Content uploaded by Bruce A. Bracken
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bruce A. Bracken on Jun 05, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Basic Concepts in Early Childhood Educational Standards:
A 50-State Review
Bruce A. Bracken •Elizabeth Crawford
Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009
Abstract The incidence of basic concepts in early
childhood educational standards is explored across all 50
US states. Concept inclusion in state standards is described
in terms of the representation of the universe of basic
concepts, representation of concept categories, the depth
and breadth of individual concept inclusion, and unique
examples. Developmental basic concept acquisition and
instructional sequence is illustrated for each of eleven
conceptual categories to highlight the systematic nature in
which concept instruction should proceed. A state by state
examination of the extent to which more than 300 basic
language concepts are embedded in early childhood state
standards is made, with examples from a variety of states
cited for each category. Conclusions are made about the
need for comprehensive and systematic inclusion of the
universe of basic concepts in early childhood education to
ensure that all children have the basic descriptive language
needed to describe the world around them and comprehend
and discuss subject matter in all content areas.
Keywords Basic concepts State standards
Early childhood education Language development
This article explores the development and implementation
of early childhood educational standards, with particular
focus on the inclusion of basic concepts into states stan-
dards across all 50 states. The focus on basic concept
acquisition and educational policy recognizes the impor-
tance of empirically supported educational interventions
and that all children must possess the foundational lan-
guage arts knowledge necessary to explore, comprehend,
and discuss topical concepts in all content areas if they are
to succeed academically. This fact is especially true for
children from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds,
and those with exceptionalities (e.g., Bracken and Cato
1986; Stebbins and McIntosh 1996). Neuman (2006, p. 28),
writing about the importance of concept acquisition among
students of poverty concluded, ‘‘Low-income preschool
children need content-rich instruction…including knowl-
edge of words and the concepts that connect them.’’
Research literature abounds with empirical evidence
supporting the importance of vocabulary development in
young children, especially among students who are most at
risk for long-term failure in schools (e.g., Shaywitz and
Shaywitz 2005). Basic concepts significantly extend the
relative importance of vocabulary development because
these essential concepts represent the fundamental, func-
tional vocabulary needed to understand classroom conver-
sations and teacher directions (Boehm et al. 1986; Bracken
1986), administration directions of early childhood tests of
intelligence (Bracken 1986; Flannagan et al. 1995; Kauf-
man 1978) and achievement (Cummings and Nelson 1980).
Basic concept acquisition is strongly correlated with overall
vocabulary development (Breen 1985; Rhyner and Bracken
1988), language development (Zucker and Riordan 1988),
intelligence (Howell and Bracken 1992; Laughlin 1995;
McIntosh et al. 1995a,b; Schneider and Gervais 1991;
Zucker and Riordan 1990), and school readiness and aca-
demic achievement (Breen 1985; Panter 2000; Panter and
Bracken 2000,2009; Sterner and McCallum 1988). Study
outcomes also support the idea of early instruction to aid in
the conceptual development process (Bozhovich 2006;de
Mendoza 2003). Preschool-aged children sustain an interest
in learning about domain-specific concepts up to the time
B. A. Bracken (&)E. Crawford
School of Education, The College of William & Mary,
P.O. Box 8795, Williamsburg, VA 23187, USA
e-mail: babrac@wm.edu
123
Early Childhood Educ J
DOI 10.1007/s10643-009-0363-7
they enter formal schooling (Alexander et al. 2008), thus
highlighting their readiness to learn new content. Yet con-
cept generalization, at least in numeracy, is limited for
children through age 6, thus demonstrating the need for
systematic, cross-domain applications of concepts (Sarne-
cka and Gelman 2004). Moreover, Larrabee (2007) high-
lights that basic concepts better predict both reading and
mathematics than do traditional vocabulary tests (e.g.,
PPVT). Importantly, these important concepts can be taught
directly, resulting in large educational gains (Wilson 2004).
Moreover, concept development proceeds along a clear
developmental sequence across both English and Spanish
languages (Bracken 1988; Bracken et al. 1990; Bracken and
Fouad 1987).
Recent studies have suggested the importance of concept
development as an undergirding for literacy development
among preschool age children at age 3. Booth and Waxman
(2002) found that preschool age children did better with
meaning-making around novel words if their conceptual
development was strong. Concept development also assists
with helping children to group new words into categories.
Mintz (2005) found that when preschool children applied
prior knowledge and information about an object, they were
better able to use novel adjectives to identify categories of
objects. Conceptual development supports young children’s
use of taxonomic and script categories, category cross-
classification, and cognitive flexibility. Nguyen (2007)
reported that cross-classification emerged in children as
young as 2 years. By age 3, children were able to cross
classify items from various domains into both category
systems. By age 4, children were able to maintain the mental
representations of the cross-classified items in both category
systems demonstrating cognitive flexibility in early child-
hood. Finally, Nguyen found that priming helps children to
learn multiple ways that items can be cross-classified.
The paper presents the authors’ conceptualization of
basic concepts as the foundation of early childhood
knowledge (e.g., Bracken 1998a)—a conceptualization
influenced by the early work of Ann Boehm (Boehm 1966,
1969,1976). Despite the demonstrable importance of these
foundational language terms, this paper highlights a finding
of nonsystematic adoption of basic concepts in educational
standards across and within each of the 50 states. The paper
provides a comprehensive table of conceptual categories
(Table 1) that encourages the convergence of educational
standards and systematic concept instruction throughout
early childhood. The table identifies foundational content
and conceptual categories, sub-domains of knowledge
comprised within these categories, and examples of spe-
cific concepts throughout this article. The authors conclude
by encouraging policymakers to capitalize on the depth and
breadth of readiness content revealed in the universe of
more than 300 essential basic language concepts.
