Jumping ship...

The Herald recently ran an investigative report into how ECE centres 'work' the 20hrs-free childcare subsidy here in Aotearoa. Every child over the age of three is guaranteed free access to childcare, but in reality most parents pay a top-up fee as the subsidy is only about $11.50 per child-hour. Some Kindergartens will charge you $50 a week 'contribution', while some private centres will bind you to compulsory enrollment times and charge you $400 per week.

You can read all about it here: 


http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10868835

Two children at my centre have recently left with a third poised to go because of this compulsory hours component. One child spends a day with his father, another is an only child, while the third has a newborn and Mum at home...

They want to spend time at home with Mum and Dad but the runaway gravy train that is ECEC can't bear to let go - it's all or nothing when it comes to the ching ching and there are plenty more kiddies on the waiting list.

The majority of the families at my centre are either in serious debt or so consumed by conspicuous consumption that they can't let go of the career ladder for their children. They have weekend children. When one Mum told me that she had decided to quit her job to spend precious time with her only son, she spoke of the battle with her husband over the loss of income and how it would primarily impact on their 'fun'. She won; I see them about all the time off to a park or the beach with friends... free fun. No longer does he cry at the centre window as Mum drives off to work.

What would happen if more families simplified life for the sake of their children? To have a parent as the primary caregiver rather than a stressed-out professional? We have high unemployment and too many centres; would it be a setback for women as far as workplace equality? Although I can't image society will collapse, it would be interesting to see the roll-on effects of a large drop in attendance.

Would I lose my job? Now there's a thought.

3/4/13 Update: Another family rebels against compulsory full-time and gives notice...

Making a habit of it...

"Early Childhood Council chairman Peter Reynolds says early childhood teaching is the second most gender-biased profession. The first is nuns."

Now I was wondering what my next challenge would be...

Te Whariki and the Big White Guy in the Sky...

In Aotearoa we don't have religious instruction in our education system by law. This came out of colonial fears that 'the troubles' between Irish Catholics and English Protestants would continue within migrant communities if one or the other was declared 'official' and made compulsory in schools. The New Zealand education system was to be free, universal, and secular. Radical stuff, widely applauded. There were hidden agendas of course: unifying a diverse country on the brink of bankruptcy, wayward poor kids causing trouble, up-skilling the work force etc, but they are not for this discussion!

Unfortunately the English settlers in Nelson quickly got around this: the 'Nelson Clause' sees many state schools officially close for a short period each day for religious (ie Christian) studies. These are not compulsory – but peer pressure usually wins hearts and souls. Calls to close this loop hole continue today. Jump forward several decades and the line between The State and religion gets blurrier when many church-owned schools are integrated into the state system and now receive full funding. Finally, things get really confusing with the Waitangi Tribunal's decision in the mid-80's that all Government departments must actively promote Maori language, heritage and customs which saw the arrival of 'spirituality.' Queue much eye-rolling by Pakeha New Zealand.

Spirituality is “one of those subjects whose meaning everyone claims to know until they have to define it” (Sheldrake, 1995).

Our curriculum, Te Whariki, does not define spirituality or how a child is 'healthy in spirit' despite it being part of the core aspiration for children. How do teachers help child develop a spiritual aspect to their lives? Individual interpretation. Again. Default discourses rear their ugly heads – again.

Which is why we have teachers singing Sunday School hymns to children and the karakia said before meals is turned into a form of Christian prayer complete with hands clasped.

The Batchelor, Hedges and Haigh (2011) study into teacher beliefs and practice around spirituality found that the teachers they interviewed had a clear understanding that there was a difference between religion and spirituality. Maybe they got lucky because it has not been like this in my experience.

Spirituality was found to have two significant features that were common throughout the world: 

• The meaning of life, their place in it, connection to other people, to the land, or to a transcendent being.

• And that it is not synonymous with religion. Historically however they have been considered to be together and the focus was religious knowledge.

So linked, but clearly separate.

The phrase that a child be 'healthy in spirit' used in Te Whariki is not found in any related literature outside of Te Whariki which is interesting – did they just make it up?

Fisher (1999) defined spiritual health as a “dynamic state of being, shown by the extent to which people live in harmony within relationships... with self, others, the environment and with something or some-One beyond the human level.”

This can be expressed as mutual respect where children can share unselfconscious and authentic expressions of self. Rofrano (2010) argues that “ the spiritual life of the infant emerges in relationship with a caring adult”. In considering that relationships are the basis of a healthy spirit, the authors found that a distinction is made between gaining the skills for healthy social/emotional learning and development and the deeper connections that spirituality entails. Brilliant. And I think we do a fantastic job at nurturing deep reciprocal relationships with the children in our care as is required by Te Whariki.

When it comes to those 'deeper connections', it is the karakia said before meals that most teachers get right in considering it as a critical ritual to take the concept of relationship to a deeper level. Tilly Reedy, one of the authors of Te Whariki, writes about the confusion around karakia and the misconception by many teachers and parents that it is about praying to either Maori Gods or the Pakeha God. Personally it wasn't until I was staying at a Marae on Parihaka (staunch opponents to the Government) where they did not allow any Christian-based karakia to be said that I realised it wasn't just about 'praying' as I knew it. Yes, karakia can be looked at as “a form of prayer or relaxation. It isn't aimed at any faith, belief or denomination, but focuses on encompassing the physical, mental, spiritual and emotional attributes within oneself. In Māori tradition, karakia plays a vital role in upholding the values and traditions of our ancestors,” (Reweti, 2004).

According to Reedy, karakia is a tool to “imprint within the mind and being of the person, the ability to focus on the purpose at hand which may be to seek help for someone, themselves, a job, or to help achieve some goal.”

So karakia is all about holistic relationships (self, others, land, past, present, and future) and perfectly fits our definition for spirituality. Yet confusion remains about its intent with responsibility for this lying in the ongoing problem of the curriculum failing to offer clear definitions and practice guidelines. Parents refuse to let it happen in their centre as it is 'Christian'. Teachers refuse to say it because it is 'pagan' etc etc...

Ongoing education? Just talk about it! There is literally nothing 'practical' out there on this topic! Bring back the PD funding!

Supporting young to children to grow up healthy in spirit. Susan Batchelor, Helen Hedges and Mavis Haigh. 2012; The First Years Journal.

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?