Sharon Ryan

Missing in Action: Teaching in Early Care and Education

The title of this article may seem somewhat odd. After all, teaching—interactions among teachers and children—are at the core of early childhood care and education. So, how is it possible that “teaching” is missing in action? Although teachers have been working in early education settings for a very long time, what it is they do, how and why they do it as they do, and what is required for them to do their work better has not been at the core of our thinking about quality early childhood education; it follows that teaching has not been a focus of research, policy, or practice, either. This special theme issue was an attempt to expand our knowledge base about teaching in early care and education, and we hope that we have to some extent succeeded. Our Call for Papers stated that we were seeking manuscripts that advance conceptual and empirical inquiry about teaching in early care and education by clarifying what it means to “teach” young children; fostering insights that address the ferment in the field; and setting direction for future research, policy, and practice. To our pleasure, the Call elicited more than 20 manuscripts. Yet without any intent to be disparaging, few spoke to what it is that teachers do, how and why they do it as they do, and what is required for them to do their work better. Thus our title, “Missing in Action,” for our introduction to this special themed issue “Teaching in Early Care and Education” and our attempt to underEARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT, 19(3), 385–395 Copyright

Mentoring for Quality Improvement: A Case Study of a Mentor Teacher in the Reform Process

Abstract As qualified teachers are central to children receiving a high-quality preschool education, many policy initiatives aimed at improving program quality are thwarted when insufficient attention is paid to the professional development of the workforce. One response to this issue has been to create teacher leadership roles so that teachers mentor colleagues through the process of translating policies into practices. This article reports on a case study of one such mentor teacher involved in helping child care teachers implement the High/Scope curriculum. Employing qualitative and quantitative methods, the mentor teacher was found to engage in 14 different activities within the categories of technical assistance, professional development, leadership, district-related work, and other. Despite utilizing skills identified as central to effective mentoring and teacher learning, the mentor teacher found it difficult to assist some teachers because of a lack of expertise, inappropriate training, and multiple job demands. This article argues that these issues, while not new, take on a different meaning when considered in relation to the aims of mentoring roles in early childhood policy efforts when, as often occurs, classroom teachers have more experience than their mentors.

Message in a model: Teachers' responses to a court-ordered mandate for curriculum reform

This article reports the findings of a qualitative case study of two preschool teachers and their responses to a court-ordered mandate to use the High/Scope curriculum model. Analysis of the data record, which included interviews, observations, and documents, reveal that despite a framework for action, both teachers remained confused about their role and the content of the curriculum. This article suggests that the current policy strategy of using curriculum models to compensate for the lack of qualified teachers in preschool settings is operating on false and outdated logic that may also contribute to teachers implementing less than desirable practices.

Differing Discourses on Early Childhood Teacher Development.

While there appears to be growing consensus among researchers and national policy advisors about what a preschool teacher is expected to know and be able to do, little is known about the views of those who are expected to enact these standards. The purpose of this study was to examine the perspectives of key stakeholders involved in one states efforts to create a system of early childhood teacher preparation and professional development. Our aim was to understand both the similarities and differences between current standards and the views of those in the field. The findings reveal several tensions between current policy expectations and what stakeholders view as important for teachers to be able to know and do.

Creating an Effective System of Teacher Preparation and Professional Development Conversations With Stakeholders

With the expansion in publicly funded prekindergarten programs across the country, a number of policy initiatives are aiming to bring these various providers of preschool services together to create coordinated systems of early care and education. This article reports the findings of a focus group study with stakeholders at all levels of the preschool teacher development system in New Jersey after it had been in operation for 4 years. The reported experiences of these early childhood stakeholders offer insights into what is needed for such a system to work and the barriers preventing coordination of services and how they might be addressed in other states.

Action or Reaction!: Reflecting on Sally Lubeck's Wisdom to Reinvent the Field of Early Education.

The fi eld of teaching young children is at a pivotal point in its history. On the one hand we have unprecedented attention from policy-makers and funders all keen to reap the proven economic, social and academic outcomes of early childhood for their communities. However, unlike the K-12 system, the provision of early childhood services has never been systematized or united in any particular way. As a consequence, along with increased investment in publicly funded early childhood programs, has come increased accountability and standardization of practices that extend from teacher education, through to what happens in the classroom of a local child care center. This standardization is evidenced in such forms as the use of mandated curriculum models in preschool, state early learning standards and the valuing of particular forms of ‘proof-driven’ research in the academy. On the other hand, there remains in the academy and in pockets of practice internationally, those who are striving to move beyond cloned versions of teaching young children. For these individuals, a global and increasingly diverse world necessitates moving away from homogeneous views of curriculum and instruction. Partial and context specifi c teaching is the only ‘norm’ that can be applied to the delicate and challenging task of educating children in the 21st century. In this refl ective article, I use the wisdom I observed Sally to use in her writing and her practice to suggest some actions for those of us caught in the fray of these opposing agendas. Sally’s stance on knowledge and her particular style in the choices she made as a researcher and academic offer some important insights on how those of us in the academy might ‘act’ rather than ‘react’ to the taking over of early childhood to serve mostly economic ends.

