Role of Curriculum in Early Childhood Special Education

The purpose of this packet is to help early childhood educators:

• Understand the role of standards and curriculum in the education of young children with disabilities and their relationship to IFSP/IEPs.
• Understand that curriculum is the framework for appropriate activities and materials that enhance the development of all children.
• Embed intervention for young children with disabilities into high quality early childhood curriculum.

Feel free to print and/or copy any original materials contained in this packet. KITS has purchased the right to reproduce the copyrighted articles included in this packet. Any additional duplication should adhere to appropriate copyright law.

The example organizations, people, places and events depicted herein are fictitious. No association with any real organization should be inferred.

_{Compiled by Chelie Nelson, Ph.D., CCC-SLP David P. Lindeman, Ph.D.}

₂₀₀₇

_{Kansas Inservice Training System}

_{Kansas University Center on Developmental Disabilities}

_{Kansas Inservice Training System is supported though Part C, IDEA Funds from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.}

_{The University of Kansas is and Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer and does not discriminate in its programs and activities. Federal and state legislation prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, disability, and veteran status. In addition, University policies prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, marital status, and parental status.}

Table of Contents

Letter from the director

Introduction to The Role of Curriculum in Early Childhood Special Education

Where We Stand on Early Learning Standards

Early Childhood Standards

Early Childhood Curriculum

The Role of Play in Curriculum

Curriculum and the IEP

Assessment

Resources 

Packet Evaluation

Letter from the Director

March 2007   

Dear Colleague,   

This packet has been provided to help early childhood educators:

• Understand the role of standards and curriculum in the education of young children with disabilities and their relationship to IFSP/IEPs.
• Understand that curriculum is the framework for appropriate activities and materials that enhance the development of all children.
• Embed intervention for young children with disabilities into high-quality early childhood curriculum.

Feel free to print and/or copy any original materials contained in this packet. KITS has purchased the right to reproduce the copyrighted articles included in the packet. Any additional duplication should adhere to appropriate copyright law.

The example organizations, people, places and events depicted herein are fictitious. No association with any real organization should be inferred.

We hope that you will find that the packet contains helpful information. After you have examined the packet, please complete the evaluation found at the end of this packet. Thank you for your interest and your efforts toward the development of quality services and programs for young children and their families.

Sincerely,

David P. Lindeman, Ph.D.

KITS Director

Back to top of page

Introduction to The Role of Curriculum in Early Childhood Special Education

Where We Stand on Early Learning Standards Across the nation, states a re developing early learning standards/guidelines that describe the desired results, outcomes, or learning expectations for children below kindergarten age. According to the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) this movement raises educational, ethical, developmental, programmatic, assessment, and policy issues. In their position statement NAEYC and National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE) address those issues, describing four features that are essential if early learning standards are to be developmentally effective.  The recommendations in this brief can be used to understand and guide the implementation of standards for young children. The executive summary and the complete position statement can be found at NAEYC

Where We Stand on Curriculum, Assessment, and Program Evaluation Research has demonstrated that high-quality early childhood experiences produce lifelong benefits for children. This position brief from NAEYC and NAECS/SDE introduces and describes indicators of effective early childhood curriculum, assessment and evaluation. Programs and individuals may use these indicators to guide decisions and reflection of current early childhood practices related to curriculum, assessment and evaluation. The executive summary and the complete position statement can be found at NAEYC

High Quality Preschool: Why We Need It and What It Looks Like This issue of the National Institute for Early Education Research’s (NIEER) Matters highlights research findings and best practice Preschool Policy recommendations for high-quality preschool programs. The information in this document addresses dimensions of preschool quality, including how we define and measure quality in early education. Summarizing research in the area of early childhood quality measures and outcomes, Espinosa (2002) describes aspects of both process (children’s actual experiences) and structural (program and teacher characteristics) quality that are believed to be related to better outcomes for young children. This document concludes by describing features of high quality preschool programs that are considered critical in relation to children, families, teachers, curriculum, and classrooms. The recommendations in this document can be used to understand and guide the implementation of high quality programs for young children. See NIEER

• Standards
  • Curriculum
    • Assessment
    • IFSP/IEP
    • Intervention
    • Instructional Evaluation

Quality early childhood programs are built on standards and curriculum. b road statements that describe expectations for learning and development. Standards are Early learning standards or guidelines are meant to inform teachers/caregivers, programs and schools, parents, and the community about what children are expected to learn and what teachers/caregivers are expected to guide them to learn (ECEA, 2005). Curriculum differs from standards in that it is the framework that delineates the content that children are to learn, the processes through which children achieve the identified curricular goals, what teachers do to help children achieve these goals, and the context in which teaching and learning occur (Bredekamp & Rosegrant, 1995)

Standards and Curriculum are integral to the linked system of assessment, Family Service Plan (IFSP) / Individual Education Plan (IEP) Individual development, intervention and instructional evaluation. Assessment, or the systematic collection of information (e.g., observation, interviews, portfolios, projects, tests), provides the basis for judgments about children’s characteristics and abilities and facilitates the development of functional and meaningful IFSPs/IEPs. Assessment tells the teacher/caregiver not only what a child needs to learn, but where that child is developing within the standards/curricular framework and how a child’s disability might be impacting their ability to have access to, and make progress in, the general curriculum (ECEA, 2005). Interventions are developed from children’s outcomes/goals and are designed to enhance and support children’s participation and progress in the classroom curriculum. Through regular instructional evaluation , teachers/families are able to gauge children’s progress on IFSP outcomes/IEP goals, as well as the general curriculum. When children are found not to be making expected progress, adjustments can be made quickly to ensure children’s continued development within the general education curriculum.

Questions for Reflection: Quality

1. What does research tell us about the quality of America’s preschool programs?
2. How is quality defined and measured in early education?
3. What are some aspects of process quality?
4. What are some aspects of structural quality?
5. What does the research tell us about the impact process and structure quality have on the educational experiences of young children?
6. What are the critical elements of quality for children?
7. What are the critical elements of quality for families?

Back to top of page

Where We Stand on Early Learning Standards

NAEYC and NAECS/SDE

Early learning standards define the desired outcomes and content of young children’s education. Most states have developed such standards for children below kindergarten age.

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) believe that early learning standards can be a valuable part of a comprehensive, high-quality system of services for young children. But we caution that early learning standards support positive development and learning only if they:

• emphasize significant, developmentally appropriate content and outcomes;
• are developed and reviewed through informed, inclusive processes;
• are implemented and assessed in ways that support all young children’s development; and
• are accompanied by strong supports for early childhood programs, professionals, and families.

These four elements are described in detail in Early Learning Standards: Creating the Conditions for Success, a joint position statement of NAEYC and NAECS/SDE (online at NAEYC). They are discussed briefly below.

1. Effective early learning standards emphasize significant, developmentally appropriate content and outcomes.
   • All areas of early development and learning (including cognitive, language, physical, social, and emotional) are emphasized in the standards.
   • The content and desired outcomes are meaningful and important to children’s current well being and later learning.
   • Early learning standards are not merely scaled-back versions of standards for older children. Instead, the standards are based on research about the processes, sequences, and long-term outcomes of early learning and development.
   • Standards are linked to specific ages or developmental periods to ensure that the expectations are appropriate.
   • Standards recognize and accommodate variations in children’s cultures, languages, communities, and individual characteristics, abilities, and disabilities. This flexibility supports positive outcomes for all children.
2. Effective early learning standards are developed and reviewed through informed, inclusive processes.
   • Relevant, valid sources of expertise are called on to help develop and review the standards.
   • Multiple stakeholders are involved—community members, families, early childhood educators and special educators, and other professional groups.
   • Once the standards are developed, they are shared and discussed with all stakeholders.
   • Early learning standards are regularly reviewed and revised so they remain relevant and evidence-based.
3. Effective early learning standards are implemented and assessed in ways that support all young children’s development.
   • Curriculum, classroom practices, and teaching strategies support the standards by connecting with young children’s interests and abilities to promote positive development and learning.
   • Assessment instruments are clearly connected to important learning represented in the standards; are technically, developmentally, and culturally valid; and provide information that is comprehensive and useful.
   • Information gained from assessments must benefit children. Assessment and accountability systems should improve practices and services and should not be used to rank, sort, or penalize young children.
4. Effective early learning standards require a foundation of support for early childhood programs, professionals, and families.
   • Evidence-based program standards and adequate resources for high-quality programs create environments in which standards can be implemented effectively.
   • Significant expansion of professional development is essential to help early childhood teachers and administrators implement the standards.
   • Standards have the most positive effects if they are accompanied by respectful family communication and support.

