Module 1
Presentation 1
a. Learning from the Past
Early childhood education is a field with a long and rich history going back to
ancient times. Its history differs from that of education for older children, which has
been considered a public responsibility for more than a century. By contrast, young
children’s care and education are so closely tied to families that private and public
support for early childhood care and education is a very recent phenomenon. In
addition, early childhood education is a more interdisciplinary field than is elementary
education, with historical influences coming from not only child development and
education but also from medicine, psychology, sociology, and other areas. As a result,
many historical paths have converged to lead the field to where it is today.
The history of early childhood education, especially during the past 150 years,
reveals that the past and the present are inexorably linked. Most of the current issues
and controversies have been visited in some form in the past. For example, even all
those years ago, teachers grappled with questions such as these: What environments
and materials should be provided? What are the goals for children’s learning and
development? How should children be taught? What is the role of the teacher? How
should parents be involved? Who is qualified to be a teacher? All of these issues have
dominated debates about early education since its inception, and continue to do so.
Rather than assuming that these issues are being encountered for the first time,
understanding how they have been resolved in the past can inform current
discussions. One reason this is so important is that “the solution to every problem
contains the seeds of a new problem” (Bredekamp & Glowacki, 1996). For example,
early in the 20th century, advocates fought for kindergarten to be part of public
schools. Succeeding in doing so eventually meant that kindergarten teachers were able
to earn public school salaries and that services became available for all children. But
this solution also created a new problem—kindergartens became, and still are, more
like first grades than like preschools in curriculum expectations and teaching methods.
Today’s advocates for public prekindergarten need to be aware of this history as they
pursue their goals.
Consider how this phenomenon may be evident in your own life. A problem
that many college students face is the high cost of tuition. Students solve this problem
in different ways— taking out loans, working full time or part time while going to
school, or choosing less expensive schools. But each of these solutions can lead to
new challenges. The loans need to be repaid; a full-time job delays graduation; the
accessible schools may not meet the students’ needs. In turn, each of these “problems”
leads to a subsequent solution, and the process begins anew. The idea that solving
problems creates new challenges can be discouraging; however, it need not be. As
long as we are working on solving new problems or challenges, we are making
progress. History is composed of such progress in spurts as well as in setbacks. As
you reflect on early childhood history you will encounter many example of solutions
creating new challenges.
Just as it is true that we continue to confront questions and challenges similar
to those faced by our forebears, it is equally true that responses to these issues need to
reflect current knowledge. As we will see, many of the principles and values that
guide the field today are remarkably consistent with earlier views (Copple &
Bredekamp, 2009). There are also essential differences based on newer research,
theories, and realities. Getting stuck in the past can lead to defending past practices
simply because we have always done it that way. Knowing why it was “done that
way,” however, can lead to changing it for the better.
History is not just the story of events, but the stories of people. The history of
early childhood education is replete with inspiring stories of women and men who
devoted themselves to improving the lives of children and families. Many “dauntless
women” (Snyder, 1972) contributed in countless ways to early childhood education at
a time when women’s opportunities for higher education and careers were severely
restricted. Similarly, men have been at the forefront of building the profession even
though children were considered the purview of women. The stories of these pioneers
of early childhood education, who were forward looking in both their thinking and
their deeds, serve as inspiration and motivation for current and future professionals.
Learning about their lives, the obstacles they faced in their work, and the brilliance of
their minds sets a high standard for the rest of us.
Understanding the paths history has taken is important if early childhood
educators are to be successful in improving services in the future. Even a brief
summary of historical underpinnings reveals that change is a constant. For example, at
times, services for children have been a priority while at other times (regularly, in
fact), the services are threatened. The Head Start program is a case in point. In the
mid-1960s, Head Start was launched to great fanfare as a means to end poverty in this
country, an impossibly unrealistic goal. But over the years, the program has fallen
prey to changing public attitudes and funding priorities. Throughout these years, some
advocates have set idealistic goals, which can be inspiring; yet history has taught us
that unrealistic goals doom a program to failure. In the intervening years, advocates
have made it plain that Head Start plays a key role in empowering low income
families to improve their lives and in preparing their children for success in school.
However, Head Start is not a cure for the ills of poverty, nor is it an inoculation
against poor school experiences that might follow. To be most effective, advocates for
improving Head Start and other early childhood programs and services should use the
lessons of successful efforts in the past. Examining the history of childhood education
reveals that there have been significant changes—transformations, actually—in how
children are viewed. In the sections that follow, we examine the changing view of
childhood and its effect on children’s lives.
Different periods of history have had differing perspectives on children and
the idea of childhood itself (Aries, 1962). These perspectives matter because they
have direct implications for how children are treated and what kinds of education they
are provided. Different eras in history have tended to view children as miniature
adults, born in sin, blank slates, innocent, economic valuables, competent, and as
citizens with rights. At different times, one or the other of these perspectives has
tended to prevail. To some extent, all of these views of children persist to this day. In
the sections that follow, each of the perspectives of childhood just mentioned is
described, along with the potential positive and negative consequences for children’s
lives.
English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) countered the religious
argument that children are born with a predetermined sinful nature. Instead, he
believed that children are born as tabula rasa, blank slates. What gets written on the
slates is determined by their experiences in the environment. Locke’s view was a step
forward because it rejected the notion of inherent sinfulness and strongly emphasized
the importance and value of education. Locke was accurate in assuming that
environmental experiences play a major role in children’s learning; however, he did
not see individual differences in children or how they actively shape their own
experiences. Nevertheless, Locke’s image of children as blank slates persists. Many
schools today still operate on the notion that children are empty vessels that need to
be filled, rather than active participants in the process of education.
In contrast to Locke’s theory as well as the notion of children as sinners in
need of redemption, French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778)
introduced the Romantic image of the child as innocent. Rousseau’s novel Emile
promoted the idea that children are born good rather than evil, and that they have
inherent abilities upon which to build (Wolfe, 2000). He thought education should
build on children’s natural goodness. Rousseau believed that it is important to observe
children. He was among the first to propose the concept of stages of development. He
believed that children should not be rushed through stages, nor that one stage was
simply preparation for another, a concept that continues to influence practice 150
years later. Rousseau’s image of childhood was a radical departure from the views of
his day. Although he did not put these ideas into practice, they influenced many
thinkers who followed and continue to have an influence today. Early childhood
education has a strong tradition of focusing on the positive in children to develop
individual potential.
