5 6134087900058354826

2
Approaches to Early Childhood Education

Sixth Edition
Jaipaul L. Roopnarine
Syracuse University
James E. Johnson
The Pennsylvania State University
Boston Columbus Indianapolis New York San Francisco Upper Saddle River Amsterdam Cape Town Dubai
London Madrid Milan Munich Paris Montreal Toronto Delhi Mexico City São Paulo Sydney Hong Kong Seoul
Singapore Taipei Tokyo
3
Vice President and Editorial Director: Jeffery W. Johnston
Senior Acquisitions Editor: Julie Peters
Editorial Assistant: Andrea Hall
Vice President, Director of Marketing: Margaret Waples
Senior Marketing Manager: Christopher D. Barry
Senior Managing Editor: Pamela D. Bennett
Senior Project Manager: Linda Hillis Bayma/Mary Irvin
Senior Operations Supervisor: Matt Ottenweller
Senior Art Director: Diane Lorenzo
Cover Designer: Wanda Espana
Cover Image: Studio 1One/Shutterstock Images
Full-Service Project Management: Penny Walker, Aptara®, Inc.
Composition: Aptara®, Inc.
Printer/Binder: Courier/Westford
Cover Printer: Courier/Westford
Text Font: ITC Galliard
Credits and acknowledgments for materials borrowed from other sources and reproduced, with permission, in this
textbook appear on the appropriate page within the text.
Every effort has been made to provide accurate and current Internet information in this book. However, the
Internet and information posted on it are constantly changing, so it is inevitable that some of the Internet
addresses listed in this textbook will change.
Photo Credits: Courtesy of Dr. Herman Hinitz and Howley School, pp. 5, 22; Anne Vega/Merrill, pp. 44, 46, 88,
283; © Flashon Studio/Fotolia, p. 67; © Prod. Numérik/Fotolia, p. 69; Todd Yarrington/Merrill, p. 84; ©
micromonkey/Fotolia, p. 111; Jaipaul Roopnarine, p. 126; © David Grossman/Alamy, p. 131; Katelyn
Metzger/Merrill, p. 148; © Jim West/Alamy, p. 155; Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock.com, p. 174; Carol
Aghayan, p. 203 (top left & right, bottom left); Cate Heroman, p. 203 (bottom right); Scott
Cunningham/Merrill, p. 220; Dan Floss/Merrill, p. 223; Elena Bodrova, pp. 252 (both), 256;
ZouZou/Shutterstock.com, p. 270; Shirley Zeiberg/PH College, p. 280; Rebecca New, p. 335; James E. Johnson,
pp. 358, 369, 383, 387, 388.
Copyright © 2013, 2009, 2005, 2000, 1993, 1987 by Pearson Education, Inc. All rights reserved. Manufactured
in the United States of America. This publication is protected by Copyright, and permission should be obtained
from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form
or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or likewise. To obtain permission(s) to use
material from this work, please submit a written request to Pearson Education, Inc., Permissions Department,
One Lake Street, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458, or you may fax your request to 201-236-3290.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
4
Approaches to early childhood education / [edited by] Jaipaul L.
Roopnarine, James E. Johnson.—6th ed.
p. cm.
ISBN 978-0-13-265798-3
I. Roopnarine, Jaipaul L. II. Johnson, James E.
LB1139.25.A66 2013
372.21—dc23
2012005947
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
ISBN 10: 0-13-265798-8
ISBN 13: 978-0-13-265798-3
5
We dedicate this book to the memory of Jack Reilly
6
Preface
With pleasure, we introduce our new edition of Approaches to Early Childhood Education. This sixth edition is
coming out 25 years after the publication of the volume’s first edition in 1987. We have now had the privilege of
working with leaders and influential writers in the field of early childhood education (ECE) for a quarter of a
century, learning quite a bit in the process and being instrumental in bringing this composite knowledge to the
book’s readership.
Some of you may have read all six editions or a subset of them, but for many this is the first time you will read
Approaches to Early Childhood Education. We hope you appreciate the unprecedented acceleration of knowledge
and expertise in ECE and adjacent disciplines, and will view this edition favorably in its attempt to keep pace with
progress to better meet the educational needs of young children. There have been gargantuan leaps in the amount
of available information over the years and it has become ever more difficult to discern, distill, and synthesize
important knowledge to construct meaningful understanding in any professional field—including our own very
complex and dynamic one.
Our field has grown worldwide over the last decades and much real progress is occurring, both quantitatively and
qualitatively, in improving the educational lives of young children. Certainly, there are gaps and areas for
continued improvement, but few will disagree that at the base of our progress is a fruitful, functional relationship
among theory, research, and practice that has led to better practical insights and more formalized approaches to
curriculum, teaching, and assessment in ECE. Many of the programs that have been chronicled in this book over
successive editions support this conclusion. ECE program models such as Bank Street, Project Approach, and
others in this volume have themselves “matured” in significant ways.
At the same time, curricular models and programs have faced increasing challenges to address new needs and
aspirations to be inclusive and responsive to diversity, and to be able to have or to strive for excellence in design
and implementation. These realities as they have been confronted have helped spur development in ECE
programs and approaches. In particular, we find that the ascendancy of more differentiated local theorizing about
cultural communities, participation, and educational practices enriches ECE, as does and will the work done or to
be done in the inchoate global developmental sciences, neurosciences, and other innovative multi- or hybrid
disciplines.
About this Text

As with previous editions, this book has tracked important changes and adaptations of the major approaches to
early education such as Montessori, Bank Street, Project Approach, Reggio, and others. Important dimensions and
characteristics in the development and implementation of the major curricular models and programs in ECE are
examined in detail. Furthermore, the context and history and current issues and trends in the field as it evolves are
covered in special chapters.
New to this Edition

Every chapter has been updated, but specific and significant additions to this edition include the following:
A new chapter on important developments in multicultural competence (Chapter 6)
A broadened chapter on assessment (Chapter 8)
A new chapter on The Creative Curriculum® (Chapter 9)
7
Learning outcomes listed at the beginning of each chapter
A new list of questions at the end of each chapter to foster student comprehension and discussion of major
themes covered in the book
Expanded emphasis throughout on inclusion, diversity, and fostering multicultural competence within the
profession aims to help prepare a new generation of teachers and child and family specialists to better serve
today’s children and families across cultural communities and early childhood settings
8
Coursesmart Etextbook Available
CourseSmart is an exciting new choice for students looking to save money. As an alternative to purchasing the
printed textbook, students can purchase an electronic version of the same content. With a CourseSmart
eTextbook, students can search the text, make notes online, print out reading assignments that incorporate lecture
notes, and bookmark important passages for later review. For more information or to purchase access to the
CourseSmart eTextbook, visit www.coursesmart.com
Acknowledgments
Our sincerest thanks for the support and understanding provided by our respective families during the revisions of
the sixth edition of this text: Nancy Beth, Miles, Maya, and India, Clayton and Karen. The first author
acknowledges the support received from the Jack Reilly Institute for Early Childhood and Provider Education
during the preparation of this seminal volume in the early childhood education field. We also appreciate the
thoughtful reviews provided by the following individuals: Sheresa Boone Blanchard, University of North Carolina
at Greensboro; Mary Ellen Maguire-Schwartz, Rhode Island College; Mary C. Myron, East Tennessee State
University; and Maureen Walcavich, Edinboro University. Their comments and suggestions have helped to
improve the overall quality of the material presented herein.
Jaipaul L. Roopnarine
Syracuse University
James E. Johnson
9
Brief Contents
1. Part I INTRODUCTION
1. Chapter 1 History of Early Childhood Education in Multicultural Perspective 3
2. Chapter 2 The Program for Infant/Toddler Care 35
3. Chapter 3 The Head Start Program 61
4. Chapter 4 Home Visiting Programs 79
2. Part II CORE THEMES
1. Chapter 5 Including Everyone: A Model Preschool Program for Children With and Without
Disabilities 99
2. Chapter 6 More Than the Sum of Its Parts: Creating Multicultural and Linguistically Responsive
Early Childhood Classrooms 123
3. Chapter 7 Early Prevention Initiatives 147
4. Chapter 8 Assessment for Learning in the Early Childhood Classroom 167
3. Part III SPECIFIC APPROACHES—UNITED STATES
1. Chapter 9 The Creative Curriculum ® 191
2. Chapter 10 The HighScope Model of Early Childhood Education 217
3. Chapter 11 Tools of the Mind: The Vygotskian Approach to Early Childhood Education 241
4. Chapter 12 The Developmental-Interaction Approach at Bank Street College of Education 261
5. Chapter 13 The Project Approach: An Overview 279
4. Part IV SPECIFIC APPROACHES—EUROPE
1. Chapter 14 The Piramide Method 299
2. Chapter 15 Reggio Emilia in the 21st Century: Enduring Commitments Amid New Challenges 331
3. Chapter 16 Montessori Education Today 355
4. Chapter 17 The Waldorf Approach to Early Childhood Education 379
10
Contents
1. Part I INTRODUCTION
1. Chapter 1 History of Early Childhood Education in Multicultural Perspective 3
Blythe F. Hinitz The College of New Jersey
1. Origins and Histories of Key Early Education Programs 3
1. American Indian Early Childhood Education 3
2. Our European Roots 7
3. Progressive Schools 11
4. Black Early Childhood Education 12
5. Asian and Hispanic Early Childhood Education 15
6. Immigrant and Citizen Children and Youth 21
2. The Education of Young English Language Learners 23
1. Challenges, Solutions, and a Look Toward the Future 23
2. Parent Involvement 24
3. Current Issues in Early Childhood Education 25
4. The Child Well-Being Index 25
5. Women’s Leadership in Early Education 26
6. Conclusion 27
1. Reflect On 27
2. Endnotes 27
3. Selected Resources 28
4. References 28
2. Chapter 2 The Program for Infant/Toddler Care 35
J. Ronald Lally and Peter L. Mangione WestEd, San Francisco, California
1. Background and Status of Infant/Toddler Care in the United States 35
2. PITC-Recommended Program Policies 38
3. History of PITC 39
4. Theoretical and Research Foundations of PITC 42
1. Ten Attributes of Infant/Toddler Development on Which the PITC Approach Is Based
11
44
5. The PITC Approach to Curriculum 47
6. The PITC Course of Study 49
1. Infant/Toddler Development 49
2. The Practice of Group Care 49
7. The PITC Module Training Process 51
1. PITC Regional Caregiver Training Systems 51
2. Demonstration Programs 52
3. Home Visiting the PITC Way 52
4. Early Head Start PITC Home Visitor Training 52
5. PITC PQ—Home Visiting 53
8. The PITC Media-Based Training Approach 53
9. The Needs Assessment for PITC 53
10. The Efficacy of PITC 55
11. Conclusion 56
1. What Can Be Done About Inadequate, Damaging Care? 57
1. Reflect On 58
2. Endnote 58
4. References 58
3. Chapter 3 The Head Start Program 61
Douglas R. Powell Purdue University
1. Evolution of Head Start 61
1. War on Poverty Origins 61
2. Naïve Assumptions and Political Realities 63
3. Program Goals 64
4. Current Scope and Organization 66
2. Program Services and Effectiveness 67
1. Early Childhood Development and Health Services 68
2. Family and Community Partnerships 70
12
3. Program Planning and Staffing 72
4. Program Effectiveness 73
3. The Future of Head Start 75
1. Reflect On 76
3. References 77
4. Chapter 4 Home Visiting Programs 79
Barbara Hanna Wasik Adrienne Villagomez, Sheena Berry, and Priya Mulholkar University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill
1. Historical Perspective on Home Visiting in the United States 80
2. Modern-Day Home Visiting and Early Childhood Education 80
1. 1960s 80
2. 1970s 82
3. 1980s 84
4. 1990s 85
5. 2000 87
6. Future Directions: 2010-2020 88
3. The Quality in Home Visiting 91
4. Conclusions and Recommendations 93
1. Reflect On 94
2. References 94
2. Part II CORE THEMES
Disabilities 99
David Smukler State University of New York College at Cortland
Ellen Barnes Jowonio School, Syracuse, New York
1. Jowonio’s History 102
2. Philosophical Base of the Jowonio School 103
1. All Children Can Learn 103
2. Right to Participate 103
3. Learning Through Relationships 103
13
4. Age-Appropriate Curriculum 104
5. Communication-Based Classrooms 104
6. Parent-Teacher Partnership 105
7. Teaming Skills 106
3. How to Respond to Challenging Behavior 107
1. Behavior as Communication 107
2. Positive Programming 108
3. Reinforcing Positive Behaviors 108
4. Interventions Within Relationships 108
5. Using Natural Consequences 108
6. Aversive Treatment Is Unacceptable 109
7. Behavioral Interventions in an Inclusive Setting 109
8. Problem-Solving Approach 109
9. Implementing an Individualized Education Program 109
4. The Composition of the School and Its Classes 110
5. Strategies for Accomplishing Inclusion 110
1. Flexibility in Scheduling 111
2. Flexibility in Grouping 112
3. Curriculum Adaptation 112
6. The Process of Transitioning to the Next Environment 113
7. Implications for Teacher Training 115
8. Additional Inclusion Efforts 115
9. Conclusion 117
1. Reflect On 117
2. References 117
2. Chapter 6 More Than the Sum of Its Parts: Creating Multicultural and Linguistically Responsive
Early Childhood Classrooms 123
Aisha Ray and Luisiana Melendez Erikson Institute
1. The Beginning of Schools Failing Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Children and Children
in Poverty 125
1. Early Childhood Classrooms—Culturally and Linguistically Unequal 126
14
2. Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Schooling 128
1. Principles of Culturally Competent Practice in Early Childhood 129
2. Research on Culturally Responsive Teaching and Pedagogy 131
3. Conclusion 139
1. Reflect On 140
2. Endnotes 140
3. References 140
3. Chapter 7 Early Prevention Initiatives 147
Karen L. Bierman, Celene Domitrovich, and Harriet Darling The Pennsylvania State University
1. A Definition of School Readiness 148
1. Social-Emotional and Self-Regulatory Skills 148
2. Language Skills and a Foundation for Literacy 149
2. The Preventive Intervention Approach 150
1. Universal Classroom Interventions 150
2. The Important Role of Professional Development and Support for Teachers 153
3. Integrating Social-Emotional Interventions with Classroom Language Enrichment 154
4. Comprehensive Approaches to Preventive Intervention: Head Start Research-Based,

Developmentally Informed (REDI) Program 156
5. Strengthening Prevention Services for High-Risk Children: Indicated Prevention 158
3. Conclusion 160
1. Implications for Education 160
1. Reflect On 161
3. References 161
4. Chapter 8 Assessment for Learning in the Early Childhood Classroom 167
Jie-Qi Chen and Gillian Dowley McNamee Erikson Institute
1. A Brief History of Child Assessment Practices 167
1. Early Testing Tradition 168
2. Alternative Assessment Era 168
2. The Emerging Issues in Child Assessment Practices 169
15
1. Development of Early Learning Standards 169
2. Greater Emphasis on Subject Matter 169
3. Focus on Accountability 170
3. The Theory and Practice of Assessment for Learning 171
1. Goal—Establishing the Zone of Proximal Development 171
2. Approach—Focusing on Assisted Performance 173
3. Procedure—Being Responsive to the Child’s Behavior 173
4. Content—Attending to Learning Standards and Key Concepts 174
5. Context—Emphasizing Ecological Validity 175
4. The Distinctive Features of Bridging 176
1. Using Familiar Activities and Accessible Materials 176
2. Attending to Key Concepts and Skills in Curricular Areas 178
3. Considering Activity as the Unit of Analysis in Child Assessment 178
4. Linking Assessment Results With Teaching and Learning Processes 180
5. Use of Bridging in Teacher Development 180
1. Working With Preservice Teacher Candidates 180
2. Working With In-Service Teachers 181
6. Conclusion 183
1. Reflect On 185
2. References 185
3. Part III SPECIFIC APPROACHES—UNITED STATES
1. Chapter 9 The Creative Curriculum 191
Diane Trister Dodge, Cate Heroman, and Kai-leé Berke Teaching Strategies, LLC, Washington, DC
1. Philosophy and Research Foundation of The Creative Curriculum 192
1. Positive Interactions and Relationships Are Fundamental to Children’s Success in School

and in Life 192
2. Social-Emotional Competence Is a Significant Factor in School Success 192
3. Constructive, Purposeful Play Supports Essential Learning 193
4. The Physical Environment Affects Children’s Behavior and the Type and Quality of
Learning Interactions 193
5. Teacher–Family Partnerships Promote Development and Learning 193
16
2. The Consistent Framework of The Creative Curriculum 193
1. Knowing How Children Develop and Learn 194
2. The Learning Environment 194
3. What Children Are Learning 196
4. Caring and Teaching 197
5. Partnering With Families 198
3. Objectives for Development and Learning 199
4. The Creative Curriculum for Preschool as a System 201
1. Knowledge-Building Resources 201
2. Daily Practice Resources 202
3. How the System Connects to Families 204
5. Authentic, Ongoing Assessment in The Creative Curriculum 205
6. How Teachers Use the Assessment Cycle 206
7. The Creative Curriculum Includes All Children 207
1. English and DL Learners 207
2. Children With Disabilities 208
3. Children With Advanced Knowledge and Skills 208
8. The Creative Curriculum and Professional Development 208
1. Embedded Professional Development Support 208
2. Building Capacity 209
9. Research On and Use of The Creative Curriculum and Teaching Strategies GOLD 210
1. Research on the Curriculum 210
2. Research on the Assessment System 211
3. Scope of Use 212
10. Conclusion 212
1. Reflect On 212
3. References 213
2. Chapter 10 The HighScope Model of Early Childhood Education 217
Lawrence J. Schweinhart and David P. Weikart (deceased) HighScope Educational Research
17
Foundation, Ypsilanti, Michigan
1. The History of the HighScope Model 218
2. Active Learning by the Child 219
3. The Role of the Teacher in Creating Active Learning 220
4. The Daily Routine That Supports Active Learning 221
1. Planning Time: Stating an Intention 221
2. Work Time: Executing the Intention 221
3. Cleanup Time 222
4. Recall Time: Reflecting on Accomplishments 222
5. Small-Group Time 222
6. Large-Group Time 222
5. The Key Developmental Indicators 223
6. The Preschool Child Observation Record 224
7. Role of Parents and Community 225
8. Training in the HighScope Model 225
9. Research Support for the HighScope Model 226
1. HighScope Perry Preschool Study 226
2. HighScope Preschool Curriculum Comparison Study 228
3. The Training for Quality Study 231
4. The IEA Preprimary Project 233
10. The Relationship of Research to the HighScope Model 235
11. Conclusion 237
1. Reflect On 237
3. References 238
3. Chapter 11 Tools of the Mind: The Vygotskian Approach to Early Childhood Education 241
Elena Bodrova Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning
Deborah J. Leong Tools of the Mind, Inc.
1. The Theoretical Foundations of the Vygotskian Approach 241
1. Cultural-Historical View of Development 241
18
2. The Concept of Tools 242
3. Lower and Higher Mental Functions 243
2. The Vygotskian View of Learning and Teaching 245
1. Learning Can Lead Development 245
2. Zone of Proximal Development 245
3. The Role of the Teacher in Children’s Learning and Development 247
3. The Vygotskian View of Child Development 248
1. Social Situation of Development as the Main Mechanism of Development 248
2. Developmental Accomplishments and Leading Activity 248
3. The Vygotskian Approach to School Readiness 249
4. The Applications of the Vygotskian Theory in the Early Childhood Classroom 249
1. Fostering Child Development by Engaging Children in the Leading Activities 250
2. Promoting Children’s Acquisition of Mental Tools and Higher Mental Functions 252
3. Re-mediation as the Core Principle of Special Education 255
5. Conclusion 258
1. Reflect On 258
2. Endnote 258
4. References 259
4. Chapter 12 The Developmental-Interaction Approach at Bank Street College of Education 261
Harriett K. Cuffaro and Nancy Nager Bank Street College of Education
1. History and Evolution 261
2. Basic Principles 263
3. Curriculum 264
1. The Learner 265
2. Knowledge and Experience 265
3. The Teacher 266
4. The Learning Environment 266
5. Experiencing and Integrating Knowledge 267
6. The Family 268
19
7. The Community 268
8. Communities of the Past 270
9. Assessment 271
4. Implications for Teacher Education 273
5. Conclusion 274
1. Reflect On 275
2. Endnote 275
4. References 275
5. Chapter 13 The Project Approach: An Overview 279
Lilian G. Katz University of Illinois Sylvia C. Chard University of Alberta, Canada
1. Definition of a Project 280
2. Project Work and Other Parts of the Curriculum 281
3. The Theoretical Rationale for the Project Approach 282
1. Four Types of Learning Goals 282
2. Principles Related to the Acquisition of Knowledge 282
3. Implications for Practice 284
4. The Development of Social Competence 285
4. How to Implement the Project Approach 285
1. Selecting Topics for Projects 285
2. Responding to Children’s Interests 286
3. Preparation for Participation in a Democratic Society 287
4. Criteria for Selecting Topics 288
5. The Phases of Project Work 288
1. Phase 1: Getting Started on a Project 288
2. Phase 2: Developing a Project 289
3. Phase 3: Concluding a Project 290
6. A Kindergarten Project on Shoes 291
1. Phase 1: Getting Started on the Project 291
2. Phase 2: Developing the Project 291
20
3. Phase 3: Concluding the Project 293
7. Conclusion 294
1. Reflect On 294
3. References 294
4. Part IV SPECIFIC APPROACHES—EUROPE
1. Chapter 14 The Piramide Method 299
Jef J. van Kuyk Founder Piramide Method, Cito Corporation, Arnhem, The Netherlands
1. The Foundation of the Piramide Method 301
2. The Basic Concepts in Coherence 303
1. Relational Component 303
2. Educational Component 304
3. How to Optimize the Two Sources of Development 305
4. The Content of the Piramide Method 306
1. Three Intelligences 306
5. The Levels of Action and Thinking 308
1. Basic Level 308
2. Creative Level 308
3. Metacognitive Level 308
6. The Practices That Optimize Children’s Development 308
7. The Three Levels of Intervention 309
1. Low Level 310
2. Middle Level 310
3. High Level 310
8. How the Practice Is Executed 310
1. Welcome Program 310
2. Play and Learning Environment 310
9. Six Features of the Piramide Method 311
1. Play 311
2. Initiative Learning 312
21
3. Projects 314
4. Sequential Framework 320
5. The Tutor Program and Activities for Bright Children 320
6. The Parent Program 320
10. How the Piramide Method Is Evaluated 321
11. Child Assessment 321
1. Authentic and Individual Assessment 321
2. Systematic and Communal Assessment 322
3. Instruments 322
4. Daily Evaluation 322
5. Semiannual Evaluation 323
12. Teacher Evaluation 324
1. Training 324
2. After the Training 324
13. Program Evaluation 325
1. Internal Evaluation 325
2. Tutor Evaluation 326
3. External Evaluation 326
14. Conclusion 327
1. Reflect On 328
2. Endnote 328
4. References 329
2. Chapter 15 Reggio Emilia in the 21st Century: Enduring Commitments Amid New Challenges 331
Rebecca S. New University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Rebecca Kantor University of Colorado, Denver
1. The Reggio Emilia Story 331
2. Italian Early Care and Education: Children’s Right and Society’s Responsibility 332
3. Reggio Emilia’s Municipal Commitment to Young Children 333
4. Putting Principles Into Practice: An Ongoing Process of Collaboration and Inquiry 334
22
1. La Bella Figura: An Environment That Welcomes, Nurtures, Impresses, and Inspires 335
2. Curriculum as a Projection of Possibilities 337
3. Partecipazione: Raising the Bar on Family Engagement 340
4. The Reggio Emilia Approach: An Orientation to Early Childhood Education as a

Principled Way of Living 341
5. New Changes and Challenges in Italy and Reggio Emilia 342
1. Teacher Education: Changing Concepts of Competence 342
6. Reggio Emilia and the United States: New Challenges and New Possibilities 345
1. That Was Then, This Is Now 346
7. Conclusion 348
1. Reflect On 349
2. Selected Resource 349
3. Endnotes 349
4. References 350
3. Chapter 16 Montessori Education Today 355
Martha Torrence Cambridge Montessori School
John Chattin-McNichols Seattle University
1. The Background and Key Tenets of the Montessori Method 357
2. Montessori’s View of Human Development 359
1. The Absorbent Mind 360
2. Discipline: The Development of the Will 360
3. The Program Characteristics 361
1. The Prepared Environment 361
2. Freedom 361
3. Structure and Order 362
4. Reality and Nature 363
5. Beauty and Atmosphere 363
6. Montessori Learning Materials 363
7. The Development of Community Life 365
4. The Curriculum Areas 365
23
1. Practical Life 365
2. Sensorial 366
3. Language 367
4. Mathematics 368
5. Artistic Expression 369
6. Music 369
7. The Cultural Subjects: Geography and Science 370
5. The Role of the Teacher 370
6. Montessori Education in the Elementary Years 372
7. Research on Montessori 373
8. Conclusion 375
1. Reflect On 375
2. Selected Resources: Montessori Web Resources 375
3. Major U.S. Montessori Organizations 376
4. References 376
4. Chapter 17 The Waldorf Approach to Early Childhood Education 379
Christy L. Husek Fairbrook First Steps Christian Preschool
James E. Johnson The Pennsylvania State University
1. Rudolph Steiner and Anthroposophy 379
1. Steiner’s Theory of Child Development 380
2. Context of Waldorf Education 381
2. The Waldorf Program’s Characteristics 384
1. Creating a Caring Community of Learners 384
2. Teaching to Enhance Development and Learning 385
3. Constructing Appropriate Curriculum 389
3. How to Assess Children’s Learning 392
4. The Waldorf Relationship with Families 394
5. Waldorf and Other Approaches 394
1. How Does Waldorf Approach Special Education? 397
2. Criticisms of Waldorf Education 398
24
3. Can Waldorf Education Be Replicated in Public Schools? 399
6. Conclusion 400
1. Reflect On 401
2. Selected Resources: Websites of Interest 401
3. International Waldorf Schools on the Internet 401
4. Books Related to Waldorf Education 402
5. References 402
1. Author Index 405
2. Subject Index 413
25
Part I Introduction
1. CHAPTER 1 History of Early Childhood Education in Multicultural Perspective
2. CHAPTER 2 The Program for Infant/Toddler Care
3. CHAPTER 3 The Head Start Program
4. CHAPTER 4 Home Visiting Programs
26
Chapter 1 History of Early Childhood Education in
Multicultural Perspective
Blythe F. Hinitz
The College of New Jersey
After reading this chapter, you should be able to:
Discuss origins and histories of key early education programs
Explain the education of young English language learners
Describe current issues in early childhood education
Define the Child Well-Being Index
Characterize women’s leadership in early education
The multicultural history of early childhood education in the United States begins with the indigenous peoples of
North America, followed by the introduction of educational systems brought by the colonists, slaves, and
immigrants who arrived on its shores. This history is enhanced by the programs that formed the European roots,
based on the theories and practices of such educators as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi,
Samuel Wilderspin, Robert Owen, Friedrich Wilhelm Froebel, sisters Rachel and Margaret McMillan, and Maria
Montessori. The educational practices of Africans released from slavery and of immigrants from the four corners
of the world, melded with “home grown” ideas and methodologies, led to unique variations of traditional
programs and new educational institutions designed to foster the social-emotional (affective), cognitive, and
physical–motor development of children from birth to age 8 years in the United States.
Origins And Histories of Key Early Education

Programs
American Indian Early Childhood Education
Originally in the Americas there were the indigenous peoples—hundreds of tribes who spoke approximately 600
languages.1 These peoples were erroneously called “Indians” by the explorers and colonists who thought they had
reached Asia. The Native Americans had a strong tribal and family system. They codified methods of preparing,
educating, and inducting young children into the skills, knowledge, and rituals they needed to become
functioning members of society. Many of the original tribes have disappeared as a result of warfare, disease, or
assimilation.2 The history of early childhood education in the United States usually begins with the European
roots; however, it is important to note that American Indians had a viable system of early childhood education,
with many aspects similar to that of the ancient Greeks (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000).
Before the arrival of European colonists, American Indians were the only indigenous groups living in North
America. The heterogeneous tribes included nomadic hunters, farmers living in agricultural communities, and
fishermen. The members of existing tribes have maintained their specific group identity and culture to the present
day, in spite of all attempts to assimilate them into other religious and secular cultures from the 1600s on.
On June 2, 1924, Congress enacted the Indian Citizenship Act, which granted citizenship to all Native Americans
27
born in the United States. The right to vote, however, was governed by state law; until 1957, some states barred
Native Americans from voting. Approved on February 8, 1887, “An Act to Provide for the Allotment of Lands in
Severalty to Indians on the Various Reservations,” known as the Dawes Act, emphasized severalty, the treatment
of Native Americans as individuals rather than as members of tribes. The Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, ratified in 1868, provided that all U.S. citizens were also citizens of the state in which they resided.
Adults in tribes gained social standing and became eligible to participate in the functioning of the group by
marrying and having children. The French and Spanish missionaries of the 1600s and 1700s attempted to convert
children and adults to Christianity, but they made little attempt to educate them. The Puritans, on the other
hand, established schools for boys and girls, formed Native American “praying towns,” and printed the Bible and
several other books in tribal languages or bilingual versions. An 1819 act of Congress provided for a “civilization
fund” to teach adult Indians agriculture and trades, and to teach the children reading, writing, and arithmetic
(Lascarides & Hinitz, 2000). Some tribes, in particular the Cherokee and Choctaw, developed well-defined school
systems that existed until the Curtis Act of 1898 ended tribal governments in “Indian territory.” The original
schools established in the Southeast were closed by the Removal Act of 1830. They were reopened, after the forced
move, on western reservations.
Three types of government-funded schools existed during the 1800s and early 1900s: reservation boarding schools,
reservation day schools, and off-reservation boarding schools. Each type of school had its own problems; however,
the off-reservation boarding schools had the most difficulties. Although some parents responded to enticements to
send their children to off-site boarding schools, the majority went to great lengths to hide their children from the
police and government agents. They feared the boarding school personnel’s attempts to assimilate children (some
as young as 6 years of age) by extinguishing their name, their language, and their culture, while forcing them to
dress as Euro-Americans and to speak only English. Harsh punishments, including beatings, sticking their heads in
the toilet bowl, and jailing, were established for children who disobeyed or ran away. The lack of hygiene and
nutritious food in most of these schools led to epidemics of illness and even death. In First Peoples, Callaway
(1999/2011) presents ways in which the students in these schools were able to band together to keep their culture
alive. Some of the students who survived the experience returned to the boarding schools as teachers in the hope of
providing their students with a better academic and experiential education. Two of the better known boarding
schools were the Carlisle Indian School and the Hampton Institute. Hampton was originally founded to educate
former slaves and became controversial for mixing African Americans and American Indians. It was one of the few
schools that permitted Native American students to speak their tribal languages and engage in traditional religious
and cultural practices.
28
The intermingling of cultures makes our early education programs and our country as a whole more
robust, vigorous, and resilient.
In 1894, President Grover Cleveland appointed William Hailmann to be the Superintendent of Indian Schools
for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA; Beatty, 1995). Hailmann was a Froebelian educational leader, who had
been a school principal and superintendent, as well as an active participant in and speaker for the National
Education Association (NEA) and the International Kindergartens Union (IKU). (See the discussion of Froebel’s
work later in this chapter.) “Hailmann’s involvement with Indian education came at a time when the federal
government’s attitude and public opinion toward Native Americans was changing from a demand for military
enforcement of reservation confinement to an emphasis on education for citizenship and assimilation” (Hewes,
2001, p. 209). He was expected to administer all the schools, on and off the reservations, select employees, prepare
courses of study, select textbooks, and maintain the schools. He was also directed to visit and inspect all the
schools, either personally or through his agents, and to report to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs concerning
the conditions and requirements of the schools. Hailmann attempted to foster interdependence and to support the
web of interpersonal relationships among boarding school students by suggesting communal entertainments and
partitioning of the dormitories into small-group living areas. For educational reasons, he favored day schools over
boarding schools, and he opened a number of day schools during his tenure in office. Froebelian kindergartens,
staffed by trained teachers, were successfully introduced into the reservation schools during his administration.
The kindergarten teachers received pay equal to that of the elementary teachers, who introduced elements of
Froebel’s system into the primary grades. Three normal schools were opened to train Indian students in Froebelian
methods, preparing them for professional life off as well as on the reservation. When Hailmann left office in 1898,
he was praised by the Indian Rights Association as “a fine example of the merit principle,” for his “honest and
sensible administration” and his successes “in spite of the fact that partisan politics … sought to thwart his efforts
at every turn” (Hewes, 2001, p. 232).
The Board of Indian Commissioners contracted a study of Indian life and education that was financed by the
Rockefeller Foundation. Entitled The Problem of Indian Administration, it was better known as the Meriam Report,
for its lead investigator Lewis Meriam. The 1928 report criticized the funding of “Indian Affairs” and Indian
schools and was particularly critical of conditions in the boarding schools. Its release resulted in major shifts in
Indian education. The BIA was instructed to keep children in their home communities, which meant providing
day schools as opposed to boarding schools. Progressive pedagogical methods using stories, songs, mathematics,
and science from the life of the children and the tribe were to be implemented. Curriculum was to be grounded in
local conditions, history, and culture. The Johnson-O’Malley Act of 1934 provided for federal–state contracts
issued through the BIA to assist in the implementation of these reforms. The compensatory education programs of
the 1960s and 1970s stimulated examination of the educational needs of American Indians. Analysis of methods
to cope with these needs has resulted in the use of Froebelian principles. Milton Akers’s 1968 National Association
for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) proposal, Training Program for Kindergarten Teachers of American
Indian Children, is cited as an example of the appropriateness of this approach (Hewes, 2001, p. 234). The
proposal states that special attention would be given to fostering pride and cultural identification, effective use of
materials from the natural environment, and designing a working partnership with the family, the tribal
community, and the school. The 1972 Indian Education Act provided federal assistance to help close the
achievement gap. This act also established the Office of Indian Education (OIE) and the National Advisory
Council for Indian Education (NACIE). The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975
granted American Indians local school control and self-determination for what happened in the Indian education
system, provided for development of human resources and teacher training, and created a youth intern program.
Recent developments have had an impact on the educational lives of young American Indian children (Castile,
1998). The publication Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from
Birth Through Age 8, now in its third edition (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009), was designed to provide a guidance
framework for the early childhood profession. Among the “core considerations in developmentally appropriate
practice (DAP),” one of which is “knowledge to consider in making decisions,” the current edition discusses “the
social and cultural contexts in which children live—referring to the values, expectations, and behavioral and
linguistic conventions that shape children’s lives at home and in their communities that practitioners must strive
to understand in order to ensure that learning experiences in the program or school are meaningful, relevant, and
29
respectful for each child and family” (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009, p. 10). This statement begins to address
previous concerns regarding a clash between DAP and the cultural dispositions nurtured in many Native
American communities. For example, group activity, collaborative effort, and cooperation are valued above
individual attainment and praise. Observation of a respected adult model is valued for its assistance in the social
rather than individual construction of knowledge. Therefore, in a Native American classroom, a child’s ability to
observe carefully and follow directions in carrying out an assignment would be valued rather than deemphasized.
Although many Native American communities have an elaborate oral tradition, silence is also greatly valued. The
extended family is responsible for overseeing a Native American child’s education. Therefore, exchanges of
information about school may take place with individuals who are not the child’s parents. The family may also
expect there to be clear standards, leading to interdependent actions. American Indian children and adults may be
reluctant to display verbal facility, even though they have the ability to present powerful arguments orally
(Williams, 1994).
The dawn of the 21st century saw the passage of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation by the U.S.
Congress. The legislation promised to “have every child reading by the end of third grade,” but it also prevented
Native American students from studying and using their heritage languages. It is difficult to pass on rituals,
legends, ancestral ties, and other cultural aspects without the assistance of tribal languages. During the boarding
school movement, authorities attempted to stamp out Native American culture and language, but they were
unsuccessful. Over a century later, the U.S. government may unintentionally be succeeding with NCLB. In 2004,
the National Indian Education Association (NIEA) was successful in petitioning President George W. Bush to
sign Executive Order 13336, which gives American Indians self-determination based on “their own needs and
precedence.” It assists “American Indian and Alaska Native students in meeting the challenging student academic
standards of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107–110) in a manner that is consistent with
tribal traditions, languages, and cultures.” The order also mentions preserving the peoples’ culture in the process
of so doing. NCLB supports English language use over heritage language use. Therefore, the only schools that
have avoided the language-related pitfalls of NCLB are the bilingual American Indian schools.
The NIEA, founded in 1969, is the largest and oldest organization for the improvement of American Indian
education in the United States. The organization embraces all native peoples in its paid membership. It has a
board of 12 directors who are American Indian, Alaskan Native, or Native Hawaiian. Its goal is American Indian
self-determination. Its purpose is to contribute to society in order to protect indigenous values and cultural
heritage while improving educational resources. The NIEA has influenced a variety of federal decisions since its
creation. Recent research (Besser, 2006) on the resources and funding of selected American Indian schools for
young children demonstrates that progress is being made in Native American early childhood education.
However, work still remains to be done.
Our European Roots

Today’s early childhood education in the United States stands on a strong foundation of theoretical and practical
European roots. These roots provided the basis for the three current strands of group child care and education.
The theories and practices of Jan Amos Komensky (Comenius), John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Johann
Heinrich Pestalozzi, Robert Owen, Friedrich Wilhelm Froebel, and Maria Montessori, summarized in the sections
that follow, constitute the classical underpinnings of the field. Each of these educators, in their own way, looked at
the role of parents in educating their own children; the format, the materials, and the pedagogy of schools for
young children; the place of play in the life of the child; methods of disciplining children; and child development.
Jan Amos Komensky (Comenius), 1592–1670,

Bohemia
Comenius was an education reformer who recognized the importance of early childhood. He believed that
30
education is a lifelong process and proposed a four-level educational system consisting of infancy (Mother School),
childhood (Vernacular School), boyhood (Latin School or Gymnasium), and youth (University). He organized a
school in Leszno so that each grade formed the foundation for the next higher one, by initiating specific,
developmentally appropriate curricula for each grade. This was a new innovation. In his book The Great Didactic,
he promulgated a method of teaching all things to all people. He stated that education is necessary for young
people of both genders and all societal classes, including those with differing abilities. He believed that all of these
children should be educated together in classes so that they could interact with and learn from each other. He said
that the Vernacular School should be open to girls as well as boys. Comenius used examples from nature in his
work. He recommended that discipline should be free from anger or dislike of personality, and he was opposed to
the harsh methods prevalent in his time. School of Infancy instructs mothers on their responsibility for educating
their children (under the age of 6) in faith, piety, and morals, as well as language and the arts. The importance of
play in a safe environment is emphasized. Provision of toys is discussed. Comenius’s most well-known book is
Orbis Sensualium Pictus (The World of Senses in Pictures). It is widely regarded as the first picture book because the
accompaniment to the words in Latin and the vernacular are individual relevant drawings. Comenius believed that
“there is nothing in the intellect that has not first existed in the senses” (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2011, p. 42). His
goal for the book was to assist the child in developing reasoning and communication abilities and eye–hand
coordination.
John Locke, 1632–1704, England

Locke, a teacher and scholar, wrote about using observations in the planning of educational work and the
importance of children’s play for learning. He believed that the use of examples and the provision of many
opportunities for practice were preferable pedagogical methods. He said the child should have as few rules as
possible. He did believe that girls’ education should differ from that of boys by restricting their outdoor play,
including the services of a “dancing master,” and by avoiding harsh discipline.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1712–1778, France

Rousseau had extremely conservative views on the education of girls, believing that their education should be
planned as a preparation for marriage. He was more innovative in his discussions of boys’ education, particularly
in his work Emile ou de l’education (On Education). Rousseau believed that children should be permitted to be
children before they are required to behave as adults. He said that children actively solve problems through their
play. Rousseau’s pedagogy “was firmly based upon first-hand experience” (Siraj-Blatchford, 1997, p. 12). He
divided the sources of education into three categories: nature, man, and things. He believed that child
development is a process of “unfolding.”
Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, 1746–1827, Switzerland

Pestalozzi organized a school in Burgdorf for 4- to 8-year-olds according to the children’s abilities. This permitted
each child to be successful in most activities undertaken and led to a favorable inspection report. He wrote How
Gertrude Teaches Her Children: An Attempt to Help Mothers to Teach Their Own Children in the form of letters
expounding on the principle of self-activity. The system described in the book includes intellectual, physical, and
moral education designed to precede the formal study of reading, writing, and arithmetic. At Yverdon, where the
school included 6- through 12-year-olds, Pestalozzi honed his methodology. The schedule, like those of some of
his predecessors’ schools, alternated between lessons and games. The program encouraged the development of
children’s natural gifts and talents. The “Object Lessons” were designed to help children learn from sensory
experiences. Guided discovery was used to help children learn to observe. They were encouraged to use language
to clearly express what they thought they understood. Pestalozzi’s associates and disciples—Joseph Neef, William
Maclure, Horace Mann, Henry Barnard, and William Torrey Harris—introduced Pestalozzi’s practices to the
United States. Maclure opened the first U.S. Pestalozzian school in Pennsylvania in 1809, with Neef at its head.
31
Mann had children question their parents, observe nature, read books, and report to the class on what they
learned. Barnard wanted teachers to avoid the exclusive use of the textbook and to work with subject matter
concretely. He was opposed to the codification of Object Lessons, stating that this methodology abrogated
Pestalozzi’s teaching. Harris introduced the teaching of the natural sciences through observation and description
by children into the St. Louis public schools.
Robert Owen, 1771–1858, Scotland

Robert Owen had a vision of a social order based on cooperation rather than competition. He believed that the
environment forms the child’s character and personality, and the central purpose of education is the formation of
good character. He was a follower of Rousseau. Owen favored a strong, although not an overly academic,
curriculum. He said, “Children can be trained to acquire, any language, sentiments, belief, or any bodily habits
and manners not contrary to human nature” (Siraj-Blatchford, 1997, p. 7). Owen put his beliefs into practice,
first in New Lanark, Scotland, and later in New Harmony, Indiana. Wilderspin credited Owen with establishing
the first infant school in Britain. The Institution for the Formation of Character was opened at his New Lanark
mills in January 1816. A major tenet of the school was to treat children with kindness and never to beat or
threaten them. Unlike the majority of mill owners, Owen wanted children to stay in school, and he convinced
parents to permit them to stay out of the factory until they were at least 10 years old. The school used the
Monitorial System invented by Bell and disseminated by Lancaster. To accommodate the system, the classrooms
for the older children had desks arranged around the room with a free passage down the center, a pulpit for the
lecturer, and galleries in which the children sat. The curriculum for all the children included dancing and singing,
nature study, and outdoor play. The older children were given instruction using real objects, paintings, maps
without labels, and models. The methods of instruction were chosen to hold the children’s interest and adapted to
their capabilities. The 2- to 5-year-olds had a large, enclosed outdoor play yard and a spacious indoor classroom
for their use. In 1824, Owen purchased a tract of land in Indiana and started New Harmony, a cooperative based
on a utopian vision of communal living and collaboration. In 1826, the Education Society bought the farm and
buildings, placing the school under the direction of Maclure and Neef. Included were the first infant school and
the first kindergarten in the United States (Johnson, 1970). Madame Marie Duclos Fretageot taught the girls and
Mr. M. Phiquepal d’Arusmont taught the boys by using Pestalozzian natural methods of education. In his schools
in Scotland and the United States, Owen modeled his own educational principles, as well as several innovative
educational systems of the time.
Friedrich Wilhelm Froebel, 1782–1852, Germany

Friedrich Froebel was the “Father of the Kindergarten.” Like Jean Piaget in later years, Froebel studied the sciences
and mathematics. He investigated architecture and mineralogy and attended lectures in Berlin given by the
originator of the science of crystallography. An illustration of the wooden teaching models of crystal forms that
Froebel may have encountered there appears in Norman Brosterman’s 1997 book. Froebel experimented with
different teaching methods while working with schoolage children at the Universal German Education Institute in
Keilhau for 25 years, prior to creating the kindergarten. In The Education of Man, published in 1826, Froebel
wrote that “‘thinking and doing’ through play, learning, and work are ‘the proper basis for a fully active, conscious
and happy life’ for the individual and for society” (Weston, 1998, p. 13). During the revolution in Germany
(1848) he wrote, “I am educating and training people in the exercise of republican virtues.” He dreamt of
revolutionizing German education along liberal democratic lines (Weston, 1998, p. 17). However, the
exhilaration did not last very long. In 1851, the Prussian government closed all of the kindergartens in the
country. Several reasons for this action have been proposed, including confusion as to the authorship of a
pamphlet written by his nephew Karl, and association with his nephew Julius, who was condemned to death as a
member of the National Assembly. Weston wrote that “a more likely explanation is that educating the people
according to principles of freedom is a dangerous thing for oppressive regimes, which can have no control over
outcomes and rely on a subservient population for their existence. After all, Froebel himself called the kindergarten
‘the free Republic of childhood’” (Siraj-Blatchford, 1997; Weston, 1998, p. 17). But the kindergarten had already
32
escaped national boundaries and begun its worldwide dissemination, initially to England, then to the United
States (by Caroline Luise Frankenberg in 1836 and Margarethe Schurz in 1856), and to parts of Eastern and
Western Europe. It later found its way to Japan, Australia, Korea, Catholic France, Belgium, and Italy, and
eventually around the world.
Froebel’s kindergarten demonstrated his belief in women as the natural educators of children, and play as the
method of developing the child from within outwards. He believed that all teaching was based on self-activity and
highlighted the importance of both the natural and human-built environment. He developed the Gifts and the
Occupations to enhance children’s study of the forms of nature, the forms of beauty, and the forms of knowledge.
Gifts one to six included three-dimensional objects, such as small woolen balls and wooden blocks, as well as a set
consisting of a wooden ball, cylinder, and cube. Flat tablets, sticks, rings, and “points” (pebbles or shells)
constitute the remaining ten Gifts. Froebel believed children could use the Gifts to re-create objects that they saw
in their indoor or outdoor environment. Froebel’s Occupations included drawing and painting on, folding and
pricking paper; sewing; and modeling in clay. Children could use the block sets to create aesthetically pleasing art
elements, using pattern and/or symmetry. They could engage in hands-on learning about mathematical and
scientific principles by manipulating the Gifts and the Occupations in a variety of ways. It must be remembered
that Froebel’s original iterations of the methodology of using the Gifts and the Occupations were open-ended. It
was after Froebelian pedagogy was disseminated, particularly in the United States, that work with the Gifts
became codified and routinized.
In a recent book, Pollman (2010) describes the manner in which the Froebelian curriculum promoted spatial
development, and relates it to current social studies, arts, math, literacy, and science curricula. For example,
appropriate use of the Gifts can assist teachers in meeting current math and physical science standards. Poll-man
incorporates the relevant theories of Piaget, Vygotsky, Dewey, and Socrates into her discussion of the manner in
which Froebelian materials and pedagogy can enhance the study of art and literature for young children. Pollman
presents a detailed narrative, accompanied by clear graphics, in her portrayal of elements of the social studies and
movement arts, emphasizing mapping and positional words. She makes the point that even the youngest child
goes through “a developmental sequence of spatial stages” (Pollman, 2010, p. 66) leading to the making and
reading of rudimentary maps. The author (of this chapter) has observed 3- and 4-year-olds spontaneously drawing
maps of their outdoor play area and following “treasure maps” or oral directions to find objects in the classroom.
This discussion can be linked to descriptions of Froebel’s Mutter and Kose-Leider, or Mother—Play and Nursery
Songs, published in 1843, in the literature. Many of the “Mother Plays” and today’s “Action Rhymes” include
directions such as left and right, and positions such as over, under and next to, that are used in topology in later
schooling. Some of these songs and games, such as Blue Bird, Blue Bird, Through My Window, are still enjoyed by
preschool and kindergarten children today.
Maria Montessori, 1870–1952, Italy

Maria Montessori was an Italian educator, physician, feminist, and peace proponent. In 1896 she was appointed
to the Italian delegation to the International Congress for Women’s Rights, held in Berlin. Montessori asked the
Congress to vote to ensure that the wages of women and men laborers be brought to the same level. She thus
began her career taking a position on equality, a theme she carried throughout her life’s work. As director of the
State Orthophrenic School for Deficient Children, she provided the children with 2 years of learning how to care
for themselves and their environment and engaging in purposeful activity. Her “deficient” adolescents were then
able to pass sixth-grade examinations in reading and writing in the Italian public schools. Montessori began to
search for the reasons why “normal children could be equaled in such tests by her unfortunate pupils” (Lillard,
1972, p. 2). In 1907, she opened the first “Casa dei Bambini,” incorporating child-sized furniture and specific
didactic materials, to test her theories with “normal” children of poverty. She trained young women with no
formal teacher education to be the directresses of her schools. They learned about her philosophy, her educational
principles, and her “special method of observation” (Standing, 1957, p. 29; see also Chapter 16, in this volume).
Montessori was the first in a long line of early childhood educators working for peace. In her book The Montessori
33
Method, she described the “silence games” that were originally developed as tests for auditory acuteness. More
recent worldwide methodological iterations are highlighted in Wolf’s Our Peaceful Classroom (1991). Montessori
began her peace education work with a 1926 lecture to the International Bureau of Education of the League of
Nations, later published as Peace and Education (Montessori, 1932/1943; Wolf, 1989). She stated her belief that
the child, unspoiled by societal influences (as conceptualized by Rousseau), could become the basis for rebuilding
mankind in a peaceful image. She said that education could serve as a model for a peaceful existence if harmonious
practices were adopted. After her death in 1952, Maria Montessori’s work was carried on by her son Mario
Montessori.3
European Influences on the United States

The nursery schools established by Margaret Naumburg (1914), Edna Noble White (1922), and Abigail Adams
Eliot (1922) brought the pedagogy of European early childhood educators to U.S. shores. During 1921, White
and Eliot studied with Margaret McMillan in Dept-ford, England. Naumburg was influenced by the work of
Montessori after becoming a member of the first English-speaking training class at the Casa dei Bambini in 1913.
With her diploma in hand, Naumburg returned to New York City to lead a Montessori kindergarten at the Henry
Street Settlement. Deciding that the Montessori method alone was too constricting, Naumburg melded aspects of
Montessori pedagogy with Jungian psychoanalytic theory in the formation of the philosophy and curriculum for
the Children’s School. The name was later changed to Walden School at the request of the students (Hinitz,
2004). Naumburg originally chose the name “The Children’s School” to highlight the curriculum that grew “out
of the needs of the children.” As the school expanded from its original nursery school base and incorporated the
upper elementary and secondary grades, the older students launched a protest against the name around 1922. The
name “Walden School,” was chosen to honor Transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau’s On Walden Pond. The
new name highlighted “the right of the individual against the pressures for massive conformity, and the rights of
minorities against the oppressions of majorities” (Naumburg, “Statement of Philosophy,” n.d., p. 7).
Progressive Schools
Three “founding mothers”—Elisabeth Irwin, Margaret Naumburg, and Caroline Pratt—were leaders of the
progressive movement (Sadovnik & Semel, 2002). Beginning in the 1920s, their work in the public and private
sectors helped to create a new era of education reform. The parameters of their work should be seen in light of the
social milieu and the evolving definitions of progressivism in their lifetimes. Progressive schools were designed to
be pluralistic and to provide the environment necessary for the development of a democratic society. A number of
them were founded in response to dissatisfaction with the conditions in the public schools. Among the common
characteristics of progressive schools were child-centered curricula; teachers viewed as guides in the learning
process and creators of environments; long, flexible time periods; fostering of originality in the expressive arts;
learning through exploration and experimentation; “projects” and “jobs”; and the importance of a sense of
community.
Many of the leaders in the progressive movement were feminists who wanted to overcome the deeply rooted
societal views that women were inferior intellectually and physically. They resented that women’s education was
channeled into the areas of homemaking and nurturing, which was designed to prepare them for marriage and
child rearing rather than the working world (Beatty, 2005). They wanted citizenship, autonomy, sexual liberation,
and equal wages for equal work (Hauser, 2006; Lascarides & Hinitz, 2011). Between 1912 and 1940, these
women found a home at the Dinner Club at Patchin Place, and later the Heterodoxy Club in New York City’s
Greenwich Village. Among the commonalities these women shared were their initial work in settlement houses,
their extensive review of existing educational theories and philosophies, and finding fault with aspects of the early
childhood teacher education programs of their day. Each of them in her own way was able to foster changes in
teacher preparation curriculum and practice, particularly through their participation in the Cooperative School for
Student Teachers (which became Bank Street College of Education) and the Bureau of Educational Experiments.
34
Naumburg, Pratt, and Irwin each had experiences in working with the public school system, and each returned to
the private school setting. Naumburg taught a Montessori-based kindergarten class at Public School 4 in the
Bronx from April 1915 through February 1916. She faced many obstacles, including lack of heat in the winter
and a paucity of appropriate supplies, materials, and furnishings. But it was the lack of support from the Board of
Education hierarchy that eventually caused her to resign (Hinitz, 2002). Pratt worked only as a consultant in the
public schools. She was involved in the formation of the All Day Neighborhood Schools, a demonstration
program in the New York City schools funded by the Progressive Education Association and other community
agencies.
Little Red School House, founded in 1921, was originally a public school experiment in progressive education.
Irwin was a central figure in the effort to transform public education. She was one of the first educators to
introduce mental hygiene into the New York City public schools. Her activity-based curriculum challenged
existing primary school practices. New programs and approaches were viewed by big-city public school educators
and administrators as visionary and impractical. They were also viewed as threatening to the politicians of
Tammany Hall (O’Han, 2009). Irwin’s resistance to the regimentation and coerciveness of the traditional school,
and her disagreements with Board of Education supervisors and administrators, eventually led to the closing of the
public school program. Committed parents supported the 1931 reopening of the school as a private enterprise and
its metamorphosis into the educational institution (Little Red School House and Elisabeth Irwin High School)
that exists today.
Black Early Childhood Education

The story of early childhood education for Black Americans begins in the 1600s, when Black indentured servants,
and later slaves, arrived on the shores of North America. Although the three-way shipping trade from New
England to Africa to the Caribbean involved slave sales in the northeastern United States, the great majority of
“slave states” were found in the southeastern part of the country. In all of those states, with the exception of
Kentucky, the law forbade anyone from teaching slaves to read and write. An exception was made for reading the
Bible. Therefore, most of the early efforts to educate Black children and adults were initiated by religious
authorities, beginning with the Church of England, followed by the Quakers, the Baptists, and the Methodists.
What little formal education young slave children were given took place sporadically in ramshackle buildings.
Because they wanted to Christianize them, French and Spanish colonists were more active in educating their slaves
than were the English.
Black beginnings in North America were marked by cultural discontinuity as Black people lost the political,
economic, and social institutions that had organized their lives, attitudes, and values in West Africa. Slavery was a
system of forced dependency. Therefore, unlike immigrant parents, slave parents could not prepare their children
for greater opportunities in the new culture. The slaves were not a single, cohesive ethnic group, so they did not
share a unifying set of customs and traditions. On some of the larger plantations, a respected central figure was
able to unify the group.
During the 1700s, separate schools for Blacks were opened in Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and New
Jersey. The Emancipation Proclamation that officially ended slavery also had the effect of ending the legacy of
Blacks having their own schools by choice. The Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands
(Freedmen’s Bureau) had the responsibility for assembling the framework of an education system for African
Americans during the Reconstruction period (Ashelman, 2003b). The impermanence of the bureau prevented it
from equalizing public school systems; however, it did introduce the idea of free elementary education for all
children into the South. Blacks had been closed out of mainstream political, economic, and social power. For the
most part, they were unable to circumvent the denial of opportunities or the disparity in educational expenditures
(Comer, 1989). Public school systems in many parts of the country, particularly in the South, maintained
segregated schools for the next century, until the Brown v. Board of Education U.S. Supreme Court decision of
1954 and beyond.
35
At the end of Reconstruction, Black women organized clubs to meet urgent social needs. They trained in churches
and in “secret orders” to take up “club work” (Cahan, 1989). These local organizations in cities around the
country united into the National Association of Colored Women (NACW) in 1896. The National Council of
Women (a White women’s group) pledged in 1902 to assist the NACW with its day nursery and kindergarten
work. In northern cities, the creation of separate day nurseries for Black children in the early 1900s resulted from
prevailing racial prejudice. A committee of Black women founded one of the first, the Hope Day Nursery in New
York City.
Through local clubs in most southern states, the NACW provided kindergartens, nursery schools, and day
nurseries for working mothers. Mary Church Terrell and Josephine Silone Yates were instrumental in the
founding and implementation of these kindergartens. Although most of the kindergartens for Black children were
private, educators such as Anna Murray advocated for public kindergartens. Ashelman wrote that it took 70 years
and the support of several national organizations, including the NEA and the National Kindergarten Association,
to bring this hope to fruition in the State of Virginia (Ashelman, 2003a).
Patty Smith Hill became director of the Louisville Free Kindergarten Association (LFKA) in 1893, beginning 12
years of supervisory leadership. Her philosophy was one of inclusion. Under the influence of the Northern
Presbyterian Church, Hill inaugurated a kindergarten for Black children in which Finnie Burton and other
teachers from the demonstration kindergarten were involved. (A demonstration kindergarten was a model
kindergarten class taught by an experienced kindergarten teacher. It was used by kindergarten teachers-in-training
for observations and some participation experiences.)
As was true of many kindergartens during that time, the LFKA kindergartens served as learning spaces for
children, as well as for prospective teachers. The LFKA kindergarten program was aimed at children from different
environmental conditions, races, and physical, social, and intellectual statuses, especially those from “wretched and
degraded homes on the other side of the tracks” (Snyder, 1972, p. 242). The Louisville Education Association
“invited the Louisville Colored Kindergarten Association (LCKA) to become a branch of the Association”
(Fowlkes, 1987, p. 21), something unheard of up to that time.
The first “public Kindergarten for Colored Children” was opened in 1879 (Whitney & Ridgeway, 1938, p. 40).
The public schools in Louisville began providing classroom space for both Black and White kindergartens in the
same building. Mary Hill (Patty’s sister) was a kindergarten teacher in the school; Francis Ingram, a first grade
teacher, was trained by Colonel Parker, who had studied new pedagogical methods in Germany in 1872. Parker, a
Civil War commander, held several posts as a local superintendent of schools and was the principal of Cook
County Normal School in Chicago from 1883 to 1899. Parker was a member of the progressive wing of the
kindergarten movement. He put his theories into practice by founding the Chicago Institute, which became a part
of the University of Chicago School of Education in 1901, as well as the Francis W. Parker Schools in Illinois and
California, which are still in existence today. By 1938, there were 31 Kindergartens for Colored Children,
successfully directed by Colored Women, graduates of the St. Louis Kindergarten Normal School (Fowlkes,
1987).
A number of private Black day nurseries were opened between 1900 and World War II. Oneida Cockrell, holder
of degrees from the University of Chicago and Columbia University, founded Chicago’s Rosenwald Child
Nursery in 1930. She proposed a redefinition of early childhood education from custodial care to excellent
education for young children (Simpson, 1981). This was in keeping with the trend of the times toward
incorporating an educational program based on work in the kindergarten and nursery school into the day nursery.
After his wartime Navy service, Ira August Calhoun realized that many of the children cared for by his wife and
daughters in family child care came from struggling one-parent homes. He and his family took early childhood
development courses to meet the State of California requirements for operation of a nursery school. In 1965, they
opened Blue Bird Day Nursery to serve neighborhood children and families (Simpson, 1981).
The parallel and independent child development movement among Blacks led historically Black colleges and
universities (HBCUs) such as Hampton University (1929), Spelman College (1930), and Bennett College (1931)
to found laboratory nursery schools. In their roles as university professors and professional organization executives,
36
two illustrious graduates of Hampton’s home economics program, Flemmie P. Kittrell and Evangeline Howlette
Ward, went on to promote the formation of day nurseries and nursery schools around the country and the world.
Dr. Kittrell, the first Black recipient of a doctorate in home economics/early childhood education, carried her
work to India. In 1964, she opened “a nursery school program within day care hours for culturally deprived
children and parents” at Howard University (Cahan, 1989; Kittrell, 1966, 1970). This 2-year research project
became part of the foundation for Project Head Start. Dr. Ward was the first Black president of NAEYC. Like
Montessori, she turned to peace education from midcareer onward. At the time of her death in 1985, Ward was a
member of the World Executive of the World Organization for Early Childhood Education (OMEP).
The term culturally deprived was used extensively in the early education research literature of the 1960s. This term
referred primarily to poor, urban, mostly Black children and families. In actuality, the children usually were not
deprived of their family culture, and often they resided in communities that contained numerous cultural
institutions, but not necessarily those of the Euro-American culture. Comer (1989) said that the parents of Black
children are members of a social network that may not be part of the social mainstream. He stated that race-
related social conditions of the past and present have put a disproportionate number of minority parents under
stress. Therefore, many are not able to provide their children with the kind of developmental experiences that will
prepare them for school. He advocated more support for the family and better teacher preparation to help
ameliorate this condition.
In addition to the information just cited, Comer reminded us that gaining access to higher education was
challenging for Black students over the past 2 centuries. HBCUs such as Howard University, Bethune-Cookman
College, and Tuskegee University, in addition to those cited earlier, offered early childhood education programs
that “became a vehicle for [the] advancement of African Americans” (Bredekamp, 2011, p. 62). Many 20th- and
21st-century Black leaders in early childhood education and teacher education overcame the difficulties, received
higher degrees from prestigious universities, and made substantial contributions to the field. Amy Wells-Dolan
writes stirringly about tracing the evolution of Southern traditions and the challenges of writing about the
educational history of the South. Quoting John Hope Franklin, she reminds us that “the study of history
demand[s] fairness and impartiality and cautious judgment” (Wells-Dolan, 2010, p. 195). It is left to the
educational historians of the future to fill in the missing pieces that will bring to light the struggles and triumphs
of unheralded Black early childhood educators and teacher educators in that section of the country.
A recent paper by James Young and Ernest Washington (2009) makes hitherto unpublished information regarding
the Black Task Force of the Child Development Associate Consortium (CDAC) available. The CDAC, formed in
July 1972, was tasked with developing a “competency based assessment system” and a credentialing system. The
Black Task Force grew out of the Black Colloquy, one of several ethnic colloquies that met with CDAC executives
to share concerns and ideas. In addition to the authors of the paper, and Asa Hilliard and Evangeline Ward, nine
other members provided various Black perspectives, representing a wide range of disciplines and organizations.
The position papers written by the Black Colloquy members and the evaluative criteria prepared under Dr.
Hilliard’s guidance played a major role in the development of the assessment and credentialing system that was
put into place in 1974.
The following quote from a magnet school kindergarten teacher in Topeka, Kansas, which was opened as a result
of the Brown III decision, can serve as a summary of decades of working toward the ideals of equal and integrated
education for young children. She said, “You have children from three different backgrounds, like I teach and
others in the school teach. [They learn] to love one another, to do the right thing, and to be an asset to their
communities, so I think the magnet schools provide an opportunity to mold children to change things … or if
they (the magnet schools) weren’t there things would remain the way they used to be in the past” (interview with
Mrs. Johnnie Sanders in McConnell, Hinitz, & Dye, 2005, p. 62).
Let’s hope that teachers like Wells-Dolan and Sanders will continue to foster change and divergent thinking in
their students, to put an end to the “the peculiar institution” (enslavement) of the mind just as the Emancipation
Proclamation ended the physical enslavement of Black people.
37
Asian and Hispanic Early Childhood Education
Scenario A
You are 5 years old. You are sitting in the classroom at a low table with four other children. Each of you has a
worksheet, a box of crayons, and a pencil. The fair-skinned, brown-haired young teacher gives some directions
orally in English. The other four children open their crayon boxes and begin to make marks with the pencil and to
color in certain pictures on the page. You look with frustration at the paper and wait, eyes downcast, for the
teacher to come and help you.
Scenario B
You are 5 years old. You are sitting in the classroom at a low table with an adult and three other children. Each
child has a worksheet, a box of crayons, and a pencil. The fair-skinned, brown-haired young teacher gives a few
directions in English. The adult at the table repeats them in another language. You and your table-mates open
your crayon boxes. You all take your pencils and make a mark on one of the pictures in the first box. You all take
out your crayons and color in some of the other pictures according to what the adults tell you to do. You complete
your paper and give it to the adult at your table. You take your symbol card and go to the block area. You place
your card on one of the four hooks outside the area to designate your activity choice.
Think about these two scenarios for a moment. Both depict the same child from the same immigrant family.
However, there is a world of difference between the views of immigrant and bilingual young students revealed in
these scenarios. Consider the responsiveness of the adults in each scenario to the cultural and linguistic variations
these young students represent. As you read the demographic and programmatic information in this section of the
chapter, keep these scenarios in mind.
Immigrant populations and English language learners (ELLs) play a significant role in the early education history
of the United States. Waves of immigrants and their children have affected and have been affected by early
childhood education programs. The discussion that follows highlights aspects of the private and public response to
the needs of young immigrant children and ELLs focusing on the two populations that currently constitute the
greatest percentage of young immigrants in the United States, Asians and Hispanics (Passel, 2011).
A look back in history will reveal that all of the colonial and immigrant populations that came to the land that is
now the United States sought institutions that provided education and care in the language of the local
population. This was readily available to members of the middle and upper classes because they had the funds to
support the institutions to which they wanted to send their children. The German-speaking kindergartens, and
later the accompanying training schools founded by Margarethe Schurz, Caroline Luise Frankenberg, Maria
Krause Boelte, and Eudora and William Hail-mann, were available to those who could pay the fees. However, as
Past Caring tells us, a twotiered system of early care and education persists (Cahan, 1989). The poorer members of
numerous waves of immigration to U.S. shores could ill afford the tuition for private schools. One example of the
problem is the collapse of the welfare system following the Civil War and the depression of 1873. Increased
immigration and high birth rates led charity workers to seek new ways of working with young children and their
families. Free kindergartens supported by “patrons” from upper income families and by subscriptions were
organized in many urban areas. In a manner similar to the American Indians, these immigrant children were
stripped of their language and culture and were forced to use English and study “citizenship” from one
“American” point of view. Gradually, the free kindergarten associations expanded their services to the community
to include home visits and classes for parents (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2011). Eventually, some free kindergarten
associations redefined their role and merged with other social agencies to form social settlements. Among the most
famous of these are Hull House in Chicago and the Henry Street Settlement in New York City. During the late
1800s, as the numbers of people using the free kindergartens expanded exponentially, the kinder-gartners
38
(kindergarten teachers and their patrons) began to have difficulties supporting and managing the organizations.
The campaign for public school kindergartens began with the exposure of corruption and inefficiency in the
public school system. The publicity generated often led to the incorporation of philanthropic kindergartens into
the public school system. Those kindergartens continued to emphasize “Americanization” of immigrant children
and their families (Lascarides & Hinitz, 2011).
During the 1800s, Asian and Hispanic laborers and immigrants came to the United States. Members of these
groups were initially treated similarly. However, while some of the Asians were able to purchase land of their own,
the Hispanic immigrants, for the most part, remained members of the poor laboring class. The stories of these
groups diverge from each other in several ways, including how they were viewed and treated during the period
from the≈1930s to the 1950s. We will look first at the history of several Asian American groups that together
make up 18% of immigrant children (Fortuny, Hernandez, & Chaudry, 2010). Then we will examine aspects of
the history of Hispanic/Latino/Latina early childhood education.
Asian Early Childhood Education. Three of the major countries from which Asians and Asian Americans have
come are China, Japan, and India. Other cultures included Filipinos, Urdu-speaking Mirpuris from Pakistan, and
Bengali-speaking Sylhetis from Bangladesh. The majority of these people emigrated to the United States for
religious freedom, job opportunities, or education. The largest group of émigrés from Southeast Asia included the
Vietnamese, Cambodian, Hmong, Iu Mien, and Laotian refugees, who came in five waves between 1972 and
1989, during the Vietnamese War and after the collapse of South Vietnam. The five waves of immigration
included the families of military personnel and those close to the South Vietnamese or American administrations,
in 1975; the “boat people” who arrived between 1975 and 1989; the “Amerasians” (children fathered by American
servicemen) during the 1980s; and political prisoners who were released from Vietnamese “reeducation” camps.
With the exception of the first wave, the majority of these refugees were poorly educated. The provision of
specialized Head Start and public school programs and assistance from social service, educational, and religious
entities aided in the refugees’ integration into several communities.4
Chinese
Among the first Chinese to arrive were merchants and traders, followed by laborers. Because of the strict
immigration laws, the men were forced to leave their wives and families behind. When the families were finally
permitted to enter the United States, they sought education for their young children. However, beginning in
1879, Exclusion Acts abridged the Chinese workers’ opportunities. They were forbidden to send their children to
White schools or to own land. Anti-Chinese bias in San Francisco and other communities was particularly evident
in the area of public education. Between 1871 and 1884, the San Francisco Board of School Trustees refused to
acknowledge the right of children of Chinese descent to attend public schools. In response to the California
Supreme Court ruling that children of all ethnic groups had the right to attend schools in the state, San Francisco
initiated a “separate but equal” ordinance that forced children of Chinese ancestry to attend a segregated Chinese
School. In 1974, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Lau v. Nichols that 1,800 Chinese-speaking children
in the San Francisco public schools were entitled to English language instruction or other support to help them
understand what was happening in their classrooms. “[S]tudents who do not understand English are effectively
foreclosed from any meaningful education,” the Court found (Lau v. Nichols, 1974, p. 3; Russakoff, 2011, p. 3).
This decision made ELLs with limited English proficiency (LEP) a protected class. The court stated that for these
LEP students, the same treatment did not constitute equal treatment; therefore, schools bore an affirmative
obligation to address both the language and the curricular needs of the students (Hakuta, 2011).
Japanese
Although the Japanese were products of early childhood and primary education, as their immigration to the
United States increased, they were placed in the same inferior position as the Chinese, working as agricultural day
laborers. Some Japanese men had money and were able to buy their own land and farms. But that did not prevent
39
San Francisco from passing school laws that forced Japanese students to attend only the segregated Chinese school.
These laws were broadened in 1905 to include “all Orientals.” However, the cultural assimilation of the Japanese
into U.S. society, particularly in the western states and Hawaii, made the later anti-Japanese movement and
exclusionary legislation especially troubling to the Issei (see Figure 1–1). The signing of the Oriental Exclusion Act
ended Japanese immigration to the United States until after World War II.
The resentment against the Japanese people was magnified with the bombing of Pearl Harbor, and on February
19, 1942, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066. Although this order also applied to
the aliens from Germany, Italy, and other nations, it was primarily used to justify the incarceration of Japanese
and Japanese Americans. All persons of Japanese ancestry were included. It was not limited to suspected Japanese
informants and collaborators. The presidential order was particularly shocking to the Nisei, who had been
educated in American schools and surrounded by American culture. They were just reaching adulthood and
becoming parents of the Sansei (Hewes, 1988). Descriptions of Manzanar, Camp Harmony, Tule Lake, and other
relocation centers are available (see Selected Resources). They reveal that schools were omitted from the Wartime
Civilian Control Administration (WCCA) plans. The Japanese Americans within the camps soon saw a need for
the creation of an educational structure for children and adults. At some camps, the Civilian War Relocation
Authority (WRA) funded preschool, kindergarten, and elementary level classes. The instructional staff was
composed of internees who had been either employed as teachers or enrolled in higher education before the
evacuation, their parent assistants, and a few non-Japanese
Figure 1–1 Definitions of Terms 1

Source: Information from Nisei Nursery: Preschool at Manzanar Relocation Camp 1942–1945, by D.
W. Hewes, November 18, 1988, Discussion paper presented at the History Seminar of the annual
conference of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, Anaheim, CA, pp. 2–3.
The Issei were the first-generation Japanese immigrants.
The Nisei were their Japanese American children born in the United States, who held automatic
U.S. citizenship.
The third generation are the Sansei.
The Yonsei are the fourth generation of children.
A refugee is any person who is outside his or her country of nationality and is unable or
unwilling to return to that country because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution.
educators. All of the supervisors came from outside the camps (War Relocation Authority, ca. 1943–1944).
Asian Indians
Asian Indians are the third largest Asian population in the United States. They are unique among Asian
immigrants because the majority of the adults have obtained a college degree and approximately 60% of them are
employed in a management, educational, or professional occupation. According to a recent census, there are nearly
1.7 million Asian Indians, many of whom speak English, living in the United States. It has been reported that
Asian Indian children often grow up hearing three languages—English, Hindi (one parent’s primary language),
and a dialect such as Guajarti or Bengali (the other parent’s primary language) spoken in the home (A. Berdecía,
personal communication, June 7, 2011). Indian society is diverse in terms of caste, subculture, socioeconomic
status, geography, and education. However, the families do share a common culture and set of values with each
other and with other South Asian immigrants.
40
Nearly 1 in 4 children younger than 8 years of age in the United States has immigrant parents. Eighteen percent
of these children have parents born in Asia. Forty-three percent of the children have Mexican parents, and 25%
have origins in Central or South America or the Caribbean. Persons of Asian origin have the highest levels of
education and income among all ethnic and racial groups in the United States (Haskins & Tienda, 2011). By
contrast, immigrants from Latin America have fared poorly, both in education and in earnings.
Hispanic/Latina/Latino Early Childhood Education. Two Spanish-speaking cultural groups make up the greatest
percentage of the Hispanic population of the United States: Mexicans or Mexican Americans, and Puerto Ricans.
Cubans and others from Central and South America are a third segment of this population. (See Figure 1–2 for
explanation of terms in this chapter section.) Mexicans immigrated to the United States in the late 1800s and early
1900s as agricultural laborers. When jobs became scarce, immigration was discouraged; however, Mexicans as
nonquota immigrants were excluded from the National Origins Quota Act of 1924, Puerto Ricans became U.S.
citizens in 1917 and were then able to take advantage of free public education on the island and the United States
mainland.
U.S. census data for 2010 confirm that Hispanics are the largest and fastest growing racial/ethnic “minority”
group in the United States. In six states, the Hispanic population accounted for all of the state’s population
growth. For all age groups, the number of Hispanic children as a proportion of all children continues to increase
more rapidly than the number of non-Hispanic White and Black children (Fortuny et al., 2010; Passel, Cohn, &
Lopez, 2011). They represent 1 out of every 8 persons in the population. While immigrants come from a wide
range of economic circumstances, poverty rates among immigrant households have increased dramatically over the
past 25 years. Children have higher poverty rates than any other age group—a pattern that developed in the mid-
1970s and continues to exist. According to 2010 data, children of immigrants have higher poverty rates than
native-born children. Many of the high-poverty children and their families are not eligible for social welfare
programs because eligibility is determined by legal status and citizenship. Approximately two-thirds of first-
generation poor children are Hispanics (Fortuny et al., 2010; New & Beneke, 2009; Passel, 2011).
Research studies published over the past 40 years arrived at the same conclusions about the conditions of child
care and early education for, and the needs of, young Latina/Latino children and their families. Parents struggle to
find child care that is linguistically and culturally responsive. In several studies, Hispanic families
Figure 1–2 Definitions of Terms 2

According to Tudico, the term Hispanic is “a government-regulated term coined for use in the
United States census” (Tudico, 2010, p. 169). He prefers the term Latino , which is the
masculine form of the Spanish word. To ensure gender equity, Latino/Latina will be used each
time this terminology appears in the chapter. Both Hispanic and Latino/Latina will be used in
this chapter.
The U.S. Census Bureau defines immigrant children and youth as young people between birth
and 17 years of age who have at least one foreign-born parent (García et al., 2009, pp. 9–10).
First-generation youth are foreign born.
Second-generation youth were born in the United States, with at least one immigrant parent.
Third-generation U.S.-born children are children whose parents were also born in the United
States (Tienda & Haskins, 2011). Puerto Rican–born youth are categorized as a part of the
third generation, because they have U.S. citizenship (Passel, 2011).
English language learners (ELLs) are children who speak a language other than English in the
home and are not fully fluent in English (Espinosa, 2008). They are students who do not
understand enough English to learn without support in mainstream classrooms. They lag far
41
behind all other students, except those with disabilities, on state reading and math assessments
(Russakoff, 2011).
Language-minority children is a term commonly used to describe children whose native

language is one other than English, regardless of their current level of English proficiency
(García et al., 2009, p. 9).
In addition, language-minority children refers to children who may already be proficient

English speakers but whose parents, on the Home Language Survey, indicated the use of a
language other than English in their home (Calderon, Slavin, & Sanchez, 2011). Another term
that refers to both kinds of children is English as a second language students.
Limited English proficient (LEP) students is a federal designation for children who are learning
English (Calderon, Slavin, & Sanchez, 2011, endnotes). Section 9101 of Title IX of the
Elementary and Secondary federal statute defines an LEP individual as one who is between the
ages of 3 and 21, is enrolled or is preparing to enroll in an elementary or secondary school, was
not born in the United States or whose native language is not English, and who may face
diminished opportunities within society because of difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or
understanding the English language.
The terms limited English proficient (LEP) and English language learner (ELL) are often used
interchangeably to refer to students whose English proficiency has not yet developed to a point
where they can profit fully from English instruction.
Second language acquisition is the process of learning a second language as a result of a parent
speaking a separate language with the child or when a child begins to learn a second language
after the first language is at least partly established (Tabors, 2008).
Dual-language (DL) programs , also known as two-way immersion (TWI), are curricula that
teach English to ELL students and Spanish to native English speakers through dual-language
content and instruction in a shared classroom. These Vygotsky-based, “naturalistic learning”
programs have reported positive effects on both young Hispanic and language-majority
populations and have demonstrated academic benefits over English-only programs for
Latino/Latina students (García & Jensen, 2009).
expressed a strong preference for informal child care arrangements provided by the parent, the spouse, relatives,
friends, or neighbors. Some parents who avoid group care have available traditional forms of social support, such
as extended family networks, or they perceive considerable cultural dissonance between informal arrangements and
formal preschools. Shared language is an important factor that influences Latina mothers’ choice of child care
organization. Some mothers want their children to continue developing language skills in both Spanish and
English, and they search for child care staff members who can support that desire. Shared values about child
rearing, socialization, and education are important. Successful home–school connections are based on principles of
respeto (respect) and confianza (mutual trust within a defined community network that leads to support and
understanding beyond expectations). Latino/ Latina parents differentiate between the terms educar (to educate)
and enseñar (to teach); the parents’ role is to educate or instill morals and values in their children and help them
become good people. Children are taught to be respectful, obedient, and reserved. Latino parents believe it is the
role of the school to teach subjects such as reading, writing, and math, and that it would be disrespectful to
interfere with the teacher’s role of educating their children (Rodriguez-Brown, 2010). Latina/Latino demand for
organized center-based care may be constrained by limited purchasing power or weaker community organizations
than those found within other ethnic communities. This population is underserved by, and they under-utilize,
child care and early education programs. Hispanic families often confront lower quality of available child care, and
a lower supply of it, than does the general public (Collins & Ribeiro, 2004; Crosnoe, 2007; Fuller, Eggers-Pierola,
Holloway, & Liang, 1996).
42
Immigrant and Citizen Children and Youth
Major waves of large-scale migration occurred at the beginning and the end of the 20th century. Immigration
coming mainly from Southern and Eastern Europe changed the face of the United States at the beginning of the
1900s, before being brought to an end by World War I and the restrictive legislation enacted shortly thereafter.
Passage of the landmark Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 spurred new immigration flows, mainly from
Latin America and Asia, which increased through the end of the century. The legislation abolished the national
origins quota system that had governed immigration since the 1920s, and changed the criteria for admission to the
United States to give priority to family reunification (Crosnoe & Turley, 2011; Haskins & Tienda, 2011).
Immigrant progenies currently account for a quarter of the nation’s 75 million children. By 2050, these progenies
are expected to make up a third of more than 100 million children in the United States (Passel, 2011; Tienda &
Haskins, 2011; Zehr, 2011). They and their families face tremendous challenges (Crosnoe, 2010; Crosnoe &
Cooper, 2010; Crosnoe & Kalil, 2010; Crosnoe, Wirth, Pianta, Leventhal, & Pierce, 2010; García & Miller,
2007; Huntsinger & Jose, 2009; National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics, 2007).
Foremost among these challenges are barriers to accessing quality early education programs. Forty-three percent of
young immigrant children are in parental care or do not have a regular care arrangement. The same is true of only
29% of children of U.S.-born citizens. Center-based care is the most common arrangement among all children
ages 3 to 4 in nonparental care, but it is less common for children of immigrants than for children of U.S.-born
citizens (Matthews & Ewen, 2010). The enrollment gap narrows at age 5, when most children (87% of
immigrants vs. 86% of natives) are in kindergarten (Fortuny et al., 2010).
Fueled both by legal and unauthorized immigration, the foreign-born share of the U.S. population has increased
to levels last seen in the 1920s. The racial and ethnic mix of the population, particularly the youth, changed
dramatically. Foreign-born and U.S.-born children of unauthorized immigrants represented about 6.9% of all
children in 2009. However, they are about 30% of immigrant youth. The different age structures of the first and
second generations affect socioeconomic characteristics of the groups. In Immigrants Raising Citizens:
Undocumented Parents and Their Young Children, Yoshikawa (2011a) presents findings from a longitudinal study
of Chinese, Mexican, and Dominican infants in New York City. He describes the stressful work and financial
conditions under which immigrant parents without legal status are raising their citizen children and discusses
several factors that play a role in family functioning, very early learning, and child health. In a congressional
briefing, Yoshikawa (2011b) emphasized the educational, law enforcement, and policy implications of his
research. The parents avoid government programs and authorities; they have isolated social networks. They shun
public agencies and programs such as child care and food subsidies, for which the children are eligible, because of
the constant threat of discovery and possible deportation and family separation. The avoidance of center-based
child care (which is directly correlated with early skill development in children) leads to poorly developed
cognitive skills, recognizable in children as young as 2 years of age. Yoshikawa suggests that instead of relegating
the more than four million citizen children of undocumented parents to “a permanent underclass,” their potential
to succeed in school should be maximized, with access to quality preschool, health, and child care (Yoshikawa,
2011b).
Reports in the literature using data from the 2010 U.S. census and the federal government’s Early Childhood
Longitudinal Study–Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K) provide us with important rationales for supporting the
educational success of young children in immigrant families. As the predominantly White baby boom generation
born between 1946 and 1964 ages, it will increasingly depend for economic support on the productive activities
and civic participation of working-age adults who belong to a wide range of racial and ethnic minorities. Many of
these working-age adults will have grown up in immigrant families. Their educational
43
We continue to use the lessons of history to make a difference in the lives of children and families.
success and subsequent economic productivity are important both to the immigrant groups themselves and to the
broad American population (Hernandez, Denton, & Macartney, 2009; Hernandez, Takanishi, & Marotz, 2009).
The dual-language (DL) proficiency of young immigrant children can have long-term cognitive, cultural, and
economic advantages. Espinosa (2008) reports that “ELL children are quite capable of learning subject matter in
two languages” (p. 2). She further states, “Early literacy skills learned in the home language do transfer to
English.” Although it is important that children learn English, the primary language used in schools and most
other organizations and institutions in the United States, it is equally important for them to maintain the language
of their country of origin. This will assist them in preserving elements of their parents’ cultural or religious
heritage, as well as communicating with family members whose first language is not English.
The Education Of Young English Language Learners

Bilingualism and many of its related problems have been with us since before our nation’s founding. The physical
and mental abuse inflicted on the First Americans has been replicated in various forms with all of the immigrant
populations that followed them into the schools and child care centers. For this reason, bilingualism and the
education of young ELLs must be a part of the discussion of the experiences of young immigrant children and
their families in early education programs. Historically, the United States was intentionally isolationist and
monolingual. Remnants of these thought and action patterns are still present today. Several of the states have laws
establishing that English is the official language. This places the country at a distinct disadvantage in world
society. In a time when more than 50% of U.S. jobs are related to the global economy, it is important for children
44
(and adults) to have fluency in multiple languages, which benefits the children and the country as a whole.
The Lau case (discussed earlier) has implications for the present day. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act has been
interpreted through Lau. Title VII of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)—the Bilingual
Education Act—fostered the development of programs that use the native language, in spite of resistance. In 1981,
the Castañeda v. Pickard court case interpreted the meaning of “appropriate action” as stated in the Equal
Educational Opportunities Act of 1974, which codified LEP students’ rights, consistent with the Lau decision.
The judge’s opinion in the Castañeda case stated that the role of the court in determining appropriateness should
be guided by three standards: that the educational approach be based on sound educational theory; that the
approach be implemented adequately; and that, after a period of time, the approach be evaluated for its
effectiveness in remedying the inequity. An implicit fourth standard was that if an approach is not effective, the
implementation or the theory must be revised until the inequity is remedied. The Castañeda standards helped
organize the field of bilingual education “by linking theory to programs, implementation, and outcomes”
(Hakuta, 2011, p. 165). Before A Nation at Risk, the education system identified classes of students and paid for
educational services that targeted their needs. Under standards-based reform—with a goal of high standards for all,
including ELLs—there is a focus on outcomes accompanied by accountability. Targeted service now needs to be
viewed in this emerging context of systemic reform (Hakuta, 2011). The similarity to the treatment of Native
American children and their schools is notable.
One positive initiative was the Institute for Teaching English Language Learners (ITELL), a collaboration
involving Arizona State University, the Navajo Nation, and six elementary school districts in rural northern
Arizona. It was designed to address the needs of ELL students while meeting mandatory state education policies
that prohibit instruction in students’ heritage language. It provided a classroom environment that optimized both
language development and the acquisition of content-specific knowledge. It improved parent and family
contributions to children’s academic growth by promoting parental engagement (García, 2010).
Challenges, Solutions, and a Look Toward the Future

Demographic data clearly show the challenges presented by ELLs, who are projected to comprise 40% of the
school-age population by the year 2030. The number of ELLs in U.S. public schools has increased 150% since
1990, while the overall student population has grown by only 20%. Currently, 40% of ELLs are between 3 and 8
years of age. Young ELLs speak more than 400 native languages; however, 75% of them speak Spanish (Russakoff,
2011). Young Hispanic children are not only the largest racial/ ethnic group in the United States, but also the
youngest and fastest growing. As a population, young Latinos/Latinas are unique, because most of them live in a
home where Spanish is spoken regularly. Statistical data show that young Hispanic children lag behind their
White and Asian American peers at all proficiency levels of reading and mathematics at the beginning and
throughout prekindergarten (PK) to Grade 12 schooling (García, Jensen, & Cuellar, 2006). For young Hispanics
to succeed in academic contexts, they need strong English skills in addition to maintaining their heritage language.
The publication of the report of the National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics generated
numerous ancillary reports, journal articles, congressional briefings, and foundation and organizational initiatives
between 2006 and 2011. García and his associates proposed a series of research-based recommendations to federal,
state, and local governments; educational researchers; and private organizations. These recommendations
concerned the design, funding, and evaluation of the preparation of bilingual and culturally knowledgeable
teachers (García, Jensen, & Scribner, 2009; National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics,
2007). Their research establishes that “a coherent, sequenced, and integrated set of learning experiences from PreK
through Grade 3 provides the foundation for educational and life success” (Russakoff, 2011, p. 4). High-quality
PK programs and elementary schools, strategic inclusion of the student’s native language in classroom instruction,
screening for and closely monitoring learning problems, intensive small-group interventions, extensive and varied
vocabulary instruction, and regular peer-assisted learning opportunities can foster learning and achievement. Such
evidence-based practices as having culturally knowledgeable teachers who are proficient in English and the
language learner’s native language, and teachers trained to teach the English language and academic content
45
simultaneously, are essential to improving students’ learning and achievement. Such strategies as increased
academic learning time; lower student–teacher ratios; improvement of teachers’ domain-specific expertise,
pedagogical skills, and abilities to encourage student participation and engage family and community members;
and meaningful parent involvement are deserving of consideration (García & Jensen, 2006–2007; García &
Jensen, 2007; García et al., 2006; García et al., 2009).
Parent Involvement
Data on Asian, Black, and Hispanic families from the ECELS-K show that “parental involvement in education
partially mediates the association between family poverty and children’s math and reading achievement in
kindergarten, but differences exist across race” (Cooper, Crosnoe, Suizzo, & Pituch, 2010, p. 859). However,
these researchers discovered that home-learning activities predict reading achievement only in Hispanic families.
This research supports the application of the “family process model” for children transitioning into the elementary
school (Cooper et al., 2010, p. 859).
Another report stated that Hispanic parents felt disrespected and unwelcome in their children’s schools. Some
parents said that the teachers made them feel like “little children.” They stated that involvement would be
increased if schools offered interpreters who spoke Spanish. Parent responses to a question about what they would
want preservice teachers to learn from teacher preparation programs centered on themes of care and respect. They
made the following suggestions to teachers: Communicate with parents in their primary language (orally and in
writing), always be nonjudgmental, and have clear ideas about how parent involvement at the school will help
them in their role as parents and communicate these ideas in an unambiguous manner. Implementing these
strategies will help teachers and schools avoid alienating families and, we can hope, increase parent and
community involvement in the school and the classroom (García et al., 2006).
Current Issues In Early Childhood Education

The Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY), founded by Dr. Avima Lombard in Israel in
1969, is a parent-involvement, school-readiness program that helps parents prepare their 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old
children for success. The parents are provided with a set of curriculum, books, and materials designed to
strengthen their children’s cognitive skills, early literacy skills, and social-emotional and physical development. In
this family support program, parents are trained by paraprofessionals from their own communities. The model
used in the seven countries that make up HIPPY International includes a developmentally appropriate curriculum,
with role-play as the method of teaching, staffed by paraprofessional home visitors, supervised by a professional
coordinator; and home visits interspersed with group meetings as the delivery method. The coordinators, who
have degrees in education or counseling, receive support from national or international networks. HIPPY USA,
headquartered in Little Rock, Arkansas, is the U.S. affiliate (HIPPY USA, n.d.; Westheimer, 2003).
Recent research on the impact of HIPPY on a group of Latino families in Texas showcases both the parents and
the program providers working within a framework of cultural competence. The immigrant families are served by
native speakers of Spanish from within the same community, all of whom had been HIPPY parents. Spanish-
language use and DL learning encouraged both the children’s emergent Spanish literacy and later English reading
ability. The study found that the HIPPY home visiting intervention program for Latina mothers of young
children had a positive effect on the home environment of the preschool children and on their math achievement
in Grade 3 as well. The intervention increased the low-income parents’ involvement in their children’s learning
experiences, even years after the conclusion of their participation in the program. The learning materials provided
by home visitors remained in the homes and were available for use by other children in the family and
community. The researchers concluded that “home visiting, in this case, may fill the gap between the investment
of immigrant parents in their children’s education and their ability to prepare their children to navigate the
American school system” (Nievar, Jacobson, Chen, Johnson, & Dier, 2011, p. 276).
46
The Child Well-Being Index
In observance of its centennial year, the Foundation for Child Development (FCD) created an index to reflect the
well-being of America’s children from birth to age 18 years. The aim was to create a tool similar to the Consumer
Price Index that would help policy makers and the public monitor how well children are doing. The FCD Child
Well-Being Index (CWI) is a national, evidence-based composite measure updated annually that describes how
young people in the United States have fared since 1975. The CWI is the nation’s most comprehensive measure of
trends in the quality of life of children and youth. It combines national data from 28 indicators across seven
domains into a single number that reflects overall child well-being. The seven quality-of-life domains are Family
Economic Well-Being, Health, Safe/Risky Behavior, Educational Attainment, Community Engagement, Social
Relationships, and Emotional/Spiritual Well-Being. Included in the Social Relationships domain are the rate of
children who have moved within the last year and the rate of families headed by a single parent. The Health
domain includes the rate of children with very good health, the rate of children with activity limitations, those
who are overweight, and infant and child mortality rates. The children’s parents report much of these data.
Interestingly, the rate of PK enrollment by children ages 3 and 4 years is included in the Community Engagement
domain. The only items included in the Educational Attainment domain are reading and mathematics test scores
at ages 9, 13, and 17. Data sources used in the CWI include the Digest of Education Statistics, the U.S.
Department of Education, the National Center for Education Statistics, the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the
Centers for Disease Control, and the National Center for Health Statistics. The CWI for 2010 was −1.27. The
researchers found that the Great Recession will wipe out virtually all the progress for children since 1975 in the
Family Economic Well-Being domain, which includes secure parental employment, median annual income, the
poverty rate, and the rate of children with health insurance. The rate of children living in poverty is the highest in
20 years. The researchers believe that “the connections that children have to their surrounding communities is
likely to be negatively impacted by declines in Prekindergarten enrollments as more parents are unemployed and
more children are living in poverty, and as states and local communities reduce the availability of Prekindergarten
programs due to budget cuts” (Land, 2010, p. 15). They further state that “such declining trends could lead to
poorer future performance of children in elementary school and beyond, particularly for those children at-risk due
to poverty and other social inequalities” (Land, 2010, p. 15). Other researchers state that, “if we as a country are
truly committed to securing our future by protecting and investing in our most precious resource—our children—
we must do so by lifting up every single child in America.” (Hernandez & Cervantes, 2011).
Women’S Leadership in Early Education

Women’s leadership has always driven early childhood education in the United States. Through the decades, in
this “proving ground” for female leadership from cooperative nursery schools (Hewes, 1998) to program
management, women have demonstrated that they have the intellectual capacity, skills, and knowledge to be both
caring and businesslike. Early childhood education has provided the venue for women to demonstrate their
creativity, resourcefulness, and administrative and supervisory skills. A majority of the directors of early education
programs are women. They usually are promoted from the “operations” or educational arena, with little or no
preparation or training for their new responsibilities. In the early history of programs for young children in the
United States, there were no schools of educational administration or textbooks. Prospective managers would
therefore apprentice themselves to the directors of existing kindergartens or day nurseries. The knowledge base for
contemporary managers has changed from a focus on program information to a broad range of fiscal, regulatory,
personnel-related, team-building, assessment, and organizational knowledge. As foreshadowed by Hewes (2000),
many states now have criteria, procedures, and standards for directors in their state licensing regulations. The
current NAEYC Accreditation Standards do include these criteria.
The most recent book on women and educational leadership reiterates the themes just discussed (Grogan &
Shakeshaft, 2011). The authors state that “historically, women have defined schools as instruments of social
change” and that women were more likely to serve “working-class, immigrant, and female students” (p. 89). They
acknowledge that women often reluctantly move into administrative roles “as service or as sacrifice to improve the
47
education of children.” They cite research demonstrating that “because of their higher rates of participation in
professional development, women leaders are much more likely than men to keep student learning as a central
goal of leadership” (p. 89).
Conclusion
This chapter has explored the multicultural history and the current status of selected early childhood education
programs in the United States of America. Although the journey has been long and complex, a few essential points
stand out. When the European colonists came to America, they tried to eradicate not only the native culture, but
also cultures of those who immigrated after them. In later years the policies of individuals and government entities
attempted to homogenize the education system for young children. Fortunately, many of these attempts were
unsuccessful. Each culture has retained its individuality and language, often in the face of hostility and great
adversity. The intermingling of these cultures makes our early education programs and our country as a whole
much more robust, vigorous, and resilient. Innovations in theory and practice from the past such as the
development of infant schools and kindergartens, the Montessori method, the progressive movement, methods of
educating English language learners, and parental involvement practices have had an impact on the early education
programs of today. We have confidence that we will continue to use the lessons of history to make a difference in
the lives of children and families.
Reflect on
1. How have African American educators helped to shape early childhood education?
2. What educational and social practices and policies may have undermined the right to optimal early
childhood education of native peoples and African Americans?
3. How has the recent proposition of “developmentally appropriate practices” been modified to accommodate
the cultural beliefs and practices of non-European heritage groups in the United States?
4. Who would you consider to be the “founding mothers” of progressive early education in the United States?
5. What are your views on how we should design early childhood programs for English language learners
(ELLs)?
Endnotes
1. 1. In 1990, the U.S. Census Bureau identified 136 different Native American languages, approximately 70
of which are spoken by fewer than 200 persons. These languages are among the 191 U.S. “Languages in
Danger” identified by the 2010 UNESCO Atlas of the World’s Languages in Danger (Moseley, 2011).
2. 2. See Lascarides and Hinitz (2011, Chapters 14 and 18) and the maps throughout the September 1992
issue of Young Children.
3. 3. See Lascarides and Hinitz (2011, Chapter 16) for a further discussion of Maria Montessori and
Montessori schools.
4. 4. See the discussion of the Refugee Families Program in Chapter 16 of Lascarides and Hinitz (2011), for
example.
Selected Resources
48
Historical Perspectives on Kindergarten
For a further discussion of the dissemination of the kindergarten, see the following articles in a special 2009 issue
of History of Education Quarterly, 49 (2):
J. C. Albisetti, “Froebel Crosses the Alps: Introducing the Kindergarten in Italy,” pp. 159–169.
K. Uno, “Civil Society, State, and Institutions for Young Children in Modern Japan: The Initial Years,” pp.
170–181.
Also see Blocks and Beyond: Strengthening Early Math and Science Skills Through Spatial Learning by M. J. Pollman,
2010, Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes; and Kindergartens & Cultures: The Global Diffusion of an Idea by R.
Wollons (Ed.), 2000, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Early Education and Japanese Internment

For information on the Japanese American internment camps in World War II (and their early childhood
programs), see the following:
Chapter 16 in History of Early Childhood Education, by V. C. Lascarides and B. F. Hinitz, 2000/2011, New
York, NY: Falmer Press/New York, NY: Routledge.
The Public Broadcast System (PBS) Children of the Camps Web site: www.pbs.org/childofcamp/index.html
The Center for Asian American Media (CAAM) Exploring the Japanese American Internment through Film
and the Internet Web site: caamedia.org/jainternment/
The full text of Executive Order 9066 may be viewed at www.pbs.org/childofcamp/history/eo9066.html
President Clinton’s October 1993 Letter of Apology may be viewed on the Internet at www.pbs.org/childofcamp/
history/clinton.html
Peace Resources
For a further discussion of Montessori’s peace education work, see
Pages 162–164 in History of Early Childhood Education, by V. C. Lascarides and B. F. Hinitz, 2000/2011,
New York, NY: Falmer Press/New York, NY: Routledge.
Peaceful Children, Peaceful World: The challenge of Maria Montessori by D. Wolf, 1989, Altoona, PA: Parent
Child Press.
Pages 81–82, 157–158, and 369–370 in Maria Montessori: Her Life and Work by E. M. Standing, 1957,
New York, NY: New American Library.
See the column contributed by Aline Stomfay-Stitz and Edyth Wheeler to the Association for Childhood
Education International journal Childhood Education (www.acei.org) and the work of the early childhood
educators who are members of the American Educational Research Association’s Peace Education Special Interest
Group (www.aera.net/Default.aspx?menu_id=198&id=831).
Hispanic/Latino/Latina and English Language

49
Learners
For a full definition of limited English proficient, see www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg107.html
Report of the National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics, Para Nuestros Niños: Expanding
and Improving Early Education for Hispanics: Main report: ecehispanic.org/
Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY): www.hippyusa.org/
References
1. Ashelman, P. (2003a). The contributions of African Americans to the development of early childhood education
in Virginia. Unpublished manuscript [typed manuscript (TMs)].
2. Ashelman, P. (2003b). The southern workman: A resource for documenting the development of early care and
education in Virginia. Unpublished manuscript (TMs).
3. Beatty, B. (1995). Preschool education in America: The culture of young children from the colonial era to the
present. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
4. Beatty, B. (2005). The rise of the American nursery school: Laboratory for a science of child development.
In D. B. Pillemer & S. H. White (Eds.), Developmental psychology and social change (pp. 264–287). New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
5. Berdecía, A., & Kosec, C. (2011, April). Closing the cultural gap: Transforming early childhood teachers’
thinking about culture and language. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association,
New Orleans, LA.
6. Besser, D. (2006). A history and current analysis of issues in early childhood education affecting American Indian
children. Paper presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements of ECE 390 Research Seminar at The
College of New Jersey, Ewing.
7. Bredekamp, S. (2011). Effective practices in early childhood education: Building a foundation. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson.
8. Brookings Institution, Institute for Government Research. (1928). The problem of Indian administration.
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
9. Brosterman, N. (1997). Inventing kindergarten. New York, NY: Harry N. Abrams.
10. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). Retrieved December 9, 2011, from http://
www.archives.gov/education/lessons/brown-v-board/
11. Cahan, E. D. (1989). Past caring: A history of U.S. preschool care and education for the poor, 1820–1965. New
York, NY: National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University.
12. Calderon, M., Slavin, R., & Sanchez, M. (2011, Spring). Effective instruction for English learners. The
Future of Children, 21 (1), 103–128.
13. Calloway, C. G. (1999/2011). First peoples: A documentary survey of American Indian history (1st/4th eds.).
Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
14. Castañeda v. Pickard, 648 F. 2d 989 (1981).
50
15. Castile, G. P. (1998). To show heart: Native American self-determination and federal Indian policy, 1960–
1975. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.
16. Citizenship Act of 1924. Library of Congress. Retrieved December 5, 2011, from http://memory.loc.gov/
ammem/today/jun02.html
17. Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964).
18. Collins, R., & Ribeiro, R. (2004). Toward an early care and education agenda for Hispanic children. Early
Childhood Research and Practice, 6 (2), 2.
19. Comenius, J. A. (1896a). The Great Didactic: Setting forth The whole Art of Teaching all Things to all Men.
C. W. Keatinge (trans. and ed.). London, England: Adam and Charles Black.
20. Comenius, J. A. (1896b). School of Infancy: an Essay on the Education of Youth during the First Six Years. Will
S. Monroe (ed. with introduction and notes). Boston, MA: D. C. Heath.
21. Comenius, J. A. (1887). Orbis Sensualium Pictus (The World of Senses in Pictures). Syracuse, NY: W. C.
Bardeen.
22. Comer, J. P. (1989, Spring). Racism and the education of young children. Teachers College Record, 90 (3),
352–361. Retrieved October 29, 2010, from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?Contentid=478
23. Cooper, C. E., Crosnoe, R., Suizzo, M.-A., &Pituch, K. A. (2010, July). Poverty, race, and parental
involvement during the transition to elementary school. Journal of Family Issues, 31 (7), 859–883.
24. Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (Eds.). (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs
serving children from birth through age 8 (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education
of Young Children.
25. Crosnoe, R. (2007, Spring). Early child care and the school readiness of children from Mexican immigrant
families. International Migration Review, 41 (1), 152–181.
26. Crosnoe, R. (2010, July). Two-generation strategies and involving immigrant parents in children’s education.
Retrieved October 23, 2010, from http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412204
27. Crosnoe, R., & Cooper, C. E. (2010, June). Economically disadvantaged children’s transitions into
elementary school: Linking family processes, school context, and educational policy. American Educational
Research Journal, 47 (2), 258–291.
28. Crosnoe, R., & Kalil, A. (2010, August). Educational progress and parenting among Mexican immigrant
mothers of young children. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72 (4), 976–990.
29. Crosnoe, R., & Turley, R. N. (2011, Spring). K–12 educational outcomes of immigrant youth. The Future
of Children, 21 (1), 129–152.
30. Crosnoe, R., Wirth, R. J., Pianta, R. C., Leventhal, T., & Pierce, K. M. (2010, May/June). Family
socioeconomic status and consistent environmental stimulation in early childhood. Child Development, 81
(3), 972–987.
31. Curtis Act of 1898. Oklahoma Historical Society. Retrieved December 5, 2011, from http://
digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/C/CU006.html
32. Dawes Act of 1887. Our Documents. Retrieved December 5, 2011, from http://www.ourdocuments.gov/
doc.php?flash=true&doc=50
33. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2002, Title IX, Section 9101(25). Retrieved December 10,
51
2011, from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg107.html#sec9101
34. Equal Educational Opportunities Act, 20 U.S.C. §1701 et seq. (1974). Retrieved December 10, 2011, from
http://lawhighereducation.com/52-equal-educational-opportunities-acteeoa.html
35. Espinosa, L. M. (2008, January). Challenging common myths about English language learners. Retrieved
January 13, 2011, from http://www.fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/MythsOfTeachingELLsEspinosa.pdf
36. Executive Order No. 13,336. Fed. Reg. FR 25295 (May 5, 2004). Retrieved from http://www.archives.gov/
federal-register/executive-orders/2004.html#13336
37. Fenton, A. W. (attributed to). (2010, June 8). New report: Impact of recession on children to reach new lows in
2010 (Press release). Foundation for Child Development. Retrieved May 2011, from http://www.fcd-
us.org/
38. Fortuny, K., Hernandez, D. J., & Chaudry, A. (2010, August). Young children of immigrants: The leading
edge of America’s future. Retrieved October 23, 2010, from http://www.urban.org/publications/412203.html
39. Fowlkes, M. A. (1987). Patty Smith Hill of Louisville: Her role in the Americanization of the kindergarten.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for the Education of Young Children,
Chicago, IL.
40. Fritz, Henry E. (2003). Meriam Report. In Dictionary of American History. Retrieved from http://
www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3401802611.html
41. Froebel, F. (1887). The education of man: The art of education, instruction and training aimed at the
Educational Institute at Keilhau. William N. Hailmann (trans. and annotator). New York, NY: D. Appleton
and Co.
42. Fuller, B., Eggers-Pierola, C., Holloway, S. D., & Liang, X. (1996). Rich culture, poor markets: Why do
Latino parents forgo preschooling? Teachers College Record, 97 (3), 400–418.
43. García, E. E. (2010, October). Education and achievement: A focus on Latino “immigrant” children. Retrieved
January 13, 2011, from http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412262
44. García, E. E., & Jensen, B. (2007, March). Helping young Hispanic learners. Educational Leadership, 64
(6), 34–39.
45. García, E. E., & Jensen, B. (2009). Early educational opportunities for children of Hispanic origins. SRCD
Social Policy Report, 23 (2). Retrieved February 20, 2011, from http://www.srcd.org/spr.html
46. García, E. E., Jensen, B., & Cuellar, D. (2006). Early academic achievement of Hispanics in the United
States: Implications for teacher preparation. The New Educator, 2, 123–147.
47. García, E. E., & Jensen, B. T. (2006–2007). Advancing school readiness for young Hispanic children
through universal prekindergarten. Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy, 19, 25–37. García, E. E., Jensen, B.
T., & Scribner, K. P. (2009, April). The demographic imperative. Educational Leadership, 66 (7), 8–13.
48. García, E. E., & Miller, L. S. (2007). An introduction to this special thematic issue. Journal of Latinos and
Education, 6 (3), 201–208.
49. Grogan, M., & Shakeshaft, C. (2011). Women and educational leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass/John Wiley & Sons.
50. Hakuta, K. (2011, May). Educating language minority students and affirming their equal rights: Research
and practical perspectives. Educational Researcher, 40 (4), 163–174.
52
51. Haskins, R., & Tienda, M. (2011, Spring). The future of immigrant children: Policy brief. Retrieved April
2011, from http://www.future-ofchildren.org
52. Hauser, M. E. (2006). Learning from children: The life and legacy of Caroline Pratt. New York, NY: Peter
Lang.
53. Hernandez, D. J., & Cervantes, W. (2011, March 3). Children in immigrant families: Ensuring opportunity
for every child in America. Retrieved March 2011, from
http://www.firstfocus.net/sites/default/files/FCDImmigration_0.pdf
54. Hernandez, D. J., Denton, N. A., & Macartney, S. (2009, March). School-age children in immigrant
families: Challenges and opportunities for America’s schools. Teachers College Record, 111 (3), 616–658.
55. Hernandez, D. J., Takanishi, R., & Marotz, K. G. (2009, December). Life circumstances and public policies
for young children in immigrant families. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24 (4), 487–501.
56. Hewes, D. W. (1988, November 18). Nisei nursery: Preschool at Manzanar Relocation Camp 1942–1945.
Discussion paper presented at the History Seminar of the annual conference of the National Association for
the Education of Young Children, Anaheim, CA.
57. Hewes, D. W. (1998). It’s the camaraderie: A history of parent cooperative preschools. Davis, CA: Center for
Cooperatives.
58. Hewes, D. W. (2000). Looking back: How the role of the director has been understood, studied, and
utilized in ECE programs, policy and practice. In M. I. Culkin (Ed.), Managing quality in young children’s
programs: The leader’s role (pp. 23–39). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
59. Hewes, D. W. (2001). The personalized sequel. In W. N. Hailmann: Defender of Froebel (pp. 277–292).
Grand Rapids, MI: The Froebel Foundation.
60. Hinitz, B. (2002). Margaret Naumburg and the Walden School. In A. R. Sadovnik & S. F. Semel (Eds.),
Founding mothers and others: Women educational leaders during the progressive era (pp. 37–59). New York,
NY: Palgrave.
61. Hinitz, B. S. (2004). Margaret Naumburg. In S. Ware (Ed.), Notable American women: A biographical
dictionary: Completing the twentieth century (Vol. V, pp. 462–464). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
62. HIPPY USA. (n.d.). Mission statement. Model. Research. Retrieved February 2011, from
http://www.hippyusa.org/
63. Huntsinger, C. S., & Jose, P. E. (2009, December). Parental involvement in children’s schooling: Different
meanings in different cultures. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 24 (4), 398–410.
64. Immigration and Nationality Act H.R. 2580, Pub. L. 89-236, 79 Stat. 911, 89th Congress (October 3,
1965). Retrieved from http://library.uwb.edu/guides/USimmigration/
1965_immigration_and_nationality_act.html
65. The Indian Education Act of 1972. Programs and Initiatives/Office of Indian Education/Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/oie/history.html
66. Indian Nations at Risk Task Force. (1991). Indian nations at risk: An educational strategy for action. Final
Report of the Indian Nations at Risk Task Force. Retrieved September 20, 2006, from
http://www.tedna.org/pubs/nationsatrisk.pdf
53
67. Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975. Retrieved December 6, 2011, from http:/
/www.answers.com/topic/indian-self-determination-and-education-assistance-act
68. Johnson, O. C. (1970). Robert Owen in the United States. New York, NY: Humanities Press.
69. Johnson-O’Malley Act of 1934. (2011, July 5). In Encyclopedia of American Education. Retrieved from
http://american-education.org/1130-johnson-omalley-act-of-1934.html
70. Kittrell, F. P. (1966, December). A nursery school program within day care hours for culturally deprived
children and parents. Washington, DC: Department of Home Economics, Howard University. (Reprinted
by Division of Home Economics, Federal Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture)
71. Kittrell, F. P. (1970). Curriculum vita. Archives of Howard University, courtesy of J. Simpson (TMs).
72. Land, K. C. (2010, June 8). 2010 Child and youth well-being index (CWI)—Final report. Foundation for
Child Development. Retrieved May 2011, from http://www.fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/
FINAL%202010%20CWI%20Annual%20Release.pdf
73. Lascarides, V. C., & Hinitz, B. F. (2000). History of early childhood education. New York, NY: Falmer Press.
74. Lascarides, V. C., & Hinitz, B. F. (2011). History of early childhood education (paper ed.). New York, NY:
Routledge.
75. Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563 (1974). Retrieved from http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?
court=us&vol=414&invol=563
76. Lillard, P. P. (1972). Montessori: A modern approach. New York, NY: Schocken Books.
77. Matthews, H., & Ewen, D. (2010, August). Early education programs and children of immigrants: Learning
each other’s language. Retrieved October 23, 2010, from http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=412205
78. McConnell, J. L., Hinitz, B. F., & Dye, G. A. (2005). The impact of the 1993 Brown III decision on
Topeka Public Schools. In D. N. Byrne (Ed.), Brown v. Board of Education: Its impact on public education
1954–2004 (pp. 49–66). New York, NY: Thurgood Marshall Scholarship Fund.
79. Montessori, M. (1932/1943). Peace and education (Italian/English ed.). Geneva, Switzerland: International
Bureau of Education.
80. Montessori, M. (1964). The Montessori method. J. McVickar Hunt (trans.). New York, NY: Schocken
Books. (Original work published 1909)
81. Moseley, C. (Ed.). (2010). Atlas of the world’s languages in danger (3rd ed.). Paris, France: UNESCO
Publishing.
82. Moseley, C. (Ed.). (2011). Atlas of the world’s languages in danger. UNESCO Paris. Retrieved February 27,
2011, from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001924/192416e.pdf
83. National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics. (2007). Para nuestros niños: Expanding
and improving early education for Hispanics: Main report. Retrieved January 2011, from
http://www.ecehispanic.org
84. Naumburg, M. (1915). Montessori class: Second year [Pamphlet]. Margaret Naumburg Papers, Education
Box #1, p. 4.
85. Naumburg, M. (attributed to). (n.d.). Statement of philosophy. TMs, Margaret Naumburg Papers,
Education Box #1, p. 7.
54
86. New, R. S., & Beneke, M. (2009). Negotiating diversity in early childhood education: Notions of expertise.
In S. Feeney, A. Galper, & C. Seefeldt (Eds.), Continuing issues in early childhood education (3rd ed., pp.
303–324). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
87. Nievar, A. M., Jacobson, A., Chen, Q., Johnson, U., & Dier, S. (2011, September). Impact of HIPPY on
home learning environments of Latino families. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26 (3), 268–277.
88. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Public Law 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002, January 8). Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html and
http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg45.html
89. O’Han, N. (2009, Summer). Tough economic times created the rationale for one school. Independent
School, 68 (4). Online Feature.
90. Oriental Exclusion Act (United States) (1924). (2011, February 24). In Encyclopedia of immigration.
Retrieved from http://immigration-online.org/223-oriental-exclusion-act-united-states-1924.html
91. Passel, J. S. (2011, Spring). Demography of immigrant youth: Past, present and future. The Future of
Children, 21 (1), 19–42.
92. Passel, J. S., Cohn, D., & Lopez, M. H. (2011, March 24). Census 2010: 50 Million Latinos: Hispanics
account for more than half of nation’s growth in past decade. Retrieved April 2011, from http://
pewhispanic.org/files/reports/140.pdf
93. Pestalozzi, J. H. (1973). How Gertrude teaches her children: An attempt to help mothers to teach their own
children. Lucy E. Holland & Francis C. Turner (trans. and eds.). Syracuse, NY: W. C. Bardeen. (Original
work published 1801; reprinted 1894, New York, NY: Gordon Press)
94. Pollman, M. J. (2010). Blocks and beyond: Strengthening early math and science skills through spatial learning.
Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
95. Removal Act of 1830. Civics Online. Retrieved from http://www.civics-online.org/library/formatted/texts/

indian_act.html and Library of Congress: http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/Indian.html
96. Rodriguez-Brown, F. V. (2010). A research perspective on the involvement of linguistic-minority families

on their children’s learning. In E. E. Garcáa & E. C. Frede (Eds.), Young English language learners: Current
research and emerging directions for practice and policy (pp. 100–118). New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
97. Rousseau, J. J. (1966). Emile ou de l’education (On Education). Barbara Foxley (trans.). New York, NY:
Everyman’s Library. (Original work published 1762)
98. Russakoff, D. (2011, January). PreK–3rd: Raising the educational performance of English language learners
(ELLs). Retrieved January 13, 2011, from http://www.fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/FCD%20ELLsBrief6.pdf
99. Sadovnik, A. R., & Semel, S. F. (Eds.). (2002). Founding mothers and others: Women educational leaders
during the progressive era. New York, NY: Palgrave.
100. Simpson, W. J. (1981). A biographical study of Black educators in early childhood education (Ph.D.
dissertation). The Fielding Institute, Santa Barbara, CA.
101. Siraj-Blatchford, J. (1997). Robert Owen: Schooling the innocents. Nottingham, England: Educational
Heretics Press.
102. Snyder, A. (1972). Dauntless women in childhood education, 1856–1931. Washington, DC: Association for
Childhood Education International.
55
103. Standing, E. M. (1957). Maria Montessori: Her life and work. New York, NY: New American Library.
104. Tabors, P. (2008). One child, two languages: A guide for early childhood educators of children learning English
as a second language (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
105. Tienda, M., & Haskins, R. (2011, Spring). Immigrant children: Introducing the issue. The Future of
Children, 21 (1), 3–18.
106. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000 et seq.
107. Tudico, C. (2010). Beyond Black and White: Researching the history of Latinos in American higher
education. In M. Gasman (Ed.), The history of U.S. higher education: Methods for understanding the past (pp.
163–171). New York, NY: Routledge.
108. War Relocation Authority. (ca. 1943–1944). Preschool education. Manzanar, CA: Author.
109. Wells-Dolan, A. E. (2010). The challenge of writing the South. In M. Gasman (Ed.), The history of U.S.
higher education: Methods for understanding the past (pp. 187–199). New York, NY: Routledge.
110. Westheimer, M. (2003). Introduction: A decade of HIPPY research. In M. Westheimer (Ed.), Parents
making a difference: International research on the Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY)
program (pp. 1–20). Jerusalem, Israel: The Hebrew University Magnes Press.
111. Weston, P. (1998). Friedrich Froebel: His life, times & significance. London, England: Roehampton Institute.
112. Whitney, E., & Ridgeway, K. (1938). The kindergarten movement in Kansas City. In Association for
Childhood Education, History of the kindergarten movement in the mid-western states and in New York (pp.
38–40). Washington, DC: Author.
113. Williams, L. R. (1994). Developmentally appropriate practice and cultural values: A case in point. In B. L.
Mallory & R. S. New (Eds.), Diversity & developmentally appropriate practices: Challenges for early childhood
education (pp. 155–165). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
114. Wolf, A. (1991). Our peaceful classroom: Illustrations by children from Montessori schools around the world.
Altoona, PA: Parent Child Press.
115. Wolf, A. D. (1989). Peaceful children, peaceful world: The challenge of Maria Montessori. Altoona, PA: Parent
Child Press.
116. Wollons, R. (Ed.). (2000). Kindergartens & cultures: The global diffusion of an idea. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
117. Yoshikawa, H. (2011a). Immigrants raising citizens: Undocumented parents and their young children. New
York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
118. Yoshikawa, H. (2011b, March 3). Undocumented parents and their young children’s development—
Congressional briefing. Retrieved April 2011, from http://www.firstfocus.net/sites/default/files/
Congressional%20Briefing%20030311%20Immigrants%20Raising%20Citizens%20One%20Pager.pdf
119. Young, J. C., & Washington, E. D. (2009, November). A tribute to an ascending warrior: A historical
perspective of the Black Task Force of the Child Development Associate Consortium. Paper presented at the
annual conference of the National Association for the Education of Young Children.
120. Zehr, M. A. (2011, May 5). Studies provide guidance for teaching immigrant preschoolers. Education Week,
30 (30). Retrieved May 2011, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/05/05/30preschool.h30.html?
tkn=PYWFd%2F5E9mlU1gQsBZpkj%2Busy7w1wHvT7nOH&intc=es
56
57
Chapter 2 The Program for Infant/Toddler Care
J. Ronald Lally
and
Peter L. Mangione
WestEd, San Francisco, California
Describe the background and status of contemporary infant care in the United States
Outline the PITC-recommended program policies for high-quality infant/toddler care
Chronicle the history of PITC
Discuss the theoretical and research foundations of PITC
Characterize the PITC approach to curriculum
Illustrate the PITC course of study
Depict the PITC module training process
Epitomize the PITC media-based training approach
Delineate the needs assessment for PITC
Specify the efficacy of PITC
The Program for Infant/Toddler Care (PITC) seeks to ensure that America’s infants get a safe, healthy,
emotionally secure, and intellectually rich start in life. Its five-pronged mission is to (1) increase the quality and
availability of child care for all children under age 3; (2) increase the number of knowledgeable trainers focused on
the 0 to 3 age period by making available high-quality video and print training materials and promoting effective
training strategies; (3) disseminate information that increases the practice of responsive, respectful, and
relationship-based infant toddler care; (4) promote a curriculum-planning process that honors each infant’s unique
curriculum; and (5) inform national, regional, and local policies and practices so that curriculum development and
program activity are centered around the needs and interests of infants, toddlers, and their families.
Background And Status of Infant/Toddler Care in the

United States
PITC took on its mission in 1985 in response to the low quality of infant/toddler child care found in the United
States, the increased use of and demand for infant/toddler care, and the paucity of trainers and training materials
available for the age period. With regard to quality, what we observed then and what subsequent research
confirmed was frightening. Less than 10% of care for children under age 3 was rated as developmentally
appropriate and 40% was rated as damaging (Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study Team, 1995). With
regard to demand, requests for infant care slots far outnumbered slots available (California Child Care Resource
and Referral Network, 2009). With regard to available training and training materials, most of the training at the
time was conducted by trainers knowledgeable in preschool care but with little experience with infants. In a search
58
for audio and video training materials targeted to group care for infants, Honig and Wittmer (1989), who were
commissioned by PITC to develop an annotated guide on that topic, found little.
As of this writing, little has changed concerning the availability and quality of care. Only the number of trainers
and availability of training materials have changed. Sixty-one percent of children younger than 6 years old are
being cared for by someone other than their parents and 55.4% of mothers with children under age 3 are
employed (U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Statistics, 2010). The California Child Care Resource and
Referral Network (2009) reports that, although the supply of child care generally falls short of meeting the
demand, infant care is particularly scarce. Although 65% of the overall supply of child care is center based, only
6% of licensed slots are for children under the age of 2. As for quality, an important indicator is turnover rate,
which ranges from 25% to 40% for the child care workforce annually (National Association of Child Care
Resource and Referral Agencies, 2011). Moreover, the infant/toddler care field has yet to be recognized as a
profession worthy of appropriate compensation. The average hourly wage for a child care center worker is $9.25
(U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Statistics, 2009). These factors have seriously dampened the effect of
training efforts in the field.
Yet quality clearly matters, as a growing body of research shows. The National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development (NICHD; 1997, 1998, 2002a, 2002b, 2007) study of early child care found that higher
quality care was related to better mother–child relationships, lower probability of insecure attachment in infants of
mothers with low sensitivity, fewer reports of children’s problem behaviors during the early childhood years,
higher cognitive performance of children in child care, higher children’s language ability, and higher levels of
school readiness. Conversely, lower quality care predicted less harmonious mother–child relationships, a higher
probability of insecure mother–child attachment with mothers who were already low in sensitivity to their
children, more problem behaviors, lower cognitive and language ability, and lower school readiness scores.
It was also found that children benefit most from higher quality child care under certain circumstances.
Consistently reported was the impact of the family on development. Family characteristics and the quality of the
mother’s relationship with the child were found to be stronger predictors of children’s development than child
care factors. Yet there appears to be an interactive effect between home conditions and conditions in care: The
more children are in need of support at home, the greater the effect on them of high-quality or low-quality care.
For example, in the NICHD study, quality child care modestly predicted greater involvement and sensitivity by
the mother (at 15 and 36 months) and greater positive engagement of the child with the mother (36 months). But
infants who received either poor-quality care for more than 10 hr per week of care, or were in more than one child
care setting in the first 15 months of life, were more likely to be insecurely attached only if their mothers were
lower in sensitivity.
Overall, however, children in care who received more sensitive and responsive attention had fewer caregiver-
reported problems at ages 2 and 3 years. This finding is supported by research showing that quality child care
promotes cognitive, language, and social and emotional development. When caregivers provide a supportive
environment that encourages verbal stimulation, children are likely to show advanced cognitive and language
development (Partnership for America’s Economic Success, 2008). In addition, higher quality care generally
relates to more competent peer relationships during early childhood and into the school years (Scholl, Heidiger, &
Belsky, 1996; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000; Sigman, 1995—all as cited in Hetheringon & Parke, 2003). Such
positive effects extend well beyond the early school years. Studies that examine children’s development over time
have shown that higher quality child care is a predictor of improvement in children’s receptive language and
functional communication skills, verbal IQ skills, cognitive skills, behavioral skills, and attainment of higher math
and receptive language scores—all of which impact later school success (Cowen & Ewen, 2008). When child care
is very high quality (as it is in model early childhood programs), positive effects endure into the early adult years,
particularly for children from the poorest home environments (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). In contrast, children
without nurturing relationship experiences—both at home and in child care—find interacting with people and
objects in the environment more difficult and have greater challenges in their early learning experiences (Lurie-
Hurvitz, 2009).
Instability of care, as measured by the number of entries into new care arrangements, was found to be associated
59
with higher probability of insecure attachment in infancy if mothers were not providing sensitive and responsive
care. Only 45% of children with both mothers and child care providers in the bottom 25% of the sample on the
sensitivity dimension were found to be securely attached, whereas 62% of those with more sensitive mothers and
caregivers were securely attached. Conditions of poverty also had an important interactive effect with conditions of
care. A difference was found in the quality of care available to infants from families that were consistently poor
and received public assistance, as compared with children from families in near poverty who did not receive
assistance. Families that met poverty criteria for subsidized care were found to receive a higher level of care than
the children from near-poverty situations whose families had to pay for care out of their budget. Families more
dependent on the mother’s income placed their infants in child care at earlier ages and used more hours of care
than did families less dependent on the mother’s income. Families who moved in and out of poverty—known as
transitory poverty—were most likely to place their infants in child care very early, before 3 months of age. The
way that low-income families tend to use infant care places their infants and toddlers at greater risk than middle-
to high-income infants and toddlers for a variety of poorer outcomes and vulnerabilities, such as later school
failure, learning disabilities, behavior problems, mental retardation, developmental delay, and health impairments
(Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000).
Given these and many other confounding issues related to the impact of quality of care on children’s development,
PITC developed a set of program policies aimed at creating a climate with a high probability of ensuring quality
regardless of family and child circumstances. Although excellent programs may be developed without one or more
of the PITC program policies, the entire set of policies was conceived to maximize the chances for the
actualization of accessible high-quality infant/toddler care. Together, the six PITC program policies establish
stable child care experiences for all infants and toddlers and their families. Emphasis is placed on achieving
relationship stability and emotional connection for each child and family. The purpose of these policies is to help
each child become emotionally secure in care, which serves as the foundation for enhancing the child’s learning,
development, and well-being.
Pitc-Recommended Program Policies

Primary Care. The assignment of a primary infant care teacher to each child and family. In a primary care
system, each child is assigned to one teacher who is principally responsible for that child’s care (Bernhardt,
2000). When children spend a longer day in care than their primary teacher does, a second teacher is
assigned to be the primary relationship. Each child should have a special person assigned to that child at all
times during the child care day. Teaming is also important. Primary care works best when teachers team up
and support each other, providing a backup base for security for each other’s primary care children. Primary
care does not mean exclusive care. It means, however, that all parties know who has primary responsibility
for each child.
Small Groups. The creation of small groups of children and caregivers. Every major research study on infant
and toddler care has shown that small group size and good ratios are key components of quality care. PITC
recommends primary care ratios of 1:3 or 1:4 in groups of 6 to 12 children, depending on the children’s
ages. The guiding principle is this: the younger the child, the smaller the group. Small groups facilitate the
provision of personalized care that infants and toddlers need, supporting peaceful exchanges, freedom and
safety to move and explore, and development of intimate relationships.
Continuity. Continuity of teacher assignments and groups over time. Continuity of care is the third key to
providing the deep connections that infants and toddlers need for quality child care. Programs that
incorporate the concept of continuity of care keep primary teachers and children together throughout the 3
years of infancy or the period that covers the child’s enrollment in care.
Personalized Care. Responsiveness to individual needs, abilities, and schedules. Following children’s unique
rhythms and temperaments promotes well-being and a healthy sense of self. It is important to help a child
feel good about him- or herself, even if that child’s biological rhythms or needs are different from those of
60
other children. Responding promptly to children’s individual needs supports children’s growing ability to
self-regulate—that is, to modulate their behavior and emotional responses in personal and social contexts.
The program adapts to the child, rather than vice versa. The child receives the message that he or she is
important, that her or his needs will be met, and that his or her choices, preferences, and impulses are
respected.
Cultural Continuity. Cultural continuity between home and program through dialogue and collaboration
with families. Children develop a sense of who they are and what is important within the context of culture.
Traditionally, it has been the child’s family and cultural community that have transmitted values,
expectations, and customs, especially during the early years of life. As more children enter child care during
the tender years of infancy, questions of their cultural identity and sense of belonging in their own families
are raised. Consistency of care between home and child care, always important for the very young, becomes
even more so when the infant or toddler is cared for in the context of cultural practices different from those
of the child’s family. Because of the important role of culture in development, teachers who serve families
from diverse backgrounds can support cultural continuity as follows:
1. Heighten their understanding of the importance of culture in the lives of infants
2. Develop cultural competencies
3. Acknowledge and respect cultural differences
4. Learn to be open and responsive to families and willing to negotiate with them about child rearing
practices
In this way, families and infant care teachers, working together, can facilitate the optimal development of each
child.
Inclusion of Children with Special Needs. Appropriate accommodations and support for children with disabilities
or other special needs. Inclusion means making the benefits of high-quality care available to all infants through
appropriate accommodations and support so each child may participate fully and actively in a program.
Issues already embraced by PITC—a relationship-based approach to the provision of care that is
individualized and responsive to the child’s cues and impulse to learn—are important for all children,
including those with disabilities or other special needs. Infants who have responsive, enduring relationships
develop emotional security, which gives them the foundation for becoming socially competent and resilient.
Infants who have individualized care are allowed to learn and grow in their own way and at their own pace.
These policies, shown in Figure 2–1, are rooted in work that dates back to the 1960s. By the time PITC’s
development began in 1985, the need for policies that support the implementation of responsive, relationship-
based care for infants and toddlers was abundantly clear.
History of Pitc
The beginnings of PITC originate with work at the Syracuse University Children’s Center, the first federally
funded infant/toddler center in the United States. In 1964, this program
61
Figure 2–1 PITC-Recommended Policies
opened its doors to study the effect of center-based care on infant development. Created jointly by Bettye
Caldwell and Julius Richmond, with the assistance of Alice Honig, it combined strategies from the fields of
developmental psychology, child development, early childhood education, and pediatrics to create and provide a
child and family enrichment program designed around center-based child care. In 1969, J. Ronald Lally succeeded
Bettye Caldwell as director of the center and initiated the Syracuse University Family Development Research
Program (FDRP), a longitudinal intervention for 108 children from low-income families beginning in the third
trimester of pregnancy and continuing through the fifth birthday of each target child. Throughout the period
from 1964 through 1977, continuous improvement efforts were conducted based on classroom and child
observations and assessments. One of the results of these efforts was the book Infant Caregiving: A Design for
Training (Honig & Lally, 1981), which disseminated many of the lessons learned about the provision of
infant/toddler care at the Syracuse University Children’s Center and formed the foundation for PITC. As the
longitudinal follow-up study reports, the approach toward care used in the center program was designed to achieve
the following:
[So] that children could expect to be treated fairly and with loving kindness by adults and other children in a
secure and consistent setting, that they would come to expect daily educational experiences, and that they
would see the resources of their childcare community as available for their use and to meet their needs. The
staff functioned under the agreed upon assumptions that these children were capable of: 1) learning
something about anything in which they showed interest; 2) learning to understand that their actions and
choices had an impact on others; 3) learning that cooperation and concern for the rights of others would
ultimately allow them to express their own creativity, excitement, curiosity, and individuality more fully; 4)
learning that wonder and exploration were encouraged by adults; and 5) imitating the actions of staff to other
children and other adults. Additional assumptions were that these children were to be treated as special
creations, each with particular skills and specialties that would be appreciated by and useful to the larger
society; these special powers were protected and allowed to rise to ascendance by the adults who spent their
daytime hours with them. In summary, the context that was fostered set a daily tone of freedom of choice
and awareness of responsibility, an expectation of success in each child; confidence in the fairness and
consistency of the environment; an emphasis on creativity, excitement and exploration in learning;
62
expectation of internal rather than external motivation; and the safe, cheerful place to spend the day. (Lally,
Mangione, & Honig, 1987, p. 2)
This philosophy of care also formed the foundation of the home visit component of the FDRP and eventually
became the basis for “Home Visiting the PITC Way,” the home visit training component of PITC.
During the same period, Glen Nimnicht and his team were creating the Responsive Education Program (Thoms
& Lewis, 1975) at Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and Development (now called WestEd). This
federally funded and carefully evaluated early childhood education program (prekindergarten to Grade 2) had
three goals: (1) to support children’s cognitive development by promoting the development of problem-solving
abilities; (2) to support a healthy self-concept by supporting learners in using their own ideas, values, and learning
styles productively; and (3) to support cultural pluralism by promoting the development of attitudes and behaviors
that enable learners to understand and value ethnic and cultural diversity and to interact equitably in a pluralistic
society. Evaluation findings in educationally treated showed significant positive growth movement as compared
with controls on all three goals. When Lally moved from Syracuse University to Far West Laboratory and was later
joined by Peter Mangione, they worked to blend these two well-thought-out and carefully studied approaches. By
1985, when the opportunity arose to help the California Department of Education (CDE) with concerns about
the quality of care infants and toddlers were receiving in subsidized programs, the PITC approach was already well
on its way to being formulated. Half the nation’s infants and toddlers were spending long hours in child care
programs in which their care and education were often relegated to underappreciated, poorly compensated, and
inadequately trained providers. California trends mirrored national trends. CDE, through the leadership of Robert
Cervantes and Janet Poole (the latter who had visited the Syracuse Children’s Center in the late 1970s), entered
into a historic and long-lasting collaboration with Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and
Development to develop and operate PITC.
As work began, PITC’s developers soon found, although both research and experience pointed to the significance
of the first 3 years of life and a good deal was known about individual infant development, that little information
was available to child care professionals about how to provide optimal care for infants and toddlers in group-care
settings. Poole and others—in particular, Mary Smithberger of CDE’s Child Development Division (CDD), and
Lally and Mangione of WestEd’s Center for Child and Family Studies—started by gathering a team of child and
family researchers, child care experts, and media specialists. Together, they began to develop a comprehensive
multimedia training system centered on user-friendly broadcast-quality videos that would bring directly to infant
care teachers theoretical and practical knowledge about infant development and care. Partnerships were forged
with private foundations, including Carnegie Corporation, The Ford Foundation, Smith Richardson Foundation,
and the Harris Foundation, to support video and print material development.
Since PITC’s beginning, it has focused on assisting center and family child care providers to implement high-
quality infant/toddler care. It has developed strategies aimed to help caregivers read and respond to the emotional,
social, and intellectual messages of infants in their care. Further, these strategies include encouraging policies that
enable programs to focus on the importance of the relationships between the caregiver and child, and the caregiver
and family, as the foundation of good-quality care. PITC materials and approach have been used to instruct many
trainers throughout the country, who in turn have taught thousands of caregivers.
From its inception, PITC has included the perspectives of a wide range of stakeholders. In the project’s first year,
3,000 parents, caregivers, and trainers participated in an assessment of training needs in California. A panel of
nationally recognized experts in the field of infant/toddler care and development was enlisted to be the project’s
advisors and reviewers. In addition, a state panel of child care experts was formed. Special consultants, noted
experts, and theorists on early learning, environment, culture, and language, as well as trainers, caregivers,
children, and parents, have made significant contributions to PITC. These contributions include the
conceptualization, review and piloting of training materials, writing articles for PITC curriculum guides, and
appearing in PITC videos.
A pilot study early in the development of PITC (Mangione, 1987) suggested that trainers needed more than high-
quality videos and guides to be able to use the materials effectively in training. Trainer’s manuals were developed
63
to offer lesson plans based on PITC materials. In addition, CDE and WestEd took a major step toward far-
reaching dissemination of the PITC philosophy and materials with the creation of a series of Trainer Institutes.
The first of these Trainer Institutes were presented in 1990, taking the form of training by module in 3½-day
segments, with faculty including notable figures in the field of infant care and development, as well as the CDD
and WestEd creators of PITC. The Trainer Institutes offer a deep understanding of PITC content and philosophy
—as well as guidance in effective adult learning techniques—to college teachers, program managers, resource and
referral agency staff, and others responsible for training caregivers in home-based and center settings. Since 1992,
CDE/CDD has provided fellowships for eligible California residents, significantly increasing the accessibility of
the trainings to diverse communities in all regions of California. The institutes are also open to trainers from out
of state, a decision that provided the impetus for national dissemination of PITC.
In 1994, Carnegie Corporation issued the report titled “Starting Points: Meeting the Needs of Our Youngest
Children” (Carnegie Task Force on Meeting the Needs of Young Children, 1994), which resulted in a significant
increase in awareness and will on the part of public and private groups to address infant/toddler care needs. Two
years later, national welfare reform legislation placed additional demands on child care systems and raised concerns
about the quality of care, particularly for children under 3 years of age. It became more imperative than ever to
expand and support training efforts; federal and state agencies and private foundations looked to California for
guidance and training materials. Representatives of the departments of education, health, and social services in
several states contracted with WestEd to present PITC Trainer Institutes and to provide technical assistance in the
creation of statewide training networks. To date, PITC has conducted Trainer Institutes, along with graduate
conferences and satellite trainings, in 18 states and the District of Columbia. In addition, between 1996 and
2003, PITC played a major role in providing training and technical assistance to the 700 Early Head Start (EHS)
and Migrant Head Start programs serving infants and toddlers. In fact, all grantees in the first four waves of EHS
participated in PITC training. In 2011, PITC reached 600 EHS center-based staff and 600 EHS home visit staff
with 12 weeklong intensive trainings.
In 1998, California’s CDE/CDD expanded the partnership with WestEd in a wide-ranging plan to increase the
quality of care for infants and toddlers with disabilities, as well as typically developing children. PITC became the
heart of a system of training and technical assistance designed to reach every region of California. New PITC
activities included the following:
Partners for Quality (regional training and coaching network)
PITC demonstration programs (five California sites)
PITC Home Visitor Training Institutes
PITC Beginning Together Trainer Institutes, focusing on the inclusion and care of children with disabilities
or other special needs
PITC Infant Toddler Learning & Development Advanced Training Institutes
Specialized assistance to community colleges and local planning councils
Each year the PITC training system reaches more than 3,000 infant/toddler care teachers and administrators at
150 centers, including groups of family child care providers, who serve approximately 18,000 infants and toddlers
in California.
Collaboration with the California Department of Education continues. In 2008, CDE’s comprehensive
Infant/Toddler Learning & Development System was made available to state practitioners to link PITC training
and technical assistance with newly created program guidelines, child development foundations, a curriculum
framework, and an assessment instrument, all based on PITC philosophy (Figure 2–2).
Theoretical and Research Foundations of Pitc

64
The PITC approach is constructed to help programs and infant care teachers provide infants and toddlers with
close and responsive relationships; safe, interesting, and developmentally appropriate environments; uninterrupted
time to explore; and interactions with adults that both emotionally and intellectually support and expand their
learning. These emphases reflect the research-based understanding that developing infants and toddlers exhibit
both great competency and great vulnerability (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). Both of these attributes need to be
addressed by parents and teachers. On one hand, the infant has been found to be vulnerable and in great need of
adults. Human infants operate in a state of what David Hamburg, past president of Carnegie Corporation, calls
“prolonged helplessness” (Hamburg & Takanishi, 1997). The infant needs adults for survival, protection, and
early nurturance. Without this protection and nurturance, that child will die. The infant also relies on the adult
for social, emotional, and intellectual survival. Young children seek out adults not only for protection but also for
guidance on successful ways to function in
Figure 2–2 CDE Systems Chart

the particular society and culture into which they are born. They depend on adults to share with them society’s
“rules of the road.” On the other hand, it has been found that, in addition to their vulnerability, infants are quite
competent. Infants have their own agenda, they are born ready to learn, they move toward organizing their
experience, and they create order. Their brains are structured to make sense of things, to find meaning, and to
explore possibilities. They actively explore and experiment. They are genetically predisposed to learn language.
They are inclined to watch and learn from others. Through imitation and incorporation of their perceptual
experiences, they develop ways of thinking, feeling, and acting. Skills crucial to success in school, including the
ability to regulate one’s urges (inhibition), the ability to hold some information in mind while attending to
something else (working memory), and the ability to switch attention or mental focus (cognitive flexibility), are
shaped through the give-and-take of relationships in which babies engage during the first two years of life
65
(Thompson, 2009). PITC has created strategies to assist program leaders and infant care teachers with
understanding and simultaneously addressing these two attributes. With regard to attention to the child’s
vulnerability, the PITC approach emphasizes that, through the infant care teacher’s prompt, appropriate, and
contingent responses, the child learns that her or his actions are acknowledged and addressed. The child begins to
understand that these actions can produce a desirable result. Yet the child’s vulnerability is never addressed
without simultaneous attention to the child’s competence. Therefore, PITC recommends that infant care teachers
watch and wait as a child struggles with a problem until the child gives a signal for help, rather than either rushing
in to do things for the child or not helping when the signal is given. This simultaneous responsiveness to both the
vulnerability and competence of the child is at the heart of the PITC approach. The supportive presence of the
infant care teacher allows the child to learn to persist in the face of a challenge and yet to feel that help is available
if needed. This type of learning is fundamental in a child’s cognitive growth (Hauser-Cram, Warfield, Shonkoff,
& Krauss, 2001). Being attentive to secure base behavior is also emphasized in the PITC approach. As an infant
grows, the child becomes a more willing and confident explorer if that child has a secure base in the form of a
supportive and trusted caregiver from which to explore (Bowlby, 1969). Again, the presence of both vulnerability
and competence is addressed. As the young child exhibits new and sophisticated exploration skills—such as
crawling and hand-to-hand transfer of objects—these competencies are both recognized and supported while the
infant care teacher attends to the child’s vulnerability by being a secure base for exploration and continuing to
strengthen the child’s feeling of security and well-being.
With this vision of the infant or toddler as an exhibitor of both vulnerability and competence at the center of
PITC philosophy, our approach is further based on 10 additional attributes of infancy that have been identified in
the research literature.
Ten Attributes of Infant/Toddler Development on

Which the PITC Approach is Based
1. Relationships are essential for development. The infant is dependent on close, caring, ongoing relationships
for positive physical, social, emotional, and intellectual growth. Infants develop best when they are sure of
having trusted caregivers who can read their cues and respond to
66
Holding baby on the caregiver’s lap, hugging, and stroking the baby help in the development of
a trusting parent–child relationship.
their needs. The impact on the infant’s development of the quality of the relationship between caregiver and
infant, parent and infant, or home visitor and parent cannot be emphasized enough. PITC recommends
infant/toddler care policies to increase the probability that these relationships are formed and have a chance
to deepen over time.
2. Infants learn holistically. Parents and caregivers need to relate to infant learning by being conscious of the
impact of their actions on all developmental domains, not just the one on which they focus at any given
time. Infants do not experience social, emotional, intellectual, language, and physical learning separately.
Infant learning is best fostered in very young children through attending to the “whole child” rather than
through giving focused attention to one developmental domain at a time (Bornstein & Bornstein, 1999;
Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). For this reason, adults are most helpful to young children when they interact in
ways that reflect an understanding that the child is learning from the whole experience, not just the part of
the experience to which the adult gives attention. PITC recommends that teachers adopt this “whole child”
approach to facilitating young children’s development and learning. Within its holistic approach, PITC
trains teachers and parents to see the component parts of early learning experiences by focusing on each
developmental domain and identifying the various learning interests of infants and toddlers. Teachers and
parents using this approach become much more likely to match what they do with children to the children’s
needs and interests. This approach to early learning can have tremendous impact on a child’s development
and learning because it focuses on issues of interest and that are meaningful to the child.
3. Infancy consists of three broadly defined stages. Between birth and age 3, a child goes through three distinct
developmental stages: young infant, mobile infant, and older infant. At each of these stages, infants organize
their thoughts and actions differently. Adults need to be able to adjust the way they attend to an infant
depending on what the child presents developmentally. If a teacher, for example, expects the young infant to
have the same level of impulse control as an older infant, that teacher might employ discipline techniques
that are damaging to the child. PITC recommends that teachers always look at the “developmental
67
equipment” (Fraiberg, 1955) a child possesses as a key variable in how the adult should act. In doing so, the
adult comes to see that there is no one approach to issues such as biting, fighting, and crying; in each
instance, the adult needs to take into account what the child brings to the issue—in particular, the child’s
developmental level. PITC advises that the type of care provided and experiences introduced should be in
harmony with the child’s developmental stage and should change as the child moves from one stage to
another.
4. Infants are active, self-motivated learners. Each infant is born curious and motivated to learn—indeed, the
child actively participates in learning each day. Environments and activities that keep motivation,
experimentation, and curiosity alive must be constructed to facilitate the infant learning process.
Environmental design, toys and equipment, activities, and facilitation of play and exploration must reflect
awareness of infants’ self-motivation. If, for example, the caregiver selects all the lessons to be learned or
provides an environment neither challenging nor interesting, the child will push to do what he or she is
interested in or to create his or her own stimulation. In an adult-directed world, infants and toddlers often
will be told “No,” “Stop,” or “Bad” when they are either passionately following their own learning agenda or
searching for experiences of interest. In contrast, PITC tries to help teachers see that, when engaged in self-
directed learning, children should not be made to feel “This is wrong” or “I am bad” or “I should not take
the initiative in learning.” Awareness of a child’s self-motivation actually frees parent and caregivers. Rather
than assuming that they have to supply all the learning motivation and create every learning experience, they
can look for ways to take advantage of the child’s natural desire to learn and then expand, adapt, and
encourage what they observe. This approach not only helps the child learn, but also encourages the child to
feel good about him- or herself as a learner.
5. Infants differ from one another. They are individuals with unique temperaments and unique relationship
experiences. Each child is born an individual with an individual temperament, a different rate of
development, and different ways of relating to others. It is essential for caregivers to acknowledge the effect
of temperament on individual children’s development and to respect these temperamental differences.
Doing so requires professionals working with young children to know the different temperamental traits and
to be knowledgeable of the dynamic quality of development. Awareness and allowance for temperamental
differences in children comprise a first step toward individualizing care. Temperament is a window through
which adults can view their relationship with each child. Understanding that the active child, slow-to-warm-
up child, and child who is not intense or is easily overstimulated all need a slightly different approach is
crucial to individualization.
6. Infants develop their first sense of self through contact with others. An infant or toddler learns most of how
to think and feel by imitating and incorporating the behaviors of those who care for that child. How infants
first see themselves, how they think they should function, and how they expect others to respond to them all
come from and through their relationships.
7. Home culture and family are a fundamental part of a child’s developing identity. Because an infant’s sense
of self is such a crucial part of a child’s development and learning, early care programs must, in addition to
carefully selecting and training caregivers, ensure that links with family, home culture, and home language
are a central part of program policy. PITC consciously strives to both respect and incorporate the cultural
values of the families served and to seek out from family members information about how they would like
their child to be treated. Making connections with young children requires that caregivers and home visitors
make connections with families. To serve a child well, program staff need to know that child’s family. Thus,
teachers and program administrators need to be skilled observers and respectful interviewers with a
commitment to engage families. PITC advises teachers that much of the information needed to better serve
children would either be incomplete or not learned at all without family connections.
8. Language skills and habits develop early. The development of language is particularly crucial during the
infant/toddler period.
68
Sensory experiences such as touching are the building blocks of early exploration and peer play.
PITC supports teachers in providing various opportunities for infants to engage in meaningful, experience-
based communication with trusted adults who acknowledge and encourage their communications. Creating
a verbally rich environment enhances language development, but it also promotes cognitive development.
Singing, talking, asking questions, waiting for a response, and verbally labeling objects directly affect the
formation of neural pathways (Shore, 1997). For infants learning more than one language, the same
principles apply. In addition, teachers need to focus on enhancing babies’ comfort with a second language
by creating continuity between the home and the child care setting. When supporting a child learning one
or more languages, infant/toddler care should emphasize warm, nurturing conversation that is responsive to
the child’s attempts to communicate (Pearson, with Mangione, 2006).
9. Environments are powerful. “What young children learn, how they react to events and people around them,
and what they expect from themselves and others are deeply affected by their relationships with parents, the
behavior of parents, and the environment of the homes in which they live” (Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000, p.
226). Infants and toddlers are strongly influenced by the environments they experience each day. This is
particularly true for very young infants who cannot move themselves from one environment to another.
PITC shares information with infant care teachers about the importance of creating safe, healthy, and
interesting environments that are not cluttered, confusing, noisy, or chaotic. Careful attention is paid to the
impact on child functioning of materials, equipment, size of groups, and stability of environments.
10. Caregiving routines are prime avenues for infant/toddler learning. Some of infants’ most important learning
experiences occur during caregiving routines. When carried out in a consistent manner and at a pace the
infants can follow, infants can learn to anticipate what will happen next in a routine. This experience allows
infants to participate and eventually cooperate in caregiving routines. They learn how their needs are met
and how to begin regulating themselves. Routines also offer opportunities for the teacher to talk about the
steps in the routine and engage in conversations with infants and toddlers, thereby fostering language
development. Through routines, families transmit culturally based practices. Because caregiving practices are
culturally meaningful, it is important for teachers to create links between the child’s experiences with
routines at home and those in the child care program.
The Pitc Approach to Curriculum

Good infant/toddler care is not like babysitting or preschool. It is a special kind of care that looks like no other.
69
Because infants and toddlers have unique developmental needs and interests, their care must be constructed
specifically to meet those needs. For care to be designed well and carried out appropriately, decisions about
environments, routines, staffing, group size, relationships with families, supervision, and training must have as
their starting point the individual infants in care. The PITC approach to curriculum therefore includes the infant
as an active partner in the process of curriculum creation. In a curriculum following the PITC philosophy, a good
portion of lesson planning has to do with altering teacher behavior and environments in ways that adapt to the
lessons that infants choose to learn. PITC curriculum planning explores ways to help infant care teachers attune
themselves to each infant they serve and learn from the infant what that child needs, thinks, and feels. Once in
tune with individual children, teachers draw on their knowledge base (child development, environments,
developmentally appropriate materials, awareness of their own personal characteristics) to facilitate the next step of
the children’s development. This two-part process—putting oneself in the child’s position and then using one’s
own knowledge and experience to inform the next interaction with the child—is the essence of the PITC
approach to curriculum. In this approach, the most critical curriculum components are often not planned lessons
but planned settings. Thus, this approach respects the active role of infants in their learning and development, as
well as the manner in which they learn, which often changes from moment to moment in unpredictable ways. In
essence, PITC curriculum planning looks to the infant for direction. Understanding who the individual infants
and toddlers are, what their needs and interests are, and how they learn drives decisions about what kind of care
best supports their development, learning, and well-being. This approach requires ongoing cycles of observation
and documentation of children, as well as discussion, contemplation, reflection, planning, and implementation.
Figure 2–3 illustrates the curriculum process.
Observe Each Child. To facilitate learning and development effectively, infant care teachers need
Figure 2–3 PITC Curriculum Process

to observe what children do. In the PITC approach, teachers actively participate with the children while
observing, take notes on the fly, and selectively record what they think will be meaningful at a later time to them,
to the child, and to the child’s family. PITC encourages teachers to use their knowledge to interpret behavior as
they focus on dynamics that arise in the child’s relationships. These observational strategies place value on
teachers’ active role in identifying and then recording what they think has meaning.
Document Observations. Infant care teachers record their observations in three different ways: (1) immediately
taking notes or photos, or videotaping or audiotaping the children; (2) setting aside time for note taking; or (3)
70
collecting what older children create. Teachers often work together to document their observations in ways that do
not interfere with time spent with the children or with the flow of the day.
Reflect and Plan. PITC encourages infant care teachers to study their observation records and documentation
information both by themselves and with colleagues and family members. Taking time to slow down, review, and
think about each child’s behavior, temperament, learning interests, developmental profile and needs, helps
teachers deepen their understanding and appreciation of each child. This contemplation time also helps them
uncover ideas on how to continue to support that child’s learning and development. This process can be exciting
and invigorating for teachers as they come up with ideas and think about how they might adapt the environment
or routines, or introduce a new routine or material based on observations, notes, reflection, and discussion. Part of
the reflection and planning process includes narrowing down the list of ideas to one or two that relate directly to
the interests and abilities of a child or a small group of children. Once teachers have a plan for the next step in
supporting a child’s learning and development, they then introduce the adaptation or change in a way that allows
the child to make choices and to interact with the new material or environmental setup, experiencing freely and
creatively.
Implement Plans. Teachers using the PITC curriculum process try out their plans by making changes in the
environment, introducing materials, relating and interacting in new ways, and highlighting objects or concepts for
selective focus. As teachers test their plans with children, the process begins again with observation. By
observation, followed by documentation, assessment, and reflection, teachers learn how each child responds to the
changes made. This dynamic process of ongoing study of children’s learning and development leads to new
curriculum ideas to plan and implement. Through this curriculum process, teachers deepen their understanding of
each child. They become more sensitive in adapting the environment and more responsive to each child’s evolving
interests and abilities.
The Pitc Course of Study

Infant/Toddler Development
PITC focuses on four developmental domains: social-emotional, cognitive, language, and motor and perceptual.1
As PITC is aligned with the CDE’s Infant/Toddler Learning and Development Foundations, the specific
competencies and learning interests identified in each of these domains correspond to the foundations. As stated
previously in this chapter, infant learning and development are understood to be holistic in PITC’s perspective.
Although the division of competencies and learning interests into domains is artificial, it helps teachers understand
and attend to the breadth and depth of early learning and development. In some cases, the division of
competencies into domains is arbitrary. For example, only four specific competencies or interests appear under the
language development domain, yet interactions, relationships, expression of emotion, and imitation directly relate
to children’s developing abilities to communicate and use language. PITC training works to help teachers focus on
specific competencies within domains, while always maintaining a focus on the interrelated nature of learning and
development. Within this approach, the specific competencies and interests of infants and toddlers are as follows:
Social-Emotional Development
Interactions with adults
Relationships with adults
Interactions with peers
Relationships with peers
71
Identity of self in relation to others
Recognition of ability
Expression of emotion
Empathy
Emotion regulation
Impulse control
Social understanding
Cognitive Development
Cause and effect
Spatial relationships
Problem solving
Imitation
Memory
Number sense
Classification
Symbolic play
Attention maintenance
Understanding of personal care routines
Language Development
Receptive language
Expressive language
Communication skills and knowledge
Interest in print
Motor and Perceptual Development

Gross motor
Fine motor
Perceptual
72
The Practice of Group Care
PITC integrates the information about the developmental domains with information on group care practice by
organizing both sets of information into five training modules: (1) Social-Emotional Growth and Socialization; (2)
Group Care; (3) Learning and Development; (4) Culture, Family, and Providers; and (5) Beginning Together—
Caring for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities or Other Special Needs in Inclusive Settings.
Module I: Social-Emotional Growth and Socialization. This module is based on the belief that all children need
physically and emotionally secure care that simultaneously supports their developing self-knowledge, self-control,
and self-esteem while encouraging respect for the feelings and rights of others. Healthy social-emotional
development in infancy underlies all other learning and is dependent, to a great extent, on the child’s close
relationships with respectful, caring adults. Infant care teachers can support an infant’s growing sense of self by
providing security, warm acceptance, and appreciation for the child’s growing independence. A teacher’s ability to
promote social-emotional development in children is influenced by the teacher’s own feelings and experiences;
thus training also focuses on self-awareness. Training topics include infant temperament, stages of emotional
development, responsive caregiving, and guidance and discipline. The following are the specific training sessions:
Social-Emotional Milestones
Responsive Caregiving
Temperament and Individual Differences in Group Care
Meeting Children’s Emotional Needs
Guidance and Discipline with Infants and Toddlers in Group Care
Module II: Group Care. Module II focuses on the implementation of the PITC philosophy through program
policies that support close relationships among children, families, and child care providers. These policies are the
creation of small groups, primary caregiver assignments, and continuity of care that keeps children and caregivers
together over time. In addition, this module addresses the basics of daily care, the development and maintenance
of an environment that supports the child’s health and safety, and social-emotional development and learning.
Training topics in this module include creating intimacy in infant/toddler groups, caregiving routines, creating
safe and interesting environments, and respectful caregiving. The following are the specific training sessions:
Primary Care and Continuity of Care
Group Size and Individualization of Care
Setting Up Environments for Infants and Toddlers
Daily Routines in Group Care Settings
Module III: Learning and Development. This module emphasizes the approach to infant learning taken by PITC,
an approach that focuses on facilitating infants’ natural interests and urges to learn rather than teaching them
specific lessons. This facilitation is done by providing children with close and responsive relationships with
caregivers; designing safe, interesting, and developmentally appropriate environments; giving infants
uninterrupted time to explore; and interacting with infants in ways that emotionally and intellectually support
their discovery and learning. Such practices are consistent with the attitude of respect toward infants and toddlers
that is the hallmark of PITC. Training topics include cognitive development; the development of language and
communication skills; the relationship between language, learning, and culture; and the inclusion of children with
special needs in infant/toddler care groups. The following are the specific training sessions:
Cognitive Development and Learning
73
Language Development and Communication
Special Needs
Culture, Language, and Cognition
Brain Development in Infancy
Module IV: Culture, Family, and Providers. The family is the single most important influence in a young child’s
life, and child care providers need to include the family in important decisions about the child’s care. Creating a
strong partnership between the child care program and families strengthens infants’ feelings that who they are and
where they come from are valued. Communicating in an infant’s home language is also important. Module IV’s
recommendations include becoming aware of one’s own cultural perspective and negotiating differences
respectfully with families. The module offers support to caregivers in easing parents’ concerns about using infant
care, as well as in exploring, accepting, and dealing with their own feelings. Topics include culture and identity
formation, dealing with cultural differences, program policies for culturally sensitive care, and creating
partnerships with parents. The following are the specific training sessions:
Self-Awareness and Cultural Perceptions
Culturally Responsive Care
Using the Process of Acknowledge, Ask, and Adapt
Culture and Early Identity Formation
Creating Partnerships with Parents
Module V: Beginning Together—Caring for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities or Other Special Needs in
Inclusive Settings. PITC implements this as a 5-day Trainer Institute open only to certified PITC graduates who
have completed the first four modules. The institute’s goal is to ensure that the training and technical assistance
provided by PITC trainers incorporate issues related to children with special needs and promote appropriate
inclusive practices. PITC also uses the Beginning Together training materials to provide regional outreach and
support in the inclusion of children with disabilities or other special needs directly to child care programs.
The Pitc Module Training Process

PITC training institutes are provided for both professional trainers and infant care teachers. Each training module
focuses on both the content and strategies for training adults in that module. The presenters, composed of PITC
developers and adjunct faculty experts in specific topic areas, model the PITC training philosophy of
responsiveness to different adult learning styles with a variety of strategies: lecture, video, readings, large-group and
small-group discussions, experiential learning, reflection, and collaborative problem solving. After attendance at
each module institute, participants may become certified PITC trainers in that module through the successful
completion of a certification paper describing their training plans for each of the module’s topics. An integral part
of PITC’s training philosophy is the concept of “creating a community of learners,” which focuses attention on
the variety of learning styles, knowledge, and experiences of adult learners and emphasizes the value of supportive,
cooperative learning. At these institutes, the PITC content experts use video and print materials as the core of the
curriculum.
Pitc Regional Caregiver Training Systems

PITC has worked with a number of states to develop training and technical assistance for child care providers at
their sites. The Partners for Quality (PQ) system in California is the most comprehensive of the systems created
74
and is used here to illustrate regional training efforts.
PQ brings PITC training to both high-density population centers and underserved rural areas of California.
PITC-certified Regional Infant/Toddler Specialists organize capacity-building efforts in their respective regions
and coordinate training by PITC-certified PQ trainers. Regional Infant/Toddler Specialists and PQ trainers
provide training, coaching, and mentoring to centers, and family child care homes in their region. This mentoring
process happens on site. Mentoring usually takes place over a period of 18 months and includes 64 hr of training
and up to 80 contact hr of program observation and reflective practice exchanges with providers and program
directors. Since the inception of PQ, more than 41,000 California child care providers have received training and
technical assistance. An evaluation of PQ has shown a strong positive impact on programs that complete the
mentoring activity (see The Efficacy of PITC later in chapter) similar to that found by Fiene (2005, 2007) and by
Korkus-Ruiz, Dettore, Baghato, and Ho (2007) in their studies of mentoring. The Regional Infant/ Toddler
Specialists also work with various local community-based organizations: child care resource and referral agencies,
child care planning councils, county First Five commissions, early intervention programs, and other groups to
publicize and disseminate PITC training. In addition, an Infant/Toddler Specialist is assigned to coordinate and
support each of four PITC demonstration programs located at community college campuses in various regions of
California.
Demonstration Programs
In collaboration with the Community College Chancellor’s office, PITC has developed four community college–
based PITC demonstration programs in California. These programs, at Cabrillo College near Santa Cruz,
Grossmont College near San Diego, Chabot College in Hayward, Santa Rosa Junior College, and Glendale
Community College in Los Angeles County, offer observers the opportunity to see PITC policies and practices in
action. Trainer Institute and regional training participants, early childhood education students, program
managers, policy makers, teachers, and other visitors are invited to observe relationship-based care, responsive
teaching and nurturing, and safe and interesting environments using one-way-vision observation rooms or
electronic audio and video monitoring. Each demonstration site is unique, offering visitors to more than one site
the experience of viewing programs that differ in size, physical environment, location, history, and culture. The
programs have been available for observation as PITC demonstration programs since 2002 and can be seen by
arrangement with the local Infant Toddler Support (ITS).
Home Visiting the Pitc Way

PITC is also a key element in early intervention efforts with low-income children and families. In 2002, PITC
developers embarked on the creation of a curriculum for home visitors, addressing ways that home visitors can be
more effective in their work with parents, blending the philosophy of PITC with best practices in home visiting.
Home Visiting the PITC Way is a training curriculum that prepares home visitors to support parents in
understanding, promoting, and delighting in their children’s healthy development. Home visitors learn how to
establish trust with parents, how to communicate with parents about child development stages, and how to model
positive parenting practices. Participants practice with scenarios of teaching opportunities and problem-solving
situations with parents, watch and analyze videotaped examples of young children’s developmental needs and
capacities, and create personal professional development agendas.
The core institute, facilitated by PITC faculty and a Home Visiting the PITC Way trainer’s manual, requires at
least 5 days, either in a block or spaced over time. It is customized for trainers or supervisors with the option of
additional days, based on the needs of the participants.
Early Head Start PITC Home Visitor Training
75
In 2011, a variation of Home Visiting the PITC Way was developed for the Early Head Start Community.
Grounded in the PITC philosophy, this 7-day intensive training for home visit supervisors and family support
specialists provides both content and process information about home visit practice. Training of home visitors,
family support supervisors, and family support specialists addresses issues of risk and resilience, helping parents
read babies cues, early brain development and parental responsiveness, facilitation of parents understanding of
infant development, developmentally appropriate guidance and discipline, the unique role of the EHS home
visitor, reflective practice, self-awareness and self care, and cultural competence as it applies to work with families.
Pitc Pq—home Visiting

The PITC PQ home visiting training emphasizes the importance of nurturing responsive relationships in the
healthy development of infants. The information presented in the training assists the home visitor in how to best
support the relationship between the parent and the child as well as in how to individualize care for each child and
parent. This training is provided directly to home visitors on site by PITC-certified Infant/Toddler Specialists in
collaboration with social work and mental health consultants.
The Pitc Media-Based Training Approach

The philosophy and content presented in the previous sections are disseminated in various ways, with the
centerpiece being a series of 15 training DVDs supplemented by various written materials, most notably guides
and manuals on infant and toddler care. Several considerations influenced the decision by PITC’s developers to
make videotaped materials central in the training system. Above all, becoming a sensitive observer of young
children is an essential part of learning about how to care for them appropriately and effectively. Without
guidance, an untrained observer can miss many subtle aspects of an infant’s behavior. Videotaped materials can be
highlighted with both visual effects and narration to draw the attention of viewers to subtleties of infant behavior
and to help them become more sensitive observers.
Another consideration underlying the choice of video is that high-quality training materials can be made available
to larger numbers of child care providers. Videotaped programs are easily transportable and can be broadcast over
public and private networks. In addition, if made well, videos can both inform and inspire the viewer. A video that
shows quality care being provided to young children can both engage the interest of caregivers and present positive
role models to them.
As stated previously, Honig and Wittmer (1989) compiled information from a review of 91 media training
materials for infant/toddler caregivers in an annotated guide. At the time PITC development commenced, most of
the materials identified by Honig and Wittmer in their search were either for parents or college-level students of
human development. These materials rarely addressed questions related to caring for infants in groups. Thus, such
topics as designing environments for groups of infants, group size, age mixture of infants in groups, individual
variations within a group, and dealing with parental concerns and needs receive little treatment in currently
available media training materials.
Against this background, the number of training videos being made on topics related to group care has recently
increased. PITC is part of the growing recognition of the need to support the training of center-based and family
child care providers. It represents an attempt to provide a comprehensive series of training videos in English,
Spanish, and Chinese, with each video/DVD covering a specific topic grounded in a coherent approach to caring
for young children.
The Needs Assessment For Pitc

In the first phase of developing PITC, survey data were gathered from 405 child care providers in the State of
76
California (278 center-based, 127 family child care providers) to document their perceived needs for training.
Over 50% of the questionnaire respondents ranked the topic “Setting up a Safe and Interesting Environment”
among their top-five choices of videos they would find useful to view. Other topics that frequently received high
rankings were in the domain of social-emotional growth and socialization. These findings were used to establish
priorities in the development of the PITC videos and related written guides.
Caregivers were also asked to rank the effectiveness of different means of learning about early development and
care. The option that was most often ranked among the top five was “Observing a Master Caregiver in Action.”
This result strengthened the view that observation is an important mode of learning for students of early
development and care.
Finally, respondents ranked the desirability of various contexts or settings for viewing a training video on infant
care. They were found to favor settings in which a trainer and peers are present. Opportunities to ask questions of
a specialist, as well as to discuss video content in a group, were identified as vital to their learning. The general
interest of caregivers in opportunities for discussion with a trainer or specialist indicated that presenting
information via video should be integrated into a comprehensive training system.
Information derived for the review of media materials, the needs assessment, and the articulation of guidelines for
quality infant care provided a framework for the development of the training videos. Advice and recommendations
to the project team from PITC’s national state advisors, video production experts, caregiver trainers, and
practitioners helped shape such characteristics as the length of the videos, the extent to which theory is covered
versus practical suggestions, the breadth of material presented, and the type of visual effects used.
For several reasons, a length of 25 to 30 min was considered optimal for the videos. Advisors representing public
television systems recommended this length because it would make the videos suitable for programming in half-
hour time slots.
Experts in video production advised that each video should be narrow in scope, covering only a limited number of
concepts. Because as a series the videos were intended to constitute a comprehensive package, each could focus on
a specific topic. However, to be handled adequately, a narrowly defined video topic must be treated in
considerable detail.
In light of these competing concerns, the approach adopted was to give ample coverage to a small number of
concepts, while trying not to overdo the presentation of any given concept. In effect, the concepts themselves
organized the information presented in a video.
Another consideration in making the videos was striking a balance between developmental theory/research and
practical guidelines/suggestions. The advisory groups strongly recommended creating videos that are practical in
nature. Following this advice, the videos introduce background material on early development and then spell out
practical tips and recommendations based on theory and practice. Much of the theory and research on the
development of young children and related practical advice refers to caregiving by parents in the child’s home.
This material has been adapted to the context of group care and supplemented by knowledge derived from group-
care practice.
One of the challenges in making videos on infant care is finding ways to convey the subtle aspects of quality
caregiving. Critically analyzing each scene before deciding what to communicate about it has become an essential
part of the process of creating each video. The analysis stage often consists of repeated viewing of a sequence and
discussion among the project team members on how to interpret the behavior of both the caregiver and the
children. A thorough analysis results in the development of simple, direct language to draw attention to the key
aspects of the scene and gives insight into the kinds of editing techniques and visual effects that would effectively
highlight the points made in the narration. To engage the interest of care-givers, the videos emphasize the
rewarding aspects of infant caregiving and acknowledge its challenges and difficulties. The videos visually and
verbally communicate young children’s need for warm and trusting relationships with
77
Figure 2–4 Needs Assessment Videos (Available
on DVD)
Note: The videos can be obtained from www.wested.org
Module I: Media Training Materials

In Our Hands
The Ages of Infancy: Caring for Young, Mobile and Older Infants
Getting In Tune: Creating Nurturing Relationships with Infants and Toddlers
First Moves: Welcoming a Child to a New Caregiving Setting
Flexible, Fearful, or Feisty: The Different Temperaments of Infants and Toddlers
Getting In Tune: Creating Nurturing Relationships with Infants and Toddlers
Module II: Media Training Materials

Respectfully Yours: Magda Gerber’s Approach to Professional Infant/Toddler Care
Space to Grow: Creating a Child Care Environment for Infants and Toddlers (2nd edition)
It’s Not Just Routine: Feeding, Diapering and Napping Infants and Toddlers (2nd edition)
Together in Care: Meeting the Intimacy Needs of Infants and Toddlers in Groups
Module III: Media Training Materials

Discoveries of Infancy: Cognitive Development and Learning
Early Messages: Facilitating Language Development and Communication
The Next Step: Including the Infant in the Curriculum
Module IV: Media Training Materials

Protective Urges: Working with the Feelings of Parents and Caregivers
Essential Connections: Ten Keys to Culturally Sensitive Child Care
Talking Points for Essential Connections: Video Clips for Group Discussion
Talking Points for Protective Urges: Video Clips for Group Discussion
Module V: Media Training Materials
78
DVDs from the other four modules are used in this module’s sessions.
their caregivers. Examples of the natural enjoyment of the relationship shared by caregiver and child are shown
throughout the series of videos. Humor is used in the videos to convey the light and playful side of infant
caregiving. A respectful tone is conveyed, and the importance of responsive caregiving to young children is
underscored. In other words, the style of presentation in the videos is intended to recognize and honor the
profession of infant/toddler caregiving. In light of increasing numbers of infant/toddler care-givers in the United
States who are non-English speakers, it was decided that the materials should be created in Chinese and Spanish,
in addition to English. The videos are also available in Phase Alternating Line (PAL) format for international
distribution and are closed captioned. (See Figure 2–4.)
The Efficacy of Pitc

Several field-based evaluation studies have demonstrated the efficacy of PITC. In a 1996–1997 study, PITC
training was found to have a positive effect on 18 participating family child care providers. After completing
training, 89% of the caregivers were rated as providing high-quality care (a mean of 5.93), 2 points higher on the
7-point Family Day Care Rating Scale (FDCRS) than scores for a national sample of caregivers (Carollee Howes,
personal communication, 1997).
In 1999, a team at Nova Southeastern University used the PITC materials to prepare infant/toddler care program
administrators in Broward County, Florida, to train caregivers in centers. Prior to training, the centers received an
overall mean rating of 3.7 (minimal quality) on the Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale (ITERS); observed
quality increased to a mean of 5.0 (good quality) following training (Masai, 1999).
The CDD of the CDE has supported statewide training and technical assistance based on the PITC for the past 5
years. Child care programs and groups of at least five family child care providers can apply to receive 60 hr of
training and technical assistance from a certified PITC trainer. In 2002, 436 programs received this PITC training
and technical assistance. WestEd conducted two evaluations to assess the change in the quality of child care under
this initiative. In a statewide study, the difference between overall pretraining (X¯=4.00) and overall post-training
(X¯=4.38) ITERS score for classrooms with children under 24 months was statistically significant. Likewise, the
difference between the overall pretraining (X¯=4.00) and overall post-training (X¯=4.48) ECERS score for
classrooms of 2-year-old children was statistically significant (WestEd, 2003). In a San Diego study, all post-
training ITERS subscale scores were significantly higher than the corresponding pretraining ITERS subscale
scores. Similarly, all posttraining ECERS subscale scores were significantly higher than the corresponding
pretraining ECERS sub-scale scores (WestEd, 2002). In the evaluation of family child care homes, all FDCRS
subscale means increased significantly between the preand post-assessments. Before training, they ranged from
2.34 to 4.38. Most of the subscales showed that programs were providing care in the “minimal” range or worse at
preassessment. Postassessment means ranged from 3.76 to 5.50 (WestEd, 2003).
In summary, studies have demonstrated statistically significant improvements in overall quality of three samples of
programs (two center-based and one family child care sample) that completed PITC training and technical
assistance. The quality of the caregivers’ interaction with infants and toddlers was the area in which the most
consistent positive change was found. The mean ratings were clearly in the “minimal” range on the Infant/Toddler
Environment Rating/Scale, Early Childhood Environment Rating/Scale, and Family Day Care Rating Scale
(ITERS/ECERS/FDCRS) before training began and moved upward within that range or up to the “good” range
following the services. These results are promising and warrant further study. A randomized study of PITC was
launched in 2008. When completed, this evaluation study will provide additional insights into the impact of
PITC training and technical assistance.
Conclusion
As stated in the introduction to this chapter, today there are now over 6 million infants and toddlers in child care
79
in the United States. Most are experiencing a level of quality care that is either inadequate or harmful. At PITC,
we believe that 50 years from now people will look back at the current treatment of infants and toddlers in the
United States as we now look back at the child labor conditions of the early 1900s—with horror. Most centers
currently do not meet children’s needs for health, safety, warm relationships, and learning. In addition, when
infants are in poor-quality settings they are at increased risk for exposure to communicable illnesses and infectious
diseases (e.g., gastrointestinal illnesses, upper respiratory tract infections, and ear infections). These findings may
be in part from basic sanitary conditions not being met for diapering and feeding (Lu Samuels, Shi, Baker, Glover,
& Sanders, 2004). Injuries related to program safety are also a source of concern. Estimates of serious (that is,
medically attended) injury rates in low-quality child care settings can be up to 3.2 injuries per 100,000 child hours
of exposure (Kotch, Hussey, & Carter, 2003). In addition, infants in poor-quality settings miss nurturing and
developmentally engaging environments, such as warm, supportive relationships with adults, books, and play
materials that promote physical and intellectual growth. Inadequate social and physical care environments have
been linked to negative social and cognitive outcomes as children enter elementary school (Cost, Quality, and
Child Outcomes Study, 1995; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Care Research
Network & Duncan, 2003).
Conditions for infants in family child care settings have been found to be similar to those described in this chapter
for centers. For instance, researchers report that most family child care programs in the United States provide
mediocre or low-quality care, with only about 8% to 10% of programs considered to be of good or high quality
(Austin, Lindauer, & Rodriguez, 1997). Spending hours in low-quality family-based child care as an infant may
adversely affect an infant’s attachment security as well. In a study of family-based care in California, North
Carolina, and Texas (Galinsky, Howes, Kontos, & Shinn, 1994), only half of the children were rated as securely
attached to their child care providers. It is noteworthy that 65% of the parents in the study believed they had no
alternative to the family child care setting that they were using. Children from low-income homes were more
likely found to be in lower quality family child care than those from higher income homes. Galinsky et al. (1994)
reported that several factors affected the quality of family child care. Quality appeared to be higher in settings in
which the providers were trained. Another factor is that an extremely high percentage of settings (81%) were not
regulated and were operating illegally. These researchers also identified intentionality as an important factor, with
intentionality referring to the group of family child care providers in the sample “who are committed to caring for
children, who seek out opportunities to learn more about child care and education, and who seek out the
company of other providers to learn from them” (p. 5).
What Can Be Done About Inadequate, Damaging

Care?
Recommendations that stem from the research on infant care quality and PITC’s 25 years of experience include all
of the following:
Training based on child-development knowledge and sound practice must be mandated. Federal, state, and
local agencies must work together to create training systems that reach all infant/toddler caregivers,
including family child care providers.
The regulation of infant care is essential. Regulations should ensure that care settings meet infants’
fundamental needs for (1) close, caring relationships, (2) health and safety, (3) connection to family, and (4)
knowledgeable, responsive caregivers.
Attention must be paid to the selection of infant/toddler caregivers. Not just anyone is appropriate to care
for infants. Individuals who are committed to providing good care will take advantage of opportunities to
learn about child care and early development and are likely to be warm, responsive caregivers.
Caregiver training must be comprehensive, with a dual focus on content and delivery strategies. For the
content of training to be sound, it should be based on current knowledge of child development research and
80
practice. The training curriculum should help caregivers understand the social-emotional foundation of
early development, the infant’s inborn motivation to learn and explore, the impact of the child’s language
and culture, the critical role of the child’s family, and the child’s individuality and special needs. It should
also include information about setting up group-care environments, individualizing child care routines, and
structuring care to promote the development of close caregiver–infant relationships.
Babies are born with an amazing capacity to learn and develop. By age 3, roughly 85% of the brain’s core
structures are formed. It has become clear that the quality of the child’s experiences during the early years
contributes to cognitive and language development, building relationships with adults, and the ability to engage in
positive interactions with adults and peers. Making sure that young children have these positive early experiences
starts with attention to the type of care that they receive each day. Both the structure of services and the system of
professional development need to drastically improve if infants are to grow and prosper. We at PITC hope that in
the near future not only will the infant/toddler period be given the serious attention it deserves, but also that those
who care for infants and toddlers will be afforded the training and professional status appropriate to their essential
work.
Reflect On
1. How is quality of infant/toddler care linked to the development of early emotional bonds between children
and parents?
2. What are the core primary care dimensions of PITC?
3. What developmental concepts form the basis of the PITC approach to curriculum for infants and toddlers?
4. How does PITC train child care personnel for home visiting?
5. Has PITC demonstrated effectiveness in training early childhood professionals?
Endnote
1. 1. These areas are described in detail in the CDE’s Infant/Toddler Learning and Development Foundations
and illustrated in accompanying DVDs developed by PITC in collaboration with CDE.
Selected Resources
The Program for Infant/Toddler Care
www.pitc.org
WestEd
www.wested.org
ZERO TO THREE: National Center for Infants, Toddlers and Families

www.zerotothree.org
For Our Babies

www.forourbabies.org
Educare
www.educareschools.org
81
References
1. Austin, A. M., Lindauer, S. L. K., & Rodriguez, A. (1997). Conditions of caregiving, provider nurturance,
and quality care. Early Child Development and Care, 135, 21–22.
2. Bernhardt, J. L. (2000). A primary caregiving system for infants and toddlers: Best for everyone involved.
Young Children, 55 (2), 74–80.
3. Bornstein, M., & Bornstein, H. (1995). Caregiver’s responsiveness and cognitive development. In Infants
and toddlers: Theory and research. Infant/toddler caregiving: A guide to cognitive development and learning (pp.
12–21). Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
4. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York: Basic Books.
5. California Child Care Resource and Referral Network. (2009). Child care portfolio. San Francisco, CA:
Author.
6. California Department of Education. (2008). Infant/toddler learning and development foundations.

Sacramento, CA: CDE Publications.
7. Carnegie Task Force on Meeting the Needs of Young Children. (1994). Starting points: Meeting the needs of
our youngest children. New York, NY: Carnegie Corporation of New York.
8. Cohen, J., & Ewen, D. (2008). Infants and toddlers in child care. Washington, DC: ZERO TO THREE
Policy Center.
9. Cost, Quality, & Child Outcomes Study Team. (1995, January). Cost, quality, and child outcomes in child
care centers: Executive summary. Denver, CO: University of Colorado at Denver.
10. Fiene, R. (2005, April). The effectiveness of an infant caregiver mentoring program: Multi-dimensional
interventions utilizing random clinical trials. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for
Research in Child Development, Atlanta, GA.
11. Fiene, R. (2007). Using child care programs as a portal to changing the eating behaviors of young children.
In L. Birch & W. Dietz (Eds.), Eating behaviors of the young child (pp. 247–261). Princeton, NJ: Johnson &
Johnson Pediatric Institute and the American Academy of Pediatrics.
12. Fraiberg, S. H. (1955). The magic years: Understanding and handling the problems of early childhood. New
York, NY: Fireside.
13. Galinsky, E., Howes, C., Kontos, S., & Shin, M. (1994). The study of children in family child care and
relative care—Key findings and policy recommendations. Young Children, 50 (1), 58–61.
14. Hamburg, D., & Takanishi, R. (Eds.). (1997). Meeting essential requirements for healthy adolescent
development in a transforming world. Preparing adolescents for the 21st century: Challenges facing Europe and
the United States (pp. 1–12). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
15. Hauser-Cram, P., Warfield, M. E., Shonkoff, J. P., & Krauss, M. W. (2001). Children with disabilities. A
longitudinal study of child development and parent well-being. Monographs of the Society for Research in
Child Development, 66 (3, Serial No. 266).
16. Hetheringon, M., & Parke, R. (2003). Child psychology: A contemporary viewpoint (updated 5th ed.). New
York, NY: McGraw Hill.
17. Honig, A. S., & Lally, J. R. (1981). Infant caregiving: A design for training. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse
82
University Press.
18. Honig, A. S., & Wittmer, D. (1989). Recent infant/toddler researches: A helpful guide for caregivers. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, Atlanta,
GA.
19. Kotch, J. B., Hussey, J. M., & Carter, A. (2003). Evaluation of North Carolina child care safety regulations.
Injury Prevention, 9, 220–225.
20. Korkus-Ruiz, S., Dettore, E., Bagnato, S., & Ho, H. Y. (2007). Improving the quality of early childhood
education programs: Evaluation of a mentoring process for staff and administrators. Early Child Services: An
Interdisciplinary Journal of Effectiveness, 1 (1), 33–38.
21. Lally, J. R., Mangione, P., & Honig, A. S. (1987). Long range impact of an early intervention with low-income
children and their families. The Syracuse University Family Development Research Program. San Francisco,
CA: WestEd.
22. Lu, N., Samuels, M. E., Shi, L., Baker, S. L., Glover, S. H., & Sanders, J. M. (2004). Child day care risks of
common infectious diseases revisited. Child: Care, Health and Development, 30, 361–368.
23. Lurie-Hurvitz, E. (2009). Early experiences matter: Making the case for a comprehensive infant and toddler
policy agenda. Washington, DC: ZERO TO THREE Policy Center.
24. Mangione, P. (1987). Program for infant toddler caregivers. Year-end report to California Department of
Education, Sacramento, CA.
25. Masai, W. (1999). Making connections: Enhancing the quality of infant toddler child care through training
of center directors. Zero to Three, 19 (6), 49–50.
26. National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies. (2011). Research and data: Child care
workforce. Retrieved March 27, 2011, from http://naccrra.com/randd/child-care-
workforce/cc_workforce.php
27. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network. (1997).
Poverty and patterns of child care. In G. J. Duncan & J. Brooks-Gunn (Eds.), Consequences of growing up
poor (pp. 100–131). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Early child care and self-control, compliance, and problem behaviors at twenty-four and thirty-six months.
Child Development, 69, 1145–1170.
29. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network. (2002a).
Early child care and children’s development prior to school entry. American Educational Research Journal,
39, 133–164.
30. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Child Care Research Network. (2002b).
Structure>process>outcome: Direct and indirect effects of caregiving quality on young children’s
development. Psychological Science, 13, 199–206.
The interaction of child care and family risk in relation to child development at 24 and 36 months. Journal
of Applied Developmental Science, 4 (3), 116–135.
32. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Early Care Research Network & Duncan, G.
(2003). Modeling the impacts of child care quality and children’s preschool cognitive development. Child
Development, 74, 1454–1475.
83
33. Partnership for America’s Economic Success. (2008). Reading, writing, and hungry: The consequences of food
insecurity on children, and on our nation’s economic success. Washington, DC: Author.
34. Pearson, B. Z., with Mangione, P. (2006). Nurturing very young children who experience more than one
language. In J. R. Lally, P. L. Mangione, & D. Greenwald (Eds.), Concepts for care: 20 essays on
infant/toddler development and learning (pp. 31–39). San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
35. Shonkoff, J. A., & Phillips, D. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods. The science of early childhood
development. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
36. Shore, R. (1997). Rethinking the brain: New insights into early development. New York, NY: Families and
Work Institute.
37. Thompson, R. (2009). Doing what doesn’t come naturally. ZERO TO THREE Journal, 30(2), 33–39.
38. Thoms, D., & Lewis, F. (1975). The responsive education program for children and adult learners: Summary.
San Francisco, CA: Far West Lab. for Educational Research and Development.
39. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010a, December). Women in the labor force: A
databook. Table 6 retrieved March 27, 2011, from http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-data-book-2010.pdf
40. U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2010b, May). Occupational employment and wages.
Retrieved March 27, 2011, from http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes399011.htm
41. WestEd. (2002). San Diego Children and Families Commission final report. Grant Award #37979. Sausalito,
CA: WestEd.
42. WestEd. (2003). Preparing the way for California’s infants and toddlers: The Program for Infant/Toddler
Caregivers. 2002 Year End Report. Sausalito, CA: Author.
84
Chapter 3 The Head Start Program
Douglas R. Powell
Purdue University
Describe the evolution of Head Start
Characterize program services and effectiveness
Discuss the future of Head Start
Head Start is the largest federal early childhood program in the United States. By 2009, Head Start had served
more than 27 million children since its beginnings in 1965, enrolling more than 900,000 children nationwide in
2009. The program has evolved from its original form as a summer program to a comprehensive set of services for
economically disadvantaged young children and their families. Head Start has served as the nation’s laboratory for
experimenting in the field with quality programs for children from birth through 5 years of age. The program has
been a pioneer in methods of working with parents and in the development of innovative demonstration programs
focused on families with very young children. It also has been at the forefront of approaches for including children
with disabilities as well as responding to culturally and linguistically diverse populations. Remarkably, Head Start
has gained widespread support from policy makers of contrasting political orientations. It has been called “the
most important social and educational experiment of the second half of the twentieth century” (Zigler &
Muenchow, 1992, p. 2).
This chapter provides an overview of the Head Start program. The intent is to provide readers with a general
understanding of the origins and current scope of the largest federal early childhood program in the United States.
Program goals, standards, and services are covered as well as current information about Head Start planning,
staffing, and partnerships with communities and families. Results of recent evaluations of Head Start also are
presented.
Evolution Of Head Start

War on Poverty Origins
Head Start was conceived in 1964 as a key part of the nation’s War on Poverty during a highly optimistic time in
U.S. history. Its origins are based in the social and political struggles of the civil rights era, renewed scientific
interest in environmental influences on the course of human development, and the promising results of
educational intervention programs for children from economically disadvantaged backgrounds (Zigler &
Anderson, 1979).
The civil rights movement of the 1960s drew attention to the widespread nature of poverty and its threats to the
economic and social well-being of the nation. The movement also highlighted inequitable treatment of racial and
ethnic minorities as well as poor people in accessing quality education, jobs, housing, health care, and social
services. The War on Poverty programs advanced by presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson adhered
to a basic belief in education as the solution to poverty. Job training and education were core features of the
Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, which led to the creation of programs aimed at eradicating poverty (Zigler &
Valentine, 1979). There also was a belief that individuals in disadvantaged circumstances should help plan and
administer programs aimed at compensating for inequalities in social and economic conditions. The concept of
maximum feasible participation was incorporated into the Economic Opportunity Act and subsequently into
85
policies of War on Poverty programs such as Head Start.
During this era, research evidence demonstrating the lasting power of environmental influences on human
development shaped social policies affecting young children. This environmental view was in marked contrast
with the hereditarian perspective that prevailed in the 1950s and early 1960s. Noted scholar J. McVicker Hunt’s
1961 book Intelligence and Experience was particularly instrumental in challenging the widespread view of
intelligence and abilities as fixed by heredity. Hunt argued that the quality of environmental inputs, particularly
from the mother, largely determined intellectual development.
Benjamin Bloom, also an eminent scholar, reached a similar conclusion in an exhaustive review of a large body of
research in his 1964 book Stability and Change in Human Characteristics. Bloom’s work pointed to the first 4 or 5
years of life as the period experiencing the most rapid change in intellectual growth. He concluded that the
preschool years were the best time to make a long-lasting impact on cognitive functioning. This conclusion gave
rise to the popularity of the “critical period” of development in the early years and to claims about half of learning
taking place before the age of 5 years.
Later research clearly pointed to the extreme nature of a view of human development that disregards heredity and
the significance of experiences that occur beyond 5 years of age. Eventually there was recognition of the need for
elementary school experiences to be designed in a way that sustains the benefits of early childhood education.
Nonetheless, the environmental perspective dominated the mid-1960s period in which Head Start was launched.
The early years were seen as analogous to the importance of the foundation of a building: “If the foundation is
shaky, the structure is doomed…. The public hailed the construction of a solid foundation for learning in
preschool children as the solution to poverty and ignorance” (Zigler & Anderson, 1979, pp. 7–8).
Promising evaluation results from several early intervention programs also contributed to the decision to establish
the Head Start program. Although preschool programs focused on the education of children from economically
disadvantaged backgrounds were rare in the 1950s and early 1960s, a handful of innovative programs were
established in this era to serve children from poor families. The Early Training Program directed by Susan Gray at
Peabody College in Nashville, Tennessee, was among these prominent forerunners of Head Start. The project’s
focus on achievement motivation and aptitudes for learning resonated with the environmental view and had
commonsense appeal among the public. Importantly, the positive impact of this early education program on IQ
and verbal abilities (Gray & Klaus, 1965) offered hope of what might be achieved on a broader scale.
Naïve Assumptions and Political Realities

Head Start was offered in the summer of 1965 to far more communities and children than recommended by
experts. One point of view was that the program should begin as a small, closely monitored pilot effort.
Proponents of this view were concerned about the logistics of successfully launching a major new effort in a short
time. They reasoned that there was insufficient information from experience and research for making informed
decisions about how best to provide a preschool program for children from poor families. However, a large-scale
effort initially involving 500,000 children in some 2,000 centers was envisioned by the time of President
Johnson’s May 18, 1965, Rose Garden speech announcing plans for Head Start. The goal was to reach as many
children as possible, even if the summer program for some children entailed nothing more than modest
interventions such as immunizations and badly needed health services (Richmond, Stipek, & Zigler, 1979). There
were high hopes of boosting children’s IQ and intellectual competence through preschool education. Sweeping
claims were made in the 1960s about the ability of a preschool program for children from disadvantaged
backgrounds to eventually reduce the prevalence of poverty in the United States.
The great expectation of achieving significant improvements in children’s intellectual functioning through a
relatively small dose of environmental enrichment (initially a summer program) proved to be naïve and overly
optimistic soon after Head Start was launched. Serious questions were raised about the prevailing view of children
as clay that could be molded easily and permanently through appropriately stimulating environments. The lack of
attention to biological factors in the environmentalism of the mid-1960s prompted the pendulum to swing toward
86
a more reasonable middle ground by the late 1960s. Interactions between genetic factors and the environment
were increasingly recognized as key developmental processes, a trend that continues today (Bronfenbrenner &
Morris, 2006).
The early years of Head Start were marked, in addition, by simplistic assumptions about the nature of poverty and
the characteristics of children and families living in economic disadvantage. A common stereotype was that low-
income mothers were generally incompetent and incapable of providing appropriate guidance and affection to
their children (Baratz & Baratz, 1970). Life in poor families was seen as either overstimulating (e.g., too much
noise) or understimulating (e.g., too few toys). As noted by Zigler and Anderson (1979), “verbal activity in the
poor household was supposed to consist of body language, monosyllables, shouts, and grunts” (p. 9). The
anthropologist Oscar Lewis’s studies of poverty were interpreted by many to indicate there was a uniform “culture
of poverty” and children growing up in poor families were “culturally deprived.” Deviations from the norms of
mainstream middle-class family life often were viewed as forms of pathology or dysfunction.
By the late 1960s, there were clear challenges to stereotypical views of poor families and children. Studies
heightened professionals’ sensitivity to the biases of tests developed on middle-class samples of children and of
testing situations that were unfamiliar to lower income and minority children. For example, research indicated
that the verbal performance of African American children was significantly better when tested by an African
American tester in a nonacademic setting (Labov, 1970). Studies, program experiences, and media reports also
demonstrated the diverse manifestations of poverty across regions, communities, and populations, thereby casting
doubt on research and programs that assumed all people are alike in needs, characteristics, and aspirations.
Further, the influence of community and societal contexts on individual and family functioning was emphasized
in policy analyses (e.g., Keniston & Carnegie Council on Children, 1977); families and individuals were not to be
viewed as self-sufficient units to be blamed when things go wrong (Ryan, 1971). Eventually, a backlash against the
concept of “cultural deprivation” led to calls for educational and human service programs to celebrate cultural
diversity, respect individual differences, and build on family strengths rather than weaknesses.
Over time, then, there were modifications of simplistic views of the magnitude of environmental influences, the
early years as a highly malleable period of development, and poor families as uniformly incompetent. Still, the
original expectation that a short-term preschool program could achieve dramatic and lasting improvements in the
IQ and general competence of children from economically disadvantaged families has long persisted as a powerful
albeit flawed framework for Head Start and other early childhood programs. This expectation supports a view of
an early childhood program as an inoculation against future effects of poverty. As demonstrated in this chapter,
the inoculation model has shaped what policy makers and the public often expect of Head Start.
Program Goals
Head Start has long embraced a broad set of objectives focused on the development and learning outcomes of
children in low-income families. The major domains of child development—social, emotional, cognitive, and
physical—are viewed as interrelated. Accordingly, Head Start works with the “whole child.”
Currently, significant attention is being given to Head Start’s role in preparing children for school success. School
readiness is a strong theme in the 2007 and 1998 federal reauthorizations of the Head Start program (Public Laws
105-285 and 110-134, respectively). The purpose of Head Start was revised in the 1998 reauthorization with the
intention that Head Start promote “school readiness by enhancing the social and cognitive development of
children through the provision of educational, health, nutritional, social and other services that are determined to
be necessary, based on family needs assessments” (Public Law 105-285). Performance standards also were added to
ensure that children enrolled in Head Start meet the following minimum expectations: develop phonemic, print,
and numeracy awareness; understand and use oral language to communicate needs, wants, and thoughts;
understand and use increasingly complex and varied vocabulary; develop and demonstrate an appreciation of
books; and in the case of children for whom English is a second language, progress toward acquisition of the
English language. The 2007 reauthorization of Head Start continued the emphasis on school readiness goals.
87
In 2000, the federal Office of Head Start issued a Child Outcomes Framework of building blocks deemed
important for school success. The framework is intended to guide programs in their ongoing assessment of
progress and accomplishments of 3- to 5-year-old children and in program efforts to use child outcomes data for
program self-assessment and continuing improvement. A revised framework was issued in December 2010,
entitled The Head Start Child Development and Learning Framework. It is organized into 11 general domains, 37
domain elements, and more than 100 examples of specific indicators of children’s skills, abilities, knowledge, and
behaviors. The framework includes the outcomes legislatively mandated in 1998 (U.S. Department of Health &
Human Services, 2010). The 11 domains and their respective elements are as follows:
Language development: receptive and expressive language skills
English language development (for dual language learners): receptive and expressive English language skills,
engagement in English literacy activities
Literacy knowledge and skills: book appreciation, phonological awareness, alphabet knowledge, print
concepts and conventions, early writing
Mathematics knowledge and skills: number concepts and quantities, number relationships and operations,
geometry and spatial sense, patterns, measurement and comparison
Science knowledge and skills: scientific skills and methods, conceptual knowledge of the natural and
physical world
Creative arts expression: music, creative movement and dance, art, drama
Social studies knowledge and skills: family and community, history and events, people and the environment
Physical development and health: physical health status, healthy knowledge and practice, gross motor and
fine motor skills
Social and emotional development: social relationships, self-concept and self-efficacy, self-regulations,
emotional and behavioral health
Approaches to learning: initiative and curiosity, persistence and attentiveness, cooperation
Logic and reasoning: reasoning and problem solving, symbolic representation
From the beginning, Head Start has viewed the family in general and parents and primary caregivers in particular
as essential partners in achieving improved outcomes for children. It is understood that children develop in the
context of their family and culture and that “parents are respected as the primary educators and nurturers of their
children” (Head Start Bureau, 1997, p. 1). The program provides numerous opportunities for parents to be
involved in program decisions and activities and to develop their own strengths and interests in a variety of adult
roles, including child rearing. A premise of these provisions is the realization that no 1- or 2-year program is likely
to make lasting improvements in a child’s development unless the program helps parents become the “agents of
change, reinforcing positive changes in the child long after the formal program’s conclusion” (Zigler &
Muenchow, 1992, p. 101).
Head Start’s approach to working with parents has consistently been at the forefront of methods of parent
participation. For example, a Head Start requirement is that parents constitute more than one-half of the local
policy council for a program. This policy provision for a parent role in local program governance reflects a family
empowerment perspective wherein parents are to be viewed as active, respected participants rather than as passive
recipients of professionally determined services. The provision stems from Head Start’s War on Poverty roots and
the “maximum feasible participation” language of the Economic Opportunity Act described earlier. It has “always
been designed to be more than preschool education” (Washington & Oyemade Bailey, 1995, p. 8; italics in
original).
88
There has been confusion about Head Start’s goals for many years. One area of misunderstanding has been Head
Start’s role in eradicating poverty. As already indicated, Head Start was established during an era of great
optimism about the power of social and educational programs to successfully address numerous societal ills.
President Johnson spoke to the goal of combating poverty in his May 18, 1965, speech on Head Start: “Five- and
six-year-old children are inheritors of poverty’s curse and not its creators. Unless we act these children will pass it
on to the next generation, like a family birthmark. This program this year means that 30 million man-years—the
combined lifespan of these youngsters—will be spent productively and rewardingly, rather than wasted in tax-
supported institutions and in welfare-supported lethargy” (cited in Zigler & Valentine, 1979, p. 68).
The idea that an early childhood program could reduce welfare costs and crime in adult life was given a major
boost in 1984. An influential study of the Perry Preschool Project in Ypsilanti, Michigan, indicated that at age 19
years, participants in the Perry Preschool Project had better high school completion rates and less adolescent
pregnancy and juvenile delinquency than youth who had not participated in the preschool program (Berrueta-
Clement, Schweinhart, Barnett, Epstein, & Weikart, 1984; Chapter 10). In 1993, results of follow-up studies of
the Perry Preschool Project participants at 27 years of age (Schweinhart, Barnes, & Weikart, 1993) and again at
40 years of age (Schweinhart et al., 2005) showed that preschool participants had fewer criminal arrests, higher
earnings and property wealth, and higher levels of employment than their counterparts who did not attend
preschool.
Many policy makers and children’s advocates erroneously assumed the Perry Preschool findings were applicable to
Head Start and ambitiously promoted Head Start as a proven strategy for reducing welfare. Some analysts believe
this inappropriate generalization of evaluation data from the Perry Preschool Project to Head Start ran into serious
trouble when informed citizens realized the Perry Preschool Project is not Head Start. This realization is thought
to have contributed to a period of reduced political support for the program and limited progress in allocating
funds for Head Start expansion and quality improvements (Zigler, 1998).
More confusion over Head Start’s goals has concerned whether the program is primarily focused on improving
children’s IQ and intellectual competence. Programmatic attention to all aspects of children’s development has
been in place from the beginning. The original goals for Head Start set forth by the program’s planning
committee in 1965 emphasized physical health, social and emotional development, mental processes and skills,
and self-confidence in future learning efforts. Children’s IQ became an early focus in how policy makers and the
general public understood Head Start, however, partly because IQ is a well-known (yet poorly understood)
construct in American society. Importantly, IQ tests were readily available for use by program evaluators and, in
contrast, reliable, valid, and efficient tests of most other aspects of children’s functioning were not available. Thus,
early program evaluations held Head Start accountable for achieving gains in IQ and cognitive abilities mostly or
exclusively.
Current Scope and Organization

Some key numbers offer an impressive profile of Head Start’s current status. In 2009, the program served 904,513
children in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other territories. The
paid staff numbered 212,000 and there were more than 1.2 million volunteers. There were 49,200 Head Start
classrooms in 2009. The 2010 budget was more than $7.2 billion, and the average cost per child was $7,600 per
year.
The racial background of children enrolled in Head Start in 2009 was as follows: White, 40%; African American,
30%; American Indian/Alaska Native, 4%; Asian, about 2%; Hawaiian/Pacific Islander, less than 1%;
biracial/multiracial, about 8%; and unspecified or other, 17%. Thirty-six percent of children were
Hispanic/Latino. In 2009, nearly 12% of enrolled children had one or more disabilities, defined to include mental
retardation, health impairments, visual handicaps, hearing impairments, emotional disturbance, speech and
language impairments, orthopedic handicaps, and learning disabilities. Head Start has long required that children
with disabilities represent at least 10% of enrolled children in a local program.
89
The vast majority of children are 4 years (51%) or 3 years (36%) of age. Most Head Start programs operate a part-
day program, although a growing number provide full-day services. A minimum of two home visits annually is
expected of all center-based Head Start programs. A relatively small number of programs provide home-based
services in a significant way. In 2006, nearly 48,000 children participated in home-based Head Start program
services.
Since 1995, the program has been serving infants and toddlers through the Early Head Start program. Early Head
Start programs tailor their services to meet the needs of low-income pregnant women and families with children 3
years of age or younger through home-based, center-based, or a combination of home- and center-based options.
In 2009, more than 650 programs were given funds to provide Early Head Start child development and family
support services to some 66,000 children under the age of 3 years. The federal allocation to Early Head Start in
2009 was $709 million.
Head Start is administered federally by the Office of Head Start, located in the Administration for Children and
Families office of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Local programs are operated through
grants to public agencies, private nonprofit organizations, faith-based organizations, and school systems. Grants
are awarded by the 12 regional offices, including regions for American Indian and Alaskan Native Programs and
Migrant and Seasonal Programs. In 2009, there were 1,519 local grantees. Federal funds are limited to 80% of
total program costs; there is a matching requirement of 20% from nonfederal sources. Federal law prohibits Head
Start programs from charging fees to parents.
Program Services and Effectiveness

A core tenet of Head Start is that local programs need flexibility to meet the particular needs of their communities.
The intent is to provide a range of individualized services that are responsive and appropriate to each child and
family within a community context. Flexibility occurs within firm parameters set forth in Program Performance
Standards by the federal Office of Head Start (2006). The Program Performance Standards define the services that
Head Start programs are to provide children and families and constitute the best statement of Head Start’s
expectations of high quality.
The standards are organized into three major areas: Early Childhood Development and Health Services, Family
and Community Partnerships, and Program Design and Management. Each area contains a set of standards that
in essence are mandated regulations for all Head Start programs, plus a rationale for the standards and guidance in
the form of examples of how a standard could be implemented. There also is a detailed section on standards for
working with children with disabilities and their families. To provide maximum flexibility in implementation, the
Program Performance Standards do not prescribe how the services defined in the standards are to be carried out.
Head Start seeks to provide a coordinated set of services, not separate components in early childhood, health, and
parent involvement. To this end, the standards include a number of cross-references to other standards and
examples, in an attempt to support an integrated approach to service delivery.
90
Parent and child participating in activities in the community.
Early Childhood Development and Health Services

A common misconception of Head Start is that a standard curriculum is implemented in all classrooms. In reality,
local programs are given a good deal of flexibility to select or design and implement a curriculum based on
developmentally and linguistically appropriate practices with young children. For example, many programs
employ High/Scope or the Creative Curriculum and there is growing interest in curricula such as Tools of the
Mind (see Chapters 9 to 11). The Program Performance Standards recognize that children have individual rates of
development as well as individual interests, temperaments, languages, cultural backgrounds, and learning styles.
Head Start programs are to be inclusive of children with disabilities, as noted earlier, and to foster an environment
of acceptance that respects differences in gender, culture, language, ethnicity, and family composition. The need
for Head Start to support the home language, culture, and family composition is emphasized repeatedly in
descriptions of the Program Performance Standards.
Head Start standards closely follow the developmentally appropriate practices guidelines in early childhood
programs recommended by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (Copple &
Bredekamp, 2009). There is to be a balance of child-initiated and adult-directed activities, including individual
and small-group activities, in the daily program. Social and emotional development is to be supported by building
trust; fostering independence; encouraging self-control by setting clear, consistent limits and having realistic
expectations; encouraging respect for the feelings and rights of others; and providing timely, predictable, and
unrushed routines and transitions. Each child’s learning is to be supported through experimentation, inquiry,
observation, play, exploration, and related strategies. Art, music, movement, and dialogue are viewed as key
opportunities for creative self-expression, and language use among children and between children and adults is
promoted. Developmentally appropriate activities and materials are to be provided for support of children’s
emerging literacy and numeracy development. Center-based programs are to provide sufficient time, space,
equipment, materials, and adult guidance for active play and movement that supports fine and gross motor
development. Provisions and encouragement for social and symbolic forms of play help young children’s self-
regulation and social competence. Home-based programs are to encourage parents to appreciate the value of
physical development and to provide opportunities for safe and active play.
Program standards for education and early childhood development include separate sections on infants/toddlers
and preschool-age children. Services for infants and toddlers emphasize the development of secure relationships
(e.g., limited number of consistent teachers over an extended period), emerging communication skills, fine and
gross motor development, and opportunities for each child to explore a variety of sensory and motor experiences.
The curriculum for preschool-age children is for cultivating skills that form a foundation for school readiness and
later school success, including opportunities for each child to organize experiences, understand concepts, and
develop age-appropriate literacy, numeracy, reasoning, problem-solving, and decision-making skills. In addition,
the curriculum is for helping children develop emotional security and facility in social relationships; self-awareness;
and feelings of competence, self-esteem, and positive attitudes toward learning.
The emphasis on school readiness and especially literacy outcomes in Head Start, noted earlier, has led to new
research-based curricula and professional development initiatives aimed at supporting local programs in promoting
children’s school success. For example, a rigorous study of a program designed to enhance teaching quality and
enrich Head Start programs with new curriculum components found positive effects on children’s language,
literacy, and social-emotional school readiness outcomes at the end of the prekindergarten year (Bierman et al.,
2008). Research on innovative professional development programs that include individualized coaching or
mentoring with Head Start teachers has found positive effects on children’s literacy (Powell, Diamond, Burchinal,
& Koehler, 2010) and language (Wasik & Hindman, 2011) outcomes. Also, a nationally disseminated
professional development program known as HeadsUp! Reading was developed by the National Head Start
Association and offered as a 15-week satellite broadcast training series. An outcome study found positive effects of
the program on children’s literacy skills compared to a control group (Jackson et al., 2006).
91
Parents are to be an integral part of the development of the local program’s curriculum and approach to child
development and education. Further, opportunities are to be provided for parents to strengthen their child
observation skills and to share assessments with staff that inform program planning for each child. Parent–staff
discussion of each child’s development and education is to occur in conferences and home visits. One of the
purposes of home visits is to support parents in their role as their child’s
Children working cooperatively in Head Start Classroom.
first teacher and to assist families in the development and attainment of family goals. Services to children with
disabilities are to be consistent with each child’s Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) or Individualized
Education Program (IEP).
Head Start has had a strong commitment to improving children’s health outcomes since its inception. The first
director of the national Head Start program was a physician, Dr. Robert Cooke, then chair of the Department of
Pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University. Careful attention to children’s health care needs was a central part of
Head Start’s original purpose.
This tradition continues today with detailed attention to child health and safety, child nutrition, and child mental
health in the performance standards. Within 90 days of entry into a Head Start program, the staff is to collaborate
with parents in determining the health status of each child. This entails an assessment of whether each child has an
ongoing source of continuous, accessible health care. If ongoing health care is not accessible to a child, the
program must assist parents in accessing a source of care. The child health status review also includes a
determination as to whether the child is up-to-date on a schedule of preventive and primary health care, including
medical, dental, and mental health. Again, the program is to assist the family in making arrangements to bring the
child up to date if necessary. The Head Start program, in addition, is to ensure that children continue with the
recommended schedule of well-child care and to track the provision of health care services. When a child has a
known or suspected health or developmental problem, the Head Start program is to obtain or arrange for further
diagnostic testing, examination, and treatment by a licensed or certified professional.
Within 45 days of each child’s entry into Head Start, the program is to perform or obtain developmental, sensory,
and behavioral screenings of motor, language, social, cognitive, perceptual, and emotional skills. The screenings
must be sensitive to the child’s cultural background and home language. Multiple sources of information on all
aspects of each child’s development and behavior are to be obtained, including input from family members,
teachers, and other relevant staff. A follow-up plan is to be established and monitored with parents of children
with identified health needs. Dental follow-up and treatment must include fluoride supplements and topical
fluoride treatments for every child with moderate to severe tooth decay and in communities where there is a lack
of adequate fluoride levels. Further, Head Start programs are to develop and implement procedures that enable
staff to identify any new or recurring medical, dental, or developmental concerns so that there can be prompt and
appropriate referrals. Parents are to be fully informed and involved in this process.
92
Program provisions for mental health services include collaborations with families to solicit parents’ information
and concerns about their child’s mental health. These provisions will enable staff to provide information to
parents about staff observations of the child and anticipated changes in the child’s behavior and development,
especially separation and attachment issues. There also is to be parent–staff discussion of how to strengthen
nurturing, supportive environments, and relationships at home and in the program. Programs are to help parents
better understand mental health issues and to support parents’ participation in needed mental health
interventions. Staff and/or family concerns about a child’s mental health are to be addressed in a timely manner
through the services of a mental health professional secured by the program. There should also be a regular
schedule of mental health consultation with program staff and parents on how to address individual children’s
needs and ways to promote mental wellness.
Head Start performance standards call for staff and families to work together to identify each child’s nutritional
needs, with consideration of a family’s eating patterns, including cultural preferences and special dietary
requirements. Local programs are to design and implement a nutrition program that meets the nutritional needs
and feeding requirements of each child. Children in center-based programs are served a meal on a daily basis. For
each child, there is a nutritious snack plus breakfast and/or lunch, depending on morning, afternoon, or full-day
enrollment. A variety of foods—responsive to cultural and ethnic preferences as well as for the broadening of a
child’s food experience—are to be served. Food should not be used as a reward or punishment. Each child is to be
encouraged, but not forced, to eat or taste the food. At least one-third of a child’s daily nutritional needs are to be
met through meals and snacks in a part-day center-based program, and one-half to two-thirds of a child’s daily
nutritional needs are to be met in a full-day center-based program. Dental hygiene is to be promoted in
conjunction with meals at programs. Parents should be involved in planning, implementing, and evaluating a
program’s nutritional services, and parent education activities must include opportunities for families to learn
about food preparation and strengthen nutritional skills.
Last, Head Start standards include health emergency procedures, a description of conditions for short-term
exclusion from the program because of a health-related matter, and provisions for medication administration,
injury prevention, hygiene, and first-aid kits.
Family and Community Partnerships

Among model early childhood programs in this country, Head Start has perhaps the most comprehensive and
detailed set of provisions for working with families (Powell, 2006). Scholars have long pointed to parent
involvement as a cornerstone of Head Start’s success.
Head Start seeks to establish a collaborative partnership with parents built on mutual trust and an understanding
of family goals, strengths, and necessary services and other supports. To this end, programs are to offer parents an
opportunity to develop and implement an individualized Family Partnership Agreement that sets forth family
goals, responsibilities, timetables, and strategies for achieving the goals plus monitoring progress. The agreement is
to take into account and coordinate with preexisting family plans developed with other programs or agencies. The
services here pertain to emergency assistance with basic needs such as housing, food, clothing, and transportation;
education and counseling programs focused on such mental health issues as substance abuse, child abuse and
neglect, and domestic violence; and continuing education and employment training.
Head Start’s concept of parent involvement is broad based and emphasizes two parental roles: parents as active
contributors to program policies and practices, and parents as competent supporters of their child’s healthy growth
and development. Parent participation in any program activity, including home visits, is voluntary and must not
be required as a condition of a child’s enrollment.
Probably the best known Head Start provision for parent participation is the shared governance requirement that
51% of the members of the local program policy group must be parents of currently enrolled children. Also,
parents of formerly enrolled children may serve as community representatives on the policy group. The policy
group is charged with working collaboratively with key management staff and the governing body responsible for
93
legal and fiscal administration of the local program to determine policies and procedures in many areas, which
include the following:
Program philosophy and long- and short-term goals and objectives
Criteria for determining recruitment, selection, and enrollment priorities
Decisions to hire or terminate the Head Start director and any person who works primarily for the program
The policy group also advises staff in developing and implementing local program policies, activities, and services.
There are many other provisions for parent participation. One is for parents to serve as employers or volunteers.
More than 850,000 parents volunteered in their local Head Start program during the 2008–2009 program year,
and 26% of Head Start staff members were parents of current or former Head Start children. As noted previously,
local programs are to provide opportunities for parents to help select or develop the program’s curriculum. Parents
must be welcomed as visitors and encouraged to observe children and participate with children in group activities.
Facilities must be open to parents during all program hours. In recent years, Head Start has offered special
opportunities to increase fathers’ involvement in their children’s education. In the 2008–2009 program year,
228,000 Head Start fathers participated in regularly scheduled activities.
Head Start addresses numerous parenting tasks faced by adult participants in the program. Opportunities are
provided for parents to enhance their parenting skills, knowledge, and understanding of the educational and
developmental needs and activities of their children. Parents also are encouraged to share concerns about their
children with program staff, as described in the previous section. In addition to two home visits per year, teachers
in center-based programs are to hold at least two staff–parent conferences per program year. The goal of the
conferences is to enhance the knowledge and understanding of both staff and parents of each child’s educational
and developmental progress in the program.
A wide range of content areas is addressed in the parenting education and support services. There are
opportunities for parents to be involved in health, nutrition, and mental health education. Another content area is
community and child advocacy. The program is to support and encourage parents to influence the nature and
goals of community services in a way that makes services more responsive to their needs and interests. Programs
also should help parents become advocates for their children as they transition from home to Head Start or
another early childhood program and from Head Start to elementary school. Further, support for the child
advocate role focuses on parents’ continued involvement in their children’s education in school. This support
includes education and training for parents to exercise their rights and responsibilities regarding the education of
their child in the school setting. Moreover, there should be communication with teachers and other school
personnel so parents can participate in decisions related to their child’s education. In addition to the health and
advocacy content areas, the revised program standards call for local Head Start programs to support family literacy
development directly or through referrals to other local programs. An aim here is to assist parents as adult learners
in recognizing their own literacy goals.
No one program can meet all of the needs of a child and family. An intent of Head Start’s community
partnerships is to improve the delivery of services to children and families and to ensure that a local Head Start
program responds to community needs. Strong communication, cooperation, and sharing of information are to
occur between Head Start and the following types of community organizations:
Health care providers such as clinics, physicians, and dentists
Mental health providers
Nutritional service providers
Individuals and agencies that provide services to children with disabilities and their families
94
Family preservation and support services
Child protective services
Local elementary schools and other educational and cultural institutions such as libraries and museums
Providers of child care services
Other organizations or businesses that may provide support and resources to families
Each Head Start program is to establish and maintain a Health Services Advisory Committee composed of
professionals and volunteers from the community.
The program gives considerable attention to children’s transitions into Head Start and from Head Start to
elementary schools or other child development and care settings. Local Head Start programs are to ensure that
children’s relevant records are transferred to the school or the child’s next setting. Furthermore, each Head Start
program is to take an active role in encouraging communication between the program staff and their counterparts
in the schools and other child development and care settings, including principals, teachers, social workers, and
health care staff. The aim of these communications is to facilitate continuity of programming for each child.
Meetings are to be initiated for Head Start staff, parents, and kindergarten or elementary school teachers to discuss
developmental progress and abilities of each child. In the Early Head Start programs, transition planning is to
begin for each child and family at least 6 months before the child’s third birthday.
Program Planning and Staffing

Planning is an integral part of the management of local Head Start programs. Specifically, each program is to
develop and implement a systematic, ongoing process of program planning that includes consultation with the
program’s governing body, policy groups, program staff, and other community organizations that serve Head Start
or other low-income families with young children. The program planning should include an assessment of
community strengths, needs, and resources; the development of both short-and long-range program goals and
objectives; written plans for implementing services; and a review of progress in meeting goals at least annually. A
self-assessment of program effectiveness and progress in meeting program goals and objectives is to be conducted
at least once each program year. Communication with parents, governing bodies, and policy groups and
communication among staff should be carried out on a regular basis. Records are to be maintained on all children,
families, and staff, with appropriate provisions for confidentiality.
The staffing structure for a local Head Start program consists of a director, classroom teachers and home visitors,
and content experts in each of the following areas: education and child development services, health services,
nutrition services, family and community partnership services, parent involvement services, and disabilities
services. The content experts are staff or regular consultants, depending on the size of the local program. Staffing
patterns and staff organizational structures are determined by local programs.
The 2007 reauthorization of Head Start stipulates that at least 50% of Head Start teachers nationwide in center-
based programs should have a bachelor’s or advanced degree in early childhood education or related field by the
year 2013 (Public Law 110-134). In 2008–2009, 77% of Head Start teachers had an associate’s degree or higher
in early childhood education. Qualifications of staff or consultants serving as content experts are specific to the
content area. For example, the content expert responsible for the education and child development services must
have training and experiences in areas that include theories and principles of child growth and development, early
childhood education, and family support.
Sensitivity to cultural and linguistic differences is a staff qualification. Staff and program consultants must be
familiar with the ethnic background and heritage of families in the local program. To the extent feasible,
consultants and staff alike must be able to communicate effectively with children and families with no or limited
English proficiency. When a majority of children speak the same language in a Head Start program, at least one
95
classroom staff member or home visitor interacting regularly with the children must speak their language.
Program Effectiveness
An extensive body of research literature on Head Start has accumulated since the program’s inception in 1965.
Results indicate the program provides immediate benefits for children. In short, “Head Start participants can
begin kindergarten on a stronger footing than they would without the program” (Love, Tarullo, Raikes, &
Chazan-Cohen, 2006, p. 569).
Results of the large-scale Head Start Impact Study, conducted from 2002 to 2006, indicated that Head Start had
positive impacts on several aspects of children’s school readiness during their time in the program. Children who
had access to Head Start when they were 4 years of age experienced gains chiefly in the cognitive domain,
particularly in language and literacy skills. Children who had access to Head Start when they were 3 years of age
experienced benefits in each of the four domains of development examined in the study: cognitive, social-
emotional, health, and parenting practices. Children who had access to Head Start at 4 years of age demonstrated
stronger receptive language skills and were more likely to have health insurance coverage than children who did
not have access to Head Start. Some scholars argue that the magnitude of these effects is likely larger than
indicated in the study because analyses focused on groups randomly assigned to Head Start or to the control group
(“intent to treat”) rather than on children who actually enrolled in Head Start or remained out of Head Start.
That is, some children who were offered the opportunity to participate in Head Start did not actually enroll in
Head Start, and some children assigned to the control group eventually became Head Start participants (Ludwig
& Phillips, 2007).
The gains demonstrated during children’s Head Start year were mostly not sustained by the end of first grade.
There were only a few significant differences in outcomes between children who had access to Head Start and the
control group. At the end of first grade, children enrolled in the Head Start Impact Study who had access to Head
Start at 3 years of age demonstrated stronger oral comprehension skills as well as closer and more positive
relationships with their parents. In addition, parents of children who had access to Head Start demonstrated
improved parenting practices compared to parents of children in the control group. Children who had access to
Head Start at 4 years of age did significantly better on a measure of receptive language (Puma et al., 2010).
The Head Start Impact Study described earlier was conducted with a nationally representative sample of nearly
5,000 children who were randomly assigned to a Head Start group that had access to Head Start program services
or to a control group that did not have access to Head Start but could enroll in other early childhood programs or
non-Head Start services identified by their parents. The sample represented 84 Head Start delegate agencies
(Puma et al., 2010). Key strengths of the study include the random assignment design, the representative sample
of children and programs, an examination of a broad set of outcomes, and follow-up with children at the end of
first grade. A follow-up with the children in third grade is underway. The experimental study was mandated by
Congress as part of the 1998 reauthorization of the Head Start program. Prior to this investigation, rigorous
experimental designs were used infrequently to assess Head Start effects. A 1997 U.S. Government Accounting
Office (GAO) report on the impact of Head Start (Government Accounting Office, 1997) highlighted the
limitations of much of the research on Head Start and indirectly led to the congressionally mandated Head Start
Impact Study.
The first several decades of Head Start research was summarized in a 1985 synthesis of 210 published and
unpublished reports on Head Start research (McKey et al., 1985). The synthesis found immediate gains in
children’s cognitive abilities, achievement motivation, self-esteem, social behavior, and health indicators. There
were, in addition, some indications of improvements in mothers’ well-being and in community services, although
it is not clear Head Start played a causal role in these changes. The synthesis review also found that cognitive test
score gains achieved during Head Start did not persist over the long term (generally 2 years after participation in
Head Start). Similarly, the gains in socio-emotional functioning also did not persist over the long term (generally 3
years after participation). Not all of the 210 research reports included in the 1985 synthesis examined each aspect
96
of Head Start. For example, the report’s findings on cognitive gains were based on 72 studies and the findings on
socio-emotional development were based on 17 studies (McKey et al., 1985).
The Early Head Start program also has undergone a major outcome study in recent years. The study involved a
sample of 17 programs and some 3,000 children selected to represent diverse program approaches, geographic
locations, and participant backgrounds. Results when children were 36 months of age showed program children
performed better than did control group children in cognitive and language development, displayed higher
emotional engagement of the parent and sustained attention with play objects, and were lower in aggressive
behavior. Early Head Start parents were more emotionally supportive, provided more language and learning
stimulation, read more often to their children, and spanked less (Love et al., 2005).
The federal Office of Head Start sponsors the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES),
designed to describe characteristics, experiences, and outcomes for children and families in Head Start and
beyond. To date, five cohorts of children, families, and programs have been studied since 1997. The first cohort
consisted of a nationally representative sample of 3,200 children and their families, assessed in the fall and spring
of the children’s Head Start year, on entry into kindergarten, and in first grade for some children. Subsequent
cohorts have been studied for 2 to 3 years, with data collected in the fall and spring of the children’s first year in
Head Start and at the end of kindergarten for children who complete 1 or 2 years of the program. Children are
administered a one-on-one assessment of their development that includes school readiness skills in language,
literacy, and mathematics. Interviews are conducted with parents about a range of child and family topics; Head
Start and kindergarten teachers provide information about children’s classroom experiences and behaviors. There
also is an Early Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (Baby FACES), designed as a longitudinal
descriptive study of a nationally representative sample of 89 Early Head Start programs and more than 970
parents of children.
Further, the Head Start research literature includes numerous smaller scale and nonexperimental studies of
program impact. For example, a study conducted in a Southeastern metropolitan community examined school
readiness outcomes for children eligible to enroll in Head Start. The children were randomly assigned to Head
Start or to a wait-list control group. The children enrolled in Head Start achieved greater gains from fall to spring
in receptive vocabulary and phonemic awareness than did the control group children, but there were no group
differences on measures of social skills and approaches to learning (Abbott-Shim, Lambert, & McCarty, 2003).
Moreover, a recent longitudinal study of children in 18 urban areas in the United States found that Head Start
attendance was associated with enhanced cognitive abilities and social competence and reduced attention
problems, but not reduced internalizing or externalizing behavior problems at 5 years of age. The investigation,
involving some 2,800 children, compared children in Head Start to children who received other forms of
preschool such as parental care and center-based early childhood programs (Zhai, Brooks-Gunn, & Waldfogel,
2011).
The Future of Head Start

Currently, the most pressing challenge facing Head Start is to strengthen attention to children’s school readiness
skills. Throughout its history, questions have been raised about the quality and focus of Head Start’s preparation
of children for school success. Current interest in Head Start’s contributions to the school success of low-income
children occurs in the context of widespread concern about lagging school achievement of children living in
poverty and results of recent outcome evaluations of Head Start. As summarized in this chapter, the latest findings
suggest that Head Start programs make a positive contribution to children’s school readiness. The gains are
modest, however, and evidence from the rigorous Head Start Impact Study indicates that few immediate
outcomes are sustained through first grade.
The federal Office of Head Start released a plan in 2010 designed to improve the school readiness of Head Start
children. Called the Head Start Roadmap to Excellence, its provisions include stronger attention to children’s
learning and family engagement in forthcoming revisions of the Head Start Program Performance Standards,
97
improvements in professional development and related forms of training and technical assistance, replacing poorer
performing programs with new grantees through a grant recompetition process, and strengthening Head Start
collaborations with other early childhood programs and with elementary schools at local and state levels. Each of
these directions includes specific actions, such as increased emphasis on family literacy in family engagement
practices and systematic use of standardized tools for measuring instructional quality.
The growing emphasis on academic skills has generated concern that Head Start’s comprehensive focus, including
dental care, immunizations, nutrition, and family support services, will erode in favor of attention to children’s
literacy and school readiness experiences in classrooms. There also is concern that outcome assessments will drive
curriculum emphases through “teaching to the test” practices.
Creative responses to the challenge of improving children’s school readiness will require Head Start to capitalize
on its status as the “birthplace of comprehensive services in a family setting” (Zigler & Muenchow, 1992, p. 243)
and its tradition of adaptation and improvement (Bowman, 2004). Head Start needs to retain and strengthen its
role as a national laboratory for developing new models of innovative programs for children and their families.
Strong partnerships with other institutions and resources in local communities are essential in these efforts. No
matter how comprehensive or well administered, Head Start can only do so much to combat the poor prenatal
care and nutrition, inadequate housing, crime-ridden neighborhoods, and racial and gender discrimination that
affect the lives of many families living in poverty. Head Start is not a “panacea for poverty” (Washington &
Oyemade Bailey, 1995, p. 141). It is, however, a demonstrated leader in mobilizing the energies of diverse
institutions in communities on behalf of young children. Improvements in children’s development and learning
outcomes require not only stimulating classrooms and supportive parent–child relationships, but also communities
that genuinely care about children, families, and their environments.
Reflect On
1. What assumptions that marked the beginnings of Head Start have subsequently been found wanting?
2. How does Head Start involve parents, and why is this so important?
3. What changes in Head Start have occurred in recent years because of heightened concern over school
readiness and success?
4. What is the minimum percentage of children with disabilities that must be enrolled in Head Start programs?
5. Do you think it possible for Head Start to really balance its comprehensive services orientation with a strong
emphasis on academics?
Selected Resources
Beacon of Hope: The Promise of Early Head Start for America’s Youngest Children by J. Lombardi and M. M. Bogle
(Eds.), 2004, Washington, DC: Zero to Three Press.
The Hidden History of Head Start by E. Zigler & S. J. Styfco, 2010, New York: Oxford University Press.
National Head Start Association: www.nhsa.org
Office of Head Start: www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/
References
1. Abbott-Shim, M., Lambert, R., & McCarty, F. (2003). A comparison of school readiness outcomes for
98
children randomly assigned to a Head Start program and the program’s wait list. Journal of Education for
Students Placed at Risk, 8, 191–214.
2. Baratz, S. S., & Baratz, J. C. (1970). Early childhood intervention: The social science base of institutional
racism. Harvard Educational Review, 48, 161–170.
3. Berrueta-Clement, J. R., Schweinhart, L. J., Barnett, W. S., Epstein, A. S., & Weikart, D. P. (1984).
Changed lives: The effects of the Perry Preschool Program on youths through age 19. Monographs of
High/Scope Educational Research Foundation Number 8. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.
4. Bierman, K. L., Domitrovich, C. E., Nix, R. L., Gest, S. D., Welsh, J. A., Greenberg, M. T., … Gill, S.
(2008). Promoting academic and social-emotional school readiness: The Head Start REDI program. Child
5. Bloom, B. S. (1964). Stability and change in human characteristics. New York, NY: Wiley.
6. Bowman, B. T. (2004). The future of Head Start. In E. Zigler & S. J. Styfco (Eds.), The Head Start debates
(pp. 533–544). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
7. Bronfenbrenner, U., & Morris, P. A. (2006). The bioecological model of human development. In R. Lerner
& W. Damon (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed.): Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development
(pp. 793–828). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
8. Community Opportunities, Accountability, and Training and Educational Services Act of 1998, Public Law
105-285 October 27, 1998. Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
(3rd ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
10. Government Accounting Office. (1997). Head Start: Research provides little information on impact of current
program. Washington, DC: Author.
11. Gray, S. W., & Klaus, R. A. (1965). An experimental preschool program for culturally deprived children.
Child Development, 36, 887–898.
12. Head Start Bureau. (1997). Head Start program performance standards and other regulations. Washington,
DC: Head Start Bureau, Administration on Children, Youth and Families, U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services.
13. Hunt, J. M. (1961). Intelligence and experience. New York, NY: Ronald Press.
14. Improving Head Start for School Readiness Act of 2007, Public Law 110-134. Retrieved from http://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys
15. Jackson, B., Larzelere, R., St. Clair, L., Corr, M., Fichter, C., & Egertson, H. (2006). The impact of
HeadsUp! Reading on early childhood educators’ literacy practices and preschool children’s literacy skills.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 213–226.
16. Keniston, K., & Carnegie Council on Children. (1977). All our children: The American family under pressure.
New York, NY: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
17. Labov, W. (1970). The logic of nonstandard English. In F. Williams (Ed.), Language and poverty (pp. 153–
189). Chicago, IL: Markham.
18. Love, J. M., Tarullo, L. B., Raikes, H., & Chazan-Cohen, R. (2006). Head Start: What do we know about
its effectiveness? What do we need to know? In K. McCartney & D. Phillips (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of
99
early childhood development (pp. 550–575). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
19. Love, J. M., Kisker, E. E., Ross, C. M., Constantine, J., Boller, K., Chazan-Cohen, R., … Vogel, C. (2005).
The effectiveness of Early Head Start for 3-year-old children and their parents: Lessons for policy and
programs. Developmental Psychology, 41, 885–901.
20. Ludwig, J., & Phillips, D. (2007). The benefits and costs of Head Start. In L. Sherrod (Ed.), Social policy
report (pp. 3–18). Ann Arbor, MI: Society for Research in Child Development. Retrieved from http://
www.srcd.org
21. McKey, R. H., Condelli, L., Ganson, H., Barrett, B. J., McConkey, C., & Plantz, M. C. (1985, June). The
impact of Head Start on children, families, and communities. Final report of the Head Start Evaluation,
Synthesis, and Utilization Project. Washington, DC: Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office. (ED395681)
22. Office of Head Start (2006). Head Start Program Performance Standards. Retrieved from http://
eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc
23. Powell, D. R. (2006). Families and early childhood interventions. In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series
Eds.) & K. A. Renninger & I. E. Sigel (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (6th ed.): Vol 4. Child
psychology in practice (pp. 548–591). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
24. Powell, D. R., Diamond, K. E., Burchinal, M. R., & Koehler, M. J. (2010). Effects of an early literacy
professional development intervention on Head Start teachers and children. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 102, 299–312.
25. Puma, M., Bell, S., Cook, R., Heid, C., Shapiro, G., Broene, P., … Spier, E. (2010). Head Start impact
study: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
26. Richmond, J. B., Stipek, D. J., & Zigler, E. (1979). A decade of Head Start. In E. Zigler & J. Valentine
(Eds.), Project Head Start: A legacy of the War on Poverty (pp. 135–152). New York, NY: Free Press.
27. Ryan, W. (1971). Blaming the victim. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
28. Schweinhart, L. J., Barnes, H. V., & Weikart, D. P. (1993). Significant benefits: The High/Scope Perry
Preschool Study Through Age 27. Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation Number
10. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.
29. Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime
effects—High/Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 40. Monographs of the High/Scope Educational
Research Foundation, 14. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.
30. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. (2010). The Head Start child development and early learning
framework: Promoting positive outcomes in early childhood programs serving children 3–5 years old.
Washington, DC: Administration for Children and Families, Office of Head Start.
31. Wasik, B. A., & Hindman, A. H. (2011). Improving vocabulary and preliteracy skills of at-risk preschoolers
through teacher professional development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 455–469.
32. Washington, V., & Oyemade Bailey, U. J. (1995). Project Head Start: Models and strategies for the twenty-
first century. New York, NY: Garland.
33. Zhai, F., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Waldfogel, J. (2011). Head Start and urban children’s school readiness: A
birth cohort study in 18 cities. Developmental Psychology, 47, 134–152.
34. Zigler, E. (1998). By what goals should Head Start be assessed? Children’s Services: Social Policy, Research,
100
and Practice, 1, 5–17.
35. Zigler, E., & Anderson, K. (1979). An idea whose time had come: The intellectual and political climate for
Head Start. In E. Zigler & J. Valentine (Eds.), Project Head Start: A legacy of the War on Poverty (pp. 3–19).
New York, NY: Free Press.
36. Zigler, E., & Muenchow, S. (1992). Head Start: The inside story of America’s most successful educational
experiment. New York: Basic Books.
37. Zigler, E., & Valentine, J. (Eds.). (1979). Project Head Start: A legacy of the War on Poverty. New York: Free
Press.
101
Chapter 4 Home Visiting Programs
Barbara Hanna Wasik
Adrienne Villagomez
Sheena Berry
and
Priya Mulholkar
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Characterize the historical perspective on home visiting in the United States
Discuss modern-day home visiting and early childhood education
Examine the quality in home visiting
From its early beginnings in the United States, home visiting has been associated with young children and their
families, whether for health, education, or social service purposes. Although it has roots in Europe, where health
care in the home was provided for individuals across social classes, home visiting also has a rich heritage in the
United States, especially in addressing the educational needs of young children.
Current economic, political, and social events in the United States make a review of home visiting in early
childhood education well timed, especially a review that includes the needs of children growing up in poverty,
reading levels of children in elementary school, the needs of children from immigrant families, and the continuing
needs for maternal and infant health care. Children born into poverty have more negative health outcomes in
infancy and early childhood, often leading to an increased likelihood of school failure. These challenges in our
society have increased attention on home visiting to ensure positive maternal and infant health outcomes and
children’s early school success. In addition, these issues have influenced the initiation of the U.S. Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, designed to provide $1.5 billion over 5 years for a state-based early
childhood home visiting program serving at-risk families with young children or pregnant mothers. Although our
focus is on the benefits of home visiting for children’s early education, children’s development is a complex and
multifaceted phenomenon, necessitating a look at home visiting services designed to address health and social-
emotional development as well as children’s early language and literacy development. Child abuse and neglect can
lead not only to social and emotional disabilities but also to cognitive impairments, difficulties in language
development, and poor academic success that can all negatively influence educational outcomes. Because child
abuse and neglect influence children’s overall development, our review also encompasses services in these areas. To
frame our review, we provide a chronology of home visiting dating to the 1900s and then examine developments
in each decade beginning with the 1960s. Within each decade, we describe key developments related to home
visiting for young children and associated educational outcomes. We conclude with identifying new developments
that could positively influence family and child outcomes addressed through home visiting.
Historical Perspective On Home Visiting in the

United States
Home visiting gained prominence in the United States during the progressive era, a period of social reform from
102
1890 to the 1920s, and was used as a strategy to reach out to both those in poverty and immigrant families to
address nutrition, illness, and disease. Another factor promoting home visiting services was the recognition of the
role of parents in their children’s education and the value of reaching out to parents in their own home. Visiting
nurses, social workers, and visiting teachers all provided services during this time. The concept of the visiting
teacher evolved from the association of kindergartens and elementary schools with settlement homes where many
families lived upon arrival in the United States.
Issues of crime, child labor, and urban slums were further motivating factors for home visitors to improve not only
the family environment, but also their communities. As educators worked to make schools more positively
influential in the lives of children, visiting teachers functioned as mediators between families and educational
institutions, familiarizing themselves with the environment of children in settlement houses and sharing this
information with teachers. Thus, teachers were enabled to better understand their students and to address their
educational needs.
Other social and political events were also influential in services provided to mothers and children. In 1909,
President Theodore Roosevelt called the first White House Conference on the Care of Dependent Children,
helping to raise awareness of issues that children faced, including the detrimental effects of institutionalization.
This conference acknowledged the importance of family and home life for children, leading to the creation of the
Children’s Bureau and the widow’s pension movement. These two efforts emphasized the importance of the
welfare of all children, not only those from low-income, mother-led households. Another organization, the Child
Welfare League of America (CWLA), was founded in the early 1920s to ensure the well-being of children and
their families. The Children’s Bureau and the CWLA indirectly contributed to children’s early education by
improving the lives of mothers and young children.
By the late 1920s, a shift away from home-based services occurred for many professionals: social workers, nurses,
teachers, and physicians. Center-based services became the norm as professionals began to believe that such
settings could better serve families. Although this approach was prevalent for many years, by the 1960s events
resulted in a renewed interest in home visiting.
Modern-Day Home Visiting and Early Childhood

Education
1960s
Renewed Interest
Not unlike the confluence of events at the turn of the twentieth century, several converging events in the 1960s
heightened interest in children, poverty, and early education. President John F. Kennedy’s concern with the
poverty conditions he observed in Appalachia and the follow-up initiatives of the Lyndon Johnson
administration’s “War on Poverty” resulted in funding to address families living in poverty. The country’s
attention had been drawn to the plight of children being raised in poverty and the subsequent school failure
associated with these home conditions. Education came to be viewed as key in ending the nation’s continuous
cycle of poverty. Project Head Start was designed to provide early educational opportunities to children from low-
income families and to make health, nutrition, and family support services available (Zigler & Valentine, 1979).
Although Head Start was certainly the most visible and well-known early childhood effort in the 1960s, it was not
the first. Other initiatives in the early 1960s included the Early Training Project (Gray, 1971), a university-based
program that provided both preschool and home visiting programs for low-income children designed to offset
school failure. Three-year-old children attended 10-week preschool programs for two to three summers, and home
visits were made both when the program was and was not in session. The home sessions were conducted by
103
paraprofessionals who brought early childhood materials into the home and helped parents learn how to effectively
use these items with their children (Gray, 1971). I. J. Gordon’s work on home visiting with low-income families,
the Parent Education Project (PEP), also used paraprofessionals to provide home-based services with a focus on
helping mothers provide positive early learning experiences for their children (Gordon, 1970).
The High/Scope curriculum was yet another 1960s initiation, a center-based early childhood program that
incorporated a home visiting component where teachers met their students’ families for 1½ hr each week.
Outcomes of the study found that the project was effective as an educational intervention and as a delinquency
prevention model. As reported by Schweinhart (2003; also Chapter 10), by age 27 the children who received the
intervention services during preschool had completed a higher level of schooling, had higher levels of general
literacy, reported greater levels of income, and were linked to economic benefits, such as lower justice system costs,
when compared to the control group.
In 1965, the Mother-Child Home Program was developed from Levenstein’s Verbal Interaction Project
(Levenstein, Levenstein, Shiminski, & Stolzber, 1998). Today, this program is known as the Parent-Child Home
Program (PCHP) and is implemented across the United States and in Canada, Bermuda, and Ireland. The PCHP
emphasizes the importance of parent–child interactions to promote early school success and uses home visits to
strengthen children’s language skills, social-emotional development, and problem solving. The PCHP provides
services to families for a 2-year time span when children are 2 to 3 years old until they enter preschool. Home
visits are frequent and short, lasting half an hour twice a week, and are used to model interactions and activities
with provided materials. Although research on the PCHP has been mixed, studies have shown that participants in
PCHP graduated high school at significantly higher rates than the control students (Levenstein, Levenstein,
Shiminski, & Stolzberg, 1998). In addition, children who participated in PCHP in preschool performed similarly
at first-grade entrance on achievement tests in comparison to statewide performance data and outperformed at risk
children who did not enroll in PCHP (Levenstein, Levenstein, & Oliver, 2002).
Having its genesis in Israel in 1969, the Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY) came to
the United States in 1984. HIPPY was designed to provide 2 to 3 years of services for children, focusing on the
development of cognitive skills, including language, problem solving, logical thinking, and perceptual skills.
Services focus primarily on parent involvement and school readiness for children 3 to 5 years of age, using a
curriculum that includes materials and books to foster cognitive skills and socio-emotional and physical
development in children. HIPPY home visits include a variety of activities, from discussing educational objectives
and providing educational materials to role-playing and parenting information. Parent involvement within the
child’s school is also promoted. Home visits are conducted by paraprofessionals who receive intensive training in
order to provide weekly visits to families. In addition, parent group meetings are provided to encourage learning
among participants through discussion and role-playing.
Research findings suggest positive treatment effects on child expressive language skills and parent involvement in
the home, and a correlation between parent participation and child expressive language outcomes for children at
risk for school failure. In addition, research shows that teachers identified children involved in HIPPY as better
prepared for kindergarten literacy instruction and above average in school performance. In comparison to their
non-HIPPY kindergarten classmates, HIPPY children were also identified as better behaved, more engaged, and
more familiar with routines in school. One longitudinal study found that HIPPY children in fifth grade continued
to demonstrate above-average scores across academic subjects (e.g., reading, spelling, math, social studies and
science; Bradley & Gilkey, 2002).
The Portage Project (Shearer & Shearer, 1972; Shearer & Shearer, 2009) started in 1969 in Wisconsin as a
demonstration project funded by the U.S. Office of Education (Bureau for the Education of the Handicapped) to
develop services for parents and their young children with disabilities. The goal was to test and establish an early
education program for children up to age 3 with a range of developmental disabilities; a teacher would provide
weekly services in the home. Assessment procedures were used to identify the child’s competencies and served as a
basis for determining the services for each child. In the 1970s, the program expanded to other states and later
made numerous expansions in other countries.
104
Recognizing a lack of materials available to support parents in the development of young children with disabilities,
the Portage Guide to Early Education (PGEE) was created as an assessment and curriculum-planning tool. This tool
supports individuals working in various settings that offer programming to young children and their families. For
example, although the PGEE was designed for home visiting, the guide is also used in center-based settings. Most
importantly, this tool is designed to support relationship-based intervention that is family centered, ecological, and
strength based, reflecting the core values of the Portage Project. Two additional guides are available for identifying
and addressing developmental needs, including the Portage Classroom Curriculum and the Growing Birth to Three
tools. The Portage Project materials can be adapted to the needs of different cultures (Jesien, 1984), a feature that
has facilitated the spread of this project to numerous other countries.
1970s
In the 1970s, many early childhood interventions were influenced by the writings of Urie Bronfenbrenner on the
role of the family in children’s early development. His conceptualization of an ecological perspective of children as
nested within the family and the family as nested within the larger community is arguably the most significant
theoretical framework for early childhood interventions. This conceptualization is especially pertinent for home
visiting, given the emphasis on the role of the family in children’s development, and has helped expand the view of
services from those for an individual child to those for the family within the broader community.
The Abecedarian Project, a center-based early childhood program started in 1972, served as the basis for two later
efforts that included home visiting, both Project CARE, initiated in 1978, and the Infant Health and
Development Program (IHDP), started in 1985. The Abecedarian Project was an experimental study of center-
based care for at-risk children from low-income families (Campbell et al., 2008). Similar to the High/Scope
project, the Abecedarian Project has now followed children into their young adult years, demonstrating several
lasting effects of early center-based intervention. A related intervention was Project CARE, a comparison of
center-based and home-based care beginning in infancy (Wasik, Ramey, Bryant, & Sparling, 1990). At school
entrance, Project CARE children in the day care program demonstrated positive outcomes, but not the children in
the home-based-only program. Building on the Abecedarian Project and Project CARE, the Infant Health and
Development Program (IHDP, 1993) was a national randomized study of low-birth-weight infants and their
families with a home visiting–day care treatment combination. The intervention took place in eight large cities
throughout the United States, providing treatment families with home visiting during the child’s first year
followed by home visiting and full-time day care during the next two years. Results showed that at the end of the
intervention at age 3, treatment children outperformed control group children on cognitive measures, with an
average of 6.6 points higher for lighter low-birth-weight children and 13.2 points higher for heavier low-birth-
weight children on an IQ measure, thus providing a stronger foundation for later school performance (IHDP,
1993). Additional follow-up studies demonstrated similar higher scores on measures in IQ, receptive vocabulary,
and mathematics and lower scores on a risky behavior index from ages 5 up to age 18 for the heavier low-birth-
weight stratum but not the lighter low-birth-weight stratum.
Child Abuse and Neglect

A significant advancement during the 1970s was the recognition that home visiting could provide an effective
means of helping to reduce the occurrence of child abuse and neglect. Among the professional events influencing
this attention was the work of Henry Kempe in identifying child abuse as a significant social and health issue. The
Kempe Family Stress Inventory (KFSI) was developed to determine if parents are at risk for future parenting
difficulties, such as child maltreatment. Enacted in 1974, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act
(CAPTA; P.L. 93-247) and its amendments heightened public awareness of child abuse and neglect. CAPTA
prompted many initiatives designed to address these concerns. Influenced by the work of Kempe, Hawaii’s large-
scale effort to reduce abuse and neglect was established in the 1970s as the Hawaii Healthy Families program.
Other programs during this time addressing abuse and neglect were Project SafeCare (formerly Project 12-Ways)
and Nurse-Family Partnership (initially called the Nurse Home Visiting Program).
105
Project 12-Ways, in addressing child abuse and neglect, provides relatively comprehensive services to parents in
their own homes (Lutzker, 2009). In comparison, its more recent model, Project SafeCare, has narrowed its focus
to (a) positive parent–child interactions, (b) home safety and accident prevention, and (c) child health care. In-
home visitation and training with the parents has yielded significant improvements across all three skill domains
(Gershater-Molko, Lutzker, & Wesch, 2003). In line with its eco-behavioral model, services are provided
exclusively in the home environment. Project SafeCare primarily targets parents and caregivers with children in
infancy to early childhood, or ages 3 to 5 years (Lutzker, 2009). The adaptations that Project SafeCare made from
Project 12-Ways have resulted in a focus on parents with low intelligence and/or learning disabilities, thus
promoting early childhood education in this population by fostering positive parent–child interactions, child
health care, and home safety (Gershater-Molko et al., 2003).
In the 1970s, D. L. Olds began the first of a series of studies to help first-time low-income mothers and children,
in which he and his colleagues examined outcomes related to maternal and child health, including instances of
abuse and neglect. Randomized controlled trials began in 1977 in Elmira, New York, in 1988 in Memphis,
Tennessee, and in 1994 in Denver, Colorado, obtaining positive results for improved pregnancy outcomes and
improved development of infants and children. By 2010, what is now known as the Nurse-Family Partnership
(NFP) had been launched in 32 states. The NFP partners first-time mothers with a nurse home visitor until the
child’s second birthday to establish a therapeutic relationship that addresses necessary behavior changes to promote
infant and mother health and self-efficacy to develop plans for the future (Olds et al., 2004; Olds et al., 2007).
Although findings are sometimes specific to one of these experimental studies, positive outcomes have been
obtained for maternal life course changes and children’s health. Related to early childhood education, findings
suggest a 50% reduction in language delays and a 67% reduction in intellectual and behavioral problems in
children at age 6 who participated compared with children not in the program (Olds et al., 2004)—results
relevant for children’s school success.
1980s
In 1981, the pilot project of the Parents as Teachers (PAT) program was conducted to help first-time parents
prepare their children for school and encourage parent involvement. Today, PAT is established across all 50 states
and seven other countries. The PAT program has four main goals: (a) increase parent understanding of child
development to improve parenting practices, (b) prevent child neglect and abuse, (c) provide early identification of
developmental delays and other health concerns, and (d) increase children’s school readiness and success
(www.parentsasteachers.org/results). Data reported on PAT have shown that children were more likely to be read
to and enrolled in preschool when parents participated in PAT than were children who did not receive services.
Based on the School Entry Profile, a teacher report to measure skills and areas of performance in kindergarten,
children in the PAT program and preschool were judged more ready to learn than children who did not receive
either service. At third grade, children were more likely to reach benchmarks on the Missouri Assessment Program
Communication Arts Test (Parents as Teachers National Center, 2007).
Efficacy of the PAT curriculum was investigated in a study comparing 237 families in the
106
The home visiting teacher helps the parent and child develop an effective instructional style.
PAT program receiving the Born to Learn curriculum against 237 families that received general child development
education. Drotar and colleagues (Drotar, Robinson, Jeavons, & Kirchner, 2008) used several standardized
assessments to measure cognitive development, adaptive behavior, mastery motivation for problem-solving
abilities, language development, concept development, prereading skills, and social competence across three time
points: 12, 24 and 36 months. The strongest findings of the study included significantly higher scores in mastery
motivation at 36 months and significantly higher effects for children with low socioeconomic status (SES) on
cognitive development at 24 months (www.parentsasteachers.org/training).
1990s
Two significant home visiting programs were started in the 1990s. Healthy Families America (HFA) began under
the auspices of Prevent Child Abuse America. An evidence-based home visiting model, it seeks to help families
with histories of trauma, violence, mental health, and/or substance abuse issues to prevent the occurrence of child
abuse or neglect by teaching positive parenting and promoting child development. HFA services are intensive, are
long-term (3 to 5 years), and are provided on a voluntary basis by local organizations. HFA provides services in 35
states with a focus on helping families with multiple risks of child maltreatment as identified by the KFSI.
Although research on HFA has mixed reviews, several studies have demonstrated positive outcomes on child
development and school readiness, child health, and positive parenting practices. Caldera and colleagues (Caldera
et al., 2007) evaluated Healthy Families Alaska in six out of seven state program sites to determine the
effectiveness of HFA on child development as measured by the Bayley Scales of Infant Development and the
Child Behavior Checklist. Caldera et al. (2007) found that participating children had more favorable scores on
both measures. The study concluded that by promoting positive parenting, HFA reduced problem behaviors and
promoted child development, but did not improve child health. In addition, HFA has been able to influence early
childhood education through improving the home learning environment, maternal self-efficacy, and the increased
use of center-based parenting services.
Realizing the need to reach younger children in a more systematic manner, the U.S. government funded Early
Head Start (EHS) in 1995 to provide comprehensive child and family services for low-income pregnant women,
107
as well as families with infants and toddlers to age 3. Through year-round services, EHS’s overarching goal is to
promote children’s physical, cognitive, emotional, and social development; encourage parent efforts in promoting
early development; and help parents become self-sufficient by providing a range of services in child development,
child care, case management, health care referrals, parenting education, and family support. Depending on the
needs of the community and family, the EHS program provides home-based services, center-based services, or a
combination of services. Recent data suggest that 52% of families with 1-year-olds are enrolled in a home-based
service option (Boller et al., 2012). Home-based services require, at minimum, 48 visits per year. Estimates of
home visits within each service option suggest that home-based program recipient families receive an average of 71
visits, mixed-approach recipient families have an average of 65 visits, and center-based families receive 11 visits
during the 26-month enrollment in EHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2004).
A large randomized study of EHS (Early Head Start Research and Evaluation Project) examined the program’s
influence on parents when the children were ages 2 and 3 years, on children’s language and cognitive outcomes at
these same ages, and on parents’ own literacy and self-sufficiency outcomes (Boller et al., 2012). Results showed
parents enrolled in the home visiting program provided more stimulation, were more involved in educational
activities, and reported less parenting stress. EHS children at ages 2 and 3 years significantly outperformed control
group children on measures of both child language and cognitive skills. Further analyses showed that the language
environment contributed to children’s later language learning (Boller et al., 2012). Quality of the home visitor’s
strategies was also found to be correlated with parent–child interactions and children’s vocabulary, suggesting that
quality home visits can have a positive impact on early childhood education (Boller et al., 2012).
Another effort that focused on the role of parents is the Positive Parenting Program, better known as the Triple P.
It is an international public health approach molded and supported by over 30 years of research designed to help
parents develop strong parenting skills, prevent child maltreatment, and deter socio-emotional and behavioral
problems in children. The Triple P framework is centered on self-regulation and empowerment for parents to
make their own decisions in terms of goals, skills, and values they desire (Sanders et al., 2008). Developed in
Australia, Triple P began as an individually administered home-based training program for parents with disruptive
children in preschool (Sanders, 2008), evolving into an evidence-based prevention program that can be adopted
by organizations and government agencies. Triple P is unique in being a multilevel support system that addresses
developmental needs from infancy through adolescence, offering five levels of intervention that increase in
intensity. The first level encourages participation in parenting programs. The second and third levels target parents
with specific concerns, while level four is for parents seeking intensive training or for parents of children with
more significant behavior issues. Level five is for parents facing significant child behavior problems in addition to
family dysfunction.
In summarizing research on Triple P, Prinz, Sanders, Shapiro, Whitaker, and Lutzker (2009) noted that positive
effects have been obtained for observed and parent-reported child behavior, parenting practices, and parent
adjustment across families, cultures, sites, and investigators. Research has also demonstrated the efficacy of Triple
P with parents who are linguistically and culturally diverse (e.g., Turner, Richards, & Sanders, 2007).
A relatively new initiative is the Family Check-Up home visiting program founded by Dishion and Kavanagh
(2003), an empirically based family-centered intervention that seeks to improve family management practices or
parenting skills, as well as parenting quality, to prevent or reduce early childhood problem behavior (Dishion et
al., 2008). Family Check-Up is grounded on EcoFIT, an ecological approach and public health focus for family
intervention and treatment, also created by the Child and Family Center at the University of Oregon. EcoFIT is
embedded in a health maintenance model that emphasizes periodic contact with families at key transitions in
development (Shaw, Connell, Dishion, Wilson, & Gardner, 2009).
Family Check-Up begins with an initial interview to learn of needs and concerns in order to best serve the family
on an individual level. Intervention options are chosen based on an ecological assessment conducted through a
home visit, a series of questionnaires, and a measure of the child’s school performance and adjustment. Research
supports Family CheckUp as a model for increasing levels of positive parenting during early childhood, thus
indirectly influencing early childhood education through school readiness (Lunkenheimer et al., 2008) as
measured by improvements in self-regulation and language development.
108
National Collaborative Efforts in the 1990s
Advances in home visiting in the 1990s resulted in part from a number of professional publications and activities.
The Lucile and David Packard Foundation took a strong interest in home visiting services, producing two major
volumes on home visiting during this time. The first provided an introduction to many issues related to home
visiting, raising awareness in the field (Gomby, Larson, Lewit, & Behrman, 1993). The second 1999 volume
examined in more depth whether significant parent and child outcomes were occurring (Gomby, Culross, &
Behrman, 1999). Among the conclusions in this latter volume was a serious question on the effectiveness of home
visiting for parents and children, leading to recommendations for enhancing program quality. The calls in the
second volume influenced the development of the National Forum on Home Visiting, which became a setting for
collaboration among major U.S. home visiting programs serving families, infants, and young children. The 1999
volume also helped advance the field on topics including systems management; home visitor training, retention,
and supervision; research; and policy. Meeting across several years, this forum forged an advanced level of
knowledge about home visiting across major program models (PAT, HFA, HIPPY, PCHP, NFP, and EHS) in
addition to highlighting common issues across different service models. This forum’s work is available on the
Harvard Family Research Project Web site (www.hfrp.org/other-research-areas/home-visit-forum), where the
following observation is made about the forum’s work: “Despite the unique attributes of each program, the use of
home visitation as a delivery model means these organizations shared many common goals. Participants worked to
create areas for cross program cooperation and learning that strengthen the home visit field as a whole, as well as
enhance individual programs.” The collaboration across national programs that came out of this forum was, in no
small way, a significant factor leading up to the 2010 funding of the federal Maternal, Infant, and Early
Childhood Home Visiting Program, designed to ensure that “children have the opportunity to grow up healthy,
safe, ready to learn, and able to become productive members of society” (www.clasp.org/federal_policy/pages?
id=0024).
2000
During the past 10 years, from 2000 to 2010, interest in home visiting has continued to grow. The National
Forum on Home Visiting carried on its work into the first part of the decade, while other private and government
organizations maintained support for home visiting research and services. Renewed interest in teacher home
visiting is also occurring. This interest is illustrated by the Teacher Home Visit Program in St. Louis, Missouri,
using home visiting to improve communication between schools and homes and to help families understand that
the goals they have for their children are shared by teachers and schools. Through a partnership between parents
and teachers, this teacher home visit program works toward six overarching goals: (a) improve academic
achievement and test scores; (b) decrease discipline referrals; (c) improve attitudes toward school; (d) encourage
homework completion; (e) increase student attendance and parent participation; and (f) increase parent
involvement. A recent evaluation within the St. Louis metropolitan area during the 2009–2010 academic school
year showed grade improvements in math and improvement in school attendance for students who participated,
in contrast to those who did not. Parents demonstrated an increase in contact and participation with their
children’s school; teachers reported they felt the program improved their classroom instruction and relationships
with students (Sale, Weil, & Kyrah, 2011).
All the national models identified as developing between the 1960s and 2000 continued their growth during this
decade, while researchers, funders, and policy makers raised the bar on the expectations for evidenced-based
practice. At the end of this decade, events at the federal level brought home visiting into the national limelight,
again showing its history as a strategy that is often rediscovered by new generations. An extensive review was
undertaken of home visiting programs for children from birth to age 5 to assess whether the programs met
standards of evidenced-based practice. In Table 4–1 we have listed 10 programs, including 7 identified as having
met the standards of evidenced-based practice in a 2011 review of home visiting programs
(homvee.acf.hhs.gov/homvee_executive_summary.pdf; NFP, HFA, HIPPY, Family Check-In; PAT; EHS; and
Healthy Steps), two that have other research evidence (Project Safe-Care and Triple P), and one that was part of
109
the National Forum on Home Visiting (PCHP).
By the end of this decade, home visiting had been documented through numerous sources as a prevalent strategy
for providing services to families in their own homes. According to the National Inventory conducted by the PEW
Center on U.S. states for the FY 2009–2010, 46 states and the District of Columbia are providing home visiting
services, 33 of which have more than one established program. Several national models have continued to expand
their efforts, and numerous other state and local programs are serving children and their families.
Nevertheless, only 15% of families who could benefit by home visiting services for families and young children are
receiving them. Such data lead to renewed interest in reaching more families through home visits. Home visits are
especially important for children from Latino families because these children are less likely to attend center-based
care and thus are less likely to have early interventions that can facilitate school success. Concerns continue about
the early physical, social, and cognitive development of children reared in poverty. These children enter school
behind their peers and rarely catch up. Data across the years on the potential for home visiting to improve
maternal outcomes related to children’s development, improve
Data suggest that home visiting improves childhood development through parental activities.
parenting skills, and enhance children’s health and school readiness have led to increased calls for family services
for pregnant women and families with a child between the ages of birth and 5 years. Although the research
findings remain mixed across the field as a whole, with some outcomes having moderate to strong effects, but
others not showing effects (homvee.acf.hhs. gov), sufficient support exists to continue to refine these services for
families and children.
Future Directions: 2010–2020

The decade from 2010 to 2020 may see the largest expansion of home visiting interest and programs since the
1960s and 1970s, along with the largest infusion of federal funding. This decade opened with one of the most
significant events in the history of home visiting, the signing by President Barack Obama in 2010 of the Patient
Protection and Affordable Care Act that included among its provisions $1.5 billion in funding over 5 years for
high-quality, evidence-based, voluntary early childhood home visiting services. Benchmarks of success will include
improvement in maternal and child health, childhood injury prevention, school readiness and achievement,
reduction in crime or domestic violence, family economic self-sufficiency, and coordination with community
resources and support. The rationale for this legislation was developed during the mid-2000s, culminating in this
historic funding effort. Fortunately for early childhood education and home visiting, this act has specified many
procedures consistent with the best guidelines available for promoting program quality and fidelity and measuring
outcomes. For home visiting to advance beyond its current status, the infusion of financial resources should be
accompanied by continuing research that advances our knowledge about what child and parent outcomes are most
110
likely to come about through home visiting, as well as examining in depth the potential processes and procedures
that can lead to positive outcomes.
The role of the states will become much more critical to program quality, as the states are given the responsibility
to use evidenced-based programs or those that have promise, select organizations that are able to effectively
implement programs, and ensure that ongoing program evaluation occurs. In recognition of the important role of
state leaders and policy makers in ensuring program quality, a national summit on quality in home visiting
programs was held in 2011, the first such national conference on home visiting in the United States. State and
national leaders, policy makers, researchers, and practitioners came together to examine in depth the factors that
need to be addressed to ensure home visiting services are provided appropriately and with high quality. Issues of
staffing, program selection, training and supervision of home visitors, data monitoring, and outcome assessments
were among the issues addressed. In the following section, issues essential to a discussion of quality in home
visiting are identified.
111
112
Alternate View
The Quality in Home Visiting

Figure 4–1 provides a framework for addressing program quality, identifying key components of home visiting
programs that must be taken into account when seeking to ensure program quality under the Patient Protection
and Affordable Care Act, which calls for states to be essential players (Wasik, 2011). Considerations for program
quality are presented in a nested format to illustrate the components that each state must meet to ensure quality
standards for the programs in their state.
For each of the program components identified in Figure 4–1, program quality can be examined under three
categories: program characteristics, progress monitoring, and outcomes. Table 4–2 provides details on the program
components and the categories of quality. As an example, each local organization must have the
Figure 4–1 Components of Home Visiting

Services That States Must Address
capacity to implement the program and have a vision about family services consistent with that of the home
visiting model or services being implemented. This organization must be actively involved in ensuring that the
intervention is implemented as designed. To do so, the organization must make certain that participants are
actively recruited and that the standards for participation are met. The organization must identify the necessary
training and supervision required for its staff to implement the program with fidelity.
Another consideration of special importance to program quality is whether the intervention services are provided
with fidelity to the intervention structure and processes. First, fidelity to structure is evaluated by assessing
whether services are provided at the frequency, duration, and intensity described as essential for significant
outcomes. Without monitoring these variables, we cannot know if they are being implemented as designed.
Considerable data in the field show that services often are not provided as frequently as intended, making
conclusions difficult to draw. Second, process fidelity must be evaluated by including the following: (a) how well
the services in the home match the intervention (i.e., materials, strategies,
113
Table 4–2 Home Visiting Components Relevant
for Quality and Fidelity
Alternate View
focus on goals and objectives), and (b) quality of the helping skills and relationships (visitor–family relationships
and interactions). Data on program fidelity related to structure are often provided by the home visitors who report
on the frequency of home visits and their duration. Information on process fidelity has not been frequently
obtained. In some situations, supervisors have observed visitors while conducting a home visit. Rarely have records
of the home visit been made that can be evaluated later, such as audio or visual recordings. Without specific
information on what takes place during the home visit, we cannot draw conclusions about whether the services
were implemented as designed. Furthermore, we might conclude that services were not effective when, in fact, the
designed services might not have been provided. Research findings and discussions held in settings such as the
National Forum on Home Visiting revealed that the field has not been highly active in obtaining data that
document the procedures and strategies in use during home visits. As the field moves forward with renewed
interest and funding, it must also raise the standard for quality, fidelity, and outcomes because the needs of
families and children can best be served when the organizations providing services maintain standards of
excellence.
Conclusions and Recommendations

Two major strategies are available for reaching children: providing services either directly through programs such
as child care or indirectly through their parents. Although parent groups are used as a service delivery option,
home visiting is the most prevalent strategy for reaching parents. For more than a century, home visiting and early
childhood education have been inextricably related, from their early beginnings to the current unprecedented
interest level. The most frequent goals for early home visiting include (a) improving maternal and child health; (b)
enhancing children’s early language and literacy; (c) facilitating children’s social and emotional development; and
(d) both preventing and reducing the prevalence of abuse and neglect. Each of these focus areas has been
demonstrated over time to be related to children’s early educational outcomes, and in that sense almost all the
114
home visiting efforts in the country can be seen as contributing to children’s early education. Most programs are
aimed at children at risk for poor developmental outcomes and thus reach out to the most vulnerable children and
families in our country, helping to provide these children and their parents with knowledge and skills important
for the child’s educational success. Although the research outcomes on home visiting have been mixed regarding
the influence on children’s educational outcomes, the present strong emphasis on evidence-based programs and on
stronger child and parent outcomes, combined with the maturity in the field regarding program quality and
fidelity, should bode well not only for high-quality programs but also for strong positive outcomes regarding
children’s early educational outcomes.
To realize the potential of home visiting in educational settings, administrators and teachers can take more active
roles in using this strategy to link home and school. One of the most obvious and easiest times to reach out to
families is at school entrance, most often for kindergarten. This period has the advantage of coinciding with an
important milestone for children and is recognized as such by parents. Helping parents feel appreciated and
welcome can help ensure that children feel comfortable and welcomed at school. Home visits by teachers in the
summer before school entrance can help bridge the gap between home and school and create a positive beginning
for school.
Staff can coordinate activities that can make the transition to school much easier for children (Pianta, Cox, Taylor,
& Early, 1999) and provide parents with information on ways to facilitate the transition. Teachers can arrange to
visit parents in the spring and summer before kindergarten entrance to strengthen communication with the family
and to encourage parents in ways of promoting language and literacy skills. By visiting the family at home, the
staff conveys respect for the family and lets family members know they are valued by the school. These visits can
help in breaking down barriers between parents and schools and assist parents in learning about school
expectations. The visits also provide the school with information pertinent to fostering children’s education.
Schools, however, do not need to wait until kindergarten entrance. Many programs, as seen in this chapter, serve
children in the preschool years. As a result, schools can coordinate with programs such as Early Head Start and
Head Start as well as other programs noted in this chapter, including PAT or HIPPY, to begin to establish strong
relationships with parents. The school might designate a particular staff person who will make home visits and
give this person opportunities to gain skills in providing home visiting services (such as learning about family
values and traditions, and ways of establishing positive relationships; see Wasik, Berry, and Villagomez, 2011, for
guidelines and tools related to school-based home visiting services). Resources are available for helping schools
begin to set up home visiting programs. One national resource is the Teacher Home Visiting Program
(www.teacherhomevisit.org/index.html), but schools often have their own professionals who can provide guidance
in developing a systematic home visiting program for reaching out to families and young children. School
personnel, including school social workers, school psychologists, and school counselors, are important sources of
knowledge and skills related to working with families and can help guide the development of a systematic home
visiting program. For too long schools have not taken the initiative in reaching out to families, but the benefits of
reaching out via home visiting are compelling and can create a synergy between the school and home, resulting in
positive benefits for children’s academic performance.
Reflect On
1. What are the early roots of home visiting programs?
2. How have home visiting programs evolved over the last 50 years in the United States?
3. Is there research evidence to suggest that home visiting programs are effective in advancing the social and
cognitive development of young children?
4. What are some new benchmarks to successful home visiting programs?
5. What components are relevant for determining quality and fidelity in home visiting programs?
115
References
1. Boller, K., Rodriguez, E., Vogel, C., Chazan-Cohen, R., Raikes, H., & Love, J. (2012). Focus on children
under age three: Family literacy in early head start. In B. H. Wasik (Ed.), Handbook of family literacy (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
2. Bradley, R. H., & Gilkey, B. (2002). The impact of the Home Instructional Program for Preschool
Youngsters (HIPPY) on school performance in 3rd and 6th grades. Early Education and Development, 13
(3), 302–311.
3. Caldera, D., Burrell, L., Rodriguez, K., Crowne, S. S., Rohde, C., & Duggan, A. (2007). Impact of a
statewide home visiting program on parenting and on child health and development. Child Abuse and
Neglect, 31, 829–852.
4. Campbell, F. A., Wasik, B. H., Pungello, E., Burchinal, M., Barbarin, O., Kainz K., … Ramey, C. T.
(2008). Young adult outcomes of the Abecedarian and CARE early childhood educational interventions.
5. Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-247. Retrieved from http://
www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/laws_policies/cblaws/capta/
6. Dishion, T. J., Connell, A., Weaver, C., Shaw, D., Gardner, F., & Wilson, M. (2008). The family check-up
with high-risk indigent families: Preventing problem behavior by increasing parents’ positive behavior
support in early childhood. Child Development, 79, 1395–1414.
7. Dishion, T. J., & Kavanagh, K. (2003). Intervening in adolescent problem behavior: A family-centered
approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
8. Drotar, D., Robinson, J., Jearsons, L., & Kirchner, H. L. (2008). A randomized, controlled evaluation of
early intervention: The Born to Learn curriculum. Child: Care, Health and Development, 35 (5), 643–649.
9. Gershater-Molko, R. M., Lutzker, J. R., & Wesch, D. (2003). Project SafeCare: Improving health, safety,
and parenting skills in families reported for, and at-risk for child maltreatment. Journal of Family Violence,
18, 377–386.
10. Gomby, D. S., Culross, P. L., & Behrman, R. E. (1999). Home visiting: Recent program evaluations:
Analysis and recommendations. Future of Children: Home Visiting, 9, 4–26.
11. Gomby, D. S., Larson, C. S., Lewit, E. M., & Behrman, R. E. (1993). Home visiting: Analysis and
recommendations. Future of Children: Home Visiting, 3, 6–22.
12. Gordon, I. J. (1970). Parent involvement in compensatory education. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
13. Gray, S. (1971). Home visiting programs for parents of young children. Peabody Journal of Education, 48,
106–111.
14. Growing Birth to Three Tools. Retrieved from http://www.portageproject.org/material.htm
15. Infant Health and Development Program. (1990). Enhancing the outcomes of low-birth-weight, premature
infants: A multi-site, randomized trial. JAMA, 263, 3035–3042.
16. Jesien, D. (1984). Home-based early intervention: A description of the Portage Project. In D. Scrutton
(Ed.), Management of the motor disorders of children with cerebral palsy (pp. 36–48). London, England:
Spastics International Medical Publications.
116
17. Levenstein, P., Levenstein, S., & Oliver, D. (2002). First grade school readiness of former child participants
in a South Carolina replication of the Parent–Child Home Program. Applied Developmental Psychology, 23,
331–353.
18. Levenstein, P., Levenstein, S., Shiminski, J. A., & Stolzberg, J. E. (1998). Long-term impact of a verbal
interaction program for at-risk toddlers: An exploratory study of high school outcomes in a replication of
the Mother-Child Home Program. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19, 267–285.
19. Lunkenheimer, E. S., Dishion, T. J., Shaw, D. S., Connell, A. M., Gardner, F., Wilson, M. N., & Skuban,
E. M. (2008). Collateral benefits of the family check-up on early childhood school readiness: Indirect effects
of parents’ positive behavior support. Developmental Psychopathology, 44, 1737–1752.
20. Lutzker, J. R. (2009). Program overview: Project SafeCare. Retrieved from

http://www.cevresearch.org/docs/SafeCare.pdf
21. Olds, D. L., Kitzman, H., Cole, R., Robinson, J., Sidora, K., Luckey, D. W., … Holmberg, J. (2004).
Effects of nurse home-visiting on maternal life course and child development: Age 6 follow-up results of a
randomized trial. Pediatrics, 114 (6), 1550–1559.
22. Olds, D. L., Kitzman, H., Hanks, C., Cole, R., Anson, E., Sidora-Arcoleo, K…. Bondy, J. (2007). Effects
of nurse home visiting on maternal and child functioning: Age-9 follow-up of a randomized trial. Pediatrics,
120, 832–845.
23. Pianta, R. C., Cox, M. J., Taylor, L., & Early, D. (1999). Kindergarten teachers’ practices related to the
transition to school: Results of a national survey. The Elementary School Journal, 100, 71–86.
24. Parents as Teachers National Center. (2007). The Parents as Teachers program: Its impact on school
readiness and later school achievement: A research summary. Retrieved May 23, 2011, from http://
www.parentsasteachers.org/results
25. Portage Classroom Curriculum. Retrieved from http://www.portageproject.org/material.htm
26. Portage Guide to Early Education. Retrieved from http://www.portageproject.org/material.htm
27. Prinz, R. J., Sanders, M. R., Shapiro, C. J., Whitaker, D. J., & Lutzker, J. R. (2009). Population-based
prevention of child maltreatment: The U.S. Triple P system population trial. Prevention Science, 10, 1–12.
28. Sale, L., Weil, G., & Kryah, R. (2011). Teacher Home Visit Program: 2009–2010 evaluation report. St.
Louis, MO: University of Missouri–St. Louis. Retrieved May 23, 2011, from http://
www.teacherhomevisit.org/documents/THVP-Final-Report-Jan-2011.pdf
29. Sanders, M. R. (2008). Triple P—Positive parenting program as a public health approach to strengthening
parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 22, 506–517.
30. Sanders, M. R., Ralph, A., Sofronoff, K., Gardiner, P., Thompson, R., Dwyer, S., & Bidwell, K. (2008).
Every family: A population approach to reducing behavioral and emotional problems in children making the
transition to school. Journal of Primary Prevention, 3, 197–222.
31. Shearer, D., & Shearer, M. (1972). The Portage Project: A model for early childhood education. Exceptional
Children, 39, 210–217.
32. Shearer, D., & Shearer, M. (2009). The Portage model: An international home approach to early
intervention for young children and their families. In J. L. Roopnarine & J. E. Johnson (Eds.), Approaches to
early childhood education (5th ed., pp. 68–94). Columbus, OH: Pearson.
33. Shaw, D. S., Connell, A., Dishion, T. J., Wilson, M. N., & Garner, F. (2009). Improvements in maternal
117
depression as a mediator of intervention effects on early childhood problem behavior. Developmental
Psychopathology, 21, 417–439.
34. Schweinhart, L. J. (2003). Benefits, costs, and explanation of the High/Scope Perry Preschool program. Ypsilanti,
MI: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.highscope.org
35. Turner, K. M. T., Richards, M., & Sanders, M. R. (2007). A randomized clinical trial of a group parenting
education programme for Australian indigenous families. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 43, 243–
251. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1754,2007.01053x
36. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2004). Making a difference in the lives of infants and
toddlers and their families: The impacts of Early Head Start: Volume 1: Final Technical Report. Retrieved from
http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/PDFs/ehsfinalvol1.pdf
37. U.S. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, H.R. 3590, 111 Cong. (March 2010). Retrieved
from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ148/html/PLAW-111publ148.htm
38. Wasik, B. H., Ramey, C. T., Bryant, D. M., & Sparling, J. J. (1990). A longitudinal study of two early
intervention strategies: Project CARE. Child Development, 61 (6), 1682–1696.
39. Wasik, B. H. (2011). A multifaceted approach to program quality. Presented at the National Summit on
Quality in Home Visiting Conference. Washington, D.C.
40. Wasik, B. H., Berry, S., & Villagomez, A. (2011). Home visiting: Essential guidelines for home visits and
engaging with families. In C. Franklin, M. B. Harris, & P. Allen-Meares (Eds.), School social work and
mental health workers training and resource manual (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
41. Zigler, E., & Valentine, J. (1979). Project Head Start. New York, NY: Macmillan.
118
Part II Core Themes
1. CHAPTER 5 Including Everyone: A Model Preschool Program for Children With and Without Disabilities
2. CHAPTER 6 More Than the Sum of Its Parts: Creating Multicultural and Linguistically Responsive Early
Childhood Classrooms
3. CHAPTER 7 Early Prevention Initiatives
4. CHAPTER 8 Assessment for Learning in the Early Childhood Classroom
119
Chapter 5 Including Everyone: A Model Preschool
Program for Children With and Without Disabilities
David Smukler
State University of New York College at Cortland
Ellen Barnes
Jowonio School, Syracuse, New York
Outline Jowonio’s history
Describe the philosophical base of the Jowonio School
Explain how to respond to challenging behavior
Discuss the composition of the school and its classes
Delineate strategies for accomplishing inclusion
Explore the process of transitioning to the next environment
Examine implications for teacher training
Review additional inclusion efforts
This chapter describes Jowonio School in Syracuse, New York, one of the earliest programs for young children to
include students with disabilities (Knoblock & Lehr, 1985 ). The name Jowonio is borrowed from an Onondaga
Indian word that means “to set free.” We offer this program description as an excellent example of one strong,
inclusive early childhood education setting, but it should not be regarded as the only possible model. Rather, local
needs and opportunities should be addressed to design high-quality, inclusive preschool programs that will
successfully meet the needs of any given community.
Federal and state regulations and research also support the education of children with disabilities in the least
restrictive environment with their nondisabled peers. For over 40 years, Jowonio School in Syracuse, New York,
has served as a program for a wide range of children, including those with differing physical, social,
communication, and cognitive needs. The curriculum developed as an integration of developmentally appropriate
practice for special education and early childhood. Special education as a field developed in public schools in the
early part of the 20th century (Osgood, 2007). In the past half century, as a result of both growing scientific
knowledge about children and social changes in American society, there has been increased interest in early
education (child care, preschool, and so on) that addresses the needs of diverse learners (Ramsey, 2006; Ray,
Bowman, & Robbins, 2006). Notably, the 1960s saw a rebirth of scientific interest in the rapid cognitive,
language, emotional, and physical development that is typical of the early childhood (preschool) years (e.g., R.
Brown, 1973; Hunt, 1961; Piaget, 1963). Women were challenging traditional roles and entering the job market
in increasing numbers, government social programs were being developed, and many social issues and customs
(civil rights, sexual mores, war) were being debated. Parents of children with disabilities, unable to get services,
organized (e.g., Association for Retarded Children, United Cerebral Palsy) and started preschool programs. They
also advocated for the development of federal and state funding for these programs. An early intervention focus on
children with disabilities was developed at the federal level as well. Head Start emerged from the Equal
Opportunity Act of 1964 (Pub L. 88-452), and amendments in 1972 (Pub. L. 94-424) required the inclusion of
120
disabled children) in Head Start programs. The Handicapped Children’s Early Education Assistance Act of 1968
(Pub. L. 90-538) established the principle that children with disabilities should be provided education from birth.
The Americans with Disabilities Act (Pub. L. 101-336), which became effective in 1992, strengthened this
principle under its Public Accommodations Section (Title III), which states that day care centers may not
discriminate on the basis of disability. Physical barriers to accessibility must be removed if readily achievable and,
if not, alternative methods of providing service must be offered. Any new construction should be accessible to
persons with disabilities.
The most important education act was the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (Pub. L. 94-
142), which set the standards for all of America’s public schools for the education of children with disabilities
from 3 to 21 years of age. This law included foundational ideas regarding the education of students with
disabilities. The key ideas embedded in Pub. L. 94-142 were as follows:
1. All children should go to school.
2. Children with disabilities should have an education appropriate to their individualized needs (an Individual
Education Plan [IEP]).
3. This education should be based on fair assessment of the child.
4. Children with disabilities should be educated with nondisabled children to the fullest extent possible (the
“least restrictive environment”).
5. Parents should have an opportunity to be actively involved in meaningful ways in their child’s education,
including procedural due process appeals (see Turnbull & Turnbull, 1982).
In 1990, a new bill (Pub. L. 101-476) renamed the law: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This
act extended these key ideas to children from birth to 3 years of age, with special emphasis on the family unit as an
important part of any early intervention program (see Bailey, McWilliams, Buysse, & Wesley, 1998; Gallagher,
Trohanis, & Clifford, 1989). IDEA was reauthorized by Congress in 1997 (Pub. L. 105-17) and again in 2004
(Pub. L. 108-446) as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. The IDEA amendments place
a strong emphasis on parent involvement in the initial evaluation process, in eligibility and placement decisions,
and in the development and revision of the IEP. IDEA has a focus on ensuring that services be offered in natural
environments. Part C encourages the provision of early intervention services for children under 3 years of age at
risk for substantive developmental delay. In addition, there is incentive to establish collaborative efforts with
community agencies in order to identify, evaluate, and serve infants and toddlers and to create a smooth transition
to preschool services.
Language related to IDEA’s requirement that students be placed in the least restrictive environment has changed
over the years. Initially, mainstreaming referred to the placement of students with disabilities into regular
classrooms, often without supports and often on a part-time basis. Integration has meant that children are
temporally, socially, and instructionally integrated for a meaningful amount of time, but the assumption is still
made that the mainstreamed environment is designed for typical students and students with disabilities must fit
in. An inclusive school is structured to serve a wide range of students; the environment is flexible and organized to
meet the unique needs of all the students. In an inclusive school everyone belongs, is accepted, supports, and is
supported by all members of the community while having individual educational needs met (Biklen, 1992; Ferri,
2011; Sapon-Shevin, 2000/2001; Stain-back & Stainback, 1990). The Council for Exceptional Children,
Division of Early Childhood Education’s (DEC, 1996) position statement explicitly “supports the rights of all
children, regardless of their diverse abilities, to participate actively in natural settings within their communities”
and “that young children and their families have full successful access to health, social, educational, and other
support services that promote full participation in family and community life.” This full inclusion is the vision of
the future that is held by the people at the Jowonio School and modeled by their practice. Finally, inclusive
education models today frequently use the construct of universal design for learning (UDL). Universal design is a
set of architectural principles related to the access of structures to the largest number of people possible. Applying
121
similar principles to education, many inclusive educators have adopted UDL as a framework for their practice
(Rose & Meyer, 2002).
Although it has been an important step for promoting greater participation by students with disabilities, the
notion of the least restrictive environment that is articulated in the IDEA is problematic to the inclusive educator,
because the words least restrictive imply a continuum of services that also includes more restrictive options
(Nisbet, 2004; Taylor, 1988). Table 5–1 illustrates a range of program models with regard to contact between
children with and without disabilities. Such settings are all commonly employed to serve children with disabilities.
However, it should be noted that educators with an inclusive perspective are critical of most of these models and
do not assume that a student who needs more extensive support ought to have less contact with nondisabled peers.
An inclusive education approach resists the notion that inclusion is just another program option on one end of a
continuum of service that is calibrated to serve children with ever-increasing support needs. Indeed, students with
significant disabilities very much like those routinely placed in residential schools (the “most restrictive” setting in
Table 5–1) are often placed at Jowonio, where they are included in the same classroom groups as nondisabled
children and are viewed as full members of the group with much to contribute.
With the exception of “reverse mainstreaming,” all of the programming options presented in Table 5–1 are also
employed once children are of school age. Some students with disabilities are full members of an inclusive
education environment. Others may be placed in a general education room with consultant services or may have a
special education classroom as their home base, but be “mainstreamed” into general education settings for some
part of their school day. Such students may also be placed full time in self-contained special education classrooms
(housed either in a public school or special setting), provided with home-bound instruction, or sent to a residential
facility. There is considerable variation in how the term inclusion is applied, and it is often used to
Table 5–1 Programs for Children with

Disabilities
Setting Characteristics/Assumptions
No significant contact with nondisabled peers

Residential school
Complete institutional control of daily life
Teachers and/or therapists visit the child at home and

Home-based implement interventions there
Parent “training” or support for a common component
Use of the community as a resource

Itinerant services outside the
home Some contact with nondisabled peers possible in community
settings
An early childhood classroom designed to serve children with

Early childhood special disabilities exclusively
education
Needs and services “clustered” for efficient provision of
services
122
An early childhood special education program that includes a
handful of nondisabled peers
“Reverse mainstreaming”
Incentives (e.g., free tuition) may be offered to attract
nondisabled students
Children with disabilities “visit” an early childhood education

Mixed day (part time in special
setting for a substantial part of the day, but also have a
education setting and part time
“home” classroom designed solely for children with
in early childhood setting)
disabilities
Similar to the early childhood setting with consultant services,

except that the classroom is designed from the start as an
Early childhood setting with environment that can respond to the needs of all students
consultant services
Service providers, such as special educators and therapists, are
integrated into the team of professionals who plan for all
students
describe settings that do not meet our criteria for inclusive education, both at the early childhood and school-age
level. Sometimes the term inclusion is distinguished from full inclusion. In our vision of inclusive education, the
term least restrictive environment would be replaced by least intrusive supports. We would assume that free public
education is provided to all students at their neighborhood schools. Rather than a continuum of environments,
from least restrictive to most restrictive, there should be a continuum of the supports, from least to greatest
intensity, that are necessary to include the student successfully.
Jowonio’s History
Created in 1969 by a group of parents in Syracuse, New York, as an alternative to the public schools, the Jowonio
School reflected the humanistic free-school movement of the 1960s. It was run as a community program in which
decisions were made cooperatively and it emphasized an individualized curriculum for the whole child, including
emotional and social development as well as academic achievement. Because of these values, focus, and structure,
Jowonio always attracted children with diverse needs. In 1975, Jowonio cooperated with community agencies
serving individuals with disabilities as well as the local university to develop a proposal to create a planned and
well-staffed program that integrated children with various disabilities. That fall at Jowonio School, one third of the
students were classified as students with disabilities, including several with the label of autism, a syndrome in
which language and social skills are frequently quite delayed or different (Kluth, 2010). Since that time, the school
has functioned as an inclusive program; students ages 2 to 5 are served in classrooms populated with students with
and without identified disabilities (see Knoblock, 1982; Knoblock & Lehr, 1985). A number of powerful yet
simple beliefs have guided the Jowonio program since its inception, and these are described next.
Philosophical Base of the Jowonio School

All Children Can Learn
We approach the wide range of students we serve with the expectation that they can grow and change and that the
impetus to do so is inherent in human nature. Children whom many might call developmentally delayed have
enormous potential if adults can help them find ways to express what they know and participate in their
123
environment effectively. We are finding, for instance, that a number of preschool children who do not speak can
nevertheless demonstrate age-appropriate academic skills with help from adults.
Right to Participate
Just as one civil rights movement gave voice to racially and ethnically diverse Americans who insisted that they
have an equal right to access and participation in American life, so there is a similar civil right for persons with
disabilities. The segregated system of special education services arose out of a well-intentioned but misguided
medical model as well as out of discomfort with and prejudice against people perceived as different. In a
democracy, not only should all citizens have access to the mainstream culture, but there is also a dire need to
broaden the conversation about how a child’s characteristics such as race, class, and differing physical or
psychological traits intersect with the characteristics of teachers and other professionals in different environments
(see Kalyanpur & Harry, 1999; Ramsey, 2006; Ray et al., 2006; Chapter 6).
We also do not subscribe to the myth of “readiness,” which holds that children should be included in the
mainstream only when they are ready to be like their typical peers (see Ladd, Herald, & Andrews, 2006). That
belief assumes that the children must change to fit the program. Our assumption is the opposite; the program
should adapt to meet the needs of the children. Any child can be successfully included when school personnel
exhibit a willing attitude and children and adults receive appropriate supports. Including everyone not only
benefits students with disabilities; the nondisabled students and teachers grow from their contact and interaction
as well (Odom & Diamond, 1998).
Learning Through Relationships

