Syllabus Entrance
Printer Friendly
Email Syllabus
Education Major Version

ED 565 Issues in Early Childhood Educ
Choi, Dong Hwa


Mission Statement: The mission of the School of Graduate and Professional Studies at Park University is to provide leadership and directions to Park University's graduate and professional programs to assure that they are specialized, scholarly, innovative, and designed to educate students to be creative, independent, and lifelong learners within the context of a global community.

School For Education Mission Statement
The School for Education at Park University, an institution committed to diversity and best practice, prepares educators to be effective school professionals, reflective change agents, and advocates for equity and excellence for all learners.



Vision Statement: Park University's School of Graduate and Professional Studies will be an international leader in providing innovative graduate and professional educational opportunities to learners within a global society.

School For Education Vision Statement
The School for Education at Park University is to be known as a leader in the preparation of educators who will address the needs, challenges, and possibilities of the 21st century.

Park University School for Education  Conceptual Framework


Course

ED 565 Issues in Early Childhood Educ

Semester

S2P 2009 EDD

Faculty

Choi, Dong Hwa

Title

Assistant Professor

Degrees/Certificates

Ph. D

Office Location

Downtown

Office Hours

T : Noon-5 pm (Downtown Rm. 819) & W: 4-5 pm(Parkville, Copley Rm. 320)

Daytime Phone

(o)  816-559-5604   (c) 816-820-7950

E-Mail

dong.choi@park.edu

Class Days

--T----

Class Time

5:00 - 9:30 PM

Credit Hours

3


Textbook:
 

  1. Meier, D. (2000). Will standards save public education? Boston: Beacon Press.
  1. Seefeldt, C. (2005). How to work with standards in the early childhood         

                                      classroom. NY: Teachers College Press.

  1. Wien, C. A. (2004). Negotiating standards in the primary classroom: The

         teacher’s dilemma. NY: Teachers College Press.

Additional Resources:
 

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

  1. *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.
  1. 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
  1. 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. 
  1. *Daniels, D. H., & Perry, K. E. (2003). “Learner-centered” according to children. Theory Into Practice, 42(2), 1102-108.

 

  1. *Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106 (6), 1047-1085
  1. *Drake, S. M. (2001). Castles, kings…and standards. Educational Leadership, 59(1), 38-42.
  1. *Elmore, R. F. (2003). A plea for strong practice. Educational Leadership, 61(3), 6-10. 
  1. *Egan, K. (2003) Testing what for what? Educational Leadership, 61(3), 27-30.
  1. *Gallagher, C. W. (2004) Turning the accountability tables: Ten progressive lessons from one ‘backward’ state. Phi Delta Kappan, 85 (5), 352-360
  1. *Harvey, J. (2003). The matrix reloaded. Educational Leadership, 61(3), 18-21.
  1. *Hebart, E. A. (2001). How does a child understand a standard? Educational Leadership, 59(1), 71-73.
  1. 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.
  1. *Jerald, C. (2003). Beyond the rock and the hard place. Educational Leadership, 61(3), 12-16.
  1. *Johnson, J. (2003). What does the public say about accountability?  Educational Leadership, 61, 3, 36-40.
  1. 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.
  1. *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.
  1. *Kendall, J. S. (2003). Setting standards in early childhood education. Educational Leadership, 60 (7), 64-68.
  1. Kober, N. (2001). It takes more than testing: Closing the achievement gap: A report of the Center of Educational Policy. www.ctredpol.org
  1. Kozol, J. (2005). Still separate, still unequal: America’s educational apartheid. Atlantic Monthly, 311(1864), 41-54).
  1. *Kluth, P., & Straut, D. (2001) Standards for diverse learners. Educational Leadership, 59(1), 43-46.
  1. 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. 
  1. Newman, S. B., & Roskos, K. (2005). The state of state pre-kindergarten standards. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 20 (2), 125-145.
  1. *Platt, R. (2004). Standardized tests: Whose standards are we talking about? Phi Delta Kappan, 85, 5, 381-382, 387.

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

  1. 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
  1. 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
  1. 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. 
  1. 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
  1. Wheatley, K. (2003). Promoting the use of content standards: Recommendations for teacher educators. Young Children, 58 (2) 96-102

COURSE RESOURCES  

  1. 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).
  1. 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
  1. 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
  1. 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.
  1. 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.)   
  1. 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
  1. 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 
  1. 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
  1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2000). Head Start Child Outcomes Framework.   http://www.hsnrc.org/CDI/pdfs/UGCOF.pdf

                                 

McAfee Memorial Library - Online information, links, electronic databases and the Online catalog. Contact the library for further assistance via email or at 800-270-4347.
Career Counseling - The Career Development Center (CDC) provides services for all stages of career development.  The mission of the CDC is to provide the career planning tools to ensure a lifetime of career success.
Park Helpdesk - If you have forgotten your OPEN ID or Password, or need assistance with your PirateMail account, please email helpdesk@park.edu or call 800-927-3024
Resources for Current Students - A great place to look for all kinds of information http://www.park.edu/Current/.


Course Description:
ED565 Issues in Early Childhood Education: 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.

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. 

Learning Outcomes:
  Core Learning Outcomes

  1. analyze the interplay of social, political, economic, and cultural
  2. examine the implications of current trends and issues as they influence the work of early childhood professionals.
  3. critically review literature relevant to the profession.
  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.


Core Assessment:

Class Assessment:
 

  1. Assignment #1: Weekly Presentation and Discussion

DUE: 3/24, 3/31, 4/7, 4/14, 4/21, & 4/28 (78 pts)

 

  1. Prepare a total of six presentations and discussions for the course. Each week, you select one topic or issue that you would like to bring to the class presentation and discussion. The topic or issue can be related to the content of the course or class discussion. Or you can select other topics that you are interested in even though the topic is not directly related to the content of the course. EITHER case is fine.
  1. Sources for topics or issues:

You can find topics or issues by reading articles in websites, newspapers, magazines, professional journals, or books. Or you can select topics or issues through your daily teaching experiences, interactions with your colleagues, students, or parents.

  1. Follow the format given by the instructor. Use Time New Roman letter, 12 font, and single space. (1 pg ONLY)

 

D. Make copies of the assignment sheet and the article that you use for the assignment for each classmate and the instructor. Before you present your case, distribute the assignment sheet and the article.

E. Make a copy of the rubric and attach the rubric to each assignment form when you submit the assignment. Thus, you can receive the score that you earn for this assignment using the rubric.

 

2.      Assignment #2: PowerPoint presentation: In-Depth Exploration of Standards in Early Childhood Education (28 pts) & Assignment #3 paper draft 

      DUE: 4/7

 

      Based upon readings and discussion, conduct an in-depth critical analysis of the    influences affecting the approach to curriculum and assessment in the      program/school in which you currently teach (or work in some other capacity as  director, education coordinator, etc.)  

 

3.      Assignment #3: In-Depth Exploration of Standards in Early Childhood Education. (Core Assessment) (120 pts)

DUE: 5/5

A.                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. 

B.                 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. 

C.                 Use Time New Roman letter, 12 font, single space, and at least 10 pages

Grading:
 

A: 100-90%

B: 89-80%

C: 79-70%

Late Submission of Course Materials:
 

·   All assignments should be typed. No handwritten assignment will be accepted.

·   All assignments must be turned in on the dates indicated, unless date is changed by instructor.

·   Late assignments will result in 20% reduction of the student’s point total for that assignment.

·   When student submits assignments after due date, you will have one more opportunity to submit the assignments. You can submit the assignment one week after the due date. That means when we meet in class in the following week of the due date, you can submit the assignment. After the second opportunity is passed, I will NOT accept any late submission.

·   Any absence does not excuse students’ responsibility to get assignments turned in on or before due day.

·   Extreme emergency absences and/or due date situation will be handled case by case at the instructor’s discretion. Instructor’s decision is final. Keep instructor informed of any potential personal situations that might necessitate an absence. 

·   The above procedures and calendar (given in class) for this course are tentative and subject to change in the event of extenuating circumstances. I reserve the right and responsibility to evaluate the quality of your work. Completion of an assignment does not guarantee the awarding of all possible points.

·   If a student is absent for any reason, the student is still responsible for the information discussed in class that day.

·   For your own protection, always save a copy of any assignment you complete.

Classroom Rules of Conduct:
 

Student attendance and participation is essential in achieving maximum learning.  It is generally expected that students will attend all scheduled class sessions and to contribute to the classroom learning environment. However, it is recognized that occasions do arise that necessitate being absent from a class.  Students are responsible for making prior arrangements regarding a necessary absence and for completing any alternative assignments.  

·   If you have more than three absences for the semester, your final evaluation will be lowered by one grade, for example, a “A” will become a “B.” 

·   Emergency room, hospital stay, and death of immediate family ( e.g., father, mother, siblings, grandparents) are only exceptions of the point deduction and the three absences rule that are explained above. Adequate documentation of the event must be provided at the next class session to the instructor’s satisfaction.

Course Topic/Dates/Assignments:
 

COURSE TOPICS/DATES/ASSIGNMENTS

Week

Date

Topics/Assignments

1

3/17

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

3/24

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:

·         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

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

3

3/31

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).

 

4

4/7

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 to 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

 

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

4/14

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)

 

6

4/21

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

4/28

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

5/5

Standards: Further Considerations (cont.)

 

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

Academic Honesty:
As a learning community, the University upholds the highest standards of academic integrity in all its academic activities, by faculty, staff, administrators and students. Academic integrity involves much more than respecting intellectual property rights. It lies at the heart of learning, creativity, and the core values of the University. Those who learn, teach, write, publish, present, or exhibit creative works are advised to familiarize themselves with the requirements of academic integrity and make every effort to avoid possible offenses against it, knowingly or unknowingly. Park University 2008-2009 Graduate Catalog Page 25

Plagiarism:

Plagiarism involves the appropriation of another person's ideas, interpretation, words (even a few), data, statements, illustration or creative work and their presentation as one's own. An offense against plagiarism constitutes a serious academic misconduct.  Although offenses against academic integrity can manifest themselves in various ways, the most common forms of offenses are plagiarism and cheating. Plagiarism goes beyond the copying of an entire article. It may include, but is not limited to: copying a section of an article or a chapter from a book, reproduction of an art work, illustration, cartoon, photograph and the like and passing them off as one's own. Copying from the Internet is no less serious an offense than copying from a book or printed article, even when the material is not copyrighted.

Plagiarism also includes borrowing ideas and phrases from, or paraphrasing, someone else's work, published or unpublished, without acknowledging and documenting the source. Acknowledging and documenting the source of an idea or phrase, at the point where it is utilized, is necessary even when the idea or phrase is taken from a speech or conversation with another person.

Park University 2008-2009 Graduate Catalog Page 25


Attendance Policy:

Professors are required to maintain attendance records and report absences. Excused absences can be granted by the instructor, for medical reasons, school sponsored activities, and employment-related demands, including temporary duty. Students are responsible for any missed work. Absences for two successive weeks, without approved excuse, will be reported to the Director of the individual graduate program, or to the Executive Director for the Graduate School, for appropriate action. Students with such a record of absences, without an approved excuse, may be administratively withdrawn from the class and notified that an "F" will be recorded, unless the student initiates official withdrawal from the class(es).Park University 2008-2009 Graduate Catalog Page 29

Disability Guidelines:
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. 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:

This material is protected by copyright
                               and can not be reused without author permission.

Last Updated:3/11/2009 1:31:55 PM