At various points in history, children’s value has been calculated in response to
a number of factors. Even today, some consider children to be their parents’ property.
They were, and still are in some communities, economically necessary to contribute
work to the sustenance and care of the family; this includes taking care of other
children and parents in old age. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, however, child
labor laws limited children’s potential economic contributions to family well-being.
As children’s economic contributions diminished, they began to take on more intrinsic
emotional value in the family. For example, insurance companies compensated
parents for a child’s death or injury not only because of the costs involved and the
potential income lost, but also as an attempt to compensate for the emotional loss.
The image of the child throughout history has come almost full circle in its
relation to adults. But rather than seeing children as small-scale adults, a present-day
development is to view children as citizens who have rights just as adults do (Hall &
Rudkin, 2011). In a democratic society, rights are implemented as laws such as those
that protect children from abuse or prosecution as adults. Similarly, toys and products
used by children must meet safety regulations. Internationally, the image of a child
with rights has gained widespread attention. In 1989, the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child (http://www.unicef. org/crc) went into effect. It has been
ratified by every developed country in the world except Somalia and the United
States. The declaration calls for protection of all children from physical, mental, and
sexual abuse. One provision states that, although parents have primary responsibility
for children’s upbringing, states should provide appropriate assistance and support for
child care programs. This is one of several provisions that have been politically
controversial in this country. Although the United States has not endorsed the UN
Convention, its existence promotes an image of the child with rights.
Elements of all of these images of childhood are present in children’s lives
today and influence how they are treated. Although our country tends to see children
as innocents in need of protection by parents and the government, we also propel
them into adult experiences at young ages. Our schools swing back and forth, between
taking an approach that children are empty vessels, and viewing them as competent
contributors to their own learning. On the one hand, children are highly valued, and
on the other hand, they are abused and neglected. As we have seen throughout history,
the prevailing image of children impacts their lives in many ways. One example is the
role of play, which is described in the feature Promoting Play: The Image of the Child
and the Role of Play. As we explore the evolution of early childhood practice in the
sections that follow, it will become apparent which of these images has had the
greater influence on the field. We can only present highlights of the rich history of the
field here; for a more complete picture, click here to consult the timeline of major
events.
b. European Influences on American Early Childhood Education
Like much of American history, early education was strongly influenced by
Western European ideas. Although European ideas were not the only, nor necessarily
the best, educational concepts in the world, current practices in the United States
strongly reflect these early influences. Later in this, we consider early childhood
history through a wider lens. Rousseau’s belief in the inherent goodness and potential
of children had a strong impact on the educational ideas and practices that followed.
Two other thinkers who shared similar views are Comenius and Pestalozzi. Unlike
Rousseau, both created schools that implemented their vision.
John Amos Comenius (Jan Komensky in his native Czech) (1592–1670) was a
minister who wrote about educational reform and directed a school where he could
put his ideas into practice. He believed in three key ideas (Wolfe, 2000): (1) Teaching
methods needed to be radically changed from punitive approaches to make learning
easier, deeper, and more pleasant; (2) teachers should engage children with nature and
follow their lead; and (3) children should learn in their own language, rather than in
Latin. To accomplish his last goal, Comenius wrote a new kind of book, Orbis Pictus,
or “the world in pictures.” Popular for the next 200 years, this was the first children’s
picture book or illustrated textbook ever published. It was organized around topics of
interest such as birds and plants and included pictures with labels attached. Comenius
also wrote the first illustrated alphabet book to teach children to read in their own
languages.
Some of the educational ideas that Comenius practiced in his school were
radical for his time but sound familiar today. For example, he thought the early years
were an extremely important foundation for later learning. He believed that children
learn through their senses and need to be active, and he felt that children’s interests
and firsthand experiences promote learning and memory. Comenius believed that
children are born in the image of God, and was vehemently opposed to physical
punishment (Wolfe, 2000). Like Rousseau, he identified developmental stages.
Comenius’s ideas have endured for centuries. For example, in the 1990s Eastern
European countries that had been under Communist dictatorship moved toward
democracy. One strategy was to reform previously rigid educational systems. With the
help of American philanthropy, the International Step by Step Association
(http://www.issa.nl) was founded to develop Head Start–like preschool programs.
There was some concern that these “American” ideas—such as child-centered
education—would be culturally inappropriate. However, these concerns
underestimated the lasting reverence for native son Komensky (Comenius)—who is,
after all, the forerunner of much of American early childhood education.
Pestalozzi (1894/2007) described his philosophy in a book titled How
Gertrude Teaches Her Children. He believed that teachers must study child
development. He thought that learning proceeds through stages, with children needing
to master skills and knowledge before moving on to the next stage (Wolfe, 2000).
Pestalozzi promoted what came to be called the “whole child” point of view—that
children’s physical, emotional, social, moral, and intellectual development are
integrated. He called these “the hand, heart, and head.” Other important ideas of
Pestalozzi included the notion that children need to discover ideas for themselves
through their own activity—a precursor of Piaget’s theory of constructivism. He
rejected punishment and threats and felt that children are motivated to learn by their
interests. Like many early theorists, Pestalozzi viewed development as a natural
unfolding or blossoming from within, with teachers acting as gardeners who nurture
the process rather than direct it. Although this view is simpler than our understanding
of development today, it persisted well into the 20th century.
Friedrich Froebel (1782–1852) built on Pestalozzi’s ideas but extended them
to develop educational materials. His view of development as a process of natural
unfolding is evident in the name of his school, a “garden for children.” Froebel is well
known as the “father of the kindergarten.” Froebel believed in the innate goodness
and capacities of children, and saw God’s image in them. Like Pestalozzi, he believed
that education should be based on children’s interests and their active involvement,
and that teachers need to understand children’s development by directly observing
their actions (Giardiello, 2014). He described stages of development that are similar to
those Piaget articulated in the 20th century. He saw infancy (birth to 3 years) as
focused on the family and the infant’s relationship with the mother. He wrote Mother
Play and Nursery Songs to assist mothers in their interactions with very young
children— something most mothers today take for granted. Froebel’s second stage
(ages 3 to 7), for which he developed his kindergarten materials, was the focus of
most of his work. The third stage (ages 7 to 10) focused on more formal school
instruction.
