naeyc standards for early childhood professional ... naeyc initial licensure standards introduction...

1

NAEYC Initial Licensure Standards

Introduction

Why have standards for early childhoodprofessional preparation?

This document presents one part of NAEYC’sstandards for the preparation of early childhoodprofessionals. The standards in this document arespecifically intended for higher educationprograms that prepare practitioners at the “initiallicensure” or certification level (usually a bacca-laureate or master’s degree). However, thestandards, and the principles that these stan-dards represent, are relevant to many otherprofessional development settings. NAEYCrecognizes and welcomes all those who teachyoung children—whatever their current educa-tion and experience—into the community ofprofessional practice. NAEYC honors the com-mitment that draws so many talented people intothis field, and we hope that these and otherprofessional standards will help create a unifiedvision of excellence, with multiple, well-articu-lated professional pathways.

Standards and NAEYC’s missionWhy should NAEYC have standards for the

preparation of early childhood professionals?NAEYC’s mission is to improve the quality ofservices for children from birth through age 8.Over the years, NAEYC has supported thatmission through its leadership in developingposition statements, guidelines, and standards onbehalf of the profession. Collaboratively devel-

oped standards can provide a solid, commonlyheld foundation from which diverse structuresmay arise, incorporating the wisdom of localcommunities, families, and practitioners.

Connecting with others through standardsBy developing and revising standards for early

childhood professional preparation, NAEYCconnects its vision of excellence with that ofmany other groups that are concerned aboutteacher preparation and performance. TheNational Council for Accreditation of TeacherEducation (NCATE) has general, or “unit,”standards that describe the kinds of knowledge,skills, and dispositions that all well-preparededucation professionals should possess.

NAEYC’s “program” standards are closelyaligned with those of NCATE but providespecific guidance about the preparation of earlychildhood professionals. Other NCATE-affiliatedgroups, including specialty professional associa-tions like NAEYC but in elementary education,special education, reading, mathematics, science,and social studies, set their own expectations forhigh-quality professional preparation. NAEYCcollaborates with those groups and works tocoordinate its standards with theirs. NAEYCworks especially closely with the Division forEarly Childhood (DEC) of the Council for Excep-tional Children (CEC) to ensure that our stan-dards complement and support one another, sothat all early childhood teachers are well pre-pared to teach young children with and withoutdevelopmental delays or disabilities.

Initial Licensure ProgramsApproved by NAEYC Governing Board, July 2001

Approved by NCATE, October 2001

NAEYC Standards for Early Childhood Professional Preparation

Introduction

2


Teacher preparation standards and positiveoutcomes for children

Finally, NAEYC’s standards for professionalpreparation are part of a larger set of expecta-tions, or standards, that together form an imageof what is required if all young children are toreceive the kind of early education they need anddeserve.

The context and scope of the earlychildhood field

ContextAs emphasized in NAEYC’s last standards

publication (NAEYC 1996a) and elsewhere (e.g.,NAEYC’s 1997 position statement Licensing andPublic Regulation of Early Childhood Programs), thefield of early childhood education differs insignificant ways from other domains of educa-tion, although it also shares common elements.As compared with elementary and secondaryteachers, early childhood professionals work inmany settings—not just public schools but alsochild care programs, private preschools andkindergartens, early intervention programsincluding Head Start and Early Head Start,family support and home-based programs, andso on. Similarly, the professional roles assumedby early childhood professionals are far morevaried than those typical in elementary andsecondary education—including roles as leadteachers, mentor teachers, education coordina-tors, early childhood trainers, inclusion special-ists, resource and referral staff, technical assis-tance specialists, early childhood technologyspecialists, early interventionists, and homevisitors. Even at institutions where the majorityof graduates take teaching positions in publicschools, high-quality early childhood profes-sional preparation programs convey to candi-dates the range and complexity of those roles,most of which involve significant collaborationacross professions, as well as collaboration withyoung children’s families.

ScopeNAEYC continues to define the “early child-

hood” period as spanning the years from birththrough age 8. As in past editions of its stan-dards, NAEYC recognizes that within that range,early childhood professionals—and the programsthat prepare them—may choose to specializewithin the early childhood spectrum (infants/toddlers, preschool, or kindergarten/primary).Teacher licensure complicates the picture, sincestates’ definitions of the early childhood age spanand its subdivisions vary greatly (McCarthy,Cruz, & Ratcliff 1999).

Specialization can be valuable, but NAEYCbelieves that all early childhood professionals

At the center . . .positive outcomes for

all young children

Professionals Programs

Content

Assessment

Practices

Yet standards cannot be rigid or “one size fitsall.” As the diagram above suggests, NAEYC’sexpectations—for children, for professionals, forprograms, for teaching practices, for curriculumcontent, and for assessment—are always embed-ded within the context of specific cultures andcommunities. Within those contexts, youngchildren are at the center of all of NAEYC’sefforts to set standards in early childhood educa-tion. If we intend to help all young childrendevelop and learn well, we need high expecta-tions for the programs they attend (see NAEYC’sAccreditation Criteria and Procedures for EarlyChildhood Programs [1998]), for the practices usedby their teachers (see NAEYC’s DevelopmentallyAppropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs[Bredekamp & Copple 1997]), and for the ap-proaches used in early childhood curriculumcontent and assessment (see NAEYC’s ReachingPotentials, Vols. 1 and 2 [Bredekamp & Rosegrant1992, 1995]). And we need high expectations forthe preparation and performance of early child-hood professionals—expectations that arearticulated in this document. Indeed, as thepicture shows, all of these expectations arelinked, and all are needed to support youngchildren’s development and learning. Finally, weneed a system for financing early education—asystem that ensures the resources needed to buildan infrastructure for excellence.

3


should have a broad knowledge of developmentand learning across the birth–age 8 range; thatthey should be familiar with appropriate curricu-lum and assessment approaches across that agespan; and that they should have in-depth knowl-edge and skills in at least two of the three sub-periods listed above. The reason is clear: Withoutknowing about the past and the future (theprecursors to children’s current development andlearning, and the trajectory they will follow inlater years), teachers cannot design effectivelearning opportunities within their specificprofessional “assignment.” In addition, today’sinclusive early childhood settings—those thatinclude young children with developmentaldelays and disabilities—require knowledge of aneven wider range of development and learningthan was needed in many classrooms of the past.

Two specific challenges face programs as theyprepare early childhood professionals within thebirth–age 8 range. First, even programs thatemphasize the upper end of the age range maynot adequately prepare candidates in the criticalcontent or subject matter areas needed to buildchildren’s academic success. Literacy is only oneexample: National reports (e.g., National Instituteof Child Health and Human Development 2000)repeatedly fault teacher education for failing toprovide candidates with research-based knowl-edge about reading and in-depth practicalexperience. But a second, equally importantconcern is the tendency for teacher educationprograms to give inadequate attention tochildren’s critical early years, especially thebirth–age 3 period. National studies (e.g.,Whitebook, Howes, & Phillips 1989, 1998) showthat quality is lowest for infant-toddler child careprograms, despite what is known about theimportance of that period for children’s laterlanguage, cognitive, and social-emotional devel-opment. Candidates who take positions in infant-toddler care but whose preparation has slightedthat period may fail to support children’s learn-ing and development because the curriculumand teaching strategies they were taught to useare more effective with older children. NAEYC’sstandards attempt to address both of thesechallenges.

Why revise now? Today’s context forstandards revisions

NAEYC last approved standards (then called“guidelines”) for initial licensure programs in1994. Why revise so soon? The new centurybrings new challenges (see, e.g., National Insti-tute on Early Childhood Development andEducation 2000). Profound changes driveNAEYC’s standards revision process.*

Changes in the knowledge base of the earlychildhood field

First, the knowledge base for the early child-hood field has expanded substantially since themid-1990s. Long-term follow-up studies from theChicago Parent-Child Centers, the AbecedarianProject, the Perry Preschool Project, and the Cost,Quality, and Outcomes Project continue todemonstrate the importance of high-quality earlyexperiences in homes, classrooms, and communi-ties (Barnett, Young, & Schweinhart 1998;Peisner-Feinberg et al. 1999; Campbell et al. 2002;Reynolds et al. 2001). Major reports from commit-tees of the National Research Council havesynthesized research on the science of learning(1999), early literacy (1998), early childhoodpedagogy and content (2001b), and integratedchild development knowledge (National Re-search Council and Institute of Medicine 2000).

Changes in contexts for early childhoodeducation

Recent years have seen increases in the numberof state-funded prekindergarten programs, withmore than 40 states now having some investmentin that form of early education. Public schoolinvolvement in early childhood education hasbrought with it an increased attention to stan-dards and accountability—as has Head Start’sChild Outcomes Framework. Early Head Starthas become a major form of early intervention forinfants and toddlers, with both center- andhome-based models implemented around thecountry. And inclusive early childhood pro-grams, although certainly in place at the time ofNAEYC’s last revision of its standards, are even

* NAEYC’s revised standards for advanced and associatedegree programs are available online at www.naeyc.org.

4


more widespread now and welcoming youngchildren with increasingly challenging disabili-ties and medical conditions. Technology, too, haschanged the context for young children both athome and at school, expanding learning opportu-nities as well as professional challenges.

Changes in early childhood demographicsThe face of America is rapidly changing. In

three states including California, European-Americans are no longer the majority group. U.S.babies born today will reach adulthood in acountry in which no one ethnic group predomi-nates. By the year 2005, children and adolescentsof color will represent 40 percent of all U.S.school children. The largest proportion of indi-viduals with disabilities is found in the preschoolpopulation. Thus, tomorrow’s early childhoodteachers must be prepared to serve and to value afar more diverse group of young children andfamilies than at any time in the past. In addition,the profession needs to recruit many more earlychildhood professionals who themselves sharechildren’s cultures and home languages. Institu-tions of higher education urgently need to createpolicies, incentives, and resources to recruitdiverse teacher candidates and teacher educationfaculty and to provide ongoing support.

Changes in states’ involvement in settingteacher preparation standards

Education reform is placing even greateremphasis on the preparation of teachers, withnational reports pointing to inadequate prepara-tion of teachers in areas including literacy(Committee 1998; National Institute of ChildHealth and Human Development 2000), knowl-edge of child development and of other contentareas (National Research Council 2001b), knowl-edge of children’s mental health and relationshipissues (Child Mental Health 2000), and knowl-edge of the importance of family involvement(Shartrand et al. 1997; Epstein, Sanders, & Clark1999). States have become increasingly involvedin setting standards for higher education institu-tions and for entry into the profession. In thatprocess, more states have forged partnershipswith NCATE, and increasingly with NAEYC.Those changes are resulting in closer ties be-tween national and state standards for earlychildhood teacher preparation.

Changes in general standards for teachereducation

In 1997, NCATE undertook a major revision ofits standards for “professional education units”—schools, colleges, or departments of education orentire institutions that engage in teacher prepara-tion. The new performance-based standards,announced in May 2000, present an image ofwhat competent professional education candi-dates should know and be able to do. NCATEgrouped its previous standards into a smallernumber of categories, and added rationales, or“explanations,” of each standard, “criticalelements” of that standard, and “rubrics” thatdescribe different levels of performance withrespect to each element. The nature of the evi-dence that institutions must provide in order todocument compliance with the NCATE stan-dards has changed dramatically. “Inputs”(courses, credits, hours) are far less importantsources of evidence than are multiple, aggregatedindicators of “outputs”—the results a particularprogram can demonstrate, in the quality of theteachers it produces and in their positive effectson children’s learning.

As an NCATE constituent member, NAEYChas engaged in a similar process, aiming to makeits standards even more performance-based;better supported by explanatory narratives,rubrics, and references; and even more focusedon candidates’ effects on the young children withwhom they work.

The process of standards revision

As with all its revisions of position statementsand other materials, NAEYC engaged in acomprehensive process to revise its standards forearly childhood professional preparation at theinitial licensure level. Important features of thatprocess were as follows:

• NAEYC began by soliciting comments concern-ing strengths and gaps in its 1994 initial certifica-tion Guidelines, using conference sessions andelectronic response options.

• In drafting revisions, NAEYC worked closelywith NCATE and a number of NCATE’s otherspecialty organizations. In particular, NAEYC’srevisions were influenced by the work of themultidisciplinary group (which included an

5


NAEYC representative) that drafted the newNCATE/ACEI Program Standards for Elemen-tary Teacher Preparation. NCATE intended thework of that group to provide a model for itsother specialty organizations. The format of theelementary standards document and NAEYC’sdesire to create a more coherent relationshipbetween elementary and early childhood stan-dards influenced NAEYC’s revisions.

