Sally Lubeck

Deconstructing “child development knowledge” and “teacher preparation”

Abstract This article examines how the terms child development knowledge and teacher preparation have come to be understood in ways that place limits on how we think about children and the preparation of teachers. It begins by illustrating some of the differences between modernism and postmodernism. It then considers why a universal practice premised on a universal theory of development is problematic. Rather than passing on a codified body of knowledge in teacher education, a dialogic model of teaching—and of teacher education—calls attention to the “inherently polysemous” nature of human existence. There are many ways of understanding how children develop and learn, many ways to teach, and a range of curricular options. “Reflective practioners” learn to think deeply about the implications of their choices and may be more likely to tailor their practice to the diverse needs of children in a multicultural society.

The Role of Culture in Program Improvement.

Abstract In this article, we draw on work in three Head Start programs over three years to consider how “culture” plays a role in program improvement. Through close attention to discourse we attempt to show how culture takes shape through dynamic interactions in particular contexts, constituting identities, structuring social relations, and privileging particular forms of knowledge. We argue for the importance of illuminating the forces that shape our lives and bringing our own ideologies to conscious awareness, in order to become actors in our social milieus. Articulation between general mandates and local needs and goals would then entail ongoing dialogue in a “culturally situated model of school/program effectiveness” ( Fuller & Clarke, 1994 , p. 121).

On Reassessing the Relevance of the Child Development Knowledge Base to Education: A Response

In this thoughtful essay, Herb Zimiles describes early childhood education as a form of applied developmental psychology, and he provides three bases for questioning the usefulness of child development knowledge to early childhood educators. Specifically, he discusses what he characterizes as the hegemony of academic child development research, the confusing and disorganizing effects of social and technological change, and the philosophical criticism leveled by the post-modern perspective. Writing as a psychologist, Zimiles provides a useful framework for thinking in new ways about a complex set of issues, yet the focus of his essay remains squarely on psychology’s contribution to an ‘applied’ field. According to this account, change – economic, social, political – is viewed in terms of its psychological effects on individuals, and post-modernism seems reduced to a few aggravating researchers in early childhood education who stand shaking their fists at science. What this view abrogates is a conception of the systems in which people’s lives are embedded, an understanding of how change occurs, and a way to problematize systems of thought and organization, and, indeed, the concept of system itself. The ‘posts’ – post-industrial-

Head Start-University Collaborations: Widening the Circle

R ecent interest in changing the ways schools and universities work together (Bickel & Hattrup, 1995; Blond & Webb, 1997; Castle, 1997; CochranSmith, 1991; Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1992; Goodlad, 1993) has led to concerted efforts to forge more collaborative and democratic relationships that, according to Ulichny and Schoenar (1996), promote and permit ”interdependence and mutuality” (p. 496). Traditionally, university researchers have not held in high regard the practical knowledge acquired in real teaching situations (Clandinin, 1993a; Lieberman, 1986a). They have tended to construe staff development as occasions for outside “experts” to provide inservice training, and have viewed universities as knowledge producers and schools as research sites. Newer models, by contrast, depict “school-university cooperation as a jointly owned venture aimed at achieving mutually beneficial change” (Castle, 1997, p. 59). New conceptualizations thus encourage collaborative inquiry and transform the ways in which both staff development and research are accomplished. Although such work has gained a strong foothold in K-12 education, few, if any, projects funded under the Administration for Children, Youth and Families Head Start-University Partnerships have endeavored to establish similar collaborations (e.g., Ellsworth Associates, 1998). In this article, we report on one such collaboration. It began with educators at the University of Michigan and those in a large, semi-rural Head Start grantee agency, and has, more recently, expanded to include another Head Start program.’ The image of an ever-widening circle can illustrate the idea of equal rights and obligations among project participants, as well as the generative potential of people working together. The project began in the fall of 1997 and initially involved eight teachers, two Head Start administrators, and two university educators. In the fall of 1998, all district Head Start teachers, as well as educators at the local community college, joined the collaboration. A similar effort involved teachers, aides, and the director of another Head Start grantee agency. The teachers involved during the first year have presented their work at a state Head Start conference, and other such presentations are being considered.

Globalization and its discontents: Early childhood education in a new world order

This chapter discusses features of globalization and reviews international case and comparative studies of early childhood education and care (ECEC) policy. The chapter has four purposes: (1) to provide an international context for discussing ECEC policy reforms related to globalization, including international efforts to forge a shared vision of childrens rights: (2) to review cross-national studies of ECEC policy; (3) to use case study examples as a way to highlight how historical precedent and contextual factors influence responses to globalization; and (4) to suggest a values-based, contextual framework for international ECEC policy research. Recent ECEC policy concerns and initiatives are evident in the areas of governance and regulation, funding, access, curriculum, staff recruitment and retention, and parent involvement.

Children in relation: Rethinking early childhood education

The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC, 1986; Bredekamp, 1987) has published guidelines which define “developmentally appropriate” practice for all children birth through eight. These guidelines have now come under criticism, however, for a variety of reasons. Researchers have argued that they present a false impression of consensus (Walsh, 1991), that they are premised on a developmental theory characterized by ethnocentric bias (Bowman & Stott, 1994), and that they represent cultural values that are not universally shared (Jipson, 1991; Wiliiams, 1994; Phillips, 1994). This article holds likewise that the promulgation of guidelines based on universalist assumptions places racial, ethnic, and linguistic “minority” children and parents at a disadvantage and contributes to the very processes that early childhood educators seek to remedy. After reviewing an extensive research literature which shows children from traditionally disadvantaged groupsin relation, the article concludes that the poor scholastic performance of disproportionate numbers of children should be attributed to interactional and relational factors rather than to innate capabilities or to parental “inadequacy.”

Constructions of Head Start as an Organization: Views from the Field

Head Start is the American anti-poverty program that, over time, has served more than 18 million children. For this article, the authors culled interviews with Head Start staff members across seven grantee agencies to explore how people talk about the organization and invest it with meaning. They illustrate how the varying discursive constructions (e.g. metaphors and ‘frames’) staff members employ are similar to interpretative frames that have been used by organizational theorists over the last century (structural or rational/formal, organic, human resources, etc.) It is argued that alternative frames are useful for understanding how we construct and are constructed by the social fields in which we operate, and for imagining new possibilities for organizational life.