I always find my "fire within" getting stoked when I engage in conversation about the current climate around national understanding of early childhood systems. Honestly, I think a part of this fire comes from the newness to my professional involvement in the field. In my eyes, early childhood care and education is a science. We make up a truly diverse field of people: children, their families both immediate and extended, various levels of governmental officials, community leaders, educators, researchers, policy makers, specialists, and the list will go on from there. No matter the level of involvements, some sort of early childhood education strucutre exists in each and every culture.

Yet, with that thought, I am always cocking my head to the side and racking my brain for an explanation as to why more people do not see our field to be scientific. Maybe it's because young children are just "so stinking cute,"  rather than being seen as incredible vessels for rapid neuro- and neurophysiology development. Fortunately, as the federal government has placed increased pressures of young learners to achieve as high as our disciplined, differently-structured international competitors, more policy makers have picked up on the fact that we need to invest more in these young children.


Even though the actions being taken at a higher level may not always be directly affecting classrooms and care settings, there have been major improvements made. Looking at states such as Oklahoma, we see that state governments aren't afraid to test out new programs and initiatives supporting young children and families. In stakes like OK, at risk children are being provided with a great deal of support prior to entering primary schools. State juvenile crime rates have since decreased, along with the high school drop out rates.