DOCUMENT RESUME ED 385 374 PS 023 472 AUTHOR Katz,

7predicting the potential merits and risks of nursery teachingpractices. In the 1950s we discussed our mission in terms ofchildren's needs. Katherine Read refers to children's needsthroughout her classic book. The Nursery School (Read, 1950).She introduces assumptions about meeting early needs andmature functioning put this way:The way our needs were met during [the early]period of dependency is still affecting what we do.If we lived with people on whom it was good to bedependent because of the warmth and abundance oftheir giving, if we were fed when we felt hungry,played with and loved when we wanted attention, wewere satisfied during this period of dependency.we are now neither fighting against beingdependent nor seeking reassurance by demanding moreprotection than we need [italics hers] (Read, 1950,p. 10)However, conceptions ofneedsalwaysimplyrisksorundesirable conditions that will befall the needy if they arenot met (Dearden, 1972). Assertions about needs are based onimplicit assumptions about the nature of development and/orabout human nature itself (e.g. young children need to beread to, without which they will be unready for school). Inthe 1950s for example, we assumed young children neededopportunities to "let off steam" without which they wouldsuffer painful frustration. Child development research basedon social learning theory cast grave doubts about thatassumption, however (Bandura & Walters, 1963).While it isclear that humans need air, food and water, without whichthey will perish, the "heeds" paradigm raises questions aboutwhich needs are learned, how they are learned and howU

8culturally embedded the learned needs may be.Conceptions of the ultimate end state of development,and assumptions about the processes involved in reachingthem, have undergone substantial revision and re-examinationin the last several years. As Damon (1989) points out thatchild development has been exposed to many jarringalternatives over the past twenty years. Anthropologistshave challenged developmental universals and made usincreasingly aware of cultural diversity.our old vlewwas incomplete and perhaps therefore distorted.A newperspective can have a jarring effect on existingsensibilities, particularly when the new perspectivecarries with it alternative assumptions about the natureof things. This can be as unsettling as it isintellectually delightful(p. 2).I suspect now that much of the contentiousness in recentdiscussions of developmentally appropriate practices isrelated to unacknowledged differences among us in (a) ourconceptions of the ultimate goals of development,and (b)our assumptions about how they are best achieved for childrengrowing up in significantly different present environments.and who are expected to be competent in unknowable futureenvironments.If, however, the main problem among early childhoodeducators were simply our different conceptions of theultimate goals of development, the links between childdevelopment knowledge and teacher preparation could simply beargued on the basis of diverse cultural expectations andpreferences, rather than on whether this particular branch of11

9knowledge is an appropriate basis for making decisions aboutcurriculum and teaching methods.Unfortunately, the irksome "conceptual itch" that hasarisen from acknowledgment of cultural diversity cannot be soeasily resolved. The itch's resistance to treatment stemsfrom the fact that the body of knowledge and principlesgoverning the presumed relationships between early experienceand mature development that many of us have long taken forgranted is based on evidence gathered largely from a limitedsample of human experience. Consequently, this body ofknowledge of child development no longer seems sufficientlygeneralizable to serve asbasisaforcurricular andpedag( jical decisions.Holloway (1991) addresses this issue in a study ofcaregivers' cognitions and children's behavior in child careenvironments. Holloway cites the rich body of research on thecontrasting effects of authoritarian and authoritativeparenting styles based on Baumrind's now classical constructs(1973). Holloway points out that whereas the sttoanauthoritative one--may be associated with coldness and angerin upper-middle class white familiesthe more authoritarian social norms of the blackparents may have reflected the actual conditionsnecessary for optimal development, and hence mayhave been experienced by the child as supportiveand reassuring (p. 9).Furthermore, differential long term effects for diverseethnic groups of these two parenting (and teaching) styles on12

10school performance and other developmental milestones throughadolescence have been demonstrated by subsequent research onthe development of children of diverse ethnic groups inCalifornia (see Steinberg, Lamborn, Darling, Mounts,&Dornbusch, 1994).The finding that parenting and teaching styles aredifferentially effective for diverse populations is not inand ofitself, unsettling. Whatisunsettlingisthechallenge this finding presents to traditional developmentalassumptions that while the behavior patterns resulting fromthe differential styles may be effective in early childhood,the behavior patterns and well-being of the fully developedadult may not be predictable therefrom. Traditional notionsof development might suggest, for example, that authoritarianparenting is effective as long as authority figuresarepresent to enforce compliance, but, authoritarian parentingmay result in an absence of internalized impulse control thatis manifested only when the authoritarian adults are nolonger present. How can we tell if this is really so? Is auchan assumption based on a kind of zero-sum conception ofdevelopment--namely, that if the organism is shaped to fitone type of girdle, its bulges will protrude one way, and ifshaped differently, the organism's bulges will stick outsomewhere else? Is not this assumption based on the notionthat all human organisms have the same or very similarimpulses and needs that must be shaped or contained one way

11of another, and that how child rearers address them haspredictable long term consequences?Edwards (1994) offers several examples that shake ourcustomary assumptions about the relationships between earlyexperienceandlater development.She describes theexperience of toddlers in the Zinacanteco community in whicha previously all-giving mother of a toddler abruptly turnsall her attention to a new baby leaving the toddler hoveringin the mother's vicinity appearing "listless and dejected"(p. 3). Yet, after a period of adjustment the toddler seemsto rebound quite well.Traditional developmental theory would suggest that suchan apparently traumatic change in the toddler's relationshipwiththemother would havelong term psychologicalconsequences that would be manifested in adult personalitytraits. But, given Edwards's observations, can we remaincertain that this direct cause and effect relationshipexists? And, how would we know? A more important question,perhaps, is whether an answer to this question really mattersto the practice of early childhood teachers? And, how can wedecide whether or not it matters?Edwards (1994) also describes a culture in which thepractice of restricting a child's food intake, as Americanmothers frequently do, would seem "terrible, unthinkable, thenext thing to child abuse"(p.7)different culture and environment.to a mother in a veryIn both of Edwards'examples, it is seems that the meaning the child attributes1.4

12tothe mother's behavioristhe critical factorindetermining the effect particular experiences will have onthe child's development. But, given such differences in themeanings children attribute to their parents' behaviors, andgiven that meanings are always a function of the totalcontext in which experience occurs, what is left to knowabout child development?Itseems reasonable to assume that all childrenattribute meaning to their experiences. Are some "meanings"more likely than others to result in healthy psychosocialdevelopment? Is it reasonable to assume that there is such athing? Can we agree on what characterizes sound development?Even though the issue of whether we could agree on theultimate goal or outcome of development and the processes bywhich they are most likely achieved, questions remainconcerning how they might be related to teaching practices inearly childhood education.Application of Child Development KnowledgeWe often cite the importance of preparing children toparticipate in a democratic society asa criterion fordesigning curriculum and pedagogical practices. Indeed,preparation for democracy may be one of the very few goalseducators can stillagreeon.Broudycommitment to the democratic process as(1977)adefinesfundamentalunifying principle of Americans, stating that "consensus forthis principle is based not only on rational grounds, it is

13part of the common moral intuition. It may be called ourfundamental moral reflex" (p. 76). However, if we do not knowenough about the relationships between early experience ticipation in democratic processes, how can we designappropriate educational practices?Let us ponder for example, the traditional claim ofearly childhood thinkers, such as Maria Montessori, that itis developmentally appropriate to teach young childrenastrong sense of universal brotherhood, some even claimingthat children are born free of prejudice or bias with respectto those who are different from them. These claims seem to becommon sense.But a case could be made,at least in"theory," that it is developmentally appropriate for youngchildren to believe that their own family, group, or villageis the best, or better than others, and that culturalrelativityisdevelopmentally inappropriate,or evenimpossible in the early years. On the contrary, it may servedevelopment well for theyoung children to have a clearsense of what is 'normal' and 'abnormal,'way,' good and bad, right and wrong,our way' not 'ourwhile their charactersare still in formation. A developmental perspective can betaken to suggest that the real long term developmental taskis to outgrow this immature assessment of what is normal,abnormal, good or right or best, etc. Genuine acceptance,beliefin and commitment to universal brotherhood and16

14equality surely require a long maturing process, and areunlikely to simply be in-born.These questions simply raise further questions. Who isresponsible for defining the desired outcomes of development?Can we come to a reasonable consensus on desirable outcomesthat hae enough detail to be meaningful?What assumptionscan we make about the processes and procedures by which toreach the ultimate goals of development? Clearly conceptionsof the desirable ultimate goals of development are culture-bound. But what do we mean by 'culture' in this context?Everyone participates in a culture; in our country it islikely that most of us participate in several cultures andsub-cultures simultaneously.Conceptions of what is 'normal'at any stage of development and at "end" states probably varywidely withinas well as between cultures.Similarly,conceptions of what is normal versus merely within acceptablelimits of behavior and of what is superior rather thaninferior human development, also vary within and betweencultures.Conceptions of the ultimate goals of development verylikely undergo constant change. It is unlikely that thecultural contexts in which our present student3 of earlychildhood teacher education are likely to work will remainstatic throughout their careers. Furthermore, children areunlikely to have the very same beliefs and feelings or toattribute the same meaningQ as their parents to importantaspects of their lives.17

