Turning my world upside down: how I learned to question developmentally appropriate practice.

When I began to write up my ethnographic case study of a rural, Appalachian Head Start program for my dissertation, I was quite certain that I, a well-informed and well-intentioned educator, was aware of my biases and would be able to consider them objectively. After all, I had taken courses in educational ethnography, I was conversant in critical theory and I had included a detailed statement of background, biases and knowledge in my dissertation that touched upon, among other things, my belief in developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) (Bredekamp, 1987). I thought I was sensitive to the lives and work situations of the three teachers who were the focus of my study, European-American women from the surrounding community. I soon found, however, that such was not the case.

My study was an extension of Sally Lubeck's seminal 1985 work, Sandbox Society: Education in Black and White America, which contrasted teachers' values as explicated through their classroom practice. Lubeck compared a white, middle-class preschool to a Head Start program with African American children and teachers. By analyzing four constructs (time, space, materials and activities, and teacher-child interactions), Lubeck found that white teachers preferred an individualistic orientation, while the African American teachers preferred a more group-oriented approach. Lubeck linked teacher preferences for differing classroom practices to the teachers' races and associated life experiences, as have others (e.g., Grant & Sleeter, 1985; Heath, 1983). Lubeck did not, however, independently consider social class. While my study used the same constructs as Lubeck's, all the teachers were European-American; and their socioeconomic status (SES) became the primary focus.

In the course of my study, I found that although the Head Start teachers professed a preference for a very individualistic, child-centered model the children's day was actually split almost exactly between informal, child-initiated, "developmentally appropriate" activities and more formal, teacher-directed group activities with a strong academic emphasis. In short, the program practices were not consistent with DAP.

I knew this split focus was not atypical; most early childhood education (ECE) programs cannot be considered to be completely in one "camp" or another. I did, however, find unusual the teachers' exclusive support of a developmental approach when asked to choose among preferred model classrooms (using Winetsky's Educational Activities Index, 1978) and during interviews.

Although all three teachers used the mandated High / Scope curriculum in a rather directive and thus "inappropriate" way (O'Brien, 1991), only "Sandy," an assistant teacher, voiced her concerns about the mandated curriculum model. Sandy's classroom practices were usually far more directive than the head teacher's. She believed that the program should focus more on helping the children learn the skills, knowledge and behaviors that would best suit the very structured, academic public schools they would soon be entering. When I asked Sandy what she thought the children should get from their time in the Head Start program, she said,

. . . that they're sociable, they can sit in a classroom. They're prepared for kindergarten: I think that's important, too. In fact, I think that's sometimes more important than what Head Start's philosophy is. Because I don't feel sometimes that we prepared the kids enough for kindergarten . . . [they need structure] so that they'll succeed in school.

She added, comparing her son to the children in Head Start,

. . . he went to a private nursery school - as opposed to somebody that comes to Head Start, "Jimmy" had more of an advantage. It was a more structured atmosphere. Sometimes this structure is needed. It was a much more stricter environment of a nursery school than what we have here and, in turn, he's an A student. That's the difference.

Sandy's words registered with me, but rather than acknowledge her expertise on her culture and community, I explained her preference as a product of personality and social class variations between her and the head teacher. During my dissertation defense, one committee member repeatedly suggested that I was critiquing the Head Start teachers' practices. Finally, I began to consider that perhaps I had overlooked the impact of the teachers' life experiences. I resisted such a notion, however, avowing my understanding of their situations and pointing out that I was only making clear the difference between their stated preferences and their practices.

Another committee member suggested, but unfortunately did not pursue, that the Head Start teachers' methods were, in all likelihood, appropriate practice for the children in that setting. We all noted the difficulty the teachers faced in trying to adhere to both the mandated "developmental" curriculum (High/Scope) and to their felt need to compensate for children's poor home environments and prepare them for public school, all in only two four-hour classroom days. But again, we did not follow up on this issue or question the situation's implications.

As I began presenting my findings, other comments forced me to reconsider DAP's universal applicability. My focus had been on the teachers' social class and what that meant for programming. I now started to question whether we could assume that all young children should attend the same kinds of programs, given widely disparate backgrounds. I remembered what Lisa Delpit (1986) had written with regard to unequal power relations in schools, and I began to hypothesize that perhaps her contentions about African American children and literacy (i.e., that both process and product ought to be addressed) applied to lower SES children and ECE as well. I found support for my emerging hypothesis from Delpit's ideas about what was, in effect, the exclusion of children outside the mainstream from school success by assuming they needed the same approach as European-American, middle-class children.

When I first started to seriously question my unstated assumptions about DAP's universal applicability, I was very uncomfortable with the notion that I was a part of a mainstream power base that decided what was best for all ECE practitioners. It may well be that, as Delpit claims, those with power are the least aware of it, and the least willing to acknowledge its existence. I did, however, follow her suggestions to target myself for study and "be vulnerable enough to allow my world to turn upside down" (Delpit, 1988, p. 297).

