Early childhood period is an extremely essential period for a child who needs to be provided with both education and care. The process of multifaceted development of a child’s organism should be combined with the learning achievements. For this reason, parents and educators should be competent in relation to early childhood education. The essay is focused on the four articles dedicated to this problem. The essay is focused on the discussion of their strengths and weaknesses, similarities and differences in terms of the authors’ attitude to the parental and educators’ work, and early childhood education and care policy. In addition, the paper gives the synthesis of the key ideas of the analyzed articles.
Roeters and Treas (2011) investigated some of the Western families through email survey, and engaged in the research 200,000 households. The received data and background research allowed the researchers to believe that family life of most Western parents is concentrated around the two domains: job and family activity. It creates come challenges concerning family and child-oriented leisure organization. According to the researchers’ article, “leisure is a central component of modern day parenting that is purposively used to educate and socialize children” (Roeters & Treas, 2011, p. 271). Although leisure activities may be accompanied with stress, different conflicts, and time pressure, parents try to socialize children through games that lead to positive outcomes. The authors stress that such children are better prepared for a school life, have an adequate self-esteem that influence child’s good performance in school subjects. The article suggests the idea that socially motivated parents maximize their leisure time with children.
The main strength of the article is the time conflict theory that lies in the researchers’ hypothesis: “higher work demands, such as longer working hours or more demanding work arrangements, are associated with less parent–child, family, and couple leisure” (Roeters & Treas, 2011, p. 274). However, the main weakness is in the limitations of the research. The authors studied only associations, not the effects. Thus, they do not take into account the variability; for this reason, the credibility of the article is its controversial point. For example, working parents may adjust their schedule to family needs from time to time.
Kamerman and Gatenio-Gabel’s article (2007) is dedicated to the Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) system and programs in the USA intended to integrate certain activities in a diverse society. The ECEC programs embrace preschools, child care centers, and family child care homes. The researchers stress that preschool education (mainly, kindergartens) enhances later school success and employment; it may influence even earnings. Child care centers provide with a full-day program designed for infants, toddlers and school-age children that help them to be socialized and educated young members of society. Family child care homes provide children with care, nutrition and activities that influence child’s self-identification in a social environment. All these ECEC centers contribute to compulsory elementary education. The article is inspired bi the notable evidence in the modern USA:
“Because of growing evidence that early intervention can be effective in compensating for early deprivation, mitigating and preventing disabilities in the future, and helping prepare young children for subsequent schooling -and because more women with children under age 3 are entering the workforce- there have been increased resources dedicated recently to providing services to children under age 3” (Kamerman & Gatenio-Gabel, 2007, p. 25).
This evidence made Kamerman and Gatenio-Gabel research the problem profoundly. The findings are the main strengths of the article. The dramatic increase in ECEC activity in relation to the children who are lack of parental care can be explained by the need to redact social problems in society (juvenile delinquency, welfare dependency, school failure, teen pregnancy, etc.), preventing possible unfavorable outcomes, and support children (in skill training, their struggle for economic self-sufficiency, etc.). However, the authors put their hopes only the responsibilities of federal funds and ECEC-oriented organizations, instead of children’s families. It is the main weakness of the article. Nevertheless, the findings are credible as the researchers cooperated with ECEC centers; this cooperation is the methodological base for the conducted research.
In the article, Langford (2010) writes about early childhood educator’s authority, and outlines obvious tensions between theory and practice. Critical reflection of the early childhood educators’ experience served as the methodological base for the article. The strength of the article is the idea about the obvious gap between educator’s theory and practice. In theory, a child should respect and obey an educator. Unfortunately, some children become challenges for the educators because they do not see any authority in an educator’s figure. According to the credible findings, only knowledge, judgment and will enhance the educator’ authority. With the help of these components, an educator may inspire a child’s actions, believes and opinions, and promote social goods in a child’s life. Probably, the main weakness is that the work may be considered as a one-sided article that proclaims that only early childhood educator’s authority help to promote social goods in the child’s environment.
Schweinhart (2009) dedicates his article to the early childhood curriculum, and the role of teachers, caregivers and parents in it. According to him, the child-initiated learning activities are the keys to the success of all high-quality early childhood programs. The researcher notes:
“Early childhood programs are not institutionalized like educational programs for children and youth. Instead, they operate in schools, several types of community agencies, other people’s homes, and parents’ own homes” (Schweinhart, 2009, p. 34).
Thus, an early childhood curriculum provides teachers, caregivers and parents with accessible basic principles of learning and teaching. Also, the assessment system and structure of the lifelong curriculum help teachers and children to achieve the objectives. The HighScope Curriculum can be considered as a bright example of such curriculum. With the help of this curriculum, a child receives both education arrangement and nonparental care. The main strength of the Schweinhart’s article is that the author emulates model programs, and offers his own vision of an affective early childhood curriculum that meets the demands of teachers, caregivers and parents at the same time. This curriculum makes “the basic principles of good child development and early education available to them within the educational opportunities available to them” (Schweinhart, 2009, p. 36). The early childhood researcher’s experience helped him to chose a corresponding research methodology. As a result, one may be sure that the article information is undoubtedly credible because it is based on a proven and effective practice of the HighScope Curriculum and personal experience. However, there is a weakness, as well. The implication of this curriculum is impossible without state’s investment.
The analysis allows to make a synthesis of the key ideas of the articles. Despite parents, caregivers, educators and teachers are responsible for the early childhood development process, and take an active part in early childhood education and care, this problem has different aspects (Owens, 1997). All the researchers mentioned above dedicated their articles to these aspects. Roeters & Treas underlined the essence of child-oriented family leisure, and the evidence of the insufficient parental care explained by the parents’ working schedule. This evidence was also noted by Kamerman & Gatenio-Gabel; however, they offer the ECEC programs as one of the possible way-outs of the problem. In contrast to them, Langford put the great responsibility on early childhood educators, not the parents, in promoting social goods in children’s lives. Schweinhart’s article combines the main ideas of all mentioned researchers, and offers an ideal model of an early childhood curriculum that meets the demands of three main audiences in a child’s life: parents, teachers, and caregivers.
Proceeding from the research results of articles by Kamerman, Gatenio-Gabel and Schweinhart, one may see that these authors stress on parents, caregivers, and teachers’ involvement in the early childhood education and care. Thus, the collaborative work of these audiences leads to successful child’s development; all these people play an extremely essential role in a child’s socialization through child-oriented activities. Other researchers pay more attention to one audience: Roeters & Treas underlines the contribution of parents to the child’s education and care through family leisure activities; Langford believes that mainly educators should be responsible for the overall child’s development and socialization.
The analyzed articles raise one of the topical pedagogical problems of early childhood education and care. The researchers think that a child develops and socializes through certain activities. Parents, teachers and caregivers are those people who contribute to successful child’s future and personal progress.
References
Kamerman, S., & Gatenio-Gabel, S. (2007). Early childhood education and care in the Untied States: an overview of the current policy picture. International Journal of Child Care and Education Policy, 1 (1), 23-34.
Langford, L. (2010). Theorizing an early childhood educator’s authority for the advancement of social goods. The Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 56 (3), 291-303.
Owens, P. (1997). Early Childhood Education and Care. London, UK: Trentham Books. Print.
Roeters, A., & Treas, J. (2011). Parental work demands and parent-child, family, and couple leisure in Dutch families: what gives? Journal of Family Issues, 32 (3), 269-291. doi: 10.1177/0192513X10379204.
Schweinhart, L. (2009). Designing a curriculum for EC teachers and caregivers. Designing Curriculum Exchange, (3), 34-37. Web.