Talk:Early childhood education
|WikiProject Education||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
|WikiProject Alternative education||(Rated Start-class)|
- 1 4th Grade
- 2 What is...
- 3 Job possibilities
- 4 Cleanup tag added
- 5 Merge "Early childhood" article here
- 6 Reorder
- 7 Cleanup still needed
- 8 russian/romanian orphanages?
- 9 Needs Serious Editing, should be tagged as needing cleanup: Uncited Theories, Editorial, Inappropriate Tone
- 10 Outdated developmental domains
- 11 Early childhood education
- 12 Developmental Domains
- 13 Overly positive POV
- 14 Early Childhood Education And Technology Pradeep.aradhya (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)pradeep.aradhya
- 15 Chicago study
- 16 Reorg proposal
- 17 General cleanup
- 18 Needs heavy revision and editing
I think 4th grade needs to be mentioned, included, and discussed as part of early childhood education. In some states, ECE certification goes from birth to 4th grade, not 3rd garde, because 4th grade is seen as a part of ECE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The "What is..." sectis ripped from the literature or homepage of some organisation or program. How do the references to "The first national goal..." and "The focus of this program" (what program?) make sense in a wikipedia article? Kenji Yamada 19:15 Dec 17, 2005
As best as I can tell from a web search, this material seems to have been lifted whole cloth from a 1992 paper by S. Bredekamp, R.A. Knuth, L.G. Kunesh, and D.D. Shulman of the North Central Regional Education Laboratory (NCREL). There was a link to this article, now dead, under "References," but referencing something and pulling whole paragraphs of text are not the same thing. This seems to be a likely copyright violation (as well as being incoherent in the context of the article). So I'm pulling the whole thing. --Stellmach 14:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I do not understand the "Job possibilities" section, still less why it appears twice. Children under 9 are not allowed jobs in most of the world, so who does this apply to? Is this their eventual possible job? If so, why choose these ones.
(Now fixed) Notinasnaid 18:39, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I suppose that was cleaned up... because now it clearly refers to job possibilites for adults who have gone through an education in early childhood. I found that section rather helpful and unique, as I am in a grad program for early childhood. I do have some constructive criticism however... This page clearly needs more intra-wiki links to relevant pages on theorists, approaches to early childhood, and links to current topics in the field. here are some rough suggestions
Piaget - stages of cognitive development Vygotsky - importance of socialization, zone of proximal development Howard Gardner - Multiple intelligence theory Froebel - kindergarten Cognitive Science play kindergarten anti-bias curriclum child protection services parenting infants, crying toddlers, walking preschool nursery school Head Start Universal Pre-K Montessori British Infant Schools special education etc
Cleanup tag added
While on Random article patrol I stumbled across this. I know nothing about childcare, so I can't contribute anything meaningful. But if anyone has any idea of how to re-organise this article so it actually makes sense: please do. Megapixie 10:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
- I've made a very brief start on the opening of the article. It does need a *lot* of work, though. I'll have to try and come back to it later. Bosola (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Merge "Early childhood" article here
There's no actual information in the Early childhood article, so perhaps "merge" isn't the right word. I think that article needs to be turned into a redirect.—GraemeMcRaetalk 16:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
This article seems to jump between the services provided for childcare and the way children develop. So i reordered. Also i had to move the american we speech to its own american section.(really it needs to be rewritten or removed but i dont like removing information.)
- Child development - bulleted seeing their order is irrelevant
- i've removed the jobs that don't have contact with children.
--Whywhywhy 09:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
- What is "american we speech"? There shouldn't be any first person language at all. --DanielCD 14:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Cleanup still needed
This article is still in terrible shape and needs a lot of rewriting to deal with a number of "should" statements. I also would not trust the information presented to be reliable; it sounds like someone expounding on the topic from a particular point of view. -- Beland 00:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
The reference to the degrading effects of Russian/Romanian orphanages needs proper citation.
Why not just go with orphanages in general? The problem of children in group care failing to thrive is an old one. I'll see if I can find an article on the topic. MinorityView 03:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Would this article do? http://soar.wichita.edu:8080/dspace/bitstream/10057/829/1/136.pdf MinorityView 19:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Needs Serious Editing, should be tagged as needing cleanup: Uncited Theories, Editorial, Inappropriate Tone
I don't have the expertise to edit the substantive content here, so I don't know what I could delete. Too many places seem to have theories that are not cited as objective findings of reliable research. Much seems that it could be pop psychology theory without any likely solid support. The entire "CONCERNS" section seems like it should be removed if it is not overhauled.
