Syllabus Entrance
Printer Friendly
Email Syllabus

ED 565 Issues in Early Childhood Education
Wilson, Catherine


COURSE NUMBER: ED 565

COURSE TITLE: Issues in Early Childhood Education

TERM COURSE BEING TAUGHT:  Spring 1  2006

NAME OF FACULTY MEMBER: Dr. Catherine Wilson

TITLE OF FACULTY MEMBER: Associate Professor

FACULTY OFFICE LOCATION:  Copley 320

FACULTY OFFICE HOURS: M-F 12:00-1:30; T-TH 11:15-12:45

FACULTY OFFICE TELEPHONE NUMBER: 816-584-6342

FACULTY PARK EMAIL ADDRESS: catherinew@mail.park.edu

DATES OF THE TERM: 

CLASS WEEKS DAYS: Monday

CLASS WEEK TIME: 5:00-9:30

PREREQUISITE(S): none

CREDIT HOURS: 3hrs.

  MISSION STATEMENT

The mission of Park University, an entrepreneurial institution of learning, is to provide access to academic excellence, which will prepare learners to think critically, communicate effectively and engage in lifelong learning while serving a global community.

 

VISION STATEMENT

Park University will be a renowned international leader in providing innovative educational opportunities for learners within the global society.

COURSE TEXTS:  (See also additional readings under “Course Readings”)

Meier, D. (2000).  Will standards save public education?  Boston: Beacon Press.

 

Seefeldt, C.  (2005).  How to work with standards in the early childhood classroom.  NY: Teachers College Press.

Wien, C. A. (2004).  Negotiating standards in the primary classroom: The teacher’s dilemma.  NY: Teachers College Press.

 

COURSE DESCRIPTION: A critical examination of issues influencing early education.  Topics will include both historical and contemporary views of childhood; trends and issues affecting teaching practices; social, educational, and economic policies shaping the care and education of young children; and professionalism.

 

COURSE GOALS: Teachers work in dynamic social, economic, political, and professional contexts.  Changing issues transform the landscapes of learning and teaching from decade to decade.  Early childhood educators also navigate widely diverse programmatic contexts, from employer-sponsored childcare for infants and toddlers and early intervention for children with special needs, to public and private prekindergarten and primary classrooms. Each setting provides its own set of constraints and possibilities.  Professionals must be able to critically examine issues influencing their daily work, use professional literature from an array of different disciplines to inform and expand their thinking, and develop strategies as advocates for children, their families, and the profession.  The standards movement, as it influences early childhood education (in both prekindergarten and primary settings), is the integrative focus of exploration during the Spring I 2006 session.

 

EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY:

Developing as a teacher is a complex process that occurs most effectively in learning communities that provide rich opportunities for inquiry and reflection, and that cultivate a sense of curiosity, integrity, social justice, and professionalism. 

 

COURSE READINGS:

Additional readings: (* articles are available on the Park University Ebsco Host Full Text Academic Elite Search)

 

*Blair, C. (2002).  School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological conceptualization of children's functioning at school entry. American Psychologist, 57, 2, 111-127.

 

Boyd, J., Barnett, W. S., Bodrova, E., Leong, D. J., Gomby, D., Robin, K. B., & Hustedt, J. T. (2005).  Promoting children’s social and emotional development through preschool.  National Institute of Early Education Research.  http://nieer.org/resources/policyreports/report7.pdf

 

Cuban, L. (2004).  Looking through the rearview mirror of school accountability.  In K. A. Sirotnik (Ed.)  Holding accountability accountable: What ought to matter in public education.  pp. 18-34.  NY: Teachers College Press. 

 

*Daniels, D. H., & Perry, K. E. (2003).  “Learner-centered” according to children.  Theory Into Practice, 42(2), 1102-108.

 

*Darling-Hammond, L. (2004).  Standards, accountability, and school reform.  Teachers College Record, 106 (6), 1047-1085

 

*Drake, S. M. (2001).  Castles, kings…and standards.  Educational Leadership, 59(1),  38-42.

