Proposal to Reform Early Childhood Education in California



Proposal to Reform Early Childhood Education in the United States

Randall T. Freeman

Doctoral Student

Early Childhood Education

Walden University

Kindergarten Teacher

National Board Certified Teacher

Early Childhood Generalist

Manuel L. Real Elementary School

Val Verde Unified School District

19150 Clark Street

Perris, CA 92570

951-940-8520

hmsbuzz@

Student: Randall T. Freeman

Faculty Mentor: Dr. Laura Lynn-Knight

Faculty Assessor: Dr. Daniel Salter

Walden University

2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction………………………………………..………………………….………….4

Early Childhood Education………...…………..………………………….……………..6

Early Childhood Curriculum..…………………..………………………………… …….7

Technology………..……………………..……………………….………………………9

Full-day Versus Half-day Kindergarten…………………….……..………………..…….9

Accountability……………………………………………….….……………………….10

Literacy Requirements of Early Childhood Education…….….……………….….....….13

Appropriate Developmental Practices…………………….….………………..………...15

The Proposal for Reforming Early Childhood Education….….…………….....….…….18

Preschool Reform Proposal…………………………….…….….…………...………….19

Summary of Preschool Reform Proposal…….…………….……………………...…….22

Kindergarten Reform Proposal…………………………………….…………...………23

Summary of Kindergarten Reform Proposal………………………….…………..…….27

First Grade Reform Proposal……………………………………………………….…..28

Summary of First Grade Reform Proposal………………………………………...…….30

Concluding Statement………………………………………………………...….………30

References…………………………………………………………………….……….…32

Introduction

Public education in America can trace its roots back as far as 1642 to the then-colony of Massachusetts (Butts, 1978, p. 3). Not until 1776 did the concept of a true public and free education for all children begin to distance itself from a religious requirement (p. 7). A century later, labor unions began lobbying for universal education for the working people (p. 170). This educational reform movement had its foundation in the agrarian form of society that then existed in the United States (p. 171). Truly, the wheels of genuine change in the public education system grind excruciatingly slow.

More than three centuries have passed since the beginnings of American public education. The federal government has expanded its role in public education, even adding a Cabinet-level post to the executive branch of government during President Ronald Reagan’s term in 1980 (Department of Education Organization Act, 1979, Public Law 96-88). The authorization and implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has cemented the new role of the federal government in our educational system. NCLB was created to provide a greater accountability system for results, greater local control, support for proven educational programs, and more choices for parents (U. S. Department of Education, 2004, p. 1).

The typical school year has remained relatively unchanged since the 1880’s (Butts, 1978, p. 171). A system that has remained static for over 150 may demand a fresh analysis of the effectiveness of its infrastructure. In the latter part of the nineteenth century, public education was configured around the agrarian nature of the southern United States (p. 171). The school year began after the heat of the summer, before the harvesting of the crops. The school year typically ended in May, allowing the children to participate in the chores on the farms and avoiding attending school during the heat of the southern summer. There were many absences due to family needs. When the crops required harvesting however, children assisted the family, rather than attending school and absences increased.

In 2007, very few children are required to participate in sowing and harvesting the crops in the fields (U.S. Census, 2005, American Community Survey). Yet, despite the evolution from an agrarian society to a technological society, the American public school system continues to utilize the schedule of late-summer/early fall to late-spring/early summer for a school year. Further, little effort has been made to study the effectiveness of maintaining a school calendar based upon family requirements that no longer exist in American society. Year-round school year scheduling has taken root in some areas but the school year still begins in either July or August and continues until the end of June.

American public education must catch up to the twenty-first century instead of remaining rooted in the long-past nineteenth century. The public education system as it currently exists may be irrelevant to the requirements of educating young people and preparing them to succeed in the world (U.S. Census, 2005, Economic Indicators). These early childhood education reform proposals suggest ways in which early childhood education and the later grades should evolve into a twenty-first century technology-driven system that serves the academic and social development needs of young children in a standards-based curricula system.

The following proposals to reform early childhood education in our public schools contain elements fundamental to providing young and very young children with the greatest possibility of success mastering the stringent standards of their grade level while adhering to appropriate developmental teaching practices. Additional elements contained within the reform proposals may be more general in nature in that these elements will directly relate to all grade levels. They are contained within this proposal because they directly impact early childhood education. These proposal elements are intended to spur the educational decision-makers to begin thinking in terms of twenty-first century requirements instead of nineteenth century requirements.

Early Childhood Education

Early childhood education encompasses educational programs that serve children from birth through eight years of age (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997, p. 2). Early childhood education programs are intended to promote children’s intellectual and social development, emotional and physical growth, language progress, and academic learning (p. 2). During these years, children experience tremendous growth in these areas or development. The greatest shift in these areas of development take place at age’s seven to eight, rather than around age five, as previously thought (p. 2). More children than ever before are participating in early childhood programs.

In California, kindergarten is not mandatory (Cal Ed Code, 2001, §48000 (a)). Due to the extensive utilization of year-round school scheduling in California public schools, many children who are closer to four and a half years old than a full five years old are subjected to subject requirements and standards for which they are not developmentally prepared to learn. Despite this oversight, children enrolled in kindergarten are subjected to stringent standards of academic achievement (Rothstein & Jacobsen, 2006, p.264).

Young children become phonetically aware at different ages and grades (Manning & Kato, 2006, p. 241). The importance of phonemic awareness for reading development is universally accepted by early childhood educators (p. 241). Requiring a young child who is not developmentally ready to learn the concepts included in phonemic awareness will create a negative consequence for the child’s future learning (p. 241). Virtually every research study that has been conducted on measuring the relationship between phonemic awareness and progress in reading development has discovered a positive connection among learning to read and write, phonemic awareness, and phonics (p. 241). Phonemic awareness and phonics knowledge develop simultaneously and gradually (p. 241). They cannot be artificially “jumpstarted.”

