Reconceptualizing Quality in Early Childhood Education, Care and Development: Understanding the Child and Community 3030690121, 9783030690120

Citation preview

Reconceptualizing Quality in Early Childhood Education, Care and Development Understanding the Child and Community Edited by Zoyah Kinkead-Clark · Kerry-Ann Escayg

Reconceptualizing Quality in Early Childhood Education, Care and Development

Zoyah Kinkead-Clark  •  Kerry-Ann Escayg Editors

Reconceptualizing Quality in Early Childhood Education, Care and Development Understanding the Child and Community

Editors Zoyah Kinkead-Clark Early Childhood Education The University of the West Indies, Mona Kingston, Jamaica

Kerry-Ann Escayg Early Childhood Education University of Nebraska-Omaha Omaha, NE, USA

ISBN 978-3-030-69012-0    ISBN 978-3-030-69013-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69013-7 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021, corrected publication 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

The formative years of a young child’s life are a critical period for optimal development. Scholars agree that parents, the broader society, as well as the schooling context, contribute substantially to such a process. Indeed, education scholars, and in particular, those invested in transformative education, recognize the power of the classroom space, of the knowledge co-constructed in that space, and the identities of students who embody and interact with multiple histories, lived experiences, and social-cultural realities. Indeed, what we often share in common is a guiding belief that shapes our professional and perhaps even personal trajectories: teaching and learning serve as conduits for thinking critically about the racialized order of society—and the iniquities therein. Therefore, we challenge, critique, and deconstruct with the intent to lay bare the power imbalances that privilege certain knowledges and bodies. In the early childhood field, reconceptualist scholarship functions as a discursive space in which such symbiotic relationships occur, although the field is ever evolving. For instance, an increasing attention to social justice has further sharpened how we theorize reconceptualist philosophies and practices (e.g., Kessler & Swadener, 2020; Nicholson & Wisneski, 2019). Therefore, we continue to ask more nuanced questions—questions that force us to fracture the layers of theories and practice, of scholarship and activism. In doing so, we examine, and with much precision, a rich body of accumulated knowledge: the rhetoric v

vi Preface

inhered with creative imagination and pursuits of justice—to determine whose voices are still yet to be heard? Who has yet to reconceptualize early childhood education—and from what vantage point(s)? Indeed, as reconceptualist scholars from across the globe join the conversations, local particularities, and the implications these hold for enriching the reconceptualist work, emerge. Reconceptualist scholarship reflects many voices—many stories. Yet, a particular starting point, most notably, the reconceptualist movement of the 1990s identified central areas of critical inquiry, and these continue to inform much of the reconceptualist literature. From the initial years of its inception, reconceptualist scholarship problematized the overarching influence of normalized “truths,” such as the concept of universal child development and its application to early childhood curriculum, teaching, and research (Bloch, Swadener, & Cannella, 2014). Conceptually grounded in critical theory, past and present reconceptualist efforts interrogate the dominant-subordinate power relationships informing knowledge construction and also how such processes undergird the educational inequities experienced by racialized and marginalized groups (Bloch, 2014; Yelland & Bentley, 2018). Indeed, questioning the purpose and content of early childhood curriculum remains a significant theme of reconceptualist work. Scholars have expanded on these central themes by positioning social justice as a foundational area of inquiry, one which has produced ongoing debates concerning the centrality of developmentally appropriate practice (DAP), children’s performances of racial discourse (Holmes, Garcia, & Keys Adair, 2018), curricula, and the need for teacher education reform (Schoorman, 2011; Souto-Manning, Buffalo, & Rabadi-Rao, 2020). While equity and a desire to “dream” (Lubeck, 1991) guide reconceptualist scholarship, it appears that over the years, a heightened awareness of the ongoing rigid racial and class demarcations affecting the daily lives of young children and families has permeated the reconceptualist discourse, such that the extant literature suggests not only new interpretations of current inequities but also creative solutions. Taking into account the hostility and violence characterizing social and educational injustice, articulating a subversive agenda requires including cultural knowledges of diverse groups, as well as interrogating

 Preface 

vii

the overt and covert ways in which curriculum, conceptions of family partnerships, and pedagogies reflect dominant interests and culture. It is within such advances we locate the present work. Our objective is twofold: to deconstruct and to reconstruct; we reconstruct, however, with novel ideas alongside the perspectives of those who have not been traditionally incorporated in the canon of reconceptualist literature.

Significance and Contribution of the Book Our conceptions of children determine how we teach and what we teach. For instance, assumptions of children as detached from the issues prevalent in their communities, their schools, and the lives of their families align with hegemonic approaches to schooling. As a result, critical consciousness is often supplanted by practices that delimit possibilities for awakening and celebrating children’s innate and acute sense of justice; this further sanctions somewhat of a blind acquiescence to the status quo. Reconceptualists who anchor their work in both critique and social justice, however, view children differently. As Ayers (2020) so poignantly noted, “ a child is a whole human being with full human rights…with hearts and minds and bodies and experiences that somehow must be taken into account” (p. 181). Viewing children in such a holistic manner reaffirms their humanity and their dignity while demonstrating respect for who they are: the sum total of their individual and collective experiences. It is from such an awareness that authentic activism can arise, for the child, and an understanding of his/ her community (e.g., and how such community is often affected by racial injustice), are placed at the centre of the discussion. In the process of rupturing the margins of silence and exclusion, therefore, we resist and we re-create. As part of this iterative yet imaginative process, we have conceptualized community in relation to the more micro components of the classroom space, such as teaching practices and curriculum, as well as teacher education, and the society in which young children are raised. In broadening the parameters of what is considered community, we gesture towards an intersecting analysis of children’s lives, one which considers

viii Preface

carefully how curriculum, as a cultural product, positions them for success through culturally relevant modes of learning and teaching. The child and the community is a holistic narrative: one interacts with and shapes the other. Reconceptualizing the social, emotional, and cognitive interactions between the child and the community prompts us to reconsider the prevailing assumptions of quality—and the social values that underpin them. Apart from new conversations about children and their community, broadly defined, this text responds to the ongoing critical discussions surrounding quality in early childhood education. In the U.S. context, for example, the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) (n.d.), arguably the most significant early childhood organization that exerts a profound influence on early childhood policies and practices, conceptualizes quality as pertaining to the following standards: relationships, curriculum, teaching, assessment of child progress, health, staff competencies, preparation, and support, families, community relationships, physical environment, and leadership and management. While each of these standards represents an important domain of teaching and learning, it is important to bear in mind that the overarching framework has been, and continues to be, developmentally appropriate practice. Reconceptualist scholars, however, highlight how such framework represents racialized power relations, which further normalize and elevate dominant White identities (Abawi & Berman, 2019). As Lubeck (1998) rightfully asserted, “Is DAP for everyone?” Given its positivist orientation, it is only fitting that DAP assumes universality. Although in recent iterations DAP has incorporated tenets of social constructivist theory (Lubeck, 1998, p.  286), a reconceptualist approach is to consider the worldviews and experiences of the marginalized, including those brought on by racial discrimination, dehumanization, and oppression. In short, reconceptualist literature does not defer to developmental theories as the superior and only lens of viewing children and childhood. Examining NAEYC’s standards of quality alongside the body of reconceptualist work offers a rich imaginative space to probe deeply how quality practice is defined and enacted in early childhood spaces across the globe—not only in the U.S. As we write this introduction, anti-­Blackness, that is, the devaluation and dehumanization of Black lives, pervades

 Preface 

ix

schools, cities, communities, and other social institutions across the U.S., Canada, and, indeed, the Western world. We cannot ignore the real presence of fear, death (including social death), and violence that Black adults—and children—encounter in their daily lives. Thus, in reconceptualizing quality, we are also seeking to rupture schooling approaches that are complicit in denying the realities of anti-Blackness and the psychological and material effects of racism. Indeed, at the heart of the reconceptualizing quality discourse is the fundamental question: Whose definition of quality? For what purposes? Who is advantaged and/or disadvantaged by these definitions? What are other practices of quality that are silenced by dominant epistemologies? In light of such a critique and with an aim towards critical understandings, we first interrogate the term “others.” In doing so, we reconceptualize views of children and include the perspectives and practices of those situated in  non-European contexts, such as  the English-speaking Caribbean. The various authors challenge  existing notions of quality, while others draw upon similar NAEYC standards, but they do so from their own cultural/theoretical orientations. And such is a central goal of the text: to move beyond binary models, often imposed by dominant cultures, to embracing inclusive definitions and practices. Thus, an essential tenet that binds the various chapters is that of quality as both conceptual and operational tools of pedagogical and cultural resistance. Quality, as the various authors illustrate, is not tethered to a monolithic cultural construct, bearing no relevance or transformative power for their respective ecological context. Rather, quality is multilayered, conceived from a standpoint of critical inquiry: a vision for educational practices that centre the child as a social agent and a learning environment that fosters holistic well-being.

Overview of Book This book is organized in four overarching sections that largely respond to four key questions:

x Preface

1. How does reconceptualizing quality challenge perceptions of young children? 2. How can the reconceptualization of interpretations of quality inform teachers’ pedagogical practices? 3. In what ways is the curriculum informed by perceptions of quality? 4. How can play-based learning be reconceptualized in early childhood programmes? In Part I entitled, “Reconceptualizing Quality: Perceptions of the Child,” the authors draw our attention to the changing views of children through a reconceptualized understanding of early childhood development. In chapter “The Child as ‘Other’: The Duality of the Other and the Pedagogy of Care,” Wasmuth and Nitecki discuss the philosophical and ethical implications of “othering” young children. This chapter is followed by Portelli and Shalimo who explore the relationship among teachers’ awareness of critical discourses and pedagogical approaches that recognize the child as a social agent. We believe the exploration of how children are perceived provides a robust basis for Part II which offers an analysis of the reconceptualization of pedagogical practices in classrooms. Three chapters are included in this part; in chapter “Questioning Quality in Early Childhood Teacher Education Through the Lens of Culture,” authored by Kim-Bossard and Eberly, deep insight is provided in relation to how early childhood teacher candidates reflect on the roles of culture in a teacher education programme in the Northeastern United States. In chapter “Indigenous Children’s ‘Ways of Knowing’: Exploring Literacy Learning for Indigenous Preschool Children in Remote Communities in Australia,” Spencer and Rouse present a critical analysis of the interconnections between these well-promulgated models of ECE, broader ECEC pedagogies, and Yunkaporta’s 8 Ways, to understand effective approaches to teaching and learning that encourage Indigenous children’s cultural identity whilst becoming literate in today’s global society. Chapter “Rethinking an Early Care and Education Program: Responding to Linguistic Diversity” by Meléndez and Syc situates the history and current practices of an early care and education programme in a large urban centre in the context of literature challenging hegemonic

 Preface 

xi

conceptualizations of early education quality grounded in restrictive understandings of child development. Part III of the text focuses on reconceptualizing the curriculum used in early learning spaces as well as teacher education programmes. Four authors contributed to this section. Chapter “Every Learner Succeeds: Reconceptualising Quality in Early Childhood in the Organisation of the Eastern Caribbean States,” authored by Burns, discusses notions of quality in the Eastern Caribbean states. She addresses how the background of the communities that served as incubators for some established assumptions of “quality” is the basis for some of the current policies, curricula, and practices that thrive in that region. In chapter “Knowing Differently/Teaching Differently: Transforming a Teacher Education Program,” Calderon-Berumen, Tanner, Mong Cramer and Shear depict how teaching practices and approaches to challenge and disrupt traditional perspectives to education can be done in a teacher education programme. Chapter “Using Social and Emotional Instructional Activities to Indigenise Early Childhood Education in a Post-Colonial Society,” by Edwards-Kerr and Spencer-Ernandez, discusses how children’s socio-­ emotional well-being shapes their identity. They then draw on Nettleford’s notion of “indigenization” as the central idea of understanding Jamaica’s early childhood curriculum. Finally, in chapter “Building on Funds of Knowledge: A Basis for Reconceptualising Early Childhood Care and Education in the Caribbean” by Kinkead-Clark, a historical overview of the development of educational offerings in the Caribbean is provided with a focus on how colonization has shaped early education in that region. This chapter speaks of the need to decolonize education in order to reconceptualize it. In Part IV, the final part of the book, which comprises three chapters, a central tenet of child-centred early childhood pedagogy, that is, play-­ based learning, is explored. In chapter “‘Ting-A-Ling Ling!’ Twentieth-­ Century Snack Time Culture and Friendship Bonds in Young Caribbean Children,” Abdul-Majied explores “snack time” and the centrality of the meal/feeding process as an avenue of social and emotional learning for young primary school students. She examines the value of the authentic play which children engage in throughout snack time and which benefits

xii Preface

children. In chapter “The Case of a Self-Developed Community of Learners Outdoors: Benefits and Challenges for Stay-at-Home-Moms and Their Toddlers,” by Rentzou, home-based parental care is explored. In this piece, she outlines the role of culture in play and how parents support children to develop core social behaviours. In the final chapter, “The ‘Race’ in ‘R.E.C.E.’: Reconceptualizing Play-­ Based Learning Through an Anti-racist Lens”, Escayg considers how existing reconceptualist scholarship has addressed race and racism. By bringing an anti-racist lens to bear upon the play-based literature, the author offers preliminary framing ideas for not only addressing theoretical limitations, such as the absence of cultural knowledges from subjugated groups, but also designing anti-racist play-based learning environments conducive to developing racial pride  among  Black and racialized children. What started as a movement by critical and concerned scholars has now blossomed into a respected, valuable, and well-established body of literature. Yet, the reconceptualist work is far from over. As recent events have shown, injustices persist in various forms. Consequently, we must guard against the perils of inertia while seeking alternative possibilities, wherever they may arise. Thus, we challenge you, the reader, to advocate, create, re-imagine, and reassess with us. Reconceptualizing has no end point and no singular exit. Rather, it is a continuous and creative journey that shapes the courageous soul, bringing light to both professional and personal blind spots. In sum, to reconceptualize is to see beyond the barriers, to remain steadfast, and to transgress temporality by locating oneself in a vision for the future: a vision marked by justice. A vision that will serve us well. Kingston, Jamaica Omaha, NE, USA 

Zoyah Kinkead-Clark Kerry-Ann Escayg

 Preface 

xiii

References Abawi, Z. E., & Berman, R. (2019). Politicizing early childhood education and care in Ontario: Race, identity and belonging. Journal of Curriculum, Teaching, Learning and Leadership in Education, 4(2), 4–13. Ayers, B. (2020). Afterword. In S. A. Kessler & B. B. Swadener (Eds.), Educating for social justice in early childhood (pp. 180–183). New York, NY: Routledge. Bloch, M. N. (2014). Interrogating reconceptualizing early care and education (RECE)—20 years along. In M. N. Bloch, B. B. Swadener, & G. S. Cannella (Eds.), Reconceptualizing early childhood care and education: A reader (pp. 19–31). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Bloch, M. N., Swadener, B. B., & Canella, G. S. (2014). Introduction: Exploring reconceptualist histories and possibilities. In M. N. Bloch, B. B. Swadener, & G. S. Cannella (Eds.), Reconceptualizing early childhood care and education: A reader (pp. 1–16). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Holmes, K. A., Garcia, J., & Adair, J. K. (2018). Who said we’re too young to talk about race?: First graders and their teacher investigate racial justice through counter narratives. In N. Yelland & D. F. Bentley (Eds.), Found in translation: Connecting reconceptualist thinking with early childhood education practices (pp. 129–147). New York, NY: Routledge. Kessler, S. A., & Swadener, B. B. (2020). Educating for social justice in early childhood. New York, NY: Routledge. Lubeck, S. (1991). Reconceptualizing early childhood education: A response. Early Education and Development, 2(2), 168–174. Lubeck, S. (1998). Is developmentally appropriate practice for everyone? Childhood Education, 74(5), 283–292. National Association for the Education of Young Children (n.d.). The 10 NAEYC Program Standards. ­https://www.naeyc.org/our-work/families/ 10-naeyc-program-standards Nicholson, J. M., & Wisneski, D. B. (2019). Reconsidering the role of play in early childhood: Towards social justice and equity. New York, NY: Routledge. Schoorman, D. (2011). Reconceptualizing teacher education as a social justice undertaking: Underscoring the urgency for critical multiculturalism in early childhood education. Childhood Education, 87(5), 341–344.

xiv Preface

Souto-Manning, M., Buffalo, G., & Rabadi-Raol, A. (2020). Early childhood teacher certification as a site for the re-production of racial and cultural injustice. In S. A. Kessler & B. B. Swadener (Eds.), Educating for social justice in early childhood (pp. 46–57). New York, NY: Routledge. Yelland, N., & Bentley, D. F. (2018). Found in translation: Connecting reconceptualist thinking with early childhood education practices. New  York, NY: Routledge.

Contents

Part I Reconceptualizing Quality: Perceptions of the Child   1  The Child as “Other”: The Duality of the Other and the Pedagogy of Care  3 Elena Nitecki and Helge Wasmuth  Paradigmatic Discourses: Reconceptualizing the Role of the Critical Paradigm and Revisiting the Image of the Child as a Social Agent 25 Darya (Dasha) Shalimo and John P. Portelli

Part II Reconceptualizing Quality: Classroom as Community  63  Questioning Quality in Early Childhood Teacher Education Through the Lens of Culture 65 MinSoo Kim-Bossard and Jody Eberly  Indigenous Children’s ‘Ways of Knowing’: Exploring Literacy Learning for Indigenous Preschool Children in Remote Communities in Australia 87 Alexis Spencer and Elizabeth Rouse xv

xvi Contents

 Rethinking an Early Care and Education Program: Responding to Linguistic Diversity111 Luisiana Meléndez and Sharon Syc

Part III Reconceptualizing Quality: Curriculum 135  Every Learner Succeeds: Reconceptualising Quality in Early Childhood in the Organisation of the Eastern Caribbean States137 Sheron C. Burns  Knowing Differently/Teaching Differently: Transforming a Teacher Education Program161 Freyca Calderon-Berumen, Samuel J. Tanner, Maryanne Mong Cramer, and Sarah B. Shear  Using Social and Emotional Instructional Activities to Indigenise Early Childhood Education in a Post-colonial Society181 Deon Edwards-Kerr and Joan Spencer-Ernandez  Building on Funds of Knowledge: A Basis for Reconceptualising Early Childhood Care and Education in the Caribbean203 Zoyah Kinkead-Clark

Part IV Reconceptualizing Quality: Play-Based Learning 219  “Ting-a-Ling!” Snack Time Culture and Friendship Bonds in Young Caribbean Children221 Sabeerah Abdul-Majied  The Case of a Self-Developed Community of Learners Outdoors: Benefits and Challenges for Stay-at-­Home-Moms and Their Toddlers241 Konstantina Rentzou

 Contents 

xvii

 The “Race” in “R.E.C.E.”: Reconceptualizing Play-Based Learning Through an Anti-racist Lens269 Kerry-Ann Escayg Correction to: Reconceptualizing Quality in Early Childhood Education, Care and DevelopmentC1 Zoyah Kinkead-Clark and Kerry-Ann Escayg Index289

Notes on Contributors

Sabeerah  Abdul-Majied is Lecturer in Early Childhood Care and Education at The University of the West Indies at St. Augustine, Trinidad and Tobago. Her publications in peer-reviewed journals are on equity issues related to teacher professional development, STEM, and children’s social and emotional development. Sheron  C.  Burns is Lecturer in Early Childhood Education at the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill. She taught five- to seven-year-­ olds and supervised pre-primary programmes in her homeland, Montserrat. She is an alumna of the University of Alberta, Canada, and the University of the Virgin Islands, St Thomas. Freyca  Calderon-Berumen  is Assistant Professor of Elementary and Early Childhood Education at Penn State Altoona. Her research interests are around linguistic diversity and multicultural education through the lens of critical pedagogy as an avenue to address equity and social justice. Jody  Eberly  is Assistant Department Chair of Elementary and Early Childhood Education at The College of New Jersey. She is coordinator of the Early Childhood/Special Education and the Early Childhood/ Education of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing programmes. She holds an EdD in Elementary and Early Childhood Education with a s­ pecialization xix

xx 

Notes on Contributors

in Early Childhood from Rutgers University. She also holds an EdM in Elementary and Early Childhood Education with a specialization in literacy from Rutgers University. Deon  Edwards-Kerr is a lecturer in the field of Measurement and Educational Research at The University of the West Indies, Mona, Jamaica. She holds a PhD in Educational Studies and an MSc in Educational Research from The University of Manchester, U.K.; an MSc in Economics and an MSc in Economics and Management from UWI, Mona; and Diploma Teacher Education from Sam Sharpe Teachers’ College. She continues to conduct research in the areas of educational reform; youth-at-risk; social justice in education; issues in urban education, research methodology (quantitative and qualitative); and programme evaluation. Kerry-Ann Escayg  is Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education at the University of Nebraska-Omaha. Dr. Escayg’s main research areas include anti-racism in early childhood education, qualitative research with children, and children and race. As a social theorist, she has utilized elements of critical race theory, Black feminist thought, and anti-­racist education to offer new exegeses on children’s racial identity development, including strategies to promote positive racial identity among Black children; a research-derived protocol to assess children’s play; and an anti-­ racist approach to U.S. early childhood education. Her recent publications have highlighted and interrogated the ways in which Whiteness, as a system of racial privilege, functions in early childhood contexts. Central to her work is a commitment to racial equity in the early years and the holistic well-being of children of colour and Black children in particular. MinSoo  Kim-Bossard  is an assistant professor in the Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education at The College of New Jersey. She holds a PhD in Curriculum and Instruction (Early Childhood Education) and Comparative and International Education from The Pennsylvania State University.

  Notes on Contributors 

xxi

Zoyah  Kinkead-Clark is Senior Lecturer and Coordinator of Early Childhood programmes at The University of the West Indies (UWI), Mona, Jamaica. As a researcher, she is particularly interested in understanding how young children are shaped by their ecological experiences within the home and wider community with the view to explore how educators can build on these in early years’ settings. She is serving as an external examiner in Early Childhood Education for the Joint Board of Teacher Education. She is also a member of Jamaica’s Early Childhood Development Oversight Committee, the body tasked with overseeing the development of a comprehensive strategy, to revitalize the vision for Jamaican children. Luisiana Meléndez  is clinical professor at Erikson Institute and director of its bilingual/ESL certificate programme. Her teaching focuses on the impact of context in child development and parenting as well as the sociohistorical foundations of bilingual education in the U.S.  She also serves in the Chicago Board of Education. Maryanne Mong Cramer  is Assistant Professor of Special Education at Penn State Altoona. Her research interests are around social and cognitive challenges for children and adolescents with emotional/behavioural challenges, and/or learning disabilities. Elena  Nitecki  is an associate professor in the Department of Early Childhood and Childhood Education at Mercy College. Her scholarly research interests include various topics in early childhood education, teacher preparation, and the impact of the Global Education Reform Movement. John  P.  Portelli  Portelli’s main research and teaching interests are in philosophy of education and educational leadership and policy. His research involves both philosophical and empirical work. Konstantina Rentzou  has taught for more than ten years in Greek and Cypriot higher and post-secondary education institutions and has participated in many national and EU-funded research projects. She has also

xxii 

Notes on Contributors

worked as a programme manager, country expert, and rapporteur for various NGOs and the EU. She has published numerous papers in peer-­ reviewed journals and two books. Elizabeth  Rouse  is Senior Lecturer in Early Childhood Education at Deakin University and works in initial teacher education. She has published in the areas of young children’s literacy, early childhood professional practice, and partnerships in education. She has previously taught in schools, early childhood settings, and early intervention. Darya (Dasha) Shalimo  is a PhD graduate from OISE and Professor of Early Childhood Education, Sheridan Tech. Her academic and research work is guided by transformative, emancipatory worldview and critical pedagogy. Her research interests relate to philosophy and ideology in education, curriculum studies, and comparative politics in early childhood education. Her international and local experiences inform her research by addressing issues of social justice, equity, and engaged pedagogy. Sarah B. Shear  is Assistant Professor of Social Studies and Multicultural Education at the University of Washington-Bothell. She works with collaborators to examine K-12 social studies curriculum within Indigenous contexts, race and settler colonialism in teacher education, and qualitative methodologies. She previously worked at the Penn State Altoona. Alexis Spencer  is an experienced early childhood practitioner, working with early childhood educators to support their acquisition of nationally approved qualifications and understanding of early childhood education pedagogies. As a teen, Spencer learnt of her great-grandmother’s Aboriginality and embraces a personal journey of continuous learning about and through Indigenous knowledges to embed and privilege Indigenous perspectives in all aspects of early childhood education. Joan Spencer-Ernandez  is Head of the Joint Board of Teacher Education (JBTE) and Lecturer in Special Education in the School of Education. She spent seven years as the Testing and Measurement Specialist in The

  Notes on Contributors 

xxiii

Caribbean Centre of Excellence for Teacher Training (CCETT), UWI, where she developed the first regional test of reading standards administered to students in Grades 1–3 in eight Caribbean countries. The test was based on a common set of standards published in The Caribbean Standards for Reading and Writing (2003), also developed by her. She served as the Executive Director of The Learning Centre, Jamaica Association for Children with Learning Disabilities. She is a trained teacher who holds a BSc degree (Hons.) in Varying Exceptionalities and a Master’s degree in Reading and Learning Disabilities from Teachers’ College, Columbia University, New  York, and a PhD in Educational Psychology from The University of the West Indies, Mona. Sharon Syc  is a former clinical associate professor at Erikson Institute where her research and teaching focused on language development with particular interest in supporting young dual language learners and their families. She continues to serve as an independent consultant in the area of child development. Samuel J. Tanner  is an assistant professor at Penn State Altoona. His work concerns issues of improvisation and Whiteness. His recent book Whiteness, Pedagogy, and Youth in America (2018) concerns an anti-racist teaching project with high school students. Helge  Wasmuth is an associate professor in the Department of Childhood Education at Mercy College. His research interests include early education policy as well as the history of, and postmodern perspectives on, early childhood education. He recently published Fröbel’s Pedagogy of Kindergarten and Play. Modifications in Germany and the United States (2018).

List of Figures

Using Social and Emotional Instructional Activities to Indigenise Early Childhood Education in a Post-colonial Society Fig. 1 Four-year-old curriculum components—Term 1 Fig. 2 Five-year-old curriculum components—Term 1

194 196

The Case of a Self-Developed Community of Learners Outdoors: Benefits and Challenges for Stay-at-­Home-Moms and Their Toddlers Fig. 1  Interrelationships among and between the members of the community of learners

248

xxv

Part I Reconceptualizing Quality: Perceptions of the Child

The Child as “Other”: The Duality of the Other and the Pedagogy of Care Elena Nitecki and Helge Wasmuth

In this era of “quality” early childhood education, the child, who should be the central focus of our services, is not always at the forefront. Often, young children endure enormous pressure to fulfill taxing expectations, becoming an object of close monitoring and interventions set forth by adults, who do not always consider the child’s rights and needs. The result is that the child is not understood or valued as an “Other,”1 one we The original version of this chapter was revised. The first paragraph has been deleted and added to the abstract in the online version of this chapter. The correction to this chapter can be found at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69013-7_13  Philosophical thinking about the “Other” or “Otherness” with a capital “O” represents the translation of “autrui,” the personal or absolute other, making a distinction from “other,” with a lowercase “o,” otherness or alterity in general (Biesta, 2013, p. 19; Levinas, 1974). 1

E. Nitecki (*) • H. Wasmuth Department of Early Childhood and Childhood Education, Mercy College, Dobbs Ferry, NY, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021, corrected publication 2021 Z. Kinkead-Clark, K.-A. Escayg (eds.), Reconceptualizing Quality in Early Childhood Education, Care and Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69013-7_1

3

4 

E. Nitecki and H. Wasmuth

cannot know completely but who deserves respect (Levinas, 1974). In examining perspectives from “others,” we must consider who the “others” are. When the term “other” is used in an educational context, it usually refers to one from a different cultural, social, or racial group. Used in this sense, education aims to develop an understanding of and respect for the “other,” to support a learning process that enables one to respect someone from a different cultural or social background. Considering the perspectives from the “other” in this sense would mean to listen carefully to the perspectives of marginalized stakeholders, value them, and incorporate such views into the construct of quality education. However, we propose a different interpretation of the term “Other,” influenced by the works of the Austrian-Israeli religious philosopher Martin Buber (Buber, 1923) and the French philosopher Emmanuel Levinas (Levinas, 1969, 1974). These ideas have recently emerged in a variety of educational discourses (Biesta, 2015; Liegle, 2017), as well as in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC)2 in particular (Dahlberg, 2003; Dahlberg & Moss, 2005; Moss, 2014). Inspired by such thinking, we examine a different understanding of the child as an “Other.” Instead of understanding the child as “other” in the traditional sense, as a marginalized stakeholder, we aim to expand the concept of the child as an absolute “Other,” which applies to every child who is not valued in a system dominated by the Euro-American-centric context of neo-liberal “quality.” We explore how the dominant discourse of quality and learning does not respect the twofold “Otherness” of children. This duality helps think about children as human beings with different needs and expectations than those set forth by adults. First, the child is a not-adult with his/her own rights and understanding of the world. Secondly, the child may not follow the path of “typical” child development. In the current discourse of what “quality early childhood practices” ought to look like, this twofold “Otherness” is not recognized or respected, as adults constantly attempt to make the child “into the Same” (Levinas, 1974, p. 25). The “Same” means pushing the child to become more adult-like and more  ECEC focuses on Early Childhood Education and Care, as Dahlberg and Moss (2005) and others define it. We chose this term, instead of ECE (Early Childhood Education) or ECED (Early Childhood Education, Care, and Development) because we see education and care in ECEC are inseparable, two aspects of practice that are strongly connected. Further, the concepts of care and relationships are central to our chapter. 2

  The Child as “Other”: The Duality of the Other… 

5

“typical” along the path of development, in an effort to meet the expectations set forth by the quality discourse. Current expectations of quality ECEC, with their focus on academic learning as the key activity of ECEC, do not value such an “Otherness” (Biesta, 2016a; Dahlberg & Moss, 2005). We outline an alternative to quality-based expectations, which draws from three ideas: a pedagogy based on an “ethics of care” (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005; Noddings, 1984); the importance of relationships (Gergen, 2009; Liegle, 2017); and the German concept of Bildung (Biesta, 2016a; Horlacher, 2016; Siljander, Kivelä, & Sutinen, 2012; Sjöström, Frerichs, Zuin, & Eilks, 2017). Although these concepts are somehow similar to various traditional ECEC perspectives that focus on caring and social-emotional dynamics, we find that these three ideas go beyond and are most helpful when analyzing the child as “Other.” These alternative ideas present some possibilities that can be considered as an attempt to counter the quality-focused perspective of current policy and practice.

 nderstanding the Context: The Dominant U Quality Discourse of ECEC Currently, the field of ECEC is dominated by hegemonic, Euro-­ American-­centric perspectives, which are based on the elusive ideal of “quality.” ECEC scholars have criticized the concept of quality for a long time (Dahlberg, Moss, & Pence, 1999, 2007; Penn, 2011; Tobin, 2005; Urban, 2012), arguing that it is “a search for fools’ gold” (Penn, 2011, p. xi) and that “universal, decontextualized, external standards of quality are conceptually flawed, politically dangerous, and often counter-­productive” (Tobin, 2005, p. 425). ECEC researchers agree that quality needs to be understood as “a construct that is value-laden and dependent on expectations and perspectives” (Urban, 2012, p. 478). However, such criticism is essentially ignored by policymakers and those in power. A discourse based on a universal concept of “quality,” as vague and meaningless as it is, remains the prevailing way of thinking about and organizing of ECEC in many countries. It is the “story of quality and high returns, the story of markets” (Moss, 2014, p.  6), which continues to be attractive for

6 

E. Nitecki and H. Wasmuth

policymakers worldwide. Part of the reason that the “quality” narrative persists is due to the current context, which is mainly defined by the Global Educational Reform Movement (GERM). GERM is an “unofficial educational agenda that relies on a certain set of assumptions to improve education systems” (Sahlberg, 2011, p. 99). These assumptions, which are rooted in neo-liberalism and Human Capital Theory, are presented as ways to “reform” and “improve” education through standardization, high-stakes accountability, narrowing the curriculum, privatization, technology, among other worrisome trends (Nitecki & Wasmuth, 2019; Sahlberg, 2011; Wasmuth & Nitecki, 2017; Zhao, 2017). GERM has reframed and homogenized ECEC policies and practices around the world (Nitecki & Wasmuth, 2017). Since the American economist and Nobel Laureate James J. Heckman highlighted early childhood education as an especially effective economic investment (with the convenient innocuous appeal of focusing on young children), children have become the target of adult-manufactured interventions to fix a multitude of society’s deep-rooted problems. Thus, the child is positioned as a savior of the future. Mainly for this reason, and not because children necessarily deserve it or have a right to it, ECEC systems must be of “high quality.” The most common rhetoric is that “high-quality ECEC programs are an investment in human capital that will lead to innumerable societal gains and strong economic returns in form of reduced cost for social and educational remediation and a more productive workforce” (Nagasawa, Peters, & Swadener, 2014, p.  284). This narrow economic-oriented approach, however, oversimplifies complex problems, marginalizes poverty and inequity, and ignores children’s rights (Zhao, 2017). Furthermore, children are often regarded as objects and not subjects, as pawns in this game, as “creatures to be manipulated” (Penn, 2010, p. 61) and not as an “Other,” who should be respected in the context of real relationships (Levinas, 1974). Despite this critique, the appeal of investment in “quality” ECEC to avoid future social problems is attractive for policymakers and investors worldwide (Moss, 2014; Penn, 2010). Thus, it has changed the field of ECEC, with far-reaching consequences, including the standardization of teaching and learning, an over-emphasis on core subjects such as mathematics and literacy,

  The Child as “Other”: The Duality of the Other… 

7

test-­ based high-stakes accountability, prescribed curriculum, and increased control over teachers and students (Nitecki & Wasmuth, 2017, 2019). It has also resulted in a narrow understanding of the “education” part of ECEC—and sidesteps the “care” part, reducing it to only custodial care. Biesta describes this tendency as the “learnification” of education (2013), pointing out that it “has led some to the conclusion that education is nothing but learning” (2015, p. 672). It is also true for ECEC, where learning is increasingly seen as the self-evident key activity. Hence, education is understood as learning, or better academic learning: the learning of specific, predetermined knowledge and the acquisition of certain skills and dispositions. Consequently, other essential aspects of education, which are fostered through the “care” part of ECEC, including the so-called soft skills of relationships, personal development, interpersonal skills, creative thinking, decision making, motivation, flexibility, and numerous other personality traits that are difficult to quantify, are omitted. These skills—which encompass becoming a unique person— begin in early childhood. Children must discover who they are, a process that can be described as self-discovery or self-formation (or the German concept of Bildung), that is facilitated through relationships and care (Biesta, 2015, 2016b; Dahlberg & Moss, 2005; Noddings, 1984). Furthermore, children are granted less space and time to be children. Childhood as a unique life stage is not valued but reduced to a necessary step on the path of becoming an adult. Education is viewed as an “instrument for the delivery” (Biesta, 2013, p.  127) of an agenda set by the society (or the ones in power). The child is the powerless object of these interventions—the saviors that will lead us to a better future.

The Child as “Other”: A Not-Adult What is the position of the child in this Euro-American-centric perspective context of GERM, quality, and “learnification”? Although the general perception of children has changed to the point that children’s rights are now recognized as an international priority (Krappmann & Petry,

8 

E. Nitecki and H. Wasmuth

2016; Swadener, Lundy, Habashi, & Blanchet-Cohen, 2013; United Nations, 1959) and children’s rights are established in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989), the reality is that most adults and societies still have adult expectations for young children and are focused on the child’s readiness to become a successful adult. Thus, children are often treated less as subjects but as objects that are different and require interventions conceived by adults. Furthermore, children are not necessarily seen or respected as absolute “Others” with their own rights, needs, and interests. The adults’ attempts, whether purposefully or unintentionally, to make the child into a productive adult, are problematic. Such attempts reduce the “Other” into the “Same,” without considering the separation between himself and the Other as inherent in the relationship (Levinas, 1974). For example, unrealistic expectations for children to behave as adults undermine childhood in their own right. While such efforts are often well-intended, it also means that the intrinsic value of childhood is not valued. Instead, childhood is understood as one of the necessary steps to become an adult: To become college and career ready, as well as a productive citizen of our society, someone who will later contribute to our economy through productivity and the consumption of material goods. What is not valued is that the child exists in the here and now, that childhood has a value of its own, which should be respected and supported. From birth, children are full-value human beings, and each child has the right to be herself or himself. Each child is an autonomous person, with dignity, interests, needs, and rights. Children have the right to be children, or as Janusz Korczak has emphasized: “Children are just as valuable humans as we are” (1929, p. 7). Taken seriously, one needs to wonder about the children’s right to be a (non-responsible, immature, irrational, insensitive) child—and not to be an adult. If children are entitled to such rights, how is it justified that such rights are ignored constantly? The child’s right for dignity (Korczak, 1929) is too often not respected. In too many educational settings, children’s rights are overlooked or neglected (Krappmann & Petry, 2016). If the child, an “Other,” is forced into becoming the “Same,” then the child’s rights are ignored. It occurs in different ways. First, by applying our own, adult way of thinking when trying to understand children and

  The Child as “Other”: The Duality of the Other… 

9

their ways of living. Predominantly, children are classified through the lens of the adult’s known schema. We measure them against adult-­ dictated criteria that are familiar and valid for us—but not necessarily for the child. Thus, we incorporate the child as an “Other” in our existing schema (Liegle, 2017; Moss, 2014). It is undoubtedly often a well-­ intended endeavor to understand the child, but it deprives children of their absolute “Otherness.” It is a non-understanding, as we are classifying the child with the help of our familiar order schemes. We try to understand the child by applying our scale of adulthood and what it means to be an adult, thereby placing the child in a position of being deficient in qualities that allegedly define an adult. As such, we do not accept the fact that the child is an “Other,” who is simply impossible for us to fully understand (Dahlberg et  al., 2007; Levinas, 1974; Liegle, 2017; Meyer-Drawe & Waldenfels, 1988). Applying such adult schemata enables adults to superficially “understand” children, “but when this takes place, the Other is made into the Same, and is then also dispossessed the possibility to be an Other” (Dahlberg, 2003, p. 271). Adults are “‘grasping’ the Other to make the Other into the Same” (Moss, 2014, p. 107) by identifying the child with what they know: being an adult. Secondly, many of the “quality” educational practices aim to turn the child from an “Other” into the “Same” as they try to produce a certain kind of adult, an adult that conforms to society’s expectations. It is an adult who does not look critically at the world in which we live, does not question the status quo or neo-liberalism, accepts the existing socio-­ political structure, and will conform to the current state of affairs. Through education, children become part of existing traditions and ways of doing and being (Biesta, 2013). Of course, because the child needs to be enabled to participate in the traditional patterns of culture, this is a legitimate purpose of education. However, it becomes problematic when it turns into an “instrument of stultification” (Biesta, 2013, p. 70). This process of making the child as an “Other” into the “Same” can be defined as “leveling down” as the child’s potential is flattened, and at the same time, children are equalized. The child as an “Other” is reduced into the “Same” (Dahlberg, 2003). Adults limit—and thus level—children and their education so that it is less than what it could be. Currently,

10 

E. Nitecki and H. Wasmuth

there seems to be one dominant idea of what it means to be a human being and which forms being in the world can take. Thus, “leveling down” severely limits the enormous potential of early childhood. It can take many forms, many of them probably well-intended and unwitting. To illustrate, it is helpful to examine adults’ everyday behavior that seems, at first sight, to be harmless and well-intended. Parents and early childhood professionals have rigid expectations for babies and young children, like training them to conform to a sleep and feeding schedule very early on. Of course, adults have good intentions when they put babies on a sleep schedule. After all, infants need much rest. Thus, a schedule of nap times and bedtimes is arranged but often met with resistance by the baby. Adults counter with increased control, like using the Ferber method, or letting babies “cry it out.” This adult control of the infant’s sleep patterns then carries into childcare, when young children must lie down during nap time, even if they are not tired, or have outgrown a midday nap. Similarly, feeding is adult-controlled and scheduled, with a stipulated time for meals and snacks. Even at the elementary and middle school levels, when the child is closer to the adult ideal, they cannot have control over when they eat a snack. Yet, adults enjoy the freedom to eat in many settings without being met with much resistance. The control over children is extended to school age when many are over-scheduled and have reduced time for free play (Marsh, 2018). The problem is not establishing sleeping or feeding routines in itself— it is the adult’s hyper-focus on control over how and when these routines are established, without consideration of the child. Many people, including early childhood professionals, take this scheduling for granted and do not question what it means for children. Would it be so difficult or damaging to observe the child closely to determine their sleeping patterns and adapt accordingly? Or allow for snacks to be available to children during a longer timeframe so that they could choose when to eat on their own? Why do we insist on such routines—because they foster children’s development and well-being or because they make the adult’s life easier? Often, adults are not willing to—or do not consider—the option of allowing children to have some degree of control over their most basic

  The Child as “Other”: The Duality of the Other… 

11

physiological needs. We refuse to give children space to make decisions about their everyday life actions. Adults envision children as the future and would like to steer them as closely as possible to what they perceive as “ideal.” It is “an authoritarian response to the alleged loss of control in our contemporary society” (Biesta, 2016c, p. 35). Adults recognize that contemporary society has problems, and therefore, the child is positioned as the savior. However, only as a savior who needs guidance, adult intervention is seen as a necessity, without any regard or respect for what the child may want or need— or allowing the child some time and space to be an “Other” and grow into the world on their terms. Our expectations for children and understanding of quality ECEC are based on notions of adulthood and succeeding in a capitalist and individualistic society. As a result, the vast potential of childhood is “leveled down,” and the dignity of the child is often not respected. Children do not have an opportunity to exist as an “Other” without friction from the surrounding environment. Instead, we can currently witness a strong “governing of the child” (Moss, 2014). However, real responsibility for the child, especially in her or his “Otherness,” is often absent from child-adult interactions.

 he Child as “Other”: One Who Does Not T Follow the Path of the “Typical” Child The child is positioned as an “Other” in a second way by framing the typically developing child as the “Same” and those children who do not follow the path of “typical” development are framed as an “Other,” one that cannot be fully understood. Developmental milestones based on child development theory are the guideposts along a narrow, but wellpaved road, as a child becomes a capable adult. The child who is not “typical,” or developing according to the adult’s expectations, is perceived as an “Other.” However, this “Otherness” is again not valued, or even respected. Instead, children are normalized and leveled down. Adults, whether purposefully or inadvertently, attempt to normalize the “Other” into the “Same” through “the normalizing gaze of the classifications and

12 

E. Nitecki and H. Wasmuth

categorizations of psychology” (Dahlberg, 2003, p. 269), as well as early intervention or special education services. Children as “Others” are reduced into the Same, “as everything that doesn’t fit into these categories, that is unfamiliar and not taken-for-given, has to be overcome” (Dahlberg, 2003, p. 270). Limiting the complexities and diversity of a child’s development is yet another example of “leveling down” and stifling the potential of children. Developmental norms and expectations are primarily based on Western theories of child development with little regard for individual or cultural variation (Bloch, Swadener, & Cannella, 2014; Burman, 2007; Lubeck, 1998). These expectations restrict childhood and the unique and fluid nature of how young children grow. For example, adults, especially in the Western world, obsess over developmental milestones. If there is deviation from the milestones, immediate early intervention or therapy is recommended and applied, even for infants and toddlers in childcare. School readiness is also a concern, as preschool teachers work with young children to memorize letters, numbers, and sounds to prepare for school. School curriculum is based on readiness, on “developmentally appropriate” (NAEYC, 2018) and universal expectations of what children should achieve by a certain age. The question is always whether the child is ready for school; rarely do we consider whether schools are ready for children. Deviance from the adult-defined expectations of school readiness results again in remediation or special services, which includes more adult intervention. Why are adults so quick to label a child who is still developing along a path that is not linear? Perhaps the path of developing into an adult is not as narrow as we think. The entire knowledge base of the child development field creates a rationality that normalizes and dictates developmentally appropriate norms and is used to monitor and assess children, again defined by adult schemata (Bloch et al., 2014; Burman, 2007). Such an approach does not give much space to children that are developing differently, which are indeed “Others.” Because these norms and expectations are rooted in

  The Child as “Other”: The Duality of the Other… 

13

scientific expertise, the technical approach cannot be challenged easily. The upbringing and development of young children, a “complex and political process” (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005, p. 10), are thus reduced to a question of standardized, technical practice. However, such a technical approach, in this case, the predefined milestones along the path of development, cannot capture the complexity of how young children grow up. Again, adult schemata, expectations, and norms position the child who does not develop “normally” as not typical, but do not value the child as such an “Other.” Although a critique of traditional child development models exists (Burman, 2007; Cannella, 2008; Dahlberg et  al., 2007; Penn, 2010), it continues to dominate ECEC practices worldwide. A result is the concept mentioned above of the “learnification” of educational practices in ECEC. It fosters a process of normalizing and “leveling down” children and smothering their enormous potential to develop as a whole person in their own way. This one-fits-all approach holds that all children must follow the same path of expectations and development—another example of how the application of adult schemata is limiting. Children who stray from the path of developmental milestones are labeled and become the target of further adult intervention (or meddling). The complexities and diversity of young children’s lives are ignored and reduced, “the otherness or singularity of the child is grasped, not respected, to make the Other into the Same” (Moss, 2014, p. 42). In this very narrow view, children are not seen as individuals but must match the norms of child development and predetermined learning outcomes. What is missing is a broader perspective—one that incorporates more than learning academic concepts but includes the development of the whole child.

14 

E. Nitecki and H. Wasmuth

 eyond Quality and Learnification: B An Alternative Based on Care, Relationships, and Bildung The Western perspective of what quality in ECEC means does not respect children as an “Other,” in neither of the two aspects described above. Even worse, it narrows our understanding of what education should and can be. Education needs to be more than “learnification,” “leveling down,” narrow adherence to developmental norms, or rigid adult expectations imposed upon children. Education, in its full meaning, a meaning that deserves to speak of education, needs to be concerned with more than preparing children for the future or socializing them into our adult world. It must include the development of the self in the world, a function of education Biesta describes as Subjectification. Subjectification is “education’s orientation towards children and students as subjects of action and responsibility, not objects of intervention and influence” (Biesta, 2013, p.  39). It has to do with “the ways in which education ‘impacts’ on the personhood of the child or student, promoting such qualities as, for example, autonomy, criticality, independence, compassion, or grown-upness” (Biesta, 2016a). There is great potential when we allow children to be children. We need to go beyond the current dominant understanding of quality and its narrow goals based on learning content and meeting milestones predetermined by adults. The system of quality-focused standardization is not interested in “Otherness,” “soft skills, “relationships,” or Subjectification because these cannot be easily quantified, measured, or standardized. Regulation and governing are seen as necessary because only consistency, continuity, and predictability can assure the success of such a system. Such an approach leaves no room for the hallmarks of early childhood: uncertainty, experimentation, or unexpected outcomes, for surprise or amazement, for context or subjective experiences, which are fertile ground for personal development. As a result, these aspects of ECEC, which are fostered through the “care” component in ECEC, are ignored while “learnification” runs rampant in an effort to make every child into the “Same.” If we want to make the young child central and advocate on their behalf, we

  The Child as “Other”: The Duality of the Other… 

15

cannot continue with the current status quo of “leveling down.” Thus, we must consider alternatives to this grim reality. One first, but essential step in seeking an alternative would be to emphasize the essential, genuine features of our field. The field of ECEC has been manipulated for a long time. We have been borrowing methods, approaches, and terms from neighboring (and sometimes dominant) disciplines. While this has helped to build a reputation as a serious science, ECEC as a profession and discipline still sometimes appears to struggle to “think and speak for itself ” (Urban, 2018, p. 314). The dominance of the quality discourse is a consequence of such borrowing. However, this discourse does not value or emphasize the essence of ECEC. Terms such as “quality,” “standards,” or “accountability” are not rooted in a strong academic tradition of ECEC-specific language and are not helpful for our field. Instead, we need to emphasize a genuine pedagogical perspective when we describe, analyze, and speak about our field. If we do not want to continue to be a tool in furthering the neo-liberal agenda, we need to emphasize the pedagogical essence, as well as identify and revive terms and perspectives that empower the field of ECEC to speak for itself. Such a unique pedagogical essence of ECEC requires a broader perspective, one that avoids the rigid classification of the child in conventional adult schemata. Instead of disrespecting children’s rights and reducing their “Otherness” into the Same, we should adopt an “ethical stance that respects the alterity of the Other, the Other’s absolute otherness or singularity” (Moss, 2014, p. 107). Further, we need to go beyond the current understanding of education in the Anglo-American world where “education is predominantly described in terms of learning” (Biesta, 2013, p. 126). ECEC is more than predefined outcomes, generalized developmental expectations, and the acquisition of predetermined skills and dispositions necessary to compete in a future economy, all concepts borrowed from disciplines that are not necessarily concerned with children and their rights. The focus of ECEC should be on the contextualized lives of young children, their relationships with their peers, as well as professionals, and a broad view of childhood. There are many alternative perspectives—many of which offer possibilities to think differently— and perhaps act differently.

16 

E. Nitecki and H. Wasmuth

Concluding, we briefly outline three ideas to begin a dialogue about alternatives to our current state. Although there are a variety of theories that emphasize social-emotional components, the three that we found most applicable to addressing the child’s Otherness are the “ethics of care” (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005; Noddings, 1984), relational education (Gergen, 2009; Liegle, 2017), and the German concept of Bildung. Ethics of Care. The “ethics of care” (Noddings, 1984) frames caring as a moral orientation to teaching, prioritizing concern for relationships— relationships that are two-way and reciprocal. This type of caring goes beyond the limited concept of caring that includes providing for a child’s basic physical needs. Caring is “rooted in receptivity, relatedness, and responsiveness…a relationship between child and adult whereby the carer (one-caring) must exhibit engrossment and motivational displacement, and the person who is cared for (cared-for) must respond in some way to the caring” (Noddings, 1984, p. 69). Ethical caring occurs when a person acts out of a belief that caring is the appropriate way of relating to people (Noddings, 1984). Caring is not based on a one-time virtuous decision, but an ongoing interest in the child’s welfare. “If it is widely recognized that ‘childcare’ settings need to be ‘educational,’ in what way do ‘educational’ settings—most notably in the school—need to be ‘caring’?” (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005, p. 91). It seems that care in this sense is absent from current quality discourses. Dahlberg et al. (2007) have built on this idea of “ethics of care,” as well as Levinas’ thinking about the “Other” by suggesting an “ethics of an encounter” and a “pedagogy of listening” to go “beyond quality” and its rigid, universalistic approach (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005). Instead of a technical approach to education, one that focuses on academic learning, they outline an alternative that requires listening, reflection, or interpretation, as well as a responsibility for the child as an “Other.” Thereby, the child is framed as a subject of action and responsibility; not just objects to be managed. It requires us to think of the child as “an Other that I cannot represent and classify into a category” (Dahlberg, 2003, p. 272), as someone who cannot be totally grasped—a huge shift in the way we think about ECEC and relationships between professionals and children. Out of the absolute “Otherness” of the child arises a responsibility for the child as an “Other,” and this requires an ethical relationship (Dahlberg &

  The Child as “Other”: The Duality of the Other… 

17

Moss, 2005; Liegle, 2017). Ethics, in this sense, does not mean to follow prescribed rules about what is right or wrong, but the responsibility to make decisions for each new situation and context. It requires us to think about pedagogy as a relation or as an encounter, a relationship that leaves “room for the radical otherness and singularity of the Other” (Dahlberg, 2003, p. 273) and is characterized by uncertainty, ambiguity, and messiness. Such ideas are similar to Biesta’s third domain of education, Subjectification, which also positions the child as a subject of action and responsibility, not as an object of intervention (Biesta, 2010). Relational Pedagogy. The idea of an “ethics of an encounter” already points to the importance of relationships. Further inspiration about the immense value of relationships can be found in the concept of relational pedagogy (Bingham & Sidorkin, 2004; Gergen, 2009) or pedagogy of relations (Beziehungspädagogik) (Liegle, 2017). Too often, thinking about quality is focused on the “bounded individual—either the teacher or the student” (Gergen, 2009, p.  247). That is problematic because such a “language of learning is an individualistic language” (Biesta, 2013, p. 126). It does not recognize that education is always a relational process, that the idea of education means that someone needs to educate (in the whole meaning of the word) someone: “Education is primarily about human beings who are in relation with one another” (Bingham & Sidorkin, 2004, p. 5). ECEC irrevocably consists of two partial activities that are inseparably intertwined (Sauerbrey, 2018). One cannot think adequately about the one without simultaneously considering the other. “Education is an interaction between the (activities of the) educator and the (activities of the) one being educated […] education is basically a relationship between an educator and the one being educated” (Biesta, 2004, p. 12). Thinking about ECEC must reflect this bi-subjectivity. Although some of the current quality measures include student-teacher interactions, this is a superficial measure of something much deeper—a real relationship based on caring. This real relationship would consider the “Other,” the individual child as a child, without the constraints of adult expectations or developmental norms. Questions about the responsibility of the teacher in an educational relationship are often marginalized; instead, teachers are seen as a deliverer (or facilitator) of content and skills. What if one considers children and professionals together, their

18 

E. Nitecki and H. Wasmuth

relations, instead of focusing on the isolated individual and individual outcomes? Meaningful education is only possible when relationships are carefully understood and educed (Bingham & Sidorkin, 2004). It would again point to an alternative way of thinking about education and a shift “from the mind of individual students to the kinds of relationships out of which mutual knowing can emerge” (Gergen, 2009, p.  244). Thus, it opens new possibilities because “when education is sensitive to relationship, we realize that in terms of future well-being, ‘we are all in it together’” (Gergen, 2009, p.  269). It again raises the question of ethics and the responsibility for the child as an “Other.” Because the nature of such relationships has a strong impact, the professional needs ethics, needs to think about what it means to live with children, educate them (in the broadest sense), and how it can be avoided that the child as an “Other” is reduced to the same (Liegle, 2017). Bildung. In addition to care and relationships, a third alternative concept is the idea of Bildung. Bildung is a fundamental concept in German-­ speaking educational theory, which is also widely used in the Scandinavian context (Bauer, 2003; Horlacher, 2016; Siljander et al., 2012; Sjöström et al., 2017). Bildung is an extremely ambiguous German term, which is “generally thought of as not translatable” (Bauer, 2003, p. 133). At best, Bildung can be translated insufficiently as “self-formation,” “self-­ cultivation,” “self-development,” “transformation,” or “cultural process.” Richard Rorty further used the term “edification” (Bauer, 2003; Siljander et al., 2012). As no direct English language equivalent exists and as none of the translations covers the entire meaning of the concept of Bildung, we will use the term without translation. Bildung has a nearly countless number of meanings. The term is rooted in the tradition of Humanism and Enlightenment but underwent many re-interpretations over the centuries (Siljander et al., 2012). Simplifying, Bildung has at least two meanings: It refers to the “process of an individual striving to reach her or his full potential, as well as to an ideal—having, for instance, reached a state of reflexivity towards one’s self, others, and the world” (Moss, 2014, p. 92). Bildung can refer to a process as well as a result (Siljander et al., 2012). Furthermore, the term plays a crucial part in the current German-speaking educational theory of early childhood. Again, the meaning is ambiguous, because, on the one hand, the

  The Child as “Other”: The Duality of the Other… 

19

triad of tasks of ECEC is described as Bildung, Erziehung (education), and Betreuung (care) (Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend, 2005). On the other hand, Bildung refers to the activity of the child. Bildung, in this sense, refers to the child’s self-actuating process of world acquisition and world construction, of giving meaning to the world and oneself as being in this world. It contains the process of developing critical consciousness and of “autonomous self-formation and reflective and responsible action in, and in interaction with, society” (Sjöström et al., 2017, p. 169). The aim of Bildung is to become a subject in the world, “to be in the world—rather than remain with itself—without being or becoming the centre of the world” (Biesta, 2015, p. 389). However, Bildung does not occur by itself; it requires a counterpart: education (Erziehung). While the child themselves can only do this process of formation of the self in the world, children still need education. The development of the self (Bildung) depends on external pedagogical influence (Erziehung). The use of a complex, untranslatable term such as Bildung would, of course, be highly problematic, and even German scholars have currently pointed out that Bildung is only partly suitable to describe the child’s process of world acquisition (Liegle, 2017; Sauerbrey, 2018). However, while the term itself may be problematic, the associated concept is applicable when considering the “Other” and going beyond the “learnification” of education. Bildung, in the same sense as Biesta’s idea of Subjectification, extends the scope of education. Learning, development, care, and well-being—all of it needs to be thought of together because all of it is ECEC. Such a pedagogy goes beyond just learning. It does not focus solely on outcomes, meeting milestones, or results, but examines the potential of relationships, personal growth, and responsibility. Instead, it is concerned with helping the child to find their place as a subject in the world, a process that requires real relationships, care, and professionals who are enabled and allowed to make ethical decisions. All these possibilities—Bildung, relational pedagogy, and ethics of care—are not acknowledged in the current context of quality ECEC. These approaches share a focus on the importance of relationships, a responsibility to the child as an absolute “Other,” and care. Thus, such alternatives hold a powerful potential to express a uniquely ECEC pedagogy and

20 

E. Nitecki and H. Wasmuth

fill some of the gaps that are evident in ECEC practice today. However, it would require a change of perspective, one that would value the “Otherness” of the child and allow existence with less adult meddling (Moss, 2014). This shift in perspective would have a dramatic impact on the lives of young children and teachers. Such a shift in perspective would result in drastic changes in the everyday lives of children and teachers, for the better. We must recognize that the child is an “Other”—in more ways than one. They are not adults, and some are different from what is defined as “typical”—but that is OK. We need to let children be children, thereby protecting their right to the brief and unique life stage of childhood and see what emerges. Our selfless “responsibility to the Other” (Biesta, 2016; Dahlberg & Moss, 2005) calls for a challenge to the prevailing expectations of children today. Reconceptualizing early childhood means examining the status quo in the quality context, considering alternatives, and reframing our expectations of what ECEC could be—and should be!

