« Early Learning Challenge: Where are the Foundations? | Main | Vouchers Don't Magically Build the Supply of High-Quality Schools »

Early Learning Challenge: Potential Peer Review Problems?

I've already voiced a considerable amount of skepticism and concern this week as regards the new Early Learning Challenge program under Race to the Top, but my biggest concern about this program isn't about the program itself--it's about the peer reviewers.

In the wake of Race to the Top and i3, there's been enough [digital] ink spilled on the challenges of ensuring quality, unbiased review in competitive federal grant programs that I don't need to say any more about that now.

But if you thought that Race to the Top and i3 posed scoring challenges, you ain't seen nothing yet. The legislative language defining the Early Learning Challenge program is a lot sparser than that for the original RTT, laying out only three very broad parameters:

"(A) increase the number and percentage of low-income and disadvantaged children in each age group of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers who are enrolled in high-quality early learning programs;6201
"(B) design and implement an integrated system of high-quality early learning programs and services; and
"(C) ensure that any use of assessments conforms with the recommendations of the National Research Council's reports on early childhood.

Take a look at the third one. Do you know what it means? I've read the National Research Council's reports on early childhood, and I can't tell you what it means, because I don't know if it's talking primarily about this report or a wider body of NRC reports, and in any case those reports are notoriously reticent to give the type of specific guidance needed to evaluate whether a state's approach to early childhood assessment complies with them. The use of assessment in general is a hugely ideologically charged issue in the early childhood community, and if we get a dozen early childhood folks in a room we'll get nearly that many competing views on what is and is not developmentally appropriate when it comes to assessing young children.

I don't think it's possible for the administration to avoid outright the kind of problems that came up with RTT and i3, but I do think that three steps can help to at least avoid even greater problems than came up in those competitions:


  • Define exceptionally clear criteria in the first place. As the administration crafts the application criteria for this program, designing criteria with clarity and precision to minimize opportunities for reviewer bias to sway judgments should be a paramount concern.

  • Provide very precise rubrics and training for reviewers (obviously, this is easier if the criteria are clear to begin with).

  • Use reviewers from outside the early childhood field: Obviously, reviewers need to have some knowledge of early childhood, but the administration should also use reviewers who are from outside the field and therefore not party to the various ideological camps within it. Because the focus of the competition is on systems-building, there are many issues in the design of systems that do not require in-depth knowledge of early childhood development or pedagogy, and the administration should seek out reviewers who have expertise in issues like data, and design of effective systems of public service delivery, workforce development/adult learning, and monitoring quality of diverse providers.

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Login | Register
Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.

The opinions expressed in Sara Mead's Policy Notebook are strictly those of the author and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.
Advertisement

Recent Comments

Archives

Categories

Technorati

Technorati search

» Blogs that link here

Tags

AFT
Alex Grodd
Ana Menezes
Andrew Kelly
appropriations
ARRA
Aspire Public Schools
authorizing
Better Lesson
Bill Ferguson
certification
charter schools
child care
children's literature
choice
civil rights
CLASS
Core Knowledge
curriculum
D.C.
democracy
early childhood
Early Learning Challenge Grant
economics
elections
English language learners
entrepreneurship
equity
Evan Stone
fathers
finance
fix poverty first
Hailly Korman
harlem children's zone
HEA
Head Start
head start
health care
Higher Education
home-based child care
homeschooling
housing
How we think and talk about pre-k evidence
i3
IDEA
income inequality
instruction
international
Jason Chaffetz
Jen Medbery
just for fun
Justin Cohen
Kaya Henderson
Kenya
kindergarten
KIPP
Kirabo Jackson
Kwame Brown
land use
LearnBoost
libertarians
LIFO
literacy
Los Angeles
Louise Stoney
Mark Zuckerberg
Maryland
Massachusetts
Memphis
Michelle Rhee
Michigan
Mickey Muldoon
Neerav Kingsland
New Jersey
New Orleans
NewtownReaction
Next Gen Leaders
Next Gen leaders
nonsense
NSVF Summit
NYT
organizing
parent engagement
parenting
parking
pell grants
politics
poverty
PreK-3rd
presidents
principals
productivity
QRIS
Race to the Top
Rafael Corrales
redshirting
regulation
religion
rick hess
Roxanna Elden
RTT
san francisco
school choice
social services
SOTU
special education
Stephanie Wilson
stimulus
story
Sydney Morris
tax credits
Teacher Prep
teachers
technology
Title I
unions
urban issues
Vincent Gray
vouchers
Waiting for Superman
Washington
West Virginia
zoning