• NAEYC worked collaboratively with otherprofessional groups that were also revising theirstandards, including with the Early Childhood/Generalist committee of the National Board forProfessional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) andwith the Division for Early Childhood of theCouncil for Exceptional Children.

• NAEYC consulted with other groups that havea stake in standards for early childhood profes-sional preparation. Those groups included theNational Association for Early ChildhoodTeacher Educators (NAECTE); the AmericanAssociate Degree Early Childhood Educators(ACCESS); the National Association of EarlyChildhood Specialists in State Departments ofEducation (NAECS/SDE); and the Council forProfessional Recognition. These are only a few ofthe groups with which NAEYC has continuingdiscussion about our collective work in develop-ing appropriate, high expectations for profes-sional preparation.

• In developing sections of NAEYC’s standardsin specific subject areas and other specializedareas of professional preparation, NAEYCconsulted with specialists affiliated with relatedorganizations including the National Associationfor Bilingual Education (NABE); the NationalCouncil of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM); theNational Association for Music Education(MENC); the International Reading Association(IRA); NAEYC’s own Technology and YoungChildren Interest Forum; and ZERO TO THREE.

• NAEYC’s revisions also align with generalprinciples and standards in teacher education.The INTASC principles (Interstate New TeacherAssessment and Support Consortium) werespecifically examined for congruence withNAEYC’s standards. Those principles, intendedfor all beginning teachers, are fully consistent

with NAEYC’s standards. Many states havespecifically adopted the INTASC principles, andso it is important that all specialty organizationsshare that common framework, while also settingforth their own professional expectations. Appen-dix A presents a framework for comparison of theINTASC principles with related sections of theNAEYC standards.

• Using those and other sources of insight, asubcommittee of NAEYC’s Professional Develop-ment Panel and NAEYC staff identified areas forrevision and appropriate formats for revision,and completed a first draft of a new InitialLicensure Standards document.

• It and later drafts were discussed at NAEYCconference sessions over the next two years; theyalso were posted on NAEYC’s Website forcomment. Revisions were made on the basis offeedback from the groups listed above andothers.

• NAEYC’s Governing Board reviewed a finalrevision of this Initial Licensure Standardsdocument and voted approval of its substance inJuly 2001.

• NCATE approval came in October 2001,beginning an 18-month transition for highereducation programs to the new NAEYC stan-dards and to a new, performance-based system ofdocumentation. After Spring 2003, all institutionsseeking NCATE accreditation for their initiallicensure programs must respond to thesestandards, with full implementation of theperformance assessment system in 2005.

NAEYC’s revised standards:What is the same?

For readers who are familiar with NAEYC’s 1994initial certification Guidelines, the new formatwill seem different, but they also will find muchhere that affirms that previous document’scentral focus.

The scope of early childhoodThese Initial Licensure Standards continue to

encompass the birth–age 8 range. They alsoaffirm and emphasize the diversity of settings inwhich early childhood professionals work.

6


tially greater explicitness about the knowledgeand skills necessary to serve children withdevelopmental delays and disabilities.

Enhanced emphasis on subject matterWhile continuing to emphasize child develop-

ment knowledge, in-depth integrated curricu-lum, and the central value of play in the lives ofchildren, these standards now are more specificabout what candidates should know and be ableto do in academic disciplines or subject matterareas (understanding of content/core concepts/tools of inquiry, and applications in curriculumdevelopment). This document explicitly linksthat subject matter knowledge to national profes-sional standards and to other key resources.While all candidates should have essentialsubject matter knowledge, these standards nowmake clear that different areas of specialization(e.g., infant/toddler and preschool specializationvs. kindergarten/primary) may call for differentlevels of knowledge and skill.

Enhanced emphasis on communities inwhich children live

This revision continues to emphasize candi-dates’ knowledge of young children’s families,but it adds greater understanding of the commu-nities in which children live and the importanceof embedding early childhood education withinparticular community settings.

More emphasis on the complexity of assess-ment issues in today’s educational settings

Assessment has been a critically important areafor professional preparation in the past. Thisrevision is even more explicit about the chal-lenges of appropriate, effective early childhoodassessment in the context of high-stakes testing,increasing diversity and inclusion in earlychildhood programs, and ethical responsibilities.

More explicit emphasis on a “continuum ofteaching strategies” and developmentallyeffective approaches

Consistent with recent NAEYC publications(e.g., Bredekamp & Copple 1997), this revisionemphasizes the varied approaches to teachingthat competent early childhood professionalsneed to know. Candidates are expected to draw

Significant values and emphasesThese Initial Licensure Standards continue to

give weight to the core professional values andemphases in the 1994 Guidelines. For example,children’s play is explicitly acknowledged as apowerful influence on early development andlearning. Child development knowledge isaccorded great importance as a basis for profes-sional decisions. Active and integrated learning,engaging children’s minds in real-life, meaning-ful issues, are again important themes. Reciprocalrelationships with families continue to be highlyvalued. Children’s cultures and communitieswere emphasized in the earlier Guidelines andcontinue to be prominent in this document.Professional knowledge and skills in ethicalpractices and in policy advocacy again receivestrong emphasis.

Finally, five of the major categories of profes-sional competence from the 1994 Guidelines (i.e.,Child Development and Learning; CurriculumDevelopment and Implementation; Family andCommunity Relationships; Assessment andEvaluation; and Professionalism) remain, al-though with some differences in wording. Well-chosen and well-supervised field experiences,which in 1994 was a sixth category, continue to beseen as essential learning tools for early child-hood teacher candidates.

NAEYC’s revised standards: What’s new?

Some of the differences between the 1994 Guide-lines and these revised standards have to do withshifts in emphasis or clarifications in emphasis,reflecting changes in the early childhood knowl-edge base and among the children and familiesserved in early childhood programs. Areas ofdifference:

Enhanced emphasis on linguistic andcultural diversity

These new Initial Licensure Standards main-tain the Guideline’s emphasis on diversity, butmake the emphasis even more explicit.

Enhanced emphasis on inclusionThose familiar with the 1994 Guidelines will

find the same commitment to inclusion, butthroughout this document there is now substan-

7


from a continuum of strategies and tools in orderto support the learning and development of allchildren.

Field experiences emphasized and inte-grated throughout the standards

In the previous Guidelines, “Field Experi-ences” constituted a separate major category ofprofessional competence. These standardsinstead consider such experiences to be centrallyimportant within each of the other five “core”standards categories. It is through field experi-ences that candidates are best able to translateknowledge into deep understanding and profes-sional skills.

As NCATE points out, its new standards (andNAEYC’s, as well) require much closer partner-ship between institutions of higher educationand community education settings than often hasbeen the case in the past. With NCATE’s andNAEYC’s increased emphasis on assessment andevaluation of candidate performance, fieldexperiences become a central component of theinstitution’s assessment system. Further, thequality of those experiences, as documented incandidate performance, becomes a critical part ofthe evidence used by program reviewers.

Changes in format and terminology inNAEYC’s revised standards

Besides the changes in emphasis outlined above,readers who are familiar with the previousGuidelines will see many changes in format andterminology here. Those changes are intended tofocus on the “big picture” of early childhoodprofessional preparation; highlight the rationaleand knowledge base that undergird each stan-dard; and provide institutions with a sense ofwhat might constitute distinct levels of candidateperformance or evidence within each area.

Standards are written more conciselyBuilding on the previous Guidelines, these

standards now are organized into five corecategories: Promoting Child Development andLearning; Building Family and CommunityRelationships; Observing, Documenting, andAssessing to Support Young Children andFamilies; Teaching and Learning; and Becoming aProfessional.

Note that the categories now are stated ac-tively, reflecting the performances expected ofcandidates. For each category, one standardsstatement, of no more than a few sentences,captures the essential features of that standard (avariation is Standard 4, which due to its complex-ity comprises one overall standard and four sub-standards).

Expectations for candidates are wordedin more strongly “performance-based”language

What should competent early childhoodprofessionals know and be able to do? In theprevious Guidelines, NAEYC had already movedtoward using performance language. Thisrevision adopts and extends that language.

Each standard is followed by a “supportingexplanation”

In this revision, NAEYC attempts to helpreaders understand the “why” behind eachstandard. Therefore, each standards statement isfollowed by a narrative discussion of the knowl-edge base and professional values that supportthat particular standard. Those supportingexplanations also provide more detail than do thebrief standards statements about the competen-cies that candidates should demonstrate, andabout why a standard is important in preparingcapable early childhood professionals.

Supporting explanations are followed by“key elements” of that standard

This document identifies the key elements ofeach standard and of that standard’s supportingexplanation. The key elements are presented asconcise, bulleted points that identify thatstandard’s critical components as represented inthe standard itself and as elaborated in itssupporting explanation.

Each key element is aligned with “rubrics”The rubrics are a set of descriptions of what

would be expected at each of three levels ofcandidate performance, including candidateknowledge, skills, and dispositions: “ExceedsExpectations” (program evidence of candidates’exceptional performance in that element of thestandard, beyond what one would typically

8


The term “culture” includes ethnicity, racialidentity, economic class, family structure, lan-guage, and religious and political beliefs, whichprofoundly influence each child’s developmentand relationship to the world.

How programs will documentcompliance with NAEYC’s standards

A higher education institution applying forNCATE accreditation must submit documenta-tion about its compliance with standards for theunit overall and for all specialty programs inwhich it prepares education professionals.NAEYC is the NCATE specialty professionalassociation (SPA) for early childhood programs.Thus, if an NCATE-affiliated institution has anearly childhood professional preparation pro-gram, it must submit materials for review byNAEYC (unless the institution has a state part-nership approved by NCATE and NAEYCallowing state-level review of its early childhoodprogram).

Both at the unit and the specialty programlevels, the kinds of evidence required underNCATE’s new performance-based assessmentsystem differ in substantial ways from thedocumentation that was previously required. Thedetails of the process at the unit level may befound on NCATE’s Website at www.ncate.org.

To align with but not duplicate that documen-tation, the specialty organizations (i.e., NAEYC,Council for Exceptional Children, NationalCouncil of Teachers of Mathematics, etc.) havedrafted guidance for institutions concerningevidence required under the specialty organiza-tions’ standards. That information may be foundon NCATE’s Website at www.ncate.org/standard/interimsasbstand.pdf; see the attach-ment to that document, pp. 16–17.

Briefly, however, NAEYC expects institutionsto provide documentation that includes:

• a description of the institutional and profes-sional context within which the programoperates

• an organized system by which the programtracks candidate performance across time,including positive effects on children

• a description of the kinds of evidence that theprogram collects to document candidate perfor-

expect of beginning professionals); “MeetsExpectations” (program evidence of satisfactoryperformance from well-prepared candidates);and “Does Not Yet Meet Expectations” (programevidence fails to show adequate performance).

Like the rubrics that NCATE developed for itsunit-level accreditation, NAEYC’s rubrics areintended to help teacher educators and institu-tions to think about what kinds of evidencewould be needed to document various levels ofperformance. (The rubrics are available online atwww.naeyc.org.)

References address each standard.Items in the References and Resources section

include standards documents written by otherprofessional groups, syntheses of relevantresearch, significant work on early childhoodpedagogy, valuable Websites, and other resourcesintended to help programs find relevant informa-tion. Most items are keyed to one or more of thestandards.

Some notes on the terminology used in thisdocument

“Candidates” refers to those who are prepar-ing for professional positions serving youngchildren and their families. In this Initial Licen-sure Standards document, candidates are as-sumed to be preparing for initial licensure in afour- or five-year higher education program.

“All children” means all: children with devel-opmental delays or disabilities, children who aregifted and talented, children whose families areculturally and linguistically diverse, childrenfrom diverse socioeconomic groups, and otherchildren with individual learning styles,strengths, and needs. (Note that NAEYC usesthe term children, rather than students, to reflectthe focus on all aspects of development andlearning and to remind ourselves that childrenhave identities outside of their classroomroles.)

The term “field experiences” includesobservations, field work, practica, and studentteaching or other “clinical” experiences such ashome visiting.

“Know” refers to candidates’ possession ofkey information; “understand” includes analy-sis and reflection; “use” refers to application inpractice, always soundly based on professionalknowledge.

9


mance in relation to the standards, with empha-sis on multiple assessments in authentic contextssuch as field experiences

• summarized evidence of candidates’ perfor-mance using those assessments, with samples ofcandidate work at varying levels of performance

• evidence that the information is used forcontinuous program improvement.

