Return to: Homepage, Publications, or Newsletters

Table of Contents

• A Developmental Approach to Assessment of Young Children
• The Grading Ritual: Unreliable and Unsuitable--But Unalterable?
• An EVEN START Means Success in School

A Developmental Approach to Assessment of Young Children
Lilian G. Katz

For more than a decade, early childhood educators have been discussing issues of curriculum and teaching methods in terms of their developmental appropriateness. The concept of developmental appropriateness can also be extended to issues related to the assessment of children during the early years.

The Purposes of Assessment

Clarifying the main purpose for which young children are assessed can help determine what kinds of assessments would be most appropriate. Assessment of individual children might serve one of the following purposes:

• to determine progress on significant developmental achievements;
• to make placement or promotion decisions;
• to diagnose learning and teaching problems;
• to help in instruction and curriculum decisions;
• to serve as a basis for reporting to parents; and
• to assist a child with assessing his or her own progress.

Decisions regarding the purposes of assessment should begin with discussions among all the stakeholders--parents, educators, and other members of the community--as appropriate. The group may want to keep in mind that (1) plans, strategies, and assessment instruments are differentially suited for each of the potential purposes of assessment; (2) an overall assessment should include the four categories of educational goals: knowledge, skills, dispositions, and feelings {Katz, 1995}; and (3) assessments made during children’s informal work and play are most likely to minimize the many potential errors of various assessment strategies.

The Risks of Assessing Young Children

Young children are notoriously poor test-takers: perhaps because they are sometimes confused by being asked questions that they think the tester must already know the answers to! There is reason to suggest that the younger the child being evaluated, assessed, or tested, the more errors are made {Shepard, 1994; Ratcliff, 1995}. If this principle is sound, then the younger the children, the greater the risk of assigning false labels to them. Another principle may also be appropriate: the longer children live with a label (a true or false one), the more difficult it may become to discard it.

All methods of assessment make errors: the errors made by formal tests are different from those made by informal or anecdotal records and documentation notes; the errors made by specific checklists of behavioral items are different from those made by holistic impressionistic assessments. Awareness of the potential errors of each evaluation or assessment strategy can help minimize errors in interpretation. It is a good idea to strive for a balance between global or holistic evaluation and detailed specific assessments of young children.

The Assessment of Young Children

As they plan assessments of young children’s learning, parents and educators may want to:

• Recognize the Limitations of Report Cards and Grades. For several reasons, report cards with letter grades or achievement scores are not appropriate for children at and below the third grade. First, before third grade, the differences in developmental timetables and other factors that contribute to performance are still too unstable, malleable, and varied to achieve reliability. By third grade, however, children’s abilities and aptitudes are likely to have stabilized and can be assessed with at least minimal reliability. Second, there is little evidence that grades or scores listed on the report cards of young children contribute positively to those most in need of improvement. Third, while teachers need to know how well a young child is progressing on significant skills and knowledge, and to evaluate such progress, little is known about how parents use such information.
  
  
• Assess Aspects of Children’s Functioning That Have Real Meaning. The items and behaviors assessed should have demonstrable relationships to significant human functioning. For example, the child’s knowledge of the names of shapes or of the calendar at age 4 or 5 has little or no practical significance or meaning beyond test performance itself. In addition to assessing young children’s social competence, adults should include the assessment of individual children’s progress in acquiring desirable dispositions, feelings, skills, and knowledge. Documentation is a strategy for recording and presenting such assessments {see Katz & Chard, 1996}.
  
  
• Encourage Children to Assess Their Own Work. Preschoolers and children in the primary grades can be encouraged to assess their own work according to specific criteria such as the clarity, inclusiveness, interest level, comprehensiveness, or aesthetic qualities of the work. They can also be encouraged to consider the standards to be met on these criteria.
  