Independent Standards Efforts: Basic Concepts
When the Bracken Basic Concept Scale (BBCS; Bracken
1984,1998a,b,2002,2006a,b) was conceived and revised,
it was the author’s long held belief that there were largely
unspoken, yet agreed upon, concept-based standards in
early childhood education. This perception was supported
by recent efforts to develop early childhood educational
state standards in all 50 states—standards that have adop-
ted concepts and conceptual categories that parallel the
author’s work and the early work of Ann Boehm (1966,
1969,1976). As this line of work has progressed through
empirical research, test revision, and curriculum develop-
ment, it has became clear that there was a previously non
systematically tapped universal list of essential readiness
concepts and concept categories. That is, historically,
developmental psychology researchers and early childhood
commercial curricula collectively have included most of
the concepts in the Bracken list, but none had combined the
collection into one universal list.
The intent of the Bracken concept list was to identify the
universe of basic concepts for parents and teachers so they
might more systematically, comprehensively, and effec-
tively teach young children foundational language. As
such, the Bracken concepts represent one of the first efforts
to informally establish early childhood instructional stan-
dards. The Bracken Concept Development Program
(BBCD; Bracken 1987) was published to provide a direct
curricular link between the assessment of children’s basic
concept knowledge and conceptual instruction. The BCDP
presents 19 educationally sound and empirically supported
principles for teaching basic concepts to young children
(see Bracken 1987 for a review). The Bracken concept list
has become important in early childhood assessment and
instruction internationally (Bracken 1984,1987,1998a,b,
2006a,b) and has been employed in broad-based assess-
ment and intervention studies by such organizations as the
Joint Center for Poverty Research, NICHD Study of Early
Child Care and Youth Development, the UK Millennium
Project, and the federally funded Harlem Project and early
childhood Project Clarion studies. However, US educators
and policy makers have remained slow to translate this
available knowledge and comprehensive list of basic lan-
guage concepts into systematic classroom instruction or
standards development.
Organizational Influences
Scott-Little et al. (2003) published a research report,
Standards for Preschool Children’s Learning and Devel-
opment: Who Has Standards, How Were They Developed,
and How Are They Used?, that explored the impetus for
Early Childhood Educ J
123
Table 1 Early childhood
conceptual categories, sub-
domains, and conceptual
examples: a blueprint for
standards
Concept category Sub-domain Concept examples
Colors Primary colors Red, yellow, blue
Secondary colors Orange, green, purple
Tertiary colors Violet, heather
Absolutes White, black
Letters Recognition
Upper-case Point to M, B, S, D
Lower-case Point to u, v, c, b
Naming
Upper-case Name this letter, W, P, R, E
Lower-case Name this letter, a, e, g, k
Letter Sounds What sound does b make?
Letter blend sounds What sound does ch make?
Letter production Print the letter X, J, Z
Numbers/counting Rote counting Counting without place value
Place counting Counting with one-to-one correspondence
Number identification
0–9 Point to the 1, 5, 8, 0
Double digits Point to the 22, 58, 95
Triple digits Point to 138, 395, 783
Number naming
0–9 What is this number? 2, 6, 9
Double digits What is this number? 44, 78
Triple digits What is this number? 234, 783
Number production Print the number 6, 33, 245
Counting by sets Count to 100 by 2s, 5s, 10s
Size/comparisons Three-dimensional size Big, large, small, little
Two-dimensional size
Vertical Tall, short
Horizontal Long, short
Comparative sizes Similar, same, different
Shapes Linear (vertical/horizontal) Line, straight
Curvilinear Line Curve
Diagonal Line Diagonal
Angular Line Angle
Two-dimensional shapes Circle, square, triangle
Three-dimensional shapes Sphere, cube, pyramid
Direction/position Three-dimensional direction Under, over, right, left
Internal/external Inside, outside, around
Relative proximity Near, far, beside
Self/other perspective My right, your right, my left, your left
Front/rear In front of, behind, forward, backward
Specific locations Edge, corner
Cardinal directions North, south, east, west
Self-/social-awareness Affective feeling Happy, sad, excited
Health/physical Healthy, sick, tired
Gender Boy, girl, woman, man, male, female
Familial relationships Mother, father, brother
Age Old, young
Mores Right, wrong, correct
Early Childhood Educ J
123
early childhood state standards. The report reflected the
education zeitgeist calling for accountability, the ‘‘wide-
spread growth of early childhood programs in the late
1990s,’’ and the mounting concern about the ‘‘growing
divide between the poor and non-poor’’ (p. 2). The authors
cited the important efforts of the National Education Goals
Panel (NEGP 1997) to define what ‘ready to learn’ means.
The National Association for the Education of Young
Children (NAEYC) also has been a leader in the devel-
opment of standards for early childhood education. In
2002, the NAEYC and the National Association of Early
Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education
(NAECS/SDE) published a position statement describing
the process for establishing standards for early childhood
education. This process led the way to the development of
curriculum standards for the accreditation of early child-
hood programs; the organization approved the curriculum
standards draft 2 years later (National Association for the
Education of Young Children 2004).