References Bauer, W. (2003). Introduction Educational Philosophy and Theory, 35 (2), 133–137. BMFSFJ (2005). Kindertagesbetreuung für Kinder unter drei Jahren. Bericht der Bundesregierung über den Stand des Ausbaus für ein bedarfsgerechtes Angebot an Kindertagesbetreuung für Kinder unter drei Jahren. Berlin: Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend. Biesta, G. (2004). “Mind the gap!” communication and educational relation. In Sidorkin & Bingham, 2004, 11–22. Biesta, G. (2010) Good Education in an Age of Measurement. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers. Biesta, G. (2013). The beautiful risk of education. London: Routledge. Biesta, G. (2015). Teaching, teacher education and the humanities: Reconsidering education as a Geisteswissenschaft. Educational Theory, 65(6), 665–679. Biesta, G. (2016a). Who’s afraid of teaching? Heidegger and the question of education (‘Bildung’/‘Erziehung’). Educational Philosophy and Theory, 48(8), 832–845. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2016.1165017 Biesta, G. (2016b). The rediscovery of teaching: On robot vacuum cleaners, non-egological education and the limits of the hermeneutical world view.

  The Child as “Other”: The Duality of the Other… 

21

Educational Philosophy and Theory, 48(4), 374–392. https://doi.org/10.108 0/00131857.2015.1041442 Biesta, G. (2016c). Giving teaching back to education: Responding to the disappearance of the teacher. Phenomenology & Practice, 6(2), 35–49. Bingham, C., & Sidorkin, A. M. (Eds.). (2004). No education without relation. New York: Lang. Bloch, M., Swadener, B., & Cannella, G. (Eds.). (2014). Reconceptualizing Early Childhood Care & Education. Critical questions, new imaginaries and social activism: A reader. New York, Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, Frankfurt am Main, Oxford, Wien: Peter Lang Publishing. Buber, M. (1923). Ich und Du. Leipzig: Insel. Burman, E. (2007). Deconstructing Developmental Psychology (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge. Cannella, G. S. (2008). Deconstructing early childhood education: Social justice and revolution. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Dahlberg, G. (2003). Pedagogy as a loci of an ethics of an encounter. In M. N. Bloch, K. Holmlund, I. Moqvist, & T. S. Popkewitz (Eds.), Governing children, families, and education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (1999). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care: Postmodern perspectives (1st ed.). London: Falmer Press. Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (2007). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care: Languages of evaluation (2nd ed.). London: Falmer Press. Horlacher, R. (2016). The educated subject and the German concept of Bildung—A comparative cultural history. London: Routledge. Korczak, J. (1929/2002): Das Recht des Kindes auf Achtung. Fröhliche Pädagogik (F. Beiner, Eds.). Güterslo: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. Krappmann, L., & Petry, C. (Eds.). (2016). Worauf Kinder ein Recht haben: Kinderrechte, Demokratie und Schule: Ein Manifest. Schwalbach/Ts: Debus Pädagogik. Levinas, E. (1969). Ethics and infinity. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press. Levinas, E. (1974). Otherwise than being or beyond essence. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press. Lubeck, S. (1998). Is developmentally appropriate practice for everyone? Childhood Education, 74(5), 283–292. Marsh, K. (2018). We’ve so overscheduled our kids that doctors are now prescribing playtime. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www. washingtonpost.com/outlook/weve-­s o-­o verscheduled-­o ur-­k ids-­t hat-­

22 

E. Nitecki and H. Wasmuth

doctors-­are-­now-­prescribing-­playtime/2018/09/14/cc31da80-­b151-­11e8-­ aed9-­001309990777_story.html?utm_term=.64e0a2c8d42e Meyer-Drawe, K., & Waldenfels, B. (1988). Das Kind als Fremder. Vierteljahresschrift für Wissenschaftliche Pädagogik, 64, 271–297. Moss, P. (2014). Transformative change and real utopias in early childhood education: A story of democracy, experimentation, and potentiality. New  York: Routledge. Nagasawa, M., Peters, L., & Swadener. (2014). The costs of putting quality first: Neoliberalism, (in)equality, (un)affordability, and (in)accessibility. In M.  Bloch, B.  Swadener, & G.  Cannella (Eds.), Reconceptualizing Early Childhood Care & Education. Critical questions, new imaginaries and social activism: A reader (pp.  279–290). New  York, Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, Frankfurt am Main, Oxford, Wien: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2018). Developmentally appropriate practice position statement. Retrieved from https:// www.naeyc.org/resources/position-­statements/dap Nitecki, E., & Wasmuth, H. (2017). Global trends in early childhood practice: Working within the limitations of the global education reform movement. Global Education Review, 4(3), 1–13. Nitecki, E., & Wasmuth, H. (2019). GERM and its effects on ECEC: Analyzing unintended consequences, destructive practices, and hidden agendas. In S.  Faas, D.  Kasüschke, E.  Nitecki, M.  Urban, & H.  Wasmuth (Eds.), Globalization, transformation, and cultures in early childhood education and care—reconceptualization and comparison (Critical cultural studies of childhood series) (pp. 57–84). Palgrave Macmillan. Penn, H. (2010). Shaping the future: How human capital arguments about investment in early childhood are being (mis)used in poor countries. In N.  Yelland (Ed.), Contemporary perspectives on early childhood education (pp. 49–65). New York: Open University Press. Penn, H. (2011). Quality in early childhood services. An international perspective. New York: Open University Press. Sahlberg, P. (2011). Paradoxes of educational improvement: The Finnish experience. Scottish Educational Review, 43(1), 3–23. Sauerbrey, U. (2018). Öffentliche Kleinkinderziehung. Eine Theorie. Weinheim: Beltz Juventa. Siljander, P., Kivelä, A., & Sutinen, A. (Eds.). (2012). Theories of Bildung and growth. Connections and controversies between continental educational thinking and American pragmatism. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

  The Child as “Other”: The Duality of the Other… 

23

Sjöström, J., Frerichs, N., Zuin, V. G., & Eilks, I. (2017). Use of the concept of Bildung in the international science education literature, its potential, and implications for teaching and learning. Studies in Science Education, 53(2), 165–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2017.1384649 Swadener, B.  B., Lundy, L., Habashi, J., & Blanchet-Cohen, N. (2013). Children’s rights and education. International perspectives. New  York: Peter Lang. Tobin, J. (2005). Quality in early childhood education. An Anthropologist’s view. Early Education & Development, 16(4), 421–434. United Nations. (1959). Declaration of the rights of the child. Retrieved from https://www.unicef.org/malaysia/1959-­D eclaration-­o f-­t he-­R ights-­o f-­ the-­Child.pdf United Nations. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx Urban, M. (2012). Editorial. European Journal of Education, 47(4), 477–481. Urban, M. (2018). Editorial. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 26(3), 311–315. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2018.1469857 Urban, M., Vandenbroeck, M., Van Laere, K., Lazzari, A., & Peeters, J. (2012). Towards competent Systems in Early Childhood Education and Care. Implications for policy and practice. European Journal of Education, 47(4), 508–526. Wasmuth, H., & Nitecki, E. (2017). Global early childhood policies: The impact of the global education reform movement and possibilities for reconceptualization. Global Education Review, 4(2), 1–17. Zhao. (2017). What works may hurt: Side effects in education. Journal of Educational Change, 18(1), 1–19.

Paradigmatic Discourses: Reconceptualizing the Role of the Critical Paradigm and Revisiting the Image of the Child as a Social Agent Darya (Dasha) Shalimo and John P. Portelli

Introduction Over the last two decades, there has been an increasing public, educational, scholarly, and policy interest in the field of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC), leading to a number of philosophical discourses that warrant further exploration. The growing presence of postfoundational The original version of this chapter was revised. The order of author names has been updated from John P. Portelli and Darya (Dash)Shalimo to Darya (Dasha) Shalimo and John P. Portelli. The correction to this chapter can be found at https://doi.org/10.1007/ 978-3-030-69013-7_13

D. Shalimo Sheridan College, Oakville, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] J. P. Portelli (*) St. Michael’s College, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021, corrected publication 2021 Z. Kinkead-Clark, K.-A. Escayg (eds.), Reconceptualizing Quality in Early Childhood Education, Care and Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69013-7_2

25

26 

D. Shalimo and J. P. Portelli

perspectives (Moss, 2007, 2008; Ninnes & Mehta, 2004; Pacini-Ketchabaw, Nxumalo, Kocher, Elliot, & Sanchez, 2015) including postmodernist, poststructuralist, and postcolonialist discourses denotes an increasingly complex and fluid understanding of ECEC paradigms. These postfoundational perspectives have presented a novice image of the child, and articulate that the child is a competent learner and a human being in his/her own right (Bloch, Swadener, & Cannella, 2014; Dahlberg & Moss, 2005; Dahlberg, Moss, & Pence, 2007; Moss, 2013, 2019). This is while more contemporary interpretations of the concept of ‘the image of the child’ have been significantly influenced by ideological and economic agendas of neoliberalism. The rise of neoliberal doctrine in the 1970s in business sectors has now pervaded all social spheres of life and particularly affects education (Harvey, 2005). This fact has led to problematic implications of the term the image of the child in educational practices. In particular, it has opened an opportunity for substituting the term the competent child for the child with competencies. Interchanging these two terms poses a challenge for educators to adequately view the young child as a competent individual in his/her own right. Hence, the proposed postmodern discourses that promote the image of the competent child have encountered serious challenges, allowing cultural, economic, and political forces to sanction a self-serving use of this term. This fact has provoked a demand to revisit paradigmatic connotations of the concept of the competent child. As Moss, Dahlberg, Olsson, and Vandenbroeck (2016) explain, the issue becomes even more complicated if one considers that the external factors of economic globalization in today’s world have persistently substituted the image of the competent child with the image of the child with developmentally appropriate competencies and school-oriented skills development. As an entry point to this discussion, we engage in discursive analysis surrounding ECEC paradigms by identifying the significance of the available literature in the field of ECEC studies. Our literature overview represents a general evaluation of the modern, constructivist, postmodern, and critical paradigms. It discusses the effects of these paradigms’ core concepts as they relate to curriculum design and the concept of the child while identifying main pedagogical terminologies that support the paradigm’s key pedagogical principles. Each paradigm’s description is followed by a critical reflection to elucidate the drawbacks of the paradigmatic disposition.

  Paradigmatic Discourses: Reconceptualizing the Role… 

27

 ignificance of the Proposed Discourse: S Paradigms, Pedagogical Terms, and the Image of the Child Contemporary early childhood scholars have discussed how different paradigmatic discourses have shaped and impacted the field of ECEC (Bennett, 2004; Dahlberg & Taguchi, 1994; MacNaughton, 2003; Moss, 2007; Woodhead, 2006). For instance, Bennett (2005) argues that the decisions made in the context of ECEC curricula have a predominantly cultural orientation. Bennett (2005) identifies two competing traditions in ECEC that are informed by historical and social constructs. These constructs have led to the production and eventual adoption of pre-­ primary and social pedagogical traditions to educating young children. Moss (2007) maintains that developmental psychology has had a powerful and persistent impact on ECEC curriculum design to the point that it is nearly impossible to dissociate the two in any meaningful sense. Accordingly, Moss (2007, 2019) calls for a re-evaluation and subsequent detachment from traditional views of the child as an immature being and instead urges us to think beyond developmental psychology by embracing the philosophical dispositions of continental European philosophers such as Levinas, Deleuze, Foucault, and Derrida. MacNaughton (2003) outlines the three central approaches of conforming, reforming, and transforming in order to interpret early childhood pedagogy, curriculum design, and the role of the child as learner. Woodhead (2006) states that developmental, political, and economic as well as sociocultural and human rights perspectives inform early childhood studies and pedagogy. Despite apparent differences in names and interpretations, all scholars are in agreement that early childhood paradigmatic perspectives diverge “based on different epistemological paradigms and sciences that both at times support and, at times, severely contradict each other in terms of their results and consequences for pedagogical practices in early childhood provision” (Taguchi, 2010, p. 7). In this chapter an important point of contrast among educational paradigms involves the use of pedagogical terms that not only are merely dependent on epistemological or methodological assumptions associated

28 

D. Shalimo and J. P. Portelli

with a particular paradigm but rather are reliant on the historical, cultural, political, or economic contexts within which the terms are employed. In other words, when epistemological and methodological paradigmatic dogmas are embedded in a particular context, they create a setting where pedagogical terms are compelled to adapt. Hence, this chapter explores the paradigmatic (theoretical) use of pedagogical terms as well as their applications to early childhood curricula while assigning the child a role in curriculum. Here, it is important to distinguish between the implications existent in the paradigmatic use of pedagogical terminology as opposed to their general use in linguistics. Pedagogical terminologies “with regard to both content and presentation” are ‘language particular’ as opposed to ‘coherent and systematic’ when used in the literature (Taylor in Geiger & Rudzka-Ostyn, 1993). With this in mind, Moss (2007) points out that each educational paradigm possesses its distinct vocabulary. This vocabulary or set of linguistic units can fulfil two roles—one is a general usage of terms; the other is context-based applications for specific purposes (Chouliaraki & Fairclough, 2007). This has highlighted significant challenges for educators who opt for defining the image of the child as a social agent. The term the image of the child has gradually expanded from the image of the scientific child to the image of the competent child by encompassing a number of subsidiary concepts ranging from alternative to mainstream. The term competent child was coined to disrupt the notion of one dominant psychological image of a child-in-training and to promote ‘innovative’ and ‘novice’ understandings of the complexities associated with ECEC provision, research, ethics, and pedagogy. For instance, as Dahlberg, Moss, and Pence (1997, 2007) explain, the postmodern term the image of the child was proposed to demonstrate and further explore a disruption of the mainstream image of the child prevalent in the childhood literature in Englishspeaking countries (i.e. Commonwealth countries and the USA), which saw the child as a vessel to be filled with predetermined academic outcomes and disregarded the child’s social importance by marginalizing and limiting his/her being to an object or product of education. The myriad discourses regarding the image of the child have nonetheless encountered serious challenges in clearly defining the participatory role of the child in curriculum decision-making processes.

  Paradigmatic Discourses: Reconceptualizing the Role… 

29

Modern Paradigm Modernism is based on rationality and science, at times used interchangeably with positivism (Thomas, 2005). In ECEC, the modernist paradigm encompasses a wide range of scientific clusters, from ethology to developmental constructivism. The central argument of modernism in ECEC is that there is an objective reality which can and should be measured and is rooted in empirical evidence. Modernism encompasses an array of universal beliefs about how young children ‘normally’ develop and how they should be educated (Thomas, 2005). In particular, the science of psychology is believed to have had a long-standing influence on the formation of early childhood curriculum theory where theories of child development […] have grown at an increasing pace as biologists and psychologists [of the twentieth century] who traditionally focused their attention on the behaviour of animal species have been directly studying the manifestation of human genetic potentials within diverse habitats. (Thomas, 2005, p. 471)

Modernism reinforces programmed and educator-directed approaches in children’s learning and development. The application of ethology, specifically Darwin’s theories of evolution and natural selection, has proven to be a powerful influence in interpreting childhood and children’s development and learning. Following Darwin’s ethology, the Gesell Institute of Human Development (1982) continued to embrace age-appropriate practices throughout the 1970s and 1980s, conducting research related to age-appropriate toys (materials), books, routines, and teaching techniques (Ames & Haber, 1987). In addition, ethological attachment theory as proposed by Bowlby and by Ainsworth (1991) has influenced educators’ interpretations of how to create authentic relationships and bond with children in child care settings (Gestwicki, 2011; Thomas, 2005). This is while Skinner’s behaviourist theories and Bandura’s work continue to justify the use of control techniques in ECEC curricula (Gestwicki, 2011). Likewise, Freud and Erikson’s theories have found their way into ECEC curriculum through the identification of stages in

30 

D. Shalimo and J. P. Portelli

problem-solving and conflict resolution (Dodge, Colker, & Heroman, 2002; Hohmann & Weikart, 2002). Stage theories play a central role in designing modernist early childhood curricula; these are known to have a highly managerial agenda and a linear perspective on the young child’s development. A linear perspective of the growth of a child and assessing a child’s ‘normal’ development in socioemotional, cognitive, and physical domains has powerful implications for practice. Several of the aforementioned theories have been utilized to create either theme-based or play-based curricula, which provide educators with teaching manuals and guide them on how to reflect on their practices with children. Instances of a theme-based curriculum include the Curiosity Corner for preschoolers and KinderCorner for kindergartners. Both curricula have been developed by the Success for All Foundation (2012) to promote language and literacy development. By providing teacher’s manuals all educators and/or pre-primary teachers are guided to implement preschool instructive pedagogy while also advancing the central tenets of modern curriculum design. Thus, modernists view childhood as a sociobiological stage in the evolutionary chain of human development where the child is understood and treated as a human becoming. Terminologies used in the theoretical approaches of maturation, behaviourism, psychoanalysis, or latter humanisms include terms such as objectivity, seamlessness, norm, neutrality, order, and schoolreadiness. The modernist discourse and its proposed pedagogical vocabulary are replete with such terms as promoting development; schoolreadiness; early intervention; children in need; children at risk; disadvantaged groups of children; self-efficacy; behaviour management; knowledge and power control; desirable outcomes; regulation; standards; and so on (Dahlberg et al., 1997, 2007; Dahlberg & Moss, 2005; Hultqvist & Dahlberg, 2001).

Critical Reflections Driven by modernist theories, the field of early childhood education has embraced the notion of developmental norms and controlled learning in pursuit of linear progress and development. It demonstrates a strong

  Paradigmatic Discourses: Reconceptualizing the Role… 

31

commitment to measurable and quantifiable indicators that lead to self-­ productivity and self-efficacy in young children (Bredekamp, 2014; Gestwicki, 2011; Shaffer, Kipp, Wood, & Willoughby, 2012; Shonkoff, 2000; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). However, the latest ECEC approach of deconstructing early childhood psychology rejects a number of modernist ontologies while engendering a much broader understanding of the field of ECEC (Bloch et  al., 2014; Bloch, Kennedy, Lightfoot, & Weyenberg, 2006; Burman, 1994; Cannella, 1997; Dahlberg et al., 1997; Dahlberg & Moss, 2005; Iannacci & Whitty, 2009; MacNaughton, 2003, 2005; Moss & Petrie, 2002; Pacini-Ketchabaw, 2010; Pacini-­ Ketchabaw & Prochner, 2013; Taguchi, 2010). A strong criticism of modernity in applications of ECEC curricular is evidenced by an increased number of childhood studies in fields like anthropology, sociology, and critical psychology, creating significant opposition to a pure implementation of the key principles of modernity in ECEC curricula (Burman, 2008; Corsaro, 2003). These disciplines bring a critical lens to childhood studies by challenging the existence of ‘one scientific truth’ about the child. The notion of ‘one truth’, as MacNaughton (2005) denotes, has become a “regime of truth in that it regulates and governs what is the appropriate or correct way to understand and organize young children” and has led to the conception of mechanical and neutral early childhood curricula that seek to “normalize, classify, distribute, and regulate children” (p. 33). Nonetheless, the modernist regime of truth continues to inspire educators to develop instrumentalist teaching manuals that ensure social regulation, including how to discipline a child (e.g. time-outs); how to ‘normalize’ a child’s learning (e.g. motivational stickers); and how to simplify early childhood pedagogy and reduce it to methods of teaching (e.g. theme kits) so to advance economic and political agendas. Normalization of the child creates a curriculum that “allows little to no room for the child actively to make a choice and so it ignores the possibility that children may resist the role models and social experiences that they encounter” (MacNaughton, 2003, p. 36).

32 

D. Shalimo and J. P. Portelli

Constructivist Paradigm Educational scholars who criticized the instrumentalist nature, superficial objectivism, and the ethology and managerial perspective of modernism have reconceptualized the field of ECEC and helped it transition into a constructivist paradigm. The constructivist paradigm recognizes discourses about the inclusion of the cultural and individual proclivities of the child and integrates these into early childhood curriculum design. The constructivist paradigm advocates for child-centred learning environments where the child is the co-creator and co-constructor of his/her own learning experiences. In the grand narrative, constructivism is understood as a doctrine that thrives in an intermediary space between the modern and postmodern paradigms even though it still has a penchant for traditional views, specifically those related to social order (Popkewitz, 1998; Young, 2008). In light of its tendency to support a hierarchical knowledge formation, constructivism still exhibits modernist qualities particularly because it emerged “within a period of intense modernization that involved the industrialization, urbanization, and rationalization that we now associate with modernity and the modern Western welfare state” (Popkewitz, 1998, p. 537). In retrospect, however, constructivism has offered glimpses of a more critical view of humans as active constructors of new knowledge, as opposed to passive recipients of knowledge. Specifically, in ECEC, constructivism is broadly known as a “theory about how people learn and understand their world, with particular emphasis on the active process individuals undertake to develop complex knowledge” (Follari, 2019, p.  105). Constructivism in ECEC encompasses two trends: that of developmental, deeply ethological, Piagetian constructivism; and the social, culturally, and historically oriented perspective of Vygotsky (Follari, 2019; Gestwicki, 2011). In light of these variations which are dependent on epistemic theoretical values, constructivism in ECEC holds that “[p]edagogy is a practice of social administration of an individual” where “administration of the child embodies certain norms about the inner capabilities from which the child can become self-governing and self-reliant” (Popkewitz, 1998, p.  536). Developmental constructivism, then, focuses on individualism and

  Paradigmatic Discourses: Reconceptualizing the Role… 

33

developmentalism with an emphasis on creating rich educational spaces that stimulate learning. Meanwhile, sociocultural constructivism, often referred to as constructionism, stresses the pragmatic, interactive, interpretive, and collaborative aspects of education (MacNaughton, 2003). Given the above account, it can be argued that constructivism in ECEC proposes a somewhat dichotomous rather than complementary view of how to educate children (pedagogy) and design learning environments (curriculum). Bennett (2005) referred to these dichotomous views as pre-primary and social pedagogical traditions. Woodhead (2006) named these phenomena as developmentally appropriate and culturally appropriate practices (DAP vs. CAP). Some of the pedagogical terms prevalent in the constructivist paradigm have become central for mainstream preschool education. For instance, the pedagogical terms age appropriateness, scaffolded learning in small groups, planned activities, developmental assessments of children’s competencies, and schoolreadiness are key terms in the early learning framework of Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP) (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; Bredekamp, 1987; Copple & Bredekamp, 2009). This is while other terms such as competent child, documentation, responsive and emergent planning, sense of belonging, exploration and expression, and reflective practices have entered the field of ECEC pedagogies to elucidate the drawbacks of the purely developmental agenda of constructivism (MacNaughton & Williams, 2009). For example, in the North American world of early childhood education, DAP is considered to be a “tool to help practitioners and policy makers distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate teaching practices with young children, regardless of the curriculum approach under review” (Goffin, 2000, p. 2). Despite the advisory nature of the DAP document, prominent curriculum models including High/Scope, Creative Curriculum, and Tools of the Mind follow DAP’s guidelines to the letter (Follari, 2019; Gestwicki, 2011; Roopnarine & Johnson, 2009). As such, the ECE curriculum in the context of DAP is considered as ‘academic-enough-oriented’, measurable, and structured and “emphasize[s] predictability, acceptance, and responsiveness” where educators “intentionally engage children” (Copple & Bredekamp, 2009, p. 128). This is while the other English-speaking ECEC curricula like Te Whāriki (1996, 2017) from New Zealand and Australia’s Early Years

34 

D. Shalimo and J. P. Portelli

Learning Framework of Belonging, Being & Becoming (2009) adhere to socio-constructivist practices. The transition resonates with a point made by Woodhead (2006) regarding the shift from DAP to CAP. Some other examples can be found in the Italian Reggio Emilia’s educational philosophies along with the Scandinavian and Nordic approaches that go beyond developmental constructivism. By emphasizing the sociocultural aspects of learning, these approaches underline the importance of socialization, well-being, and care in early childhood education (Haug, 2013). The differences among these approaches are further indication that constructivism is regarded as a theoretical continuum that functions as an umbrella paradigm under which various theories meet before radiating away in different directions. The duality of definitions in the constructivist paradigm has led to the creation of a dual image of the child. On the one hand, there is a predominantly traditional view of children as isolated, vulnerable, scaffolded, guided, and powerless individuals in need of being educated and adapted to pre-established social orders. On the other hand, there is the image of the child as a being who is creatively culturally intuitive and competent; who is a protagonist of his/her learning, and who possesses multiple languages as well as has a strong sense of agency (Rinaldi, 2006).

Critical Reflections According to Popkewitz (1998), constructivism involves educators in ‘discursive imaginaries’ that reflect the image of the child as a social, competent agent. He contends that such discursive imaginaries create academically neutral relationships as opposed to critical and social ones. Constructivism produces a mind/society binary relationship and encourages educators to narrow the image of the competent child to a self-­ regulating young scholar who is in the process of preparing for school by mastering skills such as numeracy, literacy, and problem-solving. This disconnect helps sustain traditional educational systems and cultivates a culture of ‘pedagogical determinism’ while maintaining the universal image of the ‘normal’ child (Cannella, 1997; Popkewitz, 1998; von Glasersfeld, 2000). Pedagogical determinism, according to Cannella

  Paradigmatic Discourses: Reconceptualizing the Role… 

35

(1997), instils the institutionalized language of constructivism which in effect supports and maintains what has been known as the one universal truth of ‘normality’ in child development and learning, which is in line with the modern paradigm. Such vocabulary purposefully omits the principles of social construction in favour of one objective scientific truth. To this end, the majority of early childhood scholars whose views are rooted in constructivism conform to commonly used pedagogical terms such as child-centred pedagogy, pedagogy of choice, and play-based learning (Cannella, 1997; Kessler, 2014). The frequent use of these terms establishes constructivism as an educational paradigm and prescribes the young child’s progressive academic efficiency through the means of developmental/maturationist learning as a form of ‘product control’ to secure political and economic goals (Bloch et al., 2014; Fendler, 2001; Hultqvist & Dahlberg, 2001; Iannacci & Whitty, 2009). The constructivist paradigm envisions ECEC as the first step towards the progressive institutionalization of the child. As Kessler (2014) explains, constructivism promotes “skill-oriented curriculum and indicates that this response [is] a political one” (p. 36). In other words, the constructivist paradigm has substituted its progressive, socially oriented ideas in service of political and economic agendas of the time that coerce educators to meet the needs of the current workforce by entering these into the formal curriculum. In response to this, postmodern and critical scholars argue that a scientific perception of young children has had dire consequences, including “‘giving up’ on some children and ‘blaming’ the brain for behaviours that may be a product of social and political experiences” (MacNaughton, 2003, p.  65). In such a setting, constructivism tends to reproduce a perception of the ‘governed child’, where pedagogical practices related to social justice are replaced with cognitive control and academic efficacy (Burman, 2008; Hultqvist & Dahlberg, 2001).

Postmodern Paradigm Postmodernism comprises a variety of theories and approaches, including post-colonialism, poststructuralism, and feminism. These approaches yield discourses about social order, power/knowledge relationships, colonialism,

36 

D. Shalimo and J. P. Portelli

gender, and dominance, and invite researchers, educators, and policy makers to espouse a transformative understanding of concepts like unitary reality, truth, and the child (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005; Farquhar & Fitzsimons, 2008; Hultqvist & Dahlberg, 2001; MacNaughton, 2003, 2005; PaciniKetchabaw et al., 2015; Pacini-Ketchabaw & Prochner, 2013; Seller, 2013; Taguchi, 2010). Postmodernism offers a complex and challenging space where notions like reconceptualization, deconstruction, subjectivity, and context manifest themselves in dynamic ways. The postmodern paradigm has seeped into social and educational constructs and disrupted the comfort zone of the constructivist paradigm. However, despite social constructivism having paved a path to a postmodern comprehension of the child in ECEC by introducing the ‘new sociology of childhood’ (as MacNaughton (2003) argues), it is different from social constructionism. Postmodernism as an independent and competing paradigm builds on the works of such thinkers as Foucault (1926–1984), Levinas (1906–1995), Derrida (1930–2004), and Deleuze (1925–1995), establishing that early childhood pedagogy must be understood through the prism of the local, “because as we try to generalize our understandings, we rely on ‘big pictures’ or ‘grand narratives’ about humanity’s ‘progress’ or ‘journey’ that are inaccurate and simplistic” (MacNaughton, 2003, p. 73). Postmodern writers argue that we can and should view each society as “incoherent and discontinuous” (Hughes, 2001). Postmodern scholars push for a deconstruction of our view of society and suggest accepting and welcoming the other “in order for dominant meanings not to be normalizing and oppressive” (Taguchi, 2008, p. 53). From the postmodern perspective, expanding our understanding of ECEC discourses is reliant upon the decentralization of early childhood pedagogy as interpreted by Dahlberg and Moss (2005). In this way, postmodern scholars place greater emphasis on pedagogical process than on academic product. To affirm the postmodern paradigm shift, postmodern scholars have engaged in extensive discussions about quality education through socially negotiated meaning-making practices, and challenging concepts like early educational intervention and school readiness (Cameron & Moss, 2007; Dahlberg & Moss, 2012; Farquhar & Fitzsimons, 2008; Fielding & Moss, 2011; Pacini-Ketchabaw, 2010; Palaiologou, 2012; Slattery, 2006). Such pedagogical re-evaluation has had a significant impact

  Paradigmatic Discourses: Reconceptualizing the Role… 

37

on early childhood pedagogy, as well as on ECEC provision and research ethics. Foucault’s works have had tremendous influence on ECEC by inviting educators to ask important questions such as the following: “How should we think, act and feel to be ‘true’ early childhood educators and to prove to ourselves and others that we are ‘true believers’ in early childhood?” (MacNaughton, 2005, p. 39). Contemporary postmodern early childhood scholars understand ECEC curriculum as a rhizome and pedagogy as multilayered, provoking, and transforming. As Seller (2013) puts it: “A rhizome comprises ceaseless interrelation movements—flows of connectivity—among numerous possible assemblies of the disparate and similar” (p. 11). In other words, the idea of the rhizome offers endless possibilities to create flows and movements within a curriculum by establishing relational connections between the unreasonable and the reasonable, the convergent and the divergent. A rhizomatic curriculum espouses an intra-active pedagogy that is “inclusive of children’s and students’ thinking and different strategies and ways of doing, as well as their subject positionings on the margins of social class, ethnicity, race, gender and sexuality” (Taguchi, 2010, p.  9). An early childhood curriculum inspired by the Deleuzian rhizome “becomes an opportunity to resist, to make meaning, and to search out other (invisible, out-of-sight) meanings” (Pacini-Ketchabaw, 2010, p. xiii). Engaging with an inclusive ECEC curriculum also requires the utilization of pedagogical narrations as a mechanism for thinking critically and reflectively. Specifically, pedagogical narration is “a way to make children’s learning visible as educators make decisions about curriculum development” (Pacini-Ketchabaw et  al., 2015, p.  114). Pedagogical narrations are reflective of both the children’s and educators’ works and invite educators to reflect and question, deconstruct and experiment, and collaborate and engage in dialogue. Dialogue, in this context, is not solely driven by semiotics as it establishes that “each encounter has its own context and meaning” (Pacini-Ketchabaw, 2010, p. 12). In the postmodern discourse, the image of the postmodern child is that of a ‘protagonist’—‘rich in potential’—a competent individual in his/her own right. Pacini-Ketchabaw and her colleagues (2015) offer a brief account of how children should be viewed in the context of postmodernity: the child

38 

D. Shalimo and J. P. Portelli

• is curious, competent, rich, and full of potential (Rinaldi, 1993); • has a voice as a citizen and member of a social group (MacNaughton, Hughes, & Smith, 2002); • is an agent of his/her own life (Moss & Petrie, 2002); and • is a co-constructor of knowledge, identity, and culture who constantly makes meaning of his/her life and the world (James & Prout, 1997). Accordingly, the term the image of the child has gradually expanded to the image of the competent child by encompassing a number of subsidiary concepts ranging from alternative to mainstream. Dahlberg and Moss (2005) expand on the proposed images of the child, arguing that in today’s world the image of the child is a ‘political question’ constructed through different power structures including various forms of intervention, marketization, and commercialization of early childhood education. Adding to this construct, Fielding and Moss (2011) point to the inevitable connectivity between the image of the child and the image of the school. These scholars contend that schools can be either “impersonal, affective and of high performance and efficacy” or “person-­ centred learning communities and agents of democratic fellowship” (Moss & Fielding, 2011, p. 54). In light of current polar views on the role of schools and children, the image of the child varies depending on the nature of the institution as well as the pedagogies employed, which generally embody fundamentally different philosophical assumptions. Therefore, postmodern ECEC scholars elaborated on constructivist pedagogical terms such as belonging, divergent thinking, rhizomatic curriculum, narrative pedagogy, pedagogy of listening and care, and new ethics of childhood research among myriad other concepts.

Critical Reflections The postmodern drive to release knowledge from the shackles of the prevailing modern discourse has met with stiff criticism over its presumed irrationality and lack of objectivity. While the concepts of multimodality and decentralization in postmodern discourses are set to replace modernist objectivity and universality, in reality, the postmodern paradigm fails to break the modernist hegemony of power and control. Postmodern

  Paradigmatic Discourses: Reconceptualizing the Role… 

39

interpretations of reality have indeed been depicted as abstractive assumptions that lack counterstrategy in addressing political and social issues (McLaren & Farahmandpur, 2001). McLaren and Farahmandpur (2001) state: Postmodernists—whose work now composes the fountainhead of radical educational critique—frequently overlook the centrality of class warfare as the overarching mechanism that inscribes individuals and groups in the reproduction of social relations of exploitation under capitalism [presently known as neoliberalism]. (McLaren & Farahmandpur, 2001, p. 142)

The lack of consensus and evidence in addressing the social issues of class, gender, and cultural struggles in the postmodern camp has proven problematic in unifying the ECEC postmodern paradigm (McLaren & Farahmandpur, 2001). Furthermore, as Montuori (2008) quoting Journet (2000) in his foreword to Morin’s On Complexity book denotes: French authors who are closely associated with postmodernism were extensively published in the United States, while authors who were considered major figures in France were sidelined because they could not be identified with the hot new trend. It is interesting to note that in the United States French thought over the last few decades is associated almost exclusively with postmodernism. In France, on the other hand, postmodernism is considered a largely Anglophone phenomenon. (p. xiv)

Thus, postmodern educationalists have established their own mainstream discourse while leaving educators adrift when confronted with the neoliberal realities of teaching. Postmodern scholars are merely trading critiquing modernism for proposing postmodernism, or critiquing ‘the child in need’ to proposing ‘the image of the competent child’. Hence, we suggest that ECEC postmodern scholars who constantly compare and contrast modernism with postmodernism drive further categorizations that become strongly associated with good and bad. In this sense, these scholars fail to embrace Derrida’s concept of deconstruction because deconstruction as a method of critique rejects ‘binary opposition’ where one concept/discourse ultimately prevails over the other (Derrida, 2003).

40 

D. Shalimo and J. P. Portelli

Critical Paradigm To transcend the long-standing philosophical and hermeneutic controversies impacting modern and postmodern paradigms, educational researchers and scholars have proposed the adoption of critical, critical-­ theoretical, and participatory paradigms. This move is aimed at offering support to educators’ social pedagogical activities and inspiring them to embrace platforms that advocate social change through educational practice and research (Guba & Lincoln, 2000; Woodhead, 2008). Critical thinking as a way of reconceptualizing social order emerged from Frankfurt School scholars, who suggested that the positivist empirical practices of social science researchers had lacked the sophistication to describe and accurately measure the different dimensions of human behaviour despite claims to the contrary (Steinberg with Kincheloe, 2010). The philosophical views on education provided by Jürgan Habermas and Paulo Freire aspire to further advance themes related to philosophy, education, and democracy inspired by the best works of some of the most prominent critical thinkers of our time. Accordingly, renowned scholars (e.g. Giroux, McLaren, and Steinberg) “had come of age in the politically charged atmosphere of the 1960s focused their scholarly attention on critical theory” (Steinberg with Kincheloe, 2010, p.  142). As applied to ECEC, Cannella (2014) explained that critical accounts in education and educational research tend to recognize and acknowledge power relations, analyze the taken-for-granted to understand unjust and oppressive conditions […] attempt to illuminate hidden structures of power and/or intersecting oppressions, and are concerned with discourse practices (from language, to artifacts, to performances) that shape and limit perspectives, opportunities, inclusions, and exclusions. (p. 254)

Kincheloe (2008) maintains that critical thinking in general and critical pedagogy in particular provides an opportunity to “disrupt and challenge the status quo” and leads to reconceptualization, transformation, and social change. According to Giroux (2011) reconceptualization, transformation, and social change are inseparable from classroom

  Paradigmatic Discourses: Reconceptualizing the Role… 

41

practices. In an increasingly neoliberal-leaning educational landscape, influential economic forces tend to favour educational systems without critical insight, and favour mass privatization of public education, standardized testing, and competency-based teaching practices. Therefore, critical pedagogy is among the voices that seek to disrupt the rationality that endorses the neoliberal vision of education by empowering educators to “become more attentive to the ways in which institutional forces and cultural power are tangled up with everyday experience” (Giroux, 2011, p. 123). Hence, the dynamic nature of critical theory and critical pedagogy suggests that through empowerment and engagement, intellectuals can work to gain academic freedom by questioning ‘unproblematic’ essentialities of Western democracy “in solidarity with a justice-oriented community” (Steinberg with Kincheloe, 2010). Generally speaking, early childhood educators have been resistant to adopting a critical disposition that engages them in the political realm and have opted instead to focus on the psychological or pedagogical aspects of ECEC (Kincheloe, 2005). There are a number of factors contributing to this resistance, and to the perception of child care settings as neutral social institutions. One such factor is that ECEs work with young children from 0 to 6 years of age, where political questions are deemed irrelevant if not inappropriate. ECEs are also not generally exposed to critical political thought that could empower them to connect their work in child care settings to the larger social context and thus analyse societal problems critically in relation to power, governmentality, institutionalization, and neoliberal-led privatization. Apparently for these and some other reasons the practical application of the critical paradigm in ECEC is mainly informed by the postmodern paradigm in espousing reconceptualization by referencing postmodern philosophers like Foucault. However, some ECEC scholars and researchers have cited the works of critical pedagogues. For instance, MacNaughton (2005) makes a reference to McLaren’s notions of “oppressive or inequitable teaching and learning processes” while elaborating on the concept of critical reflection and its importance for early childhood educators (p. 7). Here, contemporary ECEC scholars use both critical pedagogical terminologies as proposed by Gramsci and Freire and postmodern pedagogical terminologies as suggested by Foucault in addressing the issues of power, hegemony,

42 

D. Shalimo and J. P. Portelli

and dominance (Bloch et  al., 2014; Dahlberg et  al., 1997; MacNaughton, 2005). It is known that both paradigms share similar positions on issues pertaining to power, hegemony, and dominance. They underscore the importance of questioning existing power structures and tackling social inequalities in an effort to engender democratic relationships in early childhood education programmes (Fielding & Moss, 2011; Giroux, 2011; McLaren, 2003, 2015; Moss, 2014). Within those similarities there are well-noted differences between the theoretical frameworks of Gramsci and Freire and those provided by Foucault. For instance, Foucault “proposes a genealogy of the self that includes examination of one ethical axis, or the components of self as moral agent” (Cannella, 2014, p. 259) while Freire advocates the notion of ‘liberation theology’, which incorporates a historical component in the collectivist struggle for an equal and just society (Steinberg with Kincheloe, 2010). With that, not only are the critical educators adept at recognizing injustice, but they are also moved to change it because critical pedagogy explains: “[t]he philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it” (Marx, 1845/1977, p. 158 as cited in Burbules & Berk, 1999, pp. 50–51). As Kincheloe (2005) denotes: When advocates of the new [critical] paradigm enter diverse class cultures and racial/ethnic cultures they find childhoods that look quite different from the white, middle-/upper-middle class, English speaking one presented by positivism [modernism]. In these particularistic childhoods [critical] researchers find great complexity and diversity within these specific categories. For example, the social, cultural, and political structures that shape these childhoods and the children who inhabit them are engaged in profoundly different ways by particular children in specific circumstances. (p. xiii)

Furthermore, according to Lazzari (2012), if educators in preschool settings position themselves as citizens who are actively engaged in their community, they tend to advocate a pedagogy in which civic and political engagements are strictly aligned. In these circumstances, pedagogy

  Paradigmatic Discourses: Reconceptualizing the Role… 

43

becomes democratic, engaging, and empowering, and young children are viewed as citizens of today, not tomorrow. Lazzari’s (2012) vision has been shaped by research on historical construction of the Reggio Emilia approach where preschool institutions were infused with the values of social movements, including peace and solidarity, and took a stand in support of equal educational opportunities for all children in the community (Lazzari & Balduzzi, 2013). This resulted in the development of a pedagogy of dialogic relationships as a core of ECEC pedagogy. Dialogic pedagogy stems from the collaborative efforts of early childhood institutions and communities in the region where democratic engagement led to the formation of a democratic civil society (Lazzari, 2012; Lazzari & Balduzzi, 2013). There is compelling evidence of critical theory’s strong presence in the theoretical and practical frameworks of Reggio Emilia ECEC.  To further elucidate this point, Lazzari (2012) points out that Reggio Emilia has developed in response to significant political and historical events in the Italian province of Emilia Romania. Subsequently, analysis of the Reggio Emilia educational project cannot be separated from social developments in the region and needs to be understood within its cultural and historical context. The powerful presence of social resilience movements and communal activism is further indication that the Reggio Emilia approach cannot be explained solely within the boundaries of sociocultural constructivism or the postmodern paradigm. Given this viewpoint, Malaguzzi and his colleagues like Ciari (1975, 1993 as explained in Lazzari & Balduzz, 2013) advanced four guiding principles for democratic education in the region: (1) a competent child and an educator as co-learners and co-­researchers; (2) a child as an active participant in the social life—a citizen in a community; (3) relationships built upon communication and dialogue; and (4) community, including all its members and resources, as an educational environment—environment as a third teacher. All four concepts closely resemble what critical scholars (Freire, 1997, 1998; Giroux, 1991, 2011; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1999; McLaren, 2015) have built upon in their work. Thus, the critical paradigm argues that the image of the child should be the child as a citizen—a global citizen of today—which goes beyond the images of the child as learner, co-constructor of knowledge, co-­ researcher, or protagonist of his/her own learning. This image adheres to

44 

D. Shalimo and J. P. Portelli

social movement and democratic education by utilizing pedagogical terms like democratic, activity-oriented, empowering, critical, and culturally responsive pedagogy along with the concept of heteroglossia (De Lissovoy, 2008; Dewey, 1916; Giroux, 1991; McLaren, 2003; Sheideman, 2007). The emergence of the image of the child as a critically active citizen has incredible implications for early childhood education. In Malaguzzi’s (1993) words, “when a child is born a citizen is born”. And as Christensen and Aldridge (2013) put it: “[c]ritical citizenship classrooms would emphasize feminist, cultural, or Reconstructionist discourses” (p.  62) where the key principles of democratic education are promoted. Democratic education. American educator John Dewey saw the social contributions of the child to a community and society as a starting point to his/her involvement in the political and democratic realms (Martin, 2002). Dewey profoundly believed in the capacity of the human child to think and reason, which led him to conclude that schools are microcosms reflective of the life of the larger society where democracy needs to be practised (Dewey, 1997). Empowering education. Critical pedagogues and scholars have extensively referred to schools as social milieus that are required to adhere to the humanitarian and egalitarian values of society. From this perspective schools are expected to create an environment conducive to the emergence of social liberation, justice, and freedom where the child is viewed as an individual with the right to self-expression and self-determination (Freire, 1998; Portelli, 2001). When structured this way, schools resist academic neutrality and promote a curriculum of life. According to Portelli and Vibert (2002), “Grounded in the immediate daily worlds of [children] as well as in the later social and political contexts of their lives, curriculum of life breaks down the walls between the school and the world” (p. 38). Culturally responsive pedagogy. Culturally responsive pedagogy (CRP) “uses student culture in order to maintain it and to transcend the negative effects of the dominant culture” (Ladson-Billings, 1994, p. 17). CRP is an inclusive pedagogy that relies on a dynamic interplay between school, culture, and community. It seeks to transform children’s knowledge about inequity and injustice through critical thinking and reflection. The collective endeavour to create resistance to academically neutral pedagogies

  Paradigmatic Discourses: Reconceptualizing the Role… 

45

reflective of colonization and marginalization of certain cultural groups, CRP has the ability to empower social groups that have been disenfranchised or discriminated against. Pedagogy of heteroglossia. Bakhtin’s (1986) concept of heteroglossia is revisited by Guitiérrez, Rymes, and Larson (1995) who view it as a social experience, embodying the educators’ and children’s internal dialogization. Consequently, social heteroglossia enhances important concepts in critical education by explicitly promoting the use of multiple voices. These voices do not stay in opposition but rather in dialogic continuity. It is through these voices that educators can spark a collectivist pedagogy in relation to issues of race, gender, and class equality within local and global social orders (De Lissovoy, 2008). In the context of ECEC, heteroglossia takes place when young children are consulted and their feedback finds its way into decisions related to curriculum, policy, and practice. On a practical note, we would like to point to a few successful examples that can be viewed as an exemplar of the participatory pedagogy. For instance, the Mosaic approach which “was developed during a research study to include the ‘voice of the child’ in an evaluation of a multiagency network of services for children and families” (Clark, 2005, p. 29). This practical approach to giving children a voice emerged through a participatory appraisal of international research on participation including Hart’s (1997) and Johnson, Gordon, Pridmore, and Scott’s (1998) works (Clark, Kjørholt, & Moss, 2005). To address the complexity of the process of consultation and implementation of young children’s voices, the Mosaic approach employed elements of multi-method, participatory, reflexive, and adaptable pedagogy, which focused on young children’s lived experiences. The Mosaic approach has been characterized as an innovative approach that has grown from traditional “methodology of observation and interviewing” and has expanded into new domains by incorporating new strategies that adhere to participatory pedagogy, enabling educators to acquire a broader understanding of the concept of ‘children as fellow citizens’ (Clark et al., 2005, p. 13). The ‘Children as Fellow Citizens’ project “ha[s] been initiated by public authorities in the Nordic countries, as well as in many other countries, since the early 1990s” (Kjørholt, 2005, p. 151). Specifically this project had an objective of “convincing and persuading readers of the values of

46 

D. Shalimo and J. P. Portelli

giving children rights to participate in decision making in day care centres” (Kjørholt, 2005, p. 154). Similarly, Saballa, MacNaughton, and Smith (2008) note that in August 2003 Australia conducted a consultation project with young children in an effort to develop a strategic policy framework for the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Children’s Plan (p. 63). The goal of the project was to gain first-hand information from children on “what a child focused environment feels like” (Saballa et al., 2008, p. 65). As part of the project, engaged pedagogy was utilized. The project resulted in a number of positive changes. One of the highlights of the project related to the shift in the use of language when communicating children’s rights to the wider society. The document employed such terminology as “children as active citizens and right holders” when addressing young children (Saballa et al., 2008, p. 72). In addition, the project assured “the ACT Government’s commitment to seeking children’s views on issues that affect them” (Saballa et al., 2008, p. 73). One of the other examples from Australia is the South Australian Children’s Voices Project, which was implemented in 2013 (Harris & Manatakis, 2013). The project engaged children in “consultation about their local communities” while using the Belonging, Being and Becoming: An Early Learning Framework for Australia (2009) document as a framework for the consultation process (Harris & Manatakis, 2013, p.  9). Overall, 350 children participated, with the project outcome being enriched through the inclusion of young participants from diverse backgrounds. The findings were then shared with children to garner their feedback (Harris & Manatakis, 2013). Despite the success of the aforementioned projects in informing policy, their implementation is not without either ethical or methodological challenges. One of the challenges relates to the utilization of traditional ethical procedures. For instance, Kellett (2005) argues: “A great deal of thought and attention has to be given to ethics of all research studies and this should not be any less rigorous just because it is children who are carrying out the research” (p.  31). Regarding ethical permissions, the informed consent should be obtained from both parents/guardians/caregivers as well as from the children themselves (Green, 2012). In this vein, “there [should be] a methodological shift in choosing research methods

  Paradigmatic Discourses: Reconceptualizing the Role… 

47

when children are involved in research” (Palaiologou, 2012, p.  34). Child-focused research methods include drawings, photos, stories, and other forms of the child’s self-expression through various art mediums. All these methods of data collection, according to Kjørholt (2005) and Davies (2014), should be understood as ‘texts’ in a broader sense of the term. In other words, the everyday life experiences that children express through various means of communication should be perceived as valid methods for data collection, similar to written or spoken texts such as interviews or stories. The significance of these alternative modes of expression lies in the fact that they carry emotional, cognitive, and contextual meanings similar to any written text (Kjørholt, 2005).

Critical Reflection While critical pedagogy plays an important role in maintaining democratic values in education, sceptics have criticized it for its presumed failure to evolve from Marxist theory. On philosophical grounds, it can be argued that the Marxist, post-Marxist, or neo-Marxist basis of the critical paradigm is no longer pertinent to the postmodern economic and social discourse in Western culture and society (Lather, 1998). In response to this point, McArthur (2010) claims that the Marxist roots of critical pedagogy can neither be overlooked nor disregarded; these roots should be taken into account when educators strive to embrace change through “structural forces of society” (p. 495). McArthur (2010) further explains that critical scholars—for example, McLaren (1988, 2015) and Brookfield (2001, 2003)—view Marxism as a strong foundation for the paradigm. Popkewitz and Fendler (1999) echo this sentiment, adding: Educational literature in the [Northern American continent] since the 1970s, for example, continually refers to different European literature for developing their conceptual and methodological directions to the study of the politics of curriculum. The translations of European Marxists’ social philosophy, such as that of the Frankfurt School of critical theory from Germany, the Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci, and more recently, French postmodern [Foucault], and feminist theories, are important to the production of a ‘critical’ space within education. (p. 5)

48 

D. Shalimo and J. P. Portelli

One of the other critiques refers to Freire’s hope for a better future that can be reframed as a utopian project of modernity that fails to advance from Freire’s twentieth-century practices of historicism, dialectics, and orthodoxy (Apple, 2000; McArthur, 2010; Van Heertum, 2006). In this venue, leading feminist scholars have criticized critical pedagogy for the weak voices of women in the literature as well as for Freire’s ‘blind spots’ in dealing with issues pertaining to gender (Breuing, 2011; Ellsworth, 1989; hooks, 1990; Lather, 1998). For instance, Ellsworth (1989) argues that critical pedagogy should not be paired up with feminist pedagogy because the latter pronounces itself as an individually standing paradigm with its own “body of literature, knowledge, goals and assumptions” (p. 298). Christensen and Aldridge (2013) reaffirm this point by stating that, “the loudest voices of critical pedagogy are still white Western men” (p. 85). It is noteworthy, however, that the emancipatory nature of feminist pedagogy has its roots in critical pedagogy that addresses issues related to sexism (hooks, 1994; Kincheloe & Steinberg, 1999). Another problematic feature of critical pedagogy is its tendency to overlook discourses of children with various abilities and its failure to address rights of and practices with children with exceptionalities. Such issues are generally overlooked due to critical pedagogy’s proclivity to improve literacy skills through critical reflection and the Marxist-inspired concept that every individual should be critical of oppressive power structures and consequently active in the social realm (Gabel, 2002). Gabel’s (2002) criticism is fair as it coincides with Ellsworth’s (1989) point that critical pedagogy continues to perpetuate a highly abstract and utopian approach to addressing power relationships and diversity in classrooms. In response to this, Sewell (2013), while analysing the academic works of bell hooks, states: For critical pedagogy scholars, the term ‘critical’ is used to underscore the importance of the context of the assertion, and to protect and empower the individual thinker. However, the emphasis on context is not strictly for the individual’s protection. Unlike many critical thinking scholars, critical pedagogues hold that the context in which the assertion is made is important, as well as the consequences of adopting the assertion for both the

  Paradigmatic Discourses: Reconceptualizing the Role… 

49

individual thinker and the members of the social context in which the assertion, claim, or argument is made. (p. 39)

It has been argued that the critical paradigm is “long on criticism, but short on solutions” (Christensen & Aldridge, 2013, p. 85). Acknowledging the existence of myriad critical pedagogies, McArthur (2010) states that critical pedagogy scholars, while revisiting the essential points of Freire’s theorizing regarding the oppressed and oppressor, recognize that freedom and change are radical for critical pedagogy and therefore “cannot be gained individually”; instead they should happen in solidarity where every individual contributes to “the welfare and betterment of all” (p. 497). Then, critical pedagogy recognizes and appreciates both solidarity and diversity, and galvanizes them to “move toward a discourse and action that capitalize on repressed desires and provide a provisional alternative vision” (pp. 45–46). A final criticism of critical pedagogy focuses on the lack of scholarly work on issues of race. While the critics agree that the foundations of critical pedagogy are worthwhile and sound, they decried the lack of concrete focus on matters of race (Apple, 2003). However, in the last decade, several scholars have explicitly focused on issues of race. Most of these authors combine critical pedagogy with critical race theory, integrative anti-racist education, and decolonial education. Notably among this work are the research of Zeus Leonardo (2014, 2018), Antonia Darder, Marta P.  Baltodano,  Rodolfo D.  Torres  (2017), and George Sefa Dei (2012).

