With the invention of the internet and social networking, cultural events and ideas are digitized, transported, and disseminated instantaneously around the world with lightning speed. These cultural events and ideas impact everyone, from the types of cars people drive, to the types of foods they eat. Today, we live in a global village (Merriman and Nicoletti, 2008), and our education system is increasingly becoming more sensitive to the differences in cultures around the world. According to the National Center for Education Statistics (2010), already in the nation’s largest 60 school districts, the population is more than 75% non-white with no single ethnic group comprising more than 40% of the school population; and nationally our schools are already almost 45% non-white. Morrell & Morrell (2012) points out that early childhood education professionals not only have to account for racial and ethnic diversity, but also religious diversity, socioeconomic diversity, diversity of family and home life, and diversity in language and country of origin-to name a few. Noddings (2003) believes education nurtures a depth of being and flourishing of human spirit. It helps individuals to realize their full potential and also to become productive members of their communities, contributing citizens of a nation, and responsible citizens of the world (Suh & Samuel, 2011). Some researchers argue that in order for students to stay competitive in the 21st century, we must not stunt their growth by giving them a mono-cultural education, but we must nurture them and promote multicultural education (Suh & Samuel, 2011). Promoting multicultural education within schools helps expose students to the many cultures they could possibly encounter as working adults. The purpose of this analysis is to explore multicultural literature and its effectiveness within the classroom setting. Also, this analysis will address multicultural themes and trends within education. Lastly, this analysis will supply a list of multicultural materials and a vendor contact list located in the appendix.

            Gorski (2001) defines multicultural education is defined as a progressive approach for transforming education that holistically critiques and addresses current shortcomings, failings, and discriminatory practices in education. It is grounded in the ideals of social justice, education equity, and a dedication to facilitating educational experiences in which all students reach their full potential as learners and as socially aware and active beings, locally, nationally, and globally (p.1).  Gorski (2001) additionally says multicultural education acknowledges that schools are essential to laying the foundation for the transformation of society and the elimination of oppression and injustice. Banks (1993) explains multicultural education in a broader sense: "Multicultural education is an idea stating that all students, regardless of the groups to which they belong, such as those related to gender, ethnicity, race, culture, social class, religion or exceptionality, should experience educational equality in the schools" (p. 25). Both definitions are based on ethical principles such as justice and care. According to Suh & Samuel (2011) from the sensibility of justice and care emanates respect for diversity, equality, rights and responsibility, concern for other human beings and their points of view, and other democratic values. Multicultural education eliminates stereotyping and avoids negative attitudes towards other groups, and it also helps students to develop a more positive attitude towards other cultures and nations.

            One way to teach students respect for diversity and cultural pluralism is through the use of children’s literature. Children can be taught basic values such as: honesty, respect, care for others, responsibility, and respecting the rights of others, through a careful selection of well chosen books that reflect our societal values. However, Madigan (1993) states that multicultural literature is hard to define since it includes the literary writing of groups of people from different races, colors, values, and cultures. It is often labeled as literature of minority cultures that emphasize respect for the different historical perspectives and cultures in human society (p.169). Cai (2002) furthermore asserts that multicultural literature “involves diversity and inclusion, but more importantly, it also involves power structure and struggle. Its goal is not just to understand, accept, and appreciate cultural differences, but also to ultimately transform the existing social order in order to ensure greater voice and authority to the marginalized cultures and to achieve social equality and justice among all (p.7)”. Suh and Traiger (2000) cite four basic approaches in which multicultural children’s literature can be utilized:

1. Inculcation: teaching values and providing constant reinforcement for desired behaviors.
2. Clarification: helping students to become aware of their own values.
3. Moral Reasoning: helping students develop ethical principles for guiding their actions.
4. Values Analysis: helping students develop careful, discriminating analysis to examine value questions (p. 724).

Regardless of how multicultural literature is used, Hoge (1996) states that values instruction should begin in the earliest years of life and continue throughout the schooling experience. Suh & Samuel (2011) furthermore asserts that besides reading of books, simulations, case studies role playing, and small group techniques can be readily used to actively engage the students to identify, discuss, and resolve society's problems and concerns.

            There are a variety of ways early childhood professionals can incorporate multicultural themes into their lessons. Morrison (2007) offers the following suggested themes to help children identify cultural similarities and encourage understanding and tolerance: “getting to know myself, getting to know others; what is special about you and me; growing up in the city; tell me about your country of origin (p.434)”. In addition to incorporating multicultural themes into lessons, early childhood professionals can also add the accomplishments of people from different cultural groups, women of all cultures, and individuals with disabilities. Morrison (2007) also suggests the following criteria as being the most important when picking materials for use in a multicultural curriculum for early childhood programs:

            “Represent people of all cultures fairly and accurately. Represent people of color, many     cultural groups, and people with exceptionalities. Be sure that historic information is  accurate and nondiscriminatory. Be sure that materials do not include stereotypical roles  or language. Ensure gender equity-that is, boys and girls must be represented equally and  in non-stereotypical roles (p.434)”.

Promoting an anti-bias curriculum will help children to learn to be accepting of others, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, or disability; and it will help them become more comfortable with diversity and learn to stand up for themselves and others in the face of injustice (Morrison, 2007, p.436).

