The use of high-quality curricula is crucial to excellent and equitable preschool programs, but the field is divided on what constitutes a quality curriculum.

Public awareness of both the value of preschool programs and the socioeconomic inequities that limit access for some families has fueled calls for the federal government to expand its support of preschool programs. Legislators have responded by proposing that billions of dollars in new funding be allocated to preschool programs (Guarino, 2022). These momentous calls for change have taken hold amid ongoing transformations in the early education field, which include:

• New knowledge of how diverse children learn. As the preschool population has grown more diverse, our understanding of the cultural nature of early learning has advanced (Trawick-Smith, 2019).
• New knowledge of what skills are important. Research calls for greater emphasis on children’s executive function and unconstrained (i.e., broadly used) skills, such as reading comprehension and mathematical thinking (McCormick et al., 2021; Raver & Blair, 2016).
• New evidence on dual language learning. Research confirms the benefits of bilingual skills and the inseparability of language and culture (Byers-Heinlein & Lew-Williams, 2013; Hartanto, Toh, & Yang, 2019).
• Inadequate preparation and compensation for preschool teachers. Effective curricular implementation is elusive when teachers are underprepared and underpaid (National Research Council, 2015).

In this dynamic landscape, many educators are making curricular decisions with insufficient guidance on what a good curriculum looks like. In addition, deep divisions in the field regarding what constitutes quality in preschool curricula could undermine efforts to ensure that all children have access to high-quality programs.

The challenge of making curriculum choices

Empirical research on preschool quality has consistently identified the use of a formal curriculum as an important component of programs that promote young children’s learning (Phillips et al., 2017). Both Head Start and the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) identify research-based curriculum, grounded in knowledge of child development, as a core element of high-quality programs (NAEYC, 2019; Office of Head Start, 2016). Yet no consensus exists on what constitutes curricular quality. Federal and state programs commonly require that preschool curricula be “evidence-based” and “comprehensive,” but precisely what this means and how to identify the best curricula for particular groups of children is unclear. Complicating matters, many principals who select curricula in school-based programs have little training in early childhood. And across all preschool settings, some teachers question why they even need a formal curriculum.

Decisions about preschool curricula are being made without sufficient and consistent knowledge and with limited guidance.

For those who understand the necessity of a curriculum, selection challenges prevail. For example, comprehensive curricula that address multiple domains of development (e.g., language and literacy, cognitive development, and social-emotional development) are widely used, but evaluations of their efficacy have been disappointing (Jenkins & Duncan, 2017). Curricula focused on a specific domain have been tied to stronger learning gains (Weiland et al., 2018), but they may be less likely to address children’s holistic development. Pressures to close gaps in children’s skill levels have also fostered increased attention on curricula that emphasize basic math and literacy skills, while empirical research suggests that nurturing broader “unconstrained skills” may better sustain learning gains (McCormick et al., 2021). Despite calls for greater attention to cultural diversity  and anti-bias curricula, there’s limited consensus on what these curricular approaches can and should entail (Souto-Manning et al., 2019). Preschool educators who seek to support dual-language learners may choose among curricular approaches that variously emphasize English-only versus multilingual interactions.

For decision makers trying to sift through these challenges, limited guidance is available. To support curriculum selection in Head Start programs, the National Center on Early Childhood Development, Teaching, and Learning (NCECDTL, 2019) reviewed and scored preschool curricula. Yet less than half of all states conduct this type of review to inform curriculum choices in state-funded early-learning sites (Dahlin & Squires, 2016). Among the 22 states that do conduct curriculum reviews, only a handful require programs to choose from a list of approved curricula. Most allow programs to create their own curriculum, which may lack the scope, sequence, and cognitive rigor that children deserve. In sum, decisions about preschool curricula are being made without sufficient and consistent knowledge and with limited guidance.

Defining curriculum quality

To help fill this guidance gap, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) has launched a study that will articulate a consensus definition of curriculum quality for children ages three to five (www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/a-new-vision-for-high-quality-pre-k-curriculum).

A set of exploratory interviews that we conducted last year with leaders in the field suggests that the challenge for the NASEM committee is formidable. We contacted 31 people representing varied expertise and backgrounds and asked about their views on what constitutes a high-quality preschool curriculum, with a focus on four-year-olds. Some of these experts held senior positions in federal or state government, others were doing cutting-edge research on preschool quality, some were leading professional or advocacy organizations, and others were program directors or teachers. In semi-structured interviews, we asked:

1. How do you define high-quality curricula for four-year-olds?
2. What areas of consensus do you see in the field?
3. What areas of controversy do you see in the field?
4. What curricular elements are needed to address inequities among children?
5. What research gaps hinder our understanding of high-quality curricula?