We become open to learning when we are in trusting situations with others. We are more likely to put ourselves in
new situations and respond to requests or demands of others when we feel safe and cared about (Collins,
Maccoby, Steinberg, Hetehrington, & Bornstein, 2000; Denham, 2006). The position statement of the National
Association for the Education of Young Children regarding developmentally appropriate practice (Copple &
Bredekamp, 2009) begins with the principle that “all the domains of [children’s] development and learning—
physical, social and emotional, and cognitive—are important and they are closely interrelated” (p. 11). Greenspan
and Wieder (1998) also describe emotions as the basis of learning; this informs their intervention approach aimed
at children with developmental disabilities, which they call “floortime.” During a playful period, an adult focuses
on four goals: to encourage joint attention and connection; to participate as a partner in a circle of two-way
communication; to express feelings and ideas through words and play; and to link ideas together into a logical
understanding of the world (e.g., classification, cause and effect). Floortime is based on the assumption that
children are first motivated to engage and learn through relationships in which significant adults interact and
follow a child’s interests.
Children learn as much from other children as they do from teachers (Guralnick, Connor, Hammond, Gottman,
& Kinnish, 1996). They model how their peers move through routines, how they follow directions, and how they
interact with one another. Often a child who has receptive language problems and does not understand the
teacher’s verbal instructions imitates other children to know what to do. Developing language and appropriate
social skills requires both models and practice (Cavallaro & Haney, 1999; Grisham-Brown, Hemmeter, & Pretti-
Frontczak, 2005; Guralnick, 1980; Jenkins, Odom, & Speltz, 1989). When children with disabilities, particularly
children with intense speech and language needs, are in segregated programs, how can they learn to talk and
interact if their peers all have similar needs? Learning skills within the typical environment rather than in isolated
artificial situations means that children will be more likely to demonstrate these skills in the home, school, or
community. That is, they will be more likely to generalize. A developmentally appropriate inclusive early
childhood classroom offers many opportunities for play and communication with a wide range of peers (Copple &
Bredekamp, 2009).
124
At Jowonio, the emphasis is on cooperative rather than competitive activities (Johnson & Johnson, 1999;
Johnson, Johnson, & Holubec, 1990; Sapon-Shevin, 1999, 2007). Nondisabled children need to have their
questions about their peers answered and to have caring behavior modeled by adults. Teachers should explore the
ways in which bias about disabilities affects their language and behavior and the classroom. Integrating
nonstereotyped images of disabled and nondisabled persons in the curriculum and structuring activities for
children to explore individual differences will facilitate an inclusive atmosphere (Barnes, Berrigan, & Biklen, 1978;
Froschl, Colon, Rubin, & Sprung, 1984; Lieber et al., 1998).
Age-Appropriate Curriculum
Jowonio staff use the guidelines from the National Association for the Education of Young Children on
Developmentally Appropriate Practice (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). Classrooms offer many opportunities for
children to manipulate a wide variety of materials; to play alone and with others in sensory, constructive, and
symbolic activities; to ask questions and develop concepts about themselves and the world; to be physically active;
and to express themselves in words, art, and music. A stimulating early childhood environment is designed so that
any student can succeed in it. This may require adaptations in terms of the physical environment, expectations of
level of participation and amount of teacher support, size and nature of groupings during the day, schedule, and
the presentation of the activities and materials used.
Communication-Based Classrooms
Just as social relationships are the basis for learning, communication is central to the establishment and
maintenance of those relationships, to children’s receptive understanding of the world around them, and to their
ability to express that understanding to others and to have their needs and wants met. Speech, language, and
behavior are all communicative and our efforts with children must be geared toward enhancing their power to
influence their environment through verbal or nonverbal communication. We also believe that for young children,
language is learned primarily through play (see Johnson, Christe, & Wardle, 2005; Musselwhite, 1986; Pellegrini,
2009, 2011; Westby, 1980). Obviously, having peers with strong play and communication skills as stimuli and
models is very important, as is the opportunity to learn and practice language in natural contexts.
Communication occurs all day long. Even a person with no reliable speech is constantly communicating if another
individual is present. However, what one person intends and another understands may be different. As teachers,
we must learn to read a child’s behavior for its communicative intent and then learn to help a child develop
appropriate ways to express those intents. The same behavior may have different meanings in different contexts,
and different behaviors may have the same meaning (Donnellan, Mirenda, Mesaros, & Fassbender, 1984).
Children will communicate more effectively if they are provided opportunities to make real choices in their
environment. We have used a number of alternative or augmentative systems for children to express themselves.
These may include symbol systems, signing, and typing that occur with adult facilitation.
Parent–Teacher Partnership
Despite an emphasis in IDEA on the importance of parents to the special education process, parents are too often
viewed by teachers as irrelevant to the decision-making process of education or, at worst, as adversaries. At
Jowonio, we view parents as partners in our efforts to create the best program for children. Teachers and parents
share their respective types of expertise and each brings an important perspective to a dialogue about children. As
teachers, we have access to information about available services, rights, procedures, and support networks for
parents. We offer a view of a particular child from our experiences with a range of children and from seeing that
child in the school setting. We are in a position to coordinate programming between home, school, and related
service personnel and to communicate to other professionals about a child (e.g., when the child makes the
transition to public school from preschool). Parents bring to the parent–teacher dialogue essential information
125
about a child: historical developmental information; an intimate understanding of a child’s daily behaviors, needs,
and emerging skills; and, often, a repertoire of successful interventions. Parents will be the child’s lifelong
advocates, and their understanding of the child is critical in effective long-term programming (Bailey et al., 1998;
Biklen, 1992; Kluth, Biklen, English-Sand, & Smukler, 2007).
Teachers have four major roles in relation to parents:
1. Facilitate a child’s growth through parent contact
2. Support and empower parents in their parenting role
3. Provide resources
4. Facilitate the transition of parents and children to their next environment
Facilitating a child’s growth through parent contact means listening to parent input and wishes and incorporating
these into IEP goals that reflect the child’s participation not only in school but also at home and in the
community.
Teachers must establish ongoing communication with families so that expectations of the child at home and at
school are known and coordinated and so that parents are aware of how their child is doing and progressing at
school. At Jowonio, this communication can occur in many ways, depending on individual families’ preferences
and resources. Parents may observe in the classroom and communicate directly with other team members through
conferences, home visits, telephone calls, email, daily or intermittent exchange in a home–school notebook, and
classroom social events (e.g., potluck suppers, awards ceremonies, grandparents’ teas, birthdays). Teachers can
reinforce parents’ sense of competence by listening and acknowledging them for their effective strategies, by
focusing on the child’s progress, and by helping them enjoy their child in the present.
Building positive and trusting relationships with parents begins with respecting their love and hopes for their
child, soliciting and listening to their ideas and concerns, and sharing one’s own questions. It also requires an
understanding of what parents can realistically do, given all the demands on their time and energy. For example, a
single parent of several children may not be able to follow through with a toileting program if money, meals, and
laundry have top priority.
Providing resources begins with developing an understanding of family strengths and needs and natural ways to
help them meet their needs (Bailey et al., 1998; Dunst, Trivette, & Deal, 1988; Migyanka, 2011). This may
include information (e.g., literature or workshops on legal rights, autism, toilet training), problem solving to access
their own networks, and, if necessary, referrals to agencies and support groups (e.g., financial aid programs, respite
care, counseling, parent or sibling support groups).
The staff members of Jowonio’s community-based program (Educational Network and Resources for Inclusion in
Community and Home, or ENRICH) provide special education and therapy services to children ages birth to 5
years identified as having disabilities. After a comprehensive evaluation, youngsters receive services provided by
itinerant teachers and therapists in their home or in nursery, day care, or home child care settings. The
opportunity for intensive contact with a parent as well as a child means that families can receive emotional and
instrumental support along with models of effective teaching strategies. In these early months after a child is first
identified as needing extra support, the contact between therapists, teachers, and parents allows many
opportunities to learn about the nature and implications of the child’s developmental and unique needs and to try
out strategies to support the child’s growth. The transdisciplinary team approach (including the parent) is
invaluable in providing a variety of perspectives on the child’s needs. Collaborating with community day care and
nursery programs not only supports individual students with special needs, but also enhances the clinical
programming for all the children in these settings. The special education staff learn to address the functional skills
that youngsters need to be successful in natural environments.
The transition to the next environment occurs more easily when a teacher can give parents information and a
126
perspective on the process (e.g., school options, IEP procedures). Staff can help parents to express what they want
and to work with the new school to create it, establish lines of communication between parents and the new
school, and relate positive specific information about the child to the new teacher (we send a portfolio on to the
new school). Pre-schools are often the first place where parents have trusted others to be so important in their
child’s life; it can be hard to move on to what seems to be a bigger, more impersonal, and less supportive setting.
Teachers can help this transition by fostering positive relationships with the new school.
Teaming Skills
Quality teaching is enhanced by working within a team—we all can benefit from the ideas of others and models of
different ways of performing tasks (Bailey, 1996; Thousand & Villa, 1990). Good teaching is never a script; it
takes an experimental attitude and the openness to try new procedures. Our program is set up with teachers
working in teams of three or four fulltime staff and involves additional part-time and resource staff, including
language, occupational, and physical therapists. We allocate specific time each week for teachers to plan together,
to have clinical conferences on children, to participate in staff development activities, and to work on their roles
and relationships with one another. Most people working with young children have not been taught teaming
skills; this is often the most complex part of the job in our program because of the large number of adults with
whom we have contact. As we learn to problem solve about programming for children, we can also do so about
one another. We have built in a system of peer and administrative supports for all our teachers.
The conscious emphasis on how we are working together pays off in the quality of the programming for children
as well as in the job satisfaction of our staff. In addition, we look at adults developmentally, as we look at children,
and we provide incentives for all staff to grow in their professional skill.
How to Respond to Challenging Behavior

Responding to complex behaviors can be one of the most challenging aspects of a teacher’s job. In a classroom that
includes children with special social, behavioral, and communication needs, a wider variety of behaviors may
occur, many of which will require specific planned approaches. What children do is the result of an interaction
with or reaction to what is happening around them. We never look at a particular behavior as only coming from
within the child. The adults and what they are saying and doing, the space and sensory environment, the peer
group, and the nature of the materials and tasks that are presented always have an important impact on the
behavior. Once behavior is understood within its context, there are a variety of approaches to supporting the child
to get his or her needs met more effectively (Kaiser & Rasminsky, 2006). Such approaches might include a
functional analysis of behavior, preventative environmental planning, and support for particular social skill sets,
including sharing, turn taking, and problem solving. Combining approaches avoids a narrow focus that can cause
adults to miss the point of children’s behavior.
Behavior as Communication
What a child does must be looked at as an effort to communicate. To understand what the child is trying to tell us
by a particular action (communicative intent), we must understand the context. The single behavior might mean
different things in different situations; a child might scream when hurt, frustrated, excited, angry, or trying to get
an adult’s attention. Several different behaviors might have the same meaning; grabbing, smiling, yelling, or
pinching could all be efforts to avoid a task the child finds difficult (see Carr & Durand, 1985; Donnellan et al.,
1984).
Using a problem-solving process, teachers and others attempt to identify the communication content of the
behavior by analyzing the relationship between the environment and the occurrence of the behavior. What
happened before or after the behavior? What is the setting? Who is present? When did it occur? This process
127
attempts to discover functional relationships between the behavior and elements in the environment that we can
potentially change (see Dunlap, Kerr-Dunlap, Clarke, & Robbins, 1991; O’Neill, Horner, Albin, Storey, &
Sprague, 1990; Touchette, McDonald, & Langer, 1985).
If such an analysis shows a predictable pattern of behavior, teachers will be better able to intervene effectively.
Sometimes patterns are not obvious, but our assumption nevertheless is that all behavior occurs for a reason.
Intervening respectfully entails considering the emotional, physical, and sensory context of the behavior.
Interventions should be chosen that maintain everyone’s well-being, consider the child’s point of view, and
attempt to increase (rather than limit) the social and behavioral repertoire of the child whose behavior is of
concern.
Positive Programming
Planning to teach children appropriate behaviors is the most important approach for responding to challenging
behaviors (Dunlap, Johnson, & Robbins, 1990; Evans & Meyer, 1985; Kaiser & Rasminsky, 2006; Meyer &
Evans, 1989). Teaching children what you want them to do is more effective than telling them what not to do.
This might mean teaching an alternative way to communicate (e.g., “If you want my attention, tap me on the
shoulder and say my name”). Or you can teach an alternative response to a stressful situation (e.g., “If it is too
noisy for you to work, put on headphones rather than pushing me and crying”). Many times teaching appropriate
social skills or how to control emotions using role-playing can effectively reduce problem behaviors (see Goldstein
& McGinnis, 1990). The use of Social Stories™ (Gray, 1996) can also help to reduce difficult behavior by
generating insights for children with differing understandings about unstated social rules and conventions.
Reinforcing Positive Behaviors

Encouraging or acknowledging someone for doing what is appropriate is always more effective than reacting to
inappropriate behavior. This means that teachers need to create opportunities for children to exhibit positive
behaviors and then respond in a genuine and very reinforcing way when the positive behavior occurs.
Interventions Within Relationships

Implementing interventions around difficult behaviors is always more effective within the context of a positive
relationship with the child. This means teachers need to plan time each day for enjoyable positive activities,
supportive attention to the child’s emotions, and warm and consistent contact (physical and social) with the child.
If a strong relationship exists between the adult and the child, the teacher can respond to conflicts and limits in a
way that is meaningful for the child.
McGee and his colleagues (McGee, Menolascino, Hobbs, & Menousek, 1987) describe an approach to problem
behavior called “gentle teaching,” which generally reverses many notions about behavior problems. This point of
view sees a child who throws a tantrum as a child who has not developed positive relationships (“bonded”) with
others. Teachers should have unconditional positive regard toward the student. Problem behaviors are prevented
or ignored (“not valued”) and the child is redirected into other tasks that will develop mutual, positive human
relationships (“interdependence”). Because the goal is to develop human relationships, skill training or activities
are used to foster these interdependent relationships. Any procedure that might interfere with the development of
bonding (e.g., punishment) is excluded. Both the teacher and the learner should enjoy working together;
otherwise, the activity is not building positive relationships.
Using Natural Consequences
128
As much as possible, interventions should be natural so that they will generalize to the environments in which we
all function (e.g., home, school, community). If Jim dumps food on the floor, he should clean it up. In the long
term, we want the normal environment to provide the control and consequences for the problem behavior. It may
be necessary to be in the “real” environment to accomplish this, especially for children with more significant
disabilities. Waiting in line at McDonald’s can be simulated in the classroom, but there is no substitute for the real
thing.
Aversive Treatment Is Unacceptable

We exclude the use of aversive interventions, including seclusion, physical punishment, and prolonged physical
restraint, on both ethical and pragmatic grounds. For example, we may use a version of a “time-out” technique to
allow students to leave a group so that they can calm down, but we never use exclusion from the group as a
punishment. Teaching appropriate behaviors or positive programming is more effective and generalizable
(Donnellan, LaVigna, Negri-Shoultz, & Fassbender, 1988; Dunlap et al., 1990; Evans & Meyer, 1985; LaVigna
& Donnellan, 1986; McGee et al., 1987; Meyer & Evans, 1989). When using aversive methods, teachers often
lose perspective; punishment carries a variety of risks. For example, punishment creates a challenge to the trust
between teacher and student. Often, teachers unwittingly reinforce difficult behaviors through the use of
punishment. Focusing on positive experiences, building positive relationships, and not reinforcing (valuing)
problem behaviors is more effective in the long run. Research reviews and studies point out the negative
consequences of severe forms of punishment across cultural groups (Gershoff, 2002; Lynch et al., 2006; McLoyd,
Kaplan, Hardaway, & Wood, 2007).
Behavioral Interventions in an Inclusive Setting

In any classroom, teachers must balance the needs of the individuals with the needs of the group. Often people
opposed to inclusion talk about “the rights of the other students.” The reality is that in any group setting, teachers
make decisions that balance the needs of the individual with the needs of the group. All individuals must be
considered in such decisions, not just those with (or without) disability labels. If a child screams to get attention,
the appropriate strategy may be to ignore the screaming. However, the screaming may be so disruptive to the rest
of the children that the teacher may feel a need to address it directly. Talking with other adults will help a teacher
to analyze this and similar dilemmas and develop a richer repertoire of positive responses.
Problem-Solving Approach
Good teachers are those who seek as much help as necessary to respond to a problem. At Jowonio, we hold
meetings that may involve speech and language pathologists, occupational and physical therapists, other teachers,
aides, parents, psychologists, graduate students, and any other people who know the student and might have good
ideas. The diversity of the participants is important. Working with such a diverse set of creative people requires
some direction and focus; the teacher needs to have some skills to keep the group on task.
Teachers at Jowonio use a general problem-solving approach that involves as many people and their ideas as
possible. The problem to be solved may be educational, social, emotional, or behavioral. The solutions sought may
require changing the environment. The child is never the problem. A single teacher never has all the right answers.
Implementing an Individualized Education Program

Because it makes sense and because it is mandated by state and federal regulations, children with disabilities must
have a description of their planned individual program, an IEP. This IEP must include a statement of each child’s
current level of functioning, annual long-term goals, a breakdown of those goals into short-term behavioral
129
objectives, and a timeline and description of the means by which these goals will be measured and reached.
A typical early childhood curriculum and its themes and concepts are the framework within which specific goals
are addressed for students with disabilities. The scope and sequence of that curriculum must allow for diverse
levels of achievement and learning styles (see Gardner & Hatch, 1989; Goodman, 1992). Lesson plans usually
incorporate multiple objectives and modes of instruction, in keeping with a universal design for learning approach
(Rose & Meyer, 2002). Adaptations for children with special needs may occur in a number of ways: targeted skill
or skill sequence, use of classroom space, groupings, level of participation expected, kinds of materials used, and
nature of cues or support required (Janney & Snell, 2004; Udvari-Solner, 1996).
Technology, especially the use of computers, allows all children to participate in highly motivating activities that
encourage independence, foster positive self-esteem and a sense of mastery, and increase attention span and
problem-solving skills. Students prefer open-ended interactive software, which often can be used independently
after initial and intermittent adult assistance is provided. Because children can play together at the computer,
opportunities abound for turn taking, cooperation, and social interaction. Technology also offers options for
students to communicate through keyboards and increasingly sophisticated voice-output equipment. Anyone with
reliable movement skills can have access through a great many switches to computerized communication devices
and enhanced learning opportunities. Nonverbal students can demonstrate their knowledge and in some cases can
serve as models and teachers for their peers (Johnston, Beard, & Carpenter, 2006). In addition to preparing
children for the future, technology can enhance significantly the learning and social possibilities in the classroom.
The Composition of the School and its Classes

The wide range of children served at Jowonio includes nondisabled students 2 to 5 years of age and peers with a
variety of disability labels. These include children who have been identified by professionals as having speech or
language impairments, orthopedic disabilities, autism, other health impairments, or multiple handicaps (all
educational labels recognized by IDEA). Each class has a 1- to 2-year age range and a balance of students with
skills and needs. For instance, our toddler class has 10 children, 5 with disabilities and 5 typically developing
peers. Our full-day 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old classrooms normally have 16 students, 6 of whom have been identified
as having special educational needs. It is important that the tone of the classroom group be age appropriate and
that there are good models for social and language skills within each group. A cross-age student population offers a
greater range of possibilities for peer interactions and friendships.
Three adults are assigned to the toddler class of 10; in the 3- to 5-year-old rooms of 16 children, four full-time
adults are assigned. Related services of speech and language therapy, physical therapy, and occupational therapy
are available as needed. In every classroom, we try to have staff trained in both early childhood and special
education. Background and experience with typically developing children lend awareness of the usual sequence of
skills and developmental tasks to expect at each particular age. Then, for example, we can have a perspective that
views certain aspects of a 3-year-old child’s behavior as within normal developmental limits rather than as
symptomatic of a disability.
Strategies for Accomplishing Inclusion

To support maximum participation of a wide range of students in the classroom, we allow for flexibility in
scheduling, in groupings, and in levels of support and expected participation (Stainback & Stainback, 1992). In
addition, materials and activities that have multiple objectives
130
Inclusive classrooms will also help to sensitize children to the diverse abilities of individuals.
and several modes of instruction allow for the inclusion of students with different levels of skill.
Flexibility in Scheduling
The scheduling of the day serves to provide a predictable routine within which children can gain independence
while having opportunities for open-ended exploration, spontaneity, and choice making. Adults make use of
teachable moments to extend play and broaden learning. We try to minimize the number of transitions and the
amount of waiting between events. Time is allowed to learn skills embedded in natural situations such as cleanup
and dressing. A balance must always be achieved between active gross motor activities and sitting activities, and
children should have opportunities for movement throughout the building and neighborhood. A typical schedule
might be as follows:
8:45–9:45 Open play/learning centers, choose and do

9:45–
Meeting or circle time
10:00
10:00–
Snack
10:15
10:15–
Books and toileting
10:30
10:30– Special activities (movement, music, skill group, paired play, play choices, play group, acting, story
11:30 stretchers, cooking)
11:30–
Lunch
12:00
12:00–
Rest and reading
12:30
12:30–
Gym/outside
1:00
131
1:00–2:00 Special activities (as above) or learning centers
2:00–2:30 Goodbye preparation (music/closing circle)
Classes take frequent field trips. Schedules are often planned around a thematic unit based on children’s interests,
and efforts are made to design activities, select books, and arrange experiences both inside and outside the
classroom to reinforce the concepts of the theme. Therapists frequently work in the classroom and may be
responsible for planning group activities designed to meet individual goals for target children. Classroom-based
therapy maximizes the opportunities for generalization of skills, the modeling of therapeutic techniques for
teachers, and the probability that therapy goals will be useful for the child in the classroom and at home. Janney
and Snell (2004) refer to this practice as “pull in” therapy, turning the usual jargon (“push in” vs. “pull out”
therapy) on its head.
Flexibility in Grouping
Flexibility in grouping children also facilitates inclusion. At Jowonio, we use a variety of group formats to balance
individualization and independence, as well as to allow for effective peer modeling and socialization. Groups vary
in the level of support needed, complexity of planning, and degree of true integration. In one-to-one situations
with adults, students may be working on their relationship with that adult; a one-to-one time may also be used for
assessment, teaching a new skill, or rehearsing classroom content to facilitate group participation. Pairs or small
groups offer opportunities for social interaction that can be teacher structured. Children also benefit from learning
to respond to large-group settings after their preschool years, so opportunities to experience larger groups are
important.
Curriculum Adaptation
Typical curricula may need to be adapted so that students with disabilities can participate successfully. This
adaptation may involve changing the nature of the instruction in the classroom to use several modalities and to
have multiple objectives. In addition, we allow for the partial participation of students, varying our expectations to
meet their current capabilities (Baumgart et al., 1982). Adaptations occur in materials and cues, sequences and
rules, and levels of support (Janney & Snell, 2004; Udvari-Solner, 1996).
Materials and Cues

Children may need visual and object cues to comprehend language; they also benefit from manipulating objects
related to the content being taught. We label everything with the written word or with symbols. Labeling the
classroom is an important tool for the development of emergent literacy (reading) in all children (Anderson,
Moffat, & Shapiro, 2006; Hill & Nicholas, 2006; Neuman & Roskos, 1993, 1994; Schickedanz, 1986). This has
been a particular emphasis at Jowonio because we realized that a number of our less verbal children can
demonstrate relatively strong literacy skills if provided support to do so (Kliewer & Biklen, 2001). Of course, the
use of many cues to communicate the same content is good general early childhood practice. An inventory of
favorite topics and materials gained through observations and child and parent interviews suggests materials that
will make an activity motivating. For example, if a child is interested in cars, we can easily develop seriation,
classification, and counting activities using cars.
Sequences and Rules

For some students, we may change the number of steps in an activity or the rules of a game to allow all children to
succeed. The number of choices may be limited, waiting time decreased, or the amount of time required to stay at
an activity reduced. For example, a child who has a hard time sitting in the large-group circle may initially be
132
expected to stay in the meeting for 5 min (even under protest!) and then may be allowed to get up and do
something quietly in another part of the room. The goal is that by later in the year, becoming comfortable in the
routine will encourage the child to stay longer.
Levels of Support
An important strategy for successful participation is providing support from teachers and peers that eventually can
be faded so the child functions as independently as possible. The support may include physical assistance, gestures,
individualized verbal cues, teacher proximity, peer partners, and peer modeling. Some students with physical
disabilities may need physical assistance from adults but may become independent with technological devices such
as computers.
To plan integrated activities, goals are developed around motor, socio-emotional, language, behavioral, and
cognitive skill areas. The general goals may be based on theme, content area, and skill level used for typically
developing students. Then child-specific goals drawn from the IEPs of children with disabilities are incorporated
into particular activities. In structuring each activity, the general sequence of events, range of materials, and group
composition should be planned. Necessary adaptations are made for individual children. The role of peers must be
an important consideration.
The following individualized lesson plan (see Figure 5–1) is an example of how a cooking activity is adapted to
include two students with disabilities. Brad has severely delayed motor and cognitive skills. James, who is
considered autistic, has a good deal of language, but it tends to be rote and scripted.
The Process of Transitioning to the Next

Environment
An important aspect of any preschool teacher’s work is the preparation of children and families for their transition
to their next environment—kindergarten (Donovan, 1987; Migyanka, 2011). A comparative study of preschool
special education classrooms and regular kindergarten classrooms (Vincent et al., 1980) showed that the
expectations in the two settings were very different. For example, kindergarten teachers require children to
respond to directions given once to a large group, while preschool special education teachers often give their
students repeated individual directions in a small group or one-to-one. Conscious of the need to bridge early
education and development, part of the responsibility of preschool teachers is to understand the demands of the
next environment and to help children acquire the task and social skills to succeed there.
A second responsibility of an early education teacher is to work with families to have a positive impact on the
kindergarten placement of our students. We seek to find or create inclusive education programs that will meet the
needs of the individual children. The students with disabilities who attend Jowonio come from several local school
districts. Consequently, when Jowonio staff members support the transition to school-age special education
services for our “graduates,” they work with all of these districts to support the continuity of an inclusive
education approach. This often requires skills as an advocate and consultant, for which teachers are not usually
trained. It is important to describe the specific needs of the child in all areas to find an existing inclusive education
program or to support the development of a new one. Building positive relationships with the school district staff
may begin by observing their classrooms and inviting their teachers and administrators to observe our classroom
and the student in question.
Parents and their wishes are critical in this transition process. They need to know their rights under the law, to
understand the process by which their child will be evaluated and placed in a classroom, to describe program
components important to them, and to develop a working relationship with school district staff to achieve the
most appropriate integrated kindergarten placement for their child. As preschool teachers and administrators, we
work closely with parents to give them the information and support they need to be an advocate for their child.
133
This transition can be an extremely stressful time for parents. Teachers can ease this transition by their active
planning and reassurance.
134
135
Figure 5–1 Lesson Plan
Many parents are increasingly convinced of the importance of having their child with a disability attend their
neighborhood school rather than being bused across town (Kluth et al., 2007). The local school may not have
served a child with similar needs before. A home-school placement maximizes the development of long-term social
relationships for a child, allows a child to be with siblings and neighbors, increases the communication between
parents and school staff, and supports the generalization of skills to the child’s natural environment (see Brown et
al., 1989).
Once a child has been formally assigned a kindergarten placement, the preschool teacher communicates in person
and through paperwork about the child. We develop a portfolio for the new teacher that includes samples of the
child’s work, evaluation reports, and descriptions of favorite activities and effective approaches in behavior
management and teaching. All of our efforts are geared toward a positive transition to regular kindergarten with
sufficient supports to guarantee success.
Implications for Teacher Training

Teacher preparation is an integral part of the program at Jowonio. Based on the wide variety of activities expected
of teachers, new teachers need practical experience in quality, inclusive settings. The effective teacher is flexible
and reflective in the planning, programming, and management of the classroom. Although teachers clearly must
relate well with children, they must also be able to work and interact with a variety of adults. New teachers are
sometimes overwhelmed by interacting with the various adults involved in an inclusive classroom. Teachers must
be able to work well with other teachers, therapists, parents, administrators, aides, and student teachers, all of
whom may have different perspectives on the classroom, different values, and different skills. Because interactions
with other adults can be complex, teacher training must include a focus on working cooperatively with other
adults. Developing a problem-solving approach is essential (Cramer, 2006). The best way to achieve this goal is for
teacher training programs to require participation in a variety of cooperative, real-life problem-solving experiences
with adult peers.
Additional Inclusion Efforts

A variety of inclusive education models for young children are described by Berres and Knoblock (1987), Biklen
(1985), Cavallaro and Haney (1999), and Grisham-Brown et al. (2005). Head Start programs have since their
inception often considered it part of their mandate to include students with disabilities, although their ability to
do so effectively was sometimes limited by funding constraints (Schwartz & Brand, 2001). Jowonio is one of the
earliest models of its kind; as such, the school represents a mature program that may be of particular interest to the
field. However, since 1975, when Jowonio first began its systematic approach to inclusive early childhood
education, there has been increasing interest in such models, and many other similar programs have evolved. As a
consequence, once students with disabilities leave Jowonio, they will attend a great variety of program models, but
at the moment none of these are self-contained special education programs. This is because over its history
Jowonio has spawned so many inclusive education options in nearby communities. Parents of former Jowonio
students are strong inclusion advocates, and several area programs are staffed in part by teachers who used to work
at Jowonio.
Currently there exists an enormous variety of program designs in inclusive education (Bruder, 2010). For example,
in addition to the center-based program described in this chapter, Jowonio has developed collaborative
relationships with early education programs in its community, providing special education and therapy staff to
support the inclusion of children with disabilities (Barnes, 2007). No matter what the design, inclusive education
requires a great deal of creativity, energy, and dedication. Willing teachers and administrators and a commitment
to teaming are central ingredients in the success of these programs. Different programs also stand to benefit greatly
136
by learning from each other.
Most of the research in this area has focused on the effect of inclusive early childhood education on both
nondisabled children and children with disabilities, as well as on parent and teacher attitudes (e.g., Blacker &
Turnbull, 1982; see also Ostrosky, Laumann, & Hsieh, 2006), social interaction patterns (see Strain, 1984, 1985),
developmental and behavioral outcomes (Gural-nick, 1980; Jenkins et al., 1989), and methods of intervention
(Strain & Odom, 1986).
Odom and McEvoy (1988), in their review of the research on integration, conclude that there is “good evidence
that children with handicaps can receive an appropriate education in mainstreamed … preschool programs” (p.
262), but that the quality of instruction, not simply the integration of students of differing abilities, is an
important factor in the success of these programs. Social interactions between disabled and nondisabled children
that are available in inclusive settings do not necessarily occur spontaneously but rather require direct, planned
interventions. Although the effect of integration alone is hard to separate from other variables, the empirical
literature seems clear in demonstrating that “normally developing children are not adversely affected by integrated
classes, and in fact benefit developmentally from the curriculum and instructional strategies” (Odom & McEvoy,
1988, p. 259). Odom and Bailey (2001) had similar conclusions. Inclusive preschool programs had generally
favorable outcomes for students, but these outcomes depended on a variety of factors that go into the making of
excellent early childhood programs more generally, including systematic planning and programming, support for
adult collaboration, and type of preservice teacher training and level of educational attainment (Sandall, Hem-
meter, McLean, & Smith, 2005).
Research findings suggest that peer interactions for children with disabilities occur more often in inclusive
classrooms than in segregated classrooms (Guralnick et al., 1996; Odom & Bailey, 2001) and there is less
unoccupied play and less inappropriate or self-abusive behavior in inclusive classrooms (Erwin, 1993). A natural
proportion of children with and without disabilities has a positive effect on peer interactions (Hauser-Cram,
Bronson, & Upshur, 1993); parents and teachers report that a majority of children in inclusive classrooms have at
least one friend (Buysse, 1993). Nondisabled students in inclusive classrooms gave higher social acceptance scores
in response to scenarios about children with disabilities than did their counterparts in noninclusive early
childhood programs (Diamond & Hestenes, 1996). Mixed-age inclusive programs facilitated social conversations
between children and led to more play mastery than same-age groupings (Blasco, Bailey, & Burchinal, 1993;
Roberts, Burchinal, & Bailey, 1994).
Acknowledging the difficulties associated with defining and assessing teachers’ beliefs, the data on teacher beliefs
about inclusion are fairly consistent overall. Positive teacher attitudes toward inclusion were related to their
competency in working with young children with disabilities (Gemmell-Crosby & Hanzlik, 1994). However,
insufficient time for planning and collaboration (Gallagher, 1997; Marchant, 1995), lack of knowledge about
teaching children with disabilities (Dinnebeil, McInerney, Roth, & Ramaswamy, 2001), the context within which
inclusion takes place (Stoiber, Gettinger, & Goetz, 1998), and the perceived ability levels of children served
(Eiserman, Shisler, & Healy, 1995) all affected teachers’ attitudes toward working with children in inclusive
settings.
At base, committing to an inclusive education approach is a values-based decision. Certainly it is affirming when
research validates particular inclusive practices. However, even when research is more ambiguous, the position that
all students deserve full membership in a classroom community is an ethical and defensible perspective. What
makes Jowonio (or any similar program) a successful inclusive education program is its staff and families’
commitment to these values. As Kluth and her fellow authors conclude (2007), inclusion cannot be characterized
as a place: “Rather, it is an attitude or set of practices and policies that translate into an open-arms acceptance of
their children as participants in the life of the classroom and school” (p. 54).
Conclusion
Accepted developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood (see Copple & Bredekamp, 2009) and accepted
137
practice in special education are consistent. Both emphasize the unique pattern of development of each child. The
chosen curriculum is responsive to the child’s current level of skill and interests. Effective early childhood
curriculum calls on an integration of all areas of development, including physical, socio-emotional, language, and
cognitive skills. Within a group of children, differences in ability and style are expected and valued. Each member
of the community is enhanced by the diversity of the whole.
An inclusive preschool program that serves all children makes both philosophical and practical sense. In this
chapter, we have described one “fully inclusive” early childhood setting in which students with and without
disabilities are all considered full members of their classroom communities. The Jowonio program is guided by
beliefs that all children are to be valued; all children have a right to and can benefit from high-quality, age-
appropriate early education; learning occurs through models and relationships; and problem-solving partnerships
between teachers and parents and within the teaching team are central to a good program for children. The core
activity in an inclusive program is the adaptation of the typical curriculum to ensure successful participation for all
students. The goal is to create an inclusive community in which all children and adults can learn and feel valued.
Reflect on
1. What human, philosophical, and educational principles guide inclusive education?
2. What are the key provisions in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA)?
3. What is the Council for Exceptional Children, Division of Early Childhood Education’s (DEC) position
statement regarding children with disabilities?
4. What architectural principles guide inclusive education at the Jowonio School?
5. What benefits do young children with and without disabilities accrue from inclusive early childhood
education?
References
1. Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.)
(July 26, 1990).
2. Anderson, J., Moffat, L., & Shapiro, J. (2006). Reconceptualizing language education in early childhood:
Socio-cultural perspectives. In B. Sposek & O. Saracho (Eds.), Handbook of research on the education of
young children (pp. 131–151). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Bailey, D. (1996). An overview of interdisciplinary training. In D. Bricker & A. Widerstrom (Eds.),

Preparing personnel to work with infants and young children and their families: A team approach (pp. 3–22).
Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
4. Bailey, D., McWilliam, R., Buysse, V., & Wesley, P. (1998). Inclusion in the context of competing values
in early childhood education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 27–47.
5. Barnes, E. (2007). An open door and smiling faces: Collaborating for inclusion in neighborhood nursery
schools. Successfully Supporting All Children in Early Childhood Education Programs (pp. 1–12). Albany, NY:
New York State Developmental Disabilities Planning Council.
6. Barnes, E., Berrigan, C., & Biklen, D. (1978). What’s the difference? Teaching positive attitudes toward people
with disabilities. Syracuse, NY: Human Policy Press.
7. Baumgart, D., Brown, L., Pumpian, I., Nisbet, J., Ford, A., Sweet, M., & Schroeder, J. (1982). Principle of
138
partial participation and individualized adaptations in educational programs for severely handicapped
students. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 7, 17–24.
8. Berres, M., & Knoblock, P. (1987). Program models for mainstreaming. Rockville, MD: Aspen.
9. Biklen, D. (1985). Achieving the complete school: Strategies for effective mainstreaming. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
10. Biklen, D. (1992). Schooling without labels. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
11. Blacker, J., & Turnbull, A. P. (1982). Teacher and parent perspectives on selected social aspects of
preschool mainstreaming. Exceptional Child, 29, 191–199.
12. Blasco, P., Bailey, D., & Burchinal, M. (1993). Dimensions of mastery in same-age and mixed-age
integrated classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8, 193–206.
13. Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs (rev.
ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
14. Brown, L., Long, E., Udvari-Solner, A., Davis, L., VanDeventer, P., Ahlgren, C., et al. (1989). The home
school: Why students with severe intellectual disabilities must attend the schools of their brothers, sisters,
friends, and neighbors. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 14, 1–7.
15. Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
16. Bruder, M. B. (2010). Early childhood intervention: A promise to children and families for their future.
Exceptional Children, 76, 339–355.
17. Buysse, V. (1993). Friendships of preschoolers with disabilities in community-based child care setting.
Journal of Early Intervention, 17, 380–395.
18. Carr, E. G., & Durand, V. M. (1985). Reducing behavior problems through functional communication
training. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 111–126.
19. Cavallaro, C. C., & Haney, M. (1999). Preschool Inclusion. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
20. Collins, W. A., Maccoby, G. E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E. M., & Bornstein, M. H. (2000).
Contemporary research on parenting: Nature versus nurture. American Psychologist, 55, 218–232.
21. Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs:
Serving children from birth through age 8 (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education
of Young Children.
22. Cramer, S. F. (2006). The special educator’s guide to collaboration: Improving relationships with co-teachers,
teams, and families (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
23. Denham, S. (2006). The emotional basis of learning and development in early childhood education. In B.
Sposek & O. Saracho (Eds.), Handbook of research on the education of young children (pp. 85–103). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
24. Diamond, K., & Hestenes, L. (1996). Preschool children’s conceptions of disabilities: The salience of
disability in children’s ideas about others. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 16, 458–475.
25. Dinnebeil, L. A., McInerney, W. F., Roth, J., & Ramaswamy, V. (2001). Itinerant early childhood special
education services: Service delivery in one state. Journal of Early Intervention, 24, 35–44.
26. Division of Early Childhood. (1996). Position paper on inclusion. Missoula, MT: Author.
139
27. Donnellan, A. M., LaVigna, G. W., Negri-Shoultz, N., & Fassbender, L. L. (1988). Progress without
punishment: Effective approaches for learners with severe behavior problems. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
28. Donnellan, A. M., Mirenda, P. L., Mesaros, R. A., & Fassbender, L. L. (1984). Analyzing the
communicative functions of aberrant behavior. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 9,
201–212.
29. Donovan, E. (1987). Preschool to public school: A teacher’s guide to successful transition for children with special
needs. Syracuse, NY: Jowonio School.
30. Dunlap, G., Johnson, L. F., & Robbins, F. R. (1990). Preventing serious behavior problems through skill
development and early intervention. In A. C. Repp & N. N. Singh (Eds.), Perspectives on the use of
nonaversive and aversive interventions for persons with developmental disabilities (pp. 273–286). Sycamore, IL:
Sycamore.
31. Dunlap, G., Kern-Dunlap, L., Clarke, S., & Robbins, F. R. (1991). Functional assessment, curricular
revision, and severe behavior problems. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 387–397.
32. Dunst, C., Trivette, C., & Deal, A. (1988). Enabling and empowering families. Cambridge, MA: Brookline.
33. Economic Opportunity Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. No. 94-424, 86 Stat. 688 (Sept. 19, 1972).
34. Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-142, 89 Stat. 773 (Nov. 29, 1975).
35. Eiserman, W. D., Shisler, L., & Healey, S. (1995). A community assessment of preschool providers’
attitudes toward inclusion. Journal of Early Intervention, 19, 149–167.
36. Equal Opportunity Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-452, 78 Stat. 508 (Aug. 20, 1964).
37. Erwin, E. J. (1993). Social participation of children with visual impairment in specialized and integrated
environments. Journal of Visual Impairments and Blindness, 87, 138–142.
38. Evans, I. M., & Meyer, L. H. (1985). An educative approach to behavior problems. Baltimore, MD: Paul
Brookes.
39. Ferri, B. A. (2011). Undermining inclusion? A critical reading of response to intervention (RTI).
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15, 1–18.
40. Froschl, M., Colon, L., Rubin, E., & Sprung, B. (1984). Including all of us: An early childhood curriculum
about disabilities. New York, NY: Educational Equity Concepts.
41. Gallagher, J. J., Trohanis, P. L., & Clifford, R. M. (Eds.). (1989). Policy implementation and PL. 99-457.
Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
42. Gardner, H., & Hatch, T. (1989). Multiple intelligences go to school. Educational Researcher, 18, 4–10.
43. Gemmell-Crosby, S., & Hanzlik, J. R. (1994). Preschool teachers’ perceptions of including children with
disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 29, 279–290.
44. Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A
meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 539–579.
45. Goldstein, A., & McGinnis, E. (1990). Skillstreaming the preschool child. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
46. Goodman, J. F. (1992). When slow is fast enough. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
140
47. Gray, C. (1996). Teaching children with autism to “read” social situations. In K. A. Quill (Ed.), Teaching
children with autism: Strategies to enhance communication and socialization (pp. 219–242). New York, NY:
Delmar.
48. Greenspan, S., & Wieder, S. (1998). The child with special needs: Encouraging intellectual and emotional
growth. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Publishing.
49. Grisham-Brown, J., Hemmeter, M. L., & PrettiFrontczak, K. (2005). Blended practices. Baltimore, MD:
Paul Brookes.
50. Guralnick, M. (1980). The social behavior of preschool children at different developmental levels: Effects of
group composition. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 31, 115–130.
51. Guralnick, M., Connor, R. T., Hammond, M., Gottman, J., & Kinnish, K. (1996). Immediate effects of
mainstreamed settings on the social interactions and integration of preschool children. American Journal of
Mental Retardation, 100, 359–377.
52. Handicapped Children’s Early Education Assistance Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-538, 82 Stat. 901 (20
U.S.C. 621 et seq.) (Sept. 30, 1968).
53. Hauser-Cram, P., Bronson, M. B., & Upshur, C. C. (1993). The effects of the classroom environment on
the social and mastery behavior of preschool children with disabilities. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8,
479–498.
54. Hill, S. E., & Nichols, S. (2006). Emergent literacy: Emergent symbols at work. In B. Sposek & O. Saracho
(Eds.), Handbook of research on the education of young children (pp. 153–165). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
55. Hunt, J. M. (1961). Intelligence and experience. New York, NY: Roland.
56. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Pub. L. No. 101-476, 104 Stat. 1142 (Oct. 30, 1990).
57. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-17, 111 Stat. 37 (June
4, 1997).
58. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647
(Dec. 3, 2004).
59. Janney, R., & Snell, M. (2004). Modifying schoolwork (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
60. Jenkins, J. R., Odom, S. L., & Speltz, M. L. (1989). Effects of social integration on preschool children with
handicaps. Exceptional Children, 55, 420–428.
61. Johnson, D., Johnson, R., & Holubec, E. J. (1990). Circles of learning. Edina, MN: Interaction.
62. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1999). Making cooperative learning work. Theory into Practice, 38, 67–
73.
63. Johnson, J., Christie, J., & Wardle, F. (2005). Play, development and early education. Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
64. Johnston, L., Beard, L., & Carpenter, L. B. (2006). Assistive technology: Access for all students. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson.
65. Kaiser, B., & Rasminsky, J. S. (2006). Challenging behavior in young children: Understanding, preventing, and
responding effectively. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
66. Kalyanpur, M., & Harry, B. (1999). Culture in special education: Building a posture of reciprocity in parent-
141
professional relationships. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
67. Kliewer, C., & Biklen, D. (2001). “School’s not really a place for reading”: A research synthesis of the
literate lives of students with severe disabilities. The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26, 1–12.
68. Kluth, P. (2010). “You’re going to love this kid!” Teaching students with autism in the inclusive classroom
(2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
69. Kluth, P., Biklen, D., English-Sand, P., & Smukler, D. (2007). Going away to school: Stories of families
who move to seek inclusive educational experiences for their children with disabilities. Journal of Disability
Policy Studies, 18, 43–56.
70. Knoblock, P. (Ed.). (1982). Teaching and mainstreaming autistic children. Denver, CO: Love.
71. Knoblock, P., & Lehr, R. (1985). A model for mainstreaming autistic children: The Jowonio School. In E.
Schopler & G. Mesibov (Eds.), Social behavior in autism (pp. 285–303). New York, NY: Plenum.
72. Ladd, G., Herald, S. L., & Andrews, R. K. (2006). Young children’s peer relations and social competence.
In B. Sposek & O. Saracho (Eds.), Handbook of research on the education of young children (pp. 23–54).
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
73. LaVigna, G. W., & Donnellan, A. M. (1986). Alternatives to punishment: Solving behavior problems with
non-aversive strategies. New York, NY: Irvington.
74. Lieber, J., Capell, K., Sandall, S., Wolfberg, P., Horn, E., & Beckman, P. (1998). Inclusive preschool
programs: Teachers’ beliefs and practices. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 87–105.
75. Lynch, S. K., Turkheimer, E., D’Onofrio, B. M., Mandle, J., Emery, R. E., Slutske, W. S., et al. (2006). A
genetically informed study of the association between harsh punishment and offspring behavioral problems.
Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 190–198.
76. Marchant, C. (1995). Teachers’ views of integrated preschools. Journal of Early Intervention, 19, 61–67.
77. McGee, J. J., Menolascino, F. J., Hobbs, D. C., & Menousek, P. E. (1987). Gentle teaching. New York, NY:
Human Science.
78. McLoyd, V. C., Kaplan, R., Hardaway, C. R., & Wood, D. (2007). Does endorsement of physical
discipline matter? Assessing moderating influences on the maternal and child psychological correlates of
physical discipline in African American families. Journal of Family Psychology, 21, 165–175.
79. Meyer, L. H., & Evans, I. M. (1989). Nonaversive intervention for behavior problems: A manual for home and
community. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
80. Migyanka, J. M. (2011). Supporting and sustaining the transition to formal schooling for children on the
autism spectrum. In D. A. Laverick & M. R. Jalango (Eds.), Transitions to early care and education:
International perspectives on making schools ready for young children (pp. 33–44). New York, NY: Springer.
81. Musselwhite, C. R. (1986). Adaptive play for special needs children. San Diego, CA: College Hill.
82. Neuman, S., & Roskos, K. (1993). Access to print for children of poverty: Differential effects of adult
mediation and literacy-enriched play settings on environmental and functional print tasks. American
Educational Research Journal, 30, 95–122.
83. Neuman, S., & Roskos, K. (1994). Bridging home and school with a culturally responsive approach.
Childhood Education, 70 (4), 210–214.
84. Nisbet, J. (2004). Commentary: “Caught in the continuum.” Research & Practice for Persons with Severe
142
Disabilities, 29, 231–236.
85. Odom, S. L., & Bailey, D. (2001). Inclusive preschool programs: Classroom ecology and child outcomes. In
M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), Early childhood inclusion: Focus on change (pp. 253–276). Baltimore, MD: Paul
Brookes.
86. Odom, S., & Diamond, K. (1998). Inclusion of young children with special needs in early childhood
education: The research base. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 3–25.
87. Odom, S. L., & McEvoy, M. A. (1988). Integration of young children with handicaps and normally
developing children. In S. L. Odom & M. B. Karnes (Eds.), Early intervention for infants and children with
handicaps (pp. 241–267). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
88. O’Neill, R. E., Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Storey, K., & Sprague, J. R. (1990). Functional analysis of
problem behavior. Sycamore, IL: Sycamore.
89. Osgood, R. (2007). The history of special education: A struggle for equality in American public schools.
Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
90. Ostrosky, M. L., Laumann, B. M., & Hsieh, W. Y. (2006). Early childhood teachers’ beliefs and attitudes
about inclusion: What does the research tell us? In B. Sposek & O. Saracho (Eds.), Handbook of research on
the education of young children (pp. 411–422). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
91. Pellegrini, A. (2009). The role of play in human development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
92. Pellegrini, A. (Ed.). (2011). The Oxford handbook of the development of play. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
93. Piaget, J. (1963). The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY: Norton.
94. Ramsey, P. (2006). Early childhood multicultural education. In B. Spodek & O. Saracho (Eds.), Handbook
of research on the education of young children (pp. 279–301). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
95. Ray, I., Bowman, B., & Robbins, J. (2006). Preparing early childhood teachers to successfully educate all
children: The contribution of four-year undergraduate teacher education programs. Report to the Foundation
for Child Development, New York, NY.
96. Roberts, J., Burchinal, M., & Bailey, D. (1994). Communication among preschoolers with and without
disabilities in same-age and mixed-age classrooms. American Journal of Mental Retardation, 99, 231–249.
97. Rose, D. H., & Meyer, A. (2002). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
98. Sandall, S. R., Hemmeter, M. L., McLean, M. E., & Smith, B. J. (2005). DEC recommended practices: A
comprehensive guide for practical application in early intervention/early childhood special education. Longmont,
CO: Sopris West.
99. Sapon-Shevin, M. (1999). Because we can change the world: A practical guide to building cooperative, inclusive
classroom communities. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
100. Sapon-Shevin, M. (2000/2001). Schools fit for all. Educational Leadership, 58, 34–39.
101. Sapon-Shevin, M. (2007). Widening the circle: The power of inclusive classrooms. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
102. Schickedanz, J. (1986). More than the ABC’s: The early stages of reading and writing. Washington, DC:
National Association for the Education of Young Children.
143
103. Schwartz, B., & Brand, M. E. (2001). Head Start and the inclusion of children with disabilities. In M. J.
Guralnick (Ed.), Early childhood inclusion: Focus on change (pp. 277–292). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
104. Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1992). Curriculum considerations in inclusive classrooms. Baltimore, MD:
Paul Brookes.
105. Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1990). Support networks for inclusive schooling. Baltimore, MD: Paul
Brookes.
106. Stoiber, K. C., Getinger, M., & Goetz, D. (1998). Exploring factors influencing parents’ and early
childhood practitioners’ beliefs about inclusion. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13, 107–124.
107. Strain, P. S. (1984). Social behavior patterns of non-handicapped and nonhandicapped-developmentally

disabled friend pairs in mainstreamed preschoolers. Analysis and Intervention in Development Disabilities, 4,
15–58.
108. Strain, P. S. (1985). Social and nonsocial determinants of acceptability in handicapped preschool children.
Topics in Early Special Education, 4, 47–58.
109. Strain, P. S., & Odom, S. L. (1986). Peer social initiations: Effective intervention for social skills
development of exceptional children. Exceptional Children, 43, 526–530.
110. Taylor, S. J. (1988). Caught in the continuum: A critical analysis of the principle of the least restrictive
environment. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 13, 41–53.
111. Thousand, J., & Villa, R. (1990). Sharing expertise and responsibilities through teaching teams. In W.
Stainback & S. Stainback (Eds.), Support networks in inclusive schooling (pp. 201–218). Baltimore, MD: Paul
Brookes.
112. Touchette, P. E., MacDonald, R. F., & Langer, S. N. (1985). A scatter plot for identifying stimulus control
of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18, 343–351.
113. Turnbull, H. R., & Turnbull, A. P. (1982). Public policy and handicapped citizens. In N. G. Haring (Ed.),
Exceptional children and youth (3rd ed., pp. 21–44). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
114. Udvari-Solner, A. (1996). Examining teacher thinking: Constructing a process to design curricular
adaptations. Remedial and Special Education, 17, 245–254.
115. Vincent, L., Salisbury, C., Walter, G., Brown, P., Gruenewald, L., & Powers, M. (1980). Program
evaluation and curriculum development in early childhood special education: Criteria for the next
environment. In W. Saylor, B. Wilcox, & L. Brown (Eds.), Instructional design for the severely handicapped
(pp. 130–182). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
116. Westby, C. E. (1980). Assessment of cognitive and language abilities through play. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 11, 154–168.
144
Chapter 6 More Than the Sum of Its Parts: Creating
Multicultural and Linguistically Responsive Early
Aisha Ray
and
Luisiana Melendez
Erikson Institute
Discuss the beginning of schools failing culturally, linguistically, and racially diverse children and children in
poverty
Characterize culturally and linguistically responsive schooling
In the first half of the 21st century, demographic, cultural, and social changes are occurring that have profound
implications for the United States and its institutions, including early child care and schooling. America is ceasing
to be a nation dominated by a single racial and cultural group, specifically European Americans. Instead,
individuals who themselves or whose ancestors came from Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, the
Pacific Islands, and the indigenous nations of the Americas are shaping a nation with Whites, in which old
patterns of racial, cultural, and linguistic dominance may give way to a new, more multicultural, more
multilingual, and perhaps less racially polarized society. The United States is simply becoming younger and more
ethnically and racially diverse. Moreover, its youngest members are likely to be children who are bilingual or
bidialectic.1 Families are also a part of this change. Increasingly, families rearing children include those headed by
divorced parents who share custody; never-married parents; immigrant parents; lesbian, gay, bisexual, and
transgender parents; grandparents parenting grandchildren; foster parents and guardians; and parents who adopt.
Families with children also include blended families, stepfamilies, and multigenerational families in which child
rearing is shared. In fact, in 2000 less than one quarter of American families were “nuclear,” i.e., composed of a
married couple with children. The importance of these trends for American educational institutions cannot be
underestimated, and early childhood programs serving children from birth to age 8 must respond effectively to the
diversification of families and children. Consider the following:
Children of color are the majority in 27 of the nation’s largest school districts (Frankenberg, Lee, & Orfield,
2003).
One sixth of America’s Black children and one ninth of Latino/a children attend “apartheid schools”—that
is, schools that are severely underresourced and where 95% of children live in chronic poverty (Frankenberg
et al., 2003, p. 5).
Of the 23.4 million children under the age of 6 in the United States, 22% are children of immigrants
(Forum for Youth Investment, 2010).
About a fourth of all 3- and 4-year-old children in the United States live in a household where two
languages are spoken (usually English and a non-English language); about 1 in 10 live in what is known as a
linguistically isolated home—that is, a home where no English is spoken (Hernandez, 2010).
The majority of children who speak a language other than English at home are 8 years old or younger
(Urban Institute, 2007).
145
Furthermore, American child poverty continues to disproportionately affect racial and ethnic minority children:
Sixty-one percent of Black children, 62% of Latino/a children, 51% of Native American children, but only
27% of White children under age 18 live in low-income families (National Center for Children in Poverty,
2008).
Forty-six percent of children under 6 years live in low-income families (Chau, Thampi, & Wright, 2010)
and children of immigrants comprise more than 26% of all low-income children in the United States
(Forum for Youth Investment, 2010).
As the United States becomes more diverse and as the consequences of prejudice and discrimination grow more
socially disruptive, efforts to ameliorate prejudice and discrimination stemming from difference in all its forms
become increasingly important. In two decades, the present population of young children (3 to 8 years of age) will
be adults. Will the early education programs they attend today help them to be productive members of a
multicultural, multilingual, and multiracial American democracy? Will the teachers they have today help them to
become individuals who work cooperatively with others different from themselves, embrace and advocate for
equity and fairness for all, and resist race, class, ethnic, and other forms of bias? Will our most economically
marginalized children have early childhood experiences today that eliminate the achievement gap and assure their
equal chance of educational success? Will the efforts of early childhood teachers today help children develop and
maintain positive identities, including cultural and linguistic competencies that assist them in moving easily
among cultural, language, and ethnic communities? Will children learn to be advocates for social justice because
teachers who built caring and inclusive early childhood communities influenced them? To ensure these outcomes
in two decades, the early childhood field has to provide all of today’s young children with high-quality, culturally
responsive programs with educators who are antibias advocates. By the phrase “all young children” we mean each
and every child regardless of race, ethnicity, ability, culture, language, dialect, social class, sexual orientation and
expression, nation of origin, family, and immigration status. This phrase includes, but does not privilege, the
developmental and educational needs of European American, middle-class, monolingual children. The term
implies equity, inclusion, social justice, and investment in all children’s developmental and educational needs in
teaching and learning in early childhood programs and at all levels of professional development and training (Ray,
Bowman, & Robbins, 2006, p. 1). These are challenging goals, because in the United States all childhoods are not
equal and access to high-quality early childhood programs is not guaranteed. Children of color and children from
working-poor families in economically impoverished ghettos, barrios, reservations, towns, and suburbs—
communities frequently described as dead-end, deprived, and dangerous—are far more likely than their middle-
class counterparts to attend poorly resourced schools. Too many early educators may view these children as
challenging, “at risk,” and in need of control. Their intelligence is suspect, their life experience is devalued, their
speech or language is considered ignorant, and their cultures are viewed as impediments to learning and
achievement in “mainstream” America. Their families and communities are perceived as not up to the task of
providing rich experiences that develop academic skills necessary for school success.
This perspective situates the problem of educational achievement and school failure in children, families, and
communities of color and poverty, rather than in American society or the culture of schools. This perspective
justifies an “apartheid” system of education in the United States, separate and unequal. The first system, well
financed and resourced, is primarily for the education of White,2 middle-class, monolingual children; the second,
decaying, resource-starved, and underfunded, is for the warehousing of children of color,3 the poor, and children
who speak a dialect or language other than English (Kozol, 1991; Orfield & Lee, 2005; Peske & Haycock, 2006).
Early childhood programs reproduce these same class and racial inequalities. For example, in comparison to White
children, racial minority children and children in poverty are more likely to attend programs with teachers who
lack subject content knowledge, have lower academic achievement, and are inexperienced (Peske & Haycock,
2006). In addition, inadequate early childhood programs and elementary schools are part of a larger ecology that
includes poverty, racism, low-wage jobs, and unsafe housing—all factors that jeopardize children’s development
and family functioning (Garcia Coll et al., 1996; McLoyd, 1990, 1998). Fundamental transformation of schools
may not be possible without significant systemic change that addresses institutionalized racism and economic
injustice (Kozol, 1991; Murrell, 2002; Nieto, 1999).
146
The Beginning of Schools Failing Culturally and
Linguistically Diverse Children and Children in
Poverty
The reality of schools segregated by race and class is contrary to the promise of American education, which
guarantees fairness and equity for children regardless of characteristics or circumstances. An “even playing field” is
supposed to provide the context in which every child may have a chance to achieve through effort, study, and
perseverance; the cultural currency of American education has been individual effort, hard work, and equal
opportunity. Despite these powerful cultural messages, American schools have failed to deliver on this promise for
all of its children. In the earliest years of schooling, processes are set in motion that lead, by fourth grade, to the
disengagement and lower achievement of racial and cultural minority children and children in poverty, especially
African American4 and Latino males (Chall & Snow, 1988; Dupree, Spencer, & Bell, 1997; Ferguson, 2001;
Garcia Coll & Magnuson, 2000; Murrell, 2002). Racial, language, and cultural minority children and children
from low-income families are more likely to enter kindergarten behind their middle-class European American
peers, to have lower educational achievement in reading and math (Riegle-Crumb, 2006), and to be assigned
disproportionately to special education classrooms (Bondy & Ross, 1998; Bowman, Donovan, & Burns, 2001;
Garcia, 2005; Knapp, 1995). Even when their incomes are similar, African Americans and Latinos/as on average
fare more poorly on standardized tests than do Whites (National Center for Education Statistics, 2001). Further,
in the last decade Latino/a children have not shown the same reduction in dropout rates and educational
achievement gains experienced by other racial/cultural minority groups, including African American students
(Liontos, 1992). Moreover, national as well as state data show that children for whom English is not their home
language lag behind their middle-class, monolingual counterparts by Grade 3 (Laosa, 2005).
Race, class, language, and gender are especially pernicious factors for boys in school. Boys of color are more likely
to be expelled from preschools than other children (Gilliam, 2005); Black and Latino boys have higher rates of
grade failure than other groups (Liontos, 1992; The Twenty-First Century Foundation, 2005); Latino boys have
one of the highest school dropout rates in the United States (Liontos, 1992; Valdivieso & Nicolau, 1992); and,
although Black boys are less than 9% of children enrolled in elementary and secondary schools, they account for
over one fifth of total school expulsions (The Twenty-First Century Foundation, 2005, p. 6).
Numerous factors may contribute to the disengagement from school of young children
Children from culturally diverse backgrounds need to be exposed to instructional materials that speak
to their cultural practices.
of color, dual language (DL) learners, dialect speakers, and children in poverty. These factors may include
147
teachers’ low expectations for African American and Latino/a children, unimaginative curricula, lack of
understanding of children’s cultures, inability to communicate in the child’s home language, and arbitrary
punishment. Steele (1992, 1999) argues that disengagement on the part of African American, Latino/a, and other
racially, linguistically, and culturally marginalized students is a reasonable outcome of persistent messages that they
are inadequate. He asserts, “For too many Black students (Latinos/as, Native Americans and others [our emphasis])
school is simply the place where, more concertedly, persistently, and authoritatively than anywhere else in society,
they learn how little valued they are” (p. 78).
Early Childhood Classrooms—Culturally and

Linguistically Unequal
Early education pedagogies, instructional practices, and administrative policies implicitly or explicitly attempt to
marginalize, even eradicate, the ancestral cultures, languages, and experiences of children from non-White and
low-income communities (Baugh, 1999; Murrell, 2002). European American cultural knowledge is
institutionalized in most early childhood classrooms through language (e.g., “standard” English, norms of speech
and grammar, tone and volume of voice); what is taught (e.g., literature, social studies); social norms (e.g., notions
of politeness, physical distance, eye contact); expression of emotion (e.g., anger, aggression); policies (e.g.,
expectation of a proscriptive parent involvement); and curriculum choices (Sheets, 2005). During the last two
decades the United States has seen an increase in the number of states limiting or eliminating the use of the home
language in educating DL learners (Gándara, Losen, August, Uriarte, Gómez, & Hopkins, 2010). This policy
trend can communicate to students and families that speaking a language other than English, rather than being an
asset that supports their cultural identity, cognitive development, and emotional connections with family and
community, is a disadvantage or a deficiency that needs remediation by rapid English acquisition (Baker, 2000;
California Tomorrow, n.d.).
Cultures shape who children are and how they experience the world (Kağitçibaşi, 1996; Rogoff, 2003). Through
participation in everyday cultural practices (e.g., feeding, bedtime routines, preschool attendance), children learn
meaning systems, identity, language, values, beliefs, behavioral norms, and roles intended to develop the
competencies appropriate to their culture (Rogoff, 2003; Whiting & Edwards, 1988). Cultural patterns of
thinking and behaving are internalized, becoming part of individual and group identity. Moreover, language is a
universal vehicle for the transmission of culture and is intrinsically associated with social and ethnic identity
(Baker, 2000; Blackledge, 1994; Drury, 2007; Thompson, 1998). Hence, by using the language spoken at home
and in their communities, children communicate with important adult figures, such as parents and grandparents.
These opportunities to learn about their cultural background and take pride in it play an important role in the
healthy development of children’s identity (Baker, 2000; Blackledge, 1994; California Tomorrow, n.d.; Drury,
2007; Goodz, 1994; Nieto, 2010; Thompson, 1998).
The cultural repertoires that racially, culturally, linguistically, and economically marginalized children bring to
classrooms may be misunderstood, even punished by teachers. Research (Baugh, 1999; Boykin & Toms, 1985;
Delpit, 1995) suggests that African American expressive styles, behavior, and language may be stigmatized because
they do not conform to the cultural model of behaving, learning, and language that schools demand. Teachers
may not know children’s home languages, or school policies may deliberately discourage their use. For example,
research (Chang et al., 2007) suggests that even when teachers are proficient in the child’s home language, they
use English 77% of the time. In elementary schools, most DL learners receive the majority of their instruction in
English (Zehler, Fleischman, Hopstock, Stephenson, Pendzick, & Sapru, 2003). The absence of adults who speak
the child’s language is especially problematic for young children because teachers may not be able to adequately
assess the cause of a child’s distress, determine if the child has understood content, and communicate effectively
with the child’s family. The National Association for the Education of Young Children’s (NAEYC) position
statement on best practices for serving linguistically and culturally diverse children asserts the following:
The loss of children’s home language may result in the disruption of family communication patterns, which
148
may lead to the loss of intergenerational wisdom; damage to individual and community esteem; and
children’s potential non-mastery of their home language or English.
(National Association for the Education of Young Children, 1995, p. 2)
To understand how culture and language may influence children’s development, early childhood educators (e.g.,
teachers, assistant teachers, directors, principals) must understand their own identity formation in terms of culture,
race, language, privilege, and power. Hence, early childhood educators must have the kind of self-knowledge that
facilitates critical acknowledgment of how personal views and beliefs are constructed. These educators also must
know how beliefs and assumptions about children of color, DL learners, and second-dialect speakers may reflect
racial bias, cultural misunderstanding, and/or ignorance about cultural practices different from those they have
experienced. In addition, early childhood educators’ ability to understand children’s cultural knowledge, the
implications of this knowledge for teaching and learning, and how to teach through it are critical, particularly in
light of changing demographics. As early childhood classrooms become increasingly multiracial, multilingual,
multicultural, and multiethnic, the majority of teachers remain White, female, monolingual, and middle-class.
Only 10% of teachers in U.S. classrooms are Black, Latino/a, Alaskan Native, Native American, Asian American,
or Pacific Islander (Darling-Hammond, Pittman, & Ottinger, 1987; Saluja, Early, & Clifford, 2002).
Nevertheless, diversity is not only a challenge to White teachers. All teachers who encounter children with
characteristics different from their own must struggle with their responses to difference and privilege. African
Americans teach Mexican American children, teachers with visual challenges teach children with ambulatory
challenges, straight teachers educate transgender children, teachers fluent only in English teach children fluent
only in Cantonese, and middle-class teachers serve children who are from economically impoverished
communities. Even when teachers and young children share a common cultural, linguistic, ethnic, racial, or class
background, they may not be able to translate their own experiences into effective practices that benefit children
(Zeichner, 1996, p. 133). All early childhood teachers must develop professional competencies to successfully
educate all children and engage all families.
Early childhood educators’ knowledge and understanding of children who are culturally and racially different from
themselves cannot be reduced to simple formulas and prescriptions for educating particular populations of
children. In fact, an unintended consequence of focusing teachers’ attention on discrete characteristics of children
(e.g., race, social class) may contribute to their inability to view minority children as whole individuals with
unique identities, capacities, and interests that may influence developmental and educational outcomes. The
complexity of the diversity found in U.S. classrooms challenges early childhood teachers in our schools. Teachers
have to be able to successfully educate children who are not just African American English speakers or just
Dominican Americans or just boys or just low income, but children who bring to school complex capacities,
abilities, needs, and identities. In addition, early childhood educators have to be able to help children whose
culture, abilities, and language are typically privileged in U.S. schools to appreciate difference.
The critical early years of schooling should build on the curiosity, wonder, intelligence, and abilities that all young
children bring to classrooms and lay a solid foundation for life and school success. For many children, however,
these years may not. Instead, early education programs may set children on a trajectory that leads to a history in
which schools fail them, and possibly contribute to lives of reduced opportunity and achievement. The diversity
present in early childhood and primary classrooms today demands that early childhood educators transcend the
ethnocentric attitudes resulting from limited awareness of how their own personal histories define them as cultural
beings and of the effect of culture, race, ethnicity, language, and socioeconomic status on their students’ identities,
resources, and needs.
Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Schooling

Effective early childhood education for culturally, linguistically, racially, and economically marginalized children
must be grounded in and responsive to children’s cultures and languages (Irvine, 2003; Ladson-Billings, 1994;
Murrell, 2002). The rationale for the role of culture and language in children’s development and early education is
149
related to cognitive theory (e.g., Piaget, 1969; Vygotsky, 1978), which posits that new knowledge is built on prior
knowledge and experience. Before formal schooling, all children have gained an enormous amount of
understanding of the world through observation, participation, and explicit instruction from adults and older
children. When children are introduced to new information, they use their repertoires of established knowledge,
language, and cultural practices to make sense of the new (Cole, 1996; Rogoff, 2003). To support optimal
learning in young children, teachers need to have a deep understanding of the knowledge that children bring to
school.
Research shows all child development occurs in the context of culture (Kağitçibaşi, 1996; Nsamenang, 1992;
Rogoff, 2003). Furthermore, research on culturally responsive pedagogy (see, for example, Delpit, 1995; Irvine,
2003; Ladson-Billings, 1994; Native Hawaiian Education Council, 2002; Pewewardy, 1994; Sheets, 2005) has
important implications for creating schools in which all culturally, linguistically, and racially diverse children and
children in poverty achieve and develop as whole individuals. Early education is not a silver bullet for everything
that ails this society and its children, but high-quality early education programs have a record of improving
children’s educational outcomes, especially for culturally and racially diverse children and for those who are
economically disadvantaged (Heckman, 2007; Reynolds, Magnuson, & Ou, 2006). In this regard, we can ask
these questions:
What principles of culturally responsive practice have emerged from the early childhood field?
What evidence in the research and practice literature indicates that culturally responsive teaching practices
contribute to improvements in educational outcomes for young racially, culturally, and economically
marginalized children?
What evidence in the research and practice literature suggests that teacher preparation that addresses
teachers’ awareness, attitudes, and beliefs about cultural and racial differences can contribute to teachers’
effective practice with young racially, culturally, and economically marginalized children?
Principles of Culturally Competent Practice in Early

Childhood
One of the consequences of the demographic changes referred to at the beginning of this chapter has been the
generation of principles and guidelines meant to define educational practices that effectively serve children
considered “diverse” by virtue of race, language, ethnicity, ability, and class or socioeconomic status. Although
these efforts have multiplied in the last decade, two are worthy of scrutiny as they explicitly articulate a particular
vision for early childhood educators: Head Start and NAEYC.
Head Start, a federal program administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, has been
serving young children for more than four decades. Of all children served though Head Start and Early Head
Start, approximately 29% are African American, 31% are Latino/a, 40% are White, and 1% are from other
minority groups; the majority come from low-income families; and 13% have a diagnosed disability (CLASP,
2008a, 2008b). The diversity of racial, cultural, ethnic, linguistic, and ability backgrounds present among Head
Start participants has generated considerable interest in articulating explicit guidelines on how best to serve
culturally and linguistically diverse young children. The Office of Head Start has developed Revisiting and
Updating the Multicultural Principles for Head Start Programs Serving Children Ages Birth to Five (2008), which
enumerates 10 principles of culturally and linguistically responsive practice. The 10 principles acknowledge that
every individual is rooted in culture. Further, it asserts that cultural groups represented in the communities and
families served by each Head Start program should be the primary sources for culturally relevant programming.
Culturally relevant programming entails making curriculum choices and adaptations driven by what is relevant
and important to the cultural groups present in the programs; this programming also entails actively maintaining
children’s cultural identity while ensuring that the children acquire the skills required to function in our diverse
society. In the case of children whose home language is other than English, the Head Start Multicultural
150
Principles assign to programs the responsibility for supporting the continuing development of children’s home
language while facilitating their learning of English. Most important, these principles affirm that culturally
relevant practices must examine and challenge institutional and personal biases, enabling children to develop an
awareness of, respect for, and appreciation of individual cultural differences. In addition, culturally responsive
programs require staff that both reflect and are responsive to the children, families, and communities served. It is
important to note that the focus of the Head Start Multicultural Principles is to describe the values that should
frame program practices; they do not attempt to describe how individual practitioners working in Head Start and
Early Head Start programs should enact these principles. Nevertheless, given that Head Start is the largest national
program serving children from birth to 5 years old and their families, its Multicultural Principles are often
considered a model for other programs and initiatives.
The NAEYC, the largest organization of early childhood professionals in the United States, has created the
Pathways to Cultural Competence Project (PCCP, 2009), which provides guidelines for culturally competent
programs that include eight core concepts: (1) “Children are nested in families.” (2) “Identify shared goals among
families and staff.” (3) “Authentically incorporate cultural traditions and history in the classroom.” (4)
“Acknowledge child development as a culturally driven, ongoing process that should be supported across contexts
in a child’s life (e.g., school and home).” (5) “Individuals’ and institutions’ practices are embedded in culture.” (6)
“Ensure decisions and policies embrace home languages and dialects.” (7) “Ensure policies and practices embrace
and respect families’ cultural values, attitudes, and beliefs toward learning.” (8) “Equalize balances of power;
counter stereotyping and bias through intentional teaching.”
PCCP also includes four principles that apply to early childhood educators (e.g., teachers, directors): (1) reflection;
(2) intentional decision making and practice; (3) strength-based perspectives; and (4) open, ongoing
communication between all center staff (e.g., teachers, directors) and families (National Association for the
Education of Young Children, 2009). All components of the PCCP underscore the need for program practices
that promote shared goals between families and program staff; encourage program policies that embrace and
recognize the home language, including nonstandard dialects; incorporate the cultural traditions of families and
communities into the classroom; and respect cultural attitudes about learning (National Association for the
Education of Young Children, 2009).
In sum, the Head Start and NAEYC initiatives are arguably the most comprehensive and well-known of several
that attempt to address the importance of culture for child development and learning, as well as the need to
incorporate into programs the history, experiences, and languages of the families and communities represented in
early childhood classrooms across the United States. However commendable and essential as these and other
similar efforts are, they may not go far enough. Although acknowledging, valuing, and incorporating children’s
experiences, language, and cultural background into early childhood curricula and practices is both fundamental
and vital, more is needed to foster the deep and lasting changes that can augur a more socially just United States.
As suggested in Head Start’s Multicultural Principles, early childhood practice that strives for creating a better and
more just society for all children must recognize and actively oppose personal, institutional, and societal racism,
bias, privilege, and prejudice. Much can be changed through intentional application of principles such as the ones
just described to the practice of educating young children, but early childhood educators must personally embrace
the responsibility of educating future generations to uphold the values underlying a socially just society.
Research on Culturally Responsive Teaching and

Pedagogy
Teaching practices (i.e., activities, strategies) and curricula responsive to young racially, culturally, linguistically,
and economically marginalized children have been recommended for bridging between the knowledge that
children bring with them to school and what schools want them to learn. The relevant literature identifies five
characteristics of culturally responsive pedagogy: (1) all students are involved in the construction of knowledge; (2)
students’ prior knowledge, interests, and personal and cultural strengths form the foundation for learning; (3)
151
students examine the curriculum from a variety of perspectives; (4) teachers use multiple assessment practices; and
(5) classroom culture is inclusive of all children (Villegas & Lucas, 2002, pp. 91–123).
Culturally responsive teachers, according to research (Foster & Peele, 1999; Irvine, 2003; Villegas & Lucas, 2002),
have the following abilities: (1) They can recognize that social-ecological factors such as race, social class, and
culture locate people within a social order, which may influence how they understand the world. (2) They
advocate for children and engage in systemic reform within schools. (3) They are antiracist, antibias, and social
justice advocates. (4) They are responsive to the context in which they teach and to individual and group needs.
(5) They possess an array of strategies and techniques for engaging students effectively, creating instruction that
integrates the knowledge and experience that children have with the knowledge children are learning in school. (6)
They develop knowledge and understanding of the necessity to learn about their students and have strategies to do
so. (7) They design instruction to draw on students’ strengths and address their needs (Villegas & Lucas, 2002, p.
121).
Three factors are thought to be related to the educational achievement of young racially, culturally, linguistically,
and economically marginalized children: (1) practices that connect children’s culture, language, and experience to
the classroom, specifically cooperative learning, culturally responsive curriculum, and use and/or acknowledgment
of children’s discourse patterns and home language; (2) teachers’ personal capacities and attitudes necessary for
children’s school success; and (3) teachers’ use of culturally responsive behavior management styles. Because the
majority of research on culturally responsive teaching practice has focused on kindergarten through Grade 12
schools, each of these factors will be discussed in relation to research evidence and feasibility for use with 3-to 8-
year-old children.
Family members are integral to multicultural education during the early years.
1. Teaching Practices That Connect Children’s

Experience to the Classroom
Research on teaching practices distinguishes between transformative approaches that dismantle institutionalized
Eurocentric pedagogy (see, for example, McCarty, 2002; Murrell, 2002; Native Hawaiian Education Council,
2002) and additive approaches in which culturally responsive practice is infused in classroom curriculum, but may
not alter a fundamentally Eurocentric pedagogy. The former, which Murrell (2002) refers to as “culturally explicit
pedagogy,” requires transformation of schools at all levels—classroom practice, policies, philosophy, and so forth.
A partnership of educators, community leaders, and families usually creates the transformative approach. The
development of culturally explicit pedagogy for Native Hawaiian (Native Hawaiian Education Council, 2002),
Navajo (McCarty, 2002), and Alaskan Native children (Alaskan Native Knowledge Network, 1998) indicates that
these programs have contributed to greater educational success for children, family and community engagement,
and teacher efficacy. These efforts differentiate between teaching and learning about the child’s culture, and
teaching and learning through the child’s culture (Native Hawaiian Education Council, 2002, p. 12).
152
Scheurich’s (1998) research on highly successful elementary schools serving economically disadvantaged racial
minority students, largely Latino/a, is instructive. Children in these public schools perform at or above their more
economically advantaged peers on standard achievement measures. These schools are generally not developed by
university experts in partnership with school personnel, but appear to have evolved from dedicated
parents/guardians/families, teachers, and principals who craft over time a shared vision for the education of
children in a particular school. Scheurich’s data suggest that all partners share the four following beliefs: (1) All
children can succeed at high academic levels; (2) relationships with children must be based on love, appreciation,
and respect; (3) the child’s culture and first language are highly valued; and (4) the school exists for and serves
families and the community.
Research on additive approaches suggests that particular practices do improve outcomes for children of color and
children in poverty. Specifically, early elementary children who have teachers who help them build connections
between school and home culture show significant improvement in literacy and mathematics achievement. Knapp
(1995) studied 140 high-poverty early elementary school classrooms in 15 schools and identified two dimensions
of teachers’ instructional responses to the diversity of children in their classrooms. The first dimension involves
constructive and nonconstructive teacher responses. Essentially, constructive teachers believe that regardless of
home culture characteristics (e.g., parents’ marital status, poverty, language background), children can learn, while
nonconstructive teachers assume that students’ backgrounds determine educational outcomes. The second
dimension involves the degree of responsiveness (active vs. passive) that teachers exhibit in responding to student
differences. Active teachers believe that they understand the cultural backgrounds of the children they teach and
use teaching strategies and curricula that support their beliefs. Passive teachers do not respond to differences,
either because they do not perceive differences or do not recognize them as significant in the child’s educational
performance. The researchers caution that active responses should not be automatically perceived as positive.
Active teachers can incorrectly assume that they understand children’s home culture; as a result, they may develop
teaching strategies based on erroneous assumptions.
Cooperative Learning
Cooperative learning takes many forms, but generally involves three elements: student interdependence,
achievement, and interaction. Most of the research on cooperative learning is directed at middle school and high
school education. The goal is to increase understanding and class cohesion through students working together on
school-related assignments that cannot be completed without the help of all. Students learn to listen to others, to
build consensus, to cooperate, and other social skills that are presumably transferable throughout other classroom
activities. Cooperative learning not only improves academic achievement, but also teaches social skills and
improves classroom climate (Johnson & Johnson, 1991), in part because it gives individual students immediate
cognitive and social support (Brown & Palincsar, 1989). In middle and high school classrooms, cooperative
learning is used to develop analytical skills regarding literature, history, math, and science with children from
minority communities (Rosebery, Warren, & Conant, 1992). This teaching strategy requires significant
preplanning on the part of teachers, monitoring of group progress, and teachers’ individual assessment of each
student. How cooperative learning is implemented is critical to its success; according to Slavin (1990), this
learning must include individual accountability and positive interdependence. It also requires that teachers scaffold
student learning regarding management of emotion, staying on task, and effective communication.
Small-scale studies, ethnographies, and case studies of teachers who employ cooperative learning with African
American children suggest that teachers use this teaching approach in part because they believe it reflects home
cultural practices. Foster and Peele (1999) report that effective teachers of African American boys use practices
that support collectivity, mutual support, and collaborative study. In addition, effective teachers use cooperative
practice to develop a sense of familylike relationships within the classroom. In a qualitative study of effective
African American teachers of African American children, Ladson-Billings (1994) found that teachers reported
using cooperative work with elementary and high school students. But she concedes, “What teachers deem
cooperative behavior more accurately falls under the category of compliance and conformity” (p. 70).
153
Cooperative learning has also been used successfully with DL learners. For example, Almaguer (2005) paired
proficient and struggling third-grade readers for whom English was not their home language. This researcher
found that struggling readers’ fluency and reading performance on a series of reading tasks significantly improved.
Similarly, Gersten, Baker, Marks, and Smith (1999) examined the empirical and professional literature describing
classroom techniques that enhanced the school success of children speaking a language other than English and
identified cooperative learning as one of the most supported.
Nevertheless, there are conceptual and methodological problems with interpreting the value of this practice for
children in poverty and children of color. Knapp (1995) questions whether cooperative learning can be applied in
a variety of school settings and populations and whether it has lasting effects on children’s development. There is a
dearth of research indicating that it does. Ladson-Billings (1994) suggests that teachers may falsely assume that
children’s cultures support cooperative learning when they may not. Application of the construct depends on
individual interpretations—and children’s confidence in their individual abilities may be jeopardized (p. 66).
Nieto (1999) asserts that cooperative learning may be beneficial in improving classroom climate, but there is little
evidence that it improves educational outcomes over time.
In early childhood classrooms from preschool through early elementary grades, group learning activities are a
staple of instruction. Through projects and interest groups on specific curriculum content (e.g., plant growth) to
art projects that require group work (e.g., quilt making), children ages 3 to 8 frequently work in groups. The use
of groups as centers for learning may be based on teachers’ beliefs about child development and/or about cultural
practices familiar to children. There may be a difference, however, in group work activities and cooperative
learning activities, particularly in the degree to which teachers plan for individual learning, support the group, and
assess and monitor each child’s progress. Furthermore, children’s age may be a factor in their ability to work
together to complete a task and in their need for greater participation and scaffolding by teachers.
Mixed-age grouping and cross-age tutoring may be strategies that contribute to greater school success for racially,
culturally, linguistically, and economically marginalized children. Mixed-age grouping (e.g., children 6 and 7 years
of age or first and second graders taught in the same classroom) and cross-age tutoring (e.g., an older child tutors a
younger child) are based on the following notions: that individual patterns of development in early childhood vary
greatly, that chronological age is not always a sufficient indicator of a child’s abilities, and that cognitive and social
gains can be achieved through collaboration between younger children and older children who model behaviors
and knowledge more advanced than the younger children can exhibit alone. Mixed-age classrooms, in contrast to
single-age classrooms, presumably provide young children with a greater range of ability, maturity, and
competency models from which to learn. Research (Evangelou, 1989) suggests that mixed-age grouping may foster
prosocial behaviors, reduce age-mate aggression, and encourage instruction by older children of younger peers in
classrooms.
Cross-age tutoring (e.g., an older child tutors a younger child) appears to benefit culturally, racially, and
economically marginalized children’s development of social skills, mathematics and literacy skills, and peer
relations, as well as improving classroom climate (Kalkowski, 1995). Teachers of 3- to 8-year-old children can use
both mixed-age grouping and cross-age tutoring, but like all teaching strategies they require planning and skill in
execution. Teachers must be adept at classroom management and individual child assessment, recognize the value
of these strategies for child outcomes, and have sufficient knowledge of child development. The successful
adoption of mixed-age grouping in schools, however, must be done within a school or school system; teachers
generally do not have sufficient authority to use this approach without administrative support.
Culturally Responsive Curricula

Curriculum change to improve educational outcomes for culturally and racially diverse children has been a
significant target of school reform proposals (Dyson, 2003; Nieto, 1999). Irvine (2003) cautions that curriculum
changes that attempt to merely infuse diversity content across the curriculum will “not lead to sustaining
outcomes or significant changes in teachers’ attitudes and instructional behaviors” (p. 16). Curriculum change
154
without attention to other factors, especially school and classroom climate and teacher–child relationships, may
not have lasting effects. Unfortunately, teachers may have limited control over determining school curricula,
pedagogical strategies, and policies. In large urban systems, district administrators and principals may determine
curriculum choices or limit schools to a few preselected choices. In addition, federal mandates (e.g., No Child Left
Behind) may place enormous pressure on school systems to further regulate classroom curriculum, practices, and
pedagogy.
Individual teachers may have more control over some aspects of their own classroom’s curriculum, including the
use of formally published multicultural children’s literature, antibias curriculum, and popular literacies.5 Within
their classrooms, teachers can apply the following essential ideas of culturally responsive curriculum reform: (1)
build on what children know, think, and value to enrich the classroom curriculum; (2) build on children’s
strengths; (3) build bridges between what children know and school educational goals; (4) create a caring
community grounded in children’s cultures as well as antibias/antiracist values and practices; (5) engage
parents/guardians/families in meaningful, respectful, ethical partnerships that support home and school cultures;
and (6) respect and use children’s languages/dialects.
Discourse Patterns
Children enter school with differences in oral and nonverbal communication because of culture, language, gender,
social class, and age. They have learned an established communication system complete with grammatical rules,
vocabulary, and communication norms, but not all languages and skills are equal in school-based learning. Many
children in poverty and culturally diverse children may not have a clear understanding about behaviors expected in
schools and norms for classroom participation. Teachers may have little understanding of the nonverbal
communication norms (e.g., body language, interpersonal space, frequency of touching, tone of voice) children
bring to class or the logic, grammar, and lexicon of children’s home languages and dialects. Classrooms require
unique communication knowledge, including particular discourse patterns. Typical discourse patterns in school
are teacher led—for example, the teacher initiates–child responds–teacher evaluates (IRE) sequence, which
accounts for a significant portion of classroom discourse. The IRE discourse pattern may contribute to passivity
and conformity in learning exchanges (Silliman & Wilkinson, 1994). Using cross-age tutoring may support
children’s greater engagement in classroom activities, provide opportunities for alternative discourse patterns (e.g.,
child to child), and help young children gain a sense of discourse competence with more accepting school peers.
Read-aloud time, show-and-tell, and other teacher-driven activities convey to children expected patterns of
communication. Familiarity with school-required communication patterns and norms facilitates student learning;
conversely, unfamiliarity may inhibit learning, limit participation in classroom activities, influence teachers’
assessment of children’s knowledge and abilities, and ultimately affect school achievement negatively. Assessment
of children’s abilities may be hampered because assessment strategies often require school-required communication
skills that children do not possess.
Research suggests that African American children come to school with rich linguistic knowledge and abilities that
schools generally problematize and stigmatize (Baugh, 1999; Perry & Delpit, 1998; Smitherman, 2000; Woodson,
1933/1969). African American English, a language spoken by an estimated 70% to 80% of Black Americans, is
little understood by teachers and rarely used as a platform for learning (Smith-erman, 2000). Black, Latino/a,
Asian American, and Native American children may also have substantial popular literacies and languages
(Compton-Lilly, 2003; Dyson, 2003; Zentrella, 1997) not valued in classrooms, and insufficient access to
literacies necessary for school success. Dyson’s (2003) rich ethnography documents African American, Latino/a,
and Asian American first-grade students’ extensive use of popular literacies (e.g., hip-hop songs, church sermons
and music, radio disc jockeys, movies, jump-rope rhymes, television, sports). The children and their teacher use
these literacies in writing, art projects, problem solving, relationship building, and classroom activities. Further,
the teacher uses children’s language and knowledge to build bridges to school content that both she and parents
want children to master. Together, children’s literacy and writing capacities were strengthened throughout the
school year. This use of the cultural knowledge that children bring to school is a fine example of how teachers of
young children can develop rich discourse, writing, and early literacy skills, connecting home and school. Applying
155
cultural knowledge requires that teachers recognize children’s communicative abilities, embrace their linguistic
traditions, build on their strengths, and understand parental goals regarding maintenance of home culture and the
development of school competence.
Learning in Two Languages

The literature identifies a series of “best practices” that support DL development in the context of early childhood
classrooms. Educational settings that approach language diversity as a resource and not a deficit offer better
educational opportunities for DL learners. As Wright (2010) suggests, effective schools adopt a language-as-
resource approach; they do not problematize the child’s first language but see it as a rich resource that supports
content and academic knowledge development of DL learners (p. 13).
Bilingual teachers and other bilingual educational staff play a central role in fostering continuities between the
home culture and language and those of the school (Drury, 2007; Garcia, 2005; Pease-Alvarez, Garcia, &
Espinosa, 1991), as they provide young bilinguals considerable emotional support and serve as valuable mirrors for
children’s language and culture. Furthermore, studies indicate that young bilinguals who receive instruction and
support in their home language during the early years of schooling have better long-term outcomes than DL
learners who are taught only in English (Baker, 2000; Rolstad, Mahoney, & Glass, 2005). The use of the home
language in early schooling does not endanger the growth of English language proficiency (Barnet, Yarosz,
Thomas, Jung, & Blanco, 2007) and can effectively promote early literacy (August, Calderón, Carlo, & Nuttall,
2006; National Reading Panel, 2006).
It must be noted, however, that the success of teaching young children in their home language in regard to both
subsequent success in English reading and continued home language development depends greatly on teachers’
knowledge about the relationship between first-and second-language literacies (Escamilla, 2000). Further, the
effectiveness with which teachers can promote and support emergent literacy in young DL learners is predicated
on how well teachers understand the home literacy practices of their students’ families; how proficient they are in
using classroom strategies that build on those family literacy practices; and how well they can capitalize on home
language literacy skills to further literacy development in English.
Unfortunately, very little is known about the specific language and instructional practices that are used with very
young children in early care and education settings. However, several program models used in kindergarten and
early elementary schools have a well-researched tradition. These models are often categorized depending on
whether the ultimate program model is English proficiency, home language maintenance, or balanced bilingualism
and biliteracy (Baker, 2006). For example, bilingual programs vary in the degree to which they promote home
language maintenance and development. Some bilingual programs, known as “transitional bilingual,” use the
home language to teach content, but their end objective is English proficiency. Other bilingual programs, such as
those known as “maintenance/heritage language” and “two-way immersion,” have as an end goal balanced
bilingualism and biliteracy (Baker, 2000).
There is evidence that DL or two-way DL enrichment models have the potential for enhancing the school
achievement of DL learners and closing the achievement gap (Thomas & Collier, 2002). In addition, programs
that promote the continued development of the home language, and acknowledge and integrate genuine aspects of
the home culture in the classroom, have proven to enhance both academic success and strong socio-emotional
competencies (Garcia, 2005; Garcia & Nañez, 2011).
Studies on effective instructional practices for DL learners have identified several principles whose application
leads to better school outcomes for these students (Garcia, 2005). These principles include fostering the
preservation of the home language while promoting successful English language acquisition, including knowledge
of the academic English needed for school success, and incorporating into the curriculum materials content
relevant to students’ ethnic, racial, and linguistic identities. Quality early childhood programs serving DL learners
should also include instructional techniques that include them in classroom social interactions and recognize the
value of their home language; acknowledge the fact that DL learning is a long-term process that necessitates
156
balanced support for both languages; and understand that literacy skills from the first language transfer to the
second (Ballantyne, Sanderman, & McLaughlin, 2008).
2. Teachers’ Attitudes, Beliefs, and Expectations

Regarding Young Racially, Culturally, Linguistically,
and Economically Marginalized Children
Teachers may perceive African Americans, Latinos/as, and other children of color as “walking sets of deficiencies”
(Nieto, 1999, p. 85), have low expectations for them as learners, and, most importantly, teach to those
expectations. Research has reported that teachers may have little knowledge of the families and communities that
nurture the children in their classrooms (Pang & Sablan, 1998; Vàldes, 1996); express ideologies that support the
social, political, and racial status quo (Ferguson, 2001; Sleeter, 1993); doubt their ability to effectively teach
African American and Latino/a children (Pang & Sablan, 1998; Vàldes, 1996); and feel unprepared to teach in
multicultural and multilingual classrooms (Ray & Bowman, 2003; Valli & Rennert-Ariev, 2000). In contrast,
studies (Casey, 1990; Foster, 1997; Haberman, 1995; Ladson-Billings, 1994, 1999; Skinner, Bryant, Coffman, &
Campbell, 1998) of effective teachers of economically disadvantaged and racial minority children, including
African American and Latino boys, identify teachers’ attitudes, personal capacities, and behaviors as critical factors
in children’s learning. Foster and Peele (1999) found that successful teachers have “emotional stamina, persistence,
and resilience that enable them to negotiate the school bureaucracy, solve difficult problems, and help their
students cope with day-to-day setbacks and misfortunes as well as more serious hardships” (p. 10). An
ethnography (Skinner et al., 1998) of 21 Head Start children’s transition to kindergarten reported that teachers’
high expectations for every child appeared to be associated with children’s social and academic adjustment.
Children who expressed their love of school were more likely to have teachers who praised and redirected them
with kindness than teachers who punished them.
Changing teachers’ biases, stereotypes, and low expectations of young racially, culturally, and economically
marginalized children cannot be achieved by a single strategy such as professional development or course work.
Irvine (2003) recommends that teachers engage in critical reflection. But in order to scrutinize his or her own
practice regarding bias, prejudice, and racism, a teacher has to be willing to confront her or his privilege, power,
beliefs, and behavior. This type of inquiry is best done with others willing to be or already engaged in similar
introspection. Essential is ongoing professional development (PD) tailored to teachers in a particular school that
supports reflection, examines research on teacher biases, includes observation in teachers’ classrooms by the PD
leader, and challenges teachers to examine their practices, expectations, and attitudes.
3. Teachers’ Use of Culturally Responsive Behavior

Management Styles
Every teacher must choose how to design limits within the classroom and determine consequences and rewards for
behavior. Behavior management systems, when well designed and implemented, support the development of
positive teacher–child relationships (Pianta, 1999). Children are more likely to experience teachers as predictable,
responsive, and available if teachers are able to maintain effective behavior management systems within their
classrooms, which in turn contributes to teachers’ sense of effectiveness and influence. Behavior management
systems that are inconsistent or developmentally inappropriate can erode teacher–child relationships (Pianta,
1999).
Teachers’ use of culturally grounded behavior management styles with children of color and poor children may be
more successful in building trusting relationships and learning (Ballenger, 1999; Delpit, 1995; Irvine & Fraser,
1998). In the case of African American children, Irvine and Fraser (1998) describe successful teachers as “warm
demanders”—that is, individuals who replicate the parental style of effective African American parents. They
157
caution that this is not a harsh, punitive, or arbitrary parenting style, but rather one that combines affection and
warmth with high standards and clear expectations. Delpit’s (1995) work identified a nonauthoritarian classroom
management style as ineffective with many African American students. Sunia and Smolkin’s (1994) research on
Pueblo Indian schooling indicates that teachers with a deep knowledge of Pueblo culture are more likely to use
classroom management styles that reflect consensus, collective decision making, Pueblo language, and Pueblo ways
of knowing in order to reduce discontinuities among school, home, and community. Similarly, Ballenger (1999),
a European American teacher of Haitian immigrant early elementary children, describes learning from Haitian
American teachers and parents the culturally grounded repertoire of behavior management practices used by
Haitian families. Ballenger learned to use these strategies successfully with children to support teaching and
learning in her classroom. Haitian American parents and teachers stress group responsibility, clear expectations,
and moral persuasion. Ballenger’s work suggests that culturally responsive behavior management styles can be
learned and taught interculturally, teacher to teacher and parent to teacher.
Teacher Preparation for Effective Practice with

Culturally, Linguistically, and Racially Diverse
Children
Despite research and the applied literature suggesting strategies and practices that may support the educational
achievement of diverse children, it is unclear whether these and other approaches are part of preservice teacher
preparation. In relation to preparing teachers who are successful educators of young racially, culturally, and
economically marginalized children, there is little agreement on the depth and breath of knowledge teachers need
to work effectively with specific groups of children (e.g., economically marginalized Black, Puerto Rican, Navajo
children), how that knowledge should be mastered, how it should be integrated into teaching, and whether it
actually makes a lasting difference in child outcomes (Nieto, 1999; Ray et al., 2006; Zeichner, 1996).
Data (Ray et al., 2006) indicate that early childhood teacher preparation programs may not sufficiently address the
complex educational and developmental needs of young, diverse learners. In a national study of diversity content
in course requirements in 226 undergraduate teacher education programs representing one third of all U.S.
bachelor’s degree programs, Ray and colleagues found that on average only 25% of required semester hours of
professional course work focuses on children who are low income, racial or cultural minorities, second-
language/dialect speakers, and/or children with diverse abilities. This suggests that perhaps 75% of the professional
curricula in bachelor’s degree teacher education programs in the United States are primarily concerned with the
development and education of White, middle-class, monolingual children without identified disabilities. Ray and
colleagues (2006) argue that early childhood teacher education programs convey an unambiguous message to
future teachers: Professional competence requires weak and uneven knowledge and practice skills in educating
racial/cultural/ethnic minority children, children with diverse abilities, children in poverty, immigrant children,
and second-language/dialect speakers.
In-service teachers report that their preservice and in-service preparation for the children in their classrooms,
specifically children in poverty and culturally, racially, and ethnically diverse children, had been inadequate; in
addition, the knowledge and skills they have had been acquired primarily through listening to colleagues,
parents/guardians/families, and the children in their classrooms (Ray & Bowman, 2003). All this notwithstanding,
a number of studies have shown that White teachers who become more aware of their own cultural and racial
identity and the role it plays in their teaching tend to be better equipped to work with diverse students (McAllister
& Irvine, 2000; Nieto, 1999; Raible & Irizarry, 2007). For example, a study of teachers of young DL learners,
which included in-depth interviews and classroom observations, found that teachers with a greater understanding
of their own culture were more likely to integrate cultural and linguistic considerations into their teaching and
pedagogy when working with students from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds than their own (Kimble,
2009).
Perhaps the most salient issue in research on teacher preparation for young racially, culturally, and economically
158
marginalized children is whether course work or any other strategy has made preservice and in-service teachers
effective educators and improved educational outcomes for children. Unfortunately, few studies have
systematically followed graduates or in-service teachers into classrooms and evaluated the relationship between
their undergraduate training on multicultural and multiracial issues and improved child outcomes.
Clearly, early childhood teacher education programs have attempted to improve teacher education, but much
work remains. Additional research on the effects of strategies intended to improve preservice teacher knowledge
about and attitudes toward culturally, linguistically, and racially diverse children is needed.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we argue that culturally responsive teachers and classroom practice may contribute to significantly
better educational outcomes for young racially, culturally, linguistically, and economically marginalized children.
The research reviewed indicates that culturally responsive pedagogy and teaching practices may benefit children,
especially in terms of math achievement, literacy achievement, and social adjustment. Results are uneven and the
research methodology is typically qualitative (e.g., ethnographies, case studies, and small select samples). Whether
results can be generalized to most classrooms and children is unclear. Many questions remain unanswered.
America’s stated commitment to its young children remains unmet. It is time to create early education programs,
services, and professionals who can meet the developmental and educational needs of every child—especially our
most vulnerable children. The contribution that early childhood educators can make to achieve this goal is to
provide rich, high-quality, culturally and linguistically relevant educational experiences to the children in their
care. They can join with families and communities to create early childhood programs that support strong cultural
and language capacities in children, equity, and excellence. By placing social justice at the center of good early
childhood practice, teachers commit to intentional actions that reject a deficit approach toward children who
differ from the mainstream in race, language, culture, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status. Furthermore, they
actively integrate family and group identities and values into the classroom; implement a curriculum that fosters
critical thinking and action and is responsive to children’s development and prior experience; and acknowledge
how personal background and experience shape one’s teaching and views of others (Fennimore, 2008).
Accordingly, early childhood education that aspires to be pluralistic and multicultural and is serious about
contributing to equity and social justice demands that teachers have a strong knowledge of self, of children’s
development, and of teaching techniques that support a variety of approaches to learning. If this is done well, our
young children will grow up to be productive, successful adults who appreciate and support a multicultural,
multilingual society in which bias is lessened. If we fail them, however, then we continue to place our nation and
too many of our children in jeopardy. It is our choice.
Reflect On
1. What sociodemographic information would suggest that early childhood education needs to be more
culturally and linguistically responsive to the needs of all children?
2. How are early childhood professionals working to make early childhood education more culturally and
linguistically responsive?
3. How does culture provide a blueprint for understanding childhood development—or does it?
4. What are the core concepts of the National Association for Early Childhood Education’s pathways to
cultural competence?
5. Broadly speaking, in what ways do you think you can contribute to the development of your cultural
competence?
159
Endnotes
1. 1. Bidialect refers to children who speak two dialects of a language, such as “school English” and African
American English or Appalachian English. Because of the lack of knowledge most early educators have of
the significance of dialects in early learning, it is important to indicate that the “distinction between
‘languages’ and ‘dialects’ is usually on more social and political grounds than on purely linguistic ones”
(Linguistic Society of America, 1997). From a linguistic and educational point of view, African American
English and Appalachian English are recognized by linguists and researchers as rule-governed, viable
languages, not as a series of grammatical errors of those who speak these languages.
2. 2. European American and White are used interchangeably to refer to people who are primarily descendants
of European immigrants to the United States.
3. 3. Children of color refers to children who are African American, Asian American, Alaskan Native, Latino/a,
Native American, and Pacific Islander. We recognize that these terms suggest similarity where there is great
variation. For example, there are over 300 distinct tribes that fall under the term Native American; similarly,
Asian Americans represents may different cultural and language traditions.
4. 4. African American and Black are used interchangeably to refer to people who are primarily descendents of
Africans enslaved in the United States.
5. 5. The term popular literacies refers to children’s appropriation, from media-saturated environments in
which they grow up, of symbols (e.g., brand names), texts (e.g., plots from cartoons), and other cultural
resources (e.g., sermons, jingles, popular music) that they use to understand and interpret the world.
References
1. Alaskan Native Knowledge Network. (1998, February). Alaskan standards for culturally-responsive schools.
Fairbanks, AK: Alaskan Native Knowledge Network.
2. Almaguer, I. (2005). Effects of dyad reading instruction on the reading achievement of Hispanic third grade
English language learners. The Bilingual Reading Journal, 29 (3), 559–577.
3. August, D., Calderón, M., Carlo, M., & Nuttall, M. (2006). Developing literacy in English-language
learners: An examination of the impact of English-only versus bilingual instruction. In P. D. McCardle & E.
Hoff (Eds.), Childhood bilingualism: Research on infancy through school age (pp. 91–106). Cleveland, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
4. Baker, C. (2000). The care and education of young bilinguals: An introduction for professionals. Tonawanda,
NY: Multilingual Matters, Ltd.
5. Baker, C. (2006). Foundations of bilingual education and bilingualism. Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual
Matters, Ltd.
6. Ballenger, C. (1999). Teaching other people’s children: Literacy and learning in a bilingual classroom. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
7. Ballantyne, K. G., Sanderman, A. R., & McLaughlin, N. (2008). Dual language learners in the early years:
Getting ready to succeed in school. Washington, DC: National Clearinghouse for English Language
Acquisition. Retrieved from http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/rcd/BE024206/Dual_Language_Learners.pdf
8. Barnet, W. S., Yarosz, D. J., Thomas, J., Jung, K., & Blanco, D. (2007). Two-way and monolingual
English immersion in preschool education: An experimental comparison. Early Childhood Research
160
Quarterly, 22 (3), 277–293.
9. Baugh, J. (1999). Out of the mouths of slaves: African American language and educational malpractice. Austin,
TX: University of Texas Press.
10. Blackledge, A. (1994). Teaching bilingual children. London, UK: Trentham Books.
11. Bondy, E., & Ross, D. D. (1998). Confronting myths about teaching Black children: A challenge to teacher
educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 21 (4), 241–254.
12. Bowman, B., Donovan, S., & Burns, S. (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Washington, DC:
National Academy Press.
13. Boykin, A. W., & Toms, F. D. (1985). Black child socialization: A conceptual framework. In H. P.
McAdoo & J. L. McAdoo (Eds.), Black socialization: Social, educational, and parental environments (pp. 33–
52). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14. Brown, A., & Palincsar, A. M. (1989). Guided, cooperative learning and individual knowledge acquisition.
In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Cognition and instruction: Issues and agendas (pp. 393–451). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
15. California Tomorrow. (n.d.). Ready or not: A California Tomorrow think piece on school readiness and
immigrant communities. Retrieved from http://www.californiatomorrow.org/media/readyornot.pdf
16. Casey, K. (1990). Teacher as mother: Curriculum theorizing in the life histories of contemporary woman
teachers. Cambridge Journal of Education, 20 (3), 301–320.
17. Chall, J. S., & Snow, C. E. (1988). School influences on the reading development of low-income children.
Harvard Educational Newsletter, 4 (1), 1–4.
18. Chau, M., Thampi, K., & Wright, V. (2010). Basic facts about low-income children, 2009. New York, NY:
National Center on Child Poverty. Retrieved from http://nccp.org/publications/pdf/text_972.pdf
19. Chang, F., Crawford, G., Early, D., Bryant, D., Howes, C., Burchinal, M., et al. (2007). Spanish-speaking
children’s social and language development in pre-kindergarten classrooms. Early Education and
Development, 18 (2), 243–269.
20. CLASP. (2008a). Head Start participants, programs, families, and staff in 2006. Retrieved from http://
www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/0418.pdf
21. CLASP. (2008b). Early Head Start participants, programs, families and staff in 2006. Retrieved from http://
www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/0417.pdf
22. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
23. Compton-Lilly, C. (2003). Reading families: The literate lives of urban children. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
24. Darling-Hammond, L., Pittman, K. J., & Ottinger, C. (1987). Career choices for minorities: Who will teach?
Washington, DC: National Education and Council of State School Officers Task Force on Minorities in
Teaching.
25. Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children. New York, NY: The New Press.
26. Drury, R. (2007). Young bilinguals at home and school: Researching multilingual voices. London, UK:
Trentham Books.
161
27. Dupree, D., Spencer, M. B., & Bell, S. (1997). African American children. In G. Johnson-Powell & J.
Yamamoto (Eds.), Transcultural child development: Psychological assessment and treatment (pp. 237–268).
New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
28. Dyson, A. H. (2003). The brothers and sisters learn to write: Popular literacies in childhood and school cultures.
New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
29. Escamilla, K. (2000, April 19–20). Bilingual means two: Assessment issues, early literacy, and Spanish speaking
children. Paper presented at A Research Symposium on High Standards in Reading for Students from
Diverse Language Groups, Washington, DC. Retrieved from
http://www.ncela.gwu.edu/files/red/BE023774/Bilingual_Means_Two.pdf
30. Evangelou, D. (1989). Mixed-age groups in early childhood education. ERIC Digest, ED308990. ERIC
Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, Urbana, IL.
31. Fennimore, B. S. (2008). Talk about children: Developing a living curriculum of advocacy and social
justice. In C. Genishi & A. L. Goodwin (Eds.), Diversities in early childhood education: Rethinking and doing
(pp. 185–200). New York, NY: Routledge.
32. Ferguson, A. A. (2001). Bad boys: Public schools in the making of Black masculinity. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
33. Forum for Youth Investment. (2010). Children of immigrants: What does the future hold? Retrieved from
http://sparkaction.org/node/4016
34. Foster, M. (1997). Black teachers on teaching. New York, NY: The New Press.
35. Foster, M., & Peele, T. B. (1999). Teaching Black males: Lessons from experts. In V. C. Polite & J. E.
Davis (Eds.), African American males in school and society: Practices and policies for effective education (pp. 8–
19). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
36. Frankenberg, E., Lee, C., & Orfield, G. (January 2003). Resegregation grows in public schools—Separate is
still unequal. Focus, 31 (2), 1, 10–11.
37. Galindo, C. (2009). English language learners’ math and reading achievement trajectory in the elementary
years. In E. Garcia & E. Frede (Eds.), Young English language learners (pp. 42–58). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
38. Gándara, P., Losen, D., August, D., Uriarte, M., Gómez, M. C., & Hopkins, M. (2010). Forbidden
language: A brief history of U.S. language policies. In P. Gandara & M. Hopkins (Eds.), Forbidden
language: English learners and restrictive language policies (pp. 20–36). New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
39. Garcia Coll, C., Lamberty, G., Jenkins, R., McAdoo, H. P., Crnic, K., Wasik, B. H., et al. (1996). An
integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67,
1891–1914.
40. Garcia Coll, C. T., & Magnuson, K. (2000). Cultural differences as sources of developmental vulnerabilities
and resources. In J. P. Shonkoff & S. J. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood interventions (pp. 94–
114). New York: Cambridge University Press.
41. García, E. E. (2005). Teaching and learning in two languages: Bilingualism and schooling in the United States.
42. Garcia, E., & Náñez, J. (2011). Bilingualism and cognition: Informing research, pedagogy, and policy.
Washington, DC: APA Books.
162
43. Gersten, R., Baker, S., Marks, S., & Smith, S. B. (1999). Effective instruction for the learning of disabled or at-
risk English-language learners: An integrative synthesis of the empirical and professional knowledge bases. Keys to
Successful Learning: A National Summit on Research in Learning Disabilities. National Center for Learning
Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.ncld.org/at-school/especially-forteachers/effective-teaching-
practices/effective-instruction-for-ld-or-at-risk-english-language-learners
44. Gilliam, W. S. (2005). Prekindergarteners left behind: Expulsion rate in state prekindergarten systems. New
Haven, CT: Yale University Child Study Center. Retrieved from www.challengingbehavior.org/explore/
policy_docs/prek_expulsion.pdf Goldenberg, C., & Coleman, R. (2010). Promoting academic achievement
among English language learners: A guide to the research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
45. Goodz, N. S. (1994). Interactions between parents and children in bilingual families. In F. Genesee (Ed.),
Educating second language children: The whole child, the whole curriculum, the whole community (pp. 61–81).
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
46. Haberman, M. (1995). Selecting “star” teachers for children and youth in urban poverty. Phi Delta Kappa,
76 (10), 771–781.
47. Heckman, J. J. (2007, March 19). Beyond Pre-K: Rethinking the conventional wisdom on educational
intervention. Education Week, 26 (28), 40.
48. Hernandez, D. J. (2010). A demographic portrait of young English language learners. In E. Garcia & E.
Frede (Eds.), Young English language learners: Current research and emerging directions for practice and policy
(pp. 10–41). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
49. Irvine, J. J. (2003). Educating teachers for diversity: Seeing with a cultural eye. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
50. Irvine, J. J., & Fraser, I. (1998). Warm demanders: Do national certification standards leave room for the
culturally responsive pedagogy of African American teachers? Education Week, 17 (3), 42–56.
51. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1991). Cooperative learning and classroom and school climate. In B. J.
Fraser & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Educational environments: Evaluation, antecedents and consequences (pp. 55–
74). New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
52. Kağitçibaşi, Ç. (1996). Family and human development across cultures: A view from the other side. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
53. Kalkowski, P. (1995, March). Peer and cross-age tutoring. School Improvement Series, Close-up #18.
Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Education Laboratory.
54. Kimble, C. (2009). What is it really like teaching English language learners? Teachers’ perceptions on the essence
of teaching early childhood English language learners. Saarbrücken, Germany: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.
55. Knapp, M. S. (1995). Teaching for meaning in high-poverty classrooms. New York, NY: Teachers College
Press.
56. Kozol, J. (1991). Savage inequalities. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
57. Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
58. Ladson-Billings, G. (1999). Preparing teachers for diverse student populations: A critical race theory
perspective. In A. Iran-Nejad & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of research in education (pp. 211–247).
Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
163
59. Laosa, M. (2005, March). Effects of preschool on educational achievement. NIEER Working Paper. Retrieved
from http://nieer.org/resources/research/EffectsPreK.pdf
60. Linguistic Society of America. (1997, January 3). Resolution on the Oakland “Eubonics” issue unanimously
adopted at the annual meeting of the Linguistic Society of America, Chicago, IL. Retrieved from http://
www-personal.umich.edu/~jlawler/ebonics.lsa.html
61. Liontos, L. B. (1992). At-risk families & schools: Becoming partners. ERIC Document EDD00036. Eugene,
OR: ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management.
62. McAllister, G., & Irvine, J. J. (2000). Cross cultural competency and multicultural teacher education.
Review of Educational Research, 70 (1), 3–24.
63. McCarty, T. L. (2002). A place to be Navajo: Rough Rock and the struggle for self-determination in indigenous
schooling. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
64. McLoyd, V. C. (1990). The impact of economic hardship on black families and children: Psychological
distress, parenting, and socioemotional development. Child Development, 61, 311–346.
65. McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child development. American Psychologist, 53,
185–204.
66. Murrell, P. C., Jr. (2002). African-centered pedagogy: Developing schools of achievement for African American
children. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
67. National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1995). Responding to linguistic and cultural
diversity: Recommendations for effective early childhood education. Retrieved from
http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/PSDIV98.pdf
68. National Association for Education of Young Children. (2009). Quality Benchmark for Cultural Competence
Project. Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/policy/state/QBCC_TOOL.PDF
69. National Center for Children in Poverty. (2008). Basic facts about low-income children 2008: Children under
age 18. Retrieved from http://nccp.org/publications/text_892.pdf
70. National Center for Education Statistics. (2001). Education achievement and Black-White inequality.
Washington, DC: Department of Education.
71. National Reading Panel. (2006). Teaching children to read: An evidence based assessment of the scientific
research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Retrieved from
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.cfm
72. Native Hawaiian Education Council. (2002). Nā Honua Mauli Ola: Hawai’i guidelines for culturally
healthy and responsive learning environments. Hilo, HI: Native Hawaiian Education Council and Ka Haka
‘Ula O Ke’elikōlani College of Hawaiian Language, University of Hawai’i at Hilo.
73. Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes: Creating multicultural learning communities. New York, NY:
74. Nieto, S. (2010). Language, culture, and teaching: Critical perspectives (Vol. 2). New York, NY: Routledge.
75. Nsamenang, A. B. (1992). Human development in cultural context: A third-world perspective. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
76. Office of Head Start. (2008). Revisiting and updating the Multicultural Principles for Head Start Programs
Serving Children Ages Birth to Four. Early Head Start National Resource Center @ ZERO TO THREE,
164
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Head Start, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://
eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/hs/resources/ECLKC_Bookstore/PDFs/
Revisiting%20Multicultural%20Principles%20for%20Head%20Start_English.pdf
77. Orfield, G. & Lee, C. (2005). Why segregation matters: Poverty and educational inequality. The Civil Rights
Project, Harvard University. Retrieved from http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu
78. Pang, V. O., & Sablan, V. A. (1998). Teacher efficacy: How do teachers feel about their abilities to teach
African American students? In M. E. Dilworth (Ed.), Being responsive to cultural differences: How teachers
learn (pp. 39–58). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
79. Pease-Alvarez, L., Garcia, E., & Espinosa, P. (1991). Effective instruction for language minority students:
An early childhood case study. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6, 347–361.
80. Perry, T., & Delpit, L. (1998). The real Ebonics debates: Power, language, and the education of African-
American children. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
81. Peske, H. G., & Haycock, K. (2006). Teaching inequality: How poor and minority students are shortchanged
on teacher quality. Washington, DC: The Education Trust. Retrieved from http://www.edtrust.org
82. Pewewardy, C. D. (1994). Culturally responsible pedagogy in action: An American Indian magnet school.
In E. R. Hollins, J. E. King, & W. C. Hayman (Eds.), Teaching diverse populations: Formulating a knowledge
base (p. 77–92). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
83. Piaget, J. (1969). The child’s conception of the world. Totowa, NJ: Littlefield, Adams & Co.
84. Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
85. Raible, J., & Irizarry, J. G. (2007). Transracialized selves and the emergence of post-white teacher identities.
Race and Ethnicity in Education, 10 (2), 77–198.
86. Ray, A., & Bowman, B. (2003). Learning multicultural competence: Developing early childhood practitioners’
effectiveness in working with children from culturally diverse communities. Final Report to the A. L. Mailman
Family Foundation. Center for Race, Class, and Culture in Early Childhood, Erikson Institute, Chicago, IL.
87. Ray, A., Bowman, B., & Robbins, J. (2006). Preparing early childhood teachers to successfully educate all
children: The contribution of four-year teacher preparation programs, A Project on Race, Class and Culture in
Early Childhood, Erikson Institute, Chicago, IL., Report to the Foundation for Child Development, New
York, NY. Retrieved from http://www.erikson.edu/default/research/researchpubs.aspx
88. Reynolds, A., Magnuson, K., & Ou, S. R. (2006). PK-3 education: Programs and practices that work in
children’s first decade. FCD Working Papers: Advancing PK-3, No. 6. Foundation for Child Development,
New York, NY.
89. Riegle-Crumb, C. (2006). The path through math: Course sequences and academic performance at the
intersection of race-ethnicity and gender. American Journal of Education, 113, 101–122.
90. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
91. Rolstad, K., Mahoney, K., & Glass, G. (2005). The big picture: A meta-analysis of program effectiveness
research on English language learners. Educational Policy, 19, 572–594.
92. Rosebery, A., Warren, B., & Conant, F. (1992). Appropriating scientific discourse: Findings from language
minority classrooms. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2, 61–94.
165
93. Saluja, G., Early, D. M., & Clifford, R. M. (2002). Demographic characteristics of early childhood teachers
and structural elements of early care and education in the United States. Early Childhood Research &
Practice, 4, 1–19. Retrieved from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4n1/saluja.html
94. Scheurich, J. J. (1998). Highly successful and loving, public elementary schools populated mainly by low-
SES children of color: Core beliefs and cultural characteristics. Urban Education, 33 (4), 451–491.
95. Sheets, R. H. (2005). Diversity pedagogy: Examining the role of culture in the teaching-learning process. Boston,
MA: Pearson.
96. Silliman, E. R., & Wilkinson, L. C. (1994). Discourse scaffolds for classroom intervention. In G. P.
Wallach & K. G. Butler (Eds.), Language learning disabilities in school-age children and adolescents (pp. 27–
54). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
97. Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
98. Sleeter, C. E. (1993). How white teachers construct race. In C. McCarthy & W. Crichlow (Eds.), Race,
identity, and representation in education (pp. 157–170). New York, NY: Routledge.
99. Skinner, D., Bryant, D., Coffman, J., & Campbell, F. (1998). Creating risk and promise: Children’s and
teachers’ co-constructions in the cultural world of kindergarten. The Elementary School Journal, 98 (4), 297–
310.
100. Smitherman, G. (2000). Talkin’ that talk: Language, culture and education in African America. New York,
NY: Routledge.
101. Steele, C. M. (1992, April). Race and schooling of Black Americans. The Atlantic Monthly, 68–78.
102. Steele, C. M. (1999, August). Thin ice: “Stereotype threat” and Black college students. Atlantic Monthly,
284, 44–47, 50–54.
103. Sunia, J. H., & Smolkin, L. B. (1994). From natal culture to school culture to dominant society culture:
Supporting transitions for Pueblo Indian students. In P. M. Greenfield & R. R. Cocking (Eds.), Cross-
cultural roots of minority child development (pp. 115–132). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
104. The Twenty-first Century Foundation. (2005). Community returns: Investing in Black men and boys. New
York, NY: Author.
105. Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. P. (2002). A national study of school effectiveness for language minority students’
long-term academic achievement. Retrieved from http://repositories.cdlib.org/crede/finalrpts/1_1_final or
http://crede.berkeley.edu/research/crede/research/llaa/1.1_final.html
106. Thompson, S. A. (1998). A discourse explanation for the cross-linguistic differences in the grammar of
interrogation and negation. In A. Siewierska & J. J. Song (Eds.), Case, typology, and grammar (pp. 309–
341). Amsterdam: John Benjamin.
107. Urban Institute. (2007). Immigrant Children Data Tool. Retrieved from http://datatool.urban.org/charts/
datatool/pages.cfm
108. Vàldes, G. (1996). Con respeto: Bridging the distances between culturally diverse families and schools. An
ethnographic portrait. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
109. Valdivieso, R., & Nicolau, S. (1992). Look me in the eye: A Hispanic cultural perspective on school reform.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (ED
362 342)
166
110. Valli, L., & Rennert-Ariev, P. (2000). Identifying consensus in teacher education reform documents: A
proposed framework and action implications. Journal of Teacher Education, 51 (1), 5–17.
111. Villegas, A. M., & Lucas, T. (2002). Educating culturally responsive teachers: A coherent approach. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.
112. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
113. Whiting, B. B., & Edwards, C. P. (1988). Children of different worlds: The formation of social behavior.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
114. Woodson, C. G. (1969). The mis-education of the Negro. Washington, DC: Associated Publishers. (Original
work published 1933)
115. Wright, W. E. (2010). Foundations for teaching English language learners: Research, theory, policy, and practice.
Philadelphia, PA: Caslon Publishing.
116. Zehler, A. M., Fleischman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Stephenson, T. G., Pendzick, M. L., & Sapru, S. (2003).
Descriptive study of services to LEP children and LEP children with disabilities: Summary of findings related to
LEP and SpEd-LEP children. Policy Report. Arlington, VA: Development Associates. Retrieved from http://
onlineresources.wnylc.net/pb/orcdocs/LARC_Resources/LEPTopics/ED/
DescriptiveStudyofServicestoLEPStudentsandLEPStudentswithDisabilities.pdf
117. Zeichner, K. M. (1996). Educating teachers for cultural diversity. In K. Zeichner, S. Melnick, & M. L.
Gomez (Eds.), Currents of reform in preservice teacher education (pp. 133–175). New York: Teachers College
Press.
118. Zentrella, A. C. (1997). Growing up bilingual: Puerto Rican children in New York. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
167
Chapter 7 Early Prevention Initiatives
Karen L. Bierman
Celene Domitrovich
and
Harriet Darling
Provide a definition of school readiness
Describe the preventive intervention approach
For some time, educators have known that children who grow up in poverty often experience delays in cognitive
and social-emotional development (Lengua, 2002). Many start school unprepared for the academic and behavioral
demands of the elementary classroom, causing an achievement gap that widens over time (Zill et al., 2003).
Compared with national norms, rates of serious learning problems, underachievement, and school dropout are
much higher among socioeconomically disadvantaged and ethnic minority students than among their more
advantaged peers (Ryan, Fauth, & Brooks-Gunn, 2006). The Children’s Defense Fund reported in 2005 that the
number of United States children living in poverty had grown by 11.3% to approximately 13 million, or 1 in 5
children. By the beginning of 2011, the number of poor children in the United States was over 14.6 million
(Children’s Defense Fund, 2011). The promotion of school readiness continues to be a national priority.
Head Start has been referred to as the nation’s “premier” federally sponsored early childhood education program,
developed to reduce socioeconomic disparities in educational attainment (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services [USDHHS], 2001). The national investment in Head Start programs was based on research showing that
high-quality preschool programs can substantially improve the school adaptation and life course of disadvantaged
children, enhancing their academic achievement, high school graduation rates, and long-term employment
opportunities (Barnett, 1995; Weikart & Schweinhart, 1997). Yet, significant delays in school readiness remain
evident, even for children who participate in Head Start. The recent Head Start Impact Study, which compared
children randomly assigned to receive Head Start with a similar group allowed to enroll in community non–Head
Start services, demonstrated significant benefits, particularly on cognitive skills (U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, 2005). However, no effects were found on several important aspects of school readiness,
including oral comprehension skills, phonological awareness, aggressive behaviors, or social skills.
In an effort to reduce the achievement gap associated with socioeconomic disadvantage, preventive interventions
are being developed to strengthen the impact of Head Start and other prekindergarten programs on the school
readiness of at-risk children.
A Definition of School Readiness

Preventive interventions are most effective when they are based on developmental research (Coie et al., 1993). We
define school readiness as the prekindergarten child characteristics and skills that have predicted positive academic
and behavioral adjustment to school in longitudinal studies. These skills represent “protective factors” to be
targeted in preventive intervention because they promote child resiliency in the face of disadvantageous life
circumstances. A central focus of this chapter is on the social-emotional and self-regulatory skills that set the stage
for learning at school, including the abilities to establish positive relationships with teachers and peers, focus and
168
sustain attention in learning
Interpersonal skills are needed for cooperative play.
tasks, cooperate and participate effectively in the classroom, and inhibit aggressive reactions.
Social-Emotional and Self-Regulatory Skills

As preschool children transition into kindergarten, they face heightened demands for self-regulation and social
integration. They are expected to initiate and sustain positive relationships with teachers and peers, listen and learn
on demand, follow classroom rules and routines, and in general, show appropriate self-regulation, independence,
and initiative in the classroom (Rimm-Kaufman, Pianta, & Cox, 2000). School readiness is enhanced by four
interrelated social-emotional skills: (1) prosocial-cooperative skills, (2) emotional understanding and emotion
regulation, (3) self-control and attentional focus, and (4) social problem-solving skills.
Prosocial-cooperative skills include the social skills that support friendships (e.g., being friendly and agreeable,
sharing, helping) and the collaborative skills that support positive engagement in learning activities at school (e.g.,
following teacher directions, respecting classroom rules and routines, and working well in a group). Children who
enter elementary school with higher levels of prosocial-cooperative skills learn more quickly at school and attain
higher rates of achievement over the course of kindergarten than do students with lower levels of prosocial skill
readiness (Ladd, Buhs, & Seid, 2000). Prosocial students also establish better relationships with both teachers and
peers and enjoy rich, collaborative, peer play experiences (Denham & Burton, 2004; Fantuzzo et al., 2007).
Conversely, low rates of prosocial skill at school entry predict social isolation, behavior problems, and peer
difficulties in later school years (Bierman, 2004).
Emotional understanding includes knowledge about emotions and the abilities to accurately identify emotional
expressions in someone else, to identify one’s own emotional states, and to recognize events that are likely to elicit
particular emotional reactions. Children with higher levels of emotional understanding show more empathy for
others and are more likely to behave altruistically (Denham & Burton, 2004). Emotional understanding develops
rapidly during the preschool years and fosters social and behavioral adjustment. In one study, emotional
understanding measured during prekindergarten predicted social competence measured in third grade, suggesting
that emotion recognition skills foster transition adjustment at school (Izard, Fine, Schultz, Mostow, Ackerman, &
Young-strom, 2001). Emotional understanding also provides an important foundation for the effective regulation
of emotion because it allows children to use their language and thinking skills to analyze and cope with emotional
highs and lows. Preschool play often involves mild frustrations (e.g., waiting in line, sharing a prized toy).
Kindergarten is even more demanding, as children are expected to delay gratification and organize their behavior
according to the schedule of the class and the directions of the teacher. Children who are able to weather the
emotional ups and downs of these school and peer demands, and who can recover easily from mild setbacks and
disappointments, are more well liked by peers and teachers are more well adjusted behaviorally at school than are
children who find emotion regulation more challenging (Fantuzzo et al., 2007).
169
Self-control skills and the capacity to focus attention additionally show significant maturation during the
prekindergarten year. Good preschool education is often described as “experiential,” reflecting the drive that most
young children show to actively explore, manipulate, and act on their environments. As children move through
preschool, developmental changes occur in the way they approach learning. Being able to inhibit activity, control
impulses and attention, resist distractions, and learn on demand through listening and watching foster
kindergarten adjustment and achievement (Hughes & Kwok, 2006; McClelland, Acock, & Morrison, 2006).
Learning how to control aggressive impulses is particularly important. In general, aggressive behavior is not
uncommon when children first enter preschool and attempt to play with others (ages 2–3). Normatively, however,
rates of aggression decrease sharply during the preschool years, as children develop the verbal, emotional, and
social skills that allow them to inhibit their first impulses, comply with social rules, and use words (rather than
aggressive actions) to voice dissatisfaction and resolve disagreements (Denham & Burton, 2004). Children who
continue to show high rates of aggression in prekindergarten and who carry aggressive behaviors over into
elementary school are at high risk for stable and escalating conflicts with teachers and peers that undermine their
school learning and adjustment (Bierman & Erath, 2006).
During preschool, social problem-solving skills emerge, which enable children to use their verbal skills to identify
problems, generate alternative solutions, and negotiate with their peers, fostering nonaggressive conflict
management (Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1990). Strong social problem-solving skills in preschool predict positive
social adjustment later in elementary school. For example, in one study, Dodge et al. (1990) asked prekindergarten
children to explain how they would respond to a set of typical conflicts (e.g., a child who wanted to swing when
someone was already on the only available swing). Children who could generate several ideas about how to get a
turn appropriately (e.g., without using aggression) were more likely to gain peer acceptance when they entered
grade school. Children who generated few ideas and relied on aggressive solutions tended to show higher levels of
aggressive behavior and develop peer problems in grade school.
Language Skills and a Foundation for Literacy

The term oral language skills refers to the child’s ability to understand and produce single words, grammatically
varied utterances, and oral narratives. In the long term, oral language skills provide critical support for school
adjustment. They provide a foundation for interpersonal understanding, and they enhance reading
comprehension. Effective communication skills also foster the child’s ability to comply with classroom rules,
follow teacher directions, and establish positive peer relations at school entry (Bierman & Erath, 2006; Dickinson
& Brady, 2006). The development of social-emotional skills and language skills influence each other; together,
they affect school readiness in critical ways. Learning is sometimes conceptualized as the acquisition of domain-
specific content, along with the development or construction of new ways of thinking about that acquired
knowledge (Edwards, 1999). The development of school readiness skills is different and cannot accurately be
characterized in terms of the isolated acquisition of discrete skill sets (Blair, 2002). Rather, the social-emotional
and language skills just described are intertwined developmentally. Language skills enhance the child’s capacity to
regulate emotions and promote effective social interaction (Greenberg & Kusche, 1998). Conversely, social-
emotional competencies foster positive adult and peer relationships, motivating and providing important
opportunities for language learning and cognitive development (Bierman, Greenberg, & Conduct Problems
Prevention Group, 1996). Together, language and social-emotional competencies support engagement in school,
promoting the child’s ability to follow classroom rules, cope actively with learning challenges, and relate effectively
to teachers and peers (McClelland et al., 2006).
Preventive interventions designed to foster school readiness typically target one or more of the four social-
emotional skill sets just described, attempting to strengthen the “protective factors” of prosocial-cooperative skills,
emotional understanding, self-control and attentional focus, and social problem-solving skills. Increasingly, a focus
on promoting language and preliteracy skills is also being integrated into social-emotional learning interventions.
170
The Preventive Intervention Approach
A number of prekindergarten interventions have been developed to foster social-emotional development and
enhance child self-regulation skills. Many have demonstrated success in promoting school readiness skills, both by
using new curricula and by training teachers in specific teaching strategies. The “first-generation” social-emotional
learning programs were designed as stand-alone programs. More recently, however, comprehensive prevention
programs are emerging, designed to integrate social-emotional learning components with intervention strategies
targeting children’s oral language and emergent literacy skills. In the following sections, we briefly review an array
of preventive interventions targeting the promotion of social-emotional development and behavioral school
readiness during the prekindergarten year (see also Denham & Weissberg, 2004). Then, we illustrate a prevention
program that integrates social-emotional learning with prevention components targeting language and emergent
literacy skill development.
Universal Classroom Interventions

A rapidly growing research base suggests that the skills that make up social competence during the preschool years
(e.g., cooperative play skills, emotional understanding, self-control, and social problem-solving skills) can be
promoted with instructional approaches applied in school settings (Denham & Weissberg, 2004; Elias et al.,
1997). The instructional process consists of three central components (Mize & Ladd, 1990). First, lessons use
modeling stories, puppets, and pictures to illustrate skill concepts and to explain, demonstrate, and discuss the
skill. Second, children are provided with multiple opportunities to practice skills with guidance and support, such
as in the use of role-plays, games, and cooperative activities. Third, teachers provide reinforcement for the use of
the skills, praising skill use, redirecting problem behavior by suggesting skill use, and commenting on the positive
consequences of skill use. They also look for opportunities to cue and support the use of skillful strategies in “real-
life” situations that occur in the classroom throughout the day.
Teacher-led curriculum-based programs are termed universal when they are used by a classroom teacher to
enhance the language skills and social-emotional competencies of all children in the classroom (Weissberg &
Greenberg, 1998). During the preschool years, teacher-led classroom prevention programs may be particularly
effective. Teacher–child relationships and interactions provide a primary context for social-emotional development
and learning. Teachers are critical sources of support and socialization for young children and influence social-
emotional learning in both formal and informal ways (Pianta, 1999). Teachers who are sensitive, warm, and
responsive foster children’s feelings of emotional security in the classroom. This security promotes children’s
comfort in exploring their physical and social worlds; it enhances their ability to interact comfortably with other
children and concentrate on learning tasks (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2002). Teachers who set up clear routines,
establish appropriate classroom rules, and help children manage conflicts with discussion and problem solving
foster the development of child self-regulation skills and their ability to inhibit aggressive reactions (Denham &
Burton, 2004; Webster-Stratton, Mihalic et al., 2001). Training teachers to provide warm support and effective
(nonpunitive) classroom management has positive effects on children’s prosocial behavior and reduced aggression
(Webster-Stratton, Reid, & Hammond, 2001).
In addition, teachers can foster social-emotional learning through the use of explicit curricula and teaching
strategies. A rapidly growing research base suggests that social-emotional skill development can also be enhanced
via the use of systematic instructional approaches in the classroom (Consortium on the School-Based Promotion
of Social Competence, 1994; Elias et al., 1997).
I Can Problem Solve (ICPS) Program

One of the first universal social-emotional learning programs designed specifically for preschool children was the I
Can Problem Solve, or ICPS, program (Shure, 1992; Shure & Spivack, 1982). This preschool curriculum includes
171
skill presentation lessons and guided practice activities, which use pictures, role-playing, puppets, and group
interaction to teach social skills associated with understanding emotion and social problem solving. During the
first 10 to 12 lessons, children learn word concepts to help them describe social sequences (e.g., some vs. all, if /
then, same / different). The second unit (composed of 20 lessons) focuses on identifying one’s own feelings and
recognizing the feelings of others. Students practice identifying people’s feelings in problem situations and are
shown how behaviors can affect others’ feelings and responses. In the third set of 15 lessons, teachers use role-
playing games and dialogue to promote social problem-solving skills. Teachers introduce hypothetical problem
situations that commonly occur in preschool settings and ask children to generate and act out possible solutions as
ways to encourage generative thinking and help children understand the consequences linked with various choices.
A randomized, controlled trial showed that the ICPS program promoted gains in children’s social problem-solving
abilities and led to teacher-rated improvements in frustration tolerance, impulsivity, and task engagement (Shure,
1992; Shure & Spivack, 1982).
Al’s Pals: Kids Making Healthy Choices

Another example of a universal social-emotional learning program designed for preschool children and carefully
evaluated is Al’s Pals: Kids Making Healthy Choices. Al’s Pals includes 46 lessons designed for preschool,
kindergarten, and firstgrade children. A hand puppet named Al is a positive role model who, along with his
puppet friends Keisha and Ty, demonstrates a set of social-emotional skills in role-plays, discussions, original
songs, and books. Skill concepts are introduced during 20-min lessons. Teachers are trained to prompt and
reinforce the skills throughout the day, as the opportunity arises.
In one study of Al’s Pals, participating children who ranged in age from preschool to Grade 2 showed improved
social skills and problem-solving abilities, as assessed by teacher ratings, compared to children in randomly
assigned control classrooms who did not receive the program (Dubas, Lynch, Gallano, Geller, & Hunt, 1998).
Similarly, another randomized trial of this curriculum conducted in Head Start classrooms produced significant
effects on teacher-rated behavior problems and independent functioning (Lynch, Geller, & Schmidt, 2004).
Preschool Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies

(PATHS) Curriculum
The Preschool PATHS Curriculum (Domitrovich, Greenberg, Cortes, & Kusche, 1999) is a third example of a
preschool social-emotional learning program, and it is one of the more comprehensive, evidence-based programs
available. The PATHS Curriculum (Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group, 1999; Greenberg & Kusche,
1998) was developed originally for elementary school students. In 1990, the developers began working with Head
Start programs to develop a preschool version that represented a developmentally appropriate “downward
extension” of the elementary program (Domitrovich et al., 1999; Domitrovich, Cortes, & Greenberg, 2007).
Preschool PATHS targets skills in five specific domains: (1) cooperative friendship skills (helping, sharing, taking
turns, being a fun and friendly play partner); (2) emotional awareness and communication (being able to identify
and label one’s own and others’ feelings, understanding the impact of common events and behaviors on feelings
and listening skills); (3) self-control/emotion regulation (inhibition of impulsive reactivity when angry or upset,
calming down); (4) self-esteem (complimenting oneself and others), and (5) social problem solving (being able to
follow the sequence of calming down, identifying the problem, generating alternative solutions, and selecting a
positive solution). The units are divided into 33 lessons that are delivered by teachers during circle time. In these
lessons, teachers use modeling stories, illustrated with pictures, puppet demonstrations, and role plays to illustrate
skill concepts. A set of puppet characters, including Twiggle the Turtle and Henrietta the Hedgehog, are central to
the program and model the use of skills in everyday problem situations. For example, in an initial modeling story,
Twiggle the Turtle gets very upset, and a wise old turtle teaches him to stop himself from acting out when he feels
that way. The wise turtle shows Twiggle how to pull into his shell and calm down first, so he is able to describe
the problem, explain his feelings, listen to his friends, and find a way to solve the problem. Following Twiggle’s
172
example, children are taught to tell themselves to stop when they are very upset and to do “turtle” by placing their
arms across their chest and taking a few moments to calm down. Once calm, they are encouraged to explain how
they felt and what was bothering them, as the first step in effective self-regulation and social problem solving.
Twiggle has several puppet friends who are similarly involved in role-plays and stories and serve to illustrate
important friendship and social problem-solving skills. For example, Henrietta the Hedgehog is a friend of
Twiggle. In one story that teaches friendship skills, Henrietta learns that she feels good when she is able to share
things with her friend Twiggle; it makes her happy when she sees her friend smile. During a PATHS lesson,
Henrietta tells the children what she learned about “sharing” and how much fun it was for her and her friend
when she shared with Twiggle: “Every time you share with someone, you are showing that you care about him or
her. That will make the other person feel happy and it will make you feel happy, too.” Henrietta invites the
children to think about their sharing experiences and ideas. In a follow-up practice activity on sharing, each child
is given a small bag of stickers and asked to notice how he or she and classmates feel when they share the stickers
with each other. In this way, the PATHS puppets become models and coaches in the preschool classroom,
encouraging self-regulation and prosocial skills to build a supportive peer community.
Each lesson includes ideas for formal and informal extension activities that teaching staff can use throughout the
day to generalize key concepts. Teachers are encouraged to provide emotion coaching throughout the day,
modeling feeling statements themselves when appropriate, helping children notice the feelings of peers, and
prompting children to describe their own feelings. Teachers are also encouraged to watch for naturally occurring
“teachable moments,” such as peer disagreements or conflicts. At these times, teachers are taught to help children
stop and calm down (using “turtle”) and then talk through the problem-solving steps of defining the problem and
their feelings, listening to their friend’s feelings, and generating ideas for how to solve the problem. Such teaching
goes far beyond “Use your words, please!”—an instruction often heard in early childhood classrooms, as it
provides children with an explicit set of steps and guidelines to support emotion regulation, self-control, and
effective conflict management. A randomized trial compared the development of children in 10 Head Start
classrooms using Preschool PATHS with children in 10 “usual practice” Head Start classrooms; 287 children were
followed for 1 year. Children who received PATHS showed higher levels of emotional understanding; they were
rated as more socially competent by both teachers and parents when compared to children in the control-
comparison classrooms (Domitrovich et al., 2007).
The Important Role of Professional Development and

Support for Teachers
The universal interventions to support children’s social-emotional school readiness just described all provide
teachers with a curriculum guide and materials to enhance social-emotional instruction. In addition, the extent to
which children develop social-emotional skills depends heavily on the quality with which the teacher manages
problem behavior and responds to children’s emotions and conflicts during the day. Increasingly, prevention
programs are investing in more extensive professional development to support teachers in developing the skills
they need to establish and maintain high-quality teacher–student relationships, to manage children’s behavior with
positive support strategies, and to use emotion coaching and social problem-solving dialogue effectively in the
classroom setting. Two recent studies illustrate the positive impact of programs that support teacher professional
development on children’s school readiness.
The Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP)

This project (Raver, Jones, Li-Grining, Zhai, Metzger, & Solomon, 2009) provided Head Start teachers with
training in positive classroom management strategies using an adapted form of the Incredible Years Teacher
Training Program (Webster-Stratton, Reid, & Hammond, 2001). This intervention covered important classroom
management topics, including the effective use of rules and routines to clarify classroom expectations, praise and
positive incentives to encourage and reward child efforts and behavior, and effective (nonpunitive) limit setting to
173
manage problem behaviors. In addition, CSRP provided teachers with a mental health consultant, who met
weekly with teachers to provide coaching in the area of effective classroom management and to provide emotional
support for stress reduction. Mental health coaches also implemented individualized management plans for
children displaying high levels of disruptive behavior in the classroom. Results from a randomized, controlled trial
demonstrated that, compared with “usual practice” Head Start classrooms, the CSRP intervention classrooms had
reduced levels of child aggressive and disruptive behavior (Raver et al., 2009). Furthermore, significant benefits for
children emerged on enhanced preacademic skills (e.g., vocabulary, letter naming, math skills) and attention
control (Raver, Jones, LiGrining, Zhai, Bub, & Pressler, 2011). The intervention directors postulate that
improvements in teachers’ classroom management skills and feelings of teaching efficacy led to increases in
instructional time and child attention skills, thereby promoting gains in academic as well as social-emotional skills.
My Teaching Partner (MTP)

In a second recent study documenting the benefits of investing in teacher professional development, Pianta and
his colleagues (Pianta, Mashburn, Downer, Hamre, & Justice, 2008) used an innovative Web-based platform to
deliver teacher support. The MTP program includes an array of Web-based professional development resources,
including video exemplars and lesson plans on literacy and social-emotional topics (adapting Preschool PATHS
content). In the Web-mediated consultation condition, teachers met regularly with an “online” coach. Teachers
shared videotaped excerpts of their classroom lessons and received positive support, feedback, and suggestions
from their online MTP coach. Teachers who received the full MTP program, with full access to Web-based
resources along with online coaching, showed the greatest improvement in teaching quality (relative to those who
had access to the Web resources but no coaching), and these effects were most pronounced in classrooms serving a
high proportion of socioeconomically disadvantaged children (Pianta et al., 2008). The findings from these two
studies document the importance of investing in teacher professional development, as well as evidence-based
social-emotional curricula to improve preschool outcomes for at-risk children.
Integrating Social-Emotional Interventions with

