Assessment for Progress Monitoring and Alignment to Standards

Direct Assessment Compared to Authentic Assessment

Authentic assessment may feel burdensome to staff implementing it for the first time. This is particularly the case for staff who are used to direct assessments like Batelle Developmental Inventory and Woodcock-Johnson, which often focus on individual domains administered in a relatively short window. However, observational, whole-child assessments are not intended to be administered in the same way as direct assessments. The formative process of ongoing observation in all areas of development and learning requires teachers to document what they see children doing based on their planning and instruction. Data is not just collected a few weeks or days before the checkpoint finalization date. With this frame in mind, CDE and assessment vendors are committed to developing resources, such as mobile apps, training materials, implementation roadmaps, and policy guidance, to help teachers use the approved assessments efficiently.

Diagnostic Assessment Compared to Authentic Assessment

Assessment tools should be used as intended. While authentic assessment tools like GOLD® and CORAdvantage® are not intended as diagnostic evaluations to identify developmental delays or establish eligibility for special education services, they provide a valuable source of data (as a part of a whole body of evidence) to support referral, IEP eligibility, and progress monitoring purposes. As ongoing progress monitoring tools, these assessments provide important evidence to substantiate the need for a referral to special education when a child is demonstrating persistent challenges in meeting widely held expectations for their age. Observational child assessments can also be used for ongoing progress monitoring following eligibility determination for specialized instruction and related services. Such use of ongoing assessment is a recommended practice by the Division for Early Childhood of the Council of Exceptional Children. The AEPS-3 can be used by early childhood professionals as a comprehensive, reliable system that seamlessly links assessment, goal development, and teaching and intervention.

Curriculum versus Assessment

It is important to remember that the Results Matter-approved tools (GOLD®, AEPS-3, and CORAdvantage®) are assessments, not curricula. A curriculum is a set of strategies for learning experiences while an assessment gauges whether children have met various standards of learning and development. Each component has a distinct place in designing effective classroom practices. Assessment tools on the Results Matter menu are intended to be used with any developmentally appropriate curriculum that takes a holistic approach to development and learning. Educators and leaders are encouraged to thoughtfully choose the most appropriate evidence-based curriculum for their program and how they will assess whether children have met certain standards while teaching using the curriculum.

See the National Association for the Education of Young Children’s position statement on early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation for more information about the qualities of effective curriculum and assessment.

Top of Page