What Is Developmentally Appropriate Teaching?

Kamii's stipulations about the CCSSM are more about the kind of teaching they can lead to. She has been quite concerned that giving teachers the standard about teaching kindergarteners to count to 100 may lead to teachers using direct instruction and a worksheet to dutifully march children through the counting numbers up to 100. Her mantra has always been that children are capable of thoughtful construction of knowledge and understanding. The authors of this article take Kamii to task and imply that she is not aware of "current" research about children's learning; however, I question their understanding of her work. She has always made the point that we need to teach for understanding, she never said that kindergartners could not count to 100. We know children can do without any conceptual understanding. I just watched a second grade teacher skillfully take her class through the procedures of using the interactive element of a school math program to show large squares representing 100, strips of 10 singles representing 10s and individual "stickers" to represent one. I write "skillfully" because the lesson ran smoothly with most (not all) the children using dry erase boards to show how many squares, strips and singles would represent various amounts like "52". However, I question their conceptual understanding of these numbers. This is the kind of "counting" Kamii refers to. The children seem quite capable but without a closer analysis and assessment of this knowlege we really don't know what understanding they have constructed.

We appreciate your writing. Please note that I wrote the "back cover" compliments to one of Connie's book—and I meant it. I appreciate all she has done and have cited her for decades. I have read her work extensively. However, she does remain firmly in the older Piagetian research and her comments in this case are simply inaccurate. Re: Your "counting to 100" comment--Connie does make that comment (see also the below for more details on what she--sand especially others--say about that).  And we all want children to learning math with conceptual understanding--see how many times the CCSSM uses that term!  And we make the point that Connie keeps saying CCSSM will lead to bad teaching but goodness--they are standards, and developmentally appropriate ones!--they are not teaching guides (but see a good one, below!).  Bashing standards for others' potential abuse of them simply does not make logical sense.

Clements, D. H., Fuson, K. C., & Sarama, J. (2017). The research-based balance in early childhood mathematics: A response to Common Core criticisms. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 40, 150–162. 

Clements, D. H., Fuson, K. C., & Sarama, J. (2018). The Common Core in early math and developmental appropriateness. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education. 

Frye, D., Baroody, A. J., Burchinal, M. R., Carver, S., Jordan, N. C., & McDowell, J. (2013). Teaching math to young children: A practice guide. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE), Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.