Graduate Student University of Texas at Arlington, Texas, United States
Background/Question/Methods:
Although the Texas Education Agency (TEA), a state-regulated governing body for primary and secondary education, emphasizes the importance of holistic early childhood programs, the majority of child care facilities operate outside of their jurisdiction. This is because most preschool programs are either privately-owned or operated under the guidelines of various nationwide corporations. Without regulation from the TEA, child care facilities are subject to comply with the Minimum Standards outlined by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS), specifically Health and Human Services (HHS). However, Texas Minimum Standards only requires that a “written activity plan” exist and provides vague requirements of what this can consist of. The purpose of this study is multifaceted in that it firstly assesses the structure of written activity plans to decipher the presence of a distinct curriculum for environmental sciences. Then, it determines the extent to which ecological education is incorporated into daily learning activities in preschool programs in the north Texas area. This study is a culmination of first-hand experience from the researcher supplemented with data from in-person tour questionnaires, electronic communication, and online resources. When comparing data, only centers between the cities of Dallas and Fort Worth were considered.
Results/Conclusions:
Using major highways and interstates (such as Hwy 114 to the north or Interstate 30 to the south) as boundaries, 67 child care centers fell within these parameters. There were some disadvantages to using this study area. For example, most of the early childhood centers and designated preschools in Dallas were located on the northern side of the city, above the Hwy 114/35E boundary. Because of this, facilities within 5 miles of the boundary were included in the dataset. Of the 67 schools sampled, only 1 location (1.49%) offered full-time care year-round coupled with a nature-based curriculum. However, 5 more facilities (7.46%) offered part-time care year-round, but these were only 1- or 2-day programs. Only 3 schools in addition to this have distinct scientific or outdoor educational opportunities. The results show that the majority (86.57%) of programs lacked any kind of scientific or ecological learning activities for preschool children aged 2 to 5 years old. These findings highlight the importance of facilitating planning sessions to successfully implement outdoor learning opportunities for young children. In doing so, further research can determine the impact these ecological programs have on ensuring academic success and environmental stewardship for future generations.
