|
COPYRIGHT 2002 ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education
Abstract
This paper describes the development of a multipart assessment of kindergarten readiness for the State of Vermont. The approach described reflects emerging consensus around the appropriate domains of development to include in child assessments, as well as the need to assess schools' readiness for young children and their families. The approach differs from some states' approaches, however, in its emphasis on readiness data for purposes of community-level accountability rather than to support individualized instruction. Data on children's developing competencies early in the kindergarten year (in five domains) were reported by teachers across the state (N = 181), on approximately half of the state's kindergartners (N = 2,992). Data on the "readiness" of schools were reported by principals (N = 197). Schools' "readiness" was conceptualized as including the areas of "smooth transitions to school," "instruction and staff development," "partnership with community," and "resources." Results confirmed the viability of a brief teacher-reported assessment of children and an assessment of "ready school" practices. Further tasks related to promoting local use of the assessment data, and implications for policy, are identified.
Introduction
Ever since the National Education Goals Panel (NEGP) identified as its first priority that "all children enter school ready to learn," but especially within the past few years, states have endeavored in various ways to come to terms with the challenge of measuring progress toward such a goal. "School readiness," or "ready for school," has become a shorthand for what is in truth a multidimensional concept--one that has the potential to do harm as well as good, as states move toward implementation of specific assessments.
As this work has progressed, a degree of consensus has emerged around certain critically important points, at least among those expert in working with young children. One is that a child's readiness for school is not simply a matter of alphabet knowledge, or even letter-sound correspondence, or other predominantly cognitive accomplishments, as important as those are. Rather, readiness includes social-emotional abilities, "approaches to learning" (i.e., dispositions such as enthusiasm, curiosity, and persistence), and communication skills (receptive and expressive), as well as motor development and physical health (National Education Goals Panel [NEGP], 1992).
Another emerging point of consensus is that readiness is an interaction: as children need to be ready to make the most of their school experience, so too do schools need to be "ready" to meet the diverse needs of young children and their families. Therefore, any comprehensive assessment of "school readiness" needs to include indicators of schools' capacities.
The National Education Goals Panel (NEGP) and others have identified important features of schools that indicate they are "ready" to accommodate the varied needs and experiences of young children entering school, and their families. According to these experts (Shore, 1998, p. 5):
1. Ready schools smooth the transition between home and school.
2. Ready schools strive for continuity between early care and education programs and elementary schools.
3. Ready schools help children learn and make sense of their complex and exciting world.
4. Ready schools are committed to the success of every child.
5. Ready schools are committed to the success of every teacher and every adult who interacts with children during the school day.
6. Ready schools introduce or expand approaches that have been shown to raise achievement.
7. Ready schools are learning organizations that alter practices and programs if they do not benefit children.
8. Ready schools serve children in communities.
9. Ready schools take responsibility for results.
10. Ready schools have strong leadership.
Notwithstanding these points of agreement, several distinctions in approaches can be drawn based on this work thus far. Perhaps the most important of these distinctions concerns the unit of analysis. In some examples of states' work in this area, the aim is to have a measure of "school readiness" that paints a portrait of young children's competence that has validity at the child level: that is, what an individual child "knows and can do." In contrast is an approach that aims instead at group-level validity: that is, what a community's children "know and can do." Of course, the psychometric requirements of these two approaches are very different.
A related issue concerns the purpose for such assessments. On the one hand, a detailed profile of individual child performance...
Read the full article for free courtesy of your local library.
|
Bookmark this article
Print this article
Link to this article
Email this article
Digg It!
Add to del.icio.us
RSS
