Preparing Early Childhood Educators to Teach Math

Herbert Ginsburg, Marilou Hyson, Taniesha A. Woods

• Publisher: Brookes Publishing
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781598577143
• Topic: Pedagogía
• Subtopic: Enseñanza de matemáticas

With 30+ video clips —great for use in teacher training sessions! If you're preparing early childhood educators for the critical task of teaching math, this groundbreaking resource is just what you need to plan and implement effective professional development. Translating recommendations from the National Research Council's early mathematics report into clear and actionable goals, this text is your key to improving the way educators teach math to children ages 3–6. You'll get an in-depth guide to what math teachers need to teach; a research-based framework for strengthening professional development; and web-based video clips to enhance training sessions and show teachers the "how" of high-quality math instruction. Use this accessible text to guide both pre- and inservice teacher preparation—and ensure better math teaching and higher student achievement. TEACHER TRAINERS WILL:

• understand the classroom challenges of today's early childhood educators
  
• see how children's mathematical minds develop and clarify learning goals for them
  
• build professional development around five essential goals for high-quality math instruction
  
• make the most of innovative professional development methods and technologies
  
• strengthen professional development across settings, including child care, Head Start, and prekindergarten
  
• promote better math instruction for culturally diverse children and children with disabilities
  
• evaluate the effectiveness of professional development efforts
  

PRACTICAL MATERIALS: Enhance your training sessions with 30+ video clips that show successful classroom teaching scenarios and clinical interviews demonstrating the development of a child's mathematical thinking over a 3-year period. You'll also get sample workshop outlines and syllabi, engaging teaching strategies, resource lists, and a photocopiable planning tool.

1

One, Two, Buckle My Shoe

Early Childhood Mathematics Education and Teacher Professional Development

Sharon Lynn Kagan and Rebecca Gomez

From the beginning of a child’s life, he or she is exposed to mathematics. From a child’s Apgar score to the litany of nursery rhymes that creep into the cadences of a young child’s experiences, numbers abound. In some cases, they appear with great intentionality early on (e.g., the Apgar score); in other cases, they are so natural that they are barely noticed (e.g., the routine chanting of nursery rhymes). Who has not asked a young child her age, only to be demurely, and sometimes silently, greeted by two or three little fingers popping up? Who, irrespective of continent or culture, has not almost instinctively helped a young child count or even match numbers with pebbles or pennies? Whether explicitly or implicitly transmitted, most adults value mathematics and mathematical concepts for very young children.

As children mature into adulthood, the mathematical stakes become higher. Writing in a recent edition of Education Next, Vigdor notes, “In the 21st century workplace, mathematical capability is a key determinant of productivity” (Vigdor, 2013). Substantiating the point, he indicates that college graduates who majored in subjects related to math, engineering, and the physical sciences earn an average of 19% more than those who specialize in other fields. Indeed, precollegiate mathematic Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) scores predict higher earnings among adults, whereas verbal SAT scores do not. These startling facts, coupled with the finding that American students routinely fall behind their peers on international comparisons of mathematical achievement, have spiked interest in educational and economic circles about the importance of mathematics instruction and achievement to the well-being of the country and its economy. As a result, a bevy of funding for science, technology, engineering, and math projects is burgeoning in the public and private sectors, with innovative efforts being launched from preprimary to postsecondary education.

Lest we think such a focus on mathematics is new, a quick review of educational efforts suggests the precise opposite. A fundamental cornerstone of schooling since the Common School, emphasis on mathematics seems to increase in times of social crises: During World War II, concern about mathematics abounded as soldiers were unable to calculate the simple and necessary trajectory of artillery shells; the launching of Sputnik evoked scores of programs and policies focusing on ginning up American students’ capacities in mathematics, the sciences, and foreign languages; and even the report that awoke this nation to the need for educational restructuring, “A Nation at Risk”(National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), pointed out the disparaging fact that only a small fraction of high school students managed to complete calculus. With these realizations came a litany of efforts to “re” mathematics: to reconceptualize, refocus, reinvent, or reform it.

It is important to note that, while many of the efforts to improve children’s performance in mathematics focused at the elementary, secondary, and postsecondary levels, there was also a tremendous, but often unnoticed, focus on mathematics that took hold for young children before even entering the academic arena. For example, “One, Two, Buckle My Shoe” was first published in Songs for the Nursery in London in 1805 as a counting song. More formal mathematics efforts also appeared throughout the history of preprimary education. They took the form of Friedrich Froebel’s “gifts,” Maria Montessori’s number rods, and the Sheffield math program, clearly indicating that mathematics was not simply the purview of formal schooling and federal policy. Stated simply, although school reform efforts captured the policy allure, schools could not claim eminent domain over mathematics instruction. Transcending the ambience of early care and education, mathematics and mathematical processes have been considered by early educators for decades, if not centuries.

