Bagnato, S.J., Goins, D.D., Pretti-Frontczack, K. (2014). Authentic Assessment as “Best Practice” for Early Childhood Intervention: National Consumer Social Validity Research. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 34(2), 116-127. Retrieved from https://journals-sagepub-com.ezproxy.ecu.edu.au/doi/full/10.1177/0271121414523652

• Bagnato, Goins and Pretti-Frontczack present the argument for authentic assessment in Early Childhood Education [ECE] in opposition to large-scale, national or international, conventional testing. Bagnato, Goins and Pretti-Frontczack (2014, p.118) argue assessment criteria aligning with professional and legislative education standards, combined with authentic criteria including goal setting and observation leads to more valid assessment, reflective of a child’s capabilities. (Bagnato et al., 2014, p.125) Bagnato et al. (2014) utilises standards of acceptability, authenticity, collaboration, evidence, multifactors, sensitivity, universality and utility in comparing authentic assessment and conventional testing measures in early childhood settings, to conclude in order to allow children to demonstrate their understandings and knowledge in a range of modes, and highlight their individual strengths and abilities, authentic assessment is more developmentally appropriate than conventional testing. (Bagnato et al., 2014, p.125).

Basford, J., Bath, C. (2013). Playing the assessment game: an English early childhood education perspective. Early Years, 24(2), 119-132. Retrieved from https://www-tandfonline-com.ezproxy.ecu.edu.au/doi/abs/10.1080/09575146.2014.903386

• Basford and Bath (2013) draw on legislative documentation and other research to discuss key concerns in ECE. In particular they focus on the ‘purpose’ of assessment in England. Basford and Bath claim one view is “concerned with assessment… against a measureable set of outcomes… to ensure readiness for the next stage of their education” (p.120), “while the opposing view implies it is a collaborative process in which children’s learning and development in documented as an ongoing journey… reflective of culture and practice” (p.120). Supported with research by Papatheodorou (2009), Drummond (2012), Karlsdóttir and Garðarsdóttir (2010), Wood (2007) and Buldu (2010), Basford and Bath (2013, p.121) argue teachers must move away from a pedagogy based on outcomes and profiling, towards one focussed on the child’s thinking and learning processes, however, they must first acquire the knowledge, understanding and skills to develop this pedagogy. The article ‘deconstructs’ ECE policies, suggesting that “practitioners are caught in in playing a game” of assessment and English ECE policies are providing contradictory messages. (Basford & Bath, 2013, p.119)

Home

Bertram, T., Pascal, C. (2016). Early Childhood Policies and Systems in Eight Countries. Retrieved from https://link-springer-com.ezproxy.ecu.edu.au/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-319-39847-1.pdf

• Bertram and Pascal’s (2016) study outlines common ECE assessment practices across eight countries. The findings presented suggest many countries focus on “nurturing children’s social and emotional, physical and language development”, however many aim to ensure ‘school readiness’ and value early literacy and numeracy skills over developmental skills. (p.129) Bertram and Pascal (2016) suggest that despite the ECE system having similar demands and challenges, international assessment platforms such as Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study [TIMMS] and the Program for International Student Assessment [PISA] give little attention to ECE learning and development outcomes, arguing these international assessment platforms are not well developed for younger children and therefore outcomes are difficult to achieve. (p.131) Supported by OECD (2006), Bertram and Pascal (2016) suggest that as international tests are not appropriate for ECE outcomes, there is “uncertainty in policy making at a national level and a lack of reliable comparative data at an international level.” (p.135)

Cowie, B., Harrison, C., & Willis, C. (