Home Uncategorized Standards and Curriculum (STATE OF LOUISIANA) JOURNAL DUE IN 16 HOURS

Uncategorized

Standards and Curriculum (STATE OF LOUISIANA) JOURNAL DUE IN 16 HOURS

Standards and Curriculum (STATE OF LOUISIANA)

[WLO: 3] [CLOs: 2, 4]

In general, curriculum includes all of the educational experiences available students. This includes academic areas and subjects (e.g., math, literacy, etc.), as well as the domains of development (e.g., language, cognition, etc.). Since schools and centers are responsible for ensuring children achieve in these areas, standards for achievement are set in place. Standards indicate what children should be able to do within a subject area or domain of development (The Center on Standards & Assessment Implementation, 2018). Standards are a key indicator of student success, yet they vary widely by state. While standards are a guide and do not dictate the curriculum you will be teaching, it is important as educators that we not only know what the standards are for our individual states, but also the role they play in our ability to plan effective instruction.

To prepare for this journal,

· Review the resource

Early Learning and Developmental Guidelines (Links to an external site.)

and find your state’s early learning and development guidelines. Read the guidelines for your state. (STATE OF LOUISIANA)

· Review the resource

Standards in Your State (Links to an external site.)

and find your state’s standards.(STATE OF LOUISIANA) Read the standards for your state. Note: if your state is listed as not adopting Common Core, go the

U.S. Department of Education (Links to an external site.)

website and click on your state to find your state standards.

For your journal,

· Write a reflection on the following questions:

o After reading the standards for your state, how do you feel about your role and ability as an educator to align these standards to the curriculum you will be teaching?

o Why do you feel it is important to use standards as a guide as you plan for children’s learning experiences?

o What are at least two ways you can help families understand the connection between the standards and the curriculum you will be teaching?

Suggested Assignment Length

· One to two double-spaced pages (not including title and reference pages).

Research and Resource Expectations

· Sources are not required for your journal assignments. However, if you need to cite information, you must cite in APA format and include a reference page. Refer to the

Citing Within Your Paper (Links to an external site.)

and

Formatting Your References List (Links to an external site.)

resources created by the

Ashford Writing Center (Links to an external site.)

Writing and Formatting Expectations

· Syntax and Mechanics: Writing displays meticulous comprehension and organization of syntax and mechanics, such as spelling, grammar, and punctuation.

Next Steps: Review and Submit the Assignment

Required Resources

Required Text

Jaruszewicz, C. (2019).

Curriculum and methods for early childhood educators

[Electronic version]. Retrieved from https://content.ashford.edu/

· Chapter 1: The Concept of Early Childhood Curriculum

· Chapter 2: The Curriculum Landscape: Major Models and Approaches

· Chapter 3: Our Image of the Child

Articles

Meador, D. (n.d.).

Strategies for teachers to develop positive relationships with students (Links to an external site.)

. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/develop-positive-relationships-with-students-3194339

· This article provides strategies for developing positive relationships among teachers and students. This resource will assist you with your Preparing for Individualism discussion this week.
Accessibility Statement does not exist.

Web Pages

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (n.d.).

Standards in your state (Links to an external site.)

. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/

· This resource provides you with a way to directly link to your state’s learning standards and will assist you with your Standards and Curriculum journal this week.
Accessibility Statement does not exist.
Privacy Policy does not exist.

NAEYC. (n.d.).

Principles of effective family engagement (Links to an external site.)

. Retrieved from https://www.naeyc.org/resources/topics/family-engagement/principles

· This web page provides suggestions for how educators can build a trusting relationship with their students’ families focusing on the NAEYC third principle of effective practice for reciprocal relationships. This resource will assist you with your Preparing for Individualism discussion this week.
Accessibility Statement does not exist
Privacy Policy (Links to an external site.)

Supplemental Material

National Center on Early Childhood Quality Assurance. (2017).

Early learning and developmental guidelines (Links to an external site.)

. Retrieved from https://childcareta.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/public/075_1707_state_elgs_web_final_0

· This resource provides a comprehensive list of and links to the early learning and developmental guidelines for all 50 states and will assist you in your Standards and Curriculum journal this week.
Accessibility Statement does not exist.
Privacy Policy does not exist.

Recommended Resources

Articles
The Center on Standards & Assessment Implementation. (2018, March).

Standards alignment to curriculum and assessment (Links to an external site.)

. Retrieved from https://www.csai-online.org/sites/default/files/CSAI%20Update_Standards_Alignment

· This article provides information about standards, including what they are and why they are important in curriculum planning, and may assist you in your Standards and Curriculum journal this week.
Accessibility Statement does not exist.
Privacy Policy does not exist.

Kelley, K. (2017, August 10).

50 tips and tricks to facilitating a more inclusive classroom (Links to an external site.)

. Retrieved from https://www.weareteachers.com/tips-tricks-inclusive-classroom/

· This article provides information about a variety of ways educators can facilitate a more inclusive classroom and may assist you in your Preparing for Individualism discussion this week.
Accessibility Statement does not exist.
Privacy Policy (Links to an external site.)

The Concept of Early
Childhood Curriculum

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Describe what curriculum is and what it includes.

2. Explain historical influences on modern curricula.

3. Describe what “developmentally appropriate practice” means.

4. Describe contextual factors that affect early childhood professionals’ work with curricula.

5. Discuss active reflection as an important teacher activity.

1
Pretest
1. The term curriculum refers only to

the workbooks and reading materials
that children use in an early childhood
classroom. T/F

2. The roots of modern early childhood
curricula date to the period of ancient
Rome. T/F

3. The phrase “developmentally appropriate
practice” refers to having children learn
concepts that are intended for older
students. T/F

4. Early childhood professionals don’t always
get to choose the curriculum that’s used in
their classroom. T/F

5. Good teaching practice includes intentional
reflection about curriculum. T/F

Answers can be found at end of the chapter.
© Fancy Collection / SuperStock

What Is Curriculum? Chapter 1

Imagine yourself interviewing for your first early childhood
teaching position. You know you will need to dress profes-
sionally and to have a resume that highlights your strengths
and experiences. You can assume that interviewers will ask
questions about your education and experience with children
and what kind of teacher you hope to be. But what else
might you share with this prospective employer to establish
confidence in your knowledge and ability to plan and imple-
ment curriculum effectively?

As an early childhood educator, you will be expected to
make many decisions about curriculum that demonstrate
your awareness of how children develop and learn, and you
will need to select materials and apply these resources to
meet the needs of a diverse group of children. Therefore an
important theme of this text is decision making. Each of the
six modules is guided by an important question that relates
to a dimension of your role as a curriculum decision maker.

In this chapter, we explore the basics that will allow you to
develop a full understanding of curriculum: what curriculum
is, how it reflects a long history of thinking about children,
how developmentally appropriate practice provides a frame-
work for curriculum, and how to think about your work as an
early childhood educator.

1.1 What Is Curriculum?
In the broadest sense, curriculum is a structured framework for teaching. As a student, you
already have personal experience with curriculum, and you probably know that as an early
childhood teacher, you will have to work within a curriculum as you teach your students. But,
what does a curriculum include? What kinds of decisions does a teacher make about curricu-
lum? This section addresses these questions.

What Does Curriculum Include?

In practice, curriculum is much more than a structured framework (National Association for
the Education of Young Children [NAEYC], 2003). Especially in early childhood education, cur-
riculum is understood to include (Figure 1.1):

• The physical classroom space, or environment

• All the materials the teachers use to instruct students

• All the materials that children use

• The methods and strategies teachers use to implement and assess the effectiveness of
activities and lessons

• Everything the children learn, intended or not (see Feature Box 1.1 on Hidden
Curriculum)

An interview gives the job candi-
date an opportunity to ask ques-
tions about the curriculum she will
be expected to use and a chance to
show how her experience, education,
and philosophy will guide her deci-
sion making.

What Is Curriculum? Chapter 1

Early childhood curriculum can be as open ended as a set of general guidelines, in which
case the teacher will make many of the decisions about what and how to teach. Conversely,
the curriculum can be structured to the point that its “what, when, and how” elements are
carefully spelled out for the teacher (Frede & Ackerman, 2007). In any event, the curriculum
is important because it governs much of what the teacher does in the classroom to help stu-
dents learn what they are supposed to learn.

The Role of the Teacher

As the “coordinator in chief,” the early childhood educator has substantial responsibilities,
including setting up and maintaining the environment, arranging equipment and materials,
planning, implementing, and managing activities, and then assessing, communicating, and
documenting how learning takes place.

The degree of flexibility that the teacher has in terms of how to structure the day or how
detailed to make the lessons depends in part on the type of early childhood setting within
which the teacher works. Working in a federally funded preschool program like Head Start,
for example, usually involves a selected curriculum and clearly described procedures and
expectations about how it will be implemented. On the other hand, teachers working in a pri-
vate child-care program might get to select or develop the curriculum they use, while teach-
ers in public schools have very different kinds of choices to make, as they navigate a complex
system of curriculum standards, resources, and accountability.

F01.01_ECE311

Materials
Children Use

Environment

Teaching
Materials

Strategies

What
Children

Learn

Figure 1.1: Components of Curriculum

The concept of curriculum includes much more than just the materials used in the classroom. This
Venn diagram illustrates the interrelated nature of curriculum elements.

What Is Curriculum? Chapter 1

The Hidden Curriculum

The hidden curriculum refers to things children and teachers learn or are expected to know in school
that are not directly taught—often related to social rules, interactions, and behaviors that represent
the “culture” of a school, classroom, or home care setting (Giroux & Purpel, 1983; Jackson, 1968;
Myles, Trautman, & Schelvan, 2004). Familiar examples of hidden curriculum include raising your hand
when you want to be recognized, being quiet in the hallway, or lining up at the drinking fountain.

The environment communicates information about these hidden messages in different ways. For
instance, you may remember from your own experiences in school that if your teacher seated
students at desks aligned in rows facing the front of the classroom, you understood where atten-
tion should be focused and that it might not be acceptable to turn around to talk to the classmate
seated behind you. Conversely, if your teacher
seated everyone at small tables facing one
another, you might have assumed it was accept-
able to engage in conversation. Children get
into trouble or can become confused when they
misread or don’t understand the messages the
environment is set up to convey. Complicating
matters is the fact that the hidden curriculum
can vary from teacher to teacher or one part of
the school environment to another.

Young children especially need help “reading”
these kinds of messages, as they often represent
expectations that are very different from those
they already know from home. For instance,
perhaps at home one child has a toy box and is
accustomed, when asked to clean up, to simply
toss all the toys from the floor into the box.
Another child may not be expected to help with
putting toys away at all and may be allowed to
leave them lying about. At school, we would help the child learn that all students are expected to
help keep the classroom organized, and we would do this by putting picture labels on shelves to
make it clear where each item or group of items belongs. By doing so, we convey an additional
hidden message, which is that we value independence and responsibility and a spirit of “everyone
helps.” Successful teachers not only implement the “official” curriculum effectively but help chil-
dren to understand the hidden curriculum as well.

As a teacher, you might also be expected to conform to expectations that have not been explicitly
explained or described to you. For instance, you might be told that your official work hours are
from 7:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. But what if you arrive at school at 7:30 and you notice that you are the
last car to pull in the parking lot and that all the other teachers are busy working in their classrooms
as you enter the building? Will you feel anxious or confused? Should you ask someone if you are
expected to arrive earlier than 7:30 or will that convey the wrong impression? As you consider how
you might feel in this circumstance, remember that young children experience these same kinds of
feelings—wanting to be accepted and do the “right” thing at school, but perhaps needing help to
understand what that means.

▶ Stop and Reflect
When you think about your own experiences in school, can you recall how you learned to interpret
a particular teacher’s body language—perhaps the slight nod of approval or the “look” that let you
know you needed to think twice about what you were about to do? What are some other examples
of hidden curriculum from your own school experience?

Teachers help children and their parents
navigate the hidden curriculum by clearly
communicating and explaining expec-
tations for conduct, interactions, and
school or program values.

What Is Curriculum? Chapter 1

What Is the Difference between a Curriculum Approach
and a Curriculum Model?

In the curriculum literature, the terms approach and model are sometimes used interchange-
ably (Frede & Ackerman, 2007), but they can also be interpreted differently. For purposes of
clarity in this book, these two terms will differentiate the level of detail and specificity within
a curriculum about how things should be done and the degree of freedom the teacher has to
make choices. This distinction will be important as we discuss the kinds of decisions teachers
make about curriculum.

Curriculum Approach
A curriculum approach is a broad framework designed from a specific perspective or orien-
tation about how children learn (Ornstein & Hunkins, 2008). An approach includes key ideas
and principles but allows or encourages “reflection, practice, and further careful reflection in
a program that is continuously renewed and readjusted” (Gandini, 1993 p. 4). Thus, a teacher
who follows a particular approach will
make a lot of choices about how to inter-
pret and apply these principles. Reggio
Emilia, which we discuss later in the
chapter, is an example of a philosophi-
cal approach that guides the curriculum
in many American preschools; however,
schools following this approach do not
receive materials or explicit instruction
from Reggio Emilia administrators.

Curriculum Model
A curriculum model, on the other hand,
is more prescriptive. Formally, it’s defined
as “an ideal representation of the theoret-
ical premises, administrative policies, and
pedagogical components of a program
aimed at obtaining a particular educa-
tional outcome” (Spodek & Brown, 1993,
p. 91). It describes everything about what
and how the teacher will teach, from the
way in which the classroom should be organized and the materials to use to activity plans and
directions about how to introduce, teach, and assess lessons.

The purpose of having a model is to ensure consistency no matter who uses the curriculum
or where it is implemented (Goffin, 2001). This allows for a high degree of reliability that the
curriculum is being implemented as originally intended, so that it achieves its expected out-
comes. The Montessori Method (Montessori, 1912), or a purchased curriculum that includes
specific instructional materials you need in order to implement it, would be an example of a
curriculum model. The choice to use a model or an approach is not reflective of one being
better than the other but largely dependent on the mission or philosophy of a program.

Comprehensive and Limited-Scope Curriculum
A curriculum can also be comprehensive or limited in scope. A comprehensive curriculum
addresses all areas of learning, while a limited-scope curriculum focuses on a single area,
such as literacy, math, or the arts (National Child Care Information and Technical Assistance

A curriculum is a program for learning implemented by
teachers who work with children in many ways. In this
photo, a teacher works with a small group of children.

What Is Curriculum? Chapter 1

Center [NCCIC], 2011). The Creative Curriculum for Preschool (Heroman et al., 2010) and The
High Scope Preschool Curriculum (Epstein & Hohmann, 2012) are examples of comprehensive
curricula, since they are designed to address all areas of learning. The High Scope Educational
Research Foundation also offers limited-scope curricula that can be purchased separately,
such as the High Scope Growing Readers Early Literacy Curriculum (2010) or the Numbers Plus
Preschool Mathematics Curriculum (Epstein, 2009).

Standards
Curriculum standards are statements about what children should know and be able to do
that are organized in a cohesive, systematic manner according to areas of growth and devel-
opment or academic subject categories. Standards are developed by states, programs (such
as Head Start), or organizations that represent different dimensions of curriculum, such as
the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) or Common Core State Standards
(CCSS).

Standards should not be confused with curriculum, but they are used to guide curriculum
selection and implementation as well as evaluation of student achievement. For example,
CCSS mathematics standards are grade specific and “provide clear signposts along the way
to the goal of college and career readiness for all students” (Common Core State Standards
[CCSS] Initiative, 2010, p. 4). Teachers developing curricula for second graders, for example,
would focus on four core areas:

• extending understanding of base-10 notation;

• building fluency with addition and subtraction;

• using standard units of measure; and

• describing and analyzing shapes. (CCSS Initiative, 2010, p. 17)

While these standards will apply to any classroom governed by the national math standards,
they do not dictate which curriculum to use to teach mathematics.

Degree of Teacher Control
A teacher’s effectiveness in implementing any curriculum will be greatly influenced by her
knowledge about child development, the skills and experience he brings to the classroom, and
his personal belief system (Hill, Stremmel, & Fu, 2005). As a new teacher, you might appreci-
ate a curriculum that provides lots of direction, support, and instructional resources so that
you can focus most of your energies on developing your skills and insights about how children
learn and behave. Over time, teachers often develop a comfort level with a curriculum to the
point where they can “tweak” it to more effectively meet the needs of individual children.

