<<

58 Global Review 4(2)

Was Left Behind? Examining US Kindergarten as the New First Grade in the Wake of No Child Left Behind

Melia E. Repko-Erwin of at Boulder

Abstract Since the passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001, public in the have witnessed an influx of reforms intended to elevate ’ academic standing in a global economy. The unprecedented federal involvement in education resulting from the passage of NCLB has propelled a nationwide movement to standardize instruction, raise achievement levels, and hold schools accountable for improved outcomes. The kindergarten classroom has not been immune to these efforts. This critical review of literature published within the years 2001-2016 synthesizes empirical and theoretical research centered on US kindergarten post-NCLB. Connecting NCLB’s increased emphasis on standards and accountability to issues of kindergarten readiness, the role of academics, play, and developmental appropriateness in kindergarten, and changes in kindergarten instruction, the author examines the complicated nature of teaching and learning in kindergarten in the wake of NCLB, with implications for research, policy, and practice.

Keywords Kindergarten, No Child Left Behind, United States, federal , early literacy, readiness, developmentally appropriate practice

Many methods and theories have come and gone, yet none has been "proven" to be the best for kindergartners. The often unasked question is, "Best for what?" For socializing young children? For teaching the 3 Rs? For getting ready for first grade? For eradicating poverty and illiteracy? For stimulating creativity and independence? ...over the years kindergarten has been called upon to do all of these tasks. It still is. —Bryant & Clifford, 1992, p. 151

Introduction opened in St. Louis, in 1873 In the United States, kindergarten has been an (Dombkowski, 2001). By the 1950s, local, state, with remarkable staying power ______Corresponding Author: (Cuban, 1992). Inspired by German educator Melia E. Repko-Erwin, of Education, Rm. 437, Friedrich Froebel and his “children’s garden,” University of Colorado at Boulder, Boulder, Colorado 80309 the first publically-funded US kindergarten Email: [email protected] ______Global Education Review is a publication of The School of Education at Mercy College, . This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License, permitting all non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Citation: Repko-Erwin, Melia E. (2017). Was kindergarten left behind? Examining US kindergarten as the new first grade in the wake of No Child Left Behind. Global Education Review, 4(2), 58-74. Was Kindergarten Left Behind? 59

and federal support for kindergarten— between the onset of NCLB and perceived/actual strengthened by its growing public popularity— changes in the nature and role of kindergarten. helped to firmly secure the reform as part of the As a literacy educator and scholar, I was US public school system (Cuban, 1992), with especially interested in finding out if and how 70% of the nation’s school districts offering the increased federal emphasis on standards and kindergarten by 1959 (Dombkowski, 2001). By accountability has impacted literacy instruction 1986, every state in the nation subsidized in US kindergarten classrooms. Because the kindergarten, at least in part (Dhuey, 2011), provisions of NCLB specifically focused on though at the time of only thirteen states improving academic outcomes for children from and the District of Columbia require their public high-poverty and minoritized marginalized schools to provide full-day kindergarten backgrounds, my review focuses on how these programs (Parker, Diffey, & Atchison, 2016). children, in particular, have fared in the wake of In spite of the traction that kindergarten this policy. gained and has maintained, it continues to hold Approaching my review from a critical a unique and often contested role in United sociocultural perspective (Heath, 1982; Perry, States public schools (Bryant & Clifford, 1992; 2012; Street, 1995), I acknowledge that the Dombkowski, 2001). While kindergarten entry experiences of students and are shaped marks a significant milestone for most five- and by the beliefs and attitudes they hold, which are six-year-olds across the country, kindergarten is shaped by the communities and institutions only compulsory in fifteen US states (Workman, within which they live and operate, as well as 2014). Moreover, though many young children their cultural and linguistic practices, personal have prior outside-of-the-home learning , and ongoing interactions with others experiences at and/or childcare (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003; Han, 2009; centers, kindergarten has traditionally served to Vygotsky, 1978). The questions I ask of the bridge these early experiences with the more literature reflect my perspective that a policy like formal, academically-focused learning NCLB has as much influence on teachers and environments ubiquitous in first grade students as teachers and students have on the classrooms and beyond. Yet recent changes in policy (Coburn, 2006; Goldstein, 2008; Lipsky, the nature and role of kindergarten have caused 1980; Spillane, 2004). Understanding this bi- some to wonder whether kindergarten is “the directionality of influence is critical to informing new first grade” (Bassok, Latham, & Rorem, not only how research on a policy is conducted, 2016; Strauss, 2016). but what might be done in light of the This critical literature review synthesizes implications of this research. Although empirical and theoretical research centered on kindergarten’s long as a contested space kindergarten in the United States, focusing has been well-documented by others (e.g., primarily on peer-reviewed articles published Bryant & Clifford, 1992; Cuban, 1992; after the passage of No Child Left Behind Dombkowski, 2001; Russell, 2011), the (NCLB) during the years 2001-2016. Because complicated nature of teaching and learning in NCLB signaled an unprecedented level of federal kindergarten post-NCLB demands greater involvement in K-12 education—resulting in an attention by early childhood researchers. In the increased emphasis on standards-based sections that follow, I offer my part. instruction and high-stakes accountability This review begins with a brief (McGuinn, 2006; Meens & Howe, 2015)—I background of the adoption of the No Child Left wanted to know what links might be made Behind Act of 2001, in order to provide context

Was Kindergarten Left Behind? 60 for readers less familiar with US federal 1965 legislation (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2006; education policy. Next, I offer a description of Manna, 2010; McGuinn, 2006; Meens & Howe, the focus of my review. Source selection was 2015). guided by two primary questions, one focused on Since 1981, when the Reagan NCLB’s impact on kindergarten more generally, administration assumed control of the White and one focused specifically on literacy House, a central theme in US federal education instruction. the literature under the policy has been to improve K-12 academic guidance of these questions, I was able to outcomes in order to ensure that the United connect NCLB’s increased emphasis on States remains intellectually, technologically, standards and accountability to: 1) issues of and economically dominant across the globe kindergarten readiness; 2) the role of (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2006; Cuban, 2010; academics, play, and developmental Darling-Hammond, 2010). Although the eighth appropriateness in kindergarten; and 3) reauthorization of ESEA, the Every Student changes in kindergarten literacy instruction. Succeeds Act (ESSA), officially supplanted No While finality is a rare find in reviews of Child Left Behind in December 2015, NCLB education research, I am able to provide readers launched a nationwide movement to standardize with a better understanding of where US instruction, raise achievement levels, and hold kindergarten stands in the wake of No Child Left schools accountable for student outcomes, the Behind, with implications for research, policy, effects of which were far-reaching. In 2009, and practice. President Obama’s initiative incentivized states to adopt the Common Core No Child Left Behind Standards, described by Bomer and Maloch Though No Child Left Behind officially became (2011) as “the most sweeping nationalization of federal law in January 2002, the groundwork for the K–12 curriculum in US history” (p. 38). To the policy was laid nearly two decades prior. In date, forty-two US states (84%), as well as the 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in District of Columbia, four US territories, and the Education released A Nation at Risk, Department of Defense Education Activity documenting “a rising tide of mediocrity” in US (DoDEA) have adopted the Common Core. public schools. A Nation’s writers went on to In sum, NCLB and the state and local lament, “What was unimaginable a generation policies it has inspired, have been linked to a rise ago has begun to occur—others are matching in neoliberal political discourse across the globe, and surpassing our educational attainments” where privatization, free markets, and (para 1). Ironically, while then-president Ronald competition are viewed as the commonsense Reagan had hoped to abolish the Federal approach to curing social inequities and Department of Education during his tenure as ensuring global dominance (Hursh, 2007; commander-in-chief, A Nation at Risk only Kerkham & Nixon, 2014; Lingard, 2010; Sleeter, further strengthened the role of the federal 2012). Since 2001, US schools have witnessed an government in education (Guthrie & Springer, influx of reforms intended to elevate students’ 2004). Eighteen years after the publication of A academic standing in a global economy, the Nation at Risk, US Congress reauthorized the kindergarten classroom has not been immune to Elementary and Act these efforts. Today US kindergartners spend far (ESEA), also called the No Child Left Behind Act, less time engaged in play-based activities that marking the single greatest expansion of the were once at the heart of the kindergarten federal role in education policy since the original experience, and far more time receiving formal

