The first National Education Goal set by President Bush and the nation’s
Governors in 1990 was that by the year 2000, all children in America will start
school ready to learn. This Goal was meant to help those advecating the
importance of children’s needs. Yet trom the start, Goal | proved problematic te
measure. The Panel could find noe wood data or methods to measure children’s
status when they started school. In view of the importance of this issue, Congress
in 1994 charged the Goals Panel to support its Goal advisors to “create clear
guidelines regurdmg the nature, functions, and ies of early childhood assessments,
eluding assessment formats that are appropriate for use in culturally and linguistically
diverse commiauties, based on model elements of schoul readiness

The principles and
recommendations in this document are the result of efforts by the Goal 1 Early
Childhood Assessments Resource Group to address this charge.

Asm eean ery ANG ¢

et Uneque Geveicprrcii of Youre Childe
Assestng children in the earliest years of ite-from birth to age S=-1s difficult
because itis the period when young children’s rates of physteal, motor, and fnguiste
development outpace grow th rates at all other stages. Growth ty rapid, episodic, and
Irebh iofienced by environmental supports: nurliting: parent. Hatt) Career Ines
and the learning setone.

BEST COPY AVAILASLE

[op]



Technical requirements. Except for extreme disabilities, accurate assessment of
possible sensory or cognitive problems in young children is very difficule. The
instruments used are fallible, and children themselves vary tremendously in their
responses from one day te the next or in different contexts. In the field of special
education, there is a constant tenston between the need to tdentify children with
disabilities to ensure early intervention and help, versus the possible harm of
labeling children and possibly assigning them to inetfective treatments.

At step one in the identification process, the screening step, there are two
general sources of inaccuracy. First, the instruments are, by design, quick,
shortened versions of more in-depth assessments, and are theretore less reliable.
Second, they are not typically administered by specialists qualified to make
diagnostic decisions. The two-step process is cost-effective, practical, and makes
sense so long as the results are only used to signal the need for tollow-up
assessment. The following warnings are highlighted to guard against typical
misses of screening instruments:

© Screening measures are only intended for the referral stage of identification.
They are limited assessments, and typically are administered by school
personnel who are not trained to make interpretations about disabilities.

© Screening measures should never be the sole measure used to identify
children for special education. Because screening instruments have content
like 1Q tests, they should also not be used for instructional planning.

For physical disabilities such as viston or hearing impairment, the second-stage
in-depth assessment involves more sophisticated diagnostic equipment and the
clinical skills of trained specialists. For potential cognitiv
the second stage of identification involves trained sp:
data collection, but, ev
a

and language disabtlities,
alists and more extensive
nso, diagnostic procedures are prone to error. To protect
nst misidentification in either direction (excluding children with disabilities
from services or mislabeling children as disabled who are not), several safeguards
are built into the identification process for cognitive and language disorders:

(1) the sensory, behavioral, and cognitive measures used as part of the in-depth
assessment must meet the highest standards of reliability and validity:
(2) assessments must be administered and interpreted by trained professionals;
(3) multiple sources of evidence must be used and should especially represent
competence in both home and school settings: and (4) for children with more
than one Language, primary language assessments should be used to ensure that
language difference is not mistaken for disability. As noted in the age continuum
section that follows, screening and identification efforts should be targeted for
appropriate ages, taking into account the accuracy of assessment by age.

19

16



© Assessments should be age-appropriate in both content and the method of
data collection.
Assessments of young children should address the full range of early learning
and development, including physical well-being and motor development;
social and emotional development; approaches toward learning; language
development; and cognition and general knowledge. Methods of assessment
should recognize that children need familiar contexts in order to be able to
demonstrate their abilities. Abstract paper-and-pencil tasks may make it
especially difficult for young children to show what they know.

© Assessments should be linguistically appropriate, recognizing that to some
extent all assessments are measures of language.
Regardless of whether an assessment is intended to measure early reading
skills, knowledge of color names, or learning potential, assessment results are
easily confounded by language proficiency, especially for children who come
from home backgrounds with limited exposure to English, for whom the
assessment would essentially be an assessment of their English proficiency.
Each child's first- and second-language development should he taken into
account when determining appropriate assessment methods and in

interpreting the meaning of assessment results.

© Parents should be a valued source of 2
an audience for a

sment information, as well as

ment results.

Because of the fallibility of direct measures of voung children, assessments
should include multiple sources of evidence, especially reports from parents
and te:

hers. Assessment results should be shared with parents as part ef an
ongoing process that involves parents in thei child’s education.

fraportant Purposes of 4

nt for Young Children

The intended use of an assessment —its purpose—derermines every other aspect of
how the assessment ts conducted. Purpose determines the content of the assessment
(What should be measured?); methods of data collection (Should the procedures be
standardized? Can data come from the child, the parent, or the teacher’); technical
requirements of the assessment (What level of retiability and validity must be
established’); and, finally, the stakes or consequences of the assessment, which in
turn determine the kinds of safeguards necessary to protect against potential harm
trom fallible assessment-hased decrsions.

For example, af data froma statewide assessment are going to be used for school
accountability, then itis important that data be collected in a standardized way
te ensure comparability of school results. Hf children in some schools are given
practice ahead of time se that they will be familiar with the task formats, then
children in all schools should be provided with the same practices teachers should
hot ave help during the assessment of restate the quesons unless tts partot the
standard administration to do so; and. all af the assessments should be administered
I approsimately the same week of the school year In contrast, when a teacher ts
workin with an individual child ina classroom trying to help chat child fearn,

6 BEST COPY AVAI.nuis



Mi tama}
and mi S+¢rdohn

Sample of student work. the North Carolina ginoys Tand 2 Assessiner

” BEST COPY AVAILABLE



DOCUMENT RESUME |

ED 416 033 PS 026 296

AUTHOR Shepard, Lorrie, Ed.; Kagan, Sharon Lynn, Ed.; Wurtz, Emily,
Ed.

TITLE Principles and Recommendations for Early Childhood
Assessments.

