Early childhood educators have traditionally shied away from programs that use core curriculum standards or prescribed curriculum tools. The basic concern towards applying these documents was that untrained teachers would fail to understand that children develop at individual rates and might “teach to the skill” instead of concentrating on the development of each child. Children do develop at different rates and individual support is essential for all children in order to support them in cognitive development, as well as social and emotional strategies. To address this, the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) has given the basic guideline for their Program Standards and Accreditation Criteria:

Standard 2: Curriculum
The program implements a curriculum that is consistent with its goals for children and promotes learning and development in each of the following areas: social, emotional, physical, language, and cognitive (NAEYC).

The recent pressure of the School Readiness portion of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) has sent most states scrambling to update or create core curriculum standards for preschool children. The Federal Head Start Program has Outcome Indicators for the same purpose. There are challenges to, cautions for, and uses of core curriculum standards in developmentally appropriate early childhood curriculum:

Challenge 1: Keeping the early childhood setting developmentally appropriate.
There are teachers who argue that using a core curriculum standard is detrimental to a developmentally appropriate classroom, but “developmentally appropriate” is the approach the teacher takes in the classroom, not the content of learning. It is, however, critical to establish the proper early childhood curriculum criteria. Developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) means teaching young children in ways that:

• meet children where they are, as individuals and as a group; and
• help each child reach challenging and achievable goals that contribute to his or her ongoing development and learning (Copple, 2006).

When taking a trip to a new location, one uses a “road map” to locate where they are and where they are going. A child’s development is like taking a trip, and the teacher must know where the child is functioning and where she needs to go. Core curriculum standards or outcome indicators can be the road map for a child’s development. A teacher cannot track progress without an organized map. In fact, “if children are not making learning and developmental progress toward important outcomes, then the program is not developmentally appropriate” (Copple, 2006). Furthermore, research has shown that children learn more in programs where there is a well-planned and implemented curriculum (Schweinhart & Weikart, 1997).

Challenge 2: Core Standards are not always listed in developmentally appropriate order.
Unfortunately, creators of many preschool curriculum standards have not taken the time to carefully indicate or suggest when skills should be introduced and in what order. There is a definite developmental order to many skills, particularly in the cognitive and physical development areas (POCET).
 
One of the first things a good teacher should do is arrange the “road map” into organized points. This is the only way to track a child’s progress. Introducing a child to a skill he is unprepared to learn creates for him seemingly random activities that do not assist his growth. A good example of this is in the mathematics area : An untrained teacher may introduce patterning activities to the child without making sure he has mastered classifying or sorting. A child who cannot classify does not have enough background knowledge to perform and understand patterning exercises, so any patterning activity appears random to him and probably does nothing to strengthen the child’s developmental progress. If the points of the “road map” are jumbled up and out of order, the traveler will not be able to reach his destination. It is not enough to just have the curriculum standards; they must also be in a developmental order of introduction to be properly supported.

Challenge 3: Classrooms with strong curriculum standards may be tempted to base all information on a formal test of the standards.
In understanding the difference between “curriculum” and “philosophy,” remember that in the education culture, the term “curriculum” is the content used in teaching. Curriculum should be designed to encourage learning processes (memory, attention, observation) and cognitive skills (reasoning, comparing and contrasting, classification), as well as the acquisition of specific information, such as the names of the letters of the alphabet (Bowman, 2000).

After establishing the developmentally appropriate philosophy and understanding the curriculum content that should be addressed, it is important to track the progress of each child. Some teachers may be tempted to base progress solely on how a child might “score” on a formal assessment of developmental milestones. The NAEYC Program Standards and Accreditation Criteria, mentioned in the introduction to this article, states:
“The program is informed by ongoing systematic, formal and informal assessment approaches to provide information on children’s learning and development (Program Standard 4, NAEYC, 2005).

In a developmentally appropriate classroom, teachers should use multiple methods of tracking a child’s progress. While a formal assessment might be appropriate for tracking cognitive gains, particularly in charting a child’s preparation for kindergarten, informal approaches, such as observation, portfolio collection, and anecdotal records will help the teacher have a “complete” roadmap of the child’s progress and development.

Challenge 4: Classrooms that have solid program or core curriculum standards are accountable to parents and educational administrators.
One important component of developmentally appropriate classrooms is the necessity of reporting progress to families and educational agencies. This may actually be one of the most important components. Here is where the core standards or indicators are especially helpful to track progress and inform all of the players about developmental progress. Parents and administrators are always more supportive of classrooms that have an organized plan and systematic procedures.

Reciprocal relationships with parents can provide valuable information for the teacher in tracking the child’s progress and in helping the child navigate her personal road map of learning (Diffily & Morrison, 1996). Parental support and encouragement is essential to the child’s growth and is an important element of a developmentally rich classroom. Parents can:

• Provide additional information from their own informal assessment of the children’s progress.
• Give additional support in the home environment for development of skills.
• Offer enrichment for activities that begin in the classroom.

Administrators can also be supportive to early childhood teachers. Program supervisors can often look at a child’s developmental growth and offer additional suggestions. The old adage, “Two heads are better than one,” applies to this situation. A good administrator offers strong support and provides outside observations of child development and progress. After creating a developmental road map for a child, a new set of eyes can offer suggestions for making the map more useful and effective.

A good early childhood teacher will create an organized way to inform parents and the educational agency about the progress of the children in her care. This is not only developmentally appropriate, but will also provide additional support and resources for classroom instruction.

Conclusion
State core curriculum standards and federal outcome indicators should be beneficial to every early childhood program. If used in a developmentally appropriate setting, the standards will provide continuity, structure, and achievable milestones that will help teachers track the progress of each child. They can also provide a basis for choosing appropriate curricular activities and informing parents and administrators of child progress. Early childhood teachers should look at standards as a road map to success in the cognitive and emotional development of young children.

John Funk has taught preschool, first and second grades, and he spent the largest part of his teaching career in kindergarten. Mr. Funk was named “Utah Teacher of the Year” in 1996. He has worked as an early childhood specialist for a large school district and has managed early childhood services for Salt Lake CAP Head Start. He is past president of the Utah AEYC. Currently, Mr. Funk is the Manager of Educational Programs for Excelligence Learning Corporation, and he teaches courses in children’s literature and early reading at the University of Utah.

References
Bowman, B.T., Donovan, M.S., & Burns, M.S. (Eds). (2000). Eager to learn: Educating our preschoolers. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2006). Basics of developmentally appropriate practice. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

Diffily, D., & Morrison, K. (Eds). (1996). Family-friendly communication for early childhood programs. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

NAEYC Early Childhood Program Standards and Accreditation Criteria. (2005). Washington, DC: NAEYC.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Department of Education, Washington DC.
POCET: Preschool Outcomes Checklist and Evaluation Tool (2005). Monterey, CA: Excelligence Learning Corporation.

Schweinhart, L.J., & Weikart, D.P. (1997). The High/Scope preschool curriculum comparison study through age 23. Early Childhood Research Review Quarterly, 12 (2).