5.5 Early Childhood Education

A hundred years ago, children had no formal education until Grade 1, which is why young children were preschoolers. Today, virtually every nation has some program of early childhood education (Britto et al., 2011). In some countries, most 3- to 6-year-olds are in school, not only because of changing family patterns, but also because school facilitates the rapid development and great learning potential of the early years (Hyson et al., 2006).

Homes and Schools

Tricky Indeed Young children are omnivorous learners, picking up certain habits, curses, and attitudes that adults would rather not transmit. Deciding what to teach—by actions more than words—is essential.

© THE NEW YORKER COLLECTION 1991 ROBERT WEBER FROM CARTOONBANK.COM. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Young children learn both at home and at school. In addition, there are a variety of school options for children in the early years. A robust research conclusion is that quality matters. If the home environment is poor, a good preschool program aids health, cognition, and social skills (Hindman et al., 2010). However, if a family provides extensive learning opportunities and encouragement, the quality of the preschool is less crucial.

It is difficult to judge the quality of homes and schools in North America because of the wide variability and fragmentation of public and private schools (Pianta et al., 2009) and the changing configuration of home care. It is a mistake to conclude that care by the mother is better than care by another relative—or vice versa.

Educational institutions for young children are referred to by various names (preschool, nursery school, daycare, pre-primary, pre-K) or structures (public, private, centre, family), but these labels are not a reliable indicator of quality (Fuligni et al., 2009). Each early childhood educational program (and sometimes each teacher) emphasizes different skills, goals, and methods (Chambers et al., 2010; Walsh & Petty, 2007).

We will now consider two general categories of early childhood education: child-centred and teacher-directed. Remember, however, that the quality of the home and the effectiveness of the teachers have more impact on young children than does the label or professed philosophy of the program.

Child-Centred Programs

Many programs are called developmental, or child-centred, because they stress children’s development and growth. Teachers in such programs believe children need to follow their own interests rather than adult directions. For example, they agree that children should be allowed to select many of their own activities from a variety of learning areas that the teacher has prepared (Lara-Cinisomo et al., 2011). The physical space and the materials (such as dress-up clothing, art supplies, puzzles, blocks, other toys) are arranged to allow self-paced exploration.

Tibetan Boy, Indian School, Italian Style Over the past half-century, as China increased its control of Tibet, thousands of refugees fled to northern India. Tibet traditionally had no preschools, but young children adapt quickly, as here in Ladakh, India. This Tibetan boy is working a classic Montessori board.

INFOCUSPHOTOS.COM/ALAMY

Most child-centred programs encourage artistic expression (Lim, 2004). Some educators argue that young children “are all poets” in that they are gifted in seeing the world more imaginatively than older people do. According to advocates of child-centred programs, this peak of creative vision should be encouraged; children are given many opportunities to tell stories, draw pictures, dance, and make music for their own delight.

Child-centred programs are often influenced by Piaget, who emphasized that each child will discover new ideas, and by Vygotsky, who thought that children learn from other children, with adult guidance (Bodrova & Leong, 2005). Trained teachers are crucial: A child-centred program requires appropriate activities for each child and teachers who guide and scaffold so that each child advances (Dominguez et al., 2010).

Montessori SchoolsOne type of child-centered school was founded a hundred years ago, when Maria Montessori opened nursery schools for poor children in Rome. She believed that children needed structured, individualized projects to give them a sense of accomplishment. They completed puzzles, used sponges and water to clean tables, traced shapes, and so on.

Contemporary Montessori schools still emphasize individual pride and achievement, presenting many literacy-related tasks (such as outlining letters and looking at books) to young children (Lillard, 2005). Specific materials differ from those that Montessori developed, but the underlying philosophy is the same. Children seek out learning tasks; they do not sit quietly in groups while a teacher instructs them. That makes Montessori programs child-centred.

Encouraging Creativity How can Claire Costigan, a 3-year-old from British Columbia, seem so pleased that her hands are orange? The answer lies in her daycare, which promotes creativity and play.

CATHERINE COSTIGAN

This philosophy seems to work. A study of 5-year-olds in inner-city Milwaukee, Wisconsin, who were chosen by lottery to attend Montessori programs found that they became better at pre-reading and early math tasks, as well as at developing a theory of mind, than their peers in other schools (Lillard & Else-Quest, 2006). The probable explanation: Their gains in self-confidence, curiosity, and exploration transferred into more academic tasks.

Reggio EmiliaAnother form of early-childhood education is Reggio Emilia, named after the town in Italy where it began. In Reggio Emilia schools, children are encouraged to master skills that are not usually taught in North American schools until age 7 or so, such as writing and using tools (hammers, knives, and so on).

In Reggio schools, there is no large-group instruction, with lessons in, say, forming letters or cutting paper. Instead, the belief is that every child is creative and full of potential (Gandini et al., 2005), with personal learning needs and artistic drive. Measurement of achievements, such as testing to see whether children have learned their letters, is not part of the core belief that each child should explore and learn in his or her own way (Lewin-Benham, 2008).

Appreciation of the arts is evident. Every Reggio Emilia school has a studio and an artist, as well as physical space, to encourage creativity. Reggio Emilia schools have a large central room with many hubs of activity and a low child/adult ratio. Children’s art is displayed on white walls and hung from high ceilings, and floor-to-ceiling windows open to a spacious, plant-filled playground. Big mirrors are part of the school’s decor—again, with the idea of fostering individuality and expression. The curious little scientist is encouraged with materials to explore. The Reggio Emilia inspiration has been adopted in many schools across Canada.

Teacher-Directed Programs

Unlike child-centred programs, teacher-directed preschools stress academics, often taught by one adult to the entire group. The curriculum includes learning the names of letters, numbers, shapes, and colours according to a set timetable; every child naps, snacks, and goes to the bathroom on schedule as well. Children learn to sit quietly and listen to the teacher. Praise and other reinforcements are given for good behaviour, and time outs (brief separation from activities) are imposed to punish misbehaviour.

In teacher-directed programs, the serious work of schooling is distinguished from the unstructured play of home (Lara-Cinisomo et al., 2011). Many teacher-directed programs were inspired by behaviourism, which emphasizes step-by-step learning and repetition, with reinforcement (praise, gold stars, prizes) for accomplishment. Another inspiration for teacher-directed programs comes from research finding that children who have not learned basic vocabulary and listening skills by kindergarten often fall behind in primary school. In Canada, many provincial and territorial ministries of education mandate that preschoolers learn particular concepts, an outcome best achieved by teacher-directed learning (Bracken & Crawford, 2010).

Support for the importance of learning basic skills early on comes from a study by Elisa Romano from the University of Ottawa and her colleagues. They examined the long-term effects of school readiness using two Canadian surveys, the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (NLSCY) and the Montreal Longitudinal Experimental Preschool Study (MLEPS). In their first study with the NLSCY, they examined data on 1521 children in kindergarten and compared math and reading outcomes for these same children three years later. Findings revealed that kindergarten math, reading, and attention skills were significantly predictive of Grade 3 math and reading achievement. The researchers also discovered that some socioemotional behaviours such as hyperactivity/impulsivity, prosocial behaviour, and anxiety/depression were also significant predictors of Grade 3 math and reading outcomes (Romano et al., 2010).

Head StartSince 1965, millions of young children in the United States have received a “head start” on their formal education to help foster better health and cognition before Grade 1. The federal government funds a massive program for 4-year-olds called Head Start.

Learning from One Another Every nation creates its own version of early education. In this scene at a nursery school in Kuala Lampur, Malaysia, the students work together to learn a new game.

AFP/GETTY IMAGES

First Nations School Students and teachers participate in a big circle of story-telling and playing music at the First Nations School in Toronto, Ontario. The Toronto District School Board recognizes the school as a Cultural Survival School, offering programs for students in kindergarten to Grade 8. Aboriginal values, spirituality, culture, and language are integrated into the school curriculum.

RON BULL/TORONTO STAR VIA GETTY IMAGES

The goals for Head Start have changed over the decades, from lifting families out of poverty to promoting literacy, from providing dental care and immunizations to teaching standard English. Although initially most Head Start programs were child-centred, they have become increasingly teacher-directed as waves of legislators have approved and shaped them. Children have benefitted, learning whatever is stressed by their program. For example, many low-income 3- and 4-year-olds in the United States are not normally exposed to math. When a Head Start program engaged children in a board game with numbers, their mathematical understanding advanced significantly (Siegler, 2009).

Like the United States, Canadian provinces and territories have developed their own comprehensive school preparation programs for low-income families. No standard or unified legislation exists for these programs. However, in 1995, the Canadian government established the Aboriginal Head Start program, which was designed to aid the children of First Nations, Inuit, and Métis families living in urban centres or large northern communities by preparing them for school.

Modelled on the American system, the Aboriginal Head Start programs are also community based. They involve preschool children (younger than 6 years old) in various activities that are built around six key components:

• culture and language
• education
• health promotion
• nutrition
• social support
• parental involvement.

This last component is particularly important. Programs are designed to help parents strengthen the type of parenting skills and family relationships that will contribute to their children’s overall healthy development. Some programs require parents to participate at least 10 hours a month, but many sites report that parents often devote more than the required 10 hours to their Head Start activities (Williams, n.d.).

There is no systematic, pre-set curriculum for the children, but rather a more culturally meaningful program that supports the Aboriginal culture and language. Children may learn how to identify the days of the week, numbers, and colours, all in their native language, and may do so with the help of drummers, traditional storytellers, and Elders who drop by to share with them the traditional teachings of their people. In this way, the Aboriginal programs strive to instill children with a sense of pride in their identity, a desire to learn, and increased confidence. As Mindy Sinclair, an early childhood education coordinator with the Peguis First Nation noted, “If the children understand their culture, then they understand themselves” (Health Canada, 2010).

The Need For Structure in ClassroomsMany developmentalists resist legislative prescriptions regarding what 3- and 4-year-olds should learn. Some teachers want to do whatever they believe is best, resulting in a variety of strategies. However, this may confuse children and parents. Differences may reflect culture, not what is best for children or what is consistent based on theory and research.

This was apparent in a detailed study in the Netherlands, where native-born Dutch teachers emphasized individual achievement (child-centred) more than did the teachers from the Caribbean or Mediterranean, who stressed proper behaviour and group learning (teacher-directed) (Huijbregts et al., 2009). Teachers of either background who had worked together for years shared more beliefs and practices than new teachers did (Huijbregts et al., 2009). Hopefully, they had learned from one another.

As many studies have shown, children can learn whatever academic and social skills they are taught. Those who attended preschool are usually advanced in cognitive skills because those skills are taught (Camilli et al., 2010; Chambers et al., 2010). No matter what the curriculum, all young children need personal attention, consistency, and continuity. This is one of many reasons that parents and teachers should communicate and cooperate in teaching young children, a strategy Head Start has emphasized from the early days.

Long-Term Gains from Intensive Early Childhood Programs

This discussion of various programs with fluctuating philosophies, practices, and child participation may give the impression that the research is mixed. That is the wrong impression. It is true that specifics are debatable, but empirical evidence and longitudinal evaluation has convinced most developmentalists that preschool education has many benefits if it is sufficiently intensive and employs effective teachers.

The evidence comes from three intensive programs that enrolled children fulltime for years, sometimes beginning with home visits in infancy, sometimes continuing in after-school programs through Grade 1. One program, called Perry (or High/Scope), was developed in Michigan (Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997); another, called Abecedarian, got its start in North Carolina (Campbell et al., 2001); a third, called Child–Parent Centers, began in Chicago (Reynolds, 2000).

All three programs compared experimental groups of children with matched control groups, and all reached the same conclusion: Early intensive education can have substantial long-term benefits that become most apparent when the children are in Grade 3 or later. Children in these three programs scored higher on math and reading achievement tests at age 10 than did other children from the same backgrounds, schools, and neighbourhoods. They were also less likely to be placed in special education classes or to repeat a year of school compared with other children from the same neighbourhoods.

Further, in adolescence, the children who had undergone intensive preschool education had higher aspirations, possessed a greater sense of achievement, and were less likely to have been abused. As young adults they were more likely to attend college and less likely to go to jail, more often paying taxes rather than being on welfare (Reynolds & Ou, 2011; Schweinhart et al., 2005). Early education affected every aspect of their adult lives, as “early cognitive and scholastic advantages lead to social and motivational gains that culminate in enhanced well-being” (Reynolds & Ou, 2011) (see Figure 5.8).

FIGURE 5.8 And in Middle Age Longitudinal research found that two years in the intensive High/Scope preschool program changed the lives of dozens of children from impoverished families. The program had a positive impact on many aspects of their education, early adulthood, and middle age. (This graph does not illustrate another intriguing finding: The girls who attended High/Scope fared much better than the boys.)

All three research projects found that providing direct cognitive training (rather than simply letting children play), with specific instruction in various school-readiness skills, was useful as long as each child’s needs and talents were considered—a circumstance made possible because the child/adult ratio was low. The curricular approach was a combination of child-centred and teacher-directed. Teachers were encouraged to involve parents in their child’s education, and each program included strategies to ensure this home–school connection.

These programs were expensive (ranging from $5000 to $17 000 annually per child in 2010 dollars). From a developmental perspective, the decreased need for special education and other social services eventually made such programs a wise investment, perhaps saving $4 for every dollar spent (Barnett, 2007). The benefits to society over the child’s lifetime, including increased employment and reduced crime, are much more than that.

In fact, the greatest lifetime return came from boys from high-poverty neighbourhoods in the Chicago preschool program, with a social benefit over the boys’ lifetime more than 12 times the cost (Reynolds et al., 2011). The problem is that the costs are immediate and the benefits long term; without a developmental perspective, some legislators and voters are unwilling to fund expensive intervention programs that do not pay off until a decade or more later.

In conclusion, we know much more today than in the past about what children can learn, and there is no doubt that 2- and 3-year-olds are capable of learning languages, concepts, and much else. A hundred years ago, that was not understood, and Piaget was considered a leader in recognizing the abilities of the child. Now Piaget’s thinking has been eclipsed by new research: What a child learns before age 6 is pivotal for later schooling and adult life.

This theme continues in the next chapter, on the interaction between children and all the systems that surround them.