Classroom Language Enrichment
ICPS, Al’s Pals, PATHS, and CSRP were all developed as “stand-alone” universal social-emotional learning
programs, designed for implementation in the context of any preschool setting. In every case, the developers felt
these programs would be particularly helpful to children who were experiencing delays in social-emotional
development because of socioeconomic disadvantage. Meanwhile, parallel to the development of these preventive
interventions, other developers were focusing on preventive interventions that targeted the delays in language and
preliteracy skills that also frequently accompany socioeconomic disadvantage.
In particular, language development is heavily affected by interactions with adults during early childhood, and it is
frequently delayed among children growing up in poverty (Dickinson & Smith, 1994). For example, parents and
teachers stimulate child language development when they use a rich and varied vocabulary in their talk with
children and when they encourage and extend conversational exchanges between teacher and students. Speaking
about occurrences and issues that are not represented concretely in the environment (e.g., “decontextualized” talk),
such as talking about events that happened at another time, making future plans, or engaging in make-believe
together all stretch and expand children’s ability to use language more flexibly and extensively. Furthermore, child
vocabulary and syntax skill development benefits from adult responses that expand on the child’s utterances and
model new grammatical forms. For instance, a child might say “Dog eat,” and an adult might expand that to “Yes,
the dog ate the biscuit,” providing a model that builds on the child’s statement and fosters new receptive and
expressive skills. To enhance language development among children from low-socioeconomic backgrounds,
preventive interventions were developed to increase the use of these types of language in the classroom (Dickinson
& Brady, 2006; Dickinson & Smith, 1994). These interventions use professional development activities to foster
high-quality language and language expansions in the classroom; several also focus explicitly on teacher language
174
use during book-reading activities.
In interactive book reading (sometimes called dialogic reading), teachers actively engage children in discussions
about the book as they read. These discussions go far beyond simple “yes or no” questions posed by the teacher
and answered by the children. Teachers ask probing questions to help the children to reflect on the emotions felt
by story characters, consider the story sequence and cause–effect links in the story, and identify key vocabulary.
This book-reading method is designed to foster vocabulary growth, narrative understanding, and reading
comprehension. The combination of curriculum-based interactive book-reading lessons and more general
professional development activities
Interactive conversations foster language learning.
have helped teachers use enriched language in the classroom in ways that promote substantial gains in children’s
oral language skills (e.g., Dickinson & Sprague, 2001; Landry, Swank, Smith, Assel, & Guennewig, 2006; Wasik
& Bond, 2001; Whitehurst, Arnold, Epstein, Angell, Smith, & Fischel, 1994; Whitehurst, Epstein, Angell, Payne,
Crone, & Fischel, 1994).
A good example is the recent study conducted by Wasik et al. (2006). In this preventive intervention, an
interactive reading program was implemented in 10 Head Start classrooms. During reading sessions, teachers were
encouraged to ask questions, make connections, and build vocabulary by explicitly teaching target vocabulary
words with props and extension activities. Teachers were also taught general strategies for expanding on children’s
utterances, for extending conversations, and for modeling rich language. The intervention was conducted over a 1-
year period and included monthly workshops for teachers, combined with in-class coaching sessions in which a
mentor modeled the strategy, observed the teacher using the strategy, and provided the teacher with written and
oral feedback. The intervention succeeded in increasing the quality of classroom language use, and children in
intervention classrooms showed significant gains in vocabulary that exceeded those in the comparison classrooms
(Wasik et al., 2006).
Given the developmental interplay between language skills and social-emotional skill development, it is likely that
integrating preventive interventions that target these two domains will have mutually facilitative effects. Both
language skills and social-emotional skills represent areas of development that are often delayed by socioeconomic
disadvantage. Recognizing the importance of both types of skill, social-emotional learning programs are now
evolving to integrate components that concurrently promote language and related preliteracy skills. In the next
section, we provide an in-depth description of one of these integrated programs.
Comprehensive Approaches to Preventive

Intervention: Head Start Research-Based,
Developmentally Informed (REDI) Program
The Head Start REDI program was designed to provide an enrichment intervention that could be integrated into
175
the existing framework of Head Start programs using HighScope or Creative Curriculum (Bierman, Domitrovich
et al., 2008). The goal was to demonstrate that preventive interventions could successfully integrate social-
emotional learning with other curricular components designed to promote language development and preliteracy
skills. Specifically, REDI was organized to promote teachers’ capacities to use research-based practices in
supporting both social-emotional learning and language/preliteracy skill development. The intervention includes
curriculum-based lessons, center-based extension activities, and training in “coaching strategies” for teachers to use
throughout the day to support generalized skill development.
Social-Emotional Learning in REDI

In the REDI program, Preschool PATHS serves as the universal social-emotional learning program delivered by
teachers in Head Start classrooms (Domitrovich et al., 2007). Each week, teachers implement one PATHS lesson
and one PATHS extension activity. In addition, the PATHS themes are linked systematically with an interactive
reading program. One of the interactive reading books used each week discusses the PATHS theme of the week,
thereby serving as a second PATHS extension activity and tying together the reading and social-emotional
learning programs. Teachers are also encouraged to use PATHS compliments daily and to support generalized skill
development with ongoing emotion coaching and support for student use of the self-control (“turtle”) technique
and social problem solving.
Language and Preliteracy Skill Focus in REDI

REDI uses an interactive reading program, a “sound games” program, and print center activities to support
concurrent language development and preliteracy skills.
The interactive reading program is based on the shared reading program developed by Wasik and Bond (2001;
Wasik et al., 2006), which was, in turn, an adaptation of the dialogic reading program (Whitehurst et al., 1994).
The REDI version includes two books per week (one focused on the PATHS theme of the week), each prepared
with scripted interactive questions to guide teacher–student discussion. Teachers also present props to demonstrate
target vocabulary words and encourage children to comment on and discuss the story. In subsequent sessions,
teachers “walk through” each book a second time, using scripted questions to encourage child recall and
comprehension of the narrative. Moreover, teachers receive mentoring in the use of “language coaching” strategies,
such as expanding on children’s statements and exposing children to more complex grammar, to provide a general
scaffold for language development in the classroom during the normal daily routines, such as mealtimes, and
during lesson presentation or small-group times (Dickinson & Smith, l994).
The REDI program also includes “Sound Games” to promote the preliteracy skills associated with phonological
sensitivity that support the initial decoding skills related to learning to read (Adams, 1990). Phonological sensitivity
refers to a child’s ability to recognize and manipulate the smaller units of sound within spoken words, such as
syllables and phonemes (Lonigan, Burgess, & Anthony, 2000). Children who are able to rhyme, blend sounds to
form new words, and otherwise recognize and produce segmented words and syllables, not through print but
through hearing and speaking, acquire initial reading skills more quickly than children without these phonological
skills (Lonigan et al., 2000). A number of studies have demonstrated that phonological sensitivity can be taught by
providing children with carefully sequenced learning activities that target discrete skills (Ball & Blachman, 1991;
Hatcher, Hulme, & Ellis, 1994).
REDI provides teachers with a set of “Sound Games” to use with their students to promote phonological
sensitivity skills. Building on other programs (Adams, Foorman, Lundberg, & Beeler, 1998), these games progress
through six units, moving from easier to more difficult skills during the course of the year (e.g., listening,
rhyming, alliteration, words and sentences, syllables, and phonemes). Teachers use a 10- to 15-min small-group
Sound Game activity at least three times per week.
Finally, REDI also includes print center activities specifically designed to enhance children’s letter recognition
176
skills. Learning to recognize and identify letters of the alphabet is an important predictor of children’s early success
in decoding printed text and learning to read (Scarborough, 2001). Research demonstrates that most children do
not learn about letters in Head Start programs unless those programs are using an explicit curriculum and a
teaching strategy to provide intensive exposure to letters and letter names (Ball & Blachman, 1991).
In REDI, teachers are provided with a developmentally sequenced set of activities to be used in their alphabet
centers with individual children. They are asked to make sure that each prekindergarten child visits the alphabet
center several times per week and are given materials to track the children’s acquisition of letter names. Materials
provided to support student learning include letter stickers, a letter bucket, materials to create a “Letter Wall,” and
craft materials for various letter-learning activities, such as letter collages, letter towers, and letter murals.
The preventive intervention components of the REDI program are designed for integration with a well-balanced
and comprehensive preschool curriculum. For example, Table 7–1 illustrates how REDI is integrated with the
Creative Curriculum (Dodge, Colker, & Heroman, 2002), which is frequently used in Head Start.
The REDI Professional Development Model

The REDI professional development model for teachers includes initial training in the curriculum and ongoing
consultation and support provided by REDI consultants, designed to enhance integration of REDI concepts and
techniques throughout the day. REDI consultants provide teachers with suggestions in the area of effective
classroom management (e.g., establishing clear and appropriate rules and directions; providing positive and
corrective feedback for appropriate behavior; applying natural response cost procedures to reduce problem
behaviors; and strengthening positive relations with children and parents). REDI consultants coach teachers in the
use of interactive reading and provide encouragement and ideas for the development of conversations that extend
children’s language.
In an evaluation of the Head Start REDI program, the progress of 356 four-year-old children was tracked over the
course of the pre-kindergarten year. Classrooms were randomly assigned to use the REDI prevention curriculum
or to continue with “usual practice.” The REDI prevention program promoted significant gains in teachers’ high-
quality language use and social-emotional support for children (Domitrovich, Gest, Gill, Bierman, Welsh, &
Jones, 2009). Children experienced important gains in multiple domains of school readiness—vocabulary,
emergent literacy, emotional understanding, social problem solving, social behavior, and learning engagement
(Bierman, Domitrovich et al., 2008)—and in some executive function skills and attention control (Bier-man, Nix,
Greenberg, Blair, & Domitrovich, 2008).
177
Table 7–1 Typical Classroom Schedule: Head
Start REDI with Creative Curriculum
Alternate View
Strengthening Prevention Services for High-Risk

Children: Indicated Prevention
Classroom curricula promote the school readiness skills of all children in the classroom and hence are called
“universal” approaches. As illustrated by the Head Start REDI program, classroom programs that integrate
research-based strategies in a comprehensive fashion to enhance oral language, emergent literacy, and social-
emotional skills may be particularly valuable to children coming from low-socioeconomic backgrounds. Several
additional prevention strategies are often used to strengthen the impact of classroom-based “universal” prevention
programs.
Some children enter preschool with particularly large delays or special needs (such as developmental delays,
language delays, or attention deficits) that put them at particular risk for school adjustment difficulties. These
178
children often need services that are in addition to classroom-based programs and that provide more intensive
instructional support, guided practice, and feedback (Odom & Brown, 1993). Prevention programs for children
with delays or special needs are called “indicated.”
Incredible Years Dinosaur Social Skills and Problem-

Solving Curriculum
This program was developed specifically for preschool and early elementary children (ages 4 to 8) who show high
levels of aggressive–disruptive conduct problems (Webster-Stratton & Hammond, 1997; Webster-Stratton,
Mihalic et al., 2001). It targets skills for positive peer interaction and friendship development, emotional
understanding and expression, anger management, interpersonal problem solving, and appropriate classroom
behavior. The program is delivered in weekly 2-hr sessions with small groups of five to six children for
approximately 21 weeks.
Peer Coaching Programs

Social skill coaching programs have also been developed for withdrawn and disliked preschool children
(Guglielmo & Tyron, 2001; Mize & Ladd, 1990; Odom et al., 1999). In these programs, adult “coaches” work
with children in small groups, focusing on participation and play skills, communication skills, and conflict
management skills. Modeling stories and short puppet plays are used to model skill concepts and children then
have opportunities to practice the skills in play, guided and supported by the adult coach. Such materials and skill
modeling may also be used in therapeutic interventions.
The randomized trial conducted by Odom and his colleagues (1999) provides good evidence of the value of social
skills coaching for preschool children with special needs. In that study, an indicated intervention was provided to
preschool children with mild to moderate developmental delays (e.g., mental retardation, behavior disorders,
communication disorders) who were at risk for social and behavioral adjustment problems. In the child-focused
coaching sessions, small groups of three to four developmentally delayed children met with teachers for 10 to 15
min per day for 25 days. These sessions targeted the play skills of initiating play, sharing, agreeing, leading a game,
and trying a new way. In these groups, teachers introduced, demonstrated, and discussed the social skills concepts;
they then had children role-play the social skills. The program also included peer partners who were “typically
developing.” Teachers provided prompts and praise to encourage positive play between the typically developing
peer partners and the special needs preschoolers. Teachers specifically coached the typically developing peers to
initiate social encounters. They also provided structured activities and supports in the classroom setting to enhance
opportunities for peer play between the developmentally delayed students and their typically developing peer
partners. Odom et al. (1999) found that social skills coaching had a significant impact, increasing the quality of
child social interactions (assessed with observer ratings) and social competence (assessed with teacher ratings).
Resilient Peer Treatment (RPT)

The RPT (Fantuzzo, Manx, Atkins, & Meyers, 2005) is another example of a program that operates at the
indicated level, as it is designed to foster the social skills and social adjustment of socially withdrawn preschoolers
who have a history of maltreatment. Classmates who show high levels of social competence are selected to be “Play
Buddies” for the socially withdrawn children; family volunteers provide the adult support needed for therapeutic
play opportunities for the withdrawn children and their Play Buddies in the classroom. In a randomized trial of
the RPT program delivered in Head Start classrooms, observers recorded significant increases in positive play
interactions and decreases in solitary play behavior for the socially withdrawn children. Teachers also reported
higher levels of collaborative peer-play interactions in the treatment setting; teacher ratings showed sustained gains
in self-control and prosocial behavior and decreased levels of problem behaviors two months after the intervention.
179
Coordinated Parent-Focused Prevention Components
The impact of classroom-based prevention programs can also be strengthened by including coordinated parent-
training programs (Sheridan, Knoche, Edwards, Bovaird, & Kupzyk, 2011). Notably, in one trial of the Incredible
Years program, families of 97 children with early-onset conduct problems were randomly assigned to receive the
Dinosaur Curriculum, a parent-training program, the combination of the Dinosaur Curriculum and parent
training, or a wait-list control group (Webster-Stratton & Hammond, 1997). The Dinosaur Curriculum, used
alone or in combination with parent training, produced significant improvements in social problem-solving skills
(as measured in child interviews) and conflict-management skills (as measured by observations of play interactions
with best friends). Parent training (used alone or in combination with Dinosaur Curriculum) produced greater
effects on problem behaviors at home. The positive effects of the Dinosaur Curriculum and parent training were
maintained at a 1-year follow-up (Webster-Stratton & Hammond, 1997). This study suggests that comprehensive
coaching programs for young children with aggressive behavior problems and concurrent social-emotional skill
deficits can enhance their social competencies, especially when combined with training that helps parents
understand and support the child’s social-emotional growth.
Conclusion
In summary, prevention initiatives use developmental research to identify risk and protective factors associated
with positive child outcomes. Preventive interventions are designed to foster the promotion of protective factors,
and in that way to foster child resilience and positive outcomes. Although Head Start and other high-quality
preschool programs have shown effectiveness in promoting school readiness (Barnett, 1995), research-based
prevention initiatives can strengthen their effects, contributing to the school readiness of children at risk because
of socioeconomic disadvantage. Critical skill domains associated empirically with school readiness and future
school adjustment include social-emotional competencies (cooperative play skills, emotional understanding and
regulation, self-control, and social problem-solving skills), and language skills. Comprehensive classroom-based
prevention initiatives integrate a focus on skills in these two domains, fostering both the acquisition of specific
knowledge and mature approaches to learning. Universal interventions are delivered by teachers and serve to
promote the competencies and enhance resilience among all children in the classroom. They can be combined
with indicated interventions, which provide more intensive therapeutic support to children with specific needs or
developmental delays.
Implications for Education

The available empirical research provides a solid basis for guiding educational policy and practice. First, teachers
should receive training in the developmental research that identifies risk and protective factors associated with
school adjustment among children growing up in poverty; teachers should also be instructed in the prevention
approaches that promote those competencies. Second, along with training, empirically supported emergent
literacy and social-emotional curricula should be available to preschool teachers, enabling them to integrate these
research-based educational strategies into their general preschool or prekindergarten curricula. Teachers should
also have access to professional development and mentoring opportunities. Teaching practices, including language
use, emotion coaching, behavioral management strategies, and generalized support for student self-control and
social problem-solving skills play an essential role in promoting gains in children’s social-emotional and language
skills. Third, therapeutic support programs designed for children with special needs (e.g., developmental delays,
learning difficulties, social withdrawal) should incorporate empirically supported social skill coaching procedures
into intervention plans and coordinated support should be provided to parents, particularly to remediate early
problems with aggression.
Estimates suggest that, on average, 16% of children in the United States enter school with significant deficits in
social-emotional readiness, with prevalence rates particularly high among socioeconomically disadvantaged
180
children (Rimm-Kaufman et al., 2000). Research-based universal and indicated preventive interventions have been
developed and proven effective in fostering school readiness and in partially reducing the readiness “gap”
associated with socioeconomic disadvantage. Ongoing efforts to further develop, evaluate, and widely disseminate
effective preventive interventions should be a high priority in the education of preschool and prekindergarten
teachers.
Reflect On
1. What are four social-emotional skills needed for school readiness and what does each mean?
2. Why is it important now to integrate language and preliteracy or emergent literacy skills into social-
emotional interventions?
3. What special features characterize REDI and how are they integrated with the Creative Curriculum?
4. Identify and describe three socio-emotional learning programs and state why they are called “universal”
versus “indicated.”
5. How can one strengthen the impact of classroom-based prevention programs?
Selected Resources
Centre of Excellence for Early Childhood Development
www.excellence-earlychildhood.ca/home.asp?lang=EN
Center on the Social and Emotional Foundations for Early Learning

www.vanderbilt.edu/csefel
Center for Evidence-Based Practice: Young Children with Challenging Behavior

challengingbehavior.fmhi.usf.edu/about.html
Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning

www.casel.org
References
1. Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
2. Adams, M. J., Foorman, B. R., Lundberg, I., & Beeler, T. (1998). Phonological sensitivity in young children:
A classroom curriculum. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
3. Ball, W. W., & Blachman, B. A. (1991). Does phoneme segmentation training in kindergarten make a
difference in early word recognition and developmental spelling? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 49–66.
4. Barnett, S. (1995). Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school outcomes. The
Future of Children, 5, 25–50.
5. Bierman, K. L. (2004). Peer rejection: Developmental processes and intervention strategies. New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
6. Bierman, K. L., Domitrovich, C. E., Nix, R. L., Gest, S. D., Welsh, J. A., Greenberg, M. T., Blair, C.,
Nelson, K., et al. (2008). Promoting academic and social-emotional school readiness: The Head Start REDI
Program. Child Development, 79, 1802–1817.
181
7. Bierman, K. L., & Erath, S. A. (2006). Promoting social competence in early childhood: Classroom
curricula and social skills coaching programs. In K. McCartney & D. Phillips (Eds.), Blackwell handbook on
early childhood development (pp. 595–615). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
8. Bierman, K. L., Greenberg, M. T., & Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1996). Social skill
training in the FAST Track program. In R. DeV. Peters & R. J. McMahon (Eds.), Preventing childhood
disorders, substance abuse, and delinquency (pp. 65–89). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
9. Bierman, K. L., Nix, R. L., Greenberg, M. T., Blair, C., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2008). Executive functions
and school readiness intervention: Impact, moderation, and mediation in the Head Start REDI Program.
Development and Psycho-pathology, 20, 821–843.
10. Blair, C. (2002). School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological conceptualization
of child functioning at school entry. American Psychologist, 57, 111–127.
11. Children’s Defense Fund. (2005). The state of America’s children 2005. Washington, DC: Author.
12. Children’s Defense Fund. (2011, January). Children in the United States. Washington, DC: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.childrensdefense.org/child-research-data-publications/data/state-data-
repository/cits/2011/children-inthe-states-2011-usa.pdf
13. Coie, J. D., Watt, N. F., West, S. G., Hawkins, J. D., Asarnow, J. R., Markman, H. J., Ramey, S. L., Shure,
M. B., et al. (1993). The science of prevention: A conceptual framework and some directions for a national
research program. American Psychologist, 48, 1013–1022.
14. Conduct Problems Prevention Research Group. (1999). Initial impact of the Fast Track prevention trial for
conduct problems: II. Classroom effects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 648–657.
15. Consortium on the School-Based Promotion of Social Competence. (1994). The school-based promotion of
social competence: Theory, research, practice, and policy. In R. J. Haggerty, L. R. Sherrod, N. Garmezy, &
M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, risk, and resilience in children and adolescents: Processes, mechanisms, and interventions
(pp. 268–316). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
16. Denham, S. A., & Burton, R. (2004). Social and emotional prevention and intervention programming for
preschoolers. New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
17. Denham, S. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2004). Social-emotional learning in early childhood: What we know
and where to go from here. In E. Chesebrough, P. King, T. P. Gullotta, & M. Bloom (Eds.), A blueprint for
the promotion of prosocial behavior in early childhood (pp. 13–50). New York, NY: Kluwer
Academic/Plenum.
18. Dickinson, D. K., & Brady, J. P. (2006). Toward effective support for language and literacy through
professional development. In M. Zaslow & I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.), Critical issues in early childhood
professional development (pp. 141–170). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
19. Dickinson, D. K., & Smith, M. W. (1994). Long-term effects of preschool teachers’ book readings on low-
income children’s vocabulary and story comprehension. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 104–122.
20. Dickinson, D. K., & Sprague, K. (2001). The nature and impact of early childhood care environments on
the language and early literacy development of children from low-income families. In S. Neuman & D. K.
Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy (pp. 263–292). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
21. Dodge, D. T., Colker, L. J., & Heroman, C. (2002). The Creative Curriculum for Preschool (4th ed.).
Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies.
22. Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1990). Mechanism in the cycle of violence. Science, 250, 1678–
182
1683.
23. Domitrovich, C. E., Cortes, R., & Greenberg, M. T. (2007). Improving young children’s social and
emotional competence: A randomized trial of the preschool PATHS curriculum. Journal of Primary
Prevention, 28, 67–91.
24. Domitrovich, C. E., Gest, S. D., Gill, S., Bierman, K. L., Welsh, J., & Jones, D. (2009). Fostering high
quality teaching in Head Start classrooms: Experimental evaluation of an integrated curriculum. American
Education Research Journal, 46, 567–597.
25. Domitrovich, C. E., Greenberg, M. T., Cortes, R., & Kusche, C. (1999). Manual for the Preschool PATHS
Curriculum. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University.
26. Dubas, J. S., Lynch, K. B., Gallano, J., Geller, S., & Hunt, D. (1998). Preliminary evaluation of a
resiliency-based preschool substance abuse and violence prevention project. Journal of Drug Education, 28,
235–255.
27. Edwards, C. P. (1999). Development in the preschool years: The typical path. In E. V. Nuttall, I. Romero,
& J. Kalesnik (Eds.), Assessing and screening preschoolers: Psychological and educational dimensions (2nd ed.,
pp. 9–24). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
28. Elias, M. J., Zins, J. E., Weissberg, R. P., Frey, K. S., Greenberg, M. T., Haynes, N. M., Kessler, R.,
Schwab-Stone, M. E., et al. (1997). Promoting social and emotional learning: Guidelines for educators.
Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
29. Fantuzzo, J., Bulotsky-Shearer, R., McDermott, P. A., McWayne, C., Frye, D., & Perlman, S. (2007).
Investigation of dimensions of social-emotional classroom behavior and school readiness for low-income
urban preschool children. School Psychology Review, 36, 44–62.
30. Fantuzzo, J., Manz, P., Atkins, M., & Meyers, R. (2005). Peer-mediated treatment of socially withdrawn
maltreated preschool children: Cultivating natural community resources. Journal of Clinical Child and
Adolescent Psychology, 34, 320–325.
31. Greenberg, M. T., & Kusche, C. A. (1998). Preventive intervention for school-aged deaf children: The
PATHS Curriculum. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 3, 49–63.
32. Guglielmo, H. M., & Tryon, G. S. (2001). Social skills training in an integrated preschool program. School
Psychology Quarterly, 16, 158–175.
33. Hatcher, P. J., Hulme, C., & Ellis, A. W. (1994). Ameliorating early reading failure by integrating the
teaching of reading and phonological skills: The phonological linkage hypothesis. Child Development, 65,
41–57.
34. Hughes, J. N., & Kwok, O. (2006). Classroom engagement mediates the effect of teacher-student support
on elementary students’ peer acceptance: A prospective analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 465–480.
35. Izard, C. E., Fine, S., Schultz, D., Mostow, A., Ackerman, B., & Youngstrom, E. (2001). Emotion
knowledge as a predictor of social behavior and academic competence in children at risk. Psychological
Science, 12, 18–23.
36. Ladd, G. W., Buhs, E. S., & Seid, M. (2000). Children’s initial sentiments about kindergarten: Is school
liking an antecedent of early childhood classroom participation and achievement? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly,
46, 255–279.
37. Landry, S. H., Swank, P. R., Smith, K. E., Assel, M. A., & Gunnewig, S. B. (2006). Enhancing early
literacy skills for preschool children: Bringing a professional development model to scale. Journal of Learning
183
Disabilities, 39, 306–324.
38. Lengua, L. J. (2002). The contribution of emotionality and self-regulation to the understanding of
children’s response to multiple risk. Child Development, 73, 144–161.
39. Lonigan, C. J., Burgess, S. R., & Anthony, J. L. (2000). Development of emergent literacy and early reading
skills in preschool children: Evidence from a latent-variable longitudinal study. Developmental Psychology,
36, 596–613.
40. Lynch, K. B., Geller, S. R., & Schmidt, M. G. (2004). Multi-year evaluation of the effectiveness of a
resilience-based prevention program for young children. The Journal of Primary Prevention, 24, 335–353.
41. McClelland, M. M., Acock, A. C., & Morrison, F. J. (2006). The impact of kindergarten learning-related
skills on academic trajectories at the end of elementary school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 471–
490.
42. Mize, J., & Ladd, G. W. (1990). Toward the development of successful social skills training for preschool
children. In S. R. Asher & J. D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp. 274–308). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
43. Odom, S. L., & Brown, W. H. (1993). Social interaction skills interventions for young children with
disabilities in integrated settings. In C. Peck, S. Odom, & D. Bricker (Eds.), Integrating young children with
disabilities into community programs (pp. 39–64). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
44. Odom, S. L., McConnell, S. R., McEvoy, M. A., Peterson, C., Ostrosky, M., Chandler, L., Spicuzza, R. J.,
Skellenger, A., et al. (1999). Relative effects of interventions supporting the social competence of young
children with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 19, 75–91.
45. Pianta, R. C. (1999). Enhancing relationships between children and teachers. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
46. Pianta, R. C., Mashburn, A. J., Downer, J. T., Hamre, B. K., & Justice, L. M. (2008). Effects of web-
mediated professional development resources on teacher-child interactions in pre-kindergarten classrooms.
47. Raver, C. C., Jones, S. M., Li-Grining, C., Zhai, F., Bub, K., & Pressler, E. (2011). CSRP’s impact on low-
income preschoolers’ preacademic skills: Self-regulation as a mediating mechanism. Child Development, 82,
362–378.
48. Raver, C. C., Jones, S. M., Li-Grining, C., Zhai, F., Metzger, M. W., & Solomon, B. (2009). Targeting
children’s behavior problems in preschool classrooms: A cluster-randomized controlled trial. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77, 302–316.
49. Rimm-Kaufman, S., Pianta, R. C., & Cox, M. (2000). Teachers’ judgments of problems in the transition to
school. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 147–166.
50. Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Early, D. M., Cox, M. J., Saluja, G., Pianta, R. C., Bradley, R. H., & Payne, C.
(2002). Early behavioral attributes and teachers’ sensitivity as predictors of competent behavior in the
kindergarten classroom. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 23, 451–470.
51. Ryan, R. M., Fauth, R. C., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2006). Childhood poverty: Implications for school
readiness and early childhood education. In B. Spodek & O. N. Saracho (Eds.), Handbook of research on the
education of children (2nd ed., pp. 323–346). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
52. Scarborough, H. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence,
theory and practice. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of emergent literacy research (pp. 97–
184
110). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
53. Sheridan, S. M., Knoche, L. L., Edwards, C. P., Bovaird, J. A., & Kupzyk, K. A. (2011). Parent engagement
and school readiness: Effects of the Getting Ready intervention on preschool children’s social-emotional
competencies. Early Education and Development, 21, 125–156.
54. Shure, M. B. (1992). I Can Problem Solve: An interpersonal cognitive problem-solving program: Kindergarten
and primary grades. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
55. Shure, M. B., & Spivack, G. (1982). Interpersonal problem-solving in young children: A cognitive approach
to prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10 (3), 341–355.
56. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2001). Third progress report on the Head Start program
performance measures. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
57. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2005). Head Start Impact Study: First Year Findings.
Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/hs/impact_study/
58. Wasik, B. A., & Bond, M. A. (2001). Beyond the pages of a book: Interactive book reading and language
development in preschool classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 243–250.
59. Wasik, B. A., Bond, M. A., & Hindman, A. (2006). The effects of a language and literacy intervention on
Head Start children and teachers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 63–74.
60. Webster-Stratton, C., & Hammond, M. (1997). Treating children with early onset conduct problems: A
comparison of child and parenting interventions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 93–101.
61. Webster-Stratton, C., Mihalic, S., Fagan, A., Arnold, D., Taylor, T., & Tingley, C. (2001). Blueprints for
violence prevention, book eleven: The incredible years: Parent, teacher and child training series. Boulder,
CO: Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence.
62. Webster-Stratton, C., Reid, J., & Hammond, M. (2001). Social skills and problem-solving training for
children with early-onset conduct problems: Who benefits? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and
Allied Disciplines, 42, 943–952.
63. Weikart, D. P., & Schweinhart, L. J. (1997). High/Scope Perry Preschool Program. In G. W. Albee & T. P.
Gullota (Eds.), Primary prevention works: Issues in children’s and families’ lives (Vol. 6). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
64. Weissberg, R. P., & Greenberg, M. T. (1998). School and community competence-enhancement and
prevention programs. In I. Siegel & A. Renninger (Eds.), Handbook for child psychology Vol. 4: Child
psychology in practice (5th ed., pp. 146–166). New York: Wiley.
65. Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Smith, M., & Fischel, J. E. (1994). A picture
book reading intervention in daycare and home for children from low-income families. Developmental
Psychology, 30, 679–689.
66. Whitehurst, G. J., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. C., Payne, A. C., Crone, D. A., & Fischel, J. E. (1994).
Outcomes of an emergent literacy intervention in Head Start. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 542–
555.
67. Zill, N., Resnick, G., Kim, K., O’Donnell, K., Sorongon, A., McKey, R. H., Pai-Samant, S., Clark, C.,
O’Brien, R., et al. (2003). Head Start FACES (2000): A whole child perspective on program performance—
Fourth progress report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
185
186
8 Chapter Assessment for Learning in the Early
Childhood Classroom
Jie-Qi Chen
and
Gillian Dowley McNamee
Erikson Institute
Provide a brief history of child assessment practices
Characterize the emerging issues in child assessment practices
Discuss the theory and practice of assessment for learning
Outline the distinctive features of Bridging
Explain the use of Bridging in teacher development
Russian psychologist Lev. S. Vygotsky once compared the work of educators to that of farmers. Good farmers do
not tend the plants under their care only at the time of harvest. They observe all stages in the growth of the fruit,
monitor crops for signs of development throughout the growing season, and make adjustments in their work of
watering, weeding, and fertilizing to sustain growth. Similarly, effective teachers gauge children’s learning and
development from the day their students enter the classroom. Teachers observe and document continuously what
students are learning and how engaged they are in different activities across curricular areas. The teachers create
optimal environments and daily routines to further children’s learning and build on each child’s strengths to
extend his or her knowledge, skills, and achievement. In short, effective teachers are astute observers and dynamic
synthesizers. They understand why knowing children well is a critical first step in good teaching and they are
capable of using that knowledge to improve student learning.
This chapter addresses how ongoing assessment can be used as a tool for teaching and learning in the early
childhood classroom. We focus on the concept and practice of assessment for children’s learning in contrast to the
assessment of learning. The former refers to using assessment to help further student learning whereas the latter is
used to determine how much students have learned by a particular point in time.
A Brief History of Child Assessment Practices

Child assessment practices have changed dramatically over the last century. The sheer number of new terms that
the field of child assessment has created over the past 30 years could easily bewilder newcomers to teaching. The
most commonly used new terms include formative assessment, summative assessment, portfolio assessment,
dynamic assessment, performance-based assessment, authentic assessment, instructional assessment,
interdisciplinary play-based assessment, high-stakes test, and criterion-referenced test. The proliferation of terms is
a clear indicator of the rapid growth in the field. It also reflects diverging conceptions of child development and
the functions of assessment in this process. A brief history of child assessment practices helps reveal the complexity
of issues related to the purpose and process of assessment in addressing questions about learning and development.
187
Early Testing Tradition
The practice of assessing children’s learning and development began with French psychologist Alfred Binet in
1904. Assessment was initially referred to as testing. Testing required the specialized training of psychologists who
used standardized procedures and interpreted scores based on normative data. These tests were often used for
diagnostic purposes. One of the most widely recognized was the IQ test, which measured decontextualized
knowledge and skills that drew heavily on verbal and mathematical abilities. Test scores could be used to rank
order children from superior to below average in intelligence (Chen & Gardner, 2005; Wasserman & Tulsky,
2005). If a child’s IQ was tested at the request of his or her parents, a teacher was not necessarily informed of the
score. If results were given to the teacher, they had little relevance to classroom teaching (Kohn, 2000).
During the 1950s and 1960s, classroom teachers and psychologists involved with testing were trained differently,
operated independently, and understood children from different perspectives (The Staff of Education Week,
2000). A teacher’s job was to provide instruction that imparted knowledge and skills to students. Teaching was
marked primarily by large-group instruction and desk work. Teachers did not collect or request assessment
information. Although ability grouping was used in reading instruction, personalized teaching in response to
individual students’ developmental levels and prior knowledge was rare. Homework and paper-and-pencil tests
were the primary means that teachers used to judge students’ progress in school learning. Schools were not
designed to be responsive to children’s needs. Teachers knew what to teach; it was up to children to meet the
school’s curriculum demands (The Staff of Education Week, 2000).
Outside of schools, in offices or testing clinics, the primary responsibilities of psychologists were to administer
different kinds of standardized tests, examine children’s learning potential or problems, and score their
performance based on normative data. It was not the concern of psychologists that these tests yielded little
information relevant to classroom instruction. Not surprisingly, there was little dialogue or information exchange
between teachers and psychologists. This lack of communication reinforced the separation of testing from
classroom teaching and learning (Wortham, 1996).
Alternative Assessment Era

The most significant shift away from the testing tradition occurred in the 1980s. Educators, politicians, parents,
and concerned citizens began to speak of our country as a “nation at risk” (National Commission on Excellence in
Education, 1983). One factor identified as contributing to this state of affairs was testing. More specifically, the
lack of assessment information useful to teachers in planning daily learning experiences was seen as diminishing
the power of education. These concerns spawned what has become known as the “alternative assessment
movement” (Baker, O’Neil, & Linn, 1993; Hargreaves & Earl, 2002). Moving away from standardized testing,
alternative assessment is typically performance based and engages children in meaningful activities with the goals
and purposes to which children subscribe. Classroom observations, rubrics, and student portfolios are among the
most widely promoted alternative assessment tools. A rubric is a set of criteria typically linked to learning
objectives. A portfolio is a collection of a child’s sample work for the purpose of documenting learning and
development. Many early childhood teachers have been trained in the use of one or more of these techniques.
The alternative assessment movement was welcomed by educators. It put assessment tools in the hands of
classroom teachers. Further, use of the tools produced relevant and useful information about each child. The
purposes of assessment were no longer labeling or rank ordering children. Alternative assessments produced
information about children that teachers could reflect on and use in the classroom. These tools held the promise
that teachers could translate assessment results into effective curriculum and instruction for children as individuals
and in groups. This movement made progress in closing the gap between assessment and teaching (Bowman,
Donovan, & Burns, 2001; Chen, 2004).
As teachers used these tools in the classroom, new challenges in integrating assessment with teaching became
apparent (Baker et al., 1993; Supovitz & Brennan, 1997). For example, classroom observation generates large
188
amounts of rich descriptive information; some of it may not be systematic and some may not be comprehensive.
Teachers may not know what to look for or may not understand how an observation relates to performance in
other curricular areas. For similar reasons, it can be difficult to know what kinds of materials to collect for
children’s portfolios and what criteria to use to evaluate them (Chen & McNamee, 2006). Although advancing
classroom practice, the alternative assessments had not fully reached their potential to integrate learning and
teaching processes in early childhood classrooms.
The Emerging Issues in Child Assessment Practices

By the early 1990s, distinctive trends in the field of early childhood education had emerged. These trends
continue to set new educational priorities that require the development of different approaches to child assessment
(Bowman et al., 2001; Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1995). Three trends particularly relevant to child assessment
practices are the development of early learning standards, an increased emphasis on subject matter knowledge, and
a focus on accountability.
Development of Early Learning Standards

Early learning standards describe skills and knowledge that young children are expected to acquire during the
initial years of formal schooling (Scott-Little, Kagan, & Frelow, 2005). Learning priorities established by the
standards influence what is taught and assessed in all early childhood classrooms. A major purpose of the standards
is to provide a basis for teacher accountability. That is, teachers are held accountable for children’s progress toward
meeting learning objectives specified in the standards. Early learning standards help to ensure that children have
equal opportunities to acquire the knowledge and skills needed for school success. To be useful to teachers,
assessment must now be aligned with early learning standards (National Association for the Education of Young
Children & National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education, 2003).
Greater Emphasis on Subject Matter

The implementation of early learning standards has also led to greater emphasis on subject knowledge in early
education. Increasingly, early childhood curricula are organized around content areas (Bowman et al., 2001).
Corresponding to this shift, early childhood teachers are required to become more deliberate and intentional about
addressing content knowledge and skills in their interactions with young children. With greater emphasis on
subject matter, teachers need assessment tools organized in terms of the content areas found in most early
education classrooms. In response to this need, a large number of content-specific child assessments, particularly in
the areas of language and literacy, have been developed for teacher use in the last two decades (Dickinson,
McCabe, & Anastasopoulos, 2003; Farr, 1992; Fountas & Pinnell, 1996; Rathvon, 2005; Smith & Dickinson,
2003). These newly developed instruments encompass a range of assessment formats, including the observational
checklist, portfolio, task performance, and interview. The primary focus of these content-specific assessments is to
estimate a child’s level of understanding and command of a set of concepts and skills critical to the mastery of a
particular subject area. In contrast to the proliferation of content-specific assessments in the areas of language and
literacy, relatively little effort has been devoted to other areas of early learning such as mathematics, sciences, and
arts (Chen & McNamee, 2007; Meisels, 1997). It is only recently that tools designed to assess early math concepts
and skills in classroom settings began to emerge (Clements, 2011; Ginsberg, 2011; Starkey & Klein, 2000).
Focus on Accountability
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has had a dramatic impact on child assessment practices at almost every
level of education (Meisels & Atkins-Burnett, 2004). With a primary focus on accountability for all students’
school success and increased assessment requirements, states, local schools, and teachers have all been affected by
189
the law and its implementation. The National Reporting System (NRS), for example, a high-stakes achievement
test initiated in the fall of 2003, was being administered to all 4- and 5-year-olds in Head Start. Focusing on a
narrow range of skills in literacy, language, and math, the purpose of the NRS was to enhance local assessments of
program effectiveness, create greater accountability for students’ academic preparation, and improve training and
technical assistance. Unfortunately, because of flaws in the assessment design and implementation, the system did
not meet any of these goals (Meisels & Atkins-Burnett, 2004). In response to strong criticisms by leaders in the
field of early education, use of the NRS was stopped in less than 4 years. However, the demands of accountability-
driven educational practice have persisted. More than ever before, teachers of young children need to administer
all sorts of tests to their students, such as screening, school readiness, achievement, or program evaluation
measures. Teachers are bombarded with tests that have no direct relationship to classroom teaching and student
learning.
Early childhood teachers have loudly voiced the problems of such child-testing practices. Among their major
concerns are the following: (1) the tests take time away from teaching and children’s play; (2) numbers do not tell
the whole story of a child’s development; (3) young children do not reliably perform well under the constraints of
standardized testing; (4) one-time testing cannot accurately measure young children’s learning because their
development is sporadic; and most of all (5) many tests do not produce information that is useful for curricular
development and classroom teaching. Large-scale, standardized tests that separate assessment information from
day-to-day classroom instruction do not improve either how teachers teach or how children learn.
More than a century has passed since the inception of IQ testing. Nowadays, few educators would argue against
the use of assessment to inform teaching and learning processes. Yet the field is still debating over where to
concentrate its effort and resources. Some assert that if we aspire to join the “race to the top,” we cannot fall
behind at the starting line. Assessment of learning ensures that teachers are accountable for expected child
outcomes and this accountability-based educational practice must begin in the early childhood years. For us,
assessment of learning is not without its place in early education if it is used appropriately. However, assessment in
education must first and foremost serve the purpose of supporting ongoing learning. It is for this reason that
assessment for learning, not the assessment of learning, should be the top priority in educational practice.
The Theory and Practice of Assessment for Learning

The term of assessment for learning came into use by educators in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The concept
was developed to contrast with assessment of learning. The two terms—“assessment for learning” and “assessment
of learning” are often used interchangeably with the terms “formative assessment” and “summative assessment”
coined by Sciven (1967) and elaborated by Bloom (1969). With its positive impact on teaching and learning
documented extensively (Black & William, 1998, 2003; Meisels, Atkins-Burnett, Xue, Bickel, & Son, 2003;
Meisels, Bickel, Nicholson, Xue, Atkins-Burnett, 2001; Ruiz-Primo & Furtak, 2006; Wininger, 2005), the
concept of assessment for learning is nonetheless not well defined (Engelman, Noakes, & Rogers, 2011). When
describing assessment for learning, a set of principles or features is typically provided—for instance, the teacher
contributes to effective planning, uses a sensitive and constructive approach, focuses on how students learn,
promotes understanding of goals and criteria, and helps learners know how to improve (Earl, 2003; Gardner,
2006). There is no agreed-upon lexicon with regard to the concept, nor a clear theoretical underpinning specified
to guide practice (Dunn & Mulvenon, 2009).
The theory of assessment for learning presented in this chapter is grounded in the sociocultural perspective on
child development. This perspective asserts that much of child learning and development is mediated through
social interactions. Specifically, Vygotsky argues that every function in the development of a child appears first on
the social plane as an inter-psychological activity and then appears on the psychological plane of the child as an
intra-psychological activity (Vygotsky, 1978). Development is the transformation of socially shared activities into
internalized thought processes (Wertsch, 1991). To assess a child’s learning and development is to understand a
child’s current competencies as well as what she can do with the assistance of adults and through interaction with
peers (Vygotsky, 1999). In the process of learning about a child, the sociocultural perspective stresses the critical
190
importance of examining the child in a variety of classroom contexts. The child is not separated and observed in
isolation. Understanding what the child can do with the support of adults or peers is as important as knowing
what the child can do independently. Guided by sociocultural theory, assessment for learning is distinct from
assessment of learning in relation to the goal, approach, procedure, content, and context of assessment (see Table
8–1). We describe each briefly in the following sections.
Goal—Establishing the Zone of Proximal

Development
In contrast to the assessment of learning, which focuses primarily on what children already know and what they
can do on their own, the goal of assessment for learning is to look at children’s potential for learning and
development. This potential is defined by a child’s zone of proximal development (ZPD), which represents “the
distance between the actual developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of
potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more
capable
Table 8–1 Assessment for and of Learning

Comparison
Features Assessment for Learning Assessment of Learning
Checks achievement status, focusing
Builds a bridge from the past to the future in a
Goal primarily on what children already
child’s zone of proximal development
know
Assesses assisted performance to study how a child
Looks at what children can do on their
moves from “other regulation” to “self-regulation”
Approach own, dealing primarily with products
by taking advantage of help, support, and cultural
of learning
tools
Is flexible, clinical, responsive, and constructive. Relies largely on structured, controlled,
Procedure
Values teachers’ experience and expertise standardized assessment procedures
Emphasizes learning standards and key concepts,
Focuses on measurable skills and
using rubrics to chart the developmental
Content produces quantitative scores to rank
trajectories of children’s understanding and
order children’s performance
performance
Engages in an ongoing process situated in an Takes place after learning, often with a
environment that is natural and familiar to one-shot experience and social
Context
children, resembling regular classroom learning interaction prohibited during the
situation assessment process
peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). The most effective instruction takes place in activities that are situated in a child’s
ZPD. Instruction that is too far in advance of the zone is not as effective because it provides no foothold for the
child’s understanding. Instruction below the zone is no longer necessary because the child has already mastered
those concepts and skills. In classrooms where teachers effectively engage children in their ZPDs, teachers and
children interact and communicate in ways that promote questions, new considerations, and problem solving.
Children are interested, challenged, and engaged. Because of the critical role of the ZPD in learning, knowing
about it and its dynamics is crucial for understanding and facilitating children’s learning and development.
Specifically, in assessment for learning, a child is given a task to engage in first without adult guidance or peer
support and then with it. The differences in the child’s task performance without and with support are observed,
191
documented, and analyzed. For example, what kind of help, adjustment in the task materials, or change in
procedures made a difference in a child’s success on the task? Through close monitoring, educators learn not only
about what skills children have mastered, but also what types of instruction and peer support enable the child to
perform at higher levels. The assessment process makes it possible for teachers to take into account individual
differences. Teachers vary the support they provide based on the child’s emerging skills as evidenced in the
assessment process. Focusing on a child’s ZPD, assessment for learning seeks ongoing, updated information on
factors that contribute to a child’s success or failure on task performance and about what can be done to facilitate
the child’s further learning and problem solving. If an assessment does not explore the ZPD, it is incomplete and
gives only a partial picture of a child’s abilities. It takes into account only those functions that a child has
developed, and not those that the child is in the process of developing. As Vygostky (1978) explains, “the actual
developmental level characterizes mental development retrospectively, while the zone of proximal development
characterizes mental development prospectively” (p. 87). By focusing on the child’s ZPD, assessment for learning
helps a teacher to build bridges from the present to the future.
Approach—Focusing on Assisted Performance

By definition, assessment of a child’s ZPD involves social interaction or mediated learning. “Mediated learning”
refers to the social transmission of psychological and cultural tools such as language to the developing child
(Vygotsky, 1986). Socially constructed through human history, these important cognitive and cultural tools
include various symbol systems, content knowledge, and learning materials. Through a process of guided
participation, in which adults provide necessary structure through scaffolding, children make these tools their
own, thereby transforming their own understanding and knowledge. The learning process portrayed here is viewed
as movement across various forms of regulation: from “other regulation” to “self-regulation,” and shifting
relationships of interdependence among members of a community, be it in a classroom, a school, or a society
(Rogoff, 1993).
Mediated learning in classroom assessment processes is termed “assisted performance.” Such assistance takes many
forms, including a teacher providing materials, asking questions, giving feedback, modeling strategies, and offering
suggestions. Performance assisted by peers may involve two children helping each other or serving as a reference in
task performance. Assisted performance gives children hope and motivates them to do better because the
assessment process is regarded as a learning experience that is guided and supported. Errors that children make in
the assessment process are documented and used to help them improve and develop. Assisted performance is based
on the conviction that “what the child can do in cooperation today, he can do alone tomorrow” (Vygotsky, 1986,
p. 188).
Assisted performance is not found in assessment of learning, which deals primarily with products of learning, such
as how many words a child can recognize, how well the child can read, or what kind of math computation skill the
child has mastered. It shows great interest in what concepts and skills children know but pays scarce attention to
how children learn these concepts and skills. The design of assessment for learning, in contrast, demonstrates the
critical importance of looking at the learning process through observing the differences between a child’s
unassisted and assisted performance. Assessment practices that focus entirely on the child’s unaided performance
fail to tap the mental functioning and learning potential revealed in the child’s response to assistance from an adult
or more capable peers. Because the child’s emergent abilities are manifest largely through mediated activity,
assessment for learning provides and then explores this kind of interaction. Through assisted performance,
educators examine the dynamics of the ZPD as they learn about how a child is developing by engaging the child in
mediated learning experiences. Only by carefully examining the child’s participation in activities with peers and
teachers can we understand her full capacity for learning and build on this capacity through further opportunities
for mediated learning.
Procedure—Being Responsive to the Child’s Behavior
192
To assess assisted performance, the assessment process has to be flexible, clinical, responsive, and constructive.
These characteristics contrast sharply with assessment of learning, which relies on structured, controlled, and
standardized procedures.
To fully understand childhood development, we need to focus on the child’s activities with teachers
and peers rather than on individual development only.
In the assessment of learning, assisted performance is prohibited and social interaction is prescribed. The tester
controls stimuli and the child responds to it, often bound by a time constraint. This type of assessment process
offers little information about a child’s learning strategies or about how the child responds to the social features of
the learning situation. Results of the assessment do not help teachers answer how-and-why questions in the
analysis of children’s success or failure in learning concepts and skills.
In assessment for learning, children’s development is understood as an individualized as well as a social process.
Assessment mirrors these characteristics. One task does not illuminate all children’s learning. Similarly, one
procedure does not define all assessments that aim to improving learning. Learning potential from the perspective
of assessment for learning is subject to continuous changes in expression and strength. The teacher using
assessment for learning practices is sensitive to and guided by the child and the child’s responses. She probes the
child’s emerging skills, explores her learning strategies, and investigates her strengths as well as areas that require
more attention or intervention. Applying a responsive procedure, assessment for learning does not typically take
the form of a norm-referenced instrument. In fact, it questions the utility of using norms to improve teaching and
learning. A norm is established for the purpose of comparison, ranking, or tracking. It does not take into
consideration factors such as an individual’s ZPD, what a child can do with assistance, or the limiting effects of
standardized procedures. A norm has minimum relevance to gaining knowledge about factors that affect learning.
Assessment for learning, in the form of tasks, observation, and flexible interviews, invites the clinical analysis and
findings of teachers. In so doing, assessment for learning places greater value on the experience and expertise of
teachers who are knowledgeable about the children being assessed and directly responsible for using the assessment
results (Darling-Hammond & Ancess, 1996; Linn, 2000; Moss, 1994).
Content—Attending to Learning Standards and Key

Concepts
Switching from procedure to content in classroom assessment, we now look at the role of learning standards and
key concepts in the practice of assessment for learning. Nonstandardized procedures in the assessment for learning
do not negate or ignore standards. On the contrary, standards and learning goals help set the level of potential
development in the child’s ZPD. Assessment for learning involves performance standards and criterion references
that educators can use to guide and evaluate their observations and task analysis. Performance standards are not a
list of either factual knowledge or isolated skills; rather, they are key concepts and skills that are essential to a
child’s mastery of content areas. For example, in number sense, a core content strand in mathematics, key
concepts and skills for young children include understanding cardinality (how many there are), knowing the
193
number word list (one, two, three, four, and so on), establishing one-to-one correspondence when counting, and
recognizing written number symbols (1, 2, 3, and so forth; National Association for the Education of Young
Children & National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2010). Although it is generally agreed in the field of
education that teaching to the test limits students’ opportunity to learn, this is not the case when assessment
focuses on key concepts and skills. Key concepts and skills are, in fact, central to content learning, consistent with
children’s thinking, and generative of future learning (Clements & Sarama, 2009). Teachers can use the key
concepts and skills included in assessment for learning as a guide to engage in curriculum analysis, plan teaching
activities, and understand children’s work. Teachers will then be equipped with tools proven effective for student
learning (Black & William, 2003; Stiggins, 2004, 2005).
For key concepts and skills directly connected to regular classroom teaching, developmental trajectories that
correspond to children’s thinking and learning must be specified (National Research Council, 2009). Trajectories
are typically described in the form of rubrics in assessment for learning practices. A rubric is a scoring tool that
establishes criteria for evaluating a child’s task performance (Goodrich, 2005). It delineates levels of performance
that are defined in a rating scale (e.g., excellent, good, needs improvement) or through numerical scores (e.g., 4, 3,
2, 1). Some rubrics also specify the level of assistance in the child’s performance, such as independent, with
minimal adult help, or with extensive adult help for each quality rating. Unlike the quantitative score in
assessment of learning that offers little information about the meaning of the number a child receives, each rubric
level is described and includes behavioral indicators that describe the child’s task performance. The developmental
trajectories of the behavioral indicators provide a road map of possible ZPDs that the child has traveled or will
travel. The assessment results are transparent to a skilled teacher who understands how to use findings in
curriculum planning and instruction.
Context—Emphasizing Ecological Validity

Ecological validity is the standard for all contexts in assessment for learning. That is, assessment of what children
learn is indistinguishable from the context in which actual learning takes place; therefore, the assessment
environment must be natural and familiar to children, resembling regular classroom learning situations in which a
child interacts with materials and others. Again, this differs from the “ideal” situation for assessment of learning, in
which a tester works with one child at a time, preferably in a relatively quiet room away from any distractions,
including regular classroom activities. Social interaction in assessment for learning is not noise that should be
avoided as it is in the assessment of learning. Rather, social interaction is deemed an integral part of the learning
and development process and therefore critical in helping to reveal how a child uses the tools of the culture,
including help from others, to develop powers of the mind (Bruner & Haste, 1987).
Attending to ecological validity, assessment for learning engages children in daily learning activities in the
classroom on an ongoing basis. When a child’s learning is measured through a one-shot test using add-on,
decontextualized tasks, the child’s performance may not be representative of his or her capacity. In contrast, when
assessment is naturally embedded in the learning environment, it allows educators to observe children’s abilities in
various situations over time. Such observations generate multiple samples of a child’s ability that can be used to
document variations in the child’s performances within and across domains, and thus more accurately portray the
child’s learning profile. It also informs teaching that builds on children’s strengths and emphasizes multiple ways
of learning, doing, and succeeding (Chen & Gardner, 2005).
The Distinctive Features of Bridging

A number of assessment instruments in the field of early education are designed for teachers’ use to promote
classroom teaching and learning. Among the most widely used tools are Work Sampling System, Teaching Strategies
GOLD™, Child Observation Record, and Bridging: Assessment for Teaching and Learning in Early Childhood
Classrooms. These instruments share several common features: involvement of teachers in information collection
and analysis; use in the course of regular teaching and learning activities; collection of information that describes
194
multiple aspects of a child’s development and learning; effort in identifying the ZPD in relation to learning goals;
and connection to instructional practice for the purpose of improving student learning.
In this chapter, we focus on tools for teachers’ use in assessing children’s learning. It is important to note that
several other widely used instruments, although not directly assessing children, provide valuable information to
inform classroom practice by identifying qualities of the larger learning environment. These instruments include
Classroom Assessment Scoring System™, Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation Tool, and Early Childhood
Environment Rating Scale. Typically, researchers, coaches, curriculum coordinators, or professional development
facilitators conduct the assessment and provide teachers with feedback about their classroom environment and
practices based on specific measurement of their areas of strength and weakness. If the assessment is conducted
regularly, three times a year for example, teachers can track their improvement based on changes in their scores. By
reviewing the results, teachers gain an understanding of the components of teaching and the classroom
environment that make a difference in students’ learning (Pianta, La Paro, & Hamre, 2008). Results of classroom
assessments can provide a springboard for discussion and a means for systematic documentation of progress
toward more effective teaching (Smith, Brady, & Clark-Chiarelli, 2008).
To exemplify the theory and practice of assessment for learning, we introduce Bridging: Assessment for Teaching
and Learning in Early Childhood Classrooms (“Bridging” hereafter). Bridging, developed by the authors of this
chapter and the staff of the Bridging Project, is a classroom-based assessment for use by teachers of children 3 to 8
years of age (Chen & McNamee, 2007). Using familiar curricular activities, Bridging provides teachers with a
systematic approach to understanding individual children’s learning within the classroom context. It guides
teachers in locating each child’s ZPD in relation to developmental changes in a range of curricular areas. It
encourages teachers to respond to children’s varied developmental performance levels by providing assistance and
guidance relevant to each child. It supports teacher adaptation of ongoing curriculum planning to further
children’s learning in areas of strengths as well as areas where they will benefit from experience, intervention, and
practice. The distinctive features of Bridging include using familiar activities and accessible materials, attending to
key concepts and skills in curricular areas, considering activity as a unit of analysis in child assessment, and linking
assessment results to teaching and learning processes (see Table 8–2). These four features are interrelated,
strengthening Bridging ’s effectiveness in improving teaching and learning over time. We describe each of these
assessment characteristics briefly in the sections that follow.
Using Familiar Activities and Accessible Materials

Bridging includes 15 activities, three in each of five curricular areas: language arts and literacy,
Table 8–2 Distinctive Features of Bridging

Assessment
Using familiar activities and accessible materials: Ensures that teachers can assess children in
the context of classroom learning and examine the social interactions that elicit, encourage, and
mediate children’s learning and performance
Attending to the development of key concepts and skills in curricular areas: Helps pinpoint the
foundational knowledge a child is currently confident in using as well as the knowledge she is
in the process of developing
Considering activity as the unit of analysis in child assessment: Examines variables that might
contribute to the child’s varied levels of performance and offer specific suggestions for
intervention strategies
195
Linking assessment results with teaching and learning process: Engages teachers in reflective
practice analyzing classroom teaching and learning interactions; offers specific curriculum
suggestions based on the level of a child’s performance
mathematics, sciences, performing arts, and visual arts (see Table 8–3). Bridging activities are based on curriculum
activities familiar to most early childhood teachers, including children reading books, dictating stories, using
crayons to make a design, and using pattern blocks to solve mathematical problems. Some of the bridging
activities, such as drawing a self-portrait or counting objects, are common tasks in screening tests and diagnostic
assessments. The purposes and procedures when implementing these tasks, however, diverge in striking ways. For
example, when the self-portrait task is used for screening or diagnostic purposes, the focus is typically on what
body parts a child draws or does not draw and whether the total score the child earns indicates any learning or
developmental problems. In Bridging, in addition to paying attention to the
Table 8–3 Bridging Assessment Areas and

Activities
Areas Activities
1. Reading books (child’s choice and teacher’s choice)

Language arts and literacy
2. Dictating a story
3. Acting out stories
4. Experimenting with crayon techniques
Visual arts 5. Drawing a self-portrait
6. Making pattern block pictures
7. Creating pattern block pinwheels
Mathematics 8. Solving pattern block puzzles
9. Understanding number concepts
10. Exploring shadows and light
Sciences 11. Assembling a nature display
12. Building a model car
13. Moving to music
Performing arts 14. Playing an instrument
15. Singing a song
196
sophistication of the self-portrait, the teacher also looks at the approaches that the child uses to perform the task.
For instance, how does the child initially respond to the activity? Does the child understand the goal of the
activity? Is the child attentive throughout the task? Is she talking while drawing? If so, talking to whom: self or
peers? How does she describe the picture she completes? These questions guide the teacher’s observation and
mental note taking, yielding important information about the child’s drawing, as well as her approaches to
learning and her thinking process.
The use of common classroom activities for the purposes of assessment in Bridging is not a matter of coincidence
or convenience. Use of these activities reflects the belief that assessment and curriculum are two sides of the same
coin and that each is more effective when integrated to form a continuous teaching–learning process. Moreover,
materials used in the Bridging assessment process are commonly available in classrooms, such as picture books,
pattern blocks, crayons, math manipulatives, paper and pencil, and rhythm instruments. This feature of Bridging
contributes to the integration of assessment with teaching–learning, because both processes use the same materials.
Following assessment, teachers can integrate materials with classroom teaching in multiple ways.
Attending to Key Concepts and Skills in Curricular

Areas
Within each of the five curricular areas, Bridging assessment activities examine key concepts and skills identified in
national standards set for early childhood education. Based on a developmental analysis of key concepts and skills,
a ten-level, criterion-referenced rubric has been developed for each activity. The rubrics specify behavioral
indicators of children’s learning and mastery in each content area in relation to a developmental continuum in
that area. As an example, the rubric used to measure performance on the Reading Books activity is based on the
stages of pretend reading developed by Sulzby (1985) and work in guided reading done by Fountas and Pinnell
(1996; see Table 8–4). The rubric progresses from a child attending to pictures without forming stories at Level 1
to a child independently reading for meaning at Level 10 (Chen & McNamee, 2007). The continua span the full
range of early childhood development from ages 3 to 8.
Using the performance rubrics, teachers can pinpoint the skills a child is currently confident in using as well as
those she is in the process of developing in each curriculum area. The child’s ZPD, consisting of those skills and
knowledge currently undergoing change and growth in specific content areas, is revealed in the assessment process
(Vygostky, 1978). By emphasizing key concepts and skills, Bridging calls teachers’ attention to the progression in
children’s development of knowledge and skills in each subject area. With in-depth understanding of key concepts
and skills, teachers become more confident using them to plan learning experiences.
Considering Activity as the Unit of Analysis in Child

Assessment
A third distinguishing feature of Bridging is the unit of analysis used in the assessment process. Rather than
focusing on the individual child in isolation, which is the primary focus of most assessment of learning
instruments, Bridging views the “child engaged in activity” as the unit of analysis for learning and development.
This shift is based on the conviction that learning and development are not located exclusively within the mind of
an individual. Rather, intellectual achievements are expressions of individual effort in relation to tools, resources,
and support in culturally determined settings (Leont’ev, 1978, 1981).
To understand children’s development in the context of activities, Bridging examines how different activity
parameters influence children’s performance. These parameters include materials used in the assessment, the social
dynamics of activity administration (e.g., individual, small-group, or large-group setting), whether the child
understands the goal of the activity, and the structure of the activity (e.g., open-ended vs. structured). Attending
to activity parameters in the assessment process enables teachers to examine children’s performance in greater
197
detail. Beyond simply seeing a child’s strengths and weaknesses, teachers can trace factors that might contribute to
the child’s varied levels of performance. The relative familiarity or novelty of task materials, for example, is likely
to influence a child’s performance. Looking at social dimensions of activity, some children prefer to work
independently whereas others are more comfortable in small groups.
When the child is the unit of analysis, assessment results describe only that child. In contrast, using activity as the
unit of analysis, results describe both the child’s performance and the context in which it took place. Rather than
attributing learning difficulties to an isolated
198
Table 8–4 Rubric for Early Book Reading
Name Performance Indicators
Child looks at pictures but does not say anything.
Level 1: Child is “reading” by looking at the storybook pictures; conversation is about

Attending to the pictures in view. Comments about what is in the pictures are not
pictures, not necessarily related to each other.
forming stories
“Reading” consists of labeling and commenting on individual story pictures
(e.g., pointing out a ball, naming animals).
Level 2: Child is “reading” by looking at the storybook pictures; the child’s speech
Attending to weaves a story across the pages, but the wording and intonation are like those
pictures, of someone telling a story, either like a conversation about the pictures or like
forming oral a story relayed in a conversation.
stories
Listener often must see the pictures to understand the child’s story.
Level 3:
Attending to Child is “reading” by looking at the storybook pictures, and the child’s speech
pictures, sounds as if the child is reading, both in wording and intonation.
forming
written Listener does not need to look at the pictures at all, or only rarely, in order to
languagelike understand the story.
stories
Level 4: Child is “reading” the text with fluency from memory; reading is a memorized
Reading rendition of the text.
verbatim-like
Child is not able to decode the print and must look at the pictures (and
story
sometimes the print) in order to “read.”
Child may refuse to read for print-related reasons. Also, the child may show
Level 5: some awareness of letters in words, or awareness of certain words. The child is
Initial aware that reading means decoding the print, which she recognizes she cannot
attending to do yet.
print
The child may refuse to read, but may pretend read with prompting.
Level 6:
Child can figure out some of the words using one strategy or other—for
Attending to
example, using picture information or certain print features to recognize some
print: strategies
letters or words.
imbalanced
Level 7:
Attending to Child reads by trying to decipher the print but does not have decoding and
print meaning-making coordinated.
199
Child uses one strategy (phonics, picture cues) with a certain amount of
consistency.
Level 8:
Attending to The strategies are imbalanced—the child is reading but with inaccuracies and
print: strategies not always using strategies flexibly or effectively. Child may sound out some
balanced words, leave “nonsense” words uncorrected, omit unknown words, and/or
depend on predictable or remembered text rather than the written text.
Reading is choppy, but child can decode most words on a page.
Level 9:
Attending to Reading is accurate; several strategies are used, but reading is not always fluent.
print:
beginning Child reads for meaning, solving problems in an independent way.
fluency
Level 10:
Child is able to read book fluently, with appropriate intonation and with little
Independent
or no help on difficult words.
reader
Sources: Based on Guided Reading: Good First Teaching for all Children, by I. C. Fountas and G. S.
Pinnell, 1996, Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann; and “Children’s Emergent Reading of Favorite
Storybook: A Developmental Study,” by E. Sulzby, Summer 1985, Reading Research Quarterly, 20
(4), 458–481.
child, Bridging yields information that teachers use to alter activity parameters in ways that create optimal learning
environments for children. As such, the assessment process naturally leads to intervention through carefully
planned and positioned teaching activities.
Linking Assessment Results With Teaching and

Learning Processes
As the name indicates, Bridging begins with the assessment of children and leads to learning and teaching based
on knowledge gained from the assessment process. Teacher reflection and planning guide the transition from
assessment to teaching. The reflection process asks teachers to look carefully at the assessment results as well as
activity parameters that might affect children’s performance. The planning process encourages teachers to review
curricular connections described in Bridging and to consider the implementation of varied curricular ideas based
on their assessment results. These ideas help teachers build on children’s skills to further their explorations and
understanding of subject area concepts and skills. The ideas do not prescribe a particular way to teach. Rather,
they are suggestive, serving as guidelines for teacher discovery and as a springboard for teacher innovation. The
goal of planning is clear: Bridging assessment does not end with knowing a child’s developmental status. It uses
that knowledge to plan curriculum and instruction that will help a child move forward based on what she knows
and what she is ready to learn.
Use of Bridging in Teacher Development

In the process of assisting teachers to conduct assessment for learning, Bridging also promotes teacher
development. It does so by helping teachers base their classroom practices on a deep understanding of content
knowledge along with knowing each individual child. Specifically, in conducting Bridging assessment, teachers
gain deeper content knowledge by studying key concept-based rubrics and applying them to a child’s task
200
performance. Developing the skills of translating assessment results into curriculum planning, teachers increasingly
base instructional practice on what a child is learning and needs to learn to reach the next level of development. In
the Bridging assessment process, teachers also learn about the ZPD of individual students with regard to their
understanding of key concepts and skills in different content areas. Knowing each individual child’s current and
potential levels of learning and development, teachers advance in their ability to provide personalized and
developmentally appropriate educational experiences (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). With its support of teacher
learning and development, Bridging is also an assessment for teaching in addition to the assessment for learning.
Unlike the current practice that quantifies and rank orders teacher performance based on student performance on
standardized tests, Bridging supports teacher development and student learning simultaneously. It is our strong
belief that for an assessment to support student learning and development, it first has to support teacher learning
and development.
Over the last 10 years, we have worked with several hundred preservice and in-service teachers, using Bridging as a
tool for professional development. In our experience, Bridging has great potential to influence classroom teaching
and learning processes. We describe in the following sections how we use Bridging to engage Erikson Institute’s
preservice teacher candidates in reflective practice on effective teaching during their student teaching internship.
We also report on our experience working with in-service teachers using Bridging as a tool to improve classroom
teaching of young children.
Working With Preservice Teacher Candidates

Erikson’s Teacher Education Program offers a state teaching certificate to students who work with children in
early childhood programs through Grade 3. All teacher candidates at Erikson are required to complete a yearlong
student teaching internship. The internship consists of three phases: 9 hr per week in the fall semester, 10 weeks of
fulltime teaching through the winter, and 12 hr per week through the remainder of the school year. Teacher
candidates are in the same classroom for all three phases. They also participate in a yearlong student teaching
seminar that meets weekly for 2 hr.
At the start of the internship period, we introduce Bridging to student teachers by presenting and discussing it in
methods courses. We also discuss it in the student teaching seminar. By early November, when student teachers
have spent sufficient time in the classroom to know the children, they consult with the supervising teacher to
select two target children to engage in Bridging activities. While assessing the two children using all 15 Bridging
activities, student teachers keep detailed notes describing each child’s performance.
Student teachers use the assessment results to generate a learning profile for each target child. Following the
assessment of target children in the fall, student teachers use selected Bridging activities with groups of children in
their classroom throughout the remainder of the year. Such activities include children reading books aloud,
dictating and acting out stories, moving to music, singing songs daily, and carrying out the number concept
activities.
With regard to the effects of Bridging on preservice teacher development, we studied a total of 75 teacher
candidates at Erikson Institute who implemented the Bridging assessment process during their yearlong student
teaching experience (see Chen and McNamee, 2006, for a detailed description of the study). Three research
questions guided our investigation: (1) How does the use of Bridging facilitate student teachers’ acquisition of new
knowledge about individual children as diverse learners? (2) How does Bridging help student teachers gain a
deeper understanding of content knowledge in a range of subject areas? (3) How does the use of Bridging
strengthen student teachers’ ability to use assessment results to inform curriculum planning and teaching?
The primary sources of data for the study were classroom observations and the reflection papers that student
teachers prepared at the end of the student teaching period. Positive results were found with regard to all three
research questions. First, student teachers indicated that they gained a new understanding of individual children as
a result of using Bridging. This new knowledge included understanding the variability within each child’s range of
academic performance levels and being able to identify contextual factors that affect children’s performance. The
201
teacher candidates also showed increased content knowledge in a range of curricular areas at the end of their
internship. Many of them credited such gains to the careful examination and study of performance rubrics for the
Bridging activities. The process of applying these rubrics enabled them to develop a deeper understanding of the
key concepts and skills in a range of curriculum areas. In terms of linking assessment to curriculum and
instruction, student teachers reported that Bridging results helped them think about curriculum through
observation, documentation, and analysis of individual children’s activity in specific content areas. Rubrics
enabled them to understand the essentials of each curriculum area as well as organize and sequence learning
experiences. As they gained mastery over these fundamentals, the student teachers began to create learning
experiences appropriate for their particular group of children.
Working With In-Service Teachers

One effective approach to working with in-service teachers is to provide a yearlong professional development
experience. Typically, we contract with a school district or child care center to train a group of approximately 25
teachers for each cohort. The number of training sessions varies depending on the availability of teachers in the
school district or child care center, arranging from five full-day intensive summer institutes to eight half-day
sessions throughout the year. Similar to the preservice teacher education program, the purpose of the in-service
training is to promote teacher development in content knowledge, understanding children, and effective teaching
methods (McNamee & Chen, 2005).
There are three important features of our yearlong professional development (PD) program (Chen & McNamee,
2007). First, in each PD session, we focus on concepts central to the mastery of a particular content area. These
concepts are always introduced through activities using materials commonly found in preschool classrooms.
Teachers learn about key concepts through our presentations, discussions, practicing teaching methods, and
developing simple classroom activities into creative and playful opportunities for young children’s learning. These
strategies engage teachers with content knowledge and help them to understand it in concrete and meaningful
ways. Teachers’ learning experiences parallel young children’s efforts to learn key concepts.
The second feature of our PD program is teachers’ implementation of Bridging in their classrooms. The
implementation consists of two simultaneous processes: using Bridging to engage in child assessment and for
classroom teaching. In terms of assessment, each teacher chooses four target children in her classroom and assesses
them using the entire Bridging process. Teachers share the results of their assessment in the PD sessions. Because
Bridging activities foster the development of key concepts and skills in different curricular areas, teachers also use
them as regular classroom activities. They implement activities for all children in their area of need, such as in the
areas of visual arts and sciences.
The integration of on-site consultation with the training is the third feature designed to stimulate change in
teacher practice. Coaches provide on-site classroom support between the training sessions while teachers conduct
assessment with the target children or implement certain activities for the whole class. Each on-site coaching
session includes three components: the teacher and coach identifying issues for the coach’s focused observation,
the coach videotaping the observation, and the teacher and coach reflecting on the observation. In PD sessions,
the coaches also present examples from classrooms to draw teachers’ attention to particular implementation
opportunities and issues. The connection between PD sessions and the coaching support helps to reinforce the
integration of content knowledge and assessment results with classroom practice.
To evaluate the efficacy of our in-service PD programs, we interviewed 53 teachers working in preschool and
kindergarten classrooms in the Chicago Public Schools (see Melendez, 2007 for a detailed description of the
study). Of the 53 teachers, 29 participated in a yearlong PD seminar designed to help teachers learn to use the
Bridging assessment system in their classrooms; these teachers are therefore denoted as the intervention group. The
remaining 24 were early childhood teachers on a waiting list for the Bridging professional development seminar;
they make up the comparison group. The two groups of teachers were similar in terms of years of teaching
experience and level of education.
202
Trained researchers interviewed both groups of teachers twice: at the beginning and at the end of the school year.
The analysis of the interviews was guided by research questions similar to those used in our study with preservice
teacher candidates. That is, to what extent teachers, after participating in the yearlong Bridging professional
development sessions (1) gained better understanding of individual children, (2) increased content knowledge, and
(3) became capable of using child assessment results to inform curriculum planning and teaching. The results
indicated that, at the beginning of the school year, the two groups of teachers were not significantly different in
their mean scores on each of the three variables measured, nor were they different in terms of the pattern of scores
across the three variables. Specifically, teachers in both intervention and comparison groups showed moderate
levels of knowledge in content areas, in their understanding of individual children, and in considering useful
teaching strategies to meet the needs of their students.
At the end of the school year, mean scores across the three variables increased for both groups. Although teachers
in the intervention group earned higher mean scores than teachers in the comparison group in all three variables,
differences between the groups were not statistically significant. However, we did note a finding of particular
interest for intervention group teachers: The relationship among the scores of the three variables changed.
Intervention group teachers’ scores for the three variables were significantly correlated. Similar correlations were
not found in the comparison group. This finding points to an often ignored fact that teacher development entails
more than quantitative increases in knowledge. It also involves the dynamic interaction of elements essential to
effective teaching. These results suggest the possibility that the more closely associated the three effective teaching
components are, the more likely they will work together to support the integration of assessment with curriculum
and instruction. Further empirical work is needed to test this hypothesis.
As revealed in our work with both preservice and in-service teachers, Bridging’s integration of assessment and
curriculum development is bidirectional. Assessment guides curriculum development; curriculum implementation
is supported by assessment information to help teachers become more effective in their work. It is our conviction
that assessment without direct connections to curriculum does not help teachers teach. Curriculum
implementation without accurate assessment information may or may not be appropriate for a particular group of
children. In the integration process we have developed for Bridging, the pattern is no longer limited to a linear
sequence with assessment necessarily preceding curriculum development. Instead, the pattern is a spiral with each
interacting to inform the other in a continuous process (McNamee & Chen, 2005).
Conclusion
The field of child assessment has changed a great deal since the inception of IQ tests more than a century ago.
Today, accountability is a most pressing issue at all levels of the education system. The challenges are even greater
for early childhood education, with the complex and varied developmental needs of young children. Accurately
assessing individual children’s knowledge and skills remains one of the most difficult yet most important tasks in
teaching. To do so, teachers need reliable assessment systems to help identify students’ strengths and areas in need
of additional practice and guidance, to monitor their progress, and to decide on appropriate next steps in
instructional practice (Popham, 2008). Understanding assessment and knowing how to use it appropriately is
crucial to effective teaching (Black & William, 2003; Darling-Hammond & Bransford, 2005; Shepard et al.,
2005).
Stiggins (2002) stated that “if we are finally to connect assessment to school improvement in meaningful ways, we
must come to see assessment through new eyes” (p. 758). We close the chapter with a suggestion for seeing child
assessment from a fresh perspective. We call for a new view of the relationship between assessment for and of
learning. Specifically, we advocate seeing the two approaches to assessment as complementary rather than
contradictory or mutually exclusive. Assessments of learning and for learning are designed for different purposes
and use different approaches to child assessment. In this chapter, we have contrasted the two types to heighten
understanding of assessment for learning. We have given full attention and our endorsement to assessment for
learning because we believe that the pendulum of assessment has swung too far toward the assessment of learning
in today’s educational practices. However, in the larger context of child assessment, we hold that both types of
203
assessments have their place in the classroom and can make a critical contribution to a child’s education. As such,
both types deserve the serious consideration of early childhood educators. Often based on inappropriate forms of
testing, the potential value of assessment of learning has been obscured. With closer examination, relationships
between the two types of assessment can be discerned.
First, the contrast between the two types of assessments is not necessarily black and white. In a number of cases,
determining the type of assessment an instrument is depends on how the teacher uses it, rather than on
characteristics of the instrument itself. For example, the Work Sampling System is an assessment tool designed to
assist teachers in better understanding individual children and to link the assessment results to curriculum
planning and teaching. But it has also been misused as a high-stakes test for tracking students’ performance
(Samuel Meisels, personal communication). We certainly do not advocate the use of inappropriate testing,
including testing for the purpose of rank ordering children. It can be useful for teachers to know each child’s status
relative to early learning standards, and/or developmental milestones through the assessment of learning. This
information can help teachers establish a starting point in the assessment for learning. Used appropriately, the
results of assessment of learning can also help evaluate children’s progress through a teacher’s use of assessment for
learning.
Second, in assessments of learning, learning standards focus on the products of learning. In assessments for
learning, the focus is on the process of learning. Using both types, teachers can locate what and how children learn
in relation to standards. Assessment for learning intends to help teachers support child learning, whereas
assessment of learning sets standards to attest whether children achieve the learning goals claimed by the
assessment for learning. Assessment of learning is not inherently bad. Assessing a child’s learning through both
lenses can help the teacher get a better sense of how a child performs independently and in relation to support
from others. Complementing one approach with the other offers more information than either assessment alone
can offer.
One of the most difficult characteristics of assessment of learning for early childhood educators to accept is the
exclusion of conversation and social interaction during the assessment process. From the perspective of assessment
for learning, “human mental activity is neither solo nor conducted unassisted, even when it goes on ‘inside the
head.’ Mental life is lived with others, is shaped to be communicated, and unfolds with the aid of cultural codes,
traditions, and the like” (Bruner, 1996, p. xi). It may be that, when assessment of learning is used in the early
childhood years, this procedure needs to be changed or made more flexible. As long as the two types of assessments
are in competition, there will be no reason to consider how each type may be modified and how both may be
combined. The point of view we suggest is fresh, not because it presents a new approach, but because it suggests a
new relationship between two familiar approaches. Currently, assessment of learning does not have a good
reputation in early education. Careful consideration of what each has to offer brings us to more productive
conversations about how we can use both types to best serve the needs of children.
Reflect On
1. What are the differences between assessment of learning and assessment for learning with respect to goal,
approach, procedure, content, and context of assessment?
2. How does the Bridging system support teachers in assessing, teaching, and understanding children’s learning
needs?
3. What does it mean when educators examine activity as the unit of analysis in child assessment as opposed to
assessing the child alone as the unit?
4. In what ways are curriculum and assessment two sides of the same coin?
References
204
1. Baker, E. L., O’Neil, H. F., & Linn, R. L. (1993). Policy and validity prospects for performance-based
assessment. American Psychologist, 48, 1210–1218.
2. Black, P., & William, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education, 5 (1), 7–74.
3. Black, P., & William, D. (2003). ‘In praise of educational research’: Formative assessment. British
Educational Research Journal, 29 (5), 623–637.
4. Bloom, B. S. (1969). Some theoretical issues relating to educational evaluation. In R. W. Taylor (Ed.),
Educational evaluation: New roles, new means: The 68th yearbook of the National Society for the Study of
Evaluation, Part II (pp. 26–50). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
5. Bowman, B. T., Donovan, M. S., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.). (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
6. Bredekamp, S., & Rosegrant, T. (Eds.). (1995). Reaching potentials. Vol. 2: Transforming early childhood
curriculum and assessment. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
7. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8. Bruner, J., & Haste, H. (Eds.). (1987). Making sense: The child’s construction of the world. London, England:
Routledge.
9. Chen, J. Q. (2004). The Project Spectrum approach to early education. In J. L. Roopnarine & J. E.
Johnson (Eds.), Approaches to early childhood education (4th ed., pp. 251–179). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson.
10. Chen, J. Q., & Gardner, H. (2005). Assessment based on multiple intelligences theory. In D. P. Flanagan,
J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Beyond traditional intellectual assessment: Contemporary and emerging
theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 77–102). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
11. Chen, J. Q., & McNamee, G. (2006). Strengthening early childhood teacher preparation: Integrating
assessment, curriculum development, and instructional practice in student teaching. Journal of Early
Childhood Teacher Education, 27 (2), 109–127.
12. Chen, J. Q., & McNamee, G. (2007). Bridging: Assessment for teaching and learning in early childhood
classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
13. Clements, D. (2011, March). The building blocks of early mathematics: Learning trajectories for young children.
Paper presented at the biennial meeting of Society for Research in Child Development, Montreal, Canada.
14. Clements, D., & Sarama, J. (2009). Learning and teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach.
New York, NY: Routledge.
serving children from birth through age 8 (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education
of Young Children.
16. Darling-Hammond, L., & Ancess, L. (1996). Authentic assessment and school development. In J. B. Baron
& D. P. Wolf (Eds.), Performance-based student assessment: Challenges and possibilities (95th yearbook of the
National Society for the Study of Education; pp. 52–83). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
17. Darling-Hammond, L., & Bransford, J. (Eds). (2005). Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers
should learn and be able to do. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
18. Dickinson, D. K., McCabe, A., & Anastasopoulos, L. (2003). A framework for examining book reading in
205
early childhood classroom. In A. K. Van, S. A. Stahl, & E. B. Bauer (Eds.), On reading to children: Parents
and teachers (pp. 95–113). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
19. Dunn, K. E., & Mulvenon, S. W. (2009). A critical review of research on formative assessment: The limited
scientific evidence of the impact of formative assessment in education practical assessment. Research &
Evaluation, 14 (3). Retrieved from http://pareonline.net/pdf/v14n7.pdf
20. Earl, L. M. (2003). Assessment as learning: Using classroom assessment to maximize student learning. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
21. Engelman, J., Noakes, L., & Rogers, D. (2011, April). Assessment for learning and formative assessment:
Establishing a universal definition. Poster presented at the Research Pre-session of National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics, Indianapolis, IN.
22. Farr, R. (1992). Putting it all together: solving the reading assessment puzzle. The Reading Teacher, 46, 26–
37.
23. Fountas, I. C., & Pinnell, G. S. (1996). Guided reading: Good first teaching for all children. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
24. Gardner, J. (2006). (Ed.). Assessment and learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
25. Ginsberg, H. (2011, March). Young children’s mathematical competence. Paper presented at the biennial
meeting of Society for Research in Child Development, Montreal, Canada.
26. Goodrich, A. H. (2005, Winter). Teaching with rubrics. College Teaching, 53 (1), 27–30.
27. Hargreaves, A., & Earl, L. (2002). Perspectives on alternative assessment reform. American Educational
Research Journal, 39 (1), 69–95.
28. Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing: Raising the scores, ruining the schools. Portsmouth,
NH: Heinemann.
29. Leont’ev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
30. Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. W. Wertsch, (Ed.), The concept of
activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37–71). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.
31. Linn, R. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29 (2), 4–15.
32. McNamee, G., & Chen, J. Q. (2005). Dissolving the line between assessment and teaching. Educational
Leadership, 63 (3), 72–77.
33. Meisels, S. J. (1997). Using work sampling in authentic performance assessments. Educational Leadership,
54, 60–65.
34. Meisels, S. J., & Atkins-Burnett, S. (2004). The Head Start National Reporting System: A critique. Young
Children, 1, 1–4.
35. Meisels, S. J., Atkins-Burnett, S., Xue, Y. G., Bickel, D. D., & Son, S.-H. (2003). Creating a system of
accountability: The impact of instructional assessment on elementary children’s achievement test scores.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11 (9). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v11n9/
36. Meisels, S., Bickel, D., Nicholson, J., Xue, Y., & Atkins-Burnett, S. (2001). Trusting teachers’ judgments: A
validity study of a curriculum-embedded performance assessment in kindergarten to Grade 3. American
Educational Research Journal, 38 (1), 73–95.
206
37. Melendez, L. (2007). Pedagogical content knowledge in early childhood: A study of teachers’ knowledge
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Loyola University Chicago/Erikson Institute, Chicago, IL.
38. Moss, P. (1994). Can there be validity without reliability? Educational Researcher, 3, 5–12.
39. National Association for the Education of Young Children & National Association of Early Childhood
Specialists in State Departments of Education. (November, 2003). Position statement. Early childhood
curriculum assessment, and program evaluation: Building an effective, accountable system in programs for
children birth through age 8. Retrieved from http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/
CAPEexpand.pdf
40. National Association for the Education of Young Children & National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics. (2010). Focus in prekindergarten: Teaching with curriculum focal points. Reston, VA: Author.
41. National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational
reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
42. National Research Council. (2009). Mathematics learning in early childhood: Paths toward excellence and
equity. Committee on Early Childhood Mathematics, Christopher T. Cross, Taniesha A. Woods, & Heidi
Schweingruber (Eds.). Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
43. Pianta, R. C., La Paro, K. M., & Hamre, B. K. (2008). Class Assessment Scoring System manual (Pre-K) or (K-
3). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
44. Popham, W. J. (2008). Classroom assessment: What teachers need to know (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
45. Rathvon, N. (2005). Early reading assessment: A practitioner’s handbook. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
46. Rogoff, B. (1993). Children’s guided participation and participatory appropriation in sociocultural activity.
In R. Wozniak & K. Fischer (Eds.), Development in context: Acting and thinking in specific environment (pp.
121–153). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
47. Ruiz-Primo, M. A., & Furtak, E. M. (2006). Informal formative assessment and scientific inquiry:
Exploring teachers’ practices and student learning. Educational Assessment, 11, 205–235.
48. Scott-Little, C., Kagan, S. L., & Frelow, V. S. (March, 2005). Inside the content: The breadth and depth of
early learning standards. Greensboro, NC: University of North Carolina at Greensboro—SERVE.
49. Sciven, M. (1967). The methodology of evaluation. In R. W. Tyler (Ed.), Perspectives of curriculum
evaluation (pp. 39–83). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
50. Shepard, L., Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., Rust, F., with Snowden, J. B., Gordon, E., Gutierez,
C., & Pacheco, A. (2005). Assessment. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers
for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 275–326). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
51. Smith, M. W., & Dickinson, D. K., with Sangeorge, A., & Anastasopoulos, L. (2003). User’s guide to the
Early Language & Literacy Classroom Observation toolkit. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
52. Smith, M. W., Brady, J. P., & Clark-Chiarelli, N. (2008). User’s guide to the Early Language & Literacy
Classroom Observation K-3 tool. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
53. Starkey, P., & Klein, A. (2000). Fostering parental support for children’s mathematical development: An
intervention with Head Start families. Early Education and Development, 11, 659–680.
207
54. Stiggins, R. J. (2002). Assessment crisis: The absence of assessment FOR learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 83
(10), 758–765.
55. Stiggins, R. J. (2004). New assessment beliefs for a new school mission. Phi Delta Kappan, 86 (9), 22–27.
56. Stiggins, R. J. (2005). From formative assessment to assessment FOR learning: A path to success in
standards-based schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 87 (4), 324–328.
57. Sulzby, E. (1985, Summer). Children’s emergent reading of favorite storybook: A developmental study.
Reading Research Quarterly, 20 (4), 458–481.
58. Supovitz, J. A., & Brennan, R. T. (1997). Mirror, mirror on the wall, which is the fairest test of all? An
examination of the equitability of portfolio assessment relative to standardized tests. Harvard Educational
Review, 5 (3), 472–506.
59. The Staff of Education Week. (2000). Lessons of a century: A nation’s schools come of age. Bethesda, MD:
Editorial Projects in Education.
60. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
61. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
62. Vygotsky, L. S. (1999). Tool and sign in the development of the child. In R. W. Rieber (Ed.), The collected
works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 6, pp. 3–68). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
63. Wasserman, J. D., & Tulsky, D. S. (2005). A history of intelligence assessment. In D. P. Flanagan, J. L.
Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Beyond traditional intellectual assessment: Contemporary and emerging
theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 3–22). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
64. Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
65. Wininger, R. S. (2005). Using your tests to teach: Formative summative assessment. Teaching Psychology,
32(2), 164–166.
66. Wortham, S. C. (1996). The integrated classroom: The assessment-curriculum link in early childhood education.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
208
Part III Specific Approaches—United States
1. CHAPTER 9 The Creative Curriculum®
2. CHAPTER 10 The HighScope Model of Early Childhood Education
3. CHAPTER 11 Tools of the Mind: The Vygotskian Approach to Early Childhood Education
4. CHAPTER 12 The Developmental–Interaction Approach at Bank Street College of Education
5. CHAPTER 13 The Project Approach: An Overview
209
Chapter 9 The Creative Curriculum ®
Diane Trister Dodge
Cate Heroman
and
Kai-leé
Berke Teaching Strategies, LLC, Washington, DC
Describe the philosophy and research foundation of The Creative Curriculum
Outline the consistent framework of The Creative Curriculum
List objectives for development and learning
Discuss The Creative Curriculum for Preschool as a system
Explain the authentic, ongoing assessment in The Creative Curriculum
Delineate how teachers use the assessment cycle
Characterize how The Creative Curriculum includes all children
Discuss The Creative Curriculum and professional development
Describe the research on and use of The Creative Curriculum and Teaching Strategies GOLD
The Creative Curriculum has a long history with roots in the early years of Head Start, when the field had not yet
formally defined developmentally appropriate practice or, arguably, even identified preschool teachers’ need for a
written curriculum. The curriculum grew out of a series of workshops and handouts developed in 1966 to support
Head Start and child care teachers who did not have teaching backgrounds—and some without high school
diplomas. The teachers were expected to organize classrooms and teach groups of young children, so they needed
on-the-job support. As Head Start and child care programs expanded, the need for practical professional
development resources grew. Published in 1978, the first edition of The Creative Curriculum included a filmstrip
about setting up an effective classroom environment and a series of four books that focused on four interest areas
of a preschool classroom: blocks, the house corner, table toys, and art. The intent was to help teachers appreciate
how much children can learn in well-organized interest areas. The books explained how to use the materials in
each area to help preschool children acquire important skills and understandings.
Evolving from those first four books, the new edition of the preschool curriculum (Dodge, Heroman, Colker,
Bickart, Jones et al., 2010) is a complete system of resources that supports teachers at all levels of experience: the
beginning teacher who wants very specific guidance on what, how, when, and why to teach; teachers who are
progressing in their understanding of appropriate practice but still need practical support; and teachers who are
refining their practices and want to be inspired with new ideas they can adapt and make their own. The Creative
Curriculum System for Preschool includes a set of five books that help teachers build knowledge and skills for
establishing developmentally appropriate programs. It also includes a set of daily practice resources that enable
teachers to teach children intentionally each day. Teaching Strategies also developed and published two other
versions of the curriculum: The Creative Curriculum for Infants, Toddlers & Twos (now in the second edition,
revised) and The Creative Curriculum for Family Child Care (also in its second edition).
210
Philosophy And Research Foundation Of The
Creative Curriculum
A major influence in the field of early childhood education has been the work of the National Association for the
Education of Young Children in defining high-quality teaching practices (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). The term
developmentally appropriate practice means teaching in ways that are consistent with how children learn at each
stage of development. Teachers are encouraged to base decisions on three types of information:
What they know about child development and how children learn
What they learn about each child as an individual
What they know about each child’s family and culture
Major child development theories and research are the foundation for all versions of The Creative Curriculum.
Theory and research inform five guiding principles.
Positive Interactions and Relationships Are

Fundamental to Children’s Success in School and in
Life
This principle follows from the work of John Dewey, who recognized that children learn best when they interact
with people in a rich environment (Dewey, 1897). He urged teachers to create classroom communities where
children learn to work with each other and with their teachers, constructing knowledge about their world through
firsthand experiences. During the 1920s and early 1930s, Lev Vygotsky (1934/1978) studied children’s social
interactions and saw how important it is for them to talk about problems and concepts in order to understand
them.
Teacher–child interactions that foster positive relationships are a primary focus of The Creative Curriculum.
Attachment research showed the critical need for infants and toddlers to develop secure attachments with primary
caregivers (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; Bowlby, 1969). Research has confirmed that the quality of
children’s attachment relationships predict children’s social-emotional competence, persistence, enthusiasm for
learning, and academic success (Easterbrooks & Goldberg, 1990; Hamre & Pianta, 2001; van IJzendoorn & Sagi,
1999). Moreover, children who develop positive relationships with their teachers are more likely to develop social
skills and get along with their peers (Palermo, Handish, Martin, Fabes, & Reiser, 2007).
Social-Emotional Competence Is a Significant Factor

in School Success
Fostering social-emotional development has always been an underlying goal of early childhood education and is
central to The Creative Curriculum approach. Socially and emotionally competent children understand their own
and other’s feelings, regulate their own behavior, build positive relationships with others, and interact positively
with their peers (Sroufe, 2005); and there is a connection between social competence and children’s readiness for
school (Raver, 2002). The Creative Curriculum gives teachers practical guidance based upon Erik Erikson’s (1950)
ideas about early stages of social-emotional development: trust versus mistrust, autonomy versus shame and doubt,
and initiative versus guilt.
211
Constructive, Purposeful Play Supports Essential
Learning
Young children learn best through purposeful play, but play must be meaningful to the child if it is to lead to new
and deeper understandings (see Pellegrini, 2009, 2011). Teachers using The Creative Curriculum learn to
appreciate the various types of play and their role in the development of logical thinking (Piaget, 1945/1972). The
stages and benefits of sociodramatic play are an important focus of the curriculum because research shows
associations between high-level play skills and children’s academic learning (Bodrova & Leong, 2003; Fagen,
2011). Children who do not have high-level pretend-play skills must be specifically taught these skills in order to
benefit from their play (Smilansky & Shefatya, 1990).
The Physical Environment Affects Children’s

Behavior and the Type and Quality of Learning
Interactions
Dewey and Piaget both describe how the physical environment and materials affect children’s behavior and
learning. The way the physical environment is organized and the selection and display of materials have a
profound impact on children as well as on their teachers. Well-organized environments, carefully selected
materials, and attractive displays help children develop self-regulation skills and support their ability to attend to
and complete tasks (Mooney, 2000). Consistency and clarity are important to all children, but high-quality
materials and organized environments are especially important for children at risk of future school failure.
Teacher–Family Partnerships Promote Development

and Learning
Research on the benefits of strong partnerships with families is substantial and conclusive: When families are
involved, children feel more secure and do better academically, teachers gain valuable support and insights, and
families are better able to guide their children’s development and learning. This is true for all children regardless of
the educational and income levels of their parents (Henderson & Berla, 1994). With The Creative Curriculum,
teachers learn to forge positive relationships based on mutual respect and ongoing communication with families.
In short, the five guiding principles of The Creative Curriculum are grounded in the well-established theories of
social and cognitive development (e.g., Piaget, Erikson), developmentally and culturally sensitive practices (Copple
& Bredekamp, 2009), and current research on childhood development and learning. Summaries of research
findings related to each objective for development and learning are presented in Objectives for Development &
Learning: Birth Through Kindergarten (Heroman, Burts, Berke, & Bickart, 2010a, 2010b, 2010c). That
information helps teachers understand why particular practices are developmentally appropriate for young
children. The studies that are a focus in each of The Creative Curriculum Teaching Guides evolved from the
thoughtful work of Lilian Katz and Sylvia Chard (2000).
The Consistent Framework Of The Creative

Curriculum
The three versions of The Creative Curriculum are organized by a consistent framework. Graphic representation of
that organizational structure gives teachers a visual picture of the five components, or categories of knowledge, that
212
are essential for them to acquire, whether they work with children birth to age 3, preschool children, or children of
mixed ages in a family child care home. In the preschool curriculum, these five categories of knowledge are applied
to 10 interest areas and the outdoors. In the infant/toddler/twos and family child care curricula, they are applied
to daily routines and experiences. Why are the curricula different in that regard? The preschool curriculum focuses
on interest areas as the most appropriate settings for children ages 3 to 5 years. Interest areas offer children
opportunities for making choices, interacting with materials and peers as well as the teacher, and sharing
responsibility for maintaining the environment. For children under 3 years of age, the day is organized around
routines and play experiences. Routines provide consistency in a child’s life and afford teachers daily opportunities
to build a relationship with each child and to support children’s growing competence. Emphasizing experiences
rather than activities or areas of the room, The Creative Curriculum guides teachers in selecting appropriate
materials for children, observing what children do, and responding to what each child seems to be experiencing.
As shown in the Figures 9–1a through 9–1c, each framework rests on a solid foundation of theory and research
(previously discussed) that is updated with each new edition. After a brief overview of the theorists and their
research, the main ideas are summarized in a table along with examples of practices in The Creative Curriculum
that grow out of this knowledge. In this way, teachers are helped to see the connection between theory and
practice, learning not only what to do but why particular practices are important.
Knowing How Children Develop and Learn

Knowledge of child development—what to expect of children at each stage of development—is the essential
knowledge base for developmentally appropriate teaching (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; see also Chapter 6). The
first component of each framework therefore focuses on the children: knowing their typical skills, behaviors, and
understandings at various levels of development and knowing how each child is unique. This component provides
an overview of child development for the curriculum’s age-group, discussing four basic developmental domains:
social-emotional, physical, language, and cognitive. To help teachers link knowledge of child development with
curriculum implementation, the objectives for these domains are introduced early in the discussion.
General child development knowledge is essential but not sufficient for building relationships with individual
children and planning appropriate experiences. No matter how much children may be alike in their patterns of
development, each child is unique. Teachers must therefore appreciate and pay attention to differences related to
rates of development, gender, temperament, interests, learning styles, life experiences, and culture that influence
how children respond and learn. Because teachers are increasingly likely to have children in their classrooms whose
home language is not English, they need to appreciate the benefits of being bilingual, know the stages of dual-
language (DL) learning, and understand how to foster English acquisition in a way that respects the children’s
heritage and expression of their home languages. It is equally important for teachers to have guidance on including
all children in the program: children who progress typically, children with disabilities, and children with advanced
knowledge and skills in some domains.
The Learning Environment

The learning environment is the starting point for implementing The Creative Curriculum. It includes the physical
setting (the organization of space and the selection and display of materials), the daily routines and schedule that
provide a
213
Figure 9–1 Frameworks of The Creative
214
Curriculum
Sources: From The Creative Curriculum for Infants, Toddlers & Twos, Volume 1: The Foundation (2nd
ed., rev., p. xiii), by D. T. Dodge, S. Rudick, and K. Berke, 2011, Washington, DC: Teaching
Strategies, LLC. Copyright 2010 by Teaching Strategies, LLC. Reprinted with permission. The
Creative Curriculum for Preschool, Volume 1: The Foundation (5th ed., p. xvii), by D. T. Dodge, C.
Heroman, L. J. Colker, and T. S. Bickart, 2010, Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies, LLC.
Copyright 2010 by Teaching Strategies, LLC. Reprinted with permission. The Creative Curriculum for
Family Child Care, Volume 1: The Foundation (2nd ed., p. xiii), by D. T. Dodge, 2009, Washington,
DC: Teaching Strategies, LLC. Copyright 2009 by Teaching Strategies, LLC. Reprinted with
permission.
predictable structure for each day, and weekly planning based on what teachers learn about individual children
and the group.
The Physical Setting

The physical environment has a profound effect on children’s behavior. Arranging the environment in particular
ways is a powerful strategy for supporting children’s ability to function positively in a group setting and to develop
self-regulation skills. In all versions of The Creative Curriculum, specific suggestions are offered for conveying
positive messages through the environment: “This is a good place.” “You belong here.” “This is a place you can
trust.” “There are places where you can be by yourself.” “You can do many things on your own.” “This is a safe
place to explore and try out your ideas.”
The preschool curriculum provides detailed guidance on setting up and maintaining 10 engaging and well-
organized indoor interest areas and an outdoor area in which teachers offer a variety of activities each day.
Materials in each interest area are labeled with a picture and word so children can find and return the materials
they want to use. If the children speak several languages, each language is color coded. Space must be allocated for
large-group times, and suggestions are offered for accommodating children with disabilities. Children’s work is
protected and displayed in the classroom, and classroom maintenance is a shared responsibility. In addition to
participating in cleanup, individual children rotate assigned jobs, such as setting the tables for meals, feeding
classroom pets, washing paintbrushes, watering plants, and so on.
In The Creative Curriculum for Infants, Toddlers & Twos, ensuring a safe and healthy environment is of primary
importance. The environment for young and mobile infants must include adequate spaces for daily routines and
open spaces where children can always be supervised as they explore safely and play with materials. Because
teachers are often on the floor with children, their comfort must be considered. In the family child care
curriculum, guidance is offered for two types of arrangements: (1) shared space where multiple rooms in the home
are used in caring for children and (2) homes where providers use a separate program space that looks much like a
preschool classroom.
A Structure for Each Day

The daily schedule blocks out time for all events of the day and establishes the sequence of routines and events.
For infants and toddlers, the schedule is flexible and individualized. Children ages 2 years and older have a more
consistent schedule every day.
The sample schedule in The Creative Curriculum shows a balance of active and quiet times; large-group times;
small-group activities; outdoor times; read-alouds; and routines such as mealtimes, rest, and cleanup. We
recommend posting a schedule with pictures and words where children can see it easily. That way, even young
children can identify the periods of the day and the order in which they occur. This is not only a literacy
215
experience; it gives children a sense of security about their lives at school because they can predict the sequence of
events and know what to expect.
Weekly Planning
Teachers using The Creative Curriculum are encouraged to review what they learn about individual children and
the group as they develop plans for the following week. They identify changes to the environment, large- and
small-group experiences, stories they plan to read aloud, and ways to involve and inform families.
What Children Are Learning

The third component of The Creative Curriculum concerns what children learn in the areas of literacy,
mathematics, science, social studies, the arts, and technology. The relationships that teachers and providers build
with each child, the interactions they have throughout the day, and the materials and experiences they provide are
avenues through which children learn important concepts and skills. Teachers must be intentional in offering
opportunities throughout the day for children to acquire the important skills and understandings that are widely
expected by researchers and valued in state early learning standards.
The Creative Curriculum describes major skills and concepts for each content area and gives examples of how
children of different ages demonstrate their understanding. The Creative Curriculum objectives for children’s
development and learning are based on content standards and early learning standards. Teachers learn about seven
components of literacy: literacy as a source of enjoyment, vocabulary and language, phonological awareness,
knowledge of print, knowledge of letters and words, comprehension, and understanding books and other texts
(National Early Literacy Panel, 2008).
For mathematics, the curriculum explains what children are learning about number and operations, geometry and
spatial sense, measurement, patterns (algebra), and data analysis (National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,
2000). Science content falls into three categories: physical science, life science, and earth and the environment
(National Research Council, 1996). In social studies, the major topics are people and how they live, people and
the environment, people and the past, and geography (National Council for the Social Studies, 2010). Four
categories of the arts are addressed: dance, music, theater or performing arts, and the visual arts (Consortium of
National Arts Education, 1994). In technology, four components apply to the preschool level: awareness of
technology, basic operations and concepts, tools and equipment, and people and technology (International Society
for Technology in Education, 1998).
In The Creative Curriculum, a chart for each of the content areas summarizes the main concepts to be taught, gives
examples of what teachers can do to support learning, and shows examples of what children might do to
demonstrate their skills and understandings.
Caring and Teaching

Care and education cannot be separated when describing the role of an early childhood teacher (National Research
Council, 2001). Positive relationships are the foundation for all learning. They have a profound impact on how
children feel in the program and their success as learners. For this reason, building positive relationships and
creating a classroom community are the first aspects of the teacher’s role addressed in The Creative Curriculum.
Caring for infants, toddlers, and 2-year-olds centers on positive relationships and helping children get along with
other children as well as with adults. The preschool classroom functions as a community, a place where people feel
safe, experience a sense of belonging, develop positive relationships with others, share responsibilities, and learn
how to resolve conflicts peacefully. Teachers are given strategies and plans for promoting self-regulation,
establishing classroom rules with children, setting consistent limits, and coaching children to develop prosocial
216
skills. Teachers are also shown how to respond to challenging behaviors that are entrenched and require targeted
interventions. Recognizing that friendships are very important, we identify the skills children need to make and
keep a friend; the curriculum presents classroom strategies that support friendships. These include having
discussions about making friends, coaching children to enter a group successfully, assigning tasks and jobs to two
children who usually do not play together, and establishing rules that minimize rejection and bullying.
Teachers who use The Creative Curriculum are helped to teach intentionally and responsively. Teachers must
know how, when, and where to teach, and they must respond appropriately to what each child brings to a learning
experience. The how of teaching includes the range of approaches and instructional strategies that the curriculum
offers teachers. Different approaches are needed for supporting different skills and the understanding of concepts.
Teachers learn to use five basic teaching strategies as they respond to children engaged in firsthand experiences.
Teachers guide children in making discoveries, challenge children’s thinking, and help them gain deeper
understandings. Teachers acknowledge and describe what children are doing and saying; coach children’s efforts
and make suggestions; extend children’s thinking with open-ended questions, prompts, and conversations; and
give information to expand children’s knowledge base and let them know what is expected of them. The Creative
Curriculum gives extensive examples of how to apply these teaching strategies in each of the interest areas,
routines, and experiences provided for children every day.
In the preschool curriculum, teachers intentionally plan daily small- and large-group activities that address specific
learning objectives. These are short (10–15 min), engaging, interactive experiences. With the help of Intentional
Teaching Cards, teachers are able to easily adapt each activity to include all children—those ready for more
challenge and children who can be successful with a simpler task. (These cards, which are a component of the
preschool system, are discussed later in this chapter.) Large-group times involve gathering all of the children in the
class for meetings. The first meeting of the day is a time to welcome everyone, discuss the day’s events, and have a
short activity. The end of the day is a time to review the highlights of the day and prepare children for the next
day’s events. Children are also gathered together for read-alouds, music and movement activities, and discussions
of a topic they are studying.
Partnering With Families

The fifth framework component describes ways of building partnerships with families. The two most important
worlds for young children are their homes and schools. When adults at home and school communicate positively
and respectfully, children feel more secure, teachers gain valuable support from families, and families come to
understand the important role they play in their children’s development and learning.
The Creative Curriculum helps teachers appreciate the fact that every family, like every child, is unique.
Partnerships with families therefore begin by getting to know families—their composition, life experiences,
cultures, and their hopes and dreams for their children. The curriculum offers practical strategies for making
families feel welcome, communicating through daily and more formal exchanges, and offering families a variety of
meaningful ways to be involved in the program. A wide range of resources supports the building of partnerships.
These include letters to families that can be adapted by teachers; booklets describing the program and ways
families can help at home; and a variety of easy-to-read resources on supporting language and literacy learning,
mathematics, physical development, and DL acquisition.
The Creative Curriculum® Learning-Games® is another resource for involving families with children from birth
through age 5. These are simple, everyday activities that families can enjoy with their children to support positive
interactions, language development, and relationships. They have been validated by over 30 years of research as a
component of the Abecedarian project, which showed positive gains for children throughout the years of school
and early adulthood (Campbell, Ramey, Pungello, Sparling, & Miller-Johnson, 2002).
In the real world, building positive relationships with some families is challenging. Teachers sometimes encounter
conflicts because of misunderstandings about or different approaches to the care and education of young children.
The Creative Curriculum approach to resolving differences constructively proposes four steps: (1) Seek first to
217
understand the family’s position. (2) Validate the family’s concerns and wishes. (3) Explain how the program
addresses the family’s concerns. (4) Continue to communicate with one another to assess progress (Dodge,
Heroman, Colker, & Bickart, 2010).
Objectives For Development And Learning

Lewis Carroll wrote in Alice and Wonderland (1865), “ If you don’t know where you’re going, any road will take
you there.” Planning curriculum begins with a clear vision or road map of what is important and developmentally
appropriate for young children. Clearly defined and articulated objectives for development and learning provide
teachers with the necessary focus to implement curriculum effectively.
Objectives for Development & Learning: Birth Through Kindergarten (Heroman, Burts, Berke, & Bickart, 2010a,
2010b, 2010c), included in both The Creative Curriculum and Teaching Strategies GOLD, gives teachers a clear
picture of what children at each stage of development should know and be able to do in major areas of
development (social-emotional, physical, cognitive, and language) and in general content areas (literacy,
mathematics, science and technology, social studies, and the arts). It includes research-based objectives that are
predictors of future school success and highly valued in state early learning standards.
Note that many of the objectives listed in Figure 9–2 include dimensions, which are more
Figure 9–2 Objectives for Development and

Learning
Source: From Teaching Strategies GOLD ® O bjectives for Development and Learning: Birth Through
Kindergarten (pp. xxx–xxxi), by C. Heroman, D. C. Burts, K. Berke, and T. S. Bickart, 2010,
Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies, LLC. Copyright 2010 by Teaching Strategies, LLC. Reprinted
with permission.
Social-Emotional
1. Regulates own emotions and behaviors
2. Establishes and sustains positive relationships
3. Participates cooperatively and constructively in group situations
Physical
4. Demonstrates traveling skills
5. Demonstrates balancing skills
6. Demonstrates gross-motor manipulative skills
7. Demonstrates fine-motor strength and coordination
Language
8. Listens to and understands increasing complex language
218
9. Uses language to express thoughts and needs
10. Uses appropriate conversational and other communication skills
Cognitive
11. Demonstrates positive approaches to learning
12. Remembers and connects experiences
13. Uses classification skills
14. Uses symbols and images to represent something not present
Literacy
15. Demonstrates phonological awareness
16. Demonstrates knowledge of the alphabet
17. Demonstrates knowledge of print and its uses
18. Comprehends and responds to books and other texts
19. Demonstrates emergent writing skills
Mathematics
20. Uses number concepts and operations
21. Explores and describes spatial relationships and shapes
22. Compares and measures
23. Demonstrates knowledge of patterns
Science and Technology

24. Uses scientific inquiry skills
25. Demonstrates knowledge of the characteristics of living things
26. Demonstrates knowledge of the physical properties of objects and materials
27. Demonstrates knowledge of Earth’s environment
28. Uses tools and other technology to perform tasks
Social Studies
29. Demonstrates knowledge about self
219
30. Shows basic understanding of people and how they live
31. Explores change related to familiar people or places
32. Demonstrates simple geographic knowledge
The Arts
33. Explores the visual arts
34. Explores musical concepts and expression
35. Explores dance and movement concepts
36. Explores drama through actions and language
English Language Acquisition

37. Demonstrates progress in listening to and understanding English
38. Demonstrates progress in speaking English
specific aspects of the objective (subskills and behaviors). For example, in the area of social-emotional
development, the dimensions help give teachers a clear picture of self-regulation:
Objective 1. Regulates own emotions and behaviors
a. Manages feelings
b. Follows limits and expectations
c. Takes care of own needs appropriately
In the area of literacy, a complex construct such as phonological awareness is more easily understood by looking at
the outcomes specified in the dimensions:
Objective 15. Demonstrates phonological awareness
a. Notices and discriminates rhyme
b. Notices and discriminates alliteration
c. Notices and discriminates smaller and smaller units of sound
As shown in Figure 9–3, four indicators that children are expected to achieve over time outline how children’s
development and learning progress in relation to an objective or dimension. Colored bands indicate widely held
expectations for children of different age-groups or classes/grades. Red, orange, and yellow code age-groups for the
first 3 years (birth to 1 year, 1 to 2 years, and 2 to 3 years, respectively). Green, blue, and purple code
classes/grades for the next 3 years (preschool 3, prekindergarten 4, and kindergarten, respectively). These
overlapping bands show that children’s development is uneven, overlapping, and while predictable, not rigid.
Objectives 1 Regulates own emotions and behaviors
The objectives, dimensions, indicators, and examples help teachers understand child development so that their
practices can be more age appropriate, individually appropriate, and culturally and linguistically appropriate. The
220
widely held expectations denoted by the colored bands help teachers and families know what is appropriate for
most children in particular age-groups or in particular classes/grades. The progressions enable teachers to see each
child’s levels—at a particular point in time and over time—along the entire path of development and learning
from birth through kindergarten. They are particularly valuable for observing children with special needs and
children who have advanced knowledge and skills. Furthermore, the objectives and supporting text are culturally
and linguistically
Figure 9–3 Progression of Development and

Learning for Objective 1, Dimension a
Source: From The Creative Curriculum for Preschool, Volume 5: Objectives for Development and
Learning (5th ed., p. 7), by C. Heroman, D. C. Burts, K. Berke, and T. S. Bickart, 2010,
Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies, LLC. Copyright 2010 by Teaching Strategies, LLC. Reprinted
with permission.
respectful. Two objectives enable teachers to document children’s progress in acquiring English as an additional
language:
Objective 37: Demonstrates progress in listening to and understanding English
Objective 38: Demonstrates progress in speaking English
For each objective, The Creative Curriculum includes a thorough summary of the research literature. Teachers
learn what development and learning looks like over time, why each objective is important, what to consider when
observing children with special needs, and what to consider when observing children who are DL learners.
The Creative Curriculum For Preschool As A System

In 2010, Teaching Strategies published the fifth edition of the preschool curriculum, offering greatly expanded
resources and professional development support for teachers. It has three distinguishing features: It is
comprehensive; it focuses on studies as a way to make learning meaningful and engaging for children; and it is a
fully bilingual system (English/Spanish) that includes strategies and materials for supporting children who are DL
learners.
This system’s approach grew out of our recognition that, while many programs are able to implement The Creative
Curriculum for Preschool very successfully and achieve positive outcomes for children, administrators and teachers
too often face multiple challenges in their efforts to implement any curriculum fully. These challenges include the
following:
221
High staff turnover that leaves many new teachers responsible for implementing the curriculum and
assessment systems without adequate training and support
Lack of time to reflect on what teachers are learning about individual children and to plan accordingly for
each day
Lack of support for meeting the strengths and needs of children in diverse classrooms, including children
with a range of abilities
Lack of support for meeting the strengths and needs of children who are DL learners
The challenge of introducing meaningful content in coherent ways that help children build on their
understandings and skills and thereby meet early learning standards
Limited resources to provide the ongoing and individualized support that helps teachers understand and use
the curriculum as it is intended
These real-world challenges work against teachers’ efforts to implement The Creative Curriculum with fidelity and
to achieve high-quality programs. If teachers are not supported adequately, programs fail too many children who
desperately need and deserve a rich and engaging program that prepares them for success in school and life. The
Creative Curriculum System for Preschool was designed to support administrators and teachers so they can
overcome these challenges.
Knowledge-Building Resources
The Creative Curriculum for Preschool, Fifth Edition, is composed of five volumes that provide educators with a
strong knowledge base and a fundamental understanding of best practices in the field.
Volume 1: The Foundation presents the research behind the curriculum and all of the information teachers need to
set up their programs. It covers the five components of the framework outlined earlier in this chapter.
Volume 2: Interest Areas applies the five components of The Creative Curriculum framework to the 10 interest areas
(Blocks, Dramatic Play, Toys and Games, Art, Library, Discovery, Sand and Water, Music and Movement,
Cooking, Computers) and the outdoors.
In Volume 3: Literacy, teachers are shown how to organize the environment and integrate literacy experiences
throughout the day and throughout the classroom. Six basic teaching strategies for supporting literacy learning are
described in detail: talking, singing, and playing with language; reading aloud; storytelling; story retelling; writing;
and meaningful play.
Volume 4: Mathematics helps teachers understand how to create a mathematics-rich environment and offer small-
and large-group experiences that enable children to explore number and operations, patterns, geometry,
measurement, and data analysis. The teachers find out how children learn mathematics through the use of process
skills.
Volume 5: Objectives for Development & Learning, Birth Through Kindergarten was described earlier.
Daily Practice Resources

This set of resources includes a year’s worth of support for implementing an effective and content-rich program.
Teaching Guides
222
Guidance for the year is organized by Teaching Guides. Detailed daily plans show teachers how to introduce
content in a cohesive, sequential manner. The first Teaching Guide, Beginning the Year, addresses the first 6 weeks
of school, which are devoted to building a strong classroom community, developing meaningful relationships with
children and their families, helping children learn how to contribute as a member of a group, and introducing
children to the skills for conducting investigations.
The other Teaching Guides feature studies that are in-depth investigations conducted over time. These studies are
designed to engage children in interesting topics that are relevant to their daily lives. Each study has a series of
questions for investigation, such as these from the Teaching Guide Featuring the Buildings Study: “What do the
buildings in our neighborhood and other places look like? Who builds buildings? What tools do they use? What
are buildings made of? What makes them strong? What is special about our building? What happens inside
buildings?”
Studies are an effective way to make learning meaningful for children as they
Actively explore to find answers to questions about the topic
Investigate topics firsthand and manipulate real, study-related materials
Have opportunities to develop skills and approaches to learning, including those involving curiosity,
motivation, problem solving, attention, representation, engagement, persistence, flexible and inventive
thinking, and communication
Apply skills in literacy, mathematics, the arts, and technology as they explore concepts in science and social
studies
Each Teaching Guide study is divided into three main parts: beginning the study, investigating the topic, and
celebrating learning. These are similar to the stages of the “Project Approach” (Helm & Katz, 2001, 2011; see also
Chapter 13). “Beginning the Study” takes teachers through the process of introducing the study topic and giving
children time to explore. Children are not ready formally to investigate the topic until they have become familiar
with materials related to the study. As children explore, teachers ask questions and draw children’s attention to the
characteristics of the objects or materials children are handling. During this exploratory time, children talk about
what they already know about the topic and generate questions to investigate. Teachers record children’s ideas, as
shown in Figure 9–4.
“Investigating the Topic” presents the questions for exploration that teachers will pursue with children during the
study. Each investigation is devoted to finding the answer to a question or two closely related questions.
223
Figure 9–4 Teachers Record Children’s Ideas
and Questions During a Study of Balls
Teachers do not necessarily have to follow the order in which the investigations are presented in a Teaching Guid
e. If they notice that children are keenly interested in a particular aspect of the study, they should begin with that
investigation. Teachers provide opportunities for children to document a graph of what they are learning, as
shown in Figure 9–5.
When a study ends, it is valuable to have children reflect on the experience and celebrate what they learned. Each
Teaching Guide ends with a section called “Celebrating Learning.” During these last few days of a study, teachers
review and evaluate what children learned, and they help children organize a celebration to bring closure to the
experience.
Figure 9–5 During a Study of Clothes, Children

Explore the Features of Clothing, Including
224
Shoe Size and Clothing Fasteners; They Create
Charts and Graphs to Represent Their Findings
Although a study is a large part of what happens in The Creative Curriculum classroom, many other high-quality
learning experiences also take place. Teaching Guides provide teachers with detailed plans for what else to do
during each time of day as well as specific strategies for involving families in the program in meaningful ways.
Intentional Teaching Cards™

Intentional Teaching Cards are referenced throughout the Teaching Guides. The cards explain playful, engaging
activities that can be offered throughout the day, typically during small-group time but also as large-group,
outdoor, and one-with-one experiences. To support language, literacy, mathematics, physical, and social-
emotional development, each card shows the steps of guiding an activity, the objectives addressed by the activity, a
list of materials, strategies for including all children in the experience, and questions to guide teachers’
observations.
The most important feature of the Intentional Teaching Cards is the color-coded teaching sequence that gives
teachers an easy system for individualizing instruction. As shown in the Figure 9–6, a teacher would start the
activity at the level of most of the children in the group and then make the activity more or less challenging for
individual children.
Resources for Effective Read-Alouds

Reading aloud to children is one of the most powerful ways a teacher can support children’s overall literacy
development. During interactive read-alouds, or shared readings, teachers engage children in discussions about
books and provide definitions of unfamiliar words. Children gain understandings about story structure, build
receptive and expressive vocabularies, build their knowledge of syntax, and develop other print-related skills
(McGee & Schickedanz, 2007). Book Discussion Cards™ support this interactive approach to repeated read-alouds,
enabling teachers to scaffold children’s understanding of the book being read. Teachers encourage children’s
critical thinking by involving children in asking and answering questions, making predictions, engaging in analytic
talk, and learning and using new vocabulary (McGee & Schickedanz, 2007). Book Discussion Cards are based on
selected books in the Teaching Strategies Children’s Book Collection.
Resources for Making Every Minute Count

In an 11-state study of practices in prekindergarten programs, researchers found that children were not involved in
meaningful, engaged learning 42% of the time (Early et al., 2005). Mighty Minutes is a resource for addressing this
problem. It is a set of 100 small cards that offer songs, chants, rhymes, games, and other short activities to help
teachers use classroom time effectively. Mighty Minutes can be used intentionally to teach language, literacy, math,
science, social studies, and physical skills during “in-between” times of day, such as waiting for lunch to arrive,
getting ready to go outside, or gathering for a group meeting. Like all of the other The Creative Curriculum System
for Preschool materials, Mighty MinutesTM is rooted in the curricular objectives. Even the shortest activities support
children’s learning and development in important areas.
How the System Connects to Families

The Creative Curriculum for Preschool System helps teachers build essential bridges between school and home.
225
Through letters to families, opportunities for family participation, and a lending library of eBooks (in English and
Spanish), teachers are enabled to forge authentic partnerships with families to promote children’s learning.
Teachers also share The Creative Curriculum LearningGames with families for easy-to-use, engaging activities that
foster children’s development and connect classroom learning to home.
Figure 9–6 Teaching Sequence From The

Creative Curriculum for Preschool Intentional
Teaching Cards™, LL01, “Shared Writing”
Teaching Sequence
As you write, repeat the words back to the child. Point out the letters in the child’s name
YELLOW as you write it. “Marcus asked an interesting question. Let’s add that to our list. I’m
writing your name, Marcus. M. . . a. . . r. . . c. . . u. . . . s.”
Invite the child to notice his name on the chart next to the child’s answer. “James said he
GREEN
liked the octopus best at the aquarium. James, can you find your name on the chart?”
When reviewing the chart, talk about individual words and letters. Ask the child where to
GREEN
begin reading.
“I see we used the question words why and what on our chart. Why and what both start
BLUE with the letter W.” “We just wrote about our trip to the zoo. Let’s read it together. Where
should I start reading?”
BLUE Point out and discuss the spaces between words on the chart.
“Look at the question. ‘What do you notice about the weather today?’ Notice the space
PURPLE between what and do. That tells us where one word stops and another starts. Can you
show me another space between two words on the chart?”
Ask the child to review the chart with you slowly, matching each spoken word to the
written word as you say them together. Have the child point to each word as it is spoken.
PURPLE
“Let’s read the chart together. Can you follow along with your finger? Show me where we
should start.”
Questions to Guide Your Observations
Did the child engage in the group discussion by offering questions and answers?
Did the child relate her own experience and share them when appropriate?
Was the child able to identify information, any letters and/or their corresponding sounds? If so,
which ones?
How long was the child able to attend to the activity?
Related LearningGames®
“My Family”
Source: From The Creative Curriculum for Preschool Intentional Teaching Cards, LL01, “Shared
Writing,” by Teaching Strategies, LLC, 2010, Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies, LLC.
Copyright 2010 by Teaching Strategies, LLC. Reprinted with permission.
226
Authentic, Ongoing Assessment In The Creative
Curriculum
In The Creative Curriculum, assessment is the process of gathering information about children in order to make
decisions. It serves four purposes (Bowman, Donovan, & Burns, 2001):
To support learning
To identify special needs
To evaluate programs and monitor trends
To respond to program and school accountability requirements
The Creative Curriculum is linked integrally to an authentic, observation-based assessment system, Teaching
Strategies GOLD (Heroman, Burts, Berke, & Bickart, 2010c), to document and support children’s learning. It is a
research-based, valid, and reliable assessment system for children from birth through kindergarten that can be used
with any developmentally appropriate curriculum. Teaching Strategies GOLD® is based on the 38 objectives for
development and learning described earlier. Teachers observe and document children’s behaviors in everyday
classroom situations. Then they analyze the collected information to see how it relates to the objectives and what it
tells them about how to scaffold children’s learning. Three or four times a year, teachers evaluate each child’s
progress and compare it to widely held expectations for most children of similar ages or classes/grades. Finally,
teachers summarize the assessment information and create reports to inform instructional practices, guide learning,
and share information with families and administrators.
How Teachers Use The Assessment Cycle

Here is a summary of the assessment process for teachers who are implementing The Creative Curriculum:
Observe and Collect Facts

Observe children in the context of everyday classroom activities.
Document learning by taking observation notes, photos, and video or audio clips and by collecting samples
of children’s writing, drawing, and other work.
Use teacher-made checklists to quickly and efficiently capture skills and behaviors. Teaching Strategies
GOLD includes an On-the-Spot Observation Recording Tool that is a checklist linked to the progressions
for physical development, literacy, and mathematics.
Plan experiences with objectives in mind. Some important objectives—particularly in literacy and numeracy
—are difficult to capture even with ongoing, observational assessment. For example, separating words into
smaller units of sound is an important predictor for reading, but that skill is hard to observe as children
engage in everyday experiences. To overcome this difficulty, Assessment Opportunity Card™ experiences
enable teachers to focus their observations on children’s knowledge, skills, and behaviors related to literacy
and numeracy.
Use Teaching Strategies GOLD online to enter observation notes, photos, video clips, audio clips, and
scanned images of children’s writing or artwork to create digital portfolios.
227
Analyze and Respond
Reflect on each piece of documentation and consider how it relates to the 38 objectives.
Make preliminary ratings based on the observations.
Consider the development and learning progressions and how to scaffold children’s learning, gently nudging
them along each pathway.
Adjust the environment by offering more challenging, yet not frustrating, materials for individual children.
Use your observations to individualize instruction for children and to record strategies on the “Weekly
Planning Form.”
Evaluate
Three times a year (or four times in a full-year program), pause and take stock of a child’s progress. How is
this child progressing? How does this child’s progress compare to most children of the same age or
class/grade?
Use the progressions of development and learning and rating scales to evaluate each child’s
accomplishments. In making these determinations, refer to the collected documentation and evidence.
Summarize, Plan, and Communicate

Summarize the information. Share the summary with families, emphasizing the
Figure 9–7 Steps of the Assessment Cycle

child’s strengths. Together, plan the next steps for learning at school and at home.
Create reports that summarize the information and inform planning for individuals and for groups of
children.
Analyze assessment data and look for trends so that adjustments can be made to learning experiences,
interactions, and the classroom environment.
Figure 9–7 illustrates this ongoing assessment cycle.
The Creative Curriculum Includes All Children
228
Early childhood teachers increasingly have in their classrooms children who are acquiring English as a second
language, have identified disabilities, or have advanced knowledge and skills. The Creative Curriculum helps
teachers to include all children as fully as possible in program experiences by providing information about ways to
support these children. Discussions can help dispel myths about second-language acquisition, explain the benefits
of including children with disabilities, and share very specific teaching strategies. Furthermore, the curriculum is
closely linked to an assessment system that enables teachers to identify and track each child’s abilities, yielding
information that is critical to supporting his or her development and learning.
English and DL Learners

DL learners face the challenge of acquiring English at school while simultaneously developing skills in their home
languages. Extensive research indicates that supporting children’s continued home-language development is very
important (August & Shanahan, 2006; Tabors, 2008). Both teachers and families should appreciate the following
findings:
Children who develop a sound foundation in their first language can more easily learn a second language.
The concepts and skills children acquire in their first language are transferred to the second language.
In addition to these benefits, a child’s ability to retain his or her home language is critical to retaining a sense of
cultural identity and enabling the child to remain attached to family traditions, customs, and elders (Espinosa,
2009). Both the Teaching Strategies GOLD assessment system and The Creative Curriculum include the same
English language acquisition objectives (see Figure 9–2). The Creative Curriculum explains the developmental
sequence of second-language acquisition, so teachers know what to look for at each stage. Detailed strategies for
promoting children’s skills in English are offered, including cultural supports (e.g., integrating children’s home
cultures and family practices into everyday routines and experiences); social-emotional supports (e.g., establishing
and following regular routines and developing positive and warm relationships with children and families);
environmental supports (e.g., labeling materials and charts in English and the child’s language, and including
literacy materials relevant to the child’s cultural and linguistic background); language supports (e.g., combining
nonverbal communication with speech, learning a few words in the child’s home language[s], and reading books
with simple illustrations that provide visual clues about content; Heroman & Jones, 2010).
Families too often abandon speaking and otherwise promoting their primary languages at home, either because
they are eager for their children to learn English or because they think that learning two languages is confusing. A
resource for families, Helping Your Child Learn Two Languages, is filled with information on the benefits of
retaining home languages and practical advice on how families can support their children’s acquisition of two
languages (Tabors & Terrill, 2011).
Children With Disabilities

Including children with disabilities in the classroom with their typically developing peers is good practice and
accords with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. Teachers cannot be expected
to know about every type of disability or what kinds of support an individual child needs to participate as fully as
possible in the program. The child’s family and a team of specialists (e.g., occupational therapists, physical
therapists, and speech-language pathologists) are valuable resources and should be able to provide insights and
guidance to classroom teachers.
The Creative Curriculum gives teachers some background information about children with disabilities, offers
strategies, and suggests practical adaptations that can be made in the classroom. The curriculum’s focus on a well-
organized and clutter-free environment is especially important for children who need structure and predictability.
Specific strategies to help children with disabilities benefit fully from participation in daily routines and activities
include providing visual and tactile cues, using picture sequences to illustrate the events and routines of the day,
229
preparing children for transitions, using peer buddies, helping children communicate with gestures and pictures,
selecting toys that are easy to use and have a range of sensory features, and simplifying activities (Dodge et al.,
2010).
Children With Advanced Knowledge and Skills

Children who are advanced in one developmental domain or more need to be challenged so they are truly engaged
and can continue to develop their skills and knowledge. The young children who get the most attention for their
abilities are often those whose intellectual skills are impressive. Such children are often very articulate, are able to
read and write at an early age, and have extensive vocabularies. Teachers need to be aware that other children may
have advanced skills in other domains. For example, a child may be unusually well-coordinated and athletic, have
advanced musical abilities, have well-developed social skills, or be able to create detailed drawings.
The Teaching Strategies curriculum and assessment systems enable teachers to identify all children’s strengths and
to adapt activities and experiences for children with different abilities and interests. The curriculum’s emphasis on
responsive relationships and its focus on in-depth studies that engage children in firsthand investigations are keys
to including all children in the program.
The Creative Curriculum And Professional

Development
At all points in their careers, teachers can benefit from ongoing support to deepen their knowledge about children
and better implement a curriculum and assessment system as intended. Ongoing support should be respectful and
practical and offer a variety of ways for teachers to learn and enhance skills.
Embedded Professional Development Support

Comprehensive and appropriate curriculum and assessment systems offer essential resources for professional
development, providing the content and practical tools and strategies for teaching young children. The Creative
Curriculum and the Teaching Strategies GOLD assessment system include detailed resources that promote teachers’
understanding of how children develop and learn and how to provide high-quality early childhood programs. As
teachers use the curriculum and assessment materials, they enhance their skills in building relationships, observing
and reflecting on children’s development and learning, using information from ongoing assessment to plan
instruction, and offering rich and engaging learning experiences.
Professional development support is embedded throughout The Creative Curriculum system. The knowledge-
building volumes are designed for teachers at all levels of professional experience to use as a reference for
understanding how to apply the latest theory and research in program settings. The Teaching Guides provide
detailed guidance about what to do and why. For example, an explanation of how to lead a small-group experience
with alphabet books includes a call-out that defines the alphabetic principle for the teacher and explains that
children’s grasping the principle is critical to future reading success. The Teaching Guides also highlight strategies
for supporting DL learners. For instance, on a page with guidance for facilitating a large-group discussion with
children, a call-out explains the importance of using nonverbal communication strategies, such as pointing to
pictures, to support children’s understanding of the discussion. Another call-out related to a small-group activity
suggests pairing each DL learner with an English-speaking child for the activity.
Furthermore, each Intentional Teaching Card™ suggests ideas for including all children in the experience described
on the card. Some of the strategies are particularly supportive of DL learners, such as asking questions that can be
answered with a gesture or just a few words modeled in the question itself. Other strategies support children with
disabilities so that they can participate as fully as possible in the experience. For instance, teachers can offer large
230
textured letters for children to feel and place on high-contrast paper.
The professional development support embedded in the Teaching Strategies GOLD assessment system promotes
teachers’ knowledge of how children develop and learn from birth through kindergarten. The research behind
each objective is explained in detail, so teachers understand why each objective is critical. Strategies for supporting
children’s development and learning in relation to each objective are also provided so teachers grasp the critical
link between curriculum and assessment. Teachers who use Teaching Strategies GOLD online can watch short
video clips that show examples of what a child might do to demonstrate knowledge and skills related to particular
objectives and dimensions. Audio clips by the authors explain each objective and provide assessment tips.
Building Capacity
Research confirms that, in order for best practices learned in a training session to be transferred to the school,
follow-up at the classroom level is critical (Joyce & Showers, 1995). For teachers to make meaningful and lasting
changes in their content knowledge and instructional strategies, they need continuous learning opportunities that
are specifically related to their dayto-day classroom experiences. They benefit from opportunities to discuss and
learn from their colleagues as well as from regular feedback about their practices.
Support for Coaches

Many early childhood programs employ a coaching model in which knowledgeable, experienced staff members
work closely with teachers to guide them toward using high-quality practices. The Coach’s Guide to The Creative
Curriculum® for Preschool: A Step-by-Step Resource for Individualizing Professional Development (Heroman,
Jablon, Stetson, & Aghayan, 2009) is a comprehensive resource for anyone who coaches teachers on implementing
our systems. It offers specific guidance for determining a teacher’s level of implementation: beginning, progressing,
or refining (Glickman, Gordon, & Ross-Gordon, 2007; Tanner & Tanner, 1980). It also explains what specific
support to provide for teachers at each of these levels. The Coach’s Guide examines The Creative Curriculum in
sections and directs coaches to the information they need to extend the teacher’s understanding of each topic. The
guide also provides suggestions for a range of ways for coaches to respond to teachers at varying levels of
implementation. To enable teachers and administrators to identify which aspects of The Creative Curriculum are
being implemented well and where a teacher needs additional support, we have developed fidelity tools.
Information collected with these tools is often used in conjunction with information gathered from A Coach’s
Guide to create professional development plans for teachers and programs.
Learning Teams
Along with providing individualized support for teachers, Teaching Strategies professional development resources
support collegial learning—professional development that occurs through collaborative teamwork when teachers
meet together over a period of time to learn about a topic in a focused way. In our training for program
administrators, we explain how to use the information gathered through coaching or an implementation checklist
to create learning teams or study groups that support their teachers’ implementation of the curriculum and
assessment systems. Learning teams are a support system as teachers implement new ideas and strategies. Team
members may all be at the same level of curriculum implementation, or the group may be mixed. Teams meet
during the school day for short periods, such as during children’s nap time or a planning period. The group sets
common goals for their professional development and learning and works cooperatively to achieve them.
Individual teams might review sections from the curriculum and discuss them, view video clips of classrooms in
action, visit each other’s classrooms, or read and analyze observation notes about children.
Research On And Use Of The Creative Curriculum

231
And Teaching Strategies Gold
As noted earlier in this chapter, The Creative Curriculum has a strong research foundation. The curriculum equips
teachers to make choices and informed decisions in order to shape their programs to meet the strengths, needs,
and interests of individual children, and they do so with the assurance that implementing the curriculum as it is
intended will enable children to meet program and state standards.
Research grounds and confirms the effectiveness of The Creative Curriculum in the following ways:
All of the objectives for development and learning and all of the instructional strategies are evidence based.
An independent evaluation of all curriculum resources provides evidence of their effectiveness.
All content is reviewed by experts in the field.
Research on the Curriculum

Until 2010, research on The Creative Curriculum for Preschool focused on the fourth edition. A study conducted
for the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving (Philliber Research Associates, 2004) evaluated the impact of The
Creative Curriculum and training on the quality of child care programs. Researchers found that increased training
for teachers, in combination with The Creative Curriculum, can improve the school readiness of low-income
children. Children made statistically significant gains in the cognitive/language profile and the self-help profile
over what children of the same age could be expected to achieve during the same amount of time.
Teaching Strategies is committed to continued research and is conducting several studies on The Creative
Curriculum System for Preschool. The studies are examining fidelity of use, impact of the classroom environment,
and school readiness. The fifth edition of the preschool curriculum is currently being piloted in a variety of
programs across the United States and internationally. In addition, Teaching Strategies assessment and curriculum
systems are being studied at several universities across the United States, including the University of Tennessee
and the Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute at The University of North Carolina. The
collaboration of researchers, developers, and content experts infuse the curriculum with the content necessary to
meeting the rising expectations of the early childhood field.
Research on the Assessment System

