Core Knowledge^® Articles from
our newsletter, Common Knowledge

Ten Years Later

Developmentally Appropriate Practice:
What Have We Learned?

from Common Knowledge, Volume 10, No. 1/2, Winter/Spring 1997. © 1997 Core Knowledge Foundation. Not to be copied or reproduced without permission from the Core Knowledge Foundation, 801 E. High Street, Charlottesville, VA  22902.

Ten years after the National Association for the Education of Young Children [NAEYC] published its profoundly influential position statement on what it termed "developmentally appropriate practice" [DAP] for preschool and early elementary settings, new influences in the field of early childhood education have recently prompted it to issue a different statement from its 1987 predecessor. 

The NAEYC's 1987 document became one of the most widely disseminated educational publications ever, with over half a million copies of the position statement and several million summary brochures distributed throughout the United States. The guidelines enormously influenced beliefs and practices in curriculum design and instruction in early childhood settings. Over the years, the term also acquired strong emotional overtones, becoming a virtual litmus test of one's educational philosophy. 

Meanwhile, however, research in cognitive development and how children learn has changed our understanding of child development. Studies of early childhood practices in other countries, which differ significantly from those in the U. S., have revealed significant shortcomings in the approach advocated in 1987. 

The 1987 document reflected the exploding number of young children in day care and preschool settings in the United States, as more and more women entered the work force. The lack of state or federal regulations for these settings often meant no training of caregivers and a wide variety of experiences offered to young children. 

To establish quality and consistency in preschool programs, NAEYC developed criteria by which preschools and day care settings might seek distinction through a national accreditation process. The 1987 position statement was issued to elaborate on the accreditation guidelines and facilitate their implementation. In particular, it was designed to address the tendency of inexperienced caregivers to simply "push down" academic curricula originally intended for children in the elementary grades. 

The principles that became known as the 1987 DAP had their roots in certain philosophical and educational traditions, ranging from Jean Jacques Rousseau's romanticism to Piagetian constructivism and maturationist psychology. These traditions gave rise to a view of child development as a process that evolved naturally. Young children were said to construct understanding and knowledge through their own independent exploration of the physical world, passing through certain universal developmental stages that occurred at fairly set ages and in a predictable sequence. Formal instruction and outside intervention by adults were regarded as unnecessary and disruptive. Development and readiness to learn could not be hastened or artificially induced; instead, let nature take its course and allow children "to bloom when they were ready." It was necessary to wait for certain skills and competencies to develop before the child was deemed ready to learn. 

Since each child independently constructed his own knowledge, appropriate educational practice focused on the individual child. Curriculum emphasized process and discovery. The content learned was considered secondary, even incidental, to how the child learned. Emphasis was placed on developing each child's self-expression and creativity. To foster discovery and freedom of expression, teachers were encouraged to act as if there are no "right" or "wrong" answers. Activities were to be child-initiated; the teacher's role was that of facilitator, preparing and providing an appropriate environment. It was deemed especially important that experiences and materials be concrete, manipulative and relevant. 

The NAEYC juxtaposed examples of appropriate and inappropriate practice as part of the 1987 position statement. Unfortunately, these led to a polarized, "either/or" view of educational practice and seemed to suggest that there was only one right way to work with young children. For example, appropriate practice was described as allowing "children (to) select many of their own activities," while inappropriate practice was defined as "the teacher direct(ing) activities, deciding what children will do and when." Many teachers concluded that under no circumstances was the teacher to plan or lead activities. As a result, in many preschool settings across the United States, activities became not just child-initiated, but child-dominated. When taken to extremes, each individual child was encouraged to pursue only his own inclinations in the name of independently constructing knowledge. In most instances, there were no clear goals and children were not held to any expectations, boundaries or limits. Furthermore, little attention was paid to helping children function in a classroom setting, learning to sometimes defer the immediate gratification of one's own needs for the benefit of the group. 

Another example characterized DAP experiences as active, concrete and manipulative. In practice, this was often interpreted to mean that all abstract or symbolic activities were inappropriate. In many instances, "paper and pencil" activities, as well as any other "abstract" academic experiences, were systematically withheld from young children. 

The overall effect of the 1987 DAP guidelines at the preschool level has been to create a widening gap between preschool and elementary school experiences for most children. Rather than provide an introduction to the world of "school," developmentally appropriate preschools often have taught a set of expectations and behaviors that subsequently do not apply in kindergarten. It's little wonder that in recent years kindergarten teachers throughout the U.S. consistently describe entering students as less and less ready for academic instruction than in the past. 

Meanwhile, new knowledge about child development has come from research, as well as international comparisons. Animal research and human case studies have significantly advanced our understanding of the cognitive development of the young child, particularly the role of experience upon brain development. It is now clear that each child's physical brain structure reflects his everyday experiences. The presence or lack of experiences in a very real sense shapes the actual physical structure of the brain. The essential connections between brain cells, dendrites, are either elaborated through branching, if stimulated through certain experiences, or eliminated through pruning, if not stimulated. Ultimately, physical brain structure, determined by early experience, affects how the brain will function and learn.¹

Other research has led to a more complete understanding of how and when children learn certain knowledge and skills. Researchers using laboratory-controlled conditions have demonstrated that the ages originally established by Piaget as marking the various developmental stages consistently underestimate young children's capabilities. Furthermore, it is also now evident that while some learning, such as early language and awareness of simple quantities, do develop naturally in an automatic, universal fashion for all children, as Piaget suggested, other "unnatural learning," such as more sophisticated language, reading and so on, do not develop naturally. Indeed, they very much depend on experience.² 

As research demonstrates the limitations of a strict Piagetian view of child development, there is growing interest in the child development theories of the Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky, who emphasized the role of language development and social interaction in cognitive development. Unlike Piaget, who focused upon the child's independent construction of knowledge, Vygotsky's sociocultural view acknowledges the importance of a child's interaction with others, adults or older peers, who mediate and support the child's learning experiences. 

In addition to research findings, exposure to preschool practices in other countries has called into question many of the assumptions and principles advocated in the name of DAP. American researchers and educators visiting other countries consistently see preschool children doing things that Americans have claimed preschool children are not capable of performing. There are common features in the preschool practices of many developed nations, among them France, Japan and Korea, where students consistently outperform American students academically in later grades. 

In these countries, young children are seen as highly competent and they are held to certain expectations. Furthermore, certain experiences are seen as so critical in the development of all children that they are explicitly specified in written national standards for preschool education. In sharp contrast to the approach promulgated by DAP, preschool practices in these countries are based on the belief that learning requires effort. There is little talk of learning as natural or easy. Instead of focusing solely upon the individual child, attention is paid to helping each child develop personal independence and responsibility within a social context. Finally, while much activity and learning is concrete, manipulative and active, a conscious effort is made to help children make the transition to more symbolic, abstract approaches. 

One last lesson from international experience is particularly noteworthy. For many years, Great Britain resisted the practice of most other European countries of explicitly specifying educational expectations and standards. In 1967, the British Department of Education issued the Plowden Report in which it formally adopted progressive education as its approach in early childhood settings. The report described progressive education as child-directed and teacher-facilitated, with an emphasis on learning through discovery and play. Also recommended was an integrated approach through the project method and a rejection of drill and rote learning. In 1992, however, the same Department of Education issued a new report. Alarmed by academic performance that fell consistently below that of students in other developed nations — one international comparison of science achievement indicated that 61 percent of British schools scored below the lowest scoring Japanese schools — education officials resoundingly rejected progressive education, citing its implementation as the downfall of British academic performance. A national curriculum with explicit standards was established instead. 

The British experience with progressive education seems to parallel our own recent history with DAP. Concern is growing here over the ongoing decline in American academic performance at all grade levels. Of particular interest in the search for solutions is Project Follow Though, the massive — over 75,000 children in 170 communities — federally-funded evaluation of various educational approaches used to teach disadvantaged children in grades K-3. This research assessed the children's academic achievement, as well as cognitive and affective development in light of the instructional approach used. Of all the approaches evaluated, the basic skills model, with a focus on specific instruction in explicitly identified academic and social skills — the model of instruction attacked by supporters of DAP over the years as being developmentally inappropriate — consistently surpassed the other models in terms of student performance in basic skills and in measures of cognitive and affective development. Those models that met DAP criteria were consistently inferior to the basic skills model. 

Given the developments of the last ten years, it is no surprise that NAEYC has reconsidered what constitutes developmentally appropriate practice. Its revised position statement includes the following changes: 

Curriculum addresses both process and content: "Clearly, people in the decades ahead will need fully developed literacy and numeracy skills, and these abilities are key goals of the educational process. In science, social studies (which includes history and geography), music and the visual arts, physical education and health, children need to acquire a body of knowledge and skills. . . . Besides knowledge and skills, children must develop positive dispositions and attitudes. They need to understand that effort is necessary for achievement" (italics added). 

The teacher is no longer just a facilitator, but an active participant, using a continuum of teaching strategies ranging from child-initiated to teacher-directed, and planning experiences so that children attain key goals. 

The need to extend manipulative experiences to the level of symbolic representation is recognized: "DAP programs provide opportunities for children to broaden and deepen their behavioral knowledge by providing a variety of firsthand experiences and helping children acquire symbolic knowledge through representing their experiences in a variety of media, such as drawing, painting, construction of models, [and] dramatic play ..." (italics added). 

Perhaps most important is the conscious effort to eliminate the polarizing "either/or" categorization of practices. Teachers are prompted to recognize that children need both choices and clear definitions of limits, both structure and spontaneity, experiences that challenge and those that practice previously acquired skills. 

On paper at least, the NAEYC 's more moderate theoretical position is more consistent with the concepts embodied by Core Knowledge. The challenge now rests with early childhood teachers to translate the principles into practice. 

Learn About the Core Knowledge Preschool Sequence

back to previous page

Sign up for COMMON KNOWLEDGE, the Foundation's E-newsletter

Last updated: Fri, March 14 2008