Those of you who know me, know I’m passionate about authentic assessment. Which, I and others, define as gathering and using information obtained by familiar people, in familiar settings, with familiar objects.
But in this age of accountability, I see a number of early childhood assessment paradoxes that keep us from thinking authentic assessment results are valid and/or that authentic assessment practices are possible.
Here are a few early childhood assessment paradoxes:
- An assessment tool contains functional and measureable items;
- The same assessment information guides instruction and meets accountability mandates;
- Comprehensive information is gathered quickly and easily.
Why are these statements paradoxes?
Well, because they are, in and of themselves, a set of contradictions. They are like the statement, “a crash landing” or describing something as “bittersweet.”
And, if renowned educational philosopher, Parker Palmer, is right, paradoxes leave us with “either-or” thinking instead of “both-and” ways of thinking.
Either-or thinking is easy, safe, straightforward. Something is either good or it is bad, something is either less or it is more, something is either mine or it is yours.
Same goes for assessment, we end up taking measurability over functionality, accepting compliance over utility, and picking doable over comprehensive.
This, instead of overcoming the challenge of “holding” these paradoxes or “tensions,” and recognizing there is a critical need to rethink assessment in early childhood.
Let’s explore each of the paradoxes and then consider possible solutions.
The first paradox, needing an assessment tool to be comprised of skills that are functional and measurable, is contradictory because skills are often either functional or measurable. As we increase functionality by focusing on something that is necessary, the harder and harder it becomes to measure. Conversely, the easier it is for me to see or hear an occurrence of something, the less I’m likely to care about whether or not it occurred.
Functionality and measurability have an inverse relationship. As one goes up, the other goes down….making it difficult to expect both.
The second paradox is asking the same assessment tool and set of practices to serve two very different purposes. Different assessment purposes require different procedures, different materials, and result in different data-driven decisions.
For example, when planning instruction, providers are concerned with individual children and, perhaps, a class or group of children. Accountability mandates, on the other hand, are concerned with entire populations of children (all the children from TX, or all four-year old’s who went to preschool) with a focus on compliance, standards, efficacy, and whether broad outcomes are being met.
Different assessment decisions and purposes require different tools and practices.
The third paradox challenges us to gather and make meaning of complex information – but to do so, quickly and easily. This is a challenge when we consider the diversity of young children served, the inappropriateness of many assessment tools and practices, and how many providers are not given adequate training or support.
The complexity of early development, compounded by poor assessment policies and an untrained workforce, by definition, does not lead to easy administration of comprehensive assessment tools.
The more complex the situation, the more time and resources will be needed.
So where does this leave us? What can we do to “hold the tensions” and move forward?
The answer is, we need “both-and” ways to thinking…and as a start, I offer the following:
- Embrace that functionality and measurability can co-exist by finding ways to define skills and performance over time, using numbers and words or visuals.
- Use tools and new measurement paradigms designed to gather information by “sitting beside” and getting to know children. Then, use the assessment information to both plan instruction and provide more global indices of how children are responding to instruction and/or meeting broad outcomes.
- Make assessment “as simple as possible, but not simpler” (Roger Sessions) to ensure fidelity of assessment practices by a diverse and often under-supported workforce.
The work won’t be easy, but in the end, we might just end up with the best early childhood assessment paradox of all where assessment, instruction, and play look, sound, and feel the same – joyful.