Children are not required to attend school (or participate in a qualified home-school situation) until they reach six years of age (Cal Ed Code, 2001, §48000 (a)). In California, children must reach the age of five years by December 2nd of the current calendar year in order to enroll in public school kindergarten. (Administrators do have the discretion to waive this requirement on an individual basis.) In a year-round school year system, a child who will not reach the age of five years until December 2nd may begin kindergarten as early as July 1st. A child may begin kindergarten as early as four years, six months. This child may be enrolled in the same class as a child who was held back in kindergarten or held out by the child’s parents for an additional year. (A child with a November birthday may be “red-shirted” by the parents, resulting in a child who turns six years of age before a classmate turns five years of age.) There may be as much as an 18-month developmental discrepancy for the kindergarten teacher to address in instruction. Add to this mix that many parents choose not to provide their children with any academic learning experiences prior to enrolling their children in kindergarten. There then becomes an even greater academic gap for the kindergarten teacher to attempt to close.

Early Childhood Curriculum

Children are eager to learn about their environment and the outside world (Neuman & Roskins, 2005, p. 28). Children want to be able to take what they already know and build upon it so that they are learning something new that is understandable and relevant to them. An example would be showing the children a pizza and cutting it into several smaller pieces. The children learn about larger and smaller in a manner that is of interest to them. Utilizing these types of appropriate developmental practices in the classroom, teachers are able to instill in their students a fascination with reading and writing and what they are able to do with them. Challenging and achievable goals are critical to the success of children learning what they need to learn (p. 28).

The age of a child plays an important role in establishing realistic expectations of what learning activities might be safe, interesting, relevant, challenging, and developmentally achievable for young children (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997, p. 16). Developmentally appropriate practices are individually appropriate (p. 16). Children are different, exhibiting different learning styles and timing of development (p. 16). The individual child must be considered when planning and implementing learning activities for the children. Planning for the individual child is the heart of differentiated instruction (p. 16).

In understanding and interpreting the world according to their previous life experiences, young children depend upon what is termed “naïve theory” (Yan, 2005, p. 145). Developmentally appropriate and valuable learning experiences will encourage and challenge children’s naïve theory in developmental educational activities. An example would be to provide a child with a set of colored beams and told that they could attempt balance them all. The teacher will sit with the child during attempts to balance the beams and pose questions such as, `How did you make it do that?' and, `What has happened now?' The naïve theory of young children is causal and coherent, allowing them to explain and predict events in the educational activities in which they are involved (p. 145).

            Teachers making use of children’s naïve theory will stimulate the children into evoking their theory by such methods as direct dialogue (p. 145). The teacher will pose questions either about the children’s work or a concrete situation or activity. These teaching strategies actively engage the children in discussing their naïve theory based upon the world with which they are familiar and understand. Children are fully and actively engaged in learning rather than simply participating in test-taking or test-preparation activities.

Technology

A dynamic change in teaching early childhood education is greatly needed (Cooper, 2006, p. 46). The technology-based society has altered the requirements of learning. Technology-based toys expose infants and toddlers to engaging and developmentally-appropriate learning experiences in many areas including general knowledge, music, art, and critical thinking (p.46). Current technology provides numerous opportunities for the children to engage in problem-solving activities with instantaneous feedback. The individualization of technology provides young children with the opportunity to learn at their own pace. Technology toys allow children to master concepts with no imposed time limit. Children work on the concept until they have mastered the concept, then they automatically proceed on to the next concept. Technology assists the teacher in providing differentiated instruction for students.

Full-day Versus Half-day Kindergarten

More than half of the kindergarten classes in the United States are now on a full-day schedule (Lee, Burkam, Ready, Honigman, & Meisels, 2006, p. 164). NCLB and standards-based education have taken over the early childhood curriculum. Full-day kindergarten appears to be a major factor in providing kindergarten teachers with sufficient time to teach what must be taught and is developmentally appropriate for young children. Full-day kindergarten will allow teachers to combine the “traditional” model of kindergarten – where young children learn primarily through play - with the more formal structured lessons model.

Other important factors favor implementing a full-day kindergarten program. Many families now have both parents working outside of the home. Over 60% of families with children less than six years of age have a mother working outside of the home (Lee, Burkam, Ready, Honigman, & Meisels, 2006, p. 167). These working families spend a large portion of their earned income on childcare for their young children. Providing a full-day kindergarten program will serve to provide these families with free childcare in addition to a quality education. There are federal and state monies already paying for some preschool programs. Relieving parental stress will result in smoother communication between the school and the home.

Full-day kindergarten provides teachers with more valuable opportunities to assess young children’s educational requirements and to implement differentiated instruction in the full-day classroom (Lee, Burkam, Ready, Honigman, & Meisels, 2006, p. 167). More time in the classroom allows for a greater number of small-group and pairs instruction with students. It provides greater opportunities for a more in-depth examination of the standards and the curriculum (p. 167). Teachers are able to develop closer relationships with the families of their students (p. 167). Full-day kindergarten will positively affect the academic and social development of young children who are enrolled in the full-day program (p. 168).

Accountability

A concentrated focus on curriculum, instruction, and testing or assessment exists without adequate support for development (Rothstein & Jacobsen, 2006, p. 270). NCLB is not cost-effective educating lower socioeconomic and marginalized students (p. 270). The lack of focus on educating lower SES and marginalized students leads to conflict and struggle rather than a cooperative effort to solve problems. Although problem-solving should be positive and constructive in nature, the conflict described herein is negative and destructive. Public school reforms must be grounded in sound theories of social and educational development. The reforms must successfully demonstrate that they actually work and will continue to do so in the future (p. 270).