  
• Encourage Children to Assess Their Own Progress. From kindergarten on, most children can be encouraged to assess the general progress of their own learning. During teacher-child or teacher-parent-child conferences, children can be encouraged to indicate what mastery and learning they want to focus on during a given period. From time to time, children can then be asked to judge their own progress, using three or four categories. For example, each child can be asked to discuss work she thinks she is making good progress on, what he thinks he needs to concentrate more on, what she wants help with, and other categories nominated by the child. Most children will be quite realistic and sensible when engaging in such self-evaluation. The teacher can help by expressing her own realistic evaluation in a serious and supportive way. In principle, unless children are consulted about their own views of their own progress, they cannot learn to assume some responsibility for it {Katz, 1995}.
  
  
• Involve Children in Evaluating the Class Community. Depending on their ages, children as a group can be encouraged to develop some criteria concerning what they want their classroom life to be like. These criteria are not simply lists of classroom rules. Rather they should be a thoughtful examination of what kind of community the class should be--for example, the extent to which it is a caring, cooperative group, respectful of individual differences; the extent to which it is a helpful community of scholars; and the extent to which it meets any other dimensions of classroom life the children and their teacher think are important.

Periodically, the teacher or a child can lead the group in a discussion concerning how well they are doing on these criteria as a class, and what additions or modifications of the criteria might be tried. Such discussions should be directed toward the development of positive and constructive suggestions.

Conclusion

Whenever a measurement is applied to a group of people of any age, especially a group that is diverse in background, experience, aptitude, development, culture, language, and interests, some will rank higher and some lower than others on any item assessed. All measures yield such differences, and it is thus statistically impossible for all those subjected to the same assessment to be above average! However, failure to evaluate and assess children’s progress might mean that some children will be deprived of needed intervention with special services at a time when these services can do the most good. While educators cannot be accountable for all children being above average or for all children being first, they are accountable for applying all teaching strategies and efforts known to be effective and appropriate for the learning situation at hand. Assessment procedures should therefore indicate which of the strategies and resources available and judged appropriate have been employed to help each individual child.

For More Information

Fogarty, Robin. (Ed.). (1996). Student portfolios: A collection of articles. Palatine, IL: IRI/Skylight Training and Publishing. ED 392 542.

Gaustad, Joan. (1996). "Assessment and evaluation in the multiage classroom" {Special Issue}. OSSC Bulletin, 39(3-4). ED 392 149.

Genishi, Celia. (Ed.). (1992) Ways of assessing children and curriculum: Stories of early childhood practice. New York: Teachers College Press. ED 365 474.

Hills, Tynette W. (1993). "Assessment in context--Teachers and children at work." Young Children, 48(5), 20-28. EJ 465 919.

Katz, Lilian G. (1995). Talks with teachers of young children: A collection. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. ED 380 232.

Katz, Lilian G., & Chard, Sylvia. (1989). Engaging children’s minds: The project approach. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Katz, Lilian G., & Chard, Sylvia C. (1996). The contribution of documentation to the quality of early childhood education. ERIC Digest. Urbana, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. ED 393 608.

Martin, Sue. (1996, April). Developmentally appropriate evaluation: Convincing students and teachers of the importance of observation as appropriate evaluation of children. Paper presented at the Association of Childhood Education International Conference, Minneapolis, MN. ED 391 601.

Privett, Nawanna B. (1996). "Without fear of failure: The attributes of an ungraded primary school." School Administrator, 53(1), 6-11. EJ 517 823.

Ratcliff, Nancy. (1995). "The need for alternative techniques for assessing young children’s emerging literacy skills." Contemporary Education, 66(3), 169-171. EJ 512 829.

Schattgen, Sharon Ford. (1993, April). Validation of a developmentally appropriate assessment system for early childhood education. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Atlanta, GA. ED 359 248.

Shepard, Lorrie A. (1994). "The challenges of assessing young children appropriately." Phi Delta Kappan, 76(3), 206-212. EJ 492 843.

SouthEastern Regional Vision for Education. (1995, April). Assessment in early childhood education: Status of the issue. Tallahassee, FL: Author.

