Kelly Wall

ECERS
Observation

For this observation I completed two separate observations that each lasted two hours in a pre-
kindergarten classroom at the Touching the Future center in Fleetwood, Pennsylvania. I was able to
observe thirty five of the forty three subscale items that were to be observed. The center’s total average
score was a 5.37.

Space and Furnishing

Average score- 5.75

This was diffidently an area where this center performed better. This center arranged the indoor
space really well. There was a large area rug for group time and gross motor play. The other centers
such as the block, reading, and dramatic play centers were separated by shelves. There was also two
large tables for eating and working on activities such as art, writing, and science. All of the furniture was
child sized and the shelves and tables were at the children’s level. The sink had a step stool so that the
children could reach it. There were soft toys, as well as soft couches, chairs, and cushions available for
use during the day. All of the play area, where children might need to be on the floor, was carpeted. The
centers all had limits as to how many children could be there at one time and were enclosed by low
shelves so that children could be alone with their friends, while still being supervised.

The children’s artwork was displayed on the wall, but very little was displayed on eye level. To
help improve the score of this area even more, I would suggest more room for gross motor equipment
inside and displaying the children’s 3-D art work and the rest of their art work on eye level with the
children.

Personal care

Average score- 6.25

This is the area that the center got the highest score in. I was unable to observe the drop off/
pick up time and nap time because of the times I was available to observe. During snack, all hands were
washed, gloves were worn when serving food, utensils that were dropped were wash, allergies were
posted, and restricted diets were followed. The lunch that was served was healthy and children were
able to serve themselves. The lunch included, chicken, whole wheat bread, and carrots. The only thing I
would have done differently would be for child sized serving utensils to have been used.

During toileting, a specific time was set aside for the whole class to go. The children were
supervised in the bathrooms, which were clean. To help improve this score, I would have had child sized
sinks and promote self-help skills more.

Language

Average score- 5.50

In terms of language-reasoning, this center was pretty strong. There was a lot of books available
to read in a reading center throughout the day. Many of the books were directly related to the letter
and theme of the week. However, the rest of the books are rarely rotated.

Wall 1
Kelly Wall

ECERS
Children were encouraged to communicate during free time and group time by acting out fairy
tales. The staff could do a better job of listening more to the children and asking more questions to
encourage children to express their ideas and expand their thinking. They could also do a better job of
encouraging the children to communicate with each other. The staff did do a good job of explaining
logical relationships, such as explaining that bathroom time comes after lunch but before nap time.

Activities

Average score- 4.89

There were many developmentally appropriate fine motor materials available throughout the
day at many different centers. The fine motor materials were available for many different activity levels,
such as puzzles with and without pegs. I would suggest that materials are rotated in and out so that
children do not become board of them. Art was always a center option, but was a set project related to
the theme. While connecting it to the theme is great, children did not have an opportunity to simply do
art to express themselves.

Music was available daily during group time and free time. As a group, the children sang songs,
did music and movement, and played with instruments. These materials were also available during free
time and center time. To improve their score, I would suggest bringing in a guest to play music or have
children make up their own words to a song.

The block area was always open and had many different types of blocks and materials, but was
extremely small and enclosed. I would encourage the center to make the block area larger and even
bring blocks to play without doors.

There was also a water table, but there were very few materials for the children to pay with. I
would suggest bringing in more materials such as spoons, buckets, cups, and toys. Maybe even adding
objects that both sink and float for the children to use to explore.

The dramatic play area was great! The children had a lot of different costumes and props that
represented diversity as well as several different topics such as, cooking, professions, and fairy tales.
This area could be improved by bring props outdoors. The staff could also place stories and pictures into
the dramatic play area to enrich play.

This center had a collection of rocks and shells as well as house plants to care for. To improve
their score, this center could have science available for a substantial part of the day and add more
developmentally appropriate materials, games, and activities to help children learn about and explore
nature. The math center was stocked with many different kinds of developmentally appropriate
materials throughout most of the day. Materials were well organized and maintained. Also daily
activities, such as setting the table, promote math and number learning. To improve their score, the
staff should rotate the math materials in and out of the center.

The TV was used very rarely and all materials used with it were nonviolent and culturally
sensitive. While all of the materials were educational, they do not promote active participation from the
children, background knowledge, or creativity.

Wall 2
Kelly Wall

ECERS
In terms of promoting diversity, some of the materials showed diversity and the staff intervened
to counter act prejudices. The center could do a better job of placing more materials that promote
diversity in the classroom and incorporates routines and play that promote diversity regularly.

Interaction

Average score- 5.00

Overall, the interaction was good. There was adequate supervision during gross motor activities
and staff acted to prevent dangerous situations before they occurred, such as stopping horse play
before it got out of hand. Most of the staff-child interactions we positive ones and the staff worked with
the children to develop to skills necessary to use gross motor equipment. Some ways for the staff to
improve in this area would be to talk to children about ideas related to their play, help with resources to
enhance play, and help the children develop positive social interactions with their peers.

In general, the staff could do a better job of supervising the children overall. There was enough
supervision to protect the children’s safety. There was all a great deal of attention given to cleanliness
and to make sure materials were being use appropriately. However, the staff were often to engrossed
working with one child, that there was not always an awareness for what all the children were doing and
staff neglected to give help and encouragement to children who needed it. It would be recommended
that the staff be more aware of what is happening everywhere in the classroom at all times. They could
also try to stay away from teacher lead activities so that they can move about, assisting all children and
enchasing all play.

When it came to discipline, this center did a good job. The staff had reasonable expectation for
developmentally appropriate behavior, never used physical punishment, and generally maintained
enough control to stop children from hurting one another. Staff used non-punitive discipline, such as
giving praise to children exhibiting positive behavior and rewards for listening. The program is also set
up to avoid conflict by having multiple sets of toys and only having enough spaces at centers so that all
the children have enough materials and space to play. All the staff react consistently to child’s behavior.
This center could improve their score by involving children in solving their own conflicts, using social
stories and role play to help children understand social skills, and seeking advice from other
professionals concerning behavior problems that need special attention.

This center did an excellent job in staff-child interactions. You can tell that the staff genuinely
love to be with the children. The staff not only shows respect for the children and listens to them, but
also encourages the children to respect each other as well. Also, the staff usually respond to the children
in a warm supportive manner and they showed warmth through appropriate physical contact, such as
pat on the back or a hug when a child was upset.

The interaction among children was also great. Peer interaction was encouraged and staff
stopped negative and harmful interactions. The staff did a great job modeling good social skills with
each other and with the children. The overall peer interaction is generally positive and the staff provide
opportunities for children to work together, such as playing a two player game or having them act out
nursery rhymes that have two characters. The only thing that this center really needs to improve on is
helping children develop appropriate social behavior, such as teaching them to understand the feelings
of others.

Wall 3
Kelly Wall

ECERS
Program Structure

Average score- 5.67

The program’s schedule is well balanced between teacher lead activities and centers throughout
the day and most of the activities are play based. The schedule is flexible and there is not a long period
of waiting in between events. However, many of the transitions were whole group transitions and could
have gone smoother if the transitions were done with a only a few children at a time. Free play was
offered for a substantial part of the day and a great number of materials were provided. Staff were
helpful in setting up materials and helping to show children how to use them. The staff could do a better
job of using the free play materials as an educational interation and rotating new materials in. Whole
group time was limited and much of the day was spent in small, self-selected groups. Staff frequently
walked around and interacted with the different groups and centers.

Parents and Staff

Average score- 4.50

This score is the lowest but most likely the least accurate score due to the fact that I could not
observe many of these things. There was some space for the storage of the staff’s personal belongings
and an adult bathroom, but there was no adult furniture. I would recommend adding adult chairs for the
staff to use when sitting at the table with the children. I would also recommend providing break several
times throughout the day.

Overall, the interaction between the staff was good. The staff work well together and divided up
the duties fairly. The staff have time to plan together and they each know exactly what their
responsibilities are. The only thing that could be improved is communicating child-related
communication daily.

Conclusion

All in all, this center is doing a good job. The center provides an enriching educational
experience for early childhood. Touching the Future’s stronger areas include the subcategories include
Personal Care, and Spacing and Furnishing. Its weakest areas include the sub categories, Parents and
Staff and Activities. Overall, the center is meeting the basic requirements and just needs to take the
extra step to have exceptional educational practices.

Wall 4