An essential component of high-quality early education is accurately assessing child development and learning to
follow progress, plan learning experiences, and communicate and collaborate with families. As described earlier,
assessment is the process of gathering information to make decisions. When decisions about children, teachers,
and programs are based on child assessment data, the assessment instruments must be both reliable and valid.
Developing accurate and precise assessment tools requires experimental design and testing. The field of early
childhood education is advanced by rigorous research on the validity and reliability of instruments for assessing
child outcomes.
Field testing of Teaching Strategies GOLD began during the summer of 2009. It was conducted by independent
researchers Richard G. Lambert and Do-Hong Kim of the Center for Educational Measurement and Evaluation,
The University of North Carolina at Charlotte (Lambert, Kim, Taylor, & McGee, 2010). The field test measured
the reliability and validity of Teaching Strategies GOLD and examined its usability in classroom settings.
Participating sites were carefully selected on the basis of demographics and geographical location. The study
sample was selected to be representative of the national population, but intentionally oversampled English-
language learners. As part of the validity evaluation, the researchers also examined the skills of infants, toddlers,
and 2-year-olds. Children in the sample ranged in age from 2 to 72 months.
232
The researchers took a three-part approach to their evaluation of Teaching Strategies GOLD: psychometric analysis
of the data, focus groups with field test participants, and revision of the tool by the developers (based on data
analysis and the findings about focus groups’ experience with the tool). The designations of widely held
expectations and the indicators that are essential parts of the Teaching Strategies GOLD assessment tool are
criterion referenced and incorporate the latest research in the field of early childhood education.
Norm-referenced data are important because they provide valuable information about a child’s performance in
comparison to a norm, or average performance by similar children. The norm sample for this study, closely
representative of the 2009 U.S. Census Bureau estimates of race and ethnicity, was composed of 10,963 children.
These children received services in 618 different programs at 2,525 different centers and schools located across 48
states and the District of Columbia. Some of the findings from the study follow:
The assessment instrument items clearly explain the different domains of development.
Teachers are able to rate children’s skills regardless of children’s special needs status, showing a lack of item
bias.
The reliability statistics are good, which indicates that the ratings can be considered consistent and stable.
Teachers can use the tool accurately to assess children’s skills from birth through kindergarten.
The assessment tool items measure what they are meant to measure.
Research for Teaching Strategies GOLD is ongoing.
Scope of Use
The Creative Curriculum is used extensively in a wide range of programs throughout the United States and
increasingly abroad. According to data collected by the Office of Head Start (Husley, Aikens, Xue, Tarullo, &
West, 2010), 63.92% of teachers surveyed reported that The Creative Curriculum was their primary curriculum.
All military child development programs and the Department of Defense Dependents Schools (DoDDS) are using
The Creative Curriculum. As of April 2011, 19 states have a list of curricula approved for use in their child care
and prekindergarten programs; all of them have determined that The Creative Curriculum meets their criteria. The
Creative Curriculum is also studied in many college and university undergraduate and graduate courses.
The Teaching Strategies GOLD assessment system, which became available in the summer of 2010, has also been
adopted by the same types of programs for ongoing assessment and to meet reporting requirements. In addition to
its adoption by all branches of the military and DoDDS programs, an increasing number of states have adopted
the assessment system statewide.
The Creative Curriculum System for Preschool and Teaching Strategies GOLD are being translated into Arabic for
dissemination in Arabic-speaking countries. During the 2010–2011 school year, the assessment system was piloted
with programs in Bahrain, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Future pilots are planned for the curriculum.
Conclusion
The Creative Curriculum is a comprehensive, fully integrated system with strong roots in the early childhood field.
It has evolved over four decades in response to new research, increasing expectations for teachers to be accountable
for achieving positive outcomes, and what teachers have taught us about how best to support their work. The
three versions of The Creative Curriculum—for children birth to age 3, preschool children, and children in family
child care—are organized by a consistent framework. All focus on 38 objectives for development and learning,
birth through kindergarten, that include predictors of school success and align closely with state early learning
standards. The Teaching Strategies GOLD assessment system is based on the same 38 objectives, including two for
233
English language acquisition.
Recognizing the real-world challenges of teachers today, the fifth edition of the preschool curriculum is a complete
system that supports teachers at all levels of experience, offering specific, step-by-step support for those who want
it as well as opportunities to innovate. The system includes books that help teachers build essential knowledge and
skills for establishing developmentally appropriate programs and a set of daily practice resources that help teachers
plan project-based investigations. These resources explain how to teach intentionally and responsively throughout
every day.
234
Reflect On
1. Where in this model curriculum are there opportunities for teachers to build positive relationships with
children? Why is this important?
2. What are three major avenues for teachers to help children learn concepts and skills in The Creative
Curriculum?
3. Does this curriculum do a better job than most early childhood education curricula in connecting activity
goals to content and early learning standards? How?
4. How does this curriculum show a balanced appreciation for all aspects of child development?
5. What is the aim and methods of assessment in this model and how does it compare to developmentally
appropriate practice guidelines?
235
Selected Resources
Teaching Strategies, LLC
www.TeachingStrategies.com
The Creative Curriculum® System for Preschool

www.TeachingStrategies.com/system
The Creative Curriculum® for Infants, Toddlers & Twos (2nd ed., rev.), by D. T. Dodge, S. Rudick, K. Berke, C.
Heroman, D. C. Burts, and T. S. Bickart, 2011, Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies, LLC.
The Creative Curriculum® for Family Child Care (2nd ed.), D. T. Dodge, S. Rudick, and L. Colker, 2009,
Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies, LLC.
Teaching Strategies GOLD®Assessment Toolkit and Online System, by C. Heroman, D. C. Burts, K. Berke, and
T. S. Bickart, 2010, Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies, LLC.
The Coach’s Guide to The Creative Curriculum® for Preschool, by C. Heroman, J. Jablon, C. Stetson, and C.
Aghayan, 2009, Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies, LLC.
The Creative Curriculum® LearningGames®, by J. Sparling, and I. Lewis, 2008, Washington, DC: Teaching
Strategies, LLC.
The Creative Curriculum®System for Preschool, by Teaching Strategies, LLC, 2010, Washington, DC: Author.
The system includes these resources:
The Creative Curriculum® for Preschool (5th ed.)
The Creative Curriculum® for Preschool Book Discussion Cards™
The Creative Curriculum® for Preschool Intentional Teaching Cards™
The Creative Curriculum® for Preschool Teaching Guides
Teaching Strategies® Children’s Book Collection
Teaching Strategies® Children’s eBook Collection
Teaching Strategies Mighty MinutesTM for Preschool
236
References
1. Ainsworth, M., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National
Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2003). The importance of being playful. Educational Leadership, 60 (7), 50–
53.
4. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books.
5. Bowman, B. T., Donovan, M. S., & Burns, S. (Eds.). (2001) Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
6. Campbell, F. A., Ramey, C. T., Pungello, E., Sparling, J., & Miller-Johnson, S. (2002). Early childhood
education: Outcomes as a function of different treatments. Applied Developmental Science, 6, 42–57.
7. Carroll, L. (1865). Alice’s adventures in wonderland. London, England: Macmillan & Co.
8. Consortium of National Arts Education. (1994). Dance, music, theatre, visual arts: What every young
American should know and be able to do in the arts: National standards for arts education. Reston, VA: Music
Educators National Conference.
9. Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving
children from birth through age 8 (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of
Young Children.
10. Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. New York, NY: E. L. Kellogg & Co.
11. Dodge, D. T., Heroman, C., Colker, L. J., & Bickart, T. S. (2010). The Creative Curriculum® for Preschool,
Volume 1: The foundation (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies, Inc.
12. Dodge, D. T., Heroman, C., Colker, L. J., Bickart, T. S., Jones, C., Copley, J. V., Dighe, J., … Berke, K.
(2010). The Creative Curriculum® for Preschool (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies, LLC.
13. Early, D., Barbarin, O., Bryant, D., Burchinal, M., Chang, F., Clifford, R., Crawford, G., Barnett, W. S.
(2005). Pre-kindergarten in eleven states: NCEDL’s Multi-State Study of Pre-Kindergarten & Study of State-
Wide Early Education Programs (SWEEP). (NCEDL Working Paper) Chapel Hill, NC: National Center for
Early Development and Learning.
14. Easterbrooks, M. A., & Goldberg, W. A. (1990). Security of toddler-parent attachment: Relation to
children’s sociopersonality functioning during kindergarten. In M. Greenberg, D. Cicchetti, & E. M.
Cummings (Eds.), Attachment in the preschool years: Theory, research, and intervention. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
15. Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and society. New York, NY: W. W. Norton and Company.
16. Espinosa, L. (2009). Getting it right for young children from diverse backgrounds: Applying research to practice.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
17. Fagen, R. M. (2011). Play and development. In A. Pellegrini (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the development
of play. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
237
18. Glickman, C., Gordon, S. P., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (2010). SuperVision and instructional leadership: A
developmental approach. Boston, MA: Pearson.
19. Hamre, B. K., & Pianta, R. C. (2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of children’s
school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72 (2), 625–638.
20. Helm, J. H., & Katz, L. (2001). Young investigators: The project approach in the early years. New York, NY:
21. Helm, J. H., & Katz, L. (2011). Young investigators: The project approach in the early years (2nd ed.). New
22. Henderson, A. T., & Berla, N. (Eds.). (1994). A new generation of evidence: The family is critical to student
achievement. Washington, DC: National Committee for Citizens in Education. (ED 375968)
23. Heroman, C., Burts, D. C., Bickart, T., & Berke, K. (2010a). The Creative Curriculum® for infants, toddlers
& twos, Volume 3: Objectives for development and learning: Birth through kindergarten. Washington,
DC: Teaching Strategies, LLC.
24. Heroman, C., Burts, D. C., Bickart, T., & Berke, K. (2010b). The Creative Curriculum® for Preschool,
Volume 5: Objectives for development and learning: Birth through kindergarten. Washington, DC:
Teaching Strategies, LLC.
25. Heroman, C., Burts, D. C., Berke, K., & Bickart, T. S. (2010c). Teaching Strategies GOLD® objectives for
development and learning: Birth through kindergarten. Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies, LLC.
26. Heroman, C., Jablon, J. R., Stetson, C., & Aghayan, C. (2009). The coach’s guide to The Creative
Curriculum® for Preschool: A step-by-step resource for individualizing professional development.
27. Heroman, C., & Jones, C. (2010). The Creative Curriculum® for Preschool, Volume 3: Literacy (5th ed.).
28. Husley, L., Aikens, N., Xue, Y., Tarullo, L., & West, J. (2010). ACF-OPRE report: Data tables for FACES
2006: A year in Head Start report. Retrieved March 30, 2011, from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/
hs/faces/reports/year_data_tables/year_data_tables.pdf
29. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647
(2004). [20 USC 1400 et seq.]
30. International Society for Technology in Education. (1998). National educational technology standards for
students. Eugene, OR: Author.
31. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff development: Fundamentals of school
renewal. White Plains, NY: Longman.
32. Katz, L., & Chard, S. C. (2000). Engaging children’s minds: the project approach (2nd ed.). Stamford, CT:
Ablex Publishing Corp.
33. Lambert, R. G., Kim, D., Taylor, H., & McGee, J. R. (2010). Technical manual for the Teaching Strategies
GOLD™ assessment system. Charlotte, NC: The University of North Carolina Charlotte.
34. McGee, L. M., & Schickedanz, J. A. (2007). Repeated interactive read-alouds in preschool and
kindergarten. The Reading Teacher, 60 (8), 742–751.
35. Mooney, C. G. (2000). Theories of childhood: An introduction to Dewey, Montessori, Erikson, Piaget, &
238
Vygotsky. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.
36. National Council for the Social Studies. (2010). National curriculum standards for social studies: A framework
for teaching, learning, and assessment. Washington, DC: National Council for the Social Studies.
37. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathematics.
Reston, VA: Author.
38. National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: Report of the NELP. Washington, DC:
National Institute for Literacy.
39. National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
40. National Research Council. (2001). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
41. Palermo, F., Handish, L. D., Martin, C. L., Fabes, R. A., & Reiser, M. (2007). Preschoolers’ academic
readiness: What role does the teacher-child relationship play? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22 (4),
407–422.
42. Pellegrini, A. (Ed.). (2011). The Oxford handbook of the development of play. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
43. Pellegrini, A. (2009). The role of play in human development. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
44. Philliber Research Associates. (2004). Hartford children are learning by leaps and bounds: Achievements of
children involved in the Brighter Futures Child Care Enhancement Project. Hartford, CT: Hartford
Foundation for Public Giving.
45. Piaget, J. (1972). Play, dreams, and imitation in childhood. London, England: Routledge. (Original work
published in 1945)
46. Raver, C. C. (2002). Emotions matter: Making the case for the role of children’s emotional development for
school readiness. Social Policy Report, 16, 3–18.
47. Smilansky, S., & Shefatya, L. (1990). Facilitating play: A medium for promoting cognitive, socio-emotional,
and academic development in young children. Gaithersburg, MD: Psychosocial & Educational Publications.
48. Sroufe, L. A. (2005). Attachment and development: A prospective, longitudinal study from birth to
adulthood, Attachment and Human Development, 7, 349–367.
49. Tabors, P. O. (2008). One child, two languages: A guide for early childhood educators of children learning
English as a second language (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
50. Tabors, P. O., & Terrill, D. (2011). Helping your child learn two languages. Washington, DC: Teaching
Strategies, Inc.
51. Tanner, D., & Tanner, L. (1980). Curriculum development: Theory into practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Macmillan.
52. van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Sagi, A. (1999). Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: Universal and contextual
dimensions. In J. Cassidy & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical
applications (pp. 713–734). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
53. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978) Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press. (Original work published in 1934)
239
240
Chapter 10 The HighScope Model of Early
Childhood Education
Lawrence J. Schweinhart
and
David P. Weikart (deceased)
HighScope Educational Research Foundation, Ypsilanti, Michigan
Outline the history of the HighScope model
Describe active learning by the child
Characterize the role of the teacher in creating active learning
Summarize the daily routine that supports active learning
Detail the key developmental indicators
Discuss the Preschool Child Observation Record
Elucidate the role of parents and community
Illustrate training in the HighScope model
Delineate research support for the HighScope model
Explain the relationship of research to the HighScope model
The HighScope model of early childhood education provides teachers with a framework of educational ideas and
practices based on the development of young children. David P. Weikart and his colleagues developed the model
in the 1960s for use in the HighScope Perry Preschool program (Weikart, Rogers, Adcock, & McClelland, 1971).
The HighScope Educational Research Foundation continues to develop and apply the model today, incorporating
new research findings regarding literacy, mathematics, science, social development, health and physical
development, the arts and computer use and helping people apply the model to new circumstances and new
populations of children around the world (Epstein, 2007; Hohmann, 2002; Hohmann, Weikart, & Epstein,
2008). Thousands of early childhood programs throughout the United States and in other countries now use the
HighScope model (Epstein, 1993).
Based on the child development theories of Jean Piaget (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969) and Lev Vygotsky (1934/1962),
the progressive educational philosophy of John Dewey (1938/1973), and the more recent work of cognitive-
developmental psychology (e.g., Clements, 2004; Gelman & Brenneman, 2004; National Research Council,
2005) and brain research (Bruer, 2004; Shore, 1997; Thompson & Nelson, 2001), the HighScope model
recognizes children as active learners, who learn best from activities that they themselves plan, carry out, and
reflect on. Adults use complex language as they observe, support, and extend the work of the child as appropriate.
Adults arrange interest areas in the learning environment; maintain a daily routine that permits children to plan,
carry out, and reflect on their own activities; and join in children’s activities, engaging in conversations that
scaffold and extend children’s plans and help them think things through. The adults encourage children to make
choices, solve problems, and otherwise engage in curriculum activities that contribute to their learning on key
241
developmental indicators that encompass all areas of intellectual, social, and physical development.
The HighScope model does not require the purchase and use of special materials, such as the materials required
for a Montessori classroom or the teacher and student workbooks required for an academic instructional
classroom; the only cost involved is that of equipping the learning environment as would be typical of any good
nursery school program. In less developed countries or other settings with limited resources, material from nature,
household discards, and other found materials are employed. Although often challenging for adults to learn
initially, the methods implementing the model, once mastered, free staff for comfortable work with children, other
classroom adults, parents, and supervisors. Rooted firmly in developmental theory and historical early childhood
practice, the HighScope model is an organized and transferable expression of what has worked well with children
in many programs over the years. The model is an example of culturally and developmentally appropriate practice
as commonly defined today by the early childhood field (e.g., Copple & Bredekamp, 2009); it has been validated
by longitudinal studies over 40 years (Oden, Schweinhart, & Weikart, 2000; Schweinhart, Montie, Xiang,
Barnett, Belfield, & Nores, 2005; Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997). In addition, it lends itself to training,
supervision, implementation, and assessment so that parents and administrators can rest assured that their children
are receiving a high-quality, validated program. Delivery of high-quality programs is the most important task the
early childhood field faces, as program ideas move into large-scale service to children, their families, and society at
large.
The History Of The Highscope Model

The HighScope model’s development began in 1962 with the HighScope Perry Preschool program, a program for
3- and 4-year-olds operated at the Perry Elementary School in Ypsilanti, Michigan. The principal, Eugene Beatty,
had established a strong tradition of community engagement at this school and was active in recruiting study
participants and their families into the study. This program was one of the first in the 1960s designed to help
children overcome the negative effects of poverty on schooling, an idea later embodied in Head Start programs. It
was one of the first to achieve an exacting experimental design—children were nearly randomly assigned to attend
or not—permitting researchers to trace the program’s effects throughout the subsequent lives of participants. This
study showed that the preschool program provided participants with a striking variety of short- and long-term
benefits: better preparation for school, greater success throughout schooling and in adulthood, a lower arrest rate,
higher employment rate, and lower welfare rate. The program was found to pay for itself many times over in
economic returns to taxpayers and program participants—$16.14 returned for every dollar spent (Schweinhart et
al., 2005).
In the late 1950s, Ypsilanti Public Schools Special Education Director David Weikart was concerned that easily
identifiable children were failing in school—repeating grade levels, being placed in special education, and
dropping out of school. Seeking changes in the schools to address these problems, he was frustrated that school
administrators had few realistic alternatives. He turned to the preschool years as a way of reaching children before
they fell into the traditional school patterns that spawned their failure.
Staffed by research psychologists and teachers, the preschool program established a creative tension between the
psychologist’s demand for explicit rationale and the trained preschool teacher’s intuitive approach to working with
children. The HighScope model evolved from give-and-take among a team of people who had definite ideas about
how to do things, but were open to new ideas and could integrate them into their thinking and practice.
As the HighScope Perry Preschool program entered its second year, the staff encountered and embraced the child
development ideas of Jean Piaget (summarized by Piaget & Inhelder, 1969). Piaget offered a conceptual structure
around which an early childhood education model could be built, an explicit rationale for the preschool activities.
Piaget offered the idea of the child as an active learner, an idea not only with intuitive appeal but also with strong
roots in early childhood tradition dating back at least to Friedrich Froebel (1887) in the 19th century. Later, the
work of psychologist and educator Lev Vygotsky (1934/1962) became the foundation for the HighScope teaching
model, particularly the notion that development occurs within sociocultural settings in which adults scaffold
242
children’s learning.
As the HighScope model developed, the national enthusiasm for early childhood education models also emerged.
The federal government nurtured this enthusiasm by taking an active interest in early childhood education as a
means of helping poor children avoid school failure and its tragic consequences. President Lyndon Johnson’s War
on Poverty and the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 initiated the federal role in early childhood education
through the national Head Start project, which has grown steadily over the 45 years since then.
Several projects permitted the HighScope Foundation to develop the HighScope model further and to extend it
into the elementary school years. In 1968, the federal government initiated the Follow Through project to provide
enrichment to children in the primary grades who had attended Head Start (Weikart, Hohmann, & Rhine, 1981).
The Follow Through project was perhaps the largest funded effort ever offered for the development of early
childhood educational models.
In the late 1970s, federal assistance permitted the HighScope Foundation to develop and adapt its educational
model to children with special needs and children in Spanish-speaking families (Hanes, Flores, Rosario, Weikart,
& Sanchez, 1979). HighScope actively applies its model in other countries throughout the world. As of 2012,
licensed national HighScope training centers and institutes have been in operation in Canada, Chile, Great
Britain, Indonesia, Ireland, Korea, Mexico, The Netherlands, Portugal, and South Africa. The basic textbooks and
assessment instruments have been translated into Arabic, Chinese, Dutch, Finnish, French, Korean, Norwegian,
Portuguese, Spanish, and Turkish. This work helps spread an educational model that is essentially democratic in
operation, adaptable to local culture and language, and open to use by thoughtful adults everywhere.
Active Learning By The Child

Adults who use the HighScope model must be fully committed to providing settings in which children learn
actively and construct their own knowledge. Much of the child’s knowledge comes from personal interaction with
ideas, direct experience with physical objects and events, and application of logical thinking to
Planned activities foster learning with peers.
243
these experiences. The adult’s role is largely to supply the context for these experiences, to help the child think
about them logically, and through observation, to understand the progress the child is making and to scaffold
further learning based on the child’s developmental level and interests. From an adult view, children are expected
to learn basic tools of language and mathematics; apply the scientific method of hypothesis generation,
experimentation, and inference; and demonstrate initiative and problem-solving skills in engaging with the world.
The Role Of The Teacher In Creating Active Learning

Even as children are active learners in the High-Scope model, so, too, are the teachers. By daily evaluation and
planning using the HighScope key developmental indicators as a framework, teachers assess children’s experience
and classroom activities and strive to achieve new insights into each child’s unique tapestry of skills and interests.
Teaching teams challenge themselves by observing one another’s performance and interacting with one another in
mutually supportive ways.
An important aspect of the HighScope model is the role of the teacher in interacting with the child. Although
broad developmental milestones are employed to monitor the youngster’s progress, teachers do not have a precise
script for teaching children. Instead, they listen closely to what children plan and actively work with them to
extend their activities to more challenging levels as appropriate. Adult questioning style is important. The adult
emphasizes questions that seek information from the youngster that will help the adult participate. Testing
questions such as those about color, number, or size are rarely used. Instead, the adult asks, “What happened?”
“How did you make that?” “Can you show me?” “Can you help Talia?” and so on. Conversation is essential. The
teacher is a participant rather than an imparter of knowledge. “Did you see that butterfly?” “May I touch the
pizza, or is it too hot?” This questioning and conversation style permits free interaction between adults and
children and models language for child-to-child interaction. This approach permits the teachers and the children
to interact as thinkers and doers rather than in the traditional school roles of active teacher and passive pupil. All
are sharing and learning as they work.
The Daily Routine That Supports Active Learning

To create a setting in which children learn actively, a consistent daily classroom routine is maintained that varies
only when children have fair warning that the classroom routine will be different the next day. Field trips are not
surprises, and special visits or events are not introduced to the classroom on the spur of the moment. This
adherence to routine gives children the security and control necessary to develop a sense of responsibility and to
enjoy the opportunity to be independent.
The HighScope model’s daily routine is made up of a plan-do-review sequence, group times, and several
additional elements. The plan-do-review sequence is the central device in the model that permits children
opportunities to express intentions about their activities while keeping the teacher intimately involved in the
whole process. The following paragraphs describe the elements in the daily routine.
Planning Time: Stating an Intention

Children make choices and decisions all the time, but most programs seldom have them think about these
decisions in a systematic way or help them realize the possibilities and consequences of their choices. Planning
time gives children a consistent, predictable opportunity to express their ideas and intentions to adults and to see
themselves as individuals who act on decisions. They experience the power of independence and the joy of
working with an attentive adult as well as with peers. They can carry out their intentions.
The teacher talks over the plans with the children before they carry them out. This helps children form mental
pictures of their ideas and get a notion of how to proceed. For adults, developing a plan with the children provides
244
an opportunity to encourage and respond to the children’s ideas, to suggest practical ways to strengthen the plans
so they will be successful, and to understand and gauge the children’s levels of development and thinking styles.
But the teacher accepts the plans and their limits as determined by the children. Both children and adults receive
benefits: children feel reinforced and ready to start their plans, while adults have ideas about what to look for,
what difficulties children might have, where help may be needed, and what levels of development children have
achieved. In such a classroom, all are playing appropriate roles of equal importance. In this model, adult–child
relationships involve shared control.
Work Time: Executing the Intention

The “do” part of the plan-do-review cycle is work time, the period after children have finished planning. The
longest time period in the daily routine, it is an active period of work and play for both children and adults.
Although adults do not lead work-time activities—children execute their own plans of work—neither do they just
sit back and passively watch. The adult’s role during work time is first to observe children to see how they gather
information, interact with peers, and solve problems, and then to enter into the children’s activities and scaffold
learning by encouraging, extending, setting up problem-solving situations, and engaging in conversation. Because
the layout of the learning environment permits adults to see all the learning areas in the classroom, they can
monitor, circulate, and support individuals and groups of children in a variety of activities.
Cleanup Time
Cleanup time is integrated into the plan-do-review cycle work time. During this time, children return materials
and equipment to their labeled places and store the incomplete projects, affixing a “work-in-progress” sign if they
choose. This process restores order to the classroom and provides opportunities for the children to learn and use
many basic cognitive skills such as classifying and ordering objects. Of special importance is how the learning
environment is organized to facilitate children’s use of materials. All materials in the classroom available for
children’s use are on open shelves within reach. Clear labeling is essential, with a representation of the learning
areas and objects on the shelves (such as actual items, drawings, photographs) and a simple written word. With
this organizational plan, children can realistically return all work materials to their appropriate places. It also gives
them a sense of confidence in their initiative by knowing where everything they need is located. Further, seeing
labels in print helps to promote early literacy development.
Recall Time: Reflecting on Accomplishments

Recall time is the final phase of the plan-do-review sequence. It is the time when the children reflect on what they
have accomplished or experienced. The children represent their work-time experience in a variety of
developmentally appropriate ways. They might recall the names of the children they involved in carrying out their
plan, dictate to the teacher a story of their activity, or recount the problems they encountered. Other recall
strategies include drawing pictures of what they did, making models, reviewing their plans, and verbally recalling
the past events. Recall time brings closure to their planning and work-time activities; it provides them
opportunities to express insights on what they have experienced and thought about; and it often leads to followup
ideas and plans for the next day. It provides opportunities to use language and illustrations to inform others. The
teacher supports the linkage of the actual work to the original plan, including changes the child made in the
course of solving problems. The use of complex language to discuss, describe, and predict outcomes is essential to
this support process by the teacher.
Small-Group Time
The formal setting of small-group time is familiar to all preschool teachers: The teacher creates an activity in
245
which children participate for a set period. These activities are drawn from the children’s interests, their cultural
backgrounds, field trips the group has taken, new materials available in the classroom, the seasons of the year, and
age-appropriate group activities such as cooking and group art projects. Although teachers offer materials and
structure for the activities, children are encouraged to contribute ideas and solve problems presented by the
activities in their own ways. Activities have a beginning, middle, and end, but are flexible in responding to
children’s needs, abilities, interests, and cognitive levels. Once each child has had the opportunity for individual
choice and problem solving, the teacher extends the child’s ideas and actions by engaging in conversation, asking
open-ended questions, and supporting additional problem-solving situations. In planning and implementing
small-group time, active involvement by all children is important. Children move physically, use objects and
materials, make choices, and solve problems. An active small-group time gives children the chance to explore
materials and objects, use their bodies and their senses, and work with adults and other children.
Large-Group Time
At large-group time, the whole group meets together with the adults to play games, sing songs, do finger plays,
perform basic movement activities, play musical instruments, act out a story they have read or imagined, or
reenact a special event. This time provides an opportunity for each child to participate in a large group, share and
demonstrate ideas, and imitate the ideas of others. Although the adult may initiate the activity, children provide
some leadership and make as many individual choices as the activity allows. Large-group time is a good time for
teachers to support the development of a steady beat through patting the floor or their bodies, marching, rocking,
and moving to high-quality instrumental music (Weikart, 2003).
The Key Developmental Indicators

Child progress in the HighScope model is organized around a set of key developmental indicators developed from
research findings and child development theory, and designed to align with national, state, and local standards for
early learning. As the plan-do-review sequence conducted within a consistent daily routine is the hallmark of the
HighScope model for the child, these key developmental indicators are the central feature for the teacher to
implement the curriculum content. They are a way of helping the teacher understand, support, and extend the
child’s self-designed activity so that developmentally appropriate experiences and growth are constantly available
to the child. These indicators guide the teacher in planning small- and large-group activities. They provide a way
of thinking about curriculum that frees the teacher from total reliance on workbooks of activities and scope-and-
sequence charts. They form the basis of the framework that an adult uses to plan for and observe each child.
The key developmental indicators are important to the growth of rational thought in children the world over,
regardless of nation or culture. They are very simple and pragmatic. Preschool key developmental indicators have
246
During small-group activities, children explore materials and objects, make choices, and solve
problems.
been identified in the following domains, which parallel the dimensions of school readiness identified by the
National Education Goals Panel (Kagan, Moore, & Bredekamp, 1995):
Approaches to learning
Language, literacy, and communication
Social and emotional development
Physical development, health, and well-being
Mathematics
Science and technology
Social studies
The arts
Each of these categories is divided into specific types of experiences. For example, the key developmental
indicators in language, literacy, and communication are as follows:
Talk with others about personally meaningful experiences
Describe objects, events, and relations
Have fun with language: listen to stories and poems, make up stories and rhymes
Write in various ways: draw, scribble, and use letter-like forms, invented spelling, and conventional forms
247
Read in various ways: read storybooks, signs and symbols, one’s own writing
Dictate stories
The key developmental indicators in social and emotional development are as follows:
Take care of one’s own needs
Express feelings in words
Build relationships with children and adults
Create and experience collaborative play
Respond to social conflict
Classroom learning experiences are not mutually exclusive and any given activity will involve several types of key
developmental indicators. This approach gives the teacher a clear perspective from which to think about the
program and observe the youngsters. In addition, the key developmental indicators give the model structure while
maintaining its openness to child-generated experiences. Thus, HighScope staff developing new curriculum
domains have a vehicle for expanding the curriculum to include additional experiences. The key developmental
indicators enable the HighScope model to continue to evolve as an effective means of promoting children’s
healthy growth and development.
The Preschool Child Observation Record

The Preschool Child Observation Record (COR; HighScope Educational Research Foundation, 2003) measures
the developmental status of young children 3 to 5 years old. The Infant-Toddler Child Observation Record
(HighScope Educational Research Foundation, 2000) measures the developmental status of young children up to
3 years old. Originally developed to assess the outcomes of the High-Scope model, the COR was later expanded
for use in all early childhood programs that engage in developmentally appropriate practice, whether they use the
HighScope model or not.
To use the Preschool COR, the teacher writes brief notes over several months describing episodes of young
children’s behavior in six domains of development: (1) initiative, (2) social relations, (3) creative representation,
(4) music and movement, (5) language and literacy, and (6) logic and mathematics. The teacher then uses these
notes to classify the child’s behavior on 32 five-level COR items in these domains. For example, the item of
Making Choices and Plans has the following five levels, from lowest to highest:
1. Child indicates a choice by pointing or some other action.
2. Child expresses a choice in one or two words.
3. Child expresses a choice with a short sentence.
4. Child makes a plan with one or two details.
5. Child makes a plan with three or more details.
The statistical characteristics of the second edition of the Preschool COR (HighScope Educational Research
Foundation, 2003) were assessed with data collected by Head Start teaching staff in one grantee from 160 children
in spring 2002 and 233 children in fall 2002. Children ranged in age from 3 years to 5 years 5 months. The
average COR total scores were 2.49 in the fall study and 3.47 in the spring study. The alpha coefficients of
internal consistency for all 32 COR items were .94 in the fall study and .91 in the spring study, with alpha
coefficients for COR categories ranging from .75 to .88. The COR scores of 10 pairs of teachers and assistant
248
teachers were correlated at .73 for the COR total scores and .69 to .79 for the category scores. A confirmatory
factor analysis on data from the spring study affirmed the COR’s internal validity and identified four factors that
fit the COR categories rather well. The COR’s external validity was supported by expected correlations of the
COR total scores with the Cognitive Skills Assessment Battery (.46 to .62; Boehm & Slater, 1981) and with
children’s ages (.31), with no significant association with gender.
Role Of Parents And Community

Parent participation has been a hallmark from the beginning of the HighScope model. In the initial period during
the 1960s, teachers held group meetings regularly and made home visits weekly to each participating child and
mother or other family member. Reflecting the movement of women into the workforce, parent participation now
focuses on group meetings and other means of contact. One component of High-Scope staff training is providing
teachers with strategies to involve parents in supporting their child’s early learning in ways that are meaningful,
developmentally appropriate, and feasible for the family.
Essential to effective parent involvement is the primary focus on the child and the dual nature of information
flow. Although the school and its staff have knowledge and training to provide to the family, the staff must also
learn from the parents about the child, the family’s culture, and their language and goals. For the program to be
successful in various settings, teaching staff must respect the parents as the experts in their own domain.
Training In The Highscope Model

Effective training in the HighScope model has several key elements. It is on site and model focused, with a
growing number of online courses to supplement face-to-face contact with HighScope’s trainers. It adapts to the
actual work setting of the teacher physically and socially, adapts to the group of children involved (e.g., children
with disabilities or learning English as a second language), relates to the culture of the children, and enables
systematic parent involvement. Training sessions are scheduled about once a month because teachers need time to
study training materials, think about the training experience, put new ideas into practice, see the gaps in their own
thinking and in the program being presented, and make adaptations to their own setting. Consistent delivery to
the individual teacher is maintained by observations and feedback.
The HighScope model is flexible in various ways. It is open to all who understand its developmental principles. It
is not so much a set of prescriptions as a methodological framework for education. The teachers and parents
employing the framework arrange the context of the program and the general content; children further specify the
content to some extent. In these ways, the program grows from the users rather than from the developers. This
fact gives it extraordinary flexibility and usefulness as an effective framework for teachers working with children.
The HighScope Educational Research Foundation has trained early childhood teachers and teacher trainers
throughout the United States and around the world. The HighScope Foundation has teacher training institutes
and centers in Canada, Chile, Great Britain, Indonesia, Ireland, Korea, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, and
South Africa. Fledging efforts in HighScope training and use are taking place in many other countries as well. For
example, HighScope Foundation has recently worked with several organizations in the Caribbean to help shift
their adult instruction from highly directive to more interactional—not a full adoption of the HighScope model
by any means, but an effort to introduce its key principle of balanced interaction between adults and children.
Although the initial communication of High-Scope ideas inevitably comes from its U.S. source, it is interpreted
and adapted by indigenous peoples throughout the world.
Research Support For The Highscope Model

The HighScope model of preschool education has accumulated a set of research studies that establish its value in a
249
variety of ways. The HighScope Perry Preschool Study found that it has truly extraordinary long-term benefits
when provided to young children living in poverty. The HighScope Preschool Curriculum Comparison Study
shows that the model stands out from teacher-directed instruction in its contribution to young children’s social
development. The Training for Quality study shows that systematic training in the High-Scope model of
preschool education helps teachers make greater contributions to children’s development. The International
Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA) Preprimary Study shows that early childhood
settings around the world contribute more to children’s cognitive and language development if they let them
choose their own activities than if they emphasize whole-group instruction.
HighScope Perry Preschool Study

Weikart and the staff of the HighScope Perry Preschool program in the Ypsilanti Public Schools first developed
and used the HighScope model to assist economically disadvantaged children. By virtue of its experimental design
(nearly random assignment) and long-term duration (since 1962), the evaluation of the HighScope Perry
Preschool program is one of the most thorough examinations of program effects ever undertaken. The basic
evaluation question is whether the HighScope Perry Preschool program affected the lives of participating children.
The study focused on 123 African American children born in poverty and at high risk of failing in school. In the
early 1960s, at ages 3 and 4, these children were nearly randomly divided into a program group who received a
high-quality preschool program and a no-program group who received no preschool program. The two groups
have been carefully studied over the years with only 6% of the data missing on average across all measures. At age
40, 91% of the original study participants were interviewed (7 of those not interviewed were deceased), with
additional data gathered from their school, social services, and arrest records (Schweinhart et al., 2005). Post-
preschool-program differences between the groups represent preschool program effects. Findings presented here
are statistically significant (with a two-tailed probability of less than .05). Heckman, Moon, Pinto, Savelyev, and
Yavitz (2010a) reanalyzed the data of this study using innovative techniques to address the study’s methodological
problems. They used permutation-based inference to
Figure 10–1 HighScope Perry Preschool Study

Major Findings Through Age 40
Source: From Lifetime Effects: The HighScope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 40 (p. xv) by L. J.
250
Schweinhart, J. Montie, Z. Xiang, W. S. Barnett, C. R. Belfield, and M. Nores, 2005, Ypsilanti, MI:
HighScope Press. Copyright 2005 by HighScope Educational Research Foundation. Adapted with
permission.
correct for the study’s departures from random assignment. They used a family-based step-down procedure to
correct for multiple hypothesis testing. Although individual results changed, the overall effect was to strengthen
the study’s already strong internal validity, providing even greater scientific confidence in its results.
As shown in Figure 10–1, more of the program group than the no-program group graduated from high school or
received a general educational development (GED) diploma (77% vs. 60%). This difference was from a difference
of 42 percentage points between program and no-program females in high school graduation rate (88% vs. 46%).
Earlier, program and no-program females had different rates of treatment for mental impairment (8% vs. 36%)
and retention in grade (21% vs. 41%). However, the entire program group outperformed the no-program group
on various intellectual and language tests from their preschool years up to age 7, school achievement tests at 7 to
14, and literacy tests at 19 and 27. The program group had better attitudes towards school than the no-program
group as teens, and program-group parents had better attitudes towards their teen children’s schooling than did
no-program-group parents. The preschool program affected children’s performance and attitudes, regardless of
their gender, but this common effect seems to have led school staff to track girls but not boys.
More of the program group than the no-program group were employed at 27 (69% vs. 56%) and 40 (76% vs.
62%). The program group had higher median earnings than the no-program group, annually at ages 27 ($12,000
vs. $10,000) and at 40 ($20,800 vs. $15,300), as well as monthly at both ages. More of the program group than
the no-program group owned their own homes at ages 27 (27% vs. 5%) and 40 (37% vs. 28%). More of the
program group than the no-program group had a car at ages 27 (73% vs. 59%) and 40 (82% vs. 60%). More
program than no-program males raised their own children (57% vs. 30%).
Over their lifetimes, fewer in the program group than the no-program group were arrested five or more times
(36% vs. 55%) or were arrested for violent, property, or drug crimes, particularly dangerous drugs, assault and/or
battery, and larceny under $100. Fewer in the program group were sentenced to time in prison or jail by age 40
(28% vs. 52%).
Figure 10–2 Large Return on Investment (per

251
participant in 2000 constant dollars discounted
3% annually)
Source: From Lifetime Effects: The HighScope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 40 (p. xvii) by L. J.
Schweinhart, J. Montie, Z. Xiang, W. S. Barnett, C. R. Belfield, and M. Nores, 2005, Ypsilanti, MI:
HighScope Press. Copyright 2005 by HighScope Educational Research Foundation. Adapted with
permission.
As shown in Figure 10–2, in constant 2000 dollars discounted at 3%, the economic return to society for the
program was $244,812 per participant on an investment of $15,166 per participant ($8,540 per participant per
year)—$16.14 per dollar invested. Of that return, 80% went to the public—$12.90 per dollar invested—and
20% went to each participant. Of the public return, 88% came from crime savings, and the rest came from
education and welfare savings and increased taxes resulting from higher earnings. Males accounted for a full 93%
of the public return, because of the large program effect of reducing male crime. This finding for males stands in
stark contrast to the large program effect on the high school graduation rates of females.
Heckman, Moon, Pinto, Savelyev, and Yavitz (2010b) conducted a thorough economic analysis of the data of this
study and similarly concluded that the program produced a very large economic return on investment in it.
HighScope Preschool Curriculum Comparison Study

In 1967, a second longitudinal study, the High-Scope Preschool Curriculum Comparison Study (Schweinhart &
Weikart, 1997), was undertaken to explore possible effects of early education programs based on several major
theoretical approaches. The question was whether the success of the HighScope Perry Preschool program was to
be expected only of preschool programs that used the HighScope model or could be expected of other preschool
programs with high standards as well. This study has followed the lives of 68 young people born in poverty who
were nearly randomly assigned at ages 3 and 4 to one of three groups, each experiencing a different model:
In the Direct Instruction model that was current at the time, teachers initiated drill-and-practice activities,
following a script with academic objectives, and rewarded
252
Figure 10–3 HighScope Preschool
Curriculum Comparison Study Major
Findings at Age 23
Source: From Lasting Differences (pp. 40, 48, and 51), by L. J. Schweinhart and D. P. Weikart,
1997, Ypsilanti, MI: High-Scope Press. Copyright 1997 by HighScope Educational Research
Foundation. Adapted with permission.`
children for responding correctly and following the teacher direction.
In the HighScope model, teachers and children both initiated actions. Teachers arranged the classroom and
the daily routine so children could plan, do, and review their own activities and engage in the key
developmental indicators described in this chapter.
In the traditional Nursery School model, teachers responded to children’s self-initiated play and introduced
projects in a loosely structured, socially supportive setting.
Program staff implemented the model programs independently and to high standards, in 2½-hr classes held 5 days
a week and in 1½-hr visits to children’s homes every 2 weeks, when children were 3 and 4 years old.
Except for the educational model, all aspects of the programs were essentially identical. The three groups did not
differ significantly on most background characteristics. The findings presented here are corrected for differences in
gender makeup of the groups. Figure 10–3 portrays key findings.
By age 23, the HighScope group had eight significant advantages over the Direct Instruction group:
Fewer felony arrests
Fewer arrests for property crimes
Fewer years requiring treatment for emotional impairment or disturbance
Fewer reporting that other people gave them a hard time
Less teen misconduct
A higher percentage living with a spouse
More who did volunteer work
More who planned to graduate from college
By age 23, the Nursery School group had four significant advantages over the Direction Instruction group:
Fewer felony arrests at age 22 and over
Fewer years requiring treatment for emotional impairment or disturbance
More who did volunteer work
Fewer suspensions from work (the only one not in common with the HighScope curriculum group)
By age 23, the Direct Instruction group had no significant advantage on any outcome variable. By age 23, the
HighScope group and the Nursery School group did not differ significantly on any outcome variable.
253
Through age 10, the main finding of this study was that the overall average IQ of the three groups rose 27 points,
from a borderline impairment level of 78 to a normal level of 105 after 1 year of their preschool program and
subsequently settled in at an average of 95, still at the normal level. The conclusion at that juncture was that well-
implemented preschool education, regardless of theoretical orientation, had similar effects on children’s
intellectual and academic performance. Time has proved otherwise.
The research supports the conclusion that, by age 23, scripted, teacher-directed instruction, touted by some as the
surest path to school success, seems to purchase a modest extra improvement in academic performance at the cost
of a missed opportunity for long-term improvement in important social behavior. Child-initiated learning
activities, on the other hand, seem to help children develop their social responsibility and skills so that they less
often need treatment for emotional impairment or disturbance and are less often arrested for felonies as young
adults.
Although the HighScope and Nursery School groups did not differ significantly on any outcome variable at age
23, the HighScope model is more readily replicated than the Nursery School approach because of its extensive
documentation of practice, validated teacher training program, and well-developed program and child assessment
systems. The Nursery School approach used in this study was the unique product of certain teachers trained in a
general child development approach. It is unclear whether the results of this study apply to children who
experience other versions of the Nursery School approach or an eclectic approach developed by their own teachers.
These findings constitute evidence that early childhood education works better to prevent problems when it
focuses on child-initiated learning activities rather than scripted, teacher-directed academic instruction. Because
biweekly visits to children’s homes were part of each program, home visits by themselves do not account for these
differences. These findings suggest that the goals of early childhood education should not be limited to academic
preparation for school, but should also include helping children learn to make decisions, solve problems, and get
along with others—the goals of the HighScope model of early childhood education.
The HighScope Perry Preschool Study (Schweinhart et al., 2005) and the HighScope Preschool Curriculum
Comparison Study (Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997) suggest that the HighScope early childhood model has
significant, lasting benefits because it empowers participants as follows:
It empowers children by enabling them to initiate and carry out their own learning activities and make
independent decisions.
It empowers parents by involving them in ongoing relationships as full partners with teachers in supporting
their children’s development.
It empowers teachers by providing them with an effective model supported by systematic, model-focused in-
service training and supervision and observational tools to assess children’s development.
Some might object that these programs are dated, passed over by time—never mind that it is only such programs
that are in a position to demonstrate such long-term effects. But the programs are well documented, not only with
descriptive narrative, but also with both expert observations and systematic observation by trained observers
(Weikart, Epstein, Schweinhart, & Bond, 1978), so that they can be fully replicated today. Further, there is no
reason to think that the relationships between the educational model and child outcomes found beginning in the
1960s are any different today. The experience of poverty in America is still the experience of poverty in America.
Combined with similar findings from other independent investigators (Marcon, 1992; Nabuco & Sylva, 1997;
Zill et al., 2003), these data have wide-ranging implications. They indicate that high-quality preschool programs
for children living in poverty can have a positive long-term effect on their lives. Their early educational success
leads to later school success, higher employment rates, and fewer social problems such as crime and welfare
dependence. Early childhood education can help individuals realize their potential. But the findings show more
than good outcomes for individuals. They also indicate that citizens can expect substantial improvement in the
quality of community life. An effective program can help reduce crime and improve participants’ employment
prospects. Further, an important improvement can be made in the available workforce because of better
254
educational attainment and improved job-holding ability. However, such outcomes are not the results of all
preschool programs, but rather those programs that achieve a high standard of quality that includes a balance
between an emphasis on later academic success and an emphasis on social development and personal initiative.
The Training for Quality Study

The HighScope Training for Quality Study (Epstein, 1993) offers evidence of the effectiveness of the HighScope
preschool education model as practiced throughout the United States today. In this multistudy evaluation, we
analyzed participant reports of 40 training projects; surveyed 203 certified HighScope teacher trainers; surveyed
and systematically observed the classrooms of 244 HighScope and 122 comparison teachers; and systematically
observed and tested 97 HighScope and 103 comparison children in these classrooms.
HighScope trainers identified 244 High-Scope teachers in Michigan, New York, and California who had been
employed at their agencies for at least 6 months, had attended at least four HighScope workshops, and had
received three classroom visits. We selected 122 comparison teachers from lists of licensed child care centers and
from agencies nominated by staff or trainers, with efforts to maintain proportions of agency types similar to those
of the HighScope teachers.
The 200 children in the child outcomes study attended preschool programs in 15 agencies in urban, suburban,
and rural settings in southeastern Michigan and northwestern Ohio; 46% were in Head Start, 19% in public
schools, and 35% in nonprofit centers. Children ranged in age from 2 to 6 years, average age 4.3 years; 47% were
male, 53% female; 43% were white, 32% were African American, 5% were Hispanic American, and 20% were of
other ethnic groups. Their fathers and mothers averaged 13.7 years of schooling, identifying these parents as
relatively well educated on average. In both groups, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics codes, fathers’ median
occupational level was that of laborer and mothers’ median occupational level was that of service worker.
Treatment groups did not differ significantly on any of these characteristics.
The Registry trainer survey found that half of HighScope-certified trainers were in Head Start, 27% were in public
schools, and 20% were in private child care agencies. Eighty-eight percent had completed college, including 37%
with advanced degrees; 70% majored in early childhood. They had a median of 15 years of experience in early
childhood. Seventy-eight percent of them were still in the same agency they were in when they received
HighScope certification; 85% had teacher-training responsibility, although they only spent an average of 8 hr a
week training teachers. On the average, they made a large-group presentation for 36 staff annually, a hands-on
workshop for 15 staff monthly, an observation-and-feedback classroom visit monthly, and an informal classroom
visit weekly. The average teacher had attended one presentation and nine workshops and received an observation-
and-feedback visit and three informal visits per month.
All the teachers trained had tried out the HighScope model’s room arrangement and daily routine; 91% had tried
out the key experiences; 63% had tried out the child observation techniques. Eighty-nine percent of them were
comfortable and effective with room arrangement; 80%, with the daily routine; 56%, with the key experiences;
and 37%, with the child observation techniques. Trainers said they would show visitors 45% of the classrooms of
trained teachers as examples of the HighScope preschool model, an average of four classrooms per trainer.
The HighScope Registry listed 1,075 early childhood leaders in 34 states and 10 other countries who successfully
completed High-Scope’s 7-week Trainer Certification Program in the past decade. The average trainer had trained
15 teaching teams, so an estimated 16,125 early childhood teaching teams, including 29% of all Head Start staff,
had received HighScope model training from these trainers. Because trainers regarded 45% of these classrooms as
examples of the HighScope model, they would nominate an estimated 7,256 early childhood classrooms
throughout the United States and around the world as examples of the HighScope model.
The teacher survey indicated that both High-Scope and comparison classrooms were of high quality. Both groups
had at least 10 years of teaching experience. Most in both groups had college degrees and early childhood degrees.
Both groups had over 40 hr of in-service training annually. In both groups, teachers’ annual salaries averaged
255
about $20,000 a year, considerably higher than the $9,400 national average for child care teaching staff
(Whitebook, Howes, & Phillips, 1989). The few group background differences seemed to compensate for each
other: The HighScope teachers had significantly more teaching experience than comparison teachers (12 years vs.
10 years), but significantly fewer HighScope teachers had college degrees (63% vs. 79%).
Although HighScope and comparison teachers did not differ significantly in their hours of in-service training per
year, more HighScope teachers received significantly more in-service training involving curriculum and teaching
practices (91% vs. 71%), child assessment and evaluation (75% vs. 48%), and professional issues (48% vs. 34%).
HighScope teachers placed significantly more importance on the following topics than did comparison teachers:
room arrangement, children choosing their own activities, teachers participating in children’s activities, ongoing
training for adults, supervision and evaluation, multicultural awareness, and parent involvement.
HighScope and comparison classrooms differed significantly in classroom environment, daily routine, adult–child
interaction, and overall implementation, as assessed by the High-Scope Program Implementation Profile
(HighScope Educational Research Foundation, 1989) adapted for generic use. HighScope advantages in classroom
environment involved dividing the classroom into activity areas, providing adequate work space in each area,
arranging and labeling materials, providing enough materials in each area, providing real household and work
objects, making materials accessible to children, and providing materials to promote awareness of cultural
differences. HighScope advantages in daily routine involved implementing a consistent daily routine, encouraging
children to plan and review activities, and providing opportunities for planning, doing, and reviewing. HighScope
advantages in adult–child interaction differences involved observing and asking questions, participating in
children’s play, and balancing child and adult talk. Comparison classrooms had no significant advantages over
HighScope classrooms on this instrument. These findings indicate that the HighScope classrooms were
implementing the HighScope Preschool Curriculum to a significantly greater extent than were the comparison
classrooms.
As shown in Figure 10–4, the children in HighScope programs significantly outperformed the children in
comparison programs in initiative, social relations, music and movement, and overall child development.
HighScope advantages in initiative involved complex play and cooperating in program routines. HighScope
advantages in social relations involved relating to adults and social problem solving. HighScope advantages in
music and movement included imitating movements to a steady beat.
Significant positive correlations of .39 to .52 were found between classroom daily routine (measuring children’s
opportunities to plan activities, carry out their ideas, and review what they had done each day) and children’s
overall development, specifically their development of creative representation, initiative, music and movement
abilities, and language and literacy.
The IEA Preprimary Project

The IEA Preprimary Project is a multination study of preprimary care and education (Montie, Xiang, &
Schweinhart, 2006; Olmsted & Montie, 2001; Weikart, Olmsted, & Montie, 2003). HighScope served as the
international coordinating center. Working collaboratively with researchers in 15 countries, HighScope staff were
responsible for sampling, instrument development, data analysis, and the writing of six published reports. The
purpose of the study was to identify how process and structural characteristics of community preprimary settings
affect children’s language and cognitive development at age 7. The study is unique because many diverse
256
Figure 10–4 Findings: Training for Quality
Children’s Study
Source: From Training for Quality: Improving Early Childhood Programs Through Systematic In-service
Training, by A. S. Epstein, 1997, Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope Press. Copyright 2003 by HighScope
Educational Research Foundation. Adapted with permission.
countries participated, using common instruments to measure family background, teachers’ characteristics, setting
structural characteristics, experiences of children, and children’s developmental status.
The study is rooted theoretically in the ecological systems model of human development, which views children’s
behavior and developmental status as being influenced by multiple levels of the environment, some direct and
proximal to the child, such as the child’s actual experiences in an education or care setting, and some indirect and
distal, such as national policy. The study focused on the influence of young children’s experiences in community
preprimary education and care settings on their language and cognitive development at age 7, controlling for
family and cultural influences. Both proximal and distal variables are examined within that context.
The target population consisted of children in selected community settings who were approximately 4½ years old.
Data for the longitudinal project were collected in early childhood care and education settings in 10 countries:
Finland, Greece, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Spain, Thailand, and the United States. Each
country’s research team chose to sample settings that were used by large numbers of families in the community or
important for public policy reasons. With expert assistance, each country’s research team developed a sampling
plan, using probability proportional to size to select settings and systematic sampling procedures to select four
children within each classroom. The age-4 sample included over 5,000 children in more than 1,800 settings in 15
countries. Ten of the initial 15 countries followed the children to age 7 to collect language and cognitive outcome
measures. The median retention rate across countries was 86%, ranging from 41% to 99%. The number of
children included in the longitudinal analyses varied from 1,300 to 1,897, depending on the particular analysis.
Working with HighScope researchers, measures used in the study were developed collaboratively by members of
the international team. At age 4, data were collected with three observation systems and three
questionnaire/interviews. Children’s cognitive and language performance was measured at age 4 and age 7. The
observation systems collected time-sampled information about how teachers schedule and manage children’s time,
what children actually do with their time, and the behaviors that teachers use and the nature of their involvement
with children.
257
Interviews were conducted to collect family background information and gather information regarding teachers’
and parents’ expectations about what is important for preschool-aged children to learn. A questionnaire that
focused on the structural characteristics of the settings was administered to teachers and caregivers.
The children were followed until age 7, an age across countries when they had all entered primary school. At that
time, cognitive and language measures developed by an international team were administered to assess
developmental status.
Based on the structure of the data, with individual children nested within settings and settings nested within
countries, a hierarchical linear modeling approach was used for the analysis. Accurate estimation of impacts for
variables at different levels was especially important for this study because effects at two levels—settings and
countries—were often confounded with one another. Although the relationship between setting variables and
children’s later development was of primary interest, any such findings would have been hard to interpret if
country effects had not been accurately estimated and adjusted for. A three-level approach enabled decomposition
of variation of child outcomes into three parts: variation among children within settings, among settings within
countries, and among countries. As a result, relationships between care setting variables and children’s outcome
scores are free of substantial influence from country-level effects.
Four findings emerged that are consistent across all of the countries included in the data analysis:
Children’s language performance at age 7 improves as the predominant types of children’s activities that
teachers propose are free rather than personal/social. From greatest to least contribution, activity types were
as follows:
Free activities, which teachers let children choose
Physical/expressive activities (gross- and fine-motor physical activity, dramatic play, arts, crafts, and music)
Preacademic activities (reading, writing, numbers, mathematics, physical science, and social science)
Personal/social activities (personal care, group social activities, and discipline)
Children’s language performance at age 7 improves as teachers’ years of schooling increase.
Children’s cognitive performance at age 7 improves as they spend less time in whole group activities (the
teacher proposes the same activity for all the children in the class—songs, games, listening to a story,
working on a craft, or a preacademic activity).
Children’s language performance at age 7 improves as the amount and variety of equipment and materials
available to children in preschool settings increase.
The wide range of environments throughout the world in which young children grow and learn creates
challenging questions for everyone concerned with providing high-quality programs for preprimary children.
What are the essential program elements that promote optimum child development? How are these elements
delivered in various communities? The findings tell us that teaching practices matter; how teachers set up their
classrooms and the activities they propose for children make a difference.
Across diverse countries, child-initiated activities and teachers’ education appear to contribute to children’s later
language performance; and minimization of whole group activities and a greater number and variety of materials
in preschool settings appear to contribute to their later cognitive performance.
Although more research is necessary in the various countries to establish a pattern of cause and effect and to
explore the learning mechanisms involved, early childhood educators and policy makers can use these findings to
examine local policies and practices and consider if changes are advisable.
258
The Relationship Of Research To The Highscope
Model
The HighScope model defined the essential program elements in the day-to-day experience of children and
teachers that were largely responsible for the program effects, that is, plan-do-review and key developmental
indicators as a basis of planning and observation. Also among the key program elements were staffing, staff
planning and development, class sessions for children, and a high level of parent involvement. The staff/child ratio
was 1 to 5 or 6, with 4 teachers for 20 to 25 children in the High-Scope Perry Preschool program; and 1 to 8,
with 2 teachers and 16 children for each class in the HighScope Curriculum Comparison study. The teaching staff
worked together in teams that planned, implemented, and evaluated each day’s activities. Indeed, working in
tandem with researchers and consultants, they developed and refined the HighScope educational model. The
preschool program had two components: daily 2½-hr classroom sessions and weekly 1½-hr home visits by the
teacher to each child and mother or other caregiver. These program elements can be applied with some flexibility.
Staffing could safely go as high as 20 children in a class with two trained adults. Teachers need to develop
intellectual ownership of the model, preferably through daily planning, evaluation, and teamwork, and with the
active support of the administration and the provision of in-service model training opportunities. Home visits are
not the key to program effectiveness, as witnessed by the data from the Direct Instruction group (Schweinhart &
Weikart, 1997), but parents and teachers do need to work together as real partners in the education of children,
which means regular, substantive communication concerning the developmental status of the child and concrete
strategies whereby families can extend the curriculum learning into the home. In short, the HighScope Perry
Preschool program group (Schweinhart et al., 2005) and the HighScope group of the Curriculum Comparison
Study (Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997) were successful because they implemented the essential elements of the
HighScope model and because they maintained consistent program policies that permitted the model to operate
effectively.
To recapitulate, a high-quality preschool program observes these program policies:
Teachers use and take ownership of a validated, child-development-oriented educational model through
regular in-service training in the model.
The teaching staff work as teams in planning, implementing, and evaluating each day’s activities.
The staffing ratio is no more than 10 children per staff member and group sizes are no greater than 20.
Parents join with teachers as partners in the education of the child and engage in substantive discussion and
home extension of the learning topics.
The administration provides model leadership, supervision, and assistance.
Many existing programs of early childhood care and education are not of adequate operational quality. Improving
them is the major task of caregivers and educators. As with elementary and secondary school programs, early
childhood programs must meet basic standards. These elements are neither easy to put into practice nor cheap to
maintain. Yet the advantages of high-quality programs far outweigh the effort and cost of providing them.
What is it about young children’s development that presents the opportunity for such effective programs? The
preschool years are a watershed for several dimensions of child development. Physically, by age 3, young children
have matured to the point that they have achieved both fine- and gross-motor coordination and are able to move
about easily and freely. Mentally, they have developed basic language capabilities and can use objects for self-
chosen purposes. In the terms of Jean Piaget, they have shifted from sensorimotor functioning to preoperational
thinking. Socially, they are able to move away from familiar adults and social contexts to unfamiliar ones. The fear
of strangers so common earlier is much reduced and youngsters welcome relations with new peers and adults.
What stands out among the basic accomplishments of early education is that children develop additional social,
physical, and intellectual abilities. Armed with these acquired competencies, they learn to relate to new adults,
259
who respond to their performance very differently than their families do. In short, children learn to demonstrate
abilities in novel settings and to trust new adults and peers enough to display these skills willingly. Children’s
willingness to try new things and develop competencies is the seed that is transformed into later school and life
success. Early success grows grade by grade, year by year, into adult success; each stage leads to a better
performance at the next. These steps are documented by the research. The thrust is captured in the old folk adage,
“As the twig is bent, so grows the tree.”
Conclusion
The HighScope model of early childhood education is an open framework of developmental theory and
educational practices based on the interactive development of young children. It is currently used in thousands of
early childhood programs throughout the United States and in other countries. Based on Piaget’s child
development ideas (Piaget & Inhelder, 1969) and teaching practices derived from the social learning theory of
Vygotsky (1934/1962), the HighScope model views children as active learners who learn best from activities that
they themselves plan, carry out, and reflect on. Adults arrange interest areas in the learning environment; maintain
a daily routine that permits children to plan and pursue their own activities; join in children’s activities and help
them think things through; and provide language through conversations and observations. The adults encourage
children to achieve key developmental indicators and help them learn to make choices, solve problems, and
generally engage in activities that promote intellectual, social, and physical development. Decades of systematic
empirical research indicate that the HighScope model works to significantly improve the life chances of
participating children.
Reflect On
1. What convictions led the authors to develop the HighScope model of early childhood education?
2. What developmental principles guide the High-Scope model of early childhood education?
3. How does the “plan-do-review” cycle work in the HighScope model?
4. What are some of the outcomes of the High-Scope model decades later?
5. Can you make a convincing argument that supporting early childhood programs of this nature leads to less
expenditures for taxpayers?
Selected Resources
HighScope Educational Research Foundation (United States)
600 North River Street
Ypsilanti, Michigan 48198-2898
www.highscope.org
International HighScope Institutes and Teacher Education Centers
Canada:
Sheridan College, Ontario: Web site not available
Western Canada: Squamish, British Columbia: Web site not available
Moncton, New Brunswick: www.monctonheadstart.com
260
Chile: www.colegiosantacruz.cl and www.highscopechile.cl
Great Britain: www.high-scope.org.uk
Indonesia: www.highscope.or.id
Ireland: www.early-years.org/highscope
Korea: www.highscopekorea.com
Mexico: www.highscopemexico.org
The Netherlands: www.kaleidoscoop.org
Portugal: www.highscope-portugal.com
South Africa: www.khululeka.org.za
References
1. Boehm, A. E., & Slater, B. E. (1981). Cognitive Skills Assessment Battery (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
2. Bruer, J. T. (2004). The brain and child development: Time for some critical thinking. In E. Zigler & S. J.
Styfco (Eds.), The Head Start debates (pp. 423–433). Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
3. Clements, D. H. (2004). Major themes and recommendations. In D. H. Clements, J. Samara, & A. M.

DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics education
(pp. 7–72). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Copple, C. & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving
children from birth through 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
5. Dewey, J. (1973). Experience and education. New York, NY: Macmillan. (Original work published 1938).
6. Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (PL 88-452). Retrieved January 4, 2012 from www.gpo.gov/fdsys/
7. Epstein, A. S. (1993). Training for quality: Improving early childhood programs through systematic in-service
training. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope Press.
8. Epstein, A. S. (2007). Essentials of active learning in the preschool: Getting to know the HighScope Curriculum.
Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope Press.
9. Froebel, F. (1887). The education of man. W. N. Hailman (Trans.). New York, NY: D. Appleton.
10. Gelman, R., & Brenneman, K. (2004). Science learning pathways for young children. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 19, 150–158.
11. Hanes, M., Flores, L., Rosario, J., Weikart, D. P., & Sanchez, J. (1979). Un marco abierto: A guide for
teachers. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope Press.
12. Heckman, J. J., Moon, S. H., Pinto, R., Savelyev, P. A., & Yavitz, A. Q. (2010a). Reanalysis of the Perry
Preschool Program: Multiple-hypothesis and permutation tests applied to a quasi-randomized experiment,
Quantitative Economics, 1, 1–49.
13. Heckman, J. J., Moon, S. H., Pinto, R., Savelyev, P. A., & Yavitz, A. (2010b). The rate of the return to the
261
HighScope Perry Preschool Program. Journal of Public Economics, 94, 114–128.
14. HighScope Educational Research Foundation. (1989). Program implementation profile. Ypsilanti, MI:
HighScope Press.
15. HighScope Educational Research Foundation. (2000). The infant-toddler child observation record. Ypsilanti,
MI: HighScope Press.
16. HighScope Educational Research Foundation. (2003). The preschool child observation record (2nd ed.).
17. Hohmann, M. (2002). A study guide to educating young children: Exercises for adult learners (2nd ed.).
18. Hohmann, M., Weikart, D. P., & Epstein, A. S. (2008). Educating young children: Active learning practices
for preschool and child care programs (3rd ed.). Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope Press.
19. Kagan, S. L., Moore, E., & Bredekamp, S. (Eds.). (1995, June). Reconsidering children’s early development
and learning: Toward comment views and vocabulary. (Goals 1 Technical Planning Group Report 95-03).
Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel.
20. Marcon, R. A. (1992). Differential effects of three preschool models on inner city four-year olds. Early
Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 517–530.
21. Montie, J. E., Xiang, Z., & Schweinhart, L. J. (2006). Preschool experience in 10 countries: cognitive and
language performance at age 7. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21, 313–331.
22. Nabuco, M., & Sylva, K. (1997, September). A study on the quality of three early childhood curricula in
Portugal. Paper presented at the 7th European Conference on the Quality of Early Childhood Education,
Munich.
23. National Research Council. (2005). Mathematical and scientific development in early childhood. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
24. Oden, S., Schweinhart, L. J., & Weikart, D. P., with Marcus, S., & Xie, Y. (2000). Into adulthood: A study
of the effects of Head Start. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope Press.
25. Olmsted, P., & Montie, J. (Eds.). (2001). What do early childhood settings look like? Structural characteristics
of early childhood settings in 15 countries. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope Press.
26. Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York, NY: Basic Books.
27. Schweinhart, L. J., Montie, J., Xiang, Z., Barnett, W. S., Belfield, C. R., & Nores, M. (2005). Lifetime
effects: The HighScope Perry Preschool Study through age 40. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope Press.
28. Schweinhart, L. J., & Weikart, D. P. (1997). Lasting differences: The HighScope preschool model comparison
study through age 23. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope Press.
29. Shore, R. (1997). Rethinking the brain: New insights into early development. New York, NY: Families and
Work Institute.
30. Thompson, R. A., & Nelson, C. A. (2001). Developmental science and media: Early brain development.
American Psychologist, 56 (1), 5–15.
31. Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. (Original work published 1934)
32. Weikart, D. P., Hohmann, C. F., & Rhine, W. R. (1981). HighScope cognitively oriented model. In W. R.
262
Rhine (Ed.), Making schools more effective: New directions from Follow Through (pp. 201–247). New York,
NY: Academic Press.
33. Weikart, D. P., Olmsted, P. P., & Montie, J. (Eds.). (2003). A world of preschool experience: Observations in
15 countries. Ypsilanti, MI: HighScope Press.
34. Weikart, D. P., Rogers, L., Adcock, C., & McClelland, D. (1971). The cognitively oriented model: A
framework for preschool teachers. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
35. Weikart, D. P., Epstein, A. S., Schweinhart, L. J., & Bond, J. T. (1978). The Ypsilanti Preschool Curriculum
Demonstration Project: Preschool years and longitudinal results. Ypsilanti, MI: High-Scope Press.
36. Weikart, P. S. (Producer). (2003). Rhythmically moving series, recordings 1–9 [CD; 2nd ed.]. Ypsilanti, MI:
HighScope Press.
37. Whitebook, M., Phillips, D., & Howes, C. (1993). National Child Care Staffing Study revisited: Four years in
the life of center-based child care. Oakland, CA: Child Care Employee Project.
38. Zill, N., Resnick, G., Kim, K., O’Donnell, K., Sorongon, A., McKey, R. H., & D’Elio, M. A. (May 2003).
Head Start FACES (2000): A whole child perspective on program performance—Fourth progress report. Prepared
for the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under
contract HHS-105-96-1912, Head Start Quality Research Consortium’s Performance Measures Center.
263
Chapter 11 Tools of the Mind: The Vygotskian
Approach to Early Childhood Education
Elena Bodrova
Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning
Deborah J. Leong
Tools of the Mind, Inc.
Discuss the theoretical foundations of the Vygotskian approach
Explain the Vygotskian view of learning and teaching
Describe the Vygotskian view of child development
Illustrate the application of Vygotskian theory in the early childhood classroom
Conceptual underpinnings for Tools of the Mind come primarily from Lev Vygotsky’s theory of development.
Three important concepts are the cultural-historical view of development, “tools,” and higher and lower mental
functions.
The Theoretical Foundations Of The Vygotskian

Approach
Cultural-Historical View of Development
To understand how Vygotskians view early childhood education, we must first understand the goal of education
and the cultural-historical view of development that is its root. Vygotsky’s approach is described by the
Vygotskians themselves as the cultural-historical approach. It is important, however, that Vygotskians have their
own and very specific definition of what the terms culture and history mean within this approach.
The term history in this approach refers to Vygotsky’s idea that to truly understand psychological processes that
are unique to humans, we have to study the history of the development of these processes. This history combines
two distinct but interrelated aspects: an individual person’s history, or ontogeny, and the history of humankind, or
phylogeny. Fully developed psychological processes are difficult to study according to Vygotsky because they
usually exist in an internalized and “folded”—or in Vygotsky’s own words “fossilized”—form where many of the
component processes are not easily visible. Processes under development, on the other hand, still have an extensive
external—and therefore accessible to observation—component, which may provide researchers with an insight
into the nature of this particular process (Vygotsky, 1978). Think, for example, of the processes you engage in
when reading this paragraph: As an experienced reader, you probably carry out most of these processes
automatically and cannot fully describe what is going on in your mind as you read. If you were a subject in a
reading study, the researchers most likely would use some kind of indirect measure of your reading processes, such
as giving you a comprehension test or perhaps scanning your brain as you read, because the processes themselves
are not accessible to observation or measurement.
Contrast this with the behaviors of a child for whom reading has not yet been automatized: most of the behaviors
264
—pointing to the words, sounding words letter-by-letter, self-correcting, and so on—are external behaviors that a
reading researcher can observe, measure, or manipulate. Thus, Vygotskians believe that studying reading from an
individual’s historical perspective allows for our better understanding of this process, its components, and the
dynamics. In a similar way, the study of the history of literacy in human-kind—from the knot writing of ancient
Incas to pictograms to hieroglyphs to alphabetic systems—reveals the relationships between the functions of
written speech and the processes involved in the mastery of writing.
The Vygotskian definition of culture in the cultural-historical approach is somewhat narrower than the meaning
we commonly assign to this word. Vygotsky focuses mainly on one component of culture—various signs and
symbols that serve as cultural tools—and their role in the development of uniquely human mental processes that
he called higher mental functions (Vygotsky, 1997). Another place culture appears in the cultural-historical
approach is when Vygotskians look at the specific sociocultural context of learning and development to see how
specific cultural tools as well as culture-specific practices used to teach and learn these affect the development of
higher mental functions in an individual or in a particular group.
The Concept of Tools

Vygotsky was in agreement with the view popular among his contemporaries that the difference between humans
and lower animals is that humans use tools, make new tools, and teach others how to use them. These tools extend
human abilities by enabling people to perform tasks that they could not do without them. For example, although
you can break smaller twigs and branches using your bare hands, you can cut larger pieces of wood only using an
ax or a saw. In a sense, these physical tools act as an extension of human bodies; instead of having stronger hands,
you now have a “hand-ax” or a “handsaw,” making up for the fact that as a species we do not have bodies as strong
as those of other animals.
Vygotsky applied the idea of human beings as “tool making animals” in a way unique to his contemporaries and
extended the idea to include a new kind of tool: mental tools or tools of the mind. Similar to the way that physical
tools extend our physical abilities by acting as an extension of our body, mental tools extend our mental abilities
by acting as an extension of our mind (Vygotsky, 1978). For example, quite often we find ourselves in a situation
when we need to remember too many things. It will not be a problem for few individuals who have a phenomenal
memory, but for the rest of us our memory store is limited in its capacity and we can benefit from some tool that
would expand our memory. In fact, over the course of centuries, humankind did develop many tools that serve as
“memory extensions.” From a simple string tied around a finger to shopping lists to personal digital devices (smart
phones)—these are all tools we use when we do not want to forget something important.
Similar to physical tools, mental tools make our lives easier; however, unlike physical tools, they do so not by
helping us change our environment but by helping us change ourselves. Without a tool we remain at the mercy of
an environment that may or may not accidentally prompt our memory (Think of all the times you walk into a
grocery store only to realize that you forgot what you were supposed to buy and leave with something that has
caught your eye!). On the other hand, with a tool such as a shopping list we take charge of our own behavior by
deciding what we want to remember and when we need to recall this information. Our actions thus change as a
result of tool use, from being “slaves to the environment” we become “masters of our own behavior.”
Another similarity between physical and mental tools is that humans teach their young how to use both; in other
words, children are not born knowing how to use existing tools or how to invent new ones. Therefore, for
Vygotsky, one of the major goals of education—formal as well as informal—is to help children acquire the tools of
their culture (Karpov, 1995). Teaching children how to use mental tools results in children mastering their own
behavior, gaining independence, and reaching a higher developmental level. As children are taught and practice an
increasing number of various mental tools, not only their external behaviors but their very minds are transformed,
leading to the emergence of a new category of mental functions: higher mental functions.
Lower and Higher Mental Functions

265
Like many of his contemporaries, Vygotsky divided mental processes into lower mental functions and higher
mental functions. In Vygotsky’s time, it was common to describe lower mental functions as something that can be
manifested in reflex, perceptual, and motor behaviors that are easy to observe and measure (think of Pavlov’s
experiments with dogs). Higher mental functions, on the other hand, were thought to be more complex processes
to which objective methods of study were not applicable and which could only be accessed through a person’s self-
report. Unlike his contemporaries, Vygotsky did not consider lower and higher mental functions to be completely
independent of each other but instead proposed a theory in which these two sets of functions interact (Vygotsky,
1997).
Vygotsky describes lower mental functions as common to human beings and higher animals. These functions are
innate and depend primarily on maturation to develop. Examples of lower mental functions include sensations,
spontaneous attention, associative memory, and sensorimotor intelligence.
Sensation refers to using any of the senses and is determined by the anatomy and physiology of a sensory system in
a particular species. For example, diurnal animals typically possess color vision while nocturnal animals are often
color-blind. Reactive attention refers to attention that is drawn to strong environmental stimuli, as when a dog
suddenly reacts to the sound of a garage door opening or a baby starts crying at the sound of thunder. Associative
memory is the ability to connect two stimuli together in memory after repeated presentation of the two together—
one stimuli triggers the memory of its pair. Remembering someone’s face or the phone number when hearing this
person’s name is an example of associative memory. In a similar way, laboratory animals remember the shortest
way to the food after having run the maze for numerous times. Sensorimotor intelligence in the Vygotskian
framework describes problem solving in situations that involve physical or motor manipulations and trial and
error.
Unique to humans, higher mental functions are cognitive processes acquired through learning and teaching. The
main difference between lower and higher mental functions is that the latter involve the use of mental tools.
Higher mental functions include mediated perception, focused attention, deliberate memory, and logical thinking.
When we distinguish between different colors, placing lime green in a different category than olive green, we are
using mediated perception. Focused attention describes the ability to concentrate on any stimulus, whether it
stands out or blends with the background. Finding a particular word on a page filled with printed words calls for
focused attention. Deliberate memory refers to the use of memory strategies to remember something. Logical
thinking involves the ability to solve problems mentally using logic and other strategies.
All higher mental functions are acquired in a culturally specific way that affects their development via a system of
practices common to a specific culture and the mental tools this culture has developed to carry out these practices.
Mediated perception, for example, is a higher mental function found in all humans, but different groups may
develop better differentiation of certain colors, smells, or tastes.
Vygotsky describes higher mental functions as deliberate, mediated, and internalized behaviors (Vygotsky, 1997).
By characterizing higher mental functions as deliberate, he means that they are controlled by the person and not
by the environment; their use is based on thought and choice. The behaviors guided by higher mental functions
can be directed or focused on specific aspects of the environment, such as ideas, perceptions, and images, while
ignoring other inputs. These deliberate behaviors become possible because they do not depend on the
environment in an immediate and direct fashion, but instead are mediated by the use of tools. Nondeliberate
behaviors depend on external circumstances. As an example, for some students whether they can answer a question
on a test depends on whether this piece of information was something they read most recently or something they
heard most frequently. In contrast, students who use focused attention and deliberate memory go through an extra
step of using tools—for instance, they underline or highlight specific words and passages in the textbook—to
make sure they will pay attention to these words later when studying for a test. By the time higher mental
functions are fully developed, most of the tools used are not external but internal (such as mnemonics) and so are
the processes involved in using these tools. Vygotsky describes this process as internalization, emphasizing that
when external behaviors “grow into the mind,” they maintain the same structure, focus, and function as their
external precursors.
266
For Vygotsky, higher mental functions do not appear in children in their fully developed form. Instead, they
undergo a long process of development in the course of which a fundamental reorganization of lower mental
functions occurs (Vygotsky, 1994). It means that as children start using higher mental functions more frequently,
their lower mental functions do not disappear completely but are used less and less. For example, as children
acquire language, they continue to use their associative memory but now they depend less and less on their ability
to recollect things spontaneously and more and more on the use of various memory strategies.
Vygotsky described the mechanism of the development of higher mental functions as their gradual transformation
from being shared by a child with two or more people to something that belongs to this child only. Vygotsky
called this transition from shared to individual the general law of cultural development, emphasizing that
[e]very function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the
individual level; first between people (inter-psychological), and then inside the child (intra-psychological).
This applies equally to voluntary attention, to logical memory, and to the formation of concepts. (Vygotsky,
1978, p. 57)
This view of higher mental functions differs significantly from other psychological theories that, while
acknowledging other people’s influences on a person’s individual development, still ultimately place all mental
processes in this individual’s mind. For Vygotsky, in contrast, not only what a child knows but also how this child
thinks, remembers, or attends is shaped by the child’s prior interactions with parents, teachers, and peers.
For Vygotskians, early childhood education is the first step in a long process in which young children are engaged
in the acquisition of “tools” and the development of higher mental functions that are learned from the people in
the child’s world.
The Vygotskian View Of Learning and Teaching

Vygotsky’s ideas about learning and teaching center around the concept of tools of the mind acquired by children
as they engage in social interactions with adults and peers across various contexts where formal and informal
instruction take place.
Learning Can Lead Development

The cultural-historical approach holds that human development involves a complex interplay between the
processes of natural development that are determined biologically and the processes of cultural development
brought about by the interactions of the growing individuals with other people and cultural artifacts. In more
practical terms, it means that although some learning cannot occur until the developmental prerequisites are in
place—such as in the case of children not being able to write until they reach a certain level of development of
their fine-motor skills—the opposite is also true: Certain developments in cognitive, social, or language areas
cannot simply emerge as a result of maturation but rather depend on what a child learns. Based on research done
on children of different ages raised in different cultures, Vygotsky concludes that some developments previously
thought to be universally present at a certain age, such as the ability to use abstract reasoning, in reality are an
outgrowth of a very specific kind of learning experience typically associated with formal schooling (Vygotsky,
1987). In the course of formal schooling, teachers teach—and students learn—a specific system of mental tools
that brings these students’ cognitive development to a qualitatively different level.
Zone of Proximal Development

Vygotsky’s idea of the zone of proximal development, or ZPD, reflects both the complexity of the relationship
between learning and development and the dynamics of the transitions
267
Figure 11–1 Zone of Proximal Development
Source: From Tools of the Mind (2nd ed.), by E. Bodrova and D. J. Leong, 2007, Columbus, OH:
Pearson.
from shared forms of mental processes to their individual forms (see Figure 11–1):
[What] we call the Zone of Proximal Development … is a distance between the actual developmental level
determined by individual problem solving and the level of development as determined through problem
solving under guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers.
(Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86)
Vygotsky used the word zone because he conceived children’s development not as points on a scale but as a
continuum of skills and competencies at different levels of mastery. By using the word proximal, he pointed out
that the zone is limited to those skills and competencies that will develop in the near future. Proximal is meant to
describe not all possible skills and competencies that will eventually emerge, but only those that are closest to
emergence at a specific time, or as Vygotsky put it, are “on the edge of emergence.”
Two levels of performance define the boundaries of a child’s ZPD:
The lower boundary is defined by the child’s level of independent performance. Independent performance is
what the child is capable of doing alone, without any help from anyone else.
The upper boundary is the most the child is capable of doing when given the help by a more knowledgeable
person, such as the teacher. It is this child’s level of assisted performance.
Between the levels of independent performance and assisted performance lie skills and competencies that require
varying degrees of assistance to surface: those that are closer to the lower boundary require only little help and
those that are closer to the upper boundary cannot be displayed by the child without a great deal of assistance.
268
These skills and competencies do not determine children’s developmental level but rather their learning potential.
In the absence of guidance or collaboration with more competent others, this potential might not be realized and
consequently a higher developmental level would be never attained.
A child’s ZPD is fluid and changes as the child learns. What a child can only do with assistance today the same
child will perform independently tomorrow. Then, as the child tackles more difficult tasks, a new level of assisted
performance emerges (see Figure 11–2). This cycle is repeated, as the child acquires increasingly more complex
skills and competencies.
Vygotsky used the idea of ZPD to demonstrate why methods of assessing children popular at his time cannot
produce an accurate picture of child development. In the case of IQ testing, for example, these methods, which
prohibited testers from providing any help to a
Figure 11–2 Changes in a Child’s ZPD Over

Time
Source: From Tools of the Mind (2nd ed.), by E. Bodrova and D. J. Leong, 2007, Columbus, OH:
Pearson.
child, did not discriminate between this child’s low level of performance being a result of mental retardation or
educational deprivation. Vygotsky suggested incorporating adults’ assistance in the form of hints, prompts, or
rephrasing the test questions into the very procedure of assessment. This modification allows for assessing not only
children’s existing skills and competencies but also the ones that have not yet surfaced because of the lack of
adequate shared experiences yet nonetheless have a potential to develop (Vygotsky, 1956). Vygotsky’s insight later
led to the emergence of a new methodology of assessment called “dynamic assessment” that is currently used in
such fields as special education and educating culturally and linguistically diverse learners (Poehner, 2008).
Vygotsky also defined ZPD as the area that should be targeted by instruction. He pointed out that in order to be
269
maximally effective, instruction should be aimed at each child’s individual ZPD (Vygotsky, 1978). Skills and
competencies that are outside the child’s zone cannot be affected by instruction either because the child has
already mastered them completely or because they are so difficult that at this point in time the child is not yet
ready to benefit from any assistance.
The Role of the Teacher in Children’s Learning and

Development
Consistent with his view of development as being culturally determined, Vygotsky believed that the role of the
teacher is more than teaching facts and skills. Teachers, he noted, can actually shape children’s development by
helping them acquire the mental tools of their culture. This view is reflected in the following three main principles
of Vygotskian-based education.
Teachers and Children Co-Construct Knowledge

Similar to other constructivists, Vygotsky believed that children construct their own understandings and do not
passively reproduce what is presented to them. However, for Vygotsky, children’s process of construction always
takes place in a cultural context and is mediated—directly or indirectly—by other people (Karpov, 2005). In the
classroom setting, a teacher can directly affect a child’s construction of knowledge by focusing the child’s attention
on a specific object or by using specific words. The teacher can also affect the child’s construction of knowledge in
an indirect way by orchestrating the context for this child’s interactions with other children or by providing
certain instructional materials.
Scaffolding Helps Children Make a Transition From

Assisted to Independent Performance
Even after children develop new skills and competencies sufficiently to perform a task with adult assistance, it may
not mean that tomorrow they will be ready to perform this task independently. For most children, the transition
from assisted to independent learning is a gradual process that involves moving from using a great deal of
assistance to slowly taking over until eventually no assistance is needed (Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976). For a
teacher, to facilitate this transition means that the teacher needs to scaffold student learning by first designing and
then following a plan for providing and withdrawing appropriate amounts of assistance at appropriate times.
Although not used by Vygotsky himself, the concept of scaffolding helps us understand how aiming instruction
within a child’s ZPD can promote this child’s learning and development.
Instruction Should Amplify Child Development and

Not Accelerate It
Vygotsky’s idea of effective teaching aimed at a child’s ZPD was further extended by his students, namely
Alexander Zaporozhets, who applied this idea to early childhood education. Emphasizing the need to teach skills
and competencies within rather than outside young children’s ZPD, Zaporozhets condemned the practice of
acceleration of development—something that intends to prematurely turn a toddler into a preschooler and a
preschooler into a first-grader (Zaporozhets, 1986). An alternative to this unnecessary acceleration is amplification
of development—using the child’s ZPD to its fullest by making sure that all skills and competencies that have
potential to emerge indeed emerge at the appropriate time.
270
The Vygotskian View Of Child Development
For Vygotsky, child development during the early years leading to school readiness is driven by the types of
interactions children have with the social environment centered on accomplishing important developmental tasks.
Social Situation of Development as the Main

Mechanism of Development
Vygotsky believed that child development includes both qualitative and quantitative changes. When qualitative
changes happen, the entire system of mental functions undergoes major restructuring, resulting in the emergence
of cognitive and social-emotional new formations or developmental accomplishments. Likewise, there are periods
when no new formations appear, but children continue to develop their existing competencies. During these
periods, growth occurs as a quantitative change in the number of things the child can remember and process.
Although not strictly a “stage theory,” Vygotsky’s view of child development includes the concept of “age
periods”—infancy, toddler-hood, preschool and kindergarten age, elementary school age, and adolescence—each
building on the previous one and each defined by its unique set of developmental accomplishments (Karpov,
2005). Children’s progress from one period to the next one is determined by the interaction between children’s
existing and emerging competencies on the one hand and their social situation of development on the other. Social
situation of development is composed of what society expects of children at a certain age, what kinds of activities
and interactions become available to them, and what kinds of mental tools adults help them to acquire. For
Vygotsky, social situation of development “represents the initial moment for all dynamic changes that occur in
development during the given period. It determines wholly and completely the forms and the path along which
the child will acquire ever newer personality characteristics, drawing them from the social reality as from the basic
source of development, the path along which the social becomes the individual” (Vygotsky, 1998, p. 198).
Vygotsky sees the changes in the social situation of development as the mechanism that propels development
forward by providing new and more advanced mental tools that continue to shape children’s growing
competencies.
Developmental Accomplishments and Leading

Activity
In the work of Vygotsky’s students, his original view of age periods was refined and expanded to form the theory
of child development that contains well-defined stages along with the explanation of the mechanisms underlying
children’s transition from one stage to the next (Karpov, 2005). One of the major innovations contributed by the
post-Vygotskians to his theory of child development is the introduction of the idea of leading activity that replaced
Vygotsky’s original notion of social situation of development. Leading activity is defined as a type of interaction
between children and the social environment that leads to the emergence of the developmental accomplishments
in one period of life and that will prepare them for the next period (Leont’ev, 1981). Developmental
accomplishments, in turn, are defined as competencies and skills that are not only new to a specific age period but
are also critical for the child’s ability to engage in a leading activity of the following period (Karpov, 2005).
Table 11–1 Leading Activities and

Developmental Accomplishments in Early
Childhood
271
Age Period Leading Activity Developmental Accomplishments
Emotional interactions with
Infancy Attachment
caregivers
Object-oriented sensorimotor actions
Object-oriented joint activity with
Toddlerhood Beginnings of symbolic thinking
adults
Beginnings of self-regulation
Language
Self-concept
Preschool and Ability to act on an internal mental
Make-believe play
Kindergarten plane
Symbolic thought
Self-regulation
Imagination
Integration of emotions and
cognition
Elementary Grades Learning activity Theoretical reasoning
Higher mental functions
Motivation to learn
For example, the ability to think in images is a developmental accomplishment for toddlers because this ability is
critical for the development of make-believe play, which is a leading activity of the preschool age. Table 11–1
summarizes the characteristics of the developmental periods of early childhood in the Vygotskian tradition.
The Vygotskian Approach to School Readiness

Vygotsky’s view on school readiness stems from his idea of social situation of development as a main force
propelling child development. The transition from preschool to school means major changes in the social
situations that the child participates in—a change in the nature of the interactions involved in schooling and in
the expectations associated with the role of student. To gain awareness of society’s expectations associated with the
role of a student and to develop the abilities to meet these expectations, children have to actually participate in
school activities and to enter specific social interactions with teachers and other students. In other words, for
Vygotsky, school readiness was being formed during the first months of schooling and not before to school entry.
However, certain accomplishments of preschool age make it easier for children to develop this readiness. Among
these accomplishments are mastery of some mental tools, development of self-regulation, and integration of
emotions and cognition. With these prerequisites in place, a preschool child could make the necessary transition
from learning that “follows the child’s own agenda” to learning that “follows the school agenda” (Vygotsky, 1956).
The Applications Of The Vygotskian Theory In The

Early Childhood Classroom
Educational philosophy of teaching young children based on the Vygotskian theory can be summarized as follows:
Teachers promote and foster development by engaging children in the activities that are the leading
activities for their age such as make-believe play.
• Teachers focus on promoting the development of higher mental functions and on children’s acquisition of
cultural tools and not on learning of discrete skills and concepts.
272
Interventions for children with special needs are based on the idea of re-mediation: Children are taught to
compensate for the deficiencies in their lower mental functions by developing higher mental functions using
specific mental tools.
Fostering Child Development by Engaging Children

in the Leading Activities
Because make-believe play is the leading activity for preschool and kindergarten-aged children, supporting play is a
priority in a Vygotsky-based early childhood classroom.
Vygotskian Definition of Play

As Vygotsky studied how play affects the young child’s emerging higher mental functions, he concluded that play
“is not the predominant form of activity, but is, in a certain sense, the leading source of development in preschool
years” (1967, p. 6). This idea of play being the leading source of development for young children was later
elaborated on by Vygotsky’s colleagues Alexei Leont’ev and Daniel Elkonin, who considered play the “leading
activity” for preschool- and kindergarten-aged children (Elkonin, 1972; Leont’ev, 1981). In their writings,
however, Vygotsky and his colleagues limited their definition of play to the dramatic or make-believe play of
preschoolers and children of primary school age. The Vygotskian definition of play does not include such activities
as object manipulations and explorations that are considered precursors to play and such activities as games and
sports that are considered an outgrowth of play. “Real” play, according to Vygotsky, has three components:
Children create an imaginary situation.
Children take on and act out roles.
Children follow a set of rules determined by specific roles.
Although imaginary situation and roles in make-believe play had often been mentioned by other researchers in
their analysis of play, the idea that play is not very spontaneous but is instead contingent on players abiding by a
set of rules was first introduced by Vygotsky. At first, the notion of play being the most restrictive context for a
child’s actions may sound completely counterintuitive. However, Vygotsky argued that this rule-based nature is an
essential characteristic of children’s make-believe play:
Whenever there is an imaginary situation in play, there are rules—not rules that are formulated in advance
and change during the course of the game, but rules stemming from the imaginary situation. Therefore, to
imagine that a child can behave in an imaginary situation without rules, i.e., as he behaves in a real situation,
is simply impossible. If the child is playing the role of a mother, then she has rules of maternal behavior. The
role the child plays, and her relationship to the object if the object has changed its meaning, will always stem
from the rules, i.e., the imaginary situation will always contain rules. In play the child is free. But this is an
illusory freedom. (Vygotsky, 1967, p. 10)
Make-Believe Play as a Source of Development

Vygotsky assigned play a special place in his theory, listing it specifically as one of the social contexts responsible
for creating young children’s ZPD:
In play the child is always behaving beyond his age, above his usual everyday behavior; in play he is, as it
were, a head above himself. Play contains in a concentrated form, as in the focus of a magnifying glass, all
developmental tendencies; it is as if the child tries to jump above his usual level. The relationship of play to
273
development should be compared to the relationship between instruction and development… . Play is a
source of development and creates the zone of proximal development. (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 74)
Vygotsky’s statement on play as a source of the ZPD means that young children’s performance in play is higher
than their performance in nonplay contexts. This idea was confirmed in a series of experiments done by
Vygotsky’s students. For example, Zinaida Manuilenko (1975) and Zinaida Istomina (1975) found that the young
child’s mental skills are at a higher level during play than during other activities, which represents operating at
what Vygotsky identified as the higher level of the ZPD. Manuilenko, in particular, found higher levels of self-
regulation of children’s physical behaviors in play than in nonplay contexts. For example, when a boy was asked to
be the lookout, he remained at his post and did not move for a longer period of time than he could when the
experimenter asked him to stand still in a laboratory condition.
In another study, Istomina compared the number of words children could deliberately remember during a
dramatic play session involving a grocery store with the number of words they could remember in a typical
laboratory experiment. In both situations, children were given a list of unrelated words to remember. In the
dramatic play situation, the words were presented as the items on a “shopping list” to use in a pretend grocery
store. In the laboratory experiment, the instructions were simply to memorize the words. Istomina found that
preschoolers remembered more items in the dramatic play condition, functioning at the level that older children
could demonstrate in the nonplay condition that was similar to a typical school task. These findings support
Vygotsky’s view of play as the “focus of a magnifying glass” in the earlier quotation, indicating that new
developmental accomplishments do become apparent in play far earlier than they do in other activities.
Vygotsky maintained that for children of preschool and kindergarten age, their mastery of academic skills is not as
good a predictor of their later scholastic abilities as the quality of their play. In a 4-year-old’s play, we can observe
higher levels of such abilities as attention, symbolizing, and problem solving than in other situations—we can
actually watch the child of tomorrow.
Implications of Vygotsky’s Theory of Play for Early

Childhood Educators
Vygotsky’s theory underscores the value of make-believe play for child development, including the development of
competencies that make children ready for formal schooling. First, play helps children develop the ability to self-
regulate their physical, social, and cognitive behaviors, that is, to engage in these behaviors following some external
or internalized rules rather than acting on impulse. Children who cannot pay attention or follow directions usually
have a hard time mastering academic subjects, as do children who cannot control their emotions. Contrary to a
typical adult’s view of play as a time when children are free to do whatever they please, Vygotsky viewed play as
the activity placing the most restraints on children’s actions and thus forcing children to practice self-regulation far
more often than in any other activity. These restraints come in the form of rules that a child has to follow: for
example, once she agrees to play “baby” and not “mommy” (baby does not use a knife and needs to wait to be fed)
or to use a paper plate to stand for a steering wheel and not for a pie (one can take a bite when holding a pie but
not a steering wheel).
Not all play is equally beneficial for the development of self-regulation. Current studies of the relationship
between play and self-regulation confirm Vygotsky’s belief that make-believe play can improve self-regulation,
especially in highly impulsive, “hard to manage” children (Berk, Mann, & Ogan, 2006). However, it happens
only when children are able to create a joint imaginary situation, take on the roles of various pretend characters,
and act these out using imaginary props, language, and symbolic gestures.
Another important outgrowth of make-believe play is abstract thinking. Using various props to represent “the real
things” in play, children learn to separate the meaning or idea of the
274
Figure 11–3 Realistic Play Props
Figure 11–4 Nonrealistic Play Props

object from the object itself. When a child pretends to “drive” a block on a carpet as if it were a truck, this child
separates the idea of “truckness” from a truck and attaches it to the block. This ability to separate the meaning
from the object is a precursor for the development of abstract thought when a child has to manipulate ideas that
may not have an immediate connection with the tangible objects:
A child learns to consciously recognize his own actions and becomes aware that every object has a meaning.
From the point of view of development, the fact of creating an imaginary situation can be regarded as a
means of developing abstract thought. (Vygotsky, 1967, p. 17)
As with self-regulation, not all make-believe play equally promotes the development of abstract thinking. The best
kind of play is where children use props that are unstructured and multifunctional as opposed to function specific
and realistic. With realistic toys, there is no need to separate meaning from the object because the real object and
the pretend one look alike and can be used in a similar manner (see Figure 11–3). On the other hand, when
children use nonrealistic props they not only have to constantly change the meaning of these props but also have
to use different words to describe these changes to their playmates (see Figure 11–4). For example, children can
use the same cardboard box first for a garage, then for a gas station, and finally for a grocery store. Because the box
275
looks the same as it represents all three buildings, children will need to communicate the change in its function by
naming it differently—otherwise a child playing “mechanic” will end up in the grocery store changing tires!
Table 11–2 shows the difference between the way a traditional early childhood classroom would support play and
the way a classroom using a Vygotskian approach, such as in a Tools of the Mind classroom, would support play.
Promoting Children’s Acquisition of Mental Tools

and Higher Mental Functions
For Vygotskians, the goal of education in general and early childhood education in particular is more than to
equip children with a set of specific skills and knowledge. Instead, they see this goal as helping children acquire
mental tools and higher mental functions (Bodrova & Leong, 2007). The examples of cultural tools that children
begin mastering at a very young age include gaining control of their external behavior through the use of self-
directed
276
Table 11–2 Supporting Play as a Leading
Activity of Young Children
Alternate View
speech, developing deliberate memory through the use of drawing and writing, and performing arithmetic
computation by counting on fingers. In all these instances, tools help children solve problems that require
engaging mental processes at the levels not yet available to them (e.g., when a task calls for deliberate
memorization or for focused attention). In a typical early childhood classroom, we can see many cases of children
using various tools to aid their learning such as using alphabet charts to remind them of the associations between
letter sounds and letter symbols or singing the ABC song to prompt their memory of the letter order in the
alphabet. In the Vygotskian view, the use of these tools not only assists children with the task at hand but actually
restructures their mind, supporting the development of higher mental functions (Bodrova, Leong, & Akhutina,
2011).
Private Speech as a Mental Tool

For Vygotsky, many mental tools are language based and language itself is the most powerful mental tool. Major
transformations in a child’s mind associated with the development of higher mental functions depend on how well
the child masters the use of speech, first oral and later written. According to Vygotsky, it is during the preschool
years that children start using their speech not only for communicating to others but also for communicating to
themselves and a new form of speech—private speech—emerges (Vygotsky, 1987). When children use private
speech they talk aloud, but many of their utterances are not addressed to anyone in particular and often cannot be
understood by anyone but the child herself. Unlike Piaget who associated this phenomenon with children’s
egocentrism and considered it a sign of immature thinking, Vygotsky viewed private speech as a step on the
continuum from public (social) speech to inner speech and eventually to verbal thinking (Vygotsky, 1987).1 From
this perspective, private speech becomes not a sign of immaturity but a sign of progressive development of
cognitive processes.
Vygotsky described two major changes occurring in the use of private speech during the preschool years. First, the
function of private speech changes. Used initially to simply accompany children’s practical actions, private speech
eventually becomes exclusively self-directed and changes its function to one of organizing children’s own
behaviors. At the same time, the syntax of private speech changes as well. From complete sentences typical for
social speech, a child’s utterances change into abbreviated phrases and single words unsuited for the purposes of
communication to other people but sufficient for communicating to oneself. Eventually, private speech goes inside
evolving into verbal thought. Vygotsky uses these two metamorphoses of private speech to illustrate the universal
path of the acquisition of cultural tools: They are first used externally in interactions with other people and then
internalized and used by an individual to master his/her own mental functions. The onset of private speech signals
an important development in self-regulation: starting with regulating their practical actions, children expand their
use of private speech to use it to regulate a variety of their mental processes (Bodrova et al., 2011).
The use of private speech as an essential mental tool for young children should be encouraged in the early
childhood classroom. Because for Vygotsky young children “think as they talk,” teachers should not try to keep
young children quiet when they engage in thinking and problem solving. On the contrary, current research
supports Vygotsky’s observations that children’s use of private speech increases as children attempt to solve more
challenging tasks. Although it is natural for an adult to think quietly before speaking, for young children
oftentimes the actual thought occurs in the process of expressing it, so a classroom full of very quiet kindergartners
may be a sign that there is not much thinking going on!
277
Written Speech as a Mental Tool
The central part of Vygotsky’s approach to early writing is the idea that children learn to employ the instrumental
function of written speech to expand their mental capacities:
The development of written language belongs to the … most obvious line of cultural development because it
is connected with the mastery of an external system of means developed and created in the process of cultural
development of humanity. (Vygotsky, 1997, p. 133)
Studies conducted by Vygotsky’s colleague Alexander Luria in connection with Vygotsky’s general research
program demonstrated that even very young children do use written symbols as memory aids (Luria, 1998). Some
of Luria’s findings (such as the ability of 3-year-old children to reliably “read” and “re-read” their own scribbles)
made their way into Western literature and inspired researchers to study early forms of writing that appear before
the onset of formal schooling (see, e.g., Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982). Vygotsky traced the roots of children’s
writing to their early drawings, concluding that these drawings are used in the function similar to written words,
both conveying only essential and constant characteristics of objects. From that Vygotsky concludes that young
children’s drawings are “a unique graphic speech, a graphic story about something … more speech than
representation” (Vygotsky, 1997, p. 138). It means that learning to write does not start from learning to form
letters but instead starts from learning to use symbolic marks to represent a message. Learning letters supplies the
final component to move the child from idiosyncratic forms of “drawing speech” to a conventional way of
recording speech in written words (see Figure 11–5).
Figure 11–5 A Sample Play Plan Done by a 4-

Year-Old Child in the Context of Make-Believe
278
Play
Discussing the methods of teaching writing, Vygotsky emphasizes that “teaching must be set up so that reading
and writing satisfy the child’s need” and that the goal of the instruction should be “to teach a child written
language and not writing the alphabet” (Vygotsky, 1997, p. 147). In the absence of play and self-initiated
drawing, children who learn to write master merely the skills of letter formation: they do not use written language
the way it is supposed to be used in the culture, as means of communication with others and with oneself.
Vygotsky uses an example of perfect handwriting produced by 4-year-olds attending Montessori schools: The
content of their letters indicated that they did not use writing to express their own thoughts or feelings; they were
writing what the teachers dictated to them or copied the teacher’s messages (coincidentally, make-believe play has
never been and still is not a part of the traditional Montessori curriculum).
At the same time, Vygotsky advocates early instruction in writing (at ages 3 to 4) that emphasizes the
communicative and instrumental function of written language and not the mechanics of its production (Vygotsky,
1997). True to his own belief that good instruction should lead development and not follow it, Vygotsky explains
the value of learning to write early, not in the context of preparing children for formal schooling, but in the
broader context of using cultural tools for supporting the development of higher mental functions.
Table 11–3 summarizes the differences between how a traditional early childhood classroom and a Vygotskian-
based classroom, such as in a Tools of the Mind classroom, would support the use of mental tools.
Re-mediation as the Core Principle of Special

Education
Abnormal psychology and special education for Vygotsky were one of his passions and at the same time one of the
main sources of his theoretical
279
Table 11–3 Supporting Children’s Use of
“Mental Tools” Throughout the Day
Alternate View
insights. Vygotsky’s view of disabilities is consistent with his major principle of social determination of the human
mind. For him, a disability is a sociocultural and developmental phenomenon, and not a biological one.
280
Figure 11–6 Center Planning Wheel
Social and Cultural Nature of Disabilities
Vygotsky believed that children with disabilities follow a different developmental path than their typically
developing peers, with their disability affecting other areas of development in a complex and systemic way. To
emphasize the complex and systemic nature of this relationship, Vygotsky used the term disontogenesis or
“distorted development,” emphasizing that distortions of development as well as the normal path of development
are always culturally specific. The major components that determine the course of development for a child with a
disability include the primary disability (e.g., visual impairment or restricted movements) and the social context in
which the child develops (Vygotsky, 1993). This social context would determine the extent to which this child
would be considered (and will consider himself) “disabled.” For example, compare two children who experience
similar problems in coordinating movements of their eyes while focusing on near objects. For a child living in a
Western industrialized country, this problem will interfere with his ability to track print when reading. On the
other hand, a child living in a herding community might not even have a need for tracking small objects because
most of his daily tasks involve looking at larger objects at a distance. Evidently, the same visual “deficit” may go
virtually unnoticed in a society that does not rely on written texts for carrying out essential tasks, but may put
another child at risk of developing reading disability and sometimes even on the road to academic failure
associated with the possibility of subsequent social and emotional complications.
As a result of the interaction between the primary disability and the social context, a secondary disability can
develop. Although the child’s primary disabilities affect primarily lower mental functions, secondary disabilities are
the distortions of higher mental functions. The reason that the secondary disabilities develop is because primary
disabilities often prevent a child from mastering cultural tools critical for engaging in social interactions. In turn,
limited social interactions prevent the child from acquiring even more cultural tools, which eventually leads to
systemic distortions in this child’s mental functioning. By contrast, if the social context provides this child with an
opportunity to learn an alternative set of cultural tools, this child may be able to participate in a wide range of
social interactions and as a result develop higher mental functions.
Vygotsky’s Approach to Special Education

Unlike other approaches to special education that focus on restoring the very function that is affected, for
Vygotsky the primary disability should not be the main focus of the re-mediation efforts (Vygotsky, 1993). He
argues that, contrary to common wisdom, a primary disability is not the easiest one but the hardest one to
281
remediate because it affects lower mental functions. Lower mental functions are biologically determined (in
today’s language, we would call them “hard-wired”) and it is exactly because of their biological nature that they
cannot be changed by means other than radical medical intervention, such as inserting a hearing implant to
improve hearing. On the other hand, higher mental functions are culturally and socially determined; as such, they
can be successfully remediated in the course of specifically designed educational interventions. Vygotsky advocates
focusing on higher and not lower mental functions in remediation, contending that “the developmental
limitations in higher knowledge go beyond sensorimotor training which is possible in the elementary processes.
Thought is the highest form of compensation for the insufficiencies of visual perception” (Vygotsky, 1993, p. 204; italics
in original).
For Vygotsky and his students, the way to engage higher mental functions to compensate for the deficiencies in
lower mental functions is by using specific mental tools. Because all mental tools work as mediators, helping
children gain control over their own mental functions, replacing a set of tools that do not work for a child with a
disability with another set can be called remediation. The best-known example of such re-mediation is teaching
visually impaired children to use Braille symbols instead of regular letters. Vygotsky’s students as well as modern
educators working in the cultural-historical tradition extended this approach to many other disabilities, designing
many disability-specific tools as well as strategies to teach these, thus creating the system of special education based
on the ideas of re-mediation (Daniels & Hedegaard, 2011).
Conclusion
In this chapter, we have discussed the Vygotskian approach to early childhood education, summarizing the major
tenants of his theory and the application of these ideas to practical classroom interactions. The Vygotskian
approach helps teachers to understand their role in the learning and teaching process with emphasis on “process”
rather than product and the importance of developing higher mental functions. In the section on applications to
the classroom, it is clear that this theoretical view leads to specific recommendations for the development of make-
believe play, the development of literacy, and the kinds of interventions that should be used when working with
children with special needs.
Reflect On
1. What are tools of mind and why is helping children acquire them a major goal of education for Vygotsky?
How is this concern realized in the Tools of Mind curriculum?
2. How does adult mediation assist the internalization of higher mental functions in young children? Give an
example from the Tools of Mind program.
3. Why is ZPD critical in teaching and assessment?
4. Does scaffolding and generally supporting the child amount to the same thing?
5. How is the Tools of Mind program similar to and/or different from other curricular models with respect to
play and routines of the classroom?
Endnote
1. 1. Vygotsky used the term egocentric speech to describe audible self-directed speech; however, in the
Western literature, this phenomenon is commonly referred to as private speech (see, e.g., Berk & Winsler,
1995).
282
Selected Resources
Web site on Vygotsky
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Vygotsky
Vygotsky’s Works online

www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/
Classroom Applications/Curriculum
www.toolsofthemind.org
DVDs
Vygotsky: An Introduction, Davidson Films, 1994
Play: The Vygotskian Approach, Davidson Films, 1996
Scaffolding Self-Regulated Learning in the Primary Classrooms, Davidson Films, 1996
www.davidsonfilmsstore.com
Lev Vygotsky Documentary, 2009
www.vygotskydocumentary.com/index.html
Books on Vygotsky
The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky, by H. Daniels, M. Cole, and J. Wertsch (Eds.), 2007, New York, NY:
Vygotsky’s Psychology: A Biography of Ideas, by A. Kozulin, 1990, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky’s Educational Theory in Cultural Context, by A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, and S. Miller (Eds.), 2003,
Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky and Education: Instructional Implications and Applications of Sociohistorical Psychology, by L. C. Moll (Ed.),
1990, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Understanding Vygotsky. A Quest for Synthesis, by R. Van der Veer and J. Valsiner, 1991, Oxford, England: Basil
Blackwell.
Selected Readings From Vygotsky

The Vygotsky Reader, by R. Van der Veer and J. Valsiner (Eds.), 1994, Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
The Essential Vygotsky, by R. Rieber and D. Robinson (Eds.), 2004, New York, NY: Kluwer/Plenum.
References
1. Berk, L. E., & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children’s learning: Vygotsky and early childhood education.
Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
283
2. Berk, L. E., Mann, T. D., & Ogan, A. T. (2006). Make-believe play: Wellspring for development of self-
regulation. In D. G. Singer, R. M. Golinkoff, & K. A. Hirsh-Pasek (Eds.), Play-learning: How play motivates
and enhances cognitive and social-emotional growth (pp. 74–100). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
3. Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (2007). Tools of the mind (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Pearson.
4. Bodrova, E., Leong, D., & Akhutina, T. (2011). When everything new is well forgotten old:
Vygotsky/Luria insights in the development of executive functions. New Directions in Child and Adolescent
5. Daniels, H., & Hedegaard, M. (Eds.) (2011). Vygotsky and special needs education: Rethinking support for
children and schools. New York, NY: Continuum.
6. Elkonin, D. (1972). Toward the problem of stages in the mental development of the child. Soviet Psychology,
10, 225–251.
7. Elkonin, D. (1978). Psychologija igry [The psychology of play]. Moscow, Russia: Pedagogika.
8. Ferreiro, E., & Teberosky, A. (1982). Literacy before schooling. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.
9. Istomina, Z. M. (1975). The developmental of voluntary memory in preschool-age children. Soviet

Psychology, 13 (4), 5–64.
10. Karpov, Yu. V. (1995). L. S. Vygotsky as the founder of a new approach to instruction. School Psychology
International, 16 (2), 131–142.
11. Karpov, Yu. V. (2005). The neo-Vygotskian approach to child development. New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
12. Leont’ev, A. N. (1981). Problems of the development of mind. Moscow, Russia: Progress Publishers.
13. Luria, A. (1998). The development of writing in the child. In M. K. de Oliveira & J. Valsiner (Eds.),
Literacy in human development (pp. 15–56). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. (Original work published 1929)
14. Manuilenko, Z. V. (1975). The development of voluntary behavior memory in preschool-age children.
Soviet Psychology, 13 (4), 65–116.
15. Poehner, M. E. (2008). Dynamic assessment: A Vygotskian approach to understanding and promoting L2
development. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
16. Vygotsky, L. S. (1956). Izbrannye Psychologicheskije Trudy [Selected psychological studies]. Moscow, Russia:
RSFSR Academy of Pedagogical Sciences.
17. Vygotsky, L. S. (1967). Play and its role in the mental development of the child. Soviet Psychology, 5, 6-18.
(Original work published in 1933)
18. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
19. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Reiber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of
L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1. Problems of general psychology (N. Minick, Trans.; pp. 39–285). New York, NY:
Plenum Press. (Original work published 1934)
20. Vygotsky, L. S. (1993). The fundamentals of defectology (abnormal psychology and learning disabilities) (J. E.
Knox & C. B. Stevens, Trans.; Vol. 2). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
21. Vygotsky, L. (1994). The problem of the cultural development of the child. In R. v. d. Veer & J. Valsiner
284
(Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 57–72). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
22. Vygotsky, L. (1997). The history of the development of higher mental functions (M. J. Hall, Trans.; Vol. 4).
New York, NY: Plenum Press.
23. Vygotsky, L. S. (1998). Child psychology (Vol. 5). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
24. Wood, D., Bruner, J. C., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 17, 89–100.
25. Zaporozhets, A. (1986). Izbrannye psychologicheskie trudy [Selected works]. Moscow, Russia: Pedagogika.
285
Chapter 12 The Developmental-Interaction Approach
at Bank Street College of Education
Harriett K. Cuffaro
and
Nancy Nager
Bank Street College of Education
Describe the history and evolution
Explain the basic principles
Detail the curriculum
Discuss the implications for teacher education
Some use the term the Bank Street approach to describe this method of early childhood education, but many
practitioners and proponents prefer the term the developmental-interaction approach. Although admittedly more
cumbersome, developmental-interaction specifies key features of the approach and removes it from its
geographically specific site of origin. Many early childhood and elementary schools, as well as individual classroom
teachers, consider themselves exemplars of this approach to teaching, but Bank Street College of Education claims
the longest consistent association with this way of thinking about and practicing education.
The term developmental-interaction calls immediate attention to the centrality of the concept of development, the
ways in which children’s (and adults’) modes of apprehending, understanding, and responding to the world
change and grow as a consequence of their continuing experience of living. The term interaction refers to the tenet
that thinking and emotion are interconnected, interacting spheres of development; it also highlights the
importance of engagement with the environment of people and the material world. The term has been in use since
1971 (see, e.g., Biber, Shapiro, & Wickens, 1971; Goffin, 1994; Nager & Shapiro, 2000; Shapiro & Biber, 1972;
Shapiro & Weber, 1981), but the basic ideas have a much longer history. We begin with the origins of these
principles and practices both to indicate the forerunners of several of the key educational ideas and to demonstrate
that programs for young children have a more extensive history than is often recognized.
History and Evolution

One notable aspect of the early days of the 20th century, a period now known as the progressive era, was that
many women were rebelling against conventional restrictions on women’s lives. Social reformers were exposing
social inequities and working to show ways toward a more democratic, egalitarian society. For example, Jane
Addams and Lillian Wald were pioneering social workers; Susan B. Anthony, Lucretia Mott, and Elizabeth Cady
Stanton fought for women’s suffrage. In New York City alone, there were innovative educators such as Caroline
Pratt, who founded the Play School, later known as the City and Country School; Elisabeth Irwin, who founded
the Little Red School House; and Margaret Naumberg, who began the Walden School.
Among the small, independent educational enterprises designed to model new ways of teaching and new social
arrangements was the Bureau of Educational Experiments. Founded in 1916 by Lucy Sprague Mitchell, it later
became Bank Street College of Education. Mitchell was strongly influenced by the work of John Dewey, a
286
philosopher, psychologist, educator, and prolific writer, whose ideas still inform thinking about education.
Dewey’s belief in the importance of education for the development of a democratic society was crucial. Central,
too, was the proposition that school learning should be connected to children’s lives in meaningful ways. The
school that Dewey founded at the University of Chicago in 1896 was a laboratory, synthesizing the study of
human development and the creation of curriculum. The school was an experiment in guiding children’s
development toward greater collaboration and living out democratic ideals (see, e.g., Cahan, 1992; Dewey,
1936/1991a, 1937/1991b; Tanner, 1997).
Mitchell founded the Bureau as a research organization; Harriet Johnson, who had been working for the Public
Education Association, became the founding director of the Bureau’s nursery school in 1919. The school was
designed to be an arena for studying children and for devising teaching practices that fostered growth and
development. When Bureau staff—teachers and researchers—spoke of development or of schooling, they did not
refer only to cognitive gains. They saw children’s growth as encompassing physical, social, emotional, aesthetic,
and intellectual domains. The concept of “the whole child” captures a salient aspect of this approach to education
(see Biber, 1972). The Bureau was part of an informal network of experimental schools that shared a commitment
to progressive pedagogy and a spirit of inquiry (see Winsor, 1973, for a compilation of bulletins from these
schools).
Mitchell combined a full-scale career with an active family life; she was a pioneer of what her biographer, Joyce
Antler (1981, 1987), calls “feminism as life process.” Like Dewey, she was a strong believer in the then remarkable
idea that schools that would enhance and support children’s growth should be based on knowing more about how
children learn, how to build on their interests, and how to introduce concepts and knowledge in ways that made
sense to children. In Two Lives, a book that combines her autobiography and a biography of her husband, the
economist Wesley Clair Mitchell, she wrote, “It seemed to me that knowledge gained through all the kinds of
work I had seen … was relevant to a study of children, and surely one had to understand children in order to plan
a school that was right for their development” (Mitchell, 1953, p. 273).
Over time, interest grew in making this kind of education available to more children of preschool age and
extending it into the elementary years. In 1930, the Cooperative School for Teachers was initiated to prepare
teachers to work in these new ways and to help teachers learn as the children did: by active experimentation. This
approach is compatible with what is now known as constructivism.
Subsequently, Mitchell and the Bureau (later, College) staff worked in public school classrooms where teachers
volunteered to have staff members bring curriculum ideas and materials to their classrooms and model teaching
techniques. The Public School Workshops, as they were called, continued for many years in New York City and
neighboring communities. The staff introduced progressive educational ideas to many schools that followed
basically traditional teaching methods. In turn, staff had the opportunity to work with a more diverse student and
teacher population. In this sense, the workshops laid the groundwork for Bank Street’s leadership and
participation in national educational programs such as Head Start and Follow Through (Shapiro, 2003). More
recently, Bank Street has been engaged in a notably successful collaboration with the public schools of Newark,
New Jersey, in a multiyear restructuring of early childhood education (Silin & Lippman, 2003).
Mitchell was joined by dedicated colleagues who made important contributions to clarifying and expanding the
fundamental philosophy of the developmental-interaction approach. Many deserve mention, but Barbara Biber
stands out. A volume of her collected papers represents 50 years of thoughtful attention to the blending of
psychological and educational insights (Biber, 1984; see also, Zimiles, 1997). Her work demonstrated
psychological depth, a keen understanding of children’s development, and a pervasive faith in the potential power
of schooling to provide a context for living democratic ideals.
Two concepts of broad scope were central to the evolving developmental-interaction approach: progressivism and
mental health. Although the term mental health is no longer in common use, its meaning has been incorporated
into generally accepted views of the potential of schooling for fostering healthy development. The school was seen
as a vehicle for promoting mental health by providing opportunities for creative and satisfying work; by cultivating
cooperation rather than competitiveness; by offering children meaningful and stimulating rather than rote and
287
fragmented learning; by nurturing individuality; and by furthering values of social democracy. The school was,
and is, seen as much more than simply a place to learn basic cognitive skills. Certainly, the developmental-
interaction approach does not fit what Freire (1970) described as a “banking model” of education, one in which
the expert teacher deposits knowledge into the passive child recipient.
Basic Principles
As noted, the roots of the developmental-interaction approach are found in two major areas: educational theorists
and practitioners—primarily John Dewey and early progressive pioneers such as Lucy Sprague Mitchell, Harriet
Johnson, Caroline Pratt, and Susan Isaacs—and developmental theorists, especially those who viewed
development in dynamic terms and in social context—such as Anna Freud (1974), Erik Erikson (1963), Heinz
Werner (1961), Jean Piaget (1952), and Kurt Lewin (1935).
Several general principles about development and children’s interactions with the social and physical environment
are basic to understanding the developmental-interaction approach. A fundamental tenet has already been
mentioned in the definition but bears repeating because it is a distinctive feature of the approach: “that the growth
of cognitive function … cannot be separated from the growth of interpersonal processes” (Shapiro & Biber, 1972,
p. 61). This guiding principle governs the theory and practice of the developmental-interaction approach. The
concept of development is dynamic. It is not a simple maturational unfolding but, rather, involves shifts in the
way individuals organize and respond to experiences. True to the constructivist paradigm, the child is viewed as an
active maker of meaning; the school must provide opportunities for authentic problem solving.
Another basic principle is that engaging actively with the environment—both physical and social—is intrinsic to
human motivation. Further, as children grow, they construct more and more complex ways of making sense of the
world. In general, the direction of growth involves movement from simpler to more complex and integrated
modes.
When thinking about developmental sequences, one must remember that individuals are never at a fixed point on
a straight line but operate within a range of possibilities. Earlier ways of organizing experience are not eradicated
but become integrated into more advanced systems. Although the concept of stages was invoked in the past to
describe sequential patterns of developmental organization, recent research has raised serious questions about the
invariance and universality of stage concepts.
A central idea shared with numerous other educational approaches is the importance of development of a sense of
self as a unique and independent being. The idea of self described in developmental-interaction is informed by the
thinking of George Herbert Mead (1934):
[T]he self is both image and instrument. It emerges as the result of a maturing process in which
differentiation of objects and other people becomes progressively more refined and self-knowledge is built up
from repeated awareness and assessment of the powers of the self in the course of mastering the environment.
The shape and quality of the self reflect the images of important people in the growing child’s life. (Biber &
Franklin, 1967, pp. 13–14)
Growth and maturing involve conflict. Conflict is necessary for development—sometimes within the self,
sometimes with others. The nature of interaction with significant figures in the child’s life and the demands of the
culture will determine the way conflicts are resolved.
In recent years, the work of the Russian psychologist and educator Lev Vygotsky has had a major impact on our
conceptualization of interaction. We cannot claim that his work influenced earlier formulations, because the
relevant writings were not translated into English until 1978. However, his work and that of his followers is now
providing an important perspective that highlights the social context for children’s learning and development and
emphasizes the interactive nature of learning (see, e.g., Moll, 1990; Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1922–1935/1978;
Wertsch, 1985).
288
From these general principles of development and interaction, a picture emerges of the learner and future citizen.
School becomes a place to promote the development of competence in all areas of children’s lives and helps them
attain a sense of autonomy and personal and group identity. The development of social relatedness is equally
stressed.1 The school empowers children to deal effectively with their environments. It is an active community,
connected to the social world of which it is a part, rather than an isolated place for learning lessons. This means
that the school shares responsibility with children’s families and neighborhood institutions. Sharing responsibility
means sharing power and actively seeking engagement. In a time of increased immigration and greater diversity in
school populations, these points take on enhanced meanings.
Curriculum
Explicitly or implicitly, any theory or philosophy of education holds within it a view of the learner, consideration
of the relationship between learning and teaching, and a statement of what knowledge is deemed most worthy of
knowing. As evident throughout this volume, approaches to early childhood education differ in the degree of
exactness and specificity required in the relationship between theory or philosophy and practice. Some educational
programs translate theory into explicit goals and strategies and the teacher is seen as a skilled implementer of a
delivered curriculum. In contrast, in educational programs like developmental-interaction, the underlying
philosophy generates principles that guide, rather than determine, practice. In such programs, teachers are
expected to develop curriculum content and practices within a stated framework of valued aims and beliefs
(Schoon-maker & Ryan, 1996). From the history, philosophy, and developmental theory of Bank Street, how are
ideas and expectations realized in and through practice? How does this approach to education respond to the
fundamental how, what, when, where, and why questions of curriculum? What choices are made concerning
knowledge? How are the teacher and learner portrayed?
The Learner
From birth, children are seen as curious beings who are actively engaged in interaction with their social and
physical environment and who, through sensorial exploration and experimentation, work eagerly to make sense of
the world in which they live. Each child has a history of experiences in a world shaped and influenced by the social
forces of family, community, and culture. In their encounters with the social and physical environment, children
respond with a wholeness of self. As Lucy Sprague Mitchell (1951) noted,
“[A] child is not to be regarded as a sum of special faculties to be trained or developed separately; [the child]
is to be regarded as a person, an organism, reacting to experiences as a whole … for purposes of discussion a
child may be divided into a physical body; an intelligence with certain capacities and limitations; a social
being reacting to others—either adults or his peers; a creature capable of definite social responses. But no one
has ever met such split-off division of a child all by itself.” (p. 189)
The concept of a democratic society guides the development and education of the learner in the developmental-
interaction approach, influencing curricular decisions about content, practices, and the quality of the social and
physical environment. This all-permeating concept reflects Bank Street’s historical roots in the progressive
movement and the influence of Dewey’s educational philosophy in which school and society, democracy and
education, are intrinsically connected. The communication, participation, and associated living essential to a
democratic society become a way of life to be experienced in the community of the classroom (Cuffaro, 1995;
Dewey, 1936/1991a). “If we really want to know what democracy is like, we have to have firsthand contacts with
it—that is, we have to live democratically. This holds true for teachers and children alike” (Mitchell, 1942, p. 1).
What might democracy look like in a classroom of 3- or 5-, or 8-year-olds?
Knowledge and Experience
289
In the Bank Street approach, social studies is the core or center of the curriculum. Social studies is about the
relationships between and among people and their environment, the world in which we live and our place in it. It
concerns the near and far and past and present. Fundamental to this approach is that the school provides
consistent opportunities for children to experience democratic living.
[T]he responsibility of the social studies program is to give children a sense of man’s use of his environment
and the role which technology plays in the development of that environment, and understanding of the
meaning and structure of society and appreciation of man’s striving toward the beautiful, the attainment of
his goals. (Winsor, 1957, p. 397)
It is essential that the what and how of learning are interconnected. What one learns about the world is not
separated from how that knowledge is gained and used. From its inception, fundamental to this approach to
education is the concept of learning from experience.
To “learn from experience” is to make a backward and forward connection between what we do to things and
what we enjoy and suffer from things in consequence. Under such conditions, doing becomes a trying, an
experiment with the world to find out what it is like; the undergoing becomes an instruction—the discovery of the
connection of things (Dewey, 1916/1966, p. 140).
To learn from experience, children must engage directly and actively with the social and physical environment and
be offered varied opportunities to see, hear, touch, smell, and taste their world. Thinking, sensing, feeling children
make connections and discover relationships. To make what is learned and discovered their own, children also
need opportunities to give form to and express the connections they are making. Mitchell (1951) named this
process intake and outgo—having an experience as children “take in” the world and the necessary “outgo” as
children express, through art, writing, block building, and discussion, their view of the world they are creatively
constructing.
For experience to be educative there must also be continuity—where “every experience both takes up something
from those which have gone before and modifies in some way the quality of those which come after” (Dewey,
1938/1963, p. 35). Experience, community, communication, connections, relationships, experiment, continuity, and
problem solving are key terms in the developmental-interaction approach.
The Teacher
The classroom is a learning situation in which the teacher becomes the link between the child’s personal world of
interests and experiences and the objective, ordered world of the fields of study (Dewey, 1902/1959). Teaching is
complex and demanding, requiring knowledge, skills, and dispositions. Firmly grounded in knowledge of
development, coupled with understanding each child’s individuality, and with deep knowledge of the curriculum
content, the teacher’s task is to consider, analyze, and integrate meaningfully the what, how, when, and where of
daily classroom life. Teachers must be knowledgeable in the content of the social study not for giving children
information but as a guide to asking meaningful questions; to planning opportunities for their experiencing (trips,
books, activities); to knowing available resources; and to assessing the development of the study. Academic and
practical skills are embedded throughout the curriculum. Guiding the teacher’s consideration of these many
factors is the why of education, the principles of a democratic community. Consequently, attention is given to
creating a social atmosphere in the classroom that will invite discussion and the presence of varied perspectives
while also encouraging and supporting a common purpose in working together.
The Learning Environment

What does a developmental-interaction classroom look like? It is a dynamic environment that welcomes active
participation, cooperation and independence, has variety and means and materials for expression and
communication. There are unit and hollow blocks, clay, paint, water, sand, paper, crayons, and wood, materials
290
whose lack of structure invites activity, experimentation, imagination, and transformation. There are also more
structured materials, such as puzzles, manipulatives, Cuisenaire rods, Dienes blocks, teacher-made materials, paper
and pencils for writing, and a wide range of books. Also included are activities such as cooking, planting, weaving,
and computer use in the primary grades. The inclusion of materials and activities is determined on the basis of the
richness of the opportunities they provide for exploration, discovery, and further learning. The allocation of space
provides ample room for dramatic play, block building, and group meetings, as well as space to work alone or in a
small group. Flexibility in the schedule provides extended periods of time for children to actively explore the
potential of materials, to take trips, to become involved in expanding ideas and interests, and to work together.
Flexibility exists within the familiar context of the expected routines of snack, lunch, story, rest, specials, and
outdoor periods.
A consistent part of daily classroom life is creating an environment that stimulates literacy with many and varied
opportunities for speaking and listening, conversations and discussions, listening to and writing stories, reading,
singing, and rhyming. Developments in the fields of anthropology, social theory, and linguistics have influenced
our understanding of literacy. Ever-growing developments in technology also influence our thinking about
literacy. To speaking, listening, reading, and writing, we now add viewing—what children do—as they respond to
and interact with the increasing presence of computers, videos, and television in their lives. Printed and written
words now include movement, action, sound, and images. As we enlarge and integrate our understanding of
literacy, a range of strategies is necessary to respond to the individuality of children, including features from whole
language and the earlier language experience approach, as well as phonetic understanding.
Understanding that words, printed or spoken, may be insufficient for young children to communicate their
complex questions and concerns, other opportunities for communication are offered through art materials. It is
with paint, clay, crayons, paper, and wood that children have varied opportunities to give form to and express
their thoughts and feelings. From beginning colorful crayon strokes of “rain” on paper, to paintings that tell a
story, to murals and models that integrate the trips and information gathered in their social studies, children
construct and communicate their understanding of the world (Gwathmey & Mott, 2000; Levinger & Mott,
1992).
In every classroom, beginning with the youngest children and continuing into the 6-and 7-year-old groups, there
is a large area devoted to blocks. It is with this material, blocks, that young children engage in an exciting journey
into the world of mathematics—an essential means for investigating, ordering, and making sense of their social
and physical worlds. Exploring the harmonious relationships between and among blocks based on the size of the
unit block, children experience and intuit patterns, part–whole relationships, fractions and geometric forms,
adding and subtracting blocks as they construct their buildings. With time, what was intuited is named: “Next to
the triangle I need a ‘brickie’ (the unit) but there are no more on the shelf … I know, I’ll use two squares.”
Individually and in group discussions, mathematical thinking increasingly becomes a daily tool for investigating,
recording, and understanding information about the world. Open-ended questions posed by teachers coupled
with children’s curiosity can lead to graphs that record and tabulate how each student travels to school as well as
surveys that gather data about the number of people in each family and record the number and type of pets in
households. Through all these varied activities and probing questions that combine mathematical thinking and
language, children work hard to create a firm, ordered foundation of understanding in their ongoing journey of
imagining and making sense of the world.
Experiencing and Integrating Knowledge

In social studies, the history and story of people’s lives—their struggles, aspirations, accomplishments, hopes—are
viewed from the perspective of different fields of knowledge. The centrality of the social in social studies brings
questions and ideas back to people. As Dewey noted in a discussion of geography, one of the disciplines within
social studies, “the ultimate significance of lake, river, mountain, and plain is not physical but social; it is the part
it plays in modifying and directing human relationships” (Dewey, 1909/1975, pp. 34–35). Lucy Sprague Mitchell
291
(1934) adds further detail to this perspective in her discussion of “human geography”:
For human geography deals with the interrelations between the needs of human beings and the outside
environment in which they must satisfy their needs. One half of human geography is what people do to
modify the earth’s surface; the other half is what the phenomena of the earth’s surface do to condition men’s
activities, most of which are concerned with their work. (p. 100)
In social studies, multiple opportunities are offered for questioning, problem solving, and making sense of the
social and physical environment of our interactions. In such studies there is an ever-widening spiral of learning
and understanding of self and the world—for example, 3-year-olds’ interest and exploration of themselves and
their families; 5-year-olds’ study of community services and jobs; 8-year-olds’ research on the history of the
original settlers of the area in which they live.
The Family
It is essential that the teacher be aware of the multiple meanings of family for the children in the class and makes
no assumptions about the composition of the family or the values it holds. It seems safe to assume that all families
want the best for their children, but it does not necessarily follow that we know what a particular family considers
best. In many instances, family values may conflict with the values of the school and the larger culture (see, e.g.,
Delpit, 2006; Ramsey, 2004; Wasow, 2000).
Self and family are topics of abiding interest for children and a familiar place from which to branch out into the
larger world. In a classroom of 3-year-olds, the study of family might be evident in photographs of children’s
families posted at the children’s eye level. Conversations are stimulated between and among children as they make
comparisons and find similarities and differences. Diversity among family structures is discussed at group
meetings, and ideas and conversations are extended through books and stories that include the many ways in
which families are constituted—traditional and extended families, gay and lesbian–headed families, single parents
(see, e.g., Casper, Cuffaro, Schultz, Silin, & Wickens, 1996; Casper & Schultz, 1999). From each family in the
group there are songs and stories to hear, favorite foods to be tasted, and holidays and traditions to learn about.
Trips within the school and in the immediate neighborhood begin to expand the children’s worlds and in their
subsequent dramatic play, children reconstruct their experiences and experiment with their increasing
understanding of their immediate world. Within such multiple sharing of interests and stories, of self and family, a
sense of community begins to grow.
The Community
Gradually, children’s interest in the world outside the family broadens. Making sense of the world now includes
unraveling the mysteries of a highly technological and complex world where origins are often hidden. “How does
that work?” “Who’s the boss?” “Why?” are the questions of 5-year-olds. When the teacher adds a simple question,
“What is a neighborhood?” a foundation can be laid for focusing, organizing, and directing children’s curiosities
and interests and beginning a study of community life. In the discussions that follow, children have the
opportunity to think about and express their ideas, their information, and misinformation. Extending the scope of
the initial question, a new question can be posed: “What do families need?” This may lead to investigating
different types of food and housing; the services provided in the community; the variety of neighborhood stores;
available means of transportation; and people’s work. In researching and exploring these varied questions through
interviews and observations, children come to know the details of people’s lives and work, the world in which they
live.
Through trips and discussions, one question leads to another, increasing both the scope and depth of children’s
learning. Children seek not only facts and information but also an understanding of relationships. As knowledge is
constructed through many neighborhood trips, it is recorded through trip sheets, graphs, charts, children’s written
stories and drawings, and murals. Trips and discussions are essential to developing a dynamic social studies
292
program at all ages. Connections are extended and strengthened in daily group meetings and in the children’s
imaginative dramatic play with blocks as they symbolically create the social and physical world of a neighborhood.
In the interactions of their dramatic play, children test hypotheses using the data they have collected, and in the
process they experience and reconstruct their knowledge. The perspectives of both scientist and artist are
encouraged in the work of the classroom. In the reality of the world the children have constructed in play, new
questions surface, interrelationships are discovered, and the need for further information becomes evident.
For example, on a Monday morning during the 5-year-olds’ group meeting, the children choose what they will
build. Painted on the floor are two blue lines for the river that will wind through the block scheme. The structures
the children have chosen to build are a hospital, a pizza store, a school, a fire station, a house, a zoo, a bus
company, and a doctor’s office. During the morning discussion, the “bus drivers” state that they will build a
bridge so that they can go back and forth between both parts of the town. This leads to children asking where the
bus stops will be. An animated discussion ensues with questions such as: “Will you stop at every building?”
“Should there be a bus stop in front of the fire station?” “What will happen if the fire engines have to rush out and
there’s a bus there?” “Should the fire station be next to the hospital (because sick people have to sleep and rest and
siren noises would disturb them)?” “If there’s a fire in the hospital, how will the sick people get out?”
By midweek there is much activity. The “teacher” at the school is gathering the wooden block figures to go on a
trip to the zoo and asks, “Did everyone go to the bathroom?” Using the information they learned on a recent trip
to a fire station, the “firefighters” are inspecting the hospital to check that it is safe. A sign is posted at the pizza
store: “GD PIZA $5 NO SMCNG.” Beside the house, a child is holding a block figure and waiting impatiently
for the bus. Then, with obvious irritation, the child says to the teacher, “They don’t come! I just wait and wait.
We need a meeting! It’s not fair.” And an argument is breaking out at the doctor’s office: “No, they don’t.” “Yes,
they do.” “I’m going to ask.” The building partners go to the teacher and ask, “Do doctors give shots or give
lollipops?” Nearby, a child comments, “My doctor gives me a shot and a lollipop.”
Interactions continue and multiply; conflicts emerge and are resolved. Observing individual children and the
group dynamics, the teacher notes possible trips to take and questions to ask at the next group meeting.
Although the type of trip taken depends on the age of children, going out into the world often may include
unexpected encounters with societal problems and issues. For example, on a trip to a local railroad station by a
group of 6-year-olds studying transportation, besides gaining information about train tracks and workers,
schedules and waiting rooms, the children also see several people who are homeless sitting on benches. Does the
unexpected—homelessness—become part of the curriculum? In the partnership between children and teachers in
the development of curriculum, how is this question answered? Does the teacher wait to see if the children include
homelessness in their discussion, wait to see what appears as the children include the train station in their block
scheme? If homelessness does not appear in the children’s conversations or buildings, does the teacher introduce
the topic?
These questions are fundamental to curriculum planning and are connected intrinsically to the why of what is
worth knowing. Such questions go beyond the happenings of a specific trip because the world with all its
complexities and problems always is in the classroom. Children are in and part of the world. They hear adults talk.
They watch television. They feel adult tensions and anxieties. They hear words they do not understand. They have
questions. Children
293
Child learning in a setting outside of the classroom.
encounter and are affected by societal issues and attitudes, whether directly or indirectly.
For children to truly make sense of the world, the social atmosphere of the classroom should create opportunities
for children to express their thoughts and feelings. A democratic community invites rather than silences
questioning and discussion. The questions that teachers ask, or choose not to ask, extend or narrow children’s view
of the world. At times, adults may believe that they must protect children from disturbing aspects of the world. In
our protective caring, we may neglect that what we present to children shapes their vision of the world and their
place in it. As Dewey noted, “The crucial question is the extent to which the material of the social studies … is
taught simply as information about present society or is taught in connection with things that are done, that need
to be done, and how to do them” (1937/1991b, p. 185). Raising questions offer children varied opportunities to
reflect on their experiences and to extend their thinking. As children reveal their thoughts, feelings, and questions
in their play, drawings and paintings, stories and conversations, adults have the opportunity to clarify, to support,
to share concerns and feelings. It is in associated living, in the daily interactions and work of classroom life that
children experience what is valued and the community we strive to achieve.
Communities of the Past

In the primary grades, children’s curiosities gradually turn from interest in the here and now to the lives of people
in the past. To be relevant and meaningful to children, and mindful of the still-emerging development of
children’s understanding of historical time, the teacher might select for study immigration or the early settlers of
their community.
“What do people need?” remains a primary question, but it is now viewed from a different perspective as children
must imagine and research change in the physical environment over time. Human geography comes explicitly to
the forefront as children take local trips noting physical changes and the geographic features that have influenced
the possibilities and direction of an area’s growth. As Mitchell (1934) noted, “Everywhere people have been
conditioned by the earth forces around them; and everywhere they have to a greater or lesser extent changed the
earth they live in” (pp. 14–15). Questions such as “How have people worked together to solve ever-present human
problems?” come to the forefront, as do the concepts of change and interdependence. Trips in the area are
supplemented with research in libraries and with museum trips during which children may study artifacts from the
past. Times are also regularly scheduled for learning and practicing the skills necessary to read, write, and compute
at increasingly complex levels—skills essential to recording their research.
To integrate and communicate their growing knowledge and research, children become deeply involved in
refining their mathematical and mapping skills. They learn to work in scale. They create relief maps and models as
ways of expressing and consolidating knowledge. Writing becomes an increasingly important tool as children write
reports about researched information, such as family stories of immigration, or create imaginative reconstructions
294
of what it might have been like to be a child in their community in the past. Science experiments help children to
understand how food was kept and preserved in the past, how herbs and plants were used to create simple
remedies. Play appears again but in a more organized, planned manner as the children bring together what they
have learned over months of study and create a play. They work on story development and dialogue, simple
scenery, and props. The social studies may also culminate in an extensive exhibit created by the children in which
they display their work—murals, science experiments, books, maps, dioramas, charts. In whatever form the
culminating activities may appear, they are shared with other groups and parents.
Curriculum becomes integrated and whole as various skills and subjects are used as means or tools to organize and
understand social studies content. At the same time, art, science, math, music, movement, and language all
represent ways of knowing the world. These ways of knowing and expressing are explored in their own time
within the days and weeks of classroom life. Further, independent of the social studies, there are animals to
observe and care for; processes and changes in cooking to be investigated; seeds to be planted; simple machines to
construct that illustrate basic laws of physics. Together, these activities encourage the development of a scientific
attitude that requires observation, investigation, hypothesizing, and experimentation.
The educator’s aim is to create a dynamic learning environment offering multiple opportunities for the expansion
and realization of children’s potential and capacity. Guided by the philosophical principles of the developmental-
interaction approach, the teacher’s choice of content will expand and deepen the children’s view of the world and
their place in it, while encouraging questioning, reflection, responsibility, shared work, and community. These
attitudes and activities are necessary to experiencing democratic living.
Assessment
Multiple curriculum-embedded assessments provide the teacher an essential means with which to know how
children are learning and growing and therefore how to guide curricular decisions in a seamless dynamic cycle,
consistent with what is referred to as an “authentic assessment” or a “learner-centered” approach (Cenedella, 1992;
McCombs & Whisler, 1997; Meier, 2000; Perrone, 1991). Bank Street has long advocated a broad approach to
assessment, based on understanding how the growing child makes sense of his or her world and providing a range
of opportunities for the student to represent that understanding. Competence in basic skills, the development of
an analytic capacity, and a wide range of knowledge in subject areas are fundamental to children’s learning in
school. Recently, Bank Street has used the Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome taxonomy (SOLO; Biggs
& Collis, 1982) to examine ways in which teachers design and enact curriculum units to progress from the
acquisition of information to more cognitively complex processes of using that information to analyze and
generate new ideas (Nager & Singh, 2008). Of equal importance are attitudes and characteristics of the learner in
interaction with the physical and social environment, such as the interrelated abilities to work both independently
and collaboratively, to exercise initiative, to communicate effectively, and to be a socially responsible member of
the community. This emphasis on social and emotional dimensions of learning is consistent with national polling
indicating that Americans say the single most important purpose of public schooling is to prepare children and
youth to become responsible citizens (Cohen, 2006).
In contrast, current federal policy primarily defines desirable outcomes for students in terms of test scores,
particularly literacy and mathematical competencies, driving school reform movements to place assessment at the
forefront of educational change to achieve higher standards of academic achievement. Many schools have
responded to this emphasis by teaching to the test at the expense of complex curriculum. In our view, this
indicates an oversimplified and narrow view of teaching and learning. In addition, the use of test scores as a high-
stakes barrier to passing a grade or completing a program of study reflects a fundamentally undemocratic approach
to the education of children (Cuffaro, 2000; Perrone, 1989).
In a test-driven educational environment, the desired outcomes in social, emotional, and cognitive domains
stressed in the developmental-interaction approach are often relegated to secondary status. This is compounded by
the fact that no readily administered assessments adequately measure these attributes of the learner, a point made
295
by Zimiles (1987) some 20 years ago. Recognizing these realities, classroom teachers are urged to advocate for
children in two important ways: first, by examining the quality of assessment tools and raising appropriate
questions about implementation; second, by preparing children for test taking without sacrificing rich curriculum
with opportunities for academic, social, emotional, and physical learning.
The developmental-interaction approach has long stressed rigorous and systematic assessment of children’s
learning and development. A central tool for assessment is reflective observation. Haberman (2000) provides a
vivid example of how a student teacher observes, analyzes her observation, and achieves an important insight about
the use of materials, curricular goals, and the range of conceptual development in the group:
Most of the other kindergartners also had difficulty with this problem. I definitely think it was too big a
chunk to give them … the problem was not necessarily too complex for Molly—I think she understood the
underlying concept: that if you add up all the reds, yellows, blues and greens and then add all those together,
you get the total number of tiles. I do think, however, that there were too many tiles. When the numbers get
that high it is so easy to lose track and get confused… . The underlying concept would have struck her more
consciously with a smaller number of tiles. Instead she got lost in the crazy mechanics of counting. (p. 211)
This student teacher’s careful observation and analysis deepened her understanding of children’s learning.
Informed by strong subject matter knowledge and content-specific pedagogy, teachers analyze children’s responses
to understand each child’s characteristic strengths and needs, what a child knows and can do, as well as what he or
she needs to know. Equally important, the teacher shares insights and raises questions to help children learn to
self-assess and guide their own learning. Data for this analysis include the full range of daily classroom activities,
interactions, and work products (e.g., playing, reading, solving mathematical problems, working with materials,
and interacting with others). In addition, close examination and assessment of portfolios of children’s work over
time provide an important story of growth through artwork, writing, computations, and constructions. For older
children, teacher-designed techniques for checking the quality of student learning can take the form of reading
and writing logs, lab reports, and inventories and culminating projects at the end of a unit of study.
This approach to assessment illustrates Dewey’s (1938/1963) scientific method, as well as the experimental
approach that permeates Bank Street. Articulating the goals of teacher preparation at the Bureau of Educational
Experiments (recall this is Bank Street’s original name), Mitchell (1931) described, “Our aim is to turn out
teachers whose attitude toward their work and toward life is scientific. To us, this means an attitude of eager, alert
observation; a constant questioning of old procedure in the light of new observations; a use of the world, as well as
of books, as source material; an experimental open-mindedness, and an effort to keep as reliable records as the
situation permits, in order to base the future upon accurate knowledge of what has been done” (p. 251).
Assessment and instruction mutually inform each other in a constructivist, dynamic manner (see Shepard, 2000,
Chapter 8, this volume, for discussion of paradigms of assessment). Assessment data also provide a meaningful
basis for parent–teacher conferences during which parents and teachers can share their differentiated knowledge of
a child. In this way, assessment, learning, and the curriculum are integrated, a basic premise of the experimental
attitude of progressive education.
Implications For Teacher Education

