Effective Programs and Practices

       From the middle ages to modern times, societal perceptions of children and childhood per se have been steadily changing. We are far from the superficial and rather pejorative portrayals of children as being innately evil or innately good. Presently, we appreciate the fact “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). Furthermore, children’s enrollment in educational programs has been gradually increasing. In fact, between the years 2001-2002, “total enrollment for 4-year-olds has increased by 73% and increased by 45% for 3-year-olds (Epstein, Pruette, Priestly, & Lieberman, 2009, p. 8). Thus, parents, educators, and policy makers have emphasized the need to provide quality programs for children’s optimal growth. Elsewhere, the need for quality is accentuated by the fact that research has indicated that “investments in high-quality early childhood education can increase readiness for school and provide long-term social benefits, particularly for low income and minority children and those whose parents have little education” (Olson, 2005, p. 2). Hence, it is widely accepted that quality childcare goes beyond providing healthy and safe environment for children; it can potentially change their lives.

       This paper seeks to provide in-depth understanding of quality, effectiveness, and the way those concepts are reflected in early childhood programs. The indicators of quality discussed in this paper will center on building relationships and partnering with families, a child-centered, play based curriculum, and cultural and individual responsiveness. The examples, discussed in this paper, were observed from various programs I visited during this course and from my readings. Finally, I will reflect on what I have learned about program monitoring and standards in relations to quality and effectiveness and discuss the challenges and benefits of associated with the recommendations of the National Early childhood Accountability Task Force.

Definition of Quality and Effectiveness

       Despite the consensus for the need for quality early childhood programs, the term quality as such can have a variety of meanings depending on the program, the children served and the educational goals of the stakeholders. I believe that a high-quality program is an all-inclusive milieu that reinforces healthy social emotional and cognitive development, creativity, awareness, and openness. Nonetheless, some of widely indicators of quality programs for children are: (a) well-trained educated teachers and low staff turnover (b) healthy child teacher relationships, (c) whole child development, (d) assessment and intentional planning in support of learning (Olson, 2005).

Well-trained educator and Low staff turnover

       Teachers spend a great amount of time with children, planning the curriculum, responding to problem behaviors and communicating with families. Therefore, it is vital that teachers are trained in child development. High staff turnover can affect the quality of a program, especially when the program serves infants and toddlers. Infants and toddlers need to build secure relationships with their caregivers. Consequently, having multiple caregivers can affect attachment and ultimately healthy psychosocial development. Research has found that combination of well-educated, well-trained, and well-compensated teachers and low staff turnover among the cornerstones of quality in an early childhood setting (Galinsky, 2006).

Healthy child teacher relationships

       Research supports the claim that the quality of relationships, in a children’s environment significantly, affects their brain development (Shonkoff, 2006). In fact, within the realm of child development, it is widely accepted that teacher child-relationship has powerful effects on children’s learning. Therefore, a quality early childhood setting provides opportunities to build and strengthen healthy relationships between teachers, children, and families. This relationship is even more crucial when dealing with dual language learners because the teacher’s role is not only to build strong relationships with the individual children but also provide opportunities for them to interact and work with peers and adults (Macrina, Hoover, & Becker, 2009).

Assessment and intentional planning in support of learning

Understanding child development and the special needs of the individual children is vital in making a targeted impact in their education. In an effort to determine what those needs are, educators must use reliable assessment strategies. Early childhood educators must observe children and report their findings. Some of the widely used assessment strategies in early childhood programs are “results of teachers’ observations of children, clinical interviews, collections of children’s work samples, and their performance on authentic activities” (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2009, p. 22). This information allows educators to know the individual child and helps “pinpoint areas where children are in need of supports, and therefore can guide overall systems planning” (National Early Childhood Accountability Task Force [NECATF] , 2007, p. 10).

Curriculum that addresses whole child development

An effective early childhood programs uses a stimulating, child-centered, play-based curriculum that addresses physical well-being and motor development, social and emotional development; positive approaches to learning; language development and communication skills, cognition and general knowledge. Above all, it must utilize developmentally appropriate and individually responsive practices that take into account children’s cultural, linguistic and socio-economic backgrounds. A critical aspect of the curriculum should be the establishment of goals and a plan to target and accomplish those goals. In addition, programs should develop policies to ensure continual improvement through program assessment.

Quality and Effectiveness in Early Childhood Education Classroom Settings

        Besides, the above factors, through this course we have identified some of the cornerstones of a quality early childhood programs: (1) building relationships and partnering with families, (2) child-centered, play-based curriculum and (3) culturally responsive and individually appropriate practice. The following paragraphs will discuss how those practices can be reflected in programming.

