Talk:Early childhood education/Archive 1

Merge "Early childhood" article here
There's no actual information in the Early childhood article, so perhaps "merge" isn't the right word. I think that article needs to be turned into a redirect.&mdash;GraemeMcRaetalk 16:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Reorder
This article seems to jump between the services provided for childcare and the way children develop. So i reordered. Also i had to move the american we speech to its own american section.(really it needs to be rewritten or removed but i dont like removing information.)


 * Child development - bulleted seeing their order is irrelevant
 * i've removed the jobs that don't have contact with children.

--Whywhywhy 09:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * What is "american we speech"? There shouldn't be any first person language at all. --DanielCD 14:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What is...
The "What is..." sectis ripped from the literature or homepage of some organisation or program. How do the references to "The first national goal..." and "The focus of this program" (what program?) make sense in a wikipedia article? Kenji Yamada 19:15 Dec 17, 2005

As best as I can tell from a web search, this material seems to have been lifted whole cloth from a 1992 paper by S. Bredekamp, R.A. Knuth, L.G. Kunesh, and D.D. Shulman of the North Central Regional Education Laboratory (NCREL). There was a link to this article, now dead, under "References," but referencing something and pulling whole paragraphs of text are not the same thing. This seems to be a likely copyright violation (as well as being incoherent in the context of the article). So I'm pulling the whole thing. --Stellmach 14:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup still needed
This article is still in terrible shape and needs a lot of rewriting to deal with a number of "should" statements. I also would not trust the information presented to be reliable; it sounds like someone expounding on the topic from a particular point of view. -- Beland 00:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

russian/romanian orphanages?
The reference to the degrading effects of Russian/Romanian orphanages needs proper citation.

Why not just go with orphanages in general? The problem of children in group care failing to thrive is an old one. I'll see if I can find an article on the topic. MinorityView 03:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Would this article do? http://soar.wichita.edu:8080/dspace/bitstream/10057/829/1/136.pdf MinorityView 19:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a section regarding orphan education. I found plenty of information online about orphans in sub-saharan Africa due to the AIDS epidemic. I also found some information on orphans in general that I included

Developmental Domains
These domains are appropriate enough, but references would be necessary. "Cognitive" was added previously after the SPICE acronym, but cognitive would be approximately redundant of Intellectual. The rationale for division into these domains would also be necessary. At least some reference to this domain set as one way of categorizing them.Lufernac (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Overly positive POV
I've added a "neutrality disputed" template - there's a section devoted to the "Benefits of Early Childhood Education," as though the rest of the article were not already expounding them. Not even lip service has been offered to critics of either the premise or the implementation of ECE. This article could sound more neutral and better fit its topic if it spoke less about child development, and gave more description to various ECE classroom practices, noting the benefits and disadvantages of each. I don't have the expertise to edit the article myself, I'm afraid, but its bias was extremely clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.96.109 (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup tag added
While on Random article patrol I stumbled across this. I know nothing about childcare, so I can't contribute anything meaningful. But if anyone has any idea of how to re-organise this article so it actually makes sense: please do. Megapixie 10:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've made a very brief start on the opening of the article. It does need a *lot* of work, though. I'll have to try and come back to it later. Bosola (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

4th Grade
I think 4th grade needs to be mentioned, included, and discussed as part of early childhood education. In some states, ECE certification goes from birth to 4th grade, not 3rd garde, because 4th grade is seen as a part of ECE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.222.209.0 (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Reorg proposal
Please see a proposal the various articles in the cloud around this subject. Lfstevens (talk) 04:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Do please respond to the proposal presented on Talk:Preschool_education, which would affect a number of articles relating to early years eduction. PeterEastern (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

General cleanup
I have adjusted headings, reordered content and reworked the lead to make the content easier to access without removing or adding any significant content. In particular:
 * Changed 'Background' to context'
 * Created a 'Research' section
 * Created a 'Formal education during early childhood' section to allow the article to make a clearer distinction between education and schooling.
 * Moved content around to fit these headings
 * Done some other formatting, in particular to the theory section, although this is still very long, possibly too long
 * Adjusted the lead to more clearer indicate the scope of the article and link to related articles.

In my view this article would still benefit from a lot more work, in particular so that we can remove the tags.

-- PeterEastern (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

General editing

After looking over the page and this talk page i have decided i would like to edit the formal education section to add in assessment within early childhood education and the link between home and school in early childhood education. I also would like to add in extra references to support the development section and to edit it. Alos i would like to add some content to this section such as spiritual development. Overall the sections i would like to change i will add content, references and neutralability of each section i'm editing to improve the page.Dgrayson2 (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Outdated developmental domains
I recently graduated with a BS in early childhood education and I was taught the developmental domains as cognitive, communication, adaptive, motor (with the sub-domains of fine and gross motor), and social-emotional. I believe the domains listed in this article are outdated. However, all the websites I've found with information on the developmental domains are missing one or more of these domains, including the NAEYC website. Does anyone know of a more thorough source? 75.68.246.87 (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree these domains need cleanup. For example, intro sentence says there are 5 of them and then there are 7 listed in bullets. Tcwrites (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Chicago study
I deleted the Chicago longitudinal study because it was unsourced and it didn’t mention a control for income, meaning its results were basically meaningless. I also got rid of a lot of self-advertising, and put up the "irrelevant" tag for the "Development" section, since it doesn't really talk about education. Prof. Squirrel (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the Theory/Development domains section needs work but isn't irrelevant. It may not make this clear, but the connection to the topic is that early childhood education practices try to take into account these domains of development in order to teach kids most effectively and appropriately given their ages and abilities. For example, preschools and pre-ks spend a lot of time with simple activities like stringing beads not just to make pretty objects and keep the kids quiet, but to help develop the fine motor skills they'll soon need to start writing. Tcwrites (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Early Childhood Education State and Federal Policy
The article neglects to discuss the very relevant, significant and timely political and practical implications of early childhood research.Aprilbowang (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

In the past decade, there has been a national push for state and federal policy to address the early years as a key component of public education. At the federal level, the Obama administration made the Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge a key tenet of their education reform initiative, awarding $500 million to states with comprehensive early childhood education plans. In addition, a largely Democratic contingent sponsored the Strong Start for America’s Children Act this year, which provides free early childhood education for low-income families. Many states have created new early childhood education agencies. Aprilbowang (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I added some more information on the details of the Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge as well as some state policy in California.

Massachusetts was the first state to create a consolidated department focused on early childhood learning and care. Just in the past fiscal year, state funding for public In Minnesota, the state government created an Early Learning scholarship program, where families with young children meeting free and reduced price  lunch requirements for kindergarten can receive scholarships to attend ECE programs. In California, Senator Darrell Steinberg led a coalition to pass the Kindergarten Readiness Act, which creates a state early childhood system supporting children from birth to age five and provides access to ECE for all 4-year-olds in the state. It also created an Early Childhood Office charged with creating an ECE curriculum that would be aligned with the K-12 continuum. Aprilbowang (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

State funding for pre-K increased by $363.6 million to a total of $5.6 billion, a 6.9% increase from 2012 to 2013. 40 states fund pre-K programs. Aprilbowang (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Early childhood education
I've been asked how long does this mean.....to age 8 or beyond? I was under the impression that early childhoom ed. was for preschoolers. Can anyone answer this for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.57.48.91 (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

