A reader comments on the discussion of Common Core’s effect on pre-K and K:
Thanks, Diane, for making room on your blog for this critical topic.
Karen states that the “overacademization of kindergarten and preschool classrooms” is not a new trend. That may be true, though without a doubt the problem has intensified. The Alliance for Childhood report The Crisis in Early Education A Research-Based Case for More Play and Less Pressure (Miller and Almond, November 2011) states that “the pushing down of the elementary school early childhood has reached a new peak with the adoption by almost every state of the so called common core standards.” That report also looks at the high rate of preschool expulsions of late. Preschoolers and kindergarteners are now being expelled at three times the rate of K-12 children. How can that be okay? Peter Gray has documented the decline of play and the increase of childhood problems over recent decades in his article “The Decline of Play and the Rise of Psychopathology in Children and Adolescence” (The American Journal of Play, volume 3, number 4; Spring 2011). The increase in the number of young children attending overly-academic preschools and kindergartens is most assuredly part of the problem. An increase in childhood depression and anxiety are some of the results. When our mission should be, at the very least, to do no harm, clearly the children are being harmed. We cannot toss them in the trash like a cake with too much salt or a recipe gone awry (to further Karen’s analogy above). They are human beings, for goodness sake.
Finding ways to stay developmentally appropriate, when many of the tests and assessments are not, is becoming increasingly difficult. And looking critically at the how, what, when and why of testing and assessments which have increased with RTTT, is important work for the early childhood community. If ever there was a time in the USA for early childhood educators to be looking closely at policy and debating the direction of early childhood education, now is the time. As the leading organization of early childhood educators, NAEYC should be at the forefront of advocating for young children – and speaking out against policies that aren’t grounded in what decades of research has proven: that children develop best — socially, emotionally and cognitively — when they have educational experiences that promote creativity, thinking and problem solving skills, and engage in meaningful activities geared to their developmental levels and needs.
Nancy Carlsson-Paige is not alone in her assessment of the situation. A national coalition of early childhood educators met earlier this year regarding their concerns about the current education policy trends and their negative effects. You can read more about that in an op-ed piece titled “How ed policy is hurting early childhood education” published in Valerie Strauss’ The Answer Sheet at The Washington Post. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/how-ed-policy-is-hurting-early-childhood-education/2012/05/24/gJQAm0jZoU_blog.html)
Geralyn Bywarter McLaughlin
Director, Defending the Early Years
deyproject.org
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I’ve spent the past 30 years of my career in ECE battling against the pushed down curriculum and trying to teaching people working with kids who have not implemented developmentally appropriate practice (DAP), either because they are ill prepared or because they want to appease parents and/or administrators, so I know that this issue is not new.
However, beginning in 88, I had NAEYC support, when they came out with what many of us referred to then as “the green bible” describing DAP. I was glad Vygotsky was added to the next edition, but when Piaget was removed from the latest edition, I sold my copy and, in my work with ECE teachers, I now refer them to earlier editions instead.
This came up on an ECE board not long ago and Bredekamp said that was done because Piaget was wrong about kids in regard to Math. My problems with folks in academically oriented programs who use flashcards, worksheets, etc. have included a lot of drilling in literacy, such as with sight words and repetitive writing, when we have effective DAP methods for teaching that, as well as the elimination of play, so I saw no reason for NAEYC to support throwing out all of Piaget with the proverbial Math bathwater and became disillusioned with them.
I, too, was disconcerted by NAEYC’s position statement on Technology, and I have a lot of concerns about DAP not being implemented today, due to pressures associated with CCSS, RTTT-ELC and standardized testing. As a veteran teacher who spent many years teaching Infants, Toddlers, PreK, Kindergarten and 1st Grade, I don’t think the Common Core has developmentally appropriate expectations of Kindergartners. I see that as giving permission to implement a pushed down curriclum in KG and, in my experience, that often results in academics being further pushed down into PreK and earlier. Therefore, I am very glad to learn that others share my concerns and are speaking up about them.
Thanks so much, Geralyn, Nancy and other esteemed colleagues, for “Defending the Early Years”!
Corretion: “trying to teaching” should have been “to trying to teach”. God I hate typos that I can’t fix!
No, it should have been “trying to teach”. Sorry, time for bed…
My apologies. The DAP book originally came out in 1987. I should not have written the above when I was feeling so exhausted and dismayed.
Thank you for your efforts to promote DAP and critique CCSS in ECE, two efforts that remain underemphasized at present. DAP spans decades of research and experience with teaching young children. I now consider myself a “maverick” Kindergarten teacher because I stubbornly continue to balance whole group teacher directed instruction, small group teacher directed instruction, student initiated activity periods, and unstructured outdoor play into a half-day Kindergarten program. Yes, we do worksheets, but students understand their ideas are worthwhile, too. They have time every day to initiate and work on projects of their own liking, such as making their own books, block constructions, playhouse dramatics, and all else we supply in our Kindergarten classroom. NAEYC and other professional organizations seem to take politically correct points of view while ignoring the wisdom of DAP and long term research showing no positive effects for pushing down academics.
