This article was downloaded by: [The Aga Khan University]

On: 23 October 2014, At: 00:33

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Childhood Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uced20

Is Developmentally Appropriate Practice for Everyone?

a
Sally Lubeck
a
School of Education , University of Michigan , Ann Arbor , USA
Published online: 30 Aug 2012.

To cite this article: Sally Lubeck (1998) Is Developmentally Appropriate Practice for Everyone?, Childhood Education, 74:5,
283-292, DOI: 10.1080/00094056.1998.10521952

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00094056.1998.10521952

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the
publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations
or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any
opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the
views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be
independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,
actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever
caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone
is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/
terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 00:33 23 October 2014
 groups, are seen to be neither dangerous nor dysfunc-
tional in and of themselves (e.g.,Smolka, DeGoes & Pino,
1995);instead they are the source of new understandings.
Although the guidelines are presented as a common,
stable core, they are, at the same time, described as open
to influence: “Like all NAEYC statements, the docu-
ments reflect current understandings, values, and goals
at the time of their publication,” yet they are also
“expected to be dynamic and changing in response to
new knowledge, as well as to benefit from the shared
experiences of and interactions among professionals”
(Bredekamp & Copple, 1997,p. v). Do we, in fact, have
the same ”current understandings”? What is it that we
do agree upon-and what is open to discussion? And
why are the criteria for evaluating programs the same,
regardless of local understandings and intent? It is this
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 00:33 23 October 2014
tensionbetween diversity and consensus that demands
our attention, for guidelines are, by definition, bound-
aries that channel us along a certain path.
The revised guidelines are a complex and, some
might say, contradictory document, at once celebrating
a common history and ”shared vision,” and, at the same
time, giving culture and diversity a newfound impor-
=Rapid chauge uud iucreusiug diversity
witcliu uatiou stutes is makiug the world
more complex aud iuterdepeudeut thau ever-
before, aud makiug i t eveu harder to imagine
thut simple solutious will fit everyoue.
tance. Indeed, the guidelines show a heightened em-
phasis on teachers talking with parents and with each
other, and yet, arguably, the really important issues
have been already decided and written down. A crucial
question, therefore, is whether we can hold diverse views
within a common experience-or if the very act of
rendering obscures the distinct differences that we have.
In this article, I challenge the view that ”DAP is for
everyone.” The population of the United States is now
more diverse than at any time in its history. There are
more than 5 million first- and second-generation immi-
grant children (birth-15) living in the U.S., and they
constitute the fastest growing group in this population
(Board on Children and Families, 1996). In addition,
simple categorical distinctions fail to capture the mul-
tilingual, multicultural character of many families and
284 + CHILDHOOD
EDUCATION
communities (Eisenhart, in press; Rosaldo, 1989).Many
more families are blended, and many more children
identify with more than one group (Cose, 1997). In
certain communities and circumstances, members of
different ethnic groups may create new ways of inter-
acting, or align themselves to address common con-
cerns (Heath, 1995; Lamphere, 1992). Rapid change
and increasing diversity within nation states are mak-
ing the world more complex and interdependent than
ever before, and making it even harder to imagine that
simple solutions will fit everyone. In order to forge a
community ”attentive to difference” (Greene, 1993, p.
17), we need, first and foremost, to be less firm in our
convictions, and less willing to assume that our values
and beliefs are right for everyone.
At first glance, the claim that uncertainty is a good
thing seems counterintuitive. Should teachers enter
classrooms and have no ideas about what to do? Of
course not. What I am saying, however, is that we do
not all have the same ideas. And even when we say that
our classrooms are ”developmentally appropriate,”
they do not all look the same. Thus, rather than writing
down rules that we are all supposed to agree on and
“standards” we are all
supposed to meet, we
might instead talk
with one another and
begin developing
ways of organizing
that allow us to have
intense, sustained
conversations about
practiceincontext and
over time.
This sounds simple
and obvious, yet the
current organiza-
tional structure tends
to shut down conver-
sations. Supervisors, coordinators and evaluators com-
monly enter classrooms, fill out rating scales or
observation protocols, then briefly indicate what was
done right and what needs to be improved-all of this
without any input from the teachers themselves. A
conversation is, by definition, a two-way street. To
open up that line of communication, we must deeply
question whether our efforts should be focused on
writing down principles and generalizations to be ap-
plied in all situations and circumstances, or on develop-
ing ways of working together that allow us more
efficiently to address the problems that confront us, not
for all time, but in the moment.
In his examination of ideas that have governed the
”modern” world, Stephen Toulmin (1990) provides a
way for us to think about how, in the coming years, we
 might begin to shape education settings that are more
responsive to change and to the needs of diverse com-
munities. Because change is occurring at such a rapid
rate and because the world is becoming increasingly
complex, the imperatives of certainty and simplicity
that have characterized "modern" theory, science and
public policy must now be tempered with a recognition
of variation, change, complexity and ambiguity. "The
key problem is no longer to ensure that our social and
national systems are stable: rather, it is to ensure that
intellectual and social procedures are more adaptive"
(Toulmin, 1990, p. 185).
This suggests that, in a world that is becoming in-
creasingly complicated, we may need to depend less on
generalizedknowledge and more on talking and work-
ing together. What, then, might change? Suppose:
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 00:33 23 October 2014
m Teacher education programs encouraged
preservice teachers to interpret the guidelines
and other canonical texts
a Each center and school reorganized to make it
possible for teachers to collaborate with one
another
rn It became possible-and desirable-for teachers
to move in and out of one another's classrooms
and to visit across sites
a Preservice teachers were inducted into "commu-
nities of practice" (Lave & Wenger, 1991)
rn The word "training" dropped out of our vocabulary
a We decided to study "practice" rather than "in-
dividual performance"
rn We thought of knowledge as being "distributed"
rather than as residing in the heads of individu-
als (Seeley Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1988)
a Dialogue could be honest and open, without pre-
ordained decisions about what was "appropri-
ate" and "inappropriate" and without the weight
of a sanctioned consensus
a Researchers no longer studied children-and
teachers-"like an entomologist treats a colony
of ants" (Olson & Torrance, 1996, p. 5 )
a Researchers worked coIIaborativeIy with teach-
ers, devising new instructional strategies in the
very act of practice
a We constantly expanded our "tool kit" of in-
structional practices and storehouse of theories
a Roles became blurred
a Supervisors and evaluators instead became
ombudswomen and ombudsmen, arriving on
the scene not to judge and prescribe according to
abstract ideals, but rather to help teachers ad-
dress concrete and practical dilemmas
rn The opportunity to collaboratedid not become a
guise for indoctrination into a predetermined
good.
Such possibilities already exist in practice. The pre-
schools of Reggio Emilia have realized communities
based on relationships (Edwards, Gandini & Forman,
1993; Hendricks, 1997; Malaguzzi, 1993). "Funds of
knowledge" exist as shared resources within some
communities and are a source of inspiration for teach-
ing and learning (Moll & Greenberg, 1990).Around the
country, teachers are making changes that school dis-
tricts cannot; they are thinking deeply and talking with
one another, and learning to learn from one other
without making judgments about the way others teach
or about the values they hold (Cochran-Smith, 1991;
Cochran-Smith & Lytle, 1993; Duckworth & the Expe-
rienced Teachers Group, 1997; Willerman, McNeely &
Koffman, 1991). The New London Group (1996), an
international group of literacy scholars, recently main-
tained that researchersmust work in education settings
in diverse communities in order to identify indigenous
forms of literacy and invent new ways to foster
"multiliteracy" capabilities in the very act of practice.
Such initiatives rely upon people responding to real
problems with head, heart and hand, but also stem
from a fundamentally different logic. Thus, it is first
necessary to unravel the tight weave of assumptions
and practices that currently knit us together.
It is not possible, in the space allotted here, either to
highlight ways in which the revised DAP guidelines
differ from the initial ones, or to do justice to all of the
concerns that have been voiced about the DAP guide-
lines and related issues.' In the following text, I will
attempt to raise doubts about the claim that "DAP is for
everyone" and argue instead for an alternative vision
for the future, one that houses a respect for diversity at
its very core.
The "Traditional" dpproach
In both the Guidelines for Developmentally Appropriate
Practice ( D A P ) (Bredekamp, 1987)and the revised edi-
tion, Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Child-
hood Programs (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997), the
leadership of the National Association for the Educa-
tion of Young Children (NAEYC) formulated a set of
guidelines for practice in early childhood education.
This effort was spurred by the perceived need to 1)
provide some direction for those seeking accreditation
by NAEYC's National Academy of Early Childhood
Programs and 2) counter what is described as a grow-
ing trend toward direct instruction in early childhood
(birth-8)programs (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997, p. v).
Both the initial and revised documents include a
position statement and sections on developmentally
appropriate practice for infants and toddlers, 3- through
5-year-olds and 6- through 8-year-olds; both also in-
clude lists of what are considered to be "appropriate"
and "inappropriate" practices when working with dif-
ANNUALTHEME
1998 + 285
 ferent age groups of children. The approach is based on
the conviction that guidelines can be established that
pertain in all situations, and that accreditation criteria
can be applied to evaluate programs according to a
common set of norms and standards.
In line with efforts to forge consensus, the revised
guidelines also take a "both / and" approach. This
stance is in response to "a recurring tendency in the
American discourse on education: the polarizing into
eitherlor choices of many questions that are more fruit-
fully seen as bothland" (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997, p.
23). For example:
Children benefit from opportunities to collabo-
rate with their peers and acquire a sense of being
part of a community arid from being treated as
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 00:33 23 October 2014
individuals with their own strengths, interests,
and needs. . .
Children benefit from engaging in self-initiated,
spontaneous play ntrd from teacher-planned and
structured activities, projects, and experiences.
(Bredekamp & Copple, 1997, p. 23)
And yet, conflicting interpretations are also presented
as co-existent and harmonious. For example:
m Children all over the world acquire language at
approximately the same period of the life span
and in similar ways (Fernald, 1992). But tremen-
dous individual variation exists in the rate and
pattern of language acquisition (Fenson et a].,
1994). (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997, p. 9)
In these ways, the revised guidelines have been re-
written to recognize the complexity and variability in
human development and learning. At the same time,
however, they retain many of the normative and "uni-
versal" features that characterized the initial version.
Seen in this light, the "both/ and" approach itself serves
to avoid or diminish conflict. The document now
incorporates challenges and contradictions, making it
appear impervious to criticism. Individual teachers are
expected to foster community and individual values
and to find a balance between teacher-initiated and
child-initiated activities in the classroom, while the
normative beliefs and practices that deeply structure our
professional lives are themselves not open to discussion.
Since their initial publication, the guidelines often
have been referred to as "the green bible," a designation
that captures the central role they have served in mobiliz-
ing the early childhood community around a common
core of beliefs. The standards are based on "current
knowledge and shared beliefs" (p. 3). Their principles
are "generalizations that are sufficiently reliable . . .
empirically based principles of education and learn-
286 + CHILDHOOD
EDUCATION
ing" (p. 9). Even the developmental theories of both
Piaget and Vygotsky (although quite different) are
pronounced "correct. . . . Yet, direct instruction may be
totally ineffective" (p. 13). Development is seen to
proceed in clear-cut and predictable directions. Mile-
stones are once again listed for children birth to age
three (pp. 70-71), and practices are labeled "appropri-
ate" or "inappropriate." The document thus rhetori-
cally affirms the "truth value" of a core set of beliefs and
values that appears to be beyond question.
In similar fashion, the guidelines present research
results as reflecting accurate, up-to-the-minute results,
pointing us irrevocably to one conclusion. The lan-
guage used makes it appear that these results are incon-
trovertible. There is no acknowledgment of competing
discourses, contradictory results or different ways of
imagining what is possible. Despite some caveats and
additions, the guidelines continue to be based on a
seemingly objective science that provides a firm ground-
ing for making generalizations. The same assump-
tions, as we shall see, apply for evaluating teachers and
programs. Yet, as Toulmin (1990)writes, "the existence
of a consensus is one thing: the soundness of this view,
the reliability of those historical assumptions on which
it depends, are something else" (p. 13).
Although this approach situates the field firmly within
the tradition of positivist science, "new" ideas have
seeped into the revised edition. Indeed, the document
now stresses the importance of dialogue and collabora-
tion, and it draws on a broader theoretical base, particu-
larly the social constructivism of Vygotsky. It gives the
teacher an expanded role, introduces the concept of
"community of learners," highlights the importance of
culture, families and context-relevant curriculum, and
calls for authentic and meaningful assessment. And
yet, the dominant discourse of general principles, gen-
eralized research results and common norms remains
unchanged and unchallenged. Thus, we need to be
cautious about efforts to incorporate new ideas into old
agendas, without changing the actual practices that
deeply structure our professional lives (Apple, 1992;
Lubeck, 1994).
Paradigms and Paradigm Shifts
Thus far I have suggested that the DAP guidelines are
supported by a discourse and a set of practices that
reflect "modern" values of stability and certainty. In
the latter part of the 20th century, such claims have
come to be widely challenged (e.g., Bauman, 1978;
Bernstein, 1976; Bredo & Feinberg, 1982; Geertz, 1983,
1995;Greene, 1994;Habermas, 1971;Marcus & Fischer,
1986;Rorty, 1979;Rosaldo, 1989;Schwab, 1969).Toulmin
(1990)identifies a "cosmopolis" as a rationally planned
society. It is governed by rules that are written down,
generally applied and assumed to represent a universal
 and timeless truth. In conceiving of alternatives to
modern assumptions, Toulmin argues for what has
been lost in trying to model the social sciences on the
natural sciences. Modern ideas, he suggests, must now
be tempered with a postmodern appreciation for the
oral, particular, local and timely-the practical con-
cerns of people in specific situations.
When applied to the field of early childhood educa-
tion, this approach suggests that we need to address
rapidly changing circumstances as they present them-
selves, and to problem-solvelocally and level the play-
ing field, rather than making general rules and judging
everyone by the same criteria regardless of circum-
stance or concern or desire. The knowledge that “ex-
perts” bring to the table should not silence those who
have knowledge of specific children and communities.
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 00:33 23 October 2014
Working together, we need to tailor teaching and learn-
ing to the needs of children in ways that make sense in
the moment-not for all time. And those ways might be
different from community to community and from
place to place.
In his famous book, The Structure of Scientific Revolu-
tions, Thomas Kuhn (1962) maintains that science in
any era is based on a set of rules and ideas that direct the
conduct of inquiry. Although he wrote about what he
called ”normal science” and made explicit reference to
the natural sciences, the notion of paradigms of inquiry
has been useful within the social sciences and, specifi-
cally, within the field of education. Paradigms become
most visible when they are changing-when new ways
of understanding are inconsistentwith current models,
when anomalies accrue that no longer fit within the
accepted framework.* Thus, one way to think about
dialogue, collaboration, social constructivismand con-
text-relevant curriculum-ideas suddenly emphasized
in the new edition of the guidelines-is as anomalies
within the current worldview. The assumptions that
support a consensusview and those that support diver-
sity are fundamentally different.
The Dominant Paradigm
The “traditional” approach to training, evaluation and
a large body of research in early childhood education is
based on the tenets of positivist ~cience.~ Although
positivism has changed over the course of the 20th
century, several features of this school of thought re-
main current and undergird a belief in the
generalizabilityof standards and research results. These
include assumptions regarding 1)objective appraisal,
2) detached and unbiased observation, 3 ) generaliza-
tions from the particular and 4) the inherent hierarchy
of knowledge.
First, positivism assumes that social facts can be
treated as things, that human behavior can be studied
from the outside without reference to the meanings
individuals themselves might attribute to their behav-
ior.* Thus, categories and schema that are devised to
represent individuals, processes, etc. are presumed to
stand for them in anunproblematic way. The represen-
tation is thought to accurately reflect what exists in
nature (i.e., there is one ”correct” interpretation of
action and events). When such assumptions hold,
milestones become norms against which all children
should be measured, and categories (appropriate-
inappropriate, stressed-not stressed, high quality-low
quality, skilled-unskilled)become the options for filter-
ing (and evaluating) practices, children, programs and
teachers. The child-centeredpedagogy outlined in the
DAP guidelines is likewise presented as the only option
to direct instruction. All possibilities are thus delin-
eated and contained in stages (as in the first instance)or
in categories (as in the second).
The belief in ”objective” appraisal according to pre-
set criteria has spawned a host of practices that have
been transforming the work of teachers. Many are
responsiblefor increasing amounts of paperwork, more
and more forms to demonstrate that what is being done
can seriously detract from the ability to actually do it.
Accountability measures appear to promise that we
can accurately assess a child by filling out a checklist,
that supervisors and evaluators can come into a class-
roomand “rate” a teacher in a relatively brief amount of
time, and that programs can be judged primarily accord-
ing to an abstract set of criteria, without consideration of
the community context in which people are working5
Second, the detached observer is considered to be
unbiased and objective (unlike the people caught up in
the action) and therefore able to judge what is ”really”
going on. Science is presumed to be value-free. If
evaluators themselves come up with different interpre-
tations, it is simply assumed that they need more train-
ing to ensure that they reach the same conclusions. A
large corpus of research and evaluation studies have
had no input from teachers and no real understanding
of district or agency politics, of community values and
ANNUALTHEME
1998 + 287
 expectations, or knowledge of children and their fami-
lies over time. This fact recently led two prominent
psychologists to conclude that researchers tend to study
humans ”the way an entomologist treats a colony of
ants, regarding them as an alien species to be studied
from the outside, [rather than] as members of a mutually
comprehensible culture” (Olson & Torrance, 1996, p. 5).
Third, it is believed that generalizations can be made
about human nature and social settings; studying a
random sample of a population can be generalized to
that population. The assumption of equivalence sup-
ports the ideas that everyone is the same and that we all
should be trying to do the same thing. Thus, guidelines
are seen to apply to all in more or less the same way
based on ”a shared vision and agreed upon standards
of professional practice” (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997,
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 00:33 23 October 2014
p. 7), and to assume that programs can be judged
according to the same criteria.
Finally, these assumptions have social consequences,
for when knowledge is seen to have this absolute and
certain quality, it becomes possible and even desirable
to institutionalize a hierarchical authority structure
based on those who presumably know more and those
who know less. The DAP guidelines are the position
statement of a professional organization, and, as such,
are intended to forge consensus around a common set
of principles and practices. Professionals are seen to
possess a specialized body of knowledge and skills, to
draw on general principles and theories based on the
supposedly objective needs of clients, and to join pro-
fessional associations that define standards and criteria
for practice (Schein, 1972). Foundational tenets are
thus written with a modern, objectivist insistence that
general principles exist, and that their truth is self-
evident. New teachers can be inducted into the profes-
sion by becoming thoroughly familiar with this codified
body of knowledge. Because developmental psychol-
ogy has been the dominant influence on early educa-
tion practice (Bloch, 1991), teachers are defined as
facilitators of children’s development rather than as
intellectuals who participate in the cultural and politi-
cal life of their communities (Silin, 1988). Those who
“know more” are thus in a position to judge those who
know less. All of these assumptions validate a hierar-
chical form of social organization, as reflected in tiered
credentialing systems and bureaucratic forms.
Paradigm Shift
There have always been alternatives to this dominant
view. Today, however, a shift to a world view con-
structed on a different logic can be seen. There are four
ways in which we might make different assumptions
about who we are and what we do: 1)human beings are
subjects, not objects; 2) science is not and cannot be
value-neutral, because knowledge is a human con-
288 + CHILDHOOD
EDUCATION
struction, and actions and events are open to multiple
interpretations; 3 ) context affects what people learn
and how they understand; and 4) knowledge is distrib-
uted in the early childhood community, and so we need
more democratic forms of decision-making, in order to
grow both individually and together.
First, behavior cannot be understood apart from the
meanings that people attribute to their lives and cir-
cumstances (Bruner, 1990). People do not simply “be-
have” according to deterministic rules, and telling a
teacher what needs to change cannot, realistically, au-
tomatically “cause” a desired effect. Ayers (1992),
quoting Geertz and Lather, characterizes this approach
to both professional development and research as ”laws
and causes social physics” or ”physics envy.”
me, which rumbles along, some would say
tural domain, proves to be entirely too thin,
gether inappropriate when sup
the fuzzy, fugitive world of human beings
different frame, an altered angle, if understand
our aim. (Ayers, 1992, p. 154)
Individuals act, and they do so with intention. When
teachers have the opportunity to identify what they
want to learn, when they have the chance to visit other
teachers, to actively collaborate, and/or to try out ideas,
they are able to construct new understandings in ways
that make sense to them (Lubeck & Post, in press).
Human beings are subjects, not objects, and the study
of human phenomena becomes the study of ourselves.
In the recent Handbook of Editcatioiz a n d Hitman Devel-
o p e n f (1996), David Olson and Nancy Torrance ob-
serve that the study of human development has begun
to assume a decidedly ”firstperson” point of view. The
old view that allowed us to categorize children accord-
ing to traits, abilities or even developmental stages
limited our visions of who children are and what they
can do. It should be said that, for teachers also, obser-
vation protocols and rating scales only provide a quick
 view from the outside-an appraisal that fails to pro-
vide access to a teacher’s own beliefs or intentions.
Teacher questionnaires also limit choices to the features
that researchers think are important.
While we have staunchly held to the conviction that
children need to construct their own understanding,
we have not done enough to support teachers in doing
so. This ”first person” turn places more emphasis on
trying to understand how educators ”make sense” and
on dialoguing over points where our views diverge. If
we are no longer trying to write down “universal” and
”general” guidelines to be applied in all situations, the
focus shifts to teachers’ work in context. In communi-
ties of practice, teachers might then explore a range of
alternatives tailored to specific situations. In line with
what Donald Schon (1983)and Barbara Bowman (1989)
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 00:33 23 October 2014
have called a ”reflectivepractice,” we, as teachers, can
explain what we believe and also open ourselves to
new ideas through discussions with others.
Second, the study of social and educational phenom-
ena can never be value-neutral, because there is no
place to stand to see how things ”really” are. Our very
ways of seeing and understanding are shaped by our
experience. We can only look from where we are when
we are there. Consequently, actions and events are
inevitably open to multiple interpretations. Curricu-
lum takes a number of forms and serves a number of
purposes (Eisner, 1985). Research in support of DAP
provides important insights, but it does not tell the
whole story. Bowman (1993)aptly called the research
literature in early childhood education ”multivocal”
(p. 101). Indeed, the very insistence that there is one
right way can itself serve to ”silence” those who have
other opinions (Delpit, 1988).
In a teacher education class, I recently observed an
instructor write on the chalkboard the words “teacher-
directed” at one end of a continuum and “child-initi-
ated” at the other.6 She then divided the class into two
groups and invited students to think of situations that
would require a teacher to make a decision that effec-
tively placed her somewhere along this line. The stu-
dents asked questions such as the following: Would
you require all 4-year-olds to try a new food? When
having circle time, would you allow children to leave
the group? While members of one group explained
each scenario, members of the other had to ”place”
themselves somewhere on the continuum and then
provide reasons for their choices. Such an exercise
reminds us not only that not everyone shares the same
view, but also that listening to a range of responses can,
in and of itself, provide us with new ways to think
about things. This point was underscored, a few years
ago, when two teachers from Reggio Emilia, Italy,
presented at a national conference. In the course of the
presentation, one disagreed with the other, and they
proceeded to disagree for the duration of their time on
stage. In the end, they hugged one another, and one
turned to the audience to remark: “And that is how we
do things in Reggio!” In both examples, the emphasis
is not on consensus; it is on exploring diverse views.
Third, the ways in which we make sense cannot be
understood apart from the context in which we oper-
ate. Context matters. Thus, change initiatives must
always take into account local conditions, norms and
goals. Despite the fact that practice is often represented
in terms of general categories (appropriate/ inappro-
priate, skilled / unskilled, high-quality / low-quality),
individual centers and programs can differ markedly
one from the other. Consider a program in which all of
the children speak Chinese, but the teachers do not. Or
a classroom in which half of the children have special
needs. What about a program where children speak 10
or more languages or one that serves families recently
emigrated from war-ravaged countries? In our very
efforts to simplify and generalize, we obfuscate the
very issues that are most in need of attention.
Teachers worry about the child who plays alone and
does not speak, about a child who is overly aggressive,
or about a young child who is inconsolableat being left
in child care for the first time. Such issues and questions
also demonstrate the need for creating communities in
which issues can be discussed in context and over time.
As teaching becomes more complicated, we need new
social forms, and opportunities to meet regularly with
other teachers and parents. In this way, we can bring
various perspectives to bear on perplexing situations.
Working in specific settings also provides flexibility,
for different strategies can be tried out and evaluated in
the very act of practice.
Moreover, in line with discussions of cooperative
learning, collaboration and communities of practice,
intelligence has been described as not merely existing
”in the head,“ but rather as existing in the group. As
Seely Brown and his colleagues (1988)explain, knowl-
edge is ”distributed” in the colleagues and collabora-
tors with whom we work, as well as in books and
resources such as the World Wide Web. We now have
images from Reggio Emilia to show us that it is possible
to have preschools where teachers and parents actively
collaborate, and where time is set aside each week for
teachers to talk about what is happening and what
might happen.
Finally, this approach suggests that new kinds of
relationships might be forged within the early educa-
tion community. Many teachers now work in isolation,
fearing that any visit from an outsider might result in an
unfavorable evaluation. Suppose, however, that su-
pervisors and evaluators did not judge and prescribe
according to abstracted ideals, but rather helped teach-
ers to address concrete and practical dilemmas; sup-
ANNUALTHEME
1998 + 289
 pose that researchersworked collaboratively with teach-
ers, devising new instructional strategies in the very act
of practice; suppose that roles blurred, and that the
opportunity to collaborate did not become a guise for
indoctrination into a foregone good.
Instead of believing that values and understandings
need to be shared and differences resolved, we might
come to see that the different views and practices
within a teaching community are themselves a re-
source. For too long the ”funds of knowledge” (Moll &
Greenberg, 1990)that teachers themselves have stock-
piled have not been viewed in this way. Matusov (1996)
points out that the very coordination of different per-
spectives can, in itself, generate understanding that is
not held by any single participant. But this is only likely
to occur in a learning culture that respects differences
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 00:33 23 October 2014
and that enjoys the flexibility to try new things, blend
approaches and innovate over time.
At the very heart of the matter, then, are issues of
diversity-how we talk with one another, how we
interact with parents who have beliefs that differ from
our own, how we represent those different from our-
selves, and what we do when there are inevitable
differences of opinion. I do not at all mean to suggest
that the answers to these questions are simple, but I do
think that they are crucial.
Conclusions
Uncertainty lurks in the shadows of a certain world. It
is there when a dedicated Head Start center director
says that she cannot totally go along with the DAP
philosophy ”because things are changing elsewhere in
our society, and our children will be seriously disad-
vantaged when they enter school if we don’t try to
ensure that they have some basic skills.” It is there
when a student from Saudi Arabia, enchanted with
American child-centered pedagogy, confides that
she helps her 2 1/ 2-year-old son to memorize the
Koran each day, as Muslims have done for untold
centuries. It is there when we realize that world
societies are now more diverse than at any time in its
history. And it is there when people simply interpret
situations differently.
To speak of contradiction, ambiguity and complex-
ity, to call attention to other ways of seeing is not to
unleash chaos but simply to name what happens as a
matter of course. Efforts to make teachers more ac-
countable do not necessarily benefit teachers or chil-
dren. A teacher acquiesces to a supervisor or evaluator,
but uses her own judgment and ways of doing things
in the privacy of her own classroom. People who
attend “training” workshops do not always agree with
the ideas being presented. Staff members hide prob-
lems so that their center will not be rated unfavorably.
Directors make things seem better than they are be-
290 + CHILDHOOD
EDUCATION
cause it is politically expedient to do so, and on and on.
Things that are ”certain” on paper mask a more com-
plex reality, and higher standards and increased ac-
countability simply generate more paper; they do not
address the fact that we do not all do and see things in
the same way. Modern ways of thinking orient us to
value stability, certainty and consensus, to write down
guidelines and standards, and to assume that children’s
development and teaching practices can be carefully
bounded. Yet, arguably, we are most likely to grow in
our practice when we are exposed to different interpre-
tations and different ways of doing things.
As past certainties blur into postmodern complexi-
ties, many of our tried-and-true operating assump-
tions fail. Lilian Katz (1996)describes her own struggle:
and, I continue to believe that in order to be
ctitioners must have optimal confidence in
ons and the underlying assumptions on which
they are based. On the other hand, if that base is not
provided by the knowledge and principles of child dev
ment, then what other bases could be used? (p.
The guidelines for developmentally appropriate prac-
tice rest upon modern assumptions that encourage us
to espouse general, broad-based knowledge and prin-
ciples. Yet being certain, finding comfort in consensus,
may make us too sure that what we know is best for
ourselves is also best for others. Uncertainty, by con-
trast, is unsettling; it makes us wonder, listen and try
new things. It opens us up to the possibility that things
can be other than they seem.
I have doubts about the claim that ”DAP is for
everyone.” My alternative vision for the future might
enable us to work collaboratively and in context, and to
craft pedagogies that more adequately address the
diverse needs of children and families in our rapidly
changing world. Jerome Bruner (1986) foresees a
new breed of developmental theory taking shape:
ical concern will be how to create in the
ciation of the fact that many worlds are
meaning and reality are created and not dis-
covered, that negotiation is the art of const
meanings by which individuals can regulate t
with each other. (p. 149)
Perhaps such a theory would arise in an early child-
hood community open to the multifaceted understand-
ings and experiences of its members. As Maxine Greene
(1994)would say, it would be a community attentive to
difference: ”a public composed of many voices and
many perspectives, out of whose multiple intelligences
may still emerge a durable and worthwhile common
world.”
 References
Aldridge, J. (1996). Is developmentally appropriate practice
for everyone? Focus on Infancy, 9(1), 1-2.
Apple, M. (1992). The text and cultural politics. Educational
Researcher, 21(7), 4-11.
Ayers, W. (1992).Inthecountry oftheblind: Tellingourstories.
In W. Schubert & W. Ayers (Eds.), Teacher lore: Learningfvom
our own experience (pp. 154-158). New York: Longman.
Bauman, Z. (1978). Hermeneutics and social science. London:
Hutchinson.
Bernhard, J. (1995).The changing field of child development:
Cultural diversity and the professional training of early
childhood educators. Canadian Journal of Education, 20(4),
415-436.
Bernstein,R. (1976). Therestructuringofsocialand political theoy.
Philadelphia, PA: The University of Pennsylvania Press.
Beyer, L., & Bloch, M. (1996). Theory: An analysis (Part 1).In
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 00:33 23 October 2014
S. Reifel (Ed.), Advances in early education and day care. Vol.
8, Theoy and practice in early childhood teaching (pp. 3-40).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Bloch, M. (1991). Critical science and the history of child
development's influence on early education research. Early
Education and Development, 2(2), 95-108.
Bowman, B. (1989). Self-reflection as an element of profes-
sionalism. Teachers College Record, 90,444-451.
Bowman, B. (1992). Reaching potentials of minority children
through developmentally and culturally appropriate pro-
grams. In s. Bredekamp & T. Rosegrant (Eds.), Reaching
potentials: Appropriate curriculum and assessment for young
children, Volume 1 (pp. 128-136). Washington, DC: Na-
tional Association for the Education of Young Children.
Bowman, B. (1993). Early childhood education. In L. Dar-
ling-Hammond (Ed.),Review of research in education, Vol. 19
(pp. 101-134). Washington, DC: American Educational
Research Association.
Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1987). Developmentally appropriate
practice in early childhood programs serving childrenfrom birth
through age eight. Washington, DC: National Association
for 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.
Bredekamp, S., & Rosegrant, T. (1992). Reaching potentials:
Appropriate curriculum and assessment for young children.
Washington, DC: National Association for the Education
of Young Children.
Bredo, E., & Feinberg, W. (1982). Introduction: Competing
modes of social and educational research. In E. Bredo & W.
Feinberg (Eds.), Knowledge and values in social and educational
research (pp. 3-11).Philadelpha, PA TempleUniversity Press.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Learning to teach against the
grain. Harvard Educational Review, 61 (3), 279-310.
Cochran-Smith, M., & Lytle, S. (1993). Insideloutside: Teacher
researchand knowledge. New York: Teachers College Press.
Cose, E. (1997).Color-blind: Seeing beyond race in a race-obsessed
world. New York: HarperCollins.
Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power & pedagogy
in educating other people's children. Harvard Educational
Review, 58(3), 280-298.
Duckworth, E., & The Experienced Teachers Group. (1997).
Teacher to teacher: Learning from each other. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (Eds.). (1993). The
hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach to
early childhood education. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Eisenhart, M. (in press). Changing conceptions of culture and
ethnographic methodology: Recent thematic shifts and
their implications for research on teaching. In V. Richardson
(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed.). New York:
Macmillan.
Eisner, E. (1985). Theeducational imagination: On thedesign and
evaluation of school programs. New York: Macmillan.
Geertz, C. (1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive
anthropology. New York: Basic Books.
Geertz, C. (1995). After thefact: Two countries,four decades,one
anthropologist. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Goffin, S. (1996). Child development knowledge and early
childhood teacher preparation: Assessing the relation-
ship-a special collection. Early Childhood Research Quar-
terly, 11(2), 117-134.
Greene, M. (1993). The passions of pluralism:
Multiculturalism and the expanding community. Educa-
tional Researcher, 22(1), 13-18.
Greene, M. (1994). Epistemology and educational research:
The influence of recent approaches to knowledge. Review
of Research in Education, 20,423-464.
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interest. Boston,
MA: Beacon Press.
Heath, S. 8. (1995). Race, ethnicity and the defiance of
categories. In W. Hawley & A. Jackson (Eds.), Toward a
common destiny: lmproving raceand ethnic relations in America
(pp. 39-70). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hendricks, J. (Ed.). (1997). First steps toward teaching the
Reggio way. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hsue, Y., & Aldridge, J. (1996).Developmentally appropriate
practice and traditional Taiwanese culture. Journal of
Instructional Psychology, 22(4), 320-323.
Jipson, J. (1991). Developmentally appropriate practice:
Culture, curriculum, connections. Early Education and
Development, 2(2), 120-136.
Katz, L. (1996). Child development knowledge and teacher
preparation: Confronting assumptions. Early Childhood
Research Quarterly, 11(2),135-146.
Kessler, S. (1991a).Alternative perspectivesonearly childhood
education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6,183-197.
Kessler, S. (1991b). Early childhood education as develop-
ment: Critique of the metaphor. Early Education and
Development, 2(2), 137-152.
Kessler, S., & Swadener, B. (Eds.). (1992). Introduction:
Reconceptualizing curriculum. In S. Kessler & B. Swadener
(Eds.), Reconceptualizing the early childhood curriculum: Be-
ginning the dialogue (pp. xiii-xxviii). New York: Teachers
College Press.
Kuhn, T. (1962). Thestructureofscientific revolutions. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Lamphere, L. (Ed.). (1992). Structuririgdiversity: Ethnographic
perspectives on the new immigration. Chicago: University of
ANNUALTHEME
1998 + 291
 Chicago Press.
Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Lubeck, S. (1991). Reconceptualizing early childhood educa-
tion. Early Education and Development, 2(2), 168-174.
Lubeck, S. (1994). The politics of developmentally appropriate
practice: Exploring issues of culture, class, and curriculum.
In B. Mallory & R. New (Eds.),Diversity and developmentally
appropriate practices: Toward more inclusive theoy, teaching,
and social policy (pp. 17-43). New York: TC Press.
Lubeck, S. (1996). Deconstructing ”child development knowl-
edge’’ and ”teacher preparation.” Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 11, 147-167.
Lubeck, S., & Post, J. (in press). Distributed knowledge:
Seeing differences in beliefs and practices as a resource for
professional development. In L. D. Soto (Ed.), Rethinking
childhood. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
Downloaded by [The Aga Khan University] at 00:33 23 October 2014
Malaguzzi, L. (1993). History, ideas, and basic philosophy.
In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds.),The hundred
languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach to early
childhood education (pp. 41-89). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Mallory, B., & New, R. (Eds.). (1994). Diversity and develop-
mentally appropriate practices: Challenges for early childhood
education. New York: Teachers College Press.
Marcus, G., & Fischer, M. (1986). Anthropology as cultural
critique: A n experimental moment in the human sciences.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Matusov, E. (1996). Intersubjectivity without agreement.
Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(1), 25-45.
Moll, L., & Greenberg, J. (1990). Creating zones of possibili-
ties: Combining social contexts for instruction. In L. Moll
(Ed.), Vygotsky and education (pp. 319-348). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Moss, D., &Pence, A. (1994). Valuing quality in early childhood
services: New approaches to defining quality. New York:
Teachers College Press.
New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies:
Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review,
66(l), 60-92.
OBrien, L. M. (1996/97). Turning my world upside down:
How I learned to question developmentally appropriate
practice. Childhood Education, 73, 100-102.
Olson, D., & Torrance, N. (1996). Introduction: Rethinking
the role of psychology in education. In D. Olson & N.
Torrance (Eds.), The handbook of education and human devel-
opment (pp. 1-6). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Reese, H., &Overton, W. (1970). Models of development and
theories of development. In L. Goulet & P. Baltes (Eds.),
Life-span developmental psychology: Research and theoy (pp.
115-145). New York: Academic Press.
Reifel, S. (1993). Introduction to Volume 5: Perspectives on
developmentally appropriate practice. In S. Reifel (Ed.),
Advances in early education and day care, vol. 5 (pp. ix-xiii).
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Rogoff, B., Matusov, E., &White, C. (1996). Models of teaching
and learning: Participationin a community of learners. In D.
Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), The handbook of education and
human development(pp.388414).Cambridge,MA: Blackwell.
Rorty, R. (1979). Philosophy and the mirror of man. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press.
Rosaldo, R. (1989). Culture and truth: The remaking of social
292 + CHILDHOOD
EDUCATION
analysis. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
Schein, E. (1972). Professional education. New York McGraw-Hill.
Schon, D. (1983). The repective practitioner: H o w professionals
think in action. New York: Basic Books.
Schwab,J. J. (1969).The practical: A language for curriculum.
School Review, 78, 1-23.
Seeley Brown, J., Collins, A,, & Duguid, P. (1988). Situated
cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Re-
searcher, 18,32-42.
Silin, J. (1988). On becoming knowledgeable professionals.
In B. Spodek, 0.Saracho, & D. Peters (Eds.),Professionalism
and the early childhood practitioner (pp. 117-134).New York:
Teachers College Press.
Smolka, A., DeGoes, M., & Pino, A. (1995). The constitution
of the subject: A persistent question. In J. Wertsch, P. del
Rio, & A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind (pp.
165-186). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Stott, F., & Bowman, B. (1996). Child development knowl-
edge: A slippery base for practice. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 11(2), 169-184.
Tobin, J. (1995). Post-structural research in early childhood
education. In A. Hatch (Ed.), Qualitative research in early
childhood settings (pp. 223-244). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Toulmin, S. (1990).Cosrnopolis: The hidden agenda of modernity.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Walsh, D. (1991). Extending the discourse on developmental
appropriateness: A developmental perspective. Early
Education and Development, 2(2), 109-119.
Willerman, M., McNeely, S., & Koffman, E. (1991). Teachers
helping teachers: Peer observation and assistance. New York:
Praeger.
Footnotes
1 But see, for example, Aldridge, 1996;Bernhard, 1995;
Beyer & Bloch, 1996; Bloch, 1991; Bowman, 1992; Coffin,
1996; Hsue & Aldridge, 1996; Jipson, 1991; Katz, 1996;
Kessler, 1991a, 1991b; Kessler & Swadener, 1992; Lubeck,
1991, 1994, 1996; Mallory & New, 1994; Moss & Pence,
1994; O’Brien, 1996; Reifel, 1993; Silin, 1988; Stott & Bow-
man, 1996; Tobin, 1995; Walsh, 1991. In the revised edi-
tion, the NAEYC leadership speaks to these and other
challenges and attempts to address many of the concerns.
2 In their examination of models of development and
learning, for example, Reese and Overton (1970) write
that “any model limits the world of experience and pre-
sents the person with a tunnel vision. Being committed to
a particular model may make a person blind to its faults,
and may dissipate his empirical efforts into fruitless chan-
nels” (p. 119).
3 While children are seen to construct their own un-
derstandings, current training and evaluation practices
do not encourage teachers to do so.
4 Teachers’ attitudes have been studied, typically, ac-
cording to a pre-structured set of options.
5 Although evaluators may, indeed, try to take local
factors into account, accreditation criteria are intended to
apply generally.
6 My thanks to Jackie Post and to the students enrolled
in ED 441 for this example.