Standards-Based Learning and Developmentally Appropriate Practices

Student’s Name:

Instructor’s Name:

Institution:

Course Name:

Course Number:

Date:

Standards-Based Learning and Developmentally Appropriate Practices

Our education system has always had two different views on how to tackle the curriculum development of early child learners. These are the Standards-Based Learning (behaviorist model) and the Developmentally Appropriate Practices (DAP) which have been employed by many education stakeholders and have proved to have both advantages and disadvantages. For the behaviorist model, Common Core Standards have been adopted by up to 45 states by around 2012. The main advantage of a standards based system is that it provides a benchmark against which the progress of students can be monitored if clearly implemented (Feeney, Galper & Seefeldt, 2009). It also provides parents and teachers with better understanding of the expected learning of the students. This initiative’s focus has always been to ensure that students are ready made for college and eventually their careers. Its aim has also been to ensure there is equity whereby students from different backgrounds have a fair chance of succeeding in their education under the same conditions. However this approach has its limitations too. Language arts and mathematics are greatly focused on to the detriment of other subjects and this has the effect of impeding student learning due to the narrow curriculum. This means that eventually the needs of a student cannot be dealt with individually by a teacher as they will be too concerned with the syllabus (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009).

On the other hand, DAP is largely based on constructivist theory where the learner assumes a central role in their early education. A teacher is more likely to attend to individual needs of the students and help them meet achievable and challenging learning goals. DAP has three core considerations that should always be noted. The first consideration is about knowing a child’s development and their learning. This involves knowing their typical behavior at various stages of their early development through a thorough research which then can be used to know how best to aid their learning and development (Feeney, Galper & Seefeldt, 2009). The second consideration is about knowing what is appropriate individually for each child. This can be done by observation of specific children’s interactions with the environment and their peers. A child’s abilities, interests and their developmental progress can then be used to care for and teach each child as an individual. The third and final consideration is the ability to know what is culturally important. This is done through making an effort to know more about a child’s family and be able to learn about their expectations, values and beliefs that govern their lives. This knowledge can be helpful in providing respectful, relevant and meaningful learning experiences for the children and their families.

Theses two methods clearly employ the behaviorist and the constructivist theory of learning. These two theories of learning have their pros and cons but I firmly believe that they can be successfully integrated together for a better package that improves greatly the standards of education. The NAEYC and NAEC/SDE put across four conditions which can be used to propel education to greater heights. Firstly, there is need for an emphasis on developmentally appropriate content when applying early learning standards. This means not narrowing the curriculum but instead creating a large domain of subjects that can be able to absorb different students with different experiences and preferences. Secondly, standards should continually be developed and reviewed through processes that are informed and inclusive. Continuous review enables the education stake holders monitor the effectiveness of the existing standards, and make appropriate changes that are aimed towards improvement of children’s learning. This can be done through gauging the children’s responses and enthusiasm to some of the methods that are put in place to meet the Common Core Standards. Thirdly, the implementation of the learning standards is also of utmost importance. There has always been an obsession of meeting standards but how exactly to attain these goals is never fully and adequately addressed. As such teachers need to be armed with the tools on how best to extract optimum performances out of their students so that the goals become reasonably attainable. The use of play is a developmentally appropriate method that when used on young children can contribute greatly towards the attainment of set goals by providing an avenue for them to express themselves away from the confines of a classroom setting (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). Finally, the early learning standards require substantial support towards its implementation for it to be successful. Families can help by constantly encouraging their children how school is important and a fun place to be, so as to increase their enthusiasm and enable them have the right attitude that can boost their effective learning. Early childhood professionals can also help its implementation by availing easy to follow steps that can guide teachers in monitoring the children’s progress. All these conditions prove that indeed standard based learning and DAP are compatible and can be used appropriately to improve education standards (Feeney, Galper & Seefeldt, 2009).

A specific activity plan that I would push through would involve the need to hold various seminars consisting of teachers in a specific state. This will enable them discuss the specific challenges and the cultural relationships that are unique in the area and come up with ways to deal with them. With time, a common understanding of the specific needs of a particular state will help teachers have clarity in setting the standards necessary for benchmarking while understanding the different cultural backgrounds of their students (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). This will prove an effective way of teaching as it removes any room of doubt while boosting the standards of education in the area. This plan reinforces my belief that the two theories of teaching can be successfully integrated together.References

Copple, S. & Bredekamp, S. (Eds.). (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8 (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: NAEYC.

Feeney, S., Galper, A. & Seefeldt, C. (2009). Continuing issues in early childhood education (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle Back, NJ: Merrill, Pearson.

http://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/11_CommonCore1_2A_rv2.pdf