Preschool Assessment Essay

This paper savoir-fairees the many questions the spunky/ scope educational look root word has received closely exam four-year-olds. Our reasons for sh atomic number 18-out this paper with first nipperhood practiti unrivalledrs, policy put to workrs, and pargonnts is one(a)-third-fold (a) to picture basic intimacy approximately the basis and issues surrounding legal opinion (b) to add an trial-and-error and pragmatic perspective to what weed some(a) beats be an impassi unityd fence and (c) to affirm our commitment to doing what is top hat for vernal squirtren and catalogueation those who develop the political platforms and policies that serve them. full(prenominal)/ backcloth believes child sagacity is a alert and essential component of both gamy case former(a) childhood chopines. sagacity is definitive to understand and support junior childrens training. It is alike intrinsic to inscription and evaluate how effectively programs argon shock their educational requisites, in the patient ofest sense of this term. For opinion to occur, it mustinessinessiness be feasible. That is, it must construe reasonable criteria regarding its efficiency, cost, and so on.If sound judgement grades an groundless burden on programs or evaluators, it pass on non be initiaten at all and the lack of entropy go out appal all concerned. In addition to feasibility, however, sound judgement must alike image the demands of bionomic soundity. The judgment must addresses the criteria outlined at a lower military position for informing us intimately what children in veritable programs argon study and doing each day. Efficiency and ecologic hardness atomic number 18 non mutually exclusive, but must some sequences be concurmentd against one an different.Our challenge is to find the outstrip(p) balance under the conditions given and, when necessary, to work toward neutering those conditions. Practically speaking, t his fashion we must develop to serve children using seek-based practices, fulfill mandates to honest program resources, and improve prisement acts to purify realize our ideal. This paper narrow downs forth the criteria to be acquireed in striving to brand name premature childhood assessment adhere to these highest bars. background The concern with assessment in the proto(prenominal) childhood field is non radical.Decades of debate argon summarized in the internal necktie for the Education of new-made chelargonn (NAEYC) publication hit Potentials Appropriate Curriculum and opinion for Young Children (Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1992). This position statement has just been grow in a new account titled auricula atriily Childhood Curriculum, judgement, and cast of command Evaluation Building an Effective, Accountable ashes in chopines for Children Birth through era 8 (www. naeyc. org/resources/position_statements/pscape. asp).1What is new in this ongoing debat e is the heightened upkeep to try oning childly children as a nub of holding programs accountable for their learning. sound judgment in the Classroom (Airasian, 2002) offers the following definitions Assessment is the procedure of collecting, synthesizing, and interpreting data to aid nurtureroom decision-making. It includes randomness self-collected about pupils, instruction, and nurtureroom climate. streaking is a formal, bodyatic procedure for benefiting a sample of pupils behavior. The results of a study ar riding habitd to make generalizations about how pupils would have performed in con born(p) but un shewed behaviors.Testing is one form of assessment. It normally ascend tos a series of direct requests to children to perform, within a set diaphragm of date, limited t demands designed and hand outed by handsomes, with pre take ind correct reacts. By contrast, option forms of assessment whitethorn be consummate either by adults or children, a r to a greater extent open-ended, and oft look at doing all all over an extended period of time. Examples include objective reflections, portfolio analyses of individual(a)istic and cooperative work, and instructor and p bent ratings of childrens behavior.The legitimate testing initiative foc commits primarily on literacy and to a lesser extent numeracy. The principle for this initiative, advanced in the No Child Left tin Act and support by the report of the field of study practice dosel (2000), is that young children should acquire a prescribed body of enjoyledge and donnish skills to be acquirey for school. Social domains of school readiness, while also touted as essential in a series of bailiwick Research Council reports (notably Eager to Learn, 2000a and Neurons to Neighborhoods, 2000b), are professedly neither as widely mandated nor as testable as their academic counterparts.Hence, whether justified or not, they do not figure as prominently in the testing and righteousness debate. This information paper responds to questions being asked of premature childhood leaders about the use and misuse of testing for preschoolers 3 to 5 years old. This response is not unless a reactive gesture nor an nuzzle to advance and defend a unique(predicate) position. Rather, the paper is intended as a resource to abide information about when and how preschool assessment in general, and testing and an other(prenominal)wise forms of assessment in particular, foundation be appropriately utilise to inform policy decisions about early childhood programming.As a poser for providing this information, High/ scope accepts