This article appeared in Childhood Education, Spring 1995, volume 71 number 3, pp. 164-66. The article is one in a series called "Issues in Education," edited by Joan Moyer.
Childhood Education is published by the Association for Childhood Education International (ACEI), 11501 Georgia Avenue, Suite 315, Wheaton, MD 20902. This article is copyright 1995 by, and is reproduced here with permission of, the ACEI.
In the Fall 1993 "Issues in Education" column, Leigh O'Brien questioned the meaning of school readiness (National Education Goals Panel, 1991). O'Brien argued that instead of expecting the child to be ready for school, the schools should be ready to meet the needs of individual children. I would like to respond to O'Brien's thoughtful article.
Having observed a kindergarten program for at-risk children (Cooney, 1994), I have concluded that separate and unequal care and education for young children is not limited to the pre-public school years. Rather, I see the problem as an ideological issue affecting American society. One must study school culture in order to understand why hardly anyone complains about the deficit model of education, in which children and their families are blamed for having deficient skills upon school entry (Kendall, 1983; McLaren, 1989; Phillips, 1988; Quarthrup, 1990). I hope that by examining our educational practices from a cultural perspective, we can establish a dialogue about the kind of education program we want for our young children. The kindergarten population I studied in the Rocky Mountain Region included African Americans, Caucasians, Hispanics and Native Americans. Through interviews and participant observations, I discovered that the teacher, parents, specialists and principal all tended to reinforce white middle-class values, interests and concerns. Children identified as needing readiness skills in order to catch up were tracked into the full-day kindergarten program and considered at-risk for literacy, based on standardized test.
Why would school personnel fail to consider its population of learners before establishing curricula and assessment criteria? The answer lies in the school's philosophical roots. John Dewey (McLaren, 1989) differentiated between two purposes of education: education as a function of society and society as a function of education. In the former, the school system perpetuates the ideology, structure and myths of society, regardless of existing social inequalities (McCracken, 1993; McLaren, 1989). Despite enormous changes in demographics (Children's Defense Fund, 1994; Hodgkinson, 1993; Ogbu, 1987), white, middle-class values continue to dominate American institutions. Early childhood programs that uphold these values, including Head Start and full-day kindergarten programs, are characterized by "teacher-proofed" curriculum kits, a focus on mastering technical skills on micro objectives, and an emphasis on compliant learners (Brice-Heath, 1983; Kamii, Clark & Dominick, 1994; McLaren, 1989; wells, 1986).
Consider, for example, the children who qualified for the full-day kindergarten program by testing as at-risk for literacy skills. Although the children as a group seemed gifted in their drawing abilities, the literacy test focused on understanding print concepts. Their literacy strength lay outside the narrow confines of the assessment tool chosen by the district. Furthermore, the kindergarten program employed a curriculum kit called "Prevention of School Failure." The kindergarten teacher taught small groups of children specific skills and levels according to the kit's directions.
These practices reflect a distrust of children's ability to learn and the teacher's ability to teach. This attitude implies that the children and their teacher require outside guidance and control. Learning breaks down, however, when control over learning is taken away from the child, and decisions about what and how to teach are taken away from the teacher (Amspaugh, 1993). In such an environment, developmentally appropriate practices are difficult to implement (Bredekamp, 1986; Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1992). Children become discouraged, and react by engaging in aggressive behavior or giving up in some cases (Bandura, 1973; Cooney, 1994; Wassermann, 1990).
The curriculum also did not address children's social development needs. I noticed that many children lacked adequate social skills and frequently interrupted learning activities with inappropriate behavior. Because the children were expected to show growth in literacy skills, the teacher felt compelled to continue with the academic readiness lesson, rather than address the obvious social needs. The school culture often misinterpreted sustained misbehavior as a learning problem. Any behavioral problems must be handled according to the school district's mandated curriculum kit for developing social skills, "Positive Action." Teachers were expected to teach "Positive Action" three times a week for 10 minutes. Socialization into the middle-class social system becomes a critical first step toward learning in the public school setting. This approach contradicts what early childhood authorities consider the most important curriculum component—the children's antecedents (Kamii, Clark & Dominick, 1994; Kostelnik, Soderman & Whiren, 1993). As a result, the children's attention waned and their confidence suffered.
I have described two potential problems in schools that consciously or unconsciously reinforce middle-class school values regardless of their classroom populations. First, education is perceived as a function of society and therefore perpetuates the dominant white, middle-class culture. Second, school personnel may not recognize that children and families whose culture is not white and middle class must be taught the social skills for that culture in order to experience academic success within such a skewed education environment.