Was Kindergarten Left Behind? 61 math and literacy instruction (Bassok, Latham, & Rorem, 2016; Bowdon & Desimone, 2014). Focus of the Review While early childhood scholars have critiqued In spite of the bipartisan congressional support this “academic shovedown” (Hatch, 2002), the that led to the adoption of NCLB (McGuinn, global education reform movement continues to 2006), the impact and associated consequences inform early childhood policy and practice of the policy have been nothing short of (Dahlberg & Moss, 2004; Dahlberg, Moss, & controversial (Pennington, 2007). While a host Pence, 2007; Cannella, Salazar Pérez, & Lee, of scholars have documented the ways in which 2016). Concerns about the quality of early literacy instruction in elementary school childhood education is largely understood in classrooms has changed since the adoption of terms of ensuring children’s future economic NCLB (e.g., Bomer, 2006; Dooley & Assaf, 2009; productivity, rather than supporting their Dutro, Selland, & Bien, 2013; Valli & Chambliss, current social, emotional, and developmental 2007), the majority of the research has not well-being. explicitly focused on kindergarten. This serves in Although the shoving down of academics contrast to the increased media attention that into kindergarten and classrooms has kindergarten classrooms have received in recent largely been attributed to the standards and years (e.g., McLaughlin, Carlsson-Paige, & accountability movement (Brown, 2007; Stipek, Levin, 2014; Moyer, 2013; Paul, 2010; 2006), since the 1920s, US kindergarten as an Pondiscio, 2015; Strauss, 2016). These two institution has struggled “… to define itself both observations sparked my interest in conducting as part of and as separate from the primary a more systematic review, attending to the grades and as related to but separate from other literature on US kindergarten more generally forms of early childhood education” and kindergarten literacy instruction in (Dombkowski, 2001, p. 528), particularly in particular after the onset of NCLB. Thirty-seven terms of whether academics or play-based peer-reviewed journal articles comprised the learning should be emphasized (Bryant & body of my review, which was guided by the Clifford, 1992; Russell, 2011). Even a cursory following questions: reading of the history of kindergarten in the 1. What links can be made between the United States would suggest that the increased federal emphasis on standards kindergarten classroom as a site of curricular and accountability ignited by No Child Left and pedagogical controversy is nothing new Behind and changes in the nature and role (Bryant & Clifford, 1992; Dombkowski, 2001), of US kindergarten? and the years since the passage of NCLB have 2. How has kindergarten literacy certainly been no exception (Russell, 2011). instruction in particular been impacted Nonetheless, a synthesis of the literature that post-NCLB? explores the links between increased federal involvement in US public schools and specific In the sections that follow, I demonstrate changes in the experiences of kindergarten the ways in which NCLB’s emphasis on teachers and students is needed in order to improving academic outcomes at all costs has reveal whose interests the policy has (and has indeed come at a cost, especially for students not) served. This work is of particular from low-income and/or culturally and importance for those of us committed to linguistically diverse backgrounds—two groups providing more equitable educational of students that NCLB’s provisions purportedly experiences for our youngest students. aimed to help. Findings are organized according

Was Kindergarten Left Behind? 62 to three prominent themes: 1) shifting and Lan (2015) attribute this change in how conceptions of kindergarten readiness; 2) the readiness is understood to the high-stakes tenuous relationship between play-based standards-based accountability reforms ignited learning, direct academic instruction, and by NCLB. However, both the nativist and developmentally appropriate practice; and 3) the empiricist understandings of kindergarten narrowing of the literacy curriculum, with readiness discount the interaction between the greater emphasis placed on code-based skills school context and the child (Meisels, 1999), a acquisition (i.e., decontextualized literacy third conceptualization of readiness held by instruction). many preschool educators and early childhood education professional organizations (Brown & Kindergarten Readiness and Lan, 2015, citing Rimm-Kaufman & Pianta, “Redshirting” 2000 and Shaul & Schwartz, 2014). NCLB and Understanding conceptualizations of school the early childhood initiatives it inspired (e.g., readiness, and how they may have shifted post- The White House’s [2002] Good Start, Grow NCLB, is important for those of us interested in Smart campaign) place more onus on parents, providing more equitable and supportive preschool providers, and the children schooling opportunities for young children. themselves to make sure that readiness happens, Brown and Lan’s (2015) meta-synthesis of discounting the variables that inform who has teachers’ conceptions of kindergarten readiness access to the kinds of preschools that best prior to and post-NCLB documents changes in prepare children for kindergarten. As such, post- the conceptual frames that teachers historically NCLB there seems to be increased ambiguity and currently have used to understand whether among preschool providers, parents, and or not a child is socially, developmentally, kindergarten teachers in terms of how readiness and/or cognitively ready for kindergarten. Prior is understood, as well as whose job it is to ensure to NCLB, kindergarten teachers overwhelmingly it is cultivated. interpreted their students’ readiness through a As high-stakes accountability reforms “nativist lens” (Brown and Lan, 2015, p. 6), ignited by NCLB have increased expectations for whereby readiness was attributed to something what children should know and be able to do within the child (e.g., Meisels, 1999; Kagan, before and by the end of kindergarten (Deming 1990), and did not depend upon the instruction & Dynarski, 2008; Huang & Invernizzi, 2012), they received prior to kindergarten. Before No some parents are choosing to give their child an Child Left Behind, those children who were extra year of preschool instead of sending them identified as not yet ready for kindergarten to kindergarten when they meet the age typically fell into at least one of the following requirement (Moyer, 2013; Paul, 2010). categories: physically smaller than their peers, Academic redshirting, the practice of refraining born in the summer months, exhibiting social from sending a child to kindergarten in the year immaturity, and/or male (Brown & Lan, 2015). they first meet the district or state age Post-NCLB, kindergarten teachers (and requirement (Bassok & Reardon, 2013; Deming policymakers) have placed more responsibility & Dynarski, 2008), has been linked to parents’ on their preschool colleagues to prepare children efforts to give their children a particular for kindergarten (i.e., toward an “empiricist advantage or competitive edge, academic or understanding,” Brown & Lan, 2015, p. 6), otherwise (e.g., what Graue, Kroeger, & Brown, interpreting readiness as a quality that 2002 called, “the gift of time”). Of course preschool instruction should promote. Brown parents’ abilities to make this decision depend

