麻豆果冻传媒

In Short

Using Assessments to Create More Equitable Early Learning Systems: What Do Pre-K Leaders Think?

shutterstock_2156450451.jpg
Shutterstock

Pre-K programs need access to robust assessment data to create high-quality learning environments. Having information on the full range of children鈥檚 skills helps teachers individualize instruction, allows programs to ensure that children are making important gains across the school year, and helps policymakers make better investments in early learning systems.

Pre-K center directors, principals, and other program-level administrators are important decision makers in the assessment process and have a unique perspective on what tools and data are needed to make pre-K systems work effectively at multiple levels. In their day-to-day work, directors must support teachers in using assessments effectively in the classroom and sharing information with parents. Simultaneously, administrators must ensure that their work to measure children鈥檚 skills aligns with various requirements from funders and policymakers.

Over the past several months a team from and spoke with seven pre-K leaders鈥攊ncluding center directors and principals鈥攁bout how to make assessments more useful, equitable, and effective. Here鈥檚 what they shared:

It is crucial to make assessments easier for teachers to administer.

The pre-K administrators who participated in discussions all agreed that the assessment process can be a burden on teachers and their ability to provide quality instruction. Multiple center directors noted that there is an important balance between collecting high-quality data on children鈥檚 skills and maximizing instructional time. 鈥淎dministering the assessments can be laborious,鈥 said one director, but 鈥渋t鈥檚 worth it because they get to tailor instruction to meet individual children鈥檚 needs right where they are.鈥

However, multiple center directors thought that more could be done to relieve the burden of assessments on teachers鈥斺渁ssessment fatigue is real.鈥 One administrator was adamant that 鈥渢here has to be a way to deliver that type of assessment in a way that doesn鈥檛 take as much time away from teachers.鈥 Another director noted that time constraints also take away from the amount of data that the tools can provide. 鈥淲hat I hear mostly is that the length of the tool can be challenging,鈥 she said. Because of this, the number of domains that could be measured was limited: 鈥淵ou can鈥檛 measure everything.鈥

Several administrators took it upon themselves to reduce the burden of assessments on their teaching staff. One administrator explained, 鈥淔rom the organization level, what I do for my teachers is I print all their assessment protocols for them. I make sure they have all the materials for the assessments prepared already, so all they have to do is really focus on administering the assessments.鈥 While many administrators reported providing these types of supports for teachers, different programs have varying levels of resources to devote to this work, leaving room for assessment developers to reduce assessment burden universally.

It is important to make pre-K assessment systems more equitable.

Most pre-K administrators agreed that pre-K assessment systems needed to more equitably reflect the skills of children from racially, linguistically, and socioeconomically marginalized groups. Many recognized biases within existing child-level assessments but were less sure about how to eliminate them. One center director shared that dual language learners at their program鈥攏o matter what language鈥攚ere routinely scoring lower on assessments than their classmates who only spoke English. Locating the source of these differences was a challenge: 鈥淲e鈥檙e not sure if that鈥檚 reflective of the tool, if there is implicit bias 鈥, or if it鈥檚 simply that children are coming to us at those different skill levels.鈥

To make measures of children鈥檚 skills more equitable, some directors emphasized the need for assessment developers themselves to be more diverse and interdisciplinary. Because assessments may largely be developed with and for white, monolingual children from upper-income families, items may reflect the lived experiences of those populations and leave out the experiences of children from minoritized groups. Children may be assessed on content and themes that they have little knowledge of in their day-to-day lives, making it unclear if their performance on these measures is truly capturing different skills or simply reflecting the biased nature of the assessment content. One director wondered, 鈥淲ho are the writers behind [the tool], what was the input?鈥 Another director shared that when you look at who the contributors behind a tool are, 鈥測ou can kind of tell鈥 who is represented and, importantly, who is not. 鈥淚f everybody is a researcher鈥攏o parents, no teachers鈥攖hat鈥檚 a red flag.鈥

When discussing how to make assessments more equitable, some directors had more fundamental questions: 鈥淗ow do we have equity [in assessments] when you have preschool programs that can鈥檛 even afford books?鈥 For some, measurement tools reflected their program鈥檚 access to resources rather than the performance of their students. Speaking of a particular measurement tool that they found lacking, one center director shared, 鈥淭he way you could solve problems [with the tool] is if you had enough money to purchase what was missing.鈥

Assessments must be used to strengthen connections with parents.

Many administrators saw assessments as a promising opportunity to provide parents with useful information about their child鈥檚 development and ideas about how to best support learning at home. A handful of center directors highlighted the need for school-home connections with one director noting, 鈥淚f you're entrusting us with your child's learning, we need to show you what that learning looks like. And to do that, we need to measure it.鈥 For these pre-K leaders, assessments were at the heart of the relationship between families and providers.

Most commonly, programs took it upon themselves to break down the data for parents. This happened through parent-teacher conferences, committee meetings, and workshops. One center director described how the process works in their program: 鈥淎t our workshops, we discuss each child鈥檚 most recent data, but we also take a deeper dive into one essential skill. So, if there's a skill that a lot of children are struggling with, we identify that skill and we dive deeper into that with our families. And then we give our parents tips on how to reinforce that skill in the home environment.鈥 By honing in on particular skills, assessment data were presented in a way that parents could understand and act on.

Administrators felt that this type of engagement was most useful when it led parents to learn about 鈥渢he little things they can do鈥 to support learning. For example, one director noted the types of questions parents could ask their child in order to extend learning outside the classroom: 鈥淓ven on their walk or ride to school, reading the letters on the stop sign, what color is the stop sign, what shape is it?鈥 According to one director, it is important that parent engagement around assessment data 鈥渟upport the home-school connection,鈥 but it is also a golden opportunity to 鈥渁ccelerate the learning because the parents and the teachers are doing the same thing from school to the home.鈥

As early learning programs and policymakers continue to have discussions about how to improve assessments, the perspective of pre-K administrators provides unique insight into the needs and experiences of stakeholders at multiple levels. By incorporating these voices in the process of choosing, collecting, and using assessment data, early learning systems can be stronger, more equitable, and more effective for all early learners.

Enjoy what you read? Subscribe to our newsletter to receive updates on what鈥檚 new in Education Policy!

More 麻豆果冻传媒 the Authors

MavesHeadshot.jpg
Samuel Maves
Using Assessments to Create More Equitable Early Learning Systems: What Do Pre-K Leaders Think?