Pulling preK1 into a K-12 orbit: the evolution of preK in the age of standards

Abstract We might call this decade the era of early childhood. In the US, federal and state governments invest in the creation of public pre-kindergarten (preK) programs and create standards that articulate goals for practice and benchmarks that can be used to evaluate success. How have these trends provided a context for the evolution of preK curriculum? In this paper, we analyze the enactment of preK policy in New Jersey, a highly regulated preK program and Wisconsin, a local control state. We argue that standards-based practice is evolving into accountability in public preK programs, where outcomes set parameters for planning and teachers and children are increasingly regulated. As preK is more closely affiliated with the K-12 sector (elementary and secondary), preK programs are subject to the logic of alignment, benchmarks and assessments. Even when early learning standards support child-centered approaches to curriculum they are overruled by accountability discourse.

Evaluative decision-making for high-quality professional development: Cultivating an evaluative stance

Unprecedented policy attention to early childhood education internationally has highlighted the crucial need for a skilled early years workforce. Consequently, professional development of early years educators has become a global policy imperative. At the same time, many maintain that professional development research has reached an impasse. In this paper, we offer a new approach to addressing this impasse. In contrast to calls for a redesign of comparative studies of professional development programmes, or for the refinement of researcher-constructed professional development evaluation frameworks, we argue the need to cultivate what we refer to as an ‘evaluative stance’ amongst all involved in making decisions about professional development in the early years – from senior bureaucrats with responsibilities for funding professional development programmes to individual educators with choices about which professional development opportunities to take up. Drawing on three bodies of literature – evaluation capacity-building, personal epistemology and co-production – that, for the most part, have been overlooked with respect to early years professional learning, this paper proposes a conceptual framework to explain why cultivating an evaluative stance in professional development decision-making has rich possibilities for systemic, sustainable and transformative change in early years education.

From the Guest Editors: Early Childhood Teacher Education in a Time of Change

It seems we are at a significant moment in the history of early childhood education. Policy makers are keen to build systems of quality that cross the boundaries of early care and education, making significant investments in public pre-K programs. Additionally, scholars from diverse disciplines have focused attention on young children and their education, expanding the conceptual tools for understanding their growth. Early education is in the public consciousness, shifting from a private family concern to a jointly held, community responsibility. At the same time, teacher education is the focus of both public critique and new, alternative modes of teacher training. These new providers, like Teach for America, argue for their relevance by embedding training in practice and taking significantly less time than a 4or 5-year degree. Traditional education programs are portrayed by these training providers as overly theoretical, teaching prospective teachers irrelevant knowledge that has little impact on student learning. This marketization of teacher education has also been facilitated by state and federal government policies that increasingly question the ability of traditional teacher education programs to prepare a workforce that can ensure student achievement. The most recent example of this is the Obama Administration’s proposed value-added rating system of teacher education programs and the idea of teacher and leader academies proposed as an amendment to the authorization of the elementary and secondary act. These academies would not only be an alternative to traditional preparation programs but would not be held to the same scrutiny, such as having to meet external accreditation requirements. Increasing policy investments in early childhood means early childhood teacher education programs are needed now more than ever. Yet traditional teacher education programs are increasingly under attack. One outcome of this tension is that early childhood teacher education is increasingly scrutinized, expected to conform to a number of different sets of standards and expectations. The papers in this volume offer insights into how teacher educators in the U.S. and elsewhere are addressing the increasing expectations being placed on early childhood teacher education to meet particular policy goals. In doing so they shed light on three key issues in teacher education: the importance of practice and/or experience in programs of preparation, the knowledge base of teacher education programs, and how these might come together in the process of reform.

Reflection: reinvigorating a key professional practice in teacher education

Many contemporary curriculum frameworks in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) identify ‘ongoing learning and reflective practice’ as one of the principles that underpin effective early childhood pedagogy. Educators are urged to “reflect”—to think critically about what they are currently doing and to reconsider the reasons behind what they do. The assumption is that educators, like any other professional, carefully consider their understandings and interactions with children, families and colleagues to ensure that they are enacting high quality practices. However, in 2010, Zeichner and Lui asked: “Has reflective teacher education supported genuine teacher development?” Zeichner and Liu’s review reaching back over thirty -years questions whether the term “reflective teaching” had been taken up and become so overused in teacher education that it has lost all meaning and power. The authors in this special issue of JECTE about Reflection on Practice seem to agree with Zeichner and Liu. Using a range of “post” theories, the articles in this issue question reflection as a standardized practice in teacher education programs, courses, and policies. They also challenge reflection as an individualized practice devoid of politics and context.