I truly believe that teaching or planning without data is like tossing a handful of darts and hoping that one hits the target, whatever or wherever t

  

I truly believe that teaching or planning without data is like tossing a handful of darts and hoping that one hits the target, whatever or wherever that might be! The data is like a GPS system that guides our planning and hard work directly to the target. How can we miss?
—Head Start/Early Head Start Director, Region VIII
Reflect on the quote which begins this Discussion. As you think about your time in the early childhood field, to which analogy do you feel your experiences with teaching and programmatic planning fit? Have your program’s strategies, interventions, and initiatives felt more like playing a game of darts, launching each and hoping that one lands on a positive outcome; or, have they been navigated toward a cumulative goal to which you were aware before your program’s journey even began?
As you have been exploring in this module, the act of conducting program evaluations is an ongoing and essential process for any program which is quality-driven. Why then, might some programs still be participating in a game of darts? What challenges or barriers might prevent programs from using data to build upon their strengths and focus improvement efforts?
In this Discussion, you share your own experiences with program evaluation. Specifically, you share barriers and challenges which impacted a program that you have observed, been a part of, or heard about.
To prepare
Review the NAEYC article/Position Statement titled “Early Childhood Curriculum, Assessment, and Program Evaluation: Building an Effective, Accountable System in Programs for Children Birth Through Age 8,” which explores the rationales for and indicators of effective program evaluation. Then, consider your own experiences with program evaluation. With respect to a program you know well, what need did the evaluation address? What barriers or challenges did the program experience while preparing for or participating in the evaluation?

8084Dis.2Mod1.docx

NAEYC8084DIS2RESOURCE.pdf

1

Module 1
8084-Discussion 2:
Sharing Experiences With Program Evaluation
I truly believe that teaching or planning without data is like tossing a handful of darts and hoping that one hits the target, whatever or wherever that might be! The data is like a GPS system that guides our planning and hard work directly to the target. How can we miss?
—Head Start/Early Head Start Director, Region VIII
Reflect on the quote which begins this Discussion. As you think about your time in the early childhood field, to which analogy do you feel your experiences with teaching and programmatic planning fit? Have your program’s strategies, interventions, and initiatives felt more like playing a game of darts, launching each and hoping that one lands on a positive outcome; or, have they been navigated toward a cumulative goal to which you were aware before your program’s journey even began?
As you have been exploring in this module, the act of conducting program evaluations is an ongoing and essential process for any program which is quality-driven. Why then, might some programs still be participating in a game of darts? What challenges or barriers might prevent programs from using data to build upon their strengths and focus improvement efforts?
In this Discussion, you share your own experiences with program evaluation. Specifically, you share barriers and challenges which impacted a program that you have observed, been a part of, or heard about.

To prepare
Review the NAEYC article/Position Statement titled “Early Childhood Curriculum, Assessment, and Program Evaluation: Building an Effective, Accountable System in Programs for Children Birth Through Age 8,” which explores the rationales for and indicators of effective program evaluation. Then, consider your own experiences with program evaluation. With respect to a program you know well, what need did the evaluation address? What barriers or challenges did the program experience while preparing for or participating in the evaluation?
Assignment Task Part 1
Post the following: In 1 ½ page Explain the following below:
 Explain in depth one or more reasons that programs undergo evaluations. Then, describe barriers and/or challenges programs experience when trying to implement evaluations, which address the need(s). Support your writing with in-text citations and cite appropriate references following APA format to substantiate your thinking. Incorporate resources into your post. Give examples from your own experiences, including program evaluations that you have observed, been a part of, or heard about.
Read selections of your colleagues’ postings.
Assignment Task Part 2
Respond to two of your colleagues’ postings in 125 words each in one or more of the following ways:
· Propose an additional challenge or barrier which could have impacted the evaluation and why.
· Explain how a program with which you are familiar overcame a similar barrier or challenge, including strategies or tips your colleague might implement during his or her next evaluation.
· Highlight examples of personal learning that occurred as a result of dialogue with colleagues.
Cite appropriate references in APA format to substantiate your thinking.
Note: Throughout Week 2, continue the professional dialogue by answering questions your colleagues have asked.
·

