Discussion - 250 words min- due in 16 hours

CH02_Curriculum_Jaruszewicz.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Discussion - 250 words min- due in 16 hours

The Curriculum Landscape: Major Models and Approaches

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Describe the key elements considered in curriculum development and major research efforts that have affected curriculum.

2. Describe the key features of classic curricula developed prior to the 1960s.

3. Describe key features of modern curricula developed since the 1960s.

4. Establish a conceptual framework for making decisions about curriculum.

2 Pretest 1. Early childhood curricula are largely based

on ideas and philosophies that have been heavily researched. T/F

2. Longitudinal research studies in the 1960s helped to identify the “perfect” curriculum for that time. T/F

3. Some of the most popular curricula in use today were developed early in the twentieth century. T/F

4. Curricula developed over the past fifty years are better than older versions because they are based on newer research. T/F

5. Early childhood curricula are so different that there’s no real way they can be compared. T/F

Answers can be found at end of the chapter.

How Is Early Childhood Curriculum Developed? Chapter 2

Congratulations! Your interview went great! You have been offered a position in the preschool classroom of a public school in a farming community. The area has a growing immigrant population as well as many families who have lived there for generations. The school is small (one class per grade level) and most of the low-income and middle-class families and children know each other through agriculture work as well as neighborhood and church activities.

Your principal tells you that you will have two curricula to use: (1) a state-approved comprehensive curriculum with supplemental early literacy resources and (2) materials for second-language learners. The comprehensive curricu- lum provides guidelines, objectives, suggested learning centers, and materials. The second-language package, which contains specific printed materials and instructions for activities, was chosen to provide focused instruction for at-risk children. The principal says that you will make most of your own decisions about how to organize your classroom and will be able to choose topics of study that are relevant to your students.

As you explore the information and materials about the curriculum you will be using in your classroom, you may wonder how a curriculum is created in the first place and what makes one curriculum different from another. For example, if the director of your preschool says that it is a Reggio Emilia-based program or that it makes use of

Creative Curriculum, what does that mean? Where did the curriculum come from? Who devel- oped it? How does it compare with other curricula? How flexible is it? In this chapter, we will answer those questions and explore important considerations about curriculum development. We introduce many of today’s most commonly used early childhood curricula and establish a process you can use to compare and contrast curriculum features.

2.1 How Is Early Childhood Curriculum Developed? The curriculum a program or school chooses or develops is defined in many ways, both theoretical and practical. From a theoretical perspective, curriculum reflects the vision and philosophy of the program. From a practical perspective, it may have to address man- dates or requirements that the program must meet, teacher qualifications and professional development needs, and available financial and other resources. In addition, a curricu- lum must be clearly understood by all who use it, be sensitive to individual and commu- nity needs, and provide opportunities for parent involvement (Frede, 2007; Posner, 2004; Trister-Dodge, 2004).

Other practical considerations include purchasing materials, ensuring accountability, and set- ting up an environment that will support the curriculum. The type of curriculum a program or school chooses provides different levels of flexibility in how these decisions are made.

Early childhood curricula can vary widely in philosophy and approach. Early childhood educators can benefit from having a framework within which to compare them.

How Is Early Childhood Curriculum Developed? Chapter 2

In some cases, a curriculum choice drives all the other decisions so that it will be implemented with fidelity. For example, the decision to use the Montessori curriculum means that many things will have to be done in a certain way; for example, classrooms will have to be set up into clearly defined and named areas. Moreover, classroom equipment and materials will have to be purchased according to a list of materials specifically designed, manufactured, and approved by the Association Montessori Internationale for Montessori classrooms. Teachers will meet qualifications recommended by the North American Montessori Teacher Association (Kahn, 2010). Once a Montessori program is set up, it is readily recognizable as a Montessori space and can’t easily be transformed to serve a different kind of curriculum.

Other curricula are flexible or cross-compatible with one another to varying degrees, using similar equipment and learning materials—such as items for art, dramatic play, blocks, or music activities—but perhaps organizing and using them in different ways. Sometimes there are particular elements of the curriculum that require special attention, such as the aesthetics of a Reggio Emilia or Waldorf classroom. But with many early childhood curricula, changing from one curriculum to another means devoting resources to professional development of staff to implement the new curriculum as well as those changes that can reasonably be made with the equipment and materials already on hand.

In short, curricula can vary widely in the degree to which practical decisions are affected by their characteristics. But all curricula that are effective and stand the test of time are based on strong conceptual elements, including (1) vision and mission, (2) research and theoretical base, (3) stakeholders, (4) curriculum content, and (5) implementation. We’ll discuss these concep- tual elements in more detail next (Goffin & Wilson, 2001; Jaruszewicz, 2005).

Vision and Mission

Typically, early childhood programs are guided by a particular vision statement that clearly articulates what the program wants to achieve and a mission statement that succinctly describes how it will do so. The vision and mission of individual programs can be quite dif- ferent (see Figure 2.1). One program might emphasize literacy, for example, while another focuses on the arts. Although they are both working toward the same purpose—to provide high-quality care and education for young children—their methods can vary considerably. Theoretically, all decisions made for the program, including choice of curriculum, should be consistent with the articulated vision and mission.

Basis in Theory and Research

The educators who develop curricula for young children are informed and influenced by ongo- ing research that continually refines our understanding of how children learn. Thousands of researchers from around the world, coming from a variety of perspectives, have contributed to our body of knowledge on early childhood. However, they often differ in their interpreta- tion of data and conclusions and in the questions that drive their inquiries. The nature of such questions, some general and others very specific, has changed over time, largely in response to societal priorities.

For the first half of the twentieth century, primarily by observing children at play, research- ers focused on finding out how children learn and grow (Barbour, 2003; Goffin & Wilson, 2001). During the 1960s, federal funding for the fledgling Head Start program, spurred by a government commitment to equal opportunity for all children, produced efforts to identify

http://www.montessori-ami.org/

How Is Early Childhood Curriculum Developed? Chapter 2

ECDC’s three part mission is to provide: • A demonstration preschool for research, observation and practicum purposes. • Quality care and early education for children ages two through �ve from the College

and neighboring community • An active model of child advocacy in the Charleston community. N.E. Miles Early Childhood Development Center, College of Charleston, Charleston, SC 29424

Mission: Daniel Island Academy's mission is to provide the best learning and developmental environment in which a child may reach his or her full potential. Courtesy of: Daniel Island Academy, 300 Seven Farms Road, Daniel Island, SC 29492

�e SETA Head Start program's mission is to improve the lives of low-income chil- dren by providing quality comprehensive child development services that are family focused, including education, health, nutrition and mental health. Our mission is accomplished by involving parents in the total operation and admin- istration of the program and supporting the growth of children, families and sta� through encouragement, nurturing, education and empowerment. Courtesy of: SETA Head Start, 925 Del Paso Blvd., #100, Sacramento, CA 95815

Support the child's healthy drive for independence; Honor the child's natural desire to learn, to be helpful, to contribute; Nourish the child's spirit, imagination, creativity and intellect; Guide a joyful mixed age classroom-as-community where the child's personality will naturally blossom and unfold; Respect, protect and celebrate childhood. Courtesy of: Little Tree Montessori Preschool and Kindergarten, 21204 Monument Rd. SW, Vashon, WA 98070

Figure 2.1: Mission Statements from Four Programs

These mission statements are from four different preschool programs. Can you see that they repre- sent specific goals and use particular words or phrases to emphasize the different curricula that the facilitators use?

How Is Early Childhood Curriculum Developed? Chapter 2

a “best model” for academic achievement. When that proved difficult, researchers began to try to tease out the benefits of a particular curriculum from the benefits of early childhood education overall (Goffin & Wilson, 2001). After 2001, the No Child Left Behind legislation and increasing demands for accountability spurred research that helped connect curricular elements to specific desired outcomes.

Today, researchers examine early childhood education in broader contextual terms than they did in the past, partly as a result of the changing demographics of our population (Cohn & Caumont, 2016; Goffin & Wilson, 2001). Recent economic conditions have led to reduced funding for many government programs, including those tied to early childhood education. Such conditions have encouraged bureaucrats to reassess the value of early childhood pro- grams as long-term investments. Some large-scale national studies have also been supple- mented by research funded and targeted at increasingly local levels. Written summaries and testimonials of research are often used to support the effectiveness of specific curriculum products.

Let’s look at a selection of research efforts, from laboratory schools to various longitudinal studies, which are considered to have had a significant impact on curriculum development.

Laboratory Schools In the early twentieth century, G. Stanley Hall, an American psychologist, was a principal founder of what we now con- sider the field of child psychology (Barbour, 2003). To conduct research into how the minds of children work, he and his colleagues needed access to natural but controlled settings where subjects could be observed over long periods of time. Meanwhile, the progressive move- ment, led by John Dewey, sparked intense curiosity about the teaching/learning dynamic and a desire to study curricu- lum theory. Researchers soon established laboratory preschools in which young children could be cared for and edu- cated while being carefully observed. This movement crystallized during the 1920s.

To facilitate faculty research and pro- vide practical experience for teachers-in- training, these programs were primarily located at universities. Many of the early programs are still in operation, including the program John Dewey established at the University of Chicago in 1897 and the Bureau of Educational Experiments (1919), which became the Bank Street College in New York City.

While support for laboratory programs has waxed and waned over time and some have endured fluctuating levels of financial and institutional support, their role in the research history of early childhood education continues to evolve. Some, like Bank Street, ended up

Laboratory preschools proliferated in the 1920s and 1930s as places in which to observe and conduct research on early learning. These preschool children are at the Newcomb College Nursery School at Tulane University.

How Is Early Childhood Curriculum Developed? Chapter 2

producing their own curricula, while others allow curriculum developers to try out their ideas and then take what they learn back to their own settings.

Either way, what these programs have learned about children, and their continuing commit- ment to research, continues to influence curriculum development. For example, at Bank Street, researchers discovered the importance of field trips and helping children make connections between curriculum and the real world. This knowledge changed curriculum development: Instead of setting up curriculum with materials entirely designed for instructional purposes, most curricula now advocate including real-world materials in the classroom. Dramatic play areas might include pots, pans, baskets, dishware, and grocery store items along with replicas of food for play. Curriculum today also promotes opportunities for children to visit places like a local bakery or fire station so that they can base their classroom activities on actual experience.

Longitudinal Studies on the Benefits of Preschool In addition to studying students for several months or a year in a day-care setting, laboratory school, or other classroom environment, researchers often seek to understand the long-term impact of early childhood education. Hence they institute longitudinal studies to track the same individuals over periods of several years or even decades. Outcomes from this type of research can inform changes to curriculum. One example of this is a study that had its roots in a startling report issued in the 1960s.