Overall, we found broad agreement in general areas of curricular quality, but sharp divisions regarding specific beliefs.

Areas of agreement

The areas of consensus were unsurprising. All interviewees agreed that preschool curricula should include both the content and the pedagogies to be used in early childhood classrooms. Moreover, the majority agreed that curricula should be developmentally appropriate, include constructivist and play-based approaches in which children learn by doing, and address multiple domains of development. Nearly every respondent said that curricula should provide structure for preschool teachers, while allowing them to adapt to the needs and interests of individual children. General agreement also was evident that social-emotional development and family engagement are important elements of preschool curricula, as are formative assessments linked to the curricula. Most respondents called for attention to the cultural relevance of curriculum content, and many said curricula should support children’s home language as they become bilingual learners.

However, these areas of agreement were countered by disagreement on specific issues that affect both curriculum quality and its equitable use.

Areas of disagreement: Issues of balance

Several areas reflect disagreements on the correct balance between apparently disparate choices. In these instances, no single answer may be attainable or, given the natural variation in children, even desirable. Instead, the best course might be to offer guidance on how best to balance competing views, leaving room for local decision making that responds to the community’s unique strengths and needs.

Teacher-directed and play-based pedagogies. Although interviewees agreed that learning through play is a core pedagogy in preschool settings, they disagreed about the nature of this play-based learning and how much it should allow for teacher direction. Roughly half of the interviewees called for a renewed curricular commitment to play as central to preschool learning, expressing concern that, in their quest to prepare children for formal schooling, teachers in some low-income communities adhere to an overly directive, non-playful approach. Others argued that in some programs, the balance had tipped too far toward free play in which children “do whatever they want.” They called for greater use of small-group instruction, led by teachers and with focused curricular content. Potential compromise emerged in most respondents’ support for “teacher-guided play,” though how curricula can support this type of pedagogy is unclear.

Teacher autonomy and teacher scripts. Some domain-specific curricula, which are gaining traction in the field, include scripts to help teachers implement curricula effectively. Most interviewees described such scripts as anathema to teachers’ autonomy and their ability to respond to children’s needs and interests. Notably, respondents on all sides framed their argument in terms of equity. Proponents of scripts said that less-experienced teachers, who often teach in lower-income communities, will find much-needed support in scripted materials. Those opposed argued that scripted instruction is inherently lower in quality because it deters teachers from individualizing the curriculum, a hallmark of instructional quality, and the use of scripts by teachers in lower-income communities would thus consign poor children to lower-quality instruction.

At the same time, nearly half of interviewees supported embedding instructional guidance within the curriculum, which could include questions, suggestions, and recommendations to inform implementation, but they stopped short of supporting scripts.

Lower-order and higher-order cognitive skills. While most interviewees supported curricular content that includes math and reading skills, some also expressed concern that such “academic” or “cognitive” content may be too narrowly focused on easy-to-measure, rote, and “constrained” skills. They called for a balance between basic skills related to numbers, letters, and phonology and more “cognitively stimulating” content, which includes rich language use, reading comprehension, critical thinking, and problem solving. Although these higher-order skills can be harder to measure, many interviewees argued that excluding them would be particularly detrimental to lower-income children.

Family-to-classroom and classroom-to-family engagement. Many respondents renewed long-standing calls in the field for family engagement that extends beyond simply including families in classroom activities. Instead, they called for engaging families in ways that integrate knowledge from home into the curriculum and its pedagogies. Rather than solely informing families about what teachers are doing in the classroom, they would engage families in helping guide the “what” and “how” of classroom learning. However, these approaches may conflict with standards-based curricular choices and limit teachers’ autonomy. Calls for authentic family engagement in the curriculum are hardly new; such family leadership, after all, is a cornerstone of the Head Start model. Yet how to accomplish it remains one of the most durable and perplexing components of program quality, and even more so as politically divisive issues fuel sharp debates over curricular content in public schools.

Areas of disagreement: Issues of debate

The issues above evoked some areas of agreement, with the disagreements mostly involving how to balance the options. Other areas of controversy among the interviewees appear to reflect deeper divides in the field that could be harder to bridge. These issues often involve strongly held beliefs and values that animate individuals’ differing perspectives. Resolving them might require both theoretical and empirical support, as well as forward-looking research to answer untested questions.