But early mathematics has faced a number of critical challenges. Foremost among them are deep-seated attitudinal barriers, with some emanating outside of early education and others sourced within the field itself. Those outside the early childhood field historically have dismissed the overall potency of early childhood education, equating it with mere babysitting or aimless play. Recently, although these general sentiments have abated so that the early years and play are now well-regarded, misconceptions toward mathematics persist. Characterized by a sentiment of hopelessness, it sadly suggests that “not all children are equally prepared to embark on a rigorous math curriculum on the first day of kindergarten, and there are no realistic policy alternatives to change this simple fact” (Vigdor, 2013). Whether lamenting deep-seated social and economic inequities, the lack of adequate teachers, or outdated curricula to move children along a potent mathematical trajectory, there are concerns about the viability of contemporary early mathematics to prepare all children for the future.

Such concerns also exist within the field of early childhood education; they vary in orientation but not in magnitude. Today, many early educators are concerned with the overacademicization of the field. Rife with angst that young children will be denied a childhood, that too much focus on “content” areas will depress children’s innate curiosity and creativity, and that externally imposed and standardized curricula and assessments will deplete a commitment to individualization and diversity, some reject the emerging emphasis on content areas and processes, including mathematics. Echoing this perspective, with its focus on the reproduction rather than the production of knowledge (Moss, 2013), an overemphasis on didactics defies both the canons and the traditions of early education. Others suggest that the divide between so-called academic and developmental orientations is a false dichotomy. This stance suggests that rich material provides the content while productive play is the process of early education; these merge naturally both to fuse the dichotomy and to provide exciting and meaningful learning experiences for young children. Whatever one’s disposition on these stances, there can be little doubt that such debate characterizes the discussion about early education in general, which in turn frames attitudes toward and conversations about early mathematics.

Less often spoken about, and that which this volume seeks to address directly, is the continuing concern about the adequacy of mathematics preparation and the experiences of those who work with young children. Certification requirements are limited, as are opportunities for professional development in early education in general, much less in early mathematics. With a growing literature that confirms the importance of the teachers’ role in early education, far more prominence has been given to certification and professional development in general, but too little of both pertain to teachers of early mathematics. Moreover, many early educators who have very limited certification and professional development are somewhat limited in their own mathematical abilities; often, such personal fears translate into less time being devoted to mathematics and less frequent opportunities for mathematics to enter the curriculum. These inhibitors to making mathematics a rich, meaningful component of early education are often detrimental to children’s early learning and development, catapulting the discourse on early mathematics education and professional preparation to new heights.

To begin addressing these issues, this chapter staunchly advocates the “One, Two, Buckle My Shoe” theme. It, similar to the nursery rhyme written 2 centuries ago, acknowledges that numbers and mathematics matter; they matter a great deal. Furthermore, this chapter urges us to metaphorically “buckle [our] shoes.” In each round, the famed nursery rhyme begs for action: “Five, six, pick up sticks / Seven, eight, lay them straight.” With that same proactivity and to that end, we intend to “pick up [the] sticks” by addressing the context for early mathematics. We do so in two sections. The section titled “The General Context for Change” presents the general status of early education, first by delineating the somewhat complicated nature of the early childhood work force and then by discussing current trends in the context of contemporary early education. Following this broad contextual review, in “Mathematics for Young Children in Context,” we focus particularly on early mathematics. Then, building on these contextual reviews, in “Conclusion: The Content and Process of Change,” we look ahead and delineate critical issues as well as suggestions for moving forward to inspire new approaches to early childhood mathematics professional preparation and development. In doing so, we seek to tackle head-on the trenchant issues (i.e., the “sticks”) and “lay them straight.” Our goal in this work, then, is to buckle up and buckle down to the hard work of understanding the general early childhood context, the context for early mathematics, and the steps that might be considered as a productive agenda to advance early childhood mathematics professional development.

The General Context for Change

Efforts that seek to hasten social reform cannot be successful without having a clear understanding of the context in which that reform exits. Propelling early childhood mathematics forward, then, demands an understanding of the general early childhood context in which reform of early mathematics is squarely placed and by which it is heavily contoured. Blending historical context, demographic information, and emerging professional development efforts, this general contextual discussion is focused on two points. First, we present an overview of the status and preparation of the early childhood work force. Second, in characterizing the current early childhood context, we cite several trends, selecting those that are most pertinent and likely to have an impact on the reform of early childhood mathematics professional preparation.

The Early Childhood Work Force and Its Preparation: Roots and Realities

Written about in scores of publications, the early childhood work force can only be characterized as diverse and complex. In part, its complexity exists because of diversity on nearly every measureable variable (e.g., degree requirements, delivery systems, credentialing options, certification requirements). In this section, we explain that diversity by presenting the field’s roots. We then examine the realities of the current state of the early childhood work force. We present the demographics of the work force, examine several dimensions that characterize its reality, and conclude by discussing the nature of early childhood certification and credentialing.

