Last post...

It's all over for this forum. A busy year running a centre plus study put it on the back-burner. Now I've migrated to Facebook for my rants. Come visit me there: The Kids are Revolting - ECE Aotearoa.

Thank you for your support and for those who continue visiting, I hope what you find is of some use to your practice/learning as a teacher.

Ngā mihi,

Geoff

A Brush with Steiner...

I've never worked in a Steiner/Waldorf centre and my reading about them is limited to some critical articles, hearsay, and brief mentions during my time at Uni.


Prior to starting a new job where a couple of the teachers indicated that they were either Steiner trained or strongly influenced, I read the classic 'Free to Learn' by Lynne Oldfield which, while very rosy in its portrayal of Steiner Education, offered me enough to hopefully build pedagogical bridges with my new colleagues

What I discovered was that the good stuff is easily recognisable and becoming quite mainstream in New Zealand. For instance:

The ideas around routine and natural rhythm are familiar to those who follow Pikler/RIE philosophies where following a child's natural cycles of eating, sleeping and playing rather than working to a time schedule offers a more respectful, relationship based way of working/learning with tamariki. Happy children, emotional stability, increased learning opportunities. Tick.

Candles, flowers, karakia, real plates and cups, natural wood etc all work towards setting the fixed points in the day/place as a ritual that is both magical and grounded - a point in learning itself rather than rushed through to get on with the next 'activity'.

Freedom of movement is again strong with Pikler/RIE as it is generally with what is now considered best practice in ECE. No high chairs or other restrainers and a hands-off approach to teaching that allows for natural physical development.

Another core philosophy that reflects the era of educational thinking that Steiner was exposed to is Free Play. There are numerous criticisms of this constructivist approach to learning learning, mainly based around the limitations on a child's knowledge-base when no intentional teaching is occurring. I've written oodles about this here on this blog. Yet Steiner does try to balance this position with daily teacher-led activities but unfortunately this fails spectacularly in my opinion. Moments of intentional teaching are tightly controlled experiences with no input from the children as to content and direction. For example, wet paper painting with primary colours only and puppet stories - they appear almost identical in any Steiner centre in any country and are a tightly controlled 'Steiner best practice'.

However, at the other end of the intentional teaching spectrum...

Steiner practice the concept of 'good work' whereby teachers model life in a functioning community - they bake food, garden, repair, clean etc - they keep pretty busy as teachers and the potential learning opportuniest are fantastic. I'm totally into this. Closely related to all this work in the gardens is celebrating the seasons and this is another example a practice that is becoming mainstream.

So we have beautiful natural centres, bake bread everyday, awesome gardens, festivals and the children roam free for most of the day....

but there's the homogenised learning experiences, no reading books, and no black or brown paints and pencils because they are inferior colours....  Steiner... 1930's Germany... a hippy take on contemporary eugenics ideas that proposed several stages of reincarnation to become a white person... oh dear.

Yes Steiner is very 'white and middle class'. He was essentially a fucking nutcase and gave us the educational version of Scientology complete with Atlantis, goblins and aliens, but he stole most of his educational ideas like all the great educationsalist did/do. Pikler, Tolstoy, Ferrer, Montessori, Froebel etc were all active in this period and their ideas merge in many areas. Yet Steiner has serious baggage, lots of it. The main problem with this baggage however is that the movement tries to keep it secret - the racism, the weird spiritualist take on Christianity or 'Anthroposophy' as he coined it which is deeply infused in all the teachings, the anti-science and technology stance...

So I'm not at all interested in claiming to be 'influenced by Steiner' - there's just  no need to be linked with all his bullshit. Take the good bits and call then your own,  I like a lot of what Steiner does - but I'm not 'Steiner influenced' - I seek best practice.

We're having some very interesting discussions at work and on a pedagogical level it's sweet.

Teaching: an anarchist perspective

A question received via email:

"I am currently struggling with how to develop thoughtful activities that promote the ideas of anarchism for not only our son but the community that I serve of children and families. How do you manage to find balance between all the ec pedagogues in your work and with your children?"

In Aotearoa we are fortunate to have a national curriculum that is built upon a Māori worldview - so it's already challenging dominant western ideas right from the word go - with a framework that allows for a myriad of interpretations as to how these are reflected in practice.

The title, Te Whāriki, refers to a woven mat and is meant to represent the holistic way children learn. We have the overarching Principles: Empowerment, Holistic Development, Family and Community and Relationships.

These are then woven with the 'Strands': Well-being, Belonging, Contribution, Communication, and Exploration.

Within each of these there are goals to guide our practice that range from "an ability to determine their own actions and make their own choices" to "the ability to enquire, research, explore, generate, and modify their own working theories about the natural, social, physical and material worlds."

So for a Western curriculum, it's foundered on some great ideas! The key factor in turning all these fluffy left-wing platitudes (as the authors were) into practice that is more radical in its intent, is that the document is descriptive and really offers no 'how to' advice, but instead relies on individual interpretation. This is a double edge sword of course as it relies on teachers personal discourses etc to shape the outcome - and there is talk of the neoliberal Govt (1980's) at the time accepting it because they believed that their neoliberal rhetoric was now strong enough within society to covertly determine how the curriculum looked in practice. (They still fight today to get it more prescriptive and more defined in its intentions (esp numeracy and literacy) as lefty teachers continue to spin it their way).

So as an anarchist I'm fortunate to have such a guiding document (which is a legal requirement of all licensed centres) that allows me to flavour it my way - to "reflect the local community context" as they say.

From this base it's simply a matter of adding on those pedagogical extras to fine-tune the curriculum - hehe.

Emmi Pikler and her 'freedom of movement' philosophy draw upon people like Tolstoy, Francesco Ferrer's Modern Schools, and other European educationalists (esp the anarchists) with their radical notions on the rights of the child.

This 'image of the child' as a competent leader of their own learning who is living in the 'now' rather than preparing for some distant goal like school is now widely accepted in Aotearoa. Children are seen as equals with the same rights as adults to determine what happens to them.

