Assign mod1 8083

Get perfect grades by consistently using www.assignmentgeeks.org. Place your order and get a quality paper today. Take advantage of our current 20% discount by using the coupon code GET20


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

  

Most countries have national regulations and standards for early childhood education, often broken down by state or region. Others may only have outlines or suggestions for assessment. Early childhood educators need to be aware of their country and/or state/region standards and those set forth by NAEYC in order to know what is expected of them as professionals.

Discussion 1: What Are Responsible Assessment Practices? And How Do They Support Healthy Development and Positive Learning Outcomes for Young Children and Their Families?

Early childhood educators, as well as all other educators, are asked every day to make decisions that come, in one way or another, from assessment. All of these decisions will affect a child’s learning outcomes. In a world where abuse of assessment and charges of misuse run rampant, what exactly are responsible assessment practices, and what do they mean to an early childhood educator?

This Discussion examines responsible assessment and the NAEYC’s position on what constitutes good practice. You will examine your own practice and select assessments that are appropriate for use in the learning environment. You will determine the best uses for these assessments and explain how they should be used and what data they will provide. Selecting the proper assessment instrument is crucial to supporting healthy development and positive learning outcomes in young children.

To prepare:

· Review this module’s Learning Resources and reflect on the material. Pay particular attention to NBPTS Early Childhood Generalist, NAEYC Position Statement, the video How to Observe Children, along with the Jiban (2015), Sparks (2015), and Dennis, Rueter, and Simpson (2013) articles and recommended readings.

· Then, considering the definition of assessment, carefully note the various ways to assess young children while considering your own practice.

By Day 3 of Week 1

Post the following:

· In your own words, define “responsible assessment” and provide a rationale for your definition. Support your statements from the assigned readings.

· Identify two elements from the NAEYC position statement that best reflect your personal philosophy regarding assessment and that you believe are of the greatest importance to the field. Explain your selection and support your statements from the assigned readings.

REFERENCES

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rzh&AN=104627354&site=ehost-live&scope=site&authtype=shib&custid=s6527200

https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0271121414523652

http://ceelo.org/state-information/state-map/

http://info.nwea.org/rs/nwea/images/EarlyChildhoodAssessment-ImplementingEffectivePractice.pdf

Copple, C. & Bredekamp, S. (Eds). (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs: Serving children from birth through age 8 (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).

· “NAEYC Position Statement” (pp. 1–16)

· “NAEYC Guidelines for Developmentally Appropriate Practice” (pp. 16–24)

· “To Be an Excellent Teacher” (pp. 33–50)

http://www.naeyc.org/research/using

Required Media

Walden University, LLC. (Producer). (2015a). How to observe children [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

 

Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 5 minutes.

 

Janet Gonzales-Mena provides observation information key to professionals in the early childhood field.

 

Running head: RESPONSIBLE ASSESSMENT 1

RESPONSIBLE ASSESSMENT 5

Early childhood assessment

Student

Professor

Course

Date

Responsible assessment

Responsible assessment is the process by which educators analyze the strengths and weaknesses of children to determine their capabilities and areas that they may need to be helped. Responsible assessment helps educators, parents, and families with crucial information about a child’s development in various areas such as language, social-emotional and cognitive. Therefore, it helps the teachers to adjust their learning schedules to help children to perform better (Goldstein and Flake, 2016).

There are two elements of NAEYC that support my philosophy and which are important in this field. The first statement is to respect the dignity, worth, and uniqueness of every child, family member, and colleague. I have developed the philosophy of respecting the dignity and worthiness of people. I believe that we are all equal and hence, we also have the same potential of growing and becoming better regardless of our physical or mental conditions. Understanding the dignity of a child can help the teachers to put more effort into helping the children to improve in their performance. Furthermore, this element is crucial as it helps the teachers to incorporate the children with various needs. Respecting the dignity and worthiness of a child can help to improve their morale and self-esteem in their studies (Bowman, Donovan and Burns, 2001). Respecting the uniqueness of children helps the tutors to undertake performance assessments to improve their academics. Performance assessment helps to determine the level of competency of a child. It is a learning context that helps the teachers to observe record and evaluate the knowledge, skills, and accomplishments of the learners.