Governmental Influences
The National Governors Association (Barnett 2003) pub-
lished a policy position statement advocating for the
development of state standards for K—12, which was
grounded in the belief that state standards would help
ensure that students would more uniformly receive a
strong, foundational education. Special concern was com-
municated in the position paper about identifying and
closing the gap between ‘at-risk’ students, including
minority students and students of poverty and more
advantaged students.
The most-recent Bush administration introduced the
early childhood ‘‘Good Start, Grow Smart’’ initiative,
emphasizing the importance of cognitive development in
youth from birth through age five. The initiative highlights
the importance of early childhood letter recognition, as
well as other pre-literacy skills and concepts. Using the
Good Start, Grow Smart initiative, the federal government
employed a downward extension of the ‘No Child Left
Behind’ legislation (Public Law 107–110), introducing
accountability in early childhood education and setting the
stage for standardizing instruction during preschool and the
primary grades.
Current Situation
The authors surveyed the early childhood standards for
each of the 50 states to assess their uniformity across the
country and produced a useful multi-state appendix that
depicts the extent to which each state embeds basic concept
knowledge in pre-kindergarten, kindergarten, and first
Table 1 continued Concept category Sub-domain Concept examples
Texture/material States of matter Solid, liquid, gas
Textures Rough, smooth, sharp
Materials Cloth, wood, metal
Material characteristics Wet, dry, shiny, dull
Temperatures Hot, cold
Quantity Part/whole Whole, part, piece
Relative quantity Lots, few, some, none
Volume Full, empty
Multiples Pair, double, triple, dozen
Comparatives/superlatives More, less, most, least
Fractions Half, one-third
Math signs/symbols ?,-,9
Time/sequence Mathematical seriation Once, twice
Frequency First, second, third
Natural occurring events Morning, daytime, evening
Temporal order of event Before, after, finished
Temporal absolutes Never, always
Scheduling Early, late, next, arriving
Relative age Fast, slow
Temporal nuances New, old, young, old
Speed Nearly, just, waiting
Larger temporal periods Days, weeks, months, seasons, years
Early Childhood Educ J
123
grade standards. The appendix is available from the first
author’s university website and can be obtained by copying
and pasting the following URL (http://faculty.wm.edu/
babrac/Standards.xls). A quick perusal of these early
childhood educational state standards highlights the paral-
lel groundwork laid by early concept researchers, NAEYC,
the SERVE research report, and the early childhood ini-
tiatives of the White House and the National Governors
Association.
States’ Standards and Basic Concepts
When considering the states’ early childhood standards and
the universe of basic concepts (i.e., Bracken concept list),
patterns of commonality and universality emerge. Another
pattern also emerges, illustrating that the states’ standards
are not optimally uniform, comprehensive or systemati-
cally represented or organized. The extent to which basic
concepts are included in states’ standards is presented
below by conceptual categories, with examples from var-
ious states.
Colors
Colors are described as primary, secondary, or tertiary, and
often are learned by young children in approximately that
order. Primary colors are red, yellow, and blue. These
colors are considered primary because no combination of
colors is blended to produce a primary color. Secondary
colors, on the other hand, are colors that result from
blending two primary colors. As such, when the two pri-
mary colors yellow and blue are combined, they create the
secondary color green; when red and blue are combined,
they create purple; and when yellow and red are combined,
they form orange. Orange, green, and purple then are
secondary colors. When primary colors are blended with
secondary colors, tertiary or intermediate colors are cre-
ated, which vary depending on the proportions of each
color added to the admixture (e.g., blue and green com-
bined form the tertiary colors blue-green, heather, aqua-
marine, teal, and so on depending on the proportions of
blue or green added).
In addition to primary, secondary, and tertiary colors,
there are the additional absolute ‘colors’ of white and
black. From a natural beam of light perspective, white is
the combination of all primary colors, colors which can be
separated into the full color spectrum comprised in a prism
array. From an artificial, projected light beam perspective,
white is the combination of red, green, and blue. Also from
a light beam perspective, black is the total absence of color
or as an extension, the absence of light. From a materials
perspective, however, white is the absence of any color
pigmentation and black is the combination of all colors. As
such, white and black are contributors to the lightening or
darkening of primary or secondary colors by degree of
addition to the color admixture.
In combination, primary and secondary colors with the
absolute colors of white and black added are universal
colors for all people with normal color vision, and should
constitute the educational basis for standards in color rec-
ognition and naming (Bracken 1984,1998a,b,2006a,b).
Most states’ standards indicate that young children should
be able to describe objects in terms of color, but only a
couple rare states (e.g., Virginia) specifically name which
colors should be known by students (i.e., red, orange,
yellow, green, blue, purple, white, violet, brown, and
black). Given the universality of the colors included in the
Bracken concept list, it would seem that these most basic
primary and secondary colors, plus white and black, would
be included in all state standards.
Letters
Recognizing and naming the 26 letters of the alphabet
appears to be the very foundation upon which reading pre-
literacy skills are developed. Developmental literature and
the difficulty levels achieved among the Bracken concepts
concur that children reliably recognize upper-case (i.e.,
capital) letters before they recognize lower-case letters, and
later they are also able to name upper-case before lower-
case letters, and later still they are able to reproduce the
sounds that individual letters and consonant blends make.