 

*Elmore, R. F. (2003).  A plea for strong practice.  Educational Leadership, 61(3), 6-10. 

 

*Egan, K. (2003)  Testing what for what?  Educational Leadership, 61(3), 27-30.

 

*Gallagher, C. W. (2004)  Turning the accountability tables: Ten progressive lessons from one ‘backward’ state.  Phi Delta Kappan, 85 (5), 352-360

 

*Harvey, J. (2003).  The matrix reloaded.  Educational Leadership, 61(3), 18-21.

 

*Hebart, E. A. (2001). How does a child understand a standard?  Educational Leadership, 59(1), 71-73.

 

Hochschild, J. (2003).  Rethinking accountability politics.  In P. E. Peterson & M. R. West. (Eds.)  No child left behind?: The politics and practices of school accountability.  pp. 107-123.  Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.

 

*Jerald, C. (2003).  Beyond the rock and the hard place.  Educational Leadership, 61(3), 12-16.

 

*Johnson, J. (2003).  What does the public say about accountability?  Educational Leadership, 61, 3, 36-40.

 

Kagan, S. L., Britto, P.R., & Engle, P.  (2005).  Early learning standards: What can America learn?  What can America teach?  Phi Delta Kappan, 87 (3), 205-208.

 

*Kagan, S. L., &  Scott-Little, C (2004)  Early learning standards: Changing the parlance and practice of early childhood education?  Phi Delta Kappan, 85(5), 388-396.

 

*Kendall, J. S. (2003).  Setting standards in early childhood education.  Educational Leadership, 60 (7), 64-68.

 

Kober, N. (2001).  It takes more than testing: Closing the achievement gap: A report of the Center of Educational Policy.  www.ctredpol.org

 

Kozol, J. (2005).  Still separate, still unequal: America’s educational apartheid.  Atlantic Monthly, 311(1864),  41-54).

 

*Kluth, P., & Straut, D. (2001)  Standards for diverse learners.  Educational Leadership, 59(1), 43-46.

 

Mabry, L. (2004).  Strange, yet familiar: Assessment-driven education.   In K. A. Sirotnik (Ed.)  Holding accountability accountable: What ought to matter in public education.  pp. 116-134.  NY: Teachers College Press. 

 

Newman, S. B., & Roskos, K. (2005).  The state of state pre-kindergarten standards.  Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20 (2), 125-145.

 

*Platt, R. (2004).  Standardized tests: Whose standards are we talking about?  Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 5, 381-382, 387.

 

Rothman, R. (2005).  Testing goes to preschool. Harvard  Educational Letter, www.edletter.org/past/issues/2005-ma/preschool.shtml

Schweinhart, L (2003).  Making validated educational models central in preschool standards.  New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute in Early Education Research.  http://nieer.org/docs/index.php?DocID=15

 

Scott-Little, C. S., Kagan, S. L. , & Frelow, V. S. (2003).  Creating the Conditions for Success with Early Learning Standards: Results from a National Study of State-Level Standards for Children's Learning Prior to Kindergarten.  Early Childhood Research and Practice.  http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v5n2/little.html

 

Shore, R., Bodrova, E., & Leong, D.  (2004). Child outcome standards in PreK Programs: What are standards; What makes them work?  New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research. 

  Walsh, G., & Gardner, J. (2005)  Assessing the quality of early years learning environments.   Early Childhood Research and Practice, 7(1)   http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v7n1/walsh.html

 

Wheatley, K. (2003).  Promoting the use of content standards: Recommendations for teacher educators.  Young Children, 58 (2) 96-102

  Further resources:  

Kendall, J.S., & Marzano, R. J. (2004).  Content knowledge: A compendium of standards and benchmarks for K-12 education.  Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (MCREL).

 

http://www.mcrel.org/standards-benchmarks/docs/purpose.asp

http://www.mcrel.org/standards-benchmarks/docs/history.asp

http://www.mcrel.org/standards-benchmarks/docs/process.asp

 

Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.  Understanding No Child Left Behind: A report of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 & Its Implications for Schools, Communities, and Public Support for Education.   http://www.nationaldialogue.org/resources/Understanding.pdf

 

Missouri PreK Standards  Literacy Standards.  Social and Emotional Development Standards.  Math Standards.  Science Standards.; Physical Development, Health and Safety Standards. http://www.dese.state.mo.us/divimprove/fedprog/earlychild/PreK_Standards.html

  National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).  (2002).  Early learning standards: Creating the conditions for success.  Washington, DC: Author. http://www.naeyc.org/about/positions/pdf/position_statement.pdf   Complete Position Statement.

 

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (NAEYC).  (2005).  NAEYC Early Childhood Program Standards and Accreditation Performance Criteria.  Washington, DC: Author.  http://www.naeyc.org/accreditation/next_era.asp   (review Universal PreK and kindergarten accreditation standards.)  

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (NAEYC).  (2001)  NAEYC Standards for early childhood teacher preparation.  Initial Licensure.  http://www.naeyc.org/faculty/pdf/2001.pdf

 

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (NAEYC).  (2002)  NAEYC Standards for early childhood teacher preparation.  Advanced Programs. http://www.naeyc.org/faculty/pdf/2002.pdf 

 

National Research Council (NRC) (2001).  Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers.  Washington, DC: National Academy Press. http://print.nap.edu/pdf/0309068363/pdf_image/278.pdf

 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000).  Head Start Child Outcomes Framework.   http://www.hsnrc.org/CDI/pdfs/UGCOF.pdf

 

                                 

LEARNING OUTCOMES: Learners will be able to:

  1. analyze the interplay of social, political, economic, and cultural forces in early education (NAEYC 5a, Professional Tools 4)
  2. examine the implications of current trends and issues as they influence the work of early childhood professionals. (NAEYC 5a, Professional Tools 6)
  3. critically review literature relevant to the profession. (NAEYC Professional Tools 6)
  4. conduct an in-depth investigation analyzing the complexities of an issue directly affecting teaching and learning in their program/school and develop a plan of action to address the issue.  (NAEYC Professional Tools 6, 8, 9)

 

 

COURSE ASSESSMENT:

 

In-Depth Exploration of Standards in Early Childhood Education.  (Core Assessment)

 

Based upon the model of teacher interview and analysis presented in Negotiating standards in the primary classroom: A teacher’s dilemma (Wien, 2004), present a report (adapted to your particular professional context) that 1) identifies the current economic, cultural, and political forces that shape the issue of standards in early childhood education, 2) examines the implications for daily teaching practice, and 3) defines a course of action (either individual or collaborative) that responds to the questions raised by the standards movement.  Your report should have the following components: 1) an introduction that places your inquiry within the current educational context, 2) an analytical review of course readings, 3) a description and analysis of your interviews, and 4) a description and rationale for plan of action. 

 

GRADING PLAN:

11-12 = A 

10-8 = B

7 = C

 

Attendance and Participation:

Only one absence is excused in the 8-week graduate sessions.  More than one absence, and late arrivals or departures will influence your final evaluation. 

 

LATE SUBMISSION OF COURSE MATERIALS:  Work must be turned in on time to receive full credit.

 

EXPECTATIONS:

Please reserve Tuesday evening for this class meeting, and arrange your day so that you are able to arrive at 5:00 and remain until 9:30.  We will begin class promptly at 5:00, take breaks to keep our minds fresh, and plan for a variety of learning opportunities, including small group research work and large group conversations about class readings.  You will be responsible for leading discussion on the readings, so be prepared to guide your colleagues through an in-depth examination of the content of each week’s readings, as well as make connections to readings from earlier class session.   This will mean that everyone needs to be well-prepared by carefully reading the selections for the week.

