Guys!

It's not all bad....

Today a very official looking bloke in a shiny black suit strode into my centre clutching a very slim briefcase... trouble for sure.

He nods towards me (pushing a child at the swings) and bee-lines for one of my female co-workers. I watch her face go all scrunchy-like as he delivers the blah blah and together they head for the office.

Hahaha. I mean it's not like a man would be working here right?

Once they knew I was married with kids, it was sweet...

So this article about teacher Michael Clark came out a couple of weeks ago and it caught my eye for all its annoying discrepancies about the role of male teachers in ECEC. I mentioned it in an earlier post on this subject.

However this bit really freaked me out:

“Once teachers and parents knew he was married and had young children of his own, they became more comfortable with him as a kindergarten teacher, he said.”

I thought that this was incredibly telling of just how entrenched within society that we men are a threat to children. As a teacher it scares and saddens me.

Here is a comment by a reader of this article:

coryllus  #2   01:36 pm Jan 24 2012

“Michael Clark is perhaps too young to remember why there are no male kindy teachers - or indeed why there is a shortage of male primary teachers. What he claims is perfectly true. Kids do need male role models. Just as they need cuddles and comfort and don't get these either from males these days - even from their own fathers, because of the hysteria about sexual abuse. Having worked in this area myself, I saw more harm come from the hysteria and from false accusations than from the actual abuse itself - and that's saying something! I was never able to decide whether I felt more anger at the true abusers who cause the trouble in the first place, or the panic stricken mothers who interpreted the most normal behaviour as abuse and caused mayhem as a result. The destruction of lives was and is horrendous. I believe the hysteria is abating - but it will be a long time before men will feel safe working with children.”


From here I want to move on to an interview by Peter Reynolds of the Early Childhood Council given a week later. He talks about how early childhood teaching is one of the most gender-segregated professions in the country, with men making up less than 2 per cent of teacher numbers in the sector. In his opinion the reason for this scarcity was the paedophile hysteria of the early 1990's in New Zealand. Specifically the Peter Ellis case which saw an innocent man jailed for 7 years based solely on pre-school age children's testimonies about secret ritual chambers under the centre, with Ellis flying about and eating children. There is a link at the bottom of the side bar to a website that details the case.

Here are some comments by some of the readers of this article:

“Being a male ECE teacher myself, I find the job very sensitive especially when you have a feeling that everyone have their eyes on you for certain reasons whatsoever for example kids would always want to sit on my lap and as such I try to make it point clear to them that they need to sit on the chair just because I am worried what a potential self-hating slanderizing personality might cook up.”

“I WAS a pre school swim teacher. Never, never, never again. To all males - forget it and DON'T do it.”

“Peter Ellis .... It is obvious that we need a Royal inquiry here, it seems that this man is truly innocent. This problem we have now will not go away until this has been done and the truth is out there.... If not it will not change.... “

Now I now want to move onto a rebuttal to these concerns from Dr Sarah Farquhar of Childforum which is an early childhood research organisation based here in Aotearoa. Farquhar was also the lead author in a number of reports including A Few Good Men (1997), and Men At Work: sexism in early childhood education (2006) that have closely analysed the lack of men in ECEC. Farquhar is considered (by some) to be a leader in her field.

Farquhar says the issue of men working in childcare being associated with sex abuse was put to rest within the sector a long time ago and the Early Childhood Council’s comments are not helpful.

“The Early Childhood Council, while saying it does not agree with the idea, has nevertheless been keen to remind the public of the historically ugly 1990's argument that men in childcare are associated with sex abuse which may backfire and engender bias against the new generation of male teachers,” Dr Farquhar says.

That society has moved on from such generalisations is a familiar theme from Farquhar: at the 2010 Men in Early Childhood Summit she reported that the issue was passé within NZ society and with numbers now approaching a massive 2%, the sector is embracing men once again. What do the people say?

Comments that followed this particular article:

“The harm the Peter Ellis travesty has had on ECE is still with us. The risk is too great. Try working in an environment where one needs to ensure that every action is monitored to provide a level of safety.