In 1969, the Westinghouse Learning Corporation and Ohio University issued a report asserting that the benefits of preschool, specifically, Head Start, were short-term, and that they “faded out” by third grade (Westinghouse, 1969). Six years later, partly in response to this report, twelve researchers formed the Consortium for Longitudinal Studies to study the effects of experimental preschool programs in the 1960s. They pooled data from multiple individual projects and agreed to work together to track a group of 3,000 children over time (Darlington, 1981). The findings from this unique study revealed a positive, lasting impact on achievement and a lower number of children retained or placed in special education programs (Besharov, 2011; Darlington, 1981; Lazar, 1978; Lazar, 1982). This major study served to restore credibility in early education as a worthy investment.

Another important ongoing longitudinal study is the Perry Preschool Study (PPS), which began in 1962. It was designed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of High Scope, a specific curriculum that emphasizes active learning and family involvement and was used as an early intervention measure.

In Ypsilanti, Michigan, 123 poor African American children between the ages of 3 and 4 were divided into two groups, with one group attending preschool at the Perry Elementary School. There, the High Scope curriculum was implemented from 1962 to 1967. The other group also attended preschool but did not use the High Scope curriculum. Researchers have checked in with the children, who are now in their forties, ever since, and have updated their findings periodically (Schweinhart, 2005). The study continues to find that those in the High Scope preschool program had more positive long-term outcomes—in terms of earnings, level of education and employment rates, and crime statistics—than those who attended the other preschool (Figure 2.2). “The High Scope Perry Preschool Study is now widely regarded as a landmark study that established the human and financial value of high-quality preschool edu- cation” (Schweinhart, 2002).

https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/head-start-what-do-we-know-about-what-works#sectionII

https://highscope.org/perrypreschoolstudy

How Is Early Childhood Curriculum Developed? Chapter 2

The Abecedarian Project, from the University of North Carolina, shifted the focus of study from federally funded preschool classrooms to low-income children in a child care setting. Educational activities were developed in the form of “games” intended for all domains of development, with particular emphasis on language. Findings were reported on the children at ages 12 (Campbell, 1994), 15 (Campbell, 1995), and 21 (Campbell, Ramey, Pungello, Sparling, & Miller-Johnson, 2002); these linked the importance of high-quality child care begun at infancy to later academic success and achievement. Because each child received individual- ized attention from a teacher, this study also provided evidence of the importance of well- educated teachers (Campbell, 1994, 1995; Campbell et al., 2002; Masse, 2002).

The Search for a “Perfect” Curriculum Wouldn’t it be great if we could figure out the perfect curriculum? Project Follow Through (FT) and the Head Start Planned Variation studies were research efforts that attempted to do exactly that (Stebbins, 1977). These two longitudinal studies emerged from the national Head Start program.

By 1967, the Johnson administration wanted to extend the benefits of Head Start early edu- cation through the primary grades (1–3), so they requested $120 million to fund the new FT program. When funding would not support that kind of an initiative, the FT effort became a research project. The purpose of FT was to determine the “best” curriculum for disadvan- taged children by evaluating gains in academic achievement over time. Thus a planned varia- tion research model was proposed that allowed participating schools to choose from twenty approved curricula.

In 1969, Head Start implemented a similarly structured effort, comparing eight models at demonstration sites (Klein, 1971). Unfortunately the findings from both studies were inconclu- sive and researchers as well as those with vested interests in one curriculum or another have been arguing about it ever since (Stebbins, 1977). However, these efforts did serve to (1) spur the development of new curricula, which remain with us today; (2) provide an incentive to reexamine traditional approaches, such as the Bank Street model; and (3) encourage thinking about early childhood curriculum in a structured, intentional way.

28%

67%

45%

65%

40%

60% 55%

36%

School readiness % of kids who were ready for school at

age 5

High-school graduation

% of kids who graduate high school

Earned $20k+ at age 40

% who earn over $20k at age 40

Incarceration rate % who had been jailed

5+ times by age 40

No ECE ECE No ECE ECE No ECE ECE No ECE ECE

F02.02_ECE311

Figure 2.2: Perry Preschool Study Data

The Perry Preschool Project has tracked the progress of 123 African American subjects since 1965. The age 40 data continue to provide evidence of positive effects.

https://abc.fpg.unc.edu/abecedarian-project

How Is Early Childhood Curriculum Developed? Chapter 2

Today, the National Center for Early Development and Learning (NCEDL) and the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) sponsor the largest number of early education research initiatives. The NCEDL is funded through the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), and the NIEER is funded through a consortium of charitable organizations in collaboration with the U.S. DOE. The websites for these programs provide a great deal of information on current and past studies.

Approved Curricula for State-Funded Preschool Programs

In 2011, thirty-nine of the fifty states (Figure 2.3) provided publicly funded preschool programs; in Oklahoma, Florida, and Vermont, for example, these enrolled as many as 75 percent of 4-year-olds.

As a result of their own studies or findings from national research projects, many of these states officially recognize only certain curricula for use in their publicly funded preschool programs. Table 2.1 displays the states that have approved preschool curricula as of 2009. Curricula indicated on the chart are models that will be discussed further in this chapter.

AZ NM

MOKS

WI NY

1–10%

11–20%

21–30%

31–40%

41–50%

51–60%

61–71%

F02.03_ECE311

CA CO

MT ND

AL GA

NC TN

OH INIL

NH MA

MD DE

NJ CT

VA WV

Percentage of 4-year-olds served

Figure 2.3: NIEER Public Preschool Data

Publicly funded preschool programs served 1.3 million 3- and 4-year-old children in 2010–2011.

Note: Data from more recent NIEER yearbooks may be available. Visit http://nieer.org/state-preschool-yearbooks for updates.

Barnett, W. S., Carolan, M. E., Fitzgerald, J., & Squires, J. H. (2011). The state of preschool 2011: State preschool yearbook. New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.

(continued)

http://fpg.unc.edu/projects/national-center-early-development-learning

http://nieer.org/research/

http://nieer.org/state-preschool-yearbooks

How Is Early Childhood Curriculum Developed? Chapter 2

Brain Research In the past two decades research in the field of neuroscience has provided irrefutable evi- dence of the importance of the early childhood period to the development of the brain (this is discussed more fully in Chapter 4 and later chapters). As a result, early childhood curriculum developers are learning more and more about the architecture of the brain and its structures, the nature of intelligence, and the influence of emotions (Rushton, 2011). This research con- firms long-held theoretical and intuitive beliefs about the value of active learning and socially reciprocal relationships during early childhood.

Table 2.1: State-Approved Curricula in Publicly Funded Preschool Programs (2009)

State

Approved Curricula

BS CC CCR HS M OWL RE TM Other

Alabama Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö

Arkansas Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö

Florida Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö

Georgia Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö

Louisiana Ö Ö Ö Ö

Maryland Ö Ö Ö

Missouri Ö Ö Ö

New Jersey Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö

New Mexico Ö Ö Ö

North Carolina Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö Ö

Pennsylvania Ö Ö Ö Ö

South Carolina Ö Ö Ö

Tennessee Ö Ö Ö Ö

West Virginia Ö Ö

Key: BS = Bank Street; CC = Creative Curriculum; CCR = Curiosity Corner; HS = High Scope; M = Montessori; OWL = Opening the World of Learning; RE = Reggio Emilia; TM = Tools of the Mind; Other. Data from more recent NIEER yearbooks may be available. Visit http://nieer.org/state-preschool-yearbooks for updates.

Source: NIEER 2010 Yearbook.

▶ Stop and Reflect Look at the chart and see if your state is represented. If so, which curricula are approved for public programs? Which curricula seem to be the most popular? As you read about these curricula in the rest of this chapter, think about why that might be so.

http://nieer.org/state-preschool-yearbooks

How Is Early Childhood Curriculum Developed? Chapter 2

We first mentioned Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences (2011) in Chapter 1. Gardner is part of a research consortium at Harvard University known as Project Zero. Philosopher Nelson Goodman of Harvard’s Graduate School of Education initially began the project in 1967 to study ways to use the arts to improve education. Project Zero focuses on "understanding learning in and through the arts . . . while drawing together diverse disciplin- ary perspectives to examine fundamental questions of human expression and development" (Project Zero, n.d., para. 1). But many of the projects are inextricably linked with new infor- mation coming from neuroscience. Of particular interest to early childhood educators is the “Making Learning Visible” (MLV) project, which explores the benefits of group learning and the documentation processes, originally developed in the Reggio Emilia preschools in Italy, to represent learning visually over time. As a result, teachers are encouraged to use a wide vari- ety of tools and strategies to describe what and how children are learning.

Identifying Stakeholders

As we learned in Chapter 1, all early childhood teachers must be aware that the decisions they make about curriculum affect not only the children in their classrooms but also the immediate and larger community (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Stakeholders are those people who have a vested interest in or can be affected by the decisions we make about what and how we teach. In your classroom, primary stakeholders will be teachers, children, and fami- lies (Henderson & Kesson, 2004; MacPherson & Brooker, 2000). Other important but second- ary stakeholders could include other teachers in your school or program who will teach your students at a later time, your director or principal, and families of students you will have in the future who may develop an image of you based on what they hear from your current students’ parents. Indirect stakeholders might include future employers of your students, their communities, and society in general, since the quality of what you do in the classroom has long-lasting effects.

When curriculum development is an inclusive process, we actively seek out the views and needs of stakeholders, creating a sense of shared ownership and investment. When curricu- lum development is an exclusive process, we may find it much more difficult to engage and gain support for our efforts. For instance, “quality standards should reflect local values and concerns and not be imposed across cultural divides. In a heterogeneous society such as the U.S., notions of quality should arise out of conversations in local communities among early childhood educators and parents” (Tobin, 2005, p. 424).

Some of the questions to ask yourself when implementing a curriculum include:

• Who will be affected by the decisions I make about curriculum?

• What is the spectrum of needs and interests across the population I serve?

• Who is available to participate in discussing decisions about curriculum choices?

• How can the children’s ideas and interests be respected?

Curriculum Content

Decisions about “what to teach” are a major determinant in choosing and writing curriculum; they are influenced by what children should know and be able to do, the degree to which children and teachers share control, and how learning should be organized and managed (Biber, 1977). Historically, school districts and programs operated independently, decisions

How Is Early Childhood Curriculum Developed? Chapter 2

were made locally, and teachers typically had a significant voice in the process of choos- ing curriculum content. In publicly funded schools and programs today, those decisions are increasingly centralized and driven by state and federal standards and conditions attached to funding streams.

Choosing what children should learn is a values-driven process, as the choices made repre- sent what the community, state, or country thinks is worth knowing. Over time, as society changes, our ideas about what is important evolve as well. In the early days of our country, curriculum included the study of literature, philosophy, writing, grammar, history, science, math, Latin, modern languages, art, music, and rhetoric (debate, public speaking).