,

1
Introduction
High-quality early education produces long-lasting benefits (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 this evidence, federal, state, and local decision makers are asking critical questions about young children’s educa- tion. What should children be taught in the years from birth through age eight? How would we know if they are developing well and learning what we want them to learn? And how could we decide whether programs for children from infancy through the primary grades are doing a good job?
Answers to these questions—questions about early childhood curriculum, child assessment, and program evalu- ation—are the foundation of the joint position statement from the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE).
Overview
This document begins by summarizing the position of NAEYC and NAECS/SDE about what is needed in an effective system of early childhood education—a system that supports a reciprocal relationship among
curriculum, child assessment, and program evaluation. Next, the document outlines the position statement’s background and intended effects. It describes the major trends, new understandings, and contemporary issues that have influenced the position statement’s recom- mendations. With this background, the document then outlines the principles and values that guide an inter- connected system of curriculum, child assessment, and program evaluation. We emphasize that such a system must be linked to and guided by early learning stan- dards and early childhood program standards that are consistent with professional recommendations (NAEYC & NAECS/SDE 2002; NAEYC 2003).
Next, key recommendations, rationales, and indica- tors of effectiveness are presented for each of these components, accompanied by frequently asked ques- tions. Although the recommendations and indicators will generally apply to children across the birth–eight age range, in many cases the recommendations need developmental adaptation and fine-tuning. Where possible, the position statement notes these adapta- tions or special considerations. To further illustrate these developmental considerations, each component is accompanied by a chart (pp. 19-26) that gives ex- amples of how the recommendations would be imple- mented with infants and toddlers, preschoolers, and kindergarten-primary grade children. This resource concludes by describing examples of the support and resources needed to develop effective systems of curriculum, child assessment, and program evaluation.
Early Childhood Curriculum, Assessment, and Program Evaluation
Building an Effective, Accountable System in 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 of Young Children (NAEYC) and the National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE). It includes the statement of position, recommendations, and indicators of effectiveness of the position statement, as well as an overview of relevant trends and issues, guiding principles and values, a rationale for each recommendation, frequently asked questions, and developmental charts.
Position Statement Adopted November 2003

2
The Position
The National Association for the Education of Young Children and the National Association of Early Child- hood Specialists in State Departments of Education take the position that policy makers, the early childhood profession, and other stakeholders in young children’s lives have a shared responsibility to
• construct comprehensive systems of curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation guided by sound early childhood practices, effective early learning standards and program standards, and a set of core principles and values: belief in civic and democratic values; commitment to ethical behavior on behalf of children; 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 young children. • make ethical, appropriate, valid, and reliable assess- ment a central part of all early childhood programs. To assess young children’s strengths, progress, and needs, use assessment methods that are developmentally appropriate, 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) making sound decisions about teaching and learning, (2) identifying significant concerns that may require focused intervention for individual children, and (3) helping programs improve their educational and developmental interventions. • regularly engage in program evaluation guided by program goals and using varied, appropriate, conceptu- ally and technically sound evidence, to determine the extent to which programs meet the expected standards of quality and to examine intended as well as unin- tended results.
• provide the support, professional development, and other resources to allow staff in early childhood programs to implement high-quality curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation practices and to connect those practices with well-defined early learning standards and program standards.
Position Statements’ Intended Effects
In developing and disseminating position state- ments, NAEYC, NAECS/SDE, and their partner organizations aim to
• take informed positions on significant, controver- sial issues affecting young children’s education and development3 —in this case, issues related to curriculum development and implementation, the purposes and uses of assessment data, and benefits and risks in accountability systems for early childhood programs.
• promote broad-based dialogue on these issues, within and beyond the early childhood field.
• create a shared language and evidence-based frame of reference so that practitioners, decision makers, and families may talk together about early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation and their relationship to early learning standards and program standards.
• influence public policies—in this case, those related to early childhood curriculum development, adoption, and implementation; child assessment practices; and program evaluation practices—one by one and as these fit together into a coherent educational system linked to child outcomes or standards.
• stimulate investments needed to create acces- sible, affordable, high-quality learning environ- ments and professional development that support the implementation of excellent early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation.
• build more satisfying experiences and better educational and developmental outcomes for all young children.
1 The term culture includes ethnicity, racial identity, economic class, family structure, language, and religious and political beliefs, which profoundly influence each child’s development and relationship to the world.
2 NAEYC defines developmentally appropriate practices as those that “result from the process of professionals making decisions about the well-being and education of children based on at least three important kinds of information or knowledge: what is known about child development and learning…; what is known about the strengths, interests, and needs of each individual child in the group…; and knowledge 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 by biological maturation interacting with experience.

