Observation, depending in its purpose and use, can belong to all four of the previously mentioned assessment categories, formative, summative, diagnostic and evaluative. This depends on why the observation is taking place and how the information is used. When used formatively, the information gathered through observation, is used to adapt teaching and learning to meet student needs, which enables achievement to be assessed and informs the next steps required (Black and Wiliam, 1998). Observation can also be used for summative assessment, although this usually the domain of more formal methods such as testing or examinations, observation of children in order to assess their learning at end of a particular period, for example, the end of a topic or stage, can enable practitioners to document the overall achievements of the child, as they see them. In order to do this, an initial base line observation would need to have taken place (Saginor, 2008). Observation can also be used for diagnostic assessments, to ascertain or identify difficulties or needs for individual students through observation of their behaviour, learning or development, and how best to meet those needs through implementing beneficial strategies (Smidt, 2005). When used for evaluative assessment, observation can provide a unique insight into the success of a particular project or setting, that may not be extricated in any other way, for example, how children use a particular resource.
Observation, as a tool for assessment and learning in early year’s education has long been regarded as fundamental to good practice. Pioneers such as Susan Isaacs (1885-1948), at The Malting House School (1924-1929), made extensive use of observations as an assessment tool and believed that observations made as part of the daily routine were the most powerful tool for assessment and research, available to early years educators (Curtis, 1998). Observation is still valued as the optimum tool for extracting information about if and how a child is learning within the foundation stage, and the use of this to inform planning based on their needs, as the EYFS curriculum is based on assessing children’s progress through observation.
According to the EYFS - Effective Practice: Observation, Assessment and Planning (DfES, 2007), observations is vital to ensuring that the child is at the centre of our practice, both in assessing children individually and reflecting on practice to meet their needs. Without observation, the EYFS states, planning would simply be based on what practitioners felt was important or interesting but may not necessarily meet the needs of the children in our care. The EYFS also advocates that observation be both planned and spontaneous in order for practitioners to gather information in different ways, for example, participant observations carried out whilst playing and working with the children, observations where the practitioner stands back to watch the child and the incidental, but significant things noted on a day-to-day basis, will generate different kinds of information. When assessing, practitioners are effectively making a judgement about a child’s progress and needs in one or several areas of learning and development, this judgement is then used to plan provision for that child in the future. The importance of making thorough observations is vital as the decisions that are subsequently made affect what is planned in order to meet individual or group needs and may have a very real impact on the well-being of the child.
Although the expedience of observation as an assessment strategy is extremely well established, many factors can have an effect on its reliability. The reliability of observation can be effected in two main ways, either by the observer, in this case the practitioner, or by the observed, in this case, the child. Factors such as the mood or emotional state of the child or the practitioner, practitioner opinions or values of the observation process, past experiences of both parties, the wider environment influencing behaviour or outcomes, pre-conceived ides or expectation placed upon the child by the practitioner, awareness of child of observation taking place, timing of the observation, information recorded, physical needs and many more, are all possible sources that may have impact upon or bias observation as an assessment strategy. In terms of inclusive practice, factors such stereotyping or discrimination according to gender, culture, beliefs, socio-economic circumstances, ability, disability, language or political agenda, can also bias the observation process and affect the outcome of subsequent assessment, as can providing a narrow view of the child as opposed to an holistic perception (Jones, 2004).
Having identified the implications for reliability and bias, validity is the next question raised. Therefore, is observation as an assessment strategy fit for purpose? As previously stated, observation has been highly regarded; both historically and contemporarily, as the superlative assessment tool for early years practice, as, according to Hurst (1997), working from observation based assessment enables practitioners to make more reliable judgements about children. However, the quality of the education practitioners provide will depend firstly, on the extent to which the observations are reliable, and secondly on the extent to which the observations made, inform further planning and learning for the child or setting. Consideration should also be given as to whether an assessment strategy is respectful to children’s rights and the rights of their families. Addressing such issues as taking the views of the child as a participant into account, rather than viewing the child as a recipient of education, and basing observational assessment on building on existing knowledge, informed by children’s needs interests and achievements and the views of their family, as opposed to following a pre-determined curriculum irrespective of the individual, is vital to implementing respectful, holistic assessment.
Although observation as an assessment strategy relies heavily on trusting trained practitioners to carry out observations reliably and without bias, providing that this is the case, observation can be a reliable, valid, respectful and inclusive strategy. Moreover, as early year’s practitioners are trusted to provide adequately for the social, emotional and physical care needs of some of the most vulnerable members of our society, children, is it not patronising to doubt practitioners’ ability to provide the educational stimulation and assessment required also, by placing the burden of proof of every achievement for every individual child with them?
The second assessment strategy to be examined by this essay is the Common Assessment Framework (CAF), which is the government’s latest development in the assessment of those children and families whose needs are not being met by universal services (Children’s Workforce Development Council, 2008). The development of the CAF and the establishment of lead professional working were announced as central elements in the government’s strategy for more integrated children’s services in 2003. The CAF is designed to be a holistic assessment and, like observation, can be formative, summative, diagnostic and evaluative at the various stages of the assessment. For example, the Pre-CAF checklist and initial CAF assessment form can be used as a diagnostic tool to highlight areas of need, identifying the actions needed to address each need and inform the next stage, the Integrated Support Plan (ISP). The ISP and ISP Review form the formative part of the CAF as this requires continuous reviewing to guide the process and record the progress made with the support of each agency involved, and informs decisions taken about the next appropriate step. The summative part of the assessment comes upon closure of the CAF episode, when all issues are resolved and needs met, or a satisfactory solution to the participant being able to get their needs met, is reached. The CAF and ISP Evaluation form, evidently provides that evaluative stage of the assessment and requires the lead practitioner to complete this along with the participants, i.e. the child and their family. This stage is important in the evaluation of the impact the CAF has had for the child and the family on ensuring a positive outcome to the process.
The CAF guidance was published nationally in April 2006 and its standard approach to conducting assessments was piloted across Birmingham between April 2006 and March 2007, with full implementation being achieved by April 2007. The CAF was fully implemented across all areas of England by the end of 2008 and according to government claims, is potentially revolutionary in providing positive outcomes for children, young people and families (Gilligan and Manby, 2008).
Due to the contemporary nature of the CAF, professional opinions of its reliability and validity as an assessment strategy are not well documented. Similarly to observation, the reliability of the CAF, potentially, can be affected in two ways, either by the lead practitioner or other agency involved, or by the participant. Factors such as the emotional state of the participant or the practitioner may influence the needs identified, the work load of the agencies involved, practitioner opinions or values of the CAF process, past experiences of both parties, the wider environment influencing behaviour or outcomes, pre-conceived ides or expectation, and information recorded, are all possible sources that may have impact upon or bias views of the CAF as an assessment strategy. As with observation, factors such stereotyping or discrimination according to gender, culture, beliefs, socio-economic circumstances, ability, disability, language or political agenda, can also bias the CAF process and affect the outcome of subsequent assessment, having implications for inclusive practice (Jones, 2004). When examining the CAF’s validity and fitness for purpose, consideration should be given to government objectives set out by the CAF, which were to enable practitioners from a range of agencies to assess the additional needs of children and families for services at an earlier stage, more effectively, in order to develop a common understanding of these needs, and to agree a process for working in partnership to meet the needs identified (Brandon. et al. 2006). On this basis, the CAF is a valid form of assessment as it ‘tests’ what it set out to test.
Again, as with observation, or any assessment strategy for that matter, consideration should be given as to whether the CAF is respectful to children’s rights and the rights of their families. The CAF differs from most assessments however, in that it is not statutory and permission from the participant and the family must be sort prior to instigating the process. However, addressing such issues as taking the views of the participant and the family into account, basing assessment on needs, issues arising and views of their family, as opposed to following a pre-conceived idea of how to resolve the issue from the professionals involved viewpoint and consultation around resolving the issues that are priority to the participant, are vital to implementing a respectful, holistic CAF. The CAF is also differs from most other strategies in the respect that it is not relevant to some individuals, who are able to get their needs met by universal services, and works towards proving those to whom it is relevant with an means of being included and integral to their community and indeed to society.
Recommendations for practice in using observation as an assessment strategy should be around providing more specific, ongoing training for practitioners on the importance of observation techniques and the purposes of observation as an assessment strategy, which would then enable the government, providers and parents to trust practitioners to make judgements about children’s learning and how to carry them forward, with the hope of eliminating some of the time consuming documentation and paperwork involved.
Recommendations for practice in using the CAF as an assessment strategy should be, again around providing more specific, ongoing training for practitioners on the importance of early intervention and the role of the lead practitioner in instigating and leading the CAF process, which would lead to increased practitioner confidence and self belief. Also, more research into the impact of the CAF process and ways of working to lighten the work load, as instigating CAF’s is seen as adding to this, by many professions.
To conclude, this essay has examined observation and The Common Assessment Framework as assessment strategies, and has critically analysed their potential to promote inclusive practice in assessment. It has demonstrated the purpose and objectives behind each strategies and the use of assessment for a range of purposes drawing on current issues in practice. It has also discussed the importance of collaboration between professionals and participants to ensure respectful and shared assessment practice, highlighting the importance of considering reliability, validity, presence of bias and inclusive practice, in supporting children’s learning and progress.
Word Count: 2662
References
Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998). ‘Inside the Black Box: Raising Standards Through Classroom Assessment’. Phi Delta Kappan, 80 (2), pp. 139-148. [Online] Available at: (Accessed: 26 May 2009).
Brandon, M., Howe, A. Dagley, V., Salter, C. and Warren, C (2006) ‘What Appears to be Helping or Hindering Practitioners in Implementing the Common Assessment Framework and Lead Professional Working?’ Child Abuse Review, Vol.15 [Online]. Available at: (Accessed: 26 May 2009).
Children’s Development Workforce Council (2008) Common Assessment Framework. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.
Curtis, A. (1998) A Curriculum for the Pre-school Child – Learning to Learn. 2nd edn. Oxford: Routledge.
Department for Education and Skills (DfES) (2007) The Early Years Foundation Stage - Effective Practice: Observation, Assessment and Planning. Available at : (Accessed: 26 May 2009).
Gilligan, P. and Manby, M. (2008) ‘The Common Assessment Framework: does the reality match the rhetoric?’ Child and Family Social Work, 13 (2), pp. 177–187.
Gipps, C.V. (1994) Beyond Testing. Oxford: Routledge.
Glasgow, N.A. & Hicks, C.D. (2009) What Successful Teachers Do. Oxford: Sage Publications.
Hurst, V. (1997) Planning for Early Learning: Educating Young Children. 2nd edn. Oxford: Sage Publications
Jones, A. (2004) Supporting Inclusion in the Early Years. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill International.
Saginor, N. (2008) Diagnostic Classroom Observation – Moving Beyond Best Practice. California: Corwin Press.
Smidt, S. (2005) Observing, Assessing and Planning for Children in the Early Years. Oxford: Routledge.
Soan, S. (2007), ‘Inclusion and Special Needs’ in Nurse, D.A. (ed) The New Early Years Professional. Oxford: Routledge, pp, 136-152.