Early Learning Standards in the States

A survey of states' development of early learning standards (C. Scott-Little, S. Kagan, & V.S. Frelow, Standards for Preschool Children's Learning and Development: Who Has Them, How Were They Developed, and How Are They Used? Greensboro, NC: SERVE, 2003) reveals that 

• almost 40 states have or are developing child-based outcomes standards;
• all but one of the states include language and literacy development in the standards;
• social-emotional development and 'approaches to learning" are the areas least commonly included in stnadars; and
• the documents give little guidance bout how the standards can be adapted for children with disabilities or for culturally and linguistically diverse children

The complete survey is online at SERVE Center

Beyond Early Learning Standards: What else matters?

Early learning standards gain power only if they are connected to other essential ingredients of high-quality early childhood education. Learn more about:

• recommendations for early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation. See NAEYC and NAECS/SDE's 2003 position statement. Access the document online at NAEYC.
• recommended teaching strategies and other elements of developmentally appropriate practice. See S. Bredekamp & C. Copple, Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs, rev. ed. Washington, DC: NAEYC, 1997. Access the document online at NAEYC
• standards for early childhood programs and accreditation performance criteria. NAEYC
• standards for professional preparation of early childhood educators. See M. Hyson, Early Childhood Professional Preparations: NAEYC's Standards for Programs, Washington, DC: NAEYC, 2003. The professional standards document also online at NAEYC

_{Adapted from NAEYC and NAECS/SDE. Where We Stand on Early Learning Standards. Retrieved from NAEYC}

Back to top of page

Early Childhood Standards

• This section has articles from NIEER on Preschool Policy Matters and Child Outcome Standards in Pre-K Programs. To receive digital copies, please email kskits@ku.edu.

Preschool Policy Matters: Child Outcome Standards in PreK Programs

The development and use of early childhood standards must take into account the way young children learn. The following issue of the National Institute for Early Education Research’s (NIEER) Preschool Policy Matters , provides an overview of how the standards movement is being extended to preschool programs in an effort to improve school readiness and lay the foundation for later achievement. Shore, Bodrova and Leong (2004) describe child outcome standards in relation to other types of standards and quality indicators. They outline nine crucial aspects for effective standards and for each address the particular conditions needed for child outcome standards to have a positive impact on preschool children and programs. The recommendations in this document can be used to understand and guide the implementation of standards for young children. This issue can be found on the NIEER website at NIEER.

Early Learning Standards Resources

Compare and contrast early learning standards across states using the State Standards Databases which can be found at the NIEER website.

Several national and education organizations have also created educational standards or guidelines, including the following:

Fine Arts Standards (PDF) from the Kennedy Center   

Language Arts Standards from National Council of Teachers of English

Mathematics Standards from the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics  

Physical Education Standards from the National Association for Sport and Physical Education

Social Studies Standards from the National Council for the Social Studies

Technology Standards from the International Society for Technology in Education 

Questions for Reflection: Early Childhood Standards

These questions can be used for personal study and/or as questions to guide study group discussions.

1. Describe the difference between program standards, classroom standards, curriculum standards, child outcome standards, content standards and performance standards.
2. What does research say about outcome standards in the preschool years?
3. Why should standards represent values that make sense to children’s families and communities?
4. On what types of evidence should standards be based?
5. Why should standards be broad and not narrowly defined?
6. How could standards help a teacher with their day-to-day work?
7. On what standards is your program based?

Back to top of page

Early Childhood Curriculum

“While no single curriculum or pedagogical approach can be identified as best, children who attend well planned, high-quality early childhood programs in which curriculum aims are specified and integrated across domains tend to learn more and are better prepared to master the complex demands of formal schooling.

Particular findings of relevance in this regard include the following:

Children who have a broad base of experience in domain-specific knowledge (for example, in mathematics or an area of science) move more rapidly in acquiring more complex skills.

More extensive language development - such as rich vocabulary and listening comprehension - is related to early literacy learning.

Children are better prepared for school when early childhood programs expose them to a variety of classroom structures, thought processes, and discourse patterns. This does not mean adopting the methods and curriculum of the elementary school; rather it is a matter of providing children with a mix of whole class, small group, and individual interactions with teachers, the experience of discourse patterns associated with school, and such mental strategies as categorizing, memorizing, reasoning, and metacognition.” 

_{Bowman, B. T., Donovan, M. S., & Burns, M. S. (Eds.). (2000). Eager to learn: Education our preschoolers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.}

Indicators of Effective Early Childhood Curriculum

• Children are active and engaged (cognitively, physically, socially and artistically active).
• Curriculum goals are clearly defined, shared and understood by all.
• Curriculum is based on evidence that is developmentally, culturally and linguistically relevant for the children.
• Valued content is learned through investigation, play and focused, intentional teaching.
• Curriculum builds on prior learning and experiences.
• Curriculum encompasses critical areas of development, including children’s physical well being and motor development; social and emotional development, approaches to learning; language development; cognition and general knowledge; and subject matter areas such as science, mathematics, language, literacy, social studies and the arts.
• When subject-specific curricula are adopted, they meet the standards of relevant professional organizations.
• Research and other evidence indicate the curriculum has beneficial effects for children’s development.

Early Childhood Curriculum: Frequently Asked Questions

1. What are curriculum goals?
   • The goals of a curriculum state the essential desired outcomes for children. When adopting a curriculum, it is important to analyze whether its goals are consistent with other goals of the early childhood program or with state or other early learning standards, and with program standards. Curriculum goals should support and be consistent with expectations for young children’s development and learning.
2. What is the connection between curriculum and activities for children?
   • Whether for toddlers or second graders, a good curriculum is more than a collection of activities. The goals and framework of the curriculum do suggest a coherent set of activities and teaching practices linked to standards or expectations — although not in a simple fashion: Good activities support multiple goals. Together and over time, these activities and practices will be likely to help all children develop and learn the curriculum content. Standards and curriculum can give greater focus to activities, helping staff decide how these activities may fit together to benefit children’s growth. Appropriate curriculum also promotes a balance between planned experiences — based on helping children progress toward meeting defined goals — experiences that emerge as outgrowths of children’s interests or from unexpected happenings (for example, a new building is being built in the neighborhood). While these experiences are not planned, they are incorporated into the program in ways that comply with standards and curriculum goals.
3. What are the most important things to consider in making a decision about adopting or developing a curriculum?
   • It is important to consider whether the curriculum (as it is or as it might be adapted) fits well with (a) broader goals, standards, and program values (assuming that those have been thoughtfully developed), (b) what research suggests are the significant predictors of positive development and learning, (c) the sociocultural, linguistic, and individual characteristics of the children for whom the curriculum is intended, and (d) the values and wishes of the families and community served by the program. While sometimes it seems that a program’s decision to develop its own curriculum would ensure the right fit, caution is needed regarding a program’s ability to align its curriculum with the features of a high-quality curriculum (that is, to address the recommendation and indicators of effectiveness of the position statement). Considerable expertise is needed to develop an effective curriculum — one that incorporates important outcomes and significant content and conforms with research on early development and learning and other indicators noted in the position statement — and not merely a collection of activities or lesson plans (see also FA Q #7 in this section)
4. What should be the connection between curriculum for younger children and curriculum they will encounter as they get older?
   • Early childhood curriculum is much more than a scaled back version of curriculum for older children. As emphasized in Early Learning Standards (NAEYC) & NAECS/SDE 2002), earlier versions of a skill may look very different from later versions. For example, one might think that knowing the names of two U.S. states at age four in preschool is an important predictor of knowing all 50 states in fourth grade. However, knowing two state names is a less important predictor than gaining fundamental spatial and geographic concepts. Resources, including those listed at the end of this document, can help teachers and administrators become more aware of the curriculum in later years. With this knowledge, they can think and collaborate about ways for earlier and later learning to connect. Communication about these connections can also support children and parents as they negotiate the difficult transitions from birth - three to preschool programs and then to kindergarten and the primary grades.
5. Is there such a thing as curriculum for babies and toddlers?
   • Indeed there is, but as the developmental chart about curriculum suggests, curriculum for babies and toddlers looks very different from curriculum for preschoolers or first-grade children. High-quality infant/toddler programs have clear goals, and they base their curriculum on knowledge of very early development. Thus a curriculum for children in the first years of life is focused on relationships, communicative competencies, and exploration of the physical world, each of which is embedded in daily routines and experiences. High-quality infant/toddler curriculum intentionally develops language, focusing on and building on the home language; promotes security and social competence; and encourages understanding of essential concepts about the world. This lays the foundation for mathematics, science, social studies, literacy, and creative expression without emphasizing disconnected learning experiences or formal lessons (Lally et al. 1995; Lally 2000; Semlak 2000)
6. When should the early childhood curriculum begin to emphasize academics?
   • There is no clear dividing line between “academics” and other parts of a high-quality curriculum for young children (Hyson 2003a). Children are learning academics from the time they are born. Even infants and toddlers are beginning — through play, relationships, and informal opportunities — to develop the basis of later knowledge in areas such as mathematics, visual and performing arts, social studies, science, and other areas of learning. As children transition into K3 education, however, it is appropriate for the curriculum to pay focused attention to these and other subject matter areas, while still emphasizing physical, social, emotional, cognitive, and language development, connections across domains, and active involvement in learning.
7. Should programs use published curricula, or is it bette r for teachers to develop their own curriculum?
   • The quality of the curriculum — including its appropriateness for the children who will be experiencing it — should be the important question. If a published, commercially available curriculum — either a curriculum for one area such as literacy or mathematics or a comprehensive curriculum — is consistent with the position statement’s recommendations and the program’s goals and values, appears well suited to the children and effectively by staff, then it may be worth considering, especially as a support for inexperienced teachers. To make a well informed choice, staff (and other stakeholders) need to identify their program’s mission and values, consider the research and other evidence about high-quality programs and curricula, and select a curriculum based on these understandings. Some programs may determine that in their situation the best curriculum would be one developed specifically for that program and the children and families it serves. In that case — if staff have the interest, expertise, and resources to develop a curriculum that includes clearly defined goals, a system for ensuring that these goals are shared by stakeholders, a system for determining the beneficial effects of the curriculum, and other indicators of effectiveness — then the program may conclude that it should take that route.
8. Is it all right to use one curriculum for mathematics, another for science, another for language and literacy, another for social skills, and still another for music?
   • If curricula are adopted or developed for distinct subject matter areas such as literature or mathematics, coherence and consistency are especially important. Are the goals and underlying philosophy of each curriculum consistent? What will it feel like for a child in the program? Will staff need to behave differently as they implement each curriculum? What professional development will staff need to make these judgments?
9. What’s needed to implement a curriculum effectively?
   • Extended professional development, oft en with coaching or mentoring, is a key to effective curriculum implementation (National Research Council 2001). Well qualified teachers who understand and support the curriculum goals and methods are more likely to implement curriculum effectively. So called scripted or teacher-proof curricula tend to be narrow, conceptually weak, or intellectually shallow. Another key to success is assessment. Ongoing assessment of children’s progress in relation to the curriculum goals gives staff a sense of how their approach may need to be altered for the whole group or for individual children.

