Better Work Stories..

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

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

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

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

Cuddles not Handcuffs!

Why am I an anarchist?

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

Time for break...

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

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

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

Later skaters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well that was a breath of fresh air.

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

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

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

For Pelo, practice looks like this:

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

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

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

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

• Move between the mediums to advance ideas.

• Honour the courage of creating.

• Move from individual to collaborative work.

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

8/10/2012

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

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

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

13/10/2012

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

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

21/8/2012

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

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

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

Why don't you like it?

I just don't.

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

No.

You know we can change them by adding different colours?

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

Do you like how it looks now?

Yes!

Shall we save it?

Yes!

Shall we write your name on it?

Yes!

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

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

What do you think?

Teachers getting close...

-->

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References:

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

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

The evil reality of money...

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

Let me help bust some myths:

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

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

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

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

Bit shit really eh?

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

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

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

Put the baby into care?

Another man down?

Education is the lighting of a fire...

In bed sick and I'm reading Joel Bakan's Childhood Under Siege where he sums up the rationale behind the New Zealand National Governments eduction reforms:

"Education is bigger than defense."

Yep it's a goldmine. Public money generating private profit. And that's why, despite shitloads of international evidence that shows that applying a neoliberal business model to education spectacularly fails students and society, we are facing a massive shift in how we view and deliver education here in Aotearoa.

John Key and his cohort of ideological fools just keep on pushing despite this evidence because big business owns them, controls them, and doesn't really give a fuck what you or the experts think.

So a big welcome to public-private schools to be set up in poor areas by corporations. Hello to standardised testing regimes that narrow the focus of education to suit the needs of capitalism (and yeah, fuck art). A round of applause for teacher performance pay, fast-track teacher training (now anyone with a degree can teach in matter of weeks), increased classroom sizes, and media witch-hunts that paint teachers as the problem.

We can safely call this a clusterfuck with immense consequences. Of course we all know what the real problems are. As (the very much aligned) Ivan Snook has shown, educational achievement is directly linked to ones socio-economic status. Poor people fail a school system designed to stratifying workers - it reproduces class, it entrenches poverty - they are meant to fail as capitalism requires a desperate underclass happy to sell their labour for minimum wage. But inequality in New Zealand has blown out of control. There are a lot of hungry kids in our schools and they're not learning anything.

In early childhood changes are also happening. Deregulation in the 90's saw the private sector explode to the point where we now have too many centres in wealthy areas, not enough in poorer communities, massive fee increases to counter government cuts, and no jobs.

To top off all this uncertainty in the sector the Government has announced that ECE will be compulsory for the children of beneficiaries.

Hmm, my centre charges $400 per week and there are no vacancies. So these kids will be going where? New corporate centres with guaranteed income of course! And we love ABC, Kidicorp, Kindercare etc with their minimum standards and homogenised environments.

Education is about lighting a fire, it's about the re-birthing of democracy, critical thinking and action. Now's the time folks. They can only do this if we let them.