See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233252514

Early Childhood Teacher Education: Historical Themes and Contemporary

Issues

Article  in  Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education · October 2010

DOI: 10.1080/10901027.2010.523772

CITATIONS READS

29 4,787

1 author:

Jolyn Blank
University of South Florida
19 PUBLICATIONS   71 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Journal of Childhood, Education & Society [JCES] View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jolyn Blank on 28 December 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Blank, Jolyn]
On: 20 November 2010
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 929943734]
Publisher Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713872612

Early Childhood Teacher Education: Historical Themes and Contemporary

Issues
Jolyn Blanka
a
Department of Childhood Education & Literacy Studies, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida,
USA

Online publication date: 20 November 2010

To cite this Article Blank, Jolyn(2010) 'Early Childhood Teacher Education: Historical Themes and Contemporary Issues',
Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 31: 4, 391 — 405
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/10901027.2010.523772
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2010.523772

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 31:391–405, 2010
Copyright © National Association of Early Childhood Teacher Educators
ISSN: 1090-1027 print / 1745-5642 online
DOI: 10.1080/10901027.2010.523772

Early Childhood Teacher Education: Historical

Themes and Contemporary Issues

JOLYN BLANK
Department of Childhood Education & Literacy Studies, University of South
Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA

Over the past decade, many states have increased their investment in prekindergarten
(pre-K) school programs that serve 3- and 4-year-old children. This increase has raised
questions about what constitutes a well-qualified early childhood teacher. Similar ques-
tions were raised in the late part of the nineteenth century when states began investing
Downloaded By: [Blank, Jolyn] At: 17:15 20 November 2010

in kindergarten, then a new and unique idea on the educational landscape. This article
situates contemporary issues in early childhood teacher education within the histori-
cal context of the kindergarten movement in the U.S. Focus is given to the following
themes: (a) the relationship between legitimization via degree program and maintain-
ing a unique early childhood identity, and (b) the relationship between evolving “best
practices” discourses and the nature of early childhood teaching. The ways in which
heightened awareness of historical themes in early childhood teacher education can
inform contemporary early childhood teacher education are explored.

Early childhood teaching is a complex endeavour. Considerations about how to prepare

and support early childhood teachers’ professional learning are complicated by ambigu-
ity about what teachers should accomplish. Although there is a general agreement that
early childhood education is unique and requires special preparation (e.g., see Marxen,
Ofstedal, & Danbom [2008] for a discussion of characteristics of highly qualified kinder-
garten teachers today) and that early childhood teacher education has a positive impact on
teachers and teaching (Isikogku, 2008), the particular kinds of experiences early childhood
teachers should provide are not so generally agreed upon.
Proponents of early schooling in the U.S. have grappled with questions about the
nature of high-quality teaching and what constitutes a well-qualified early childhood
teacher since the late part of the 19th century when states began investing in the kinder-
garten, then a new and unique idea on the educational landscape. Teacher education was
central to the kindergarten movement because it was believed to be a means toward legit-
imizing kindergarten practices (Dombkowski, 2002). Today, many states are increasing
their investment in prekindergarten (pre-K) school programs that serve 3- and 4-year-old
children (Jacobson, 2007). As it was during the kindergarten movement, contemporary
pre-K expansion has resulted in an intensified focus on preparing qualified teachers for
pre-K programs receiving state and federal funding (Bellm, Burton, Whitebook, Broatch,
& Young, 2002).

Received 27 June 2009; accepted 8 January 2010.

Address correspondence to Jolyn Blank, Department of Childhood Education & Literacy
Studies, University of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave., Tampa, FL 33620, USA. E-mail:
jblank@usf.edus

391
 392 J. Blank

In this article, I situate contemporary issues in early childhood teacher education

within the historical context of the kindergarten movement in the U.S. I frame the discus-
sion around two central questions that recur in contemporary pre-K expansion discourses:
(a) What constitutes a qualified teacher? (i.e., considerations pertaining to legitimization
via degree program), and (b) What is high-quality early childhood teaching? (i.e., consid-
erations of the relationship between evaluating teaching and the changing nature of “best
practices”). Heightened awareness of historical themes in early childhood teacher educa-
tion can inform early childhood teacher educators as they address contemporary issues in
pre-K teacher preparation.

Kindergarten Expansion in the U.S.

In 1837 Blankenburg German educator Froebel opened the school he would later call
kindergarten. Froebel saw learning as a process of natural “unfoldment” (Weber, 1969,
p. 4). He believed young children learned about physical nature by using their senses and
acting upon objects in their environment, a mode of activity he referred to as play (Walsh,
Downloaded By: [Blank, Jolyn] At: 17:15 20 November 2010

Chung, & Tufekci, 2001). In practice, Froebel’s ideas about how young children learn were
strictly manifested in his “gifts and occupations” (Weber, p. 10). The gifts were objects the
child manipulated in order to better understand herself and the world around her. The occu-
pations included activities that “fixed the gift’s impressions,” such as weaving paper strips
and clay modeling (p. 11).
A group of “highly cultured men and women” fled the failed republican revolution of
1848 Germany and immigrated to Milwaukee, Wisconsin (Doerflinger, 1906, p. 386). Peter
Engelmann, one of these “Forty-Eighters,” convinced members of the German-English
Academy to open a Froebelian Kindergarten.1 The academy believed it was important to
acquire a teacher who was knowledgeable about Froebelian philosophy and methods, so in
1872 they sent for Luise Dethloff, who had been taught by Froebel’s widow in Hamburg.
Within the next 2 years, three more kindergartens were established (Doerflinger).
Likewise across the United States kindergarten proponents, for the most part com-
prised of middle- and upper-class White women, were advocating the Froebelian vision
of kindergarten. In the 1880s and 1890s these women created a network of associations
dedicated to the advancement of kindergarten education. These associations, such as the
Free Kindergarten Association and the International Kindergarten Union2 sought dona-
tions, held workshops for teachers, and lobbied policy makers. As industrialization resulted
in expanding urbanization, the kindergarten movement in the U.S. became tied to phi-
lanthropy. The kindergarten was positioned as “a way to alleviate the distress of young
children” living in slums (Weber, 1969, p. 38). The kindergarten in the United States
that began as a private service to children of the wealthy now shifted to serve children
of poverty.

1
In 1856, Margarethe Meyer Schurz established the first U.S. kindergarten in Watertown,
Wisconsin for the children of German immigrants. Schurz had employed Froebel’s philosophy while
caring for her daughter, Agathe, and four neighbor children, leading them in games and songs and
group activities that channeled their energy while preparing them for school. Other parents were so
impressed at the results that they prevailed upon Schurz to help their children, so she opened the
kindergarten.
2
In 1918 The International Kindergarten Union was considered the third largest educational
body in the world. In 1931, the National Council of Primary Education joined with the International
Kindergarten Union under the name Association for Childhood Education (ACE). The organization
later added the word International to its name (ACEI).
 Early Childhood Teacher Education 393

Because the private kindergarten associations lacked the financial and organizational
resources to meet their educational and charitable goals, kindergarten leaders shifted their
focus to establishing a place for the kindergarten in public schools. The notion of universal
kindergarten was a controversial one. For example, the Milwaukee school board’s 1880
decision to open a trial public kindergarten received mixed reaction. “[The kindergarten]
was a comparatively new institution, not generally known or understood, and to the public
at large the benefits derived did not seem commensurate with the expenditure” (Barbour,
1938, p. 26). Because opponents considered kindergarten to be a “dangerous experimental
bomb,” this first Milwaukee public kindergarten was located in the school board build-
ing, under the close watch of the board members (Doerflinger, 1906, p. 399). A year
later, a resolution to establish kindergarten as part of the Milwaukee public school sys-
tem was approved.3 As kindergarten expanded, the need for kindergarten teachers grew.
Vandewalker (1908) noted, “The practical work for which a kindergarten association was
organized could not be adequately carried on without the organization and maintenance of
a training school from which its supply of kindergarten workers could be recruited” (p. 63).
Downloaded By: [Blank, Jolyn] At: 17:15 20 November 2010

Pre-K Expansion in the U.S.

Although formal schooling in the U.S has been, for the most part, the responsibility of
local and state governments, the federal government has been involved with pre-K expan-
sion since Project Head Start came to be during the 1960s War on Poverty (Zigler, Gilliam,
& Jones, 2006). Education was at the heart of President Johnson’s Great Society move-
ment, and reflected his investment in an opportunity to learn for all children. As part of
his Great Society, Johnson passed the Economic Opportunity Act (1964), which included
a single line authorizing the Head Start program. Head Start began as an 8-week summer
program, but within one year became a fully funded year-round program designed to help
curb poverty in the United States. A planning committee for the program included profes-
sionals in fields of developmental psychology, education, social work, public health, and
mental health (Zigler et al.). As a result, Head Start developed a “whole child” approach
that placed value upon emotional, social, health, nutritional, and psychological needs.
Since its inception, Head Start lived a transient existence (Cross, 2004). It began in
the Office of Economic Opportunity, the office developed to administer most of the War
on Poverty programs, then moved to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
which later became the Department of Health and Human Services. Twice the govern-
ment threatened to move Head Start to the Department of Education, developed under the
Carter administration, and this move was twice voted down. These migratory beginnings
demonstrate the wavering support for Head Start throughout the years, by both left- and
right-wing opponents. The Comprehensive Child Development Bill of 1971 that would
have made early care and education available to all children in the U.S. passed both the
House and Senate but was vetoed by President Richard Nixon. Nixon rationalized the veto
by linking it to the communist value of raising children outside of the home in a communal
fashion (Rosenberg, 1992). In Cold War U.S., threats of communist acts incited supporters
of antifeminist and antiwelfare movements, and created a backlash Nixon was not willing
to ignore.
Current universal pre-K advocates include organizations such as the National
Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), the National Head Start

3
“By the mid-1980s, kindergarten education had gone from being a privilege, to a right, to (in
some places) a legal requirement” (Dombkowski, 2001, p. 539).
 394 J. Blank

Association, and the National Council of Chief State School Officers (Zigler et al.,
2006). Foundations and business communities have also contributed to the universal
pre-K movement. The Pew Charitable Trusts, for example, has an analytical-research
branch and an advocacy branch, Pre-K Now, that deals with policy and grass-roots
initiatives. Opposition to pre-K expansion also remains. Some worry that institutional-
ized pre-K pushes children too soon to perform academic tasks and therefore it is an
“attack on childhood” (p. 14). Others continue to argue that family members should
teach young children at home and that institutionalized pre-K impedes on traditional
family roles.
Although pre-K programs began as an effort to serve children of poverty, a conver-
gence of events and circumstances have contributed to an interest in universal pre-K for
all children. For example, increasing numbers of women are participating in the work
force outside the home. According to the U.S. Department of Labor (2005), “A major
development in the American workforce has been the increased labor force participa-
tion of women” (p. 1). Nearly 72% of women between the ages of 25 and 54 were
in the labor force in 2004. Support for pre-K education has also been bolstered by the
Downloaded By: [Blank, Jolyn] At: 17:15 20 November 2010

frequently cited findings of the Consortium for Longitudinal Studies (as cited in Zigler
et al., 2006) that showed that children who had pre-K experiences were considerably
more competent that the comparison group (e.g., more likely to be high school gradu-
ates, earn higher wages; less likely to have a history of juvenile delinquency or criminal
arrest) and the findings drawn from cost-benefit analysis that concluded that every dollar
spent on preschool programs returned between three and six dollars to taxpayers (due to
lower rates of grade retention, use of special education, and use of welfare and criminal
justice systems).
During the Goals 2000 summit, all 50 state governors agreed that all children should
have access to a high-quality pre-K program if their families choose to enroll them.
According to the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER), 38 states
offered state-funded pre-K in 2008. More than 80% of 4-year-olds in the U.S. attended
some kind of pre-K program in 2008 (e.g., Head Start, state-funded pre-K, or special edu-
cation). State-funded pre-K programs enrolled almost 75% of 4-year-olds, but enrollment
numbers vary a great deal by state. For example, “In Oklahoma nearly 90 percent of the
4-year-olds receive a free public education. At the other extreme, as few as 10 percent are
enrolled in public programs in some states” (NIEER, 2008, p. 4). With pre-K expansion
in the U.S. firmly in progress, a major challenge became to offer “high-quality” pre-K
programs for all children and to “create a pool of highly qualified teachers to staff these
programs” (Maxwell & Clifford, 2006, p. 170).

What Does it Mean to Be a Qualified Early Childhood Teacher?

Both kindergarten and pre-K expansion movements illustrate the unique aims of early
childhood education as a field. Both movements also reflect tension as early child-
hood education joined larger streams of educational thought in formal schooling. As
a central example, early childhood interpretations of developmental approaches to
learning have been situated as dichotomous with more formal, academic approaches
to early schooling. This tension raised the question: How can early childhood edu-
cators both join mainstream schooling and maintain a unique identity? Turn-of-the-
20th-century kindergarten proponents confronted this question as they began to lobby
state education agencies to certify kindergarten teachers as they did other teachers
(Dombkowski, 2002).
 Early Childhood Teacher Education 395

Historical Theme: Legitimization via Degree Program

Initially, students of Froebel—like Luise Dethloff in Milwaukee—began disseminating
kindergarten ideas in the U.S. These early training opportunities were apprenticeship
periods during which prospective kindergarten teachers observed and practiced teaching
children while also engaging in study of Froebel’s works (Shapiro, 1983). Kindergarten
organizations began devising ways to “accredit” kindergartens and training programs that
were based upon Froebelian methods (p. 479).
There was a shift toward locating kindergarten teacher education in the normal schools
alongside prospective elementary teachers (Dombkowski, 2002). “This was a calculated
effort on the part of the Froebelians, seeking to attach themselves to the raised status that
other teachers were slowly being accorded through the efforts of the [National Education
Association] NEA and state-level advocacy groups” (p. 482). According to Vandewalker
(1903b):

It would be foolish to contend that the advantages are all on the side of the
kindergartener in the comparison that is made between her and the grade
Downloaded By: [Blank, Jolyn] At: 17:15 20 November 2010

teacher; in fact the principal not infrequently finds such difficulty in adjust-
ing the kindergarten to the work of the school as a whole that he has serious
questions concerning the nature of her training. (p. 568)

This shift, like the movement toward including kindergarten in public schools, was
controversial. For example, when an initial resolution to establish a kindergarten teacher-
training department in a state normal school was presented to the Wisconsin Normal
Schools Board of Regents in 1877 it was vigorously opposed by most regents and the res-
olution was “laid over” from meeting to meeting (Doerflinger, 1906, p. 402). After 3 years
of this and an allegation to the state attorney general that it was unconstitutional, the board
finally passed the resolution and kindergarten teacher preparation began at the Normal
School in Oshkosh (Vandewalker, 1908). The Oshkosh kindergarten department “died a
lingering death in 1885” due to lack of support from the regents (Mitchell, 1911, p. 11).
Despite the Oshkosh failure, the Milwaukee Normal School opened a kindergarten
department in 1892. The admission requirements were identical to the other teacher educa-
tion programs. According to the Quarter Centenary of the Milwaukee State Normal School,
1886–1911, applicants were required to have a 4-year high school diploma and be at least
18 years of age (Mitchell, 1911). The initial 1-year course earned students an elementary
certificate marked “kindergarten course,” but this was soon replaced with a 2-year course
resulting in a diploma (p. 12). “The Kindergarten course, therefore, instead of being a
short-cut to a makeshift employment, took a dignified place beside the other courses as
an equal, and challenged the same respect as to entrance requirements, and professional
preparation” (p. 12).
While the push toward educating kindergarten teachers in the normal schools with
primary grade teachers was strong, kindergarten advocates continued to debate whether
the best place for kindergarten teacher preparation was the private training school or the
normal school. On the one hand, inclusion in the normal school would bring the kinder-
garten a perceived equal status with the primary teacher and legitimatize kindergarten’s
place within the larger school system. On the other hand, kindergarten advocates believed
the kindergarten was a unique educational idea that had the potential to transform edu-
cational thought in the U.S. (Weber, 1969). The kindergarten saw itself on the right side
of the following dichotomies that framed their distinction with primary grades: academics
 396 J. Blank

vs. play; teacher-centered vs. child-centered; discipline-based vs. integrated curriculum.

Would legitimization via normal school degree program mean a loss of identity?
Strict Froebelians were somewhat ambiguous about their relationship with primary
grade teachers. Although they sought to be on the same footing, they also believed it impor-
tant that kindergarten teachers be differentiated from primary grade teachers (Domkowski,
2002). For example, Alice Temple, a prominent figure in the kindergarten movement,
argued that the training school had advantages that outweighed those of the normal school.
In the training schools, kindergarten leaders would maintain control over decisions about
courses of study. In a normal school, the kindergarten department must select courses
from those offered, subject to approval of the faculty. Temple (1906) argued, “I believe
the prospective kindergarten teacher needs more time in practice teaching than the would-
be grade teacher in which to develop the necessary insight and acquire skill. . . . I think it
is not uncommon in the normal schools to allow no practice during the first year. I believe
that is a fatal mistake” (p. 623).
In contrast, Vandewalker (1898) made strong arguments supporting kindergarten
teacher education in the normal schools on the basis that the experience would broaden the
Downloaded By: [Blank, Jolyn] At: 17:15 20 November 2010

kindergarten teacher’s “educational intelligence” (p. 430) and that the kindergarten would
in fact then have the opportunity to truly influence larger streams of educational thought.
She argued, “The quickest way to make a good primary teacher is to bring her into actual
contact with kindergarten thought and practice” (p. 432). Vandewalker (1925) pushed for
kindergarten–primary continuity. She developed a combined kindergarten–primary teacher
education program that included three key components: kindergarten “technics,” kinder-
garten principles, and kindergarten/primary teaching (p. 8). “Technics” included work and
experimentation with play material in order to familiarize students with the Froebelian gifts
and other selected media for expression and representation. “Principles” courses included
direct observation of children and selected readings geared toward developing students’
understandings of young children and working knowledge of the principles to be applied in
teaching young children. Key texts included Norworthy and Whitley’s (1920) Psychology
of Childhood and Kirkpatrick’s (1922) Fundamentals of Child Study. The final compo-
nent, kindergarten/primary teaching, provided students practical experiences working with
kindergarten and first-grade teachers during the 2nd year of the program.
Overall, it was observed, “The [nation-wide] transition from private, autonomous
diploma-granting kindergarten colleges to state-regulated normal-school and university-
based degree programmes tended to be a relatively smooth one, occurring on a different
time line state to state” (Dombkowski, 2002, p. 483). Legitimization via degree program
brought gains in status, but also created some problems for early childhood educators. This
legitimization came at a price: “Once they were part of the ‘system’ they were at its mercy,
subject to its hierarchies as well as to the dominant masculine models of science-based
knowledge and practice” (p. 484).

Contemporary Issue: Maintaining a Unique Identity

Like the kindergarten expansion movement over a century ago, contemporary discourses
surrounding pre-K expansion privilege the notion of a well-qualified teacher as one with a
bachelor’s degree. For example, Saracho and Spodek (2006) cite research that supports the
claim, “Early childhood teachers with at least a Bachelor’s degree and specialized training
in early childhood education or child development are most effective and provide better
quality of early childhood education programs” (p. 427). Also like the kindergarten move-
ment, the pre-K expansion movement presents early childhood teacher educators with
 Early Childhood Teacher Education 397

the challenge of preparing teachers who can cope with the multiplicity of both unique
early childhood discourses and larger discourses of formal schooling (e.g., standards and
accountability).
Early childhood teachers work in a variety of contexts including private childcare
centers and home-based centers, Head Start, state-funded pre-K, and public school early
childhood programs (Kagan, Kauerz, & Tarrant, 2008). Currently, teacher credential
requirements vary across these contexts. According to Saracho and Spodek (2006), pre-
K teachers in public school early childhood programs in all 50 states must have at least a
bachelor’s degree and a state teachers’ license. Requirements of state-funded pre-K pro-
grams’ range from 24 credit hours to a bachelor’s degree with a specific early childhood
education endorsement. Head Start requires teachers to have one of the following: a Child
Development Associate (CDA) credential; an associate, baccalaureate, or advanced degree
in early childhood education; an associate degree in a field related to early childhood edu-
cation and experience teaching pre-K age children; or a baccalaureate degree in any field
with admission into the Teach for America program (including passing an early childhood
content exam such as the PRAXIS II) (Administration for Children and Families, 2008).
Downloaded By: [Blank, Jolyn] At: 17:15 20 November 2010

In 2006, 38 states had no minimum entry requirements for teachers in licensed childcare
programs (Kagan et al.), but some states did require a CDA, college coursework in early
childhood education, or a bachelor’s degree (Saracho & Spodek).
NIEER (2008) created 10 state-funded pre-K “quality standards” for cross-state com-
parison. Four of these items focused upon teacher credentials and preparation: “Teacher
qualifications receive this emphasis in our checklist because research shows this area to
be crucial in determining program quality. Better education and training for teachers can
improve the interaction between children and teachers, which in turn affects children’s
learning” (p. 24). Changes in Head Start teacher requirements also reflect the value placed
upon teacher education. Effective October 1, 2011, all Head Start teachers must have an
associate, baccalaureate, or advanced degree. By September 30, 2013, at least 50% of Head
Start teachers nationwide must have a baccalaureate or advanced degree in early childhood
education or any subject, and coursework equivalent to a major relating to early childhood
education with experience teaching pre-K age children (Administration for Children and
Families, 2008). Zigler et al. (2008) offer recommendations for universal pre-K, including
requirements that “teachers have a minimum of a bachelor’s degree as well as specialized
training in early childhood education” (p. 268).
One strategy for developing a “highly-qualified pre kindergarten teacher work force”
defined in this way is to offer credit-bearing in-service training for pre-K teachers who do
not yet have a BA (Maxwell & Clifford, 2006, p. 184). Another is to provide scholarships
such as the T.E.A.C.H. Early Childhood® Project to support teachers’ continued education.
Federal grants, recruitment, community college–university partnerships, and mentorship
programs are other pathways. Some college programs are developing new ways to offer
traditional courses through distance learning, offering courses at school sites, or holding
classes at nontraditional times so working teachers can attend (Maxwell & Clifford).
The distinctive social reformist tradition in early childhood education is reflected in
the people who teach young children. According to Maxwell and Clifford (2006), “The
early childhood work force is not as diverse as the children it serves, but it comes closer
than teachers in the K-12 system” (p. 183) and “The typical early childhood teacher is a
low-income mother who works full time” (p. 177). While striving to maintain a diverse
cadre of teachers, reflective of the student population, “those striving to professionalize the
field also have the secondary goals of using training and education programs to raise the
standard of living of low-income women” (p. 181). This results in a double bind. Requiring
 398 J. Blank

a bachelor’s degree may result in higher status for teachers of young children, but also may
marginalize teachers who may not have access or resources to acquire the necessary edu-
cation. Pre-K expansion movement toward legitimization via degree program may serve an
unintended sorting function, denying access to some would-be teachers.
Further, although teacher education contexts and approaches evolved during the
kindergarten movement so that kindergarten teachers would have the same qualifications
as primary grade teachers, it could be argued that rather than maintaining a unique early
childhood identity or establishing developmental continuity between the kindergarten and
the primary grades, the kindergarten has instead become more like the primary grades.
“Today, American kindergartens are more academically oriented, especially since the
recent Federal No Child Left Behind Act (2001) was passed” (Saracho & Spodek, 2006).
This is often referred to as a “drop-down” curriculum, where today’s kindergarten looks
more like yesterday’s first grade (e.g., see Hartigan, 2009).
Historically, a central problem has been that administrators, primary teachers, and
kindergarten teachers could not articulate kindergarten’s relationship to the primary grades
(Dombkowski, 2001). Should the kindergarten lay the foundation for literacy and numer-
Downloaded By: [Blank, Jolyn] At: 17:15 20 November 2010

acy skills, socialize children into the practice of school, or develop the children’s creativity,
cooperation, and self-confidence? In other words, was the kindergarten’s chief aim either
academic or developmental in nature? Walsh (1992) called this the developmental versus
academic battle, and described it as an “us against them” orientation that situated early
childhood education and public primary education at odds. This convolution of multiple,
at times seemingly conflicting, aims reverberates in the contemporary pre-K teacher edu-
cation attempts to define “qualified” pre-K teachers by making their preparation more like
that of kindergarten and primary grade teachers.

What is “High-Quality” Early Childhood Teaching?

In addition to the perennial developmental/academic debate, an underlying tension
between understanding teaching as technical practice or as contextual decision-making
further complicates the problem of defining high-quality early childhood teaching. Turn-
of-the-20th-century kindergarten proponents confronted this tension as notions about what
constituted “best practices” began to evolve.

Historical Theme: Evolving Discourses of “Best Practices”

What should a good early childhood teacher know and be able to do? Over a century ago,
Kindergarten proponents were faced with this question as they began to devise ways of
training teachers. Interpretations of Froebel dominated initial “best practices” discourses
(i.e., the developmentally appropriate practice of its day). Kindergarten leaders sought
teachers who were knowledgeable about Froebelian philosophy and who had received
Froebelian kindergarten training. The underlying assumption about the purpose of kinder-
garten teacher education was that there was a universal model of excellent early schooling
(Froebel’s kindergarten), and so would-be teachers needed to acquire the associated body
of knowledge and skills. That is, teacher education involved the transmission of a known
body of propositional knowledge and technical skills to the prospective teacher, who would
then implement the skills in classrooms.
The initial way of going about this technical preparation of U.S. kindergarten teach-
ers was an apprenticeship in private training schools (Shapiro, 1983). The apprenticeship
period ranged from 6 months to 3 years. In the training schools, teacher candidates were
 Early Childhood Teacher Education 399

assigned work in a kindergarten in the morning and studied Froebel’s gifts and occupa-
tions in the afternoon (Vandewalker, 1908). Vandewalker noted, “The main purpose of
these studies was to meet the immediate needs of the students in their work with children,
the work was of necessity fragmentary” (p. 63).
According to Dombkowski (2002), most of the training schools were run by women
who were trained Froebelians. Some were merely using the name “kindergarten” to attract
middle-class children and teaching assistants who would work for free. “Given the variety
of people and standards attached to early kindergarten training efforts, it is not surpris-
ing that there were controversies associated with the development of kindergarten teacher
training, mostly relating to this theme of maintaining standards” (p. 480). Kindergarten
proponents devised schemes by which to accredit those programs they believed to be based
on Froebelian methods. As the numbers of teachers needed increased, the one-on-one
long-term training of the training schools could not meet the demand, and some propo-
nents developed “crash courses.” Doerflinger (1906) describes the opening of the Hailmann
School. In order to
Downloaded By: [Blank, Jolyn] At: 17:15 20 November 2010

Curb the epidemic spread of mercenary charlatanism that was infesting the
country through the medium of persons who had no idea of the Froebelian
philosophy and no true kindergarten training, but found it easy and lucrative
to impose upon well-intentioned wealthy people by catchy ‘play schools’ with
dancing lesson attractions, etc., [Dr. W. N. Hailmann] immediately opened his
‘Kindergarten Training School.’

Some kindergarten leaders, like Vandewalker (1903a) of the Milwaukee Normal

School, challenged the apprenticeship form of teacher training. The prevailing image of
teacher knowledge manifested in this approach to teacher education was a technical under-
standing of the Froebelian methods and a love for little children (Dombkowski, 2002).
Vandewalker problematized both of these assumptions.
First, Vandewalker (1907) objected to the training schools’ motherly view of teaching.
She opined, “The kindergarten teacher must be the ideal woman—sincere, resourceful,
sympathetic, but not necessarily scholarly. How shall the training school develop these
qualities in a young girl? Not by imposing strenuous courses of study upon her” (p. 568).
Vandewalker strenuously asserted, “A love for little children, an agreeable disposition, and
an acquaintance with the kindergarten instrumentalities no longer suffice to make a good
kindergartner” (p. 637).
In addition, Froebelian principles began being called into question by some kinder-
garten leaders. Reform efforts were fueled by the influence of science on educational
thought in the United States (Weber, 1969). For example, G. Stanley Hall developed a
center for child study at Clark University. “The progressive kindergartners were led into
the new methodology by Hall, who provided them with techniques of data collection in the
form of questionnaires, anecdotal records, and the analysis of products” (p. 48).
Vandewalker (1907) argued that the training schools’ early emphasis on practical skill
was detrimental and the intense focus on Froebelian materials was a “worship” that was
harmful to the kindergarten cause:

The student is apt to mistake the means for the end, and give these [various
activities; e.g., gifts and occupations] to children instead of evolving appropri-
ate ones on the basis of their own thought as the occasion arises. In other words,
it [teacher training] engenders insight instead of cultivating it. (1903a, p. 574)
 400 J. Blank

Vandewalker expected teachers “to adapt the work” based upon observations of
children. In a paper presented to the Northwestern Wisconsin Teachers’ Association,
Vandewalker (1904) advanced her argument supporting teacher scholarship by claiming
that child study was critical in order to ensure that teachers develop keen observation
skills. Vandewalker (1907) listed child study, psychology, biology, and physiology as areas
of study to be included in teacher education. Rather than focus on the Froebelian materi-
als, kindergarten teacher preparation should include study from “the whole realm of human
knowledge” (1907, p. 636). This served to strengthen her argument for kindergarten teacher
scholarship: “If the kindergarteners [are to] think for themselves, they too must do vigorous
intellectual battle while in training” (1903b, p. 572).
During kindergarten expansion in the U.S., early childhood teacher educators grappled
with multilayered and conflicting discourses of teacher knowledge as technical and/or as
situated in context. As what was understood as best practice shifted over time (including
emphases on the study of Froebelian methods, child study experts and psychologists, aca-
demic subjects, and practice teaching), early childhood teacher educators began to argue
that teaching young children required making responsive decisions in specific contexts.
Downloaded By: [Blank, Jolyn] At: 17:15 20 November 2010

Therefore, rather than understanding the purpose of teacher education as transmitting some
identified, static, “best practice,” the aim of teacher education was to help teachers engage
in contextual decision-making.

Contemporary Issue: Defining Quality Teaching

According to Doyle (1990), contemporary teacher educators have defined quality as their
core issue; that is, they pose questions like: What is the best way to teach? What should
a good teacher know? As a result, selection criteria for entry into the profession, effi-
cacy of training methods, and procedures for evaluating candidates and programs become
central issues for teacher education research in general. The underlying assumption of
“validated knowledge,” and the notion of the professional as someone who has a body of
specialized technical knowledge remained evident in the ways teacher educators address
these questions (p. 8). Thus began a long line of teacher effectiveness research to deter-
mine context-free and scientifically grounded indicators for evaluating teachers or teacher
candidates based on “outcomes.”
Doyle (1990) defined a profession as “public acceptance of the legitimacy of what
the occupation asserts about itself” (p. 8). Professional work is something the public per-
ceives to serve a significant social need and as work the public cannot conduct on its own.
Operating under this definition of profession may lead teacher educators to move away
from a search for essential characteristics of good teaching that oversimplifies the nature
of teaching as technical practice that can be uniformly applied in order to achieve particular
outcomes by shifting emphasis toward the importance of articulating the complex nature
of high-quality teaching and learning.
For example, Schön (1983) described professional practice as a kind of artistry, in
part a process of making sense of a situation, getting a feel for the sound of it, and
making adjustments. He opposed this to a technical view, or the assumption that profes-
sional practice is comprised of skillful application of theoretical knowledge to problems
of practice. To reflect is to make explicit, critically examine, and reformulate. In this light,
teacher knowledge is understood as a something played out in local practice, a matter of
making judgments about what kinds of experiences are best for children. Understanding
 Early Childhood Teacher Education 401

teaching then, requires studying the kinds of judgments teachers make in local school
microcultures.
Another strand of the research on teaching has investigated teachers’ personal lives
and histories (Ayers, 1989; Borko & Putman, 1996; Munby, Russell, & Martin, 200l) as
sources for understanding their beliefs and practices. In addition, studies of classroom life
have considered institutional influences on teaching practices (e.g., Graue; 1992; O’Brien,
1993) and have understood teacher knowledge as both formed and expressed in context,
embedded in particulars of local practice (e.g., Carr, 1989; Connelly & Clandinin, 1999;
Jacob, 1992; Lave & Wenger, 2003). This work sheds light on the dynamic complexity of
teaching and raises questions about teachers’ experiences of dilemmas in particular school
contexts (Helsing, 2007).
Yet there remains a tendency in the contemporary early childhood teacher education
discourses to reduce teaching to a “treatment,” evident in the continued interest in deter-
mining a “best” early childhood program. For example, Project Follow Through conducted
a comparison study of early childhood program models. According to Goffin and Wilson
(2001), “The lack of consistency among program sites for the same curriculum models
Downloaded By: [Blank, Jolyn] At: 17:15 20 November 2010

(i.e., within-model variation) was the only consistent finding” (p. 174). That is, curriculum
models vary as particular teachers bring them to life with particular children in particular
settings.
Building upon this, some contemporary early childhood educators draw from social
and cultural perspectives to conceptualize early childhood teacher education as an activ-
ity that involves not only acquiring the technical and propositional knowledge of some
identified standard approach, but also a recognition of the situated nature of teaching and
learning and of the fluidity of notions about standards (e.g., Ryan & Grieshaber, 2005). This
understanding of teaching involves not only “knowing” the standard, but also questioning
and challenging the socially and culturally constructed standard. During pre-K expansion,
unique early childhood teacher education discourses will again be intersected with larger
discourses of teacher education that include speaking about teacher quality in terms of
defining a set of universal characteristics that are observable and measurable.

What Can We Learn From Kindergarten History?

