Hi ECH 500 Students! I am sorry for the delay in posting this prompt. As a result I am extending the time to reply to this third prompt unit June 7th. Here's your question: The studies by Lynch (2010) and Chien et al. (2010) examine public preK using different perspectives. Lynch examines its cost effectiveness while Chien et al. look at the effectiveness of different curricular approaches. While both articles can be a bit more challenging to read, what do you see as one or two important findings of their work? What did you learn about public preK that you had not considered before? How can the state of Maine use these insights as expansion of public preK moves forward?
In considering the move towards public prekindergarten, it is required to think about what it should look like with decisions supported by existing research. Although there are several components to examine when envisioning public prek, one could argue that certain factors are more crucial than others. Dynamics that would help to construct public preschool are analyzed through the perspectives of Lynch (2010) and Chien, Howes, Burchinal, Pianta, Ritchie, Bryant, Clifford, Early, and Barbarin (2010). The authors each present different components of preschool effectiveness; cost (Lynch, 2010) and varying curricular methods (Chien et al., 2010).
ReplyDeleteLynch (2010) thoroughly assessed cost effectiveness regarding public prek programs. Although the cost of investing in a public preK program will be a great amount initially, it will have a considerable payoff in the future. The author details advancing in preK will save money elsewhere. When the participants of preschool programs enter K-12 public school systems, additional savings will occur. These children are less likely to be held back or require special education services. Lynch (2010) mentions there will be a decrease in juvenile crime rates, and as adults the pre-k participants will be less involved in crime, have higher educational fulfillment, therefore, earning more of an income. Ultimately resulting in annual benefits exceeding the annual costs of the program by 2050.
Chien et al. (2010) extensively researched children who are enrolled in preK classrooms and how they demonstrate school readiness skills. Four different models/patterns of classroom engagement were assessed and compared; free play, individual instruction, group instruction and scaffolded learning. It was observed that the free play method made the smallest gains between fall to spring in measuring language, literacy, and mathematics. The authors concluded that the more quality instructional time spent with teachers and less free play without teacher guidance or scaffolding would better prepare children in terms of school readiness.
Within these two articles, there are new findings that I hadn’t considered before. When Lynch (2010) described the economic benefits of investing in public preK, it was something I had prior learned, but not truly considered. I found the article by Chien et al. (2010) to be extremely interesting. The authors discussed free play and the fact that children had not progressed in language, literacy, and mathematics. In thinking about this, I am wondering about the social/emotional gains within the free play model. Although those domains are often overlooked when terming “school readiness”, I find them to be perhaps the most important. Children have a more difficult time in achieving other areas of success if they are unable to self-regulate and have positive social interactions. It was also discussed that teachers within the study felt pressure to fit all parts of the routine into one day (circle, meal time, outside time, small group etc.) and they are unable to thoroughly extend language, interact with children about their daily lives, and they experience missed opportunities to follow children’s leads and interests. I found this to be interesting as well. We implement the OWL curriculum at our site. We have 4 full-day preschool classrooms and 3 part- day rooms. At our communities of practice within our center, I often hear the part-day teachers stating that exact thing – there isn’t enough time in the day. I think that as the thought of public preK progresses, Maine can utilize some of this information to help create the most successful program.
Sara,
DeleteI agree with you that social/emotional gains are extremely important when thinking about school readiness. There is so much of a focus on the academic side for things, and as we know the standards for pre-k seem to be shifting that way completely, but the social/emotional development of a child is still something that needs to be addressed and focused on in order for the child to have a successful academic career, and more.
Sara I have to comment on the time piece. In Auburn there is a half day program here and the children have so many transitions. The children are bused to school a half hour each way so there is approximately two hours of "pre-k' time that is scheduled daily. I think about the time to get children in the classroom each day and the transitions within the classroom too. I wonder if a study has ever been conducted to find how much time is actually spent in transitions. I would like to see that study.
DeleteThanks Sara
Sara,
DeleteIn my classroom this year I have a relatively high academic class. However, I see that their social-emotional skills are lacking, and that their ability to problem-solve between peers without adult guidance is fairly low. Our program is only half-day (2.5 hours), but at this point in their development, and having already shown so much academic growth, it is imperative for my students to engage in free-play time in order to acquire, practice, and strengthen their peer-to-peer communication skills. The teachers in our program have calculated out the benefits of adding a half an hour to each session, and the amount of time that would be added would be tremendous, and we are all in agreement that this time would be spent on free-play activities, for as they move into kindergarten and beyond, that play time is rapidly diminished, and there will be no other opportunities to grow these skills than right now.
Hi Sara…
DeleteYour post had me thinking about free-play, its benefits, and its limitations. Chien et. al (2010) discussed how despite being the largest part of the preschool day, free-play yielded the smallest gains in language and academic skills. The limitations of the study mentioned that it failed to take into consideration other vital preschool skills such as problem-solving, comprehension, and peer relations. I feel as professionals, we all believe that play has benefits. I do feel that the quality of play can vary significantly from one setting to another. I think we need to ask ourselves what are the characteristics of high-quality play and work to make the most of this type of engagement in our classrooms?
