Trends in Early Childhood Assessment Policies and Practices

Lorrie A. Shepard

Grace A. Taylor

University of Colorado, Boulder

Sharon L. Kagan

Yale Bush Center in Child Development and Social Policy

October, 1996

Running Head: Early Childhood Assessment Policies and Practices

This research was supported in part by the Office of Educational Research and Improvement

(OERI), U. S. Department of Education, through the Center for Research on Evaluation,

Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). The findings and opinions expressed do not reflect

the position or policies of OERI or the U. S. Department of Education.

Corresponding Author: Lorrie A. Shepard

Campus Box 249

School of Education

University of Colorado

Boulder, CO 80309-246

(303) 492-8108

Lorrie.Shepard@Colorado.edu
2

The present study was undertaken to document current early childhood assessment and

testing practices in the states. For what purposes are young children assessed and how are they

assessed? A decade ago, the most salient topics in early childhood education were inappropriate

curriculum and its close corollary, inappropriate testing. Extensive efforts have been made by the

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), the National Association of

Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE), and other

professional associations to offer guidance for more appropriate testing practices. How have

assessment policies and practices changed in the ensuing years, if at all? How are assessment

practices affected by other changes in the policy context such as efforts to measure progress

toward Goal 1, standards-based reform, an emphasis on new forms of assessment, and the move

toward integrated services for young children?

BACKGROUND

1988 Survey of States

In 1988, under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences and the National

Association of State Boards of Education, Gnezda and Bolig conducted a survey of

prekindergarten and kindergarten testing in the 50 states. Their methodology was similar to that

of the present study, relying on telephone interviews with early childhood specialists or testing

and evaluation specialists in state departments of education. Because most testing practices were

determined by local rather than state-level policies, their data necessarily reflected the perceptions

of the people interviewed rather than a precise quantification of the prevalence of different

practices. Nevertheless, findings from the Gnezda and Bolig survey provide a useful summary of

testing practices in the late 1980s and a basis of comparison for interpretation of present-day

reported practices.

Gnezda and Bolig encountered considerable confusion regarding testing purposes and

terminology. Respondents were especially likely to confuse screening (a preliminary step in the

identification of children as handicapped) and readiness testing (used both to plan instruction in a

regular kindergarten or to make decisions to delay school entry and recommend retention in

kindergarten). Screening upon entrance to kindergarten was mandated by state law in 19 states,

with the most frequently used instruments being the Brigance, Battelle, Denver, DIAL-R, Early

Prevention of School Failure, and the Gesell. Although screening requirements were originally

intended for use in individualizing classroom instruction or for referral for additional assessment

and special services, test results were reportedly also used to delay school entry or to place

children in special programs such as developmental kindergarten. Seven states mandated

readiness testing for kindergarten, with local use of readiness testing reported in 30 states, using

such instruments as the DIAL-R, the Gesell, the Metropolitan, and the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary Test. Six states mandated first-grade readiness testing with local use reported in an

additional 37 states; measures included standardized achievement tests such as the CAT, CTBS,

and ITBS. In 35 of these states, end of kindergarten test results were used to place children in

transitional first grade or for kindergarten retention.

Most of the 22 state mandates for testing prior to kindergarten or first grade had been

enacted in the mid-to-late 1980s and were attributed to educational reform efforts, concern over

the accountability of schools and of teachers, greater interest in identifying and serving children

at risk of school failure, and a downward extension of academics (Gnezda & Bolig, 1988, p. 4).

Local reasons for testing young children included a desire to match children to the curriculum,

increase the probability of success in kindergarten and first grade, demonstrate teacher success,
3

ensure placement of children into appropriate programs, identify learning problems, and

individualize the curriculum (p. 4). Some respondents also said that kindergarten teachers,

often encourage kindergarten readiness testing in order to protect younger and immature

children from skills-oriented kindergarten curricula (p. 4).

Changing Policy Context

Many early childhood specialists were well aware that the testing practices captured by the

1988 survey did not meet professional standards for either sound measurement or educational

decisions. In many cases IQ-like tests were being used inappropriately, and tests without

adequate reliability and validity were being used to make major, career-altering placement

decisions for children. Although these practices had arisen in response to a narrow skill-drill

curriculum, holding out young and less ready children was exacerbating the problem of curriculum

distortion rather than solving it. In the paragraphs that follow we summarize key policy efforts

made by professional groups in the early childhood community in an effort to redress these

negative practices. We also provide a brief overview of changes occurring in the larger context of

educational reform.

Fostering developmentally appropriate practices in the early grades. In 1986, six

professional organizations (Association for Childhood Education International, Association for

Supervision and Curriculum Development, International Reading Association, National

Association for the Education of Young Children, National Association of Elementary School

Principals, National Council of Teachers of English) issued a joint statement expressing concern

that pre-first grade children were being subjected to rigid, formal pre-reading programs with

inappropriate expectations and experiences for their levels of development (International

Reading Association, p. 110). Especially they noted that too much attention was being focused

on isolated skill development and that pressure to achieve high scores on standardized tests that

frequently are not appropriate for the kindergarten child (p. 111) was having a deleterious effect

on the content of kindergarten programs. In 1987, responding further to these concerns, the

NAEYC used the phrase developmentally appropriate (Bredekamp, 1987) -- now a

commonplace slogan -- to represent the idea that curriculum and instructional practices should be

consistent with the ways that children of a given age develop and learn and should be responsive

to their individual and cultural needs and experiences.

Policy statements about testing of young children. Inappropriate curriculum and

instructional practices were closely tied to inappropriate testing practices. Therefore, it was

impossible to address one without addressing the other. In November of 1987, the National

Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE)

issued a statement against Unacceptable Trends in Kindergarten Entry and Placement, and that

same month, the NAEYC adopted its position statement on standardized testing. NAECS/SDE

argued against denying school entrance to age-eligible children or segregating children into extrayear classes because such practices denied opportunities for cognitive growth through social

interaction to children who most needed to be in school, labeled children as failures, and assigned

the burden of responsibility (for readiness) to the child, rather than the school program.

NAECS/SDE also addressed the problems of validly testing young children and recommended

that tests be used for initial program planning and information-sharing with parents but not to

create barriers to school entry or to sort children (p. 7). The NAEYC statement offered

guidelines addressing the need for (1) reliable and valid measures, (2) use of multiple indicators

when making important decisions, (3) the use of tests for their intended purpose, (4) professional

knowledge and caution when interpreting test scores, (5) appropriate match of tests to local

curricula, (6) knowledge of development needs, and (7) sensitivity to diversity. Given the
4

potential for measurement error and harm from testing, the stance of the NAEYC was that testing

of young children should not occur unless the information gained was demonstrably of benefit.

Broader policy concerns about testing. Increased testing and misuse of testing were well

documented phenomena in the 1980s and extended well beyond the confines of the early

childhood years. A comprehensive report of these issues, Testing in American Schools(1992),

was made to Congress by the Office of Technology Assessment in preparation for the

reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). In response to the

minimum-competency movement and demands for accountability following A Nation at Risk in

1983, the amount of standardized testing increased greatly as did the pressure to improve test

scores. Eventually evidence accumulated that these accountability pressures could have

deleterious effects. For example, test scores could become inflated (i.e., student performance

would drop dramatically when a new test was introduced) and curriculum could be distorted.

Elementary teachers reported deemphasis of non-basic subjects such as social studies and

science, and many teachers revised their instructional practices to closely resemble drill on

standardized test formats. Studies also documented the relationship between accountability

pressures in higher elementary grades and developmentally inappropriate practices in kindergarten

and first grade (Hatch & Freeman, 1988; Smith & Shepard, 1988).