Some teachers see structured models as limiting what they can do with children’s imagina-
tions, individuality, and intelligence. A highly experienced teacher may not need the kind of
instructional support and direction provided by the curriculum. He may actually become frus-
trated if he is not permitted to exercise the personal knowledge and skills acquired through
practice over time. We mentioned earlier that the degree of control a teacher has to interpret
the curriculum can vary considerably by setting; that is, in some classrooms diverging from
the set curriculum is not an option, while in others the teacher has more freedom to embrace
more flexibility and creativity (Frede & Ackerman, 2007).

In all cases, children need and deserve teachers who understand them, are highly knowledge-
able about the curriculum options, and know how to make good decisions on their behalf.

What Is Curriculum? Chapter 1

How Do Curricula Vary within Early Childhood Education?

All curricula, including those developed for young children, are designed to complement and
support the students for whom they are intended. They include:

• A theoretical or philosophical orientation

• Stated or implied assumptions about learners

• Goals or intended outcomes for learners

• Stated or implied assumptions about the role of teachers

• Specified or suggested content

• Specified or suggested methods of implementation and assessment of learners (Frede
& Ackerman, 2007; Goffin, 2001; NAEYC, 2003)

The period of early childhood is commonly understood to include birth through age 8, as
defined by the NAEYC (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). Yet within this period, children’s devel-
opmental characteristics and interests vary enormously, so curriculum across the early child-
hood span does as well. We would not expect a curriculum for infants or toddlers to be the
same as one for first or second graders. In this sec-
tion we will discuss some of the general similarities
and differences in curriculum across early childhood.

General Distinctions
In general, curriculum for infants and toddlers empha-
sizes language development, socialization, explora-
tion of the immediate environment, and acquisition
of self-help skills, often through daily routines like
diapering and feeding. Preschool curricula focus on
the development of social and interpersonal skills,
play, acquiring a love of learning, and thinking skills.
Kindergarten serves as the transition from pre-
school to elementary school, and the curriculum
begins to focus more on early reading and writing.

In the primary grades (1 through 3), curriculum is
typically broken out into defined subject or content
areas and the focus shifts from growth and devel-
opment to academics. Strategies teachers use to
implement curriculum for all young children should
support individual and group needs of typically
developing children, second-language learners, and
those with special developmental needs (Copple &
Bredekamp, 2009).

Teacher-Child Ratios
Young children usually spend their entire day with
the same teacher, child-care provider, or small team of teachers, and early childhood educa-
tors usually plan for and implement all components of the curriculum. Typically, however,
the teacher-child ratio, or the number of children each individual adult is responsible for,
increases by age, because we know that owing to their physical needs and language capacities,
infants and toddlers require more hands-on attention than do preschoolers, kindergarteners,

A curriculum for infants emphasizes one-on-
one interactions between adults and children.

What Is Curriculum? Chapter 1

and children in early elementary grades (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). Therefore curriculum
for infants and toddlers will emphasize one-on-one interactions between the adult and child,
while curriculum for preschoolers and older children includes an increasing number of activi-
ties for small groups of children and sometimes a larger group.

Expectations
A high-quality comprehensive early childhood curriculum emphasizes global, integrated learn-
ing across all areas of development (NAEYC/NAECS/SDE, 2003). However, our knowledge
of how children grow and develop across each of the individual developmental domains
(cognitive, social/emotional, physical, creative) affects the expectations we have for children
of different ages in each of these areas. For example, we don’t expect toddlers—who, at
this stage of development prefer to play on their own—to interact with a group of children
during play. We might however, be concerned about a kindergarten-aged child who doesn’t
play with others, since by this age children have typically developed a preference for play with
peers (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009).

Materials
Adults who work with young children rely on instructional materials and strategies, or “tools
of the trade,” that support children’s needs and interests. Early childhood classrooms or
child-care settings usually have basic furniture, equipment, and learning materials specifically
designed for small children. Some curricula specify exactly what materials are needed; others
provide general guidelines or suggestions.

Some early childhood materials, such as puzzles, are constructed to be used for very specific
purposes (in this case, developing fine-motor coordination and matching a shape with a cor-
responding space). But the designs of these materials will vary according to the age of the
child for whom they are intended. For example, toddler puzzles typically have fewer, larger
pieces, some even with knobs on them, while puzzles designed for older children would have
many more pieces and be smaller in size.

Similarly, blocks intended for toddlers will be large enough to be handled easily and might
be made of foam or cardboard, while kindergarteners might have access to a large selection
of wooden blocks of all sizes and shapes as well as a selection of accessory items, like small

people and vehicles, to be used with
them.

As children acquire language and
an interest in reading and writing,
the amount and kinds of paper and
writing implements increase as well.
Once children gain the ability to talk
and move about, they will gradually
become more interested in activities
like easel painting, drawing with cray-
ons and markers, and manipulating
a large variety of materials that help
them to acquire the fine motor skills
they will need for writing.

Expectations for what children know and can do vary
by age.

How Did Early Childhood Curriculum Evolve? Chapter 1

Their interest in reading and writing continues to
develop as the curriculum exposes them to many dif-
ferent kinds of stories and nonfiction books. While
reading and writing become a more prominent ele-
ment of curriculum in the later part of early childhood,
materials of all kinds that children can handle and
manipulate remain an important feature throughout.

1.2 How Did Early Childhood
Curriculum Evolve?
Prior to the seventeenth century, childhood was not
generally considered a distinct phase of the life span.
Children who survived the first years of life were
quickly incorporated into the work routines that sus-
tained the well-being of the family. However, begin-
ning with the Enlightenment, thinkers like John Locke
(1632–1734) and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778)
began to describe the period of childhood as develop-
mentally distinct and significant.

The way we think about early childhood curriculum
today is influenced by many ideas about childhood
that have emerged and evolved since that time. The
curriculum models and approaches we use today
reflect ongoing work with young children in places as
diverse as the tenements of Rome and the laboratory preschools of influential universities.

A Cast of Influential Thinkers

Many scientists, theorists, and philosophers have contributed to the current view that children
should be respected as individuals in their own right. Further, these thinkers continue to help
us understand how children learn and the methods and environments that best encourage
the learning process. The following brief profiles describe individuals whose ideas and theo-
ries have generated important themes for early childhood curriculum; these will be addressed
throughout this text.

Friedrich Froebel
Friedrich Froebel (1782–1852) is generally credited with proposing the seminal idea that young
children need a systematic program and materials specifically designed for their unique learn-
ing style. Froebel likened children to seeds to be cultivated in a “garden of children,” or kin-
dergarten. He believed a teacher’s role was to observe and nurture the learning process, in
part by encouraging them to play. He also believed that children’s play should be structured
for their own protection and maximum benefit.

Froebel’s curriculum for young children centered on concrete materials he called “gifts” as
well as activities, including songs and educational games, he described as “occupations.”
Gifts were objects such as wooden blocks and colorful balls of yarn designed to teach chil-
dren concepts about color, shape, size, counting, measuring, comparing, and contrasting.

A well-equipped early childhood classroom
provides a range of materials specifically
chosen to support the needs and interests of
the children.

How Did Early Childhood Curriculum Evolve? Chapter 1

The purpose of occupations—which
involved the child’s manipulation of
items like clay, paper, and beads—
was to develop the fine motor and
visual discrimination skills needed for
reading and writing. Froebel encour-
aged the use of the play circle, a cur-
riculum feature that looks familiar in
any preschool classroom today, as a
time to sing songs that would help
to reinforce concepts and develop
memory.

Maria Montessori
Many of Maria Montessori’s (1870–
1952) ideas are embedded in virtu-
ally every early childhood program,
and her influence on our thinking
about curriculum has been profound

(Goffin, 2001; Morrison, 2011). Montessori was the first woman in Italy to earn a medical
degree, and she was a tireless child advocate. She insisted that through proper early educa-
tion, underprivileged and cognitively impaired children could be successful. She worked first
with children who were described at that time as “mentally retarded” (a term we would
not use today) and subsequently with poor children in the tenements of Rome, establish-
ing preschools, each of which was called a Casa dei Bambini (Children’s House). In essence,
Dr. Montessori proposed the idea of children at risk and the notion that society had a moral
responsibility to devote resources to early intervention.

Dr. Montessori embraced and expanded Froebel’s kindergarten concept. She felt that children
were natural learners and should drive much of their own learning. She asserted that children
should be grouped in multiage (2½ to 5 years) classes to allow flexibility and opportunities
for peer mentoring. Montessori developed an extensive set of “didactic” materials and les-
sons designed to be attractive to children and used by teachers to teach specific concepts and
skills. She adapted furniture to child size as a gesture of respect for the unique needs of early
learners (Montessori, 2008).

Montessori believed that the environment in which children learn should be meticulously pre-
pared and organized to offer materials and activities in a carefully orchestrated sequence. She
trained teachers to observe children carefully and recognize sensitive periods, the most appro-
priate moments at which to introduce new lessons. Montessori’s ideas about early education
promoted the development of independence, responsibility, curiosity, and aesthetic sensitivity
(Montessori, 2007). We will discuss her method in more detail in Chapter 2.

John Dewey
At about the same time Montessori was conceptualizing early education in Italy, John Dewey’s
(1859–1952) work completely redirected the course of American education with a movement
known as progressivism. Dewey, known first as a philosopher, believed in pragmatism, or
faith in the value of experience (practice) to inform ideas (theory). He promoted a practical
approach to education, the idea that “education, therefore, is a process of living and not a
preparation for future living” (Dewey, 1897).

Source: http://www.froebelweb.org/gifts/

Many of Froebel’s gifts, including various blocks and tiles, can
be found virtually unchanged in preschool classrooms today.

How Did Early Childhood Curriculum Evolve? Chapter 1

Like Montessori, Dewey believed that the curriculum should be child-centered and school
should be a place where children practice life through active, hands-on activities. Dewey also
believed, like Froebel, that children learn through teacher-facilitated play. He viewed class-
rooms and schools as incubators for democracy—where we should learn social responsibility
and citizenship (Dewey, 1916). To promote later success in society, progressive schools empha-
sized collaborative learning and problem solving.

Dewey also thought deeply about the
role of the teacher, and his concept of the
teacher as a facilitator represented a big
departure from the commonly accepted
notion of the teacher at the front of the
room delivering information to children.
He stated that “the teacher is not in the
school to impose certain ideas or to form
certain habits in the child, but is there as
a member of the community to select
the influences which shall affect the child
and to assist him in properly responding
to these influences“ (Dewey, 1897).

Dewey’s idea that schools should be
places where “education is life” gave rise
to thinking about curriculum in a new
way. Thomas Heard Kilpatrick, one of
Dewey’s students, published The Project
Method in 1918, describing a scientific approach using long-term project work as a means
of integrating learning across all areas of the curriculum and engaging children in topics of
their own choosing. Dewey’s ideas about education as a process, teachers as collaborative
partners, and curriculum as a practical and meaningful activity had an enormous impact on
educators of his time—an impact that is still felt today (Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery, & Taubman,
2008).

Jean Piaget
A contemporary of both Montessori and Dewey, Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget (1896–1980)
proposed a theory of cognitive development that initiated a constructivist view of cur-
riculum. Piaget’s experiments with young children (some of them conducted at a modified
Montessori school in Geneva, Switzerland) revealed them, during their play, to be active par-
ticipants in the development of mental concepts through trial and error, repeated interactions
with materials, and adaptation to the environment. His work confirmed early learning as
distinct from other developmental periods, implying, therefore, that materials and activities
for young children should reflect the idiosyncratic way in which they think and process stimuli
(Branscombe et al., 2003; Chaille, 2008).

Piaget proposed that cognitive development occurs in four distinct stages, three of which
occur either wholly or partially during early childhood (Piaget, 1977). In the sensorimotor
stage, infants and toddlers process experience and begin to coordinate movement through
sensory exploration and motor activity (Branscombe, Castle, Dorsey, Surbeck, & Taylor, 2003).
Preoperational thinking of preschoolers emerges spontaneously, as they are internally moti-
vated to make sense of their environment by testing ideas and theories in play and exploration
with materials (Chaille, 2008).

Maria Montessori opened her first Casa dei Bambini in
Rome in 1907.

How Did Early Childhood Curriculum Evolve? Chapter 1

At about age 7, children figure out that they can solve
problems logically by using objects to perform “opera-
tions” (like addition and subtraction). They also begin to
understand that operations are reversible (e.g., 2 + 3 = 5
is the same as 5 – 2 = 3) (Branscombe et al., 2003). Formal
operations, or the ability to think logically and perform
operations entirely in the abstract without the support of
objects, begins to emerge at about age 11.

Piaget’s ideas and experiments have been challenged
and reinterpreted in ways that continue to expand our
understanding of a constructivist view of curriculum
(Branscombe et al., 2003; Cannella, Swadener, & Che,
2007). Most early childhood teachers recognize that chil-
dren are “concrete thinkers” who require large blocks
of time to explore materials and processes. However,
“Constructivism is not a method, a curriculum model, or
a series of appropriate practices. . . . Rather, constructiv-
ism is the theory that underlies the choices and decisions
you make about how you set up the classroom, choose
the curriculum, and respond to the children’s work and
ideas” (Chaille, 2008, p. 5).

Lev Vygotsky
While Piaget’s work continues to have an immeasurable
influence on early childhood researchers, teachers, and
theorists, Lev Vygotsky (1896–1934) expanded construc-

tivist theory in ways that also make particular sense to early
childhood educators. Vygotsky proposed that cognitive growth was not just the result of
individual interactions with materials, as described by Piaget, but a socially constructed pro-
cess requiring interaction with others (Bodrova & Leong, 2008). He described the zone of
proximal development (ZPD) as a window of time when children—with thoughtful and
intentional teacher coaching known as scaffolding—are most likely to be able to advance
what they can do independently (Vygotsky, 1962). The ZPD is not unlike what Montessori
described as a “sensitive period.”

Vygotsky’s work is most evident in early childhood curriculum today in the prominence of
sociodramatic play and emphasis on language; these are considered mental tools that enable
the child to convert experiences into internalized understandings, a key process in cognitive
development (Bodrova & Leong, 2008). For example, when a group of children decide to set
up a pizza parlor, they determine who will be the cook, servers, and customers. They might
use paper to make hats and aprons and roll out modeling dough for pizza shells, pepperoni,
and other toppings. They develop self-regulation as they apply mental and physical self-
control and social rules to act out the scenario, all the time using language to negotiate,
communicate, and offer ideas to keep the play going. As children begin to use objects sym-
bolically, plan and take on roles in play, and use language to share experiences, higher-order
thinking (executive functioning) develops.

According to Piaget, children develop
concepts through open-ended explora-
tion with various materials, such as sand,
water, and blocks.

How Did Early Childhood Curriculum Evolve? Chapter 1

Uri Bronfenbrenner
Uri Bronfenbrenner (1917–2005) proposed thinking about the growth of relationships as a
multilayered, interactive ecological system of expanding spheres of influence (Figure 1.2).
Those that most influence young children are:

1. The microsystem, which includes the environment with which children have the most
direct and concrete experience, such as their family, neighborhood, schools and churches.

2. The mesosystem, which consists of relationships among the elements of the microsys-
tem, such as parent-teacher conferences or a school-sponsored back-to-school picnic.

3. The exosystem, which influences children indirectly through policies and decisions of
which children are largely unaware, such as the implementation of learning standards.

4. The macrosystem, or the larger societal
environment, which affects our daily lives.
For example, living in a high-crime neigh-
borhood would influence the resident chil-
dren in a variety of ways.

Bronfenbrenner’s theory is important, as early
childhood educators develop curriculum to be
responsive to diversity and culture. The microsys-
tems experienced by the young children in your
group or class may be quite varied in terms of
language, ethnicity, foods, and family traditions.
Including materials that reflect this diversity—
such as African American, Asian, Hispanic, and
Caucasian baby dolls and play food from differ-
ent cultures—provides a connection between
the school or care and home environments.

Loris Malaguzzi
Loris Malaguzzi (1920–1994) founded the munic-
ipal early childhood programs in Reggio Emilia,
Italy, immediately after the end of World War II;
he is therefore known as the father of the Reggio
Emilia approach. Malaguzzi is not considered a
theorist or philosopher like Dewey or Piaget, but
his contribution to early childhood curriculum is significant because he integrated and refined
the ideas of others to legitimize an eclectic articulation of curriculum (Goffin, 2001; Hill,
Stremmel, & Fu, 2005; Chaille, 2008).

