The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 37 Does a Decade Make a Difference? Changes in Pre- and In-service Preschool Teachers’ Knowledge of Early Mathematical Development The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 2025, Volume 28, Issue 2 https://doi.org/10.55370/thedialog.v28i2.1782 Contact: Linda M. Platas lplatas@sfsu.edu Copyright © 2025 by the authors. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/). DOES A DECADE MAKE A DIFFERENCE? ECE MATHEMATICS ABSTRACT This study examines whether, in the wake of consid- erable research since 2007 on the importance of supporting early mathematical development, students in early childhood teacher education programs gained more knowledge in the subsequent decade in this essential area of development. The analysis compares data on pre- and in-service teachers’ knowledge of mathematical development gathered during 2008 as measured by the Knowledge of Mathematical Devel- opment Survey (KMDS) and compares it to data gathered in 2017-2018. Results showed that while the KMDS mean scores of students in each of the education groups (beginning versus seniors versus math course) statistically differed for each collection year, there was no statistically significant difference between 2008 and 2017-2018 collection years for beginners. However, there was a statistically signifi- cant difference between 2008 and 2017-2018 collec- tion years in average scores in the seniors and math course groups, resulting in lower mean scores in 2017-2018 than those in 2008. KEYWORDS Early mathematics, early childhood education, preser- vice, in-service, teachers I n 2007, Duncan and colleagues published an influ- ential longitudinal study across three countries on kindergarten-entry predictors of academic success at third and fifth grade. Controlling for socioeconomic status and mother’s education, the authors concluded that early math skills at entry to kindergarten had the greatest predictive power. Long before Duncan et al. (2007) contem- plated such analyses, appeals for increased class- room support for early mathematical development appeared in academic journals (American Educa- tional Research Association, 2005; Clements, 2001; Ginsburg & Golbeck, 2004), at national confer- ences and meetings (Clements, 2004; Copley & Padron, 1998; National Research Council, 2005), Linda M. Platas San Francisco State University The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 38 in position papers and standards (Administration for Children and Families, 2005; National Associa- tion for the Education of Young Children & Nation- al Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2002; Na- tional Council of Teachers of Mathematics, 2000) and in myriad of well-regarded texts on education (Baroody, 1987; Bowman et al., 2001; Ginsburg et al., 1998; Ginsburg et al., 2006). In 2001, the Na- tional Research Council and Mathematics Learn- ing Study Committee stated, “The responsiveness of preschool teachers to the developmental level of a child in the domain of mathematics, helping to put in place the concepts that are prerequisites to success in first grade arithmetic, can provide the foundation for performance in the school years” (p. 83). Since 2007, numerous studies have added to the evidence base on the importance of early math- ematical development to later academic achieve- ment (Duncan & Magnuson, 2011; Geary et al., 2013; Jordan et al., 2009; Kwok et al., 2021). In 2010, multiple research teams published additional analyses of the 2007 longitudinal study, resulting in similar outcomes with additional subgroup ef- fects (Foster, 2010; Grimm et al., 2010; Hooper et al., 2010; Pagani et al., 2010). Relatedly, research studies have shown that early childhood programs that increase math skills can have lasting effects on academic achievement (Gormley et al., 2018; Mattera et al., 2021). Re- searchers have found beneficial effects of quality mathematics curriculum on language and litera- cy outcomes (Sarama et al., 2012) and large effect sizes of math interventions on early math develop- ment (Joo et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2016). Research- ers continue to investigate which mathematical skills are important (Fyfe et al., 2019; Nguyen et al., 2016). Specific to Head Start, studies have found that Black and Latino students may be the recipients of the largest gains in math and language skills among children attending Head Start programs (National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, 2023). However, the authors of these reports ex- press concern that enrollment in early childhood programs does not always result in better outcomes for children (p. 67). The quality of the program, including its curriculum and teachers’ abilities to support learning, has significant effects on child outcomes. Prior to 2007, numerous studies examined mathematical activities in early childhood class- rooms. Many of these concluded that math activ- ities that involved teacher and child interactions were not common (Ginsburg et al., 1999; Graham et al., 1997; Sarama et al., 2004). As an example, in a study on 26 preschool classrooms (Klibanoff et al., 2006), authors reported that activities around cardinality (including object counting) existed in all classrooms, but verbal counting sequence activities in fewer than 70%. Fewer than 31% of classrooms engaged children in number ordering activities (e.g., “What number comes after seven?”). Significantly, researchers found the growth in math knowledge over the course of the school year was positively related to the amount of math talk in the classroom (pp. 62-64), making the lack of math talk problematic. Studies published since 2007 also demonstrate concern about the level of support for early math- ematical development in preschool classrooms. In a 2021 study of 27 prekindergarten classrooms, re- sults showed that teachers displayed low- to medi- um-support of early mathematics learning (Cerez- ci, 2021). In a study of 30 private preschool centers, Bachman et al. (2018) found that 4- to 5-year-old children were exposed to an average of two min- utes of math per day. Concern has also been expressed before and after Duncan and colleagues’ (2007) publication that teacher educators may not have the experience or information necessary to prepare early child- hood teachers to provide mathematically rich en- vironments and instruction (Ginsburg et al., 2006). Wright and colleagues (2021) reported that prekin- dergarten teacher accreditation policies across the United States are not aligned with state standard ex- pectations, with only eight of 64 certification pro- grams including a course on mathematics. An ex- ample of the misalignment between standards and teacher preparation programs is the inclusion of a new mathematics standard (Standard 8) and relat- ed teacher performance expectations in California (California Commission on Teacher Credentialing [CTC], 2023a). Teacher preparation programs for preschool through 3rd grade in the state must now prepare teachers to demonstrate that they can, Plan and implement mathematics instruction DOES A DECADE MAKE A DIFFERENCE? ECE MATHEMATICS The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 39 appropriate to children’s age, grade, and devel- opmental levels (including children’s linguistic, cognitive, social and emotional strengths and learning needs) that is grounded in an under- standing of California’s most current Mathe- matics Standards and Framework and the most current Preschool Learning Foundations and Curriculum Framework. (CTC, 2023b) Relatedly, in a recent study across eight states (including two of the states included in this study) that surveyed early childhood education programs in community colleges and universities across each state, Copeman Pettig and colleagues (2018) re- vealed that faculty reported teaching math content in courses for practitioners who worked with pre- schoolers at “higher rates than they reported feel- ing capable of teaching that content” (p. 19). This indicates that teacher educators may have been recruited to teach math courses or encouraged to include more math content in their curriculum and development courses despite their (self-re- ported) insufficient skill level in understanding and teaching about early math development. In a recent review of early childhood teaching credential pro- grams, Schachner et al. (2023) noted that mathe- matics teaching was one of the domains with the least amount of coursework. Given the considerable evidence for support- ing early mathematical development, coupled with concerns about insufficient classroom support for that development, is there evidence that we have increased instruction on mathematical develop- ment for our pre- and in-service teachers? This study compares data on pre- and in-service teach- ers’ knowledge of mathematical development gath- ered during 2008 and compares it to data gathered in 2017-2018, a ten-year span. Because teachers also gain knowledge through their everyday inter- actions in the classroom with colleagues and chil- dren, the study also examines whether two or more years of classroom teaching experience influences their knowledge of mathematical development. The timing of this study is particularly signifi- cant given that many teacher education programs were derailed beginning in the spring of 2020, so measurement prior to COVID’s interference in in- struction is a valuable window on a time when few- er confounds (i.e., absence of in-person observa- tion and practicum courses and the high frequency of online instruction in early childhood education teacher preparation programs) may have affected instruction. Consequently, teachers who completed some or all or their coursework and/or began their teaching careers during COVID may have experi- enced differences in preparation for teaching. The instrument utilized in this study is the Knowledge of Mathematical Development Survey (KMDS). Knowledge of Mathematical Development Survey In order to provide effective support for ear- ly mathematical development, research suggests teachers must develop a) comprehensive knowl- edge of mathematical content and concepts (Li- towski et al., 2020; Ma, 1999); b) an awareness of young children’s mathematical development, in- cluding developmental trajectories that build on past knowledge and build the foundation for future knowledge (Sarama & Clements, 2009; Turrou et al., 2021); and c) pedagogy that engages children and advances development through the use of mean- ingful representations and activities (Baroody et al., 2006; Clements et al., 2023; Seo & Ginsburg, 2004). It has also been argued that effective teaching of mathematics also requires respect for the mathe- matical thinking of the child (Ball, 1993; Ginsburg, 2016). This suggests that curriculum and develop- ment courses must include math-specific content and pedagogy, and that teacher educators must possess this knowledge themselves if they are to provide instruction in this domain. “Effectively supporting early mathematical development in the preschool classroom also requires teachers to attend to children’s interests and provide meaningful opportunities for their engagement.” DOES A DECADE MAKE A DIFFERENCE? ECE MATHEMATICS The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 40 Effectively supporting early mathematical de- velopment in the preschool classroom also requires teachers to attend to children’s interests and pro- vide meaningful opportunities for their engage- ment. Mathematical activities in these supportive classrooms are integrated, playful, useful, fun, and culturally inclusive (Stipek & Johnson, 2020). All in all, when combined with the need for deep under- standing of mathematical concepts and appropri- ate pedagogy, this is a steep ask of early childhood teachers and their educators. Considerable attention has been paid to the mathematics pedagogical and content knowledge of elementary school teachers. Hill and colleagues’ (2008) seminal paper on pedagogical content knowledge has been cited over 3000 times. Howev- er, to date, the measurement of pre- and in-service preschool teachers’ knowledge of mathematical development has been limited. Researchers have used interviews (McCray & Chen, 2012; Rosenfeld, 2012), achievement tests of mathematical pedagog- ical content knowledge (Dunekacke et al., 2015; Dunekacke et al., 2016), and questionnaires (An- ders & Rossbach, 2015). This paper explores pre- and in-service early childhood teachers’ knowl- edge of mathematical development in the year after Duncan and colleagues’ (2007) publication and ten years later. The KMDS was developed in 2007. The 20- item survey includes questions on the verbal count- ing sequence, object counting, ordinal number words, addition and subtraction, division of sets (fair/equal sharing), and written number symbols and words. Each item requires the respondent to choose which activity typically comes first in devel- opment (e.g., Saying the counting words in order from 1-10 [i.e., “1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10] or Saying the counting words in order from six to ten [i.e., “6, 7, 8, 9, 10]), or mark “Same” or “I don’t know.” Rationale for selecting the items reflected two as- sumptions: they should be (a) representative of empirical research on early mathematical develop- ment and (b) indicative of activities that can and do occur in preschool classrooms (Platas, 2014). The development of numeracy skills, including those described in the items on the KMDS, represent the most predictive early math skills on later academic achievement (Chu et al., 2015; Duncan et al., 2007; Duncan & Magnuson, 2011; Nguyen et al., 2016). The instrument validation and reliability were sup- ported through two pilot studies (N = 20; N = 55) and a validation study with 346 pre- and in-service preschool teachers (citation omitted). The instru- ment has subsequently been used in several studies as described below. Cox (2011) surveyed 207 teachers from 51 pre- schools examining dimensions of math anxiety and knowledge and beliefs about children’s mathemat- ical development and classroom mathematics cur- riculum. The range of preschool classroom experi- ence was 1 to 30+ years, with 89% with 2 or more years. Cronbach’s alpha for the KMDS for this sam- ple was .88, with an average score of 11 correct out of 20. Participants’ KMDS scores were positively correlated with their beliefs that support for math development is age-appropriate in preschool (r = .25, p ≤ .001) and that math development is an im- portant goal in the early years. There was no rela- tion between the KMDS score and math anxiety by category (high positive affect, high negative affect, or mixed), although there was a trend with high- er KMDS scores present in the high positive affect group. Using the KMDS in a study that examined dif- ferences between 98 preservice and 77 in-service preschool teachers’ knowledge of and beliefs about early mathematical development, Kim (2013) found significant differences between the KMDS scores (α= .81) of the two groups (M = 12.27 and 15.80, respectively; F(1,173) = 47.79, p < .001) re- sulting in a large effect size (η2 = .22). Teachers in the in-service group all had either a bachelor’s or master’s degree, and 87% had participated in a pro- fessional development course on preschool mathe- matics in