6 Reasons to Reject the Common Core State Standards for K- Grade 3

6 Reasons to Reject Common Core State Standards for K – Grade 3 and 6 Principles to Guide Policy

With the spring testing season heavily upon us, DEY has a new document which we believe will help teachers and parents understand why the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) are inappropriate for Kindergarten – 3rd Grade. It will also help teachers and parents advocate against the CCSS – and for policies and classroom practices that will best meet the needs of young children. Please download and share our *NEW* 6 Reasons to Reject Common Core State Standards for K – Grade 3 and 6 Principles to Guide Policy. (Click here for Common Core color pdf or Common Core black and white pdf.) 

DEYMobilizationKitWe are also very excited to announce our *NEW* DEY Mobilizing Kit which includes ideas for planning and hosting an information meeting – including a DEY Power Point Presentation presentation outlining the issues. The PowerPoint is also here on YouTube. If you are interested in hosting a meeting or other action (such as a letter writing campaign), keep in mind that DEY offers Action Mini Grants to help.

 

6 Reasons to Reject CCSS for K – Grade 3

 

1.  Many of the Kindergarten – 3rd Grade CCSS are developmentally inappropriate, and are not based on well-researched child development knowledge about how young children learn. 1, 2

The CCSS for young children were developed by mapping backwards from what is required at high school graduation to the early years.  This has led to standards that:

  • list discrete skills, facts and knowledge that do not match how young children develop, think or learn;
  • require young children to learn facts and skills for which they are not ready;
  • are often taught by teacher-led, didactic instruction instead of the experiential, play-based activities and learning young children need; 1, 2, 12
  • devalue the whole child and the importance of social-emotional development, play, art, music, science and physical development.

 

An example of a developmentally inappropriate Common Core standard for kindergarten is one that requires children to “read emergent reader texts with purpose and understanding.”  Many young children are not developmentally ready to read in kindergarten and there is no research to support teaching reading in kindergarten. There is no research showing long-term advantages to reading at 5 compared to reading at 6 or 7.6

 

2.  Many of the skills mandated by the CCSS erroneously assume that all children develop and learn skills at the same rate and in the same way.

 

Decades of child development research and theory from many disciplines (cognitive and developmental psychology, neuroscience, medicine and education) show how children progress at different rates and in different ways.

 

For example, the average age that children start walking is 12 months.  Some children begin walking as early as 9 months and others not until 15 months – and all of this falls within a normal range. Early walkers are not better walkers than later walkers. A second example is that the average age at which children learn to read independently is 6.5 years.  Some begin as early as 4 years and some not until age 7 or later – and all of this falls within the normal range.5 Research has shown that children who score well on early intelligence tests have only a 40% correlation with later achievement tests results3 and that one-third of the brightest incoming third graders score below average prior to kindergarten.4

 

The CCSS are measured using frequent and inappropriate assessments – this includes high-stakes tests, standardized tests and computer-administered assessments. States are required to use computer-based tests (such as PARCC) to assess CCSS. This is leading to mandated computer use at an early age and the misallocation of funds to purchase computers and networking systems in school districts that are already underfunded.

 

3.  Early childhood educators did not participate in the development of the standards.

 

The CCSS do not comply with the internationally and nationally recognized protocol for writing professional standards.  They were written without due process, transparency, or participation by knowledgeable parties.  Two committees made up of 135 people wrote the standards – and not one of them was a K-3 classroom teacher or early childhood education professional.  When the CCSS were first released, more than 500 early childhood professionals signed a Joint Statement opposing the standards on the grounds that they would lead to long hours of direct instruction; more standardized testing; and would crowd out highly important active, play-based learning.  All of this has come to pass. Notably, this important Joint Statement was not even reported in the “summary of public feedback” posted on the Core Standards website. 11

 

  1.   There is a lack of research to support the current early childhood CCSS.  The standards were not pilot tested and there is no provision for ongoing research or review of their impact on children and on early childhood education.

