Curricular Approaches to Avoid

Jones and Nimmo (1994) describe a few curricular approaches they have observed but would not recommend for early childhood settings:

  1. The canned curriculum: Although some school districts and early childhood programs purchase a “canned” curriculum designed to be foolproof, these types of programs are generally not recommended. A pre-designed curriculum can’t possibly fit the unique needs of every child, and alteration or deviation from the curriculum is typically not an option.
  2. The embalmed curriculum: Jones and Nimmo (1994) use this term to describe a curriculum that may be used by someone who has been teaching for many years, containing old materials and lessons that require little attention from the teacher. In this type of curriculum, there is little regard for the fact that children today may be vastly different from those in previous years, with different interests, learning styles, or needs.
  3. The accidental or unidentified curriculum: This term describes those who put little time or energy into planning their curriculum, simply hoping that learning will result from free play time with children. Although there may be many interesting activities in which children are engaged, the teaching and learning objectives are undefined and outcomes are haphazard at best.
  4. The pushed-down and watered-down curriculum: In addition to those mentioned above, Krogh and Slentz (2001) discuss the dangers of using a “pushed-down” curriculum with young children. This seems to happen when parents, districts, and legislators attempt to improve academic achievement by pushing the curriculum of older students down to the earlier age groups. This often results in primarily whole-group, teacher-led instruction that is not appropriate for young children and that is particularly difficult for those who struggle to sit still for extended periods of time.

When it becomes apparent that the younger students cannot handle the curriculum, the content is watered-down to the most basic level, leaving many children unchallenged, bored, uninterested, or unmotivated (Bredecamp & Copple, 1997).

Top