Standards-based reform and performance assessments. In contrast, the second wave of

reform in the 1990s emphasizes problem solving and higher-order thinking skills and selfconsciously rejects the focus on low-level skills of earlier reforms. A National Academy of

Education report, Improving Education through Standards-Based Reform (McLaughlin &

Shepard, 1995), summarizes both the vision of standards-based reform and criticisms of the

standards movement. According to the vision, high expectations and challenging curricula will

help all students reach high standards. Standards-based reforms focus more on depth of

understanding -- how well students can reason with and use what they have learned -- rather than

on regurgitation of isolated facts (McLaughlin & Shepard, p. 9) and call for teaching methods

that engage students with meaningful content, involve hands-on experiments and projects, and

require students to apply knowledge and skills to real-world problems. The development and use

of more open-ended, authentic assessments that better represent important learning goals is an

integral part of standards-based reform.

Changes in Title I accountability. Along with special education mandates, Chapter 1

evaluation requirements have been a major impetus for administering standardized tests to young

children. Consistent with the trends already identified, a Commission on Chapter 1 convened to

give advice about desired changes in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, focused on

higher expectations and reform of testing practices as the most pressing needs for improvement of

Chapter 1. A critical component in the Commission s eight-part proposed framework was to

remove the requirement for low-level, norm-referenced, fill-in-the-bubble tests currently used to

assess progress in Chapter 1. In their place, schools should develop ongoing means of evaluating

the progress of individual students toward the standards, and states should administer new, richer,

performance-based systems that measure school progress in enabling students to reach the state

standards (Commission on Chapter 1, 1992, p. 8). The spirit of these reforms is still very much

evident in the draft document providing guidance to states for implementation of the new ESEA

Title I (3/10/96). The explicit purpose of the new ESEA is to support the broad-based reforms

occurring in the States and localities and to ensure that the same challenging standards set for

other students will be held as expectations for Title I students. By the year 2000 states are

expected to have developed or adopted high-quality assessments in at least reading and

mathematics, which are aligned to the state content standards. These measures must assess
5

complex thinking skills and understanding of challenging content and be administered once in

each of the grade intervals 3 through 5, 6 through 9, and 10 through 12. Note that under these

new provisions, individual students participating in Title I need not be assessed on an annual basis

for purposes of program accountability, and no accountability testing is required below grade 3.

The National Education Goals and Goal 1. The National Education Goals were first

announced at the 1989 Charlottesville Summit by President Bush and Governor Clinton, speaking

for the nation s governors. Bush and the nation s governors identified as their first goal that by

the year 2000 all children in America will start school ready to learn. Goal 1 was supported by

three enabling objectives which stated: that all disadvantaged and disabled children would have

access to high quality preschool programs, that parents would have access to training to help their

children learn, and that children and pregnant mothers would receive adequate nutrition and health

care. The response from the early childhood community to the establishment of Goal 1 was

mixed. Some believed that the readiness goal would keep the needs of young children at the

forefront of a political agenda and help garner resources. Others feared that it would work to

perpetuate exclusionary practices that kept low performing children out of school. The National

Education Goals Panel reports annually on data relevant to infant health risks, immunizations of

2-year olds, and preschool participation, but there are no direct measures available on the level of

children s physical, social, and cognitive development when they enter school.

At the same time, the two achievement goals -- that American students will demonstrate

competency in challenging subject matter in English, mathematics, science, history, and geography

and that by the year 2000 U.S. students will be first in the world in science and mathematics

achievement -- drew public and political attention to the standards movement. In March 1994,

Congress passed the Goals 2000: Educate America Act which set the goals into law. Although

the education goals initially enjoyed bipartisan support, the Republican revolution in the fall of

1994 raised serious questions about the now politicized goals and standards. Although

development of curriculum standards and performance assessments continue to be the focus of

educational reform efforts in many states, the policy context is also colored by a political backlash

against such standards.

Early childhood reforms outside of education. Numerous efforts are taking place to

improve children s health status. Healthy Start programs exist in many states, as do parenting

education and support programs that have their roots in health prevention and service. In

addition, there are numerous efforts in the early care and education field designed to foster links

between services for parents and families and services for children. Efforts to link these new

programs to child care, Head Start, and pre-kindergarten programs are being made, although -- as

will be seen -- these efforts may not be as well integrated as might be hoped.

METHOD

Study purpose and conceptual framework

The purpose of the study was to report on current early childhood assessment policies and

practices. We were interested in what if any changes might have occurred since 1988 in response

to direct policy efforts to curtail inappropriate practices; but we were also interested in other

changes in testing and assessment practices that might be occurring in response to Goal 1,

performance assessments, and integrated services for young children.

The approach taken to development of the interview protocol was guided by a conceptual

framework based on categories of assessment purposes. In measurement theory, test validity and,

indeed, all practical aspects of test content and format, depend on test use. For example, when

tests are used for instructional purposes and for school accountability, test content should be
6

closely tied to curricular goals. In contrast, when evaluating learning potential to determine

special needs, assessment tasks are intentionally designed to be as curriculum free as possible to

avoid the confounding effects of opportunity to learn. Similarly, the stringency of technical

requirements varies depending upon whether test results will be used to make important,

potentially career-altering placement decisions about young children or are used on an ongoing

basis in classrooms to plan instruction. Validity requirements and the effects on participating

children are also different if assessments are used only to evaluate programs rather than to report

reliably on the performance of individual children. To capture these distinctions, our questions

were focused not just on how young children were being assessed but for what purpose? Three

categories of assessment purpose were identified (Shepard, 1994): screening and identification of

children with special needs, instructional improvement, and accountability. The first category

included screening, developmental assessment, and other forms of testing for at-risk identification.

The second category referred to both classroom and formal assessments used for instructional

purposes. The third category included state or district level assessments and indicator systems

used for school accountability, program evaluation, or for monitoring progress toward Goal 1.

Sample

Between May 1995 and August 1996 states were contacted by telephone to determine

their early childhood assessment policies and practices. Initial contacts were made with early

childhood specialists using a membership directory of the National Association of Early

Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education, which included 37 states, or by asking

for the early childhood or elementary coordinator. If there was no early childhood coordinator or

(in 3 cases) if that individual declined to participate, we asked to speak to the state testing

director. Early childhood specialists or test directors, in turn, provided names and numbers of

Part H and IDEA coordinators, Title I coordinators and Head Start directors. Using a web-page

directory for Goals 2000 provided by the U.S. Department of Education, we also interviewed the

Goals contact person in 47 states. In-depth interviews were conducted with at least one

respondent from all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Whenever possible, we interviewed

several officials from a state, but in three states we interviewed only the early childhood specialist

or testing director.

Procedures

The formal interview protocol identified three different assessment purposes, screening

and at-risk identification, instructional improvement, and accountability, and asked respondents to

describe assessment policies and practices affecting 4- to 6-year olds in each of these categories.

If one assessment was intended to serve more than one purpose, specifics of each use were noted.

In addition to detailed questions about assessment requirements, e.g., the age and grade of

students affected, the specific instruments used, respondents were also asked to reflect more

broadly on any significant changes in early childhood assessment in their state in the last 5 years

and to identify important issues still to be addressed. We also requested documents including

specific policy statements or legislative mandates or to illustrate the types of reports produced or

the support materials provided to local districts.

