MAC= OMB AEYC’S STANCE ON PLAY IN PRE SCHOOL AND PRIMARY GRADES

By Kathy Kalmar, Ph.D.

Saginaw Valley State University and Co-Founder of the Macomb AEYC<= /o:p>

Edited and formatted by Janet Miller, Administrative Assi= stant Saginaw Valley State University

&n= bsp; In view of the strong push for student achievement, play, the vehicle children= use to learn, may seem superfluous (Sponseller, 1974). Like the arts, it may = even be thought of as an unnecessary frill when faced with an academic achieveme= nt bar that seems to be raised higher and higher each year. Is play a fringe? Does play serve young learners? Are there any academic reasons sup= porting play’s place in the pre kindergarten and kindergarten curriculum since they too are facing both national and state standards expectations?

Play Is Valuable

This stanc= e takes the perspective that there is value to play beyond what is considered socia= lly and emotionally beneficial. W= ith violence erupting in the workplace and classroom, the importance of communication skills and learning to control and direct strong emotional reactions are more important than ever.&nb= sp; Play provides a medium for developing these potentially life-saving skills but it does even more than that.&nb= sp; Sponseller (1974) stated that it is reco= gnized that play contributes to all types of learning including social, cognitive, physical, and emotional learning. Describing play as a medium or vehicle (Spodek<= /span>, 1988) for learning serves quite well as a definition of play although others exist and are discussed later within this section. McKee, (1990) expanded this definition to include the aesthetic and linguistic values of children engag= ed in play.

= ;

Play Educates

Play has b= een established as an effective vehicle to teach young children providing a foundation for future academic learning (Bergen,1988; Berk& Winsler,1995).

From its inception, the ear= ly childhood curriculum was grounded in play. For many reasons, among them cur= rent public policy and federal law, play-based kindergarten and pre schools may = be threatened. If teachers perceive that standards-based instruction must be taught in a direct and in a formal way, then time for play can be diminishe= d or removed. If the available time for play is diminished, the complexity of pl= ay likewise decreases (Christie & Wardle,1992).= On the other hand, if teachers bel= ieve children can meet the standards and benchmarks through play, then play may remain a part of the curriculum.

There is a tension between current standards-based instruction and play-based instruction largely connected to= two areas: teachers’ perceptions of standards-based and play-based instruction and the recently enacted legislation, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.&n= bsp; For teachers, this state of affairs – the apparent conflict between developmentally appropriate practice, play, and achieving the stand= ards – causes confusion regarding what to teach. The external pressures produced by= the standards and benchmarks can create difficulties for primary grade and pre-primary teachers. Benchmarks are the mastery level of the content stran= ds to which standards adhere. They establish what children must be able to do academically. The concerns of= early childhood educators, as well as the author of this position stance, are the “what” and the “how” or, in other words, the approa= ch used to achieve the desired results.

Play Meets Standards

As a resul= t, teachers have to decide how to include standards-based instruction and whether play is replaced or time for play reduced to accommodate standards-based, formal academics. Allen (2001), Elkind (1972, 1976, 1981, 1987, 1988, 1989, 2000), Fox (2001), Grossman (2001), Katz, (2001), and Sheperd (2001) have frequently stated that there are both short and long-term negat= ive effects of introducing formal academics too soon. Bandura, Pastorelli, Barbaranelli,= and Capara (1999), Fox ( retrieved 2001), Grossman (2001), Marcon (1993), and Schweinhart and Weikart (= 1997) concur. It is possible howeve= r to teach and learn through play (Saracho & Spodek, 1998). However, administrators and kindergarten teachers may think they must focus more on academics and less on play rather than understanding how standards can be taught through carefully planned play (Helm & Gronlund, 2000; Nel, 2000= ). This shift in policy conflicts wit= h position statements published by professional organizations concerned with the educa= tion of young children (i.e., NAEYC, and IRA).&= nbsp; Hence, they may make changes that are not best practice instruction of young children as defined in the aforementioned position pap= ers but they could also potentially disrupt and ignore the processes by which y= oung children learn (Peck, McCaig, & Sapp, 1988; Hatch, 2002). Children = do not learn in a linear fashion; rather they construct meaning in non-linear ways= Fromberg (2002). Nonlinear learning consists of diver= se connections that are evident in activities such as socio-dramatic play (pre= tend play with others). Linear instruction may be defined as transmitting to children adult conceptions of knowledge in narrow, uniform, and additive ways. Children learn the answer = and regurgitate it upon request. There is a strong political push to teach in a linear manner that all too often narrows the curriculum to focus on develop= ing technical skills in the three R’s and transmitted informational facts= (Fromberg, 2002).&nbs= p; In the following example, Table 1, children were engaged in thematic play (play centering on the theme, whales)

= ;

TABLE 1: How Social Studies Benchma= rks Were Met Through Thematic: Play Whales

Content Strand &= nbsp; Co= ntent Standard = ; &n= bsp; = ; Benchmark &= nbsp; &nbs= p; Play Activity = ; &n= bsp;

Social Studies = ; &n= bsp; Geographic Perspective <= /span>1 (how environment &n= bsp; play: Whale hunt for food

meets= human needs) &= nbsp; and blubber = &nb= sp; = &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; 2 (People, Places, = play: Hunting for blub= ber

Cultu= re)

3 (Human/Envir. &= nbsp; play: Save the Whales

Inter= action) &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

&= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp; &nbs= p;

5 (Gl= obal Issues = play: Whale watching

and Even= ts) &= nbsp; &nbs= p; &= nbsp;

1 ( Describes World &nbs= p; play: Reporter

Event Impacts) = ; &n= bsp; interviewing

( Kalmar, 2005, p.24)

= ;

Play Teaches

Play is ed= ucative (Bergen, 1988; Berk & = Winsler, 1995; Kalmar, 1994). Additionally, play is considered to be a medium for yo= ung children to learn (Cummings, 1990; Elkind, 2000= ; Sponseller, 1974).&n= bsp; It has been established as best practice instruction as defined in <= span class=3DSpellE>Bredekamp & Copple (1= 997) and according to empirical data (White, 1973).= “Play can be defined as an activity that is pleasurable, voluntary, spontaneous, devoid of imposed tasks or regulations, intrinsical= ly motivated, undertaken for the process rather than an expected outcome and t= hat it requires active participation” (Frost, 1992, p.10). There is a great deal of empirical evidence concerning the educative values of socio-dramatic play and literacy (Bergen 1988, Owocki,1999). Through socio-dramat= ic pretend play, children solve problems which they create and are within their ability to solve, use language, negotiate, think critically, and acquire literacy skills (Fox, 2001). Through pretend play, children can act out aggressive and hostile feelings, gain self-control, try on roles, reverse roles, react to a reprim= and, rehearse real life situations and begin to understand the world and the peo= ple within it. Moreover, play mee= ts the needs of the whole child linguistically, aesthetically, physically, intellectually, emotionally and socially. White (1973) supports play in programming and the de-emphasis of academic tasks for young children. It is clear play educates.

= ;

Play Provides Social Skill Development

When child= ren play, they are learning social skills with the people and the things they encounter within their world. Children learn who they are and who others ar= e. By playing, young children learn to wait, take turns, share, and negotiate. These are critical skills necessary for solving problems they encounter with other children. In addition, = play provide children with the opportunities to use language, talk out their ideas and express their creativity. Furthermore, play provides the cha= nce to learn concepts like “up”, “down” as they play on the slide, “ full” and “half full” and “emptyR= 21; as they play with water and sand.

= ;

Play Provides Physical Skill Development

Childhood = obesity is an issue these days. Play allows for rough and tumble activities, runnin= g, jumping, hopping, skipping and a host of other physical feats that promote = good health. Beyond a doubt, these activities occurring naturally in play are mo= re fun then prescribed exercises. Both the large and small muscles can become = fit by using blocks, outdoor play, pegs and peg boards, puzzles and string bead= s.

= ;

Play Needs Time

Children need to be involved in play for peri= ods over 30 minutes in order for complex play such as socio-dramatic play to oc= cur (Christie & Wardle, 1992). If time to play is less than 30 minutes, children are much more likely to enga= ge in simple play. Simple play does not encourage the development of the cogni= tive skills that complex play engagement affords (Johnson et al., 1987). When time is at a premium, every m= inute counts; therefore, every opportunity to provide complex play should be encouraged. Standards require= time that could be devoted to play. Most importantly, according to Elkind (2000) eliminating play is to mis-educate young children

There is the over-riding fact that living as a child in a complex adult-driven wo= rld that is huge, complex, ever-changing is challenging for young children. Adu= lts set the rules and even they have trouble following them! How difficult it must be for young children who have strong impulses. In the realm of play, children can relea= se tensions and find escape from these pressures. Within the sanctuary of play, childhood is pre-served Play engages the children’s interests, energy and attention. Children are completely absorbed, attention is focused and imagination set free. Play exercises the intellect and body simultaneously.

Am= munition for Teachers: Research Supporting Play

Teachers n= eed research which establishes play’s role in children’s education.= The research that does so has been conducted by Clay (1975), Kalmar (1988), Ros= kos and Neuman (1993), Zelmans= , Daniels, and Bizar (1999), and Bergen and Mauer (2000) among others. Teachers stated they would use the research to convince their administrators that play was not only educationally sound but a right granted to children in 1979. In fact to fail to provide the opportunity to learn through play is in violation of students’ rights= as guaranteed by the International Association for the Child’s Right to Play, 1979 and the United Nation Convention of Rights of the Child, 1989. <= span class=3DGramE>(Brett, Moore, & Provenzo, 19= 93).

= ;

Play’s Place in The Curriculum

Policy-mak= ers must understand that socio-dramatic play and recess are brain-friendly and assist children’s cognitive growth and development. Play relieves stress. Th= ese play experiences provide “… long-term capacities related to metacognition, problem-solving, and social cognition,= as well as to academic areas such as literacy, mathematics and science” (Bergen & Coscia, 2001). They are important= for academic success and later school achievement (Bergen & Coscia, 2001). Play is not a luxury, = but a necessity which contributes to cognitive maturity as children consolidate w= hat they know with what they are learning from their play. Therefore, to fail to allow children their right to play is unsound educational practice. Due to the current emphasis on standards-based instruction in <= st1:place w:st=3D"on">Michigan, it appears that the state is engaged in unsound educational practice. Further resear= ch concerning the effects of standards-based instruction on play and the types= of play warrants investigation. It is clear play educates. There is a great deal of empirical eviden= ce concerning the educative values of socio-dramatic play and literacy. Like space and the brain, play rem= ains the next educational frontier. It begs for further exploration. After all, play is a child’s= right and it is right to examine its role in a child’s education.

REFERENCES

Allen, R. (2001, Spring). Cultivating kindergarten: The reach for acade= mic heights

raises challenges. Curriculum Update, 1-8.

Bandura, A., Pastorelli, C., Barbaranelli, C., & Capara, G. V. (1999). Self-efficac= y

pathways to childhood depression. Journal of Person= ality and Social Psychology, 76, 258-= 269.

Bergen, D. (1988). Play as a learning medium. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Bergen, D., & Coscia, J. (2001). Brain research and childhood education: Implications

= For educators. Only, MD: Association = for Childhood Education International.

Bergen, D., & Mauer, D. (2000). Symbolic play, phonological awareness and literacy

skills at three age levels. In K. Roskos, & J. Christie (Eds.), Play and literacy in early childhood: Research from multiple perspectives (pp. 45-62). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

<= o:p>

= Berk, L. (1994, November).<= /span> Vygotsky’s theory: The importance of make-belie= ve play.

Y= oung Children, 50(1), 30-39.

Berk, L., & Winsler, A. (1995). Scaffolding children’s learning: Vygotsky and early childhood education. Washi= ngton, DC: National Association fo= r the Education of Young Children.

= Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in

early childhood programs (Rev. ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Brett, A., Moore, R. C., & = Provenzo, E. F. Jr. (1993). The complete play book. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse = University Press.

Christie, J., & Wardle, F. (1992, March). How m= uch time is needed for play? Young

Children, 47(3), 28-33

Clay, M. (1975). What di= d I write? Beginning writing behavior. Au= ckland, New

Zeal= and: Heinemann Educational Book

Cummings, C. (1990, Fall). = Early childhood education: Quality control. Michigan Principal, 13-15

Elkind, D. (1972). Piaget and science education. Science and Children, 10, 9-10

Elkind, D. (1976). Child development and education. New York: Oxford Press

Elkind, D. (1981). The hurried child. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley

Elkind, D. (1987). Miseducation; Preschoolers at risk. = New York: Knoph.

Elkind, D. (1988). Educating the very young: A call for clear thinking. <= i>NEA Today, 6, 22-27. =

Elkind, D. (1989, October). Developmentally appropriate practice: Philosophical and &n= bsp; practical implications. Phi Delta Kappan, 7, 113-1= 17.

Elkind, D. (2000, Spring/S= ummer). Formal education and early childhood education: An essential difference Early Childhood Education, 33, 4-10.

Fox, J. (n.d.) Back to basics: Play in early childhood. Retrieved February 26, 200= 1,

        = from http://www.earlychildhood.com/Articles/index.cfm?FuseAction=3D

        = Article&A=3D240. <= /p>

Floren, L. (2006, Novem= ber 12). Timeout: bring back scho= ol recess. The Macomb Daily,

   &= nbsp;        p.C1.

Fromberg, D. P. (1990). An agenda for rese= arch on play in early childhood education. In               E. Klugman and Smilansky (Ed= s.), Children’s play and learning: Perspectives &nbs= p;         and policy implications. New = York: Teachers College Press.

Fromberg, D. (2002). Play and meaning in early childhood education. Boston:

&= nbsp; Allyn = and Bacon.

<= /span>

Frost, J. (1992). Play and <= span class=3DSpellE>playscapes. Albany, NY: Delmar Publishers & Co.

Grossman, S. (n.d.). Worksheet dilemma: Benefits of play-based curriculum. Retrieved &= nbsp; February 27, 2001, from http://www.earlyc= hildhood.com/Articles/index.cfm?

&= nbsp; Fuse Action=3DArticle & A=3D134

Hatch, J. (2002, February). Accountability shovedown: Resisting the standards movement in early childhood education. Phi Delta= Kappan, 83(6), 457-462.

Helm, J., & Gronlund, G. (2000, Spring= ). Linking standards and engaged learning in the early years. Early Childho= od Research & Practice, 2, 1-11.

Inte= rnational Reading Association & The National Associati= on for the Education Of

Young Children (1998). Young children learning to read and write: Developmentally appropriate teaching practices for young children, a joint position paper. Washington, DC: National Association fo= r the Education of Young Children

Johnson, J., Christine, J., & <= span class=3DSpellE>Yawkey, T. (1987). Play and early childhood development. Glenville= , IL: Scott, Foresman and Company

Kalmar<= span class=3DGramE>,K. (2005, Spring) The state of play in K9indergarten.2 (2).The Michigan Journal of Teacher Education.= 21-29.

= Kalmar, K. (1994). It’s elementary: The value of play in the elementary school setting. = Michigan Principal, 10-12.

= Kalmar, K. (1988)= . Beyond a nation of readers: Implications of Michigan’s redefinition of reading. The Beac= on Newsletter, 12, 1-4.

= Katz, L. (2001, Spring/Summer). Another look at what young children should be

&= nbsp; learning. Beacon, 23, 1-5.

= Marcon, R. (1993). Socioemotional versus academic empha= sis: Impacts on

kindergartens’ development and achievement. E= arly Childhood Development and Care, 96, 81-91

McKee, S. J. (1990). = The developing kindergarten: Programs, children, and

teachers. Lansing, MI: Michigan Association for the Education of Young Children.

<= span class=3DGramE>National Center = on Education and the Economy and the University of Pittsburgh (1999= ). Reading & writing grade by grade: Primary literacy standards for kindergarten <= span style=3D'mso-tab-count:1'> &= nbsp; through third grade. Pittsburgh, PA: Smith Lithographic Corp= .

Nell, E. (2000, Spring). Academics, literacy, and young children: A pl= ea for middle

ground. Childhood Education, 76= , 136-41.

No Child Left Behind. Execut= ive Summary. Retrieved February 1, 2002 from

http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/eseal/exec.summ.html

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub.L. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425.

Owocki, G. (1999). Literacy through play. <= st1:City w:st=3D"on">Portsmith, NH: Heinemann.

Peck, E., McCaig, V.= , & Sapp, M. E. (1988). Kinderga= rten policies: What is best for children? Washington, DC: National Association fo= r the Education of Young Children.

Roskos, K., & Neuman, S. (1993). Descriptive observations of adults’ facilitation of

literac= y in young children’s play. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 8,

495-507

Sarcho= , O., & Spodek, B. (1998). Multiple perspectives on play in early childhood              edu= cation. New York: State University of New York Press

Schweinhart, L., & Weikart, D. (1997). Lasting differences: The High Scope preschool = ;     curriculum comparison study through age 23 (High Scope Education Research         Foundation Monograph No.12). Ypsilanti, MI: High Scope Press.

Shepherd, C. (2001, Spring/Summer)= . Making good decisions: Let children be our =             g= uides. Beacon, 23, 3-5.

Sponseller, D. (1974). = Play as a learning medium. Washing= ton, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

White, B. (1973). = Experience and environment: Major influences in the development

of young children. Engelwood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Z= elman, S., Daniels, H., & Bizar, M. (1999). Is = the whole-language approach the best

   &= nbsp;        way to teach reading? In K. Pacio= rek (Ed.), Taking sides: Clashing views on &= nbsp;        controversial issues in early childhood education= (pp.214-221). Guilford, CT: &n= bsp;       McGraw Hill/Dushkin