1

Introduction

High-quality early education produces long-lastingbenefits (Schweinhart & Weikart 1997; National Re-search Council & Institute of Medicine 2000; Peisner-Feinberg et al. 2000; National Research Council 2001;Reynolds et al. 2001; Campbell et al. 2002). With thisevidence, federal, state, and local decision makers areasking critical questions about young children’s educa-tion. What should children be taught in the years frombirth through age eight? How would we know if they aredeveloping well and learning what we want them tolearn? And how could we decide whether programs forchildren from infancy through the primary grades aredoing a good job?

Answers to these questions—questions about earlychildhood curriculum, child assessment, and program evalu-ation—are the foundation of the joint position statementfrom the National Association for the Education of YoungChildren (NAEYC) and the National Association of EarlyChildhood Specialists in State Departments of Education(NAECS/SDE).

Overview

This document begins by summarizing the position ofNAEYC and NAECS/SDE about what is needed in aneffective system of early childhood education—asystem that supports a reciprocal relationship among

curriculum, child assessment, and program evaluation.Next, the document outlines the position statement’sbackground and intended effects. It describes the majortrends, new understandings, and contemporary issuesthat have influenced the position statement’s recom-mendations. With this background, the document thenoutlines the principles and values that guide an inter-connected system of curriculum, child assessment, andprogram evaluation. We emphasize that such a systemmust be linked to and guided by early learning stan-dards and early childhood program standards that areconsistent with professional recommendations (NAEYC& NAECS/SDE 2002; NAEYC 2003).

Next, key recommendations, rationales, and indica-tors of effectiveness are presented for each of thesecomponents, accompanied by frequently asked ques-tions. Although the recommendations and indicatorswill generally apply to children across the birth–eightage range, in many cases the recommendations needdevelopmental adaptation and fine-tuning. Wherepossible, the position statement notes these adapta-tions or special considerations. To further illustratethese developmental considerations, each componentis accompanied by a chart (pp. 19-26) that gives ex-amples of how the recommendations would be imple-mented with infants and toddlers, preschoolers, andkindergarten-primary grade children. This resourceconcludes by describing examples of the support andresources needed to develop effective systems ofcurriculum, child assessment, and program evaluation.

Early Childhood Curriculum, Assessment,and Program Evaluation

Building an Effective, Accountable Systemin Programs for Children Birth through Age 8

POSITION STATEMENT

WITH EXPANDED RESOURCES

This resource is based on the 2003 Joint Position Statement of the National Association for the Education ofYoung Children (NAEYC) and the National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments ofEducation (NAECS/SDE). It includes the statement of position, recommendations, and indicators of effectivenessof the position statement, as well as an overview of relevant trends and issues, guiding principles and values, arationale for each recommendation, frequently asked questions, and developmental charts.

Position Statement Adopted November 2003

2

The Position

The National Association for the Education of YoungChildren and the National Association of Early Child-hood Specialists in State Departments of Education takethe position that policy makers, the early childhoodprofession, and other stakeholders in young children’slives have a shared responsibility to

• construct comprehensive systems of curriculum,assessment, and program evaluation guided by soundearly childhood practices, effective early learningstandards and program standards, and a set of coreprinciples and values: belief in civic and democraticvalues; commitment to ethical behavior on behalf ofchildren; use of important goals as guides to action;coordinated systems; support for children as individu-als and members of families, cultures,1 and communi-ties; partnerships with families; respect for evidence;and shared accountability.• implement curriculum that is thoughtfully planned,challenging, engaging, developmentally appropriate,2

culturally and linguistically responsive, comprehensive,and likely to promote positive outcomes for all youngchildren.• make ethical, appropriate, valid, and reliable assess-ment a central part of all early childhood programs. Toassess young children’s strengths, progress, and needs,use assessment methods that are developmentallyappropriate, culturally and linguistically responsive,tied to children’s daily activities, supported by profes-sional development, inclusive of families, and con-nected to specific, beneficial purposes: (1) makingsound decisions about teaching and learning, (2)identifying significant concerns that may requirefocused intervention for individual children, and (3)helping programs improve their educational anddevelopmental interventions.• regularly engage in program evaluation guided byprogram goals and using varied, appropriate, conceptu-ally and technically sound evidence, to determine theextent to which programs meet the expected standardsof quality and to examine intended as well as unin-tended results.

• provide the support, professional development, andother resources to allow staff in early childhoodprograms to implement high-quality curriculum,assessment, and program evaluation practices and toconnect those practices with well-defined early learningstandards and program standards.

Position Statements’Intended Effects

In developing and disseminating position state-ments, NAEYC, NAECS/SDE, and their partnerorganizations aim to

• take informed positions on significant, controver-sial issues affecting young children’s educationand development3 —in this case, issues related tocurriculum development and implementation, thepurposes and uses of assessment data, andbenefits and risks in accountability systems forearly childhood programs.

• promote broad-based dialogue on these issues,within and beyond the early childhood field.

• create a shared language and evidence-basedframe of reference so that practitioners, decisionmakers, and families may talk together about earlychildhood curriculum, assessment, and programevaluation and their relationship to early learningstandards and program standards.

• influence public policies—in this case, thoserelated to early childhood curriculum development,adoption, and implementation; child assessmentpractices; and program evaluation practices—oneby one and as these fit together into a coherenteducational system linked to child outcomes orstandards.

• stimulate investments needed to create acces-sible, affordable, high-quality learning environ-ments and professional development that supportthe implementation of excellent early childhoodcurriculum, assessment, and program evaluation.

• build more satisfying experiences and bettereducational and developmental outcomes for allyoung children.

1 The term culture includes ethnicity, racial identity, economic class,family structure, language, and religious and political beliefs, whichprofoundly influence each child’s development and relationship to theworld.

2 NAEYC defines developmentally appropriate practices as those that“result from the process of professionals making decisions about thewell-being and education of children based on at least three importantkinds of information or knowledge: what is known about childdevelopment and learning…; what is known about the strengths,interests, and needs of each individual child in the group…; andknowledge of the social and cultural contexts in which children live”(Bredekamp & Copple 1997, 8–9).

3 In this context, development is defined as the social, emotional,physical, and cognitive changes in children stimulated bybiological maturation interacting with experience.

3

Trends and Issues

Since 1990, significant trends and contemporary issues,research findings, and new understandings of andchanges in practice have influenced early childhoodeducation. Many changes have had positive effects onthe field and on the infants, toddlers, preschoolers, andkindergarten-primary children who are enrolled in earlychildhood programs. Other changes are less positive,raising concerns about how they may affect children’sdevelopment, learning, and access to services.

To provide a context for the recommendations thatfollow, we outline some of these issues.

1. The contexts and needs of children, families,programs, and early childhood staff have

changed significantly.

A snapshot taken today of the children and familiesserved by our country’s early childhood programswould look very different from one taken in 1990. Manymore children would appear in the picture, as ever-higher proportions of children attend child care, HeadStart, preschool, family child care, and other programs(Lombardi 2003; NIEER 2003). In more and more fami-lies, both parents work, further increasing the demandfor child care, especially for infants and toddlers(Paulsell et al. 2002; Lombardi 2003). These changes infamilies’ needs have influenced staffing patterns, hoursof care, and other characteristics of programs forchildren before school entry, while also affecting theexperiences children bring with them to kindergarten,first grade, and beyond.

The diversity of the U.S. population continues toexpand, creating a far more multiethnic, multiracial,multireligious, and multicultural context for earlychildhood education. By the year 2030, 40 percent of allschool-age children will have a home language otherthan English (Thomas & Collier 1997). Early childhoodprograms now include large numbers of immigrantchildren and children born to new immigrant parents,young children whose home language is not English,children living in poverty, and children with disabilities(Brennan et al. 2001; DHHS 2002; Rosenzweig, Brennan,& Ogilvie 2002; Annie E. Casey Foundation 2003;Hodgkinson 2003; U.S. Census Bureau 2003). Thesedemographic trends have implications for decisionsabout curriculum, assessment practices, and evalua-tions of the effectiveness of early childhood programs.

Over the past decade, programs serving youngchildren and families have also changed. Full-day andfull-year child care and Head Start programs haveexpanded. Early Head Start did not exist in 1990, andfew states offered prekindergarten programs either on auniversal or targeted basis. In contrast, Early Head Start

in 2003 served approximately 62,000 low-incomechildren from birth through age three (3 percent of theeligible children) and their families (ACF 2003), and 42states and the District of Columbia had invested inprekindergarten programs based in or linked withpublic schools (Mitchell 2001), although most servedrelatively small numbers of children identified as livingin poverty and at risk of school failure. Full-day kin-dergarten is now common in many school districts; in2002, 25 states and the District of Columbia funded full-day kindergarten, at least in districts that chose to offerthese services (Quality Counts 2002). Head Startprograms increasingly collaborate with other earlyeducation programs, including state-funded pre-kindergarten programs, community-based child careproviders, and local elementary schools (Head StartProgram Performance Standards 1996; Lombardi 2003).Any new recommendations with respect to earlychildhood curriculum, child assessment, and programevaluation must take this expanded scope into accountand must recognize the difficulties of coordinating andevaluating such a diverse array of programs.

National reports and government mandates haveraised expectations for the formal education andtraining of early childhood teachers, especially in HeadStart and in state-funded prekindergarten programs(National Research Council 2001; ASPE 2003). Teacherstoday are expected to implement more effective andchallenging curriculum in language, literacy, mathemat-ics, and other areas and to use more complex assess-ments of children’s progress (National Research Council2001). Both preschool teachers and teachers in kinder-garten and the primary grades are expected to introduceacademic content and skills to ever-younger children.These expectations, and the expanding number of earlychildhood programs, make the field’s staffing crisis evenmore urgent, since the increased expectations have notbeen matched by increased incentives and opportunitiesfor professional development.

The early childhood field lacks adequate numbers ofqualified and sufficiently trained staff to implementappropriate, effective curriculum and assessment.Turnover continues to exceed 30 percent annually(Whitebook et al. 2001; Lombardi 2003), and compensa-tion for early childhood educators continues to beinadequate and inequitable (Laverty et al. 2001). Thestaff turnover rate is greatly affected by a number ofprogram characteristics, including the adequacy ofcompensation. All early childhood settings—includingpublic-school-based programs—are experiencingcritical shortages and turnover of qualified teachers,especially in areas that serve children who are at thehighest risk for negative outcomes and who most needoutstanding teachers (Keller 2003; Quality Counts 2003).

4

2. Evidence has accumulated about the valueof high-quality, well-planned curriculum and

child assessment.

In recent years, national reports and national organi-zations’ position statements have sounded a consistenttheme: Although children’s fundamental needs are thesame as ever, children, including the youngest children,are capable of learning more—and more complex—language, concepts, and skills than had been previouslythought (National Research Council 2000; NationalResearch Council & Institute of Medicine 2000; NationalResearch Council 2001; Committee for EconomicDevelopment 2002).

We now have a better understanding of the early foun-dations of knowledge in areas such as literacy, math-ematics, visual and performing arts, and science. Ineach of these areas, new research (for example, NAEYC& IRA 1998; National Research Council 1998; NAEYC &NCTM 2002) has begun to describe the sequences inwhich children become more knowledgeable and com-petent. This research is increasingly useful in designingand implementing early childhood curriculum. Well-planned, evidence-based curriculum, implemented byqualified teachers who promote learning in appropriateways, can contribute significantly to positive outcomesfor all children. Yet research on the effectiveness ofspecific curricula for early childhood remains limited,especially with respect to curriculum effects on specificdomains of development and learning and curriculumto support young children whose home language is notEnglish and children with disabilities.

3. State and federal policies have created a newfocus on early childhood standards, curriculum,

child assessment, and evaluation of earlychildhood programs.

Today, every state has K–12 standards specifyingwhat children are expected to know and be able to do invarious subject matter and/or developmental areas(Align to Achieve 2003). Head Start now has a ChildOutcomes Framework (Head Start Bureau 2001), and arecent survey (Scott-Little, Kagan, & Frelow 2003) foundthat 39 states had or were developing standards forchildren below kindergarten age. As in the K–12 stan-dards movement, states are beginning to link curricu-lum frameworks to early childhood standards (Scott-Little, Kagan, & Frelow 2003). Especially in the arena ofliteracy, both federal and state expectations emphasizethe need for “scientifically based research” to guidecurriculum adoption and evaluations of curriculumeffectiveness.

The trend toward systematic use of child assess-ments and program evaluations has also led to higherstakes being attached to these assessments—inprekindergarten and Head Start programs as well as inkindergarten and the primary grades, where stateaccountability systems often dominate instruction andassessment. State investments in pre-K programs oftencome with clear accountability expectations. At everylevel of education, in an increasingly high-stakesclimate, programs unable to demonstrate effectivenessin improving readiness or creating positive childoutcomes may be at risk of losing support.

4. Attention to early childhood education hassometimes led to misuses of curriculum,

assessment, and program evaluation.

Good intentions can backfire (Meisels 1992). Inresponse to expectations that all programs should havea formal or explicit curriculum, programs sometimesadopt curricula that are of poor quality; align poorlywith children’s age, culture, home language (Tabors1997; Fillmore & Snow 2000), and other characteristics;or focus on unimportant, intellectually shallow content(National Research Council 2001; Espinosa 2002). Inother cases, a curriculum may be well designed but maybe implemented with teaching practices ill suited toyoung children’s characteristics and capacities(Bredekamp & Copple 1997). And few programs,districts, or states that adopt a particular curriculumtrack to see whether that curriculum is beingimplemented as intended and with good earlychildhood pedagogy.

Assessment practices in many preschools, kindergar-tens, and primary grade programs have becomemismatched to children’s cultures or languages, ages,or developmental capacities. In an increasingly diversesociety, interpretations of assessment results may failto take into account the unique cultural aspects ofchildren’s learning and relationships. As with curricu-lum, assessment instruments often focus on a limitedrange of skills, causing teachers to narrow their curricu-lum and teaching practices (that is, to “teach to thetest”), especially when the stakes are high. An unin-tended result is often the loss of dedicated time forinstruction in the arts or other areas in which high-stakes tests are not given.

In the press for results and accountability, basic tenetsof appropriate assessment, as expressed by nationalprofessional organizations (for example, NASP 2002;AERA 2000; AERA, APA, & NCME 1999), are often vio-lated. Assessments or screening tools may fail to meetadequate technical standards (Glascoe & Shapiro

5

2002), or assessments designed for one purpose(such as to guide teaching strategies) may be usedfor entirely different and incompatible purposes(NAEYC & NAECS/SDE 2002; Scott-Little, Kagan, &Clifford 2003). An example is the use of screeningresults to evaluate program effectiveness or toexclude children from services.

Summary

In the years since the publication of NAEYC’s andNAECS/SDE’s original position statement on earlychildhood curriculum and assessment (1990), muchmore has become known about the power of high-quality curriculum, effective assessment practices, andongoing program evaluation to support better out-comes for young children. Yet the infrastructure of theearly childhood education system, within and outsidethe public schools, has not allowed this knowledge tobe fully used—resulting in curriculum, assessmentsystems, and program evaluation procedures that arenot of consistently high quality. An overarching concernis that these elements of high-quality early education—curriculum, child assessment, and program evalua-tion—are often addressed in disconnected and piece-meal fashion.

The promise of a truly integrated, effective system ofearly childhood curriculum, assessment, and programevaluation is great. Although much is not yet known,greater research knowledge exists than ever before, andpolicy makers are convinced that early education is thekey to later success, especially for our most vulnerablechildren. Despite disagreements about how best to usethis key, early childhood educators today have unprec-edented opportunities.

In taking advantage of these opportunities, clearprinciples and values are essential guides. Beforeturning to specific recommendations, the next sectionof this document proposes nine such principles.

Guiding Principles and Values

• Belief in civic and democratic valuesThe values of a democratic society guide the position

statement’s recommendations. Respect for others;equality, fairness, and justice; the ability to think criti-cally and creatively; and community involvement arevalued outcomes in early childhood programs. Deci-sions that affect young children, families, and programsinvolve stakeholders in democratic, respectful ways.

• Commitment to ethical behavior on behalf of childrenNAEYC’s Code of Ethical Conduct (NAEYC 1998) empha-

sizes that decisions about curriculum, assessment, andprogram evaluation must “first, do no harm”—never de-nying children access to services to which they are en-titled and always creating opportunities for children, fami-lies, and programs to experience beneficial results.• Use of important goals as guides to action

Clear, well-articulated goals that are developmentallyand educationally significant—including early learningstandards and program standards—direct the designand implementation of curriculum, assessment, andevaluation. These goals are public and are understoodby all those who have a stake in the curriculum/assessment/evaluation design and implementation.• Coordinated systems

The desired outcomes and content of the curriculum,the ways in which children’s progress is assessed, andthe evaluation of program effectiveness are coordinatedand connected in a positive, continuous way.• Support for children as individuals and as mem-bers of families, cultures, and communities

Curriculum, assessment, and program evaluationsupport children’s diversity, which includes not onlychildren’s ages, individual learning styles, and tempera-ments but also their culture, racial identity, language,and the values of their families and communities.• Respect for children’s abilities and differences

All children—whatever their abilities or disabilities—are respected and included in systems of early educa-tion. Curriculum, assessment, and program evaluationpromote the development and learning of children withand without disabilities.• Partnerships with families At all ages, but especially in the years from birththrough age eight, children benefit from close partner-ships and ongoing communication between theirfamilies and their educational programs.• Respect for evidence

An effective system of curriculum, assessment, andprogram evaluation rests on a strong foundation ofevidence. “Evidence” includes empirical research andwell-documented professional deliberation and consen-sus, with differing weights given to differing types ofevidence.• Shared accountability

NAEYC and NAECS/SDE believe that professionals areindeed accountable to the children, families, andcommunities they serve. Although many aspects ofchildren’s lives are outside the influence of early

6

childhood programs, staff and administrators—as wellas policy makers—must hold themselves accountablefor providing all children with opportunities to reachessential developmental and educational goals.

Recommendations

This section presents recommendations for each ofthree critical elements of an effective system: curricu-lum, child assessment, and program evaluation. Eachrecommendation is followed by a rationale or justifica-tion. Next are listed indicators of effectiveness—whatsomeone would be likely to see if the recommendationwere well implemented. Because the position statementaddresses the full birth–eight age range, appropriatedistinctions are made wherever possible about how therecommendation or related indicators would be imple-mented with infants and toddlers, preschoolers, andkindergarten-primary children. A set of frequently askedquestions is presented for each recommendation, anddevelopmental charts provide examples that furtherelaborate these points.

Curriculum

Key Recommendation

Implement curriculum that is thoughtfully planned,challenging, engaging, developmentally appropriate,culturally and linguistically responsive, comprehensive,and likely to promote positive outcomes for all youngchildren.

Rationale

Curriculum is more than a collection of enjoyableactivities. Curriculum is a complex idea containingmultiple components, such as goals, content, pedagogy,or instructional practices. Curriculum is influenced bymany factors, including society’s values, contentstandards, accountability systems, research findings,community expectations, culture and language, andindividual children’s characteristics.

Definitions and issues about the sources and pur-poses of curriculum have been debated for many years(Hyson 1996; Dahlberg, Moss, & Pence 1999; Marshall,Schubert, & Sears 2000; Goffin & Wilson 2001; Eisner2002). Whatever the definition, good, well-implementedearly childhood curriculum provides developmentallyappropriate support and cognitive challenges and,

therefore, is likely to lead to positive outcomes (Frede1998). A recurring theme in recent research syntheseshas been that curriculum in programs for infantsthrough the primary grades must be comprehensive,including attention to social and emotional competenceand positive attitudes or approaches to learning (Peth-Pierce 2001; Raver 2002). Another emphasis is on theimplementation of curricula providing cultural and lin-guistic continuity for young children and their families.

The position statement reflects the view that “cur-riculum that is goal oriented and incorporates conceptsand skills based on current research fosters children’slearning and development” (Commission on NAEYCEarly Childhood Program Standards and AccreditationCriteria 2003). But what should children learn throughthis curriculum? The answer is influenced by children’sages and contexts. For example, for babies and tod-dlers, the curriculum’s heart is relationships andinformal, language-rich, sensory interactions. Forsecond graders, relationships continue to be importantas a foundation for building competencies such asreading fluency and comprehension. And for youngchildren of all ages, the curriculum needs to build onand respond to their home languages and cultures.

Researchers have found that young children with andwithout disabilities benefit more from the curriculumwhen they are engaged or involved (Raspa, McWilliam,& Ridley 2001; NCES 2002). Particularly for youngerchildren, firsthand learning—through physical, mental,and social activity—is key. At every age from birththrough age eight (and beyond), play can stimulatechildren’s engagement, motivation, and lasting learning(Bodrova & Leong 2003). Learning is facilitated whenchildren can “choose from a variety of activities, decidewhat type of products they want to create, and engagein important conversations with friends” (Espinosa2002, 5).

Widespread agreement exists that curriculum—including early childhood curriculum—should be basedon evidence and evaluated for its effectiveness (Na-tional Research Council 2001). However, claims thatspecific curricula are research based—that is, evidenceexists that these curricula are effective—are often notsupported. A program can select a specific “research-based curriculum” for use with its enrolled children—confident that it is the right choice, when in reality thecurriculum was shown to be effective with children whoare older or younger, or who differ in culture or lan-guage, from the children for whom the curriculum isnow being adopted. Other programs or school districtsmay adopt a curriculum for one specific area, such asreading or mathematics, with little regard for how that

7

curriculum aligns with, or is conceptually consistentwith, other aspects of the program. The NationalResearch Council (2001) warns that such a piecemealapproach can result in a disconnected conglomerationof activities and teaching methods, lacking focus,coherence, or comprehensiveness.

However, a body of longitudinal evidence doesdescribe the long-term effects of some specific curricu-lum models or approaches—with benefits identified forcurricula that emphasize child initiation (Schweinhart &Weikart 1997; Marcon 1999, 2002) and curricula that areplanned, coherent, and well implemented (Frede 1998;National Research Council 2001). Evidence is alsoaccumulating about development, learning, and effec-tive early childhood curriculum in specific areas suchas language and literacy (Hart & Risley 1995;Whitehurst & Lonigan 1998; Dickinson & Tabors 2001)and mathematics (NAEYC & NCTM 2002). Despite thisevidence, there is still much we do not know. Theforthcoming results of several federally fundedprograms of research on early childhood curriculumand other studies may help educators make better-informed decisions when adopting or developingcurriculum. The goal is not to identify one “best”curriculum—there is no such thing—but rather toidentify what features of a curriculum may be mosteffective for which outcomes and under whichconditions.

Indicators of Effectiveness

• Children are active and engaged.

Children from babyhood through primary grades—and beyond—need to be cognitively, physically, so-cially, and artistically active. In their own ways, childrenof all ages and abilities can become interested andengaged, develop positive attitudes toward learning,and have their feelings of security, emotional compe-tence, and linkages to family and community supported.• Goals are clear and shared by all.

Curriculum goals are clearly defined, shared, andunderstood by all stakeholders (for example, programadministrators, teachers, and families). The curriculumand related activities and teaching strategies aredesigned to help achieve these goals in a unified,coherent way.• Curriculum is evidence-based.

The curriculum is based on evidence that is develop-mentally, culturally, and linguistically relevant for the

children who will experience the curriculum. It isorganized around principles of child development andlearning.• Valued content is learned through investigation, play,and focused, intentional teaching.

Children learn by exploring, thinking about, andinquiring about all sorts of phenomena. These experi-ences help children investigate “big ideas,” those thatare important at any age and are connected to laterlearning. Pedagogy or teaching strategies are tailored tochildren’s ages, developmental capacities, language andculture, and abilities or disabilities.• Curriculum builds on prior learning and experiences.

The content and implementation of the curriculumbuilds on children’s prior individual, age-related, andcultural learning, is inclusive of children with disabili-ties, and is supportive of background knowledge gainedat home and in the community. The curriculum sup-ports children whose home language is not English inbuilding a solid base for later learning.• Curriculum is comprehensive.

The curriculum encompasses critical areas of devel-opment, including children’s physical well-being andmotor development; social and emotional development;approaches to learning; language development; cogni-tion and general knowledge; and subject matter areassuch as science, mathematics, language, literacy, socialstudies, and the arts (more fully and explicitly for olderchildren).• Professional standards validate the curriculum’s subject-matter content.

When subject-specific curricula are adopted, theymeet the standards of relevant professional organiza-tions (for example, the American Alliance for Health,Physical Education, Recreation and Dance [AAHPERD],the National Association for Music Education [MENC];the National Council of Teachers of English [NCTE]; theNational Council of Teachers of Mathematics [NCTM];the National Dance Education Organization [NDEO]; theNational Science Teachers Association [NSTA]) and arereviewed and implemented so that they fit togethercoherently.• The curriculum is likely to benefit children.

Research and other evidence indicates that thecurriculum, if implemented as intended, will likely havebeneficial effects. These benefits include a wide rangeof outcomes. When evidence is not yet available, plansare developed to obtain this evidence.

8

1. What are curriculum goals?

The goals of a curriculum state the essential desiredoutcomes for children. When adopting a curriculum,it is important to analyze whether its goals are con-sistent with other goals of the early childhood pro-gram or with state or other early learning standards,and with program standards. Curriculum goalsshould support and be consistent with expectationsfor young children’s development and learning.

2. What is the connection between curriculumand activities for children?

Whether for toddlers or second graders, a good cur-riculum is more than a collection of activities. Thegoals and framework of the curriculum do suggest acoherent set of activities and teaching practiceslinked to standards or expectations—although not ina simple fashion: Good activities support multiplegoals. Together and over time, these activities andpractices will be likely to help all children develop andlearn the curriculum content. Standards and curricu-lum can give greater focus to activities, helping staffdecide how these activities may fit together to ben-efit children’s growth. Appropriate curriculum alsopromotes a balance between planned experiences—based on helping children progress toward meetingdefined goals—and experiences that emerge as out-growths of children’s interests or from unexpectedhappenings (for example, a new building is being builtin the neighborhood). While these experiences arenot planned, they are incorporated into the programin ways that comply with standards and curriculumgoals.

3. What are the most important things to con-sider in making a decision about adopting ordeveloping a curriculum?

It is important to consider whether the curriculum (asit is or as it might be adapted) fits well with(a) broader goals, standards, and program values(assuming that those have been thoughtfully devel-oped), (b) what research suggests are the significantpredictors of positive development and learning, (c)the sociocultural, linguistic, and individual character-istics of the children for whom the curriculum is in-

tended, and (d) the values and wishes of the familiesand community served by the program. While some-times it seems that a program’s decision to develop itsown curriculum would ensure the right fit, caution isneeded regarding a program’s ability to align its cur-riculum with the features of a high-quality curriculum(that is, to address the recommendation and indicatorsof effectiveness of the position statement). Consider-able expertise is needed to develop an effective cur-riculum—one that incorporates important outcomesand significant content and conforms with research onearly development and learning and other indicatorsnoted in the position statement—and not merely a col-lection of activities or lesson plans (see also FAQ #7in this section).

4. What should be the connection between curricu-lum for younger children and curriculum they willencounter as they get older?

Early childhood curriculum is much more than a scaled-back version of curriculum for older children. As em-phasized in Early Learning Standards (NAEYC &NAECS/SDE 2002), earlier versions of a skill may lookvery different from later versions. For example, onemight think that knowing the names of two U.S. statesat age four in preschool is an important predictor ofknowing all 50 states in fourth grade. However, know-ing two state names is a less important predictor thangaining fundamental spatial and geographic concepts.Resources, including those listed at the end of thisdocument, can help teachers and administrators be-come more aware of the curriculum in later years. Withthis knowledge, they can think and collaborate aboutways for earlier and later learning to connect. Commu-nication about these connections can also support chil-dren and parents as they negotiate the difficult transi-tions from birth–three to preschool programs and thento kindergarten and the primary grades.

5. Is there such a thing as curriculum for babiesand toddlers?

Indeed there is, but as the developmental chart aboutcurriculum suggests, curriculum for babies and toddlerslooks very different from curriculum for preschoolers or

Early Childhood CURRICULUM: Frequently asked questions

(continued on page 9)

9

first-grade children. High-quality infant/toddler pro-grams have clear goals, and they base their curricu-lum on knowledge of very early development. Thus acurriculum for children in the first years of life is focusedon relationships, communicative competencies, andexploration of the physical world, each of which is em-bedded in daily routines and experiences. High-qual-ity infant/toddler curriculum intentionally develops lan-guage, focusing on and building on the home language;promotes security and social competence; and encour-ages understanding of essential concepts about theworld. This lays the foundation for mathematics, sci-ence, social studies, literacy, and creative expressionwithout emphasizing disconnected learning experi-ences or formal lessons (Lally et al. 1995; Lally 2000;Semlak 2000).

6. When should the early childhood curriculumbegin to emphasize academics?

There is no clear dividing line between “academics” andother parts of a high-quality curriculum for young chil-dren (Hyson 2003a). Children are learning academicsfrom the time they are born. Even infants and toddlersare beginning—through play, relationships, and infor-mal opportunities—to develop the basis of later knowl-edge in areas such as mathematics, visual and per-forming arts, social studies, science, and other areasof learning. As children transition into K–3 education,however, it is appropriate for the curriculum to pay fo-cused attention to these and other subject matter ar-eas, while still emphasizing physical, social, emotional,cognitive, and language development, connectionsacross domains, and active involvement in learning.

7. Should programs use published curricula, or isit better for teachers to develop their own curricu-lum?

The quality of the curriculum—including its appropri-ateness for the children who will be experiencing it—should be the important question. If a published, com-mercially available curriculum—either a curriculum forone area such as literacy or mathematics or a compre-hensive curriculum—is consistent with the positionstatement’s recommendations and the program’s goalsand values, appears well suited to the children andfamilies served by the program, and can be imple-

mented effectively by staff, then it may be worth con-sidering, especially as a support for inexperiencedteachers. To make a well-informed choice, staff (andother stakeholders) need to identify their program’smission and values, consider the research and otherevidence about high-quality programs and curricula,and select a curriculum based on these understand-ings. Some programs may determine that in their situ-ation the best curriculum would be one developed spe-cifically for that program and the children and familiesit serves. In that case—if staff have the interest, exper-tise, and resources to develop a curriculum that in-cludes clearly defined goals, a system for ensuring thatthese goals are shared by stakeholders, a system fordetermining the beneficial effects of the curriculum, andother indicators of effectiveness—then the programmay conclude that it should take that route.

8. Is it all right to use one curriculum for mathemat-ics, another for science, another for language andliteracy, another for social skills, and still anotherfor music?

If curricula are adopted or developed for distinct sub-ject matter areas such as literature or mathematics,coherence and consistency are especially important.Are the goals and underlying philosophy of each cur-riculum consistent? What will it feel like for a child inthe program? Will staff need to behave differently asthey implement each curriculum? What professionaldevelopment will staff need to make these judgments?

9. What’s needed to implement a curriculumeffectively?

Extended professional development, often with coach-ing or mentoring, is a key to effective curriculum imple-mentation (National Research Council 2001). Well-qualified teachers who understand and support thecurriculum goals and methods are more likely to imple-ment curriculum effectively. So-called scripted orteacher-proof curricula tend to be narrow, conceptuallyweak, or intellectually shallow. Another key to successis assessment. Ongoing assessment of children’sprogress in relation to the curriculum goals gives staffa sense of how their approach may need to be alteredfor the whole group or for individual children.

Early Childhood CURRICULUM: FAQ (cont’d)

10

Assessment of Young Children

Key Recommendation

Make ethical, appropriate, valid, and reliable assess-ment a central part of all early childhood programs. Toassess young children’s strengths, progress, and needs,use assessment methods that are developmentallyappropriate, culturally and linguistically responsive,tied to children’s daily activities, supported by profes-sional development, inclusive of families, and con-nected to specific, beneficial purposes: (1) makingsound decisions about teaching and learning, (2)identifying significant concerns that may requirefocused intervention for individual children, and(3) helping programs improve their educational anddevelopmental interventions.

Rationale

Assessment components and purposes. Often peoplethink of assessment as formal testing only, but assess-ment has many components and many purposes.Assessment methods include observation, documenta-tion of children’s work, checklists and rating scales, andportfolios, as well as norm-referenced tests. Consensushas developed around the four primary and distinctivepurposes of early childhood assessment, best articu-lated in the work of the National Education Goals Panel(Shepard, Kagan, & Wurtz 1998). Issues concerning twoof these purposes are the focus of this section of theposition statement: (1) assessment to support learningand instruction and (2) assessment to identify childrenwho may need additional services (Kagan, Scott-Little,& Clifford 2003). Two other purposes—assessment forprogram evaluation and monitoring trends and assess-ment for high-stakes accountability—will be discussedin the next recommendation, on Program Evaluationand Accountability.

High-quality programs are “informed by ongoingsystematic, formal, and informal assessment approachesto provide information on children’s learning anddevelopment. These assessments occur within thecontext of reciprocal communications with families andwith sensitivity to the cultural contexts in which chil-dren develop” (Commission on NAEYC Early ChildhoodProgram Standards and Accreditation Criteria 2003, np).For young bilingual children, instructionally embeddedassessments using observational methods and samplesof children’s performance can provide a much fuller andmore accurate picture of children’s abilities than othermethods. Individually, culturally, and linguisticallyappropriate assessment of all children’s strengths,developmental status, progress, and needs provides

essential information to early childhood professionals asthey attempt to promote children’s development andlearning (Meisels & Atkins-Burnett 2000; Stiggins 2001,2002; McAfee & Leong 2002; Jones 2003).

When assessment is directed toward a narrow set ofskills, programs may ignore the very competencies thathave been shown to build a strong foundation for suc-cess in areas including but not limited to academics(National Research Council & Institute of Medicine 2000;Raver 2002). Furthermore, poor quality or poorly admin-istered assessments, or assessments that are culturallyinappropriate, may obscure children’s true intellectualcapacities. Many factors—anxiety, hunger, inability tounderstand the language of the instructions, cultur-ally learned hesitation in initiating conversation withadults, and so on—may influence a child’s perfor-mance, creating a gap between that performance and thechild’s actual ability, and causing staff to draw inaccu-rate conclusions that can limit the child’s future oppor-tunities.

Screening considerations. Research demonstrates thatearly identification and intervention for children with orat risk for disabilities can significantly affect outcomes(Shonkoff & Meisels 2000). Thus, early childhood pro-grams play an important part in helping to identify con-cerns. Brief screening measures have been shown to behelpful in selecting children who may need further evalu-ation (Meisels & Fenichel 1996), but only if the screen-ing tools meet high technical standards and if they arelinked to access to further professional assessment.

Considerations in using individual norm-referencedtests. In general, assessment specialists have urgedgreat caution in the use and interpretation of standard-ized tests of young children’s learning, especially in theabsence of complementary evidence and when thestakes are potentially high (National Research Council1999; Jones 2003; Scott-Little, Kagan, & Clifford 2003).All assessment activities should be guided by ethicalprinciples (NAEYC 1998) and professional standards ofquality (AERA, APA, & NCME 1999). The issues are mostpressing when individual norm-referenced tests arebeing considered as part of an assessment system. Inthose cases, the standards set forth in the joint state-ment of the American Educational Research Associa-tion, the American Psychological Association, and theNational Center for Measurement in Education (AERA,APA, & NCME 1999) provide essential technical guid-ance. The “Program Evaluation and Accountability”section of this revised position statement discussesthese issues in more detail.

11

Improving teachers’ and families’ assessment literacy.Teacher expertise is critical to successful assessmentsystems, yet such expertise is often lacking (Horton &Bowman 2002; Hyson 2003b; Scott-Little, Kagan, &Clifford 2003). Assessment literacy has been identifiedas a major gap in the preservice and inservice prepara-tion of teachers (Stiggins 1999, 2002; Barnett 2003 ).Families are frequently given too little informationabout the purposes and interpretation of assess-ments of their children’s development and learning(Popham 1999, 2000; Horton & Bowman 2002; Lynch& Hanson 2004).

Indicators of Effectiveness

• Ethical principles guide assessment practices.

Ethical principles underlie all assessment practices.Young children are not denied opportunities or ser-vices, and decisions are not made about children on thebasis of a single assessment.• Assessment instruments are used for their intendedpurposes.

Assessments are used in ways consistent with thepurposes for which they were designed. If the assess-ments will be used for additional purposes, they arevalidated for those purposes.• Assessments are appropriate for ages and other charac-teristics of children being assessed.

Assessments are designed for and validated for usewith children whose ages, cultures, home languages,socioeconomic status, abilities and disabilities, andother characteristics are similar to those of the childrenwith whom the assessments will be used.• Assessment instruments are in compliance with profes-sional criteria for quality.

Assessments are valid and reliable. Accepted profes-sional standards of quality are the basis for selection,use, and interpretation of assessment instruments,including screening tools. NAEYC and NAECS/SDEsupport and adhere to the measurement standards setforth by the American Educational Research Associa-tion, the American Psychological Association, and theNational Center for Measurement in Education (AERA,APA, & NCME 1999). When individual norm-referencedtests are used, they meet these guidelines.• What is assessed is developmentally and educationallysignificant.

The objects of assessment include a comprehensive,developmentally, and educationally important set ofgoals, rather than a narrow set of skills. Assessmentsare aligned with early learning standards, with programgoals, and with specific emphases in the curriculum.

• Assessment evidence is used to understand and improvelearning.

Assessments lead to improved knowledge aboutchildren. This knowledge is translated into improvedcurriculum implementation and teaching practices.Assessment helps early childhood professionalsunderstand the learning of a specific child or group ofchildren; enhance overall knowledge of child develop-ment; improve educational programs for young childrenwhile supporting continuity across grades and settings;and access resources and supports for children withspecific needs.• Assessment evidence is gathered from realistic settingsand situations that reflect children’s actual performance.

To influence teaching strategies or to identify chil-dren in need of further evaluation, the evidence used toassess young children’s characteristics and progress isderived from real-world classroom or family contextsthat are consistent with children’s culture, language,and experiences.

• Assessments use multiple sources of evidence gatheredover time.

The assessment system emphasizes repeated,systematic observation, documentation, and otherforms of criterion- or performance-oriented assessmentusing broad, varied, and complementary methods withaccomodations for children with disabilities.

• Screening is always linked to follow-up.

When a screening or other assessment identifiesconcerns, appropriate follow-up, referral, or otherintervention is used. Diagnosis or labeling is never theresult of a brief screening or one-time assessment.

• Use of individually administered, norm-referenced testsis limited.

The use of formal standardized testing and norm-referenced assessments of young children is limited tosituations in which such measures are appropriate andpotentially beneficial, such as identifying potentialdisabilities. (See also the indicator concerning the useof individual norm-referenced tests as part of programevaluation and accountability.)

• Staff and families are knowledgeable about assessment.

Staff are given resources that support their knowl-edge and skills about early childhood assessment andtheir ability to assess children in culturally and linguis-tically appropriate ways. Preservice and inservicetraining builds teachers’ and administrators’ “assess-ment literacy,” creating a community that sees assess-ment as a tool to improve outcomes for children.Families are part of this community, with regularcommunication, partnership, and involvement.

12

1. What is the connection between curriculum andassessment?

Curriculum and assessment are closely tied. Class-room- or home-based assessment tells teachers whatchildren are like and allows them to modify curriculumand teaching practices to best meet the children’sneeds. Curriculum also influences what is assessed andhow; for example, a curriculum that emphasizes thedevelopment of self-regulation should be accompaniedby assessments of the children’s ability to regulate theirattention, manage strong emotions, and work produc-tively without a great deal of external control.

2. What should teachers be assessing in theirclassrooms? When and why?

The answers to these questions depend, again, on theprogram’s goals and on the curriculum being used. Butall teachers need certain information in order to under-stand children’s individual, cultural, linguistic, and de-velopmental characteristics and to begin to recognizeand respond to any special needs or concerns. Themost important thing is to work with other staff andadministrators to develop a systematic plan for assess-ment over time, using authentic measures (those thatreflect children’s real-world activities and challenges)and focusing on outcomes that have been identified asimportant. The primary goal in every case is to makethe program (curriculum, teaching practices, and so on)as effective as possible so that every child benefits.

3. How is assessment different for children of vary-ing ages, cultures, languages, and abilities?

The younger the child, the more difficult it is to use as-sessment methods that rely on verbal ability, on fo-cused attention and cooperation, or on paper-and-pen-cil methods. The selection of assessments shouldinclude careful attention to the ages for which the as-sessment was developed. Even with older children (kin-dergarten–primary age), the results of single assess-ments are often unreliable for individuals, since childrenmay not understand the importance of “doing their best”or may be greatly influenced by fatigue, temporary poorhealth, or other distractions. Furthermore, in some cul-tures competition and individual accomplishment arediscouraged, making it difficult to validly assess young

children’s skills. For young children whose home lan-guage is not English, assessments conducted in En-glish produce invalid, misleading results. Finally, chil-dren with disabilities benefit from in-depth and ongoingassessment, including play-based assessment, to en-sure that their individual needs are being met. Whenchildren with disabilities participate in assessmentsused for typically developing classmates, the assess-ments need adaptation in order for all children to dem-onstrate their competence (Meisels & Atkins-Burnett2000; Sandall, McLean, & Smith 2000; McLean, Bailey,& Wolery 2004).

4. How should specific assessment tools or mea-sures be selected? Is it better to develop one’s ownassessments or to purchase them?

Thorough discussion of early learning standards, pro-gram goals and standards, and the curriculum that theprogram is using will guide selection of specific assess-ment measures. In a number of cases, curriculummodels are already linked to related assessments. Itis important to think systemically so that assessmentsaddress all important areas of development and learn-ing. This may seem overwhelming, but the same as-sessment tool or strategy often gives helpful informa-tion about multiple aspects of children’s development.Other important considerations are whether a particu-lar assessment tool or system will create undue bur-dens on staff or whether it will actually contribute to theirteaching effectiveness. Issues of technical adequacyare also important to examine, especially for assess-ments used for accountability purposes. Special atten-tion should be given to whether an assessment wasdeveloped for and tested with children from similarbackgrounds, languages, and cultures as those forwhom the assessment will be used. When selectingassessments for children whose home language is notEnglish, additional questions arise; for example, are theassessment instruments available in the primary lan-guages of the children who are to be assessed? Giventhese challenges, it seems tempting to develop an as-sessment tailored to the unique context of a particularprogram. However, beyond informal documentation,the difficulty of designing good assessments multiplies.Those who plan to develop their own assessment tools

Child ASSESSMENT: Frequently asked questions

(continued on page 13)

13

need to be fully aware of the challenges of standardiz-ing and validating these assessments.

5. What is screening and how should it be used?

Screening is a quickly administered assessment usedto identify children who may benefit from more in-depthassessment. Although screening tools are brief andappear simple, they must meet strict technical stan-dards for test construction and be culturally and linguis-tically relevant. Only staff with sufficient training shouldconduct screening; families should be involved as im-portant sources of information about the child; and,when needed, there should always be referrals to fur-ther specialized assessment and intervention. Screen-ing is only a first step. Screening may be used to iden-tify children who should be observed further for apossible delay or problem. However, screening shouldnot be used to diagnose children as having specialneeds, to prevent children from entering a program, orto assign children to a specific intervention solely onthe basis of the screening results. Additionally, screen-ing results should not be used as indicators of programeffectiveness.

6. What kind of training do teachers and other staffneed to conduct assessments well?

Professional development is key to effective child as-sessment. Positive attitudes about assessment and“assessment literacy” (knowledge of assessment prin-ciples, issues, and tools) are developed through col-laboration and teamwork, in which all members of an

early childhood program come to agree on desiredgoals, methods, and processes for assessing children’sprogress. In addition, preservice programs in two- andfour-year higher education institutions should providestudents with research-based information and oppor-tunities to learn and practice observation, documenta-tion, and other forms of classroom-level assessment(Hyson 2003b). Understanding the purposes and limi-tations of early childhood norm-referenced tests, includ-ing their use with children with disabilities, is also partof assessment literacy, even for those not trained toadminister such tests.

7. How should families be involved inassessment?

Ethically, families have a right to be informed about theassessment of their children. Families’ own perspec-tives about their child are an important resource forstaff. Additionally, families of young children with dis-abilities have a legal right to be involved in assessmentdecisions (IDEA 1997). Early childhood program staffand administrators share the results of assessments—whether informal observations or more formal test re-sults—with families in ways that are clear, respectful,culturally responsive, constructive, and use the lan-guage that families are most comfortable with.

Child ASSESSMENT: FAQ (cont’d)

14

Program Evaluation and Accountability

Key Recommendation

Regularly evaluate early childhood programs in light ofprogram goals, using varied, appropriate, conceptuallyand technically sound evidence to determine the extentto which programs meet the expected standards ofquality and to examine intended as well as unintendedresults.

Rationale

With increased public investments in early childhoodeducation come expectations that programs should beaccountable for producing positive results (Scott-Little,Kagan, & Clifford 2003). The results of carefully designedprogram evaluations can influence better education foryoung children and can identify social problems thatrequire public policy responses if children are to benefit.Program evaluations vary in scope from a relativelyinformal, ongoing evaluation that a child care centermight conduct to improve its services, to large scalestudies of the impact of statewide prekindergarteninitiatives (Gilliam & Zigler 2000; Schweinhart 2003), todistrict and statewide evaluations of children’s progressin the early grades of school. As part of this effort,program monitoring is an important tool for judging thequality of implementation and modifying how theprogram is being implemented.

The higher the stakes for programs and public invest-ments, the more critical and rigorous should be thestandards for evaluation design, instrumentation, andanalysis, although this is not always the case (Henry2003; Scott-Little, Kagan, & Clifford 2003). Evaluationspecialists (for example, Shepard, Kagan, & Wurtz 1998;Jones 2003) emphasize that the goals of programevaluation are different from the goals of classroom-levelassessment intended to improve teaching and learning.These specialists further emphasize that many instru-ments originally designed for one purpose cannot bevalidly used for other purposes. When such efforts areundertaken, special attention is needed to issues ofsampling and aggregation (Horm-Wingerd, Winter, &Plocfchan 2000; Scott-Little, Kagan, & Clifford 2003).

Of particular importance is the issue of alignment—inthis case, alignment of evaluation instruments with theidentified goals of the program and with the curriculumor intervention that is being evaluated. Mismatchesbetween program goals and evaluation design andinstruments may lead to erroneous conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of particular interventions (Yoshikawa& Zigler 2000; Muenchow 2003).

More and more states are using data about children’soutcomes as part of a system to evaluate the effective-ness of prekindergarten and other programs. In thisclimate, clear guidelines are essential—guidelines aboutthe technical properties of the measures to be used aswell as the place of child-level data within a largersystem that includes other data sources, such asassessments of classroom quality, parent interviews, orcommunity-level data (Love 2003). Several issues havebeen discussed extensively: (1) the risk of misusingchild outcome data to penalize programs serving themost vulnerable children, especially when no informa-tion is available about the gains children have madewhile in the program (Muenchow 2003); (2) the poten-tial misuse of individually administered, norm-refer-enced tests with very young children as a substitute for,and as the sole indicator of, program effectiveness(Yoshikawa & Zigler 2000); (3) the risk of using datafrom assessments designed for English-speaking,European American children to draw conclusions aboutlinguistically and culturally diverse groups of children;and (4) the risk of conducting poor quality evaluationsbecause little investment has been made in training,technical assistance, and data analysis capabilities. Anyeffective system of program evaluation and accountabil-ity must take these issues into consideration.

Indicators of Effectiveness

• Evaluation is used for continuous improvement.

Programs undertake regular evaluation, includingself-evaluation, to document the extent to which theyare achieving desired results, with the goal of engagingin continuous improvement. Evaluations focus onprocesses and implementation as well as outcomes.Over time, evidence is gathered that program evalua-tions do influence specific improvements.• Goals become guides for evaluation.

Evaluation designs and measures are guided by goalsidentified by the program, by families and other stake-holders, and by the developers of a program or curricu-lum, while also allowing the evaluation to reveal unin-tended consequences.• Comprehensive goals are used.

The program goals used to guide the evaluation arecomprehensive, including goals related to families,teachers and other staff, and community as well aschild-oriented goals that address a broad set of devel-opmental and learning outcomes.• Evaluations use valid designs.

Programs are evaluated using scientifically validdesigns, guided by a “logic model” that describes ways

15

in which the program sees its interventions having bothmedium- and longer-term effects on children and, insome cases, families and communities.• Multiple sources of data are available.

An effective evaluation system should includemultiple measures, including program data, childdemographic data, information about staff qualifica-tions, administrative practices, classroom qualityassessments, implementation data, and other informa-tion that provides a context for interpreting the resultsof child assessments.• Sampling is used when assessing individual children aspart of large-scale program evaluation.

When individually administered, norm-referencedtests of children’s progress are used as part of programevaluation and accountability, matrix sampling is used(that is, administered only to a systematic sample ofchildren) so as to diminish the burden of testing onchildren and to reduce the likelihood that data will beinappropriately used to make judgments about indi-vidual children.• Safeguards are in place if standardized tests are used aspart of evaluations.

When individually administered, norm-referencedtests are used as part of program evaluation, they mustbe developmentally and culturally appropriate for theparticular children in the program, conducted in the

language children are most comfortable with, withother accommodations as appropriate, valid in terms ofthe curriculum, and technically sound (includingreliability and validity). Quality checks on data areconducted regularly, and the system includes multipledata sources collected over time.• Children’s gains over time are emphasized.

When child assessments are used as part of programevaluation, the primary focus is on children’s gains orprogress as documented in observations, samples ofclassroom work, and other assessments over theduration of the program. The focus is not just onchildren’s scores upon exit from the program.• Well-trained individuals conduct evaluations.

Program evaluations, at whatever level or scope, areconducted by well-trained individuals who are able toevaluate programs in fair and unbiased ways. Self-assessment processes used as part of comprehensiveprogram evaluation follow a valid model. Assessortraining goes beyond single workshops and includesongoing quality checks. Data are analyzed systemati-cally and can be quantified or aggregated to provideevidence of the extent to which the program is meetingits goals.• Evaluation results are publicly shared.

Families, policy makers, and other stakeholders havethe right to know the results of program evaluations.

PROGRAM EVALUATION and ACCOUNTABILITY:Frequently asked questions

1. What is the purpose of evaluating early child-hood programs?The primary purpose of program evaluation is to im-prove the quality of education and other services pro-vided to young children and their families.

2. What is accountability?

The term accountability refers to the responsibility thatprograms have to deliver what they have been de-signed to do and, in most cases, what they have beenfunded to do. Accountability usually is emphasizedwhen programs such as prekindergartens, publicschool programs, or Head Start have received local,state, or federal funds. In those cases the public has alegitimate interest in receiving information about the re-sults obtained.

3. What standards of quality should be used inevaluating programs that serve young children?

Attention should be given to the goals that the programitself has identified as important. National organizations(such as NAEYC through its accreditation standardsand criteria), state departments of education, and oth-ers have developed more general standards of qual-ity. In addition, comprehensive observation instru-ments and other rating scales are widely used toobtain data on program quality. The advantage ofusing such measures, or participating in a national ac-creditation system, is that the program is evaluatedagainst a broad set of criteria that have been devel-oped with expert input.

(continued on page 16)

16

4. Is it necessary for all programs serving youngchildren to be evaluated?

Programs differ in size, scope, and sponsorship. Forsome, regular evaluation is a requirement and condi-tion of continued support. However, all programs serv-ing young children and their families should undergosome kind of regular evaluation in order to engage incontinuous self-study, reflection, and improvement. Inlarge-scale state assessments (for example, of stateprekindergarten programs), some data may be col-lected from all programs, while a smaller sample mayparticipate in an intensive scientific evaluation with ap-propriate comparison groups (Schweinhart 2003).

5. What components should a program evaluationinclude?

Evaluation should always begin with a review of theprogram’s goals and, where relevant, its mandatedscope and mission. In every case the evaluationshould address all components of the program asdesigned and as delivered. In other words, evalua-tion should include attention to the processes bywhich services and educational programs aredelivered as well as to the outcomes or results.Outcomes, especially child outcomes, cannot beunderstood without knowing how effectively educa-tional and other services were actually implemented.

6. Who should conduct program evaluations?

This depends on the scope and purpose of theevaluation. In some cases, program staff themselvesare able to gather the information needed for reviewand improvement. However, greater objectivity isobtained when evaluations are conducted by others,often through in-depth interviews or discussions withstaff and families. In high-stakes situations, it is notdesirable for those who have a direct investment inthe outcome of the evaluation to be involved incollecting and analyzing data.

7. What kinds of support are needed to conduct agood evaluation?

Adequate resources are essential, so that programevaluation does not drain resources from the actualdelivery of services. Consultation about the design ofthe evaluation is helpful, as is assistance in gatheringand interpreting data. Print and Web-based resourcesare available to those just getting started in thinkingabout program evaluation (ACYF 1997; Gilliam & Leiter2003; McNamara 2003; Stake 2003). Support systemsor facilitation projects are available to help programsthat are preparing for accreditation or other evaluativereviews.

8. How should data gathered in a program evalua-tion be analyzed?

Once again, the purpose of the evaluation and thescope of the program and the evaluation itself will in-fluence the answer to this question. Both quantitativeand qualitative methods are appropriate and useful,depending on the questions being asked. Returning tothe central questions of the evaluation will guide analy-sis decisions, since the results will help answer thosequestions.

9. How should information from a program evalu-ation be used?

As described earlier, program evaluation data are in-tended to improve program quality. In an open process,results are shared with stakeholders, who may includefamilies, staff, community members, funders, and oth-ers. Objective discussion of strengths and needs in lightof the program’s goals and mission will help guide de-cisions about changes that would create even higherquality and more effective service delivery.

PROGRAM EVALUATION and ACCOUNTABILITY: FAQ (cont’d)

17

Data from program monitoring and evaluation, aggre-gated appropriately and based on reliable measures,should be made available and accessible to the public.

Creating Change through Support

for Programs

Implementing the preceding recommendations forcurriculum, child assessment, and program evaluationrequires a solid foundation of support. Calls for betterresults and greater accountability from programs forchildren in preschool, kindergarten, and the primarygrades have not been backed up by essential supports.All early childhood programs need greater resourcesand supportive public policies to allow the positionstatement’s recommendations to have their intendedeffects.

The overarching need is to create an integrated, well-financed system of early care and education that hasthe capacity to support learning and development in allchildren, including children living in poverty, childrenwhose home language is not English, and children withdisabilities. Unlike many other countries (OECD 2001),the United States continues to have a fragmentedsystem for educating children from birth through ageeight, under multiple auspices, with greatly varyinglevels of support, and with inadequate communicationand collaboration (Lombardi 2003). Several examplesillustrate the kinds of supports that are needed.

Teachers as the key. As expectations for professionalpreparation and for implementing high-quality curricu-lum and assessment systems rise (National Institute onEarly Childhood Development and Education 2000;National Research Council 2001), the early childhoodfield faces persistent low wages and high turnover(National Research Council 2001; Whitebook et al. 2001;Quality Counts 2002; Lombardi 2003). Yet researchcontinues to underscore the role of formal educationand specialized training in producing positive outcomesfor children (National Research Council 2001), as wellas less tangible teacher qualifications such as curiosityabout children, willingness to engage in collaborativeinquiry, and skilled communication with culturally andlinguistically diverse families and administrators.Finding and keeping these highly qualified profession-als, and ensuring a diverse and inclusive work force,will require significant public investment.

Standards for preparing new teachers. NAEYC’sstandards for early childhood professional preparation(Hyson 2003b) describe the knowledge, skills, and dis-positions that higher education programs should de-

velop in those preparing to teach young children. Thosestandards are fully consistent with and support theposition statement’s recommendations concerning cur-riculum and assessment. Expanded professional devel-opment resources will help better prepare higher edu-cation faculty to develop these competencies, usingcurrent, evidence-based information and practices.Strong accreditation systems create incentives for insti-tutions to align their two-year, four-year, and graduateprograms with these kinds of national standards.

The value of ongoing professional development.Although not replacing formal education, ongoingprofessional development is another key to helping staffimplement evidence-based, effective curriculum andassessment systems for all children, responding tochildren’s diverse needs, cultures, languages, and lifesituations. All staff—paraprofessionals as well asteachers and administrators—need access to profes-sional development and to professional time andopportunities for collaboration that enable them todevelop, select, implement, and engage in ongoingcritique of curriculum and assessment practices thatmeet young children’s learning and developmentalneeds. Time and resources for collaborative profes-sional development now are often limited, both inpublic schools and in child care settings.

Research has identified many characteristics ofeffective staff development (National Research Council2000; NAESP 2001; NSDC 2001; Education World 2003),yet much “training” still consists of one-time workshopswith little follow-up, coaching, or mentoring (NationalResearch Council 2000). The design and delivery ofprofessional development often ignore the diversity ofadult learners who vary in prior experience, culture,and education. In addition, little time is available forprogram staff—teachers, administrators, and others—to meet around critical issues of curriculum andassessment, or to prepare for program evaluations in athoughtful way (National Research Council 2000). Andonce program evaluations are completed and resultsare available, public policies often fail to supportneeded improvements and expansion of services at theprogram, district, or state level—especially if the costsof the assessments themselves are absorbing resourcesneeded in cash-strapped states and cities (Muenchow2003).

Even well-qualified staff need ongoing, job-embeddedprofessional development to help them better under-stand the curriculum, adapt curriculum to meet thelearning needs of culturally and linguistically diversechildren and children with disabilities, and design moreeffective approaches to working with all children. A keyissue is creating genuine “learning communities” of

18

staff, within and across programs, who can support andlearn from one another and from the wider professionalenvironment as they implement integrated systems ofcurriculum and assessment. Resources beyond earlyeducation settings (for example, community culturaland civic resources such as arts organizations andlibraries) can be tapped to supplement and enrich staffprofessional development opportunities.

Administrators’ needs. Whether they are elementaryschool principals, child care directors, or Head Startcoordinators, administrators hold the key to effectivesystems of curriculum, assessment, and program evalu-ation. Administrators are often the primary decisionmakers in adopting curriculum and assessment sys-tems, arranging for staff development, and planningprogram evaluations. For administators, intensive and

ongoing professional development is essential—oftenparticipating in the same training provided to staff tocreate a shared frame of reference. This professionaldevelopment needs to address administrators’ variedbackgrounds, work settings, and needs. For example,some elementary school administrators have not yethad opportunities to gain insights into the learning anddevelopmental characteristics of young children. Oth-ers may be well grounded in infant/toddler or preschooleducation yet have had little opportunity to communi-cate with and collaborate with other administratorswhose programs serve children as they transition fromHead Start or child care into public schools.

A shared commitment. As these examples show,many challenges face those who want to provide allyoung children with high-quality curriculum, assess-ment, and evaluation of early childhood programs.Public commitment, along with significant investmentsin a well-financed system of early childhood educationand in other components of services for young childrenand their families, will make it possible to implementthese recommendations fully and effectively.

Developmental Charts

Although the recommendations in the position state-ment are applicable to all programs serving childrenfrom birth through age eight, some of the specifics maydiffer. Therefore, the next section contains developmen-tal charts that provide brief but not exhaustive ex-amples of ways in which each recommendation of theposition statement would be implemented in programsfor infants and toddlers, preschoolers, and kindergar-ten-primary age children.

The following charts are included:

• Curriculum in Programs for Infants, Toddlers, Pre-schoolers, Kindergartners, and Primary Grade Children• Assessment in Programs for Infants, Toddlers, Pre-schoolers, Kindergartners, and Primary Grade Children• Program Evaluation and Accountability in Programsfor Infants, Toddlers, Preschoolers, Kindergartners, andPrimary Grade Children

Position StatementRevisions Committee

Lindy Buch, Co-chairMaurice Sykes, Co-chairSusan AndersenElena BodrovaJerlean DanielLinda EspinosaDominic GulloMarlene HenriquesJacqueline JonesMary Louise JonesDeborah LeongAnn LevyChristina Lopez MorganJoyce StaplesMarilou Hyson, NAEYC StaffPeter Pizzolongo, NAEYC Staff

19

Goa

ls fo

cus

on c

hild

ren’

s de

velo

pmen

t as

they

lear

n ab

out

them

selv

es a

nd o

ther

s, a

s w

ell a

s w

ays

to c

omm

unic

ate,

thin

k,an

d us

e th

eir m

uscl

es.

Goa

ls fo

r inf

ants

add

ress

sec

urity

, res

pons

ive

inte

ract

ions

with

care

give

rs, a

nd e

xplo

ratio

n.

Goa

ls fo

r to

ddle

rs a

ddre

ss in

depe

nden

ce, n

eed

for

cont

rol,

disc

over

y, a

nd b

egin

ning

soc

ial i

nter

actio

ns.

Goa

ls fo

cus

on c

hild

ren’

s ex

plor

atio

n, in

quiry

, and

exp

andi

ngvo

cabu

larie

s.

Goa

ls a

ddre

ss c

hild

ren’

s ph

ysic

al w

ell-b

eing

and

mot

or d

evel

-op

men

t; so

cial

and

em

otio

nal d

evel

opm

ent;

appr

oach

es to

lear

ning

; lan

guag

e de

velo

pmen

t; an

d co

gniti

on a

nd g

ener

alkn

owle

dge.

Expe

rienc

es p

rovi

de fo

r kno

wle

dge

and

skill

lear

ning

in lit

erac

y,m

athe

mat

ics,

sci

ence

, soc

ial s

tudi

es, a

nd th

e vi

sual

and

per

-fo

rmin

g ar

ts.

CU

RR

ICU

LUM

in p

rogr

ams

for

infa

nts,

tod

dler

s,pr

esch

oole

rs, k

inde

rgar

tner

s, a

nd p

rim

ary

grad

e ch

ildre

n

Infants/Toddlers

Preschoolers

Kindergarten/Primary

POSI

TIO

N S

TATE

MEN

T R

ECO

MM

END

ATIO

N:

Impl

emen

t cur

ricul

um th

at is

thou

ghtfu

lly p

lann

ed, c

hal-

leng

ing,

eng

agin

g, d

evel

opm

enta

lly a

ppro

pria

te, c

ultu

rally

and

lingu

istic

ally

resp

onsi

ve, c

ompr

ehen

sive

, and

likel

y to

prom

ote

posi

tive

outc

omes

for a

ll yo

ung

child

ren.

Goa

ls fo

cus

on c

hild

ren’

s em

erge

nt k

now

ledg

e an

d sk

ills in

all

subj

ect m

atte

r are

as, i

nclu

ding

lang

uage

and

liter

acy,

mat

hem

at-

ics,

sci

ence

, soc

ial s

tudi

es, h

ealth

, phy

sica

l edu

catio

n, a

nd th

evi

sual

and

per

form

ing

arts

.

Goa

ls c

ontin

ue to

add

ress

all

deve

lopm

enta

l are

as in

clud

ing

soci

oem

otio

nal d

evel

opm

ent.

and

appr

oach

es to

lear

ning

(“ha

b-its

of m

ind”

).

Curr

icul

um th

at is

thou

ghtfu

lly p

lann

ed: W

hate

ver t

he c

hild

ren’

s ag

es, c

urric

ulum

goa

ls li

nk w

ith im

porta

nt d

evel

-op

men

tal t

asks

and

are

com

preh

ensi

ve in

sco

pe. T

each

ing

stra

tegi

es a

re ta

ilore

d to

chi

ldre

n’s

ages

, dev

elop

men

tal

capa

citie

s, la

ngua

ge a

nd c

ultu

re, a

nd a

bilit

ies

or d

isab

ilitie

s. A

maj

or s

hift

as c

hild

ren

mov

e in

to k

inde

rgar

ten

and

the

prim

ary

grad

es is

tow

ard

grea

ter f

ocus

on

subj

ect m

atte

r are

as, w

ithou

t ign

orin

g th

eir d

evel

opm

enta

l fou

ndat

ions

.

Curr

icul

um th

at is

cha

lleng

ing

and

enga

ging

: For

all

ages

the

curri

culu

m le

ads

child

ren

from

whe

re th

ey a

re to

new

acco

mpl

ishm

ents

whi

le m

aint

aini

ng th

eir i

nter

est a

nd a

ctiv

e in

volv

emen

t. C

onte

nt th

at is

eng

agin

g fo

r chi

ldre

n of

diff

eren

tag

es c

hang

es w

ith d

evel

opm

ent a

nd w

ith n

ew e

xper

ienc

es, r

equi

ring

care

ful o

bser

vatio

n an

d ad

apta

tion.

Chi

ldre

n ca

n us

e th

eir w

hole

bod

ies

and

thei

r sen

ses

as th

eym

anip

ulat

e to

ys a

nd o

ther

saf

e ob

ject

s an

d en

gage

in p

lay

alon

e, w

ith a

prim

ary

care

give

r, an

d at

tim

es w

ith o

r nea

r oth

erin

fant

s.

Chi

ldre

n’s

enth

usia

sm fo

r exp

lorin

g is

sup

porte

d by

mat

chin

gth

eir i

nter

ests

with

cha

lleng

ing

curri

cula

.

For t

oddl

ers,

cur

ricul

um a

lso

focu

ses

on th

eir e

mer

ging

abi

li-tie

s to

pla

y w

ith o

ther

chi

ldre

n.

Cur

ricul

um fa

cilit

ates

chi

ldre

n’s

cons

truct

ion

of k

now

ledg

eth

roug

h th

eir i

nter

actio

ns w

ith m

ater

ials

, eac

h ot

her,

and

adul

ts.

Cur

ricul

um p

rom

otes

exp

erie

nces

in w

hich

chi

ldre

n’s

thin

king

mov

es fr

om th

e si

mpl

e to

the

com

plex

, fro

m th

e co

ncre

te to

the

abst

ract

.

Cur

ricul

um p

rovi

des

oppo

rtuni

ties

for c

hild

ren

to in

itiat

e ac

tivi-

ties,

as

wel

l as

for t

each

er in

itiat

ion

and

scaf

fold

ing.

Cur

ricul

um l

eads

to

child

ren’

s re

cogn

ition

of

thei

r ow

nac

hiev

emen

ts.

Cur

ricul

um p

rom

otes

chi

ldre

n’s

deve

lopi

ng a

ttitu

des

as “

lear

n-er

s”—

usin

g th

eir c

urio

sity

, cre

ativ

ity, a

nd in

itiat

ive.

Cur

ricul

um p

rovi

des

expe

rienc

es in

whi

ch c

hild

ren

use

oral

and

writ

ten

lang

uage

, mat

hem

atic

al a

nd s

cien

tific

thin

king

, and

inve

s-tig

ator

y sk

ills to

bui

ld a

kno

wle

dge

base

acr

oss

disc

iplin

es a

ndex

pand

thei

r ski

lls re

perto

ire.

Cur

ricu

lum

lea

ds t

o ch

ildre

n’s

reco

gniti

on o

f th

eir

own

com

pete

nce.

(cha

rt c

ontin

ued

on p

age

20)

Th

e in

form

atio

n in

th

is c

har

t is

bas

ed o

n t

he

reco

mm

end

atio

ns

of

the

NA

EY

C-N

AE

CS/

SDE

Po

siti

on

Sta

tem

ent

on

Cu

rric

ulu

m, A

sses

smen

t, a

nd

Pro

gram

Eva

luat

ion

(w

ww

.nae

yc.o

rg/

reso

urc

es/p

osi

tio

n_s

tate

men

ts/p

scap

e.p

df)

. Th

e ch

art

pro

vid

es e

xam

ple

s o

f w

ays

inw

hic

h t

he

reco

mm

end

atio

ns

of

the

NA

EY

C-N

AE

CS/

SDE

Po

siti

on

Sta

tem

ent

on

Cu

rric

u-

lum

, Ass

essm

ent,

an

d P

rogr

am E

valu

atio

n c

an b

e im

ple

men

ted

in p

rogr

ams

for

infa

nts

/to

dd

lers

, pre

sch

oo

lers

, an

d k

ind

erga

rten

/pri

mar

y ag

e ch

ildre

n. T

he

exam

ple

s ca

n b

est

be

un

der

sto

od

wit

hin

th

e co

nte

xt o

f th

e fu

ll p

osi

tio

n s

tate

men

t.

20

CU

RR

ICU

LU

M c

har

t (c

on

t’d

)

Curr

icul

um th

at is

com

preh

ensi

ve: W

hate

ver t

he c

hild

ren’

s ag

es, t

he c

urric

ulum

atte

nds

to a

bro

ad ra

nge

of d

evel

opm

enta

l and

lear

ning

out

com

es—

acro

ss d

omai

ns a

nd s

ubje

ct m

atte

r are

as a

nd in

clud

ing

expe

rienc

es th

at p

rom

ote

child

ren’

s no

nvio

lent

beh

av-

ior a

nd c

onfli

ct re

solu

tion.

For

old

er c

hild

ren,

the

curri

culu

m p

ays

grea

ter a

ttent

ion

to s

peci

fic c

onte

nt a

reas

but

with

out e

ver i

gnor

ing

som

e do

mai

ns in

favo

r of a

nar

row

set

of o

ther

out

com

es.

Cur

ricul

um in

corp

orat

es c

hild

ren’

s re

latio

nshi

ps w

ith t

heir

care

give

rs a

nd ro

utin

es (e

.g.,

slee

ping

, dia

perin

g/to

iletin

g) a

sop

portu

nitie

s fo

r le

arni

ng, a

s w

ell a

s th

roug

h ex

perie

nces

inw

hich

chi

ldre

n pl

ay w

ith o

bjec

ts, t

heir

care

give

rs, a

nd (i

ncre

as-

ingl

y) e

ach

othe

r.

Cur

ricul

um p

rovi

des

a co

ntex

t in

whi

ch te

ache

rs u

se th

eir

know

ledg

e ab

out e

ach

child

to p

lan

oppo

rtuni

ties

for l

earn

ing

acro

ss d

omai

ns—

phys

ical

wel

l-bei

ng a

nd m

otor

dev

elop

men

t;so

cial

and

em

otio

nal d

evel

opm

ent;

appr

oach

es to

lear

ning

;la

ngua

ge d

evel

opm

ent;

and

cogn

ition

and

gen

eral

kno

wle

dge.

Cur

ricul

um fa

cilit

ates

chi

ldre

n’s

lear

ning

thro

ugh

indi

vidu

al a

ndsm

all a

nd la

rge

grou

p ex

perie

nces

that

pro

mot

e ph

ysic

al w

ell-

bein

g an

d m

otor

dev

elop

men

t; so

cial

and

em

otio

nal d

evel

op-

men

t; ap

proa

ches

to le

arni

ng; l

angu

age

deve

lopm

ent,

incl

ud-

ing

seco

nd-la

ngua

ge d

evel

opm

ent;

and

cogn

ition

and

gen

eral

know

ledg

e.

Cur

ricul

um p

rovi

des

a co

ntex

t in

whi

ch c

hild

ren

lear

n th

roug

hm

eani

ngfu

l eve

ryda

y ex

perie

nces

, inc

ludi

ng p

lay.

With

in th

isco

ntex

t, va

rious

aca

dem

ic d

isci

plin

es a

re a

ddre

ssed

—in

clud

-in

g m

athe

mat

ics,

liter

acy,

sci

ence

, soc

ial s

tudi

es, a

nd th

e ar

ts.

Cur

ricul

um a

nd r

elat

ed in

stru

ctio

n ar

e in

crea

sing

ly fo

cuse

d on

help

ing

child

ren

acqu

ire d

eepe

r und

erst

andi

ng o

f inf

orm

atio

n an

dsk

ills in

sub

ject

are

as (e

.g.,

lang

uage

and

liter

acy,

sci

ence

, mat

h-em

atic

s, s

ocia

l stu

dies

, and

vis

ual a

nd p

erfo

rmin

g ar

ts) w

ithin

aco

mpr

ehen

sive

set

of d

evel

opm

enta

l out

com

es.

Cur

ricul

um h

elps

chi

ldre

n re

cogn

ize

the

conn

ectio

ns b

etw

een

and

acro

ss d

isci

plin

es a

nd d

omai

ns.

Cur

ricul

um-b

ased

exp

erie

nces

enc

ompa

ss a

var

iety

of a

ctiv

est

rate

gies

in w

hich

indi

vidu

als

or s

mal

l gro

ups

expl

ore,

inqu

ire,

disc

over

, dem

onst

rate

, and

sol

ve p

robl

ems.

Curr

icul

um th

at is

dev

elop

men

tally

app

ropr

iate

and

cul

tura

lly a

nd li

ngui

stic

ally

resp

onsi

ve: W

hate

ver t

he c

hild

ren’

s ag

es,

curri

culu

m fi

ts w

ell w

ith th

eir d

evel

opm

enta

l leve

ls, a

bilit

ies

and

disa

bilit

ies,

indi

vidu

al c

hara

cter

istic

s, fa

milie

s an

d co

mm

uniti

es, a

ndcu

ltura

l con

text

s. C

urric

ulum

sup

ports

edu

catio

nal e

quity

for c

hild

ren

who

are

lear

ning

a s

econ

d la

ngua

ge. C

urric

ulum

for y

oung

erch

ildre

n m

akes

cul

tura

l con

nect

ions

prim

arily

thro

ugh

rela

tions

hips

, dai

ly ro

utin

es, a

nd “r

itual

s”; o

lder

chi

ldre

n be

nefit

from

mor

eex

plic

it in

corp

orat

ion

of c

ultu

rally

rele

vant

mat

eria

ls a

nd fr

om to

pic-

cent

ered

as

wel

l as

inte

grat

ed le

arni

ng o

ppor

tuni

ties.

Cur

ricul

um a

ddre

sses

the

wid

e va

riatio

ns in

infa

nts’

and

tod-

dler

s’ in

tere

sts,

tem

pera

men

ts, a

nd p

atte

rns

of g

row

th a

ndde

velo

pmen

t.

Cur

ricul

um p

lann

ing

and

impl

emen

tatio

n em

phas

ize

unde

r-st

andi

ng o

f and

resp

ect f

or h

ome

cultu

re, e

fforts

to in

corp

ora-

te h

ome

valu

es a

nd p

ract

ices

, and

dis

cuss

ion

with

fam

ilies

abou

t diff

eren

ces

betw

een

thei

r exp

ecta

tions

and

thos

e of

the

prog

ram

.

Inte

grat

ion

acro

ss s

ubje

ct m

atte

r are

as is

hig

h, w

hile

som

e “fo

-cu

sing

” is

appr

opria

te (e

.g.,

expe

rienc

es d

evot

ed to

lear

ning

abou

t prin

t and

num

bers

).

Cur

ricul

um p

lann

ing

and

impl

emen

tatio

n—in

clud

ing

the

use

of“p

rops

” for

pla

y an

d ot

her r

epre

sent

atio

ns—

emph

asiz

e ex

pe-

rienc

es th

at re

flect

the

child

ren’

s cu

lture

s an

d cu

ltura

l val

ues.

Cur

ricul

um fo

cuse

s on

a c

ontin

uum

of l

earn

ing

in to

pic

area

s an

din

tegr

atio

n ac

ross

dis

cipl

ines

. The

cur

ricul

um a

lso

faci

litat

es a

d-ap

tatio

n of

inst

ruct

ion

for c

hild

ren

who

are

hav

ing

diffi

culty

and

for t

hose

nee

ding

incr

easi

ng c

halle

nges

.

Chi

ldre

n le

arn

way

s to

dev

elop

con

stru

ctiv

e re

latio

nshi

ps w

ithot

her p

eopl

e an

d re

spec

t for

indi

vidu

al a

nd c

ultu

ral d

iffer

ence

s.

(con

tinue

d on

pag

e 21

)

Infants/Toddlers

Preschoolers

Kindergarten/Primary

21

Cur

ricul

um p

rovi

des

expe

rienc

es th

at le

ad to

doc

umen

ted

evi-

denc

e th

at c

hild

ren

are

acqu

iring

impo

rtant

com

pete

ncie

s in

lit-

erac

y, m

athe

mat

ics,

sci

ence

, vis

ual a

nd p

erfo

rmin

g ar

ts, a

nd o

ther

subj

ect m

atte

r are

as—

as w

ell a

s co

ntin

uing

to d

evel

op c

ogni

tive,

phys

ical

, and

soc

ioem

otio

nal c

ompe

tenc

ies.

The

se o

utco

mes

are

appr

opria

te fo

r chi

ldre

n’s

ages

as

wel

l as

thei

r int

eres

ts a

nd th

eco

mm

uniti

es in

whi

ch th

ey li

ve.

Chi

ldre

n de

mon

stra

te p

ositi

ve a

ttitu

des

tow

ard

lear

ning

and

thei

rin

crea

sing

und

erst

andi

ng o

f key

con

cept

s, s

kills

, and

tool

s of

in-

quiry

of t

he s

ubje

ct m

atte

r ar

eas;

thei

r ap

plic

atio

n of

thes

e un

-de

rsta

ndin

gs to

var

ious

situ

atio

ns; a

nd th

eir u

nder

stan

ding

of t

heco

nnec

tions

acr

oss

disc

iplin

es.

CU

RR

ICU

LU

M c

har

t (c

on

t’d

)

Curr

icul

um th

at p

rom

otes

pos

itive

out

com

es: W

hate

ver t

he c

hild

ren’

s ag

es, t

he c

urric

ulum

is s

elec

ted,

ada

pted

, and

revi

sed

topr

omot

e po

sitiv

e ou

tcom

es fo

r chi

ldre

n. O

utco

mes

incl

ude

both

imm

edia

te e

njoy

men

t and

nur

tura

nce

and

long

er-te

rm b

enef

its. C

ur-

ricul

um fo

r you

nger

chi

ldre

n pa

ys s

peci

al a

ttent

ion

to th

ose

key

deve

lopm

enta

l out

com

es s

how

n to

be

esse

ntia

l to

late

r suc

cess

—no

t foc

usin

g si

mpl

y on

ear

lier v

ersi

ons

of s

peci

fic a

cade

mic

ski

lls.

Cur

ricul

um p

rom

otes

exp

erie

nces

that

lead

to d

ocum

ente

d ev

i-de

nce

that

infa

nts

and

todd

lers

are

lear

ning

abo

ut th

emse

lves

and

othe

rs, c

omm

unic

atin

g th

eir n

eeds

to re

spon

sive

adu

lts,

gain

ing

unde

rsta

ndin

gs o

f bas

ic c

once

pts,

and

dev

elop

ing

mot

or a

nd c

oord

inat

ion

skills

app

ropr

iate

for t

heir

ages

.

Out

com

es a

lso

incl

ude

evid

ence

that

eac

h ch

ild is

dev

elop

ing

a se

nse

of tr

ust,

secu

rity,

and

, inc

reas

ingl

y, in

depe

nden

ce.

Cur

ricul

um p

rovi

des

expe

rienc

es th

at le

ad to

doc

umen

ted

evi-

denc

e th

at p

resc

hool

ers

are

acqu

iring

and

app

lyin

g kn

owle

dge

and

skills

in p

hysi

cal w

ell-b

eing

and

mot

or d

evel

opm

ent;

so-

cial

and

em

otio

nal d

evel

opm

ent;

appr

oach

es to

lear

ning

; lan

-gu

age

deve

lopm

ent;

and

cogn

ition

and

gen

eral

kno

wle

dge—

as w

ell a

s m

ore

spec

ific

skill

s im

porta

nt f

or la

ter

scho

olsu

cces

s.

Chi

ldre

n de

mon

stra

te p

ositi

ve a

ttitu

des

tow

ard

lear

ning

and

thei

r inc

reas

ing

abilit

ies

to re

pres

ent t

heir

expe

rienc

es in

a v

a-rie

ty o

f way

s (e

.g.,

thro

ugh

draw

ing/

pain

ting,

dic

tatin

g/w

ritin

g,an

d dr

amat

ic p

lay)

.

Infants/Toddlers

Preschoolers

Kindergarten/Primary

22

AS

SE

SS

ME

NT

in p

rogr

ams

for

infa

nts,

todd

lers

, pre

scho

oler

s, k

inde

rgar

tner

s, a

ndpr

imar

y gr

ade

child

ren

POSI

TIO

N ST

ATEM

ENT

RECO

MM

ENDA

TIO

N: M

ake

ethi

cal,

appr

opria

te, v

alid

, and

relia

ble

asse

ssm

ent a

cen

tral p

art o

f all

early

chi

ldho

od p

rogr

ams.

To

asse

ss y

oung

child

ren’

s st

reng

ths,

pro

gres

s, a

nd n

eeds

, use

met

hods

that

are

dev

elop

men

tally

app

ro-

pria

te, c

ultu

rally

and

lingu

istic

ally

resp

onsi

ve, t

ied

to c

hild

ren’

s da

ily a

ctiv

ities

, sup

porte

dby

pro

fess

iona

l dev

elop

men

t, in

clus

ive

of fa

milie

s, a

nd c

onne

cted

to s

peci

fic, b

enef

icia

lpu

rpos

es: m

akin

g so

und

deci

sion

s ab

out t

each

ing

and

lear

ning

; ide

ntify

ing

sign

ifica

ntco

ncer

ns th

at m

ay re

quire

focu

sed

inte

rven

tion

for i

ndiv

idua

l chi

ldre

n; a

nd h

elpi

ng p

ro-

gram

s im

prov

e th

eir e

duca

tiona

l and

dev

elop

men

tal i

nter

vent

ions

Ass

essm

ent

that

is d

evel

opm

enta

lly a

ppro

pria

te a

nd c

ultu

rally

and

ling

uist

ical

ly r

espo

nsiv

e: W

hate

ver

the

child

ren’

sag

es, t

he fo

cus

of th

e as

sess

men

t is

cons

iste

nt w

ith th

e pr

ogra

m’s

goa

ls fo

r ch

ildre

n. T

he a

sses

smen

t sys

tem

inco

rpor

ates

met

hods

that

hav

e be

en v

alid

ated

for u

se w

ith c

hild

ren

who

se a

ges,

cul

ture

s, h

ome

lang

uage

s, s

ocio

econ

omic

sta

tus,

abi

litie

san

d di

sabi

litie

s, a

nd o

ther

cha

ract

eris

tics

are

sim

ilar t

o th

ose

of th

e ch

ildre

n w

ith w

hom

the

asse

ssm

ents

will

be

used

. Ass

ess-

men

t met

hods

incl

ude

acco

mm

odat

ions

for c

hild

ren

with

dis

abili

ties,

whe

n ap

prop

riate

. Ass

essm

ent o

f old

er c

hild

ren

relie

s m

ore

on d

irect

mea

sure

s an

d fo

rmal

met

hods

.

Asse

ssm

ents

focu

s on

chi

ldre

n’s

stat

us a

nd p

rogr

ess

in th

eir

abilit

ies

to le

arn

abou

t the

mse

lves

and

oth

ers,

com

mun

icat

e,th

ink,

and

use

thei

r mus

cles

.

Asse

ssm

ent m

easu

res

ensu

re te

ache

rs’ r

ecog

nitio

n of

sim

ilar

know

ledg

e an

d sk

ills a

cros

s di

ffere

nces

in c

ultu

ral r

epre

sen-

tatio

n an

d in

corp

orat

e fa

milie

s’ h

ome

valu

es, l

angu

ages

, ex-

perie

nces

, and

ritu

als.

Asse

ssm

ents

focu

s on

chi

ldre

n’s

expl

orat

ion,

inqu

iry a

cros

sdi

scip

lines

, and

exp

andi

ng v

ocab

ular

ies.

Asse

ssm

ent m

easu

res

addr

ess

child

ren’

s ph

ysic

al w

ell-b

eing

and

mot

or d

evel

opm

ent;

soci

al a

nd e

mot

iona

l dev

elop

men

t;ap

proa

ches

to le

arni

ng; l

angu

age

deve

lopm

ent;

and

cogn

ition

and

gene

ral k

now

ledg

e.

Mea

sure

s al

so e

nsur

e te

ache

rs’ r

ecog

nitio

n of

sim

ilar k

now

l-ed

ge a

nd s

kills

acr

oss

diffe

renc

es in

cul

tura

l rep

rese

ntat

ion

and

inco

rpor

ate

cultu

rally

bas

ed e

xper

ienc

es, i

nclu

ding

fam

-ily

val

ues

and

lang

uage

s.

Asse

ssm

ents

con

tinue

to a

ddre

ss b

road

dim

ensi

ons

of d

evel

op-

men

t yet

are

incr

easi

ngly

focu

sed

on th

e co

ntin

uum

of l

earn

ing

in to

pic

area

s as

wel

l as

inte

grat

ion

acro

ss d

isci

plin

es—

lang

uage

and

liter

acy,

mat

hem

atic

s, s

cien

ce, s

ocia

l stu

dies

, hea

lth, p

hysi

-ca

l edu

catio

n, a

nd v

isua

l and

per

form

ing

arts

.

Teac

hers

invo

lve

child

ren

in e

valu

atin

g th

eir o

wn

wor

k.

Asse

ssm

ent m

easu

res

ensu

re te

ache

rs’ r

ecog

nitio

n of

sim

ilar

know

ledg

e an

d sk

ills a

cros

s di

ffere

nces

in c

ultu

ral r

epre

sent

atio

nan

d in

corp

orat

e cu

ltura

lly b

ased

exp

erie

nces

, inc

ludi

ng fa

mily

valu

es a

nd la

ngua

ges.

(cha

rt c

ontin

ued

on p

age

23)

Infants/Toddlers

Preschoolers

Kindergarten/Primary

Th

e in

form

atio

n in

th

is c

har

t is

bas

ed o

n t

he

reco

mm

end

atio

ns

of

the

NA

EY

C-N

AE

CS/

SDE

Po

siti

on

Sta

tem

ent

on

Cu

rric

ulu

m, A

sses

smen

t, a

nd

Pro

gram

Eva

luat

ion

(w

ww

.nae

yc.o

rg/

reso

urc

es/p

osi

tio

n_s

tate

men

ts/p

scap

e.p

df)

. Th

e ch

art

pro

vid

es e

xam

ple

s o

f w

ays

in w

hic

hth

e re

com

men

dat

ion

s o

f th

e N

AE

YC

-NA

EC

S/SD

E P

osi

tio

n S

tate

men

t o

n C

urr

icu

lum

,A

sses

smen

t, a

nd

Pro

gram

Eva

luat

ion

can

be

imp

lem

ente

d in

pro

gram

s fo

r in

fan

ts/t

od

dle

rs,

pre

sch

oo

lers

, an

d k

ind

erga

rten

/pri

mar

y ag

e ch

ildre

n. T

he

exam

ple

s ca

n b

est

be

un

der

-st

oo

d w

ith

in t

he

con

text

of

the

full

po

siti

on

sta

tem

ent.

23

Asse

ssm

ent t

hat i

s tie

d to

chi

ldre

n’s

daily

act

iviti

es: W

hate

ver t

he c

hild

ren’

s ag

es, a

sses

smen

t inc

orpo

rate

s te

ache

rs’ o

bser

va-

tion

reco

rdin

gs a

nd o

ther

doc

umen

tatio

n, o

btai

ned

durin

g re

gula

r cla

ssro

om a

ctiv

ities

, col

lect

ed s

yste

mat

ical

ly a

t reg

ular

inte

rval

s.W

hate

ver t

he c

hild

ren’

s a

ges,

teac

hers

obs

erve

bot

h w

hat c

hild

ren

can

do o

n th

eir o

wn

and

wha

t the

y ca

n do

with

ski

llful

adu

lt pr

ompt

ing

and

supp

ort.

For y

oung

er c

hild

ren,

ass

essm

ent i

s pr

imar

ily in

corp

orat

ed w

ith th

eir p

lay

and

inte

ract

ions

; for

old

er c

hild

ren,

ass

ess-

men

t met

hods

may

be

mor

e cl

early

def

ined

, sep

arat

e fro

m o

ther

act

iviti

es, a

nd in

clud

e so

me

pape

r-and

-pen

cil m

etho

ds.

AS

SE

SS

ME

NT

ch

art

(co

nt’

d)

Asse

ssm

ents

add

ress

obs

erva

tion

reco

rdin

gs a

nd o

ther

pla

y-an

d in

tera

ctio

n-fo

cuse

d m

easu

res.

Asse

ssm

ents

add

ress

obs

erva

tion

reco

rdin

gs a

nd o

ther

form

sof

doc

umen

tatio

n re

gard

ing

child

ren’

s pl

ay a

nd in

tera

ctio

ns(e

.g.,

child

ren’

s w

ritin

g sa

mpl

es, g

raph

s re

pres

entin

g ch

ildre

n’s

expe

rienc

es w

ith q

uant

ities

).

Asse

ssm

ents

add

ress

obs

erva

tion

reco

rdin

gs,

colle

ctio

ns o

fch

ildre

n’s

wor

k, a

nd m

ore

form

al a

sses

smen

t met

hods

(e.

g.,

teac

hers

ask

ing

child

ren

ques

tions

rega

rdin

g th

eir k

now

ledg

e of

topi

cs, c

hild

ren’

s pe

rform

ance

on

prob

lem

-sol

ving

task

s).

Asse

ssm

ent t

hat i

s in

clus

ive

of fa

mili

es: F

amilie

s ar

e in

form

ed a

bout

the

asse

ssm

ent o

f the

ir ch

ildre

n (a

t all

ages

). Te

ache

rsob

tain

info

rmat

ion

from

par

ents

and

sha

re in

form

atio

n ab

out c

hild

ren

in w

ays

that

are

cle

ar, r

espe

ctfu

l, an

d co

nstru

ctiv

e. W

ith y

oung

erch

ildre

n, th

e in

form

atio

n th

at is

sha

red

focu

ses

prim

arily

on

heal

th a

nd d

evel

opm

ent.

As c

hild

ren

beco

me

olde

r, fa

milie

s sh

are

info

r-m

atio

n th

at a

lso

incl

udes

chi

ldre

n’s

prog

ress

in a

cade

mic

dom

ains

as

asse

ssed

in m

ore

form

al a

nd o

ften

stat

e-m

anda

ted

way

s.

Teac

hers

and

par

ents

sha

re in

form

atio

n pe

riodi

cally

abo

utch

ildre

n’s

enga

gem

ent i

n ro

utin

es (

e.g.

, bei

ng fe

d or

eat

ing)

and

expe

rienc

es (e

.g.,

play

ing

peek

aboo

or l

ooki

ng fo

r hid

den

obje

cts)

.

For

infa

nts,

par

ents

als

o re

ceiv

e da

ily in

form

atio

n ab

out

child

ren’

s ea

ting,

sle

epin

g, a

nd e

limin

atin

g.

Teac

hers

and

par

ents

sha

re in

form

atio

n pe

riodi

cally

abo

utch

ildre

n’s

prog

ress

in a

ll do

mai

ns.

Teac

hers

and

par

ents

wor

k to

geth

er to

mak

e de

cisi

ons

rega

rd-

ing

child

ren’

s le

arni

ng g

oals

and

app

roac

hes

to le

arni

ng.

Teac

hers

and

par

ents

sha

re in

form

atio

n pe

riodi

cally

abo

utch

ildre

n’s

prog

ress

in a

ll do

mai

ns a

nd d

isci

plin

es.

Asse

ssm

ent m

easu

res

mig

ht in

clud

e le

tter o

r num

eric

al g

rade

s;w

hen

such

gra

des

are

used

, rep

orts

to p

aren

ts a

lso

incl

ude

nar-

rativ

e co

mm

ents

rega

rdin

g ch

ildre

n’s

lear

ning

acr

oss

disc

iplin

es.

Teac

hers

info

rm p

aren

ts a

bout

the

mea

ning

, use

s, a

nd lim

itatio

nsof

the

resu

lts o

f lar

ge-s

cale

ass

essm

ents

.

Asse

ssm

ent t

hat i

s su

ppor

ted

by p

rofe

ssio

nal d

evel

opm

ent:

For t

each

ers

of a

ll ch

ildre

n fro

m b

irth

thro

ugh

age

eigh

t, pr

ofes

-si

onal

dev

elop

men

t inc

orpo

rate

s re

sear

ch-b

ased

info

rmat

ion

rega

rdin

g as

sess

men

t sys

tem

s an

d m

easu

res

and

incl

udes

opp

ortu

ni-

ties

for t

each

ers

to re

fine

thei

r ass

essm

ent a

nd a

naly

sis

skills

. Pro

fess

iona

l dev

elop

men

t nee

ds fo

r tea

cher

s of

you

nger

and

old

erch

ildre

n ch

ange

from

a m

ore

excl

usiv

e fo

cus

on in

form

al, p

lay-

base

d as

sess

men

t to

incl

ude

know

ledg

e of

form

al a

sses

smen

ts c

on-

nect

ed to

lear

ning

sta

ndar

ds.

(con

tinue

d on

pag

e 24

)

Ass

essm

ents

incl

ude

teac

hers

’ obs

erva

tion

reco

rdin

gs o

fch

ildre

n’s

perfo

rman

ce d

urin

g in

stru

ctio

nal a

ctiv

ities

, as

wel

l as

othe

r do

cum

enta

tion

(e.g

., ch

ildre

n’s

writ

ten

reco

rds

of th

eir

know

ledg

e an

d sk

ill ac

quis

ition

, sam

ples

of w

ork

com

plet

ed).

Asse

ssm

ents

incl

ude

teac

hers

’ obs

erva

tion

reco

rdin

gs o

fch

ildre

n’s

perfo

rman

ce d

urin

g ro

utin

es a

nd a

ctiv

ities

, as

wel

las

oth

er d

ocum

enta

tion

(e.g

., ph

otog

raph

s or

vid

eota

pes

ofch

ildre

n pl

ayin

g; s

ampl

es o

f dra

win

gs).

Asse

ssm

ents

incl

ude

teac

hers

’ obs

erva

tion

reco

rdin

gs o

fch

ildre

n’s

perfo

rman

ce d

urin

g cl

assr

oom

exp

erie

nces

, as

wel

las

oth

er d

ocum

enta

tion

(e.g

., ph

otog

raph

s of

chi

ldre

n’s

bloc

kco

nstru

ctio

ns; s

ampl

es o

f eas

el p

aint

ings

).

Infants/Toddlers

Preschoolers

Kindergarten/Primary

24

Asse

ssm

ent t

hat i

s us

ed to

mak

e so

und

deci

sion

s ab

out t

each

ing

and

lear

ning

: Wha

teve

r the

chi

ldre

n’s

ages

, ass

essm

ent

info

rmat

ion

is u

sed

to s

uppo

rt le

arni

ng, c

onsi

sten

t with

the

goal

s of

the

curri

culu

m. F

or y

oung

er c

hild

ren,

info

rmat

ion

abou

t eac

hch

ild’s

gro

wth

and

dev

elop

men

t is

used

to m

ake

deci

sion

s re

gard

ing

poss

ible

cha

nges

to th

e en

viro

nmen

t, in

tera

ctio

ns, a

nd e

xper

i-en

ces.

With

old

er c

hild

ren,

ass

essm

ent i

nfor

mat

ion

is a

lso

used

for m

akin

g de

cisi

ons

abou

t eac

h ch

ild’s

cur

rent

und

erst

andi

ng a

ndsk

ills in

con

tent

are

as, w

hat h

e or

she

sho

uld

be re

ady

to le

arn

next

, and

inst

ruct

iona

l met

hods

that

hel

p th

e ch

ildre

n m

eet i

mpo

rtant

deve

lopm

enta

l and

lear

ning

goa

ls

Asse

ssm

ent a

ddre

sses

chi

ldre

n’s

abilit

ies

to le

arn

abou

t the

m-

selv

es a

nd o

ther

s, c

omm

unic

ate,

thin

k, a

nd u

se th

eir m

uscl

es.

Teac

hers

adj

ust t

heir

rout

ines

and

exp

erie

nces

for e

ach

child

base

d on

ass

essm

ent o

f the

chi

ld’s

ski

ll ac

quis

ition

, tem

pera

-m

ent,

inte

rest

s, a

nd o

ther

fact

ors.

Asse

ssm

ent

addr

esse

s ch

ildre

n’s

phys

ical

wel

l-bei

ng a

ndm

otor

dev

elop

men

t; so

cial

and

em

otio

nal d

evel

opm

ent;

ap-

proa

ches

to le

arni

ng; l

angu

age

deve

lopm

ent;

and

cogn

ition

and

gene

ral k

now

ledg

e.

Teac

hers

dev

elop

sho

rt- a

nd lo

ng-ra

nge

plan

s fo

r eac

h ch

ildan

d th

e gr

oup

base

d on

chi

ldre

n’s

know

ledg

e an

d sk

ills, i

nter

-es

ts, a

nd o

ther

fact

ors.

The

teac

hing

and

lear

ning

dec

isio

ns th

at a

re m

ade

on th

e ba

sis

of a

sses

smen

t res

ults

incr

easi

ngly

incl

ude

a fo

cus

on h

ow b

est

to p

rom

ote

acqu

isiti

on o

f lite

racy

, mat

hem

atic

s, a

nd o

ther

con

-te

nt-s

peci

fic a

reas

—ye

t with

bro

ader

ass

essm

ent r

esul

ts c

ontin

u-in

g to

hav

e a

stro

ng in

fluen

ce o

n in

stru

ctio

nal d

ecis

ions

.

Teac

hers

use

ass

essm

ent i

nfor

mat

ion

to d

eter

min

e w

hich

teac

h-in

g ap

proa

ches

are

wor

king

, as

wel

l as

adap

tatio

ns n

eede

d fo

rin

divi

dual

chi

ldre

n w

ho a

re h

avin

g di

fficu

lty a

nd fo

r tho

se n

eed-

ing

incr

easi

ng c

halle

nges

.

AS

SE

SS

ME

NT

ch

art

(co

nt’

d)

Asse

ssm

ent t

hat i

s us

ed to

iden

tify

sign

ifica

nt c

once

rns

that

may

requ

ire fo

cuse

d in

terv

entio

n: W

hate

ver t

he c

hild

ren’

s ag

es,

heal

th a

nd d

evel

opm

enta

l scr

eeni

ng is

use

d to

iden

tify

thos

e ch

ildre

n w

ho m

ay b

enef

it fro

m m

ore

in-d

epth

ass

essm

ent.

Very

you

ngch

ildre

n m

ay b

e sc

reen

ed re

gula

rly fo

r pot

entia

l hea

lth p

robl

ems

and

deve

lopm

enta

l del

ays.

For

old

er c

hild

ren,

scr

eeni

ng a

nd fo

l-lo

w-u

p as

sess

men

t may

lead

to id

entif

icat

ion

of d

isab

ilitie

s or

oth

er s

peci

fic c

once

rns

that

wer

e no

t app

aren

t whe

n ch

ildre

n w

ere

youn

ger.

Whe

n di

sabi

litie

s or

oth

er p

robl

ems

are

diag

nose

d, a

ppro

pria

te in

terv

entio

ns a

re p

lann

ed a

nd im

plem

ente

d.

Asse

ssm

ents

focu

s on

hea

lth n

eeds

and

acq

uisi

tion

of n

orm

alde

velo

pmen

tal m

ilest

ones

.

Scre

enin

g m

ay b

e co

nduc

ted

as p

art o

f a c

hild

’s w

ell-b

aby

orw

ell-c

hild

car

e an

d/or

thro

ugh

parti

cipa

tion

in E

arly

Hea

d St

art

or o

ther

gro

up p

rogr

ams.

Asse

ssm

ents

con

tinue

to fo

cus

on h

ealth

nee

ds a

nd p

ossi

ble

deve

lopm

enta

l del

ays.

Scre

enin

g ty

pica

lly is

con

duct

ed a

s ch

ildre

n en

ter H

ead

Star

tan

d ot

her

pres

choo

l pro

gram

s. O

ften,

sta

ff fro

m th

ese

pro-

gram

s re

ceiv

e sp

ecifi

c tra

inin

g fo

r con

duct

ing

the

asse

ssm

ents

.

Asse

ssm

ents

, inc

ludi

ng v

isio

n an

d he

arin

g sc

reen

ing,

typi

cally

are

cond

ucte

d fo

r all

child

ren

ente

ring

kind

erga

rten.

Form

al s

choo

l-dis

trict

or s

tate

-man

date

d sc

reen

ing

and

refe

rral

prot

ocol

s ar

e fo

llow

ed fo

r all

child

ren.

(con

tinue

d on

pag

e 25

)

Infants/Toddlers

Preschoolers

Kindergarten/Primary

25

Asse

ssm

ent i

nfor

mat

ion

is g

athe

red

prim

arily

thro

ugh

dire

ct m

ea-

sure

s (a

cros

s di

scip

lines

).

Anal

ysis

of a

sses

smen

t inf

orm

atio

n m

ay le

ad to

cha

nges

in te

ach-

ing

appr

oach

es fo

r the

who

le g

roup

, des

ign

and

impl

emen

tatio

nof

act

iviti

es fo

r sm

all g

roup

s of

chi

ldre

n, a

nd/o

r oth

er a

spec

ts o

fth

e pr

ogra

m.

Ass

essm

ent t

hat i

s us

ed to

hel

p pr

ogra

ms

impr

ove

thei

r edu

catio

nal a

nd d

evel

opm

enta

l int

erve

ntio

ns: I

n al

l ear

ly c

hild

-ho

od p

rogr

ams,

info

rmat

ion

is u

sed

to h

elp

teac

hers

and

pro

gram

adm

inis

trato

rs m

aint

ain

an a

war

enes

s of

the

effe

cts

of p

ro-

gram

act

iviti

es o

n th

e ch

ildre

n an

d fa

mili

es s

erve

d. W

ith th

is a

war

enes

s, im

prov

emen

ts to

pro

gram

s ca

n be

mad

e. A

sses

s-m

ent i

nfor

mat

ion

for y

oung

er c

hild

ren

pred

omin

antly

add

ress

es p

hysi

cal c

hara

cter

istic

s an

d he

alth

issu

es, m

ovin

g to

war

d m

ore

dire

ct m

easu

res

of o

lder

chi

ldre

n’s

know

ledg

e an

d sk

ills

(e.g

., pa

per-

and-

penc

il te

sts

that

are

dis

cipl

ine

spec

ific)

.

Asse

ssm

ent d

ata

are

colle

cted

rega

rdin

g im

mun

izat

ions

, wel

l-ba

by c

are

rece

ived

, and

sen

sory

and

per

cept

ual c

apac

ities

.

Anal

ysis

of a

sses

smen

t inf

orm

atio

n m

ay le

ad to

cha

nges

in p

ri-m

ary

care

give

r re

spon

sibi

litie

s, s

tyle

s of

inte

ract

ions

, stra

te-

gies

to p

rom

ote

lang

uage

dev

elop

men

t, in

door

and

out

door

en-

viro

nmen

ts, a

nd/o

r oth

er a

spec

ts o

f the

pro

gram

.

Asse

ssm

ent i

nfor

mat

ion

is g

athe

red

rega

rdin

g ph

ysic

al w

ell-

bein

g an

d m

otor

dev

elop

men

t; so

cial

and

em

otio

nal d

evel

op-

men

t; ap

proa

ches

to le

arni

ng; l

angu

age

deve

lopm

ent;

and

cogn

ition

and

gen

eral

kno

wle

dge.

Anal

ysis

of a

sses

smen

t inf

orm

atio

n m

ay le

ad to

cha

nges

in th

eda

ily s

ched

ule,

cur

ricul

um a

nd te

achi

ng s

trate

gies

, sty

les

ofin

tera

ctio

n, in

tere

st a

rea

arra

ngem

ents

, out

door

pla

y ar

ea re

-so

urce

s, a

nd/o

r oth

er a

spec

ts o

f the

pro

gram

.

AS

SE

SS

ME

NT

ch

art

(co

nt’

d)

Infants/Toddlers

Preschoolers

Kindergarten/Primary

26

Prog

ram

eva

luat

ion

and

acco

unta

bilit

y in

pro

gram

s se

rvin

g ki

n-de

rgar

ten

and

prim

ary-

age

child

ren

is ty

pica

lly c

ondu

cted

with

ina

syst

em o

f fed

eral

, sta

te, a

nd d

istri

ct e

xpec

tatio

ns.

Alth

ough

mor

e ca

pabl

e of

par

ticip

atin

g in

som

e ki

nds

of fo

rmal

asse

ssm

ents

, chi

ldre

n si

x to

eig

ht m

ay s

till f

ail t

o sh

ow th

eir l

evel

of c

ompe

tenc

e un

der

test

ing

cond

ition

s, le

adin

g to

erro

neou

sco

nclu

sion

s ab

out p

rogr

ams

as w

ell a

s in

divi

dual

chi

ldre

n.

Acco

unta

bilit

y sy

stem

s fo

r chi

ldre

n th

is a

ge ru

n th

e ris

k of

rein

-fo

rcin

g a

narro

w r

ange

of p

rogr

am g

oals

; spe

cial

atte

ntio

n is

need

ed to

mai

ntai

n a

com

preh

ensi

ve, d

evel

opm

enta

lly a

ppro

-pr

iate

sys

tem

that

focu

ses

on p

rogr

am s

tand

ards

as

wel

l as

lear

ning

sta

ndar

ds.

Asse

ssm

ent o

f kin

derg

arte

n an

d pr

imar

y gr

ade

child

ren

usin

gfo

rmal

sta

ndar

dize

d as

sess

men

ts c

ontin

ues

to b

e pr

oble

mat

ic.

Alte

rnat

e m

etho

ds o

f sam

plin

g pr

oced

ures

sho

uld

be e

mph

a-siz

ed.

PR

OG

RA

M E

VALU

ATIO

N a

nd A

CC

OU

NTA

BIL

ITY

in p

rogr

ams

for

infa

nts,

todd

lers

, pre

scho

oler

s,ki

nder

gart

ners

, and

pri

mar

y gr

ade

child

ren

POSI

TIO

N S

TATE

MEN

T R

ECO

MM

END

ATIO

N:

Reg

ular

lyev

alua

te e

arly

chi

ldho

od p

rogr

ams

in lig

ht o

f pro

gram

goa

ls, u

s-in

g va

ried,

app

ropr

iate

, con

cept

ually

and

tech

nica

lly s

ound

evi

-de

nce

to d

eter

min

e th

e ex

tent

to w

hich

pro

gram

s m

eet t

he e

x-pe

cted

sta

ndar

ds o

f qua

lity

and

to e

xam

ine

inte

nded

as

wel

l as

unin

tend

ed re

sults

.

Effe

ctiv

e pr

ogra

m e

valu

atio

n an

d ac

coun

tabi

lity:

Pro

gram

s se

rvin

g ch

ildre

n of

all

ages

eng

age

in o

ngoi

ng e

valu

atio

n in

ligh

t of

thei

r ide

ntifi

ed g

oals

and

are

acc

ount

able

for p

rodu

cing

ben

efic

ial r

esul

ts. A

lthou

gh m

any

sim

ilarit

ies

are

foun

d ac

ross

all

high

-qua

l-ity

ear

ly c

hild

hood

pro

gram

s, th

e sp

ecifi

c st

anda

rds

of q

ualit

y us

ed to

eva

luat

e pr

ogra

ms

(e.g

., pr

ogra

m s

tand

ards

and

ear

ly le

arni

ngst

anda

rds)

, iss

ues

abou

t the

kin

ds o

f evi

denc

e th

at a

re m

ost a

ppro

pria

te, a

nd s

peci

fic ri

sks

inhe

rent

in a

ccou

ntab

ility

syst

ems

vary

depe

ndin

g on

the

ages

of t

he c

hild

ren

serv

ed. P

rogr

ams

for o

lder

chi

ldre

n ar

e m

ore

likel

y to

be

man

date

d to

par

ticip

ate

in la

rge-

scal

e ev

alua

tions

usi

ng n

orm

-refe

renc

ed a

sses

smen

ts; i

n th

ose

case

s, m

ultip

le s

afeg

uard

s sh

ould

be

in p

lace

, ens

urin

g th

at th

ete

sts

are

deve

lopm

enta

lly a

ppro

pria

te, c

ondu

cted

in th

e la

ngua

ge c

hild

ren

are

mos

t com

forta

ble

with

, and

em

ploy

oth

er a

ccom

mo-

datio

ns a

s ap

prop

riate

. Agg

rega

ted,

not

indi

vidu

al, d

ata

shou

ld b

e us

ed a

s pa

rt of

an

acco

unta

bilit

y sy

stem

, and

gai

n sc

ores

sho

uld

be e

mph

asiz

ed ra

ther

than

“sna

psho

ts” o

f sco

res

upon

exi

t fro

m a

pro

gram

.

Prog

ram

eva

luat

ion

and

acco

unta

bilit

y us

es s

tand

ards

of q

ual-

ity (p

rogr

am a

nd e

arly

lear

ning

sta

ndar

ds) t

hat a

re s

peci

fic to

infa

nts

and

todd

lers

and

add

ress

the

deve

lopm

enta

l dom

ains

(phy

sica

l wel

l-bei

ng a

nd m

otor

dev

elop

men

t; so

cial

and

em

o-tio

nal d

evel

opm

ent;

appr

oach

es to

lear

ning

; lan

guag

e de

vel-

opm

ent;

and

cogn

ition

and

gen

eral

kno

wle

dge)

, as

wel

l as

thos

e th

at a

re re

leva

nt to

all

prog

ram

s.

In e

valu

atin

g pr

ogra

m e

ffect

iven

ess,

gre

at im

porta

nce

is p

lace

don

fam

ily-re

late

d go

als

and

outc

omes

bec

ause

of t

heir

criti

cal

deve

lopm

enta

l sig

nific

ance

for i

nfan

ts a

nd to

ddle

rs.

Use

of c

hild

ren’

s ga

in s

core

s as

par

t of a

n ac

coun

tabi

lity

sys-

tem

, whi

le p

refe

rabl

e ov

er o

ther

type

s of

com

paris

ons,

stil

l war

-ra

nt c

autio

n be

caus

e of

the

wid

e va

riabi

lity

and

unev

enne

ssof

ear

ly d

evel

opm

ent.

Prog

ram

eva

luat

ion

and

acco

unta

bilit

y at

tend

s to

a c

ompr

e-he

nsiv

e ra

nge

of d

evel

opm

enta

l and

lear

ning

out

com

es, b

oth

in id

entif

ying

pro

gram

goa

ls a

nd in

eva

luat

ing

effe

ctiv

enes

s.

As p

resc

hool

pro

gram

s in

crea

sing

ly b

ecom

e pa

rt of

sta

te a

c-co

unta

bilit

y sy

stem

s, o

utco

mes

sho

uld

not b

e lim

ited

to a

ca-

dem

ic d

isci

plin

es b

ut s

houl

d in

clud

e de

velo

pmen

tal d

omai

ns—

phys

ical

wel

l-bei

ng a

nd m

otor

dev

elop

men

t; so

cial

and

emot

iona

l dev

elop

men

t; ap

proa

ches

to le

arni

ng; l

angu

age

deve

lopm

ent;

and

cogn

ition

and

gen

eral

kno

wle

dge—

as w

ell

as a

ddre

ss a

dher

ence

with

app

licab

le p

rogr

am s

tand

ards

.

Giv

en th

e di

fficu

lty o

f usi

ng fo

rmal

sta

ndar

dize

d as

sess

men

tsw

ith p

resc

hool

chi

ldre

n, a

ltern

ate

met

hods

and

sam

plin

g pr

o-ce

dure

s sh

ould

be

emph

asiz

ed.

Th

e in

form

atio

n in

th

is c

har

t is

bas

ed o

n t

he

reco

mm

end

atio

ns

of

the

NA

EY

C-N

AE

CS/

SDE

Po

siti

on

Sta

tem

ent

on

Cu

rric

ulu

m, A

sses

smen

t, a

nd

Pro

gram

Eva

luat

ion

(w

ww

.nae

yc.o

rg/

reso

urc

es/p

osi

tio

n_s

tate

men

ts/p

scap

e.p

df)

. Th

e ch

art

pro

vid

es e

xam

ple

s o

f w

ays

in w

hic

hth

e re

com

men

dat

ion

s o

f th

e N

AE

YC

-NA

EC

S/SD

E P

osi

tio

n S

tate

men

t o

n C

urr

icu

lum

, Ass

ess-

men

t, a

nd

Pro

gram

Eva

luat

ion

can

be

imp

lem

ente

d in

pro

gram

s fo

r in

fan

ts/t

od

dle

rs,

pre

sch

oo

lers

, an

d k

ind

erga

rten

/pri

mar

y ag

e ch

ildre

n. T

he

exam

ple

s ca

n b

est

be

un

der

sto

od

wit

hin

th

e co

nte

xt o

f th

e fu

ll p

osi

tio

n s

tate

men

t.

Infants/Toddlers

Preschoolers

Kindergarten/Primary

27

Glossary

This glossary includes brief definitions of some keyterms used in the position statement and in this re-source. Definitions are based on common usage in thefields of early education, child development, assessment,and program evaluation. Terms with asterisks are adaptedfrom a recent glossary of standards and assessmentterms (see below).

Aggregation: A process of grouping distinct informa-tion or data (for example, combining information aboutindividual schools or programs into a data set describ-ing an entire school district or state).

Alignment: In this context, coherence and continuityamong goals, standards, desired results, curriculum,and assessments, with attention to developmentaldifferences as well as connections across ages andgrade levels. Alignment includes attention to develop-mental differences as well as connections.

*Assessment: A systematic procedure for obtaininginformation from observation, interviews, portfolios,projects, tests, and other sources that can be used tomake judgments about children’s characteristics.

Assessment Literacy: Professionals’, students’, orfamilies’ knowledge about the goals, tools, and appro-priate uses of assessment.

Child Development: In this early childhood context,development is defined as the social, emotional,physical, and cognitive changes in children stimulatedby biological maturation interacting with experience.

Cognition: Includes processes for acquiring informa-tion, inquiring, thinking, reasoning, remembering andrecalling, representing, planning, problem solving, andother mental activities.

*Criterion or Performance-Oriented Assessment:Assessment in which the person’s performance (that is,score) is interpreted by comparing it with aprespecified standard or specific content and/or skills.

Culturally and Linguistically Responsive: In this in-stance, development and implementation of early child-hood curriculum, assessment, or program evaluationthat is attuned to issues of values, identity, worldview,language, and other culture-related variables.

Culture: Includes ethnicity, racial identity, economicclass, family structure, language, and religious andpolitical beliefs.

Data: Factual information, especially informationorganized for analysis or used to make decisions.

Developmentally Appropriate: NAEYC defines develop-mentally appropriate practices as those that “resultfrom the process of professionals making decisionsabout the well-being and education of children based onat least three important kinds of information or knowl-edge: what is known about child development andlearning…; what is known about the strengths, inter-ests, and needs of each individual child in the group…;and knowledge of the social and cultural contexts inwhich children live” (Bredekamp & Copple 1997, 8–9).

*Documentation: The process of keeping track of andpreserving children’s work as evidence of their progressor of a program’s development.

*Early Learning Standards: Statements that describeexpectations for the learning and development of youngchildren.

Implementation: In this context, the process of taking aplanned curriculum, assessment system, or evaluationdesign and “making it happen” in ways that are consis-tent with the plan and desired results.

Logic Model: A model of how components of a programor service effect changes that move participatingchildren and families toward desired outcomes.

Matrix Sampling: An approach to large-scale assess-ment in which only part of the total assessment isadministered to each child.

*Norm-Referenced: A standardized testing instrumentby which the person’s performance is interpreted inrelation to the performance of a group of peers whohave previously taken the same test—a “norming”group.

Observational Assessment: Assessment based onteachers’ systematic recordings and analysis ofchildren’s behavior in real-life situations.

Outcomes: In this case, desired results for youngchildren’s learning and development across multipledomains.

Pedagogy: A variety of teaching methods or ap-proaches used to help children learn and develop.

Program Evaluation: A systematic process of describ-ing the components and outcomes of an intervention orservice.

* Terms adapted from “The Words We Use: A Glossary ofTerms for Early Childhood Education Standards andAssessments,” developed by the State Collaborative onAssessment and Student Standards (SCASS). Glossaryonline: www.ccsso.org/projects/SCASS/projects/early_childhood_education_assessment_consortium/publications_and_products/2838.cfm.

28

References

ACF (Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department ofHealth and Human Services). 2003. Head Start program factsheet. Washington, DC: Author.

ACYF (Administration on Children, Youth and Families). 1997. Theprogram manager’s guide to evaluation. Washington, DC: Author.

AERA (American Educational Research Association). 2000. Posi-tion statement concerning high-stakes testing in preK–12 educa-tion. Washington, DC: Author.

AERA, APA (American Psychological Association), & NCME (Na-tional Council on Measurement in Education). 1999. Standardsfor educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: AERA.

ASPE (Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evalua-tion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). 2003.Strengthening Head Start: What the evidence shows. Washington,DC: Author.

Align to Achieve. 2003. The standards database. Watertown, MA:Author. Online: www.aligntoachieve.org/AchievePhaseII/basic-search.cfm

Annie E. Casey Foundation. 2003. KIDS COUNT data book. Balti-more: Author.

Barnett, W.S. 2003. Better teachers, better preschools: Studentachievement linked to teacher qualifications. NIEER Policy Briefs2. Online: http://nieer.org/resources/policybriefs/2.pdf

Bodrova, E., & D. Leong. 2003. Chopsticks and counting chips: Doplay and foundational skills need to compete for the teacher’sattention in an early childhood classroom? Young Children 58(3): 10–17.

Bredekamp, S, & C. Copple, eds. 1997. Developmentally appropri-ate practice in early childhood programs. Rev. ed. Washington,DC: NAEYC.

Brennan, E., E. Caplan, S. Ama, & O. Warfield. 2001. Child care:Inclusion as enrichment. Focal Point. Portland, OR: RegionalResearch Institute for Human Services, Portland State Univer-sity. Online: www.rtc.pdx.edu/FPinHTML/FocalPointFA01/pgFPfa01Inclusive.shtml

Campbell, F.A., C.T. Ramey, E.P. Pungello, J. Sparling, & S. Miller-Johnson. 2002. Early childhood education: Young adult out-comes from the Abecedarian Project. Applied DevelopmentalScience 6: 42–57.

Commission on NAEYC Early Childhood Program Standards andAccreditation Criteria. 2003. Draft NAEYC early childhood programstandards. Online: www.naeyc.org/accreditation/nextera.asp

Committee for Economic Development. 2002. Preschool for all:Investing in a productive and just society. New York: Author.

DHHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). 2002.Specialized child care. Washington, DC: Author. Online: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/isp/ancillary/CHCare.htm

Dahlberg, G., P. Moss., & A. Pence. 1999. Beyond quality in earlychildhood education and care: Postmodern perspectives. Philadel-phia: Falmer.

Dickinson, D.K., & P.O. Tabors, eds. 2001. Beginning literacy withlanguage: Young children learning at home and school. Baltimore:Brookes.

Education World. 2003. Knowledge loom: Professional develop-ment. Wallingford, CT: Author. Online: www.educationworld.com/a_curr/index.shtml

Eisner, E.W. 2002. The educational imagination: On the design andevaluation of school programs. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Espinosa, L. 2002. High quality preschool: Why we need it andwhat it looks like. NIEER Policy Briefs 1. Online: http://nieer.org/resources/policybriefs/1.pdf

Fillmore, L.W., & C. Snow. 2000. What teachers need to know aboutlanguage. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office ofEducational Research and Improvement, Education ResourcesInformation Center.

Program Monitoring: A tool for judging the quality ofprogram implementation and modifying how theprogram is being implemented. Frequently part of aregulatory process.

*Program Standards: Widely accepted expectations forthe characteristics or quality of early childhood set-tings in schools, early childhood centers, family educa-tion homes, and other education settings.

Referral: In this context, making a recommendation oractual linkage of a child and family with other profes-sionals, for the purpose of more in-depth assessmentand planning. Usually follows screening or otherpreliminary information gathering.

Reliability: The consistency of an assessment tool;important for generalizing about children’s learning anddevelopment.

Sampling: In this instance, the use of a smaller numberof children or programs (often randomly selected) inlarge-scale assessments in order to statistically esti-mate the characteristics of a larger population.

*Screening: The use of a brief procedure or instrumentdesigned to identify, from within a large population ofchildren, those children who may need further assess-ment to verify developmental and/or health risks.

Significance (goals/content/assessment): “Significant”curriculum goals, content, or objects of assessment arethose that have been found to be critically importantfor children’s current and later development andlearning. (In other contexts, it refers to statisticalsignificance or the likelihood that a research findingwas not produced by chance.)

Stakeholders: Those who have a shared interest in aparticular activity, program, or decision.

Standardized: An assessment with clearly specifiedadministration and scoring procedures and normativedata.

Unintended Consequences: In this context, the resultsof a particular intervention or assessment that were notintended by the developers and that may have poten-tial—and sometimes negative—impact.

Validity: The extent to which a measure or assessmenttool measures what it was designed to measure.

29

Frede, E.C. 1998. Preschool program quality in programs for chil-dren in poverty. In Early care and education for children in pov-erty: Promises, programs, and long-term outcomes, eds. W.S. Bar-nett & S.S. Boocock. Buffalo, NY: State University of New YorkPress.

Gilliam, W.S., & V. Leiter. 2003. Evaluating early childhood pro-grams: Improving quality and informing policy. Zero to Three 23(6): 6–13.

Gilliam, W.S., & E.F. Zigler. 2000. A critical meta-analysis of allevaluations of state-funded pre-school from 1977 to 1998: Impli-cations for policy, service delivery and program evaluation.Early Childhood Research Quarterly 15 (4): 441–72.

Glascoe, F., & H. Shapiro. 2002. Developmental screening. PediatricDevelopment and Behavior. Online: www.dbpeds.org/articles/detail.cfm?id=5

Goffin, S.G., & C. Wilson. 2001. Curriculum models and early child-hood education: Appraising the relationship, 2d ed. Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Hart, B., & T.R. Risley. 1995. Meaningful differences in the everydayexperience of young American children. Baltimore: Brookes.

Head Start Bureau. 2001. Head Start child outcomes framework.Head Start Bulletin 70: 44–50.

Head Start Program Performance Standards. 1996. 45 CFR Part1304. Online: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/hsb/performance/index.htm

Henry, G.T. 2003. Assessing school readiness: System designframework and issues. In Assessing the state of state assessments:Perspectives on assessing young children, eds. C. Scott-Little, S.L.Kagan, & R.M. Clifford, 25–35. Greensboro, NC: SERVE.

Hodgkinson, H. 2003. Leaving too many children behind: A demo-grapher’s view on the neglect of America’s youngest children.Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.

Horm-Wingerd, D.M., P.C. Winter, & P. Plocfchan. 2000. Primarylevel assessment for IASA Title 1: A call for discussion. Washing-ton, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Horton, C., & B. Bowman. 2002. Child assessment at the preprimarylevel: Expert opinion and state trends. Chicago: Erikson Institute.

Hyson, M. 1996. Theory: An analysis (Part 2). In Advances in earlyeducation and day care, eds. J. Chafel & S. Reifel, 41–89. Green-wich, CT: JAI.

Hyson, M. 2003a. Putting early academics in their place. Educa-tional Leadership 60 (7): 20–23.

Hyson, M., ed. 2003b. Preparing early childhood professionals:NAEYC’s standards for programs. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Act) Amendments. 1997. 20U.S.C. 1400 et seq.

IES (Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Educa-tion). 2003. Preschool curriculum evaluation research. Online:http://pcer.rti.org

Jones, J. 2003. Early literacy assessment systems: Essential ele-ments. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.

Kagan, S.L., C. Scott-Little, & R.M. Clifford. 2003. Assessing youngchildren: What policymakers need to know and do. In Assessingthe state of state assessments: Perspectives on assessing youngchildren, eds. C. Scott-Little, S.L. Kagan, & R.M. Clifford, 5–11.Greensboro, NC: SERVE.

Keller, B. 2003. Question of teacher turnover sparks researchinterest. Education Week 22 (33): 8.

Lally, J.R. 2000. Infants have their own curriculum: A responsiveapproach to curriculum planning for infants and toddlers. HeadStart Bulletin 67: 6–7.

Lally, J.R., A. Griffen, E. Fenichel, M. Segal, E. Szanton, & B. Weiss-bourd. 1995. Caring for infants and toddlers in groups: Develop-mentally appropriate practice. Washington, DC: ZERO TO THREE.

Laverty, K., A. Burton, M. Whitebook, & D. Bellm. 2001. Currentdata on child care salaries and benefits in the United States. Wash-ington, DC: Center for the Child Care Workforce.

Lombardi, J. 2003. Time to care: Redesigning child care to promoteeducation, support families, and build communities. Philadelphia:Temple University Press.

Love, J.M. 2003. Instrumentation for state readiness assessment:Issues in measuring children’s early development and learning.In Assessing the state of state assessments: Perspectives on assess-ing young children, eds. C. Scott-Little, S.L. Kagan, & R.M. Clif-ford, 43–55. Greensboro, NC: SERVE.

Lynch, E., & M. Hanson. 2004. Family diversity, assessment, andcultural competence. In Assessing infants and preschoolers withspecial needs, 4th ed., eds. M. McLean, D. Bailey, & M. Wolery.Columbus, OH: Merrill.

MENC (National Association for Music Education). 1996. Theperformance standards for music: Strategies and benchmarks forassessing progress toward the national standards, grades preK–12.Reston, VA: Author. Online: www.menc.org/publication/books/performance_standards/contents.html

Marcon, R.A. 1999. Differential impact of preschool models on devel-opment and early learning of inner-city children: A three-cohortstudy. Developmental Psychology 35 (2): 358–75. EJ 582 451.

Marcon, R.A. 2002. Moving up the grades: Relationship betweenpreschool model and later school success. Early ChildhoodResearch and Practice 4 (1). Online: http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4n1/index.html

Marshall, D., W. Schubert, & J. Sears. 2000. Turning points in cur-riculum. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

McAfee, O., & D. Leong. 2002. Assessing and guiding young chil-dren’s development and learning, 3d ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

McLean, M., D. Bailey, & M. Wolery, eds. 2004. Assessing infantsand preschoolers with special needs. 4th ed. Columbus, OH:Merrill.

McNamara, C. 2003. Field guide to nonprofit program design, market-ing, and evaluation. Minneapolis, MN: Authenticity Consulting.

Meisels, S.J. 1992. Doing harm by doing good: Iatrogenic effects ofearly childhood enrollment and promotion policies. Early Child-hood Research Quarterly 7 (2): 155–74.

Meisels, S.J., & S. Atkins-Burnett. 2000. The elements of earlychildhood assessment. In Handbook of early childhood interven-tion. 2d ed., eds. J.P. Shonkoff & S.J. Meisels, 387–415. New York:Cambridge University Press.

Meisels, S.J., & E. Fenichel, eds. 1996. New visions for the develop-mental assessment of infants and young children. Washington, DC:ZERO TO THREE.

Mitchell, A. 2001. Prekindergarten programs in the states: Trendsand issues. Vienna, VA: National Child Care Information Center.

Muenchow, S. 2003. A risk management approach to readinessassessment: Lessons from Florida. In Assessing the state of stateassessments: Perspectives on assessing young children, eds. C.Scott-Little, S.L. Kagan, & R.M. Clifford, 13–23. Greensboro, NC:SERVE.

NAESP (National Association of Elementary School Principals).2001. Leading learning communities: Standards for what principalsshould know and be able to do. Alexandria, VA: Author. Online:www.naesp.org/llc.pdf

NAEYC. 1998. Code of ethical conduct. Position statement. Wash-ington, DC: Author.

NAEYC & IRA (International Reading Association). 1998. Learning toread and write: Developmentally appropriate practices for youngchildren. Joint Position Statement. Washington, DC: Author.

NAEYC & NAECS/SDE (National Association of Early ChildhoodSpecialists in State Departments of Education). 1990. Guidelinesfor appropriate curriculum content and assessment in programsserving children ages 3 through 8. Joint position statement. Wash-ington, DC: NAEYC.

NAEYC & NAECS/SDE. 2002. Early learning standards: Creating theconditions for success. Joint position statement. Washington, DC:NAEYC.

NAEYC & NCTM (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics).2002. Early childhood mathematics: Promoting good beginnings.Joint position statement. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

30

NASP (National Association of School Psychologists). 2002. Positionstatement on early childhood assessment. Bethesda, MD: Author.Online: www.nasponline.org/information/pospaper_eca.html

NCES (National Center for Education Statistics). 2002. Children’sreading and mathematics achievement in kindergarten and firstgrade. Washington, DC: Author. Online: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002125.pdf

NIEER (National Institute for Early Education Research). 2003.Fast facts: National early education and care enrollmenttrends—Overview. New Brunswick, NJ: Author. Online: http://nieer.org/resources/facts/index.php?FastFactID=7

NSDC (National Staff Development Council). 2001. Standards forstaff development. Rev. ed. Oxford, OH: Author.

National Research Council. 1998. Preventing reading difficulties inyoung children. Committee on the Prevention of Reading Difficul-ties in Young Children, eds. C.E. Snow, M.S. Burns, & P. Griffin,Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Commission on Behav-ioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: Na-tional Academy Press.

National Research Council. 1999. High stakes: Testing for tracking,promotion, and graduation. Committee on Appropriate Test Use,eds. J.P. Heubert & R.M. Hauser. Washington, DC: National Acad-emy Press.

National Research Council. 2000. How people learn: Brain, mind,experience, and school. Committee on Developments in theScience of Learning, eds. J. Bransford, A. Brown, & R. Cocking,Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. 2001. Eager to learn: Educating ourpreschoolers. Committee on Early Childhood Pedagogy, eds. B.Bowman, M. Donovan, & M. Burns, Commission on Behavioraland Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

National Research Council & Institute of Medicine. 2000. Fromneurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood develop-ment. Committee on Integrating the Science of Early ChildhoodDevelopment, eds. J. Shonkoff & D. Phillips, Board on Children,Youth, and Families, Commission on Behavioral and Social Sci-ences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Neuman, S.B., & D.K. Dickinson. 2001. Handbook of early literacyresearch. New York: Guilford.

New, R.S. 1999. An integrated early childhood curriculum: Movingfrom the “what” and the “how” to the “why.” 3d ed. New York:Teachers College Press.

OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Develop-ment). 2001. Starting strong: Early education and care. Paris,France: Author.

Paulsell, D., J. Cohen, A. Stieglitz, E. Lurie-Hurvitz, E. Fenichel, &E. Kisker. 2002. Partnerships for quality: Improving infant-toddlerchild care for low-income families. Washington, DC: ZERO TOTHREE; Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.

Peisner-Feinberg, E., M. Burchnal, R. Clifford, M. Culkin, C. Howes,S. Kagan, N. Yazejian, P. Byler, J. Rustici, & J. Zelazo. 2000. Thechildren of the Cost, Quality, and Outcomes Study go to school:Technical report. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, FrankPorter Graham Child Development Center.

Peth-Pierce, R. 2001. A good beginning: Sending America’s childrento school with the social and emotional competence they need tosucceed. Monograph based on two papers commissioned by theChild Mental Health Foundations and Agencies Network (FAN).Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina.

Popham, W.J. 1999. Classroom assessment: What teachers need toknow. 2d ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Popham, W.J. 2000. Testing! Testing! What every parent shouldknow about school tests. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Quality Counts. 2002: Building blocks for success—State efforts inearly childhood education. Education Week 21 (17).

Quality Counts. 2003. The teacher gap. Education Week 22 (17).Raspa, M.J., R.A. McWilliam, & S.M. Ridley. 2001. Child care qual-

ity and children’s engagement. Early Education and Development12: 209–24.

Raver, C. 2002. Emotions matter: Making the case for the role ofyoung children’s emotional development for early school readi-ness. SRCD Social Policy Report 16 (3). Ann Arbor, MI: Society forResearch in Child Development.

Reynolds, A.J., J.A. Temple, D.L. Robertson, & E.A. Mann. 2001.Long-term effects of an early childhood intervention on educa-tional achievement and juvenile arrest: A 15-year follow-up oflow-income children in public schools. Journal of the AmericanMedical Association 285 (18): 2339–46.

Rosenzweig, J., E. Brennan, & A. Ogilvie. 2002. Work-family fit:Voices of parents of children with emotional and behavioraldisorders. Social Work 47 (4): 415–24.

Sandall, S., M. McLean, & B. Smith. 2000. DEC recommended prac-tices in early intervention/early childhood special education.Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Schweinhart, L.J. 2003. Issues in implementing a state preschoolprogram evaluation in Michigan. In Assessing the state of stateassessments: Perspectives on assessing young children, eds. C.Scott-Little, S.L. Kagan, & R.M. Clifford, 37–42. Greensboro, NC:SERVE.

Schweinhart, L.J., & D.P. Weikart. 1997. The High/Scope pre-schoolcurriculum comparison study through age 23. Early ChildhoodResearch Quarterly 12: 117–43.

Scott-Little, C., S.L. Kagan, & R.M. Clifford, eds. 2003. Assessing thestate of state assessments: Perspectives on assessing young chil-dren. Greensboro, NC: SERVE.

Scott-Little, C., S.L. Kagan, & V. Frelow. 2003. Standards for pre-school children’s learning and development: Who has standards,how were they developed, and how are they used? Greensboro,NC: SERVE.

Semlak, S. 2000. Curriculum in Early Head Start. Head Start Bulle-tin 69: 14–15.

Shepard, L.A. 1994. The challenges of assessing young childrenappropriately. Phi Delta Kappan 76: 206–12.

Shepard, L., S.L. Kagan, & E. Wurtz. 1998. Principles and recom-mendations for early childhood assessments. Washington, DC:National Education Goals Panel.

Shonkoff, J.P., & S.J. Meisels, eds. 2000. Handbook of early child-hood intervention, 2d ed., 387–415. New York: Cambridge Univer-sity Press.

Stake, R.E. 2003. Standards-based and responsive evaluation. Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Stiggins, R. 1999. Evaluating classroom assessment training inteacher education programs. Educational Measurement: Issuesand Practice 18 (1): 23–27.

Stiggins, R. 2001. The unfulfilled promise of classroom assess-ment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 20 (3): 5–15.

Stiggins, R. 2002. Assessment for learning. Education Week 21 (26):30: 32–33.

Tabors, P.O. 1997. One child, two languages: A guide for preschooleducators of children learning English as a second language.Baltimore: Brookes.

Thomas, W.P., & V.P. Collier. 1997. School effectiveness for languageminority students. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse forBilingual Education.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. Child care arrangements for pre-schoolers by family characteristics and employment status ofmother: Spring 1999. Survey of income and program participation.Washington, DC: Author.

Whitebook, M., L. Sakai, E. Gerber, & C. Howes. 2001. Then andnow: Changes in child care staffing, 1994–2000. Washington, DC:Center for the Child Care Workforce.

Whitehurst, G.J., & C.J. Lonigan. 1998. Child development andemergent literacy. Child Development 69: 848–72.

Yoshikawa, H., & E. Zigler. 2000. Mental health in Head Start: Newdirections for the twenty-first century. Early Education andDevelopment 11: 247–64.

Copyright © 2003 by the National Association for the Educationof Young Children. Contact us at: pubaff@naeyc.org