_{National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2003, November). Early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation: Building an effective, accountable system in programs for children birth through age 8, (8-9). Retrieved March 9, 2007, from http://www.naeyc.org/about/positions/pdf/CAPEexpand.pdf - Webpage has since been removed.} 

Preschool Curriculum Models

Curriculum is a series of planned, systematic learning experiences organized around a particular philosophy of education. Although curriculum models vary, they each provide a framework to guide program implementation and evaluation. Variations among curriculum models reflect differences in values concerning what is important for young children to learn, as well as in the process by which children are believed to learn and develop (Goffin, 2000).

The type of curriculum used in an early childhood program must be based upon sound principles of child development, program philosophy, developmental appropriateness and the needs of the children in the program (Goffin, 2000). Curriculum models are essential in determining the program content, as well as in training and supervising staff to implement high-quality programs. In order to provide preschool programs of the highest quality, it is important that programs adopt a research-based curriculum model. The following are current curriculum models with validated research.

Adapted with permission from:

Michigan State Department of Education. (2005). Preschool curriculum models. Retrieved March 9, 2007, from http://www.michigan.gov/greatstart - Web address has since been changed. 

Other reference:

Goffin, S. G. (2000). The role of curriculum models in early childhood education, Clearinghouse on Early Education and Parenting. Retrieved on March 9, 2007, from http://ceep.crc.uiuc.edu/eecearchive/digests/2000/goffin00.html - Webpage has since been removed. 

• Please read the article Instructional Models for Early Childhood Education by Susan Golbeck. It can be downloaded from ERIC Institute of Education Sciences

Curriculum in programs for Infants, Toddlers, Preschoolers, Kindergarteners, and Primary Grade Children 

The following Developmental Chart is a companion to the Position Statement on Curriculum, Assessment and Evaluation by 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) It can be found on the NAEYC website at

• Please read the developmental chart found on pages 19 to 21 of the article Early Childhood Curriculum, Assessment, and Program Evaluation found on the NAEYC website.  The article file is named CAPEexpand
• The complete article has also been saved in the resources for this packet.To receive digital copies, please email kskits@ku.edu.

The chart provides examples of ways in which each recommendation from the position statement can be implemented in programs for infants/toddlers, preschoolers, and kindergarten/primary age children.

It can be used by programs and individuals to understand and reflect on their implementation of curriculum that is thoughtfully planned, challenging, engaging, developmentally appropriate, culturally and linguistically responsive, comprehensive, and likely to promote positive outcomes for all young children. 

_{National Association for the Education of Young Children, & National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education. (2003). Position statement with expanded resources: Early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation: Building an effective, accountable system in programs for children birth through age 8 . Retrieved March 9, 2007, from http://www.naeyc.org/about/positions/pdf/CAPEexpand.pdf - PDF has since been moved to: https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/CAPEexpand.pdf}

Questions for Reflection: Early Childhood Curriculum 

Questions for Reflection: Early Childhood Curriculum

1. Why should we be concerned with curriculum models for young children with disabilities?
2. What is the difference between educational activities, materials and curriculum?
3. What does research tell us about curriculum models and child outcomes?
4. What role do developmentally appropriate instructional practices play in early childhood curriculum?
5. How do motivational outcomes vary as a function of preschool instructional practices and how might that affect outcomes for young children with disabilities?
6. According to the NAEYC, what are indicators of effective early childhood curriculum?
7. What are the most important things to consider in making a decision about adopting or developing a curriculum?
8. When should early childhood curriculum begin to emphasize academics?
9. What is needed to implement a curriculum effectively?
10. How does curriculum differ between infant/toddler and preschool?  Between preschool and kindergarten/primary?

Back to top of page

The Role of Play in Curriculum

Questions for Reflection: The Importance of Being Playful

These questions can be used for personal study and/or as questions to guide study group discussions.

1. Are play and learning mutually exclusive?
2. According to research, play contributes to the advancement of what areas of development?
3. Specifically, children’s engagement in pretend play was found to be positively and significantly correlated with what literacy competencies?
4. What are the characteristics of mature play?
5. What are some reasons young children may not learn to play at a mature level?
6. What are some strategies teachers can use to support children’s engagement in mature play?
7. What are some of the positive effects that research has linked to mature play?
8. What role does/should play serve in your classroom?

• This section has an article on The Importance of Being Playful. To receive a digital copy, please email kskits@ku.edu.

For Further Investigation: Research Related to Play and Development in Early Childhood

Annotated Bibliography

Bagley, D. M., & Klass, P. H. (1998, Fall-Winter). Comparison of the quality of preschoolers' play in housekeeping and thematic sociodramatic play centers. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 12(1), 71-77.
ABSTRACT: Differences in the quality of play in thematic and housekeeping organizational patterns of the sociodramatic play center in preschool classrooms were documented by biweekly videotaping children's play during free choice time in 18 classrooms of an early childhood program in a moderately sized Midwest city. Videotapes for each classroom group were divided into the 4 quarters of the academic year. Of these, 68 were randomly selected and evaluated for play quality. The thematic organization resulted in higher quality sociodramatic play in which the children enacted more roles outside the home, utilized more aspects of their roles, demonstrated higher levels of symbolic prop use, and played longer. Early childhood educators wishing to utilize the thematic organization of the sociodramatic play center will find the practice supported, leading to longer play episodes, increased symbolic prop use, and higher quality make-believe.

Craig-Unkefer, L. A., & Kaiser, A. P. (2002, Spring). Improving the social communication skills of at-risk preschool children in a play context. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 22(1), 3-13.
ABSTRACT: Examined the effects of a 3-component intervention on the social-communicative interactions of 6 preschool children (aged 3yrs 5mo-3yrs 11mo) at risk for language delays and behavior problems. In a multiple baseline design across 3 dyads, children were taught to (1) plan their play, (2) use conversational social interaction strategies, and (3) self-evaluate their play interactions. The number of social communicative behaviors by each child increased following introduction of the intervention condition, as did their use of descriptive and request utterances during play sessions. Increases in linguistic complexity, diversity, and play complexity also were associated with the intervention. It is suggested that this intervention holds promise for improving social, linguistic, and play behaviors in preschoolers at risk for language delays and behavior problems.

De-Long, A. J., Tegano, D. W., Moran, J. D., Brickey, J. et al. (1994, July). Effects of spatial scale on cognitive play in preschool children. Early-Education-and-Development, 5(3), 237-246.
ABSTRACT: Examined the effects of a scale-reduced play environment on temporal aspects of play behavior. Specifically, the study examined the amount of time required to enter complex forms of play, the length of play segments, and the percentage of total play time spent in complex play under normal environmental conditions (full-size, control) and under scale-reduced environmental conditions (experimental). 11 Ss (mean age 4 yrs 2 mo) were observed during unstructured play activity with Playdough in a small-n, A-B-A-B design. Ss served as their own controls and were self-motivated relative to the activity. The play structure (scale-reduced environment) consisted of a screened wooden frame over a vinyl floor. Results show that Ss entered complex forms of play more quickly, engaged in play segments of longer duration, and spent a greater percentage of their overall play time in complex play under experimental conditions.

Fisher, E. P. (1992, May). The impact of play on development: A meta-analysis. Play and Culture, 5(2), 159-181.
ABSTRACT: Conducted a meta-analysis of 46 studies focused on the effects of play behavior in cognitive, linguistic, and affective-social development. Half of the studies surveyed some aspect of cognitive development (i.e., creativity, logical problem solving). The remaining studies were equally divided between studies examining (1) the effects of play on language mastery or reading readiness and (2) the power of play to enhance awareness of social roles or build empathetic interpersonal skills via make-believe and perspective taking. Results suggest that sociodramatic play results in improved performances in both cognitive-linguistic and social affective domains.

Galyer, K. T., & Evans, I. M. (2001). Pretend play and the development of emotion regulation in preschool children. Early Child Development and Care, 166, 93-108.
ABSTRACT: Examined pretend play and the development of emotion regulation in preschool children. 51 preschool students (aged 4-5 yrs) and their parents completed questionnaires concerning frequency of play, pretend play, and non-pretend play. Ss also completed the Emotional Regulation Checklist (A. Shields and D. Cicchetti, 1997). Teachers completed the Social Skills Rating System--Pre-school Form (F. Gresham and N. Elliott, 1990). Additional collected data included observations during pretend play activity and during a negatively valenced event designed to elicit a high level of arousal. Results show that Ss who demonstrated emotion regulation skills in pretend play situations were rated as having better emotion regulation in daily life. Regular pretend play with a more experienced play partner was related to higher frequency of adaptive affect displays, empathy, and emotional self-awareness in daily interactions. Continuing a pretend play game when faced with a negatively valenced event was related to emotion regulation in the wider context, whereas effective solutions for this event were not.

Harper, L. V., & Huie, K. S. (1998, July). Free play use of space by preschoolers from diverse backgrounds: Factors influencing activity choices. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 44(3), 423-446.
ABSTRACT: Analyses were made of the location and quality of free play of 244 3- to 5-year-olds from 6 different preschool and day-care centers. Although SES and ethnicity were confounded with amount of space and the range of choices available, 13 play sites/activities could account for at least half the children's time in every center. There was no simple relation between the amount of space allocated to a setting and the proportion of time that the children used it. Patterns of use varied as a function of weather-related accessibility in spacious facilities. Differences across samples drawn from the same SES/ethnic pool indicated that the particular make-up of a group (the "cohort") in the same physical context can affect specific patterns of usage. Among children drawn from all 6 centers, there were sex differences in time spent in 5 of 9 common play sites. Moreover, across centers and a broader spectrum of areas, certain play sites consistently yielded different patterns of social exchanges with peers and adults.

Isenberg, J., & Jacob, E. (1983, March-April). Literacy and symbolic play: A review of the literature. Childhood Education, 59(4), 272-276.
ABSTRACT: Theoretical research on symbolic play by such authors as J. Piaget and B. Inhelder (1969) and L. S. Vygotsky (1976, 1978) indicates that engaging children in symbolic play while incorporating literacy content into such play can have a positive influence on early literacy development. Empirical research by such authors as C. H. Wolfgang (1974) and A. D. Pellegrini (1980) supports this conclusion. Teachers of preschoolers should remain aware of the level of representation that their students use in play and of the content of the play. Teachers may want to introduce literacy artifacts that students will need later in school. (29 ref)

Johnson, J. E. (1994, October-December). The challenge of incorporating research on play into the practice of preschool education. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15(4), 603-618.
ABSTRACT: Discusses research and theory on play to draw out implications for practice and policy in early childhood education (ECE). Illustrations of advancements in outlooks on play are given to suggest progress in the field of ECE. The importance of play in defining developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) is then raised relative to the educational philosophy of constructivism and the concept of choice. Structural and psychological or attitudinal factors impeding the translation of research on children's play into practice can be removed through increased and improved dissemination, collaborative research, and teacher preparation and in-service programs.

Kontos, S. (1999, September). Preschool teachers' talk, roles, and activity settings during free play. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 14(3), 363-382.
ABSTRACT: Examined preschool teachers' involvement in activity settings, their roles, and their talk during free play time. 40 teachers and assistant teachers from 22 Head Start classrooms in 2 midwestern Head Start programs were audiotaped during free play time. Audiotapes were transcribed and coded. Results revealed that teachers were most often in the role of play enhancer/playmate and stage manager. They spent the most time in constructive and manipulative activity settings. Their talk focused most often on statements supporting play with objects, practical/personal assistance, and questions supporting play with objects. There was evidence that teachers modified their role by activity setting and modified their talk by role and activity setting. Teachers exhibiting different patterns of involvement in roles and activity settings were found to differ in how they talked to children.

Mellou, E. (1994, December). The values of dramatic play in children. Early Child Development and Care, 104, 105114
ABSTRACT: A review of the research on dramatic play indicates that it provides personal expression and catharsis of inner desires; helps the child to distinguish between reality and fantasy; provides for children's social adaptation; provides a dynamic for learning; and enhances creativity through interaction, transformation, and imagination.

Morrow, L. M., & Rand, M. K. (1991, February). Promoting literacy during play by designing early childhood classroom environments. Reading Teacher, 44(6), 396-402.
ABSTRACT: Evaluates the effects that environmental changes in early childhood activity centers and patterns of teacher guidance have on children's literacy behavior. Finds that the children are likely to engage in voluntary literacy behaviors during free play when literacy materials are introduced and teachers guide children to use those materials.

Morrow, L. M. (1990, December). Preparing the classroom environment to promote literacy during play. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 5(4), 537-554.
ABSTRACT: Examined whether the voluntary literacy behaviors (LBs) of children could be increased in type and quantity through design changes by including reading and writing materials in dramatic play areas. 13 preschool classes consisted of 1 control group and 3 experimental groups: (1) thematic play (TP) with literacy materials guided by teachers; (2) TP with literacy materials not guided by teachers; and (3) books, pencils, and papers supplied in unthemed dramatic play areas with teacher guidance. LBs increased significantly in all the experimental groups over the control group. TP with teacher guidance yielded the greatest gains. The effect of the treatments continued after a delayed period of time. Implications support the importance of the physical environment as a catalyst for changing behavior.

Neuman, S. B., & Roskos, K. (1990). The influence of literacy-enriched play settings on preschoolers' engagement with written language. National Reading Conference Yearbook, 39, 179-187.
ABSTRACT: Examined the influence of literacy-enriched play centers on preschoolers conceptions of print. 37 4-5 yr olds were observed in their preschool classrooms for 2 wks for literacy behaviors during play. Their classrooms were then redesigned to emphasize literacy. The redesigning included separating play areas, labeling items, and creating 4 distinct areas (post office, library, office, and kitchen). After 4 wks in the new environment, Ss were observed for 2 wks. Literacy demonstrations increased and became more functional for the Ss and more embedded in their play. As a result, the play gave greater coherence and meaning to literacy. Thus, literacy-enriched play centers can influence young children's literacy activities.

Quay, L. C., Weaver, J. H., & Neel, J. H. (1986). The effects of play materials on positive and negative social behaviors in preschool boys and girls. Child Study Journal, 16(1): 67-76.
ABSTRACT: Randomly sampled 11 preschool play centers located within a classroom where 24 children (mean age 66 mo) were enrolled to observe Ss' behaviors during free play, focusing on the frequency with which Ss attended to particular play center environments, the frequency of social and nonsocial behaviors, and the quality (positive [P] or negative [N]) of social interactions. Results from 2 log-linear analyses, each of which permitted the simultaneous comparison of all 11 play centers, indicate that play centers differed in frequency of use, and that, overall, Ss engaged in more social than nonsocial and more P than N behavior. A significant play center by social/nonsocial behavior interaction indicated that more social behavior occurred in some play centers than in others. A significant play center by P/N social behavior interaction indicated that more N social behavior occurred in woodworking and doll/dollhouse environments. A significant play center by gender interaction indicated that boys played more in woodworking, manipulative, and language centers; while girls played more in paints, housekeeping, games, art, and book centers.

Tegano, D. W., Lookabaugh, S., May, G. E., & Burdette, M. P. (1991, March). Constructive play and problem solving: The role of structure and time in the classroom. Early Child Development and Care, 68, 27-35.
ABSTRACT: Observed 40 preschool and kindergarten children (aged 48-79 mo) playing with Playdough and blocks to examine the effects of degrees of situational structuring on the relative amount of constructive play. Situational structuring ranged over materials only, materials plus (un)structured props, and materials plus model/instructions. Results pointed to an increase in constructive play when the child imposed structure on the play situation and a decrease when the teacher imposed the structure. Data suggest that high levels of teacher structuring may not provide children opportunities for problem solving.

Specific to Children with Disabilities

Constantine, J. L. (2001, March). Integrating thematic-fantasy play and phonological awareness activities in a speech-language preschool environment. Journal of Instructional Psychology. 28(1), 9-14.
ABSTRACT: Describes the experimental integration of 2 selected intervention strategies for children with speech articulation/phonological disorders in a preschool setting: (1) thematic-fantasy play and (2) phonological awareness instruction. The treatment philosophy is based upon tenets of phonological development and the anticipated positive effects of play training of learning. Intervention was performed over a 10 wk period in a self-contained phonology preschool group of 4, 4-yr-old males. Effects of combining thematic-fantasy play and activities targeting discrimination and production of rhyming words were examined. Findings suggest positive gains in phonological awareness across the group. Potential benefit for generalization of metaphonological skills to other contexts are also pointed out.

Goldstein, H., & Cisar, C. L. (1992, Summer). Promoting interaction during sociodramatic play: Teaching scripts to typical preschoolers and classmates with disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25(2), 265-280.
ABSTRACT: Investigated the effects of teaching sociodramatic scripts on subsequent interaction among 3 triads, each containing 2 typical children (aged 3-5 yrs) and 1 child with autistic characteristics. The same type and rate of teacher prompts were implemented throughout structured play observations to avoid confounding effects. After learning the scripts, all children demonstrated more frequent theme-related social behavior. These improvements in social-communicative interaction were replicated through training with 3 sociodramatic scripts (pet shop, carnival, magic show) according to a multiple baseline design. These effects were maintained during training with successive scripts and when the triads were reconstituted to include new but similarly trained partners. Results provide support for the inclusion of systematic training with scripts to enhance interaction among children with and without disabilities during sociodramatic play.

Hanline, M. F., & Fox, L. (1993, Summer). Learning within the context of play: Providing typical early childhood experiences for children with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18(2), 121-129.
ABSTRACT: Provides support for play-based environment as the most natural instructional context for young children with severe disabilities. Application of a play-based curriculum requires neither an abandonment of effective instructional special education practice nor a violation of early childhood education (ECE) best practice. Adopting such an approach represents a conceptual step away from existing practice. Further, allowing play activities to form the foundation on which effective instruction and classroom organization are built requires the utilization of best practice in the fields of ECE and early childhood special education in conjunction with effective practices for educating students with severe disabilities.

Hestenes, L. L., & Carroll, D. E. (2000). The play interactions of young children with and without disabilities: Individual and environmental influences. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(2), 229-246.
ABSTRACT: Examined preschool children's play interactions and beliefs in inclusive preschool settings in order to better understand the experience of inclusive classrooms for children with and without disabilities. Individual interviews of 21 typically developing children and observations of 29 children with and without disabilities in the classroom and on the playground provided data for the study. Summaries of children's play patterns showed a tendency for children without disabilities to engage in more cooperative play and less solitary play and onlooking behavior than did their peers with disabilities. Descriptive comparisons of activity choice showed a high level of similarity between the types of activities that children with and without disabilities selected during free play. Typically developing children spent less time interacting with their peers with disabilities than was expected, and children with disabilities interacted less with their typically developing peers than was expected. An understanding of disability was predictive of stated preference to play with hypothetical peers with disabilities. Actual interactions with peers with disabilities were predicted by children's age and teacher presence, but not by an understanding of disability or stated playmate preference.

Lieber, J. (1993, July). A comparison of social pretend play in young children with and without disabilities. Early Education and Development, 4(3), 148-161.
ABSTRACT: The social pretend play exhibited by 15 children (mean age 52.13 mo) with mild disabilities (i.e., delays in speech and language, cerebral palsy, mild mental retardation) was compared with that exhibited by 15 children (mean age 50.73 mo) without disabilities in an integrated preschool setting. Videotapes of 2 15-min free-play sessions were transcribed and analyzed to determine strategies used to enter, initiate, maintain, and terminate play. Ss with disabilities participated in pretend play but tended to use more direct and disruptive strategies to enter play. In contrast, non-disabled Ss used more indirect strategies. Both groups initiated play without discussing roles in advance and maintained play through short play dialogs. Differences were found in the pretend play themes used: only non-disabled Ss incorporated fantasy themes into their play. Both groups terminated their play by leaving the area.

Minnett, A., Clark, K., & Wilson, G. (1994, October). Play behavior and communication between deaf and hard of hearing children and their hearing peers in an integrated preschool. American Annals of the Deaf, 139(4), 420429.
ABSTRACT: 30 deaf and hard-of-hearing preschoolers and 30 hearing ones (all Ss aged 3-5 yrs) were observed in their integrated school during "centers" and outdoor play. Half the children experienced auditory communication and half total communication modes of communication. All children had known their classmates for 6 mo to 3 yrs. It was found that all children preferred to play and communicate with same-hearing status children; however, 63% of all children communicated with children of other-hearing status. Amounts of social play and communication differed somewhat between the 2 communication environments, and context of interaction was related to the behavior and communication of children who were deaf and hard-of-hearing.

Back to top of page

Curriculum and the IEP

What is Access to the General Education Curriculum?

The IDEA Amendments of 1997 first introduced the concept that students with disabilities are entitled to access, participation and progress within the general education curriculum. IDEA 2004 continued to focus attention on the general education curriculum for all children. One might ask, what does this mean and how can we achieve this for young children with disabilities?

In the early childhood years, the general education curriculum has been defined as natural environments (Part C) and appropriate activities (Part B). Examples would include family routines, social activities, early literacy and math activities, sharing-listening skills. In essence, the general curriculum f time, independent play, and or young children includes the activities that children of that chronological age engage in as part of their daily routines, preschool programs, and/or informal activities.

IDEA includes several requirements in the development of Individual Education Plan s (IEPs) that help explain how educators can ensure that young children are involved in, and make progress in, the general curriculum: 1) IEP goals must be related to involvement and/or progress in the general curriculum; 2) the IEP must specify appropriate supplementary aids and services, accommodations, modifications, or supports needed by the child to have access to, be involved in, or make progress in the general curriculum; 3) the IEP must indicate the manner in which progress toward IEP goals will be measured; and, 4) the IEP must include an explanation if the student will not be provided services in a regular education setting.

The 1997 Amendments concerning access, participation, and progress in the general curriculum have raised expectations for young children with disabilities. Karger and Hitchcock state “ (2003, pg 11) access to the general curriculum far exceeds the earlier notion of access to special education services and physical access to the school building, and goes beyond the concepts of mainstreaming and inclusion. At the same time, access by itself does not denote any standards or benchmarks; it represents a first step. Involvement in and progress in the general curriculum help explain how access is to be achieved, and in many instances the IEP is the conduit for ensuring access”.

