curriculum and assessment considerations for young children from culturally, linguistically, and...

CURRICULUM AND ASSESSMENT CONSIDERATIONS FOR YOUNG CHILDRENFROM CULTURALLY, LINGUISTICALLY, AND ECONOMICALLY

DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS

LINDA M. ESPINOSA

University of Missouri-Columbia

Early childhood educators and school personnel increasingly will be working with children andfamilies from diverse economic, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds. While the studentpopulation is rapidly becoming diverse, the teaching force remains predominantly White andfrom middle-class backgrounds (Whitebook, 2003). This growing cultural and linguistic discrep-ancy between the children enrolled and the teachers who teach them underscores the need for alleducators to develop the skills, knowledge, and, most importantly, the attitudes to effectivelyteach in multicultural and multilingual settings. Children from different cultures and low-incomehouseholds who enter school programs speaking little or no English are highly vulnerable tochronic academic underachievement and eventual school failure. Recent research has revealeddramatic differences in young children’s achievement in mathematics and literacy by race, eth-nicity, and socioeconomic status (SES) at school entry (V. Lee & D. Burkam, 2002). This articlereviews the relevant research on effective teaching and assessment practices for young childrenfrom diverse backgrounds and offers recommendations for school personnel. © 2005 WileyPeriodicals, Inc.

A recent national report, Inequality at the Starting Gate, which includes analyses of a nation-ally representative dataset also demonstrated that race/ethnicity and socioeconomic class (SES)are closely related in the United States and that most children from minority households enterschool with a double disadvantage (Lee & Burkam, 2002); however, there is convincing evidencethat with high-quality early education provided by sensitive and well-qualified teachers, this achieve-ment gap can be reduced (Barnett, 1995; Hauser-Cram, 2004; Schweinhart, Barnes, & Weikart,1993).

To grasp the educational urgency of the current situation for children who are from diversebackgrounds, it is useful to consider the demographics. From the Early Childhood LongitudinalStudy-Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K; 1999), we know that children entering kindergarten in theUnited States in 1998 were 61% White, 18% Black, 14% Hispanic, 2.5% Asian, and 4.8% Other.Hernandez (2004) projected that sometime between Years 2020 and 2030 more than 50% of U.S.children will be from racial/ethnic minority groups. This coincides with the retirement and agingof the Baby Boomer generation; 75% of the elderly will be White while the majority in theworkforce will be from racial/ethnic minority backgrounds.

The ECLS-K sample of over 16,000 children and families also revealed the close connectionsbetween race/ethnicity and social class; children who are Black or Hispanic are much more likelyto be in the lowest SES quintile than White children. Low-SES Black and Hispanic children enterkindergarten more than half a standard deviation below the national average in math and readingachievement (.68 SD below the mean in math and .56 SD below the mean in reading for Blacklow-SES children; .71 SD below the mean in math and .69 SD below the mean in reading forHispanic low-SES children) while high-SES White children scored far above the national averagein math and reading (.70 SD above the mean in math and .64 above the mean in reading) (Lee &Burkam, 2002). We also know that the demographics of diversity are more concentrated in com-munities with large numbers of young families and recent immigrants (Espinosa & Burns, 2003).

Correspondence to: Linda M. Espinosa, 303 Townsend Hall, Department of Learning, Teaching, and Curriculum,University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, MO 65211. E-mail: [email protected]

Psychology in the Schools, Vol. 42(8), 2005 © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/pits.20115

837

For example, the cultural, ethnic, linguistic, and socioeconomic composition of California’syoung children has never been so diverse. During the 2000 academic year, almost 70% of incom-ing kindergarten children were non-White and over 36% were English-language learners (ELLs),most of whom spoke Spanish (82.6%) followed by Vietnamese (2.7%) and Hmong (1.9%). Cer-tainly for teachers of young children but also for the state as a whole, the terms “majority” and“minority” have lost their meaning when less than 50% of the total population is from a singlecultural or ethnic group. Additionally, almost half of all children ages birth to 5 (46%) live inpoverty (California School Readiness Initiative, 2001). In California as well as most other states,the academic-achievement levels, high-school completion rates, and college-attendance rates ofELLs remain markedly below that of their White, English-speaking peers.

Teachers and administrators who work in the schools today need to develop effective approachesfor all young children, but most urgently for young children from economically, linguistically, andculturally diverse backgrounds. They need to know (a) about the cultural and linguistic backgroundsof the children they teach, (b) how to establish relationships with families who may not speak Englishand have diverse cultural traditions, (c) the effects of poverty on children’s learning and develop-ment, (d) specific strategies that will promote academic achievement, (e) and how to assess the abil-ities and learning needs of young children from non-English speaking and culturally diverse homes.To be successful, it is important for teachers of young children to become cross-culturally compe-tent, to develop “the ability to think, feel, and act in ways that acknowledge, respect, and build uponethnic, sociocultural, and linguistic diversity” (Lynch & Hanson, 2004b, p. 50).

This chapter will synthesize previous research on: (a) the impact of culture and poverty onearly learning, (b) the process of English acquisition for young ELLs, and (c) considerations whenassessing children from nontraditional backgrounds. In addition, specific research-based strategieson each of these topics are offered to teachers and school personnel who work with children whoare from economically, culturally, or linguistically diverse backgrounds.

The following example (as cited in Alvarez et al., 1992) illustrates that teachers—while notthe only influence—can have a huge impact on a vulnerable child’s success or failure. This sce-nario is about a Cuban immigrant who knew no English upon entering first grade in a school withno bilingual program.

Unintelligible noise is all that my cousin and I heard when we first heard English spoken to us. Weclung together as we approached our school on the first day. I knew that we would be all right aslong as we stayed together. It never occurred to me that we would be separated and placed in differ-ent classes. Once I got over my terror at this event, I saw the friendly face of a person who held myhand and comforted me. She was my new teacher. She smiled and stayed close to me, making me feelmore secure.

My teacher taught me English when she could fit it into the day, sometimes over lunch. She taught mewords in English and asked me to teach her words in Spanish. Once she learned some words andphrases, she taught them to the rest of the class. My new friends knew colors and how to count inSpanish, as well as basic greetings. They even learned my favorite song, ‘Los Pollitos.’ I would recitewhat I had learned in English and my classmates would clap for me. Sometimes we would get extra timeat recess or a special activity because I had learned so many words in English and had taught myclassmates and teacher so much Spanish.

My cousin had a very different experience. His teacher did not understand him, laughed at mispro-nounced words, and would not “listen” to him unless he spoke in complete sentences. He becameangry and ashamed. He was sometimes punished for refusing to speak. Eventually he refused to coop-erate on anything.

My cousin hated school and I loved it. At the end of first grade, I was promoted to second grade whilemy cousin failed his first year and had to repeat first grade with the same teacher.

838 Espinosa

Issues and Considerations

Early childhood educators and school personnel need to understand the relationship betweenlanguage, culture, and learning, the impact of poverty and early learning, the process of second-language acquisition, the evidence for first- and second-language support, and recommended prac-tices and procedures to accurately assess the developmental competence evident in children fromdiverse backgrounds.

Culture, Language, and Learning

Culture influences both how children approach learning and how they are socialized intobecoming language users and literate. Whether a child approaches learning as a cooperative taskemphasizing group understanding and performance or as individual achievement is a function ofearly learning in the home. All cultural groups share attitudes and beliefs about the uses andvalue of language and literacy, and have preferred practices. For young children, language devel-opment and learning about one’s own culture are closely linked. “Culture and linguistic identityprovide a strong and important sense of self and family belonging, which in turn supports a widerange of learning capabilities, not the least of which is learning a second language” (Garcia,1991, p. 2).

There is considerable variation among families in the ways in which they socialize theiryoung children into language and literacy use. There is some evidence that particular culturalgroups use distinctive methods in their approaches to early literacy. For instance, in most middle-class nonminority families, the mother assumes the major responsibility for socializing the chil-dren into language and literacy. Mothers typically talk frequently with their babies, share books,and ask questions that call for labels, clarifications, and descriptions of daily activities. They alsoexpect young children to actively participate and construct their own stories (Faltis, 1993; McGhee& Richgels, 1996). In contrast, African American families are more likely to share the earlycare-giving responsibilities among family members and close friends (Heath, 1983). Heath (1983),in a carefully documented ethnographic study, revealed that working-class African American fam-ilies are more likely to socialize their young children to learn by expecting the children to observethe adults’ actions and conversation rather than by participating in language activities. Thus,children from these backgrounds were less likely to respond appropriately when asked to answerschool questions that were presented in an unfamiliar discourse style.

For young children from culturally and linguistically diverse groups, their early socializationexperiences and the accompanying values acquired in their home and community environmentfrequently are not those celebrated by the school setting and used as the basis for academic learn-ing and achievement. These discrepancies between the learning culture of the home and that of theschool result in cultural discontinuity for the child; this discontinuity can create vulnerability forthat child (Garcia, 1993; McGhee & Richgels, 1996). Children who experience cultural disconti-nuity between the home and school are more likely to have a negative perception of self as learner,reader, writer, and speaker (Garcia, 1993). Many have argued for learning and teaching contextsthat are socioculturally and linguistically meaningful for all learners (Sanchez, 1999). It is impor-tant to remember that young children have formed culturally shaped expectations and attitudes forwhen they are supposed to talk, to whom they should talk, and what type of language is appro-priate in different contexts. Through these early language and socialization experiences, childrencreate their self-identity and learn who they are and how they should behave (Park & King, 2003).When the cultural expectations of the home and school vary markedly, the child may initially feelsome discomfort and anxiety in the school setting. While most researchers agree that children can

Diverse Backgrounds 839

learn to successfully navigate two different cultures, school personnel need to be aware of thevalues and practices of the child’s home environment to design classroom practices that supportthe child’s successful transition.

Eventually, all children will need to learn the mainstream patterns of discourse they willencounter as they progress through the schooling system (Delpit, 1988); however, as school per-sonnel, we can increase their chances of academic success if we adapt the school environment tofoster school–home continuity. To improve the continuity between home and school requiresculturally responsive curricula and pedagogy. Culturally responsive approaches include the stu-dents’ histories, language, early experiences, and values in the classroom activities and instructionthat is “consistent with the students’ own cultures and aimed at improving academic learning”(Au, 1993, p. 13). For example, several studies have demonstrated that when teachers organizegrouping patterns and participation rules that are more consistent with the child’s home culture,Native American and Native Hawaiian children increase their levels of attention and participationand become less disruptive (Weisner, Gallimore, & Jordan, 1989).

Culturally Responsive Curriculum

All teachers of young children spend considerable time getting to know their students, theirbackgrounds, their special skills and needs, and some information about their early learning andsocialization environments. This is especially important when the linguistic and cultural back-grounds of the teacher and children are different. While collecting information about the specificchildren in a classroom, it is important that teachers not make assumptions about their culturalbackground. Racial and ethnic generalizations about ethnic/racial groups may or may not apply toany particular family or child. All good early childhood teaching begins by finding out who thechildren are to begin communication and instruction with sensitivity and to build on the children’sabilities, approaches to learning, and existing knowledge (Sanchez, 1999).

By collecting relevant information about the students and families and by spending timetalking with parents and other family members, early childhood teachers can better understand themeaning of the home language and culture of the children in their classrooms. It is important tolearn as much about the families’ culture to more accurately interpret the meaning of the children’sbehavior and prevent cultural stereotyping or unrealistic expectations. Culturally responsive teach-ing systematically integrates the students’ values, beliefs, histories, and experiences and buildscurriculum around mutual respect and trust.

Culturally responsive curricula include:

• specific instructional adaptations, such as increased wait time, explicit cues for participa-tion, incorporation of home experiences;

• knowledge of home culture, family values, parental expectations;

• structuring small-group activities that allow for peer interactions;

• the use of materials that reflect the languages and cultures of the families;

• collaborative partnerships with families that are built on reciprocal trust and focus on thechild and family’s strengths.

Table 1 provides a sample parent interview that may help with gathering information aboutthe family background, child-rearing customs, and language usage. It is offered as a suggested toolfor beginning a conversation with families about their values and preferences. Through theseongoing dialogues with parents and families, we can begin to appreciate the unique talents, per-sonalities, and potential of the children we educate.