References

Banks, J.A. (1993). Multiethnic education: Theory and practice (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Bista, K. (2012). Multicultural Literature for Children and Young Adults. Educational Forum, 76(3), 317-325.

Cai, M. (2002). Multicultural literature for children and young adults: Reflections on critical issues. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Gorski, P.C. (2001). Mission and purpose. St. Paul, MN: EdChange Multicultural Pavillion

Hoge, J. (1996). Effective Elementary Social Studies. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Huber, L.K. (2000). Promoting cultural awareness through dramatic play centers. Early Childhood Education Journal, 27(4), 235-238.

Madigan, D. 1993. The politics of multicultural literature for children and adolescents:  Combining perspectives and conversations. Language Arts, 70(3), 168-76.

Merriman, W., & Nicoletti. A. (2008). Globalization and American education. The Educational  Forum, 72(1), 8-22.

Morrell, E., & Morrell, J. (2012). Multicultural readings of multicultural literature and the promotion of social awareness in ELA classrooms. New England Reading Association  Journal, 47(2), 10-16.

Morrison, G. S. (2007). Early Childhood Education Today. Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson.  

Noddings, N. (2003). Happiness and Education. New York: Cambridge University Press

Suh, B. K., & Samuel, F. A. (2011). The value of multiculturalism in a global village: In the  context of teaching children's literature. New England Reading Associatio Journal,  47(1), 1-10.

Suh, B., & Traiger, J. (2000). Teaching values through elementary social studies and literature  curriculum. Education, 119(4), 724.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Common Core   of Data (CCD), "State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education,"  1994-95 through 2007-08; and National Public Elementary and Secondary Enrollment by      Race/Ethnicity Model, 1994-2007.

Appendix:

Multicultural Materials:

Create a checklist. Examine your classroom, and ask yourself if you have the following items for socio-dramatic play centers (Huber, 2008, p.235):
1. Dolls with various skin tones, facial features, and a variety of hair and eye colors.

2. Doll clothing representative of males, females, and a variety of cultures.

3. Pretend foods from different cultures.

4. Picture menus that include culturally diverse foods.

5. Everyday dress-up clothing worn in different cultures.

6. Large pieces of fabric, in varying textures and prints.

7. Materials for living spaces, including a variety of chairs, futons, etc.

8. Sleeping mats, hammocks, and so on, in addition to beds, for sleeping areas.

Vendor Contact List:
·         Lakeshore Learning Materials: www.lakeshorelearning.com

·         Kaplan: The Early Childhood Edition: www.kaplan.com

·         Community Playthings: www.CommunityPlaythings.com

·         Music for Little People: www.musicforlittlepeople.com

Chinese

1. Bauhinea Press

Address: 1209 Madison Ave. Burnaby, BC V5C 4Y4

Phone: 604-298-1391 Fax: 604-298-7121

Email: [email protected]

Note: limited selection, focus on dictionaries and language learning

Contact: Amy (Surrey: Michael Li 604-581-6778)

2. Beijing Bookstores Ltd.

Address: 200-2800 E. 1st Ave. Vancouver BC V5M 4N9

Tel: 604-255-8968 Fax: 604-255-8987

Email: [email protected]

Contact: Mr. Li Ping

Farsi

1. Ketab Corporation

Address: 1419 Westwood Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90024, USA

Tel: 310-477-7477 Fax: 310-444-7176

Email: [email protected] website: www.ketab.com

Contact: Laale Ghahreman ([email protected])

French

1. French Bestsellers Distribution Co.

Address: 8711 Sidaway Road, Richmond, BC V6W 1G7

Tel: 604-244-0110 Fax: 604-244-7717

Email: [email protected]

Contact: Mr. Khayat

2. Librarie Renaud-Bray

Address: 5252, Cote-des-Neiges, Montreal, Quebec H3T 1X8

Tel: 1-888-746-2283 Fax: 514-342-3796

Email: [email protected] website: www.renaud-bray.com

German

1. Grant & Cutler Language Booksellers

Address: 113-119 Charing Cross Road, London WC2H 0EB, England

Tel: +44 20 7734 2012 Fax: +44 20 7734 9272

Email: [email protected] Website: www.grantandcutler.com/

2. Sautter & Lackmann

Address: 20459 Hamburg, Admiralitatstrasse 71/72

Tel: 49-40-37 31 96 Fax: 49-40-36 54 79

Email: [email protected] Website: www.sautter-lackmann.de

Italian

1. Grant & Cutler Language Booksellers

Address: 113-119 Charing Cross Road, London WC2H 0EB, England

Tel: +44 20 7734 2012 Fax: +44 20 7734 9272

Email: [email protected] Website: www.grantandcutler.com

Contact: Sarah Grimsley, Manager, Schools & Public Library Supply

2. Librital, Italian Book Center

Address: 2908 Dufferin St., Toronto, On M6B 3S8

Tel: 800-421-0970 Fax: 800-421-9071

Email: [email protected]

Japanese

1. Japan Publications Trading Co. Ltd.

Address (Book Export II Department): PO Box 5030, Tokyo International, Tokyo 100-3191, Japan

Tel: +81-3-3292-3753 (Export audio/visual media)

+81-3-3292-3759 (Export foreign language publications)

Fax: +81-3-3292-0410

Email: [email protected] Website: www.jptco.co.jp/index_e.html

2. Kinokuniya Bookstore

Address: 525 S Weller St., Seattle, WA 98104

Tel: 206-587-2477 Fax: 206-587-0160

Email : [email protected]

Website: bookweb.kinokuniya.co.jp/indexohb.cgi?AREA=02

Contact: Ida Satoshi ([email protected])

Korean

1. Jeong-Eum-Sa Imports Inc. = The Korean Book Center

Address: 928 S. Western Ave, #151 Los Angeles, CA 90006

Tel: 213-738-9140 Fax: 213-738-9141

Website: www.thekoreanbookcenter.us

Note: Experience working with libraries; will do profile buying

Contact: Mark Choi ([email protected]) Cell: 213-713-2378

Punjabi/Hindi/Gujerati

1. Asian Publications

Address: 7137 – 132 St. Surrey, BC, V3W 4M3

Tel: 604-597-5837 Fax: 604-594-8514

Email: [email protected] Website: www.asianpublications.com

Contact: Amrit

2. Daya Imports and Exports

Address: 6540 E. Hastings St. Vancouver, BC V5B 4Z5

Email: [email protected]

Polish

1. Grant & Cutler Language Booksellers

Address: 113-119 Charing Cross Road, London WC2H 0EB, England

Tel: +44 20 7734 2012 Fax: +44 20 7734 9272

Email: [email protected] Website: www.grantandcutler.com

Contact: Sarah Grimsley, Manager, Schools & Public Library Supply

2. Husarz Book Store

Address: 1906 Dundas St.E. Unit No. 3, Mississauga, ON L4X 1L9

Tel: 905-277-5171 / 800-898-6904 Fax: 905-277-9974

Website: www.husarz.com

Portuguese

1. Grant & Cutler Language Booksellers

Address: 113-119 Charing Cross Road, London WC2H 0EB, England

Tel: +44 20 7734 2012 Fax: +44 20 7734 9272

Email: [email protected] Website: www.grantandcutler.com

Contact: Sarah Grimsley, Manager, Schools & Public Library Supply

2. Girol Books Inc.

Address: PO Box 5473, Station F, Ottawa, ON K2C 3M1

Tel: 613 233 9044

Email: [email protected] Website: www.girol.com

Russian

1. East View Information Services, Inc.

Address: 10601 Wayzata Boulevard, Minneapolis, MN 55305 USA

Tel: 1 952 252-1201 / 800 477 1005 Fax: 1 952 252-1202

Website: www.eastview.com

Contact: Amy Whitney (800-477-1005 X 234) [email protected]

2. Erudit Russian Books

Address: 616 Sheppard Ave. West, Toronto, ON M3H 2S1

Tel: 1 800 295 4161

Spanish

1. Astran Inc.

Address: 6995 NW 82nd Ave # 40 Miami, FL 33166-2783 USA

Tel: 305-597-0064 Fax: 305-597-0047

Tagalog

1. Kalamansi Books

Address: 47-233 Kamehameha Highway, Kaneohe, HI 96744 USA

Tel: 808-239-6365 Fax: 808-239-5445

Email: [email protected] Website: http://bookbook.com/

Contact: Rose Cruz Charma

2. Victor James & Associates

Address: 605-1060 Alberni St. Vancouver BC V6E 4K2

Phone: 604-689-1237 / 425-646-9142 Fax: 425-462-8382

Email: [email protected]

Contact: Vance Noriega

Vietnamese

1. Asia Distribution Center

Address: 15568 Brookhurst St. Ste.200 Westminster, CA 92683-7572

P.O. Box 26595 San Diego, CA 92196-0585

Phone: 858-566-8369/866-249-9671 Fax: 858-566-8369

Email: [email protected]

Contact: Andy Tran

2. Lang Van

Address: PO Box 218 Station “U” Toronto, ON M8Z 5P1

Tel: 905-607-8010 Fax: 905-607-8011

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.Vietnameselangvan.com/vietnews

Mixed Languages

1. Far Eastern Books

Address: 250 Cochrane Dr. Suite 14 Markham, Ontario L3R 8E5

Phone: 905-477-2900, 800-291-8886 Fax: 905-479-2988

Email: [email protected] Website: http://fareasternbooks.com/

Contact: Virender Malik

2. Grant & Cutler Language Booksellers

Address: 113-119 Charing Cross Road, London WC2H 0EB, England

Tel: +44 20 7734 2012 Fax: +44 20 7734 9272

Email: [email protected] Website: www.grantandcutler.com

Contact: Sarah Grimsley, Manager, Schools & Public Library Supply

 1. Programs that focus on language-based school readiness skills appear to be more beneficial to children (Reynolds, Magnuson & Ou, 2010, p.1126).
  2. Multiple years of services are associated with successful transition to schools (Reynolds, Magnuson & Ou, 2010, p.1126).

3. Using schools as the single delivery system for early and extended childhood interventions can strengthen the continuity of services to children and avoid the disjointedness between preschool and school-age programs (Reynolds, Magnuson & Ou, 2010, p.1126).