The states’ standards largely follow this sequence across all
50 states, but with differing levels of specificity and inclu-
sion. For example, New Jersey’s standards are fairly brief
and vaguely suggest that students should begin to develop
print awareness in pre-kindergarten (e.g., identify some
letters by their shapes, especially in their own name), and
should later ‘‘read with comprehension’’ by the end of fourth
grade. In contrast, Georgia standards state that students
should be able to identify some individual letters of the
alphabet (pre-kindergarten); recognize and name all upper-
case and lower-case letters (kindergarten); generate the
sounds for all letters and letter patterns, and apply knowl-
edge of letter-sound correspondence to decode new words
(first grade). Other states’ standards fall somewhere between
these two cited examples, with fewer states including letter/
sound and letter blend production as part of their early
reading standards (e.g., Hawaii, Illinois, Wyoming).
The Bracken concept list includes all of the pre-reading
concepts cited across the various states and extends the
standards to include important phonemic awareness skills
and abilities (i.e., letter and initial consonant blend sounds).
Ideally, all states would systematically follow the devel-
opmental sequence of recognition followed by expression,
Early Childhood Educ J
123
including: (1) identifying upper-case letters, (2) identifying
lower-case letters, (3) upper-case letter naming, (4) lower-
case letter naming, (5) letter-sound production, and (6)
initial consonant blend production.
Numbers/Counting
States’ standards in the domain of counting, number rec-
ognition, and number naming are generally more compre-
hensive than is the case for letter recognition and naming.
As with pre-reading skills, pre-math and early-math skills
have a fairly predictable developmental progression. Early
on, young children develop a sense of quantity (e.g., more/
less) and develop the ability to rote count without a one-to-
one number/object correspondence. Later, young children
learn to recognize numbers 1–5, followed by 6–9 and zero,
and then double digit numbers. Along the way, young
children begin to count to ten with one-to-one correspon-
dence, and quickly they are onto counting to numbers
greater than 100. Later still, young students learn to count
by twos, fives, tens, and so on. The states’ standards are not
consistent in the manner by which they follow the devel-
opmental sequence represented in the Bracken concepts, as
described above (i.e., rote counting, one-to-one corre-
spondence, number recognition, and so on).
Sizes/Comparisons
Sizes and comparative knowledge about size can be
thought of in a number of ways, including considering
objects in terms of their overall, three-dimensional size
(e.g., big, small, large, little) or two-dimensional size,
which may be depicted as vertical (e.g., tall, short)or
horizontal (e.g., short, long), or diagonal. The develop-
mental literature and item difficulty levels on the BBCS-R3
generally support the assertion that students first learn
concepts related to gross, three-dimensional size (e.g., big,
small) before learning concepts related to two-dimensional
size (e.g., tall, long). The early childhood states’ standards
focus broadly on students’ ability to discern similarities
and differences between the many attributes or dimensions
of objects in our environment, including dimensions of
relative size (e.g., same, equal, different). Many states’
standards use the language of equivalent and nonequiva-
lent, which are important concepts; however, these more
advanced concepts are subsumed under the more basic
Bracken concepts of equal and unequal.
The various states each address students’ knowledge of
size, but collectively the standards name only a few spe-
cific size-related concepts as salient attributes, including:
small/large (e.g., Arizona); big/large (e.g., Vermont), tall,
short, long, same, less than, greater than (e.g., Texas),
little (e.g., Arkansas). Interestingly, some states only cite
the importance of three-dimensional size conceptual
understanding (e.g., small, little, big, large), while other
states include two-dimensional vertical or horizontal con-
cepts (e.g., tall, short, long). Many states present these
same few size-related concepts in their most basic form
(e.g., short), as well as in their comparative and superlative
forms (i.e., shorter, shortest). In addition to these few
specific concepts mentioned in the states’ standards, there
are additional concepts that provide a more complete list of
size concepts that include unique contexts (e.g., deep/
shallow, thin, thick) or employ comparative size language
(e.g., same, not the same, equal, unequal, match, exact,
similar). As with numbers and counting concepts, states do
not consistently include neither the scope nor develop-
mental sequence of concept acquisition as presented in the
Bracken concept list.
Shapes
Knowledge about shapes appears to be one area in the
states’ standards that is the most thoroughly and uniformly
addressed. As the reader peruses the entries across the
various states, it becomes apparent that educators have
thought a lot about teaching shapes during the pre-kin-
dergarten, kindergarten, and first grade years. At the most
basic level, shapes begin with lines, which may be straight,
curvilinear (i.e., curved), or angled. Lines also may run in
vertical, horizontal, or diagonal orientations.
Many of the states’ standards do not address this aspect
of lines as shapes, but begin with lines that have been
connected to create a whole object with two-dimensions
(e.g., circle, square) or three-dimensions (e.g., sphere,
cube). Beyond the absence of this foundational structural
element (i.e., line), most state standards at a minimum list
an array of common two- and three-dimensional shapes,
including: circle, square, triangle, rectangle, sphere, cube,
pyramid, cylinder, cone. Additionally, some states add
other common, but infrequently cited shapes. For example,
Montana includes diamond and oval among its state stan-
dards. Many states identify an impressive array of shapes
that are fairly obscure for students in early childhood
grades (e.g., rectangular prism, Arkansas; rhombus, Lou-
isiana; parallelogram, hexagon, trapezoid, Kentucky;
pentagon, Georgia). California is relatively unique in that it
identifies shapes that constitute distinct locations (e.g.,
edge, corner, curve). The comprehensive Bracken list
includes many concepts not considered by the states, such
as those that define line nature (e.g., straight, curve,
diagonal, angle), as well as a full range of two- and three-
dimensional shapes, many only touched upon in a few or
none of the states’ standards (e.g., diamond, curve, angle,
heart, checkmark, column, row, diagonal).
Early Childhood Educ J
123
Direction/Position
Directions and locations (or positions) are relational con-
cepts that describe the relative location or position of
objects in space. From an early developmental orientation
(i.e., non-perspective-taking orientation), objects are
viewed in their locations from the perspective of the child
(e.g., right is from the child’s right-hand perspective); older
children with the ability to take another’s perspective can
view locations from the orientation of others (e.g., oppos-
ing orientation where Sally’s right is understood as the
student’s left). From a basic knowledge point of view,
directional concepts are first learned from a self-perspec-
tive orientation and then later from another’s perspective.
In addition to perspective, directions and position con-
cepts by and large are represented most frequently as
prepositions, but they also may include nouns (e.g., edge,
corner). Early directional knowledge emphasizes a three-
dimensional orientation from a self-perspective, and
includes concepts that address vertical (e.g., above, below,
up, down, under, over, high, low, top, bottom), horizontal
(e.g., right, left, beside, next to, sideways), three-dimen-
sional (e.g., around, through), internal/external (e.g., in,
out, inside, outside, between), relative proximity (e.g.,
near, close, far), and the child’s front or rear (e.g., front,
back, forward, backward).
The states’ standards collectively cite many of these
aforementioned concepts as knowledge that should be
acquired during the early childhood years. The Bracken
concept list includes all of the aforementioned concepts
plus many other related directional or positional concepts
not mentioned in most individual state’s standards (e.g.,
falling, rising, together, apart, side, toward, away, apart,
joined, together, height, length, opposite, level, space,
moving, still, beginning, end, open, closed, on, off, upside
down, following, ahead, behind). As with the other con-
ceptual categories, the states’ standards sample the most
common conceptual knowledge, but they do not provide a
comprehensive, logical extension of knowledge or a sys-
tematic treatment of the given universe of content.
Self- and Social-Awareness
The domain of self- and social-awareness includes a wide
array of personological and sociological knowledge,
including affective feelings, health and physical condition,
gender awareness, familial relationships, relative age, and
social mores or correctness. As with academic content
areas, students’ sense of self and developing self-concepts
are developmental in nature (Bracken 1996). The states’
standards address some of these topical and developmental
issues individually, but not comprehensively within or
across the 50 states. In terms of feelings, Arizona includes
several common feelings (e.g., sad, happy, mad), but also
some more abstract, more difficult concepts to define or
determine (e.g., love, pride, frustration, fear). Arizona
leaves several basic affective states out of their standards
(e.g., angry, curious), as well as many important concepts
in the previously mentioned self- and social-awareness sub-
domains (e.g., gender, familial relationships).
Other states (e.g., Vermont) include more diverse con-
cepts, including gender terms and familial relations, and
still others include base emotions, such as angry, excited
(e.g., California). Arkansas specifically identifies boy and
girl as important concepts, but even this state does not
make the extension to brother, sister, male, female, mother,
father, or other related gender terms. Illinois identifies the
concepts of afraid and surprised, which are relatively
unique given the other 49 states’ standards, as is the con-
cept of disappointed, which is included solely in the South
Carolina standards. Colorado cites the briefest standards in
this area, especially as compared to several states that cite a
very thorough inclusion of diverse affective, gender, age,
familial relations, and social more concepts.
As with the other standards categories, the Bracken
concept list includes the most comprehensive collection of
concepts and knowledge in the area of self- and social-
awareness. The Bracken concepts include conceptual
knowledge associated with gender (e.g., male, female, boy,
girl), familial relations (e.g., brother, sister, mother,
father), age (e.g., old, young), health and physical aware-
ness (e.g., tired, fatigued, rested, healthy, hurt, relaxing,
sleepy, sick), affective state (e.g., happy, sad, crying,
laughing, smiling, angry, afraid, excited, frowning, wor-
ried, curious), and social mores (e.g., right, wrong, correct,
easy, difficult).
Texture/Material
From a developmental perspective, young children from
birth begin to experience their environments, including the
attributes that define or characterize the objects in their
environments. As infants crawl and toddlers toddle about
and handle objects, they begin to develop an awareness of
different textures (e.g., rough, hard, soft, smooth) and
material characteristics or conditions (e.g., heavy, wet, dry,
light). Parents begin to teach their children at very early
ages the safety concept of hot and by comparison the polar
opposite concept cold. Much later, children begin to learn
what the objects in their environments are made of (e.g.,
wood, metal, glass, cloth) and they relate to the textures
and material attributes that are consistent with each mate-
rial (e.g., wood is hard;metal is heavy;glass is clear or
sharp; cloth is soft, or sometimes rough). Finally, children
learn about the manmade changing states of objects or
materials (e.g., rough wood can be sanded smooth)or
Early Childhood Educ J
123
natural changing states of objects and materials [e.g.,
schools teach students early on that water can be found in
various states, depending on temperature (i.e., liquid, solid,
gas)]. Such a comprehensive consideration and treatment
of materials and textures as conceptual knowledge ensures
that children are better able to use their five senses to
identify, name, and discriminate between various object
attributes, characteristics, and qualities at a young age.