A contemporary of theorists like Gardner, Piaget, and Bronfenbrenner, Malaguzzi modeled
curriculum and program development through ongoing critical reflection, merging new
ideas with old and reinventing as necessary. He envisioned curriculum as an organic process,
responsive to the unique characteristics, interests, and community of children and families at
any particular moment in time (Gandini, 1993; Malaguzzi, 1993). Chapter 2 includes a fuller
description of key ideas associated with the Reggio Emilia approach.

F01.02_ECE311

Macrosystem

Exosystem

Mesosystem

Microsystem

Child

Figure 1.2: Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory can be visualized
as a series of concentric circles that represent increas-
ingly larger spheres of environmental influence.

How Did Early Childhood Curriculum Evolve? Chapter 1

Howard Gardner
Until 1983, the prevailing view of intelligence held that it could be measured by assessment
of verbal and mathematical abilities and assigned a number, the intelligence quotient (IQ).
The widespread use of standardized IQ tests, emphasis and time commitment in elementary
school on language, literacy, and mathematics is evidence of the major influence of this per-
spective. In 1983, Howard Gardner (1943–), a cognitive psychologist like Piaget, published
Frames of Mind, challenging that view by describing intelligence as multidimensional, interac-
tive, and fluid. Gardner identified seven distinct intelligences and added two more in 1995
(see Table 1.1).

Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences (MI) immediately attracted a great deal of atten-
tion in education. Within a year of its publication, plans were under way to establish the
Key School in Indianapolis (now known as the Key Learning Community), with a curriculum
entirely based on MI theory.

Because he is a contemporary theorist, the full impact of Gardner’s MI theory has yet to be
realized, and determining its influence on early childhood curriculum is a work in progress.

In the latest edition of Frames of Mind, Gardner
describes two major curricular implications of MI
theory for teachers, individualizing and operating
from a pluralistic perspective:

By individualizing, I mean that the educator
should know as much as possible about the
intelligences profile of each student. . . .
and to the extent possible . . . teach and
assess in ways that bring out that child’s
capacities. By pluralizing, I mean that the
educator should decide which concepts,
topics, or ideas are of greatest importance,
and should then present them in a variety
of ways. (Gardner, 2011, p. xvi)

How Has Thinking about Curriculum
Changed over Time?

The theories and ideas of the individuals profiled
above, as well as those of others, continue to
affect our thinking about early childhood curricu-
lum. Other factors that influence curriculum devel-
opment today include society’s values, standards,
accountability systems, research findings, commu-
nity expectations, culture and language, and indi-
vidual children’s characteristics (NAEYC, 2003).

Our society’s core values are expressed through pri-
mary documents like the U.S. Constitution as well
as through our laws, national holidays, social pro-
grams, and public education system. The variety of
family structures and traditions, religious practices,

Table 1.1: Gardner’s Theory of
Multiple Intelligences

Dimension of
Intelligence

Example of
Profession

Interpersonal Counselor
Politician
Salesperson

Intrapersonal Researcher
Novelist
Entrepreneur

Bodily/Kinesthetic Athlete
Firefighter
Actor

Musical/Rhythmic Musician
Composer
Disk Jockey

Verbal/Linguistic Journalist
Teacher
Lawyer

Logical/Mathematical Engineer
Programmer
Accountant

Naturalist Environmentalist
Farmer
Botanist

Visual/Spatial Navigator
Sculptor
Architect

Existential Philosopher
Theorist

How Did Early Childhood Curriculum Evolve? Chapter 1

and socioeconomic conditions reflected across our changing population continually shapes
our culture. Globalization, art, the media, recreational pastimes, scientific discoveries, and
technology also all play a role.

Individuals and society process these factors as internally held perspectives, a world view,
that affects how we relate to others, react or respond to events, and imagine the future
(Mezirow, 2000; Miller & Seller, 1990).

The Importance of Our World View
The goals, foundations, and characteristics of curriculum can be directly affected by changes
in our societal world view, or the way individuals and groups of people perceive reality and
how those perceptions affect the way they function in their day-to-day lives. For example,
during the Great Depression of the 1930s, optimism and faith in our economic system were
replaced by uncertainty among millions of people
about their immediate and long-term prospects,
especially among those impacted by the ten-year
drought known as the Dust Bowl.

This was the perfect environment in which progres-
sivism, as led by John Dewey, could take hold and
shape curriculum for students of all ages. Early child-
hood curricula at that time reflected Dewey’s prag-
matic approach to education, which emphasized the
development of useful skills, teamwork, and collab-
oration. University laboratory preschools also flour-
ished as education researchers sought to generate
imaginative long-term solutions to our problems.

Similarly, in the late twentieth century, as America
became firmly established as a superpower both
economically and militarily, a general attitude of
confidence prevailed. The standard of living was
at an all-time high, but a report, titled A Nation at
Risk, commissioned by President Ronald Reagan and
published in 1983 by the National Commission on
Excellence in Education, claimed that we were in
trouble:

“Our once unchallenged preeminence in com-
merce, industry, science, and technological
innovation is being overtaken by competitors
throughout the world. . . . and the well-being of
[America’s] people, the educational foundations
of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens
our very future as a Nation and a people.” (National Commission on Excellence in
Education, 1983)

The report described public schools as failing institutions. Citing a 1982 Gallup poll con-
firming that “people are steadfast in their belief that education is the major foundation
for the future strength of this country,” the report set new goals for American education,
redefined “excellence,” and called for comprehensive reform. The “nation at risk” report

This famous photo by Dorothea Lange shows
a “Dust Bowl” mother and three of her seven
children. It characterizes a time when the
national world view was dominated by a mood
of stress and worry. This made for an environ-
ment in which progressive ideas about educa-
tion could take hold.

How Did Early Childhood Curriculum Evolve? Chapter 1

led to wide-ranging changes in public education. A debate as to whether the report helped
or hurt education, including early childhood education, continues to this day (Hyun, 2002;
Toppo, 2008).

As you might imagine, shifts in world view tend to be cyclical, as each new generation reacts
to current events. Typically, when times are good and people feel confident and secure, they
tend to adopt the attitude, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Conversely, support for innovations
and experimental curricula arises when the view of the world and the future is more negative
or tenuous.

Early childhood curriculum developers will continue to adapt to movements like the develop-
ment of state and national learning standards, demand for accountability, and changing pub-
lic school configurations. This work is complicated by three conflicting world views reflected
among curricula, communities, and individual teachers. These perspectives can be described
as transmissional, transactional, and transformational (Miller, 2007; Miller & Seller, 1990).

Three T’s: Transmissional, Transactional, and Transformational Views of Education
In short, the transmissional view is traditional, in that students are expected to master infor-
mation delivered by the teacher. This reflects a teaching method that was standard around
the world until the twentieth century. The transactional perspective is more egalitarian, and
people with a transformational orientation believe that a curriculum should represent the
actual lived experiences of diverse groups of learners.

The goals of a transmission-style curriculum, in which the teacher typically stands at the front
of the class delivering information, are efficient whole-group instruction, sequential presenta-
tion of information, and transfer of information from teacher to student (Smith, 1996, 2000;
Tyler, 1949). The method does not allow much room for individual learning styles or rates of
learning, as all children are expected to master the same material in the same amount of time.

A good analogy for the transmission style is an assembly line, where the “product” is uni-
formly prepared students. This approach is derived from and mimics the factory model that
made America so successful following the Industrial Revolution and throughout the twentieth
century (Miller & Seller, 1990; Sears, 2003; Toffler, 1970, 1990). While most early childhood
classrooms today no longer reflect this approach, your own schooling experiences or those of
your parents may have been primarily based on this view.

The goal of a transactional teacher or curriculum is to promote individualized learning through
process-oriented experiences and activities that are meaningful and relevant to both students
and the teachers (Smith, 1996, 2000). Transactional classrooms are often organized with dif-
ferent activity areas and blocks of time when children are free to choose to work alone or with
playmates and to direct their own activities. Teachers work with students individually and in
small groups. Curriculum is often organized around topics or themes into units of study that
integrate different areas of learning.

Transactional curriculum originated with progressivism and is heavily influenced by construc-
tivism (Fenwick & Anderson, 2005; Miller & Seller, 1990). Early childhood classrooms and
curriculum today reflect this highly interactive, collaborative style of teaching and learning.

The primary goal of transformative teachers and curriculum is to ensure that multiple per-
spectives are reflected among children and families in increasingly diverse communities
(Bredekamp & Rozengrant, 1992; Miller & Seller, 1990). In early childhood education, this view

The Big Picture: Developmentally Appropriate Practice Chapter 1

is promoted by a group of researchers and educators who call themselves reconceptualists
and interpret and develop curriculum from a social justice perspective (Cannela, Swadener,
& Chi, 2008). A teacher with a transformative orientation emphasizes curriculum focused on
inquiry, driven by questions relevant and important to the students rather than predetermined
goals or outcomes.

Table 1.2 provides a succinct comparison of each view. As you work through this text, keep
the 3 T’s in mind, as all are represented across the wide variety of early childhood curricula.
Teachers often find it helpful to be able to recognize their own world view and how it com-
pares/contrasts with the curriculum they use.

Table 1.2: Three T’s Comparison Chart

Transmissional Transactional Transformational

Source of
instruction

Teacher directs lessons
and activities

Teacher coordinates
activities and themed
studies

Teacher manages curriculum
that emerges over time

Learning via . . . Practice Experience Open-ended inquiry

Assessment focus Products Process and progress Process and products

Desired outcome Mastery of information Attainment of individual-
ized goals

Authentic representation
of learning

1.3 The Big Picture: Developmentally Appropriate Practice
In this section, we consider the relative position of early childhood curriculum within the
larger framework of developmentally appropriate practice (DAP). The early childhood
period from birth to 8 years of age is unique in life-span development in terms of growth and
learning. Curriculum for young children reflects and supports the amazing changes that occur
during this time.

What Is DAP?

DAP is not a curriculum but a framework for how to think about curriculum in a way that takes
into account what we know about how young children grow and learn. The concept behind
DAP is that it should support children’s individual needs and interests in accordance with what
they are physically and mentally ready to learn (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). Principles of child
development that inform DAP include the following:

• All areas of development are important and interrelated

• Development is sequential but uneven

• Individual children develop at varying rates

• Maturation and experience are interactional

• Sensitive (optimal) periods create windows of opportunity for the most effective
introduction of concepts and materials

• Development proceeds from simple to complex, concrete to abstract

• Children need secure, consistent relationships

The Big Picture: Developmentally Appropriate Practice Chapter 1

• Multiple sociocultural influences may be found within any group of children

• Children exhibit a variety of learning styles and preferences

• Play is necessary and important to children’s healthy development

• Children’s learning should be supported with teacher scaffolding

• There is a relationship between approaches to learning and the development of
positive dispositions (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009)

Essentially, five elements characterize a developmentally appropriate curriculum. First, it sup-
ports the creation of a caring community where all are safe, valued, and respected. Second,
it balances adult-guided and child-initiated learning opportunities through careful planning,
good decision making, scaffolding, and attention to individual needs. Third, a developmen-
tally appropriate curriculum includes clear goals, prioritizes integrated learning, and provides
a useful framework for planning daily activities. Fourth, a developmentally appropriate cur-
riculum uses multiple ongoing assessment strategies that are goal oriented, systematic, and
purposeful. Finally, a high priority of DAP is to build reciprocal, open, and supportive relation-
ships with families (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009).

Developmental vs. Academic Curriculum Organization

Every curriculum articulates what children should learn from both theoretical and organiza-
tional perspectives. In early childhood, two different approaches predominate. In some cur-
ricula, goals, concepts and activities are designed and organized in terms of academic content
areas such as math, science, social studies, reading, and writing. In other curricula, these three
elements are expressed according to growth and learning across developmental domains—
cognitive, social/emotional, physical, and creative.

This might be confusing, as many of you are probably wondering about the “right way” to think
about curriculum for young children. In later chapters, we will examine both types of curriculum
design more closely, but either can be effective and developmentally appropriate as long as

• The curriculum is grounded in sound principles about how young children think, learn,
and interact.

• Designated materials and activities reflect the interests and abilities of children.

• Goals and outcomes promote learning that is integrated, meaningful, and relevant.

• Assessment methods and tools are used authentically to accurately represent what
children know and can do. (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009)

From time to time, early childhood educators have been pressured to diverge from these
principles. By the mid-1980s, for example, after the publication of A Nation at Risk, concerns
about public schools resulted in a “back to basics” movement, which promoted basic skills
and a unilateral focus on reading and math. Some felt that this approach led to the exclusion
of other areas of the curriculum. Pressure to implement what early childhood educators called
“pushing down” the curriculum and wide-scale standardized testing of young children was
intense (Katz, 1999; Willis, 1993).

Push-down advocates assumed that long-term achievement could be improved by imple-
menting a strict academically oriented curriculum that focused earlier on reading, writing,

The Big Picture: Developmentally Appropriate Practice Chapter 1

and mathematics. They also assumed that strategies used with older children—such as
whole-group instruction, rote memorization, and paper-and-pencil activities, rather than a
play-oriented curriculum, could be used with 4-year-olds. Thus the incentive for a massive
collaborative response on behalf of the early childhood field was born.

NAEYC and the DAP Position Statement

Many professional organizations advocate for the rights and welfare of young children and
their families (see Feature Box 1.2). Among these groups, the NAEYC, which originally orga-
nized in 1926, is the largest, with approximately 60,000 members and 50 affiliate chapters
(NAEYC, n.d.). This group’s purpose is to advance knowledge and advocate on behalf of
young children, their teachers, and their families.

NAEYC published its first position statement describing and advocating for developmen-
tally appropriate practice in 1986. The overall goal of the DAP statement was to achieve
high-quality ethical practice. NAEYC was at that time developing a voluntary accreditation
system for early childhood programs and provided the statement in part to differentiate
between developmentally appropriate (DAP) and developmentally inappropriate practices
(DIP). Representative examples of DAP and DIP were provided, such as:

Appropriate (for toddlers): “An adult initiating conversation with a toddler gives the
child ample time to respond. Educators listen attentively for children’s verbal initia-
tions and respond to these. Educators label or name objects, describe events, and
reflect feelings to help children learn new words.”

Inappropriate (for toddlers): “Educators talk at toddlers and do not wait for a response.
Adult voices dominate or educators do not speak to children because they think they
are too young to respond. Educators either talk ‘baby talk’ or use language that is too
complex for toddlers to understand.” (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997)

The 1986 statement was quickly followed in 1987 with an expanded, comprehensive docu-
ment covering children from birth to age 8. The subsequent impact of the DAP position state-
ment and its effects on curriculum development cannot be overstated.

The DAP position statement is an organic document, revised regularly to include new infor-
mation and insights about how young children learn and what they need. Revisions of the
original statement were published in 1997 and 2009, after intensive review of new research,
consideration of critiques, and solicitation of feedback from its membership in open forums,
meetings, and workshops.

The 1997 revision included increased emphasis on children with special needs and cultural
diversity. The current (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009) version responded to three challenges:
(1) reducing learning gaps and increasing achievement, (2) building stronger relationships
between early childhood and elementary education, and (3) emphasizing the importance of
teacher knowledge and decision making.

The Big Picture: Developmentally Appropriate Practice Chapter 1

A Century of Advocacy

Over the past century, early childhood advocates have addressed poverty, child labor, access to
high-quality affordable day care, health, and nutrition—all issues that affect children. Currently
early childhood professionals and organizations are working to promote many issues that directly
relate to or impact early childhood curriculum, including:

• Federal, state, and local policies that reflect DAP

• Early Learning Standards aligned with curricula and assessment

• Comprehensive teacher professional development systems

• Program quality rating and improvement systems

• Public funding to support quality initiatives (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009)

Professional organizations often participate in or sponsor conferences or regular opportunities to
meet for collaboration, networking, continued learning, and renewal of professional commitment.
The list below provides information about a sampling of professional organizations (in addition to
the NAEYC) that focus in particular on providing support for early childhood educators.

The Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI). ACEI was initially organized in 1892
as the International Kindergarten Union (IKU). Its current mission is “to promote and support the
optimal education and development of children worldwide, and to influence the professional
growth of educators and the efforts of others who are committed to the needs of children in a
changing society.” ACEI resources include publications, conferences, and online training.

The National Association for Family Child Care (NAFCC). The mission of the NAFCC is to “promote
quality child care by strengthening the profession of [in-home] family child care.” It does so by pro-
viding access to an accreditation system, training, conference and local membership activities as
well as by advocating nationally for the needs of family child-care providers.

