Abstract
Teachers today are faced with myriad expectations. Whether preparing children for school learning goals, state assessments, or building social skills, it seems that teachers are being asked to do more every year. Perhaps the most palpable effect of the standards movement has been the academic “trickle down,” whereby our youngest learners have been exposed to a more academic, teacher-directed curriculum in many of today’s kindergarten classrooms. The evidence is strong; kindergarten has become the new first grade. This article explores the apparent conflicts and tensions evident in many of today’s kindergarten classrooms. In addition, recommendations are made to preservice teachers and school administrators in response to the challenges teachers face today in the current educational climate and the supports needed to ensure developmentally appropriate teaching. In this qualitative study four conversant and experienced kindergarten teachers were investigated over the course of a school year as they lived within the context of a changing curriculum, increased demands, and new expectations. This study looked to capture the lives of teachers and their abilities to develop and integrate strategies that consider the developmental nature of children, challenges of classroom diversity, and the imposition of standards and mandates.
Introduction
The standards movement has crept its way into early childhood education by way of pre-packaged curricula and increased demands for student achievement (Russell, 2011; Wien, 1995, 2004). Kindergarten teachers, especially those positioned within public elementary schools, find themselves in a particularly challenging situation. Many of today’s elementary schools are driven by the standards movement and are constrained by accountability and conformity, thus giving in to a more overtly academic learning focus (Dyson and Genishi, 2005; Elkind, 1990, 2005; Genishi and Dyson, 2009; Paley, 2004; Wien, 2004). Kindergarten teachers must therefore reconcile their beliefs about how best to meet the needs of young children while fulfilling mandates in response to the pressures of the standards movement.
The current wave of educational reform seeks to introduce more rigorous standards throughout K-12 US public education and raise academic performance on achievement tests. Although kindergarten children are not state-mandated to be tested in curricular areas, kindergarten teachers are frequently pressured to better prepare their students for the upcoming tests. Oftentimes, these teachers feel constrained by such curricular mandates. Kindergarten teachers have come to be expected to introduce discrete literacy and math skills, typically taught in first grade. While teaching in a climate of pressure and accountability, early childhood teachers are caught in the crosswinds between developmentally appropriate teaching philosophy and policy mandates (Musser, 2006; Russell, 2011). It remains a constant challenge for these teachers to provide an engaging curriculum for a particular group of students without compromising their individual development, interests, and abilities within a social context for a particular group of students (Bredekamp and Copple, 2009). Therefore, teachers who embrace a more developmental approach are left to reconcile their beliefs about teaching young children with changing district and state mandates.
The purpose of this study was to explore the tensions that exist between the pressures teachers feel about accountability and what early childhood teachers have long known as Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP). The study was situated within a suburban (Long Island) New York school district undergoing a change in the kindergarten program, from partial to full-day. The decision to move to a full-day program served as the catalyst for bringing the issues of tensions and struggles to the surface. Consequently, with the decision to move to full-day also came the decision to adopt pre-packaged curricula. This study sought to document the tensions that exist between kindergarten teachers’ beliefs about teaching young children and the pressure on them to meet district and/or state curricular mandates. I have selected one particularly poignant teacher profile in this article which reveals, not only teachers’ resistance toward the imposed curriculum but also their lack of power over the many challenges taking place on the kindergarten level.
Methods
The purpose of this study was to explore the apparent tensions evident when teachers enact district and/or state curricular mandates while upholding personal beliefs about how best to teach young children. I was interested in how four kindergarten teachers lived with tensions and challenges on a daily basis; therefore, I chose to design a qualitative case study based on phenomenological in-depth interviews. As a result, I conducted three-stage, in-depth interviews with each participant and concluded the research study with a focus group interview. Throughout the interviewing process, I was able to hear and see how each teacher reflected upon and felt about the tensions and challenges of teaching kindergarten today. Essentially, the interviews provided a window into the experiences of the teachers and how they make meaning of those experiences.