4. It is crucial for programs to have an intensive family-support component which facilitates parental involvement and commitment to the child's education and promotes parents' personal growth (Reynolds, Magnuson & Ou, 2010, p.1126).

5. It is beneficial to add teacher aides and reduce class sizes or student–teacher ratios so that children can receive individualized attention and more individual learning opportunities (Reynolds, Magnuson & Ou, 2010, p.1126).

6. Program hires teachers who are open to working with children who have disabilities (Hurley & Horn, 2010, p.333).
 
7. Program personnel ensure that children with disabilities are active participants in all classroom routines and activities (Hurley & Horn, 2010, p.333).

8. Program provides accommodations and adaptations to meet the needs of individual children (Hurley & Horn, 2010, p.333).

9. Program fosters collaboration among families, teachers, administrators and other professionals (Hurley & Horn, 2010, p.333).

10. Program facilitates independence for children with disabilities (Hurley & Horn, 2010, p.333).

Discussion:
    Identifying early childhood education programs that are most effective for young children is an increasing trend in the growing school readiness movement. According to  Reynolds, Magnuson, & Ou (2010) there is increasing empirical evidence suggesting that  programs which successfully address children's learning needs must be comprehensive, span multiple years, and target key transition points. Other researchers such as Hurley & Horn (2010) suggest:

            Through reauthorizations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in combination with changing societal values that places high importance on opportunities for development and learning and a sense of belonging for all children, early childhood inclusion has gained    widespread legal, moral, and empirical support. However, even          with the existing legal, moral, and empirical foundations, early childhood educators face multiple challenges with the implementation of high-quality inclusive early childhood practices (p.335).

Research suggests that a high quality early childhood education program include professional practices and curriculum which supports learning for all students. The purpose of this research analysis and information chart and is to highlight the key components of what a parent, teacher, or education professional should look for in a quality early childhood education program.    

           Reynolds, Magnuson, & Ou (2010) reports that participation in pre-k thru grade three programs and elements may lead to greater and longer-lasting effects than less extensive interventions for three reasons. First, an increasingly documented element of successful prevention programs is that they provide comprehensive services for at least two years. Second, Garmezy & Rutter (1988) reports that pre-k thru grade three programs and elements are designed to encourage stable and predictable learning environments, both of which are key elements in optimal scholastic and social functioning. Finally, pre-k thru grade three programs and elements occur at a time increasingly viewed as a sensitive if not critical period in children’s scholastic development Reynolds, Magnuson, & Ou (2010). The first five elements of the quality early childhood education program chart draws from the above research and logic.

            Hurley & Horn (2010) conducted a study to provide information about what characteristics of an inclusive early childhood education program are most valued and least valued by families and professionals. The study was conducted using a combination of Q-sort and qualitative research, and there were a total of 20 participants in the study: 10 participants were family members of young children with disabilities being served in inclusive programs; and 10 early childhood professionals working in inclusive programs. The results report that respondents support access for all young children to early childhood programs, regardless of their abilities (Hurley & Horn, 2010). The last five qualities of the chart are drawn from this research, and are prioritized based on random selection as research suggests that a quality early childhood education program should equally incorporate all ten qualities to ensure the academic success of each student. 

             

References

Garmezy, N., & Rutter, M. (Eds.). (1988). Stress, coping and development in children. Baltimore: John Hopkins Press.

Hurley, J.J., Horn, E.M., (2010). Family and professional priorities for inclusive early childhood settings. Journal of Early Intervention, 32(5), 335-350.

Reynolds, A.J., Magnuson, K.A., Ou, S. (2010). Preschool to third grade programs and practices: A review of research. Children and Youth Service Review, 32, 1121-1131.

Assessing teachers and holding them accountable for their student learning has become a standard practice in early childhood education.  High stakes standardized tests have been implemented to show both student learning gains, and student learning deficits. According to Kohn (2000), one of the reasons why it invokes such interest is that it is upheld by both the right and the left as an “objective” assessment of how both schools and children are performing. But there is a growing body of research and resistance that views testing as the ultimate imposition of not only rampant “scientifism” (p. 49), but also of corporate capitalism upon children and schools (Viruru, 2006). Kohn (1999) has shown how many recent reports on American public education have been authored not by educational professionals but by representatives of big business such as the Business Coalition for Education Reform, the Business Roundtable, The National Alliance of Business and the Committee for Education Reform. Scholars such as Martin (2004) have commented that in its never ending search for new ground, modern capitalist colonialism has increasingly concentrated on the sphere of domestic life as an avenue for profit making: citizens are being redefined as consumers, and the home is being transformed from a sanctuary into a command post for market manipulation. As a result, argues Canella & Viruru (2004), similarly schools too are now increasingly being targeted for such attention, most strikingly through the nation wide imposition of standardized testing. The purpose of this analysis is to contribute to the current body of research surrounding the impact of accountability standards and its effect on teachers, students, and programs.  