I recently attended the NYSAEYC Conference where Common Core was everywhere. I was sent to the Conference by my agency with the idea that I would get trained on the NYS Prekindergarten Foundation for Common Core and be able to train our local EC educators on the standards and implementation in their programs. The training that I took ws entitled, ” Learning Through Play and The NYS Common Core Standards”. There was one serious problem, the entire training had nothing to do with the free and spontaneous play that we know to be DAP. I was horrified! the training was presented by a UPK teacher and director. Their claims that their approach to be DAP were insane and I made sure to let them know in a respectful manner. After this onslaught of IN-appropriateness, I decided to come home and do my own research on the NY State Prekindergarten Foundation for the Common Core. For years, as a preschool teacher, I had to defend DAP to parents that were concerned my “play-based” curriculum and philosophy would not prepare their children for Kindergarten. I spent many years dissecting the children’s “play” and proving to parents (through documentation and portfolios) that the children were actually learning “academic concepts” within their play themes. And with my facilitation, that learning was constantly expanding. With this tactic in mind, I began to research the COmmon Core as it relates to Early Childhood. Could I now dissect these standards with a DAP lense? What I found is that for the most part, I think that it can be done. The problem lies with its proper implantation keeping DAP the goal and in the forefront. I have decided to take on this project and create a training for early educators that truly shows them how to follow the standards utilizing best practices. It is going to be quite the challenge in that it can only be understood by the most educated of the early childhood educators. Unfortunately, due to low wages and the mentality that we are “babysitting”, many EC professionals will not be at the professional level to get this very complicated document, never mind how it relates to DAP.
It is all very frustrating, but we must keep plowing ahead. Thank you Diane!! Keep fighting the fight. I know this early childhood professional and trainer will not allow the inappropriateness to push down to programs under my direction. It is now my job to empower teachers to PUSH UP DAP.
Dana,
I know you wrote this three years ago, but I am making an effort to create a document similar to what you have described due to the huge constraints that common core and our state have put on us as teachers. If you’d like to talk more or want help finding outlets to publish this work where it will be heard, I want to work with you!
Spell check and bad eyes do not go together. I meant “implementation, not implantation as it states above 😉 It should read…”The problem lies with its proper implementation keeping DAP the goal and in the forefront.”
HI, I am a mother of a current pre-kindergartener, age 4, here in Texas. I really should have researched both the school structure and curriculum, and then researched what is an actual developmentally appropriate learning environment for him. Since beginning last August, my son has been punished several times for disruptive behavior, which also includes such insidious incidents as “being silly,” not being able to sit for long periods of time doing WORKSHEETS, and wanting to play in different areas instead of being able to initiate his own activities. I have spoken with his teacher a few times about the “issues” that have occurred. I have also spoken with the vice principal and principal. Rather than acknowledge that the reason my son “acts up” is because he is not having enough physical activity- for instance a lot of the required PE is spent standing and playing games rather than burning off energy- all of these individuals claim that my son must fit into an academic environment with the rules that all of the older kids must follow. Most times when he gets in trouble is because he has excess energy, is bored, or cannot stay on task with worksheets and pencil and paper assignments. I find all of this incredibly developmentally inappropriate. I even told these “educators” that I am surprised more children aren’t behaving like he is! Practically the only thing that they agree with me on is that the expectations of these tiny people are because the expectations of older kids keep getting harder, and trickle down to the prek and kindergarten kids. We also agree that the problems arise from emphasis on standardized testing as well as implementation of such laws as No Child Left Behind. Aside from that small agreement we have, they are completely unwilling to acknowledge that having a developmentally inappropriate prek environment is not only pointless, as studies show that later it does not help academic success but DAPs actually do, but this kind of environment is actually harmful. I explained that my son may be one of the only ones acting out, but that does not mean that the other children doing their worksheets and sitting still over the span of 7 hours are not feeling the effects of the rule-ridden and non-child centered learning environment. I fear that it will only get worse. I can remove my son from the program and will do so this week. However, the most alarming part of this situation is that so-called “educators” have no problem giving in to developmentally inappropriate learning methods and overly academic educational models. I have very little faith in a school system in which those who are in charge of guiding our children’s learning experiences give in without a fight to pressure from others who have no clue what children need. It just shows how little our children’s best interests are considered when this state implements education policies.
I should have written “and wanting to play in different areas and be able to initiate his own activities.”
If my children were entering public school today, I would either keep them home and home school them or find an appropriate private setting for them. I work in a district that has embraced common core wholeheartedly and thrown children under the bus to keep those federal dollars coming in. The district has eliminated art in their kindergarten center (over the very vocal protests of the art teachers) and first-graders sit all day at their desks doing worksheets or using their iPads. Kids who can’t handle this are labeled “immature” and spend a lot of time in intervention. Teachers all agree this is wrong, but pressure to perform in order to keep their jobs means they don’t dare buck the boss. Everyone is stressed out, but no one in power seems to care.