Improving Child-Level Assessments in
Early Childhood Educational Settings
Policy Brief
Child & Family Policy Center
The Child & Family Policy Center at New York University convened a two-part Forum series on Improving
Child-Level Assessments in Early Childhood Settings. The first meeting took place in May 2011 and brought
together researchers, practitioners, and policy makers, to identify the challenges and opportunities for improved
child-level assessments to support young children’s educational progress by discussing the importance of aligning
the measurement needs of the different constituents. During this Forum participants volunteered to participate
in three “working groups.” These working groups were ad hoc committees designed to generate clear, actionable
recommendations for ways that existing assessments can be used, reduced, or integrated to meet the data and
measurement needs of teachers and agency directors. Three main working group topics were identified: 1) how
might assessment information be effectively communicated to parents & families? 2) how do child-level
Setting the
assessments influence teacher practice? and 3) how can directors and classroom coaches appropriately choose
the best measure(s) to inform practice? The groups assembled several times during the 2011-2012 academic
year to discuss direct assessment in the preschool environment from the perspectives of three major
stakeholders: parents, teachers, and program directors.
What follows is a brief report of the topics addressed by each working group. Recommendations for
immediate practice improvements and long-term policy considerations are provided. We urge you to contact us
with feedback or comments regarding this policy brief at [email protected] or (212) 998-5885.
W HY D IRECT A SSESSMENT
Forum on Children & Families
Spring 2012
Issue 3
FOR
E ARLY C HILDHOOD ?
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 legislated a mandate that
statewide early childhood assessment procedures be established by the
2005-2006 school year (NCLB, 2002). This increased focus on early
childhood assessment in national education policy warrants a discussion
about how assessment implementation, validity, and the entire assessment
experience may be improved for all pertinent stakeholders. Educators and
directors are searching for strategies to improve their practice so they may
actively monitor and support young children’s educational progress.
Similarly, researchers and policymakers should understand the context that
educators are operating in so the data gathered may be evaluated
appropriately and better inform such decisions. During the Forum,
keynote speaker Michael L. López, Ph.D.
identified three types of childhood
assessments: authentic assessment
Authentic Assessments
guided
(criterion-referenced)
(criterion-referenced), direct
instruction
child-level assessments (normDirect-Child Assessments
national
referenced), and program(norm-referenced)
comparrison
Page 1
level assessments to
ensure program
Program-level
monitor program
accountability and
assessments
evaluate effectiveness
accountability.
Setting the Stage:
Accountability, Quality & Diversity
What are Working Groups?
Working groups, comprised of volunteer Forum
Early childhood education and care has garnered
participants, were developed to discuss issues related to the
substantial national attention during the past decade (Rous,
delivery of high quality assessment of young children from
Lobianco, Cara Lin, & Lund, 2005). In New York City,
the perspectives of three distinct stakeholders - parents,
there has been a dramatic growth in preschool enrollment
teachers, and directors and instructional coaches. For one
(NYC DOE, 2011).
year, members from each group met several times to
grapple with issues pertaining to child-level assessment
NYC Pre-K Enrollment
2000-2012
practices. Each group constructed a unique strategy for
reviewing existing policies and practices with the aim of
improving procedures for implementing child assessments
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
in early childhood classroom settings.
00-01
01-02
02-03
03-04
04-05
05-06
06-07
07-08
08-09
09-10
10-11
11-12
Parent Working Group
The Parent and Early Childhood Assessment Working
Group (PECA) was charged with thinking about ways to
Data for graph taken from The NYC Department of Education website
present information about assessments to families. Given
(NYC DOE, 2011).
that children are being assessed multiple times throughout
There is a growing emphasis for the development of
the school year this group expressed the importance of
early childhood accountability systems to monitor student
maintaining clear communication with parents about their
progress and measure program effectiveness.