Like kindergarten teacher educators over a century ago, contemporary early childhood
teacher educators face questions about what constitutes a well-qualified teacher and high-
quality teaching and how this is recognized and enhanced. One historical theme in early
childhood teacher education, legitimization via degree program, brought to light a tension
between achieving status and maintaining a unique identity. The tension raised the problem
of articulating the relationship between kindergarten and the primary grades: Should early
childhood teacher educators prepare early childhood teachers to work successfully within
existing schools (with their emphasis on academics and a priori evaluation) or to transform
them (with developmental discourses of early childhood)? A second theme, evolving dis-
courses of “best practices,” illuminated a tension between representations of teaching as
technical practice or as contextual decision-making, raising the question: If good teaching
is situated and value-laden, how do we recognize “high-quality teaching?” An exploration
of historical themes and related contemporary issues in early childhood teacher education
can inform contemporary teacher educators so that they can help teachers negotiate the
multiple, often contradictory discourses of schooling they encounter as they intersect early
childhood and larger educational discourses.
 402 J. Blank

Explicitly Addressing Ideological Dilemmas

Early childhood educators’ efforts to maintain a unique identity have either resisted larger
school discourses or attempted to show how early childhood fits within them by speaking
their language; for example, by using terms like “evidence-based practices,” and “teacher
effectiveness,” and “accountability” in terms of “child outcomes.” These kinds of words
carry underlying assumptions about the nature of teaching and learning. A question for
contemporary early childhood teacher educators is: How do we want to speak about our
practice? This will require early childhood educators to make some choices and prioritize
commitments. For example, is our primary interest school readiness, providing care for
children of working families, or social-emotional development?
Schools are powerful socializers. Like children, teachers grow into a school culture.
As we strive to articulate the relationship between pre-K, kindergarten, and primary grades,
we must keep in mind that bridging diverse perspectives involves a two-way dialogue
rather than an oppositional binary. Teaching for transformation would involve the abil-
ity to see beyond either/or binaries in order to engender insight about ways of confronting
uncertainty or dilemma in teaching (Helsing, 2007). Addressing ideological dilemma is a
Downloaded By: [Blank, Jolyn] At: 17:15 20 November 2010

challenging endeavor. It will no longer suffice to either resist the discourses or attempt to
assimilate them. Teacher educators could facilitate this by moving beyond “us versus them”
to more explicitly and thoughtfully focusing on negotiating the tensions of contradictory
discourses.

Recognizing High Quality Teaching

A clearer articulation of what the aims of early childhood education are at this moment in
history will help teacher educators envision what it means to be a good early childhood
teacher. Rather than imposing a natural sciences research model on the study of teach-
ing, early childhood education as a field has recognized that teaching, as a human science,
brings with it its own kinds of questions and methods of investigation. For example, under-
standing the notion of quality as something that is situated and value-laden, research in
early childhood teacher education has asked questions that move the field beyond the study
of inputs and outcomes toward developing a descriptive case-based and teacher research lit-
erature that looks at the varied ways excellence in early schooling presents itself in specific
contexts.
Likewise, approaches to early childhood teacher education that understand teaching as
ongoing learning and inquiry provide frameworks for teachers to examine concrete issues
in particular contexts in such a way that has immediate relevance and enhances the ways
teachers make meaning of classroom life. Early childhood teacher educators have been
inspired by international colleagues such as the educators of the Reggio Emilia schools,
whose pedagogistas foster professional development by meeting regularly with teachers
on school sites to talk about teaching in context. The use of lesson study in Japan as a
model of teacher-led instructional change (Lewis, 2002) is another example of a situated
approach to teacher education.
Envisioning an early childhood teacher education that can both address present issues
and future aspirations may involve making painful choices (Goffin, 2009). For example,
we value both expertise and diversity in early childhood teachers. Yet defining expertise in
terms of earning a bachelor’s degree may marginalize some teachers, resulting in a loss.
What trade-offs are early childhood educators willing to make and why?
 Early Childhood Teacher Education 403

History provides us with both messages of caution and messages of optimism.

Speaking at the annual meeting of the National Association of Early Childhood Teacher
Educators (2009), Goffin asserted, “We are in the midst of field-altering change. This is a
defining moment.” Goffin challenged early childhood teacher educators to take a leadership
role in redefining the field. Like kindergarten expansion, the pre-K expansion movement
has the potential to transform educational thought in the U.S. As we have learned from
our kindergarten predecessors, ultimately, it is the orientation contemporary pre-K teacher
educators take that will redefine early childhood education for the 21st century.

References
Administration for Children and Families, Office of Head Start. (2008). Information memorandum:
Statutory degree and credentialing requirements for Head Start teaching staff . Retrieved from
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ohs/index.html
Ayers, W. (1989). The good preschool teacher: Six teachers reflect on their lives. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Downloaded By: [Blank, Jolyn] At: 17:15 20 November 2010

Barbour, C. W. (1938). Kindergarten education in Wisconsin. In C. D. Aborn, S. A. Marble, & L.