The National Child Care Association (NCCA). Founded in 1975, the NCCA is a professional trade
association whose mission is to “promote the growth and safeguard the interest of quality early
childhood care and education focusing on licensed, private providers of these services [child care
centers].” NCCA resources include training and professional development opportunities through
state and national conferences and activities, publications, a member buying club, and legislative
advocacy.

The National Coalition for Campus Children’s Centers (NCCCC). “NCCCC supports research and
activities affecting college and university early childhood education and service settings, family and
work issues, and the field of early childhood education in general. NCCCC expresses this mission
through its newsletters, publications, conferences and grants.” NCCCC members represent child-
care and laboratory and demonstration programs located on college, university, and community
college campuses across the country.

The National Head Start Association (NHSA). The mission of the NHSA is to “coalesce, inspire, and
support the Head Start field as a leader in early childhood development and education.” NHSA pro-
vides networking, employment opportunity information, disaster relief, professional development
and scholarships, and a radio station devoted to the interests of Head Start professionals.

(continued)

http://www.acei.org

Homepage

http://www.nccanet.org

http://www.campuschildren.org/

Home

Politics, Government, and Early Childhood Curriculum Chapter 1

1.4 Politics, Government, and Early Childhood Curriculum
Trends in early childhood curriculum can be significantly affected by public policy and govern-
ment intervention, innovations in technology and media, and the infrastructure of teacher
education programs. Early childhood professionals need a solid grounding and awareness of
the context in which they will be working, as any of these factors has the potential to signifi-
cantly impact their professional lives.

Policy and its impact on early childhood curriculum are
driven in large part by politics, and support for early child-
hood education can be inconsistent. Today, the adoption
and implementation of early learning standards, account-
ability systems, and funding mechanisms are the govern-
ment initiatives that most affect curriculum.

Head Start

The national Head Start program was launched in 1964
under the administration of President Lyndon B. Johnson.
Its primary goal was to help reduce or eliminate the
effects of poverty by providing comprehensive support
and education to young children and their families.

Today Head Start early childhood preschool programs—
and the companion Early Head Start program for infants,
toddlers, and pregnant women that was authorized in
1994—serve close to a million at-risk American chil-
dren annually. Head Start must be reauthorized every
five years by the U.S. Congress. Each time the legisla-
tion comes up for review, new rules can be applied that
affect the way in which Head Start programs select,
implement, and evaluate curricula for use in Head Start
classrooms.

The Southern Early Childhood Association (SECA). Since 1948, SECA has been committed
to “improving the quality of care and education for young children and their families through advo-
cacy and professional development.” SECA’s focus areas are the fourteen southern states; they
provide publications and other print resources including position statements and policy briefs. SECA
also works actively through national and local avenues to provide leadership and professional devel-
opment opportunities.

▶ Stop and Reflect
After reading the descriptions and mission statements of these groups, what do you think they
have in common? How are they different? How would you, as a professional early childhood educa-
tor, decide which one(s) to join?

President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the
War on Poverty legislative initiative in
August 1964. This program included
authorization for the Head Start
Programs, which continue today.

Home

Why Is It Important for You to Think about Curriculum? Chapter 1

No Child Left Behind

In 2001, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act included a mandate to develop early learning
standards in each state, but it did not dictate what those standards should be. A NCLB task
force developed a set of standards known as Good Start, Grow Smart (GSGS) for children
aged 3 to 5 as a voluntary model for states (Scott-Little, Lesko, Martella & Milburn, 2007).
GSGS blended an academic content focus in sections on math, language, and literacy with
developmentally focused sections devoted to approaches to learning, physical growth and
health, and social/emotional growth.

Popular early curriculum models currently in widespread use, such as High Scope and the
Creative Curriculum, subsequently matched their goals, objectives, and concept frameworks
with the standards for each state, some based on GSGS and others not. The purpose of this
effort was to help teachers account for how their curriculum and assessments match stan-
dards while still maintaining the intentions and integrity of the model they use. In sum, one
of the biggest issues in early childhood today is the extent to which standards should drive or
dictate curriculum.

1.5 Why Is It Important for You to Think
about Curriculum?
Think of the maxim “Practice what you preach.” It will be relevant every day of your teaching
career, as your actions represent what you believe about teaching and learning. Consciously
and unconsciously, whether adhering to a curriculum approach or using specific materials
from a curriculum model, teachers make decisions about curriculum all the time. The key to
being an effective teacher is to make those decisions as deliberately, intelligently, and sensi-
tively as possible (Hill, Stremmel, & Fu, 2005).

The Concept of Theory to Practice

In simple terms, “theory to practice” describes the translation of ideas about how children
grow and learn into the decisions we make and actions we take as teachers (Dewey, 1904;
Mezirow, 1997). As you have learned in this chapter, our thinking today about early education
and curriculum is derived from multiple sources and principles that have evolved over time.
Curricula vary depending on how those core ideas are combined, integrated, interpreted,
and influenced by culture, society, and individuals involved in curriculum development and
implementation.

The Reflective Teacher

Your early childhood education studies will provide you with a knowledge base and profes-
sional dispositions that will continue to be informed by your experiences as a teacher and
curriculum developer. Excellent teachers are also reflective, purposefully thinking about the
curriculum decisions they make and their teaching in three principal ways (Schon, 1983, 1987;
Winter, 1998; McAlpine, Frew, & Lewis, 1991). You could describe these modes as advance
planning, in-action decisions, and debriefing. In other words, you should think about your
work before, during, and after you do it.

Reflective teachers who think about their work at the highest level are metacognitive, think-
ing not only about what they do but also about the process they use to make decisions, thus

Why Is It Important for You to Think about Curriculum? Chapter 1

developing an internal dialogue built on insights and close examination of their actions. This
critical reflection process includes (1) identifying beliefs and attitudes, (2) applying insights
from teaching to modify assumptions on which those beliefs are based, and (3) adapting
practices to be consistent with revised beliefs (Mezirow, 2000).

A Case Study: Mary and Jane

Let’s look at how this process works. In this scenario Mary and Jane are reflective co-teachers
for a multiage class of 4-year olds and kindergarteners. They observe that six of the boys in
the class are entirely focused on “superheroes.” This is evident in many aspects of the cur-
riculum—language, artwork, journal writing, block structures, and outside play.

The teachers are unsure about the value of superhero play or why it seems so important. They
assume that it is gender-specific to boys but also notice girls engaged in themes about fairies,
witches, princesses, and other powerful creatures. Mary and Jane decide to:

• Identify relevant resources and research (Cooper 2009; Erdman & Downing, 2015;
Paley, 1992)

• Develop a plan for recording observations in the classroom

• Devote some of their daily planning time to talking together about what they have
read, seen, and thought about

• Involve the children in conversations about superhero play

• Make decisions and adjustments to the curriculum to address
problems and new questions

• Keep a journal of their thoughts about the issue of
superhero play

After two weeks, Mary wrote:

I had no idea that the characters involved were princesses and
witches and I find it interesting that the preferred role is that of the
witch. Something to think about [sic]. Is this version of good guy/
bad guy? I don’t think so since neither role is really seen as a “bad
guy” role by them. I think this is “power” play on the line of super-
man, etc. and in this case the witch has the power, doesn’t she
always? Another thing I notice when I reflect on this is the social
give and take. When Susan leaves the play because she doesn’t
want the role assigned to her Anastasia steps back and [I believe]
thinks about it and realizes that if they switch roles then Susan will
be willing to continue the play. As it turns out she was right.

One week later, Mary said,

We have been allowing superhero play and there have been no
real problems. We had to solve the problem of tagging too hard
but scarves in the pocket have solved that problem. We decided
that when there were problems we could have a meeting and ask
the children to help us find a solution. I think they are motivated
to solve problems because they know that too many hurts or tears
will result in at least a temporary end to our approval of this play.

Teachers Mary and Jane
used a systematic reflection
process to understand and
respond to children’s super-
hero play.

Why is it Important for You to Think About Curriculum? Chapter 1

They are just beginning to experiment with the idea that it might also be ok to tell
stories that involve power play.

Now let’s look at what happened as a result of Mary and Jane’s reflective process. Their
original beliefs about superhero play have changed, as they think they understand better the
dynamic between the theme and important concepts of good/bad and power. They no longer
assume that it occurs only with boys and realize that dialogue with the children is meaning-
ful and can provide ideas for problem solving. They are confident that their decision to adapt
curriculum to include superheroes is based on sound information. They have new questions
to pursue about the possible applications of superhero themes to literacy.

Reinventing the Wheel

You will work with many people and resources to shape the early childhood curriculum of the
future. Intergenerational professional relationships can be very important and helpful, as this
is one of the ways in which we pass along practical curriculum wisdom (Henderson & Kesson,
2004) acquired over many years of teaching.

As a new teacher, you will likely be so focused on your day-to-day work that you might not
think you will ever have time to think about the “big picture” or take a long view of what is
happening as you work with curriculum. However, keeping the big picture in mind is critical
to teaching from a metacognitive stance. Consider the following suggestions for things you
can do to develop a reflective approach to your work:

• Seek out a mentor who models reflective teaching

• Keep a journal and write in it regularly

• Maintain a file of questions that arise about different aspects of curriculum

• Engage in regular conversations with your students

• Find and read resources related to your questions

• Join a professional association, such as one of those listed in Feature Box 1.2, and
attend conferences to network with others and develop a perspective on the context
in which you work

Five Key Questions

As we proceed in our exploration of early childhood curriculum, five key questions provide the
organizing elements for the twelve chapters in this text. Together, they represent a coherent
philosophy of education and a practical framework for reflection:

1. What is the purpose of curriculum? (Chapters 1 and 2)

2. What are children like and how do they learn? (Chapters 3 and 4)

3. What is my role as a teacher? (Chapters 5 and 6)

4. What do children need and want to know and learn about? (Chapters 7 through 11)

5. How should curriculum be implemented? (Chapters 7 through 12)

If you begin to think about these questions now and revisit them regularly, you will establish
habits of mind that will serve you well and help you make sense of triumphs and challenges
you encounter.

Posttest Chapter 1

Chapter Summary
• Curriculum is a structured framework for teaching that is articulated with varying levels

of specificity.

• Early childhood educators have substantial responsibilities and varying degrees of flex-
ibility about how to implement curriculum depending on the curriculum they use and
the context in which they work.

• While curriculum for young children is based on principles consistent across the span
from birth to age 8, the needs, abilities, and interests of children at different times
affect what curriculum includes and how it is implemented.

• Many individuals have contributed to our understanding of how children learn and the
methods and environments that best encourage the learning process. Among some of
the most influential are Maria Montessori, John Dewey, Jean Piaget, and Lev Vygotsky.

• Factors such as social values, socioeconomic conditions, politics, research, and culture
contribute to individual and social world views, which in turn are reflected in different
perspectives about what curriculum should include and how it should be implemented.

• Through the work of professional organizations like NAEYC, early childhood educa-
tors advocate for developmentally appropriate practice as a framework for curriculum
development. Teachers use knowledge about how children grow and learn to make
decisions about curriculum and how to adapt to changing demands that affect their
work.

• Good teachers engage in regular and thoughtful reflection and inquiry about their
work to integrate theory and practice.

Posttest

1. Which of the following is not part of curriculum?

a. The physical learning environment

b. All the learning materials teachers and children use

c. Requirements for teacher qualifications necessary to implement the curriculum
successfully

d. Methods and strategies teachers use to implement and assess the effectiveness of
activities and lessons

2. Which individual developed an ecological systems model to describe relationships and
sociocultural influences on children?

a. Maria Montessori

b. Uri Bronfenbrenner

c. Howard Gardner

d. John Dewey

3. Teachers develop and implement curriculum from a developmentally appropriate
perspective when they:

a. Gather ideas for activities from many sources and choose those that best fit their
teaching style and preferences.

Posttest Chapter 1

b. Consider the individual differences among children as well as the generally
accepted developmental characteristics of children at different ages.

c. Carefully follow the curriculum in exactly the same way for all children.

d. Make sure that reading, writing, and mathematics are the primary focus of the
curriculum.

4. One reason that the 2001 No Child Left Behind legislation is important to early childhood
educators is that NCLB:

a. Guarantees that all young children will be successful in elementary school.

b. Mandated development of a single set of national standards that ensure curriculum
consistency from state to state.

c. Fully funds early childhood education for all children.

d. Led to the development of state early learning standards that affect and guide
curriculum in many different settings.

5. Teachers should engage in reflection about their work primarily because:

a. It is the only way to know if the curriculum is developmentally appropriate.

b. Insights gained from intentional thinking about teaching experiences help teachers
integrate theory and practice.

c. Reflective teachers earn higher salaries and command more respect in their field.

d. Children can learn only from a thoughtful teacher.

6. A curriculum model:

a. Provides all the materials necessary for implementation.

b. Addresses all areas of learning and development.

c. Describes everything a teacher should do to implement it according to the
principles on which it is based.

d. Is one that must be purchased to implement successfully.

7. Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences:

a. Expands the concept of intelligence from two to five dimensions.

b. Encourages educators to plan activities that focus on one aspect of intelligence at
a time.

c. Applies to early childhood more than any other developmental period.

d. Assumes that intelligences present at birth are subsequently shaped by experiences.

8. The concept of developmentally appropriate practice:

a. Is a theory proposed to explain how children think.

b. Provides a framework for how to develop and implement curriculum for young
children.

c. Greatly influenced early childhood education when it was first introduced in 1996
but has been replaced by more modern thinking.

d. Includes a set of learning standards that teachers follow to make sure that their
curriculum is appropriate for young children.

9. Head Start programs:

Key Terms Chapter 1

a. Now serve nearly a million children from birth to age 5.

b. Must be reauthorized and funded by the U.S. Congress annually.

c. All use the same curriculum so that federal accountability requirements can be met.

d. Were implemented in the 1990s to address increasing concerns about children at
risk for academic failure.

10. The critical reflection process for metacognitive teachers can be described as:

a. Writing daily entries in a personal journal to describe what happened each day.

b. Conducting a survey of students and their families at the end of the year to find
out how much they enjoyed being in the class.

c. Changing teaching practices every year to avoid getting too set in their ways.

d. Adapting practices based on analysis of beliefs, assumptions, and attitudes.

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

Discussion Questions

1. Choose one of the influential thinkers profiled in this chapter and explain why you might
want to know more about his or her work and ideas.

2. Which of the 3 T’s (transmission, transactional, transformative) perspectives comes
closest to describing your own view? Why?

3. What do you think could be some of the most difficult obstacles in the way of
implementing developmentally appropriate practices? Why?

Answers and Rejoinders to Chapter Pretest

1. False. Curriculum includes much more than printed materials.

2. False. Thinking about early childhood as a distinct period emerged during the
seventeenth-century Enlightenment period.

3. False. Developmentally appropriate practice focuses on appropriate matching of
curriculum to the developmental characteristics of children.

4. True. Depending on the setting, sometimes teachers are expected to implement a
preselected curriculum.

5. True. Teachers think carefully and make many decisions as they plan, implement, and
evaluate curriculum.

Key Terms

Comprehensive curriculum A curriculum that addresses all areas of learning

Constructivist A person whose approach to teaching is based on Jean Piaget’s theory of
cognitive development

Content area A specific subject area of curriculum, such as literacy, math, or science

Curriculum A structured framework for teaching

Key Terms Chapter 1

Curriculum approach A broad, flexible conceptual framework for teaching based on a
particular theoretical perspective

Curriculum model A conceptual framework for teaching that describes everything about
what and how a teacher will teach

Developmental domain A specific aspect of overall child development, such as cognitive,
social/emotional, physical growth, or creativity

Developmentally appropriate practice Teaching based on developmental and cultural
knowledge of both individuals and groups of children and their families

Early intervention Providing instructional and family support to identify and address spe-
cial needs at the earliest possible time in order to give at-risk children the best possible tran-
sition to elementary school

Environment The physical space within which early childhood curriculum is implemented

Executive functioning Higher-order thinking, characterized in young children by the abil-
ity to plan activity and control impulses

Head Start Federally funded preschool programs established in 1964 to provide early child-
hood education for children considered at risk for school failure

Hidden curriculum Things children and teachers are expected to know that may not be
intentionally taught

Infants Children from birth to 18 months of age

Kindergarten The transitional year between preschool and first grade

Limited-scope curriculum A curriculum that addresses a single or limited number of
learning areas (like math or literacy)

Metacognition Intentional thinking about one’s ideas and thinking process

Preschoolers Children from ages 3 to 5

Scaffolding A teaching strategy that focuses on providing help and support to enable chil-
dren to advance from tasks or activities they can do independently to a higher level

Self-regulation Internalized cognitive process of impulse control

Standards Statements about what children should know and be able to do, developed by
states, programs, or organizations that represent different dimensions of curriculum

Teacher-child ratio The number of children an individual teacher is responsible for, such
as 1:4 for infants

Toddlers Children from 18 to 36 months of age

World view Internalized values that affect how people perceive and interpret the ideas and
actions of others

References Chapter 1

Zone of proximal development (ZPD) Described by Vygotsky as a time window between
what a child can do independently to what he or she can do with teacher assistance

Recommended Reading

Educating Esmé: Diary of a Teacher’s First Year, by Esmé Raji Codel (first published in 1999,
updated in 2009 by Algonquin Books (Chapel Hill, NC). This is a lively and insightful
account of a young teacher who describes the challenges she faced as a first year teacher
and how she navigated her way through them.

