Developmentally Appropriate Practice: Continuing ... - SAGE Journals

5 downloads 0 Views 98KB Size Report
Christina Lopez Morgan is a current NAEYC board member who prepares ... multicultural, multi-ethnic, and multi-language early childhood settings. Sally.
Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, Volume 3, Number 3, 2002

COLLOQUIUM

Developmentally Appropriate Practice: continuing the dialogue [1] AMOS HATCH University of Tennessee, USA BARBARA BOWMAN Erikson Institute, Chicago, USA JAMILAH R. JOR’DAN Chicago Accreditation Partnership, USA CHRISTINA LOPEZ MORGAN DeAnza College, Cupertino, USA CRAIG HART Brigham Young University, Provo, USA LOURDES DIAZ SOTO Pennsylvania State University, University Park, USA SALLY LUBECK University of Michigan, USA MARILOU HYSON National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), Washington, DC, USA

Introduction AMOS HATCH The papers that follow were prepared for a session sponsored by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) Governing Board Committee on Professional Practice. The session was designed to engage members in dialogue concerning issues related to ‘developmentally appropriate practices’ within diverse communities and cultures. As a member of NAEYC’s governing board, I organized and moderated the session, and Marilou Hyson acted as discussant. Presenters prepared written answers to the 439

Amos Hatch et al

question, ‘What is the value and what are the risks in the developmentally appropriate practice concept?’ They presented their ideas at the session, and a complex and exhilarating discussion followed. After the session, we decided the written answers might provide the stimulus for further discussion of the important issues raised in the session. That is the purpose of this colloquium. Presenters in the session were invited because they represent a variety of perspectives that add richness to the dialogue surrounding developmentally appropriate practice (DAP). Barbara Bowman is a former president of NAEYC, she served as a member of the panel that directed the development of both the original and the revised DAP guidelines, and she is a highly respected, longterm advocate for children and families from diverse backgrounds. Craig Hart is a highly regarded researcher who has worked with a team of other scholars completing several studies of the effects of the implementation of DAPs in a variety of early childhood classrooms. Lourdes Diaz Soto is a noted scholar who examines early childhood principles and practices through the lenses of alternative paradigms such as feminism, post-structuralism, critical theory, and post-colonialism. Jamilah R. Jor’dan is a former NAEYC board member and advisory member to the National Academy of Early Childhood Programs; she is responsible for directing the Chicago Accreditation Partnership, which seeks to assist early childhood programs serving low-income families in their pursuit of NAEYC accreditation; and she is highly regarded for the development of an accreditation facilitation model that has been replicated in many parts of the USA. Christina Lopez Morgan is a current NAEYC board member who prepares prospective educators from diverse backgrounds to work in multicultural, multi-ethnic, and multi-language early childhood settings. Sally Lubeck has a distinguished history of advocacy for young children from diverse backgrounds, and she has been a thoughtful critic of DAP over the past several years. Marilou Hyson is a well-known early childhood researcher and scholar in her own right; at present, she is Associate Executive Director for Professional Development for NAEYC. In my own writing and teaching, I try to encourage others think in new ways about what we do and how we do it in early childhood education. Some of the ideas of postmodern thought offer tools for shedding new light on issues that face us, issues like developmentally appropriate practice. Three basic axioms from postmodern thought are: (1) avoid dividing the complex world into binary oppositions (e.g. right/wrong; black/white; good/bad); (2) judge a policy (movement, theory, law, position statement) by what happens as a result of its implementation, not by its intent; and (3) be suspicious of grand narratives (theories, discourses) that purport to be based on the Truth with a capital T, understanding that multiple truths always exist and that Truth is always a social-political construction related to power. In order to stretch our thinking about the DAP concept, three questions based on the postmodern axioms above could be asked:

440

DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICE

• What (and who) gets left out when early childhood practices are presented as either appropriate or inappropriate? • What have been the outcomes for all children, parents, and teachers of the implementation of the DAP guidelines? (‘All’ means from all cultural, socioeconomic, and ability groups.) • Has the discourse of developmental psychology that dominates the DAP construct limited our understanding of possible ways to work with children and families? The idea for this session grew out of a debate that Elisa Klein and I organized at the 1995 annual conference of the American Educational Research Association and a powerful meeting of NAEYC staff and board members at a retreat in the summer of 2000. As Sue Bredekamp pointed out during the conference session, the dialogue related to issues surrounding DAP has a long history both within and outside NAEYC. The aim of my questions, the session, and the papers that follow is not to create consensus, but to stimulate reflection and discussion among those who devote their careers to improving the life chances of young children. I am one who thinks disagreement and conflict are signs of good health in our field. With that in mind, I invite you to read on and join in the dialogue. BARBARA BOWMAN Is it developmentally appropriate or not? This question has divided early childhood educators in a similar and equally unproductive way as the reading wars have divided primary grade teachers. Other people have raised questions about whether it is possible to describe ‘appropriate practices’ given differences in individuals, the wide variety of early childhood settings, the cultural diversity of our society, and the competing theoretical/philosophical orientations within early childhood. In both instances, people who frame the questions see developmentally appropriate practices as a static curriculum, the same for all children, in all classrooms. This misunderstanding of developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) arose, at least in part, because of the way it was originally presented. When DAP was first published, in order to make implications for practice more concrete, examples of what might be good and bad practice were given. The practices were not to be thought of as good or bad in themselves but judged as good or bad as they responded to a principle of development. Unfortunately, instead of looking at the principle, many people just looked at good and bad practices and neglected to understand why they were good or bad. For example, many people think that what developmentally appropriate means is that teachers should not directly teach preschoolers or focus on discipline knowledge. They think children should do what they want to do and mostly play. They think DAP says it is inappropriate for children to have to sit down and listen, to learn the alphabet and numbers, or to participate in a 441

