Observing children’s development and learning has a long history in the work of early childhood educators (Wortham & Hardin, 2020). Understanding developmental milestones and observing children to assess a their progress toward milestones has been at the core of early childhood education since its beginning. Eighteenth-century and early nineteenth-century educational philosophers such as Pestalozzi, Rousseau, and Froebel believed the unique nature of childhood required observing the child to understand their needs and abilities.

In the early 1900s, the child study movement initiated by G. Stanley Hall and Lawrence Frank and continued by Hall’s students Gesell, Lewis, and Terman helped solidify the scientific study of children and their ages and stages of development. The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) embraced systematic child development observation in their original Developmentally Appropriate Practices (DAP) statement in 1986. Even in the most recent version of the DAP position statement, which recognizes that developmental milestones may not be as universal as once thought, there remains a strong emphasis on the importance of observation in naturalistic settings to ensure an authentic assessment of the child’s development (NAEYC, 2020). Observation and documentation of children’s development are critical tools for educators of young children and are a central focus in this chapter.

While the importance of observation has remained central in the work of early childhood education, educational reform in the 1980s brought increasing pressure for accountability and standards in education, including early childhood education (Shepard et al., 1998). This pressure led to increasingly common testing of children to “prove” the results of pedagogy. The No Child Left Behind Act (2002) increased the focus on early childhood assessment, starting with Head Start (Nerren, 2020; Wortham & Hardin, 2020). In response to this trickle-down of pressure for accountability and testing, there was an increased effort to point out the unique characteristics of early childhood, which made using testing protocols designed for elementary-aged children inappropriate, resulting in invalid and unreliable results (Shepard et al., 1998). At the same time, these efforts argued that naturalistic observation of young children is the most appropriate method for planning, implementing, and evaluating curriculum.

National educational goals set forth by President Bush in his State of the Union address in 1990 aspired to ensure all children would, by the year 2000, “start school ready to learn” (para. 24). A panel of experts took on the task of determining how being “ready to learn” could be assessed. The result was “Principles and Recommendations for Early Childhood Assessment,” a report that indicates how traditional testing is inappropriate for young children but also how assessment can be a helpful tool when implemented with the developmental characteristics of young children and the purposes of assessment in mind (Shepard et al., 1998). Although this is document is more than 25 years old, it is still helpful in understanding how our views of assessment in early childhood education have evolved and, perhaps more importantly, what safeguards must be in place to avoid inappropriate use of assessment procedures. As early childhood educators, we argue that the first and most important purpose for assessing young children is to support their development and learning. One of the best ways to meet this purpose is through naturalistically observing the child.

In summary, throughout the history of early childhood education, there has been an emphasis on the importance of observation conducted naturalistically and authentically. This focus remains central to the work of early childhood educators today. Educational reform has led to increased emphasis on standards and traditional methods of assessment such as testing. Early childhood educators have recognized the importance of safeguarding young children from prioritizing testing as a method of assessment. However, accepting the systematic observation of children’s growth and development provides essential information as part of the assessment process for supporting growth and development.