Froebel’s metaphor of the children’s garden was more than poetry. He strongly
believed that children’s learning is a process of unfolding from within. He also
believed that learning would occur on the child’s own timetable and not until the child
was ready. Froebel’s kindergarten emphasized children’s free play, singing, and
movement (Nourot, 2005). The materials he developed, which were called Froebel’s
occupations and gifts, were used to guide and structure children’s play. As a result,
Froebel’s view of “free” play was not as free as some interpret today. The role of the
teacher in Froebel’s kindergarten was to be like a gardener. Teachers were to observe,
nurture, and help but not interfere with the natural growth of the child. They needed to
be aware of children’s development, however, so they could provide a new challenge
as children engaged with the gifts and occupations.
Froebel’s gifts were concrete materials for children to manipulate in specific
ways. The first gift was a box of six wooden balls in the colors of the spectrum—red,
orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet—plus corresponding strings. Each child could
use these materials in many creative ways, but Froebel and his teachers identified
more than 100 games to play with this one gift and accompanying songs and rhymes
(Elkind, 2015). Another gift was a cube that could be divided into eight smaller cubes
and put back together to form a whole. Children could play many games with this gift,
but it also promoted basic math concepts related to number and geometry. Froebel
also invented parquetry blocks—a set of flat, colored, wooden shapes that could be
put together to form various designs. Other gifts included sticks and rings made of
wire and natural materials such as seeds and pebbles. The same or similar materials
are prevalent in early childhood classrooms today, where children use them in creative
ways, and also to learn mathematics and science.
Froebel’s work had a major impact on education in the United States, leading
directly to a large-scale kindergarten movement here. Several teachers and teacher
educators who studied Froebel’s methods in Europe—“kindergartners” as they were
called—transplanted his ideas to this country. Kindergartens today bear less and less
resemblance to Froebel’s “children’s garden”; today they have become more like
formal first grades (Strauss, 2014). However, many of his basic ideas are still evident
in preschool and child care programs. His gifts and occupations were clearly the
prototypes for many of the toys and materials, such as oneinch cube and parquetry
blocks, that are pervasive in preschool classrooms. Common activities—constructing
models or using natural materials in art and projects—also mirror some of his
occupations. Froebel’s work had a significant impact on the development of American
kindergartens. First, we visit another European educator who lived a century later than
Froebel, but whose work also stands out for its contributions to the field—Maria
Montessori.
Montessori’s contributions grew out of her work with poor children in the
slums of Rome. The prevailing opinion was that these children were mentally
deficient. However, Montessori believed that what appeared to be mental retardation
was not biologically based, but rather caused by the lack of stimulation in their
environments. In 1907, she started a program for children, ages 4 through 7, called
Casa dei Bambini (Children’s House), and developed a highly successful approach to
teaching the children, which revealed that they were not mentally disabled at all.
Montessori demonstrated that educating needy children is a less costly and more
effective strategy than waiting until they create problems for society. This is the same
justification that was used to launch Head Start, and it is still the core rationale for
much of the current investment in early education.
To facilitate learning and prevent wasted time, she developed educational
materials for children to use in prescribed ways. Montessori designed self-correcting
learning materials for children, many of which are still commonly used. For example,
she created puzzles with little knobs attached to each piece, for very young children to
practice the pincer grasp used for writing; and to practice fine motor skills, she
invented a cloth board with buttons and buttonholes. Montessori emphasized that
there was one right way to use each of her materials. She did not consider her
materials to be toys; instead, she viewed them as educational tools. Children were also
taught practical life skills such as washing a table and sweeping a floor. Montessori’s
belief in sensory learning extended to academic areas as well, specifically writing,
reading, and mathematics (Montessori, 1912/1964). For example, she created
sandpaper alphabets so that children could feel the shapes of the letters as a first step
toward writing. She thought children should learn to write as a strategy to teach
reading. This was an innovative concept for its time (when promoting reading at an
early age was not accepted by her peers in early education), and also presaged later
understandings of the strong connection between writing and reading in becoming
literate.
From 1910 to 1920, interest in Montessori’s approach gained popularity in the
United States; several elements of her approach remain widely accepted. However,
overall interest in her methods soon faded here, primarily due to her unwillingness to
adapt to new knowledge and her rejection of key elements of American philosophy,
such as the importance of play. Maria Montessori’s lasting contribution to the field
was her development of Montessori materials and her impact on the organization of
environments. Not until the 1950s was interest in Montessori revived in the United
States. In contrast to Montessori’s original intent to serve poor children, Montessori
schools in the United States tended to be private, serving a more affluent population.
In recent years, however, the approach has been embraced by some magnet and
charter public schools. A study of a public Montessori school in Milwaukee found that
the approach contributed positively to 5-year-olds’ literacy, math, and social skills
(Lillard, 2005) and to creativity and social skills at age 12 (Lillard & Else-Quest,
2006). With its emphasis on individualized instruction, the Montessori approach also
has been found to be effective in improving the school readiness of Latino
prekindergartners (Ansari & Winsler, 2014). Interestingly, the founders of Google,
Larry Page and Sergey Brin, attribute their success to the self-motivation they gained
from attending Montessori preschool.
c. Early Childhood Movements in the United States
The earliest leaders in the kindergarten movement transplanted Froebel’s ideas
directly. The first kindergarten in the United States was founded by Margarethe
Schurz (1833–1876) in Wisconsin in 1856 (Snyder, 1972). Schurz had studied with
Froebel and, upon immigrating to the United States, started a German-speaking
school to teach her own and neighbors’ children. Later, Schurz met Elizabeth Palmer
Peabody (1804–1894), and their encounter was the impetus for the American
kindergarten movement. Elizabeth Peabody was part of a well-known family of social
reformers. Her sister, Mary, was married to Horace Mann, considered to be the father
of public education in the United States. In Boston, Elizabeth Peabody organized the
first English-speaking kindergarten in 1860, and soon after wrote the first American
kindergarten textbook for teachers (Cantor, 2013). She understood that teachers
needed to be trained in Froebel’s philosophy to ensure the quality and integrity of the
expanding kindergarten movement. She also traveled widely and became an
outspoken advocate for the cause, inspiring new generations of leaders, the most
influential of whom was Susan Blow.