Concluding Remarks One of our central arguments has been that the image of the child, which has become a key term in early childhood pedagogy as of late, has developed multifaceted connotations that are heavily dependent on the paradigmatic connotations articulated through the utilization of pedagogical vocabularies and/or terminologies. This analysis reveals that the term the image of the child has been misappropriated when applied in practice and used across theoretical paradigmatic contexts. This fact has led to

50 

D. Shalimo and J. P. Portelli

trivializing the term of the image of the competent child by turning it into a pedagogical cliché. As our analysis suggests, this in part has happened due to the fact that the term image of the child, which was originally proposed by Malaguzzi (1993), has been appropriated by postmodern scholars who have offered diverse interpretations of this term in its own domain and therefore have encouraged a multiplicity of meanings in various other paradigmatic realms through the lens of hermeneutics. In this view, when modern and constructivist paradigms turned their attention to the image of the competent child, they readjusted their pedagogical terms to fit the concept. Mainly the change has occurred via linguistics, where the terms the child in need and the child with competencies have been replaced with the novice and more popular term of the image of the competent child. Evidence of this linguistic shift is well documented in our analysis of the constructivist paradigm and its pedagogy. Specifically, we tried to make a clear point that the constructivist binary use of pedagogical terms, along with the dual descriptive perspectives of the role of the child in curriculum, has led to a regrettable substitution of the image of the competent child with the image of the child with competencies. Accordingly, we have criticized the instrumentalist and managerial pedagogical agenda of modernism, constructivism, and postmodernism for its compliance to presently imposed social, economic, and political agendas while their progressive orientations are vanishing. In light of this critique, we propose turning ECEC educators and academic scholars’ attention to the critical paradigm that finds its practical applications through critical pedagogy. The critical paradigm shows a strong commitment to pedagogy that supports the concept of the young child as a rightful, active citizen of today. The critical paradigm values human rights, promotes dialogic learning environments, emphasizes diversity, and utilizes democratic principles in classroom pedagogical practices. This is crucial to the understanding and practice of the critical perspective. The concept of citizenship focuses on the right of the child to express his or her opinion freely and emphasizes that these opinions need to be taken seriously in our pedagogical decisions. Therefore, critical theory and critical pedagogy strongly encourage educators to take action in support of children’s views while becoming guarantors and champions of children’s right to participate. Some examples of practice/actions that emerge from the critical

  Paradigmatic Discourses: Reconceptualizing the Role… 

51

perspective regarding children’s participation include asking for children’s permission when they are observed and evaluated, and whether or not their art work can be shared in public; consulting with children when the physical environment is being set up; and consulting with children for policy decisions regarding curriculum, daily procedures in the class, and so on (Kjørholt, 2005; Smith, 2013; Soto & Swadener, 2005). The critical paradigm promotes dialogic pedagogies. From the works of Bakhtin (1981) and Freire (1997, 2007), dialogue is “framed by mutual trust among participants that grows from faith and humanity” (Harris & Manatakis, 2013, p. 80). It creates opportunities for expressions with no fear of being judged or neglected. Such opportunities emerge only when educators are fully aware of this possibility. In other words, if educators trust in children’s competencies, they start to balance the power and to create relationships of mutual respect and acknowledgement. Paving a path towards dialogic relationships, educators become more critical and cognizant about children’s various abilities to communicate. Ultimately educators recognize children’s abilities to philosophize about and reflect upon the world around them. This leads to our next point. The critical paradigm acknowledges and addresses diversity in a broad sense. The critical paradigmatic discourse on diversity goes beyond simply addressing ‘culture’. It emphasizes physical, racial, ethnic, gender, historic, ‘language games’, ideological, political, and social class issues. Here, the critical paradigm’s ideological, political, and social class discourses are fundamental as they interrogate ideologically sanctioned knowledge, traditional views about children, and patriarchal social orders that exclude children from grand pedagogical and social narratives (Darder, Baltodano & Torres, 2017). While addressing these three major concepts, the critical paradigm is vocal about the fact that children as a social class/group are positioned at the lowest level of the educational hierarchy. Subsequently, the critical paradigm encourages educators to step away from a traditional understanding of children as a vulnerable population/class and to construct a novice image of the child as a social agent. As explained by many critical scholars, democracy is a robust process that ought to be explored and practised on a daily basis. Therefore, the critical paradigm is the most explicit and coherent in addressing the

52 

D. Shalimo and J. P. Portelli

image of the child as a social agent with the right to participate. It addresses a wide range of concepts related to power, ideology, class, gender, culture, and so on and therefore provides a strong foundation for practical applications of the concept of young children’s participation in early childhood pedagogy. Critical scholars Christensen and James (2013) summarize it well, arguing that it is critical for the field of ECEC studies “to address the theoretical and policy implications of treating children as social actors in their own right in contexts, where, traditionally, they have been denied those rights of participation and their voices have remained unheard” (p. 2).

References Ainsworth, M., D. & Bowlby, J. (1991). An ethological approach to personality development. American Psychologist, 46(4), 333–341. Ames, L. B., & Haber, C. C. (1987). Your three-year-old: Friend or enemy. Dell Publishing. Apple, M.  W. (2000). Can critical pedagogies interrupt rightist policies? Educational Theory, 50(2), 229–254. Apple, M. W. (2003). Freire and the politics of race in education. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 6(2), 107–118. Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination. In C. Emerson & M. Holquist (Trans.) (pp. 269–434). Austin & London, TX: University of Texas Press. Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. In C.  Emerson & M.  Holquist (Eds.), V.  W. McGee (Trans.). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Bennett, J. (2004/2005). Curriculum issues in national policy-making. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 13(2) Paris, France: OECD. Bloch, M. N., Kennedy, D., Lightfoot, T., & Weyenberg, D. (Eds.). (2006). The child in the world/the world in the child: Education and the configuration of a universal, modern, and globalized childhood. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Bloch, M. N., Swadener, B. B., & Cannella, G. S. (Eds.). (2014). Reconceptualizing early childhood care & education: A reader. Critical questions, new imaginaries & social activism. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth through age 8. Washington, DC: NAEYC.

  Paradigmatic Discourses: Reconceptualizing the Role… 

53

Bredekamp, S. (2014). Effective practices in early childhood education: Building a foundation (2nd ed.). Pearson Education, Inc. Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practices in early childhood programs (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: NAEYC. Breuing, M. (2011). Problematizing critical pedagogy. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 3(3), 2–23. Retrieved from http://www.marybreunig.com/ assets/files/Problematizing%20Critical%20Pedagogy.pdf Brookfield, S. (2001). Repositioning ideology critique in a critical theory of adult learning. Adult Education Quarterly, 52(7), 7–22. Brookfield, S. (2003). Putting the critical back into critical pedagogy: A commentary on the path of dissent. Journal of Transformative Education, 1(2), 141–149. Burbules, N. C., & Berk, R. (1999). Critical thinking and critical pedagogy: Relations, differences, and limits. In T. S. Popkewitz & L. Fendered (Eds.), Critical theories in education: Changing terrains of knowledge and politics (pp. 45–65). New York: Routledge. Burman, E. (1994). Deconstructing developmental psychology. London and New York: Routledge. Burman, E. (2008). Deconstructing developmental psychology (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge. Cannella, G. S. (1997). Deconstructing early childhood education: Social justice and revolution. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Cannella, G.  S. (2014). Critical qualitative research and rethinking academic activism in childhood studies. In M. N. Bloch, B. B. Swadener, & S. G. Cannella (Eds.), Reconceptualizing early childhood care & education: A reader. Critical questions, new imaginaries & social activism (pp. 253–265). New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Cameron, C., & Moss, P. (2007). Care work in Europe: Current understandings and future directions. New York: Routledge. Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (2007). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburg University Press. Christensen, L. M., & Aldridge, J. (2013). Critical pedagogy for early childhood and elementary educators. New York: Springer. Christensen, P., & James, A. (2013). Introduction: Researching children and childhood cultures of communication. In P. Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research with children: Perspectives and practices (2nd ed., pp. 1–9). London: Routledge.

54 

D. Shalimo and J. P. Portelli

Clark, A. (2005). Ways of seeing: Using the Mosaic approach to listen to young children’s perspectives. In A. Clark, A. T. Kjørholt, & P. Moss (Eds.), Beyond listening. Children’s perspectives on early childhood services (pp. 29–49). Bristol: Policy Press. Clark, A., Kjørholt, A. T., & Moss, P. (Eds.). (2005). Beyond listening: Children’s perspectives on early childhood services. Bristol, UK: The Policy Press & University of Bristol. Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (2009). Developmentally appropriate practices in early childhood programs (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: NAEYC. Corsaro, W. A. (2003). We are friends, right? Inside kids’ culture. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press. Dahlberg, G., & Moss, P. (2005). Ethics and politics in early childhood education. London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Dahlberg, G. & Moss, P. (2012). Contesting early childhood and opening for change. London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (1997). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care: Language of evaluation. London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (2007). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care: Language of evaluation (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Dahlberg, G., & Lenz Taguchi, H. (1994). Förskola och skola – om två skilda traditioner och om visionen om en mötesplats [Pre-school and school – two different traditions and the vision of a meeting place]. Stockholm: HLS Förlag. Darder, A. (2004). After race: Racism after multiculturalism. New York: New York University Press. Darder, A., Baltodano, M. P., & Torres, R. D. (2017). (Eds.). The critical pedagogy reader. (3rd Ed.). New York: Routledge. Davies, B. (2014). Listening to children: Being and becoming. London and New York: Routledge. Derrida, J. (2003). Genesis in Husserl’s philosophy. Trans. by Marian Hobson. Chicago & London: The University Press. De Lissovoy, N. (2008). Power, crisis, and education for liberation: Rethinking critical pedagogy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Dodge, D. T., Colker, L. J., & Heroman, C. (2002). The creative curriculum for preschool (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies, Inc. Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: Macmillan.

  Paradigmatic Discourses: Reconceptualizing the Role… 

55

Dewey, J. (1997). My pedagogic creed. In D., J., Flinders, St., J., Thornton (Eds.). The curriculum studies reader. (pp. 17-23). New York; London: Routledge. Ellsworth, E. (1989). Why doesn’t this feel empowering? Working through the repressive myths of critical pedagogy. Harvard Educational Review, 59(3), 297–324. Farquhar, B., & Fitzsimons, P. (Eds.). (2008). Philosophy of early childhood education. Transforming narratives. Blackwell Publishing. Fendler, L. (2001). Educating flexible souls: The construction of subjectivity through developmentally and interaction. In K.  Hultqvist & G.  Dahlberg (Eds.), Governing the child in the new millennium (pp. 119–143). New York and London: RoutledgeFalmer. Fielding, M., & Moss, P. (2011). Radical education and the common school: A democratic alternative. New York: Routledge. Follari, L. M. (2019). Foundations and best practices in early childhood education: History, theories, and approaches to learning (4th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Freire, P. (1997). Pedagogy for the oppressed. New  York: The Continuum Publishing Group Inc. Freire, P. (1997/2007). Pedagogy of the heart. New  York and London: The Continuum Publishing Group Inc. Freire, P. (1998). Teachers as cultural workers: The letters to those who dare teach. USA: Westview Press. Gabel, S. (2002). Some conceptual problems with critical pedagogy. Curriculum Inquiry, 32(2), 177–201. Geiger, R. A., & Rudzka-Osatyn, B. (1993). (Eds.). Conceptualizations and Mental Processing in Language. Berlin; New York: Mounton de Gruyter. Gesell Institute of Human Development. (1982). A gift of time. New Haven, CT: Gesell Institute of Human Development. Gestwicki, C. (2011). Developmentally appropriate practice: Curriculum and development in early education (4th ed.). USA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Giroux, H. (1991). Modernism, postmodernism and feminism: Rethinking the boundaries of educational discourse. In H.  Giroux (Ed.), Postmodernism, feminism and cultural politics: Redrawing educational boundaries. New York: State University of New York Press. Giroux, H.  A. (2011). On critical pedagogy. Series editors: S.  R. Steinberg & A. M. A. Freire (Eds.). New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

56 

D. Shalimo and J. P. Portelli

Goffin, S. G. (2000). The role of curriculum models in early childhood education. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/ recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_ 0=ED443597&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED443597 Green, D. (2012). Involving young children in research. In I. Palaiologou (Ed.), Ethical practice in early childhood (pp.  15–31). Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore: Sage. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2000). Paradigmatic controversies, contradictions, and emerging confluences. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed., pp.  163–188). Thousand Oak, CA: Sage. Guitiérrez, K., Rymes, B., & Larson, J. (1995). Script, counterscript, and underlife in the classroom: James Brown versus Brown v. Board of Education. Harvard Educational Review, 65(3), 445–471. Retrieved from http://lchc. ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/kris.pdf Harris, P., & Manatakis, H. (2013). Children as citizens: Engaging with the child’s voice in educational settings. London and New York: Routledge. Hart, R. (1992/1997). Innocenti essays: Children’s participation from tokenism to citizenship. UNICEF. Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of Neoliberalism. New  York: Oxford University Press. Haug, P. (2013). From Indifference to Invasion: The relationship from Norwegian perspective. In P. Moss (Ed.). Early childhood and compulsory education: Reconceptualising the relationship. London & New York: Routledge. Hohmann, M., & Weikart, D. P. (2002). Educating Young Children: Active Learning Practices for Preschool and Child Care. High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. hooks, b. (1990). Yearning. Boston, MA: South End Press. hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress. Routledge. Hughes, P. (2001). Paradigms, methods and knowledge. In G. MacNaughton, S.  Rolfe, & I.  Siraj-Blatchford (Eds.), Doing early childhood research (pp. 31–56). Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Hultqvist, K., & Dahlberg, G. (2001). Governing the child in the new millennium. New York and London: Routledge Falmer. Iannacci, L., & Whitty, P. (2009). (Eds.). Early childhood curricula: Reconceptualist perspectives. Calgary, Alberta: Detselig Enterprises Ltd. James, A., & Prout, A. (1997). Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issue in sociological study of childhood. London: Flamer.

  Paradigmatic Discourses: Reconceptualizing the Role… 

57

Johnson, V., Gordon, G., Pridmore, P., & Scott, P. (Eds.). (1998). Stepping forward: Children and young people’s participation in the development process. London: Intermediate Technology. Kellett, M. (2005). How to develop children as researchers. London: Sage. Kessler, S.  A. (2014). Reconceptualizing the early childhood curriculum: An unaddressed topic. In M. N. Bloch, B. B. Swadener, & S. G. Cannella (Eds.), Reconceptualizing early childhood care & education: A reader. Critical questions, new imaginaries & social activism (pp.  33–45). New  York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Kincheloe, J. L. (2005). Foreword. In L. D. Soto & B. B. Swandener (Eds.), Power and voice in research with children (pp. ix–xv). New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc. Kincheloe, J.  L. (2008). Critical pedagogy primer (2nd ed.). New  York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc. Kincheloe, J.  L., & Steinberg, S.  R. (Eds.). (1999). The post-formal reader: Cognition and education. New York and London: Falmer Press. Kjørholt, A.  T. (2005). The competent child and ‘the right to be oneself ’: Reflections on children as fellow citizens in an early childhood centre. In A. Clark, A. T. Kjørholt, & P. Moss (Eds.), Beyond listening. Children’s perspectives on early childhood services (pp. 151–173). Bristol: Policy Press. Ladson-Billings, G. (1994). The dreamkeepers: Successful teachers of African American children. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lather, P. (1998). Critical pedagogy and its complicities: A praxis of stuck places. Educational Theory, 48(4), 487–497. Lazzari, A. (2012). Reconceptualising professionalism in early childhood education: Insights from a study carried out in Bologna. Early Years: An International Journal of Research and Development, 1(14). https://doi.org/10.1080/0957514 6.2011.651711 Lazzari, A., & Balduzzi, L. (2013). Bruno Ciari and ‘educational continuity’: The relationship from an Italian perspective. In P. Moss (Ed.), Early childhood and compulsory education: Reconceptualising the relationship. London and New York: Routledge. Leonardo, Z. (Ed.). (2005). Critical pedagogy and race. London: Wiley-Blackwell. Leonardo, Z. (2014). Race frameworks: A multidimensional theory of racism and education. New York: Teachers College Press. MacNaughton, G., Hughes, P., & Smith, K. (Eds.). (2002). Young children as active citizens: Principles, policies, and pedagogies. London, UK: Cambridge Scholars.

58 

D. Shalimo and J. P. Portelli

MacNaughton, G. (2003). Shaping early childhood: Learners, curriculum and contexts. McGraw Hill: Open University Press. MacNaughton, G. (2005). Doing Foucault in early childhood studies: Applying poststructural ideas. New York: Routledge. MacNaughton, G., & Williams, G. (2009). Teaching young children: choices in theory and practice. (2nd ed.). McGraw Hill: Open University Press. Malaguzzi, L. (1993). History, ideas, and basic philosophy. In C.  Edwards, L.  Gandini, & G.  Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood (pp. 41–90). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Martin, J. (2002). The education of John Dewey. New  York: Columbia University Press. McArthur, J. (2010). Achieving social justice within and through higher education: the challenge for critical pedagogy. Teaching in Higher Education, 15(5), 493–504. McLaren, P. (1988). Schooling the postmodern body: Critical pedagogy and the politics of enfleshment. Journal of Education, 170, 53–83. McLaren, P. (2003). Critical pedagogy: A look at the major concepts. In A. Darder, M. Baltodano, & R. D. Torres (Eds.) The Critical pedagogy reader. New York, London: RoutledgeFalmer, Taylor & Francis Group. McLaren, P. (2015). Pedagogy of insurrection: From resurrection to revolution (education and struggle). New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. McLaren, P., & Farahmandpur, R. (2001). Reconsidering Marx in post-Marxist times: A requiem for postmodernism? Educational Researcher, 25–33. Montuori, A. (2008). Foreword: Edgar Morin’s path of complexity. In E. Morin (Ed.), On complexity (Trans. R. Postel). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, Inc. Moss, P. (2007). Meeting across the paradigmatic divide. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 39(3), 229–245. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14695812.2007.00325.x Moss, P. (2008). Meeting across the paradigmatic divide. In S.  Farquhar & P. Fitzsimons (Eds.), Philosophy of early childhood education: Transforming narratives (pp. 7–23). Blackwell Publishing. Moss, P. (2013). (Ed.). Early childhood and compulsory education: Reconceptualising the relationship. London & New York: Routledge. Moss, P. (2014). Transformative Change and Real Utopias in Early Childhood Education: A story of democracy, experimentation and potentiality (Contesting Early Childhood). London & New York: Routledge. Moss, P. (2019). Alternative narratives in early childhood: An introduction for students and practitioners (Contesting early childhood). London & New York: Routledge.

  Paradigmatic Discourses: Reconceptualizing the Role… 

59

Moss, P., Dahlberg, G., Olsson, L. M., & Vandenbroeck, M. (2016). Why contest early childhood? Retrieved from http://www.book2look.com/book/ CGQqJCANOX?utm_source=Routledge&utm_medium=cms&utm_campaign=160701429 Moss, P., & Petrie, P. (2002). From children’s services to children’s spaces: Public policy, children and childhood. London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Ninnes, P., & Mehta, S. (2004). A meander through the maze: Comparative education and postfoundational studies. In Re-imagining comparative education: Postfoundational ideas and applications for critical times (pp.  1–18). New York: RoutledgeFalmer. Pacini-Ketchabaw, V. (2010). (Ed.). Flows, rhythms, & intensities of early childhood education curriculum. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Pacini-Ketchabaw, V., Nxumalo, F., Kocher, L., Elliot, E., & Sanchez, A. (2015). Journeys: Reconceptualising early childhood practices through pedagogical narration. University of Toronto Press. Pacini-Ketchabaw, V., & Prochner, L. (Eds.). (2013). Re-situating Canadian early childhood education. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Palaiologou, I. (2012). Ethical practice in early childhood. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, Washington, DC: Sage. Popkewitz, T. (1998). Dewey, Vygotsky, and the social administration of the individual: Constructivist pedagogy as systems of ideas in historical spaces. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 535–570. Popkewitz, T., & Fendler, L. (1999). (Eds.). Critical theories in education. (1st Ed.). New York: Routledge. Portelli, J. (2001). Democracy in education: Beyond the conservative or progressivist stances. In W.  Hare & J.  Portelli (Eds.), Philosophy of education: Introductory readings (3rd ed.). Calgary, AB: Detseling Enterprises. Portelli, J. P., & Vibert, A. B. (2002). Curriculum of life. Education Canada. Retrieved from http://www.cea-­ace.ca/sites/cea-­ace.ca/files/EdCan-­2002-­ v42-­n2-­Portelli.pdf Rinaldi, C. (1993). The emergent curriculum and social constructivism: An interview with Leila Gandini. In C. Edwards, L. Gandidni, & G. Forman (Eds). The hundred languages of children (pp 101–112). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Rinaldi, C. (2006). In dialogue with Reggio Emilia: Listening, researching, and learning. London: Routledge. Roopnarine, J. L., & Johnson, J. E. (2009). (Eds.). Approaches to Early Childhood Education (5th ed., pp. 213–231). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.

60 

D. Shalimo and J. P. Portelli

Rudzka-Ostyn, B. (1993). Conceptualizations and mental processing in language (Cognitive Linguistics Research). De Gruyter Mouton. Saballa, M., MacNaughton, G., & Smith, K. (2008). Working with children to create policy: The case of the Australian Capital Territory’s Children’s Plan. In G. MacNaughton, P. Hughes, & K. Smith (Eds.), Young children as active citizens: Principles, policies and pedagogies (pp.  44–62). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Sefa Dei, G. (2012). Revisiting the Intersection of Race, Class, Gender in the Anti-Racism Discourse. In. Valerie Zawilski (ed.). Inequality in Canada: A Reader on the Intersections of Gender, Race and Class. 2nd Eds. London: Oxford University Press. Seller, M. (2013). Young children becoming curriculum. Deleuze, Te Whāriki and curricular understandings. London and New York: Routledge. Sewell, J. (2013). Bell hooks on Critical Thinking: The success and Limitations of Practical Wisdom. Master Thesis: University of Windsor. Retrieved from https://scholar.uwindsor.ca/etd/4924/ Shaffer, D. R., Kipp, K., Wood, E., & Willoughby, T. (2012). Developmental psychology: Childhood and adolescence (4th ed.). Nelson College Indigenous. Sheideman, W. (2007). Alexander R. Luria. In J., L. Kincheloe & Jr. Horn, (2007). (Eds). The praeger handbook of education and psychology (Vol. 3). Praeger Publisher: USA. Shonkoff, J. P. (2000). Science, policy, and practice: Three cultures in search of a shared mission. Child Development, 71(1), 181–187. Shonkoff, J. P., & Phillips, D. A. (Eds.). (2000). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Slattery, P. (2006). Curriculum Development in the Postmodern Era. (2nd ed.) New York, London: Routledge Tylor & Francis Group, LLC. Smith, K. (2013). A rights-based approach to observing and assessing children in the early childhood classroom. In Swadener, B., B., Lundy, L., Habashi, J. & Nlanchet-Cohen, N. (Eds.). Children’s rights and education: international perspectives. (pp. 99–114). Soto, L. D., & Swadener, B. B. (Eds.). (2005). Power and voice in research with children. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Inc. Steinberg, S. R. with Kincheloe, J. L. (2010). Power, emancipation, and complexity: Employing critical theory. Power and Education, 2(2). Retrieved from http://pae.sagepub.com/content/2/2/140

  Paradigmatic Discourses: Reconceptualizing the Role… 

61

Success for All Foundation. (2012). Classroom programs. Retrieved from http:// www.successforall.org/our-­approach/classroom-­programs/ Taguchi, H. L. (2008). Deconstructing and transgressing the theory – practice dichotomy in early childhood education. In S. Farquhar & P. Fitzsimons (Eds.), Philosophy of early childhood education: Transforming narratives (pp. 52–67). Blackwell Publishing. Taguchi, H. L. (2010). Going beyond the theory/practice divide in early childhood education. Introducing an intra-active pedagogy. London and New  York: Routledge. Thomas, R.  M. (2005). Comparing theories of child development (6th ed.). Wordsworth. Thomson Learning, Inc. Retrieved from http://childcarecanada.org/sites/default/files/op17ENG.pdf Van Heertum, R. (2006). Marcuse, Bloch and Freire: Reinvigorating a pedagogy of hope. Policy Futures in Education, 4(1), 45–51. von Glasersfeld, E. (2000). Problems in constructivism. In L.  P. Steffe & P. W. Thompson (Eds.), Radical constructivism in action. Building on the pioneering work of Ernst von Glasersfeld (pp.  1–6). London: Routledge/Falmer. Retrieved from http://www.univie.ac.at/constructivism/EvG/papers/233.pdf Woodhead, M. (2006). Changing perspectives on early childhood: Theory, research and policy. Background paper prepared for the Education for All Global Monitoring Report 2007 Strong Foundations: Early childhood care and education. UNESCO.  Retrieved from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/ images/0014/001474/147499e.pdf Woodhead, M. (2008). Respecting rights: implications for early childhood policies andpractices. In G. Mac Naughton, P. Hughes, & K. Smith. (Eds.). Young children as active citizens: principles, policies and pedagogies (pp. 15–31). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Young, M. F. D. (2008). Bringing knowledge back in: From social constructivism to social realism in the sociology of education. London and New  York: Routledge.

Part II Reconceptualizing Quality: Classroom as Community

Questioning Quality in Early Childhood Teacher Education Through the Lens of Culture MinSoo Kim-Bossard and Jody Eberly

Many early childhood teacher educators encourage teacher candidates to go beyond the Euro-American-centric views to envision their own teaching philosophies and practices. Nevertheless, little is known about the teacher candidates’ experiences of grappling with cultural differences between their own cultural upbringing, taken-for-granted classroom routines and practices, and the cultures of the local communities. This chapter will address this gap by illustrating the place of culture in early childhood teacher education from the perspectives of teacher candidates, as they strive to implement their own version of quality teaching in practice. The demographics of the student body at our institution are mostly homogenous, corresponding with the larger demographics of teachers in the country—many are white middle-class female in-state students. As early childhood teacher educators working in a Northeastern state with

M. Kim-Bossard (*) • J. Eberly Department of Elementary and Early Childhood Education, The College of New Jersey, Ewing, NJ, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Z. Kinkead-Clark, K.-A. Escayg (eds.), Reconceptualizing Quality in Early Childhood Education, Care and Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69013-7_3

65

66 

M. Kim-Bossard and J. Eberly

different cultural backgrounds, we have incorporated in our teaching opportunities for teacher candidates to consider the role culture plays in how they define quality in early childhood classrooms. Price-Dennis and Souto-Manning (2011) suggest that a “critical approach to teacher education, grounded in sustained conversations on equity, diversity, and successful teaching and learning in a range of environments is needed” (p. 225). Having these conversations and creating an environment for critical reflection are essential to teacher candidates’ developing sense of “quality” culturally responsive practices. Our main objective is to identify the place of culture in early childhood teacher education from the perspective of teacher candidates as they strive to implement their own version of quality teaching in practice. This information will help us strengthen our own practices as teacher educators, our teacher education program, and ultimately the field of early childhood teacher education. The following questions guide our research: How do early childhood teacher candidates define culture? What elements of culture are exhibited in the students’ reflections? How do students describe what “good” teaching looks like from a cultural standpoint? Are candidates able to identify culturally responsive teaching practices?

Literature Review: Quality and Culture It is not uncommon to hear the term “quality” used in various early childhood education and care settings; however, what constitutes quality and what quality looks like have been often debated (Jones, Osgood, Holmes, & Urban, 2016). Quality can be generally defined as a “degree of excellence” or as “superiority of kind,” pointing to the subjective nature of the term (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2018). In other words, quality, excellence, or superiority is much in the eyes of the beholder. It is value-laden, subjective, and deeply contextualized. Even though quality is a subjective term, it permeates the field of early childhood education: “The unqualified and unquestioned use of the term ‘quality’ continues undiminished; indeed, I would guess that it has grown substantially” (Moss, 2016, p.  13). Taking a postmodern perspective, Dahlberg, Moss, and Pence (1999) challenge members of the early

  Questioning Quality in Early Childhood Teacher Education… 

67

childhood field to think beyond the taken-for-granted definition of quality to include multiple voices and perspectives. When conceptualizing the notion of quality, culture plays an important role in providing the context in which daily routines and classroom practices are situated. This is because culture functions as an interpretive framework through which teaching is constructed and finds meaning. Teachers are integral parts of perpetuating, maintaining, and challenging taken-for-granted cultural values and traditions as active participants of cultural experiences: “Man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun, I take culture to be those web[s]…” (Geertz, 1973, p. 5). Teachers participate in the process of upholding, transmitting, and forming certain cultural values through their teaching practices that provide meanings to various in-class experiences on a daily basis. While many teachers may assume that they don’t have culture because their own beliefs and practices function so seamlessly (Florio-Ruane, 2001), this emphasizes the importance of gaining a critical perspective on one’s own cultural underpinnings in order to understand how teacher candidates conceptualize the relationship between quality teaching and culture. What counts as “good” teaching and learning is also dictated by our cultural perceptions that help define the parameters. Teachers’ work is deeply situated in cultural contexts, going beyond the formal responsibilities of the profession in a classroom setting. Recognizing the varieties of influences that help formulate teacher perspectives is a step toward developing robust teacher identities. Considering teaching involves navigating multiple layers of power dynamics by instructing, evaluating, and building relationships and communicating with others, it is critical for teachers to have an awareness of one’s own cultural positioning. Self-reflection on one’s own cultural situatedness is a valuable tool for teacher candidates as it helps establish an awareness for the power dynamics between different cultures, as well as teachers and students, which serve as the implicit foundation for building relationships and making instructional decisions. Florio-Ruane (2001) articulates that “inward looking works against cultural stereotyping,” because it helps situate children and their learning in a specific context (p. 11). Being exposed to different cultural beliefs and practices could be uncomfortable, but it could serve as an impetus for bringing out changes in taken-for-granted

68 

M. Kim-Bossard and J. Eberly

values and routines (Florio-Ruane, 2001). In other words, cross-cultural examinations of values and routines in classrooms provide insight for “revis[ing], extend[ing], and elaborat[ing]” familiar beliefs and practices (Edwards & Raikes, 2002, p. 12). An example of an intersection between the “ideal” quality and culture is found in the work of Souto-Manning (2014) as she explores the role of conflict in the early childhood classroom, acknowledging that “often in American classrooms and U.S. society, individuals avoid conflict—it is the polite thing to do” (p. 609). She elaborates that what counts as “developmentally appropriate practice, curriculum, and teaching” in the American early childhood education and care settings often does not include conflict as an element that contributes to “the ‘ideal’ early childhood classroom” (p. 610). As her research shows that conflict has a role in creating new learning opportunities and expanding understanding, it also serves as a good example of the tension different cultural beliefs and practices generate in classrooms. In other words, what is considered “ideal” practice or “quality” teaching in American early childhood classrooms is uniquely situated in the US context. For this reason, it is important for teacher candidates to understand that “quality” teaching rooted in a set of values and traditions may not be perceived by children and family members with various cultural backgrounds in the same way.

Methodological Framework In the two early childhood courses taught in Spring 2018—ECE 202: Theories and Philosophies of Early Childhood Education and ECE 203: Infants and Toddlers in Inclusive Settings—teacher candidates were exposed to different definitions of culture. They learned about examples and key characteristics of culture, including how culture includes explicit and implicit values, beliefs, patterns of behavior, customs, rituals, interactions, and roles and relationships that are shared by group members and passed on from generation to generation. They were also exposed to readings that articulate the relationship between culture and human development, emphasizing variability within cultural communities, inherent

  Questioning Quality in Early Childhood Teacher Education… 

69

power dynamics of culture, ever-changing qualities of culture, the ways in which culture influences people’s beliefs and practices. We had a total of 12 teacher candidates who were taking both classes simultaneously during the same semester, and our analysis focuses on the discussion of these teacher candidates’ written reflections. One student had a Latino/Hispanic background, and one student had immigrated from a southeast Asian country when she was young. The remaining ten students were white. Considering the two courses and assignments address different aspects of culture manifesting in classrooms, it provides a more holistic perspective on how teacher candidates believe about the role(s) of culture in defining quality in early childhood education and the role(s) of teachers in early childhood education and care settings. In the two early childhood education courses, teacher candidates engaged themselves in readings and listened to guest speakers who shared about the ways in which implicit cultural values and beliefs influence the perception of what counts as “best practice” in early childhood education and care settings. They had opportunities to reflect on how their position is situated and constructed in sociocultural contexts. They were encouraged to grapple with teaching philosophies and in-class practices rooted in different cultural contexts as the basis for critical reflection on their own decision-making process as teachers. The written reflections were a part of assignments for these two early childhood courses, and the reflections served as the main source of data for our study. Teacher candidates completed the reflections while working in their practicum sites that were part of the courses and shared them with the instructor of the course. We also utilized their reflections in class discussions. Our intention behind the assignments in the two courses was to encourage teacher candidates to engage in intentional reflections on their cultural positioning so that they can foster an understanding of the roles of culture in teaching and learning processes. The two assignments had both similarities and differences. Both assignments asked students to analyze the ways in which culture manifests itself in early childhood education and care settings. One assignment was geared toward analyzing cultural elements found within a preschool classroom. Students were asked to describe examples of culture and cultural practices within the classroom and school, including the physical design

70 

M. Kim-Bossard and J. Eberly

and elements of the classroom; the curriculum and pedagogy; teacher-­ student, student-student, family-teacher interactions; home-school connections; and the larger policies, values, and beliefs of the teacher and school. The other assignment focused on self-reflection of personal cultural backgrounds, guided by readings and lectures they attended. This assignment was designed with the assumption that cultural beliefs and experiences influence teacher candidates’ perspectives, their instructional decision-making processes, and the understanding of what counts as “quality” teaching. During Week 5 of the semester, the students were provided with two readings to guide their reflection on cross-cultural practices in early childhood settings. Tobin (2005) challenges what counts as “good” practice in American early childhood education by providing examples from Japanese and French contexts that may go against the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) standards, including topics of the teacher-child ratio, working with children’s behaviors, curricular approaches, and the amount of time dedicated to play. Recchia and McDevitt (2017) share stories of three immigrant preservice teachers from China, India, and South Korea negotiating and grappling with personal and professional knowledge about caring for young children in a US context. These readings put the teacher candidates enrolled in the course to articulate their position as a teacher in relation to the examples embedded in different cultural contexts. Teacher candidates were specifically asked to: (1) define “quality” teaching and care in infant and toddler classrooms; (2) articulate their beliefs about how children learn and the role(s) of family involvement in children’s learning; (3) describe personal cultural background and its influence on their vision of teaching, learning, and care; and (4) discuss roles of teacher they envision to play in an infant and toddler classroom. The reflection paper was due in Week 10, after the teacher candidates had their fourth or fifth field experience in an infant or toddler classroom, depending on the practicum placement. Data analysis focused on emerging themes regarding what teacher candidates define as quality teaching and how that is entangled with the perception of what counts as culture and cultural visions of “good” teaching and learning. We examined and analyzed teacher candidates’ written

  Questioning Quality in Early Childhood Teacher Education… 

71

reflection in the two assignments, one from each course, once the course was completed. Once the data was de-identified, we analyzed the written reflections for themes related to culture and what constitutes “good” teaching from a cultural standpoint. In this process, we aim to identify the place of culture in early childhood teacher education from the perspectives of teacher candidates as they strive to implement their own version of quality teaching in practice.

 nalyzing an Early Childhood Classroom A (Assignment 1) Teacher candidates enrolled in an early childhood curriculum class were placed in a preschool setting in classrooms serving 2.5-, 3-, and 4-year-­ olds. Approximately a quarter of the preschool children are non-white (children’s background includes Armenian, Indian, Chinese, Ghanaian, Korean, Spanish, and Pakistani) with the rest being from a white, Euro-­ American background. The school is accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) and the director is a recent graduate of an Ed.D. program in Elementary and Early Childhood Education at a large university. All five teachers hold bachelor’s degrees in Early Childhood Education and/or Elementary Education and are white. Prior to beginning their field practicum, teacher candidates read and discussed the role of culture in early childhood education, examining culture from a broad lens (Gutierrez & Rogoff, 2003). While they have had five education courses in previous semesters, this is the first curriculum early childhood curriculum class taken by the teacher candidates (in addition to the infants and toddlers class). The goal of the assignment is to begin to sensitize them to culture and cultural practices within the preschool classroom by having them observe and identify examples in their practicum classes. After their second visit to the preschool, they were asked to write a short reflection regarding their observations. Each teacher candidate was asked to describe and analyze four examples of culture or cultural practices in their field practicum classroom. A

72 

M. Kim-Bossard and J. Eberly

total of 26 distinct examples were described across the student reflections. Of those 26 examples, more than half (14) related to physical or material items found in the classroom. Seven related to teacher-parent or teacher-­ student interactions and relationships, and five related to curriculum or pedagogy (non-material items). Physical/material elements of culture. Examples of physical or material items include books, dolls, toy figurines, pretend food items, dress-up clothes, puzzles of other countries, and images displayed in the classroom that depict diversity (race, ethnicity, gender, and ability); a welcome sign written in different languages; a family tree made up of students’ family photos; a class book made up of students’ family photos with notations of favorite foods and dreams; and snacks brought in by students that reflect their home culture. Below are sample excerpts from teacher candidates’ written analysis: For music and movement, the song choices vary in language for cultures. For example, when the teacher plays the cd player during clean up time, her choice of music is culturally appropriate. Sometimes it is Indian music, Asian, American, Italian nursery songs. It is varied. (Katherine) They have a book where they have a couple pages for each student and they put pictures of their families in it, and their interests, dreams, favorite food, etc. Great way to represent and get to know cultures! (Miranda) The door in the classroom has “welcome” written in several different languages. This is culturally appropriate and pleasing to the parents that are dropping the students off, and picking the students up. (Katherine) I witnessed one of the student’s mothers who is of [I]ndian descent, bring in a book that represented her culture. She showed the teacher and the teacher happily told her that she will look into using that book in her lesson plan for read-aloud. (Melissa) [The teacher read a book] about being nice to everyone and at the end there was a picture of a girl in a wheelchair, and explained how she was no different than them and let them discuss about it. (Andrea)

  Questioning Quality in Early Childhood Teacher Education… 

73

I witnessed a show and tell in which a child was encouraged to talk about the [C]hinese dollar bill he received from his grandma. He was asked extensively if he knew who was on the dollar bill, how much it was worth compared to US currency, and how he got it. This proves that the classroom celebrates diversity and tries its best to incorporate it and connect it to student’s lives. (Emma)

Teacher interactions with parents and students. Examples of teacher-­ parent interactions included informal interactions at drop off/pick up, notes sent home each day to describe the day’s events, parents sending in snack for the class that is reflective of their culture, and a day designated as “Special Visitor’s Day,” where students invite a family member to come to school with them. These examples were described as opportunities for the teacher and family members to share information and have open lines of communication; however, they did not describe specific cultural elements in detail beyond a general family culture. Examples of teacher-student interaction included teachers displaying respectful interactions with the students, prompting peer interaction, and having conversations during play (e.g., asking children what kinds of foods they eat at home): The way that the teachers speak to the students and prompt peer interaction builds respect in the classroom and shows how this culture expects students to treat each other. (Katherine)

Another example included a parent who sent her daughter to school with a bottle. While not a common practice at the school or the classroom, the teacher recognized this as a cultural practice. The teacher respected the home culture of the child and the families’ desire for the child to be allowed to bring her bottle to class even though this was contrary to typical practice. Two teacher candidates commented on this example: One student comes into the classroom with a baby bottle every day. I asked the teacher about this since children at the 2.5-3[-year-]old age normally do not use bottles anymore. She stated that the child and parents’ culture

74 

M. Kim-Bossard and J. Eberly

allow her to still use the bottle if that is what she wants so the teacher has to adapt to allow this type of thinking in her teacher and when feeding for snack[s]. (Ela) Another example is one student is very dependent on the teacher when she eats. This student also still drinks from a bottle. When I asked my teacher about this. She said the student is a little old to still be drinking a bottle and needing help with food, but her mother wants her to be dependent on her from their culture. My cooperating teacher expressed how it is hard since she tries to teach independence in school. This shows how culturally responsive practices, which aim for harmony between program and home, are helpful for the families. (Megan)

Curriculum/pedagogy. Examples of curriculum/pedagogy included using songs to build classroom community, a Valentine’s Day box craft, a medieval study in one classroom, as well as eating snacks as a whole group and waiting for everyone to have food before eating it. One teacher candidate also described a practice that she felt was not indicative of a culturally responsive classroom: areas of the classroom delineated by children as “boy areas” and “girl areas” that were not addressed by the teacher. In addition, there is a clear barrier between the kitchen play area (considered to be a “girl” activity) and the construction and car play area (considered to be a “boy” activity). Although it is not explicitly said that opposite genders can’t play in either areas, the barrier seems to facilitate the sexist activities….The class does not do any activities that is are directly centered around a culture. From the days that I’ve observed, the art I’ve witnessed children making was of animals and hearts. Also I’ve only seen spaceships and hot chocolate displayed around the classroom. (Emma) They do have a culturally diverse classroom and give the children options. Teachers did crafts for [V]alentine’s [D]ay with the children and let the children paint and decorate their own box and include a picture of themselves that they brought from home. The teachers then said that they can give this box to anyone in their family or a caregiver. (Andrea)

  Questioning Quality in Early Childhood Teacher Education… 

75

Teacher candidates were able to identify examples of cultural practices; however, many of them were concrete items. They were able to identify a couple of elements that related to teacher-student or teacher-parent interactions, especially when one of those was particularly unfamiliar. For instance, two teacher candidates recognized the use of a bottle in a preschool as a cultural practice and the teacher supported their observations by elaborating on the family’s beliefs. Teacher candidates did not identify many examples of curriculum or pedagogy beyond Valentine’s Day, which was recognized as a cultural practice.

 eflecting on Personal Experiences R and Cross-­Cultural Practices (Assignment 2) In the infants and toddlers’ class, teacher candidates were encouraged to reflect on their own personal cultural background in relation to who they are as teachers during the first five weeks of the nine-week-long field experience. The goal of this reflective task is to support teacher candidates to consider the complexities of culture manifesting in early childhood education and care settings, including both implicit and explicit values that influence teachers’ decision making. Teacher candidates were encouraged to develop a cultural awareness so that they can start to articulate why teachers do what they do, instead of assuming the basis of instructional decisions as inherently “good” and/or “correct.” This reflective writing assignment was due mid-semester, and teacher candidates were given opportunities to engage with assigned readings and speakers over the course of a few weeks. With the assumption that many teacher candidates would often equate cultural boundaries with national borders, the written reflection assignment aimed to learn more about what elements of culture teacher candidates used to anchor their perspective as a teacher and to articulate what counts as quality teaching and learning. There were a number of elements the teacher candidates enrolled in the course identified as components of culture with some variations and similarities across the written responses. Besides the elements frequently associated with culture, including race, ethnicity, country or local

76 

M. Kim-Bossard and J. Eberly

community of origin, religion, socioeconomics, nationality, and language(s) spoken at home, the teacher candidates pointed out their family make up, family values and priorities, family history (including illness and adoption), and sibling order as important factors that influenced their family culture, as well as who they are as individuals. For some students, this was a challenging process. As a teacher candidate who did not think her personal experience necessarily fits into the typical categories of culture, such as ethnicity connected to a particular country and religion, Marie oriented her reflection toward differences she noticed between her and other children around her while growing up, as well as her family values: When it comes to my culture, I always struggle with what to write. I don’t really do anything related to my nationality, rather than use the German words for aunt, grandma, and grandpa on my mom’s side. I also am not a religious person….Growing up I went to school with mostly white children, however, there were children from other races.…Whenever I think of culture I always think back to my childhood, and how my parents raised me, their values, and the traditions that we have.

It is notable how Marie defined her cultural identity by articulating what she is not first. In her reflection, she revealed that she primarily associated culture with nationality, religion, and race with culture. Then, she drew on her upbringing to supplement her response with qualities that are more difficult to pinpoint. While other teacher candidates did not necessarily openly share their struggle with the reflection process, they demonstrated how family values, traditions, and relationships were deeply connected to many of the teacher candidates saw themselves. Corey articulates: Thinking about my own cultural background and how I was raised, I believe my family’s perspective, and specifically my mother’s perspective of me as a child and how she raised me caused me to think about how I would see a child in her perspective.

  Questioning Quality in Early Childhood Teacher Education… 

77

The ways in which teacher candidates perceive children matter as it influences decision-making processes in a classroom. Teacher candidates’ perspective on childhood, such as naivete of children, and romantic view of childhood, is a reflection of one’s own cultural positioning that impacts the ways in which teacher candidates relate themselves to children. At this point of their journey in the teacher education program, teacher candidates have partaken in field experiences in a couple of different settings (infant or toddler, preschool, and elementary classrooms), and they started to formulate their own image of children. For instance, another teacher candidate noted: “It is interesting because so many people say that children ‘don’t see color’, and that sums it up well. Children do not see differences, but instead, are drawn to everyone and want to be friends with everyone….” In this sense, teacher candidates’ beliefs such as these cannot be separated from relationships they form with children and instructional decisions they make. Defining “quality” teaching. Teacher candidates acknowledge that there exist different ways to define “quality” because the contexts in which teaching practices are situated matter. Miranda’s writing reflects this idea: Quality can be ambiguous since it is different across various countries. America has its own standards in which they teach by and raise by, but that can be dangerous when there is a child in the classroom that was raised differently.

Many teacher candidates emphasized the need to “localize” quality standards in order to address different ways children learn, in relation to “individual family’s beliefs and values” and teachers’ “own cultural beliefs about teaching or nurturing.” Miranda specifically pointed out how “it is imperative [for teachers] to respect those differences and not try and make them ‘convert’ to one specific way of life” as some children would be raised differently at home. This connects to another characteristic of what teacher candidates considered to be “quality” teaching. Namely, “quality” teaching was also seen as respecting cultural differences that individual children bring into the classroom, as well as what each family contributes. Adriana articulated:

78 

M. Kim-Bossard and J. Eberly

A quality classroom and a quality teacher will respect all cultures, family dynamics, strengths and weaknesses of every child. A teacher needs to have an open mind and be open to changing his or her strategies, routines, lessons, and activities.

Showing respect for cultural differences was a key element frequently brought up in the written reflections. Not only becoming aware of cultural diversity but also making efforts to honor the family values was seen as a part of what constitutes “quality teaching.” Adriana clearly described this as a part of what she needs to do as a teacher: “It is my job as an early childhood educator to respect all cultures and do my best to embrace every culture into my classroom.” Emphasizing the importance of “respect[ing],” “represent[ing],” “embrac[ing] and “nurtur[ing]” every cultural difference that exists in a classroom, teacher candidates often spoke of creating opportunities to “expose” children to cultural diversity, and “ensur[ing]” that each student feels safe and comfortable. Megan noted, “I will make an effort to represent each student’s culture when teaching.” Across the teacher candidates’ written reflections, there was a strong sense of the moral imperative to create a space for representing all voices in the class and to create a classroom culture of respect. Meanwhile, there was less discussion of the dynamic characteristic of culture, considering the complexities of how different types of culture may interact with each other, influencing one another, and being transformed each day. Teacher candidates were focused on making space for what each child may bring from home, instead of considering the power dynamics between various cultural groups, the interaction between different cultures, and the complexities of how culture may manifest itself in a classroom. For instance, while a family might believe that it is important not to waste any food during meal time, a teacher might encourage children to practice being independent eaters, even if it means some food gets on the floor in the process (Recchia & McDevitt, 2017). In situations like this, it would be important for teacher candidates to be attentive not only to the cultural practices themselves but also to the tension and the negotiation process.

  Questioning Quality in Early Childhood Teacher Education… 

79

Cecilia took a position that teachers are experts who will be promoting and teaching about cultural diversity, with the help of family involvement. Acknowledging that many children in her future classroom will have different cultural backgrounds, Cecilia emphasized the importance of “understand[ing] the perspective of the child or even the family” to be “a quality teacher”: One way of doing this is taking a step back from the situation and researching or learning about other cultures and integrating them into the classroom in order to teach yourself and also other children in the classroom about the different cultures that the children come from.

Different from other teacher candidates, Emma, a teacher candidate who moved to the United States as a child, her personal experience played a key role in defining what it means to engage herself in a “quality” teaching. Reflecting on the difficulties she experienced as a child, she put herself in the perspectives of students who may share similar struggles: Being raised in two different backgrounds has definitely influenced what I believe teaching, learning, and care means for a child.…As a[n immigrant] child in America, my teachers did not put into account my specific needs as an immigrant still trying to learn another language into account when giving me assignments or grading me.

While individual voices cannot be generalized to all teacher candidates, these excerpts contribute to articulating a variety of attitudes and mindsets that teacher candidates hold as they navigate and negotiate different ideas about culture and their personal experiences. This discussion becomes more intense as teacher candidates were given opportunities to examine practical examples rooted in different values and traditions. Responses to different cultural examples. The ways in which teacher candidates grapple with beliefs and practices in early childhood education and care settings provided an insight on how teacher candidates position themselves in relation to the perceived roles of culture as demonstrated in practical examples. While teacher candidates unequivocally agreed that different cultural beliefs and practices that children and their

80 

M. Kim-Bossard and J. Eberly

family members may bring to school should be represented, respected, and incorporated into the classroom, it was challenging for teacher candidates to consider how different values may impact teachers’ instructional decision-making processes. In particular, Isabelle’s writing demonstrated tension that emerged from facing different cultural beliefs and values through the provided readings. The three key factors that I feel define a quality classroom are incorporation of an appropriate ratio, play, and collaboration.…From the videos that were shown [of a Japanese preschool classroom]…we saw that the student teacher ratio was very skewed. There appeared to be a very large amount of children under the supervision of one adult. Having a twenty to one teacher to child ratio allows no time for observing the child, talking to the child, addressing the child’s needs, or simply getting to know the child.…Impaired ratios, in addition to other issues, can leave children socially, linguistically, and emotionally behind.

While Isabelle’s concerns were aligned with what would be considered to be a standard practice in the United States, such as a certain teacher-­ student ratio, she did not acknowledge that the standards in a Japanese preschool were grounded in beliefs and values of the Japanese society. Using strong descriptors such as “skewed,” “impaired,” and “behind,” Isabelle articulated values that define “quality” teaching from her perspective. Another teacher candidate, Miranda, grappled with the way in which a Japanese preschool teacher dealt with a fight that broke out over a teddy bear. Imagining what she would do in the same scenario, Miranda shared how she would respond differently from the Japanese teacher, who let the children sort out their problem and did not interject herself: I think quality care begins with children’s safety.…I think no matter the situation, no student should ever put his/her hand on another student. I believe, as a teacher, it is my job to protect my students.…I want my students to always know I am there as a support system and there to help them through any problems. I never want my students to feel unsafe or uncomfortable in my classroom.

  Questioning Quality in Early Childhood Teacher Education… 

81

Taking time to digest where she stands in relation to the examples from different cultural contexts, Miranda reflected on what position she would feel comfortable taking. While there were many examples of different cultural practices in early childhood classrooms that brought about tension, such as allowing children to feed themselves and possibly wasting food, and debating how much independence teachers should allow infants and toddlers, Miranda took time to consider teachers’ role when a conflict arises among children the most. As Souto-Manning (2014) pointed out, it is clear that conflict is considered to be something to avoid in early childhood classrooms from Miranda’s perspective. Miranda believed that having conflict threatened children’s safety and was detrimental to the children’s emotional development. Respecting each other and having conflict could not coexist from her point of view. Considering it is impossible to have a roomful of young children without any conflict, Miranda wished to minimize any discomfort and feeling of being unsafe by taking an active role “protecting” children as a “support system.” While Miranda is clearly concerned about children’s well-­ being, she did not agree with the ways in which Japanese early childhood educators intentionally promoted their social and emotional development by letting children work through emergent problems and disagreements. Some teacher candidates expressed that while “quality” education may seem different in various cultural contexts, it does not necessarily hinder children from learning and becoming a part of the society. In response to examples of different cultural practices, Eva acknowledged that “quality” teaching varies from country to county, but “still creates a successful education for the children within those cultures.” She also noted that the standards that define “quality” teaching are not absolute: “quality standards of teaching change so frequently that it is hard to determine what is the best quality of teaching.” As teacher candidates compared and contrasted their beliefs on “quality” teaching with examples of early childhood practices from different cultures that may go against their cultural values, they were able to articulate more clearly their cultural position as teachers. In the next section, teacher candidates envision what culturally responsive practices would look like in their own classrooms.

82 

M. Kim-Bossard and J. Eberly

Creating an environment that fosters cultural diversity. Teacher candidates had many ideas about promoting cultural diversity by implementing various strategies in their classroom. Many of them suggested tangible ways to make the presence of cultural diversity visible and known to students and their family members, similarly to what they noted as a part of the assignment for the early childhood curriculum class. For example, Adriana, Ela, Miranda, and Megan mentioned using dolls, books, music, artworks, pictures, and/or videos to represent different races, cultures, and student interests. Many teacher candidates discussed physical environment, instructional content, and family engagement (through activities such as read-alouds) as key elements through which they hope to promote cultural diversity in their classroom. One of the teacher candidates, Andrea, also shared her hope to bring in her own culture as a teacher into the classroom: “What I bring to my classroom is something that will shape every child’s life and help make them more aware of the diverse cultures that every child brings to the classroom as well as my own.” Miranda took a different position than Andrea. Even though Miranda also acknowledged the importance of incorporating cultural diversity, she thought it would be necessary for her to “think objectively” as a teacher, and this would be a challenge she needed to face: “As a future educator, I would want to bring in new ideas from different cultures and countries around the world. It is difficult to separate personal, individual feelings from the objective thinking needed as a teacher.” Even though Miranda acknowledged the difficulty in doing so, she conceptualized being a teacher as embodying a sense of professional objectivity, leaving little room for subjective, individual experiences and emotions teachers may experience outside of the classroom. In addition, teacher candidates had a strong desire to adopt their classrooms so that young children feel comfortable being a part of the classroom community. Adriana shared, “my classroom will reflect the children that get to learn in it every day, not posters that I purchased from the teacher store.” Taking a step further, Ela hoped to embed social justice in her teaching to support young children to become aware of the topics that influence daily lives in local communities and beyond:

  Questioning Quality in Early Childhood Teacher Education… 

83

When I read books to my students, I will be sure that many of them contain important social justice issues that they can relate to their own lives.…Of course there are many issues in the world such as bullying, race, religion and respectfulness that children should slowly become aware of and be given the chance to form educated opinions on these topics.

Family involvement was a key aspect many teacher candidates wanted to actively promote in their classroom. The relationship between home and school was something that teacher candidates wanted to see flourish, by inviting family members to participate in read-alouds and contributing to show and tell. Isabelle noted, “[S]chool life and home life should not be two separate spheres for a child. Rather they should be interconnected, and should support one another.”

Discussion and Conclusion The purpose of the first assignment was to have students look at the classroom through a lens of culture to see what they saw. Even with readings and discussions that reminded students that culture goes deeper than the visible elements, such as food, fashion, festivals, what students noticed most were these items. This was an assignment early in the field placement, and this likely played a role in the results—students were taking their first early childhood curriculum courses and were first exploring the role of culture in a preschool classroom. Additionally, students had limited time to experience how culture might play a role in the fabric of the classroom. For these reasons, it is perhaps not surprising that students readily found the more obvious and visible physical objects of culture. The second assignment aimed at encouraging teacher candidates to consider their own personal experiences and perspectives on culture in relation to their understanding of “quality” teaching in early childhood classrooms. Similar to the teacher candidates’ responses to the first assignment, many teacher candidates focused on more visible and identifiable aspects of culture, such as race, ethnicity, religion, and language(s) spoken at home as they reflected on their own cultural background. While teacher candidates had a chance to engage with readings and lectures that

84 

M. Kim-Bossard and J. Eberly

articulated the complexities of the roles culture plays in early childhood classrooms over the course of weeks until mid-semester, some of them struggle with implicit ways culture influences the perception of “quality” teaching and learning. In the two courses, teacher candidates had opportunities to analyze what they observed in a preschool classroom and examine their own assumptions about culture through an introspection. This process demonstrated that teacher candidates may need not only more exposure to examples of early childhood education and care practices from different cultures, but also more guidance in critically reflecting on what it means to have varying cultural practices and beliefs in early childhood classrooms. The ways in which culture operates in early childhood settings are not always obvious, as values and traditions informed by culture are often taken for granted. What teacher candidates see as “culture,” as well as the type of interpretive lens the teacher candidates bring with them as individuals, is an important factor in learning about how teacher candidates conceptualize “good” teaching, “good” learning, and even “good” students and families. The environment in which teacher candidates grew up certainly has an influence on the formation of their values and experiences, and teacher educators cannot necessarily change these personal experiences. However, teacher educators can support and encourage teacher candidates to critically reflect on the relationship between culture and the perception of “quality” teaching in various early childhood education and care settings, as the demographic landscape of children they will work with is becoming increasingly more diverse. In particular, challenging them to consider their own cultural backgrounds and gain a renewed perspective on their positionality as a teacher would be a meaningful first step in making use of what the teacher candidates bring with them as an asset and a foundation for establishing a culturally responsive understanding of “quality” early childhood education. This consistency we observed in the ways in which teacher candidates gravitated toward more visible and “nameable” aspects of culture presents teacher educators with the challenges as they encourage teacher candidates to partake in a critical reflection of the perceived norms, the status

  Questioning Quality in Early Childhood Teacher Education… 

85

quo, and assumptions regarding cultural “others.” Considering the demographics of the current pool of teacher candidates is rather homogenous (middle-class white women), it is easy for future teachers to regard culture as something that diverges from the normative whiteness that often goes without being examined. As Diangelo (2018) discusses, white Americans are taught in many ways not to see their whiteness and the implications of it. This means that more proactive efforts are required for teacher candidates to be aware of and actively oppose the process of marginalizing those whose cultural backgrounds are different from teachers’. Excerpts of teacher candidates’ written reflection we shared in this chapter provided an insight into meaningful ways to incorporate what are teacher candidates’ cultural knowledge and experiences, in relation to children’s home culture into the early childhood classroom. They show students’ current thoughts as they work to understand the complexity of culture and its impact on children, their families, and the field of early childhood education. Also, teacher educators can provide opportunities to bridge the gap between their professional and personal cultural identities by considering the ways in which teacher candidates grapple with classroom practices from different cultural contexts that may not correspond with what they consider to be “quality” teaching. With the hope of broadening the scope of what teacher candidates perceive as desirable practices in early childhood classrooms, teacher educators can strive to not only address the gap between theory and practice about culturally responsive practices, but also the possible dissonance between the lives of young children and the experiences of teachers in early childhood classrooms.

References Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (1999). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care: Postmodern perspectives. Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis. Diangelo, R. (2018). White fragility: Why it’s so hard for white people to talk about racism. Boston: Beacon Press.

86 

M. Kim-Bossard and J. Eberly

Edwards, C., & Raikes, H. (2002). Extending the dance: Relationship-based approaches to infant/toddler care and education. Young Children, 57(4), 10–17. Florio-Ruane, S. (2001). Teacher education and the cultural imagination: Autobiography, conversation, and narrative. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books. Gutierrez, K. D., & Rogoff, B. (2003). Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice. Educational Researcher, 32(5), 19–25. Jones, L., Osgood, J., Holmes, R., & Urban, M. (2016). Reimagining quality in early childhood. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 17(1), 3–7. Moss, P. (2016). Why can’t we get beyond quality. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 17(1), 8–15. Price-Dennis, D., & Souto-Manning, M. (2011). (Re)Framing diverse pre-­ service classrooms as spaces for culturally relevant teaching. The Journal of Negro Education, 80(3), 223–238. Quality. (2018). In Merriam-Webster Dictionary online. Retrieved from https:// www.merriam-­webster.com/dictionary/quality Recchia, S. L., & McDevitt, S. E. (2017). Unraveling universalist perspective on teaching and caring for infants and toddlers: Finding authenticity in diverse funds of knowledge. Journal of Research in Childhood Education. https://doi. org/10.1080/02568543.2017.1387206 Souto-Manning, M. (2014). Making a stink about the “ideal” classroom: Theorizing and storying conflict in early childhood education. Urban Education, 49(6), 607–634. Tobin, J. (2005). Quality in early childhood education: An anthropologist’s perspective. Early Education & Development, 16(4), 421–434.

Indigenous Children’s ‘Ways of Knowing’: Exploring Literacy Learning for Indigenous Preschool Children in Remote Communities in Australia Alexis Spencer and Elizabeth Rouse

Introduction Australia’s National Assessment Program—Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) is the measure through which governments, education authorities, schools, families and teachers determine the extent to which children are attaining the literacy and numeracy skills necessary for effective functioning. Driven by neoliberalist thinking which positions education from the perspective of a knowledge economy, a national policy agenda which raises literacy and numeracy levels of Australia children so A. Spencer The National Indigenous Knowledges Education Research Innovation (NIKERI), Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] E. Rouse (*) School of Education, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Z. Kinkead-Clark, K.-A. Escayg (eds.), Reconceptualizing Quality in Early Childhood Education, Care and Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69013-7_4

87

88 

A. Spencer and E. Rouse

that ‘Australia’s educational quality is among the top five countries in the PISA league tables’ (Buckingham, 2012) has permeated national education policy in Australia for the past decade. Early childhood education and care provision in Australia are guided by a policy framework which positions play as the key context for children’s learning and in which children are active agents and collaborators along with the educators in shaping their own learning. Despite this, many young Indigenous children attending preschool across northern Australia are being provided with structured literacy programs that rather than enabling children to engage in play and social learning use instructional models of teaching. This chapter presents an analysis of the interconnections between these models, broader ECEC pedagogies and culturally responsive pedagogies, to better understand what might be more effective approaches to teaching and learning that encourage Indigenous children’s cultural identity whilst becoming literate in today’s global society.

 ustralia’s First Nations Children: Background A to Learning and Development Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people experience an educational trajectory that often differs from that of non-Indigenous Australians. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are frequently described as being “less ready” for their first year of primary school in comparison to non-Aboriginal children (Krakouer, 2016). Indigenous children are almost four times more likely to be developmentally vulnerable than non-Indigenous children in the language and cognitive skills domain compared to non-Indigenous children (Dockett, Perry, & Kearney, 2010). For many Indigenous children, Australian English is not their first language, and children may speak three or four languages, of which English is the fourth, and may only be spoken while the child is at school or preschool. As reported in the Australian Early Development Census (AEDC), children with a Language Background Other Than English (LBOTE) are more likely than other children to be developmentally vulnerable in their language and cognitive skills.

  Indigenous Children’s ‘Ways of Knowing’: Exploring Literacy… 

89

The AEDC provides a national measurement to monitor the development of Australian children. It is used to inform policy, planning and action for health, education and community support (Australian Early Development Census, n.d.). Recent findings from this census identified that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are more than two times more likely to be reported as developmentally vulnerable than non-­ Indigenous children, and children who are not proficient in English are nearly eight times more likely to be developmentally vulnerable than LBOTE children who were proficient in English. Indigenous children also experience a range of social, emotional, behavioural and health issues that were likely to impact negatively on their learning and engagement with school (Dockett et  al., 2010). Numerous risk factors such as low birth weight, parental substance use or mental health issues, cultural obligations such as ‘sorry’ business (i.e. funerals), child abuse and neglect, lack of stable employment, as well as family and community transience also impact on young Indigenous children’s learning and development (Krakouer, 2016). One of the key goals of the Australian government’s ‘Closing the Gap’ initiative is to increase preschool enrolment rates of Indigenous children. Whilst in 2018 Closing the Gap report indicated 92% of children are enrolled in early childhood education and care programs, there are still many children in remote areas who are not enrolled in preschool. Enrolment rates also do not necessarily reflect attendance rates, which are lower than that of non-Indigenous children (Krakouer, 2016). Universal Access is a nationwide policy that allows for the provision of 15 hours of preschool for all children in the year prior to starting compulsory schooling. While Closing the Gap report noted that in the data collection period, 93% of children living in metropolitan and regional areas attended preschool for at least one hour per week; this is in vast contrast to the 15 hours Universal Access for all preschool children (Indigenous and non-Indigenous, Australia wide). Attendance figures were much lower for children living in remote areas of Australia (Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2018). The reasons for non-attendance are complex and contextual. Closing the Gap report identifies that the proportion of Indigenous students achieving national minimum standards in NAPLAN reading for

90 

A. Spencer and E. Rouse

years 3, 5, 7, and 9 is significantly less than for non-Indigenous children. These results, however, are sensitive to participation rates, which are typically lower for Indigenous students. So it could be assumed that the gap is actually much higher than reported, if based on the assumption that the students who did not participate in NAPLAN testing are also the same students who are at risk because of low school attendance. Outcomes for Australian Indigenous students differ considerably depending on their geographical location. ‘For example, in Major City areas in 2017, 88 per cent of Indigenous Year 3 students met or exceeded the national minimum standard for reading, almost double the 46 per cent of students in very remote areas’ (Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, 2018, p. 60).

 arly Childhood Education and Care E in Australia Over the past ten years early childhood education and care (ECEC) in Australia has undergone significant reforms. A National Reform Agenda which commenced in 2008 has resulted in the implementation of a National Quality Framework (ACECQA, 2018a) governing all ECEC services nationwide. The National Quality Framework encompasses the Early Years Learning Framework (EYLF) to guide the practice of all teachers and educators working with children in their early years, National Regulations to ensure consistency across all jurisdictions and the introduction of National Quality Standards by which all ECEC settings are measured. The National Reform Agenda also included two significant policy directives—Universal Access to 15 hours of preschool education for all children in the year prior to formal schooling and that all ECEC services needed to employ a degree-qualified early childhood teacher. Universal Access requirements demand that all children are able to access an early childhood educational program which is led by a teacher who holds an early childhood teaching degree. This was identified as a means to build positive outcomes for all children and recognises the importance of the early years for each child’s future learning. However,

  Indigenous Children’s ‘Ways of Knowing’: Exploring Literacy… 

91

for many children living in discrete remote communities across the remote areas of northern Australia, largely made up of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, access to early childhood programs delivered by degree-qualified early childhood teacher is problematic. ‘It is difficult to recruit and retain sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced early childhood education and care (ECEC) workers in rural and remote areas. This difficulty typically increases with remoteness, and is particularly acute for ECEC teaching positions’ (Australian Government Productivity Commission, 2011, p. xl). Attracting suitably qualified teachers to work in these communities is challenging. Many of the communities are geographically isolated, some more than 500 kilometres from the nearest town and thousands of kilometres from the closest capital city. During the wet season some communities become flooded in and are only accessible by plane. Life in a remote community is challenging; the remoteness, the climate, disconnection, understanding cultural protocols, learning about relationships and community politics are demanding, all facets making it difficult to attract early childhood teachers from regional towns or cities to relocate and take up positions in remote areas. It is even less likely that children will be taught by Indigenous teachers who share their cultural, language and traditional connections. Young Indigenous people aspiring to gain early childhood teaching qualifications are less likely than their non-­ Indigenous peers to access teacher education courses. The struggle to meet the university entry requirements for literacy and numeracy, satisfactorily complete year 12 pre-requisite subjects and write the required non-academic pre-requisite statements is significant, and more so if they are a mature aged student who has not attended school for many years, did not complete high school or is affected by transgenerational stresses from their or their family member’s schooling experiences. If they are able to meet these pre-requisites and are accepted into a course, their learning is impacted by limited access to internet and digital technology, the requirement to have basic digital literacy, and even access to a computer. Enrolment at university means having to relocate to large regional towns or leave community to attend intensive residential study blocks away from family, community, culture and language, and minimal access to

92 

A. Spencer and E. Rouse

academic support, whilst continuing to manage family, community and cultural responsibilities, as well as maintain employment while they study. The preschool programs in these remote communities are often attached to and administered by the school principal. When qualified early childhood teachers are not available, other teachers within the school may be given the role as the early childhood teacher. Having teaching degrees in either primary or secondary education, these teachers will not have the relevant theoretical understanding of play as a learning context, are unfamiliar with the EYLF and most likely do not have the pedagogical understanding of effective teaching and learning in early childhood contexts. ECEC programs are governed by a National Law, surrounding National Regulations and National Quality Standards. Many of the principals and the teachers do not understand their responsibilities, obligations and accountabilities as prescribed in the National Law.

The National Quality Standards Within the National Quality Standards (NQS), seven quality areas govern the delivery of effective education and care programs for children. These standards focus on the educational program, relationships with children, families and professionals, the learning environment, health and safety as well as staffing, governance and leadership. Quality Area 1 (QA 1) focuses on ensuring that the educational program and practice of educators are child-centred, stimulating and maximise opportunities for enhancing and extending each child’s learning and development. It recognises that a quality program that builds on children’s individual knowledge, strengths, ideas, culture, abilities and interests is likely to have long-term benefits for children and for the broader society (ACECQA, 2018a). Linking closely to the EYLF which provides guidelines for pedagogical decision making, QA 1 outlines that educational programs maximise opportunities for learning when they are based on educators’ knowledge of each child, so interactions and experiences are relevant, respectful of each child’s background and build on each child’s current strengths, abilities and interests.

  Indigenous Children’s ‘Ways of Knowing’: Exploring Literacy… 

93

Quality Area 5 (QA 5) complements QA1 by focusing closely on the relationships formed between the children with each other and with the educators, as a basis for building secure and responsive attachments that lead to a sense of wellbeing, and fosters self-esteem. QA 5 focuses on the belief that positive interactions between educators and children involve educators viewing each child as capable and competent, and recognising children’s existing strengths. It recognises that children have a right to a voice and should be able to contribute to decisions that affect them, building their sense of identity and self-worth.

The Early Years Learning Framework The NQS has been informed by the principles, practices and identified learning outcomes found in the EYLF (DEEWR, 2009). The EYLF has been developed as a guide to frame the practice of all educators working with young children from birth until they commence formal schooling. The EYLF has been informed by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNHCR, 1989). This Convention recognises children’s right to play and be active participants in all matters affecting their lives. It states that all children have the right to an education that lays a foundation for the rest of their lives, maximises their ability and respects their family, cultural and other identities and languages (DEEWR, 2009, p. 5). The EYLF positions effective early childhood education and care programs as occurring through play-based learning, where educators design programs for children that draw on their strengths and interests, recognise the culture and diversity each child brings to their learning and values each child as a competent learner. Drawing on the principles of constructivism, social constructivism and socio-cultural theory, central to the EYLF is the notion that children actively construct their own understandings and contribute to others’ learning. Through this, children can develop their agency, build capacity to initiate and lead learning. The EYLF lays the foundation for children to demonstrate their rights to participate in decisions that affect them, including their learning.

94 

A. Spencer and E. Rouse

Drawing on Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1979), the EYLF recognises that children exist within the context of their family, community and culture. Central to the EYLF is the recognition of the family as the child’s first and most influential teacher (DEEWR, 2009, p. 13). Underpinning the EYLF is an understanding that children are born belonging to a culture, which is not only influenced by traditional practices, heritage and ancestral knowledge, but also by the experiences, values and beliefs of each individual family and their community. As such, the EYLF guides educators to honour the histories, cultures, languages and traditions of each family. Educators will then respond to children’s expertise, cultural traditions and ways of knowing, as well as the multiple languages spoken by many children in the programs they design and the relationships they develop with each child. They build on each child’s strengths, skills and knowledge to connect and engage them in their learning. Integral to the EYLF are the five learning outcomes. Viewing children as active participants and decision makers allows educators to move beyond pre-conceived expectations about what children can do and should be expected to learn. The EYLF is not a curriculum, and as such does not outline specific content knowledge or progression points for children attending early childhood education and care programs. In contrast, the five learning outcomes are designed to capture the integrated and complex learning and development of all children from birth until they begin their formal schooling. They are broad and observable and acknowledge that children learn in a variety of ways, and learn at their own pace, allowing for children to engage with increasingly complex ideas and experiences over time. The five learning outcomes identified in the EYLF are: • • • • •

Children have a strong sense of identity. Children are connected with and contribute to their world. Children have a strong sense of wellbeing. Children are confident and involved learners. Children are effective communicators.

  Indigenous Children’s ‘Ways of Knowing’: Exploring Literacy… 

95

Having a positive sense of identity and experiencing respectful, responsive relationships strengthens children’s interest and skills, leading to them both being and becoming active contributors to their world. A strong sense of wellbeing provides children with confidence and optimism which maximises their learning potential. When children are confident in who they are, they develop a sense of agency and a desire to interact with responsive others. Acknowledging each child’s cultural and social identity, and responding sensitively to their emotional states, builds children’s confidence, sense of wellbeing and willingness to engage in learning. Through this, children are given the confidence to experiment and explore and to try new ideas, becoming active and involved participants in learning. When their family and community experiences and understandings are recognised and included in the program, children are able to make connections to and take ownership of their learning outcomes. Children who are confident and involved learners develop dispositions such as curiosity, persistence and creativity and are able to use processes such as exploration, collaboration and problem solving across all aspects of curriculum. Through play, children develop their understanding of themselves and their world through active, hands-on investigation. Children being effective communicators is a key learning outcome in the EYLF. Children are social beings who are intrinsically motivated to exchange ideas, thoughts, questions and feelings. Children’s use of their home languages underpins their sense of identity and their conceptual development. For many children in ECEC settings, English is not their first language. Australia is a multi-cultural society where over 20% of Australians speak a language other than English. For many children, especially children from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds, English in not just a second language, but maybe a third or fourth language, only being spoken while children are attending the ECEC program. It is recognised in the EYLF that children have the right to be continuing users of their home language, where their home language, interaction styles and ways of communicating are valued, while developing their competency in Standard Australian English.

96 

A. Spencer and E. Rouse

Literacy in the EYLF Within the EYLF literacy is described as ‘the capacity, confidence and disposition to use language in all its forms’ (DEEWR, 2009, p.  41). Viewed more broadly than just reading and writing, literacy in this context incorporates not only reading and writing, but also a range of modes of communication including music, movement, dance, story-telling, visual arts, media and drama, as well as talking, listening, viewing and using digital technologies. Literacy is the capability to produce and make sense of language for a variety of purposes and children become literate as they develop the knowledge, skills and dispositions to interpret and use language confidently for participating effectively in society (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, n.d.). Newman (2016) suggests that literacy is not only a function of everyday life, but is also a cultural tool, while Hill (2011, cited in Newman, 2016, p. 95) claims that language and literacy are markers of culture and status where ‘the way one talks, conducts interpersonal relationships and communicates are of significant importance’. A key practice principle underpinning the EYLF is play as the context for learning. Play is strongly connected with the development of early literacy skills as it allows the young child to practice, elaborate and extend on their literacy abilities. While research has shown that engaging in play promotes speaking and listening skills, there is also strong evidence that well-designed, literacy-promoting play environments lead young children to build connections between oral language and written expression (Banerjee, Alsalman, & Alqafari, 2016; Moon & Reifel, 2008; Winch, Johnston, March, Ljungdahl, & Holliday, 2010). Play is both universal and culturally constructed. Culture plays an important role in shaping and guiding children’s interactions and learning through play. In play, children’s cultural values, skills and abilities are learnt and enhanced which are then embedded in their everyday experiences (Holmes, 2013; Roopnarine & Johnson, 1994). Lasater and Johnson (1994) suggest that recreational play (play as expression) remains culturally specific, whilst educational play becomes more unified as cultures become more Westernised (p.  215). Play also serves to help children construct and

  Indigenous Children’s ‘Ways of Knowing’: Exploring Literacy… 

97

mediate their daily social and linguistic interactions (Goldman, 1998, cited in Holmes, 2013).

L iteracy in Northern Australian Education Settings Direct Instruction Across much of northern Australia, Direct Instruction (DI) in the teaching of literacy in schools has been introduced as a means of reducing the literacy gap for Indigenous children. Developed in the USA in the 1960s by Siegfried Englemann and Carl Bereiter, Direct Instruction (DI) was developed to assist African-American children struggling with their literacy, and focuses on literacy education for children in formal schooling. As a model, it takes a behaviourist approach to learning literacy, where teachers deliver a program which is pre-packaged, and have explicit instructional step-by-step lessons. Teachers are provided with explicit training to deliver DI and a prescriptive guidebook that contains scripts for administering a lesson, where teachers are told what to say, and students are encouraged to respond in a particular way (Luke, 2014; Sarra, 2011). DI focuses on children at risk, and who are deemed to be behind in their literacy learning, and takes a deficit view that focuses on children’s inabilities. While DI has been found to have success with some students, and in some contexts, there is also criticism of the approach as if it is relevant and effective for young Indigenous children. DI is purchased as an off-­ the-­shelf product, written and contextualised for urban African-American children. This model delivered entirely in English marginalises and mis-­ represents the cultural, community and language contexts surrounding children, especially those children living in remote Aboriginal communities, ignoring community background knowledge, cultural experiences and prior knowledge schemata (Luke, 2014). The behaviourist approach of DI is also at odds with the more developmental, constructivist and socio-cultural approaches to learning found in most Australian

98 

A. Spencer and E. Rouse

pre-schools, where learning is interactive and experiential, recognising that children have a variety of learning styles that they draw on to construct meaning and understanding. Findings from MacIver and Kemper (2002) and later St John, Manset-Williamson, Chung, and Michael (2005) found that the effects of DI were limited, and that a balanced approach is needed.

Abecedarian Approach Similar to the introduction of the Direct Instruction approach across northern Australia, the Abecedarian Approach Australia-3A is another literacy model utilised in some remote communities, mainly in the Northern Territory and Queensland. The Abecedarian Approach Australia-3A, developed by Joseph Sparling and Melbourne University, has been modelled on the Abecedarian Project developed in the USA in the 1970s and 1980s. The Abecedarian Approach is a suite of teaching and learning strategies that were developed to improve the later academic achievement of children from at-risk and under-resourced families. When originally developed in North Carolina, the project focused on young African American families and children from birth to five years and designed for children who were deemed to be at risk of developmental delay and lacking potential educational success. The trial participants were predominantly African-American single parent families, with low levels of education and income. The underpinning philosophy of Abecedarian and 3A are that these broad programs which include strategies of ‘playful interaction are delivered with contextualised rich language experiences for each child, though enriched care-giving and stable adult-child relationships’ (Melbourne Graduate School of Education, 3A Abecedarian Approach Australia, 2017, p.  1). A series of individualised learning games is enacted daily between the adult, which should be the mother or one primary female care giver, and the child. Customisation for the Northern Australian context occurred when the Northern Territory Department of Education adapted the learning games which were then trialled in collaboration with Aboriginal communities, Professor Sparling and the Melbourne

  Indigenous Children’s ‘Ways of Knowing’: Exploring Literacy… 

99

Graduate School of Education. Early childhood educators working with Aboriginal families (Melbourne Graduate School of Education, 3A Abecedarian Approach Australia, 2017) then published these redeveloped games for use within Aboriginal communities. While the evaluation of the original North Carolina project has shown a follow up at age 30, the participants who maintained involvement in the study had higher employment rates, college graduation rates and less likely to be welfare recipients than the control group. Although there have been criticisms of the efficacy of the evaluation due to the small sample size of the study (Centre for the Economics of Human Development, Perry and Abecedarian Projects FAQs, 2017; Laura and John Arnold Foundation, 2017). Scull (2016) notes too that research is still being undertaken to link Aboriginal culture, Indigenous strengths and cultural realities to the Abecedarian Approach to optimise school preparedness, family interactions to more deeply understand family outcomes and family relationships.

Yunkaporta’s 8 Ways of Knowing There is a significant body of literature which argues that traditional Western ways of teaching do not work for Indigenous children and students. Evidence has shown that Indigenous students learn best when learning is connected to the lived experience of the student and is contextualised to reflect place and locality (Fogarty & Schwab, 2012). There is a strong link between culture and how people think (Yunkaporta, 2009), Indigenous knowledge and Indigenous ways of knowing that are about the connected concepts of what one knows and how one comes to know it (Santoro, Reid, Crawford, & Simpson, 2011). This understanding led to the development of the 8 Ways framework of Aboriginal pedagogy (Yunkaporta, 2009) which brings Indigenous ways of knowing and being ‘out of the dusty corners of anthropology and linguistics’ and into the Australian classroom (Yunkaporta & Kirby, 2011, p. 206). The ‘8 Ways framework’ developed by Yunkaporta (2009) comprises eight interconnected pedagogies that see teaching and learning as fundamentally holistic, non-linear, visual, kinaesthetic, social and

100 

A. Spencer and E. Rouse

contextualised. These eight interconnecting pedagogies represent the pedagogical common ground between many cultures; ‘intercultural ways of learning that any teacher and learner might approach together as familiar territory from their own cultural standpoints’ (Yunkaporta, 2009, p. 46). The eight key concepts as Yunkaporta presents them are: story sharing; learning maps; non-verbal; symbols and images; land links; non-linear; deconstruct/construct; community links and are presented in a visual diagram, which depicts the interrelated nature of the pedagogies (see Yunkaporta, 2009, p.  46, http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/10974/ for a detailed outline and description of each of the pedagogies). In an early childhood education context, the 8 Ways pedagogy incorporates play-­ based approaches in which children are using symbols and language through story-telling, through active engagement with natural, authentic and culturally relevant learning materials, through interactive social engagements with peers and where community is both built and connected within the context of the learning space. Wearmouth (2017) argues that in order to enable children from an increasingly diverse range of cultural backgrounds to acquire literacy to a standard that will support them to achieve academically, it is important to adopt pedagogy that is culturally situated and respectful. A culturally responsive pedagogy, such as that presented in the 8 Ways framework, recognises the rich and varied cultural wealth, knowledge and skills that diverse students bring to the learning space, and draws on these cultural strengths and ways of knowing to develop dynamic teaching responsive approaches. Rather teaching about culture, the 8 Ways framework demonstrates how to teach through culture. The 8 Ways of Aboriginal pedagogy framework has been closely linked with the Australian Professional Standards for Teachers as a framework for embedding Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspectives into their practice.

Disconnected Pedagogies? There is a pedagogical disconnect between the EYLF and the NQS and the DI and Abecedarian Approach Australia models. While the EYLF and the NQS focus on strength-based child-centred learning approaches,

  Indigenous Children’s ‘Ways of Knowing’: Exploring Literacy… 

101

where children are seen as having agency and control of their learning, the formalised and instructional approach required by teachers in DI and Abecedarian Approach Australia disregards the teacher’s skills to draw on children’s strengths and interests to guide the learning and their teaching. The scripted instructional nature of the lessons produced as part of the DI package denies children the opportunity to engage in child-led play experiences that support individualised learning. Long-term benefits will be optimised when children’s agency is complemented with intense scaffolded interaction by adults and where they engage in experiences that are of interest to children. Long-term benefits are further enhanced when children are provided with opportunities to engage in culturally contextualised play as a mechanism to maximise children’s ability to learn and to transfer this knowledge into practice (Queensland Department of Education and Training, 2016). Rather than building on children’s strengths, interests and existing ways of knowing, the pre-packaged content discounts the cultural, language and community contexts that surround the children, and does not support, value or promote children’s use of home languages. Within the EYLF children’s learning is positioned within a sociocultural framework in which learning is recognised as occurring through cultural contexts and mediated by language and other symbol systems. The EYLF celebrates children’s home language, which is seen as the catalyst for early language and literacy learning, recognising that literacy learning is a socially mediated process. When children engage in social play contexts, they are able to use language authentically and through interactions with others, develop meaning and understanding. When children are given ‘instruction’ based on pre-packaged scripted teaching modules, there is no opportunity to tailor the content to reflect the lived experiences, language and culture of the children and the context which surrounds them. They have no connection with what they are being instructed in, and are not rights holders in their learning.

Supporting Learning Through Strengths-Based Approaches Effective early childhood pedagogies are predicated on building secure and responsive attachments between children and adults that lead to a

102 

A. Spencer and E. Rouse

sense of wellbeing, and foster self-esteem. They are built on the belief that positive interactions between educators and children involve educators viewing each child as capable and competent, and recognising children’s existing strengths. However, the Abecedarian Approach Australia and DI are borne from a deficit model in that they stereotype the societal belief of disadvantaged Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, as being not interested in education and as helpless and dependent (Gorringe, Ross, & Fforde, 2011; Sarra, 2005). The nature of these programs requires close interaction by adults ‘to’ children, rather than ‘with’ children, preferably one on one, with scripted prompts that ‘teach’ the adults how to deliver the context to the children. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures have long histories of teaching and educating their children with unique relational, tribal and cultural methodologies, however these cultural methodologies are absent in the delivery of these programs. The alternate models of learning presented in DI and the Abecedarian Approach Australia, rather than drawing on these cultural methodologies and seeing children as having strengths and as capable and competent, position children within a deficit view where the ‘problem’ of poor English and poor attainment against national benchmarking is highlighted. There are strong synergies between the EYLF and the 8 Ways pedagogies in that they both recognise and value the cultural belonging the children use in their learning. Both these views of learning are holistic and grounded in context, drawing on culture, connections and identity. Like the EYLF, the learning in the 8 Ways framework is self-directed, meaningful and relevant to the cultural context of the child. The 8 Ways framework contains many synergies with concepts of play. Play is self-directed, meaningful, allows children to construct and deconstruct the whole as the sum of the parts, uses symbols and involves the ‘doing’. In play, children experientially are both verbal and non-verbal, using whole body to connect to the land, the community and place. It is this connection that underpins both frameworks. Significant understanding of ‘place’, prioritised by place-conscious early years teaching and learning, provokes opportunities to deepen pedagogical practices which are grounded in culture (Taylor & Giugni, 2012). The materials that are available and

  Indigenous Children’s ‘Ways of Knowing’: Exploring Literacy… 

103

provided for children’s play and learning allow children’s cultural identity to be reflected during their play and interactions with each other and their land. Pacini-Ketchabaw, Kind, and Kocher (2017) highlight the need to shift thinking from a notion of children engaging with materials to seeing the bi-directionality of engagement with materials, in that it is the materials, in this context, the land and all that is in it, which shape the child as well as being shaped by the child.

Recognising and Valuing Culture Martin (2017) reviewed the Longitudinal Study Indigenous Children (LSIC) where she argues that parents’ voices are too often displaced by discussions of policies and programs that focus on the child’s developmental abilities and level of school readiness (p. 90). Both the Abecedarian Project and DI have little data available about parent’s perspectives on their children’s development, and therefore it could be perceived that parents are not afforded empowerment and contribution. The Abecedarian rationale is that parents are uneducated, disadvantaged and vulnerable, who need to be supported and taught how to interact with their children to promote their children’s learning. When critically reflecting on the Abecedarian Project as an intervention strategy, the research presents gaps in data that include the primary caregivers’ experiences and their existing or acquired skills to authentically provide secure and frequent opportunities for nurturing children’s literacy development. When thinking about DI and Abecedarian Approach, kinship is ignored. The focus in the Abecedarian program is that there is one coach guiding one adult to teach, though giving instruction to one child. In the case of DI, one facilitator is instructing the class group using a pre-packaged script that all instructors are mandated to deliver as written. The relationality, community context and cultural expectations, traditions and norms of nurturance in education of young Indigenous children are not considered. In these contexts, primary caregivers and kinship relationships are recognised as the child’s first teacher, who work with educators to ensure young children are afforded culturally relevant, meaningful, intentional teaching and learning experiences. In

104 

A. Spencer and E. Rouse

contrast, DI and 3A dismiss the value and importance of the lessons that can be learnt and passed down from country, community and culture, through spirituality and connection. However, it is worth exploring the idea that if programs such as DI and 3A were to incorporate teaching though the child’s first, second or third home language, by giving privilege to the home language and community culture, would more Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children attend school more regularly? Would they perform better in tests if they were able to use their own language in more authentic assessment techniques? As noted earlier in this chapter, the low incidence of qualified Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander educators and teachers being available to teach and educate children with authentic cultural philosophy, impede on this aspirational possibility. While Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children continue to be assessed using Westernised institutional assessment techniques that ignore culture, the real levels of literacy of young children will continue to be misreported. In a study conducted by Spencer (2017) involving Yarning, a conversational process of sharing stories in the development of knowledge (Walker, Fredericks, Mills, & Anderson, 2014), participants shared their early childhood experiences and memories of attending school and preschool. In the Yarning Circle they were asked to recall any particular support strategies provided to them as learners. Whilst some recalled some experiences which involved speakers or specialist programs, they also spoke of disengaging from these experiences because they added no value, positive or negative, to their education or developmental outcomes. Some also said, ‘it’s just another program’ or ‘it’s such another thing to try and fix us, we don’t always need fixing’. In contrast these same participants recalled that the most valued, heart-warming and connected lessons each person learnt were from significant members of their family or from experiences whilst in community and in country. When asked why this was the case, all participants affirmed it was because they were with or near respected community or family members.

  Indigenous Children’s ‘Ways of Knowing’: Exploring Literacy… 

105

Conclusion Early childhood programs in the very remote areas of Northern Australia are continuing to fail to meet the National Quality Standards, with almost 30% of services rated as ‘working towards’ meeting the national standards. While in Western Australia there are less services failing to meet the standards, in the Northern Territory, where DI is most prevalent, over 50% of services have not yet met the minimum quality standards (Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority, 2018c). This chapter has focused on literacy in early childhood education and care programs and is not examining the efficacy of DI or the Abecedarian Australia Approach on supporting literacy learning for children in elementary or secondary schooling. Nor has this chapter suggested that children need to develop proficiency and competence in using Australian English to support them both in their learning but also in living in a society where this is the dominant language. The research into DI in particular has highlighted that at best, there is little evidence of sustained improvements in children’s overall literacy skills, and even less evidence that using the DI instructional model leads to improved outcomes for children, especially those children living in very remote communities and for whom English is not their first spoken language. This chapter has however identified the pedagogical gap that exists between the formalised pre-packaged instructional literacy models being used in these very remote areas of Australia, which rather than being culturally relevant or connected to children’s lived experiences and context, disconnect with children who are most vulnerable in their learning when culture and identity are not valued and recognised. Rather than viewing children as failing in their learning due to low English literacy proficiency, traditional ways of knowing that are steeped in culture and language should be embraced as providing rich learning opportunities for children, bringing in community, drawing on cultural histories, celebrating language and connecting with identity, and this should be considered as the strongest underpinning strategy before anything else for these children. When children’s strengths, interests and identity are incorporated into the learning program, they will be more engaged in their learning

106 

A. Spencer and E. Rouse

and build positive relationships with teachers and educators, as well as with their community and their culture building identity not just as who they are as people but who they are as strong and competent learners.

References Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority. (2018a). What is the NQF? Retrieved September 29, 2018, from https://www.acecqa.gov. au/nqf/about Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority. (2018b). Guide to the National Quality Framework. Retrieved September 29, 2018, from http://files.acecqa.gov.au/files/NQF/Guide-­to-­the-­NQF.pdf Australian Children’s Education and Care Quality Authority. (2018c, December). National partnership annual performance report – National Quality Framework. Retrieved September 29, 2018, from https://www.acecqa.gov.au/sites/default/ files/2018-­12/NationalPartnershipAnnualPerformanceReport2018.PDF Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority. (n.d.). General capabilities. Retrieved September 29, 2018, from https://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au/f-­10-­curriculum/general-­capabilities/ Australian Early Development Census. (n.d.). About the Australian Early Development Census. Retrieved September 29, 2018, from https://www. aedc.gov.au/about-­the-­aedc Australian Government Productivity Commission. (2011). Early childhood development workforce: Productivity commission draft research report. Melbourne, VIC: Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved September 29, 2018, from https://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/education-­ workforce-­early-­childhood/report/early-­childhood-­report.pdf Banerjee, R., Alsalman, A., & Alqafari, S. (2016). Supporting sociodramatic play in preschools to promote language and literacy skills of English language learners. Early Childhood Education Journal, 44(4), 299–305. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Buckingham, J. (2012). Keeping PISA in perspective: Why Australian education policy should not be driven by international test results. The Centre for Independent Studies. Retrieved September 29, 2018, from http://www.cis. org.au/app/uploads/2015/07/ia136.pdf

  Indigenous Children’s ‘Ways of Knowing’: Exploring Literacy… 

107

Centre for the Economics of Human Development. (2017). Perry and Abecedarian projects FAQ.  Retrieved September 29, 2018, from https:// cehd.uchicago.edu/?page_id=294 Department of Education Employment and Workforce Development. (2009). Belonging, being and becoming  – The Early Years Learning Framework for Australia. Barwon, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia. Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet. (2018). Closing the gap Prime Minister’s report 2018. Retrieved September 29, 2018, from https://closingthegap.pmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/ctg-­report-­2018.pdf Dockett, S., Perry, R., & Kearney, E. (2010). School readiness: What does it mean for Indigenous children, families, schools and communities? Closing the Gap Clearing House. Retrieved September 29, 2018, from http://indigenous.education.qld.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/schools-­educators/closing-­the-­ gap-­readiness.pdf Fogarty, W., & Schwab, R. (2012). Education, land and learning. Ngiya: Talk the Law, 4, 98–121. Retrieved September 29, 2018, from http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/NgiyaTLaw/2002/15.pdf Gorringe, S., Ross, J., & Fforde, C. (2011). ‘Will the Real Aborigine Please Stand Up’: Strategies for breaking the stereotypes and changing the conversation. AIATSIS Research Discussion Paper: Number 28. Retrieved July 7, 2020, from https://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/products/discussion_paper/ gorringe-­ross-­fforde-­dp28-­real-­aborigines-­stereotypes.pdf Holmes, R. M. (2013). Children’s play and culture. Scholarpedia, 8(6), 31016. https://doi.org/10.4249/scholarpedia.31016 Krakouer, J. (2016). Aboriginal early childhood education: Why attendance and true engagement are equally important. Australian Council for Educational Research. Retrieved September 29, 2018, from https://research.acer.edu.au/ indigenous_education/44 Lasater, C., & Johnson, J. E. (1994). Culture, play and early childhood education. In J.  Roopnarine, J.  Johnson, & F.  Hooper (Eds.), Children’s play in diverse cultures (pp. 210–228). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Laura and John Arnold Foundation. (2017). Social programs that work review – Evidence summary for the Abecedarian project. Retrieved September 29, 2018, from https://evidencebasedprograms.org/document/ abecedarian-­project-­evidence-­summary/ Luke, A. (2014). On explicit and direct instruction. Australian Literacy Educator’s Association. Retrieved September 29, 2018, from https://www.alea.edu.au/ documents/item/861

108 

A. Spencer and E. Rouse

MacIver, M. A., & Kemper, E. (2002). The impact of direct instruction on elementary students’ reading achievement in an urban school district. Journal of Education for Students Placed At Risk, 7(2), 197–220. https://doi.org/10.1207/ S15327671ESPR0702_5. Martin, K. (2017). Its special and its specific: Understanding the early childhood education experiences and expectations of young Indigenous Australian children and their parents. The Australian Educational Researcher, 44(1), 89–105. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13384-­017-­0231-­1 Melbourne Graduate School of Education. (2017). 3A Abecedarian approach Australia. University of Melbourne. Retrieved September 7, 2017, from https://3a.education.unimelb.edu.au/about-­the-­abecedarian-­approach Moon, K., & Reifel, S. (2008). Play and literacy learning in a diverse language pre-kindergarten classroom. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 9(1), 49–65. https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2008.9.1.49 Newman, L. (2016). Children’s literacy play environments: Snapshots of practitioner research for change. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 41(3), 95–103. Pacini-Ketchabaw, V., Kind, S., & Kocher, L.  L. M. (2017). Encounters with materials in early childhood education. New York: Routledge. Queensland Department of Education and Training. (2016). Age-appropriate pedagogiesfor the early years of schooling: Foundation paper. Retrieved September 29, 2018 from Routledge. https://earlychildhood.qld.gov.au/earlyYears/Documents/foundation-paper.pdf Roopnarine, J., & Johnson, J. (1994). The need to look at play in diverse cultural settings. In J. Roopnarine, J. Johnson, & F. Hooper (Eds.), Children’s play in diverse cultures (pp.  1–8). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. Santoro, N., Reid, J., Crawford, L., & Simpson, L. (2011). Teaching Indigenous children: Listening to and learning from Indigenous teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 36(10). https://doi.org/10.14221/ ajte.2011v36n10.2 Sarra, C. (2005). Strong and smart: Reinforcing aboriginal perspectives of being aboriginal and Cherbourg state school. Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, Murdoch University, Western Australia. Retrieved September 29, 2018, from https:// researchrepository.murdoch.edu.au/id/eprint/1687/2/02Whole.pdf Sarra, C. (2011). Not the only way to teach Indigenous students. Retrieved September 29, 2018, from https://chrissarra.wordpress.com/2011/05/26/ not-­the-­only-­way-­to-­teach-­indigenous-­students/

  Indigenous Children’s ‘Ways of Knowing’: Exploring Literacy… 

109

Scull, J. (2016). Effective literacy teaching for Indigenous students: Principles from evidence-based practices. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, 39(1), 54–63. Spencer, A. (2017). Reading for Indigenous research – Theory and debates in the discipline. Unpublished Research Report, Graduate Diploma in Indigenous Education Deakin University. St John, E., Manset-Williamson, G., Chung, C. G., & Michael, R. S. (2005). Assessing the rationales for educational reforms: An examination of policy claims about professional development, comprehensive reform, and direct instruction. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(3), 480–519. Taylor, A., & Giugni, M. (2012). Common worlds: Reconceptualising inclusion in early childhood communities. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 13(2), 108–119. https://doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2012.13.2.108 UNHCR. (1989). Convention of the rights of the child. Retrieved September 29, 2018, from http://www.unhcr.org/en-­au/protection/children/50f941fe9/ united-­nations-­convention-­rights-­child-­crc.html Walker, M., Fredericks, B., Mills, K., & Anderson, D. (2014). “Yarning” as a method for community-based health research with Indigenous women: The Indigenous women’s wellness research program. Health Care for Women International, 35(10), 1216–1226. https://doi.org/10.1080/0739933 2.2013.815754 Wearmouth, J. (2017). Employing culturally responsive pedagogy to foster literacy learning in schools. Cogent Education, 4, 1295824. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/2331186X.2017.1295824 Winch, G., Johnston, R. R., March, P., Ljungdahl, L., & Holliday, M. (2010). Literacy: Reading, writing and children’s literature (4th ed.). South Melbourne, VIC: Oxford University Press. Yunkaporta, T. (2009). Aboriginal pedagogies at the cultural interface. Professional Doctorate (Research) Thesis, James Cook University. Retrieved September 29, 2018, from http://eprints.jcu.edu.au/10974/ Yunkaporta, T., & Kirby, M. (2011). Yarning up Indigenous pedagogies: A dialogue about eight aboriginal ways of learning. In N. Purdie, G. Milgate, & H. R. Bell (Eds.), Two way teaching and learning: Toward culturally reflective and relevant education (pp. 205–214). Camberwell, VIC: ACER Press.

Rethinking an Early Care and Education Program: Responding to Linguistic Diversity Luisiana Meléndez and Sharon Syc

To the children, families, teachers, administrators, and staff of CRCL, with deep gratitude. —Luisiana and Sharon

 hildren and Families as ‘The Other’ in Early C Care and Education A Selective Review of the Literature The history of early care and education in the United States reveals tensions leading to the emergence of what has been called a two-tier system (Beatty, 1995; Bennet, 2011). In this two-tier system, the socioeconomic

L. Meléndez (*) • S. Syc Erikson Institute, Chicago, IL, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Z. Kinkead-Clark, K.-A. Escayg (eds.), Reconceptualizing Quality in Early Childhood Education, Care and Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69013-7_5

111

112 

L. Meléndez and S. Syc

status and social capital of the different groups participating in early care and education programs translate into variations in program goals and means of accomplishing those distinct goals. One tier of early education and care (EEC) rose to facilitate out-of-home work for poor mothers and/or change the parenting practices and child development outcomes of the poor and immigrant; the other was created for the developmental enrichment of children belonging to the upper middle class (Beatty, 1995; Bennet, 2011; Cahan, 1989; Goodwin, Cheruvu, & Genishi, 2008; Kamerman, 2006). Today, the EEC field in the United States continues to be dichotomous and is characterized by limited access to quality programs for families who are low in income and/or of color (Kahn, 2014). Furthermore, definitions of quality and best practice in early care and education are often situated in dominant discourses that may obviate quality paradigms that incorporate the child development competencies and parenting practices of low-income communities of color. This is often the case in regard to children and families who use a language other than English at home (Souto-Manning, 2016). Theories and ideas that legitimize practice in the field of early care and education (Tout, Halle, Daily, Albertson-Junkans, & Moodie, 2013), as well as the criteria framing definitions of programmatic quality in EEC (Yoshikawa & Kabay, 2015), are arguably entrenched in hegemonies of white, middle-class values and beliefs regarding child development, parenting, and optimal EEC for very young children (Robinson & Jones-­ Diaz, 2006). Gloria Ladson-Billings (2000), writing about “systems of knowing” (p. 957), argues that the bodies of knowledge that frame scholarly discourse, including the discourses that guide educational philosophy, are predominantly positioned in Eurocentric worldviews that favor a particular way of understanding and being. In consequence, if we recognize the types of knowledge that dominate early childhood research and practice as rooted in mainstream thought, it follows that these may prompt perceptions of non-mainstream childhoods as lacking. In particular, these deficit interpretations support understandings of non-majority cultures and languages as deficient and promote compensatory actions meant to address the ‘deficits’ attached to membership in certain groups (Cannella

  Rethinking an Early Care and Education Program: Responding… 

113

& Viruru, 2004; Martinez & Rury, 2012; Robinson & Jones-Diaz, 2006; Salazar Pérez & Saavedra, 2017). Moreover, deficit views of non-mainstream children and families that extend to inflexible conceptualizations of quality and best practice in early care and education are mediated by social stratification variables1 such as race, ethnicity, language, and class. Similarly, status, power, and/ or wealth are recognized as facilitating or obstructing access to high-­ quality early childhood programs (Kerbo, 2011; Simpson et al., 2018). Consequently, by categorizing individuals according to group membership, social stratification variables translate into systemic power differentials that make possible to silence or ignore the voices of those lacking social capital regarding multiple issues (Kerbo, 2011), including what are desirable early care and education experiences for children (Cannella & Viruru, 2004; Martinez & Rury, 2012). Pacini-Ketchabaw (2007) adds that immigrant populations are frequently the target of deficit representations, arguing that transformation of how the educational field perceives non-mainstream developmental pathways can only result from critical perspectives (Pacini-Ketchabaw, 2007). The author challenges how the perceptions of the worldviews and practices of immigrants are frequently discussed in scholarly circles in Canada and proposes to redefine traditional ideas of early care and education programs and quality by incorporating the lives, experiences, and voices of what have been referred to as ‘minoritized’2 children, families, and communities (Pacini-Ketchabaw, 2007). Social stratification variables also impact perceptions and judgments about the experiences and child development outcomes of children traditionally seen as part of minority groups (Garcia Coll et  al., 1996). Consequently, discourses that privilege Western and middle-class standards for child development competencies and parenting can also contribute to these deficit perspectives (Garcia Coll et al., 1996; LadsonBillings, 2000; Martinez & Rury, 2012; Pence & Nsamenang, 2008).  Social stratification refers to the categorization of people into differential groups based on factors that include race, ethnicity, wealth, income, language, ability, and education. 2  The term minoritized infers minority status as dependent on being subordinate to the dominant group politically, financially, and/or socially, rather than associating the size of the group identified as a minority and its classification as such. 1

114 

L. Meléndez and S. Syc

Nevertheless, in those instances where differences in child development outcomes and/or parenting are acknowledged as prevalent in certain cultural, ethnic, and/or racial communities, this recognition does not always grant equal standing to what are referred to as minority developmental outcomes and/or parenting practices (Bloch, 2013; Brown & Grigg, 2017; Cannella & Viruru, 2004; Guo, 2015; Robinson & Jones-­Diaz, 2006; Salazar Pérez & Saavedra, 2017; Spring, 2010). Therefore, we argue that efforts that aspire to erase the inequalities that exist in early care and education must include acknowledgment of children’s right to their own language. In order to do this, integrating children, family, and community members as linguistic models and resources is a necessary condition (National Council of Teachers of English [NCTE], 2016), although one that does not go far enough. Bloch (2013), examining the history of efforts to re-conceptualize theory and research in early childhood education to make these more equitable, draws attention to what she calls the intersection of bilingual/ multilingual children and families and social justice in early care and education settings. Bloch (2013) believes that acknowledging and responding to young children’s bilingualism has the potential to set in motion a more equitable conceptualization of early care and education by virtue of encouraging programs and practitioners to challenge prevalent hegemonies that favor the majority language over other languages spoken in the home. Thus, practitioners that understand the language socialization practices of immigrant families and incorporate these understandings into their work with bilingual children and families may facilitate the scrutiny of larger social and political issues regarding power and voice differentials (Bloch, 2013). A 2005 study by Pacini-Ketchabaw and McIvor antedates some of the points subsequently made by Bloch almost a decade later. Pacini-­ Ketchabaw and McIvor (2005) ran focus groups with 54 mothers residing in Canada, recruited through a large refugee agency, representing 12 minoritized languages. The focus groups discussed reasons for home language maintenance and revealed as prevalent motives: connections to country of origin and to family members who do not speak the new language, future job opportunities, healthy identity formation, and promoting a sense of belonging to family and community (Pacini-­Ketchabaw

  Rethinking an Early Care and Education Program: Responding… 

115

& McIvor, 2005). In contrast, data gathered by the same authors through interviews with ten early childhood practitioners working in different early childhood programs that served the families that participated in the aforementioned focus groups revealed that most of these programs lacked clear language policies and no program reported having language goals for the children beyond English acquisition. Moreover, practitioners assumed that the parents’ key, and sometimes single, aspiration regarding the linguistic development of their children, was the rapid acquisition of English. In addition, when speaking about the immigrant children’s language, teachers primarily identified these children as “lacking English” (Pacini-Ketchabaw & McIvor, 2005, p. 119). Additionally, none of the practitioners interviewed spoke about home language use, despite having witnessed multiple instances when children and families communicated in their home language. Finally, there was very little or no evidence that teachers had access to information about early bilingualism (PaciniKetchabaw & McIvor, 2005). Recently, Souto-Manning and Rabadi-Raol (2018) applied an intersectionality framework introduced by Kimberlé Crenshaw (1991) more than two decades ago to the examination of quality in early childhood education. Crenshaw (1991) advanced the idea that interlocking social identities of race, gender, sexuality, and class contribute to experiences of oppression by individuals or groups (Crenshaw, 1991). Consequently, Souto-Manning and Rabadi-Raol (2018) argue that rejecting monolithic, monolingual, and mono-cultural conceptualizations of early childhood program quality can reveal the complex interaction of race, language, class, and power as agents of oppression. This approach also has the potential to promote culturally relevant and sustaining pedagogies that reject hegemonic developmental and learning outcomes as the only ones valid. In consequence, challenging one-size-fits-all practices representing mono-cultural and monolingual values gives voice to minoritized children and their families (Brown, Souto-Manning, & Laman, 2010; Souto-­ Manning & Rabadi-Raol, 2018). Likewise, Souto-Manning and Rabadi-Raol (2018) propose a series of early care and education program design principles that place children’s developmental trajectories as social, cultural, and historically situated and succeed in incorporating the rich

116 

L. Meléndez and S. Syc

cultural and linguistic assets of non-mainstream communities and honor the intersectional identities of the children from these communities. Initiatives that challenge hegemonic constructions of early care and education highlight the potential tensions between dominant discourses and those held by the early education and care practitioners themselves (Brown & Grigg, 2017; Moss, 2017). For example, Brown and Grigg (2017) argue that these struggles demand that early care and education practitioners enact “professional border crossings” (p. 334), prompted by frictions between professional and personal beliefs and/or between the values prevalent in places of work and the practitioner’s own worldview. Brown and Grigg contend that these frictions may be resolved by the creation of “a place where dominant discourse, truths, or perspectives can be challenged, or disrupted; a place where professionals might be able to sit outside these contested spaces, appreciate the perspectives of ‘the other’ and explore possibilities beyond those currently present” (Brown & Grigg, 2017, p. 335). Jasman (2010) also uses the term border crossing to describe the tensions practitioners experience when their practice requires them to move between ideological, epistemological, and cultural contexts. Border crossing is used by Jasman (2010) to “describe the journey early childhood professionals may move through, and within, as part of negotiating and trying to re-conceptualize their work” (p. 315). In summary, early care and education settings often mirror hegemonic ideas of quality grounded in power differentials that exclude the social capital and child development competencies of low-income children and families of color from being recognized, appreciated, and ultimately incorporated into program paradigms and practices. The next section describes effort to re-conceptualize the guiding principles and practices of an early care and education program at a time when the characteristics of the community, families, and children this organization served were changing. The data used to describe the process outlined below was part of a case study of a social services agency in the Midwest region of the United States. The work included in this chapter unfolded in the context of the organization’s development and implementation of classroom practices reflecting and honoring the language communities served by a particular

  Rethinking an Early Care and Education Program: Responding… 

117

center. The process leading to changes in program philosophy and practices exemplifies an inclusive and egalitarian approach that gave equal weight to the voices of all constituents: administrators, teachers, families, and staff, many of whom were members of groups facing economic as well as other challenges habitually associated with low decision-­ making power.

 n Early-Education-and-Care Program A in the Midwest Engages in Border Crossings Information presented in this section is drawn from the data collected for a case study of an EEC center completed by the authors between 2017 and 2018. The decision to use a case study methodology was predicated on the belief that it allows for an in-depth look at a converging phenomenon (Yin, 2003). In the present chapter the authors concentrate on data pertinent to the decision to incorporate the use of English and Spanish into all aspects of the center’s practice, leading to the early implementation of what the agency calls Bilingual Immersion Program or BIP.3

Site of the Study The program focus of the case study is located in a large US Midwestern city and utilizes both English and Spanish across its birth to five classrooms. Both languages are also intentionally used in written communications and printed signs and announcements throughout the center. The EEC center functions under the auspices of a private non-profit social services agency in existence since 1976 and presently serving more than 650 low-income children and their families across several sites. The non-profit agency was founded by parents and other community  The term bilingual immersion program or BIP is used to name the particular program model adopted by the target center and meant to signify the equal standing of English and Spanish. As used by the center and throughout this chapter ‘BIP’ does not necessarily align with how this term is used in other literature. More detailed information about the BIP model is found in the Appendix. 3

118 

L. Meléndez and S. Syc

members when the after-school neighborhood program closed. Since its inception, the agency has operated on the conviction that families/caregivers are critical to the wellbeing of community and to the effectiveness of the services this organization provides. Thus, history and philosophy qualify the agency as one that strives to maintain close and reciprocal relationships with the communities surrounding its various sites. Currently, the agency serves children from infancy to 15 years of age, including young children with special needs, across various sites. Programs include center-based and home-based early childhood programs for birth through 5 years, school age programming for children through 15 years, and extensive support services for families. Birth to five initiatives and family support are funded through Early Head Start, Head Start, and local and state childcare subsidies. The program site at the center of the case study includes a closely balanced number of families identifying as African Americans and as Latinex (48 and 49% respectively at the time of study). In addition, most of the teachers and administrators are African American or Latinex, and therefore share the ethnic and racial backgrounds of the families. Furthermore, the center’s teachers and staff are predominantly female and ethnically diverse, which arguably makes them representative of the stratification of the early childhood workforce in relation to race, ethnicity, and language, and remuneration reported in the literature (Thomason et  al., 2018; Whitebook, Phillips, & Howes, 2014). This particular site was part of an earlier pilot study carried out by the authors targeting three EEC programs serving Spanish/English emergent bilinguals birth to age five. The pilot study indicated that this site’s practices involve a clear language allocation model, which are implemented in classrooms  and  supported through staff supervision. The program also draws on empirical knowledge about young emergent bilinguals, strives to give equal visibility and status to both Spanish and English, and embraces strong family and community involvement.

  Rethinking an Early Care and Education Program: Responding… 

119

Case Study Methodology and Data In order to explore in more detail the development and early implementation process of this particular center’s BIP model, the authors chose to conduct a case study. The case study methodology included multiple data sources such as transcripts from a focus group with parents, timed classroom observations in the infant and toddler classrooms, and field notes from the observation of two of parent engagement events held at the center. Also part of the case study was the examination of historical documents generated during the planning and program development process, and transcripts of semi-structured interviews with program administrators, teachers, and other individuals that either participated in the planning and early implementation of what the center refers to Bilingual Immersion Model of BIP and/or are currently involved in the current operation of the BIP. The content of this chapter draws from the in-depth review of historical artifacts/documents and the thematic examination of the semi-structured interviews with administrators, teachers, and one external consultant part of the planning and early implementation of the BIP.

Document Analysis Document analysis is a procedure used for reviewing text and images that have been generated and recorded without a researcher’s intervention (Bowen, 2008). Document analysis is deemed particularly applicable to qualitative case studies such as the one that occupies this chapter, as case studies seek to produce detailed description and analysis of a particular phenomenon or event (Stake, 1995; Yin, 2003). In addition, document analysis is recognized as an effective means for tracking change and corroborating evidence gathered from other sources or through different methodologies (Bowen, 2008). In this case, the information gleaned from the document analysis was triangulated with the data from semi-­ structured interviews referred to above. The administration of the program at the center of the case study generously shared with the authors two capacious binders full of documents

120 

L. Meléndez and S. Syc

generated during the planning process that preceded the implementation of the BIP. Every document included in the binders was reviewed to discern its original meaning and purpose and potential consideration as case study data. This initial examination yielded multiple categories. Subsequent reviews by the main authors and the project research assistant resulted in the consolidation of some of the earlier categories to yield a final version. The following list summarizes the categories emerging from the review of the binder document. • Documents outlining the initial considerations of project including proposed areas of focus, goals, strategies, outcomes, and notes on different tactics needed to make the project successful. • Summaries of group discussions about the proposed project held with teachers/administrators, staff, and parents. • Literature on dual language development, relationship-based practice, reflective practice/reflective supervision, problem solving, effective communication with families and colleagues, and development of leadership skills used as resources to inform the process and/or share with teachers, staff, and or parents (all materials to be shared with parents were available in Spanish and English). • Resources about curriculum models considered for this program. • Timelines for meetings with administrators, parents, and staff trainings. • Timelines for curriculum rollout. • Configuration of teams for the implementation of BIP including roles, materials (handouts, literature, and note to be used in meetings), and notes used in manager and staff trainings.