Data were recorded by note taking and by the use of audio recording to supplement note

taking. Audio tapes were not exhaustively transcribed. In addition to simple tallies (for example,

of states with and without mandatory screening programs), the open-ended narrative data were

read and coded for emergent themes. After rereading, a final set of themes was identified that

included all the issues discussed by multiple respondents. In the last stage of analysis, examples

were culled from the data in support of each theme along with counter examples. As authors and

interviewers, we also identified two themes by inference. These last two themes or findings were
7

not reported directly by respondents. Instead we noted that a) multiple phone calls were required

because of lack of knowledge about and coordination of assessment requirements across

educational programs (the assessment portion of finding 9) and b) instruments designed for one

purpose were sometimes used inappropriately for other purposes (finding 4). Interview data were

again examined systematically for evidence of these patterns.

FINDINGS

Important trends and issues are presented here using the organizing themes developed in

data analysis. For each theme or finding, prototypical responses are summarized in support of

each theme along with specific examples; we also cite counter examples where they occurred or

use frequency information to give some indication of the generalizability of the stated theme.

Findings are listed in roughly descending order of prevalence. Finding 1 was supported at least in

part by nearly every state; in contrast, Findings 8 and 9 are based on comments from only a

subsample of states.

Finding 1. Most states have made an effort to move away from readiness testing and

kindergarten retention, and there is a perceived reduction though not elimination of these

practices.

Given that some of the state early childhood coordinators who responded to this survey

were among the members of the NAECS/SDE that issued a statement in 1987 condemning

inappropriate uses of readiness testing, it is not surprising that they reported on efforts to

discourage such practices. We have attempted to get the word out, was the most frequent type

of response. In some cases this involved workshops or other types of professional development

activities; in other cases there were explicit policy directives or mandates forbidding certain uses

of tests.

In California, for example, the California State Department of Education School Readiness

Task Force issued a report entitled Here They Come: Ready or Not (1988) which discouraged

the use of standardized tests for placement or exclusion of children. A 1989 advisory from the

California State Department of Education urged schools to examine their retention policies of

young children (Program Advisory, Child Development Division, June 12, 1989, p. 12). Noting

that standardized testing is particularly inappropriate for young children because each child

comes from a unique set of family experiences, the advisory recommended that standardized,

norm-referenced tests not be used in kindergarten (p. 13). California Education Code revised in

1992 (Section 8972) states that standardized assessment tests may be used for diagnostic

purposes only, provided those tests have been demonstrated to be nonbiased, valid, and reliable.

These tests shall not be used to deny admission. In New Mexico, the state superintendent sent a

letter to local school districts discouraging the use of junior first grades. In Massachusetts, the

State Department of Education sent information to local school districts discouraging the use of

the Gesell School Readiness Test and other instruments that may miscategorize children. They

also discouraged the use of extra-year programs. Additional examples of state level efforts

intended to discourage readiness testing and extra-year placements are shown in Table 1.

Many respondents described state-level policies against the use of tests to exclude or track

students, but also stated that some local districts continued to use tests in ways that were

considered to be inappropriate. In Indiana, the state has guidelines that say kindergarten is an

entitlement by law and all children should be welcomed into a one-year developmentally

appropriate kindergarten experience. Although the state discourages retention at the

kindergarten level and the number of transition classes has decreased over the last 5 years, some

local districts still continue these practices. In Connecticut, A Guide to Program Development for
8

Kindergarten put out by the State Board of Education encourages developmentally appropriate

measures and practices consistent with the NAEYC position statements on kindergarten

placement, retention, screening, and assessment issues, but some local districts continue to use

assessment for retention and transition placement.

As part of this trend, some states have eliminated or modified legislation that was the

impetus for readiness testing and retention decisions. For example, Rhode Island had a law

requiring that all children entering kindergarten be screened to determine level of educational

disadvantage. The law was not implemented beginning in 1991 and was eventually eliminated in

1994. In Oklahoma, the state requirement for screening of kindergarten students was eliminated

in 1994 because some local school districts were using the screen to determine that some children

were not ready for kindergarten; now screening, involving vision and hearing checks, a parent

questionnaire, and developmental information, is required before entrance to first grade.

Georgia s highly visible kindergarten retention test, mandated by the state legislature in 1987, was

first modified by changing the content from the California Achievement Test to the more hands-on

Georgia Kindergarten Assessment Program (GKAP). Then the law was changed so that retention

in kindergarten was no longer automatically determined on the basis of a test score; instead

retention decisions are to be based on multiple sources of information.

Despite this general trend away from formal testing in kindergarten, a number of states

still mandate screening either as a first step in identification of children with special needs or to

plan instruction. Examples of formal developmental screening requirements are shown in Table 2.

In most cases, these state-level mandates are intended to satisfy the federal IDEA requirements

that every state have a plan whereby children with disabilities can be identified, located, and

evaluated. However, we should note that IDEA can be satisfied without every-pupil formal

testing. In many states, in fact, only those children about whom there is concern are referred by

teachers or parents for more in-depth developmental assessment. Mandated formal testing is

problematic because it often leads to misuse of test results. For this reason, as noted in Table 1,

some states such as Oklahoma and Rhode Island have eliminated their kindergarten screening

requirements. Other states, as noted in Table 2, continue to require developmental screening but

have attempted to clarify appropriate use of the results. For example, Louisiana state regulations

require that each local school district shall administer a nationally recognized screening

instrument to every child entering kindergarten for the first time. The results of the screening

shall be used in placement and planning instruction. The Louisiana State Board of Education

clarified the regulation recently to note that the screening was not to be used to exclude children

from programs. In South Carolina, all entering first graders are required to be tested within the

first few weeks of school. The Cognitive Skills Assessment Battery has a cut off score that labels

children either ready or not ready, but the test does not determine eligibility. Every child that

is 6 goes to first grade. The test is supposed to be used for curricular and instructional planning

and as a starting point for further diagnosis. Children that score not ready may receive

compensatory education. Although the CSAB is not to be used for program placement, in the

past it has resulted in the use of transitional first grade classrooms. State level respondents

expressed concern about this practice and are trying to prevent its occurrence.

Finding 2. Almost all state-mandated standardized testing for purposes of school

accountability has been eliminated for children below grade 3; some local testing for

accountability remains.

In asking respondents about assessments for the third purpose -- accountability -- a

number of early childhood specialists commented that state-level testing had been eliminated for

children below grade 3 in part because of the NAEYC policy statement on standardized testing
9

and the efforts of early childhood specialists and K-2 teachers in the state. Respondents described

the grade levels and subject areas tested as part of their statewide assessment program. Grade

levels tested are shown for the 50 states in Table 3. Interview data have been cross checked and

updated based on the Profile of 1994-95 State Assessment Systems and Reported Results (NEGP,

1996).

Respondents also noted two other trends. First, local testing for accountability, though

not necessarily required by the state, persists. Such local testing might include readiness testing in

kindergarten or standardized tests such as the Metropolitan and CTBS administered in grades 1

and 2 and typically might affect half the districts in a state. We note that district administration of

standardized tests in grades 1 and 2 has very likely been influenced by previous Chapter 1

requirements for individual pupil pre- and posttest data. These practices could change in the

future; but at present most early childhood specialists whom we interviewed seemed unaware of

changes in Title 1 guidelines. Test directors were better informed about proposed new Title 1

guidelines but were more wary of moving away from standardized tests. A second trend reported

by a few early childhood specialists and test directors was increasing pressure to reinstate

standardized testing below grade 3 due to legislative or gubernatorial press for accountability.

The pendulum is swinging back, they said.

Finding 3. Some states and local districts are moving to new forms of assessment in the

early grades that are more supportive of instruction.