Early childhood educational states’ standards wisely
address conceptual knowledge acquired from the five
senses. Arizona state standards, for example, clearly indi-
cate that young students should be able to describe the
attributes of objects in terms of their weight, texture, flavor,
scent, flexibility, and sound. Most states’ standards address
the specific concepts of hot/cold and liquid/solid/gas, but
go onto cite only broad characterizations of what a young
student should know about other textures and materials.
For example, Florida state standards indicate that students
should be able to use their senses to observe and explore
materials and natural phenomena by how something feels,
how fast or slow it flows, its temperature (e.g., hot or cold),
and weight. Unlike some other categories considered in the
states’ standards (e.g., shapes), which were very specific
about what young children should know, the category of
texture/material attributes tends to be far less specific
across all the states’ standards.
The Bracken concept list includes conceptual knowl-
edge across each of the five senses, except taste. Within the
remaining four senses, however, the Bracken concepts
comprehensively include knowledge of materials (e.g.,
cloth, wood), material attributes (e.g., wet, dry), material
textures (e.g., rough, smooth, sharp), states of matter (e.g.,
liquid, solid, gas), temperature (e.g., hot, cold, boiling),
sound (e.g., loud, quiet), and appearance (e.g., shiny,
bright, clear, dull, dark, light). More specificity in the
states’ standards using these particular early childhood
concepts would be a welcome addition to the otherwise
fairly general description that young students are expected
to know about their environments.
Quantity
Quantitative knowledge in early childhood is part of, yet
distinct from, students’ understanding of numbers and
counting. Knowledge of numbers and counting provides
the foundation for much of the quantitative understanding
that follows, but not always so. For example, it is obvious
that virtually all young children have acquired the concept
of more before they can identify numbers or count.
Quantitative concepts, then, represent the understanding
of such conditions as part/whole (e.g., whole, part, piece),
relative quantity (e.g., lots, few, many, nothing, none,
every), volume (e.g., full, empty), comparatives (e.g., more
than, less than), multiples (e.g., double, pair, couple, triple,
dozen), fractions (e.g., half, third), currency (e.g., dime,
nickel, quarter), and the use and understanding of mathe-
matical signs (e.g., ?,-,=). Quantity concepts provide
young children with language that allows them to talk
about numbers and counting in ways that communicate and
generalize knowledge beyond the number of the objects
being measured, weighed, counted, divided, distributed, or
otherwise treated mathematically.
The states’ standards vary considerably in the detail of
quantitative knowledge children are expected to know at
young ages, beyond their ability to count and identify
numbers. Nearly all states address students’ knowledge of
currency and mathematical signs and share several specific
quantitative concepts; however, there appears to be less
consistency across states’ standards in quantity than in
some other categories. Florida, for example, appears to
focus almost solely on currency and mathematical signs,
whereas Texas identifies part/whole relations as an early
comprehension skill, among the many other skills listed in
the Texas standards. Other states, such as Vermont, high-
light the use of quantitative knowledge in measurement,
weight, temperature, volume, and pattern analysis; Mon-
tana adds to this list, understanding mass, area, capacity,
and time. Additionally, some states (e.g., Georgia, Illinois)
identify the understanding of fractions as an important
early childhood skill. Finally, many states’ standards cite
specific quantitative concepts that should be mastered by
young students, but there is considerable variability in the
number and specific concepts cited in the standards from
state-to-state, especially as compared to the collection of
quantitative concepts listed in the Bracken list.
Time/Sequence
Because life progresses temporally, from birth to death,
from morning to night, from breakfast to dinner, from new
to old, from yesterday to tomorrow, young students quickly
attend to the temporal patterns in their lives, even if they
have not acquired the language to describe those patterns.
In the domain of time/sequence, there is the obvious
mathematical/quantitative nature of seriation (e.g., first,
second, third) and frequency (e.g., once, twice) that must
also be considered.
Knowledge of time and sequence, however, is more than
just a quantitative component. Time and sequence also deal
with students’ knowledge and awareness of natural events
(e.g., morning, daytime, night), temporal order of events
(e.g., starting, before, after, over, finished), temporal
absolutes (e.g., never, always), scheduling (e.g., early, late,
next, arriving, leaving), speed (e.g., fast, slow), relative age
(e.g., new, old, young, old), and descriptive temporal
nuances (e.g., nearly, just, quit, waiting).
Early Childhood Educ J
123
The early childhood states’ standards fairly uniformly
mention the importance of children knowing the temporal
order of events, including beginning, middle, and end.
Whereas few states identify short periods of time as critical
knowledge (e.g., minutes, hours, quarter-hour—Hawaii),
most states address time in terms of daily event occur-
rences (e.g., morning, day, evening, night) and annual
event occurrences (e.g., changing weather patterns associ-
ated with seasons of the year), and yet others include
longer and broader temporal episodes in their standards
(e.g., long, long ago—Vermont; past-present-future—
Louisiana; days, weeks, months, and years—New Jersey).
Many states also exploit the natural linkage between time
and sequence and number, with standards relating to
numerical order, seriation, sequence, magnitude, weight,
and so on. All of the previously mentioned time/sequence
related concepts are found on the Bracken concept list,
where as some are represented only here and there among
the various state’s standards.
Conclusions
The historic changes in early childhood education that have
resulted in individuals, organizations, and state and federal
governments recognizing that there should be a common
body of knowledge acquired by children in the pre-kin-
dergarten, kindergarten, and first grade years is com-
mendable and a welcome state of educational affairs. The
fact that there are now early childhood standards either
written or being written in each of the 50 states is an
outstanding step in the right direction of standardizing
early childhood education.
A review of the various early childhood states’ standards,
however, reveals a virtual patchwork quilt of concepts,
knowledge, skills, and abilities that vary considerably from
state-to-state—more so in some content areas than others.
The collective developmental and educational literature and
the efforts of individual researchers have identified a com-
prehensive and unified combination of foundational
knowledge that young children should know in order to
ensure that all children possess a common knowledge base
before entering advanced grades. This foundational
knowledge is necessary to ensure that students have the
language and understanding to learn about, talk about, and
ask about content they learn in social studies, science, lan-
guage arts, art, mathematics, and so on. This complete list of
content and concepts constitute an extremely important
foundation of knowledge. Table 1provides a solid foun-
dation for the instruction of basic concepts and is the
underpinning of the list of concepts represented in the
Bracken Basic Concept Scale and the Bracken Concept
Development Program. The field of early childhood
education would be advanced immeasurably if states’ early
childhood standards would systematically and comprehen-
sively address all of these categories, sub-domains, and
specific concepts. Setting comprehensive standards, fol-
lowed by appropriate assessment and instruction, would
ensure that all children are in fact promoted to the next grade
with the requisite conceptual knowledge.
If all young children possessed a thorough understand-
ing of the basic concepts subsumed by these over-arching
categories of content that describe and comprise this uni-
verse of basic knowledge, all students would start their
formal educations on a much more even footing. Aside
from the current educational and political rhetoric of ‘No
child left behind,’ the knowledge base included in the list
of Bracken concepts provides parents and teachers a real,
non-rhetorical, practical, and proven guide for placing a
solid, common, and important foundation under all young
students—a foundation that would help ensure that all
children are meaningfully, not rhetorically, lifted upward.
References
Alexander, J. M., Johnson, K. E., Leibham, M. E., & Kelley, K.
(2008). The development of conceptual interests in young
children. Cognitive Development, 23(2), 324–334.
Barnett, W. S. (2003). High quality preschool as an economic
development strategy. National Governor’s Association Gover-
nor’s Forum on Quality Preschool, Issue Brief Papers, Wash-
ington, D.C. http://www.nga.org/Files/pdf/0403gfqpibseries.PDF
Boehm, A. E. (1966). The development of comparative concepts in
primary school children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Columbia University.
Boehm, A. E. (1969). Boehm test of basic concepts. New York: The
Psychological Corporation.
Boehm, A. E. (1976). Boehm resource guide for basic concept
teaching. New York: The Psychological Corporation.
Boehm, A. E., Classon, B., and Kelly, M. (1986). Preschool teachers’
spoken use of basic concepts. Unpublished manuscript, Teachers
College, Columbia University, New York.
Booth, A. E., & Waxman, S. R. (2002). Word learning is ‘smart’:
Evidence that conceptual information affects preschoolers’
extension of novel words. Cognition, 84(1), B11–B22.
Bozhovich, L. T. (2006). Speech and practical intellectual activity of
a child (an experimental-theoretical study). Part IV. Cultural-
Historical Psychology and Education, 3, 101–113.
Bracken, B. A. (1984). Bracken basic concept scale. San Antonio:
Harcourt Assessments.
Bracken, B. A. (1986). Incidence of basic concepts in the directions of
five commonly used American tests of intelligence. School
Psychology International, 7, 1–10.
Bracken, B. A. (1987). Bracken concept development program. San
Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessments.
Bracken, B. A. (1988). Rate and sequence of positive and negative
pole concept acquisition. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in the Schools, 19, 410–417.
Bracken, B. A. (1996). Clinical applications of a multidimensional,
context-dependent model of self-concept. In B. A. Bracken
(Ed.), Handbook of self concept: Developmental, social, and
clinical considerations (pp. 463–505). New York: Wiley.
Early Childhood Educ J
123
Bracken, B. A. (1998a). Basic concept acquisition and assessment: A
celebration of our world’s many dimensions. Clinicians’ Forum,
8(2), 1–7.
Bracken, B. A. (1998b). Bracken basic concept scale-revised. San
Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessments.
Bracken, B. A. (2002). Bracken school readiness assessment. San
Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Bracken, B. A. (2006a). Bracken basic concept scale–receptive (3rd
ed.). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessments.
Bracken, B. A. (2006b). Bracken expressive. San Antonio, TX:
Harcourt Assessments.
Bracken, B. A., Barona, A., Bauermeister, J. J., Howell, K. K.,
Poggioli, L., & Puente, A. (1990). Multinational validation of the
Bracken basic concept scale. Journal of School Psychology, 28,
325–341.
Bracken, B. A., and Brown, E. F. (2008). Early identification of high-
ability students: Clinical assessment of behavior. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted.
Bracken, B. A., & Cato, L. A. (1986). Rate of conceptual develop-
ment among deaf preschool and primary children as compared to
a matched group of non-hearing impaired children. Psychology
in the Schools, 23, 95–99.