References

Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2007). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early
childhood education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Branscombe, N. A., Castle, K., Dorsey, A. G., Surbeck, E., & Taylor, J. B. (2003). Early child-
hood curriculum: A constructivist perspective. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early child-
hood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: National
Association for the Education of Young Children.

Bredekamp, S., & Rozengrant, T. J. (1992). Reaching potentials: appropriate curriculum and
assessment for young children. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

Bronson, P., & Merryman, A. (2009). Nurture shock: New thinking about children. New York:
Twelve.

Cannella, G. S., Swadener, B. B., & Che, Y. (2007). Reconceptualists. R. S. New & M.
Cochran (Eds.), Early childhood education: An international encyclopedia. pp. 693–696.
Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.

Chaille, C. (2008). Constructivism across the curriculum in early childhood classrooms: Big
ideas as inspiration. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Charlesworth, R. (2008). Understanding child development (7th ed.). Clifton Park, NY:
Thomson Delmar Learning.

Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Initiative. (2010). Common Core State Standards for
mathematics [PDF file]. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.org/wp-content/upd-
loads/Math_Standars1 .

Cooper, P. M. (2009). The classroom all young children need: Lessons in teaching by Vivian
Paley. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (Eds.). (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in pro-
grams serving children birth to eight. Washington, DC: National Association for the
Education of Young Children.

Dewey, J. (January, 1897). My pedagogic creed. School Journal, 54, 77–80.

Dewey, J. (1904). The relation of theory to practice in education. Third Yearbook of the
National Society for the Scientific Study of Education (pp. 9–30). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

References Chapter 1

Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education: An introduction to the philosophy of education.
New York: Macmillan.

Epstein, A. (2009). Growing readers early literacy preschool curriculum (2nd ed.) Ypsilanti,
MI: High Scope Educational Research Foundation.

Epstein, A. (2010). Numbers plus mathematics curriculum for preschool. Ypsilanti, MI: High
Scope Educational Research Foundation.

Epstein, A. S., & Hohmann, M. (2012). The high scope preschool curriculum. Ypsilanti, MI:
High Scope Educational Research Foundation.

Erdman, S., & Downing, M. (2015, February/March). The science of superheroes. Teaching
Young Children, 8(3). Retrieved from https://www.naeyc.org/resources/pubs/tyc/feb2015/
science-superheroes.

Fenwick, W. E., & Anderson, G. L. (Eds.). (2005). The Sage handbook of educational leader-
ship: Advances in theory, research, and practice (p. 499). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Frede, E., & Ackerman, D. J. (March, 2007). Preschool curriculum decision-making:
Dimensions to consider. Preschool Policy Brief, Issue 12. New Brunswick, NJ: National
Institute for Early Education Research, Rutgers University.

Gandini, L. (1993). Fundamentals of the Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood educa-
tion. Young Children, 49(1), 4–8.

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

Giroux, H., & Purpel, D. (1983). The hidden curriculum and moral education: Deception or
discovery? Berkeley, CA: McCutchan.

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

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

Heroman, C., et al. (2010). The creative curriculum for preschool (5th ed.). Bethesda, MD:
Teaching Strategies.

Hill, L. T., Stremmel, A. J., & Fu, V. R. (2005). Teaching as inquiry: Rethinking curriculum in
early childhood education. Boston: Pearson.

Hyun, E. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act. R. S. New & M. Cochran (Eds.) Early childhood
education: An international encyclopedia. New York: Greenwood.

Jackson, P. W. (1968). Life in classrooms. New York: Teachers College Press.

Katz, L. (1999). Curriculum disputes in early childhood education. ERIC Digest Document
Number #ED436298.

Kilpatrick, T. H. (September 1918). The project method. Teachers College Record, 19,
319–334.

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

References Chapter 1

McAlpine, L., Frew, E., & Lucas, M. (1991). Mechanisms for helping becoming practitioners
develop professional ways of knowing. M. Baskett, V. J. Marsick, T. G. Pearson, D. R.
Klevans, & J. Delehanty (Eds.), Proceedings of the continuing education preconference of
the American Association of Adult and Continuing Education (pp. 67–73). University Park,
PA: Penn State University Press.

Mezirow, J. (1997). Transformative learning: Theory to practice. New Directions for Adult
and Continuing Education, 74, 5–12.

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

Miller, J. P. (2007). The holistic curriculum (2nd ed.). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Miller, J. P., & Seller, W. (1990). Curriculum: Perspectives and practice. Toronto: Copp, Clark,
Pittman Longman Division.

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 in 1909.)

Morrison, G. (2011). Early childhood education today (12th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Merril Prentice Hall.

Myles, B. S., Trautman, M. L., & Schelvan, R. (2004). The hidden curriculum: Practical solu-
tions for understanding unstated rules in social situations. Shawnee Mission, KS: Autism
Asperger Publishing.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2003). Early childhood
curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation: Building an effective, accountable sys-
tem in programs for children birth through age 8 (position statement with expanded
resources). Washington, DC: NAEYC.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (n.d.). More about us.
Retrieved from https://www.naeyc.org/about-us/people/more-about-us.

National Association for the Education of Young Children, National Association of Early
Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education. (2003). Early childhood curricu-
lum, assessment, and program evaluation (a joint position statement). Washington, DC:
NAEYC.

National Child Care Information and Technical Assistance Center (NCCIC) Curricula/Teaching
approaches for preschool education. Retrieved from http://occ-archive.org/poptopics/
curricula-ece.html.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Number and operations standard for
grades PreK–2. Retrieved from http://www.nctm.org/standards/content.aspx?id=7564.

Newkirk, T. (2002) Misreading masculinity. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. P. (2008) Curriculum: Foundations, principles, and issues (5th
ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Paley, V. G. (1992). You can’t say you can’t play. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

References Chapter 1

Piaget, J. (1977). The development of thought. New York: Viking Press. (Original work pub-
lished in 1975.)

Pinar, W., Reynolds, W. M., Slattery, P., & Taubman, P. M. (2008). Understanding curriculum.
New York: Peter Lang.

Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York:
Basic Books.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass.

Scott-Little, C., Lesko, J., Martella, J., & Milburn, P. (2007). Early learning standards: Results
from a National Survey to Document Trends in State-Level Policies and Practices. Early
Childhood Research and Practice, 9(1). Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v9n1/little.html.

Sears, A. (2003). Retooling the mind factory: Education in a lean state. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.

Smith, M. K. (1996, 2000). Curriculum theory and practice. The encyclopaedia of informal
education. Retrieved from www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm.

Spodek, B., & Brown, P. C. (1993). Curriculum alternatives in early childhood education: A
historical perspective. B. Spodek (Ed.), Handbook of research on the education of young
children (pp. 91–104). New York: Macmillan.

Toffler, A. (1990). Future shock. New York: Random House. (Original work published in
1970.)

Toppo, G. (2008). Nation at risk: The best thing or the worst thing for education? USA
Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/9008-04-22-nation-at-
risk_N.htm.

Tyler, R. (1949). Basic principles of curriculum and instruction. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2011). Administration for Children and
Families. A guide to good start, grow smart in child care. Retrieved from http://www.acf.
hhs.gov/programs/ccb/initiatives/gsgs/gsgs_guide/guide.htm.

Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language (E. Hanfmann & G. Vokar, Trans.). Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press (Original work published in 1934).

Willis, S. (November 1993). Teaching young children: Educators seek “developmental appro-
priateness.” Curriculum Update. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/curriculum-update/nov1993/Teaching-
Young-Children.aspx.

The Curriculum Landscape:
Major Models and Approach

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
Pretes

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%

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.

Home

“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

Le
a
rn

in
g Environment

Adult – Child Interactio
n

Da
ily

ou
ti

n
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)
© 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

“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)
© 2019 Bridgepoint Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Not for resale or redistribution.

“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

Success For All Foundation

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 .

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 .

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 .

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.

Our Image of the Child

Learning Objectives

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

1. Explain how the image of the child has changed over time.

2. Describe American children today in the context of changing national demographics and
expectations.

3. Identify important factors that influence how teachers view children today.

4. Describe strategies teachers can use to learn about the children they teach and to foster
the development of a positive self-image.

3
Pretest
1. Before the middle of the eighteenth century,

the concept of childhood as a distinct
period of life did not exist. T/F

2. By the age of 3, children have a well-
developed gender identity. T/F

3. Changing demographics affect the
curriculum decisions teachers make T/F

4. It is important to test children to determine
whether they are ready for kindergarten or
first grade. T/F

5. Preschool children are too young to learn
independence and responsibility. T/F

Answers can be found at end of the chapter.

Where Do Our Views of Children Originate? Chapter 3

Your first day with your preschool children is rapidly approaching. You obtain a roster of the
seventeen children you will be teaching and begin to think about how you will welcome them
to the class and get to know each one. Your list indicates that there are nine boys and eight
girls. Of the four Hispanic children, two speak Spanish as their first language. Two children
are African American, nine are Caucasian, and one is Asian. You also know that two of the
children have been identified as having special needs. What do you imagine the children will
be like? What kind of life experiences will they bring to your class? How will the actual children
compare with your ideas about what they might be like?

Research reveals that teachers’ images of the child can be a more powerful influence on
the way they teach than what they have learned in the way of theories and strategies (Hill,
Stremmel, & Fu, 2005). For example, consider the statement, “The core value I hold is that
children are competent, confident, curious theory builders” (Chaille, 2008, p. 3). The author
continues to say, “ this value is the essence of constructivism,” indicating that her idea about
what children are like informs her acceptance of a theory closely aligned with that view. In
other words, we need to understand that our perceptions about what we think children are
like can affect our expectations and interactions with them and how we choose and imple-
ment curriculum.

3.1 Where Do Our Views of Children Originate?
Our ideas about childhood and what it means to be a child today have changed over time and
will continue to be shaped by many factors. Examining how our view of children in America
has evolved can help us understand the things that influence the way we see them today
and what might happen in the future. Historically, events such as western migration across
the frontier, massive waves of immigration into American cities, and wars have affected fam-
ily dynamics and, correspondingly, the lives and roles of children. Societal change, such as
women’s suffrage and the feminist movement of the 1960s, has produced changes in percep-
tions about gender roles. Scientific and social science research has also contributed to our
understanding of the biology and psychology of human growth and development and how
children learn. This section addresses how our image of the child is informed and shaped by
history, society, and science.

History

We can tell a great deal about how the image of the child has changed over time by looking
at pictures and paintings of children from different periods. What, for example, do you notice
about the children depicted in the paintings in Figure 3.1? Can you tell anything about their
economic or class status from the way children are dressed? Do you see signs of their assigned
gender roles? From the activities represented, can you infer how children were expected to
behave? How do they appear to interact with adults or other children? Do you see any evi-
dence of cultural stereotypes or historical prejudices? Some of your thoughts may be reflected
in the following descriptions of three predominant historical views—children as miniature
adults, conflicting views of innocence, and children as the property of others.

Children as Miniature Adults
Until the mid-eighteenth-century Enlightenment period, childhood as the distinct period we
know today did not exist. Rather, children were considered miniature adults. They wore the
same style of clothing as adults (Figure 3.1a) and, like adults, their clothes reflected their social

Where Do Our Views of Children Originate? Chapter 3

or economic class. They were expected to behave and carry themselves as any other person,
and expectations for their behavior were not modified simply because they were children (Hill,
Stremmel, & Fu, 2005; Morrison, 2011). From a very young age, children in wealthy, landed
families were groomed and educated by tutors to assume the social, financial, and politi-
cal roles of their parents. Children of peasants, farmers, and tradesmen, meanwhile, were
expected to shoulder an equal burden of work as soon as they possibly could to ensure the
survival of the family. After the Enlightenment, childhood gradually began to be seen as a
period of immaturity, with expectations for children adjusted accordingly.

Figure 3.1: Historical Images of Children

The way societies view children is often reflected in artwork from the period. As you may notice in
these four paintings the small boy (a) is represented as a miniature adult, the group of boys (b) are
depicted as ruffians, and the girls are painted from idealized (c) and realistic (d) perspectives.

(b)

Where Do Our Views of Children Originate? Chapter 3

Has the belief that children are miniature adults resur-
faced? Some advocates for young children insist that
since the advent of television in the mid-1950s, children
are once again experiencing pressures and incentives to
behave, dress, and act like adults (Elkind, 2001; Postman,
1992). Adult-inspired clothing, beauty pageants, and
access to adult-themed television, advertising, movies,
music, entertainment, and even the concept of “play
dates” are common examples that blur the lines between
children and adults.

However, this is different from children wanting to “act
like” the adults they see in their lives. In preschool class-
rooms, children will commonly and naturally use “dress
up” clothing to assume and dramatize what they know
about adult roles, like firefighter, doctor, chef, and so
on. Given societal pressures on children, early childhood
teachers have a responsibility to balance opportunities for
young children and to explore their ideas about adulthood
without pressuring them to be like adults. Our expecta-
tions for behavior and achievement must be grounded in
appropriate expectations based on what we know about
how young children think and act rather than on stan-
dards for adults.

Childhood and Conflicting Ideas about Innocence
By the mid-eighteenth century, philosophers such as John Locke (1632–1704), Jean-Jacques
Rousseau (1712–1778), and Johann Friedrich Pestalozzi (1746–1827) had introduced a new,
romanticized vision of childhood as a period of natural innocence (Figure 3.1c). Painters and
book illustrators of the nineteenth-century Victorian period often depicted children in rural
or domestic scenes whiling away their time in pastoral pursuits. This view conflicted with
notions held over from the Middle Ages, of children as sinful, deceitful, and even depraved
(Morrison, 2011).

A changing concept of the nature of children affected schooling and curriculum. Early American
education, especially for poor children, was primarily limited to religious instruction focused
on curbing “sinful” behavior (Boers, 2007). As Americans were increasingly influenced by
a more humanistic view of children, curricula became more secular and child-centered, as
evidenced, for example, in the emergence of the playground in the late 1800s and the evolu-
tion of the famous McGuffey Readers. These simple textbooks were introduced in 1836 as
a series of graded readers that made ample use of biblical text and references as a means of
both reading instruction and moral education. For example, a passage from the 1836 second
reader states: “Never forget before you leave your room to thank God for his kindness. He
is indeed kinder to us than an earthly parent” (p. 3). Only 3 of the 32 story titles in the 1836
version included the name of a child, compared with 15 of 71 in the 1879 revision.

By the 1870s, in response to an increasingly pluralistic society, the emphasis on purity and
obedience had shifted to more of a focus on patriotism and civic responsibility, as this passage
from the 1879 primer demonstrates: “This house is on fire. Look! The roof is in a blaze. Run,
boys, and ring the bell. Call some men to put out the fire. We may yet save the house if we

It is controversial but not unusual to see
children today depicted in adult roles.

Where Do Our Views of Children Originate? Chapter 3

work hard” (p. 40). The older notion of schools as a place where children must be controlled
and tamed had given way to seeing young children as unique individuals and to considering
certain pursuits, such as play, as part of the domain of childhood.

Beliefs about the innate nature of children play out in the way adults interpret children’s moti-
vations and the choices they subsequently make about curriculum and classroom manage-
ment (File & Gullo, 2000; Scarlett, Ponte, & Singh, 2009). Suppose that a 3-year-old turns all
the puzzles on a shelf upside down, dumping all the pieces on the floor. In the past, a teacher
who viewed children as innately mischievous or motivated to misbehave might reprimand the
child, saying, “I knew that was bound to happen one of these days.” She might ban him for
a time from the puzzle center and make him sit on a bench during outside time as punish-
ment. Today, we are more likely, because of the influence of developmental research, to see
children as “works in progress” and recognize this episode as an opportunity to introduce
natural consequences and promote self-modification of the child’s behaviors. Now a teacher
might explain that since all the puzzle pieces are mixed up on the floor, no one can use them.
She could tell the child that she will be happy to help, but that until the puzzles are put back
together, he may not play with other toys.