Building relationships and partnering with families

       From this course, I learned the importance of building relationships and partnering with Families and the values and attitudes needed to build those relationships. Through my first observation, I visited a Head Start Program very similar to our center in the sense that over 85% of their students come from low to no income families. By nature, those families are more challenging to engage due to socio-economic status. Early childhood experts tell us that:

Achieving a strong family-program partnership requires a culture that supports and honors reciprocal relationships, commitment from program leadership, a vision shared by staff and families, opportunities to develop the skills needed to engage in reciprocal relationships, and practices and policies that support meaningful family engagement. (Halgunseth, Peterson, Stark, & Moodie, 2009, p. 1)

Therefore, family engagement should be reflected in all aspect of programing. During my visit at the Head Start program, I observed evidence of family involvement factors that are crucial in infant and toddlers development. The center developed a daily sheet that parents fill at arrival to inform teachers about the children’s health, mood, and all other relevant factors that could affect their days. In return, the teachers wrote details of what was happening to the child throughout the day (e.g., the last diaper change, the time, and duration of a nap, the amount of food the child ate and so on). In regards to infants and toddler, this is crucial for establishing a continuity of care, which is central to healthy development.

       As for preschool student related family involvement, I observed evidence of what Weiss, Caspe, & & Lopez (2006) describe as complementary learning. In fact, “participation with their children in activities such as arts and crafts is associated with children’s literacy development” (Weiss, Caspe, & Lopez, 2006, p. 2). The Head Start teachers developed a parent-child worksheet to give parents game ideas, materials and various activities they could do at home to enhance their children’s development. Moreover, I observed evidence of communication through the monthly newsletter, which described the major events that happened in the room (e.g., the children’s birthday celebrations, the recent field trip, a note of thanks to the families who volunteers in the classroom and so on). Complementary learning is as relevant in preschool as in primary age students learning.

Child-centered, play-based curriculum

From this course readings and discussions, I fully grasped the vitality of curriculums that provide ample time and space for child-directed and open-ended play in learning and physical health of children. Play is an innately driven practice that heightens all aspects of development. Besides, current research in the field of neuroscience and the recommendations from constructivist theorists support the significance of a child-centered curriculum for young children (Rushton & Juola-Rushton, 2008). In addition, “play provides the ultimate curriculum for social, physical, and cognitive advancement” Wardle (n. d.). In the video Child-Centered Learning in Practice (Laureate Inc., 2011), we observe how an infant toddler teacher builds a strong relationship based on trust by closely monitoring the child’s play. The teacher is down to the child’s level and allows her to not only explore with the toys but also build relationships with the other children. The teacher follows the child’s interest in playing peek-a-boo. She is playing peek-a-boo with the toys, the mirror, and changing the activity to make it more challenging therefore helping the child fully the concept of comprehend object permanence through play.

       As far as preschool children are concerned, curriculum should provide them with opportunities to interact with their physical as well as social environment in ways that elucidate their own understanding (Katz, 1987). I conducted an observation in a center accredited by the National Association of the Education of Young Children. The teachers engaged the children in higher order thinking. For instance, during breakfast a child noticed that the butter on his bagel was melting while the cream cheese was not. This fascinated her and raised questions in his mind. When he asked the teacher, she helped children understand the concept of melting in relevant and concrete examples from volcanoes, butter to snow. In addition, she directed the children to their science center, which had books about volcanoes, winter weather and so on. During this observation, the atmosphere of the center took me aback. It was relaxed and welcoming. The children were confident, initiated activities throughout the morning, and the sense of community of community was most enthralling for me as an early childhood educator.

           In regards to primary age students, a child-centered curriculum that highlights the importance of play is as vital in healthy development and learning as during the previous stages of development. In Child-Centered Learning in Practice (Laureate Inc., 2011), I noticed the way the teacher modified her learning environment from the tools used to measure (e.g., rulers, stuffed animals) to the learning environment (e.g., some were sitting at the table, some on the floor, others by the cupboards and so one). What appears to be children playing, laying on the floor and having fun is a true learning experiment that enabled the children to understand the concept of measurement. In addition, “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” (Rushton & Juola-Rushton, 2008, p. 2).

       Eventually, whether working with infants and toddlers, preschoolers or primary age students,   educators must understand the play is the essential component of a child-centered curriculum. Moreover, “while language, literacy, and math skills are important in today’s educational climate, it is important to remember that they are best learned in the context of a rich, exciting curriculum” (Feeney, 2006, p. 4).

Culturally responsive and individually appropriate practice

        Other indicators of quality are cultural responsiveness and individually appropriate practices. I strongly believe that children should feel empowered and respected regardless of cultural, language or socio-economic differences, physical abilities or disabilities. Watson & McCathren (2009) noted that the first step toward individual responsiveness is to identify potential barriers to children’s full participation in all aspects of learning. This step must be incorporated because understanding a child’s specific needs enables the educator to reexamine the physical, social emotional environment and offer relevant support for their development.