Transition to NAEYC’s new standardsand documentation of performance

The Initial Licensure Standards for early child-hood teacher preparation in this document wereapproved by NAEYC’s Governing Board in July2001 and by NCATE in October 2001. The next 18months were a period of phasing in the newstandards and the performance assessmentsystem, during which initial licensure programshad the option of documenting compliance eitherwith the 1994 Guidelines or the new standards.Effective Spring 2003, all institutions submittingProgram Reports as part of NCATE accreditationof initial licensure early childhood programsmust demonstrate compliance with NAEYC’s2001 standards as described in this document.

NCATE and the SPAs, including NAEYC, havealso adopted a timeline for the transition to fullyperformance-based program review, with allNCATE institutions to have fully functioningassessment systems by 2005. Details of thetimeline for transition are available on NCATE’sWebsite at www.ncate.org. The use of candidateperformance evidence by NAEYC also will bephased in over time, as institutions develop theirown capacity. NAEYC’s Program Report Outlineand Transition Timeline to a fully operationalassessment system are available online atwww.naeyc.org.

Thus, the transition to use of NAEYC’s revisedstandards and to a new system by which institu-tions and their specialty programs documentperformance is a gradual and developmentalprocess—both for institutions and for candidates.

A developmental process for institutionsNCATE, NAEYC, and other professional

organizations wish to work in a supportive waywith institutions, to help them in the transition tonew standards and assessment systems. The

processes of self-study and of developing perfor-mance assessment systems are both valuableaspects of that transition, and time was built infor those tasks.

A developmental process for candidatesNAEYC’s standards, key elements, and rubrics

are intended to focus on the competenciesexpected of beginning early childhood profession-als who have been prepared in baccalaureate ormaster’s programs. Becoming an accomplishedearly childhood practitioner takes time. Whilesetting high expectations for candidate perfor-mance, we need to keep in mind the develop-mental nature of professional growth, whichcontinues long after the candidate completespreservice education. We should also acknowl-edge the diverse routes taken by early childhoodteacher candidates, many of whom have spentyears serving children and families beforeentering higher education. Their wealth ofexperience and their commitment require recog-nition, as well as adaptation of some aspects ofthe higher education experience.

Putting it back together: Linking theelements of high-quality earlychildhood practice

When we try to identify the important categoriesof expectations for early childhood teacher candi-dates, we are forced to separate the complex ele-ments of early childhood practice into what mayseem to be artificial categories. How can onereally separate a category such as “Becoming aProfessional” from “Promoting Child Develop-ment and Learning”? In turn, how can one sepa-rate “Promoting Child Development and Learn-ing” from “Building Relationships with Familiesand Communities”? All are interconnected. Lis-tening to an orchestra playing a symphony, onehears the whole, not each individual instrument.Hearing each part played separately fails to con-vey the complexity and beauty of the whole. Inthe same way, when we watch a skilled earlychildhood teacher at work, it is difficult to iden-tify each separate element of her practice. Yet theseparation is necessary in order to write stan-dards that can be understood and applied inpreparing early childhood professionals.

10


As higher education programs use thesestandards to develop programs and to documentteacher candidates’ performance, NAEYC hopesthe symphony will be heard above the separateparts. Often the performance of teacher candi-dates (and of experienced teachers) showsexemplary knowledge and skills in severalstandards categories simultaneously. For ex-ample, a student teacher might involve childrenin a project about their own hands, simulta-neously showing her competence in supportingtheir physical skills; their scientific understand-ings; their insight into culture and language(“How many words do we know for hand orfinger?—And what wonderful colors our handsare!”); her skills in assessing children’s fine motorskills; and her support of early writing. Forfuture early childhood teachers, learning isseamless and integrated, in the same way thatlearning is for young children.

Some final thoughts

Avoiding “mile wide and inch deep” pro-fessional preparation

As is evident from this introduction and fromthe standards that follow, both the standardsthemselves and the kinds of evidence needed todocument candidate performance are morechallenging and complex than in the past. Tohelp all young children develop and learn, earlychildhood candidates require a great deal ofknowledge, understanding, and skill in multipledomains, linked with dispositions that supportcandidates’ actions. However, NAEYC would notwish to see programs substitute breadth fordepth, nor sacrifice deep understanding forsuperficial coverage of topics. To avoid that risk,NAEYC suggests several strategies:

• While attending to the full birth–age 8 range,programs may, as in the past, elect to specializein sub-periods—e.g., infancy through preschool,or preschool/kindergarten/primary. Suchspecialization has implications for, for example,

the level at which candidates must know and beable to implement curriculum in specific aca-demic areas such as science or social studies.However, every candidate needs to know thebasics of how young children gain understandingof those concepts and should be able to imple-ment essential foundational experiences. Inaddition, all candidates need in-depth knowl-edge of early language and literacy, due to itslong-term significance across multiple academicand developmental areas.

• Programs may—and should—emphasize“learning how to learn,” helping candidates gainaccess to credible, research-based resources tosupport their work. Such resources, importantboth in academic subject matter areas and inaddressing issues of disability and diversity, mayinclude print and non-print resources such asjournals, videos, and Websites, as well as personswith relevant expertise at the school or in thecommunity.

Standards as a visionWith good reason, many educators have

become wary of standards. At times, standardshave constricted learning and have encouraged aone-size-fits-all mentality. But standards can alsobe visionary and empowering, for children andprofessionals alike. NAEYC hopes its standardsfor professional preparation can provide some-thing more valuable than a list of rules forprograms to follow.

The five brief standards statements in thisdocument offer a shared vision of early childhoodprofessional preparation. But to make the visionreal, the details must be constructed uniquely andpersonally, within particular communities oflearners. Good early childhood settings may lookvery different from one another. In the same way,good professional preparation programs may findmany pathways to help candidates meet highstandards, so that they can effectively supportyoung children and their families.

11


Standard 1. Promoting ChildDevelopment and Learning

Candidates use their understanding of youngchildren’s characteristics and needs, and ofmultiple interacting influences on children’sdevelopment and learning, to create environ-ments that are healthy, respectful, supportive,and challenging for all children.

Standard 2. Building Family andCommunity Relationships

Candidates know about, understand, and valuethe importance and complex characteristics ofchildren’s families and communities. They usethis understanding to create respectful, reciprocalrelationships that support and empower families,and to involve all families in their children’sdevelopment and learning.

Standard 3. Observing, Documenting,and Assessing to Support Young Childrenand Families

Candidates know about and understand thegoals, benefits, and uses of assessment. Theyknow about and use systematic observations,documentation, and other effective assessmentstrategies in a responsible way, in partnershipwith families and other professionals, to posi-tively influence children’s development andlearning.

Standard 4. Teaching and Learning

Candidates integrate their understanding of andrelationships with children and families; theirunderstanding of developmentally effectiveapproaches to teaching and learning; and theirknowledge of academic disciplines to design,implement, and evaluate experiences thatpromote positive development and learning forall children.

Sub-Standard 4a. Connecting with childrenand familiesCandidates know, understand, and usepositive relationships and supportive interac-tions as the foundation for their work withyoung children.

Sub-Standard 4b. Using developmentallyeffective approachesCandidates know, understand, and use a widearray of effective approaches, strategies, andtools to positively influence children’s devel-opment and learning.

Sub-Standard 4c. Understanding contentknowledge in early educationCandidates understand the importance of eachcontent area in young children’s learning.They know the essential concepts, inquirytools, and structure of content areas includingacademic subjects and can identify resourcesto deepen their understanding.

Sub-Standard 4d. Building meaningfulcurriculumCandidates use their own knowledge andother resources to design, implement, andevaluate meaningful, challenging curricu-lum that promotes comprehensive develop-mental and learning outcomes for all youngchildren.

Standard 5. Becoming a Professional

Candidates identify and conduct themselves asmembers of the early childhood profession. Theyknow and use ethical guidelines and otherprofessional standards related to early childhoodpractice. They are continuous, collaborativelearners who demonstrate knowledgeable,reflective, and critical perspectives on their work,making informed decisions that integrate knowl-edge from a variety of sources. They are in-formed advocates for sound educational prac-tices and policies.

Standards Summary


11

12


Standards

Standard 1. Promoting ChildDevelopment and Learning

Candidates use their understanding of youngchildren’s characteristics and needs, and ofmultiple interacting influences on children’sdevelopment and learning, to create environ-ments that are healthy, respectful, supportive,and challenging for all children.

Supporting explanationThe early childhood field has historically been

grounded in a child development knowledgebase, and early childhood programs have aimedto support a broad range of positive developmen-tal outcomes for all young children. Although thescope and emphasis of that knowledge base havechanged over the years, and although earlychildhood professionals recognize that othersources of knowledge are also important influ-ences on curriculum and programs for youngchildren, early childhood practice continues to bedeeply linked with a “sympathetic understand-ing of the young child” (Elkind 1994).

In basing their practice in child development,however, well-prepared early childhood profes-sional candidates go beyond narrow or outdateddevelopmental concepts. Their knowledge andunderstanding of young children’s characteris-tics and needs encompasses multiple, interre-lated areas of children’s development andlearning—including physical, cognitive, social,emotional, language, and aesthetic domains,play, activity, and learning processes, and moti-vation to learn—and is supported by coherenttheoretical perspectives and by current research.Candidates also understand and apply theirunderstanding of the many influences on youngchildren’s development and learning, and of howthose influences may interact to affect develop-ment in both positive and negative ways. Candi-dates emphasize—both in their conceptualunderstanding and in their work with children—the multiple influences on development andlearning. Those influences include the culturaland linguistic contexts for development,children’s close relationships with adults andpeers, economic conditions of children and

Standards families, health status and disabilities, children’sindividual developmental variations and learn-ing styles, opportunities to play and learn,technology and the media, and family andcommunity characteristics. Candidates alsounderstand the potential influence of earlychildhood programs, including early interven-tion, on short- and long-term outcomes forchildren.

Candidates’ competence is demonstrated intheir ability to use developmental knowledge tocreate healthy, respectful, supportive, andchallenging learning environments for all youngchildren (including curriculum, interactions,teaching practices, and learning materials). Suchenvironments reflect four critical features. First,the environments are healthy—that is, candidatespossess the knowledge and skills needed topromote young children’s physical and psycho-logical health, safety, and sense of security.Second, the environments reflect respect—for eachchild as a feeling, thinking individual and thenfor each child’s culture, home language, indi-vidual abilities or disabilities, family context, andcommunity. In respectful environments, candi-dates model and affirm antibias perspectives ondevelopment and learning. Third, the learningenvironments created by early childhood teachercandidates are supportive—candidates demon-strate their belief in young children’s ability tolearn, and they show that they can use theirunderstanding of children’s development to helpeach child understand and make meaning fromher or his experiences through play, spontaneousactivity, and guided investigations. Finally, thelearning environments that early childhoodcandidates create are appropriately challenging—in other words, candidates apply their knowl-edge of contemporary theory and research toconstruct learning environments that provideachievable and “stretching” experiences for allchildren—including children with special abili-ties and children with disabilities or develop-mental delays.

Key elements of Standard 11a: Knowing and understanding young

children’s characteristics and needs1b: Knowing and understanding the multiple

influences on development and learning

13


1c: Using developmental knowledge to createhealthy, respectful, supportive, and challenginglearning environmentsRubrics for these key elements, outlining distinctlevels of candidate performance and programevidence, are available online at www.naeyc.org.

Standard 2. Building Family andCommunity Relationships

Candidates know about, understand, and valuethe importance and complex characteristics ofchildren’s families and communities. They use thisunderstanding to create respectful, reciprocalrelationships that support and empower families,and to involve all families in their children’sdevelopment and learning.

Supporting explanationBecause young children’s lives are so embed-

ded in their families and communities, andbecause research indicates that successful earlychildhood education depends upon partnershipswith families and communities, early childhoodprofessionals need to thoroughly understand andapply their knowledge in this area.

First, well-prepared candidates possess knowl-edge and understanding of family and commu-nity characteristics, and of the many influenceson families and communities. Family theory andresearch provide a knowledge base. Socioeco-nomic conditions; family structures, relation-ships, stresses, and supports (including theimpact of having a child with special needs);home language; cultural values; ethnicity;community resources, cohesiveness, and organi-zation—knowledge of these and other factorscreates a deeper understanding of youngchildren’s lives. The knowledge is critical tocandidates’ ability to help children learn anddevelop well.