Children as Property
Before the late nineteenth century, white American chil-
dren were largely considered the property of their fathers.
Black American children were often born into slavery
and, along with their families, were literally and legally
considered the property of their masters. Up through
the Colonial Period, poor 8- to 12-year-old children were
commonly sold as indentured servants, and all slaves,
including children, could be bought and sold at will up
until the 1860s. While most slave children were likely to
live and die enslaved, indentured servants might work
off the cost of their upkeep and complete an apprentice-
ship lasting as many as 7 to 10 years. After the Industrial
Revolution and the rise of the factory, children as young
as 6 years of age were sent to work to help provide for
their families.

Slavery was abolished with the Emancipation Proclamation
of 1863, but the use of young children to work long
hours under harsh conditions did not end until the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 prohibited child labor.

Today, Americans typically no longer think of children
as the property of their parents, though parents gen-
erally do enjoy broad latitude and full authority over
their children provided they are not found to be abu-
sive (Morrison, 2011). However, the related practice of
describing children as commodities—products of schooling or investment in the future—is
common (Morrison, 2011). Costs associated with educating young children are periodically
quantified in terms of cost-benefit ratios and return on investment (Partnerships for America’s
Economic Success, 2011). While this may be understandable, given the need to allocate pub-
lic and private resources wisely, early childhood professionals advocate making curriculum

Until 1938, American children routinely
worked in factories, fields, and domestic
service. This photo from 1911 shows three
young girls who worked as oyster shuck-
ers for the Maggioni Canning Company
in Port Royal, South Carolina.

Where Do Our Views of Children Originate? Chapter 3

decisions from developmental and individual perspectives. Fortunately research increasingly
demonstrates the long-term economic value of high-quality early childhood education!

Teachers may subtly convey a proprietary relationship with their students when they use
expressions like “my children” or “my class.” Moreover, different curricula allocate varying
levels of ownership to teachers and children respectively, and a curriculum that is wholly
“owned” by the teacher is very different from one that emphasizes child-initiated activities
(Chaille, 2008; Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). As you learn more about the curriculum choices
available to you, think about the extent to which you will actively and intentionally balance
opportunities for decision making between yourself and the children in your charge.

Society

Today, most experts agree that the concepts and images associated with young children
are socially constructed according to cultural values and norms (Arnold, 2000; Heywood,
2001; Hill, Stremmel, & Fu, 2005). Increasing globalization provides American educators
with access to competing points of view that challenge embedded notions about what
education for young children should be like. These divergent perspectives are discussed in
this section in terms of competency versus dependency, risk versus promise, labeling, and
gender roles.

Competency vs. Dependency
American teachers’ beliefs and curricula were traditionally built around the idea that young
children depend on adults to know what is best for them (Hill, Stremmel, & Fu, 2005). Certainly
the younger the child, the more adults need to be directly involved in his or her physical care
for the sake of the child’s safety and well-being. But the extent to which children throughout
the early childhood period are encouraged and allowed to direct their own learning and make
intuitive decisions is changing. In particular, educators in the Reggio Emilia infant-toddler and
preschool programs subscribe to a view of children as innately competent, strong, and power-
ful (Edwards, Gandini, & Forman, 1998).

This alternate image of children focuses on what children can do rather than what they can’t.
Adults are challenged to see children as having not needs but rights. Rather than focusing
on what adults think children need, teacher educators are encouraged to focus on who they
are as individuals, casting them as stakeholders in their own learning (Chaille, 2008). Going
forward, you will see how this idea plays out to greater or lesser extent in planning and imple-
menting curriculum.

At Risk vs. At Promise
In American society, the vision of children as the promise of our future is a cherished ideal.
But the language used to describe efforts to provide equal opportunities for all children and
a solid foundation for success is changing. Closely related to the dialogue about competency
vs. dependency was criticism of what many believed was a “deficit” approach to early child-
hood (Harry & Klingner, 2007; Swadener & Lubeck, 1995). This controversy emerged with
the authorization of federally funded early childhood initiatives, including Head Start in the
1960s. The premise of this view is that certain children—mostly dual-language learners and
those from low-income minority groups, begin their educational careers at a disadvantage.
The perception about these children was that they lacked access to the resources necessary to
be successful in school and life and were thus at risk for failure.

Where Do Our Views of Children Originate? Chapter 3

Critics of the practice of describing children “at risk” contended this perspective was
grounded in an assumption that children must conform to a prescribed set of expectations
largely driven by mainstream culture rather than the needs and cultural experiences of each
child. When children did not live up to these expectations, they were considered deficient
(Delpit, 2006; Hyun, 1996). These critics assert that all children should be considered “at
promise,” that is, viewed in consideration of their potential (Brice-Heath, 1991; Swadener &
Lubeck, 1995).

Further, advocates against a deficit mindset called for understanding that poor minority chil-
dren arrive at school with different rather than deficient experiences, language, and culture.
For example, in terms of literacy, anthropologist Shirley Brice-Heath’s seminal research in the
1980s revealed that African American children often come from homes where oral language
and storytelling are highly valued and practiced (Brice-Heath, 1991). But in an education
setting that places a higher value on reading and writing, this strength was not recognized.
Similarly, children learning English as a second language were at that time considered at risk.
However, neuroscience now confirms that rather than being linguistically impaired, bilingual
preschoolers can concentrate and retain information better than children who speak only one
language (Carlson & Meltzoff, 2008).

Over the past three decades, educators and curriculum developers have worked hard to
advance curriculum for young children that includes and values multiculturalism, diverse
language traditions, and social experiences that children bring to their care or school
setting.

Labeling
Like 1960s funding for early intervention programs, the laws that mandated special education
services (beginning with the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975) were also
inspired by the desire to create equal opportunities and services for all children.

However, labels like at risk, disabled, gifted, hearing-impaired, hyperactive, and autistic,
which are applied to children for purposes of funding service programs, had the unin-
tended consequence of creating stereotypes. Particularly because minorities are overrep-
resented in special education programs that focus on disabilities and underrepresented in
gifted and talented programs, questions about cultural discrimination and testing/iden-
tification biases also emerged. Parents and advocates for children in special education
programs claimed that applying a label as their children’s defining characteristic interfered
with recognition of their children’s many positive characteristics, unrelated to the label. As
a result, “person-first language” emerged (Research and Training Center on Independent
Living, 2008). The examples in Table 3.1 illustrate the subtle but powerful difference that
labeling conveys.

Table 3.1: Applying Labels to Children

Label as the Whole Child Person-First Language

Susie is autistic. Susie has autism.

Susie is hearing-impaired. Susie has a hearing impairment.

Susie is learning-disabled. Susie has a learning disability.

Where Do Our Views of Children Originate? Chapter 3

As you begin your teaching journey, it will be important for you to approach the curriculum
you use with respect to all the children you will teach. You will want to try to view the qualities
and experiences they bring to the classroom or child care setting as strengths and opportuni-
ties. The curriculum is your starting place—a means to advance their strengths rather than
focusing on their shortcomings.

Gender Roles
A third important socially constructed concept is our image of gender roles (Kohlberg, 1966)
and the ways boys and girls are represented in media, curricula, and instructional materials.
This is important because gender identification and roles are acquired during the early child-
hood years.

The fact that each child is unique and complex should not blind us to the fact that
gender is one of the two great organizing principles in child development—the other
being age. Trying to understand a child without understanding the role of gender in
child development is like trying to understand a child’s behavior without knowing the
child’s age. (Sax, 2005, p. 95)

Teachers and child care providers have a great deal of influence on how this process occurs
(Chick, Heilman-Houser, & Hunter, 2002), especially in terms of expectations associated with
femininity and masculinity (Gropper & Froschl, 2000).

Children’s construction of gender identity is closely associated with prevailing stereotypes
and power dynamics and the extent to which those are accepted or challenged by adults
(Blaise & Taylor, 2012). Generally accepted notions of what boys and girls are like and who
takes a dominant or submissive role in play can be dictated by assumptions children make
that may or may not be true. For example, if some children are planning for a pretend hiking
trip to the mountains, one child might state that only the boys can drive the car, or that the

girls must be in charge of making lunches
and packing food for the trip. If no one
questions these statements, stereotypes
are implicitly reinforced. But play can pro-
vide opportunities for the construction
of alternate “definitions” of what boys
and girls can do if and when adults (1)
challenge stereotypes and serve as mod-
els in talking about gender roles and (2)
prohibit the marginalization of any child
based on gender role identification (Blaise
& Taylor, 2012; Katch & Katch, 2007).

Typically between the ages of 3 and 5,
children associate with a gender identity
as “boy” or “girl” and the concept that
boys are supposed to do “boy things,”
and girls are supposed to do “girl things,”
but they may not necessarily know that

gender is also constant and not subject to change. Therefore it isn’t unusual for preschool
children to appear excessively rigid in their expression of roles that boys and girls may play
(Katch & Katch, 2010; Ruble, Taylor, Cyphers, Greulich, Lurye, & Shrout, 2007). Once they
also understand that wearing pink shiny slippers will not cause a boy to turn into a girl, they

Between 3 and 5 years of age, until they learn that their
gender is both fixed and constant, children commonly
define gender roles rigidly.

Where Do Our Views of Children Originate? Chapter 3

become more open to discussion and the assumption of gender roles that may contradict a
stereotype.

Teachers and caregivers can take a number of steps to help children develop healthy concepts
of gender; these measures will also help to combat stereotypes that can be damaging to a
child’s self-esteem or lead to bullying behaviors (Blaise & Taylor, 2012; Chick, Heilman-Houser
& Hunter, 2002; Gropper & Froschl, 2000; Moss, 2007).

These steps include:

• Talking directly with children about stereotypes

• Looking for and eliminating gender bias in classroom materials

• Using gender-neutral language

• Emphasizing fairness in discussing gender roles and stereotypes

• Acknowledging and dealing with bullying behavior associated with gender stereotypes

Science

Today, science is producing a continually expanding body of knowledge—from biological,
psychological, and sociological perspectives—about who children are. This knowledge is
helpful to teachers in many ways. Research on the interplay of biology (nature) and environ-
ment (nurture) and how children develop and establish identity helps teachers (1) approach
their teaching from an unbiased perspective and (2) support the development of a healthy
self-image among their children.

The consensus is that neither nature nor
nurture is solely responsible for a child’s
development but that both are significant
and interrelated in complex ways (Cherry,
2018; Maynard & Nigel, 2004; Schiller,
2001; Silcock, 2008). Bronfenbrenner
(2004) concluded, after decades of work
on his theoretical model of interactive eco-
logical systems, that developmental pro-
cesses are profoundly affected by events
and conditions in the larger environment.

What teachers need to know is that the
environments they create and the curri-
cula they implement will affect children
in ways that may not be obvious but are
important both for the way we see chil-
dren and the ways they perceive them-
selves. Furthermore, while earlier images of children were romanticized and generalized to an
idealized version of the child, an ecological perspective seeks to acknowledge the “real” child
(Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2005).

Our image of the American child today is kaleidoscopic—a wonderful montage of shapes,
colors, personalities, interests, and abilities. In the next section, we will examine our image
of today’s child and, in particular, the important role teachers play in choosing and adapting
curricula that support positive and authentic images of children.

Today’s early childhood programs and our images of chil-
dren are increasingly diverse.

Who Is the American Child Today? Chapter 3

3.2 Who Is the American Child Today?
The historical image of the child as white, middle-class, and from a nuclear family does not
represent the American population at large today (Kids Count, 2011). This is especially impor-
tant because white female teachers continue to be overrepresented as compared with the
changing populations of the classrooms in which they teach (Frankenberg, 2009; Han, West-
Olatunji, & Thomas, 2010; Loewus, 2017). Consequently many children come to care or pre-
school without the opportunity to interact with adults who look like them and perhaps share
common experiential knowledge about culture, language, and sociocultural traditions.

Children in Context

Demographic data about young children and their families are continually collected, analyzed,
and reported by many different groups, agencies, and individuals for a variety of purposes,
including:

• Federal, state, and international funding for programs that support families and
children

• The development of goals, standards, and accountability measures for programs,
schools, and services

• Continual development and improvement of teacher education programs to best pre-
pare teachers and caregivers to work in the “real world”

Statistical profiles that describe groups by income, ethnicity, religion, family structure, and so
on provide early childhood professionals with a clear picture of the characteristics of children
and their families. The imaginary class presented in the opening vignette closely parallels the
demographic statistics of the nation as a whole. While it is unlikely that a class you teach will
mirror this breakdown exactly, it is important for you as a teacher to represent the rich diversity
of both the children and families in your class and the country as a whole in respectful ways.

Demographics
Data from the U.S. census, which is taken every ten years, provide comprehensive information
about ethnicity, economic status, and other individual and family characteristics of the U.S.
population. Table 3.2 offers a snapshot of the statistics that describe children under the age
of 18 in America today.

In 2011, the overall percentage of children living with two married parents was 65 percent,
a figure that decreased from 85 percent in 1970 but that has been relatively stable since the
late 1990s.

What do these statistics have to do with your role as a curriculum decision maker? Critics have
claimed that many curriculum materials, learning standards, and assessment materials (espe-
cially standardized tests) are representative of ethnocentrism (Hull, Goldhaber & Capone,
2002; Manning & Baruth, 2000). This means they are written and designed from a white
American mainstream cultural perspective that doesn’t represent the population or actual
lives of many people. Curriculum developers and government recognize the need to represent
all children accurately. The latest reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) identified three priorities:

• Rigorous and fair accountability

Who Is the American Child Today? Chapter 3

• Meeting diverse learner needs

• Greater equity to provide equal opportunities for student success (U.S. Department of
Education, 2010)

The ESEA emphasizes the need to improve education to be more inclusive of children with
disabilities, second language learners, migrant and homeless children, native and rural popu-
lations, and those who are neglected or delinquent.

Diversity and Cultural Relativism
Despite a long-standing effort in teacher education programs to help prospective teachers
develop cultural sensitivity to the children they will teach, misunderstandings and inaccu-
rate assumptions about children and their families remain a challenge (Han, West-Olatunji, &
Thomas, 2010). Teachers can become more culturally sensitive by reflecting on and identifying
the ways in which their own racial identities affect their beliefs and practices (Lee & Dalmon,
2008). Essentially, this means that you think about your own experiences and attitudes in
relation to those of others whose ethnicity, culture, and traditions are different from what is
familiar to you. You can develop empathy with your students and families and incorporate
their perspectives into your curriculum by:

• Encouraging the children to share stories about their personal experiences (Lake, 2010)
and sharing your own stories with them

• Modeling and affirming respect for differences (Manning & Baruth, 2000)

• Incorporating activities that reflect the home culture and language of the children you
teach (Hull, Goldhaber & Capone, 2002)

• Creating and developing reciprocal relationships with families (Hull, Goldhaber, &
Capone, 2002)

Table 3.2: American Children under the Age of 18

Percent of
Children

Under Age 18
(total number
74.1 million)

Ethnicity:
Percent of First-

and Second-
Generation
Immigrant
Children

(total number
17.3 million)

Percent of
Children
Living in

Poverty (total
percent of
population

22%)

Percent of
Children Living

with Two
Married
Parents

White 56 17.5 13 71

Black 15 8.6 38 33

Hispanic 22 51.0 32 60

Asian/Pacific
Islander

4 22.6 14 85

American or
Alaskan Native
American

Less than 1 Less than 1 35 No data

All other races 4 No data No data No data

Note: The next U.S. Census will occur in 2020. Visit the following website for more information: https://www.census.gov/2020census.
Source: U.S. 2010 Census Data.

https://www.census.gov/2020census

Who Is the American Child Today? Chapter 3

Expectations for Children

Demographic statistics can certainly provide a general image of American children, especially
if you look beyond national reporting to your state or local level (see www.KidsCount.org).
Teachers know, however, that certain policies and conditions also affect the ways in which
children are described and how they, in turn, experience curriculum. In early childhood, three
things that affect how children are viewed are the concept of school readiness, learning stan-
dards, and the achievement gap.