The NCLB Act of 2001 requires all elementary schools receiving federal funding to be strictly and legally accountable for all enrolled students mastering academic standards in reading and mathematics by 2014 (Rothstein & Jacobsen, 2006, p.264). With the requirement that schools report and be held accountable for academic achievement in all significant subgroups, including ethnicity, race, and socioeconomic status, NCLB focuses the spotlight on those schools that fail and “leave children behind (p. 264).” Severe sanctions for “failure” create the result that reading and mathematics are taught in a prescriptive fashion that reduces or even eliminates teaching other relevant subjects such as social studies, science, and the arts (p. 266).

The students in each school are ranked in quintiles. In order to get the most "bang for their buck," schools target those students who can, with a little additional assistance, move from one quintile to the next quintile (Rothstein & Jacobsen, 2006, p.264). These students can positively impact a school's scores in the near future. Schools look good because they have raised their scores by abandoning those students at the high and low ends of the quintuples. By ignoring these students in favor of a few, they make the goal more difficult to achieve, per the mandate established by NCLB for 2014. By ignoring these students, they will never catch them. Ironically, they are the ones who have been "left behind."

Teaching the curriculum in an appropriate fashion requires balanced accountability (Rothstein & Jacobsen, 2006, p.270). Teaching only or a preponderance of reading and mathematics at the exclusion of the remaining subjects will not instill life-long learning in the children enrolled in public schools (p. 270). The high-stakes testing requirements have led school districts and school site administrators to direct teachers to do just that. NCLB is prompting many schools to cut back on subjects (e.g., social studies, music, and art) to make more time for reading and mathematics, which are the main subjects legally required to be tested. Seventy-one percent of public school districts are significantly reducing time spent on other subjects in elementary schools (p. 2). The subject most affected is social studies, while physical education is least affected. Sixty percent of public school districts are now requiring that teachers teach a specific amount of time for reading in elementary schools (Jennings & Rentner, 2006, p. 2).

Once the required times allotted for reading and mathematics are completed, little if any time remains to teach social studies, science, music, art, and physical education. In some circumstances, overzealous principals have even directed teachers to refrain from teaching art and music in their classrooms (Jennings & Rentner, 2006, p. 4). A failure to comply with the directive results in reprimands for the insubordinate teachers.

A balanced accountability system is necessary to properly allot sufficient time to teach all relevant subjects to all students. Proper methods of measuring student success must include analyses of student writing, student performances in the arts, etc. (Rothstein & Jacobsen, 2006, p.270). In order to provide sufficient time to these important subjects without reducing the current amount of instructional time allotted for reading and mathematics, the instructional day must be extended. The current school day lacks sufficient minutes to teach breadth and mastery of the grade-level curricula (p. 271).

The typical school year allocates roughly 180 days for student instruction. These 180 days are spread throughout the 365-day calendar, allowing for weekends, holidays, and local events. Despite the fact that school years are allocated by days, instructional time is calculated in minutes. Each school year requires a specific minimal number of total minutes (Cal Ed Code, 2001, §48111 (2)). How the required annual minutes are allocated over the course of the school year is determined the local school district administration.

Children are taking many more tests than they took prior to the implementation of standards-based education and NCLB (Jennings & Rentner, 2006, p. 2). Many estimates place testing and test preparation to take up 20% of the available instruction time (p. 2). An average of one day of every week is being spent on something other than actual instruction. This statistic is the same throughout the K-12 system (p. 2). Testing and assessments of individual students require an immense amount of time for the teacher and the students and significantly impact the quality of instruction in the classroom. Administrators are chanting to teachers that, “Assessment drives instruction.” Teachers are loudly responding that, “Assessment is replacing instruction.” The current instructional day lacks sufficient time for accomplishing all that requires being done.

NCLB is making a major impact on public education (Jennings & Rentner, 2006, p. 3). From preschool through high school, more testing is required of students and a greater accountability for teachers and students. A greater focus is being placed on what is being taught in public schools. A greater emphasis is being placed on how students are being taught and how teachers teach. Test scores are rising (p. 4). Questions remain as to whether test scores are the be-all do-all of education, if students benefit from the increased emphasis on tests over teaching subject matter.

Public education in the United States stands at a crossroads. At the advent of the twenty-first century, children are demonstrating that the achievement gap is growing and will continue to widen so long as the politicians and educators insist on maintaining the status quo. The promotion of proper social and educational development and learning must become the primary aims of education in America’s public schools (Loder, 2006, p.6). Educators must convince those in authority that maintaining the status quo in American public schools will inevitably result in all public schools being labeled as failures (p.6).

Literacy Requirements of Early Childhood Education

Americans' increasing awareness of the significance of literacy is reflected in economic, social, and educational factors. Despite this awareness, the level of reading skills among school-aged children has remained stagnant (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003, p. 3). The literacy requirements of American citizens are rooted historically in the premise that children who are successful in the early grades gain a strong foundation that helps them build literacy achievement that will carry them into their adult lives (p. 2). The continuing debate on the subject of determining the best instructional approaches to reading and literacy include the mental processes inherent in the reading process, the role of phonics and phonemic awareness in the curriculum, the best way to group children for reading instruction, the sequence of skill instruction, the extent that strategies and comprehension instruction should be emphasized, and the value of integrating reading and writing (p. 6).

Ensuring that students become fluent readers is one of the major goals of reading instruction (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003, p. 6). One reason for the importance of learning fluency is that fluent readers no longer have to systematically decode the preponderance of words they encounter in a text. The fluent reader learns to instantly recognize words both automatically and accurately (p. 6). A second, and equally important, reason is that fluent readers are able to read texts with expression. It is this combination of accuracy, automaticity, and expression that makes oral reading sound like spoken language (p. 6). Fluency plays a significant role of a reader's ability to construct meaning from text, which is the ultimate goal of reading instruction (p. 6).