Second, candidates possess the knowledge andskills needed to support and empower familiesthrough respectful, reciprocal relationships.Candidates understand how to build positiverelationships, taking families’ preferences andgoals into account and incorporating knowledgeof families’ languages and cultures. Candidatesdemonstrate respect for variations across cultures

in family strengths, expectations, values, andchildrearing practices. Candidates considerfamily members to be resources for insight intotheir children, as well as resources for curriculumand program development. Candidates knowabout and demonstrate a variety of communica-tion skills to foster such relationships, emphasiz-ing informal conversations while also includingsuch approaches as exchanging e-mails andposting information and children’s work on theWeb, with print copies sent home for familieswithout Web access.

In their work, early childhood teacher candi-dates support and empower diverse families,including those whose children have disabilitiesor special characteristics or learning needs;families who are facing multiple challenges intheir lives; and families whose languages andcultures may differ from those of the earlychildhood professional. Candidates also under-stand that their relationships with familiesinclude assisting families in finding neededresources, such as mental health services, healthcare, adult education, English language instruc-tion, and economic assistance, that may contrib-ute directly or indirectly to their children’spositive development and learning. Well-prepared early childhood candidates are able toidentify such resources and know how to connectfamilies with services, including help withplanning transitions from one educational orservice system to another.

Finally, well-prepared candidates possessessential skills to involve families and communi-ties in many aspects of children’s developmentand learning. They understand and value therole of parents and other important familymembers as children’s primary teachers. Candi-dates understand how to go beyond parentconferences to engage families in curriculumplanning, assessing of children’s learning, andplanning for children’s transitions to new pro-grams. When their approaches to family involve-ment are not effective, candidates evaluate andmodify those approaches rather than assumingthat families “are just not interested.”

Key elements of Standard 22a: Knowing about and understanding family

and community characteristics

14


consistent with and connected to appropriategoals, curriculum, and teaching strategies foryoung children. At its best, assessment is apositive tool that supports children’s develop-ment and learning, and that improves outcomesfor young children and families. Positive assess-ment identifies the strengths of families andchildren; through appropriate screening andreferral, assessment may also result in identifyingchildren who may benefit from special services.Candidates are able to explain such positive usesof assessment and exemplify them in their ownwork, while also showing awareness of thepotentially negative uses of assessment in earlychildhood programs and policies.

Early childhood assessment includes observa-tion and documentation, plus other appropriateassessment strategies. Effective teaching ofyoung children begins with thoughtful, apprecia-tive, systematic observation and documentationof each child’s unique qualities, strengths, andneeds. Observing young children in classrooms,homes, and communities helps candidatesdevelop a broad sense of who children are—asindividuals, as group members, as family mem-bers, as members of cultural and linguisticcommunities. Observation gives insight into howyoung children develop and how they respond toopportunities and obstacles in their lives. Be-cause spontaneous play is such a powerfulwindow on all aspects of children’s development,well-prepared candidates create opportunities toobserve children in playful situations as well asin more formal learning contexts. All behaviorhas meaning, and well-prepared candidatesdemonstrate skill in reading young children’sbehavior cues; the skill is especially important forinfants and toddlers and for children whoseverbal abilities are limited. Candidates demon-strate skills in conducting systematic observa-tions, interpreting those observations, andreflecting on their significance.

With observation and documentation as theirfoundation, well-prepared candidates knowabout a wide range of assessment tools andapproaches. More than reciting a list of assess-ment strategies, early childhood candidates canexplain the connections between specific assess-ment approaches and specific educational anddevelopmental goals. They can also identify thecharacteristics, strengths, and limitations of

2b: Supporting and empowering families andcommunities through respectful, reciprocalrelationships

2c: Involving families and communities in theirchildren’s development and learningRubrics for these key elements, outlining distinctlevels of candidate performance and programevidence, are available online at www.naeyc.org.

Standard 3. Observing, Documenting,and Assessing to Support Young Childrenand Families

Candidates know about and understand thegoals, benefits, and uses of assessment. Theyknow about and use systematic observations,documentation, and other effective assessmentstrategies in a responsible way, in partnershipwith families and other professionals, to positivelyinfluence children’s development and learning.

Supporting explanationAlthough definitions vary, in these standards

the term “assessment” includes all methodsthrough which early childhood professionalsgain understanding of children’s developmentand learning. Observation, documentation, andother forms of assessment are central to thepractice of all early childhood professionals.Ongoing, systematic observations and otherinformal and formal assessments enable candi-dates to appreciate children’s unique qualities, todevelop appropriate goals, and to plan, imple-ment, and evaluate effective curriculum. Al-though assessment may take many forms, earlychildhood candidates demonstrate its central roleby embedding assessment-related activities incurriculum and in daily routines, so that assess-ment becomes a habitual part of professional life.Even as new professionals, they feel empoweredby assessment rather than viewing assessment asa necessary evil imposed by others.

Well-prepared early childhood candidatesrecognize the central role that appropriateassessment plays in the design of effectiveprograms and practices for young children. Theycan explain the central goals, benefits, and usesof assessment. In considering the goals ofassessment, candidates articulate and apply theconcept of “alignment”—good assessment is

15


specific assessment tools and strategies, includ-ing the use of technologies such as videotape andelectronic record keeping. New practitioners arenot assessment specialists; however, they dounderstand essential distinctions and definitions(e.g., screening, diagnostic assessment, standardizedtesting, accountability assessment) and are familiarwith essential concepts of reliability and validityand other psychometric concepts. Their under-standing helps them in selecting appropriateformal assessment measures, critiquing thelimitations of inappropriate measures, anddiscussing assessment issues as part of interdisci-plinary teams. Within the classroom or programsetting, candidates demonstrate skills in usingvaried assessments that are appropriate to theirgoals and children’s characteristics, with empha-sis on curriculum-embedded, performanceassessments.

Many young children with disabilities areincluded in early childhood programs, and earlyidentification of children with developmentaldelays or disabilities is very important. Allbeginning professionals, therefore, need essentialknowledge about how to collect relevant infor-mation, including appropriate uses of screeningtools and play-based assessments, not only fortheir own planning but also to share with fami-lies and with other professionals. Well-preparedcandidates are able to choose valid tools that aredevelopmentally, culturally, and linguisticallyappropriate; use the tools correctly; adapt tools asneeded, using assistive technology as a resource;make appropriate referrals; and interpret assess-ment results, with the goal of obtaining valid,useful information to inform practice and deci-sion making.

Although assessment can be a positive tool forearly childhood professionals, it has also beenused in inappropriate and harmful ways. Well-prepared candidates understand and practiceresponsible assessment. Candidates understandthat responsible assessment is ethically groundedand guided by sound professional standards. It iscollaborative and open. Responsible assessmentsupports children, rather than being used toexclude them or deny them services. Candidatesdemonstrate understanding of appropriate,responsible assessment practices for culturallyand linguistically diverse children and forchildren with developmental delays, disabilities,

or other special characteristics. Finally, candi-dates demonstrate knowledge of legal and ethicalissues, current educational concerns and contro-versies, and appropriate practices in the assess-ment of diverse young children.

Many aspects of effective assessment requirecollaboration with families and with otherprofessionals. Such assessment partnerships,when undertaken with sensitivity and soundknowledge, contribute positively to understand-ing children’s development and learning. Bothfamily members and, as appropriate, members ofinterprofessional teams may be involved inassessing children’s development, strengths, andneeds. As new practitioners, candidates mayhave had limited opportunities to experiencesuch partnerships, but they demonstrate essentialknowledge and core skills in team building andin communicating with families and colleaguesfrom other disciplines.

Key elements of Standard 33a: Understanding the goals, benefits, and uses

of assessment3b: Knowing about and using observation,

documentation, and other appropriate assess-ment tools and approaches

3c: Understanding and practicing responsibleassessment

3d: Knowing about assessment partnershipswith families and other professionalsRubrics for these key elements, outlining distinctlevels of candidate performance and programevidence, are available online at www.naeyc.org.

Standard 4. Teaching and Learning

Candidates integrate their understanding of andrelationships with children and families; theirunderstanding of developmentally effectiveapproaches to teaching and learning; and theirknowledge of academic disciplines to design,implement, and evaluate experiences that pro-mote positive development and learning for allyoung children.

• Sub-Standard 4a. Connecting with children andfamilies

• Sub-Standard 4b. Using developmentallyeffective approaches

16


Infants learn about the world through theirrelationships with their primary caregivers.Responsiveness in caregiving creates the condi-tions within which very young children canexplore and learn about their world. Candidateswho plan to work with children of any age musthave skill in creating responsive relationships,although the nature of those relationships differsas children develop. The close attachmentschildren develop with their teachers/caregivers,the expectations and beliefs that adults haveabout children’s capacities, and the warmth andresponsiveness of adult-child interactions arepowerful influences on positive developmentaland educational outcomes.

Early childhood candidates demonstrate thatthey understand the theories and research thatsupport the importance of relationships andhigh-quality interactions in early education. Intheir practice, they display warm, nurturinginteractions with individual children and theirfamilies, communicating genuine liking for andinterest in young children’s activities andcharacteristics.

Candidates demonstrate the essential disposi-tions and skills to develop positive, respectfulrelationships with children whose cultures andlanguages may differ from their own, as well aswith children who may have developmentaldelays, disabilities, or other learning challenges.In making the transition from family to a groupcontext, very young children need continuitybetween the caregiving practices of familymembers and those used by professionals in theearly childhood setting. Their feelings of safetyand confidence depend on that continuity.Candidates know the cultural practices andcontexts of the young children they teach, andthey adapt practices to be culturally sensitive.With older children, candidates continue toemphasize cultural sensitivity while also devel-oping culturally relevant knowledge and skills inimportant academic domains.

Sub-Standard 4b. Using DevelopmentallyEffective Approaches

Candidates know, understand, and use a widearray of effective approaches, strategies, andtools to positively influence young children’sdevelopment and learning.

• Sub-Standard 4c. Understanding contentknowledge in early education

• Sub-Standard 4d. Building meaningfulcurriculum

Standard 4 is complex, with four Sub-Stan-dards, because teaching and learning with youngchildren is a complex enterprise, and its detailsvary depending on children’s ages, characteris-tics, and the settings within which teaching andlearning occur. Well-prepared early childhoodprofessionals construct curriculum and programcontent from multiple sources. As describedbelow, the early teaching and learning experi-ences that will support all children’s successmust be grounded in four interrelated elements:(a) positive relationships and supportive interac-tions; (b) a broad repertoire of appropriate,effective teaching/learning approaches; (c)essential content knowledge and familiarity withsignificant resources in specific academic disci-plines; and (d) skills in developing, implement-ing, and evaluating curriculum that integratesthose elements to promote positive outcomes.Especially when planning curriculum andteaching strategies for young children withdevelopmental delays or disabilities or arelearning English, well-prepared candidatesknow about and have the skills to collaboratewith professionals from other disciplines (e.g.,special education, school psychology, speechand language).

The following subsections describe each of thefour sub-standards of the Teaching and Learningstandard in detail.

Sub-Standard 4a. Connecting with Childrenand Families

Candidates know, understand, and use positiverelationships and supportive interactions as thefoundation for their work with young children.

Supporting explanationThroughout the years that children spend in

educational settings, their successful learning isdependent not just on “instruction” but also onpersonal connections with important adults whosupport and facilitate their learning. It is throughthose connections that children develop not onlyacademic skills but also positive learning disposi-tions and confidence in themselves as learners.

17


Supporting explanationEarly childhood professionals need appropri-

ate, effective approaches to help young childrenlearn and develop well. Candidates must groundtheir curriculum in a set of core approaches toteaching that are supported by research and areclosely linked to the processes of early develop-ment and learning. In a sense, those approachesare the curriculum for infants and toddlers,although academic content can certainly beembedded in each of them. With older children,the relative weight and explicitness of subjectmatter or academic content become more evidentin the curriculum, and yet the core approaches orstrategies remain as a consistent framework.

Although this subsection describes many ofthose approaches, they are not merely a list fromwhich early childhood professionals may pick atrandom. Well-prepared candidates’ professionaldecisions about approaches to early childhoodteaching and learning are based on understand-ing of children as individuals and (in most cases)as part of a group, and on alignment withimportant educational and developmental goals.A flexible, research-based “continuum of teach-ing strategies” is the best support for children’sdevelopmental and educational needs.

Well-prepared early childhood candidatesunderstand and effectively use the followingapproaches, strategies, and tools to promoteyoung children’s development and learning:

Fostering oral language and communication.Early childhood candidates embed every aspectof the curriculum within the context of rich orallanguage and other communication strategies,using technology as needed to augment commu-nication for children with disabilities. Both verbaland nonverbal communication create links withchildren from infancy onward, not only support-ing close relationships but also creating thefoundations for literacy and cognitive develop-ment and later academic competence.

Drawing from a continuum of teachingstrategies. Well-prepared candidates display abroad range of interactive and instructional skills.They understand and use teaching approachesthat span a continuum from child-initiated toadult-directed learning, and from free explorationto scaffolded support or teacher modeling. Inselecting the approaches, candidates demonstratethat they are basing their selection on knowledge

of individual children, on research evidence, andon understanding of appropriate, challengingteaching and learning goals.

Making the most of the environment androutines. Especially for the youngest children,the curriculum is the physical and social environ-ment and in particular the daily routines offeeding, bathing, napping, and playtime. Candi-dates know the power of the environment tofoster security and to support exploration, andthey create physical environments and routinesthat offer predictability as well as opportunitiesfor oral language development, social interaction,and investigations.

Candidates demonstrate understanding andskill in setting up all aspects of the indoor andoutdoor environment to promote learning anddevelopment. Well-designed learning or activitycenters can offer young children extensiveopportunities to manipulate objects, build, paint,listen to stories or music, read, write, and chal-lenge themselves. Candidates’ work displaystheir skills in designing such centers and otherfeatures of the environment to support specificgoals (including IEP and IFSP goals) and toexpand children’s learning. Well-preparedcandidates also demonstrate skill in selecting andadapting bias-free, culturally relevant learningmaterials that support learning by all children,including those with developmental delays ordisabilities. Daily, weekly, and longer-termschedules designed by candidates also provideevidence that candidates can apply their under-standing of young children’s need for balance,order, depth, variety, and challenge.

Capitalizing on incidental teaching. Becauseso much of young children’s learning takes placeinformally and spontaneously, early childhoodpractitioners must be skilled at “incidentalteaching,” identifying and taking advantage ofinformal opportunities to build children’slanguage, concept development, and skills. Forthose candidates preparing specifically to workwith infants and toddlers, this will be the pri-mary approach to teaching, but all candidatesrequire skills in this area if they are to be effec-tive. Depending on children’s ages and programsettings, candidates use diapering, meals, clean-up times, outdoor play, dressing, and otherroutines and transitions to support children’slearning. Engaging conversations, thought-

18


educational priority. Even as beginning teachers,they show a commitment to creating learningcommunities within early childhood classrooms,where children help and care for one another.

Creating support for play. All early childhoodprofessionals must demonstrate competence inusing play as a foundation for young children’slearning from infancy through the primarygrades. Although most children play spontane-ously, well-prepared candidates can create andsupport environments that enrich and extendchildren’s play, knowing when to intervene withquestions, suggestions, and challenges. Espe-cially for children with disabilities and develop-mental delays, candidates explicitly model andfacilitate appropriate play and social interactions.Candidates create and support play experiencesthat reflect gender equity, respect for culturaldiversity, and principles of nonviolence. Candi-dates demonstrate understanding of the value ofplay in itself, as a way for children to make senseof their experiences and to develop a wide rangeof skills.

Addressing children’s challenging behaviors.“Classroom management” is the greatest diffi-culty reported by most novice practitioners. Well-prepared early childhood candidates demon-strate understanding of the multiple, underlyingcauses of children’s challenging behaviors. Earlychildhood candidates demonstrate a variedrepertoire of research-based guidance approachesto meet individual children’s needs. Their workshows that they understand the importance of asupportive, interesting classroom environmentand relationships as ways to prevent manychallenging behaviors. In implementing guid-ance approaches, candidates aim to developchildren’s self-regulation and respect for others.Candidates also demonstrate knowledge andessential skills to meet the special needs ofchildren whose behavioral difficulties are relatedto disabilities, family or community violence, orother stressful circumstances.

Supporting learning through technology.Rather than being merely an enrichment or add-on to the curriculum, technology has taken acentral place in early childhood programs.Candidates demonstrate sound knowledge andskills in using technology as a teaching andlearning tool. Appropriate technology, includingcomputer software, digital or Web content,

provoking questions, provision of materials, andspontaneous activities are all evident in candi-dates’ repertoire of teaching skills.

Focusing on children’s characteristics, needs,and interests. Another developmentally effectiveapproach is to focus on children’s individualcharacteristics, cultures, temperaments, andcentral developmental concerns, using families asimportant sources of insight. Again, such prac-tices form the heart of teaching and learning forinfants and toddlers, yet they are also effectiveapproaches for children at the upper end of theearly childhood period. And the focus onchildren’s needs is also at the center of goodpractices for young children with disabilities,whose IEPs and IFSPs are based on individualand family goals. Well-prepared early childhoodcandidates keep the child as the center, while alsopaying close attention to important standardsand learning outcomes, connecting new learningwith children’s prior knowledge and areas ofindividual fascination.

Linking children’s language and culture tothe early childhood program. Before they cometo school, all children learn and develop in theirown unique and highly diverse linguistic, social,and cultural context. When previous learningand development are nurtured in early educationprograms, the overall benefits of early educationare enhanced. Recognizing and using the child’sand family’s primary language ensures that earlychildhood education adds to and does notsubtract from previous experiences at home andin the community. In implementing effectiveapproaches to teaching and learning, candidatesdemonstrate that they use linguistic and culturaldiversity as resources, rather than seeing diver-sity as a deficit or problem.

Teaching through social interactions. Becauseso much of children’s learning takes place in asocial context, their peer group can be viewed asa teaching tool. When working with groups ofchildren, candidates show competence in pro-moting positive social interactions and—depend-ing on children’s ages and social skills—engagingchildren in parallel or collaborative learningactivities. Candidates understand that childrenwho have limited social skills or who are rejectedby others may have difficulty in other areas, andso candidates actively work to increase socialcompetence in all children, treating this as an

19


cameras, and other peripherals, can support andexpand young children’s learning, including(through assistive technology) the learning ofmany children with disabilities. Candidatesdisplay awareness of the benefits and potentialrisks of technology, as well as issues of economicand gender equity in distribution of technologyresources. Candidates demonstrate knowledgeabout how to combine appropriate software withother teaching tools to integrate and reinforcelearning.

Using integrative approaches to curriculum.Skills in developing integrated, thematic, oremergent curriculum are evident in the work ofwell-prepared early childhood candidates. Thoseskills go well beyond implementing prepack-aged, superficial units of study about seasonsand holidays. Depending on children’s ages anddevelopmental levels, an integrated “projectapproach” to teaching and learning frequentlyallows children to immerse themselves forextended periods in the study of a topic of highinterest to an entire class or a small group.Candidates with strong subject-matter knowl-edge (as discussed in Sub-Standard 4c) canembed valuable content from mathematics, thearts, literacy, social studies, and other areas insuch thematic studies.

Sub-Standard 4c. Understanding ContentKnowledge in Early Education

Candidates understand the importance of eachcontent area in young children’s learning. Theyknow the essential concepts, inquiry tools, andstructure of content areas including academicsubjects and can identify resources to deepentheir understanding.

Supporting explanationGood early childhood curriculum does not

come out of a box or a teacher-proof manual.Early childhood professionals have an especiallychallenging task in developing effective curricu-lum. As suggested in Standard 1, well-preparedcandidates ground their practice in a thorough,research-based understanding of youngchildren’s development and learning processes. Indeveloping curriculum, they recognize that everychild constructs knowledge in personally andculturally familiar ways. In addition, in order to

make curriculum powerful and accessible to all,well-prepared candidates develop curriculumthat is free of biases related to ethnicity, religion,gender, or ability status—and, in fact, the curricu-lum actively counters such biases.

Content areas for early childhoodBut these tasks are only part of the challenge.

Guided by standards for early learning that areeffective (NAEYC & NAECS/SDE 2002), theteacher of children from birth through age 8 mustalso be well versed in the essentials of manyacademic disciplines and content areas. Andbecause children are encountering those contentareas for the first time, early childhood profes-sionals set the foundations for later understand-ing and success. Well-prepared candidateschoose their approaches to the task depending onthe ages and developmental levels of the childrenthey teach. With the youngest children, earlychildhood candidates emphasize the key experi-ences that will support later academic skills andunderstandings—with great reliance on the coreapproaches and strategies described in Sub-Standard 4b and with great emphasis on orallanguage and the development of children’sbackground knowledge. Working with somewhatolder or more skilled children, candidates alsoidentify those aspects of each subject area that arecritical to children’s later academic competence.With all children, early childhood professionalssupport later success by modeling engagement inchallenging subject matter and by buildingchildren’s faith in themselves as young learn-ers—as young mathematicians, scientists, artists,readers, writers, historians, economists, andgeographers (although children may not think ofthemselves in such categories).

Going beyond conveying isolated facts, then,well-prepared early childhood candidatespossess the kind of content knowledge thatfocuses on the “big ideas,” methods of investiga-tion and expression, and organization of themajor academic disciplines. Thus, the earlychildhood professional knows not only what isimportant in each content area but also why it isimportant—how it links with earlier and laterunderstandings both within and across areas.The following sections outline some of thisessential understanding in each major discipline.

20


However, early childhood educators cannot beexperts in everything. Because of its central placein later academic competence, the domain oflanguage and literacy requires in-depth research-based understanding and skill. Mathematics, too,is increasingly recognized as an essential founda-tion. Yet because early childhood professionalsmust be acquainted with such a breadth ofcontent knowledge, additional resources areneeded to supplement the basic knowledge ofbeginning practitioners. Items in the Referencesand Resources section of this document, espe-cially the professional association standardsdocuments, offer greater depth and detail in allthese content areas.

Common features in candidates’ work acrosscontent areas. Well-prepared candidates demon-strate certain competencies that cut acrosscontent areas or academic disciplines. Certain“basics” are common features in candidates’work, whether they are developing curriculum inlanguage and literacy, the arts, mathematics,physical activity and physical education, science,or social studies.

Well-prepared early childhood candidatesunderstand the importance of each content areain children’s development and learning. Theydemonstrate essential knowledge of the develop-mental foundations of children’s interest in, andunderstanding of, each content area (i.e., howchildren’s cognitive, language, physical, social,and emotional development influence theirability to understand and benefit from curricu-lum in each content area—as well as how thatcurriculum may support development in eachdomain). Candidates observe and describe theearly roots of children’s interest and capacities ineach content area, and they know how earlychildhood programs can build on those interests.They demonstrate the essential knowledge andskills needed to provide appropriate environ-ments that support learning in each content areafor all children, beginning in infancy (throughfoundational developmental experiences) andextending through the primary grades—althoughthe nature and depth of their knowledge andskills will vary depending on which sub-periodsof early childhood their program emphasizes.Candidates demonstrate basic knowledge of theresearch base underlying each content area andthey demonstrate basic knowledge of the core

concepts and standards of professional organiza-tions in each content area, relying on soundresources for that knowledge. Finally, candidatesdemonstrate that they can analyze and critiqueearly childhood curriculum experiences in termsof the relationship of the experiences to theresearch base and to professional standards.

Language and literacy. Early language andliteracy form the basis for much later learning,and well-prepared candidates possess extensive,research-based knowledge and skill in the area,regardless of the age group or setting in whichthey intend to practice.

Listening, speaking, reading, and writing areintegrated elements. Verbal and nonverbalcommunication in its diverse forms, combinedwith competence as a reader and writer, areessential for children’s later development. Evenas infants and toddlers, children are buildingthe foundations for literacy through earlyexperiences.

Candidates—including those who are notcurrently teaching linguistically diverse youngchildren—also demonstrate knowledge ofsecond-language acquisition and of bilingualism.They know the home language environments ofthe children they teach and the possible effects onchildren when their classroom environment doesnot reflect the home language. Candidates knowthe sociopolitical contexts of major languagegroups and how those may affect children’smotivation to learn English. Candidates under-stand the benefits of bilingualism and the specialneeds of young English language learners (ELLs),building on the home language systems thatchildren already have developed and assistingthem to add a second language to their reper-toire. For young ELLs who are learning to read,candidates use, adapt, and assess research-basedliteracy activities and teaching methods thatbuild on prior knowledge and support successfultransitions for those learners.

Candidates are able to articulate priorities forhigh-quality, meaningful language and literacyexperiences in early childhood, across a develop-mental continuum. Across the years from infancythrough third grade, those experiences shouldhelp children to, for example:

• Explore their environments and develop theconceptual, experiential, and language founda-tions for learning to read and write

21


• Develop their ability to converse at length andin depth on a topic in various settings (one-on-one with adults and peers, in small groups, etc.)