I agree with you about the social/emotional piece. I have worked in different schools with contrasting highlights on this. Some schools i have worked in seem so hyper focused on academics that social-emotional development is pushed aside. I worked in a kindergarten school in Montana where there was so much academic pressure on the school (to receive funding) that play was eliminated. It was very sad to see. At the last school I worked at I taught Public Preschool. The district had recently adopted Responsive Classroom and was sending whole staffs of teachers to courses on it with the expectation that all the schools in the district implement it with fidelity. The Responsive Classroom philosophy is that a child's social-emotional development is just as important as their academic learning. Our day would start as a morning meeting and would end as a closing circle and Responsive Classroom techniques were practiced throughout the day and tied into academic learning. This was with all staff in the school with students PreK- grade 6. The reason why I am bringing it up is that it is possible to integrate strong social skills and other common practices that you typically see in private schools into public schools with academic standards. It's really all about balance and I think it could work in Universal PreK if it is set up correctly.
ReplyDeleteJustina, is the responsive classroom something they did in all grades or just preschool? I work center-based program funded by primarily Head Start, we implement something called Conscious Discipline. Responsive classroom sounds similar in that this was something all staff were trained in and we implement it in our classrom in various ways but the main goal is to create a school family that promotes taking responsibility for your own actions to really develop and promote those social/emotional skills.
DeleteResponsive classroom is very much like conscious discipline where they are self regulating. I did responsive classroom in kindergarten and it could be done in pre-k as well.
DeleteYes, all grade levels. It is pretty cool to see the whole school practice it.
DeleteOh, that's so interesting! What a wonderful way to continue developing those social/emotional skills that we work so hard in the early years to progress.
DeleteMy school recently received a grant for implementation of the RULER program for emotional literacy in classrooms. It sounds like this program is similar to Conscious Discipline and Responsive Classroom. RULER focuses on recognizing, understanding, labeling, expressing and regulating emotions. We've spent many hours on professional development days learning about the program, and next year, we will begin implementing it. I'm interested to see how it goes. The program is being implemented preK-12, district wide.
DeleteMarjorie - I would be very interested to hear more about your experience with RULER. I don't have a lot of knowledge of this program, but the idea that it will be implemented fully district wide in all grade levels would provide a lot of interesting information! Hopefully it will continue through many years so the benefits of the program can be truly seen. I look forward to hearing more about it!
DeleteHi All…
DeleteI want to pick your brain as you have more experience in the preschool setting than I have! Teaching kindergarten and first grade, I have focused quite a bit on executive functioning skills and have found a great deal of success. Do you teach executive functioning in your preK classrooms and with what amount of success?
Melissa,
DeleteYes, they're hoping that implementing it preK-12 will have strong effects over the years as there will be consistency in social emotional learning across the grade levels. I'm definitely interested to see how it all works out!
There are so many important factors to consider in considering whether universal public pre-K is worthwhile and how the expansion of public pre-K should look in the state of Maine. Lynch (2010) explores the cost effectiveness of a high quality targeted public pre-K program compared to a high quality universal public pre-K program. He studies the costs and benefits of hypothetical pre-K programs in the long-term. Results showed that the cost of implementation of these programs would outweigh the benefits initially, but after 8 years of a targeted program and after 16 years of a universal program, the benefits would outweigh the costs by a margin exceeding yearly. The researcher identified many cost benefits of universal public pre-K that I had not previously considered. Many parents enter the workforce as a result of public pre-K programs providing free childcare during the school day. This causes them to earn more income and in turn, pay more in taxes. Several of my pre-kindergartners’ parents were especially pleased that we offer a full-day public program with busing, as this gave them the option to seek employment. In rural areas, like my district, quality child-care can be costly and difficult to find. Some families find it less expensive to stay at home with their children, rather than work and put their children in daycare. Lynch (2010) explains that a quarter of families enroll their children in private preschool programs. Thus, having a public pre-K option would generate greater savings for these families. Another point I hadn’t thought of was the savings that could be generated by the peer effect. As students that participate in quality pre-K are less likely to later commit juvenile crime, repeat grades, etc., their peers that they attend school with from kindergarten-on may follow suit. Despite, the high cost in the early years of implementation of public pre-K programs, in the long-run the benefits seem to outweigh the costs.
ReplyDeleteChien, Howes, Burchinal, Pianta, Ritchie, Bryant, Clifford, Early, and Barbarin (2010) examine how different prekindergarten curricular and instructional approaches impact school readiness. The researchers organized their findings into four models of learning: free-choice play, individualized instruction, group instruction, and scaffolded learning. While reading this, I was thinking about where my program would fit within these categories. We use the OWL curriculum, which includes components of free play/centers, whole group and small group instruction, and individualized instruction. However, we scaffold students’ learning within each part of the day, thus, my classroom would best fit within the scaffolded learning profile. I found it interesting that the free play model showed less growth for school readiness skills than the other models. However, the article seemed to focus more on literacy/mathematics as being “school readiness” skills. Self-regulatory skills, problem solving, social-emotional skills, and positive approaches to learning are arguably more important for school readiness, and the study did not explore these areas as extensively as literacy and math.
With public pre-K expansion on the horizon, Maine can use these insights in planning implementation of a quality program. The state needs to consider whether the long-term cost effectiveness of a universal program, is worth the initial cost of implementation. They also need to consider instructional models, curriculum, length of school day, transportation, and many other factors.