 

The CCSS do not build on what is known from earlier long-term studies such as the Perry Preschool Project, the Abecedarian Project, the Abbott Schools of NJ, or Chicago Parent Child Centers which demonstrate what works for young children.7, 10 There is no convincing research showing that certain skills or bits of knowledge such as counting to 100 in kindergarten or being able to “tell and write time in hours and half-hours using analog and digital clocks in first grade” will lead to later success in school.

There was no research on how to effectively train teachers on implementing the CCSS.

 

5.  The standards do not take into account what young children today need when they get to school.  Children need play in school now more than ever. They need teachers who are skilled facilitators of play so the solid foundations can be laid in the early school years for optimal learning in the later years.

 

Many of today’s children are over-exposed to electronics and screens.14 Many of them  are overly scheduled and lack opportunities for sustained, unstructured, free play and especially outdoor/nature play.8, 9, 14  These conditions have led to reduced play opportunities for many children, which has in turn led to deficiencies in many of the essential foundational skills that develop through play: executive functioning, self-control, persistence, creativity, problem-solving, flexibility, attention span, and ability to call on stored knowledge when needed.15, 16, 17

 

6. The adoption of CCSS falsely implies that making children learn these standards will combat the impact of poverty on development and learning, and create equal educational opportunity for all children.

 

The U.S. is the wealthiest nation in the world and has the highest child poverty rate among industrialized nations.18 Corporate-style reformers would have us believe that we can solve the problem of poverty by mandating the teaching of basic skills in our nation’s schools. But schools cannot solve all of the problems created by societal factors that exist outside of school walls. While we do not have all the answers, years of research tell us that schools, while important, cannot solve all the disadvantages created by poverty.19  In fact, during the last decade of “education reform” – increased standards and testing, more accountability and data gathering – the inequalities in our education system have increased24 and the child poverty rate has grown.25

 

6 Principles to Guide Policy

1.  Young children learn through active, direct experiences and play.20

 

Young children learn best through active learning experiences within meaningful contexts.  They need materials that can be used in multiple ways and allow for hands-on exploration and problem solving. They need dynamic, ongoing relationships with teachers who understand child development, can build onto and extend their hands-on activities, and provide well-thought out educational experiences that demonstrate knowledge of and respect for each child. The teachers must be able to create time in the schedule to promote these active experiences between children, as peer interactions play a crucial role in cognitive learning and social-emotional development.

 

2.  Children learn skills and concepts at different times, rates, and paces.  Every child is unique.5, 26

 

Every child possesses a unique personality, temperament, family relationship and cultural background. Each has different interests, experiences and approaches to learning. Each child perceives and approaches the world differently, often taking different routes to reach the same ends. Thus, all children need learning experiences that take into account, support and build onto who they are as individuals.

 

3.  Young children learn best when their cognitive, social, emotional, and physical selves become highly engaged in the learning process. 

 

Active learning experiences and play engage multiple aspects of the child’s capacities simultaneously. A curriculum focused on academic standards and goals compartmentalizes learning in ways that are not natural for young children. Hands-on, play-based, experiential learning engages the whole child and strengthens and supports young children’s intellectual dispositions and their innate thirst for better, fuller, and deeper understanding of their own experiences. 27

 

4.  Assessments of young children should be observational in nature, ongoing, and connected to curriculum and teaching.  They should take into account the broad-based nature of young children’s learning, not isolated skills, and the natural developmental variation in all areas of young children’s growth and development.

 

Assessment methods should be developmentally appropriate, culturally and linguistically responsive, tied to children’s daily activities, supported by professional development, inclusive of families, and connected to specific, beneficial purposes: (1) making sound decisions about teaching and learning, (2) identifying concerns that may require focused intervention for individual children, and (3) helping programs improve their educational and developmental interventions.21

 

Assessments in early childhood should be as infrequent as possible to maintain high program quality.  Standardized tests are highly unreliable for children younger than 3rd grade and should not be used in early childhood settings.10, 13, 28 The linking of test scores to teacher evaluation or to program evaluation leads to an increase in standards and test-based instruction, and less developmentally appropriate play-based, experiential education.  Administrators need to emphasize quality educational experiences and teaching, not test scores in the early years.10