Cultural responsiveness enables the continuity of care, which is crucial when caring for infants and toddlers. My daughter went to a child development center accredited by our city. The teachers respected our culture and language (e.g., they read her books in French, spoon fed her even though contrary to American values of independence among others). Our family had strengths that the school not only recognized but allowed opportunities for us to share our culture with the other families. In addition, they respect our home language and provide diverse learning experiences. Together, we set out to teach her sign language became the common denominator between school and home.

        During my last observation, I witnessed individual responsiveness in practice. The teachers noticed that one of the preschool students “was very artistic”. They provided him with diverse sensory materials throughout the class to respond to his needs (e.g., an easel was set up with different colored paint, brushes and sponges of different shapes, cotton balls and according to the teacher change the supplies often to let him explore with different material). In these teachers’ approaches to learning, individual responsiveness did not stop in the classroom, they also set up the outdoor area with a sand and water table, a sandbox with different materials they believe would appeal to the child’s senses. In addition, the teachers closely work with parents during enrollment to make the children’s transition to the center as smooth as possible by asking parent to tell them about their child, family activities, beliefs and any considerations that should be included in their children’s education (T. Eder, personal communication, December 14, 2011).

       Concerning primary age students, individual and culturally responsive practices involve understanding that language deficit does not necessarily mean cognitive deficiency. Previous cultural and home experiences must be integrated into instruction to increase children’s outcomes (Rodd, 1996). In addition, educators need to provide numerous open-ended materials that can respond to varying needs, multiple communication ways of communication (repetition, reinforcing understanding through drawing, writing), and develop strategies to support integration. For example, in Integrated Assessments for ELL (Armon & Morris, 2008), Ms. Adams held one on one conferences with Emil, paired him with classmates and used concrete materials and objects (beans, eggs, plants, butterflies and took  the students to the local butterfly pavilion) to deepen his understanding of life cycle.

Ultimately, program effectiveness in individual and cultural responsiveness implies that teachers closely work with families and the individual children to assess the individual needs and consequently provide relevant learning opportunities that enhance their education.

Quality and Effectiveness: The Bigger Picture

       The early childhood field is very complex and it seems there is no consensus on the word quality per se. There is great variance in minimum standards between states (Laureate In., 2010). The NECATF (2007) noted that “the majority of early childhood settings do not provide “high-quality levels of teaching, learning, and developmental supports, typically due to inadequate resources and a workforce with low levels of formal training and compensation, and high rates of turnover” (NECATF, 2007, p. 13). Therefore, there is both a need to define quality and more importantly establish monitoring standards to improve program effectiveness across the different sectors of the field.

       In the pursuit of quality in children’s programs, the use of assessment to develop learning strategies and program improvement has been emphasized (NECATF, 2007). However, the NECATF (2007) goes on to caution that a reliable assessment takes into account the dynamic attributes of quality: (a) classroom environments, (b) teaching practices, and (c) learning opportunities. In addition, assessment should consider (a) variability in development and learning, (b) assess progress across the development spectrum, and (c) administer assessment appropriately, and (d) monitoring of programs (NECATF, 2007). Thus, the NECATF (2007) recommended: (1) the development of a unified system of early childhood education that includes a single, coherent system of standards, assessments, data, and professional development efforts across all categorical programs and funding streams and (2) the alignment of high-quality and comprehensive standards, curriculum, and assessments as a continuum from prekindergarten through grade.

       There are numerous challenges to high-quality education for all young children. Some of the challenges associated with the above recommendations are primarily financial in an era when programs are often struggling to break even. Some programs do not have the financial means to increase the educational level of their current staff or make the changes that enable full access for all children. As far as a unified assessment system, I would caution that the early childhood population, itself is vast and complex. In addition, development itself is dynamic, and there are many factors, such as language, culture, and socio-economic status, that can affect children’s development. The challenge related to this recommendation might be creating a suitable assessment that addresses the need of every child. Furthermore, meeting the needs of a cultural and individual diverse early childhood population will constitute a challenge in the years to come due to the ever-changing landscape of our programs. Moreover, in the realm of the field, we commonly agree that children’s education should be holistic, and yet there are limited efforts to bridge the gap that still exists between infant-toddler, preschool and kindergarten-primary grade education. We must recognize the continuum of early education and work closely with our school districts to align effective practices, learning standards and curricula.