---

This article is a reprint of an ERIC Digest [April 1997 / ED0-PS-97-18], which is in the public domain and may be freely reproduced. References identified with an ED (ERIC document) or EJ (ERIC journal) number are cited in the ERIC database. Most documents are available in ERIC microfiche collections at more than 900 locations worldwide, and can be ordered through EDRS (800-443-ERIC). Journal articles are available from the original journal, interlibrary loan services, or article reproduction clearinghouses such as UnCover (800-787-7979), UMI (800-732-0616), or ISI (800-523-1850).

The Grading Ritual: Unreliable and Unsuitable--But Unalterable?
Sandra L. Robinson

When a colleague arrived one day at the office, she was obviously very upset. Her son, Jeff, had received his report card and been given three "not able to perform" marks. Concerned, she had proceeded to the school where, on entering the classroom, she happened to see a report card of one of Jeff’s classmates. The girl had received three "outstanding" and no "not able to perform" marks. Irate, Jeff’s mother confronted the teacher and demanded to know what criteria were used to make these judgments about the two six-year-olds.

It has been 10 years since NAEYC first published a book (Bredekamp 1987) on appropriate education for young children, which does not include grading, but the practice of grading continues. While some changes have occurred in grading, the result often has been the substitution of one symbol system for another--for example, "outstanding" for A. Research and articles about the inappropriate use of grades and the lack of validity in grading rituals have been ignored or, at best, overlooked in response to perceived demands to label and rank children.

While reforms have occurred in spurts across decades and in scattered parts of the country, grading has prevailed as the predominant method of reporting progress. Bender reviewed reform in grading practices but found that "except in a handful of cases...the new systems are little more than ill-disguised variations of the grading system, and virtually all the innovations suffer from the same shortcomings that afflict grades" (1975, 11). And although the authentic assessment movement has brought about change in standardized testing practices in some areas, I get the feeling that it has had little effect on reforming grading practices. Is there research about this?

How can a teacher plan lessons in which children learn through exploration; promote the practice of skills in active, involvement-oriented lessons; acknowledge that development of various proficiencies occurs unevenly (some children can ride a two-wheel bike but not yet recognize the relationship between numbers and objects); and still be expected to employ old-fashioned practices such as grading in assessing and reporting progress? The frustration some teachers feel in reconciling such divergent expectations is understandable.

Facilitating Change

Why is it so hard to alter this outmoded practice of assigning a single mark--be it a check or letter or number--to represent such a complex undertaking as evaluating and communicating academic performance? Few would disagree that young children and their parents deserve more helpful information. Perhaps, as it has been suggested, we teach and evaluate as were taught and evaluated. Many parents also rely on their own school experiences to guide their preferences in practices for their children. Perhaps we are hindered by what appears to be a national proclivity for ranking and ordering things.

If change occurs, it may be partially the result of studies to demonstrate the lack of reliability in the grading process. It also will require the efforts of committed and caring principals, teachers, and parents willing to go the extra mile to develop more effective ways of communicating a child’s progress to her parents.

References

Bender, S.A. 1975. The Great Grading Myth. Colorado Journal of Education 14 (3): 2-15.

Bredekamp, S., ed. 1987. Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth Through Age 8. Exp. ed. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

Frisbie, D.A., & K.K. Waltman. 1992. An NCME Instructional Module on Developing a Personal Grading Plan. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices 11 (3): 35-42.

Napier, S.F. 1976. Grading and Young Children. In Degrading the Grading Myths: A Primer of Alternatives to Grades and Marks, eds. S.B. Simon & J.A. Bellanca. Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Shea, C. 1994. Grade Inflation’s Consequences. The Chronicle of Higher Education 40 (18): A45-46.

Starch, D., & E. Elliott. 1912. Reliability of the Grading of High-School Work in English. The School Review: A Journal of Secondary Education 20:442-57.

Starch, D., & E. Elliott. 1913a. Reliability of Grading Work in History. The School Review: A Journal of Secondary Education 21:676-81.