“It's not hysteria from the past, it's here and now. I wouldn't go anywhere near any sort of educational establishment for a job, solely out of fear.

Now I don't fault Farquhar's optimism, we need cheerleaders for more male involvement. I do however have serious doubts about numbers increasing significantly after reading comments like those above. I also have fears for the safety of male workers if these ideas/fears remain so firmly entrenched. So what's going on at the coal face of ECE that flies in the face of such optimism? Well Alison Jones (University of Auckland) refers to 'the monster in the room' - the structurally embedded paranoia about child abuse that has transformed early childhood centres into living spectres of potential abuse. The article is online here. Jones (2003) discusses how policies and practice have enabled the “monster-spectre to come permanently into the early childhood room in New Zealand, changing the ways ECE teacher were to be understood.” We, as a sector and individually, are now defined by what we fear.

Before Ellis was even sentenced, four 'official' booklets were produced which (wrongly, we now know) identified sexual abuse as a problem in ECE centres and set in place guidelines for policy and practice to keep children safe. Teachers must be supervised, always visible and any touch must be appropriate. Today, this is what safety looks like: A1 sized posters on the wall about 'safe' touch, areas with corners closed off, half doors, glass doors, internal windows, teachers having to inform other staff of their movements, men not allowed to change children or engage in physical play, children never to be naked - whether it is being changes or running under a hose, no more secret garden spaces, no more exhilaration or pleasure in being with children... “with the rooms the way they are I would not hire a male in this centre. It's not open enough.” (quoted in Jones, 2003).

Male teachers declaring their marital status and number of children as proof of their trustworthiness.

This openness, supposedly, banishes the possibility of the spectre. Step away from the children everyone: molesters are the only people who enjoy touching and being touched by children, yet in the name of safety we can practically see into the toilets from the front door.

Things are messed up. What are they talking about this year at the men's conference? Knot tying and vehicle play.

Moving right along.

Criminal Teachers (2)

The Dominion post reports that there are 'hundreds of unfit teachers' working in our schools and ECE centres. Recoil in horror at the list of crimes – drugs, porn, violence.... over 600 hundred complaints (with 300 criminal convictions being the basis for investigation) that saw 50 teachers stripped of their licence to teach. Is this a media beat-up? Sure fucking is!

The original is here:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/6406110/Hundreds-of-unfit-teachers-in-class

and here is University of Auckland's Thomas Lumley – a professor of statistics – and his take on the data analysis:

http://www.statschat.org.nz/2012/02/13/tip-of-the-icecube/

So we have 600 complaints out of 96,000 registered teachers (this higher figure is discussed in the comments section) with gives us 1 complaint per 289 teachers a year. Is this a big deal? No. Lumley reveals how the police face complaints to 1 in 4 officers, while 'the press' – busy whipping the public into an anti-teacher frenzy, receive 1 complaint per 66. Oh the hypocritical bastards.

I ranted about this very subject in my first post. I'm sure we shall return in the not too distant future.

Plans and Schemes...

Lets keep going with gender!

Two days, two different centres that have not had a male worker before. Thirty seconds in the first, maybe a minute tops in the second one: “There's a man here” “Boys aren't allowed here” “Are you a girl?” Wow, talk about in your face. I mention the comments to a co-worker who looks surprised so I explain how as a woman she represents what is normal in the ECE environment while as a man I am 'abnormal' and thus I (we) experience the dichotomy of gender stereotypes.

I find this kind of shit fascinating :)

Another story: I was talking with a teacher about how in one day I had to face questions about whether I had a penis and attempts to touch it. She was like 'holy cow, I've never had to face such challenges that relate to sexuality or sex'. Well this is what happens to men on a daily basis. Their presence upsets/challenges what the children have learnt about adults in their world and thus they need assimilate/accommodate this 'aberration'. We are – to stray slightly into theory – new knowledge to these children.

This is big. I'd like to explore this more so will be looking out for some juicy readings on this subject. If you can recommend any then please get in touch. I also intend to gather a collection of readings that are relevant to men in early childhood – a mini library of sorts. I'll have to figure out how to best do this first :)

Could be a busy year eh? I'm still chugging away on the inner workings of co-construction so bare with me those who are following my Pikler posts – who would have thought there would be so many net searches for this knowledge? Not me, but hey I'm not complaining!

Men in early childhood education (again)

Men in ECE is once again hot in the media. A new introductory course for men in Wellington has prompted follow up stories with male teachers encouraging other men to get involved. Good stuff. Unfortunately some tired old cliche's got trotted out. I wrote about this very subject in an early post but will revisit it using Naima Browne's excellent 'Gender Equity in the Early Years' (2004) which provides a more detailed analysis of the arguments that more men are needed in ECE. Hopefully this synopsis provides you with enough knowledge to hold yr own!

Basically while we want more men involved it's because they are positive adults who have the skills/experience/knowledge/attributes to help children learn and grow. They're great teachers. It's not about their masculinity - we don't actually need more biological males in ECE, what we need is a clearer idea of masculinity and femininity, how children construct their gender identity, and how to engage in this process in a way that expresses these positions positively. Okay that's the answer – lets wind it back....

There are several arguments for seeking more men:

• Boys are failing because women don't understand them.
  • This argument of boys as victims of a feminised education system is most often utilised by government and right-wing fuckwits because it's a cover up of the need for fundamental change – curriculum, school structure etc as well as social inequality. Boys have always failed school - it's just that now there are no jobs for unqualified males, hence the 'crisis'.
• There are so many broken families that some boys do not even know a man. Male teachers can be a father figure and positive role model.
  • Yes, sadly that may be so, but how can you or I possibly assume the role of 'Father'? Such a simplistic argument is tragic in its assumptions.
• Boys need that special male energy, that raw masculinity of physical 'rough and tumble', discipline and other 'male traits'.
  • How can we reduce masculinity to a few selective traits? What if a male teacher is horrified by the thought of gun play or endless rugby? This argument to be blokes is fuelled by our collective fear of child abuse – we get more macho as a defence against any potential accusations. A telling point in one recent media interview was a male teacher saying that 'once they all knew I was married with children it was fine'. WTF? So you're not a gay pedo then? Sweet. Here we have the Peter Ellis legacy hovering like a cloud over our heads – all the fucking time. (Google: Alison Jones 'The monster in the room' and read all about it – alternatively email me for a copy. Essential reading for men.)
  • Who would identify as purely masculine or feminine? Not me. How bizarre.
• Boys and girls need to see men in nurturing and caring roles that help break traditional stereotypes. This anti-sexist argument is powerful within the ECE community and is a powerful opposing position to the 'mens-rights' hysteria. I can identify with this argument.

Just to add to the confusion a male teacher must face, is that some teachers/centres/parents expect men to be a traditional role model as well as challenge gender stereotypes. Oh and be a Father figure as well while you're at it. Busy!

A key phrase in these arguments is 'role model'. This is our door to demolishing them.

'Role models' is problematic in that we assume developing a gender identity is simply about showing/reinforcing what is 'correct' to be a boy or a girl. We teach them the rules. It takes an essentialist view of gender, that it is black and white, clearly defined, and that it is a fixed state of being. If it's as simple as teaching a child what to be – why does it often blow up in our faces? Clearly there is more to gender construction than merely accepting messages from parents, teachers, the media and wider society.

From Browne:

• children receive multiple messages that are often conflicting
• social and cultural factors play a huge part
• children make decisions about which messages they are attracted to and will use
• these decisions are not random
• it is a process of negotiation
• it is an on-going process.

This alternative view opens up a new role for teachers:

• help make explicit what decisions are being made, by whom and for what reason
• to help children understand themselves and others
• discuss what they enjoy doing, share their feelings about been a girl or a boy
• discuss different ways one can be male or female

If men and women can express positive masculine and feminine traits then it means that neither is better than the other provided they are sensitive to the needs of children and are aware of what is required to promote gender equality.