In 1873, with the support of William Harris, a reformminded school
superintendent in St. Louis, Blow founded the first public school kindergarten
(Snyder, 1972) in response to Harris’s concern that schooling did not begin until age
7. Blow was ambivalent about connecting kindergarten to public school, fearing that
“the formality of the grades would seize kindergarten in its grip” (Snyder, 1972, p.
66). Nevertheless, she worked with Harris and launched more than 50 kindergarten
classrooms. Teacher training was an essential part of her strategy, with teachers
working with children in the mornings and attending lectures in the afternoons on
topics such as the correct use of Froebel’s gifts and occupations—a combination of
theory and practicum that continues to this day in teacher education. Upon Harris’s
departure from his post, a new school administration was less supportive of Blow’s
cause and threatened her ideal vision of kindergarten. Subsequently, Blow turned her
energy from developing and spreading Froebelian kindergarten ideals to defending
them (Snyder, 1972). Blow promoted a rigid application of Froebel’s methods (such
as using the gifts in narrowly prescribed ways), which was actually antithetical to his
vision of kindergarten.
The progressive education movement was a major effort to reform schooling
at all levels to make it more democratic. Its tenets were in direct contrast to the
prevailing practices in schools of the time, which emphasized rote memorization,
strict conformity, and harsh discipline. The traditional curriculum was limited to the
“3 Rs”: reading, writing, and arithmetic. The story of the progressive education
movement in the United States is integrally connected to the story of the nursery
school movement (or preschool, as we now call it). Many principles of
developmentally appropriate practice are derived directly from the work of early
progressive leaders. Although differences exist between the earlier ideas and current
views, the commonalities between the two visions—progressive education and
developmentally appropriate practice—are striking. The following sections present
the contributions of John Dewey.
John Dewey (1859–1952) was a professor of philosophy first at the University
of Chicago and then for 47 years at Teachers College, Columbia University, in New
York City. While in Chicago, John and his wife, Alice Chapman Dewey (d. 1927),
founded the University of Chicago Laboratory School to implement their philosophy
of a humane approach to education. Alice taught at the school, prepared the
curriculum, and served as principal. The school, which they ran from 1893 to 1903,
became a laboratory for developing and trying out their approach.
Dewey believed that subject matter—reading, writing, geography, history,
science—should be introduced to children in ways that they can understand and that
involve them in social interaction. He introduced the idea of integrated curriculum,
now a staple of early childhood education, which addresses learning goals across
multiple subjects at the same time. For example, children might learn economics,
history, geography, and other subjects by studying the workers in their neighborhood.
A tenet of Dewey’s philosophy is that teachers should find ways to integrate
traditional curriculum into topics of interest to children, such as building a model of
the neighborhood. Dewey also brought expressive and constructive activities into the
classroom such as cooking, sewing, and woodworking. He felt academic skills should
grow out of these activities.
Dewey (1929) believed that the traditional emphasis on children as passive
learners was a “waste of time.” He strongly emphasized the importance of teachers
observing children and building on their interests. In progressive schools, the role of
teachers is to guide or facilitate learning based on what they know about children and
to choose the right problems and questions to further children’s learning. For example,
teachers don’t simply teach geography as adults know it; rather, they teach the
geography concepts and topics that the child is interested in and capable of learning.
This approach, called the child-centered curriculum, has been falsely interpreted over
the years to mean that children determine the curriculum (Bredekamp & Copple,
1997). Although teachers build curriculum from children’s experiences and interests,
Dewey felt strongly that teachers needed to know both what children are interested in
and the content that children needed to learn. This both/and thinking principle in
progressive education has often been lost in translation.
As far back as Pestalozzi, educators understood that teaching should be based
on direct study of children. Beginning in the late 19thLcentury, G. Stanley Hall (1844–
1924) launched the child study movement. Hall was interested in understanding
individual differences in children through direct observation. Hall’s students went on
to develop systematic scientific approaches to studying child development. Arnold
Gesell (1880–1961) is famed for launching a child study laboratory at Yale University
called the Gesell Institute. There he observed large samples of children and derived
age-related norms for children’s growth and development such as by what age
children should take their first steps or speak their first words. These norms were
considered “universal” and have been widely influential. However, in the late 20th
century, Gesell’s age-related norms were criticized for understating individual
differences and not using diverse samples of children. Hall was a strong critic of
Froebelian kindergarten. He thought that its rigid methodology lacked a scientific
basis. Thus, the child study movement played an important role in bringing about
changes in the kindergarten movement, and it also contributed in large measure to the
growing nursery school movement.
Dewey’s laboratory school and his emphasis on child observation reflected his
understanding of the need to base education on the study of children. Similarly, other
universities launched lab schools to train teachers and study children. Many of these
schools served children younger than kindergarten age, and were called nursery
schools, based on their philosophy of nurturing development. Laboratory schools
were established for the purposes of research and demonstration of teaching methods,
rather than to serve parents or neglected children (Hewes & the NAEYC
Organizational History and Archives Committee, 2001). As a result, many of these
programs served middle- and upper-class children of faculty or community members.
d. A Wider View of Early Childhood History
History is written by those who gain the largest amount of power. It is
important to note that the previous discussion is dominated by white European
Americans because they were the individuals with the most power in the society, and
their work is most often included in the “official” written history of the field. At the
same time, however, parallel stories were occurring among the many groups that
populated the United States. That history is less well known primarily because
historical sources are scarce, but also because there is a strong oral rather than written
tradition in these communities (Simpson, n.d.). These stories deserve our attention
and respect because they also have made the field of early childhood education what
is it today. Here we briefly describe historical events and contributions from the
perspective of African Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanic Americans. It is
essential to point out that there is huge diversity within these population groups. In
fact, they are hardly groups at all except as designated by the United States Census
Bureau. To further understand history from an even wider view, read the
accompanying Culture Lens: Early Childhood Education through the Lens of Non-
Western Culture feature.
