Too much too soon? An analysis of the discourses used by policy advocates in the debate over kindergarten

Abstract

Abstract:In recent years, a debate over kindergarten has ensued. We refer to the actors in this debate as developmentalists, on the one hand, and academic advocates, on the other. Developmentalists argue that kindergarten should be centered on child-initiated play and intentional teaching through play, art activities, and hands on activities. Academic advocates argue that young children are capable of learning academic content in kindergarten and that academic instruction is necessary to help some students "catch up" before formal schooling begins. In this paper, we identify the key policy organizations engaged in this debate and analyze the ways they construct their arguments and critique the positions of their opponents. We find that, when discussing their vision for Too Much Too Soon? 2 kindergarten, developmentalists and academic advocates share similar goals and views. However, when we analyze the ways the two agendas discuss kindergarten as it is practiced today, clear divisions emerge. Specifically, the agendas use different types of causal narratives to describe the problems with kindergarten and how it got that way. We conclude with a discussion of policy implications and directions for future research. Keywords: Early childhood education, kindergarten; educational policy; politics of education; discourse analysis; policy advocacy organizations ¿Muy pronto? Un análisis de los discursos utilizados por los defensores de la política en el debate sobre el jardín de infantes Resumen: En los últimos años, se ha producido un debate jardín de infancia. Nos referimos a los jugadores en este debate como desarrollista, por el contrario, y defensores académicos, por el otro. Desarrollista argumentan que el jardín de infancia se debe centrar en algo iniciado por el niño y la enseñanza intencional a través del juego, actividades de arte y actividades "manos". Defensores académicos sostienen que los niños son capaces de aprender contenidos académicos en el jardín de infancia y se necesitan instrucciones académicas para ayudar a algunos estudiantes que siguen la educación formal antes de que comience. En este artículo, se identificó que las organizaciones políticas fundamentales implicados en este debate y examinar formas en que construyen sus argumentos y critican las posiciones de sus oponentes. Nuestro análisis revela que mientras que los defensores del desarrollo y académicos comparten muchas de las mismas metas y visiones del jardín de infancia, difieren significativamente en la forma en que discuten el jardín de infantes como es. Concluimos con una discusión de las implicaciones políticas y direcciones para la investigación futura. Palabras clave: educación de la primera infancia; jardín de infancia; política educativa; el análisis del discurso; organizaciones de defensa de la política Muito em pouco tempo? Uma análise dos discursos utilizados por defensores de políticas no debate sobre o jardim de infância Resumo: Nos últimos anos, um debate sobre jardim de infância ocorreu. Nos referimos aos intervenientes ness...

Examining How Stakeholders at the Local, State, and National Levels Made Sense of the Changed Kindergarten

“…Nevertheless, the work of Russell (2011), as well as others (e.g., Little & Cohen-Vogel, 2016), demonstrated “that a wide range of actors” are “influential in the educational field,” and as such, points to the need for research that attends “to segments of the formal system such as legislatures and departments of education, as well as non-system actors such as media and professional associations” to understand the changed kindergarten (p. 258). This requires, as Erickson (2014) noted, “research that .…”

“…Miller & Almon, 2009; Moreno, 2012; Paley, 2011). In many instances, these debates are often siloed and seldom cross over from one stakeholder group to another (Brewer, Gasko, & Miller, 2011; Little & Cohen-Vogel, 2016). Such isolation makes it difficult to understand what is driving these academic and instructional changes, and whether they reflect the desires of those who legislate, implement, or participate in kindergarten, be it directly or indirectly (e.g., Hustedt, Buell, Hallam, & Pinder, 2018).…”

Early years teachers’ perspectives on the effects of NAPLAN on stakeholder wellbeing and the impact on early years pedagogy and curriculum

“…More specifically to early childhood, Roberts-Holmes and Bradbury (2016) in the UK identified some concerns in terms of specific testing regimes which interpret literacy and numeracy in particular ways that were narrowing teacher’s pedagogy in the early years. The identified increase in formalised learning is described by Little and Cohen Vogel (2016) as a pushdown of accountability by having students perform more academic tasks earlier and educators being pulled up by accountability measures from above for students to be ready to perform well in tests in other grades. The high stakes nature of NAPLAN results have been described as ‘“metapolicy” steering early years pedagogy “from a distance” (Lingard, Martino & Rezai- Rashti cited in Roberts-Holmes and Bradbury, 2016, p. 120).…”

The matter of the stick: Storying/(re)storying children’s literacies in the forest

“…Dyson, 2003;Wohlwend, 2011Wohlwend, , 2013Wohlwend, , 2017, and play as learning is highly sanctioned in early childhood, as well as in early formal schooling, in many North American, British, and Australian contexts (Edwards and Cutter-Mackenzie, 2011;Peterson et al, 2016;Wood, 2014). Nonetheless, the ways in which play is enacted and taken up pedagogically are diverse, and sometimes play is conceptualized as simply a mechanism to produce more innovative and business-savvy future citizens (Little and Cohen-Vogel, 2016).…”