INSTITUTION National Education Goals Panel, Washington, DC.

PUB DATE 1998-02-00

NOTE 45p.

AVAILABLE FROM National Education Goals Panel, 1255 22nd Street, N.W.,
Suite 502, Washington, DC 20037; phone: 202-724-0015; fax:
202-632-0957; www: http://www.negp.gov; e-mail:
NEGP@goalline.org

PUB TYPE Guides - Non-Classroom (055)
EDRS PRICE MFO1/PC02 Plus Postage.
DESCRIPTORS Early Childhood Education; *Educational Objectives;

Evaluation Criteria; Evaluation Methods; *Learning
Readiness; Preschool Children; *School Readiness; *Screening
Tests; *Student Evaluation; Test Reliability; Test Validity
IDENTIFIERS Developmentally Appropriate Programs; National Education
Goals 1990

ABSTRACT

The first of the National Education Goals states that by the
year 2000 all children in America will start school ready to learn. Pressed
by demands for greater accountability and enhanced educational performance,
states are developing standards and creating new criteria and approaches for
assessing achievement. Calls to assess young children are also increasing.
This booklet indicates how best to craft such assessments in light of young
children's unique Gevelopment, recent abuses of testing, and the legitimate
demands for clear and useful information. Following a look at recent
assessment issues and the current assessment climate, the booklet lists
general principles that should guide both policies and practices for the
assessment of young children; these principles address benefits, reliability
and validity, appropriateness to age level and language, and parental role in
assessment. The booklet then details important purposes of assessment for
young children: (1) promoting children's learning and development; (2)
identifying children for health and special services; (3) monitoring trends
and evaluating programs and services; and (4) assessing academic achievement
to hold individual students, teachers, and schools accountable. For each
purpose, the definition, audience, technical requirements and age continuum
are listed. Recommendations for policymakers are also presented for each
purpose, and a chart outlining appropriate uses and technical accuracy of
assessments change across the early childhood age continuum is included. The
booklet then considers combinations of these purposes that have most often
occurred in practice. Contains 33 references. (HTH)

FEI III III III I IAI ISIGI ISIC IIIT I IAAT

* Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made *

* from the original document. *
WeweUreretrrrererrrrtrttrtttettttttttitiirrisisc arti llt ile



Purpose 1. Assessing to promote children’s learning and

development
Kindergarten 1st 2nd 3rd grade
Birth 1 2 3 7 4 5 6 7 8 years

it i i 4 4 i 1

t t T T TT Y
Parents and caregivers Parents, caregivers, and Teachers use both formal
onserve and respond as preschooi teachers use and informal assessments
_hildren develop language _— direct measures, including _ to plan and guide
ana physical skills. observations of what instruction.

children are learning, to
decide what to teach next.

Definition of purpose. Assessing and teaching are inseparable processes. When
children are assessed as part of the teaching-learning process, then assessment
information tells caregivers and teachers what cach child can do and what he ot
she ts ready to learn next. For example, parents watch an infant grow stronger and
more confident in walking while holding on to furniture or adults. They “assess”

their child’s readiness to walk and begin to encourage independent walking by

offerine outstretched hands across small spaces. In the same vein, preschool
teachers and primary-urade teachers use formal and informal assessments to

eauve what thes children already know and understand, what things could be
understood with more practice and experience, and what things are too difficult
without further groundwork. This may include appropriate use of carly learning
readiness measures to be wed in planning next steps in instruction. Teachers abe
use ther assessments of children’s earning to reflect on their own teaching
practices, se that they can adiust and modify Curricula, instructional acuvities, and

classroom reutines that are inettective.

Audience. The primary audience for assessments used to support learning ts the
teacher, recognizing, of course, that parents are each child's first teachers. The
primary caregiver is asking hitnself questions ahour what the child understands,
what she does net understand, what she should be learning, and what b too soon
for her to be learning, so that the careaiver ts constantly providing children with
opportunitics to learn that are closely congruent with where they are ona learning
continuum. In more structured settings, classroom assessments are used by teachers
on a ongoing basis to plan and guide instruction. Teachers use hoth formal and
informal assessment information to figure out what is working and to entity
which children need additional help.

Children and parents are also important audiences for assessment data gathere
as part of instruction. Children benefit from seeing samples of their own work
collected over time and from being able to see their own growth and progress.
Once children are in the primary grades, helping them become good self sessors
ty avaluable skill that helps in future learning. For example, more and more

12 °



Photo: Martin Deutsch

Ween i Mo KK The
Hl | PISNE AWS The

SS

zw

(6 | ip

Samples of student work illustrating progress on an emergent writing continuum
(from the North Carolina Grades 1 and 2 Assessment)

8 li BEST COPY AVAILABLE

ov


Goal 1 Advisors to the National Education Goals Panel

Technical Planning Group on Readiness for School
Leader: Sharon Lynn Kagan, Yate University

Sue Bredekamp, National Association tor the Education of Young Children
M. Elizabeth Graue, University of Wisconsin

Luis Lausa, Educational Testing Service

Samuel Meisels, University of Michigan

Evelyn Moore, Nattonal Black Child Development Institute

Lucile Newman, Brown University

Lome Shepard, University of Colorado

Valora Washington, The Kellogg Foundation

Nicholas Zill, Westar, Inc.

Goal 1 Early Childhood Assessments Resource Group
Leaders: Sharon Lynn Kagan, Yale University
Lorrie Shepard, University of Colorado
Sue Bredekamp, Nattonal Association for the Education of Young Children
Edward Chittenden, Educational Testing Service
Harnet Egertson, Nebraska State Department of Education
Eugene Garcia, University of California, Berkeley
M. Elizabeth Graue, University of Wisconsin
Keng Hakuta, Stanford University
Carollee Howes, University of Calitornta, Los Angeles
Annemarie Pahinesar, University of Michnan
Tey Pandes, Caldornit State Department ot Education
Catherine Snow, Harvard University
Maurice Svkes. District of Columbia Public Schools
Valora Washington, The Kellogg Foundation
Nicholas Zul, Westat, Ine.