Throughout U.S. history, African Americans have been denied power
beginning with slavery, when it was illegal to teach enslaved people to read and write,
much less attend school. Once schooling became available, it was legally segregated
by race until the 1954 Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision banned
the practice. But even after desegregation became the law of the land, equal rights and
equal educational opportunity for all racial groups were still denied. Over the
centuries of enslavement, a few formal, mostly religious schools provided education
for African American children (Cunningham & Osborn, 1979). By the 1830s,
however, such schools were prohibited. Educating enslaved people was a clandestine
and dangerous operation, requiring courage on the part of teachers as well as students.
We saw earlier how Patty Smith Hill’s mother was one of those who took that risk and
what its effects were on her daughter’s life choices thereafter.
After the Civil War, education became the vehicle for advancement of African
Americans, propelled by national leaders such as Mary McLeod Bethune (1875–
1955), who founded BethuneCookman College in 1904, and became an effective
voice for civil rights and equal educational opportunity. Between 1865 and 1890,
prominent African American institutions of higher education were founded such as
Howard University (1867), Hampton University (1868), Tuskegee University (1881),
and Spelman College (1881). These and other historically black colleges and
universities (HBCUs) made important contributions to the study of child
development, then usually housed in Home Economics departments (Cunningham &
Osborn, 1979). Early childhood education was seen as an important foundation for
future advancement. Many HBCUs operated teacher education programs and
laboratory schools (Osborn, 1991). These programs reflected the prevailing
philosophies of Pestalozzi, Froebel, and later Dewey and G. Stanley Hall. By 1873,
Hampton Institute (now University) in Virginia had a kindergarten teacher-training
program and a children’s school that was influenced by Montessori’s ideas about
children learning practical skills. Tuskegee in Alabama offered training for parents in
child-rearing methods. In the early 1900s, Howard University in Washington, D.C.,
awarded degrees in kindergarten education, and Atlanta University operated a
Froebelian kindergarten and an elementary and high school for African American
students (J. E. Hale, personal communication, February 2009).
The native population of this country is highly diverse within and among
various tribes— each with its own cultural traditions, identity, and languages—and
encompassing American Indians, Alaskan Natives, Native Hawaiians, and Pacific
Islanders. Today, almost half of Native Americans live in urban areas rather than on
reservations. However, the history of oppression, broken treaties, and removal from
native lands has had a uniformly devastating impact on our indigenous population.
Historically, education was part of the government’s strategy of oppression
and control. For example, in the 19th century, children were often removed from the
reservation to attend boarding schools in which they were not allowed to wear native
dress, speak their language, or practice their cultural traditions (Wortham, 2002).
Schools were also established on reservations but controlled by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs with the goal of assimilating native peoples into the larger society and thus
suppressing their cultural identity (Wortham, 2002). Surprisingly, one exception was
William N. Hailmann, Superintendent of Indian Schools both on and off reservations
from 1894 to 1898, who tried to implement Froebel’s ideas and methods and
introduced kindergarten teacher training. In 1928, a government investigation resulted
in the Meriam Report, which concluded that previous policies toward Indians had
been detrimental to their health, social, and economic well-being. The report led to a
shift in Indian education toward more progressive practices—connecting education to
family and the values of the community, and to relevant skills and knowledge.
However, schooling continued to be mostly segregated and inferior.
Head Start had a major impact on Native communities, bringing more
emphasis on early education and comprehensive services. For example, Head Start
played a significant role in ensuring that Indian children with disabilities receive
intervention (T. Dobrec, personal communication, August 2, 2011). Dr. James Wilson,
an Ogalala Sioux, worked with tribal leaders to get them to accept programs on
reservations (T. Dobrec, personal communication, August 2, 2011). Today, American
Indian/Alaska Native Head Start programs are located in 26 states (Marks & Graham,
2004). Promoting home language and cultural identity are key goals of families and
tribal leaders. Some, like the Cherokee nation, are committed to tribal language
preservation, and many Pueblos have teachers who are fluent in the tribal language.
But generally, language preservation is a challenge because in many situations, only a
few tribal elders still speak the language, and there is no written form. Head Start and
foundations such as Kellogg have been instrumental in expanding teacher preparation
by providing grants to tribal colleges.
As we have seen throughout this, history is primarily the story of how people
impact organizations. The efforts of a small but committed group of leaders brought
about real change within the early childhood establishment. Leaders such as Antonia
Lopez, Amie Beckett, Mary Margarita Contie, Lily Wong Fillmore, Lourdes Diaz
Soto, and Marlene Zepeda launched the Early Childhood Interest Group of the
National Association of Bilingual Education. A handful of people attended its first
meeting, but before long, more than 400 people flocked to their sessions (A. Lopez,
personal communication, March 30, 2012). These advocates were joined by many
others, including Governing Board member Rebeca Barrera, to influence policy
within NAEYC. As a result, in 1995, the association adopted a position statement,
Responding to Linguistic and Cultural Diversity, and also significantly revised its
position statement on developmentally appropriate practice to reflect their input. In
widening the lens on the history of early childhood education to include the
perspective of African Americans, Native Americans, and Latino Americans, it is
apparent that Head Start has played a key role in providing services for these
populations of children and families. We conclude by describing how Head Start
wound all the various strands of early childhood history together.
e. What Is Developmentally Appropriate Practice?
Over time, the phrase developmentally appropriate practice (often abbreviated
as DAP) has been defined and used in different ways. Its definition has evolved as
new research and knowledge have become available. Developmentally appropriate
practice is teaching that is attuned to children’s ages, experience, abilities, and
interests and that helps them attain challenging and achievable goals. The foundations
of developmentally appropriate practice, as it is defined today, lie in the history of
early childhood education. Most fundamental is the premise that teaching young
children should be based on what is known about how they develop and learn
optimally. Within the field of developmental psychology, the concept of
developmentally appropriate has been widely used for more than a century and refers
to age-related and individual human variation. Early childhood educators have long
used the phrase developmentally appropriate to describe high-quality environments,
materials, learning experiences, or expectations for children of varying ages.