Effectiveness of domain-specific curricula. Most interviewees voiced concerns that the global or comprehensive curricula currently used in preschool programs offer breadth without depth and thus produce meager learning gains. At the same time, many of these same interviewees expressed caution about domain-specific curricula, saying that evaluations of these curricula may focus too narrowly on easy-to-measure skills and reduce attention to other important domains of early learning. For some interviewees, opposition to domain-specific curricula was rooted in a commitment to content that derives from children’s interests, rather than a single, prescribed domain. They saw domain-specific approaches as embodying a cognitive skill-focused, teach-and-test mentality, which, for them, is an affront to the individualization and creativity traditionally associated with quality. However, supporters of domain-specific curricula argued that they can be implemented in ways that are individualized and creative, and that advance children’s social-emotional learning. Once again, both supporters and critics of domain-specific curricula framed their argument as an issue of equity for disadvantaged children.

Culturally relevant and anti-bias content and pedagogies. While most respondents identified “cultural relevance” as an indicator of preschool curricula quality, they differed about what cultural relevance looks like in practice. Critiquing the inclusion of simplistic cultural narratives in curricula, some interviewees called for culturally relevant content and pedagogies that are not “white-washed” and that build upon the cultural assets of communities of color. For example, some interviewees called for curricula that elevate the communal obligations and activities that shape learning in many Black, Latinx, and Asian communities, rather than the individualistic approach that currently predominates in many preschool classrooms.

Early childhood leaders expressed support for constructivist curricula in theory, but they were less united about what such curricula should look like in practice.

Some interviewees further said that to be culturally relevant, a curriculum should include anti-bias content related to race/ethnicity, gender, and disability. In this view, culturally relevant curricula should address the causes and manifestations of social inequities that children have experienced. This type of content can make teachers (and policy makers) uncomfortable, but several interviewees argued that ignoring such injustices compromises social and pedagogical imperatives to engage children in meaningful learning characterized by candid and active inquiry, problem solving, and mutual respect. The differing views among preschool leaders about the role of anti-bias education echo broader debates in our society over persistent inequities that have not been forthrightly addressed in educational settings.

Agency for all children. Many interviewees envisioned a curriculum that grants children substantive control over what and how they learn. Specifically, they called for curricula that allow children to plan and review their learning activities, engage in open-ended experimentation, design projects with their peers, and solve problems in creative ways. But some interviewees argued that this vision of agency is not being practiced in many preschool classrooms. They cited empirical research (Adair & Colegrove, 2021) indicating that in higher-income, mostly white classrooms, children exuberantly voice their interests and how they wish to pursue them, while an emphasis on teacher-directed pedagogies, rote content, and behavioral compliance predominates in classrooms populated with low-income children of color. This raises additional concerns regarding the requisite components of high-quality curricula.

Committing to high-quality curricula for all

Taken together, many of these issues raise broader questions about the field’s commitment to constructivist curricula and enacting them equitably in preschool classrooms. Although most interviewees expressed general support for a constructivist approach, dissenting views emerged when the conversation turned to specific elements of constructivist curricula and how they are implemented in classrooms. In other words, early childhood leaders expressed support for constructivist curricula in theory, but they were less united about what such curricula should look like in practice. Several questions were raised: How much does constructivism allow for teacher-directed pedagogies, content-specific approaches, and curricular scripts? Would these allowances advance or hinder equity? Has the emphasis on playful child-centered learning become a privilege of higher-income, mostly white children, while lower-income children of color are subject to strict expectations of compliance, even in supposedly constructivist classrooms? While most interviewees said that constructivism remains the guiding star of the field, these questions reflect serious concerns about how constructivist curricula can be implemented equitably and effectively, especially in classrooms of children from historically marginalized groups.

Amid the sharply dissenting views among early education leaders, achieving consensus on how to identify and implement a high-quality preschool curriculum will be difficult. Yet moving toward greater agreement could guide efforts to expand equitable access to high-quality preschool. To accomplish this, the field should draw upon two resources:

• The NASEM study. The NASEM committee represents diverse perspectives and expertise and will draw upon a thorough review of the current knowledge base regarding curriculum quality. Although the results of the study are unknown at this time, the committee intends to produce a guidance document for policy makers and educators in the early education field. This type of guidance could help those who, too often, make important curriculum decisions without sufficient knowledge and support.
• Other countries’ curriculum frameworks. The disagreements evident in our interviews reflect divisions in the field that run deeper than debates over curriculum design. Indeed, they reflect diverging views on the purpose and pedagogy of high-quality preschool programs. Other countries have addressed this challenge by creating national curriculum frameworks that establish purpose, principles, and pedagogy that apply to all early education programs in varied settings and for children of different ages (Melvin, Landsberg, & Kagan, 2019). See, for example, Belonging, Being, Becoming: The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia. While these frameworks can be used to guide curricular decisions, they also serve a broader goal of fostering consensus on what constitutes program quality and how to achieve it.