When asked to describe changes in assessment practices in their state, many respondents

said that there was less readiness testing and grade retention in local school districts and more

interest in developmentally appropriate assessment. This included an increased use of portfolios

and teacher observation and what some respondents referred to as curriculum embedded

assessment. A number of respondents said that districts were implementing the Work Sampling

System (Meisels, 1992) or the High/Scope Child Observation Record (COR) (1992). For

example, in the District of Columbia, Work Sampling is being phased in and is currently used in

68 of 112 elementary schools.

Most of these efforts to implement assessment in support of instruction are occurring at

the district or school level. Only in a few cases have state-level assessment programs been

developed to support instruction for children before grade 3. The Missouri State Department of

Education, for example, is encouraging the development of a constructivist approach to

assessment through the Project Construct Assessment System. It is a process-oriented curriculum

and assessment framework for children ages 3-7. Similarly, North Carolina developed an

assessment system designed to be used in lieu of the CAT in grades 1 and 2. Rather than a onetime test, data for the North Carolina Assessment are based on teacher observation over the

course of the school year. The content of the assessments reflect emergent literacy and language

development goals and, in mathematics, the Standards of the National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics. A sample checklist for first-grade mathematics is shown in Figure 1. In addition to

planning instruction, a primary purpose for these assessments is reporting to parents. Because the

performance indicators are detailed and concrete they help parents to understand what curricular

expectations are being addressed in a given grade as well as to see their own child s progress.

A few other states have legislative mandates that may lead to programs like those in

Missouri and North Carolina. For example, in Massachusetts, the 1993 Education Reform Act

includes a provision for portfolio assessment in grades pre-k through 12. In South Carolina,

Proviso 19.73 of the 1994 Appropriations Act calls for pilot testing of a continuous assessment

system for Kindergarten through Grade 3. In Washington, a new statewide assessment system

has been mandated to begin in the 1998-99 school year. While third grade will be the grade
10

where state-level testing begins, it is hoped that local districts will develop a portfolio system for

grades prior to grade 3. We note that these shifts are consistent with proposed new Title I

guidelines, which would not require school accountability before grade 3, but which do presume

that individual-level assessments would be used to guide instruction in grades K-2. The California

Learning Record, developed by Barr and Cheong (1991) under the auspices of the California

Department of Education is an example of a classroom-based assessment system specifically

designed as an alternative model for Chapter I (now Title I) assessment.

Finding 4. Misuse of screening instruments for instructional purposes has apparently

decreased since 1988 but continues to some extent.

In the 1988 Gnezda and Bolig survey, respondents frequently cited examples of special

education screening measures being misused to plan instruction or to make decisions to delay

school entry or recommend retention in kindergarten. Problems associated with denial of school

entry and kindergarten retention have already been discussed. Use of screening test results to

plan instruction is also problematic for several reasons. First, results of screening measures may

be unreliable if used alone without the follow-up of a more in-depth developmental assessment.

Second, classroom teachers may lack sufficient training to take proper account of children s

background and language experiences and may make invalid grouping decisions based on test

results. Third, the IQ-like test content of screening measures is not closely aligned to curriculum

and therefore is a poor guide for diagnosis and instructional planning.

In the present study, respondents reported on the decrease of readiness testing (Finding 1)

but tended not to comment directly on the misuse of screening measures except in those states

where screening was expressly eliminated to prevent misuse. When asked to report what

instruments were used for each assessment purpose, state-level respondents only occasionally

reported that districts were using the Dial-R or the Peabody or the Battelle for instructional

decisions. Therefore, the frequency of such practices appears to be greatly reduced. Indeed,

examples cited in support of Finding 3 indicate that instead districts are beginning to develop their

own instructionally relevant assessments or are implementing the Working Sampling System or

High/Scope COR.

Finding 5. There is a need for professional training to understand and be able to use new

forms of assessment.

More than half of the respondents commented on the need for better training of

professionals to understand what developmentally appropriate assessment means and how to use

new forms of assessment. For example, portfolio assessment is overwhelming for some

teachers. They collect all this stuff, and they have checklists, but they are not sure what to do

with it. As explained by one respondent:

Teachers do not use that loop connecting instruction with assessment. Teacher

training at universities is not equipping preservice teachers for developmentally

appropriate assessment. Once teachers are in the schools we (state-level early

childhood specialists) give them training but they are not sophisticated enough at this

point to make the connection between developmentally appropriate practice and

developmentally appropriate assessment. It s not that they re resistant, it s just that

they re still on the beginning part of the learning curve.

Another respondent echoed the complaint that universities are not preparing preservice teachers

to do appropriate assessment. Yet another agreed that, training will be required to help teachers

implement a new assessment program, to become confident users of the test results, and to be

able to translate results into improved instructional strategies.
11

A respondent from yet another state explained that more is needed than just training in

assessment:

Teachers are having a hard time with appropriate assessment because you don t get

good numbers from performance assessment. People don t know what they are

seeing when they observe children because they don t know enough about child

development. The usefulness and validity of assessment in early childhood is limited

because teachers don t know what it means.

Good assessment can occur by observing children during instructional activities and by

recognizing misconceptions or patterns of errors in their written work, but this means that

teachers must have knowledge of underlying developmental sequences to know how to interpret

student performance and recognize its implications for instruction.

Hawaii is one example of a state that has made a major investment in staff development.

After eliminating statewide testing at the kindergarten level, the state stepped up training in

developmentally appropriate assessment for teachers. Teachers have been encouraged to use

observation and to develop their own instruments. A cooperative arrangement has been made

between the State Office of Instructional Service and the University of Hawaii to offer graduate

credit courses that include developmentally appropriate assessment components. Another

example of in-depth staff support was the joint effort by the Iowa Department of Education and

Nebraska Department of Education to develop a primary grades curriculum based on the British

Columbia Primary Program. Along with guiding principles and instructional activities, the project

materials provide detailed guidance for educators regarding the purposes of assessment, authentic

methods for gathering evidence, methods of reporting to parents and the like. The Primary

Program materials are also supplemented with Study Team resource materials to be used by teams

of teachers, administrators, support staff, and parents working to implement the Primary Program

in their schools. Vermont also provided a contrast to states complaining about lack of

appropriate training of preservice teachers by universities. The University of Vermont has taken

the lead in training early childhood professionals in play-based assessment.

Some respondents also commented on the need for professional training of another type,

that is to make teachers better informed about the appropriate uses of developmental screening

information (which ties back to the misuse of screening measures noted as part of Findings 1 and

4). IQ-like tests are often used by teachers who are not trained in interpretation and who are not

aware of how prior experience can affect performance. But equally serious problems arise if

school psychologists, knowledgeable about tests, lack experience with pre-school age children.

An example was given of a fidgety 4-year old being labeled as hyperactive by a psychologist

used to working with older children. In addition, there seems to be some confusion in the early

childhood community about the different purposes of assessment. As a result there is not a clear

understanding of how the content and form of assessment should be adapted to the intended

purpose. Although one Head Start director clearly distinguished between a portfolio, worksampling, on-going approach to assessment as part of instruction and the one-day-per-year

screening for possible disabilities, he estimated that most Head Start professionals were confused

about the differences between screening and instructional assessment. The concerns mentioned

about adequate training by different respondents included psychologists, Title 1 teachers, Head

Start teachers, and classroom teachers without adequate knowledge of child development. Early

childhood special education teachers know kids but often are misinformed about clinical

assessment.