• Develop vocabulary that reflects their growingknowledge of the world around them

• Use language, reading, and writing tostrengthen their own cultural identity, as well asto participate in the shared identity of the schoolenvironment

• Associate reading and writing with pleasureand enjoyment, as well as with skill development

• Use a range of strategies to derive meaningfrom stories and texts

• Use language, reading, and writing for variouspurposes

• Use a variety of print and non-print resources

• Develop basic concepts of print and under-standing of sounds, letters, and letter-soundrelationships

The arts: Music, creative movement, dance,drama, and art. Even before children can speak,they move, gesture, and respond to color, sound,and rhythm. Their joy in the “hundred languagesof children” shows the value of the arts in earlychildhood, both as important ends in themselvesand as tools for success in other areas.

Candidates are able to articulate priorities forhigh-quality, meaningful arts experiences in earlychildhood, across a developmental continuum.Depending on children’s ages and other charac-teristics, those experiences should help childrento, for example:

• Interact musically with others

• Express and interpret understandings of theirworld through structured and informal musicalplay

• Sing, play, and create music

• Respond to expressive characteristics ofmusic—rhythm, melody, form—throughspeaking, singing, moving, and playing simpleinstruments

• Use music to express emotions, conflicts, andneeds

• Move expressively to music of various tempos,meters, modes, genres, and cultures to expresswhat they feel and hear

• Understand and apply artistic media, tech-niques, and processes

• Make connections between visual arts andother disciplines

Mathematics. Strong mathematical founda-tions are associated with later academic compe-tence, but international comparisons have foundAmerican mathematics education to be seriouslydeficient. Yet for curious young children, math-ematics is a powerful, exciting tool to use inmaking sense of their world.

Mathematics instruction should be guided bythe principles and standards developed by theNational Council of Teachers of Mathematics(NCTM) and by the joint position statement ofNAEYC and NCTM (2002). Early childhoodcandidates apply the principles that guide allmathematics instruction, as well as the specificNCTM standards for preK–grade 2. The stan-dards are based on the belief that “students learnimportant mathematical skills and processes withunderstanding” (NCTM 2000, ix). According toNCTM, understanding develops through interac-tion with materials, peers, and supportive adultsin settings where students have opportunities toconstruct their own relationships when they firstmeet a new topic.

As outlined by NCTM, well-prepared candi-dates understand and apply the followingsix principles, or “themes,” of mathematicsinstruction:

• Equity: high expectations and strong supportfor all children

• Curriculum: more than a collection of activities:coherent, focused on important mathematics, andwell integrated across grades and developmentallevels

• Teaching: understanding what children alreadyknow and need to learn, and challenging andsupporting them to learn it well

• Learning: children must learn with understand-ing, building new mathematical knowledge fromexperience and prior knowledge

• Assessment: should support the learning ofimportant mathematics and give useful informa-tion to teachers and children

• Technology: is essential in teaching and learningmathematics; a tool to enhance learning

22


intense curiosity and love of hands-on explora-tion give them much in common with moremature scientists. Early childhood offers uniqueopportunities to explore phenomena using skillsof scientific inquiry, cultivate scientific disposi-tions, and build a foundation for understandingcore scientific concepts.

Candidates are able to articulate priorities forhigh-quality, meaningful science experiences inearly childhood, across a developmental con-tinuum. Focused exploration of meaningfulcontent (for example, the growth and develop-ment of a plant over time, or investigation of theproperties of water at a water table) supportsearly scientific understanding. Depending onchildren’s ages and other characteristics, thoseexperiences should help children to, for example:

• Raise questions about objects and eventsaround them

• Explore materials, objects, and events by actingupon them and noticing what happens

• Make careful observations of objects, organ-isms, and events using all their senses

• Describe, compare, sort, classify, and order interms of observable characteristics and properties

• Use a variety of simple tools to extend theirobservations (e.g., hand lens, measuring tools,eye dropper)

• Engage in simple investigations includingmaking predictions, gathering and interpretingdata, recognizing simple patterns, and drawingconclusions

• Record observations, explanations, and ideasthrough multiple forms of representation

• Work collaboratively with others, share anddiscuss ideas, and listen to new perspectives

Social studies. The social studies area presentsspecial challenges to early childhood education.Because core concepts may be abstract or distantin time or space, providing many hands-onexperiences is difficult yet essential for children’sinterest and understanding. Candidates are ableto articulate priorities for high-quality, meaning-ful social studies experiences in early childhood,across a developmental continuum. Dependingon children’s ages and other characteristics, thoseexperiences should help children to, for example:

In addition to those principles, candidatesunderstand which concepts and skills are devel-opmentally appropriate for preK–grade 2 chil-dren in each of five content areas—operations,algebra, geometry, measurement, data analysis,and probability—as well as in the five processareas of problem solving, reasoning and proof,connections, communication, and representation.Early childhood candidates are able to link thosetwo sets of standards together so that the processstandards are used in teaching and learningmathematical content.

Physical activity and physical education. Foryoung children, moving and exploring what theirbodies can do are essential elements of earlylearning. All children, with and without disabili-ties, set themselves physical challenges andinvestigate the frontiers of their physical capaci-ties. Candidates are able to articulate prioritiesfor high-quality, meaningful physical activity andphysical education experiences in early child-hood, across a developmental continuum.Depending on children’s ages and other charac-teristics, those experiences should help childrento, for example:

• Have varied, repeated experiences with func-tional movement and manipulation

• Demonstrate progress toward mature forms ofselected physical skills

• Try new movement activities and skills

• Use feedback to improve performance

• Experience and express pleasure from partici-pation in physical activity

• Apply rules, procedures, and safe practices

• Gain competence to provide increased enjoy-ment in movement

In promoting children’s physical development,candidates are aware of cultural differences andgender expectations. They know when to respectchildren’s and families’ preferences regardingdress for physical activity and level of participa-tion, and when to make adaptations to helpchildren meet physical goals, yet support cultur-ally sensitive practices.

Science. Although their investigations may notbe systematic and their ideas and questions maynot be scientifically accurate, young children’s

23


Geography

• Make and use maps to locate themselves inspace

• Observe the physical characteristics of theplaces in which they live and identify landforms,bodies of water, climate, soils, natural vegetation,and animal life of that place

History

• Use the methods of the historian, identifyingquestions, locating and analyzing information,and reaching conclusions

• Record and discuss the changes that occur intheir lives, recalling their immediate past

Economics

• Develop awareness of the difference betweenwants and needs (the concept of scarcity)

• Develop interest in the economic system,understanding the contributions of those whoproduce goods and services

Social relations/Civics

• Become a participating member of the group,giving up some individuality for the greater good

• Recognizing similarities among people of manycultures

• Respecting others, including those who differin gender, ethnicity, ability, or ideas

• Learn the principles of democracy, workingcooperatively with others, sharing, and voting asthey solve problems

Sub-Standard 4d: Building MeaningfulCurriculum

Candidates use their own knowledge and otherresources to design, implement, and evaluatemeaningful, challenging curriculum that promotescomprehensive developmental and learningoutcomes for all young children.

Supporting explanationIn their work with young children, candidates

demonstrate that they can draw upon all thepreceding tools—relationships with youngchildren and families; appropriate, effectiveapproaches to early childhood teaching andlearning; and meaningful content in the academic

disciplines—to design, implement, and evaluatecurriculum for young children. The complexity ofthe process requires candidates, as well asexperienced teachers, to go beyond their ownbasic knowledge to identify and use high-qualityresources, including books, standards docu-ments, Web resources, and individuals who havespecialized content expertise, in developing earlychildhood curriculum. Curriculum planningstarts with clear, appropriate goals and desiredoutcomes for children. Although national or statestandards or desired expectations may influencecurriculum in positive ways, several larger goalsare also important guides:

Security and self-regulation. Appropriate,effective curriculum creates a secure base fromwhich young children can explore and tacklechallenging problems. Well-implemented cur-riculum also helps children become better able tomanage or regulate their expressions of emotionand, over time, to cope with frustration andmanage impulses effectively, rather than creatinghigh levels of frustration and anxiety.

Problem-solving and thinking skills. Candi-dates who have skills in developing and imple-menting meaningful, challenging curriculum willalso support young children’s ability—andmotivation—to solve problems and think well.

Academic and social competence. Becausegood early childhood curriculum is aligned withyoung children’s developmental and learningstyles, it supports the growth of academic andsocial skills.

With these goals in mind, candidates developcurriculum to include both planned and sponta-neous experiences that are developmentallyappropriate, meaningful, and challenging for allyoung children, including those with develop-mental delays or disabilities; that address cul-tural and linguistic diversities; that lead topositive learning outcomes; and that—as childrenbecome older—develop positive dispositionstoward learning within each content area.

Depending on children’s ages and programsettings, candidates demonstrate skill in buildingcurriculum from relationships, daily interactions,and routines (the core elements of infant/toddlercurriculum); in integrating academic disciplineswith other content in an emergent, interdiscipli-nary, or thematic curriculum; and (especially forolder children) in providing focused learningopportunities within a specific content area.

24


Candidates demonstrate that they can imple-ment plans in organized yet flexible ways,adapting the curriculum to meet the interests andneeds of diverse children while proactivelysupporting their learning. They demonstrateessential skills in evaluating the curriculum inlight of their own goals and of children’s engage-ment in learning activities, and they modifycurriculum in light of their own evaluation andfeedback from supervisors.

Key elements of Standard 44a: Knowing, understanding, and using

positive relationships and supportive interactions4b: Knowing, understanding, and using

effective approaches, strategies, and tools forearly education

4c: Knowing and understanding the impor-tance, central concepts, inquiry tools, and struc-tures of content areas or academic disciplines

4d: Using own knowledge and other resourcesto design, implement, and evaluate meaningful,challenging curriculum to promote positiveoutcomesRubrics for these key elements, outlining distinctlevels of candidate performance and programevidence, are available online at www.naeyc.org.

Standard 5. Becoming a Professional

Candidates identify and conduct themselves asmembers of the early childhood profession.They know and use ethical guidelines and otherprofessional standards related to early child-hood practice. They are continuous, collabora-tive learners who demonstrate knowledgeable,reflective, and critical perspectives on theirwork, making informed decisions that integrateknowledge from a variety of sources. They areinformed advocates for sound educationalpractices and policies.

Supporting explanationThe early childhood field has a distinctive

history, values, knowledge base, and mission.Early childhood professionals, including begin-ning teachers, have a strong identification andinvolvement with the early childhood field, tobetter serve young children and their families.Well-prepared candidates understand the nature

of a profession. They know about the manyconnections between the early childhood fieldand other related disciplines and professionswith which they may collaborate while servingdiverse young children and families. Candidatesare also aware of the broader contexts andchallenges within which early childhood profes-sionals work and might work in the future.

Because young children are at such a criticalpoint in their development and learning, andbecause they are vulnerable and cannot articulatetheir own rights and needs, early childhoodprofessionals have compelling responsibilities toknow about and uphold ethical guidelines andother professional standards. The profession’scode of ethical conduct guides the practice ofresponsible early childhood educators. Well-prepared candidates are very familiar with theNAEYC Code of Ethical Conduct and are guidedby its ideals and principles. This means honoringtheir responsibilities to uphold high standards ofconfidentiality, sensitivity, and respect for chil-dren, families, and colleagues. Candidates knowhow to use the Code to analyze and resolveprofessional ethical dilemmas and are able togive defensible justifications for their resolutionsof those dilemmas. Well-prepared candidates alsoknow and obey relevant laws such as thosepertaining to child abuse, the rights of childrenwith disabilities, and school attendance. Finally,candidates are familiar with relevant professionalguidelines such as national, state, or local stan-dards for content and child outcomes; positionstatements about, for example, early learningstandards, linguistic and cultural diversity, earlychildhood mathematics, technology in earlychildhood, and prevention of child abuse; childcare licensing requirements; and other profes-sional standards affecting early childhoodpractice.

Continuous, collaborative learning to informpractice is a hallmark of a professional in anyfield. An attitude of inquiry is evident in well-prepared candidates’ writing, discussion, andactions. Whether engaging in classroom-basedresearch, investigating ways to improve theirown practices, participating in conferences, orfinding resources in libraries and Internet sites,candidates demonstrate self-motivated, purpose-ful learning that directly influences the quality oftheir work with young children. Candidates—

25


and professional preparation programs—viewgraduation or licensure not as the final demon-stration of competence but as one milestoneamong many, including for-credit and not-for-credit experiences.

At its most powerful, learning is sociallyconstructed, in interaction with others. Even asbeginning teachers, early childhood candidatesdemonstrate involvement in collaborativelearning communities with other candidates,higher education faculty, and experienced earlychildhood practitioners. By working together oncommon challenges, with lively exchanges ofideas, members of such communities benefitfrom one another’s perspectives. Candidates alsodemonstrate understanding of and essentialskills in interdisciplinary collaboration. Becausemany children with disabilities and other specialneeds are included in early childhood programs,every practitioner needs to understand the role ofthe other professionals who may be involved inyoung children’s care and education (e.g., specialeducators, reading specialists, speech andhearing specialists, physical and occupationaltherapists, school psychologists). Candidatesdemonstrate that they have the essential commu-nication skills and knowledge base to engage ininterdisciplinary team meetings as informedpartners and to fulfill their roles as part of IEP/IFSP teams for children with developmentaldelays or disabilities.

As professionals prepared in four- and five-year higher education programs, early childhoodcandidates’ decisions and advocacy efforts aregrounded in multiple sources of knowledge andmultiple perspectives. Even routine decisionsabout what materials to use for an activity,whether to intervene in a dispute between twochildren, how to organize nap time, what to sayabout curriculum in a newsletter, or what to tellfamilies about new video games are informed bya professional context, research-based knowl-edge, and values. Well-prepared candidates’practice is influenced by knowledgeable, reflec-tive, and critical perspectives. In their work withyoung children, candidates show that they makeand justify decisions on the basis of their knowl-edge of the central issues, professional values andstandards, and research findings in their field.

They also show evidence of reflective approachesto their work, analyzing their own practices in abroader context, and using reflections to modifyand improve their work with young children.Finally, well-prepared candidates display acritical stance, examining their own work, sourcesof professional knowledge, and the early child-hood field with a questioning attitude. Theirwork demonstrates that they do not just accept asimplistic source of “truth”; instead, they recog-nize that while early childhood educators sharethe same core professional values, they do notagree on all of the field’s central questions.Candidates demonstrate an understanding thatthrough dialogue and attention to differences,early childhood professionals will continue toreach new levels of shared knowledge.

Finally, early childhood candidates demon-strate that they can engage in informed advocacyfor children and the profession. They knowabout the central policy issues in the field,including professional compensation, financingof the early education system, and standardssetting and assessment. They are aware of andengaged in examining ethical issues and societalconcerns about program quality and provision ofearly childhood services and the implications ofthose issues for advocacy and policy change.Candidates have a basic understanding of howpublic policies are developed, and they demon-strate essential advocacy skills, including verbaland written communication and collaborationwith others around common issues.

Key elements of Standard 55a: Identifying and involving oneself with the

early childhood field5b: Knowing about and upholding ethical

standards and other professional guidelines5c: Engaging in continuous, collaborative

learning to inform practice5d: Integrating knowledgeable, reflective, and

critical perspectives on early education5e: Engaging in informed advocacy for chil-

dren and the profession

26


Rubrics for these key elements, outlining distinctlevels of candidate performance and programevidence, are available online at www.naeyc.org.

References and Resources

Publications

[Numbers in brackets denote items pertinent toone or more of the five standards; “G” denotesitems of General usefulness.]Adams, M.J. 1994. Beginning to read: Thinking and learning

about print. Cambridge, MA: Bradford Books. [4]August, D., & K. Hakuta, eds. 1998. Educating language-

minority children. Washington, DC: National AcademyPress. [1,4]

Barnett, W.S., & S.S. Boocock. 1998. Early care and educa-tion for children in poverty: Promises, programs, and long-term results. Albany, NY: State University of New YorkPress. [G]

Barnett, W.S., J.W. Young, & L.J. Schweinhart. 1998. Howpreschool education influences long-term cognitivedevelopment and school success. In Early care and educa-tion for children in poverty, eds. W.S. Barnett & S.S.Boocock, 167–84. Albany, NY: State University of NewYork Press. [G]

Barrera, I. 1996. Thoughts on the assessment of youngchildren whose sociocultural background is unfamiliarto the assessor. In New visions for the developmental assess-ment of infants and young children, eds. S.J. Meisels & E.Fenichel, 69–84. Washington, DC: ZERO TO THREE/National Center for Infants, Toddlers, and Families. [3]

Beckman, P.J. 1996. Strategies for working with families ofyoung children with disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.[2]

Bentzen, W.R. 1997. Seeing young children: A guide to ob-serving and recording behavior. Albany, NY: Delmar. [1]

Bergen, D., R. Reid, & L. Torelli. 2001. Educating and car-ing for very young children: The infant/toddler curriculum.New York: Teachers College Press. [4]

Berk, L.E., & A. Winsler. 1995. Scaffolding children’s learn-ing: Vygotsky and early childhood education. Washington,DC: NAEYC. [1]

Bodrova, E., & D.J. Leong. 1996. Tools of the mind: TheVygotskian approach to early childhood education. UpperSaddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. [4]

Bredekamp, S., & C. Copple, eds. 1997. Developmentallyappropriate practice in early childhood programs. Rev. ed.Washington, DC: NAEYC. [G]

Bredekamp, S., & T. Rosegrant, series & vol. eds. 1992.Reaching potentials. Vol.1: Appropriate curriculum andassessment for young children. Washington, DC: NAEYC.[3,4]

Bredekamp, S., & T. Rosegrant, series & vol. eds. 1995.Reaching potentials. Vol. 2: Transforming early childhoodcurriculum and assessment. Washington, DC: NAEYC.[3,4]

Burns, M.S., P. Griffin, & C.E. Snow, eds. 1999. Startingout right: A guide to promoting children’s reading success.Washington, DC: National Academy Press. [4]

Campbell, F.A., C.T. Ramey, E. Pungello, J. Sparling, & S.Miller-Johnson. 2002. Early childhood education: Young

adult outcomes from the Abecedarian Project. AppliedDevelopmental Science 6(1): 42–57.

Campbell, F.A., R. Harms, J.J. Sparling, & C.T. Ramey.1998. Early childhood programs and success in school:The Abecedarian study. In Early care and education for chil-dren in poverty, eds. W.S. Barnett & S.S. Boocock, pp. 145–66. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. [G]

Campbell, P.S., & C. Scott-Kassner, eds. 1995. Music inchildhood, from preschool through the early grades. Belmont,CA: Wadsworth. [4]

Chafel, J., ed. 1997. Families and early childhood education.Advances in Early Education and Day Care, vol. 9.Stamford, CT: JAI Press. [2]

Chang, H.N., A. Muckelroy, & D. Pulido-Tobiassen. 1996.Looking in, looking out: Redefining child care and earlyeducation in a diverse society. San Francisco, CA: Califor-nia Tomorrow. [G]

Chang, H.N., J.O. Edwards, C. Alvarado, D. Pulido-Tobiassen, & C.L. Morgan. 1999. Transforming curricu-lum, empowering faculty: Deepening teachers’ understandingof race, class, culture, and language. San Francisco, CA:California Tomorrow. [G]

Child Mental Health Foundations and Agencies Net-work. 2000. A good beginning: Sending America’s chil-dren to school with the social and emotional competencethey need to succeed. Bethesda, MD: National Instituteof Mental Health, Office of Communications andPublic Liaison. [4]

Clements, D.H. 2001. Mathematics in the preschool.Teaching Children Mathematics 7: 270–75. [4]

Clements, D.H., & J. Sarama. 2000. Standards forpreschoolers. Teaching Children Mathematics 7: 38–41. [4]

Clements, D.H., J. Sarama, & A.M. DiBiase, eds. In press.Engaging young children in mathematics: Findings of theNational 2000 Conference on Standards for Preschool andKindergarten Mathematics Education. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum. [4]

Cohen, D.H., V. Stern, & N. Balaban. 1997. Observing andrecording the behavior of young children. 4th ed. New York:Teachers College Press. [1]

Copley, J.V. 2000. The young child and mathematics. Wash-ington, DC: NAEYC. [4]

Copley, J.V., ed. 1999. Mathematics in the early years.Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathemat-ics; and Washington, DC: NAEYC. [4]

Darling-Hammond, L., J. Ancess, & B. Falk. 1993. Authen-tic assessment in action: Studies of schools and students atwork. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. [3]

Darling-Hammond, L., L. Einbender, F. Frelow, & J. Ley-King. 1993. Authentic assessment in practice: A collection ofportfolios, performance tasks, exhibitions, and documenta-tion. New York: National Center for Restructuring Edu-cation, Schools, and Teaching (NCREST). [3]

Dunst, C.J., C.M. Trivette, & A.G. Deal. 1994. Supportingand strengthening families: Methods, strategies, and prac-tices. Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books. [2]

Edwards, P.A., H.M. Pleasants, & S.H. Franklin. 1999. Apath to follow: Learning to listen to parents. Portsmouth,NH: Heinemann. [2]

Elkind, D. 1994. A sympathetic understanding of the child:Birth to sixteen, 3d ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Epstein, J.L., M.G. Sanders, & L.A. Clark. 1999. Preparingeducators for school-family-community partnerships: Resultsof a national survey of colleges and universities. Baltimore,MD: Center for Research on the Education of StudentsPlaced at Risk. [2]

References and Resources

27


Falk, B. 2000. The heart of the matter: Using standards andassessment to learn. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. [3]

Feeney, S., & N.K. Freeman. 1999. Ethics and the earlychildhood educator: Using the NAEYC code. Washington,DC: NAEYC. [5]

Feeney, S., N.K. Freeman, & E. Moravcik. 2000. Teachingthe NAEYC code of ethical conduct. Washington, DC:NAEYC. [5]

Fillmore, L.W., & C.E. Snow. 2000. What teachers need toknow about language. Washington, DC: Office of Educa-tional Research and Improvement. [4]

Forman, G., & B. Fyfe. 1998. Negotiated learning throughdesign, documentation, and discourse. In The hundredlanguages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach—Ad-vanced reflections, 2d ed., eds. C. Edwards, L. Gandini, &G. Forman, 239–60. Greenwich, CT: Ablex. [4]

Gandini, L., & C.P. Edwards. 2001. Bambini: The Italianapproach to infant/toddler care. New York: Teachers Col-lege Press. [4]

Gardner, H. 1993. Frames of mind: The theory of multipleintelligences. New York: Basic Books. [1]

Gregory, E., ed. 1997. One child, many worlds: Early learn-ing in multicultural communities. New York: TeachersCollege Press. [2]

Guralnick, M.J., ed. 2001. Early childhood inclusion: Focuson change. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. [G]

Harbin, G.L., R.A. McWilliam, & J.J. Gallagher. 2000.Services for young children with disabilities and theirfamilies. In Handbook of early childhood intervention,2ded., eds. J.P. Shonkoff & S.J. Meisels, 387–415. New York:Cambridge University Press. [G]

Hart, B., & T.R. Risley. 1995. Meaningful differences ineveryday experience of young American children. Baltimore,MD: Brookes. [4]

Heath, S.B. 1983. Ways with words: Language, life, and workin communities and classrooms. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press. [4]

Helm, J.H., S. Beneke, & K. Steinheimer. 1998. Windows onlearning: Documenting young children’s work. New York:Teachers College Press. [3]

Heubert, J.P., & R.M. Hauser. 1999. High stakes: Testing fortracking, promotion, and graduation. Washington, DC:National Academy Press. [3]

Hodgkinson, H.L. 1992. A demographic look at tomorrow.Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership. [G]

Hodgkinson, H.L. 2003. Leaving too many children behind:A demographer’s view on the neglect of America’s youngestchildren. Washington, DC: Institute for EducationalLeadership. [G]

Johnson, J., & J.B. McCracken, eds. 1994. The early child-hood career lattice: Perspectives on professional development.Washington, DC: NAEYC. [5]

Johnson, L.J., M.J. LaMontagne, P.M. Elgas, & A.M. Bauer.1998. Early childhood education: Blending theory, blendingpractice. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. [G]

Kaiser, B., & J.S. Rasminsky. 1999. Meeting the challenge:Effective strategies for challenging behaviors in early child-hood environments. Ottawa, Canada: Canadian ChildCare Federation. [4]

Katz, L.G., & S.C. Chard. 2000. Engaging children’s minds:The project approach. 2d ed. Greenwich, CT: Ablex. [4]

Kohn, A. 1999. The schools our children deserve: Movingbeyond traditional classrooms and “tougher standards.”Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. [5]

Ladson-Billings, G. 2001. Crossing over to Canaan: Thejourney of new teachers in diverse classrooms. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass. [5]

Lally, J.R. 1995. Caring for infants and toddlers in groups:Developmentally appropriate practice. Arlington, VA:ZERO TO THREE/National Center for Clinical InfantPrograms. [4]

Lamb, M., ed. 1999. Parenting and child development in“nontraditional” families. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [2]

