BRIEF REPORT

Assessment of Goal Attainment in Child D a y C a r e Centers

Adair McPherson Utah State University, Logan

Forty-seven directors of child day care centers, randomly selected from centers in Utah, were interviewed to document center goals and assessment instruments used to gauge goal attainment. The purpose of the study was to determine the extent to which assessment of goal attainment is currently a component of child day care services.

The most frequently cited goal was to provide what directors described as "general, decent child care," i.e., to offer children a pleasant, safe place to learn through play. Emphasis was on learning through simple exposure to a variety of activities rather than through more directed programming. Of the directors interviewed, 49% described having such a goal.

Insuring that children acquired school readiness skills was men- tioned by 38% of the directors. Other goals were: maintenance of a positive self-image (28%}; provision of socialization experiences {26%}; and promotion of social, emotional, physical, and academic growth {23%}. The distinction directors seemed to be making between this last goal and the goal of providing general, decent care was one of priorities. Directors recognized that a child day care program could maintain a safe and pleasant environment, without necessarily promoting skill or knowledge development. Thus some directors main- tained one goal, but not the other. Six additional goals included development of age-appropriate self-help skills {13%), promotion of good mental health {13%), instruction in nutrition {9%), provision for motor and recreational skill development {9%), delivery of special ser- vices for children with developmental delays {6%), and promotion of creative expression through art, music, and literature {4%}.

Directors were also asked to describe any assessment instruments

This report is based on a thesis submit ted to the Depar tmen t of Psychology at U tah Sta te Universi ty, Logan, U t a h in part ial fulfillment of the requirements for the MSS degree. Requests for repr in ts or a more complete report of this research should be sent to Adair McPherson, Depar tmen t of Psychology, U tah Sta te Universi ty, Logan, UT, 84322.

Child Care Quarterly, 14(4), Winter 1985 ©1985 by Human Sciences Press 287

288 Child Care Quarterly

used to measure goal attainment. Seventeen directors {36%) reported complete reliance on casual observation to assess goal attainment. Thirty directors {64%) reported using some form of potentially systematic data gathering in conjunction with casual observation. However, in 8 of those 30 interviews, directors were unable to provide a copy of the reported instrument for visual inspection. Therefore, although 64% of the directors reported assessment instrument use, only 49% produced a copy of the instrument on request.

Examination of the instruments revealed five general types: checklists, logs, staff-constructed tests, work samples, and frequency measures. Checklists and rating scales provided lists of behaviors, frequently organized into sections labeled social, emotional, physical, and/or academic. Lists varied in length from 5 to 115 items. Behaviors differed in terms of specificity, with social and emotional items being worded most generally, and academic and physical behaviors being described more specifically. Checklists and rating scales were the most frequently reported (43%) and observed {34%} assessment instru- ments.

Anecdotal records, logs, diaries, or notes were mentioned as assessment instruments in eight centers {17%}, and observed in three {67%). These instruments were maintained by classroom teachers. Their use was generally optional so that records were not maintained for every child or updated systematically. These instruments were least likely to be available for visual inspection. Staff-constructed tests were seen in four (9%) of the six centers {13%) where they were reportedly used. Two t4%) of the three (6%) directors who reported using work samples to assess child progress produced copies. The sam- ples typically consisted of worksheets that provided practice with school-readiness skills such as quantity matching or comparisons. Finally, the one frequency measure reported was observed. This in- strument was designed to simultaneously monitor changes in the frequency of targeted desired and undesired behaviors.

Within the 30 centers where assessment was reported to occur by some method other than casual observation, 38 instruments were described. Directors indicated that twenty of the thirty-eight in- struments were used to gauge the progress of all children. With the remaining 16 instruments, three selection methods prevailed: all children within a particular age group were selected, assessment oc- curred on request from a parent, or selection was left to teacher discretion.

The frequency with which instruments were used was described. Twenty-four assessment instruments were used annually, semian- nually, or quarterly. Six were used monthly or more. The remaining 18

Adair McPherson 289

instruments were used occasionally, on request, or at a teacher's discretion. Although use of those instruments may have been systematic when it occurred, assessment was not a regular feature of those programs.

These data suggest caution in drawing conclusions about the use of assessment instruments to measure goal attainment simply from in- formation on reported use. The percent of directors in the present study that reported using assessment instruments was 64%. However, if one subtracts from that figure the percent of directors that could not provide examples of instruments, the figure drops to 49%. If one further subtracts from the 49% the percent of directors that reported either occasional or unsystematic use of instruments, the figure drops to 32%. Thus, there seems to be less systematic assessment occurring than is initially indicated by the 64%. Assessment of goal attainment was not found to be a regular feature of child day care services in this study.

~rATE MI~NT OF OWNERSH]R MANAGEMENT AND ClRCULATION

~e o, ,U~L,C,~)o.Child Care quarterly } ~ ~ i ) ~ ' ~ a L i ~ T i O N NO = ~ATE O~ "LINGID/I/85

Quarterly

Human Sciences Press 72 Fifth Avenue New York) NY 10011-8004

H~an Sciences ~ress 72 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10011-8004

Sheldon R. Roen 72 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10011-8004

.I~T~ Beker 1985 Buford Avexi~ e V. qf Mi~/leso~a, St._~9~ll, M~ ~5108

Brian Black 311 6th Ave. B=ookly~, NY I1215

2~9 427

L _ _ • O0