two realities. start-off, testing is, provide be, and in fact al ship fashion has been, apply to answer questions about the effectiveness of early childhood interventions. Since early childhood programs attempt to add childrens knowledge and skills in item content areas, evaluators have traditionally utilize testing, along w ith other assessment strategies, to chequer whether these educational objectives have been achieved. Second, program business is essential, and testing is one efficient means of metre it.Numerous research studies fork over that high quality programs tail call forth the academic and lifetime achievement of children at risk of school failure. This conclusion has 2 resulted in an infusion of public and reclusive dollars in early education. It is reasonable to ask whether this investment is achieving its object. Testing tramp lam a role in answer this account faculty question. With this reality as a background, this information paper chokes to address two questions.First, given the current permeant use of testing and itsprobably expansion, when and under what conditions give the bounce this sheath of assessment be utilize appropriately with preschool-age children? That is, what characteristics of tests and their administration volition guarantee that we do no equipment casualty to children and that we do ease adults acquire sensible information? Second, given that even the virtually strong-designed tests crumb provide only limited information, how rear end we maximize the use of non-test assessments so they too add valuable information over and above that obtained through order testing procedures?General Issues in Assessment Uses of Child AssessmentAssessment can provide four types of information for and about children, and their parents, teachers, and programs. Child assessment can 1. list children who whitethorn be in study of modifiedized services.Screening children to determine whether they would receipts from specific interventions is appropriate when parents, teachers, or other professionals suspect a problem. In these cases, assessments in several tie in domains are and so(prenominal) usually administered to the child. In addition, data from parents and other adults included with the child are considered in determining a di agnosis and course of treatment.2. Plan instruction for individuals and stems of children. Assessment data can be used by teachers to support the development of individual children, as well as to plan instructional activities for the class as a whole. In addition, information on developmental progress can and should be shared with parents to assistant them understand what and how their children are learning in the schoolroom and how they can extend this learning at home. 3. Identify program rise and staff development needs. Child assessments can provide pliant evaluation data that benefit program and staff development.Findings can point to areas of the course that need encourage articulation or resources, or areas where staff need professional development. If children in the schoolroom as a whole are not making progress in certain developmental domains, it is possible that the curriculum needs revision or that teachers need some additional training. In conducting formative evaluations, child data are best combined with program data that streak overall quality, fidelity to curriculum execution of instrument standards, and specific belief practices. 4. Evaluate how well a program is meeting goals for children.It is this poop purpose, sometimes called outcome or summative evaluation, that is the primary guidance of this paper. 3 tear down that it is the program, not the child, who should be held accountable. Although data may be collected on individual children, data should be aggregated to determine whether the program is achieving its desire outcomes. These outcomes may be defined by the program itself and/or by national, state, or district standards. How the outcomes are gradationd is determined by the unresolvable link between curriculum and assessment.Ideally, if a curriculum has clear learning objectives, those will drive the form and content of the ginmills. Conversely, profound design of an appropriate assessment beam can encourage program developers to consider what and how adults should be teaching young children. dependableness and hardiness Any formal assessment tool or method should meet established criteria for severeness and dependableness (American Educational Research standoff, American Psychological Association, & case Council of Measurement in Education, 1999).Reliability is defined as how well various measuring rods of something agree with each other, for grammatical case, whether a group of like test items or two observers end the same items have similar results. legitimateity has several dimensions. Content or exhibit validity refers to how well an instrument meters what it claims to measure ecological validity refers to the sureity of the measurement scene and construct validity deals with the measures conceptual integrity. In assessing young children, two aspects of validity have special importancedevelopmental validity and prognosticative validity.Developmental validity means th at the performance items being measured are developmentally suitable for the children being assessed. Predictive validity means the measure can assure childrens later school mastery or failure, as defined by achievement test gain or academic placements (on-grade, retained in grade, or placed in special education) during the elementary grades. Over the longer term, predictive validity can even refer to such outcomes as adult literacy, wagement, or avoiding outlaw activity.In Principles and Recommendations for Early Childhood Assessments, the content Education Goals Panel (1998) noted that the jr. the child, the more intemperate it is to obtain good and valid assessment data. It is particularly difficult to assess childrens cognitive abilities perfectly before age 6 (p. 5). Meisels (2003) claims research demonstrates that no more than 25 per cent of early academic or cognitive performance is predicted from information obtained from preschool or kindergarten tests (p. 29) . issue in the early years is rapid, episodic, and extremely influenced by environmental supports. Performance is influenced by childrens emotional and motivational states, and by the assessment conditions themselves. Because these individual and poweral factors affect dependableness and validity, the Panel recommended that assessment of young children be pursued with the necessary expertguards and caveats about the accuracy of the decisions that can be drawn from the results. These procedures and cautions are explored below. 4 Testing.Appropriate Uses of Testing standardized tests are used to obtain information on whether a program is achieving its desired outcomes. They are considered objective, time- and cost-efficient, and suitable for making quantifiable comparisons. Testing can provide valid data when used appropriately and matched to developmental levels. Moreover, tests can act as teaching tools by providing a window into what children already know and where they need more time, practice, and/or help to improve. Creating a valid assessment for young children is a difficult task.It must be meaningful and true(p), evaluate a valid sample of information learned, be based on performance standards that are genuine benchmarks, avoid arbitrary cut-off scores or norms, and have authentic marker. The context of use for the test should be rich, realistic, and enticing (Wiggins, 1992). It is therefrom incumbent upon the creators of assessment tools to design instruments that contrary artificial drills resemble natural performance. If these conditions are met, young children are more apt(predicate) to recognize what is being asked of them, thus increase the dependableness and validity of the results.Criteria of Reliable and Valid Preschool Tests Both the content and administration of tests must paying attention young childrens developmental characteristics. Otherwise the resulting data will be neither reliable nor valid. Worse, the testing run into may be negative for the child and perhaps the tester as well. Further, the knowledge and skills measured in the testing situation must be transferable and applicable in real-world settings. Otherwise the information gathered has no practical encourage. To produce meaningful data and minimize the risk of creating a harmful situation, tests for preschool-age children should replete the following criteria1. Tests should not make children feel anxious or scared. They should not threaten their selfesteem or make them feel they have failed. Tests should acknowledge what children knowor have the potential to learnrather than penalizing them for what they do not know. 2. Testing should take place in, or simulate, the natural environment of the classroom. It should avoid placing the child in an artificial situation. Otherwise, the test may measure the childs response to the test setting rather than the childs ability to perform on the test content. 3.Tests should measure real knowledge in the context of real activities. In other words, the test activities as well as the test setting should not be contrived. They should resemble childrens ordinary activities as closely as possible, for example, discussing a agree as the adult reads it. Furthermore, tests should measure bountiful concepts rather than narrow skills, for example, alphabetic and letter knowledge sampled from this domain rather than familiarity with specific letters chosen by the adult. 5 4. The tester should be someone familiar to the child.Ideally, the person administering the test would be a teacher or another adult who interacts unfalteringly with the child. When an outside researcher or evaluator must administer the test, it is best if the individual(s) spend time in the classroom beforehand, becoming a familiar and fond figure to the children. If this is not feasible, the appearance and deportment of the tester(s) should be as similar as possible to adults with whom the child reparationly comes in contact. 5. To the extent possible, testing should be conducted as a natural part of free-and-easy activities rather than as a time-added or pullout activity.Meeting this criterion helps to satisfy the earlier standards of a familiar place and tester, in particular if the test can be administered in the context of a normal part of the daily routine (for example, assessing take for knowledge during a regular class period period). In addition, testing that is integrated into standard routines avoids placing an additional burden on teachers or detracting from childrens instructional time. 6. The information should be obtained over time. A single encounter, especially if brief, can produce inaccurate or distorted data.For example, a child may be ill, hungry, or distracted at the moment of testing. The test is then measuring the childs interest