Was Kindergarten Left Behind? 63 greatly upon whether or not they can afford to income homes were more likely to be redshirted. pay for an additional year of preschool or It is important to note, however, that Lincove childcare, meaning that redshirting is far more and Painter (2006) based their conclusions on a prevalent in middle- and upper-class households much older data set (e.g., the National than in low-income households (Bassok & Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988). Reardon, 2013; Deming & Dynarski, 2008; Even though national estimates of the Dobkin & Ferreira, 2010). prevalence of academic redshirting are low, Acknowledging this disparity, just how these rates likely vary substantially at the state common is academic redshirting, and has the and local levels (Bassok & Reardon, 2013). practice increased substantially since NCLB? Moreover, although state funding of Perhaps not as much as the media and previous kindergarten has been linked to positive research has reported. Based on data from the outcomes for nearly all subsets of students 2001 Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Birth (Dhuey, 2011), some researchers have found that (ECLS-B) cohort, Bassok and Reardon (2013) redshirting offers little to no long-term benefits estimated that approximately 4-5.5% of children (academic or otherwise), and may in fact be eligible to attend kindergarten waited a year more harmful than helpful (Deming & Dynarski, before enrolling. This finding is significant 2008; Lincove & Painter, 2006; Stipek, 2002). because the 2013 study relied on more recent In other words, while increasing access to high- data than in previous research (e.g., Frey, 2005; quality kindergarten has generally helped all Graue, Kroeger, & Brown, 2002; Lincove & students in the short and long run, the practice Painter, 2006) and because the children within of delaying the onset of kindergarten has shown the ECLS-B cohort were all born after the no definite benefits. This suggests that more adoption of NCLB. localized studies of academic redshirting are Surprisingly, Bassok and Reardon (2013) needed, particularly to investigate how found no evidence to support the notion that redshirting may influence perceptions of developmental and cognitive differences among kindergarten readiness, as well as whether children impacted parental decisions to delay and/or how it may contribute to growing the start of kindergarten. Apart from children inequities between children from higher- and with low birthweights, for whom a number of lower-income backgrounds. other health and developmental challenges often co-occur (thereby influencing parents’ decisions All Work and No Play? to delay entry), no significant developmental A review of the research in the area of predictors differentiated children who began kindergarten readiness suggests that since kindergarten on time and those who waited a NCLB, teachers’ and parents’ conceptualizations year (Bassok & Reardon, 2013). However, the of readiness have shifted (Brown & Lan, 2015; authors did observe significant differences in the Deming & Dynarski, 2008; Huang & Invernizzi, prevalence of redshirting related to race, 2012). Whereas kindergarten teachers of the socioeconomic status (SES), and gender, with past were tasked with bridging play-based early white males from higher SES backgrounds most learning opportunities to the more formal likely to delay the start of kindergarten. academic experiences students would encounter Although this finding corroborates earlier in first grade, most kindergarten teachers now studies (Deming & Dynarski, 2008; Stipek, expect students to engage with direct academic 2002), it contrasts with Lincove and Painter instruction at the very beginning of their (2006), who found that white boys from lower kindergarten year (e.g., Russell, 2011). But has

Was Kindergarten Left Behind? 64 an increased federal emphasis on standards and instruction in kindergarten arose long before No accountability impacted expectations for what Child Left Behind was signed into law. Since the children should be learning while they are in 1980’s, early childhood educators have kindergarten, as well as how they should learn increasingly advocated for the use of it? While other researchers have speculated that developmentally appropriate practice within this might be the case (e.g., Deming & Dynarski, early childhood curriculum (i.e., curriculum for 2008), recent research by Bassok and colleagues children ages eight and younger) and has provided more clarity (see also Bowdon & (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; Copple & Desimone, 2014). Early in 2016, Bassok, Bredekamp, 2006). Developmentally Latham, and Rorem published a longitudinal Appropriate Practice, or DAP, has been defined analysis of how US kindergarten has changed as “teaching decisions that vary with and adapt over a ten-year span. Drawing on the Early to the age, experience, interests, and abilities of Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten individual children within a given age range” (ECLS-K) data set, a nationally representative (Copple & Bredekamp, 2006, p. 7). Proponents sample of a cohort of kindergarten students, of DAP stress that deciding whether an teachers, and parents followed across time, instructional move is developmentally Bassok et al. explored the hypothesis that appropriate depends upon knowing the student, kindergarten is the new first grade. This study not a standard (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; was the first of its kind, utilizing ECLS-K cohort Miller & Almon, 2009). Many early childhood data from 1998-1999 and 2010-2011. Between educators and researchers have argued that the the two cohorts of students and teachers, the majority of early education academic standards researchers noted an increased emphasis on written in recent years have not been created and skill acquisition, and the with the developmental needs of young children reduction in play-based, exploratory learning in mind (Bomer & Maloch, 2011; Goldstein, models (Bassok et al., 2016). Indeed, the authors 2008; Hatch, 2002; McLaughlin et al., 2014). found reason to believe that kindergarten today Hatch (2002) referred to the adoption and has many of the same qualities as first grades of implementation of early childhood academic the past. Bassok et al.’s findings support those of standards as academic shovedown, noting that, earlier researchers who have observed that the “Standards-based approaches represent academic expectations for US kindergarteners, backward movement, designed to force early particularly in literacy, have increased in recent childhood programs into molds that don't work years (e.g., Miller & Almon, 2009; Parker & with older students and are downright harmful Neuharth-Pritchett, 2006). Whereas for young children” (p. 462). kindergarten was once the place where US Are higher academic expectations and children were taught the alphabet and letter- developmentally appropriate practice sound correspondence, now, at the very least, fundamentally at odds with each other? While kindergarten teachers are expected to send their some would argue this is a false dichotomy (e.g., students to the first grade reading simple texts. Parker & Neuharth-Pritchett, 2006; Riley & While Bassok et al.’s (2016) study provides Jones, 2010; Snow, 2013), others would claim convincing evidence that kindergarten content that meeting the demands of the standards, and and pedagogy has indeed been influenced by simultaneously offering instruction at a level NCLB’s increased emphasis on standardization that meets the needs of the whole child is and high-stakes accountability, debates incredibly challenging (e.g., Bomer & Maloch, regarding the role of formal academic 2011; Goldstein, 2008). For example, Goldstein

