Early Years Education in the concrete jungle.

This was an article I wrote for Early Years Educator in 2012 while I was living in New York City.

An outsider’s view of practices and approaches to early childhood education in New York City.

In October 2011 I embarked on a brand new chapter in my life. I left my role as an Early Years Consultant in the London borough of Southwark and started a new adventure on the other side of the Atlantic in New York City, USA. The 14 months that have followed have not only given me an opportunity to experience a new culture first hand, but they have also given me a chance to expand my professional horizons and view early years teaching through a different lens. Moving jobs can often trigger a moment of reflection, where you compare the principles and practices you have developed and implemented over the course of your career to those found in your new setting. Sometimes the differences

identified can be marginal, but when your new role is in a new city, and most importantly a new country, the changes can be significant.

Starting out

Over the course of my short “Stateside” career, first as a kindergarten teacher and more recently as an early year’s consultant, I have been exposed to a number of different private and State-funded early childhood centres. These centres are located across the various boroughs of New York City and offer services to children from two to five-years-old. From my time in these centres I have become increasingly aware of a number of key differences in New York practice compared to that in the UK. Unfortunately these differences can only be shared in the context of New York City. The US government takes a very decentralised approach to education policy, handing significant power over to the individual States, and so differences exist from State to State. Not only that, but government agencies within New

York City are also able to implement their own policy across certain topics, leading to further differences from the wider New York State.

Physical space

Unsurprisingly my initial reflections when visiting the centres were linked to the physical space that they occupied. Many of them were stand-alone centres that were functioning on a number of different floors of a building, with little or no access to an outdoor space. While this highlights differences from many early childhood centres in the UK there are clear similarities when exploring the interior. This is particularly evident in how the rooms are organised, furnished and resourced. Workshop style areas are present in most classrooms, offering a book area, a construction area, a writing area, a creative area and a home corner. These areas are usually organised and resourced in a way that encourages the children to access them independently.

Providing children with outdoor space is an obstacle that many practitioners face on a daily basis. Some of the centres have converted their rooftops into play spaces, while others have had to resort to using local parks or other outdoor spaces in the community. I have often walked past centres and seen groups of children playing in a space at the entrance of the building that is open to the public. Some may see this as being resourceful, while others may question the quality of outdoor play this is providing.

Routines

Most of the centres I have visited follow very similar routines, with a few minor exceptions. They all give children daily opportunities for free flow time, rest time, snack time, outdoor time and a group session; many of which are legal requirements. But over time I have become aware that most of these events are offered in isolation from one another. While this style of organisation ensures that children are being given the opportunity to access a number of valuable experiences, it also means that each session is quite short – giving children limited time to engage and extend their development in any particular session.

This is especially evident during free flow time, where children have a maximum of one hour to engage in the indoor learning environment. With a lot of current research highlighting the impact on learning that comes from children having extended time to explore and develop their thinking, some may question whether one hour is enough. This structure also means that outdoor time is often limited to 30 minutes each day. This time is usually spent engaging in large motor movement activities, which are of course vital for children to develop. However, it could be argued that this limits other possible learning opportunities that could happen in the outside environment.

Curriculum and Assessment

Current legislation gives centres the opportunity to choose, modify or develop a curriculum that they want to adopt, providing it is age appropriate, and because there is no stand-out curriculum for the centres to select the approach has led to many different curriculums being implemented across the relatively small sample of centres I have been exposed to. However, in these centres the planning sessions that are implemented using the chosen or developed curriculum often take a similar form to those in the UK, with monthly and weekly planning meetings based around specific topics, the children’s’ interests and areas within the room.

The tools that centres use to support their planning process are often developed and marketed by different independent agencies, such as The New York State Prekindergarten Foundation for the Common Core (The New York State Education Department 2011), The Creative Curriculum (Teaching Strategies, Inc. 2002) and New York State Early Learning Guideline (New York State Early Childhood Advisory Council 2012). Each of these tools are different in their approach. Some are more of a resource to support practitioners in the development of a curriculum that is unique to the children and the centre. Others are a little more prescriptive, offering a number of pre-constructed resources for practitioners to use. That said, these different tools have a very similar framework, for example children’s physical development and health, social and emotional development, communication, language and literacy and cognition and knowledge of the world. When delving a little deeper into the frameworks there are noticeable similarities to the Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage (Department of Education 2012) in the UK, albeit with different naming conventions applied. For example sections regarding cognition and knowledge of the world appear to incorporate elements of mathematics, science and aspects that are found in understanding the world from the Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage (Department of Education 2012). These similarities may be a

result of recent research regarding child development and achievement that is transcending geographical boundaries.

