The assessment of learning and development among young children is increasingly gaining popularity. Both government and private organizations have been involved in the development of programs aimed at enhancing the readiness of all young children. The most targeted are children who hail from economically disadvantaged communities and homes as well as children with special needs. The programs have been designed with the goal of helping the young children to enhance their academic, social, and language skills through effective early care and education. Besides, the programs also constitute an avenue where young children with problems associated with development can be identified so that they could be provided with appropriate interventions. Although these programs have been lauded in some aspects, it has been a cause of worry to authorities in other aspects. There have been concerns regarding the systematic and purposefulness of the programs because young children have been undergoing assessments in multiple service settings for a wide range of purposes and domains. The increase in the quantity of assessments has been raising concerns as to whether the young children are subjected to assessments which are not only selected but implemented correctly. Moreover, there has been concerns regarding whether the assessments have been interpreted correctly. Assessments of young children have been done for various purposes including guiding instruction, determining young children’s individual level of functioning, or measuring functioning at the state, program, or community level. Different purposes demand the application of different assessments, and the objectives that support the application of assessment for one purpose may not apply for another purpose. The quality and accuracy of instruments used to report findings must be more certain of the consequences of reporting assessment findings gets weightier (Snow and Van Hemel S-1). According to Shillady, early childhood educators can select a suitable assessment tool by first investing the characteristics of a valid, ethical, reliable, and developmentally appropriate assessment. Shillady further pointed out that the next step is to find out the goals of the program, purpose of the assessment, age group with which the assessment instrument will be applicable, and other factors such as languages, culture, disabilities, and abilities of children.
Standard evaluative measures are increasingly being utilized in a variety of early childhood settings including Head Start, Child Care Centers, publicly funded preschool programs, and early childhood programs designed to support low-income families.
Standardized evaluative measures are usually administered in groups. It is a useful tool which can be used to obtain scalable and normative data that can be submitted to policy makers and administrators. Standardized evaluative measures children’s outcome directly and are usually administered under strict protocols. They can be employed to monitor trends and also used for the purposes of program accountability and evaluation. Standardized assessments usually involve the use of pencil/pen and paper. Such assessments have been designed to capture the child’s response in a manner which avoids bias from the administrator. The authenticity of the content in standardized assessments is very important, and they should reflect classroom instructions. Guddemi and Case (7) pointed out that standardized assessments should not only include an inviting use of graphics but also color. Further, they suggested that where appropriate, manipulative should be included. It has been found that standardized assessments are not reliable, valid, and accurate for young children unlike when used to assess older children and that is why it is not recommended for solely used in making high-stakes decisions before children attain the age of 8 (Shepard, Kagan, and Wurtz 21).
In Saudi Arabia, the education system recognizes the use of standardized tests are employed to evaluate learners (Al Shaer 7). There is a policy guideline for early childhood education which ensures the provision of fairness, excellent quality, and effective education among young children. The concept of standardized evaluation measures is a recent concept in Saudi Arabia. It was introduced as a drastic measure of defining the critical knowledge and skills that learners need to master in each subject at any given level of education (Alnadhi 4). However, there are proponents and opponents of standardized evaluation measures.
Pros and Cons of Standardized Evaluative Measures.
Studies have shown that standardized evaluative measures have pros and cons, and the following is a discussion of the pros and cons.
Pros
Proponents of standardized evaluation measures have argued that the use of the method is advantageous for a number of reasons. For example, available evidence suggests that 93% of studies conducted in the past show that the use of high-stakes, as well as large-scale standardized evaluation measures, have a positive effect on the achievement of students. This was concluded after conducting a peer review and analysis of testing research in the past 100 years (Phelps 1). The use of the evaluation tool has been found to be not only a reliable but also an objective measure of student achievement (Phelps). Standardized evaluation measures are not only inclusive but also non-discriminatory because the content is similar for all learners (Rhee). Teaching learners with the test in mind help a lot in focusing on the essential learning skills and content and thereby minimize instances of time-wasting activities which do not contribute to any gainful learning and motivates the learners to excel (Barth and Ruth). The use of standardized tests has shown that it not only provide critical information in so short time but also it consumes less class time. Standardized evaluation measures do not narrow the curriculum (Yeh 15). Instead, it helps in focusing on the essential content which learners need to grasp. Yeh further pointed out that standardized evaluative measures help in minimizing pressure among the teachers. Worldwide studies of assessment tools show that countries like China with a long tradition of standardized testing are at the forefront of world educational achievement (Dillon).
Cons
Despite its many advantages, standardized evaluative assessments have been found to have some limitations. Proponents of the tool argue that standardized evaluation measures only test a fraction of what makes education meaningful (Strauss). Strauss argued that there are more meaningful things which are needed in a meaningful education but cannot be measured by the tests, and they include critical thinking, motivation, creativity, curiosity, persistence, leadership, integrity, and courage among others. The assessment tool encourages drilling and rote learning since it tends to focus more on teaching with the goals of passing tests and therefore its use replaces the good teaching approaches (FairTest; Valli and Croninger). Because the evaluations only test a fraction of the curriculum, proponents argue that they tend to narrow down the curriculum (Knight Foundation). The evaluative measures waste a lot of time spent preparing for the tests. Time wasted can be used for the purposes of instruction (Kolodner). The use of instrument among young children cost them severe stress (Ohanian). The use of multiple-choice questions in standardized evaluative assessments encourages a simplistic way of reasoning among the learners where the answers are only restricted to right or wrong (Sacks). This deviates from the real-world scenario.