What would a kindergarten classroom look like in a school system that strives to practice democratic principles and sees its purpose as influencing, or even transforming, society? Curriculum kits would be replaced with teacher-facilitated curricula designed to maximize the children construction of knowledge from within (Hendrick, 1992; Kamii, Clark & Dominick, 1994). Teachers would emphasize process skills and basic concepts or macro objectives that focus on meaningful learning (Greenberg 1992; Katz & Chard, 1989, McLaren, 1989). Classrooms would celebrate children's diverse talents and provide ample opportunities for social interaction (McCracken, 1993; O'Neil, 1992; Shepard & Smith, 1988; Slavin, 1991). Consequently, children would be active, critical and respectful instead of compliant (Kamii, Clark & Dominick, 1994; Katz, 1989).
Early childhood educators have made much progress. Programs such as Head Start and full-day kindergarten signal government's and society's readiness to support education for our young children. Now it is time to move away from an unfair two-tiered system of education toward a more just and democratic from of schooling. Based on practitioners' recommendations, I would like to suggest several ways that teachers can press for cultural change within schools and society (Derman-Sparks & the A.B.C. Task Force, 1989; Phillips, 1988):
Amspaugh, L.B. (1993). Does anybody care? Phi Delta Kappan, 74(9), 714-717.
Bandura, A. (1973). A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1986). Developmentally appropriate practice. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Bredekamp, S., & Rosegrant, T. (1992). Reaching potentials: Appropriate curriculum and assessment for young children. (Volume 1). Washington DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Brice-Heath, S. (1983). Ways with words. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Children's defense fund. (1994). The state of America's children, 1994. Washington, DC: Author.
Cooney, M.H. (1994). The rules, roles, and rituals of play in a full day kindergarten program for at-risk children. Laramie, WY: University of Wyoming.
Derman-Sparks, L., & A.B.C. Task Force. (1989). Anti-bias curriculum: Tools for empowering young children. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
Greenberg, P. (1992). Why not academic preschool? (Part 2): Autocracy or democracy in the classroom? Young Children, 47(3), 54-64.
Hendrick, J. (1992). Where does it all begin? Teaching the principles of democracy in the early years. Young Children, 47(3), 51-53.
Hodgkinson, H. (1993). American education: The good, the bad, and the task. Phi Delta Kappan, 74(8), 619-623.
Kammi, C., Clark, F.B., Dominick, A. (1994). The six national goals: A road to disappointment. Kappan 75(9), 672-677.
Katz, L.G., & Chard, S.C. (1989). Engaging children's minds: The project approach, Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Kendall, F.E. (1983). Diversity in the classroom: A multicultural approach to the education of young children. New York: Teachers College Press.
Kostelnik, M.J., Soderman, A.K., & Whiren, A.P. (1993). Developmentally appropriate programs in early childhood education. New York: Merrill.
McCracken, J.B. (1993). Valuing diversity: The primary years. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
McLaren, P. (1989). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education. New York: Longman.
National Education goals Panel. (1991). America 2000: An Education Strategy. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
O'Brien, L.M. (1993). Is our two-tiered system of early care and education fair? Childhood Education, 70(1), 2-3.
Ogbu, J.U. (1987). Opportunity structure, cultural boundaries, and literacy, In J.A. Langer (Ed.), Language, literacy, and culture: Issues of society and schooling (pp.149-177). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
O'Neil, J. (1992). On tracking and individual difference: A conservation with Jeannie Oakes. Educational Leadership, 50(2), 18-21.
Phillips, C.B. (1988). Nurturing diversity for today's children and tomorrow's leaders. Young Children, 43(2), 42-47.
Quarthrup, J. (1990). A voice for children in statistical and social accounting: A plea for children's rights to be heard. In A. James & A. Prout (Eds.), Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood (pp. 78-99). New York: The Falmer Press.
Shepard, L.A., & Smith, M.L. (1988). Escalating academic demands in kindergarten: Counter-productive policies. Elementary School Journal, 89, 1350146.
Slavin, R.E. (1991). Chapter 1: A vision for the next quarter century. Phi Delta Kappan, 72(8), 586-592.
Wassermann, S. (1990). Serious players in the primary classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Wells, G. (1986). The meaning makers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
The purpose of this column is to stimulate debate of timely issues affecting children, youth and families. The opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the position of Childhood Education or the Association for childhood Education International. Readers are urged to respond by submitting manuscripts or letter to: Dr. Joan Moyer, CE Issues Editor, Curriculum and Instruction/Early Childhood, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1711.
Margaret H. Cooney is Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education, University of Wyoming, Laramie.
Permission to reproduce this column intact is not required. Copyright 1995 Association for Childhood Education International.
Return to the Virtual Library page.
Return to the ReadyWeb Home Page.