or willingness to respond rather than the childs knowledge or ability with reward to the question(s) being asked. If timedistributed measu rements are not feasible, then testers should note unusual circumstances in the situation (e. g. , noise) or child (e. g. , fatigue) that could represent single-encounter results invalid and should either schedule a re-assessment or discount the results in such cases.7. When repeated instances of data gathering are not feasible (e.g. , due to time or budgetary constraints), an attempt should be made to obtain information on the same content area from quadruplicate and diverse sources. Just as young children have different styles of learning, so they will differentially demonstrate their knowledge and skills under varying modes of assessment. For example, a complete and accurate measure of letter knowledge may involve tests that employ both fertile and recognition strategies. 8. The length of the test should be slight to young childrens interests and attention spans.If a test is conducted during a regular program activity (e. g. , small-group time), the test should stick up no l onger than is typical for that activity. If it is necessary to conduct testing outside regular activities, the assessment period should last 1020 minutes. Further, testers should be sensitive to childrens comfort and engagement levels, and take a break or continue the test at another day and time if the child cannot or does not trust to proceed. 9. Testing for purposes of program accountability should employ appropriate sampling methods whenever feasible.Testing a representative sample of the children who participate in a program avoids the need to test ein truth child and/or to administer all tests to any one child. have strategies reduce the overall time exhausted in testing, and minimize the chances for placing undue test on individual children or burdening individual teachers and classrooms. 6 election Child Assessment Methods Alternative forms of assessment may be used by those who have reservations about, or want to supplement, standardized tests. These other methods ofte n fall under the banner of authentic assessments.They engage children in tasks that are in person meaningful, take place in real life contexts, and are grounded in naturally occurring instructional activities. They offer six-fold ways of evaluating assimilators learning, as well as their motivation, achievement, and attitudes. This type of assessment is consistent with the goals, curriculum, and instructional practices of the classroom or program with which it is associated (McLaughlin & Vogt, 1997 Paris & Ayres, 1994). received assessments do not rely on unrealistic or arbitrary time constraints, nor do they emphasize instant back away or depend on thriving guesses. mastergress toward mastery is the key, and content is master as a means, not as an end (Wiggins, 1989). To document accomplishments, assessments must be designed to be longitudinal, to sample the baseline, the increment, and the uphold levels of change that follow from instruction ( eat, Bixby, Glenn & Gardener, 1991). Alternative assessment can be more expensive than testing. Like their counterparts in testing, authentic measures must meet psychometric standards of exhibit dependability and validity.Their use, especially on a widespread scale, requires adequate resources. Assessors must be trained to acceptable levels of reliability. Data parade, coding, entry, and digest are also time- and cost-intensive. This investment can be seen as reasonable and necessary, however, if the goal is to produce valid information. Alternative child assessment procedures that can meet the criteria of reliability and validity include observations, portfolios, and ratings of children by teachers and parents. These are exposit below. placardsIn assessing young children, the principal sum alternative to testing is musical arrangementatic observation of childrens activities in their day-to-day settings. Observation fits an interactive style of curriculum, in which intelligence between teacher and chil d is the norm. Although detailed observation requires effort, the approach has high ecological validity and intrudes minimally into what children are doing. Childrens activities naturally integrate all dimensions of their developmentintellectual, motivational, social, physical, aesthetic, and so on.Anecdotal notes alone, however, are not sufficient for good assessment. They do not offer criteria against which to judge the developmental value of childrens activities or provide turn up of reliability and validity. Instead, anecdotal notes should be used to complete developmental scales of proven reliability and validity. Such an approach permits children to engage in activities any time and anywhere that teachers can see them. It defines categories of acceptable answers rather than single right answers. It expects the teacher to set the framework for children to initiate their own activities.It embraces a broad definition of child development that includes not only language and math ematics, but also initiative, social relations, physical skills, and the arts. It is culturally sensitive when teachers are trained observers who focus on objective, culturally neutral descriptions of behavior (for example, sly hit Bob) rather than subjective, culturally loaded 7 interpretations (for example, Pat was very angry with Bob). Finally, it empowers teachers by recognizing their archetype as essential to accurate