Reading, Reasoning, and Literacy: Strategies for Early Childhood Education From the Analysis of Classroom Observations
Researchers have posited that children generally learn to read in environments that are trusting, comfortable, and offer small group or one-to-one adult support, all of which are characteristics of a high quality early childhood education program. This evaluation research study examines the Pre-Kindergarten Incentive Program, an early childhood demonstration program in Washington, DC designed to study several urban community-based sites. The authors facilitate a discourse on how all early childhood education programs can become high quality programs through standardized observations, evaluations, and constructive feedback. The article describes the demonstration program, highlights general findings from standardized classroom observations, discusses areas needing improvement, and presents strategies for addressing areas of challenge. It will reveal to early childhood educators how evaluation findings can improve teaching and learning techniques and environments in early childhood programs. The goal is to promote overall improvement in reading, reasoning, and literacy for children enrolled in early childhood programs and thereby better prepare them for kindergarten.
KeywordsReading Reasoning Literacy Early childhood education Urban education Community-based programs
This project was supported by a grant from the District of Columbia Office of the State Superintendent of Education (OSSE), Division of Early Childhood Education. We wish to acknowledge community-based sites participating in the early childhood demonstration project and researchers from the Howard University Center for Urban Progress.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
- Association for Childhood Education International. (2011). Global guidelines for early childhood education and care in the 21st century. Retrieved from www.acei.org.
- Barnett, W. S., Brown, K. C., & Shore, R. (2004). The universal vs. targeted debate: Should the United States have preschool for all? Preschool Policy Matters, 6, 1–15.Google Scholar
- Dewitt, T. M., & Ormrod, J. E. (2007). Child development and education (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Doggett, L., & Wat, A. (2010). Why prek for all? Phi Delta Kappan, 93(3), 8–11.Google Scholar
- Finn, C. E. (2010). Targeted, not universal prek. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(3), 13–16.Google Scholar
- Frede, E., & Barnett, S. W. (2011 May/June). Why pre-k is critical for closing the achievement gap. Principal, 8–11.Google Scholar
- International Reading Association and the National Association for the Education of Young Children. (1998). Learning to read and write: Developmentally appropriate practices for young children. Young Children, 53(4), 30–46.Google Scholar
- Kamara, B., Sykes, M., & Young, A. (2004). Pre-kindergarten incentive initiative for the District of Columbia: Concept paper. Paper presented to the Superintendent of the District of Columbia Public Schools, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- Lynch, R. (2007). Enriching children, enriching the nation: Public investment in high-quality prekindergarten. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.Google Scholar
- Office of the State Superintendent of Education. (2009). Creating a high-quality universal pre-K system for children and families in the District of Columbia. A report to Council of the District of Columbia. Retrieved from: http://osse.dc.gov/seo/lib/seo/pre-k-Annual_Report_to_the_Council_FINAL.pdf.
- Wat, A. (2008). The pre-k pinch: Early education reform: A summary of program evaluation findings. Pew Center on the States Research Series. Washington, DC: Pew Center on the States.Google Scholar