Having turned my world upside down, I have come to two related conclusions. My first, rather tentative, conclusion is that there may be no need to separate the "developmental" from the "academic." Instead, perhaps we can fuse the two approaches into a hybrid (Lubeck, 1989) while considering individual situations. We could strive for that middle ground advocated by Schickedanz, Chay, Gopin, Sheng, Song and Wild (1990), where we both "preserve childhood" and give children access to academic skills.

While we do not have to adopt the behavioristic DISTAR (Direct Instructional Systems for Teaching Arithmetic and Reading) model, a highly structured learning program that places great emphasis on repetition and reinforcement, some children will need exposure to content they do not receive at home if they are to have a chance for academic success. Furthermore, children need to focus on product as well as process because products are valued, and are based on necessary specific cultural codes. Economically disadvantaged children, like others outside the mainstream, need the "cultural capital" that allows access to power. We can bring early education to "where the children are," consider both cultural and community contexts, and move toward a model of practice that is more in line with dominant ECE approaches. That way, we can address both children's existing cultures and those with which they need to be familiar in order to be successful.

My second conclusion deals more directly with issues of power. I had "heard" Sally Lubeck when she talked about the African American Head Start teachers whom she studied; those women followed the mandated curriculum when they had to, but used their own culturally based practices when their administrator was not around. I had "heard" Shirley Brice Heath describe white, lower-class children's difficulty in adjusting to mainstream schooling because of their culturally different home learning. I had "heard" Lisa Delpit speak about the process-product dilemma and issues of access to power with which African American educators struggle. And I had "heard" Sandy, one of the Head Start teachers in my own study, question their programming in light of her experience with the children and schools in her community. I had "heard" all of these voices, but still I was not able to listen.

I did not want to acknowledge my own power. I could not give my complete attention to those diverse voices. I was not able to apply social reproduction theory to the gentle, well-meaning world of ECE. I had trouble seeing that although DAP's focus on independent, autonomous functioning might make sense for those already in power and who already know the (mainstream) codes, those without power may be more comfortable with a different kind of practice. I was not able to validate an orientation that conflicted with my (mainstream) values.

I now believe that early childhood educators must reassess issues pertaining to inclusion and exclusion, power and lack thereof, voices and silenced voices, those whose experiences are valued and those whose experiences are not, and diversity in practice. We must acknowledge that "it is impossible to create a model for the good teacher without taking issues of culture and community context into account" (Delpit, 1988, p. 291). We have to really listen to the voices of non-white, non-middle-class educators and stop trying to tell people that we know what is best for them. We have to not just say, but truly believe, that people are experts on their own lives.

We should also continue to raise questions about DAP - for example, whose knowledge and ways of knowing are represented by DAP? Whose interests are served by a curriculum based on such practice? And whose experiences are represented (O'Loughlin, 1991)? Is what is considered appropriate in one culture possibly inappropriate in another? Is it possible that our "developmentally appropriate" classrooms are not really appropriate for some children? These questions, and others, may help us reexamine what is taken for granted in ECE today.

References

Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Delpit, L. D. (1986). Skills and other dilemmas of a progressive Black educator. Harvard Educational Review, 56(4), 379-385.

Delpit, L. D. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children. Harvard Educational Review, 58(3), 280-298.

Grant, C. A., & Sleeter, C. E. (1985). Who determines teacher work: The teacher, the organization, or both? Teaching and Teacher Education, 1,209-220.

Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Lubeck, S. (1985). Sandbox society: Early education in black and white America - A comparative ethnography. Philadelphia: The Falmer Press.

Lubeck, S. (1989). Four-year-olds and public schooling? Framing the question. Theory into Practice, 28, 3-10.

O'Brien, L. M. (1991, February). Teacher values and classroom culture: Teaching and learning in a rural, White Head Start Program. A paper presented at the twelfth annual Ethnography in Education Research Forum, Philadelphia, PA.

O'Loughlin, M. (1991, October). Rethinking early childhood education: A sociocultural perspective. Paper presented at the Reconceptualizing Research in Early Childhood Education conference, Madison, WI.

Schickedanz, J. A., Chay, S., Gopin, P., Sheng, L. L., Song, S., & Wild, N. (1990). Preschoolers and academics: Some thoughts. Young Children, 46(1), 4-13.

Winetsky, C. S. (1978). Comparisons of the expectations of parents and teachers for the behaviors of preschool children. Child Development, 49, 1146-1154.

Leigh M. O'Brien is Assistant Professor, Education, and Director, Graduate ECE, Nazareth College of Rochester, Rochester, New York.