840 Espinosa

Poverty and Early Learning

As described earlier, poverty has been shown to correlate with literacy levels and otherindicators of “school readiness” at kindergarten entry (National Center for Educational Statis-tics, 2000). A national survey has documented that families receiving public assistance havefewer books and recordings in the home, and that these parents read and tell stories less often totheir children (National Center for Education Statistics, 2000). In fact, high-SES children ownabout three times as many books as low-SES children, are more likely to visit a public libraryand own a computer, and have parents who are much more likely to read to them frequently (Lee& Burkam, 2002).

Consequently, children from lower SES families tend to have fewer of the following literacyskills that are prerequisites to learning to read:

• knowing that print reads left to right,

• knowing where to go when a line of print ends,

• knowing where the story ends,

• the ability to recognize letters, beginning sounds, and ending sounds of words (Bowman,Donovan, & Burns, 2001).

Additional research also has revealed that children in lower SES groups have much lessverbal interaction with adults, which leads to a much more limited vocabulary (Hart & Risley,1995). The effects of poverty are partially mediated by the home environment. Duncan, Brooks-Gunn, and Klebanov (1994) showed that measures of home learning environment, family socialsupport, maternal depression, and active behavioral coping contributed significantly to the effectsof poverty on IQ scores at 5 years of age. This research has shown that the effects of poverty aremore pronounced when additional risk factors in the home are present such as maternal depressionand low parental education.

Children from low-income communities also are much more likely to have difficulty withliteracy than low-income children in middle-class or moderate-income communities (Snow, Burns,& Griffin, 1998):

Low SES is an individual risk factor to the extent that among children attending the same schools,youngsters from low-income families are more likely to become poor readers than those from high-income

Table 1Family Interview Questions

1. Who are the members of your family?2. How old is your child?3. Who is the primary caregiver of your child?4. What language did your child learn when he or she first began to talk?5. What language does your child hear most frequently at home?6. What language does your child speak most frequently at home?7. What special talents or interests does your child have?8. What is your child’s strongest language?9. Who does your child play with most often?

10. What are your aspirations for your child?11. What are your expectations for your child’s school?12. Do you have any hobbies or interests that you would like to share with your child’s class?


families. Low SES is a group risk factor because children from low-income communities are likely tobecome poorer readers than children from more affluent communities. Because the former are morelikely to attend substandard schools, the correlation between SES and low achievement is probablymediated, in large part, by differences in the quality of school experiences. (p. 126)

Curriculum Adaptations for Children Living in Poverty

It has been repeatedly shown that high-quality early education can positively influence the intel-lectual, academic, and social development of poor children both immediately and long-term. Vir-tually all experts in early education and related fields agree that intensive, high-quality interventionsfor young children in poverty can have substantial impacts on their future school and life success.This line of research also has demonstrated that to be effective, early childhood programs must pro-vide the elements of high quality which include positive relationships, a comprehensive and coher-ent curriculum, rich, responsive language interactions, and opportunities for meaningful parentinvolvement (Espinosa, 2003). Unfortunately, this is not the case for the majority of American pre-school programs. A national study revealed that only 25% of observed child-care settings met thecriteria of good, developmentally appropriate care (Peisner-Feinberg et al., 1999).

When educating all young children, it is important to incorporate the following features ofhigh-quality education; for children from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, it is essential:

• Positive, supporting relationships are critical. It has been repeatedly demonstrated thatyoung, vulnerable children can thrive academically and socially when they have the sup-port of a caring adult.

• Strong emphasis on language development. Teachers need to interact and converse withchildren both in small groups and individually throughout the day. They need to providegood language models either in standard English or the child’s home language and provideopportunities for children to express symbolic concepts through speech.

• A curriculum that includes school-related skills and knowledge. Young children need theopportunity to learn the alphabetic code, phonemic awareness, story narrative, early numer-acy, and other basic academic content.

• Small class sizes. Each child needs to have frequent individual interactions and learningexperiences that are tailored to his or her unique talents and abilities.

• Teachers engage in collaborative planning and reflection. In the best programs, teachersand other staff meet often to discuss the program and the development of individual children.

• All teachers are well-qualified. To the extent possible, early childhood teachers should havea college degree with specialized preparation in early childhood education or a related fieldand demonstrate the skills and knowledge to work with diverse children and families.

• Establish a collaborative and respectful relationship with parents and/or other family mem-bers. When parents and teachers work together, the young, vulnerable child has a greaterchance to be developmentally supported in the home and accurately understood in theclassroom.

Children from Non-English-Speaking Backgrounds

Most researchers in language development have concluded that the process of learning asecond language is similar in quality to learning the first language (McLaughlin, 1984, 1998;Pease-Alvarez & Hakuta, 1992; Tabors, 1997). Becoming a fluent language user, whether first orsecond language, depends on many factors—some within the child and some in the environment.All children have individual differences in personality, motivation, personal experiences, and

842 Espinosa

learning styles. Additionally, their exposure to meaningful language, their opportunity to interactwith other language users, and to use play to facilitate language development all influence the rateat which a child will acquire a first or second language.

During the first years of life, virtually all typically developing children learn to communicateusing language, whatever that language may be. This process begins in infancy (Some might arguein utero!) and occurs within the context of personal connections and social interaction within thechild’s family. Preschool children must learn the distinguishing sounds, or phonology, of thelanguage, the grammar and meaning of the language structure, and the pragmatics or rules of whento use the language. Although this is a monumental task, most 5-year-olds also have mastered theculturally appropriate ways to use language, when and where to speak, under what conditions, andto whom. The point is that children are highly motivated to learn to use language appropriately, tocommunicate, establish social bonds, and explore the meaning of their world. And the vast major-ity of children accomplish this task prior to kindergarten.

Young children whose home language is not English also must learn a second language whenthey enter a preschool setting in which English is the dominant language. They are engaged inwhat is called the sequential acquisition of a second language; that is, after the basis for the firstlanguage has been established. When a child learns two languages simultaneously or from birth,the process is remarkably similar for both languages (McLaughlin, 1998); however, when a childlearns first one language and then a second, there are some developmental differences.