It is clearly mentioned in “Background” and “Infant education” that early childhood education is applied to children between the ages of 1month and 12 months. You may get a perfect answer for your question if you go through this What Is My Infant Learning?. Lizia7 (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there needs to be a difference between early childhood educational research and early childhood educational policies. In early childhood education policy, early childhood often refers to birth through age 8, with distinctions between infants/toddlers (birth to three) and young children (four and five) and "beyond" being six to eight. These are also the ages for which early childhood educator accreditation programs provide accreditation. But when we talk about early childhood education, we are typically talking about pre-kindergarten. Universal early childhood education in most state legislations, for example, refer to early childhood programs for three and four year-olds. In California, they call it "transitional kindergarten." Aprilbowang (talk) 16:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Early childhood education
Cyberbot II has detected links on Early childhood education which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * https://earlylearning.guru
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * https://earlylearning.guru/news/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Play and Vygotsky
This section is very vague and does not reference the many other educational philosophers who have contributed to the theory of play. It also is unclear the neutral point of view, often stating "should" and is clearly focused on the benefits. Also, the section leaves out the emphasis on research regarding the domains: physical, emotional/social, cognitive and language aspects of the child's development. There are also moments of conclusions being drawn for example, the use of "thus" statements after providing information and draws own conclusions. The last paragraph begins to discuss alternative points of views about play and why it should not be integrated but instead does not provide references, or research but own conclusions. This aspect of the article does not seem to remain unbiased or neutral. abbottrAbbottr (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Early childhood education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101107001815/http://www.unesco.org/en/early-childhood/ to http://www.unesco.org/en/early-childhood/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Early childhood education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150207051129/http://nieer.org/publications/why-cities-are-making-preschool-education-available-all-children to http://nieer.org/publications/why-cities-are-making-preschool-education-available-all-children
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141216201330/http://www.naeyc.org/tyc/eceglossary to http://www.naeyc.org/tyc/eceglossary
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111118104725/http://www.nj.gov/education/ece/curriculum/desc/bank.htm to http://www.nj.gov/education/ece/curriculum/desc/bank.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130521150343/http://www.highscope.org/Content.asp?ContentId=253 to http://www.highscope.org/Content.asp?ContentId=253
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141217161727/http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/bill/strong-start-americas-children-act-2013 to http://democrats.edworkforce.house.gov/bill/strong-start-americas-children-act-2013
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100705090929/http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001593/159355e.pdf to http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0015/001593/159355e.pdf/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Needs heavy revision and editing
Why is all this ink wasted on explaining developmental theories? Links to appropriate pages should handle that sort of information, which is not central to understanding early childhood educational programs. This page needs to focus on what early childhood formal education is, what evidence exists that support or doesn't support it, and the efforts have been made to date. I suggest this page does not have a neutral POV, but is advocating early childhood (i.e., pre kindergarden) education. The evidence about the effectiveness for educational goals is mixed at best, but this article seems to focus on non-educaitonal outcomes like crime and income. Are early childhood programs social programs or educational programs? This article is not answering or even raising the important questions of this topic.Robotczar (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Another area worthy of revision is the Curriculum section. Not only are there various grammatical and syntax errors, there is also ample room for additional information. As an early childhood educator, I am aware that there are state-level requirements and standards that teachers must meet in the classroom. It seems that this section would be as good a place as any to delve into different standards. Msoposky (talk) 20:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Critique
Citations

Scrolling through the article, I noticed that citation 4 & 15 lead to no where. When you click on them, it redirects one to an error page. Along with that, citation 6 leads to a search box that shares no useful information.

Organization

It seems that the organization of this article is a little all over the place, which was mentioned by various other users. I noted that it was tweaked around for a bit, but I think it still needs some work. Perhaps putting section 6 "The Practical Implications of Early Childhood Education" could be moved in front of section 3, "Teaching Certification." It seems that this will allow the article to transition in a nicer way.

Section 4

This section highlights "Learning to Play" which is an informative section. My only issue is that it mentions technology interfering with a child's play time and I think it would be better to have the part be its own subsection. Currently, it seems that all that information is being thrown into one section, when it would be more effective if it was split. This way users will hopefully find it easier to search for this particular topic without needing to look for it through a bulky text. --Azacaria (talk) 06:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cole.crawford.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 18 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Azacaria.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jackjbc1997.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2020 and 20 March 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ritafrickelton.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 June 2021 and 30 July 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Michelle13712. Peer reviewers: Latinamarcy, TressaJ, Jcander7.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal to replace Template:Educational research with the Template:Education
The Template:Educational research box should be removed from this article for the reasons discussed here: Template talk:Educational research. Sda030 (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse
— Assignment last updated by Sierraserpas (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: SSC199 Hon
— Assignment last updated by Ctysick (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Job possibilities
I do not understand the "Job possibilities" section, still less why it appears twice. Children under 9 are not allowed jobs in most of the world, so who does this apply to? Is this their eventual possible job? If so, why choose these ones.

(Now fixed) Notinasnaid 18:39, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I suppose that was cleaned up... because now it clearly refers to job possibilites for adults who have gone through an education in early childhood. I found that section rather helpful and unique, as I am in a grad program for early childhood. I do have some constructive criticism however... This page clearly needs more intra-wiki links to relevant pages on theorists, approaches to early childhood, and links to current topics in the field. here are some rough suggestions

Piaget - stages of cognitive development Vygotsky - importance of socialization, zone of proximal development Howard Gardner - Multiple intelligence theory Froebel - kindergarten Cognitive Science play kindergarten anti-bias curriclum child protection services parenting infants, crying toddlers, walking preschool nursery school Head Start Universal Pre-K Montessori British Infant Schools special education etc

-Sean Fredrick Keane

Needs Serious Editing, should be tagged as needing cleanup: Uncited Theories, Editorial, Inappropriate Tone
I don't have the expertise to edit the substantive content here, so I don't know what I could delete. Too many places seem to have theories that are not cited as objective findings of reliable research. Much seems that it could be pop psychology theory without any likely solid support. The entire "CONCERNS" section seems like it should be removed if it is not overhauled.

For example, this does not seem appropriate:

"There are 5 mainly different developmental domains...They are easily referred to as the SPICE of life:" 1) Who is asserting this? Is this the author of the article asserting this as fact?  If this is supportable, there should be a cite. 2) The "SPICE of life" as a mnemonic acronym is not appropriate content for an encyclopedic entry under most circumstances.

"Infants and toddlers experience life more holistically than any other age group." This sounds nice. But what support is there for this? How do we know that they don't experience life as holistically as every other age group? How do we know senior citizens don't experience life more holisitically? This seems unsupportable as a statement of fact.

"Early childhood education is also incorrectly referred to by many as 'babysitting'." By whom? Who is it that needs to be disabused of this misconception?

"...many do not seem to understand the importance of educating young children." This seems like op/ed material, not encyclopedia entry.

"Much of the first two years of life are spent in the creation of a child's first 'sense of self' or the building of a first identity." Again, where is this from? This "sense of self" seems like a pop psychology buzz word.

Early Childhood Education And Technology Pradeep.aradhya (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)pradeep.aradhya
I would like to propose an additional section to this page to do with how technology is used in Early Childhood Education. While the subjective nature of the page is still in question, efforts to educate young children are real enough. An unbiased view with examples on how it is being done, particularly with technology would be very useful. What is a good course of action on this?

Numerous claims without evidence
The main issue I've found in this article is an abundance of uncited claims:

"Unlike other areas of education, early childhood care and education (ECCE) places strong emphasis on developing the whole child – attending to his or her social, emotional, cognitive and physical needs – in order to establish a solid and broad foundation for lifelong learning and well-being." Maybe a comparison with other areas of education would be useful here, or at least a source confirming the validity of this holistic approach.

"Early childhood attachment processes that occurs during early childhood years 0–2 years of age, can be influential to future education. With proper guidance and exploration children begin to become more comfortable with their environment, if they have that steady relationship to guide them. Parents who are consistent with response times, and emotions will properly make this attachment early on. If this attachment is not made, there can be detrimental effects on the child in their future relationships and independence." These effects of childhood education need a source as well as some examples of what these "detrimental effects" are.

"Many oppose the theory of learning through play because they think children are not gaining new knowledge. In reality, play is the first way children learn to make sense of the world at a young age." This sounds more fitting for a persuasive essay. Again, a source is needed to back up claims.

Most of the issues found were in the "Early childhood care and education as a holistic and multisectoral service" section. I couldn't find sources for these claims and don't want to erase the whole section, but much cleanup is needed.