The performance of children in a class may vary. Some students perform better than others. However, by respecting the dignity of a child, the teachers evaluate the means of helping such learners to overcome their difficult situations. There are different of undertaking the performance assessment. First, Jiban (2013) notes teachers need to observe the behavior of children including how they interact with their colleagues, and also respond to the questions in class. For the weak students, the teachers need to develop positive intervention programs to help them improve in their studies. One of the positive intervention methods that teachers can use is congratulating the learners for the efforts that they put into the class. Secondly, polite and frequent feedback is also crucial in helping the learners. Frequent feedback can help to form a positive bond between the children and their teachers. Furthermore, feedback also allows the teachers to determine the key areas that children need to improve. Although Bowman, Donovan, and Burns (2001) note that feedback and positive interventions are time-consuming, they help the teachers to keep a track record of children’s growth and academic progress.

The second statement that NAEYC emphasizes is to close the academic achievement gaps based on race and social-economic backgrounds. I fully support diversity and inclusivity because it allows people to interact, work or get an education in the societies that they chose. Therefore, the teachers should also learn to incorporate this idea into their work. Cultural considerations are among the factors that can be used to close the academic gaps based on race and socio-economic backgrounds. As Bowman, Donovan, and Burns (2001) state, education should be viewed as a journey from the natal culture to school culture and the culture of the larger society. America is technologically advanced in many aspects including the education system. Therefore, they need to welcome children from different backgrounds to promote diversity. Furthermore, academic gaps based on race and social-economic classes can be closed if the teachers also become culturally sensitive. Cultural sensitivity means the process of studying and welcoming the learners from different cultural backgrounds (Jiban, 2013).

Race and social-economic background not only involves the culture and the social classes. It also involves assessing children with various disabilities. This is a crucial step that can help the teachers to determine if disabled children may require specialized treatment or be taken to special schools. However, Goldstein and Flake (2016) state that this is one of the most challenging areas in early childhood assessment. NAEYC has a list of tools that can be used to monitor children with disabilities. The first tool is a rating scale that can be used to evaluate the child’s participation and performance in academic studies. The second tool is through observation and interviews. Through interviewing and observation, the teachers can determine if children with disabilities are fit to study with other normal children or not.

To conclude, responsible assessment is crucial in shaping and improving the performance of children. However, the NAEYC model is crucial in helping teachers to evaluate the academic growth of children. With its policy of closing the academic gaps, respecting the dignity of children, and respecting the culture of children, it has become easier for the teachers to evaluate the performance of children. 

References 

Bowman, B., Donovan, S., and Burns, S. (2001). Educating Our Preschoolers.

The National Academies of Science Engineering Publishers. Online at: https://www.nap.edu/read/9745/chapter/7#223

Goldstein, J., & Flake, J. K. (2016). Towards a framework for the validation of early

childhood assessment systems. Educational Assessment, Evaluation, and Accountability, 28(3), 273-293.

Jiban, C. (2013). Early childhood assessment: implementing the effective practice.


NWEA publishers. Online at:http://info.nwea.org/rs/nwea/images/EarlyChildhoodAssessment-ImplementingEffectivePractice.pdf

Discussion 2: Analyzing Accomplished Teaching and Assessment Practices and Identifying Strengths and Weaknesses in Practice

“Standard V: Assessing Children’s Development and Learning” and the “Architecture of Accomplished Teaching from the National Board” from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) (2012) outline the best practices for teaching young children. Along with “Purposes for Assessment” from the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) (2009), these documents provide a foundation for assessment and analysis of data.

In this Discussion, you will examine your personal strengths and challenges in your assessment practice. You will conduct research and provide information on how to improve your own practice, as well as share this information with others. You will begin to serve as a critical friend to your peers as you suggest resources for their benefit.

To prepare:

· Analyze each element of the “Architecture of Accomplished Teaching,” “Standard V: Assessing Children’s Development and Learning,” and “Purposes for Assessment”

· Then, read the two Bagnato (2011, 2014) articles.

· Finally, review the material from Week 1 Discussion.

·

By Day 3 of Week 2

Post the following:

· Identify three personal strengths and three challenges in your current assessment practices/teaching. Give examples from your own practice.

· Identify how you can develop two of your areas of weakness.

· Use external research (a minimum of two resources) to support your statements regarding improvement.

· Include in your discussion the NAEYC “Purposes for Assessment.”

References

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rzh&AN=104627354&site=ehost-live&scope=site&authtype=shib&custid=s6527200

https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0271121414523652

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=89946356&site=ehost-live&scope=site&authtype=shib&custid=s6527200

https://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/CAPEexpand.pdf

Assignment: Blog: Policies and National Regulations and Standards for Early Childhood Education

Most countries have national regulations and standards for early childhood education, often broken down by state or region. Others may only have outlines or suggestions for assessment. Early childhood educators need to be aware of their country and/or state/region standards and those set forth by NAEYC in order to know what is expected of them as professionals.

For this Assignment, you will examine your country/region/state standards and compare these to NAEYC principals of child development and NBPTS Standard V: Assessing Children’s Development and Learning. As you analyze and compare, begin considering how the standards could be improved to better align with NAEYC and NBPTS standards.


Note:

 Students may opt to select a state or country/region other than their own. The objective here is to examine existing standards and generate suggestions for improvement.

To prepare:

· Review your country/region/state website on early learning guidelines/regulations/policies and assessment requirements.

· Then, review the materials from Discussion 1 and 2. Compare and contrast your country/region/state policies and standards regarding assessment with NAEYC principles of child development and learning that inform practice and NBPTS Standard V.

Do the following in your blog:

· Summarize your state’s policies and standards for Early Childhood Education. Link the source of your information.

· Compare and contrast these policies with NAEYC principles of child development and learning that inform practice and NBPTS Standard V. Include your suggestions for improvement.

· Generate three questions for guests to answer based on your state’s policies on assessment and your readings for this module.

· Cite at least three sources from the Learning Resources and a minimum of two additional sources from your own research to substantiate your thinking. Note: The resources should be in APA format.

MY STATE IS IN MISSISSIPPI BOLIVAR COUNTY ;AND YOU CAN USE MDES.GOV ( MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION) WEBSITE

As a communication and collaboration tool in this course, you will be asked to develop blog posts of your own and get used to reading and commenting on the blogs of your peers.

By Day 3 of Week 2

References

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rzh&AN=104627354&site=ehost-live&scope=site&authtype=shib&custid=s6527200

https://go.openathens.net/redirector/waldenu.edu?url=https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0271121414523652

https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=89946356&site=ehost-live&scope=site&authtype=shib&custid=s6527200

https://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/CAPEexpand.pdf

Copple, C. & Bredekamp, S. (Eds). (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs: Serving children from birth through age 8 (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC).

· “NAEYC Position Statement” (pp. 1–16)

· “NAEYC Guidelines for Developmentally Appropriate Practice” (pp. 16–24)

· “To Be an Excellent Teacher” (pp. 33–50)

3

Effective Selection and Assessments

Institution

Professor

Student

Date

Effective Selection and Assessments

Preschool-aged Children

Preschool-aged children’s assessments may be summative, formative, formal, or informal. Summative assessments are teacher-created assessments, updated each year to keep up with the children’s standards and expectations. The teachers assess the learners the same way without discrimination. Teachers engage in formative assessments during learning and play activities. They learn the children’s needs, adjust to meet them, and ensure that they understand everything taught in class and field studies. Formal assessments include standardized testing and questionnaires, while informal assessments include natural observations, educator and teacher ratings, and collecting children’s work and data. The educators could use different assessments in the preschool-aged group to enhance efficiency and effectiveness in preschool education (Kelly-Vance & Ryalls, 2008).

Drawing a concept map in class to represent the students’ understanding and encouraging them to submit their feedback in one or two sentences could be used for formative assessment. The feedbacks encourage in-class discussions and clicker questions to boost children’s understanding. Instructors may create exams, standardized tests, and final projects in summative assessment to refresh the preschool-aged children’s memories of lessons previously learned and prepare them for future studies. Summative assessments equip learners with adequate knowledge and preparedness to take up future educational tasks. Students’ self-questionnaire and checklists could be used for informal assessment. Teachers encourage the preschool-aged children to prepare self-questionnaire or checklists to examine themselves and see if they are improving in their studies. The learners may create tests and quizzes. The educators could systematically pre-plan tests to determine preschool-age students’ understanding capabilities by asking questions about learning materials taught in the classroom or field (Dalton & Brand, 2012).

References

Dalton, E. M., & Brand, S. T. (2012). The Assessment of Young Children through the Lens of Universal Design for Learning (UDL). In Forum on Public Policy Online (Vol. 2012, No. 1). Oxford Round Table. 406 West Florida Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801.

Kelly-Vance, L., & Ryalls, B. O. (2008). 33 Best Practices in Play Assessment and Intervention.


RESPONSE POST AND ANSWER 1 QUESTION

Blog Post 1

Posted by   Kristina Doles  at Sunday, March 13, 2022 10:02:05 PM

In Georgia, there is not one set of standards for all early childhood learning, but rather a set of standards and domains for Georgia Pre-Kindergarten called the Georgia Early Learning and Development Standards (GELDS), and the Georgia Performance Standards (GPS) which are called Georgia Standards of Excellence (GSE) for grades K-12, which are organized by subject area.  These standards were developed using the National Common Core standards. So Kindergarten and first grade would be subject to the GSE and Pre-K would be subject to the GELDS.  In my school, we have students from Pre-K through fifth grade so we are subject to both sets of these standards, however, I only teach students in grades K through fifth so I only have personal experience with the GSE. The GELDS were developed with children from birth to age five in mind and they address the question, “What should children from birth to age 5 know and be able to do?” (Georgia Department of Care and Early Learning, n.d., 2022). The GELDS are designed to serve as a framework for learning of skills, behaviors, and concepts that children develop and these standards are assessed using a work sampling assessment system (Georgia Department of Care and Early Learning, n.d., 2022). The GELDS prohibit the use of standardized assessments, worksheets, and summative assessments, but rather focus on providing work sample assessments that are obtained as a part of students daily classroom activities that are chosen and evidenced by the student throughout the school day. The teachers use a checklist to determine mastery of various skills but each student’s proof of mastery is varied and based on their own interactions and work samples, which can also include photographs and videos. The GELDS are designed to be flexible so that they can accommodate the individual learning styles, interests, cultures, and rates of development of every Georgia Pre-K student. On the other hand, the GSE are developed using content area frameworks and they are assessed using a variety of formative and summative assessments, including the Georgia Milestones assessment, which is a standardized summative assessment that is used as a gateway assessment for third, fifth, and eighth graders.  Evidence of mastery of GSE standards will not generally be as flexible or individualized as the GELDS.

While these standards are designed around requirements for what students should know and be able to do, the NBPTS standards are designed for teachers to examine their practice and the way they deliver instruction and utilize assessment to plan for a positive impact on student learning and growth for their class as a whole and for individual children (NBPTS, 2012).  The NAEYC holds the position that assessments must be developmentally appropriate, culturally and linguistically responsive, and individualized enough to recognize educational or developmental interventions that may be needed for each student (2003)  and that assessments should lead to improved knowledge about each individual child and that knowledge should be used to develop curriculum, interventions, and teaching program (NAEYC, 2003, p.11). This is not the case with the GPS since these standards are more of a generalized plan of what the majority of students should know and when they should know it by, rather than taking into account the development, needs, or culture of individual students. Assessments should be developed with the idea of what they are actually being used to determine: student and teacher performance or programmatic, systematic, professional development and individual needs (Hallam, et al., 2014) and this is not often the case with standardized summative state required assessments.  These assessments should be designed with the goal of identifying instructional targets as a basis for planning developmentally-appropriate, “beneficial learning programs for young children with special needs in a natural, inclusive environment” (Bagnato, 2011, p.244).  Keeping this in mind, suggestions for improvement for the GPS would be to have different levels of standards that consider the learning level, disabilities, giftedness, and culture of all students instead of expecting every fifth grader in the state of Georgia to be performing at the same level in each subject area in the spring of each year.  Another suggestion I would make is to take into consideration disabilities and cultural barriers when considering certain test scores as gateway assessments to permit a student to move on to the next grade level. 

 

 

 

 

Questions:

1. How can a student with a documented learning disability be penalized for not performing at or above grade level on a formal, standardized summative assessment that is used to determine promotion to the next grade?

2. What is a policy that could be developed that would allow students with disabilities to fall under different requirements for promotion during these gateway years for the Georgia Milestones assessment?

3. Can the GSE standards be modified so that there is more flexibility for showing mastery of these standards through student work samples, in a format that is similar to the GELDS, or would this be too hard to manage?

 

Assessments can be powerful tools that are used to help individual children to be able to be a part of the learning environment that is best for them; unfortunately this is not always how the assessments are developed or used and this may go back to the development of the standards used for that state and particular ages of students.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Bagnato, S. J., McLean, M., Macy, M., & Neisworth, J. T. (2011). Identifying Instructional Targets for Early Childhood via Authentic Assessment: Alignment of Professional Standards and Practice-Based Evidence. Journal of Early Intervention33(4), 243–253. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/1053815111427565

 

Bright from the Start: Georgia Department of Early Learning and Care. (2022). Georgia Early Learning and Development Standards (GELDS). 
https://www.decal.ga.gov/Prek/GELDS.aspx

 

Hallam, R. A., Lyons, A. N., Pretti-Frontczak, K., & Grisham-Brown, J. (2014). Comparing Apples and Oranges: The Mismeasurement of Young Children Through the Mismatch of Assessment Purpose and the Interpretation of Results. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education34(2), 106–115. 
https://doi.org/10.1177/0271121414524283

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2003). Early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation. Retrieved from 
https://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/CAPEexand.pdf

 

National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). (2012). Early childhood generalist standards (3rd ed.). Retrieved from 
http://boardcertifiedteachers.org/sites/default/files/EC-GEN.pdf

 

 RESPONSE 2


Assignment: Blog: Policies and National Regulations and Standards for Early Childhood Education

Posted by   Simon Kim  at Sunday, March 13, 2022 2:42:44 PM

An excellent research study conducted by Deborah Stipek of Stanford University published in September 2018 entitled “Early Childhood Education in California” clarifies that the state has many excellent providers for certain segments of the large population but that other segments are found to be neglected or underprovided. This research shows the State of California has a complex array of different arrangements for preschool aged children which is incohesive in form and fragmented with some children deriving benefits from the system while others are being denied benefits from the same system (Stipek, 2018). For the area of assessment, the State of California is lacking alignment with those high standards for assessment established in the 2003 Joint Position Statement of the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE). The State of California’s assessment standards are also falling short of “Standard V, Assessing Children’s Development and Learning,” provided in the third edition of the Early Childhood Generalist Standards by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). 

The fragmentation of the early childhood education system in the State of California impacts the assessment standards and processes as shown in this research done by Stipek. For example, even though California does have a Quality Rating and Improvement System (QRIS) to help programs assess and improve quality, the participation rate is only 28% among licensed day-care and infant centers, and a dismal 6.8% among license-exempt programs (Stipek, 2018).  It is evident that this low participation rate in QRIS is because California does not provide financial incentives for participation in QRIS and for improving quality ratings (Stipek, 2018). In addition, this research reveals that California does not advertise quality ratings and does not provide differential funding for higher quality programs as other states have done with significant successful outcomes (Stipek, 2018). Another major shortcoming found in this research study is that the State of California lacks a centralized data collection system for early childhood education facilities and daycare centers which compounds the fragmentation and lack of clarity in the data that would be necessary to evaluate and assess areas that need improvement in upgrading the quality of education being received by younger children in the state (Stipek, 2018). Also, due to this lack of a centralized data collection system, there is no means to assess teacher preparation and quality of teacher instruction thereby blocking efforts to improve teacher preparation and training for better student outcomes (Stipek, 2018). These major failings and flaws in California’s assessment area for early childhood education come into even sharper relief when comparing them to policies with NAEYC principles of child development and the learning that informs practice based on the NBPTS Standard V.