I also found the fact that the free model of play made less gains than the rest of the model very interesting. When we are thinking about early childhood education we want our students to begin working on the social skills and being able to interact with their peers and adults. As a person who works in the special education field and one of our biggest interest is in developing skills for interaction and self care. Even though we want our students to be academically ready for kindergarten what about their abilities to get along, share, and work things out with their peers. I feel that this article is very focused on the academics and diverse types of instructions.
DeleteHello Marjorie and Veronica,
DeleteI agree that at this age level children should be focusing on social skills, self-regulation, and the like. I think the reason that the free play model did not fare as well, may be due to the fact that some children enter programs with very little exposure to even the basic of pre-academic skills. Unless teachers are somehow integrating math and literacy into their free play choice of activities, there may be some children, particularly those from low income households, who are going to miss out on basic skills. These children benefit more from direct instruction. I do feel there are ways to make free play time more meaningful and to provide children exposure to math and literacy during this time...it just takes creativity.
Marjorie, Veronica, and Julie,
DeleteI also found it very interesting that free play made such little gains. One thing I really respected about this article was how well the authors critiqued their own work and pointed out potential short-comings. In regards to the low results in the free play profile, the authors do point out that the study had a majority of at-risk students, which may have skewed the results. Lynch (2010) explains that students who have had prior exposure to early childhood settings would be less impacted by a universal program because they would have already acquired most of the skills and knowledge the program would be comprised of. Since these students would seemingly benefit less from direct instruction (because they would already know the concepts), I would believe that free play would be a time for them to explore more high-level thinking, practice self-regulation, and become better problem solvers. I wonder how the results would have been different had the majority of the study population been low-risk students?
Veronica,
DeleteI filled a long term sub positions at a middle school special ed program several summers ago, and I noticed many similarities between the focus in the functional life skills room and the focus in an early childhood classroom. Students were working on independence skills, self-regulation, and recognizing and understanding feelings in themselves and others. These are all skills that are arguably more important to focus on in a preK setting rather than focusing primarily on academics.
Julie,
I hadn't really thought about how free play could put low income children at a disadvantage, if they are not getting the same rich experiences at home as their peers. It makes sense that this could be one reason why the data showed free play being less effective, and individual instruction most effective.
Melissa,
I agree, the authors' gave more insight into their research as they pointed out the short comings of their study. That's a great follow up question too! Or I wonder how different the results would have been is their was an even mix of low risk and high risk students?
When thinking about our state and local Pre-K programs I know that the early childhood environmental rating scale (ECERS-R), classroom assessment scoring system (CLASS), and Peabody picture vocabulary test (PPVT) are used in assessing the environment, teachers, and student’s growth. It was interesting to see that all three of these tools were also used in a multi-state study. In my program, we have moved away from using the ECERS because the latest version does not represent our program well. We are assessed by CLASS at least one a year and children are assessed using the PPVT in the fall and spring. For this assessment, a random sample of children were picked at the beginning of the school year. The PPVT is administered by an outside source and teachers are not usually provided the results. Another assessment that teachers use three times throughout the school year (fall, winter, spring) is the phonological awareness literacy screening (PALS).
ReplyDeleteIn using the OWL curriculum somedays it feels like I am rushing to complete all parts of the day on time. In Chien, Howes, Burchinal, Pianta, Ritchie, Bryant, Clifford, Early & Barbarin (2010) they discuss how there are missed opportunities to interact with children when teachers are rushing through the daily schedule. The authors state that free choice activities resulted in low development of academic skills. We could infer that students of low economic status benefit from a more instructional classroom because the majority of the children in this study were of low status. They interviewed teachers of young children and the results were that teachers believed that children with low economic status required more direct instruction. Those children who are of higher economic status benefit from choice activities. Chien et al. (2010) state that to yield higher benefits for our Pre-K students more quality instructional time is needed during the daily routine and less free play. Lynch (2010) reveals that providing Pre-K programs will be cost effective in the future. Initially funds will be needed to support these programs but it will benefit our state and government. By funding these programs now it will decrease the number of children who repeat grades and less money will be spent on the criminal justice system.
I believe that in regard to Chien et al. (2010) the Pre-K programs that are currently funded in Maine are already using more instructional time to yield higher academic results. Even though our program is 6.5 hours long children are only engaging in ‘free play’ activities for 1 hour. There are two direct instruction learning opportunity times and depending on how we read our book that day our story time could be considered direct instruction time as well. Our program is using many of the assessment that were used in this study as well. I think that Maine is moving in the right direction for quality Pre-K programs but I am still unsure if universal Pre-K is the right choice.
Hello Brittany,
DeleteI agree that children gain more academically from direct teacher instruction than they do from child initiated play. Particularly those children who have not had a lot of exposure to literacy or math concepts. However, I feel that socially/emotionally children of this age need that child initiated play just as much as they require direct instruction. It seems many programs are asking young children to sit and focus more often, and for longer periods of time, when it is not really a developmentally appropriate expectation. I feel for you folks that are teaching pre-k already, or those of you who feel you have to "rush" through the day to get everything in.