The subject of literacy and fluency has begun to receive increasing amounts of consideration (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003, p. 6). It is being recognized that fluency has often been overlooked within the literacy curriculum. There are several reasons why fluency has failed to receive greater emphasis in terms of reading instruction to date. Among these are the prevalence of strategies designed for individual instruction, an assumption that increased amounts of decoding instruction would automatically lead to improved fluency, and reliance on round-robin reading as one of the primary approaches for oral reading instruction (p. 7). To become a fluent reader, children require a varied and comprehensive vocabulary, regular ongoing exposure to rich language, and oral reasoning skills (Abadiano & Turner, 2005, p.61). To develop into a fluent and skillful reader, children need a balanced curriculum (p. 62). Decoding is not fluency. Both decoding and fluency must be taught to provide the necessary balanced curriculum (p. 62).

Literacy-related play centers for young children to experiment with emergent writing, reading, and storytelling provide a solution for the increasing expectations of children to achieve literacy (Klenk, 2001, p. 151). Children identified literacy-related objects, learned about concepts of print, and assisted their peers in utilizing print to realize desired outcomes in play (p. 151). They learn to identify environmental print through their participation in the play centers (p. 151).

Play-based literacy centers offers provide a logical answer to the increasing expectations placed on young children for achievement in literacy (Klenk, 2001, p. 152). These centers are authentic and focused. Play-based literacy centers afford teachers a reliable context for student literacy assessment. Observations of children engaged in play-based learning are frequently more helpful than those conducted under stressful circumstances intended to document student learning, such as standardized tests (p. 152). As children play with storybooks, dramatizing the plots or orally role-playing a story, teachers can observe their comprehension and their use of storybook language. These observations can serve as constructive entries in a child's school portfolio, as they show authentic use of print and the development of new understandings over time (p. 152).

Appropriate Developmental Practices

            Young children need to be engaged in their learning through meaningful and relevant experiences (Neuman & Roskos, 2005, p. 24). Teachers must utilize multiple measures of assessment to properly monitor children’s literacy levels and experiences (p. 24). For children to become proficient readers, they need to build up a rich basis of literacy knowledge, master a broad vocabulary and relevant reasoning skills, and develop appropriate word-decoding skills (p.24).

            Children must be developmentally ready to learn. When lessons are taught that teach skills in isolation, the children often learn a lesson that is not what was intended by the teacher (Neuman & Roskos, 2005, p. 24). The teacher may be teaching a lesson with the intended objective of learning an alphabet letter and its sound but the children are learning something completely different (p. 24). Cutting and pasting an alphabet letter may be intended to expose the letter and its sound to the students but the students may believe that they are simply learning to cut and paste. When engaging in inappropriate developmental practices, these types of unintended consequences become fairly common.

            Reading achievement is about more than simply learning alphabet letters and their sounds. Reading achievement is also about learning to understand and construct meaning from what the child is reading (Neuman & Roskos, 2005, p. 25). Successful readers have learned to build upon their prior knowledge to extend their literacy learning. Building upon prior knowledge develops and improves the child’s higher order thinking skills and knowledge. Children are encouraged to learn how to question and evaluate what they are reading (p. 25).

Learning centers are a successful and generally established teaching strategy in early childhood classrooms (Wellhousen & Giles, 2005, p. 74). Learning centers encourage children to explore materials, interact with peers, and master new tasks. When the learning center materials and equipment are organized in ways that are accessible and meaningful to them, they engross themselves in focused play activities that properly promote learning across social and academic developmental domains.

One important learning center is block play. Play is the natural medium in which children express themselves and develop motor, cognitive, and social skills (Plotnick, 2004, p. 106). Through block play, children are introduced to vital concepts required for mastery of early literacy skills, including visual discrimination, employment of abstract symbols, and oral language construction (Wellhousen & Giles, 2005, p. 75). The block center also provides a context for reading and writing with a purpose, along with a tremendous opportunity to incorporate a wealth of stimulating literature (p. 75). Children naturally engage in oral language construction as they communicate with each other about their block constructions and related play. When teachers ask children about their block play, it stimulates oral discussion and enhances language development (p. 75).

NCLB requires greater accountability for teachers and students (Rothstein & Jacobsen, 2006, p.264). Greater accountability must include appropriate developmental practices that encourage children to become engaged in their learning (Neuman & Roskos, 2005, p. 24). Children must be developmentally ready to learn (p. 24). Ensuring that students become fluent readers must include determining the best instructional approaches to reading and literacy include the mental processes inherent in the reading process, the role of phonics and phonemic awareness in the curriculum, the best way to group children for reading instruction, the sequence of skill instruction, the extent that strategies and comprehension instruction should be emphasized, and the value of integrating reading and writing (Kuhn & Stahl, 2003, p. 6).

The Proposal for Reforming Early Childhood Education

Early childhood education plays a very important role in providing a solid foundation for a child’s academic success (Dale, 2005, p. 301). Preschool, kindergarten, and first grade establish the foundation for how a child will perform in school (p. 301). The following proposal to reform early childhood education will begin to build the foundation for future academic success.

The standards-based curriculum and NCLB have resulted in the compression of the curriculum down through the grade levels. The importance of high-stakes testing has resulted in less time being spent on subjects not required to be tested. This proposal directly addresses the ways that preschool, kindergarten, and first grade are taught. Other elementary grades would benefit from enacting those proposal elements which could be enacted in them.

Recommendation: Change the school year calendar.

In Australia, the school year coincides with the calendar year (Study in Australia, 2006, p. 1). Aligning the school year in this fashion would provide many scheduling benefits. Holidays which currently interrupt the middle of the school year would fall at the end of the school year. A January through December calendar would allow for a smoother transition for teachers and students.

In transitioning from the current school year schedule to the calendar year schedule, teachers could spend the intervening months concentrating on remediation and depth of material without sacrificing breadth of material. When selecting the calendar year schedule, the cutoff date for beginning students could be changed to January 1st instead of July 1st of the current year.

American public schools currently average about 180 days per school year (Cal Ed Code, 2001, §48111). In addition to increasing the number of minutes spent in school per day, the school year should also be increased to accommodate the stringent standards children are demanded to master. Taking various holidays spread throughout the year into account, a school year could and should be increased to 200 days – 40 weeks – in order to offer students a greater opportunity to master their grade level standards. Five scoring periods of eight weeks followed by two weeks of recess would provide such a schedule. The remaining two weeks would be spread throughout the year as the holidays.

Preschool Reform Proposal

Recommendation Number 1: Provide universal preschool for all children four years of age.

Recommendation Number 2: Preschool teachers must possess the same education, training, and credentials as K-12 teachers.

Recommendation Number 3: The preschool program must be administered through the K-12 school district, making the district a Pre-K-12 school district.

Preschool needs to become a universal public education program, providing a free and adequate education to all children, not just some children from a certain socioeconomic group. The K-12 public school system needs to become a Pre-K-12 system. Preschool teachers need to be highly qualified, with the same education and credentials as their K-12 colleagues. Preschool needs to become mandatory for four-year-olds, optional enrollment for three-year-olds. Enrollment ages are determined by a July 1st cut-off date for both three-and-four-year-old children.

The state legislature enacted the Kindergarten Readiness Pilot Program to better prepare children for success in school. The State of California Legislature agreed that the age of a child entering kindergarten is extremely important (Kindergarten Readiness Pilot Program, Cal Ed Code, 2001, §48005.10 (A)). According to the KRPP, older children are more sufficiently equipped to succeed in mastering the California content standards for kindergarten than those children even a few months younger.

Reading instruction in kindergarten must include all of the following subjects: phonemic awareness, phonics instruction, decoding and word-attack skills spelling and vocabulary instruction, and comprehension skills (Cal Ed Code, 2001, §44757 (b)). Teachers of kindergarten students must be certified as highly qualified in how reading skills are acquired, the effective integration of listening, speaking, reading, and writing, effective classroom and school wide interventions for low-performing readers, ways to promote extensive, self-selected independent reading, effective reading instruction for English language learners, and planning and delivery of appropriate reading instruction based on student assessment and evaluation (Cal Ed Code, 2001, §44757 (b)). The academic demands of kindergarten require that as much of the above subjects are taught in preschool as possible and as developmentally appropriate.

Recommendation Number 4: Make preschool mandatory.

Recommendation Number 5: Move the cut-off for enrolling in preschool from December 2nd to July 1st of the current calendar year.

According to the Kindergarten Readiness Pilot Program, academic and social success in school is related to access to preschool (Kindergarten Readiness Pilot Program, Cal Ed Code, 2001, §48005.10 (B)). Further, by providing young children the time to become more developmentally ready to learn will make certain that students become successful in school (Kindergarten Readiness Pilot Program, Cal Ed Code, 2001, §48005.10 (B)). Those children who attend a quality preschool program are better prepared to succeed academically and socially in kindergarten and beyond (Cal Ed Code, 2001, §48005.10 (D)).

Preschool is currently provided only on a limited basis to children who have attained their third birthday by December 2nd of the current calendar year (Cal Ed Code, 2001, §8236 (5)). Priority for enrollment is provided to children who are at least four years of age (Cal Ed Code, 2001, §8236 (2)). Children who are under the supervision of Child Protective Services and/or from limited-income families are served ahead of other children (Cal Ed Code, 2001, §8235 (c)). Funding is very limited and depends heavily upon federal Head Start funds. The majority of preschool-age children have no opportunity to attend a state preschool program.

Success in every school subject depends upon a student being a fluent reader (Walker, 2006, p. 30). Positive early reading experiences create and build upon the essential building blocks of literacy development (p. 30). The successful development of these building blocks creates a fluent reader. Due to the extreme variations in literacy learning experiences encountered by young children before they enter kindergarten, it is essential that children be introduced to significant amounts of story read-alouds and other developmentally appropriate practices (p. 30).

In the twenty-first century, technology is an integral part of learning (Weikle, Bobbie, Hadadian, & Azar, 2003, p.181). The positive effects of technology in preschool are immense and critical to student success in the classroom. Preschool students demonstrate more active waiting, a reduced amount of solitary play, more sharing, greater attention to communication and more positive affects, such as smiling and laughing, during small-group computer activities than they did when engaged in small-group activities not involving the computer (p.181). These behaviors are critical to play activities that facilitate cognitive and social development, and language skills, which result in greater preliteracy skills (p. 181).

Recommendation Number 6: The preschool day must be spread out between formal academic learning and social development.

Metacognition is “thinking about one’s own thinking (Lin, 2001, p. 24).” Research on metacognition emphasizes the importance of young children developing a balance of cognitive and social competence (p. 24). Student academic achievement is important to the overall development of a child (p. 24). Children must also be able to build friendships and to create an important role for themselves in the social community (p. 24). These children perform better in school and in society (p. 24).

In order to accommodate the current academic and socialization requirements of preschool, the following schedule template is proposed:

• 40 minutes Language Arts

• 10 minutes English Language Development (ELD)

• 30 minutes Mathematics

• 10 minutes Lunch

• 30 minutes Socialization Centers

• 10 minutes Social Studies/Science

• 10 minutes Physical Education/Recess

• 15 minutes Music/Art/Fine Arts

• 25 minutes Literacy Centers (includes floor puzzles, unifix cubes, etc.)