After the progressive movement in the early decades of the twentieth century, social priorities shifted to include practical knowledge, skills, and citizenship as part of the curriculum (Dewey, 1903). This was the beginning of vocational and career education as part of the curriculum: Older boys learned carpentry, metalworking, and auto mechanics, while girls might study home economics (cooking and sewing, among other things). Gardens were a common feature in the schoolyard. Learning about “community helpers,” and block and dramatic play, became a valued part of the kindergarten curriculum because of the possibilities for learning about and acting out real-life roles (Shapiro & Biber, 1972).

With the publication of A Nation at Risk in 1983, which described a “rising tide of medioc- rity,” priorities shifted almost entirely away from “undemanding and superfluous high school offerings.” The report quoted survey results that described what the American public wanted curriculum to include:

More than 75 percent of all those questioned believed every student planning to go to college should take 4 years of mathematics, English, history/U.S. government, and science, with more than 50 percent adding 2 years each of a foreign language and economics or business. The public even supports requiring much of this curriculum for students who do not plan to go to college (National Commission on Excellence, 1983). The public response to this report ultimately led to the writing of state academic stan- dards and the No Child Left Behind legislation of 2001.

Many believe that this development has occurred at the expense of other valuable parts of the curriculum, especially the arts and physical education. Advocates for these curriculum areas point to an increasing body of research that documents the ways in which the arts (Chapman, 2005, 2007; Jalongo, 2002; Whitfield, 2009) and physical education (Prosser & Jiang, 2008; Smith & Lounsbery, 2009; Tremarche, Robinson, & Graham, 2007) support cognitive func- tioning and academic performance. Early childhood educators, as discussed in Chapter 1, continue to fight for curriculum content that is developmentally appropriate and balances children’s interests and experiences with what adults think they need to know. As we explore different curriculum options later in this chapter, consider how the question of “what’s worth knowing” can vary significantly from one curriculum to another. Think about how the experi- ences children bring to the early childhood education setting will vary by culture and circum- stances. Look for indications about how each curriculum responds to this challenge.

Implementation

“An official curriculum is meaningless unless it is translated by teachers into an operational curriculum” (Posner, 2004, p. 191). The delicate dance of choosing and acting out strategies

How Is Early Childhood Curriculum Developed? Chapter 2

that ensure desired learning in real preschool and school settings may be the hardest part of teaching. Research shows that perhaps the best predictor of high-quality education is the skill with which curriculum is implemented (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). All decisions about the technical aspects of implementing curriculum that we mentioned at the beginning of this section must be made with respect to the context and culture of the classroom, school, and community.

As we look at different early childhood curricula, imagine implementing them yourself. What strategies and recommendations for implementing ideas and activities make the most sense to you? What important skills do you already have and what do you need to learn?

Benjamin Franklin Elementary School Community Garden

One example of a progressive era shift to practical education is the Benjamin Franklin Community Garden in Cleveland, Ohio. This large community garden was established in 1923, and it continues to flourish today. This excerpt (paraphrased and abridged) from a history of the gardens, written in 1977 by Nicholas Paserk, Melissa Radish, and Kimberly Sante, describes the origins and concept for the gardens:

The gardens were first used to grow plants for the schools in the vicinity. One part of the nursery was used as an outdoor classroom and picnic area. The Brooklyn Garden Club donated a summer house (gazebo). Parts of the nursery were divided into garden plots. This allowed more children to experience gardening under qualified adult supervi- sion. Children from all the surrounding schools were eligible for a garden. Also Carl J. Hopp, the first garden program director, tried gardening in the kindergarten class and the kindergarten teacher supervised. This subject was taught to the various other grade levels as horticulture.

The author’s mother attended Benjamin Franklin Elementary School and vividly remembers the gar- dens. She says:

My dad paid $1.25 or $1.50 for the seeds. We children did everything but spading. Everything was numbered and we would go to the big barn and get our supplies—a rake, hoe, a water sprinkler and a wheelbarrow. When the seeds came up we thinned the plants. It was a big responsibility—neglect your garden and you were done. I laugh when I remember taking a kohlrabi home and my mother said she had never seen one before!

Today, the gardens continue as an ecofriendly resource involving a number of community part- ners, including the Ohio State University Extension Program. The five-acre site is divided into 204 plots, some of which are allocated to the schoolchildren. In 2005 the Cleveland Landmarks Commission designated the BFCG a Cleveland Landmark. You can learn more about the gardens at http://benfranklincommunitygarden.org/index.html.

▶ Stop and Reflect Do you think gardening activities are beneficial as part of an early childhood curriculum? Why or why not? What do you think young children might learn from participating in such a garden?

http://benfranklincommunitygarden.org/index.html

“Classic” Curricula (Pre-1960s) Chapter 2

2.2 “Classic” Curricula (Pre-1960s) This section describes, for the purposes of this book, “classic” curricula, those that were well established prior to the research efforts of the 1960s and the initiation of Head Start pro- grams. These are the Montessori, Waldorf, Project Approach, Bank Street, and Reggio Emilia curricula. The next section describes “modern” curricula, developed from the 1960s onward. They are presented in chronological order, and Figure 2.4 displays each of the curricula dis- cussed in following sections on a time line. As you read the next two sections, consider how the ideas grounding earlier models or approaches may have influenced those that came later.

Montessori Method

While Maria Montessori is a major historical influence on early childhood education, the methods that today bear her name go beyond the work she accomplished in her lifetime; they represent her ideas in action.

Time line

Key

Theorists highly influential to early childhood curriculum developers

Theorist or philosopher who also created educational model

Major early childhood models or approaches

Mid-1800s 1900 1920s–1930s

John Dewey

Froebel Gifts

Waldorf (Steiner) Arts/Spirituality, Existentialism

Bank Street (Dev. Interaction Approach) (Centers, Free Play, Blocks,

Social Studies)

Creative Curriculum Centers, free play, themed studies

High Scope Centers, Plan-do-review,

key curriculum ideas

Reggio Emilia Amiable environment,

community, relationships & dialogue

Project Approach Emergent Curriculum

in 3 phases

Bronfenbrenner Ecological Systems

Theory

Tools of the Mind Symbolic Representation

Socio-Dramatic Play Self-Regulation

Montessori (Prepared Environment & Didactic

Materials) sensitive periods

Brain ResearchPiaget & Vygotsky Construction

Howard Gardner MI Theory

Post WWII 1964 1988 Mid-1990s

F02.04_ECE311

Figure 2.4: Curriculum Time Line

The emergence of well-known early childhood curricular models and approaches is intercon- nected with research, developmental theories, and accumulated practical knowledge about how children learn.

http://www.montessori-ami.org/

“Classic” Curricula (Pre-1960s) Chapter 2

Basic Philosophy and Principles The books Maria Montessori wrote, including The Absorbent Mind (1949) and The Montessori Method (1909), describe the philosophical and pedagogical principles of her method as well as the expected characteristics and responsibilities of teachers and children that underlie its execution. Among these are the principles of the absorbent mind; the concept of the prepared environment; and the use of child-sized, didactic materials and practical activities designed for a specific purpose.

The Absorbent Mind The principle of the absorbent mind refers primarily to the notion that children have an innate desire to learn. Further, they are intrinsically motivated to communicate and par- ticularly disposed to learn through imitation and practice (Montessori, 1949). This principle has significant implications for the role of Montessori teachers, as their primary obligation is to encourage children’s natural propensity to learn. They observe children carefully for sensitive periods, or windows of time when a child is developmentally and intuitively most receptive to learning particular skills and behaviors. They plan and orchestrate activities according to each child’s unique but predictable learning timetable and needs. Montessori teachers see themselves as facilitators or directors of learning who maintain a low profile as they move around the classroom. They observe children’s work, demonstrate lessons, and redirect behavior.

The Prepared Environment Montessori classrooms are orderly and calm, and the environment is carefully organized and sequenced. The classroom is characterized by three primary areas: practical life, sensory mate- rials, and academic materials for reading, writing, and mathematics. Montessori children are free to move about the classroom but must stay on their chosen tasks and use only materials that the teacher has introduced or demonstrated.

The Use of Didactic Materials and Practical Activities Like the Montessori environment, Montessori materials and demonstration lessons are orga- nized and sequenced. Some resources and activities, like taking care of plants and sorting picture cards that depict the different parts of a plant, support nature study and physical edu- cation, while others, like working with puzzle maps and cards that identify different types of land forms, emphasize geography. Children actively manipulate materials to train their senses, refine their motor skills, and learn academic concepts.

Sensory materials promote discrimination skills and are typically self-correcting. For instance, knobbed cylinders made of wood with a small knob on top encourage manipulation with the thumb and forefinger. Each cylinder fits into only one corresponding hole in a wooden block, so the child knows when a correct match is made. There are several sets of cylinders intended to teach how objects vary by a particular attribute—depth, diameter, or both.

In addition to the cylinders, some of the more commonly recognized sensory materials include:

• Color tablets—Three sets of color tiles that focus on primary colors, secondary colors, and shade and tints of both

• Sound boxes—Cylinders filled with various materials for matching sounds

• Smelling jars—Small glass jars with lids that have holes through which children can smell and compare the contents

“Classic” Curricula (Pre-1960s) Chapter 2

• Pink tower—Graduated set of pink wood cubes that vary by one centimeter in each dimension

• Brown stairs—Graduated set of wooden blocks that vary by height and width

Montessori believed that children learn reading through writing first. The academic materials prepare children to hold writing implements properly; learn the shapes and sounds of letters and numbers; gradu- ally put together words, phrases, and sentences; and develop a sense for numbers and geometric forms. While children typically master the practical life and sensory materials by age 4, elementary Montessori still employs the academic materials for math and lan- guage activities. Some of the most recognizable aca- demic materials include:

• Sandpaper letters and numerals—for tactile internalization of the shapes of numbers and letters

• Metal stencils—for tracing geometric shapes

• Geometric solids—wooden models of basic shapes

• Movable alphabet—blue vowels and red con- sonant letters with wooden trays for arranging letters

• Golden beads—beads grouped as singles, tens, hundreds, and one thousand that can be manipulated in various ways to teach the deci- mal system

Activities are practical and emphasize everyday routines for care of the person, environment, social courtesies, and movement control. Children develop physical coordination and concen- tration and learn to be self-directed, independent, and responsible. Lessons introduce and reinforce the left-to-right and top-to-bottom orientation children will eventually use to learn to read, write, and perform mathematical operations.

Some of the practical life activities include:

• Pouring rice from one pitcher to another

• Washing and polishing plant leaves

• Mastering different kinds of clothing fasteners

• Walking and balancing on a line

• Greeting visitors

• Dusting tables

Finally, Montessori programs often include gardening and extended periods of time set aside for outdoor activities and exploration.

The materials used in many of today’s Montessori programs were inspired by the objects originally developed by Maria Montessori more than a hundred years ago. This image shows a child using the “sandpa- per letters,” which provide sensory reinforce- ment of the shape of each letter as the child traces the textured surface.

“Classic” Curricula (Pre-1960s) Chapter 2

Waldorf

Waldorf education emerged at about the same time as Montessori education. Although the curriculum is not as well known, Waldorf programs can be found worldwide and in all fifty states in the United States. Moreover, interest in Waldorf is increasing. Some people consider the principles that underlie Waldorf and Montessori to be mutually exclusive ideologically, but others believe that there are elements that can be compared (Peterson, 2010).

Basic Principles Rudolf Steiner (1861–1925) is generally credited with founding the Waldorf approach, known for its attention to aesthetic beauty and the spirit. He was an Austrian who believed that children learn by imitation and sensory stimulation for about the first seven years of life. Steiner coined the term anthroposophy (Trostli, 1998)—what Gardner might call intraper- sonal intelligence, or knowing and understanding one’s true nature. Like Montessori, Steiner believed the purpose of education was to allow children the freedom to develop their inner

potential. He also believed that learning should be driven by children’s interests and questions.

The Waldorf Classroom A Waldorf classroom environment is designed and organized to be aestheti- cally pleasing, inspiring, and “nourishing to the senses” (Trostli, 1998). Materials are attractive, engaging, and colorful. Most are open-ended, like paints, clay, or blocks, as Steiner felt that didactic mate- rials (like those found in a Montessori classroom, or a puzzle, for example) lim- ited a child’s imagination (Edwards, 2002). Imaginary dramatic, creative, and explor- atory play is encouraged, as are many activities throughout the day that foster oral language. Followers of the Waldorf approach believe that the intentional teaching of reading and writing is not nec- essary until the age of seven.

Teacher as Performer A Waldorf teacher could be considered a “performer,” as a primary function of the teacher is to demonstrate activities and model exemplary behavior, since Steiner believed that children are highly motivated to imitate adults and real life through play. Another important idea in the Waldorf curriculum is the concept of natural rhythm; thus, daily and seasonal cyclical rhythms are emphasized partly as a way to develop reverence for the natural world, adults, and others.

The Project Approach

An early-twentieth-century approach (Kilpatrick, 1918) to learning through long-term study of topics that allowed teachers to integrate different areas of the curriculum is enjoying

The Waldorf curriculum emphasizes the importance of an aesthetically pleasing environment, use of natu- ral materials, and time for children to experience the natural world.

http://www.waldorfearlychildhood.org/

“Classic” Curricula (Pre-1960s) Chapter 2

something of a reemergence as the Project Approach (PA). The PA is most closely associated with Lilian Katz and Sylvia Chard, who describe the project method’s origins in the progres- sive movement in their 1989 book Engaging Children’s Minds: The Project Approach. Dr. Katz wrote on her personal blog, “I became involved with the Project Approach when I vis- ited the infant schools in the United Kingdom in the early 1970s and saw wonderful project work being done by very young children. I then began teaching teachers how to incorporate projects into their curriculum. So, I have been involved in the Project Approach since about 1970.” Sylvia Chard explains on the Project Approach website that “Projects typically do not constitute the whole educational program; instead, teachers use them alongside systematic instruction and as a means of achieving curricular goals.”

While there are many ways to lead children through an integrated study of a topic, the distin- guishing characteristic of the Project Approach as described by Katz and Chard is the frame- work for how that can be accomplished. Katz and Chard recommend that teachers conduct projects in three stages or phases:

1. Teachers and children together identify a topic of general interest. Teachers use multiple strategies to uncover children’s prior knowledge, questions, and predictions.

2. Children investigate the topic, again using various strategies to collect information and learn about the topic. They represent and communicate their emerging understanding with media of different kinds.

3. Teachers and children revisit their initial thinking about the project topic and reflect on what they have learned (Katz & Chard, 2000).

In this way, each project investigation is unique and personalized to the particular child inves- tigators, as two groups of children could study a topic such as “Birds” with entirely different goals, activities, and outcomes. Or a project can serve to help children process experiences, such as this description of a project about Hurricane Katrina:

Project Katrina Conducted by the LSU Child Development Laboratory Preschool in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this project emerged in the weeks following Hurricane Katrina. It serves as an excellent example of a teaching team turning a challenging local event into a valu- able learning opportunity through community involvement and service. Note how the project evolved naturally from students’ needs to make sense of the natural disaster and to tell stories from their own lives. (http://www.projectapproach.org/pre-k_to_k.php)

Because the Project Approach is a rearticulation of the approach as originally defined, it is also influenced by curricula that have emerged since. Katz and Chard recommend using many strategies similar to those used in the Reggio Emilia (see below) approach to represent what and how children are learning. They also emphasize the value of documentation as a reflective process for teachers.

Bank Street (The Developmental-Interaction Approach)

The Bank Street curriculum was developed as a play-based curriculum at the demonstra- tion program for the Bureau of Educational Experiments, founded in 1919 by Lucy Sprague Mitchell and Harriet Johnson; that institution is now known as Bank Street College in New York City. It was renamed and articulated as the Developmental-Interaction Approach for inclusion as the traditional preschool model for the Head Start Planned Variation and Follow Through initiatives (Biber, 1977).

http://illinoisearlylearning.org/ask-dr-katz/question004.htm

http://www.projectapproach.org/project_approach.php

http://www.projectapproach.org/systematic_instruction.php

http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v7n2/aghayan.html

http://www.projectapproach.org/pre-k_to_k.php

“Classic” Curricula (Pre-1960s) Chapter 2

Basic Principles Most curricula today that emphasize developmentally appropriate practice and development of the whole child are influenced by ideas embedded in the Bank Street approach. These “big ideas” include the following:

• Teaching decisions are based on knowledge and understanding of all the developmen- tal domains and cognitive processes.

• Teachers function as researchers; they record their observations and use them to learn about children and their families and adapt curriculum to meet children’s needs.

• The physical environment is arranged to promote exploration, social interactions, and active participation.

• The curriculum is grounded in social studies—building awareness of community and a sense of belonging and civic responsibility.

• Play serves as an important context for consolidating and integrating understanding and solving conflicts (Mitchell & David, 1992).

Bank Street conceives teaching as a “work in progress,” since teachers adapt and change activities and topics of study according to the interests and abilities of the children (Goffin & Wilson, 2001). Table 2.2 shows how the Bank Street theoretical approach has evolved over time. It is grounded in the psychosocial perspectives of Sigmund Freud, Erik Erikson, Jean Piaget, and others. It has also long been characterized as representative of John Dewey’s progressive approach to education. A Bank Street classroom models democracy in action through emphasis on the importance of community, collaborative rule making, cooperation, and respect for others (Mitchell & David, 1992, p. 19).

Table 2.2: Developmental Interaction Approach (Bank Street) Time Line

1916 to 1930 1930s to 1960s 1960s to Today

Experimental/progressive origins/

political reform agenda

Psychodynamic psychological orientation developed

Formalized articulation of approach/labeling as “model”

Organizational period Psychological Basis Practices derived from philoso- phical, cognitive, and psychological constructs

The Bank Street Classroom Teachers consider the environment in a Bank Street classroom to be a powerful messenger in that it communicates key values and philosophical beliefs. For example, the orderly and accessible arrangement of materials promotes independence and responsibility; comfortable seating areas invite conversation and interaction; displays of children’s work at their eye level conveys respect for their ideas and products (Mitchell & David, 1992, pp. 61–62).

Like Montessori, a Bank Street classroom is organized with centers to promote particular kinds of activities. But unlike Montessori, the functions of these centers are fluid, adapted to the changing rhythms of the classroom. At a minimum, classrooms contain areas for both group play and privacy, storage, creative activities, and outdoor space to extend learning opportuni- ties. Practical considerations for arranging space include attention to traffic patterns, access to water, and the control of noise levels.

“Classic” Curricula (Pre-1960s) Chapter 2

Role of the Teacher According to the Bank Street approach, “We think of curriculum not as a series of recipes for activities, but rather as the opportunities for experience you offer children that help them deepen their understanding of the world. The curriculum is the sum of those oppor- tunities and it is created through a dynamic process of planning and decision making” (Mitchell & David, 1992, p. 121). Teachers plan activities and choose materials to match children’s abilities and interests (Figure 2.5); arrange opportunities for direct interaction with the physical and social world; and help children to repre- sent their questions and ideas through writing, speak- ing, and visual representation. Finally, teachers use the information they have gleaned to drive future planning. Bank Street gave birth to the concept of a theme-based, inquiry-oriented curriculum.

Reggio Emilia

Shortly after World War II, a teacher named Loris Malaguzzi (1920–1994) founded a series of municipal preschools in Reggio Emilia, Italy. When they were designated the best in the world by Newsweek in 1991, (Kantrowitz & Wingert, p. 50) these schools became widely known in America. Early childhood educators began to visit the Reggio Emilia preschools in Italy, and were much impressed; they began to think about adapting the Reggio Emilia principles to American classrooms (Bredekamp, 1993; Hertzog, 2001; Hewett, 2001; Linn, 2001).

Basic Principles The Reggio Emilia philosophy is a continually evolving dynamic process defined and refined by its primary stakeholders—teachers, children, parents, and the community. It is grounded in an image of children as innately competent and powerful with the right to a stake in decision making about their learning. Malaguzzi drew from the ideas of John Dewey about active and meaningful learning and from the constructivist theories of Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky in particular, as well as Montessori, Bronfenbrenner, and the social psychologists.

According to Malaguzzi, education for young children is built on relationships (1993). The con- cept of reciprocity is a key element to building, maintaining, and transforming relationships between teachers, children, the environment, and the community (Gandini, 1993). Reciprocity can be likened to a game of catch—communications and interactions are tossed like a ball between adults and children in a gentle, playful exchange that creates meaning (Rankin, 1992). Reggio Emilia teachers are never in a hurry to push children through exploration and conversation about their ideas.

Communication is essential to the reciprocal process of relationship building. In the eyes of Reggio Emilia teachers, it takes many forms from which children should be free to choose at any time to convey their ideas and express themselves. This idea gave root to the phrase “100

We associate things like a cozy reading corner and quiet space in the classroom with the Bank Street curriculum.

“Classic” Curricula (Pre-1960s) Chapter 2

languages of children,” which became the title of the first book published about the Reggio Emilia approach (Edwards, Gandini, & Forman, 1998). It is also the title of a continually chang- ing exhibit of children’s work sponsored by the Reggio Emilia Children organization that has been traveling the world since 1981.

The Reggio Emilia curriculum is an emergent curriculum, meaning that topics of study and time frames are fluid and not predetermined. They are driven instead by the interests, questions, and reflections of children and teachers as they interact with each other and the environment.

Ideas for long-term inquiries (projects) come from three sources: children’s personal experi- ences, school experiences, and “provocations”—events structured by teachers to generate interest and curiosity. Teachers establish general goals; they then plan by predicting what might happen next and prepare accordingly.