The concept of developmentally appropriate practice gained widespread
recognition and influence in the mid-1980s when NAEYC published position
statements on developmentally appropriate practice (Bredekamp, 1987). A position
statement is a document that articulates a research-based stance that an organization is
taking in response to an issue or a problem. Based on new research, emerging
controversies, and the changing contexts in which early childhood education occurs,
NAEYC revised its statement on developmentally appropriate practice in the mid-
1990s (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997) and again in 2009 (NAEYC, 2009). NAEYC’s
2009 position statement describes principles and guidelines for teaching young
children from birth through age 8. NAEYC also presents recommended practices for
different age groups: infants and toddlers, preschoolers, kindergartners, and children
in the primary grades (Copple, Bredekamp, Korelek, & Charner, 2013a, 2013b,
2014a, 2014b). The position statement is widely used as a summary of the field’s best
thinking, a defense of its valued practices, and an advocacy tool for improving
programs for young children.
Perhaps the most important motivation for defining developmentally
appropriate practice over the years has been to counter the trend toward push-down
curriculum, in which content that was previously taught in first grade is being taught
in kindergarten or even preschool. This was one of the original motivations for
writing developmentally appropriate practice. However, the problem is even more
urgent today because the trend toward increased academic focus in kindergarten has
accelerated (Bassok & Rorem, 2014). For example, in 1998, about one-third of
kindergarten teachers believed that most children should learn to read in kindergarten.
By 2005, 65% of teachers held this expectation (Bassok & Rorem, 2014). Not
surprisingly, these increased academic expectations led to changes in the curriculum.
Time devoted to literacy in kindergarten has increased by 25% and social studies,
science, music, art, and physical education have decreased (Bassok & Rorem, 2014).
Increased academic demands have resulted in many teachers using practices such as
worksheets and whole-group, didactic instruction that are not developmentally
appropriate (Strauss, 2014). A related trend is that young children no longer are given
time or materials to play in school. As a result, increasing numbers of children are
experiencing stress, being judged not ready for kindergarten, or struggling and failing
in their earliest school experience.
Another controversial issue is the impact on curriculum and teaching, and
especially on children, of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) (Common Core
State Standards Initiative, 2011a, 2011b). The Common Core establishes national
standards in English Language Arts and Mathematics in kindergarten through grade
12 that were initially adopted by 45 states but subsequently became politically
controversial. Some early childhood educators have expressed deep concern that the
Common Core standards themselves are not achievable for most children in K–3, that
they will lead to developmentally inappropriate teaching practices, and that they will
narrow the curriculum further to the two subject areas. NAEYC (2012) charges the
field to approach the CCSS with caution but also to see it as an opportunity. Many of
the standards call for the kind of higher-order thinking and problem solving that
developmentally appropriate practices promote, and they should not automatically
lead to bad teaching. The fact is that Common Core establishes standards for what
children should know and be able to do, but does not address how teachers should
teach. These words appear in the English Language Arts standards: “The use of play
with young children is not specified in the Standards, but it is welcome as a valuable
activity in its own right and as a way to help students meet the expectations in this
document”
A third issue that is often discussed in the context of developmentally
appropriate practice is technology. Some early educators are troubled by the fact that
children spend too much time engaged with “screens,” which takes away time from
important activities such as play, outdoor time, conversations with other children and
adults, and other joyful childhood experiences (Campaign for Commercial-Free
Childhood & Alliance for Childhood, 2012). The fact is that from 2011 to 2013, the
number of children under age 8 using mobile devices doubled, and the average
amount of time children spent on digital media tripled (Common Sense Media, 2013).
A related concern is the quality and value of the content that is provided via digital
devices. On the other hand, technology and interactive media permeate children’s
lives and have demonstrated great potential to support young children’s learning
(Donohue, 2015). Rather than simply “protecting” children from technology by
limiting screen time, educators have a responsibility to promote the effective
integration of high-quality, developmentally appropriate media (Donohue, 2015;
Rogow, 2015). Lisa Guernsey (2014), a national expert on children’s media, advises
that the most important considerations are the quality and appropriateness of the
content on the screen, the context within which it is used (how long, under what
supervision), and the age and characteristics of individual children.
Developmentally appropriate practice begins with early childhood educators’
knowledge of how children learn and develop. Its ultimate goal is to promote the
development and enhance the learning of each individual child served.
“Developmentally appropriate practice” is used by some as a shorthand term for the
value of play or letting children be children, not pushing them to grow up too soon.
Play is an integral component of developmentally appropriate practice; however, it is
only one facet. To better understand how play relates to developmentally appropriate
practice, read the feature entitled Promoting Play: Does Developmentally Appropriate
Practice = Play? The term, developmentally appropriate practice, is used within the
early childhood profession to describe the complex work of the early childhood
teacher. Knowing how children learn and develop is essential for teachers of young
children. The more they know about and are sensitive to the way children think and
learn, the more effective their teaching and the more satisfying their work.
f. Intentional Teaching
Intentional teaching and developmentally appropriate practice go hand in
hand. Sometimes in early childhood classrooms where children spend significant
periods of time in exploration, play, and activities they choose and pursue
independently, uninformed observers may think that the situation is “anything goes.”
However, if the child is in a program that truly is developmentally appropriate,
teachers’ intentionality undergirds the entire program and all of the experiences
provided. The teacher carefully organizes the environment and selects and arranges
the materials to promote children’s active engagement, both mental and physical. In
planning the learning experiences, the intentional teacher thinks carefully about what
will foster children’s enthusiasm for learning and enable them to reach important
goals in all areas of their development and learning.
She regularly observes and assesses children in a variety of settings, taking
detailed notes on their behavior, interactions, and developmental progress. This
meticulous observation includes monitoring how they engage with different activities,
how they interact with their peers and adults, and how they respond to various
challenges and stimuli. She pays close attention to each child's unique learning style,
strengths, and areas for improvement. By gathering this comprehensive information,
she is able to create a well-rounded understanding of each child's individual needs and
abilities.
Using the insights gleaned from her observations, she carefully plans and
tailors her interactions with the children to support their growth and development.
When working with children individually, she focuses on addressing their specific
needs and providing personalized guidance that helps them overcome obstacles and
build new skills. She uses positive reinforcement to encourage their efforts and
celebrates their achievements, no matter how small, to boost their confidence and
motivation.
In small group settings, she strategically groups children in ways that promote
collaborative learning and peer support. She facilitates group activities that are
designed to challenge the children while also being achievable, fostering a sense of
accomplishment and teamwork. By creating a supportive and stimulating
environment, she encourages children to learn from each other, share ideas, and
develop social skills.