 

5. The problems of inequality and child poverty need to be addressed directly.

 

Almost one quarter of our nation’s children live in poverty.18 We need to do what other developed nations do which is to ensure that all of their children have health care, housing, and basic needs met for economic security and well being. Then we must fund our schools equitably, by giving more money to the schools and students where needs are greatest, which are most commonly schools in low-income neighborhoods. Educational funds should not be distributed to states based on their acceptance of specific education reforms, such as we have seen in the last decade. If we begin to redress some of the profound inequalities that exist for children in the U.S. today, this will be the surest way to genuinely improve schools and overall well-being and success for all of the nation’s children.

 

6.  Quality early childhood education with well-prepared teachers is the best investment a society can make in its future.

 

Research shows that early childhood education enhances the life prospects of children and has a high benefit-cost ratio and rate of return for society’s investment. The Perry Preschool Project, a major longitudinal study of a quality preschool education program, showed that investment in high-quality preschool education improved the lives of those who were in the program and paid handsome returns to society. Building a strong foundation for learning in the early years is especially crucial for disadvantaged children.22

 

The United States ranks twenty-fourth among wealthy nations in providing availability and quality of early childhood education.23 Committing to high quality early childhood education with well-prepared teachers is a crucial first step our nation can take in reducing the achievement gaps between rich and poor children and improving the lives of children.

 

1 Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs: Serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

2 Miller, E., & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in the kindergarten: Why children need to play in school. College Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood.

3 Bronson, P. & Merryman, A. (2009). NutureShock. New York City: 12 Book Press. (pp. 99-100.)

4 Bronson, P. & Merryman, A. (2009). (p. 101)

5 Gesell Institute of Child Development. (2012). Gesell developmental observation-revised and Gesell early screener technical report ages 3-6. New Haven, CT: Gesell Institute of Child Development. Retrieved September 17, 2013 from http://www.gesellinstitute.org.

6 Almon, J. (2013, Fall). Reading at five: Why? SEEN Magazine, 24-25.

7 Guddemi, M., & Zigler, E. (2011). Children and schools: We know what to do, now let’s do it! [PDF].Community Early Childhood LEADership E-Kit [CD-ROM]. New Haven, CT: Gesell Institute of Child Development.

8 Frost, J. (2010).  A history of play and play environments.  New York City:  Routledge.

9 Brown, S. (2009).  Play: How it shapes the brain, opens the imagination, and invigorates the soul.   New York City:  Avery.

10 Gesell Institute of Child Development (2011).  Community Early Childhood LEADership E-Kit [CD-ROM]. New Haven, CT: Author.

11 Miller, E and Carlsson-Paige, N. (January 29, 2013).  A tough critique of Common Core on early childhood education. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2013/01/29/a-tough-critique-of-common-core-on-early-childhood-education/

12 Hirsch-Pasek, K. & Golinkoff, R. (2003).  Einstein never used flash cards.  New York City:  Rodale.

13 Kim, J., & Suen, H. K. (2003). Predicting children’s academic achievement from early assessment scores: A validity generalization study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18(4), 547-566.

14 Levin, D. (2013). Beyond remote controlled childhood. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

15 Moffitt, T.E.; Arseneault, L.; Belsky, D.; Dickson, N.; Hancox, R.J.; Harrington, H.; Houts, R.; Poulton, R.; Roberts, B.W.; Ross, S.; Sears, M.R.; Thomson, WM.; & Caspi, A. (2011).  A gradient of childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety.  Proceedings National Academy of Sciences, 108(7), 2693-2698.

16 Leong, D. J., & Bodrova, E. (2012). Assessing and scaffolding: Make-believe play. Young Children, 67(1), 28-34.

17 Tough, P. (2012). How children succeed: Grit, curiosity, and the hidden power of character. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

18 UNICEF Office of Research (2013). ‘Child Well-being in Rich Countries: A comparative overview’, Innocenti Report Card 11, UNICEF Office of Research, Florence.

19 L. J. Schweinhart, J. Montie, Z. Xiang,W. S. Barnett, C. R. Belfield, & M. Nores. (2004). Lifetime Effects: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 40. Michigan: HighScope Press.

20 Singer, D., Golinkoff, R. & Hirsh – Pasek. (Eds.). (2006). Play=learning: how play motivates and enhances children’s cognitive and social-emotional growth. New York: Oxford University Press.

21 NAEYC & NAECS/SDE. (2003). Early childhood curriculum and program evaluation. Joint Position Statement, 2.

22 Heckman, James. (2008).“Schools, Skills, and Synapses,” NBER working paper 14064, http://www.nber.org/papers/w14064.pdf.

23 Economist Intelligence Unit. (2012). Starting well. Benchmarking early education

across the world. London: The Economist.

24 Karp, S. (January 23, 2013). The coming Common Core meltdown. Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2014/01/23/the-coming-common-core-meltdown/

25 Gabe, T. (2013). Poverty in the United States: 2012. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33069.pdf

26 Zigler, E., Singer, D., Bishop-Josef, S. (2004).  Children’s play:  The roots of reading.   Washington, DC.:  Zero to Three Press.

27 Katz, L. (2012). Standards of Experience. Retrieved from www.communityplaythings.com/resources/articles/2010/standards-of-experience

28 Duncan, G.J. et al. (2007).  School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1428-1446.

“Do Poor Kids Deserve Lower-Quality Education Than Rich Kids? Evaluating School Privatization Proposals in Milwaukee, Wisconsin”

“The fact that what’s considered the gold standard for poor students in Milwaukee is considered unacceptable for kids in the suburbs is just wrong.” – Gordon Lafer

A new report by Gordon Lafer, a political economist and University of Oregon professor reveals harsh inequalities at schools in Milwaukee. Ruth Conniff wrote about Lafer’s report for The Progressive on April 24th. Excerpts follow:

Rocketship_Privatization_Poor_Kids-770x577Lafer’s report, “Do Poor Kids Deserve Lower-Quality Education Than Rich Kids? Evaluating School Privatization Proposals in Milwaukee, Wisconsin,” released today by the Economic Policy Institute, documents the effects of both for-profit and non-profit charter schools that are taking over struggling public schools in Milwaukee.

“I hope people connect the dots,” Lafer said by phone from the Milwaukee airport.

Lafer’s research, commissioned by the Economic Policy Institute to evaluate the school-privatization push in Milwaukee, is a sweeping indictment of the growing private charter school industry — and other schemes backed by rightwing groups and big business — that siphon public funds out of public schools and enrich corporate investors at the expense of quality education for poor children.

….

A popular chain of charter schools called Rocketship, which originated in California and has spread to Wisconsin, with the enthusiastic support of state legislators and the local chamber of commerce in Milwaukee, is “a low-budget operation that relies on young and inexperienced teachers rather than more veteran and expensive faculty, that reduces curriculum to a near-exclusive focus on reading and math, and that replaces teachers with online learning and digital applications for a significant portion of the day,” Lafer writes.

Rocketship is a pioneer of the “blended learning” model of schools that rely heavily on computers to cut staff costs. The fastest growing, and most profitable, sector of the charter school industry is online or virtual schools, with the “blended learning” model, which combines online learning with a reduced and low-paid staff, a close second.

With no gym, art class, librarians, or significant science or social studies, Rocketship provides a stripped-down program of study with a heavy focus on standardized tests.

“The education model of the Rocketship chain of schools, a company central to the education reform push in Milwaukee, is particularly ill suited to providing the city’s children with a high-quality education,” Lafer found.

Because of its extraordinarily high teacher turnover (the chain relies heavily on Teach for TFAlogoAmerica volunteers), its large classes, and reductive curriculum, Rocketship subjects kids most in need of consistent, nurturing, adult attention to low-quality instruction and neglect.

We urge you to read the full story here.