Bracken, B. A., & Fouad, N. (1987). Spanish translation and
validation of the Bracken basic concept scale. School Psychology
Review, 16, 94–102.
Breen, M. J. (1985). Concurrent validity of the Bracken basic concept
scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 3, 37–44.
Cummings, J. A., & Nelson, B. R. (1980). Basic concepts in oral
directions of group achievement tests. The Journal of Educa-
tional Research, 50, 159–261.
de Mendoza, O. A. P. (2003). Instruction in early comprehension and
use of symbol-referent relation. Cognitive Development, 18(2),
269–284.
Flannagan, D. P., Alfonso, V. C., Kaminer, T., & Rader, D. E. (1995).
Incidence of basic concepts in the directions of new and recently
revised American intelligence tests for preschool children.
School Psychology International, 16, 345–364.
Howell, K. K., & Bracken, B. A. (1992). Clinical utility of the
Bracken basic concept scale as a preschool intellectual screener:
Comparison with the Stanford-Binet for black children. Journal
of Clinical Child Psychology, 21, 255–261.
Kaufman, A. S. (1978). The importance of basic concepts in the
individual assessment of preschool children. Journal of School
Psychology, 16, 208–211.
Larrabee, A. L. (2007). Predicting academic achievement through
kindergarten screening: An evaluation of developmental and
school readiness measures (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved
from Dissertation Abstracts International section A: Humanities
and social sciences. (AAI3228216).
Laughlin, T. (1995). The school readiness composite of the Bracken
basic concept scale as an intellectual screening instrument.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 13, 294–302.
McIntosh, D. E., Brown, M. L., & Ross, S. L. (1995a). Relationship
between the Bracken basic concept scale and differential ability
scales with an at-risk sample of preschoolers. Psychological
Reports, 76, 219–224.
McIntosh, D. E., Wayland, S. J., Gridley, B., & Barnes, L. L. B.
(1995b). Relationship between the Bracken basic concept scale
and the differential ability scales with a preschool sample.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 13, 39–48.
Mintz, T. (2005). Linguistic and conceptual influences on adjective
acquisition in 24- and 36-month olds. Developmental Psychol-
ogy, 41(1), 17–29.
National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2004).
NAEYC Early childhood program standards and accreditation
criteria: Curriculum. Washington DC: Author.
National Education Goals Panel. (1997). Special early childhood
report. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
Neuman, S. B. (2006). N is for nonsensical. Educational Leadership,
64(2), 28–31.
Nguyen, S. P. (2007). Cross-classification and category representation
in children’s concepts. Developmental Psychology, 43(3), 719–
731.
Panter, J. E. (2000). Validity of the Bracken basic concept scale–
revised for predicting performance on the metropolitan readiness
test–sixth edition. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 18,
104–110.
Panter, J. E., & Bracken, B. A. (2000). Promoting school readiness. In
K. M. Minke & G. G. Bear (Eds.), Preventing school problems—
promoting school success: Strategies and programs that work
(pp. 101–142). Bethesda, MD: NASP.
Panter, J. E., & Bracken, B. A. (2009). Validity of the Bracken school
readiness assessment for predicting first grade readiness.
Psychology in the Schools, 46(5), 397–409.
Rhyner, P. M., & Bracken, B. A. (1988). Concurrent validity of the
Bracken Basic concept scale with language and intelligence
measures. Journal of Communication Disorders, 21, 479–489.
Sarnecka, B. W., & Gelman, S. A. (2004). Six does not just mean a
lot: Preschoolers see number words as specific. Cognition, 92(3),
329–352.
Schneider, B. H., & Gervais, M. D. (1991). Identifying gifted
kindergarten students with brief screening measures and the
WPPSI-R. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9(3),
255–261.
Scott-Little, C., Kagan, S. L., & Frelow, V. S. (2003). Standards for
preschool children’s learning and development: Who has
standards, how were they developed, and how are they used?.
Greensboro, NC: SERVE.
Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2005). Dyslexia (specific reading
disability). Biological Psychiatry, 57, 1301–1309.
Stebbins, M. S., & McIntosh, D. E. (1996). Decision-making utility of
the Bracken basic concept scale in identifying at-risk preschool-
ers. School Psychology International, 17, 293–303.
Sterner, A. G., & McCallum, R. S. (1988). Relationship of the Gesell
developmental exam and the Bracken basic concept scale
to academic achievement. Journal of School Psychology, 26,
297–300.
The National Association for the Education of Young Children
(NAEYC) and The National Association of Early Childhood
Specialists in State Departments of Education (NAECS/SDE).
(2002). Early learning standards: Creating the conditions for
success. Washington, DC.
Wilson, P. (2004). A preliminary investigation of an early interven-
tion program: Examining the intervention effectiveness of the
Bracken concept development program and the Bracken basic
concept scale-revised with head start students. Psychology in the
Schools, 41(3), 301–311.
Zucker, S., & Riordan, J. (1988). Concurrent validity of new and
revised conceptual language measures. Psychology in the
Schools, 25, 252–256.
Zucker, S., & Riordan, J. (1990). One-year predictive validity of new
and revised conceptual measurement. Journal of Psychoeduca-
tional Assessment, 8, 4–8.
Early Childhood Educ J
123