Early
child’s assessment results. When parents are informed and
childhood programs that require the use of observational
teachers are supported, assessments are often viewed as
and direct assessments commonly cite using Teaching
being informative, reassuring, and inclusive. When parents
Strategies GOLD, Work Sampling System , and the Child
are not informed, assessments can be viewed as
Observation Record (Halle, T., Zaslow, M., Wessel, J.,
threatening, one-sided, and confusing, creating barriers for
Moodie, S., and Darling-Churchill, K., 2011).
parental understanding and engagement in the assessment
The recent adoption of the Common Core Standards
process with young children.
(CCS) in preschool by New York State has drawn attention
to accountability systems, curricula, and measurement tools
PECA Working Group
needed to adequately implement and measure student
learning (National Association for the Education of Young
WHO
3 members of Head Start Policy Council, 6 policy
administrators, and 5 practitioners.
FOCUS
Parental empowerment in childhood assessment.
Children- NAEYC, 2011). This provides an opportunity to
examine how agencies and states can build an integrated
system of assessment that can align with the new standards
and curricular foci.
Forum on Children & Families
Page 2
PECA’s conceptual framework identifies three domains for
one option for implementation would be to add an
intervention (López, Peterson, Baca, & Caspe, 2011):
assessment module to their curriculum. Research into
access, understanding, and action. Empowered parents
existing models in our city/state suggests that approximately
have access to information about assessments, an
$20,000 per year would be required to fund a group of 20
understanding of the assessment process, and sufficient
parents that would train both incoming members and
motivation to take action as advocates for their child during
parents at large in the community.
the assessment process.
Understanding
of the information & the
process
Access
Encouragement to
participate in the
development of the
information & to act
on it
to information (in a
variety of ways)
Note: This framework was adapted from López, M. E., Peterson, S.,
Baca, D. & Caspe, M. (2011) Involving Parents and Families in DataDriven Decision-Making. Presented at the 1 National Birth Through
Five Institute, Washington, DC.
st
order
to
empower
parents
through
understanding, PECA began work on developing an
“Assessment Toolkit” for parents, which used clear and
accessible
language
regarding
Families
• Take advantage of opportunities to
get involved in the assessment process
Early childhood programs
• Make assessments family-accessible,
meaningful and actionable
Empowered
Parent
In
RECOMMENDATIONS
Action
assessment
practices.
Policy-makers
• Align assessment across the PreK-K
transition, involving families in the
process
Funders
• Prioritize funding initiatives that
facilitate meaningful family
engagement in assessment
Conceptualized as a comprehensive set of tools for
programs to provide to their parents, the toolkit includes a
Parents’ Bill of Rights, definitions and general information,
and a list of important questions for parents to ask teachers
during the assessment process.
Teachers Working Group
The Teachers Working Group was charged with
In order to empower parents through access, PECA also
determining the roles, needs, and challenges teachers
proposed creating a Parents Educating Parents taskforce, a
encounter in the context of classroom child assessment.
self-sustaining group of volunteer parents trained to provide
Through collaboration and shared expertise, the group’s
information to other parents about assessment practices in
mission was to bring together voices from the field to
early childhood. The taskforce would be available to
identify where concerns exist through an examination of
programs across New York City to provide information
the “big issues” in early childhood assessment from the lens
about direct child assessments at parent orientations or
of teachers.
during workshops. Because parent groups already exist,
opportunity to work directly with early childhood teachers,
Forum on Children & Families
Although this group did not have the
Page 3
group members did consult professors from early
RECOMMENDATIONS
childhood teacher training programs and New York State
officials to gain perspective on the “big issues” teachers
Higher Education
• Provide a stronger foundation in child
assessment
• Familiarize students with the best
instruments in the field
experience. These conversations highlighted the need for
both pre-service and in-service teacher training in child
assessment.
