Running head: DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 1

Developmentally Appropriate Education

Bethany J. Chong

Ohio Christian University

Author Note

This paper was prepared for the Teacher Education department, overseen by Dr. Valarie

Jones, in preparation for student teaching.

DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 2

Abstract

Developmentally appropriate practice, which results in developmentally appropriate education, is

the best way to create a positive educational experience for all students. An educator whose

methods are developmentally appropriate will know what is developmentally appropriate for

each student, know what is culturally appropriate for each student, and know what each student’s

individual educational needs are. Since DAE is supported by research, it is clearly the best way

to meet the needs of any diverse group of learners.

DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 3

Developmentally Appropriate Education

In the modern world, education is experiencing change at an unprecedented rate. In the

midst of this upheaval, teachers continue to seek the best way to meet the needs of the students

they teach every day. According to multiple authorities on the subject of education, that way is

best found in developmentally appropriate education. Developmentally appropriate education

addresses each of the learner’s needs in a variety of contexts, promoting the success of each

student on an individual basis. Therefore, each teacher who desires to be effective should strive

to teach in a manner that reflects developmentally appropriate practice.

Education Today

The state of education today is changing rapidly, at a pace much faster than that of the

previous century. Many modern trends are affecting this change. These trends include (but are

certainly not limited to): the explosion and incorporation of technology into daily life and

education, the introduction of nationwide Common Core State Standards, the trend toward

inclusion of a broad array of diverse students, and the move away from teacher-centered

classrooms and toward developmentally appropriate education that addresses each learner’s

needs.

Incorporation of Technology

With the beginning of the 21st century, technology exploded, entering homes and

classrooms alike. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, the percentage of

public schools with internet access jumped from 8% in 1995 to 98% in 2008 – a massive

increase (2016). Teachers are finding ways to use technology all throughout the day, from

writing on smartboards to playing educational games on tablets to hearing a book be read on the

computer. Though access to technology is important, researchers have found that it is not access
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 4

to technology that makes the difference for students; rather, what matters is how appropriately

that technology is incorporated into effective classroom instruction (Alford, Rollins, Padrón &

Waxman, 2016), (Blake, Winsor, Burkett & Allen, 2010).

Introduction of Common Core Standards

The sudden arrival of the Common Core State Standards in the most recent decade may

be the most talked-about current educational trend. This trend impacts nearly every classroom in

the nation, since “by 2011…all but four states had adopted” the Common Core State Standards

(Lavenia, Cohen-Vogel, & Lang, 2015, p. 148). According to Goldstein, “Standards-based

education is an explicit feature of the sociopolitical landscape of U.S. public education” (2008, p.

253).

The standards-based educational reform is part of a nationwide drive toward creating

teacher accountability and improving the academic success of American students. As a result of

that drive, “requests for early educators to show clear connections between their teaching and

children’s learning have intensified” (Brown, Feger, & Mowry, 2015, p. 63). As educators have

begun to align their teaching practices to reflect the content within the Common Core, they have

also begun to seek to ensure that their methods create those clear connections.

Inclusion of Diverse Students

The modern trend of inclusion applies to many diverse students. These students may

have learning disabilities or physical disabilities, exhibit difficult behavior, or lack experience in

speaking English. In prior eras of education, students under these umbrellas would typically

have been educated in a “special education” classroom, separate from their peers. However, that

expectation has all but disappeared. Education professors Reese, Richards – Tutor, Hansuvadha,

Pavri, & Xu state that “nationally, 61% of students with disabilities are instructed in general
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 5

education classrooms 80% or more of the time” (2018, p. 18). This is a huge majority.

Additionally, “81% of youth ages 6-21 that receive special education services under IDEA spend

40% or more of their time in the regular classroom” (Reese et. al., 2018, p. 18). These statistics

show that the vast majority of students with disabilities are spending large amounts of time in

general education settings, with a smaller majority only leaving for short pull-outs.

Inclusion has wonderful results for all involved. For the students being included,

researches have found that “students with special needs who are integrated into the general

education setting demonstrate heightened self-esteem and increased socialization skills” (Reese

et. al., 2018, p. 19). The students who were already in the general education classroom “are

more accepting of their peers with disabilities because the inclusive environment creates a sense

of social and cultural awareness, which precipitates tolerance and patience towards students with

disabilities” (Reese et. al., 2018, p. 19). Inclusion highlights the fact that every student (not just

those who receive provisions under IDEA) brings unique needs into the classroom, and that if he

or she is to be educated appropriately, those needs must be met.

Modern Methods

As the nation changes, the methods by which the nation’s children are educated have

struggled to keep up. According to research cited by Alford, Rollins, Padrón, & Waxman

(2016), there is still “exceptional variability in the quality of young children’s educational

experiences, with the typical child receiving mostly whole-group instruction” (p. 624). In spite

of a large body of research proving the negative effects of this type of education, “teacher-

centered, non-constructivist classrooms…continue to be the norm, rather than the exception”

(Alford, Rollins, Padrón, & Waxman, 2016, p. 632). Disadvantaged students have a high

likelihood of being further disadvantaged by poor teaching, because “in classes with a large
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 6

percentage of minority students, teachers” tend to utilize “more didactic teaching and less

constructivist instructional practices” (Stipek, as cited in Alford, Rollins, Padrón & Waxman,

2016, p. 624).

Move Toward Developmentally Appropriate Education

As researchers recognize the deficits within the American educational system, they are

beginning to call for education to reflect more developmentally appropriate practices. The push

for developmentally appropriate education is important, especially because current popular

practices do not reflect an understanding of development that results in consistent student

success.

Defining Developmentally Appropriate Education

The terms “developmentally appropriate education” (DAE) and “developmentally

appropriate practice” (DAP) have become popular terms to use when defining “best practice” in

education. They stem from multiple scholars’ interpretation of the work of Jean Piaget,

especially “his identification of developing cognitive maturation levels” (Blake, Winsor, Burkett

& Allen, 2010, p. 35). Piaget taught that as children grow, they move through four clear stages

of development: sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete operations, and formal operations

(Woolfolk, 2013). At each of these stages, children’s understanding of the world develops in

important ways (i.e. object permanence during the sensorimotor stage), building on prior

knowledge to create schemes of understanding. Developmentally appropriate education

recognizes that teaching methods should reflect each student’s individual development in order

to be truly effective.

The National Association for the Education of Young Children (n.d.-b), a leader in the

drive toward developmentally appropriate education, defines developmentally appropriate

DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 7

practice (or DAP) as “an approach to teaching grounded in the research on how young children

develop and learn and in what is known about effective early education” (para. 1). The NAEYC

offers three core considerations of DAP, each of which is foundational to the framework. These

considerations are as follows: “knowing about child development and learning,” “knowing what

is individually appropriate,” and “knowing what is culturally important” (n.d.-b, para. 2). When

all three of these considerations are carefully observed, they will result in developmentally

appropriate practice, which in turn creates a developmentally appropriate educational experience

for each student.

Knowledge about child development and learning is an essential key for any educator

who wishes to succeed. According to Katz, multiple surveys of elementary school principals in a

variety of teaching settings “ranked ‘Knowledge of Child Development’ as the single most

influential contributor to the professional development of practitioners who work with children”

(1997, p. 1). Since child development is a wide-ranging category, the NAEYC offers twelve

principles of child development and learning that should form the groundwork for educators’

understandings. These principles are as follows:

All areas of development and learning are important. Learning and development follow

sequences. Development and learning proceed at varying rates. Development and

learning result from an interaction of maturation and experience. Early experiences have

profound effects on development and learning. Development proceeds toward greater

complexity, self-regulation, and symbolic or representational capacities. Children

develop best when they have secure relationships. is an important vehicle for developing

self-regulation and promoting language, cognition, and social competence.by multiple

social and cultural contexts. Children learn in a variety of ways. Development and
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 8

learning advance when children are challenged. Children’s experiences shape their

motivation and approaches to learning (National Association for the Education of Young

Children, n.d.-a, para. 1).

When considered together, these principles of development reflect a general understanding that

each learner is different, that relationships play a key role in development, and that teachers have

a responsibility to create experiences that help each learner continue to develop in the best way

possible.

As children grow and mature, their developmental needs change dramatically. For

example, young children construct knowledge best through play. Because play is the most

developmentally appropriate way for them to learn at that age, researchers recommend

incorporating “child-directed play…and intentional teaching through playful learning, the arts,

and other hands-on experiences” (Miller & Almon, 2009, p. 52). On the other end of the

spectrum, when examining the biological development of young adolescents (aged 9 – 11),

researchers Meschke, Peter, & Bartholomae (2012) explained that a “biological marker of young

early adolescence is having lots of energy to expend” (p. 93). Therefore, they recommended

regular high-energy activity as developmentally appropriate practice. In both situations, the best

possible practice directly reflects current developmental levels, and when implemented, will

create an optimal learning environment.

“Knowing what is individually appropriate” is the NAEYC’s second pillar of

developmentally appropriate practice (n.d.-b, para. 2). This principle moves beyond

understanding development across the board and begins to look at the child as a unique learner

with his or her own educational needs, which may or may not be the same as their close peers.

Researchers Alford, Rollins, Padrón, & Waxman (2016) state, “children differ greatly from each
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 9

other in [the domains of cognitive, social/emotional, and physical development]; therefore, the

need for teachers to individualize and differentiate their instruction is great” (p. 632). Because of

these variations in development, supporters of DAE recommend that education (especially of

young children) not occur in primarily whole class settings, which tend to “discount the range of

differences and contexts that are present” with the classroom (Alford, Rollins, Padrón, &

Waxman, 2016, p. 632). Rather, small group settings are optimal. Unlike whole-class

instruction, small group instruction provides settings where the educator can observe individual

students’ learning and behavior closely and respond appropriately.

Knowledge of what is culturally important to each child is the NAEYC’s third

characteristic of developmentally appropriate practice. Culturally responsive teaching is learner-

centered, focusing on utilizing what students know to “promote student achievement” (Reese et.

al., 2018, p. 19). In an article published by their academic journal, Young Children, author Isik-

Ercan offers an example of what this looks like when applied. In Isik-Ercan’s example, two

children are playing with a doll. At naptime, one rocks the doll to “sleep;” the other, upset,

snatches the doll away to place it under a blanket, where she says it belongs (Isik-Ercan, 2017).

Though this may appear to be a behavioral issue, at its core, Isik-Ercan (2017) the problem stems

from different cultural expectations. “Young children have a deep understanding of their own

cultural routines and a strong desire to follow those routines,” and in this case, both girls were

trying to follow their own naptime ritual (Isik-Ercan, 2017, p. 16). In response, Isik-Ercan

recommends a teacher-led investigation into the cultural expectations that led to the class (2017).

In this case, for example, the class could read stories about the different ways people go to sleep

and engage in dramatic play centered on the practices they have encountered.
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 10

Intentionally seeking to understand what is culturally important to students is an essential

practice for an effective teacher. According to Isik-Ercan, “as practitioners develop their cultural

knowledge, they will be better able to identify opportunities for learning” (2017, p. 21). When

those opportunities for learning are effectively used, everyone benefits. As cultural clashes are

addressed and eased, the classroom becomes a more accepting, understanding place. As students

learn to identify their personal expectations as well as the expectations of others, they prepare

themselves to work through culturally-based difficulties on their own.

Review of Literature

Developmentally appropriate education is clearly defined as research-based practice

centered on a knowledge of child development, intentional response to students’ individual

needs, and an understanding of what is culturally appropriate for each student. Scholars

consistently tout developmentally appropriate practice as essential to modern education.

However, they also recognize that (by nature) DAP does not look the same in every setting and

grade level. As the subject of developmentally appropriate education is relatively new,

conversation about what appropriate methods look like (and how they should be defined)

continues. Though the subject is not yet settled, developmentally appropriate education is

unarguably a goal worth pursing to the fullest extent, as it has the power to reap incredible

rewards for all students.

Many scholars have emphasized the importance of developmentally appropriate

education. Researchers Alford, Rollins, Padrón, & Waxman (2016), in their study of early

elementary classrooms, found that developmentally appropriate practice results in a highly

engaged, hands-on learning environment. After observing the opposite in classrooms that were

not student centered, they asserted that “the need for teachers to individualize and differentiate
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 11

their instruction is great” (Alford, Rollins, Padrón, & Waxman, 2016, p. 632). Brown, Feger, &

Mowry (2015) stated that developmentally appropriate education creates academic rigor, defined

as “the process of working with all children in a manner that addresses the whole child through

hands-on learning experiences that challenge the mind and connect learning to the real-world

context” (p. 63 – 64).

Much of the continuing conversation surrounding DAE centers on that fact that it is

somewhat open-ended. After all, DAE is not a curriculum but a set of educational principles.

An educator looking to DAE principles for extreme specifics (i.e. daily class structure, ways to

script lessons, or a fool-proof classroom layout) will not find them. This has been a source of

frustration for some scholars. Meschke, Peter, & Bartholomae (2012) state that “few age

specific developmentally appropriate strategies” have been provided for professionals by

researchers of DAE (p. 91). However,

Cropple & Bredekamp (2008), leaders in the field of developmentally appropriate

practice, worked with a NAEYC to create a list of teaching practices that are generally

considered to be developmentally appropriate for children aged 3 – 8. These practices include:

curriculum and experiences that actively engage children; rich, teacher-supported play;

integrated curriculum; scope for children’s initiative and choice; intentional decisions in

the organization and timing of learning experiences; and adapting curriculum and

teaching strategies to help individual children make optimal progress (p. 54).

For Cropple and Bredekamp (2008), these teaching practices could be clearly contrasted with

others that are generally agreed on to be developmentally inappropriate:

highly linear instruction, especially when it follows an inflexible timeline; heavy reliance

on whole group instruction; fragmented lessons without connections that are meaningful
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 12

to children; rigid adherence to a packaged, “one size fits all” curriculum; teachers

following a predetermined script without regard to children’s responses; highly

prescriptive requirements, along with rigid timelines for achieving them; and narrow

focus (for example, only on literacy and math instruction) (p. 54).

Though these lists are not exhaustive in nature, they do paint a very clear, contrasting picture of

what developmentally appropriate (and inappropriate) educational settings look like. One is

clearly student centered and student-driven; the other is rigid and teacher centered, and it ignores

the great variation in needs that occurs in each classroom.

As proven by study after study, the importance of developmentally appropriate practice,

resulting in developmentally appropriate educational experiences, cannot be overstated. It has a

significant impact both within and beyond the classroom. Within the classroom, Alford, Rollins

Padrón & Waxman observed that students in developmentally appropriate educational settings

“were more likely to be on-task and less likely to be off-task,” and “more likely to be working

kinesthetically, answering teacher-posed questions, and freely exploring,” all of which are signs

of high engagement and personal interest in learning.

Beyond the classroom, students who receive developmentally appropriate education have

a much greater chance of general success in life. In Ricard, Brown, & Sanders’s (2002) review

of DAP – related studies, they found that

by age 23, individuals who had participated in DAP education as children were 37.7%

less likely to have been arrested for a felony than the individuals who had participated

inteacher-directed programs. Further, children from appropriate programs were twice as

likely to graduate from college and were more willing to accept responsibility for their

actions than those who had not attended quality program (p. 4).
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 13

In general, they recognized that “high quality appropriate early educational experiences have

positive effects on the academic performance of all children, but especially of those who are at

high risk of school failure” (Ricard, Brown, & Saunders, 2002, p. 4).

Personal Observations – Developmentally Inappropriate Education

The strongest example of developmentally inappropriate education that I recall observing

during field experience happened in the case of a fifth-grade student who I will call Bryan.

Bryan was educated in a manner that was inappropriate in every way. It did not take into

account his development (biologically, cognitively, or socially), his individual needs, or (to a

lesser extent) his culture. After working with Bryan for a couple months, it seemed to me that

developmentally appropriate education had been missing from most of his school experience.

I met Bryan in a fifth-grade language arts classroom. The teacher taught only whole-

class lessons, though there were occasional individual reading conferences conducted with

students. She felt she did not have time to prepare her lessons, and as a result, they often lacked

a clear goal, structure, and appropriate set-up of new information (i.e. building up to a big

concept throughout the week). For her students, the vast majority of class time was spent at their

desks working on either writing projects or “Daily 5” components. Nearly all work was

completed on worksheets or Chromebooks (which were constant sources of distraction). In the

midst of everything, Bryan looked perpetually confused, disengaged, and antsy.

For Bryan, the constant seatwork was already developmentally inappropriate because it

did not take into account his natural energy. According to Meschke, Peter, & Bartholomae

(2012), young adolescents aged 9 – 11 naturally have more energy than their older peers, and

developmentally appropriate teaching methods will allow them to utilize that energy. For Bryan,
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 14

having to sit at a desk for two hours straight was too much to ask. As a result, he was constantly

exhibiting distracted behaviors.

Bryan’s state of cognitive development was also not taken into account by his teacher.

Meschke, Peter, & Bartholomae (2012) state that “young early adolescents are generally more

responsive if information is presented in small pieces instead of larger blocks” (p. 94). At

Bryan’s stage of development, “chunking’ was still an important strategy for making information

accessible. The long, rambling lessons presented with little structure by his teacher did the

opposite, packaging information into such large chunks that he had difficulty knowing where to

begin.

