Proposal to Reform Early Childhood Education in the United States

Randall T. Freeman

Doctoral Student

Early Childhood Education

Walden University

Kindergarten Teacher

National Board Certified Teacher

Early Childhood Generalist

Manuel L. Real Elementary School

Val Verde Unified School District

19150 Clark Street

Perris, CA 92570

951-940-8520

Student: Randall T. Freeman

Faculty Mentor: Dr. Laura Lynn-Knight

Faculty Assessor: Dr. Daniel Salter

Walden University

2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction………………………………………..………………………….………….4

Early Childhood Education………...…………..………………………….……………..6

Early Childhood Curriculum..…………………..………………………………… …….7

Technology………..……………………..……………………….………………………9

Full-day Versus Half-day Kindergarten…………………….……..………………..…….9

Accountability……………………………………………….….……………………….10

Literacy Requirements of Early Childhood Education…….….……………….….....….13

Appropriate Developmental Practices…………………….….………………..………...15

The Proposal for Reforming Early Childhood Education….….…………….....….…….18

Preschool Reform Proposal…………………………….…….….…………...………….19

Summary of Preschool Reform Proposal…….…………….……………………...…….22

Kindergarten Reform Proposal…………………………………….…………...………23

Summary of Kindergarten Reform Proposal………………………….…………..…….27

First Grade Reform Proposal……………………………………………………….…..28

Summary of First Grade Reform Proposal………………………………………...…….30

Concluding Statement………………………………………………………...….………30

References…………………………………………………………………….……….…32


Introduction

Public education in America can trace its roots back as far as 1642 to the then-colony of Massachusetts (Butts, 1978, p. 3). Not until 1776 did the concept of a true public and free education for all children begin to distance itself from a religious requirement (p. 7). A century later, labor unions began lobbying for universal education for the working people (p. 170). This educational reform movement had its foundation in the agrarian form of society that then existed in the United States (p. 171). Truly, the wheels of genuine change in the public education system grind excruciatingly slow.

More than three centuries have passed since the beginnings of American public education. The federal government has expanded its role in public education, even adding a Cabinet-level post to the executive branch of government during President Ronald Reagan’s term in 1980 (Department of Education Organization Act, 1979, Public Law 96-88). The authorization and implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has cemented the new role of the federal government in our educational system. NCLB was created to provide a greater accountability system for results, greater local control, support for proven educational programs, and more choices for parents (U. S. Department of Education, 2004, p. 1).

The typical school year has remained relatively unchanged since the 1880’s (Butts, 1978, p. 171). A system that has remained static for over 150 may demand a fresh analysis of the effectiveness of its infrastructure. In the latter part of the nineteenth century, public education was configured around the agrarian nature of the southern United States (p. 171). The school year began after the heat of the summer, before the harvesting of the crops. The school year typically ended in May, allowing the children to participate in the chores on the farms and avoiding attending school during the heat of the southern summer. There were many absences due to family needs. When the crops required harvesting however, children assisted the family, rather than attending school and absences increased.

In 2007, very few children are required to participate in sowing and harvesting the crops in the fields (U.S. Census, 2005, American Community Survey). Yet, despite the evolution from an agrarian society to a technological society, the American public school system continues to utilize the schedule of late-summer/early fall to late-spring/early summer for a school year. Further, little effort has been made to study the effectiveness of maintaining a school calendar based upon family requirements that no longer exist in American society. Year-round school year scheduling has taken root in some areas but the school year still begins in either July or August and continues until the end of June.

American public education must catch up to the twenty-first century instead of remaining rooted in the long-past nineteenth century. The public education system as it currently exists may be irrelevant to the requirements of educating young people and preparing them to succeed in the world (U.S. Census, 2005, Economic Indicators). These early childhood education reform proposals suggest ways in which early childhood education and the later grades should evolve into a twenty-first century technology-driven system that serves the academic and social development needs of young children in a standards-based curricula system.

