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.

When Exploitation Masquerades as Altruism

Altruism - doing something for nothing simply because you love it.

Yesterday I was informed by my boss that people working in the education sector put in extra hours outside of their contracted hours because they love it and it's about being professional. So 'suck it up' was basically her reply to my complaint of too much paper work and not enough non-contact time.

Damn.

Recently, an Auckland ECE centre was touring Aotearoa with examples of their documentation work in the form of wall panels - and they were exquisite. In reply to a query, the teachers responsible informed us that no, they didn't get a lot of non-contact time to produce these, they did it in their own time because they were 'passionate' and 'professional' - these were the results they wanted so they simply did it.

Last year in the First Years Journal a similar ethos was being espoused by a newly graduated teacher. Donna Bergmen writes in 'Quality of Commitment' (2012, Vol 14;1) that "as a professional teacher .... it is about the willingness to go the extra mile and make sacrifices to take on extra commitment" (p. 29).

I imaging that most of us are teaching because we enjoy being with children and find the learning process/journey quite fascinating. Yet I feel that this passion to work with children, to take on a difficult and demanding job is exploited. It is exploited by our employers who pay shit wages to University graduates doing a vital job. It is exploited by our employers who demand more and more on less and less time.... assessment and planning for children is barely a blip on the radar for many teachers: self-reviews, parents news-letters, long-term investigation projects ala Reggio Emilia, presentations, repairs and maintenance, resource gathering...


In the big bad world of business and profit at any cost, we are the poor cousins of the workforce - I mean what the fuck do we really do but play in the sandpit and change nappies right? And now to top it off we have teaching colleagues cheerleading this ethos of exploitation.

Does this fit with your idea of what it means to be professional? Suck it up and work your weekends? Not mine.

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...