Along with his biological and cognitive development, Bryan’s social development was

also not supported in positive ways by his teacher. Meschke, Peter, & Bartholomae (2012)

explain that “Social comparisons between youth—sometimes thought to serve as a means of

motivation for youth—are typically not appreciated at this age. Instead, such comparisons

oftentimes stir up feelings of inadequacy about oneself” (p. 95). Bryan often found himself

singled out in the classroom setting. Because he often got answers wrong and struggled to

succeed at most assigned work, I never saw him earn the weekly “Paw Party” award for success

at school, even though most of his classmates did. As the year passed, he began to accept

missing out as “just the way things are.” However, his peers noticed and began to tease him

about it, leading Bryan to withdraw even further into himself.

In my opinion, Bryan’s individual educational needs were neglected in an even more

dramatic way than his biological, cognitive, and social needs were. Upon entering fifth grade,

Bryan was performing at a second-grade level on language arts assessments. Meetings with him

revealed that he struggled to verbalize his thoughts, and though he could decode almost any
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 15

word, he made little to no meaning out of most texts he read. These disconnects were

astronomically important to his success at higher levels. However, aside from my decision to

meet with him, I observed no positive interactions from his teacher (or other professionals)

aimed at meeting those needs. Instead, Bryan was instructed just like everyone else. Instead of

seeking to bridge the gap we had discovered, his teacher fretted about his lack of success.

Bryan’s situation is a clear study in developmentally inappropriate education.

Unfortunately, it did not have to be. The areas in which Bryan’s needs were not being met were

obvious to any reflective observer, including his teacher. Unfortunately, because she made no

effort to alter the clear gaps and meet his developmental needs, Bryan ended his school year with

much less success under his belt than he should have had.

Personal Observations – Developmentally Appropriate Education

Fortunately, I have been blessed to observe many teachers who were passionate about

developmentally appropriate education. Their efforts were met not only with success, but with

genuine enjoyment for their students. The two teachers who stand out most in this area are

Shannon McKibben, who I observed for fourth grade science, social studies, and reading, and

Cathy Kint, who I observed for first grade reading intervention.

In both classrooms, students were highly engaged. They asked questions of their own

volition, participated with excitement in teacher-directed activities, and took ownership of their

learning and success. Developmental, individual, and even cultural needs were all met in ways

that reflected each child’s personal needs.

For example, one of Mrs. Kint’s first graders (Chelsea) came from a home where

personal items were not well-taken care of. To help Chelsea feel pride in and ownership of the

books she took home to read, Mrs. Kint taught the girl about how books are to be cared for, as
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 16

well as why people care for them and treat them well. When Mrs. Kint modeled the behaviors

for Chelsea and praised her imitation, Chelsea felt motivated to meet Mrs. Kint’s expectations.

As she learned to take care of her books, she began to show even more interest in using and

sharing them.

Mrs. Kint also lived the principle of knowing what is individually appropriate each day.

At the end of each one-on-one and group lesson, she would plan the next day’s work based on

what had just happened. For example, if a student was struggling with connecting pictures to

text, they would work on that next until the skill was mastered. This extremely individualized

approach to education meant that Mrs. Kint did not have the “luxury” of a cookie cutter lesson

plan that she could reuse throughout the day. She taught eight to ten lessons each day, and each

one was entirely different. However, it was this individual approach that brought her students

incredible success. As an intervention specialist, she was able to bring every student to a reading

level where they could succeed alongside their peers in the general education classroom, in spite

of starting the school year in as one of the lowest twenty students in reading.

In Mrs. McKibben’s fourth grade, the need for young adolescents to do more than just

seatwork was clearly met. For science, students regularly did experiments in a variety of

settings: outdoors, in the gym, at centers – if they needed the space, Mrs. McKibben took them

there. The opportunity to interact in a hands-on manner as they learned created high levels of

engagement. Students readily interacted with their work, and their learning often sparked lively

class discussions as it brought up further questions.

Implications and Conclusion

Based on both a review of literature by authoritative scholars and my own personal

observations, it is clear that a teacher who seeks success for his or her students can only affect
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 17

that success through developmentally appropriate education. Developmentally appropriate

education is not simply a neat idea; it is an imperative if education will continue to succeed.

In an educational setting devoid of developmentally appropriate education, everyone

suffers. Teachers will find that they are focused on themselves rather than their students,

creating rigid environments with unsatisfactory engagement levels, and the students will become

passive observers rather than active learners. Students will also find that their biological, social,

and cognitive development is not supported, their individual needs are not addressed, and their

cultural expectations are ignored. This will lead to frustration and disengagement, creating a

vicious cycle.

Developmentally appropriate education results in the opposite outcome. When students

receive developmentally appropriate education, their developmental state is taken into account,

cultural expectations are addressed, and individual needs are met. This setting creates an

environment of excitement and engagement. It also leads to students taking ownership of their

own learning. Because of its many benefits, developmentally appropriate education is the only

choice for a teacher who desires to see his or her students succeed.
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 18

References

Alford, B., Rollins, K., Padrón, Y., & Waxman, H. (2016, November). Using systematic

classroom observation to explore student engagement as a function of teachers'

developmentally appropriate instructional practices (DAIP) in ethnically diverse pre-

kindergarten through second-grade classrooms. Early Childhood Education Journal,

44(6), 623 – 635. doi: 10.1007/s10643-015-0748-8

Blake, S., Winsor, D., Burkett, C., & Allen, L. (2010, December). Developmentally appropriate

technology practice: Exploring myths and perceptions of early childhood and

instructional technology professionals. I-manager’s Journal on School Educational

Technology, 6(3), 35 – 48. doi: 10.26634/jsch.6.3.1377

Brown, C. P., Feger, B. S., & Mowry, B. (2016, September). Helping others understand

academic rigor in teachers’ developmentally appropriate practices. Young Children,

70(4), 62 – 69. Retrieved from: https://naeyc.org/resources/pubs/yc

Cropple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2008). Getting clear about developmentally appropriate

education. Young Children, 63(1), 54-55. Retrieved from:

https://naeyc.org/resources/pubs/yc

Gallagher, K. C. (2005). Brain research and early childhood development: A primer for

developmentally appropriate practice. Young Children, 60(4), 12 – 20. Retrieved from:

https://naeyc.org/resources/pubs/yc

Goldstein, L. S. (2008). Teaching the standards is developmentally appropriate practice:

Strategies for incorporating the sociopolitical dimension of DAP in early childhood

teaching. Early Childhood Education Journal, 36, 253 – 260.

doi: 10.1007/s10643-008-0268-x
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 19

Isik-Ercan, Z. (2017, March). Culturally appropriate positive guidance with young children.

Young Children, 72(1), 15 – 21. Retrieved from: https://naeyc.org/resources/pubs/yc

Katz, L. G. (1997). Child development knowledge and teachers of young children. Champaign,

IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education, University of

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

Lavenia, M., Cohen-Vogel, L. & Lang, L. B. (2015). The Common Core State Standards

Initiative: An event history analysis of state adoption. American Journal of Education,

121(2), 145-182. doi: 0195-6744/2015/12102-0001

Meschke, L. L., Peter, C. P. & Bartholomae, S. (2012). Developmentally appropriate practice to

promote healthy adolescent development: Integrating research and practice. Child Care

Youth Forum, 41(1), 89 – 108. doi: 10.1007/s10566-011-9153-7

Miller, E. & Almon, J. (2009). Crisis in the kindergarten: Why children need to play in school.

College Park, MD: Alliance for Childhood.

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (n.d.-a). 12 principles of

child development and learning. Retrieved from:

https://www.naeyc.org/resources/topics/12-principles-of-child-development

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (n.d.-b). Developmentally

appropriate practice (DAP) introduction. Retrieved from:

https://www.naeyc.org/resources/topics/dap

National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC). (2009). Developmentally

appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through

age 8: A position statement of the National Association for the Education of Young
DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE EDUCATION 20

Children. Retrieved from: https://www.naeyc.org/sites/default/files/globally-

shared/downloads/PDFs/resources/position-statements/PSDAP.pdf

National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Table 218.10. Number and internet access of

instructional computers and rooms in public schools, by selected school characteristics:

Selected years, 1995 through 2008. Retrieved from:

https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d16/tables/dt16_218.10.asp

Reese, L., Richards-Tutor, C., Hansuvadha, N., Pavri, S., & Xu, S. (2018). Teachers for

inclusive, diverse urban settings. Issues in Teacher Education, 27(1), 17-27. Retrieved

from: www.itejournal.org

Ricard, R. J., Brown, A., & Sanders, J. (2002, April). What’s appropriate about developmentally

appropriate practices? Observing early childhood development center classroom

environments. Early Childhood Literacy: Programs & Strategies To Develop Cultural,

Linguistic, Scientific and Healthcare Literacy for Very Young Children & their Families,

2001 Yearbook

Woolfolk, Anita. (2013). Educational Psychology, 12th ed. Pearson.