What Does It Mean to Be Culturally and Developmentally Appropriate?

• In Event: Early Childhood Curriculum for the 21st Century: Rethinking Developmentally Appropriate Practices

Abstract

In the most recent version of Developmentally Appropriate Guidelines (e.g. NAEYC 2020), there are revisions of the notion of Developmentally Appropriate Guidelines to include an emphasis on individual development within a cultural context. The focus on “context,” as well as explanations related to individual variability rather than what is “normal” are healthy revisions to earlier arguments that all programs and educators should follow “Developmentally Appropriate Guidelines” according to norms of development.

In the first version (Bredekamp, 1987) and in later revisions, there had been a focus on “appropriateness” versus “inappropriateness” in terms of norms of development for children from infancy through age 8; this emphasis is also highly qualified in the latest Position Statement published in 2020. The earlier statements focused greatly on norms of development based on a narrow sample of largely Euro-American (white) middle class children’s development; in the latest statement the fact that the earlier developmental norms were based on a very narrow sample of children and families and, therefore, not generalizable to the broader population in the USA, or globally, is made clearer.
Nonetheless, the fact that thirty-four years have passed (1987-2021) by with a focus on guidelines based on a narrow set of developmental norms, and concepts of “appropriate/inappropriate” or “normal/abnormal” behavior is unacceptable. This has had lasting impact on curriculum development, teacher training, and, undoubtedly, on children and families. In addition to DAP guidelines being highly influential in the USA, the guidelines have also influenced the formation of Quality Rating Scales in the USA, and constructions and assessments of normal childhood, and curriculum development world-wide.
While there have been some revisions in each new set of guidelines published, as well as in the ways in which training and national certification of programs has been done, the early childhood education field has relied on “standards of excellence” that should never have been construed as “excellent” as they fostered notions of abnormality and “risk” for many children and families.
Current emphases on “funds of knowledge” (González, Moll, & Amanti, 2005) focus on competent children and the strengths of children, families, and community-based knowledge. This is extremely positive. However, the long legacy of “developmentally appropriate guidelines” led to constructions of children’s abnormality, and being “at risk” for failure. This has left a legacy of patterns, policies and beliefs that are difficult to remove.
Current DAP and Equity statements suggest they are based on “evidence” and “science,” which is positive, but fail to acknowledge fully what had been left out of or excluded from the presentations of truth in the past. In addition, current cultural customs and patterns alone are still narrowly construed as current evidence suggests enormous variation based upon context and situation, and the enduring importance of structural inequities that have too long been ignored. In summary, there are many positive aspects to revisions, but many injustices that have been created that still should be addressed.

Author

• Marianne N. Bloch, University of Wisconsin - Madison