State leaders' perspectives on early childhood education: out of the mouths of experts.

"If I could wave a magic wand..." One policymaker used these words to preface his response when questioned about how he would want to change education practices for young children in his state. The phrase suggests not only a desire for change, but also an expectation that special, or miraculous, intercession would be required to achieve it. Perhaps this special assistance will take the form of legislative action to formally adopt the six national education goals set forth in America 2000. The first of these goals, that all children in America will start school ready to learn, focuses on the early childhood years. As policies are translated into practices, national leaders would benefit from listening to the advice of state professionals who have front-line experience in early childhood fields.

During 1992, directors of early childhood efforts in the education departments of all 50 states were asked to complete a survey on the early childhood efforts in their states. Representatives from every state responded, but not all the questions were answered on each survey. There seemed to be no job title in common to all states and, in a number of cases, the respondents reported multiple responsibilities (e.g., early childhood/special education director, curriculum consultant, special projects coordinator). The respondents' length of experience in their current roles varied greatly: from 7 months to 22 years. Most had served from 2 to 6 years. Analysis of the responses revealed some definite similarities in viewpoints across the nation--and some strongly expressed beliefs about future directions for early childhood programs.

The survey questions concentrated on four areas:

* What is the focus of early childhood education in your state?

* What changes have you seen during the time you have been in a leadership role?

* What kinds of information or efforts could assist you in your job?

* What policies would you implement if you were in command?

The Focus

Developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) has certainly become a part of the national vocabulary. Twenty leaders used this term to describe the focus of early childhood programs in their states: "We are seeing more movement toward DAP." Several others indicated a desire to move toward this focus: "Moving toward more child-centered models. The elementary grades will also change to emphasize more pragmatic approaches in the future."

While only six leaders actually noted that no state mandates for early childhood education programs exist, many others suggested this absence of uniform expectations. One respondent indicated that philosophies and practices vary not only among local districts, but also among teachers and within age groups. In at least one instance, philosophies seemed to be in conflict: "State level curriculum guides promote DAP; locals still primarily skill- and ability-focused." Another consultant alluded to efforts at the state level to influence district practices: "We are trying to move from a test-driven curriculum . . ."

Other foci were mentioned. Three respondents reported that their state programs focused on cognitive skills. Another noted that if an overall label were put on that state's programs, it would "probably |be~ academic." Another responded: "Test-driven curriculum." Leaders in two states are preparing curriculum frameworks to direct programs. In two other states, social skills development is the primary aim of their programs.

Changes in ECE Programs

Veteran consultants in state departments of education have mixed views about the changes they have witnessed since beginning their jobs. Some of those who have served more than 15 years mentioned several positives: more resources, reductions in class size, more funding for staff development, increased parental involvement, expanded awareness of developmentally appropriate practices. The leader who had served the longest, 22 years, credited national efforts for the more widespread use of developmentally appropriate practices. One consultant specifically credited the work of national professional organizations that focus on concerns related to children. On the other hand, some of the long-term education consultants have witnessed changes that they feel have not benefited children: "generic" teacher preparation, elimination of specialized certification, proliferation and misuse of standardized testing, narrow academic curricula.

The change noted most frequently by all responding consultants was increased parental involvement. Close seconds were more developmentally appropriate programs and more collaboration among the agencies that serve children. Individuals reported various other changes, including:

* growing commitment of public funding 

* tripling of pre-K programs

* more programs for at-risk and disabled children

* increased attention to the relationship of health and well-being to learning

* greater collaboration among the early childhood community in the state

* better quality early childhood programs

* more resources

* increase in the number of districts offering public kindergarten programs

* decrease in the number of districts offering readiness/transition programs

* more programs for 4-year-olds

* strengthening of standards for pre-K teachers to require training in early childhood education

* new technology and software

* more flexibility in programs allowed by the state board of education

* more pressure on young children "performing inappropriately."

One person simply commented, perhaps hopefully, "We are on the threshold," but did not offer elaboration or clarification.

Two comments by consultants were particularly disturbing. One noted that "the emphasis on national goal #1 |that all children should be ready to learn when they begin school~ has led to some highly inappropriate practices (i.e., entrance age/requirements, testing, inappropriate preschool curriculum)." Another shared the following: "I have just been laid off pending funding. The uncertainty from year to year is very difficult to deal with. I feel that the intent of new programs is always positive but I don't appreciate all the politics that go on that have nothing to do with serving children."

Assistance Requested

True to the philosophies of most early childhood educators, state policymakers in this area want to share. When asked what assistance they would like, a majority of respondents indicated that a mechanism to share information with other states, especially with regard to successful programs, would be very helpful. Some mentioned specific needs, such as information on:

* full-day kindergartens

* appropriate assessment techniques

* mixed-age grouping

* DAP programs

* nongraded, primary block programs

* impact studies and other research reports

* models of programs for 4-year-olds

* meaningful continuous assessment

* examples of innovative local collaboration.

For one leader, help in "knowing how to truly initiate DAP in public schools" is a pressing need. Another specifically asked for "longitudinal studies |that~ would help convince our legislators of the value and worth of early intervention programs." One consultant praised the efforts of national organizations to change policies and also suggested that regional meetings with interactive closed circuit TV would be beneficial. Similarly, one leader asked for a resource directory of contact persons and program descriptions from other states. Heartfelt pleas also included wishes for additional staff and for another specialist in early childhood education in the state. One leader's request was brief and direct: "Time!"

Consultants' Choices

State leaders of early childhood programs are eager to suggest ways to improve programs for young children. They offered an abundance of ideas in their survey responses. Probably the most notable element of the comments was their insistence that the early childhood period be considered as continuing through age 8.

Interestingly, the list of policies that the leaders would eliminate was brief. Topping the list was retention, followed by standardized testing. Also mentioned were gradedness, basals, tracking and transitional kindergarten.

The following eight areas of change were supported by at least two state consultants:

1) Implement developmentally appropriate programs for kindergarten through the 3rd grade. This was the wish of six leaders. One went on to recommend making "the necessary changes required in the upper grades."

2) Train teachers and administrators in K-3 settings to create child-centered, developmental environments. If this goal were combined with number one, this focus on developmental emphases would be a priority for at least one-fifth of the state consultants in early childhood education in the U.S.

3) Revise teacher certification to include an early childhood emphasis for all teachers of young children.

4) Implement policies to support comprehensive services for young children and families. The assistance desired included medical, mental health and social services as well as family support services such as parent education, crisis intervention, family counseling, housing, employment and adult literacy programs.

5) Develop a system to promote ongoing communication between agencies and schools. One leader suggested providing "seamless services" for children.

6) Reduce class sizes in early childhood classrooms.

7) Provide full-day kindergartens for 3- and 4-year-olds.

8) Ensure policy commitment to early childhood programs from birth to 8. The respondents suggested efforts to provide continuity of support to allow for program planning and evaluation of efforts.

Various other ideas were proposed. Some related to curricular and management issues (e.g., provide a curriculum that is integrated or thematic for all students, place ages 4 through 8 in early childhood pods, increase community and parental involvement). Other suggestions ranged from providing parent education programs to charging communities with creating solutions and deregulating the money going to them. One leader wanted to fund full-day kindergartens for all children in the state; one wanted to implement 4-year-old kindergartens; another would settle for providing high-quality public kindergartens that would be available to all 5 year olds. Money was an issue in many of the above suggestions, but was specifically mentioned by one consultant who supported legislation to fund quality early childhood programs; another just asked for funding that was not tied to categorical sources; and a third would provide higher salaries and status for early childhood professionals.

The Future

"By the year 2000, all children in America will start school ready to learn." With this mandate as the first of the six America 2000 goals, there is little doubt that changes in early childhood programs and practices will take place in the next seven years. Many questions should be asked about the directions these changes should take.

In a May 1993 speech, Education Secretary Richard W. Riley spoke of "the opportunities provided by Goals 2000, along with other reform efforts--such as the New American Schools Development Corporation design teams |and~ the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards" (Teacher Education Reports, June 3, 1992, p. 5). He went on to acknowledge, however, that in working for the enactment of legislation, "We're being pulled by the extremes . . . Some want one or two simple things in the bill--nothing comprehensive, some magic formula. Others want to load it down with a Christmas tree of things."

While there are no magic wands or magic formulas to create policies to guide the nation's work with young children, there are experts whose ideas and judgments should be valued. It is both appropriate and necessary that the opinions of early childhood professionals be the basis for decision-making.

References

Chester, D.T. (1992 June). Teacher Education Reports, p. 5.

Sandra Longfellow Robinson is Associate Professor, Department of Early Childhood Education, University of South Carolina, Columbia.