       As our children’s future is at stake, we need common understanding. The above recommendations can potentially contribute to high-quality/effective programming because they advocate for more accountability across the spectrum. In addition, parents, program administrators, as well as policy makers need to understand the structure of an effective program. The potential benefits in terms of supporting the development of every child between the ages of birth and eight are numerous. Standardization brings awareness, professionalism to the field and sets the framework for targeted improvement efforts that make a difference. Centers will need to follow the set forth standards rather than defining their own, which can be quite subjective as the multimedia Sectors in the Early Childhood Field shows (Laureate In., 2010) Children benefit when they have trained educators who understand child development and use developmentally appropriate practices to enhance their learning. I also share the view that “accountability and program improvement efforts help states build overall systems of high-quality early education services” (NECATF, 2007, p. 10).  

       The early childhood field has made tremendous strides in recognizing the imperativeness of quality programs for children’s healthy development. Likewise, we have acknowledged the importance of collaborating with families. The current research within as well as outside the field highlights the importance of involving children and providing meaningful play in their healthy development. Furthermore, we have recognized the importance of building an early childhood community where each child is respected, acknowledge and given the opportunity to attain their full potential regardless of socio-economic status, physical or social-emotional differences, language or cultural dissimilarities. Finally, we have recognized the need for standards that programs should abide by across the spectrum and the importance of continuous assessment in maintaining and improving quality. We are bound to encounter challenges along the way. However, we understand that our future is at stake and quality is a necessity not a luxury. 

References

Armon, J., & Morris, L. J. (2008). Integrated Assessments for ELL. Science and Children, 8, 45.

Epstein, D., Pruette, J., Priestly, K., & Lieberman, A. (2009). The changing landscape of Pre-K: Examining the changes and impacts of quality standards in prekindergarten at the national, state, district and program levels. Retrieved from http://nieer.org/pdf/changing-landscape-2009-presentation.pdf

Feeney, S. (2006). Which way should we go from here? Some thoughts on the early childhood curriculum. Retrieved from http://journal.naeyc.org/btj/200609/FeeneyBTJ.pdf

Galinsky, E. ( 2006). The economic benefits of high quality preschool: What makes the difference? . Retrieved from http://familiesandwork.org/site/research/reports/ced.pdf

Halgunseth, L. C., Peterson, A., Stark, D. R., & Moodie, S. (2009). Family Engagement, Diverse Families, and Early Childhood Education Programs: An Integrated Review of the Literature. Retrieved November 6, 2011, from www.naeyc.org: http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/research/FamEngage.pdf

Head Start. (n.d.). Core Values. Madison, Wisconsin: Dane County Parent council.

Katz, L. (1987). What should young children be learning? Retrieved from. Retrieved December 2, 2011, from http://www.ericdigests.org/pre-927/young.htm

Laureate In. (2010). Sectors in the Early Childhood Field. Retrieved from Head Start: http://mym.cdn.laureate-media.com/2dett4d/Walden/EDUC/6161/01/mm/sectors/index.html

Laureate Inc. (2011). Child-Centered Learning . Retrieved December 2, 2011, from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=6060832&Survey=1&47=9547876&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=1&bhcp=1

Laureate, Inc. (2011). Child-Centered Learning in Practice. Retrieved November 29, 2011, from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=6060832&Survey=1&47=9479337&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=1&bhcp=1

Macrina, M., Hoover, D., & Becker, C. (2009). The Challenge of Working with Dual Language Learners: Three Perspectives: Supervisor, Mentor, and Teacher. YC Young Children, 64(2), 27-34.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2009). Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8. National Association for the Education of Young Children.

National Early Childhood Accountability Task Force. (2007). Tacking stock: Assessing and improving early childhood learning and program quality. Retrieved from http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Taking Stock Full Report.pdf

National Early Childhood Accountability Task Force. (2007). Taking Stock: Assessing and Improving Early Childhood Learning and Program Quality. Retrieved from http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/uploadedFiles/Taking%20Stock%20Full%20Report.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

Neugebauer, R. (Ed.). (2007, May/June). Early Childhood Trends Around the World. Exchange, 58-63.

Rodd, J. (1996). Children, Culture and Education. Childhood Education, 72(6), 325.

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.

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.

Walsh, G., & Gardner, J. (2005). Assessing the quality of early years learning environments. Early Childhood Research and Practice. Retrieved December 2, 2011, from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v7n1/walsh.html

Wardle, F. (n.d.). Play as curriculum. Retrieved November 23, 2011, from http://www.earlychildhoodnews.com/earlychildhood/article_view.aspx?ArticleID=127

Watson, A., & McCathren, R. (2009, March). Including Children with Special Needs: Are you and your early childhood program ready? YC Young Children, 64(2), 20.

Weiss, H., Caspe, M., & & Lopez, M. (2006). Family Involvement Makes a Difference. Harvard Family Research Project, 1-8.