Starch, D., & E. Elliott. 1913b. Reliability of Grading Work in Mathematics. The School Review: A Journal of Secondary Education 21:254-59.

---

Sandra Longfellow Robinson, Ph.D., is professor of early childhood education and dean of the College of Education at the University of Central Florida in Orlando. This article is reprinted by permission of NAEYC. It originally appeared in Young Children 48 (3):86-87. Copyright (c) 1997 by the National Association for the Education of Young Children.

An EVEN START Means Success in School

Even Start programs, authorized by Congress in 1989, provide education for a family unit--an adult caregiver, a parent or parents eligible to receive these services, and a child or children under age seven. To establish such programs, the U. S. Department of Education provides federal financial assistance, through competitive grants from states, for family-centered education projects. These build on existing community resources to create a full range of services. The programs also support educational reform by addressing specific goals within the National Goals 2000.

Even Start. The name speaks equality, fairness, balance. Even Start affirms the value of parents and their children by providing literacy programs which take them from here to there. Together. The "here" is a place where a family needs to improve its educational status or to learn English or to secure the children’s chance for success in school. "There" is the comfort zone of higher reading and math skills, of GED [General Equivalency Diploma] certification for adults, and of language development for children; it might be a place of employment or a place meeting grade level expectations for a child.

Even Start programs are family literacy programs based on the belief that educating a family, intervening with at least two generations of a family, secures the advancement of parents and children in the present and in the future. Literacy is a family legacy. When parents value education, their children have a better opportunity to succeed in school. And the reverse is true. The child of parents with low literacy skills is less likely to have educational opportunities outside the home or to be enrolled in pre-kindergarten programs. Once the child enters school, he/she does less well than children of parents who value education and have high literacy skills.

A national evaluation report has recently been released for the 1994-95 program year, when Even Start served 31,000 families in some 513 local projects. The study involved a total of 534 children (now in grades K-5) and 536 adults. Comparison data were gathered from 194 children randomly selected from some of the same classes. Data revealing attendance, academic progress, special placements or needs, test scores, disciplinary history, and teacher ratings were obtained from interviews and school records. Using procedures and forms designed at the National Center for Family Literacy, local staff collected and submitted data in January and February of 1997.

Children in EVEN START programs achieved high results in school.
The primary purpose of the Even Start family literacy programs - to break the intergenerational cycle of undereducation and poverty - shows evidence of being achieved. School success for children is among the strongest predictors of their educational and financial success as adults. For all the children studied, the Even Start group was as high or higher on all comparisons made with the randomly-selected sample of children.

Unlike the children in the national studies of kindergarten, where 35% of students were not "ready" to enter that grade-level, the Even Start children were ready to learn when they entered kindergarten and throughout that year. Eighty per cent or more were rated at or above the average of their class on all factors by their kindergarten teachers. Former Even Start students are successful in grades three, four, and five, as well. In the third grade, 75% of Even Start children were at or above their class on almost all factors. Typically these children would have been at-risk for failure in school.

Children in all grades show improvement.
Further evidence of success for former Even Start students in their academic programs is revealed through grades, test scores, and other reports by teachers. Some 90% of Even Start children show satisfactory grades in reading, language, and mathematics, a higher percentage than in the random samples of children.

Because families who break the intergenerational cycle of underachievement must become engaged in the education and schooling of their children, researchers at the National Center for Family Literacy looked for evidence of that engagement in follow-up studies. No longer are the parents who participated in Even Start family literacy programs estranged from school. Teachers gave significant evidence of parental support, citing that support in school and in the school work of their children as a major strength for more than two-thirds of the children.

---

The above information is adapted from Even Start: Effective literacy program helps families grow toward independence (1997). Copies of this publication, or of the technical report supporting the research referenced in the document, are available from the National Center for Family Literacy, Waterfront Plaza, 325 W. Main Street - Suite 200, Louisville, Kentucky 40202-4251 (502-584-1133).

This page last updated: December 13, 2007