The total time spent at school each day is three hours. As the school year progresses, the amount of time spent in school is gradually increased, so that by the end of the preschool year, students are acclimated to the full school day. Until the preschool reaches the full day schedule, preschool teachers would be assigned to assist the kindergarten teachers for up to three hours per day. This arrangement is in line with the current schedule allowed for kindergarten teachers who teach less than a full day schedule (Cal Ed Code, 2001, §46118 (d)).

Summary of Preschool Reform Proposal

The successful reform of preschool must include five critical elements. These elements are: 1) provide preschool to all children who are at least four years of age; 2) making preschool mandatory; 3) moving the cut-off for enrolling in preschool from December 2nd to July 1st of the current calendar year (in the case of adopting a calendar year schedule, this date would become January 1st); 4) the preschool day must be spread out between formal academic learning and social development; 5) preschool teachers must possess the same education, training, and credentials as K-12 teachers; and 6) the preschool program must be administered through the K-12 school district, making the district a Pre-K-12 school district.

Kindergarten Reform Proposal

Recommendation Number 1: Move the cut-off for enrolling in kindergarten from December 2nd to July 1st of the current calendar year.

Kindergarten is provided to all students residing in the State of California who reach the age of five years by December 2nd of the current calendar year (Cal Ed Code, 2001, §48000(a)). Kindergarten is currently not mandatory in California. These two elements must be changed to provide a quality education for all students in California public schools. Due to this fact, the age for entering kindergarten must be moved up to July 1st of the current calendar year.

Recommendation Number 2: Make kindergarten mandatory.

Kindergarten must be made mandatory for all children residing in the State of California. Making kindergarten mandatory, as all grades above it are will provide school districts with the legal authority to enforce attendance laws and make these reluctant parents get their children to school on a regular basis. Children who do not attend kindergarten on a regular basis are missing out on the foundation of academic learning and will be more likely to fall behind in school and eventually drop out of school altogether (Dale, 2005, p. 302).

Recommendation Number 3: Kindergarten must become full-day kindergarten.

Kindergarten needs to grow from a traditional three-hour school day to a full school day, equal to the schedule enjoyed by grades 1 – 5. With a full-day schedule, teachers will be able to properly instruct kindergarten students in all subjects, including social studies, science, physical education, music, and the arts. Research consistently demonstrates that significant positive effects of full-day kindergarten for young children's cognitive and academic growth (Lee, Burkam, Ready, Honigman, & Meisels, 2006, p. 163).

Parents will be relieved from having to locate and pay for the proper licensed daycare for their young children. The majority of parents of young children must procure childcare for their children under six years old because both parents work outside the home (Heymann, Penrose, & Earle, 2006, p. 189). Parents of young children particularly parents from low-income families, must balance family finances and their children’s educational requirements (p. 189). Full-day kindergarten would serve to relieve these families of this balancing act.

A typical day in a kindergarten classroom currently consists of three to four hours of instruction. Within that timeframe, teachers are expected and required to teach a minimum of 90 minutes of language arts (Neuman & Roskos, 2005, p. 26). This language arts instruction includes (pre-)reading - phonemic awareness, phonics, narrative analysis of grade-level texts, etc. - and writing - using letters and phonetically spelled words to write about experiences, stories, people, objects, or events, penmanship, and demonstrating the alphabetic principle.

Mathematics is taught for 60 minutes per day. This mathematics instruction includes counting orally to 30, writing to 30, and recognizing numbers to 30; understand various aspects of measurement, to identify two- and three-dimensional shapes and objects; differentiating simple patterns (AB, ABC, AAB), and to being able to solve problems. These concepts frequently require more than the minimal allotted time because many students are not developmentally ready to learn them at the time of the initial instruction.

Teachers in California are required by law to teach English Language Development as a separate block of time each school day (California Education Code, CCR, Title 5, sections 11302[a] and [b]). According to policies adopted by most public school districts in California, this block of time must consist of a minimum of 30 minutes each day (California School Boards Association, 2003). This block of instruction must be specified on the daily schedule and the daily lessons plans as such.

Teachers supervise daily outdoor activities for approximately 15 minutes each day. These outdoor activities may be structured physical education or unstructured recess. Students are allotted 15-30 minutes for lunch or snacks. When testing students, the outdoor activities may be curtailed due to the lack of time available for supervising the students at physical education or recess. Inclement weather (rain or temperatures over 100 degrees Fahrenheit) force teachers to cancel outdoor activities of any kind.

The above time totals three to 3 hours, 15 minutes for required instruction and activities. Local school districts will typically require additional instruction for language arts and/or universal access for below basic students. Still to be taught are social studies, science, art, and music. Attending the school library and school-wide assemblies must also be fit into the schedule.

Nowhere in this schedule is time, support, or materials provided to the kindergarten program for including technology in the early childhood education classroom. Computer access and literacy are vital and essential for early childhood learners in the 21st century (Weikle, Bobbie, Hadadian, & Azar, 2003, p.181). Despite this, almost half of classrooms are equipped with only one of no computers (Judge, Puckett, & Bell, 2006, p. 52). Access to technology in the primary classroom is negatively affected by the location of computers, which are habitually placed in laboratories rather than in classrooms (p. 53). When scheduling time in computer labs, priority is given to older elementary students, leaving younger students with less time and access to incorporating vital technology in their learning (p. 53). Despite genuine gains in technology infrastructure in public schools, the current status of technology access is still instructionally insufficient for meaningful integration of technology with instruction in the early childhood education classroom (p. 54).

Recommendation Number 4: The kindergarten day must be spread out between formal academic learning and social development.

Socialization and Learning Centers provide an assortment of experiences that encourage children to explore materials, interact with peers, and achieve new tasks (Wellhousen & Giles, 2005, p.74). Blocks play an important role in children's understanding of mathematics. Through block play, young children are introduced to fundamental concepts required for success in literacy learning, including visual discrimination, use of abstract symbols, and oral language production. Expanding the kindergarten schedule to full-day will allow teachers to provide time for socialization and learning centers.