Was Kindergarten Left Behind? 65

(2008) directly connected the changing role of curriculum that is encoded in the CCS. kindergarten to “NCLB’s transformation of the (pp. 39-40) US educational climate” (p. 449), with As Stipek (2006) cautioned over a decade kindergarten now representing the starting point ago, attempts to standardize early childhood of “a progressing, expanding, non-repeating experiences may do “more harm than good by curriculum of increasing complexity, depth, and promoting educational practices that undermine breadth” (citing Ardovino, Hollingsworth, & children’s enthusiasm for learning, and, as a Ybarra, 2000, p. 91). Additionally, Bomer and result, negatively affect their ultimate academic Maloch (2011) have stated that NCLB’s performance” (p. 456). Nonetheless, when it “apparatus of accountability” (i.e., high-stakes comes to determining whether developmentally assessment beginning as early as preschool) has appropriate practice can be incorporated into a pushed early childhood educators to instruct in standards-based curriculum, some scholars are ways that have nothing to do with “the present more optimistic than others (Bassok et al., 2016; practices in which the child engages” (p. 40). Bassok, Claessens, & Engel, 2014; Clements & It is important to point out that opposing Sarama, 2014). standards-based instruction in the early grades In addition to shifting academic does not necessarily reflect early childhood expectations (or perhaps because of these educators’ resistance to having standards. shifts), the amount of time kindergartners are According to Hyson (2003), early childhood engaged in free or structured play has also education has long called upon educators to received attention from US researchers. Despite uphold responsive and developmentally its many benefits, “…recent years have seen a appropriate standards. The objection of many steady decrease in the amount of time proponents of DAP is that most early childhood kindergarten classes devoted to play (Lynch, academic standards do not reflect the ways in 2015, p. 348, citing Brownson et al. 2010; Frost which young children learn and develop. As 2008; Meisels & Shonko, 2000).” This decrease such, “these standards have the potential to pose in time spent playing has been attributed in part ‘educational and developmental risks’ for young to an increased emphasis placed upon preparing learners” (Goldstein, 2007b, p. 381, citing young children to do well on standardized tests National Association for the Education of Young and to meet academic standards (Copple & Children, 2002, p. 2). Reflecting on the Common Bredekamp, 2009; Hyun, 2003; Jeynes, 2006). Core Standards [CCS] in particular, Bomer and Though some scholars argue that “play is not a Maloch (2011) have asserted: luxury but rather a crucial dynamic of healthy There are probably few primary teachers physical, intellectual, and social-emotional who think of themselves as directly development at all age levels” (Elkind, 2007, p. preparing their children for college and 4), US school administrators and teachers, career. Most likely, they believe that feeling pressure to increase scores, may find supporting children in their curiosity it is necessary to reduce the amount of “free about their world, the people around time” children are allotted during an already them, and the language in which they time-crunched school day. are continually bathed is a good As previously stated, many scholars would preparation for later schooling, college, argue that play and academics are not and career, not to mention for life more incompatible. For example, Alford, Rollins, generally and everything that’s in it. But Padrón, and Waxman (2015) have written: “The that’s not the theory of growth or concept of play for young learners has been

Was Kindergarten Left Behind? 66 erroneously portrayed as directly oppositional to 10). Furthermore, Parker and Neuharth- the more ‘worthy’ academic counterpart of Pritchett (2006) found that even though many academic work” (p. 10). Riley and Jones (2010) teachers employ the language of would agree that, “Learning and play do not developmentally appropriate practice, they do have to be contradictory; learning can occur not always enact these practices in the during times of play” (p. 149). Similarly, classroom. Alford et al. (2015) specifically linked according to Katz (2015): the use of developmentally inappropriate practices to preparation for testing. According to …the traditional debates in the field Yoon (2015), “Instead of working in tandem, the about whether to emphasize so-called tests and developmental theories are at odds free play or formal beginning academic with each other, specifically in the early grades” instruction are not the only two options (p. 369). Nonetheless, Parker and Neuharth- for the early childhood curriculum. Pritchett (2006) remind us that didactic Certainly some proportions of time can methods and developmentally appropriate be given to both of those kinds of methods are not directly in opposition to one curriculum components. But in the early another; rather, these are two different years, another major component of instructional approaches that serve two different education – (indeed for all age groups) purposes (citing Maxwell, McWilliam, must be to provide a wide range of Hemmeter, Ault, & Schuster, 2001; Stipek, experiences, opportunities, resources Felier, Daniels, & Milburn, 1995). and contexts that will provoke, If developmentally appropriate practice, stimulate, and support children’s innate which may incorporate play-based learning, intellectual dispositions. (p. 2) should not be viewed as the opposite of didactic In spite of this argument, and the fact that teaching methods, how might we break away many teachers claim to be proponents of DAP, from viewing the two as a binary? Figure 1, Alford et al. (2015) found that regardless of which depicts Miller and Almon’s (2009) grade level, teachers were likely to use “whole continuum of kindergarten instructional class, didactic, teacher-centered instructional approaches, ranging from highly unstructured practices,” an approach that “discounts the free play to highly structured didactic range of differences and contexts that are instruction, provides one possible conception: present within an early childhood classroom” (p.

Figure 1. Continuum of approaches to kindergarten education (Miller & Almon, 2009).

67 Global Education Review 4(2)

According to Miller and Almon (2009), developmentally diverse environments the optimal educational environment for is all but compulsory. Future ECE kindergarten students combines play with a research and practice must utilize a purpose, an environment where children, under more all-inclusive, farsighted approach the guidance of their teacher(s), can actively towards young children’s learning. experience the world, learning concepts in ways Ultimately, the answer to providing that are meaningful and important to them. effective instruction for young children Snow (2013) would agree with this position. lies in bridging the gap between Such an environment echoes Dewey’s (1938) developmentally appropriate and direct of education grounded in experience, instruction and striking a successful particularly the need for continuity and balance between both ideologies and interaction across learning opportunities, as well practices. (p. 11) as the important role of a skilled adult facilitator. Therefore, considering the cultural and From this perspective, the Common Core linguistic needs of diverse learners adds yet Standards are addressing only a piece of Dewey’s another dimension in this exploration of the vision, that of offering continuity across learning changing nature and role of kindergarten post- opportunities, and overlooking how learning NCLB. If developmentally appropriate pedagogy opportunities should also be informed by and positive learning outcomes are inextricably children’s personal and relational ways of being linked (Alford et al., 2015), is it also possible to in the world. teach a culturally and linguistically responsive, To close this section, I feel it is also standards-based curriculum that meets the important to clarify the notion of social, emotional, and cognitive needs of all developmentally appropriate practice, as it is children? This seems to be a tall order, even for somewhat paradoxical in nature. While holding the most seasoned and successful teacher, and itself at a far distance from standards-based an example of which research (to the best of my instruction, DAP has been built upon a knowledge) has yet to locate and explicate. prescribed set of beliefs about the kind of instruction young children need. While on the The “Science” Behind NCLB and one hand, this might underscore Hyson’s (2003) Kindergarten Literacy Instruction point that early childhood education has always Within the context of the kindergarten literacy had standards, Moon and Reifel (2008), classroom, it would seem that prior to NCLB, drawing on work from Dyson (1995) and children were expected to leave kindergarten Genishi, Dyson, and Fassler, (1994), have ready to read, whereas since NCLB, children reminded us that “‘developmentally appropriate’ have been pushed to leave kindergarten already practice may not always look the same…in reading (Bassok et al., 2016; Miller & Almon, classrooms with diverse children” (p. 50). Alford 2009; Yoon, 2015). Such a distinction et al. (2015) would add: demonstrates the difference between emergent High-quality early childhood settings readers, who understand important concepts consider all the domains of a young about print and are experimenting with reading child’s development, not just cognition. and writing, and early readers who, in addition The need for teachers to individualize to possessing a solid grasp of print concepts, and differentiate their instruction in have a bank of high frequency words upon which ethnically, culturally, and to draw, as well as a growing ability to decode