The intention of this study was to look at how four kindergarten teachers negotiate tensions and consequently make meaning of their teaching program. As a qualitative researcher, I was interested in exploring “the meaning people make of their lives in very particular contexts” (Dyson and Genishi, 2005: 9). The
I learned that having a mix of kindergarten teachers provided interesting information about the change in program, tensions faced, and negotiations that take place on a daily basis. However, I also found that the more seasoned kindergarten teachers, those having at least 10 years of experience teaching kindergarten, were able to speak to the issue of change over time. These teachers were confident in their convictions about how best to teach young children. They spoke knowledgeably about the past and drew on years of experience, which informed their current decisions about what and how to teach. Working in the district for 10 years allowed teachers to have experienced changes in institutional as well as instructional practices over time. Subsequently, I invited four kindergarten teachers, who met these criteria, to participate in this study.
Data collection
The primary method of data collection for this study was three in-depth interviews. All interviews were semi-structured whereby the participants engaged in conversations without predetermined response categories. By structuring the interviews more informally, I was able to yield valuable information about the change in program, thus allowing the participant’s perspective to unfold as opposed to mine. As such, each individual interview was approximately 60 minutes in length and remained semi-structured with open-ended questions. Many of the interviews took place in the teachers’ classrooms, which allowed for informal observation and discussion about kindergarten practices. As developed by Seidman (1998), phenomenological inquiry comprises three in-depth interviews. The first interview focused on past experience; for this study, the teachers were asked to consider what their teaching lives were like prior to the move to full-day. The second interview focused on present experience; for this study, the teachers were asked to describe the current kindergarten model. The third interview was then joined with the first two narratives to describe the participant’s essential experience with the phenomenon (Marshall and Rossman, 1999). In addition to in-depth interviewing, I also conducted one focus group interview in order to “identify trends in the perceptions and opinions expressed” by the participant teachers (p. 114). I also reviewed any and all documents relating to this study. By gathering and analyzing district documents such as administrative reports, professional development materials, and classroom newsletters, I was able to better understand the values and beliefs of the participating school district as well as their teachers. Through individual interviews with each participant, I was able to hear and see how each teacher reflected upon and felt about the tensions and challenges of teaching kindergarten today. Essentially the interviews provided a window into the experiences of the teachers and how they made meaning of those experiences.
As early as my first meeting with any and/or all of the participants, I began to engage in the analytic process. All interviews were transcribed and saved electronically. Once I transformed the data into readable files, I started to look for salient themes, beliefs, and ideas. This initial process of coding the data involved categorizing and noting evident patterns within the data. Essentially, I began re-reading each transcript and coding when the teachers spoke at length about a particular subject. The codes helped to organize chunks of data into relevant themes and meanings as they related to the research questions. It was my intention to link teacher meanings in such a way as to create a general description of the experience—both the textual description (of what was experienced) as well as the structural description (of how it was experienced) (Bednall, 2006).
Essentially, two lists of categories were created during data analysis—individual teacher interviews and cross-interview commonalities. Working between these two lists, if you will, gave me a clearer picture of how each participant was experiencing the move to full-day, both as an individual teacher and as a member of a collegial team within a school district. I developed a list of broad themes, marking clusters of statements relevant to the central phenomenon of teaching kindergarten at the participating school district. The list of common themes or categories included pressures, curriculum, tensions, and negotiations. Individual participant remarks were placed under each category in order to see how each teacher spoke about each theme.
The broadness of the themes provided a framework for organizing information. Specific quotes were then chosen to illustrate teachers’ attitudes and feelings about the change in the kindergarten program. Although strong commonalities existed among the four teachers, nuances of distinct differences were also apparent. As I began to compile and review the data, profiles were then created on each participant teacher. Once all of the profiles were created, I was able to read through them and gain a better understanding of how each teacher was able to balance what seemed to be conflicting frameworks for teaching: engaging in DAPs while riding the “curriculum train” of pre-packaged programs (Wien, 2004). After completing the teacher profiles, the transcription from the focus group interview was also read through and highlighted for recurrent themes and later charted for teacher identification. Writing the profiles gave me an opportunity for further interpretation and analysis. Once the data were reviewed as a whole, I looked for commonalities among the participants’ experiences. This process brought to light patterns and relationships among the participants’ experiences as kindergarten teachers in the school district. While each teacher has her unique story, strong commonalities subsist across the aforementioned themes.
What follows is an excerpt from the case study meant to highlight the tensions and negotiations evident in many of today’s kindergarten classrooms. In addition, this study offers insights to other professional educators facing similar challenges.
Keely
I would like to share Keely’s profile, whose story illustrates the experience of what I have termed
Keely’s warm and sunny disposition welcomes you at first glance into her world of play, kindness, and inquisitive exploration. She is a teacher with over 20 years’ experience who has taught kindergarten through second grade and at the time of the study was teaching a kindergarten class of 19. Keely’s primary concern for her kindergarten children is “their happiness, well-being, and passion about being in a classroom and working together, exploring things, and reading and writing together, and being a part of a classroom community.” She continually uses the phrase “bringing them along in a beautiful way,” and conveys a sense of guardianship over the kindergarteners under her care.
During the first interview, Keely states, “I heard through the grapevine that kindergarten was undergoing so many changes and moving so fast … I wanted to get my foot back in the door.” When asked to explain what she meant by this statement, Keely responded by saying, “I felt a need to return to kindergarten teaching and try to preserve all the good work that had been done over the years … I wanted to make sure the children were still the priority.” Here Keely is referring to a time when she was teaching second grade and felt a need to return to kindergarten to ensure greater balance between the growing emphases on academics and DAPs. Keely, like the other participants in this study, continually talked about the uniqueness of teaching kindergarten and the extensive knowledge base a teacher needs in order to be a successful teacher. Keely takes her role as a kindergarten teacher seriously; she is able to articulate student needs and integrate curriculum so that all students feel “successful and joyful” in her room. When asked directly about how she deals with the pressure to meet the new district mandated learning expectations, Keely states, Depending on what building you’re in … you have greater chance of deviating from the scope and sequence … my resource guide is my class and I am always able to justify my decisions because of my observations and documentation.
Keely and the other participant teachers all spoke at length about pre-packaged curriculum sets in the content areas of literacy and mathematics, or “the boxes” as they call them. The teachers experienced a change in program, which included a more prescribed curricular approach for kindergarten. Keely speaks of the rising tension as the school district mandated new curricula programs with increased learning expectations, and says, These boxes were delivered … a stack of boxes delivered to our classrooms … it’s crazy … we got really upset because we got so many boxes which replaced all the good work we once did … They [the district] replaced the core curriculum with boxes.
Keely remembers a time when the kindergarten teachers were once a driving force in developing and implementing curriculum: “We were once such an integrated curriculum school, and now you [the district] deliver boxes to our rooms.” The curriculum boxes give the impression that standards and uniformity constitute the current model for instruction. When Keely mentions the “boxes,” she places her hands about 12 inches apart and acts as if she is holding one of them. I immediately get the impression she is burdened by the “boxes” and ask her if this is true: “Picture this, a stack of boxes appears in my room … our curriculum was replaced by boxes.”
Tensions and negotiations
Keely is one of many kindergarten teachers facing a prevailing dilemma. She is frustrated with the teaching constraints being placed upon her and fears her students have become an afterthought. She discloses, “I think there is a conversation going on … I hope they hear our cries … we’re talking about it [kindergarten teachers feeling overloaded] and how the children are breaking down.” The “it” she is referring to is the change in teaching approach. Previously, teachers had greater autonomy and flexibility within their classrooms. Since the implementation of pre-packaged curricular mandates, many of the teachers feel the focus is more academic and less child-centered.
All of the teachers spoke at length about striking a balance between the district’s pre-packaged curriculum and their own. In one interview, Keely rationalized, I think we’ve always had to braid the curriculum … layering what the district wants with what our students’ needs are, but lately I feel as if it’s braiding at the shipyard with heavy ropes … it could still be done but with a lot of work on our part.
The teachers seem open to working with the boxes but still remain cautious. Their comments revealed that they clearly value children as individuals and accept them for who they are, and where they are developmentally. Furthermore, they believe that the children should be empowered to take an active role in constructing their own learning and in order to foster this belief they design centers and classroom projects suited to the children’s interests and readiness levels. Thus, Keely does not subscribe to a uniform teaching approach. She sees her class as a dynamic life force with ebbs and flows as the days progress into weeks and months: “I sometimes think of the diversity of needs in my room and say out loud, we are five [years old] and we need to move … we need to be elastic.” Keely works hard to incorporate hands-on meaningful experiences that tap into a child’s curiosity. She is quick to showcase positive learning outcomes for her kindergarteners and reasons, “look at this great work they are doing … this doesn’t come out of a box.” Keely has high standards for her students, perhaps relatable to those of the district but certainly more expansive. According to Keely, the boxes represent nothing more than material to be covered; she states, “We can juggle the boxes and still do what we need to do well.” She feels she is the decision maker in her classroom and has the ability to integrate the curriculum to fit the needs of her students. Keely’s confidence in her practice allows her to break free of the boxes and weave in what she calls best practices: “I think the district appreciates good teaching and values the choices I make in my room.” Although Keely acknowledges that she adheres to the expectations placed upon her by the district and state curricular mandates, she views them as a resource guide, at times perhaps steering her instruction but not leading it.
Discussion
The teaching dilemma
Teachers have always been faced with balancing the demands of district mandates while meeting the individual needs of their students. In many of today’s kindergarten classrooms, teachers, like Keely, are expected to have all students engaged in learning and performing readiness tasks in literacy and mathematical reasoning (Bassok and Rorem, 2014; Bassok et al., 2016; Graue, 2009). As a result, teachers are grappling with the challenges of how best to educate the children in their classrooms while meeting specific state and district curricular as well as assessment mandates. Consequently, tensions exist between the pressures teachers feel about accountability and what early childhood teachers have long seen as DAP.
The participant teachers in this study were struggling to live within the often-conflicting demands of their school district’s kindergarten program. These teachers strive to embrace DAP while adhering to specific curricular mandates that tend to require a more teacher-directed approach. In each teacher’s classroom, learning centers were well established, and student work demonstrated individual choice and interest. On the other hand, the teachers all implemented scripted literacy and math programs, requiring students to be seated for long periods of time and evaluated across uniform benchmarks. While analyzing the participant responses, it became clear that the teachers were not just reacting to being pulled in contradictory frameworks for teaching but rather questioning the ways in which “standards” and “accountability” had been driving them as professionals.
Since many of today’s kindergarten teachers are required to enact pre-packaged curricula, necessitating a more teacher-directed systematized approach, a dilemma arises (Wien, 2004). This type of linear, standardized methodology clashes with the notion of teacher choice and DAPs. Oftentimes, these pre-packaged programs are content area–specific in mathematics and literacy, with teacher guidelines and student benchmarks to follow. As a result, teachers feel restricted in their teaching approach. According to the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) (2008), kindergarten program goals and expectations should strive to meet DAPs in order to provide high-quality experiences for all children. The accountability pressures have influenced the focus of curriculum in kindergarten to such an extent that it remains difficult to distinguish between curriculum and methodology in classrooms for young children and those of later elementary grades (Bredekamp and Copple, 2009; Hatch, 2002, 2005). This being said, teachers are feeling the pressures from both ends—enacting specific curriculum mandates while maintaining a DAP approach to early learning (Goldstein, 2007a, 2007b). Teachers are consumed by moment-to-moment interactions (Bredekamp and Copple, 2009). Whether advancing to the next big idea in a unit of study or recommending a child stay in at recess, it is the teacher who is faced with the daily goings-on of classroom life. It is the teacher who knows the very essence of that classroom culture and consequently the teacher who is faced with a myriad of decisions to make.
Thorns
The struggle teachers confront, between meeting the needs of their students, on the one hand, while adhering to curricular mandates on the other, is not unique to Keely, but rather pervasive across the nation (Bassok and Rorem, 2014; Berliner and Nichols, 2007). The teachers in this study considered themselves professionals, skilled in the art of teaching young children. Their roles have been altered now to be technicians, simply delivering the curriculum to their students in a linear, lockstep approach. In essence, the teachers are being asked to divide themselves; in the morning they followed the prescribed program, and in the afternoon they embraced their freedom and guided students through centers. The teachers all felt a lack of trust from their school district administrators and held them responsible for narrowing the curriculum by adopting scripted programs. As a result, the teachers felt devalued and at odds with their school district. The move to full-day has altered both the time children spend in school but also how teachers take up the curriculum. Since the implementation of pre-packaged curricular mandates, many of the teachers felt the focus became more academic and less child-centered. Keely spoke about how she led a group of kindergarten colleagues in a series of open meetings with the building principal and central office administrators to try to communicate the tensions the kindergarten teachers were feeling and revealed the following: I don’t think the district hears our struggles in terms of like the many, many parts of our day … there’s more to it than just the academics—social/emotional, cooperative, dynamic, playful, creative class of individuals is what we’re about … so many little parts of our day are missed … we’re so much more than the academics.
Keely discussed the dilemma kindergarten teachers find themselves in today by trying to implement DAPs: “It takes a really creative and knowledgeable teacher to make it all work.” Keely went on to sing the praises of her kindergarten colleagues and validated their hard work by saying, I don’t think anyone really understands the work that a kindergarten teacher does, unless you’ve done it … it’s the most challenging job I know … in fact I think that everyone should teach kindergarten because it will make you a better teacher.
These emotions obviously have broad implications for the teachers. Indeed, their very existence shines a revealing light on the process of de-professionalization of teachers within the field of early education (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 2007). The teachers in this study viewed themselves as “unique” and “different” from their elementary colleagues. They experienced the curricular mandates as hardships for the kindergarten program and without merit. Fundamentally, the expertise of the kindergarten teachers was not solicited. This study uncovered how teachers were coping with this challenge and what resolutions, if any, were made.
The imposition of standards coupled with unsupportive administrators has diminished teachers’ decision-making power (Wein, 2004). Therefore, as greater numbers of teachers are faced with imposing state standards and district mandates, there must also be increased opportunity for teachers to voice concern and interest in response to such changes. As Bredekamp and Copple (2009) suggest, It is the teacher who is in the classroom every day with children … it is the teacher who is in the best position to know the particular children in that classroom—their interests and experiences, what they excel in and what they struggle with, what they are eager and ready to learn. (p. 5)
If effective, successful teaching is what we want for all children, then we must understand that it begins with practiced decision making.
Recommendations
The data revealed through a series of in-depth qualitative interviews have implications for teaching, research, and teacher education. The following section offers practical recommendations in the areas of early childhood teaching approaches, administrative support, and teacher education. These suggestions relate to understanding and supporting the needs of kindergarten teachers as they balance DAPs with mandated academic learning goals. Today’s kindergarten classroom is an intense environment where teacher-directed instruction has begun to overshadow the need for child-centered learning activities based on imagination, creativity, and socialization (Gullo and Hughes, 2011; Jeyes, 2006; Miller and Almon, 2009).
Teaching approaches
As Wien (2004) suggests in her study of eight early childhood teachers, the challenges these teachers face are systemic, not individual. Clearly, there is a mismatch between best practices in early childhood education and practices that are actually being implemented in the kindergarten classroom. Teachers need support in designing developmentally appropriate learning activities while still meeting their state and district standards or requirements. Bredekamp and Copple (2009) recommend that teachers adopt a “both/and” approach to their classroom practice, recognizing that DAPs can have a blend of approaches depending on the situation. The teachers in this study, who are making an effort to continue on this path, still need further support. In order for teachers to be able to operate in this vein, they must have support from their district administrators and local school boards. What teachers need more than ever is the time to collaborate with their colleagues to meet the challenges of implementing standards-based curricula in an effective and developmentally appropriate way. As education reform efforts in the United States continue to influence classroom practices, teachers need to have adequate resources, materials, and necessary support in order to make sensible instructional decisions.
As the teachers in this study mediated the translation of district mandates, they soon realized their voices were no longer being heard. All of the teachers spoke directly to this point and felt undervalued as professionals when the district mandated pre-packaged curricular programs. Each of the teachers in this study had a longstanding history with the district, which led them to feel a great deal of ownership over the kindergarten program. Previous to the change in program, these teachers had participated in district professional learning communities, whereby they contributed opinions and added to discussion about a variety of educational issues. All have invested their professional lives into understanding how best to teach young children. As such, they identify themselves as “protectors, nurturers, and mothers” to the children they assume care for each year as classroom teachers. This being said, these teachers also find themselves in conflict. They struggle to find their voices in the current situation, which curbs their intentions, and cuts into their very identities. Districts and schools alike would be smart indeed to make it a standard practice to engage teachers in shared decision-making. By soliciting teachers and directly involving them in the process, decisions are more likely to be supported.
Administrative support
To begin with, administrators, both building level and central office, should seek to alleviate some of the pressure teachers face in trying to implement both DAPs and mandated curriculum. For example, administrators ought to have a sound understanding of early childhood education in order to better support their kindergarten teachers. As Miller and Almon (2009) reported, “in general, child-initiated play has fallen out of favor as a foundation for learning in kindergarten. Yet the evidence supporting its central role is abundant” (p. 51). The report goes on to discuss the role teachers and administrators can have in bridging the gap between understanding and enacting child-centered, play-based experiences in kindergarten. The implication, then, is for teachers and administrators to be able to speak knowledgeably about what play offers young children and the many benefits it will have in early learning experiences for them (Miller and Almon, 2009). In a study of 3000 kindergarten teachers, Zeng and Zeng (2005) found that administrators who held a degree in early childhood education were, in fact, more supportive of developmentally appropriate teaching approaches. As a result, teachers felt more comfortable creating developmental, child-centered activities in their classrooms.
Administrators could provide kindergarten teachers with internal supports, such as classroom aides, time allowances, and meeting opportunities. The findings from this study suggest that teachers need the approval to redesign how time is used within their days in order to cultivate a classroom experience that supports DAPs. The teachers in this study expressed concern over time constraints. They felt their overall classroom time had been usurped by mandated curricular requirements. Wien’s study (2004) made a similar recommendation, suggesting that teachers be given “expansive time frames” so that teaching may be done to better meet the needs of the individual students.
The teachers in this study found it helpful to be supported by either their building principal or central office administration. It is fair to say that all of the teachers felt a real lack of support from the central office or reported passive support from their district superintendent at best. This passive support occurred when administrators basically left the teachers alone trusting them to do what they thought was best. Teachers all commented on the fact that one of the building principals lacked an understanding of early childhood practices, in particular, DAPs, which led to teacher restraint in one of the three buildings. All of the participants advocated for an increase in opportunities either in the form of grade-level meetings or district-wide professional learning communities. This type of support could lead to improved collegiality, in turn helping to alleviate teacher stress and anxiety.
Teacher education
All of the teachers in this study expressed concerns over the youngest and more inexperienced teachers in their field. They feared that teacher preparation programs will be shaped by the current educational climate of standards and accountability and less focused on what we know about young children and DAPs. These teachers have already witnessed how the tenure process can influence a teacher’s role in the classroom. Each of the teachers cited examples of how tenure played a part in an inexperienced colleague’s decision to follow the curriculum lockstep, rather than alter it to better fit the needs of the students. The teachers worried about the educational climate and pressure to “push the academics” and what effect that would have on the next generation of kindergarten teachers. As more school districts in the United States adopt the Common Core State Standards, teachers will again be challenged by increased learning demands for all students. As a result, today’s student teachers will need to have an understanding of the realities of teaching kindergarten in this era of accountability. They will need to have a strong knowledge base of early childhood education in order to respond to the pressures and increased learning expectations for all students. Specifically, teacher education course work should look to build preservice teachers’ abilities to develop and integrate strategies that consider the developmental nature of children, challenges of classroom diversity, and the imposition of standards and mandates. What remains vital is recognizing that the “how” of teaching and learning should be aligned to the content standards through the early childhood teacher’s understanding of best practices and developmentally appropriate curricula.
Having awareness of the inevitable tensions of being pulled in contradictory frameworks for teaching will better prepare preservice candidates for success as novice teachers. Teacher education programs may need to place a greater emphasis on the student teaching practicum experience, with a particular focus on the role of cooperating teachers. Today’s teacher education programs should focus time and energy on building relationships with cooperating teachers. Preservice teachers and cooperating teachers alike need appropriate support and guidance in realizing a balanced approach to teaching and learning.
In addition, preservice teachers must be mindful of how the current educational climate is shaping their individual teaching identities. Are teacher education programs in early childhood providing preservice teachers with adequate opportunities to evaluate pre-packaged curriculums? Teacher education programs may need to consider new course work outlining a more integrated approach to early learning. Courses which integrate developmentally appropriate content learning standards with multidimensional learning experiences for all children will enable preservice teachers to be successful in their classrooms. Cooperating teachers as well as in-district mentor teachers need to guide students through these challenging times and provide them with ample opportunities to become familiar with and comfortable negotiating the aforementioned tensions that exist in today’s schools.
Conclusion
This study has prompted important questions for consideration. The findings point to a major conflict that exists between the experience, knowledge, and practice of teachers and the manner in which the standards movement is playing out in kindergarten classrooms. This research provides a sense of how veteran teachers are coping with the challenge of keeping the kindergarten classroom focused on the broad needs of young children in the face of demands for academic achievement. But what about the novice teachers? And still, the obvious question remains, how does the pressure to achieve affect children? Has student learning been negatively affected by the tensions teachers face today? Although the answers to these questions fall beyond the scope of this research, the current findings provide the impetus to search further. Perhaps longitudinal studies on the effects of mandated curriculum on students in kindergarten would offer greater insight into this issue.
Furthermore, this research indicates that there are implications for kindergarten programs. As the study suggests, shared decision-making should be practiced whenever possible, especially with regard to any significant program changes. As this research points out, in order for community stakeholders to actively accept any shift in program, their voices needed to be recognized. Regrettably, the very nature of kindergarten has changed and been redesigned to match the character of the standards movement. It is important to remind administrators that teaching is not a lifeless task; rather it is a dynamic enterprise that requires intentionality. Therefore, supporting novice teachers in particular, in their endeavors to incorporate developmentally appropriate learning experiences and move away from scripted lesson planning will ensure that the varied needs of students are being met.
Kindergarten teachers work with a variety of children who possess abilities that can develop and change on a daily basis. Having to surrender to prescribed curricular mandates and uniform standards may inevitably lead them to compromise not only their beliefs, but also the potential of their students. Kindergarten age children deserve learning experiences that build their self-confidence and success. During these formative years in school, teachers need to be aware of the narrow scope pre-packaged curricula can have on student learning experiences. Too often, young children become pigeonholed by the constraints of classroom accountability measures and develop dispirited attitudes toward learning. Then again, the teachers in this study were passionate about their kindergarten practice and continually altered curricula to bring out their students’ talents and learning potential. All teachers need ongoing professional development to be able to evaluate the benefits and weaknesses of scripted programs and how best to integrate more DAPs. In addition, strong administrators who embrace an understanding of early childhood practice and development can actively support teachers in their decision-making process. By recognizing the complexities of teaching kindergarten in today’s environment, we begin to promote understanding and the potential for positive change.
Based on this research, I remain optimistic that today’s kindergarten teachers will take their lead from the children in their care. Alphose Karr once said, “some people grumble that roses have thorns; I am grateful that thorns have roses.” Kindergarten teachers need support to nurture their classroom gardens so that joy, imagination, and wonder continue to thrive, regardless of the educational climate.
Footnotes
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.