        In recent years, national and state leaders, backed by the public, have taken the view that public schools frequently fail to give students a good education, which in turn, has caused a myriad of bad outcomes (Madaus, Raczek, & Clarke, 1997). Elmore, Abelmann, & Fuhrman (1996) reports this perceived problem has resulted in policies to hold educators accountable for imparting higher academic standards, as measured by high-stakes, standardized tests. The No Child Left Behind Act was passed in 2001, and was intended to require each  state to have some form of “standards” on which all students would be tested, and teachers could be held accountable for the learning taking place inside their classrooms. Some researchers such as Levin (1998) and Tatto (2006) suggest this intricate system of testing and accountability was implemented partly because nations seek to be competitive in an increasingly global marketplace, and “accountability” has been a frequent part of education reform worldwide. Darling-Hammond & Wise (1985) suggests that all educational policies have the potential to induce both societal costs and benefits, and research has repeatedly shown that educational policies may have unintended effects. Marshall (1998) terms this unintended effect as the “slippage between policy intent and outcomes” (p.103). Even with the inclusion of possible unintended negative outcomes taking place, national and state leaders, and the main stream media, continue to support this high stakes testing environment in America. Komhaber & Orfield (2001) have explored the major reasons that they see as particularly influential in dictating public policy on testing: (1) testing enhances economic productivity; (2) testing motivates students; and (3) testing improves teaching and learning. Conversely, Komhaber & Orfield (2001) have also dispelled all three of those assumptions: (1) they point out that the U.S. economy has done better than other European economies, even though test scores of U.S. students have been lower; (2) they commented that “common wisdom, as well as behavioral psychology, holds that normal thinking beings strive to gain rewards and avoid painful consequences” (p.7); and (3) the theory that testing improves teaching and learning is fallacious, as neither teaching nor learning are areas that necessarily operate in a rational and constructive way (p.9). With strong arguments on both sides of the standardized testing debate, the effect on teachers, programs, and students are often overlooked. Linn (2000) argues that unintended negative effects often overshadow positive ones when accountability systems have high-stakes testing and calls for evaluation of such negative outcomes.

            Teacher accountability is a large part of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, but does holding teachers accountable through high stakes standardized testing have an effect on their instructional performance? Berryhill, Linney, & Fromewick (2009) conducted a research study using 100 U.S. elementary school teachers and investigated their perceptions of their state’s accountability policy, particularly its effect on their job engagement. They set out to discover whether elementary school teachers perceived accountability policies as having unintended consequences for their well being, and they found that teachers reported a myriad of negative policy consequences from adding stress, to teachers feeling emotionally exhausted (Berryhill, Linney, & Fromewick, 2009). This research finding was consistent with other investigations such as Abrams, Pedulla, & Madaus (2003); Barksdale-Ladd & Thomas (2000); and Webb (2006).

            As a result of teachers having an increased amount of pressure to perform and produce high test scores, some school districts offer county wide professional development programs to attempt to enhance the instructional quality of “under-performing” teachers. With the implementation of these professional development classes, the question arises: do they help drive instruction in a way that is measurable in student learning, and more importantly to the topic of standardized testing: does this training translate into higher student standardized test scores? Garet, et. al. (2008) conducted a study to examine the effect of the Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS) professional development curriculum on the reading achievement scores of more than 5,000 second graders from ninety elementary schools in four states during the 2005-2006 school year. The study schools were randomly assigned to one of three groups: one of which teachers received training following the LETRS curriculum, another where the teachers received the LETRS training as well as ongoing instructional coaching and support and third where the teachers received the standard professional development available in their district. Garet, et. al. (2008) found that providing second grade teachers reading instruction training using the LETRS curriculum (with or without the instructional coaches) did not increase the reading test scores of their students. Although there are various reading and spelling curriculum programs for teachers to adopt, this research suggests that even with a professional development plan in place to “help” teachers strengthen their instruction, it is not going to automatically correlate with higher test scores. Therefore, where does this leave teachers who want to effectively instruct their students, and show their learning gains through state standardized testing? 

            With numerous schools and teachers being impacted by high stakes standardized testing, where does this leave the student? Many teachers are now looking beyond the classroom for answers as to how they can raise student standardized test scores. O’ Dwyer, Russell, Bebell, & Seeley (2008) examined the relationship between fourth grade mathematics achievement and technology use at home and at school. The study used item level achievement data, individual student’s state test scores on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS), and student and teacher responses to detailed technology-use surveys. The sample came from 986 general education students from 55 intact fourth grade classrooms in 25 schools across nine school districts in Massachusetts. . O’ Dwyer, Russell, Bebell, & Seeley (2008) found that various uses of technology are differentially related to student outcomes and that in general, student and teacher technology uses are weakly related to mathematics achievement on the MCAS. Therefore, where does this leave the student in terms of taking accountability for themselves and extending learning outside the classroom while attempting to raise their own standardized testing scores?

            In conclusion, the debate over of high stakes standardized testing is evident in all aspects of education as schools are continuously being graded, teachers are being evaluated, and students are being tested. Both sides of the debate have valid arguments, but having validation of arguments regardless of the position, is obviously not improving student learning, or raising standardized test scores. Some researchers such as Viruru (2006) suggest that:

            “standardized testing for young children is colonizing: (1) the way in which testing has been constructed represents corporate rather than child centered agendas; (2) the ideology of diversity represented in many public policies, particularly standardized testing, instituted in the United States is gravely limited; and (3) by mandating that children take tests but by not regulating the content that is part of those tests, racist and colonialist ideas are being presented to children in legitimate forms” (p.51).

