Policy and decision makers do not always understand the development and educational needs of young children. It is the job of the early childhood educator to advocate for the resources required to meet the needs of all students. Early childhood educators should be ready to provide the information policy and decision makers need to determine the value of differentiated early childhood education programs.
For this benchmark assignment, research a current statute in which the state legislature has made a decision that affects the differentiation needs of early childhood students. Then, write a letter to your legislative representative either for or against the statute, advocating for the differentiated needs of early childhood students.
Include:
Two or more of the theoretical concepts studied in this course to support your position.
How you identify the students’ readiness for learning in at least two developmental domains (cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and/or physical development).
How educational professionals, such as key researchers, speech pathologists, reading specialists, etc. collaborate to evaluate the outcomes of teaching and learning and to adapt and differentiate planning and practice for all students.
How differentiating instruction for young children can positively influence the developmental domains.
Support your letter with 3-5 scholarly references.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite.
Program competencies and national standards assessed in the benchmark assignment:
COE 1.2 Identify readiness for learning while taking into account the multiple influences (cognitive, linguistic, social, emotional, and/or physical) on early development and learning. [NAEYC 1b; InTASC 1(e), 1(f), 1(h), 2(k), 2(m)]
COE 3.6 Collaborate with other professionals, including those with specialized expertise, to evaluate the outcomes of teaching and learning and to adapt planning and practice. [NAEYC 4a; InTASC 7(e), 7(o), 9(c); MC2]
COE 5.4 Engage in informed advocacy to optimize the learning opportunities for young children, strengthen the learning environment, and advance the early childhood profession. [NAEYC 6e; InTASC 10(j), 10(k), 10(l), 10(m), 10(o), 10(p), 10(s); MC4]
Course Code
Class Code
Assignment Title
Total Points
ECE-510
ECE-510-O500
Benchmark – Advocating for Early Childhood Students
300.0
Criteria
Percentage
No Submission (0.00%)
Insufficient (69.00%)
Approaching (74.00%)
Acceptable (87.00%)
Target (100.00%)
Comments
Points Earned
Criteria
100.0%
Advocates COE 5.4
15.0%
Not addressed.
The letter erroneously advocates for the differentiated needs of early childhood students.
The letter artificially advocates for the differentiated needs of early childhood students.
The letter clearly advocates for the differentiated needs of early childhood students.
The letter thoughtfully advocates for the differentiated needs of early childhood students.
Theoretical Concepts
10.0%
Not addressed.
Two or less of the theoretical concepts are incorrectly included and poorly support stated position.
Two of the theoretical concepts are minimally included and ambiguously support stated position.
Two or more of the theoretical concepts are accurately included and effectively support stated position.
Two or more of the theoretical concepts are substantially included and thoroughly support stated position.
Readiness for Learning COE 1.2
15.0%
Not addressed.
The student’s readiness for learning in at least one of the developmental domains is inaccurately included.
The student’s readiness for learning in at least two of the developmental domains are vaguely included.
The student’s readiness for learning in at least two of the developmental domains are properly included.
The student’s readiness for learning in at least two of the developmental domains are extensively included.
Collaboration COE 3.6
15.0%
Not addressed.
How educational professionals collaborate to evaluate the outcomes of teaching and learning and to adapt and differentiate planning and practice for all students is unrealistically described.
How educational professionals collaborate to evaluate the outcomes of teaching and learning and to adapt and differentiate planning and practice for all students is weakly described.
How educational professionals collaborate to evaluate the outcomes of teaching and learning and to adapt and differentiate planning and practice for all students is descriptively described.
How educational professionals collaborate to evaluate the outcomes of teaching and learning and to adapt and differentiate planning and practice for all students is innovatively described.
Differentiated Instruction
15.0%
Not addressed.
How differentiating instruction for young children can positively influence the developmental domains is imprecise and flawed.
How differentiating instruction for young children can positively influence the developmental domains is underdeveloped and shallow.
How differentiating instruction for young children can positively influence the developmental domains is significant and meaningful.
How differentiating instruction for young children can positively influence the developmental domains is compelling and thought provoking.
Organization
10.0%
Not addressed.
An attempt is made to organize the content, but the sequence is indiscernible. The ideas presented are compartmentalized; may not relate to each other.
The content may not be adequately organized even though it provides the audience with a sense of the main idea.
The content is logically organized. The ideas presented relate to each other. The content provides the audience with a clear sense of the main idea.
The content is well organized and logical. There is a sequential progression of ideas related to each other. The content is presented as a cohesive unit and provided the audience with a clear sense of the main idea.
Research Citations (in-text citations, type of sources, reference page, and format)
10.0%
Not addressed.
Many citations are missing where needed; or sources are not credible; or the references page includes numerous errors; or most aspects of the required format are missing or mistaken throughout the entire submission.
Some citations are missing where needed; or the citations do not support the submission; or some sources may not be credible; or references page includes some errors; or many aspects of the required format are missing or mistaken throughout the entire submission.
In-text citations are complete and virtually error free. Sources are credible and adequate for the submission. The references page has very few errors. The required format is utilized for the most part throughout the submission.
In-text citations are complete, error-free, and arranged appropriately. Sources are credible and appropriate for the submission. The sources strongly support the submission. The references page is free of errors. All aspects of the required format are correct within the submission.
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)
10.0%
Not addressed.
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used.
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present.
Submission includes some mechanical errors, but they do not hinder comprehension. Varieties of effective sentence structures are used, as well as some practice and content-related language.
Submission is virtually free of mechanical errors. Word choice reflects well-developed use of practice and content-related language. Sentence structures are varied and engaging.
Total Weightage
100%
“WE’VE HAD A GOOD SUCCESS RATE ON THIS ASSIGNMENT. PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH HOMEWORK AIDER AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT”
The post Benchmark – Advocating for Early Childhood Students appeared first on Homeworkaider.
What Students Are Saying About Us
.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but you proved you are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"
.......... Customer ID: 11***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"This company is the best there is. They saved me so many times, I cannot even keep count. Now I recommend it to all my friends, and none of them have complained about it. The writers here are excellent."
"Order a custom Paper on Similar Assignment at essayfount.com! No Plagiarism! Enjoy 20% Discount!"
