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.