Readiness and Developmentally Appropriate
Practice
One way in which children are described is in terms
of readiness, most notably kindergarten readiness,
but also at any age level or in other terms whereby
children may be excluded from an age/class group
based on a judgment that they do not have the
prerequisite knowledge or skills to meet expecta-
tions. Readiness means that a child has mastered
certain skills and dispositions towards learning in
order to be considered “typical” and eligible for
entry. Readiness criteria can be anything from being
toilet-trained and thus ready for entry to a 3-year-old
class to being able to sit still and pay attention for a
specified period of time for kindergarten. Currently
at least thirty-four states continue to require testing
for entry to kindergarten (Education Commission of
the States, 2018).

Long-term research findings show, however, that
readiness tests in terms of predictive value are
largely unreliable (Ackerman & Barnett, 2005).
Hence the image of children as “ready” or “not
ready” has been a big issue in early childhood edu-
cation. The National Association for the Education
of Young Children asserts that the schools or pro-
grams and the curriculum in use should be “ready”
and responsive to children rather than the other way

around (NAEYC, 1995). One of the primary features of all the major early childhood curricu-
lum approaches and models previewed in Chapter 2 is an image of the child that isn’t depen-
dent on externally imposed readiness criteria.

Learning Standards
Closely related to readiness is increasing use of early learning standards and explicit expecta-
tions about what a child should know and be able to do at a particular point in time. Because
of the developmental orientation of early childhood as a field, advocates work with states to
ensure that expectations are framed to accommodate individual variations among children.
Otherwise the image of a “typical” child might be defined too narrowly.

Standards are used not only to describe what children should learn but also to guide the
development of state-by-state standardized tests used to assess the effectiveness of teach-
ers and curriculum. Curriculum developers refer to standards in order to design content

Classrooms should contain materials and offer
experiences that reflect the diversity of the
class and provide them with opportunities to
learn about the many ways in which Americans
are diverse.

http://www.KidsCount.org

http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/PSREADY98.PDF

Who Is the American Child Today? Chapter 3

and activities that align with their stated expectations. You will see in later chapters how
teachers use standards to plan and evaluate curriculum activities with individual children
in mind.

As explained in Chapter 1, the language of standards expresses both broad outcomes and
more detailed descriptions of expectations. However, early educators take care not to inter-
pret standards as suggesting an ideal image of what a child should be like but rather try to use
them to support the learning of each child as a unique individual. As you look at the examples
in Table 3.3, which contains sample statements from the Infant/Toddler Guidelines and Early
Learning Standards for 3–5 Year Olds, used in South Carolina, you can see that the language
can be interpreted broadly and inclusively.

Table 3.3: Sampling of Infant/Toddler and 3- to 5-Year-Old Early Learning
Standards for Language Development

Standard Detail (Subcriteria)

Infants: 6 to 18
months

Understanding language:

The child will comprehend
the message of another’s
communication

In the beginning of this period, I recognize the names of
familiar objects and people. By the end of this period, I show
understanding of an adult’s simple requests and of state-
ments referring to the present situation.

Toddlers: 16 to 36
months

In the beginning of this period, I show understanding of
adults’ simple requests and of statements referring to the
present situation. By the end of this period, I understand
my caregiver’s more abstract and complex statements and
requests that refer to positions in space, ideas, feelings, and
the future.

3-Year-Olds

The child will begin to
read and comprehend a
variety of literary texts
in print and nonprint
formats.

I explore realistic books and materials in classroom centers.

I listen to simple stories, songs and rhymes.

4-Year-Olds I show interest in informational texts about familiar objects.

I make relevant comments or appropriate responses to story
events or characters.

5-Year-Olds I summarize the main idea and details from literacy texts
read aloud.

I use pictures and words to make predictions regarding a
story read aloud.

Source: South Carolina Early Learning Standards; Retrieved from http://childcare.sc.gov/main/docs/gsgs_finalbook_022608 ; South
Carolina Infant-toddler Guidelines. Retrieved from http://childcare.sc.gov/main/docs/SCInfantToddlerGuidelines .

The Achievement Gap
When expectations in standards are tied to state testing processes, children who consistently
do not achieve the desired outcomes fall into the so-called achievement gap. States report
test scores on a continuum, with descriptors such as below basic, basic, or proficient (National
Report Card ). State and federal monies for many supplemental programs and Title 1 funding
are reserved for those with high numbers of children in the achievement gap. Consequently
the labeling of individuals, groups of children, or even entire schools as underachievers is a
sensitive issue.

While students need and deserve to be assessed and evaluated so that teachers can provide
them with appropriate support, NAEYC and other early childhood advocacy groups insist that

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/

Who Is the American Child Today? Chapter 3

these processes should view children first in terms of what they know and can do. The core
principles of the 2011 Reaffirmed NAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct clearly promote positive
and respectful images of young children. They suggest that we:

• Appreciate childhood as a unique and valuable stage of the human life cycle

• Base our work on knowledge of how children develop and learn

• Appreciate and support the bond between the child and family

• Recognize that children are best understood and supported in the context of family,
culture, community, and society

• Respect the dignity, worth, and uniqueness of each individual (child, family member,
and colleague)

• Respect diversity in children, families, and colleagues

• Recognize that children and adults achieve their full potential in the context of rela-
tionships that are based on trust and respect (NAEYC, 2005, p. 1)

Individual Stressors

Today’s young children are probably unaware of the arguments over how they should be
tested, measured, categorized, and labeled. But they develop a self-image and are influenced
by interactions with their families, immediate environments, peer groups, and teachers. They

are also not oblivious to the hardships
and challenges they may encounter as a
result of socioeconomic conditions, family
dynamics, and the pressure to be success-
ful in school.

In the Hurried Child (2001), psychologist
David Elkind asserts that today’s child is
overscheduled, overtested, overfed, and
overmarketed; pressured to grow up too
soon; and denied the pleasures of being
a child. Elkind describes this child as the
“Superkid, with precocious powers, even
as an infant” (p. xvi), a victim of “over-
whelming stress borne of rapid, over-
whelming social change and constantly
rising expectations” (p. 3).

Early childhood classrooms and care set-
tings offer opportunities for teachers to
create environments without these kinds
of pressures—places where children can
be children, with the teacher’s image of
each one constructed from interactions
with that child. Having reasonable devel-

opmentally appropriate expectations without imposing or projecting adult issues onto chil-
dren is a significant priority for preschool teachers. The remainder of this chapter is devoted
to practical suggestions about how this is to be done.

Even young children today experience numerous stress-
ors, including increasing academic pressure.

How Do Teachers Individualize the Curriculum? Chapter 3

3.3 How Do Teachers Individualize the Curriculum?
In later chapters, we discuss teaching strategies for implementing different aspects of the cur-
riculum. In this section, we concentrate on strategies and practices that specifically address
getting to know your students and developing the objective eye that enables you to approach
curriculum decisions that will best serve the specific children you teach.

Introductions

Philosopher John Locke (Chapter 1) believed that each baby begins life as a “blank slate” on
which all of later experiences are written. Teachers can apply this concept to their own experi-
ence. The teacher might greet each child thinking, “I can’t wait to meet you and get to know
you!” or “I wonder what interesting and amazing things you will do today!” As you make
plans to meet the seventeen children we described in the opening vignette, let’s look at some
ways you might gather information about them so as to “start from scratch” with each child.

Home Visits
Consider that meeting a new teacher, entering the child-care or school setting for the first
time, or changing classroom groups can be scary for children! It is therefore advisable to
schedule and conduct home visits so that your initial meeting will be in surroundings famil-
iar to the child. A home visit can ease the
child’s transition from home to school
and give you a chance to see the context
in which the child operates outside of
school. You can develop valuable insights
about children that demystify some of
the characteristics they show at school,
such as shyness, independence, a bois-
terous or subdued personality, and social
skills. A home visit also tells the family
and child that you are interested in them
and that you want to develop a positive
relationship.

A home visit should focus on developing
initial rapport with the child, but it also
gives a parent or guardian the opportu-
nity to ask questions or have an initial
conversation about any particular con-
cerns or goals they have for their child.
Some families may not be comfortable with a “teacher visit” because of family circumstances,
logistics, or negative past experiences with teachers or schools. In those cases, suggesting
a visit to school or “neutral territory” such as a neighborhood café or the public library can
work.

Things you can do to engage the child on a home or preliminary visit include:

• Bringing along a small gift (such as a seashell with the child’s name on it to welcome
him or her to the “Seashell” class at preschool)

A home visit can ease the child’s transition to school and
provide the teacher with information that can be helpful
in personalizing the curriculum.

How Do Teachers Individualize the Curriculum? Chapter 3

• Reading a story (a favorite book at home or one you bring with you)

• Playing an age-appropriate game (or with a toy the child suggests)

• Taking the child’s picture (for later use in the classroom)

• Taking a picture of the child and his or her family (for later use in the classroom)

Some programs, like Head Start, incorporate home visits as part of the program (Administration
for Children and Families, 2012). If your school or program does not do so, try to work with
the child’s caregiver to find a time and place that is satisfactory. Thirty minutes is a reason-
able time to allow for a visit; less doesn’t give you enough time to interact substantively, and
more may put undue stress on the family or child. One teacher described the home visits she
conducts as

a window on the world of my prospective students that I find invaluable; it isn’t always
easy to find the time to visit, but it makes the beginning of the year so much easier, as
I get a feel for what each child is like and ideas for what to do in the first few days of
school to help them feel comfortable and excited about being in my class. (Personal
interview, August, 24, 2011)

Interest Inventories
An interest inventory is a questionnaire constructed to collect information about children’s
routines and habits, likes and dislikes, interests, and even fears or anxieties. The inventory
can be given to parents or guardians before the child enters your class or care group or can
be conducted as a phone conversation or email correspondence. Especially with children who
are preverbal, knowing some personal information about a child’s preferences ahead of time
can give you a “short list” of ideas or strategies to try to help the child settle in with you in
the first few days.

Over the long term, having an idea about what the children in your group or class are inter-
ested in can be invaluable. As you plan activities, pick curriculum themes, and choose mate-
rials and books for activity centers, knowing something about the children’s interests takes
some of the guesswork out of planning how to engage them in the curriculum.

Personal Interviews
With children who are old enough to converse and especially when a home visit is not practi-
cal, a one-on-one interview with each new child can be helpful to obtain the kind of informa-
tion described above. Think of it as finding “quality time” for each child in your care, not just
when you first meet the child but on a regular basis thereafter. Many times children reveal
information only once they have developed a trusting and open relationship with their care-
giver or teacher. The earlier a trusting relationship can be established, the sooner the teacher
or caregiver can get the information needed to effectively plan curriculum activities and goals.
“Face time” with individual children is essential so that you learn, for example, what moti-
vates or inspires them to good behavior, why they may be struggling socially, or how they are
responding to the curriculum.

Preparing the Classroom to Represent the Children in It

As you prepare your classroom or care setting to receive and welcome new children, one
of your primary objectives should be to represent the actual children and their families as
authentically as possible. You can use the pictures you took on your home visit (or on the first

How Do Teachers Individualize the Curriculum? Chapter 3

day of school if that wasn’t possible) in a
number of ways, including:

• Making or using frames and dis-
playing each child’s picture in the
classroom. Picture frames are valu-
able because their use conveys a
“hidden curriculum” message that
what is in them is important.

• Assembling a book of pictures of
all the children, with a short story
about each child based on informa-
tion you collected in your inven-
tories or interviews. Read it often
and consider it part of your literacy
curriculum. For children who are
not native English speakers, pro-
vide the story in the child’s home
language as well as English. If you
don’t speak the child’s home language, ask the parents to help you translate or use an
online text translator tool (e.g., https://translate.google.com/).

• Using a picture and the child’s printed name to label the storage place for his or her
personal belongings and/or classroom work cubby.

• Starting a small scrapbook or photo album for each child and family that the child can
add to as time goes on. Having their families “with them” at school can help children
manage separation from their families or a difficult day.

• Making a collage of all the children’s family photos. This contributes to developing a
sense of community, as it is personalized to the actual families in your class.

• Printing out the pictures of the children in “index” format (multiple small images on
a single sheet of paper). Laminate them or cover them with clear contact paper so
that they will be durable, and use or hide them in places around the classroom so the
children will find themselves and their friends unexpectedly. For example, they can be
put in the sand table, taped onto the sides of blocks, on the backs of chairs or puzzle
pieces, inside lunchboxes, and so on.

• Indicating each child’s birthday with a photo on the classroom calendar.

• Putting Velcro or another fastener on the back of the child’s picture and creating a
“here” and “not here” chart that the children can manage independently to announce
their arrivals and departures.

• Making a matching “lotto” game using the children’s pictures. This is a game with
pictures arranged in a grid and a set of individual pictures that children place on top of
the matching image.

“One Size Does Not Fit All”

As explained in Chapter 1, the factory model of schooling involves a “one size fits all”
approach, assuming all children need or should work on the same thing at the same time,
with an expected uniform mastery of skills. As some early childhood curricula in use today

Representing actual rather than generic children is an
important strategy for constructing an authentic image.

https://translate.google.com/

How Do Teachers Individualize the Curriculum? Chapter 3

are designed from this perspective, it can be especially challenging to construct an individual
image of each child when you are expected to deliver a curriculum for a large group. A
curriculum with preprinted worksheets or workbooks and commercial artwork or graphics
that represent “generic” children may or may not accurately represent the children in your
class. Moreover, such activities are generally considered developmentally inappropriate for
preschool-aged children (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009, p. 154). If the curriculum does not
represent the children in your class, the “hidden curriculum” can confuse children when they
don’t see images that depict how they view themselves, or it can contribute to construction
of an “outsider” image that makes children less likely to engage with literature and activities.

In this type of circumstance teachers and caregivers can ensure the individual engagement of
children by:

• Supplementing commercial curriculum materials with photos of the children from the
class/group and real-life materials that represent their cultures and life experiences.

• Finding ways to connect stories and activities to experiences relevant and meaningful
to the children in the class or group.

• Balancing required whole-group activities with one-on-one time for each child.

Fostering Independence

A primary goal of early childhood education is helping each child to become independent
(Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). The concept of independence is obviously relative to a child’s
age, environmental awareness, language facility, and physical strength. We wouldn’t assume
that a 3-year-old can cross a street, bake cookies, or operate mechanical equipment safely

without assistance. But there are many
things we can do to guide the develop-
ment of self-help skills and involve chil-
dren in classroom routines that foster a
sense of responsibility and an “I can do it”
attitude. Furthermore, the teacher who
wants to create a supportive classroom or
home-care community understands that
independence happens more surely and
quickly with careful planning.

Promoting Responsibility, Account-
ability, and Organization
Sometimes we do things unconsciously
that reinforce child dependency. There
are certainly products and tools that for
safety purposes must be stashed safely
out of a child’s reach. However, when
you store classroom materials in locations
that are inaccessible to the children, they

always have to ask you to get them out and put them away. Each time that happens, it takes
time away from your focus on instructional priorities and conveys a message to the children
that you don’t believe them capable or helpful. You might want to store the materials in this

Limiting choices and storing one material per space helps
children to know where each item belongs.

How Do Teachers Individualize the Curriculum? Chapter 3

way because you think that the children won’t care for them properly, but even children as
young as age 2 can use materials and put them back where they belong.

The key is organization and logical, thoughtful arrangements, an idea first put forth by
Montessori and an important feature of developmentally appropriate practice (Copple &
Bredekamp, 2009). Many of the things we can do to involve children in access to classroom
materials can also be structured to teach and reinforce important concepts, such as matching
and sorting.

Here are some suggestions to provide children with direction and encourage them to be help-
ful and involved in care of the classroom or care setting:

• Make one space for each material. A child will find it much easier to put a truck away
when there is one clear space reserved for it.

• Provide picture, symbol, or cutout silhouette labels on shelves so that children know
where items are to be replaced.

• Explain your expectations for how
to manage materials and routines. If
children are to meet the classroom
expectations, they need to know
what those expectations are.

• Store bulk materials in clear con-
tainers with picture labels that
indicate what belongs in each one.
For example, you can cut pictures
out of product catalogs that match
each material and tape the pictures
on the outside of the container.
Children old enough to manage
scissors can help with this job and
often enjoy doing so.

• If your budget for classroom stor-
age equipment or shelving is lim-
ited, many affordable options are
still available, such as plastic stack-
able crates, cement blocks, and
boards. Avoid large toy storage
boxes or containers that encourage
dumping.

• In dramatic play areas, hang only
one piece of dress-up clothing per hook or hanger. Line up shoes. Organize pots and
pans, dishes, utensils, and play food with diagrams or picture labels to indicate where
they belong.