I also draw heavily from the Reggio Emilia approach which was born out of opposition to Fascism and is again a coming together of radical ideas about the image of the child and their rights as an equal member in society. They build on these foundations with there enquiry/project approach to learning. It's highly critical and promotes observation, hypothesing, reflection, re-representation, and that the 'hundred languages' of a child are valid and to be respected.

For me, widely respected and accepted ECE Pedagogies such as these which are empowering, liberating, child and community centred are further supported by educational luminaries such as John Holt, Matt Hern, Ivan Illich etc who all offer radical new thinking to how children learn, and how we as teachers can help this process.

So building a working pedagogical base for my practice as an anarchist teacher is not really that difficult. At the core: I always promote the notion of interdependence over independence (a powerful western neoliberal concept if there ever was) and always include cooperative work/activities/challenges that get children working/playing in groups with problems to solve.

To argue for this approach pedagogically I draw upon Vygotsky and the ZPD ideas - we learn so much more with the help of another.

Art is an area where it is shown that working in small groups is one of the best working environments to learn. We talk, share ideas, model skills, copy, modify, refine, reflect etc in a manner that truly reflects the ideas of socio-constructivist thinkers - have a read of 'Why Art' on this blog. Art should be at the heart of your centre.

Caring for the environment, growing and preparing food, maintenance, art, tidying, recycling, up-cycling, music, dance, conversation etc are all core activities to be a member of society and are things I model all the time. I give my time, my energy, my heart ... freely to the children.... our relationships are unconditional.

Steiner (a nutcase and dodgy in all sort of areas) talks about this 'good work' and this type of being with children. We are not 'teaching' but being with them as guides, mentors, facilitators, memory-banks...

Anarchism is all about relationships - respectful, reciprocal, honest and real. That's easy. Teaching as an anarchist does not require any extra effort - it's simply what I've come to expect in my world.

Dealing with management however requires a little more effort...

I hope this has been of some help! Feel free to ask me to expand on any ideas.

@ko...

There are contradictions...

Ann Pelo, my new-found hero of 'pedagogy meets practice'...


"There are contradictions...  yes talk and be quiet. Learn the names and marvel without knowing names... there is no easy distillation of how to be in a place with a child. With Dylan at the blueberries, sometimes we discussed their sweet tang, sometimes we just savoured the fruit, sharing purple smiles. There were times through the winter and spring when I talked with Dylan about the bushes' cycle of rest and growth; sometimes those explanations sounded like foolish jibber-jabber, and sometimes I nailed the right balance of contextualising information. The only instruction for how to be in a place with a child, it seems to me, is to be wholeheartedly, attentively, genuinely present. Which means, sometimes, conversation and sometimes, quiet. sometimes naming and sometimes marvelling. Being present, together, all the time, in a generous and interested relationship with each other and with a place."

From 'The Goodness of Rain - developing an ecological identity in young children' (2013) an awesome book I will return to shortly as I explore ideas around a nature-based curriculum.

Why art?

So, why are we so focused on art – both pedagogically and in our practice? It's a question I have asked myself recently, just why as a teacher does so much of my day involve art. Not just 'doing' art in the traditional sense, but thinking, observing, and acting in an artful way.

The lens' that generally guide my assessment/planning process of 'notice, recognise and respond' cold be described as scientific, learning dispositions, social skills, creative expression a la 'the 100 languages', and fostering self-esteem – but I'm now realising just how much 'art' is threaded through these different areas of learning. There is of course nothing ground-breaking about the notion of 'art' moving beyond the realm of paint, clay and pencils. How about considering...

• Science with its creative thinking, hypothesising and experimentation that are daily generated by those glorious fundamental questions children ask - “will the brown grass go green again?”
• Nature-based learning in which observation and exploration engage all the senses and provides endless opportunities for artistic play and representation. We garden, study leaves, bark and moss, follow spiders and ants trough the grass, lie back and watch the clouds...
• Socio-dramatic play where real and imaginary props and narratives can be described as both process art and producing artistic representations.
• Music and dance...
• Story-telling...
• Life...

Art is a response to living and everybody consciously or unconsciously engages in it to some degree. Art is everything and anything – if we have our art 'lens' on that is ...

At our centre we draw upon the teaching and learning philosophies of Reggio Emiia which has at its core a concept developed by Loris Malaguzzie referred to as 'the one hundred languages of children', a reference to the myriad of ways children express their understandings of themselves and of the world about them. The Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education is internationally acclaimed for its empowering image of the child, the child-led project approach to learning, an exhaustive documentation process that often includes public exhibitions, and the fact that it is focused on creative art as it's primary vehicle for learning...

But... Reggio Emila is unfortunately also renowned for the awful academic nature of its literature which can be difficult for lay people to understand. What does 'The Reggio Emila approach' mean to parents and many of the teachers tasked with leading this approach?

Probably fuck all right?

Personally, I (a teacher and a parent), stopped reading anything directly to do with Reggio Emila a long time ago as I found it largely inaccessible and so removed from my context of work as to be more confusing than helpful. Ann Pelo and Susan Wright are now my principle guides when it comes to art and my role as a teacher. (In saying this, I do however recommend the Reggio publication In the Spirit of the Studio, by Lella Gandini which has a more practical focus and worth seeking out.)

Pelo advocates intentional teaching to develop foundational skills and draws strongly from Reggio practice (I highly recommend her very accessible and practice-orientated book, The Language of Art, 2007) and describes art as “a process of engagement with a range of materials that is sensual and reflective, creative and deliberate, and which deepens and extends children's learning.”

In answering my question Why Art?, Pelo proposes that “as children become more comfortable and skillful with these media, they are able to use them to communicate their understandings, emotions, and questions. Their fluency in a range of art 'languages', in turn, opens new possibilities for collaboration and dialogue, for taking new perspectives, and for deepening their relationships with each other.”

