Diversity And Equity

Professional Insights on Diversity and Equity

       Nowadays, classrooms everywhere are housing a plethora of cultures and language backgrounds. Nonetheless, our ability to respond effectively to the need of these diverse populations has been questioned. Immigrant, dual language learners, and children living in poverty tend to be behind their peers in academic performances. Elsewhere, research has demonstrated children’s academic performances as closely tied to family income as to parental education (Reardon, 2011). However, longitudinal studies of the Abecedarian Early Childhood Intervention, Perry Pre-Preschool, and Chicago Child-Parent Center have proven the positive impact of quality early education in overall low-income outcomes. Consequently, there is an increase scrutiny on educators to respond to the need of the diverse child population to enhance their academic and psychosocial development. In this paper, I will highlight some of the insights I have gained regarding the changing demographics and diversity in early education. Additionally, I will explore some of the issues relating to poverty, the unintended as well as intended consequences of the influences of economists, neuroscience, and politics on the field. Finally, I will discuss the issues of equity and excellence in care and education, families and early childhood professionals.   

Changing demographics and diversity

       The mobility of today’s societies has resulted in increasing diversity of the child population. As a field, we have come to grips with the fact that we must respond to the needs of these populations if we want their successful academic experiences and social integration. The National Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC], (2009) emphasizes that “early childhood programs are responsible for creating a welcoming environment that respects diversity, supports children’s ties to their families and community, and promotes both second language acquisition and preservation of children’s home languages and cultural identities” (p.1). In the quest to provide a responsive and fully accessible environment, early childhood experts have underscored the importance of a welcoming social, emotional and physical environment (Goode, 2009). In fact, educators must provide classroom materials that show awareness and respect of diversity (e.g., books that display cultures around the world, children of different physical and mental abilities, and foods from different cultures among others). Additionally, educators must examine their emotional environment (use of respectful and unbiased language, modeling of respect and tolerance, address racial, and gender prejudices among others). Equally as important is the educator’s comprehension of his or her own culture and the ways it affects their practices. Talbert-Johnson, 2006 tells us “teachers’ assumptions and perceptions of their students are as important as their pedagogical knowledge” (as cited, Dessel, 2010, p. 414).

       Furthermore, the changing demographics necessitate both educators and parents take an active role in building cultural competence in children. In fact, experts tell us parents can teach respect, tolerance and acceptance by: (a) validating children’s natural curiosity about physical differences and provide thoughtful unbiased answers, (b) modeling cultural sensitivity and respect, (c) paying attention to children’s play and provide opportunities to expand their understanding of cultural differences; (d) addressing racial and prejudicial remarks and teach critical thinking about race and prejudices, (e) introducing new language and items from other cultures and create opportunities for children to build relationships with people from different cultures (Barrera, Gonzalez-Mena, Moore, Derman-Sparks, & Pulido-Tobiasse, 2005).

       As a professional in the field, I have come to the realization that I need to be more culturally competent and therefore, I am taking active steps to improve my practices. For instance, I evaluated my environments and invested in culturally diverse displays. I introduced new food and cultural artifacts. Likewise, I improved our parent intake form to allow parents to inform us of cultural practices and share their cultures. I am continually looking at ways to bring in fresh ideas that can enhance our services.

       As a field, I believe, we need to improve the structures of our program to support the needs of diverse children by providing ample easy transitions to the families, bring in more culturally competent staff members and interpreters. We also need to provide opportunities for families to connect and build relationships with our programs and the mainstream population. Therefore, I believe responding to the needs of such a diverse child population entails that educators, parents, as well as program administrators share the responsibility of providing optimal growth and integration.

Poverty

       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 stressor 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. Through this course, I have gained insights of the ways a comprehensive and dual generational approach can enhance development. I have compiled a list of community services (e.g., respite centers, food shelters, parent education and development services among others) that can help families living in poverty.  I have a better understanding of the issues relating to poverty (homelessness, immigration, lack of parental education among others).

       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 compasionate about the children’s issues. Ultimately, educators have to be willing to change their teaching to individually respond to the child’s needs.

The influences of economics, neuroscience, and politics

       Studies have demonstrated the high return rate of investing in early education. More recently, the Heckman Equation (invest+ develop+ sustain = gain) has dominated the fray on the reasons early education should be prioritized (Institute for a Competitive Workforce, 2010). Likewise, the findings from neuroscience have underscored the importance of quality early relationships in brain development, healthy psychosocial development and academic performances (Center on the Developing Child at Harvard, 2010). This potential, early education has in providing a “head start” especially for low-income families, has both advantages and drawbacks. One of the advantages is the recognition that “a vital and productive society with a prosperous and sustainable future is built on a foundation of healthy child development” (National Symposium on Early Childhood Science and Policy, 2008, p. 1). Hence, in an effort to build and sustain quality, many states have developed learning standards and quality rating systems that centers on improving teacher education and compensations, children’s outcomes through assessment and planning, parental engagement and involvement, and accountability and improvement of systems.

