Equity and Excellence in Care and Education of Children, Families, and EC Professionals

The early childhood field has made tremendous strides in the last century. As societal concepts on child rearing and the increase demands of modern lives have changed so has the requirements of quality in care and education. More often than not, early education is seen as a magical panacea that can drastically improve children’s quality of lives and societal outcomes. This idea is not far-fetched, as research has demonstrated the positive impact early education can potentially have in the lives of children of racial, cultural and socio economic status.

The issues relating to equity in early care and education are complex and deeply rooted in the makeup of American society and government policies. Kagan, (2009) argued inequalities stem from: (a) socio-economic status, (b) ethnic and racial background, (c) parental education; (d) English language deficiencies, and (e) quality and infrastructure of programs among others. Access to quality is still a major issue for low-income, immigrant and dual language children. Some of the factors that hinder low-income families from accessing quality programs are: (a) lack of awareness, (b) lack program availability, (c) lack of transportation, and (d) unconventional work demands. More often than not, all the aforementioned causes are intrinsically related in some children’s lives. For instance, immigrant, English Language Learners, and minority students are more likely to live in poverty and perform well below their white peers in academic performances. As a field, we have the opportunity to change children’s lives. Therefore, it is imperative that we reach out to those families in need and improve their awareness and utilization of quality programs.

Elsewhere, by choosing to rightfully fund low-income families’ access to quality programs, states and governments have reduced middle and higher-income families’ access to quality programs due to income caps. Thus, access to quality is guaranteed neither by socio-economic status, by race nor by any other factor, for that matter. Therefore, some view universal pre-kindergarten as a gateway to helping the dis advantaged and providing equitable educational opportunities for all children (Kagan, 2009). Therefore, as a field we must make a concerted effort to reach out to the families and provide opportunities that meet their individual needs. We must strive for equal opportunity for all as our future competitiveness and overall psychosocial health and well-being are at stake.

 Another noteworthy issue that related to excellence in care, and education is the disparity in education requirements and compensation of early childhood professionals. The high turnover rates deeply affect the profession. In an effort to build and sustain quality, an emphasis should be laid on improving teacher compensations. Carter, (2008) warned that a “failure to increase teacher compensations can undermine quality as turnover, lack of motivation can constrain to quality (p. 33). Additionally, some experts argue, “[teachers’] competency in effective professional performance takes time, practice, development, and refinement” (Castle, 2009, p. 4). Thus, program administrators should allow teachers enough time for reflection, planning, professional development, and understanding of program structure. Similarly, some have underscored common sets of professional competencies and standards across the field (Buysse, Winton, & Rous, 2009).

The current trends and issues in changing demographics, neuroscience, politics, and economists will continue to influence early education in the years to come. Given the potential early education has in changing children lives; we must be able to respond to the individual needs of children and their families. Policies and procedures must consider the educational needs of children and provide easy access for families. We also need to take into account children’s best interests and developmentally appropriate practices in this high stake area. Ultimately, early education educators must advocate for the children, better wages, and the professional. As the National Association for the Education of Young Children stated:  “we can be change agents, or we can be the recipients of changes that we did not influence” (NAEYC, 2004).

Poverty and Child Development

Worldwide, the number of children affected by poverty is mounting. One in five children in the United States lives in poverty. More often than not poverty is accompanied by low parental education, unhealthy emotional and physical environment (e.g., child maltreatment, acute hunger, homelessness among others).
 Despite the warning from experts such as Gorski, (2008) that poverty does not necessarily translate to uninvolved, abusive and uncaring parenting, current research on the field that highlights poverty as a deterrent of healthy child development. In fact, poverty is classified as a toxic stress0r defined as “strong, frequent, and/or prolonged activation of the body’s stress-management systems” (Shonkoff, 2006, p. 2189). 
Additionally, some of the populations that have been affected by low achievement in academic performances and social emotional maturation are those living in poverty. Even more alarming is the argument that “children who slip into poverty, even for a short time, suffer long-term setbacks even when their families regain their economic footing” (Takanishi, as cited Novotney, 2010, para. 4). 

Consequently, as a professional in this field, I feel the urgency to gain knowledge in effectively responding to the need of these children. I believe addressing poverty entails that educators become well-versed in the current research, become aware of the community services that support and strengthen the families and above all become caring and compassionate about the children’s issues. Ultimately, educators have to be willing to change their teaching to individually respond to the child’s needs. 

Sources:

Gorski, P. (2008, April). The Myth of the culture of poverty. Educational Leadership, 32-36.

Novotney, A. (2010, September). The recession’s toll on children. Monitor on Psychology, 41(8), 42-45. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/09/recession.aspx