A Call for Clarity: Play-Based vs. Traditional Preschool Programs...

This article is a version of one I published on LinkedIn a year ago.  It garnered over 10,000 views from people all over the world and sparked an online debate.

Navigating the terms of Early Childhood...

I have had many experiences in my last 25 years of teaching in, both traditional and, what I would label, “progressive,” early childhood environments (grades EC-2). I feel very grateful to have had a rich variety of experiences, because as the years have gone by, I feel I have a depth of understanding and perspective.  I have grown to have ideas about what works best for children in the classroom. 

Traditional teaching methods, being our oldest form of teaching, can be a pretty straight-forward term, meaning the children will most likely be teacher-led through the day, with less opportunity to have free-play or input in what they are doing. Sometimes, “traditional” means that children sit at a table for periods of time doing worksheets that they may not be ready for developmentally. My son attended a kindergarten like this, where at the age of barely 5, he was required to primarily sit at a desk all day and copy text from a blackboard. He had already joyfully begun reading early readers with me and wrote using inventive spelling to label his drawings and help me to create grocery lists.  His teacher was younger, had only taught 3rd grade and her goal, she boasted, was that her students would all be “writing paragraphs” by the end of the year.  These paragraphs were to be copied from the blackboard and written on lined paper (2 tasks that most children of this age are not yet ready to do developmentally, physically their eyes cannot yet track from the blackboard to the paper efficiently and their fine motor is not strong enough to write on those tiny lines!).  I was actually teaching art across the hallway from my son’s classroom, and having taught mostly kindergarten, I literally sobbed at what my little boy was expected to do and observed with dismay his growing disinterest in reading or writing after it had become such a chore during his first school experience… This is the extreme (and developmentally inappropriate) example of what a traditional early childhood classroom can be.

The National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) www.naeyc.org, is an accrediting agency that champions the best practices for teaching young children. Their publication, Developmentally Appropriate Practice In Early Childhood Classrooms, asserts, through years of research, appropriate and inappropriate expectations for the 3-5 year old classroom environment as:

“Appropriate Practice:
 Teachers encourage children’s developing language and communication skills by talking with them throughout the day, speaking clearly and listening to their responses, and providing opportunities for them to talk to each other. Teachers engage individual children and groups in conversations about real experiences, projects or ideas, and they respond attentively to children’s verbal initiatives."

"Inappropriate Practice:
 Adult agendas dominate conversations. Children’s responses and reactions are viewed as interruptions of the adult’s talk. Teachers make it a priority to maintain a quiet environment. Teacher’s speech is mostly telling children what to do and is usually addressed to the whole group, rarely the individual.”

On the other side of things, the term “play-based,” has me a bit puzzled. Throughout our wide range of philosophical choices in our city, this term, compared to the pretty predictable term of “traditional,” is extremely vague.  One would assume “play-based”  means the children will be learning through play. What I have observed, is that a play-based program can mean that your child can choose whatever they want to do with very little intervention. While I believe this is a fine thing to offer children at times of the day, if it is all they are doing, without much interaction, direction or conversation with the teacher, they may be missing out on some valuable opportunities.

Here are some examples of experiences I have heard when consulting with parents who have chosen such a program:


“Charlie just plays in the dirt all day!” remarks the parent.
I asked, “Does he paint or play house with other children?” The parent replied that Charlie’s teacher asserted that playing in the dirt was all that Charlie wanted to do and according to the preschool’s philosophy (play-based version of Reggio Emilia) they were not going encourage him to do anything else. The parents respectfully listened to the teacher and did not ask for any changes in Charlie’s preschool experience.  

A year later, as this child was of the age to go to kindergarten, he did not yet recognize or write his name and did not know any letters or numbers. Furthermore, he had not progressed in some of the social skills one would hope that preschool might offer:  making friends, learning to work with others, attending to directions, etc. The family was told by his prospective kindergarten teacher that he was “behind” and would need to go into a “special” class to get caught up for kindergarten.

Another experience I had with a parent involved another very active child. I recommended a Reggio-based program, hoping that they would have more hands-on activities than the more traditional preschool that was also on the table as a choice. After hearing Charlie’s families’ story, I had suggested this family ask some questions, such as, “If my child wants to play in the play dough all day, will you sometimes encourage him to build in blocks with other children or draw a picture, to make sure he gets a well- rounded experience?” The answer to this question was “No,” that the philosophy of the program required the teachers to allow the children to make their own choices, apparently at all times. Additionally, this child was not accepted to this preschool because he as too active....I am confused.

With all due respect to various philosophies and interpretations of them, can we look at what is best for the children, right now?

And what exactly is the role of the teacher in a classroom when the child is completely in charge of his activity. Certainly the child is kept safe, but is he/she challenged? Is the child ever provoked intellectually by an adults’ facilitation, by the addition of rich and varied materials, supported in his/her verbal interactions with other children in order to learn about conflict resolution and manners? 

Conversely the teacher does not need to be dictating at all times, what a child does, never giving the child the opportunity to make a choice, voice an idea or collaborate with peers.

In seeking worthy back-up research for my opinion, I fell upon a book called, Qualities of Effective Teachers, by James H. Strong. He mentions research that has linked teachers’ intellectual verbal ability and interaction with student success, “A teacher with higher vocabulary and verbal skills communicates more often and more effectively, better conveying ideas to students and communicating in a clear and compelling manner.”

Why can’t we have a time during the day when children get to do whatever they want, and then other parts of the day where they do something as a group, sit quietly to listen to the teacher, follow a direction or two and try something new? Can we have both, dare I suggest..?

The way I look at it, I need to provide an experience that is different and valuable; opportunities a child would not get at home. I have lots of parents thank me for allowing their child to get really messy at school, as it is difficult to allow that on a certain level in the house. What I think is even more valuable, is socializing. Most children could play in the dirt at home alone, but at school, let’s take advantage of being able to build a whole city with other kids, work out problems together, get ideas from each other, have conversations.

This is the essence of excellent teaching- the ebb and flow of allowing the children’s’ activities and ideas individually, while facilitating the acquisition of pre-kindergarten skills and leading and creating a sense of community. Developmentally appropriate teaching requires intentionally creating an environment where children engage in many activities that exercise all parts of the brain, so that they begin to become well rounded individuals, capable of focusing on their own or participating in a group. 

In my strong opinion you need both – a little bit of traditional mixed in with play.  It is very much a recipe that the teacher must constantly adjust to needs of the individuals and the group in his/her classroom.  And it is important.  Early childhood experiences do set the foundation for future learning.  I still kick myself for keeping my son in that extremely traditional kindergarten.  The inappropriate, ill-placed rigor caused a light that had been sparked to fade when it came to his excitement for reading and writing…

I challenge all of our educational institutions out there at the very least to really define your philosophy.  If you say you are Reggio, then send your staff to a Reggio workshop. Clarify what that philosophy means at your school so that parents can make informed decisions about what might or might not work for their child.  

I can tell you from running Reggio-based preschools for many years, the philosophy runs much deeper than merely letting the children run loose all day with no adult facilitation.  As a matter of fact, the role of the teacher is quite specific, if one would care to look into it (http://reggioalliance.org/).

For parents, I hope this article encourages you to ask specific questions about a typical day at any school.  A good school will have good answers!  Good luck.