I would like to take a closer look at why we should even think about looking at alternate ways of practicing with children. Why should we consider crossing that border? Is there really a danger of relying on this discourse alone based on one theory of development? If we take the time to reflect on the way we listen and respond to children, we may find some answers. We can look at the dialogue we have with children, families, colleagues and community. Do we base our relationships and listening on predetermined guidelines and outcomes that do not allow room for dialogue, that do not allow for children to reach their potential? Whose voices are being privileged and whose voices are being silenced when we give power to one set of rules and truths? Jor’dan (as cited in Hatch et Al, 2002) also points out that it is essential to ask ourselves who created these guidelines, when were they created, on what concept were they based on and who was observed in this process, the program, the teacher, the children?
When we reflect on all these questions, we can begin to deconstruct the meanings that come from a dominant discourse that drives our practice with children, and we can see the limitations that we can put on ourselves, families, and children. Foucault (1983) writes of ‘how an Other is always pushed aside, marginalized, forcibly homogenized and devalued as {Western} cognitive machinery does its work’ (as cited Dahlberg & Moss, 2005, p.78). What would happen if we did not push the ‘other aside’, if we came away from conforming to prescribed practice; would we provide ourselves, our children, our world with endless possibilities?
When we reflect on all these questions, we can begin to deconstruct the meanings that come from a dominant discourse that drives our practice with children, and we can see the limitations that we can put on ourselves, families, and children. Foucault (1983) writes of ‘how an Other is always pushed aside, marginalized, forcibly homogenized and devalued as {Western} cognitive machinery does its work’ (as cited Dahlberg & Moss, 2005, p.78). What would happen if we did not push the ‘other aside’, if we came away from conforming to prescribed practice; would we provide ourselves, our children, our world with endless possibilities?
When we follow prescribed measurements and outcomes, we are practicing with an assumption that we know children, children are universal, and there is no need include the voices of children. Levinas describes to us how we should view the other, “this is an Other whom I cannot represent and classify into a category; this is an Other whom I cannot totalize and grasp, that is, seek to understand through a framework of thought I impose on the Other” (as cited in Dahlberg & Moss, 2005, p.79). Therefore, our acceptance of the knowability of others without question or reflection, does not allow for a true relationship with the other in which differences and uncertainties are received without resistance.
The following is a video of a group of adults and children who have stepped away from conforming to the norm, who have made decisions according to their own situation, values, and through their relationships with each other.
When I watch this video, it begins to make more sense to me of how there cannot be one way of being and knowing the other. What would even make us think that this is a possibility? Why aren’t we trying to relate to others in a new way each time, rather than assuming that we already know them? The group in this video did take that leap, opening up to a new space. Together with the child and others, we can find alternate truths and ways of practicing that are limitless, exciting, responsive, offering endless possibilities.
Dahlberg, G. Moss, P. (2005). Ethics and politics in early childhood education.
Gupta, A (Speaker). (2011). Cultural Perspectives (Amita Gupta) [online video].
In the video “Cultural Perspectives” Amita Gupta from City College, New York, talks about our tendency to measure children’s learning. We gravitate toward curriculum that is tangible and quantifiable, math and sciences for instance. In this model, I envision the teacher passing on knowledge to the student. Testing the students provides accurate feedback wether the students have mastered the knowledge. Gupta mentions a less tangible curriculum, the “hidden curriculum” that nurtures a general sense of well-being and comfort. This divide between academic and nurturing curriculum is very much reflected in the field of Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE). Just look at the fairly recent shift from Early Childhood Education to Early Childhood Care and Education.
ReplyDeleteI was reminded of Ted Aoki’s essay “The Child-Centered Curriculum: Where is the Social in Pedocentrism?” He writes that “in the world of curriculum over the years we have slid about...from center to center-the teacher as center, the subject/discipline as center, the child as center” (p. 281). What resonates with me, and what I believe speaks to Amita Gupta’s thoughts around academic curriculum and the hidden curriculum, is conveyed in this quote: “Life in the classroom is not so much in the child, in the teacher, in the subject; life is lived in the spaces between and among” (p. 282) I am very curious in the possibilities that these “spaces between and among” might create for the field of education. How can we value these spaces if we can’t measure or quantify them? We find ourselves in a very competitive school system, where the individual “becomes less concerned with others in society” (p. 287). We have come to believe that competition is healthy and normal. Bu is it really? You have already started to think with Levinas and chose the video above because of how it highlights the importance of relationships with others. I believe our relationships with others and our responsibility for the other will be key in creating intangible spaces in between.
References
Aoki, T. (2005). The Child-Centered Curriculum: Where is the Social in Pedocentrism? In W. F. Pinar, & R. L. Irwin, Eds., Curriculum in a new key: The collected works of Ted Aoki. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
As I read and watched the video you included I was reminded by my inquiry on the idea of readiness, particularly as I looked into the BC Early Learning Framework (BC Ministry of Education, 2010). In this framework, there are "Areas of Learning" with "Learning Goals" and there are suggested "Questions to Consider" to (ideally) help meet such prescribe goals (BC Ministry of Education, 2010). The area of "Well-being and Belonging" came to mind as I think about your post (BC Ministry of Education, 2010). The framework helps caregivers and educators think and perhaps create conditions in order to support the child's development in this area; however, I cannot help but think how the "Learning Goals" has become a standard which caregivers and educators and significantly, young children are becoming subjected to. In the video, a child's well-being is seen as something that is happening naturally and emerging organically as caregivers and educators are working alongside children without any expectations. This is believed to foster and support the growth of the child's 'well-being'. However, the idea of 'well-being' seems to be already defined in the framework and by answering the questions and following its strategies, achievement of the learning goals seem to be the ultimate goal and perhaps, can be readily achieved.
ReplyDeleteI relate this to Fendler's (as cited in Dahlberg & Moss, 2005) idea of developmentality where "children learn to govern themselves and create themselves as subjects in relation to norms of development, flexibility, autonomy and problem solving" (p. 143) and I argue further that caregivers and educators follow suit as well. Caregivers, educators and children are made to believe that the idea of well-being is something that is individual, something of their own, but the standards in the framework contradict just that. Fendler (2001) continues to assert that "complex batteries of standardized tests and assessment portfolios, no longer limited to assessing an informational knowledge base, have been developed to measure students' and teachers' attitudes, self-discipline, personality, disposition, type and levels of motivations, and willingness to adap….Constructions of desire, fear, and pleasure have become teachable technologies of the self" (p. 123). From here I surmise that no longer are DAP or other developmental standards and norms limited to a child's cognitive development. As the framework reveals, they are are now working its way to standardizing a child's emotional and spiritual development.
References:
BC Ministry of Education. (2010). British Columbia early learning framework. Retrieved from http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/early_learning/pdfs/early_learning_framework.pdf
Dahlberg, G. & Moss, P. (2005). Ethics and politics in early childhood education. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.
Fendler, L. (2001). Educating flexible souls: The construction of subjectivity through developmentally and interaction. In K. Hultqvist and G. Dahlberg (Eds.), Governing the child in the new millennium (pp 119-142). New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer.