Two recent changes suggest that now is a propitious time to evaluate the true purpose of early childhood programs in this country: brain research and the burgeoning standards movement that includes early childhood programs (Kagan, et al, 2006). To evaluate our field, I will present a series of apparent contradictions.

Readiness v. Readiness
In the early childhood field there are two kinds of readiness. One definition of readiness is providing the first steps of the ladder of education, standards’ approach that views education as a continuous straight line, with early childhood being the first 5 years. It is the approach to “getting children ready for Kindergarten”, aptly portrayed by a recent preschool curriculum advertisement that asked, “are my children already behind?”

Because NCLB focuses on literacy, math and eventually science, these content areas are driving K-3rd grade curriculum, and influencing preschool curricula. Kagan et al (2006) have pointed out that all state preschool standards focus on academic areas at the expense of other areas.

For Waldorf, British Infant/Primary programs, Montessori, Reggio Emilia, and the original Kindergarten, the preschool years are a critical readiness time when children should engage in activities and experiences that are qualitatively different from the K-12 curricula: nature, the arts, play, emotions, a whole child approach, and lots of social and verbal interaction (Wardle, 2007). All these philosophies believe that the early childhood years are a unique period of development and growth. Lord Nuffield’s view that “the best preparation for adulthood is a full and meaningful childhood” is a good way to describe this view of readiness (Wardle, 2003).

Social/Emotional Development v. Academics
Historically preschool programs focused on social-emotional development of young children. Mother’s-Day-Out programs were designed so mothers could get away from their little ones for a while and their children could learn important social skills before entering school. In 1995 the U.S. Department of Education reported a study that kindergarten teachers viewed social skills, and the ability to listen to an adult and to work comfortably with other young children, as the critical kindergarten readiness skills (1995). And Head Start’s original philosophy was based on social competence (Wardle, 2003). The famous High/Scope curriculum used in the Perry Preschool Research Project is based on these same underlining principles. 

The academic focus of preschool comes out of the downward extension of the K-12 scope and sequence, which takes specific content areas and then regressively determines what a child should learn in each grade. Because many American students struggle with math, science, and reading proficiency, we now require more academics, earlier. This downward extension often results in preschool approaches that teach academic skills in isolation of social, emotional, and physical development.

Emergent Curriculum v External Curriculum
American early childhood history is imbued with John Dewey, the Bank Street approach, block play, Piaget’s schemas, Froebel’s gifts, and Montessori’s “absorbent mind”. Developmentally Appropriate Practice (Bredekamp and Copple, 1997) articulates this view, which includes child-directed learning, active exploration of the environment, and an emergent curriculum, all implemented within a safe, secure, and well developed learning environment.

However, it seems that we no longer have faith that children can progress through these logical and expected development stages. We have adopted a view that adults (teachers, curriculum developers, and state departments of education) have a responsibility to set the learning expectations at different ages, and then to make sure that children are meetings these expectations, through assessments (Wardle, 2007).

Child Care v. Early Childhood Education
We have created a two-tiered system of early care and education: child care and early childhood education. According to Neugebaurer, government subsidized child care actually reduces the quality of care for our children, because it reimburse programs at less than market value (1999). As a society we feel that this custodial care is OK, despite the results of various studies (Cost, Quality and Outcome study, 1995), and the new brain research’s support for the critical need for quality care during the child’s first years of life (Lally, 1998).
 
Forty-four states have some kind of pre-K program, and others are working on developing them (Kagan et al, 2006). These programs, begun with Head Start, are based on the belief that early education and intervention are important for the future school success of at-risk children. This preschool model follows the school model: money, teachers’ requirements, and a curriculum based on the school day and a 180-day school year.

Diversity v. Non-diversity
The publication of the Anti-bias Curriculum (Derman Sparks et al, 1989) brought the thriving multicultural education movement to early childhood education. Since that time the movement has expanded to include language, sexual orientation and economic status. The underlying goal of multicultural education is to provide all children with equal educational opportunity, and to begin to deconstruct the white privilege power base in this country (Dermman-Sparks). Because children develop attitudes at an early age that often stay with them for the rest of their lives, and because they are concrete learners, it is believed that the best way to teach diversity is to have young children attend integrated programs (Wardle, 2003).

However, we continue to segregate young children in our programs. Head Start and most state-funded programs target low-income students (economic segregation) and many of the programs are almost totally one racial or ethnic group, because of the neighborhoods in which they are located. There are also exclusive migrant and Indian programs. Recently Denver divided a citywide program into three programs defined essentially by race. Both faith-based initiatives supported by the current administration, and an overall increase in religious childcare and early childhood programs, further segregates our young children by race and religion (Neugebauer, 2005).

Bilingual Education v. Teaching English
Bilingual education has become a central component of multicultural education. (York, 2003). This is because, 1) historically children who did not speak English in our schools were punished, ridiculed, and harassed; and, 2) many believe that language is a central component of identity and self-esteem. Thus any quality early childhood program for children who do not speak English should first teach basic academic concepts in the child’s home language, and must make sure the home language is honored and respected (York, 2003).
 
One of the more effective ways to teach a foreign language to English speaking children is the full immersion method (Wardle, 2003b). Another is the dual language approach. However, even with the dual language method a 20:80 time ratio (home language to English or a foreign language) is recommended. The reason these methods are effective is because a child’s home language is used with peers, in the home and community, and even for watching TV and listening to the radio.

High Expectations v. Low Salaries
One of the most curious contradictions in early childhood field is the ever-increasing demand on teachers and caregivers without a significant change in their abysmal salaries and benefits. In fact, a recent issue of Young Children (NAEYC, 2006) focused on advocating changes in our field (higher quality standards) and aligning early childhood curricula with K-12 curricula. Unfortunately these articles did not advocate aligning early childhood teachers’ pay and benefits with K-12 teachers pay and benefits!

Not only has the new brain research reaffirmed the critical importance of the early years on brain development (Lally, 1998), but it has also focused on the need to provide an optimum environment for young children. One of the most important needs for infant brain development is synchrony and goodness of fit – ideas that require stable, sensitive, well trained caregivers (Berger, 2006).

The new state pre K standards have increased requirement on the part of caregivers and teachers: content knowledge and specialized knowledge regarding how to implement the standards. In fact, a major criticisms is the inappropriate way poorly trained teachers implement them. Articles in early childhood publications continually exhort change in program quality by declaring that “teachers must…….” (NAEYC, 2006), but never follow by stating that “society must provide better salaries and benefits” to these same teachers. The new state Pre-K initiates do not include in them a demand for higher salaries and benefits, even for teachers within public schools.

Conclusion
The early childhood field in the United States is at a major crossroads. To be able to make the right decisions for our children and our profession we need to carefully consider a variety of factors. I have arranged some of these factors as opposites to illustrate the various contradictions in our field. While the reader can probably conceive more contradictions, my purpose is to highlight the need for consistency and a clear vision for our profession.

References
Berger, K. S. (2006). The developing person. Through childhood and adolescence. (7th ed). New York: Worth Publishers.

Bredekamp, S., and Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: NAEYC

Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study Team. (1995). Cost, quality and child outcomes in child care centers. Denver, Colorado: Department of Economics, University of Colorado at Denver.

Derman-Sparks, L. & the ABC Task Force. (1989) Antibias curriculum: Tools for empowering young children. Washington, DC: NAEYC

Kagan, S. L., Carroll, J., Comer, J.P. &Scott-Little, C. (2006). Alignment: A missing link in early childhood transition. Young Children, 61 (5), 26-32.

Lally, J. R. (1998). Brain research, infant learning, and child care curriculum. Child Care Information Exchange, 121, 47-48.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2006). Moving forward. Young Children, 61 (5). Entire issue

Neugebauer, R. (1999). Inside child care: Trend report 2000. Redmond, WA: Child Care Information Exchange.

Neugebauer, R. (2005, Sept/Oct). Trends in religious-affiliated child care. Child Care Information Exchange, #165, pp. 79-80

U. S. Department of Education. National Center for Educational Statistics (1995). Kindergarten teacher survey on student readiness. Washington, DC: Author

Wardle, F, (2003). Introduction to early childhood education. A multidimensional approach to child-centered care and learning. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Wardle, F. (2005). Language immersion programs for young children. Child care Information Exchange, #153, 54-58.

Wardle, F. (2007). Approaches to early childhood education. Denver, CO: Unpublished manuscript.

York, S. (2003). Roots and wings. Affirming culture in early childhood programs. (Rev ed). St Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.

Francis Wardle, PhD, has been an infant/toddler, preschool and kindergarten teacher, a Head Start director, and the education director for Children’s World Learning Centers. He has written four textbooks and many journal and magazine articles on a variety of topics. Currently he teachers for the University of Phoenix/online, and Red Rocks Community College, writes, and conducts research on race and education in Brazil.

His website for the Center for the Study of Biracial Children is http://www.csbchome.org.