Despite the growing body of knowledge surrounding the negative impacts of high stakes standardized testing, it appears that state and national policy makers continue to set the bar high with the implementation of these tests without regards to possible negative consequences on schools, teachers, programs and students. This research raises questions about the validity and reliability of the standardized testing process and how students, teachers, and schools are held accountable.

References

Abrams, L. M., Pedulla, J. J., & Madaus, G. F. (2003). Views from the classroom: Teachers’ opinions of statewide testing programs. Theory Into Practice, 42, 18–29.

Barksdale-Ladd, M. A., & Thomas, K. F. (2000). What’s at stake in high-stakes testing: Teachers and parents speak out. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 384–397.

Berryhill, J., Linney, J.A., Fromewick, J. (2009). The effects of education accountability on teachers: are policies too stress provoking for their own good? International Journal of   Education Policy & Leadership, (4)5.

Cannella, G.S., & Viruru, R. (2004). Childhood and post colonization: Power, education and contemporary practice. New York: Routledge.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Wise, A. E. (1985). Beyond standardization: State standards and school improvement. Elementary School Journal, 85, 315–336.

Elmore, R. F., Abelmann, C. H., & Fuhrman, S. H. (1996). The new accountability in state education reform: From process to performance. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools  accountable: Performance-based reform in education. Washington, DC: Brooking Institution.

Garet, M.S., Cronen, S., Eaton, M., Kurki, A., Ludwig, M., Jones, W., Uekawa, K., Falk, A., Bloom, H., Doolittle, F., Zhu, P., Sztejnberg, L. (2008). The Impact of Two Professional Development Interventions on Early Reading Instruction and Achievement (NCEE 2008- 4030). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

Kohn, A. (1999). The schools our children deserve: Moving beyond traditional classrooms and tougher standards. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Kohn, A. (2000). The case against standardized testing: Raising the scores, ruining the schools. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Kornhaber, M. L., & Orfield, G. (2001). High stakes testing policies: Examining their assumptions and consequences. In G. Orfield & M. L. Kornhaber (Eds.), Raising standards or raising barriers: Inequality and high stakes testing in public education (pp. 1-18). New York: Century Foundation Press.

Levin, B. (1998). An epidemic of education policy: (What) can we learn from each other? Comparative Education, 34, 131–141.

Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4–16.

Madaus, G. F., Raczek, A. E., & Clarke, M. M. (1997). The historical and policy foundations of   the assessment movement. In A. L. Goodwin (Ed.), Assessment for equity and inclusion:  Embracing all our children. New York: Routledge.

Marshall, C. (1998). Bridging the chasm between policy makers and educators. Theory Into Practice, 27(2), 98–105.

Martin, R. (2004). America as risk/securitizing the other. Interventions, International Journal of Postcolonial Studies, 6(3), 351-361.

O’ Dwyer, L.M., Russell, M., Bebell, D., Seeley, K. (2008). Examining the Relationship between students’ mathematics test scores and computer use at home and at school. The Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, (6)5.

Tatto, M. T. (2006). Education reform and the global regulation of teachers’ education, development and work: A cross-cultural analysis. International Journal of Education Research, 45, 231–241.

Viruru, R. (2006). Postcolonial technologies of power: standardized testing and representing diverse young children. International Journal of educational Policy, Research, & Practice: Reconceptualizing Childhood Studies, 7, 49-70. 

Webb, P. T. (2006). The choreography of accountability. Journal of Educational Policy, 21, 201–214.

School plays a powerful role in children’s lives and it is second only to the family in terms of potential influence. According to Scheuermann and Hall (2008) school experiences shape a child’s life beyond academic preparation; the quality of a child’s school experience is an important predictor of success later in life; and children and youth who successfully manage the academic and social challenges of school typically have more positive post-school experiences than children who struggle academically or socially. Therefore, one could assume that effectively managing the classroom environment can potentially help to increase the quality of the child’s education experience. Effective discipline and management in early childhood education begins before the teacher ever steps foot inside the classroom. According to Sprick (2009) “to effectively manage and motivate a class of students, you need a clear vision of your ideal classroom-what it should look like, what it should sound like, what it should feel like to a class member or visitor, and what you want your students to accomplish” (p.15). One’s “vision”, as described by Sprick (2009), will lead to the planning and implementation of a classroom management plan. The purpose of this analysis is to review the current literature on important researched based strategies for effectively implementing an early childhood education classroom management plan, and to analyze important trends and issues within the field.    

            Sprick (2009) describes seven tasks to help educators establish a clear vision for their classroom: understand how to shape behavior, understand motivation, identify long range classroom goals, develop guidelines for success, maintain positive expectations, implement effective instructional practices, and initiate and maintain family contacts; and by attending to all seven of these tasks, one can create a clear vision for the look, sound, feel, goals, and accomplishments of their class and the foundation for an effective management plan that will help achieve their vision (p.15).

            One way to shape behavior inside the classroom is by effectively arranging an efficient daily schedule. According to Brophy and Evertson (1976) how one schedule subjects across a day and how one schedule tasks within an activity can have a tremendous influence on student behavior. Effective scheduling of tasks should provide enough variety that students wouldn’t find it difficult to keep their attention focused on the task at hand, while also taking into consideration the maturity level of the students and degree of skill that the instructor has in presenting various tasks and activities. 