 

Kindergarten teacher resigns over too much testing – and the TODAY show pays attention!

teacherquitsA powerful story got some much-needed attention this week. Susan Sluyter, a veteran kindergarten teacher based in Cambridge, MA, had her resignation letter posted by Valerie Strauss at The Washington Post’s education blog, The Answer Sheet: Kindergarten teacher: My job is now about tests and data — not children. I quit.

In her resignation letter submitted last month, Sluyter wrote,

“I have watched as my job requirements swung away from a focus on the children, their individual learning styles, emotional needs, and their individual families, interests and strengths to a focus on testing, assessing, and scoring young children, thereby ramping up the academic demands and pressures on them. 

“Each year, I have been required to spend more time attending classes and workshops to learn about new academic demands that smack of 1st and 2nd grade, instead of kindergarten and PreK.  I have needed to schedule and attend more and more meetings about increasingly extreme behaviors and emotional needs of children in my classroom; I recognize many of these behaviors as children shouting out to the adults in their world, ‘I can’t do this!  Look at me!  Know me!  Help me!  See me!’ “

Garnering over 500 comments at The Answer Sheet, it is obvious that Sluyter has struck a nerve. And on Wednesday, the TODAY Show invited Sluyter on to tell her story. Interestingly, the TODAY Show, in conjunction with this story, posted a poll on their Facebook page and their Facebook page “exploded”. The question asked was, “Do you think standardized tests are the best way for kids to learn?” The results were clear: 5,692 people answered, “No” and only 41 answered, “Yes”.
TODAY show pollNext time, perhaps TODAY will invite Diane Ravitch instead of Michelle Rhee for the follow up Q & A – though very glad Michelle Rhee got to see those poll results!

Opting out of high-stakes testing in Massachusetts

Massachusetts public school parent Ricardo D. Rosa has publicly opted his child out of high-stakes testing. His letter to the New Bedford school board and superintendent has been posted by Valerie Strauss in her blog “The Answer Sheet” at the Washington Post. Rosa’s letter may inspire others to join him in opting out. Here is a snippet:

“…our continuous focus on scoring well evades more important public dialogue about funding inequities and the root cause of educational disengagement – poverty. Allowing testing corporations to continue reaping billions of dollars in profit from public education only exacerbates the problem. Any administrator, school committee member, or school functionary still standing before students, teachers, and families touting the virtues of high-stakes testing should be ashamed. And, if you know that it’s wrong but remain silent, you’re complicit in educational malpractice.

“Furthermore, subjecting English Language Learners to the MCAS and the PARCC after only having been in the country for one year is immoral. Emergent bilingual students are 9 times more likely to drop out of high school than their peers. These tests are part of the problem. In addition, a high percentage of students with disabilities are not meeting graduation requirements as a result of these tests.”

Rosa encourages everyone to “read the Massachusetts Statement Against High-Stakes Testing  endorsed by countless professors in the state, myself included. As MCAS is imposed on our schools next week and the rest of the school year, I encourage parents to write letters opting students out and requesting an in-school alternative to high-stakes testing. If we’re truly interested in ending bullying in schools, let’s end the bullying of high stakes testing. If families really have a ‘choice,’ they must be allowed to exercise the choice to opt-out.”

We urge you to read the entire letter here.

Rosa invites parents to join him for a forum and community dialogue on high-stakes testing and opting-out at 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 9 at Whaling National Historical Park Museum, 33 Williams St., New Bedford, MA. And he invites you to join the S.E. MA and RI Coalition to Save Our Schools to continue the dialogue and organization to reclaim public education in the interest of all families.

For more information you can write to ricardorosa1973@yahoo.com or cheoso@verizon.net or visit Facebook.com/SouthEastMARIOptOut.

Support the ISAT Boycott in Chicago!

My head is spinning after two incredible days at the Network for Public Education national conference. It was their first conference – and plans are already forming for the next one. This gathering of education activists from around the country was inspirational and energizing.

We met folks who have had incredible successes – such as the Providence Student Union’s campaign to remove the requirement for passing the NECAP test for graduation in Rhode Island and TAMSA’s successful reduction of high school high-stakes testing from 15 to 5 exams in Texas.