And that's about it from Pelo as far as the 'why' goes as her focus is on the 'how' of teaching art to young children. Get her book, it will be the only art book you will need as a teacher.

I know a teacher who bases herself at the art table at her centre because that's where it all the action is. Sure there's a lot of intentional teaching happening as she guides and models art techniques, but there's more to it than that and this is when I draw upon Susan Wright (Children, Meaning-making and the Arts, 2003) who takes an indepth look at why the art studio/space is the place for learning.

Briefly, this is why we 'do' art all day, everyday – and why you should too...

Art is a language and we want our children to be literate. It can be considered as stopped action frames which provide children with a pre-conceptual understanding of how they operate in the world. It is a symbol system for communicating ideas and experiences. This process of representation is all about creativity, about thinking outside the box. “Research indicates that a child who is exposed to the arts acquires a special ability to think creatively, be original, discover, innovate, and create intellectual property” (International Child Art Foundation). Art is an activity that engages all the senses and gets all the brain's synapses firing away as they draw from imagination, memory or in response to immediate stimuli – and don't forget that children think with their bodies...

Art builds fine motor skills as they learn to control a wide variety of tools and coordinate movement. From scribble to shapes to repeated and precise symbols with more complex meanings such as numbers and letters of the alphabet.

Art that is open-ended and (to a degree) process orientated offers endless opportunities to make choices, hypothesise about results, evaluate, reflect, and build upon this new knowledge. In art we behave like a scientist.

Art is a perfect outlet for children to process their feelings, thoughts and discoveries in a way that is often easier and more comfortable than words. Movement, image, colour, line and imagination all help children express themselves in multidimensional ways.

These are all wickedly important, but the clincher for me is that the art space is recognised as a prime location for collaborative learning amongst peers. Here we can see a group of children (and adults) who are emotionally, intellectually, and aesthetically engaged in solving problems, creating products, and making meaning – an assemblage in which each person learns autonomously and through the ways of learning of others.

In groups we encounter: new perspectives, strategies, ways of thinking.

We learn to reflect, modify, extend, clarify, and enrich. Fantastic! It is an adventurous, enquiry based approach to learning where participation can move on from a traditional transmission style of education to one that can include the whole community.

Consider these further points from Krechevsky & Mardell (Four features of learning in groups, 2001):

“While we acknowledge that learning is individual, we think it is critical to consider the social construction and existence of knowledge as well. Learning in a group supports a quality of learning that is different from individual learning. A focus on collective understanding – requiring constant comparison, discussion, and modification of ideas- makes possible learning that is not accessible to individuals working alone.”

Intentionally include adults in the learning journey – we do not leave the children to 'naturally develop their knowledge and skills'! Adults play different roles, but all engage in enquiry. The teacher's role includes listening, observing, providing provocations for discovery and joy, intervening at critical moments to model techniques. Rather than being seen as the sole or primary sources of information, teachers help children enlist the cognitive and emotional support of their peers. Teachers also serve as the groups memory, reminding children of earlier work etc.

So gather round the art table and explore meaning making...

Hiatus 2

Sigh... the intent, the ideas.... all there but the energy and time is not.... so time to officially declare a holiday! Life is just too busy, but I'll continue once a few other projects are wrapped up.

@ko

Chasing Section B

Section B of Te Whāriki, the early childhood curriculum in Aotearoa, is written in Te Reo Māori and is designed to guide Kōhanga Reo and Māori immersion centres. I've been searching for an English translation for a while as I'm part of a team in my centre who are reviewing how well we are doing in implementing a bi-cultural ethos to all we do. We're taking a critical look at theory and practice and are delving into topics such as
Place-Based Education, Geneva Gay's Culturally Responsive Pedagogy, Peter Moss's delightfully radical work on education for survival, Māori learning dispositions as a possible framework, work by Rose Pere, are just some on the reading list...

but I really want to know what our curriculum says we should be doing...

The Ministry of Education refuses to translate Section B. "Never have and never will" was the gist of their reply to my email. Having lived under the mess that the 'Treaty of Waitangi' (sic) has created, I understand how translations can profoundly alter meanings . I'm told it's surprisingly different and part of me wonders if there is a way to gain some insight while maintaining the integrity of the document.

Is my curiosity taking me across a line I have no right to be concerned about?

The Hegemony of Niceness...

Is a phenomenon I've just discovered thanks to  Janet Gonzalez-Mena, Luis Hernandez, and Debra Sullivan, who have authored Learning from the Bumps in the Road.  They write about how niceness can be a cover for conflict-avoidance, for going along to get along, and pretending to be just fine when things are actually a bit shit.
 
"For us in ECE, it can mean that the pressure to be nice is so dominant that if anyone speaks up, speaks out without prettifying her words, especially if she confronts someone, is cruising for a bruising.  'Make nice' means 'don't rock the boat.'  Sure, some aspects of making nice are worthy, like being kind, accepting, forgiving, and upbeat.  Those other aspects, like inauthenticity and sugarcoating?  Not so much..."

The desire to affirm and nurture 'professional relationships' often trumps the deeper need for the tough love of confronting misdeeds and injustice.  Niceness frees us from facing the tough things: confrontation is a bugger.  We all know that smiling and being nurturing, selfless, and supportive help us fit in, but there is just so much bullshit in ECE... 

Crap team-leaders (consult? discuss? listen? eh?), lazy uninspiring teachers, degree-qualified adults who think their mother is around to clean up after them, jaw-dropping conservatism that leaves me wondering if they can feel empathy, personal discourses that are really fucking suspect, employers who knowingly exploit your passion for children and love telling you about how progressive they are...

So much fucking tip-toeing I feel like a ballet dancer.

Honest, constructive, productive - yet respectful - ANGER can be a good thing.

Tomorrow.

The Intentional Teacher... (with a nod to Emmi Pikler)

I've being wanting to return to the subject of the teacher-learner relationship for a while now. After a long process of critiquing the learning principles of Emmi Pikler and it's constructivist positioning of the teacher - especially in relation to the acquisition of content knowledge - I departed for the shores of Vygotsky's socio-constructivism.

I didn't abandon everything of course - I've happily gutted Pikler's principles and took the best with me: image of the child as a competent learner, respect to allow them to lead their learning, play as the vehicle for learning, as well as an understanding that it remains best practice for infant care and education - but not for older children. Yet in embracing socio-constructivism and it's more active role for the teacher with strategies such as co-construction, guided participation etc,  I felt that things had changed to the point where I was unsure of where I was at and what I was doing with my teaching... I need a framework.

I want my tamariki to learn through play and I want them to be in charge. I trust them to know what they want and that they can achieve their goals in their own time and way. Yet I realise the limitations of the free-play environment, that there is a danger of achieving no more than a reproduction of knowledge with learning limited to peers funds of knowledge. Deep, complex and sustained learning within curriculum areas such as science, mathematics, music, language and art is now recognised as not occurring in the free-play environment.

So I'm going to teach them, but in ways that are not interruptions to their learning journeys.

I come back to the idea of the intersubjective learning space where fundamental questions that arise during play/discovery create the opportunity to co-construct new knowledge.... "will the brown grass become green again?" .... "Are butterfly's boys or girls?" Real questions from my centre that gave us opportunity to hypothesise, conduct research, and formulate theories. New ideas and concepts were introduced that was way beyond the funds of knowledge 'pool' of their peers...  "children learn from more knowledgeable peers and adults" (Te Whariki).

Yet this type of teaching 'in response' leaves a lot to chance.

Intentional Teaching is a strategy explored by Anne Epstein who defines it as directed, designed interactions between children and teachers in which teachers purposefully challenge, scaffold, and extend children's skills.

Another path of inspiration comes from the philosophies of Reggio Emilia and their concept of the '100 languages with which children make meaning of the world. If we consider that creative expression is a response to living and a form of communication, then we must ask ourselves how young children come to acquire the foundation skills they require to utilise these skills.

I realise that all this sails pretty close to the wind for many teachers!

My reason for introducing a programme of intentional teaching to very young children (2yrs+) was to instill an ethos of respect and reverence towards each other and the learning environment through the introduction of specific content knowledge. I've explored content knowledge fully in an older post (link is in the side panel), but briefly, it refers to the vocabulary, concepts and skills in an area of learning.

The quote that sealed it for me: because young children are often encountering these learning spaces for the first time "they need teachers to set the foundation for later learning and success" (Epstein, 2007).

Nothing random, not a 'project', but a deliberate teaching lesson. Every day for half an hour I led the toddler cohort through and introduction to equipment and the rules that come with their usage. Hammers and saws, staplers, glue, paint, trowels and rakes, glue-guns, dye... tools that require a level of mastery before they can become tools of expression and creativity.

There are more layers going on here. The periods of intentional teaching around using new equipment also serves as an introduction to a new way of learning for the children. In the context our my centre it's a transitional process towards a more Reggio Emilia inspired framework of learning where there is a higher level of teacher engagement (using many strategies) than what these children have experienced coming from a pure Pikler-inspired infant curriculum.

Outcomes?

I'll have another 'pause in the theory' post and discuss how it all pans out once we have completed a few cycles.

Now go teach (with respect of course).


The best book to buy? The Intentional Teacher by Anne S. Epstein 2007

Parental discources that make you puke...

We have a Dad who likes to hang out at our centre a lot. He's here most days either before or after his (brief) working day. Brilliant is the correct response - involved Dads are a rare breed - but not this guy.

I'm not sure if he's primarily here for his child or the fact that there's good coffee and a bunch of cool women working here, but whatever his reason, he's really fucking with the kids.

The problem is his own hang-ups. Thanks to Dad we have boys not wanting to play with the dolls and handbags, boys who don't want to "cry like a girl", but instead want to "smash your face in" and other such sexist macho bullshit.

What can I do? I really hate difficult conversations... how can I approach him with these concerns of mine?

Everyday we teachers experience the lived worlds of our children. Their 'funds of knowledge' draws primarily from the world of their parents. They are a reproduction of Mum and/or Dads words, actions and all the underpinning values that generate them.

And there are some really fucked-up people out there.

Will four years of being with me - the pro-feminist, anti-war, anti-Hollywood, animal loving, queer supporting, politician hating punk - be enough?

Our future depends on it.

When Exploitation Masquerades as Altruism

Altruism - doing something for nothing simply because you love it.

Yesterday I was informed by my boss that people working in the education sector put in extra hours outside of their contracted hours because they love it and it's about being professional. So 'suck it up' was basically her reply to my complaint of too much paper work and not enough non-contact time.

Damn.

Recently, an Auckland ECE centre was touring Aotearoa with examples of their documentation work in the form of wall panels - and they were exquisite. In reply to a query, the teachers responsible informed us that no, they didn't get a lot of non-contact time to produce these, they did it in their own time because they were 'passionate' and 'professional' - these were the results they wanted so they simply did it.

Last year in the First Years Journal a similar ethos was being espoused by a newly graduated teacher. Donna Bergmen writes in 'Quality of Commitment' (2012, Vol 14;1) that "as a professional teacher .... it is about the willingness to go the extra mile and make sacrifices to take on extra commitment" (p. 29).

I imaging that most of us are teaching because we enjoy being with children and find the learning process/journey quite fascinating. Yet I feel that this passion to work with children, to take on a difficult and demanding job is exploited. It is exploited by our employers who pay shit wages to University graduates doing a vital job. It is exploited by our employers who demand more and more on less and less time.... assessment and planning for children is barely a blip on the radar for many teachers: self-reviews, parents news-letters, long-term investigation projects ala Reggio Emilia, presentations, repairs and maintenance, resource gathering...


In the big bad world of business and profit at any cost, we are the poor cousins of the workforce - I mean what the fuck do we really do but play in the sandpit and change nappies right? And now to top it off we have teaching colleagues cheerleading this ethos of exploitation.

Does this fit with your idea of what it means to be professional? Suck it up and work your weekends? Not mine.

Jumping ship...

The Herald recently ran an investigative report into how ECE centres 'work' the 20hrs-free childcare subsidy here in Aotearoa. Every child over the age of three is guaranteed free access to childcare, but in reality most parents pay a top-up fee as the subsidy is only about $11.50 per child-hour. Some Kindergartens will charge you $50 a week 'contribution', while some private centres will bind you to compulsory enrollment times and charge you $400 per week.

You can read all about it here: 


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10868835

Two children at my centre have recently left with a third poised to go because of this compulsory hours component. One child spends a day with his father, another is an only child, while the third has a newborn and Mum at home...

They want to spend time at home with Mum and Dad but the runaway gravy train that is ECEC can't bear to let go - it's all or nothing when it comes to the ching ching and there are plenty more kiddies on the waiting list.

The majority of the families at my centre are either in serious debt or so consumed by conspicuous consumption that they can't let go of the career ladder for their children. They have weekend children. When one Mum told me that she had decided to quit her job to spend precious time with her only son, she spoke of the battle with her husband over the loss of income and how it would primarily impact on their 'fun'. She won; I see them about all the time off to a park or the beach with friends... free fun. No longer does he cry at the centre window as Mum drives off to work.

What would happen if more families simplified life for the sake of their children? To have a parent as the primary caregiver rather than a stressed-out professional? We have high unemployment and too many centres; would it be a setback for women as far as workplace equality? Although I can't image society will collapse, it would be interesting to see the roll-on effects of a large drop in attendance.

Would I lose my job? Now there's a thought.

3/4/13 Update: Another family rebels against compulsory full-time and gives notice...

Making a habit of it...

"Early Childhood Council chairman Peter Reynolds says early childhood teaching is the second most gender-biased profession. The first is nuns."

Now I was wondering what my next challenge would be...

Te Whariki and the Big White Guy in the Sky...

In Aotearoa we don't have religious instruction in our education system by law. This came out of colonial fears that 'the troubles' between Irish Catholics and English Protestants would continue within migrant communities if one or the other was declared 'official' and made compulsory in schools. The New Zealand education system was to be free, universal, and secular. Radical stuff, widely applauded. There were hidden agendas of course: unifying a diverse country on the brink of bankruptcy, wayward poor kids causing trouble, up-skilling the work force etc, but they are not for this discussion!

Unfortunately the English settlers in Nelson quickly got around this: the 'Nelson Clause' sees many state schools officially close for a short period each day for religious (ie Christian) studies. These are not compulsory – but peer pressure usually wins hearts and souls. Calls to close this loop hole continue today. Jump forward several decades and the line between The State and religion gets blurrier when many church-owned schools are integrated into the state system and now receive full funding. Finally, things get really confusing with the Waitangi Tribunal's decision in the mid-80's that all Government departments must actively promote Maori language, heritage and customs which saw the arrival of 'spirituality.' Queue much eye-rolling by Pakeha New Zealand.

Spirituality is “one of those subjects whose meaning everyone claims to know until they have to define it” (Sheldrake, 1995).

Our curriculum, Te Whariki, does not define spirituality or how a child is 'healthy in spirit' despite it being part of the core aspiration for children. How do teachers help child develop a spiritual aspect to their lives? Individual interpretation. Again. Default discourses rear their ugly heads – again.

Which is why we have teachers singing Sunday School hymns to children and the karakia said before meals is turned into a form of Christian prayer complete with hands clasped.

The Batchelor, Hedges and Haigh (2011) study into teacher beliefs and practice around spirituality found that the teachers they interviewed had a clear understanding that there was a difference between religion and spirituality. Maybe they got lucky because it has not been like this in my experience.

Spirituality was found to have two significant features that were common throughout the world: 

• The meaning of life, their place in it, connection to other people, to the land, or to a transcendent being.

• And that it is not synonymous with religion. Historically however they have been considered to be together and the focus was religious knowledge.

So linked, but clearly separate.

The phrase that a child be 'healthy in spirit' used in Te Whariki is not found in any related literature outside of Te Whariki which is interesting – did they just make it up?

Fisher (1999) defined spiritual health as a “dynamic state of being, shown by the extent to which people live in harmony within relationships... with self, others, the environment and with something or some-One beyond the human level.”

This can be expressed as mutual respect where children can share unselfconscious and authentic expressions of self. Rofrano (2010) argues that “ the spiritual life of the infant emerges in relationship with a caring adult”. In considering that relationships are the basis of a healthy spirit, the authors found that a distinction is made between gaining the skills for healthy social/emotional learning and development and the deeper connections that spirituality entails. Brilliant. And I think we do a fantastic job at nurturing deep reciprocal relationships with the children in our care as is required by Te Whariki.

When it comes to those 'deeper connections', it is the karakia said before meals that most teachers get right in considering it as a critical ritual to take the concept of relationship to a deeper level. Tilly Reedy, one of the authors of Te Whariki, writes about the confusion around karakia and the misconception by many teachers and parents that it is about praying to either Maori Gods or the Pakeha God. Personally it wasn't until I was staying at a Marae on Parihaka (staunch opponents to the Government) where they did not allow any Christian-based karakia to be said that I realised it wasn't just about 'praying' as I knew it. Yes, karakia can be looked at as “a form of prayer or relaxation. It isn't aimed at any faith, belief or denomination, but focuses on encompassing the physical, mental, spiritual and emotional attributes within oneself. In Māori tradition, karakia plays a vital role in upholding the values and traditions of our ancestors,” (Reweti, 2004).

According to Reedy, karakia is a tool to “imprint within the mind and being of the person, the ability to focus on the purpose at hand which may be to seek help for someone, themselves, a job, or to help achieve some goal.”

So karakia is all about holistic relationships (self, others, land, past, present, and future) and perfectly fits our definition for spirituality. Yet confusion remains about its intent with responsibility for this lying in the ongoing problem of the curriculum failing to offer clear definitions and practice guidelines. Parents refuse to let it happen in their centre as it is 'Christian'. Teachers refuse to say it because it is 'pagan' etc etc...

Ongoing education? Just talk about it! There is literally nothing 'practical' out there on this topic! Bring back the PD funding!

Supporting young to children to grow up healthy in spirit. Susan Batchelor, Helen Hedges and Mavis Haigh. 2012; The First Years Journal.

Better Work Stories..

'Better Work Stories' was the basis of an extensive marketing campaign by the New Zealand Police that brags about the excitement and satisfaction you would get from beating up drunk teenagers and being a general power-obsessed fuckwit as they tend to all be.

The phrase came up the other day when I was talking with a friend about the deep pleasure we get when a 18 month-old baby sidles up to you and squeezes onto your lap for a cuddle or to read a book. Just knowing how much they trust you and feel safe, being able to put your arms around a young child, to laugh and talk with them, point out the world about and make up silly words and stories...

What a great job. I have the best work stories - and a lot of them involve poos and wees!

So to paraphrase millions of angry youth the world over: Fuck the Police. Fuck your violence, your power-over, your protection of the rich and oppression of the poor.

Cuddles not Handcuffs!

Why am I an anarchist?

Road trips are a familiar theme of our summer holidays - and road trips mean we dig out the old cassette tapes to keep things interesting as we cruise. Which is how we came to be listening to Norman Nawrocki's song 'Why Am I An Anarchist?' For a long time I have thought that he has written the most eloquent description of what fires the passion and anger of anarchist's - well for me at least. While I could endlessly spout on about the world of injustice (and I will from an ECEC perspective), I figured that I'd start the year with a bang and introduce you all to Norman. If you like what you read I'm sure an internet search will provide more...


Why am I an anarchist?
Because old age pensioners eat dog food.
Because single moms on welfare cry.
Because politicians steal our futures.
Because women can't walk the streets safely.
Because I want to breathe fresh clean air.
Because hope, freedom and dignity are never on special at walmart.
Because capitalism is a scam.

Why am I an anarchist?
Because I'm tired of supermarket rip offs.
Because truth, peace and justice are almost extinct.
Because TV and newspapers lie.
Because kids go to school hungry.
Because I feel unsafe around cops.
Because America's president leaves me no choice.
Because poetry and butterflies demand equal time.

Why am I an anarchist?
Because no one will watch the rain.
Because groundhogs and rabbits are getting murdered.
Because two headed chickens protests and no one listens.
Because twenty minutes of sunshine can now kill.
Because rent is no longer affordable.
Because we deserve better.

 Why am I an anarchist?
Because banks rob people and it's not a crime.
Because I want to banish all cars from the city.
Because they built prisons but close hospitals and schools.
Because neither the sun, the moon or the stars are for sale.
Because corporate greed destroys lakes, rivers and forests.
Because I'm not afraid to dream.
Because I refuse to remain silent.

Why am I an anarchist?
Because it's time to shut down McDonalds.
Because I have friends who can't afford to visit the dentist.
Because one homeless family is too much.
Because the state blames and attacks the poor but rewards it's friends.
Because no fat cat lying politician ever has to wait for the bus.
Because I want social revolution now (now) (now) (now)
Why am I an anarchist?



I'm an anarchist for all of those things and more. Now lets get back to the task of saving our world via education...  and direct action!

Time for break...

Well to wrap a busy year I'll leave you with a quote from journalist and author of several brilliant books, Chris Hedges...

“We’ve bought into the idea that education is about training and “success”, defined monetarily, rather than learning to think critically and to challenge. We should not forget that the true purpose of education is to make minds, not careers. A culture that does not grasp the vital interplay between morality and power, which mistakes management techniques for wisdom, which fails to understand
that the measure of a civilization is its compassion, not its speed or ability to consume, condemns itself to death.”

I'll see you lot next year. The next big project for me to take a critical look at Māori spiritualism in the ECEC context. I have no strong opinions on the topic, but being an anarchist, I do harbour a lot of mistrust towards organised religion and the ideas that we a answerable to a higher deity. Plenty of reading and thinking to do on that one anyway - should keep me out of trouble eh?

Later skaters.

A pause in the theory - keeping it real...

I want to give my learning journey from Pikler to a more socio-constructivist teaching position a more practice-based context – to move on from all this academia and get real. And that context is art...

It was a discussion about play and the role of the teacher that first made me question the wisdom of Pikler's learning principles and the needs of the older child. I was at a centre that was (and continues to be) very much inspired by Pikler. A teacher and I were in the art space, but it was empty of children and activity. My colleague commented with a sigh that 'somehow it's just all different with art'.

It may be a coincidence, but my personal pedagogical journey has been primarily shaped by art.

Teacher practice in New Zealand remains firmly under the sway of constructivism – a legacy of Kindergartens, the pedagogical vagueness of our curriculum Te Whāriki, and the widespread confusion about implementing socio-constructivist practice. Vygotsky's socio-constructivist theories gets talked about a lot at university, but in my experience new graduates often lack a clear understanding of the actual teaching processes involved. Many (and I include myself here) who are introduced to Pikler/Gerber theory in infant papers are seduced by its apparent ease and quickly fall back to the default teaching methods of older colleagues. For instance I made it through my degree thinking that 'co-construction' referred to the fact that there were two people involved in creating new knowledge – a visibly stunned lecturer explained in our final weeks how wrong we were – it refers to the social and culture influences working together...

The rise of Pikler in infant care is having wide-spread implications – both positive and negative. On the downside, constructivism is re-emerging as an acceptable position for the teaching of older children – our traditional pedagogy is being validated by ‘cutting-edge pedagogy’ and many teachers feel that they are 'off the hook'. Professional development is big business and there is a surge in Pikler/constructivist orientated teaching/learning here in Aotearoa. 

One such workshop I attended was hosted by Pennie Brownlee and focused on art and creativity (Brownlee is the author of the very popular art education book 'Magic Places'). Brownlee's message is essentially constructivist – not (I must stress) a criticism of her personally as she is very highly regarded in New Zealand as an expert on infant-toddler care and has been instrumental in the up-take of Pikler philosophy in New Zealand centres. 

Now, Brownlee made a comment during the workshop that made me question her overall message: a centre she knew had yet to 'produce any significant art'. I also knew this centre and I could see how their constructivist approach to learning and the role of the teacher leaves the art area to 'free-play' where there is no adult involvement. I had already explored this situation with the teaching team about how the art space seemed 'lost', and that while we actively helped children decipher other symbol systems like letters and numbers, we had relegated art to the sphere of free-play – a place where we considered children brought all their experiences together to be something 'bigger'. At the time I asked: how do children get the practical skills and working theories to utilise this area of expression?

I left this workshop with more questions than answers so I went looking...

Susan Wright (Children, meaning making and the arts, 2003) confirmed to me how a laissez-faire approach to teaching art remains attractive to many teachers who believe that children should be provided with an attractive array of materials, and then allowed unfettered freedom to explore and express. Such a constructivist approach to learning is echoed in Pennie Brownlee's work despite vigorous critique from social and cultural perspectives that question the reality of learning in isolation. Wright asks how is it that freedom of the individual is equated with non-interventionist practices in art, but not in such learning areas as literacy or numeracy. As teachers we are successfully weaving an image of the child as an empowered competent learner with socio-constructivist theories of learning that sees children exposed to strategies of modelling, guidance, scaffolding and even moments of intentional teaching – yet art as a curriculum area is seemingly left behind to sink or swim according to 'natural development'.

Wright describes how in art children depict themselves or others, play out events from real or imagined worlds, and symbolically express emotional and aesthetic qualities. They need time to problem-solve in relation to their depiction of objects and events – both literally and metaphorically – and that this is often achieved alongside what Vygotsky terms the 'competent other'.

Here we have a child's peers or an adult acting as guide, facilitator, protagonist, co-artist, instructor, model, master, and apprentice (Wright, 2003).

Well that was a breath of fresh air.

Then I attended a lecture by renowned art educationalist Ann Pelo from the USA. She is a socio-constructivist through and through and had no time for 'a laissez-faire approach to teaching art'

According to Pelo, art is an expression of participation in life rather than product. As teachers it’s not a particular skill we teach, but the act of participating and engaging in the world. Thus art is not planned but a response to living - responsive and reflective teaching is now possible to open an inter-subjective space for co-construction.

The idea that art is a language resonates with Reggio Emilia teachings about the '100 languages of children'. From here it is easy to see the contradictions in our teaching of other 'languages' – be they spoken, written or symbol-based. As Wright (2003) states, we are happy to act as 'guide, facilitator, protagonist, co-artist, instructor, model, master, and apprentice' in helping to build a child's 'normal' language skills, so lets do the same to ensure children have the skills to utilise the language of art as a means of expression and meaning making.

For Pelo, practice looks like this:

• Invite and build relationships with the various art mediums - this can be days or weeks... and should be ongoing.

• Skill comes through practice which is often not the end result of play, but the product of teacher directed provocations.

• Use art to explain our own actions and thoughts. Model and inspire.

• Fit the medium to the question/idea - power...... use colours to express this concept?

• Move between the mediums to advance ideas.

• Honour the courage of creating.

• Move from individual to collaborative work.

Here are some examples from my teaching journal to highlight this shift in my practice:

8/10/2012

Inspired by Ann Pelo, today I engaged in deliberately inviting children to the art space and working closely with them in building a closer relationship with the materials and build a foundational skill level from which to develop meaning making.

I have had a concern that work with the clay had stalled - it was more often than not unattended - and that perhaps the children had gone as far as they could in a free-play exploratory stage.

With the toddlers we practised squashing, rolling, and poking holes into the clay. Together we sung a song to describe our actions that engaged all the children present and helped maintain a focus for a considerably long time. When I had to leave I noticed that the play quickly disintegrated with the children dispersing to other play.

13/10/2012

Today I invited **** to come and paint with me. He agreed and we set up the water colours. We soon had company and together we explored a step-by-step process of washing our brushes, selecting a colour and painting before washing again....

This was a situation of endless repetition with very young children - some of whom got the sequence and others who would need more coaching. Pelo describes this foundational skill building as a prerequisite to using art as a language in meaning making.

21/8/2012

When one of the children had stopped working on a picture and was making to leave the table, I asked if they were happy with what they had produced. Susan Wright (2003) writes how teachers should draw attention to the product as well as the process and that children can critically evaluate their work and explore if it expresses (or not) what they want. Teachers are then in a position to work with the child in either re-working the picture or planning for another one.

I inquire about naming the piece and placing it away to dry, but am told “I don't like it”.

I make a spontaneous decision to focus on the product rather than settle for process learning.

Why don't you like it?

I just don't.

Is it the way it looks? Are the colours not right?

No.

You know we can change them by adding different colours?

The child returns to the picture and I help him add a dollop of white paint to the picture. He works this paint into the picture.

Do you like how it looks now?

Yes!

Shall we save it?

Yes!

Shall we write your name on it?

Yes!

So for me the art space is no longer 'lost' to whims of free-play and the environment as the third teacher, but a site of intentional teaching with the goal of helping children develop foundational skills with which to use the art materials to express meaning.

And I'm pretty sure that these instances of intentional teaching remain true to the core principles of Pikler: respect, trust, empowerment, relationships...

What do you think?

Teachers getting close...

-->

The teacher kisses the child goodbye at the end of her shift. Blowing kisses, maybe... but actively seeking out children to kiss them? My first reaction was almost anger, but in hindsight was probably jealousy – could I – a male teacher – safely kiss a child? Do I want to? How would such a desire sit with my professionalism? The code of ethics and adult initiated gratification?

So I pondered (and observed my kissing colleagues) and have made the decision to NOT kiss any children at my centre. Despite reading into the repositioning of love and care into our professional paradigm, as a male teacher, I think it's a bridge too far. I've also questioned the depth of my feelings – do I really feel love to the point of wanting to kiss? How I feel about my own children is vastly different from the feelings I have for the tamariki at work. It's hard to put into words, but the depth of my care for their well-being does not in my opinion move into 'love'. I know that love and care are words that have a lot of significance for early childhood teachers when they talk about their work – for many it's a central motivator for being in the profession: they love being with children.

At Carmen Dali's recent lecture here at Victoria University in Wellington she talked of re-conceptualising our ideas on love and care so they form the foundations of teaching in ECEC. She recognised the danger that our new professional discourse of teaching rather than mothering or caring for children “could end up valuing the brain over the heart, and knowledge above the care and love”. Was there a way to to rehabilitate love and care in our discourse about what we do, in a way that did not create a political bludgeon that detractors could use to diminish us with?

Welcome Lisa Goldstein. She suggests that the solution would be to develop an understanding of caring that not only positions it as a 'feeling' word but as rooted in theoretical framework which would overturn the historical 'hegemony of nice'. A way to do this would be to adopt a feminist moral theory perspective as the theoretical framework to teaching. The key principles would be the “unending obligation to meet the other as one-caring”. In other words:

• with engrossment
• with full attention
• with receptivity to the other's perspective and situation
• in a state of 'feeling-with' the cared for, not through a sense of projection but by reception, and thus being able to see and feel with the other
• with motivational displacement: i.e. By giving primacy, even if momentarily, to the goals and needs of the other

Goldstein also argues that it is possible to see the care-orientation to teaching as complimentary to Vygotsky's model of cognitive development where the zone of proximal development is a shared intellectual space created by the adult and the child. She argues that this shared interpersonal space where adult and child co-construct knowledge can be separate into two parallel dimensions: the inter-psychological dimension and the inter-relational dimension with the latter being an affective/emotional/feeling space created when an adult and child interact. She argues that eh very first thing that begins in any teacher/learner type relationship is this inter-relational aspect. Goldstein suggests that both adult and child are motivated to enter into these learning relationships by the pleasure and satisfaction they get form the interpersonal connection, and she calls this 'the pedagogical power of caring'.

I know that all learning grows from a secure emotional base – that's basic Pikler/attachment theory 101 – but does this respect and care evolve into love and from there the physical expressions of such love?

This link to Vygotsky's ZPD and the idea of intersubjective spaces excites me. It's a logical link really: we gather in learning environments because they satisfy us on so many levels. But the questions remain. Can this foundational 'love' translate into physical manifestations like kissing? Who holds the power in such as act? Is this ethical?

Personally, I'll be saving the kisses for my own kids.

References:

Dali, C. (2006). Re-visioning love and care in early childhood: Constructing the future of our profession. The First Years Nga Tau Tuatahi. NZ Journal of Infant and Toddler Education. 8(1).

Goldstein, L. (1998). More than gentle smiles and warm hugs: applying the ethic of care to early childhood education. Journal of Research in Childhood Education. 12(2)

The evil reality of money...

There are many documented reasons why men are reluctant to become early childhood educators – some of them are very real and an ongoing concern such as the culture of sexual abuse we have created and maintain. Others, like how teacher training alienates men, or that the spectre of doing 'women's work' is too challenging for ones identity, are just bullshit in my opinion.

Let me help bust some myths:

• Kids are fun to be around, the work is mentally challenging with endless variety and you will never get bored or old and grumpy. Do it.
• University is cool. It's even cooler when you are more mature and not always on the piss and failing. Lecturers are awesome people full of radical ideas – the whole place is just a buzz. The downside is organising your finances to survive. Cut debt, cut costs, get a scholarship, and a part-time job. Study extramuraly if you can for more flexibility. Hard work but totally doable.
• You can find centres and teams who trust you as a man to be around children. Refuse to work in a centre that will not allow you to touch, hug, hold, play, or change children. Break the cycle of misinformation and generalisations.
• The money is great.

What am I saying? No, the money is shit actually, and if you are the primary breadwinner then things may get a little tough. ECE can quickly lose its appeal for a teacher who has a young family with their partner at home with baby or babies....

This is what I'm experiencing. Poverty to the point where we no longer buy fruit. I'm not bitching about no holidays or meals out, this is the gradual selling of our assets to met basic needs. When things break they just go in the cupboard. The car is on TradeMe and there are holes in my jeans that are getting a bit too big to pull off as 'cool'. When my colleagues invite me out - “it's just dinner” they don't get it. They don't get it as being in relationships with partners on incomes so large it relegates theirs (and mine) to be just spending money...

What does an industry eager to attract men do in a situation like this? Do we play along with the gender division game and its inequality? Should we give men more? Or are we to wait for a shift in the status of this 'women's work' so the remuneration fairly reflects the work?

Bit shit really eh?

And now we get to the vicious dog-eat-dog consumerist cycle I know a lot of my centre whānau are trapped in. They too need two incomes to survive. Stick the kid in childcare and use ¾ of the extra wage to pay the fees which leaves you treading water, but the mortgage gets paid and the cars on the road etc. Lifestyles are expensive. What we now consider basic needs – 2 cars, holiday home, overseas travel etc – really requires you to step away from raising your children yourself to paying a service provider to do it for you.

We are that service industry. We live in a service focused economy where a large proportion of the workers are meeting the needs of the rich. We feed them, build their houses, mow their lawns, walk their dogs and look after their kids. Real wages are no longer moving forward – my annual pay adjustment for inflation did not meet inflation.

Is there a solution? My woes are directly linked to the encroachment of the private sector which is driving down wages as they suck out profit... Kidicorp, Kindercare, ABC... the cancer has reached the lymph nodes of ECEC....

Put the baby into care?

Another man down?