Young children employ oral language production as they communicate with each other and adults about their block constructions and related play (Wellhousen & Giles, 2005, p.74). Children employ higher quality oral language when they play with blocks (p.74). Children have greater freedom in the block center to improvise settings and roles, thus providing more opportunities for greater oral language production. By asking children appropriate questions, teachers can elicit longer descriptions with expanded vocabulary, thus leading to more sophisticated oral language production.

Student academic achievement is important to the overall development of a child (Lin, 2001, p. 24). Children must also be able to build friendships and to create an important role for themselves in the social community (p.24). These children perform better in school and in society (p.24).

In order to accommodate the current academic and socialization requirements of kindergarten, the following schedule template is proposed:

• 90 minutes Language Arts

• 30 minutes English Language Development (ELD)

• 60 minutes Mathematics

• 30 minutes Lunch

• 60 minutes Socialization Centers

• 30 minutes Social Studies/Science

• 30 minutes Physical Education/Recess

• 60 minutes Homework Help/Tutoring/Computer Time (Teacher Preparation Time)

• 30 minutes Music/Art/Fine Arts

• 60 minutes Literacy Centers (includes floor puzzles, unifix cubes, etc.)

The total time spent at school each day for all students is eight hours. All academic, technological, social, and developmental needs of the children are met at school under the direct supervision of a highly qualified teacher. Working parents are relieved from the oftentimes impossible task of assisting their children with homework because the homework is completed at school.

Summary of Kindergarten Reform Proposal

The successful reform of kindergarten must include four critical elements. These elements are: 1) making kindergarten mandatory; 2) moving the cut-off for enrolling in kindergarten from December 2nd to July 1st of the current calendar year (in the case of adopting a calendar year schedule, this date would become January 1st); 3) all kindergarten students must be enrolled in an all-day kindergarten program; and 4) the kindergarten day must be spread out between formal academic learning and social development. The time spent in school must be the same for kindergarten students as it is for all other elementary school students.

First Grade Reform Proposal

Beginning first grade students are expected to have been introduced to and practiced concepts which were not included in the kindergarten curriculum (Cooper, 2006, p. 52). Principal among these concepts are the “consonant-long vowel-consonant-silent e” words (e.g. “cake”, “bike”, et al). Kindergarten students spend the entire year learning letters (uppercase and lowercase) and sounds (long vowel sounds and the alternate sounds for “c” and “g” are omitted). Long vowel sounds are not taught in kindergarten, nor are words more complex than “consonant-vowel-consonant” (e.g. “cat”, “van”). Some common “consonant-long vowel-consonant-silent e” are taught as “sight words” but not why they sound the way they sound.

These “curriculum gaps” create a major problem for first grade teachers and students (Cooper, 2006, p. 54) First grade teachers are expected to teach the curriculum as detailed in the scope and sequence and the program purchased by their district. Because most concepts scaffold, the first grade teacher is faced with a “lose-lose proposition” of skimming over the missed concepts or spending critical time teaching those concepts. Skimming over the concepts creates a ripple effect of the students not understanding the required first grade concepts. Teaching the missed concepts in depth will result in the students learning those concepts at the expense of time critical to learning the other first grade concepts.

Recommendation Number 1: Eliminate retention as an intervention.

First grade is a critical component of the student’s academic career. In first grade students learn to go beyond the mere identification of letters and letter sounds. In first grade students learn to read with confidence rather than simply decoding certain simple words. A student who fails in first grade rarely makes up the ground that they have lost during the course of that year (Picklo & Christenson, 2005, p. 258). Students are retained and are expected to learn what they didn’t learn the first time by causing them to repeat the same learning they experienced the previous year (p. 258). The retention intervention assumes that the students simply weren’t listening the first time around (p. 258).

Retention doesn’t work (Picklo & Christenson, 2005, p. 258). Retaining a student provides very few, if any, positive results for those students who have been retained in school (p. 258). Numerous negative results exist for students who have been retained (p. 258). Among the negative results is the fact that the child who has been retained is now a year behind his/her peers in school. Academically, the student is retaught the same material in the same manner in which it was unsuccessfully taught to them the previous year (p. 258).

Recommendation Number 2: Split first grade into a two-year program.

Split first grade into a two-year program for all students. The first year of first grade would teach the concepts that were omitted from the kindergarten curriculum but expected to be mastered by the students. The current first grade curriculum would be divided between the first year of first grade and the second year of first grade. Retention would be eliminated as an intervention in the public school system. With the elimination of retention, all students would be the same age within the calendar year. All students would be at the same chronological developmental stage. Developmental disparity would cease to become a major issue for the average child.

Recommendation Number 3: Utilize the first year of first grade to close the curriculum gap.

The major advantages to splitting first grade into two separate years are academic in nature. The first year of first grade will allow those first grade teachers to teach the concepts that were not covered in depth in kindergarten. Because kindergarten is currently not mandatory, students could be entering first grade without any academic learning experiences. In these cases, the first year of first grade will serve to “bring these children up to speed.” The current curriculum gap will be eliminated, allowing the second year of first grade teachers to continue with the appropriate first grade curriculum.

Summary of First Grade Reform Proposal

The successful reform of first grade builds upon the educational reforms of preschool and kindergarten. Together with the preschool and kindergarten reforms, the reform of first grade creates a foundation upon which more students will build. Their overall success in meeting the mandates of NCLB to achieve grade level proficiency in reading and mathematics will be enhanced by incorporating these reforms into the public school system. The firs grade reform must include three critical elements. These elements are: 1) retention must be eliminated as an academic intervention; 2) first grade is to be split into a two-year program – first grade “A” and first grade “B”; and 3) the first grade “A” curriculum must address the “curriculum gap” that currently exists between kindergarten and first grade.