We also met folks who are deep in the struggle right now. In Chicago Public Schools the teachers at two elementary schools have joined together to boycott the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT). You can read more about what is happening in blog posts by CPS first grade teacher Michelle Gunderson here and here. Gunderson writes, “Educators and parents in Chicago joined forces this week to boycott the ISAT at two schools, Maria Saucedo Elementary School and Drummond Montessori. There are also over 1,000 parents at 37 other Chicago schools who requested to opt their child out of ISAT. They are supported in their decision by the Chicago Teachers Union and the Caucus of Rank and File Educators (CORE).”

The teachers have the support of President of the Chigaco Teachers Union Karen Lewis and AFT President Randi Weingarten – who were both at the NPE conference and have publicly stood up for the teachers in Chicago. The teachers also have the support of many parents. The school district has threatened to revoke teacher licenses (which they have no authority to do).

At DEY we encourage you to show your solidarity for this act of civil disobedience with the boycotting teachers in Chicago by signing their petition at Moveon.org. The petition states:

  • We support the teachers who refuse to administer and the parents who opt their students out from the Illinois Standards Achievement Test (ISAT).
  • We call on Chicago Public Schools and the Illinois State Board of Education not to give the ISAT test this year.
  • There should be no retaliation by the Chicago Board of Education against the parents, students and teachers who have taken action to improve students’ education.

NPE Conference will livestream from Austin, TX this weekend!

NPElogoNPEconferenceThis Saturday and Sunday (March 1st and 2nd) hundreds of teachers, parents, students and activists will gather in Austin, Texas for the first-ever conference by the Network for Public Education. The Network for Public Education, founded by Diane Ravitch and Anthony Cody, is “an advocacy group whose goal is to fight to protect, preserve and strengthen our public school system, an essential institution in a democratic society. Our mission is to protect, preserve, promote, and strengthen public schools and the education of current and future generations of students.” (quoted from the NPE website)

This national event will be an amazing opportunity to hear and learn from activists from around the country. Registration is full, however the keynote addresses and select panels/workshops will be livestreamed!  Livestreamed sessions will include Deborah Meier (DEY National Advisory Board member) and Geralyn Bywater McLaughlin (DEY Director). You can also follow the conference on Twitter with the hashtag #npeconference.

The conference will begin at 8:30 am Austin time, which is 9:30 am Eastern. NPE hopes to livestream from the start, but some portions of the conference may be delayed, because of their location.

These are the sessions NPE plans to livestream:

Saturday, Mar. 1

1. 9:15 to 10:30 am
Educators Organizing Resistance: Deb Meier, Jesse Hagopian, Karen Lewis, Katie Osgood and Bob Peterson.

2. 10:45 am to 12:00 pm
Student Organizing: Moderator: Jose Vilson; Panelists: Hannah Nguyen, Israel Munoz, Stephanie Rivera, Bryan Varela, Mayra Mostafa

3. 1:00 to 2:15 pm: Keynotes by John Kuhn and Karen Lewis

4. 2:30 to 3:45 pm: Research and Activism: Moderator: Julian Vasquez Heilig; Panelists: Kevin Welner, Tina Trujillo, Kevin Foster, Sonya Horford

5. 4:00 to 5:15 pm: Opting Out
Panelists: Peggy Robertson, Jesse Hagopian, Dora Taylor

Sunday, Mar. 2

1. 9:00 to 10:30 am:  Common Core Panel:  Paul Horton, Geralyn McLaughlin, Mercedes Schneider, Jose Luis Vilson, Randi Weingarten

2. 10:30 am to Noon: Keynote by Diane Ravitch.

3. 1:00 to 2:15 pm:  TFA
Moderator: Julian Vasquez Heilig; Panelists: Sarah Ishmael, Kerry Kretchmar, Camika Royal, Beth Sondel, Chad Sommer

Public Comments Sought for New Preschool Competition – deadline February 26th

What are your hopes, recommendations, fears and concerns about federally funded preschool? Earlier this month Secretary of Education Arne Duncan announced that the Obama Administration plans to use “$250 million from the FY14 Consolidated Appropriations Act,  2014 (Public Law 113-76) for a major new competition to build, develop and expand high-quality preschool programs, working with local communities and with states across the country, including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.”

The U.S. Department of Education is working with the Department of Health and Human Services on this initiative, which is different from the up and running The Race to the Top – Early Learning Challenge.

The open comment time is a chance to give input – ideas, suggestions and comments towards this new grant competition. Here is a bulletin from the U.S. Department of Education with information about how/where/when to submit your comments.

Dr. Doris Fromberg, Professor of Education at Hofstra publically shared her thoughts last year about this time when President Obama made his State of the Union commitment to universal prekindergarten. Below we have re-posted Fromberg’s thoughts – to inspire and inform you as you formulate your comments for the new preschool competition:

———-

Applause is due for President Obama’s support of universal pre-kindergarten. Below are some thoughts about The Upsides; The Downside Cautions; and Possible Future Outlooks.

The Upside:  There is research to support the cost-benefit to society of fine quality early childhood education, particularly for children from low-income homes.

During the past 40 years, different studies have found a $1.00 investment in fine quality early education yielding as high as a $16.00 cost-benefit return by reducing retention, school dropouts, improved high school graduation, less incarcerations, and improved employment histories.

The Upside: Children from low-income and immigrant families benefit significantly from pre-kindergarten/Head Start settings.

The Upside: There is research that finds kindergarten children attained higher test scores when their teachers were specifically state certified to teach early childhood education.

The Downside Caution: Early childhood teachers typically work with 100% of school principals and central school administrators who have had no required preparation to understand the distinctive ways in which pre-kindergarten and kindergarten learn.

In order to effectively supervise, support, and evaluate early childhood teachers, school administrators would need to understand how teachers can match early learning with a rich repertoire of teaching activities; classroom organization, scheduling, and equipping.

The Downside Caution: Federal funds in recent years have followed the path of the past 14 years of educational funding by focusing on testing and evaluation. Part of the impact has been an increase of teaching narrowly to the test and downright reporting fraud by frightened adults. The testing funds typically have categorized rather than qualitatively or quantitatively improved rich learning.

(If you have 15 minutes of curiosity, I invite you to view a TEDx talk on the economic impact of high-stakes testing when compared with fine quality early childhood education. Google: Doris Fromberg TEDx as well as  Lawrence Schweinhart TEDx).

The Downside Caution: Federal funds have found their way into massive overlays of administrative costs as well as testing costs.

The Downside Caution: More than 95% of kindergarten children attend public schools. Their teachers are required to have professional state certification. Barely 50% of children attend any pre-school programs, and their teachers often do not have specific preparation in how to match teaching with the conditions with which young children learn. There is a 45-55% turnover rate among non-public school early childhood staff members.

In 1993 Trellis Waxler stated that, if the federal government had invested modestly in college scholarships for Head Start teachers instead of isolated bits of uncoordinated staff development, there could have been less turnover, more stability, and stronger educational benefits to the young children.

Pre-kindergarten funding within states has streamed into non-public school settings which might or might not have professionally state certified teachers. Many of the settings drill children in unproductive ways and support the children’s alienation from school.

The Possible Future Outlook: Focus funds on supporting states to require professional state-certified preparation for all teachers, building level, and school district administrators who are responsible for the education of pre-kindergarten children. Professionals are able to assess young children through multiple means, sequence their learning experiences, and differentiate instruction effectively.

The Possible Future Outlook: Minimize administrative costs. Maximize relevant materials (other than tests), equipment, and require professional educators for the benefit of young children.

Fine quality professionally certified educators who can match teaching with the conditions with which young children learn are likely to support the society’s needs for STEM (Science-Technology Engineering, and Mathematics) professions. Moreover, young children who have a richly engaging early education have the potential to become productive adults and informed citizens.

Related References from Dr. Doris Pronin Fromberg:

  • Association of Teacher Educators and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (1991). Early childhood teacher certification. Young Children 47, (l), 16-21.
  • Arnett, J. (1987). Caregivers in day care centers: Does training matter?Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 10, 541 – 552.
  • Bodrova,E.,& Leong, D.J. (2007). The Vygotskian approach to early childhood education. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill/Prentice-Hall.
  • Deal, T.E., & Peterson, K.D. (1991). The principals’ role in shaping school culture. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office.
  • Early Childhood Advisory Council & Council on Children and Families (2012). New York State early learning guidelines. Author.
  • Fromberg, D.P. (1992). Certification of early childhood teachers. In L.R. Williams & D.P. Fromberg (Eds.).The encyclopedia of early childhood education  (470 – 472). New York: Garland.
  • Fromberg, D.P. (2006).Kindergarten education and early childhood teacher education inthe United States: Status at the start of the twenty-first century. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education 27(1) 65-85.
  • Fromberg, D.P. (2012). Kindergarten today: Is the match between high-states outputs and low-impact inputs cost-effective? TEDTalk. (You Tube)
  • Fromberg, D.P. (n.d.) A comparison of small-group compared with whole-group instruction in kindergarten. Unpublished study.
  • Howard, E., Howell, B., & Brainard, E. (1987). Handbook for conductingschool climate improvement projects. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.
  • Jerrold, R.H. (2011). A comparison of early childhood linear-academic and nonlinear intellectual teaching methodologies. Doctoral dissertation. Cypress, CA: Touro University.
  • Lazar, I., Darlington, R., Murray, H., Royce, J., &Snipper, A. (1982). Lasting effects of early education: A report from the Consortium for Longitudinal Studies. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 47, (2 – 3), 1-151.
  • McMahon, E.M., Egbert, R.L., & McCarthy, J. (1991). Early childhood education: State policy and practice. Washington, DC: American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
  • National Council for the Accreditation of Teacher Education (1992). 38thannual guide to accredited education programs/units. Washington, DC: Author.
  • Reynolds, A.J.,Temple,  J.A., Robertson, D.L., & Mann, E.A. (2001). Long-term effects of an early childhood intervention on educational achievement and juvenile arrest. A 15-year follow-up of low-income children in public schools. Journal of the American Medical Association 285 (18), 2339-2346.
  • Ruopp, R., Travers, J., Glantz, F., &Coelen, C. (1979). Children at thecenter: Summary findings and their implications. Cambridge, MA: Abt.
  • Rust, F., O’C. (1993). Changing teaching, changing schools: Bringing earlychildhood practice into public education. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Schwartz, S.L., & Copeland, S.M. (2010). Connecting emergent curriculum and standards in early childhood education: Strengthening content and teaching practice. New York: Teachers College Press.
  • Schweinhart, L.J., Koshel, J.J., & Bridgman, A., (1987). Policy optionsfor preschool programs. Phi Delta Kappan 68, 527.
  • Schweinhart, L.J., et al, (2005) Lifetime effects: The HighScope Perry preschool study through age 40. Monograph of the HighScope Educational Research Foundation No.14. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope Press.
  • Schweinhart, L.J. (2012). The return on investment of high quality preschool. TED Talk. (You Tube).
  • Seplocha, H.,&Strasser, J.(2009). A snapshot of quality in kindergarten classrooms in low-income districts: Implications for policy and practice. Trenton: New Jersey Department of Education..
  • Smith, W.F., & Andrews, R.L. (1989). Instructional leadership: How principals make a difference. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Warger C. (Ed.). (1988). A resource guide to public school early childhood programs. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
  • Stipek, D., Feiler, R., Daniels, D., & Milburn, S, (1995). Effects of different instructional approaches on young children’s achievement and motivation. Child Development 66, 209-233.

Many thanks to Dr. Doris Fromberg, Professor of Education, Hofstra University for sharing her insights. Now is the time to post your comments at Homeroom, the official blog of the U.S. Department of Education. Now it is time to use your “teacher voice”! (or your “parent voice”, “your concerned citizen voice”, or whatever voice you have!)