the previous three years. Lange et al. (2022) utilized the KMDS to mea- sure change in knowledge of mathematical devel- opment during 23 preschool teachers’ engagement in a STEM professional learning model (control = 24). Results showed a statistically nonsignificant increase of .39 in scores from pretest to posttest. However, comparisons between posttest scores of the treatment group versus the control group re- sulted in a difference of 1.77 points, an effect size of d = .45. The present study contributes to our knowl- edge base on teacher preparation programs and their ability to support current and future teachers’ DOES A DECADE MAKE A DIFFERENCE? ECE MATHEMATICS The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 41 understanding of early mathematical development. In particular, this study examines whether, in the wake of considerable research since 2007 on the importance of supporting early mathematical de- velopment in the early years, early childhood teach- er education programs have improved instruction over the intervening ten years on this essential area of development. This study uses the KMDS to asks the following research questions: 1. Is there a difference between 2008 and 2017- 2018 in knowledge of mathematical develop- ment as measured by the KMDS in the follow- ing groups: • Beginning: Students at the beginning of a post-secondary early childhood education de- gree • Seniors: Students at the end of a BA/BS in early childhood education with no math course • Math course: Upper division and master’s stu- dents at the end or at completion of a 3-unit semester early math development course 2. Does two or more years of experience in pre- school classrooms make a difference in the KMDS score within each of the three groups in 2008 and 2017-2018? Methodology Data Collection The study was approved by the author’s univer- sity Institutional Review Board as well as a com- munity college research review board. Instructors of courses were contacted via e-mail and provided with a description of the study and a request for permission for the author to recruit participants and survey students. In 2008, all instructors con- tacted granted access. In 2017-2018, two instruc- tors stated insufficient time left in the semester to allow survey administration and two indicated that the majority of the students enrolled were taking the requested class for general education units. The remaining instructors granted access to their classrooms and students. Participants were giv- en a $10 gift card as an incentive and assured that instructors would not be notified of participation status. Gift cards were funded through a competi- tive university research mini-grant. Return rate for completed surveys ranged from 75% to 100% per classroom with an average in 2008 of 97% and in 2017-2018 of 98%. Completion of the surveys took 10-25 minutes. The last page of the survey request- ed demographic information, including previous and current employment in the field of early child- hood education, information on enrollment in a mathematical development course, year of birth, and ethnicity. Students were allowed to choose multiple ethnicities. Participants In 2008, 346 participants were recruited through a stratified purposeful sampling method in order to obtain participants with differing expe- rience, education, and exposure to an early math development course. Participants included stu- dents from four community colleges in California (seven classrooms), three universities in California (six classrooms) and four MA/BA mathematical development courses in two states (western and eastern United States). In 2017-2018, 338 participants were recruit- ed through an identical sampling method as 2008. Participants included students from three commu- nity colleges in California (three classrooms), four universities in California (eight classrooms), and four MA/BA mathematical development courses in three states (western and eastern United States; three from the same states and systems as in 2008). For the purposes of these study, students who had a complete score for the KMDS and were cat- egorized as beginning (first- and second-year stu- dents enrolled in child development entry courses at community colleges and four-year universities), seniors (seniors with no math course), and math course (graduate master’s and undergraduate upper division students who had completed a 3-semester unit math development course) were included in the analyses. To reduce ambiguity and confounds, students who indicated that they had at one time or were currently taking a math course (18 students in 2008 and 11 in 2017-2018) but were not enrolled in the math courses surveyed, were not included in the analysis. Cronbach’s alpha for the KMDS for combined years 2008 and 2017-2018 was .76, indi- cating good reliability. DOES A DECADE MAKE A DIFFERENCE? ECE MATHEMATICS The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 42 Demographics The average student age in 2008 was 27.37 years (N = 252; SD = 9.502) and in 2017-2018 24.28 years (N= 268; SD = 6.704). This difference was signifi- cant t(518) = 4.254, p = <.001. Eleven students in 2017-2018 did not provide a birth year. Students who identified as female in 2008 and 2017-2018 (N= 236 and 258, respectively) far ex- ceeded the number who identified as male (N = 20 and 20, respectively). There was no significant change in gender identification from 2008 to 2017- 2018 χ2(1) = .786, p = .870, two sided. Between 2008 and 2017-2018, the proportion of students across ethnicities changed significantly, specifically in the percentages of Latino, and White students χ2(5) = 51.770, p < .001. Figure one shows the distribution of students in each reported eth- nicity for each of the two reported years. The black portion of each bar represents the percentage of students in the beginning group, the medium gray the number of students in the senior group, and the light gray the number of students in the math course group. Analyses by group showed that among seniors there was a change in the percentage of Asian and White students χ2(5) = 21.111, p < .001. In the math course groups there was a change in the percentage of Latino and White students χ2(4) = 37.774, p < .001. There was no change in ethnicity in the beginning group. Results Differences between groups’ KMDS scores within years were examined through analysis of variance (ANOVA) with appropriate post hoc tests. Differences between (a) 2008 and 2017-2018 KMDS scores and (b) effects of two or more years of experience within groups in 2008 and 2017-2018 were measured by a univariate analysis. Research Question #1: Is there a difference in students’ knowledge of math- DOES A DECADE MAKE A DIFFERENCE? ECE MATHEMATICS Figure 1 Ethinicity in 2008 and 2017-2018 The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 43 -ematical development as measured by the KMDS in 2008 or 2017-2018 between education groups? Table 1 shows that there were statistically signif- icant differences in 2008 between all groups in the mean KMDS scores, with scores increasing from beginning students to seniors to those who had taken a math course. In 2017-2018, mean KMDS scores increased in the same direction as 2008, with statistically significant differences between the mean scores of the beginning group and the math course group and between the seniors group and the math course group (see Table 1). However, the difference in mean KMDS scores between the be- ginning and seniors groups in 2017-2018 did not reach significance. As noted in Table 2, there was no statistical difference between 2008 and 2017-2018 KMDS mean scores in beginning students; there were sta- tistically significant differences between 2008 and 2017-2018 KMDS mean scores in seniors and math course students. The significant difference in KMDS scores between 2008 and 2017-2018 in the math course group warranted further analysis, in particular be- cause of the differences in student levels (under- graduate versus graduate) within this group. The range of KMDS mean scores in 2008 in this group was 14.33 to 15.82. In 2017-2018, the range was 12.47 to 15.08. To further explore where these dif- ferences arose, ANOVA was used to examine the variance within each year among courses included in the math course group. These 3-unit courses in- cluded courses that served only master’s students, only bachelor’s students, and some that included both bachelor’s and master’s students. In separate analyses by year, there were no statistically signifi- cant differences in the mean KMDS scores between these courses. DOES A DECADE MAKE A DIFFERENCE? ECE MATHEMATICS Group N Mean (SD) p-value Beginning Seniors 20081 Beginning 121 11.18 (3.89) Seniors 73 12.81 (2.70) .002 Math course 64 15.30 (2.27) <.001 <.001 2017-20182 Beginning 149 10.58 (3.56) Seniors 84 11.63 (3.42) .070 Math course 46 13.54 (2.68) <.001 .007 TABLE 1 KMDS Score Means in 2008 and 2017-2018 between groups 1Levene Statistic significant; Tamhane’s T2 post hoc test used N Mean (SD) p-value 2008 2017-2018 2008 2017-2018 Beginning 121 149 11.18 (3.89) 10.58 (3.56) n.s. Seniors 73 84 12.81 (2.70) 11.63 (3.42) .020 Math course 64 46 15.30 (2.27) 13.54 (2.68) <.001 TABLE 2 Differences in KMDS Score Means between 2008 and 2017-2018 The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 44 However, in a comparison of mean KMDS scores from all math courses in 2008 and 2017- 2018 combined, there were significant differences between Course H and courses A, B and C. Note that Table 3, with mean scores in descending or- der, shows that undergraduate versus graduate stu- dent status does not necessarily dictate the course KMDS score mean. DOES A DECADE MAKE A DIFFERENCE? ECE MATHEMATICS Course BA/BS (B)/ Master’s (M) Year N Mean (SD) A B C D E F G p-value A M 2008 17 15.82 (1.59) B B/M 2008 16 15.50 (1.97) n.s. C M 2008 19 15.26 (2.62) n.s. n.s. D B 2017-2018 12 15.08 (1.31) n.s. n.s. n.s. E B/M 2017-2018 9 14.33 (2.74) n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. F M 2008 12 14.33 (2.81) n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. G B 2017-2018 5 12.67 (1.86) n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. H B 2017-2018 18 12.47 (3.01) .001 .008 .012 n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. TABLE 3 ANOVA by Math course by year and graduate status1 1Levene Statistic non-significant; Bonferroni post hoc test used The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 45 Research Question #2 Does two or more years of experience in classrooms make a difference in the KMDS mean scores within each of the three groups in 2008 and 2017-2018? A combined univariate analysis of students in 2008 and 2017-2018 with and without two or more years of classroom experience for the three student groups showed a statistically significant difference only in those students in the math course group. On average, KMDS mean scores increased by 1.02, for those 2008 and 2017-2018 students who had taken a math course and had two or more years of classroom experience when compared to those who had less or no experience (t[40.06] = 2.09, p = .039, η2 = 0.039). When separated into cohorts, neither 2008 nor 2017-2018 student groups with and without two or more years of classroom expe- rience reached a statistically significant difference in KMDS mean scores. Discussion This study was initiated to examine whether there were differences in pre- and in-service teach- ers’ knowledge of mathematical development in 2008 when compared to 2017-2018. Given the ex- tensive research on the importance of supporting young children’s mathematical development over the decades, and in particular since 2007, it could be expected that teacher education programs and teacher educators would have provided increased instruction and resources to their students around mathematical development and pedagogy. The results showed that while the KMDS mean scores of students in each of the education groups (beginning versus seniors versus math course) sta- tistically differed for each collection year, there was not a statistically significant difference between 2008 and 2017-2018 collection years for beginners. However, there was a statistically significant differ- ence between 2008 and 2017-2018 collection years in average scores in the seniors and math course groups. Surprisingly, the senior and math course groups achieved a lower KMDS mean score in 2017-2018 than those in 2008. Because of the differences between bachelor se- nior and masters students (i.e., admissions require- ments and cost) included in the math course group, further investigation into whether there was a dif- ference in scores by undergraduate versus graduate programs versus mixed programs was warranted. In an analysis by year and graduate status, with one exception, there was no significant difference between the scores. The one exception was an un- dergraduate math course that resulted in the lowest of all of the KMDS averages, but was only statisti- cally different from three of the highest performing courses. As indicated in Table 3, KMDS scores did not differ by graduate program status. In an attempt to explain the differences be- tween 2008 and 2017-2018 in the senior and math course groups, I refer back to Copeman Pettig and colleagues’ 2018 study that found that teacher ed- ucators across eight states (including two of the states in this study) reported that they were teach- ing math content in courses beyond their comfort level. While we do not have a comparable study in 2008, it could be reasonable to expect that those who included math development in their curricu- lum and development courses and/or were teach- ing math development courses in 2008 were likely to be more comfortable as the pressure to include early math development courses in early child- hood education programs had not yet begun in the field, better ensuring that those who taught those courses were more familiar with mathematical de- velopment. In support of this notion, of the four in- structors teaching the surveyed math development courses in 2008, all had authored journal articles on early mathematical development. Despite a con- siderable search in 2008, it was very difficult to find early math development courses. Frequently cours- es were listed in college and university course cata- logs but had not been taught for some time. By the time 2017-2018 rolled around, many more math courses were being taught, but only one of the instructors of the courses surveyed had authored journal articles on the topic (with one exception, the 2008 instructors were not teaching that year). As to the findings that two or more years of pre- school teaching increases knowledge of mathemat- ical development only for those who had taken a math course, it appears that teaching alone does not provide sufficient support for teachers in gain- ing knowledge of early mathematical development. However, for students who had completed a math development course, it seems that their ability to DOES A DECADE MAKE A DIFFERENCE? ECE MATHEMATICS The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 46 put that knowledge to practice serves to increase their understanding of that development even more. Early childhood teachers want what is best for the children for whom they provide care and education. However, their efforts are stymied by a lack of engagement in early mathematical