Concluding Statement

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 has made an indelible and long-lasting impact on education. The mandates of NCLB have resulted in the implementation of standards-based curricula statewide. High-stakes testing has caused the compression of the curriculum throughout the K-12 public school system. Language arts and mathematics instruction have increased dramatically in the typical school day. Focusing on these two subjects has had the opposite effect on the teaching of other subjects, such as social studies and science.

The current infrastructure of the American K-12 public school system has remained relatively unchanged for generations (Butts, 1978, p. 7). Politicians and educators have tinkered with various components of the curricula without making any concrete changes to the infrastructure itself (Cooper, 2006, p. 56). Educational “reforms” have been introduced, implemented, found wanting, and discarded for the past fifty years (p. 56). The educational “pendulum” swings back and forth between competing educational philosophies without any substantial improvements taking place. (p. 56).

The introduction of standards-based curricula and the authorization of NCLB have created an accountability system based on sanctions. The threat of losing local control of schools hangs over every administrator's and teacher’s head. Yet, no substantive changes have been made within the actual infrastructure of American public education. Changes must be made for the objectives and mandates of NCLB to be achieved.

The proposals for reforming the Pre-K through first grade components of education will bring about a dramatic change in public education. Dramatic problems require dramatic solutions. During the past five years, incredible pressures have been placed on states, school districts, principals, teachers, and students to increase standardized test scores. The mandate that all students will be at grade level by the year 2014 in reading and mathematics is the most incredible pressure and has had many unintended consequences, such as the almost complete disappearance of social studies and science instruction from many elementary classrooms.

Adoption of the above proposals may be accepted on an individual basis. Each reform proposal stands on its own merits. Adoption of any combination of the individual proposals will result in many positive changes in early childhood education instruction and student learning. Adoption of all three early childhood education proposals will provide the greatest positive changes in instruction and student learning.

The decisions by the policy makers will determine the ultimate success or failure of the current public school system. The willingness on the part of the policy makers to commit the necessary resources to the public school system will determine if the school system serves the students enrolled in the school system or “leave them behind.”

References

Abadiano, H. & Turner, J. (2005). Early literacy and developmentally appropriate practice: Closing the achievement gap. New England Reading Association Journal, 41(2), 60-66.

Bredekamp. S. & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood

programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Butts, R. (1978). Public education in the United States: From revolution to reform. Holt, Rinehardt, & Winston, New York.

California Education Code, §8236, §44757, & §48000-48118 (2001).

Cooper, P. (2006). The changing nature of the educational process. Educational Forum, 41(2), 47-58.

Dale, S., Jenkins, J., Mills, P., & Cole, K. (2005). Follow-up of children from academic and cognitive preschool curricula at 12 and 16. Exceptional Children, 71(3), 301-317.

Department of Education Organization Act (1979). Public law 96-88. Retrieved February 15, 2007, from .

Foote, M. (2007). Keeping accountability systems accountable. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(5), 359-364.

Heymann, S., Penrose, K., & Earle, A. (2006). Meeting children's needs: How does the United States measure up? Merrill - Palmer Quarterly, 52(2), 189-215.

Jennings, J. & Rentner, D. (2006). Ten big effects of the no child left behind act on public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 110-113.

Judge, S., Puckett, K., & Bell, S. (2006). Closing the digital divide: Update from the early childhood longitudinal study. The Journal of Educational Research, 100(1), 52-60, 64.

Klenk, L. (2001). Playing with literacy in preschool classrooms. Childhood Education, 77(3), 150-157.

Kuhn, M. (2004). Helping students become accurate, expressive readers: Fluency instruction for small groups. The Reading Teacher, 58(4), 338-344.

Lee, V., Burkam, D., Ready, D., Honigman, J., & Meisels, S. (2006). Full-day versus half-day kindergarten: In which program do children learn more? American Journal of Education, 112(2), 163-208.

Lin, X. (2001). Designing metacognitive activities. Washington: Educational Technology, Research and Development.  40(2), 23-41.

Loder, T. (2006). Why we can't leave public schools behind: The inseparable legacy of public education and american democracy. Educational Researcher, 35(5), 30-35.

Manning, M. & Kato, T. (2006). Phonemic awareness: A natural step toward reading and writing. Childhood Education, 82(4), 241-243.

Neuman, S. & Roskos, K. (2005). Whatever happened to developmentally appropriate practice in early literacy? YC Young Children, 60(4), 22-26.

Picklo, D. & Christenson, S. (2005). Alternatives to retention and social promotion: The availability of instructional options. Remedial and Special Education, 26(5), 258-268.

Plotnick, E. (2004). Educational technology in the primary grades. Educational Technology, Research and Development. 52(1), 116-130.

Rothstein, R. & Jacobsen, R. (2006). The goals of education. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(4), 264-272.

Study in Australia (2006). Retrieved January 22, 2007, from .

United States Census Bureau (2005). 2005 American community survey. Retrieved February 16, 2007, from .

United States Department of Education (2004). No child left behind act of 2001. Retrieved February 16, 2007, from .

Walker, D. (2006). Teaching for results: Strategies for improving student performance. Phi Delta Kappan, International, Inc., 88(3), 28-37.

Weikle, B., & Hadadian, A. (2003). Can assistive technology help us to not leave any child behind. Preventing School Failure, 47(4), 181-192.

Wellhousen, K. &  Giles, R. (2005). Building literacy opportunities into children's block play: What every teacher should know. Childhood Education, 82(2), 74-78.

Yan, C. (2005). Developing a kindergarten curriculum based on children’s ‘naïve theory’. International Journal of Early Years Education 13(2), 145-156.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download