Policy-makers at the federal and state levels have increased their efforts to implement standards-based accountability reform in early childhood education (ECE) to improve the academic readiness of children for elementary school. As these policies have taken on more prominence within ECE reform, national organizations such as the National Association for the Education of Young Children and the National Association of Early Childhood Specialist in State Departments of Education and the National Institute for Early Education Research have produced guidelines and suggestions for formulating standards. Early childhood researchers have investigated and questioned the purpose, goals, and policy process of early learning standards. These works examine a range of issues such as capacity and capital, curriculum and assessment, and readiness and retention.
Focus of Study
In this article, I examine how early childhood stakeholders in the state of Wisconsin responded to the current Bush Administration's Good Start, Grow Smart (GSGS) initiative by creating a double-voiced document that answered requirements of the GSGS initiative while at the same time attempting to pique the interest and support of the state's loosely coupled field of ECE to a voluntary set of standards. Examining these stakeholders’ response highlights the tensions that exist in attempting to reform ECE and how simple policy solutions such as the GSGS initiative fail to address the complexity that exists within the field of ECE.
Research Design
This research project is a qualitative instrumental case study that examines the formulation and implementation of Wisconsin's Model Early Learning Standards.
Conclusions
Even though the Early Learning Standards Steering Committee created a double-voiced document that responded to policy-makers’ demands for early learning standards while attempting to attract and unite early childhood programs and practitioners around a collective understanding of the goals of ECE, the future of the field is uncertain. The second-class status of ECE in the realm of policy and the investment of capital that is required to alter the field cause one to question whether systemic reform could ever occur in ECE. Nevertheless, policy-makers’ demands for improved student performance will not die down simply because states are implementing early learning standards. Thus, the field of ECE is at a critical point within the history of education reform, and stakeholders must continue to promote a vision of ECE that goes beyond simply protecting current practices and demand structural changes that foster the growth and development of all children.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllingtonR. L., and McGill-FranzenA. (1992). Unintended effects of educational reform in New York. Educational Policy, 6, 397—414.
2.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association & National Council on Measurement in Education (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
3.
AppleM. W. (1986). Teachers and texts: A political economy of class and gender relations in education. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
4.
AppleM. W. (1990). Ideology and curriculum (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
5.
AppleM. W. (2000). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age. New York: Routledge.
6.
AppleM. W. (2001). Educating the “Right” way: Markets, standards, God, and inequity. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
7.
AppleM. W. (2003). Down from the balcony: Critically engaged in policy analysis in education. Educational Policy, 17, 280—287.
8.
ArchbaldD. A., and PorterA. C. (1990). A retrospective and analysis of roles of mandated testing in education reform. Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment.
9.
BakhtinM. M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.M. Bakhtin. (C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Eds.), (M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
10.
BakhtinM. M. (1983). Problems of Dostoevsky's poetics. (C. Emerson, Ed.), (C. Emerson, Trans.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
11.
BakhtinM. M. (1984). Rabelais and his world. (H. Iswolsky, Trans.). Bloomington, IN: University of Indiana Press.
12.
BakhtinM. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. In EmersonC., and HolquistM. (Eds.) (V. W. McGee, Trans.). University of Texas Press Slavic Series, no. 8. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
13.
BeattyB. (1995). Preschool education in America: The culture of young children from the colonial era to the present. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
14.
BerryM. F. (1993). The politics of parenthood: Child care, women's rights and the myth of the good mother. New York: Viking/Penguin.
15.
BodrovaE., PaynterD. E., and LeongD. J. (2001). Standards in the early childhood classroom: Measuring the progress of preschoolers and kindergartners toward achievement standards is a challenge that requires close attention to specific benchmarks. Principal, 80, 10—15.
16.
BowmanB. T., DonovanM. S., and BurnsM. S. (2000). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
17.
BredekampS. (Ed.) (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children birth through age 8. Washington, D.C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children.see p. 33
18.
BredekampS., and CoppleC. (Eds.) (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs. (Rev. ed.) Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. See p. 33
19.
BredekampS., and RosegrantT. (Eds.) (1995). Reaching potentials: Transforming early childhood curriculum and assessment. (Vol. 2.) Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.
20.
BredekampS., and ShepardL. A. (1989). How best to protect children from inappropriate school expectations, practices, and policies. Young Children, 44, 14—24.
21.
BurmanE. (1994). Deconstructing developmental psychology. New York: Routledge.
22.
BurtsD. C., HartC. H., CharlesworthR., FleegeP. O., MosleyJ., and ThomassonR. H. (1992). Observed activities and stress behaviors of children in_developmentally appropriate and inappropriate kindergarten classrooms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 297—318.
23.
CannellaG. S. (1997). Deconstructing early childhood education: Social justice and revolution. New York: Peter Lang.
24.