Semi-structured Interviews Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a total of 15 individuals including 8 infant/toddler classroom teachers (4 native Spanish and 4 native English), one music teacher from a community music program, 3 administrators (1 each from infant, toddler and pre-school age classroom supervision staff), the President/CEO and the Vice President of Programs of the

  Rethinking an Early Care and Education Program: Responding… 

121

oversight organization, and a consultant who met regularly with the site director during the planning and early implementation of the BIP model. The interviews were semi-structured with a set of guiding questions for administrators and one  set for teachers. The guiding questions were intended to gain some common information from interviewees such as how long they had been with the program, current and past roles, and their perceptions regarding the strengths and challenges of the program. The interviewers also allowed interviewees to tell their story/experience of the program development and implementation experience, with the interviewers probing for clarifications contributing to a better understanding of the process and procedures around the development and early implementation of the BIP. All interviews were transcribed and initially coded for themes arising from each interview. A second round of coding sought to consolidate categories yielded the understanding of two major themes: (1) History of the BIP and (2) Current Strengths, Challenges, and Needs of the BIP. The history of the BIP encompassed several subcategories, such as evolving goals; different activities that were part of the early planning processes within groups and across groups, evolving understandings of dual language development through readings and professional development, growth and consolidation of supportive relationships that enabled implementing the BIP, intentionality in balancing the visibility and use of each language in the center, and role of families and kinds of parental involvement. Direct quotes exemplifying one or more of the categories mentioned above were also gathered. The discussion that follows draws primarily from information grouped under theme 1, History of the BIP.

Discussion of Findings Triangulation of the data emerging from the historical documents and artifacts and semi-structured interviews confirms that the discussion of the evolving program needs and potential actions to meets those needs that culminated in the BIP model surfaced approximately in 2007. Furthermore, it became apparent that this BIP model was the result of collective effort over time to develop practices and focus on developmental outcomes that incorporate early bilingual exposure as a desirable

122 

L. Meléndez and S. Syc

developmental pathway for all children and families. This section will highlight what was gleaned from analyzing historical documents and coding interviews for responses to guided questions and identifying themes and issues that arose during the planning, development, and implementation of this BIP.

The BIP as Response to Changing Program Demographics Around 2007 there was a substantial increase in the number of Spanish-­ speaking families served by the umbrella social service agency overseeing the early education and care program at the center of this case study . This phenomenon steered the agency to a more intentional consideration about the languages used by the families and the communities the families came from. Although historically the agency always had a few Spanish-speaking families and practitioners in the classroom, there was not a formalized approach to how Spanish and English were used in the classroom or in the larger context of the site. The changes in the demographics of the children and their caregivers brought to light the need to seriously contemplate what programmatic changes were necessary to better serve the needs of all. Early thoughts about how to respond to the changes in the demographics of the families and children attending the center were formulated by a preliminary planning group consisting of members of the agency’s Board of Directors (of which 51% were parents), the agency’s President and CEO, the VP of Programs, and several directors and administrative coordinators working at the larger agency. The voices present in this initial planning group partially align with the call to incorporate all those potentially affected by programmatic changes in early care and education in the decision-making process (Brown et al., 2010; Brown & Grigg, 2017; McNaughton, 2005; Scott, 2016; Souto-Manning & Rabadi-Raol, 2018), although this group was yet to include teachers and staff. A quote from the interview with the person working as the Director of Curriculum Initiative and Professional Learning during the planning period that would culminate in the BIP model communicates this clearly:

  Rethinking an Early Care and Education Program: Responding… 

123

We already had some bilingual staff, but needed to have a clear framework to make our work more intentional. So we asked questions such as: Are we really serving all families well? What needs to change if we are to do this better? How could we ensure that we were providing the foundations for […] success? We knew that the families’ language and culture was an essential consideration.

A Proposal to Implement Change An opportunity to opt for funding that would support a systematic change within the agency motivated the members of the initial planning group to write a proposal that would sustain the development and early implementation of an initiative meant to address the evolving needs of children and families it served. The proposal deliberately indicated that the particulars of the initiative would be the result of a purposeful planning process that would involve all constituents: agency as well as center administrators and staff, teachers, parents, and members of the larger community. Individuals participating in the case study interviews recurrently described the effort as very intentional, stressing that it was conceived as a project that would support the visibility and equal status of both languages in all program practices, from curricula and professional development to signage around the center and in written as well as oral communication with parents.

The Planning Processes Once the funding was received, the planning group expanded to include a Parent Advisory Group, which purposefully included monolingual as well as bilingual members, a Planning Consultant, a Head Start Dual Language Trainer, teachers and program staff, as well as an educator from a Community Music Program in charge of providing weekly music sessions for the agency classrooms. Also part of this extended planning group were members of the public schools in which many of the children at the center enrolled for kindergarten.

124 

L. Meléndez and S. Syc

During the 10–12 months following the receipt of funding, meetings brought together constituents from the different groups (parents, teachers, administrators, and members of the larger community) for conversations within and across groups. Meetings were deliberately designed and implemented to promote probing of perspectives, gain knowledge about emergent bilingualism during the early years, create community within and across groups, build trust among participants, and address the growing trepidation generated by the changes being proposed. These meetings were also scheduled to encourage the participation of all constituents and frequently included meals and childcare. Analysis of historical documents and interviews showed that intentionality characterized every aspect of the process. Formal and informal meetings facilitated the examination of what was at the time known about early dual language development and of the practical demands and opportunities of using Spanish and English throughout the center. Multiple occasions were also purposefully used to support the expression of feelings prompted about the proposed changes. Throughout the long planning period leading to the decision to change was an overarching motivation to enhance communication with and across families, administrators, and teachers/staff. Professional development trainings concentrated on the systematic building of a knowledge base and skills regarding early bilingual exposure and relationship-based practice. Ongoing reflection/discussion of the different perspectives that emerged from meetings served to bring fears, doubts, and conflicts into the open. This in turn allowed for acknowledging and addressing the implications of being vulnerable together as generated by the discussions of the complexity of the measures necessary to make the BIP a reality in practice. Excerpts from the interview with one of the major driving forces of this effort, at the time the director of the center, illustrate how the planning and early implementation process of the BIP exemplifies what Souto-Manning and Rabadi-Raol (2018) refer to as efforts to re-conceptualize quality by incorporating the lives, experiences, and voices of minoritized children, families, and communities:

  Rethinking an Early Care and Education Program: Responding… 

125

We talked to the managers, the site directors, the director of operations […] and we came back… and the [Head Start Consultant] lay down all the data…and why it would be beneficial to us, how it lined up with us as an organization. We actually brought research in …and had some heartfelt conversations…and you know what? People had lots of different things [to say] about why they didn’t think this would be the greatest thing […]. I mean, we got us into deep conversations, people crying, people laughing […] then it was time for the families and we did the same thing and we approached it from the perspective of ‘what do you want for your children’? […] The process with the teachers was the hardest […] I think they were afraid to fail, not doing it right […] then, it was like they’d been waiting for this and they took the lead and they did a lot! […] and I think that was the thing, there was a lot of vulnerability, authentic, I want to learn from you…we want to learn this together.

By providing opportunities for deep, and sometimes difficult, conversations to occur within and across the different groups, the work fostered collective views, perseverance, and intrinsically motivated transformation in an early education and care community which, by virtue of race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status and occupations, represented groups traditionally ‘minoritized’ (Souto-Manning & Rabadi-Raol, 2018), or denied voice or decision-making power in defining the nature, characteristics, and experiences to take place in early care and education spaces (Bloch, 2013; Brown & Grigg, 2017; Guo, 2015; McNaughton, 2005; Souto-­ Manning & Rabadi-Raol, 2018; Spring, 2010). In addition, by purposefully bringing together all the constituencies attached to the agency and the early care and education program, the planning process embodied the understanding that creating successful intergroup relations demands extensive time and resources as well as willingness to be personally reflective (Lee & Calvin, 2006). A quote from the interview with the current CEO of that agency, who was also part of the planning and early implementation of the BIP, communicates both the spirit and some of the key factors that characterized this effort: We looked to have a clear understanding of this community’s needs, but also looked at the research, and talked to other institutions and individuals

126 

L. Meléndez and S. Syc

doing this work. [Head Start Consultant] was doing training in Head Start on bilingualism, and he helped with the trainings we were doing. [He] also guided the efforts of the workgroup developing the BIP, which included the educational coordinator at the center, an outside mentor, and the full leadership team. [The Head Start Consultant] did a great job of challenging/questioning us, making us to look at what we were doing honestly. If we said something was working well, he asked: How do you know? He pushed us to get evidence that it was indeed working. This work also involved families, and families participated and informed this process throughout […]. Because we wanted the process to be truly holistic and honest, a parallel process was also done with [center] staff.

Accordingly, analysis of documents and interviews also indicates decision-­making was collegial, collaborative, and concomitantly informed by extant research literature on bilingualism and by the context and specific needs of the children and families. As such, decisions were drawn from the participants’ emergent understanding of early dual language development and its potential benefits, clear identification of specific goals/objectives, the means of achieving those goals, the role of different constituents toward achieving those goals, and shared understandings of and support for these different constituencies. The words of one of the monolingual infant and toddler teachers involved in the initial planning of an implementation suggest that teachers and staff were challenged to engage in the border crossings that Brown and Grigg (2017) believe are the result of tensions between professional and personal beliefs and experiences, and the places of work and life may ultimately lead to understand, contest, or deconstruct existing paradigms or enter new territory: At first I was like hmmm, how you gonna do this with the infants? They don’t know, I’m like, they don’t know this; but once we started getting into it and going to trainings and doing it all the time, awhhh we can […] and [we] start reading about it, we can do this, we can do this. So, I felt more comfortable doing it, I’m like, as the time when on—it got better, it’s getting better and better as it goes on.

  Rethinking an Early Care and Education Program: Responding… 

127

The extensive planning period culminated in the collective adoption of foundational principles, which highlighted the importance of parental and community voice and involvement. In addition, the agreed principles recognized that children are capable of learning more than one language simultaneously and emphasized bilingual skills as a critical means of communication with families and important for children’s life-long success. The decisions emerging from the extended planning process specifically stated the program would implement a ‘Bilingual Immersion Program’ or BIP guided by research but adapted to the particulars of the center and community or center’s community, and driven by changing demographics in enrollment. The BIP would involve a team-teaching model in every classroom, which, in the case of the infant and toddlers, would ideally involve two Spanish-English bilingual teachers and one English-dominant monolingual teacher. The decision to place two bilingual teachers and one monolingual English-speaking teacher in the infant and toddler classroom was predicated on the agreed understanding of English as the dominant  language of the larger society, and the desirability of providing robust opportunities for the development and maintenance of Spanish during the early stages of language development. Promoting the development of Spanish and English for all children participating in the BIP, infant/toddlers, preschoolers, and students in the after-school programs, was identified as a major program goal. The planning groups also agreed that the implementation of BIP model was to be an important part of teacher and program evaluation and monitoring. Recurrent opportunities to reflect in groups and across groups were to be ongoing, and the program would continue to develop and sustain strong venues of communication among staff and families. The adoption of these principles aligns with views that consider honoring and using the languages of all the families involved in an early care and education program as central to redefining traditional ideas of quality by incorporating the lives, experiences, and voices of children, families, and communities often silenced by variables such as race, ethnicity, language, and lack of economic and social power (Bloch, 2013; Guo, 2015; Souto-Manning & Rabadi-Raol, 2018).

128 

L. Meléndez and S. Syc

In addition, the efforts described in this chapter exemplify the broadened definition of decolonization proposed by Cannella and Viruru in their seminal 2004 work, which characterize as decolonizing those efforts that challenge knowledge and practices sustained by powerful hegemonies. In their own words, “decolonization is about liberation […] our collective will to hear, see, and respect the multiplicity of lives that inhabit our world” (p. 29). The case study data also revealed that center staff has a strong ongoing commitment to dual language development, which one of the agency administrators described as “part of the center’s ‘DNA’”. Presently, classrooms continue to consistently use two languages, and there is strong parental support and commitment to BIP model across all center staff. The interviews with monolingual and bilingual teachers currently working at the center showed several recurrent themes. One of the topics addressed by all of the teachers was the importance of trust among monolingual and bilingual practitioners who share a classroom. Trust was considered essential to navigate the pitfalls that may potentially arise from situations where a member of the teaching team is using Spanish to communicate with a child, family member, or even another teacher in the presence of a monolingual practitioner. Teamwork was also mentioned in all teacher interviews as essential for the success of the BIP model. These patterns seem to indicate that the seed planted almost a decade ago through the communal and participative process that characterized the inception of the BIP still bears fruit and stands as an “organic journey of self-discovery and capacity building” (Brown & Grigg, 2017, p. 341). Nevertheless, interviewees recognized that presently the implementation of the BIP faces difficulties in recruiting and retaining bilingual teachers and administrators. Also mentioned is the growing need for professional development that updates and solidifies understandings regarding bilingual language development for teachers, staff, and administrators, particularly those that have been hired during the last five years. Lack of funds was consistently mentioned as one of the main reasons behind these shortcomings and for struggles with having access to a variety of quality of bilingual materials. Despite these limitations, the agency and center portrayed in this chapter continues to epitomize efforts that align with what Scott (2016)

  Rethinking an Early Care and Education Program: Responding… 

129

calls responsive to the growing diversity of the United States. Moreover, the program’s focus on bilingualism succeeds in establishing a powerful parallel between affirming the community’s right to see the languages it speaks present in the early care and education programs that serve its children and work that aspires to social justice (Bloch, 2013). In recognizing the rich cultural and linguistic assets all families possess (Souto-­ Manning & Rabadi-Raol, 2018), but which are not always valued (Souto-Manning, 2016), the program successfully disrupts views of the other’s language and culture as problematic or lacking (Salazar Pérez & Saavedra, 2017). The words of one of the bilingual teachers in the center convey the exceptional accomplishment of this initiative: We are working for the community…like in our program we have half – and-half; half African-American and half Hispanics…so it is very important to bring two languages to this program, to [meet] the parents’ needs […] and I will continue saying that it is an advantage to have two languages.

The promise of this kind of effort and its potential to interrupt hegemonic constructions of early care and education allow for professional border crossings and upset definitions of quality that are monolingual, that are mono-cultural, and that privilege the use of English. Ultimately, it confirms deficit representations of children, families, and communities of color as susceptible to defeat. The spirit that made it possible is summarized in the following quote from one of the top administrators of the agency that put in motion the BIP model: My dream is that every child in every community can have access to a program that honors who they are … so when they walk away from the program they still feel whole… the teachers understand that this is the greatest thing you can do for children and they would not allow anyone to take it away from [names the agency]. So many children do not have that opportunity … that has to stop. I feel we have been able to do this at [names the agency], and in doing so we have every child, everyone, feel acknowledged and accepted … people often think that to do this requires enormous investment. I always tell them it demands less money than people imagine, what was invested was ourselves.

130 

L. Meléndez and S. Syc

Appendix Description of the BIP Model The center’s Bilingual Immersion Program or BIP refers to a distinct programmatic approach collaboratively designed by administrators, teachers, staff families, and members of the larger community. The following principles and beliefs guide the design and early implementation of BIP: • A conceptual rationale for program that highlights the development and learning of the whole child, and intentionally sees children as capable of successfully learning more than one language from birth. • Use of the continuity of care model in the infant and toddler classrooms and deemed essential for the sustainability of robust collaboration, responsive care, learning, and support of all infants and toddlers. • Planned use of Spanish and English across oral and written modes of communication across the center. • Curricula predicated on an understanding of empirical knowledge about early brain development, dual language development, and relationship-­based practice that is purposefully responsive to the particulars of the context of the program. • Classroom team teaching that includes a monolingual English-­ dominant teacher working in partnership with at least one bilingual teacher in each classroom. • In the case of infant and toddler classrooms preferably two bilingual teachers. Dual language exposure for all children in the center, preferably from teachers who serve as native Spanish/English-­speaking models. • Balanced use of Spanish and English in classrooms aligned with following parameters: –– New concepts introduced in child’s home language –– Books and print material in the classroom in both languages –– Music and songs in both languages (including weekly music lessons taught by an outside instructor) –– Teacher talk and daily activities in both languages

  Rethinking an Early Care and Education Program: Responding… 

131

• Continued support for the knowledge and skills of the teachers and other staff through professional development and supervision that promotes relationship-based practice and trust among administrators, teachers, families, and staff. • Developing and sustaining strong venues of communication among staff and families/children. • Implementation of BIP model as part of teacher and program evaluation and monitoring and part of recurrent opportunities to reflect.

References Beatty, B. (1995). Preschool education in America: The culture of young children from the Colonial era to the present. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Bennet, J. (2011). Early childhood education and care systems: Issue of tradition and governance. Encyclopedia of Early Childhood Development. Retrieved from http://www.child-­encyclopedia.com/sites/default/files/textes-­experts/ en/857/early-­childhood-­education-­and-­care-­systems-­issue-­of-­tradition-­and-­ governance.pdf Bloch, M. N. (2013). Reconceptualising theory/policy/pedagogy in early childhood (care and education): Reconceptualising Early Childhood Education (RECE) 1991–2012. International Journal of Equity and Innovation I Early Childhood, 11, 65–85. Bowen, G.  A. (2008). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40. Brown, A., & Grigg, J. (2017). Critical narrative as a framework for professional border-crossings. Contemporary Issue in Early Childhood, 18, 333–345. Brown, S., Souto-Manning, M., & Laman, T. T. (2010). Seeing the strange in the familiar: Unpacking racialized practices in early childhood settings. Race, Ethnicity, and Education, 13, 513–532. Cahan, E. D. (1989). Past caring: A history of U.S. preschool care and education for the poor, 1820–1965. National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University. Retrieved from https://www.researchconnections.org/childcare/ resources/2088/pdf Cannella, G. S., & Viruru, R. (2004). Childhood and postcolonization: Power, education, and contemporary practice. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

132 

L. Meléndez and S. Syc

Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299. Garcia Coll, C., Lamberty, G., Jenkins, R., McAdoo, H. P., Crnic, K., Wasik, B.  H., et  al. (1996). An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child Development, 67, 1891–1914. Goodwin, A. L., Cheruvu, R., & Genishi, C. (2008). Responding to multiple diversities in early childhood education: How far have we come? In C. Genishi & A. L. Goodwin (Eds.), Diversities in early education: Rethinking and doing (pp. 3–12). New York: Routledge Taylor and Francis Group. Guo, K. (2015). Teacher knowledge, child interest, and parent expectation: Factors influencing multicultural programs in an early childhood setting. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 40(1), 63–70. Jasman, A. (2010). A teacher educator’s professional learning journey and border pedagogy: A meta-analysis of five research projects. Professional Development in Education, 36, 307–323. Kahn, J. (2014). Early childhood education and care as a social work issue. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 31, 419–433. Kamerman, S. (2006). A global history of early childhood education and care. Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report, 2007 Strong Foundations: Early Childhood Care and Education. Retrieved from http:// unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001474/147470e.pdf Kerbo, H. (2011). Social stratification and inequality (8th ed.). New  York: McGraw-Hill. Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Racialized discourses and ethnic epistemologies. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2, 257–277. Lee, K. S., & Calvin, J. R. (2006). Stronger relationships, stronger communities: Lessons from a regional intergroup grant initiative. American Journal of Community Psychology, 37, 225–282. Martinez, S. L., & Rury, J. L. (2012). From “culturally deprived” to “at risk”: The politics of popular expression and education inequality in the United States, 1969–1985. Teachers College Record, 114(6), 1–31. McNaughton, G. (2005). Doing Foucault in early childhood studies. Applying post-structural ideas. Abingdon: Routledge. Moss, P. (2017). Power and resistance in early childhood education: From dominant discourse to democratic experimentalism. Journal of Pedagogy, 8(1), 11–32. National Council of Teachers of English. (2016). Equity and early childhood education: Reclaiming the child. Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/library/ NCTEFiles/EquityEarlyEdBrief.pdf

  Rethinking an Early Care and Education Program: Responding… 

133

Pacini-Ketchabaw, V. (2007). Racialized migrant women’s narratives on childcare and citizenship: An anti-racist, transnational feminist analysis. International Journal of Equity and Innovation I Early Childhood, 569(1), 69–88. Pacini-Ketchabaw, V., & McIvor, O. (2005). Negotiating bilingualism in early childhood: A study of immigrant families and early childhood practitioners. In V.  Pacini-Ketchabaw & A.  Pence (Eds.), Research connections Canada: Supporting children and families (pp.  109–126). Ottawa: Canadian Child Welfare Federation. Pence, A., & Nsamenang, B. (2008). A case for early childhood development in sub-Saharan Africa. Working Paper No. 51. The Hague, The Netherlands: Bernard van Leer. Robinson, K.  H., & Jones-Diaz, C. (2006). Diversity and difference in early childhood education: Issues of theory and practice. Berkshire: Open University Press. Salazar Pérez, M., & Saavedra, C. M. (2017). A call for onto-epistemological diversity in early childhood education and care: Centering global south conceptualizations of childhood/s. Review of Research in Education, 41, 1–29. Scott, K. H. (2016). Putting the horse before the cart: Whey diversity must be at the forefront of early education policy, and not remain a tagline on the back of the policy wagon. In K. E. Sanders & A. W. Guerra (Eds.), The culture of child care (pp. 255–275). New York: Oxford University Press. Simpson, D., Loughran, S., Lumsden, E., Mazzocco, P., McDowall Clarke, R. C., & Winterbotton, C. (2018). Talking heresy about ‘quality’ early childhood education and care for children in poverty. The Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 26(1), 3–18. Souto-Manning, M. (2016). Honoring and building on the rich literacy practices of young bilingual and multilingual learners. The Reading Teacher, 70(3), 263–271. Souto-Manning, M., & Rabadi-Raol, A. (2018). (Re)centering quality in early childhood education: Toward intersectional justice for minoritized children. Review of Research in Education, 42, 203–255. Spring, J. (2010). Deculturalization and the struggle for equality. A brief history of the education of dominated cultures in the United States (6th ed.). New York: McGraw Hill Higher Education. Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Thomason, S., Austin, L.  J. E., Bernhardt, A., Dresser, L., Jacobs, K., & Whitebook, M. (2018). At the wage floor: Covering homecare and early care

134 

L. Meléndez and S. Syc

and education workers in the new generation of minimum wage laws. Retrieved from http://cscce.berkeley.edu/files/2018/05/At-­the-­ Wage-­Floor.pdf Tout, K., Halle, T., Daily, S., Albertson-Junkans, L., & Moodie, S. (2013). The research base for a birth through age eight state policy framework. Child Trends. Retrieved from http://www.childtrends.org/wp-­content/uploads/2013/1 0/2013-­42AllianceBirthto81.pdf Whitebook, M., Phillips, D., & Howes, C. (2014). Worthy work, STILL unlivable wages: The early childhood workforce 25 years after the National Child Care Staffing Study. Retrieved from http://cscce.berkeley.edu/files/2014/ ReportFINAL.pdf Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Yoshikawa, H., & Kabay, S. (2015). The evidence base on early childhood care and education in global contexts. Paper commissioned by the EFA Global Monitoring Report, Education for All 2000–2015. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. Retrieved from http:// unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0023/002324/232456e.pdf

Part III Reconceptualizing Quality: Curriculum

Every Learner Succeeds: Reconceptualising Quality in Early Childhood in the Organisation of the Eastern Caribbean States Sheron C. Burns

Introduction On June 18, 1981, representatives from seven countries located in the eastern Caribbean Sea signed the Treaty of Basseterre in St Kitts and Nevis giving birth to the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS). The OECS was formed to facilitate “economic harmonisation and integration, protection of human and legal rights, and the encouragement of good governance among independent and non-independent countries in the Eastern Caribbean” (OECS, 2018, p. 1). The OECS is now an eleven “member grouping comprising the full Member States of Antigua and Barbuda, Commonwealth of Dominica, Grenada, Montserrat, St Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia and St Vincent and the Grenadines, with the British Virgin Islands, Anguilla, Guadeloupe and Martinique as associate members of the OECS” (OECS, 2018, p. 1). Six

S. C. Burns (*) The University of the West Indies, Cave Hill, Barbados © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Z. Kinkead-Clark, K.-A. Escayg (eds.), Reconceptualizing Quality in Early Childhood Education, Care and Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69013-7_6

137

138 

S. C. Burns

of the members are independent former British territories, while Anguilla, the British Virgin Islands and Montserrat are still British-dependent territories, whereas Guadelopue and Martinique are overseas departments of France. Education is a major area of collaboration and cooperation among the member states of the OECS. It is evident that a community’s view of quality in education is inherent in its cultural, historical, sociological, political and philosophical background. Therefore, it is imperative that the shared “historical, social, political, economic layers” of the region be examined/ discussed (Maharaj, 2013, p. 9). Early Childhood Development (ECD) has been at the forefront of the region’s sustainability plans. There is a proliferation of policies that expound and applaud the use of certain early childhood programmes while ostracising others. There is a dearth of information about early childhood programming in the Caribbean, and this situation is even more acute regarding the smaller islands of the Eastern Caribbean. One thing for certain is that “access to and the quality of Early Childhood Development (ECD) services is uneven in the Eastern Caribbean Region” (OECS Commission, 2016, p. 2). In order to increase access to quality programming, this chapter aims to articulate what should be a culturally relevant notion of “quality” in Early Childhood Development (ECD) programmes and services from an OECS perspective. A historical overview of the OECS in addition to the role of early childhood care and education in the OECS member states will set the parameters for the reconceptualising of the notion of quality. The chapter continues with an examination of the prevailing circumstances that existed in Rome, Italy (1900s), Reggio, Italy (1940s), and Michigan (1970s) that fuelled the genesis of “quality” as articulated in the Montessori, Reggio Emilia and HighScope programmes. This is relevant in order to contextualise the perspectives of the dominant discourse of quality that are entwined in some current policies, curricula and practices that thrive in the region. A description of Early Childhood Development Services (ECDS), which includes the care and education of pre-primary-­ aged children, will examine recent actions by agencies such as the Education Development Management Unit (EDMU) of the OECS to develop a regional view of quality in the region. The chapter continues to analyse quality as articulated in programmes imported from

  Every Learner Succeeds: Reconceptualising Quality in Early… 

139

communities in Rome and Reggio Emilia, Italy, and Ypsilanti, Michigan. An examination of documents from the OECS helps to advance features of quality in the region. The chapter concludes with recommendations for stakeholders. The background of the established “quality” communities is juxtaposed against the background of the OECS communities in order to answer the questions: 1. How does the endorsement of imported curricula affect the development of local customs, history and beliefs and in fact the development of the ideal Caribbean Community (CARICOM) citizen?

 ow Can the Issue of “Quality” in Early H Childhood Development Be Addressed in the Organisation of the Eastern Caribbean States (OECS)? The OECS: Unique Islands, Same History The islands that comprise the OECS are all unique, despite sharing some commonalities. Fergus (2003) eloquently stated that the “islands are not a homogeneous group in either physical structure or development profile, but they were all established and managed as sugar and slave colonies with varying degrees of success” (p.  2). Geographically, the islands are part of the archipelago in the eastern region of the Caribbean Sea. As such, the islands experience tropical weather and climate in addition to being exposed to natural disasters such as hurricanes. The topography of the islands varies. Some islands have fertile soil that is more suitable for agriculture than others; some are volcanic, some are mountainous, some are flat and experience more rainfall, while some have white sand beaches, some pink, and yet others have black sand beaches. The islands range in size (square kilometres) from 96 (Anguilla) to 617 (St Lucia the seat of the Commission) to 1128 (Martinique), its newest member. The recorded history of the region began with the arrival of explorers seeking precious

140 

S. C. Burns

jewels in the fifteenth century. “The single most binding force within the Caribbean is the history of colonialism”, exploitation of natives for financial gains, the importation of Indian and African workers, as well as a lasting legacy of slavery (Maharaj, 2013, p.  12). As a consequence of slavery, it has resulted in African descendants composing the majority of today’s population of the region. Slave owners were interested in maximising their production and profits. As a consequence, children were not exempt from joining their parents as field hands on the sugar plantations (Burns, 2013; Fergus, 2009). Education, though purposeful, was largely informal and incidental at the feet of parents or extended family through a form of apprenticeship. Slave children also learned about their culture and history through informal oral transmission. Formal education through schooling was introduced to the slave population by religious groups who were keen on increasing their membership (Carter, 2016; Fergus, 2003, 2009). At the same time, the slaves were also brainwashed into accepting their predicaments and to be obedient to the masters. Education was primarily through rote, regurgitation and recall. Passive individual learners were the norm. Creativity, collaboration, communication and active participation were not encouraged. This was contrary to the traditions and norms of the slaves. Slave living was communal, each one being very reliant on another. African slaves also had a tradition that relied on the power of apprenticeship or modelling and oral storytelling. Success in formal education therefore was contrary and oftentimes appeared counterproductive to success in the “slave” home and community. Nevertheless, a good, quality education was and still is seen as the vehicle for advancing one’s personal circumstances, in addition to guaranteeing the sustainability of an individual’s family, local, island and regional community. The structure of traditional Caribbean living meant many children received the bulk of their education informally in the home, church and community setting from the extended family. However, when mothers began working outside the home as a consequence of the First World War, the provision of formal private childcare took seed and began to germinate throughout the region. By the mid-1900s when governments in the region expanded formal education provision for children, their focus was on elementary-aged and older children (Fergus, 2009). Most of

  Every Learner Succeeds: Reconceptualising Quality in Early… 

141

this education was geared at enabling children to assist with agricultural production. The care and education of young children were largely through non-governmental establishments. According to Charles and Williams (2006), in addition to that offered by the non-profits such as philanthropic groups and missionaries, some community members “established small preschool care and education centres in their homes” (p.  6). Education of young children is continuously advancing to the forefront of national consciousness and is now a priority for education planners in the OECS during the 2012–2021 period, as outlined in the OECS’ Education Sector Strategy: “increase and expand access to quality in ECD services (OECS, 2012, p. 13)”. The OECS is a culturally diverse region, and this mandates that “quality” must be determined in a culturally appropriate way that celebrates the unique and diverse cultural norms, beliefs and practices of the member states individually and collectively.

 he Role of Early Childhood Care T and Education in OECS ECD programmes and services in the OECS are divided into care and education. The care aspect focuses on the pre-primary-aged child while education is the focus at the primary stage. The care programmes and services are usually the remit of the Ministries of Health and Social Services while the Ministry of Education takes up the mantle at the start of mandatory education (Kinkead-Clark, Burns, & Abdul-Majied, 2019).  As an integral institution in society, education is charged with preparing citizens for their role in society’s sustainability, including its economic development. Formal education in our region gained its genesis in an agricultural era, where creativity and problem-solving were not crucial. Thus there was a reliance on drill, rote and practice which, unfortunately, still persists in many formal settings even at the pre-primary, early childhood stage. Quite contrary to that era, the twenty-first century demands citizens to be creative, critical thinkers, problem-solvers and innovators. MacDonald (2018) summarises that the Caribbean “increasingly needs to focus on digital technology and how it can be applied to

142 

S. C. Burns

make local economies more competitive” (p. 1). It seems obvious then that a quality early childhood experience should be one that nurtures young children’s development of creativity, critical thinking, problem-­ solving and innovative skills. In order to attain the goals of OECS education, and more specifically early childhood citizens, quality needs to be reconceptualised in order to facilitate the development of ideal CARICOM citizens, who can face the challenges of living in a twenty-­ first-­century Eastern Caribbean, Caribbean and the world.

Aiming for Every Learners’ Success: OESS The current OECS Education Sector Strategy (OESS) 2012–2021 has a vision that states “citizens, at every stage of their learning journey, from early years to adulthood, are able to reach their full potential in life, at work and in society” (OECS, 2012, p.  27). Through seven strategic imperatives, OECS hopes to ensure that “Every Learner Succeeds”. Although improvements on all of the objectives should ultimately affect and impact the development, care and education of young children, the region’s importance of reconceptualising quality early childhood resulted in the articulation of Strategic Imperative: Increase (and expand) access to quality Early Childhood Development Services (ECDS), where “the overarching goal of education within the OECS and in the OESS is to contribute to the socio-economic advancement of the OECS through a quality education system that enables learners of all ages to reach their true potential” (OECS, 2012, p. 11). Ideally this can be described as one that provides an enabling developmentally appropriate environment that fosters the social, physical, emotional and cognitive growth and development of pre-­primary-­aged children. A quality early childhood programme must contribute to the overall goal of advancing the region’s socio-economic development. In aiming for quality ECDS in the region, we first need to establish what early childhood development means and examine its role in the OECS context.

  Every Learner Succeeds: Reconceptualising Quality in Early… 

143

 arly Childhood Development Services (ECDS) E in the OECS Early Childhood Development (ECD) refers to the “comprehensive approach to policies and programmes for children from birth to eight years of age, their parents and caregivers. Its purpose is to protect the child’s rights to develop his or her full cognitive, emotional, social and physical potential” (OECS, 2012, p. 60). Early Childhood Development includes early childhood care for infants and toddlers, the first two years of life, and early childhood education for children during the early childhood years up to eight years old (Berk, 2007). The focus of this chapter is on children during the first five years of life. These young children between birth and compulsory school age in the OECS have access to early childhood care and education in a variety of formats under the guidance of myriad adults with varied philosophical beliefs of learning, childhood and parenting, in addition to levels of educational background and skills. The extended family, mainly the mother, is the primary caregiver of infants, especially newborns (Barrow, 2008; Cannella, 2002). Many mothers are allowed a minimum of four weeks of maternity leave. It is only within the recent past that fathers in some jurisdictions in the OECS are allowed paternity leave, for example Montserrat through an amendment to General Orders in 2015, Paternity Leave 629A.  Nonetheless, care outside of the household is a must because parents are obligated to return to work to support their families. Consequently, babysitters and nannies offering private home care are revered. In seventeenth-century Barbados, these were referred to as “dame schools” as they were primarily operated by females (Carter, 2016). In contemporary times, daycares, crèches and nurseries are also known to provide mainly custodial care for babies and toddlers who, once successfully potty trained, are transferred to the nursery, preschool or pre-kindergarten level. Although not compulsory, in the 2014–2015 academic year it was recorded that 4182 children in OECS member states between the ages of two and five years were enrolled in government and accredited private preschools, nursery schools or pre-kindergartens. According to Charles and Williams (2006), Davies (1997) and OECS (2016), private,

144 

S. C. Burns

non-governmental, religious and charitable organisations operate the majority of pre-primary early childhood programmes in the Eastern Caribbean with minimal and sometimes non-existent government input, insight and support. With so many young children accessing early childhood care and education services in the region, it is no surprise that a lot of discussions and resources are being directed towards improving the quality of the services being provided at this level. Several member states including Antigua and Barbuda, Commonwealth of Dominica, St Kitts and Nevis and Grenada subscribe to and declare the use of HighScope on a national scale. There are others who adopt a more eclectic approach, blending aspects of several approaches including the Project Approach, SPICES, the Thematic Approach, the Montessori, the Reggio Emilia and the HighScope. The Education Development Management Unit of the OECS, Caribbean Child Development Centre, The UWI—Mona and Cave Hill—in conjunction with UNICEF, have produced several documents that help to guide practitioners how to facilitate developmentally and culturally appropriate learning experiences, while supporting and monitoring the progress of young children’s growth and development. One of these documents is the Learning Outcomes for Early Childhood Development in the Caribbean (CCDC, 2010), a handbook for persons who care for and educate children during the first eight years of life. The EDMU of the OECS has commissioned a Handbook for Early Childhood Practitioners in the OECS Countries (OECS, 2015) to assist especially new untrained persons who work with young children. The Learning Outcomes document (CCDC, 2010) is a regionally produced guide that organises the targets according to cohorts (birth to three years, three to five years and five to seven years). In addition, its aim is to prepare children for a life as productive citizens intent on playing a role in the Caribbean’s sustainability. It is therefore imperative that the successful young Caribbean native ought to learn to “value their culture; respect themselves, others and the environment; be healthy, strong and well adjusted; be effective communicators; be critical thinkers and independent learners; and be resilient” (The University of the West Indies. The Caribbean Child Development Centre (CCDC), 2010, p. vi). The handbook is deemed to be culturally appropriate since it is the product of

  Every Learner Succeeds: Reconceptualising Quality in Early… 

145

a labour of love and collaboration over a period of four years among early childhood professionals from 18 Caribbean countries (CCDC, 2010). The Handbook for Early Childhood Practitioners in the OECS Countries (OECS, 2015) is being developed as a framework to be used with a variety of curriculum approaches. The aim of this document is to ensure that regardless of the curriculum of choice, the region’s children will have access to developmentally appropriate experiences that are in sync with national and regional curriculum goals and objectives. Foremost, the handbook emphasises the need to ensure that the “curriculum content and learning experiences … are consistently integrated and child-­centred” (OECS, 2015, p. 1).

Questioning Quality in Early Childhood Development Quality early childhood development is a socially constructed concept as seen “in the eye of the beholder” (Dahlberg, Moss, & Pence, 1999, p. 5). Conkbayir and Pascal (2015) remind us that there is no absolute, simple, clear, universal way to describe what constitutes quality in regard to how young children should be cared for and educated. Early Childhood Development is idiosyncratic as it is impacted by aspects such as “personal experience, culture, social expectations and norms, government initiatives and priorities, social changes, peer and media culture, relationships and interactions and increasing diversity in our societies and communities” (pp.  139–140). Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP), as conceived by the US-based National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), “is made up of the dimensions of age appropriateness and individual appropriateness” (Burts & Buchanan, 1998, p. 129). Western culture particularly that of the developed United States has unfortunately been the dominant benchmark for what constitutes quality based “mainly on resource and organisational features such as group size or staffing levels and features of what actually happens such as the activities of children, the behaviour of staff and child-adult interactions—and various outcomes, usually defined in terms of child development, but also sometimes in terms of later school, social and economic performance” (Dahlberg et al., 1999, p. 5).

146 

S. C. Burns

Quality early childhood programming as articulated by the NAEYC is the programme that is developmentally appropriate. Child development occurs in a predictable pattern. However, environmental factors such as the interactions and relationships with other children and adults impact the rate of development, maturity and ultimately the processing of knowledge. Although condemned by some researchers, policymakers and practitioners in the field for its reliance on developmental theory, DAP offers a framework that explores the relationships among growth, development, maturity and learning. Provision can be made within the framework for individualism, including the impact of experience and cultural influences. Reconceptualising the notion of quality necessitates the unpacking of the term “developmentally appropriate” in the cultural context of the OECS region. It is essential to examine the context, goals and expectations of “early childhood/pre-primary (which) refers to the care and education of young children prior to the commencement of compulsory education, which for most member states ranges from birth to five years of age” (OECS, 2012, p. 10). It is also instructive to examine the role pre-primary education plays in the region’s overall goals of education, nation building and sustainability. Quality early childhood/pre-primary education in the OECS then should be judged by its ability to support the goals of the region’s education and allow each learner to succeed and contribute to their community and the world’s survival.

Goals and Expectations In the OECS, young children’s care and education are managed by any one or combination of “three main ministries, Education, Health, and Social Welfare”. Integration of resources at the national level is of paramount importance since “no single agency, organisation or sector has the skills, resources or mandate to deliver Early Childhood Development (ECD) services alone” (Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States Commission (OECS Commission, 2016, p.  2). A quality early childhood programme in the OECS should provide opportunities that allow:

  Every Learner Succeeds: Reconceptualising Quality in Early… 

147

• Communication and collaboration with family members • Communication and collaboration with members of the community • Celebration of local history, culture and practices

Facilitating Young Children’s Development Facilitating young children’s development is critical for the sustainability of communities. Providing quality Early Childhood Development Services should be systematically organised and grounded in the community’s collective philosophical view of children, childhood and learning in order to drive policy development and implementation. At the moment, there is no regional harmonised early childhood curriculum. As a consequence, a variety of early childhood methodologies and philosophies abound in the region. This chapter reflects on three established international curricula that are being used in early childhood programmes across the OECS countries. These are the Montessori Method and the Reggio Emilia Approach (both from Italy), in addition to the HighScope Approach, which hails from Michigan, USA.  The quality of an early childhood philosophy, approach and method ought to be determined by how well its objectives align with the culture and goals of the society in which it’s being conceived. This chapter takes a closer look at the original communities around the time each programme was established. The Montessori Method is an educational approach developed by Italian physician and educator Maria Montessori during the early 1900s as her response to the issues confronting a low-income community in Rome, Italy. It is a child-centred approach characterised by an emphasis on independence, freedom within limits and respect for a child’s natural psychological, physical and social development. The approach was inspired by her desire to discover alternative methods to assist intellectually—challenged and developmentally—challenged children to learn. The Reggio Emilia Approach originated in Reggio Emilia, a city in Northern Italy. It is an educational philosophy focused on preschool and primary education. During the late 1940s, a group of women believing that children were in need of a new way of learning as a consequence of the effects of the Second World War mobilised and created a secular

148 

S. C. Burns

school to care for young children in the villages around Reggio Emilia in Italy. This was secular and therefore differed from the traditional catholic education system, which was the norm. Supported by teacher, Loris Malaguzzi, the Reggio philosophy is inspired by the constructivist educators, theorists and philosophers such as Bruner, Vygotsky, Dewey, Piaget and Gardner. Given its genesis, a brainchild of mothers, it is no wonder that learning activities frequently transcend “school” borders and rely on the members of the extended community. Learning is a social construct that flourishes in an environment most conducive to the interaction with and among others in addition to the things indoors and outdoors. This non-Catholic approach encourages, thrives and flourishes in the collaboration and cooperation with diverse members in the community. A major aim of this philosophy is supporting and including vulnerable and marginalised children and their families including ones experiencing poverty and children with “special rights” (not special needs/disabilities) as recorded by Gibson (2014). More focused on developing the whole child by celebrating the use of their hundred languages, the Reggio Emilia Approach “actively resists outcomes, measurements and accountability” (Gibson, 2014), which no doubt is the reason why there’s a lack of empirical data that confirms the success of the approach. Nevertheless, there is a proliferation of anecdotal stories including documentation of children’s work that attest to its value in the lives of young children, their families and the communities in which they are located. Around the 1940s in Italy, there was a push for childhood to be reimagined, believing that children have the capacity to contribute, think and interpret the world around them that was contrary to the traditional status quo, where the notion existed that children were passive learners (Malaguzzi, 1998a). The HighScope Approach to early childhood care and education was developed in Ypsilanti, Michigan, USA, in the 1970s. This approach was influenced by Lev Vygotsky’s philosophy, which promotes developmental learning in a social context where an adult or more experienced learner hones into children’s strengths, interests and abilities in order to assist them to achieve a new level of understanding. HighScope has been shaped and developed by David Weikart’s research and practice with at-­ risk children from poor neighbourhoods in Michigan over a 40-year period.

  Every Learner Succeeds: Reconceptualising Quality in Early… 

149

It is evident that all three of the aforementioned programmes were developed to respond to current economic and social issues in an effort to improve circumstances for future generations and the advancement of the communities both socially and economically. Determining the suitability of an early childhood programme must begin with an examination of the community’s social and economic climate in addition to the goals of the future.

 uality Early Childhood Development: Q Vision OECS Community rejuvenation is a major driving force motivating the movement to educate young children. The desire to ensure that all children have access to developmentally appropriate early learning experience was the impetus for these three approaches that also paid homage to their capabilities and the community in which they existed. This lends credence to the importance the quality of early childhood development has on determining the sustainability of a community. Dr Didacus Jules, a Caribbean Diplomat and Educator, who in 2014 was appointed director general, Organisation of the Eastern Caribbean States Commission, previously served as Registrar of the Caribbean Examinations Council (CXC) from 2008 to 2014. In a television interview during his appointment as the CXC registrar, Dr Jules said that to be sustainable, a community must produce individuals with the capacity to educate, reproduce and feed itself. Reflecting on the Montessori, Reggio Emilia and HighScope, it can be surmised that their theories, philosophies and methods responded to the history and current climate of the specific community. They are therefore idiosyncratic and, as Gibson (2014) alluded to in relation to the Reggio Emilia Approach, cannot be duplicated since they exist in their own unique historical, cultural, political and economic context. It can be inferred then that quality refers to how well the method responds to the society’s historical, social and economic context.

150 

S. C. Burns

The economy of the OECS member states is largely reliant on agriculture, tourism and the service industry. This makes the region particularly vulnerable as is evident over the past two decades. With varying degrees and levels of intensity, member states have had to deal with the effects sometimes simultaneously with natural disasters such as volcanic eruptions, hurricanes and floods. Beginning in 1995, Montserrat has been experiencing the effects of volcanic eruptions, which resulted in displaced commercial capital, reduced population and living space. Devastating hurricanes such as Ivan in Grenada  in  2004, Tomas in 2010  resulted in flooding in St Lucia and St Vincent and the Grenadines; Erika in 2015 which  rampaged Dominica, while Maria and Irma  in  2017 brought Anguilla, Antigua and Barbuda and Dominica to literal standstills are examples of the region’s fragility (MacDonald, 2018). The history of devastation by these natural phenomena indicates that the sustainability of the region must be reliant on resilient citizens who will not give up in the face of constant challenges. Diversification of the region’s income source, in the face of declining revenue from the agricultural exports of bananas, cotton and sugar which were mainstays of the region’s economy for several decades, is of paramount importance. Therefore, the education should applaud creativity, difference and uniqueness rather than measuring success through standardisation as determined by comparison with others. Young citizens need to develop skills that can creatively solve the region’s engineering issues for rebuilding and mitigating against the natural hazards that are evident. Innovation is also essential in order to combat the rising crime that may be linked to citizens’ inability to respect each other’s human rights, differing cultures, beliefs and abilities. A quality early childhood programme for the region should also nurture the development of empathy and respect for self, others and environment, as well as an appreciation for the diversity that exists in the region. An early childhood care and education programme that cultivates the development of skills such as empathy, innovation, respect, problem-solving and critical thinking, while incorporating and applauding the culturally relevant opportunities to collaborate with others including the family, extended family and community, has the hallmarks of quality in line with the philosophy of community living in the OECS.

  Every Learner Succeeds: Reconceptualising Quality in Early… 

151

As the principal providers of formal care and education to young children, communicating and collaborating with family members, especially parents, must be a feature component of a quality early childhood programme. As the initial and primary caregivers who continually play a major role in the care and education of young children, it is imperative that the home and school constantly engage in meaningful communication in order to compare and discuss children’s progress and identify areas of concern. As Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory confirms, institutions such as the family, church and health services play significant roles in human development (Leo-Rhynie & Brown, 2003). Thus, effective programming for children must genuinely place them at the centre of community engagement and collaboration in order to advance the child’s rights, among other things, to a developmentally and culturally appropriate education and health care, in addition to happy, safe childhoods. This integrated approach to facilitating young children’s growth and development forms connections across content, areas of development, physical space and stakeholders. Incorporating family members and parents must be appropriate to the cultural norms of the community in which the programme is located. Parents must be made to feel an integral part of their children’s care and learning, although they attend a centre outside the home. As such, parents must be able to assist with the planning and implementation of programmes. An OECS-type quality programme should demolish the barriers that appear to separate learning environments from the family, home and wider community. An OECS-branded quality programme should instead establish more pathways that encourage learning activities to extend to the community and encourage the participation of all stakeholders in learning activities either as visiting participants or as hosts of children and caregivers. Children need to develop an awareness of themselves and value their own culture (CCDC, 2010). As such, as much as possible, local practices and festivals must be introduced and celebrated as Malaguzzi (1998b) in his 100 languages poem pronounces. The community’s activities should not be seen as removed or separate from the daily actions and activities occurring within the early childhood environment with young children. A quality early childhood programme in the OECS must play homage to

152 

S. C. Burns

the microsystem as described in Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory (Berk, 2007). The OECS is one of the most politically, ethnically and culturally diverse regions in the world. Besides Martinique whose official language is French, English is listed as the official language of the other OECS member states. Residents, however, also communicate using variations of English creoles and French creoles in St Lucia and Dominica. As such, the learning environments should reflect, celebrate and embrace the varied cultures represented including their first or home language (Berk, 2007; Malaguzzi, 1998a, 1998b; Riley, 2016). Rejecting children’s home language is tantamount to rejecting the children’s identity. A quality early childhood development programme in the OECS member states must provide an enabling environment that is conducive to the holistic development of young children in addition to empowering all children to celebrate their uniqueness while accommodating the differences in others. An enabling environment provides a safe space that supports the physical, social, emotional and cognitive growth and development of young children in developmentally and culturally appropriate ways (Burns, 2018). Safe environments where children are meaningfully engaged through strategies that are innate using languages they can relate to and understand will guarantee that they become part of learning communities “that enhance the development of children, teachers, families and the [larger] community in which they live” (New, 2002, p.  259). Quality early childhood programmes in the OECS must reflect and incorporate the culture and practices of the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean Member States while giving the children not only the prerequisite skills needed to access later learning but the skills to ensure that the region can sustain itself by providing most, if not all, of the food, education and other essentials needed by the region’s citizens.

The Ideal CARICOM Citizen How does the endorsement of imported curricula affect the development of local customs, history and beliefs and the development of the ideal CARICOM citizen?

  Every Learner Succeeds: Reconceptualising Quality in Early… 

153

It can be inferred that endorsing imported curricula and attempting to implement them wholesale without making adjustment for cultural and philosophical differences is not ideal. Traditionally, due to the close-knit structure in the communities, it is easier and more natural for parents and care providers to meet and interact around the community. While this had to be purposefully included in the Reggio Emilia system, it should be more natural in the OECS and will be like a reclaiming traditional practice since the separation of school and home may have occurred over time in an effort to adopt westernised standards. Thus, the Reggio Emilia practice of collaborating and communicating with parents, community and children represents a cultural fit. Children and adults oftentimes occupy the same space. The idea of celebrating children’s accomplishments may, however, pose a challenge since it is customary for children to be expected to be seen and not heard with very little to contribute. Celebrating children’s work can assist with developing positive self-esteem, creativity and innovation, all essential qualities of the ideal CARICOM citizens. The HighScope approach encourages group work and collaboration in addition to public speaking, which are necessary skills for living in the twenty-­ first century. However, since this requires a philosophy of the child as being active and assuming some degree of individuality, a paradigm shift is required that needs to be negotiated with stakeholders from the policymakers to parents, also including curriculum designers and implementers, the practitioners. Eastern Caribbean adults often assume an authoritarian parenting style. The Montessori Method on the other hand seems to promote individuality at the expense of group work and teacher-directed activities. Children being encouraged to direct their own agenda under the Montessori philosophy may be in conflict with the region’s dominant authoritarian parenting style.

 econceptualising Quality in Early Childhood R in the OECS The issue of “quality” in early childhood care and education can be addressed in the Organisation of the Eastern Caribbean by

154 

S. C. Burns

reconceptualising the notion of “quality” that is more compatible with local and regional cultural practices and curriculum goals. Reflecting on the development of the child, it is evident that there’s a major metamorphosis that occurs between the early childhood and the middle childhood phases of development. A three-year-old’s method of processing information can look drastically different by the tenth birthday. “For this reason, an early childhood classroom should look, sound, and feel different from an elementary classroom” (United States Department of State (USDS), 2018). More importantly, in order to “enhance the development of children, teachers, families and the [larger] community in which they live” (New, 2002, p.  259), an Eastern Caribbean early childhood setting should also provide an experience that also contributes to the development of the Eastern Caribbean. In an effort to reconceptualise the quality of Early Childhood Development in the OECS, The OESS Strategic Imperative # 5 charges all stakeholders to play a role in ensuring that there’s an “increase in access to quality early childhood development services” (OECS, 2012, p. 13) for all young children in its member states. It seems logical then that the region should not blindly mandate the use of an international early childhood philosophy or curriculum. To reiterate Gibson (2014), even established early childhood programmes with their much-prescribed and well-choreographed pedagogy are idiosyncratic. Each locale, teacher, practitioner and, most importantly, the children determine the uniqueness of the implementation of an early childhood programme. That being the situation, the following section takes a more in-depth look at the social and economic prospects of the Organisation of the Eastern Caribbean States.

Social and Economic Prospects in the OECS The examination of the social and economic prospects of the OECS must be set in a historical context. The member states have a shared history linked to colonialism and slavery, the relics of which are still evident in the political, legal, economic and social institutions in today’s society. Despite the fact that some areas of the United States were also colonised

  Every Learner Succeeds: Reconceptualising Quality in Early… 

155

by Europeans beginning in the 1490s, the legacy of slavery and an even longer period of colonisation in the Eastern Caribbean have rendered the social context of Michigan vastly different. Anguilla, British Virgin Islands and Montserrat still remain dependencies of the United Kingdom. The population in the Organisation of the Eastern Caribbean is largely of African descendants. This is reflected in the cultural view of childhood, childrearing practices and the early care and education of young children. Barrow (2008) reminded that childcare is idiosyncratic since it is driven by the human values of the specific culture. Based on the cultural beliefs and values of persons in the OECS, it is normal to applaud passive learners who obey orders, follow instructions and refrain from questioning adults. This practice is even more evident in the rearing of “good” girl children in preparation for their roles as mothers and wives. Boys, to the contrary, are encouraged to be physically and intellectually more exploratory (Barrow, 2008). It is customary for African Caribbean children to be often in the company of adults despite a common saying that suggests “children are to be seen and not heard”. Therefore, reconceptualising “quality” in the care of young children in the Eastern Caribbean demands that the family and other community members (Barrow, 2008) play an integral role in the programmes used in formal care and education settings. Unfortunately, too often, it is the norm for children to have access only to the knowledge deemed necessary as determined and selected by adults. This can hamper or limit the dreams of some children since adults can be very myopic and limited by their own restrictive childhoods. In recent years, females in the Eastern Caribbean have begun to permeate every aspect of the political, legal, economic and social fabric of society. As a consequence, the education of young children must be able to nurture adventurous opportunities for both males and females (The UWI, 2018). To bolster this aspect of the early childhood curriculum, the Caribbean Development Bank in collaboration with the School of Education, the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill, Barbados, led a project “Curriculum Development and Training in Gender Socialisation for Early Childhood Development Practitioners in the Caribbean” from 2016 to 2018. Through this project an estimated 120 early childhood practitioners from the region (Antigua and Barbuda, Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Dominica, Grenada, Montserrat, St Lucia, St Kitts and

156 

S. C. Burns

Nevis and St Vincent and the Grenadines) have been equipped with knowledge and skills that are needed to create environments and opportunities to allow young males and females to chase dreams that are not limited by their sex.

Conclusion: Moving Ahead While there is a lot that has been learnt and can still be learnt from the more established early childhood practices such as Montessori, Reggio Emilia and HighScope methods, the time is now for the region to focus on making sure that what is done with young children is compatible with the region’s culture and goals for the society and region. Quality in the international programmes may hinge on the extent to which it promotes individualism while alleviating poverty and economic reliance on the respective governments. However, it is more likely that quality in the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) member states may be more akin to how well cooperation and collaboration are nurtured, promoted and encouraged. Reconceptualising quality in early childhood care and education in the OECS depends on the extent to which children and their families have access to the integrated experiences that equip and empower young children and members of their extended family to contribute to the region’s sustainability. These programmes must foster the development of an individual who is numerate, literate, creative, a critical thinker, resilient, healthy, accepts diversity and is respectful to self, others and the environment, in addition to having the ability to work independently. The empowered youngster should also be able to work in small and large groups. Failing to provide such opportunities should render an early childhood programme as being deficient of quality and not fit for consumption in the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States. Curriculum should evolve with time, society’s goals and purpose. Thus creating a new curriculum may not be the answer to the region’s quality debate since the skills and content children need to acquire are already outlined in the Learning Outcomes for Early Childhood Development in the Caribbean: A Handbook for Practitioners (CCDC, 2010). In addition, there exists an OECS Curriculum Framework and a Handbook for Early

  Every Learner Succeeds: Reconceptualising Quality in Early… 

157

Childhood Practitioners in the OECS Countries (OECS, 2015). It is apparent that regardless of the curriculum approach, whether established international, an eclectic blend or an indigenous creation, the quality must be contingent on how well it aligns with regional and national goals while meeting the needs of the children as determined by the appropriateness to the children’s culture, developmental stage and individual maturity (OECS, 2015). Early childhood care and education quality is time and space specific, and early childhood care and education quality is idiosyncratic (Gibson, 2014). As such, a quality early learning experience ought to look differently across the member states of the OECS in reflecting each space, each centre, each district, each parish and each country, nevertheless constantly ensuring that “Every (young) Learner Succeeds”.

References Barrow, C. (2008). Early childhood in the Caribbean. Working Papers in Early Childhood Development No. 7. The Hague, The Netherlands: Bernard van Leer Foundation. Berk, L.  E. (2007). Development through the lifespan (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Burns, S. C. (2013). The ontology and social construction of childhood in the Caribbean. In A. Jones (Ed.), Understanding child sexual abuse: Perspectives from the Caribbean (pp. 26–37). Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. Burns, S. C. (2018). Achieving quality in early childhood education in the eastern Caribbean depends on teacher preparation. Early Child Development and Care, 18(9), 1246–1259. Burts, D. C., & Buchanan, T. K. (1998). Preparing teachers in developmentally appropriate ways to teach in developmentally appropriate classrooms. In C. Seefeldt & A. Galper (Eds.), Continuing issues in early childhood education (2nd ed., pp. 129–158). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Cannella, G. (2002). Deconstructing early childhood education: Social justice and revolution. Rethinking childhood, 1086–7155, V. New York: Peter Lang. Carter, D. C. (2016). A history of early childhood education: The Barbadian experience. Christ Church, Barbados: Author. Charles, L. D., & Williams, S. (2006). Early childhood care and education in the Caribbean (CARICOM states). Paris: UNESCO.

158 

S. C. Burns

Conkbayir, M., & Pascal, C. (2015). Early childhood theories and contemporary issues: An introduction. London: Bloomsbury Academic. Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (1999). Beyond quality in early childhood education and care: Postmodern perspectives. Philadelphia, PA: RoutledgeFalmer. Davies, R. (1997, April). A historical review of the evolution of early childhood care and education in the Caribbean. Paper presented at the Second Caribbean Conference on Early Childhood Education, Barbados. Fergus, H.  A. (2003). A history of education in the British Leeward Islands, 1838–1945. Kingston: University of the West Indies Press. Fergus, H. A. (2009). Montserrat: A junior history. Brades: Ministry of Education. Gibson, M. (2014, July 2). Reggio Emilia: How a city in Italy started an education trend [Online forum]. Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/ reggio-­emilia-­how-­a-­city-­in-­italy-­started-­an-­education-­trend-­25809 Kinkead-Clark, Z.; Burns, S. & Abdul-Majied, S. (2019). Actualizing children’s rights through early childhood care and education: A focus on the Caribbean. Journal of Early Childhood Research (2019): 1476718X19875765. Leo-Rhynie, E., & Brown, J. (2003). Child-rearing practices in the Caribbean in the early childhood years. In C. Logie & J. Roopnarine (Eds.), Issues and perspectives in early childhood development and education in Caribbean countries (pp. 30–62). La Romaine: Caribbean Educational Publishers. MacDonald, S.  B. (2018, January). Caribbean economies and the year ahead, 2018. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies. Retrieved from https://www.csis.org/analysis/caribbean-economies-andyear-ahead-2018 Maharaj, P. E. (2013). The nature of paradise. In A. D. Jones (Ed.), Understanding child sexual abuse (pp. 9–25). London: Palgrave Macmillan. Malaguzzi, L. (1998a). History, ideas and philosophy. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G.  Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach—Advanced reflections (pp. 49–97). Greenwich, CT: Ablex. Malaguzzi, L. (1998b). Starting points. No way—The hundred is there. In C. Edwards, L. Gandini, & G. Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach—Advanced reflections (p.  3). Greenwich, CT: Ablex. New, R. (2002). Early literacy and developmentally appropriate practice: Rethinking the paradigm. In S. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 245–262). New York: Guilford Press. Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States. (2012). OECS education sector strategy 2012–2021. Castries, St Lucia: Author.

  Every Learner Succeeds: Reconceptualising Quality in Early… 

159

Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States. (2015). Handbook for early childhood practitioners in OECS countries. Castries, St Lucia: Author. Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States. (2016). Education statistical digest, 2016: Statistics on education for the academic year 2014–15. Castries, St Lucia: Author. Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS). (2018). Retrieved from https://www.oecs.org/homepage/about-­us Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States Commission. (2016). Integrated operations framework for the early childhood development (ECD) sector in the OECS region. Castries, St Lucia: Author. Riley, K. (2016, December 14). Reclaiming the future: schools where children belong even in a volatile world [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://ioelondonblog.wordpress.com/2016/12/14/reclaiming-­t he-­f uture-­s chools-­w here children-­belong-­even-­in-­a-­volatile-­world/ The University of the West Indies. (2018). Introduction to gender socialisation in early childhood education: Syllabus. St. Michael: Caribbean Development Bank and The University of the West Indies. The University of the West Indies. The Caribbean Child Development Centre. (2010). Learning outcomes for early childhood development in the Caribbean: A handbook for practitioners. Kingston: Chalkboard Press. United States Department of State. (2018). Section two: Quality in early childhood education. Retrieved from https://www.state.gov/m/a/os/41176.htm

Knowing Differently/Teaching Differently: Transforming a Teacher Education Program Freyca Calderon-Berumen, Samuel J. Tanner, Maryanne Mong Cramer, and Sarah B. Shear

The four authors of this chapter have been faculty at Penn State Altoona1 only for a few years. In that short time, we’ve been surprised by the extent to which all of us are committed to teaching with what Freire (2000) might call the “concern for humanization,” which entails an understanding that “dehumanization” is a “historical reality” (p. 43). We are aware that, regardless of our efforts in the classroom, “humanization and dehumanization are possibilities for a person as an uncompleted being conscious of their incompletion” (p. 43). We understand that the stories we tell ourselves about how the world works shape our classrooms and the  Sarah transitioned to a new institution while co-writing this chapter.

1

F. Calderon-Berumen (*) • S. J. Tanner • M. Mong Cramer Pennsylvania State University, Altoona, PA, USA e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] S. B. Shear University of Washington-Bothell, Bothell, WA, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Z. Kinkead-Clark, K.-A. Escayg (eds.), Reconceptualizing Quality in Early Childhood Education, Care and Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69013-7_7

161

162 

F. Calderon-Berumen et al.

classrooms our teacher education students eventually create. Indeed, Freire (2000) reminds us that “a careful analysis of the teacher-student relationship at any level, inside or outside the school, reveals its fundamentally narrative character” (p. 71). Therefore, to know and act differently from hegemonic, western discourse asks us to encounter and, perhaps, tell different stories. Recently, Sam was on a plane returning to State College, Pennsylvania. He was surrounded by white Penn State students. These young people in their teens and early twenties were mostly silent during the flight. Instead of speaking with each other, they stared silently at their phones. They seemed in a trance while spending two hours gazing at pictures on various social media apps. One girl quietly looked at images of other mostly young, white women in different poses, outfits, and situations. Sam couldn’t help but think about the ways these college students were silently consuming narratives about identity—the world and their place in it. Certainly, this flight wasn’t an anomaly. College students at Penn State Altoona—a branch campus where all the authors teach, and is the context of this chapter—are constantly looking to their phones. Penn State Altoona students are often from local communities in Pennsylvania, many of which are rural or experiencing some measure of poverty. Still, they also check Facebook before and after class, look at Instagram in moments of transition, or quietly Snapchat their friends. We admit we have the same habit. Social media is enticing, even for critical users who worry about the ways it reifies dominant discourses. What concerns us are the stories our students seemed mesmerized with, narratives that we worry reinforce dominant, essentialized, and dehumanizing discourse. This especially troubles us in working with future teachers. Classrooms have the potential to be strange places. Teachers and students are invited into spaces that can provoke us into relation with each other in varied ways. Certainly, classrooms can and always do produce and affirm beliefs and ideologies. But they can also be used to disrupt the production of normalized discourse or meta-narratives. Unquestionably, this is our hope in the classrooms we write about here. We are not silent in these places. We are not isolated. We are in messy, often uncomfortable, relation to each other as we provoke our students to resist hegemonic, western, essentialized discourses entangled in subjects we take up

  Knowing Differently/Teaching Differently: Transforming… 

163

in this chapter: issues of race, language, gender, inclusion, and patriotism. Can fourteen weeks of limited participation in a college class—or classes—at Penn State Altoona provoke our students to know differently? This is a question critically minded educators often ask and most definitely hope to answer in their teaching. We acknowledge there is difficulty in this work. How can we overcome the countless hours our students have spent in classrooms that engrained the very beliefs we challenge, staring at screens, building assumptions, and participating in—even embodying—the hegemony of dominant narratives in the United States? Still, we see promise in the work of inciting our mostly white, rural teacher education students—across the disciplines of social studies, literacy, special education, and ESL—to articulate and re/consider their beliefs and assumptions about the world in relation to other views. We strive to teach differently. This work in education, according to Freire (2000), requires efforts “imbued with a profound trust in people and their creative power: To achieve this, they must be partners of the students in their relations with them” (p. 75). The vignettes we present in this chapter comprise composite characters of the years of teaching we have engaged during our time at Penn State Altoona. These stories are examples of our attempts to engage with and provoke our students to consider other stories. In our teaching, we seek to elicit an affective language in which our classroom community gives words to name the assumptions about the world and our place in it. Without this language, there is no hope of knowing differently from the hegemony of western notions of school and society. Indeed, Freire (2000) reminds us that “human existence cannot be Silent, nor can it be nourished by false words, but only by true words” (p.  88). Ultimately, we teach against the silence with the hope that we might develop a new disruptive language (and provoke our students to a new language) that accomplishes the work Freire (2000) outlines as the project of humanity: “But while to say the true word—which is work, which is praxis—is to transform the world, saying that word is not the privilege of some few persons, but the right of everyone. Consequently, no one can say a true word alone—nor can she say it for another, in a prescriptive act which robs others of their words” (p. 88)

164 

F. Calderon-Berumen et al.

We approach this chapter as collective teacher educators, we acknowledge our personal positionalities and the subjectivities that each of us bring to the program—whiteness, Otherness, male and female bodies, class privilege and poverty. Our storytelling and subsequent discussions problematize these privileges, burdens, limitations, challenges, and responsibilities to offer critical perspectives and incite transformational teaching practices in our students. We proceed by describing our community and ourselves before using narrative methodology to tell and interpret three vignettes meant to capture elements of our work. Finally, we consider what our work in this program illustrates about the capacity to know differently from western hegemony.

Our Specific Context Our teacher education program is located at a small, rural liberal arts campus located in Altoona, Pennsylvania, a branch campus of Penn State University, located just forty miles away. Most of our students come from small, rural towns in central Pennsylvania. A statistical look at Blair County, in which Altoona is located, provides insight into part of the story. Based on estimates from the 2010 US Census (www.census.gov) Blair County’s population as of 2017 was 123,457, of which 96% are white. Is it any wonder that our students’ social media pages are images of whiteness? Only 1% of the residents of Blair County were born outside of the United States. High school graduation rates are good at 91% compared to 88% nationally, but just 20% hold a bachelor’s degree compared to 33% nationally. Median household income in 2016 was $44,000, with 15% of residents living below the poverty line. While this is statistically part of Blair County’s story, it is not the whole story. In its hay day, Altoona was a central hub of the railroad industry with carriage houses and machine shops that kept the Pennsylvania Railroad rolling. Opened in 1854, the world famous Horseshoe Curve, an engineering marvel of the railroad industry, was built by German and Irish immigrants. It was and is the only rail link between the port of Philadelphia and points west. Pennsylvania railroad was the primary employer in Altoona, and spawned numerous companies from furniture

  Knowing Differently/Teaching Differently: Transforming… 

165

manufacturers to upscale restaurants, hotels, and shops filling the bustling downtown. With the decline of the railroad industry, Altoona joined other rustbelt cities plummeting their downtown districts from thriving to nearly ghost towns in a matter of a few decades. Altoona’s resilience is evident in the determined and hardworking innovators who have worked to rebuild the economy. The city was identified as a “Distressed City” in 2012 under Pennsylvania Act 47 designed to help the most distressed cities rebuild. In 2017, the city exited the Distressed City program, the fastest recovery on record under Act 47 (https://dced.pa.gov/paproudblog/altoona-­journey-­distress-­recovery/). Communities surrounding Altoona are, for the most part, close-knit and generations deep. This is the kind of place where there are still mom-­ and-­pop diners, and if you are not related to half of the other patrons, the whole restaurant will turn and look at you upon walking in the door. The cinematic cliché “You ain’t from around these parts” silently reverberates from the corner booth. This does not mean that you are not welcome, just that you are not part of the inner circle, and therefore are surrounded by a veil of caution. These are the same people who will stop along the road to help you change a tire, run into a burning house as a volunteer firefighter to save you, and would literally give veterans the shirt off their backs. It is not unusual to encounter adults who have not seen the ocean because they have never left the state and would consider going to New York City as unlikely as going to the moon. The American flag flies prominently from homes and business, punctuated all too frequently by the Rebel flag despite the fact that it is unequivocally not a part of central Pennsylvania’s heritage. Like too many of our rural communities, Blair County has been plagued by the narcotics epidemic. Altoona city busses are emblazoned with “Push Out the Pushers” banners. The tide is yet to turn in this city’s war on drugs, as deaths from overdoses continue to rise. The four of us come to this chapter and, indeed, this teacher education program from vastly different backgrounds and unique experiences with diversity. Only one of us is native to central Pennsylvania with family ties to the area and community, and interested in studying social and cognitive challenges for children and adolescents with academic, social, and emotional challenges. The rest of us came from other states and even a different country. One being a Latina woman interested in multicultural

166 

F. Calderon-Berumen et al.

education and decolonizing pedagogies in order to address educational equity and social justice, another one is a white man working with issues of whiteness, improvisation, and critical pedagogy, and a white woman interested in social studies within Indigenous contexts as well as examining race and settler colonialism in k-12 classrooms. However, we all share a commitment to disturbing western norms and patterns of school and society as our attempt to create spaces for a more democratic education. Further, we see our work as contributing to anti-colonial positionalities as we provoke our teacher education students and, frankly, our local community to inclusive, critical stances in relation to systems and discourses of white supremacist, patriarchal value systems. We situate our approaches as anti-colonial, rather than decolonization. As suggested by Sefa Dei, “Decolonization is a process of working to bring change by foremost helping to rid ourselves of the complexes of subordination and acquiescence… Decolonization is action-oriented. It is a purposeful and intentional act” (2019, p. vii). Moreover, Patel (2014) indicates that a de-colonial work is directed to material changes. We acknowledge this is far-off our reach capacity. According to Sefa Dei (2019) an anti-colonial education is more about restoring our humanity. Following the work of Dolores Calderon (2014) we find an anti-colonial framework more appropriate for our teaching approaches, since we are not trying to decolonize our students’ mindsets. Rather, as we portray in the following vignettes, we want them to question simplistic ways of being and doing, identify the complexity of power structures, and name the settler colonial practices and ideologies that permeate our social institutions. Our approaches to teaching vary from improving pedagogy to inclusion-­ focused explorations, from confronting difficult histories through dialogue to border-crossing pedagogies and an invitation to possibilities. Ultimately, we identify as critical pedagogues with investments in disrupting patriarchal white supremacy.

  Knowing Differently/Teaching Differently: Transforming… 

167

Vignettes Labels Are for Jars “This is a same-sex-couple,” confidently declared an undergrad student holding up a photograph of two women, one in her fifties and one in her thirties. Two groupmates nodded agreement, and they proceeded to glue the photo to a large piece of paper under their “Same Sex-Couples” label. “Well… how do we know that they are a couple? Maybe they are mother and daughter,” the fourth student quietly asked with hesitation. The simple question created the first crack in the wall of complacent acceptance that everyone fits neatly into a category, and their category was immediately apparent at first glance. What had been a confident process of identifying and labeling photos of people of all ages and races into categories based on what kind of family they represented suddenly became more complex. Of the twenty-five photos to be sorted, many were simple and quite clear, perhaps because they looked familiar to the students doing the labeling. Others, however, gave pause as participants discussed how to label less traditional groupings. Given the instructions to examine the photographs and identify the family configurations, some used broad strokes identifying just a few categories: “regular family,” “single parent family,” “same-sex family,” “homeless family.” Others concerned themselves with the minutiae of the photographs trying to decide how to label the people based on hints within photographs. Twenty minutes into the activity, all of the groups had tidily categorized all but a few of the family configurations. As they struggled, they discussed what lead them to the decisions already made, and what if any characteristics did the remaining families share with the already labeled families. Finally, one student looked up in frustration and said, “I don’t think we can tell what kind of family they are just by looking at them! I mean, this could be a middle-age father with two daughters, or this person could be his wife and this is his daughter. How are we supposed to know just by looking at them?” And with that, the confident wall collapsed.

168 

F. Calderon-Berumen et al.

You’re Going to Be a Terrible Teacher Five students were gathered with their professor in a literacy methods class. They participated in a reading workshop that focused on the book Black Boy by Richard Wright. All of them were white. The group worked through the final two pages of the epilogue of Wright’s memoir together. The professor read the text aloud, marked it up with students, and prompted them to share their reflections on the text. “This was so beautiful,” Andrea said. “It’s so important for us to think about race as teachers.” “I really like what Wright wrote about race here, but I don’t know,” Terry added next. “What do you mean you don’t know?” Andrea asked Terry. Terry was becoming visibly agitated. “I’m just gonna be honest. I think we make race worse when we keep talking about it. Can’t we just let it go?” Andrea reacted viscerally to Terry’s statement. “You can’t mean that.” “Why do we need to make such a big deal about race?” “You’re going to be a terrible teacher.”

This brief exchange and the subsequent decision by the professor to allow it to continue led to a two-hour discussion about race, whiteness, and teaching. Terry spoke loudly and seemed angry, but didn’t disengage. Andrea burst into tears many times, but refused to see merit in Terry’s aversion to talking about race. The other three students participated more quietly as the professor facilitated this messy conversation. Finally, the discussion came to something of a natural conclusion, at least in terms of the class. “Look, I don’t think I’m saying what I want to be saying,” Terry said. “I don’t know how to say what I want to say right.” “I’m sorry for saying you’ll be a terrible teacher, Terry,” Andrea replied. “Look, I think all of us are probably going to be nice to our students of color. But I also think that, because I’m white, whether I like it or not, I’m associated with systems and ideas I don’t understand, and I have to try and understand those things if I’m gonna be a good teacher.”

  Knowing Differently/Teaching Differently: Transforming… 

169

The professor asked the other students who participated less vocally in the discussion to share their final thoughts. They all agreed that listening to the discussion had been provocative, but it seemed difficult for them to communicate their thinking. “What Andrea just said is so profound,” Cally said. “I really agree with it.” “Me too,” Eric blurted out. Sarah nodded her head.

It seemed, to the professor, that these white preservice teachers were searching for words they didn’t have in order to describe their visceral reaction to a discussion about whiteness. Terry was the last student to leave class. He approached the professor. “I hope I didn’t say anything bad,” he said. The professor assured Terry that he hadn’t done anything wrong. Terry left, visibly shaken by his participation in this reading workshop.

Patriotism Is “Complicated”/Teaching Is “Political” Students gazed perplexingly as they walked around the room. “Some of these aren’t patriotic at all,” one bemoans. “According to who?” the professor asked. The gallery walk, featuring almost two dozen historic and contemporary images, challenged students to think about how patriotism is conceived and enacted in the United States and why that matters for elementary social studies education. The gallery images ranged from Martin Luther King, Jr.’s speech in Washington, DC, to Colin Kaepernick kneeling during the National Anthem to young children reciting the Pledge of Allegiance to women picketing the White House during the Suffrage Movement to Standing Rock to neo-Nazi and KKK rallies to pro- and anti-marriage equality protests outside the US Supreme Court. “There’s no way someone could think a Klan rally is patriotic,” one student argues.

170 

F. Calderon-Berumen et al.

“But there are Klan members living around here. What if we have a kid in our class whose parents are in the KKK?” Another student chimes. “Valid question,” the professor remarks. “What are you going to do about that?” “Well being racist isn’t patriotic, so we have to teach that the KKK is bad.” Another student weighs in. “So what you are saying is teaching social studies is a political act. You are taking a stance one way or another.” The statement hangs in the air, heavy on the shoulders of students who, for weeks, resisted the idea that any pedagogical decision is a political one. “Right, so I get the whole KKK thing,” a student breaks the silence. “But what about kneeling and not standing for the pledge? Aren’t those unpatriotic?” “Again, according to who?” The professor can feel their frustration building because she is forcing them to confront the complexities of teaching in the era of Trump. “Who gets to decide what is patriotic or not?”

After more conversation about the gallery images, she asks students to consider the intersections and divergences of political and moral issues, whether there is ever a moment when we are neutral, and how do we go about creating learning opportunities for students to create a better, safer, more human society. The class, one built on pedagogies of justice, pushed students to confront the issue of choice: to be on the side of those working for a better world or to be on the side of those who don’t. Ross (2017) articulated, “the goal of citizenship education then is not to inculcate students into capitalist democracy, but rather to help students question, understand, and test the reality of the social world they inhabit” (p. 18). Apathy, they uncomfortably come to understand, is no longer an option in teaching.

Knowing Differently/Teaching Differently In part, the stories above do the work of sharing the premise and pitfalls of our anti/de-colonial work at Penn State Altoona. Still, we take Barone’s (2000) claim that “some stories deserve their own space” and that we “do

  Knowing Differently/Teaching Differently: Transforming… 

171

not always need, within the same textual breath, to deconstruct in another style and format the epiphanies they foster” seriously (p. 259). Still, now that we’ve allowed these vignettes to breath, we continue by making sense of the stories in this chapter with three ideas in mind. Certainly, there are countless other ways to interpret the stories we shared here. Nonetheless, we proceed to theorize these vignettes in relation to three topics we consider critical in developing awareness toward knowing differently/teaching differently: (a) language, (b) embodiment, and (c) provoking a decision.

Language For many of our students, the encounters presented in our vignettes represent the first time they are exposed to think about what it means to be white and what are the ramifications of racism, and to consider preconceived ideas about normalized ways of being in the world. This is also true of their understandings of gender or of difference. In our discussions as we theorize about our practices, we consider the possibility that most white people don’t have the language to talk about their whiteness or about their potentially biased preconceptions of the world. Specifically, these white students who have not been exposed to diversity cannot name something that is out of their “normalized” reality. When they are presented with issues like race, they do not know what to do. They do not have the language, as an intellectual tool to deal with it. White privilege teaching frameworks present the issue of white supremacy but, maybe, don’t create a way for white people to develop the language and thinking. Such opportunity is denied to them by being enculturated into their whiteness. They need to develop a language and thinking process necessary to engage anti-racism. We believe our classrooms should provide a space for our students to reflect on their worlds by using the words (Freire, 2000). We want them to explore—perhaps even discover—words that allow them to name and deconstruct uncomfortable and recognized complicated, rather than simplistic, ways of being and doing. Vygotsky (1978) believed that social learning precedes development and indicated that higher-order thinking functions appear first on the social level and

172 

F. Calderon-Berumen et al.

then on the individual level. Furthermore, identifying language as a cultural tool, a tool for thinking that shapes cognitive development, Vygotsky (1986) believed that thought development is determined by language, and because of this, he affirmed, “thought is not merely expressed in words; it comes into existence through them” (p. 218). So, we want to provide opportunities like the ones described above for students to think and name situations in ways they haven’t thought before, with critical lens and from a different standpoint. The examples presented in the vignettes showed how we do not provide the language to the students in a transmissive manner. Rather, we promote spaces for them to search, strive, and try to appropriate strange or unfamiliar words. We invited them to liminal spaces in which they can reflect and make sense of the world beyond this community but at the same time recognize how that outer world has influenced and determined their own perceptions and beliefs. Being in this liminal space might not be a comfortable experience, as represented in Terri’s struggle to do and say the right thing and his search for teacher’s approval. Yet, the role of a teacher is often restricted if we want the students to develop their own agency. We cannot impose our language, since that would be continuing to preserve the problematic practice of speaking for others (Alcoff, 2008). We understand that this process may have various layers. The words, in and of themselves, do not have a meaning if they are not placed into a specific context, defined by certain social, cultural, and political frameworks. Those meanings change as the words come together in multiple ways or different orders to form discourses. As it was the insight the student got when realizing they cannot label family configurations just by looking at pictures. As we engage in language building processes, we have many considerations to make, such as what is the language they already have to talk these issues? What is the language they want and need to discuss them? What are the bigger discourses or meta-narratives their language is sustaining? How can we assist their language building process in our efforts to build democratic and humanizing spaces for education, more specifically, for teacher education? We also recognize that the interactions presented in the vignettes are not limited to the lack of language. The ideologies embedded in socially constructed categories like race and gender are also embodied.

  Knowing Differently/Teaching Differently: Transforming… 

173

Embodiment As students engaged in the activities described in the vignettes, we can see how their bodies transformed as they become visibly distressed. We do not avoid provoking cognitive dissonance in our teaching. Quite contrary, we set up situations for this to occur and seek opportunities for them to express and process their thinking and confusion. Confusion around critical issues here is generative (Tanner, 2017). Provoked confusion means students have to go away and reckon with what happened. No expectations or tidy outcomes. We want them to leave the classroom and make sense of it, construe their own meaning, and figure out ways to express it. The assimilation of dominant discourses is embodied (Alexander, 2005). Therefore, disturbing normalized patterns might be uncomfortable and even difficult for many of us. Scholars such as Foglia and Wilson (2013) have argued that cognition is embodied. In other words, the way we understand the world has as much to do with our bodies as our minds. According to Foglia and Wilson (2013), “the body does more than conveying input and output to central systems” and that “we should leave behind some methodological and conceptual commitments of traditional cognitive science” (p. 322). In education, Lewis and Tierney (2013) used an analysis of emotion in the classroom to understand how embodiment was connected to the way students in an English class negotiated a discussion of race. They wrote that “emotion played a central role in students’ agentive and critical engagement with texts and ideas” and that learning of this kind “offers a broader critical literacy, one deeply related to how students and teachers, as social actors, mobilize emotion to transform texts and signs in ways that may otherwise remain veiled” (pp.  303–304). Certainly, embodiment and emotion played a role in our vignettes. In the stories we shared above, students were angry, defensive, confused, sad, upset, emotional, and so on. They were in material relation to each other as they grappled with discourse and narrative. We allowed for these emotions to be expressed, present, and even unresolved in our classrooms with the understanding that these embodied states were connected to the material we were considering with our students. Indeed, Boldt, Lewis, and Leander

174 

F. Calderon-Berumen et al.

(2015) argued that “emotion can rarely be fully regulated by teachers, not only because students’ fears and needs are material and embodied, but also because emotions are not anchored” (p. 434). In other words, it is not our job as teachers to regulate emotional reaction to material because, in fact, emotion can’t be regulated. Instead, emotion fueled the discussion of race described earlier, in part, because it mobilized students to keep thinking, even when that thinking was confusing to them. Consider Terry and Andrea’s engagement in an intense consideration of race. One way to read their exchange is to focus on its emotional nature. Indeed, in their analysis of a discussion on race in an English class, Boldt et  al. (2015) wrote “emotion was in motion throughout the discussion, at times mobilizing empathy” or “mobilizing alliances and differences among the students” (p. 434). Terry and Andrea’s differences in thinking emerged through an emotional exchange about the relationship between teaching and race. Alliances were born when Eric, Cally, and Sarah were asked to comment. Ultimately, Terry, Andrea, and their peers left class with confusion, yes, yet the teacher understood their exchange, in the words of Boldt et al. (2015), as “dialogic in ways that led to thoughtful transformations of signs—the photograph, language, and the sign of race” (p. 434). Emotion is simply one way to understand how our knowing is embodied. Resisting the hegemonic western narratives discussed throughout this chapter requires us to know and to be differently, and certainly, the students described earlier were being provoked out of their comfort zones to do so. Boldt et al. (2015) in writing about the problematic ways that teachers try to regulate students bodies and minds argued that “we need opportunities and structures that allow us to actively think about” students “whose differences are difficult to reconcile with our contemporary educational regimes” (p. 439). Certainly, Terry is one such student. His comments and reactions to a discussion of race are not in line with that contemporary educational regimes would expect him to do or say. Perhaps, instead of forcing Terry or Andrea to conform to a simple solution to the problems that emerged in the conversation, we should allow them to think and feel about the issue with knowledge that we are provoking them to think and feel differently. And, according to Boldt, Lewis, and Leander, “while this clearly will not solve the impossible problem

  Knowing Differently/Teaching Differently: Transforming… 

175

posed by the child who cannot or will not produce the test results that are demanded, it may give us a chance to think about how to be a teacher in a relationship with the child who is in front of us” (p. 439). In better understanding the ways we are in relation to the students in front of us at Penn State Altoona, we see that our work is also about provoking them to act.

Provoking an Action-Orientation Our work as individual teacher educators and as a collective moves to provoke students into an action-orientation, to see teaching and learning as active rather than passive, to embody education as a need to become more fully human. These moves include a commitment to critical pedagogy that involves, “conceptual tools for critical reflexivity; an analysis of class, corporate power, and globalization; an analysis of empowering pedagogical practices within the classroom; and a deeper analysis of language and literacy” (Sleeter & Bernal, 2013, p. 117). Our vignettes all take on various aspects of critical pedagogy in that preservice teachers were all moved to action—to decision—to taking a stance and confronting how people are made either more fully human or less human by these moves. As Takaki (1993/2008) reflected: America’s dilemma has been the denial of our immensely varied selves. Asked whether she had a specific proposal for improving the current racial climate in America, Toni Morrison answered: “Everybody remembers the first time they were taught that part of the human race was Other. That’s a trauma. It’s as though I told you that your left hand is not part of your body.” (p. 437)

We incite our preservice teachers to confront the othering of the world, whether in the framing of family, ability, race, language, or civic action— or even ourselves—and we challenge them to get up, to refrain from falling back into the comfort of their own power and privilege as white Americans and instead take an action-orientation. We provoke them to critically think in what they believe, in what they have been surrounded

176 

F. Calderon-Berumen et al.

so far, and make a conscious decision and then act accordingly. In this embodiment of a teacher-in-action they see themselves in concert with students, not as sages upon the stage. They become teachers who are “jointly responsible for a process in which all grow. In the process, arguments based on ‘authority’ are no longer valid; in order to function, authority must be on the side of freedom, not against it” (Freire, 2000, p. 80). In their roles as teachers, they reimagine their place in the classroom so it can be one on the side of freedom. Their roles as teachers transform into ones that affirm identities rather than assimilate them and do harm. As Freire (2000) noted, “True solidarity is found only in the plenitude of this act of love, in its existentiality, in its praxis. Conversion to the people requires a profound rebirth. Those who undergo it must take on a new form of existence; they can no longer remain as they were” (pp. 49–50, 61). In doing so, they will also situate their teaching practice within an anti-colonial framework aiming at a more humanizing education.

Toward Humanizing Teacher Education Teaching differently is a dangerous work. If we disrupt patterns and norms of white supremacist, western patriarchy, essentialized discourses through our pedagogies, we (and our students) risk inclusion and/or permanence in the institutions of school and society. Still, not knowing differently entails to risk our humanity and makes us take part of or participate in a disenfranchising society. This work is not simple. At times, it even seems counterproductive to commonsense ideas about what schooling is and what teachers should do. Yet, it is totally fitting with how we understand teaching and learning as simultaneous and collective processes and as a political act, with how we understand the purpose of schools and the role of education. Precisely because of this understanding, as Freire suggests, our role as teachers is “to assent the student’s right to compare, to choose, to rupture, to decide” (1997, p. 75). Freire asks, “Do people have the right or not, in the process of taking their history into their hands, to develop another kind of language as a dimension of those who have the power? … Do people have the right

  Knowing Differently/Teaching Differently: Transforming… 

177

or not to participate in the process of producing new knowledge?” (Horton & Freire, 1990, p. 97). Because we believe they do, we agree with Freire that it requires a social transformation. Through our pedagogies and class activities, we along with our students continuously work toward transforming our perspectives, challenging our preconceived ideas of what is and imagining possibilities of what could be, and seeking humanizing ways of being in the world. We think had there been one black student in the class presented in our second vignette, that discussion would not have happened, for instance. We know our students have no experience in discussing anything controversial. They live and breathe conformity. They think the way they do because their parents, grandparents, siblings, friends, and sadly, even their teachers, for the most part, think that way, too. Their whole identity and way of life is wrapped up in whiteness, white supremacy, and western essentialist values. However, it is interesting to witness how they know, in one way or another, that the way that they think is not politically correct to be expressed overtly. They know when in certain social situations they need to filter what they say. Be politically correct. What they seem to miss is that political correctness is not just about not hurting someone’s feelings; it’s representative of much deeper, much more divisive social structures that perpetuate social injustice. We are provoking them to think differently. Yet, we ponder how, indeed, do we put a dent in twenty years of indoctrination from school, family, and community, in fourteen weeks? If we were to magically change the way they think, we create a much bigger problem for them. How do they live with their family, friends, and community now that they see the rot from within the people they love? Our diverse and unique lived experiences have led us to know differently, and our institution supports us in teaching differently. The hegemonic discourses we mean to grapple with in our work as teacher educators are alive and well in both our students and ourselves. Western hegemony is always at work. That is why we want our students to know differently. We push them to cognitive dissonance, to liminal spaces, to uncomfortable silences and messy conversations, so they can develop new language, acquire their own voice, make a personal and informed choice, and take positionality of their own agency as teachers. We deliberately choose our disrupting pedagogies to interrupt inherited ideologies and

178 

F. Calderon-Berumen et al.

epistemologies (Alexander, 2005) and provide opportunities to imagine other, more humanizing, ways of being and doing. It is our intention for them to start knowing differently, so they also will be teaching differently when they embrace their own teaching practice. The vignettes presented earlier portray some of the ways we approach our work to disturb normative discourses of power and politics, and socially constructed categories of division and marginalization. We know the idea of changing dominant discourses in fourteen weeks is an illusion. However, we are working on disrupting hegemonic structures of power one class at a time as we transform our teaching approaches to be disrupting; we aim at transforming our teacher education program into a more critical and humanizing one. Our goal is to contribute to building a humanizing education, which in the words of Freire is “the path through which men and women can become conscious about their presence in the world” (as cited in Darder, 2002, p. 35). These stories reflect our efforts to break old patterns and transform our teacher education program by inviting our students to become conscious about their decisions and voice their own beliefs, because “the more people become themselves, the better the democracy” (Horton & Freire, 1990, p. 145).

References Alcoff, L. M. (2008). The problem of speaking for others. In Voice in qualitative inquiry (pp. 129–148). Routledge. Alexander, M. J. (2005). Pedagogies of crossing: Meditations on feminism, sexual politics, memory, and the sacred. Duke University Press. Barone, T. (2000). Aesthetics, politics, and educational inquiry: Essays and examples (p. 278). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Boldt, G., Lewis, C., & Leander, K. M. (2015). Moving, feeling, desiring, teaching. Research in the Teaching of English, 49(4), 430. Calderon, D. (2014). Uncovering settler grammars in curriculum. Educational Studies, 50(4), 313–338. Darder, A. (2002). Reinventing Paulo Freire: A pedagogy of love. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Foglia, L., & Wilson, R. A. (2013). Embodied cognition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4(3), 319–325.

  Knowing Differently/Teaching Differently: Transforming… 

179

Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed (30th anniversary edition). New York, NY: Continuum. Freire, P., & Freire, A.  M. A. (1997). Pedagogy of the heart. New  York, NY: Continuum. Horton, M., & Freire, P. (1990). We make the road by walking: Conversations on education and social change. Temple University Press. Lewis, C., & Tierney, J. D. (2013). Mobilizing emotion in an urban classroom: Producing identities and transforming signs in a race-related discussion. Linguistics and Education, 24(3), 289–304. Patel, L. (2014). Countering coloniality in educational research: From ownership to answerability. Educational Studies, 50(4), 357–377. Ross, E. W. (2017). Rethinking social studies: Critical pedagogy in pursuit of dangerous citizenship. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Sefa Dei, G. J. (2019). Foreword. In A. Zainub (Ed.), Decolonization and anti-­ colonial Praxis (pp. vii–x). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill|Sense. Sleeter, C. E., & Bernal, D. D. (2013). Critical pedagogy, critical race theory, and Antiracist education: Their implications for multicultural education. In C. E. Sleeter (Ed.), Power, teacher, and teacher education: Confronting injustice with critical research and action (pp. 114–144). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Takaki, R. (1993/2008). A different mirror: A history of multicultural America. New York, NY: Back Bay Books. Tanner, S. J. (2017). Permission to be confused: Toward a second-wave of critical whiteness pedagogy. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 14(2), 164–179. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Using Social and Emotional Instructional Activities to Indigenise Early Childhood Education in a Post-colonial Society Deon Edwards-Kerr and Joan Spencer-Ernandez

Introduction This chapter examines the making of identity in Jamaica’s Early Childhood Education curriculum for children aged 4 and 5 years. The premise of the chapter is that the introduction of identity concepts of self, nation, ethnicity and culture in the Early Childhood Education (ECE) curriculum is part of the institutionalisation of a process of indigenisation that is underpinned by the idea of reproducing national unity and cohesion as the basis for the nation-state. The chapter starts with identifying the sources of identity in Jamaican society and draws on the notion of ‘indigenisation’ (Nettleford, 1978) as the central idea that drives the focus on identity in the national curriculum. We then explore the link between social and emotional learning and making of identity. This is followed by a description of Jamaica’s ECE curriculum through setting out of the

D. Edwards-Kerr (*) • J. Spencer-Ernandez School of Education, The University of the West Indies, Mona, Kingston, Jamaica e-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Z. Kinkead-Clark, K.-A. Escayg (eds.), Reconceptualizing Quality in Early Childhood Education, Care and Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69013-7_8

181

182 

D. Edwards-Kerr and J. Spencer-Ernandez

social and emotional objectives that frame the teaching of content about the self, cultural practices of celebration, national heroes and the people who came. We then draw on classroom observations to examine the implementation of this content through various instructional events and activities. The final section of the chapter posits that by directly focusing on concepts of national and cultural identity through social and emotional learning objectives, the curriculum is aiming to accomplish the creation of a quintessential Jamaican identity founded in the idea of ‘out of many, one people’.

Where Does Identity Come from in Jamaica? Jamaica and other Caribbean islands represent an evolutionary milestone in the making of identities. The people who came from Africa, Europe, India, China and the Middle East through varied journeys brought with them cultural identities that now fuse to make the Caribbean peoples socially, culturally and linguistically unique. Nettleford (1978) referred to the identities of Caribbean people as a hybrid, the result of the interplay of the enslavement of Africans, indentured labourers from China and India, European colonialism, Middle East and Jewish mercantilism, rebellion and revolt, and, emancipation. He further notes that emancipation stimulated the process of indigenisation of the native population (p. 3), a native being anyone born in Jamaica and any other Caribbean island of any of the group of people who came. He reasoned that indigenisation is a process of making new people of the peoples who came from the old world (p.  2). Indigenisation foregrounds the ethnic and cultural diversity of Jamaican and Caribbean people, that is, the “human self of the native” (Bogues, 2011, p. 23). Indigenisation then is a process of humanisation or that of bringing the native’s self out of obscurity (Bogues, 2011) into a place of “self-definition” (Nettleford, 2004). Nettleford argues for, and articulated, a vision of the transformation of institutions to guide this process. Of course, essential to this is an education system that expressly teaches and affirms the cultural practices and language of the native. A Jamaican identity is therefore a national

  Using Social and Emotional Instructional Activities… 

183

imperative for the emergence of a people with a colonial past, who seek self-determination. In this chapter, we look at the making of identity in the content and pedagogy of Jamaica’s early childhood education curriculum for 4- and 5-year-old children. We follow Nettleford’s advice and caution that the making of national identity must go beyond superficial representations of culture such as artistic manifestations, but to forging new code of ethics, institutional frameworks and operational mechanisms (Nettleford, 2004, p. 6) that are committed to the formation of cultural and national identities that can creatively build a progressive nation. Nettleford (1978, p.  68) reasserts the view of Michael Manley that the Jamaican people (and the Caribbean peoples) must “create out of our own consciousness, our own education system that focuses on our needs as we know them to be”. This is the processes of indigenisation that is intentional and structured to achieve the goal of, “forging for itself its own frame of reference out of the mass of experience over time and in quite unique circumstances” (p.  68). That is, the requirement for self-determination and national unity must arise from localised efforts to create institutions and structures that reflect socio-cultural and socio-historical routes. We believe that the curriculum content and pedagogy of the ECE curriculum is an important part of this process of indigenisation. We see in the curriculum the foregrounding of Jamaican history of diversity as the arena for teaching social and emotional skills required for becoming citizens’ conscious of their heritage and the possibilities for innovation inherent in knowing the self and its position in the world.

 ocial and Emotional Learning, S and the Making of Identity in the Early Years Social and emotional learning is considered one of the most important skill sets that children are expected to acquire early in their development processes. Payton et al. (2008, p. 6) point out that social and emotional learning is a process in which children acquire, “skills that enable children to calm themselves when angry, initiate friendships and resolve conflicts

184 

D. Edwards-Kerr and J. Spencer-Ernandez

respectfully, make ethical and safe choices, and contribute constructively to their community”. Berg et al. (2017, p. vii) confirm that the skills are more than interpersonal and intrapersonal but also include “ethical values, connection to community, and social justice”; this study showed that social and emotional skills are the basis of “cultural assets” (p. 66) that young people use to act on, engage with, and challenge the world that they face. While Payton et al. (2008) previously indicated that social and emotional development could be categorised into 5 domains of the self or personhood of the child—self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills and responsible decision-making—the work of Berg et al. (2017) refined this to 6 domains (cognitive regulation, emotional process, interpersonal process, values, perspectives and identity/ self-image) and 23 sub-domains which allowed for the clear emergence of cultural competence as germane to social and emotional development, especially in multicultural and multi-ethnic environments—in other words, learning skills in sensitivity to difference, resistance and accommodation. A key feature of social and emotional learning here is the influence of contextual and cultural factors embedded in the structures of the society in shaping how children acquire these skills. Children are taken to be nested in relationships with adults, such as teachers and parents, and their peers. These relationships are then nested in the contexts of school, home and community, which are of course nested in the broader, social, cultural, economic and political societal structures. The interactions within and between these layers of children’s lives are dynamic and fluid allowing for their experiences to be formed in ways that reflect the social and cultural norms of their society. This means that where children come from—their family and community background are important (Lareau, 2003) to how these skills are acquired and presented in their current and future behaviours. For example, Payton et al.’s (2008) review of research point to direct relationship between the development of these skills and later success in school. This connection with both present and future developments was also made by Denham and Weissberg (2004) who claimed that future academic, intrapersonal and interpersonal skills are impacted by the early social and emotional learning. They maintained that this aspect of children’s development can therefore not be negated

  Using Social and Emotional Instructional Activities… 

185

and should be given central importance in any early childhood education programme. Consequently, they advocated for universal and targeted social and emotional programmes that are “infused in the fabric of the entire early childhood programmes, classroom climate, school ecology and family-school partnerships and cultural sensitive” (p.  42). In this chapter, we contend that Jamaica’s early childhood education curriculum is an example of this kind of universal and targeted approach that allows children to learn and develop social and emotional skills through culturally relevant content and pedagogy. Creating ideas of the nation in the process of children’s early development ties in with fostering social and emotional competences. As a benchmark of child development, social and emotional skills are necessary for becoming a good citizen. Barbarin (1993, p. 381) identifies social development as the growth of abilities and dispositions that are the basis for emotional adjustment and competence in meeting the demands of the social environment. It includes development of favorable personal, ethnic and gender identity, emotion regulation, prosocial behaviour and a capacity for intimate relations.

As Barbarin posits, social and emotional development encompasses the formation of a positive identity, suggesting an inextricable link with prosocial skills such that positive development of either influences the other. Direct and explicit teaching of social and emotional skills through concepts of self, national and cultural identity are clearly expected to shape how children form ideas about themselves, their peers and their position in the world. Direct, teacher-led instruction as framed by the curriculum is one of the key interactional processes (Ashdown & Bernard, 2012) through which children in their relationships with teachers form identity, and the involvement of parents and community in cultural events designed as part of the curriculum reinforces children’s early learning about identity. These interactions are deemed as essential lessons in, “mutual understanding and perspective taking, cooperation, conflict management and personality differences and similarities” (Committee on the Science of Children Birth to Age 8: Deepening and Broadening the Foundation for Success; Board on Children, 2015, p.  147). The early

186 

D. Edwards-Kerr and J. Spencer-Ernandez

childhood curriculum through its content and pedagogy sets up what children can know and learn about themselves, their communities and associated cultural practices, other groups of people and their position in the world. For Jamaica’s early childhood education curriculum, this is more than playtime. It is a deliberative construction of what the Jamaican child is expected to be, the role they are to play as citizens, and how they interact with the society and the rest of the world.

J amaica’s Early Childhood Curriculum for 4and 5-Year-Old Children This section examines how the thematic content of Jamaica’s early childhood education curriculum for children aged 4 and 5 years creates identity. The ECE curriculum was designed based on a thematic integrated approach to expose children to themes relevant to their own life experiences (p. vi). Krogh and Slentz (2001) endorse the integrated thematic approach to create connections between concept development and children’s life experiences. What children know about their own context is taken to be the basis of what is to be taught—the curriculum content. In the case of Jamaica’s curriculum, the fabric of the nation, that is the people, the land, the culture and the language, is embedded in five developmental objectives designed to shape the young Jamaican citizen. These objectives are wellness, valuing culture, intellectual empowerment, respect for self, others and the environment, and resilience as shown in the extract. These objectives are expressly social and emotional concepts that have been generalised across the curriculum as part of a comprehensive programme to affect children’s development, in other words, all the children’s activities are underpinned by these learning goals (Denham & Weissberg, 2004). Being a good citizen is equated here with healthy social and emotional competences. Emphasis in the design for implementation is on the cross-cutting nature of these objectives for the teaching and learning of early and emergent skills. As shown in the extract, the goal is to create a citizen with behaviours and mindset that accepts self and others, that values diversity and in effect decentres all forms of othering. Certainly, this is a way that “brings the core values of the indigenous

  Using Social and Emotional Instructional Activities… 

187

knowledge into the classroom as a way of animating a transformational discourse” (Maina, 2004, p. 2305). The transformational discourse here is underpinned by de-centring all forms for others to focus on diversity in the nation-state. Extract from the Early Childhood Curriculum for Children 4- and 5-Year-Old: Getting Ready for Life One important aim of early childhood curricula is to help children to achieve the broad developmental goals and outcomes considered desirable within their particular community. In this regard, representatives of 19 Caribbean countries met in Barbados in 2001 to identify desirable learning outcomes for young Caribbean children by the end of the early childhood period. The group identified the following six desirable learning outcomes or qualities for young Caribbean children: Wellness—a child who is healthy, strong and well adjusted. The child will be physically well developed with good motor coordination and will feel generally good about himself or herself. Communication—a child who is an effective communicator. The child will understand and use language appropriately. Valuing Culture—a child who values his or her own culture and that of others. The child will appreciate, value and respect the many aspects of his or her own culture as well as that of others. Intellectual Empowerment—a child who is a critical thinker and an independent learner. The child will be aware of how to gather, process and use information to solve problems and also to understand what happens in the wider environment. Respect for Self, Others and the Environment—a child who respects self, others and the environment. The child will understand the difference between acceptable and unacceptable behaviours; will be able to express empathy for others and build positive, respectful relationships with others; the child shows concern for the environment. Resilience—a child who has coping skills. The child will show persistence with challenging tasks, take risks and use acceptable social skills to cope with difficulties (p. v).

Thematic integration is achieved through infusing these objectives with simplified concepts of the self, cultural, ethnic and national identity. The objectives and content presented in the section below were established to create a sense of belonging and emotional attachment to the nation-state. The nation-state is framed for young children as a multi-­ ethnic melting-pot, as articulated by the Jamaican motto—‘out of many, one people’. The curriculum aims to forge early in children’s self-identity, notions of inclusivity and diversity. Through this simplified notion of the

188 

D. Edwards-Kerr and J. Spencer-Ernandez

nation, children are taught directly and indirectly that regardless of where they came from, they belong to the nation-state. These ideas although complex1 aim to position children and their communities within the socio-cultural nexus that holds together national unity and cohesion in Jamaica. Given the structure of education and its role in the society to develop good citizens, the early childhood education curriculum is a good place to start this process of identity formation. For example, Millei (2015, p. 4) asserts, Learning and forming attachment to the nation is promulgated in children through many processes and arenas, including education systems, the family, social policy, marketing and consumerism. National education policies and curricula (re)produce ideas of the nation.

The curriculum objectives and content we surmise were created to produce the idea of a unified Jamaican identity made up of many parts that all work together regardless of ethnicity or cultural practices, and all are positioned as having a place and a role in the society. In the section that follows, we show how this is being achieved in early childhood classrooms in Jamaica.

 he Making of Identity in Education T in Jamaica’s ECE Curriculum for 4and 5-Year-Old Children The Study What happens in early childhood classrooms is of interest to practitioners, parents and policymakers for ensuring that children’s cognitive and social and emotional developments are being enabled. The examination  The complexities of the politics of colonisation, conflict, emancipation and independence cannot be infused in the early childhood curriculum given the stage of development. The introduction to multiple ethnic groups with different cultural practices is therefore presented as a harmonious whole with no reference to inequalities, power struggles and hierarchies. These are realities that children contend with later as they experience the society. 1

  Using Social and Emotional Instructional Activities… 

189

of curriculum practices in this study draws on observations of social and emotional instructional activities in 4- and 5-year-old classrooms. Observations provide description of practices in the context in which these take places. Our aim was to address the question of how identity was being created in early childhood classrooms through instructional activities based on themes from the national curriculum for 4- and 5-year-­ old children. While previous researchers such as Good (1988, pp. 375–376) point to the role of observations in classrooms as a means of identifying problems, in this study we take the view that observations can show different instructional practices in cultural context. Importantly, the descriptions of observations have the potential to inform future policy and practice in early childhood education. Our focus is that the social and emotional learning process embedded in the curriculum is significant to the making of identity in young children. We seek to examine how teachers implement the early childhood education curriculum through the themes on national and cultural identity. The observations of teachers’ use of instructional activities allow us to show how identity making is embedded in the teaching and learning processes. The data in this study is based on 193 classroom observations in 52 early childhood institutions in Term 1. Early childhood institutions in Jamaica fall into three categories as shown in Table 1. A total of 2239, 4- and 5-year-old children were in the classrooms observed. The classroom observation tool was designed to examine instruction in ECE settings, specifically, classroom environment, teacher-student interaction, classroom management and instructional practices. The instrument was previously validated in schools in Jamaica, Monserrat and the Commonwealth of Dominica, and provides reliable quantitative data about the key indicators on a 3-point Likert scale: not observed, observed sometimes and observed all the time. Qualitative data was generated from the researchers’ descriptions of lessons including topics and sub-­topics, instructional activities and events, resources used, arrangement of the classrooms, and teacher and students’ interaction and talk. Multiple observers across different schools and age groupings were used to identify biases and triangulation of the descriptions. The data used in this chapter shows how Jamaica’s early childhood curriculum for 4- and 5-year-old children embeds identity creation in both the content and practice of the curriculum.

190 

D. Edwards-Kerr and J. Spencer-Ernandez

Table 1   School sample

School type Basic Kindergarten (independent preparatory schools) Infant department (in primary schools)

Number of schools in the sample

Average student/ teacher ratio

Number of observations

22 10

29:1 16:1

122 32

20

31:1

39

The Making of Identity in the Curriculum Four forms of identity development are embedded in Jamaica’s early childhood education curriculum for 4- and 5-year-old children—self, cultural and ethnic, and national identity. The formation of identity is essential to healthy social and emotional developments. That is, what children think about themselves and others, and how they see themselves in relation to the world have long-term effects on how they make decisions, interact with different groups of people, deal with conflict and act upon the society as a citizen (Dan, 2014; Payton et al., 2008; Robinson & Diaz, 2006). For example, Robinson and Diaz (2006, p. 5) emphasise the need to account for the identities of children, not as passive vessels but as emerging agents. They indicate that “children from early ages constitute, perpetuate and negotiate normalizing discourses around their identities, and are actively regulating not only their own behaviour accordingly, but also that of others around them”. Consequently, universal social and emotional learning programmes are critical for shaping how children think about themselves and others and even counteract negative representations that they acquire from home and community. Jamaica has deployed its national early childhood education curriculum as universal social and emotional programming to officially set out what young children should learn about themselves and others, and how interactions between different groups of people should be framed. The curriculum is focused on the socio-cultural ideals of the Jamaican society, with emphasis on ethnic and cultural diversity and difference as the

  Using Social and Emotional Instructional Activities… 

191

overarching principle that guides national unity. As shown in the extract, all the objectives are presented at the social and emotional levels and are expected to be applied generically across the early childhood education system. This means that the content and practice of the curriculum have important developmental implications for children. In this section, we present the results of observations of the delivery of the curriculum in classrooms of children aged 4 and 5 years.

The 4-Year-Old Curriculum Self-Identity Term 1 of the curriculum for 4-year-old children focuses on self and cultural identity. Under the ‘celebrating me’ and ‘celebrations’ themes, children explore different aspects of their physical and social selves, including identification and recognition of their names and their peers, how they are part of a family, and parts of their body and their functions. The activities were woven into how the classrooms were structured. For example, in most of the classrooms, name tags were posted on the chairs and this was an everyday activity for the children to identify their chair by the name tag. In addition to learning to spell and recognise their name, they learn to read and spell the names of their peers as well. They also acquired a sense of belonging due to the space that was created for them in the classrooms. The self was also directly taught to be gendered, male or female, and children learnt that there are essential differences between the two. For example, ‘my name is Roy, I am a boy, I can kick a ball.’, or ‘my name is Pam, I am a girl, I like dolls’. The gendered self was taught as embodied in a physical state, as well as, expected roles such as, ‘I am a boy, one day I will be a husband’, or ‘I am a girl, one day I will be a wife’. Family was a major theme. The lessons were structured to introduce children to different types of families—single-parent, extended and nuclear. In some cases, the whole class discussion focused on the children identifying the members in their family and the type of family to which

192 

D. Edwards-Kerr and J. Spencer-Ernandez

they belong. In addition, children were asked to make posters at home with pictures of themselves and their families. At school, this allowed the children to ‘show and talk’ about the people in the pictures and how they were connected to them. Children’s frame of reference for identity development starts with the family where they learn a sense of belonging and about their relationship to others. The instructional activities positioned the children as individuals through individual deskwork from workbook or worksheets. These were activities such as colouring objects related to a letter, drawing or writing. The children were also positioned as part of a group through role-play activities, teacher-led guided learning such as a small group watching a video of a wedding and discussing different aspects of the event, and through performing and dancing with each other. Larger group activities were also seen in the general assembly where all the children participated as part of the story of Jamaica’s national heroes and showed that they were part of a whole community—the school.