Was Kindergarten Left Behind? 68 words that follow predictable sound-spelling based reading research (Teale, Paciga, & patterns (Pinnell & Fountas, 2007). The Hoffman, 2007). As such, US teachers, expectation that children leave kindergarten particularly those working with children from already reading can be attributed to the goals of low-income and minoritized backgrounds, were NCLB and the adoption of more rigorous pressured to prioritize code-based skills academic standards that it inspired (Yoon, instruction in the early grades (Gee, 2013; 2015). Pearson, 2004; Pearson & Hiebert, 2010). Such Among its many ambitious goals, NCLB a prioritization of decontextualized skills pushed a national initiative, Reading First, instruction (i.e., Street’s [1995] “autonomous declaring that all US children should be model of literacy”) discounted decades of proficient readers by (White House, research informed by sociocultural and critical 2003). This initiative was largely informed by perspectives of literacy learning (e.g., Cope & findings put forth by a group of researchers Kalantzis, 2013; Gee, 2004; 2013; Heath, 1982; commissioned by the federal government, the Luke, 2013; The New London Group, 1996). (NRP), in their report Central to these perspectives is “an alternative, entitled Teaching Children to Read: An ideological model of literacy [that] offers a more Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific culturally sensitive view of literacy practices as Research Literature on Reading and its they vary from one context to another” (Street, Implications for Reading Instruction (National 2008, p. 4). Sociocultural and critical Institute of Child Health and Human perspectives call for educators to attend to the Development, 2000). Privileging reading ways in which power, privilege, and context research based on experimental and quasi- shape how people conceive of and use experimental designs (Cunningham, 2001), the literacy/, as much as educators attend NRP necessarily reduced reading to a science to how the acts of reading, writing, speaking, that can quantifiably be measured. As such, it is and listening are taken up by any one individual not surprising that one of the report’s major within any one group (e.g., Heath, 1982; Perry, takeaways was that effectively teaching reading 2012; Street, 1995). depended upon explicit instruction in the areas In spite of research that has demonstrated of phonemic awareness, , fluency, the ideological nature of literacy, NCLB’s vocabulary, and comprehension, with a strong Reading First initiative and (more recently) the emphasis on the first three in the early grades adoption of the Common Core Standards have (Bingham & Patton-Terry, 2013; Botzakis, equated literacy to academic performance Burns, & Hall, 2014; Paris, 2005). Although the (Bomer & Maloch, 2011; Botzakis et al., 2014), or conclusions drawn by the NRP received a “the ability to read and write and compute in the substantial amount of criticism from leading form taught and expected in formal education” reading experts (e.g., Allington, 2002; (Street, 1995, p. 107; citing Ogbu, 1990). This Cunningham, 2001; Paris, 2005), its impact on decontextualized approach to literacy US classroom practice was highly consequential, development holds that learning to read and as well as its influence on the future adoption of write is contingent upon students explicitly the Common Core Standards (Botzakis et al., learning the code of the English language 2014). (Pearson, 2004; Pressley & Allington, 2014). Post-NCLB, federal funding streams were Implicit within this autonomous literacy model directed toward states and districts that agreed is an assumption that there is a right way to to purchase reading programs and professional interpret a text once it is decoded. One development models informed by scientifically- consequence of this model is that children come

Was Kindergarten Left Behind? 69 to learn that the most important information reading development…[and] a single assessment gleaned from reading is located within the words cannot capture the variety of skills and on the page, not the responses that reading developmental levels of children in most K–3 invokes within the reader (or a community of classes” (p. 205). Adding to the problem, the readers). The Common Core Standards are ways in which assessment data are used in early actually more explicit in this regard (Bomer & childhood classrooms can prove troublesome for Maloch, 2011; Yatvin, 2012). those concerned with . Since Researchers have noted that although NCLB, the increased use of standardized developing code-related skills is important for assessments in kindergarten classrooms has future reading success, too much emphasis in arguably led to an increased use of homogenous the early grades “comes at the expense of grouping (e.g., ability grouping) to provide at emphases on the oral language skills of listening least a portion of students’ daily instruction. and speaking; skills related to vocabulary, Catsambis and Buttaro (2012), who analyzed the composition, and comprehension” (Paris & Luo, psycho-social aspects of ability grouping, have 2010, p. 316). Decontextualized code-based noted that: skills instruction can be particularly detrimental [Our] findings support what skeptics of for children from culturally and linguistically ability grouping have said all along; that diverse backgrounds, for whom skills instruction ability grouping benefits only children in without a meaningful context is not only high ability groups… the psycho-social confusing, but counterproductive (Herrera, effects of this instructional practice can Perez, Escamilla, 2010; Yoon, 2015). actually contribute to achievement gaps Additionally, such a narrowly prescriptive by race/ethnicity and socioeconomic response to a perceived national literacy status that tend to increase as students problem overlooks a great deal of research on move from kindergarten to the third the social aspects of literacy and meaning- grade (citing Tach & Farkas, 2006; Fryer making (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 2006), a & Levitt 2006). response that may seem surprising given that “no field has witnessed more Thus the research on changes in literacy synthesis/consensus-seeking efforts [by instruction post-NCLB paints a troubling picture researchers and policy-makers] than reading, for all early childhood educators, but especially particularly early reading research” (Pearson & those who work with children from low-income Hiebert, 2010, p. 286). and culturally and linguistically diverse In addition to the overemphasis on backgrounds. While proponents of NCLB may decontextualized skills instruction in have argued that these are the very children the kindergarten classrooms, Yoon (2015) found policy intended to support, observations of that the assessment data teachers used were classroom practice and analysis of assessment based on conceptualizations of literacy learning data in the wake of NCLB suggest otherwise. as a linear path. Such data is necessarily reductionist in view because “language If Kindergarten Was Left Behind, Where assessments and norm referenced tests simplify Do We Go From Here? language to its basic parts” (Yoon, 2015, p. 390). In her history of early childhood education, Paris and Hoffman (2004) have criticized a Beatty (1995) noted, “Practice tends to go “one-test-fits-all approach” to assessing early through cycles, pushing young children too hard literacy because “a single assessment cannot and too fast and then letting up again in adequately represent the complexity of a child’s response to adult concerns’’ (p. 205). In the US, we may be at a crossroads, a point in time when