_{Karger, J., & Hitchcock, C. (2003). Access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities: A brief legal interpretation. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved March 9, 2007, from http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_accesslegal.html - Webpage has since been removed.}

Using Curriculum to Create Meaningful and Measurable Early Childhood Outcomes/Goals

The 2004 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) continues to focus our attention on the general education curriculum for all children. For young children, the general education curriculum has been defined as natural environments (Part C) and appropriate activities (Part B). Examples of such activities would include family routines, social activities, early literacy and math activities, sharing-time, independent play, and listening skills.

Measurable annual outcomes/goals set the direction for instruction in special education, however they are not the general curriculum. While outcomes/goals help families and teachers gauge progress and assure that a steady flow of communication takes place, they are too narrowly focused to be considered curriculum. Rather, the IFSP/IEP describes how a child’s disability affects involvement and progress in the general education curriculum, links assessment to curriculum, and describes the degree of match between the child’s performance and the expectations of general curriculum standards.

The following information outlines steps early childhood professionals can use to select goals/outcomes that support children’s progress and participation in the general curriculum.  They were originally presented as part of the KITS technical assistance packet Creating Meaningful and Measurable IEP Goals and Objectives. Further information on IFSP/IEP development can be found in the following KITS TA packets:

• Creating Meaningful and Measurable IEP Goals and Objectives    
• Writing Family-Guided IFSP Outcomes 

Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLAAFP) Development

The statement of a child’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (PLAAFP) is the cornerstone of the individual education plan (IEP) and an integral part of the Individual Family Service Plan (IFSP). The PLAAFP links IFSP/IEP components to the outcomes/goals selected. The purpose of the PLAAFP is to identify the child’s needs and establish a baseline of the child’s performance in appropriate activities. The PLAAFP is then used to develop meaningful and measurable outcomes/goals. The PLAAFP statement is a narrative. It should be brief, understandable and accurately describe a child’s performance in all areas of education affected by their disability.

The PLAAFP serves as a bridge between the evaluation process and the measurable annual outcomes/goals. The PLAAFP should:

• be stated in terms that are specific, measurable, and objective
• describe current performance, not past performance
• describe the effect of the disability on the child’s progress in appropriate activities
• prioritize and identify needs that will be written as outcomes/goals
• identify strengths as they relate to possible interventions
• provide baseline data for each need

Therefore, the PLAAFP spells out how a child’s delay affects his/her ability to participate in activities such as singing songs, painting and coloring pictures, working in groups, making and playing with friends, etc. By identifying how a child’s delay affects their ability to progress in appropriate activities, the team can identify and prioritize needs from which outcomes/goals can then be created.  For example, if Suzie’s delay in expressive language is keeping her from making friends (Suzie is unable to verbally initiate, respond to and, maintain social interactions) this need may be identified as a priority.

Describing child performance

Early childhood professionals may find it difficult to describe a child’s performance in appropriate activities because they have not collected enough information during the evaluation process.  Many teams spend large amounts of time assessing children using published norm-referenced instruments.

These instruments assess child performance within developmental domains (e.g., cognitive, social/ emotional, self help, motor, and communication) and describe that performance relative to peers of the same age. They help to answer the question “Is there a delay in the child’s development?” While, this is important information and may help establish eligibility; it is only one part of the evaluation process.

The second question to be answered is, “If a delay exists, how is that delay affecting the child’s ability to participate and progress in appropriate activities?” This question should be answered through other methods. To assess how a delay affects a child’s ability to participate in appropriate activities, the team must use methods that assess the child within those activities. The team can use a variety of formal and informal measures, such as published curriculum-based assessments or criterion-referenced tests, structured observations, rating scales, rubrics, portfolio assessments, work sample analysis, language samples, and checklists. Information collected using such methods will provide good baseline data to be used in the PLAAFP.

Example PLAAFPs

1. Katie is an outgoing 4-year old girl who has motor delays. She is above average intellectually and is very verbal.  Katie has many friends at home and at school, and is described by her teachers as very motivated to learn new things. Katie enjoys preschool and spends time in all of the learning centers. During classroom activities, Katie is able to hold crayons, markers and other writing utensils in her fist, and makes scribbles on paper. She paints using down strokes only with a paintbrush, as noted in structured observations and work sample analysis. Typically, children of the same age hold writing utensils between their thumb and forefingers and can copy lines, circles and simple figures. They are able to make up and down strokes as well as circular pattern s with a paintbrush. Katie’s fine motor abilities keep her from being able to create representational artwork like that of other children her same age.
2. Sally enjoys listening to stories individually, with an adult, and is able to maintain her attention from beginning to end of a story. Structured observations conducted during large group activities (lasting 15 minutes or more) indicate that Sally is able to maintain her attention to the speaker of the group for 2 minutes without physical or verbal support from staff. After the 2-minute time frame, staff must physically redirect Sally back to circle time as Sally frequently tries to leave the group to play with other toys in the classroom. Typically, children of the same age will attend to a group activity for approximately 10 minutes with minimal verbal redirection. Sally’s attention span interferes with her ability to gain new information from group activities such as story time.
3. Joe has many friends, and enjoys participating in group activities. Joe is easy to work with, maintains good eye contact, and follows directions well. During playtime activities, Joe is unable to communicate his wants and needs easily. Joe exhibits the following phonemes substitutions: t/f, d/g, w/l, d/v, w/r, t/ch, t/th, t /sh, d/z, tls, and vowelization of the “r” controlled vowels as measured by the Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale (AAPS). Joe has difficulty describing things and events to his peers and adults when those items or events are not immediately present. In these situations Joe is unable to use his strong nonverbal communication to help others understand him.

Measurable Annual Outcomes/Goals

Well written outcomes/goals are meaningful as well as measurable. Meaningful and measurable outcomes/goals can be easily monitored, and therefore are useful for making educational decisions. An outcome/goal is meaningful when it describes a behavior/skill that will have a real impact on the success of a child in current as well as future environments. Therefore, the team should select outcomes/goals that are not likely to develop without intervention. Outcomes/goals are meaningful when they enhance and address multiple areas in the child’s life, match the child’s developmental level, and are based on the progress a child can reasonably be expected to achieve.

A good way to determine if a goal is meaningful is to apply the “so what” test. In this test, the team asks, “What will the ability to execute the goal do for the child?” The following is an example of the “so what” test:

Goal   

In 12 months, during personal sharing time at school, Kelly will appropriately respond to the topic and initiations of others (i.e., stay on topic, ask pertinent questions, make related statements) 80% of the time, as measured on 5 consecutive, structured observations.

So What?   

So Kelly will be able to gain appropriate information, maintain positive relationships with peers and adults, and function appropriately in group activities.

In this example, there are many benefits to Kelly in accomplishing the goal. The answers to the “so what” test is useful for Kelly, and therefore the goal is meaningful. Had the team been unable to provide a good answer to the “so what” test, then the goal would not be functional and another goal should be selected.

The second test used by the team to identify the appropriateness of a goal is the “stranger test”. Outcomes/goals should be written so that anyone who is working with the child, including the parents, can use the information to develop appropriate intervention plans as well as assess the child’s progress.

To write measurable outcomes/goals start with the baseline data provided in the PLAAFP. What do you know about what the child can do? In the first PLAAFP example, we know that Katie is able to hold crayons, markers and other writing utensils in her fist, and make scribbles on paper. She paints using down strokes only with a paintbrush.  Given the baseline information we also know that a typically developing child of the same age holds the same types of utensils between the thumb and forefingers. These are all observable behaviors and can therefore be measured. We also know from the PLAAFP that Katie’s inability to hold the writing utensils between her thumb and forefingers is keeping her from being able to create representational artwork like that of other children her same age. We could hypothesize that without intervention, Katie will improve in her ability to draw because she doesn’t avoid these types of activities in school, and has the cognitive skills necessary for this skill. However, we also know that Katie’s peers will be improving at a much faster rate. Without intervention, the gap between Katie’s skills and her peers will continue to get larger. Given this information we could write a measurable goal as follows:

In 12 months, when provided with writing utensils (crayons, markers, pencils) Katie will create representational artwork while holding writing utensils between her thumb and forefingers on 4 out of 5 consecutive opportunities.

References

Kansas State Department of Education Student Support Services. (2000, July). The individualized education program. In Special education process handbook (pp. 4-15, -16, -19, -20, -21). Topeka: Author. Retrieved March 9, 2007, from http://www.ksde.org/Default.aspx?tabid=101 - Webpage has since been removed.