Goal 1 Ready Schools Resource Group
Leaders: Asa Hilliard, Georgia State University
Sharon Lynn Kagan, Yale Criversity
Barbara Bowman, Erikson Instirute
CUsnthia Brow unc at Chiet State School Otficers
Fred Brown, Rovertown Elementary School. Bovertown, Penowhy ania
Linda Espinosa, University ot Mrssourt
Donna Fogha, Norwood Creek School, San fase, Calitomtt
Peter Gerber, MacArthur Foundation
Sarah Gr ational Head Start Assecuition
Judith Heumann, US. Department ot Education
Mogens Jensen, Nattonal Center ter Medtated Learning
Lihan Kats. ERIC Clearinghouse tor Elementary and Early Childhe vod Education
Michael Levine. Carneaie Corporation at New York
Evelyn Moore. Nattonal Black Child Development Insurure
Tom Schultz, National Asocnition of State Boards of Education:
Barbara Scemore, DePaul Criversity
Robert Shivin, lohas Hopkans Cniverstty

ne,

Typography and design by the U.S. Government Printing Office.
Editoral assistance provided by Scott Miller, Editoral Experts, Inc.

44



Purpose 4. Assessing academic achievement to hold individual
students, teachers, and schools accountable

Kindergarten 1st 2nd 3rd grade Beyond age 8
Birth 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 years

1 \
| TT T if 1 i

P sfore age 8, standardized
achievement measures are
not sufficiently accurate

to be used for high-stakes
decisions about individual
children and schools.
Theretore, high-stakes
assessments intended for
accountability purposes
should be delayed until
the end of third grade (or
preferably fourth grade)

Definition of purpose. Purpose 4 refers to external examinations, mandated by an
authority outside the school. usually the state or school district, and admimustered
to asses academic achtevement and te hold students, teachers, and schools
accountable tor destred learnmy outcomes. For polievinakers. there tsa close
simularity between the use of assessment data for Parpose 3 and Purpose 4. Both
might be used, for example, to report on state and district trends of to compare
State and district results Co national norms of international benchmarks However
the important distinction between Purposes 3 and + how individuals whe

parde ipate in the assessment teachers and students-- are affected by assessment
restilts, Included in this category are external assessments administered nationally
or by states and school districts. Ht results are reported tor individual students
classrooms, of schools, then the assessment hay much higher sakes than either
day-to-day instructional assessments or statewide trend data. Obviously, wher
assessment results are used to retam students in kindergarten ef te award merit pay
for teachers, the consequences of assessment Ue SETLOUs. Research evidence shows,
however, that merely reporting Sheol results m the newspaper ty suffice te give
high stakes fo assessment results wih accompanying changes produced 1
instructional practices. Therefore, the deerston to report scares fat mda tdied students
and schools places assessments in this “sccountabihiny” category. whether or net the
assesment ts explicitly Labeled as an accountability system.

midience

Audience. Pohevmakers and the veneral public are. again, the primar
tor accountability data

reapresed intention af school-by s. heal reperany and
reporting of individual student results ts to give local constitucncres, espectalh
parents, the data thes need to be informed about the quality of local schools and te
lobby for program tiproyemeng,



We put books on the table and
made a Maze for the gumnea
Pigs. We put a guinea pig
way in the back of the house.
They went to find the grass
at the Other end of the
house. We were trying to Find out
how mony Seconds it would take
them tofind +he gtass. Tt took
Rodney A minutes and 20 secsnds

Sample of student ware: the North Carolina Grades 1 and 2 Assessment

v BEST COPY AVAILABLE

28 oO

Nt



The Current Climate

Despite these difficulties, demands for 2

inere

sessments of student learning are

ing. Pressed by demands for greater accountability and enhanced
educational performance, states are developing standards for school-aged children
and are creating new criteria and approaches for assessing the achievement of
challenging academic goals. In this contest, calls to assess young children —from
hirth through the earliest grades in school —are also increasing. This document
attempts to indicate how best to craft such assessments in light of young children’s
unique development, recent abuses of testing. and the legitimate demands from
parents and the publie for clear and useful information.

The principles and recommendations in this document are meant to help state
and docal officals meet their information needs well. They indicate both general
principles and specific purposes for assessments, a> well as the kinds of provisions
needed to ensure that the results will be accurate and usetul for those purposes.
Because testing young children has in the past led to unfair or harmful effects, the
recommendations melude warnings to protect against potential misuse, To explain
the basis of these recommendations, there is a definition of each of four categories

of assessment purpose, the audiences most concerned with the results of each, the

technical requirements that cach assessment must meet, and how assessment

considerations for cach purpose Vary across the age continuum from birth to 8)

Vears of ave.

General Principles
The following general principles should guide both policies and practices for the
assessment of voung children.

© Assessment should bring about benefits for children.
Gathermy accurate mformation from young children 1s ditficult and potentially
stressful, Formal assessments may also be costly and take resources that could
otherwise be spent directly on programs and services for young children. To
warrant conducting
services to the child or in improved quality of educational programs.

© Assessments should be tailored to a specitic purpose and should be reliable,
valid, and fair for that purpose.

a

other purposes. In the past. many of the abuses of testing with young children

sessments, there must be aclear benefit-—-cither in direet

sessments designed for ong purpese are not necessarthy val it used tor

have occurred because of mistse. The recommendations in the sections that
follow ware tailored to specific assessment purposes.

© Assessment policies should be designed recognizing that reliability and
validity of assessments increase with children’s age.
The younger the child. the more ditheule iis te obtain relable and vated
assessment data. Teas particularly difficult toaasess children’s cognitive allies
accurately before awe ®. Because of problems with rehabilins andy ahdity. seme
types of assessment should be postponed antl children are older while other
Ly pes of assessment Gan be pursed, but only with necessary safeguards.

§


Recommendations for what policymakers can do

“0

1.