Lee, E., D. Menkart, & M. Okazawa-Rey, eds. 1998. Be-yond heroes and holidays: A practical guide to K–12 anti-racist, multicultural education and staff development. Wash-ington, DC: Network of Educators on the Americas. [4]

Losardo, A., & A. Notari-Syverson. 2001. Alternativeapproaches to assessing young children. Baltimore, MD:Brookes. [3]

Lynch, E.W., & M.J. Hanson. 1998. Developing cross-cul-tural competence: A guide for working with children andtheir families. 2d ed. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. [1,2]

McCabe, A. 1995. Chameleon readers: Teaching children toappreciate all kinds of good stories. Columbus, OH:McGraw-Hill Higher Education. [4]

McCarthy, J., J. Cruz, & N. Ratcliff. 1999. Early childhoodteacher education licensure patterns and curriculum guide-lines: A state by state analysis. Washington, DC: Councilfor Professional Recognition. [G]

McWilliam, P.J., P.J. Winton, & E.R. Crais. 1996. Practicalstrategies for family-centered intervention. San Diego, CA:Singular Publishing Group. [2]

Mussen, P., ed. 1997. Handbook of child psychology. 5th ed.New York: Wiley. [1]

NAEYC. 1996a. Guidelines for preparation of early childhoodprofessionals. Washington, DC: Author. [G]

NAEYC. 1996b. Technology and young children: Ages 3through 8. Position Statement. Washington, DC: Author.[G]

NAEYC. 1997. Code of ethical conduct and statement ofcommitment. Position Statement. Washington, DC: Au-thor. [G]

NAEYC. 1997. Licensing and public regulation of early child-hood programs. Position Statement. Washington, DC:Author. [5]

NAEYC. 1998. Accreditation criteria and procedures of theNational Academy of Early Childhood Programs. PositionStatement. Washington, DC: Author. [G]

NAEYC & National Association of Early Childhood Spe-cialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE). 2002. Early learning standards: Creating the condi-tions for success. Joint Position Statement. Washington,DC: NAEYC. [G]

NAEYC & National Council of Teachers of Mathematics(NCTM). 2002. Early childhood mathematics: Promotinggood beginnings. Joint Position Statement. Washington,DC: NAEYC. [4]

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future.1996. What matters most: Teaching for America’s future.New York: Author. [G]

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM).2000. Principles and standards for school mathematics.Reston, VA: Author. [4]

National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop-ment. 2000. Report of the National Reading Panel. Teachingchildren to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scien-tific research literature on reading and its implications forreading instruction. NIH Publication No. 00-4769. Wash-ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. [4]

National Institute on Early Childhood Development andEducation, U.S. Department of Education. 2000. Newteachers for a new century: The future of early childhood

28


Seefeldt, C. 2001. Social studies for the preschool/primarychild. 6th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall/Merrill. [4]

Seefeldt, C., & A. Galper. 2000. Active experiences for activechildren: Social studies. Upper Saddle River, NJ: PrenticeHall/Merrill. [4]

Shartrand, A.M., H.B. Weiss, H.M. Kreider, & M.E. Lopez.1997. New skills for new schools. Washington, DC: U.S.Department of Education. [2]

Shore, R. 1997. Rethinking the brain: New insights into earlydevelopment. New York: Families and Work Institute. [G]

Sims, W.L. ed.; J. Cassidy, A. Freshwater, & C.D. Mack,assoc. eds. 1995. Strategies for teaching: Prekindergartenmusic. Reston, VA: National Association for Music Edu-cation (MENC). [4]

Snell, M.E., & R. Janney. 2000. Teachers’ guides to inclusivepractices: Collaborative teaming. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.[G]

Stauffer, S.L., & J. Davidson, eds. 1996. Strategies for teach-ing: K-4 general music. Reston, VA: National Associationfor Music Education (MENC). [4]

Tabors, P.O. 1997. One child, two languages: A guide forpreschool educators of children learning English as a secondlanguage. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. [4]

Tabors, P.O. 1998. What early childhood educators needto know: Developing effective programs for linguisti-cally and culturally diverse children and families. YoungChildren 53 (6): 20–26. [1,4]

Tabors, P.O., & C.E. Snow. 2001. Young bilingual childrenand early literacy development. In Handbook of earlyliteracy research, eds. S.B. Neuman & D.K. Dickinson,159–78. New York: Guilford. [4]

Teaching Children Mathematics. 2001. Focus issue: Math-ematics and culture, 7 (6). [4]

Tertell, E.A., S.M. Klein, & J.L. Jewett, eds. 1998. Whenteachers reflect: Journeys toward effective, inclusive practice.Washington, DC: NAEYC. [5]

Turnbull, A.P., & H.R. Turnbull. 1997. Families, profession-als, and exceptionality: A special partnership. 3d ed. Co-lumbus, OH: Merrill. [2]

Van Scoter, J., E. Ellis, & J. Railsback. 2001. Technology inearly childhood education: Finding a balance. Portland, OR:Northwest Regional Education Laboratory. [4]

Von Blackensee, L. 1999. Technology tools for young learners.Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education. [4]

Vygotsky, L.S. 1978. Mind in society: The development ofhigher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniversity Press. [1]

Whitebook, M., C. Howes, & D. Phillips. 1998. Worthywork, unlivable wages: The National Child Care StaffingStudy, 1988-97. Washington, DC: National Center for theEarly Childhood Work Force. [5].

Winton, P.J., J. McCollum, & C. Catlett, eds. 1997. Reform-ing personnel preparation in early intervention: Issues,models, and practical strategies. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.[G]

Wolery, M., & J.S. Wilbers, eds. 1994. Including childrenwith special needs in early childhood programs. Washington,DC: NAEYC. [G]

Wozniak, R.H., & K.W. Fischer, eds. 1993. Development incontext: Acting and thinking in specific environments,3–44. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. [1]

Yelland, N.J., ed. 2000. Promoting meaningful learning:Innovations in educating early childhood professionals.Washington, DC: NAEYC. [5]

professional preparation. Jessup, MD: U.S. Department ofEducation, ED Publishing. [G]

National Research Council. 1998. Preventing reading diffi-culties in young children, eds. C.E. Snow, M.S. Burns, & P.Griffin. Committee on the Prevention of Reading Diffi-culties in Young Children, Commission on Behavioraland Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC:National Academy Press. [4]

National Research Council. 1999. How people learn: Brain,mind, experience, and school, eds. J.D. Bransford, A.L.Brown, & R.R. Cocking. Committee on Developments inthe Science of Learning, Commission on Behavioral andSocial Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: Na-tional Academy Press. [G]

National Research Council. 2001a. Adding it up: Helpingchildren learn mathematics, eds. J. Kilpatrick, J. Swafford,& B. Findell. Mathematics Learning Study Committee,Center for Education, Division of Behavioral and SocialSciences and Education. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press. [4]

National Research Council. 2001b. Eager to learn: Educat-ing our preschoolers, eds. B.T. Bowman, M.S. Donovan, &M.S. Burns. Committee on Early Childhood Pedagogy,Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences andEducation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.[G]

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine.2000. From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of earlychildhood development, eds. J.P. Shonkoff & D.A. Phillips.Board on Children, Youth, and Families, Commissionon Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Wash-ington, DC: National Academy Press. [G]

Neelly, L.P. 2001. Developmentally appropriate musicpractice: Children learn what they live. Young Children56 (3): 32–43. [4]

Neuman, S.B., & D.K. Dickinson. 2001. Handbook of earlyliteracy research. New York: Guilford. [4]

Neuman, S.B., C. Copple, & S. Bredekamp. 1999. Learningto read and write: Developmentally appropriate practices foryoung children. Washington, DC: NAEYC. [4]

New Standards/Speaking and Listening Committee.2001. Speaking and listening for preschool through thirdgrade. Washington, DC: National Center on Educationand the Economy. [4]

Peisner-Feinberg, E.S., M.R. Burchinal, R.M. Clifford,M.L. Culkin, C. Howes, S.L. Kagan, N. Yazejian, P.Byler, J. Rustici, & J. Zelazo. 1999. The children of theCost, Quality, and Outcomes Study go to school. ChapelHill: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, FrankPorter Graham Child Development Center. [G]

Reynolds, A.J., J.A. Temple, D.L. Robertson, & E.A.Mann. 2001. Long-term effects of an early childhoodintervention on educational achievement and juvenilearrest: A 15-year follow-up of low-income children inpublic schools. Journal of the American Medical Associa-tion 285 (18): 2339–46. [G]

Rosin, P., A.D. Whitehead, L.I. Tuchman, G.S. Jesien, A.L.Begun, & L. Irwin. 1996. Partnerships in family-centeredcare: A guide to collaborative early intervention. Baltimore,MD: Brookes. [2]

Sandall, S., M. McLean, & B. Smith. 2000. DEC recom-mended practices in early intervention/early childhood spe-cial education. Longmont, CO: Sopris West EducationalServices. [G]

Seefeldt, C. 1995. Transforming curriculum in socialstudies. In Reaching potentials. Vol. 2: Transforming earlychildhood curriculum and assessment, eds. S. Bredekamp &T. Rosegrant, 145–66. Washington, DC: NAEYC. [4]

29


Websites

American Associate Degree Early Childhood Educators,www.accessece.org

American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education,www.aacte.org

American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recre-ation, and Dance, www.aahperd.org

Center for the Improvement of Early Reading Achieve-ment, www.ciera.org

CEO Forum on Education and Technology, Self-Assess-ment for Teacher Preparation, www.ceoforum.org

Children and Computers,www.childrenandcomputers.com

Council for Exceptional Children, www.cec.sped.orgDivision for Early Childhood, www.dec-sped.orgERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation,

http://ericae.netInternational Reading Association, www.reading.orgMENC: National Association for Music Education,

www.menc.orgMuSICA: Music and Science Information Computer

Archive, www.musica.uci.eduNational Association for Bilingual Education,

www.nabe.orgNational Association for Early Childhood Teacher Educa-

tors, www.naecte.org

National Association for the Education of Young Chil-dren, www.naeyc.org

National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards,and Student Testing, http://cresst96.cse.ucla.edu

National Center on Education and the Economy,www.ncee.org

National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisi-tion and Language Instruction Educational Programs,www.ncela.gwu.edu

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics,www.nctm.org

National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center,www.nectac.org

National Education Goals Panel, www.negp.govNational Educational Technology Standards Projects,

http://cnets.iste.orgNational Geographic Society, National Standards for

Geography, www.nationalgeographic.com/xpeditions/standards/

National Institute for Early Education Research,http://nieer.org/

Program for Infant/Toddler Caregivers, www.pitc.orgTechnology & Young Children (NAEYC Technology &

Young Children Interest Forum), http://techandyoungchildren.org/index.shtml

ZERO TO THREE, www.zerotothree.org

30


Comparison of INTASC principles with related sectionsof NAEYC Initial Licensure Standards

Appendix A

1. Promoting Child Development and Learning X X X X

2. Building Family and Community Relationships X X X

3. Observing, Documenting, and Assessing toSupport Young Children and Families X X X

4. Teaching and Learning4a. Connecting with children and families X X X

4b. Using developmentally effective approaches X X X X X X X

4c. Understanding content knowledgein early education X

4d. Building meaningful curriculum X X X X X

5. Becoming a Professional X X

INTASC Principles


○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

1. S

ub

ject

Mat

ter

2. S

tud

ent

Lea

rnin

g

3. D

iver

se L

earn

ers

4. I

nst

ruct

ion

al S

trat

egie

s

10. C

olla

bor

atio

n, E

thic

s,&

Rel

atio

nsh

ips

5. L

earn

ing

En

viro

nm

ent

6. C

omm

un

icat

ion

7. P

lan

nin

g In

stru

ctio

n

8. A

sses

smen

t

9. R

efle

ctio

n &

Pro

fes-

sion

al D

evel

opm

ent

31


Initial Licensure Standards Work Group

NAEYC gratefully acknowledges the expertise and commitment of the members of the InitialLicensure Standards Work Group:

Linda Hassan-Anderson, National Black Child Development Institute (NBCDI)–Atlanta AffiliateNancy Barbour, Kent State UniversityJosué Cruz Jr., University of South FloridaJohn Johnston, University of MemphisAnn Marie Leonard, James Madison University

NAEYC StaffMarilou Hyson, Associate Executive Director for Professional DevelopmentParker Anderson, Assistant Director for Professional Development

Appendix B

Institutional affiliations reflect those held by the members at the time the Work Group was convening.

naeyc standards for early childhood professional ... naeyc initial licensure standards introduction...

Documents