ClarkeJ., and NewmanJ. (1994). The managerial state: Power, politics, and ideology in the remaking of social welfare. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
25.
CohenA. J. (1996). A brief history of federal financing for childcare in the United States. Financing Child Care, 6, 26—40.
26.
CubanL. (1992). Why some reforms last: The case of the kindergarten. American Journal of Education, 100, 166—194.
27.
CubanL. (1998). How schools change reforms: Redefining reform success and failure. Teachers College Record, 99, 453—477.
28.
Early Learning Standards Steering Committee (2003). Wisconsin Model Early Learning Standards. Madison, WI: Department of Public Instruction.
29.
EdelmanM. (1985). The symbolic use of politics. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
30.
EdelmanM. (1988). Constructing the political spectacle. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
EllweinM. C. (1987). Standards of competence: A multi-site case study of school reform. UMI Dissertation Services. (UMI No. 8716249) Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest.
32.
EllweinM. C., and GlassG. V. (1989). Ending social promotion in Waterford: Appearances and reality. In ShepardL.S., and SmithM.L. (Eds.), Flunking grades: research and policies on retention (pp. 151—173). New York: Falmer Press.
33.
EmersonR. M., FretzR. I., and ShawL. L. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
34.
EriksonF. (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In and and WhittrockM. (Ed.), Handbook on research on teaching (pp. 119—161). Chicago: Macmillan.
35.
FleegeP. O., CharlesworthR., BurtsD. C., and HartC. H. (1992). Stress begins in kindergarten: A look at behavior during standardized testing. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 7, 20—25.
36.
GlesneC. (1999). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York: Longman.
37.
GordonS. P., and ReeseM. (1997). High stakes testing: Worth the price?Journal of School Leadership, 7, 345—368.
38.
GraueM. E., and WalshD. J. (1998). Studying children in context: Theories, methods, and ethics. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
39.
HaneyW. (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(41).
40.
HatchJ. A., and FreemanE. B. (1988a). Who's pushing whom? Stress and kindergarten. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 145—7.
41.
HatchJ. A., and FreemanE. B. (1988b). Kindergarten philosophies and practices: Perspectives of teachers, principals, and supervisors. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 3, 151—166.
42.
HartC. H., BurtsD. C., DurlandM. A., CharlesworthR., DeWolfM., and FleegeP. O. (1998). Stress behaviors and activity type participation of preschoolers in more and less developmentally appropriate classrooms: SES and sex differences. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 12, 176—96.
43.
HolquistM. (1990). Dialogism: Bakhtin and his world. New York: Routledge.
44.
JacobsonL. (2004). Pre-K standards said to slight social, emotional skills. Education Week, 23, 13.
45.
KaganS. L., and Scott-LittleC. (2004). Early learning standards: Changing the parlance and practice of early childhood education. Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 388—396.
46.
KarolyL. A., GreenwoodP. W., EveringhamS. S., HoubéJ., KilburnM. R., RydellC. P., SandersM., and ChiesaJ. (1998). Investing in our children: What we know and don't know about the costs and benefits of early childhood interventions. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
47.
KauerzK., and McMakenJ. (2004). No child left behind policy brief: Implications for the early learning field. Washington, DC: Education Commission of the States. Retrieved September 12, 2004. from http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/51/82/5182.pdf
48.
KendallJ. S. (2003). Setting standards in early childhood education. Educational Leadership, 60, 64—68.
49.
KesslerS. A., and SwadenerB. B. (1992). Reconceptualizing the early childhood dialogue: Beginning the dialogue. New York: Teachers College Press.
50.
Lay-DopyeraM., and DopyeraJ. (1990). The child centered curriculum. In and and SeefeldtC. (Ed.), Continuing issues in early childhood education (pp. 207—222). Columbus: Merrill Publishing.
51.
LipmanP. (2004). High stakes education: Inequality, globalization, and urban school reform. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
52.
LubeckS. (1998). Is DAP for everyone?Childhood Education, 283—292.
53.
LynchR. G. (2004). Exceptional returns: Economic, fiscal, and social benefits of investment in early childhood development. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
54.
McGill-FranzenA., and AllingtonR. L. (1993). Flunk'em or get them classified: The contamination of primary grade accountability data. Educational Researcher, 22, 19—22.
55.
McLaughlinM. W., and ShepardL. A. (1995). Improving education through standards-based reform. A report by the National Academy of Education Panel on Standards-Based Edcuation Reform. Stanford, CA: National Academy of Education.
56.
McNeilL. M. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge
57.
MeiselsS. J. (1987). Uses and abuses of developmental screening and school readiness testing. Young Children, 42, 4–6, 68—73.
58.
MeiselsS. J. (1989). High stakes testing in kindergarten. Educational Leadership, 46, 16—22.
59.