. Given the potential for misuse of screening measures, states

States should ensure that all children have access to a regular health care
provider to check for developmental milestones and to ensure that children
are on schedule for unmunizations by age 2. In addition, states should provide
vision and hearing screenings tor all children by age 6.

~ The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires states to have Child

Find programs in place and adequate referral mechanisms in both preschool and
the primary grades to ensure that children with potential disabilities are referred
for in-depth assessments. Child Find is typically an organized effort by public

health, social welfare, and educational agencies to identity all disabled children

in need of services.

© Mild forms of cognitive and language disabilities are particularly hard to

identity. We know, however, that effective treatments for children with mild

cognitive and language disabilities and most children at-risk for significant

reading difficulty all involve the same kinds of high quality, intensive language
and literacy interventions. Therefore, policymakers should consider increasing
the availability and intensity of such services for broader populations of students
who are educationally at-risk, including children in poverty and children
thought to have special learnmg needs.

ad districts that
creening tests should consider how they are bemg used and should

mandate

evaluate whether wdentificanons in their jurisdiction are more accurate with
the use of formal tests than in states or districts where only parent and teacher
refercals are used.

States that mandate administration of cognitive screening measures should
expressty forbid the use of screening tests for other than referral purposes.
Specitically, screening tests should not be used as readiness tests to exclude
children from school; they should not be used to track children by ability in
kindergarten and first grade; and they should not be used te plan instruction
unless a valid relauonship with focal curricula has been established.

BEST COPY AVAIL *73t

a

“

19



e\clude Children trom school or to plan instruction. Often, the need for costly
assessments Could be chiminated of intensive language and hteracy Programs
were more broadhy avatable tor all of the groups deemed educationally ater

og. children Inving in poverty. children with mid cognitive and language
disabtines, and children with carly reading ditficulttes.

Assessing to monitor trends and evaluate programs and services. The kinds
of assessment that teachers use in preschool and the early grades to monitor
children’s learnar

ware Not sufficiently rehable or directly) comparable for uses
outside the chisstoom. Before age 5, assessment svstems destened to gather
dota atthe state or national level should focus on social indicators that
describe the conditions of learning, eg, the percentage of low-income

children whe attend quality preschool programs. Beginning at ave 5, its

possible to develop Lirue-scale assessment systems to report on tren

san carly

loarameg, hut mates sampling should be used te ensure technical accuracy and

atthe same time protect individual children from test misuse.

ademic achievement to hold individual students, teachers, and
schools accountable. There shindd be ne high-stakes accomntabiltts testing of
meetded chikdien before the end of third grade. This very strong recommen:
dation does notimply that members of the Resource Group are against
accommtability on

inst high standards. In fact. instructionally relevant

assessments des

ehed to support student learning should reflect a clear
continuum of progress in Cirades Ky band 2 that leads to expected standards
of performance ter the third and fourth erades. Teachers should he
accountable tor keeping track of how well thei students are learning and

for responding appropriately. bur the technology of testing 1 nor sutticrently
toumate fo mpose these decisions ism an outside assessment

Congtess charged the Gioals Panel ads sors to offer “Clear guidelines regarding

the ntare. tinctions. and uses of cathy childhood assessments.” In examming
stirent trends in state and local poles. we found numerous efforts to euard
ATINST Festing instses af the pasta well as postin e efforts to devise standards and
assessments that would clearly document chiklren’s dearning, We hope that these
tecommendadons and principles will be usetul to educators and parents, aswell as
to state polamakers who hold the aathoriny tor determining testing policies.
(Trmatel our geatis te set bigh expectations for early learning and development,
temake sure that ne chikd whe tally behind goes annoticed. and at the same time
tehelp jy aents and t

publ understand how carted are the sticcesstul paths of

cath teaming. depending on the rate ot development, lingunsti and cultaral

espenences, and Community Contexts

36 BEST COPY AVAILABLE



Glossary
Accountabilit
pertormane:

The concept of trying to hold appropriate parties accountable for their
2m education these are usually administrators, teachers, and/or students.
Bevond tical accountability, this concepr currently means responsibiliry for student
academic pertormance, ustally by publicly reporting student achievement data (often test
scares), Accountability mechanisms vary among states and local districts in the types of
school and student data that are used and in the degree to which rewards, sanctions, or
other consequences are attached to performance.

Assessment: The process of collecting date to measure the pertormance or capabilities of
astudent or group. Paperaind-peneil tests of students’ knowledge tre common form of

assessment, but data on stadent attendance or homework completion, records of informal
adult observations of student proficrene:

valuations of projects, oral presentations, oF
other forms of problem-sciving mav tho he assessments.

Child Find programs: Organized eftorts by health, welfare, and education agencies to locate
and dents children in need ot spectal education sens ices

Development: Growth or maturation that occurs primarily because of the emergence of
underh ing biological patterns or preconditions. The terms development and learning

are distinguished by the presumption that one ts caused by genetics and the other by
expertence. However itis haown that development can be pro oundly atfected by

env onmental conditions

Developmental assessment: Measurement of a chikl’s cognitive, Linguage, know ledge, and
pevchemotor shille in onder te evaluate development an comparison te clublren of the same

chronological age.

Developmental continuum: A continuum that describes typical smifestones an chiklren’s

erowth and emeruing capabilines according to

Dynamic sament: An interactive mode of asesment used te evaluate chit ability
te tearn by providing a structured Le

ming situation, observing how the cbikd pertorms, and
evaluating how well the chikd is able te learn new matertal under vartous conditions at
supported leaming

Early childhood: The stage of te trom birth through eS

Formal assessment: .\ sv stemane and stricture) tie ins of collecting intermittent

student pertormance that both teachers and students recenzie ds 1 asses MEAT EC eT

High-stakes assessment: Assessments that carry serious consequences Ler students or ter
educators. Ther outcomes determine such inportant things ts prametien te the nest grade,
eraduation, ment pay fer teachers. or school rankings re ported in the newspaper

Informal assessment: .\ means ot ¢

lecting information about student perform ince in
naturally occurring circumstances. which may net produce Prghily accor ite and stent:
results, but an provide useful insights about a child's fe anime