First, second-language learners already know what language is all about and how to use it tocommunicate in their immediate environment. Their new task is to learn the particular sounds,grammar, and meaning of a new language. Second, all the personal and individual factors thatinfluence the development of a second language are present in addition to the complex relation-ships among the status, cultural value, and technical features of the first and second languages. Itis important for early childhood professionals to understand that a young child who is learningEnglish as a second language in the school setting is confronted with social, psychological, andcognitive challenges (Park & King, 2003). These young second-language learners can success-fully become fluent in English and participate in the social and academic life of the classroomwithout losing their home language if they are supported in their overall language developmentand given opportunities to hear, understand, and use their new language.

Early Language and Literacy for ELLs

Children who speak a language other than English in their homes have access (or a lack ofaccess) to language and literacy opportunities both in their homes and in a variety of early child-hood settings. It is important to consider how the various settings support acquisition of both thefirst and the second languages. Descriptions of the various types of settings are discussed next.

English immersion. Immersion simply means that students learn everything in English. Theextreme case of this is called “sink or swim,” although teachers using immersion programs gen-erally strive to deliver lessons in simple and understandable language that allows students tointernalize English while experiencing the typical educational opportunities in the preschool orkindergarten curriculum. Sometimes students are pulled out for “English as a Second Language”(ESL) programs, which provide them with instruction—again in English—geared for languageacquisition. The goals of English-only classrooms include development of English, but not devel-opment or maintenance of the child’s first language.

Bilingual education. Classroom interaction is divided between English and the child’s first/home language. These settings have at least one teacher who is fluent in the child’s first language.These classrooms can take a variety of forms: transitional, maintenance of first language, or two-way


bilingual programs. The goals might include transitioning into English as quickly as possible,maintaining and supporting primary language development while also supporting English acqui-sition, or promoting second-language development for both English and non-English speakers(i.e., dual language programs).

Primary or native language programs. All interactions are in the child’s first or primarylanguage. In these settings, the teachers must be fluent in the child’s home language. The goalsinclude development and support for the child’s first language with little or no systematic expo-sure to English (Tabors, 1997).

What Type of Program Is Best for Young ELLs?

The preferred program type for any particular child depends on many factors, including the child’sage, motivation to learn English, previous exposure to English, language support in the home, andpersonality features; however, the research on second-language acquisition suggests effective earlychildhood programs for language-minority students support long-term first-language development.The connections between primary-language proficiency and future academic success are well doc-umented (August & Garcia, 1988; Bialystok, 2001; Galambos & Hakuta, 1988; Hakuta, 1986;McLaughlin, Blanchard, & Osanai, 1995); however, we do not know whether the focus on primary-language instruction in preschool constitutes a protective factor for children who will not have theopportunity to acquire initial literacy skills in their native or stronger language.

Based on the best evidence available, the long-term goal of educators should be to helpchildren maintain and build the first language while adding fluency and literacy skills in English,not replacing the child’s home language with English. Cummins (1981, 2000) and Ogbu (1978)forcefully argued that children and families who are members of cultural and linguistic minoritiesalso face economic and social discrimination that often alienates them from their own culture.Wong-Fillmore (2000) demonstrated that when children lose their desire or ability to speak theirparents’ language, they often experience family difficulties and do not benefit from their families’cultural richness. When language-minority students are not alienated from their own cultural val-ues and do not perceive themselves as inferior to the dominant group, they are less likely toexperience school failure (Garcia, 2003).

Garcia (1991) noted the importance of supporting the child’s cultural heritage: “Culture andlinguistic identity provides a strong and important sense of self and family belonging, which inturn supports a wide range of learning capabilities, not the least of which is learning a secondlanguage” (p. 2). Bowman and Stott (1994) further concluded that “Cultural factors play an impor-tant role in determining how and what children learn (Rogoff, 1984). They interface with age/stage potential, personal characteristics, and experience—giving them direction and substance”(p. 121). Therefore, in addition to a specific language approach, early childhood educators need toconsider the children’s cultural background and provide a culturally responsive curriculum asdescribed earlier.

Spoken language and reading have much in common. Considerable evidence suggests that inpreschool and kindergarten classrooms, exposure to rich language and literacy experiences ratherthan explicit, structured, formal instruction is the preferred method of instruction. This contrasts withguidelines for formal reading instruction, where the evidence is now incontrovertible that explicitinstruction in letters, sounds, and their relationship is helpful to most children and crucial to some infirst- and second-grade reading instruction (Espinosa, & Burns, 2003; Snow et al., 1998).

Children’s homes and early education experiences vary greatly in the quantity and variety ofprint materials. Children in the United States whose family language is other than English havefewer books in their homes; this finding is somewhat confounded by the higher percentage of

844 Espinosa

non-English-speaking families who also have a low SES (Coley, 2002). If U.S. families are mono-lingual in a language other than English, it also becomes important to consider the type of printmaterial accessible to children in their home language. Print material should be available in thefamily’s home language so that children and adults can examine the functions and features ofprint. When children and families are bilingual, experiences and materials need to be available inboth languages so that the children have the experiences to develop language and preliteracy skillsin both languages.

Curriculum Adaptations for ELLs

Home-language support. Even when teachers do not speak the child’s home language, thereare many specific teaching practices that will support primary-language development. Teachersand ancillary staff can support children’s primary language throughout the day in all kinds oflearning situations. In addition, educators need to provide long-term help to build children’s primary-language literacy skills.

First, the teachers and administrators must agree on the short- and long-term goals of theprogram. There must be consensus on the value of supporting the child’s home language and thespecific type of program that will be provided. Without clarity of goals and agreement aboutthe purposes of language instruction, it is very easy to become confused about teaching strategiesand language of instruction when a young child is learning English as a second language. Thefollowing suggestions synthesize previous research (Au, 1993; Ballenger, 1999; Garcia, 1993;Purcell-Gates & Dahl, 1991; Tabors, 1997):

• Provide bilingual instructional support including paraprofessionals (instructional assistant,parent volunteers, and older and more competent students) whenever possible.

• Incorporate children’s home language into the daily classroom activities through song,poetry, dances, rhymes, and counting. Create materials in the children’s home language torepresent familiar stories, songs, or poems that will improve early primary-language literacy.

• Having simple print material in the children’s home language in learning centers, labeledobjects, and writing utensils will further support early literacy abilities for non-Englishspeakers. Each language can be printed on different-colored paper to help children distin-guish between them.

• Encourage parents and other family members to continue to use the home language duringfamily activities while also encouraging early literacy development in the primary language.

• If age-appropriate books and stories are available in the child’s home language, loaningthem to parents, with encouragement to engage in playful, interactive reading times con-tributes to the child’s motivation to read.

• Learning and using even just a few words of the students’ home language communicatesrespect for the home language and culture; however, if you do not speak the child’s homelanguage, it is important to pronounce the words correctly.

• Include family members and other community representatives in the classroom to providelanguage models in the first language; they can tell or read stories, help with translation ifthey are bilingual, and teach the rest of the class new words.

English-Language Fluency

In addition to supporting a child’s home language, many early childhood classrooms inten-tionally promote the acquisition of English. Prior research has shown that preschool-aged childrencan successfully learn two languages and experience multiple cognitive benefits when English


acquisition is not at the expense of home-language maintenance and development (Bialystok,2001; Espinosa & Burns, 2003; Rodriguez, Duran, Diaz, & Espinosa, 1995; Winsler, Diaz, Espi-nosa, & Rodriguez, 1999); however, there is a very real danger that young children frequently will“prefer” the English language once they are exposed to English in a school setting (Wong-Fillmore, 1999). Therefore, when introducing children to English in an early childhood program,it is important to implement an “additive” model of English acquisition and not a “subtractive”model where English is substituted for the home language (Garcia, 2003). When teachers andother school personnel communicate a respect and appreciation for the child’s home language, andthe family continues to use the first language, the child will value both languages.

There are many classroom and instructional approaches that have proven effective for ELLs.The following are specific suggestions to support English acquisition for young children who arenot native English speakers based on previous research (Carey, 1997; Cazden, 1986; Garcia, 1993;Tabors, 1997).

• A consistent and predictable routine that frequently uses cooperative learning groups, small-group interactions, and regular opportunities for ELLs to converse informally with Englishspeakers supports second language learning.

• Small peer groups that give children opportunities to learn English in nonthreatening, secureenvironments promote friendships among children who speak different languages.

• Allow children to practice following and giving instructions for basic literacy tasks such asturning pages during reading, using pictures to tell a story, telling a story in sequence, andnoting the names of main characters in a story.

• Allow for voluntary participation instead of strictly enforced turn-taking or teacher-ledlessons.

• Help young English learners become a part of the social fabric of the classroom by sys-tematically including a mix of first- and second-language children in organized, small-group activities.

• Teach English-speaking children in the classroom to act as language resources for second-language learners which could “act as a catalyst to language development” (Hirschler,1994, p. 237).

• Have students dictate stories about special personal events.

• Embed all instruction in context cues that connect words to objects, visuals, and bodymovements. This is what Tabors (1997) calls “doubling the message.” By connecting wordswith concrete objects and physical movements, the probability that children will under-stand their meaning increases.

• Repeat words and directions frequently and explicitly throughout the day, calling attentionto their sounds and meanings.

• Modify language use so that it is comprehensible for young second-language learners.Make it as simple, direct, and concrete as possible while systematically introducing newwords that are unfamiliar.

• Speak at a standard speed with some pausing between phrases; use simple, short sentenceswith clear referents; and use more gestures, movements, and facial expressions to helpconvey meaning (Carey, 1997).

Assessment Considerations for Children from Diverse Backgrounds

Children who are from culturally diverse homes and children who are ELLs deserve high-quality programs, effective instruction, sound assessment, and targeted assistance. A comprehensive

846 Espinosa

assessment system tied to instructional improvement is an essential aspect of a quality programthat will directly impact children’s early academic achievement (Hills, 1992).

In fact, many studies have confirmed the powerful effect a well-designed early educationprogram with appropriate assessment can have on ELLs’ emerging bilingualism, in addition toEnglish-language acquisition and overall cognitive development (Bialystok, 2001; Winsler et al.,1999; Gormley & Phillips, 2003).

Assessment Purposes and Methods

It is generally accepted that there are many reasons why young children are assessed, anddifferent authors have suggested different rationales. The National Education Goals Panel sug-gested four distinct purposes for child assessment during early childhood (Shepard, Kagan, &Wurtz, 1998). These are (a) to improve instruction and support learning, (b) to identify childrenfor health and special services, (c) to evaluate programs and monitor trends, and (d) to makehigh-stakes program and policy decisions. Each purpose requires its own instruments, procedures,technical standards, and carries its own potential for cultural and linguistic bias.

The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the NationalAssociation of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE)recently published a position statement on early childhood curriculum, assessment, and programevaluation (NAEYC, NAECS/SDE, 2003). In this position statement, the key assessment recom-mendation is:

To assess young children’s strengths, progress, and needs, use assessment methods that are develop-mentally appropriate, culturally and linguistically responsive, tied to children’s daily activities, sup-ported by professional development, inclusive of families, and connected to specific, beneficial purposes:(1) making sound decisions about teaching and learning, (2) identifying significant concerns that mayrequire focused intervention for individual children, and (3) helping programs improve their educa-tional and developmental interventions. (p. 10)

According to this position statement, the 10 following recommendations are indicators ofeffective early childhood assessment:

• ethical principles guide assessment practices,

• assessment instruments are used for their intended purposes,

• assessments are appropriate for their ages and other characteristics of children being assessed[italics added],

• assessment instruments are in compliance with professional criteria for quality,

• what is assessed is developmentally and educationally significant,

• assessment evidence is used to understand and improve learning,

• assessment evidence is gathered from realistic settings and situations that reflect children’sactual performance,

• assessments use multiple sources of evidence gathered over time,

• screening is always linked to follow-up,

• use of individually administered norm-referenced tests is limited, and

• staff and families are knowledgeable about assessment.

The authors of the NAEYC/NAECSD/SDE (2003) position statement as well as most expertsin the early childhood field caution against the overreliance of standardized, norm-referenced testsduring the preschool years, particularly for children from linguistically and culturally diversebackgrounds (Duarte & Gutierrez, 2004; McLaughlin, 1998; Santos, 2004; Trister-Dodge, Herman,


Charles, & Maiorca, 2004). Most recommend the use of alternative assessment approaches thatinclude ongoing assessments that take into account the importance of individual background andhistory while respecting the child’s primary language and home culture.

For the purpose of improving and adjusting instruction (arguably the most important purposeof assessment), regular, ongoing assessments, usually done by the teacher within the classroom,are conducted. These most often are informal, nonstandardized procedures that include observa-tional notes, checklists, rating scales, student work samples, and portfolios. This type of assess-ment information is a necessary component of quality instruction, as it provides valuable informationon each child’s performance that allows teachers to individualize the curriculum and address eachchild’s unique learning needs.

Informal instructionally embedded assessment, although frequently praised for its ecologicalvalidity and authentic nature (Wortham, 2001), also can reflect biases when the teacher and thechild do not share the same cultural and linguistic background. For example, if a young girl entersa prekindergarten program from Asia and the teacher does not understand her language or cus-toms, how is the teacher able to accurately rate her social competence? If the young girl neverresponds to a social initiative by an adult and avoids contact with boys, but cheerfully watches outfor younger children from her neighborhood, would the teacher understand the girl’s social strengthsand rate her accurately? Or if this same child can recognize five Chinese characters but no lettersof the alphabet, is she developing age-appropriate early literacy skills? Without knowing how ourcurriculum goals and expectations are translated and reflected in different and often culturallyspecific patterns of behavior, this teacher may underestimate the social and academic competen-cies of this young girl. Even authentic and direct assessment information such as classroom obser-vations can reflect mainstream biases when school personnel do not understand the culturalbackground and home languages of the children. This further underscores the need for schoolpersonnel to reach out to families and increase their understanding of diverse family values,customs, and expectations for behavior.

For the purpose of identifying and qualifying children for special services, standardized assess-ment instruments and procedures are typically administered to children over 3 years of age. Accord-ing to Federal Public Law 102–119, all evaluations of young children must be racially and culturallynondiscriminatory, and be conducted in the child and family’s native language whenever possible(Lynch & Hanson, 2004b). This presents real challenges to teachers and assessment professionalsbecause most have not been trained to conduct nondiscriminatory assessments with children fromculturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds; many of them do not speak the child’s nativelanguage and are not familiar with the home culture and; most teachers lack knowledge of thepsychometric characteristics of tests and therefore cannot make informed judgments about theappropriateness of specific tests when their students are from linguistically diverse backgrounds(Sanchez & Brisk, 2004).

This situation is further compounded by the widespread finding that children from diversebackgrounds are overrepresented in special education programs due, in part, to the use of cultur-ally biased and invalid standardized assessment instruments and procedures (Cole & Mills, 1997;Eisner, 1998). In fact, some researchers have found the most common Spanish language measureof language proficiency for young children, the Pre-Language Assessment Scales Espanol (Pre-LAS Espanol), to be an invalid measure of Spanish-language ability (MacSwan, Rolstad, & Glass,2002). Because our current understandings, both theoretically and empirically, of how emergentbilinguals develop in a school context and how to accurately assess bilinguals’ language abilitiesare flawed, these authors recommended that:

. . . the practice of routinely testing minority language children’s oral native language ability is aban-doned. In the usual case, the assessment of language minority children for purposes of program placement

848 Espinosa

and identification can be done with a simple home language survey, brief parent interview, and somekind of second language assessment (e.g., English, in the U.S. context). (p. 233)

An underlying dilemma for educators and assessment personnel is how to distinguish betweenlanguage differences and language disorders. This is especially difficult when interpreting assess-ment information for children who are acquiring English as a second language because many ofthe characteristics of second-language acquisition are easily mistaken for language disorders. Forexample, many children who are nonnative English speakers have low verbal language assessmentscores, but average nonverbal scores. This is a common finding for monolingual students withreading disabilities (Barrera, 1995; Brown, 2004; Gunderson & Siegel, 2001). The assessmentresults for language proficiency and native language ability can be misleading and underestimatethe child’s true language competency. In fact, “. . . .many preschool-age bilingual children whodemonstrate some characteristics of language disorder, such as expressive language disorder, doachieve normal speech as they grow older, especially when they have sufficient time to practice.”(Brown, 2004, p. 229). Most importantly, it has been repeatedly stressed that almost all standardized-assessment tools have been designed and normed on native speakers of English and have seriouslimitations when used for young ELLs (American Psychological Association, 1990; Cole & Mills,1997; Klee & Carson, 2000; MacSwan et al., 2002). Children may do poorly on a languageassessment because they are language delayed or because they are assessed in a language in whichthey are not fluent or in a language style with which they are not familiar. Clearly, in assessingyoung children’s learning, care must be taken to distinguish developmental difficulties from cul-tural and linguistic differences.

Even the process used to determine if the child should be assessed in English or the homelanguage is not well understood and is fraught with difficulties. Consequently, the language andlearning needs of many children who are learning English are misidentified; their ability to speakand understand English may be overestimated and their general cognitive and social abilitiesunderestimated. Information gathered from standardized tests must be combined with informationfrom teachers, families, and careful observation when making any decisions about the educationalfunctioning of young ELLs.

Children’s linguistic and cultural differences as well as differences in their learning needs andabilities must be considered throughout all phases of child assessments. Assessment can be apositive tool critically important to curriculum planning, classroom activities, and parental part-nerships. Because assessment frequently drives instruction, the more complete and accurate theassessment, the better the instruction will be. The following recommendations are offered whenassessing young children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

• The child’s early language experiences with particular attention to home language must beconsidered when assessing oral language proficiency. Bilingualism may result in a slowerrate of vocabulary development than that for children learning a single language. As chil-dren are acquiring two languages and becoming bilingual, one language may dominate(Espinosa, in press). That is normal. It is rare for emerging bilinguals to be equally bal-anced in the development of both languages.

• Assessors need to understand the process and stages of acquiring a second language so theycan accurately interpret the oral proficiency of an emergent bilingual child (Espinosa, in press).

• The child must be assessed in the home language as well as in English. Knowing how thechild is progressing in the home language is important for long-term academic success andeducational planning. When assessment instruments are not available in the child’s homelanguage, dynamic assessment methods can provide information on the child’s age-appropriate language abilities (California Department of Education, 1998; Leung, 1996).


• Great caution must be used when administering standardized tests to young ELLs. Theymust be culturally validated and normed on a population that represents the children beingtested. Few screening and assessment instruments have been translated into other lan-guages and renormed for the new population (Alberts, Davis, & Prentice, 1995).

• Parents and other family members must be included in the assessment process. Parentshave generally been found to be reliable informants about their child’s language and overalldevelopment (Pavri & Fowler, 2005). With the help of translators, if necessary, parents canshare information about the child’s language competence with siblings, peers, parents, andother adults.

• An assessment team must be used that includes at least one other person who speaks thechild’s home language and is familiar with the child’s culture. The team should use multi-ple formal and informal procedures including observations, interviews, and play-basedassessments (McLean, 2005).

• All procedures and results should be reviewed for cultural bias and accuracy by a personfrom that cultural group and, if possible, a bilingual educator (Bondurant-Utz, 1994).

• Assessment information should be frequently collected and reviewed to monitor changes inlanguage and overall development.

In summary, with sensitive and responsive teaching, careful assessment, and collaborativepartnerships with families, young children from highly diverse backgrounds can achieve to highstandards. In addition, the cultural and linguistic strengths they bring to the classroom, whenviewed as assets, can be transformed to lifelong skills. Or as Dante stated: “Diverse voci fannodolce note; cosi diversi scanni in nostra vita rendon dolce armonia. . . .” [Diverse voices makesweet music; as diverse conditions in our life render sweet harmony. . . .]

References

Alberts, F.M., Davis, B.L., & Prentice, L. (1995). Validity of an observation screening instrument in a multiculturalpopulation. Journal of Early Intervention, 19, 168–177.

American Psychological Association. (1990). APA guidelines for providers of psychological services to ethnic, linguistic,and culturally diverse populations. Washington, D.C.: Author.

Au, K.H. (1993). Literacy instruction in multicultural settings. New York: Harcourt Brace.

August, D., & Garcia, E. (1988). Language minority education in the U.S.: Research, policy and practice. Springfield, IL:Thomas.

Ballenger, C. (1999). Teaching other people’s children: Literacy and learning in a bilingual classroom. New York: TeachersCollege Press.

Barnett, W.S. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school outcomes. The Future ofChildren, 5, 25–50.

Barrera, I. (1995). To refer or not to refer: Understanding the web of diversity, deficit and disability. New York StateAssociation for Bilingual Education Journal, 10, 54– 66.

Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy & cognition. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Bondurant-Utz, J.A. (1994). Screening and identification. In J.A. Bondurant-Utz & L.B. Luciano (Eds.), A practical guideto infant and preschool assessment in special education. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Bowman, B., Donovan, S., & Burns, M.S. (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

Bowman, B., & Stott, F. (1994). Understanding development in a cultural context: The challenge for teachers. In B.Mallory & R. New (Eds.), Diversity and developmentally appropriate practices: Challenges for early childhoodeducation (pp. 119–133). New York: Teachers College Press.

Brown, J.D. (2004). Reducing the over-referral of culturally and linguistically diverse students for language disabilities.NABE Journal of Research & Practice, 2(1), 225–243.

850 Espinosa

California Department of Education. (1998). Observing preschoolers: Assessing first and second language development.Sacramento, CA: Author.

California Department of Education. (2001). California School Readiness Initiative. Sacramento: Author.Carey, S. (1997). Second language learners. Los Angeles: Stenhouse.Cazden, C. (1986). ESL teachers as language advocates for children. In P. Rigg & D.S. Enright (Eds.), Children and ESL:

Integrating perspectives (pp. 9–21). Washington, DC: TESOL.Cole, K., & Mills, P. (1997). Agreement of language intervention triage profiles. Topics in Early Childhood Special

Education, 17, 119–130.Coley, R. (2002). An uneven start: Indicators of inequality in school readiness. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority

students. In Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework (pp. 3–26). Los Angeles: Evaluationand Assessment Center, California State University, Los Angeles.

Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the crossfire. Clevedon, United Kingdom:Multilingual Matters.

Delpit, L.D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people’s children. Harvard EducationalReview, 58, 280–298.

Duarte, G., & Gutierrez, C. (2004). Best practices in bilingual early childhood classrooms. NABE News, 27, 4–8.Duncan, D.J., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P.K. (1994). Economic deprivation and early childhood development. Child

Development, 65, 296–318.Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. (1999). America’s kindergarteners. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,

Office of Educational Research and Improvement.Eisner, E.W. (1998). The enlightened eye: Qualitative inquiry and the enhancement of educational practice. School Psy-

chology International, 16(1), 5–7.Espinosa, L. (2003). High quality preschool: Why we need it and what it looks like. National Institute for Early Education

Research Policy Brief No. 1. Retrieved January 2005 from http://www.nieer.orgEspinosa, L. (in press). Bilingual education in early childhood. In R. New & M. Cochran (Eds.), Early childhood educa-

tion. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group.Espinosa, L., & Burns, S. (2003). Early literacy for young children and English-language learners. In C. Howes (Ed.),

Teaching 4 to 8-year-olds literacy, math, multiculturalism, and classroom community (pp. 47–69). Baltimore: Brookes.Faltis, C. (1993). Joinfostering: Adapting teaching strategies for the multilingual classroom. New York: Macmillan.Galambos, S.J., & Hakuta, K. (1988). Subject-specific and task-specific characteristics of metalinguistic awareness in

bilingual children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 9, 141–162.Garcia, E.E. (1991). Caring for infants in a bilingual child care setting. Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority

Students, 9, 1–10.Garcia, E.E. (1993). The education of linguistically and culturally diverse children. In B. Spodek (Ed.), Handbook of

research on the education of young children (pp. 372–384). New York: Macmillan.Garcia, E.E. (2003). Student cultural diversity: Understanding and meeting the challenge. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Gormley, W.T., & Phillips, D. (2003). The effects of universal pre-k in Oklahoma: Research highlights and policy impli-

cations. Center for Research on Children in the U.S. (CROCUS Working Paper No. 2).Gunderson, L., & Siegel, L. (2001). The evils of the use of the I.Q. tests to define learning disabilities in first- and

second-language learners. The Reading Teacher, 55(1), 48–55.Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of language: The debate on bilingualism. New York: Basic Books.Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore:

Brookes.Hauser-Cram, P. (2004). Services or programs that influence young children (0–5) and their school completion/academic

achievement. Encyclopedia of Early Childhood. Retrieved October 2004, from http://www.excellence-earlychildhood.ca/documents/Hauser-Cram.xp.pdf

Heath, S.B. (1983). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school. Language and Society, 11, 49–76.Hernandez, D. (2004, September). Children in newcomer families. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Early

Childhood Funders, San Francisco.Hills, T.W. (1992). Reaching potentials through appropriate assessment. In S. Bredekamp & T. Rosegrant (Eds.), Reaching

potentials: Appropriate curriculum and assessment for young children (pp. 43– 64). Washington, DC: National Asso-ciation for the Education of Young Children.

Hirschler (1994). Preschool children’s help to second language learners. Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minor-ity Students, 14, 227–240.

Klee, T., & Carson, D. (2000). Improving the positive predictive value of screening for developmental language disorder.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 821–833.


Lee, V., & Burkam, D. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in achievement as childrenbegin school. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.

Leung, P. (1996). Asian Pacific Americans and the Americans with Disabilities Act: A promise yet to be fulfilled. Journalof Rehabilitation Administration, 17(2), 92–98.

Lynch, E., & Hanson, M. (2004a). Family diversity, assessment, and cultural competence. In M. McLean, D. Bailey, & M.Wolery (Eds.), Assessing infants and preschoolers with special needs (4th ed., pp. 69–95). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Lynch, E., & Hanson, M. (2004b). Developing cross-cultural competence: A guide for working with children and theirfamilies (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.

MacSwan, J., Rolstad, K., & Glass, G.V. (2002). Do some school-age children have no language? Some problems ofconstruct validity in the Pre-LAS Español. Bilingual Research Journal, 26(2), 213–238.

McGhee, L.M., & Richgels, D.J. (1996). Literacy beginnings: Supporting young readers and writers. Boston: Allyn &Bacon.

McLaughlin, B. (1984). Second language acquisition in childhood: Preschool children (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

McLaughlin, B. (1998). Fostering the development of first and second language development in early childhood. Sacra-mento: California Department of Education, Early Childhood Division.

McLaughlin, B., Blanchard, A., & Osanai, Y. (1995). Assessing language development in bilingual preschool children.NCELA Program Information Guide Series, No. 22. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/pubs/pigs/pig22.htm

McLean, M. (2005). Conducting child assessments. In S. Fowler, R. Santos, & R. Corso (Eds.), Appropriate screening,assessment, and family information gathering (pp. 23–31). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

National Association for the Education of Young Children/National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in StateDepartments of Education. (2003). Early childhood curriculum, assessment and program evaluation. Washington,DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2000, January). America’s kindergarteners. Washington, DC: U.S. Departmentof Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (Report No. NCES-2000–070).

Ogbu, J.U. (1978). Minority education and caste. New York: Academic Press.

Park, E., & King, K. (2003). Cultural diversity and language socialization in the early years. ERIC Digest, EDO-FL-03–13.Retrieved July 2004 from http://www.cal.org/resources/digest/0301park.html

Pavri, S., & Fowler, S. (2005). Child find, screening, and tracking: Serving culturally and linguistically diverse childrenand families. In S. Fowler, R. Santos, & R. Corso (Eds.), Appropriate screening, assessment, and family informationgathering (pp. 3–22). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Pease-Alvarez, C., & Hakuta, K. (1992). Enriching our views of bilingualism and bilingual education. Educational Researcher,21, 4– 6, 19.

Peisner-Feinberg, E.S., Burchinal, M.R., Clifford, R.M., Culkin, M.L., Howes, C., Kagan, S.L., Yazejian, N., Byler, P.,Rustici, J., & Zelazo, J. (1999). The children of the Cost, Quality and Outcomes Study go to school. Chapel Hill, NC:Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center.

Purcell-Gates, V., & Dahl, K. (1991). Low-SES children’s success and failure at early literacy learning in skills-basedclassrooms. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 1–34.

Rodriguez, J.L., Duran, D., Diaz, R.M., & Espinosa, L. (1995). The impact of bilingual preschool education on thelanguage development of Spanish-speaking children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 10, 475– 490.

Sanchez, M., & Brisk, M. (2004). Teachers assessment practices and understandings in a bilingual program. NABE Journalof Research and Practice, 2(1), 193–208.

Sanchez, S. (1999). Learning from the stories of culturally and linguistically diverse families and communities. Remedialand Special Education, 20, 351–359.

Santos, R.M. (2004). Ensuring culturally and linguistically appropriate assessment of young children. Young Children, 59,48–50.

Schweinhart, L.J., Barnes, H.V., & Weikart, D. (1993). Significant benefits: The High Scope/Perry Preschool Study ThroughAge 27. Monograph of the High Scope Educational Research Foundation, 10, ED 366– 433. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope Press.

Shepard, L., Kagan, S.L., & Wurtz, E. (1998). Principles and recommendations for early childhood assessments. RetrievedSeptember 23, 2005, from www.negp.gov/reports/prinrec.pdf

Snow, C., Burns, S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

Tabors, P.O. (1997). One child, two languages: A guide for preschool educators of children learning English as a secondlanguage. Baltimore: Brookes.

Trister-Dodge, D., Herman, C., Charles, J., & Maiorca, J. (2004). Beyond outcomes: How ongoing assessment supportschildren’s learning and leads to meaningful curriculum. Young Children, 59, 38– 43.

852 Espinosa

Weisner, D.L., Gallimore, R., & Jordan, P. (1989). Unpackaging cultural effects on classroom learning: Hawaiian peerassistance and child-generated activity. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 19, 327–353.

Whitebook, M. (2003). Early education quality: Higher teacher qualifications for better learning environments. Center forthe Study of Child Care Employment. Retrieved July 2004 from http://iir.berkeley.edu/cscce

Winsler, A., Diaz, R.M., Espinosa, L., & Rodriguez, J.L. (1999). When learning a second language does not mean losingthe first: Bilingual language development in low-income, Spanish-speaking children attending bilingual preschool.Child Development, 70(2), 349–362.

Wong-Fillmore, L. (2000). Loss of family languages: Should education be concerned? Theory into Practice, Autumn,203–210.

Wortham, S.C. (2001). Assessment in early childhood education (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.


curriculum and assessment considerations for young children from culturally, linguistically, and...

Documents