Roots: The Historical Evolution of Early Childhood in the United States

The contemporary status of the early childhood work force has deep historical roots in the importance of family in American society. Characterized by privacy and primacy, the historical American ethos frames sentiments that regard public support to young children and families as an intrusion into the sanctuary of the family. Families are expected to be responsible for their children, and only when families falter should the government step in to provide support. Reflecting public reluctance to support early childhood education (ECE) outside the home and lacking a firm public commitment, services for all young children in the United States grew episodically and inconsistently, varying from locale to locale. Some services emerged in the public sector, but more often than not, service delivery expanded in the private sector, often in privately owned settings (e.g., privately owned and licensed child care centers or family child care homes) or in informal care arrangements (e.g., family, friends, neighbors). Given this ethos, it is not surprising that ECE in the United States evolved as a field without a coherent set of requirements for teacher preparation and certification. The ripple effects of the lack of attention to professional development for the ECE work force affect every aspect of teaching and learning, not the least of which is early childhood mathematics.

Reality 1: Demographics

Echoing the legacy of ECE programmatic diversity, the early childhood teaching work force is also diverse in its composition and even in how it defines itself. Although we use the term “teacher” to refer to adults who are working with young children across a variety of settings, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), for example, uses different terms to categorize ECE teachers depending on the setting in which they work. Adults who work with children from birth to kindergarten entry are called either child care workers or preschool teachers (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011a). Child care workers, according to BLS, are individuals who are paid to care for children in private households, family child care homes, center-based child care programs, and after-school programs. Preschool teachers are defined as individuals working in similar settings, but with a more explicit focus on their role as educators, and typically working with children ages 3–5 years. The BLS definition of preschool teachers also includes individuals who are working in publicly funded prekindergarten programs (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011a). Individuals who are employed as child care workers and preschool teachers total about 1.75 million individuals; approximately 1.3 million individuals are classified as child care workers, and another 475,000 are classified as preschool teachers (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2011b). The challenge with these figures is that they do not take into account the number of individuals working within informal care arrangements. Although the number of individuals employed within this segment of the ECE work force is impossible to document exactly, various estimates suggest that an additional 550,000 individuals provide care and educative experiences for young children in informal settings (Fowler, Bloom, Talan, Beneke, & Kelton, 2008; Karolak, 2008). This number brings the figure for the birth-to-5 segment of the ECE teaching work force to approximately 2.3 million (Ryan & Whitebook, 2012)—a very large group indeed. In addition to those teaching children in preprimary settings, the ECE work force is also composed of teachers of children in kindergarten and Grades 1–3. Though more difficult to disaggregate this group of individuals from the statistics on elementary teachers as a whole, BLS notes that in 2012 there were 164,910 individuals classified as kindergarten teachers in the United States, and an additional 1,415,590 elementary school teachers (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012a), about half of which likely comprise teachers of Grades 1–3.

Irrespective of the differences in how these individuals are defined and classified, ECE teachers share a number of important commonalities. First, the early childhood teaching work force has historically been, and continues to be, primarily female. At last estimate, more than 95% of the ECE work force was female (Ryan & Whitebook, 2012), reflecting historical gender patterns (Kagan, Kauerz, & Tarrant, 2008; Karolak, 2008). Second, ECE teachers are predominantly white (Ryan & Whitebook, 2012), though this varies depending on the overall racial and ethnic composition of the locale in which ECE programs exist. In California, for example, the ethnic composition of the early childhood teaching work force includes more minorities than is typical nationally, closely mirroring the overall demographics of the state (Kagan, Gomez, & Friedlander, 2012). A number of studies have found that family child care providers and assistant teachers are more diverse than are teachers in center-based child care programs (Chase, Moore, Pierce, & Arnold, 2007; Marshall, Dennehy, Johnson-Staub, & Robeson, 2005; Ryan & Whitebook, 2012). A third commonality is the fact that ECE teachers tend to be in their late 30s to early 40s. Recent data (Ryan & Whitebook, 2012) show that the average age of an ECE teacher is 39 years, with teachers working in public prekindergarten settings tending to be slightly younger.

Reality 2: Compensation

Across the board, ECE teachers are poorly compensated for their work. Compensation includes both wages and benefits (e.g., health benefits, pensions). The BLS calculates the average hourly wage for a child care worker at $9.26 per hour, or $19,300 per year, and the average wage for preschool teachers at $12.35 an hour, or $25,700 per year (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012a, 2012b). These figures have been consistent over the past few years (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2010a, 2010b, 2011a, 2011b, 2012a, 2012b), illustrating that persistently low wages are an endemic problem for the ECE teaching work force. Compounding the problem of low wages is the fact that only about 33% of ECE teachers receive full health benefits (Whitebook et al., 2006). The lack of health care coverage, coupled with low wages, often forces teachers to leave the field after relatively short careers.

Reality 3: Instability

Low compensation is a problem unto itself. It is, however, closely linked to high rates of work force turnover and instability. The reasons for such turnover are many. For example, among those who have the necessary qualifications, many are drawn to the higher-compensating early childhood jobs in the publi...