Large-scale assessment: Stanchardicad tots ind other forms of assessment designed to be
cchmntered te Large groups of nnd tdtials under proscribed conditions t pros de
Intermittion about performance on at standatded scale se that tesults tor distiicts, st ites, et

nations can be tanks compared

Learning: AGgunng of know ledge
ot eNPertenee

Shall wayset thoking, atotades. and valies er result

Matrix sampling: ‘Vay te seleat a subset ot lllthe students tobe tested: ind subsets at varrons
pans otrtest se thare nb student thes only at portion of the fotalasessment, but cald
Cenchistens can be drawn about bow all students woukt hve potorme sbon the entire te

BESTCOPY AVAILABLE 40 "7

|


should know and be able to do. Because teachers and school administrators often
make changes in curriculum and instructional strategies in an effort to improve
performance on such external assessments, it is important that the NAEP tor
fourth and eighth graders include

challenging open-ended problems, and net just
the kinds of questions that lend themselves most easily to multiple-chotce formats.
Similarly, direct measures of young children should be broadly representative of the
five dimensions of early learning and development, and not limited to
inappropriate paper-and-pencil tests. In addition, in order to inform public policy
adequately, large-scale trend data and evaluation measures should address the
conditions of learning—the adequacy of programs, the level of training of
caregivers and teachers, the curriculum materials used, and the adequacy of support
services—-as well as the outcomes of early education and intervention.

Fortunately, the difficulties in measuring young children accurately can he
compensated for in Purpose 3 by the aggregate nature of the data. Instead ct
in-depth assessment of each child needed t ensure reliability and validity for
Purpose 2, gathering data from sufficient numbers of children can ensure accu
tor purposes of evaluating programs. Manix sampling ts a statistical technique
whereby each child participating in the assessment takes only part of the toral
assessment. Matrix sampling, which is currently used as part of the NAEP design,
has two distinct advantages. First, tt allows comprehensive coverage of a froad

assessment domain without overburdening any one child or student whe
Participate
of the total

in the assessment. Second, because each student takes only a portion
sessment, it is impossilde to use the results to make decistons about
individual children. This second feature is especially important as a

eguard
against misuse af assessment results.

Age continuum. Because of the difficulties in obtaining direct measures of learning
with voung children, the types of measures that can be included in a monitoring

system or evaluation study are very different for children at different ends of the age
range from birth to age 8. For children from birth to 2, the only direct measures that
are sufficiently accurate to be feasible ina large
effort are measures of physical characteris

cale, every-child data collection

ich as birthweight. For children in this
Vvoungest age tange, monitoring systems should focus on the conditions of learning by
Creating social indicators that track characteristics of families and the adequacy of
health and child care services. lmportant indicators in this earliest age range include
percentage of low-béthweight babies or the percentage of 2-year-olds being
immunized

ies §

For 3- and 4-year-olds, social indicators that describe the adequacy of services
in support of learning and development are presently the preferred mode of
assessment. For example, Ohio's annual Progress Report on Education reports data
on the percentage of 3- and 4-year-olds in poverty who participate in Head Start
or preschool. It is also possible to assess learning of 3- and 4-year-olds directly.
Although good measures are not readily available off the shelf at present, it is
technically possible to construct direct measures of cognitive, language, social, and

25

a8



PRINCIPLES AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR

EARLY CHILDHOOD
ASSESSMENTS

—~| Goal 1: Ready to Learn
\ By the year 2000, all children in America
“| ~— will start school ready to learn.
Objectives:

MAM children will have access to high-quality and developmentally appropriate
preschool programs that help prepare children for school.

@ Every parent in the United States will be a child's first teacher and devote time
each day to helping such parent's pre-chool child learn, and parents will have
access to the traming and support parents need.

B Children will receive the nutrition, physical activity experiences, and health
care needed to arrive at school with healthy minds and bodies, and to maintain
the mental alertness necessary to be prepared to learn, and the number of
low-birthweight babies will be significantly reduced through enhanced prenatal
health sisters.



a

THE NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS

Xe

READY TO LEARN MATHEMATICS
AND SCIENCE

SCHOOL COMPLETION ADULT LITERACY AND

LIFELONG LEARNING

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SAFE, DISCIPLINED, AND
ALCGHOL- AND

AND CITIZENSHIP
DRUG-FREE SCHOOLS

——

4 , Un

TEACHER EDUCATION PARENTAL
AND PROFESSIONAL PARTICIPATION
DEVELOPMENT

NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS PANEL
1255 22nd Street, N.W., Suite 502
Washington, DC 20037
202-724-0015 © FAX 202-632-0957
http://www.negp-gov
E-mail: NEGP@goalline.org

BEST COPY AVAILABLE AS



assessments, conducted to improve learning, must also be tied to the preschool or
primary curriculum and should have clear implications for what to do next.

The reliability and validity requirements for assessments used to support learning
are the least stringent of any of the assessment purposes. Over time, teachers’
assessments become reliable and consequential, in the sense that multiple
assessment events and occasions yield evidence of patterns or consistencies in a
child's work, but the day-to-day decisions that caregivers and teachers make on the
hasts of single ssments are low-stakes decisions. If an incorrect decision is made,
for example in judging a child’s reading level to help select a book from the library
(this book is too easy), that decision is easily changed the next day when new
assessment data are available. Because assessments used as part of learning do not
have to meet strict standards for technical accuracy, they cannot be used for
external purposes, such as school accountability, unless they are significantly
restructured. They may, however, inform a school faculty of the effectiveness of its
primary school program.

Age continuum. How old a child ts within the carly childhood age span of birth
to8 years old affects both the what and how of assessment. At all ages. attention
should be paid to all five of the dimensions of carly learning and development

identified by the Goals Panel's Goal 1 Technical Planning Group: physical well-
being and motor developmen

ysocial and emotional development; approaches
toward learning: language development; and cognition and general knowledge.

Parents of taddlers and early

aregivers address all five areas. Beginning in first
vrade, greater emphasis is placed on language and literacy development and other
cognitive-academic domains, though assessment in other domains may continue.
Ideally. there should not be an abrupt shift in assessment and instruction from.
kindergarten to first grade. Instead, preschool assessments used as part of teaching
should introduce age-appropriate aspects of emergent literacy and numeracy
curricula; and in Grades 1 to 3, physteal, social-emotional, and disposition learning
goals should continue to be part of ¢

ssroom teaching and observation.

Methods of collecting assessment data include direct observation of children
durmy natural activities; looking at drawings and samples of work: asking questions
ether orally or in writing; or asking informed adults about the child. The younger
the child, the more appropriate it is to use observation. As age increases, especially
by third grade, the frequency of more formal assessment “events” should increase.
hut should sull be balanced with informal methods. Across this carly childhood
age span, Children should be introduced to and become comfortable with the idea
that adults ask questions and check on understanding aa natural part of the
leamntag process

12

aud



Photo: Marietta Lynch

Sample of student work: the North Carolina Grades and 2 Assessment

14 1 ¢

eee



me

National Education Goals Panel

Governors

James B. Hunt, Jr, North Carolina (Chair, 1997~1998)
John Engler, Michigan

William Graves, Kansas

Paul E. Patton, Kentucky

Roy Romer, Colorado

Tommy G. Thompson, Wisconsin

Cecil Underwood, West Virginia

Christine Todd Whitman, New Jersey

Members of the Administration

Carol H. Rasco, Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Education
Richard W. Riley, Secretary of Education

Members of Congress

U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico

U.S. Senator Jim Jeffords, Vermont

U.S. Representative William F. Goodling, Pennsylvania
U.S. Representative Dale E. Kildee, Michigan

State Legislators

Representative G. Spencer Coggs, Wiscorsin
Representative Ronald Cowell, Pennsylvania

Representative Mary Lou Cowlishaw, Illinois

Representative Douglas R. Jones, Idaho

National Education Goals Panel Staff

Ken Nelson, Executive Director

Leslie A. Lawrence, Senior Education Associate

Cynthia D. Prince, Associate Director for Analysis and Reporting
Emily 0. Wurtz, Senior Education Assocrate

Cynthia M. Dixon, Program Assistant

John Masaitis, Executive Officer

Sherry Price, Secretary

Goal 1 Early Childhood Assessments Resource Group
Leaders: Sharon Lynn Kagan, Yale University
Lorrie Shepard, University of Colorado

Sue Bredekamp, National Association for the Education of Young Children
Edward Chittenden, Educational Testing Service

Harriet Egertson, Nebraska State Department of Education
Eugene Garcia, University of California, Berkeley

M. Elizaoeth Graue, University of Wisconsin

Kenji Hakuta, Stanford University

Carollee Howes, University of California, Los Angeles
Annemarie Palincsar, University of Michigan

Te; Pandey, California State Nepartment of Education
Catherine Snow, Harvard University

Maurice Sykes, District of Columbia Public Schools

Valora Washington, The Kellogg Foundation

Nicholas Zill, Westat, Inc.

February sat



Conclusions

Assessment of young children is important both to support the learning of each
individual child and to provide data—at the district, state, and national level—for
improving services and educational programs. At the level of the individual child,
teaching and assessment are closely linked. Finding out, on an ongoing basis, what
achild knows and can do, helps parents and teachers decide how to pose new
challenges and provide help with what the child has not yet mastered. Teachers
also use a combination of observation and formal assessments to eval:
ter

ate their own,
ching and make improvements. At the policy level, data are needed about the
preconditions of learning—such as the adequacy of health care, child care, and
preschool services. Direct measures of children’s

arly learning are also needed to
make sure that educational programs are on track in helping students reach high
standards by the end of third grade.

Assessing young children accurately is much more difficult than for older
students and adults, because of the nature of early learning and because the
language skills needed to participate in formal assessments are still developing.
Inappropriate testing of young children has sometimes led to unfair and harmful

decisions. Such testing abuses occur primarily for one of two reasons: either a test

desiened for one purpose is improperly used for another purpose, or testing
procedures appropriate for older children are used inappropriately with younger
children. In making its recommendations, the Resource Group has emphasized

how technical requirements for assessments must be tailored to each assessment

purpose, and we have tred to explain how the increasing reliability and validity of
measurement for ages from birth to age 8 should guide decisions about what kinds
of assessments can be administered accurately at cach age. a

Four categories of assessment purpose were identified, with accompanying
recommendations for educators and policymakers:

© Assessing to promote children’s learning and development. The most
important reason for assessing young children is to help them learn. To

this end, assessments should be closely tied to preschool and early -grades

curriculum, and should be a natural part of instructional activities.

rs should support the development or provision of assessment
materials, to be used instructonally, that exemplify important and age-
appropriate learning goals. States should ako support professional
development to help teachers learn to use benchmark information ta extend
children’s thinking.

© Assessing to identify children for health and special services. Screening or a
relertal procedure should be i place to ensure that children suspected of
having a health or learning problem are reterred tor m-dept h evaluation.
Given the potential for misuse of Cognitive screening measures, states that
mandate screening tests should monitor how they are used and should take
extrt steps ta avond mapproprrate uses. IQ-like tests should not be used to

ann 35
[vxe)



Purpose 3. Monitoring trends and evaluating programs

and services

Kindergarten 1st 2nd 3rd grade
Birth 1 2 4 6 7 8 years
— | J. | £ }

Bex.ause direct measures
uf children’s language and
cognitive functioning are
difficult to aggregate
accurately for ages from
birth to 2, state reporting
systems should focus on
living and social conditions
that affect learning and the
adequacy of services.

Definition of purpose. For assessment Purpose 1 and Purpose

Assessments, including
direct and indirect
measures of children’s
physical, social, emotional
and cognitive developmen’
could be constructed and
used to evaluate pre-
kindergarten programs.
but such measures would
not be accurate enough
tc make high-stakes
decisions about individua'
eniddren.