Similar to planning, there are a number of tools available to support practitioners with assessment systems. Some practitioners use the tool to develop and implement their own assessment process, while others take an existing “off the shelf” tool and apply it to their setting with very little customisation. These assessments are used in conjunction with observations the practitioners have made of the children, something that is similar to practice in the UK. However, in one centre there was no assessment tool being used at all, a situation made possible by the fact that there are no legal requirements to assess children until they are over five-years-old.

In theory this approach to planning and assessment may sound ideal, but for some it raises the question of equality, and whether it truly offers children the same opportunities for learning and development across centres.

Qualifications

While the planning and assessment frameworks that are used across centres can vary significantly, the State has looked to find ways to ensure that those developing the frameworks have consistent qualifications, and therefore common experiences to draw from. Centres are currently expected to ensure that at least one teacher per room holds a University degree in early childhood education. In addition they are expected to have, or be working towards, a State certification; a qualification unique to the State of New York. As part of the certification practitioners are expected to provide proof of qualifications and successfully complete three tests that are based on various aspects of education, life and

culture within New York. In the centres that I have visited all practitioners either hold the State Certification or are working towards it, but from my point of view this had not led to centres providing similar experiences or provision, and having gone through the certification process myself I would argue that very little of what is covered can be used on the job. One could therefore argue that the real value of the certification is as a revenue stream for those that administer it, but at least it does ensure those embarking on a career in teaching have a level of commitment to the profession.

Quality Assurance

From my time in the centres I have seen no evidence of regulations requesting the engagement of external, specialist agencies to evaluate the effectiveness and quality of provision offered by centres. Some have been required to work with particular educational consultants, a request that is often tied to public or private funding that the centre has received, but it is not based on national guidelines and the findings are not shared nationally. What seems to have happened is similar to that of the planning and assessment frameworks in early childhood. Tools aimed at improving quality of provision

within centres have been marketed by different companies, but with no legal requirement to implement them many of the centres choose not to engage in this practice.

Conclusion

The brief time that I have spent in all of these centres has given me an initial insight into some of the early childhood practices in New York City. I have been able to reflect on the results of freedom of choice when it comes to curriculum and assessment, how the government have looked to control quality of provision through regulations around qualifications and in general how quality of service has been tackled within these centres. While I may not agree with all of the practices and policies that have been put in place, engaging in the exploration of new ideas has made me able to open my mind to alternative approaches. In turn this has made me more open to reflection of my own practice, and I believe that this has helped me to become a stronger and more knowledgeable practitioner. Of course this is only the start, and I am extremely excited to see what additional experiences New York holds for me in the months to come.

Key Findings

• Centres - Usually stand-alone

• Outdoor space - Often limited

• Classroom set up - Workshop style

• Routines - Sessions happen in isolation from each other

• Curriculum and Assessment - Freedom to implement different tools

• Practitioners - Expected to be qualified to degree level

• Quality Assurance - Freedom to implement different tools

Source

• Department of Education (2012) Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage. Available at: http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/e/eyfs%20statutory%20framework%20march%202012.pdf (Accessed December 03rd 2012).

• New York State Early Childhood Advisory Council (2012) New York State EarlyLearning Guidelines. Available at: http://www.ccf.ny.gov/ECAC/ECACResources/ELG.pdf (Accessed December 04th 2012).

• Teaching Strategies, Inc. (2002) The Creative Curriculum System for Preschools. Available at: https://www.teachingstrategies.com/national/creative-curriculum-preschool-system-authors.html (Accessed December 04th 2012).

• The New York State Education Department (2011) New York State Prekindergarten Foundation for the Common Core. Available at: http://engageny.org/sites/default/files/resource/attachments/nyslsprek.pdf (Accessed December 04th 2012).