Grassroots Professionalism

I would like to continue my inquiry into professionalism if you would bare with me...

Now Carmen Dalli (Victoria University, Wellington, Aotearoa) did a research project back in 2008 where she looked at professionalism from the perspectives of teachers. So while my earlier post on professionalism focused on the encroachment of corporate values, this post will look more at what we as ECE teachers should be insisting constitutes professionalism for us. This is about reclaiming professionalism.

First there's the history:

In her article, The re-emergence of a critical ecology, Dalli (2010) describes how small, independent community-based centres, or 'critical ecologies', drove the transition of a largely invisible, ad hoc collection of early childhood centres (educational and care) into a profession. Through collaboration, critical thinking, practice-based evidence and advocacy, the sector critically engaged with the notion of 'becoming' (Vossler et al, 2005 – now I hope you have read this by now). While not dismissing the value of attaining traditional hallmarks of professionalism, many commentators are expressing concerns that 'top-down' interpretations of professionalism are increasingly shaped by social, economic and political discourses that are threatening this direct expression of professionalism within the early childhood sector as defined by its constituents (Dalli, 2010; Moss, 2010; Urban, 2010).

We have established that 'professionalism' is a key neoliberal discourse as it relates to accountability, control and the notion of quality: a measurable, manageable, standardised outcome. This economic definition of professionalism can be seen in recent government policy moves that include the increased funding of the private sector, lowering the percentage of qualified teachers required in a centre, and cuts to professional development and research programmes. With education compelled to operate within a competitive business model, the early childhood sector is facing several challenges to its professional status with the principle of autonomy being central. I wrote about this crisis of autonomy in my post Professionalism and the Corporate Monster, so go and jump to that one and get up to speed before we continue.

Okay so now that we have established this need for professional autonomy as a sector, we must balance it with the pedagogical need for collaboration within our learning community – with colleagues, management, children, parents, and whānau. This need raises questions of the sector's 'perimeter' and what this means when defining professionalism. Hedges (2010) describes how “partnership with families in children's learning is a taken for granted feature of the curriculum, philosophy, policy and practice of Aotearoa/New Zealand early childhood education”. This apparent contradiction of traditional interpretations of professionalism where power is closely guarded (and entrenched), highlights the contextual complexities in reinventing 'professionalism' in the context of ECEC.

Now in countering corporate manifestations of professionalism, there are calls for a ground-up re-interpretation of professionalism that envisions the re-establishing of democratic and participatory structures and relationships, to reclaim space and ask critical questions that once again build on the radical roots of the early childhood profession. Dalli's (2008) research into contemporary teacher interpretations of professionalism revealed three “core conceptual elements in how teachers in education and care settings defined professionalism,” that can serve to guide this re-imagining. These three themes were pedagogy, professional knowledge and practice, and collaborative relationships, and are an indicator of the fundamental challenges the sector faces from top-down interpretations of professionalism.

So I'm going to pull out aspects of professionalism from Dalli's framework that are absent from standard definitions, but I would argue are integral to ECEC.

Pedagogy of Care:

The early childhood education and care sector are fundamentally linked to families and the wider community, and this close association with “the role of mothering, and the attendant discourses of love and care, have acted to disempower early childhood practitioners from claiming professional status” (Dalli, 2008). A pedagogy of care acknowledges a growing body of knowledge foundered on ethical and philosophical discourses that the early childhood environment is a place of ethical and political encounter “which should inform all aspects of life and which includes attentiveness, responsibility, competence and responsiveness” (Tronto, 1993). This space of mutuality allows for democratic dialogue, genuine listening, to welcome diversity, and project the notion of care through practice knowing that “children watch closely what we do with each other more than they listen to what we say to each other” (Swick, 2003). Dalli argues that care as a pedagogical tool needs to be acknowledged and promoted as a valid theoretical position that is an integral part of any re-conceptualisation of professionalism in the early childhood context.

Informal Knowledge:

Dalli's research indicates that “general knowledge about children and the theory of early childhood education is central to professionalism,” a statement that almost belies the complexity of knowledge in all its pedagogical nuances. If we utilise Shulman's (1986) six categories of knowledge we can focus on pedagogical content knowledge as have particular relevance to ECEC. 'Pedagogical content knowledge' is a theoretical framework that attempts to unite the subject to the act of teaching in a way that makes it comprehensible. It consists of three factors: knowledge of a subject, knowledge of a child's existing knowledge and beliefs about the subject, and knowledge of effective ways to teach this subject. In exploring the origins of pedagogical content knowledge, Shulman touches on a source that is highly relevant to the early childhood teacher and the concept of professionalism: practical wisdom. Here, a teacher's 'funds of knowledge' that reflect lived experience, values and beliefs, support and enhance the enactment of theory-based content and curriculum knowledge (Hedges, 2010; Shulman, 1986).

Lunenberg & Korthagen (2009) and Vossler et al, (2005) propose that this informal knowledge base is integral to teacher's work within a highly individualised and responsive curriculum where it is necessary to draw upon a diverse range of knowledge and skills to respond to moment-moment learning situations. In recognising the pedagogical value of informal knowledge, Urban (2008) proposes that the early childhood sector embrace a “paradigm of professionalism that turns away from the traditional and hierarchical concept of embodying an agreed body of knowledge.”

The professional reality for teachers in early child education is that knowledge reflects personal discourses and is constantly evolving in response to the social, cultural and political contexts and discourses that an ethic of encounter generates. In further support of the pedagogical position of informal knowledge, Vossler et al (2005) bring attention to the funds of knowledge a learner contributes to a learning environment that embraces the uncertainty of co-constructing new knowledge. Together, these bodies of individualised and evolving knowledge that arise from the relational basis of learning in the early childhood context, constitute powerful arguments against linking the notion of professionalism solely to an externally constructed 'regime of truth' that is defined and controlled by those who hold power. (Vossler et al, 2005; Urban, 2008)

Teachers as Researchers:

Central to Vossler et al's (2005) support for recognising the professional value of informal knowledge is the concept of 'becoming' and reflective practice. Here the teacher exists in a state of perpetual learning with the nuances of knowledge, be it informal, content, curricular, or pedagogical, all continuing to grow and develop through the process of critical reflection. Through juxtaposing “ideas, situations, or experiences against some theory or practice in an attempt to clarify and illuminate and ultimately make change” (p.22), teachers are responding to practice-based evidence in a manner that encapsulates Dalli's (2008) notion of a 'ground-up' professional knowledge.

Goodfellow & Hedges (2007) propose that “one critical way in which early childhood practitioners can be considered as professionals is for them to systematically engage in inquiry into their own practices” (p. 187). Reflective practice was also highlighted as an indicator of professionalism in Dalli's (2008) study, yet there is criticism that reflective inquiry is limiting in that the process is not open to the wider educational community where critique and debate can prevent taken for granted “beliefs and assumptions that underpin their practice” (Goodfellow & Hedges, 2007, p.192). In advocating for ongoing inquiry, the authors challenge educators to raise the standard of their inquiry and engage in practitioner research as a means for “re-imagining a whole new foundation for early childhood education” (p. 192). In differentiating practitioner research from reflective practice, Goodfellow & Hedges (2007) detail the following hallmarks: adopting a theoretical stance; a literature base; suitable methodology; incorporating ethical considerations; and sharing the process and findings with the educational community. The authors claim that this type of active engagement with theory and practice in an environment of co-construction with colleagues and external researchers contributes to deeper understanding and significant change in teacher practice.

Collaboration:

Cullen (2009) proposes that by adopting such a co-constructive philosophy in the wider context of day-to-day relationships with colleagues and parents, teachers will benefit from significant knowledge as a result of this collaboration. Dalli's (2008) study identifies collaborative relationships “within the teaching team, beyond the centre, with parents, and with management,” as a key component of a ground-up professionalism.

Establishing a team ethos that values and practices a distributed leadership framework and reflects a socio-cultural view of learning can ensure that all voices are heard. The plethora of skills and perspectives available generates multiple interpretations of learning that can support and enhance the ongoing journey of 'becoming' (Roder & Javanovic, 2008).

The principles and strands of the early childhood curriculum, Te Whāriki (Ministry of Education, 1996), provide a framework for building a strong partnership with family and whānau that encourage shared decision-making, authentic participation and engagement that allows teachers to move from having information about children to deeper contextual knowledge of children (Hedges, 2010). The benefits of collaboration are reciprocal. Swick et al (2001) report that “parents thrive on healthy relationships with other adults, children, and supportive groups” (p.66) where they gain knowledge on a wide range of child and family issues. Positive, reciprocal relationships with teachers are shown to encourage and empower parents resulting in increased involvement in their child's education which produces positive educational outcomes. Educators are a valuable source of support and resources, essentially “an ecology of hope,” through which parents and families can become an integral part of the curriculum as empowered learners.

Collaborative relationships of the types described where power is intentionally dispersed to facilitate participation with the goal of enhancing the learning and well-being of learners, is a direct challenge to Western, neo-liberal interpretations of professionalism. Where instead of attempting to subsume 'other' so they become 'same' and thus entrench their power, educators welcome and embrace diversity as professionals (Moss, 2010).

Dalli's (2008) three overarching themes of professionalism - a distinct pedagogical style, professional knowledge and practice, and collaborative relationships, both incorporate and build upon the hard-won foundations of a traditional interpretation of professionalism that includes specialist training and qualifications, policy, standards and regulations etc. Yet, I would argue, there exists crucial elements to the profession of teaching that are yet to be fully recognised as desirable professional attributes. In recognising these professional 'extras' that offer a genuine representation of the uniqueness and complexity of early childhood education, Moss (2010) challenges educators “to adopt pedagogical approaches and practices that support the purposes of education, the values of diversity and democracy, the ethics of care and encounter, and an attitude of research and experimenting” (p. 16). A stance which is echoed by Dalli's (2010) call for a 're-emergence of a critical ecology of the profession' similar to the pioneers who successfully established early childhood education as a profession.

References (formatting stuffed as usual thanx Blogger:):

Codd, J. (2008). Neoliberalism, globalisation and the deprofessionalisation of teachers. In Carpenter, V. M., Jesson, J., Roberts, P., & Stephenson, M. (Eds.). Ngā kaupapa here: Connections and contradictions in education. pp. 25- 34. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: Cengage Learning.

Cullen, J. (2009). Adults co-constructing professional knowledge. In A. Anning, J. Cullen, & M. Fleer (Eds.), Early childhood education: Society and culture (2nd ed., pp. 80-90). London: Sage.

Dalli, C. (2008). Pedagogy, knowledge and collaboration: towards a ground-up perspective on professionalism. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 16(2), 175-185.

Dalli, C. (2010). Towards the re-emergence of a critical ecology of the early childhood profession in New Zealand. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. 11(1).

Goodfellow, J., & Hedges, H. (2007). Practitioner research “centre stage”: Contexts, contributions and challenges. In L. Keesing-Styles & H. Hedges (Eds.), Theorising early childhood practice: Emerging dialogues, pp. 187-210.  Baulkham Hills, NSW: Pademelon Press.

Hedges, H. (2010). Through the kaleidoscope: Relationships and communication with parents. The First Years: Nga Tau Tuatahi/New Zealand Journal of Infant and Toddler Education, 12(1), 27-34.

Hedges, H. (2010a). Whose play, goals and interests? The interface of children’s play and teachers’ pedagogical practices. In L. Brooker & S. Edwards, (Eds.), Engaging play. Open University Press.

Lunenberg, M., & Korthagen, F. (2009). Experience, theory, and practical wisdom in teaching and teacher education. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 15(2), 225-240.

Ministry of Education (1996). Te Whāriki. He whāriki mātauranga mō ngā mokopuna o Aotearoa: Early childhood curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.

Moss, P. (2010) We cannot continue as we are: the educator in an education for survival. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. 11(1).

Roder, J. & Javanovic, S. (2008). More than “follow the leader”: Rethinking agency in early childhood leadership. In The first years: Ngā tau tuatahi. New Zealand journal of the infant and toddler education. 10(1), 2008.

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4-14.

Swick, K., Da Ros, D., & Kovach, B. (2001). Empowering parents and families through a caring inquiry approach. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29(1), 65-71.

Urban, M. (2008) Dealing with Uncertainty: challenges and possibilities for the early childhood profession. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 16(2), 135-152.

Urban, M. (2010). Rethinking professionalism in early childhood: untested feasibilities and critical ecologies. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. 11(1).

Vossler, K., Waitere-Ang, H., & Adams, P. (2005). Becoming an educator. In P. Adams, K. Vossler, & C. Scrivens (Eds.). Teacher's work in Aotearoa New Zealand. pp. 9-10, 17-28. Southbank, Vic: Thomson/Dunmore.

The art of political deception: government plans for ECEC

Elections are depressing spectacles. We get the candyfloss coated greed from one side and apathy and knee-jerk ignorance from the other. Such is 'democracy'. The resulting tragedy will be a National-led government – there really is no point dreaming otherwise. Childforum has done the homework in pining down each party's policies for the early childhood sector. The full summary is here if you need to feel good about what your fav party is proposing. However, this is what we (most likely) face from National:

• Sector advisory groups will be set up to work with the Government on:
  • Identifying and improving the practice of low-quality services
  • Developing new and improved policies for ECE for children under two years old
  • Improving the transition for children from ECE to primary school

• A national evaluation of Te Whariki will be carried out
• Develop web-based tools to help parents choose the right ECE service
• A new funding system to be developed in consultation with the sector
• 20 hours scheme will remain in place
• No decisions about Kohanga Reo will be made without consulting the Te Kohanga Reo National Trust Board.

They don't sound too bad eh? Nothing too radical for the core of National voters really and I'm sure at face-value this will please the voters. While it does mention a look at funding - which usually means budget cuts, it's almost a bit touchy-feely in a way with all this 'consultation' about to happen. I especially love the neoliberal rhetoric about 'choice' – we love our freedom of choice in Aotearoa. Hell I could almost vote for this :)

There is however more to this picture. These proposals are the product of the final report of the ECE Taskforce, entitled 'An Agenda for Amazing Children', which was released in June 2011. The Taskforce's brief was to undertake a “full review of the value gained from the government investment in early childhood education in New Zealand” (p.176). Principal concerns cited by the Minister of Education, Anne Tolley, were the rising cost of ECE, no guarantee of improved outcomes for learners in return, and the low participation rates among some groups.

The majority of the recommendations made by the Taskforce are centred around notions of quality and the implement of a new funding system to target specific groups with low participation rates. Other recommendations included the endorsement of 80% qualified staff, the removal of compliance costs, mandatory performance reports, transferring more costs onto parents, the need to provide professional development, and promote leadership from within the sector. So while some of it was just rubber-stamping what they were already doing, there were plans afoot.

The Taskforce was set up by the Minister of Education, Anne Tolley, who also framed the Terms of Reference without the knowledge or input of the wider ECE sector. There were nine members on the ECE Taskforce and despite the premise of independence all the members were selected directly by the Minister of Education. Despite the brief that members “should not represent any particular organisation or voice” (p.177), their were representatives from teacher-led centre based interests. Overall, membership of the group was biased toward people with managerial experience. Not represented were small community-based services, children’s interests, parents, home-based ECE providers, Playcentre, Nga Kohanga Reo, and Pacific Island Language Nests. Who actually wrote the report is not stated and critics raise the question about the unusual practice of seeking endorsement from 'three foreign academics' and education ministry officials (Childforum, 2011) as opposed to opening the document up for wider peer review. Understandably there were widespread concerns that the Taskforce was “a thinly veiled cost cutting exercise” (Te Tari Puna Ora o Aotearoa, 2010).

Concerns such as those raised above express the vulnerability being experienced by the ECEC sector following significant cuts to funding, policy changes, and the impression that with Government debt at a critical level, further cuts were likely: the Taskforces' primary mandate was to expand ECE services while maintaining existing funding levels. This bit is not particularly clear in the election policy brief - buried in the fine-print perhaps?

Public 'consultation' took place in the period leading up to Christmas and the January break when all the teachers were on holiday and this limitation was reflected in only 439 submissions being made of which 72% “appeared to originate from the New Zealand Educational Institute” (p.180). Significant effort is made to differentiate submissions on a standardised union form and other individuals/groups in a manner that implies a value on the concerns raised. Political bias? F'sure.

Among the many recommendations, some of which are extremely positive, the more contentious ones include a new performance measure for the sector, a view that home-based services are of low quality and in need of urgent review, ratification of recent policy changes that saw the level of qualified staff cut back to 80%. However, a proposal to change existing funding structures and extend subsidies to include two-year-olds and target groups with low participation rates while maintaining fiscal neutrality is widely condemned. These proposals shape the government's election policies for ECEC but, significantly, they fail to reveal that in extending services to include two-year-olds and those assessed as being 'at-risk', they will be shifting the money about rather than increasing the ECEC budget to cater for this expansion.

Here's what some say about this tinkering with the funding system:

Taskforce member Anne Smith, in distancing herself from a funding system linked to specific children, discusses how it is already possible for children from disadvantaged groups to attend ECE free with the current subsidies and questions the risks of introducing a new funding system whereby remaining fiscally neutral “seriously disadvantages some families, which is unjust and inequitable” (Smith, 2011).

Labour Party candidate David Clark (2011) argues that the proposed funding mechanisms will see service providers responsible for deciding just which child qualifies for which subsidy, a judgemental position which will seriously damage teacher-parent relationships. Can you imagine having to approach a parent with your check-list of poor attendance = poverty? Hmmm.

Opposition to targeted funding while maintaining fiscal neutrality is also voiced by a group of Waikato University academics who claim it “will inevitably undermine the 20 hours ECE policy that provides free or very affordable early childhood education for 3 to 5 year-old children” (2011). They express further concerns around the outcomes of targeted funding such as the setting of criteria, the pressure on teachers to assess families, those who just fail to meet criteria, and the potential 'ghettoising' of identified children and communities.

That the principle of universal access to ECE is potentially under threat with the likelihood of further costs being passed onto parents of 3-to-5 year old children that may prove to be a barrier to access, is raised by several commentators. According to the Kindergarten Association (2011), “maintaining universal funding to services will be important. We know the benefits of high quality ECE extend all the way up the income ladder and for all socio-economic groups” (p.1).

I find myself agreeing with the prognosis offered by Childforum (2011) in that the report really offers no more than propaganda to “provide ‘independent’ backing of current government policy directions” (2011). The trend towards a corporate user-pays system with neoliberal interpretations of quality in the educational context that focus on homogenised economic-orientated outcomes are, in my opinion, reflected in the report. And now they're back.

The admission by the Taskforce that,

“In New Zealand, we do not undertake any research that considers the differential effects of different types of initiatives in early childhood education. We do not collect data on outcomes in a considered or systematic way, and we do not have a strong understanding of the effects of our early childhood education system. Instead, we rely on generalisations from international literature” (p. 54).

is pretty damming really and indicates that the ECEC sector is unfortunately at the mercy of political ideology rather than evidence-based practice and that as a country we have a long way to go if we are serious about early childhood education. 

On the surface what they propose reads well: extend the services, review those struggling, and most importantly – consult with the sector, just like last time.

Wow, some people are going to have a nasty surprise eh?


Edit: The question of reviewing Te Whāriki concerns me. It concerned me at 2am for quite a while - so I'm going to look into this a bit. If you have any relevant info/thoughts then please get in touch!

Pikler, Constructivism and Content Knowledge...

In exploring the learning principles of Pikler I've found that there are several stumbling blocks with its alignment with elements of constructivist theory, principally developmentalism. One of these issues is the introduction of new knowledge to children: essentially good-old-fashioned teaching, but in a manner that respects the reality of how children learn. As I have discussed in earlier posts (Pikler Revolution; Introducing Emmi Pikler) the central tenet of Pikler is that teachers adopt a 'wants nothing' position that allows the learner freedom to learn and develop at their own pace and direction. Teachers do not interfere in this process. While this stance clearly links with developmentalism where a learner is left alone to allow natural coded development to progress through set stages, I don't believe this aspect of a rigid and linear individualism that seeks a universal 'truth' is the intent of Pikler when we consider the image of the child and the emphasis on respect, equality, and empowerment. Constructivism leads to the reproduction of the status quo. It is individual and insular. It means that dominant discourses remain dominant at the expense of other views on development, learning, and the world about us. How does a class of white kids learn about other cultures? About gay families? Poverty? About science or mathematics or Monet and Rembrandt?

If we are serious about using Pikler's ideas with older children where cultural and social interactions become the basis of learning (with play the vehicle), we need to look at how we can introduce new ideas into a learners world in a way that respects their right to initiate and direct their learning journey. Yes we listen to the child, but is there space for them to listen to us?

For this post I will first look at content knowledge. Next will be how we 'share' this knowledge.

A central tenet of my personal philosophy is an image of the child as being an active, self-initiating learner with the fullest of human rights who wants and needs to engage in play. I consider play to be a human right, a cultural right and the right way to learn. When Hedges (2010) says that while free-play has the capacity to promote deeper learning, teachers must be actively involved for this to occur, as a neophyte teacher, I swing between the sacredness of free-play and knowing that research is highlighting a lack of deep, sustained inquiry within these environments (Lillemyr, 2003). That's a bit sad eh? Hate it when things I like don't really work out :(

Anyway, researching the teaching of content knowledge has revealed just how contentious a subject this is: from its pedagogical relevance, what content knowledge teachers need, and most importantly, how to pass this knowledge onto a child at play.

Traditionally, New Zealand has favoured a free-play approach to learning, a position that drew upon Piaget's constructivist theories of a naturally occurring, individualistic process of development and learning that saw teachers adopt a 'hands-off' approach to teaching. This discourse of learning through free-play remains powerful today despite serious critique from a perspective of community, culture, and social relationships (Nuttall, 2003). Alongside this discourse is the concern that any emphasis on subject knowledge is supporting the 'schoolification' of early childhood education (Moss, 2010). Hedges & Cullen (2005) claim that “these philosophical beliefs appear to have left teachers without clear guidelines for content selection in curriculum and excused them from the responsibility to be knowledgeable about children’s interests” (p.11).

Cullen (2003) claims that the typical play-based curriculum that develops from children's interests, “while justifiable in socio-cultural terms, has also inadvertently served to de-emphasise the significance of content and skills in children's learning” (p.281). Te Whāriki is a descriptive document in that its principles and strands act to guide programme planning rather than specify content. Yet if Te Whāriki's central goal is for children “to grow up as competent and confident learners and communicators, healthy in mind, body, and spirit, secure in their sense of belonging and in the knowledge that they make a valued contribution to society”, Hedges & Cullen (2005) are right to ask that “if functioning as an adult member of society requires a body of knowledge, then what might that knowledge consist of?” One might also ask how children get this knowledge.

According to Shulman (1986) the divide between content knowledge and teacher practice has grown from a century of research about learners cognitive development, yet fails to consider where teacher explanations come from. While New Zealand's Graduating Teacher Standards are led by the statement that teachers will have 'content knowledge appropriate to the learners', there remains a powerful legacy that a “subject-based approach to curriculum is inappropriate as it is contrary to the ways children think and learn” (Hedges & Cullen, 2005, p.11) - a position reflected by research into teachers’ responses to children’s scientific questions that found scientific knowledge (70% of the replies in fact) to be inaccurate and insufficient (Hedges & Cullen, 2005).

One of the main critiques of the constructivist / developmental position is that it totally ignores the reality of living within a social and cultural context. Achievement is both individual and collective. We are not taught culture, we are culture. Yes we learn by doing, but we also learn by observing and imitating others who have greater knowledge and skills. This is the Vygotskian / Brunner idea of the Zone of Proximal Development and it can't be ignored. Constructivism must be critically analysed if we are to genuinely respect and support a child's learning journey. Maintaining a 'hands off' position is to deny the child access to new knowledge.

With access to content knowledge positioned as an integral part of learning, how can we as educators teach content in ways that align with holistic socio-cultural principles and an image of the child that sees them as competent, capable learners in control of their learning journey? How do we bridge our respect for the empowered constructivist with living in a diverse, dynamic, ever-changing social and cultural world? Perhaps it is as Hedges & Cullen (2005) suggest, that it's “not subjects per se, but how teachers assist children to construct subject knowledge that is the central pedagogical issue for early childhood education to resolve."

Stay tuned folks for part 2 and how to resolve this issue!

Choices choices...

We had an electrician in today. His daughter attended the local Montessori centre and although he kept going on about how 'hot' the teachers were there, after observing his work for a while I began to have other ideas for his decision to choose Montessori. Red wire to the red wire, two twists and a connector carefully attached and screwed tight. Next wire. Next wire. Isn't electrical work just so precise, exact, a step-by-step progression to a clearly defined goal? No wonder Montessori appeals to his inner schema.

My sister sends her girls to a Steiner Kindergarten. Despite all my head shaking and mutterings about Steiner being the educational version of L. Ron Hubbard and Scientology, she thinks it's just perfect for her darlings. It's peaceful, 'alternative' and has a beautiful environment - I can see why it appeals.

I find the choice people make in centre philosophy fascinating. Or that they don't choose - it's just the closest to home and that'll do eh? Have you noticed that when parents hunt you out, cross town through shitty traffic, or fork out a few extra dollars, they engage at a deeper level than the 'drop and runners'. They engage pedagogically, they want to know what you think and do - and why. This enthusiasm is a gift we as teachers must run with...

From Swick et al (2001): “parents thrive on healthy relationships with other adults, children, and supportive groups" where they gain knowledge on a wide range of child and family issues. Positive, reciprocal relationships with teachers are shown to encourage and empower parents that sees increased involvement in their child's education producing positive educational outcomes. Swick et al discuss how empowering parents/whānau as learners themselves is a way of enhancing this involvement, needs to be a major goal of early childhood professionals. 

In recognising that we are a valuable source of support and resources, 'an ecology of hope', where parents and families can become an integral part of the curriculum as empowered learners, I drew up a list of personal challenges to the notions of partnership and collaboration - the core of our pedagogy as ECEC teachers. In welcoming diversity, in challenging western notions of power, in surrendering professional power to embrace the wider ecology's of learning, ask yourself:

• Are we able to clearly articulate the how and why of our pedagogy and practice?
• Are we able to clearly articulate our vision of partnership and what this entails?
• How can we create authentic partnership based on mutuality in the face of such diversity?
• How can we move beyond a veneer of multiculturalism and open up the centre structures to allow for authentic participation?
• Is there genuine flexibility in our pedagogy to accept other interpretations? Is there a limit to how much change is acceptable?

Hmmm, indeed. Are we stick-in-the-muds, or are we evolving...

From the Swick article and personal experience I've drawn up the following list as possible ways to engage with parents and family:

• A strong focus on welcoming new families that includes a formal meeting, a 'parents pack' that includes a guide to the centre philosophies, and a supported, open-ended transition process.
• Parent representatives as a formal component of any communication strategies, disputes processes, and liaising with individual parents, groups, management etc.
• A policy of prioritising time to interact with parents and whānau.
• To consciously create a physical sense of welcoming: space for couches, access to kitchen etc.
• Establish a parents library of books, magazines, articles to enable self-study.
• Re-conceptualise 'routines' to become 'ritual' and involve parents – tree planting is suggested as a birthday ritual
• Establishment and ongoing promotion of parent support groups and mentors for young and/or first time parents.
• Build a skill share registry to draw in 'experts'.
• Parents and whānau displays and information board.
• Explore and develop ideas relating to critical multiculturalism and practice.
• Utilise pepeha (written family history that is displayed in the centre) as an integral part of building community.
• A weekly morning play group for younger siblings and others waiting to enroll to allow for familiarisation and build a sense of belonging.
• The active promotion of learning journals as a tool for sharing formal and informal learning.
• A centre newsletter (print and electronic) that explores pedagogy and current issues in ECE.
• Regular clothing and toy swaps.
• Ongoing process of inviting grandparents and other whānau in for story-telling.
• Ongoing critical analysis of ways to support and encourage the involvement of Fathers and other male whānau in the centre.

Many of the proposals should be established as part of an ecological view of learning and the desire to make the centre an authentic part of the learners community. They also reflect research showing that parents value daily informal interactions above structured events (Hedges & Lee, 2010). They should not be considered 'done' however, and an ongoing process of critical reflection along with wider dialogue with the community (including children) is essential.

Now, just do it. 

Swick, K., Da Ros, D., & Kovach, B. (2001). Empowering parents and families through a caring inquiry approach. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29(1), 65-71.

The Learning Position...

was revealed to me at a Kindergarten yesterday when the head teacher directed the children to the mat where they were to assume their 'learning positions' in preparation for a visitor who was to talk about safety around swimming. That got my attention.

The 'learning position' was indicated by extending the thumb and forefinger to make a 'L' shape. Legs out front, bodies straight. I tried it. Ouch. No. More yoga required.

Could you learn like this? Not me, I chose to find a more comfortable position for the discussion. I wonder where this came from? I forgot to ask about it afterwards so trolled Google - no answers there. Is it based on science and/or evidence-based practice? Is it a teaching myth?

More importantly, do children not learn when they're in other positions? To be honest it just all sounds bloody ridiculous.

I know of centre in Wellington that is letting children stand and even (OMG!) lean against the wall during group mat-times. Yes! Boys especially are sticking around. Still, despite this 'success' I still find it amazing how inactive spectatorship that relies on knowledge transmission is still chugging along out there!  Will this pedagogical dead duck ever sink?

Compulsory mat-time - fail. 
Compulsory mat-time with compulsory way to sit - epic fail!!!!!

Now yoga sounds more appealing...  I know of a centre that does QiGong each day as a way of calming the children in readiness for the ritual of mealtime...  Oh I love tangents.

Professionalism and the corporate monster

The notion of professionalism comes up time and time again in the world of early childhood education. Teachers struggled for years to gain this status, even to the extent of rejecting elements of their work that were frowned upon – such as 'caring' that harps back to 'mothers work' which we all know is the polar opposite to being a 'professional'. Anyway, a recent visit by some teachers from a corporate chain (which I won't name) sparked some reflection and inquiry...

Being able to define and create ones own place in a community, to exercise agency concerning practice, pedagogy and curriculum I would consider to be a hallmark of professionalism. At the centre I work we are carving out a pedagogical niche and the process of 'becoming' is well embraced (This concept of 'becoming' is attributed to Vossler et al, 2005 which I recommend you read). Through observation, reflection, dialogue with colleagues and community, research and professional development, the teaching team here are wholeheartedly engaged in an ongoing process of learning that befits their professional status.

In contrast to this ideal, we were visited by a group of teachers from a corporate chain. Throughout the morning their enthusiasm for the curriculum is evident, but their conversation is peppered with comments about how they would never be allowed to incorporate ideas like this, and how proposals for 'change' are reframed by their mangers in economic terms and that arguments on a pedagogical basis have little impact.

Professional autonomy is widely considered as a key hallmark of professionalism. The ongoing need for professional knowledge, for critical dialogue with colleagues and the learning community, to critically critique the contexts, paradigms, discourses, values etc, that exert influence on the teaching and learning process, all require professional autonomy (Duhn, 2010; Moss, 2010 etc – actually there's a whole swag of really interesting reading just out on professionalism).

Duhn (2010) paints a lovely picture of independent owner-operator centres created through partnerships with community and able to rapidly transform to meet community needs. Of being able to critically engage with pedagogy and curriculum, to practice teaching as 'being', a process of learning where uncertainty and risk-taking is embraced with no pressure to met pre-determined external outcomes. It was in such centres that this 'critical ecology of the profession' (Dalli, 2010) helped create Te Whāriki, our early childhood curriculum.

Neoliberal reforms experienced by New Zealand in the 1980's saw changes to both the governance and mandate of education. International discourses on education saw traditional national goals of 'public good' replaced with rigid predetermined transnational targets that primarily focus on economics and the maintenance of neoliberalism (Duhn, 2010; Codd, 2008). Codd discusses how this radical shift in the purpose and intent of education has been heralded by a managerial culture preoccupied with performativity – what is produced, observed and measured, with educators now relegated to technocrats implementing the directives of political ideology. Codd further argues that this loss of autonomy is precipitating a decline in teacher commitment to the values and principles of education.

Urban (2010) positions education historically as a political practice, a “meaningful and equal interaction (that is) deeply embedded in the sociocultural, economic and historical context of human society,” and argues that such a view is opposed to the neoliberal concept of education as a “de-contextualised technocratic practices imposed on children and educators (…) as highly effective means of control, normalisation and confinement." In the face of such fundamental change to the profession of teaching, Farquhar (2008) asks if the early childhood sector is shifting from a position of professional advocacy to being an institution “subsumed within a culture of regulatory requirements” (Dalli, 2010).

According to Moss (2010) neo-liberalism has seen the nature of relationships transform from a social and political paradigm to economic and managerial constructs where early childhood education exists in a “strange balance of free-markets and central control” (p.12). Neoliberalism positions teaching as a skill that can be separated from other aspects of centre life. Teachers set and maintain bench marks for standards; quality and professionalism become terms that lead to tangible outcomes like salary rises and promotions (Duhn, 2010).

In discussing the isolation of teachers from professional decision making Woodrow (2008 ) examines the impact of corporate dominance in the ECEC sector with “many aspects of the daily curriculum that children experience and ECEC professionals implement, 'authorised' and mediated through corporate relationships designed to maximise shareholder returns”. In-house training see professional knowledge tightly controlled and ensures loyalty to the company over the profession. Centres that are absorbed into this model lose the ability to authentically reflect and respond to their immediate community. Iris Duhn (whose rather scary investigation of corporate baby-farmers ABC is worth finding) argues that teachers in corporate centres are often isolated from decision making roles and lose control over curriculum and professional development

'Professionalism' is a key neoliberal discourse as it relates to accountability, control and the notion of quality: a measurable, manageable, standardised outcome. This economic interpretation of professionalism is mirrored in recent government policy moves that include lowering the percentage of qualified teachers in a centre, cuts to professional development, and the closing of Centres of Innovation research programme, and is further entrenched in the recent ECE Taskforce review and recommendations.

Countering this corporate definition of professionalism are calls for a ground-up interpretation of professionalism that envisions the re-establishing of democratic and participatory structures and relationships, to reclaim space and ask critical questions that once again build on the radical roots of the early childhood profession. Dalli's (2008) research into teacher perceptions of professionalism is rather dry to read, but it showed that pedagogical strategies and collaborative relationships ranked at the top of desirable attributes with the notion of best practice and managerialism, ranking the least important. Faith is restored! Dalli's call for a re-conceptualisation of what it means to be a professional that reflects the reality of teaching is echoed by others (Urban, 2010; Moss, 2010) concerned that as a result of corporate dominance, the loss of professional autonomy is rendering teachers powerless.

I consider autonomy to be a critical tenet of professionalism and its loss calls into question the status of teaching – we are not technocrats at the mercy of our masters. Dalli (2010) calls for a re-emergence of the critical ecologies that once drove the transition of the early childhood workforce into a profession. Here, as a result of collaboration, critical thinking, research and advocacy, professionalism grew out of the profession rather than it being imposed from above.

Yes, activism.

Using a Child's Home Language at your Centre...

I wrote this leaflet a while ago for a new family and it's been in regular use since so I thought that it might as well be 'out there' as succinct information is hard to come by (as I discovered at the time). Although the context is Aotearoa/New Zealand, maybe this will be of use to some readers.

The Use of Home Language at the Kindergarten

Firstly, for those families who speak a language other than English at home, good on you! But you can be forgiven for thinking that your child needs to exclusively know English to be able to successfully learn and achieve in New Zealand and that's what the education system is for. This is true, mastering the main language of a community is vital, but research also shows us that children who use their home language outside of the home will achieve more in a variety of ways.

We realise that many of you will have questions about this and it is hoped that this pamphlet will convince you of the many benefits of having your home language included in the centre.

“Why are we doing this?”

As a registered early childhood centre we are legally required to uphold the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and protect and promote the language and cultural values of Māori. This partnership between Māori and Pākehā is reflected in Te Whāriki, our curriculum for the early childhood sector. It is structured around the principles of Empowerment, Holistic Development, Family and Community, and Relationships. Te Whāriki recognises that children learn through their relationships with “people, places and things” and that they are part of a 'learning community' that includes family, the centre, and wider community. It stresses how teachers must deliberately create links between the home and the early childhood centre and incorporate the many strengths a child has, like a home language, into the curriculum.

So while our curriculum is considered a bi-cultural document, it also asks us to recognise and include all the languages of our learning community. Yes, we have to do this, but knowing how children learn and develop also makes us as teachers want to do this.

“But they will learn to speak our language at home”

Research shows that if the minority language is used only in the home with no community support it will gradually die out. This is called language shift. As the children enter schooling where they are taught only in English, the child's ability to speak the home language decreases as they increasingly use English at home. The reality of our education system is that young bilingual children will not become bilingual adults.

Children can lose their ability to talk in their mother tongue within 2-3 years of starting school. They may still understand the language, but they will use English in speaking with their family. As children grow up the language gap between parents and children can become an emotional divide and children frequently become alienated from the cultures of both home and school with predictable results.

While some minority cultures do have a large enough population in New Zealand to offer a range of natural settings to use their mother tongue, for many others, this community support does not exist and language shift occurs.

“So why is learning two or more languages so good for learning?”

Knowing two or more languages has positive effects on children's educational development. As children learn they gain a deeper understanding of language and how to use it effectively. For instance, children who know only one language see a table as 'table', but bilingual children can see that the word 'table' is just a label and that other labels are also linked to the object. Thus they have more practice in learning just how language works as they are able to compare and contrast the ways in which their two languages organise the world.

“So what benefit will using some phrases and songs at the centre have for my child?”

We want to build bridges between home and the centre - to use the experience and knowledge that children possess and are comfortable using, and bring these into the classroom.

At the core of this request is the desire to empower students: to create academic competence, personal confidence, mana, identity, dignity, to build upon their cultural integrity, their individual abilities.

A crucial factor in the development of a child's personal identity and confidence is how their home language is seen in places like school where English can be seen as the 'right' or only language to use. Children quickly notice the power that comes with speaking English and how it 'gets them places' and this impacts on their attitudes towards their home language and essentially 'who they are'.

There is a close connection between a healthy, respected cultural identity, and mental development. To reject a child's language in the school is to reject the child. When children pick up the message that the school would rather you 'leave your language and culture at the door', children also leave a major part of who they are - their identities - at the door. When they feel this rejection, they are much less likely to participate actively and confidently in classroom instruction.

“Will the other children learn words, phrases and songs from our culture or just the teachers?”

Both. The centre is an organic part of the community it serves and the different language backgrounds of our families are valued and seen as a positive asset to the centre.

The aim is to use written texts, pictures and symbols, spoken words, phrases and songs in a way that moves on from 'special' occasions to normal everyday usage. While we may have limited skills in expanding a child's home language, by recognising, validating and incorporating aspects of their home language into everyday interactions, we hope to make it a more welcoming and safer place for them to learn and grow.

“So what can we do?”

We would love to talk with you about your feelings, and experiences about using your home language here in New Zealand. We want to hear about your dreams and aspirations for your children and how we as teachers can help achieve this.

Lastly, we would like to thank you for the opportunity to enrich all of us here at the Kindergarten by sharing your home language.

References:

Baker, C. (2000). The care and education of young bilinguals. An introduction for professionals. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. (2000). Bilingual Children's Mother Tongue: Why Is It Important for Education . http://www.iteachilearn.com/cummins/mother.htm Retrieved 1-6-2010.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Jones-Diaz, C. & Harvey, N. (2007). Other words, other worlds: bilingual identities and literacy. In Makin, L. Jones-Diaz, C. & McLachlan, C. (Eds). Literacies in childhood:Changing views and challenging practice. Sydney: McLennan & Petty.