Her goal is to create a dynamic and responsive learning environment that
adapts to the evolving needs of the children. She continuously reflects on her
observations and assessments, using them to refine her teaching strategies and
introduce new activities that will engage the children and promote their ongoing
learning. By doing so, she helps children to master new challenges, build their
resilience, and develop a love for learning that will serve them throughout their lives.
Intentional teachers are able to explain the rationale for their practices to
administrators, other teachers, and family members. Intentional teachers are also alert
to the need to modify plans, recognizing that there will be times when what they have
planned doesn’t work out. Perhaps the children master a skill sooner than expected
and lose interest in the activity; conversely, a task may be beyond the children’s
current abilities and they become confused or discouraged. In either case, an
intentional teacher will have planned for such possibilities and be prepared to modify
the learning experience or shift to another strategy that will be more effective in
achieving the goal.
g. Developmentally Appropriate Decision Making
Teachers of young children make hundreds of decisions every day: which
book to read to what size group, which questions to ask when, how to intervene with a
child who is struggling to enter a play situation, and so forth. They must be able to
negotiate difficult situations, such as what to do when a child shares a confidential
family secret, how much support to give two boys who are trying to fairly divide the
blocks, and what intervention to try with a first grader who is significantly behind in
reading development. The list goes on and on. Day after day and hour after hour,
teachers are called on to determine what is developmentally appropriate. In many
cases, decisions are the result of careful advance consideration and planning. For
example, teachers must consider what kinds of learning experiences will help the
group achieve important learning goals. These decisions include planning curriculum
so that the learning goals established for the group are achievable and challenging for
the children. For instance, although the school district prekindergarten curriculum
calls for teaching the alphabet, Ms. Jonas determines which children in her class have
not yet achieved this goal and which children have already mastered the alphabet. The
curriculum plan as written may be appropriate for many children in the former group,
but the latter group can connect letters and sounds and use recognizable letters in their
own writing.
Other decisions include setting up the physical environment, which materials
to place where, how to schedule the day, or how to group children for various learning
experiences. Ms. Jonas ensures that the alphabet is displayed at children’s eye level as
a model for children’s writing, and that magnetic letters and alphabet puzzles are
available for children to manipulate in their work and play. She organizes the daily
schedule to ensure that children have ample time to write on their own and, during the
day, she works in small groups with children who need extra help. Some situations
require teachers to make immediate decisions. For instance, suppose a dump truck
pulls up outside the preschool window. The teacher may decide to interrupt his prior
plans and follow the children’s interest by taking them outside to observe the truck
unloading the gravel for a new driveway. Or he may see that most of the children are
engrossed in learning centers and decide not to interrupt. Likewise, if the story a
teacher is reading to a group doesn’t hold the children’s interest, she can readily
switch gears and select another book or engage children in an active song.
Primary-grade teachers must make numerous short- and long-term decisions
as they support children’s learning, particularly each child’s reading progress. Some
teaching decisions have lasting consequences for individual children. For example,
identifying a child for special education services or determining a plan to work with a
child who is extremely aggressive and disruptive has far-reaching consequences.
When making such a decision, the teacher needs to take into consideration many
sources of information, observations over time, and the diverse perspectives of family
members and other professionals such as special educators or social workers.
Considering all this information is important because it reflects what we know
about how children develop. At each age, they share characteristics with other people
within that age range but also develop as individuals and as members of cultural
groups whose values and beliefs shape how their development occurs. In each of these
three areas, the knowledge to be considered is substantial and changes over time.
Intentional teachers make sure to stay informed both through ongoing professional
development, which includes gaining information from new research, and through
those avenues that will provide necessary information about the children they teach,
their families, and their communities. Let’s examine each of these areas more closely
and see what each contributes to the decisions teachers make.
One of the most basic principles of child development is that there are
individual differences. In fact, children demonstrate a wide range of variability across
every area of development—physical, cognitive, social, and emotional—while
remaining within the range of “typical” development. The development of some
children falls beyond the range of what’s predictable in one aspect or another. For
example, in some respects, children with disabilities or developmental delays and
children who are gifted add further diversity to the range of individual differences. A
developmentally appropriate program accommodates individual variation. The expert
lens feature, Including All Children: Developmentally Appropriate Practice and
Children with Disabilities, illustrates this point.
The term individually appropriate refers to teachers using what they know
about the personality, strengths, interests, and abilities of each individual child in the
group to adapt for and be responsive to individual variation. Consider, for instance,
two tricycle riders: The fearless rider may need more careful supervision to prevent
injury, while the warier child may need extra encouragement and support to develop
his large motor skills. Similarly, some children will need enriched experiences to
accelerate their language development, while a few may need individual support to
continue to build on their precocious reading ability. A withdrawn, timid child may
need a great deal of emotional support to cope with life’s challenges, while another
needs help controlling aggression to make friends. With the individual differences that
exist, teachers clearly cannot expect all children in a group to learn the same thing in
the same way at the same time. Even when the teacher introduces a concept or reads a
book to a whole group, each child will take away something different from the
learning experience. Therefore, to help children progress, teachers must continually
keep track of what children know and are able to do, what they are struggling with,
and what is engaging their interest and meets their needs.
All learning and development occur in and are influenced by social and
cultural contexts (Bronfenbrenner, 2004). In fact, appropriate behavior is always
culturally defined. The cultural contexts a child grows up in begin with the family and
extend to include the cultural group or groups with which the family identifies.
Culture refers to the behaviors, values, and beliefs that a group shares and passes on
from one generation to the next. Because children share their cultural context with
members of their group, cultural differences are differences between groups rather
than individuals. Therefore, cultural variation needs to be considered as well as
individual variation in deciding what is developmentally appropriate. Children learn
the values, beliefs, expectations, and habitual patterns of behavior of the social and
cultural contexts in their lives. Cultural groups, for example, have characteristic ways
of showing respect; there may be different rules for how to properly greet an older or
younger person, a friend, or a stranger. Attitudes about time and personal space vary
among cultures, as do the ways to take care of a baby and dress for different
occasions. In fact, most of our experiences are filtered through the lenses of our
cultural group. We typically learn cultural rules very early and very deeply, so they are
not part of our conscious thought.
For young children, what makes sense and how they respond to new
experiences are fundamentally shaped by the social and cultural contexts to which
they have become accustomed. To ensure that learning experiences are meaningful,
relevant, and respectful to children and their families—that is, for those experiences to
be culturally appropriate or culturally responsive—teachers must have some
knowledge of the social and cultural contexts in which children live. Such knowledge
helps teachers build on children’s prior experiences and learning so they can help
children progress. All young children must adjust when they move from the security
and familiarity of their homes into schools or early childhood programs. The
challenge is greatest, however, for children whose cultural experiences at home differ
sharply from those predominating at the school or program. For these children, the
transition can be confusing and frightening. Consider a Native American child, whose
culture expects children to quietly listen and observe adults, entering a classroom
where the teacher expects everyone to speak up. Think of how you feel, at least for a
moment, when people around you are speaking a language you don’t understand.
Even as adults with all of our coping mechanisms intact, we tend to feel uncertain,
ignorant, and uncomfortable in environments different from those to which we are
accustomed.
h. The Complex Role of the Teacher
According to the NAEYC’s (2009) guidelines for developmentally appropriate
practice, the complex job of an early childhood teacher has five interrelated
dimensions: (1) creating a caring community of learners, (2) teaching to enhance
learning and development, (3) planning curriculum to achieve important goals, (4)
assessing children’s learning and development, and (5) establishing reciprocal
relationships with families. It may be helpful, in fact, to think of it as a “mariner’s
star.” Seafaring people use the stars to guide their way, but without considerable
knowledge of the stars’ positioning and their relation to navigation, mindlessly
following a star won’t lead to a destination. So it is with the mariner’s star of early
childhood teaching. Each of the star’s points links to a set of guidelines that represent
a large body of knowledge about early childhood education. Just as the stars guide
seafaring people, the mariner’s star helps guide teachers’ professional behavior; but
without that strong foundation of knowledge, the guidelines themselves have little
meaning. In the following sections, we introduce each aspect of the teacher’s role in
accordance with NAEYC’s guidelines for developmentally appropriate practice.
An early childhood setting—whether it serves infants and toddlers,
preschoolers, kindergartners, or second graders—needs to be a caring community of
learners. The term caring community of learners incorporates several key ideas that
characterize early childhood education: (1) Children’s care and education are equally
important; (2) children learn through positive relationships with adults and other
children; and (3) the learning context matters—the indoor and outdoor environments,
how the environments are organized, and the materials and equipment they contain.
Children learn when they feel safe and cared for. They thrive in an environment in
which they see positive images that reflect their own identity, such as photos of
themselves and their families; where they see their own contributions to the
community; and when they see their own work displayed. They also see examples
throughout the community that reinforce their cultural identity. The messages are
clear to each child: You belong here. We care about and support each other. You have
important things to contribute to this group. You will thrive here. The foundation of
young children’s learning is in positive relationships with other people who are
responsive to them. At the same time, the early childhood setting is a learning
community where adults and children learn with and from each other. Each child’s
thinking can build on or challenge that of another. When Josué tells Willa she can’t be
the doctor because she’s a girl, Willa promptly informs him, “I go to Dr. Ashai and
she’s a lady, so there.” Josué has to adjust his concept of doctor to include women as
well as men.
Teaching seems the most obvious aspect of the teacher’s role, but it isn’t
simple at all. Early childhood teachers typically do not conform to the images that
come to mind for many adults when they think of “teaching”—the teacher standing in
front of a blackboard or at a podium lecturing. Teaching simply looks different in the
early childhood setting, and it takes many forms. Effective early childhood teachers
know the children in their group very well. They thoughtfully plan the learning
experiences and environment with these children in mind while also keeping in mind
the learning goals. They use a variety of teaching strategies to help each child develop
and learn. And they guide young children to become socially responsible, self-
regulating, contributing members of the community
Teachers also use various learning contexts such as teacher-guided group
work, including large-group and small-group preplanned experiences, and periods of
play and engagement in which children primarily guide their own activity with the
support of teachers. Teachers use various ways of grouping children for learning; they
may gather a reading group of similar ability level or organize a group of children
with different language abilities to work together on a project. Teachers’ behavior
needs to vary with the setting as well. In addition, routines such as eating meals and
transitioning from one place or activity to another are all potentially valuable learning
contexts if teachers use these activities as opportunities for one-on-one conversations
with children or to reinforce a learning goal through singing a song or reciting a
poem.
If developmentally appropriate practice tends to focus on the how of teaching,
then curriculum is the what—the content that children are expected to learn.
Curriculum is a written plan that describes the knowledge and skills to be taught in
the educational program and the learning experiences through which teaching takes
place (Copple & Bredekamp, 2006, p. 61). Currently, there is increased demand for
scientifically based curriculum that is based on research about important learning
goals that predict later achievement, the sequences in which concepts and skills build
on each other, and the teaching strategies that have proven effective. Whatever the
process through which a curriculum is selected, developed, or planned, to be effective
it must be implemented with attention to individual differences and cultural variation
among children (NAEYC & National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in
State Departments of Education [NAECS/SDE], 2003). Good curriculum, whether
published resources used in school districts or teacher developed, offers teachers
flexibility and ways of adapting, often providing many more suggested activities or
materials than teachers could possibly use. Thus, they have many further decisions to
make. Teachers need to be very familiar with the curriculum plan, especially the key
learning and development outcomes for children—that is, what children should know
and be able to do as a result of their participation in this program.
In the current era of educational accountability, assessment is often a
controversial topic. However, it is an integral component of developmentally
appropriate practice. Assessment is the process of observing and documenting the
work children do and how they do it as the basis for a variety of educational
decisions. Assessment is important because teachers must draw on assessment
information about individual children in an ongoing, systematic process to understand
children’s learning and development. Children, especially very young children, are
moving targets. What they can’t do today, they can do tomorrow. What they didn’t
know or understand yesterday may gradually become clear, or they may have an
“Aha!” moment of recognition. Their development may follow a predictable though
somewhat slower trajectory in one area, or they may be in need of intervention for a
serious developmental delay. To address any of these situations, teachers must use
appropriate, accurate tools to assess children. Each decision that teachers make about
children has consequences. The more important and lasting the consequence, the more
vital it is that the decision is based on multiple sources of information, including
information from parents.