Nebraska Department of Education. (n.d.). Present level of education performance (PLEP). Retrieved March 9, 2007, from http://www.nde.state.ne.us/SPED/iepproj/develop/pre.html  - Webpage has since been removed. 

Office of Special Education Programs. (2002). IDEA’97 amendments: Final regulations. Retrieved March 9, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/reg/regulations.html - Webpage has since moved to https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/reg/regulations.html

U. S. Department of Education Office of Special Education. (n.d.). IDEA practices: Special education questions and answers written by the experts. Retrieved January 22, 2003, from http://www.ideapractices.org/qanda/qanda.php?showCat=33&showSub=37-top - Webpage has since been removed. 

Walsh, S., Smith, B. J., & Taylor, R. C. (2000). IDEA requirements for preschoolers with disabilities: IDEA early childhood policy and practice guide.  Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Wright, P. D., & Wright, P. W. (2003). Your child’s IEP: Practical and legal guidance for parents. Retrieved March 9, 2007, from wrightslaw.com/advoc/articles/iep_guidance.html

Individually Appropriate Practice

The next few pages are a section in another Technical Assistance packet developed by KITS, Developmentally Appropriate Practices, which can be found under TA packets 'For Professionals Working with Children Age Birth to Five'. In addition, information on designing individually appropriate interventions can be found in another packet, What do You do When You Get There? Providing Itinerant Services in Inclusive Settings, which can be found under the same section.

Krista

Krista will turn five years old in January, making her the oldest child in your four-year old group.  Krista’s play, language, and motor development are, however, typical of a child two years younger.  She communicates only in short sentences, has difficulty manipulating small objects, and has a limited attention span.

Krista enjoys working with manipulatives, but she is better at taking apart the buildings of others than building her own.  She also has difficulty joining children in the dramatic play area, since she can’t get involved at the same level of fantasy play as her peers.  When the other children do let her join, she is often asked to be the baby sister and ride in the carriage even if she really wants to be a fire fighter.  Krista is often found in the art area where she works alone, making random lines across piece after piece of paper.

Classroom  Activity

You are designing an activity for the dramatic play area called “Pretend Store”.  The area has been arranged to look like a store with aisles, cash register and other props.  In this area, the children will be encouraged to remember and act out typical “going to the store” activities.  For example,  they may be asked to “plan for the trip to the store” by making a list ahead of time;  they may use real money or create play money to use to buy the goods. They may also choose to pretend to be a store clerk or cashier.  General learning outcomes related to this activity include:  Taking on pretend roles in play; the importance of planning in every day life; money exchanged for goods and services; and prewriting skills.

Your challenge is to plan and facilitate activities that are individually appropriate for Krista, within this developmentally appropriate activity.

Adapting to Meet Individual Needs

When adapting lessons or activities, it is important to start first with what the child can do.  Creating appropriate activities requires educators to build upon the strengths of individual children.  In relation to the store activity,  list what you know Krista can do in each domain area (i.e. language,  communication, motor, cognition). To illustrate this process we have identified one fine motor skill.

• Example:
  • Krista can do
    • Take things apart
  • Next Step
    • (To fill out)
  • Adapt/Modify
    • (To fill out)
  • Staff
    • (To fill out)

The next step is to determine what you would like Krista to learn.  Looking at Krista’s “can do list” write down what you believe to be the next higher skill.  In the example above, we noted that Krista can take things apart. We also know that Krista likes to take apart buildings of others, rather than her own, which may causing some problems.  Therefore, the next skill level for Krista in the area of “taking apart” might look something like this:

• Example:
  • Krista can do
    • Take things apart
  • Next Step
    • Take things apart upon request of a teacher or peer
  • Adapt/Modify
    • (To fill out)
  • Staff
    • (To fill out)

You have identified specific goals and objectives which are individually appropriate for Krista. Now identify specific resources, instructional strategies and/or modifications to the environment that must be to put in place to help Krista be successful.

• Example:
  • Krista can do
    • Take things apart
  • Next Step
    • Take things apart upon request of a teacher or peer
  • Adapt/Modify
    • Pre-teach Krista to take the groceries out of the shopping car and put them into a bag so she will have a clearly identified role during the play session. 
  • Staff
    • (To fill out)

Once strategies, modifications and materials have been identified, make a list of the staff person(s) responsible for these activities as well as how or where special instruction might take place.

• Example:
  • Krista can do
    • Take things apart
  • Next Step
    • Take things apart upon request of a teacher or peer
  • Adapt/Modify
    • Pre-teach Krista to take the groceries out of the shopping car and put them into a bag so she will have a clearly identified role during the play session. 
  • Staff
    • ECSE T-Direct Instruction
    • SPL-In conjunction with speech lesson

Developmentally appropriate practice suggests that activities are age appropriate and individually appropriate.  Such activities build upon what children know and can do. When adapting lessons or activities to meet the needs of individual children we must build upon individual strengths.  The key is planning ahead and planning for individual success.

Adapting Lesson Plans (Example)

• Lesson/Activity
  • Pretend Store. House area set up like a store with aisles, cash register and other props. Children are encouraged to "plan for the trip to the store" by making a list ahead of time. General learning outcomes related to this activity include:
    • taking on pretend roles in play
    • The importance of planning in everyday life
    • money exchanged for goods and services
    • prewriting skills
• Learning Outcomes
  • New roles in play with peers
  • Maintain attention in play with peers. 
• Materials needed
  • Paper/pencils for lists
  • Cash register/real or play money
  • Shopping carts
  • Food boxes/play food
  • Wallet/purse
• Student
  • Krista is 4 years old.
  • Language, play and motor skills in the 2 years range
  • Likes manipulatives, fine motor activities (i.e. tear down blocks, paint with brush).
  • Parallel play stage
• Can do:
  • Parallel play - alongside peer
  • Wants to play in group/take on role
  • Fine motor skills:
    • take apart blocks
    • paint lines with brush
• Next Step
  • Using props in play with peers
  • Sustained attention in play with peers
  • Communicating wishes to peers regarding role play
  • Take apart during appropriate times
• Adapt/Modify
  • Pre-teach a role to Krista including props (e.g. cashier, store clerk_
  • Reinforce peers for interaction with Krista
  • Extend Krista's communication during play (i.e. 'You are taking the money Krista")
  • Pre-teach activities "taking out' that facilitate role play (e.g. taking objects out of the cart)

_{Goosen, M., & Lindeman, D. P. (1996) Developmentally appropriate practices. Parsons, KS: Kansas University Center on Developmental Disabilities.} 

Questions for Reflection:  Curriculum and Young Children with Disabilities

These questions can be used for personal study and/or as questions to guide study group discussions.

1. What is the general curriculum for young children (birth – 5 years)?
2. Describe the relationship between the IFSP/IEP and the general curriculum?
3. What purpose do the Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLAAFP) serve?
4. Describe the relationship between the early childhood assessment and IFSP/IEP development?
5. How would you describe the difference between intervention and curriculum?
6. What types of curriculum modifications, adaptations and interventions support the learning of young children with disabilities within the general curriculum?
7. How can home-based programs utilize the general curriculum?
8. How can itinerant programs utilize the general curriculum?
9. How can center-based programs utilize the general curriculum?
10. What are some important considerations when making curricular choices?

Back to top of page

Assessment

• This section has a matrix on Curriculum-Based Assessments. To receive digital copies, please email kskits@ku.edu.

Indicators of Effective Early Childhood Assessment

• Ethical principles underlie all assessment practices
• Assessment instruments are used for their intended purposes (screening, identification, program planning)
• Assessments are appropriate for ages and other characteristics (cultures, home language, socioeconomic status, abilities/disabilities) of children being assessed
• Assessment instruments are in compliance with professional criteria for quality (valid and reliable)
• What is assessed is developmentally and educationally significant
• Assessment information is used to understand and improve learning
• Assessment evidence is gathered from realistic settings and situations that reflect children’s actual performance
• Assessments use multiple sources of evidence gathered over time
• Screening is always linked to followup
• Use of individually administered, norm-referenced tests is limited
• Staff and families are knowledgeable about assessment

_{National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2003). Early childhood curriculum, assessment, and program evaluation: Building an effective, accountable system in programs for children birth though age 8. Retrieved March 9, 2007, from http://www.naeyc.org/about/positions.asp - Webpage has since been removed.} 

Back to top of page

Resources

Curriculum Comparison

Early Childhood Curriculum Materials Available from the Early Childhood Resource Center

 A Curriculum For All Young Children, EC SPEED Curriculum Guide  Johnson, L.; Johnson, P.; McMillan, R.; Rogers, C.