• Use color-coded storage for markers, crayons, paints, and other art materials.

• Assign or allow children to self-select age-appropriate classroom helper responsibilities
for everything you can think of that they would be capable of doing themselves. Make
a picture chart that clearly indicates each job and who is responsible for it.

Children who are involved in classroom care routines
develop a sense of ownership, empowerment, and iden-
tity as members of a community.

How Do Teachers Individualize the Curriculum? Chapter 3

Self-Help Skills
Similarly, developing the ability to tend to their personal needs provides young children with
a sense of independence and pride. There are many ways in which self-help routines can be
incorporated into classroom activities. For example, times of the day when children arrive and
leave, lunch, nap, and hygiene routines include many personal tasks that children can learn to
manage by themselves.

Practical items for mealtimes like “sippy cups” give tod-
dlers the chance to develop grasping and control of a cup
without having to deal with the spills that would other-
wise occur. Other things that you can do to help children
learn how to take care of themselves include:

• Making photo charts that display step-by-step direc-
tions, using the children in the class to model things
like hand washing and entry and departure routines.
Teach the children a simple song that will help them
to time how long to soap, rinse, and so on.

• Asking parents to dress children who are being toilet-
trained in pull-up pants or other clothing that is easy
for them to remove and put back on without help.
Similarly, ask for shoes, jackets, and other clothing
that children can manage with a minimum of adult
assistance.

• Asking parents to send nap/rest-time supplies in an
open tote bag with a simple snap closure so children
can pack and unpack themselves. Fully zippered back-
packs and book bags often require adult assistance,
and managing them can be very frustrating for young
children.

• In programs where children bring their own lunches,
provide a place mat that is diagrammed with places
to put their utensils, cups, and food containers.

• For older preschoolers, rather than having adults
serve snacks, set up the snack area as a self-serve
area with picture instructions for how much they may
take, what utensil to use, and so on.

Balancing Child-Initiated and Teacher-Directed Choices

We want to imagine young children as “problem solvers” because children benefit from being
allowed to make choices that they and we consider important in many ways. They can learn
about cause and effect in a way that is personally meaningful. When they see that adults
not only trust them to make choices but hold them accountable in consistent, reasonable,
and logical ways, they become more confident. Our image of them as decision makers is also
informed by observing what they are able to do unassisted and the kind of initiative they
exhibit independently. The keys to balancing when and how children can make decisions are
good judgment, intentional role modeling, and a thorough understanding of each child’s
capabilities and interests.

Materials like the Montessori dressing
frames can be regularly incorporated
in classroom activities, thus helping
children develop the fine motor skills
needed to manage their clothing.

How Do Teachers Individualize the Curriculum? Chapter 3

Developing Self-Regulation and Problem-Solving Skills
Learning to make decisions is a developmental process. With young toddlers, you make sure
there are several baby dolls, for example, because deciding to share is not something we
expect from them yet. You might, however, give the same toddler two equally acceptable
choices for snack. The child must choose one and set aside the other and thus begins to
understand what making a choice means. Since toddlers are also typically beginning to under-
stand the power of the word no, the two-choice strategy can be very helpful when they
refuse to do something. When we tell the child who refuses to put on his shoes that he can
put them on now and go outside to play immediately or sit with you and watch his friends
play until he puts them on, we let him know he has a choice but that no isn’t one of them.
Thus a power struggle is avoided.

If you want children to see themselves as problem solvers as they get older, then you have to
intentionally teach them how to resolve conflicts in a way they can manage themselves. Let’s
say you observe two children arguing over what to do next while building a block structure.
Telling the children what to do next eliminates any opportunity for them to make a decision.
Instructing them to “use your words” to solve the problem is also useless if they don’t under-
stand what that means. However, if you model and practice a conflict-resolution process as a
regular part of your curriculum and set aside a designated place for problem solving, with a
special name such as the peace table or problem-solving spot, you can turn over control for
resolving the issue to them with a reasonable expectation that they will be successful.

Once children are at the peace table, let them know they are to follow a certain process.
The process might go something like this: (1) the children take turns speaking, (2) each child
states his or her idea of what the problem is, (3) each child offers a solution, (4) they agree to
accept one or more of the solutions, and (5) they offer one another a gesture of friendship to
conclude the process (Southern Poverty Law Center, 1997). Creating a picture chart (Figure
3.3) or other kind of diagram with a movable indicator can help move the children through
the problem-solving steps. Also let them know that they need to consult with you only if they
reach an impasse or if the solutions they offer aren’t reasonable and safe.

Figure 3.2: Step-by-Step Photo Instructions

Step-by-step instructions for classroom routines are especially meaningful if the photos used
picture children from the group.

When I Come In
1. Post Picture 3. Sign-in2. Put Lunch Away 4. Wash Hands

How Do Teachers Individualize the Curriculum? Chapter 3

Developing Executive Functioning
Young children can be included in making decisions and solving problems that enhance or are
consistent with your curriculum objectives in ways that also promote executive functioning.
In particular, giving children opportunities to make decisions that involve planning promotes
higher-order thinking because it requires processing mental “what-if” scenarios.

For example, two teachers, Jane and Mary, were planning a summer field trip and picnic to
a city park with their group of 5-year-olds. The children had visited the park once before.
Jane had recently broken her ankle and was in a wheelchair. When one of the children asked,
“How will Miss Jane get to the park in her wheelchair?” a “Miss Jane Committee” of children
was formed to deal with logistical issues.

The big planning question was, “What kind of things might make it difficult for Miss Jane to
get around in the wheelchair?” The children remembered that the park had both sidewalks
and gravel pathways. They knew there was a step to get on the city bus. They didn’t think
Miss Jane could carry her purse, water bottle, sunscreen, and camera and use both her hands
for the wheelchair at the same time. They also worried that the sidewalks and pathways might
not provide shade on a hot, sunny afternoon and that she might not be able to get to the area
of the park where the playground was. A big question was the location of the handicapped-
accessible bathroom.

The teachers helped the children make a list of the challenges and brainstorm possible solu-
tions and recommendations, which they reported to the whole class. After much discussion,
the class decided that:

• The two strongest children in the class would be in charge of pushing the wheelchair.

Figure 3.3: Problem Solver

A hands-on prop can be very helpful to children who are trying to resolve a conflict because it
helps them to manage the steps in the process. Note that this example uses clip art, but a prop that
used photos of the children would be even better.

How Do Teachers Individualize the Curriculum? Chapter 3

• They designated one child to be responsible for all of Miss Jane’s personal belongings
and to pack all of her supplies in a cloth grocery bag and tie it to the handles of the
wheelchair. She was also responsible for getting Miss Jane’s things in and out of the
bag when they were needed.

• They borrowed a large golf umbrella from one of the other teachers to provide shade.

• They asked Miss Jane to help them make a phone call to the city bus company to find
out how they would get the wheelchair on the bus.

• They found a map of the city park from the previous visit and plotted out the best
route to get Miss Jane from the bus stop to the playground and to the bathroom.

• They practiced pushing Miss Jane’s wheelchair up and down the hallway and all
around the classroom and playground to learn how to navigate turns, slopes, and
uneven surfaces.

• They also decided to give Miss Jane some
notepaper and a pen to write down any-
thing at the park that they didn’t think of
for “next time.”

The teachers obviously could have identified these
challenges and planned how to deal with them,
but they also knew that the children had plenty
of prior knowledge about the park. And because
they saw the children as problem solvers and had
modeled different decision-making strategies with
them, the teachers felt that the children could col-
laborate to anticipate and plan for what might
happen.

After the trip, a debriefing session focused on the
importance of the children’s planning to the suc-
cessful outcomes of the trip. During several sub-
sequent trips to other city parks, unanticipated
problems were encountered from time to time,
but the children solved them; they even ended up
tutoring a new bus driver about how to use the lift
(Personal interview, June 30, 2011).

To involve children in regular opportunities to
develop and practice planning strategies, your
classroom helper chart might include responsibili-
ties like

• Choosing the read-aloud stories and rest-time
music for each day of the week

• Planning the weekly snack menu from a list of available choices

• Reporting on the weather in terms of what kind of clothing will be needed for outdoor
time

• Deciding when the classroom plants and garden need to be watered

• Announcing transition times

We reinforce the image of children as problem
solvers when we allow and encourage them to
deal with real-world challenges.

How Do Teachers Individualize the Curriculum? Chapter 3

Finding Joy in School

As you make decisions about how to organize your classroom, involve young children in
problem solving, display their work products, and report their progress, you demonstrate to
the rest of the world how you view your students and what you think they are capable of.
Your classroom or care setting can be a cheerful or somber place, and the children’s faces will
reflect the kind of setting they are in. Finding and expressing joy in your daily interactions with
children can make the difference between children who believe in themselves as strong and
optimistic about the future and those who plod through their days in care or school feeling
helpless and disengaged.

The Inner Child
One of the ways you can find joy in teaching is to regularly revisit your own inner child. As
teachers plan activities and work with curriculum, they need to think about goals, objectives,
and logistical arrangements. Equally important, however, is to consider how children will
experience the curriculum. Even though we understand theoretically why a child stands end-
lessly at the water table, pouring water back and forth, we may not remember or appreciate
the tactile satisfaction which is part of that experience. The wonder that we see on a young
child’s face the first time he sees a monarch butterfly emerge from its cocoon or discovers that
yellow and red paint combine to make orange may be long forgotten in our own memory. So
get down on the floor or sit beside your children and participate! A child who seems reluctant
to smear finger paint across a wet paper will be much more likely to take the risk if you do
it too. Teachers regularly structure activities for children or put materials in front of children
and ask or expect the children to use them. The teacher who experiences curriculum with the
children is in a better position to make decisions about how to engage and support them.

Experiencing the curriculum with the children will also help you understand the inner child in
each of the students you teach. Often that is the child you need to reach to really understand
how to make the curriculum work. Your first impressions will most likely span the gamut from
children who seem reluctant, curious, shy, enthusiastic, hostile, laid back, or ambivalent. The
teacher who is distant and aloof will never know who he or she is really working with; that
teacher’s image of the child will continue to be informed by what others say and by impres-
sions that may not accurately represent the child within.

Building trust requires connecting with each child on a personal level, so that they know you
care about them and what happens to them, are curious about what they think, and firm with
them when they need guidance. These things give children the emotional security they need
to share with you their impressions, confidences, questions, and fears—information you can
use to develop, adapt, and personalize whatever curriculum you use to best represent what
your children know and do.

Connecting Children with the Natural World
Last, part of our image of today’s children involves their need to be protected from a danger-
ous world. Children are constantly supervised in commercial outdoor spaces that are created
especially for them and include plastic, brightly colored structures, clearly defined boundar-
ies, and artificial turf. Gone are the days when children roamed the fields, dug in the dirt, or
were pushed out the door to play on the street or in the neighborhood until dusk or until the
streetlights came on.

Chapter Summary Chapter 3

Particularly in urban areas, many children are not familiar with natural space; they may think
that milk and vegetables “come from the grocery store,” and they may be frightened by
anything that crawls. Gary Nabhan and Stephen Trimble wrote that “many now consider chil-
dren’s experience of wildness a luxury rather than a basic human need” (1994, p. xiii). In Last
Child in the Woods (2008) Richard Louv goes so far as to say that children are suffering from
“nature-deficit disorder.”

In a later chapter we will address outdoor curriculum in greater detail, but it is relevant to
consider here the importance of structuring an image of the future child who is connected to
the natural world. As neuroscience continues to reveal the complexities of how children pro-
cess stimuli and experiences, early childhood educators also realize that active outdoor play is
instrumental in the development of psychological health, cognition, and higher-order thinking
(Schiller, 2001). Outdoor curriculum can be justified not just because it promotes development
but also for esoteric reasons and the reconstruction of a lost image of children that early child-
hood educators would like to regain (Wirth & Malcusak, 2012).

Chapter Summary
• Images of children and childhood have changed greatly over the centuries, from por-

trayal as miniature adults and the property of others to the romanticized visions of
young children popular in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

• Societal values and science inform the ways we view children, and while we know
more about the ways they grow and develop than ever before, our image of children
today is complex and sometimes conflicted.

• Children are characterized and labeled alternatively as competent and dependent, at
risk and promising. Their development of gender identity is influenced by adult atti-
tudes and changing social standards.

• The diversity in our classrooms as well as conditions and policies imposed on teachers
have a great deal to do with how teachers view their students, who are increasingly
described in terms of readiness and achievement or lack thereof.

• Children today experience many stressors related to adult expectations and a child-
hood that feels rushed.

• There are many things teachers can do with curriculum to construct and portray
authentic images of the children they teach. These include (1) gathering information
about children’s families and interests; (2) using photographs and other objects to
represent the classroom community accurately; (3) personalizing the curriculum; and
(4) promoting independence, responsibility, and problem-solving skills.

• Finding ways to connect children with nature promotes physical and psychological
health.

Posttest Chapter 3

Posttest

1. Understanding the different ways children have been portrayed and described both
historically and currently is important because:

a. A teacher’s image of the child can be a more powerful influence on the way he or
she teaches than the theories and strategies he or she has been taught.

b. Curriculum materials should be chosen to reflect the idealized “generic” child, and
history tells us what that child is like.

c. Effective teachers use curriculum to mold children to the image society desires.

d. Society tends to perpetuate an image of children and childhood that is grounded in
reality, and it is the teacher’s job to be consistent with that.

2. Child advocates consider labeling used to describe children from a developmental per-
spective problematic because:

a. Schools and programs are dependent on funding that is tied to the way children
are categorized and described.

b. People who apply labels to children don’t understand what they mean.

c. Labels can prevent people from seeing the “whole child.”

d. Once children are labeled, they receive services and entitlements that other children
don’t receive.

3. An “at-risk” child is one who:

a. Shows no promise for success in school because the challenges are just too great to
overcome.

b. Enters the early childhood program with challenges but can be successful with tar-
geted support and encouragement.

c. Behaves with little regard for personal safety and must be supervised closely.

d. Traditionally experiences more success in school than a child who is not at risk.

4. According to NAEYC, in Developmentally Appropriate Programs, children are deemed
ready for entry to kindergarten when:

a. They can write their names and know all the letters of the alphabet.

b. They can sit still and listen for ten to fifteen minutes.

c. They are old enough to attend.

d. They pass a readiness test.

5. Teachers who model conflict-resolution skills and strategies for children and then encour-
age them to solve their own disagreements:

a. Risk losing control of the classroom because the children may become defiant.

b. Promote an image of children as problem solvers.

c. Must be careful that they do not use up too much instructional time for noninstruc-
tional activities.

d. Set the children up for failure because young children can’t solve problems on
their own.

Discussion Questions Chapter 3

6. Home visits provide the teacher with:

a. Information about which children come from the best families.

b. Enough data to know how to plan curriculum activities for the year.

c. All the information they need to group children for instruction.

d. Opportunities to establish reciprocal relationships with families.

7. Using routines as opportunities to promote self-help skills and independence:

a. Helps children think of themselves as competent.

b. Takes too much time away from instruction and is therefore not advisable.

c. Works only for children over the age of 3.

d. Are the only opportunities teachers have to work with each child individually.

8. One of the reasons children should have opportunities to play outdoors is that:

a. Teachers need time during the day for planning and assessment responsibilities.

b. It’s the only way to control the obesity epidemic.

c. Many children have lost the opportunity to connect with the natural world.

d. Schools invest a lot of money in playgrounds and it shouldn’t be wasted.

9. The role of adults in children’s gender identity development is closely associated with:

a. Parental and peer observations.

b. Stereotyping and power dynamics.

c. Familial history and genetics.

d. Fixed notions about sexual orientation.

10. Posing “what-if” scenarios to children is helpful for development of:

a. Executive functioning and higher order thinking.

b. Creativity and imagination.

c. A focus on thinking about the future.

d. An image of the child as obedient and compliant.

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

Discussion Questions

1. What is your image of the young child? What experiences or ideas influenced the con-
struction of this image?

2. How do you imagine we will perceive the child of the future, and how will curriculum
adapt?

3. Using the description of the seventeen imaginary children from the opening vignette,
describe how you would prepare for and welcome these children to your class.

Calculate the price of your order

Type of paper needed:

Pages:

You will get a personal manager and a discount.

Academic level:

We'll send you the first draft for approval by at

Total price:

$0.00

Power up Your Academic Success with the
Team of Professionals. We’ve Got Your Back.

Power up Your Study Success with Experts We’ve Got Your Back.

Order Now Order Now