 

Please turn off all cell phones and reserve breaks for phone calls.

 

 

 

COURSE TOPICS/DATES/ASSIGNMENTS

Week

Date

Topics/Assignments

1

 

Setting the Stage: Past and Present

 

Seefeldt, C.  (2005).  How to work with standards in the early childhood classroom.  NY: Teachers College Press.  Chapters 1-2

 

Wien, C. A. (2004).  Negotiating standards in the primary classroom: The teacher’s dilemma.  NY: Teachers College Press. (Chapters 1-2)

 

Additional required reading:

  Hochschild, J. (2003).  Rethinking accountability politics.  In P. E. Peterson & M. R. West. (Eds.)  No child left behind?: The politics and practices of school accountability.  pp. 107-123.  Washington, DC: Brookings Institute Press.

 

Further resources:   National Association for the Education of Young Children. (NAEYC).  (2005).  NAEYC Early Childhood Program Standards and Accreditation Performance Criteria.  Washington, DC: Author.  http://www.naeyc.org/accreditation/next_era.asp   

 

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (NAEYC).  (2001)  NAEYC Standards for early childhood teacher preparation.  Initial Licensure.  pp. 17-50  http://www.naeyc.org/faculty/pdf/2001.pdf

 

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (NAEYC).  (2002)  NAEYC Standards for early childhood teacher preparation.  Advanced Programs.  pp. 76-88.   http://www.naeyc.org/faculty/pdf/2002.pdf 

 

 

2

 

Standards and Prekindergarten Education: Issues and Questions

 

Wien, C. A. (2004).  Negotiating standards in the primary classroom: The teacher’s dilemma.  NY: Teachers College Press. (Chapters 3-4)

 

Additional required readings:

 

*Blair, C. (2002).  School readiness: Integrating cognition and emotion in a neurobiological conceptualization of children's functioning at school entry. American Psychologist, 57, 2, 111-127.

 

Boyd, J., Barnett, W. S., Bodrova, E., Leong, D. J., Gomby, D., Robin, K. B., & Hustedt, J. T. (2005).  Promoting children’s social and emotional development through preschool.  National Institute of Early Education Research.  http://nieer.org/resources/policyreports/report7.pdf

 

*Kagan, S. L., &  Scott-Little, C (2004)  Early learning standards: Changing the parlance and practice of early childhood education?  Phi Delta Kappan, 85(5), 388-396. 

Rothman, R. (2005).  Testing goes to preschool. Harvard  Educational Letter, www.edletter.org/past/issues/2005-ma/preschool.shtml

Scott-Little, C. S., Kagan, S. L., & Frelow, V. S. (2003).  Creating the conditions for success with early learning standards: Results from a national study of state-level standards for children's learning prior to kindergarten.  Early Childhood Research and Practice.  http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v5n2/little.html

 

Wheatley, K. (2003).  Promoting the use of content standards: Recommendations for teacher educators.  Young Children, 58 (2) 96-102

 

Further resources:

 

Missouri PreK Standards  Literacy Standards.  Social and Emotional Development Standards.  Math Standards.  Science Standards. Physical Development, Health and Safety Standards. http://www.dese.state.mo.us/divimprove/fedprog/earlychild/PreK_Standards.html

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).  (2003).  Early learning standards: Creating the conditions for success.  Washington, DC: Author. http://www.naeyc.org/about/positions/pdf/position_statement.pdf  Read Complete Position Statement

National Research Council (NRC) (2001).  Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers.  Washington, DC: National Academy Press. http://print.nap.edu/pdf/0309068363/pdf_image/278.pdf

  U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000).  Head Start Child Outcomes Framework.   http://www.hsnrc.org/CDI/pdfs/UGCOF.pdf

 

 

3

 

Standards and Benchmarks: Sources and Problems

 

Seefeldt, C.  (2005).  How to work with standards in the early childhood classroom.  NY: Teachers College Press.  Chapters 3-4

 

Wien, C. A. (2004).  Negotiating standards in the primary classroom: The teacher’s dilemma.  NY: Teachers College Press. (Chapters 5-6)

 

Additional required readings:

Kendall, J. S. (2003).  Setting standards in early childhood education.  Educational Leadership, 60 (7), 64-68.

 

Newman, S. B., & Roskos, K. (2005).  The state of state pre-kindergarten standards.  Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20 (2), 125-145.

 

Schweinhart, L (2003).  Making validated educational models central in preschool standards.  New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute in Early Education Research.  http://nieer.org/docs/index.php?DocID=15

 

Shore, R., Bodrova, E., & Leong, D.  (2004).  Child outcome standards in PreK Programs: What are standards; What makes them work?  New Brunswick, NJ: National Institute for Early Education Research.  www.fpg.unc.edu/~eco/pdf/5.pdf.

 

Further resources:

 

Kendall, J.S., & Marzano, R. J. (2004).  Content knowledge: A compendium of standards and benchmarks for K-12 education.  Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for Education and Learning (MCREL).

 

http://www.mcrel.org/standards-benchmarks/docs/purpose.asp

http://www.mcrel.org/standards-benchmarks/docs/history.asp

http://www.mcrel.org/standards-benchmarks/docs/process.asp

 

4

 

No Child Left Behind: Standards and Assessment

 

Cuban, L. (2004).  Looking through the rearview mirror of school accountability.  In K. A. Sirotnik (Ed.)  Holding accountability accountable: What ought to matter in public education.  pp. 18-34.  NY: Teachers College Press. 

 

Mabry, L. (2004).  Strange, yet familiar: Assessment-driven education.   In K. A. Sirotnik (Ed.)  Holding accountability accountable: What ought ot matter in public education.  pp. 116-134.  NY: Teachers College Press. 

 

Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.  Understanding No Child Left Behind: A report of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 & Its Implications for Schools, Communities, and Public Support for Education.   http://www.nationaldialogue.org/resources/Understanding.pdf

 

U.S. Department of Education (USDE).  (2006).  No child left behind: Expanding the promise.   http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget06/nclb/expanding-promise.pdf

 

Differing Points of View

 

*Elmore, R. F. (2003).  A plea for strong practice.  Educational Leadership, 61(3), 6-10. 

 

*Egan, K. (2003).  Testing what for what?  Educational Leadership, 61(3), 27-30.

 

*Harvey, J. (2003).  The matrix reloaded.  Educational Leadership, 61(3), 18-21.

 

*Jerald, C. (2003).  Beyond the rock and the hard place.  Educational Leadership, 61(3), 12-16.

 

*Johnson, J. (2003).  What does the public say about accountability?  Educational Leadership, 61, 3, 36-40.

 

 

5

 

Continuing the Conversation: Education and Democracy

 

Meier, D. (2000).  Will standards save public education?  Boston: Beacon Press.

 

Wien, C. A. (2004).  Negotiating standards in the primary classroom: The teacher’s dilemma.  NY: Teachers College Press. (Chapters 7-8)

 

 

 

 

Children Navigating Standards

 

*Daniels, D. H., & Perry, K. E. (2003).  “Learner-centered” according to children.  Theory Into Practice, 42(2), 1102-108.

 

*Hebart, E. A. (2001).  How does a child understand a standard?  Educational Leadership, 59(1), 71-73.

 

Kozol, J. (2005).  Still separate, still unequal: America’s educational apartheid.  Atlantic Monthly, 311(1864), 41-54.

 

*Platt, R. (2004).  Standardized tests: Whose standards are we talking about?  Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 5, 381-382, 387.

 

Walsh, G., & Gardner, J. (2005).  Assessing the quality of early years learning environments.   Early Childhood Research and Practice, 7(1)

       http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v7n1/walsh.html

 

7

 

Standards:  Further Considerations

 

*Drake, S. M. (2001).  Castles, kings…and standards.  Educational Leadership, 59 (1) 38-42

 

*Gallagher, C. W. (2004).  Turning the accountability tables: Ten progressive lessons from one ‘backward’ state.  Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 5, 352-360

 

Kagan, S. L., Britto, P.R., & Engle, P.  (2005). Early learning standards: What can America learn?  What can America teach?  Phi Delta Kappan, 87 (3), 205-208.

 

*Kluth, P., & Straut, D. (2001).  Standards for diverse learners.  Educational Leadership, 59(1), 43-46.

 

Seefeldt, C.  (2005).  How to work with standards in the early childhood classroom.  NY: Teachers College Press.  Chapter 5

 

 

8

 

Standards: Further Considerations (cont.)

 

*Darling-Hammond, L. (2004).  Standards, accountability, and school reform.  Teachers College Record, 106 (6), 1047-1085

 

 

ACADEMIC HONESTY: “Academic integrity is the foundation of the academic community.  Because each student has the primary responsibility for being academically honest, students are advised to read and understand all sections of this policy relating to standards of conduct and academic life.” Park University 2005-2006 Undergraduate Catalog Page 85-87

 

PLAGIARISM: “Plagiarism involves the use of quotations without quotation marks, the use of quotations without indication of the source, the use of another’s idea without acknowledging the source, the submission of a paper, laboratory report, project, or class assignment (any portion of such) prepared by another person, or incorrect paraphrasing.”  Park University 2005-2006 Undergraduate Catalog Page 85-87

 

ATTENDANCE POLICY:

Instructors are required to maintain attendance records and to report absences via the online attendance reporting system.

  1. The instructor may excuse absences for valid reasons, but missed work must be made up within the semester/term of enrollment.
  2. Work missed through unexcused absences must also be made up within the semester/term of enrollment, but unexcused absences may carry further penalties.
  3. In the event of two consecutive weeks of unexcused absences in a semester/term of enrollment, the student will be administratively withdrawn, resulting in a grade of "WH".
  4. A "Contract for Incomplete" will not be issued to a student who has unexcused or excessive absences recorded for a course.
  5. Students receiving Military Tuition Assistance or Veterans Administration educational benefits must not exceed three unexcused absences in the semester/term of enrollment. Excessive absences will be reported to the appropriate agency and may result in a monetary penalty to the student.
  6. Report of a "F" grade (attendance or academic) resulting from excessive absence for those students who are receiving financial assistance from agencies not mentioned in item 5 above will be reported to the appropriate agency.

NOTE: An attendance report of “P” (present) will be recorded for students who have logged in to the Online classroom at least once during each week of the term. Recording of attendance is not equivalent to participation. Participation grades will be assigned by each instructor according to the criteria in the Grading Policy section of the syllabus.

Park University 2005-2006 Undergraduate Catalog Page 89

 

 

DISABILITY GUIDELINES: The first part is from the catalog and can not be edited; you can add your own comments/policies/etc...
Park University is committed to meeting the needs of all students that meet the criteria for special assistance. These guidelines are designed to supply directions to students concerning the information necessary to accomplish this goal. It is Park University’s policy to comply fully with federal and state law, including Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, regarding students with disabilities. In the case of any inconsistency between these guidelines and federal and/or state law, the provisions of the law will apply. Park University is committed to meeting the needs of all learners that meet the criteria for special assistance. These guidelines are designed to supply directions to learners concerning the information necessary to accomplish this goal. It is Park University’s policy to comply fully with federal and state law, including Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the American with Disabilities Act of 1990, regarding learners with disabilities and, to the extent of any inconsistency between these guidelines and federal and/or state law, the provisions of the law will apply. Additional information concerning Park University’s policies and procedures related to disability can be found on the Park University web page:
http://www.park.edu/disability .

 

COPYRIGHT NOTIFICATION: This material is copyright and can not be reused without author permission.