I would say that our program has a good balance of direct instruction activities and more developmentally appropriate activities. I would agree that Pre-K is asking too much of children. It hasn't always been like this but there is a shift. They want children to be more prepared for Kindergarten. We even say it... that Pre-K is a place to get ready for Kindergarten. It should be more about providing an environment for children to have social experiences and learn social/emotional skills. We shouldn't always be thinking about the next step but more about the here and now.
DeleteJulie & Brittany,
DeleteI find that in my classroom some of my students do benefit from direct instruction, but I also have some students who need free play time to work on social emotional skills. For example, I have one student who from the beginning of the year has been "ahead of the curve". I often find myself in engaged in discussions, of the student's choosing, revolving around place value, higher level addition, and even algebraic concepts such as pi. This student, however, struggles with self-regulation and appropriate peer-to-peer interactions. Free play is vital for this student. I also have other students who are very bright, but struggle with fine-motor skills, so free play (where every area has some need for fine motor skills) is a chance for them to use strengthen those skills. I attempt to plan my instruction in ways that provide for individual instruction, group instruction, and to work on skills, but some days keeping up with the "checklist" is overwhelming.
I completely agree Melissa free play time is a great opportunity for our students to work on a variety of skills. I think that a good balance of direct instruction and free play activities are essential in the Pre-K environment.
DeleteLynch (2010) has conducted quite a study on the cost effectiveness of public pre-k in both targeted and universal programs, in all states. While he certainly has broken down the numbers quite extensively, I found his findings to be similar to those that we have already read about. He found the long-term benefits of public pre-k to far outweigh the cost. Providing children with some form of public pre-k in turn helps to reduce future crime rates, lessens the need for special education and child welfare, and has a positive effect on taxes. I had not really ever considered the potential savings to special education before. Lynch (2010) also mentions that a larger program might also improve the overall school atmosphere for everyone, as students would start together at a younger age and remain in school together. One theme that his findings hinge upon, as do many other studies, is that of "quality". This seems to be a common theme in these types of studies, but the question is, will it ever come to fruition. Also, in order for universal programs to be started, there has to be funding. There seemed to be a lot of "ifs" mentioned in this particular article.
ReplyDeleteI found the study of Chien et al. (2010) to be interesting, though not surprising. It naturally makes sense that children are going to learn more from direct instruction than they are during free choice time. In our programs during free choice times, teachers are there scaffolding with the children as much as possible. There are certainly times when the children are engaged in free play without a teacher right there with them, however, I feel peers scaffold with one another in our center. This, however, may not be the case in a classroom where the majority of the children are from low-income homes. I do feel that there are ways to integrate literacy and math into free choice time, so that children are at least being exposed to numerals, letters, and words. The authors found that free play made up the largest percentage of time in the classroom. It seems maybe teachers need to get creative in how they plan for this time of the day, and what they can offer to the children, so that they are gaining some form of math and literacy skills.
I fear that what I am learning about public pre-k is that it is all about outcomes, and less about what is developmentally appropriate for children in this age range. I agree that we need to do something about the achievement gap, but at what expense. Expectations for children are getting higher and higher, as is the rate of anxiety in children. Right now, I am not sure what Maine should do. I do know, that if we move toward universal pre-k, we had better be sure that we are able to provide high quality programming from properly educated staff.
Julie,
DeleteI have the same fear as you. So much that I've read about public pre-k is all about the financial part of it or ensuring that children can pass certain tests when they reach elementary school, but the most important part of early childhood education, or any education for that matter, should be the needs of the children. There is no right or wrong way to teach and we all know that each and every child learns differently, but the fact of the matter is that 4 year olds are not able to sit at a desk or table for long periods of time listening to a teacher give them instructions. That does not mean that we should not have some instructional time built into the curriculum, but young minds need to be able to explore. This is where, I believe, the scaffolding piece is so important; allowing the children to play, be engaged and take the lead, but being there to expand their thoughts.
Yes, Ashley! If we, as early childhood educators, think outside the box, instructional time can be done in a way that is fun and engaging for the children, while still managing to meet standards. I have found that the majority of children love learning new things, it is all in how the material is presented to them.
DeleteHi Julie,
DeleteI had the same thoughts regarding all the "ifs" mentioned in the Lynch (2010) article! He did so much research and put lots of work into his study, however, so many of the components were hypothetical. Like you said, he came to similar conclusions to studies we have already read about, yet he really broke the numbers down. It seems like many criticisms could be drawn from his study as his numbers were not coming from actual pre-K programs in existence. His study was full of "what ifs".
Julie
DeleteI too wonder about what we are doing if we provide Universal Pre-K. I think about the Lynch (2010) research and the idea that there will be less behaviors coming from children in a high quality pre-k program but from an early childhood stand point I would have to debate that I do not always agree that pre-k in a K-12 like setting is always developmental appropriate. I would further say I feel as a nation we need to look at how we are constantly pulling our children indoors to school them and examine if that is working well for us. The nature thing is just a personal thought I threw in;)
Julie,
DeleteThe what-if's in the article was a big red flag for me also. Although I understand the reasoning behind creating a hypothetical study to better inform policy-makers, but I agree with Marjorie in that there can be a lot of criticisms due to the "ifs".
Like you, I feel that everything I read is all about money. How much, when will the benefits be seen, how much would the benefits, etc. is all that is being explored. Students are not "cash cows" and need to be seen for what they really are. If this youngest generation of learners are only seen for the potential money they bring, there will never be a program that is good enough, as policy-makers will only be looking for more ways to maximize benefits.
I also agree with you on producing anxiety in young children. During spring conferences I spent 20 minutes with a mom talking about what I perceived as early signs of test-taking anxiety. I am not good at tests, I get very self-conscious, doubt myself even if I know without a doubt I am right, and I saw the warning signs in this student. Writing her name, spelling her name, using magnets or play-do, or anything really, she had it down. But when I asked her to sit down and write in a formal setting, she froze. Her sparkle dulled, and I wanted to just wrap her up and tell her how amazing she is! I did not want to be sitting with a child who thought they were dumb, and it broke my heart. In self-directed, meaningful ways that were fun to her and helped her make real-life connections, she bloomed as a learner, in cold, systematic, robotic assessments, she did not. If she were made to sit at a desk all day and practice, practice, practice, she would not have half the personality she does, and I worry that universal pre-k, unless of very high-quality with highly trained professionals who have DAP in mind, the future of students will be bleak and their individuality will be suppressed.
Since we are moving towards public pre-kindergarten we are needing to look at the research being done in the education field. In these research articles done by Lynch (2010) and Chein, Howes, Burchinal, Pianta, Ritchie, Bryant, Clifford, Early, and Barbarian (2010) the authors examine the cost of a high quality pre-k (Lynch, 2010) and how school readiness and engagement affects the students in pre-k (Chein et al. 2010) Some of the most important findings that I found interesting, and important and pertains to public pre-kindergarten education, involves socio-economic status. The socio-economic status and the diverse types of home lives also impacts classroom engagement and school readiness and how to teach a diverse group of students. Lynch (2010) states that all children from the several types of family lives benefit from high quality pre-kindergarten. Students are needing high-quality education to make gains in kindergarten and beyond. The issue that lies before us, is how are we going to pay for a new universal program. The studies have shown that more we put into the education, the more return we will get back. Some results include having higher earnings and lower incarcerations and jail sentences.
ReplyDeleteChein et al (2010) focuses on how the how students are engaged in their classroom and the different types of instruction. The researchers identified the four distinct types of instruction are free choice/ play method, individual instruction, group instruction and scaffold instruction and learning. The results that the authors gained through the study, are that more individual instruction there is the more progress students are making, as oppose to free choice and play. I agree with this type of instruction but I also think that education should encompass all types of education, especially in the early years. I feel that in Maine we could really benefit from the diverse types of pre-kindergarten programs. Many of the diverse types of programs would benefit many of our students.
Veronica, I agree when you said "that education should encompass all types of education." When teachers provide a variation of learning methods and opportunities, they are addressing the learning styles of all students. Some children do learn best through free play, and for some free, completely open-ended play is too overwhelming, and they need more direct instruction and focus. A high-quality preschool program should entail various methods throughout different parts of the day to best support all children and their individual needs.
DeleteVeronica I also agree we should encompass all types of education. I think that speaks to what we believe in as education for "the whole child." I also think that by using different styles and techniques we learn what best works for what children, what others may have to work on and potentially what we should be planning for. I too think about the diversity of our nation and the children and families we serve. I cannot see how a universal program can meet so many individual needs but that's just me.
DeleteVeronica - I agree that all types and models of instruction need to be implemented in order to fully meet the needs of all students in a group. One-size-fits-all will never work with early childhood, and really doesn't even work with K-12.
DeleteSara - I completely agree with your statement that some children learn best through free play while others find it overwhelming. During one free play time earlier this year, I had a student hovering around me. I asked him what he would like to do for his free time, and he burst into tears and said he just wanted me to tell him what to do! I was completely shocked by this, but having gotten to know him much better, I understand his need for more direct instruction. Now, during free play, I pick three areas (usually based on skills that I notice he needs some more exposure in) and he feels much more able to pick between these smaller set. There are days when he doesn't need this support, and I see this as a great aspect of why free play is so important: he is learning to self-regulate, uses his peers as models, and has found things in the classroom that are interesting to him. Without this time, I feel he would have never developed these skills and would also be anxious in situations that weren't direct.
Hi all,
DeleteI am not surprised by your little guy not knowing what to do, Melissa. There are many students who are so comfortable being told what to do by adults, when they are faced with independence they are very confused and unsure. I remember a time last year, I was out and the little guy became so dependent on me that he was so lost when I was not there to tell him what to do. The teacher told me this the next day and I was amazed that he was so dependent. We began to gradually decrease my input throughout the year but still I was so shocked and amazed by that.
I agree with you both, Veronica and Sara, that early education ought to include all types of education. This could also include kinesthetic, audio, visual and reading/writing activities along with free play and direct instruction. I work with the Reggio Emilia approach to teaching which believes that children have access to a "hundred languages" best expressed through the arts. The arts become a way to learn larger concepts while making learning fun and profound. There are so many ways to teach a topic, for instance we did a whole lesson on outer space that began with reading books and talking about planets, to creating paper mache planets that turned into story telling while playing in self built block spaceships, to free play dress up in astronaut costumes. I find value in teaching one topic in many different ways to reach as many children as deeply as possible.
