English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Three position statements are reviewed with respect to their changing treatment of literacy: two versions of Developmentally Appropriate Practice (Bredekamp, 1987;Bredekamp & Copple, 1997) and Learning to Read and Write: Developmentally Appropriate Practices for Young Children (IRA & NAEYC, 1998). Such position statements are then compared to the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) Accreditation Criteria and Procedures (1984, 1991a), the NAEYC Guide to Accreditation (1985, 1991b, 1998), and the two major research tools used to assess the quality of early childhood classrooms: Early Childhood Environmental Rating Scale (Harms & Clifford, 1980; Harms, Clifford, & Cryer, 1998), and Classroom Profile (Abbott-Shim & Sibley, 1987). While NAEYC has dramatically changed its recommendations regarding the importance of direct literacy instruction, accreditation procedures and research tools pay very little attention to such instruction. Programs can be accredited and even rated superior despite failing to provide the kind of rich language and literacy environment researchers have demonstrated to be necessary in order that all children learn to read and write. Alternative approaches to evaluating language and literacy instruction are described.

Shifting Images of Developmentally Appropriate Practice as Seen Through Different Lenses