3
Trends and Issues
Since 1990, significant trends and contemporary issues, research findings, and new understandings of and changes in practice have influenced early childhood education. Many changes have had positive effects on the field and on the infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and kindergarten-primary children who are enrolled in early childhood programs. Other changes are less positive, raising concerns about how they may affect children’s development, learning, and access to services.
To provide a context for the recommendations that follow, 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 families served by our country’s early childhood programs would look very different from one taken in 1990. Many more children would appear in the picture, as ever- higher proportions of children attend child care, Head Start, preschool, family child care, and other programs (Lombardi 2003; NIEER 2003). In more and more fami- lies, both parents work, further increasing the demand for child care, especially for infants and toddlers (Paulsell et al. 2002; Lombardi 2003). These changes in families’ needs have influenced staffing patterns, hours of care, and other characteristics of programs for children before school entry, while also affecting the experiences children bring with them to kindergarten, first grade, and beyond.
The diversity of the U.S. population continues to expand, creating a far more multiethnic, multiracial, multireligious, and multicultural context for early childhood education. By the year 2030, 40 percent of all school-age children will have a home language other than English (Thomas & Collier 1997). Early childhood programs now include large numbers of immigrant children 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). These demographic trends have implications for decisions about curriculum, assessment practices, and evalua- tions of the effectiveness of early childhood programs.
Over the past decade, programs serving young children and families have also changed. Full-day and full-year child care and Head Start programs have expanded. Early Head Start did not exist in 1990, and few states offered prekindergarten programs either on a universal or targeted basis. In contrast, Early Head Start
in 2003 served approximately 62,000 low-income children from birth through age three (3 percent of the eligible children) and their families (ACF 2003), and 42 states and the District of Columbia had invested in prekindergarten programs based in or linked with public schools (Mitchell 2001), although most served relatively small numbers of children identified as living in poverty and at risk of school failure. Full-day kin- dergarten is now common in many school districts; in 2002, 25 states and the District of Columbia funded full- day kindergarten, at least in districts that chose to offer these services (Quality Counts 2002). Head Start programs increasingly collaborate with other early education programs, including state-funded pre- kindergarten programs, community-based child care providers, and local elementary schools (Head Start Program Performance Standards 1996; Lombardi 2003). Any new recommendations with respect to early childhood curriculum, child assessment, and program evaluation must take this expanded scope into account and must recognize the difficulties of coordinating and evaluating such a diverse array of programs.
National reports and government mandates have raised expectations for the formal education and training of early childhood teachers, especially in Head Start and in state-funded prekindergarten programs (National Research Council 2001; ASPE 2003). Teachers today are expected to implement more effective and challenging curriculum in language, literacy, mathemat- ics, and other areas and to use more complex assess- ments of children’s progress (National Research Council 2001). Both preschool teachers and teachers in kinder- garten and the primary grades are expected to introduce academic content and skills to ever-younger children. These expectations, and the expanding number of early childhood programs, make the field’s staffing crisis even more urgent, since the increased expectations have not been matched by increased incentives and opportunities for professional development.
The early childhood field lacks adequate numbers of qualified and sufficiently trained staff to implement appropriate, 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 be inadequate and inequitable (Laverty et al. 2001). The staff turnover rate is greatly affected by a number of program characteristics, including the adequacy of compensation. All early childhood settings—including public-school-based programs—are experiencing critical shortages and turnover of qualified teachers, especially in areas that serve children who are at the highest risk for negative outcomes and who most need outstanding teachers (Keller 2003; Quality Counts 2003).