That's it. Simple. Now we can be better teachers knowing that it does not all hinge on our 'maleness'. What a relief.

Okay that's the theory. Now go to this post and read about the reality for men in centres. Survival beats gender politics...

Curriculum

I'm continuing with this topic of curriculum because it worries me. It worries me that we as teachers are rapidly losing control of curriculum. Curriculum is a jigsaw of many parts: community needs, the natural environment, children's funds of knowledge, teachers pedagogy, and the more recognised framework of the written 'official' curriculum. Things are getting out of balance: a key aspect of teacher and community autonomy has been the descriptive nature of Te Whāriki (Aotearoa's early childhood curriculum) that allows for us to create a learning environment that both reflects and meets the needs of the diverse learning communities of Aotearoa. It is meant as a guide.

Now the National Government wants to review its implementation. They say the main problem is that teachers continue to misinterpret the documents theoretical position, but really it's about the 'Learning Outcomes', that contentious section that was added by the MOE after the document was completed and trialled. The authors were not impressed. Here we have pre-determined goals, other peoples ideas of worthwhile knowledge, the schoolification of the final bastion of authentic learning.... blah.

Curriculum is a social and political construction that reflects the needs of those who hold power. In New Zealand this was/is business and other conservative groups who work quietly behind the scenes to get their members into key positions where their interests can be served. While our education system had for many decades been under the influence of liberal ideas initiated in 1939 by Prime Minister Fraser and his dream of a socialist utopia, today it is firmly in the grip of neoliberal forces – and these are increasingly international with understandably international agendas. Thus a global elite are making decisions about what will and won’t be included in the curriculum. Some subjects are considered important and others not. Art is not. This is because children are being trained to think/be a certain way so that as adults they will behave the way they consider best. Things that are in the curriculum are there for a reason; also the things that have been left out have been purposely left out. It is important to remember that the curriculum isn’t just ‘the way it is,’ someone has put it into place with outcomes in mind. It is not neutral. The school curriculum best illustrates this ideological shift with the 1991 draft strongly aligned to new-right ideology with an emphasis on education for economic growth and international competitiveness with the curriculum organised around four core areas of english, mathematics, science and technology. The final version (1993) reached a compromise by acknowledging the recent changes in society and the economy but making strong statements about equal opportunities and success for all.

Te Whāriki is of course not so prescriptive – but its language and intent is strongly neoliberal. There is speculation (by Carol Mutch; 2001) that 'the 'hands-off' approach shown during Te Whāriki's development by the Business Roundtable and other new right lobby groups came from their lack of understanding of learning and teaching in relation to young children.' Why are things changing? What is the government up to? Not much really – it's almost out of their hands.

We can split the education sector into two critical areas of control – governance and mandate. We know that the education system was established primarily to fulfil national and economic goals: unifying the country (homogenised thinkers) and building the economy (stratifying the workforce in the interests of capitalism) as a fledgling New Zealand tottered on the edge of bankruptcy. This level of control however has being superseded by globalisation and the neoliberal agenda. This is what happened:

Governance: Reforms to governance were at the heart of the reforms to education in the 1980's and their impact is obvious with the explosion of the private sector (ECE centres and schools) with almost un-fetted access to public monies. This economic ethos is continued with all schools required to operate under a business model where they compete against each other for students. The result? Inequality, white-flight, ghetto schools, stigmatised children... globalisation in action.

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 how transnational organisations leverage control over national educational systems and its demands for a homogenised standard of knowledge are disastrous for communities as diverse as ours. 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. We rolled over essentially. So while the goals of citizenship and social cohesion etc remain of national concern, what dominates the construction and direction of curriculum is the economic potential of learners. 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'. Who is winning here? How does a young Samoan from Otara find their place in such a world?

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 essentially remain illiterate. Go capitalism!

There you have it: curriculum is a tool for shaping citizens to accept and follow our masters agenda and while the control room has shifted offshore – essentially nothing has really changed. Hang on for rough ride folks.

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.