Bank Street’s conceptualization of teaching applies equally to the education of children and adults, although its
theoretical underpinnings and practical applications have been elaborated on more fully in relation to young
children. Responding to this gap, Nager and Shapiro (2007) identified five interrelated principles for the
education of teachers that emerge from Bank Street’s history and practice.
1. Education is a vehicle for creating and promoting social justice and encouraging participation in democratic
processes.
2. The teacher has a deep knowledge of subject matter areas and is actively engaged in learning through formal
296
study, direct observation, and participation.
3. Understanding children’s learning and development in the context of family, community, and culture is
needed for teaching.
4. The teacher continues to grow as a person and as a professional.
5. Teaching requires a philosophy of education—a view of learning and the learner, knowledge and knowing
—that informs all elements of teaching.
Although enactment of these principles can and must vary in response to changing times and needs, the principles
provide a coherent framework with which to evaluate and adopt new practices, thus ensuring their consonance,
validity, and legitimacy. These principles are interrelated and overlapping, each having equal power. Thus, for
example, a curriculum designed to further social justice must be based on a view of learning and the learner; deep
knowledge of subject matter; and a sound knowledge of children, their families, and the sociocultural context of
the school. Each principle is enriched by its necessary connection with the others. In this sense, the principles form
an integrative whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
These principles provide a vision of good teaching that infuses the preparation of teachers and comes to life in
schools for children, as well as in the classrooms of the adults learning to teach. Informed by Lucy Sprague
Mitchell’s conviction that learning processes for adults and children are fundamentally similar, the teacher
education program attempts “in all fields to give firsthand experiences (in studio, laboratory, and field work) to
supplement ‘book learning’” (Mitchell, 1953, p. 471). The developmental assumption is that becoming a
competent teacher is tied not only to information but also to the ways in which teachers experience, internalize,
and construct their growing knowledge and sense of self as a maker of meaning. It is a process of epistemological
development in which teachers come to value their own voice, self, and mind, enabling them to create
opportunities for children to achieve similar processes of discovery and invention (Nager, 1987). Active
participation in real problems provides a basis for both child and adult learning. Therefore, the set of
opportunities for teaching and learning that comprises supervised field work is vital to the teacher’s personal and
professional development.
A system of advisement encompasses the graduate student’s entire academic program at Bank Street and thereby
serves an integrative function. Advisement incorporates fieldwork, conference group, and course work. Guiding
the student’s work is the advisor, a member of the graduate school faculty. The term advisor rather than supervisor
is noteworthy and indicates a process of guiding learning and thinking and modeling communication and
interpersonal relations. The student has a biweekly individual conference with the advisor. One of these meetings
follows an observation of the student’s teaching and entails shared reflection on that work. Each student also
participates in a yearlong weekly conference group with the advisor and a small group of students with whom the
advisor is also working. This group provides an opportunity for peer learning and support, as well as an
opportunity to participate in the broader and deeper project of democratic culture building (Pignatelli, 2000).
Students bring issues of personal and professional importance to the group, learning and gaining support from the
advisor and the peer interaction. Considerable personal growth is required for faculty to assimilate and practice
this approach to education (Shapiro, 1991). In attending to individual learning needs, advisement affords the
same kind of nurturing and stimulating environment that teachers are encouraged to provide for children. Again,
the parallel process of attending to the complex interrelationships between children’s cognitive and affective
development is made explicit.
Not surprisingly, knowledge of development constitutes a core foundation of the teacher education curriculum.
Teachers learn to think about education in terms of children’s developmental needs and characteristics; their
knowledge and approach to learning; and the values their families and cultures have emphasized. Academic study
of child development is combined with learning to observe and record children’s behavior as a critical tool for
understanding children and planning curriculum (see previous section, “Assessment”). The National Council for
Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE) recognizes the vital importance of integrating developmental
297
science knowledge into educator preparation. In an NCATE publication, Snyder and Lit (2010) highlight Bank
Street as an exemplar of that approach.
In all areas of curriculum, candidates in teacher education are immersed in principles and theory as well as the
opportunity to experience them in practice. In curriculum courses, students explore questions about content—
what is worth knowing—and consider how to enact the assumptions behind these choices through, for example,
their room arrangements, scheduling, and curricular choices. Adult students take trips connected to social studies,
and participate in block workshops. In addition, they have opportunities to paint, sculpt, and create; they visit
schools to observe what different philosophies of education look like in practice; and they work with math
manipulatives to reconstruct their understanding of number and mathematical problem solving. Writing logs and
research essays, as well as creating portfolios, provide opportunities to use their growing knowledge to reflect on
self, children, and curriculum.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we briefly summarize the developmental-interaction approach, long associated with the Bank
Street College of Education. Its roots are in the progressive era and the educational philosophy of John Dewey and
Bank Street’s founder, Lucy Sprague Mitchell. Concepts found in the dynamic psychologies of Erik Erikson, Anna
Freud, and more recently Lev Vygotsky contribute a developmental understanding of teaching and learning.
Principles of the approach serve as a context for the teacher’s decision-making about choice of content,
methodology, and the physical and social environment of the classroom. The developmental-interaction approach
is not a codified set of procedures. Rather, the teacher has the complex task of using these values and principles to
guide planning, implementation, and assessment of curriculum and children’s growth.
These same principles apply to the education of teachers. Through direct experience, children and adults engage
actively with the environment, expand their knowledge base, and strengthen their sense of competence and
mastery. Teachers educated at Bank Street are expected to have a broad understanding of children’s learning and
developmental needs and the ability to create caring, intellectually challenging, and democratic classrooms.
Reflect On
1. What are two meanings of the term interaction in the Bank Street or developmental-interaction approach to
early childhood education?
2. How are progressive education and mental health concerns linked to the development of Bank Street?
3. How is the concept of democracy realized in the Bank Street classroom?
4. Why is teaching social studies at the core of Bank Street’s curriculum?
5. How does this approach’s vision of teacher education comport with its model of early childhood education?
Endnote
1. 1. In an analysis of the evolution of the Bank Street approach, Nager and Shapiro (2000) point out that in
earlier formulations the development of an autonomous and independent sense of self was seen as a goal.
Until recently, the concept of individuality was so deeply embedded in developmental theory that its
assumptions were seldom noticed or questioned. Today, however, we have become more aware that
different cultural groups place quite different values on independence as opposed to community or
collectivity. We are more sensitized to the depth and scope of the formative impact of culture on growth and
298
development. Learning is extended beyond the classroom setting to other sources of knowledge.
Selected Resources
Bank Street College of Education
www.bankstreet.edu
Bank Street Thinkers

http://bankstreet.edu/archives/bank-street-thinkers/ www.bankstreet.edu/archives/
References
1. Antler, J. (1981). Feminism as life process: The life and career of Lucy Sprague Mitchell. Feminist Studies, 7,
134–157.
2. Antler, J. (1987). Lucy Sprague Mitchell: The making of a modern woman. New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
3. Biber, B. (1972). The “whole child,” individuality and values in education. In J. R. Squire (Ed.), A new look
at progressive education, ASCD Yearbook (pp. 44–87). Washington, DC: Association for Supervision and
Curriculum Development.
4. Biber, B. (1984). Early education and psychological development. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
5. Biber, B., & Franklin, M. (1967). The relevance of developmental and psychodynamic concepts to the
education of the preschool child. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 6, 5–24.
6. Biber, B., Shapiro, E., & Wickens, D. (1971). Promoting cognitive growth: A developmental-interaction point
of view. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
7. Biggs, J. B., & Collis, K. (1982). Evaluating the quality of learning: The SOLO taxonomy. New York, NY:
Academic Press.
8. Cahan, E. D. (1992). John Dewey and human development. Developmental Psychology, 28, 205–214.
9. Casper, V., Cuffaro, H. K., Schultz, S., Silin, J. G., & Wickens, E. (1996). Toward a most thorough
understanding of the world: Sexual orientation and early childhood education. Harvard Educational Review,
66, 271–293.
10. Casper, V., & Schultz, S. (1999). Gay parents, straight schools: Building communication and trust. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
11. Cenedella, J. (1992). Assessment through the curriculum. In A. Mitchell & J. David (Eds.), Explorations
with young children: A curriculum guide from The Bank Street College of Education (pp. 273–282). Mount
Rainier, MD: Gryphon House.
12. Cohen, D., Stern, V., Balaban, N., & Gropper, N. (2008). Observing and recording the behavior of young
children (5th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
13. Cohen, J. (2006). Social, emotional, ethical, and academic education: Creating a climate for learning,
participation in democracy, and well-being. Harvard Educational Review, 76, 201–239.
14. Cuffaro, H. K. (1995). Experimenting with the world: John Dewey and the early childhood classroom. New
299
15. Cuffaro, H. K. (2000). Educational standards in a democracy: Questioning process and consequences.
(Occasional Paper No. 4). Bronxville, NY: Child Development Institute, Sarah Lawrence College.
16. Delpit, L. (2006). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The
New Press.
17. Dewey, J. (1959). The child and the curriculum. In M. S. Dworkin (Ed.), Dewey on education (pp. 91–
111). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. (Original work published 1902)
18. Dewey, J. (1963). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier Books. (Original work published 1938)
19. Dewey, J. (1966). Democracy and education. New York, NY: Free Press. (Original work published 1916)
20. Dewey, J. (1975). Moral principles in education. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
(Original work published 1909)
21. Dewey, J. (1991a). The Dewey School: The theory of the Chicago experiment. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The
later works of John Dewey, 1925–1953 (Vol. 11, pp. 202–216). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University
Press. (Original work published 1936)
22. Dewey, J. (1991b). The challenge of democracy to education. In J. A. Boydston (Ed.), The later works of
John Dewey, 1935–1937 (Vol. 11, pp. 181–190). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
(Original work published 1937)
23. Erikson, E. (1963). Childhood and society. New York, NY: Norton.
24. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Seabury.
25. Freud, A. (1974). The writings of Anna Freud (5 Vol.). New York, NY: International Universities Press.
26. Goffin, S. G. (1994). Curriculum models and early childhood education: Appraising the relationship. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
27. Gwathmey, E., & Mott, A. M. (2000). Visualizing experience. In N. Nager & E. Shapiro (Eds.), Revisiting
progressive pedagogy: The developmental interaction approach (pp. 138–160). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
28. Haberman, E. (2000). Learning to look closely at children: A necessary tool for teachers. In N. Nager & E.
Shapiro (Eds.), Revisiting progressive pedagogy: The developmental interaction approach (pp. 203–220).
Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
29. Levinger, L., & Mott, A. M. (1992). Art in early childhood. In A. Mitchell & J. David (Eds.), Explorations
with young children: A curriculum guide from the Bank Street College of Education (pp. 199–214). Mount
Rainier, MD: Gryphon House.
30. Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
31. Lit, I., Nager, N., & Snyder, J. (2010). “If it ain’t broke, why fix it?” Framework and processes for engaging
in constructive institutional development and renewal in the context of increasing standards, assessments
and accountability for university-based teacher preparation. Teacher Education Quarterly, 37, 15–34.
32. Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self, and society: From the standpoint of a social behaviorist. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
33. McCombs, B., & Whisler, J. (1997). The learner-centered classroom and school. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
34. Meier, D. (2000). Educating a democracy. In J. Cohen & J. Rogers (Eds.), Will standards save public
300
education? (pp. 3–34). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
35. Mitchell, L. S. (1931). A cooperative school for student teachers. Progressive Education, 8, 251–255.
36. Mitchell, L. S. (1934). Social studies and geography. Progressive Education, 11, 97–105.
37. Mitchell, L. S. (1951). Our children and our schools. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
38. Mitchell, L. S. (1953). Two lives: The story of Wesley Clair Mitchell and myself. New York, NY: Simon &
Schuster.
39. Mitchell, L. S. (1934/1991). Young geographers: How they explore the world and how they map the world. New
York, NY: Bank Street College of Education.
40. Mitchell, L. S., with Johanna Boetz and others. (1942). The people of the U.S.A.: Their place in the school
curriculum. New York, NY: Progressive Education Association.
41. Moll, L. C. (Ed.). (1990). Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of socio-historical
psychology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
42. Nager, N. (1987). Becoming a teacher: The development of thinking about knowledge, learning, and the
self. Thought and Practice, 1, 27–32.
43. Nager, N., & Shapiro, E. (Eds.). (2000). Revisiting a progressive pedagogy: The developmental interaction
approach. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
44. Nager, N., & Shapiro, E. (2007). Some principles for teacher education. (Occasional Paper No. 18). New
York, NY: Bank Street College of Education.
45. Nager, N., & Singh, K. (2008). Teaching and learning in science: A close look at inquiry in the classroom.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association.
46. Perrone, V. (1989). Working papers: Reflections on teachers, schools, and communities. New York, NY:
47. Perrone, V. (1991). A letter to teachers: Reflections on schooling and the art of teaching. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
48. Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children. New York, NY: International Universities Press.
49. Pignatelli, F. (2000). Furthering a progressive educational agenda: Advisement and the development of
educators. In N. Nager & E. Shapiro (Eds.), Revisiting a progressive pedagogy: The developmental interaction
approach (pp. 221–238). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
50. Ramsey, P. G. (2004). Teaching and learning in a diverse world: Multicultural education for young children
(3rd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
51. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
52. Schoonmaker, F., & Ryan, S. (1996). Does theory lead to practice? Teachers’ constructs about teaching:
Top-down perspectives. In S. Reifel & J. A. Chafel (Eds.), Advances in early education and day care (Vol. 8,
117–152). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
53. Shapiro, E. K. (2003). Precedents and precautions. In J. Silin & C. Lippman (Eds.), Putting the children
first: The changing face of Newark’s public schools (pp. 21–32). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
301
54. Shapiro, E. (1991). Teacher: Being and becoming. Thought and Practice, 3, 5–24.
55. Shapiro, E., & Biber, B. (1972). The education of young children: A developmental-interaction point of
view. Teachers College Record, 74, 55–79.
56. Shapiro, E., & Weber, E. (Eds.). (1981). Cognitive and affective growth: Developmental-interaction. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
57. Shepard, L. (2000). The role of assessment in a learning culture. Educational Researcher, 29, 4–14.
58. Silin, J., & Lippman, C. (Eds.). (2003). Putting the children first: The changing face of Newark’s public schools.
59. Snyder, J., & Lit, I. (2010). Principles and exemplars for integrating developmental sciences knowledge into
educator preparation. Washington, DC: National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education.
60. Tanner, L. N. (1997). Dewey’s laboratory school: Lessons for today. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
61. Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. M. Cole, V. John-
Steiner, S. Scribner, & E. Souberman (Eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work
published 1922–1935)
62. Wasow, E. (2000). Families and schools: New lenses, new landscapes. In N. Nager & E. Shapiro (Eds.),
Revisiting a progressive pedagogy: The developmental-interaction approach (pp. 275–291). Albany, NY: SUNY
Press.
63. Werner, H. (1961). Comparative psychology of mental development. New York, NY: Science Editions.
64. Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
65. Winsor, C. B. (1957). What are we doing in social studies? In Forty-fifth Annual School Men’s Week
Proceedings. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
66. Winsor, C. B. (Ed.). (1973). Experimental schools revisited: Bulletins of the Bureau of Educational Experiments.
New York, NY: Agathon Press.
67. Zimiles, H. (1987). Progressive education: On the limits of evaluation and the development of
empowerment. Teachers College Record, 89, 201–217.
68. Zimiles, H. (1997). Viewing education through a psychological lens: The contributions of Barbara Biber.
Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 28, 23–31.
Acknowledgments
We dedicate this chapter to the memory of our friend and colleague, Edna K. Shapiro, whose keen intellect and
warm spirit continue to inform this chapter.
We thank Herbert Zimiles, a chapter author of the first two editions, for his contributions.
302
Chapter 13 The Project Approach An Overview
Lilian G. Katz
University of Illinois
Sylvia C. Chard
University of Alberta, Canada
Provide a definition of a project
Describe project work and other parts of the curriculum
Explain the theoretical rationale for the project approach
Discuss how to implement the project approach
Outline the phases of project work
Detail a kindergarten project on shoes
The inclusion of in-depth investigations in the early childhood and primary school curriculum has a long history.
First inspired by the ideas of John Dewey during the progressive era, it was promoted by William H. Kilpatrick,
who referred to it as the “project method.” At the turn of the twentieth century, Dewey’s Laboratory School at the
University of Chicago used the project method (Tanner, 1997).
More recently, project work was a central part of preschool and primary education in Britain during the so-called
Plowden Years in the 1960s and 1970s, which inspired many U.S. educators to adopt the project method using
the term open education (cf. Smith, 1997). In the small northern Italian city of Reggio Emilia, preprimary schools
use a highly creative variation of the project method as part of the curriculum (Edwards, Gandini, & Forman,
1998; Chapter 15). A contemporary extension and elaboration of earlier practices, currently referred to as the
Project Approach, has been adopted in preschool and primary classes in many parts of North America and is being
widely adopted in many other countries as well (see Helm & Katz, 2011; Katz & Chard, 2000). We have worked
with teachers to help them to include project work in their curricula in Korea, China, Poland, The Philippines,
Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, and many other countries. Many teachers in these countries have
adopted the project approach as a significant part of the early childhood curriculum, as is common in North
America.
We use the term project approach, rather than method or model, to suggest that children’s investigations (i.e.,
project work) constitute one of many important elements of an early childhood or primary curriculum. As a part
of the curriculum for children from the ages of about 3 to 8 years, project work functions in a complementary
relationship to other aspects of the curriculum, rather than as a total pedagogical method or curriculum model. It
thus does not require the abandonment of a variety of other curriculum elements that support children’s
development and learning.
Definition Of a Project
A project is an extended in-depth investigation of a topic, ideally one worthy of the children’s attention, time, and
energy. Projects are usually undertaken by a whole class, sometimes by small groups within a class, and
occasionally by an individual child. Even when a project is undertaken by the whole class, children typically work
303
in small groups and often individually on specific subtopics related to the larger one under
Collaboration on connected curricular activities is commonplace.
investigation. In discussions with their teacher, children generate a set of questions about specific aspects of the
topic that the investigation will attempt to answer.
The investigation undertaken in a project involves the enactment of a variety of intellectual and social dispositions,
as well as academic skills. Depending on the range of skills already available to the participating children, the work
ideally includes the following elements:
Sharing and discussing previous experiences and knowledge related to the topic in the first phase of the work
Gathering and recording new data
Sketching and drawing
Painting, model making, creating stories, planning and engaging in dramatic play
Interviewing experts on the topic
Reading, writing, taking measurements, developing and distributing surveys and questionnaires
Looking things up in a library and on the Internet
A project ideally also involves the acquisition of worthwhile knowledge, understandings, and concepts in a variety
of disciplines, such as the sciences, social studies, language arts and literature, and all the fine arts. In addition, the
activities usually employed in project work at all ages include collecting information through direct observations,
conducting experiments related to subtopics of interest, making collections of related artifacts, and preparing
visual and verbal reports of the findings.
Furthermore, in project work the children are encouraged to identify subtopics of special interest to them and to
accept responsibility for particular types of tasks that will contribute to the overall investigation. In addition to the
value of the new knowledge and understandings acquired and the skills applied, the feelings of mastery of a topic
304
resulting from such sustained effort can lay the foundation for a lifelong disposition to persist in reaching for in-
depth understanding of worthwhile topics.
The main features of project work that distinguish it from the traditional didactic way of introducing children to
new knowledge are these:
1. The children’s role in generating the questions to be answered by their investigation
2. Openness to possible shifts in the direction of the inquiry as it proceeds
3. The children’s acceptance of responsibility for the work accomplished and for the kinds of representations of
findings that are prepared, documented, and reported.
Project Work and Other Parts Of The Curriculum

We advocate the project approach because during the primary years project work is the informal part of the
curriculum that complements and supports its more formal components, such as systematic instruction in basic
literacy and numeracy skills. Systematic instruction refers to formal instruction of an individual or of small groups
of children—and in the case of older children, the whole class—who require adult assistance with learning the
specific skills and subskills involved in becoming literate and numerate. By comparison, in the case of preschool
children—for whom spontaneous play, informal activities, music, story reading, and so on are more typical and
appropriate than is formal instruction—project work constitutes the more formal part of the curriculum.
In the early primary years, project work and formal instruction can be seen as complementary to each other in
several ways:
1. Formal instruction aids children with the acquisition of basic skills, while project work gives them
opportunity to apply the skills in meaningful contexts.
2. In formal instruction, the teacher addresses children’s deficiencies, while project work gives children
opportunities to apply and strengthen their proficiencies.
3. In formal instruction, the teacher directs the instructional sequences and organizes the work on the basis of
expert knowledge of how the skills are best learned by individual children with particular learning
characteristics. In project work, children are encouraged to choose the tasks and the level of task difficulty
most appropriate for themselves.
4. During systematic instruction, learners are in a passive and receptive posture as the teachers provide them
with information and instructions. In project work, children are actively engaged in planning and
conducting the investigation, applying knowledge and skills, and making decisions and choices on all aspects
of the work.
5. Although children tend to be intrinsically motivated to remain engaged in their project work, in systematic
instruction the teacher takes advantage of children’s motivation to please him or her and to meet his or her
expectations. Furthermore, in project work the usefulness, relevance, and purposes of basic literacy and
numeracy skills typically become self-evident. The experience of relevance tends to strengthen children’s
motivation to improve such skills and increases their receptivity to the teacher’s help in mastering them
through systematic instruction.
In project work, the teacher’s role is more consultative than instructional. The teacher facilitates the progress of
the work by guiding and monitoring the children’s progress. The teacher uses observation of the children at work
during the project to identify cues concerning the kinds of instructional activities that might be needed by
individual children and notes the readiness of individuals or groups of children for the introduction of new
knowledge and skills.
305
In the case of preschool children, the teacher’s role includes both consultation and leadership in helping to
organize the progress of the investigation, encouraging in-depth and extended attention to the work of answering
the questions raised in discussion. The teacher arranges the time schedule so that the project can proceed. The
teacher also makes suggestions for how children can represent their findings. At both the preschool and primary
levels, the teacher plays an important role in documenting the experiences of the children as the work proceeds
(Helm, Beneke, & Steinheimer, 2007; Katz & Chard, 1996).
In summary, we suggest that young children’s development and learning are best served when they have frequent
opportunity to be involved in investigations about worthwhile topics, especially during the primary years, when
the teacher’s formal instruction in basic skills is also available for those who cannot achieve mastery without such
assistance. Teachers are encouraged to balance these two important provisions for learning in the early years.
Children can learn to make increasingly sophisticated use of computers in the course of project work. With
increasing age and experience, children can use computers for writing, preparing graphs, compiling posters,
producing visual essays, designing simple games, and other forms of representation. They can also have access to a
wide variety of types of information via selected Internet sites as they seek answers to the questions that represent
the main thrust of their investigation.
The Theoretical Rationale for the Project Approach

The recommendation for including project work in the early childhood curriculum is based partly on our
conception of the goals of education and partly on our view of a developmental approach to implementing those
goals. Moreover, we find support for the value of project work in research on children’s motivation and interactive
abilities. Schidt, Burts, Durham, Charlesworth, and Hart (2007) compared the effects of developmentally
appropriate versus developmentally inappropriate teaching practices on the growth of kindergarteners’ social
competence, indicating that the former provided genuine contexts for children to develop skills involved in
working together and coordinating their efforts, a major element of project work. We begin by defining the goals
and follow with the principles of practice based on combining the goals and our understanding of how young
children develop and learn. A fuller discussion of these points can be found in Katz and Chard (2000).
Four Types of Learning Goals

We suggest that at every level of education four types of learning goals must be addressed: knowledge, skills,
dispositions, and feelings. At the early childhood level, they can be broadly defined as follows:
1. Knowledge. During the preschool and early primary school period, knowledge and understanding can consist
of ideas, concepts, schemas, facts, information, stories, myths, legends, songs, and other such contents of the
mind. The experience of involving young children in projects leads us to emphasize the importance of
helping young children to achieve deeper and more accurate knowledge and understanding of their own
experiences.
Principles Related to the Acquisition of Knowledge

Recent insights into children’s development suggest that, in principle, the younger the child, the more readily
knowledge is constructed and acquired through active and interactive processes rather than passive, receptive, and
reactive ones. With increasing age, children become more able to profit from passive reception of instruction. This
developmental principle suggests that, in practice, young children in the preschool and early primary years best
construct and master knowledge and understanding from their own firsthand, direct experiences and from
interaction with primary sources of knowledge.
The interactive experiences from which knowledge and understandings can be constructed and acquired must
306
have content that is meaningful to the children—perhaps more meaningful to some of them than others, at least
at first. We suggest that, in principle, the content of interaction should be related to matters of actual or potential
interest to the children involved. However, because not all of children’s interests are equally deserving of attention,
and because adults can and should help children acquire new interests, some selection by the teacher of what
content is most worthy of attention is recommended. We suggest that the interests most worthy of strengthening
in young children are those likely to extend, deepen, and improve their understandings of their own environments
and experiences (Dresden & Lee, 2007).
We suggest furthermore that, in principle, the younger the learner, the more integrated the curriculum should be;
conversely, as children increase in age and experience, their capacity to profit from subject- or discipline-based
study increases. Young children do not differentiate their ideas, thoughts, and interests into categories such as
science, language, and mathematics; they are more likely to gain knowledge and understanding by pursuing a
topic to which scientific, linguistic, mathematical, and other discipline-related concepts can be applied.
2. Skills are defined as small, discrete, and relatively brief actions that are easily observed or inferred from
behavior (e.g., cutting, drawing, counting a group of objects, coordinating activities with peers, fine- and
gross-motor skills).
3. Dispositions are relatively enduring habits of mind, or characteristic ways of responding to experience across
types of situations
(e.g., persistence at tasks, curiosity, generosity or avarice; the disposition to be a reader, to look things up, to
solve problems, and so on). For example, curiosity can best be defined as a disposition or habit of mind.
Unlike an item of knowledge or a skill, a disposition is not an end state to be mastered once and for all. It is a
trend or consistent pattern of behavior and its possession is established only by its increasingly repeated
manifestation in the appropriate context.
Some of the most important dispositions included in the goals of education are inborn. All children are born with
the disposition to learn, to observe, to investigate, to make sense of experience, to play, and to develop
attachments to others—granted, any of these dispositions may be stronger in some children than in others. Thus,
experiences should be provided to young children that support and strengthen these inborn dispositions. Other
dispositions, however—desirable and undesirable—are likely to be learned from being around and interacting
with adults who have them and in whose behavior such dispositions can be observed frequently by the children.
These children work on an art project they planned.
307
Strengthening Desirable Dispositions
Parents, teachers, and school officials invariably include many dispositions in their lists of the desired effects of
education. Among them are the desires to learn, to be cooperative and creative, and to be eager to approach and
solve problems. The underlying assumption is that mastery of knowledge, understandings, and skills ideally should
be accompanied by robust dispositions to employ them.
4. Feelings are subjective emotional or affective states, such as feelings of belonging, self-esteem, confidence,
adequacy and inadequacy, competence and incompetence, anxiety, and so forth. Feelings about significant
phenomena may vary from being transitory to enduring, intense to weak, or ambivalent.
Feelings related to schooling are likely to be learned as by-products of experience, rather than from instruction or
exhortation. Both dispositions and feelings can be thought of as incidental learnings in that they are incidental to
the processes by which knowledge and understandings are constructed and acquired and by which skills are
learned. To label feelings as incidental is not to belittle them or to devalue the role of the teacher or the
curriculum in their development; rather, it is to emphasize that feelings cannot be taught didactically. Children
cannot be instructed in what feelings to have or not to have!
Feelings Related to School Experiences

Like dispositions, feelings cannot be taught directly; they are experienced and strengthened or weakened in the
context of the interactions and activities that give rise to them. When a curriculum is focused on a narrow range of
academic tasks (e.g., drill and practice in workbooks, lessons in phonics), it is likely that a substantial proportion
of the learners will be unable to work effectively and thus will be unlikely to develop feelings of competence
(Marchand & Skinner, 2007). Indeed, when a single instructional approach is employed with any group of
children who are diverse in background, ability, development, and other ways, some feel left out and are prone to
develop feelings of incompetence or inadequacy (Slavin, Madden, Dolan, & Wasik, 1996). The inclusion of
project work increases the variety of tasks and levels of difficulty available, such that all members of the class are
likely to find meaningful work that can enhance feelings of competence, of belonging, and of being a contributor
to the group effort.
Implications for Practice

Learning in all four goal categories—knowledge/ understanding, skills, dispositions, and feelings—is facilitated in
different ways. In the case of knowledge and skills, learning can be aided by active research, observation, a variety
of types of data gathering, appropriate instruction, and many other processes. As already suggested, dispositions
cannot be taught directly. We recommend that, in principle, if dispositions are to be strengthened, ample
opportunity for their enactment must be available. For example, the disposition to be problem-solvers can be
strengthened only if children have frequent real and meaningful problems to solve in the course of their daily
activities. In a similar fashion, the disposition to be responsible can be strengthened only when children have
appropriate responsibilities. The findings of the research in this area suggest that a curriculum that emphasizes
child-initiated meaningful learning tasks is more likely to strengthen dispositions such as to seek mastery, to exert
real effort in the face of difficulties, and to persist at challenging tasks—as well as many others usually alluded to in
lists of goals and desirable educational outcomes.
In summary, all four categories of learning goals are worthy of the teacher’s continuing attention and concern.
The inclusion of project work in the curriculum helps to ensure that the construction and acquisition of
worthwhile knowledge and the mastery of basic skills can occur in such a way that the dispositions to use them are
also strengthened (Katz, 1994). Our assumption is that if knowledge, understandings, and skills are acquired in
meaningful contexts with ample opportunity to apply them, then the dispositions to seek and deepen knowledge
308
and understanding, and to use the skills in the processes of doing so, can be acquired and can be strengthened.
Conversely, without such meaningful application, the dispositions to use knowledge and skills may not be
developed or may even be weakened. Our experience is that children’s involvement in project work is typically
accompanied by feelings of self-confidence, of engagement, of enthusiasm, and often of pleasure and satisfaction
with what is accomplished, including satisfaction in overcoming setbacks encountered during the work.
In principle, then, the incorporation of project work in the curriculum helps to ensure that all four categories of
learning goals are addressed concurrently.
The Development of Social Competence

Current research on young children’s social development strongly indicates that the first 6 or 7 years of life
constitute a critical period for the achievement of social competence and that failure to do so during the early years
can have serious long-term negative consequences (Flook, Repetti, & Ullman, 2005; Katz & McClellan, 1997). In
general, a curriculum for young children is best when it provides frequent activities and experiences in which
cooperation, collaboration, coordination of effort, and resolution of conflicts among the children are functional,
consequential, and satisfying to them. The project approach provides frequent and real contexts in which children
can be supported in developing a wide range of social knowledge, social skills, social dispositions, and feelings of
an interpersonal nature. One such feature is that in the conduct of project work on a topic shared by the whole
class, children usually work in small subgroups investigating subtopics that will contribute to the larger findings of
the investigation. In such a context, each subgroup can solicit suggestions from classmates, make suggestions to
other subgroups, prepare reports to give to them about the subgroup’s findings, and in many other ways
participate in real contexts in which they anticipate others’ responses to, interests in, and feelings about their
reports. Anticipation of the possible responses of peers, parents, and others with whom they will share their work
is an important component of social competence.
In summary, the incorporation of project work into the curriculum of early childhood and primary education
addresses all four main categories of learning goals and makes possible the application of the principles of practice
derived from current knowledge of many important aspects of young children’s development and learning.
How to Implement The Project Approach

To a large extent, the benefits of project work are related to the topic being investigated. The sheer number of
possible topics is so large that some kind of selection process is advisable. Teachers have the ultimate responsibility
for judging whether the topic is worthy of children’s time and energy and of the preschool’s or school’s resources.
To support good project work, teachers must often undertake extensive preparation, study, and exploration. Thus,
topic selection warrants serious consideration by the teacher and by those who define the curriculum (see Chard,
1998a, 1998b; www.projectapproach.org).
Selecting Topics for Projects

Many factors contribute to the appropriateness of a topic. Much depends on characteristics of the particular group
of children, the teacher’s knowledge and experience related to the topic and his or her own interest in it, the local
resources available, the larger context of the school and community, and various mixes of all these factors.
Furthermore, it is important to keep in mind that many topics of importance are not suitable for projects. It can
also be difficult to predict which topics will work well with any given group of children.
Responding to Children’s Interests
309
Teachers sometimes select project topics on the basis of the children’s expressed or assumed interest in them.
However, the interest of an individual, a group, or a whole class presents a number of potential pitfalls in topic
selection. On a practical level, in a class of 25 children, the number of possible interests is potentially too large to
be able to address in a single year. Thus, teachers need some criteria to determine which of the interests is worthy
of being addressed because it is not clear what children mean when they say that they are interested in a topic.
Interests can be of relatively low value to the child’s total learning (e.g., interest in pirates or in the Titanic
stimulated by exposure to a movie). Some interests might be passing thoughts or fancies, fleeting concerns,
phobias, fetishes, or topics nominated by a child who wants to please the teacher.
That an individual or group expresses interest in a given topic (e.g., dinosaurs) does not necessarily mean that the
teacher should support and strengthen interest in it. Children’s enthusiastic response to a Disney movie about
pirates, for example, does not mean that the topic is worthy of a project. The children can be given opportunity
for spontaneous dramatic play involving pirates if the teacher agrees to it; they can be encouraged to discuss their
reactions to the film and their understanding of its implication in a discussion setting; and so forth. Such interest,
however, does not imply that an in-depth study of the topic of pirates is in their best developmental, educational,
or even moral interests. We suggest that it is useful to distinguish between providing opportunity for childinitiated
spontaneous play around a topic of interest to them and what may not be worthy of the kind of effort and energy
required for conducting an in-depth investigation of it. The topic of a project should be part of the general
commitment of the teacher and the school to taking children and their intellectual powers seriously and to treating
them as young investigators of phenomena worth understanding more fully.
Adults have substantial responsibility to educate children’s interests and to alert them to events and phenomena
around them that are worthy of their attention and understanding. This does not mean that the teacher indicates
disrespect or disdain for the children’s own expressed interests. Children’s awareness of the teacher’s real and deep
interest in a topic (e.g., the changes in the natural environment over a 6-week period) is likely to engender some
level of interest in the topic among the children who respect and look up to the teacher. In this way, adults take
responsibility for educating children’s interests.
Sometimes teachers select exotic and glamorous topics in the hope of exciting the attention of children who are
sometimes reluctant or uninvolved members of the group. For example, projects revolving around the rain forest
in a kindergarten in a U.S. Midwest location may entice young children into participation and certainly do no
harm. Again, our experience of working with many teachers all over the world indicates that young children can
be no less fascinated and intrigued by the experience of close observation and study of their own immediate
natural environments, whether cornfields, apple orchards, or a nearby bicycle shop. If the topic is an exotic and
therefore remote one, it is difficult for the children to contribute to the direction and design of the project
investigation. The less firsthand experience the children have in relation to the topic, the more dependent they are
on the teacher for the ideas, information, questions, hypotheses, and so forth that constitute the essence of good
project work. Young children are indeed dependent on adults for many important aspects of their lives. Project
work is that part of the curriculum in which children are encouraged to take the initiative in setting the questions
to be answered and the direction of the study; it is also where they are prompted to accept responsibility for
gathering the data and to define the work to be accomplished.
Along similar lines, topics are sometimes chosen because they are expected to amuse or entertain the children.
Such topics are thought by teachers to stimulate children’s imaginations (e.g., “The Little Mermaid,” teddy bears).
In good project work, children have ample opportunity to use and strengthen their imaginations when they make
predictions about what they will find before taking a field trip, when they predict the answers to their questions
that a visiting expert might give, or when they argue with each other about possible causes and effects related to
the phenomenon under investigation. Project work stimulates and strengthens young children’s imaginations in
many other ways as well; for example, during the early phases of a project, they are encouraged to report their
actual experiences and memories related to the topic but also to make up their own stories related to it (e.g., stories
of actual experiences of riding a tricycle and imaginary and fictional stories of bike rides).
310
Diversity of Experiences
In some classes, the diversity of the incoming pupils’ experiences might be so great that it would be beneficial to
begin the year with a topic that the teacher is reasonably certain is familiar to all children. At the beginning of the
life of the classroom group, it is probably best to ensure that all the children have sufficient experience related to
the topic to be able to recognize and share their own experience and participate in discussion with some
confidence. As the school year progresses and children become adept at project work, they can more readily
appreciate that classmates have different interests and prefer to work on different subtopics. In this way, children’s
appreciation of differences in experiences, interests, and abilities among their peers can be deepened.
Diversity of Culture and Background

The project approach is highly responsive to diversity of cultures and backgrounds within the group of children
being served. One consideration to be made when selecting topics for diverse groups is that some topics may be
considered delicate in some cultures but not others. Moreover, some topics might embarrass children of some
backgrounds. We find it useful to make a distinction between a child’s culture and a child’s heritage. Culture refers
to the current day-to-day experiences and environment of the children; heritage refers to historic and ancestral
characteristics and past experiences associated with their origins. From a developmental perspective, young
children can deepen their understanding of their culture through good project work; deepening their knowledge of
their heritage is more appropriately accomplished through other parts of the curriculum, especially as children get
older.
Preparation for Participation in a Democratic Society

An important consideration in the selection of the topics of projects is a commitment to building children’s
abilities to be able, ultimately, to participate competently in a democratic society. In the service of this goal, good
topics are those that deepen children’s understanding, knowledge, and appreciation of the contribution of others
to the well-being of all. One of the many potential benefits of good project work is that it provides a wide range of
experiences within the classroom that constitute participation in democratic processes: collaboration, listening and
responding to each others’ ideas, coordinating efforts and diverse contributions of members of the whole and of
subgroups, negotiating disagreements, reaching consensus on how to solve problems and accomplish tasks, and so
forth. All these processes help to lay the foundation for competence in democratic living.
In the interests of the goal of preparing for participation in democracy, we ask, “Will the study of this topic
strengthen and/or deepen the disposition to examine closely the real world and its complexities?” Thus, we suggest
avoiding topics that are frivolous, banal, or of trivial consequence. Instead, we recommend choosing topics that
involve children in unpacking the familiar, deepening their understanding of what goes on behind the scenes and
of how various people’s efforts contribute to daily community life. These topics can contribute to children’s
growing capacity to appreciate the diverse ways that others contribute to their well-being, which is basic to a
democratic community.
Criteria for Selecting Topics

Based on the preceding discussion, we offer the following list of criteria for selecting project topics: A topic is likely
to be a good one if …
1. Relevant phenomena are directly observable in the children’s own environments.
2. It is within children’s experiences.
311
3. Firsthand direct investigation is feasible (and involves no potential dangers).
4. Local resources are favorable and readily accessible.
5. It has good potential for a variety of representational media (role-play, construction, multidimensional
representation, graphic organizers, and so on).
6. Parental participation and contributions are likely; parents can become involved in the investigation with
little difficulty.
7. It is sensitive to local culture as well as culturally appropriate in general.
8. It is potentially interesting to many of the children or is an interest that adults consider worthy of
developing in children.
9. It is related to curriculum goals of the school and district.
10. It provides ample opportunity to apply basic skills appropriate to the ages of the children.
11. The topic is optimally specific—not too narrow and not too broad (e.g., a study of the teacher’s own dog at
one end and the topic of “music” at the other).
The Phases Of Project Work

Once the topic of a project has been agreed on by the children and their teachers, a central feature of project work
is the children’s involvement in identifying which aspects of it to explore, formulating the research questions,
planning the work, and defining the kinds of representations of findings and reports to be prepared. In other
words, project investigations can be thought of as having the same kind of narrative or sequential quality as any
other scientific endeavor: The investigators develop a set of questions, predict where they are most likely to get
useful answers, proceed to collect the data they predict will yield answers, analyze and summarize their findings,
and report them to others who might also have some interest in them. Projects can be planned and conducted in
three approximate sequential phases (see Chard, 1998a, 1998b).
Phase 1: Getting Started on a Project

In the first phase of a project, the teacher encourages the children to share their own personal experiences and
recollections related to the topic and to review their knowledge of it, using representational and expressive
competencies such as dramatic play, drawing, reporting their experiences, and writing about them. During these
initial activities, the teacher can learn of the special interests of individual children and their parents; this sharing
also helps establish a baseline of understanding for the whole group involved in the project. Parents may be able to
contribute to the project in a variety of ways, such as arranging places to visit, lending items for display, being
interviewed by the children, and providing access to information.
In the process of reviewing their current understanding of the topic during the first phase of a project, children
raise questions about the topic. Often the questions reveal gaps in knowledge or even misunderstandings, which
can form the basis for planning the second phase of the project. In the role of consultant, the teacher is not too
quick to correct misconceptions that emerge during Phase 1; these can be excellent resources for learning as the
children investigate and test their predictions and theories (Table 13–1).
An important part of question table development is to respond to children’s predictions of the answers to their
questions by asking them (in a positive, serious, and encouraging tone) questions such as “What makes you think
so?” By asking such questions from time to time, the teacher is supporting children’s development of the
disposition to reflect on the bases of their predictions, ideas, opinions, and assumptions that should serve them
312
well throughout life. The question table can remain visible throughout the life of the project, as well as when
appropriate during group discussions that might give rise to more questions and recent findings. Indications of the
sources of their findings can be added to the table.
Phase 2: Developing a Project

The main thrust of the second phase is gaining new information, especially by means of firsthand, direct, real-
world experience. The sources of information used can be primary as well as secondary, depending upon the ages
of the children involved.
Primary sources include field trips to real settings and events, such as an actual construction site or the goods-
delivery section of a supermarket to be observed. Interviewing people who have direct experiences related to the
topic also provides firsthand information. All occasions for interviews should be carefully prepared in advance so
that the children appreciate the activity’s usefulness and spend the time productively. In addition, developing and
distributing surveys and questionnaires can be included in the datagathering process for children of all ages.
Secondary sources of information, such as books, relevant educational films, videotapes, brochures, and pamphlets
can also be examined at this time.
Fieldwork
During Phase 2, the children can plan a field site visit together with their teacher. Field site visits do not have to be
elaborate, involving expensive transportation to distant places. They can involve going to places close to the
schools—shops, the town hall, stores, parks, construction sites, walks in the neighborhood, and such—taking note
of the variety of buildings, types of windows and doors, and so on. With teacher aides and volunteer parent
helpers, the children can go to these sites in small groups, enjoying the opportunity to talk with an adult about
what they are observing. It is not usually necessary for the whole class to participate in a field site visit.
Table 13–1 The Question Table

Questions Predictions Findings Sources
1. 100
How many shoes do you sell in a day? 2. 50
3. 10
1. Put it in a box
What do you do with the money?
2. Take it home
Preparing for fieldwork includes identifying questions to be answered and deciding on people to talk to who can
be good sources of information about their topic or subtopic. To help them record their observations, children can
carry simple clipboards and can sketch or write things of special interest to be reviewed on return to the classroom.
During the visit, children can also be encouraged to count, note shapes and colors, learn any special words, figure
out how things work, and use all their senses to deepen their knowledge of the phenomena studied. The benefits
of project work are often increased when the children sketch and draw the relevant object and persons they
observe. The focus for these experiences is not on the elements of art but on how best to represent what has been
observed and to make it available for further inspection on return to the class.
In the classroom following fieldwork and site visits, the children can recall many details and review the
information collected from interviews. The children can represent their findings in increasingly elaborate ways as
they learn more about the topic. At this time, the children apply the skills of talking, drawing, dramatic play,
writing, making simple mathematical notations, taking measurements, making charts, Venn diagrams and
histograms, diagramming sequences of events, and so on. If a field site is nearby, such as a construction site in the
313
vicinity of the school, it can be visited on several occasions and comparisons can be made between what was
observed on one visit and on subsequent ones.
The children’s work can be accumulated in individual project folders, in computer files, in wall displays, and
within group record books in which work is shared with others. Children can be fully involved in discussing and
planning what will be displayed for others to see how it should be done. The work can also be stimulated and
enriched by a variety of secondary source materials, books, charts, leaflets, maps, pamphlets, and pictures.
As the work progresses in Phase 2, the children often develop a strong concern for realism and logic about the
topic; drawing real objects becomes an increasingly absorbing activity. In their observational drawing, young
children can look closely at the plants and animals, see how the parts of a bicycle interconnect within the whole,
or notice how the pattern inside a carrot dissected different ways indicates the way water and other nutrients
contribute to its growth. Interest is stimulated by frequent recognition, review, and discussion of the progress of
the project.
Phase 3: Concluding a Project

The main thrust of the last phase of a project is the completion of the individual and group work and summary
and review of what has been learned. For older children, this last phase can include preparing the project’s story
documentation and sharing the findings. For the youngest children, it may be taken up with dramatic play in their
project constructions. Thus, if they have built a store or a hospital, they will be enacting roles associated with those
settings.
At the beginning of this final phase, at all ages, the teacher can engage the children in a discussion about what
aspects of the project they think should be shared with others, as well as what they think might be of most interest
to their parents about the project. This process should be initiated before their interest in the topic wanes. It is
possible that a project can go on too long; almost any topic can be run into the ground.
The third phase of the project can include inviting visitors to see the work at an open house, or other classes in the
school could be invited to see some of the displays of the children’s work. It is also satisfying for the children to
share their ideas with the director/principal and other interested teachers; this offers a good debriefing experience
for the class following the investment of considerable effort. Preparation for such occasions provides real purpose
for a review of the work achieved. At this time, the children can also be encouraged to evaluate their own work, to
compare what has been discovered with the questions they generated during Phase 1. During this phase, the
children can discuss what should be included in the completed question table shown in Table 13–1. The children
and teacher can come to agreement concerning what has been learned, their new understandings of the topic, and
what more they might want to learn about the topic in the future.
Evaluation of Projects
To date no systematic formal evaluations of the project approach have been reported. However, teachers may use
several criteria to evaluate their own implementation of the approach. Among them are the appropriateness of the
topic under investigation and what was accomplished during each of the three phases. One important criterion for
evaluating a project is the extent to which the children themselves did the essential work. Carefully developed
documentation and displays that tell the story of the children’s work and their experiences during the project can
also help to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of what was accomplished. We next present a brief outline of
how a whole-class project on the topic of shoes might proceed.
A Kindergarten Project On Shoes

The following account describes a project on shoes undertaken by a kindergarten class. The teacher was having a
314
discussion with the children about footwear, provoked by the fact that several of them had new shoes at the
beginning of the school year. The shoes had many interesting features: Some lit up, some made noises, and some
had laces with different patterns and colors. The teacher thought of several possible lines of inquiry the children
might pursue in a study of shoes. She brainstormed ideas and represented them in a topic web.
Phase 1: Getting Started on the Project

The children in the class talked about their shoes and their experiences of buying shoes. The children began to
wonder about shoes and to raise questions. The teacher helped the children make a list of questions and added to
it throughout the first week of the project. The children drew and painted pictures of shoes and of their
experiences of buying shoes. The children were encouraged to ask their parents, friends, and neighbors for shoes
they might give them to contribute to the class shoe collection for the study. The teacher brought in some shoes
from her 16-year-old daughter’s closet and added these to the dramatic play area. They set up a simple shoe store
and tried on the different shoes there. The parents were informed of the topic of study and were invited to discuss
shoes with their children. They were also invited to share with the class any special knowledge they might have
about footwear of many kinds (e.g., ballet slippers, fishing boots, skates, skis, and so forth). At the end of the first
week, the teacher arranged for one of the children in the class to bring in his baby brother to show the class his
first pair of walking shoes.
Phase 2: Developing the Project

The teacher and the children talked about what they could do to find answers to their questions about shoes. The
questions included the following: “What are shoes made of?” “Where are shoes made?” “How much do they cost?”
“How do you know what size you wear?”
As the children began to discuss money, they talked about what the storekeepers did with the money people paid
when they bought shoes. Some thought the salespersons gave it to poor people, others thought they took it home
for their pay, and some thought the boss kept it all. The children predicted a variety of answers to their questions,
which heightened their curiosity and desire to find out more details about what goes on in the shoe store. The
teacher arranged a field site visit to a family shoe store nearby in their city. The children worked for a whole week
to prepare for the visit. They decided which parts of the store needed to be investigated, who would take
responsibility for drawing which parts of the store, and who would ask which questions of the manager and of the
salespersons. The fieldwork was planned to get the information needed to make a more elaborate shoe store in the
classroom on their return.
Five groups formed around the children’s special interests. They were interested in the following:
1. The cash register, how many shoes are sold in a day, and the amount of money collected each day
2. The storeroom, how the shoe boxes are arranged (e.g., men/women/children, sizes, dress/sport, seasonal,
colors, and so on)
3. The shoe salesperson’s responsibilities and activities
4. Different kinds of footwear available and the sizes, colors, and number of shoes in stock
5. Where the shoes came from, where they were delivered, and the frequency of deliveries
The teacher discussed with each group the questions they wanted to ask and what they wanted to find out from
the people, the possible answers to their questions, and other things learned at the store. The teachers helped the
children think about ways to record the information to be gathered at the field site.
The teacher contacted the personnel in the shoe store in advance to prepare them for the visit. She explained the
315
expectations she had for the field experience. She outlined the questions the children wanted to ask and described
the field sketches planned, the observations the children wanted to make of the salespersons at work, and the items
in the store that the children wanted to examine closely.
When the big day arrived, the three personnel at the shoe store spent a few minutes with each group of children.
The children returned to school with much to think about. The teacher led discussions in large and small groups
to debrief the children about what happened during the visit.
Each subgroup told the others in the class about their experience and the information they had acquired. Then
they set out to build a shoe store in their classroom. Throughout the next 3 weeks, the teacher talked to each
group about their progress; the children listened to each other’s ideas and made suggestions to each other.
Some children worked on making cars to get to the store. Others made a bird in a cage like the one they had seen
in the store; some children made a television set like the one in the store. They made catalogs for the shoes in their
own store. They marked the shoe boxes they had collected to indicate which kinds of shoes were in them and
added price labels. Some children made money for the little cash register the teacher provided. They worked on a
book to tell new shop workers how to sell shoes. They made a wooden bench for children to sit on while waiting
to be served by salespersons. In some cases, several versions of these items were made because children wanted to
be involved personally in particular contributions to the store. For example, many shoe catalogs were made.
During this period of investigating and representing the items the children wanted to put in their shoe store, the
teacher invited several visitors to the classroom. Another teacher in the school was a dancer and showed her tap
dancing shoes and her special jazz dancing shoes. A Chinese parent helped the two children from China to
produce a Chinese version of a shoe catalog and to post advertising and directional signs in Mandarin. One father
was a member of the police force and who helped the children understand the importance of the evidence of shoe
prints at the site of a crime for finding criminals. Another parent visitor showed her special shoes for bicycle
racing. A grandfather of one of the children had repaired shoes in his work and was able to tell the children about
how shoes are usually made and of the different materials from which they are made. With this knowledgeable
man’s help, the children were able to examine the materials used in a shoe’s construction: the leather, thread,
tacks, and glue. Various other kinds of sports shoes were shown to the children by older siblings and their special
features were discussed: ice skates, inline skates, ski boots, fishing waders, soccer shoes with and without cleats,
wooden clogs from The Netherlands, ballet slippers, and cowboy boots and spurs.
During the field visit, the children had watched the process of selling a pair of shoes to a customer. They had
followed the sale and purchase, noting the steps in the process from the point of view of the sales clerk and the
customer. They were able to use four steps in the dramatization of the sale and purchase of shoes in their own shoe
store: (1) interviewing prospective buyers as to the kind and color of shoe they wanted and the price they wanted
to pay; (2) measuring customers’ feet; (3) taking pride in the store’s inventory and showing several pairs of shoes
to customers; and (4) concluding the sale and putting the unsold shoes back in their boxes and on the storage
shelves.
The children who made the money for the cash register also set up a bank so that the money could be used to
purchase shoes in the store. A dollar amount was provided to help those children who wished to use it to count
out an appropriate amount of money they wanted to spend.
Phase 3: Concluding the Project

The teacher arranged an opportunity for the parents to come to the school to visit the children’s shoe store and see
what had been learned in the process of developing the children’s interests in shoe store construction and play.
The parents had the opportunity to buy the shoes in the store and be served by their children.
After several weeks, the children became interested in new kinds of play. They wanted to explore the bus travel
that had begun during the shoe project as some customers “came to town” to buy shoes using the local transit
316
system. Mean-while, the parents were able to look at the children’s drawings and paintings. They could take note
of the children’s beginning attempts to write signs and other matters concerning price and to explore various
aspects of arithmetic related to counting money and to measuring sizes and quantities of various shoe-related
objects. The parents were able to read the documentation of the project. They read the word labels and captions
written by children and the teacher on the representational work and the photographs taken throughout the
project to record the high points and various aspects of the children’s learning. Among the skills applied by the
children were counting and measuring; using technical vocabulary; developing color, shape, and size recognition;
interviewing; collaborating; and other social skills. The parents could appreciate the knowledge the children had
gained concerning the processes of designing, manufacturing, and selling a wide variety of footwear and the
information about the variety of materials used in making their different parts. The children also demonstrated
their understanding of how a store worked and the interdependence of the number of different people involved in
enabling people to wear something as basic as shoes. The parents who had participated in the final sharing of the
children’s work were left in no doubt that a wide range of valuable in-depth learning had taken place over the 8
weeks of the project.
Commentary
This project is described as typical for a class of kindergarten children. However, it is difficult to describe projects
as typical because much of the work of any project with any teacher or group of children is related to the
availability of local resources for firsthand investigation and to the interests expressed by the particular
participants.
The availability of parent experts willing to help the children made a crucial contribution to the quality of what
was accomplished. The parents of any class group might include a number of people involved in house
construction, vehicle driving and maintenance, food services, farming, and the health services. Teachers can find
out about the particular expertise of the parents of the children in the class and can plan some of the project work
to enrich the children’s experience with their special knowledge. Bilingual parents can help to sensitize the
children to words used in different cultures to describe the same objects and processes (see, for example,
ecrp.uiuc.edu/v3n1/wilson.html). This can help to ensure that all children in a group or class are involved in the
investigation and that an awareness of different languages can begin early in children’s lives.
The age of the children affects the extent to which project work can involve a class of children for an extended
period of time. Younger children would probably not have benefited from quite such elaborate dramatic play and
the project probably would not have continued to develop over so many weeks. Older children, on the other hand,
might have seen a DVD or examined materials of a shoe factory on the Internet, built an assembly line on one side
of the classroom, focused on their understanding of the process of shoe design and production, studied the
workings of a shoe store, and included a variety of mathematical studies involving average sizes, costs, and surveys
of classmates’ shoes and preferences.
Conclusion
The inclusion of project work in the curriculum for young children addresses the four major learning goals of all
education: the construction and acquisition of worthwhile knowledge; development of a variety of basic
intellectual, academic, motor, and social skills; strengthening of desirable dispositions; and engendering of positive
feelings about one’s self as a learner and participant in group endeavors. Because project work is complementary to
formal instruction, children have the opportunity to apply their basic skills in the course of studying meaningful
topics. In this way, school experience becomes interesting not only to the children but to the teacher as well.
Reflect On
317
1. What is the theoretical foundation of the project approach?
2. What factors might you take into consideration in deciding what projects would be of interest to young
children?
3. What phases are involved in implementing a project?
4. How appealing might the project approach be to early childhood educators in a high testing climate?
5. What types of assessments can you generate to evaluate learning outcomes in programs that employ the
project approach?
Selected Resources
www.projectapproach.org
www.ecrp.uiuc.edu
References
1. Chard, S. C. (1998a). The project approach. Practical guide 1. Developing the basic framework. New York,
NY: Scholastic.
2. Chard, S. C. (1998b). The project approach. Practical guide 2. Developing curriculum with children. New
York, NY: Scholastic.
3. Dresden, J., & Lee, K. (2007). The effects of project work in a first grade classroom. A little goes a long
way. Early Childhood Research & Practice. Retrieved from http://www.ecrp.uiuc.edu/v9n1/dresden.html
4. Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (Eds.). (1998). The hundred languages of children: The Reggio
Emilia approach to early childhood education (2nd ed.). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
5. Flook, L., Repetti, R. L., & Ullman, J. B. (2005). Classroom social experiences as predictors of academic
performance. Developmental Psychology, 41 (2), 319–327.
6. Helm, J. H., Beneke, S., & Steinheimer, K. (2007). Windows on learning. Documenting young children’s work
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
7. Helm, J. H., & Katz, L. G. (2011). Young investigators: The project approach in the early years (2nd ed.). New
8. Katz, L. G. (1994). The project approach. Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early
Childhood Education.
9. Katz, L. G., & Chard, S. C. (1996). The contribution of documentation to the quality of early childhood
education. Champaign, IL: ERIC. Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education.
10. Katz, L. G., & Chard, S. C. (2000). Engaging children’s minds: The project approach (2nd ed.). Stamford,
CT: Ablex.
11. Katz, L. G., & McClellan, D. (1997). Fostering social competence: The teacher’s role. Washington, DC:
12. Marchand, G., & Skinner, E. (2007). Motivational dynamics of children’s academic help-seeking and
318
concealment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (1), 65–82.
13. Schidt, H., Burts, D. C., Durham, S., Charlesworth, R., & Hart, C. (2007, Spring). Impact of
developmental appropriateness of teacher guidance strategies on kindergarten children’s interpersonal
relations. Journal of Research on Childhood Education, 21 (3), 290–301.
14. Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1996). Every child, every school: Success for all.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
15. Smith, L. S. (1997). Open education revisited. Teachers College Record, 99 (2), 371–415.
16. Tanner, L. N. (1997). Dewey’s laboratory school: Lessons for today. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
319
Part IV Specific Approaches—Europe
1. CHAPTER 14 The Piramide Method
2. CHAPTER 15 Reggio Emilia in the 21st Century: Enduring Commitments Amid New Challenges
3. CHAPTER 16 Montessori Education Today
4. CHAPTER 17 The Waldorf Approach to Early Childhood Education
320
Chapter 14 The Piramide Method
Jef J. van Kuyk
Founder Piramide Method, Cito Corporation, Arnhem, The Netherlands
Describe the foundation of the Piramide Method
Outline the basic concepts in coherence
Explain how to optimize the two sources of development
Characterize the content of the Piramide Method
Delineate the levels of action and thinking
Summarize the practices that optimize children’s development
List the three levels of intervention
Understand how the practice is executed
Illustrate how the Piramide Method is evaluated
Discuss child assessment
Discuss teacher evaluation
Discuss program evaluation
The Piramide Method1 is grounded in theory and practice. Coherently holistic, this method is designed to be an
infrastructure for the teacher, a plan to manage the education of young children from birth to 7 years.
The Piramide Method is conceptually a developmental web for the teacher, in which all the components work
together and provide an infrastructure to support child development and early education. One advantage of the
method is that the user can immediately understand where she is and how she is connected to the developmental
web. The teacher can add experiences or opportunities to meet the assessed needs of children and at the same time
reflect on her practice when necessary. A bird’s-eye view of the Piramide Method is offered in Figure 14–1, with
key terms identified and explained as follows:
1. Piramide: This method provides a guided approach for creating a safe, familiar educational environment
where teachers, parents, and children from birth to 7 years feel free, safe, and challenged.
2. Four cornerstones: These are at the heart of Piramide’s strong developmental foundation and grounding for
the educational process:
Initiative of the child: The child’s initiative is the beginning and end of the education process. With
curiosity as the driving force, the child takes initiative to explore the world in order to fulfill life tasks
independently later.
321
322
Figure 14–1 Key Terms Used in the
Piramide Method: Art = artistic
development; Pers = personality
development; Soc-em = social-emotional
development; Perc = perception; Math =
mathematics; S = space; T = time; Cogn
Int = cognitive intelligence; Em Int =
emotional intelligence; Phys Int = physical
intelligence.
Initiative of the teacher has great influence on supporting the play and learning process, which she
uses to scaffold children to the next level of development.
Nearness represents the attachment between teachers, parents, and children; it is the basis for the
relational component in which the teacher uses positive and affirming ways to treat children. It is also
how she offers safety, emotional support, and respect for autonomy, structure, rituals, and rules.
Distance refers to the distancing process that is the basis for the educational component in which the
teacher starts near (familiar and concrete) and motivates children to engage in distancing (move
toward complexity and abstraction). The aim is to help children think flexibly and creatively: move
from near to distant, from small to big, and from concrete to abstract. If not, children will fail to
provide the abstract representations they need for flexible thinking. The opposite way is not workable,
because development starts with concrete perception and not with abstractions.
3. Sources for supporting and promoting development: These sources involve the play and learning
environment for self-regulation and the projects for scaffolding. Both sources strengthen and feed on each
other.
4. Content for the Piramide Method: The content is the development of physical, emotional, and cognitive
intelligence, worked out in various developmental areas. For physical intelligence, this would be motor and
artistic development; for emotional intelligence, this would be personality and social-emotional
development; and for cognitive intelligence, this would be perception, language, mathematics, and space
and time. They are all brought together in a developmental web.
5. Preparation: The teacher prepares the play and learning environment in such a way that children can find
materials in various learning centers (corners, areas) and in cupboards to explore and use in support of
development in all areas. In projects, developmental areas are ordered around a theme and are connected
with tutoring, enrichment activities, and the Parent Program.
6. Execution: The practices that stimulate the development of play and initiative learning as self-regulating
instruments, the steps in the projects (increasing level of thinking), and the sequential framework (increasing
difficulty in every developmental area) as scaffolding instruments for the teacher are prepared by the
Welcome Program.
7. Assessment: Self-regulating activities of children in the play and learning environment are authentically
assessed by constructing a portfolio and through observations. Every 6 months the project activities are
systematically assessed with a digital monitoring system and observation scales to help discover which
323
children need tutoring and extra support.
8. Implementation and Training: Teachers are trained and certified to use the Piramide Method.
Teachers jointly prepare the 12 projects per year that form the core of the Piramide Method. They put new play
and learning materials into the environment to encourage children to play and learn independently, and based on
their needs and interests carefully prepare activities that stimulate the development of children. This creates
interplay between what children do on their own initiative and how the teachers challenge them. When children
can open themselves up to explore and experience in an atmosphere of good feelings, they are better able to use
what the play, the learning environment, and the projects have to offer.
The Foundation of the Piramide Method

The four cornerstones of the Piramide Method—initiative of the child, initiative of the teacher, nearness, and
distance—are founded on successful theories, research, and practice.
Dynamic systems theory (Fischer & Bidell, 2006; Fischer & Rose, 1998; Van Geert, 2006) forms the general basis
for the Piramide Method. Piramide also incorporates and builds on the theories of Piaget (1970) and Vygotsky
(1962). Dynamic systems theory, built on the premise that humans are self-regulating beings, has opened new
perspectives for the education of young children. The theory consists of a series of dynamic long- and short-term
cycles. During these growth cycles, the child learns and relearns new skills through self-regulation, which refers to
the initiative of the child, and through scaffolding, which refers to the initiative of the teacher. Two other concepts
are also crucial to the Piramide Method: the developmental web, which refers to coherence in optimizing
development that places education in a positive view, and the importance of the teacher (Fischer & Bidell, 2006).
These two concepts have shaped the sources for development of the Piramide Method: the play and learning
environment and the projects. The development areas are stimulated through the play and learning environment
and through the project themes that are structured in short- and long-term cycles (van Kuyk, 2011a).
Educating children requires that the attachment between children and the educator be solid (Ainsworth, Blehar, &
Waters, 1978; Bowlby, 1969; Erickson, Sroufe, & Egeland, 1985; Riksen-Walraven, 2008). Feeling that the
educator is close by allows children to feel safe, secure, and free enough to go forward and explore the world. The
educator provides children this freedom while creating a clear structure and establishing rules (van Kuyk, 2008).
These rules are not to restrict the child, but to indicate where there is space for playing and learning. Structure and
rules also give the child a sense of safety and well-being. The task of the educator is to pick up signals and to help
children find the answers that will allow them to find the inner self. We refer to this as sensitive response attitude.
In the relational component, based on attachment theory, we also pay attention to good (positive) feelings (Fischer
& Bidell, 2006; Klein, 2002). Good feelings create a positive social climate and stimulate the development of
more good feelings. Good feelings are aroused by movement, helping to make learning processes more successful
and optimal.
In a society where change is a persistent characteristic, an important factor is dynamic and flexible thinking
(Fischer & Bidell, 2006). The main concept in learning and teaching flexible and dynamic thinking in the
Piramide Method is distancing (Sigel, 1993, 2006). The teacher starts near the children’s world of experiences and
interests and then helps children to move toward a more symbolic distance from the concrete here and now in the
proximal level of development (Valsinger & Van der Veer, 1993; Vygotsky, 1962). Children take cognitive
distance from what was or will come, things in the direct environment and in situations that are far away, events
that happened in the past or will happen in the future, or in imagination. Research has shown that children who
have educators who engage them in these distancing activities develop optimally, but those whose interactions and
experiences remain in the here and now are less well developed (Sigel, 1993). The basic principle is this: Begin
close with concrete situations and materials and then help children represent things and events that are not in the
here and now by using symbol mediators and questions that make abstract concepts comprehensible and
accessible. Distancing theory is the basis for the project steps, to be discussed later in this chapter.
324
A second concept is the flexibility to think with the right and left hemispheres of our brain (Sperry, 1980; van
Kuyk, 2011b). The left hemisphere controls details, sequences, analyses, and words. The right hemisphere governs
the big picture, synthesis, the whole story, the metaphor, and the context. The left brain knows how to handle
experiences in the world, whereas the right side knows how the world works, the consciousness of what is
happening. We call this “big thinking.” The left half is more for “small thinking,” focused on details. Both ways of
thinking are needed and used by young children.
We have studied successful practices in The Netherlands and in other countries around the world. Although
Piramide is conceived differently, in developing educational materials we have built upon Montessori’s insights
(see Chapter 16). Recent developments in the education of young children on different continents have increased
the universality of Piramide. Implementing the Piramide Method in Germany, Belgium, Japan, Indonesia, and
the United States has made it clear how languages, cultures, and educational systems influence the adaptation of
an educational concept in diverse settings.
The Basic Concepts in Coherence

The four basic concepts that form the cornerstones of the Piramide Method are embodied in what we define as the
paradox of education: The teacher takes care of and protects the vulnerable child who is not yet independent and
at the same time attempts to lead the child toward developing independence. Supporting the child so that he or
she will be able to develop the confidence to explore the world is worked out in the relational and educational
components (see Figure 14–2).
Relational Component
The relational component focuses on how we care for and treat children. As stated earlier, the relational
component is based on attachment theory (Ainsworth et al., 1978; Bowlby, 1969). The essential characteristic of
the connection between the initiative of the child and the initiative of the teacher is sensitive responsiveness. The
teacher notices the signals of the children and reacts in a sensitive way. In the early stages of the development of
very young children, the initiative resides more with the child than with the teacher. The teacher observes what
the child is doing and follows the child’s initiatives. This way, the child can
325
Figure 14–2 Relational and Educational
Components
develop independently, and at his or her own pace. Because children are curious and motivated to develop,
praising them for what they do is often not necessary. In short, teachers can:
Offer children a feeling of safety and well-being
Support them emotionally
Respect their autonomy
Offer clear structure and rules, and rituals
These characteristics are consistent with the needs of young children—the need for safety, the need for autonomy,
and the need for competence (van Kuyk, 2003). A significant aspect of the relational component is what we
denote as “positive education.” Recent neuroscientific studies suggest that negative feelings and depression have a
constraining influence on brain development, while positive emotions keep the brain alive, so new connections
(synapses) are formed (Klein, 2002). Thus, happiness is an important phenomenon for the development of the
brain. Warm, natural communication, attention, pleasure, optimism, and a relaxed atmosphere all promote
involvement in social and cognitive activities. Young children can learn positive feelings and how to manage
anxiety, negative feelings, and gloominess. If children are managing negative feelings, such as anxiety, anger, and
distress, little energy is available for learning processes. In contrast, positive emotions help children be receptive to
learning and to the reinforcement of learning processes. A primary goal is to focus on what is going well and
reinforce that. This increases self-esteem and promotes children’s need for safety, autonomy, and competence.
The teacher creates a cheerful, even mood, and a socially and emotionally positive atmosphere in which negative
feelings are prevented and children are supported to cope with negative emotions in a positive way. A teacher has
to be engaging and ready to help. Children love a positive, kind outlook, but expect the teacher to be decisive.
This creates safety and order in the play and learning environment.
A simple opportunity to create a positive climate is to let children move. Through movement, the brain secretes
hormones such as serotonin and endorphins, which bring lightness in the brain (Klein, 2002). The brain
interprets cold hands and muscle tension as anxiety, producing a feeling of light discomfort. After a short period of
movement, children become warm, their muscles loosen, and their hearts beat quicker; this gives the children a
sense of well-being. Other ways to awaken positive feelings are playing and singing together and creating the
element of surprise. All these activities should be done daily to sustain a positive socio-emotional classroom climate
(van Kuyk, 2011b).
Educational Component
Imaginative play is a central part of the educational component. According to Vygotsky (1962), children can
function beyond their usual capacity when they play. Theater, poetry, and storytelling are useful instruments or
mediators for big thinking because of the play and the use of metaphors in the daily practice of these activities.
Emphasis is on how to recognize the educational needs of children. Children like to do things in a perceptual,
“using the senses” way. They like to act and do things in a playful manner (van Kuyk, 2003). These perceptual
and playful approaches are not only a child’s needs—they also can be useful educational tools. In playing and
initiative learning (both contexts for self-regulation), children’s needs will be met if there is a rich play and
learning environment and enough perceptual, well-ordered materials to challenge children and allow them to
make their own choices. However, the teacher has to make the effort to meet the needs of children. If children are
not intrinsically motivated, teachers have to learn what motivates them and apply this knowledge accordingly.
326
There has to be a balance between effort and relaxation, but most important, next to teaching strategies, is an
environment that offers challenge. Children must have the feeling that they can perform activities independently;
moreover, they must have the expectation that they can accomplish the activity successfully. Making an effort to
reach a goal gives children positive feelings (Csikszentmihalyi, 1996). Challenges excite children. When a part of
the task is completed, they feel encouraged and the effort is reinforced. We have to help children learn how to set
goals and benchmarks in between goals. When this is done in a compassionate environment, activities and
experiences can be very meaningful.
In the Piramide projects, the teacher starts near the experience and makes distancing demands on the child. The
steps in the projects start with Orientation and Demonstration, in which the use of the senses is central, and the
sequence ends with Broadening and Deepening, in which language and problem solving are the main
characteristics. Self-regulation by the children and scaffolding by the teacher are used in balance in the Piramide
Method.
How to Optimize the two Sources of Development

There is a major difference between development through self-regulation and development through scaffolding.
Through self-regulation, a child can reach a normal (lower) level of development; through scaffolding by the
teacher, the same child can reach an optimal (higher) level of development. Is it desirable for a teacher to try to
bring children to an optimal level at all times? Both child and teacher have limits. The teacher needs to distribute
her energy and time to meet the needs and interests of every child in her classroom. Children switch between
tension and relaxation and need time for both self-regulation and scaffolding.
There are two sources for optimal development in the Piramide Method: (1) the play and learning environment
and (2) the projects. Research has shown that children do not always function at the same level, but they can
function at many different levels of action and thought (Figure 14–3). The level at which they function depends
on the circumstances (Fischer & Bidell, 2006).
Figure 14–3 Levels of Action and Thought and

Social Support
A child can act at a developmental level appropriate for his or her age if the relational component is optimal. If
327
circumstances are less favorable—for example, if there is unrest or stress when children are pressed too much or
when there is an emotionally unpleasant atmosphere—then the children function at a reduced level. If children are
disturbed by lack of structure and rules, they will not be able to function at a level appropriate for their age.
Through education, children can be stimulated to rise above the normal developmental level to an optimal level
(Fischer & Bidell, 2006; Sigel, 1993, 2006). In Piramide, we strive for this outcome using the play and learning
environment and the projects.
The play and learning environment supports children in their play and stimulates their initiative learning. Not just
any environment, but a well-prepared environment, will allow children to benefit from as many opportunities as
possible to take initiatives and to make their own decisions. The space should be well structured, so that children
can play and learn productively.
In the projects, the second source for optimizing development, a well-prepared environment is also the basis for
play and initiative learning. In every project, there is a theme around which all the development areas are grouped.
The areas (corners) and places in the play and learning environment are changed for every project in such a way
that there are always new challenges. However, the teacher also has the means to stimulate the development of
children. In every project, there are four steps to bring children to a higher level of development, or, in Vygotsky’s
(1962) terms, the proximal level of development. There are project books, one for every month of the year, that
specify directions and suggestions for how teachers can make each area challenging, adaptable, and renewable.
Within carefully constructed child-friendly areas, children can play and learn better. In group activities, the
teacher can provide clear examples, describe the main features of a situation, guide the process of understanding a
phenomenon, or challenge problem solving. To help children learn in an active way, scaffolding provided by
teachers with considerable knowledge and experience is the best form of support. Therefore, we attach special
importance to stimulating the development of children in the Piramide Method.
The Content of the Piramide Method

In the introduction, suggestions (see relational and educational component) were given on how to work with
children to optimize their development. The questions we now pose are the following: What is the focus of our
efforts to optimize development, and what kind of development is being fostered? In constructing an elementary,
multiple-intelligence model, we have been inspired by dynamic systems theory (Van Geert, 2006), the theory of
emotional intelligence (Salovay & Mayer, 1990), and by multiple intelligence theory (Gardner, 1993).
The content of the Piramide Method is discussed in terms of three intelligences across developmental areas (van
Kuyk, 2003). In the Piramide Method, the three intelligences are given equal importance (Figure 14–4).
Three Intelligences
Simply stated, we distinguish three gifts (3 H’s) or intelligences: the gift of the hand—physical intelligence; the
gift of the heart—emotional intelligence; and the gift of the head—cognitive intelligence. Children possess these
intelligences in varying degrees. We want to offer children a balanced set of developmental pathways that is
composed of all three. Because the intelligences are abstract and general, they are specified in developmental areas
that should be recognizable to all involved in teaching young children.
328
Figure 14–4 Intelligences and Developmental
Areas in the Piramide Method
Physical Intelligence
Physical intelligence is the capacity to initiate movement, to control it, and to express oneself creatively. Here a
distinction is drawn between motor development and artistic (music and art) development. Within these areas,
children learn to move, to act, to control their bodies, and to know their boundaries. They learn to be creative in
relation to their own body, how to develop body language, and how to work with appropriate materials, tools, and
instruments to create new things and to express themselves in art and music. This is, for the most part, a total
experience.
Emotional Intelligence
Emotional intelligence refers to the capacity to sense one’s own emotions and the emotions of others and to
conduct oneself socially. This intelligence area includes personal development and social-emotional development.
Children learn to develop self-confidence, perseverance, and self-regulation. In addition, they learn to recognize
their own feelings and those of others. They show respect for others and develop empathy, the ability to imagine
themselves in someone else’s position and to sense what that person is feeling (Pink, 2006), and they behave and
conduct themselves appropriately (moral development).
329
Cognitive Intelligence
Cognitive intelligence is the capacity to learn, reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, control language and
thought, and work with them all. This intelligence is worked out in the development areas: perception, language,
thinking, and orientation of space and time. All perception, language, and thought take place in space and time.
Children learn to grasp their everyday world by developing these areas. They learn to distance themselves from the
here and now. Language has a double function. It is the means whereby children can communicate and learn from
the teacher; it is also an important educational enrichment tool.
The Levels of Action and Thinking

Here we identify three levels of action and thinking, reflecting an increasingly individualized, more flexible and
conscious use of what is being learned.
Basic Level
The basic level is one of simple knowledge and skills. This is what the child copies and learns from others through
imitation and example. Children learn this in the first steps of the projects and in the sequential activities.
Creative Level
The second level entails creativity. By this we refer to the capacity to make or think of something new and
worthwhile. At this level, children use their basic skills and knowledge in a creative way during play and initiative
learning and in the project steps. They play with what they have learned and begin to follow new paths. Active
learning is indicated, especially in Broadening and Deepening.
Metacognitive Level
At the highest level of knowledge and skills, we speak of metacognition. This level is attained when children are
aware of their knowledge and skills and consciously change their own behavior. Under the direction of cognitive
intelligence, children can become conscious of their physical, emotional, and cognitive actions and work with
them in a flexible and creative manner. During reflections on play and initiative learning (“What is important?
Can you find the solution?”) and during the active learning of projects, children are stimulated to learn and think
on a metacognitive level. The teacher helps young children in metacognition by verbalizing what the children are
doing and by verbalizing what the teacher herself is doing. By verbalizing the actions of children and what the
teacher does, the child becomes conscious of what he or she is doing and what the teacher did, especially when the
teacher helps the child to verbalize his or her own actions.
The Practices that Optimize Children’s Development

In the Piramide Method, we operate with four practices to optimize the development of the child. Two practices
are connected to the initiative of the child: play and initiative learning. Initiative learning is a new term indicating
that children themselves take the initial steps to learn. Two other practices are connected to the initiative of the
teacher: the projects, in which the teacher explores the outside world with children, and the sequential framework
(Figure 14–5), in which a hierarchy of activities is offered for children to learn.
330
Figure 14–5 Four Practices in the Piramide Play
and Learning Environment: Play, Initiative
Learning (Initiative Child), Project Steps, and
Sequential Activities (Initiative Teacher)
Initiative Child Initiative Teacher
Play Project steps
Initiative learning Sequential activities
In the Piramide Method, we focus on children’s ability to regulate themselves. Children are stimulated by a rich
and exciting play and learning environment to take the initiative to be engaged and to make choices for
themselves.
However, children cannot learn everything by themselves. In fact, they learn a great deal from other children and
especially from their teachers. The teacher’s initiative is important in teaching children new things. In looking at
the group as a whole, the teacher has to determine where differentiation is needed in individual children.
Low-scoring children need extra support on an individual basis through tutoring (Slavin, Madden, & Karweit,
1994). For example, a teacher gives guidance to individual children who need extra support or more learning time.
High-scoring children need extra stimulation to feed their self-scaffolding and to promote their problem solving
(Van Geert & Steenbeek, 2006). But individual tutoring and motivating bright children takes extra time and
energy. Although tutoring and stimulating bright children is incorporated in the Piramide project book, this can
be done more efficiently by exploring subjects in groups with the help of projects and sequential activities.
Division of roles in doing activities is part of structured or semistructured cooperative learning (Kagan, 2003).
Group learning provides children with more possibilities to cooperate and to communicate. In these situations,
children are active and can engage simultaneously in intentional actions such as handling, talking, and thinking
and sharing ideas about the same problems.
The Three Levels of Intervention

The co-construction process (Goldstein, 1999) of children and teachers is differentiated into three levels of
intervention (Figure 14–6).
331
Figure 14–6 Three Levels of Intervention
This is done to ensure that the support children need when they decide to take the initiative and what they must
learn—as individuals or in a group when supported by the teacher’s initiative—are in balance and attuned to each
other.
Low Level
Children play and learn independently, without intervention from their teacher. The teacher gives little or no
support. If support is necessary, the teacher will adjust it to the development level of the child and the degree of
independence displayed. For bright children in particular, there is ample opportunity to play and work at a high
level, because most engage in activities for extended periods independently.
Middle Level
Children play, explore, and learn together with the teacher. A middle level of support is given either in large or
small groups. The structural cooperative learning provides possibilities to act in small groups during activities.
During the projects, the teacher initially gives more than the average amount of support to help get the process
started. The amount of help offered depends on the level of development and the degree of independence the
children display. The teacher then slowly tries to hand over activities, bit by bit, to the children.
High Level
The teacher or tutor plays with or teaches a child or small group of children who require extra help. This teacher
332
or tutor therefore offers considerable support for low-scoring children (tutoring) and for high-scoring (bright)
children. The intensity of support is in proportion to what is needed to bring children to a higher level of
development and to make them more independent.
How the Practice is Executed

Welcome Program
To provide children with a clear understanding of how the Piramide Method works in practice and what they can
expect, we start every year with a Welcome Program. It forms the connection between the relational and
educational component. The children feel welcome and safe; they feel that the teacher is available for them, and
discover what they can find in the play and learning environment. They practice the rituals and rules and learn by
doing. Further, the children discover how to become self-reliant, and how to play and learn independently with
self-confidence. After spending two weeks practicing the rituals, rules, and expectations together with their
parents, the children are ready for Piramide. The basis for the practice is structuring and furnishing the play and
learning environment.
Play and Learning Environment

From research we know that “the brain takes what the environment offers” (Shonkoff & Philips, 2000, p. 216).
Teachers then must offer children a rich and high-level structured environment in which the students can find
new social opportunities and challenges for play and learning that enhance the development of self-regulation.
High-Level Structure
The environment offers new challenges to play and explore. Children can find materials and situations that fit
their level of development and that challenge them to attain higher level skills. They have opportunities to make
their own choices and can make their own flexible decisions. In this environment, we need learning centers with
storage areas containing different levels of materials and discovery tables that offer structures for learning and play.
An example of this kind of structure
Figure 14–7 Developmental Materials for

Mathematics in a Sequence
333
is the series of developmental materials for mathematics—classification, seriation, comparison, and operations—
that have been developed for 2- to 7-year-old children (van Kuyk, 2004a, Leerboek [Learning book]; Figure 14–7).
Children can find their own level of development and choose higher level materials as well.
To practice a project, the teacher changes learning centers to challenge children to experience new materials and
new ideas. He or she offers open cupboards so children may choose educational materials for assignments. The
teacher has to provide physical and psychological space to create an environment that stimulates children to take
initiative.
Physical Space
The teacher offers every child enough room to play and opportunities to take initiative in order to support
learning. In the learning centers, the teacher offers enough materials for each child to choose activities that
represent the different developmental areas. Children can do this alone or with other children. Vygotsky (1962)
stated that through communication with other children, the child has to react to the ideas, actions, and language
of other children. Each child has to constantly change his or her mind. This stimulates flexible and resilient
thinking.
Psychological Space
The teacher allows or stimulates children to take initiative in ways that make them feel what they are doing is
received well. Children do not have to ask for confirmation within the bounds of structure and rules. The teacher
creates psychological space and thus affirms what the child is doing. The teacher accomplishes this by smiling,
nodding, using positive gestures, and providing informative feedback.
Six Features of the Piramide Method

Play
In the Piramide Method, there are three ways to optimize involvement in play.
Creating Rich Play Situations

We identify different types of play. Each type places different demands on the play environment. In the Piramide
Method, we consider five kinds of play: material play, motor play, experience play, imaginary play, and rule play.
In addition to creating play situations in the material environment, we motivate children toward rich play. If there
is not enough rich play, then we move to play enrichment.
Play Enrichment
In the past, teachers often thought they should not disturb children when they are engaged in play; this is certainly
still the case when children are playing richly and deeply. In the Piramide Method, we proceed from the idea that
adults can and should play an active role in enriching play. Children like to play with adults. However, what is
more important and what scientific research has confirmed is that children will act and think at a higher level if an
adult guides them in their play (Fischer & Bidell, 2006). The process of enrichment can take two forms.
334
Joining in the Play
By playing together with the child or a group of children, the teacher shows that he values and enjoys the play in
which the child is engaged. The child feels valued; from this vantage point, the teacher can “enter into the play”
and work to enrich the play activities. If the teacher begins to instruct by saying, for example, “Take the cups,” he
is an instructing teacher and not a playing teacher. Once the teacher is involved as a participant in the child’s or
group’s play, he can offer suggestions, but only if this fits his role.
Enriching Play
The things that show that the play is not rich enough—lack of persistence in play, limited use of imagination, and
poor scripts—can often be a source of inspiration for enriching play. The teacher can observe children’s play and
assess their degree of involvement. Do the children take the initiative to engage in play? Do they make their own
rules? Is the play still exciting enough? Are the roles becoming too stereotyped? Is fantasy being used? The teacher
can introduce a new role into play: “What do I hear? Is that a bell? Who can that be? Who is coming to visit us?”
She can add a new role, or provide the play with more structure or a play plan.
Learning to Play
Sometimes there are children in a group who do not play. They may feel ill, worried, or afraid. Others may not
have a good command of the language and feel left out. There are also those who are not used to playing: Their
play has not been appreciated, has been forbidden, or has been rejected. How can we get these children to play? In
the Piramide Method, we teach children to play in three stages: by showing them how to play, by encouraging
them to play by themselves, and by allowing them to play independently (van Kuyk, 2003). In connection with
the play activities, we offer the Piramide play book, in which the teacher can find different kinds of play activities,
as well as the 10 golden rules for imaginary play and ideas on how to challenge children to play individually and in
groups. The book also includes ideas on how to teach play and how to enrich play.
Initiative Learning
Children do not only want to play—they also want to explore (Johnson, Christie, & Wardle, 2005). They are
motivated to understand the world around them to find out how things work. They set goals for themselves. As
suggested earlier, this is initiative learning, which can be readily observed in beginning literacy, in beginning
numeracy, and in exploring the world. Children embrace this process fully when two conditions are fulfilled: (1)
the play and learning environment is rich for initiative learning, and (2) the child must develop essential life skills
(Galinsky, 2010), such as the ability to focus and express self-control; the ability to take and confront the
perspectives of others; and the ability to take on challenges, be self-directed, and engage in learning. In the
Piramide Method, the rich environment and life skills spark curiosity and motivation, allowing initiative learning
to work. The teacher inspires, provides good examples, and is supportive whenever and wherever necessary.
Creating Rich Initiative Learning Situations

In the Piramide Method, learning centers are designed (language center, discovery center, and math center) and
developmentally appropriate materials are introduced to encourage initiative learning. Children can find and select
materials to develop or expand their ideas. Because the learning centers are designed and coded so that children
know about the levels of difficulty of the materials, they can choose the materials themselves. There is richness in
the kind of materials they can choose. As an example, for writing there are different kinds and formats of paper,
different kinds of pens and stamps, and different examples of letters to write and of writings. In another instance,
335
there are developmental materials for counting, building, grouping, and ordering, and materials that children can
use to build up a sequential line in math (e.g., Classicant, Serio, Seriant I and II, and Comparant; van Kuyk,
2004a, Leerboek [Learning book]; see also Figure 14–7). A discovery table that is created for every project is
another possibility to provide opportunities for initiative learning.
In the play and learning environment, children also use computers, usually in a designated area. The project books
contain games and diverse materials. Many educational games can be downloaded or purchased at attractive prices
through an i-Pad. The i-Pad is also useful as an e-reader, to show and read picture books. In the future, many
similar media will be available that can be used individually and in groups. There are already new apps that will
usher in a revolution in the use of picture books. (See, for instance, The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris
Lessmore, by William Joyce, 2011.) This app is changing the interactive reading of picture books completely,
because it interacts in adorable ways with the child or a group of children. In addition, the i-Pad is capable of
generating text and pictures so that children can learn to read and write on their own. The teacher can also present
the products (pictures, Web sites, videos, games) with a beamer and a smart board for all the children.
Promote Life Skills

Life skills are learned by doing, but also by teaching. There are different kinds of activities that teach life skills. It is
important that the teacher be aware of what the child has to learn. Galinsky (2010) emphasizes the importance of
placing special attention on life skills, and she provides examples of activities to promote them. She also advises on
how to select materials that promote those skills. For instance, to promote focus, computer games that require
children to pay attention can be selected. Another approach is to choose materials and activities that are
challenging for children. Csikszentmihalyi (1990, 1996), like Galinsky, proposes strategies to provide children
with challenging materials and activities. He advocates for clear goals that give the child the feeling that he or she
can fulfill the activity successfully (as direct feedback). Challenging activities that slightly excite in a timeless action
lead to a “flow experience,” providing a feeling of enjoyment. A flow experience occurs when one is in full
concentration and absorption in an activity. This pleasurable state can be controlled and not left to chance by
creating challenging tasks that are neither too difficult nor too easy for children’s abilities.
Inspiring Initiative Learning

A Good Example
In general, the desire for initiative learning will come directly from the child; however, we can also inspire children
and challenge them to learn on their own. The best way to do this is to give children good examples. In the
beginning, the emphasis is put on developing interests, not skills. The teacher can achieve this by allowing
children to see many examples of reading, writing, math, and experiments. For instance, the teacher makes notes
on the board, writes notes using text and numbers, studies the water to see how the tadpoles are getting on in
spring, and checks to see if the seeds are germinating.
Talking About What Is Important

Another source of inspiration is for the teacher to talk to the children about what she is doing: The teacher can
talk about the value of writing and math and their usefulness later in life. The teacher gives children meaningful
examples of where communication is necessary (e.g., shopping). Children must look for ways to formulate what
they want (e.g., in the shop you need a shopping list) and how to pay for what they buy in the supermarket (e.g.,
the grocer receives money for what he or she sells). With young children it is necessary to make links between their
experiences by beginning close and slowly fostering more distance.
336
Offering Support With Initiative Learning
It is clear that knowledge and skills are needed to support young children. The most important condition is that
the children themselves retain the initiative and a feeling of competency. That is, they feel they have achieved the
best possible result. It is therefore necessary to offer strategic help, but only as much as children need to complete
their chosen task. We have already referred to this strategic help as scaffolding. Before the teacher provides support
and determines a strategy, that teacher observes the level of development, the degree of independence, and the
amount of motivation in the child. In connection with initiative learning, the teacher can find suggestions in the
Piramide Learning Book (van Kuyk, 2004a) about how to furnish learning centers for children to experience
reading, writing, and math, and to experiment. The book includes materials that range from simple to difficult,
and information on how to order them. The teacher will also find suggestions on how to work with educational
materials and how to support initiative learning with little, limited, or a lot of involvement.
Projects
A project is a well-balanced body of activities. These activities are closely linked to one another and are built
around a particular theme that fits the experiences and interests of young children. Each year, there are 12
projects. The subjects are chosen on the basis of the children’s interests and experiences. During the year, the
projects increase in difficulty. Two strategies are used to increase the difficulty and the level of thinking. The first
is embedded in distancing theory (Sigel, 1993, 2006). This is the basis for the four progressive project steps
(Orientation, Demonstration, Broadening, Deepening) in which children learn to go from near to distant, from
simple to complex, and from perception to problem solving. The second is a sequential framework (van Kuyk,
2006) that is used to order every developmental area from simple to difficult. Both are incorporated in a holistic
approach to bring about coherence to the activities, creating a developmental web (Fischer & Bidell, 2006). A
network of concepts based on the sequential framework forms the foundation of each project. In the Piramide
Method, the teacher brings the outside world inside the classroom. The teacher integrates each new project into
the play and learning environment and explores each project theme together with children.
A project is a body of activities, set out in a project book. Each project begins by furnishing the play and learning
environment. On the basis of a project theme, children can make play choices for themselves and carry out
initiative learning activities within the context of a rich play and learning environment. This play activity can be
compared to free play, with one difference: The teacher introduces new elements into the play and learning
environment during each project to give children new challenges to play and learn. In the new generation of
project books, there is a strong connection to Web sites referring to the content of the project theme, to pictures
on the Web site (for instance, Vincent Van Gogh paintings in the Art project), to songs, to films that show
processes, and the like. This creates possibilities for the teacher to bring the outside world inside the classroom.
With a beamer and a smart board, the teacher can present all types of images, such as videos, maps, and Google
Earth, to children. The teacher must decipher what is most interesting to children and what will present the best
learning opportunities. The combination of the i-Pad and its successors and the smart board projector can help
children make choices for a higher level of learning that is dynamic and flexible. Children learn to interact with
the new media in a playful manner while in a rich play and learning environment.
Important to each project is group exploration, during which children investigate a topic that is introduced or
encouraged by the teacher, more recently through technology. The teacher differentiates the activities in the group
exploration. Activities are made easier or more difficult; the teacher presents these activities in an interactive way in
which the children are active learners. As noted, along with the Web site references in the project book, the
teacher makes differentiations in the project for children with special needs and for gifted children; she also offers
structural cooperative learning ideas to activate the whole group (Kagan, 2003). After the group exploration has
been completed, the skills learned can be implemented during individual and small-group processing in the
learning centers. At the end of every project book there is a Parent Program that provides parents with
information about the project, the kind of activities the children engage in at school, and activities to do at home.
337
The teacher can also make a digital newsletter that is sent via e-mail to parents.
Learning to Take Distance

As mentioned, one of the basic concepts in the Piramide Method is distance. Children whose parents or teachers
go beyond the here (other places, close by and far off) and now (what has happened previously and what will
happen) appear to develop well.
Figure 14–8 provides an example. Imagine a picture of an elephant against a green background. When the picture
is shown to children, we ask a few “nearby” questions (the answers can be found
Figure 14–8 Question Types and Illustrations

“Nearby” Questions “Distance” Questions
What color is the elephant? Where is the elephant going?
Where is his trunk? What does an elephant eat?
How many ears does the elephant have? Why is his trunk so long?
Where is the elephant standing? Where does an elephant live?
in the picture) and a few “distance” questions (the answer must be figured out by thinking creatively or by using
existing knowledge).
Asking only distance questions may not be sufficient. Nearby questions are also important because they are closer
to children, give them something to hold on to, help to make things more logical, provide them with a feeling of
safety, and give them stable, basic knowledge. But simply asking nearby questions is not challenging enough. In
fact, we should ensure that we ask many distance questions. These are much more difficult to prepare, but they
also are more effective in promoting learning (Sigel, 1993). Learning to take distance occurs in two ways: in short-
term cycles and long-term cycles.
Short-Term Cycle
A number of steps are taken in the group exploration of each project. We begin close to the world as the child
experiences it, and then, bit by bit, we take distance from it. The child must learn to make representations: Mental
images begin to develop from the age of 2 and enable the child to think (Fischer & Rose, 1998). At first these
representations are very concrete, but they slowly become more abstract: first simple representations and later
more complex ones. The period between 2 and 6 years of age is a particularly sensitive one, during which children
take action and begin to make representations on their own. This process takes place in four steps: Orientation,
Demonstration, Broadening, and Deepening (van Kuyk, 2003).
Activity From Orientation

MAKE LEMONADE
Read the book Amanda Pig and the Really Hot Day by Jean Van Leeuwen. Show children the individual pictures,
but also the whole book.
Talk about how hot the day is (Amanda is as droopy as the plants in her father’s garden).
Ask the children how Amanda cools off (a cool shower with a hose and lemonade).
338
Let the children talk about what makes them thirsty and what they like to drink when they are thirsty.
How do they know when they are thirsty?
What signs do their bodies give them?
Next, give each child a cup and plastic spoon.
Let each child pour water from a pitcher into his or her cup.
Give to each child a wedge of lemon to smell and lick.
Talk about how it smells and how it tastes.
Ask them if they can think of any other food that is sour.
Now, let the children squeeze the lemons into their cups of water.
Tell the children to take a sip and see how it tastes.
Pass around a bowl of sugar cubes and let children sweeten their lemonade.
Ask how it tastes.
Which way do they like it best, sour or sweet?
Then ask, “How can we make it colder?
”Have ice in a cooler ready to let each child scoop out an ice cube with a spoon.
Ask them to stir the ice around and then taste again.
“How does it feel now?
Do you like it better warm or cold?
”“What drinks do you like to drink when they are warm, and what drinks do you like to drink when they are cold?
”Intent: Understand various uses of water * Compare sour and sweet tastes * Observe sugar dissolving in water *
Compare temperature of water * Follow sequence of story
1. Orientation. This first step is intended to help children orient to the context of the project theme. It takes
place mainly by linking into children’s experiences and what they already know about the subject.
Moreover, it gives them a sense of safety and the feeling that they can trust the upcoming activity—putting
them in a good mood.
In every step the teacher can choose from activities for every day.
2. Demonstration. This first learning step begins close to the world as the children experience it. In this step, a
great deal of work is done with the senses because this is the way children gain multifaceted experiences. In
discussing concepts, the teacher simultaneously shows (displays) and tells children what he is doing. The
teacher makes use of concrete situations and materials and, on this basis, children build up a great deal of
sensory experiences as the teacher verbalizes what he is doing and names the objects. The teacher provides
clear examples to help children understand. The teacher also uses pictures to illustrate the points.
3. Broadening. This refers to the expansion of concepts. Relevant characteristics are sought in various
examples, comparisons are made (“What are the similarities and what are the differences?”), and more
difficult examples are introduced. Language plays an important role in comparison. The teacher draws
339
heavily on children’s own
Activity from Demonstration

HAULING WATER UP AND DOWN
Tie a long rope to a plastic bucket handle ahead of time.
Gather the children on the playground. Throw the rope over a beam to create a pulley.
Show the children a picture of a well with a bucket attached to a rope (can be found in Project Resources).
Ask them if they know how to get the water from the well.
Sing the nursery rhyme “Jack and Jill” and talk about the fact that they are going up the hill to the well to
get some water to take home.
Show the children the rope and bucket.
Ask a child to pull the empty bucket up using the rope.
Let each child take a quick turn.
Now, challenge them with the question, “What could we use to make the bucket really heavy?”
Let them fill the bucket with whatever they think will make it the heaviest.
Ask children what they hear as they put the different things in the bucket.
Now, let each child try to pull the bucket up with the rope.
What do they notice? Let them help each other if necessary.
Fill the bucket with different amounts of water and let children experience the change in weight.
Leave the bucket outside on the playground for the remainder of the project so children can continue to
experiment with it.
Intent: Demonstrate use of rope and pulley * Solve problems collaboratively * Observe changes in weight *
Describe differences in weight
experiences in the comparisons and helps them take more and more distance. The teacher begins to ask
“distance” questions. He reminds them about things that have happened previously and refers to things that
are not actually present or have not yet happened.
4. Deepening. This last step is for encouraging the child to use what has been learned through Demonstration
and Broadening in new and often more difficult situations. Some of these situations will be familiar, others
will not. Children must learn to solve problems by themselves. The business of thinking things through
plays an important role alongside sensory experience and language. By going into more depth, children learn
to be flexible in using what they have learned and experienced. They learn to switch between different senses
and between different types of representations. Distance questions become the main type of question asked.
The teacher allows children to anticipate new situations. He encourages them to reflect on what they have
learned and to make conclusions from what they have experienced (metacognition). In this process,
representations become more complex and abstract. These representations are necessary for future learning.
“Playing” with these representations is the motor for flexible and dynamic thinking, what we termed left-
and right-side thinking, or small and big thinking. Here the focus is more on big thinking: being conscious
340
of the big picture, seeing the context or the metaphor, because that is not immediately visible. Let children
switch from small to big, big to small, and near to distant.
To go more deeply into a subject (expert scaffolding), a certain amount of knowledge is necessary to ask the most
appropriate distance questions, and “big pictures” are needed to provide the best problems to solve.
Activity from Broadening

CLEAN AND DIRTY WATER
Put out three tubs of clean water on a large plastic sheet.
Ask the children if the water in the tubs is clean or dirty.
Ask what we can use clean water for (washing, drinking, cooking, and so on).
Then, ask them how water can get dirty (bathing in it, washing dishes, pollution).
Break the children into three groups, one for each tub of water.
Give each group ingredients to make their water dirty.
The first group will wash some dirty dishes with soap.
The second group will clean some paintbrushes.
The third group will add dirt, small stones, and leaves.
Let the children look in all three containers and talk about what they notice.
Next, ask the children how we might be able to make the water clean again.
Try pouring some of the water from each tub through coffee filters or cheesecloth and ask the children what they
observe.
Do this several times and see what happens to the water the more times it gets filtered.
Put the jars of filtered water in the Discovery Center with magnifying glasses so children can look more closely at
the water.
Finish by reading Harry the Dirty Dog by Gene Zion.
Intent: Observe and compare clean and dirty water * Work collaboratively with others * Demonstrate
understanding of filtering water * Follow story sequence * Expand vocabulary
Activity from Deepening

HOW DOES WATER CHANGE THINGS?
On a large plastic sheet in the middle of the circle, place an assortment of items such as a piece of dark cotton
cloth, a sheet of aluminum foil, a coffee filter, a plastic container lid, a piece of waxed paper, several sugar cubes, a
facial tissue, a piece of paper towel, and a small bowl of cooking oil. A question in small thinking could be “What
is a facial tissue for?” A question in big thinking could be “Why did I put all these materials together?”
Talk with the children about each item and ask what they know about it.
341
Tell them you are going to experiment to see how water affects each of the items.
Let one child use an eyedropper to wet the first item.
Observe and discuss any changes that occur.
Before each of the next experiments, ask children to predict what they think will happen.
When you have experimented with all of the items, ask the children to help you put them in order from things the
water affected least to things the water affected most.
Intent: Predict the effect of water on various substances * Test predictions through hands-on experimentation *
Observe the effects of water on various substances * Discuss the ways water affects things * Expand knowledge of
the properties of water
In taking initiative, the teacher is supported by a wide range of educational tools designed to motivate children at
each step. During the first step, the teacher assumes that the group does not have much information about the
subject. She gives examples and instructions. During subsequent steps, the teacher motivates children to use what
has been learned by providing expert scaffolding. This enables children to make use of their deeper knowledge and
reflections in other learning activities and helps them to think independently.
With the projects Piramide offers, there are picture books that focus on interactive storytelling. From research
(Stoep & van Elsäcker, 2005) it became clear that “reading” picture books more than once in a structured manner
is more effective than reading them only once. In the Piramide Method, we use one or two picture books, along
with each project book that is related to the project theme. Together with the proficiencies needed for interactive
storytelling (providing children with psychological space), we use the four project steps to elaborate the storytelling
in an interactive way. The same is true for activities for gifted children. For the most part, gifted children need
steps such as Broadening and Deepening on a high level to stay connected to the project. For practicing projects
on an individual level, we make use of many digital materials. Children work with more than one computer in the
classroom.
Long-Term Cycle
For children between the ages of 0 and 7 years—the period of action and representation (Fischer & Rose, 1998)—
a 7-year plan is implemented. Each year Piramide begins with a Welcome Program, followed by 12 projects that
are carried out every 4 weeks.
The 2.5- to 4-year-olds, the middle groups (4- to 5-year-olds), and the older groups (5- to 6.5-year-olds) explore
the same theme on different levels (see Figure 14–9). The youngest group (0- to 2-year-olds) receives suggestions
related to the project themes. For 6- to 7-year-olds, there are projects connected to formal reading, writing, and
math. Each year the teacher and children expand on the level of distancing. Initially, it is closely aligned with the
child’s world of experience and that child’s needs. Later, the child has to imagine more distance from the here and
now. Children learn and relearn to make representations at an increasingly higher level and with greater
complexity and abstraction.
342
Figure 14–9 Short-Term and Long-Term Cycles
in the Piramide Projects
Source: Based on “Growth Cycles of Brain and Mind,” by K. W. Fischer & S. P. Rose, 1998,
Educational Leadership, 56 (3), 56–60.
Sequential Framework
In a sequential framework, the goals of all developmental areas are listed from simple to complex. They constitute
the basis for choosing the activities in the projects in a holistic way. In other words, the developmental areas are
connected to the project theme. There are three benefits to this. The activities are natural and not artificially
chosen. In the project activities, there is an increase in difficulty and challenge for children, and the activities are
holistically connected to the developmental web. This takes place in the context of either a large or a small group.
Sequenced Activities
The sequenced activities in the projects are designed for children between the ages of 4 and 7 years. The activities
are related to these areas:
Fine-motor development, drawing, and writing skills
Language development and preparation for reading and writing
Thinking and math development
Orientation of space and time and discovering the world
The sequential activities are organized according to the degree of difficulty and are placed in the context of the
project theme. As a matter of fact, the sequential framework is the foundation for the projects (van Kuyk, 2006)
and provides the teacher with insight into the structure of every development area. The sequential goals enable the
teacher to support children in emergent literacy, emergent numeracy, writing, and orientation in space and time.
The teacher knows what follows and what came before, and is therefore able to help children in a focused way.
Sequential activities have an important function in the preparation of children for primary school. In every project
343
book, the teacher can find a list of activities of the developmental areas ordered from simple to complex.
The Tutor Program and Activities for Bright Children

The Tutor Program is a mirror of the group exploration in the project book. Slavin et al. (1994) have shown that
tutoring is effective and that the best tutoring is directly related to the daily activities as a preventive measure. In
the Piramide Method, we use tutoring not only in primary school for learning to read, but also in the younger
groups (3- to 6-year-olds) on a much broader scale (van Kuyk, 2003). The same four steps as in the group
exploration are used to challenge the tutored children. Prior to group exploration, a special teacher tutors low-
scoring children, mostly individually, to create a positive spiral so that children feel more involved in the group
activities and have a better level of participation. They receive extra and more intensive learning time. The
activities are performed informally with play, a lot of action, and intensive use of the senses (children’s needs).
Children who do not receive enough preventive tutoring and have yet to master the basic concepts in a project
receive remedial tutoring after each project.
The Parent Program

Parents provide strong support for the Piramide Method that runs parallel with the yearly projects. Parent
involvement is important. This has been shown in a pooled analysis of studies conducted by Royce, Darlington,
and Murray (1983). The educational task is shared by the school and parents (Gestwicki, 1987). Parent activities
are the manifestation of the cooperation between education at home and at school to create optimum
development. Parents can help to extend the child’s play and learning time, which can have an important effect on
child development.
Parents can be involved in the following ways:
The teacher makes an annual parent plan outlining the various interrelated parent activities.
Every morning during “open-house play,” parents are free to play with their children in the classroom. This
links the education at home with the education in the preschool, prekindergarten, and kindergarten.
At the beginning of each year a Parent Week is held, during which parents work with their own child in the
group after the teacher has demonstrated an activity—for example, interactive reading (storytelling) or
explaining an assignment. These activities may be continued in the home environment.
In the Welcome Program, offered at the beginning of the year and for all projects, parents take home play
and learning activities to extend their child’s play and learning time at home. These activities enhance the
project activities in the group or classroom. If necessary, instruction is given in the parents’ own language.
Parents are also encouraged to provide their children with theme-related materials, including materials that
are part of their culture, to take to school with them.
The involvement of parents in the project activities creates a special “binding agent.” Open-house play and the
discovery table, which accompany each project theme, introduce parents to the project theme in a very visible way.
Children benefit frequently and permanently from activities that can be carried out in the home environment.
How the Piramide Method is Evaluated

Because we work toward optimizing the child’s development, it is necessary to follow the development of each
child over the whole Piramide period and, where possible, improve the education process. In doing so, we take
note of children’s behavior (Can the child work independently?) and the results achieved (e.g., vocabulary
expansion). We study both the individual child and the whole group. We refer to this as child assessment. We also
344
approach the evaluation process from the perspective of the teacher. How does the teacher interact with children?
(Is the teacher available for each child? Is the teacher capable of organizing the process in such a way that the
children are able to achieve good results?) We refer to this as teacher evaluation. We then ask ourselves whether
the Piramide Method is a valid approach to early childhood education and whether it is worth using in practice.
(Is it as good as or better than other methods when compared with control or reference groups?) We refer to this
as program evaluation.
Child Assessment
Child assessment is the most important part of the three evaluation processes and helps us support the child’s play
and learning process. A balanced assessment is sought to reveal how development takes place in each
developmental area and how well the objectives or teacher goals are achieved. Development steps, described for
each developmental area, provide a good reference point in evaluating play and initiative learning. The objectives
described in the program goals are used to evaluate the learning process initiated by the teacher. We have selected
evaluation procedures that best suit these two processes.
Authentic and Individual Assessment

To come as close as possible to what the child does, we use reliable procedures that focus on the individual child.
These are procedures that fit into the child’s natural play and learning environment.
We examine the child’s actual behavior: How does the child behave and what are the child’s achievements (Figure
14–10)? This approach allows us to come close to the uniqueness of the individual child, the child’s creativity, and
the child’s own “learning power,” as formulated by Piaget (1970).
Figure 14–10 Portfolio: Child’s Drawing

Systematic and Communal Assessment
345
To ascertain the extent to which children have realized the objectives set for them, we use systematic, standardized
procedures that relate to all children to the same degree. We look at their behavior and achievements to measure
how they use their own initiative and how much they rely on the initiative of their teacher.
Instruments
In conducting the various evaluations, we make use of several different instruments because no single instrument
is suitable for all goals. Each instrument has advantages and disadvantages. Moreover, we look at the quality of the
instruments, the importance of the decisions reached, the period to which they apply, and the consequences they
have. The quality criteria are reliability (each teacher comes to the same conclusion), validity (to measure what
should be measured), and practicality (easy collection of information over a short period). More than 2,000
teachers have tested the practicality of these instruments and Cito (International Institute for Educational
Assessment, based in The Netherlands, also established in the United States as Cito USA) has studied their
reliability and validity using item response theory (Eggen & Sanders, 1993). We use observation scales and tests
that require decisions made over a longer period. These instruments are used to support both relational and
educational decision making. The two types of evaluation—daily evaluation and semiannual evaluation—use
different procedures. These are tailored to specific functions and involve as few disadvantages as possible
(objectivity is maintained in observation by making observation scales and using computer-assisted testing to
prevent subjectivity in data collection).
Daily Evaluation
Daily evaluation takes place in the everyday, natural environment of the group. In the Piramide Method, both the
child’s behavior and the results that child has achieved are assessed.
Observation
As she works, the teacher uses her relational and educational knowledge to observe each child. As far as the
relational component is concerned, the focus falls on safety, autonomy, emotional support, structure, and rules. In
the educational component, the activities that the child undertakes on his own initiative, such as playing and
initiative learning, are emphasized. The teacher also observes the child during group exploration sessions as the
child carries out tasks.
Recordkeeping and Portfolio

The teacher keeps a register of what each child has done. To maintain an overview of work the child produces, the
teacher keeps a portfolio and collects examples of work created on the child’s own initiative. This can be anything
related to art development, such as drawings and three-dimensional objects (digital photographs are useful here),
as well as written pieces or products related to beginning literacy, numeracy, and discovery activities. Every 6
months the most important pieces of work are taken out of the portfolio and saved in the archive portfolio.
Semiannual Evaluation
Twice a year the teacher takes time off from everyday duties and assesses children by using observation scales and
administering some digital tests with children in a child-monitoring system (van Kuyk, 2004b, 2004c; Figure 14–
11).
This assessment focuses on each child’s behavior and what the child has learned from the initiatives undertaken by
346
the teacher, for example, from the projects and sequenced activities. The objective of this evaluation is to find out
what the child has learned or whether the program that the child has followed during the last 6 months should be
improved. The teacher also notes which children should receive tutoring (25% lowest scoring children) or the
special attention for gifted children (25% highest scoring children) in the upcoming 6 months.
Figure 14–11 Digital Test for Prekindergarten

and Kindergarten Children
In assessing physical and emotional intelligence, we make use of observation scales; for cognitive intelligence, we
use tests. In these assessments the development of the child can be followed every 6 months. Using set norms, we
can compare the behavior and skills of each child with those she possessed 6 months earlier and with the norms of
the reference group.
Observation Scales
To observe motor skills, social-emotional development, and play-work behavior of children, the teacher uses two
observation scales: the preschool scale and the prekindergarten/kindergarten scale (Figure 14–12). All children are
observed.
Digital Tests
The three digital tests for cognitive intelligence are language and reading development, the development of
thinking, and numeracy.
Adaptive Tests
After extensive research into whether it was actually possible for children to take a digital test, computer tests were
developed. Studies have shown that young children can work easily with a computer mouse and
347
Figure 14–12 Example from the Preschool
Observation Scale
that, after practicing with a mouse module and with the help of a funny figure that keeps motivating and
supporting them (a virtual coach called “Primo”), they can easily complete the test themselves. The tests are
adaptive, so children only do those assignments that are appropriate to their skill level; they are not given tasks
that are either too difficult or too easy for them. In addition, the computer ensures that the procedure is objective
and the same for each child and not influenced by differences in interpretation on the part of the teachers.
Registration and the making of graphs and tables can be automatically generated when the computer program
developed by Cito is used. According to the Netherlands Institute for Psychology (NIP), these tests conform to a
high psychometric test standard. Information from the preschool scale illustrated in Figure 14–11 is another tool
used by the teacher to follow the development of each child in the same way.
Teacher Evaluation
Teacher evaluation focuses on the way the teacher deals with each child (relational component) and the extent to
which that teacher optimizes the development of each child (educational component). Teachers working with the
Piramide Method receive professional training from a certified Piramide trainer. The training takes 18 days and is
spread over a period of 2 years.
Training
During the training the teacher is coached on the “work floor.” To carry out the training effectively, the trainer
uses the Piramide Implementation Assessment (PIA; van Kuyk, 2007). This instrument covers all the relevant
objectives of the Piramide Method and is presented in an easily recognizable way. Trainer and trainee can decide
together how they will work to optimize the skills that the trainer can observe.
After the Training

After the training has been completed, keeping these skills up to date is important. Every certified teacher gets a
PIA to check the status of their skills based on PIA goals. Teachers are confronted with a number of questions that
348
address both the desired behavior and the actual behavior displayed by the children.
Program Evaluation
Evaluation is an important dimension of the Piramide Method and is done internally as well as externally.
Internal Evaluation
Within the school system, internal evaluation is an acceptable procedure. Schools can evaluate their own teaching
with the help of the Piramide instruments (curriculum independent) developed by Cito. Standardized tests can be
used to establish results from a school, groups of schools, a municipality, or a random, national sample of schools.
Thus, a child’s development can be followed over a period of 3 years. Using the computer program from Cito,
available data can be aggregated to a higher level. It is therefore easy for each school and municipality to use the
computer assessment programs to discover the effectiveness of the Piramide Method.
Figure 14–13 illustrates a scale used to establish the results of an internal evaluation of a 3-year experiment. From
the scale we can read average results and the distribution of results set against a national reference group whose
norms are already established.
It appears that at pretest 75% of children who started the Piramide Method when they were 3 years old were at
the E or D level, compared with a national reference group that took the test. At the end of the experiment 3 years
later, there was a 50% decrease of at-risk children.
349
Figure 14–13 Language Results, Means, and
Variations
In a period of 3 years, children in a Piramide program achieved a result that is roughly the average level of the
reference group. Children who started later—when they were age 4 or 5—also scored at the D or E level initially
but went on to achieve good results, although to a more limited extent than the group that followed the Piramide
program for 3 years. It is clear that children who follow the whole program from beginning to end have the best
results. The same can be seen when examining performance on mathematics and on the space and time tests.
Conclusion
Children have the best results when they begin at 3 years of age and remain with the Piramide Method over the
entire 3-year period. These children accelerate in development, leading to better opportunities for a successful
primary school education. This does not mean that only low-scoring children profit from the Piramide Method.
Comparing the children at the beginning of the experiment who scored D and E (lowest 25% in the reference
group), less likely to be successful in mathematics, and A, B, and C (highest 75% in the reference group), most
likely to be successful, 60% of children were at D and E levels and 40% were at A, B, and C levels. After 3 years,
the percentage of D and E children was 21% (lower than in the reference group) and the percentage of A, B, and
C children was 79%, higher than in the reference group. Thus we conclude that the Piramide Method works for
at-risk children and for successful children.
Tutor Evaluation
It is important to ask, “Is the program efficacious, and what role does tutoring play in ameliorating risk?” To
examine the effectiveness of tutoring, pre/post assessments were conducted. We looked at all of the children who
took part in the Piramide Method over a period of 6 months. The ability scores (language, mathematics, and space
and time) are known for all of these children at pretest. Part of this group was given tutoring in the period after
this pretest (experimental group); another part was not (control group). If tutoring is effective, then in the
experimental group (tutoring), the percentage of at-risk children (E and D scores) should be considerably lower in
the posttest than in the pretest. In the control group (no tutoring), the percentages should be about equal. If the
percentages decrease only in the experimental group, we can conclude that the effect is caused by tutoring (Figure
14–14).
The percentage of children at risk in the experimental group dropped considerably. There was no such drop in the
control group. We can conclude that tutoring is indeed effective.
External Evaluation
Two Experiments
In a national experiment (1996–1998), carried out by the University of Amsterdam (Veen, Roeleveld, & Leseman,
2000; see Figure 14–15), subsidized by the Dutch government, the Piramide children (N = 59; with a high rate of
immigrant children and Dutch children with needs) scored significantly better in
Figure 14–14 Pretest and Posttest Percentages of

Risk Children (Tutored and Not Tutored)
350
No Tutoring ( n = 855) Tutoring ( n = 219)
Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest
Thinking 43.2 41.6 74.4 53.4
Language 48.1 48.4 88.1 73.5
Space and Time 51.2 48.9 84.4 74.0
Figure 14–15 Results of Two Experimental

Studies, 1997–2001
National Experiment Amsterdam Experiment
Amsterdam University Groningen University
Cohen: .20 = weak, Cohen: .20 = weak,
.50 = moderate, .50 = moderate,
.80 = strong .80 = strong
Language .29* 1.08***
Thinking .36**
Mathematics .88*** .73***
10% = * , 5% = **, and 1% = ***
terms of Cohen (1988) effect sizes (.20 = weak, .50 = moderate, .80 = strong) than control children (N = 52) in
language (.29 = weak to moderate), thinking processes (.36 = weak to moderate), and mathematics (.88 = high).
A second study (1998–2000; see Figure 14–15) was carried out by Groningen University (De Goede & Reezigt,
2001) in the Piramide schools of Amsterdam. From this study (N = 97, C = 67), comparable with the national
experiment, it became clear that in terms of Cohen’s criteria the results were strong in comparison with the
control group: language (1.08 = strong) and mathematics (.73 = moderate to strong).
Prima Cohort Study

The Amsterdam local authorities and the University of Amsterdam used the findings from the Prima Cohort
Study (Veen, Roeleveld, & van Daalen, 2005) to select 30 Amsterdam schools that work with different
educational concepts to support at-risk children, most of whom were the children of immigrants, to examine best
practices. The majority of these Amsterdam schools work with the Piramide Method, a smaller number with
HighScope, and one with Reggio Emilia and other approaches. From the 30 Amsterdam schools that participated
in the Prima Cohort Study, 10 schools had data from 3-year-old children (primary school starts at 4 years). The
results of the Amsterdam
Figure 14–16 Results in Uncontrolled,

Controlled, and Intensive Programs in a
National Cohort Study
Test Uncontrolled Controlled Intensive
Language -6 +0.1 +2.8
Thinking -2.5 +1.5 +.2
351
schools were compared with the National Cohort Study of the 6-year-old children. All children participated in
language and math assessments and in three observation sessions focusing on behavior, work attitude, and self-
confidence. The 10 schools that worked with an intensive program, such as the Piramide Method or High-Scope,
scored 1/3 standard deviation higher than the national average (see Figure 14–16).
On average, children in the experimental group had better work attitudes than children in the reference group.
The 6 best-achieving Amsterdam schools were selected as “best-practice schools” and assessed on “best-practice”
characteristics. The key question was, How can we explain the results of those high-achieving schools (the
qualitative part of the investigation)? Invariably, the best-practice schools were overwhelmingly viewed in a
positive light on 26 best-practice characteristics (60% of the questions as positive, only 4% as negative). Of the 6
best-scoring schools with best practices, 5 were Piramide schools. It was concluded that most of the Piramide
schools proved to have best practices.
Conclusion
In all four studies, the Piramide Method was shown to have positive effects on developmental outcome. We also
see these effects in the local studies. The Piramide Method, therefore, appears to be effective and practical in
supporting teachers in implementing successful measures for preschool and kindergarten education. Piramide is a
robust method that can be applied in favorable and challenging situations. The method is more effective when
tutoring is applied.
Piramide is a balanced method that offers optimal opportunities for children to develop independently with the
support of teachers. It offers balance in the initiative of the child and the initiative of the teacher, in the relational
(safety) and educational (challenge) components, in content (three intelligences are developed in a holistic
concept), and in the possibilities of children (at-risk children are reached as well as bright children). Last, there is
balance in evaluation procedures (authentic enough for teachers to assess children’s characteristics and creativity,
and systematic enough to see if the goals of the teacher and programs are realized).
Reflect On
1. How is this method a developmental web for teachers? What are the components of the developmental web?
2. What are distancing activities, and to which major influential psychologist do we owe our gratitude for this
approach to educating the young thinker?
3. How is imaginative play used in the Piramide curriculum, and how does it serve the 3 H’s (Heart, Head,
and Hands) or three intelligences—cognitive, emotional, and physical?
4. How do the three levels of intervention employ Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development and follow
developmentally appropriate practice guidelines?
5. How has this model been evaluated? Do you think this is an effective model?
Endnote
1. 1. Piramide is Dutch for pyramid; the Dutch Piramide is the term used worldwide.
Selected Resources
Piramide: An Approach to Deepen Children’s Learning, by S. Knox and W. Kelly, 2010, Atlanta, GA: Cito.
352
Piramide: The Method for Young Children (English version), by J. J. van Kuyk, 2003, Arnhem, The Netherlands:
Cito.
Nienhuis Montessori, Industriepark 14, 7021 BL. Zelhem, The Netherlands. Publisher of the educational
materials Classicant, Serio, Seriant I & II, Comparant.
Piramide USA, The Netherlands, and International
Cito International—Corporate Office
Amsterdamseweg 13
NL-6814 CM Arnhem
The Netherlands
www.cito.com
Piramide Germany and Austria
Cito Deutschland GmbH
www.de.cito.com
Educationally Appropriate Materials
http://www.nienhuis.com
References
1. Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., & Waters, E. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the
strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss. Vol. 1. London, England: Hogarth Press.
3. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
4. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York, NY:
Harper & Row.
5. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York, NY: Academic Press.
6. Eggen, T. J. H. M., & Sanders, P. F. (Eds.). (1993). Psychometrie in de praktijk [Psychometrics in practice].
Arnhem, The Netherlands: Cito.
7. Erickson, M. F., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (1985). The relationship between quality of attachment and
behavior problems in preschool in a high-risk sample. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child
8. Fischer, K. W., & Bidell, T. R. (2006). Dynamic development in action and thought. In W. Damon & R. M.
Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology. New York, NY: Wiley.
9. Fischer, K. W., & Rose, S. P. (1998). Growth cycles of brain and mind. Educational Leadership, 56 (3), 56–
60.
10. Galinsky, E. (2010). Mind in the making. The seven essential life skills every child needs. Washington, DC:
353
11. Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory in practice. New York, NY: Basic Books.
12. Geert, P. Van. (2006). Dynamic systems theory and early childhood education. In J. J. van Kuyk (Ed.), The
quality of early childhood education (pp. 33–45). Arnhem, The Netherlands: Cito.
13. Geert, P. Van, & Steenbeek, H. (2006). The dynamics of scaffolding. New Ideas in Psychology, 23 (3), 115–
128.
14. Gestwicki, C. (1987). Home, school, and community relations: A guide to working with parents. Albany, NY:
Delmar.
15. Goede, D. de, & Rezigt, G. R. (2001). Implementation and effects of the preschool in Amsterdam. Groningen,
The Netherlands: University of Groningen.
16. Goldstein, L. S. (1999). The relational zone: The role of caring relationships in the co-construction of mind.
American Educational Research Journal, 38 (3), 647–673.
17. Johnson, J. E., Christie, J. F., & Wardle, F. (2005). Play, development and early education. Boston: Pearson.
18. Joyce, W. (2011). The fantastic flying books of Mr. Morris Lessmore. Shreveport, LA: Moonbot Studios.
19. Kagan, S. (2003). Structureel coöperatief leren [Structural cooperative learning]. Middelburg, The
Netherlands: Meulenberg.
20. Klein, S. (2002). Die Glücksformel oder wie die guten Gefühle entstehen. Germany: Rowohlt Verlag.
21. Kuyk, J. J. van. (2003). Pyramid: The method for young children (English version). Arnhem, The
Netherlands: Cito.
22. Kuyk, J. J. van. (2004a). Leerboek [Learning book]. Arnhem, The Netherlands: Cito.
23. Kuyk, J. J. van. (2004b). Ordenen, digitaal [Math for 4-to 6-year-olds]. Arnhem, The Netherlands: Cito.
24. Kuyk, J. J. van. (2004c). Taal voor kleuters digitaal [Language for 4- to 6-year-olds]. Arnhem, The
Netherlands: Cito.
25. Kuyk, J. J. van. (2006). Holistic or sequential approach to curriculum: What works best for young children?
In J. J. van Kuyk (Ed.), The quality of early childhood education (pp. 137–152). Arnhem, The Netherlands:
Cito.
26. Kuyk, J. J. van. (2007). PIA [Piramide Implementation Assessment]. Arnhem, The Netherlands: Cito.
27. Kuyk, J. J. van. (2008). Is a curriculum needed for the youngest, 0–3? In J. J. van Kuyk (Ed.), International
Cito conference. Arnhem, The Netherlands: Cito.
28. Kuyk, J. J. van. (2011a). Scaffolding: How to increase development. European Early Education Research
Journal, 19 (1), 149–162.
29. Kuyk, J. J. van. (2011b). Piramide in de 21e eeuw [Piramide in the 21st century]. Arnhem, The Netherlands:
Cito.
30. Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
31. Pink, D. H. (2006). A whole new mind: Why rightbrainers will rule the future. New York, NY: Riverhead
Books.
354
32. Riksen-Walraven, M. (2008). Quality of day care centres in an international perspective. In J. J. van Kuyk
(Ed.), International Cito conference. Arnhem, The Netherlands: Cito.
33. Royce, J. M., Darlington, R. B., & Murray, H. W. (1983). Pooled analyses: Findings across studies. In The
Consortium for Longitudinal Studies, As the twig is bent … Lasting effects of preschool programs. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
34. Salovay, P., & Mayer, J. D. (1990). Emotional intelligence. Imagination, Cognition, and Personality, 9, 185–
211.
35. Shonkoff, J. P., & Philips, D. A. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood
development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
36. Sigel, I. E. (1993). The centrality of a distancing model for the development of representational
competence. In R. R. Cocking & K. A. Renninger (Eds.), The development and meaning of psychological
distance (pp. 141–158). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
37. Sigel, I. (2006). The distancing theory. In J. J. van Kuyk (Ed.), The quality of early childhood education (pp.
131–136). Arnhem, The Netherlands: Cito.
38. Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., & Karweit, N. L. (1994). Success for all: A comprehensive approach to
prevention and early intervention. In R. E. Slavin, N. L. Karweit, & B. A. Wasik (Eds.), Preventing early
school failure: Research, policy and practice. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
39. Sperry, R. W. (1980). Mind-brain interaction. Mentalism, yes, dualism, no. Neuroscience, 5, 195–206.
40. Stoep, J., & van Elsäcker, W. (2005). Peuters interactief met taal. De taallijn VVE: Taalstimulering voor jonge
kinderen [Preschool children, interactive with language. The Language Line]. Nijmegen, The Netherlands:
Expertisecentrum Nederlands.
41. Valsinger, J., & Van der Veer, R. (1993). The encoding of distance: The concept of the zone of proximal
development and its interpretations. In R. R. Cocking & K. A. Renninger (Eds.), The development and
meaning of psychological distance (pp. 35–62). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
42. Veen, A., Roeleveld, J., & Leseman, P. (2000). Evaluatie van Kaleidoscoop en Piramide. Eindrapportage
[Evaluation of Kaleidoscope and Pyramid, final report]. (SCO-rapport 576) Amsterdam, The Netherlands:
SCO-Kohnstamm Instituut.
43. Veen, A., Roeleveld, J., & van Daalen, M. (2005). Op zoek naar “Best Practice”: Opbrengsten van de
Amsterdamse Voorscholen. [In search for “Best Practice”: Results of Amsterdam preschools and
kindergartens]. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: SCO-Kohnstamm Instituut.
44. Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
355
Chapter 15 Reggio Emilia in the 21st Century:
Enduring Commitments Amid New Challenges
Rebecca S. New
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
Rebecca Kantor
University of Colorado, Denver
Retell the Reggio Emilia story
Characterize Italian early care and education as these regard children’s right and society’s responsibility
Describe Reggio Emilia’s municipal commitment to young children
Identify the essential components of putting key principles of the Reggio Emilia approach into practice
Discuss new changes and challenges in Italy and Reggio Emilia
Explain the influence of Reggio Emilia on the United States in regard to new challenges and possibilities
Reggio Emilia is the capital city of the province by the same name, one of eight in the wealthy Italian region of
Emilia-Romagna. The most densely populated of the province’s 45 municipalities, the city of Reggio Emilia is
home to and namesake of what is arguably the most famous early childhood education classrooms in the world.
Previous versions of this chapter (2005, 2009) have provided detailed descriptions of Reggio Emilia’s history and
cultural context, of key features of its municipal services for young children, and of its early influence on early
childhood education in the United States.
The Reggio Emilia Story

Generally, creative inventions and collaborative enterprises are named for their pragmatic functions or in honor of
the person or persons involved in their design. Less often are projects, works of art, or social innovations named
for the city in which they were born. Notable exceptions that come to mind include the Oslo Accords and
Detroit’s MoTown Sound. But of all the educational movements to take place in the last 100 years—Froebel’s
kindergarten, the Montessori method, Bank Street, HighScope, the project approach, to name but a few—none
has been named after an entire community of people dedicated to changing the culture of early childhood. That
the “Reggio Emilia approach” is named after the city is the first clue that this Italian import is grounded in the
cultural traditions and identity of that contemporary yet ancient society.
Most of this chapter will describe characteristics of Reggio Emilia that distinguish it from other Italian
communities. Yet Reggio Emilia’s local pride is also what makes the city typically Italian. Italian citizens routinely
identify themselves, even to foreigners, as members of the local community first, nationality second. The Romans,
Florentines, Sicilians, and Milanese all share a history of distinguishing, with unabashed pride and some degree of
prejudice, their particular ways of doing things. Reggio Emilia has other things in common with its neighbors
besides the national passion for promoting local interpretations of quality … wine, cheese, and pasta. Each of
these flavors of daily living serves as markers of identity as well as elements of la dolce vita. Reggio Emilia shares
this emphasis on “local ways of doing things” with all other Italian cities, notwithstanding its agreement with
Parma to share the name on their famous cheese.
356
Reggio Emilia also joins other Italian communities in many social routines such as closing most of its stores during
midday so citizens can enjoy lunch followed by a leisurely afternoon stroll. Reprimands of children or errant
husbands may take place in public, as do expressions of affection. Greetings among friends as well as new
acquaintances include kisses on both cheeks. So what is it about this city that is so different from other wealthy
communities in Italy?
Reggio Emilia has played an important role in Italy’s early and contemporary history. Residents point with pride
to the Sala del Tricolore (Room of Three Colors) an impressive building in one of the main piazzas where, in
1796, regional representatives adopted the three-color red, white, and green flag to represent their newly formed
republic. This flag was later adopted as the national flag of Italy. Reggio Emilia has also served as a strong business
model. Reggio Emilia’s early investment in agricultural cooperatives grew to include other forms of successful
business enterprises. In all of its efforts, Reggio Emilia has maintained its reputation for hard work and
collaborative creativity.
Reggio Emilia was a productive and wealthy community throughout most of the 19th and 20th century, sharing a
cultural and political history with the region that included ample industrial innovation and a well-deserved
reputation for its cuisine. Reggio Emilia also has a reputation, shared with neighboring cities in the region known
by some as the “red belt,” for taking a stand based on principles of social justice, as represented in the city’s
leadership roles in the resistance movement during World War II and, a few decades later, the Italian women’s
movement. Reggio Emilia’s municipal early childhood services grew out of this same culture of collaboration and
activism (New, 1993). In this light, it is easy to understand why an educational approach based on this ethos
would carry the city’s name.
In spite of its national reputation, Reggio Emilia was relatively unknown outside of Italy when the city’s early
childhood services were first introduced to American educators (Gandini, 1984; New, 1990). Today, Reggio
Emilia is a burgeoning multicultural city that hosts thousands of visitors every year,1 most of whom have come to
see and learn more about the city’s early childhood services.
Italian Early Care and Education: Children’s Right

and Society’s Responsibility
Central to the national provision of early care and educational services are the Italian cultural values of the central
role of the family in the life of the community and an interpretation of children as a shared social responsibility.
Thus it was that, after widespread public debate and social unrest in the autunno caldo (hot autumn) of 1967,
these principles were put into law. In 1968, Italian Law 444 proclaimed the rights of all children to a high-quality
pre-primary2 early childhood experience; this law also called for innovations and experimentation in communities,
schools, and classrooms about how best to promote young children’s early learning and development. A
subsequent 1971 law (1044) went several steps further, calling for incremental provision of services for working
families of infants and toddlers. Thanks in part to advocacy by Reggio Emilia leaders Loris Malaguzzi (1998) and
Sergio Spaggiari (1998), the law also called for mandatory participation by parents and other community members
in running the local services, an organizational principle known as gestione sociale (social management).
By the time the larger world had heard about Reggio Emilia, most Italian communities had one or more of three
forms of early childhood services, known at the time as scuola materna (“maternal” schools):3 scuola materna
privata (private programs), (such as those provided by the Catholic Church); scuola materna comunale, services
provided by the local municipality (with some contributions from the state), and scuola materna statale, services
provided by the state in communities where there is demonstrated need. Common organizational practices were
consistent with those in state-run elementary schools, e.g., children remain with the same group and the same
teachers throughout their time in the particular setting (e.g., 6 years in elementary school; 3 years in a preprimary
class), reflecting a broader cultural value of long-term and stable relationships (Corsaro & Emiliani, 1992; New,
1993).
357
Throughout the 20th century, Italian early childhood and elementary teachers received no formal preservice
university training and were instead expected to learn from their children and with each other. Practices of
documentation, inserimento (the gradual transitioning of children from home to school), and the promotion of
family involvement were seen as essential to helping teachers learn more about children in their care (Mantovani,
2001). Malaguzzi’s rapport with leaders of other cities’ services helped to ensure continued support for local
innovation and experimentation (New, 2001).
So how has Reggio Emilia distinguished itself within this larger cultural context?
Reggio Emilia’s Municipal Commitment To Young

Children
Reggio Emilia’s municipally funded early childhood services were formally established in 1966, in anticipation of
the 1968 national law proclaiming the rights of all Italian children to pre-primary schools. The city’s commitment
to young children was in evidence several decades prior when, shortly after World War II, a small group of parents
gathered, determined to obtain a new kind of child care for their children. Rejecting the custodial model of care
developed by the Catholic Church, parents sought a new type of school where their children could learn how to
live in and contribute to a free and democratic society and where parents could be active participants (Barazzoni,
1985). Their conviction was compelling to young philosopher-journalist Loris Malaguzzi, who soon enough
joined the cause (Malaguzzi, 1998). Malaguzzi played a leading role in articulating these demands to community
leaders along with his own views, in particular the notion that traditional custodial child care “made children
stupid” (L. Malaguzzi, personal communication, 1986). Malaguzzi was also highly critical of traditional
schooling’s emphasis on learning to read and write at the expense of children’s other communicative and creative
potentials; he convincingly argued for the hiring of artists and art educators (atelieriste) to work with children and
teachers. His belief that pedagogical “theory should derive from practice,” and not the other way around, led to an
image of the city’s early childhood services as “spaces, not programs” to serve as stimulating learning environments
for teachers as well as for young children. Malaguzzi credits an array of Western European and American theorists,
philosophers, and social scientists for his own emerging convictions about children’s learning potentials
(Malaguzzi, 1998). He marshaled his vast knowledge of these literatures to support his compelling presentations to
other members of the community. By 1963, thanks in great part to sustained advocacy, the first city-run school
for young children opened; over the next 5 years the city council was subject to repeated and persuasive arguments
to support municipal services for children ages birth to age 6. At the same time, Reggio Emilia played a leadership
role in the national campaign for public schools for all children ages 3 to 5 years. Those early convictions and
victories were foundational to what would soon become hallmarks of the “Reggio Emilia approach” (New, 1993;
Malaguzzi, 1998).4
As Reggio Emilia’s pride grew in the city’s services for its youngest citizens, so, too, did the urge to share their
innovations in early care and education. By the late 1970s, city leaders agreed to fund a traveling exhibition that
proved instrumental in launching Reggio Emilia into the international arena. The first European exhibition,
L’Occhio se Salta il Muro (When the Eye Jumps Over the Wall), opened in 1981, hosted in Sweden, Germany,
Portugal, Denmark—nations already somewhat familiar with this Italian city’s early childhood initiatives. With
encouragement from a small group of American educators, an English-language version was created (“The
Hundred Languages of Children”), arriving in the United States in the fall of 1987. The exhibit traveled across the
United States and, in 1990, was on display in Washington, DC, concurrent with National Association for the
Education of Young Children’s (NAEYC’s) annual conference. By this time, a growing number of U.S. early
educators had read or heard about Reggio Emilia and they were eager to know more. Thus, when Reggio Emilia
educators first spoke at NAEYC, it was to a standing-room-only audience. U.S. early childhood education as it
was previously known was catapulted into a state of exuberant uncertainty. New exhibitions followed, including
one for Japan and another that traveled all the way to Australia. The most recent exhibit, The Wonders of Learning,
is scheduled to remain on tour in the United States until 2014.5
358
Overwhelming in size, complexity, beauty, and message, each iteration of the exhibition has been credited as
awakening viewers to the possibilities inherent in children’s unrealized potentials (New, 2002). The exhibitions
and ongoing work in Reggio Emilia challenge viewers everywhere to consider a new image of children and their
families and teachers.
Putting Principles Into Practice: an Ongoing Process

of Collaboration and Inquiry
The political dimensions of Reggio Emilia’s municipal early childhood services—expressed as children’s rights to
quality early care and education, parents’ prerogative to have a say in their children’s early educational experiences,
and the community’s responsibilities to its youngest citizens—are coupled with a philosophical orientation to
schooling reflected in the structure, design, and operation of the city’s infant-toddler centers and pre-primary
schools. Three principles are consistently described as foundational to Reggio Emilia’s municipal services:
The critical importance of an “image of the child” that acknowledges children’s creative, intellectual, and
communicative potentials
An interpretation of schools as systems of relations, such that the well-being of children is interdependent
with the well-being of teachers and families
The value of doubt and uncertainty as ethical premises as well as incentive for teachers to dedicate
themselves to learning about and with the children they hope to teach
We suggest that it is Reggio Emilia’s persistent and unwavering efforts to translate these principles into sustainable
praxis that has been most essential to its success and the most difficult for others to emulate. So what is it that
visitors see and children and families experience as a consequence of these principles?
An interpretation of (1) the environment as a space and place for learning through relations, both adult and child;
an orientation to (2) curriculum that legitimizes children’s curiosities, relies on teachers’ collaborative research,
and underscores the value of symbolic representation and documentation; and insistence on the (3) rights of
parents to serve as partners in the community’s early care and educational services are the most challenging
instantiations of Reggio Emilia’s underlying philosophical principles.
Although these characteristics can be found in varying degrees in high-quality early childhood services throughout
Italy, none has been developed, documented, debated, and disseminated to the extent found in Reggio Emilia.
La Bella Figura: An Environment That Welcomes,

Nurtures, Impresses, and Inspires
The Italian word ambiente reminds us of the English term ambiance, a key feature of restaurant ratings in the
United States. In Italy, however, this term refers to what is surely the most visible feature of Reggio Emilia’s
infant-toddler centers (asili nido) and pre-primary schools (scuole dell’infanzia)—the physical space dedicated to
children’s early care and learning. Described in a previous iteration of this chapter as a culturally constructed
“developmental niche” (New, 2004), Reggio Emilia’s schools for young children are purposefully designed to
reflect and promote the values and goals of the larger community. The creation of a large central space, the use of
natural lighting, and non-industrial furnishings and plants—together these generate the communal ethos found in
open piazzas in every Italian city. There is a sensibility nurtured here as children, parents, and teachers cross
through these spaces while they move about the school.
359
Even the bathroom becomes a space for play and contemplation. Parents and teachers designed this
tube arrangement through which colored water flows when children turn on the faucets.
The oft-repeated claim that “space is our third teacher” is represented in the active use of school spaces to convey
both “messages and possibilities” (Filippini, 1990). Materials for children’s work and play—whether blocks,
crayons, paint, glitter, paper, dramatic play dishes, dolls, or woodworking tools—are within easy reach. Never
dumped indifferently into boxes or buckets, these materials are purposefully and sometimes creatively arranged,
stored, or displayed to convey the message that they are important, interesting, and worthy of respectful attention
(Topal & Gandini, 1999). Carefully determined spaces for large- and small-group activities, dramatic play, and
the display of children’s finished works as well as works in progress hint at the purposefulness with which teachers
promote children’s successful engagements, whether with ideas, materials, or each other, within these
environments. And yet the benefits of small mini-atelier (translated as “mini-studios”) within each classroom
versus a larger atelier space available to mixed-age groups of children remains an open question, suggesting that the
notion of space’s educative potential remains a work in progress for these Italian adults (Gandini, Hill, Cadwell, &
Schwall, 2005). In addition to ongoing reflections among teachers of how best to arrange materials and spaces
within their classrooms, these ideas have also been explored in collaboration with architects, e.g., Italy’s well-
known Domus Academy (Ceppi & Zini, 1998).
Other aspects of the environment that appear, to the casual observer, to have more to do with aesthetics than with
a purposeful pedagogy include the pervasive use of mirrors and other reflective surfaces in open spaces, classrooms,
and bathrooms. A keen appreciation for physics and possibilities of light can be found in the light boxes and light
tables used to display artifacts and manipulations of objects with various degrees of translucency. Large windows
that open up to the outside allow shadows and sunshine to enter the classroom and encourage children’s
observations of the world outside.
To ensure that the environment promotes social engagement and the development of new relationships,
classrooms may have Plexiglas windows to rooms below or next door. Simple “talking tubes” crafted of funnels
lead out of classrooms to the hallway and invite children to call to one another. Centrally located dress-up clothes
invite children from different classes to play together and assist with zippers and buttons. Kitchens are highly
visible places, often surrounded by glass divides or open windows, and frequented by children and parents on
360
arrival. Teachers also have spaces to gather, work, and talk together, alternating turns at the kitchen table during
lunchtime. Adult relations are further promoted by the environment through the careful placement of adult-size
furniture in the central space and in classrooms, the rocking chair a clear invitation to the visiting parent or
grandparent to linger long after the initial period of inserimento (Bove, 1999).6 As described by Reggio Emilia’s
long-time collaborator Lella Gandini, these educational environments are, in each case, highly “particular” (1984)
and caring spaces (1998).
Among the most important “messages” conveyed by the environments of Reggio Emilia’s infant-toddler centers
and pre-primary schools is the value of the experiences children share in the classroom. Photographs and examples
of children’s collaborative work are carefully displayed in ways that draw attention to individual contributions to
group experiences. Through the public display of children’s heated debates about a mathematical problem, the
meaning of love, the source of gender identity, and the consequences of war, Reggio Emilia teachers invite the
casual visitor to rethink a deficit image of childhood and early childhood education and replace it with one in
which children have vast untapped potentials.
The spaces across the infant-toddler centers and pre-primary schools in the Reggio Emilia municipal system are
designed with consistent pedagogical aims and at the same time they reflect the local identities of their particular
places in the city. So, for example, the Scuola Diana (Diana School), located in the middle of the city’s central
park, reflects the urban life of its participants; similarly, the XXV Aprile (April 25th) school7 in the more rural
outskirts of the city, contains many textures, colors, and artifacts that reflect the country life of the participants
who live there. These characteristics of Reggio Emilia’s early childhood environments stand in sharp contrast to
catalog and marketing efforts focused on “quick and easy bulletin boards” and “safe and easy to clean” furniture.
Perhaps this is why Italian educators more often refer to their early childhood environments as places rather than
programs. The sense of place, the respect for children and families, and the deep intellectual work of teachers
conveyed by the environment give visitors pause, and make possible other features of the “Reggio Emilia
approach.”
Curriculum as a Projection of Possibilities

In a conversation with Carlina Rinaldi about curriculum goals, she noted, “Of course we want children to learn
the names of colors. But more important is that they understand what colors can do, why they are important, how
they can use them.” Certainly for U.S. educators and administrators, Reggio Emilia’s refusal to identify
curriculum goals is perplexing. And yet the outcomes of their progettazione, otherwise known as long-term
projects have inspired tens of thousands of educators who have seen the traveling exhibitions and especially those
who have visited and studied in the city’s early childhood classrooms (Katz, 1998). Reggio Emilia’s interpretation
of a successful curriculum is based on three beliefs: a belief in the merits of children’s and teachers’ questions; in
the value of multiple “languages” as both vehicles of knowledge construction and as forms of knowledge
representation; and the benefits of documentation as a compelling means to capture, analyze, guide, and promote
these elements of the teaching/ learning process. Sometimes treated as separate (and separable) components of
Reggio Emilia’s approach to early education, this discussion considers these features as inextricably linked to and
responsible for this Italian city’s interpretation of an early childhood curriculum.
Curriculum Planning: Creating Conditions for Asking

and Exploring Good Questions
Many who first examine the projects displayed in the exhibit(s) and on the walls of early childhood settings in
Reggio Emilia assume that the children are gifted (or that the adults had too much of a hand in making the
products). The skill and attention to detail found in children’s drawings and clay representations, for example,
suggest vastly superior competencies than what are typical of 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old children. When observers learn
that children may stay engaged in a project for weeks and sometimes months, they further marvel at children’s
361
attention spans. Doubters have a point—the children’s focused discussions and graphic representations are not
typical or average. Nor are the children’s learning environments and experiences. Operating under the premise
espoused repeatedly by Malaguzzi—that children are far more capable than how they have generally been viewed
—teachers in Reggio Emilia watch for and create opportunities for children to become deeply engaged in
meaningful explorations and problem solving and in representing their emerging understandings through a variety
of expressive media.
This esteem for children’s intellectual and social competencies is inclusive of children with special needs—who are
regarded, in Reggio Emilia, as children with “special rights” (Smith, 1998).
The projects and classroom routines that characterize life in a Reggio Emilia classroom are consistent with and
expand on contemporary interpretations of inclusive early childhood education. As a key part of this inclusive
curriculum process, teachers are alert to children’s conflicts and questions. When teachers intervene, it is typically
in the form of a guiding question, followed by the provision of time, tools, and contextualized work on particular
skills. However it is that teachers respond, it is always with care and purpose, so that children can collaboratively
explore and represent their questions as well as their new understandings. In planning for these experiences,
Reggio Emilia teachers do not craft lesson plans as generally understood by U.S. educators. Rather, they identify
pathways by which to pursue questions with the hope, as described by Tizianna Filippini, of creating a
“playground” of possibilities with room for everyone to grapple with and then contribute to a problem. This
premise of a “big enough” playground where it is safe to play, take risks, and try out new skills helps to expand
interpretations of schools and classrooms as “communities of learners” (New, 1998, 2007).
This orientation to curriculum is radically different from what is generally espoused in the U.S. early childhood
literature or required in terms of state curriculum standards. Rather than identify skill-based goals and objectives,
curriculum goals in Reggio Emilia are defined in terms of broadly construed cultural values such as developing
relationships, learning how to collaborate, and appreciating diversity in ideas and their expression. With these aims
always in mind, long-term projects have resulted from both simple and profound questions posed by children:
“Why won’t the birds come back?” “Where do baby kittens come from?” “Why can’t I run away from my
shadow?” “How do our bodies work?” “Whose god is real—yours or mine?” Such curriculum provocations engage
children as well as teachers and families. Although much easier said than done, this interpretation of curriculum
both emerges from and contributes to the shared experiences of children, teachers, and families (New, 1998;
Rinaldi, 1993, 1998, 2006). Such curriculum practices also reflect a fundamental Reggio Emilia principle of
respect for children’s lives outside the classroom and what Luis Moll would call their funds of knowledge (1992).
Life in the classroom must “enable children to utilize their own skills and competence” (Rinaldi, 2003, p. 1).8
Reggio Emilia teachers are not solely reliant on children’s curiosities to make curricular decisions. Rather, they use
what they are learning about children—their interests as well as their understandings—to design challenging
project work that promotes the development of new skills and understandings, including those that children will
be expected to master as they move through the educational process. Thus, for example, opportunities for children
to express their ideas through writing are interspersed throughout project work and their efforts are encouraged
along with those involving other forms of symbolic representation. Children of different language traditions
compare their constructions of names, labels, multilingual signs, and symbols for the classroom.
Teachers also trust the legitimacy of their own questions and concerns as consistent with the expectation that they
will learn about the children as they teach. A well-known example of a project came about when teachers observed
that children in the 5-year-old classroom (akin to a U.S. kindergarten) were making scant use of their knowledge
of mathematics. After careful deliberation, the classroom teachers proposed a real problem—the need to accurately
convey the measurements of a rickety table so that a new one could be built to size (this project was carefully
documented and eventually published as Scarpe e metro [The Shoe and the Meter]). This and other progetazzioni
have uncertain outcomes and yet, with careful attention to levels of children’s engagement, teachers help to
promote and sustain children’s creative and exploratory efforts. These efforts inevitably result in new
understandings—in this case, a sophisticated exploration of measurement tools and mathematical principles.9 In
other less well documented cases, teachers learn that they intervened too early, or too late, or that the “problem”
362
was insufficiently intriguing to capture the children’s long-term engagement. In all cases, teachers are also learning
—in this case, about how children think about, understand, and use their relationships and representational skills
to promote emerging mathematical skills and understandings. Rinaldi describes this orientation to teaching as a
purposeful and sustained “pedagogy of listening” (Rinaldi, 2006).
Curriculum Resources: The Hundred Languages of

Children
One of the pedagogical practices that helps teachers in understanding children’s understandings is the level of
creative exploration and symbolic representation associated with children’s collaborative work. Malaguzzi’s strong
belief in the relationship between creativity and intelligence led, when the schools were first established, to the
hiring of an atelierista (art educator) to work closely with teachers in discovering and promoting children’s
“symbolic languages.” Teachers have transformed his belief into purposeful instructional practices. With continual
support from the school’s atelierista, teachers routinely ask children to “show me what you mean” through
drawings, clay, sculptures, and other constructions. It is not unusual to find a small group of 4-year-olds working
together on a model or design to help others envision their ideas for a problem-solving agenda.
This orientation to what U.S. educators would call “art” is interpreted, in Reggio Emilia classrooms, as a vital
means to exploration and communication. As children share their understandings with one another, they are often
challenged to revisit and revise their own ideas (Forman & Fyfe, 1998), especially if they have used tools with
different affordances (e.g., felt-tip pens or wide-brush water colors). Within the classroom as well as in the school-
wide studio spaces or mini-atelier, children—including infants and toddlers—have daily opportunities to
experiment with a variety of materials and tools, including clay, paint, wire sculpture, pen and pencil, and large
and small construction resources (Gandini et al., 2005). Today, Reggio Emilia educators are highly skilled at
creating conditions through which children can themselves become impressively skilled at representing, sharing,
revising and refining their understandings and hypotheses. This sequence of representation and exploration is an
indispensable component of curriculum planning and evaluation; children’s symbolic representations serve as
valuable mediating tools for the co-construction of new understandings with their peers and among the adults.
Children in Reggio Emilia classrooms do not spend all of their time engaged in long-term progettazione. A typical
day’s schedule suggests that children are engaged in activities similar to those of high-quality early childhood
centers elsewhere: morning meetings, small teacher-led activities, free play in blocks, dress up, outdoor play, snack
time, naps, and lunch time. One of the most immediately apparent differences in a typical day in a Reggio Emilia
classroom is the role of the teachers. The very presence of two teachers in each classroom enables teachers to devise
complementary roles to support and learn from the children they teach. Thus, Reggio Emilia educators often
rearrange the environment for children’s activities in advance of their arrival in the morning and then, while one
teacher guides and facilitates children’s activities, the other observes, records, and documents children’s responses
to the new materials or arrangements. In other cases, one teacher may work with a small group, recording
discussions and collecting artifacts to share later with the teacher who is supervising the larger group of children.
Teachers’ work as collaborative researchers is highly dependent on this well-developed process of task sharing,
planning, and exchange of information. This process, in turn, is highly dependent on Reggio Emilia’s
interpretations of documentation as a mediating tool.
Documentation as Tool for Collaborative Inquiry

The practice of documentation originated in community and city centers established to support elementary
teachers to design and share materials to use in teaching young children. The concept of documentation—
recording and examining information about children and their learning—was eventually appropriated by early
childhood educators. Among the first to recognize the value and potentials of documentation were educators in
Reggio Emilia, Pistoia, and San Miniato (Gandini & Edwards, 2001). Inspired by Malaguzzi, educators in those
363
municipal programs were also colleagues of Lella Gandini, who played a supporting role in their development of
this now-highly-sophisticated way of understanding and supporting children’s early learning and development.
Educators in each of these municipal settings have capitalized on documentation as a means of carefully recording,
studying, and debating what takes place in the classroom.
Documentation in Reggio Emilia is central to teachers’ roles as researchers in the classrooms (Gandini &
Goldhaber, 2001; New, 1994; Rinaldi, 2003). Teachers take photographs, collect artifacts, and record
conversations of children’s conversations with each other and with adults. These data are then analyzed,
sometimes with other teachers, often including the pedagogista, and frequently with children’s parents and family
members in order to make sense of what has been learned and to plan what to do next. The atelierista is also a part
of this process, proposing alternative means by which children might explore and express their ideas and
understandings. In many cases, the atelierista is invited into the classroom to do the actual recording of children’s
activities. These adults move through the progettazione in a process remarkably similar to the one that
characterizes the children’s learning. Whereas children’s ideas and understandings are communicated and debated
through a variety of symbolic languages, teachers’ insights and interpretations of their observations are facilitated
through documentation—an essential mediating tool for the “projecting curriculum” previously described
(Rinaldi, 1998).
Other collections of images and stories are gathered into small books, some of which are for sale by Reggio Emilia
through their Web site. Documentation efforts are used in teacher planning periods and are also incorporated in
elaborate displays in the hallways and classrooms. In each case, documentation “Reggio Emilia style” functions as
advocacy for their city’s high-quality early childhood services; as information to guide curriculum planning; and as
an invitation for parents to participate in those experiences.
Reggio Emilia teachers also share, with early childhood teachers in San Miniato and Pistoia, the strategy of using
documentation as a “seductive” means of keeping parents involved in and informed about their children’s
experiences in the infant-toddler centers. It is hard to imagine parents spending time in these cities’ municipal nidi
and scuole and not being struck by the compelling images of their children at work and play, at rest and in
moments of joyful exuberance. Although much of documentation efforts focus on children’s collaborative
activities, some of the final products take the form of individual portfolios or diarios (memory books) for parents
(Edwards & Rinaldi, 2009). Documentation supports children’s learning through all of these pathways: as a guide
for curriculum planning, a tool for teacher development, and a resource to support parent engagement (Gandini
& Edwards, 2001). Making documentation possible is the provision, in teachers’ weekly work schedule, of 4 to 6
hr a week to collaborate with each other, the atelerista, and the pedagogisti— and sometimes parents as well—on
the possible meanings of documentation they have collected and the implications of these understandings for a
project’s next steps.
Partecipazione: Raising the Bar on Family

Engagement
The concept of parent engagement as interpreted in Reggio Emilia can be traced back to Western European
socialist labor movements (New, Mallory, & Mantovani, 2000) and draws on half a century of activism in the
name of partecipazione, a form of civic engagement that has attracted scholars of history and political science to
Italy (Putnam, 1993). Reggio Emilia played a leadership role in the legislated mandate to involve parents in the
management of these public services. In most Italian municipal early childhood programs, the concept of gestione
sociale (local social management) is interpreted in the form of parent–teacher–citizen advisory councils. Reggio
Emilia has elaborated on the advisory council concept to include an array of practices that promote the
collaborative engagement of families in the early childhood services.
The process of involving parents and family members begins long before their children enter the infant-toddler
and early childhood centers. The meaning of inserimento is interpreted, in Reggio Emilia, as an important
beginning to what will become a long-term collaborative relationship. Teachers and parents meet in in dividual
364
and small groups, the cook gathers information about children’s eating preferences, and elaborate arrangements
are made to host alternating groups of parents in their children’s first days of schooling. In addition to these
planned and spontaneous early encounters, parents and other family members are well represented in the physical
environment, where they can see images of themselves and their children and artifacts from their homes and
communities. Parents are informed about and contribute to curricular decisions, not only as a result of the
extensive documentation that teachers share with them about their children’s emerging but also through
individual and class meetings focused on ongoing events in the classroom. Consistent with the principles of
gestione sociale, parents are active protagonists in negotiating organizational and structural features of their
children’s early care and educational environments. Thus parents participate in hiring staff, determining the menu
in consultation with the cook, and helping to plan culminating events for long-term projects. Those elected to
advisory councils debate, yearly it seems, on such major issues as the point system to be used in determining
eligibility for enrollment and the less critical but no less engaging question of whether to continue to take on the
work of laundering the tablecloths for children’s lunch tables. Each of these examples illustrates the potentials of
young children to serve as catalysts for adult engagement (New & Mallory, 2005).
Other ways in which parents are supported as “co-protagonists” (Spaggiari, 1998) of their children’s early care and
education include informal gatherings of parents and sometimes grandparents, who may be invited to meet with
the cook in the evening or come to the school on the weekend to make something to surprise the children. All-
school meetings may include guest speakers invited to talk about a topical issue or concern regarding children’s
development or early learning. And in every case other than those requiring more privacy, meetings with parents
are documented and displayed to ensure that everyone is kept informed of new decisions; all are reminded of the
importance of their presence in these events.
The emphasis on authentic and essential family engagement is clearly and directly linked to the philosophical
premise of schools as “systems of relations” and the city leaders’ earliest advocacy for parents’ sustained
involvement with the educational enterprise. The meaning of partecipazione in Reggio Emilia builds on a previous
generation’s refusal “to delegate their potentials and their responsibility” (Spaggiari, 1991, p. 112, translated from
Italian).
The Reggio Emilia Approach: an Orientation to Early

Childhood Education as a Principled Way of Living
Reggio Emilia’s creation of a school environment that nurtures adults as well as children, the interpretation of
curriculum as a catalyst for children and teachers’ collaborative investigations, and a commitment to ensuring
active participation by families and community members in toto represent much more than an approach to early
childhood education. This combination of philosophical and political values, beliefs, and practices is a municipal
“project” fueled by the convictions of the larger community. In evidence before World War II and articulated
explicitly in the decades following, Reggiani citizens imagined a society that is socially just, creative, collaborative.
Malaguzzi and his colleagues imagined that such a society would—could—live up to the premise of children’s
rights and the promise of their potentials. These ideas resonate with John Dewey’s vision of a democratic society
(Dewey, 1916). In this Italian community, however, this vision has been transformed into sustained efforts with
visible results. That this communal ethic goes beyond what is now known as “Reggio Emilia approach” is evident
in the municipality’s responses to recent changes within the Italian culture writ large.
New Changes and Challenges in Italy and Reggio

Emilia
This chapter began by describing Reggio Emilia’s place within the Italian culture. This relationship continues to
inform and be reflected in Reggio Emilia’s activities, both within the city and with its global partners. Two
365
changes in Italy over the last decade are especially relevant to Reggio Emilia’s 21st-century initiatives: changing
teacher education requirements; and the rise in and global diversity of immigrants to what was once a society of
emigrants.
Teacher Education: Changing Concepts of

Competence
After a century of reliance on locally determined in-service professional development for teachers in scuola
materna and elementary schools,10 a 1998 law required all early childhood and elementary teachers to enter the
profession through university teacher education. New teachers of infant-toddlers must now complete a 3-year
university program focused on the pedagogy for children from birth to 3 years. The plan for teachers of children
ages 3 to 6 as well as those in elementary schools (children ages 6 to 11) has been more complicated. Initially,
those teachers were required to complete a 4-year university degree with course work in pedagogy, psychology,
science, math, literature, history, and art. The final 2 years entailed separate strands with concentrations in
preschool or primary education. The first cohort graduated in 2003. After much debate—among educators as well
as policy makers—a new policy was established in 2010 requiring a 5-year university-based program leading to a
common license (Maestro Unico) for all teachers of 3- to 11-year-old children. In addition to previous program
requirements, this new degree program must include course work in teaching English as a second (or third)
language and children with special needs (Mantovani & New, 2011).
Reggio Emilia has been responsive to these changes in several ways, in addition to their ongoing work with
educators around the world. In collaboration with teacher educators at local and state universities (e.g., Modena
and Milano), they have developed a graduate program of study for pedagogiste (curriculum specialists). In
collaboration with the state ministry, Reggio Emilia has established new and reciprocal relationships with other
municipal programs in Italy, especially in the south; further, the city now hosts an increasing number of Italian
delegates who wish to visit municipal infant-toddler centers and pre-primary schools. Along with other northern
cities with high-quality municipal programs, Reggio Emilia now participates in “twin” partnerships with
municipalities in southern Italy to exchange experiences on early care and education. Reggio Emilian educators are
also now engaged in an innovative partnership to experiment with one of the more controversial changes taking
place at the state level.
In response to the new mandate to prepare teachers for the full spectrum of teaching 3- to 11-year-old children,
the municipality of Reggio Emilia reached a unique agreement with the national education ministry to include
first- and second-grade classes alongside classrooms for 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old children in one of the city’s newest
schools. This school is not tucked away so that it can experiment in isolation, away from the prying eyes of citizens
and paying delegations; rather, it is located in the Loris Malaguzzi International Center, which receives thousands
of visitors annually. For the first time in Reggio Emilia’s history, municipal early childhood teachers now have
daily opportunities to work with teachers hired by the state educational system and responsible for the state-
required elementary curriculum. Reggio Emilia had no role in the selection of the elementary teachers who would
join their staff and began with a plan for their integration based on living and learning together. A recent visit to
Reggio Emilia (by RN) to discuss teacher education initiatives included an opportunity to visit the school with
this new cohort of children and teachers. Although time spent in the classrooms and open spaces was brief, there
were obvious differences between the physical and learning environments of the primary classrooms and those
prepared for the 3-, 4-, and 5-year-old children. In the classrooms for the preschool-age children, teachers and
children were engaged in a variety of small-group projects and activities that appeared to link to long-term project
work; documentation and examples of children’s work were abundant and the presence of visitors was only
cursorily acknowledged. In the elementary classrooms, children were more often observed attending to the
teachers’ directions or working individually at their desks. The place where it seemed that these two historically
separated groups—of children as well as teachers—were successfully coming together was in a large open area
dedicated to a shared project involving the 5-year-olds and the first-graders. The focus of the project was on the
human body, and the floor of the space was covered with children’s life-size drawings. According to the resident
366
atelierista, this sort of project, involving the integration of academic content with art materials, had thus far
proven most successful as a means of bringing teachers and children together and establishing common points of
reference. In addition to documenting what and how their children are learning from each other, Reggio Emilia
educators are also attentive to the learning opportunities and challenges associated with their own new adult
partners. This expansion of the city’s municipal early childhood services into the public elementary school has
much to offer to the United States’ ongoing efforts to translate Reggio Emilia’s educational principles for the
primary grades (cf. Wein, 2001) and bridge prekindergarten, kindergarten, and the primary grades (Takanishi,
2011). Also apparent during this brief visit was the cultural and linguistic diversity of children, as evidenced
through the variety of languages represented in children’s symbolic representations in the early childhood
classrooms and the enthusiastic greetings of the primary grade children, some of whom greeted the visitor in
English before turning back to their conversations in Italian or Russian or French or …
No Longer Just for Tourists: Italy as a Newly

Pluralistic Society
Once a nation of emigrants, Italy is now host to a rapidly growing population of immigrants from all over the
world.11 At last count, almost 10% of residents in Italy were from other nations, the largest number coming from
the Eastern European nations of Romania, Albania, and the Ukraine, followed by African nations (especially
Morocco) and Asia (a majority from China; ISTAT, 2009). The rapid influx and diversity of immigrants have not
been easily accommodated by Italians or the foreigners themselves. One report suggests that the lifestyles and
living conditions of foreigners residing in Italy vary in a number of ways from those of native Italians, including
family configurations (more young people, average age 30 vs. 43 years in Italian households) and conditions of
“severe housing deprivation” (ISTAT, 2009, 2010). In contrast to immigration patterns of previous years, labor
market statistics indicate that immigrant households in Italy increasingly include entire families. Previously a
mostly male endeavor, now men and women from these widely different cultural and linguistic groups are
providing new resources and new concerns for this previously homogeneous country. Population statistics
illustrate the complex interaction of resources and concerns. Although the overall birth rate in Italy has increased
modestly over the past decade, this change is primarily from immigration.12 That 22% of immigrant households
(as of December 31, 2009) included mixed couples also provides evidence of the integration of (some) immigrants
into the community. Nowhere are these changes more profound than in Reggio Emilia.
Once a deceptively sleepy little town that tourists passed by on their way to other Italian destinations, Reggio
Emilia is now host to thousands of visitors on study tours from all over the world. The changes required to host
delegates of educators are modest in contrast to the challenges now facing Reggio Emilia because of its popularity
among immigrants. Joining tourists snapping photos of the lion in the piazza and Italian families who have lived
in the province for generations are significant numbers of Italy’s new immigrants from all over the world.
Reggio Emilia’s demographics confirm and exceed the national trends in population changes. As of January 1,
2010, of the more than four million residents of Italy who are of non-Italian origin, 10.9% of them were in Emilia
Romagna—26,508 of whom resided in the city of Reggio Emilia. Clearly, Emilia Romagna in general and Reggio
Emilia in particular are among the most popular destinations for those seeking a new life in a new land. Not only
does Reggio Emilia have one of the largest and fastest growing populations of immigrants (as a percentage of the
total population) in Italy; it also has the largest percentage of infants, toddlers, and young children born to
foreign-born parents.
In comparing percentages of births to at least one foreign-born parent across a 10-year span, the region of Emilia
Romagna had the highest percentage in the country in 1999 (10.1%) and again in 2008 (26.1%). This dramatic
increase is reflected in more recent statistics of the city of Reggio Emilia. By January 1, 2010, approximately one
third (32%) of all children (534 girls + 1730 boys) ages 0 to 6 years born in the city were children of an
immigrant parent or couple (ISTAT, 2010). These statistics, coupled with the fact that Reggio Emilia continues
to lead the nation in the percentage of children who attend municipal infant-toddler programs in 2009, 29.5%
367
compared to the 11% national average (ISTAT, 2010), explain the growing presence of children from culturally
and linguistically diverse traditions in the city’s infant-toddler centers and classrooms. It is difficult to imagine a
more dramatic change in the city’s self-image, nor one that could more seriously put the communal spirit and
ethos—otherwise known as the Reggio Emilia approach—to the test.
Not surprisingly to those familiar with the city’s history, Reggio Emilia’s citizens have risen to the occasion. A
2007 proposal on Immigration in Reggio Emilia put forth to the city council13 includes a strategic plan to
support, facilitate, and heighten attention to the successful integration of immigrants within the city. Described as
a much-needed contrast to the negative attention directed to casi di devianza (cases of deviance), the proposal
outlines a number of initiatives designed to reduce the “invisibility” of hard-working immigrants who rarely make
the headlines. Following a review of city “cultural councils” that inadvertently fostered separation rather than
integration of cultural groups within the community, the proposal establishes elective intercultural councils with
the primary aim of increasing the active participation of immigrants in the social and business community as well
as city governance. Rationale for these efforts goes beyond the pragmatic observation that “immigrant labor
produces benefits for the economic development of entire communities.” The basic premise of Reggio Emilia’s
strategic plan initiative was one consistent with its history of social activism: We “want to make the most of
diversity as one of the founding values of the community of the municipality, and in the State” (“Immigration in
Reggio Emilia,” 2007).
Reggio Emilia’s municipal infant-toddler centers and pre-primary schools have joined this endeavor with the aim
of creating more welcoming and inclusive servizi del’infanzia. Accordingly, the question of how best to integrate
children and families from the immigrant community into the classrooms has been treated like all questions are
treated in the Reggio Emilia pedagogy—they have placed it at the center of a collaborative inquiry. In a recent
visit (RK) to Reggio Emilia, educators and researchers described observations and shared documentation of
discussions and experiences regarding what they saw as the central problem of intercultural engagement: the means
of improved cross-cultural exchanges and understanding. Toward this end, they invited adult mediators from
immigrant communities to come into the classroom and serve as cultural “informants.” The role of the informants
was to mediate interactions, interpret children’s words and actions for each other, and support the construction of
mutual understanding among adults (parents and teachers) as well as children.
This initiative and similar efforts are now referenced in the most recent exhibition of Reggio Emilia (“The
Wonder of Learning”) and described in the accompanying catalog (Cavallini, Filippini, Vecchi, & Trancossi,
2011). The narrative outlining these developments and what the authors rightly describe as “the innovative flair”
of the continued educational experimentation in Reggio Emilia is a powerful rebuttal to the critique that the
Reggio Emilia pedagogy is only suitable for (and possible with) upper- middle-class children in homogenous
environments. More recent projects on display in the exhibit use multiple languages and multiple media, adding
rich and concrete examples to the metaphor of the “democratic piazza” that is open to the exchange of opinions
essential to this interpretation of a newly pluralistic citizenry (Cavallini et al., 2011).
Reggio Emilia’s purposeful responses to these changes in the Italian culture in general and the field of early
education specifically provide compelling evidence that the relevance of Reggio Emilia’s pedagogy is not limited to
homogeous and stable communities and schools. Even as Reggio Emilia-the-city and Reggio Emilia-the-
pedagogical-approach illustrate the situated and cultural nature of an educational enterprise (Bruner, 1996; New,
2007), the city and its schools also demonstrate pragmatically ethical and potentially transportable means to bring
diverse perspectives to the table on behalf of any community’s young children.
Reggio Emilia and the United States: New Challenges

and New Possibilities
It is difficult to summarize, much less assess, Reggio Emilia’s continuing influence on U.S. early childhood
education. Initially a compelling but confusing point of reference based on firsthand stories by those fortunate
enough to travel to Italy, Reggio Emilia was often confused with other European educational approaches that have
368
found favor in the United States (Edwards, 2002). As understandings deepened of how these Italian children and
teachers collaborate and learn together, Reggio Emilia became a counternarrative to outdated theoretical and
ethnocentric notions of U.S. early childhood education. Reggio Emilia’s arrival in the United States was timely,
arriving as it did when policy makers and journalists were entranced by research on children’s brain development.
As one educational leader after another endorsed the city’s intellectually challenging and inquiry-oriented
curriculum (Gardner, 1998), Reggio Emilia quickly became a new reference point for high-quality early care and
education. Within a few years following the first publication (Bredekamp, 1987), the particulars of
developmentally appropriate practice were being challenged by Reggio Emilia (Bredekamp, 1993; New, 1994).
Revised guidelines (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997) made frequent reference to this Italian city and placed greater
emphasis on children’s cultural heritages, the social nature of developmental processes, and the necessity of
negotiating the means and aims of early care and education with children’s families.
As the first English-language exhibit traversed the country, increasing numbers of teachers sought more
information about the city’s early childhood programs. NAEYC established a special track for conference
presentations focused on Reggio Emilia and the first book-length publication was printed, with chapters by
American as well as Italian educators (Edwards, Gandini, & Forman, 1993). Articles on Reggio Emilia could be
found in parent magazines as well as early childhood journals and textbooks; the audience for Reggio Emilia grew
exponentially, in the United States and abroad. As its popularity abroad grew, so, too, did questions about the less
obvious features of what was now known as the Reggio Emilia approach. Following initial hesitations about being
the subject of others’ research, the leadership of the city’s servizi del’infanzia eventually joined in collaborative
research partnerships with American researchers who wanted to learn more about the how of its efforts, e.g., the
nature and nurture of home-school partnerships (New et al., 2000) and the processes by which adults’ and
children’s learning could be made visible (Project Zero, 2003; Project Zero & Reggio Children, 2001). By the end
of the 20th century, Reggio Emilia had established or was the subject of multiple Listservs, study groups,
conferences, workshops, and dozens of Internet reference sites. By that time it was hard to find an early childhood
educator who did not know how to pronounce the city’s name.
That Was Then, This Is Now

In spite of—or perhaps because of—its early popularity with U.S. educators, the relationship between the U.S.
early childhood community and the Reggio educators has changed in recent years. For example, NAEYC used to
sponsor whole-day Reggio programs in its annual international conference program; today, individuals present
workshops or papers related to Reggio pedagogy, but the organization no longer highlights the approach at the
previous level. Even though advanced theoretical understandings made visible in Reggio Emilia continue to be
well represented in the newest interpretation of developmentally appropriate practice guidelines (Copple &
Bredekamp, 2009), attention has shifted to evidence-based “best practices” deemed most likely to ensure
children’s school achievement. Although history suggests that this shift represents the facile nature of American
curiosity and the perennial search for quick fixes to complex problems, an equally compelling explanation is the
21st-century interpretation of schooling as preparation for testing, an ideology as contrary to Reggio Emilia’s
vision of early education as it is to many U.S. early childhood educators.
Few could have anticipated the influence of (and damage wrought by) the 2001 act of Congress now known as No
Child Left Behind (NCLB) on early childhood classrooms. In a bipartisan effort to close the achievement gap,
NCLB mandates, among other things, standardized testing at specified grade levels in the name of accountability.
Subsequent educational reform initiatives have been based on the belief that high standards and measurable goals
are the keys to improving student achievement—aka “outcomes”—in education. Public schools are now required
to set and achieve assessment goals, measured by regular testing, in order to receive federal funding—hence the
label of testing as “high stakes.” Within this measurement-oriented context, funding for (the improvement of
teaching of) reading increased exponentially. For administrators and educators dependent on federal dollars to
support their schools, the presumed “untestability” of Reggio Emilia’s pedagogy seems, to many, too great a risk.
Yet the very obstacles to bringing the Reggio Emilia approach into U.S. classrooms is what continues to inspire
369
many in the field. Teachers and administrators in other nations also continue to explore the possibilities of Reggio
Emilia in their own settings (cf. Rosen, 2010). Within the United States, private schools (both for profit and non
profit) are generally freer to explore with Reggio Emilia ideas, often emboldened by parent responses to what their
children are learning through engagement in long-term projects enhanced by their exploration of multiple
symbolic languages. Many of these early childhood professionals find support and collaborative possibilities in
local, state, and national groups of Reggio-inspired colleagues. The largest such group—North American Reggio
Emilia Association (NAREA; www.reggioalliance.com) has annual meetings, summer conferences, and a map of
schools across the country where Reggio Emilia principles are being put into practice.
Within the public school arena, there is no question that the current policy climate, with its focus on measurable
outcomes and high-stakes testing, has created new obstacles for educators who wish to (continue to) explore the
Reggio Emilia pedagogy in their classrooms. The universal prekindergarten movement in the United States,
resulting in a move of prekindergarten children into public elementary school settings, has made it all the more
challenging for advocates of the Reggio Emilia approach to find receptive audiences. Yet there are scores of
classroom teachers and researchers still deeply engaged with these ideas who persist in finding ways to implement
them while respecting the mandate for accountability to local, state, and federal standards. A recent encouraging
example comes from the field of science education. A research study conducted in a Reggio-inspired preschool
classroom examined the relationship between Reggio Emilia’s inquiry-oriented pedagogy with science instruction
aligned with the state’s early learning content standards (Inan, Trundle, & Kantor, 2010). Through the use of
ethnographic data collection techniques and interpretative analytic perspectives using multiple lenses, the study
illustrated the coherence between Reggio Emilia-inspired pedagogical principles and the early learning content
standards that guided teachers’ work with the students. Not only was this study published in a major journal in
the field of science education (Journal of Research in Science Teaching); it was also selected by the National
Association on Research in Science Teaching as one of the top five articles from Journal of Research in Science
Teaching for the year 2011 (“Articles Teachers Should Read!”; Van Driel & Wallace, 2011). This development is
encouraging in several ways: first, that a new field—science education—would see the value in an approach in
which teachers and students work together to understand complex scientific phenomena; and second, that with
inspiration from Reggio Emilia, U.S. educators are not only “holding onto innovation” in the midst of the
“accountability storm,” but breaking into new fields (Van Driel & Wallace, 2011).
Continued exploration of documentation as a pedagogical tool has also expanded into new territory. Long inspired
by Italian approaches to the observation and study of child development, processes of documentation have now
been adopted by many U.S. classroom teachers, transforming the banal bragadocio (“All about me!”) of classroom
bulletin boards to purposeful displays of children’s questions and discoveries as they engage in meaningful
activities. Project Zero, in collaboration with Reggio Children (Turner & Krechevsky, 2003), led the way in
demonstrating documentation’s usefulness to illuminate processes of teaching and learning (Project Zero, 2003).
Australian educators have capitalized on documentation as a mediating tool for self-reflection and understanding
(Fleet, Robertson, & Patterson, 2006). Early childhood teacher educators have also embraced documentation as a
means of helping preservice teachers learn how to observe child development in action (Gandini & Goldhaber,
2001; Moran & Tegano, 2005) as well as a means to transform the nature of the “laboratory” in university-based
lab school (e.g., Moran, Desrochers, & Cavicchi, 2007; Fu, Stremmel, & Hill, 2002). This work has led to more
purposeful efforts to deter-mine—and then create—the conditions and contexts in which preservice students
might more successfully embrace an inquiry orientation to their professional development (Tegano & Moran,
2005). Supporting these efforts are strategies of documentation in the form of video-facilitated exchanges,
effectively demonstrating its communicative and generative potentials (Moran, Lamb, Newton, Worthington, &
Carow, 2007). More recently, this orientation to documentation has been used as a vehicle for conversations
among more experienced teachers in diverse educational settings, including those within the United States (e.g.,
Head Start and public prekindergarten programs) and those on opposite sides of the ocean (lab schools in Milan,
Italy, and Knoxville, Tennessee; Moran, 2011).
Research on the nature and consequences of these (video-recorded) cross-cultural exchanges reveals new
possibilities for documentation’s mediating potentials for negotiated learning (Forman & Fyfe, 1998). Results of
these studies suggest that this documentation-fueled discourse can help both experienced and new educators
370
become more cognizant of their multiple ways of interpreting their roles in children’s learning and more open to
alternative ways of understanding and responding to children’s learning and developmental potentials. The
teacher-to-teacher discourse has provided valuable sources of data for the understanding of such ephemeral but
critical dimensions of teaching as inter- and intrasubjectivities and the socioemotional components of cognitive
change. This particular appropriation of documentation has served less to inform practices with young children
and more to advance theories of adult learning and development.
In these and other cases, Reggio Emilia’s work has continued to help U.S. scholars and teacher educators translate
and make visible to teachers the basic principles of sociocultural and activity theories (New, 1998; Strong-Wilson,
2007), including the concepts of participatory appropriation (Rogoff, 1990, 1995) and other complex tenets of
theories of social cognition (Lave, 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Salomon, 1993). But as Malaguzzi cautioned,
theory should derive from practice. It is the proof of Reggio Emilia’s existence that has the most to teach early
childhood educators. The new edition of The Hundred Languages of Children (Edwards, Gandini, & Forman,
2011) will surely inspire new drives to translate their efforts for use in our own reform initiatives.
Conclusion
Italian educators regard Reggio Emilia’s global success with a mixture of amusement and envy. Sono proprio tosti!
(“They are really stubborn!”), noted one who requested anonymity. Most of those familiar with the city’s history
attribute the success of Reggio Emilia to Loris Malaguzzi’s unwavering and passionate convictions, including his
rejection of standardized interpretations of child development and his moral stance of the imperative of family and
community partecipazione (civic engagement) in children’s early education. These convictions found a nourishing
environment in which to grow. There are now deep roots that ground Malaguzzi’s education initiatives within the
city’s long-standing activism and rejection of the status quo in favor of purposeful pursuit of a more socially just
world. His convictions are a vital part of the fabric of this northern Italian city.
We know of no city in the United States that has identified and sustained such a mission on behalf of its youngest
citizens for 40-plus years no matter the economic and social challenges; that has sustained its commitment to
family engagement—no matter where those families are from, to teachers’ collaborative research—no matter what
training the teachers have or haven’t received, and to children’s creative and intellectual potentials—no matter
what languages they speak. The contrast—between what Reggio Emilia offers its youngest citizens (as well as
resident noncitizens) and what is available in the United States—was dramatic a decade ago. As the United States
struggles with heightened economic and social challenges similar to those now facing other industrialized nations,
we have moved further away from an equitable and high-quality early educational system (New, 2010). In this
changing light, Reggio Emilia seems all the more a mirage rather than a real possibility. Yet the people of Reggio
Emilia persist. Surely it is this particular stubbornness, expressed by taking social justice issues seriously and
working together to find solutions to what appear to be intractable social problems, that warrants the global
acclaim directed to the city’s approach to an early childhood education.
Reflect On
1. What tenets are at the heart of the Reggio Emilia approach to early care and education?
2. In what ways is Reggio Emilia more than an approach to early childhood education?
3. How do teachers and parents work together to promote children’s learning?
4. What value is there to documentation? How does it support child learning?
5. How has the Reggio Emilia community responded to the changing demographics of families and children in
northern Italy?
371
Selected Resource
www.regioalliance.com
Endnotes
1. 1. Reggio Children hosted 4000 delegates in 2010.
2. 2. Although Americans generally refer to Italian early childhood services for 3- to 5-year-old children as
preschool, the term is inaccurate, for two reasons. First, it includes what would be, in the United States the
kindergarten year. Second, and perhaps more importantly, the notion of preparing children for primary
school is inconsistent with the cultural value embedded within the law, which is that children are entitled to
high-quality out-of-home experiences for their own sake, not as a form of preparation for what is to come.
Although most English language descriptions of Reggio Emilia’s municipal services now use the term
preschool, in this chapter we continue to use the term pre-primary, even though that, too, fails to capture
the ethic of the national commitment to young children.
3. 3. Most Italians have since rejected the gendered label of scuola materna in favor of the concept of servizi
dell’infanzia, or early childhood services, to refer to those for children from birth through age 6.
4. 4. For more information on the history of Reggio Emilia’s early childhood services, see both editions of The
Hundred Languages of Children (Edwards, Gandini, & Forman, 1993, 1998) and a video dedicated to the
story of Reggio Emilia’s infant-toddler centers and pre-primary schools (Not Just Anywhere, Washington,
DC: Reggio Children, 2002).
5. 5. More information about the exhibition and other activities in countries around the world can be found
on Reggio Emilia’s Web site: zerosei.comune.re.it/inter/rc_contacts.htm
6. 6. Inserimento refers to the initial period of home– school transition, a time and process treated with a great
deal of attention and respect in Italy. Most communal early childhood services have devised distinct ways of
ensuring that children, families, and teachers have ample opportunity to get to know one another.
7. 7. Many of Reggio Emilia’s infant-toddler centers and preschools are named after historic events or social
rights activists. Among the latter are the Scuola Anna Frank and Scuola Iqbal Masih. Iqbal was the Pakistani
child sold into slavery and killed at age 12 after publicly calling for an end to child labor. Among his
postmortem accolades is the annual Iqbal Masih Award for the Elimination of Child Labor, established in
2009 by U.S. Congress (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iqbal_Masih; retrieved August 26, 2011).
8. 8. As noted in the 2009 chapter, many of the progettazione found in Reggio Emilia’s municipal schools are
based on children’s curiosities about the physical and social worlds or practical propositions, topics that
might also be pursued in the United States. Other topics of potential exploration, however, are much less
likely to be pursued by U.S. early childhood educators, including children’s philosophical dilemmas (“Can
an enemy become a friend?” “What is love?” “Who is God?”), as well as their anxieties about the world
around them (including their views of sexuality, children’s rights, and their fears for themselves and soldiers
during times of war). These topics, rare or taboo in the United States, are not only highly engaging for
children. They also attract adult attention as parents and teachers seek ways to participate in and support
children’s collaborative explorations (New & Kantor, 2009).
9. 9. This small publication and those of other projects are available for purchase through Reggio Children,
Washington, DC 20005-3105.
10. 10. Secondary teachers in Italy must have a university degree in their content area(s).
372
11. 11. This discussion on immigrants in Italy, Emilia Romagna, and Reggio Emilia is based on data found on
Italy’s national statistics Web site ISTAT, including demo.istat.it/str2009/index.html;
en.istat.it/salastampa/comunicati/non_calendario/20110404_00/Famiglie_straniere_disagio_2009_EN.pdf;
and demo.istat.it/strasa2010/index02_e.html
12. 12. “In 2008, foreign female citizens had on average 2.31 children per woman—a decline compared to
recent years but still one child more than Italian women (1.32). The greater propensity to have children
among foreign female citizens significantly contributes to the recovery of the overall fertility rate of the
resident population: from 1.19 in 1995 to 1.42 children per woman in 2008” (ISTAT, 2010).
13. 13. www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/culture/Cities/regioimmigrazione.pdf; accessed August 12, 2011.
References
1. Barazzoni, R. (1985). Mattone su mattone: Storia della scuola per bambini “XXV Aprile” di Villa Cella. [Brick
by brick: The story of a school for children, “25 April,” of Villa Cella]. Reggio Emilia, Italy: Assessorato alle
Scuole Dell’Infanzia e Nidi Comunali di Reggio Emilia.
2. Bove, C. (1999). L’inserimento del bambino al nido [Welcoming the child into child care]: Perspectives from
Italy. Young Children, 54 (2), 32–34.
3. Bredekamp, S. (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from
birth through age eight. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
4. Bredekamp, S. (1993). Reflections on Reggio Emilia. Young Children, 49 (1), 13–17.
5. Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice for early childhood
programs serving children from birth through age eight (rev. ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for
the Education of Young Children.
6. Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7. Cavallini, I., Filippini, T., Vecchi, V., & Trancossi, L. (2011). The wonder of learning: The hundred
languages of children. Reggio Emilia, Italy: Reggio Children, Sr.
8. Ceppi, G., & Zini, M. (Eds.). (1998). Children, spaces, relations: Metaproject for an environment for young
children. Modena, Italy: Reggio Children and Domus Academy Research Center.
9. Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs
Serving Children from Birth Through Age 8 (rev. ed.) Washington, DC: National Association for the
Education of Young Children.
10. Corsaro, W., & Emiliani, F. (1992). Child care, early education, and children’s peer culture in Italy. In M.
E. Lamb, K. J. Sternberg, C. P. Hwang, & A. G. Broberg (Eds.), Child care in context (pp. 81 – 115).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
11. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy & education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
12. Edwards, C. (2002). Three approaches from Europe: Waldorf, Montessori, and Reggio Emilia. Early
Childhood Research and Practice, 4 (1). Retrieved April 11, 2008, from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/V4n1/
edwards.html
Emilia approach. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
373
Emilia approach—Advanced reflections (2nd ed.). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
Emilia experience in transformation (3rd ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
16. Edwards, C., & Rinaldi, C. (Eds.). (2009). The diary of Laura: Perspectives on a Reggio Emilia diary. St. Paul,
MN: Redleaf Press.
17. Filippini, T. (1990, November). Introduction to the Reggio approach. Paper presented at the annual
conference of the National Association for the Education of Young Children, Washington, DC.
18. Fleet, A., Robertson, J., & Patterson, C. (Eds.). (2006). Insights. Castle Hill, New South Wales, Australia:
Pademelon Press.
19. Forman, G., & Fyfe, B. (1998). Negotiated learning through design, documentation, and discourse. In C.
Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach—
Advanced reflections (2nd ed., pp. 239 – 260). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
20. Fu, V. R., Stremmel, A. J., & Hill, L. T. (2002). An invitation to join in a growing community for learning
and change. In V. Fu, A. Stremmel, & L. Hill (Eds.), Teaching and learning: Collaborative exploration of the
Reggio Emilia approach (pp. 5 – 11). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
21. Gandini, L. (1984). Not just anywhere: Making child care centers into “particular” places. Beginnings, 1,
17–20.
22. Gandini, L. (1998). Educational and caring spaces. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds.), The
hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach: Advanced reflections (2nd ed., pp. 161 – 178).
Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
23. Gandini, L., & Edwards, C. (Eds.). (2001). Bambini: The Italian approach to infant/toddler care. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
24. Gandini, L., & Goldhaber, J. (2001). Two reflections about documentation. In L. Gandini & C. Edwards
(Eds.), Bambini: The Italian approach to infant/toddler care (pp. 124 – 145). New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
25. Gandini, L., Hill, L., Cadwell, L., & Schwall, C. (2005). In the spirit of the studio: Learning from the atelier of
Reggio Emilia. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
26. Gardner, H. (1998). Complementary perspectives on Reggio Emilia. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G.
Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach: Advanced reflections (2nd ed.,
pp. xv – xviii). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
27. Immigration in Reggio Emilia: Proposal for local governance [English translation]. (2007, October).
Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/culture/cities/reggiostrategy.pd
28. Inan, J. Z., Trundle, K. C., & Kantor, R. (2010). Understanding natural sciences education in a Reggio-
Emilia inspired preschool. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 74 (10), 1186–1208.
29. ISTAT. (2009). Cittadini Stranieri. Popolazione residente per sesso e cittadinanza al 31 Dicembre 2009
[Foreign citizens: Residential populations by sex and citizenship as of December 31, 2009]. Retrieved from
http://demo.istat.it/str2009/index.html
30. ISTAT. (2010). Birth and fertility rates among the resident population: Recent characteristics and trends: Year
2008. Retrieved August 12, 2011, from http://en.istat.it/salastampa/comunicati/non_calendario/
374
20100318_00/fertility.pdf
31. Katz, L. (1998). What can we learn from Reggio Emilia? In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds.),
The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach—Advanced reflections (2nd ed., pp. 27 – 45).
Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
32. Lave, J. (1989). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. New York, NY:
33. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England:
34. Malaguzzi, L. (1998). History, ideas, and basic philosophy: An interview with Lella Gandini. In C.
35. Mantovani, S. (2001). Infant-toddler centers in Italy today: Tradition and innovation. In L. Gandini & C.
P. Edwards (Eds.), Bambini: The Italian approach to infant/toddler care (pp. 23 – 37). New York, NY:
36. Mantovani, S. & New, R. (2011, June 14). Changing means and interpretations of professional
development in Italy. Presented in symposium on Professional Development as Situated Cognition: The
Role of Culture and Contexts on Teacher Knowledge about Child Development Providence, RI: NAEYC’s
Professional Development Institute.
37. Moll, L. C., & Greenberg, J. (1990). Creating zones of possibilities: Combining social contexts for
instruction. In L. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education (pp. 319 – 348) . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
38. Moran, M. J. (2011, June 14). Situated professional development within ongoing cross-national research:
ECE teacher practice in two university lab-schools. Presented in symposium on Professional Development
as Situated Cognition: The Role of Culture and Contexts on Teacher Knowledge about Child
Development. Providence, RI: NAEYC’s Professional Development Institute.
39. Moran, M. J., Desrochers, L., & Cavicchi, N. (2007). Progettazione and documentation as sociocultural
activities: Changing communities of practice. The Journal of Theory into Practice, 46 (1), 81–90.
40. Moran, M. J., Lamb, D., Newton, E. H., Worthington, L., & Carow, N. (2007, Winter). The
communicative and generative qualities of video-narrative as a mediational tool of mentor teacher inquiry .
Co-Inquiry Journal Interchange in Education, 1 (3).
41. Moran, M. J., & Tegano, D. W. (2005, June). Moving toward visual literacy: Photography as a language of
teacher inquiry. Journal of Early Childhood Research and Practice, 7(1).
42. New, R. (1990). Excellent early education: A city in Italy has it! Young Children, 45 (6), 4–6.
43. New, R. (1993). Italy. In M. Cochran (Ed.), International handbook on child care policies and programs (pp.
291 – 311). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
44. New, R. (1994). Culture, child development and developmentally appropriate practices: Teachers as
collaborative researchers. In B. Mallory & R. New (Eds.), Diversity and developmentally appropriate practices:
Challenges for early childhood education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
45. New, R. (1998). Theory and praxis in Reggio Emilia: They know what they are doing, and why. In C.
375
46. New, R. (2001). Reggio Emilia: Catalyst for change and conversation. Washington, DC: Office of Educational
Research and Improvement. (ED4748081)
47. New, R. (2002). The impact of the Reggio Emilia model on early childhood education in the U.S. Paper
commissioned by the Board of International Comparative Studies in Education’s [B.I.C.S.E.] Committee
on a Framework and Long-term Research Agenda for International Comparative Education Studies.
Findings included in Framework and Principles for International Comparative Studies in Education.
Washington, DC: National Research Council.
48. New, R. (2005). The Reggio Emilia approach: Provocations and partnerships with U.S. early childhood
educators. In J. Roopnarine & J. Johnson (Eds.), Approaches to early childhood education (4th ed., pp. 313 –
335). Columbus, OH: Pearson.
49. New, R. (2007). Reggio Emilia as cultural activity theory in practice. Theory into Practice, 46 (1), 5–13.
50. New, R. (2010). D’une affaire prive’e a’ politique publique: L’e’ducation pre’scolaire aux “Etax-Unis [21st
Century U.S. Early Care and Education: From a private problem to a national agenda]. Revue internationale
d’éducation de Sèvres, 13 (53), 129–140.
51. New, R., & Kantor, R. (2009). Reggio Emilia’s approach to care and education. In J. Roopnarine & J.
Johnson (Eds.), Approaches to early childhood education (5th ed., pp. 287 – 311). Columbus, OH: Pearson.
52. New, R., & Mallory, B. (2005). Children as catalysts for adult relations: New perspectives from Italian early
childhood education. In O. Saracho & B. Spodek (Eds.), Contemporary perspective on families and
communities and schools in early childhood education (pp. 163 – 179). Greenwich, CT: Information Age
Publisher.
53. New, R., Mallory, B., & Mantovani, S. (2000). Cultural images of children, parents, and teachers: Italian
interpretations of home-school relations. Early Education and Development, 11 (5), 597–616.
54. Project Zero. (2003). Making teaching visible: Documenting group learning as professional development.
Cambridge, MA: Project Zero.
55. Project Zero & Reggio Children. (2001). Making learning visible: Children as individual and group learners.
Reggio Emilia, Italy: Reggio Children.
56. Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
57. Rinaldi, C. (1993). The emergent curriculum and social constructivism. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G.
Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach (pp. 101 – 111). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex.
58. Rinaldi, C. (1998). Projected curriculum constructed through documentation—Progettazione: An interview

with Lella Gandini. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The
Reggio Emilia approach—Advanced reflections (2nd ed., pp. 113 – 125). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
59. Rinaldi, C. (2003). The teacher as researcher. Innovations in early education: The International Reggio
Exchange, 10 (2), 1–4.
60. Rinaldi, C. (2006). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, researching, and learning (Contesting Early
Childhood Series) New York, NY: Routledge.
61. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
376
62. Rogoff, B. (1995). Observing sociocultural activity on three planes: Participatory appropriation, guided
participation and apprenticeship. In J. V. Wertsch & A. Alvarex (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp.
139 – 164). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
63. Rosen, R. (2010, February). ‘We got our heads together and came up with a plan’: Young children’s
perceptions of curriculum development in one Canadian preschool. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 8
(1), 89–108.
64. Salomon, G. (1993). Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
65. Smith, C. (1998). Children with “special rights” in the preprimary schools and infant-toddler centers of
Reggio Emilia. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The
Reggio Emilia approach—Advanced reflections (2nd. ed., pp. 199 – 214). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
66. Spaggiari, S. (1991). Considerazioni critiche ed esperienze di gestione sociale. [Critical considerations and
experiences of social management]. In A. Bondidi & S. Mantovani (Eds.), Manuale critico dell’asilo nido
[Critical manual of day care]. (pp. 111 – 134). Milan, Italy: Franco Angeli.
67. Spaggiari, S. (1998). The community-teacher partnership in the governance of the schools: An interview
with Lella Gandini. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The
Reggio Emilia approach—Advanced reflections (2nd ed., pp. 99 – 112). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
68. Strong-Wilson, T. (Ed.). (2007). Reggio Emilia [Special issue]. Theory into Practice, 46 (1).
69. Takanishi, R. (2011). Transforming America’s primary education system for the 21st century: Integrating
K-12 education with prekindergarten. In E. Zigler, W. Gilliam, & W. S. Barnett (Eds.), The pre-K debates:
Current controversies & issues (pp. 181 – 184). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
70. Tegano, D. W., & Moran, M. J. (October 2005). Conditions and contexts for teacher inquiry: Systematic
approaches to preservice teacher collaborative experiences. The New Educator, 1, 287–310.
71. Topal, C. W., & Gandini, L. (1999). Beautiful stuff: Learning with found materials. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf
Press.
72. Turner, T., & Krechevsky, M. (2003). Who are the teachers? Who are the learners? Educational Leadership,
60 (7), 40–43.
73. Van Driel, J., & Wallace, C. (2011) Articles Teachers Should Read!, eNARST NEWS, 54 (2), 11. Retrieved
from http://www.narst.org/news/enarst.cfm
74. Wein, C. A. (Ed.). (2001). Emergent curriculum in the primary classroom: Interpreting the Reggio Emilia
approach in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
377
Chapter 16 Montessori Education Today
Martha Torrence
Cambridge Montessori School
John Chattin-McNichols
Seattle University
Describe the background and key tenets of the Montessori method
Explain Montessori’s view of human development
Detail the program characteristics
Outline the curriculum areas
Discuss the role of the teacher
Characterize Montessori education in the elementary years
Summarize research on Montessori
Maria Montessori (1870–1952) was an extraordinary person by any standard who overcame great difficulties to
become one of Italy’s first female physicians. Her gift of observation was sharpened by her studies in
anthropology, resulting in her first book, Pedagogical Anthropology (Montessori, 1913). She also worked with what
were then called “defective children” at the state Orthophrenic School in Rome. In her work with this very diverse
population, she drew from the work of Jean Itard and Edouard Seguin, French physicians and educators of
developmentally disabled children (Loeffler, 1992). In 1907, she was asked to create a program to care for the
children of families in a housing project in Rome serving a lower income population of 4- to 7-year-olds; this was
the first Casa dei Bambini, or Children’s House.
In the United States, there was a great deal of interest in Montesori education from 1910 to 1920 (Montessori’s
program was demonstrated with a model classroom in San Francisco at the 1916 World’s Fair), but declined
dramatically until the late 1950s. However, during these three decades, Montessori schools increased in Europe
and India. What caused this initial failure in the United States? Elkind (1998) suggests that one reason for the
poor reception may have been that modern parents at that time in the United States viewed childhood as a time of
innocence when children are best cared for by their mothers. Four other reasons that contributed to the rapid
downfall seem to have been (1) poor or uncomprehending reception by the educational leadership; (2) adaptation
of Montessori’s methods in a variety of ways with which she disagreed; (3) a focus on academics by demanding
middle-class parents; and (4) a flood of “trainers” and authors eager to capitalize on Montessori. J. McVicker
Hunt, in his introduction to a new edition of The Montessori Method (Hunt, 1964), claimed that on five central
issues, educators and psychologists of the day disagreed with Montessori.
Table 16–1 shows the major differences between Montessori’s ideas and the dominant theories in education and
psychology in this country in the early part of the 20th century. In terms of the effects of environment (vs.
heredity), the mutability of intellect, motivation, the role of the senses in learning and development, and the focus
on observable, testable behavior, Montessori was completely out of step. So much so that Kilpatrick’s 1914 book-
length criticism, The Montessori System Examined, was taken by most professionals as the last word—in fact, the
only word needed. But most of the mismatches between Montessori and current theories have been resolved
through advances in our understanding of child development and learning and her once-radical theories, such as
378
the importance of children learning through hands-on activity, the preschool years being a time of critical brain
Table 16–1 Montessori Versus 1910–1920

Contemporaries
Montessori’s Position 1910–1920 Contemporaries’ Position
Importance of experience for 3- and 4-year-olds
Absorbent minds: Montessori’s concept of a
period of development when certain kinds of
Fixed intelligence.
things (e.g., language) are absorbed without
external motivation.
Specialized group settings could provide Only families (not outside agencies) should be
appropriate stimulation. involved in the education or care of young children.
Importance of predetermined development and usefulness of early teaching
Development is predetermined. Early studies of the
Appropriate learning environments can allow “fade out” of practice (with traditional elementary
for growth and change. school methods) showed uselessness of education
before about age 8.
Motivation
Internal motivation; children are intrinsically All behavior needs to be motivated externally,
motivated to practice, especially at the edge of usually by primary drives such as food, painful
competence. stimuli, and so forth.
What should be the focus for education?
Emphasis on the senses and the experience of
Emphasis on behavioral responses.
the child. Little emphasis on testing.
Role of the teacher
Facilitator, guide, teaching through the
Traditional teacher role: direct, whole-group
environment, short individual or small-group
instruction. Froebel’s “gifts.”
lessons; large part of day in free-choice time.
Source: “Introduction,” by J. McVicker Hunt in The Montessori Method by M. Montessori, 1964,

New York, NY: Schocken.
development, and parents being included as essential partners in their children’s education, are currently accepted
as standard thinking in the field of early childhood education.
The contemporary U.S. Montessori movement began in the late 1950s as a set of private schools serving an almost
entirely middle-class population. Many of these early schools were founded by parents. In 1959, the American
Montessori Society (AMS) was established. Its founder, Nancy McCormick Rambusch, asserted that not only
adoption but also adaptation of Montessori’s method was necessary so that it be both translated and “naturalized”
into the diverse American cultural setting (Rambusch, cited in Loeffler, 1992). A teacher shortage, predicated by
the mushrooming number of schools, resulted in the opening of private Montessori teacher training centers,
typically free-standing—not associated with a college or university. The word Montessori has been used widely in
the public domain in the United States; and thus both schools and teacher education programs proliferated and
were licensed without name-brand regulation or restriction. Some schools (then and now) used the name
Montessori to refer to programs that have little relation to the schools she described. The AMS, the Association
Montessori Internationale (AMI), and a number of other organizations have established criteria as to what
constitutes a quality Montessori school. But membership in these organizations is voluntary and organizational
379
criteria do not apply to state licensing standards.
Beginning in the late 1960s, parents in several school districts began to advocate for the public schools to offer the
Montessori model for their children, many of whom had graduated from private Montessori preschools. This push
was given a strong boost by the availability of federal funds for magnet programs. Today, more than 400 schools
in 150 districts nationwide (Kahn, 1990; Schapiro & Hellen, 2011) offer some form of public Montessori
program.
The Background and Key Tenets of the Montessori

Method
Because there are no restrictions on the use of the word Montessori, many people rely on a school’s affiliation with
a major Montessori organization to determine whether a program is in fact Montessori. Two of these
organizations are the AMI and AMS. But many private Montessori schools and most public Montessori school
programs have chosen not to affiliate with any organization, usually citing financial considerations. What are some
of the characteristics of a Montessori classroom, then, that differentiate it from a traditional early childhood
classroom? What might a visitor to a contemporary Montessori classroom expect to see?
The first thing that an observer might notice is the mixed-age grouping: typically 3-, 4-, and 5-year-olds are
together, as are 6-, 7-, and 8-year-olds, and so on. Another difference is the arrangement of the room, with low,
open shelves holding many carefully arranged materials from which the children can choose. Tables and desks are
grouped to facilitate individual or small-group work, rather than an arrangement in which furniture is oriented in
one direction to facilitate whole-group instruction. Open floor space allows for work on the floor. The amount of
shelving needed to hold the required Montessori materials is more than is generally seen in other educational
models, with all walls of the classroom typically containing some shelving and shelving extending into the
classroom at several points to create bays or focus areas. The Montessori manipulative materials are designed for
use by individual students or small groups rather than as teacher presentation aides. For example, small globes are
provided for children to handle and to explore instead of one big globe provided at the front of the room for
teacher-centered instruction.
The single most important criteria for judging a program to be a good implementation of Montessori is the
activity of the students. In full-day programs, students should be engaged in individual and small-group work of
their own choosing for 3 to 4 hr. These choices, of course, are guided and supervised by the teacher. (See the The
Role of the Teacher section later in this chapter.) Classrooms that spend more than 1 hr a day in whole-group
instruction have moved away from the Montessori model (see Baines & Snortum, 1973; Feltin, 1987).
A prevailing attitude in Montessori classrooms is one of cooperation rather than competition in completing work.
For example, in an elementary classroom, the answers to math problems and science or geography questions are
freely available to students. Students complete work independently and then check responses with the “control”
material. Children in Montessori classrooms commonly ask other children for help, not perceiving the teacher as
the sole source of information in the room. The availability of a correct answer accompanies a reduced emphasis
on conventional forms of testing.
Although public and private Montessori schools comply with school district or state-level requirements for
mandated achievement tests, these are seen by many Montessorians as being somewhat irrelevant to much of the
learning that goes on. The new emphasis on authentic assessment methods, which include portfolios and
performance-based assessment, is welcomed by many Montessori educators. In fact, assessment in a Montessori
classroom is typically based on extensive teacher observation. During individual and small-group presentations,
students are asked to practice the relevant activities, giving the teacher an immediate assessment of
380
Children working together using Montessori materials inventively.
the success of that lesson. Ongoing systematic teacher observation of children’s work adds to the teacher’s
cumulative knowledge of child progress. Intervention to support a child who needs more individual instruction
with a given skill or concept is always an option as a result of such observation.
Finally, there is strong emphasis on the development of individual responsibility. For example, children return
materials to their place after use, the classroom is cleaned and maintained at least in part by the children, and they
participate in the development of classroom rules.
Montessori’s View of Human Development

Montessori viewed education as a vehicle for “giving help to the child’s life … helping the mind in its process of
development” (Montessori, 1949/1967a, p. 28). Her oft-cited phrase “follow the child” is meant to infer that by
following the child’s development, the educator can make the most helpful match between instructional methods,
curriculum, and child. A discussion of Montessori’s educational philosophy, then, must begin with her view of
human development.
In Montessori’s view, development does not progress in one continuous inclined plane, (the implication of that
model being that the child is simply a small adult), or in a linear or constant fashion from birth to maturity. A
further implication of the inclined plane model is that mental activity on the more elevated end of the scale—
representing an older, more developed person—is inherently more valuable than that of a very young child. On
the contrary, Montessori viewed the first period of life to be the most developmentally dynamic and of the highest
importance. Her developmental paradigm depicts a series of four related triangles, which she termed, “the
constructive rhythm of life” (see Table 16–2). Each triangle represents a 6-year period (or plane) of development:
birth to 6 years of age (infancy); 6 to 12 years of age (childhood); 12 to 18 years (adolescence); and 18 to 24 years
(maturity). Two of the planes, the first and third, are described as particularly volatile and active with respect to
381
physical and psychological changes, with the other two as relatively stable periods of strengthening and integration
(Grazzini, 1996).
Each plane is distinct unto itself, having its own particular characteristics; at the same time, each prepares the child
for the one that follows. The key characteristics or mental tendencies that distinguish each plane are described as
“sensitive periods.” “These periods … are transitory, and confined to the acquisition of a determined
characteristic. Once the characteristic has evolved the corresponding sensibility disappears” (Montessori, 1966, p.
38). Montessori viewed the sensitive periods as the most opportune time in life for an individual to develop key
characteristics or abilities. For example, Montessori noted that beginning at birth, but peaking in the 2- to 4-year-
old, a sensitive period for order is manifested. During this period, young children exhibit an almost ritualized
interest in putting or finding things in their exact place in the environment. This sensitivity manifests itself in
many ways, including children becoming upset when events occur out of their usual order or delighting in hearing
the same story told in the same way, many times over.
Montessori viewed this love of order as the outward manifestation of the child’s inner need for a precise and
predictable environment. The child’s drive for external order generally diminishes by about age 5 to 6 years,
according to Montessori. By this time, the needs of this sensitive period will have been met, given time and
experience in an appropriate environment. The child will have formed an “inner conceptual framework,” which
will serve her in the next plane of development, as she moves toward more abstract thinking, reasoning, and
complex problem solving.
The Absorbent Mind

Montessori noted, with great respect, the unique capacity of the very young child to assimilate, or to take her/his
surroundings. She observed that from infancy, this capacity enables the child to absorb each experience in a
powerful and direct way. Through the process of such absorption, the mind itself is formed. Thus, the child
directly assimilates the physical and social environment in which s/he child is immersed, simultaneously
developing his or her innate mental powers. As Montessori phrased it, “Impressions do not merely enter his mind;
they form it. They incarnate themselves in him. The child creates his own ‘mental muscles,’ using for this what he
finds in the world about him. We have named this type of mentality, The Absorbent Mind ” (Montessori,
1949/1967a, pp. 25 – 26; emphasis in original).
According to Montessori, this powerful mental construction occurs between birth and the age of 6 years and
consists of two distinct phases: From birth until about 3 years of age, the child is in the phase of the unconscious
absorbent mind, during which time the child explores the environment through the senses and through
movement, also absorbing the language of the surrounding culture. The child retains memories of these
experiences, but they are not conscious—that is, they cannot be called on at will for the child’s use. Montessori
asserted, “If we call our adult mentality conscious, then we must call the child (of under 3 years) unconscious, but
the unconscious kind is not necessarily inferior. An unconscious mind can be most intelligent” (Montessori,
1949/1967a, p. 23).
At about the age of 3 years, according to Montessori, the child’s capacity for such powerful absorption shifts to a
more conscious, purposeful type. At this point, the child becomes a factual as well as a sensory explorer, noting
relationships between things and making comparisons. At this point, the child begins to classify and refine sensory
experiences, bringing to consciousness many impressions previously absorbed. In so doing, “he constructs his
mind step by step till it becomes possessed of memory, the power to understand, the ability to think” (Montessori,
1949/1967a, p. 27). This process evolves throughout the period of the “conscious absorbent mind,”
approximately between the ages of 3 and 6 years. It is worth noting that Montessori’s period of the unconscious
absorbent mind correlates closely with Piaget’s sensorimotor period (birth to 2 years); the period of the conscious
absorbent mind correlates closely with Piaget’s preoperational stage (ages 2 to 7).
Discipline: The Development of the Will

382
As children enter the learning environment, they are unaccustomed to its materials, social expectations, and
ground rules. They can be impulsive and seem to lack focus. But when they discover something that is of deep
interest, they begin to act on it. According to Montessori, such purposeful engagement deepens the experience and
children’s ability to concentrate and direct actions in other situations as well. Through such a series of actions on
the environment, children’s will, or ability to direct their own actions, begins to develop. Although “the school
must give the child’s spirit space and opportunity for expansion” (Montessori, 1949/1967a, p. 264), this is not a
laissez-faire or permissive method in which anything goes. If this were the case, chaos would reign and only the
teacher’s direct imposition of control would restore harmony. Rather, behavioral limits are designed and
implemented so that all may work in peace.
In other words, within Montessori classrooms, an atmosphere of freedom within limits is maintained—freedom to
choose and use materials with purpose and care, to direct one’s own learning, to interact with others, to move
about the space freely. Limits are imposed to offer children guidelines for peer consortium and bounds of
appropriate use of materials and to maintain a sense of social dignity and peace. Ground rules are often described
as being in place to ensure respect for oneself, for others, and for the environment. The peace that can arise
through such a balance between freedom and limits is not to be mistaken for inaction or immobility. Rather, “a
form of active peace” (Montessori, 1949/1967a, p. 254) is said to prevail in a disciplined Montessori classroom.
The Program Characteristics

The Prepared Environment
The child, in Montessori’s view, is a constant inquirer who “absorbs his environment, takes everything from it,
and incarnates it in himself” (Montessori, 1949/1967a, p. 66). Not a passive recipient of experience, the child
ideally interacts purposefully and freely with a specifically designed, learner-sensitive environment for optimal
development to occur. The Montessori-prepared learning environment is both physical and psychological. The
physical environment is designed to be ordered, proportioned to the child’s size, aesthetically pleasing, and visually
harmonious. Although the environment is carefully prepared before children’s entry, it is constantly refined and
adjusted to keep pace with the ongoing needs and interests of a particular group. In other words, it is orderly but
not rigid, prepared but not fixed. The teacher constantly re-prepares or fine-tunes the environment based on
observations of the children’s interests and needs.
The preparation and subsequent refinement of the environment are central tasks of the Montessori teacher.
Although not the central figure in the class, the teacher in a Montessori classroom is far from passive: The teacher
supports the child’s engagement with the environment by initiating a psychological tone of calm and focused
activity; by responding genuinely, warmly, and with dignity to each child and his or her needs; and by helping to
make the “good match” between child and material. Much of the success of the prepared environment will depend
“on the teacher’s ability to participate with the children in a life of becoming” (Lillard, 1972, p. 61). Lillard
(1972) outlined six essential components of the Montessori learning environment: (1) freedom, (2) structure and
order, (3) reality and nature, (4) beauty and an atmosphere that encourages a positive and spontaneous response to
life, (5) Montessori learning materials, and (6) the development of community life. Another characteristic that
distinguishes a Montessori learning environment from others is its provision of extended, uninterrupted blocks of
time for child-centered activity. These blocks of time enable children to repeat activities as often as they wish, to
extend their concentration spans, and to socialize, rest, reflect, and engage in a wide range of possible work choices
within each routine day.
Freedom
In Montessori’s view, the natural thrust of the child is toward independence, independence of the “I can do it
myself” variety. In addition, the child internally possesses the blueprint for his or her own development, which will
383
unfold quite naturally given an appropriate environment and the freedom to act on the directive thrust of this
inner guide. Freedom is necessary so that the child can choose from among the materials and experiences offered
those that are of most use and interest at any point. The adult in turn observes the child’s interest and activity,
gaining insight into the child’s personality and development, and fine-tunes or modifies the environment to meet
the child’s needs. It is only in an atmosphere of freedom, according to Montessori, that true discipline can begin.
When a child undertakes a purposeful task that satisfies an inner developmental need, attention is fixed on this
task in a manner that lengthens the focus, attunes the “will” toward a purpose or object, and thereby begins
growth toward self-discipline. The quality of freedom in a Montessori classroom is dependent on this internal
development of focus and self-discipline. According to Montessori, one cannot logically occur without the other.
Structure and Order

“The child, left at liberty to exercise his activities, ought to find in his surroundings something organized in direct
relation to his internal organization which is developing itself by natural laws” (Montessori, 1965, p. 70). The
external organization of the environment, in other words, should both mimic and promote the internal order
unfolding within the child. Given the young child’s acute sensitivity to order (see Table 16–2), it makes sense that
the rhythms and routines of the classroom should be predictable, the learning materials should be organized in a
logical fashion, and the delivery
Table 16–2 Planes of Development

Planes Characteristics/Sensitive Periods
The child is constructing himself from experiences.
Need for order in the environment
Exploration of the environment through use of hands and tongue (leads to language
development)
0–6
Movement
Fascination with minute and detailed objects
Interest in the social aspects of life
The child has constructed tools to explore the world, now wants to move outside the
classroom.
Exploration of culture
6–12 The imagination
Morality
Social relationships
Child reconstructs himself now as a social being, in relationship with adults, peers, and
society. This important social task means less attention is available for academic work,
especially work with no obvious connection to the real world.
Humanistic explorers
12–18
384
Interest in justice
Need for work in the real world
The young adult, having done the needed social reconstruction, now is able to make full use
of available educational resources.
18–24 Self-motivation in learning, application of knowledge to real-world problems
Moral and spiritual development noticeable, have influence on choices
Source: Based on “The Four Planes of Development,” by C. Grazzini, 1996, The NAMTA Journal,
21 (2), 208–241.
of lessons as guides to action should be exact and concise.
The word rigid, however, does not apply. Such appropriate structure manifests in many forms in a Montessori
classroom, from a routine cycle of activities each day, to finding a material in an expected location, to the carefully
designed symmetry of the learning materials, to the predictability of the basic ground rules or limits that govern
the behavior of all.
Reality and Nature

Because of the absorbent quality of the young child’s mind, Montessori felt that the material placed in a child’s
hands should be of authentic quality and tangibly represent the real world. She shunned the practice of offering
materials of inferior quality to the young child as well as that of presenting fantasy-based images. Children are
provided with real, workable, child-sized tools of everyday living in the Montessori environment. Objects such as
child-proportioned brooms, dust pans, and glassware are commonplace. The Montessori didactic materials are
generally made of sturdy hardwoods, glass, and (in this age) high-quality plastics. Quality and authentic materials
are advocated in teacher education programs.
Montessori felt strongly that young children should be immersed in a world of reality, not fantasy. Her position
was that the child’s imagination develops from a sensory base and a foundation in real-world experiences, rather
than from an immersion in adult-created fantasy (Montessori, 1965). Lillian Katz seemed to concur on this point,
applying it to the modern era of media and mass marketing. “I believe the majority of our young children suffer
from a surplus of adult-generated fantasy. We have reached a stage that I call the abuses of enchantment; it is
another aspect of treating children like silly empty-headed pets that have to be amused and titillated” (Katz,
quoted in Loeffler, 1992, p. 193).
Beauty and Atmosphere

Because the child is inherently drawn to the natural world—to its cycles, rhythms, and inherent order—
Montessori felt that nature should be a part of the learning environment. Plants, animals, and small gardens cared
for by the children are standard in many Montessori classrooms. She believed that the environment itself convey a
sense of overall harmony. The environment should be clean, attractive, and well cared for. It should be colorful to
attract the child, yet uncluttered so as not to overstimulate. In addition to the aesthetic qualities of beauty,
Montessori advocated an overall environment of peace, nurturance, and, in a sense, spiritual beauty in which to
immerse the developing child. Anita Rui Olds, in an essay entitled “Places of Beauty” (quoted in Bergen, 1988, p.
185), echoed this sentiment: “Japanese architecture features an arch called a ‘torre’ to signal the transition from
profane to sacred territory, from that which is spontaneous and ordinary to that which is spiritually and
385
aesthetically integrated. I have often thought that every child space should be framed by such an arch, and that the
space should be designed to fulfill its meaning. Passage beyond the torre would then surround each child with
beauty, wholeness, and care.”
Montessori Learning Materials

“The ‘prepared environment’ is designed to help the child achieve a sense of himself, self-mastery and mastery of
his environment through the successful execution and repetition of apparently simple tasks which are nonetheless
linked to the cultural expectations the child faces in the context of his development” (Rambusch, 1962, p. 71).
These “apparently simple tasks” refer to the Montessori didactic materials, generally associated with the
Montessori method. To some, the sheer presence of these materials distinguishes a learning environment as
Montessori in practice. However, it is not the materials themselves but, rather, their design principles that make
them necessary, but not sufficient, components of a Montessori setting. These inherent design principles isolate a
particular concept or difficulty and contain a built-in control of error (i.e., auto-educational). They involve
movement or activity by the child and begin as relatively simple activities but add complexity as the child gains
experience and judgment. Moreover, Montessori materials are designed to prepare the child both directly and
indirectly for other subsequent learning. They have visual appeal and are aesthetically pleasing.
The isolation of a single difficulty is intended to induce clarity in the child’s learning experience and to focus
attention on a key concept. For example, the tower of cubes (or pink tower) is a series of 10 cubes, graded in size
at exact increments. Each cube is exactly identical except for the single variable of size. This draws the child’s
attention to that quality, allowing the exploration of the size relationships among the cubes without unnecessary
distraction. In contrast, many contemporary commercially made materials are designed with the notion that
“more is better.” In the commercial version, such sized cubes might be adorned with a variety of colors, letters,
numerals, or textures. In Montessori’s view, the child may be entertained by using such multifaceted cubes but
also may be unnecessarily distracted by the extraneous stimuli offered.
The notion of control of error is often misunderstood to mean that children should be ushered by the materials
through drill toward a sort of methodical perfection. Montessori, a scientist, viewed error to be inherent and a
constructive component of all learning. Errors are considered essential tools for cognitive self-construction in that
the perception of “errors” stimulates the child’s careful observation and analysis of the learning experience at hand.
Montessori designed controls of error (or design cues) into her materials to offer feedback that children can read
and interpret, liberating children from dependency on adult approval or disapproval. Montessori has assessed,
“The control of error through the material makes a child use his reason, critical faculty, and his ever increasing
capacity for drawing distinctions” (Montessori, 1948/1967b, p. 103).
The most frequently cited example of this design principle lies in the Montessori cylinder blocks, which are blocks
of solid wood containing 10 knobbed cylinders of graduated dimension, each of which exactly corresponds to an
equally sized socket. In general, children quite naturally match cylinder with socket; any “error” in the match
becomes apparent from a cylinder not fitting into a socket, wobbling through having been placed in a socket too
large, or remaining socketless from a prior mismatch. The child detects “errors” through the process of observation
and experimentation and thereby engages in a cognitive dialogue with the material. As the child gains such
experience and therefore judgment, the external and obvious control of error in subsequent materials is
diminished. For example, the knobless cylinders (a more advanced material) duplicate this initial experience except
that there are now no blocks and no sockets into which to place the cylinders. The child grades the series without
the benefit of a preset form to follow, replacing the guiding construct of the material with independent judgment.
Appreciative of the neuro-muscular connection between physical movement and cognitive development,
Montessori intended that child activity or movement be a part of all of her didactic materials. Children in
Montessori classrooms lift, carry, balance, stack, pour, sweep, assemble, and grade various objects as they actively
engage and manipulate the learning environment. Such motor activity serves to sustain the child’s interest in the
learning experience. Montessori claimed, “The ability of a thing to attract the interest of a child does not depend
386
so much upon the quality of the thing itself as upon the opportunity that it affords the child for action”
(Montessori, 1948/1967b, p. 104). Integrating movement with perceptual learning helps embed the activity or
concept into the child’s “muscle memory” and affords the child the opportunity to develop control of movement.
The child adapts physical movements to the demands of a given activity, developing coordination, balance, and
overall motor refinement.
Montessori didactic materials generally progress from simple to complex, adding one degree of difficulty as the
child progresses to the next experience. This enables a child to reach a sense of internal mastery of a skill, material,
or concept, before moving on to something that has more steps or requires increased judgment. Because the
curriculum is child-driven rather than teacher-driven, there is no one blueprint for progression through the
didactic materials. Materials are presented to each child according to interest and the requisite preparatory skills—
the goal being child success and independence, not completion of a preset curriculum or a preset timetable.
Moreover, Montessori materials are generally designed as scaffolding or as indirect preparation for other,
subsequent learning. For example, by grading sets of size-related materials such as the pink tower or red rods,
children indirectly prepare themselves for comprehension of the base-10 number system, as all of these graded
series contain 10 elements. By using a three-finger grasp to handle the knobbed cylinders, children indirectly
prepare their fingers for handwriting. By pouring liquids from one larger container into three equally sized smaller
containers, children indirectly prepare themselves for fractions and division.
Overall, materials are evaluated in their composite, not in terms of one exclusive set of materials. The greatest
hallmark of a good Montessori classroom is the teacher as scientific pedagogue; under the guidance of this type of
teacher, the Montessori materials become a well-designed set of possibilities, not a complete instructional package.
The Development of Community Life

It would be a mistake to take the thrust toward independence and individual development in Montessori
classrooms as an indicator that little socialization occurs. In fact, some might say that nothing could be further
from the truth. “To the question ‘what provision is made for socialization?’ one could reply that the very
condition of learning in this Montessori environment depends on socialization as an atmospheric element”
(Rambusch, 1962, p. 79). Liberated from spending long periods of time in teacher-led large-group instruction,
children routinely interact with each other, sharing work, watching another’s activity, offering or seeking peer help
with a material, or sharing snack and conversation. Productive sociability, not mere togetherness, should be a
prominent feature of a good Montessori class (Rambusch, 1962). Children are free to choose friends from a wide
range of possibilities and to discover and explore qualities in others unlike themselves. Cooperation and respect for
others are foundational concepts in a Montessori classroom community.
The Curriculum Areas

The Montessori learning environment for 3- to 6-year-olds is generally divided into four basic areas: practical life
(everyday living); sensorial (materials focusing on one or more of the senses); language; and mathematics. Also,
music, art, movement, and drama are included in the curriculum (American Montessori Society, 1994).
Practical Life
Practical life is generally seen as the sine qua non of the Montessori curriculum. Through involvement with
practical experiences in everyday living, the child begins to develop these skills and tendencies that will support
focused learning in all other classroom endeavors. Through involvement with familiar, home-based experiences
such as sweeping, sewing, and gardening, the child begins to focus attention on a single activity. This child learns
to follow a sequence from beginning to end, to coordinate movements toward a particular goal, and to organize
each step of a given task, thereby attaining independence through self-directed activity. Thus, although the direct
387
or practical aim of an activity such as carrot cutting may be the peeling, cutting, and serving of a carrot, the
underlying or indirect aims include the development of independence, order, concentration, hand–eye
coordination, community life (through serving the carrot to others), and realistic self-esteem (through
accomplishment). Practical life activities invite the child’s participation in the surrounding culture through
offering child-sized versions of activities commonly done in the home—reinforcing for the child a fluent transition
from home to classroom. Specific activities involve self-care (e.g., teeth brushing, dressing frames for practice with
various types of fasteners, nose blowing, hair combing); care of the environment (flower arranging, shoe polishing,
table scrubbing, gardening); life skills (sewing, food preparation); fine-motor development (transferring activities,
e.g., pouring and basting); and community living (setting a table, saying “excuse me” or “thank you”).
Few practical life activities are standardized. Therefore, teachers create most materials for this curricular area.
Great diversity exists from one classroom to the next as each teacher responds to the needs, interests, and cultural
makeup of the class. For instance, in a Hawaiian Montessori school, teacher adaptations are made to reflect
Hawaiian culture and the surrounding natural environment: Stringing is done with flowers, seeds, or leaves;
pouring and scooping are done with small shells and seeds—large shells are often used as pouring vessels; dressing
frames are made with Hawaiian tapa-cloth designs; food preparation includes making rice sushi, pounding poi,
and drying fruits and seeds Chinese style (Bogart, 1992). As children mature, practical life involves more complex
cooking activities, first aid, bicycle repair, telephone manners, computer skills, and knowledge of simple machines
(Chattin-McNichols, 1992).
Sensorial
From birth, children are immersed in a stimulus-rich environment and unconsciously use all of their senses to
absorb sensory impressions, in the absorbent mind (Montessori, 1973). In the third year of life, according to
Montessori, the child can begin to order and classify impressions through hands-on examination of specifically
prepared materials. Adapted from the work of Jean Itard and Edouard Seguin (Montessori, 1967b/1948), the
sensorial materials were designed with this purpose in mind.
The sensorial materials are a series of sequenced exercises, aesthetically pleasing and seemingly simple in design,
which are offered so that the child can “catalog and classify” (Montessori, 1948/1967b) sensory impressions.
These activities refine and sharpen the senses and create a sensory foundation for further intellectual development.
“The training and sharpening of the senses, has the obvious advantage of enlarging the field of perception and of
offering an ever more solid foundation for intellectual growth” (Montessori, 1948/1967b, p. 99).
Materials appealing to the visual, muscular-tactile, auditory, gustatory, and olfactory senses are presented serially,
each isolating one specific concept or sensory perception: the long rods (which isolate length), the color tablets
(which isolate color), the touch tablets (which isolate rough and smooth textures), the sound cylinders (which
isolate sound volume), and the smelling jars (which isolate particular scents). Each series proceeds from simple to
complex. For example, in using the first color box, the child matches only the primary colors: red, yellow, and
blue. In the final work of this series, the child grades seven shades of each of nine colors, from darkest to lightest.
As the child progresses through the series, increased judgment and refined perception gained from prior lessons
serve as inner guides.
These open-ended exercises also advance from an immediate and concrete experience to the child’s more abstract
awareness of the relevant concept or quality. For example, when using the geometric cabinet, an early activity that
introduces geometric figures, the child handles a blue knobbed wooden triangle and places it into a corresponding
inset (like handling a piece of a simple knobbed puzzle). The name triangle is introduced by the teacher at some
judicious point. Through subsequent activity, the child eventually recognizes a thin blue outline on a card as
triangle and later locates other triangles in the environment (“I see a triangle on your shirt!”). By doing this, the
child has internalized the image and identity of triangle, and knowledge has reached the conceptual stage. Later,
the child will construct a definition of triangle as well as of the various types of triangles earlier explored in this
hands-on way.
388
Language
[Language] is not a material; it is a process. If we consider the Montessori legacy for “language as process,”
the language area … expands to include much more—the whole learning environment and, in fact, the
whole world. The language curriculum becomes a context rather than a content, a smorgasbord rather than
a carefully prescribed diet; and the key to the pantry is the child’s own spoken language. (Turner, 1995, p.
26)
Language development in a Montessori classroom is fostered throughout the environment: the social environment
of community and free exchange between children; the exact terminology offered by the teacher through specific
lessons; the songs, rhymes, and conversation shared during whole-group gatherings; the selection of quality books
found in the library corner; and the specific didactic materials developed to promote language and literacy
development. The Montessori classroom provides a rich context for oral language development, which lays the
groundwork for the child’s eventual conquest of the mechanics of written language. Montessori would concur
with current whole-language theorists that spoken and written language are corollaries as means of self-expression
(Montessori, 1964). According to Montessori, for the child to learn to write (which is seen as social activity), that
child must first acquire the mechanics of writing. This is accomplished in part through use of didactic material
called the “metal insets,” which are a variety of metal geometric templates that allow for a large number of
different tracing and drawing activities, appropriate to a wide range of pencil skills (Chattin-McNichols, 1992).
The child’s hand is prepared for these activities in the previous handling of practical life and sensorial materials.
Development of the mechanics of writing is also accomplished through the child’s handling of individual wooden
letters, as well as tracing sandpaper letter forms, which have been glued to masonite plaques (the sandpaper letters;
Montessori, 1964). Through the activation and association of visual, muscular-tactile, kinesthetic, and auditory
modalities (the teacher makes the letter’s sound as the child handles the letter), the child, with practice, retains a
mental image of each letter as well as its related sound. Eventually, the child, with a storehouse of symbols and
their sounds embedded in memory, begins to investigate printed language through “writing” (sound-spelling)
words and messages, at first using a large box of wooden letters (the movable alphabet) and later forming such
words with a pencil or some other writing utensil.
Most contemporary Montessori teachers consider the metal insets, the sandpaper letters, and the movable alphabet
as core language materials expanded on by a variety of teacher-generated materials, all designed to meet the needs
and interests of specific children. Other activities commonly found include nomenclature cards, rhyming objects
and pictures, sequence story cards, go-togethers, boxes of objects grouped by phonetic commonality, picture–label
matching sets, dictation games, command games (which use both pictures and words to offer instructions), and
grammar games. The Montessori language sequence assumes that writing (or encoding) generally precedes reading
(or decoding), but that the two are highly interrelated. Many specific activities supporting the skills of beginning
readers (labeling activities, sight-word cards, as well as an array of phonetic and predictable texts) are included in
most classrooms.
Mathematics
Mathematical thinking originates in many other seemingly unrelated activities that happen prior to experiences in
the math area proper. Montessori felt that the order, precision, attention to detail, and sense of sequence fostered
through use of the practical life and sensorial materials lay the foundation for what she termed the “mathematical
mind.” “Prerequisite activities prepare a child for the exactness and logical order required for mathematics” (Scott,
1995, p. 26). The concept of one-to-one correspondence, for instance, is embedded in the use of dressing frames
(one button for each hole), the knobbed cylinders (one cylinder for each socket), and all matching activities. The
child explores and compares similarities and differences through all grading and sorting activities, explores spatial
relations through making relational patterns with sensorial materials, and explores temporal relations through
experiencing the predictable pattern of daily routines. The child is indirectly introduced to the base-10 system
389
through grading sensorial series that contain 10 objects (tower of cubes, broad stair). Moreover, grading various
series (e.g., long rods, knobbed cylinders) acquaints the child with the concepts of greater than and less than.
The math sequence proper begins as a logical extension of a familiar sensorial experience. The child who
previously graded the 10 red rods according to length is now introduced to identical rods on which red and blue
segments, denoting quantity, are included. The child orders these rods from shortest to longest, counting each
segment. Later, following a visual and tactile introduction to numerical symbols (sandpaper numerals), the child
returns to the rod activity, relating numerical symbol to quantity. In similar fashion, all of the Montessori
mathematical materials progress gradually from the concrete and known to the abstract and unknown, targeting
one difficulty at a time; math materials are the physical manifestations of abstract concepts, or “materialized
abstractions” (Montessori, 1948/1967b, p. 174).
Montessori math materials are grouped into four categories: (1) 0 to 10 numeration and quantification; (2) linear
counting (systematic number-line counting of increasingly large numbers); (3) the decimal system (using the
classic golden bead material to represent place value—unit beads, 10 bars, 100 squares, and 1,000 cubes); and (4)
operations (addition, subtraction, and so on). As is generally the case with the use of Montessori materials,
presentations of the math materials are brief and always offered to a willing and interested child; materials are
chosen by the child, not assigned by the teacher. The purpose for their availability and use is not to push early
academics, artificial abstraction, or memorization of math facts. Rather, Montessori believed mathematics to be a
natural and satisfying function of the human mind. Systematic discovery of the relationships among numbers lead
children to become mathematical thinkers and problem solvers. “Abstraction is a creative process undertaken by
the child to construct knowledge” (Chattin-McNichols, 1992, p. 97). As stated in the American Montessori
Society’s “Position Statement on Mathematics Education” (American Montessori Society, 1996), “mathematics
arose as a way of solving problems associated with daily life—involving space, size, and quantity.” Children are
urged to think clearly and to use concepts learned in new and imaginative ways. The ability to understand and use
concepts in problem solving is considered the purpose of all education, not just mathematics education.
Artistic Expression
“Concurrent with emphasis on the developing cognitive skills must go attention to the child’s affective life, inner
thoughts and feelings, and modes of self-expression” (American Montessori Society, 1996). It is toward these ends
that contemporary U.S. Montessori programs emphasize child self-expression through the visual arts, music,
dance, and drama (American Montessori Society, 1994). Montessori was a pioneer in environmental aesthetics in
education and saw the profound effect that aesthetic quality and overall balance in the environment can have on
the young child’s development. She favored an indirect environmental approach to aesthetic education during the
early years, feeling it important to include beautiful and carefully selected works of art in the early childhood
environment (Montessori, 1964). A rich array of sensory experiences, both through classroom materials and from
the natural world (Montessori, 1964, 1965), provide an ample palette for the child’s later blossoming of creative
expression.
Today’s Montessori classrooms reflect this focus on aesthetics and rich sensory experience as well as on an
awareness of the importance of the visual arts in child self-expression and symbolic meaning making. A wide range
of expressive art media, such as paints, clay, collage materials, various drawing and coloring media, and
papiermâché, are generally included in contemporary Montessori environments. U.S. Montessori training courses
offer core instruction in modes of child artistic expression (Montessori Accreditation Council for Teacher
Education [MACTE], 1996) and many professional development workshops (AMS and North American
Montessori
390
Developmentally appropriate ways to teach academic content with specialized tools of learning—a
major contribution by Montessori to education today.
Teachers Association [NAMTA]) are offered to deepen teachers’ awareness and skill level in this important area of
child development.
Music
Musical awareness and expression and training in the basic elements of music are inherent in Montessori programs
(American Montessori Society, 1997). Exercises that prepare the ear for the distinction of sounds, such as the
“silence game,” the sound cylinders, and the Montessori bells (for distinction of pitch), are considered core
curriculum in Montessori early childhood programs (Montessori, 1948/1967b). Rhythmic activities, listening to
classical and other types of music, group singing, experimentation with simple musical instruments, and simple
music notation (using movable wooden notes on a large staff) are music activities additionally described by
Montessori and found in contemporary settings (Montessori, 1948/1967b). Montessori programs in elementary
schools typically offer children the opportunity to study various instruments, as well as to read and write music
and to engage in group musical experiences. For example, two schools, one located in Albuquerque, New Mexico,
and one in Cincinnati, Ohio, boasted elementary and high school steel drum bands, respectively (Leto, 1996).
The Cultural Subjects: Geography and Science

Embedded in Montessori’s philosophical frame is a cosmic view of the systematic interrelatedness of all living and
non-living things (Montessori, 1973). This view is based on assumptions that the universe is an organizing force
391
and that in order for the child to reach understanding of individual facts and phenomena, that child must also
gain an appreciation of the interdependent nature of all life forms and elements (Duffy & Duffy, 2002). This
view, in addition, underlies the Montessori approach to the life and physical sciences, as well as to what
Montessori calls physical and cultural geography. She viewed the needs of humans as universal and the study of
the diverse cultures of the earth as an investigation of the ways in which humans interact with nature to meet such
needs (Montessori, 1965). Cultural celebrations, unit studies of a particular culture, or the use of objects or vessels
from a varied range of cultural contexts—all are ways in which the child may absorb an awareness and knowledge
of different cultures within a Montessori classroom. The child is invited to choose freely from a range of areas and
activities that are provided to grant many possibilities in an integrated curriculum.
In most Montessori classrooms, children are offered physical models of land forms (e.g., an island to surround
with water, a lake to fill with water) and puzzle maps of the continents and other areas of the earth. Scientific
exploration, for preschoolers, involves “direct observation (which provides the basis for generating and testing
informal hypotheses). The role of the senses in direct observation of nature provides the experimental base for later
abstract thought” (American Montessori Society, 1996). For the young child, this means direct daily contact with
the natural world; the opportunity to experience, label, and begin to categorize natural phenomenon; the
opportunity to ask “what?” and “how?” questions; and routine interaction with an adult who is willing to serve as
mentor to the child’s inborn sense of wonder.
The Role of the Teacher

Montessori’s goal was nothing less than to recreate the world into a more peaceful, compassionate, and purposeful
place by focusing on both the nature and development of the child. Within this scheme, the teacher’s role is to
regard the child respectfully, appreciate the unfolding of each child’s development, and protect the child’s natural
impulse or drive to create her own personality (Cossentino & Whitcomb, 2003). This being the goal, Montessori
realized that a new paradigm or model of the role of the teacher would have to be created (Montessori, 1964). The
school and the teacher must permit freedom within a prepared environment if the goals of this new type of
education are to be reached. Within this perspective, the child who is given such freedom in a carefully prepared
environment will develop according to the child’s own natural timetable and tendencies. Therefore, the teacher’s
job is not to artificially “teach in” what the child lacks but rather to be a careful observer of each child’s
development, providing learner-responsive materials as well as guidance in the form of instruction, consistent
structure, and appropriate encouragement.
The role of teacher as observer differed most radically in Montessori’s day (as it still does today) from the common
notion of the teacher as the controlling, central force in the classroom. Misunderstood by some as a laissez-faire or
passive stance, the observation of a trained Montessori teacher is, on the contrary, the studied observation of a
scientist. “The book for the teacher, the book which inspires her own actions, and the only one in which she can
read and study if she is to become an expert, is the constant observance of the children as they pass from their first
disordered movements to those that are spontaneously regulated” (Montessori, 1948/1967b, p. 55). As the teacher
first observes these “disordered movements” exhibited (even today) by children new to the environment and
unfamiliar with the routines and materials therein, that teacher sets in motion active imagination; the teacher
begins to imagine a child “who is not yet there.” The teacher trusts in the eventual appearance of a focused and
calm child who will reveal him- or herself through the purposeful activity referred to as “work” (Montessori,
1963).
The teacher’s primary roles beyond this central one of keen observer (or in today’s vernacular, “kidwatcher”) are to
carefully prepare and maintain the learning environment, to respond to disorderly children through redirection
and attention to their perceived difficulty, and to present lessons with didactic materials to those children who
show interest. Teachers are also responsible for conducting large-group meeting times and for maintaining careful
records on each child. They are generally expected to maintain close contact with each child’s family through
periodic communication such as conferencing.
392
The classic Montessori didactic materials, along with teacher-generated materials, do play a vital role in the child’s
activity in a Montessori classroom. The teacher plays an active role in establishing the initial connection between
child and materials and, as such, invites the child to investigate materials and provides specific lessons on their use
(Montessori, 1948/1967b). These lessons should be brief, simple, and exact. They are offered to clearly
demonstrate the purpose of an activity—blueprints for subsequent investigation by the child but not standards of
perfection to be exactly emulated. Paradoxically, although the teacher is expected to have worked each lesson to
mastery, this same standard is not to be imposed on the child. The offering of each lesson is intended “to stir up
life, but leave it free to develop” (Montessori, 1948/1967b, p. 111).
Upon the child’s purposeful involvement, the teacher should take a back seat to the child’s active interaction with
the material. The primary learning is seen to reside in the child’s doing, not the adult’s teaching. “It is the child
who uses the objects; it is the child who is active, and not the teacher” (Montessori, 1948/1967b, p. 149). The
trained Montessori teacher, in fact, must specialize in observing the delicate balance between intervention and
nonintervention in a child’s activity. The control of error, designed into the material, is intended to assist the child
in successfully investigating the material. But how does this work in practice? One survey examined teachers’
reported intervention in cases when children were making errors in seriating and classifying tasks. Teachers from
four countries with a wide range of experience and from seven different Montessori teacher education
backgrounds were quite consistent in reporting that they would be unlikely to intervene in these situations;
however, their responses were much less consistent when asked about intervening in math and language errors or
in fantasy play (Chattin-McNichols, 1991).
The teacher’s role is to intervene and actively redirect whenever children exhibit roughness, rudeness, or disruptive
behavior, but to sensitively observe and remove herself from interference with the child’s spontaneous interest and
involvement whenever the child’s behavior corresponds with the intended purposes of the material (Montessori,
1948/1967b). The teacher observes, records, and thereby comes to know the needs and interests of the children,
preparing and maintaining an attractive, ordered learning environment that contains both traditional Montessori
learning materials and those originally developed. The teacher seeks the good match between children and
materials through observation, serving as a potent but subtle catalyst for child activity. The teacher offers polished,
streamlined, and concise lessons, demonstrating a clear set of impressions as to the purpose and direction of a
given material. The teacher redirects in cases of inappropriate or abusive acts and maintains a watcher’s stance
when the child is engaged in purposeful, focused activity.
Montessori Education in the Elementary Years

Montessori elementary programs are increasingly common in both the private and public sectors in the United
States. A traditional framework for the Montessori elementary curriculum is a series of “Great Lessons” (the story
of the universe, the coming of life, the coming of humans, the story of communications in sign, and the story of
numbers; North American Montessori Teachers’ Association, 1995) designed to capture the child’s imagination
and inspire a keen interest in the disciplines related to each question. From the core of the story frameworks,
which offer the big picture of an epoch to the child, come the details of the related disciplines: mathematics
(including arithmetic, geometry, and algebra); language (including speaking, writing, reading, and grammar);
science (including botany, zoology, chemistry, and geology); and geography (including physical and cultural
geography). Because of the unifying picture offered through the Great Lessons, one subject stands independent
from the others.
Elementary classrooms are usually organized around the same 3-year age spans found in the early childhood
programs: a 6- to 9-year-old and a 9- to 12-year-old grouping are typical. The children stay with the same
teacher for 3 years; at the start of the year, only one third of the children in a class are new to the teacher.
The attitude is one of cooperation, rather than competition. Of course, Montessori education is not
magical, and an observer would certainly find examples of competition among children in a typical
American classroom. But a number of practices serve to reduce this, such as the following:
393
The cooperative nature of many of the tasks, rather than a focus on who finishes first or who gets the
best grade. The availability of the answers in many of the activities;
This focuses the attention on understanding rather than “who got the right answer”?
An explicit commitment, as well as materials and curriculum, in the areas of conflict resolution and
peace education.
There are a large number of manipulative materials in every subject area for the students to work with. It is
important to understand the difference between occasional use of manipulatives, for example, to
demonstrate math operations in a traditional classroom, and what happens in a good Montessori elementary
classroom. In the Montessori elementary classroom, the most common form of instruction is a short
introduction to a material, which is typically given to an individual or small group, followed by the child or
children working with the material. The Montessori principle of Control of Error finds expression in the
elementary classroom through having most answers (to math problems, for example) available to the child.
Finally, the range of the curriculum is truly impressive. Math work for the 9- to 12-year-olds includes
volumes of things such as cylinders and pyramids, areas of regular polygons, square and cube root, and quite
a bit of work with other number bases. Work in grammar, as well as in life and physical sciences, is also
available in areas most of us did not work in until high school or even college. But the number of
manipulatives and the more advanced content are only a part of the picture.
Montessori elementary social studies make use of a series of lessons called the “Fundamental Needs of People.” A
variety of presentations, discussions, and work by the children leads each class to their own ideas about what needs
of humans are fundamental. Typical needs are food, clothing, shelter, heat and light, defense, and transportation.
These needs, studied first in the children’s own culture, allow interdisciplinary tieins in life science, cooking,
architecture, physics (simple machines, for example) and other areas. These four strands—physical and political
geography, history (with extensive use of timelines), and the fundamental needs—can be viewed to contrast
Montessori’s vision from the expanding horizons framework. First, we should acknowledge that the Montessori
approach delays social studies work until the intermediate grades because of all of the foundational content work
described earlier. Second, this approach is at odds with some constructivist ideas on curriculum, which argue that
the starting point should be the child’s own neighborhood, based on the direct experience of the child. But
imagine how a Montessori upper elementary (9- to 12-year-olds) teacher would approach a unit on Japan. The
lesson might start with a review of fundamental needs applied to the new area of study. Imagine how the teacher
might decide to “zoom” in on foods: What sort of protein might be available in Japan? Which group/individual
would like to check prices for beef and tuna in Tokyo? Which will look at the physical geography of Japan to see
how much grazing land and how much coastline is available? Which will look at the timeline of civilizations to see
the cultural heritage of the Japanese people? Now, what about their grains? Wheat, corn, rice? Similarly, clothing
and housing can be studied as a logical consequence of things that the students know about (geography and
history) based on the very same fundamental needs we all share. So the rice and sushi, the kanji and the shoji
screens, silk clothes, and so on are both understandable choices and actually serve to show similarities among
humans, rather than highlighting differences.
Research on Montessori
The research base on Montessori education is small, especially considering the approximately 5,000 schools in the
United States alone (Schapiro & Hellen, 2011). Although well over 100 studies have been published, the
numerous problems that beset the research literature make it impossible to draw other than very tentative
conclusions (Boehnlein, 1988; Chattin-McNichols, 1981, 1992). Methodological problems include the difficulty
of separating the effects of parents who have chosen Montessori from the effects of the model itself. Another
common weakness is the use of a single or small number of teachers in a classroom or school that is assumed
(rather than demonstrated) to be representative of best Montessori practices. The short-term nature of most
studies also is incompatible with the Montessori idea of a 3-year time in a single classroom with the same teacher.
394
A further difficulty lays in the lack of specification of the Montessori model in some study samples. Nevertheless,
studies have shown that children who attended Montessori schools scored above the average on achievement test
scores as compared to the general population (Glenn, 1999). Further, Montessori children in middle school had
more positive attitudes about the school environment and their teachers and spent more time engaged with
school-related tasks, chores, collaborative work, and individual projects than students in traditional schools
(Rathunde & Csikszentmihalyi, 2005a, 2005b). These students also had better mathematics achievement scores
than other children (Miller & Bizzell, 1983, 1985; see also Reed, 2000) and performed better in both English and
Spanish reading abilities on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills than controls (Rodríguez, Irby, Brown, Lara-Alecio, &
Galloway, 2005). But researchers have failed to find significant differences between children who attended
Montesorri and other educational programs (e.g., Fero, 1997; Manner, 1999) or differences favoring children in
traditional preschool programs (e.g., Kraft & Berk, 1999).
Perhaps the most important recent works are two publications by Angeline Lillard (Lillard, 2005; Lillard & Else-
Quest, 2006). The book Montessori: The Science Behind the Genius (Lillard, 2005) is a major contribution to the
scholarly literature on Montessori and is especially important as a “bridge” book, one that will help increase
understanding between Montessori educators and the educational mainstream. Lillard, a developmental
psychologist, gathered research intended to show which parts of the Montessori approach are supported by current
research findings and which are not. She found that, except for the devaluation of pretend play for children under
6, all of Montessori’s major ideas that have been studied have been validated by research on human learning and
development. The book is organized around eight core Montessori principles, each of which is contemporized and
critiqued through the lens of relevant research studies:
The impact of movement on learning and cognition
Choice and its impact on learning
Interest and its role in human learning (i.e., how we learn better when the topic or method of learning is
one in which we are interested)
Extrinsic rewards and their negative impact on motivation
Collaborative arrangements and their impact on learning
Meaningful contexts for learning
Adult interaction styles and optimal child outcomes
Order in the environment—its impact on learning process and outcomes
Overall, Lillard’s excellent review of mainstream educational and developmental research shows strong support of
a number of Montessori’s basic concepts.
In a well-designed study, Lillard and Else-Quest (2006) compared Montessori students (N = 59) in the Milwaukee
public Montessori program with students who had applied for entry but had not won the lottery to be accepted
(N = 53). This clever strategy helps to alleviate the usual difficulty with effects of parent choice, socioeconomic
status, family pattern, values such as educational aspirations, ethnicity and so on. Comparisons were made
between 5-year-olds and 12-year-olds in both the Montessori and control groups, respectively. The 5-year-old
Montessori children performed significantly better on three of seven scales in the Woodcock-Johnson Test
Battery: Letter-Word Identification, Word Attack, and Applied Problems (math) than controls. Furthermore,
Montessori 5-year-olds had better executive functioning, which is “thought to be important for success in school”
and were more likely to “use a higher level of reasoning by referring to justice or fairness” in a test in which they
are given stories and asked how to resolve the problems presented than controls. Two measures of social behavior
observed during playground time also favored Montessori children at age 5. In a False Belief task that examined
children’s understanding of the mind, 80% of Montessori 5-year-olds vs. 50% of control 5-year-olds were
successful at the task.
395
There were fewer significant differences at age 12. Montessori children wrote more creative stories, using more
sophisticated sentence structure; on social/behavioral measures, Montessori children were more likely to choose
the “positive assertive response” to social problems and reported a greater sense of community than controls.
These findings should be viewed cautiously because children were selected from a single Montessori school, the
Montessori sample had a higher percentage of girls than the control group, and the study did not take into
account the influence of peers in the Montessori setting, compared to the control setting.
Conclusion
The Montessori approach to education has both historic and contemporary significance. Rooted in the early 20th-
century work of one person, it is tempting for critics to view this as a personality-based movement that is rigidly
fixed in time, too structured, religious, for the rich, and for special learners. In truth, some of Montessori’s most
ardent proponents, in an effort to replicate her method, do little to correct this impression, and many of her
writings do appear dated, at least in style. Yet Montessori’s central vision as well as many key practices were well
ahead of their time and remain as viable and relevant today as they were 100 years ago. Practices and constructs
such as multiage groupings, peer tutoring, individualized and child-centered learning, holistic education, the
prepared and learner-responsive environment, the teacher as observer and guide, the use of hands-on
manipulatives as tools for learning, respect for each individual’s inherent potential—all are central to the
Montessori philosophy. Much more so than a particular set of didactic materials, these aspects are integral to good
Montessori practice and make the Montessori approach a viable option with potent possibilities for contemporary
educators. The Montessori approach seen in a high-quality, fully implemented program accords with
developmentally appropriate practices as espoused by the National Association for the Education of Young
Children (Humphryes, 1998).
Currently, the core Montessori curriculum continues to be developed and expanded by innovative teachers
applying Montessori principles to new situations and to meet the interests and needs of diverse individual learners.
Over the past two decades, Montessori programs have been incorporated into many public school systems as an
experimental model, expanding the availability of this largely private school movement to a wider base of
socioeconomic, racial, and cultural groupings. The efficacy of the Montessori approach in educating childen in
public and private schools is being further evaluated and substantiated. Hopefully, a range of longitudinal studies
that employ experimental and naturalistic methods can be undertaken to further document current practice and to
seek answers to far-reaching questions regarding the nature and effects of the Montessori school experience.
Reflect on
1. How are Montessori’s ideas about early development radically different from those that we embrace today?
2. Is the general assertion that Montessori programs are too structured justified?
3. How is play woven into the Montessori curriculum?
4. What is the role of the teacher in the Montessori classroom?
5. Does the Montessori approach to early education provide superior cognitive and social benefits to young
children compared to those of other early childhood programs?
Selected Resources Montessori web Resources

Who Was Maria Montessori?
www.montessori-namta.org/Maria-Montessori
396
All About Montessori Schools
www.montessori.org/
All About the American Montessori Society

www.amshq.org
All You Need to Know About NAMTA or NAMTO

www.montessori-namta.org
Major U.S. Montessori Organizations

American Montessori Society (AMS)
281 Park Ave. South, 6th Floor
New York, NY 10011
www.amshq.org
Association Montessori Internationale (AMI/USA)

410 Alexander St.
Rochester, NY 14607–1028
www.montessori-ami.org
Montessori Accreditation Council for Teacher Education (MACTE)

17583 Oak Street
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
www.macte.org
North American Montessori Teachers Association (NAMTA)

11424 Bellflower Rd. NE
Cleveland, OH 44106
www.montessori-namta.org
References
1. American Montessori Society. (1994). Montessori education. New York, NY: Author.
2. American Montessori Society. (1996). American Montessori Society position papers. New York, NY: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.amshg.org
3. American Montessori Society. (1997). American Montessori Society Position Papers. New York: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.amshq.org
4. Baines, M., & Snortum, J. (1973). A time-sampling analysis of Montessori versus traditional classroom
interaction. Journal of Educational Research, 66, 313–316.
5. Bergen, D. (Ed.). (1988). Play as a medium for learning and development. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
6. Boehnlein, M. (1988). Montessori research: Analysis in retrospect. Special Edition of the North American
Montessori Teachers’ Association Journal, 13 (3).
7. Bogart, L. (1992). Transmitting the tools of a culture. Montessori Life, 4 (3), 27–28.
8. Chattin-McNichols, J. (1981). The effects of Montessori school experience. Young Children, 36, 49–66.
9. Chattin-McNichols, J. (1991). Montessori teachers’ intervention: Preliminary findings from an international
397
study. Retrieved from ERIC Document Reproduction Service. (ED341499)
10. Chattin-McNichols, J. (1992). The Montessori controversy. Albany, NY: Delmar.
11. Cossentino, J., & Whitcomb, J. (2003 April). Culture, coherence, and craft-oriented teacher education & the
case of Montessori teacher training. Paper presented at the annual meeting of American Educational Research
Association, Chicago, IL.
12. Duffy, M., & Duffy, D. (2002). Children of the universe. Hollidaysburg, PA: Parent Child Press.
13. Elkind, D. (1998). Reinventing childhood: Raising and educating children in a changing world. Rosemont, NJ:
Modern Learning.
14. Feltin, P. (1987). Independent learning in four Montessori elementary classrooms. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Seattle University, Seattle, WA.
15. Fero, J. R. (1997). A comparison of academic achievement of students taught by the Montessori method and by
traditional methods of instruction in the elementary grades (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Montana State
University, Bozeman, MT.
16. Glenn, C. (1999). The longitudinal assessment study: Thirteen year follow up. Retrieved from ERIC
Document Reproduction Service. (ED431543)
17. Grazzini, C. (1996). The four planes of development. The NAMTA Journal, 21 (2), 208–241.
18. Humphryes, J. (1998). The developmental appropriateness of high-quality Montessori programs. Young
Children, 53 (4), 4–16.
19. Hunt, J. McV. (1964). Introduction. In M. Montessori (Ed.), The Montessori method (pp. xi–xxxix). New
York, NY: Schocken.
20. Kahn, D. (Ed.). (1990). Implementing Montessori education in the public sector. Cleveland, OH: North
American Montessori Teachers’ Association.
21. Kilpatrick, W. H. (1914). The Montessori system examined. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
22. Kraft, K. C., & Berk, L. E. (1998). Private speech in two preschools: Significance of open-ended activities
and make-believe play for verbal self-regulation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 13 (4), 637–658.
23. Leto, F. (1996). Let the music flow: A conversation with Frank Leto. Montessori Life, 8 (5), 22–26.
24. Lillard, A. (2005). Montessori: The science behind the genius. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
25. Lillard, A., & Else-Quest, N. (2006). Evaluating Montessori education. Science, 313, 1893–1894.
26. Lillard, P. (1972). Montessori: A modern approach. New York, NY: Schocken.
27. Loeffler, M. H. (1992). Montessori and constructivism. In M. H. Loeffler (Ed.), Montessori in contemporary
American culture (pp. 101 – 113). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
28. Manner, J. A. (1999). A comparison of academic achievement of Montessori and non-Montessori students in a
public school setting (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Florida International University, Miami, FL.
29. Miller, L., & Bizzell, R. (1983). Long-term effects of four preschool programs: Sixth, seventh, and eighth
grades. Child Development, 54 (3), 727–741.
30. Miller, L., & Bizzell, R. (1985). Long-term effects of four preschool programs: Ninth- and tenth-grade
398
results. Child Development, 55 (4), 1570–1587.
31. Montessori Accreditation Council for Teacher Education. (1996). Montessori accreditation council for teacher
education standards for teacher education programs. Pasadena, CA: Author.
32. Montessori, M. (1913). Pedagogical anthropology. New York, NY: Stokes.
33. Montessori, M. (1963). Education for a new world. Madras, India: Vasanta Press.
34. Montessori, M. (1964). The Montessori method. New York, NY: Schocken.
35. Montessori, M. (1965). Spontaneous activity in education. New York, NY: Schocken.
36. Montessori, M. (1966). The secret of childhood. Notre Dame, IN: Fides.
37. Montessori, M. (1967a). The absorbent mind. New York, NY: Dell. (Original work published 1949)
38. Montessori, M. (1967b). The discovery of the child. Notre Dame, IN: Fides. (Original work published 1948)
39. Montessori, M. (1973). From childhood to adolescence. New York, NY: Schocken.
40. North American Montessori Teachers’ Association. (1995). What is Montessori elementary? D. Kahn (Ed.).
Cleveland, OH: North American Montessori Teachers Association.
41. Rambusch, N. M. (1962). Learning how to learn. Baltimore, MD: Helicon.
42. Rathunde, K., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2005a). Middle school students’ motivation and quality of
experience: A comparison of Montessori and traditional school environments. American Journal of
Education, 111 (3), 341–371.
43. Rathunde, K., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2005b). The social context of middle school: Teachers, friends, and
activities in Montessori and traditional school. Elementary School Journal, 106 (1), 59–80.
44. Reed, M. (2000). A comparison of the place value understanding of Montessori and non-Montessori
elementary school students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, No. 05A.
45. Rodríguez, L., Irby, B., Brown, G., Lara-Alecio, R., & Galloway, M. (2005). An analysis of second grade
reading achievement based on participation in a pre-kindergarten Montessori bilingual program and a pre-
kindergarten traditional bilingual program in an urban school district. NABE, Journal of Research and
Practice, 3, 45–65.
46. Schapiro, D., & Hellen, B. (2011). Montessori community resource. Minneapolis, MN: Jola.
47. Scott, J. (1995). The development of the mathematical mind. Montessori Life, 7 (2), 25.
48. Turner, J. (1995). How do you teach reading? Montessori Life, 7 (3), 25–34.
399
Chapter 17 The Waldorf Approach to Early
Childhood Education
Christy L. Husek
Fairbrook First Steps Christian Preschool
James E. Johnson
Discuss Rudolph Steiner and anthroposophy
Detail the Waldorf program’s characteristics
Explain how to assess children’s learning
Characterize the Waldorf relationship with families
Compare Waldorf and other approaches
Continuing its growth worldwide, Waldorf education is an attractive alternative to and an inspirational model for
improving traditional education (Edwards, 2002). The Waldorf model is relevant to early childhood education
because it seeks to promote a healthy, unhurried, developmentally appropriate learning environment for young
children. Waldorf early childhood education has been applied in a variety of service delivery settings including
home- and center-based child care, parent and child groups, parent support programs, and kindergarten and
mixed-age programs for children from 3 to 7 years of age (Oldfield, 2001). Rudolf Steiner founded this approach,
which was first implemented in Germany.
Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy

Steiner (1861–1925) was greatly influenced by the Romanticism of the Johann Wolfgang von Goethe period,
which contrasts with the rationalistic philosophy based on the science of Isaac Newton. For Steiner, history and
nature are shaped by the spirit and each person is part of a single universal process. Steiner presents a peaceful and
beneficent worldview. The spirit is in charge of the world and shapes it via inner vision and imagination.
Any overview of Steiner’s philosophical beliefs would have to begin with anthroposophy (from the Greek:
anthropo = man + sophia = wisdom). Most simply stated, anthroposophy is the exploration of humanity in
combination with the spiritual. The goal of anthroposophy is to bring about truths or new knowledge not wedded
to any particular tenets or dogma that would make it an orthodoxy. Central is the quest to hear the truth about
spiritual things (Wilkinson, 1996).
Anthroposophy is a spiritual-science movement with its roots in Christianity. Begun by Steiner, it has grown to be
widely recognized among followers all over the world. Two important components of anthroposophy are oneness
with the world and search for self. Oneness with the world encompasses the idea that everything is interconnected,
from the cycles of the moon and planets, including Earth, to the cycles of the seasons, to the cycles of human life
and death. Each choice that we make will affect others in ways that we may not foresee.
An example that comes to mind is the current situation with the planet’s rain forests. As we continue to destroy
the trees that make up the rain forests, not only are we destroying the plant and animal life there; our actions are
400
having many other far-reaching consequences. Because trees serve to “clean” our air by using carbon dioxide and
producing oxygen, we are seeing an abundance of air pollution that was previously at least partially filtered by the
vast acreage of forest. We are also seeing the effects of global warming caused in part by abundant amounts of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Destruction of rare species of plants and animals in short periods also seriously
disrupts the food chain, affecting other species that depend on those that are disappearing. These effects, not even
considered when the choice was made to harvest the rain forests, demonstrate the interconnectedness of every facet
of our world. Anthroposophy sees the value in being aware of those connections, suggesting that life can be much
more fulfilling and meaningful when we recognize and act on them.
A second important component of anthroposophy is the search for self. Steiner stressed the importance for each
individual to develop his or her own faculties in a variety of areas, in order to obtain a “wholeness.” Through the
study and exploration of intellectual subjects, artistic endeavors, craft and skilled labor, and spiritual meditation, a
person can strengthen his or her spirit and sense of self. “The human being cannot escape—indeed, should not
seek to escape—worldly experiences, but he must be in a position to discriminate and not be dominated by them”
(Wilkinson, 1996, p. 53). Steiner felt that through the philosophy of anthroposophy, the value of preparing the
body, mind, and spirit for a life of continued learning and growth could be realized.
Steiner’s Theory of Child Development

Consistent with his anthroposophical beliefs, Steiner created his own theory of child development. He proposed
7-year cycles that incorporate both physical and spiritual development. In the first 7 years of life, Steiner believed
that children’s development is focused on their physical body. They imitate the adults around them to learn about
their world. They practice “real” work through their play and through craft projects. Simultaneously, spiritual
development is occurring, or positive approaches to learning and doing is nurtured through imitative play.
Important during this period is the exploration of fantasy and imagination. At this stage, Steiner thought that
formal academic instruction is inappropriate.
The next 7 year cycle encompasses the ages 7 to 14 during which the child is becoming more aware of the
surrounding world and is thus ready to begin academic instruction. The spiritual concept of “Feeling” is being
realized at this time, and therefore the child is intrigued by imagery and pictorial stimulation that evoke emotions.
Personal relationships are important at this stage as well.
The third 7 year cycle ranges from ages 14 to 21 years and begins with the onset of puberty. At this time, young
people are ready to combine their intellect with more abstract thoughts and applications, hence the spiritual
development of “Thinking.” A sense of independence takes root at this stage and propels the student to seek
individually relevant explorations and connections. Steiner outlines 7-year cycles and their corresponding
characteristics throughout the life span until the age of 85 (Wilkinson, 1996).
Closely connected to Steiner’s theory of development are his beliefs about education. Steiner observed that
schooling should stress the child’s all-around development of body, mind, and spirit. The focus should be on
educating the “whole” child because developing a child’s faculties is more important than teaching subjects. This
can be interpreted to mean that it is more important to teach children to learn and think for themselves than to
teach children facts and book knowledge. Steiner also believed that specific types of learning were appropriate
primarily at certain ages and stages. These basic tenets later served as Steiner’s guidelines when he was given the
chance to open a school in Germany to put his ideas into practice.
Context of Waldorf Education

Some Waldorf schools only provide kindergarten education, while others provide schooling from kindergarten
through the 12th or 13th grade.
401
Waldorf Kindergarten
The kindergarten in Waldorf schools is very different from the other levels of schooling, as well as being different
from most typical kindergartens with which we are familiar. A Waldorf kindergarten serves children between the
ages of 3 to 6 years, consistent with the first 7-year cycle in Steiner’s theory of development. The curriculum
consists of imaginative play, fairy tales, fables, folklore, imitation, art activities, “real” work such as knitting and
baking bread, musical instruments, dance, drama, and awareness of nature, cycles, and seasons. This curriculum is
based on Steiner’s ideas about the child at this stage. Because Steiner felt that young children are working to
develop their physical body and their will, the activities are not academic in nature, but hands on. Many
opportunities exist for creativity and make-believe, traits that Steiner felt enhance the development of the will. The
toys at school are simple and open ended to encourage imaginative uses. Many objects found in the classroom are
natural materials, such as gourds, pine cones, branches, and pebbles. The purpose of these materials is to foster
connections with nature and the concept of “oneness with the world.”
Going into this kind of classroom environment has been compared to “stepping back into the 19th century” in
the sense that the toys are simple and natural, the teachers are often busy mending clothes or baking bread, and
the children are actively engaged in imaginative play or imitative work. The Waldorf kindergarten is designed to
be an extension of the home. There is no formal academic instruction. Educational toys and even books are rarely
found in the classroom; this is based directly on Steiner’s theory that academic instruction at this first
developmental stage is inappropriate. A rich and stimulating environment is required with teachers providing
language and literacy experiences through stories, poems, and songs. Mathematical experiences occur naturally
through cooking and imaginative play. Art, music, drama, and science experiences also have a place—but not in
the overt manner so prevalent in the typical public school setting.
In the Waldorf kindergarten, children are expected to be children first and foremost. The stage of development
they are in is well understood and appreciated by the teacher. Waldorf in this way contrasts with the reality today
in which children are often rushed through their childhood in an attempt to help them become the best and the
brightest; unfortunately, many children thereby miss the opportunity to simply be, to have the childhood to
which they are entitled.
Waldorf education respects the child holistically, the stages that a child goes through, and supports the belief that
there is a right time for everything. Take the Waldorf approach to reading, for example. It is not unusual for a
Waldorf student to begin to read in Grade 3 or 4, much later than does the typical public school student. Rich
literacy experiences, but none that include formal reading instruction, will lay a strong foundation of language,
imagery, and comprehension that will serve students well when the time is right.
There has been much discussion about Steiner’s seemingly delayed approach to reading instruction. In the public
sector of the United States, there has been a very strong emphasis placed on teaching pre-reading skills to
preschoolers in an effort to prepare them to begin kindergarten at age 5. The premise is that this early start will
ensure they begin reading early, which will in turn propel them forward as strong academic scholars. Because of
this belief, many parents and teachers balk at Steiner’s method of waiting until a child is 7 years old to begin this
type of instruction. So this begs the question: “Do early readers maintain their advantage, or do late readers catch
up?”
A groundbreaking dissertation submitted in 2009 by Sebastian Suggate at the University of Otago, New Zealand
compared students in state schools who began formal reading at the age of 5 with students in Waldorf schools who
began at age 7. His data suggested that the two groups equalize by 11 years of age. So it would appear that the
essential matter is not how early reading occurs. What is important is to build a solid developmental foundation
that will contribute in the long term to a happier, healthier, and more well-rounded and competent child.
Waldorf Grade School
402
At 7 years of age, the child enters the next stage of development and schooling, corresponding to Grades 2
through, 8. During this period, the child remains with the same teacher and class of students for the entire cycle.
This serves to sustain important relationships (a key part of the second 7-year cycle) and to create more
consistency in the child’s schooling. This also is a way to keep the teacher from becoming stagnant, as that teacher
will have to grow with the students over the 7-year period.
According to Steiner’s theories, children at this second stage are now ready to learn academic subjects. They have a
strong foundation from proper kindergarten experiences and can build upon it. Their awareness of the outer world
is steadily growing. They are also developing their spiritual sense of “Feeling,” so subjects, images, and pictures
that evoke emotion are very effective learning tools. The main academic areas covered at this point are typically
reading, writing, language skills, math, geography, history, and the sciences. It is the teacher’s challenge to present
these materials in such a way that the students can explore and master the content to the fullest extent possible.
A typical daily schedule in a Waldorf Grades 1 to 8 class would proceed as follows. Each morning, the teacher
greets students individually as they arrive, assessing their mood and state of being in an attempt to be sensitive to
their needs. Then the class gathers to recite the morning verse. This is usually an inspirational passage that the
class adopts for the entire year. Next, the main lesson begins and its study lasts for 2 hr. This block is used to
approach the subject in a number of ways—not simply through lecture but also through various related activities.
The same subject is usually explored during this time for 3 to 4 weeks, and then a new subject is chosen for study.
Two more lessons follow, of approximately 45 min each, with lunch perhaps in between. Then the afternoon is
spent on less intellectual topics, such as art, music, and practical activities, which would include craft and skilled
work. Time periods and activities are adjusted according to the developmental level of the class.
Waldorf Teacher Training

Because the Waldorf philosophy is well organized and contains so many interlocking components, Waldorf
teachers must be trained in the philosophy and theories behind their craft, as well as in proper ways to incorporate
these ideals into the classroom. Currently, there are over 50 full-time training schools worldwide, with at least 17
of these located in North America. The Rudolf Steiner College in California is one of these. The college offers a
variety of programs and courses that train teachers, teacher educators, followers of the anthroposophy movement,
and others who are interested in Steiner and his applications. Programs are available full time, part time, during
the summer, and through weekend seminars. Teacher training in Waldorf education focuses on the lectures and
writings of Rudolf Steiner; a solid understanding of his theory of child development is required to guide ECE
practice. Based on a thorough understanding of Steiner’s theory of child development, a teacher can better
recognize the needs of individual children.
Diversity
Waldorf education originated in Germany and has been adapted to other cultures worldwide. In the United
States, adaptations have taken several forms. In public schools, in order to comply with separation of church and
state regulations, Waldorf has been stripped of all religious and spiritual exploration. Even with such profound
changes, Waldorf programs have been very successful, especially in inner-city public schools, by changing heavily
Eurocentric readings and history to include U.S. literature, history, and diversity perspectives. Moreover,
multicultural perspectives and interests have been added. Private schools have been better able to keep the spiritual
side intact while also adding U.S. literature, history, and multicultural perspectives. Overall, and especially in
private schools, the basic tenets of Steiner’s original educational philosophy have remained at the heart of Waldorf
education.
Waldorf education has been successfully adapted to numerous other cultures as well, such as those in Europe,
Africa, the Middle East, Japan, and Australia. Waldorf schools in these cultures all profess the same original ideas,
concepts, and philosophy of the very first Waldorf school in Germany. The curriculum is similar in subject matter
403
and materials, although modified to incorporate the literature and culture of each particular country. Waldorf
education is mostly found in countries that accept Christianity, given
Wooden stands draped with cotton or silk cloth invite child-centered imaginative play.
anthroposophy’s connection to this religion, even though Waldorf does not require the students to be of any
particular faith. Each school is different because curriculum and administration are not fixed, leaving room for
innovations. Waldorf curriculum is easily modified to accommodate multicultural points of view without
compromising the basic philosophy.
Many embrace the ideals of Waldorf education because of its simplicity. In this time of technology, busy
schedules, competition, and fast food, there is a growing sense of disconnectedness, a feeling that something is
missing. Waldorf education strives to eliminate the rush, allowing us to focus on what is really important, to
remember where we came from and what life is all about. Waldorf helps children to learn how nature supports us
and how we must support nature, to be aware of its rhythms and cycles, and to become one with the world.
Waldorf education is about learning who we are as individuals, learning what we can do and what we know,
“finding ourselves,” so to speak, and recognizing the spirit within us. It is about taking time to “smell the roses”
and to appreciate where we came from, an ideal that transcends cultural boundaries.
The Waldorf Program’s Characteristics

Creating a Caring Community of Learners
The Waldorf approach for ECE incorporates certain community elements into its design. The importance of the
physical environment, age groupings, planned activities, schedules, and social relationships have all been discussed
in great detail by Rudolf Steiner. Each element is an integral part of the Waldorf kindergarten.
Children’s Sensitivity to the Environment

Steiner begins with the environment, which includes the layout and design of the classroom as well as the outdoor
area used by the children. As it will set the stage for future learning, the environment is an important place to
404
begin. The aesthetics of the room play a key role in the general feel of the learning space and, as such, are tailored
to the developmental needs and interests of the children who are served. The Waldorf early childhood
environment nourishes the child’s senses with beauty and order (Trostli, 1998).
Steiner felt that young children are extremely sensitive to their environment, absorbing information through all
five senses and experiencing it throughout their entire body. For this reason, Steiner specifically addressed issues
such as the color on the walls, classroom materials, and furniture. He suggested that the walls of the early
childhood classroom be solid pastel shades, free from patterns and design (Grunelius, 1991). Colors play a very
important role—for example, loud, bright colors can be overly stimulating, grays and browns can be dreary, plain
light colors will promote a light airy feeling, reminiscent of cherry blossoms or spring leaves. This aesthetic beauty
stimulates the child’s imagination and is at the same time also calming. The simplistic charm of the classroom is
achieved by incorporating natural materials, such as solid wood furniture polished with beeswax, curtains made of
natural fibers and colored with plant dyes, and toys handcrafted from natural materials.
The Waldorf early childhood classroom is seen as an extension of the home, in both design and function. The
prevailing atmosphere is that of the traditional home, where daily chores provided the rhythm of family and
community life. In these hurried times, when the pace of life dictates processed foods, synthetic products,
entertainment in a box, and gadgets and machines that perform much of the chores that once provided
satisfaction, Waldorf provides a sanctuary for children.
The Importance of Imitation and Play

Steiner emphasizes two valuable ways in which young children develop a sense of community. One is imitation,
the other is play. Young children are innately curious about the work of adults and instinctively imitate what they
see to deepen their own understanding. Waldorf teachers find it very important to give children something
valuable to imitate. Therefore, they engage in the work of the home/classroom, such as mending classroom
materials, preparing food for snacks, polishing tables, washing floors, and caring for the plants that adorn the
windowsills. Each of these tasks is rooted in meaningful, dayto-day necessity. The children are never forced to do
this work alongside the teacher and are always welcomed when they choose to imitate the teacher’s actions.
Through this self-initiated imitation, children learn not only to do their part for the classroom community but
also to rely on others.
Play is another crucial method through which children develop a sense of community. Play provides “safe”
opportunities to practice social interactions. Children can try out different roles, work through conflicts, and
attempt various methods of communication, all under the pretense of play. In terms of social development, play is
an opportunity for children to practice their social skills and to learn how to function within a group. Lengthy
periods of time designated for true imaginative play in the Waldorf classroom allow children to experience
community in a nonthreatening manner, while developing their emotional maturity.
Benefits of Mixed-Age Grouping

Another factor that contributes to Waldorf ’s caring community of learners is the mixed-age grouping of children.
Children in a Waldorf kindergarten range in age from 3 to 6 years old, meaning that they have the continuity of
building a relationship with one another and with the teacher for up to 3 years. This design also promotes a family
atmosphere in the sense that the class replicates siblings with a stratification of ages, which is much more natural
than a class of children all the same age. This diversity in ages offers the younger children role models, with older
children to look up to and learn from their example. The youngest children’s learning is scaffolded by the
nurturing assistance that they receive from the older children. The older children benefit from this design as well.
They gain an attitude of caring and responsibility and sharpen their social and cognitive skills. There is much
beauty in watching a child begin as the youngest, attempting to imitate the actions of the older children, and
progress over 3 years to become one of the oldest, looking out for and nurturing the younger children.
405
Establishing Rhythm and Routine
The rhythm and routine that are an integral part of the Waldorf kindergarten also serve to foster a sense of
community. Teachers take it upon themselves to establish routines that are repeated daily, weekly, seasonally, and
yearly. There is a rhythm to each day that involves a balance of time spent “breathing in” and “breathing out.”
These times offer children experience with both self-expression and communal moments. There is a rhythm to
each week, with Monday designated as “bread-baking day” and Tuesday as “vegetable soup day,” and each other
day of the week with its own identity that the children come to recognize and depend on. It is this predictability
that lifts children’s anxieties and builds their trust in their social worlds and in the teachers. Children feel safe and
secure in the community of their classroom—they know they can trust in what they will find there.
Teaching to Enhance Development and Learning

Underlying the very premise of Waldorf education is a profound respect for childhood. Sally Jenkinson, a former
Waldorf kindergarten teacher, expresses Steiner’s beliefs beautifully: “[W]hat remains constant (in Waldorf
education) is a deeply held belief that childhood matters; that the early years are not a phase of life to be rushed
through, but constitute a stage of tremendous importance needing to be experienced fully in its own right”
(Oldfield, 2001, p. xvii). There are three feelings regarding ECE that Waldorf teachers espouse: reverence,
enthusiasm, and protection. These three words demonstrate how Waldorf teachers respect and value the children
that they work with daily.
Reverence, Enthusiasm, and Protection

Reverence can be described as the attitude of a teacher toward a child. Steiner speaks of the first 7 years of a child’s
life as critical. The child is very impressionable, absorbing stimuli from the environment through all senses and
experiencing it with the whole body, making it vital for the teacher to provide beneficial stimuli. When a teacher
approaches a child with reverence, caution should be taken to speak clearly so as not to confuse the child, to be
worthy of imitation, and to allow the child to proceed at his or her own pace, recognizing that it is the quality of
development, not the speed, that is important.
Recognizing that the art of teaching presents many challenges, Steiner urges that those persons called to teach
must accept their role with enthusiasm. Not every person’s nature includes being a teacher, but those who choose
this career should be truly dedicated and enthusiastic about the responsibility that they are undertaking. This will
translate to the child, who senses a teacher’s enthusiasm and cannot help but to get caught up in it. It is that true
spirit of childhood—the sense of wonder, the inquisitive nature, the naiveté—that affords a child the ability to
explore the world with such excitement and awe.
The third duty of the teacher is protection of all children in their care, physically, emotionally, socially, and
psychologically. The Waldorf early childhood classroom is a sanctuary from all that works against the healthy
development of young children. The teacher provides a stress-free environment with a slow, calming pace that
allows children to take the time to build the foundation that will support their future learning. Children do not
feel the pressure of standards, testing, or the necessity to read, but enjoy rich literacy experiences that call on their
imagination to take them to fairy-tale lands of elves and gnomes. They are protected from the fast-paced, over-
stimulating bombardment of images from television and computer games. Instead, they dig in the earth under a
tree fragrant with apple blossoms and discover the purpose in a worm’s slow deliberate movement. In addition, the
food that children in a Waldorf kindergarten eat is free from processing, free from pesticides and insecticides, and
free from genetic alteration. It is natural and pure, promoting a healthy physical constitution.
Providing an Engaging and Responsive Environment

406
Teaching to enhance development and learning requires that teachers create an engaging and responsive
environment. In a Waldorf classroom, this takes many forms. The aesthetic beauty and welcoming feeling of
warmth discussed previously is one important component. Another is the toys and materials that teachers make
available to children. Waldorf kindergartens are full of materials that invite young hands and minds to touch,
manipulate, create, and imagine. Baskets of natural items, such as sticks, seashells, and moss, are arranged in areas
where children will incorporate them into their play. Wooden stands will be pulled out and draped with play
cloths made of natural fibers, such as cotton or silk. Using them children can create houses, stores, spaceships, or
stages. Toys are handcrafted from wood in various forms that inspire creativity, unlike commercial toys marketed
today for young children that have but one purpose and are often so realistic that they leave nothing for the child
to add to the experience. Such commercial toys will not be found in a Waldorf classroom. Instead, you find
children having a particular wooden toy for a phone one day, and then on desire or necessity it will be transformed
into an airplane on another day. This perspective on toys affords children the right to open-ended thinking. They
learn that the possibilities are endless, rather than learning that there is one correct way to do something.
Children’s Connection With Sensory Experiences

Another aspect of the environment of the classroom concerns Steiner’s belief that young children are “wholly sense
organs,” meaning that young children are inextricably connected with their sensory experiences. A child is “united
with sensation, and therefore deeply affected by what it conveys, and her psychological development is influenced
by the immediate surroundings” (Oldfield, 2001, pp. 101–102). The natural materials in a Waldorf classroom—
the lightly colored walls, the soft play cloths, the rich watercolor paints, the smell of the bread baking, and the
rhythm of hands clapping in ring time—all provide sensory stimulation without creating sensory overload.
Because of children’s vulnerability to the environment and all that takes place within it, Waldorf educators take
great responsibility in providing worthy sensory experiences.
Also important to consider is the quantity of sensory experiences that children encounter daily. Waldorf again
seeks to protect its children from the bombardment of images, smells, sounds, tastes, and touches afforded by our
fast-paced, thrill-seeking society. Children can become overstimulated by factors in their environment and their
bodies react by shutting down. They may withdraw, manifesting a zombie-like trance, such as fixating on the
stimulus or looking off into space (Healy, 1999). The child may also may react by losing self-control and acting
out in socially unacceptable ways. Waldorf education with its calming natural environment is an antidote to the
excitability that children so easily internalize.
Collaborating With Peers

Collaborating with peers is another essential part of healthy development and learning that Waldorf teachers foster
in the kindergarten. Teachers provide many opportunities for children to work and play together. When children
choose to imitate a teacher’s work, perhaps kneading dough for the morning bread baking, they often join
together with peers in this united purpose. From the youngest ages, children are working side by side kneading
their
407
Waldorf green spaces and gardens nurture serenity, free thinkers, and the creative impulse.
Natural environments and materials are valued highly in Waldorf programs.
own piece of dough while enjoying the comfort of a common activity. Older children learn the give-and-take of
working together, perhaps taking turns or assigning “jobs.” These events and opportunities widen and deepen
children’s social and emotional experiences, thereby enriching their development.
Learning Through Doing

Waldorf teachers do not employ direct instruction as a teaching method in the kindergarten classroom, as they
find it counterproductive to require this form of child participation. Rather, Waldorf teachers encourage the
children in self-discovery. When children choose to engage in imitation or play, they will do it wholeheartedly and
408
gain much more than if they had been coerced. Steiner promotes the idea that children learn from doing, and
whether they do it correctly or incorrectly, they still receive valuable information. The teacher’s role, then, is to
ensure that there are plenty of opportunities throughout the day for social and cognitive engagement.
Responsibility and Self-Regulation

One of the foremost goals of the Waldorf early childhood curriculum is to help children develop a sense of
responsibility and self-regulation. Steiner gives much attention to this topic in his lectures and writings. Again, this
is one reason why children are not forced to participate in any activity but are given the freedom to choose their
own activities. By having choices to make, young children can begin to exercise their own self-control.
An important part of this approach is recognizing that the development of responsibility and self-regulation is a
process. For this to happen, children need sufficient time, space, and opportunity to practice making choices and
exerting independence and interdependence under careful adult supervision and guidance. Because young children
have limited self-control, teachers set goals that are reasonable for their level of development and allow for
approximation of meeting these goals. Moreover, with imitation as a valuable teaching tool, Waldorf teachers can
gradually guide their young children through this transformation. A sense of self-regulation, as well as group
regulation, “involves the development of self control of movement, i.e. also knowing when not to move—for
example, holding back inappropriate behavior” (Oldfield, 2001, p. 56). Lynne Oldfield also offers a beautiful
vignette to illustrate this concept:
One morning at snack-time, a mixed age group (3–6 years) was gathered around a table. On one side was
seated a group of three and four year olds. One boy accidentally fell off his chair and then began to hit his
chair, saying “Silly, silly, chair!” Immediately, all the other three and four year olds threw themselves on the
floor and began banging their chairs, with a great deal of laughter. Across the table, seated next to the teacher
(their favorite spot since they had turned six) were two girls. One said “I want to fall off my chair, but I
won’t,” and her friend replied, “So do I. But I won’t either!” (2001, p. 57)
Constructing Appropriate Curriculum

The Waldorf early childhood curriculum is designed to educate the whole child (Easton, 1997). It speaks to the
development of the social, emotional, spiritual, moral, physical, and intellectual aspects of each individual child. It
nurtures these important elements of the human being through a curriculum that seems very simple on the
surface, yet in reality is amazingly complex.
Nurturing the Whole Child—“Head, Heart and

Hands.”
The curriculum can be described by just a few activities, but the depth that they reach requires lengthy discourse.
A typical kindergarten day is marked by the rhythm of familiar activities, alternating between “breathing out” (a
time of self-expression) and “breathing in” (a time of quieter, teacher-led reflection).
The morning begins with a full hour of uninterrupted time in which children are free to choose their activities.
They can be found caught up in artistic endeavors, imitating the teacher as they prepare the snack, or swept away
in a playful adventure that is only bounded by their own imaginations. This time allows for all manner of
developmental growth, from practicing social skills in a “restaurant” to learning the fundamentals of engineering
by making a suspension bridge with the blocks. Yet the freedom of play alleviates any pressure for performance
and gives wings to children’s sense of self-direction. And, singing a familiar song or verse, the teacher gently signals
the transition from this activity to the next, which is ring time.
409
Transition periods themselves are important parts of the curriculum. As the teacher carefully and deliberately
places the art supplies back in their rightful spots and washes the bowls and spoons used to prepare the snack, for
instance, the children can absorb the teacher’s sense of reverence and imitate the teacher’s purposefulness. With
the room returned to order, all gather together in a circle or ring.
Ring time is one part of the daily schedule when the children participate as a large group with the teacher directing
their activity. They often begin with a morning verse, repeated daily to allow even the youngest children to pick
up the language and rhythm with which it is recited. Ring time may involve movement, songs, poems, or finger
plays. It is a dynamic yet predictable time of the morning when the children direct their learning inward as they
enjoy the sense of community that comes from participating in a group.
Next the teacher leads the group outside, where the children are free to explore the natural world. They revel in
the changing seasons, comfortable with the pleasures each one affords. Out of doors their senses are stimulated—
the colors of the changing fall leaves, the smell of fresh-cut grass, the feel of mud between their toes, and the taste
of sweet snowflakes on their tongues. Again, they will play and imitate as they busy themselves.
When children return to the classroom, they wash themselves and settle at the small tables and chairs for a snack.
The teachers light a candle and they all join together in reciting a poem of gratitude. The snack that the childen
help to prepare is served and they enjoy each other’s company as they nourish their bodies. They transition easily
from snack to the circle again for the culmination of their morning together. It is at this time that they engage
their fullest mental capacities as they visualize the story that the teacher presents to them. The teacher does not
read from a book, but tells the story, being careful to include a rich vocabulary of imagery, assisting the young
children in painting pictures in their minds. At the end of the story, the children will gather their things and leave
the kindergarten with fairy-tale creatures dancing in their minds. This seemingly simple curriculum incorporates
much content.
Enhancing Holistic Development

Waldorf strives to develop the whole child—not just intellectual capacities but a balance among all faculties.
Social development is stimulated and practiced through imaginative play. Conflicts arise and children must work
through them and find a solution. The give-and-take of social discourse is learned also during snack time, as the
children converse with one another.
Emotional development is supported in the close personal relationship that each child develops with the teacher and
through friendships that the child builds with peers. The child learns to gain greater control of emotions with
development as it occurs in an environment that is safe, secure, and free of stress. The child plays out situations
and role-plays various emotions, internalizing appropriate actions to accompany feelings. It is also through the arts
that the child cultivates knowledge of feelings. The entire Waldorf early childhood curriculum is infused with an
artistic element. From the design and decoration of the classroom to the art experiences offered, the child learns to
feel the colors and shapes. The child learns that art is a form of expressing what is inside.
Spiritual development is fostered through imitation of the teacher’s reverence for childhood, nature, the materials
in the classroom, and the food eaten for snacks. It is also learned through the sense of gratitude that permeates
each aspect of the day. “Indeed, fortunate is the child who can thus imitate the very gestures and language of
gratitude, thereby learning from early years to turn his attention to the source of the many and varied gifts of life,
instead of concentrating on his own wants” (Pusch, 1993, p. 28). Steiner wrote often of the spiritual nature of
children and the responsibility that adults have to respect and nurture this element of the child’s development.
Spiritual development manifests itself as social responsibility and concern for the world; the foundation for both of
these concepts is laid in the community of the Waldorf kindergarten classroom.
The importance of self-regulation has been discussed previously. Children need to learn how to control their
behavior and to make good decisions. Waldorf education is designed to lay these foundations for moral
410
development. “If the goal is responsibility, inner discipline, the willingness to do one’s share, and eventually the
ability to give oneself direction and purpose in life, the soil for this blossoming will have to be prepared early in
life” (Pusch, 1993, p. 27).
Physical development is nurtured through movement. Waldorf teachers recognize that young children learn
through movement about spatial relationships and they internalize the essence of whatever they touch and move.
Children are very active, and Waldorf teachers support this high level of activity throughout the morning.
Significant amounts of time spent outdoors encourage large muscle movement and development, while the many
artistic projects encourage fine-motor skills.
Intellectual development comes not from direct instruction but through self-regulated discovery and imitation.
Young children should be building a love of learning that will inspire them to continue to seek knowledge
throughout their lives. Best accomplished by respecting a child’s own pace and in anticipation of subsequent stages
of development and education, teachers provide an enriching, stimulating environment that offers many
opportunities for children to build a strong cognitive foundation.
Incorporating a Variety of Disciplines

Through the Waldorf curriculum of play, imitation, art, and stories, children also gain experience in a variety of
disciplines. Many schools are struggling today to develop integrated curricula. Often teachers identify with their
disciplines. Waldorf teachers, on the other hand, have always taught math, science, literature, the arts, and so on as
part of an organized whole. The foundations for literacy and numeracy, for instance, are laid through everyday
experiences such as puppet shows and setting the table for snack time. Science-related concepts are an inherent
part of many activities, including cooking, with the tasks of chopping, measuring, pouring, and weighing.
Problem-solving skills and divergent thinking are instilled through the use of simple open-framework toys that
leave much to the imagination.
Maintaining Intellectual Integrity

A key component of the curriculum is intellectual integrity, which Steiner considered very important. Because
young children imitate the actions of those around them, the teacher must provide actions that are worthy of
imitation. The teacher models everyday tasks necessary for the care of the school and home, including mending
and cleaning, cooking and washing. These are all valuable, purposeful tasks worthy of imitation. With the decline
of family farms and the trends of city living, fewer children have quality model behaviors to imitate. They need
real-life experiences, activities that foster a sense of satisfaction for a job well done.
Embracing Diversity
Waldorf education can be viewed as a model multicultural program because it easily adapts to the cultures and
heritage of the children and community that it serves. Persons not familiar with Waldorf often have a difficult
time understanding this, especially when they confuse Waldorf education with its Christian roots. In fact, the
worldview or philosophy of anthroposophy, which guides Waldorf education, is not a religion at all.
Anthroposophy promotes the idea that all human beings have a spiritual core, and it maintains harmony with
many world religions and philosophies while eschewing the tenets of a religion. Anthroposophy per se is not
taught in Waldorf education, but its influence can be seen in the curriculum and festivals. Many of the festivals are
based around religious holidays—but not just Christian ones. Waldorf teachers are careful to delve “into diverse
world cultures with as much reverence and depth as possible” (Ward, 2001, p. 3). The purpose of Waldorf
education is to provide children with an “education toward freedom,” which is why the goal is to help children
develop strong independent judgment. Rudolf Steiner believed that the best way to accomplish this is to expose
children to a wide range of world religions and the values and traditions that they espouse. So the answer to the
411
question “Is Waldorf education Christian?” is “no.” This answer is based on the understanding that although
stories from both the Old and New Testaments are introduced to children, and some plays and festivals are
centered on biblical events, such experiences form only one set of influences in their studies of world cultures and
religious traditions:
A more relevant and revealing approach is to ask: What image of the human being do the Waldorf schools
seek to bring to the children as a model and inspiration? Here the answer is unequivocal. It is an image of the
human being as loving, compassionate, reverent, respectful, engaged, tolerant, peaceful, joyful, patient, good,
upright, wise, balanced, in harmony with the cosmos, nature and humanity. No religion or code of ethics can
arrogate these fundamental and universal values as its unique possession. (Ward, 2001, p. 3)
Numerous Waldorf schools are in countries all over the world. Each one is unique in its culture, language, and
materials, but each one upholds Rudolf Steiner’s ideals. Tina Bruinsma, a teacher from Amsterdam supporting the
Sloka, India, initiative, writes,
The Waldorf curriculum brings meaning to education. In an Indian context it can de-Anglicize the
curriculum and promote the dignity of labour. Teachers and children come to the school with thirteen
different mother tongues and seven different religions, and yet this form of education can embrace this
diversity. In a country where education has come to mean merely performance, memory and competition
bordering on rivalry, a Waldorf school brings with it the deeper meaning behind education. (Oldfield, 2001,
p. 28)
Ann Sharfmann, teacher trainer, Centre for Creative Education, Cape Town, South Africa, writes,
Our work is to prove that Waldorf education can happen in less affluent circumstances, such as the South
African township environment. And it does, and it works! Definitely not at all like the European Waldorf
kindergarten model, and definitely not yet at all as we want it to be. But we are making a difference in our
own small way and we are being noticed. (Oldfield, 2001, p. 21)
Introducing play kits of dolls, puppets, blocks, and other materials gradually allowed the children to enter
different play worlds and experience their childhood in a new way. Ann Sharfmann continues:
In some classes, where the children have a daily ring time, stories, puppets and the opportunity to draw,
model, paint, the difference is astonishing. (Oldfield, 2001, p. 21)
The Waldorf curriculum, by its very nature, embraces diversity and creates a caring community.
How to Assess Children’s Learning

The purpose of the Waldorf ECE curriculum is neither to teach basic academics and test-taking skills nor to help
prepare students to meet government-declared “standards” for various ages and stages or grade levels. In fact,
standardized testing is not part of Waldorf education at any grade level. It is interesting to note, however, that
many Waldorf graduates do pursue a college education and have performed well enough on the Scholastic
Aptitude Test (SAT) to gain acceptance at such highly esteemed universities as Harvard and Yale (Oppenheimer,
1999). In fact, a recent survey based on the responses of about 550 Waldorf high school graduates in the United
States and Canada and published by the Research Institute for Waldorf Education discovered that “94% of the
graduates taking part in this survey reported having attended college” (Gerwin & Mitchell, 2007, p. 7).
Assessment is necessary even in the kindergarten to ensure that students are meeting the objectives of the
curriculum. Waldorf teachers are very aware of the developmental progress of each of their individual students. So
why and how do they achieve this without using conventional methods of assessment? The answer follows.
The purpose of Waldorf education is to foster in children a sense of individuality, self-esteem, and wholeness.
Each day includes rich opportunities to develop all aspects of growth and learning—social, emotional, spiritual,
412
psychological, physical, and cognitive. Children learn through art and music and movement and exploration and
experience, through rhythm and routine and gratitude and beauty. Children learn to respect one another and to
find their strength in community, not competition. Traditional methods of assessment pit one child against
another and create stress and feelings of self-doubt. Steiner wrote that each child is filled with potential; it is
simply a matter of giving every child a nurturing environment and the freedom to unfold at one’s own pace. This
is respecting childhood. Waldorf teachers exhibit the patience of gardeners, taking a long view of education. They
believe that when the seeds of learning are sown in fertile soil and tender shoots emerge, there will be a rich harvest
when they all bear fruit at the end of the growing season (Petrash, 2002).
So many early childhood programs do not appreciate this process and rush children into learning for which they
are not ready. Steiner warned against this:
Even though it is very necessary, particularly in modern civilization, for people to be completely awake later
in life, it is just as necessary to allow children to live in their gently dreamy experiences as long as possible so
that they grow slowly into adult life. They need to remain in their imaginations, in their pictorial capacities
without intellectualism, as long as possible. In our modern civilization if you allow the child to be
strengthened without intellectualism, children will later grow into the necessary intellectualism in the proper
way. If you beat a child’s brain … you will ruin the person’s soul for the remainder of life. (Trostli, 1998, p.
113)
Waldorf education is based on the understanding that it is important for a child to develop a strong foundation
and a love of learning as a prerequisite to developing necessary academic skills, which will come later when a child
is ready.
In light of this perspective, the assessment of young children is approached very differently by Waldorf teachers.
Rather than pressure students to meet predetermined standards of learning, teachers use Steiner’s theory of child
development as a guideline and adjust curriculum and instruction to the pace of each individual child. They focus
on the whole child, on individual areas of strength and weakness, with the purpose of helping the child to develop
into a well-balanced human being with a love of learning that will act as a motivator and guide throughout life.
Waldorf kindergarten teachers gather information about each student’s development and learning, but discreetly
so as not to pressure the child. Teachers begin with perhaps their most valuable resource—parents. Parents are
employed to give insight into the child’s home life and experiences; the teacher will visit the child at home before
the first day of kindergarten.
Classroom observation is perhaps the most frequently used tool to keep track of children’s growth. ECE teachers
are especially concerned with all areas of development and can learn much by simply observing a child during
imaginative play. Insights into social development are apparent through interactions with other children. Play
offers information about cognitive development and social-emotional well-being. In fact, it could be argued that
true imaginative play is a window into the child’s developmental state and well-being.
Once gathered from many sources and many situations, teachers use assessment data not to grade or scale the
students but simply to develop a deeper understanding of the child so as to best facilitate development and
learning in the classroom. Even in the upper grades, most Waldorf schools hold off giving letter grades as long as
possible. Teachers take a more holistic, formative, and interpersonal approach to assessment. One teacher was
observed to write a poem and draw a picture about each of her students at least once a year as part of her strategy
of assessment. This method allowed the teacher to express creatively some of the traits that she was observing in
her students and to encourage the development of other aspects of their characters. This type of assessment
provides important educational information in a meaningful manner while encouraging a personal intimacy
between the teacher and student (Uhrmacher, 2007).
The Waldorf Relationship with Families

Waldorf education is so integrally entwined with the family that the two cannot be separated. Waldorf educators
413
place great value on the role that parents play in their children’s lives. Parental involvement and support have
primary influence on a child’s success, and when combined with a school’s influence that promotes this dynamic,
potential is tremendous. Teachers need the support of the parents; the parents need the support of the teachers.
Education is seen as a partnership, with both parties working together to further the natural and holistic
development of the child.
Developing a sense of community is an important goal of Waldorf education. For this reason, many Waldorf
schools offer informational sessions for prospective parents. Parents are encouraged to learn how Waldorf schools
approach education. They learn some fundamentals, receive applications, and then are invited to ask questions.
This is often the beginning of a relationship of mutual respect between teachers and parents.
Given the deep reverence that Waldorf holds for the parental role, teachers naturally make every effort to further
their connection with parents, to work together with them to develop goals for each individual child’s learning, to
share a sense of responsibility for the child’s growth and development, and to strive for consistency between the
home and school environments. This can only truly be accomplished through the continual communication
between parent and teacher that is fostered by the welcoming nature of the Waldorf kindergarten. Frequent
seasonal celebrations, parent education opportunities, and other events allow ample opportunity for parents and
teachers to build their relationships and to share ideas and information within the community of the Waldorf
school (Oldfield, 2001).
Waldorf education holds high standards for parents because much of a young child’s learning occurs in the
context of the home environment. With only part of the day spent in the kindergarten, parents are responsible for
seeing that the important aspects of development are encouraged at home. Taking care to acknowledge parents’
goals and choices for their children, Waldorf teachers also find themselves educating parents about Waldorf ’s
goals for their students. An example that lends itself well to this topic is the issue of television. In the first stage of
child development, from birth to 7 years of age, children learn best by doing, so they need ample time to move—
run, jump, dig, climb, and explore. Critical also is protection from potentially harmful environmental influences.
For these reasons, Waldorf educators encourage parents to limit their child’s time spent in front of the television
in favor of more appropriate activities that promote healthy development. Teachers also find that observing the
parents and child at home is helpful, and this usually can be arranged.
As a matter of policy, Waldorf teachers make home visits before the first day of school to gain a sense of the
environment that has been provided for the child as an infant, toddler, and preschooler and to learn what sources
of imitation were made available to the child. This visit can provide much insight into the child’s development.
Being aware of the child’s home life is considered just as important to teaching as being aware about what is done
in the classroom (Trostli, 1998).
Waldorf and Other Approaches

The Waldorf approach to early education seems to possess certain distinct appeals and, arguably, compares very
favorably with other well-known models. Certainly Waldorf has a great deal in common with developmentally
appropriate practices (DAP) as set forth by the National Association for the Education of Young Children
(NAEYC; Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). In Table 17–1 we compare in summary form the
Table 17–1 Comparison of DAP Guidelines and

Waldorf Education
DAP Guidelines Waldorf Education
1. Creating a Caring Community of Learners
Waldorf Aspects of Community
The setting functions as a community of learners.
414
Consistent, positive relationships with adults and Children’s sensitivity to the
children further healthy development. environment.
Social relationships are an important context for The importance of imitation and
learning. play.
A safe and stress-free environment promotes Benefits of mixed-age grouping.

community.
Establishing rhythm and routine.
Children thrive on organization and routine.
Teaching to Enhance Development and

Learning in Waldorf
2. Teaching to Enhance Development and Learning
Reverence, enthusiasm, and
Teachers respect and value children. protection.
Teachers make it a priority to know each child well. Respecting and valuing children.
Teachers create an intellectually engaging, responsive Providing an engaging and

environment. responsive environment.
Teachers foster collaboration with peers. Children’s connection with sensory

experiences.
Teachers use a variety of teaching strategies.
Collaborating with peers.
Teachers facilitate the development of responsibility
and self-regulation. Children learning through doing.
Responsibility and self-regulation.
3. Constructing Appropriate Curriculum Constructing Appropriate Curriculum in

Waldorf
Curriculum provides for all areas of development.
Nurtures the whole child: head,
Curriculum includes a broad range of content across heart, hands
disciplines.
1. Emotional
Curriculum builds on what children already know
and are able to do. 2. Spiritual
Curriculum integrates across subjects briefly. 3. Moral
Curriculum promotes the development of 4. Physical

knowledge, understanding, processes, and skills.
5. Intellectual
Curriculum content has intellectual integrity.
6. Social.
Curriculum provides opportunities to support
children’s home culture and language. Incorporates a variety of
disciplines.
The curriculum goals are realistic and attainable.
Maintains intellectual integrity.
Technology is physically and philosophically
integrated, when used. Embraces diversity.
4. Assessing Children’s Learning and Development
415
Assessment is ongoing, strategic, and purposeful.
Assessing Children’s Learning and
The content of assessments reflects progress toward Development in Waldorf
important learning goals.
Nontraditional approach to
Methods of assessment are appropriate to the age assessment (e.g., Teacher poem
and experience of young children. about child).
Assessment is tailored to a specific purpose. Freedom to unfold at own pace.
Decisions are never made based on a single Assessment of each child as an
assessment device. individual.
Developmental assessments are used to identify Observation to gain insights into
needs and plan accordingly. child’s development.
Assessment recognizes individual variation and
allows for differences.
5. Establishing Reciprocal Relationships With Families
Reciprocal relationships require mutual respect.
It is important to establish and maintain regular,

frequent, two-way communication.
Establishing Reciprocal Relationships
Parents are welcome in the program and participate With Families in Waldorf
in decisions about their child.
Parents welcomed at school from
Teachers acknowledge parents’ choices and goals for the beginning.
their children.
Communication as a key element.
Teachers and parents share knowledge of the child.
Parents’ role in child’s
The program involves families in assessing and development seen as critical.
planning for individual children.
Promotes a community of families.
The program links families with a range of services.
Developmental information about a child is shared

among all with educational responsibility for that
child.
DAP guidelines with Waldorf early childhood education. Waldorf ’s approach contains features that qualify it as
falling under the DAP orientation to the education of young children in all five categories: (1) creating a caring
community of learners; (2) teaching to enhance development and learning; (3) constructing appropriate
curriculum; (4) assessing children’s learning and development; and (5) establishing reciprocal relationships with
families.
Although in general correspondence is good between DAP and Waldorf under the five categories of program
characteristics discussed in this chapter, DAP guidelines would appear to recommend a more differentiated
approach to assessment than what is offered in Waldorf ’s nontraditional approach to assessment. An even more
glaring discrepancy is found within the dimension of constructing appropriate curriculum, where DAP
recommends or at least acknowledges the use of technology and urges its integration into a program. Indeed,
mainstream ECE today recognizes the need to prepare future techno-citizens of the 21st century and has
416
computers in programs for young children. Waldorf bucks this trend. Computers, to be sure, are part of Waldorf
education, but only with children and adolescents well past the early childhood years.
Nevertheless, Waldorf early childhood education has many redeeming virtues. The case can be made that Waldorf
contributes to cognitive and social competence, even school readiness. Of course, school readiness would not be a
priority in Waldorf ECE given its devotion to the integrity of childhood and the fact that children tend to stay in
Waldorf throughout their school careers. Especially commendable, it would appear, is Waldorf ’s use of projects
similar to the project approach and Reggio Emilia (see Chapters 13 and 15). Children in Waldorf ECE have a full
hour of indoor and outdoor freedom to engage in fruitful learning encounters that usually take the form of long-
term investigative activity. Moreover, like the Spectrum approach (see Chapter 11 in the previous edition of this
volume), diverse activities available in the curriculum stimulate various budding talent areas in young children,
consistent with the notion of multiple intelligences. These program features can serve to enrich intellectual and
social-emotional development in children by providing an engaging learning environment that fosters positive
dispositions and work habits.
How Does Waldorf Approach Special Education?