Finding 6. Testing of preschool-age children is largely driven by mandates for categorical

programs.
12

Many respondents expressed concern about the pressure to test and categorize children in

order to receive funds. In the midwest, one respondent said, If we are only using assessment or

screening to access funds, that is a dangerous precedent. Unfortunately that is the way the system

is built right now. We need a national policy to address the issue. There is a need for flexibility

and creativity, creating programs in the best interest of children rather than a program strictly

based on separate labels. In the northeast, another respondent stated his concern about labeling

children to get funding. There is no funding for regular pre-kindergarten so children get

categorized in order to get funding. He noted further that children who fall in the mild range and

those who demonstrate behavior problems are more likely to be affected by the system s decision

to require labels to get resources. Once you get a label, it may become difficult to get out of the

box. Washington state recently changed its funding formula for special education. In the past,

the amount of money allotted varied with the severity of a child s problem. Under this system,

people were assessing children to get more money rather than focusing on program development.

Now that everyone will get the same amount of money per child, it is hoped that unnecessary

testing will be reduced. The downside of this solution is that funding is the same for an autistic

child and one who is mildly speech impaired despite the great differences in the cost of services

that must be provided.

In contrast to the majority of comments, a respondent from Montana said that there was

not a lot of assigning of labels to 3, 4, and 5-year olds because of non-categorical aspects of

IDEA. Also, in North Dakota, they are making an effort to offer services to borderline

children. These are children who are not eligible under Part H or 619 programs.

Some respondents also stated concerns about the over identification of children in mild

special needs categories. One respondent in the far west was concerned about labeling students

as delayed when the perceived problem may be a language or cultural difference. Another

respondent on the east coast also commented that children who have special needs but do not

need special education are being over identified, especially non-native English speakers. In

South Carolina, labeling associated with the readiness score is acknowledged to be a major issue.

Minority students are over represented, and once students get labeled not ready they tend to

stay in compensatory programs indefinitely. Act 135 was adopted to help remedy this situation.

The act allows for more flexibility in programming and the inclusion of more students in the

program. There is less use of pull-out services and more effort to work with students in the

regular classroom.

Finding 7. Only a few states are collecting data to be able to report on progress

toward Goal 1. These data are primarily health and welfare indices.

To report on progress toward Goal 1, states might either gather data on the goal itself, by

measuring children s health, social adjustment, and cognitive development, or states could

monitor attainment of the enabling objectives by reporting on the quality and availability of

preschool programs, parent training programs, and health care programs for pregnant mothers

and infants.

Because so few early childhood specialists in state departments of education were aware

of efforts to monitor progress toward Goal 1, the study sample was expanded to include

designated Goals 2000 contacts. Although the interview questions focused on data being

gathered to monitor progress toward Goal 1, goals contacts invariably began by talking about

programs or the lack thereof. Even from the perspective of goals spokespersons, in more than

half the states there is little Goal 1 activity to report. Note, however, that lack of Goal 1 efforts

in a state does not necessarily mean that there are no health or social services initiatives for young

children that state; it means that these initiatives may not be identified with Goal 1, may have
13

predated the creation of the National Education Goals, or maybe primarily lodged outside the

education system. When prompted, respondents returned to the question of data used to monitor

progress. The summary that follows describes first the reported programmatic trends and then the

responses regarding indicators of progress.

At the time of this survey, five states were not formally participating in Goals 2000.

Additionally, respondents in more than 20 states answered that not much is going on regarding

Goal 1. In several southern states, for example, Goal 1 was seen as too controversial even to

speak about because of opposition from the religious right that sees government involvement in

early childhood as an intrusion into the rights of the family. In Louisiana, for example, the state

legislature voted to eliminate the early childhood initiative after protest from conservative groups.

In a number of states, Goals 2000 efforts are not directed toward early childhood but toward

technology, Goals 3 and 4, or staff development. In many states, local districts are free to make

their own choices and have not opted for early childhood programs. In some states, state plans

have just been completed or funds have just been released from the Governor s office so there

was as yet no program implementation.

A few states have launched major early childhood initiatives but without creating a

monitoring system of all children in the state. Washington state s Readiness to Learn initiative is

an example. As part of its 1993 Education Reform Act, Washington funded 22 local projects

aimed at improving services to children and families through interagency collaboration.

Appropriately, evaluation of this effort has included information on program implementation and

outcomes at the 22 local sites and a state-level evaluation of Readiness to Learn contracted with

RMC Research. In another state, the respondent emphasized that the Goal 1 focus was

intentionally on programs and not data collection to maximize the resources going directly to

children.

When pressed about data gathering efforts, to report on progress on Goal 1 itself or on

any of the objectives, respondents gave one (or more) of the following answers in roughly

descending order of frequency: (1) There is nothing going on with Goal 1 and no data gathering

effort; (2) Data on low birthweight babies and other child well-being statistics are available

through Kids Count; (3) Local projects are responsible for evaluation; (4) Yes, we have a state

progress report which includes Goal 1 indicators; (5) We have established a statewide data base

for tracking students identified as at risk.

Health and social welfare data are available for all 50 states through the Kids Count

project funded by the Casey Foundation that could be used to monitor progress on the third

objective. Both national and state-by-state data are reported on indicators such as percent low

birthweight babies, infant mortality rate, percent of children living in poverty, and percent of 2-

year olds immunized; trend data and relative change since 1985 are also provided. An interesting

finding from our survey was that many early childhood specialists and most Goals 2000 contacts

were not aware of the availability of Kids Count data. Kids Count was acknowledged (by one or

more respondents) in only 16 states. As shown in Table 4, some states incorporate Kids Count

data in their reporting of progress on early childhood goals. In addition, respondents from eight

other states mentioned the availability of the Kids Count document or said that Kids Count is

used a lot to inform policy. Of course, two or three phone calls per state are not sufficient to

locate for certain the policy makers and program staff who are making use of Kids Count data; so

lack of mention does not mean that the data are not being used. Nonetheless, infrequent reference

to Kids Count when asked about available data suggests that attending to these health and

poverty indices may not be salient for early childhood specialists in most states. In fact, early
14

childhood coordinators in only three states knew the name of the person or agency responsible for

doing the Kids Count survey.

Respondents in nearly a dozen states interpreted our question about monitoring progress

toward Goal 1 to mean evaluation of programs funded through Goals 2000. They said that it

was left to locals to evaluate local programs. Unlike the example from Washington state, cited

above, however, there did not appear to be any systematic state-level collation or synthesis of

local evaluations. Several other states said that their main data gathering efforts were to track

children receiving special services. For example, in North Dakota the Early Childhood Tracking

System identifies children at birth who may be at risk for health problems, poverty, or cognitive

delays. The system includes an Infant Child Monitoring Questionnaire administered by parents to

children 4 to 48 months and a professional screen administered by professionals at age 3 or 4.

The purpose of the tracking system is to improve delivery of services to children who need them.

Similarly, states such as Delaware and Maine have established tracking systems for children with

disabilities. In theory, such data bases could also be used to determine whether progress is being

made in providing appropriate preschool programming to disadvantaged and disabled children

(objective 1); but that is not the intention at present.

Only a few states have initiated early childhood initiatives in the name of Goal 1 and at the

same time established indicator systems to monitor improvement as a result of these initiatives.

Examples of states reporting year-to-year progress on various indicators are shown in Table 4.

Additional states are in the process of developing indicators. South Carolina uses Kids Count and

has recently established benchmarks for reaching the national goals but has not yet begun to

report annual data in relation to the benchmarks. The Ohio annual reports are particularly

noteworthy because they tie statistical indicators, such as the percent of children in poverty

participating in Head Start, to programmatic efforts aimed at expanding services. Some of the

indicators selected by states serve the political purpose of focusing attention on early childhood,

but do not meet strict criteria as statistical indicators. For example, simply reporting the number

of children participating in preschool programs could be misleading because increasing numbers

could reflect either a growing population or an improved percentage of children in need being

served. To ensure accurate comparisons across years, it would be preferable to report the percent

of 4-year olds being served or the percent of children meeting a poverty criterion being served.

Two states use teachers reported opinions about children s readiness as an indicator, but over

time this could be problematic because change could be the result of changes in teachers

expectations or changes in the characteristics of children.

Finding 8. Parent involvement was an issue both for the identification of children with

special needs and because of parent demands for standardized testing.

The interview protocol did not include specific questions about parental involvement, yet

the need to involve parents or educate parents was mentioned in one-third of the initial interviews

as an important part of the assessment picture. States such as Florida and West Virginia are

trying to provide one stop shopping for assessment of young children and family services

through community service centers. The North Dakota Tracking System for at-risk children

involves parents in the collection of data on their children but also helps parents understand

assessment results and appropriate follow-up activities. Several respondents stressed the

importance of involving parents and demystifying the special needs identification process.

Equally important was the need to educate parents about the dangers of overinterpreting

test scores and to increase receptivity to new forms of assessment. Several respondents said there

was pressure from parents to test and to test early. One respondent commented on the need to

educate the public, politicians, and teachers about the limitations of testing. Test scores are
15

emphasized as if they were magic. In another state, the respondent went further: Parents

perceptions of what assessment is and isn t needs to be addressed. Parents are used to tests and

grades. It takes a while for them to get used to looking at it another way. There is an incubation

period for parents (to become familiar with) parent/teacher conferences and portfolios.

Similarly, in another state, In the past, report cards were sent home and there was not much of

an effort to bring parents into the school for conferences to explain the assessment. Now the

schools are making an effort to show parents the connection between assessment, curriculum, and

instruction. Comments about educating and involving parents were closely tied to state efforts

to eliminate inappropriate uses of readiness testing and to support development of new forms of

assessment.

Finding 9. Lack of collaboration and coordination among agencies serving young children

continues to be a problem. In particular, specialists lack knowledge about assessment

requirements across programs.

Although the issue of coordination of services among agencies was raised by only a halfdozen respondents, the similarity of concerns when mentioned warrants documentation as a

theme. Respondents expressed concern that the early childhood system is still very fractured.

One said regrettably that the state had been making progress in working across state departments

but the breaks had been put on as a result of the most recent election. Another said, there was

an effort to put all the agencies dealing with young children in one department, but now they are

split up and are more fragmented than before. This last comment came from a state where the

Goal 1 report announces a plan for collaboration among state and local government and private

agencies. National reports document these problems on broader scale. According to a 1994

report by the Government Accounting Office (GAO), there are 90 different early childhood

programs administered by 11 different federal agencies. One disadvantaged child may be eligible

for 13 different programs but the majority of disadvantaged preschool-aged children are in no

program at all (GAO, 1994). Lack of sufficient funding, narrow mission statements, and inability

of programs to work together prevent early childhood centers from providing children with a full

range of services (GAO, 1995). Nevertheless, some state and local initiatives, sometimes with

additional private funding, have demonstrated that a full range of services can be provided by

funding the programs that offer more services; investing state money in Head Start; and locating

centers, services, and children together even when funds come from different programs (GAO,

1995, p. 5).

Respondents from two states described efforts to offer coordinated services. In

Massachusetts, the report of the Special Commission on Early Childhood (1995) identified several

steps to help develop a coordinated system across public and private programs including:

creation of Board of Early Care and Education overlapping with the Board of Education, unified

state standards, coordination of professional development projects across agencies, and an

integrated data management system for early childhood programs. The Washington Readiness to

Learn Initiative has as its main strategy to enable schools and social service organizations to

work together to provide comprehensive services for young children and their families.

In parallel to the finding that programs and services lack coordination, we also found lack

of coordination and knowledge about assessment requirements affecting young children.

However, data supporting this finding are not in the form of quotations from respondents because

it was not something that respondents stated directly as a concern. Rather, we noted that early

childhood specialists and test directors lacked detailed knowledge about Head Start, Part H and

IDEA, and Title 1 assessment requirements because of the number of times we were referred to

other departments to obtain answers to our questions. For example, in one state the elementary
16

coordinator referred us to IDEA for answers to questions about screening questions and to Head

Start and Title 1 directors for information on other populations; the Head Start director said we

should try the child development divisions for information about authentic assessment; and the

special education director said try Migrant Education for evaluation of LEP students. In most

states, our survey sample included both a Goal 1 contact and an early childhood coordinator, but

in several instances only one of the two respondents knew of Goal 1 activities going on in the

state. As noted under Finding 7, the majority of early childhood specialists and testing directors

were not aware of Kids Count data available for their state. Early childhood specialists tended

not to know how Chapter 1 requirements had shaped local district testing policies in the past and

were not aware of how things might change under the new Title 1 guidelines.

An important exception to this trend of compartmentalized knowledge was that early

childhood specialists tended to be informed about the state assessment program at least as it

affected the early grades and sometimes even had been instrumental in affecting state level

assessment policy. Also, as noted under Finding 1, most (but not all) early childhood specialists

were able to report on state level mandates that required formal screening of children upon school

entry. However, some of these respondents might not have had detailed enough knowledge of

the federal requirements to be aware that there were other means available to satisfy IDEA than

by every-pupil testing.

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on telephone interview data gathered from early childhood specialists, test

directors, Goals 2000 contacts, and other program specialists representing the 50 states, there

appear to be significant changes since the late 1980s in assessment policies and practices affecting

young children. Most states have made efforts to move away from readiness testing and

associated practices such as denial of school entry, kindergarten retention, and extra-year

transition programs. Although these practices have reportedly decreased in response to state

department advisories, in-service training, and the like, they nonetheless continue in some school

districts. Some states have also eliminated formal cognitive screening for potential handicaps

because such tests were being misused to determine readiness for school; other states have

attempted to clarify how screening results should be used. Misuse of screening measures appears

to be less widespread than was reported in 1988 by the Gnezda and Bolig survey but continues to

some extent and may be of particular concern in those states that still mandate every-pupil testing.

Concomitant with these trends, and influenced by policy statements of the NAEYC and

NAECS/SDE and efforts of early childhood specialists within particular states, there has been a

trend to eliminate state-mandated standardized testing for children below grade three. However,

many local districts still administered standardized tests in grades 1 and 2.

Elimination of inappropriate testing has been replaced in some states and districts by

attempts to develop new forms of assessment that are more supportive of instruction. Examples

include curriculum-embedded assessments, portfolios, the Work Sampling System (Meisels, 1992)

and the High/Scope Child Observation Record (COR) (1992). However, survey respondents

identified a serious need for better training of professionals to understand what developmentally

appropriate assessment means and how to use new forms of assessment. Although many states

may have invested in early childhood programs in recent years, the majority of states do not have

initiatives specifically identified with Goal 1. Fewer than a dozen states have reporting

mechanisms in place to report on progress toward Goal 1. The Kids Count project, funded by the

Casey Foundation, reports both national and state-by-state data each year on indices such as

percent low birthweight babies, percent of children living in poverty, and percent of 2-year olds
17

immunized. Kids Count data could be used to report on progress toward Goal 1, but most

respondents did not know of its existence. Similarly, we documented lack of knowledge among

specialists about assessment requirements across programs. For example, early childhood

specialists and test directors could not give accurate information about testing done for IDEA.

Other issues identified by multiple respondents were: the need for parental involvement in

assessment, the undesirability of having to test and label pre-school-age children in order to obtain

services, and lack of collaboration and coordination among agencies serving young children.

Screening and identification of children with special needs. It is imperative that children

at risk for developmental delays be identified so as to receive services. Although identification in

the early years may be more problematic -- because measures are less reliable for very young

children and because it is more difficult to distinguish between temporary differences in rate of

development and more persistent delays, early identification is important because early

intervention may be more effective than attempts to intervene later. However, the importance of

identifying children with special needs must be weighed against the misuse of cognitive screening

measures. Tests such as the DIAL-R, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, and the Battelle

continue to be misused in some local school districts to deny school entry, to group students by

ability, or to plan instruction. Screening is only the initial step in identification of children with

special needs. When formal screening of every child is mandated by a state, tests are most often

administered by classroom teachers who are not trained in psychometrics or clinical assessment.

Lack of training contributes to the likelihood of misinterpretation. In all cases, whether referrals

are based on teacher and parent concerns or formal test scores, initial referrals must be followed

up by an in-depth developmental assessment administered by trained professionals. Because we

know of no evidence to suggest that identification of children with special needs is either more

accurate in those states with mandated testing or reaches more children earlier, we recommend

that states eliminate formal, every-pupil cognitive screening requirements and instead establish

informal referral mechanisms. Except for vision and hearing checks, the majority of states no

longer has mandated screening programs; this trend should continue.

Instructional improvement. Many districts and schools are attempting to implement new

forms of assessment that are more supportive of instruction. Instead of IQ-like tests, which are

intentionally not tied to school curricula, assessments designed to support learning should

explicitly model the learning progression intended by the curricula, whether in language

development, emergent literacy, early numeracy and learning about patterns, awareness of self,

family, and community, and so forth. And, of course, the form of such assessments must be

appropriate to the age and experiences of individual children. This represents both a huge

instrument development task, i.e., to develop appropriate content and observational methods

closely tied to the curriculum, and a huge professional development task to ensure that classroom

teachers are able to use new assessments as an integral part of instruction. As one respondent

noted, teachers are collecting all this stuff for portfolios, but it is overwhelming, they don t

know what to do with it. States could support this trend by developing model assessments, or by

serving as a clearinghouse to identify effective practices, and by providing support for staff

development.

School accountability and indicator systems. We support the general approach taken in

the proposed new Title 1 guidelines which distinguishes between assessments which must be done

to monitor and support the learning of individual children and assessment for accountability which

must be done once in each key grade interval. Consistent with the trend to eliminate standardized

testing below grade 3, the new Title 1 guidelines permit waiting until grade 3 to test for program

evaluation purposes.
18

When academic achievement is assessed for purposes of accountability it is essential that

measures have the same close correspondence to the desired curriculum as is needed for

instructional measures. However, because scores are publicly reported and may be used to make

important decisions, accountability measures must meet stricter standards for reliability and

comparability across schools than classroom assessments. If cognitive measures are administered

to children below grade 3 for purposes of monitoring readiness or achievement trends, we

recommend that matrix sampling be used to reduce the testing burden on individual children and

to avoid the misuse of individually reported scores.

For purposes of monitoring progress toward Goal 1 we recommend first that policy

makers seek out and review the data already available in each state from Kids Count and various

state agencies. Then it is desirable that policy makers set programmatic goals -- what health and

educational conditions are most important to improve? Lastly, policy makers should seek indices

that can be reliably reported across years and that are closely tied to programmatic efforts. For

example, if participation in high-quality preschool programs by disadvantaged children is a

targeted objective, then criteria should be set to define high-quality programs, to specify the age

range of eligible children, and to standardized the definition of disadvantaged; then data could be

collected annually to see if an increased proportion of such children are being reached.

Education of teachers, administrators, parents, and policy makers regarding assessment.

As indicated throughout this article, there is a serious need for more adequate pre-service and inservice preparation of teachers and administrators in the area of assessment. Those working with

young children must understand not only the different purposes of assessment, but they must learn

how to match assessment purpose and strategy. Parents are legitimately concerned about how

their child is doing, just as legislators demand information about the performance of schools and

school districts. But parents and policy makers may not be aware of the difficulties in measuring

the achievement of 5-year olds or of the problems arising when IQ-like screening instruments are

misused -- to determine readiness or plan instruction. Good assessment models being developed

to support learning in the classroom and those being developed for accountability purposes are

important because they will provide better measurement and data. They are also important

because they will help to educate parents and policy makers about the kinds of information that

are the most useful and meaningful.

REFERENCES

Bredekamp, S. (Ed.) (1987). Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood

Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for

the Education of Young Children.

Commission on Chapter 1. (1992). Making Schools Work for Children in Poverty. Washington,

DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Office of Technology Assessment. (1992). Testing in American Schools: Asking the Right

Questions. Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment, Congress of the United States.

Gnezda, M. T., & Bolig, R. (1988). A national survey of public school testing of prekindergarten

and kindergarten children. Paper prepared for the National Forum on the Future of Children and

Families and the National Association of State Boards of Education.
19

General Accounting Office. (1994, October). Early Childhood Programs: Multiple Programs

and Overlapping Target Groups. Washington, DC: Author.

General Accounting Office. (1995, March). Early Childhood Centers: Services to Prepare

Children Often Limited. Washington, DC: Author.

Hatch, J. A., & Freeman, E. B. (1988). Who s pushing whom? Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 145-147.

High/Scope. (1992). Child Observation Record. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.

International Reading Association. (1986). Literacy development and pre-first grade: A joint

statement of concerns about present practices in pre-first grade reading instruction and

recommendations for improvement, Childhood Education, 63 (2), 110-111.

McLaughlin, M. W., & Shepard, L. A. (1995). Improving Education through Standards-Based

Reform. Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education.

Meisels, S. J. (1992). The Work Sampling System. Ann Arbor, MI: Center for Human Growth

and Development, University of Michigan.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1988). NAEYC position statement

on standardized testing of young children 3 through 8 years of age, Young Children, 43, 42-47.

Shepard, L. A. (1994). The challenges of assessing young children appropriately. Phi Delta

Kappan, 76(3), 206-212.

Special Commission on Early Childhood. (1995). Children First: A Plan for an Early Care and

Education System for Massachusetts. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Department of Education.

Smith, M. L., & Shepard, L. A. (1988). Kindergarten readiness and retention: A qualitative

study of teachers beliefs and practices, American Educational Research Journal, 25 (3), 307-333.

Special Commission on Early Childhood. (1995). Children First: A Plan for an Early Care and

Education System for Massachusetts. Boston:
20

Figure I

Sample goals and performance indicators from the

North Carolina on-going assessment of Grade 1 mathematics.

Goal 1: The Learner will identify and use

numbers, 0 to 100.

1. 1 Count using 1 to 1

correspondence

1.2 Make sets; Match

numerals

1.3 Compare and order

sets

1.4 Identify ordinal

position

1.5 Conserve numbers

1.6 Read and write

numerals; Read

number words 0 to 10

1.7 Count on

1.8 Recognize one more/

less/ before/ after/

between

1.9 Compare/ sequence

numerals

1. 10 Rote count by 1 s,

10 s, 5 s, and 2 s;

Group objects to

count by 10 s, 5 s and

2 s

1. 11 Count by using

tallying

1. 12 Make reasonable

estimates of how

many

1. 13 Group objects into

tens and ones; Record

1. 14 Recognize models;

Build 2 digit

numbers; Write

numerals

1. 15 Represent numbers

in a variety of ways

Goal 2: The learner will identify and use

geometric ideas.

2.1 Identify open and

closed figures

2.2 Identify, describe,

and model plane

figures; recognize in

environment

2.3 Use directional/

positional words

2.4 Describe likenesses

and differences

2.5 Identify and describe

solid figures;

recognize in the

environment

Goal 3: The learner will demonstrate an

understanding of classification, patterns, and

seriation.

3.1 Describe objects by

their attributes;

 Compare and order

3.2 Sort by given

attribute; by more

than one attribute;

explain sorting rules

3.3 Sort objects by own

rule; explain sorting

rule

3.4 Copy/ continue

patterns; translate

into different forms

3.5 Create patterns with

actions/ words/objects

3.6 Find and correct

errors in patterns

3.7 Identify patterns in

the environment

Code: M = Most of the Time

S = Sometimes N = Not yet
21

Table 1

Examples of State-Level Efforts to Eliminate Readiness Testing,

Denial of School Entry, and Extra-Year Placements

Arizona Arizona Dept. of Ed. has made an effort to get the word out to

parents and local districts that districts do not have the right to deny

a child entrance to kindergarten.

Delaware State law mandates that all 5-year olds must be in school.

Illinois Early Childhood Office discourages use of readiness tests which are

(nonetheless) used by some districts.

Iowa State guidelines recommend assessment, screening, and evaluation

of children should only be used to improve instructional practices,

not label, track or retain children in the earliest years of their

development.

Kentucky State regulations prohibit the use of screening for determining

placement or to restrict entry to exit from preschool programs.

Louisiana State Board of Education has clarified requirement to screen

entering kindergartens by stating that screening should be used for

planning and instruction and not to exclude children from programs.

Nebraska State school accreditation regulations prohibit the use of screening

for kindergarten entrance.

New Hampshire The Dept. of Ed. discourages the use of extra-year classes.

Oklahoma Prior to 1994, screening was used by local districts to label children

not ready so the requirement was eliminated at the kindergarten

level.

Pennsylvania In 1990, in a Basic Education Curricular, the Commissioner strongly

urged all districts to curtail readiness and screening tests which are

not used solely for diagnostic purposes. Readiness and screening

tests are to be used to assist the instructional process, not to deny

service and programs to children.
22

Table 2

Examples of States that Require Formal Developmental Screening

of 5- and 6-Year Olds

Arkansas State requires that all kindergarten students must undergo a comprehensive

health and developmental screening prior to school entry.

Florida A 1996 state regulation requires children s readiness for kindergarten be

measured by an instrument selected by local districts. Results are to be

used for program evaluation.

Kentucky State requires local districts to screen all entering kindergartners within 30

days of enrollment. Screening is not to be used for program placement

purposes but for planning activities and evaluating progress.

Louisiana 1987 state regulation states that each district shall administer a nationally

recognized screening instrument to every child entering kindergarten for

the first time, to be used for planning and instruction.

Maine State requires all children to be screened prior to school entrance to

identify possible eligibility for exceptional child services.

Maryland State requires administration of the Maryland Observation Screening

Checklist for kindergartners to determine need for further assessment and

possible eligibility for special services.

Minnesota State requires that all children must be screened with a health and

developmental screen within 30 days of entry to kindergarten to determine

need for further assessment and possible eligibility for special services.

Mississippi No state mandate but state recommends that local school districts screen

all children who are age 5.

New Mexico State requires screening of all 5-year olds and all new entering students to

determine need for further assessment and possible eligibility for special

services.

New York State requires screening for all new entrants to school in 6 areas: physical,

cognitive, expressive language, receptive language, vision and hearing.

Ohio State requires that local districts screen children either when entering

kindergarten or first grade. Screen includes: vision, communication/

language , physical/health, and a section to detect developmental delays.

Oklahoma State requires readiness screen prior to first grade. Screen is used to

determine need for further assessment and possible eligibility for special

services and for instructional improvement.

Tennessee State requires all kindergartners be screened upon entry into kindergarten.

A readiness component is included in the screening process.
23

Table 3

Grade Levels Tested in State Assessment Programs

K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Alabama 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Alaska 4 6 8

Arizona 4 7 10

Arkansas 5 7 10

California 9 10 11 12

Colorado

Connecticut 4 6 8 10

Delaware 3 5 8 10

Florida 4 8 10 11

Georgia K 3 8 11

Hawaii 3 6 8 10 11 12

Idaho 4 8 11

Illinois 3 4 6 7 8 10 11

Indiana 2 3 6 8 9

Iowa

Kansas 3 4 5 7 8 10 11

Kentucky 4 5 8 11 12

Louisiana K 3 4 5 6 7 10 11

Maine 4 8 11

Maryland 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Massachusetts

Michigan 4 5 7 8 10 11

Minnesota 4 5 6 8 9 11

Mississippi 4 5 6 7 8 9 11

Missouri 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Montana 4 8 11

Nebraska

Nevada 4 8 11 12

New Hampshire 3

New Jersey 8 11 12

New Mexico 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 10

New York 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12

North Carolina 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

North Dakota 3 6 8 11

Ohio 4 6 8 9 12

Oklahoma 3 5 7 8 11

Oregon 3 5 8 10

Pennsylvania 5 6 8 9 11

Rhode Island 4 8 10

South Carolina 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

South Dakota 4 8 9 11

Tennessee 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Texas 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Utah 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Vermont 4 5 8 10

Virginia 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Washington 4 8 11

West Virginia 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Wisconsin 3 4 8 10

Wyoming
24

Table 4

Examples of States Using Data to Monitor Progress on Goal 1

Colorado Colorado Kids Count is used to monitor progress on the Colorado Kids

Campaign for the Decade of the Child Goals. Colorado Department of

Education tracked Goals 2000 progress with 20 indicators for 3 years

but has discontinued this effort.

Florida State and county trends are monitored using indicators such as births,

incidence of low birth weight, infant/child death rates, and school success

indicators such as grade retention and performance on standardized tests.

Hawaii Kids Count document is done through University of Hawaii Family Center.

The Governor s Office on Children and Youth has collected data and

surveyed teachers to determine the number of children served in pre-K, but

the effort was suspended in 1996.

Kansas State goals documents lists two early childhood performance indicators:

participation rates in Parents as Teachers and in Even Start.

Maryland Report on Maryland s Progress Toward National Education Goals includes

trend data on percent of births to single teens, pre-K enrollment, and

immunization by age two.

New Jersey New Jersey s Progress Toward the National Education Goals Report lists 3

indicators of success on Goal 1: in 1995 9 cities offered Good Starts

programs, 2,603 children enrolled in Good Starts programs in 38,352

children received social and health transitional services.

Ohio Ohio s Annual Progress Report on Education reports data such as percent

of 3- and 4-year olds in poverty who participate in Head Start or

preschool, percent of school districts with family support programs, and

percent of 2-year olds immunized.

Oregon Oregon Benchmarks documents reports health and social indicators and

percent of kindergartners meeting developmental standards in language and

literacy as reported by teachers.

Vermont State Dept. of Ed. is working with Dept. of Human Services to collect data.

Developed indicators including percent low birth weight, immunization

rate, percent of children perceived by kindergarten teachers to be ready for

school. Also conduct annual survey of parents and teachers to find out

what young children need to be successful in school and to what extent

these conditions exist in their communities.