Wheelock (Eds.), History of the kindergarten movement in the mid-western states and in New
York (pp. 23–30). Washington, DC: Association for Childhood Education.
Bellm, D., Burton, A., Whitebook, M., Broatch, L., & Young, M. (2002). Inside the Pre-K class-
room: A study of staffing and stability in state-funded prekindergarten programs. Washington,
DC: Center for the Childcare Workforce.
Borko, H., & Putnam, R. (1996). Learning to teach. In D. C. Berlinger & R. C. Calfee (Eds.),
Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 673–708). New York, NY: MacMillan.
Carr, W. (1989). Quality in teaching: Arguments for a reflective profession. New York, NY: The
Falmer Press.
Connelly, F. M., & Clandinin, D. J. (Eds.). (1999). Shaping a professional identity: Stories of
educational practice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Cross, C. T. (2004). Political education: National policy comes of age. New York, NY: Teachers
College Press.
Doerflinger, C. H. (1906). The kindergarten movement at Milwaukee. Kindergarten Magazine,
XVIII, 385–406.
Dombkowski, K. (2001). Will the real kindergarten please stand up?: Defining and redefining the
twentieth-century US kindergarten. History of Education, 30, 527–545.
Dombkowski, K. (2002). Kindergarten teacher training in England and the United States 1850–1918.
History of Education, 31, 475–489.
Doyle, W. (1990). Themes in teacher education research. In W. R. Houston, M. Haberman, & J.
Sikula (Eds.), Handbook of research on teacher education (pp. 3–24). New York, NY: MacMillan.
Goffin, S. G. (2009, November). Ready or not: Leadership choices in early care and education.
Keynote address presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Early Childhood
Teacher Educators, Washington, DC.
Goffin, S. G., & Wilson, C. W. (2001). Curriculum models and early childhood education:
Appraising the relationship. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.
Graue, M. E. (1992). Readiness, instruction, and learning to be a kindergartner. Early Education and
Development, 3, 92–114.
Hartigan, P. (2009, August 30). Pressure-cooker kindergarten. The Boston Globe. Retrieved
from http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2009/08/30/pressure_cooker_
kindergarten
Helsing, D. (2007). Regarding uncertainty in teachers and teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education,
23, 1317–1333.
Isikoglu, N. (2008). The effects of a teaching methods course on early childhood preservice teachers’
beliefs. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 29, 190–203.
 404 J. Blank

Jacob, E. (1992). Culture, context, and cognition. In M. D. LeCompte, W. L. Millroy, & J. Preissle
(Eds.), The handbook of qualitative research in education (pp. 293–335). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Jacobson, L. (2007). Scholars split on pre-K teachers with B.A.s. Education Week, 26(29), 1–13.
Kagan, S. L., Kauerz, K., & Tarrant, K. (2008). The early care and education teaching workforce at
the fulcrum: An agenda for reform. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Kirkpatrick, E. A. (1922). Fundamentals of child study. New York, NY: MacMillan.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (2003). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press.
Lewis, C. (2002). Lesson study: A handbook of teacher-led instructional change. Philadelphia, PA:
Research for Better Schools.
Marxen, C. E., Ofstedal, K., & Danbom, K. (2008). Highly-qualified kindergarten teachers: Have
they been left behind? Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 29, 81–88.
Maxwell, K. L, & Clifford, R. M. (2006). Professional development issues in universal prekinder-
garten. In E. Zigler, W. S. Gilliam, & S. M. Jones (Eds.), A vision for universal preschool
education (pp. 169–191). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Mitchell, I. N. (1911). Quarter centenary of the Milwaukee State Normal School, 1886–1922.
Milwaukee, WI: Milwaukee State Normal School.
Downloaded By: [Blank, Jolyn] At: 17:15 20 November 2010

Munby, H., Russell, R., & Martin, A. K. (2001). Teachers’ knowledge and how it develops. In V.
Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 209–225). Washington DC:
American Educational Research Association.
NIEER, National Institute for Early Education Research. (2008). State preschool yearbook. Retrieved
from http://nieer.org/yearbook2008/pdf/appendices.pdf
Norworthy, N., & Whitley, M. T. (1920). Psychology of childhood. New York, NY: MacMillan.
O’Brien, L. M. (1993). Teacher values and classroom culture: Teaching and learning in a rural,
Appalachian Head Start program. Early Education and Development, 4, 5–19.
Rosenberg, R. (1992). Divided lives: American women in the twentieth century. New York, NY: Hill
and Wang.
Ryan, S., & Grieshaber, S. (2005). Shifting from developmental to postmodern practices in early
childhood teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56(1), 34–45.
Saracho, O., & Spodek, B. (2006). Preschool teachers’ professional development. In B. Spodek
& O. Saracho (Eds.), Handbook of research on the education of young children (2nd ed., pp.
423–439). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
Schön, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner. How professionals think in action. New York, NY:
Basic Books.
Shapiro, M. S. (1983). Child’s garden: The kindergarten movement from Froebel to Dewey.
University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
Temple, A. (1906). The kindergarten training course—in the normal school—in the university or
college—the specific kindergarten training school. Kindergarten Magazine, XVIII, 622–626.
U.S. Department of Labor. (2005). Women in the labor force: A databook. Washington DC: Bureau
of Labor Statistics. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook-2005.pdf
Vandewalker, N. (1898, November). Froebel vs. Herbart in American education. Kindergarten
Magazine, XI, 151–157.
Vandewalker, N. (1903a). Program of the kindergarten training department of the Milwaukee State
Normal School for the year 1902–1903. Kindergarten Magazine, XVI, 50–53.
Vandewalker, N. (1903b). The curricula and methods of the kindergarten training school.
Kindergarten Magazine, XVI, 566–581.
Vandewalder, N. (1904, January). Practical child study in the kindergarten. Kindergarten Magazine,
XVI, 268–272.
Vandewalker, N. (1907). The mother plays in kindergarten training. The Kindergarten Magazine and
Pedagogical Digest, XIX, 630–640.
Vandewalker, N. (1908). The kindergarten in American education. Norwood, MA: Norwood Press.
Vandewalker, N. (1925). Progress in kindergarten education. Washington DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office.
 Early Childhood Teacher Education 405

Walsh, D., Chung, S., & Tufecki, A. (2001). Friedrich Wilhelm Froebel. In J. A. Palmer, D.
E. Cooper, & L. Bresler (Eds.), Fifty key thinkers on education: From Confucius to the late
nineteenth century (pp. 94–95). London, UK: Routledge.
Walsh, D. J. (1992). Us against them: A few thoughts on separateness. Early Education and
Development, 3, 89–91.
Weber, E. (1969). The kindergarten: It’s encounter with educational thought in America. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Zigler, E., Gilliam, W. S., & Jones, S. M. (2006). A vision for universal preschool education. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press
Downloaded By: [Blank, Jolyn] At: 17:15 20 November 2010

View publication stats