The recommendations for assessment of early childhood education programs, curriculum, and teacher methods provided by the 2003 Joint Position Statement of the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE) include those assessment methods that can be considered focused on young children’s strengths, progress, and needs, and connected to the children’s daily activities and linked to specific, beneficial purposes including making sound decisions for teaching and learning, identifying significant concerns which may require focused intervention for individual children, and improving educational and developmental interventions for the programs (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2003). The indicators of effectiveness of assessment clarify even further that the State of California must significantly improve this area for early childhood education. For instance, the NAEYC suggests that indicators of effectiveness of assessment include ethical principles guiding assessment processes and methods, assessment instruments being used for their intended purposes, assessments that are age and culturally appropriate for the young children being assessed, assessment evidence is used to understand and improve learning, assessments are gleaned from multiple sources over time, screening is linked to follow-up, staff and families are knowledgeable of assessments, and what is assessed is developmentally and educationally significant for young children (National Association for the Education of Young Children, 2003). To support those indicators of effectiveness of assessment from NAEYC, Haslip and Gullo (2018) assert that greater accountability among early childhood instructors can only be pursued if they are adequately and effectively assessed against the appropriate professional standards.These researchers also point out that effective assessment methods should involve parents and children to align them individually with each child’s developmental and educational needs and progress. The fragmentation of the State of California’s system for early childhood education and lack of a centralized data collection system means that these indicators of effectiveness are difficult to obtain and examine in a professional manner to improve the quality of the programs, teachers, and children’s outcomes.   

The State of California’s assessment area is not aligned with Standard V, “Assessing Children’s Development and Learning” provided in the third edition of the Early Childhood Generalist Standards by the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). In this valuable resource for the assessment area for younger children’s education progress and outcomes, early childhood education teachers need to be aware of the research, standards, theory, and best practices related to the ongoing, daily assessment process of young children over a variety of areas in their development and learning (NBPTS, 2012). For example, they need to employ pre-assessments at the beginning to establish baselines for each child and then begin to keep records and portfolios of progress and achievement across different areas of development and learning (NBPTS, 2012). Furthermore, early childhood education teachers need to also aptly use checklists and rubrics to establish clear criteria for specific learning tasks and physical development skills while also engaging in meaningful conversations about outcomes with children and their parents (NBPTS, 2012). These multiple assessments are ongoing and focus on evaluating the whole child in collaboration with the child and parents. Most importantly, early childhood education teachers need to be aware and skilled at administering these assessments correctly and accurately to derive the right and best information from the children they are teaching (NBPTS, 2012).

The educator’s three questions posed from this information comparing and contrasting these assessment methods and recommendations from NAEYC and NBPTS with the State of California’s assessment failings and shortcomings are:

1. What measures can be taken to resolve the severe fragmentation of California’s early childhood education system?

2. Can California’s young childhood teachers be required to be certified to master these daily assessment protocols and methods framed in NBPTS Standard V?

3. Can the centralizing of the data collection system of young childhood education facilities and daycare centers provide an excellent first step in improving the assessment area in the state?

All in all, the landscape of early childhood education is rapidly changing in the United States and is globally driven by positive and negative trends and through increased understanding of child development, professionalization of the early childhood workforce, research exposing deficiencies in existing educational systems, public and private funding, improved policy-making and widespread advocacy can help improve the quality of early childhood education (Haslip & Gullo, 2018).

 

References

Haslip, M. J., & Gullo, D. F. (2018). The changing landscape of early childhood education: Implications for policy and practice. Early Childhood Education Journal46(3), 249-264.



National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2003). Early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation. Retrieved from https://www.naeyc.org/files/naeyc/file/positions/CAPEexpand.pdf


National Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS). (2012). Early childhood generalist standards (3rd ed.). Retrieved from 


http://boardcertifiedteachers.org/sites/default/files/EC-GEN.pdf

Stipek, Deborah. (2018, September). Early childhood education in California. Retrieved from GDTFII_Brief EarlyChildhood.pdf (gettingdowntofacts.com)

Writerbay.net

Do you need help with this or a different assignment? We offer CONFIDENTIAL, ORIGINAL (Turnitin/LopesWrite/SafeAssign checks), and PRIVATE services using latest (within 5 years) peer-reviewed articles. Kindly click on ORDER NOW to receive an A++ paper from our masters- and PhD writers.

Get a 15% discount on your order using the following coupon code SAVE15


Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper