Two Accounts of Cutting

Teacher A uses subjective labeling (“properly,” “good”) and language indicating an opinion about the child’s performance on each occasion, while teacher B records information that can be interpreted to describe progress in measurable terms.

Another way teachers ensure objectivity is by using scoring tools, or rubrics, that rely on criterion referencing based on observable behaviors or performance rather than subjective judgments. A criterion is similar to a standard or benchmarka statement or descriptor that conveys an expected outcome or level of performance. If a criterion describes an action or behavior that is observable, it is more likely that anyone who performs the assessment will score it objectively, as the behavior will either be observed or it won’t.

For example, suppose you are assessing self-help skills. Using criteria such as “not independent, working on independence, independent” is subjective; if two teachers rated the same child they might each have a very different idea about what “working on . . .” means or what criterion must be met to be rated “independent.” A scoring tool that lists criteria such as “ties shoes, zips, cleans up without being asked, puts nap items away unassisted, asks for help when needed” is objective because the assessor must see the child perform each task in order to check it off.

12.2 Identifying Children’s Needs and Interests

Assessment methods can be formal or informal. Formal assessments include standardized measures that are norm-referenced; that is, they score an individual child’s performance against the average, or mean, scores of a larger population of children. The larger population is selected to be representative of the smaller samples of children to whom the test is administered.

Informal assessments are not normed, may be narratively expressed, and can be obtained commercially or teacher-designed. Informal assessments are implemented in the classroom or care setting to document learning, skills, and/or behavior. These measures contribute valuable information that provides a holistic, context-specific view of growth over time.

Other measures, either formal or informal, are criterion-referenced, or designed to assess each individual child or group of children with respect to specific goals or desired outcomes expressed in curriculum materials, state early learning and academic standards, or individualized learning plans for children with special needs, such as the Individual Educational Plan (IEP) or Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP).

Formal Assessments

Normed standardized instruments generally fall into one of three categories: screens, achievement tests, or intelligence tests. The purpose of a screening tool such as the Denver II (Denver Developmental Materials, 2012) or the Brigance Early Childhood series (Curriculum Associates, 2011) is usually to obtain a general picture of development or behavior to determine if a more detailed assessment or evaluation is warranted. Screens can be administered by trained professionals, but instructions are typically easy for educators to follow. Some screens, such as the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (2012), are specifically designed for parents.

Achievement tests are intended to assess what a child knows or can do and are the types of tests administered annually to elementary and high school students to measure progress toward meeting state academic standards and curriculum outcomes. A battery of several subtests is typically administered over several days. Use of a single achievement test to make high-stakes decisions, such as a child’s readiness for school, is considered inadequate and developmentally inappropriate (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009).

Intelligence tests are designed to determine a person’s aptitude and capacities for learning in comparison to all others in the population from which the norms are derived. The Binet-Simon Intelligence Test, developed by Alfred Binet and Lewis Simon in 1905, was the first to be introduced. In 1916, Lewis Terman, at Stanford University, adapted the scales for American use as the Stanford-Binet Scales (Levine & Munsch, 2011). The test score was expressed as an intelligence quotient (IQ) or ratio of mental to chronological age.

The Wechsler Intelligence Scales, introduced by psychologist David Wechsler in 1955, are also widely used and adapted the IQ concept to an intelligence deviation score, basing norms on a distribution of scores across the normal curve. These tests are reliable only when they are administered by trained professionals, usually psychologists, and typically not before age 6.

Concerns about cultural bias in the norming processes first expressed by Alfred Binet (Siegler, 1992) persist today, since many believe that the heavy reliance on language in these tests compromises results for children with limited English proficiency (Levine & Munsch, 2011).

Widespread implementation of standardized testing with children under the age of 8, especially if not balanced with the holistic data that informal assessments provide, is considered developmentally inappropriate (NAEYC/NAECS/SDE, 2003). Such tests offer only a “snapshot” of what the child can do, don’t allow for modification to accommodate individual differences, don’t accurately reflect a child’s real-life experience, may be linguistically or culturally biased, and focus only on what rather than how a child learns (Anderson, Moffat, & Shapiro, 2006; Branscombe, Castle, Dorsey & Taylor, 2003; Gullo, 2006). While teachers need to understand how formal measures such as standardized tests are developed and used, their administration should be limited to instances where it is clear that the results may benefit children in a specific way, such as identifying a child with special needs who would be entitled to support services (NAEYC/NAECS/SDE, 2003).

Informal Assessments

Programs and teachers that apply developmentally appropriate principles to assessment make extensive use of informal assessments, also known as alternative or authentic methods. Informal assessments match curriculum goals, actively involve children and families, focus on change and growth over time, and occur in real time in the classroom or care setting (Branscombe, Castle, Dorsey & Taylor, 2003; Gullo, 2006; Jablon, Dombro, & Dichtelmiller, 2007; Wortham, 2011). Often, authentic assessments focus on recording observations of individual children during play (Beaty, 2009; Bodrova & Leong, 2007; Flagler, 1996; Gullo, 2006; Jablon, Dombro, & Dichtelmiller, 2007) or daily routines, interactions with family members, and in group interaction (Jablon, Dombro & Dichtelmiller, 2007).

Teachers also design performance or skills assessments and collect and analyze learning artifacts to evaluate growth and identify needed curriculum modifications. Authentic assessments don’t require that the teacher “prep” children, in contrast to the coaching that teachers sometimes provide to prepare children for a paper-and-pencil standardized test. Rather than offering the child a preselected group of available responses that may not necessarily match what the child knows, authentic assessments record behavior and performance in the precise terms or actions displayed by the child (Anderson, Moffat, & Shapiro, 2006; Gullo, 2006).

Place Your Order Here!