6 members: researchers, educators, and funders
Policy-Makers
• Establish systems of professional
development
• Provide opportunities for support and
growth
Pre-service and in-service teacher training in
childhood assessment
Program Directors
• Provide the on-site support for
authentic assessment
Teachers Working Group
WHO
FOCUS
To address these needs, higher education programs
should provide teacher-training program students with
Directors Working Group
stronger foundations in child development and assessment,
and familiarize students with the instruments used in the
field. In this way, new teachers may enter the field better
prepared to engage in authentic assessment. In addition,
policy makers and directors should establish systems of
professional development and support for early education
teachers, especially those in under-resourced communities.
In-service training should be geared toward understanding
and addressing teachers' concerns surrounding assessments,
helping teachers make informed decisions when choosing
and implementing assessments, and training teachers to use
assessments to inform practice. Providing systematic and
ongoing professional development for teachers in the areas
The task of the Directors Working Group was to
identify
directors/executive
early
directors
childhood
in
education
community-based
and supporting practitioners. Members came from public
sector, service provider, and research backgrounds. This
group concluded that child assessments allow directors to
monitor student progress, support teachers and identify
programmatic strengths and areas for improvement.
Assessments also require directors to select measures, train
teachers, monitor implementation, and analyze results to
drive decisions at the child, classroom and program levels.
Directors Working Group
lead to more valid assessment data to inform both
Forum on Children & Families
issues
organizations (CBOs) face when conducting assessments
of child development, assessment, and observation, can
instruction and research.
critical
WHO
7 Members: public sector representatives, service
providers, and researchers
FOCUS
Promote practitioners’ successful assessment
implementation
Page 4
Through research and evaluation efforts, the New York
implementing child assessments.
Many respondents
City Department of Education (NYCDOE) is working
reported that there is a need for training for teachers/staff
towards developing a system that will provide tailored
on how to use assessment tools (96%). The second major
training on specific curricular assessments. For example, in
challenge identified is that teachers/staff need more
2011, NYCDOE’s Work Sampling System (WSS)
professional development trainings on utilizing assessment
curriculum piloted a survey with early childhood directors
data to inform their instruction and improve program
and principals to understand how assessment impacts early
quality (93%). Finally, directors reported that they would
childhood leaders and their center’s overall practice.
like support with understanding how to choose a child
To further understand the context in which center
assessment tool (75%).
directors are working in, the working groups led two efforts:
These data provide confirmation that directors need
1) created and disseminated a survey to all early childhood
programmatic support, quality training, and funding to
centers in NYC, and 2) convened a meeting with important
adequately support their Center’s needs. Directors have a
stakeholders to document child assessment requirements
vital role in creating the conditions for teachers, parents,
and related supports.
and children to have positive experiences within the early
A brief survey was designed, to identify the center and
childhood environment.
classroom supports needed and challenges faced when
implementing assessments. The survey was distributed
electronically
to
early
childcare
providers
across
RECOMMENDATIONS
Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), Department
of Education (DOE) and Department of Health (DOH)
regulated settings. Two-hundred three directors responded
to the survey citywide.
Build a common understanding among
DOE, ACS, and DOH about effective
assessments
•
Create information session for directors on
using quantitative and qualitative
information to drive decisions
•
Pilot strategies for effective linkages
between early childhood CBOs and
elementary schools need to use assessment
data to inform classroom practice
All respondents directed sites
serving pre-k (3 and/or 4-year olds), 37% of respondents
also directed
•
sites serving infant/toddler, and 25% of
respondents directed sites serving school-age children.
Consistent with previous NYCDOE survey results,
most respondents use Work Sampling System (WSS),
Creative
Curriculum
Continuum/GOLD,
or
Child
Observation Record (COR) as their curriculum and
assessment tool. One major finding from these data is that
many respondents confuse child assessment with program
assessment (i.e. ECERS-R) or developmental screening (i.e.
Brigance).
Respondents were asked to list the top three supports
needed or the challenges their sites faced when
Forum on Children & Families
Page 5
Best Practice:
Shared Purpose, Common Language, and Valid Procedures
The role of assessment can be confusing when each stakeholder may hold a different interpretation of its meaning.
