ExchangeEveryDay Past Issues

With friends like these, do we need ememies? The friends we need are those who thoughtfully wish to promote the appropriate principles of Early Childhood Education within the structure of public school systems. With the push for universal pre-k programs, quality pre school education is be burried by those who equate " hard core" academic curricula with early childhood education. To our friends we should say, " thanks, but no thanks!"

AS long as pre school educated is being co-opted by those who really don't understand it, programs in the public school systems will continue to "miseducate" young children. Nothing will be gained, and a whole lot will be lost!

I have education, training and 38+ years of solid experience in the field of Early Learning. During all these years, I actively advocated for, and I have patiently waited for, this country to get onboard to value, respect and support this important work. Finally (finally!) the field is coming into its own and, as Bonnie & Roger pointed out, we have friends in high places and lots of new money. I agree that these are good people with the best intentions who sincerely want to create systems to support parents and providers so that all of our children are prepared for school and for life. The disconnect is that parents and providers are not valued or invited to participate in either the research or the systems development. High level, well funded researchers present us the results of their oh-so-scientific studies (which are conducted without ever having stepped foot into a real classroom of real young children!) as if they have, in all of their brilliance, unlocked the secrets of previously undiscovered knowledge and wisdom. I feel like raising my hand and saying "Hello, you could have just asked me. I could have told you the exact same thing (from experience!) and then we could have used all that money for parent education, professional development and increased pay for providers, and classroom materials for the children." After all these years, I am feeling more disenfranchised and undervalued than ever. Go figure.

The article is all too true. I have been a director in child care since 1972 and have experienced many changes in the amount of government involvement in private centers. I can agree that those invovled in the decision making process do believe that they are doing the best for the children. However, most of their decisions are based upon 'research' instead of actual invovlement in centers, with center staff or with the children and their families. In 35 years I have found that not all pre-school children can adjust to a center setting. How much more difficult will it be for them to adjust to a large school setting?

I think the article is somewhat sad but true. Even if we cannot all "agree" on ECE policy, let's at least continue to work towards what we feel is best. I hope and pray that we'll all "meet in the middle" at some point. It is the children that miss out when adults are arguing or debating about what works and what doesn't and it's a wast of time.

We as educators and child advocates must prevail and remember THE CHILD!

We are going through many of the issues noted in the letter. I brought it to our directors meeting and also forwarded it to our executive board members. The saying misery loves company is not far from the point. Many of us are facing more challenges from more sides than ever before. It used to be we worried about getting the parents to pay the tuition. Now we worry about how we are going to pay qualified staff enough for them to stay with us, meet even more licensing requirements mandated by the state, compete with after school programs offered at public schools, and have tuition rates that affordable for our parents. We appreciate that South Dakota, faces the same hurdles as the rest of the nation.

Our small community has experienced the impact of school programs for preschoolers. Our 4 centers have adjusted. We now fill with infants and toddlers. Then school is out and there are no places for those who have not been attending a child care program. Parents use the school system for free child care and leave them with inadequate care when school is not in session.

I couldn't agree with you more. Sometimes our enemy is the one within the field. In our rush to maintain the status quo, we often lose the battle because the movers are moving right around us to get the job done! Your articles are always so thought provoking and honest - never change!

I hesitated to respond to this for fear of insulting those who really are our friends and certainly share our passion, albeit from many points of view.

I believe all of us in the field are contending with this issue as we strive for quality and, at the same time, try to educate our constituents and funders. We have worked so hard to bring what we know from research about early learning into what was first called babysitting and then child care.

I, personally, believe that we must maintain focus on the child care aspect while weaving in the importance of early learning to school readiness. Parents need child care in order to work and they select child care in settings that meet the needs of their own individual families. This is the beauty of the variety of settings we offer. The solution should not be to bring all 3- and 4- year olds into the public school system (again, another personal opinion.) Early learning is not about academic learning. It is preparation. Child care and early learning is an intimate relationship with parents combined with the real developmental needs of infants and young children.

In early childhood we have the capability to prepare infants and young children appropriately for academic education AND, through the relationships we develop with parents, we also have the capability to empower parents to be part of their child's education throughout the school yeas.

As we work towards quality on the provider side, we must remember all of the various settings in which infants and young children spend their time and we must continue to reach out to those children not being served, as well as parents and communities, in order to have them understand what we in the field know from research that has informed us about infants and young children.

These are times when it will take all we have to achieve this balance. We need to continue to work together on behalf of our little ones and join together in meaningful ways. To be at this place in time, when so much of what we have wished for in terms of attention to early childhood and funding possibilities, is coming to fruition. Now we have new challenges. Thank you Child CareExchange for keeping us all appraised.

The educational system in this country has failed our children K through 12 . How can anyone think it is reasonable to bring four year-olds into the existing bureaucratic disaster? Instead, let's provide vouchers for low-income families for existing church, private, and in-home programs, which have been consitanltly demonstrated to provide the best pre-school programs.State programs are expensive and do not produce the needed results. After 10 years, Georgia's universal preschool program has served 300,000 children at a cost of $1.15 billion, and test scores are unchanged (Goldwater Institute, 2005) The only groups that benefit from universal pre-school are the bureaucrats and teacher's unions.

I couldn't agree more with your "Friendly Fire" article. We are in a faith based program and all around me good quality faith based programs are struggling as Pre-K in the elementary schools move in. Some of the public pre-K programs are well done and others more run of the mill while very high quality private programs that have existed in the community for many years are losing out. Parents will chose the program that is free to them.
It is sad to see less emphasis on play based learning as more accutely academic programs are being developed in our area, both in the public school sector and in privately owned "prep" schools.

It is appalling that you are artificially pitting against each other child care and schools. Futher, with millions of children who have attended our programs being ill prepared for school, we should hardly contend we (us ealry childhood folk) know the only right way to run programs. Along with parents and the community, we bear some of the responsibility for the poor achievement of low-income, African American, Hispanic, and Native American chidlren. Our traditional ways have not worked as well as we would have liked and we, as a field, need to change. We have plenty of research that tells us what children need to know and be able to do to succeed in school. What is needed is not a steady diet of boring worksheets and meaningless recitation any more than than it is one of continual free play, music, and looking at books. All children need a coherent, enjoyable, and well implemented curriculum that insures they arrive at kindergarten with the same information as other children As long as future opportunity is tied to school achievement, why would we deny this type of education to children? It is within our power to provide a well constructed educational program, pariticuarly for those who need it most. This is what the "important" people are trying to tell us. Maybe we should listen.

I appreciated the perspective. I continue to read about new programs and have wondered about the existing programs in each state and how they are being impacted whether they are participating or being left out. We must continue to inform and encourage leaders in the field to collaborate and cooperate to continue providing the early care and education where parents have a choice. Our leadership is imperative for the field at this time. There will always be those that will take the money and figure out how to do the new program later. Our leaders know how to and need to be included.

I couldn't agree with you more. I appreciate the new investments in and appreciation for the benefits of high quality early learning. But, they come at a high price. That price is that we too often have to agree to child outcomes that are unrealistic, putting enormous pressure on providers and children. We are unable to take the time to build the quality and supply of programs in ways that are sustainable and in truly support the needs of families and of the whole child. And, we are forced to fragment the field--and abandon our vision of a wholistic, seamless system of affordable, high quality education AND care for children from birth through 12. In the fervor to ensure that 4 year-old children are "school ready", we abandon the needs of infants and toddlers, and we put aside concerns about how to sustain children during the after school hours. Why can't we hold multiple truths? (child care supports working families, AND it is about school readiness, AND it is about developing the whole child, AND it is about school success, AND it is about keeping kids out of harm's way during the out-of-school hours, AND it is about building successful young people with the 21st century skills....)

As a former practitioner, I am now in the position to watch developments in early care & education from a slight distance. I'm amazed to see the slight curve towards coming 'round full circle - the practices of the early "nursery schools", where play-based curriculum was the norm, are now being supported by research. Hopefully, more universal practice will follow...

Oklahoma gets a lot of national attention for offering Pre-K to all children. Those of us who worked on the legislation that established Pre-K under the school funding formula thought we would get programs in existing child care centers with certified teachers supplied by the local public school system. School officials had complained that they didn't have space for additional programs, and this seemed to be a marriage made in heaven. Unfortunately, schools saw Pre-K as a source of revenue and for reasons of money, control and lack of experience with collaboration mainly established school based programs. Consistency of curriculum is a problem-many school systems don't understand early childhood education. Does the image of desks aligned in orderly rows fit your image of what Pre-K should look like? While teachers are early childhood certified, that doesn't mean they have an early childhood education.

Some school systems "get it." A NIEER evaluation of Tulsa's programs found mainly positive outcomes. The metropolitan school systems tend to have a better grasp of early childhood education than the rural districts-many of the rural districts still allow corporal punishment as a discipline option, while most metropolitan districts outlawed the practice more than 15 years ago.

Educare appeared on the scene in Oklahoma and we are dealing with the Golden Rule-he who has the gold makes the rules. I toured the Tulsa facility recently at 3 p.m. and was appalled to see this beautiful facility sitting largely vacant-most of the kids leave at 2:30. Last week a groundbreaking ceremony was held for the Oklahoma City Educare making us the first state to have two facilities. It's a great deal for 400 kids a year, but what are the ethical considerations of giving a few kids a Lambogheni school bus while most kids have to take public transporation?

As in any field, each professional has a different opinion of what is right and what is wrong in the field of ECE. Why is it a surprise that the movers and shakers are any different? This strong belief in different ideas and policies is the greatness of private programs… parents can choose the program that fits their needs and beliefs. However, we are looking at more and more programs wanting federal and state monies. With those monies comes less control over policies and beliefs. As professionals in ECE, we are blessed with the freedom to believe our way is right and not move an inch in our thinking. Politicians, on the other hand, have to give a yard in a different direction to gain an inch forward in what might be our way of thinking. It is sad that it seams others have hidden agendas, progress is slower then a snail, things have to go through a variety of committees, and alas, we all know a committees can take a great idea and turn it into a mutant cousin of the original idea. I think the world of ECE is going to be going through lots of changes and different ideas as the years go by, but only by failure will we reach perfection.

Personally, I would have liked to see the author of this article list actual issues, ideas and or policies he thinks is moving us backwards …other then just the short fall of infant-toddler funding in communities.

Excellent! As a center director what can I do to help? These comments are very true and will greatly impact what is in the best interest of our young children. Those among us who have no real voice in our system. Thank you for your committment to keep us informed.