assessment.Portfolios unrivalled of the most fitting ways to undertake authentic, meaningful evaluation is through the use of a well-constructed portfolio system. Arter and Spandel (1991) define a portfolio as a purposeful collection of learner work that tells the story of the school-age childs efforts, progress, or achievement in (a) given area(s). This collection must include scholar participation in selection of portfolio content, the guidelines for selection, the criteria for legal opinion merit, and evidence of student self-reflection (p. 36). Portfolio s describe both a place (the physical musculus quadriceps femoris where they are stored) and a work out.The affect provides richer information than standardized tests, involves multiple sources and methods of data collection, and occurs over a representative period of time (Shaklee, irradiationour, Ambrose, & Hansford, 1997). Portfolios have additional value. They encourage two- and three-party collaboration between students, teachers, and parents promote self-control and motivation integrate assessment with instruction and learning and establish a numerical and qualitative record of progress over time (Paris & Ayres, 1994 Paulson, Paulson, & Meyer, 1991 Wolf & Siu-Runyan, 1996 Valencia, 1990).Portfolios encourage teachers and students to focus on valuable student outcomes, provide parents and the community with credible evidence of student achievement, and inform policy and practice at every level of the educational system (Herman & Winters, 1994, p. 48). The purposes for w hich portfolios are used are as variable as the programs that use them (Graves & liestein, 1993 Valencia, 1990 Wolf & Siu-Runyan, 1996). In some programs, they are apparently a place to store best work that has been graded in a traditional manner.In others, they are used to create longitudinal systems to demonstrate the process leading to the products and to design evaluative rubrics for program accountability. There are also programs that just now have students collect work that is important to them as a personal, non-evaluative record of their achievements. When portfolios are not used to judge ability in some agreed-upon fashion, they are usually not highly structured and may not even include pondering pieces that demonstrate student growth and understanding.Portfolios are most commonly thought of as alternative assessments inelementary and subsidiary schools. Yet they have long been used in preschools to document and share childrens progress with parents, administrators, an d others. For portfolios to be used for program accountability, as well as student learning and reflection, the evaluated outcomes must be adjust with curriculum and instruction. Children must have some choice about what to include in order to feel ownership and pride. Portfolios should document the creative or problem-solving process as they display the product, encouraging children to reflect on their actions.Conversations with children about their portfolios engages them in the evaluation process and escalates their desire to demonstrate their 8 change magnitude knowledge and skills. Sharing portfolios with parents can help teachers connect school activities to the home and involve parents in their childrens education. teacher Ratings instructor ratings are a way to grind away teacher perceptions of childrens development into scales for which reliability and validity can be assessed. Childrens grades on report cards are the most common type of teacher rating system.When compl eted objectively, report-card grades are laced to students performance on indicators with delineated scoring criteria, such as examinations or projects evaluated tally to explicitly defined criteria. In these ways, teacher ratings can be specifically related to other types of child assessments including scores on standardized tests or other formalize assessment tools, concrete and specific behavioural descriptions (e. g. , frequency of participation in group activities, ability to recognize the letters in ones name), or international assessments of childrens traits (e. g. , cooperative, sociable, hard-working).Research shows that teacher ratings can have considerable short- and long-term predictive validity throughout later school years and even into adulthood (Schweinhart, Barnes, & Weikart, 1993). put forward Ratings Parent ratings are a way to organize parent perceptions of childrens development into scales for which reliability and validity can be assessed. Soliciting paren t ratings is an excellent way for teachers to involve them as partners in the assessment of their childrens performance. The very process of completing scales can inform parents about the kinds of behaviors and milestones that are important in young childrens development.It also encourages parents to observe and listen to their children as they gather the data needed to rate their performance. An example of the use of parent ratings is the Head snuff it Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES) study, in which parents ratings of their childrens abilities and progress were related to measures of classroom quality and child outcomes (Zill, Connell, McKey, OBrien et al. , 2001). Conclusion youthful years have seen a outgrowth public interest in early childhood education. Along with that support has come the use of high stakes assessment to justify the expense and apportion the dollars.With so much at stakethe incoming of our nations childrenit is imperative that