Was Kindergarten Left Behind? 70 we must decide just how much we are willing to complexity. Kindergarten teachers are faced let up when it comes to demanding that all with the challenging task of meeting academic children meet higher academic standards if we standards, nurturing children’s social and also insist they be taught in ways that reflect emotional needs, while also teaching in ways their developmental, cultural, and linguistic that are culturally, linguistically, and needs and abilities. Perhaps we need to forge a developmentally responsive. Students arrive in more expansive trail that considers not only kindergarten eager and willing to learn, but with what and how our youngest children are taught, vastly different experiences that may or may not but why we send them to public schools in the have prepared them for the educational context first place. Such considerations will help to within which they find themselves. Parents and reveal whose interests education policies are families want the best for their children, but (and are not) serving. unless they are well-versed in the research on As Russell (2011) has noted, “Educators child development and early childhood are embedded in a cultural environment where education, they must rely on information ideas are publicly framed and debated, shaping provided by others in order to make most parental expectations, policymakers’ educational decisions. rulemaking, and perhaps educators’ beliefs Many educators and parents—myself about what constitutes legitimate professional included—would agree that the kindergarten practices” (p. 259). This literature review classroom into which today’s five and six year supports such an insight. Research has yet to olds walk looks and feels very different from the offer definitive conclusions or even provide kindergarten of decades past. Whether these universal examples of how kindergarteners differences are for the better, or for the worse, might best be instructed because, of course, the depends on who you ask. Nonetheless, question echoed in the epigraph of this article understanding how kindergarten might better remains: “Best for what?” (and I would add, best serve all learners has utility beyond helping to for whom?) Researchers must devote increased resolve differences in parents’, teachers’, attention to studying the ways in which teachers’ researchers’, and/or policymakers’ ideological or classroom practices represent their response to pedagogical beliefs. Debates centered on such questions, and how research might education are always personal, because the support, challenge, and/or shift this response. consequences of ill-informed education policies Policymakers then must use this research, land squarely on the shoulders of our children. informed by the perspectives of early childhood In other words, focusing future research (and practitioners, parents, and children, when policy decisions) on the questions of “Best for designing policies that impact our youngest whom?” and “Best for what?” is not only learners. Equity-minded policy-makers would be important, but essential. wise to recognize that our seemingly relentless national and global emphasis on References standardization, high-stakes accountability, and Alford, B. L., Rollins, K. B., Padrón, Y. N., & Waxman, H. C. (2015). Using systematic classroom observation to children’s future economic productivity have explore student engagement as a function of only further extended the distance between the teachers’ Developmentally Appropriate Instructional have’s and have not’s in our society. Practices (DAIP) in ethnically diverse pre- kindergarten through second-grade This literature review reveals the classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal, 1- complicated nature of teaching and learning in 13. kindergarten in the wake of NCLB; researchers and policymakers alike must recognize this

Was Kindergarten Left Behind? 71

Allington, R. (2002). Big brother and the national reading study of ability grouping and psycho-social curriculum: How ideology trumped evidence. development. Social Psychology of Education, 15(4), Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. 483-515. Ardovino, J., Hollingsworth, J. R., & Ybarra, S. E. Clements, D. H., & Sarama, J. (2011). Early childhood (2000). Multiple measures: Accurate ways to assess intervention. Science, 333(6045), 968- student achievement. Corwin Press. 970. Bassok, D., Claessens, A., & Engel, M. (2014, June 4). The Coburn, C. E. (2006). Framing the Problem of Reading case for the new kindergarten: Challenging and Instruction: Using Frame Analysis to Uncover the playful. Education Week. Retrieved from Microprocesses of Policy Implementation. American http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2014/06/04/33 Journal, 43(3), 343–379. bassok_ep.h33.html Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. L. (2006). Troubling images Bassok, D., Latham, S., & Rorem, A. (2016). Is kindergarten of teaching in No Child Left Behind. Harvard the new first grade? AERA Open, 1(4), 1-31. Educational Review, 76(4), 668–726. Bassok, D., & Reardon, S. F. (2013). “Academic Redshirting” http://doi.org/10.17763/haer.76.4.56v888136821571 in kindergarten: Prevalence, patterns, and 4 implications. and Policy Cope, B & Kalantzis, M. (2013). “Multiliteracies”: New Analysis, 35(3), 283-297. literacies, new learning. In M. R. Hawkins (Ed.), Beatty, B. (1995). Preschool education in America: The Framing languages and literacies: Socially situated culture of young children from the colonial era to the views and perspectives (pp. 51-82). New York, NY: present. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Routledge. Bingham, G. E., & Patton-Terry, N. (2013). Early language Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2006). Basics of and literacy achievement of early reading first developmentally appropriate practice. NAEYC, students in kindergarten and 1st grade in the United DC. States. Journal of Research in Childhood Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (Eds.) (2009). Developmentally Education, 27(4), 440-453. Appropriate Practice in early childhood programs Bomer, R. (2006). You are here: The moment in literacy serving children from birth through age 8, 3rd ed. education. Research in the Teaching of Washington, DC: National Association for the English, 40(3), 355-372. Education of Young Children. Bomer, R., & Maloch, B. (2011). Relating policy to research: Cuban, L. (1992). Why some reforms last: The case of the The Common Core State Standards. Language Arts, kindergarten. American Journal of Education, 89(1), 38–43. 100(2), 166-194. Botzakis, S., Burns, L. D., & Hall, L. A. (2014). Literacy Cuban, L. (2010, July 25). Common core standards: Hardly Reform and Common Core. Language Arts, 91(4), an evidence-based policy. Retrieved from http:// 223–235. larrycuban.wordpress.com/2010/07/25/common- Bowdon, J., & Desimone, L. (2014). More work, less play: core-standards-hardly-an-evidence-based-policy/. Kindergarten, post-NCLB. Teachers College Record. Cunningham, J. W. (2001). The national reading panel ID Number: 17742 report. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 326-335. Bredekamp, S., & Copple, S. (Eds.). (1997). Developmentally Dahlberg, G., & Moss, P. (2004). Ethics and politics in early appropriate practice in early childhood programs childhood education. Routledge. serving children from birth through age 8 (Revised Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (2007). Beyond quality edition.). Washington, DC: National Association for in early childhood education and care: Languages the Education of Young Children. of evaluation. Routledge. Brown, C. P. (2007). Unpacking standards in early childhood Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). The flat world and education: education. Teachers College Record, 109(3), 635- How America's commitment to equity will 668. determine our future. New York, NY: Teachers Brown, C. P., & Lan, Y. C. (2015). A qualitative metasynthesis College Press. comparing US teachers' conceptions of school Deming, D., & Dynarski, S. (2008). The lengthening of readiness prior to and after the implementation of childhood. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(3), NCLB. Teaching and , 45, 1-13. 71–92. Bryant, D. M., & Clifford, R. M. (1992). 150 years of Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: kindergarten: How far have we come? Early Macmillan. Childhood Research Quarterly, 7(2), 147-154. Dhuey, E. (2011). Who benefits from kindergarten? Evidence Cannella, G. S., Salazar Pérez, M., & Lee, I-F. (2016). Critical from the introduction of state examinations of quality in early education and care: subsidization. Educational Evaluation and Policy Regulation, disqualification, and erasure. Peter Analysis, 33(1), 3-22. Lang. Dobkin, C., & Ferreira, F. (2010). Do school entry laws affect Catsambis, S., & Buttaro Jr, A. (2012). Revisiting educational attainment and labor market “Kindergarten as academic boot camp”: A nationwide