The Reggio Emilia Classroom Malaguzzi stated that the goal of the Reggio Emilia system was to create, “an amiable school—that is, a school that is active, inventive, livable, documentable, and communica- tive. . . . a place of research, learning, revisiting, reconsideration, reflection” (Malaguzzi, 1993, p. 9). Toward these ends, the preschool Reggio Emilia classrooms in Italy and those inspired by them in the United States are aesthetically beautiful and filled with details that are intended to intrigue, delight, and surprise children as they encounter and interact with the environment. The environment is considered part of the curriculum and even referred to as the “third teacher.”

Each Reggio classroom is unique because it is intended to reflect those who inhabit the space. Teachers carefully design space for individuals, social interactions, and “marginal” community areas like kitchens and bathrooms (Gandini, 1993). Reggio Emilia schools usu- ally also include an “atelier”—a studio space that includes art materials of all kinds, so that children can express and represent their ideas. Here children work to master techniques and media that add to their repertoire of “languages” and teachers come to broaden their understanding of how children are thinking. The atelier also serves as an archive for present and past work (Gandini, 1993). When American teachers using a Reggio Emilia approach do not have access to an entire room for the atelier, they create a “miniatelier” space within the classroom.

Visual Documentation of Learning The Reggio Emilia curriculum is best known for its emphasis on visual documentation of learn- ing, not to be confused with the typical classroom and hallway displays of student work with which you might be familiar. Such documentation provides a “window on learning,” (Helm, Benecke & Steinheimer , 2007), essentially telling the story of children’s thinking over time. Teachers meticulously use children’s words, their own thoughtful reflections, and children’s work products to represent the origins and ongoing iteration of an inquiry over time. Ongoing documentation also serves another important purpose: Teachers use it to help children revisit earlier stages of a project and to develop higher-order thinking in the process.

Because the Reggio Emilia approach to curriculum revolves around project work, many teach- ers assume that it is similar to the use of thematic units, a popular strategy featuring a topic theme that American teachers use to integrate learning across multiple content areas of the curriculum. Look at Table 2.3 and consider how each of the elements of an emergent project differs significantly from thematic units.

http://www.thewonderoflearning.com/?lang=en_GB

“Modern” Curricula (Since the 1960s) Chapter 2

Table 2.3: Comparing Thematic Units and Emergent Projects

Thematic Units Emergent Projects

Adult-generated Adult-anticipated

Teacher choice Child-initiated

Whole class Small groups

Teacher-directed Child-directed

Teacher-planned Child investigates

Time frame Time varies

One theme at a time Several ongoing projects

Document ending Document process

Disseminate, transfer knowledge Child constructs and builds knowledge

2.3 “Modern” Curricula (Since the 1960s) This section describes some of the more recently developed curricula: High Scope, Creative Curriculum, Tools of the Mind, Success for All, and Opening the World of Learning. In some respects, early childhood curriculum development over time could be interpreted as an ongo- ing dialogue. As you will see, the cur- ricula described in this section were influenced by those in the previous section, but they also reflect the inter- pretation and application of theories and research that have emerged since the mid-twentieth century.

High Scope

While the people at Bank Street were working to reinterpret their work as the Development-Interaction Approach in the 1960s, another idea about how to apply a constructivist perspective to early childhood cur- riculum emerged out of Ypsilanti, Michigan. Incorporating the theory of cognitive development proposed by Jean Piaget, David Weikert and his colleagues developed the High Scope curriculum.

Basic Principles The High Scope Wheel of Learning (Figure 2.5) represents the curriculum

F02.05_ECE311

Active Learning Initiative

Key Experiences

A ss

sm en

Learning Environment

Adult – Child Interaction

Dai ly

Ro ut

in e

Figure 2.5: The High Scope Wheel of Learning

The High Scope Wheel of Learning represents how the four elements of the curriculum work together to produce active learning.

“Modern” Curricula (Since the 1960s) Chapter 2

concept visually, indicating the four elements controlled by adults (environment, assessment, adult-child interactions, and daily routine) working to achieve active, hands-on learning for children.

Important goals for children include:

• Thinking about actions and interactions

• Problem solving

• Self-directed learning (Goffin & Wilson, 2001; Epstein, Schweinhart & McAdoo, 1996)

High Scope identifies “key developmental indicators” across areas of the curriculum (formerly “Key Experiences”). Table 2.4 lists the key indicators for the Infant/Toddler and Preschool Curricula included in the current version of High Scope.

The High Scope Educational Research Foundation also provides resources that assist teachers, schools, and programs in documenting alignment of the High Scope curriculum and statewide early education standards.

Table 2.4: Key Indicators for Infants/Toddlers and Preschoolers

Infants/Toddlers Preschoolers

Approaches to learning Initiative Problem solving Self-help

Initiative

Planning

Engagement

Problem solving

Use of resources

Reflection

Social and emotional development

Distinguishing self and others

Attachment

Relationships with adults

Relationships with peers

Emotions

Empathy

Playing with others

Group participation

Self-identity

Sense of competence

Emotions

Empathy

Community

Building relationships

Cooperative play

Moral development

Conflict resolution

Physical development and health

Moving parts of the body Moving the whole body Moving with objects Steady beat

Gross motor skills Fine motor skills Body awareness Personal care Healthy behavior

Communication, language, and literacy

Listening and responding Nonverbal communication Two-way communication Speaking Exploring print Enjoying language

Comprehension Speaking Vocabulary Phonological awareness Alphabetic knowledge Reading Concepts about print Book knowledge Writing /dual language learning (DLL)

(continued)

“Modern” Curricula (Since the 1960s) Chapter 2

Infants/Toddlers Preschoolers

Cognitive development (infants/toddlers)

Mathematics (preschool)

Exploring objects Object permanence Same and different One-to-one correspondence Number Locating objects Filling and emptying Taking apart and putting together Seeing from different viewpoints Anticipating events Time intervals Speed Cause and effect

Number words and symbols Counting Part/whole relationships Shapes Spatial awareness Measuring Unit Patterns Data analysis

Creative arts Imitating and pretending Exploring media Identifying visual images Listening to music Responding to music Sounds Vocal pitch

Art Music Movement Pretend play Appreciating the arts

Science and technology Observing Classifying Experimenting Predicting Drawing conclusions Communicating ideas Natural and physical world Tools and technology

Social studies Diversity Community roles Decision making Geography History Ecology

The High Scope Classroom High Scope classrooms are organized much like a Bank Street classroom—with orderly, planned, and supplied activity areas; an active outside learning space; and a welcoming, invit- ing environment. Using symbols, diagrams, and words to designate the proper place for each material, High Scope teachers carefully label shelves and other storage and play areas, helping children to develop independence and responsibility but also providing prompts that reinforce key indicator concepts such as matching numbers with quantity.

Daily Routine The daily routine emphasizes intentional teaching through routines, transitions, and a predict- able order of events. The Plan-Do-Review sequence (PDR) in particular is a great example of a concept that represents both a strategy and an intended outcome. Before the time of the day when children are free to choose center activities, teachers guide them to plan what they

“Modern” Curricula (Since the 1960s) Chapter 2

will do. This provides teachers with information they can use during center time to facilitate play and learning. Afterwards, teachers debrief children and encourage them to reflect on and share their work. So PDR serves to organize movement and activities and also to promote intentional thinking, focus, and “thinking about thinking,” or metacognition.

Assessment The High Scope curriculum was one of the first to provide a comprehensive integrated assess- ment system using the Child Observation Record (COR), which relies heavily on teacher obser- vation and anecdotal record keeping and skills assessments of various kinds. Specific tools focus on emergent literacy (Early Literacy Skills Assessment, ELSA) and program quality in Infant/Toddler, Preschool, and Elementary classrooms

Creative Curriculum

Early in her career, Diane Trister-Dodge, a graduate of the Bank Street College and the author of Creative Curriculum, became interested in the impact of the environment on interactions and learning. The first edition of Creative Curriculum grew out of her efforts to translate the time-tested principles of traditional preschool into guidelines and specific suggestions for effectively arranging environments to promote play, interactions, and learning. Trister-Dodge

F02.06_ECE311

Plate

Knife Glass

Fo rk

S po on

Figure 2.6: High Scope Labeling

Careful labeling in High Scope classrooms helps children learn important concepts while they play and complete routines like cleanup. Visual labels that use both a diagram and word also help to make connections between objects and printed letters.

“Modern” Curricula (Since the 1960s) Chapter 2

founded Teaching Strategies, Inc., in her basement in 1988; today Creative Curriculum (5th ed.) is widely known and used across the United States. Like High Scope, the curriculum developers provide alignment information for both states and the national Head Start standards.

Basic Principles The Creative Curriculum is now a complete system of resources that address the four areas of (1) cur- riculum, (2) assessment, (3) professional development, and (4) making connections with families. It is based on five research-based principles that draw heavily from the theories of Dewey, Piaget, Vygotsky, and Bronfenbrenner as well as recent research supportive of those foundational theorists:

1. Positive interactions and relationships with adults provide a critical foundation for successful learning.

2. Social/emotional competence is a significant factor in school success.

3. Constructive, purposeful play supports essential learning.

4. The physical environment affects the type and quality of learning interactions.

5. Teacher–family partnerships promote develop- ment and learning (Teaching Strategies, p. 2).

Table 2.5 displays the thirty-eight Creative Curriculum learning objectives for children that address all ten areas of learning.

The Creative Curriculum Classroom Teachers using the Creative Curriculum organize their classrooms and materials in ten interest areas, using suggestions and recommendations for materials and how to arrange them. The Creative Curriculum now offers manipulatives and other learning materials that complement the goals of the program and provide teachers with ideas about the kinds of materials con- sidered appropriate for hands-on activity. It also offers kits that accompany study units on trees, buildings, clothes, and recycling; these include materials for groups of children. The ten classroom areas are:

1. Blocks

2. Dramatic play

3. Toys and games

4. Art

5. Sand and water

Making play dough in the cooking center is one activity children enjoy as part of the Creative Curriculum.

“Modern” Curricula (Since the 1960s) Chapter 2

6. Library

7. Discovery

8. Music and movement

9. Cooking

10. Outdoors

Teacher Resources Resources include detailed examples and ideas for daily, weekly, and long-term planning in each activity area to support the learning objectives. The curriculum offers ideas and guidance for individualizing instruction, observing children, and supporting dual-language learners and children with special needs. The aim of these resources is to give teachers ways to integrate the “what, why, and how” consistently across the curriculum (Teaching Strategies, 2010).

