Response to Sally Lubeck's "Is Developmentally Appropriate Practice for Everyone?" (in this issue, p. 283)

This exchange of articles inspired me to reflect upon and search for the possible solutions to a major puzzle that surfaced as I pondered criticisms leveled at the developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) guidelines.

Although Sally Lubeck and I disagree on what provides the foundation for early childhood practice, we do seem to come up with actual practice exemplars that are similar, or at least not in conflict. It's as if we dive into a pool from different ends and yet surface at about the same spot. The first part of my response incorporates my view of Sally's basic ideas as presented in her first article. In the second part, I identify the sources of our differences.

Response to Sally's Critique

Throughout her article Sally articulates several criticisms of the developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) guidelines and their underlying premises (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997):

* A shared vision, consensus and conformity (DAP) vs. plurality and diversity

* Universals nationally developed (DAP) vs. diverse views locally developed

* Guidelines derived from empirical developmental and learning-based research (DAP) vs. locally devised approaches based on cultural and personal views.

I believe these criticisms derive from different views about the appropriate process for making decisions regarding the education of young children. These views cannot possibly be developed into a consensus, but can be discussed and mutually understood, if not agreed upon. This current exchange is helping me to see that we are viewing the world through different lenses.

The Question of Consensus

I believe strongly in operating by consensus. I also believe that basic beliefs do not have to be surrendered in order to reach a consensus. Consensus involves discussing different opinions and ideas, and then arriving at an approach that provides everyone involved with some degree of comfort. In the case of DAP, it means finding a starting point for decision-making. I see the DAP guidelines as a starting point for making decisions that recognize diversity, not as a means of squelching diversity. I do not perceive a tension between consensus and diversity as Sally does. Those of us who support the guidelines would be quite naive if we thought everyone was going to hold identical beliefs. I have no intention of forcing Sally to adopt my way of thinking. I only want to try to understand her beliefs, and to clarify points where I find her interpretation of DAP to be inaccurate. To sum up, I do not see the DAP document as being composed of contradictory elements. Rather, it shows that what may seem incompatible may not be so if defined from a developmental point of view (such as direct vs. indirect instruction).

Placing Blame

I agree that all DAP (and DIP - developmentally inappropriate practice) classrooms do not look the same. The NAEYC guidelines never said they should be identical. In fact, the organization promotes the opposite. I believe that the guidelines (which Sally referred to as "rules") are simply that, a place to start the discussion. I agree with Sally that teachers need to enter the classroom with some idea of what they need to do. I cannot perceive, however, how, under our current educational system, new teachers could have the opportunity to develop curriculum in concert with their students' families before the students enter the classroom. The rationale (not agreed upon by all) for requiring that teachers receive preservice education is the assumption that a body of knowledge exists that provides preservice teachers with an array of ideas for engaging students, collaborating with others, reflecting on practice and making decisions. Preservice teachers need opportunities to work with diverse populations and to work with families. It bothers me that Sally appears to blame DAP for organizational and attitudinal aspects of schools that "shut down conversation." I believe that DAP is designed to promote conversation. It does not shut it down. Within the DAP paradigm we try to solve problems such as those Sally mentioned in her article and we do it in collaboration with families and other stakeholders.

Adaptation

The goal of DAP is to provide children with opportunities to hone their natural adaptive skills, not to squelch them, as often happens in many education settings. It is also important for adults to adapt. Having gone through the modern education system, however, many adults find it difficult to adapt to the post-modern world. The information and technology explosion actually makes learning to adapt to change another "basic" of education. I believe from the description of Toulmin's ideas in Sally's article that she believes, as I do, that the ability to adapt is essential to coping with our ever-changing world. I present myself as an example. Although I am now, after numerous stops and starts, computer literate, the computer will always be just a wonderful tool that makes my work easier.

As we learn these new skills or ideas, however, we tend to build on our past skills and knowledge. Nevertheless, most adults of my generation (and even younger) do not adapt easily to new skills and ideas. Piaget believed that adaptation is a critical mode for learning. If children have an innate capacity to adapt, maybe adults just need to nurture their own capacity. I believe this can be done very well in developmentally appropriate settings.

Supposes

Next, I want to comment on Sally's list of "supposes" (see p. 285). I believe this list is important because it defines areas of practice where we agree almost 100 percent.

* Suppose the teacher education programs encouraged preservice teacher to interpret the guidelines and other canonical texts - I agree and I try to promote this approach.

* Encourage teacher collaboration - this is definitely one of the major guiding components of today's teacher education programs.

