Through this class we have had various readings about kindergarten readiness and this reading also discussed unacceptable trends in kindergarten entry. There are four questionable practices that pose a problem. But there are two things to consider that may the underlying reason for these practices. The first reason is a "drive to achieve homogeneity in instructional groupings. There is no evidence that children better in homogenous groupings, rather most learn better and achieve more social and emotional development in mixed ability groups. In my classroom, the children are not the exact same way when it comes to their social emotional development. I see this as a benefit for my classroom because the children that have greater social emotional skill will model positive behavior or actions for others to see that may help their learning in this development.
The second reason is a well intended effort to protect children from inappropriate demands on their intellectual and affective abilities. With this view, children need to be ready for the program instead of the program tailoring to their needs and strengths. When a children is put into a extra-year class, they are being labeled as failures at the outset. There is no academic benefit of holding a child back and it can hinder their social-emotional development when exposed to these practices. When I think of this reason, I think to how my center transitions children to their next class. I am very proud to say that our center does not hold children back because of their abilities. Rather, as their teacher it is my job to make sure I have prepared the child the best I can for change to a new class while working with their needs and strengths. I will communicate with the child's next teacher on what he or she may need help on and how I have tried to tailor their learning to fit their needs.
My top recommendation is to really understand each child and get to really understand their way of learning, needs, and strengths. It will be important to communicate with the next teacher so they to can understand how to best help the child. Emphasis should not be placed on making on the children the same. Classrooms should not be put together by abilities, but by a mixture of abilities. Children don't only learn from teachers but also from one another. By segregating children based on how good they are or how much skill they lack in an area, there is a potential for stereotyping and discrimination at such a young age.
Although we want everyone to see early childhood education as a vital part of a child's development, it doesn't mean we need to make a early childhood education "standardized". When I think of the word standard, I think of something being the same, mandatory, and everyone has to follow". Making ECE standardize may benefit some families but not all. What if a family cannot afford to send their child to preschool and does not qualify for any financial aid (I have many families that have expressed this hardship to me), how are they expected to send their child to a school that mandatory or standard?
Many schools would like to see more funding be available for early childhood education but politics play a part in the decision making where funds go. The bill that did not pass does eliminate funds, but I don't agree with using an assessment tools to measure readiness skills. Tracking the students progress is a great idea so there can be research and or evidence how valuable early education can be but, complying to an assessment tool does not sound like a good idea. Every school has different philosophies, curriculums, standards, and expectations. If the school needs to use an assessment tool that is meant for every preschool on the island they would be compromising their values just so they can be in compliance to get funds. It is so important as early childhood educators to be advocates for the children of Hawaii. We need to create bills/laws that work to benefit every single child.
No comments:
Post a Comment