            Another way to shape behavior inside the early childhood education classroom is by strategically placing student desks according to the observed needs of the students by the instructor to create a positive physical space. A well designed physical space prevents a wide array of potential behavioral problems (Evans & Lowell, 1979). Unfortunately, as an instructor, one does not always have control over the physical space in which they are expected to teach. This can be caused by a variety of reasons such as being a “floating” or “specialist” teacher where the instructor visits the classroom of another teacher; or having student desks that are drilled in place. When these challenges surface, it is important for instructors to change what they can and make the best out of what they cannot change (Sprick, 2009, p.70).

            Creating and maintaining effective rules and procedures also helps to shape discipline in early childhood education classroom. As adults, we have rules and procedures about where we are to stand in line in grocery stores, when we must pay bills, how long we are allowed to keep movie rentals, how much we pay in taxes, and who can receive services from various social service agencies. Breaking these common rules or procedures can result in fines, or even incarceration, therefore, it is vital for instructors to communicate the importance of rules and procedures inside the early childhood classroom. According to Brophy and Good (1986), the extent to which students know the rules and know how to follow them is positively correlated with appropriate behavior. Educators must however, consider the rules of the district and the school in which they work. Scheuermann and Hall (2008) offer a few suggestions when it comes making rules: state the rules in positive terms, keep the number of rules to a minimum, set rules that cover multiple situations, teach students the rules by setting an example for rule following behavior, make sure that the rules are appropriate for the students’ ages and developmental levels, and finally, be consistent in enforcing the rules.   

            Additionally, instructors can help with discipline in the early childhood education classroom by preventing challenging behaviors through high quality instruction. Generally speaking, students who are academically deficient experience significantly more negative interactions, more punitive consequences, less demanding academic tasks, and less instructional time with the teacher because of a greater frequency of disciplinary actions that remove these students from the classroom (Leone et al., 2003). Conversely, high achieving students typically experience greater behavioral and social success in school (Catalano, Loeber, & Mckinney, 1999).  Therefore, it is vital for instructors to offer high quality instruction to their students to prevent them from entering the negative social cycle described above by Leone et al. (2003). According to the above referenced research, one could assume that preventing students from becoming academically deficient could potentially save them further punitive consequences once they reach adulthood. Instructors must be intentional when planning and implementing curriculum to help shape the future of the student because evidence suggests that increasing academic engagement (i.e., the extent to which students are actively involved in academic responding) may result in increased on-task behavior and lower levels of inappropriate behavior (Sutherland & Wehby, 2001).   

            Finally, many schools are preventing challenging behavior through the use of school wide positive behavioral interventions and supports. In the late 1990s, a series of school shootings brought increased criticism of schools for a lack of discipline and problems with drug and alcohol use among students (Sugai & Horner, 2002). As a result, actions taken by schools have included adopting a zero tolerance policy, installing metal detectors or conducting random security checks, conducting random locker searches, placing school safety officers on campus, requiring identification badges for everyone at school, requiring clear book bags for students, requiring all visitors to sign-in, and requiring students to remain on campus during lunch periods (Hoffman & Sable, 2006). Although these punitive, controlling responses were intended to make schools safer and more disciplined, no credible evidence exists which indicates that these approaches achieve those outcomes (Leone et al., 2003). This lack of evidence and perceived lack of effectiveness has lead many school leaders to implement the positive behavioral intervention and support system. Scheuermann and Hall (2008) describes the positive behavioral intervention and support system as being comprised of a broad range of systematic and individualized strategies for achieving important social and learning outcomes while preventing problem behaviors with all students. It is the integration of four theoretical elements: operationally defined and valued outcomes; behavioral and biomedical sciences; research validated practices; and systems change to both enhance the broad quality with which all students are living/learning, and reduce problem behaviors (p.175). Additionally, Scheuermann and Hall (2008) add that over the past decade, numerous studies have been published in peer-reviewed journals that document the effectiveness of school wide positive behavioral interventions and support (p. 183).

            In conclusion, discipline in early childhood education is vital to the academic success of each student, as well as helping to socialize students while preparing them for adulthood. It is critical for instructors to have a vision for their classrooms and how they plan to successfully educate each student inside their class-regardless of any outside factors that may affect student learning and motivation. Instructors who are not familiar or comfortable with classroom discipline and management have many researched based resources at their disposal, and should help themselves become more effective by exploring these options.

 

References

Brophy, J., & Evertson, C. (1976). Learning from teaching: A developmental perspective. New York: Longman.

Catalano, R., Loeber, R., Mckinney, K. (1999). School and community interventions to prevent serious and violent offending. Juvenile Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Evans, G., & Lowell, B. (1979). Design modification in an open-plan school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 41-49.

Hoffman, L., & Sable, J. (2006) Public elementary and secondary students, staff, schools, and school districts: School year 2003-2004 (NCES 2006-207). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

Leone, P.E., Christle, C.A., Nelson, C.M., Skiba, R., Frey, A., & Jolivette, K. (2003). School failure, race, and disability: Promoting positive outcomes, decreasing vulnerability for involvement with the juvenile delinquency system. College Park, MD: The National Center on Education, Disability, and Juvenile Justice.