Beginning at age 5, it is
Possible to use direct
measures, including
measures of children’s
early learning, as part of
a comprehensive early
childhood assessment for
Monitoring trends. Matrix
sampling should be
used to ensure technical
accuracy and to provide
safeguards for individual
children, Because of the
Cost of such an assessment,
States or the nation should
pick one grade level for
Monitoring trends in early
childhood, most tikely
kindergarten or first grade.

>

vatssessment data

were used to make deenions about individual children. For Purpose 3, assessment

data are gathered about groups of children in the aggregate and are used by
pohevmakers to make decisions about educational and social programs. In this
category, we include two different types of measures, sactal mdicators, uscd to assess

the adequacy of services to children or conditions in the environment, and deeee
measires of children, where children thempelves are the sources of the data.
Examples of social indicators include the percentage of mothers in a state who

receive Wwell-baby care, the percentage of 2

ar-olds on schedule with

Immunizations, or the percentage of low-income children who attend quality

preschool programs. Direct measures of children’s performance could include the

degree of language development of tamiltarity with concepts of print, (For
example, does the child come to school knowing how to hokl a book and knowine
that printed words tell a story?) Such measures, when aggregated for groups of
children and used for Purpose 3, could assess the destred outcomes of quality

preschool

te, however, that these assessments are not used to make decisions

about the chitdren whe participate. but instead are used to evalaate programs.

We have combined within Parpose 3 two closely related tises of.

eereaate dant,

montorar bends end progam etaltation, Large-scale assessment progitns such as
the Naronal Assessment of Educational Progress (NAFPY serve a monitoring
function. Data tor the nation and for states are vathered on a regular evele te:

an

we



" PRINCIPLES AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR
g EARLY .
: CHILDHOOD
& ASSESSMENTS

US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Olhice of Educational Reseatcn and
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION

. CENTER (E!
This document has bee!
received trom the person or or

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Submitted to

THE NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS PANEL

by the Goal 1 Early Childhood Assessments Resource Group
Lorrie Shepard, Sharon Lynn Kagan, and Emily Wurtz, Editors

eae Es oo
~~ a


each individual score must be sufticrently reliable and valid, it is not possible to use
the aggregation of scores to compennate for inaccuracies in individual measures.
Individual-score reporting also precludes the use of matrix sampling to sample an
ssment domain broadly. Instead, for fairness reasons, all students must take the
Name test.

as:

The high-stakes nature of accountability
pos

essments also contributes to their
ible maccuracy. All assessments are fallible and potentially corruptible. Results
can be distorted by departures from standardized administration procedures (i.e.
allowing more time) or by inappropriate teaching-to-the-test (Lc., giving practice
on questions that closely resemble the assessment). These practices are

documented to occur more frequently when the results of testing have high-stakes
may be motivate:

by personal gain to coach their students or to change answers, widespread practices

consequences for students or teachers. Although some educators

that undermine the integrity of results are more likely to occur because a test is
scen ay professionally indefensible, because it is unfair to children, takes time away
from teaching, or diverts attention from important learning goals.

Age continuum. Direct measures of learning outcomes are fraught with error
throughout the entre early childhood age span. Such errors have very different
consequences in an accountability context than in classroom contexts, where
teachers are constantly learning new things about each child. Although

standardized measures of children’s physical, soctal, emotion: vaind cognitive
development could be constructed and administered for purposes of program,

evaluation and monitoring trends-- because data agere

wation would provide both
safeguards and improved accuracy: such assessments cannot be made sufficiently
reliable and {arr to be used tor high-stakes decisions about individual children and
schools.

sit orat eo sgt . '

ret OG Seto matte

1. Before age 8, standardized achievement measures are not suffictently accurate
ta he used for high-stakes deeistons about individual children and schools.
Therefore, high-stakes assessments intended for accountability purposes should

be delayed until the end of third grade (or pr elerably fourth grade).

~ Although it is not technically defensible for states or districts to administer
formal, standare

te

ced measures to hold first and second graders to grade-level

Standards, polreyntakers have a legitimate concen that 3rd grade ts “tao Late”
to identify children who are falling behind. As suggested under Purpose 1,
policymakers at the state and district level could reasonably require that
teachers and the schools have procedures in place to monitor student progress

Using instructionally relevant assessments, and that schools have a plan for
proveding intensified special help it children are having difficulty, especially tn
learning to read.

oO

¥ 31



wk (4th ed). Wishmeton, DC: National Assocntion tor the Education of Young Children.

Motels. s.)& Fenichel, E. (Eds. (1996), New visions for the der.
orfants and xorg chikben. Washington, DC ZERO TO THREE
Intants, Toddlers, and Banulies.

lopmental assessment of
National Center tea

Moench. >). lablon. LR. Marden, D.B.. Dichtelmiler, ML. & Doriman, A.B, (1994),
The Work Sampling System Ana Arbor. ME Rebus, Ine.

Merch 8 1. Marsden, PB. Wisk, MoS. S Hendersen. LW, (19971, The Earls Socening
Trranteny (Rev. ed) JEST- BTR]. Ann Arbor, Mi: Rebus, Ine.

Motel, S48 Provence, 8. (989), Serconmg and awesoment, Guadelines for slentyyme young
disabled and derelipmentully vidnerable children and ther families. Washington, DC:
Center tor Clintcal Infant Programs.

National

Michigan State Board of Education, Earl, Childhood! Education & Parenting Office. (1992,

April), Appropriate assessment af seung children, Lansing: Michnsan Department of Eduction

Minnesota Department ot Education. (1990), Model farmer ontcomes for early childhood
education. St. Paul Author.

Natenal Assocation tor the Educacen of Young Chiidren and National Assocation of
barks Childhood Spectalists in Stare Departments of Education. (1991), Guidelines tor
appropriate curriculum content and assessment in programs serving children aes 3
through & Yorng Children OCD): 21-38,

Natenal Association tor die Education ef Young Children. (19so)
state nt en standardized testing of voung Children 3-8 years at ag

Al de,

AEYC
eng Chikdben 4343):

a)

National bducation Goals Panel (1997, Lantiand). Getting a goad stat school. Washington,
DOD US. Government Printing Office.

National Education ¢

Ie Panel 1997, October), Spectal carly childhewd report i907
Washington, DOE U

- Government Printing Office.

National Forum on Education Statisties. (L994). V statistical agenda for carly fuldhoos
cond education Addendion to "A Gide to baproume the National Edtecation Date Svstem
Adopted bv the National Forum en Education Statsties, January 1994,

Newworth, | T.(199 31, Assessment: DEC recommended practices. Ln DEC recommended
Jractces: Indicators of qreality m programy for mans and young Gildren with spectal needs and
then families (see FC 301 933),

Pertone, VE 99D). On standardized testing: AV position paper af the Assoc tition tor
Childhood Educaten Intemational Childhood Education 073): 131 da.

Puckett MBS Blick LK. 199}, Mathente assessment of the young child: Celebratmg
development and feamme New York: Merrill. an imprint of Macmillan College Publishing
Campany

Shepard, LA. L994), The challenges of assessing voung children appropriately, Phi Delis
Kappan 7603): 200 213

Shepank DA. (L997). Children not ready te fearn? Phe invalidity of school readiness
testing Povchology m the Schools 34(2) 85-07,

Shepard 1A. (1991). The influence of stindardiced tests on the earl childhood
curriculum, teachers, and children. tn B. Spodek & OLN. Saniche (Bab). Your honk: ar earls
childhood education (Vol. 2. New Yorks Teachers College Press.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

40



motor learning for 3- and 4-year-olds. To avoid overtesting and protect against
misuse, these assessments should use matrix sampling procedures. To ensure
appropriate and accurate procedures, assessments should be administered to
children individually by trained examiners under controlled conditions. Direct
measures of learning would be costly to develop and administer, but the
information gained would make such efforts feasible if designed as part of targeted
national evaluation studies, such as the evaluation of Head Start, Even Start, and
Title [in the preschool years. In these studies, data are aggregated to evaluate
Programs and are not used to make decisions about individual children.

Although direct measires of learning are possible in the context of large-scale
program evaluations, it may still be costly and unfeasible to establish a state or
national monitoring system to assess 3- or 4-year-olds. The problem would not be
just with creating the direct measures themselves, but with the difficulties in
locating and sampling all of the 3- or 4-year-olds in a state. Unlike the Head Start
example, where the sample could be drawn from those children participating in
the program, a state monitoring system would require a household survey and
individual assessments for a sample of children in their homes, at a cost that would
h potential benefits.

ning at age 5, however, it would be possible to administer direct measures
of learning outcomes to children in school as part of a monitoring system. For
example, the Goals Panel's Goal 1 Resource Group on School Readiness proposed
a national Early Childhood Assessment to provide comprehensive information
about the status of the nation’s children during their kindergarten years. The
envisioned assessment would not only address the multiple dimensions of early
learning and development, but would also counteract the fallible nature of each
data source by collecting information from parents, teachers, and children
themselves, through both direct measures and portfolios of classroom work. The
tive dimensions of carly learning suggested by the Resource Group are being used
hy the National Center for Education Statistics as the framework for developing
measures for the National Early Childhood Longitudinal Survey. Although these
measures would not be available for widespread use, the insights gained from their
development and field testing should be helpful to states trying to develop their
OWN assessments.

Individual states could constder developing an carly childhood assessment
program for monitoring trends. However, the cost of developing such a system that
is both comprehensive and technically sound would be substantial. Therefore, it
would be unfeasible to try to collect assessment data at every grade level from
Kindergarten to Grade 3. Instead, one grade level should be selected for this type of
trend data, most likely cither kindergarten or Grade 1. A kindergarten-year
assessment would have the advantage of being both a culminating measure of the
effects of learning opportunities and services available in the years before school
and a “baseline” measure against which to compare learning gains by fourth grade.
A first grade assessment would be fess destrable for monitormyg trends because of the

26 2g



ISN een

4tcT

Sample of student work: the North Carolina Grades 1 and 2 Assessment

10 13 BEST COPY AVAILa....



Recommendations for what policymakers can do
1. Policymakers should develop or identify assessment materials, to be used
instructionally, that exemplify important and age-appropriate learning goals. At

the

earliest ages, caregivers need tools to assist in observing children. Lacking
such assessment materials, preschool programs may misuse

screening measures

for such purposes. Many local schools and districts lack the resourees fo develop
currtcula and closely aligned assessments consistent with standards-based reforms
and new Title] requirements. In order for a
instructionally, they
with benchmark:

sessment results to be usetul

should be tied to clear developmental or knowledge continua,
along the way to illustrate what progress looks like. Because it
ts too great an undertaking ror individual teachers or early childhood programs
to develop such materials on the!

own, efforts coordinated at the state level can
make a significant improvement in assessment practices.

tw

- Policymakers should support professional development. Early childhood care
providers and teachers need better tr

ining in children’s development within
curricular areas in order to be effective in supporting children’s learning. Deep

understanding of subject matter enables teachers to capitalize on naturally
occurring opportunities to talk about ideas and extend children’s thinking. In
order to make sense of what they are observing,

cle,

dimensions, and they also need to unders

givers and teachers need a
irunderstanding of what typical development looks like in each of the five
and and appreciate normal variation.
When tsa child’ departure from an expected benchmark consistent with
hneurstic or cultural differences, and when ts ita sign of a potential learning

disorder? Teachers and caregivers abo need explictt training iy how to use new
forms of assessment—-not only to gud:

acchild’s progress, but to evaluate and
Many times, teachers collect children’s
work in porttolios, but do not know how to evaluate work against common
criteria. Or teachers may know how to mark children’s papers for night and
Wrong answers, but need additional trang to learn how to document children’s
thinking, to understand and anal

improve their own teaching practice

errors in thinking, and to build on cach
childs strenaths.

16

13