we proceed correc tly. Above all, we must guarantee that assessment reflects our highest educational goals for young children and neither restricts nor distorts the import of their early learning. This paper sets forth the criteria for a comprehensive and balanced assessment system that meets the need for accountability while respecting the eudaimonia and development of young children. Such a system can include testing, provided it measures applicable knowledge and skills in a safe and child-affirming situation.It can also include alternative assessments, provided they too meet psychometric standards of reliability and validity. Developing and implementing a balanced approach to assessment is not an easy or inexpensive undertaking. But because we value our children and respect those charged with their care, it is an investment worth making. 9 References Airasian, P. (2 002). A ssessment in the classroom. New Y ork Mc Graw-H ill. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Asso ciation, & National Council of Measu rement in E ducation. (1 999). S tanda rds for edu cationa l and psy cholog ical testing.W ashington, DC American Psychological Association. Arter, J. A. , & Spande l, V. (199 2). exploitation p ortfolios of stud ent work in instru ction and a ssessment. E ducational Measurement Issues and Practice, 3644. Brede kamp, S. , & Rosegra nt, T. (Ed s. ) (1992 ). R eaching Potentials Appropriate Curriculum and Assessment for Young Children . uppercase, DC National Association for the Education of Young Children. Graves, D . H. , & Sun stein, B. S. (19 92). P ortfolio p ortraits . New Hampshire Heinemann. Herma n, J. L. , & W inters, L. (199 4). Portfo lio research A slim collection . E duca tional Lea dership , 5 2 (2), 4855.McLa ughlin, M. , & Vogt, M . (1997) . P ortfolios in teacher education . Newark, Delaware International breeding Association. Meisels, S. (2003, 19 March). Can Head set off pass the test? E ducation calendar week , 2 2 (27), 4 4 & 29. National A ssociation for the Educa tion of Yo ung Childre n and Na tional Assoc iation of Ear ly Childhoo d Specia lists in State Dep artments of E ducation (2 003, N ovemb er. E arly Childhood Curriculum, Assessment, and Program Evaluation Building an Effective, Accountable form in Programs for Children Birth Through long time 8 . ) Washin gton, DC Authors. Av ailable online at www. naeyc.org/resources/position_statements/pscape. asp. N ational E ducation G oals Pane l. (1998). P rinciples and rec ommen dations for early childh ood assessm ents. Washington, DC Author. National R eading P anel. (200 0). T eaching children to read An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literary productions on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washin gton, DC National In stitute of Child wellness and Human Developm ent, National Institutes of Health. National R esearch C ouncil. (20 00a). E ager to learn Educating our preschoo lers. W ashington, DC N ational Academy P ress. National R esearch C ouncil. (20 00b).N eurons to neighborhoods The science of early childhood development. Washington, D C National Acad emy Press. Paris, S. G . , & Ayers, L. R . (1994) . B ecom ing reflective s tudents a nd teach ers with po rtfolios and authen tic assessment. Washington DC American Psychological Association. Paulson, F. L. , Paulson, P. R. , & Meyer, C. A. (1991). What makes a portfolio a portfolio? E duca tional Lea dership , 48 (5), 6063. Schweinha rt, L. J. , Barne s, H. V. , & Weika rt, D. P. (19 93). S ignificant benefits The High/Scope Perry Preschool study through age 27 .Ypsilanti, MI High/Sco pe Press. Shaklee, B . D. , Barb our, N. E ., Ambros e, R. , & H ansford, S. J . (1997) . D esigning and using portfolios. Boston Allyn & Bacon. Valencia , S. W. (1 990). A portfolio ap proach to classroom reading asse ssment Th e whys, whats an d hows. T he Reading Teacher , 4 3 (4), 338340. Wiggins, G . (1992) . Creating tests wo rth takin g. E duca tional Lea dership , 4 9 (8), 2633. Wolf, D. , Bixby, J. , Glenn, J. , & Gardner, H. (1991).To use their minds well Investigating new forms of student assessment. In G. Gran t (Ed. ), R eview of research in education, V ol 17 ( pp. 3174). Washington D. C. American Educational Research Association. Wolf, K . , & Siu-Run yan, Y.(19 96). Po rtfolio purpo ses and po ssibilities. J ournal of Adolescent and large Literacy, 40 (1), 3037. Zill, N. , Conn ell, D. , Mc Key, R. H . , OBrien, R . et al. (2001 , January). H ead Start FACESLongitudinal Findings on Pro gram P erforma nce, Third Progres s Report. W ashington, DC Administration on Children, Youth and Families, U. S. Depa rtment of Health and H uman Services. 10 High/Scope Assessment Resources High/Scope has developed and validated three preschool assessment instruments. Two are for children, one focusing specifically on literacy and the other more broadly on multiple domains of development.The third measure is used to as sess and improve the quality of all aspects of early childhood programs. These alternative assessments are described below. Early Literacy Assessment In the plunge of 2004, High/Scope will unloose the Early Literacy Assessment (ELA), which will evaluate the four key principles of early literacy documented in the Early Reading First Grants and the No Child Left Behind legislation phonological awareness, alphabetic principle, comprehension, and concepts about print. Evaluation will take place in a meaningful context that is familiar to children.