15Perhaps the processes by which development is achievedare so complex that they are very largely unknowable. Perhapsa developmental process may be effective in context A, butnot in another, and similarly, a process may be ineffectiveor even negative in context B, but not in context C.Furthermore, while it may be easy for us to accept theproposition that conceptionsofdevelopment are culture-bound,itthe desired endsofis more difficult toacknowledge and accept the proposition that the concept ofdevelopment itself is a product of culture, and that allconcepts are cultural products, including the concept ofculture itself!However, if we pursue this line of reasoning, we quicklyreach a state of infinite regress and of reasoning backwardstoapointwherewecaneasily become conceptuallyincapacitated and paralyzed. It seems reasonable as well aspracticalto assume thatthe processesinvolvedindevelopment are not random; in which case they must be insome sense, systematic, even if the system is so complex thatit is not--at least as yet--sufficiently knowable. Holding onto this belief is certainly reassuring. I have long assumed Iunderstood enough about the 'system' to be able to presentsome principles of development to students. The currentdebate about developmentally appropriate practice has alertedme to possible weaknesses in that understanding. However, thedebate has not only failed to provide a better explanationfor the changes described by development and how earlyJV

16experience determines later functioning; it has caused me towonder whether such a theory and set of principles ofdevelopment are even possible!What Child Development Knowledge Should Be Learned?The "analysis paralysis" that may result from this line ofreasoning is not likely to be helpful for teachers, even ifit makes good material for scholarly exchange! Suppose,therefore, that we decide to postpone these doubts--just forthe moment--and assume that a body knowledge of childdevelopment is available. Can we agree on what of that bodyof knowledge teachers of young children should learn? If wewere required to plan a common course on cr'id development,would we agree on what should be included? How much ofPiaget, neo-Piaget, or post-neo-Piaget, constructivism, analytic developmental theory, Erikson's theory, sociallearning and social constructivist theory should be mastered?How should we deal with the fact that much of our availablechild development knowledge stresses individual progress fromimmaturity to maturity and seems to overlook,under-appreciate group dynamics,and theor at leastfact that noindividual can -.ealize even part of his or her potentialwithout a baseline of group interactive competencies thatinclude adherence to some minimum group and cultural noLms?Furthermore, for increasing proportions of our children, fullrealization will require interactive compLtencies to enable

17taem to function simultaneously in several cultures, each ofwhich has its own group norms.If it is difficult to draw reliable implications fromknowledge of childron's physical development, how much morecomplex would it be to develop a consensus on the essentialsof social, emotional and intellectual development?To whatextent would we agree upon answers to these questions, andwhat would be that basis of any agreement be reached? Couldwe agree on what knowledge is essential rather than justdesirable? Can we even concur on how the agreed-uponknowledge and principles of child development can and shouldinfluence practice? Is some child development kilo, ledge ismore useful and more relevant to practice than some other.There is some research, for example, to suggest that USchildren understand calendar concepts very poorly until aboutthe age of six (Zhang,1993) even though they engage indiscussions of the calendar daily in many cases for as longas two years! Does this "bit" of child development knowledgeimply that the standard calendar ritual in preschool andkindergarten classes be abandoned completely? In our childdevelopment and teaching methods courses should we insistthat our students eschew the calendar ritual? Or that theyteach it only to those children who are tested as "ready" forit? If we are behaviorists, we might assert that what isrequired are better instructional methods and suitablereinforcement strategies.However, suppose we were committedto a social constructivist view of teaching and learning--

18should we teach our education students to co-constructcalendar concepts with the children,orlet children"discover" these concepts for themselves? Inasmuch as allchildren eventually grasp calendar concepts correctly- perhaps in spite of premature rehearsal of them in preschooland kindergarten--does this decision-making process evenmatter? I, for one, am still prepared to assert that thereare many activities more worthy of young children's time andenergy than the calendar ritual. But this position raises thequestion of who is to decide what knowledge is worthwhile forpreschoolers and kindergartners? And on what bases can orshould the worthiness of knowledge be determined?Where Do We Go From Here?This query of course, is the ultimate question posed by thisspecial issue.For many yearsIhave suggested to mystudents, most of whom are practicing teachers,that it is agood idea for practitioners to strive for a balance betweensufficient skepticism to be able to continue to learn, andsufficient conviction to be able to act with confidence(Katz, 1995). In a certain sense, to teach is to act--even ifthe 'act' is sometimes to withhold action in a given context!Itseems reasonable to assume that effective teachingrequires us to act with optimal (rather than maximal orminimal) certainty in the rightness of our actions, i.e. toact with optimal intentionality, clarity, and decisiveness.Such actions require us to make assumptions--even in the

19absence of robust evidence--about how early experiencesinfluence children's long term development.Thus,I am confronted by a dilemma. By definition, adilemma is a predicament in which each of two alternativecourses of action--one of which must be taken--are equallydesirable or undesirable, and in which taking one of thecolrses of action undermines the potential benefits andvalues that might be derived if the other "horn" of thedilemma had been chosen. The quandary is that I am not yetclear about the nature of the two horns of my dilemma. On theone hand,Icontinue to believe that in order to beeffective, practitioners must have optimal confidence intheir own actions and the underlying assumptions on whichthey are based. On the other hand,providedbytheknowledgeandif that bas

DOCUMENT RESUME. ED 385 374. PS 023 472. AUTHOR Katz, Lilian G. . The paper 'hallenge: the reliability and generalizability . period of dependency is still affecting what we do. If we lived with people on whom it was go