Cultural Identity “Cultural identities reflect the common historical experiences and shared cultural codes which provides us, as ‘one people’” (Hall, 1997a, p. 51). Throughout the content of the curriculum and the teaching methods observed, there was a constancy in articulating a single ‘Jamiacanness’ (Nettleford, 1978, p. 6) as reflected in ‘out of many, one people’. It is the cultural codes of language, singing, dancing and our oral tradition that holds us as ‘one people’ regardless of where we came from. Dancing and storytelling were two of the main activities used to engage children in small- and whole-group activities. Singing mostly occurred on a whole class basis. These cultural practices are part of the historical reality of Jamaican life (Nettleford, 1978) and have been the way through which various characteristics of the people who came have been infused into the society. For example, children tell stories about their families, and ‘the time when…’ something happened. The telling of stories from their lived experiences gave the children the opportunity to use Standard Jamaican English (SJE) as well as Jamaican Creole (JC), their home language. The

  Using Social and Emotional Instructional Activities… 

193

oral method is one way to activate the process of learning to enable children to ‘try-out’ language as they hear it, as well as develop the skill of articulating the self and its point of view. The use of language in this way is critical to later language development and reading comprehension (Al-Mansour & Al-Shorman, 2011; Isbell, Sobol, Lindauer, & Lowrance, 2004). Role-play and dress-up were dominant instructional activities observed in all the early childhood settings. As shown in Fig. 1, all the celebrations of life and heroism that are part of the reality of being an individual, and, of being part of a society were realised through experiential learning with children involved in ‘playing’ a role or participating in a ritual. For example, there were mock plantation-style weddings, and, birthday parties that allowed the children to experience the cultural rituals associated with these celebrations in families and communities. The cultural self through dancing and singing were very evident parts of these celebrations; children did the waltz as the wedding dance, or they performed popular dances as part of the birthday celebration. Kumina dance2 (Sloat, 2010) as part of the retained West African practice in Jamaica was also included in National Heroes’ Day celebrations. Dancing and singing are taken-for-­ granted part of everyday life, and by embedding these cultural expressions in the curriculum, it allows young children to connect with the emotions and behaviours that are expected as part of these celebrations. The celebrations of the national heroes were mostly done on a whole school basis, with each class contributing to the presentation. This positioned the children inside the normalised discourse of our heroes and why they are heroes, liberators and freedom fighters on behalf of creating the Jamaican identity as, all of us as, ‘one people’. For example, the Heroes Song indicated in Fig. 1 was used to galvanise a sense of belonging to and identification with the cause of the national heroes.

 Ritual dance of Jamaica’s indigenous religion.

2

Theme

Topic

Sub-topic

Celebrating me

I am special

Who am I? Where do I belong? Family

Instructional activities/events observed in classrooms Me poem – I am special, there is nobody like me, nobody has my fingers and toes, nobody has my feet, In all the world there is nobody like me Name tags are posted on each chair; the children are asked to identify their peer who uses that chair.

I look and feel My body; special things I do to take care of my body; my mouth How do others take care of me? In what ways do I grow and what do I need to grow? How do I keep my body healthy? Needs of the body What can I do with my nose?

Celebrations

I can do special The senses things Creative me National Heroes’ Who are national heroes? Day

Children take to school a picture board of themselves with their families; these were posted on the wall of classroom. Each child gets a turn at talking about the pictures and who the people are in their families. Label basic parts of the body on a worksheet — head, hands, mouth, eye etc. The body song – ‘Head, Shoulders, Knees and Toes…’ Teeth song – ‘brush your teeth the way they grow…’ Go, grow and glow foods – tasting (fruit salad), colouring pictures of the different types of food Taste – the tongue National assembly participate and what Jamaica

Heroes’ Day general (whole school): children in talking about the heroes makes them heroes to

Role- play and dress up in Jamaican national costume Heroes song – Forward, forever united, Granny Nanny from Nanny Town symbol of unity and strength…

Weddings

What is a wedding?

Discussion of the symbols of Jamaica – the Coat of Arms, the national flower, tree, bird Video of a wedding, teacher guided the children through talking about different aspects of the wedding including the clothing worn by the bride and the groom Role-play of wedding reception-the type of dress/food/drink/where and what to show that they were married

Fig. 1  Four-year-old curriculum components—Term 1

  Using Social and Emotional Instructional Activities… 

Birthdays Christmas

195

The wedding dance – children role-play the waltz to music Role-play - birthday party with balloons and party decorations Write letter C Children help the teacher to hang Christmas decorations

Fig. 1  (continued)

The 5-Year-Old Curriculum Ethnic Identity Ethnic identity operates at the level of belonging to a group of people with similar physical, cultural and language characteristics (Bulmer & Solomos, 1999; Hall, 1997b). As indicated earlier Jamaica is an anthology of the people who came from Africa, Europe, China, India and the Middle East. This diversity is the source of Jamaica’s motto, ‘out of many, one people’. But ethnicity is almost always related to racial characteristics, and while some find the idea of race redundant, across the world racial types are seen and used as sources of difference. The curriculum focuses on cultural aspects of the various ethnic groups which Nettleford refers to as “ethnocultural” groups (p. 5).3 As shown in Fig. 2, there is an explicit focus on the use of group-work, and as observed in the lessons, there were often discussions that required the children to talk about their members to an ethnic group. During these discussions, it was observed that while some children were of membership in specific groups such as the Chinese or East Indians, the extent of dual heritage among most students confounded the identification of specific physical differences. Some teachers said that they used skin complexion and texture of the hair to distinguish between the groups.4  The relevant political power of these groups is not the focus of the chapter. However, we aim to let the reader know that we are very much aware of the power and associated struggles across the groups. 4  Of course, using these phenotypical characteristics create stereotypes, of black skin versus brown skin, or good hair versus bad hair; these are issues that have created significant ‘othering’ in contemporary Jamaican society. We might say, that skin complexion is related to social class and power, such that some Jamaicans have sought to bleach their entire body to appear brown. 3

196  Theme

D. Edwards-Kerr and J. Spencer-Ernandez Topic

Sub-topic

Instructional activities observed in the classrooms

Our

Out of many, To which group do I Discussion

country

one people

Jamaica our people

- Our

people

about

hair

and

skin

belong?

complexion.

How they celebrate

African drumming and dancing from

from Africa

invited guests

Whole class discussion about where the African slaves came from and some of the utensils they used included the Yabba, and the Katta. Our

people

How they celebrate?

from India

Mock Indian celebration of Diwali, ‘dress-up’,

food

tasting,

demonstrations of Indian dancing guest presenters Our

people

How they celebrate?

Role-play and dress-up for tea party

Clothing

Fieldtrip to local Mosque, dress-up in

from Europe Our from

people

the Religion

traditional Muslim clothing Colour the S objects

Middle East

Writing task – penmanship Our

people

from China

Clothing

Dress-up, children perform the dragon

How they celebrate

dance Use construction paper to make Chinese lanterns

Fig. 2  Five-year-old curriculum components—Term 1

  Using Social and Emotional Instructional Activities… 

197

The instructional activities introduced children to the cultural aspects of the different ethnic groups, such as how they celebrate. As such, activities included experiencing African drumming and dancing, the role of an Indian Diwali celebration, doing the Chinese Dragon dance or making Chinese lanterns in the Art and Craft lesson. There were also discussions about how the people who came, came to be in Jamaica in very simplified terms. For example, Africans as slaves on ships—teacher placed the children on the floor to sit tightly together, and then asked them how they felt; the Chinese and Indians as indentured workers, and the Europeans as Planters. The dress-up role-play of the tea party with real tea from cups and saucers and little sandwiches was used to represent the English colonialists, a representation quite far from the reality. We believe that these simplified representations promote the idea of out of many one people— the way to define unity through diversity while masking the conflict and struggles between the groups.

National Identity National identity relates to the connection with a country or nation-state that is most fundamentally a way to mark out differences across national political boundaries. National identity invokes the notion of a community bound together by a common history and shared cultural practices because of that history. Hall (1997a) referred to this as “imagined communities” wherein the shared history has the power to singularly define a group of people. We contend that through the content and the modalities of the activities, Jamaica is presented to the children as a single community, imagined and real. The themes ‘Our Country Jamaica—Our People’ and the sub-topic of national heroes, both set the basis for further work on national identity which follows in Term 3 for 5-year-old children—“Jamaica Land We Love”. These themes connect the children to the past historical experiences of the people who came, the fight for equal rights, justice and independence by the national heroes, and the celebration of personhood and freedom. The community of Jamaicans was built through the instructional activities and events conducted as small groups, whole class or school-wide events. These allowed the children to interact,

198 

D. Edwards-Kerr and J. Spencer-Ernandez

build networks and showed their interests and talents to other members of the group. The constancy of these group activities established the classroom and the school as a microcosm of the wider Jamaican community. Notably, the discussion of the various ethnic groups was done in most cases, not as separated identities but as part of what is ‘our people’. This is the kind of inclusive notion of nationality that would be ideal since there are no exclusions or ‘others’ among the people who came. As we will discuss in the next section, this sterilised way of presenting these very complex ideas in a curriculum for 4- and 5-year-old children, while problematic for discussing the nuances of the power and struggle, it is also an attempt to provide young children with a narrative for life, that is, ‘who I am’. Through the social and emotional activities described in Figs. 1 and 2, children were introduced to the political development of the world as well as the emergence of Jamaica as a nation-state. For the time being, for children aged 4 and 5 years, Jamaica is a place where they live and belong to, and where these socio-cultural histories come together.

Discussion Throughout this chapter, we have sought to show how Jamaica’s early childhood education curriculum attempts to link children into notions of self, ethnic, cultural and national identities. The curriculum reproduces the idea of national unity through positioning the child as part of the nation, diverse ethnic groups and cultural practices. It is the idea that all persons regardless of their ethnic or cultural background are part of the nation and have a role to play. Jamaica’s motto, ‘out of many, one people’, promotes inclusivity and acceptance of diversity, which is written into the curriculum as content and skill to be learnt. It also suggests that the notion of any citizen being the ‘other’ is decentred, although the experience of some Jamaicans signifies othering. For indigenisation to take place in the society, cultural values associated with the national identity must be experienced and institutionalised (Nettleford, 1978, 2004). What is taught in and through the education system is important for this to happen. The need to promote national unity as the definition of Jamaican identity is an imperative of the process

  Using Social and Emotional Instructional Activities… 

199

of indigenisation. Nettleford (1978) argues that binaries such as the “black-white dissensus of the vintage Plantation Caribbean” (p. 69) are counter to indigenisation and that indeed such dichotomies run counter to the process. The process must be reflective of all the people who came. Nettleford asserts that ‘cultural intolerance and suspicion’, that is the ‘othering’ of some ethnic groups only undermines the process. The curriculum in its simplified narrative of national unity obscures the power struggle and incohesion that often exist between identified ethnic groups in the Caribbean to ensure that young children can carry with them a sense of belonging to the nation, and a sense that others even if different also belong to the nation. We are aware that some children enter school with discriminatory attitudes and stereotypes based on the contexts of their home and communities. They have defined ideas of who they think some people are and who they can play with (Millei, 2015; Robinson & Diaz, 2006). This is an area that the ECE curriculum does not address overtly. Nevertheless, the use of group activities mainly targets the building of collective action in a social and community space. The main issue is the categorisation of early childhood institutions into Basic, Infant and Preparatory/Kindergarten (see Table 1), which means that the children in any of these are likely to come from a similar social and economic class and even ethnic background. Children in Basic and Infant schools will largely reflect the African-Jamaican presence, which is the mass of the people, and those in Preparatory/Kindergarten are usually middle- to upper-class children with a good mix of Indian, Chinese, European and African-Jamaican population. In other words, ethnic and social diversity is not evenly spread across the early childhood school system. One result is the achievement gap (Spencer-Ernandez & Edwards-Kerr, in press); another is the limitations on the experience of some children to interact and create relationships across groups of difference. This is an area for which curriculum offers no answer, although the objectives do project respect for self and others. The content and the pedagogy fall short of how to help children challenge notions of exclusion or stereotypes. These issues are endemic and structural, thus creating fractures in national unity and identity. We contend that the curriculum is a start towards institutionalisation of cultural values of inclusion and diversity as part of the process of

200 

D. Edwards-Kerr and J. Spencer-Ernandez

indigenisation. Indeed, the ECE curriculum in its efforts to integrate social and emotional learning into the thematic content of the curriculum is at this point the only aspects of the school system that is focused in this way.

References Al-Mansour, N. S., & Al-Shorman, R. e. A. (2011). The effect of teacher’s storytelling aloud on the reading comprehension of Saudi elementary stage students. Journal of King Saud University  – Languages and Translation, 23(2), 69–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksult.2011.04.001 Ashdown, D., & Bernard, M. (2012). Can explicit instruction in social and emotional learning skills benefit the social-emotional development, well-­being, and academic achievement of young children? Early Childhood Education Journal, 39, 397–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-­011-­0481-­x Barbarin, O. A. (1993). Emotional and social development of African American children. Journal of Black Psychology, 19(4), 381–390. https://doi. org/10.1177/00957984930194001 Berg, J., Osher, D., Same, M. R., Nolan, E., Benson, D., & Jacobs, N. (2017). Identifying, defining and measuring social and emotional competencies. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Bogues, A. (2011). Rex Nettleford: The canepiece, labour, education and the Caribbean intellectual. Caribbean Quarterly, 57(3/4), 20–32. Bulmer, M., & Solomos, J. (1999). Introduction. In M. Bulmer & J. Solomos (Eds.), Ethnic and racial studies today. London and New York: Routledge. Committee on the Science of Children Birth to Age 8: Deepening and Broadening the Foundation for Success; Board on Children, Y., and Families; Institute of Medicine; National Research Council. (2015). Transforming the workforce for children birth through age 8: A unifying foundation. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih. gov/books/NBK310550/ Dan, M. (2014). Early childhood identity: Ethnicity and acculturation. Journal of Education Culture and Society, 1, 145–157. https://doi.org/10.15503/ jecs20141-­145-­157 Denham, S. A., & Weissberg, R. P. (2004). Social-emotional learning in early childhood – What we know and to go from here. In E. Chesebrough, P. King,

  Using Social and Emotional Instructional Activities… 

201

T. P. Gullotta, & M. Bloom (Eds.), A blueprint for the promotion of prosocial behaviour in early childhood. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. Good, T. L. (1988). Observational research…Grounding theory in classrooms. Educational Psychologist, 23(4), 375–379. https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15326985ep2304_5 Hall, S. (1997a). Cultural identity and diaspora. In K. Woodward (Ed.), Identity and difference (pp. 51–61). London and Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Hall, S. (1997b). The local and the global: Globalisation and ethnicity. In A.  McClintock, A.  Mufti, & E.  Shohat (Eds.), Dangerous liaisons: Gender, Nation and post-colonial perspectives. Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press. Isbell, R., Sobol, J., Lindauer, L., & Lowrance, A. (2004). The effects of storytelling and story reading on the oral language complexity and story comprehension of young children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(3), 157–163. Krogh, S. L., & Slentz, K. L. (2001). The early childhood curriculum. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publisher. Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Class, race and family life. Berkely and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Maina, F. (2004). Disrupting preconceptions: Postcolonialism and education. Teachers’ College Record, 106(12), 2304–2311. Millei, Z. (2015). The cultural politics of ‘childhood’ and ‘nation’: Space, mobility and a global world. Global Studies of Childhood, 5(1), 3–6. Nettleford, R. (1978). Caribbean cultural identity: The case of Jamaica. Kingston: Institute of Jamaica. Nettleford, R. (2004). Re-engineering Caribbean cultural enterprise/institutions: Agenda for the future. Paper presented at The William G.  Demas Lecture Tobago. Payton, J., Weissberg, R.  P., Durlak, J.  A., Dymnicki, A.  B., Taylor, R.  D., Schellinger, K. B., et al. (2008). The positive impact of social and emotional learning for kindergarten to eighth-grade students: Findings from three scientific reviews. Chicago, IL: Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning. Robinson, K. H., & Diaz, C. J. (2006). Diversity and difference in early childhood education: Issues for theory and practice. Berkshire: Open University Press. Sloat, S. (2010). Making Caribbean dance: Continuity and creativity in Island cultures. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida. Spencer-Ernandez, J and Edwards-Kerr, D., (in press). The Early Years Matter: Status of Jamaican Students’ Achievement in Early Childhood Education. Kingston: Ian Randle Publishers.

Building on Funds of Knowledge: A Basis for Reconceptualising Early Childhood Care and Education in the Caribbean Zoyah Kinkead-Clark

Introduction As a college professor, I have the opportunity to frequently attend conference presentations where I am exposed to innovative research and new ways of looking at current practices in early childhood care and education. In 2017, I attended an international conference where I had the opportunity to listen to a presentation which examined children’s play spaces in England. The presenter was wonderful, engaging and articulate. One of her main points was about the preponderance of manufactured plastic and metal playgrounds which dominated nurseries, preschools and communities in England and how they limited children’s creativity. The presenter displayed scores of images to illustrate her point and argued for more green spaces where children would be encouraged to play amongst nature. Many in the audience seemed to agree with her point Z. Kinkead-Clark (*) Early Childhood Education, The University of the West Indies, Mona, Kingston, Jamaica © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Z. Kinkead-Clark, K.-A. Escayg (eds.), Reconceptualizing Quality in Early Childhood Education, Care and Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69013-7_9

203

204 

Z. Kinkead-Clark

and were quite vocal about it. As the lone member from the Caribbean in the audience I explained to her how interesting comments were because though our green spaces had worked well, for many decades schools in the Caribbean region were cutting down their trees and removing their green spaces in order to build more plastic and metal playgrounds which they believed were in keeping with the highly promoted best practices which took place in more developed nations such as England. This situation was particularly jarring and really led me to ponder how and why early childhood education in the Caribbean has been overwhelmingly influenced by localities and theories quite dissimilar to our own. This has resulted in us slavishly adhering to practices which do not reflect our own culture. This is often done just so that we can keep up with the best practice standards established by more economically advanced states. In essence, why do Caribbean early childhood institutions feel the need to dismiss the value of what has worked for us for several years (such as the open green playground spaces) solely to keep up with what we believe or more importantly, what we have been told is “better”?

Purpose of the Chapter The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. (Lorde, 2001)

This chapter addresses the benefits of reconceptualising early childhood development (ECD) in the Caribbean by building on funds of knowledge. Using Moll, Amanti, Neff and Gonzalez’s (1992) definition of concept of funds of knowledge, I argue that within the robust discourse surrounding best practices in ECD and improving children’s developmental outcomes, there must be a space for teachers, administrators and other key stakeholders to build on locally acquired and culturally grounded knowledge of Caribbean children and “Caribbean centrism” to create a more relevant model for our approach to the education and care of children in the Caribbean. In this chapter I therefore argue that a reconceptualisation of ECD is needed where teachers are supported to build on their funds of knowledge to create more enabling environments for children based on their intimate understanding of who the children

  Building on Funds of Knowledge: A Basis for Reconceptualising… 

205

really are (Moll et al., 1992). I position this on the basis that Caribbeancentric understandings of children are necessary because it provides more enabling environments where children see themselves, their culture and their communities reflected in the school context.

Funds of Knowledge According to Moll et al. (1992), “funds of knowledge refer[s] to the historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills” (p. 133). González, Moll and Amanti (2006) note that this cultural knowledge is predominantly acquired through interacting with, and having lived experiences within, a particular community so that one is attuned to the subtle and more obvious socio-cultural practices. In this regard, funds of knowledge could simply be having an understanding of the local cooking practices of a family, recognising the significance of specific colours to a community or, more so, having an understanding of the unique burial practices of a specific ethnic group. Teachers lean quite heavily on their funds of knowledge as they carry out their professional duties. Saathoff (2015), in her examination of pre-­ service teachers, working with Mexican and American-Mexican students, for instance, noted that pre-service teachers used their knowledge of community cultural practices to understand the children they had encounters with in the classroom context. Similarly, Hedges (2007), in her examination of the use of interest-guided curriculum in two early childhood classrooms in Australia, also concluded that funds of knowledge imply an authentic understanding of the home and community practices children engage with throughout their daily lives. In her study, Hedges (2007) noted that teachers’ knowledge of what children were interested in required a depth of understanding of the individual child and the families and communities from which they came. Research is very clear about the benefits of how teachers’ funds of knowledge benefit them in the classroom. For one, cultural relevance is ensured where teachers are able to make reference to local practices that children can relate to and use these within the teaching and learning process. Likewise, building on funds of knowledge also empowers children.

206 

Z. Kinkead-Clark

They are validated when they are able to see themselves reflected in the learning space which makes learning more relevant and contextually appropriate. This practice therefore minimises the dissonance between home and school which is a frequent concern for many children.

 aking a Space for Funds of Knowledge M in a Post-colonial Era The … process of colonization took various forms which included, among others, class, gender, inequality, language and race. (Lebeloane, 2017)

Plantocracy or the power of the ruling social class of plantation owners in the West Indies gave rise to wealth untold in many European nations. At the zenith of the Colonial Era, plantocracy exponentially increased when Western European countries spread their wings and laid claim to the majority of the countries in the Global South which include the islands of the Caribbean. For almost half a millennia, these islands were conquered, ruled, re-conquered and moulded in the ways and likeness of their mother countries. Beyond shaping the architecture and laws of the colonies, colonisation also cemented its influence on society by shaping education, social mores, systems, structures and the philosophical underpinnings governing society. Beckles (2013), preeminent Caribbean historian, noted that for the islands of the Caribbean, whom for the most part gained independence in the past 50 years, the legacy of colonisation continues to seize a stronghold. Beckles (2013) concluded that not only are these effects in obvious ways, but also by more subtle and insidious means. Similar to the findings of Lebeloane (2017), who drew on the African experience, Beckles noted that a major agenda of the Colonial leaders was to shame and malign the value of the cultural practices of the African slaves and the indentured servants who followed after. As illuminated by Lebeloane (2017), “colonization took various forms which included, among others, class, gender, inequality, language and race”. He further noted that colonisation through its impact on education systems enabled schools to

  Building on Funds of Knowledge: A Basis for Reconceptualising… 

207

[serve] as laboratories in which social injustices such as class, gender, language and racial inequality were inculcated, tested, implemented and perpetuated. While few can deny that the socio-economic and socio-political features of the Anglo-Caribbean countries are of such where colonial practices flourish and plant firmer roots, the need to decolonise early childhood education continues to be a necessary goal for the region. In this regard decolonising early childhood education is not merely about ensuring that characters in storybooks reflect the skin tones of the majority of the children in our schools. While important, it also represents the need to reframe current practices and contextualise ECD by recognising and valuing the uniqueness of “Caribbeanness” and how this informs who and what our Caribbean children are. In order to do this, it requires the need to transform pedagogical approaches used in schools and challenge beliefs about what our children need in order to thrive. In order to achieve this, it warrants consideration about what is perceived best practices in ECD which have been imported from other countries align with the needs and realities of our Caribbean children. I must insert that this is not to say that the globally accepted theoretical foundation upon which ECD is built is flawed. Rather this is a call for us as Caribbean people to question what more or how else can we do things? For instance, beyond the foundational theories proposed by Montessori, Piaget and Dewey are there Caribbean theories that can also be drawn on which will allow us to better understand our Caribbean children? While the theories promoted by the former named theorists have been quite useful in enabling us to generally understand children and how they develop, we need to ask the question how else can our understanding of children and the teaching and learning process be enhanced. For example, how can Roopnarine’s (2013) work on Caribbean child development be used to design more relevant instruction for children? How about Nettleford’s (1979) work? How can his rich studies on Caribbean culture inform our Caribbean classroom pedagogical practices? How about the work of Dudley Grant—the father of the Caribbean early childhood movement? How can we use his work to inform our ECD Caribbean practices?

208 

Z. Kinkead-Clark

Reconceptualising ECD by building on teachers’ funds of knowledge is hardly unique. Research actually affirms the need to contextualise approaches to ECD. For example, we now know that differences in child-­ rearing, ethnic diversity, geographical location and socio-economic status have implications for the developmental trajectories of children. How have we shaped and shifted our classroom instruction to take advantage of these diversities within the Caribbean early childhood space? More importantly, how can we do this, what would it look like? As established by Roopnarine (2013) and Pacini-Ketchabaw and Pence (2005), how children are supported must be aligned with the cultural and ecological contexts from which they come. It must reflect the realities of children’s lives and the multiplicity of factors which shape who they are and what they have the potential to become. As the region continues to increase its research output, more empirically validated research can be used as the basis to develop Caribbean-­ centric ECD practices. For instance, the findings of the two previously done Jamaican Birth Cohort Studies of 1986 and 2011 (longitudinal studies conducted on over 20,000 Jamaican children researchers to complete in-depth research on Jamaican children born in 1986 and 2011) have provided tremendous insight into the contextual nature of children’s development (McCaw-Binns et  al., 2011). Early findings of the 2011 study, for example, now provide a basis to challenge previously used measures of children’s physical development trajectories and now enable local Jamaican doctors to understand how Jamaican children’s physical developmental milestones differ from other children. It is important to note that this is hardly unique as these findings support those of Ertem et al. (2018) whose cross-sectional, observational study conducted in Argentina, India, South Africa and Turkey noted differences in children’s development across different continents. It is quite interesting to note that despite the increasing research which has challenged the “one-size-fits-all” approach to understanding children and how they develop as a region, we have not fully infused this knowledge in our practices. In fact, despite local and regionally derived knowledge which testifies to the dangers of a “one-size-fits-all” approach to our ECD practices, there still remains strong adherence to many practices which we now know are not wholly reflective of the needs of our

  Building on Funds of Knowledge: A Basis for Reconceptualising… 

209

Caribbean children. I argue this is one of the flagrant remnants of how Colonisation continues to shape our Caribbean identity and our Caribbean education system. Drawing on the works of Le Grange (2014), Lebeloane (2017) and Taylor and Pacini-Ketchabaw (2015), it is clear that colonisation (as a practice) still remains. As Taylor and Pacini-Ketchabaw (2015) explained, children in the early years often struggle for individuality largely because of colonist homogenising views of how they ought to be perceived. Lebeloane (2017), seemingly explaining the reasons for this, outlined that higher education institutions, as research spaces, have overwhelmingly been colonised. With this, he explained: “Colonialism led to the colonized losing their epistemology and ontology and adopting those of the colonizers”. The impact of this has been far-reaching. He noted that “[the] … process of colonization took various forms which included, among others, class, gender, inequality, language and race” (p. 1).

 hat Are Some of the Challenges to Decolonising W Education in Caribbean Countries? Adebisi (2016), similar to Le Grange (2014), drawing reference to the African experience notes that for African nations “colonial education had coloured indigenous … thought, classifying it as pre-logical and pre-­ critical, disregarding the fact that difference will not always suggest inferiority” (p.  434; 2016). As averred by King, a Caribbean education historian, (1999) this inherited system, which had disregarded the value of indigenous peoples and the richness of the culture they brought to education, was solely developed to entrench and maintain the existing stratified social system. For Caribbean countries, it is clear that the current framing of the region’s education system which was imported has not provided the vast majority of the region’s children with the capacity to “…forsake the [humble and lowly] occupation of [their ancestral] fathers” (King, 1999). As profoundly stated by Lorde (2001), “the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house”.

210 

Z. Kinkead-Clark

Similar to the experience of many African countries, following the declaration of independence for the islands of the Caribbean, time was not spent considering ways to use the indigenous practices of our ancestors to create a new way of educating the masses. Prior to independence from Britain, education solely benefited children from families of high economic means and the descendants of the ruling class. After Independence, very little had changed. For instance, in 1962 after Jamaica was liberated, the education of the majority uneducated masses (usually of Afro descent) was turned over to descendants of the formerly enslaved who were products of the very system they were required to dismantle. Needless to say, this situation had dire consequences as was evidenced by the 1970 census conducted almost a decade after Independence which revealed that less than 50% of the Jamaican population was literate (Manley, 1974). The reality is decolonisation of the political system did not necessarily result in decolonised practices because those who were left to develop the local education sector had themselves been products of a colonial system which was modelled off of and built on segregation and elitism (Miller, 1984; King, 1999). As a Caribbean region, critical discourse must be held as to who truly benefits from the current framing of our education system and what it really intends to achieve. Recent analyses of the system reveal that our early childhood systems have not been successful in enabling all children to achieve their full potential. In this regard, many children are ill-­ prepared for primary school (Kinkead-Clark, 2015b), and there is rife male underperformance (Hackett, 2004; Clarke, 2005; Cobbett & Younger, 2012); educational reform, which has been slow in coming, has not been able to adequately prepare our children for long-term success (World Bank, 2013) and where, though improving, literacy continues to be a major challenge for many Caribbean children (Warrican, 2015). While it is not being argued here that this is being deliberately done, it is proposed that current practices continue to result in unequal outcomes for children. By building on a system of inequality, which had largely been perfected throughout the over 400 years of Colonisation, the unshakeable legacy of elitism in education (where at the time racial identity or colourism served as the predominant means to determine who should and

  Building on Funds of Knowledge: A Basis for Reconceptualising… 

211

should not benefit from schooling) is still profoundly evident. While some of the countries in the region are more racially and ethnically diverse than others, namely Belize, Guyana and the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, for the most part, what is apparent is that for majority of the Caribbean region, the hegemonic system which entrenched the superiority and privilege of Whites during slavery still continues and has really been only been replaced with a hierarchical system along socio-­ economic lines.

 uilding on Funds of Knowledge Through B Reconceptualising ECD in the Caribbean. What Should It Look Like? We are going to emancipate ourselves from mental slavery because whilst others might free the body, none but ourselves can free the mind. (Marcus Garvey, 1938)

In this section, I want to briefly discuss how building on funds of knowledge could lend itself to a reconceptualisation of ECD in the Caribbean. I acknowledge while this could have implications for numerous practices, I focus more specifically on three broad areas which are discussed below. As aptly stated by Urban (2012), reconceptualising ECCE requires a radical shift in the outlook of children and the research conducted about them. This requires not only a reframing of our understanding of the factors which influence how we see children but rather it is also about how we harness the lessons learned from our history to inform our current practices. At the nexus of reconceptualist scholarship, as suggested by Pacini-­ Ketchabaw and Pence (2005), is the acknowledgement that one-­ dimensional understandings of children and the disregard of the multiplicity of factors which shape their development have the potential to stifle, rather than enable their development. Reconceptualist scholarship therefore illuminates the dangers of homogenising children (Dockett & MacNaughton, 2000; Sorin, 2005; Tesar, 2014). In order for Caribbean

212 

Z. Kinkead-Clark

countries to challenge the pervasive practice of this practice, an acknowledgement of the pitfalls and shortcomings of the current educational system must be done. This requires an honest examination of all the inputs of the sector including • the current goals and policies guiding early childhood programme development, • teacher education programmes and • interrogation of the discourse which both promotes universalism of child development and the basis of the arguments which validate this practice at the expense of the millions of children in our region.

 xamination of ECD Goals and Policies E in the Caribbean; a Balanced Approach Between Global and Local Practices Kinkead-Clark’s (2017) study which examined teachers’ perceptions of global influences on the Jamaican ECD sector indicates that many of them believe the policies which have been developed in recent years have largely been in response to “keeping up” and “fitting in” with what obtains in more developed nations. The findings of this study suggested that while teachers want to ensure Jamaican children are provided with opportunities similar to children in wealthier countries, the teachers also felt pressured to adopt some practices which they knew were not always in the best interest of the children they interacted with based on the unique contexts these children faced. Bown, Sumsion and Press (2009) in their assessment of factors, which inform politicians’ decision-making in ECD, conclude that while political will informed by international entities will influence the development of ECD policies, it is also important that consideration be given to the cultural and socio-economic realities of the children and the communities these children exist. To privilege international influence over contextual relevance is to minimise the value of indigenous knowledge of children and what they need to thrive.

  Building on Funds of Knowledge: A Basis for Reconceptualising… 

213

Teacher Education Programmes One of the criticisms of teacher education programmes is that they often seemed unable to prepare teachers adequately to succeed in the real classroom (Chunnu, 2009). Largely dissonant to the Caribbean realities, programmes promote generic understandings of children which lead to frustration on the part of novice teachers upon entry to the classroom. Kinkead-Clark’s (2017) study on the development of a contextual teacher education programme, for instance, noted that Jamaican teachers were eager for teacher education programmes which gave them tools to use in the local classroom. While the teachers expressed an appreciation for global ideas guiding early childhood pedagogy, they were also hungry for ideas which were pointed, targeted and reflective of the needs of Jamaican early childhood classrooms. It is important to note that understanding the needs of the local context must be driven by sound research. The alignment of research guided data with teacher education programme development is crucial in order to ensure teachers are exposed to relevant information. According to George, Henry-Wilson and Plunket (2016), some of the key goals in the reform of Jamaica’s teacher education for the twenty-first century are to ensure that programmes are adequately balanced (between content and pedagogy), meet the needs of teachers in both rural and urban settings and promote as a field of enquiry (p. 134).

 hallenging Universalist Perspectives C Child Development One of the harmful consequences of universalist perspectives of child development is that of ignoring some of the inherent differences in how children develop (Recchia & McDevitt, 2018). In this regard, an increasing number of researchers have recognised that homogenising children and their development has the potential to have negative consequences on their outcomes. For instance, as suggested by Martin and Fuller (2017, p. 94) in their research on Aboriginal children in Australia cautioned that contextualising education is not about having lower expectations of some

214 

Z. Kinkead-Clark

children and their families and communities. Rather, it is an acknowledgement that contextual differences in children’s lives warrant that unique supports need to be provided to ensure that they are still able to thrive. Recchia and McDevitt (2018), in their research, note that teachers often use their funds of knowledge (historically accumulated and culturally developed bodies of knowledge and skills p. 134) about child development along with theoretical knowledge acquired through instruction to determine how children ought to be supported during the teaching and learning process. As noted by Martin and Fuller (2017), this balance is a necessary part of maintaining a functioning classroom space especially when one considers the unique factors which shape children’s outcomes. Because children are not one dimensional, it requires a deeper understanding of who they are, the contexts from where they come and the cultural factors which inform their identify.

Where Do We Go from Here? I began this chapter with a narrative of my personal experience at an ECD conference where I had a personal encounter in how innovation and new ideas in ECD have caused tension in Caribbean spaces. This tension has often surrounded what ideas do we as Caribbean people wholeheartedly accept and what do we dismiss? How do we navigate the tensions which naturally occur as we seek to advance our own education systems in ways which honour who we are as people? Do we buy into the notion that what has worked for us for years is archaic or do we hold firmly onto them because they continue to work in spite of the fact that they counter what is promoted in more advanced spaces? Reconceptualising ECD by building on, and making a space for the funds of knowledge of teachers, school administrators and other key ECD stakeholders will provide us with rigorous change in how knowledge is constructed, what we perceive knowledge is and how we disseminate it. I reiterate the focus of this piece is not about minimising the value of renowned foundational theories of ECD. Rather, my goal is to appeal

  Building on Funds of Knowledge: A Basis for Reconceptualising… 

215

for the need to create a space for culture in the discourse about child development. I say this because as Caribbean nations embark on the long journey to improve the developmental outcomes of all children, it warrants that broad-scale approaches are used to ensure the success of this goal. Admittedly, this is easier said than done. We really have a number of things working against us including poverty gender bias, violence and poor teacher quality which is rife across islands. To overcome such issues it, therefore, means that innovative approaches to ECD need to be taken (Kinkead-Clark, 2017). I argue that one such way is to reconceptualise our approach to ECD by balancing teachers’ unique understanding of children and undergird that with foundational theoretical constructs. By doing so, teachers and other key stakeholders are empowered to harness the cultural knowledge they bring to the teaching and learning space.

References Adebisi, F. (2016). Decolonising education in Africa: Implementing the right to education by re-appropriating culture and indigeneity. Northern Ireland Legal Quarterly, 67(4), 433–451. Beckles, H. (2013). Britain’s black debt: Reparations for Caribbean slavery and native genocide. University of West Indies Press. Bown, K., Sumsion, J., & Press, F. (2009). Influences on politicians’ decision making for early childhood education and care policy: What do we know? what don’t we know? Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 10(3). https:// doi.org/10.2304/ciec.2009.10.3.194 Chunnu, W.  M. (2009). Whither are we drifting? Primary education policy in Jamaica (Doctoral dissertation, Ohio University). Clarke, C. (2005). Socialization and teacher expectations of Jamaican boys in schools: The need for a responsive teacher preparation program. International Journal of Educational Policy, Research, and Practice: Reconceptualizing Childhood Studies, 5(4), 3–34. Cobbett, M., & Younger, M. (2012). Boys’ educational ‘underachievement’ in the Caribbean: Interpreting the ‘problem’. Gender and Education, 24(6), 611–625.

216 

Z. Kinkead-Clark

Dockett, S., & MacNaughton, G. (Eds.). (2000). Reconceptualising early childhood #2 [Special issue]. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 25(2), 7–11 Ertem, I.  O., Krishnamurthy, V., Mulaudzi, M.  C., Sguassero, Y., Balta, H., Gulumser, O., et al. (2018). Similarities and differences in child development from birth to age 3 years by sex and across four countries: A cross-sectional, observational study. The Lancet Global Health, 6(3), e279–e291. Garvey, M. (1938, July). Black Man, 3 (10), 7–11 George, N., Henry-Wilson, M., & Plunkett, N. (2016). A case study in Jamaica’s reform of teacher education: Preparing teachers for the 21st century classroom. ICET 2016 60th World Assembly 60th Yearbook of Teacher Education. González, N., Moll, L. C., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). (2006). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Routledge. Hackett, R. S. (2004). Education in the Caribbean. Retrieved November 11, 2019, from http://uwispace.sta.uwi/dspace/bitstream/handle/2139/8864/ Raymond%20Hackett11.pdf?sequence=1. Hedges, H. (2007). Funds of knowledge in early childhood communities of inquiry. Unpublished PhD thesis. Palmerston North: Massey University. King, R. (1999). Education in the British Caribbean: The legacy of the nineteenth century. Educational reform in the Commonwealth Caribbean, 25–49. Kinkead-Clark, Z. (2015a). Issues to consider in the development of a contextualized post-graduate teacher education programme a case study of an early childhood programme. Journal of Education and Development in the Caribbean, 15(2), 38–52. Kinkead-Clark, Z. (2015b). ‘Ready for big school’: Making the transition to primary school–a Jamaican perspective. International Journal of Early Years Education, 23(1), 67–82. Kinkead-Clark, Z. (2017). Early childhood care and education in Jamaica. Stakeholders’ perceptions of global influences on a local space. Early Child Development and Care, 187, 1–12. Le Grange, L. (2014). Currere’s active force and the Africanisation of the university curriculum. South African Journal of Higher Education, 28(4), 1283–1294. Lebeloane, L. D. M. (2017). Decolonizing the school curriculum for equity and social justice in South Africa. Koers, 82(3), 1–10. Lorde, A. (2001). The master’s tool will never dismantle the master’s house. In K. K. Bhavnani (Ed.), Feminism and race (pp. 89–92). New York: Oxford University Press. Manley, M. (1974). The politics of change. London: André Deutsch.

  Building on Funds of Knowledge: A Basis for Reconceptualising… 

217

Martin, K. L., & Fuller, S. (2017 August 29). Looking for the X-factors: Contextualised learning and young Indigenous Australian childrenACER Research Conference, 28-29 August 2017, Melbourne, Australia. McCaw-Binns, A., Ashley, D., Samms-Vaughan, M., Wilks, R., Ferguson, T., Younger, N., et al. (2011). Cohort profile: The Jamaican 1986 birth cohort study. International Journal of Epidemiology, 40(6), 1469–1476. Miller, E.  L. (1984). Educational research: The English-speaking Caribbean. International Development Research Centre: Ottawa. Moll, L. C., Amanti, C., Neff, D., & Gonzalez, N. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory into Practice, 31(2), 132–141. Nettleford, R. (1979). Caribbean cultural identity: The case of Jamaica. UCLA Latin American Studies Series and Latin American Studies Los Angeles, Cal, 47, 1–238. Pacini-Ketchabaw, V., & Pence, A. (2005). Contextualizing the reconceptualist movement in Canadian early childhood education. Early childhood education in motion: The reconceptualist movement in Canada (pp.  5–20). Ottawa: Canadian Child Care Federation Recchia, S. L., & McDevitt, S. E. (2018). Unraveling universalist perspectives on teaching and caring for infants and toddlers: Finding authenticity in diverse funds of knowledge. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 32(1), 14–31. Roopnarine, J.  L. (2013). Fathers in Caribbean cultural communities. In D. W. Shawlb, B. J. Shawlb, & M. E. Lamb (Eds.), Fathers in cultural context (pp. 203–227). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor and Francis. Saathoff, S. D. (2015). Funds of knowledge and community cultural wealth: Exploring how pre-service teachers can work effectively with Mexican and Mexican American students. Critical Questions in Education, 6(1), 30–40. Sorin, R. (2005). Changing images of childhood: Reconceptualising early childhood practice. Faculty of Education, University of Melbourne. Taylor, A., & Pacini-Ketchabaw, V. (2015). Introduction: Unsettling the colonial places and spaces of early childhood education in settler colonial societies. In V. Pacini-Ketchabaw & A. Taylor (Eds.), Unsettling the colonial places and spaces of early childhood education. London: Routledge. Tesar, M. (2014). Reconceptualising the child: Power and resistance within early childhood settings. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 15(4), 360–367. Urban, M. (2012). Researching early childhood policy and practice. A critical ecology. European Journal of Education, 47(4), 494–507.

218 

Z. Kinkead-Clark

Warrican, S. J. (2015). Fostering true literacy in the Commonwealth Caribbean: Bridging the cultures of home and school. In P. Smith & A. Kumi-Yeboah (Eds.), Handbook of research on cross-cultural approaches to language and literacy development (pp. 367–392). Hershey, PA: IGI Global. World Bank, (2013). How to improve quality of education in the Caribbean for the next generation? Retrieved from h t t p s : / / w w w. w o r l d b a n k . o r g / e n / n e w s / f e a t u r e / 2 0 1 3 / 0 9 / 1 8 / caribbean-quality-education-improvements-next-generation.

Part IV Reconceptualizing Quality: Play-Based Learning

“Ting-a-Ling!” Snack Time Culture and Friendship Bonds in Young Caribbean Children Sabeerah Abdul-Majied

The study of Caribbean education has focused on an aspect of learning which can be viewed as a microcosm of the various directions in which scholarship has evolved globally and, more specifically, in the region as a whole. Educators like Meeks Gardner and Powell (2005) and Walker and Chang (2005) have written about nutritional issues in education and have pointed to the importance of proper nutrition to support student learning. Studies like these however focused on the general health and well-being of the students and how this general level of health influenced learning potential. Indeed, the link between health and education is not unique to the Caribbean as studies in education and nutrition have become an important area of investigation internationally. The famed revolutionary political theorist Gramsci (1993) had even considered it necessary to comment, in the middle of his political treatise, that “[e]ven

S. Abdul-Majied (*) The University of the West Indies, St. Augustine, Tunapuna, Trinidad and Tobago e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Z. Kinkead-Clark, K.-A. Escayg (eds.), Reconceptualizing Quality in Early Childhood Education, Care and Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69013-7_10

221

222 

S. Abdul-Majied

diet has its importance” (p. 57) for the intellectual/political formulation of the student. The Caribbean Dancehall superstar, Shabba Ranks (Ranks, 1992) has lyrics in one of his songs that goes: …TINGA LINGA LING SKOOL BELLA RING KNIFE AN FORKA FITE FOR DUMPLING …

In the articulation of his song, one message which can be deduced concerns the centrality of the meal/feeding process as an avenue of social acculturation associated with school. It also arouses the desire to investigate this feeding phenomenon and its social implication. In Trinidad and Tobago, the bell rings at three scheduled times during the day. There is a first break at 10 a.m. that lasts for 15 minutes, a second at 11:30 a.m. that lasts for one hour and allows the students to have lunch, and finally a third at 1:30 p.m. During these breaks, the students partake in snacks where available. These snack and mealtime experiences provide opportunities for culturally rich social exchanges which if analysed could provide valuable insights into socialization among young children. It is in this context, that is of a Caribbean rooted in understandings of itself and its inhabitants based on a food culture, and in the reality of educational studies that focus on food-related issues, that this chapter takes its genesis. This chapter explores the contemporary culture of “snack time” at school and the associated rituals and socializing processes that take place therein. The study was guided by the following two questions: 1. What are the social behaviours children display while eating snacks and interacting with their peers at recess and other break times at school? 2. How (if at all) do student’s social interactions at snack times relate to their classroom learning experiences? This study of snack time explores an aspect of the informal curriculum. This is important since educators usually focus on issues associated with the formal curriculum. Students, however, receive important messages

  “Ting-a-Ling!” Snack Time Culture and Friendship… 

223

from the informal curriculum, which remains under-represented in Caribbean early childhood literature. This investigation addresses that gap by uncovering the peer interactions of six-year-old children during recess/break times at school and relates the findings to their social, emotional and cognitive learning. Ultimately, the insights of this chapter will add to the understanding of how “good” and “bad” students are created in the classroom. The labels good and bad students were used by the teachers to classify children mainly based on their behaviour. A good student behaved appropriately, for example, sat quietly, raised hand to speak, took turns speaking and came to class with materials. A good student was also academically smart, for example, answered questions correctly, ranked high in term tests and asked appropriate questions at appropriate times. A bad student behaved inappropriately and disrupted the class, for example, spoke out of turn, walked about the class during seatwork and sometimes bullied classmates. A bad student could also be academically brilliant but badly behaved, as teachers labelled children based on their behaviour. This study uses data from a larger study of children’s social competence development at school (Abdul-Majied, 2009).

The Hidden Curriculum and Early Learning The hidden curriculum (HC) refers to the informal learning which students acquire usually unintentionally, while at school. Though this informal curriculum also occurs within the formal school curriculum, this study focuses on the hidden curriculum at work during recess time and other unstructured outdoor playtimes. Recess promotes children’s social and emotional learning and development since it provides time for peer interactions to practise and role-play essential social skills (National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education, 2002). This learning includes social behaviours, perspectives and attitudes which students “pick up” during interactions. The unofficial HC is in contrast to the official formal curriculum of taught lessons and classroom activities which teachers intentionally plan and teach to transmit knowledge and skills. Research has shown that a disconnect often occurs between the intentional formal curriculum and the

224 

S. Abdul-Majied

curriculum children actually experience (McGee, 1997; Nuttall, 2005). It is important to note that student learning outcomes can be affected not only by the way in which the formal curriculum is implemented but also by the effects of the unintended or hidden curriculum. Children therefore experience learning at school which may or may not be a part of formal classroom teaching. The HC is important to understand because what is not officially taught in schools can sometimes be as influential as what is taught. Additionally, the HC begins in the early years of a child’s life, when students are starting to develop opinions and ideas about themselves their peers and their environment. They can learn, for example, how to become popular with teachers and classmates. Learning that develops through informal peer relationships can lead to an increase or decrease in learning opportunities and motivation to engage and learn. Young children are able to absorb and learn through natural observation and participation in social activities. Too often educators underestimate the contribution of learning that is not formally taught. Indeed Abdul-Majied (2010) reported from participant observation that young children learnt that they could, for example, behave inappropriately when the teacher was distracted without consequences or that they should not ask for the teacher’s assistance in some instances because they would be ignored. Several educational theorists and child development specialists have discussed the HC to highlight its effects in schools, in advocating for a more equitable education system. Freire (1970) pointed to the fact that many of the society’s conventions that create systems of inequality are spread not exclusively by the content of what is taught to the student but, actually, is often transmitted as well through the unconscious ways in which the student learns. In Freire’s schema, he points to the importance of the practice of teaching (pedagogy) as being central to how students learn and subsequently how their social interactions are shaped by it. Freire’s point is one that articulates the wider political economy of learning and which also points to the fact that seemingly inconsequential/ coincidental learning is also very significant. Vygotsky’s (1978) Sociocultural Theory of development and learning similarly advances the idea that children’s learning is embedded in their social interaction. Children learn the values of their culture from the

  “Ting-a-Ling!” Snack Time Culture and Friendship… 

225

more experienced adults and peers in their social world. As a consequence, interactions in informal play situations as well as direct teaching are both important because they influence learning. This point has been expressed in the Caribbean by Evans (2001) who stated that the formal curriculum operates in conjunction with the hidden or implicit curriculum in schools. Messages are conveyed to students by the methods teachers use to present the formal curriculum. In the course of teaching, students usually learn that to succeed they must follow often-unstated rules. Sometimes inappropriate messages such as students are unworthy of respect from teachers are transmitted. Similarly, by the number of hours subjects are allotted on the timetable every week, on one hand, students may learn that knowledge and discipline subjects taught in tertiary institutions are important. On the other hand, areas of learning that address self-development and human relationships including conflict resolution are not as important. Long (2016) in her examination of preschoolers’ transition, from outdoor play to indoor formal classroom activities in Jamaica, spoke of incidents that “filtered into the classroom” (p. 100). She noted that although the cultural understanding is that there is a dichotomy between outdoor play and classroom work, play during recess contributes to young children’s development and self-efficacy. During rough and tumble outdoor play, games and rules are invented and reinvented. At that time too, children learn to cope with their environment and develop skillsets for managing their daily lives (p. 102).

Recess and Children’s Learning Research suggests a clear link between recess, social and emotional development and cognition. We now know that children must develop both social and emotional skills as well as cognitive skills to succeed at school. Pellegrini and Davis (1993) advance that there is an important relationship between classroom behaviour and recess. They are of the view that during recess children may be practising cognitive skills they already acquired and use when doing seatwork. Pellegrini and Davis further add that, through social interactions with classmates on the playground,

226 

S. Abdul-Majied

children learn skills which are transferred to the classroom. This viewpoint is consistent with Piaget’s (1970) view of the “facilitative effects of peer interaction on cognition” (p. 95). The key idea suggested is that the type of social interaction which takes place at recess facilitates cognitive development. The playground offers a space where children can actively confront, ponder and learn from their social experiences with playmates. Children learn to compromise and negotiate roles when they play together. During interactive games such as “tag,” children learn to cooperate, problem-­ solve and switch roles to maintain the play (Pellegrini & Glickman, 1989). These skills that are practised on the playground are important for children’s development. Through play at recess, children also learn important communication skills alongside social skills such as perseverance and self-control.

Participants and Research Methodology This multisite ethnographic case study was conducted at three primary schools over three school terms. It investigated the recess and outdoor break time social interactions of six 5–6-year-old children who were in their second year of primary school. The schools selected were in a disadvantaged community and were classified as high, medium and low performing based on student success in the national Entrance Examination for placement in secondary schools (the SEA Exam) at age 11+years. Schools that possibly reflected differences in social experiences but with similar “other” variables such as serving children from the same home community and within the same educational district were chosen. The intention was to select sites that shared some common characteristics to address the problem of generalizability, which is often raised by critics of qualitative research. The issue of generalizability was therefore addressed by purposively selecting sites that share similarities and yet had differences (Huberman & Miles, 2002, p. 13). The larger research of which this is a sub-investigation studied the social competence development of 12 children, in their third term in first year and into their first, second and third terms in second year at three

  “Ting-a-Ling!” Snack Time Culture and Friendship… 

227

primary schools. Six of the 12 students were selected for this study based on the initial criterion of choosing students from three schools, including both boys and girls and including a mix of students with “good” or “bad” behaviours as labelled by teachers. For this smaller study, data from the sample of six were sufficient to establish the criterion of thematic saturation (Fusch & Ness, 2015), where additional data yielded no further dimensions, insights or issues affecting the codes and themes identified. The social interactions of the students were observed over 12 months. Each student observation session targeted one focal student for two half days during the early half and latter part of each term at various times, for example, class time and recess. In all, each child was observed for six days and there were 36 observations in all. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the class teachers, parents and classmates, using interview schedules designed to elicit responses to answer the research questions and for data triangulation. Questions to teachers included if they enjoyed teaching the children and why or why not. They were also asked about the main problems that students had, their social behaviours and how they were corrected for doing wrong at school and at home. Also, teachers were asked about the type of help students needed to make them perform better at school. Parents questions included: why they chose the school and if the school was doing a good job. Also, how the child was disciplined at home and school and the problems the child experienced at school. Children were asked if they liked school and why or why not and also what they liked about school and if they were doing well in their schoolwork. They were questioned too about if they had friends and/or a best friend at school and, also, what was their best time of day at school. The data for this study were analysed to identify themes reflecting social behaviours associated with food exchanges which occurred at recess/break time. The themes were key findings in response to the two research questions: 1. What are the social behaviours children display while eating snacks and interacting with their peers at recess and other break times at school? 2. How (if at all) do student’s social interactions at snack times relate to their classroom learning experiences?

228 

S. Abdul-Majied

Themes derived after second-level coding were written as sentences or a phrase. They represent the meaning of units of data underlying the phenomenon (Saldaña, 2016). The following five themes which emerged from the analysis capture the social behaviours children displayed at snack time. Where applicable, the link was made to classroom learning experiences.

Snack Time Reveals Child Dominance At recess time, children routinely engaged in social exchanges that centred on eating snack foods. These exchanges seemed to include and exclude peers from friendship circles and establish dominance and subservience among children. Children brought packaged snacks like potato chips or cheese curls to be eaten at break times or after school. Though unintended, daily snack sharing episodes provided ample opportunities for children to establish and reinforce their status among their peers. Food therefore seemed to be a commodity which was used by children without adult intervention to reinforce positions of social dominance or subservience. The following interaction was observed: Six-year-old Jasmine left her friend Sandra to “watch” her pack of cheese curls to ensure that no one ate any while she was away. Sandra ate three, then more, until she had eaten 12 in all. She then put the pack with the remaining cheese curls in Marsha’s hand. Jasmine returned and saw that much of her snack was eaten. She was upset. Marsha pointed to Sandra. Jasmine confronted Sandra who said, “I only ate five.” Jasmine then complained to her teacher who commented without lifting her head from her newspaper, “That was dishonest.” Jasmine reprimanded Sandra for taking her snack without asking. Thereafter maintaining eye contact with Jasmine, Sandra asked for some more. She slowly put her hand in the pack, retrieved three more cheese curls and ate them. They shared the snack. Soon Maria showed up with a pack of chips. Jasmine took some without asking. Marvin later asked for some but Maria pushed him away. Jasmine gave him a chip and he left. The three girls shared their food and chatted.

  “Ting-a-Ling!” Snack Time Culture and Friendship… 

229

This observation seems to establish Jasmine’s status as the dominant peer. She enjoyed more privileges in controlling, eating and distributing food than any of the other children. Jasmine unknowingly demonstrated her superior rank among her peers when she directed Sandra to look after her snack in her absence. She also reprimanded Sandra for eating without permission and decided when to permit her to eat again. Jasmine was allowed to take food from another peer without permission, a privilege which Marvin who was pushed away did not have. Jasmine could even make the decision to distribute someone else’s food against the wishes of the food owner. She shared Maria’s food with Marvin. Sandra was second in the hierarchy of social relationships. She was selected as the guard for Jasmine’s food. She knew she could eat Jasmine’s food without asking even though she prepared for a possible negative response if Jasmine did not approve. Maria seemed to have the lowest peer status among the three girls as Jasmine ate and shared Maria’s food without seeking her approval. Marvin shared an even lower peer status and was not allowed to eat with the group. He was pushed, given a scrap of food and sent away. This social scenario can be explained in the context of “dominance hierarchies” in peer group organization (Strayer, 1980) or children’s “social networks” (Ladd, Prince, & Hart, 1990, p. 84) These researchers suggest that children’s peer status is influenced by the types of interactions they have, the friends they associate with and the reputation they develop among their peers. Popular children, for example, could become the focus of all classmates’ attention which is what Jasmine experienced. This dominant status was also observed in the classroom. Jasmine dominated the class in ideas and academic performance. She helped weaker children to complete seatwork. She was however labelled a troublemaker (bad behaved child) and often punished by her teacher because she did not conform to rules.

Snack Time Fosters Friendships Children’s friendship at playtime seemed to have been largely built around a culture of snacks. Children brought snacks to school in their lunch kits or bought packaged snacks at the cafeteria. They interacted

230 

S. Abdul-Majied

during their break times to share each other’s snacks. Sharing snacks in friendship groups provided positive situations for social development as children negotiated and compromised as they shared. Snacking was a social event that children looked forward to on a daily basis. They started eating snacks even before school started. At one school, children paired off and walked around eating together. Friends shared snacks like corn curls, biscuits and juice and lollypops. Some also shared money to buy snacks. The benefits of snacking in friendship groups included getting juice to drink at lunchtime from a friend if you had none. Also, the friendships nurtured in snack groups continued to earn benefits into the classroom as “snack friends” shared school equipment, helped each other with schoolwork and invited each other to play. These positive interactions were consistent with the view expressed by Gordon and Browne (2013) that snack time facilitates practising helping others, cooperation and participating in conversations that use considerate language in a natural setting. Snack time friendship interactions like those observed seemed to have been customary in the national culture. Support for this comes from interviews conducted with teacher trainees who were asked to state what they liked best about their primary schooling. One of the typical answers was “having caring teachers and buying lots of snacks” (George & Quamina-Aiyejina, 2003). The teacher trainees’ responses further revealed that their most enjoyed memories of school were related to the affective aspects of schooling. It seemed to indicate that the Hidden curriculum (at work at snack time) affected children’s learning.

