Competency vs. Dependency
American teachers’ beliefs and curricula were traditionally built around the idea that young children depend on adults to know what is best for them (Hill, Stremmel, & Fu, 2005). Certainly the younger the child, the more adults need to be directly involved in his or her physical care for the sake of the child’s safety and well-being. But the extent to which children throughout the early childhood period are encouraged and allowed to direct their own learning and make intuitive decisions is changing. In particular, educators in the Reggio Emilia infant-toddler and preschool programs subscribe to a view of children as innately competent, strong, and powerful (Edwards, Gandini, & Forman, 1998). This alternate image of children focuses on what children can do rather than what they can’t. Adults are challenged to see children as having not needs but rights. Rather than focusing on what adults think children need, teacher educators are encouraged to focus on who they are as individuals, casting them as stakeholders in their own learning (Chaille, 2008). Going forward, you will see how this idea plays out to greater or lesser extent in planning and implementing curriculum.
At Risk vs. Promising
In American society, the vision of children as the promise of our future is a cherished ideal. But the language used to describe efforts to provide equal opportunities for all children and a solid foundation for success is changing. Closely related to the dialogue about competency vs. dependency was criticism of what many believed was a “deficit” approach to early childhood (Harry & Klingner, 2007; Swadener & Lubeck, 1995). This controversy emerged with the authorization of federally funded early childhood initiatives, including Head Start in the 1960s. The premise of this view is that certain childrenmostly second-language learners and those from low-income minority groups, begin their educational careers at a disadvantage. The perception about these children was that they lacked access to the resources necessary to be successful in school and life and were thus at risk for failure.
Critics of the practice of describing children “at risk” contended this perspective was grounded in an assumption that children must conform to a prescribed set of expectations largely driven by mainstream culture rather than the needs and cultural experiences of each child. When children did not live up to these expectations, they were considered deficient (Delpit, 2006; Hyun, 1996). These critics assert that all children should be considered “at promise,” that is, viewed in consideration of their potential (Brice-Heath, 1991; Swadener & Lubeck, 1995).
Further, advocates against a deficit mindset called for understanding that poor minority children arrive at school with different rather than deficient experiences, language, and culture. For example, in terms of literacy, anthropologist Shirley Brice-Heath’s seminal research in the 1980s revealed that African American children often come from homes where oral language and storytelling are highly valued and practiced (Brice-Heath, 1991). But in an education setting that places a higher value on reading and writing, this strength was not recognized. Similarly, children learning English as a second language were at that time considered at risk. However, neuroscience now confirms that rather than being linguistically impaired, bilingual preschoolers can concentrate and retain information better than children who speak only one language (Carlson & Meltzoff, 2008).
Over the past three decades, educators and curriculum developers have worked hard to advance curriculum for young children that includes and values multiculturalism, diverse language traditions, and social experiences that children bring to their care or school setting.
Labeling
Like 1960s funding for early intervention programs, the laws that mandated special education services (beginning with the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975) were also inspired by the desire to create equal opportunities and services for all children.
However, labels like at risk, disabled, gifted, hearing-impaired, hyperactive, and autistic, which are applied to children for purposes of funding service programs, had the unintended consequence of creating stereotypes. Particularly because minorities are overrepresented in special education programs that focus on disabilities and underrepresented in gifted and talented programs, questions about cultural discrimination and testing/identification biases also emerged. Parents and advocates for children in special education programs claimed that applying a label as their children’s defining characteristic interfered with recognition of their children’s many positive characteristics, unrelated to the label. As a result, “person-first language” emerged (Research and Training Center on Independent Living, 2008). The examples in Table 3.1 illustrate the subtle but powerful difference that labeling conveys.