Rudolf Steiner called special education by a different name altogether: curative education. The very name suggests
a novel way of thinking about the education of children with special needs. The attitude toward these children is
one of respect with the recognition that each person, whatever the disability, has something to contribute to
society.
In curative education, an essential view is that a child’s spiritual integrity remains intact regardless of the
nature and severity of a disability that may be physical, sensory, mental, emotional or social, or a
combination of any of these. The special child is viewed as in need of special soul care and the children are
helped to cope with and overcome their disabilities in a carefully designed therapeutic setting in which their
diverse and unique developmental, educational, and therapeutic needs can be met. (Juul & Maier, 1992, p.
212)
Teachers work with these children “in need of special care” in residential schools or villages designed to create a
humanistic and holistic environment. These communities cater to the needs of their members, in an attempt to
reach the whole child: head, heart, and hands. Teachers work with children in an integrated setting, striving to
achieve a balance within each child that will enable them to develop their abilities and work to overcome their
disabilities. The curriculum is similar to that of a traditional Waldorf school but also includes therapeutic art
activities, adaptive physical procedures, vocational training, and occupational experiences (Juul & Maier, 1992).
Waldorf ECE has been popular in the United States for affluent families that have children with disabilities, as
well as for children born into difficult circumstances worldwide. Waldorf ECE is nondenominational, holistic,
and based on a deep respect for children as people and a profound understanding of human development and
worth. There would appear to be something intrinsically therapeutic about Waldorf ECE, with its homelike
physical features (curtains, carpets, subdued lights and colors, simple and natural furniture, and so on), its
emphasis on creative play and artistic expression, and its delicate order and reassuring rhythmical nature.
Accordingly, Waldorf seems ideally suited for children experiencing anxiety and stress-related symptoms, such as
refugee children who have lived in refugee camps, grown up in slums and poverty, or lived through conflicts rife
with violence or war. Waldorf ECE reaches out to these children (Oldfield, 2001).
Criticisms of Waldorf Education

So far, we have highlighted the strengths and benefits of Waldorf education, but all models of education have
critics. Thus we ask, what is being criticized about Waldorf? Certainly we can criticize Waldorf ECE for its neglect
of technology. We also may see limitations in the way Waldorf views early literacy learning goals, or its laid-back
approach to reading, or its nonchalant stance concerning assessment. These are valid concerns. However, other
417
valid or less-than-valid objections to Waldorf have also been advanced.
An organization named People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools (PLANS) has created a Web site
(www.waldorfcritics.org) that offers critics and “survivors” (of Waldorf schools) a forum to voice their opposition
to Waldorf education. From the information available on this Web site, it is apparent that this group has very
strong opinions about the Waldorf approach and that it is very outspoken in its concerns. Three major criticisms
of Waldorf education seem to continually surface on the PLANS Web site: (1) Waldorf schools are religious
schools, (2) Waldorf curriculum is based on Steiner’s anthroposophical theory, and (3) Waldorf schools do not
inform parents of their philosophy or ties to anthroposophy.
The first complaint relates to the movement of Waldorf schools into the public school sector. “Waldorf-inspired”
public and charter schools in the United States, critics feel, are a violation of the separation of church and state
laws. Members of PLAN argue that the religion of anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner’s spiritual beliefs are
inseparable from Waldorf education and that any re-creation of Waldorf methodology in the public sector retains
its anthroposophic roots and therefore is not acceptable. One example noted that changes being made to festivals
celebrated in public Waldorf-inspired schools in an attempt to remove the religious nature are merely window
dressings, leading critics to believe that the same “spiritually based” rituals are being performed under different
names.
Another issue is the influence of anthroposophy on the curriculum as children are introduced to theories of history
and science. Anthroposophy promotes some nontraditional ideas about the functions of the body’s organs,
reincarnation, karma, and historical events, to name a few. PLANS claims that this is “pseudo-science” in Waldorf
education—“crazy” anthroposophical ideas infiltrating the classroom. Proponents of Waldorf, however, hold the
position that teachers study anthroposophy but do not teach it in the classroom.
Still another concern is that some parents are generally unaware of the philosophical beliefs surrounding Waldorf
education, even intentionally kept in the dark by teachers who were unwilling to offer clear answers to their
questions. The PLANS Web site (2008) also contends the following:
A huge amount of literature about Waldorf education has been produced within the closed system of
Anthroposophy. Much of the available information fails to describe the spiritual mission of the Waldorf
school system honestly. We have found that even experienced parents of Waldorf students usually know little
about the Anthroposophical principles that determine the teaching methods and the Anthroposophical
doctrine that permeates the curriculum.
As a rejoinder, parents who choose not to send their child to a public school have the responsibility of educating
themselves about the philosophy of the school that they decide on for their child. Being informed about what a
chosen school believes and how and what it teaches is the parents’ responsibility. Parents can find a great deal of
information about Waldorf on the internet. They can also observe in the classrooms and talk with numerous
teachers before the child is enrolled, limiting the chance of surprises later.
Can Waldorf Education Be Replicated in Public

Schools?
This question is an important one to address with the popularity of this movement currently on the rise. With
increasing attention on Waldorf education in the United States, many new initiatives have been undertaken for
Waldorf-inspired elementary school programs. Bruce Uhrmacher, an education professor at the University of
Denver, has written a very informative article on the topic of borrowing ideas from alternative education. He
offers two important factors to consider when making a decision about using an idea from another model or
approach to education: recognizing where ideas come from and reflecting on where ideas go (Uhrmacher, 1993,
1997).
418
First, the teacher must consider the context or framework from which to borrow and how that idea fits within that
context. An example from Waldorf early childhood education might be the idea of providing a full hour of
imaginative playtime at the beginning of the day. A teacher wishing to borrow this strategy and implementing it in
the classroom must understand the philosophy behind its use in the Waldorf approach. The teacher must
understand that Waldorf values childhood and sees imaginative play as one of the most important expressions of
childhood. True play to Waldorf teachers means giving children the freedom to be self-directed, allowing their
inner thoughts and ideas to manifest in truly creative ways. A teacher who does not recognize this may apply this
concept in an inappropriate manner, perhaps by interrupting the children’s play in an attempt to encourage
teacher-directed learning, such as asking children to explain what they are doing or to describe the colors they are
using when building with the blocks. In the eyes of a Waldorf teacher, this draws the children out of their play
experiences and undermines the importance of what they are doing.
According to Uhrmacher (1997), it is also important for a teacher who is considering borrowing an idea to
anticipate how the application of this new idea will affect the current curriculum. With any change to an
established routine, disruptions may certainly be experienced. The teacher must carefully reflect on how this new
idea will fit with personal philosophy and even the administration under which the program functions. Will the
teacher have to compensate elsewhere to balance this new addition? These are all-important considerations and
must be thoroughly addressed in advance. There is much debate about taking ideas from a particular approach to
education and transplanting them in other programs. Some people feel that borrowing, when done properly, can
be helpful and beneficial. Others feel that borrowing will always remove ideas from their intended context and
cause inappropriate application.
In terms of Waldorf education, even Waldorf teachers are divided on this issue. Many feel that a Waldorf
education has much to offer. If their particular methods of teaching are working for children, then why not
encourage the widespread use of those methods, even if it means taking them outside of the Waldorf schools? On
the other hand, many other Waldorf educators feel that these ideas will lose their meaning, and therefore their
inherent value, when taken out of the context of the Waldorf schools. Teaching ideas based on Steiner’s principles
of child development are closely tied to the tenets of anthroposophy. Teachers fear that without this contextual
framework, the ideas will not hold the same purpose or benefit to students. The strong spiritual aspect of Waldorf
makes the transition to public schools nearly impossible because of the separation of church and state. Can there
be Steinerian education without the spiritual aspect? Waldorf educators take varying stances on this hotly debated
issue.
Nevertheless, many success stories exist regarding Waldorf-inspired public school programs in the United States.
One was the Urban Waldorf School of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, opened in 1991 as the first public school to
attempt to adapt Waldorf pedagogy as an effective model. This program was evaluated by seven educational
researchers not affiliated with Waldorf (Easton, 1997). These researchers found that after three years of operation,
the school successfully provided a safe, warm educational environment for inner-city children. Standardized test
scores had risen dramatically and there was relatively little evidence of aggression, considering the violence and
other negative social behaviors children were exposed to in their neighborhoods. Teachers were able to develop
meaningful relationships with children, assisted them in negotiating misbehavior, and helped them in the
development of cognitive learning strategies in preparation for good citizenship (Easton, 1997). Although this
evidence suggests that this school was successful in meeting the needs of its students, questions remain. How well
did it apply the Waldorf pedagogy? Was it the Waldorf influence that was responsible for the students’ success or
were there other factors? Perhaps a Hawthorne effect—a temporary and usually positive change to behavior or
performance because of a change in environmental conditions—was operating.
Conclusion
Despite its humble beginnings in war-torn Germany, Waldorf has remained timeless in its philosophy and is every
bit as dynamic and progressive today as it was in 1919. Waldorf ECE and best practices in ECE as epitomized in
the DAP guidelines (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009) are closely aligned. Both seek an appropriate approach to ECE
419
based on an understanding of child development. Both value the child as an individual and respect the importance
of childhood.
Furthermore, we feel that in many ways Waldorf may have even exceeded the standards set forth by the NAEYC,
taking basic concepts to new heights through both application and attitude. For instance, while NAEYC addresses
the whole child as physical, social, emotional, linguistic, aesthetic, and cognitive, Waldorf takes this wholeness to a
deeper level by also considering a child’s spiritual and moral development.
Currently, there are more Waldorf kindergartens than Waldorf grade schools in the United States, even though
much of the published information tends to focus on Grades 1–12. Although having more information on the
education of younger children from the Waldorfian perspective would be helpful, having research data from third
parties are even more important for a comprehensive and fair analysis of the philosophy and developmental and
educational ideas of Waldorf to our field of early childhood care and education. We do not pretend to cover this
topic here, but it appears that a new interest is beginning to emerge in the area of empirical research (Gerwin &
Mitchell, 2006). Much remains to be learned about Waldorf pedagogy in the early years. It seems an especially
promising approach to educating young children, particularly in these troubled times and with the accelerating
pace of our lives.
Reflect on
1. Why is the Waldorf model of education important today—or is it?
2. How are play, learning, and imitation different and/or similar in the Waldorf classroom and the home
setting?
3. How alike and unlike are Waldorf ’s methods of fostering self-regulation compared to other models in ECE
such as HighScope and Tools of the Mind?
4. Should spiritual development be part of the stated goals of ECE and early learning standards?
5. Can one argue that Waldorf ECE represents value added or an improvement over DAP guidelines?
Selected Resources web Sites of Interest

Alliance for Childhood
http://www.allianceforchildhood.org
Anthroposophical Society in America

http://www.anthroposophy.org
Association of Waldorf Schools of North America

http://www.whywaldorfworks.org
European Council for Steiner Waldorf Education

http://www.ecswe.org
People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools (PLANS)

http://www.waldorfcritics.org/concerns
Rudolf Steiner Archive

http://www.rsarchive.org
Rudolf Steiner College
420
http://www.steinercollege.edu
The Online Waldorf Library

http://www.waldorflibrary.org
The Steiner Books Spiritual Research Center

http://www.steinerbooks.org/research
Waldorf Early Childhood Association of North America

http://www.waldorfearlychildhood.org
Waldorf Homeschooling Sites

http://www.waldorffamilynetwork.com
http://www.waldorfwithoutwalls.com
Waldorf in Public Schools

http://www.allianceforpublicwaldorfeducation.org
Waldorf Materials Shopping Sites

http://www.waldorfshop.net
Waldorf-Related Blogs
http://littleacornlearning.com
http://themagiconions.blogspot.com
Waldorf-Related Online Magazines

http://rhythmofthehome.com
http://thewonderofchildhood.com
Waldorf Research Educators Network

http://www.ecswe.org/wren
International Waldorf Schools on the Internet

Southern African Federation of Waldorf Schools
http://www.waldorf.org.za
Steiner Schools in Australia (language: English)

http://www.steiner-australia.org
Steiner School in Italy (language: Italian)

http://www.rudolfsteiner.it
Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship in the United Kingdom and Ireland (language: English)
http://www.steinerwaldorf.org.uk
Swedish Waldorf Schools (language: Swedish)

http://www.waldorf.se
Books Related to Waldorf Education

The Harvest Craft Book, by T. Berger, 1992,
Edinburgh, Scotland: Floris Books.
421
Gnome Craft Book, by P. Berger and P. Berger,
1999, Edinburgh, Scotland: Floris Books.
Transformational Teaching: Waldorf Methods in the Public School, by M. Goral, 2009, London,
England: Rudolf Steiner Press.
Genius of Play, by S. Jenkinson, 2001, Gloucestershire, England: Hawthorn Press.
Nature Corner, by M. V. Leeuwen and J.

Moeskops, 1990, Edinburgh, Scotland: Floris Books.
Waldorf Songbook, by B. Masters, 1984, Edinburgh, Scotland: Floris Books.
Educating Through Art: The Steiner School

Approach, by A. Nobel, 1996, Edinburgh, Scotland: Floris Books.
What Is a Waldorf Kindergarten? by S. Oppenheimer, 2007, Great Barrington, MA: Steiner Books.
References
serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young
Children.
2. Easton, F. (1997). Educating the whole child, “Head, Heart and Hands”: Learning from the Waldorf
experience. Theory into Practice, 36 (2), 87–94.
3. Edwards, C. (2002). Three approaches from Europe: Waldorf, Montessori, and Reggio Emilia. Early
Childhood Research & Practice, 4 (1). Retrieved April 8, 2008, at http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v4n1/edwards.html
4. Gerwin, D., & Mitchell, D. (2006). Report from the co-directors. Research Bulletin, 11 (2), 3.
5. Gerwin, D., & Mitchell, D. (2007). Standing out without standing alone: Profile of Waldorf school
graduates. Research Bulletin, 12 (2), 7–16.
6. Grunelius, E. M. (1991). Early childhood education and the Waldorf school plan. Fair Oaks, CA: Rudolf
Steiner College Publications.
7. Healy, J. (1999). Endangered minds: Why our children can’t think and what we can do about it. New York,
NY: Touchstone Books.
8. Juul, K. D., & Maier, M. (1992). Teacher training in curative education. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 15 (2), 211–218.
9. Oldfield, L. (2001). Free to learn: Introducing Steiner Waldorf early childhood education. Gloucestershire,
England: Hawthorn Press.
10. Oppenheimer, T. (1999). Schooling the imagination. Atlantic Monthly, 284 (3), 71–83.
11. People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools. (2008). Our concerns about Waldorf schools. Retrieved April
12, 2008, at http://www.waldorfcritics.org/concerns.html
12. Petrash, J. (2002). Understanding Waldorf education: Teaching from the inside out. Beltsville, MD: Gryphon
House.
13. Pusch, R. (Ed.). (1993). Waldorf schools: Vol. I. Kindergarten and early grades. Spring Valley, NY: Mercury
422
Press.
14. Suggate, S. (2009). The role of age-related development in literacy acquisition and response to reading
instruction. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Otago, New Zealand.
15. Trostli, R. (1998). Rhythms of learning: Selected lectures by Rudolf Steiner. New York, NY: Anthroposophic
Press.
16. Uhrmacher, B. P. (1993). Coming to know the world through Waldorf education. Journal of Curriculum
and Supervision, 9 (1), 87–104.
17. Uhrmacher, B. P. (1997). Evaluating change: Strategies for borrowing from alternative education. Theory
into Practice, 36 (2), 71–78.
18. Uhrmacher, B. P. (2007). Artful curriculum, evaluation, and instructions: Lessons learned from Rudolf
Steiner’s spiritually based Waldorf education. In D. Hansen (Ed.), Ethical visions of education: Philosophies in
practice (pp. 141–156). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
19. Ward, W. (2001). Is Waldorf education Christian? Renewal, 10 (1).
20. Wilkinson, R. (1996). The spiritual basis of Steiner education. London, England: Steiner Press.
423
Author Index
424
A
Abbott-Shim, M., 75
Ackerman, B., 149
Acock, A. C., 149
Adams, M. J., 156, 157
Adcock, C., 217
Aghayan, C., 209
Aikens, N., 212
Ainsworth, M., 192, 302, 303
Akhutina, T., 253, 254
Albin, R. W., 107
Almaguer, I., 133
Anastasopoulos, L., 170
Ancess, L., 174
Anderson, J., 112
Anderson, K., 61, 62, 63
Andrews, R. K., 103
Angell, A. L., 155
Anthony, J. L., 156
Antler, J., 262
Arnold, D., 155
Ashelman, P., 13
Assel, M. A., 155
Atkins, M., 159
Atkins-Burnett, S., 170, 171
August, D., 126, 136, 207
Austin, A. M., 57
425
426
B
Bagnato, S., 51
Bailey, D., 105, 106, 116
Baines, M., 358
Baker, C., 126, 127, 136
Baker, E. L., 168, 169
Baker, S. L., 56, 133
Ball, W. W., 157
Ballenger, C., 137, 138
Baratz, J. C., 63
Baratz, S. S., 63
Barazzoni, R., 333
Barnes, E., 104, 116
Barnes, H. V., 66
Barnett, S., 147, 160
Barnett, W. S., 66, 136, 218, 226, 230, 236
Bates, J. E., 149
Baugh, J., 126, 127, 135
Baumgart, D., 112
Beard, L., 110
Beatty, B., 5, 12
Beeler, T., 157
Behrman, R. E., 87
Belfield, C. R., 218, 226, 230, 236
Bell, S., 125
Beneke, S., 282
Berdecia, A., 19
Bergen, D., 363
Berk, L. E., 251, 374
427
Berke, K., 193, 199
Berla, N., 193
Bernhardt, J. L., 38
Berres, M., 115
Berrigan, C., 104
Berrueta-Clement, J. R., 66
Berry, S., 94
Biber, B., 261, 262, 263, 264
Bickart, T. S., 191, 193, 199
Bickel, D. D., 171
Bidell, T. R., 302, 305, 306, 311, 314
Bierman, K. L., 69, 148, 149, 150, 156, 157
Biggs, J. B., 271
Biklen, D., 101, 104, 105, 112, 115
Bizzell, R., 373
Blachman, B. A., 157
Black, P., 171, 175, 183
Blacker, J., 116
Blackledge, A., 127
Blair, C., 157
Blanco, D., 136
Blasco, P., 116
Blehar, M., 192, 302, 303
Bloom, B. S., 62, 171
Bodrova, E., 193, 245, 252, 253, 254
Boehm, A. E., 225
Boehnlein, M., 373
Bogart, L., 366
Boller, K., 85, 86
Bondy, E., 125
428
Bornstein, H., 44
Bornstein, M., 44, 103
Bove, C., 336
Bowlby, J., 44, 192, 302, 303
Bowman, B., 76, 100, 124, 125, 137, 139, 169, 205
Boykin, A. W., 127
Bradley, R. H., 94
Brady, J. P., 150, 155, 176
Brand, M. E., 115
Bransford, J., 183
Bredekamp, S., 6, 15, 68, 103, 104, 169, 180, 192, 193, 194, 218, 224, 345, 346, 394, 400
Brennan, R. T., 169
Brenneman, K., 217
Bronfenbrenner, U., 63
Bronson, M. B., 116
Brooks-Gunn, J., 75, 147
Brosterman, N., 9
Brown, A., 133
Brown, G., 373, 374
Brown, L., 115
Brown, W. H., 158
Bruder, M. B., 115
Bruer, J. T., 218
Bruner, J., 175, 184, 247, 345
Bryant, D., 83, 137
Bub, K., 154
Buhs, E. S., 148
Burchinal, M. R., 69, 116
Burgess, S. R., 156
Burns, M. S., 169
429
Burns, S., 125, 205
Burton, R., 149, 151
Burts, D. C., 193, 199, 282
Buysse, V., 116
430
C
Cadwell, L., 336, 339
Cahan, E. D., 14, 16, 262
Caldera, D., 85
Calderón, M., 20, 136
Calloway, C. G., 4
Campbell, F., 137
Campbell, F. A., 82, 198
Carlo, M., 136
Carow, N., 348
Carpenter, L. B., 110
Carr, E. G., 107
Carroll, L., 199
Carter, A., 56
Casey, K., 137
Casper, V., 268
Castile, G. P., 6
Cavallaro, C. C., 104, 115
Cavallini, I., 345
Cavicchi, N., 348
Cenedella, J., 271
Ceppi, G., 336
Cervantes, W., 26
Chall, J. S., 125
Chang, F., 127
Chard, S. C., 193, 279, 282, 285, 288
Charlesworth, R., 282
Chattin-McNichols, J., 366, 367, 368, 371, 373
Chau, M., 124
431
Chaudry, A., 17
Chazan-Cohen, R., 73
Chen, J. Q., 168, 169, 170, 176, 178, 181, 182, 183
Chen, Q., 25
Christie, J., 105, 312
Clark-Chiarelli, N., 176
Clarke, S., 107
Clements, D., 170, 175, 217
Clifford, R. M., 100, 128
Coffman, J., 137
Cohen, J., 37, 271, 327
Cohn, D., 19
Coie, J. D., 148
Cole, M., 129
Colker, L. J., 157, 191
Collier, V. P., 136
Collins, R., 21
Collins, W. A., 103
Collis, K., 271
Colon, L., 104
Comenius, J. A., 7
Comer, J. P., 13, 14
Compton-Lilly, C., 135
Conant, F., 133
Connell, A., 86
Connor, R. T., 104
Cooper, C. E., 21, 24
Copple, C., 6, 68, 103, 104, 180, 192, 193, 194, 218, 346, 394, 400
Corsaro, W., 333
Cortes, R., 152
432
Cossentino, J., 370
Cox, M. J., 94, 148
Cramer, S. F., 115
Crone, D. A., 155
Crosnoe, R., 21, 24
Csikszentmihalyi, M., 305, 313, 373
Cuffaro, H. K., 268, 271, 272
Culross, P. L., 87
433
D
van Daalen, M., 326, 327
Daniels, H., 258
Darling-Hammond, L., 128, 174, 183
Darlington, R. B., 320
Deal, A., 106
Delpit, L., 127, 129, 135, 138, 268
Denham, S., 103
Denham, S. A., 148, 149, 150, 151
Denton, N. A., 22
Desrochers, L., 348
Dettore, E., 51
Dewey, J., 192, 217, 262, 265, 266, 267, 270, 272, 342
Diamond, K. E., 69, 103, 116
Dickinson, D. K., 150, 154, 155, 156, 170
Dinnebeil, L. A., 116
Dishion, T. J., 86
Dodge, D. T., 157, 191, 198, 208
Dodge, K. A., 149
Dolan, L. J., 284
Domitrovich, C. E., 152, 156, 157
Donnellan, A. M., 105, 107, 109
Donovan, E., 113
Donovan, M. S., 169, 205
Donovan, S., 125
Downer, J. T., 154
Dresden, J., 283
Drotar, D., 85
Dubas, J. S., 152
434
Duffy, D., 370
Duffy, M., 370
Dunlap, G., 107, 108, 109
Dunn, K. E., 171
Dunst, C., 106
Dupree, D., 125
Durand, V. M., 107
Durham, S., 282
Durury, R., 127, 136
Dye, G. A., 15
Dyson, A. H., 134, 135
435
E
Earl, L., 168
Earl, L. M., 171
Early, D., 94
Early, D. M., 128
Easterbrooks, M. A., 192
Easton, F., 389, 400
Edwards, C., 279, 339, 340, 345, 346, 348, 349, 379
Edwards, C. P., 127, 150, 160
Egeland, B., 302
Eggen, T. J. H. M., 322
Eggers-Pierola, C., 21
Eiserman, W. D., 116
Elias, M. J., 150
Elkind, D., 355
Elkonin, D., 250, 258
Ellis, A. W., 157
van Elsäcker, W., 319
Else-Quest, N., 374
Emiliani, F., 333
Engelman, J., 171
Epstein, A. S., 66, 217, 231
Epstein, J. N., 155
Erath, S. A., 149, 150
Erickson, M. F., 302
Erikson, E., 263
Erikson, E. H., 193
Erwin, E. J., 116
Escamilla, K., 136
436
Espinosa, L., 207
Espinosa, L. M., 22
Espinosa, P., 136
Evangelou, D., 134
Evans, I. M., 108, 109
Ewen, D., 21, 37
437
F
Fabes, R. A., 192
Fagen, R. M., 193
Farr, R., 170
Fassbender, L. L., 105, 109
Fauth, R. C., 147
Feltin, P., 358
Fennimore, B. S., 140
Ferguson, A. A., 125, 137
Fero, J. R., 374
Ferreiro, E., 255
Ferri, B. A., 101
Fiene, R., 51
Filippini, T., 335, 337, 345
Fine, S., 149
Fischel, J. E., 155
Fischer, K. W., 302, 305, 306, 311, 314, 315, 319
Fleet, A., 347
Fleischman, H. L., 127
Flook, L., 285
Flores, L., 219
Foorman, B. R., 157
Forman, G., 279, 339, 346, 348, 349
Fortuny, K., 17, 19, 21
Foster, M., 131, 133, 137
Fountas, I. C., 170, 178
Fowlkes, M. A., 14
Fraiberg, S. H., 45
Frankenberg, E., 123, 124
438
Franklin, M., 264
Frantuzzo, J., 148, 149, 159
Fraser, I., 138
Freire, P., 263
Frelow, V. S., 169
Freud, A., 263
Froebel, F., 3, 5, 10, 219
Froschl, M., 104
Fu, V. R., 348
Fuller, B., 21
Furtak, E. M., 171
Fyfe, B., 348
439
G
Galinsky, E., 57, 312, 313
Gallagher, J., 100, 116
Gallano, J., 152
Gándara, P., 126
Gandini, L., 279, 332, 335, 336, 339, 340, 346, 348, 349
Garcia, E. E., 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 125, 136, 137
Garcia Coll, C., 125
Gardner, H., 110, 168, 176, 306, 345
Gardner, J., 171
Garner, F., 86
Geller, S., 152
Gelman, R., 217
Gemmell-Crosby, S., 116
Gershater-Molko, R. M., 83
Gershoff, E. T., 109
Gersten, R., 133
Gerwin, D., 392, 400
Gest, S. D., 157
Gestwicki, C., 320
Getinger, M., 116
Gill, S., 157
Gilliam, W. S., 126
Glass, G., 136
Glenn, C., 373
Glickman, C., 210
Glover, S. H., 56
Goede, D., 327
Goetz, D., 116
440
Goffin, S. G., 261
Goldberg, W. A., 192
Goldhaber, J., 340, 348
Goldstein, A., 108
Goldstein, L. S., 309
Gomby, D. S., 87
Goodman, J. F., 110
Goodrich, A. H., 175
Goodz, N. S., 127
Gordon, I. J., 81
Gordon, S. P., 210
Gottman, J., 104
Gray, C., 108
Gray, S., 62, 81
Grazzini, C., 359, 363
Greenberg, J., 338
Greenberg, M. T., 150, 151, 152
Greenspan, S., 104
Grisham-Brown, J., 104, 115
Grogan, M., 26
Grunelius, E. M., 384
Guglielmo, H. M., 159
Gunnewig, S. B., 155
Guralnick, M., 104, 116
Gwathmey, E., 267
441
H
Haberman, E., 272
Haberman, M., 137
Hakuta, K., 18, 23
Hamburg, D., 42
Hammond, M., 104, 151, 153, 158, 160
Hamre, B. K., 176, 192
Handish, L. D., 192
Hanes, M., 219
Haney, M., 104, 115
Hanzlik, J. R., 116
Hardaway, C. R., 109
Hargreaves, A., 168
Harry, B., 103
Hart, C., 282
Haskins, R., 19, 20, 21
Haste, H., 175
Hatch, T., 110
Hatcher, P. J., 157
Hauser, M. E., 12
Hauser-Cram, P., 44, 116
Haycock, K., 125
Healey, S., 116
Healy, J., 387
Heckman, J. J., 129, 226, 228
Hedegaard, M., 258
Hellen, B., 357, 373
Helm, J. H., 202, 279, 282
Hemmeter, M. L., 104, 115, 116
442
Henderson, A. T., 193
Herald, S. L., 103
Hernandez, D. J., 17, 22, 26, 124
Heroman, C., 157, 191, 193, 199, 207, 209
Hestenes, L., 116
Hetherington, E. M., 103
Hewes, D. W., 5, 18, 26
Hill, L. T., 336, 339, 348
Hill, S. E., 112
Hindman, A. H., 69
Hinitz, B., 4, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17
Ho, H. Y., 51
Hobbs, D. C., 108
Hohmann, C. F., 219
Hohmann, M., 217
Holloway, S. D., 21
Holubec, E. J., 104
Honig, A. S., 36, 39, 40, 53
Hopstock, P. J., 127
Horner, R. H., 107
Howes, C., 57, 232
Hsieh, W. Y., 116
Hughes, J. N., 149
Hulme, C., 157
Humphryes, J., 375
Hunt, D., 152
Hunt, J. M., 100, 356
Huntsinger, C. S., 21
Husley, L., 212
Hussey, J. M., 56
443
444
I
van IJzendoorn, M. H., 192
Inan, J. Z., 347
Irizarry, J. G., 139
Irvine, J. J., 127, 129, 131, 134, 137, 138, 139
Istomina, Z. M., 251
Izard, C. E., 149
445
J
Jablon, J. R., 209
Jackson, B., 69
Jacobson, A., 25
Janney, R., 110, 112
Jearsons, L., 85
Jenkins, J. R., 104, 116
Jensen, B., 20, 24
Jesien, D., 82
Johnson, D., 104, 133
Johnson, J., 105
Johnson, J. E., 312
Johnson, L. F., 108
Johnson, O. C., 9
Johnson, R., 104, 133
Johnson, U., 25
Johnston, L., 110
Jones, C., 191, 207
Jones, D., 157
Jones, S. M., 153, 154
Jose, P. E., 21
Joyce, B., 209
Joyce, W., 313
Jung, K., 136
Juul, K. D., 397
446
K
Kagan, S. L., 169, 224, 309, 315
Ka`gitçibaşsi, Ç., 127, 129
Kahn, D., 357
Kaiser, B., 107, 108
Kalkowaski, P., 134
Kalyanpur, M., 103
Kantor, R., 347, 350
Kaplan, R., 109
Karpov, Yu. V., 243
Karweit, N. L., 309
Katz, L., 193, 202, 279, 282, 285, 337
Kavanagh, K., 86
Keniston, K., 64
Kern-Dunlap, L., 107
Kilpatrick, W. H., 356
Kim, D., 211
Kimble, C., 139
Kinnish, K., 104
Kirchner, H. L., 85
Kittrell, F. P., 14
Klaus, R. A., 62
Klein, A., 170
Klein, S., 302, 304
Kliewer, C., 112
Kluth, P., 103, 105, 115
Knapp, M. S., 125, 132, 133
Knoblock, P., 99, 103, 115
Knoche, L. L., 160
447
Koehler, M. J., 69
Kohn, A., 168
Kontos, S., 57
Korkus-Ruiz, S., 51
Kotch, J. B., 56
Kozol, J., 125
Kraft, K. C., 374
Krechevsky, M., 347
Kryah, R., 87
Kusche, C., 150, 152
van Kuyk, J. J., 302, 304, 306, 311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 320, 323, 324, 325
Kwok, O., 149
448
L
La Paro, K. M., 176
Labov, W., 63
Ladd, G., 103, 148, 150, 159
Ladson-Billings, G., 127, 129, 133, 137
Lally, J. R., 39, 40
Lamb, D., 348
Lambert, R., 75, 211
Land, K. C., 26
Landry, S. H., 155
Langer, S., 107
Laosa, M., 126
Lara-Alecio, R., 373, 374
Larson, C. S., 87
Lascarides, V. C., 4, 8, 12, 16, 17
Laumann, B. M., 116
Lave, J., 348
LaVigna, G. W., 109
Lee, C., 123, 125
Lee, K., 283
Lehr, R., 99, 103
Lengua, L. J., 147
Leong, D. J., 193, 245, 252, 253, 254
Leont’ev, A. N., 178, 248, 250
Leseman, P., 326
Leto, F., 370
Levenstein, P., 81
Levenstein, S., 81
Leventhal, T., 21
449
Levinger, L., 267
Lewin, K., 263
Lewis, F., 40
Lewit, E. M., 87
Liang, X., 21
Lieber, J., 104
Li-Grining, C., 153, 154
Lillard, A., 361, 374
Lillard, P. P., 11
Lindauer, S. L. K., 57
Linn, R., 168, 169, 174
Liontos, L. B., 126
Lippman, C., 263
Lit, I., 274
Loeffler, M. H., 355, 357, 363
Lonigan, C. J., 156
Lopez, M. H., 19
Losen, D., 126
Love, J. M., 73, 74
Lu, N., 56
Lucas, T., 131
Ludwig, J., 74
Lundberg, I., 157
Lunkenheimer, E. S., 86
Luria, A., 254
Lurie-Hurvitz, E., 37
Lutzker, J. R., 83, 86
Lynch, K. B., 152
Lynch, S. K., 109
450
451
M
Macartney, S., 22
MacDonald, R. F., 107
Macoby, G. E., 103
Madden, N. A., 284, 309
Magnuson, K., 125, 129
Mahoney, K., 136
Maier, M., 397
Malaguzzi, L., 333, 334
Mallory, B., 340, 341
Mangione, P., 40, 41, 46
Mann, T. D., 251
Manner, J. A., 374
Mantovani, S., 333, 340, 342
Manuilenko, Z. V., 251
Manz, P., 159
Marchand, G., 284
Marchant, C., 116
Marcon, R. A., 231
Marks, S., 133
Marotz, K. G., 22
Martin, C. L., 192
Mashburn, A. J., 154
Matthews, H., 21
Mayer, J. D., 306
McAllister, G., 139
McCabe, A., 170
McCarty, F., 75
McCarty, T. L., 132
452
McClelland, D., 217, 285
McClelland, M. M., 149, 150
McCombs, B., 271
McConnell, J. L., 15
McEvoy, M. A., 116
McGee, J. J., 108, 109
McGee, J. R., 211
McGee, L. M., 204
McGinnis, E., 108
McInerney, W. F., 116
McLean, M. E., 116
McLoyd, V. C., 109, 125
McNamee, G., 169, 170, 176, 178, 181, 182, 183
Mead, G. H., 264
Meier, D., 271
Meisels, S. J., 170, 171
Melendez, L., 182
Menolascino, F. J., 108
Menousek, P. E., 108
Mesaros, R. A., 105
Metzger, M. W., 153
Meyer, A., 101, 110
Meyer, L. H., 108, 109
Meyers, R., 159
Migyanka, J. M., 106, 113
Mihalic, S., 158
Miller, L., 373
Miller, L. S., 21
Miller-Johnson, S., 198
Mirenda, P. L., 105
453
Mitchell, D., 392, 400
Mitchell, L. S., 262, 265, 266, 267, 270, 272, 273
Mize, J., 150, 159
Moffat, L., 112
Moll, L. C., 264, 338
Montessori, M., 3, 11, 355, 359, 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 370, 371
Montie, J. E., 218, 226, 230, 233, 236
Moon, S. H., 226, 228
Mooney, C. G., 193
Moore, E., 224
Moran, M. J., 348
Morris, P. A., 63
Morrison, F. J., 149
Moss, P., 174
Mostow, A., 149
Mott, A. M., 267
Muenchow, S., 61, 65, 76
Mulvenon, S. W., 171
Murray, H. W., 320
Murrell, P. C., Jr., 125, 126, 127, 132
Musselwhite, C. R., 105
454
N
Nabuco, M., 231
Nager, N., 261, 271, 272, 273, 274
Nañez, J., 136
Naumburg, M., 11
Negri-Shoultz, N., 109
Nelson, C. A., 218
Neuman, S., 112, 116
New, R., 332, 333, 334, 338, 340, 341, 342, 345, 346, 348, 349, 350
Newton, E. H., 348
Nichols, S., 112
Nicholson, J., 171
Nicolau, S., 126
Nieto, S., 125, 127, 129, 133, 134, 137, 138
Nievar, A. M., 25
Nisbet, J., 101
Noakes, L., 171
Nores, M., 218, 226, 230, 236
Nsamenang, A. B., 129
Nutall, M., 136
455
O
Oden, S., 218
Odom, S. L., 103, 104, 116, 158, 159
Ogan, A. T., 251
O’Han, N., 12
Oldfield, L., 379, 386, 387, 388, 392, 394, 398
Olds, D. L., 84
Oliver, D., 81
Olmsted, P., 233
O’Neil, H. F., 168, 169
O’Neill, R. E., 107
Oppenheimer, T., 392
Orfield, G., 123, 125
Osgood, R., 99
Ostrosky, M. L., 116
Ottinger, C., 128
Ou, S. R., 129
Oyemade Bailey, U. J., 65, 76
456
P
Palermo, F., 192
Palincsar, A. M., 133
Pang, V. O., 137
Parke, R., 36, 37
Passel, J. S., 16, 19, 20, 21
Patterson, C., 347
Payne, A. C., 155
Pearson, B. Z., 46
Pease-Alvarez, L., 136
Peele, T. B., 131, 133, 137
Pellegrini, A., 105, 192, 193
Pendzick, M. L., 127
Perrone, V., 271, 272
Perry, T., 135
Peske, H. G., 125
Pestalozzi, J. H., 3, 8
Petrash, J., 393
Pettit, G. S., 149
Pewewardy, C. D., 129
Philips, D. A., 310
Phillips, D., 74, 232
Piaget, J., 100, 129, 193, 263, 302, 321
Pianta, R. C., 21, 94, 138, 148, 151, 154, 176, 192
Pierce, K. M., 21
Pignatelli, F., 274
Pink, D. H., 307
Pinnell, G. S., 170, 178
Pinto, R., 226, 228
457
Pittman, K. J., 128
Poehner, M. E., 247
Pollman, M. J., 10
Popham, W. J., 183
Powell, D. R., 69, 70
Pressler, E., 154
Printz, R. J., 86
Puma, M., 74
Pungello, E., 198
Pusch, R., 390
Putnam, R., 340
458
R
Raible, J., 139
Raikes, H., 73
Ramaswamy, V., 116
Rambusch, N. M., 357, 363, 365
Ramey, C. T., 83, 198
Ramsey, P., 100, 103, 268
Rasminsky, J. S., 107, 108
Rathunde, K., 373
Rathvon, N., 170
Raver, C. C., 153, 154, 193
Ray, A., 124, 137, 138, 139
Ray, I., 100, 103
Reed, M., 373
Reid, J., 151
Reiser, M., 192
Rennert-Ariev, P., 137
Repetti, R. L., 285
Reynolds, A., 129
Rezigt, G. R., 327
Rhine, W. R., 219
Ribeiro, R., 21
Richards, M., 86
Richmond, J. B., 63
Ridgeway, K., 14
Riegle-Crumb, C., 125
Riksen-Walraven, M., 302
Rimm-Kaufman, S., 148, 151, 161
Rinaldi, C., 336, 338, 340
459
Robbins, F. R., 107, 108
Robbins, J., 100, 124
Roberts, J., 116
Robertson, J., 347
Robinson, J., 85
Rodriguez, A., 57
Rodriguez, L., 373, 374
Rodriguez-Brown, F. V., 21
Roeleveld, J., 326, 327
Rogers, D., 171
Rogers, L., 217
Rogoff, B., 127, 129, 173, 264, 348
Rolstad, K., 136
Rosario, J., 219
Rose, D. H., 101, 110
Rose, S. P., 302, 315, 319
Rosebery, A., 133
Rosegrant, T., 169
Rosen, R., 347
Roskos, K., 112, 116
Ross, D. D., 125
Ross, G., 247
Ross-Gordon, J. M., 210
Roth, W. F., 116
Rousseau, J. J., 3
Royce, J. M., 320
Rubin, E., 104
Ruiz-Primo, M. A., 171
Russakoff, D., 18, 20, 24
Ryan, R. M., 147
460
Ryan, S., 264
Ryan, W., 64
461
S
Sablan, V. A., 137
Sadovnik, A. R., 11
Sagi, A., 192
Sale, L., 87
Salomon, G., 348
Salovay, P., 306
Saluja, G., 128
Samuels, M. E., 56
Sanchez, J., 219
Sanchez, M., 20
Sandall, S. R., 116
Sanders, M. R., 86
Sanders, P. F., 322
Sangeorge, A., 170
Sapon-Shevin, M., 101, 104
Sapru, S., 127
Savelyev, P. A., 226, 228
Scarborough, H., 157
Schapiro, D., 357, 373
Scheurich, J. J., 132
Schickedanz, J. A., 112, 204
Schidt, H., 282
Schmidt, M. G., 152
Schoonmaker, F., 264
Schultz, D., 149
Schultz, S., 268
Schwall, C., 336, 339
Schwartz, B., 115
462
Schweinhart, L. J., 66, 81, 147, 218, 226, 228, 230, 231, 233, 236
Sciven, M., 171
Scott, J., 368
Scott-Little, C., 169
Seid, M., 148
Semel, S. F., 11
Shakeshaft, C., 26
Shanahan, T., 207
Shapiro, C. J., 86
Shapiro, E., 261, 263, 272, 274
Shapiro, J., 112
Shaw, D. S., 86
Shearer, D., 82
Shearer, M., 82
Sheets, R. H., 126, 129
Shefatya, L., 193
Shepard, L., 183, 272
Sheridan, S. M., 160
Shi, L., 56
Shiminski, J. A., 81
Shin, M., 57
Shisler, L., 116
Shonkoff, J. P., 44, 310
Shore, R., 46, 218
Showers, B., 209
Shure, M. B., 151
Sigel, I. E., 302, 306, 314, 315
Silin, J. G., 263, 268
Silliman, E. R., 135
Simpson, W. J., 14
463
Singh, K., 271
Siraj-Blatchford, J., 8, 9
Skinner, D., 137
Skinner, E., 284
Slater, B. E., 225
Slavin, R., 20, 133, 284
Slavin, R. E., 309, 320
Sleeter, C. E., 137
Smilansky, S., 193
Smith, C., 337
Smith, K. E., 155
Smith, L. S., 279
Smith, M., 155
Smith, M. W., 154, 155, 156, 170, 176
Smith, S. B., 133
Smitherman, G., 135
Smolkin, L. B., 138
Snell, M., 110, 112
Snortum, J., 358
Snow, C. E., 125
Snyder, A., 14
Snyder, J., 274
Son, S. H., 171
Spaggiari, S., 333, 341
Sparling, J. J., 83, 198
Speltz, M. L., 104
Spencer, M. B., 125
Sperry, R. W., 302
Spivack, G., 151
Sprague, K., 155
464
Sprung, B., 104
Sroufe, L. A., 192, 193, 302
Stainback, S., 101, 110
Stainback, W., 101, 110
Standing, E. M., 11
Starkey, P., 170
Steele, C. M., 126
Steenbeek, H., 306, 309
Steinberg, L., 103
Steinheimer, K., 282
Stephenson, T. G., 127
Stetson, C., 209
Stiggins, R. J., 175, 183
Stipek, D. J., 63
Stoep, J., 319
Stolzberg, J. E., 81
Strain, P. S., 116
Stremmel, A. J., 348
Stroiber, K. C., 116
Strong-Wilson, T., 348
Suizzo, M. A., 24
Sulzby, E., 178
Sunia, J. H., 138
Supovitz, J. A., 169
Swank, P. R., 155
Sylva, K., 231
465
T
Tabors, P., 20, 207, 208
Takanishi, R., 22, 42, 343
Tanner, D., 210
Tanner, L., 210, 262, 279
Tarullo, L. B., 73, 212
Taylor, H., 211
Taylor, L., 94
Taylor, S. J., 101
Teberosky, A., 255
Tegano, D. W., 348
Terrill, D., 208
Thampi, K., 124
Thomas, J., 136
Thomas, W. P., 136
Thompson, R., 43
Thompson, R. A., 218
Thompson, S. A., 127
Thoms, D., 40
Thousand, J., 106
Tienda, M., 19, 20, 21
Toms, F. D., 127
Topal, C. W., 335
Touchette, P. E., 107
Trancossi, L., 345
Trivette, C., 106
Trohanis, P. L., 100
Trostli, R., 384, 393, 394
Trundle, K. C., 347
466
Tryon, G. S., 159
Tudico, C., 20
Tulsky, D. S., 168
Turnbull, A. P., 100, 116
Turnbull, H. R., 100
Turner, J., 367
Turner, K. M. T., 86
Turner, T., 347
467
U
Udvari-Solner, A., 110, 112
Uhrmacher, B. P., 393, 399
Ullman, J. B., 285
Upshur, C. C., 116
Uriarte, M., 126
468
V
Vàldes, G., 137
Valdivieso, R., 126
Valentine, J., 62, 65, 81
Valli, L., 137
Valsinger, J., 302
Van der Veer, R., 302
Van Driel, J., 347
Van Geert, P., 302, 306, 309
Vecchi, V., 345
Veen, A., 326, 327
Villa, R., 106
Villagomez, A., 94
Villegas, A. M., 131
Vincent, L., 113
Vygotsky, L., 129, 167, 171, 172, 173, 178, 192, 217, 219, 237, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 247, 248, 249,
250, 252, 254, 255, 257, 264, 302, 304, 306, 311
469
W
Waldfogel, J., 75
Wall, S., 192
Wallace, C., 347
Ward, W., 391
Wardle, F., 105, 312
Warfield, M. E., 44
Warren, B., 133
Wascow, E., 268
Washington, E. D., 15
Washington, V., 65, 76
Wasik, B. A., 69, 155, 156, 284
Wasik, B. H., 83, 91, 94
Wasserman, J. D., 168
Waters, E., 192, 302, 303
Weber, E., 261
Webster-Stratton, C., 151, 153, 158, 160
Weikart, D. P., 66, 147, 217, 218, 219, 223, 228, 230, 231, 233, 236
Weil, G., 87
Wein, C. A., 343
Weissberg, R. P., 148, 150, 151
Wells-Dolan, A. E., 15
Welsh, J., 157
Wenger, E., 348
Werner, H., 263
Wertsch, J. V., 171, 264
Wesch, D., 83
West, J., 212
Westby, C. E., 105
470
Westheimer, M., 25
Weston, P., 9
Whistler, J., 271
Whitaker, D. J., 86
Whitcomb, J., 370
Whitebook, M., 232
Whitehurst, G. J., 155, 156
Whiting, B. B., 127
Whitney, E., 14
Wickens, D., 261
Wieder, S., 104
Wilkinson, L. C., 135
Wilkinson, R., 380, 381
William, D., 171, 175, 183
Williams, L. R., 6
Wilson, M., 86
Wininger, R. S., 171
Winsor, C. B., 262, 265
Wirth, R. J., 21
Wittmer, D., 36, 53
Wolf, A., 11
Wood, D., 109, 247
Woodson, C. G., 135
Wortham, S. C., 168
Worthington, L., 348
Wright, V., 124
Wright, W. E., 136
471
472
X
Xiang, Z., 218, 226, 230, 233, 236
Xue, Y. G., 171, 212
473
Y
Yarosz, D. J., 136
Yavitz, A. Q., 226
Yoshikawa, H., 22
Young, J. C., 15
Youngstrom, E., 149
474
Z
Zaporozhets, A., 248
Zehler, A. M., 127
Zehr, M. A., 21
Zeichner, K. M., 128, 138
Zentrella, A. C., 135
Zhai, F., 75, 153, 154
Zigler, E., 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 76, 81
Zill, N., 147, 231
Zimiles, H., 263, 272
Zini, M., 336
475
Subject Index
476
A
Abecedarian Project
defined, 82
home visiting, 82–83
Absorbent mind, 360
The Absorbent Mind (Montessori), 360
Accountability, 170–171
Active learners, 218
Active learning
by child, 219–220
daily routine support, 221–223
teacher role in creating, 220–221
Additive approaches, 132
Advisement, developmental-interaction approach, 273–274
Advisors, 274
All Day Neighborhood Schools, 12
Al’s Pals: Kids Making Healthy Choices, 151–152
American Montessori Society (AMS), 357
Americans with Disabilities Act, 100
Amsterdam evaluation experiment, 327
Anthroposophy, 379–384. See also Waldorf education
child development theory, 380–381
as criticism, 398
defined, 379–380
goal of, 380
oneness, 380
as spiritual-science movement, 380
Artistic expression (Montessori curriculum), 369
Asian early childhood education
477
Asian Indian, 19
Chinese, 17–18
Japanese, 18–19
scenarios, 15–17
Asian Indians, 19
Assessment
accountability focus, 170–171
activity as unit of analysis in, 178–180
alternative, 168–169
approach, 173
assisted performance, 173
authentic, 271, 321
behavior responsiveness, 173–174
Bridging, 176–183
conclusion, 183–184
content, 174–176
content-specific, 170
Creative Curriculum, 205–207
as curriculum development guide, 183
data, 393
developmental-interaction approach, 271–273
early learning standards development, 169
early testing tradition, 168
ecological validity, 175–176
emerging issues, 169–171
field growth, 168
for learning, 173, 174, 175, 184
goal, 171–173
instruction and, 273
instruments, 322
478
learning, 167–184
learning standards and key concepts, 174–175
Montessori, 358
multiple curriculum-embedded, 271
nonstandardized procedures, 174
Piramide Method, 301, 321– 324
practice history, 167
procedure, 173–174
quantitative score, 175
results link with teaching/learning processes, 180
subject matter emphasis, 169–170
systematic and communal, 322
terms, 168
theory and practice, 171–176
Waldorf education, 392–393
zone of proximal development (ZPD), 171–173
Assessment cycle
analyze and respond, 206
evaluate, 206
illustrated, 207
observe and collect facts, 206
summarize, plan, and communicate, 206–207
Assisted performance, 173
Associative memory, 243
Atelierista, 333, 340
Attention, 243
Authentic assessment, 271, 321
Aversive treatment, 109
479
480
B
Bank Street Approach. See Developmental-interaction approach
Beauty and atmosphere (Montessori), 363
Behavior management
culturally grounded, 138
culturally responsive, 137–138
Behavioral interventions, 109
Behaviors
as communication, 107–108
meanings of, 107
positive, reinforcing, 108
problem, prevention, 108
responsiveness in assessment, 173–174
Bilingual teachers, 136
Black Americans
colleges and universities, 14
cultural discontinuity, 13
culturally deprived, 14–15
day nurseries, 14
early childhood education, 12–15
first schools, 13–14
grade failure, 126
LFKA kindergartens, 13–14
low expectations for, 126
Black Task Force of the Child Development and Associate Consortium (CDAC), 15
Blue Bird Day Nursery, 14
Book Discussion Cards (Creative Curriculum), 204
Braille symbols, 257
Bridging
481
accessible materials, 176–178
activities, 176–177
activity as unit of analysis, 178–180
assessment areas, 177
assessment results link, 180
child engaged in activity, 178
curriculum contribution, 183
defined, 176
effectiveness, 176
features, 177
key concepts, 178
performance rubrics, 178, 179
preservice teacher candidates, 180–181
professional development (PD) sessions, 182–183
Reading Books activity rubric, 178, 179
reflection process, 180
in-service teachers, 181–183
skills, 178
in teacher development, 180–183
Bridging Project, 176
Broadening (Piramide Method), 316–317, 318
Bureau of Educational Experiments, 262
482
C
California Department of Education (CDE), 40–42
CAPTA (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act), 83
Caregiving routines, in infant/toddler development, 47
Casa dei Bambini (Montessori), 11
Castañeda v. Pickard, 23
CDD (Child Development Division), 41–42, 56
CDE (California Department of Education), 40–42, 56
Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP), 153–154
Child abuse and neglect
cognitive impairments and, 79
Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA), 83
Child assessment (Piramide Method). See also Assessment
adaptive tests, 323–324
authentic and individual, 321
daily evaluation, 322–323
digital tests, 323
instruments, 322
observation, 323
observation scales, 323
recordkeeping and portfolio, 323
semiannual evaluation, 323–324
systematic and communal, 322
Child development
acceleration of, 247–248
amplification of, 248
developmental accomplishments, 248–249
instruction and, 247–248
483
knowledge, 194
social situation of development, 248
Vygotskian view of, 248–249
Child Development Division (CDD), 41–42
Child interests, 286–287
Child Observation Record, 176
Child Outcomes Framework (Head Start), 64
Child Welfare League of America (CWLA), 80
Child Well-Being Index (CWI)
data sources, 26
defined, 25
quality-of-life domains, 25–26
Children in poverty
achievement, 129
discourse patterns, 135
school failing of, 125–128
statistics, 124
Children with advanced knowledge skills (Creative Curriculum), 208
Children with disabilities
Creative Curriculum, 208
in Head Start programs, 100
infant/toddler care, 39
programs for, 102
Vygotskian approach, 256–257
Chinese
immigration, 17
in San Francisco schools, 17–18
Classroom Assessment Scoring System, 176
Classrooms
child connection to, 132–137
484
communication-based, 104–105
High/Scope model, 232
Jowonio School, 104–105
Montessori, 358
REDI program, 158
Reggio Emilia, 339
universal, 150–153
Cleanup time (HighScope model), 222
The Coach’s Guide to The Creative Curriculum for Preschool: A Step-by-Step Resource for Individualizing
Professional Development, 210
Cognitive intelligence, 308
Collaboration with peers, 387–388
Communication
behavior as, 107–108
child knowledge, 270
Jowonio School classrooms, 104–105
teachers with families, 105–106
Community
HighScope model, 225
Montessori, 365
of the past, 270–271
Waldorf education, 384–385, 394
Competence, social, 285
Computers, in project work, 282
Conflict, 264
Constructivism, 262
Continuity, 38
Control of error (Montessori), 364
485
Cooperative learning
with African American children, 133
cross-age tutoring, 134
for DL learners, 133
elements, 132–133
goal, 133
mixed-age grouping, 134
social skills, 133
Cooperative School for Student Teachers, 12
Coordinated parent-focused prevention components, 160
Creative Curriculum
assessment, 205–206
assessment cycle, 206–207
Assessment Opportunity Card, 206
books, 192
building capacity, 209–210
caring and teaching, 197–198
children with advanced knowledge skills, 208
children with disabilities, 208
conclusion, 212
consistency, 194
constructive/purposeful play, 193
content area charts, 197
day structure, 196
decision basis, 192
defined, 191
developmentally appropriate practice, 192
differences resolution, 198
dimensions, 199–200
DL learners, 207–208
486
effectiveness, 210
embedded professional development support, 208–209
English language acquisition objective, 207
evolution of, 191–192
framework, 193–198
framework illustration, 195
how, when, where to teach, 197
inclusion, 207–208
for Infants, Toddlers & Twos, 196, 197
Intentional Teaching Cards, 198, 209
knowledge of child development, 194
learning environment, 194–196
Learning Games, 198
learning teams, 210
objectives for development and learning, 199–201
partnering with families, 198
philosophy and research foundation, 192–193
physical environment, 193, 196
positive interactions/relationships, 192
professional development (PD) and, 208–210
progression of development and learning, 200–201
research on, 210–211
scope of use, 212
skills and concepts, 197
social-emotional competence, 192–193
support for coaches, 209–210
teacher-family partnerships, 193
Teaching Guide, 209
weekly planning, 196
what children are learning, 196–197
487
Creative Curriculum for Preschool, 201–205
Book Discussion Cards, 204
challenges addressed by, 201
daily best practices, 202–204
family connection, 204
Intentional Teaching Cards, 204, 205
knowledge-building resources, 201–202
Learning Games, 204
Mighty Minutes, 204
studies on, 211
Teaching Guides, 202–204
volumes, 201–202
Cross-age tutoring, 134
CSRP (Chicago School Readiness Project), 153–154
Cues, 112
Cultural continuity, 38–39
Cultural development, 244
Cultural knowledge, 126, 136
Cultural patterns, 127
Cultural repertoires, 127
Culturally deprived, 14
Culturally responsive behavior management styles, 137–139
Culturally/linguistically diverse education, 128–139
additive approaches, 132
child achievement in, 129
child development and, 127–128
cooperative learning, 132–134
culturally responsive behavior management styles, 137–139
discourse patterns, 135–136
early childhood classrooms for, 123–140
488
Early Head Start and, 129
Head Start and, 129
learning in two languages, 136–137
NAEYC on, 127
practices connecting children to classroom, 132–137
principles, 129–131
questions, 129
rationale, 128–129
responsive curricula, 134–135
school failing of, 125–128
teacher preparation for, 138–139
teachers attitudes, beliefs, expectations and, 137
Cultures
Asian, 17–19
Asian Indian, 19
Black American, 12–15
child development in context of, 129
Hispanic, 19–21
Japanese, 18–19
Native American, 3–7
in shaping children, 127
Curative education, 397
Curriculum
adaptation, 112–113
age-appropriate, 104
Bridging contribution, 183
culturally responsive, 134–135
development, assessment as guide, 183
489
Froebelian, 10
implementation without assessment, 183
Jowonio School, 104
Montessori, 365–370
PITC approach, 47–48
planning, 337–338
project work in, 281–285
provocations, 338
Reggio Emilia, 337–340
resources, 338–339
Waldorf, 389–392
CWI. See Child Well-Being Index
CWLA (Child Welfare League of America), 80
490
D
Daily routine (HighScope model), 221–223
cleanup time, 222
large-group time, 222–223
plan-do-review sequence, 221
planning time, 221
recall time, 222
small-group time, 222
work time, 221
DAP. See Developmentally appropriate practice; Developmentally appropriate practices
Deepening (Piramide Method), 317–319
Deliberate memory, 243–244
Democratic society, participation preparation, 287–288
Demonstration (Piramide Method), 316, 317
Development and learning objectives
defined, 199
dimensions, 199–200
emotions/behavior regulation, 200
illustrated, 199
indicators, 200
phonological awareness, 200
progress in listening, 201
progress in speaking English, 201
progression of development and learning, 200
Developmental accomplishments, 248–249
Developmental-interaction approach, 261–275
advisement, 273–274
classrooms, 266–267
491
community, 268–270
conflict, 264
curriculum, 264–273
defined, 261
developmental sequences, 264
environment engagement, 263
environments, 271
experience, 265–266
family, 268
growth of cognitive function, 263
history and evolution, 261–263
interaction, 261
knowledge, 265–266
knowledge of development, 274
learner, 265
learning environment, 266–267
materials, 267
mental health, 263
past communities, 270–271
principles, 263–264
progressivism, 263
sense of self development, 264
shared responsibility, 264
social relatedness, 264
Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO), 271
teacher education implications, 273–274
teacher principles, 273
teachers, 266
teaching conceptualization, 273
492
Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth Through
Age Eight, 6
Developmentally appropriate practices (DAP)
categories, 396
Native Americans, 6
technology use, 397
Waldorf education comparison, 394
Dialogic reading, 155
Digital tests, 323
Dinosaur Curriculum, 159
Discipline (Montessori), 360–361
Disciplines (Waldorf curriculum), 391
Discourse patterns, 135–136
Dispositions
desirable, strengthening, 284
as learning goal, 283
types of, 283
Distancing, 301
Diversity
of culture and background, 287
early childhood education response to, 123–124
of experiences, 287
family structures, 268
Waldorf curriculum, 391–392
Documentation
concept, 339
exploration, 347
Dual-language (DL)
493
proficiency, 22
programs, 20
Dual-language (DL) learners
enrichment models, 136
instructional practices for, 137
Dynamic systems theory, 302
494
E
Early Childhood Development and Health Services (Head Start), 67, 68–70
Early childhood education
Asian, 17–19
Black Americans, 12–15
current issues in, 25
diversification of families and children, 123–124
European roots, 7–11
Hispanic, 19–21
home visiting in, 79–94
immigrants, 15–17, 21–23
Native American, 3–7
progressive schools, 11–12
Vygotskian approach, 244
women’s leadership in, 26–27
Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (ECERS), 56, 176
Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K), 22
Early childhood programs, Head Start collaboration, 75
Early Head Start (EHS)
culturally/linguistically diverse education, 129
goal, 85
home visitor training, 52
parents, 74
PITC and, 42
programs, 67, 74
495
Research and Evaluation Project, 85–86
Early Language and Literacy Classroom Observation Tool, 176
Early learning standards, 169
Early Training Project, 81
ECERS (Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale), 56, 176
ECLS-K (Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Kindergarten Cohort), 22
Ecological validity, 175–176
Education, paradox of, 303
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 100
The Education of Man (Froebel), 9
Educational component (Piramide Method), 304–305
Educational Network and Resources for Inclusion in Community and Home (ENRICH), 106
Emile ou de l’education (Rousseau), 8
Emotional intelligence, 307
English language learners (ELLs)
challenges presented by, 23–24
defined, 20
in early education history, 16
education of, 23–25
as protected class, 18
statistics, 24
Enthusiasm, 386
Environments
Creative Curriculum, 193, 194–196
developmental-interaction approach, 266–267, 271
in infant/toddler development, 46–47
learning, 194–196
Piramide Method, 305–306, 310–311
prepared, 361
496
transitioning to, 113–115
Waldorf education, 384, 386–387
European roots, 7–11
Evaluation. See also Assessment
daily, 322–323
external, 326–328
internal, 325–326
Piramide Method, 321
program, 321, 325–328
project, 291
semiannual, 323–324
teacher, 321, 324
tutor, 326
Execution (Piramide Method), 301
Experiences
in developmental-interaction approach, 265–266
flow, 313
knowledge integration, 267–268
learning from, 265
sensory, 313
External evaluation, 326–328
497
F
Families
developmental-interaction approach, 268
partnering with, 198
structure diversity, 268
Waldorf relationship with, 394
Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES), 74–75
Family and Community Partnerships (Head Start), 67, 70–72
Family Check-Up, 86
Family Day Care Rating Scale (FDCRS), 55
Family process model, 24
The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore (Joyce), 313
Feelings, 284
Fieldwork
in classroom following, 290
preparation, 290
in project development, 289–290
First Peoples (Callaway), 4
Flexibility
in grouping, 112
in scheduling, 111–112
Floortime, 104
Flow experiences, 313
Focused attention, 243
Freedom (Montessori), 361–362
Full inclusion, 102
498
499
G
General law of cultural development, 244
Geography (Montessori curriculum), 370
Gifts (Froebel), 10
The Great Didactic (Comenius), 7
Grouping
flexibility in, 112
mixed-age, 134, 357, 385
500
H
Haitian American teachers, 138
Handicapped Children’s Early Education Assistance Act of 1968, 100
Head Start, 61–76
administration, 67
approach to parents, 65
assumptions, 63–64
challenges to stereotypical views, 63
Child Outcomes Framework, 64
children with disabilities, 66
children’s health outcomes, 69
children’s nutritional needs, 70
children’s racial background and, 66
children’s transitions, 72
community organizations, 72
community partnerships, 72
culturally/linguistically diverse education, 129
defined, 61
Early Childhood Development and Health Services, 67, 68–70
early childhood program collaboration, 75
early years, 63
emergency assistance, 71
employers and volunteers, 71
establishment decision, 62
evolution of, 61–67
Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES), 74–75
Family and Community Partnerships, 67, 70–72
framework, 64
future of, 75–76
501
goals, 64–66
health emergency procedures, 70
Impact Study, 73–74, 147
IQ and, 66
launch environment, 62
launch goals, 63
literacy outcomes, 68
longitudinal study, 75
misconception, 68
Multicultural Principles, 130, 131
NAEYC and, 68
national laboratory role, 76
parent partnership, 70–71
parenting education and support services, 71–72
parenting tasks, 71
Perry Preschool Project and, 66
policy group, 71
political realities, 63–64
Program Design and Management, 67
Program Performance Standards, 67, 68
reauthorization, 73
REDI program, 156–158
research, 74
research literature, 75
Revisiting and Updating the Multicultural Principles for Head Start Programs Serving Children Ages
Birth to Five, 129–130
Roadmap to Excellence, 75
school readiness role, 64, 68
scope and organization, 66–67
as social/educational experiment, 61
502
staff qualifications, 73
standards, 68
status profile, 66
War on Poverty and, 61–62, 65
Head Start Child Development and Learning Framework
defined, 64
domains, 64–65
Head Start programs
center-based, 68
children’s development and behavior, 70
curriculum components, 69
disabled children in, 100
Early Head Start, 67, 74
effectiveness, 67–75
family literacy development, 72
flexibility, 67
Heads Up! Reading, 69
Health Services Advisory Committee, 72
home visits, 66–67
mandated regulations, 67
mental health services, 70
national investment in, 147
parent advocates, 72
parents in curriculum development, 69
part-day program, 66
planning, 72–73
screenings, 69–70
services, 67–75
staff communication, 72
staffing, 72–73
503
well-child care, 69
Heads Up! Reading (Head Start), 69
Health care, children, 69
Health emergency procedures, 70
Health Services Advisory Committees (Head Start), 72
Healthy Families America (HFA), 85
Helping Your Child Learn Two Languages, 208
HFA (Healthy Families America), 85
Higher mental functions, 242
HighScope Educational Research Foundation, 217, 226
HighScope model, 217–237
active learning, 218, 219–220
children, 233
classrooms, 232
community role, 225
conclusion, 237
curriculum, 81
daily routine, 221–223
flexibility, 225–226
history of, 218–219
key developmental indicators, 223–224
materials, 218
national enthusiasm from, 219
parental role, 225
participant empowerment, 230
plan-do-review sequence, 221
Preschool Child Observation Record (COR), 224–225
research relationship to, 235–237
research support for, 226–235
room arrangement, 232
504
teacher role, 220–221
training in, 225–226
HighScope Perry Preschool Study, 217, 226–228
defined, 226
evaluation question, 226
history of, 219
major findings, 227
participant empowerment findings, 230
permutation-based inference, 226–227
return on investment, 228
HighScope Preschool Curriculum Comparison Study
defined, 226, 228
Direct Instruction group, 228–229, 230
group advantages, 229–230
HighScope group, 229, 230
major findings, 229
models, 228–229
Nursery School model, 229, 230
participant empowerment findings, 230
HighScope Training for Quality Study, 231–233
HIPPY (Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters), 25, 81–82
Hispanics
center-based care, 21
definition of terms, 20
early childhood education, 15–17, 19–21
grade failure, 126
home-school connections, 21
as largest growing minority, 19
low expectations for, 126
parent involvement, 24–25
505
proficiency levels, 24
shared language, 20–21
Historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), 14, 15
Holistic development (Waldorf education), 390–391
Holistic learning, 44
Home culture/family, 46
Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool Youngsters (HIPPY), 25, 81–82
Home visiting
Abecedarian Project, 82–83
benchmarks of success, 88
child abuse and neglect, 83–84
childhood development and, 88
components for quality and fidelity, 92
conclusions and recommendations, 93–94
documentation sources, 88
early childhood education and, 80–91
Early Head Start (EHS), 52, 85–86
families benefiting from, 88
Family Check-Up, 86
future directions, 88–89
goals, 93
Healthy Families America (HFA), 85
HighScope curriculum, 81
historical perspective, 80
Home Instruction for Parents of Preschool-Youngsters (HIPPY), 81–82
Infant Health and Development Program, 83
initiatives overview, 89–91
Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program, 87
modern day, 80–91
Mother Child Home Program, 81
506
national collaborative efforts, 86–87
1960s, 80–82, 89
1970s, 82–84, 90
1980s, 84–85, 90
1990s, 85–87, 90–91
Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP), 83
Parent Education Project (PEP), 81
Parent-Child Home Program (PCHP), 81
Parents as Teachers (PAT), 84–85
PITC Way, 52
Portage Project, 82
Positive Parenting Program, 86
potential in educational settings, 93
PQ training, 53
process fidelity, 93
Project 12-Ways, 83
Project SafeCare, 83
quality in, 91–93
renewed interest in, 80–82
research outcomes, 93
role of states, 89
services components, 92
staffing, 89
Teacher Home Visit Program, 87, 94
2000s, 87–88
Waldorf education, 394
Home Visiting the PITC Way, 52
How Gertrude Teaches Her Children: An Attempt to Help Mothers to Teach Their Own Children
(Pestalozzi), 8
The Hundred Languages of Children (Edwards, Gandini, Forman), 348
507
508
I
I Can Problem Solve (ICPS), 151
IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), 100
IEA Preprimary Project, 233–235
defined, 233
findings, 235
interviews, 234
purpose, 233–234
target population, 234
theory, 234
IHDP (Infant Health and Development Program), 83
Immigrants
Asian Indians, 19
Chinese, 17
dual-language (DL) proficiency, 22
in early childhood education, 21–23
in early education history, 16
educational law enforcement, 22
Hispanic, 19–21
Japanese, 18–19
kindergartens for, 16
progenies statistics, 21
Southeast Asian, 17
unauthorized, 21–22
Immigrants Raising Citizens: Undocumented Parents and Their Young Children (Yoshikawa), 22
Inclusion
as attitude, 117
children with special needs, 39
defined, 101–102
509
full, 102
strategies, 110–113
teacher attitudes towards, 116
Inclusion programs
Head Start, 115
Jowonio School, 99–115
mixed-age, 116
research, 116
Inclusive early childhood education, 99–117
characteristics, 101–102
committing to, 116–117
curriculum adaptation, 112
defined, 101
flexibility in grouping, 112
flexibility in scheduling, 111–112
technology in, 110
Indian Education Act, 6
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, 6
Indicated programs. See also Preventive intervention
defined, 158
Dinosaur Curriculum, 159
peer coaching, 159
Resilient Peer Treatment (RPT), 159
Individuality, 45–46
Individualized education program (IEP), 69
child-specific goals, 113
implementing, 109–110
statements written inside, 109
Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP), 69
510
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 100
Infant Caregiving: A Design for Training (Honig & Lally), 39–40
Infant Health and Development Program (IHDP), 83
Infants
Creative Curriculum for, 196, 197
mobile, 45
older, 45
young, 45
Infant/toddler care
background and status, 35–37
continuity of, 38
inadequate/damaging, 57–58
instability of, 37
non-English speaking caregivers, 55
optimizing, 41
personalized, 38
policies, 44
poor quality, 35, 36
poverty and, 37
primary, 38
quality of, 36
sensitive and responsive, 36–37
teachers, 43–44
Infant/toddler development
active, self-motivated learners, 45
attributes, 44–47
caregiving routines and, 47
cognitive, 49
environments and, 46–47
group care, 50
511
holistic learning, 44–45
home culture and family, 46
language, 49
language skills/habits, 46
motor and perceptual, 49
relationships, 44
self sense, 46
social-emotional, 49
stages, 45
uniqueness, 45–46
Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale (ITERS), 56
Infant/Toddler Learning & Development System, 42, 43
Initiates–child responds–teacher evaluates (IRE) sequence, 135
Initiative
of child, 299
of teacher, 301
Initiative learning. See also Piramide Method
defined, 308
inspiring, 313–314
life skills, 313
situations, 312–313
support with, 314
In-service teachers
Bridging for, 181–183
children in poverty and, 139
professional development (PD) experience, 181–182
professional development (PD) program evaluation, 182
Institute for Teaching English Language Learners (ITELL), 23
Instruction
assessment and, 273
512
child development and, 247–248
systematic, 281
Intake and outgo, 266
Integration
defined, 101
intervention, 154–155
Intellectual development (Waldorf education), 390–391
Intellectual integrity, 391
Intelligence, sensorimotor, 243
Intelligence and Experience (McVicker Hunt), 62
Intentional Teaching Cards (Creative Curriculum), 198, 204, 205, 209
Intentionality, 57
Interactions
in Creative Curriculum, 192
Interactive sampling, 319
Internal evaluation, 325–326
Internalization, 244
Interventions
behavioral, in inclusive settings, 109
within relationships, 108
IQ, Head Start and, 66
ITELL (Institute for Teaching English Language Learners), 23
ITERS (Infant/Toddler Environment Rating Scale), 56
513
J
Japanese
definition of terms, 18
immigration, 18–19
Nisei teachers, 18
resentment against, 18
segregated schools, 18
Johnson-O’Malley Act of 1934, 5–6
Jowonio School
age-appropriate curriculum, 104
all children can learn, 103
aversive treatment and, 109
behavior as communication, 107–108
behavioral interventions in inclusive settings, 109
challenging behavior response, 107–110
communication-based classrooms, 104–105
community agency cooperation, 103
conclusions, 117
cooperative activities, 104
defined, 99
ENRICH program, 106
grouping flexibility, 112
history, 102–103
inclusion strategies, 110–113
individualized education program (IEP), 109–110
interventions within relationships, 108
learning through relationships, 103–104
lesson plans, 113, 114
levels of support, 112–113
514
materials and cues flexibility, 112
as model, 115
natural consequences, 108
parent-teacher partnership, 105–106
philosophical base, 103–107
positive behavior reinforcement, 108
positive programming, 108
problem-solving approach, 109
right to participate, 103
scheduling flexibility, 111–112
school and class composition, 110
sequences and rules flexibility, 112
teacher training implications, 115
teaming skills, 106–107
transdisciplinary team approach, 106
transitioning to next environment, 113–115
515
K
Kempe Family Stress Inventory (KFSI), 83
Key developmental indicators (HighScope model), 223–224
Kindergartens
for immigrants, 16
public school, 17
Waldorf education, 381–382, 400
Knowledge
acquisition principles, 282–284
communication, 270
in developmental-interaction approach, 265–266
experience integration, 267–268
Knowledge and experience integration, 267–268
516
L
Language development
interactions with adults and, 154
Montessori curriculum, 367–368
Language skills
development of, 46
developmental interplay, 155
oral, 149–150
preventive interventions, 149–150
in REDI, 156–157
Language-minority children, 20
Languages, learning two, 136–137
Large-group time (HighScope model), 222–223
Learners, in developmentalinteraction approach, 265
Learning
cooperative, 132–134
early standards development, 169
environment, 266–267
from experience, 265–266
goals, 282–284
how of, 265
initiative, 308, 312–314
leading to development, 245
mediated, 173
to play, 312
sociocultural context of, 242
standards, 174–175
teams, 210
517
through doing, 388
through relationships, 103–104
in two languages, 136–137
what of, 265
Learning environments
day structure, 196
physical setting, 196
weekly planning, 196
Learning Games (Creative Curriculum), 198, 204
Lesson plans (Jowonio School), 113, 114
LFKA (Louisville Free Kindergarten Association), 13–14
Life skills, 313
Limited English proficiency (LEP)
defined, 20
as protected class, 18
Little Red School House, 12
Logical thinking, 244
Long-term cycle (Piramide Method), 319
Louisville Free Kindergarten Association (LFKA), 13–14
518
M
Mainstreaming, 101
Make-believe play, 250–251, 252
Materials
Jowonio School, 112
Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program, 87
Mathematics (Montessori curriculum), 368–369
Mediated perception, 243
Memory
associative, 243
deliberate, 243–244
Mental health, 263
Mental health services (Head Start), 70
Mental tools. See also Vygotskian approach
children’s acquisition as, 252–255
defined, 242
physical tools versus, 242–243
private speech as, 254
supporting use of, 256
written speech as, 254–255
Meriam Report, 5
Mighty Minutes (Creative Curriculum), 204
Migrant Head Start programs, 42
Mixed-age grouping, 134
Mobile infant stage, 45
519
Monitorial System, 9
absorbent mind, 360
assessment, 358
background, 357–359
beauty and atmosphere, 363
community life development, 365
conclusion, 375
contemporaries versus, 356
contemporary movement, 357
defined, 357
development progression, 359
discipline, 360–361
education in elementary years, 372–373
freedom, 361–362
goal, 370
human development view, 359–361
individual responsibility, 359
key tenets, 357–359
love of order, 359
model classroom demonstration, 355
open floor space, 357
planes of development, 359, 362
prepared environment, 361
principles, 374
program characteristics, 361–365
purposeful engagement, 360
reality and nature, 363
520
structure and order, 362–363
student activity, 358
Montessori classrooms
attitude, 358
elementary, 372
focus on aesthetics, 369
freedom, 360
ground rules, 361
limits, 360–361
Montessori curriculum
areas, 365–370
artistic expression, 369
core, development of, 375
geography, 370
language, 367–368
mathematics, 368–369
music, 369–370
practical life, 365–366
science, 370
sensorial, 366–367
social studies, 373
writing mechanics, 367
Montessori materials, 363–365
child connection with, 371
control of error, 364
cubes, 364
cylinder blocks, 364
design principles, 363–364
didactic, 363–365, 371
in elementary classrooms, 372–373
521
evaluation, 365
geography and science, 370
language, 367–368
manipulative, 372–373
mathematics, 368–369
practical life, 366
as scaffolding, 365
sensorial, 366–367
simple to complex progression, 365
The Montessori Method (Montessori), 11, 356
The Montessori System Examined (Kilpatrick), 356
Montessori teachers, 370–372
central role, 370–371
in child and material connection, 371
in child and material interaction, 371
observation, 358–359, 371, 372
in offering lessons, 372
redirect role, 371
Montessori: The Science Behind the Genius (Lillard), 374
Mother Child Home Program, 81
Music (Montessori curriculum), 369–370
Mutter and Kose-Leider (Froebel), 10
My Teaching Partner (MTP), 154
522
N
NACW (National Association of Colored Women), 13
National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC)
Accreditation Standard, 26
Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth
Through Age Eight, 6
developmentally appropriate practices (DAP), 103–104, 394–397
Head Start standards and, 68
on linguistically/culturally diverse children, 127
Pathways to Cultural Competence Project, 130
Reggio Emilia and, 346
Training Program for Kindergarten Teachers of American Indian Children, 6
National Association of Colored Women (NACW), 13
National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education (NCATE), 274
National Forum on Home Visiting, 87, 93
National Indian Education Association (NIEA), 6–7
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), 36
National Reporting System (NRS), 170
National Task Force on Early Childhood Education for Hispanics, 24
Native Americans
developmentally appropriate practice (DAP), 6
early childhood education, 3–7
government-funded schools, 4
NCLB and, 6–7
praying towns, 4
tribal and family system, 3
Natural consequences, 108
NCATE (National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education), 274
NCLB. See No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
523
Nearness, 301
New Harmony, 9
NFP (Nurse-Family Partnership), 83
NICHD (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development), 36
NIEA (National Indian Education Association), 6–7
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 6–7, 170, 346
North American Reggio Emilia Association (NAREA), 347
NRS (National Reporting System), 170
Nurse-Family Partnership (NFP), 83
Nutrition, 70
524
O
Objectives for Development & Learning: Birth Through Kindergarten, 193
Observation
daily evaluation, 323
Waldorf approach, 393
Observation scales, 323, 324
Observations
documenting, 48
in PITC approach, 47–48
Occupations (Froebel), 10
Older infant stage, 45
OMEP (World Organization for Early Childhood Education), 14
Ontogeny, 241
Open education, 279
Oral language skills, 149–150
Orbis Sensualium Pictus (Comenius), 7–8
Orientation (Piramide Method), 316
525
P
Paradox of education, 303
Parent Education Project (PEP), 81
Parent-Child Home Program (PCHP), 81
Parents
Early Head Start, 74
Head Start, 65, 69
Head Start partnership, 70–71
Hispanic, 24–25
involvement, 24–25
Piramide Method, 320–321
teacher roles in relation to, 105
Parents as Teachers (PAT)
curriculum, 84–85
defined, 84
statistics, 84
Parent-teacher partnership, 105–106
Participation, right to, 103
Partners for Quality (PQ)
caregiver training systems, 51
evaluation of, 51
home visiting training, 53
Past communities, 270–271
PATHS Curriculum. See Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) Curriculum
Pathways to Cultural Competence Project (PCCP), 130
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, 79, 91
PCHP (Parent-Child Home Program), 81
526
Peace and Education (Montessori), 11
Pedagogical Anthropology (Montessori), 355
Peer coaching programs, 159
People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools (PLANS), 398–399
PEP (Parent Education Project), 81
Perry Preschool Project, 66
Personalized care, 38
PGEE (Portage Guide to Early Education), 82
Phonological sensitivity, 156
Phylogeny, 241
Physical development (Waldorf education), 390
Physical intelligence, 307
Physical space (Piramide Method), 311
Piramide Method, 299–328
action and thinking levels, 308
activities for bright children, 320
Amsterdam experiment, 327
assessment, 301
basic level, 308
big thinking, 302–303
broadening, 316–317, 318
child assessment, 321–324
child/educator attachment, 302
cognitive intelligence, 308
concept, 299
concept illustration, 300
conclusion, 328
content, 301, 306–308
creative level, 308
deepening, 317–319
527
defined, 299
demonstration, 316, 317
distance, 301
dynamic systems theory and, 302
educational component, 304–305
emotional intelligence, 307
evaluation, 321
execution, 301
external evaluation, 326–327
features, 311–321
foundation, 301–303
four cornerstones, 299–301
group activities, 306
high-level intervention, 310
implementation and training, 301
initiative learning, 308
initiative of the child, 299
initiative of the teacher, 301
intelligences, 306–308
interactive sampling, 319
internal evaluation, 325–326
intervention levels, 309–310
key terms, 299–301
low-level intervention, 310
materials, 311
metacognitive level, 308
middle-level intervention, 310
national experiment, 326–328
nearness, 301
orientation, 316
528
paradox of education and, 303
parent program, 320–321
physical intelligence, 307
physical space, 311
play, 304, 311–312
play and learning environment, 305–306, 310–311
practice execution, 310–311
practices, 308–309
preparation, 301
Prima Cohort Study, 327–328
program evaluation, 321, 325–328
psychological space, 311
relational component, 303–304
sequenced activities, 320
sequential framework, 320
sources for development, 301
sources of development, 305–306
teacher evaluation, 321, 324
teacher mood, 304
training, 324
tutor evaluation, 326
Tutor Program, 320
Welcome Program, 310, 321
Plan-do-review sequence, 221
Planning
Head Start programs, 72–73
PITC approach, 48
time (HighScope model), 221
PLANS (People for Legal and Nonsectarian Schools), 398–399
Plans (PITC curriculum), 48
529
Play
enrichment, 312
learning to, 312
make-believe, 250–251, 252
Piramide Method, 304, 311–312
real, 250
situations, 311
Play Buddies, 159
Popular literacies, 134
Portage Guide to Early Education (PGEE), 82
Portage Project, 82
Portfolios, 323
Positive behaviors, reinforcing, 108
Positive Parenting Program, 86
Positive programming, 108
Poverty
children in, 124, 125–128
infant/toddler care and, 37
transitory, 37
Practical life (Montessori curriculum), 365–366
Prekindergarten, 26
Preparation
for culturally/linguistically diverse education, 138–139
fieldwork, 290
Prepared environment (Montessori), 361
Preschool Child Observation Record (COR), 224–225
530
Preschool program policies, 236
Preservice teachers, Bridging for, 180–181
Preventive intervention, 147–161
approach, 150–161
comprehensive approaches, 156–158
coordinated parent-focused components, 160
implications for education, 160–161
indicated programs, 158–160
integrating, 154–155
language skills, 149–150
professional development (PD) and, 153–155
REDI program, 156–158
school readiness, 148–150
self-regulatory skills, 148–149
social-emotional skills, 148–149
universal classroom, 150–153
Prima Cohort Study, 327–328
Primary care, 38
Private speech, 254
Problem-solving approach, 109
Professional development (PD)
Bridging for, 180–183
Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP), 153–154
Creative Curriculum and, 208–210
importance of, 153–155
My Teaching Partner (MTP), 154
REDI model, 157
Progettazione, 337, 338, 340
Program evaluation
531
defined, 321
external, 326–328
internal, 325–326
tutorials, 326
Program for Infant/Toddler Care (PITC), 35–58
child observation, 47–48
cognitive development, 49
communication support, 46
conclusion, 56–58
content and philosophy, 41
continuity, 38
contributions to, 41
course of study, 49–51
cultural continuity, 38–39
culture, family, and providers, 50–51
curriculum approach, 47–48
curriculum process, 48
defined, 35
demonstration programs, 52
developmental equipment of children, 45
disabilities and special needs, 51
document observations, 48
efficacy of, 55–56
EHS home visitor training, 52
environments and, 46–47
family cultural values, 46
focus, 41
formulation, 40
history of, 39–42
Home Visiting the PITC Way, 39–40, 52
532
inclusion of children with special needs, 39
infant care teachers, 43–44
infant/toddler development attributes, 44–47
language development, 49
learning and development, 50
materials and approach, 41
media-based training approach, 53
module training process, 51–53
motor and perceptual development, 49
needs assessment, 53–55
needs assessment videos, 55
new activities, 42
origination of, 39
personalized care, 38
perspectives, 41
pilot study, 41
plan implementation, 48
PQ home visiting training, 53
primary care, 38
program leader strategies, 43
program policies, 37, 38–39
reflection and planning, 48
regional caregiver training systems, 51–52
small groups, 38
social-emotional development, 49
social-emotional growth and socialization, 49–50
theoretical and research foundations, 42–47
Trainer Institutes, 42
whole child approach, 45
Program Performance Standards (Head Start), 67, 68
533
Progressive schools, 11–12
Project 12-Ways, 83
Project approach, 279–294
complementary relationship, 280
conclusion, 294
defined, 279–280
dispositions, 284
feelings, 284
implementation, 285–288
implications for practice, 284–285
knowledge acquisition, 282–284
learning goals, 282
shoes example, 291–294
social competence, 285
theoretical rationale, 282–285
Project SafeCare, 83
Project topics
appropriateness, 285–286
child interests, 286–287
criteria for selection, 288
diversity of culture and background, 287
diversity of experiences, 287
entertaining, 287
exciting, 286–287
good, 288
identification, 280
optimally specific, 288
in participation in democratic society, 287–288
selecting, 285–286
understanding review, 289
534
Project work
benefits of, 285
complementary relationship, 281
computer use in, 282
conclusion phase, 290–291
in curriculum, 281–285
development phase, 289–290
elements, 280
evaluation, 291
features, 280–281
fieldwork, 289–290
phases of, 288–291
question table, 289
recommendation, 282
start phase, 288
subtopic identification, 280
teacher role, 281
visitors, 290–291
Projects
concluding, 290–291
defined, 280–281
developing, 289–290
evaluating, 416
narrative, 288
shoes example, 291–294
starting, 288–289
Projects (Piramide Method), 314–320
as body of activities, 314
defined, 314
development optimization, 306
535
difficulty, 314
environment, 306
group exploration, 315
long-term cycle, 319
near and distancing, 305
question types and illustrations, 315
short-term cycle, 315–319
taking distance, 315
Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) Curriculum. See also Universal classroom
interventions
defined, 152
lessons, 153
puppets, 152–153
randomized trial, 153
target skills, 152
Protection, 386
Proximal, 245
Psychological space (Piramide Method), 311
Public School Workshops, 262–263
Public schools, Waldorf education in, 399–400
Pueblo Indian schooling, 138
536
Q
Quality, in home visiting, 91–93
Question tables, 289
537
R
Reactive attention, 243
Reading, dialogic, 155
Reality and nature (Montessori), 363
Recall time (HighScope model), 222
Recordkeeping, 323
REDI program. See Research-Based Developmentally Informed program
Refugees, 18
adult friendships, 336
art, 339
atelierista, 333, 339, 340, 343
challenges in Italy, 342–345
challenges in United States, 345–348
civic engagement, 348
classrooms, 339
as counternarrative, 345
cross-cultural exchanges, 348
curriculum planning, 337–338
curriculum resources, 338–339
defined, 331
demographics, 344
documentation, 333, 339–340
early care, 332–333
early childhood education orientation, 341–342
global success, 348
538
infant-toddler centers, 335, 345
inserimento, 341
intellectual and social competencies, 337–338
intercultural engagement, 345
local social engagement, 340–341
L’Occhio se Salta il Mura, 334
mini-studios within classrooms, 336
municipal commitment to young children, 333–334
parents as co-protagonists, 341
partecipazione, 340–341
pedagogista, 340, 342
pedagogy, 345
political dimensions, 334
praxis, 334
pride, 334
progettazione, 337, 338, 340
receptive audiences, 347
reputation, 332
Sala del Tricolore, 332
Scuola Diana, 336
scuola materna, 333
scuola materna comunale, 333
scuola materna privata, 333
scuola materna statale, 333
social engagement, 336
social routine, 332
space as teacher, 335
story, 311–312
strategic plan initiative, 344–345
teacher education, 342–345
539
teacher questions/concerns, 338
“The Wonder of Learning,” 334, 345
Registry trainer survey, 231–232
Relational component (Piramide Method), 303–304
Relationships
as developmentally essential, 44
interventions within, 108
learning through, 103–104
school district, 113
Re-mediation, 255–258
Research-Based Developmentally Informed (REDI) program
classroom schedule, 158
as comprehensive approach, 156–158
defined, 156
language/preliteracy skill focus in, 156–157
professional development model, 157
social-emotional learning in, 156
Resilient Peer Treatment (RPT), 159
Responsibility, 388–389
Responsive Education Program, 40
Responsive procedure, 173–174
Reverence, 386
Reverse mainstreaming, 101
Rosenwald Day Nursery, 14
Routines, caregiving, 47
Rubrics, 178, 179, 180
Rules (Jowonio School), 112
540
541
S
Scaffolding (Vygotskian approach), 247
Scheduling, flexibility in, 111–112
School of Infancy (Comenius), 7
School readiness. See also Preventive intervention
comprehensive approaches, 156–158
defined, 148
Head Start role, 64, 68
intervention integration, 154–155
preventative interventions for, 150
skills, acquisition of, 150
universal classroom interventions, 150–153
Science (Montessori curriculum), 370
Second language acquisition, 20
Self sense, 46
Self-motivated learners, 45
Self-regulation, 388–389
Self-regulatory skills, 148–149
Sensation, 243
Sensorial (Montessori curriculum), 366–367
Sensorimotor intelligence, 243
Sensory experiences, 387
Sequenced activities, 320
Sequences (Jowonio School), 112
Sequential framework (Piramide Method), 320
Shoes project example. See also Project approach
commentary, 293–294
concluding project (phase 3), 293–294
542
defined, 291
developing project (phase 2), 291–293
field visit, 291–292, 293
groups, 292
parent visit, 293
starting project (phase 1), 291
subgroups, 292
Short-term cycle (Piramide Method)
broadening, 316–317
deepening, 317–319
demonstration, 316
orientation, 315
steps, 315
Skills
defined, 284
language, 149–150
life, 313
self-regulatory, 148–149
social-emotional, 148–149, 155–156
teaming, 106–107
Small groups, 38
Small-group time (HighScope model), 222
Social competence, 285
Social development (Waldorf education), 390
Social relatedness, 264
Social situation of development, 248
Social studies (Montessori), 373
Social-emotional competence (Creative Curriculum), 192–193
Social-emotional skills
543
developmental interplay, 155
emotional understanding, 148–149
prosocial-cooperative, 148
in REDI, 156
Special education
as field, 99–100
Stabililty and Change in Human Characteristics (Bloom), 62
Staffing
Head Start programs, 72–73
home visitors, 89
“Starting Points: Meeting the Needs of Our Youngest Children,” 41
Structure and order (Montessori), 362–363
Structure of the Observed Learning Outcome (SOLO), 271
Student-teacher ratios, 24
Supports
least intrusive, 102
levels of, 112–113
Systematic and communal assessment, 322
Systematic instruction, 281
544
T
Teacher development
Bridging in, 180–183
preservice, 180–181
in-service, 181–183
Teacher evaluation
after training, 324
defined, 321
training, 324
Teacher Home Visit Program, 87
Teacher-family partnerships (Creative Curriculum), 193
Teachers. See also Training
biases, stereotypes, expectations, changing, 137
bilingual, 136
Bridging implementation, 182
co-constructing knowledge, 247
communication with families, 105–106
constructive/nonconstructive responses, 132
Creative Curriculum, 192
Creative Curriculum assessment and, 206–207
culturally responsive, 131
culturally responsive behavior management styles, 137–139
culturally/linguistically diverse children and, 137
in developmental-interaction approach, 266, 273–274
evaluation, 324
Haitian American, 138
infant/toddler care, 43–44
Montessori, 358–359, 370–372
Nisei, 18
545
passive, 132
preservice, 180–181
professional development (PD), 137, 153–154
in project work, 281
in REDI program, 156–157
Reggio Emilia, 338, 342–345
responsiveness, 132
roles in relation to parents, 105
in-service, 139, 181–183
Training for Quality Study, 232
Waldorf education, 383, 394, 399–400
Teaching Guide (Creative Curriculum), 202–204, 209
Teaching Strategies GOLD, 176, 205–206, 207
defined, 205–206
English language acquisition objective, 207
field testing, 211
objectives, 206, 212
professional development (PD) support, 209
research on, 211
scope of use, 212
Teaming skills, 106–107
Technology, in inclusive early childhood education, 110
Temperamental differences, 45–46
Testing. See also Assessment
adaptive, 323–324
digital, 323
early era, 168
standardized, 168
Tools, Vygotsky
546
concept, 242–243
cultural, 242
mental, 242–243, 252–255
physical, 242
Training
HighScope model, 225–226
implications for, 115
Piramide Method, 301, 324
Training for Quality Study, 231–233
classrooms, 232
defined, 231
findings, 233
HighScope trainers, 231
Registry trainer survey, 231–232
teacher survey, 232
Transitions, environment, 113–115
Transitory poverty, 37
Tutor evaluation, 326
Tutor Program, 320
Tutoring, cross-age, 134
Two Lives (Mitchell), 262
Two-way DL enrichment model, 136
Two-way immersion (TWI), 20
547
U
UDL. See Universal design learning
Uniqueness, 45–46
Universal classroom interventions, 150–153
Al’s Pals: Kids Making Healthy Choices, 151–152
defined, 151
I Can Problem Solve (ICPS), 151
PATHS Curriculum, 152–153
stand-alone, 154
Universal design learning (UDL), 101
548
V
applications, 249–258
child development view, 248–249
cultural-historical view of development, 241–242
culture, 241, 242–243
developmental accomplishments, 248–249
distorted development, 256–257
early childhood education, 244
general law of cultural development, 244
high mental functions, 243–244
higher mental functions, 242
history, 241–242
internalization, 244
leading activities, 248, 249
learning and teaching, 245–248
learning leads to development, 245
lower mental functions, 243–244
mental tool acquisition, 252–255
real play components, 250
re-mediation, 255–258
school readiness, 249
social situation of development, 248
sociocultural context of learning, 242
special education, 257–258
teacher role, 247–248
theoretical foundations, 241–244
theory summary, 249–250
tools, 242–243
549
zone of proximal development (ZPD), 245–247
550
W
Walden School, 11
Waldorf curriculum
constructing, 389–392
discipline variety, 391
diversity, 391–392
holistic development, 390–391
intellectual integrity, 391
purpose of, 392
whole child nurturing, 389–390
anthroposophy, 379–384, 398
assessment data, 393
caring community of learners, 384–385
characteristics, 384–392
child connection with sensory experiences, 387
child love of learning, 393
child sensitivity to environment, 384
classroom observation, 393
collaboration with peers, 387–388
community, 394
conclusion, 400
context of, 381–384
criticisms, 398–399
cultural adaptation, 383
curative education, 397
daily schedule, 382
developmentally appropriate practices (DAP) comparison, 394–397
551
diversity, 383–384
emotional development, 390
enthusiasm, 386
“finding ourselves,” 384
holistic child and, 382
home visits, 394
imitation, 384–385
intellectual development, 390–391
kindergarten, 381–382, 400
learning through doing, 388
parents, 394
pedagogy, 400
philosophical beliefs, 398
physical development, 390
play, 384–385
protection, 386
in public schools, 399–400
purpose of, 392–393
redeeming virtues, 397
relationship with family, 394
responsibility, 388–389
reverence, 386
rhythm and routine, 385
self-regulation, 388–389
simplicity, 384
social development, 390
special education, 397–398
spiritual development, 390
552
teacher training, 383
teachers, 394, 399–400
teaching, 385–389
War on Poverty, 61–62, 65
Welcome Program (Piramide Method), 310
Whole child approach, 45
Women
in administrative roles, 27
early education leadership roles, 26–27
Work Sampling, 176
Work time (HighScope model), 221
World Organization for Early Childhood Education (OMEP), 14
Written speech, 254–255
553
Y
Young infant stage, 45
554
Z
Zone of proximal development (ZPD)
assisted performance and, 173
boundaries, 246
changes over time, 246
defined, 171, 247
role of, 172
555
Contents
1. Approaches to Early Childhood Education
2. Preface
1. About this Text
2. New to this Edition
3. Coursesmart Etextbook Available
4. Acknowledgments
3. Brief Contents
4. Part I Introduction
1. Chapter 1 History of Early Childhood Education in Multicultural Perspective
1. Origins And Histories of Key Early Education Programs
2. American Indian Early Childhood Education
3. Our European Roots
1. Jan Amos Komensky (Comenius), 1592–1670, Bohemia
2. John Locke, 1632–1704, England
3. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 1712–1778, France
4. Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, 1746–1827, Switzerland
5. Robert Owen, 1771–1858, Scotland
6. Friedrich Wilhelm Froebel, 1782–1852, Germany
7. Maria Montessori, 1870–1952, Italy
8. European Influences on the United States
4. Progressive Schools
5. Black Early Childhood Education
6. Asian and Hispanic Early Childhood Education
7. Scenario A
8. Scenario B
9. Chinese
10. Japanese
11. Asian Indians
12. Immigrant and Citizen Children and Youth
13. The Education Of Young English Language Learners
14. Challenges, Solutions, and a Look Toward the Future
15. Parent Involvement
16. Current Issues In Early Childhood Education
17. The Child Well-Being Index
18. Women’S Leadership in Early Education
19. Conclusion
20. Reflect on
21. Selected Resources
22. References
2. Chapter 2 The Program for Infant/Toddler Care
1. Background And Status of Infant/Toddler Care in the United States
2. Pitc-Recommended Program Policies
3. History of Pitc
4. Theoretical and Research Foundations of Pitc
5. Ten Attributes of Infant/Toddler Development on Which the PITC Approach is Based
6. The Pitc Approach to Curriculum
7. The Pitc Course of Study
8. Infant/Toddler Development
9. Social-Emotional Development
556
10. Cognitive Development
11. Language Development
12. Motor and Perceptual Development
13. The Practice of Group Care
14. The Pitc Module Training Process
15. Pitc Regional Caregiver Training Systems
16. Demonstration Programs
17. Home Visiting the Pitc Way
18. Early Head Start PITC Home Visitor Training
19. Pitc Pq—home Visiting
20. The Pitc Media-Based Training Approach
21. The Needs Assessment For Pitc
22. The Efficacy of Pitc
23. Conclusion
24. What Can Be Done About Inadequate, Damaging Care?
25. Reflect On
27. References
3. Chapter 3 The Head Start Program
1. Evolution Of Head Start
1. War on Poverty Origins
2. Naïve Assumptions and Political Realities
3. Program Goals
4. Current Scope and Organization
2. Program Services and Effectiveness
1. Early Childhood Development and Health Services
2. Family and Community Partnerships
3. Program Planning and Staffing
4. Program Effectiveness
3. The Future of Head Start
4. Reflect On
6. References
4. Chapter 4 Home Visiting Programs
1. Historical Perspective On Home Visiting in the United States
2. Modern-Day Home Visiting and Early Childhood Education
1. 1960s
1. Renewed Interest
2. 1970s
1. Child Abuse and Neglect
3. 1980s
4. 1990s
1. National Collaborative Efforts in the 1990s
5. 2000
6. Future Directions: 2010–2020
3. The Quality in Home Visiting
4. Conclusions and Recommendations
5. Reflect On
6. References
5. Part II Core Themes
Disabilities
557
1. Jowonio’s History
2. Philosophical Base of the Jowonio School
1. All Children Can Learn
2. Right to Participate
3. Learning Through Relationships
4. Age-Appropriate Curriculum
5. Communication-Based Classrooms
6. Parent–Teacher Partnership
7. Teaming Skills
3. How to Respond to Challenging Behavior
1. Behavior as Communication
2. Positive Programming
3. Reinforcing Positive Behaviors
4. Interventions Within Relationships
5. Using Natural Consequences
6. Aversive Treatment Is Unacceptable
7. Behavioral Interventions in an Inclusive Setting
8. Problem-Solving Approach
9. Implementing an Individualized Education Program
4. The Composition of the School and its Classes
5. Strategies for Accomplishing Inclusion
1. Flexibility in Scheduling
2. Flexibility in Grouping
3. Curriculum Adaptation
1. Materials and Cues
2. Sequences and Rules
3. Levels of Support
6. The Process of Transitioning to the Next Environment
7. Implications for Teacher Training
8. Additional Inclusion Efforts
9. Conclusion
10. Reflect on
11. References
2. Chapter 6 More Than the Sum of Its Parts: Creating Multicultural and Linguistically Responsive Early
1. The Beginning of Schools Failing Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Children and Children
in Poverty
1. Early Childhood Classrooms—Culturally and Linguistically Unequal
2. Culturally and Linguistically Responsive Schooling
1. Principles of Culturally Competent Practice in Early Childhood
2. Research on Culturally Responsive Teaching and Pedagogy
1. 1. Teaching Practices That Connect Children’s Experience to the Classroom
1. Cooperative Learning
2. Culturally Responsive Curricula
3. Discourse Patterns
4. Learning in Two Languages
2. 2. Teachers’ Attitudes, Beliefs, and Expectations Regarding Young Racially,
Culturally, Linguistically, and Economically Marginalized Children
3. 3. Teachers’ Use of Culturally Responsive Behavior Management Styles
1. Teacher Preparation for Effective Practice with Culturally, Linguistically, and
Racially Diverse Children
3. Conclusion
558
4. Reflect On
5. References
3. Chapter 7 Early Prevention Initiatives
1. A Definition of School Readiness
1. Social-Emotional and Self-Regulatory Skills
2. Language Skills and a Foundation for Literacy
2. The Preventive Intervention Approach
1. Universal Classroom Interventions
1. I Can Problem Solve (ICPS) Program
2. Al’s Pals: Kids Making Healthy Choices
1. Preschool Promoting Alternative Thinking Strategies (PATHS) Curriculum
2. The Important Role of Professional Development and Support for Teachers
1. The Chicago School Readiness Project (CSRP)
1. My Teaching Partner (MTP)
3. Integrating Social-Emotional Interventions with Classroom Language Enrichment
4. Comprehensive Approaches to Preventive Intervention: Head Start Research-Based,
Developmentally Informed (REDI) Program
1. Social-Emotional Learning in REDI
2. Language and Preliteracy Skill Focus in REDI
3. The REDI Professional Development Model
5. Strengthening Prevention Services for High-Risk Children: Indicated Prevention
1. Incredible Years Dinosaur Social Skills and Problem-Solving Curriculum
2. Peer Coaching Programs
3. Resilient Peer Treatment (RPT)
4. Coordinated Parent-Focused Prevention Components
3. Conclusion
1. Implications for Education
4. Reflect On
6. References
4. 8 Chapter Assessment for Learning in the Early Childhood Classroom
1. A Brief History of Child Assessment Practices
1. Early Testing Tradition
2. Alternative Assessment Era
2. The Emerging Issues in Child Assessment Practices
1. Development of Early Learning Standards
2. Greater Emphasis on Subject Matter
3. Focus on Accountability
3. The Theory and Practice of Assessment for Learning
1. Goal—Establishing the Zone of Proximal Development
2. Approach—Focusing on Assisted Performance
3. Procedure—Being Responsive to the Child’s Behavior
4. Content—Attending to Learning Standards and Key Concepts
5. Context—Emphasizing Ecological Validity
4. The Distinctive Features of Bridging
1. Using Familiar Activities and Accessible Materials
2. Attending to Key Concepts and Skills in Curricular Areas
3. Considering Activity as the Unit of Analysis in Child Assessment
4. Linking Assessment Results With Teaching and Learning Processes
5. Use of Bridging in Teacher Development
1. Working With Preservice Teacher Candidates
2. Working With In-Service Teachers
559
6. Conclusion
7. Reflect On
8. References
6. Part III Specific Approaches—United States
1. Chapter 9 The Creative Curriculum ®
1. Philosophy And Research Foundation Of The Creative Curriculum
1. Positive Interactions and Relationships Are Fundamental to Children’s Success in School
and in Life
2. Social-Emotional Competence Is a Significant Factor in School Success
3. Constructive, Purposeful Play Supports Essential Learning
4. The Physical Environment Affects Children’s Behavior and the Type and Quality of
Learning Interactions
5. Teacher–Family Partnerships Promote Development and Learning
2. The Consistent Framework Of The Creative Curriculum
1. Knowing How Children Develop and Learn
2. The Learning Environment
1. The Physical Setting
2. A Structure for Each Day
3. Weekly Planning
3. What Children Are Learning
4. Caring and Teaching
5. Partnering With Families
3. Objectives For Development And Learning
4. The Creative Curriculum For Preschool As A System
1. Knowledge-Building Resources
2. Daily Practice Resources
1. Teaching Guides
2. Intentional Teaching Cards™
3. Resources for Effective Read-Alouds
4. Resources for Making Every Minute Count
3. How the System Connects to Families
5. Authentic, Ongoing Assessment In The Creative Curriculum
6. How Teachers Use The Assessment Cycle
1. Observe and Collect Facts
2. Analyze and Respond
3. Evaluate
4. Summarize, Plan, and Communicate
7. The Creative Curriculum Includes All Children
1. English and DL Learners
2. Children With Disabilities
3. Children With Advanced Knowledge and Skills
8. The Creative Curriculum And Professional Development
1. Embedded Professional Development Support
2. Building Capacity
1. Support for Coaches
2. Learning Teams
9. Research On And Use Of The Creative Curriculum And Teaching Strategies Gold
1. Research on the Curriculum
2. Research on the Assessment System
3. Scope of Use
10. Conclusion
2. Chapter 10 The HighScope Model of Early Childhood Education
560
1. The History Of The Highscope Model
2. Active Learning By The Child
3. The Role Of The Teacher In Creating Active Learning
4. The Daily Routine That Supports Active Learning
1. Planning Time: Stating an Intention
2. Work Time: Executing the Intention
3. Cleanup Time
4. Recall Time: Reflecting on Accomplishments
5. Small-Group Time
6. Large-Group Time
5. The Key Developmental Indicators
6. The Preschool Child Observation Record
7. Role Of Parents And Community
8. Training In The Highscope Model
9. Research Support For The Highscope Model
1. HighScope Perry Preschool Study
2. HighScope Preschool Curriculum Comparison Study
3. The Training for Quality Study
4. The IEA Preprimary Project
10. The Relationship Of Research To The Highscope Model
11. Conclusion
12. Reflect On
14. References
3. Chapter 11 Tools of the Mind: The Vygotskian Approach to Early Childhood Education
1. The Theoretical Foundations Of The Vygotskian Approach
1. Cultural-Historical View of Development
2. The Concept of Tools
3. Lower and Higher Mental Functions
2. The Vygotskian View Of Learning and Teaching
1. Learning Can Lead Development
2. Zone of Proximal Development
3. The Role of the Teacher in Children’s Learning and Development
1. Teachers and Children Co-Construct Knowledge
2. Scaffolding Helps Children Make a Transition From Assisted to Independent
Performance
3. Instruction Should Amplify Child Development and Not Accelerate It
3. The Vygotskian View Of Child Development
1. Social Situation of Development as the Main Mechanism of Development
2. Developmental Accomplishments and Leading Activity
3. The Vygotskian Approach to School Readiness
4. The Applications Of The Vygotskian Theory In The Early Childhood Classroom
1. Fostering Child Development by Engaging Children in the Leading Activities
1. Vygotskian Definition of Play
2. Make-Believe Play as a Source of Development
3. Implications of Vygotsky’s Theory of Play for Early Childhood Educators
2. Promoting Children’s Acquisition of Mental Tools and Higher Mental Functions
1. Private Speech as a Mental Tool
2. Written Speech as a Mental Tool
3. Re-mediation as the Core Principle of Special Education
1. Social and Cultural Nature of Disabilities
2. Vygotsky’s Approach to Special Education
561
5. Conclusion
6. Reflect On
8. References
4. Chapter 12 The Developmental-Interaction Approach at Bank Street College of Education
1. History and Evolution
2. Basic Principles
3. Curriculum
1. The Learner
2. Knowledge and Experience
3. The Teacher
4. The Learning Environment
5. Experiencing and Integrating Knowledge
6. The Family
7. The Community
8. Communities of the Past
9. Assessment
4. Implications For Teacher Education
5. Conclusion
6. Reflect On
8. References
5. Chapter 13 The Project Approach An Overview
1. Definition Of a Project
2. Project Work and Other Parts Of The Curriculum
3. The Theoretical Rationale for the Project Approach
1. Four Types of Learning Goals
2. Principles Related to the Acquisition of Knowledge
1. Strengthening Desirable Dispositions
2. Feelings Related to School Experiences
3. Implications for Practice
4. The Development of Social Competence
4. How to Implement The Project Approach
5. Selecting Topics for Projects
6. Responding to Children’s Interests
1. Diversity of Experiences
2. Diversity of Culture and Background
7. Preparation for Participation in a Democratic Society
8. Criteria for Selecting Topics
9. The Phases Of Project Work
10. Phase 1: Getting Started on a Project
11. Phase 2: Developing a Project
1. Fieldwork
12. Phase 3: Concluding a Project
1. Evaluation of Projects
13. A Kindergarten Project On Shoes
14. Phase 1: Getting Started on the Project
15. Phase 2: Developing the Project
16. Phase 3: Concluding the Project
1. Commentary
17. Conclusion
18. Reflect On
562
20. References
7. Part IV Specific Approaches—Europe
1. Chapter 14 The Piramide Method
1. The Foundation of the Piramide Method
2. The Basic Concepts in Coherence
1. Relational Component
2. Educational Component
3. How to Optimize the two Sources of Development
4. The Content of the Piramide Method
1. Three Intelligences
1. Physical Intelligence
2. Emotional Intelligence
3. Cognitive Intelligence
5. The Levels of Action and Thinking
1. Basic Level
2. Creative Level
3. Metacognitive Level
6. The Practices that Optimize Children’s Development
7. The Three Levels of Intervention
1. Low Level
2. Middle Level
3. High Level
8. How the Practice is Executed
1. Welcome Program
2. Play and Learning Environment
1. High-Level Structure
2. Physical Space
3. Psychological Space
9. Six Features of the Piramide Method
1. Play
1. Creating Rich Play Situations
2. Play Enrichment
1. Joining in the Play
2. Enriching Play
3. Learning to Play
2. Initiative Learning
1. Creating Rich Initiative Learning Situations
2. Promote Life Skills
3. Inspiring Initiative Learning
1. A Good Example
2. Talking About What Is Important
4. Offering Support With Initiative Learning
5. Projects
1. Learning to Take Distance
1. Short-Term Cycle
2. Long-Term Cycle
6. Sequential Framework
1. Sequenced Activities
7. The Tutor Program and Activities for Bright Children
8. The Parent Program
10. How the Piramide Method is Evaluated
563
11. Child Assessment
1. Authentic and Individual Assessment
2. Systematic and Communal Assessment
3. Instruments
4. Daily Evaluation
1. Observation
2. Recordkeeping and Portfolio
5. Semiannual Evaluation
1. Observation Scales
2. Digital Tests
3. Adaptive Tests
12. Teacher Evaluation
1. Training
2. After the Training
13. Program Evaluation
1. Internal Evaluation
1. Conclusion
2. Tutor Evaluation
3. External Evaluation
1. Two Experiments
2. Prima Cohort Study
14. Conclusion
15. Reflect On
17. References
2. Chapter 15 Reggio Emilia in the 21st Century: Enduring Commitments Amid New Challenges
1. The Reggio Emilia Story
2. Italian Early Care and Education: Children’s Right and Society’s Responsibility
3. Reggio Emilia’s Municipal Commitment To Young Children
4. Putting Principles Into Practice: an Ongoing Process of Collaboration and Inquiry
1. La Bella Figura: An Environment That Welcomes, Nurtures, Impresses, and Inspires
2. Curriculum as a Projection of Possibilities
1. Curriculum Planning: Creating Conditions for Asking and Exploring Good
Questions
2. Curriculum Resources: The Hundred Languages of Children
3. Documentation as Tool for Collaborative Inquiry
3. Partecipazione: Raising the Bar on Family Engagement
4. The Reggio Emilia Approach: an Orientation to Early Childhood Education as a
Principled Way of Living
5. New Changes and Challenges in Italy and Reggio Emilia
1. Teacher Education: Changing Concepts of Competence
1. No Longer Just for Tourists: Italy as a Newly Pluralistic Society
6. Reggio Emilia and the United States: New Challenges and New Possibilities
1. That Was Then, This Is Now
7. Conclusion
8. Reflect On
9. Selected Resource
10. References
3. Chapter 16 Montessori Education Today
1. The Background and Key Tenets of the Montessori Method
2. Montessori’s View of Human Development
1. The Absorbent Mind
564
2. Discipline: The Development of the Will
3. The Program Characteristics
1. The Prepared Environment
2. Freedom
3. Structure and Order
4. Reality and Nature
5. Beauty and Atmosphere
6. Montessori Learning Materials
7. The Development of Community Life
4. The Curriculum Areas
1. Practical Life
2. Sensorial
3. Language
4. Mathematics
5. Artistic Expression
6. Music
7. The Cultural Subjects: Geography and Science
5. The Role of the Teacher
6. Montessori Education in the Elementary Years
7. Research on Montessori
8. Conclusion
9. Reflect on
10. Selected Resources Montessori web Resources
11. Major U.S. Montessori Organizations
12. References
4. Chapter 17 The Waldorf Approach to Early Childhood Education
1. Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy
1. Steiner’s Theory of Child Development
2. Context of Waldorf Education
1. Waldorf Kindergarten
2. Waldorf Grade School
3. Waldorf Teacher Training
4. Diversity
2. The Waldorf Program’s Characteristics
1. Creating a Caring Community of Learners
1. Children’s Sensitivity to the Environment
2. The Importance of Imitation and Play
3. Benefits of Mixed-Age Grouping
4. Establishing Rhythm and Routine
2. Teaching to Enhance Development and Learning
1. Reverence, Enthusiasm, and Protection
2. Providing an Engaging and Responsive Environment
3. Children’s Connection With Sensory Experiences
4. Collaborating With Peers
5. Learning Through Doing
6. Responsibility and Self-Regulation
3. Constructing Appropriate Curriculum
1. Nurturing the Whole Child—“Head, Heart and Hands.”
2. Enhancing Holistic Development
3. Incorporating a Variety of Disciplines
4. Maintaining Intellectual Integrity
5. Embracing Diversity
565
3. How to Assess Children’s Learning
4. The Waldorf Relationship with Families
5. Waldorf and Other Approaches
1. How Does Waldorf Approach Special Education?
2. Criticisms of Waldorf Education
3. Can Waldorf Education Be Replicated in Public Schools?
6. Conclusion
7. Reflect on
8. Selected Resources web Sites of Interest
9. International Waldorf Schools on the Internet
10. Books Related to Waldorf Education
11. References
8. Author Index
1. A
2. B
3. C
4. D
5. E
6. F
7. G
8. H
9. I
10. J
11. K
12. L
13. M
14. N
15. O
16. P
17. R
18. S
19. T
20. U
21. V
22. W
23. X
24. Y
25. Z
9. Subject Index
1. A
2. B
3. C
4. D
5. E
6. F
7. G
8. H
9. I
10. J
11. K
12. L
13. M
566
14. N
15. O
16. P
17. Q
18. R
19. S
20. T
21. U
22. V
23. W
24. Y
25. Z
List of Illustrations
1. Figure 1–1 Definitions of Terms 1
2. Figure 1–2 Definitions of Terms 2
3. Figure 2–1 PITC-Recommended Policies
4. Figure 2–2 CDE Systems Chart
5. Figure 2–3 PITC Curriculum Process
6. Figure 2–4 Needs Assessment Videos (Available on DVD)
7. Figure 4–1 Components of Home Visiting Services That States Must Address
8. Figure 5–1 Lesson Plan
9. Figure 9–1 Frameworks of The Creative Curriculum
10. Figure 9–2 Objectives for Development and Learning
11. Figure 9–3 Progression of Development and Learning for Objective 1, Dimension a
12. Figure 9–4 Teachers Record Children’s Ideas and Questions During a Study of Balls
13. Figure 9–5 During a Study of Clothes, Children Explore the Features of Clothing, Including Shoe Size and
Clothing Fasteners; They Create Charts and Graphs to Represent Their Findings
14. Figure 9–6 Teaching Sequence From The Creative Curriculum for Preschool Intentional Teaching Cards™,
LL01, “Shared Writing”
15. Figure 9–7 Steps of the Assessment Cycle
16. Figure 10–1 HighScope Perry Preschool Study Major Findings Through Age 40
17. Figure 10–2 Large Return on Investment (per participant in 2000 constant dollars discounted 3% annually)
18. Figure 10–3 HighScope Preschool Curriculum Comparison Study Major Findings at Age 23
19. Figure 10–4 Findings: Training for Quality Children’s Study
20. Figure 11–1 Zone of Proximal Development
21. Figure 11–2 Changes in a Child’s ZPD Over Time
22. Figure 11–3 Realistic Play Props
23. Figure 11–4 Nonrealistic Play Props
24. Figure 11–5 A Sample Play Plan Done by a 4-Year-Old Child in the Context of Make-Believe Play
25. Figure 11–6 Center Planning Wheel
26. Figure 14–1 Key Terms Used in the Piramide Method: Art = artistic development; Pers = personality
development; Soc-em = social-emotional development; Perc = perception; Math = mathematics; S = space;
T = time; Cogn Int = cognitive intelligence; Em Int = emotional intelligence; Phys Int = physical
intelligence.
27. Figure 14–2 Relational and Educational Components
28. Figure 14–3 Levels of Action and Thought and Social Support
29. Figure 14–4 Intelligences and Developmental Areas in the Piramide Method
30. Figure 14–5 Four Practices in the Piramide Play and Learning Environment: Play, Initiative Learning
(Initiative Child), Project Steps, and Sequential Activities (Initiative Teacher)
31. Figure 14–6 Three Levels of Intervention
567
32. Figure 14–7 Developmental Materials for Mathematics in a Sequence
33. Figure 14–8 Question Types and Illustrations
34. Figure 14–9 Short-Term and Long-Term Cycles in the Piramide Projects
35. Figure 14–10 Portfolio: Child’s Drawing
36. Figure 14–11 Digital Test for Prekindergarten and Kindergarten Children
37. Figure 14–12 Example from the Preschool Observation Scale
38. Figure 14–13 Language Results, Means, and Variations
39. Figure 14–14 Pretest and Posttest Percentages of Risk Children (Tutored and Not Tutored)
40. Figure 14–15 Results of Two Experimental Studies, 1997–2001
41. Figure 14–16 Results in Uncontrolled, Controlled, and Intensive Programs in a National Cohort Study
List of Tables
1. Table 4–2 Home Visiting Components Relevant for Quality and Fidelity
2. Table 5–1 Programs for Children with Disabilities
3. Table 7–1 Typical Classroom Schedule: Head Start REDI with Creative Curriculum
4. Table 8–1 Assessment for and of Learning Comparison
5. Table 8–2 Distinctive Features of Bridging Assessment
6. Table 8–3 Bridging Assessment Areas and Activities
7. Table 8–4 Rubric for Early Book Reading
8. Table 11–1 Leading Activities and Developmental Accomplishments in Early Childhood
9. Table 11–2 Supporting Play as a Leading Activity of Young Children
10. Table 11–3 Supporting Children’s Use of “Mental Tools” Throughout the Day
11. Table 13–1 The Question Table
12. Table 16–1 Montessori Versus 1910–1920 Contemporaries
13. Table 16–2 Planes of Development
14. Table 17–1 Comparison of DAP Guidelines and Waldorf Education
Landmarks
1. Contents
2. Frontmatter
3. Start of Content
4. Author Index
5. Subject Index
6. List of Illustrations
7. List of Tables
1. i
2. ii
3. iii
4. iv
5. v
6. vi
7. vii
8. viii
9. ix
10. x
11. xi
12. xii
13. xiii
14. xiv
568
15. xv
16. xvi
17. xvii
18. xviii
19. 1
20. 2
21. 3
22. 4
23. 5
24. 6
25. 7
26. 8
27. 9
28. 10
29. 11
30. 12
31. 13
32. 14
33. 15
34. 16
35. 17
36. 18
37. 19
38. 20
39. 21
40. 22
41. 23
42. 24
43. 25
44. 26
45. 27
46. 28
47. 29
48. 30
49. 31
50. 32
51. 33
52. 34
53. 35
54. 36
55. 37
56. 38
57. 39
58. 40
59. 41
60. 42
61. 43
62. 44
63. 45
64. 46
65. 47
66. 48
569
67. 49
68. 50
69. 51
70. 52
71. 53
72. 54
73. 55
74. 56
75. 57
76. 58
77. 59
78. 60
79. 61
80. 62
81. 63
82. 64
83. 65
84. 66
85. 67
86. 68
87. 69
88. 70
89. 71
90. 72
91. 73
92. 74
93. 75
94. 76
95. 77
96. 78
97. 79
98. 80
99. 81
100. 82
101. 83
102. 84
103. 85
104. 86
105. 87
106. 88
107. 89
108. 90
109. 91
110. 92
111. 93
112. 94
113. 95
114. 96
115. 97
116. 98
117. 99
118. 100
570
119. 101
120. 102
121. 103
122. 104
123. 105
124. 106
125. 107
126. 108
127. 109
128. 110
129. 111
130. 112
131. 113
132. 114
133. 115
134. 116
135. 117
136. 118
137. 119
138. 120
139. 121
140. 122
141. 123
142. 124
143. 125
144. 126
145. 127
146. 128
147. 129
148. 130
149. 131
150. 132
151. 133
152. 134
153. 135
154. 136
155. 137
156. 138
157. 139
158. 140
159. 141
160. 142
161. 143
162. 144
163. 145
164. 146
165. 147
166. 148
167. 149
168. 150
169. 151
170. 152
571
171. 153
172. 154
173. 155
174. 156
175. 157
176. 158
177. 159
178. 160
179. 161
180. 162
181. 163
182. 164
183. 165
184. 166
185. 167
186. 168
187. 169
188. 170
189. 171
190. 172
191. 173
192. 174
193. 175
194. 176
195. 177
196. 178
197. 179
198. 180
199. 181
200. 182
201. 183
202. 184
203. 185
204. 186
205. 187
206. 188
207. 189
208. 190
209. 191
210. 192
211. 193
212. 194
213. 195
214. 196
215. 197
216. 198
217. 199
218. 200
219. 201
220. 202
221. 203
222. 204
572
223. 205
224. 206
225. 207
226. 208
227. 209
228. 210
229. 211
230. 212
231. 213
232. 214
233. 215
234. 216
235. 217
236. 218
237. 219
238. 220
239. 221
240. 222
241. 223
242. 224
243. 225
244. 226
245. 227
246. 228
247. 229
248. 230
249. 231
250. 232
251. 233
252. 234
253. 235
254. 236
255. 237
256. 238
257. 239
258. 240
259. 241
260. 242
261. 243
262. 244
263. 245
264. 246
265. 247
266. 248
267. 249
268. 250
269. 251
270. 252
271. 253
272. 254
273. 255
274. 256
573
275. 257
276. 258
277. 259
278. 260
279. 261
280. 262
281. 263
282. 264
283. 265
284. 266
285. 267
286. 268
287. 269
288. 270
289. 271
290. 272
291. 273
292. 274
293. 275
294. 276
295. 277
296. 278
297. 279
298. 280
299. 281
300. 282
301. 283
302. 284
303. 285
304. 286
305. 287
306. 288
307. 289
308. 290
309. 291
310. 292
311. 293
312. 294
313. 295
314. 296
315. 297
316. 298
317. 299
318. 300
319. 301
320. 302
321. 303
322. 304
323. 305
324. 306
325. 307
326. 308
574
327. 309
328. 310
329. 311
330. 312
331. 313
332. 314
333. 315
334. 316
335. 317
336. 318
337. 319
338. 320
339. 321
340. 322
341. 323
342. 324
343. 325
344. 326
345. 327
346. 328
347. 329
348. 330
349. 331
350. 332
351. 333
352. 334
353. 335
354. 336
355. 337
356. 338
357. 339
358. 340
359. 341
360. 342
361. 343
362. 344
363. 345
364. 346
365. 347
366. 348
367. 349
368. 350
369. 351
370. 352
371. 353
372. 354
373. 355
374. 356
375. 357
376. 358
377. 359
378. 360
575
379. 361
380. 362
381. 363
382. 364
383. 365
384. 366
385. 367
386. 368
387. 369
388. 370
389. 371
390. 372
391. 373
392. 374
393. 375
394. 376
395. 377
396. 378
397. 379
398. 380
399. 381
400. 382
401. 383
402. 384
403. 385
404. 386
405. 387
406. 388
407. 389
408. 390
409. 391
410. 392
411. 393
412. 394
413. 395
414. 396
415. 397
416. 398
417. 399
418. 400
419. 401
420. 402
421. 403
422. 404
423. 405
424. 406
425. 407
426. 408
427. 409
428. 410
429. 411
430. 412
576
431. 413
432. 414
433. 415
434. 416
435. 417
436. 418
437. 419
438. 420
439. 421
440. 422
441. 423
442. 424
443. 425
444. 426
445. 427
446. 428
577

5 6134087900058354826

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

5 6134087900058354826

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

5 6134087900058354826

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2

Approaches to Early Childhood Education

The Pennsylvania State University

Senior Acquisitions Editor: Julie Peters

Editorial Assistant: Andrea Hall

Vice President, Director of Marketing: Margaret Waples

Senior Marketing Manager: Christopher D. Barry

Senior Managing Editor: Pamela D. Bennett

Senior Project Manager: Linda Hillis Bayma/Mary Irvin

Senior Operations Supervisor: Matt Ottenweller

Senior Art Director: Diane Lorenzo

Cover Designer: Wanda Espana

Cover Image: Studio 1One/Shutterstock Images

Full-Service Project Management: Penny Walker, Aptara®, Inc.

Composition: Aptara®, Inc.

Cover Printer: Courier/Westford

Text Font: ITC Galliard

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Roopnarine, James E. Johnson.—6th ed.

I. Roopnarine, Jaipaul L. II. Johnson, James E.

ISBN 10: 0-13-265798-8

ISBN 13: 978-0-13-265798-3

About this Text

New to this Edition

A new chapter on important developments in multicultural competence (Chapter 6)

A broadened chapter on assessment (Chapter 8)

A new chapter on The Creative Curriculum® (Chapter 9)

The Pennsylvania State University

1. Chapter 1 History of Early Childhood Education in Multicultural Perspective 3

2. Chapter 2 The Program for Infant/Toddler Care 35

3. Chapter 3 The Head Start Program 61

4. Chapter 4 Home Visiting Programs 79

2. Part II CORE THEMES

3. Chapter 7 Early Prevention Initiatives 147

4. Chapter 8 Assessment for Learning in the Early Childhood Classroom 167

3. Part III SPECIFIC APPROACHES—UNITED STATES

1. Chapter 9 The Creative Curriculum ® 191

2. Chapter 10 The HighScope Model of Early Childhood Education 217

4. Chapter 12 The Developmental-Interaction Approach at Bank Street College of Education 261

5. Chapter 13 The Project Approach: An Overview 279

4. Part IV SPECIFIC APPROACHES—EUROPE

1. Chapter 14 The Piramide Method 299

3. Chapter 16 Montessori Education Today 355

4. Chapter 17 The Waldorf Approach to Early Childhood Education 379

1. Chapter 1 History of Early Childhood Education in Multicultural Perspective 3

Blythe F. Hinitz The College of New Jersey

1. Origins and Histories of Key Early Education Programs 3

1. American Indian Early Childhood Education 3

2. Our European Roots 7

4. Black Early Childhood Education 12

5. Asian and Hispanic Early Childhood Education 15

6. Immigrant and Citizen Children and Youth 21

2. The Education of Young English Language Learners 23

1. Challenges, Solutions, and a Look Toward the Future 23

3. Current Issues in Early Childhood Education 25

4. The Child Well-Being Index 25

5. Women’s Leadership in Early Education 26

2. Chapter 2 The Program for Infant/Toddler Care 35

J. Ronald Lally and Peter L. Mangione WestEd, San Francisco, California