ReplyDeleteAllison - your statement "I find value in teaching one topic in many different ways to reach as many children as deeply as possible" very profound. I agree with this 100% and it is one of the reasons I have admired Reggio Emilia since first learning of the curriculum. In providing so many different experiences, students are more invested in the learning and can find even more ways to continue the learning both in the classroom and outside of the classroom. When students continue a concept at daycare, home, etc., I feel they are truly learning and are invested in their learning, making it more fun and enjoyable.
DeleteAs the state of Maine moves forward with an expansion of a public preK program, it is imperative to base decisions off of research. Lynch (2010) brought up several points of importance including (a) it is imperative that the program be high-quality to obtain results, (b) preK programs can benefit children regardless of their socioeconomic status, and (c) financial contributions to public preK makes economic sense.
ReplyDeleteIt makes perfect sense that a high-quality preK program yields benefits that surpass a program of lesser quality as Lynch (2010) suggested. Maine would be wise to implement a program that meets the specifications of high-quality. What are the specific characteristics that make a program high-quality? This is an area Maine Department of Education could research further.
Maine residents have diverse socioeconomic means. A public preK program would be a benefit to many families living in our state. Research suggests that high-quality programs provide benefits to children regardless of their socioeconomic status. According to Schecter (2002 as cited in Lynch 2010) there is a benefit for children from low income households, to attend a preK program with children from varied socioeconomic means. Additional research is needed on the correlation between preK gains and socioeconomic status, but expanding the preK program would be good for the state of Maine.
I never considered the economic benefits to society of a preK program. Lynch’s (2010) claim that there would be savings associated with a reduction in the special education population, reduced retention rates, higher high-school graduation rates, lower numbers involved in the criminal justice department, and a savings in welfare costs makes sense. When looking at the differences in targeted programs versus universal programs, I do not know enough about Maine’s budget and available funds allotted to a preK program. I like the idea that a universal program yields greater total benefits, but a targeted program affords a greater benefits-to-costs ratio. I would need to know more about Maine’s finances before choosing which preK program style would be the best fit for the state.
The research of Chien et. al. (2010) suggests that preK classroom instruction should include time for (a) explorative play, (b) individual and group direct instruction, and (c) teacher scaffolding. This makes sense given that children learn in different ways and at different rates of time. Each type of instruction fosters a different area of learning. The researchers suggest that explorative play builds language, problem-solving, spatial reasoning, and mental planning. Teacher instruction enhances academic skills and scaffolding develops problem-solving and literacy skills. Maine preK programs should utilize all three models of learning to create a comprehensive educational experience.
I had not considered the fact that classroom engagement would have a correlation with socioeconomic status as Chien et. al. (2010) suggests. It was surprising to read that instruction techniques were often based on the socioeconomic status of children. As the state of Maine moves forward with public preK implementation, we should consider how the program’s daily schedule is designed so that it meets the needs of diverse learners in various engagements.
Denyell - Maine definitely has diverse socioeconomic groups, and it also has a very diverse culture. Different methods of instruction are vital in ensuring that all students are able to access what is being taught. I have a student from Columbia who is identified as an English Language Learner (ELL). Her English has grown tremendously this year, however at the beginning of the year modeling, peer models, and directed, repeated instruction was essential to her understanding. Group activities, such as reading, was also a great chance for her to expand her knowledge as well as vocabulary. Free play was vital in her understanding in the cultural differences of her peers in relation to her own culture, and she has since begun teaching students simple, one-word Spanish during free play time! Watching her grow this year has been such an honor, but I don't believe I would have seen much growth if only one method of instruction was being delivered.
DeleteThe informational content of Lynch (2010) seemed very similar to previous articles and content. I did however find the benefit cost ratio interesting. That notion and the idea that we will gain additional cost benefits by exposing the other children in the classroom to less behaviors will also save us money. I understand that point but then I think about what I know about early childhood and I have to ask myself if we aren’t creating more behaviors in children by asking them to confirm to expectations or standards that just are not reasonable for their age and development. I think about how in some other countries around the world children are not exposed to a formal education until age 7. I personally keep going back and forth on what I feel is right. Furthermore I do not believe one universal program will be a good fit for everyone but that is just my opinion.
ReplyDeleteAnother idea that Lynch (2010) had me thinking about was the idea that a high quality public pre-k program would benefit the most at risk children. They say this group would benefit the greatest because they have the greatest room for improvement. That left me thinking because I was one that asked, what does it do for the middle and upper class? In his study Lynch talked about how Public Pre-K benefited all children. So I guess his answer would be all children benefit but the children most at risk are the ones who benefit the most.
While reading the research of Chien, (2010) I thought about a program as a whole and I found that I thought a high quality program would have many of these components if not all. I feel as if children benefit from all of these experiences throughout the course of the day/ week/ year. I also thought about free play a lot and I think about the many teachable moments that occur and just pop up from open free play and children sharing thoughts and experiences. Sometimes those experiences cannot be recreated.
I think all children can benefit from programs that fit their needs. At my school our program can hold 18 children per classroom but currently I only have 12 and the other Pre-K room next door has 11. This is because the program only accepted children of low income families. Those families of higher income do not qualify for the program and yet we have all this open space. I think we should serve children of low economic status and then accept those with higher income if we have space. It ridiculous that we are not providing this program for all children who want to participate when we have available space.