Amos Hatch et al

large-group, structured activity. Some think children should speak their home language in school, while others promote speaking a standard dialect. In reality, it may be developmentally appropriate to do all of these things. The test of whether it is appropriate is whether it responds to a developmental principle. For example, a developmental principle is that teaching should encourage more learning. If children are bored, they will not learn well. Sometimes children are bored because they have difficulty getting started on an activity and need the teacher to help focus them with a teacher-directed activity. Sometimes children are bored because they are not interested in an activity. If it is something children need to learn, the teacher may want to embed it in a play activity to promote motivation. Another principle of learning is that children need to integrate new learning into their prior learning framework. If children are being taught their letters by thoughtlessly doing worksheets they do not understand, it is developmentally inappropriate. If they enjoy learning letters in an activity like finding out how may of their friends have the same letters in their names as they do, it is appropriate. If parents want their children to learn English in school, it may be inappropriate to speak the home language. Practice responds to principles but there may be a number of practices that reflect the same principle depending on the needs of children, the resources of the program, the skills of the teacher. Examples of teachers helping children learn about literacy might include a teacher who reads good books to children, such as Make Way for Ducklings, one who makes books out of old magazines, one who generates stories and pictures on a computer, one who translates the story into another language or rewrites the situation to be more familiar to the children. A teacher who does not know a good way to teach phonemic or print awareness might purchase a good computer program for children to use. Or if children do not have much past experience with letters and numbers, a teacher might use a direct instruction curriculum to help her be more intentional in how she plans experiences for the children. Developmentally appropriate does not say exactly what and how to teach. It provides a set of developmental principles and guidelines, and a number of different activities may be used to respond to those principles. The teacher must decide what is appropriate for a particular child or group of children at a particular time and place. Developmentally appropriate has to be decided in the context of a program with particular goals for particular children. The research in the Eager to Learn report (Bowman et al, 2000) indicates that children who have numerous opportunities to learn about literacy, or math, or science, or presumably any subject, can achieve higher levels of mental processing than children who have not had such opportunities. While age plays a role in what and how much children can learn, children should not be limited in their opportunities to learn simply because of their age. Further, the report says that many teaching strategies can work and good teachers use a range of techniques, including direct instruction. 442

DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICE

How do these new findings fit in with developmentally appropriate practices? DAP requires teachers who are well educated and willing to work hard. It means that teachers must have a store of professional knowledge that includes learning principles, discipline content, classroom management practices, and an understanding of the cultural background of different children and families. It means that the teacher must be skilled at planning, teaching, and assessing children if s/he is to select the most meaningful and intellectually challenging activities for different children. This knowledge base is far in excess of what many teachers currently have. To implement DAP we must push for higher pre-service education for teachers of young children and provide continuous in-service education to upgrade teacher understanding and skills. Reference Bowman, B., Donovan, M.S. & Burns, M.S. (Eds) (2000). Eager to Learn: educating our preschoolers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

JAMILAH R. JOR’DAN The Chicago Accreditation Partnership is a $16 million public/private child care initiative to assist early childhood programs serving low-income families pursue accreditation. Currently, we are reaching over 13,500 children and their families and over 2000 early childhood program staff. Chicago has 77 community areas and the Partnership reaches over 67 of those communities that reflect the diversity of the city. It is within the context of providing accreditation facilitation support that we came to experience the value and the risks of developmentally appropriate practice (DAP). In some cases, we have been challenged by the early childhood community serving children of color regarding the relevance of the DAP concept to ‘our children’. They challenge the authority perceived to be behind DAP, creating an ‘us and them’ dichotomy. We are faced with questions such as: Who did this? What makes ‘them’ an authority? When was the concept developed? What is the basis of the concept? Did ‘they’ visit ‘our’ programs? Observe ‘our’ children? Talk to ‘us’? Walk in ‘our’ communities? Do they understand the context in which ‘we’ work? We have also experienced challenges from ‘outsiders’ (validators) who have evaluated our programs/communities with their ‘developmentally appropriate lens’. What is the Value of Developmentally Appropriate Practice? The primary purpose of the position statement was to provide ‘guidance’ to program personnel seeking accreditation by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). The accreditation criteria called for ‘developmentally appropriate’ activities, materials, and expectations. DAP 443

Amos Hatch et al

provides a framework for individuals working with children in developing an environment that contributes to the overall development of children. The concept has also added value to the profession by promoting continuous dialogue about practices that benefit children and promote reflection among individuals that can only serve to inform future revisions of the document. What are the Risks in the Developmentally Appropriate Concept? 1. Interpretation/Misinterpretation The developmentally appropriate concept has been misinterpreted and misrepresented by many, resulting in a tension about the concept. As a profession, we are not in agreement about the concept; we’re not on the same page. While we know that DAPs contribute to children’s development, the term has also been understood to mean that teachers do not plan for children, and children spend their entire day playing. The interpretation stops here – at what point in our deliberations did the concept become synonymous with play? Challenges come from directors and teachers who have the idea that children will not learn if they are allowed to ‘play’ all day. 2. Insensitivity to Culture/Various Child Care Settings The concept is rigidly applied by some, allowing no flexibility for diversity. All cultures have traditions that support and value their children and prepare them for living in society. By doing so, cultures are preserved for future generations. There is a ‘disconnect’ in DAP – more guidance is needed in how to integrate both the developmental characteristics and the cultural and environmental backgrounds of children, families, and communities. In addition, ignorance and bias in this area must be addressed in open and honest dialogue. There are individuals who hold in their mind stereotypes of programs that are located in certain communities and child care settings. Assumptions are made about programs because of their location, leading to the conclusion that there can’t be anything ‘appropriate’ here. These individuals view communities and child care settings from a deficit perspective. 3. Implementation Individuals need more support to implement best practice and change their behavior. Many do not understand the rationale, ‘the why?’ Directors and teachers take courses in child development at local community colleges and universities, yet when you inquire or review the course outlines, how often is the concept included as a topic? Still, we expect individuals to embrace and implement a ‘concept’ that is not included as part of their preparation for the 444

DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICE

early childhood profession. In those cases where it is included as a topic, individuals receive different messages based on their instructors’ perceptions and interpretations. Where Do We Go from Here? We must think about the framework, philosophy, content, and implementation in a new way. More dialogue is needed at the ‘community level’ to address the cultural concerns and appropriateness of the concept to diverse communities. We need to address professional preparation to support individuals in implementing developmentally appropriate practices. Individuals have noted that they find the book Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs difficult to read. To be inclusive of individuals at various levels in the profession, and others who use the book as a reference, consideration should be given to making the book more ‘user friendly’. Finally, as a profession we need to do a better job of communicating about DAP. As one individual in the Partnership stated, ‘As it stands now, the concept has a bad reputation among various individuals’. Reference Bredekamp, S. & Copple, C. (Eds)(1997) Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs, revised edn. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. CHRISTINA LOPEZ MORGAN The value of a developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) concept lies in its ability to set clear guidelines based on articulated values that can then be translated into daily teaching practices. From a practitioner’s perspective this means a well-described continuum of appropriate behaviors that shows the relationship between context, teacher’s behaviour, and the values behind these practices. At the time the original DAP document was written, the field was in great need of a set of guidelines that could be used to determine practice. Teachers, directors, and programs were desperate for a clear, usable tool that would provide guidance for how to implement developmental theory. Historically, the field at that time understood development as it was described by Western European psychologists and supported by research on predominately white, middle-class children. It was generally accepted that this view was the ‘universal’ and true description of development in all children. There was little discussion about the values that supported these views of development; they were simply accepted as the way things were. 445

Amos Hatch et al

The first version of DAP was enthusiastically received by the field and quickly put into use. Teachers working in preschools and childcare centers wanted to feel secure in implementing developmental theory in their classrooms. They now felt that they had an authoritative list of right and wrong behaviors for classroom practice. Although the document stated that these were guidelines and not rigid standards, DAP rapidly became the ‘bible’ of what good teaching was supposed to be for all children. The document reinforced the expertise of the early childhood professional as the keeper of appropriate practice. Over time, the context of our understanding of development changed. A number of significant shifts contributed to this change. The increased diversity of children served in programs brought questions about practice into a different focus. Preschool and childcare teachers found that culturally diverse families had their own values, which provided a different lens for looking at development. They were confused by the contradiction between stated appropriate practices and the real needs of the families in their programs. Similarly, the globalization of the economy and the broadening exchanges of information with many different cultural perspectives challenged a singular approach to understanding development. Perhaps there were multiple perspectives of ‘normal’ development and a variety of ways to achieve healthy practice. The revised version of DAP attempted to address the issue of different family views on development and the relationship of cultural context to appropriate practice. It included a more complex discussion of cultural relevance as a critical factor in teaching practices. These changes were intended to help the practitioner enlarge the frame for understanding appropriate practice and recognize that this was a process they engaged in with families. However, the revised DAP did not clearly identify or articulate the basic context of the document itself. Thus, by default, it presents a universal view of development as the foundation of appropriate practice. The revised DAP recommends that practice be modified to meet the cultural expectations of families and other perspectives of development. But this discussion is added on to the universal view and fades in contrast to the larger developmental sections describing appropriate versus inappropriate practice. In addition, it fails to clarify the specific values that are the basis of the practices it recommends, leaving the practitioner to sort out how to implement teaching in the face of conflicting values. Herein lie the greatest risks in a DAP concept. The development of guidelines that are constructed on too narrow a view of development diminishes a wider range of potential understandings of appropriate practice. The unspoken assumption is that Western perspectives of development are the only appropriate early childhood standards that reinforce these values. There is inherent danger in presenting teaching as a dichotomy of ‘good or bad’ practice, instead of a continuum of behaviors reflecting different contexts and values. 446

DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICE

What the field needs now is intense dialogue about the complexity of teaching in today’s world of multiple perspectives and diversity of values. The DAP document has established a solid foundation from which we can continue this important dialogue. CRAIG HART The main value of the developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) concept is that it provides a professional consensus view from which teachers can draw in developing their own philosophies of instruction that are tailored to the children they teach. It is not a prescriptive set of rules by which teachers are bound. Rather, the DAP concept provides general guidelines for classroom instruction that stem from a systematic knowledge base of research, theory, and practical experience that is informative about normative development and learning processes at different ages. This awareness helps teachers tune into the considerable variation that exists in children, which is tied to individual genetic, family, and sociocultural factors. Taking these factors into consideration lends itself to flexible classroom teaching practices. DAP is not defined as an either/or proposition, it is measured on a continuum for assessing how well instructional practices meet individual child needs. In our research, we have found that teacher beliefs and interpretations about how children think and learn map well onto measures that can help identify where they are at on a continuum that ranges from more to less appropriate in meeting child needs (Charlesworth et al, 1993). These measures correspond well with observed preschool and kindergarten classroom practices. DAP encourages teachers to consider the whole child while taking into account gender, culture, disabilities, and other factors that require varied applications of curriculum to meet both group and individual child needs and learning styles. For example, as Sue Bredekamp & Teresa Rosegrant (1992) aptly stated, ‘Early Childhood Education is not a decision between teacherdirected and child-initiated learning; both are essential components of a good classroom for young children. The true dilemma is which of the many teacher interactions is best for this child in this situation working toward this goal?’ (p. 41). Less developmentally appropriate practices are those where little attention is given to individual differences and to varying approaches that might better meet child needs. In our published research with African-American and EuropeanAmerican children, we have noted how DAP classrooms were all different and varied in the methods used to implement DAP (Charlesworth et al, 1993). Teachers’ activities were conducted in such a manner in DAP classrooms that both African-American and European-American children were drawn into them. Children were allowed to participate in ways that met their individual learning styles. Teachers were skilled in reading the needs of each child and demonstrated flexibility in modifying the course of activities as needed within child individual, developmental, and cultural frameworks. We have also noted 447

Amos Hatch et al

that more DAP teachers dialogue with other teachers, and explore diverse views to help them decide what the best approaches are for working with their children. This need does not appear to be as great for teachers who adopt a ‘one-size-fits all’ approach to education. There is also considerable evidence now indicating that adjusting teaching practices to individual child needs is best for concurrent and longterm child adjustment and academic outcomes. This applies to at-risk children as well as to those from varying ethnic (e.g. Latino), socio-economic, and cultural backgrounds. Consistent findings across a variety of samples indicate that children enrolled in more DAP classrooms exhibit less stress behavior, fewer behavioral problems, and are more motivated to learn (see Hart et al [1998] for a review). They also do better academically than those enrolled in less developmentally appropriate programs, both concurrently and later on (see Huffman & Speer [2000] for a review). Rather than promoting inequity and giving dominant North American classes an advantage, our data indicate that DAP approaches promote equity in developmental outcomes and activity type participation for children from a variety of backgrounds (see Hart et al [1997] for a review). Results of our recent growth curve modeling analyses on data from children representing diverse backgrounds who were tracked from kindergarten through fourth grade are most telling. After controlling for child behavior and abilities prior to kindergarten entrance, children enrolled in more DAP kindergarten classrooms exhibited less hostile/aggressive behavior through fourth grade when compared to children enrolled in less developmentally appropriate kindergarten classes (Hart et al, in preparation). They also performed better on academic achievement tests across time, even after taking into account the developmental appropriateness of early elementary grade classrooms that they tracked into (Hart et al, in preparation). Keep in mind that these types of findings only apply to child academic and social adjustment in North American contexts. After all, the DAP construct arose from Western societal thinking. This leads me to a brief discussion of risks associated with DAP. Given limited space, let me raise one that has recently come to mind. We often characterize culturally based practices as more or less developmentally appropriate based on little systematic data or understanding of the cultural context. Educational practices that are viewed as being less developmentally appropriate for most three and four year-olds, such as rote drill and memorization, are highly valued in some cultural traditions and are used to stereotype culture-based teaching methods (e.g. Muslim children memorizing the Koran, Japanese preschoolers practicing writing hiragana). Chinese preschools are often described as highly structured, with heavy reliance on rote or recitation in unison with the entire class, leaving little room for children’s creativity or self-expression. Yet, my own observations in many of these countries suggest that there is considerable within-culture variability in teaching practices, and that what is often characterized as the rule is more often the exception. Rote learning, for example, often constitutes a fraction of a larger developmental curriculum that 448

DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICE

is more geared towards child self-expression and meeting individual child needs. Rather than labeling any cultural practice as developmentally inappropriate, my sense is that we can learn much by evaluating how meaningful cultural traditions (that are probably not the main menu for instruction) can help children better adapt to the societies in which they live (as stressed in the 1997 NAEYC guidelines). In recent visits to China, I have noted how the DAP construct is being promoted on a nationwide basis while simultaneously retaining cultural traditions that involve some rote experiential learning (e.g. Chinese character writing) and collectivist group socialization coupled with individualized thinking and child-centred instruction. We are only just beginning to give these types of broader cultural issues the kind of thought that they deserve. As we have noted in North American settings, some aspects of DAP may look quite different in varying contexts, but yet meet childrens’ needs in ways that uniquely facilitate development in culturally adaptive ways. References Bredekamp, S. & Rosengrant, T. (Eds) (1992) Reaching Potentials: appropriate curriculum and assessment for young children. Volume 1. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Charlesworth, R., Hart, C.H., Burts, D.C., Mosley, J. & Fleege, P.O. (1993) Measuring the Developmental Appropriateness of Kindergarten Teachers’ Beliefs and Practices, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, pp. 255-276. Hart, C.H., Burts, D.C. & Charlesworth, R. (1997) Integrated Developmentally Appropriate Curriculum: from theory and research to practice, in C.H. Hart, D.C. Burts & R. Charlesworth (Eds) Integrated Curriculum and Developmentally Appropriate Practice: birth to age 8. New York: State University of New York Press. Hart, C.H., Burts, D.C., Durland, M.A., Charlesworth, R., DeWolf, M. & Fleege, P.O. (1998) Stress Behaviors and Activity Type Participation of Preschoolers in More and Less Developmentally Appropriate Classrooms: SES and sex differences, Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 16, pp. 12-18. Hart, C. H., Yang, C., Burts, D. C., Charlesworth, R., DeWolf, D.M. & Buchanan, T. (in preparation) Developmentally Appropriate/Inappropriate Practices in Kindergarten and Later School Adjustment: a six year longitudinal study. Huffman, L.R. & Speer, P.W. (2000) Academic Performance among At-risk Children: the role of developmentally appropriate practices, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, PP. 167-184.

LOURDES DIAZ SOTO I would like to share a glimpse of my New York City experiences with you in the wake of the World Trade Center tragedy. The sights and sounds of ambulances, police sirens, family members carrying pictures of loved ones, decorated fire houses, daily funerals, huge machinery, multiple volunteers,

449

Amos Hatch et al

grieving children and teachers are all alarming. At the same time, they are a testament to the strength of the human spirit. For the purposes of this discussion, however, I will focus on the shortcomings of applying scientific orientations of child development to constructs such developmentally appropriate practice. Child development is an integral part of the scientific paradigm. Child development has a long-standing tradition in early childhood education and is based largely in the field of psychology, particularly developmental psychology and the interdisciplinary field of child development, and in biology. Most of the published research in scholarly journals of early childhood education falls into the paradigm defined primarily by quantified, predetermined hypotheses and discrete point data. In other words, a persistent empirical and quantitative paradigm is evident in much of this literature. Contributions to the field of child development scholarship are abundant and significant; yet the century-long domination of psychological and biological child development perspectives in the field has meant a lack of recognition or acceptance of alternative theoretical and methodological perspectives. Much of the contemporary early childhood literature valorizes developmentally appropriate practice and the Piagetian stages of children’s growth and development. Much of this discourse has become ‘taken-forgranted’ knowledge, and has been, until recently, rarely critiqued. I recently wrote a critique of the Piagetian and post-Piagetian constructivist orientations on which developmentally appropriate practices are based (Soto, 1999). The field of early childhood education can continue to move beyond scientific and biologically derived origins toward an alternative ‘critical constructivist paradigm’ that examines issues of power and pursues a utopian dream of equity and social justice. There is no doubt that Piaget and the cognitive psychologists have added tremendous knowledge to our field and that the developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) concept has influenced how early childhood educators think and act. One of the major problems, however, is that developmental psychology and DAP are based on a reductionist analytical reasoning coinciding with Cartesian dualism that splits the human experience. As we begin to deconstruct the scientifically driven epistemologies as the grounding for early childhood education, we can begin to pursue more personal, liberating, democratic, humanizing, participatory, action driven, political, feminist, critically multicultural, decolonizing perspectives. How we summon our imaginations to formulate, envision, and implement a liberating praxis that integrates theoretical understandings, critique, and transformative action will help determine what happens to young children growing up in a postmodern context. As we begin to recognize that ours is a struggle toward humanistic and emancipatory goals, we can also begin to chart a path of solidarity. Many of the proponents of child development perspectives have tended to portray themselves as the only knowledge brokers in the field. In many ways 450

DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICE

they have created a climate that has ignored and at times silenced multiple players and multiple perspectives. The creation of knowledge in the field is not for elitist child development researchers only. As we expand our vision it will be possible for many more members of the early childhood community to have their voices heard as we collaboratively design projects that emphasize issues of equity and social justice. These projects will shed light on issues of power and will lead us to justice and equity in the lives of children, families, early childhood teachers, and researchers. Newly emerging and evolving postmodern philosophies, epistemologies, research, scholarship, policies, and practices may mean that we will travel in areas that may deconstruct and decenter scientific traditions, push the boundaries of our existing knowledge base, and begin to critically analyze and question the taken-for-granted knowledge of the genetic, biological, and scientific. It is clear that it will be crucial for the field to continue to critically analyze how privilege and power have influenced the direction toward scientifically driven epistemologies and valorized the rationalistic Western lens. Who stands to benefit from the overreliance on Western ways of seeing the world? Why has it been so difficult for the field to examine its own presuppositions? When will ‘other ways’ of envisioning childhood be recognized and credited in the discourse space of early childhood education? Can we continue to be governed by a single ‘official’ pedagogy that Rose (1999) says ‘govern(s) our very souls’ (p. 9)? Our newly evolving orientations will mean that we are traveling creative paths, as architects, as builders, as wisdom keepers, as healers discovering, building, and charting newly liberating spaces of hope and possibility. In conclusion, I would like to pose the following 15 questions: • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Is there a space to analyze issues of power in DAP? Whose childhood are we reflecting? Are we perpetuating rather than challenging social inequalities? Do we confirm social privilege and pathologize social disadvantage? Are we reflecting dominant assumptions? Do we privilege the cognitive/biological while ignoring the cultural and the emotional? What does DAP mean for children living in post-colonial circumstances and Indigenous children? Is culture seen as an optional extra? Where is the wisdom of multiple diverse elders? Is the possibility of a DAP childhood a fiction/myth? Are issues of native language treated as a problem? Are ‘other ways’ of envisioning childhood recognized? Are we continuing to be governed by official pedagogies that ‘govern our very souls’ (Rose, 1999)? Who stands to benefit from our overreliance on Western ways of seeing the world? 451

Amos Hatch et al

• How important is this orientation in the wake of the World Trade Center tragedy? Thank you, Paz y luz (Peace and light), Lourdes. References Rose, N. (1999) Governing the Soul. New York: Routledge, Chapman, & Hall. Soto, L. D. (1999) Constructivist Theories in the Age of Newt Gingrich: the postformal concern for power, in J. Kincheloe, S. Steinberg & P. Hinchey (Eds) The Post-formal Reader: cognition and education. New York: Falmer Press.

SALLY LUBECK Two featured sessions at the (2001) meeting of the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) in Anaheim, California offered strikingly different constructions of early childhood research and policy, and, by extension, of a professional association dedicated to young children. In the first session, government officials introduced the Bush Administration’s Reading Initiative and described a five-year multimillion dollar research initiative that would demonstrate ‘once and for all’ how young children should be taught to read. In the second, held the next day, Marian Wright Edelman, Director of the Children’s Defense Fund (CDF), laid out a comprehensive strategy to ensure the passage of legislation aimed at changing the social conditions that militate against children’s life chances. The first session met with anger and resistance; the second had people on their feet, arms intertwined, swaying back and forth, and singing ‘We Shall Overcome.’ Mark Ginsberg, the Executive Director of NAEYC, stood on the stage with Marian Wright Edelman, both singing, their arms intertwined. But what, one might ask, does this have to do with ‘developmentally appropriate practice’? If an emphasis on the development of individual children in classrooms elides a broader concern for children’s well-being, it has everything to do with it. In the ‘Position Statement on Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8’ (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997), in a section entitled ‘The Cultural Context of Early Childhood Programs,’ the following topics are discussed: the current knowledge base, the increase in the number of programs, the increasing cultural and linguistic diversity within programs, the trend toward full inclusion, expansion to include a broader age range of children for longer periods of time, corporate sponsorship, and family day care. Nowhere in this discussion is reference made to contextual factors that deeply affect young children and their families – no mention of the fact that one American child in five lives in poverty, no mention of the estimated 10.8 million children without health insurance, no mention of welfare reform. Yet are these not crucial features of the contexts in which many American children reside? By international standards, the USA is considered to be the richest country in the 452

DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICE

world, and yet we have the largest number of children living in poverty of any industrialized nation. A too narrow delineation of the field can obscure factors which arguably deserve more prominence in the position statement of a professional association concerned with the well-being of children. In his book, The Struggle for the American Curriculum, Herbert Kliebard (1986) describes four interest groups that vied for control of the elementary school curriculum at the dawn of the twentieth century. Three aimed to reform the disciplinary-based humanist curriculum that had dominated schooling: the developmentalists, the social efficiency educators, and the social meliorists. As Kliebard explains, the developmentalists ‘proceeded basically from the assumption that the natural order of development in the child was the most significant and scientifically defensible basis for determining what should be taught’ (p. 13). In more recent debates, however, the naturalness of this assumption has been challenged on a number of grounds (e.g. Bloch, 1991; Goffin, 1996; Katz, 1996; Lubeck, 1996; Stott & Bowman, 1996; Woodhead, 2000). Social efficiency educators promoted scientific management techniques, particularly the ‘measurement of results in the light of fixed standards’ (Kliebard, 1986, p. 23). At the dawn of the twenty-first century, standards and the measurement of ‘outcomes’ are again prominent features of school reform efforts and, increasingly, of efforts to reform early childhood education. Yet, as Kliebard argues, ‘Such an interpretation of science, applied to education and curriculum, represented a fundamental departure from science in the interest of discovering the developmental stages through which a child passes’ (p. 23). Finally, social meliorists focused on ‘the power of intelligent action to change things for the better’ (Kliebard, 1986, p. 25). In contemporary parlance, this means concern for the ‘whole child,’ his/her health, education and wellbeing. The CDF aims to ensure that no child lives in poverty and that all have health insurance, enough to eat, quality care and education, protection from harm, and genuine opportunity (CDF, 2001). As early childhood educators, we must also be concerned, among other things, that care and education opportunities are unequally dispersed in communities and states throughout the nation and that staff turnover is high due to extremely low wages (Fuller & Strath, 2001). One might argue that all of these reforms are equally valid or important, yet a developmentalist view has always been privileged in the NAEYC Position Statement, with little attention directed to factors that keep children from participating or undermine their development outside the classroom. Another vision of the early childhood educator entered our collective consciousness when Marion Wright Edelman spoke in November 2001, a view of early childhood educators as social meliorists and political activists. The NAEYC, with affiliates at the local and state levels, is one of the most well-organized organizations in the country. In the current climate, it may well be that only the mobilization of organizations like NAEYC and CDF will be capable of

453

Amos Hatch et al

stemming the tide of the powerful forces claiming that reading instruction is all that children need or require. References Bloch, M. (1991) Critical Science and the History of Child Development’s Influence on Early Education Research, Early Education and Development, 2, pp. 95-108. Bredekamp, S. & Copple, C. (Eds) (1997) Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs, revised en. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. Children’s Defense Fund (2001) www.childrensdefensefund.org Fuller, B. & Strath, A. (2001) The Child-care and Preschool Workforce: demographics, earnings, and unequal distribution, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, pp. 37-55. Goffin, S. (1996) Child Development Knowledge and Early Childhood Teacher Preparation: assessing the relationship – a special collection, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11, pp. 117-134. Katz, L. (1996) Child Development Knowledge and Teacher Preparation: confronting assumptions, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11, pp. 135-146. Kliebard, H. (1986) The Struggle for the American Curriculum, 1893-1958. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Lubeck, S. (1996) Deconstructing ‘Child Development Knowledge’ and ‘Teacher Preparation,’ Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11, pp. 147-167. Stott, F. & Bowman, B. (1996) Child Development Knowledge: a slippery base for practice, Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11, pp. 169-184. Woodhead, M. (2000) Toward a Global Paradigm for Research into Early Childhood, in H. Penn (Ed.) Early Childhood Services: theory, policy and practice. Buckingham: Open University Press.

Discussion MARILOU HYSON These diverse and challenging points of view – and the lively audience discussion that followed at the National Association for the Education of Young Children’s 2001 annual conference – represent precisely the kind of growth-producing tension that NAEYC seeks to foster in the early childhood field. This year marks the seventy-fifth anniversary of the NAEYC; such debates were as typical of the organization in its early years as they are today. The authors of these papers are united in their passionate desire to support young children’s learning and development; yet they articulate equally passionate differences of opinion about how to reach this goal. The papers left me with five questions, each of which may provide a focus for later discussion and action. Let me share these briefly and then conclude with two competing botanical images of the future of developmentally appropriate practice (DAP). 454

DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICE

1. Why has NAEYC’s DAP document become regarded as a ‘bible,’ and what lessons might we learn from this? Christina Lopez Morgan notes that ‘DAP rapidly became the “bible” of what good teaching was supposed to be for all children.’ Why? Perhaps the document’s examples of ‘appropriate’ and ‘inappropriate’ practices inadvertently invited rigid interpretations. But it is also likely that underpaid, inadequately prepared educators may more quickly seize upon what look like simple prescriptions. What is the lesson? Some might say NAEYC should learn from the past and get out of the guideline-producing business. But within its mission as a major professional association, NAEYC will continue to develop position statements and standards of practice. The challenge will be to analyze the DAP experience so as to inform that work – and to advocate for a system of early education that attracts well-prepared, reflective professionals who use documents like this as tools, not as bibles. 2. To what extent can we identify ‘core values’ in early childhood education? As we see in these papers, talented and reasonable people differ in their interpretation of experience. Some quite readily find common features in all good early childhood education, regardless of culture, context, or community. Others question whether such commonalities exist and even challenge the whole enterprise of trying to find them. To some extent this may be a matter of personal style. Years ago, the philosopher Isaiah Berlin said there were two kinds of thinkers, the fox and the hedgehog – ‘the fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.’ Hedgehogs are people who connect everything to one overarching principle. Foxes see the world as a multiplicity of things that don’t fit into a universal system. Maybe we should not try to make foxes into hedgehogs, or hedgehogs into foxes, but encourage one another to pursue understanding in our own ways, and then come together periodically, as we have done here, so that we may learn from one another. 3. Have the words ‘developmentally appropriate practice’ lost their usefulness, and if so, what other words might replace them? Some on the panel would argue that no generalization such as ‘DAP’ is ever valid or useful. But even those who have found the construct valuable may now ask if the costs outweigh the benefits. Do the misunderstandings or distortions or multiple meanings that have accrued to DAP outweigh the potential benefits of the term? Would calling this construct something like ‘effective practices’ overcome the problems of labeling certain things as ‘appropriate’? Or is this a cosmetic change that fails to address the underlying issues? 4. How should the realities of children’s lives influence the enterprise of developing a vision of excellent early childhood practice? Several presenters underscored the paradox of focusing on a vision of what ‘should’ be in the context of widespread poverty, injustice, oppression, and violence in children’s lives, and in the context of an underpaid and unstable early childhood workforce. What 455

Amos Hatch et al

is the value and what is the relevance of such an undertaking? Some say we should abandon it and attend to these other, more urgent needs. Another approach may be to continue addressing both sets of issues – again according to our hedgehog- and fox-like talents and resources – working together on some issues and independently on others. 5. What are the most effective pathways toward wider, deeper dialogue, and what outcomes do we desire from these dialogues? NAEYC’s Governing Board has set as a high priority thoughtful analysis and dialogue about the construct of DAP. These papers and this discussion are visible evidence that the priority is being taken seriously. But what happens next? NAEYC and others are committed to bringing the conversation to new venues, including future conference sessions, publication, and electronic discussion. Yet finding these venues seems easier than identifying what the desired outcomes might be. Is it consensus that we seek, or is it clarification of the multiple perspectives we bring to this work? Can we ever agree on practices that are appropriate or effective or beneficial for a particular group of children in a particular context, if we so radically disagree on the kinds of evidence we would accept to support others’ claims? More time, and safer spaces, are needed to take on these issues. Fifteen years after the publication of the first version of NAEYC’s position, ‘DAP’ has taken on a life of its own, entering common professional vocabulary, being waved as a banner, or reviled as a political conspiracy. With or without each of us, one way or another, it will continue to grow. What will that growth look like? Two possibilities occur to me. Developmentally appropriate practice as a topiary garden. A craze in Elizabethan times and still popular today, topiary bushes are pruned and trained by gardeners to look like peacocks, rabbits, hearts, and other fantastic shapes. Although remarkable to look at, these creations do not bear any resemblance to the organic form itself, which simply provides the raw material for whatever is in the gardener’s mind. In this future scenario, we would all take up our pruning shears and carve our image onto one of these bushes – or use the shears to cut the bush to the ground. Ideology and competition would prevail. Developmentally appropriate practice as a raspberry bush. A second image, which I like better, would envision DAP growing more as raspberries do. Left to their own devices, raspberries grow in an interesting fashion. The original plant puts out shoots or canes, which bear fruit. If not cut back, these canes droop back to earth on their own weight, and as they touch the ground they put down new roots which then send up more canes, more fruit, and the process continues. Compared to the tidy topiary garden, the raspberry vision carries risks: shoots often pop up in unexpected parts of the yard, and thorns bar the way to 456

DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICE

the fruit. But as we continue to grow our ideas about early childhood practice, perhaps this is the kind of future we should look forward to – growth that appears haphazard, messy, and unpredictable, but that shares a common starting point and that yields glorious though hard-to-reach fruit. Note [1] Manuscripts are edited versions of papers presented at the Annual Conference of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, Anaheim, CA, 2 November 2001.

Addresses of Contributors Amos Hatch ([email protected]) Barbara Bowman ([email protected]) Jamilah R. Jor’dan ([email protected]) Christina Lopez Morgan ([email protected]) Craig Hart ([email protected]) Lourdes Diaz Soto ([email protected]) Sally Lubeck ([email protected]) Marilou Hyson ([email protected]).

457