 Adapting Curriculum & Instruction in Inclusive Classrooms (video); Burrello, L.; Cole, C.; Burrello, J.

 Assessment, Evaluation and Programming System for Infants and Children, Vol. 1; Bricker, D.

 Connecting Content, Teaching, and Learning: A Supplement to The Creative Curriculum for Early Childhood, 3rd ed.;Dodge, D. T.; Colker, L. J.; Heroman, C.

 Links to Literacy: The Preschool Curriculum for Reading Readiness, Vol. 1-4; Reece, L.

 Literacy: The Creative Curriculum Approach; Heroman, C. and Jones, C.

 Project Approach: Taking a Closer Look (video); Chard, Sylvia

A Trainer's Guide to the Creative Curriculum for Infants & Toddlers; Dodge, D. T.

A Trainer's Guide to The Creative Curriculum for Preschool, Vol. 1., Getting Started; Heroman, C. and Jones, C.

A Trainer's Guide to The Creative Curriculum for Preschool, Vol. 2, Literacy; Heroman, C. and Jones, C.

Achieving Learning Goals Through Play: Teaching Young Children with Special Needs, 2nd ed.; Widerstrom, Anne H.

Activities in Reasoning, Receptive Language, Expressive Language: Carolina Developmental Curriculum Book 2; Strum, T., editor

Adapting Curricular Materials, Vol. 1, Toward Successful Inclusion of Students with Disabilities: The Architecture of Instruction; Kame'enui, E.; Simmons, D.

Adapting Curricular Materials, Vol. 2, Adapting Reading and Math Materials for the Inclusive Classroom; Schumm, J.

Adapting Curricular Materials, Vol. 3, Adapting Language Arts, Social Studies, and Science Materials for the Inclusive Classroom; Lenz, K.; Schumaker, J.

Adapting the Early Childhood Curricula for Children in Inclusive Settings; Cook, R. E.

Assessment, Evaluation and Programming System for Infants and Children, Vol. 2 test for birth to three years and three to six years; Bricker, D.

Assessment, Evaluation and Programming System for Infants and Children, Vol. 3 curriculum for birth to three years; Bricker, D.

Assessment, Evaluation and Programming System for Infants and Children, Vol. 4 curriculum for three to six years; Bricker, D.

Authentic Childhood; Exploring Reggio Emilia in the Classroom; Fraser, S.; Gestwicki, C.

Before Your Child Talks: A Curriculum for Building Social Habits that Prepare Children for Language; MacDonald, J.

Building a Language-Focused Curriculum for the Preschool Classroom:  A Foundation for Lifelong Communication; Rice, M.; Wilcox, K.

Building a Language-Focused Curriculum for the Preschool Classroom: A Planning Guide;  Bunce, B.

Building Blocks for Teaching Preschoolers with Special Needs; Sandall, S. R; Schwartz, I. S.

Building Walls of Wombats: Constructing Knowledge with Young Children; Lubawy, J

Child Care Plus+, Curriculum on Inclusion: Practical Strategies for Early Childhood Programs; Mulligan, S.; Morris, S.; Green, K.; Harper-Whalen, S.

Complete Early Childhood Curriculum Resource: Success-Oriented Learning Experiences for All Children; Sobut, M.; Bogen, B.

Creating Child-Centered Classrooms, 3-5 Year Olds; Coughlin, P et al.

Creating Child-Centered Programs for Infants and Toddlers; Szanton, E.

DLM Early Childhood Express            

Early Childhood Special Education Program Design and Evaluation Guide, Curriculum and Methodology: EC-SPEED (video); Johnson, L.; Johnson, P.; McMillan, R.; Rogers, C.

Early Childhood Special Education Program Design and Evaluation Guide, EC-SPEED; Johnson, L.; Johnson, P.; McMillan, R.; Rogers, C. 

Educating and Caring for Very Young Children: The Infant/Toddler Curriculum; Bergen, D.; Reid, R.; Torelli, L.

Engaging Children's Minds: The Project Approach; Katz, L.

Hawaii Early Learning Profile, HELP for Preschoolers Assessment & Curriculum Guide; Vort Corporation

High/Scope Approach for Under Threes (video)       

High/Scope Curriculum: It’s Implementation in Family Childcare Homes (video)    

Infant Curriculum: Great Explorations (video)          

Innovations: The Comprehensive Infant & Toddler Curriculum, A Complete Interactive Curriculum for Infants from Birth to 18 months; Miller, L.; Albrecht, K.

Innovations: The Comprehensive Infant & Toddler Curriculum, Trainer's Guide; Miller, L.; Albrecht, K.

Innovations: The Comprehensive Infant & Toddler Curriculum; A Self-Directed Teacher's Guide; Miller, L.; Albrecht, K.

Language is the Key: Constructive Interactions Around Picture Books and Play; Cole, Kevin

Language is the Key: Constructive Interactions Around Picture Books and Play (CD) ; Cole, Kevin

Linking Assessment and Early Intervention: An Authentic Curriculum-Based Approach; Bagnato, S.;  Neisworth,  J.;  Munson, S.

More Toddlers Together: The Complete Planning Guide For a Toddler Curriculum, Vol. 2; Catlin, C.

Next Steps Toward Teaching the Reggio Way: Accepting the Challenge to Change, 2nd ed.; Hendrick, J., ed.

Phonemic Awareness in Young Children; Adams, M. J.        

Piaget’s Theory Applied to an Early Childhood Curriculum; Lavatelli, Celia Stendler

Reaching Potentials: Transforming Early Childhood Curriculum and Assessment; Bredekamp and Rosegrant, editors

Read, Play and Learn! Storybook Activities for Young Children; Linder, T.

Spark Curriculum for Early Childhood: Implementation Guide; Lewman, B; Fowler, S.

Spark Curriculum for Early Childhood: Vol. 1-2; Lewman, B; Fowler, S.

Taking Part: Introducing Social Skills to Young Children; Cartledge, G.; Kleefeld, J.

Teaching Social Skills to Children; Cartledge,G.; Milburn, J.

The Carolina Curriculum for Infants & Toddlers with Special Needs, 2nd ed; Johnson-Martin, N. M., Attermeier, S. M., and Hacker, B. J.

The Creative Curriculum for Infants, Toddlers & Twos Developmental Continuum Assessment Toolkit; Dodge, D. T.

The Creative Curriculum for Infants, Toddlers & Twos, 2nd ed.; Dodge, D. T.; Rudick, S.; Berke, K.

The Creative Curriculum for Preschool Developmental Continuum Assessment Toolkit; Dodge, D. T.

The Creative Curriculum for Preschool, 4th ed.; Dodge, D. T., Colker, L. J, & Heroman, C.

The Early Childhood Curriculum, Current Findings in Theory and Practice 3rd ed.; Seefeldt, C., editor

The Early Childhood Curriculum: Current Findings in Theory and Practice, 3rd ed.; Seefeldt, C., ed.

The Emotional Development of Young Children: Building an Emotion-Centered Curriculum, 2nd ed.; Hyson, M.

The Full-Day Kindergarten: Planning and Practicing a Dynamic Themes Curriculum; Fromberg, D.

The Integrated Early Childhood Curriculum; Krogh, S.

The Portage Classroom Curriculum; Brinckerhoff, J.

The Project Approach: Developing Curriculum with Children, Vol. 2; Chard, S.

The Project Approach: Practical Guide, Vol. 1; Chard, S.

The Work Sampling System: Professional Development Guide Kit, 4th ed.; Meisels, S. J. et. al

Thinking Big: Extending Emergent Curriculum Projects; (video)      

Toddlers Together: The Complete Planning Guide for a Toddler Curriculum, Vol.1; Catlin, C.

Transdisciplinary Play-Based Intervention: Guidelines for Developing a Meaningful Curriculum for Young Children; Linder, T.

*These items are available from:

KITS Early Childhood Resource Center
2601 Gabriel, Parsons, KS 67357
Email: resourcecenter@ku.edu
Phone: 620-421-3067

Back to top of page

Packet Evaluation

Please take a few minutes to complete the brief online survey above. Your feedback is central to our evaluation of the services and materials provided by KITS.

Back to top of page