Developmentally Appropriate Equity and Inclusion Practices for Young Children
The Tree Team and I were greatly fortunate to learn from Rosetta Lee at the virtual workshop entitled: Developmentally Appropriate Equity and Inclusion Practices for Young Children.
Our learning is helping to more meaningfully sculpt our instruction with young children that is often thematic and inspired by heritage months.
After taking notes on our team's takeaways, we were assisted by AI with this summary of our gleanings:
Team Takeaways: Developmentally Appropriate Equity & Inclusion Practices for Young Children (with Rosetta Lee)
Our team left the training with a shared understanding that equity and inclusion work with young children should be grounded in curiosity, responsiveness, and age-appropriate honesty—while also recognizing tensions in how this looks in practice.
A central takeaway was the importance of welcoming children’s curiosity rather than shutting it down. When children notice differences or ask questions, the goal is not to correct immediately or make the moment “go away,” but to reaffirm the question, slow down, and guide the conversation. Language matters: reframing statements like “that’s weird” into “I’ve never seen that before” helps build openness without shame. At the same time, the group noted some uncertainty about where the line is—how to support inquiry without unintentionally signaling that observation itself is inappropriate.
We also reflected on how adult reactions shape children’s understanding. Children pick up on adult anxiety, and overly cautious or punitive responses can limit their willingness to explore differences. Instead, educators are “coaching” rather than directing—creating a container where children can think, wonder, and develop their own understanding. This includes being mindful not to “yuck someone’s yum” and using everyday language to normalize differences.
Another key theme was the role of stories, media, and curriculum. There was strong alignment around using storytelling and real-life examples to build empathy, while also being more critical of children’s media, which often dramatizes unkind behavior. Some tension emerged around the use of “diversity books”—with a push toward stories that simply show children of different identities living their lives, rather than centering struggle as the defining narrative. At the same time, there was interest in introducing less sanitized histories in developmentally appropriate ways to deepen understanding.
The group discussed identity socialization and the role schools play alongside families. While educators can support pride and awareness, there is still a need for clearer frameworks around how to partner with and respond to families, especially in a complex political climate. Connecting this work to institutional mission statements was seen as one way to ground and communicate its purpose.
There was also conversation about when and how to introduce these topics. Some emphasized that early childhood is a critical window—children notice differences as early as infancy and begin categorizing by age five—making early engagement essential. Others noted that certain topics may need to be approached differently with younger students, as not all “serious” conversations translate effectively at that stage.
Finally, the team highlighted the importance of intentionality and continued growth—from doing deeper vetting of classroom materials, to rethinking approaches like heritage months, to building toward stronger media literacy in later years. Across perspectives, there was agreement that this work doesn’t need to feel overwhelming: when approached with clarity and care, it can be integrated into everyday classroom moments in ways that feel both natural and meaningful.