* Teachers visit other teachers - eyes, this works well if substitute money is available (yes, practical problems also must be addressed).

* Preservice teachers inducted into communities of practice - yes.

* Drop the term "training" - I couldn't agree more.

* Study practice rather than performance - if you mean study what teachers are doing and thinking, I agree.

* I'd like to know what "distributed" vs. individual knowledge is.

* How would you start a dialogue without some type of opinion? Some of us have believed in developmentally appropriate practice before it was written down and sanctioned. We did not need a consensus to figure out what was best for children.

* The analogy of an ant colony is interesting.

* I fully support the notion that researchers should work collaboratively with teachers, devising new instructional strategies in the very act of practice. Fortunately, teacher researcher and self study are becoming more accepted modes of research.

* Yes, we need to constantly expand our tool kits and storehouse of theories. For example, I started with Freud's psychoanalytic theory and A. R. Sears's social learning theory and have found value in most of the theories that have surfaced since.

* Which roles might blur?

* Yes, I believe in supportive supervision as well as evaluation.

* Yes, true collaboration should view each collaborator's ideas as worthy.

I agree that long-lasting change can only result from teacher, family and community collaboration.

Rules and Universals

My knowledge of child development is acquired from formal research and informal observations and interactions. I know that children construct their own rules and their own universals in order to organize vast amounts of sensory input. Children have their own way of defining time, for example, long before they understand the concept as adults do. At age 2 or 3, my daughter used the label "sleeps," rather than days, to denote past and future times, as in, "How many sleeps until . . . . ?" Her first conventional word, "car," was applied to bicycles, trucks, wagons, etc. Individuals seek out their own rules until they are provided with so many rules from outside that they give up creating for themselves. Young children seek out universals in order to understand their culture communicate clearly with other people. Although the categories, patterns and labels that they develop make sense to them, older peers and adults might be puzzled by them. I would call this a developmental "universal." I conclude that there are some general universals; the specifics, however, vary relative to our diverse beliefs, values and lifestyles.

I think this seeking universals or "rules" is common. I believe every society has some kind of universals that cover rules for daily living and expectations regarding children's behavior. I believe these grow out of a universal need to communicate, understand our communications and have some sort of order in society. The NAEYC guidelines are not intended to be a formula or a set of "rules." On the other hand, the accreditation guidelines are a set of rules in the sense that they define what NAEYC views as a first-class program. Following the accreditation standards, however, is optional.

I do agree with Sally that some classrooms tend to develop too many rules that do not include ownership by the students. I think some of this rule-making comes from pressures for accountability or from the necessity to demonstrate that the classroom is "under control." I also believe, however, that children seek out rules to clarify what is acceptable behavior. When I think of extremes in rule-making I am always reminded of Summerhill, the private school in England where the students were in charge of rule making. They used an entire wall to list specific rules governing every situation that might arise. As another example, when my daughter was in 2nd grade, I was one of the volunteer parents who helped with the class parties. The other helping parent and I came armed with refreshments, paper cups and napkins; we expected that the teacher would direct the activities. Much to our surprise, Mrs. J. turned the class over to us, explaining that she would be grading papers at her desk. Needless to say, we were totally unprepared and the result was total chaos. The second time we helped out for a class party I was better prepared. The first thing we did was list rules for party behavior on the board. The 2nd-graders had included plenty of rules. I have always treasured the following exchange, which culminated our rule-making activity:

Dr. C. (recognizing student with his hand raised): Yes, what rule would you add?

Student #1: No talking.

Dr. C.: Are you sure it's not okay to talk at parties?

Student #2: It's okay to talk, but no yelling. (Other students nod agreement.)

(Dr. C. acknowledges another hand.)

Student #3: That's enough rules. Let's have the party.

Developmental Milestones: To Be or Not To Be?

Sally expresses a dislike for applying developmental milestones. While developmental milestones can certainly be misused, it is important that early childhood educators (as well as parents and other caretakers) have some idea regarding what constitutes children's typical behavior and their developmental needs at different ages. Is it normal, for example, for infants to cry? Why do infants cry and what should you do when they cry? Should you ignore them? Should you try to find out what the problem is, cuddle them and sing to them, or maybe shake them until they stop? What about the toddler who is into everything or the 3-year-old who gets frustrated and cries when required to color within the lines? Should you spank them, or do you provide alternative activities? At what age is it good to begin reading to children? Before birth, during infancy, when they begin to speak? I believe that the way we respond to these situations can have long-term effects on children. That is why I believe adults need the best information educators can provide to guide them in their decision-making.