develop- ment and pedagogy during their teacher education paths. Early childhood teacher educators also want what is best for the teachers they prepare. Howev- er, they themselves frequently are likewise not well prepared to support or understand mathematical development (Ryan et al., 2014). Researchers ex- amining ways to support children in their mathe- matical development throughout their education have suggestions. Aligning teacher requirements and preparation (and pay) between preschool and elementary school teachers could provide a path forward. This could engender shared expertise within teacher preparation programs, where fac- ulty understanding of content knowledge, child development, and children’s mathematical devel- opment converge (Stein & Coburn, 2023). Efforts are underway in the United States to provide better support for the understanding of mathematical development in teacher education and training programs (Association of Mathe- matics Teacher Educators, 2017; McCormick et al., 2020). States are beginning to increase their teacher training standards in early mathematics, partly in response to more robust early math standards for young children (California Commission on Teach- er Credentialing, 2023a; Math In Pre-kindergarten Through Twelfth Grade Act, 2023; Scherer et al., 2020). We have also learned that providing support for early academic skills like mathematics in pre- school without a plan for sustaining that support in later years can result in a failure to support children as they build on these foundational skills (Bailey et al., 2020; Clements et al., 2013; Stipek et al., 2017). This coordination requires both teacher standards and academic standards to be aligned from pre- school through high school. Unfortunately, long- standing traditions result in the housing of these policy systems separately (Whitaker et al., 2022). Programs like Head Start that engage in activities that support coordination between these programs and elementary schools have been shown to in- crease children’s language and mathematics skills (Cook & Coley, 2019). Although perhaps an op- timistic perspective, there is growing recognition that acquiring the skills to support children’s early mathematical development is an essential outcome of teacher education programs. Perhaps the next decade will make a difference. References Administration for Children and Families. (2005). Head Start child outcomes framework: Domain 3: Mathematics. https:// eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readiness/article/head-start-ear- ly-learning-outcomes-framework American Educational Research Association. (2005). Early childhood education: Investing in quality makes sense. Re- search Points 3(2), 1-4. https://www.aera.net/Portals/38/docs/ Publications/Early%20Child%20Education.pdf Anders, Y., & Rossbach, H.-G. (2015). Preschool teachers’ sensitivity to mathematics in children’s play: The influence of math-related school experiences, emotional attitudes, and pedagogical beliefs. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 29, 305-322. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2 015.1040564 Association of Mathematics Teacher Educators. (2017). Stan- dards for Preparing Teachers of Mathematics. https://amte. net/standards Bachman, H. J., Degol, J. L., Elliott, L., Scharphorn, L., El Nokali, N. E., & Palmer, K. M. (2018). Preschool math exposure in private center-based care and low-SES children’s math development. Early Education and Development, 29(3), 417-434. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2017.1406245 Bailey, D. H., Duncan, G. J., Cunha, F., Foorman, B. R., & Yeager, D. S. (2020). Persistence and fade‐out of education- al‐intervention effects: Mechanisms and potential solutions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 21(2), 55–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100620915848 Ball, D. L. (1993). With an eye on the mathematical horizon: Dilemmas of teaching elementary school mathematics. The DOES A DECADE MAKE A DIFFERENCE? ECE MATHEMATICS “We have also learned that providing support for early academic skills like mathematics in preschool without a plan for sustaining that support in later years can result in a failure to support children as they build on these foundational skills” https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readiness/article/head-start-early-learning-outcomes-framework https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readiness/article/head-start-early-learning-outcomes-framework https://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/school-readiness/article/head-start-early-learning-outcomes-framework https://www.aera.net/Portals/38/docs/Publications/Early Child Education.pdf https://www.aera.net/Portals/38/docs/Publications/Early Child Education.pdf https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2015.1040564 https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2015.1040564 https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2017.1406245 https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100620915848 The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 47 Elementary School Journal, 93(4), 373-397. https://doi. org/10.1086/461730 Baroody, A. J. (1987). Children’s mathematical thinking: A developmental framework for preschool, primary and special education teachers. Teachers College Press. Baroody, A. J., Lai, M.-l., & Mix, K. S. (2006). The develop- ment of young children’s early number and operation sense and its implications for early childhood education. In B. Spodek & S. Olivia (Eds.), Handbook of research on the ed- ucation of young children (pp. 187-221). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609236 Bowman, B. T., Donovan, M. S., & Burns, M. S. (2001). Ea- ger to learn: Educating our preschoolers. National Academy Press. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrrheum.2011.77 California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2023a). PK-3 Mathematics Standard 8 and TPE Map. https://www. ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/pk-3-ece-specialist-instruction-cre- dential/pk-3-mathematics-standard-8-and-tpe-map California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. (2023b). PK-3 ECE Specialist Instruction Credential Handbook. https://www.ctc.ca.gov/docs/default-source/educator-prep/ standards/pk-3-handbook.pdf?sfvrsn=74bd26b1_39 Cerezci, B. (2021). Mining the gap: Analysis of early mathematics instructional quality in pre-kindergarten class- rooms. Early Education and Development, 32(5), 653-676. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1775438 Chu, F. W., vanMarle, K., & Geary, D. C. (2015). Early numerical foundations of young children’s mathematical de- velopment. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 132, 205-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.01.006 Clements, D. (2001). Mathematics in the preschool. Teach- ing Children Mathematics, 7(5), 270-275. https://doi. org/10.5951/TCM.7.5.0270 Clements, D. (2004). Engaging young children in mathemat- ics: Major themes and recommendations. In D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, & A.-M. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathemat- ics (pp. 7-72). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781410609236 Clements, D. H., Lizcano, R., & Sarama, J. (2023). Research and pedagogies for early math. Education Sciences, 13(8), 839. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13080839 Clements, D. H., Sarama, J., Wolfe, C. B., & Spitler, M. E. (2013). Longitudinal evaluation of a scale‐up model for teaching mathematics with trajectories and technologies persistence of effects in the third year. American Edu- cational Research Journal, 50(4), 812–850. https://doi. org/10.3102/0002831212469270 Cook, K. D., & Coley, R. L. (2019). Coordination between Head Start and Elementary Schools to Enhance Children’s Kindergarten Success. Early Education and Development, 30(8), 1063–1083. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2019.1 656318 Copeman Petig, A., Austin, L. J. E., Whitebook, M., & Dean, A. (2018). A critical calculation: supporting the inclusion of math in early childhood degree programs. https://cscce. berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/publications/A-Criti- cal-Calculation.pdf Copley, J. V., & Padron, Y. (1998, February 6-8). Preparing teachers of young learners: Professional development of early childhood teachers in mathematics and science [Paper]. Forum on Early Childhood Science, Mathematics, and Tech- nology Education, Washington, D.C. ERIC. https://files.eric. ed.gov/fulltext/ED416992.pdf Cox, G. J. (2011). Preschool caregivers’ mathematical anxiety: Examining the relationships between mathemati- cal anxiety, and knowledge and beliefs about mathematics for young children. [Doctoral dissertation, Texas Woman’s University]. ProQuest. https://search.proquest.com/openview/ fc914f683c0cf1b651477a065cb09503/1?pq-origsite=gschol- ar&cbl=18750&diss=y Duncan, G. J., Claessens, A., Huston, A. C., Pagani, L. S., Engel, M., Sexton, H., Duckworth, K. & Japel, C. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychology, 43(6), 1428-1446. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012- 1649.43.6.1428 Duncan, G. J., & Magnuson, K. (2011). The nature and im- pact of early achievement skills, attention skills, and behavior problems. In G. J. Duncan & R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Whith- er opportunity: Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 47-69). Russell Sage. https://bpb-us-e2. wpmucdn.com/sites.uci.edu/dist/1/1159/files/2013/06/Dun- can-Magnuson-including-web-appendix-0321121.pdf Dunekacke, S., Jenssen, L., & Blomeke, S. (2015). Effects of mathematics content knowledge on preschool teachers’ performance: A video-based assessment of perception and planning abilities in informal learning situations. Interna- tional Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 13(2), 267-286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9596-z Dunekacke, S., Jenssen, L., Eilerts, K., & Blomeke, S. (2016). Epistemological beliefs of prospective preschool teachers and their relation to knowledge, perception, and planning abilities in the field of mathematics: A process mod- el. ZDM Mathematics Education, 48(1-2), 125-137. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0711-6 Foster, E. M. (2010). The value of reanalysis and replication: Introduction to special section. Developmental Psychology, 46(5), 973-975. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020183 Fyfe, E. R., Rittle-Johnson, B., & Farran, D. C. (2019). Predicting success on high-stakes math tests from preschool math measures among children from low-income homes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(3), 402-413. https:// doi.org/10.1037/edu0000298 Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Nugent, L., & Bailey, D. H. (2013). Adolescents’ functional numeracy is predicted by their school entry number system knowledge. PLOS ONE, 8(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054651 DOES A DECADE MAKE A DIFFERENCE? ECE MATHEMATICS https://doi.org/10.1086/461730 https://doi.org/10.1086/461730 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609236 https://doi.org/10.1038/nrrheum.2011.77 https://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/pk-3-ece-specialist-instruction-credential/pk-3-mathematics-standard-8-and-tpe-map https://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/pk-3-ece-specialist-instruction-credential/pk-3-mathematics-standard-8-and-tpe-map https://www.ctc.ca.gov/educator-prep/pk-3-ece-specialist-instruction-credential/pk-3-mathematics-standard-8-and-tpe-map https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2020.1775438 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2015.01.006 https://doi.org/10.5951/TCM.7.5.0270 https://doi.org/10.5951/TCM.7.5.0270 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609236 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609236 https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci13080839 https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212469270 https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831212469270 https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2019.1656318 https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2019.1656318 https://cscce.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/publications/A-Critical-Calculation.pdf https://cscce.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/publications/A-Critical-Calculation.pdf https://cscce.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/publications/A-Critical-Calculation.pdf https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED416992.pdf https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED416992.pdf https://search.proquest.com/openview/fc914f683c0cf1b651477a065cb09503/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y https://search.proquest.com/openview/fc914f683c0cf1b651477a065cb09503/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y https://search.proquest.com/openview/fc914f683c0cf1b651477a065cb09503/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428 https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428 https://bpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com/sites.uci.edu/dist/1/1159/files/2013/06/Duncan-Magnuson-including-web-appendix-0321121.pdf https://bpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com/sites.uci.edu/dist/1/1159/files/2013/06/Duncan-Magnuson-including-web-appendix-0321121.pdf https://bpb-us-e2.wpmucdn.com/sites.uci.edu/dist/1/1159/files/2013/06/Duncan-Magnuson-including-web-appendix-0321121.pdf https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-014-9596-z https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0711-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-015-0711-6 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020183 https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000298 https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000298 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0054651 The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 48 Ginsburg, H.P. (2016). Helping early childhood educators to understand and assess young children’s mathematical minds. ZDM Mathematics Education, 48, 941–946. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11858-016-0807-7 Ginsburg, H. P., & Golbeck, S. L. (2004). Thoughts on the future of research on mathematics and science learning and education. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 19, 190-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.01.013 Ginsburg, H. P., Inoue, N., & Seo, K.-H. (1999). Young chil- dren doing mathematics: observations of everyday activities. In J. V. Copley (Ed.), Mathematics in the early years. The National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Ginsburg, H. P., Kaplan, R., Cannon, J., Cordero, M., Eisen- band, J., Galanter, M., & Morgenlander, M. (2006). Help- ing early childhood educators to teach mathematics. In M. Zaslow & I. Martinez-Beck (Eds.), Critical issues in early childhood professional development (pp. 171-202). Paul H. Brookes. Ginsburg, H. P., Klein, A., & Starkey, P. (1998). The devel- opment of children’s mathematical thinking: Connecting research with practice. In D. Kuhn & R. S. Siegler (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (5th ed., Vol. Two: Cognition, Perception, and Language, pp. 401-468). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Gormley, W. T., Phillips, D., & Anderson, S. (2018). The effects of Tulsa’s Pre-K Program on middle school student performance. Journal of Policy Analysis and Mangement, 37(1), 63-87. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22023 Graham, T. A., Nash, C., & Paul, K. (1997). Young chil- dren’s exposure to mathematics: The child care context. Early Childhood Education Journal, 25(1). https://doi. org/10.1023/A:1025681830913 Grimm, K. J., Steele, J. S., Mashburn, A. J., Burchinal, M. R., & Pianta, R. C. (2010). Early behavioral associations of achievement trajectories. Developmental Psychology, 46(5), 976-983. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018878 Hill, H. C., Ball, D. L., & Schilling, S. G. (2008). Unpacking pedagogical content knowledge: Conceptualizing and mea- suring specific knowledge of students. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 372-400. https://doi. org/10.5951/jresematheduc.39.4.0372 Hooper, S. R., Roberts, J., Sideris, J., Burchinal, M. R., & Zeisel, S. (2010). Longitudinal predictors of reading and math trajectories through middle school for African Ameri- can versus Caucasian students across two samples. Develop- mental Psychology, 46, 1018-1029. https://doi.org/10.1037/ a0018877 Joo, Y. S., Magnuson, K., Duncan, G. J., Schindler, H. S., Yoshikawa, H., & Ziol-Guest, K. M. (2020). What works in early childhood education programs?: A meta-analysis of preschool enhancement programs. Early Education and Development, 31(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289 .2019.1624146 Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Ramineni, C., & Locuniak, M. N. (2009). Early math matters: Kindergarten number compe- tence and later mathematics outcomes. Developmental Psy- chology, 45(3), 850-867. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014939 Kim, I. H. (2013). Preschool teachers knowledge of chil- dren’s mathematical development and beliefs about teaching [Doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas]. UNT Digital Library. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/ metadc407808/m2/1/high_res_d/dissertation.pdf Klibanoff, R. S., Levine, S. C., Huttenlocher, J., Vasilyeva, M., & Hedges, L. (2006). Preschool children’s mathematical knowledge: The effect of teacher “math talk”. Developmental Psychology, 42(1), 59-69. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012- 1649.42.1.59 Kwok, F. Y., Bull, R., & Muñez, D. (2021). Cross-and within-domain associations of early reading and mathe- matical skills: changes across the preschool years. Fron- tiers in Psychology, 12, 710470. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpsyg.2021.710470 Lange, A. A., Nayfeld, I., Mano, H., & Jung, K. (2022). Experimental effects of a preschool STEM professional learning model on educators’ attitudes, beliefs, confidence, and knowledge. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Educa- tion, 43(4), 509-539. https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2021 .1911891 Litkowski, E. C., Duncan, R. J., Logan, J. A., & Purpura, D. J. (2020). When do preschoolers learn specific mathe- matics skills? Mapping the development of early numeracy knowledge. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 195, 104846. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2020.104846 Ma, L. (1999). Knowing and teaching elementary mathemat- ics. Lawrence Erlbaum. Math In Pre-kindergarten Through Twelfth Grade Act, CO § 22-2-146.5 (2023). https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/ files/2023a_1231_signed.pdf Mattera, S. K., Jacob, R., MacDowell, C., & Morris, P.A. (2021). Long-term effects of enhanced early childhood math instruction. MDRC. https://www.mdrc.org/work/publications/ long-term-effects-enhanced-early-childhood-math-instruction McCray, J. S., & Chen, J.-Q. (2012). Pedagogical content knowledge for preschool mathematics: Construct validity of a new teacher interview. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 26(3), 291-307. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543 .2012.685123 McCormick, M. P., Weiland, C., Hsueh, J., Maier, M., Hagos, R., Snow, C., Leacock, N. & Schick, L. (2020). Promot- ing content-enriched alignment across the early grades: A study of policies & practices in the Boston Public Schools. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 52, 57-73. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.06.012 National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2023). Closing the opportunity gap for young children. Na- tional Academies Press. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/ NBK596385/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK596385.pdf DOES A DECADE MAKE A DIFFERENCE? ECE MATHEMATICS https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0807-7 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11858-016-0807-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2004.01.013 https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22023 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025681830913 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025681830913 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018878 https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.39.4.0372 https://doi.org/10.5951/jresematheduc.39.4.0372 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018877 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018877 https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2019.1624146 https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2019.1624146 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014939 https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc407808/m2/1/high_res_d/dissertation.pdf https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc407808/m2/1/high_res_d/dissertation.pdf https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.59 https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.1.59 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.710470 https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.710470 https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2021.1911891 https://doi.org/10.1080/10901027.2021.1911891 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2020.104846 https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2023a_1231_signed.pdf https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/2023a_1231_signed.pdf https://www.mdrc.org/work/publications/long-term-effects-enhanced-early-childhood-math-instruction https://www.mdrc.org/work/publications/long-term-effects-enhanced-early-childhood-math-instruction https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2012.685123 https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.2012.685123 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.06.012 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.06.012 The Dialog: A Journal for Inclusive Early Childhood Professionals 49 National Association for the Education of Young Children, & National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2002). Early childhood mathematics: Promoting good beginnings. http:// www.naeyc.org/positionstatements/mathematics National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Princi- ples and standards for school mathematics. National Research Council. (2005). Mathematical and scien- tific development in early childhood: A workshop summary. https://doi.org/10.17226/11178 National Research Council and Mathematics Learning Study Committee. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. National Academies Press. Nguyen, T., Watts, T. W., Duncan, G. J., clements, D. H., Sarama, J. S., Wolfe, C. B., & Spitler, M. E. (2016). Which preschool mathematics cometencies are most predictive of fifth grade achievement. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 36, 550-560. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.02.003 Pagani, L. S., Fitzpatrick, C., Archambault, I., & Janosz, M. (2010). School readiness and later achievement: A French Canadian replication and extension. Developmental Psychol- ogy, 46(5), 984-994. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018881 Platas, L. M. (2014). Knowledge of Mathematical Devel- opment Survey: Testing the Validity and Reliability of the Survey and Interpreting Its Results. NHSA Dialog, 17(1), 56-73. https://doi.org/10.55370/hsdialog.v17i1.123 Rosenfeld, D. (2012). Fostering confidence and competence in early childhood mathematics teachers [Doctoral disser- tation, Teachers College, Columbia University]. Academic Commons, Columbia University. https://academiccommons. columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8V98G32/download Ryan, S., Whitebook, M., & Cassidy, D. (2014). Strengthen- ing the math-related teaching practices of the early care and education workforce: Insights from the experts. https://cscce. berkeley.edu/publications/report/strengthening-the-math- related-teaching-practices-of-the-early-care-and-education- workforce-insights-from-experts/ Sarama, J., & Clements, D. H. (2009). Early childhood mathematics education research. Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/9780203883785 Sarama, J., DiBiase, A.-M., Clements, D. H., & Spitler, M. E. (2004). The professional development challenge in preschool mathematics. In D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, & A.-M. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics (pp. 415-446). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609236 Sarama, J., Lange, A. A., Clements, D. H., & Wolfe, C. B. (2012). The impacts of an early mathematics curriculum on oral language and literacy. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27, 489-502. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecre- sq.2011.12.002 Schachner, A., Wang, V., Plasencia, S., Mauerman, C., McJunkins, C., Yun, C., & Stipek, D. (2023). Early child- hood teaching credentials. The CCTE Spring 2023 Research Monograph, 5. https://www.ccte.org/wp-content/pdfs-con- ferences/ccte-conf-2023-spring-ResearchMonograph. pdf#page=7 Scherer, L., Stephens, A., & Floden, R. (Eds.). (2020). Changing expectations for the K-12 teacher workforce: Policies, preservice education, professional development, and the workplace. National Academies Press. https://doi. org/10.17226/25603 Seo, K. H., & Ginsburg, H. P. (2004). What is developmen- tally appropriate in early childhood mathematics education? Lessons from new research. In D. H. Clements, J. Sara- ma, & A.-M. DiBiase (Eds.), Engaging young children in mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics (pp. 91-104). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi. org/10.4324/9781410609236 Stein, A., & Coburn, C. E. (2023). Instructional pol- icy from Pre-K to third grade: The challenges of fostering alignment and continuity in two school dis- tricts. Educational Policy, 37(3), 840-872. https://doi. org/10.1177/08959048211058441 Stipek, D., Clements, D. H., Coburn, C., Franke, M., & Farran, D. C. (2017). PK‐3: What does it mean for instruc- tion? SRCD Social Policy Report, 30(2), 2–22. https://doi. org/10.1002/j.2379-3988.2017.tb00087.x Stipek D. & Johnson N. (2020). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood education redefined: The case of math. In S. Ryan, M. E. Graue, V. L. Gadsden, & F. J. Levine (Eds.), Advancing knowledge and building capacity for early childhood research: Creating synergies among segregated scholarly communities (pp. 35-53). American Educational Research Association. Turrou, A. C., Johnson, N. C., & Franke, M. L. (2021). The young child and mathematics (3rd ed). National Association for the Education of Young Children. Wang, A. H., Firmender, J. M., Power, J. R., & Brynes, J. P. (2016). Understanding the program effectiveness of early mathematics interventions for prekindergarten and kindergar- ten environments: A meta-analytic review. Early Education and Development, 27(5), 692-713. https://doi.org/10.1080/10 409289.2016.1116343 Whitaker, A. A., Jenkins, J. M., & Duer, J. K. (2022). Standards, curriculum, and assessment in early childhood ed- ucation: Examining alignment across multiple state systems. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 58, 59-74. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.07.008 Wright, T. S., Parks, A. N., Wilinski, B., Domke, L. M., & Hopkins, L. J. (2021). Examining certifica- tion requirements in early math and literacy: What do states expect prekindergarten teachers to know? Jour- nal of Teacher Education, 72(1), 72-85. https://doi. org/10.1177/0022487120905514 DOES A DECADE MAKE A DIFFERENCE? ECE MATHEMATICS http://www.naeyc.org/positionstatements/mathematics http://www.naeyc.org/positionstatements/mathematics https://doi.org/10.17226/11178 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.02.003 https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018881 https://doi.org/10.55370/hsdialog.v17i1.123 https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8V98G32/download https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8V98G32/download https://cscce.berkeley.edu/publications/report/strengthening-the-math-related-teaching-practices-of-the-early-care-and-education-workforce-insights-from-experts/ https://cscce.berkeley.edu/publications/report/strengthening-the-math-related-teaching-practices-of-the-early-care-and-education-workforce-insights-from-experts/ https://cscce.berkeley.edu/publications/report/strengthening-the-math-related-teaching-practices-of-the-early-care-and-education-workforce-insights-from-experts/ https://cscce.berkeley.edu/publications/report/strengthening-the-math-related-teaching-practices-of-the-early-care-and-education-workforce-insights-from-experts/ https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203883785 https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203883785 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609236 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.12.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.12.002 https://www.ccte.org/wp-content/pdfs-conferences/ccte-conf-2023-spring-ResearchMonograph.pdf#page=7 https://www.ccte.org/wp-content/pdfs-conferences/ccte-conf-2023-spring-ResearchMonograph.pdf#page=7 https://www.ccte.org/wp-content/pdfs-conferences/ccte-conf-2023-spring-ResearchMonograph.pdf#page=7 https://doi.org/10.17226/25603 https://doi.org/10.17226/25603 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609236 https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410609236 https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048211058441 https://doi.org/10.1177/08959048211058441 https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2379-3988.2017.tb00087.x https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2379-3988.2017.tb00087.x https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.1116343 https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.1116343 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.07.008 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2021.07.008 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487120905514 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487120905514