Was Kindergarten Left Behind? 72

outcomes? Economics of Education Review, 29(1), Goldstein, L. S. (2007b). Embracing pedagogical 40-54. multiplicity: Examining two teachers' instructional Dombkowski, K. (2001). Will the real kindergarten please responses to the changing expectations for stand up?: Defining and redefining the twentieth- kindergarten in US public schools. Journal of century US kindergarten. History of Education, Research in Childhood Education, 21(4), 378-399. 30(6), 527-545. Goldstein, L.S. (2008). Kindergarten teachers making Dooley, C. M., & Assaf, L. C. (2009). Contexts Matter: Two “street-level” education policy in the wake of No Teachers’ Language Arts Instruction in this High- Child Left Behind. Early Education and stakes Era. Journal of Literacy Research (Vol. 41). Development, 19(3), 448-478. doi: http://doi.org/10.1080/10862960903133743 10.1080/10409280802065387. Dutro, E., Selland, M. K., & Bien, A. C. (2013). Revealing Graue, M. E., Kroeger, J., & Brown, C. (2002). Living the Writing, Concealing Writers: High-Stakes “gift of time.” Contemporary Issues in Early Assessment in an Urban Elementary Classroom. Childhood, 3(3), 338–353. Journal of Literacy Research, 45(2), 99–141. Gutierrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural Ways of doi:10.1177/1086296X13475621 Learning: Individual Traits or Repertoires of Dyson, A.H. (1995). Diversity and literacy development in Practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25. doi: the early years–What difference does difference 10.3102/0013189X032005019. make? Teacher perspectives on diversity, literacy, Han, H. S. (2009). Sociocultural influence on children's and the urban . Final report. social competence: A close look at kindergarten University of , Graduate School of teachers' beliefs. Journal of research in childhood Education. education, 24(1), 80-96. Elkind, D. (2007). The power of play: How spontaneous, Hatch, J. A. (2002). Accountability shovedown: Resisting the imaginative activities lead to happier, healthier standards movement in early childhood children. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press. education. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(6), 457. Frey, N. (2005). Retention, social promotion, and academic Heath, S.B. (1982). What no bedtime story means. Language redshirting: What do we know and need to know? in Society, 11, 49-76. Remedial and , 26(6), 332-346. Herrera, S. G., Perez, D. R., & Escamilla, K. (2010). Teaching Fryer, R. G., Jr., & Levitt, S. D. (2006). The black–white test reading to English Language Learners: score gap through third grade. American Law and Differentiating literacies. Boston, MA: Allyn & Economics Review, 8(2), 249–281. Bacon. Gee, J.P. (2004). Situated language and learning: A critique Huang, F.L. & Invernizzi, M.A. (2012). The association of of traditional schooling. New York, NY: Routledge. kindergarten entry age with early literacy outcomes. Gee, J. P. (1996). Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology The Journal of Educational Research, 105(6), 431- in discourses (2nd edition). Philadelphia, PA: 441. doi: 10.1080/00220671.2012.658456 Routledge Falmer. Hursh, D. (2007). Assessing No Child Left Behind and the Gee, J. P. (2013). Discourses in and out of school. In M. R. rise of neoliberal education policies. American Hawkins (Ed.), Framing languages and literacies: Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 493-518. Socially situated views and perspectives (pp. 51-82). Hyson, M. (2003). Introducing NAEYC’s “Early Learning New York, NY: Routledge. Standards: Creating the Conditions for Success.” Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic Young Children, 58(1), 66-68. indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Hyun, E. (2003). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Issues and implications for early childhood teacher Educational Achievement. education. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Guthrie, J. W., & Springer, M. G. (2004). A Nation at Risk Education, 24, 119–26. Revisited: Did "Wrong" Reasoning Result in" Right" Jeynes, W. H. (2006). Standardized tests and Froebel’s Results? At What Cost? Peabody journal of original kindergarten model. Teachers College Education, 79(1), 7-35. Record, 108, 1937–59. Genishi, C., Dyson, A.H. & Fassler, R. (1994) Language and Katz, V. (2015). Lively minds: Distinctions between academic diversity in early childhood: Whose voices are versus intellectual goals for young children. appropriate? In B.L. Mallory & R.S. New (Eds.) Defending the Early Years. Diversity and Developmentally Appropriate Kerkham, L., & Nixon, H. (2014). Literacy assessment that Practices: Challenge for early childhood education, counts: mediating, interpreting and contesting (pp. 250-268). New York: Teachers College Press. translocal policy in a primary school. Ethnography Goldstein, L. S. (2007a). Beyond the DAP versus standards and Education, 9(3), 343-358. dilemma: Examining the unforgiving complexity of Lincove, J. A., & Painter, G. (2006). Does the age that kindergarten teaching in the United States. Early children start kindergarten matter? Evidence of long- Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(1), 39-54.