4
2. Evidence has accumulated about the value of high-quality, well-planned curriculum and
child assessment.
In recent years, national reports and national organi- zations’ position statements have sounded a consistent theme: Although children’s fundamental needs are the same as ever, children, including the youngest children, are capable of learning more—and more complex— language, concepts, and skills than had been previously thought (National Research Council 2000; National Research Council & Institute of Medicine 2000; National Research Council 2001; Committee for Economic Development 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. In each of these areas, new research (for example, NAEYC & IRA 1998; National Research Council 1998; NAEYC & NCTM 2002) has begun to describe the sequences in which children become more knowledgeable and com- petent. This research is increasingly useful in designing and implementing early childhood curriculum. Well- planned, evidence-based curriculum, implemented by qualified teachers who promote learning in appropriate ways, can contribute significantly to positive outcomes for all children. Yet research on the effectiveness of specific curricula for early childhood remains limited, especially with respect to curriculum effects on specific domains of development and learning and curriculum to support young children whose home language is not English and children with disabilities.
3. State and federal policies have created a new focus on early childhood standards, curriculum,
child assessment, and evaluation of early childhood programs.
Today, every state has K–12 standards specifying what children are expected to know and be able to do in various subject matter and/or developmental areas (Align to Achieve 2003). Head Start now has a Child Outcomes Framework (Head Start Bureau 2001), and a recent survey (Scott-Little, Kagan, & Frelow 2003) found that 39 states had or were developing standards for children 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 of literacy, both federal and state expectations emphasize the need for “scientifically based research” to guide curriculum adoption and evaluations of curriculum effectiveness.
The trend toward systematic use of child assess- ments and program evaluations has also led to higher stakes being attached to these assessments—in prekindergarten and Head Start programs as well as in kindergarten and the primary grades, where state accountability systems often dominate instruction and assessment. State investments in pre-K programs often come with clear accountability expectations. At every level of education, in an increasingly high-stakes climate, programs unable to demonstrate effectiveness in improving readiness or creating positive child outcomes may be at risk of losing support.
4. Attention to early childhood education has sometimes led to misuses of curriculum,
assessment, and program evaluation.
Good intentions can backfire (Meisels 1992). In response to expectations that all programs should have a formal or explicit curriculum, programs sometimes adopt curricula that are of poor quality; align poorly with children’s age, culture, home language (Tabors 1997; Fillmore & Snow 2000), and other characteristics; or focus on unimportant, intellectually shallow content (National Research Council 2001; Espinosa 2002). In other cases, a curriculum may be well designed but may be implemented with teaching practices ill suited to young children’s characteristics and capacities (Bredekamp & Copple 1997). And few programs, districts, or states that adopt a particular curriculum track to see whether that curriculum is being implemented as intended and with good early childhood pedagogy.
Assessment practices in many preschools, kindergar- tens, and primary grade programs have become mismatched to children’s cultures or languages, ages, or developmental capacities. In an increasingly diverse society, interpretations of assessment results may fail to take into account the unique cultural aspects of children’s learning and relationships. As with curricu- lum, assessment instruments often focus on a limited range of skills, causing teachers to narrow their curricu- lum and teaching practices (that is, to “teach to the test”), especially when the stakes are high. An unin- tended result is often the loss of dedicated time for instruction in the arts or other areas in which high- stakes tests are not given.
In the press for results and accountability, basic tenets of appropriate assessment, as expressed by national professional organizations (for example, NASP 2002; AERA 2000; AERA, APA, & NCME 1999), are often vio- lated. Assessments or screening tools may fail to meet adequate technical standards (Glascoe & Shapiro

5
2002), or assessments designed for one purpose (such as to guide teaching strategies) may be used for entirely different and incompatible purposes (NAEYC & NAECS/SDE 2002; Scott-Little, Kagan, & Clifford 2003). An example is the use of screening results to evaluate program effectiveness or to exclude children from services.
Summary
In the years since the publication of NAEYC’s and NAECS/SDE’s original position statement on early childhood curriculum and assessment (1990), much more has become known about the power of high- quality curriculum, effective assessment practices, and ongoing program evaluation to support better out- comes for young children. Yet the infrastructure of the early childhood education system, within and outside the public schools, has not allowed this knowledge to be fully used—resulting in curriculum, assessment systems, and program evaluation procedures that are not of consistently high quality. An overarching concern is 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 of early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation is great. Although much is not yet known, greater research knowledge exists than ever before, and policy makers are convinced that early education is the key to later success, especially for our most vulnerable children. Despite disagreements about how best to use this key, early childhood educators today have unprec- edented opportunities.
In taking advantage of these opportunities, clear principles and values are essential guides. Before turning to specific recommendations, the next section of this document proposes nine such principles.
Guiding Principles and Values
• Belief in civic and democratic values The 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 are valued outcomes in early childhood programs. Deci- sions that affect young children, families, and programs involve stakeholders in democratic, respectful ways.
• Commitment to ethical behavior on behalf of children NAEYC’s Code of Ethical Conduct (NAEYC 1998) empha-
sizes that decisions about curriculum, assessment, and program 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 developmentally and educationally significant—including early learning standards and program standards—direct the design and implementation of curriculum, assessment, and evaluation. These goals are public and are understood by 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, and the evaluation of program effectiveness are coordinated and connected in a positive, continuous way. • Support for children as individuals and as mem- bers of families, cultures, and communities
Curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation support children’s diversity, which includes not only children’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 evaluation promote the development and learning of children with and without disabilities. • Partnerships with families At all ages, but especially in the years from birth through age eight, children benefit from close partner- ships and ongoing communication between their families and their educational programs. • Respect for evidence
An effective system of curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation rests on a strong foundation of evidence. “Evidence” includes empirical research and well-documented professional deliberation and consen- sus, with differing weights given to differing types of evidence. • Shared accountability
NAEYC and NAECS/SDE believe that professionals are indeed accountable to the children, families, and communities they serve. Although many aspects of children’s lives are outside the influence of early

6
childhood programs, staff and administrators—as well as policy makers—must hold themselves accountable for providing all children with opportunities to reach essential developmental and educational goals.
Recommendations
This section presents recommendations for each of three critical elements of an effective system: curricu- lum, child assessment, and program evaluation. Each recommendation is followed by a rationale or justifica- tion. Next are listed indicators of effectiveness—what someone would be likely to see if the recommendation were well implemented. Because the position statement addresses the full birth–eight age range, appropriate distinctions are made wherever possible about how the recommendation or related indicators would be imple- mented with infants and toddlers, preschoolers, and kindergarten-primary children. A set of frequently asked questions is presented for each recommendation, and developmental charts provide examples that further elaborate 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 young children.
Rationale
Curriculum is more than a collection of enjoyable activities. Curriculum is a complex idea containing multiple components, such as goals, content, pedagogy, or instructional practices. Curriculum is influenced by many factors, including society’s values, content standards, accountability systems, research findings, community expectations, culture and language, and individual 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; Eisner 2002). Whatever the definition, good, well-implemented early childhood curriculum provides developmentally appropriate support and cognitive challenges and,
therefore, is likely to lead to positive outcomes (Frede 1998). A recurring theme in recent research syntheses has been that curriculum in programs for infants through the primary grades must be comprehensive, including attention to social and emotional competence and positive attitudes or approaches to learning (Peth- Pierce 2001; Raver 2002). Another emphasis is on the implementation 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 concepts and skills based on current research fosters children’s learning and development” (Commission on NAEYC Early Childhood Program Standards and Accreditation Criteria 2003). But what should children learn through this curriculum? The answer is influenced by children’s ages and contexts. For example, for babies and tod- dlers, the curriculum’s heart is relationships and informal, language-rich, sensory interactions. For second graders, relationships continue to be important as a foundation for building competencies such as reading fluency and comprehension. And for young children of all ages, the curriculum needs to build on and respond to their home languages and cultures.
Researchers have found that young children with and without disabilities benefit more from the curriculum when they are engaged or involved (Raspa, McWilliam, & Ridley 2001; NCES 2002). Particularly for younger children, firsthand learning—through physical, mental, and social activity—is key. At every age from birth through age eight (and beyond), play can stimulate children’s engagement, motivation, and lasting learning (Bodrova & Leong 2003). Learning is facilitated when children can “choose from a variety of activities, decide what type of