Time to Talk of Early Childhood

Abstract

EVEN THOSE given to betting on long shots would not accept the odds facing thousands of kindergarten and primary school teachers these days. Before they complete the first lessons - and certainly before they give the first tests - these teachers know that they have signed up to perform the difficult juggling act of bringing all their young charges up to the same level, while sticking to the standards local definitions of accountability demand of them. It is sad to admit that the inequality allowed to exist in the richest nation in the world means that children enter kindergarten with backgrounds that differ widely in the preparation they provide for learning. These gaps are present on the first day of school, and, so far, most schools have not figured out how to close them. The recent report on mathematics achievement from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), for example, did find higher performance since the early 1990s in the fourth and eighth grades. But NAEP also found that, because skills had improved in all racial and income groups, the academic gap between disadvantaged and more advantaged students hadn't closed. Indeed, in some cases, it had even grown wider. The realities of a serious learning gap at the beginning of formal schooling, coupled with our failure to deal with it, might sour the whole school year for some readers. But something significant is on the verge of happening in public policy and understanding that could change the picture. We may be headed for an acceptance of universal preschool. Certainly, some of the framework exists already. Even Start, Head Start, early education services for the developmentally delayed, programs such as Parents as Partners, and a variety of state-funded initiatives make opportunities available to some families in an effort to compensate for what more affluent families can do for their children. When we also take into account the array of private early childhood programs, we can see that the pattern of early childhood education in the U.S. seems to be a patchwork of programs. It has never really been a system. Certainly, the problem of unequal access has plagued U.S. early childhood education, but, more important, there has been no public commitment to quality. The U.S. is one of the few industrialized nations that does not offer public support for universal preschool programs. This failure to give priority to the preparation of our youngest citizens means that we have no clear standards for the environments that best stimulate their learning. Moreover, we do not expect those to whom we entrust the care and education of young children to be extraordinarily well prepared, and we pay them accordingly. The lack of universal standards and the inadequate levels of investment are now on a collision course with the findings of research about what high-quality early childhood education can accomplish. And standards need not here mean conformity. A good Head Start program can do as much for young children as the most exclusive suburban Montessori school and still be very different. The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) represents all sorts of programs and providers, but for a long time it has supported certain standards for programs and for the preparation of caregivers and teachers. Federal policy is now moving cautiously toward changing this situation. President Bush has emphasized more attention to cognitive preparation in Head Start programs. Unfortunately, such moves fall far short of promoting quality throughout the early childhood experiences of those children who will fill the K-12 classrooms of the future. Without some means of improving teacher preparation and knowledge of child development, a move toward more academic instruction in the early years could restrict young children's capacities for deep learning, a skill they will need as they enter school. …