DeleteBrittany
DeleteI too see that as a huge missed opportunity. I think about the opportunities of interactions between the children of these different economic status groups and I think about how they could all learn so much from one another and how funding criteria can cause negative effects. Furthermore what a way to separate the gap even more. I am sorry I hope someone might someday listen to your reasoning and change that ludicrous idea.
Thanks for sharing
As the debate over universal pre-k continues to heat up, there are important factors that must be considered in order to implement a high-quality program: cost effectiveness and models of instruction.
ReplyDeleteChien, Howes, Burchinal, Pianta, Ritche, Bryant, Clifford, Early, and Barbarin (2010) present a study that compares and contrasts four snapshot profiles of students and how different models of instruction effected their learning and growth. In determining whether different models of learning are more suited for children in different profiles, the authors found that the results of the study did not provide sufficient evidence to support their hypothesis. However, they did find that poor students in the individualized instruction profile displayed more growth than their more advantaged peers, and that students in the free play profile exhibited less gains overall than all other profiles. These findings suggest that the use of individualized instruction can be beneficial to academic growth, and that spending more time in individualized instruction could be more beneficial than increasing or maintaining longer free play times.
Lynch (2010) presents a hypothetical longitudinal study on the costs and benefits projection of a targeted pre-k program vs. a universal pre-k program in all 50 states. He found that if states wanted a lesser start up cost, a targeted pre-k program for the most in-need children would be the best option, as the start-up costs were smaller than a universal program and the benefits would begin to pay out in a shorter period of time. However, if states were willing to put in the time and money, a universal program would be more beneficial as the benefits would eventually far exceed the benefits of a targeted program, although it would take nearly twice as long for the benefits to emerge. Universal pre-k, the author notes, may be more beneficial to all students, as mixed socio-economic classes in Georgia and Oklahoma provided results showing that all students benefited from the universal pre-k program. Targeted programs, he explains, would only benefit the most in-need students, but would also not reach all of the targeted population.
After reading these articles, I am beginning to believe that a universal pre-k program may not be as terrible as I once thought. Although I am not a huge proponent of universal pre-k, due to the depletion of diverse programming and giving parents the option to choose what they feel is best for their child, these articles provide some convincing evidence that universal pre-k would be beneficial to all children. Lynch (2010) provides compelling evidence of state programs in Georgia and Oklahoma. In both states, it was found that all students, no matter their socio-economic background, benefited and made gains as a result of universal pre-k. The cost vs. benefits analysis showed that the start-up costs associated with universal pre-k would be much higher and take much longer to provide benefits, however with the evidence from Georgia and Oklahoma, it may be the best option. Start-up fees associated with targeted programs are lower and take less time to generate benefits, but they are designed for a specific set of students, which leaves a majority of students without access.
As pre-k expands, the state of Maine can use the insights of these two articles to determine two factors: how much they are willing to invest into the education of young learners, and what models of instruction would be used in the program. Is the state willing to invest more money over a longer period of time in order to see large benefits, or would less money be devoted to reap those benefits sooner, albeit less benefits? How would instructional time be managed in order to provide students the most opportunities to practice skills and acquire new learning?
I agree with you that Chien et al. did not provide enough evidence to conclude that the children receiving more instruction made more academic gains then those who received more free play. I think that in order to conclude that they need to look more long term. Even if children make fewer initial gains, what do studies show about long term gains? By the end of grade 3 are these children still ahead academically? Do they have the social-emotional maturity that they need?
DeleteHello Melissa and Justina,
DeleteI agree you with you Melissa about not being a huge supporter of universal pre-k. I am personally worried about the students not receiving services that they would need. The added choice of the parents in where they would like to send their child is another concern. My cousin's wife taught at a Montessori school for a few years and raves about the education there. If I had my way (when I have children) I would send them to a private school, mostly because you are getting high quality. Just like Justina explains there is also no evidence about the long term gains that the children will have. How can we ensure that the universal pre-k will have the benefits long past kindergarten.
As a person who works with diverse students and needs should we as teachers in the early childhood sector push our students to perform above developmentally appropriate practice?
Hi Melissa and Veronica…
DeleteI have certainly not made up my mind on which side of the universal preK debate I am on as I can see pros and cons to each side. You both mentioned the importance of having program choice for families. Working for a charter school, I do believe school choice offers benefits as long as the schools are high-quality. Do you think that opening public preK programs would adversely affect private preschools? Working through the process to open a new public program afforded me insight into all that is involved in school creation. One part of opening a program, involves getting letters of support from pre-existing programs. In my case it was KVCAP and a Montessori program. When the operator of the Montessori program spoke, she said that with the expansion of KVCAP and other public programs, her enrollment has not been effected. I feel that parents who are passionate about a program’s philosophy are going to attend the program even if there are no-cost options available. I am interested in hearing others opinion on this issue. One concern I have with an expansion of public preK is how do we get families most in need to take advantage of the program? I also wonder how do we get a balance of families from diverse socioeconomic means in preK classrooms?
Chien, Howes, Burchinal, Pianta, Ritchie, Bryant, Clifford, Early, and Barbarin (2010) looked at the prospect of Universal PreK in a very different perspective than Lynch (2010) did. While Chien et al. (2010) was looking at it through the view of different curricular approaches and how effective they are, Lynch (2010) was looking at the cost effectiveness of it.