Both the NASEM study on curriculum quality and a framework on the purpose, principles, and pedagogy of early education could help build consensus and drive systemic change for equitable access to quality preschool programs. In other countries, such frameworks were sponsored by government entities and authored by field leaders. In the U.S., a national framework would more likely be sponsored by an independent, nongovernment entity.

Taking these steps to forge consensus will require the authentic engagement of people with varied socio-demographic and professional backgrounds. Any consensus that doesn’t draw from multiple points of view would be hollow and unstable. If we approach a reconsideration of what constitutes preschool curriculum quality with open minds, careful attention to the knowledge base, and guidance from the NASEM study and international models, we will be better able to design and sustain programs that equitably serve a population of young children of remarkable diversity and promise.

Note: This work was conducted with generous support from EdSolutions and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

 

References

Adair, J.K. & Colegrove, K.S.-S. (2021). Segregation by experience. University of Chicago Press.

Byers-Heinlein, K. & Lew-Williams, C. (2013). Bilingualism in the early years: What the science says. Learning Landscapes, 7 (1), 95-112.

Dahlin, M. & Squires, J. (2016). State approved curricula. Center on Enhancing Early Learning Outcomes.

Guarino, A. (2022, July 28). Funding for key early learning programs. First Five Years Fund.

Hartanto, A., Toh, W.X., & Yang, H. (2019). Bilingualism narrows socioeconomic disparities in executive functions and self-regulatory behaviors during early childhood: Evidence from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Child Development, 90 (4), 1215-12135.

Jenkins, J.M. & Duncan, G.J. (2017). Do pre-kindergarten curricula matter? In The current state of scientific knowledge on pre-kindergarten effects (pp. 37-43). Brookings Institution.

McCormick, M., Weiland, C., Hsueh, J., Pralica, M., Weissman, A.K., Moffett, L., . . . & Sachs, J. (2021). Is skill type the key to the pre-k fadeout puzzle? Differential associations between enrollment in pre-k and constrained and unconstrained skills across kindergarten. Child Development, 92 (4), e599-e620.

Melvin, S.A., Landsberg, E., & Kagan, S.L. (2019). Informed, individualized, and continuous pedagogy. In S.L. Kagan (Ed.), The early advantage: Building systems that work for young children: International insights from innovative early childhood systems (pp. 141-173). Teachers College Press.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2019). NAEYC early learning program accreditation standards and assessment items. Author.

National Center on Early Childhood Development, Teaching, and Learning. (2019). Curriculum consumer report. Author.

National Research Council. (2015). Transforming the workforce for children birth through age 8: A unifying foundation. National Academies Press.

Office of Head Start. (2016). Head Start program performance standards: 1302 Subpart C – education and child development program services. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Phillips, D., Lipsey, M., Dodge, K.A., Haskins, R., Bassok, D., Burchinal, M.R., . . . & Weiland, C. (2017). Puzzling it out: The current state of scientific knowledge on pre-kindergarten effects. Brookings Institution.

Raver, C.C. & Blair, C. (2016). Neuroscientific insights: Attention, working memory, and inhibitory control. Future of Children, 26 (2), 95-108.

Souto-Manning, M., Falk, B., Lopez, D., Cruz, L.B., Bradt, N., Cardwell, N., . . . & Rollins, E. (2019). A transdisciplinary approach to equitable teaching in early childhood education. Review of Research in Education, 43, 249-276.

Trawick-Smith, J. (2019). Not all children grow up the same: Child development, diversity, and early care and education. In C.P. Brown, M.B. McMullen, & N. File (Eds.), The Wiley handbook of early childhood care and education (pp. 29-58). John Wiley & Sons.

Weiland, C., McCormick, M., Mattera, S., Maier, M., & Morris, P. (2018). Preschool curricula and professional development features for getting to high-quality implementation at scale: A comparative review across five trials. AERA Open, 4 (1), 1-16.

---

This article appears in the October 2022 issue of Kappan, Vol. 104, No. 2, pp. 50-55.