For example, this does not seem appropriate:
"There are 5 mainly different developmental domains...They are easily referred to as the SPICE of life:" 1) Who is asserting this? Is this the author of the article asserting this as fact? If this is supportable, there should be a cite. 2) The "SPICE of life" as a mnemonic acronym is not appropriate content for an encyclopedic entry under most circumstances.
"Infants and toddlers experience life more holistically than any other age group."
This sounds nice. But what support is there for this? How do we know that they don't experience life as holistically as every other age group? How do we know senior citizens don't experience life more holisitically? This seems unsupportable as a statement of fact.
"Early childhood education is also incorrectly referred to by many as 'babysitting'."
By whom? Who is it that needs to be disabused of this misconception?
"...many do not seem to understand the importance of educating young children."
This seems like op/ed material, not encyclopedia entry.
"Much of the first two years of life are spent in the creation of a child's first 'sense of self' or the building of a first identity."
Again, where is this from? This "sense of self" seems like a pop psychology buzz word.
Outdated developmental domains
I recently graduated with a BS in early childhood education and I was taught the developmental domains as cognitive, communication, adaptive, motor (with the sub-domains of fine and gross motor), and social-emotional. I believe the domains listed in this article are outdated. However, all the websites I've found with information on the developmental domains are missing one or more of these domains, including the NAEYC website. Does anyone know of a more thorough source? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Early childhood education
I've been asked how long does this mean.....to age 8 or beyond? I was under the impression that early childhoom ed. was for preschoolers. Can anyone answer this for me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It is clearly mentioned in “Background” and “Infant education” that early childhood education is applied to children between the ages of 1month and 12 months. You may get a perfect answer for your question if you go through this What Is My Infant Learning?. Lizia7 (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
These domains are appropriate enough, but references would be necessary. "Cognitive" was added previously after the SPICE acronym, but cognitive would be approximately redundant of Intellectual. The rationale for division into these domains would also be necessary. At least some reference to this domain set as one way of categorizing them.Lufernac (talk) 13:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Overly positive POV
I've added a "neutrality disputed" template - there's a section devoted to the "Benefits of Early Childhood Education," as though the rest of the article were not already expounding them. Not even lip service has been offered to critics of either the premise or the implementation of ECE. This article could sound more neutral and better fit its topic if it spoke less about child development, and gave more description to various ECE classroom practices, noting the benefits and disadvantages of each. I don't have the expertise to edit the article myself, I'm afraid, but its bias was extremely clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Early Childhood Education And Technology Pradeep.aradhya (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)pradeep.aradhya
I would like to propose an additional section to this page to do with how technology is used in Early Childhood Education. While the subjective nature of the page is still in question, efforts to educate young children are real enough. An unbiased view with examples on how it is being done, particularly with technology would be very useful. What is a good course of action on this?
I deleted the Chicago longitudinal study because it was unsourced and it didn’t mention a control for income, meaning its results were basically meaningless. I also got rid of a lot of self-advertising, and put up the "irrelevant" tag for the "Development" section, since it doesn't really talk about education. Prof. Squirrel (talk) 23:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
- Do please respond to the proposal presented on Talk:Preschool_education, which would affect a number of articles relating to early years eduction. PeterEastern (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I have adjusted headings, reordered content and reworked the lead to make the content easier to access without removing or adding any significant content. In particular:
- Changed 'Background' to context'
- Created a 'Research' section
- Created a 'Formal education during early childhood' section to allow the article to make a clearer distinction between education and schooling.
- Moved content around to fit these headings
- Done some other formatting, in particular to the theory section, although this is still very long, possibly too long
- Adjusted the lead to more clearer indicate the scope of the article and link to related articles.
In my view this article would still benefit from a lot more work, in particular so that we can remove the tags.
After looking over the page and this talk page i have decided i would like to edit the formal education section to add in assessment within early childhood education and the link between home and school in early childhood education. I also would like to add in extra references to support the development section and to edit it. Alos i would like to add some content to this section such as spiritual development. Overall the sections i would like to change i will add content, references and neutralability of each section i'm editing to improve the page.Dgrayson2 (talk) 11:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Needs heavy revision and editing
Why is all this ink wasted on explaining developmental theories? Links to appropriate pages should handle that sort of information, which is not central to understanding early childhood educational programs. This page needs to focus on what early childhood formal education is, what evidence exists that support or doesn't support it, and the efforts have been made to date. I suggest this page does not have a neutral POV, but is advocating early childhood (i.e., pre kindergarden) education. The evidence about the effectiveness for educational goals is mixed at best, but this article seems to focus on non-educaitonal outcomes like crime and income. Are early childhood programs social programs or educational programs? This article is not answering or even raising the important questions of this topic.Robotczar (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)