MeiselsS. J., and Atkins-BurnettS. (2004). The Head Start National Reporting System: A critique. Young Children, 59, 64—66.
60.
National Association for the Education of Young Children, & National Association of Early Childhood Specialist in State Departments of Education (2002). Early learning standards: Creating conditions for success. Retrieved March 20, 2004, from http://naecs.crc.uiuc.edu/position/creating_conditions.pdf
61.
National Association for the Education of Young Children, & National Association of Early Childhood Specialist in State Departments of Education (2003). Early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation–Building an effective, accountable system in programs for children birth through age 8. Retrieved March 20, 2004, from www.naeyc.org/resources/position_statements/pscape.pdf
PattonM. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
64.
PowersJ. (2003). An analysis of performance-based accountability: Factors shaping school performance in two urban school districts. Educational Policy, 17, 558—585.
65.
RameyC. T., DorvalB., and Baker-WardL. (1983). Group day care and socially disadvantaged families: Effects on the child and family. Advances in Early Education and Day Care, 3, 69—106.
66.
RaverC. C., and ZiglerE. F. (2004). Another step back? Assessing readiness in Head Start. Young Children, 59, 58—63.
67.
ReynoldsA. J., TempleJ. A, RobertsonD. L., and MannE. A. (2001). Long-term effects of an early childhood intervention on educational achievement and juvenile arrest: A 15 -year follow-up of low-income children in public schools. Retrieved February 10, 2004, from htttp://www.waisman.wisc.edu/cls/cbaexecsum4.html
68.
ReynoldsA. J., WangM. C., and WalbergH. J. (Eds.) (2003). Early childhood programs for a new century. Washington, DC: CWLA Press.
69.
RistR. C. (2000). Influencing the policy process with qualitative research. In DenzinN., and LincolnY. (Eds.) The Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 1001—1017). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
70.
RoderickM., NagaokaJ., BaconJ., and EastonJ. Q. (2000). Update: Ending social promotion. Passing, retention, and achievement trends among promoted and retained students, 1995–1999. Chicago, IL: Consortium on Chicago School Research.
71.
SchwartzB. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. New York: ECCO.
72.
SchweinhartL. J., and WeikartD. P. (1980). Young children grow up: The effects of the Perry Preschool Program on youths through age 15. Monographs of the High/Scope educational research foundation, 7. Ypsilanti, MI: High Scope Education Research Foundation.
73.
SchweinhartL. J. (1988). How important is child-initiated activity?Principal, 6—10.
74.
Scott-LittleC., KaganS. L., and FrelowV. S. (2003). Creating the conditions for success with early learning standards: Results from a national study of state-level standards for leaning prior to kindergarten. Early Childhood Research and Practice, 5. Retrieved March 12, 2004, from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v5n2/little.html
75.
ShepardL. A. (1994). The challenge of assessing young children appropriately. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 206—212.
76.
ShepardL., and SmithM. L. (1986). Synthesis of research on school readiness and kindergarten retention. Educational Leadership, 44, 78—86.
77.
ShepardL. A., KaganS. L., and WurtzE. (Eds.) (1998). Principles and recommendations for early childhood assessments. Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel.
78.
ShepardL. A., TaylorG. A., and KaganS. L. (1996). Trends in early childhood assessment policies and practices, ED450926. Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
79.
ShonkoffJ. P., and PhillipsD. A. (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
80.
ShoreR., BodrovaE., and LeongD. (2004). Child outcome standards in pre-K programs: What are standards; What is needed to make them work?Preschool Policy Matters Issue, 5. Retrieved September 3, 2004, from http://nieer.org/resources/policybriefs/5.pdf
81.
StakeR. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
82.
StakeR. E. (2000). Case studies. In DenzinN., and LincolnY. (Eds.) The Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 435—454). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
83.
SteinbergS., and KincheloeJ. (Eds.) (2004). Kinderculture: The corporate construction of childhood (2nd edition). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
84.
StoneD. (2002). Policy Paradox: The art of political decision making (Revised ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
85.
StrallybrassP., and WhiteA. (1986). The politics and poetics of transgression. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
86.
StraussL. S. (1996). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
United States Department of Health and Human Services (1990). Head Start: A child development program. Washington, DC: Administration of Children, Youth, and Families.
89.
VinovskisM. A. (1999). The road to Charlottesville: The 1989 education summit. Washington, DC: National Educational Goals Panel.
90.
WertschJ. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
91.
Westinghouse Learning Corporation (1969). The impact of Head Start: An evaluation of the effects of Head Start on children's cognition and affective development, ED036321. Washington, DC: Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information.
92.
WolcottH. F. (1994). Transforming qualitative data: Description, analysis, and interpretation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
93.
ZillN. (1999). Promoting educational equity and excellence in kindergarten. In PiantaR.C., and CoxM.J. (Eds.) The transition to kindergarten (pp. 67—105). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