My Stand
I support the use of standardized evaluation measures. They provide an objective and reliable means of measuring students’ achievement. Without such evaluation measures, policy makers would have to rely on results provided by individual teachers and schools. If such teachers and schools have vested interests in the results, it will lead to the development of wrong policies. Further, the use of multiple-choice tests implies that bias or human subjectivity during scoring is avoided by using a machine to grade the tests. When teaching is general, there is a tendency for teachers and learners to stray into content which might not be essential. Further, there is a tendency to dwell a lot in one area and rush in other areas. Students too might lack the motivation to learn. Standardized evaluation measures help educators and learners to focus and cover the required content within a given period. Learners also tend to grasp the content by spending time learning what they find it difficult. However, it is important to use standard evaluation assessments as a complement to other assessment tools. It should not be used alone especially in assessing young children aged five years and below.
Works Cited
Alnadhi, Ghaleb. Educational Change in Saudi Arabia. Journal of International Education Research, 10.1(2014): 1-6.
Al Shaer, Abdulrahman. Education for all programs in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. UNESCO, 2007. Web. 10 April 2016. < http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001554/155498e.pdf>
Barth, Patte and Ruth Mitchell. Standardized Tests and Their Impact on Schooling: Q&A. Feb. 16, 2006. Web. 10 April 2016. < http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/Main-Menu/Instruction/High-stakes-testing-and-effects-on-instruction-At-a-glance/Standardized-tests-and-their-impact-on-schooling-QA.html>
Dillon, Sam. Top Test Scores from Shanghai Stun Educators. New York Times, 7 December 2010. Web. 10 April 2016. < http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/07/education/07education.html?_r=0>
FairTest. How Standardized Testing Damages Education. FairTest, 28 august 2007/. Web. 10 April 2016. < http://fairtest.org/how-standardized-testing-damages-education-pdf>
Guddemi, Marcy and Case Betsy. Assessing Young Children. San Antonio, TX: Pearson, 2004. Web. 10 April 2016. < http://images.pearsonassessments.com/images/tmrs/tmrs_rg/AssessingYoungChildren.pdf?WT.mc_id=TMRS_Assessing_Young_Children>
Knight Foundation. Survey Finds Teaching to the Test has Negative Impact on Use of News in Classrooms: Carnegie-Knight Task Force Urges More Emphasis on Civics Education. 12 January 2007. Web. 10 April 2016. < http://www.knightfoundation.org/press-room/press-release/survey-finds-teaching-to-the-test-has-negative/>
Kolodner, Meredith. Students, Teachers Sweating High-stakes Tests as Parents Rebel against Constant Prep. Daily News, 3 May 2011. Web. 10 April 2016. < http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/education/students-teachers-sweating-high-stakes-tests-parents-rebel-constant-prep-article-1.140304>
Ohanian, Susan. Collateral vomitage. 14 march 2002. Web. 10 April 2016. < http://www.susanohanian.org/show_atrocities.php?id=5>
Phelps, Richard. The Effect of Testing on Achievement: Meta-Analyses and Research Summary, 1910–2010. Nonpartisan Education Review, Apr. 2011. Web. 10 April 2016. < http://www.nonpartisaneducation.org/Review/Resources/QuantitativeList.pdf>
Phelps, Richard. Estimating the Costs and Benefits of Educational Testing Programs. Feb. 2002. Web. 10 April 2016. < http://www.education-consumers.com/briefs/phelps2.shtm >
Rhee, Michelle. Accommodate Don't Discriminate. 23 July 2012. Web. 10 April 2016. < http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelle-rhee/accommodate-dont-discriminate_b_866187.html >
Sacks, Peter. Standardized Minds: The High Price of America's Testing Culture and What We Can Do to Change It, 2001. Web. 10 April 2016. < http://www.petersacks.org/standardized_minds__the_high_price_of_america_s_testing_culture_and_what_we_can__2220.htm>
Shepard, Lorrie, Kagan Sharon Lynn, and Wurtz Emily. Principles and recommendations for early childhood assessments. Washington, DC: National Goals Panel, 1998. Web. 10 April 2016. < http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/negp/reports/prinrec.pdf>
Shillady, Amy Lynn. Choosing and Appropriate Assessment System. National Association for Education of Young Children, 2004. Web. 10 April 2016. < https://www.naeyc.org/files/yc/file/200401/shillady.pdf>
Snow, Catherine and Van Hemel Susan. Early Childhood Assessment: Why, What, and How? Washington: National Academies Press, 2008. August, 2008. Web. 10 April 2016. < http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/early_child_assess.pdf >
Strauss, Valerie. The Myths of Standardized Testing. Washington Post, 15 April 2011. Web. 10 April 2016. < https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/the-myths-of-standardized-testing/2011/04/14/AFNxTggD_blog.html >
Valli, Linda and Croninger Robert. High Quality Teaching of Foundational Skills in Mathematics and Reading. Data Research and Development Center, n.d. Web. 10 April 2016. < http://drdc.uchicago.edu/community/project.php?projectID=79>
Yeh, Stuart. Limiting the Unintended Consequences of High-Stakes Testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13.43(2005): 1-24. Web. 10 April 2016. < http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/148>