Was Kindergarten Left Behind? 73

term educational and social outcomes. Educational Common core state standards for English language Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(2), 153-179. arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, Lingard, B. 2010. Policy borrowing, policy learning: Testing and technical subjects. Washington, D.C.: Author. times in Australian schooling. Critical Studies in National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Education, 51(2), 129–147. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence doi:10.1080/17508481003731026 based assessment of the scientific research literature Lipsky, M. (1980). Street level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of on reading and its implications for reading the individual in public services. New York: Russell instruction: Reports of the subgroups (Report of the Sage Foundation. National Reading Panel). Washington, DC: US Luke, A. (2013). Regrounding : Government. Representation, facts, and reality. In M.R. Hawkins New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: (Ed.), Framing languages and literacies: Socially Designing social futures. Harvard Educational situated views and perspectives (pp. 136-148). New Review, 66(1), 60. York, NY: Routledge. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (2001). PL 107–110. Lynch, M. (2015). More play, please: the perspective of Available at: kindergarten teachers on play in the http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index. classroom. American Journal of Play, 7(3), 347-370. html. Manna, P. (2010). Collision course: Federal education policy Office of the White House. (2002). Good start, grow smart: meets state and local realities. Thousand Oaks, CA: The Bush administration's early childhood initiative. CQ Press. Retrieved from Maxwell, K. L., McWilliam, R. A., Hemmeter, M. L., Ault, M. http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/earlychildhood J., & Schuster, J. W. (2001). Predictors of /sect1.html. developmentally appropriate classroom practices in Office of the White House. (2003). President Bush celebrates kindergarten through third grade. Early Childhood first anniversary of no child left behind [press Research Quarterly, 16, 431-452. release]. Retrieved from http://georgewbush- McGuinn, P. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind and the whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20 transformation of federal education policy, 1965- 030108-4.html. 2005. Lawrence: University Press of . Paris, S. G. (2005). Reinterpreting the development of McLaughlin, G. B., Carlsson-Paige, N. & Levin, D.E. (2013, reading skills. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, August 2). A disturbing shift underway in early 184–202. doi:10.1598/RRQ.40.2.3 childhood classrooms. The Washington Post, Answer Paris, S. G., & Hoffman, J. V. (2004). Reading assessments Sheet. Retrieved from in kindergarten through third grade: Findings from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer- the Center for the Improvement of Early Reading sheet/wp/2013/08/02/the-disturbing-shift- Achievement. The Elementary School underway-in-early-childhood-classrooms/ Journal, 105(2), 199-217. Meisels, S. J. (1999). Assessing readiness. In R. C. Pianta, & Paris, S. G., & Luo, S. W. (2010). Confounded statistical M. J. Cox (Eds.), The transition to kindergarten (pp. analyses hinder interpretation of the NELP report. 39-63). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing. Educational Researcher, 39, 316–322. Meens, D. & Howe, K. (2015). NCLB and its wake: Bad news doi:10.3102/0013189X10369828 for democracy. Teachers College Record, 117(6). Parker, A. & Neuharth-Pritchett, S. (2006). Developmentally Merriam, S. B. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to Appropriate Practice in kindergarten: Factors design and implementation. San Francisco, CA: shaping teacher beliefs and practice. Journal of Jossey-Bass. Research in Childhood Education, 21(1), 65-78. doi: Miller, E., & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in the kindergarten: 10.1080/02568540609594579 Why children need to play in school. Alliance for Parker, E., Diffey, L., & Atchison, B. (2016). Full-day Childhood (NJ3a). kindergarten: A look across the states. Denver, CO: Moon, K., & Reifel, S. (2008). Play and literacy learning in a Education Commission of the States. Retrieved from diverse language pre-kindergarten classroom. http://www.ecs.org/ec-content/uploads/Full-Day- Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 9(1), 49– Kindergarten-A-look-across-the-states.pdf. 65. Paul, P. (2010, August 20). The littlest redshirts sit out Moyer, M.W. (2013, September 19). Can your kid hack it in kindergarten. New York Times. Retrieved from kindergarten? Or should you redshirt him? Slate. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/fashion/22C Retrieved from ultural.html?pagewanted=all http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/the_kids/2 Pearson, P. D. (2004). The Reading Wars. Educational 013/09/academic_redshirting_what_does_the_rese Policy, 18(1), 216–252. arch_say_about_delaying_kindergarten.html http://doi.org/10.1177/0895904803260041 National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Pearson, P. D., & Hiebert, E. H. (2010). National reports in Council of Chief State School Officers. (2010). literacy: Building a scientific base for practice and

Was Kindergarten Left Behind? 74

policy. Educational Researcher, 39(4), 286–294. Stipek, D., & Byler, P. (2001). Academic achievement and http://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X10370205 social behaviors associated with age of entry into Perry, K. (2012). What is Literacy? –A critical overview of kindergarten. Journal of Applied Developmental sociocultural perspectives. Journal of Language and Psychology, 22(2), 175-189. Literacy Education [Online], 8(1), 50-71. Available at Stipek, D., Felier, R., Daniels, D., & Milburn, S. (1995). http://jolle.coe.uga.edu/wp- Effects of different instructional approaches on content/uploads/2012/06/What-is- young children’s achievement and motivation. Child Literacy_KPerry.pdf Development, 66, 209-223. Pennington, J. L. (2007). Re-viewing NCLB through the Strauss, V. (2016, January 19). Is kindergarten the new first figured worlds of policy and teaching: Creating a grade? It’s actually worse than that. The Washington space for teacher agency and improvisation. Post, Answer Sheet. Retrieved from Language Arts, 84, 465-474. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer- Pinnell, G. S., & Fountas, I. C. (2007). The continuum of sheet/wp/2016/01/19/kindergarten-the-new-first- literacy learning, grades K-8: Behaviors and grade-its-actually-worse-than-that/ understandings to notice, teach, and Street, B. V. (1995). Social literacies: Critical approaches to support. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. literacy in development, ethnography and Pondiscio, R. (2015). Is Common Core too hard for education. London: Routledge. kindergarten? Retrieved from Street, B. V. (2008). New literacies, new times: http://edexcellence.net/articles/is-common-core- Developments in literacy studies. In Encyclopedia of too-hard-for-kindergarten language and education (pp. 418-431). Springer US. Riley, J. G., & Jones, R. B. (2010). Acknowledging learning Tach, L. M., & Farkas, G. (2006). Learning-related through play in the primary grades. Childhood behaviors, cognitive skills, and ability grouping when Education, 86(3), 146-149. schooling begins. Social Science Research, 35(4), Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., & Pianta, R. C. (2000). An ecological 1048–1079. perspective on the transition to kindergarten: A Teale, W. H., Paciga, K. A., & Hoffman, J. L. (2007). theoretical framework to guide empirical Beginning reading instruction in urban schools: The research. Journal of Applied Developmental curriculum gap ensures a continuing achievement Psychology, 21(5), 491-511. gap. The Reading Teacher, 61(4), 344-348. Rogers, R., Malancharuvil-Berkes, E., Mosley, M., Hui, D., & Valli, L., & Chambliss, M. (2007). Creating Classroom Joseph, G. O. G. (2005). Critical discourse analysis in Cultures: One Teacher, Two Lessons, and a High- education: A review of the literature. Review of Stakes Test. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, Educational Research, 75(3), 365-416. 38(1), 57–75. Russell, J. L. (2011). From child’s garden to academic press: http://doi.org/10.1525/aeq.2007.38.1.57 The role of shifting institutional logics in redefining Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of kindergarten education. American Educational higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Research Journal, 48(2), 236-267. Harvard University Press. Shaul, S., & Schwartz, M. (2014). The role of the executive Yoon, H. S. (2015). Assessing children in kindergarten: The functions in school readiness among preschool-age narrowing of language, culture and identity in the children. Reading and Writing, 27(4), 749-768. testing era. Journal of Early Childhood Sleeter, C. E. (2012). Confronting the marginalization of Literacy, 15(3), 364-393. culturally responsive pedagogy. Urban Education, 47(3), 562-584. About the author Snow, K. (2013). Research news you can use: Debunking the Melia E. Repko-Erwin, Melia Repko-Erwin is a doctoral play vs. learning dichotomy. Washington, D.C.: candidate in Curriculum & Instruction: Literacy Studies and National Association for the Education of Young Research in Teaching and Teacher Education (ROTATE) at Children. Retrieved from: the University of Colorado at Boulder. Her research interests https://www.naeyc.org/content/research-news-you- include K-8 literacy instruction, education policy, and can-use-play-vs-learning. teacher professional learning. Spillane, P. (2004). Standards deviation: How schools misunderstand education policy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Stipek, D. (2002). At what age should children enter kindergarten? A question for policy makers and parents. Social Policy Report, 16(2), 3–16. Stipek, D. (2006). No Child Left Behind comes to preschool. Elementary School Journal, 106, 455–65.