Keynote speaker, Dr. Christine McWayne, synthesized three purposes of assessment data to help clarify any confusion by
suggesting that child assessment can: 1- to inform the research process, 2- to inform curriculum planning and instruction, 3- to
inform program evaluation and policy-making. If child assessments can be used to inform the different bodies, then the real
challenge is to create supportive conditions for teachers, directors, policy-makers, and researchers to use assessments for the
right goals. If assessment is going to be successful, a close examination is needed to ensure that teachers are being prepared
properly with a solid foundation in child development and assessment and supported to do this work. As the assessment
process becomes part of a family’s everyday talk involving and empowering parents in the assessment process is crucial so
parents can access the assessment information to advocate for their child (Caspe & Reyes, 2012; McWayne, 2012).
Conclusion
Child-level classroom based assessments can be a very useful tool in serving the diverse needs of children. By examining
the needs of parents, teachers, and directors to successfully observe and assess young children, we heighten our awareness of
how to implement assessment in meaningiful, effective ways. Common themes that emerged across all working groups included
1) the need to balance assessment time with instruction time, 2) the need for increased professional development training on
assessments, and 3) the relationship among data, teacher performance, and child outcomes are important to explore.
As the field of early childhood moves in the direction of standards and assessment linking each group’s recommendations
will be an important beginning. The policy and practice recommendations presented in this brief provide a small glimpse of
how we can move this topic forward.
Child & Family Policy Center
New York University
Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development
726 Broadway, 5th Floor
New York, New York 10003
212 998 5885 | 212 995 4215 fax www.steinhardt.nyu.edu/appsych/cfpc
Director: LaRue Allen, Ph.D.
Assistant Director: Jennifer Astuto, Ph.D.
Forum on Children & Families
Page 6
Improving Child Level Assessments in Early Childhood Settings:
Highlights from our Working Groups
Forum Attendees
Kim
LaRue
Brooke
Jocelyn
Jennifer
Patti
Haifa
Karen
Kareene E.
Cynthia
Gregory
Deborah
Terrence
Jennifer
Moria
Suzanne
Deborah
Margaret
Sherry M.
Maria
Eileen
Sherry
Judy
Alyse
Cynthia
Beverly
Ola
Rocio
Ann
Michael
Ayleen
Wen-Jui
Miranda
Dorothy
Mary
Juanita
Kathy
Sharon
Ellen
Shelly
Mabel
Kelsey
Adams*
Allen
Allman
Alter*
Astuto
Banghart
Bautista*
Berliner*
Berry
Boyce*
Brender
Breznay
Brummell*
Butch
Cappio *
Carothers*
Carroll
Caspe*
Cleary *
Cordero
Cruz
Davidson
Ennes*
Erman
Esposito Lamy*
Falk
Friday
Galarza
Gardner
Greenberg*
Guzman
Han
Harrison *
Hartigan*
Hayes
HollingsworthJohnson*
Hopkins
Huang
Jaffe*
Jones*
Juanita
Keays Hagerman
Forum on Children & Families
Spring 2012
Issue 3
Joy Kennedy
Nancy Kolben*
Lesley Koplow
Jennifer Kotler Clarke
Marcia Lawrence
Kathleen Leos
Rebecca Light*
Michael López
Jennifer Lozano
Rosa Marcano *
Meg McNiff
Christine McWayne
Cristina Medellin
Kelly Medora *
Gigliana Melzi
Janice Molnar
Maxine Needle
Lynda Nicolas
Nana Ofosu-Amaah
Esther Olvera*
Jessica Orleans
Mabel Otiotio*
Sophia Pappas
Kisha Pressley-Vann *
Vidya Ragoo-Stark*
Jill Resnick
Krystal Reyes*
Rose Rivera
Natalie Rojas
Jennifer Rosenbaum
Jorge Saenz De Viteri
Maria Santos
Adina Schick
Louise Secordel
Jacqueline Simms*
Sheila Smith
Laura Sosinsky
Jeanette Spencer
Christina Taharally
Sara Vecchiotti
Rose Vukovic
LaChelle Walker
Carolyn Wiggins
*working group members
Page 7
Acknowledgements
Forum Committee
LaRue Allen, Ph.D., New York University
Jennifer Astuto, Ph.D., New York University
Joy Kennedy, New York University
Cristina Medellin-Paz, New York University
Gigliana Melzi, Ph.D., New York University
Adina Schick, Ph.D., New York University
Special Thanks to our Forum Speakers
Keynote Speakers:
Michael L. López, Ph.D.,
Executive Director, National Center for Latino Child &
Family Research
Christine McWayne, Ph.D.,
Associate Professor & Director of Early Childhood
Education, Eliot-Pearson Department of Child
Development, Tufts University
The Child & Family Policy Center would like to express its appreciation to
The Shoolman Foundation for making this event possible.