Table 2.5: Creative Curriculum Learning Areas and Objectives

Area of Learning Learning Objectives

Social/Emotional Regulate own emotions and behavior

Establish and sustain positive relationships

Participate cooperatively and constructively in group situations

Physical Demonstrate:

Traveling skills

Balancing skills

Gross motor/manipulative skills

Fine motor strength and coordination

Language Listen to and understand increasingly complex language

Use language to express thoughts and needs

Use appropriate conversational and other communication skills

Cognitive Demonstrate positive approaches to learning

Remember and connect experiences

Use classification skills

Use symbols and images to represent something not present

Literacy Demonstrate phonological awareness

Demonstrate alphabet knowledge

Demonstrate knowledge of print and its uses

Comprehend and respond to books and other texts

Demonstrate emergent writing skills

Mathematics Use number concepts and operations

Explore and describe spatial relationships and shapes

Compare and measure

Demonstrate knowledge of patterns

(continued)

“Modern” Curricula (Since the 1960s) Chapter 2

Area of Learning Learning Objectives

Science and technology

Use scientific inquiry skills

Demonstrate knowledge of the characteristics of living things

Demonstrate knowledge of the physical properties of objects and materials

Demonstrate knowledge of the earth’s environment

Use tools and other technology to perform tasks

Social studies Demonstrate knowledge of self

Show basic understanding of people and how they live

Explore change related to familiar people or places

Demonstrate simple geographic knowledge

The arts Explore the visual arts

Learn musical concepts and expression

Learn dance and movement concepts

Explore drama through actions and language

English-language acquisition

Demonstrate progress in listening to and understanding English

Demonstrate progress in speaking English

Source: Teaching Strategies (2010)

Assessment Assessment in the Creative Curriculum is conceived as an ongoing process of documenting observations and progress available in a fully integrated online platform. Color-coded charts describe incremental progress for each of the thirty-eight objectives with examples, so that teachers will be able to match their observations with a reporting process that helps them communicate growth over time to parents. For example, to assess counting, benchmarks include the following:

• Verbally counts, not always in the correct order (says, “one, two, ten” as she pretends to count)

• Verbally counts to 10, counts up to 5 objects accurately, using one number name per object (counts to 10 when playing hide and seek; counts out 4 scissors and puts them on the table).

• Verbally counts to 20; counts 10 to 20 objects accurately; knows the last number, knows how many in all; tells what number comes next (1 to 10) in order by counting (counts to 20 while walking across the room; counts 10 plastic worms and says, “I have ten worms”); when asked, “what comes after six?” says “one, two, three, four, five, six, seven . . . seven”).

• Uses number names while counting to 100; counts 30 objects accurately; tells what number comes before and after a specified number up to 20 (counts 28 steps on the way to the cafeteria; when asked what comes after sixteen, says, “seventeen”) (Teaching Strategies, 2010, p. 109).

Revisiting Vygotsky—Tools of the Mind

The emerging body of neuroscience research discussed earlier in this chapter has produced a renewed interest in social constructivism (Barnett, Junga, Yarosza, & Thomasa, 2008; Bodrova & Leong, 2001; Lynch, 2016). Many of the studies seem to confirm Vygotsky’s theories about the importance of symbolic representation and learning as a scaffolded process.

“Modern” Curricula (Since the 1960s) Chapter 2

Elena Bodrova and Debra Leong first published Tools of the Mind in 1996. This approach focused on the development of self-regulation, teaching literacy and math through socially mediated processes, and play.

Basic Principles Essentially, Bodrova and Leong (2005, p. 30) believe “learning to control impulsive behavior is the most critical requirement for young children.” The premise of this statement is that in order to achieve academic success later in life, an individual must be able to focus, avoid distractions, plan and organize time, carry through an assignment from start to finish, and get along with others. These are traits that require perception, memory, attention, and the ability to talk oneself through a problem or dilemma (Bodrova & Leong, 2007). But in contrast to using a system of rewards, punishments, and reinforcement, the curriculum is based on the idea that children develop the “tools of the mind” through activities designed to promote these qualities and extensive experiences and opportunities to engage in socio- dramatic play.

The Tools of the Mind Classroom Classroom arrangement, materials, and management strategies for individual, small-group, and large-group activities resemble those of other developmentally based curricula. But in a Tools classroom, dramatic play takes center stage. Bodrova and Leong believe that socio- dramatic play provides the best opportunities for children to integrate the mental processes necessary for self-regulation. Teachers use a play-planning process that encourages complex, “mature” play.

Children engage in sustained, complex scenarios involving multiple roles and possibilities. Teachers plan with children, help them to write play plans and encourage them to consciously

monitor, evaluate, and modify their play. Dramatic play is key because, as children take on reality-based roles, they must use what they know about social rules and conventions to portray their characters authentically. For example, in setting up a pretend veterinarian office, children may assume the roles of receptionist, doctor, client, and animal patient. They must act out their roles according to what they know about how the character should behave (e.g., cats don’t speak to doctors, they meow!).

Turn taking is another important feature of self-regulation; the child must be able to resist the urge to dominate and act impulsively and learn to respond in socially acceptable ways to others in the group.

Teachers help children with abstract concepts like turn taking by providing them with props initially; eventually the desired behaviors are internalized and the props are no longer needed.

Dramatic play, turn taking, and self-regulation are impor- tant concepts in the Tools of the Mind curriculum.

https://toolsofthemind.org/

“Modern” Curricula (Since the 1960s) Chapter 2

Opening the World of Learning

The Opening the World of Learning (OWL) curriculum, by Judith Schickedanz and David Dickenson, was written in collaboration with the Charlotte-Mecklenberg Schools in North Carolina. Vanderbilt University conducted pilot studies with 100 teachers and 3,000 low- income children in eight preschools over a four year period (Pearson Education, 2009). The research focused on early language, literacy, and social-emotional development, identifying critical skills and attitudes that young children need in order to be successful. Promising find- ings for literacy gains over time have generated substantial interest in the curriculum, and it is now approved for use in several states besides North Carolina.

Basic Principles The curriculum has six units of study that make extensive use of high-quality children’s books. Table 2.6 shows the topics of the studies and books that are recommended for use.

Table 2.6: Books Used with the Six Units of the OWL Curriculum

Unit 1 Family

Unit 2 Friends

Unit 3 Wind and Water

Unit 4 The World of Color

Unit 5 Shadows and Reflections

Unit 6 Things That Grow

Core storybookss

Oonga Boonga

Peter’s Chair

Noisy Nora

Whistle for Willie

Corduroy

The Little Red Hen Makes Pizza

A Letter to Amy

Matthew and Tilly

Dandelion

Hooray a Piñata

Gilberto and the Wind

One Dark Night

Rabbits and Raindrops

The Snowy Day

A Hat for Minerva Louise

The Lion and the Little Red Bird

Max’s Dragon Shirt

Dog’s Colorful Day

Dear Juno

Play With Me

The Puddle Pail

Raccoon on His Own

Dreams

Kitten for a Day

I Heard Said the Bird

Bigger

Make Way for Ducklings

The Ugly Vegetables

Predictable books

Over in the Meadow

Time for Bed

Hush!

Golden Bear

The Very Noisy Night

Cat’s Colors Clap Your Hands

Night Shift Daddy

Just Enough

Expository text

Let’s Make Music

Road Builders Bringing the Rain to Kapiti Plain

See How They Grow: Kitten

The Tortilla Factory

Chickens Aren’t the Only Ones

See How They Grow: Chick

Fun With Shadows

See How They Grow: Duck

Play and Learn: Growing Things

Animals Born Alive and Well

The curriculum provides activity plans for center time, small groups, informal conversation, story time, songs, and word play. Manipulative materials can be purchased to implement the units. OWL is intended to promote learning in the major domains of:

http://www.pearsonlearning.com/microsites/owl/main.cfm

How Do I Choose? Comparing and Contrasting Options Chapter 2

• Language and literacy

• Social studies

• Science

• Mathematics

• Arts

• Physical development

• Social and emotional development

Success for All: Curiosity Corner and Kindercorner

The Success for All (SFA) model was developed in 1986 by faculty members at Johns Hopkins University as an effort to engage the entire school community in curriculum that meets the needs of its children. SFA is the most prescriptive of the curricula discussed so far, and teach- ers are expected to adhere to the curriculum in their daily practice. Teachers, families, and the external community work together to promote comprehensive supports from preschool through high school, with a focused curriculum targeted to early childhood, elementary, and middle/high school students. The early childhood components are known as Curiosity Corner (3- and 4-year-olds) and Kindercorner (kindergarten).

Curiosity Corner Curiosity Corner is used across the country in a variety of settings, mostly in programs serv- ing low-income children. Curiosity Corner emphasizes language and literacy within a com- prehensive curriculum that addresses physical, social, and emotional development and math, science, social studies as well as the visual and performing arts. It includes thirty-eight weekly thematic units complete with teaching guides and detailed daily plans, children’s books, manipulative materials, and games for each unit. The suggested daily routine includes times and activities for Greetings and Readings, Clues and Questions, Rhyme Time, Learning Labs, Story Tree, Outside and Gross Motor Play, Snack, and Question/Reflection, all related to the weekly theme.

Kindercorner The Kindercorner curriculum uses the same approach as the Curiosity Corner but extends thematic units to two weeks in length. During the second half of the school year, teachers introduce KinderRoots, a supplemental reading program.

2.4 How Do I Choose? Comparing and Contrasting Options As explained in Chapter 1, the extent to which you will have a voice in choice of curriculum will vary by setting. Let’s say, as in the opening vignette, that you walk into your classroom knowing that you will be teaching Creative Curriculum with the additional Learning Games and Dual-Language Learners support resources. You still have much work to do to make sure that you use the curriculum in the intended manner and in a way that meets the needs of your program stakeholders—you, your students, and their families. You must determine to what

http://www.successforall.org/

How Do I Choose? Comparing and Contrasting Options Chapter 2

extent this curriculum is a good fit for you, and whether you will have to compromise any of your natural inclinations or beliefs in order to do a good job with it.

Part of this work centers on knowing yourself, your core beliefs about children, your image of yourself as a teacher, the details of the curriculum, and how to teach to your natural strengths. Part of it is related to your preparation and knowledge base. And some of it relates to the assumptions and internalized values you bring to this particular school and classroom. How much do you identify with the children you will be teaching? How do you feel about dual-language learners? Will you be comfortable talking with parents and your program or school administrator? This last section of the chapter will describe and encourage you to use reflective strategies to uncover the answers to these questions.

Limited-Scope Curricula

In many classrooms, teachers use limited-scope curricula (LSCs) that focus on a single content area or developmental domain. These types of curricula frequently provide intensive, focused activi- ties designed to develop specific skills and knowledge. Often, the decision to use a LSC is made because of a particular need or priority. For example, many early literacy programs are used with children who come to school with limited experience and language skills, and are designed to increase their chances for later academic success.

The list of options and sources of information about LSCs is extensive and fluid as new curricula are developed. The U.S. government sponsors two online sites that provide information and research findings about many different types of early childhood curricula. The National Child Care Information and Technical Assistance Center (NCCIC), for example, provides information about limited or single-domain curricula used in child care programs and preschools. The What Works Clearinghouse provides another tool for locating information about research on effectiveness of dif- ferent types of limited programs.

LSC in early childhood classrooms are frequently used in conjunction with a comprehensive cur- riculum like High Scope or Creative Curriculum. In fact, both of these programs offer supplemental resources for literacy and math carefully designed to be consistent with the comprehensive cur- riculum goals, philosophy, and theoretical underpinnings. The Bank Street curriculum provides specific suggestions for literacy, math, science, art, music, and movement in addition to its general guidelines.

In other instances, however, particularly in the primary grades, it is not unusual for the entire cur- riculum to consist of a patchwork of different subject-area limited-scope curricula for literacy, math, science, social studies, and so on. A compatibility problem may arise when you find, for example, that the literacy program uses direct instruction, the math program relies heavily on manipulative materials, and the science program encourages open-ended exploration! In the next section, we will explore this challenge in more detail.

▶ Stop and Reflect Review the information on the government websites and select two early childhood curricula to compare. Apply the process described in Table 2.7. Which of the two do you think you would pre- fer? Why?

https://www.icf.com/resources/projects/social-programs/national-child-care-information-center-nccic

https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/

How Do I Choose? Comparing and Contrasting Options Chapter 2

Consistency between Beliefs, Attitudes, and Actions

Do teachers practice what they preach? Studies of congruency between teacher beliefs and practices have been conducted for a long time and much of the more recent research con- firms earlier findings (McMullen et al., 2006; Vartuli, 1999). Children benefit from consistency when a teacher’s practices are congruent with a belief system that reflects a well-developed knowledge base and experience with children over time (Buchanan, Burts, Bidner & White, 1998; DeWitt, 2015; McMullen, 1999; Stipek & Byler, 1997).

Unfortunately teachers sometimes say one thing and do another, especially when they are expected to use practices that conflict with their personal philosophy. Typically this happens when teachers must use a curriculum or approach that they do not fully support, perhaps because they feel it is not developmentally appropriate (Burts, Hart, Charlesworth & Kirk, 1990; Charlesworth, Hart, Burts, Thomasson, Mosley & Fleege, 1993). Further, teachers tend to perceive their teaching orientations as either/or choices between basic skills and child- centered approaches (McMullen et al., 2006; Stipek & Byler, 1997). Teachers of younger children tend to believe in and use child-centered approaches more than do teachers of ele- mentary school children (Buchanan, 1998). Most teachers do seem, however, to acquire the ability to operate out of a pragmatic or practical perspective and do what they think best for their students regardless of whether or not that is consistent with the theoretical orientation of the curriculum in use (McMullen, 2006).

Recognizing Assumptions As you think about your beliefs, you need to be mindful that they are grounded in assump- tions that you may or may not know you have made about children, families, and the learn- ing process (Mezirow, 2000; Jaruszewicz, 2006). Assumptions are significantly affected by filters—the lenses through which you view the world. Common filters include your gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, among others. For example, female teachers may mis- construe behavior they see in their male students simply because they process their observa- tions from the perspective of their own experiences growing up as girls. Teachers who grew up in stable homes with ample economic resources may find it difficult to understand the challenges facing students who come to school hungry or whose homework isn’t completed because of difficult conditions at home.

Your actions represent decisions you make either consciously or unconsciously based on beliefs; therefore it is helpful to identify the assumptions you hold, as they are the key to the connections and consistency between beliefs and actions. Your growth as a teacher and your ability to create, manage, and facilitate an environment conducive to powerful learning depends on your willingness to honestly, intentionally, and regularly identify, examine, and revise your assumptions as needed. Figure 2.7 represents the dynamic relationship between assumptions, beliefs, and actions.

Developing a Personal Philosophy So how do you know what you believe, so you can measure that against the curriculum you choose or develop, or the one that is chosen for you? Table 2.7 provides a simple but effective way for you to construct a personal philosophy and compare your beliefs with any of the many curricula described in this chapter or any not described.

The questions listed vertically on the left, when considered as a whole, represent a cohesive but concise philosophical statement. Think carefully about how to answer them. Consider

How Do I Choose? Comparing and Contrasting Options Chapter 2

how your values and assumptions about families, the way you were raised, and your own experiences with education might influence the way you answer the questions. As you reflect on the information presented in this chapter and continue to do your own research about curricula that interest you, propose answers to each of the questions from the perspective of the curriculum developers. As you look across the chart, you should be able to see how one curriculum compares with another, and with your own beliefs.

Table 2.7: A Matrix for Reflection and Decision Making

My Beliefs Curriculum A Curriculum B Curriculum C

What is the purpose of early childhood education?

What are young children like and how do they learn?

Who participates in early childhood education and what are their roles?

What’s worth knowing? What should children learn?

How should curriculum be implemented and acted out?

F02.07_ECE311

Actions

Beliefs about

learners

Beliefs about

teaching

Beliefs about

families

Beliefs about

curriculum

Assumptions

Filter Gender

Filter SES

Filter Values

Filter Ethnicity

Filter Experience

Filter Other?

Figure 2.7: Assumptions Flowchart

Your beliefs are grounded in assumptions and influence the way in which you will teach.

Chapter Summary Chapter 2

Hopefully, you will find that your philosophy and the curriculum you work with are a good match. If, however, you find yourself in the sticky position of having to implement a curricu- lum you know to be highly inconsistent with what you believe, at least you will be prepared to deal with that and make compromises from an informed stance, knowing that there are always things you can do in the best interests of your students.

These first two chapters provide foundational information about the history and nature of early childhood curriculum. In the next two chapters, we will shift our focus to the child. Chapters 3 and 4 will focus on the critical relationships between knowledge of child develop- ment and curriculum decision making.

Chapter Summary • Curriculum is developed from a vision about what early education should be like.

It reflects assumptions and attitudes about children, teachers, families, and other stakeholders. Curriculum content answers the question, “What’s worth knowing?” Moreover, the manner in which it is implemented has a great impact on outcomes for children.

• Curriculum is inspired and informed by a long history of research about how children learn. Time-tested classic comprehensive curricula such as Montessori, Waldorf, Bank Street, and Reggio Emilia are internally consistent; all the parts fit together as a cohe- sive whole.

• Modern curricula in use today are inspired by the work of those who came before. While there are differences across the spectrum, abiding principles about how children grow and learn coexist alongside evolving notions about how those principles can be implemented to make learning interesting and exciting for children and their teachers.

• Established curricula can be adapted to an ever-expanding knowledge base and new curricula continue to emerge to meet societal changes and demands. Good teachers understand the importance of developing a personal philosophy as a framework from which to responsibly analyze and implement the curriculum they work with.

Posttest

1. Longitudinal research about the effects of early childhood curriculum models:

a. Provided definitive answers about the best curricula to use with at-risk children.

b. Proved that any curriculum can be effective if implemented properly.

c. Determined that teacher quality is the only reliable predictor of success.

d. Determined that high quality preschool is a good long-term investment.

2. Curriculum content is most meaningful when it:

a. Reflects the deeply embedded values of society and communities.

b. Constantly changes in response to what the school or program wants.

c. Dictates everything the teacher should do to make sure the children meet the intended outcomes.

d. Must be difficult to master so that the children are always being challenged.

3. Montessori curriculum uses didactic materials that are:

a. Colorful, have many pieces, and children can use them in any way they choose.

b. Used only on days when the children can’t go outside to play.

c. Specifically designed to develop a particular skill or concept.

d. Used in the practical life area.

4. Emergent curriculum is:

a. Never finished, it’s always a work in progress.

b. Predetermined by the teacher but changes as time goes on.

c. Collaboratively developed by children and teachers together over time.

d. Not very effective, because it is hard to meet state standards when topics aren’t determined in advance.

5. The High Scope curriculum:

a. Never really established evidence that it met the needs of at-risk children.

b. Was developed to support Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory to reflect the demo- graphic characteristics of the children in Head Start programs.

c. Was developed for exclusive use in Head Start programs.

d. Includes a “plan-do-review” sequence that provides children the opportunity to make connections between intentions and actions.

6. Creative Curriculum is comprehensive because it:

a. Provides all the resources teachers need to implement it.

b. Addresses all the important curriculum questions about purpose, how children learn, stakeholders, content, and implementation.

c. Is more widely used than any other curriculum today.

d. Incorporates ideas from all the major curriculum developed prior to its creation.

7. It is important to identify your assumptions about learners because:

a. Your actions in the classroom are indirectly connected to beliefs about learners that are affected by assumptions you have acquired through life experiences.

b. It is never appropriate to assume anything without concrete evidence that it is true.

c. Each curriculum is based on assumptions about learners, and in order to implement it effectively, your assumptions and beliefs must be the same.

d. You must make sure that you never make a mistake as a result of drawing incorrect conclusions.

8. Thinking about and analyzing the ways different curricula are similar and different using the process described in this chapter:

a. Isn’t an efficient use of your time, as teachers don’t benefit from thinking about their work.

b. Can be very helpful, as every curriculum answers important curriculum questions differently from all the others.

c. Contributes to your development as a reflective teacher.

d. Reveals that all curricula for young learners are basically the same.

Posttest Chapter 2

Answers and Rejoinders to Pretest Chapter 2

9. The Bank Street program is known as an early example of:

a. Behaviorist curriculum as proposed by Bereiter and Engleman.

b. The laboratory school movement that focused on preschool classroom settings as a means to study child development.

c. Katz and Chard’s later interpretation of the Project Approach.

d. A curriculum that emphasized language arts.

10. The Perry Pre-School Project following 123 African-American children in Head Start pro- grams for more than 40 years is now widely regarded as a landmark study establishing the value of:

a. Appropriate health, early nutrition, and active lifestyle.

b. High quality preschool curriculum.

c. Early identification and intervention for children with attention deficit disorder.

d. Teacher education that focuses on understanding diversity and family structures.

Answers: 1 (d); 2 (a); 3 (c); 4 (c); 5 (d); 6 (b); 7 (a); 8 (c); 9 (b); 10 (b)

Discussion Questions

1. Think about the way you experienced curriculum as a child in preschool or elementary school. How does that compare with the way curriculum is described in this chapter?

2. What are the most significant differences between Montessori, Creative Curriculum, and Reggio Emilia? What is consistent across them? If you could choose between them, which would you choose and why?

3. As the teacher in the opening scenario, suppose you realize, after thinking about your personal philosophy and comparing it with the curriculum you’ve been asked to use, your beliefs differ significantly from those represented in the curriculum. What would you do?

Answers and Rejoinders to Pretest

1. True. While there are differences across curriculum about interpretation, the body of research on child development and how young children learn informs most curricula in use today.

2. False. Exhaustive research efforts in both the 1960s and more recently have been able to identify important elements of effective curriculum but not to identify one curriculum as better than all others.

3. True. The Montessori and Waldorf curricula were developed at the turn of the twentieth century.

4. False. High-quality curricula are based both on time-tested principles and theories and new research that continues to inform the field.

5. False. Curricula are designed to answer particular questions that can be used for com- parison purposes.

References Chapter 2

Key Terms

Child psychology Field of study that assesses and analyzes how the minds of children work

Didactic A material designed for a specific instructional purpose

Emergent curriculum Learning through long-term studies that evolve over time

Laboratory preschools Experimental and demonstration programs, located mainly at uni- versities, that provide clinical sites for research about young children

Longitudinal study Research that tracks changes over time among a specific group of research participants

Mission statement Succinctly describes how the vision will be achieved

Vision statement Statement about what a program wants to achieve

References

Barbour, N. (2003). The early history of child development laboratory programs. B. A. McBride and N. Barbour (Eds.), Bridging the gap between theory, research, and practice: The role of child development laboratory programs in Early Childhood Education (pp. 9–29). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Barnett, W. A., Junga, K., Yarosza, D. J., & Thomasa, J. (2008). Educational effects of the tools of the mind curriculum: A randomized trial. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 299–313.

Besharov, D. G. (2011). Consortium of Longitudinal Studies. Assessments of twenty-six early childhood evaluations. Silver Spring, MD: Maryland School of Public Policy, University of Maryland. Retrieved from http://www.welfareacademy.org/pubs/early_education/pdfs/ Besharov_ECE%20assessments_Consortium_for_Longitudinal_Studies.pdf.

Biber, B. (1977). A developmental-interaction approach: Bank Street College of Education. M. C. Day & R. Parker (Eds.), The preschool in action: Exploring early childhood programs (pp. 423–460). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. (2001). Tools of the mind: A case study of implementing the Vygotskian approach in American early childhood and primary classrooms. Geneva, Switzerland: International Bureau of Education.

Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. (September–October, 2005). Self-regulation: A foundation for early learning. Principal Magazine, pp. 30–32.

Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. (2007). Tools of the mind: the Vygotskian approach to early child- hood education (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Bredekamp, S. (November 1993). Reflections on Reggio Emilia. Young Children, 49(1), 13–18.

Bronfenbrenner, U. I. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

References Chapter 2

Buchanan, T. B., Burts, D., Bidner, J. & White, B. F. (1998). Predictors of the developmental appropriateness of the beliefs and practices of first, second and third grade teachers. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 459–483.

Burts, D. C., Hart, C. H., Charlesworth, R., & Kirk, L. (1990). A comparison of frequencies of stress behaviors observed in kindergarten children in classrooms with developmentally appropriate versus developmentally inapppropriate instructional practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 5, 407-423.

Campbell, F. A. (1994). Effects of early intervention on intellectual and academic achieve- ment: A follow-up study of children from low-income families. Child Development, 65, 684–698.

Campbell, F. A. (1995). Cognitive and school outcomes for high-risk African-American stu- dents at middle adolescence: Positive effects of early intervention. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 743–772.

Campbell, F. A., Ramey, C. T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early childhood education: Young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian project. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 42–57.

Chapman, L. (2007). An update on No Child Left Behind and national trends in education. Arts Education Policy Review, 109(1), 25–36.

Chapman, L. H. (2005). No child left behind in art? Art Education, 58(1), 6–16.

Charlesworth, R., Hart, C. H., Burts, D. C., Thomasson, R. H., Mosley, J., & Fleege, P. O. (1993). Measuring the developmental appropriateness of kindergarten teachers’ beliefs and practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8(3), 255–276.

Cohn, D., & Caumont, A. (2016, March 31). 10 demographic trends that are shap- ing the U.S. and the world. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/31/10-demographic-trends-that-are-shap- ing-the-u-s-and-the-world/

Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (Eds.) (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8 (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: NAEYC.

Darlington, R. B. (1981). Consortium of Longitudinal Studies. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 3(6), 37–45.

Dewey, J. (1903). Democracy in education. The Elementary Teacher, 4(4).

DeWitt, P. (2015, June 2). Do we practice what we preach? Education Week. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/finding_common_ground/2015/06/do_we_practice_ what_we_preach.html

Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (Eds.) (1998). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach advanced reflections. Westport, CT: Ablex.

Epstein, A. S., Schweinhart, L. J., & McAdoo, L. (1996). Models of early childhood education. Ypsilant, MI: High Scope Press.

Gandini, L. (November 1993). Fundamentals of the Reggio Emilia approach to early child- hood education. Young Children, 49(1), 4–8.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/finding_common_ground/2015/06/do_we_practice_what_we_preach.html

References Chapter 2

Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (2nd ed.). New York: Basic Books.

Goffin, S., & Wilson, C. (2001). Curriculum models and early childhood education: Appraising the relationship (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.

Helm, J., Beneke, S., & Steinheimer, K. (2007). Windows on learning: documenting young children’s work (2nd ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.

Henderson, J. & Kesson, K. (2004). Curriculum wisdom: Educational decisions in democratic societies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Hertzog, N. (Spring 2001). Reflections and impressions from Reggio Emilia: “It’s not about art!” Early Childhood Research & Practice.

Hewett, V. M. (Winter 2001). Examining the Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood edu- cation. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29(2), 95–100.

Jaruszewicz, C. (2005). Responsible eclecticism: Using a structured analysis process to facili- tate curriculum discourse with graduate preservice early childhood education students. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 26(4), 361–375.

Jaruszewicz, C. (2006). Openingg windows on teaching and learning: Transformative and emancipatory learning precipitated by experimenting with visual documentation of stu- dent learning. Educational Action Research, 14(3), 357–375.

Kahn, D. (Winter 2010). The 2009–10 NAMTA Montessori School salary and tuition survey. The NAMTA Journal, 35(1), 3–45. Retrieved from http://www.montessori-namta.org/ PDF/2009survey.pdf.

Kantrowicz, B., & Wingert, P. (December 2, 1991). The ten best schools in the world. Newsweek, pp. 50–53.

Katz, L., & Chard, S. (2000). Engaging children’s minds. New York: Praeger.

Kilpatrick, W. H. (1918). The project method. Teachers College Record, 19, 319–335.

Klein, J. (October 1971). Head Start: Intervention for what? Educational Leadership, pp. 16–19.

Lazar, I. (1978). Lasting effects after preschool. A report of the Consortium for Longitudinal Studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Lazar, I. D. (1982). Lasting effects of early education: A report from the Consortium for Longitudinal Studies. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 47(195), 2–3.

Linn, M. I. (December 2001). An American educator reflects on the meaning of the Reggio experience. Phi Delta Kappan, pp. 332–334.

Lynch, M. (2016, November 19). Social constructivism in education. Retrieved from https:// www.theedadvocate.org/social-constructivisim-in-education/

MacPherson, I. & Brooker, R. (2000). Positioning stakeholders in curriculum leadership: How can teacher educators work with teachers to discover and create their place? Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 28(1), 69–85.

References Chapter 2

Malaguzzi, L. (1993). For an education based on relationships. Young Children, 49(1), 9–12.

Masse, L. N. (2002). A benefit cost analysis of the Abecedarian early childhood intervention. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, National Institute for Early Education Research.

McMullen, M. B. (1999). Characteristics of teachers who talk the DAP talk and walk the DAP walk. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 13(2), 216–230.

McMullen, M., et al. (2006). Using collaborative assessment to examine the relationship between self-reported beliefs and the documentable practices of preschool teachers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(6), 81–91.

Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress. San Francisco: Jossey Bass.

Mitchell, A., & David, J. (1992). Explorations with children: A curriculum guide from the Bank Street College of Education. Silver Spring, MD: Gryphon House.

Montessori, M. (2007). The absorbent mind. Radford, VA: Wilder Publications, Inc. (Original work published in 1949).

Montessori, M. (2008) The Montessori method. Lexington, KY: BN Publishing. (Original work published 1909.)

National Commission on Excellence (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Pearson Education (2009). Opening the world of learning. Retrieved from http://www.pear- sonlearning.com/microsites/owl/pdfs/FoundationalResearch.pdf.

Peterson, J. W. (2010). Waldorf and Montessori combined: A new impulse in education. Encounter: Education for Meaning and Social Justice, 23(3), 21–27.

Posner, G. J. (2004) Analyzing the curriculum (3rd ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Project Zero. (n.d.). What is PZ? Retrieved from http://www.pz.harvard.edu/who-we-are/ about

Prosser, L. & Jiang, X. (2008). Relationship between school physical activity and academic performance of children. The International Journal of Learning, 15 (3), 11–16.

Rankin, B. (1992). Inviting children’s creativity: A story of Reggio Emilia, Italy. Child Care Information Exchange, 30–35.

Schweinhart, L. (2002). How the HighScope Perry Preschool study grew: A researcher’s tale. Phi Delta Kappa Center for Evaluation, Development, and Research. Retrieved from http:// www.highscope.org/Content.asp?ContentId=232.

Schweinhart, L. J. (2005). Lifetime effects: The HighScope Perry Preschool study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope Educational Research Foundation.

Shapiro, E., &. Biber, B. (1972). The education of young children: a development-interaction approach. Teachers College Record, 74(1), 55–80.

Smith, N. J., & Lounsbery, M. (January 2009). Promoting physical education: The link to aca- demic achievement. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation & Dance, 80(1), 39–43.

References Chapter 2

Stebbins, L. S. (1977). Education as experimentation: A planned variation model, (Vol. IV-A). Cambridge, MA: ABT Associates.

Stipek, D. J., & Byler, P. (1997). Early childhood education teachers: Do they practice what they preach? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 12(3), 305–325.

Teaching Strategies. (2010). Research Foundation: the Creative Curriculum. Retrieved December 4, 2011 from http://www.teachingstrategies.com/national/creative-curriculum- preschool-system-research-foundation.html.

Tobin, J. (2005). Quality in early childhood education: An anthropologist’s perspective. Early Education and Development, 16(5), 421–434.

Tremarche, P. V., Robinson, E. M., & Graham, L. B. (Spring 2007). Physical education and its effect on elementary testing results. Physical Educator, 64(2), 58–64.

Trister-Dodge, D. (January–February 2004). Early childhood curriculum models: Why, what, and how programs use them. Child Care Information Exchange, pp. 71–75.

Trister-Dodge, D. E. (2010). Creative curriculum: (Vol. 5). Mathematics (5th ed.). Teaching Strategies, Inc.

Trostli, R. (1998). Rhythms of learning. Herndon, VA: Anthroposophical Press.

Vartuli, S. (1999). How early childhood teacher beliefs vary across grade level. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14(4), 489–519.

Early Learning, Later Success: The Abecedarian Study. (1999). Highlights of the age 21 follow-up study. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, FPG Child Development Center.

Westinghouse Learning Corporation. (1969). The impact of Head Start: An evaluation of the effects of Head Start on children’s cognitive and affective development, vols. 1 and 2. Report to the Office of Economic Opportunity. Athens, OH: Office of Economic Opportunity, Westinghouse Learning Corporation and Ohio University.

Whitfield, P. T. (2009). The heart of the arts: Fostering young children’s ways of knowing. M. Narey (Ed.) Making meaning: Constructing multimodal perspectives of language, liter- acy, and learning through arts-based early childhood education (pp. 153–165). New York: Springer.