Scheuermann, B.K., & Hall, J.A. (2008). Positive behavioral supports for the classroom. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Sprick, R.  (2009). Champs: A proactive and positive approach to classroom management. Eugene, OR: Pacific Northwest Publishing.

Sugai, G., Horner, R.H. (2002). The evolution of discipline practices: School-wide positive behavior supports. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 24, 23-50.

The assumption that children are an investment into the future can be readily recognized in modern day society’s family structure, education, and politics. This view of children as investments is being dramatically played out in contemporary society as more middle aged adults are caring for their own aging and ill parents (Morrison, 2007, p.103). This analysis will examine the impact and implications of this view on families, education, and politics. In addition, this analysis will explore the erosion of this viewpoint and how it is manifested in observable ways. The purpose of this literature review is to contribute to the body of knowledge surrounding the value being placed on children in society.
            Children’s roles’ within families has unquestionably changed throughout history, and Steven Mintz, author of Huck’s Raft: A History of American Childhood (2004) debunks the widespread notion that American children’s lives are less stable now than they were in the past. According to Lombard (2005), New England Puritans sought to provide their children with orderly, stable childhoods within a patriarchal framework, where fathers could prepare them for a godly life or sanctified death, but after the American Revolution, childhood became shorter and more uncertain as many children left home at relatively young ages to seek paid work. By 1830, middle-class adults sought to contain their children’s precocity and restore stability to their lives by inventing the modern ideal of childhood as a sheltered period, free from labor, devoted to schooling, and guided by the moral tutelage of mothers. After the civil war, reformers sought to make the middle-class ideal of an orderly, protected childhood available to all children. The Progressives imagined the ideal childhood as an extended period of freedom and self discovery, and they aimed to create child-centered institutions where young people could spend time away from adults for a prolonged period, free to develop in age-appropriate ways without family obligations (Lombard, 2005, p.1521). Thus, According to Lombard (2005), the advent of universal high schooling around 1930 transformed the experience of youth. When young people were segregated from adult society, schools and peer groups became the major forces shaping their tastes, behavior, and values (p.1522). Therefore, one could assume that in modern day society, parents invest in their children though their educational attainment and achievement.
            Morrison (2007) points out that over the last several decades some U.S. policies have been based on the view that children are future investments for society in general. Head Start, Follow Through, and child welfare programs are products of this view, which has resulted in human capital, or investment, rationale for child care, preschools and other services (p.104). This monetary return results from students who attend high-quality preschools being involved in less crime, staying in school longer, and paying higher taxes as adults (Barnett, et. al, 2004). As a result, many companies, both non-profit and for-profit offer scholarships, endowments, and grants to students who excel in school. In the media, school is constantly being advertised as a way to “change your life” or “shape your future”. In some states, parents are held legally accountable if their children don’t attend school.  Therefore, education is a key factor in the investment of our children as our future, and its advocates are abundant in today’s society.
            The erosion of this view point is evident in many facets of modern day society. The emergence of the “for-profit” sector of schools is one example. Many students are being purposely marketed to these schools for the sole purpose of making money. Many of these schools have recently been under fire for making false promises to perspective students and inflating career opportunities after graduating these institutions. Another erosion of children being an investment into our future is the student loan debt crisis. Many students who are fortunate enough to make it through the higher education system face unbearable amounts of student loan debt which can add mental stress and familial unrest. If students are an “investment” into our future, then where is the return after being indebted from attaining the degree? Also, the failing state standardized testing system is evidence of this erosion. Not only are schools coming under fire because of falsifying or tampering with tests, but entire school districts are being investigated and convicted of cheating on these tests. Why are school leaders cheating on standardized tests? One assumption could be that because schools are “graded” and granted government funding based on the performance of their students, it would be in the best interest of the school to have the highest amount of passing scores. But with this cheating, how is the student benefiting? Furthermore, how will this translate into an investment for our future society? The final piece of evidence of the erosion of students being an investment into our future is the education achievement gap between classes and races.  Many races and classes of students are being left behind while their counterparts are continually moving forward. How are we investing in these students and making sure they can enjoy the “return” in their investment?
            In conclusion, the “value” placed on children in society is evident in all facets of our social and personal lives. Governments spend billions of dollars investing in education. Families spend millions every year investing in their children’s education. But how effective has this “children are our future” attitude been at combating poverty, crime, and illiteracy? If children are our future, then why are teachers paid so poorly compared to other professionals? In terms of the “investment” aspect of our students, teachers can arguably be the most important part of getting a return, yet they are constantly being overworked and underpaid. These are questions for further research and discussion.



                                      References
Barnett, W.S., Belfield, C.R Montie, J., Nores, M., Schweinhart, L.J., Xiang, Z. (2004). Lifetime effects: the High/Scope Perry Preschool study through age 40 (monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation, 14). Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press, 3.   

Lombard, A. (2005). Huck’s Raft: A history of American childhood. American Historical Review, vol.110, p.1521-1522.

Mintz, S. (2004). Huck’s Raft: A history of American childhood. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.

Morrison, G. S. (2007). Early Childhood Education Today. Upper Saddle River, NJ:   Pearson. ISBN: 9780132286213.