       Nevertheless, this new interest and investment in the field has unintended consequences that can be damaging to healthy development. Early childhood experts have voiced their concerns about the current penchant to push down curriculum (Laureate, Inc., 2011). In some classrooms or homes, this pressure dictated children as young as three are drilled among others methods that contradict developmentally appropriate teaching. Additionally standardized testing has gradually downplayed children’s right to enjoy and engage in play. Play is an innately driven practice that had proven to enhance all aspects of biosocial, cognitive, and psychosocial development (Almon, 2002). Even more alarming has been the fact that some states standards mostly address math, reading, and science. This approach goes against the common belief that children’s development should be viewed holistically by developing physical well-being, health, and motor development, social and emotional, approaches toward learning, cognitions and general knowledge, and language, communication and literacy (Kagan, Britto, Kauerz, & Tarrant, 2005). Furthermore, early educators and child advocates have highlighted the new insights from neuroscience that support child-centered curriculums. In fact studies on brain development have shown  “learning environments that provide student choice and empowerment of students, created through the utilization of hands-on, differentiated instruction allow children to be actively responsible for their learning, thus engaging several areas of the brain simultaneously” (Rushton & Juola-Rushton, 2008, p. 88) . Thus, despite the pressure to be globally competitive educators must ensure that children are provided with learning environments that respond to their individual needs and overall promote the love of learning.  

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). Therefore, 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. In addition, 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).

References

Almon, J. (2002). The Vital Role of Play in Early Childhood Education. Retrieved November 2011, from http://www.waldorfresearchinstitute.org/pdf/BAPlayAlmon.pdf

Barrera, R., Gonzalez-Mena, J., Moore, T., Derman-Sparks, L., & Pulido-Tobiasse, D. (2005). Visit the world with your child. Scholastic Parent & Child, 13(3), 44-50.

Buysse, V., Winton, P. J., & Rous, B. (2009). Reaching consensus on a definition of professional development for the early childhood field . Topics in early childhood special education, 28(4), 235-243.

Carter, M. (2008). Assessing quality: What are we doing? Where are we going? Exchange. Exchange, 184, 32-35.

Castle, K. (2009). What do early childhood professionals do? . Dimensions of Early Childhood, 37(3), 4-9.

Center on the Developing Child at Harvard. (2010). The foundations of lifelong health are built in early childhood. http://developingchild.harvard.edu/index.php/resources/reports_and_working_papers/foundations-of-lifelong-health/.

Dessel, A. (2010). Prejudice in schools: Promotion of an inclusive culture and climate. Education and Urban Society, 407– 429. doi:10.1177/0013124510361852

Goode, T. D. (2009). Promoting Cultural & Linguistic Competency: Self-Assessment Checklist for Professionnel Providing Services and Support in Early Intervention and Early Childhood Settings. 1-7. National Center for Cultural Competency.

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

Institute For A Competitive Workforce. (2010). Why business should support early childhood education. Retrieved from http://icw.uschamber.com/sites/default/files/ICW_EarlyChildhoodReport_2010.pdf

Kagan, S. L. (2009, April). American early childhood education: Preventing or perpetuatinginequity? Equity Matters: Research Review (3). Retrieved from Campaign for Educational Equity: http://www.equitycampaign.org/i/a/document/9833_EquityMatters_Kagan_Final.pdf

Kagan, S. L., Britto, P. R., Kauerz, K., & Tarrant, K. (2005). Early Learning and Development Benchmarks: A Guide to Young Children’s Learning and Development: From Birth to Kindergarten Entry. Retrieved from http://www.k12.wa.us/EarlyLearning/pubdocs/EarlyLearningBenchmarks.pdf

Laureate, Inc. (2011). Economists, Scientists, and Politicians Supporting the EC Field. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=6284767&Survey=1&47=9547876&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=1&bhcp=1

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2004). NAEYC Advocacy Tool Kit. Retrieved August 15, 2011, from http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/policy/toolkit.pdf

National Symposium on Early Childhood Science and Policy . (2008). The InBrief series: Early childhood program effectiveness. Retrieved from http://developingchild.harvard.edu/index.php?cID=135

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

Reardon, S. F. (2011). The Widening Academic Achievement Gap Between the Rich and the Poor: New Evidence and Possible Explanations. Retrieved from https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/reardon%20whither%20opportunity%20-%20chapter%205.pdf
Rushton, S., & Juola-Rushton, A. (2008). Classroom Learning Environment, Brain Research and The No Child Left Behind Initiative: 6 years Later (Vol. 36). Early Childhood Education Journal. doi:10.1007/s10643-008-0244-5

Shonkoff, J. P. (2006, June 16). A Promising Opportunity for Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics at the Interface of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Social Policy: Remarks on Receiving the 2005 C. Anderson Aldrich Award. Pediatrics, 118(5), pp. 2187-2191.