The following proposals to reform early childhood education in our public schools contain elements fundamental to providing young and very young children with the greatest possibility of success mastering the stringent standards of their grade level while adhering to appropriate developmental teaching practices. Additional elements contained within the reform proposals may be more general in nature in that these elements will directly relate to all grade levels. They are contained within this proposal because they directly impact early childhood education. These proposal elements are intended to spur the educational decision-makers to begin thinking in terms of twenty-first century requirements instead of nineteenth century requirements.

Early Childhood Education

Early childhood education encompasses educational programs that serve children from birth through eight years of age (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997, p. 2). Early childhood education programs are intended to promote children’s intellectual and social development, emotional and physical growth, language progress, and academic learning (p. 2). During these years, children experience tremendous growth in these areas or development. The greatest shift in these areas of development take place at age’s seven to eight, rather than around age five, as previously thought (p. 2). More children than ever before are participating in early childhood programs.

In California, kindergarten is not mandatory (Cal Ed Code, 2001, §48000 (a)). Due to the extensive utilization of year-round school scheduling in California public schools, many children who are closer to four and a half years old than a full five years old are subjected to subject requirements and standards for which they are not developmentally prepared to learn. Despite this oversight, children enrolled in kindergarten are subjected to stringent standards of academic achievement (Rothstein & Jacobsen, 2006, p.264).

Young children become phonetically aware at different ages and grades (Manning & Kato, 2006, p. 241). The importance of phonemic awareness for reading development is universally accepted by early childhood educators (p. 241). Requiring a young child who is not developmentally ready to learn the concepts included in phonemic awareness will create a negative consequence for the child’s future learning (p. 241). Virtually every research study that has been conducted on measuring the relationship between phonemic awareness and progress in reading development has discovered a positive connection among learning to read and write, phonemic awareness, and phonics (p. 241). Phonemic awareness and phonics knowledge develop simultaneously and gradually (p. 241). They cannot be artificially “jumpstarted.”

Children are not required to attend school (or participate in a qualified home-school situation) until they reach six years of age (Cal Ed Code, 2001, §48000 (a)). In California, children must reach the age of five years by December 2nd of the current calendar year in order to enroll in public school kindergarten. (Administrators do have the discretion to waive this requirement on an individual basis.) In a year-round school year system, a child who will not reach the age of five years until December 2nd may begin kindergarten as early as July 1st. A child may begin kindergarten as early as four years, six months. This child may be enrolled in the same class as a child who was held back in kindergarten or held out by the child’s parents for an additional year. (A child with a November birthday may be “red-shirted” by the parents, resulting in a child who turns six years of age before a classmate turns five years of age.) There may be as much as an 18-month developmental discrepancy for the kindergarten teacher to address in instruction. Add to this mix that many parents choose not to provide their children with any academic learning experiences prior to enrolling their children in kindergarten. There then becomes an even greater academic gap for the kindergarten teacher to attempt to close.

Early Childhood Curriculum

Children are eager to learn about their environment and the outside world (Neuman & Roskins, 2005, p. 28). Children want to be able to take what they already know and build upon it so that they are learning something new that is understandable and relevant to them. An example would be showing the children a pizza and cutting it into several smaller pieces. The children learn about larger and smaller in a manner that is of interest to them. Utilizing these types of appropriate developmental practices in the classroom, teachers are able to instill in their students a fascination with reading and writing and what they are able to do with them. Challenging and achievable goals are critical to the success of children learning what they need to learn (p. 28).

The age of a child plays an important role in establishing realistic expectations of what learning activities might be safe, interesting, relevant, challenging, and developmentally achievable for young children (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997, p. 16). Developmentally appropriate practices are individually appropriate (p. 16). Children are different, exhibiting different learning styles and timing of development (p. 16). The individual child must be considered when planning and implementing learning activities for the children. Planning for the individual child is the heart of differentiated instruction (p. 16).

In understanding and interpreting the world according to their previous life experiences, young children depend upon what is termed “naïve theory” (Yan, 2005, p. 145). Developmentally appropriate and valuable learning experiences will encourage and challenge children’s naïve theory in developmental educational activities. An example would be to provide a child with a set of colored beams and told that they could attempt balance them all. The teacher will sit with the child during attempts to balance the beams and pose questions such as, `How did you make it do that?' and, `What has happened now?' The naïve theory of young children is causal and coherent, allowing them to explain and predict events in the educational activities in which they are involved (p. 145).

Teachers making use of children’s naïve theory will stimulate the children into evoking their theory by such methods as direct dialogue (p. 145). The teacher will pose questions either about the children’s work or a concrete situation or activity. These teaching strategies actively engage the children in discussing their naïve theory based upon the world with which they are familiar and understand. Children are fully and actively engaged in learning rather than simply participating in test-taking or test-preparation activities.

Technology

A dynamic change in teaching early childhood education is greatly needed (Cooper, 2006, p. 46). The technology-based society has altered the requirements of learning. Technology-based toys expose infants and toddlers to engaging and developmentally-appropriate learning experiences in many areas including general knowledge, music, art, and critical thinking (p.46). Current technology provides numerous opportunities for the children to engage in problem-solving activities with instantaneous feedback. The individualization of technology provides young children with the opportunity to learn at their own pace. Technology toys allow children to master concepts with no imposed time limit. Children work on the concept until they have mastered the concept, then they automatically proceed on to the next concept. Technology assists the teacher in providing differentiated instruction for students.

Full-day Versus Half-day Kindergarten

More than half of the kindergarten classes in the United States are now on a full-day schedule (Lee, Burkam, Ready, Honigman, & Meisels, 2006, p. 164). NCLB and standards-based education have taken over the early childhood curriculum. Full-day kindergarten appears to be a major factor in providing kindergarten teachers with sufficient time to teach what must be taught and is developmentally appropriate for young children. Full-day kindergarten will allow teachers to combine the “traditional” model of kindergarten – where young children learn primarily through play - with the more formal structured lessons model.

Other important factors favor implementing a full-day kindergarten program. Many families now have both parents working outside of the home. Over 60% of families with children less than six years of age have a mother working outside of the home (Lee, Burkam, Ready, Honigman, & Meisels, 2006, p. 167). These working families spend a large portion of their earned income on childcare for their young children. Providing a full-day kindergarten program will serve to provide these families with free childcare in addition to a quality education. There are federal and state monies already paying for some preschool programs. Relieving parental stress will result in smoother communication between the school and the home.

Full-day kindergarten provides teachers with more valuable opportunities to assess young children’s educational requirements and to implement differentiated instruction in the full-day classroom (Lee, Burkam, Ready, Honigman, & Meisels, 2006, p. 167). More time in the classroom allows for a greater number of small-group and pairs instruction with students. It provides greater opportunities for a more in-depth examination of the standards and the curriculum (p. 167). Teachers are able to develop closer relationships with the families of their students (p. 167). Full-day kindergarten will positively affect the academic and social development of young children who are enrolled in the full-day program (p. 168).

Accountability

A concentrated focus on curriculum, instruction, and testing or assessment exists without adequate support for development (Rothstein & Jacobsen, 2006, p. 270). NCLB is not cost-effective educating lower socioeconomic and marginalized students (p. 270). The lack of focus on educating lower SES and marginalized students leads to conflict and struggle rather than a cooperative effort to solve problems. Although problem-solving should be positive and constructive in nature, the conflict described herein is negative and destructive. Public school reforms must be grounded in sound theories of social and educational development. The reforms must successfully demonstrate that they actually work and will continue to do so in the future (p. 270).

The NCLB Act of 2001 requires all elementary schools receiving federal funding to be strictly and legally accountable for all enrolled students mastering academic standards in reading and mathematics by 2014 (Rothstein & Jacobsen, 2006, p.264). With the requirement that schools report and be held accountable for academic achievement in all significant subgroups, including ethnicity, race, and socioeconomic status, NCLB focuses the spotlight on those schools that fail and “leave children behind (p. 264).” Severe sanctions for “failure” create the result that reading and mathematics are taught in a prescriptive fashion that reduces or even eliminates teaching other relevant subjects such as social studies, science, and the arts (p. 266).