Etu! Stand up!

Here in Aotearoa we are required by law to incorporate Te Ao Māori into our practice as teachers: spoken and written language, music, and cultural practices that influence everything from eating to gardening. This is our legal, ethical and pedagogical response to Te Tiriti O Waitangi, the 1840 treaty that (supposedly) framed out a bicultural partnership between the tangata whenua and the colonising British. The treaty was finally enshrined into law and government practice in the 1980's and incorporated into Te Whāriki, the curriculum document for the ECEC sector. Internationally, Te Whāriki is highly regarded for its weaving of two cultures on many levels that includes pedagogically.

You would think that the joining of cultural beliefs at a theoretical level would mean that we have moved beyond the tokenism that we experience through typical multicultural practice with its food and festival days. Not really. Let's push it a bit further, a bit harder. What's beyond a multicultural approach to education? Critical Multiculturalism of course.

Here's a quick breakdown:

Multiculturalism has tied itself to a static, essentialist idea of culture that responds primarily to an individual's ethnicity while ignoring the reality of multiple identities that are fluid, encompass multiple social categories that are being continually reconstructed: schools/centre are sites of cultural identity construction – it's complex. This focus on culture alone makes multiculturalism 'easy', its seen a quick-fix 'lets all get along' solution to issues of 'cultural misunderstandings' that ignores the wider context of unequal power relationships that underpin inequality.

Despite the faults it's a good idea. Sadly it seems to be quickly going out of vogue due to the rise of the one-size-fits-all standardised curriculum, the fear of difference in the age of 'terrorism' (like white men never kill...) and the entrenchment of neo-liberalism in education and the associated limitations of access and opportunity for marginalised groups.

Critical multiculturalism, rather than prioritising culture, puts the spotlight on the analysis of unequal power relationships and requires an understanding of how power is used and institutionalised.

It asks us as educators to identify the material, political, and ideological underpinnings of inequality, listen to communities that experience oppression directly and explore how forms of inequality have been challenged in the past. It means bringing diversity into the core of the centre so it (the centre) matches the cultures of the community: reciprocal, collaborative, co-operative non-hierarchical relationships with families.

Is this were we are at in Aotearoa? No. Māori culture struggles to make it past tokenism, an add-on to the dominant discourses of western modes of thinking/doing.

Where am I going with this? Well I've noticed that our use of te reo Māori has become one of giving commands. We have learned the basics of the language – object names and simple one or two word commands like sit, stand, come here, wash your hands etc. We talk to the children in English, but we tell them what to do in Māori. And we tell them in a loud 'crowd control' type manner as we rush them through routines. What is this doing for the status of the Māori language in the minds of our children? That we have a good cop // bad cop thing going on? That Māori remains the deficit language with English used for 'real' conversations?

I'm going to drop the commands and focus on praise. Tino pai!

Government Plans for our Beloved Te Whāriki

As part of it's agenda of reform, the National Government is placing a lot of value on the recommendations of 2011's ECE Task Force An Agenda for Amazing Children. See my earlier post here for a wider discussion on the report. Most merely rubber-stamped existing policy moves, but a couple indicated future challenges for a sector already shell-shocked from attacks that were ideological rather than based of positive educational outcomes. The curriculum document Te Whāriki is one such area.

Essay six of the report deals specifically with this area. All quotes are from this essay.

Now I would say that Te Whāriki is considered a model of best practice, nationally and internationally. That is exactly what the Taskforce authors state – but they continue with:

"but could benefit from a comprehensive review of its implementation."

The obvious question is why? Let's go exploring shall we?

Again from the Taskforce:

"Research shows curricula that address motivational aspects of learning, focused on learning dispositions rather than static skills or competencies, are associated with better performance in later schooling than those that are overtly ‘academically’ oriented or standards-base. Examples of learning dispositions are to communicate, to be curious, and to persist with learning despite difficulties. Non-cognitive skills such as these have been shown to have a direct effect on future earnings and educational success. (Te Whāriki's) approach to learning, and the principles, goals and strands it contains, align well with recent research and evidence. We therefore do not believe that the content of Te Whāriki requires review."

Yes they like the document. But that's hardly surprising. While many champion the document's 'liberalism', Iris Duhn (2006) argues that Te Whāriki is in fact a tool of neoliberalism with its portrayal of an 'ideal child':

"Learning is defined as the ability to continually seek opportunities for problem solving, which involves lateral thinking, a sense of self in relation to a variety of others, and the willingness to search for solutions from different angles" (Duhn, 2006).

Ahh, the undefined ever-changing future that leaves children with low expectations of achieving anything tangible in the here and now and just waiting for life to begin...
 

To be fair, Te Whāriki and the 'ideal child' was informed by the perspectives of adults who themselves were immersed in neo-liberal rhetoric of the time so it's no surprise that the language of Te Whāriki resonates with the language of neo-liberalism and contemporary discourses around education. Such rhetoric stresses independence, choice, process over product, rooted in local communities but global in aspiration. Learners invest in their education to be part of the knowledge wave – the door is open to all, but success depends on cultural and social capital to compete. Unlike the conservative // neoliberal battle that shaped the curricula of the compulsory sector which left us with mixed messages, Te Whāriki can almost be considered pure in its aspirations. Hence:

"We have found nothing to detract from the widely-held national and international view that Te Whāriki is a profoundly important document that is fit for purpose and meets our society’s needs as well as the needs of a diverse early childhood education sector. We do, however, believe that its implementation, which began in 1996, should be reviewed in order for strengths and weaknesses to be identified and learned from."

Implementation has long been the thorn in the side. It was like an own-goal. The document was designed to be descriptive, educators would weave their own curriculum based on its guidelines that best suited their local community - arguably an essential stance for a country as diverse as ours. This ability for interpreting and constructing curriculum is a powerful tool for educators, but is a double-edged sword as it places the onus on personal discourses held by educators (Nuttall, 2003; Duhn, 2006). Traditionally, New Zealand has favoured a free-play approach to learning, a position that drew upon Piaget's constructivist theories of a naturally occurring, lineal process of development which assumes children have the perquisite skills and abilities to make choices. This discourse of learning through free-play remains powerful today (as you well know Pikler is increasingly popular in infant care) and sees teachers adopting a hands-off role (Nuttall, 2003).

Play? Ha, this is not acceptable in a 'homogenised' world that demands literacy and numeracy standards regardless of individual context! Yet they also discuss the failings of standardised testing - are we once more witnessing a clash of ideology and educational research?

Despite the in-built faults of the document, support from the sector is unanimous as the Taskforce reports:

"The majority of submissions, including academic submissions, supported Te Whāriki in its entirety and the New Zealand Educational Institute (NZEI) highlighted a 2010 sector-wide forum in which attendees showed unanimous support for it. Many submissions appreciated the model for its innovative, bicultural, holistic and contextual nature and the broad support it enjoys. However, one submission, also from an academic, was critical of Te Whāriki, saying it contained little in the way of activity planning guidelines and lacked performance measures, including assessment of learning outcomes."

Has one right-wing academic provided 'official' support and thus justification? Politicians and their fucking mandates eh? will we see more emphasis on 'activities with measurable outcomes'? The antithesis of play and natural learning...

The Taskforce:

"The successful implementation of Te Whāriki requires that teachers are well qualified so that they can understand and implement a socioculturally-based curriculum and have good subject knowledge in a range of domains. Tertiary education for early childhood education teachers is therefore essential."

Yet they have reduced the minimum number of qualified staff required in a centre and cut funding for professional development. University funding cuts are seeing degree qualifications cut in favour of one-year post-grad courses. With the foundations cuts out they resort to using the stick: monitoring outcomes.

So while some aspects of the Taskforce's recommendations are positive - resources in languages other than English; working with children with special educational needs; assessment practices; self-review; creating and supporting aspirations for Māori children etc; the focus is on “a need for a monitoring framework to be developed to capture the extent to which the outcomes of Te Whāriki are being achieved: at a sector level, a service type level, a service level and at a child level.”

It will be interesting if the 'measurable outcomes' get linked to funding.

However, after all this hand-wringing there is a qualifier that worries me:

“The Taskforce attempted to consider how well Te Whāriki was working to:

• support children’s well-being, learning and development now and in the future
• provide support for families in their primary role in caring and educating their children
• promote the assessment of learning
• promote learning in centres and at home
• encourage an effective transition to school
• align with the National Curriculum for schools.
  

This assessment has been difficult because of the lack of evaluative information.”

So really the whole report is a load of hot fucking air driven by ideology.

Neoliberalism's Attack on Education:

I rant and rave about how education has become a battleground of ideology that pits educational research against neoliberalism's drive for a homogenised education system that benefits only the global elites.


Peter O'Connor from University of Auckland (smart man - I attended a lecture of his a while back) thinks so too. Go read this succinct account now:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/6134611/Good-public-education-is-at-risk

Get your argument sorted and get busy debunking this government's plans to further corporatise education.

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!

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.

Bloody politicians...

I really hate responding to their crap, but I guess their crap is slightly easier to deal with as they are - technically anyway - mere representatives of the people (cough cough) and thus bound by notions of social justice, democracy and citizenship.

Imagine education if it were solely run by the corporate sector? No way. Yes I know that they've tried to engineer this to be a reality, but surely the privatisation/globalisation tsunami has only affected parts of the education system?

Wrong!

Governance: Reforms to governance were at the heart of the neoliberal reforms to education in the 1980's and their impact is obvious with the private sector (ECE centres and schools) now receiving public monies and all schools required to operate under a business model where they compete against each other.

On a more subtle level we have the OECD seeking to make educational systems in different countries the same through the PISA assessment which is a standardised test on competencies. This test has led to the reconstruction of education systems in some countries and replaces national aims with rigid predetermined transnational targets that primarily focus on economics and the maintenance of neoliberalism. This is the most potent example of transnational organisations leveraging control over national educational systems. National Standards anyone?

 

Mandate, or what education wants to achieve, is another area where the state has ceded power to transnational organisations in order to better achieve national goals. Our economic focus is now global, while the goals of citizenship and social cohesion etc remain of national concern. This has seen the emergence of parallel discourses: NZ Curriculum Framework is an example where a strong national focus through culture sits alongside the rhetoric of neoliberalism with its focus on the 'global knowledge economy'.

How is this happening? Through the global dominance of the 'economic growth model' of education where quality of life is weirdly linked to a nations economic wealth. Such an education system only needs to produce workers with basic skills in literacy and numeracy with some people to have more advanced skills in computer science and technology. Equal access is not important: a nation can grow economically while the poor remain illiterate and without basic computer skills.

Doesn't that sound fucking awful? Check out the 'Human Development Model' for education where critical thinking, diversity, empathy, imagination and the arts are still thankfully valued!

Capacity? Well despite the criticisms, schools are deeply embedded in social structures and change will be slow - and our responsibility!

So while evil globalisation does not carry all before it, the dominant mandate is to ensure that education contributes to the country's ability to participate the GKE.

So why the rant?

Well the New Zealand government has once again thrown early childhood education up in the air with another 'working group' make some strong recommendations....

• let the market dictate teacher salaries - wealthy communities can afford quality teaching at the expense of poorer communities.
• refocus equal funding schemes to targeted 'at-risk' groups rather than ensuring universal access.
• allow centres to prioritise this funding, thus creating another decile ranking system with the ensuring 'white flight' .
• the removal of fee controls.
• an acceptance that 80% qualified teachers is good enough.

And so the corporatisation of education inches that much further. They drive me insane. We so need a revolution.

Nightmares...

It came in the middle of the night...

It was a block in some research slash thinking that has been inspired by my plunge into social science. Poverty, we have it because our system requires inequality to operate. Children are set up to fail at school - they leave with a similar social position as their parents and no manner of whips and carrots really changes this predetermined reality.

So capitalism fails children in its need for hierarchy and exploitation to generate profit. Yet as an early childhood educator I'm guided by Te Whāriki which holds aspirations for all children to succeed like nothing else matters...

but then they go to school and their wings are clipped: sit still, listen, passivity, docility, obedience, where the social and cultural capital of middle-class pākehā are the keys to the magic bus...

Te Whāriki is recognised as a tool of neoliberalism and promotes the high aspirations of this ideology, yet there is tension with traditional capitalism which seeks hierarchy within a social structure like New Zealand.

The thing is we're now global. We follow the knowledge economy where we are positioned as thinkers and not doers. The hierarchy is now global with working-class poor not in Porirua or Otara, but in Asia. Tension within the systems of capitalism.

Of course.

What the hell are we to do?