/ /

Review of Vermont Early Childhood and Early Childhood Special Education Course Syllabi[1]

SummaryFebruary 2018

In 2017, reviews of early childhood (EC) and early childhood special education (ECSE) course syllabi were conducted to determine the extent to which these offerings explicitly and intentionally reflected Vermont values and frameworks for EC and ECSE quality. The premise underlying the reviews was that increased emphasis on the components of high quality across instructors, courses, and programs is one way to assure that EC professionals acquire and apply information and practices with which to support each child’s full potential. What follows is a summary of the process, findings, next steps, and recommendations.

Process. Vermont programs that offer EC and ECSE courses for credit were invited to join in the syllabus review process. Nine programs (Champlain College undergraduate and master’s programs, Community College of Vermont, Springfield College, Goddard College, Union Institute and University, University of Vermont EC PreK-3 and ECSE programs, and the Vermont Higher Education Collaborative participated.

An 11-item rubric was developed to review each syllabus. Indicators included key Vermont tools (e.g., Ages and Stages Questionnaires™/ASQ, Classroom Assessment Scoring System/CLASS, Environment Rating Scales/ERS, and Teaching Strategies GOLD™ Assessment System/TS GOLD), frameworks (e.g., Vermont Early Learning Standards/VELS) and values (e.g., emphasis on families, trauma-informed ser-vices, early childhood mental health, equity and diversity, linguistic diversity, and children with disab-ilities/inclusion). Syllabi were searched manually and electronically to determine where emphasis on any of the eleven indicators might be seen (e.g., course description, outcomes, readings, assignments, and/or instructional experiences) and the extent to which emphasis could be seen (none, some, or significantly).

Each program identified five core courses and provided those syllabi for review. In some programs, syllabi use the same course title, description, and objectives but vary for each instructor in emphasis. When this was the case, multiple syllabi were reviewed. In the case of a program that did not have course syllabi, the early childhood education licensure endorsement handbook was reviewed instead.

Findings. A total of 52 syllabi were reviewed with the following findings.

  • Over half of the syllabi reviewed included significant emphasis (two or more specific occurrences) on families and family engagement (60% of syllabi reviewed), equity and diversity (62%), and children with disabilities (67%). Less emphasis was seen (41%) on young children who are dual language learners.
  • Fewer than half of the syllabi reviewed (36% of the 52 reviewed) explicitly mentioned the VELS; just 21% reflected significant emphasis. Almost two-thirds of the syllabi (64%) never mentioned the VELS.
  • Four tools (ASQ, CLASS, ERS, TS GOLD) that are part of Vermont’s systems for measuring program quality were rarely mentioned in any of the syllabi. One syllabus explicitly incorporated the ASQ, one incorporated the CLASS, two incorporated one of the ERSs, and none incorporated TS GOLD.
  • Trauma-informed services and supports and EC mental health, areas of significant legislative and programmatic importance in Vermont, were each mentioned only once.

In addition to looking at how frequently the eleven indicators were mentioned, attention was paid to where the indicators appeared in each syllabus. Attention was paid particularly to whether indicators were addressed as part of course assignments, which would require learners to actively apply what they had learned relative to that indicator. In general, indicators were least likely to be mentioned as part of course assignments. For example, looking at the example of equity and diversity, while 67% of the syllabi reviewed had some emphasis on this content in the readings, only 27%, roughly a fourth of the syllabi, required students to apply that content in the course assignments.

The full report of findings of the syllabus review (http://fpg.unc.edu/presentations/vt-syllabus-review) acknowledges variables that may have deflated some rubric scores and thus yielded an underestimate of the extent to which there is alignment.

Next Steps. A summary of the findings for each syllabus reviewed, highlighting both assets and opportunities to incorporate missing indicators, was provided to each program. Individual calls or meetings were held to discuss the findings.

Recommendations. Findings from the review suggest several strategies for strengthening the emphasis on and alignment with Vermont’s quality frameworks in syllabi from EC and ECSE programs. Specific recommendations are to:

1. Provide technical assistance to each program. Emphasize the importance of using Vermont’s quality frameworks to prepare and support future EC and ECSE professionals. Recognize programs that proactively work to enhance their programs in ways that address the findings of the review.

2. Provide free Master Classes to provide faculty members with information and resources that can assist them in including new frameworks and perspectives in their courses (e.g., a Master Class that focuses on newer assessments like the ASQ, CLASS, the ERSs, and TS GOLD). Another example would be a

Master Class that specifically addresses the construction and delivery of a quality syllabus that features alignment between course objectives and assignments and explicitly addresses knowledge application in both assignments and rubrics.

3. Share the results of this review with other agencies and entities that provide professional development. Encourage them to use a tool like the rubric to examine the extent to which they are integrating Vermont’s quality frameworks and addressing core values in their offerings.

4. Share free resources like the Toolkit sections (http://fpg.unc.edu/presentations/vermont-resource-collections) for addressing the indicators with early childhood colleagues. Take copies of The Right Stuff to meetings and distribute them to encourage colleagues to sign up for free resources that can enhance their work.

[1] The research summarized in this document was supported by a contract from the Vermont Agency of Education. Funding was provided through the Vermont Race to the Top Early Learning Challenge Grant. This summary was prepared by Camille Catlett. A full report of the results of the syllabus review is available at http://fpg.unc.edu/presentations/vt-syllabus-review