Introduction

According to the National Association for the Education of Young Children’s (NAEYC) developmentally appropriate practices (DAP) position paper (1997) detailing how to assess children’s learning and development, assessment “recognizes individual variation in learners and allows for differences in styles and rates of learning” (p. 14) and “decisions...such as enrollment or placement are never made on the basis of a single assessment or screening device, but are based on multiple sources of relevant information...” (p. 14).
While many teachers aspire to achieve such a holistic and individualistic view of a child’s learning, 2001’s No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) has created an enveloping and invasive standardized testing environment which necessarily tunnels an early childhood educator’s vision, from kindergarten readiness in preschool to the actual test administration commencement in third grade. The cost of this ever-earlier pressure manifests itself as a direct and often schizophrenic tension between policy-makers’ goals for public education and teachers’ hopes for their individual students (Hargreaves, Earl, and Schmidt, 2002).
As a result, children are “taught to the test” in order to receive state money. Funding, which is often the “high stakes” in high stakes testing, cannot compensate for what else is at stake: the children’s (and teacher’s) love and desire for lifelong learning and participation (Kohn, 1999). If true joy of the learning process is lost, the newest, most aesthetically beautiful school building in the US won’t buy it back. This brief paper attempts to explore why standardized testing is largely ineffective as an assessment, how the focus on testing and results harms true learning, and how DAP-informed childhood educators can help our nation’s schools through alternative assessments.

The Need for Alternative Assessments: Re-creating the Bar

The first question one must ask when designing assessments is, “What is [the assessment] measuring?” (Kohn, 1999). For the state standardized tests required by No Child Left Behind, the answer is students’ “command of foundational processes” in math, reading, and science content areas (Noddings, 2005). The standardized, preferred way to show said command is by simply filling in bubbles. Experts agree that such superficial displays of learning encourage shallow understanding and application soon forgotten after the test (Kohn, 1999; NAEYC, 1997). Indeed, the product vs. process-oriented nature of these tests make students focus on the possible reward of high scores and lose interest in the process they experience in order to obtain those numbers (Kohn, 1993). State scores may indeed increase, but the purpose, to show “command” (defined as thorough understanding) of the information in our democratic and increasingly international society, isn’t fulfilled (Noddings, 2005). Thus, the raised bar and increased scores become meaningless.
In order to stimulate students’ complex, sometimes messy, and meaningful understanding of concepts and facts, early childhood educators must draw upon research which states that children acquire a deeper understanding of the world through active, child-centered participation rather than a “didactic, teacher-centered approach to learning” (Rushton and Larkin, 2001). Assessing such multi-dimensional learning can prove to be a task itself, but, with some training, alternative assessments such as portfolios; observations; modified checklists (with space for comments); and projects can provide a more complete, realistic, and culturally sensitive view of children. Factors such as multiple intelligences (Gardner, 1983), socio-economic status, and race are considered; children’s self-esteem and confidence increase as their learning styles and rates are accepted by the teacher (NAEYC, pp. 5-9).

Literature Review

Perhaps one should rewind his/her thinking and, before considering research on alternative assessment, consider how the curriculum and assessment can intertwine to create an even more integrated and positive experience for both teacher and student (Bellanca, Chapman, & Swartz, 1994). A multiple intelligence (MI) curriculum is one which invites partnership with alternative assessment measures because of the various outcome measures multiple-intelligence curriculums allow, such as: journals, art (sketches, etc.), observational checklists, video samples, rubrics, and portfolios (Stanford, 2003). Multiple intelligence theory does not monopolize alternative curriculum/assessment partnerships, however. Teachers who guide on a multi-faceted continuum of social, cultural, and cognitive development accomplish the same goals of rich child and family-related decisions. Learning which naturally includes self-reflection and further exploration accomplishes assessment (Armstrong, 2000).
Portfolios, perhaps the most popular way to encourage self-reflection and evaluation, are particularly advantageous for culturally diverse students. One teacher in a 2007 study (Janisch, Liu, and Akrofi) commented:

Diverse students get to show us what they have earned, rather than having to suffer through a standardized assessment that might be culturally biased. Teachers of diverse students using alternative assessment hopefully see diverse learners as different rather than deficit.

In addition to appreciating culturally different ways to show understanding, alternative assessments can also be used to identify giftedness in a more diverse population. In a 1999 study (Reid, Udall, Romanoff, and Algozzine), researchers found that using a problem-solving assessment sensitive to various thinking patterns ultimately identified a more culturally and socioeconomically diverse group of gifted students than traditional standardized testing.
Finally, alternative assessments, by allowing diversity and creativity in understanding, can create a multidisciplinary approach to viewing the world. Cognitive research by Howard Gardner (1983) suggests that by forming associations across subjects and domains, one develops a deeper understanding that can lead to lifelong learning.

What This Means for Early Childhood Professionals

Developmentally appropriate practice, which promotes child-centered learning and observation, is utilized in varying degrees by early childhood teachers across the country. Much of what has been known instinctually by practitioners for over 20 years is supported by brain research (Rushton & Larkin, 2001). Alternative assessments are simply a matter of course. However, as standardized testing strengthens its influence in early childhood, teachers must speak up about the negative effects standardized testing has on both student and teacher and advocate for a way to learn about children, in and beyond early childhood, that values the whole child more than categorization. While some might argue that standardized testing doesn’t concern early childhood professional because of age ranges, one might argue that the issue does indeed, because the testing of later grades STILL disrespects a growing young person, and disrespect is never acceptable.

Conclusion

While standardized test scores continue to rise, the quality of and desire for learning seemingly decreases (Kohn, 1999). It leaves one to wonder, “What good is producing a society that knows how to take a test, but doesn’t want to know about the world around him and challenge assumptions?” Thomas Jefferson once said that a democracy depends on the education of its citizens. Considering the current lack of critical thinking skills on our tests which evaluate educational success, it makes one shudder to think what the future might hold. DAP holds the key to a more engaged youth; it’s up to practitioners to unlock minds.