The "Traditional Approach"

This section addresses Sally's direct critique of the guidelines.

The need for written guidelines. Historically, early childhood educators have had difficulty articulating beliefs regarding their practices, or the rationales behind those beliefs. Thus, they needed something codified to help articulate their beliefs and guide their practice. Obviously, Sally disagrees that this need is important. From my view, however, it is necessary if we want to achieve some positive results with children. It may be true that the NAEYC guidelines are accepted as dogma by many people without any reflection on what they really mean or how they might fit a particular setting. Several times I have been in meetings where the guidelines were referred to as the "green bible." I have seen Sue Bredekamp wince and provide a disclaimer explaining that the guidelines are not intended as a fixed, rigid blueprint to follow. Rather, the guidelines are intended to support flexibility. In fact, NAEYC refuses to endorse a so-called complete curriculum, clearly stating that this is not possible. Curriculum should fit each specific setting, as well as the children and families in the setting.

Direct instruction. A common misconception exists that direct instruction is not DAP. In other words, active learning is placed in opposition to direct instruction. Bredekamp and Copple (1997) address this point:

"A second, more widely applicable purpose for the guidelines was to respond to a growing trend toward more formal, academic instruction of young children - a trend characterized by downward escalation of public school curriculum. (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997, p. v)"

The authors then indicate that the guidelines were developed because, at the time, "undue emphasis" was being placed on "rote learning and whole group instruction of narrowly defined academic skills at the expense of more active learning approaches . . ." (p. v). When my colleagues and I observed a variety of preschool, kindergarten and primary classrooms, we found that all the classrooms used whole group activities, as well as some type of direct instruction. Direct instruction might be done in a whole group, small group and / or individual context. What differed was the content and the degree to which the teacher promoted students' active engagement.

As an additional example, I want to briefly describe two 1st-grade teachers' contrasting approaches to language arts instruction. In one 1st grade I observed a series of whole class activities, which constituted about one hour of class time, and which focused on /ing/ endings. The activities varied: lecture, discussion, boardwork, but always with the teacher directing the lessons. In the other class, whole group direct instruction in language arts never lasted more than 15 minutes. It was followed by some type of writing assignment, such as writing a story to include as many words with /ing/ endings as possible. The teacher circulated around the room during the writing time, providing individual instruction, both directly and indirectly. I believe the first example is decontextualized and developmentally inappropriate; the second example, I view as contextualized and developmentally appropriate. I view both as examples of direct instruction.

The appropriate/inappropriate dichotomy. I realize the appropriate-inappropriate dichotomy is very controversial. I know that the NAEYC revision panel worked hard to find a more acceptable, and still effective, way to emphasize that some practices tend to support children's growth and development, and others are less effective and may even be harmful. In reality, as stated in my first article, there is more of a continuum than a dichotomy. This was obvious to me from the beginning, but I know that it is not clear to everyone. If practitioners can look at the examples and see where they fit, I believe that the examples can serve as a point for reflection on practice. The format seems particularly effective for teachers in disequilibriumm that is, teachers who feel dissatisfied with their practices without being able to pinpoint the problem.

Academic vs. developmentally appropriate. The comparison of "academic vs. developmentally appropriate" is not accurate. There are appropriate and inappropriate academics. Examples can be found in the guidelines and in the research referred to in my first article.

The usefulness of developmental theory and research. I disagree with the view that developmental and learning theory and research are not suitable foundations for guiding practice. It is true that there is a broad menu of theories, probably because different theorists, with different backgrounds and interests, focus on different areas of development and learning and/or the same areas viewed from different perspectives. No one overall theory of development or theory of learning emerges. When it comes to practical application, my modus operandi is to look at the problem to be solved and then select the practice that one or more theories and the available research appears to support (Charlesworth, 1996). What puzzles me is that when Sally brings up the example of a first-class program, she refers to Reggio Emilia, which is philosophically based on Piaget, Vygotsky and Dewey (Gandini, 1993).

The research on DAP does not tell all; it is just in its infancy. Many studies are being done and we keep learning more. As we do, we revise our beliefs and practices accordingly. I have seen a tremendous change in the developmental psychology field, as it becomes more politically active and respectful of a diversity of views, opinions and research paradigms. Early childhood researchers, however, did have to develop their own research journal in order to provide an equitable platform for these diverse research paradigms.

In Sally's section on dominant paradigms I found that the following items merited comment:

* The research paradigm has changed drastically. Qualitative methodology used in anthropology is more readily accepted and used. Teacher as researcher and self study are now also widely applied.

* I have already mentioned that child-centered DAP instruction is not an alternative to direct instruction, but rather defines DAP direct instruction.

* I agree that accountability goals have gotten out of hand, in terms of adding burdensome record-keeping activities to teachers' already busy schedules. I recently heard of a principal who requires that teachers give each child a grade every day and send it via E-mail to the parents!

* Certainly, so-called objective observation should be followed up with teacher interviews and conversations and teacher/researcher collaboration. Unfortunately, this is a time-consuming process that few researchers can pursue.

* Research results should not be overgeneralized. That is why we have many researchers in various part of the world looking at their teachers' and caretakers' specific beliefs and practices.

* Development psychology has not been the dominant influence on all early education practice, much to our frustration. Primary level teachers have had great difficulty in making inroads. I do believe it is possible, however, for teachers to not only facilitate children's development, but also be part of the community. The roles are not mutually exclusive.

In response to Sally's comments on paradigm shifts, I believe that qualitative and quantitative methodologies provide important information, and that they can be mutually informative. Bessie Davis (1994), for example, identified a kindergarten teacher who, by objective criteria, could be considered very developmentally appropriate. Bessie spent 5 1/2 months observing and participating in Melissa's classroom. She discussed with Melissa her feelings and beliefs regarding her everyday practices, decision-making and educational and personal history. Davis's study presents a rich and detailed picture of a teacher's life.

Teacher collaboration can be very productive. I recently met some kindergarten teachers who were working together on school reform. They presented some of the developmentally appropriate practices they had instituted over the past year. Their practices were by no means carbon copies of each other's, but they were all DAP. I can only agree with Sally that disagreement is healthy.

I agree that much ambiguity exists when it comes down to looking at a particular classroom or a school. The dilemmas listed are all important and in need of solutions: teaching children whose primary language is other than English; convincing parents, teachers and principals that play is valuable and essential; providing nurturing out-of-home environments for children, deciding how to deal with holidays. All come up in many contexts but that does not preclude providing teachers with a starting point for decision-making. Sharing what works in one community may provide some guidance for beginning the conversation in another one. DAP is designed to prepare children for a changing world - not to make them into robots through "concentration camp education" (Hale, 1991). Looking at Sally's concluding statements I agree with the problems she identifies. I just do not believe that DAP is causing the problems; I think DAP is designed to provide a basis for attacking the problems.

Yes, uncertainty is unsettling. We like to know what to expect next. I do agree, however, that it can open us up to reflecting on what we are doing and what we believe. The Bruner quote is wonderful, but would scare many people because they do not trust children enough to support them in risk-taking. Certainly, negotiation in good faith is a critical means of coming to terms with differences of opinion. First, however, I believe that it is important to understand each others' views. This conversation has shown me that Sally and I believe in much of the same practice, and that we search for solutions to the same problems. We differ regarding the need for specification of supportive beliefs and the starting point for change.

My Analysis of Our Differences

I believe the differences in our views stem from our starting points. Sally sets out from the sociocultural point; that is, from community and family, and their view of how children develop and how they should be educated. I start from the child as the center and look at the effects of sociocultural factors on child development and how children are nurtured and educated. Sally's view fits with a model proposed by Coil and a diverse group of child development scholars for the study of minority children (Coll et al., 1996). Coll et al. have developed a semi-linear model that starts with social position variables (race, social class, ethnicity and gender) as they affect racism and segregation, which affects promoting / inhibiting factors in the environment, which, in turn, affect a variety of cultural factors, child characteristics and family, all of which affects the child's development. My view starts with the child at the center surrounded and affected by all the above factors simultaneously. While this multitude of cultural / social / environmental factors is in constant flux, I believe some systematic elements transcend culture and define developmental pathways. Katz (1997) suggests that while child outcomes are culturally defined, they are constantly changing:

"It seems reasonable as well as practical to assume that the processes involved in development are not random; in which case, the must be in some sense systematic, even if the system is so complex that it is not - at least as yet - sufficiently knowable. (p. 2)"

Researchers keep discovering pieces of the system. It may never be a complete picture but there is enough to guide our practice in most areas.

Sally appears to believe that child development researchers have no cultural consciousness. I see, on the other hand, an increasing minority presence in the child development arena. Besides the Coil et al. group, Goodnow, Miller and Kessel (1995), Greenfield and Cocking (1994) and others (see Charlesworth, 1996) present a focus on culture and development.

As I tried to demonstrate in my first article, professionals from a variety of cultures in the United States do support DAP. On the other hand, within every cultural/racial/ethnic group, there are those who do not support DAP. Black Children Just Keep on Growing: Alternative Curriculum Models for Young Black Children (Coleman, 1977) is an excellent documentation of the variation in beliefs and practices regarding early education settings. The book describes a variety of black independent school models that were functioning in the 1970s. The major philosophy underlying these models was that the principles and curriculum reflected varying degrees and types of African American, as well as African, culture. Hyun and Marshall (1997) propose a teacher education model entitled DCAP (Developmentally and Culturally Appropriate Practice) designed to ensure that preservice teachers acquire a multiple/multiethnic perspective.

It is interesting that educators and child researchers in other countries are paying more and more attention to the NAEYC guidelines. Several years ago, for example, on a visit to the People's Republic of China, I was quite astounded to learn how many features of DAP were being adopted. I know that studies regarding teachers' beliefs and practices relative to DAP / DIP have been done or are being done in the People's Republic of China, Taiwan, Korea, Greece and Spain. Researchers have been examining early child care and education from a cross-national perspective, some using the DIP/DAP perspective and some using other perspectives. Examples of some of this international research include the work of Hoot, Parmar, Hujala-Huttunen, Cao & Chacon (1996), Tietze, Cryer, Bairrao, Palacios & Wetzel (1996), and Carlson (1997). A special issue of Early Education and Development, edited by Swadener and Bloch (1997), is also noteworthy. I do not expect that those looking at the beliefs and practices of the teachers in their respective countries are thinking that the guidelines should be adopted in their countries lock, stock and barrel. They just want to find out if the guidelines might fit the current thinking of their teachers, either in whole or in part.

I believe that the shared values referred to by NAEYC are truly those of the majority of the NAEYC membership and other professional organizations (see Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1995), and were arrived at through negotiation and collaboration. I believe that if we keep the conversation going, Sally and I will gain some understanding of each other's view of early childhood education and find that we share values.

References

Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs (rev. ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Bredekamp, S., & Rosegrant, T. (Eds.). (1995). Reaching potentials: Transforming early childhood curriculum and assessment (Vol. 2). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Carlson, H. L., assisted by Zvagina, O., & Sjolom, L. S. (1997). Early childhood education in societal context: Teachers in three countries speak out about early childhood education. Early Education and Development, 8(2), 169-186.

Charlesworth, R. (1996). Understanding child development (3rd ed.). Albany, NY: Delmar.

Coleman, M. W. (1977). Black children just keep on growing: Alternative curriculum models for young black children. Washington, DC: National Black Child Development Institute.

Coll, C. G., Lamberty, G., Jenkins, R., McAdoo, H. P., Crnic, K., Wasik, B. H., & Garcia, H. V. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67, 1891-1914.

Davis, B. L. (1994). An ethnographic study of a kindergarten teacher's beliefs and practices before and after mathematics inservice. Unpublished dissertation, Louisiana State University.

Gandini, L. (1993). Fundamentals of the Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education. Young Children, 49(1), 4-8.

Goodnow, J. J., Miller, P. J., & Kessel, F. (Eds.). (1995). Cultural practices as contexts for development. New Directions for Child Development, 67.

Greenfield, P.M., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (1994). Cross-cultural roots of minority child development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hale, J. (1991, March). Excellence in education for children in diverse cultures. Keynote address delivered at the annual meeting of the Southern Association on Children Under Six, Birmingham, AL.

Hoot, J. L., Parmar, R. S., Hujala-Huttunen, E., Cao, Q., & Chacon, A.M. (1996). Cross-national perspectives on developmentally appropriate practices for early childhood programs. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 10(2), 160-169.

Hyun, E., & Marshall, J. D. (1997). Theory of multiple/multiethnic perspective-taking ability for teachers' developmentally and culturally appropriate practice (DCAP). Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 11(2), 188-198.

Katz, L. G. (1997). Application of child development knowledge. ERIC/EECE Newsletter, 9(1), 1-2.

Stott, F., & Bowman, B. (1996). Child development knowledge: A slippery base for practice. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11(2), 169-184

Swadener, E. B., & Bloch, M. N. (Eds.). (1997). Children, families, and change: International perspectives. Early Education and Development [Special Issue], 8(3).

Tietze, W., Cryer, D., Bairrao, J., Palacios, J., & Wetzel, G. (1996). Comparisons of observed process quality in early child care and education programs in five countries. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 11, 447-475.