ReplyDeleteOne factor that Lynch (2010) pointed out is that by investing the high initial costs of Universal PreK now, we will be saving money in the future. I had not looked closely at this before. He argued that children will be more prepared for school and therefore less likely to be held back and less likely to need to receive special education services. This will save money in the long run. Lynch (2010) also stated that by 2050 we will be saving the money that will initially be invested and students who received Universal PreK will be more likely to earn a higher education and less likely to commit crimes.
Chien et al. looked at different approaches to learning and how these resulted in evidence of school readiness. They researched free play, individual instruction, group instruction and scaffolding learning. In their research they concluded that groups who received more free play and less instruction made fewer academic gains from fall to spring then the group who received more instructional time.
As Maine moves forward with implementing Universal PreK, they need to look at these sorts of studies. The cost effectiveness studies should be published and spread through the public so that they can understand this perspective and grasp so concept on the way in which it will eventually save money. While Chien et al. study is important, I am guessing that there are many conflicting research studies that suggest that even though academic gains are not as great initially with more free play, a child's social-emotional growth is stronger when they have the opportunity to engage in more free play. This needs to be be considered and a child's social-emotional health should be considered as important as their academic growth.
Justina,
DeleteI agree with you about the future of this movement, should we consider our children's social-emotional heath and development progress before pushing their academics. The answer is.. I don't know. Developmentally many students are not ready to read before the age of five, or five and half or even six, and yet I am watching in some pre-k programs 4 year olds are memorizing sight words. Which I think is a little too academic. However, while Kindergarten is being more and more advanced there is a concern that we as pre-k teachers are not meeting their needs before they move on. I personally don't know what is appropriate because I didn't necessarily start out in early childhood.. I just gradually went to this level. But what frustrates me as a teacher, is that there is such a focus on getting children to read and write at a younger and younger level when they are not ready.
It is hard being a teacher in Pre-K because you think your students are meeting the expectations within their age range when they leave your program. Even though we may think they are ready for Kindergarten the Kindergarten teacher do not always have the same view. I had a student last year transition into Kindergarten this fall and the K teachers were very concerned because he was low academically. He did struggle throughout the school year but I didn't think staying back was going to support any improvements. If there is no carryover into the home environment things will not change.
DeleteThe research presented in Lynch (2010) was frustrating to decipher, however, I have been convinced that the benefits of preK are long term and these benefits (although, there are many individual benefits) present themselves in saving money for state and federal governments in a variety of ways. I agree with you, Justina, that Maine ought to look at these types of research articles as it moves forward with public pre-k programs. To provide a high-quality program, the costs are initially high, but within an average of nine years there are savings (Lynch, 2010). It seems there are savings because states are helping our youth be better children and therefore better adults with less crime and more work in their futures.
DeleteAnother point was brought up by Lynch (2010) that I think worth pointing out to any state considering a universal pre-k program. There is evidence that suggests a "universal program is more effective if it integrates children from different economic backgrounds more thoroughly than a targeted program (Shector, 2002 as cited in Lynch, 2010). As most research has been done with low income, high risk children, it seems many programs seek these brackets of children as those to help with the limited funds available for pre-k. However, better outcomes are available for children in low income families in an integrated program. I would argue that there are benefits for all children when there is more culture, income levels and variety of interests at a young age. Tolerance and acceptance are huge aspects of pre-k in my perspective. However, its clear that it's the money saving aspects that are driving reason to promote pre-k in Lynch, 2010.
ReplyDeleteChien, Howes, Burchinal, Pianta, Ritchie, Bryant, Clifford, Early, and Barbarin (2010) and Lynch (2010) looked at two separate components of universal pre-k, but both provide important information to consider when debating this topic. Chein et al. (2010) explored different instructional approaches and how successful they are, while Lynch (2010) analyzed the cost effectiveness of pre-k programs.
The findings of these articles could be very beneficial to the state of Maine if we were to move towards a universal pre-k model. As Lynch (2010) discussed, the up-front costs of a universal program would be significant, but the future payoff of such a program would be tremendous. By implementing a high-quality program for young children, we could potentially reduce the need for special education services and have less children held back in school. There is also evidence that after leaving these programs children will do better in school, resulting in higher graduation rates. Lynch (2010) also explores the idea that children from these programs will be less likely to commit crimes in the future. With funding being such a huge part of this debate, this is something the state of Maine will need to consider before deciding to implement such a program.
Chein et al. (2010) looks at different types of instructional methods to determine what is the most beneficial to children. I found this article to be very interesting, and I’m not sure that I felt as though there was enough evidence to convince me to agree completely with their findings. Children all learn in different ways, and I’m not sure that I believe that a pre-k curriculum needs to be focused on academics. Social and emotional development is just as, if not more, important than academics at this age. That is why it is important to incorporate many different teaching styles in a pre-k classroom, it helps to ensure that every child is being reached and their needs are being met, whatever they may be.
Ashley,
DeleteI really liked your statement about the importance of using many different teaching styles in instruction to be sure each child's needs are being met. Some students, especially those at risk, seemed to learn best from individual instruction. Whereas, other children may learn best from scaffolding, group instruction, or free play. In general, a mix of all methods seems to be the best way to go!