The Edith Glick Shoolman Children's Foundation was created by Edith Glick Shoolman
(1904-2003) whose dream was to make a difference in the lives of children. Their
mission is to foster the health, education, and well-being of children.
Forum on Children & Families
Spring 2012
Issue 3
Page 8
References
Ballantyne, K.G., Sanderman, A.R. & McLaughlin, N. (2008). Dual language learners in the
early years: Getting ready to succeed in school. Washington, DC: National
Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition.
Caspe, M. & Reyes, K. (2012). Parent and Early Childhood Working Group (PECA).
Empowering Parents During the Assessment Process. Improving Assessment in Early
Childhood Educational Settings, New York University, Forum on Children &
Families. New York City, NY. 18 May. 2012.
Halle, T., Zaslow, M., Wessel, J., Moodie, S., and Darling-Churchill, K. (2011).
Understanding and Choosing Assessments and Developmental Screeners for Young
Children: Profiles of Selected Measures. Washington, DC: Office of Planning,
Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services.
Kolben, N. & Alter, J. (2012). Child Assessment: Perspective from Program Directors.
Improving Assessment in Early Childhood Educational Settings, New York
University, Forum on Children & Families. New York City, NY. 18 May. 2012.
Light, R. & Esposito-Lamy, C. (2012). Seen, Heard, and Noted: Teacher Perspectives on the
Complexities of Best Practice in Authentic Assessment. Improving Assessment in
Early Childhood Educational Settings, New York University, Forum on Children &
Families. New York City, NY. 18 May. 2012.
López, M. (2012). Strengthening Early Childhood Assessment Processes: No “Simple”
Answers. Improving Assessment in Early Childhood Educational Settings, New York
University, Forum on Children & Families. New York City, NY. 18 May. 2012.
Spring 2012
Issue 3
Forum on Children & Families
Page 9
López, M. E., Peterson, S., Baca, D. & Caspe, M. (2011) Involving Parents and Families in
Data-Driven Decision-Making. Presented at the 1st National Birth Through Five
Institute, Washington, DC.
McWayne, C. (2012). “Assessment in the Context of Urgent Knowing: Ensuring
Understanding, Intentionality, and Validity in ECE Assessment Practices.” Improving
Assessment in Early Childhood Educational Settings, New York University, Forum
on Children & Families. New York City, NY. 18 May. 2012.
National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) (2011). The Common
Core State Standards: Caution and Opportunity for Early Childhood Education.
Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
New York City Department of Education (NYCDoE). (2011, December 31). Attendance Statistical Summaries. Retrieved July 29, 2012, from New York City Department of
Education Website: http://schools.nyc.gov/AboutUs/data/stats/attendance/default.htm
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
Rous, B., Lobianco, T., Cara Lin, M., & Lund, I. (2005). Building Preschool Accountability
Systems: Guidelines Resulting from a National Study. Journal of Early Intervention ,
50-64.
Spring 2012
Issue 3
Forum on Children & Families
Page 10