Snacks Used as Currency Children also used snacks like currency to buy into a friendship group and gain access to tasting other snacks within the group. An established norm among the children was that they offered a classmate some snack if they wanted a taste of his or her snack or to gain entry to a playgroup. When a child was asked why Karen was not allowed to play with her group at break time she said, “She does beg people and she does not give me her snack when you ask her for things.” Karen was not allowed to play

  “Ting-a-Ling!” Snack Time Culture and Friendship… 

231

with the group because she did not follow the unstated rule that involved “paying dues in food” to gain entry to a group. Food was also used to purchase goods and services. Items that children “purchased” with food included shiny beads and objects or plastic toys which were sometimes broken but considered valuable. For example, Diana was observed purchasing four coconut fudge candy. She gave two of the sweets to Sita in exchange for an empty, plastic, chewing gum holder, which appeared to me to be a worthless toy telephone. In another incident a child who wanted to taste a snack was instructed to tie the snack owner’s shoe laces first. In that instance, food was used to purchase a service. A child excluded from the snack sharing can be at a disadvantage of not receiving peer support for learning during class time. Long’s (2016) examination of transition from outdoor play to indoor formal classroom could be applied here as negative relationships developed during snack times could be transferred into the classroom.

Snack Time Uncovers Social Attributes Appropriate and inappropriate social attributes that children had were observed during snacking episodes. First of all, there was the bully who took “tribute” and secondly the victim of bullying. Jasmine, for example, forced a classmate to give her some potato chips and then snatched and drank her bottle of cold water. It was a very hot day and the victim was sad and angry but could do nothing about it. On another occasion I asked a child why she let Jasmine eat her pack of popcorn when she clearly wanted it (she appeared upset). Jasmine overheard me and whispered in her ear, “Say you did not want it.” These incidences seem to highlight the need for intervention to redirect Jasmine’s tendency towards being a bully and her peer becoming a victim of bullying. Children need a place to run and play without constant adult intervention. However, even outdoor times need to be managed to facilitate appropriate social interactions. In the settings observed where there were no planned supports to promote appropriate social interactions, adult intervention seemed to have been needed to minimize acts of bullying

232 

S. Abdul-Majied

that sometimes occurred when children shared snacks unsupervised. Intervention could also have helped in guiding positive friendship bonds which would have redirected children from bullying their peers or becoming victims of bullying. Another attribute that needed to be developed in some children was empathy. A lack of empathy was observed when a peer in distress was ignored while Jack ate his sandwich at break time. It was during the recess break that a female pupil was observed crying in anguish. The class teacher told her to stay in class and complete her work before she could get a break. The work was impossible to complete in the 15-minute break so 5-year-old Sharon sat in her desk and hollered in despair. The teacher left the class but there were a few children around eating their snacks. Jack was the one closest to her. I was amazed to observe that he showed no empathy towards her.

Jack continued eating without in any way acknowledging her plight. After about six minutes, another girl and boy came to her assistance. They chatted with her and helped to quiet her down. When I later asked Jack about his lack of reaction, he said that she was disturbing him (from enjoying his sandwich). This incident, which occurred at snack time, showed that mealtime exchanges could highlight important social attributes that some children had and others need to be taught for improving the quality of their social exchanges. The two friends who were able to assist their peer to get her classwork done showed empathy while Jack did not. It is very important for young children to develop the skill of empathy. Empathy is rooted in development. Berk (2006) noted that as early as two a child can sense and try to relieve another’s distress with a hug or by offering a toy. At Jack’s age, developmental psychology suggests that he should have been able to use language to express empathy with words like—“I think it’ll be all right.” Even though temperament affects demonstrations of empathy, a child should nevertheless automatically attempt to comfort a peer in distress. Gordon and Browne (2013) noted that empathy is a complex emotion which requires the cognitive ability to see oneself as separate from other

  “Ting-a-Ling!” Snack Time Culture and Friendship… 

233

people and yet connected to them. It also needs nurturing to develop. Jack’s cognitive and emotional ability to support empathy was probably underdeveloped due to lack of nurturance at home and at school. His general lack of facial expressions and emotional responses further seemed to support that view. Jack’s response while eating his meal seemed to have highlighted a need for intervention to develop his empathy.

Snack Time Unveils Home Background Food also seemed to have provided clues about the nature of the early socialization children experienced at home. For example, there was aggressive Jake whom the teacher said liked to “raff” food and things he wanted from other children. One day Sita shared her breakfast sandwich with him. She then came to me and complained, “Miss Jake greedy! He snatch the bread from mih hand and put it in his mouth.” The seemingly insignificant eating episode pointed to a problem behaviour that may have stemmed from the home which needed to be addressed. Jake needed to learn social graces or appropriate ways to approach his peers to gain their acceptance. Jake’s inappropriate behaviour caused the teacher to label him as “bad.” His behaviour can be related to the poor emotional self-regulation strategies that he probably developed at home. Berk (2006) noted that young children learn to regulate their emotions by watching adults; primarily their parents handle their own feelings. Parents may be good or bad models of the self-regulating behaviour. It is quite possible that there were poor role models in his environment. Hence, he had problems managing his own behaviour and snatched things he wanted. Berk (2006) explained that authoritarian parents tend to be cold and rejecting. They command their children and scream and shout commands to exercise control. Those parents expect their children to accept the choices they make for them without questioning or force and punishment is used. Jake’s parents stated that they used corporal punishment to discipline him. The “raffing” of food seemed to have signalled a child who was responding to inappropriate social practices developed at home.

234 

S. Abdul-Majied

Chandra’s eating habits may similarly have provided valuable clues for understanding aspects of her home socialization as the following describes: Chandra ate part of her bread and sausage sandwich at lunch time. She then put the remainder of the sandwich in a peer’s lunch kit, packed away her empty lunch kit and went outside to look for her friend. Her teacher remarked that during her first year Chandra used to voluntarily stay in class during the lunch period until she had completed her schoolwork. Chandra said, “I used to have to eat and do mih work in first year. In second year, I like to play lunch time.”

At six years old, Chandra was a picky eater who did not like to eat her lunch. She knew however that she would be admonished if she took her sandwich back home. So she “got rid of the evidence” almost every day by putting the remainder of her lunch, in a friend’s lunch kit. In an interview, her parents said that they impressed upon their children among other things the importance of working hard, succeeding in schoolwork and eating to nourish the brain. Their response supported Chandra’s dedication to staying in and completing her work even when she was five years old. When she was six years old and better able to complete her schoolwork on time, she went to play at lunchtime. Chandra’s socialization at home seemed to have contributed to her understanding of the importance of schoolwork. She also found a clever way to dispose of lunch that she did not eat and avoid alarming her parents. Another aspect of children’s home background surfaced during money transactions that involved food purchases. Some children came to school knowing a great deal about the value of money. The following two incidents illustrate: Dave’s class was 30 minutes into a math lesson on money. The children were being introduced to properties of the 1c piece. The assigned task was to play with 1c pieces to discover the properties of the 1c piece and to copy the date and the words, “Money” and “One cent—It is round”, from the chalkboard onto their exercise books. The children were unenthusiastic. Dave in particular whom I had observed spending money in the cafeteria, understood a great deal about money from practical experience. The task

  “Ting-a-Ling!” Snack Time Culture and Friendship… 

235

seemed too simple for him. He soon muttered under his breath, “You can’t buy nothing (anything) with one cent. 25 cents could buy a lollipop.”

Dave like Diana, and some other children in the class who were from poor and dysfunctional families, understood money: its value, equivalence and how to buy and sell at a profit. A conversation Diana initiated with me one day supported this point. She said, “I give my brother a shilling and a dollar that’s $1.25 and I have more money so I give him $2.00 and 2 shillings and I keep $2.00 and 2 shillings.” This level of understanding seemed like a social survival skill that developed through experiences with money at home. On another occasion, I observed that David had spent most of his recess in the cafeteria line waiting to purchase sweet snacks with $1. Thereafter, he tried to re-sell the snacks to his classmates at double the cost. He did not get a sale that day because recess was soon up. However, from these and similar incidents, I concluded that some children from the community came to school with understandings about money that was superior to their age peers. This insight into children’s possible home background was discovered when exchanges that involved food purchases were examined. Another lunchtime experience observed provided clues to difficulties in a child’s home experiences as the following explains. On several occasions I observed Nkosi (6 years old) being fed and having his mouth wiped by his grandfather. His grandfather visited the school three to four times a day to attend to his needs. At lunchtime every day he visited with fresh cooked food to feed his grandson. Nkosi did nothing to help himself except open his mouth and chew when directed. His grandfather wiped his mouth in between feeding him each spoonful of food.

Nkosi’s teacher later explained that his grandparents who cared for him tried to overcompensate for the problems he experienced at home. Both his grandmother and teacher stated that Nkosi was most probably affected by an unstable relationship between his mother and step-father. At school, Nkosi just sat at his table in the back of the class and waited to follow the teacher’s instruction just like he did during the feeding

236 

S. Abdul-Majied

episodes with his grandfather. He was excessively dependant on the teacher and other adults for assistance. He was a loner who did not try to access playgroups or make friends. He also allowed others to bully him at times. That bullying extended from the playground into the classroom where during seatwork he allowed his academically weaker but more socially assertive seatmates to “copy” from him. The idea expressed by Katz and McClellan (1997) that children may lack appropriate skills because they do not have opportunities to learn and practise them seemed to apply to Nkosi. His grandfather did almost everything for him, so he learnt not to try for himself. His passive behaviour had a negative impact on his peer relationship. He was not accepted by most children and therefore was not invited by friends to join in play, friendship and work groups. Parker and Asher (1987) pointed out the important role played by peers in children’s social development in the early years. As noted in Katz and McClellan (1997), “If a child is rejected by peers or in some way thwarted in learning the social ropes from peers, a crucial source of social information is lost” (p.  17). As a result, Nkosi’s helpless and vulnerable behaviours were symptoms of a serious behavioural problem that needed intervention. Unfortunately, because he was quiet and passive, “good student” qualities teachers wanted from children, Nkosi’s problem was thought to be less serious than it really was. The unusual food interaction observed between grandfather and grandson was symptomatic of social relations problems that a child was experiencing at home. Nkosi’s home background was negatively impacting on his ability to form successful relationships.

Conclusion This study provides evidence-based data that highlight the significance of a food culture embedded in the hidden curriculum at work during recess and break times at three schools. This hidden curriculum repeated daily can significantly influence children’s behaviour, development and learning. Analysis of the findings revealed that interactions during snack and meal times are quite complex and can provide valuable clues into appropriate and inappropriate peer interactions and situations children may be

  “Ting-a-Ling!” Snack Time Culture and Friendship… 

237

experiencing at school and at home. Social relationships fostered at snack and meal times can contribute to nurturing the “good” and “bad” students whom teachers identify in classrooms. This novel approach to studying some young Caribbean children provides a possible lens for early diagnosis of strengths and shortcomings in children’s social development. Since learning at school is a social experience, early diagnosis is critical for strengthening appropriate behaviours and addressing behavioural challenges. Observations of children’s snack time culture at recess and break times could provide valuable insights into children’s social development, which could be used to improve student learning at school.

References Abdul-Majied, S. (2009). Social competence development: An ethnographic study of how three primary schools in Trinidad contributed to young children’s social competence development (PhD). The University of the West Indies. St. Augustine, Trinidad & Tobago. Abdul-Majied, S. (2010). “Don’t treat me like I’m bad!” Social competence and teacher roles in young children’s social development at three primary schools in Trinidad. Caribbean Curriculum, 17, 85–114. Berk, L. E. (2006). Child development (7th ed.). Boston: Pearson Education. Evans, H. L. (2001). Inside Jamaican schools. Kingston, Jamaica: University of the West Indies Press. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Herder and Herder. Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are we there yet? Data saturation in qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408–1416. George, J., & Quamina-Aiyejina, L. (2003). An analysis of primary teacher education in Trinidad and Tobago: Multi-site teacher education research project (Country Report four). London, UK: Department for International Development. Gordon, A. M., & Browne, K. W. (2013). Beginnings and beyond: Foundations in early childhood education (9th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co Inc.. Gramsci, A. (1993). The organisation of education and culture. In S. During (Ed.), The cultural studies reader. New York: Routledge.

238 

S. Abdul-Majied

Huberman, A. M., & Miles, M. B. (2002). The qualitative researcher’s companion. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications. Katz, L. G., & McClellan, D. E. (1997). Fostering children’s social competence: The teachers’ role. Washington, DC: NAEYC. Ladd, G.  W., Prince, J.  M., & Hart, C.  H. (1990). Preschoolers behavioural orientations and patterns of peer contact: Predictive and social status? In S.  R. Asher & J.  D. Coie (Eds.), Peer rejection in childhood (pp.  90–115). New York: Cambridge University Press. Long, C. (2016). From bull in the pen to one, two, three, and then? In I. R. Berson & M. J. Berson (Eds.), Child advocacy and early childhood education policies in the Caribbean. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing Inc. McGee, C. (1997). Teachers and curriculum decision-making. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press. Meeks Gardner, J., & Powell, C. (2005). Early childhood malnutrition, behaviour, maternal-child interactions and mental development. In Caribbean childhoods: From research to action. Miami: Ian Randle Publishers. National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education. (2002). Recess and the importance of play: A Position statement on young children and recess. Washington, DC: National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education. Retrieved from www.naecs-­sde.org/recessplay.pdf. Nuttall, J. (2005). Looking back, looking forward: Three decades of early childhood curriculum development in Aotearoa New Zealand. Curriculum Matters, 1, 12–28. Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low—accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102(3), 357–389. Pellegrini, A.  D., & Davis, D.  D. (1993). Relations between children’s playground and classroom behavior. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 63(1), 88–95. Pellegrini, A. D., & Glickman, C. D. (1989). The educational role of recess. Principal, 68(5), 23–24. Piaget, J. (1970). Genetic epistemology. New York: W. W. Norton and Company. Ranks, S. (1992). Ting-a- Ling: X-Tra Naked Album. Los Angeles, CA: Epic Records. Saldaña, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oakes, CA: Sage Publications.

  “Ting-a-Ling!” Snack Time Culture and Friendship… 

239

Strayer, F. F. (1980). Child ethology and the study of preschool social relations. In H. Foot, T. Chapman, & J. Smith (Eds.), Childhood friendships and peer relationships (pp. 235–265). London: Wiley. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental processes (M.  Cole, V.  John-Steiner, S.  Scribner, & E.  Souberman, Eds. & Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Walker, S.  P., & Chang, S.  M. (2005). Under-nutrition in early childhood: Jamaican studies on the concurrent and long-term effects on child development. In Caribbean childhoods: From research to action. Miami: Ian Randle Publishers.

The Case of a Self-Developed Community of Learners Outdoors: Benefits and Challenges for Stay-at-­ Home-Moms and Their Toddlers Konstantina Rentzou

Introduction Last years, research on early childhood focuses primarily on children’s participation in early childhood education and care settings. As a result, researchers have extensively explored the quality and type of experiences toddlers have in different types of out-of-home care and education. Yet, little is known about the experiences of toddlers who are not enrolled in any type of out-of-home care but instead are cared for by their parents (in-home familial care) and the quality of these experiences. In addition, on the one hand, existing research on the interpretation of the home learning environment (HLE) views the HLE as a global construct and builds primarily on human capital theory, resulting in a very narrow view of childhood and the HLE and into emphasizing specific types of

K. Rentzou (*) Department of Early Years Learning and Care, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Z. Kinkead-Clark, K.-A. Escayg (eds.), Reconceptualizing Quality in Early Childhood Education, Care and Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69013-7_11

241

242 

K. Rentzou

activities, such as the activities organized with/from parents (home curriculum) and the availability of resources within home. On the other hand, other significant aspects of the HLE, such as the activities that take place outside the home and include but are not limited to informal activities with other parents and children in the community (e.g. meeting other parents and children at the park) (Rentzou, 2017a), have been largely ignored by research. Viewing the HLE as a global construct, family time has been differentiated into basic caring activities and educational activities (play and teaching). This research has shown that mothers spent more time on basic childcare, rather than on other types of care. Guryan, Hurst and Kearney (2008) found that mothers with children under 5 spent 12.62 hours per week on basic childcare and 4.75  hours on recreational childcare (the category which includes according to the authors’ outdoor play). Turning to the time spent outdoors at home and ECEC setting, the results of the study conducted by Carsley et al. (2017) suggest that children who do not attend any type of day care spent more time on outdoor free play compared to children who attend day care (60 minutes vs. 45 minutes, respectively). Thus, the authors found that for every extra hour of day care attended per week, children had less outdoor free play at home. The scarcity of research characterizes not only children’s experiences but also stay-at-home-moms’ (SAHMs) experiences. Although two-­ thirds of new mothers choose to work seasonally or part-time or to leave the labor force for some time, “during the years when childcare demands are most intense” (Guryan et al., 2008, p. 25), SAHMs’ experiences are absent from the literature (Bean, Softas-Nall, Eberle & Paul, 2016). The limited existing research on SAHMs indicates that they live in isolation (Landry, 2007) and that it is not always easy for them to find support (Bean et  al., 2016). This is especially true for SAHMs with younger children. In addition, research shows that although they have substantial information needs, “little is known about the range of these needs, how they emerge, how they are (or are not) met, and how SAHMs share information with others” (Landry, 2007, p. 215).

  The Case of a Self-Developed Community of Learners… 

243

Previous research has highlighted SAHMs’ need to socialize and make connections with other SAHMs with whom they have shared experiences (Bean et al., 2016; Landry, 2007). According to Annie, a participant in Bean et al.’s (2016, p. 27) study, “you need to find women who can relate to you a little bit, whose lives aren’t so different than yours”. These needs for support and connectedness may be met in a playground, since they constitute a place where people come together and from their “behavior emerges a social atmosphere that fosters the spontaneous and serendipitous sharing of information” (cited in Landry, 2007, p.  225). However, as with children, SAHMs also need consistency of experiences and repeated visits have been found to contribute to developing a sense of place and community (Landry, 2007; MacQuarrie, Nugent & Warden, 2015). This case study aims at presenting what reconceptualists have termed as the “hidden curriculum” (Weingarten, 1975, p. 6), that is, the world of lived experiences of a group of SAHMs and their toddlers who are visiting a local park almost daily. The overarching aim of the study is to explore the effects of this self-developed community of learners outdoors on both toddlers and their mothers and to explore the factors that support and/or hinder experiences of outdoor community of learners in Cyprus. Thus, the study aims at questioning contemporary assumptions about where and when children and parents experience their richest moments and support Weingarten’s (1975) argument that these may not occur in environments that are considered instructive. Overall, the findings aim to challenge research treating the home learning environment as a global contract and to contribute empirical data about how in-home familial care is a central part of the learning continuum, how education spans across different places and how outdoor learning and play spaces constitute examples of social capital for children and SAHMs (McShane, Cook, Sinclair, Keam & Fry, 2016). The hypotheses addressed are placed within the following theoretical framework.

244 

K. Rentzou

 laying and Learning Outdoors: Importance, P Prerequisites and Facts Children’s preference for outdoor settings is well established. According to The Heritage Council (2016, p. 23), “there is evidence over many years that children report preferences for playing outside over playing inside, and playing in the natural rather than built outdoor environment with nature being a high priority for children”. The benefits of outdoor play and learning can be summarized in the following: improved health (Bento & Dias, 2017; Gill, 2014; Kemple, Oh, Kenney & Smith-Bonahue, 2016; Robertson, Martin, Borradaile & Alker, 2009; Wishart & Rouse, 2018); physical benefits and motor coordination (Gill, 2014; Kemple et al., 2016; Strife & Downey, 2009; Little & Eager, 2010; Wishart & Rouse, 2018; Carsley et al., 2017; Wishart & Rouse, 2018); emotional (Gill, 2014; Little & Eager, 2010; White & Stoecklin, 1996; Wishart & Rouse, 2018) and mental (Gill, 2014) benefits; improved well-being and reduced stress levels (Gill, 2014; Robertson et al., 2009; Strife & Downey, 2009; White & Stoecklin, 1996; Wishart & Rouse, 2018); better cognitive and academic skills and performance (Bento & Dias, 2017; Gill, 2014; Kemple et al., 2016; Little & Eager, 2010; Robertson et al., 2009; Strife & Downey, 2009; Wishart & Rouse, 2018); enhanced social skills, communication and social interaction with adults and children (Bento & Dias, 2017; Gill, 2014; Kemple et  al., 2016; Little & Eager, 2010; Robertson et al., 2009; Strife & Downey, 2009; White & Stoecklin, 1996; Wishart & Rouse, 2018); behavioral benefits (Gill, 2014; Kemple et  al., 2016) and ethical/attitudinal (ecological and sustainable behaviors) (Bento & Dias, 2017; Gill, 2014; Robertson et  al., 2009). Thus, outdoor play is in many ways different compared to indoor play. For instance, outdoor play is more open-ended, longer, more complex (White & Stoecklin, 1996) and more creative and imaginative (Fjørtoft, 2001; Wishart & Rouse, 2018). However, in order to have the abovementioned outcomes, several prerequisites are necessary. For instance, existing literature consistently highlights the need for repeated visits to familiar outdoor places in order for children (and adults) to develop a sense of relationship and belonging to the place (Gill, 2014; MacQuarrie et  al., 2015; McCree, Cutting &

  The Case of a Self-Developed Community of Learners… 

245

Sherwin, 2018; Wilson, 2011). Thus, time is also important. According to the results of the study conducted by Ulset, Vitaro, Brendgen, Bekkhus and Borge (2017), more time outdoors is linked to more significant benefits compared to less hours spent outdoors. At this point we have to stress that although the importance of outdoor play and learning is well established, there is increasing evidence that today children spend less and less time outdoors (Bento & Dias, 2017; Strife & Downey, 2009; The Heritage Council, 2016; Waller, 2014; White & Stoecklin, 1996). For instance, a recent study commissioned by Natural England (2016) revealed that one in nine children has not visited a park, forest, beach or any other natural environment for at least 12  months. In addition, evidence suggests that children are not reaching recommended daily physical activity levels (Wishart & Rouse, 2018) and that children lead more sedentary lives (Bento & Dias, 2017; Strife & Downey, 2009; The Heritage Council, 2016). Waller (2014) maintains that this erosion in outdoor play is especially true for contexts outside school and childcare. For instance, as we have seen, parents prefer to occupy their children’s free time with academic activities and sports rather than with play (Bento & Dias, 2017; Shiakou & Belsky, 2013. p. 158). In Cyprus, Shiakou and Belsky (2013) found that “the physical contributions of play to the child as well as its fun and carefree aspects were mentioned very rarely” and that “the category of play scored very low in importance for the development of children relative to education and schooling, which were mentioned twice as much” (Shiakou & Belsky, 2013, p. 26).

 utdoor Environments as Places O for Developing Communities of Learners Outdoor environments seem to favor the development of learning communities, since they support children to engage in critical inquiry and foster their role as researchers. Furthermore, in outdoor environments, interaction with others happens naturally and children can choose when and how to connect with others and when to play on their own, as opposed to indoor environments where children continually run into

246 

K. Rentzou

each other (Bento & Dias, 2017, p.  159). This gradual and self-paced interaction allows for a “sense of community [to be] nourished, and a sense of place [to be] cultivated” (Wilson, 2011, p. 3). Besides, the presence of friends is highly linked both to the effectiveness of a community of learners and to playing and learning outside. On one hand, various studies have suggested that time spent outdoors is affected by social support from friends and have highlighted children’s preference for outdoor environments because they have the opportunity to play and socialize with their friends (Loucaides & Tsangaridou, 2017; Wilson, 2011). On the other hand, according to the report published by The Heritage Council (2016), the lack of company is one of the primary reasons why children choose to stay indoors. Outdoor environments not only contribute to children’s peer interaction, development of social skills and social learning, but also respond to parents’ and carers’ needs for social support and peer education (McShane et al., 2016). Although little is known about the benefits of communities created outdoors on parents (McShane et al., 2016), the scarce literature suggests that the informal networks created in playgrounds and other outdoor environments are examples of social capital since they offer parents the opportunity to seek and share information about child-, parenthood- and personal-related issues and to feel connected with a community (Blackford, 2004; McShane et al., 2016). Finally, natural environments strengthen ties among families (Wilson, 2011). Previous research has indicated that maternal behavior changes across settings (Blackford, 2004) and that interaction-style outdoors is more “child-led, flexible and based on dialogue about children’s discoveries and interests” (Bento & Dias, 2017, p. 159).

The Present Study The present study aspires to challenge dominant discourses about: 1. Interpretations of early childhood and the HLM that are grounded on human capital: Last years, children’s experiences at home and in ECEC settings are discussed in the context of how these experiences shape

  The Case of a Self-Developed Community of Learners… 

247

their future. Limited attention is paid to children’s present and how the experiences they have across settings are meaningful for their wellbeing at the present. Thus, the study challenges human capital and neoliberal approaches that view the child as passive and incompetent and aims at highlighting children’s role in co-creating experiences and knowledge. To this end, the present study is founded on the community of learners’ theory. Central principals of the community of learners’ theory are the co-construction of learning and the active role of all participants—both children and adults. In a community of learners, adults and children collaborate with each other: children engage in self-reflective learning and critical inquiry (Brown & Champione, 1998); adults learn from their own involvement as they help children learn and construct their own knowledge (Turkanis, Bartlett & Rogoff, 2001, p. 226); and both “contribute support and direction in shared endeavors” (Rogoff, Matusov & White, 1998, p. 389). According to Turkanis et al. (2001, p. 232), “all members of a learning community have valuable interests, ideas and opinions; the differences between individuals’ interests and approaches can be a resource to others and can enhance opportunities for learning”. 2. Parenting: Research, policy and practice tend to adopt a deficit model toward parents that sees them as being in need of “education” about how to raise their children and do not acknowledge families’ strengths and expertise. However, parents are their children’s best advocates and they can contribute to addressing needs, clarifying rights and solving problems, as well as into the improvement of systems, programs and services. This study moves away the deficit approach and highlights how parents can act as advocates for their children’s well-being. 3. Parenting support provision: Last years’ increasing emphasis is given on parenting support provision. Yet, there are still many challenges that need to be addressed. One of them is how it is conceptualized in a way that addresses parents’ complex roles. Specifically, parenting support provision is frequently equated to reinforced parenting skills whereas limited attention is given to other levels of parenting support that can contribute to providing a nurturing environment around the child and the family, such as the resources (not only financial but also

248 

K. Rentzou

infrastructure, etc.) that parents have in their availability and the availability of social capital activities. Contrasting Blackford’s (2004) argument that mothers “in the ring of park benches symbolize the suggestion of surveillance” (p. 227) and a ­community of competition is created, the present study is founded on the community of learners’ theory, in order to understand the interrelations established among and between mothers and toddlers. It also highlights how resources may inhibit parents’ role as advocates both for their children’s wellbeing and for their own social capital support. Thus, the present study draws on Waller (2014, p.  161) who frames both adult and children’s participation as a spatial and relational process and suggests that participatory processes have outcomes for children and adults, creating adults as co-learners. Figure  1 presents the interrelationships that have been created among participants in the present study, which have led to the development of a community of learners. As shown in the figure, the child learns by his peers, his parent

The Child

The Children

The Parent

The Parents

Fig. 1  Interrelationships among and between the members of the community of learners

  The Case of a Self-Developed Community of Learners… 

249

and the parents of the other children (since there is interaction among and between all members). The same pattern of interactions is also evident for each SAHM.

The Context As of November 2017, a group of four mothers and their toddlers started visiting, almost every morning for at least two hours, for almost a year, a local park in Nicosia, Cyprus. Due to the daily occurrence of the visit and the long duration of the experience, children started interacting during their play and so did the mothers. During the visits to the park, mothers were not organizing structured activities for their toddlers. Children tend to play with the limited equipment available (e.g. swings, slides and seesaw) and mainly with the natural elements available (e.g. sand and leaves). Although the study presents the lived experiences of this group during their morning visit, we have to stress that the same group of children visited the park in the afternoon too, with either their mother or their father or both parents. Thus, the community of learners which has been created attracted the attention of other adults as well. As a result, other toddlers also visited the park in the morning with their parents (mother or father), their grandmother or their nanny. These toddlers interacted with the four children participating in the present study and so did the adults who accompanied the children. However, due to the fact that the rest of the toddlers only occasionally participated in this experience, the present study presents the experiences of the mothers and toddlers who visited the park almost daily. In addition, although another toddler, who visited daily the park with her nanny participated in this group, the author has selected to present only the experiences of the mothers and their toddlers and not include in the present chapter the experience of the nanny.

250 

K. Rentzou

Methods and Methodology Participants A case study design was used for this study as it sought to explore the lived experiences of four SAHMs’ and their toddlers, who visited the local park almost daily (three participants daily and one four days a week). Mothers’ mean age was 36.25 years (range 32–41 years). Three mothers had other than Cypriot nationality (two Greek and one Austrian), whereas the Cypriot mother was living for many years in another country. Years of residence in Cyprus ranged from 3.5 to 15 (M = 8.12 years). Two of the mothers were university graduates; one held a Master’s degree and one a PhD. Three of the mothers chose to work part-time and one chose not to work in order to be with the child. Turning to children, three out of the four toddlers were boys. Children’s age ranged from 16 to 32 months (M = 21.5 months). Three out of the four toddlers had never been enrolled in any type of day care, whereas the older boy attended a childcare setting for two months.

Data Collection Data were collected through an online open-ended questionnaire, which was developed by the author. The questionnaire consisted of two parts. The first part included 11 questions aiming at recording mothers’ and toddlers’ demographic information (e.g. educational level, type of occupation, nationality, gender, years living in the country, whether the child has attended a preschool setting, etc.). The second part consisted of 11 open-ended questions. The open-ended questions aimed at recording participants’ beliefs about the advantages and disadvantages of the experience at the park for both mothers and children, the differences of this experience as opposed to children’s enrolment at a day care center, mothers’ attitudes on how the Cypriot culture supports or limits such experiences and the potential difficulties participants’ face, both at a personal and organizational level, in their effort to adopt such an approach.

  The Case of a Self-Developed Community of Learners… 

251

Data Analysis Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) was used to analyze and code the data. IPA is a “participant-oriented” approach (Alase, 2007, p.  9) which aims at providing detailed examinations of personal lived experiences (Smith & Osborn, 2008) and as such “gives researchers the best opportunity to understand the innermost deliberation of the ‘lived experiences’ of research participants” (Alase, 2007, p. 9). Data for IPA are obtained from a purposive, homogeneous sample and they are “subjected to an idiographic qualitative analysis, looking in detail for experiential themes case by case and only then for patterns across cases” (Smith, 2017). Following the analytic process taken by Smith and Osborn (2015) and described by Pietkiewicz and Smith (2012), the initial stage of data analysis involved multiple readings of participants’ responses and note making. Subsequently, notes have been transformed into emergent themes. The final step, before writing our study, involved “looking for connections between emerging themes, grouping them together according to conceptual similarities and providing each cluster with a descriptive label” (Pietkiewicz & Smith, 2012, p. 367).

Results Effects of the Experience on Children Benefits for Children According to participants, this experience has multiple benefits for the children. Analysis revealed benefits at four main levels: (1) social level, (2) physical level, (3) intellectual/cognitive level and (4) ethical/attitudinal level. At the social level, all four mothers maintained that this experience contributes significantly to their children’s socialization and development of social skills. The stability of the team has helped children to learn how to interact (both with children and with other adults), to share, to take

252 

K. Rentzou

turns, to negotiate and to establish friendships. In addition, children learn conditions of friendship (e.g. to share with my friends). At the physical level, all participant mothers highlight that this experience gives their children the opportunity to be out in the fresh air, to exercise, to move freely, to learn their body and to develop much better physical skills, such as balance and coordination. Apart from contributing to gross motor skills development, this experience has helped, according to a mother, the child to strengthen his immune system and not getting sick and to become more robust and strong. At the cognitive level, this experience gives children the opportunity for free play and for creating games with natural resources. Children learn their potentials and their limits (through risks) as well as about the world around them. In addition, children gain academic skills and knowledge, through observing the seasons and the changes in nature. Learning of mathematical concepts, materials’ properties, space concepts, problem-solving and critical thinking were also mentioned by a mother. At the attitudinal level, all mothers refer to children’s direct contact with nature and to children’s ability to create things with natural resources. According to a mother, “nature becomes play” through children’s daily visit to the park, whereas another mother postulated that she feels that her child has the childhood she had, outside in nature. Finally, according to one mother, this experience has benefits at the mother/child level, since the child “sees his parents more liberated at the park”, whereas another mother maintained that this experience has played a central role in her son’s healthy psychosomatic development.

Drawbacks for Children None of the mothers stated that this experience has disadvantages for the child. However, one of the mothers suggested that she supports the idea of kindergarten when the child is 2–3 years old and if the child is ready. As she maintained, she favors kindergarten because “the child learns to share, follows rules in a community and develops social skills”. Another mother maintained that it is due to the stability of the team that she does not see the disadvantages of this experience. According to the mother,

  The Case of a Self-Developed Community of Learners… 

253

“although at the beginning I believed that the park experience would deprive the child from his social development (socialization), the stability of the team helped a lot at this level, too”.

 e Park Experience Versus Day Care Enrolment: Pros Th and Cons for Children Mothers were prompted to describe the difference of the park experience as opposed to children’s enrolment in a day care setting. All mothers stressed the flexible and free character of the park experience, the direct contact with nature and the fact that the child is with the parent. In terms of the flexible and free character of the experience, mothers maintained that at the park children have the opportunity for free play whereas in childcare centers play is structured. Thus, playing with children comes up naturally and spontaneously as opposed to childcare centers. According to a mother, “at the park children learn through play and through the experience in nature. Activities stem from children’s interest and ‘academic knowledge’ is not transmitted to the child by pressure but is naturally gained by the child. On the contrary, in preschool programs, emphasis is placed on academic knowledge and activities are primarily organized by the educator”. Another mother maintained that the school is not as flexible as the park where there is no strict routine. As the mother said “in school children have ‘to fit’ in the system from early on”. Two of the mothers maintained that through this experience children have the opportunity to spend time in nature and not “in a confined room as in childcare centers”. Finally, three of the mothers highlighted that this experience allows the parent and the child to be together and the child is not deprived of the parent. This helps, according to a mother, “children feel more secure”, since according to another mother, “the child and the parent play together”. On the contrary, at school teachers can’t support, according to another mother, each child individually 100%. Finally, one mother suggested that this experience will help her child to have a smooth transition to kindergarten, since the child’s daily life does not change abruptly.

254 

K. Rentzou

Effects of the Experience on Mothers Benefits for Mothers Analysis revealed seven categories of benefits for mothers: (1) benefits on the child level / learning from own child, (2) benefits for the mother-­ child relationship, (3) learning from other parents, (4) learning from other children, (5) Socialization, (6) benefits on mood and (7) contact with nature/physical level. In terms of benefits on the child level, mothers reported that this experience allows them to monitor their child’s progress and development, that they see their child being free and developing nicely in the nature and that they feel satisfied as mothers for giving their child the opportunity to grow up in nature and acquire their first knowledge naturally. The experience affects also the relationship mothers have with their children. According to a mother, it is easier to handle the child at the park, whereas another mother stressed that at the park she is spending quality time with the child. Thus, it was mentioned that this experience has contributed to the mother’s harmonic relationship with her son. All mothers maintained that this experience, also, helps them learn from other parents. As mothers urged, they meet other mothers and they exchange experiences, viewpoints, considerations and thoughts both about their child and about other issues (e.g. social). According to a mother, “I learn by observing other parents’ reactions, I adopt the behaviors that fit my style and reject those that do not”. Another mother stressed: “I also see through other parents that our interaction helps us to think about our parenting role and our parenting practices and probably reconsider our approach. For example, I have seen parents who did not allow their child to get dirty with the soil, but seeing the approach of other parents they reconsidered and they allowed their child to engage in such activities/games”. This experience also helps parents learn from other children. According to a mother, “I interact with other children who have approximately the same age with my child and I observe the different developmental stages”. The contribution of this experience to their own socialization was stressed

  The Case of a Self-Developed Community of Learners… 

255

by all mothers. The park experience is a motive for them to socialize, to meet other mothers and to establish stable relationships. Two mothers also stressed that this experience affects their mood. According to one mother, “it revives me and I feel more ‘alive’, compared to the days we do not go at the park”. Another mother also reported that this experience has contributed to her personal and companionate tranquility. Finally, at the physical/contact with nature level, a mother indicated that she also spends time outside in nature, whereas another mother maintains that she has the opportunity to exercise regularly.

Drawbacks for Mothers None of the mothers maintained that this experience has drawbacks for them. One mother commented that whether they go to the park or not depends on the weather. Another mother responded that “getting involved in such an experience requires from you to reconsider your perspective and to accept that, for example, you will be dirty, wet, etc.”

 e Park Experience Versus Day Care Enrolment: Pros Th and Cons for Mothers Mothers were asked to describe how this experience is different for them as opposed to children’s enrolment in a day care center. Overall, mothers indicated that day care enrolment would ensure more time for them and their personal needs. However, all of them said that this is one of the most precious experiences that they could offer to their child and that they are feeling lucky for finding this “alternative”. They also all highlighted that this experience is better as opposed to day care enrolment, because it meets children’s needs, enhances the relationship they have with their child and they monitor their children’s progress. More precisely, mothers maintained that this experience gives them the opportunity to observe their child’s interaction with other children, to see their child developing, and to “learn better this new character that is being built daily”. As a result, mothers do not have “gaps” about their children’s

256 

K. Rentzou

development, as it would be the case if the child attended a day care center. Thus, the mothers reported that they spend more time with their child and one mother urged that she feels satisfied as a mother with her mothering approach. Finally, a mother maintained: “when my child was enrolled in a day care center, I was not feeling secure about the way teachers interacted with my child and I was not feeling confident about whether the program was meeting my child’s needs”.

Factors Inhibiting the Park Experience Mothers were asked to describe how the cultural context supports or hinders this experience and the personal and organizational (infrastructure) difficulties they confront while adopting such an approach for their children’s upbringing.

Cultural Constraints All mothers maintained that the culture of the country neither inhibits such experiences, since it is a personal choice, nor supports them. Rather it makes it more difficult to adopt such an approach. The cultural constraints described by the mothers fall under three categories: 1. Policy level: Two of the mothers highlighted that maternity leave in Cyprus lasts only four months. “So if the mother is financially forced to go back to work on a full-time base, the child won’t have this experience (at least less times and hours)”. This too-short maternity leave results, according to a mother, to most infants in Cyprus being enrolled in day care centers from a very young age. 2. Parental attitudes: Three of the mothers referred to Cypriot parents’ attitudes toward such experiences. First of all, it was highlighted that it is rare to find Cypriot parents who do not work and take on their children’s care completely on their own. And this is evident from the fact that only one Cypriot mother belongs to this community, in a

  The Case of a Self-Developed Community of Learners… 

257

stable basis. Two mothers suggested that they frequently feel being criticized for their choices (e.g. having the child barefoot or having the child running in the rain). Finally, another mother maintained: “I frequently meet parents who are constantly saying to their child ‘don’t do this, don’t do that, don’t…’, and they often say ‘don’t’ to my child too (e.g. don’t climb the slide backwards) and this is something that upsets me”. 3. Limited contact with nature: One of the mothers suggested that Cypriot parents are excessively concerned with natural elements (e.g. rain, cold, dust, etc.) and that they have reduced familiarity with the natural environment.

Infrastructural Constraints Three of the mothers referred to infrastructural constraints. As one of the mothers said: “Cyprus has parks, but they need to be improved”. All three mothers referred to the fact that the playground cannot be used during summer and high temperatures, since those who are responsible have not the foresight to create a canopy in the playground. This has resulted in a child being seriously burned while using a slide the previous summer. Thus, although the equipment is relatively well maintained, they are sending out “a general picture of lack of care and renewal”. Finally, one mother said that the park is not as clean as it should be and this results in “sometimes hindering my child’s desire to get involved in a certain game”.

Time Constraints One of the mothers maintained that the only difficulty she faces at a personal level is the lack of personal time, because she is never separated from her baby. Another mother referred to the difficulty she has to “organize everything before the visit at the park (getting ready, cook for lunch, tidy up the house)”.

258 

K. Rentzou

Discussion Over the last decades, we have witnessed significant changes in how we think about early childhood, parenting and parenting support provision. These reconceptualizations have been pervasive and take place in all systems that children and their families participate. Common to these reconceptualizations has been a rejection of scientific reductionism, with its definition of children as passive objects and of parents as deficit. This perspective has been replaced by one that views children as active learners who co-construct their knowledge and parenting as complex, personal and social process. The present study aimed at contributing to reconceptualist scholarship in different ways. First of all, the study theoretically and methodologically gives voice to an unrepresented group. Specifically, although internationally a big percentage of children under 3  years of age are not cared for by formal arrangements1 and internationally two-thirds of new moms choose to stay with their children (Guryan et al., 2008),2 literature review indicates that we know little about how children and mothers spent their time during in-home familial care as well as about how they experience in-home familial care. However, understanding how parents and children experience their family life and exploring the values that inform their actions and life is of utmost importance. This is especially true in light of the expansion of “early childhood spaces” and the shift in the “formerly ‘private life’ of the youngest” (Bollig & Millei, 2018, p. 6). In addition, reconceptualist movement tends to focus on classroom life in order to challenge dominant discourses. This study moves beyond the classroom, in order to challenge existing research and practice that view child as passive and incomplete and “position the child unequally in  In Cyprus, according to the OECD Family Database, 35.9% of children aged 0–2 years and 7.4% of children aged 3–5 years did not use either formal or informal childcare during a typical week in 2014. 2  In Cyprus, employment rate among women who had children aged less than 6 years of age was 68.8% in 2016. According to the OECD Family Database, in 2014 whereas 51.03% of both parents with children aged 0–2 years and 57.77% of both parents with children aged 3–5 years were working full-time, 26.40% and 23.92% of parents with children of these age groups retrospectively, only the one partner worked full-time whereas the other partner did not work. 1

  The Case of a Self-Developed Community of Learners… 

259

relation to adults, to each others and to the very category of childhood itself ” (Farley, 2018, p. 12). Results highlight the importance of outdoor play and learning for children’s overall development and for children’s well-being at the present. Participants maintained that contact with nature yields positive outcomes for the children in all developmental domains. Summarizing the benefits reported by the mothers, we would maintain that this experience enables children to learn how to know, to do, to be and to live together (Delors, 2013). According to the mothers, children not only acquire new knowledge naturally but also develop a thirst for knowledge and learn how to learn (learning to know) (Delors, 2013). Also, the structure of the community of learners, which acknowledges children as active participants and co-constructors of their knowledge, allows them to develop the skills required in order to be able to function and adopt in different and/or unforeseen situations (learning to do) (Anderson, Hegarty, Henry, Kim & Care, 2018). All mothers stressed how this community of learners fostered their children’s socialization, a central aspect of the third pillar: learning to live together. According to Anderson et al. (2018, p. 4), learning to live together addresses the need for understanding other people, being respectful of divergent perspectives and being able to manage conflict. Finally, this outdoor experience has helped children to learn to be. Learning encompasses the need for “fully developing the creative potential of each individual, in all its richness and complexity, [… enabling] everyone to improve their self-­ knowledge during their vital quest for self-esteem” (Delors, 2013, p. 323). In addition, the study highlights the co-relationship among and between children and adults and the co-construction of knowledge and experience. In addition, results replicate Waller (2014, p.  161) who framed both adult and children’s participation as a spatial and relational process and suggests that participatory processes have outcomes for children and adults, creating adults as co-learners. Third, the study contributes into reconceptualist scholarship by highlighting the need for reconceptualizing parenting support provision, in a way that addressed contemporary parents’ diversity and complexity of roles and subsequently the diversity of their needs, which are not limited to enhanced parenting skills, but also include resources to respond to their children’s needs, supported couple relationship, social and human

260 

K. Rentzou

capital activities, and supported well-being at the personal and parenting level. More precisely, the present study highlights that parenting support provision should not be limited to enhancing parenting skills, as the mothers of our sample seem to have the skills necessary to provide their children with the elements of nurturing care, but they lack opportunities for socialization, personal well-being as well as institutions and services that can meet the needs of their children, as they themselves define them and go beyond preparation for school. Specifically, in lack of support at the social level, the study confirms previous results highlighting that outdoor environments are places of social capital and places that foster the development of community of learners. The presented community of learners has positive effects for the mothers, both at an “individual” and at “networking” level (McShane et  al., 2016). In line with previous research results (McShane et al., 2016), participant mothers have found a place where they can overcome the social isolation they experience and network with other mothers with whom they have shared experiences. In addition, as every community of learners, this one too has enabled mothers to learn both from their children and from other children and other mothers. This results into enhancing and reconsidering parenting attitudes and skills. Finally, confirming previous research results (Blackford, 2004; Wilson, 2011), our study revealed that this outdoor experience has helped strengthening family ties and more precisely to strengthen and improve the relationship between mothers and children. In addition, our results suggest that although parenting is indeed linked to family intimacy, despite this intimacy, it should be designated as a domain of public policy (Council of Europe, 2006). According to the mothers, although adopting such an approach for their children’s education and upbringing is a personal choice, at the same time factors related to policy and infrastructure make it difficult to adopt it. More precisely, despite the fact that “there is a great variety of parenting ‘cultures’” (Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible for Family Affairs, 2006, p. 5) and despite recommendations for implementing and further developing “a suitable policy to bring about a change in social attitudes and patterns of life in order to accommodate more effectively the needs of children, parents and families” (Council of Europe, 2006), the study revealed a lack of efforts toward that. As we

  The Case of a Self-Developed Community of Learners… 

261

have seen, mothers suggested that one of the factors inhibiting the park experience is cultural constraints and more precisely parental attitudes. In this line, and following international moves for raising awareness about the importance of outdoor play and learning and for restructuring outdoor playgrounds, it is imperative to initiate policy initiatives at this level. Moreover, the study highlights how parents advocate for their children’s well-being in light of the lack of ECEC services that meet their values. As it becomes evident from mothers’ replies, the degree to which the structure of the Cypriot educational system and more precisely the values pertaining to the Cypriot kindergarten meet the values and needs of the participant mothers is questionable. For example, mothers when they were asked how this experience is different from the experience of attending a preschool setting, they have stressed that this experience gives them the opportunity to meet their children’s needs whereas they question the ability of kindergarten teachers to support their children individually. Taking into consideration the fact that in Cyprus adult-child ratio is very high (Rentzou, 2017b, 2018), we would maintain that mothers’ arguments are not far from the truth. Moreover, mothers stressed the importance of their children’s contact with nature and natural learning and maintained that ECEC settings, on the one hand, emphasize on academic knowledge and de-emphasize play and, on the other hand, they are not offering children opportunities for spending time in nature. Their arguments are in line with previous research indicating that in Cyprus a work versus play culture prevails (Rentzou et al., 2018) and with criticisms about the fact that in their majority Cypriot ECEC settings have plastic outdoor environments and deprive children of the contact with nature (Rentzou, 2017c). As we have seen taking into consideration, parents’ values are of utmost importance. Thus, although in Cyprus, emphasis is laid on families’ choice on whether they will use ECEC and what ECEC they will use, this choice is limited by the availability of services aligned to families’ values. It is therefore imperative not only to invest in the quality and quantity of ECEC settings (Rentzou, 2018) but also to reconsider the values and aims of ECEC by adopting a top-down and participatory approach. In addition, this experience is inhibited by infrastructural constraints. Although policy papers on positive parenting highlight the need for

262 

K. Rentzou

creating and transforming spaces where children can play and parents can meet with other parents, exchange experiences, learn from one another and play with their children (Council of Europe, n.d.), Cyprus has not invested in public spaces and playgrounds. Despite participant mothers’ efforts and intentions to help toward maintaining and re-organizing the playground, their voices were not heard from administrative staff that they met at the park. For example, the mothers have talked to people who work for the body responsible for the maintenance of the park and have asked for sunshades to be placed at least in some part of the playground, in order for children to be able to use it during summer months. However, nobody seemed to be giving appropriate attention to their call. Finally, results of the present study suggest that the equality of men and women is not safeguarded. The mothers were the ones who have chosen to (temporarily) leave their work or work part-time in order to be with their children, whereas the fathers continue working. Overall, although in Cyprus, some emphasis has been given to the balance between work and family life, which is one of the policies which might support positive parenting, we would maintain that the socio-educational dimension has been neglected. For example, in Cyprus, we are having underinvestment in public childcare services and the quality of services is questionable (Rentzou, 2018). Of course, this study does not come without limitations, which are related to the small sample size. However, in qualitative research, the emphasis is not placed on the sample size but rather on the experiences of the participants. To conclude, our study aimed at questioning contemporary conceptualizations, policies and practices around early childhood and parenting support provision and calls for growing efforts to voicing the experiences of underrepresented, in research and policy perspectives, group such as those of children who do not receive any type of out-of-home ECEC and their SAHMs. First, the present study highlights the need to shed further light on the lived experiences of groups of children and parents who are currently underrepresented in research. “Reconceptualist scholars have pointed the “ethical limits and social exclusions brought by ‘theories about the natural development of the assumed-to-be-universal child’ in early childhood contexts” (cited in Farley, 2018, p. 10). Although such

  The Case of a Self-Developed Community of Learners… 

263

groups may be seen as “unusual” or “unfamiliar” inside the norm, which is currently equated to participation in ECEC setting, such groups are not exceptional or discarded opposite. Thus, the study calls for research efforts that go beyond the classroom life in order to challenge the predominance of human capital, neoliberal and developmental theories. In addition, the study challenges the dominance of human capital theory in interpretations of ECEC and the HLE, which favors children’s preparation for the future and excludes children’s well-being in the present. Thus, the study challenges definitions of in-home familial care. Specifically, our results are in line with Blackford’s (2004, pp. 232–233) postulation that the beliefs that mothers and children “literally ‘stay at home’ and that individual family is the unit of socialization, or cultural reproduction and negotiation” are a myth. Despite this fact, we know little about stay-at-home children’s and mothers’ experiences. In lack of existing research, constraints will most probably continue existing. Thus, taking into consideration the fact that “the places that children [and parents] find for themselves show specifically which position a society assigns to them” (Bollig & Millei, 2018, p. 6), it becomes more than imperative to reconsider our views about children and families and to understand that all levels of society have a role in and obligation to support the children and the families.

References Anderson, K., Hegarty, S., Henry, M., Kim, H., & Care, E. (2018). Breadth of learning opportunities. A fresh approach to evaluating education systems. Washington, DC: Center for Universal Education (CUE) and Education International (EI). Alase, A. (2007). The interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA): A guide to a good qualitative research approach. International Journal of Education & Literacy Studies, 5(2), 9–19. Bean, H., Softas-Nall, L., Eberle, K. M., & Paul, J. A. (2016). Can we talk about stay-at-home moms? Empirical findings and implications for counseling. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families, 24(1), 23–30.

264 

K. Rentzou

Bento, G., & Dias, G. (2017). The importance of outdoor play for young children’s healthy development. Porto Biomedical Journal, 2(5), 157–160. Blackford, H. (2004). Playground panopticism. Ring-around-the-children, a pocketful of women. Childhood, 11(2), 227–249. Bollig, S., & Millei, Z. (2018). Spaces of early childhood: Spatial approaches in research on early childhood education and care. Journal of Pedagogy, 9(1), 5–20. Brown, A. L., & Champione, J. C. (1998). Designing a community of young learners: Theoretical and practical lessons. In N. M. Lambert & B. L. McCombs (Eds.), How students learn: Reforming schools through learner centered education (pp. 153–186). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Carsley, S., Liang, L. Y., Chen, Y., Parkin, P., Maguire, J., Birken, C. S., et al. (2017). The impact of daycare attendance on outdoor free play in young children. Journal of Public Health, 39(1), 145–152. Council of Europe Conference of Ministers responsible for Family Affairs. (2006). Positive parenting. Report on the follow-up to the 28th Conference of European Ministers responsible for family affairs. Lisbon. Council of Europe. (2006). Recommendation rec (2006)19 of the committee of ministers to member states on policy to support positive parenting with appendix and explanatory report. Strasbourg, Council of Europe Publishing. Council of Europe. (n.d.). Policy to support positive parenting. Retrieved August 28, 2018, from https://rm.coe.int/168046d340 Delors, J. (2013). The treasure within: Learning to know, learning to do, learning to live together and learning to be. What is the value of that treasure 15 years after its publication? International Review of Education, 59, 319–330. Farley, L. (2018). Childhood beyond pathology: A psychoanalytic study of development and diagnosis. Albany: State University of New York. Fjørtoft, I. (2001). The natural environment as a playground for children: The impact of outdoor play activities in pre-primary school children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29(2), 111–117. Gill, T. (2014). The benefits of children’s engagement with nature: A systematic literature review. Children, Youth and Environments, 24(2), 10–34. Guryan, J., Hurst, E., & Kearney, M. (2008). Parental education and parental time with children. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(3), 23–46. Kemple, K. M., Oh, J., Kenney, E., & Smith-Bonahue, T. (2016). The power of outdoor play and play in natural environments. Childhood Education, 92(6), 446–454. Landry, C. (2007). Understanding the information behavior of stay-at-home mothers through affect. In D.  Nahl& & D.  Bilal (Eds.), Information and

  The Case of a Self-Developed Community of Learners… 

265

emotion: The emergent affective paradigm in information behavior research and theory (pp. 211–233). New Jersey, Medford: Information Today, Inc. Little, H., & Eager, D. (2010). Risk, challenge and safety: Implications for play quality and playground design. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 18(4), 497–513. Loucaides, C. A., & Tsangaridou, N. (2017). Associations between parental and friend social support and children’s physical activity and time spent outside playing. International Journal Of Pediatrics. https://doi. org/10.1155/2017/7582398 MacQuarrie, S., Nugent, C., & Warden, C. (2015). Learning with nature and learning from others: Nature as setting and resource for early childhood education. Journal of Adventure Education & Outdoor Learning, 15(1), 1–23. McCree, M., Cutting, R., & Sherwin, D. (2018). The hare and the tortoise go to forest school: Taking the scenic route to academic attainment via emotional wellbeing outdoors. Early Child Development and Care. https://doi. org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1446430 McShane, I., Cook, K., Sinclair, S., Keam, G., & Fry, J. (2016). Relationships matter: The social and economic benefits of community playgroups. A research report prepared for playgroup Australia. Melbourne: RMIT University. Natural England. (2016). Monitor of engagement with the natural environment: A pilot to develop an indicator of visits to the natural environment by children. Results from years 1 and 2 (March 2013 to February 2015). Retrieved June 14, 2018, from https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/ system/uploads/attachment_data/file/498944/mene-­c hildrens-­r eport-­ years-­1-­2.pdf Pietkiewicz, I., & Smith, J.  A. (2012). Praktycznyprzewodnikinterpretacyjnejanalizyfenomenologicznej w badaniachjakościowych w psychologii. CzasopismoPsychologiczne, 18(2), 361–369. Rentzou, K. (2018). Family support and early childhood education and care in Cyprus: Existing policies and challenges. Early Child Development and Care, 188(5), 571–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1433172 Rentzou, K. (2017a). [Parental engagement in early childhood education and care. A practical guide for parents and teachers [Γονεϊκήεμπλοκήστηνπροσχ ολικήεκπαίδευσηκαιφροντίδα: Έναςπρακτικόςοδηγόςγιαγονείςκαιεκπαιδ ευτικούς]. Nicosia: Parga. Rentzou, K. (2017b). The quality of ECEC in Cyprus: Need to improve group size group and children educator ratios. In paideia.news. Retrieved from http:// www.paideia-­news.com/index.php?id=109&hid=25215&url=%CE%97-­ %CF%80%CE%BF%CE%B9%CF%8C%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%84%

266 

K. Rentzou

CE%B1-­%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82-­%CE%A0%CF%81%CE%BF% CF%83%CF%87%CE%BF%CE%BB%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AE %CF%82-­%CE%95%CE%BA%CF%80%CE%B1%CE%AF%CE%B4 % C E % B 5 % C F % 8 5 % C F % 8 3 % C E % B 7 % C F % 8 2 -­ %CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%B9-­%CE%A6%CF%81%CE%BF%CE%BD % C F % 8 4 % C E % A F % C E % B 4 % C E % B 1 % C F % 8 2 -­% C F % 83%CF%84%CE%B7%CE%BD-­%CE%9A%CF%8D%CF%80%CF% 81%CE%BF:-­ Rentzou, K. (2017c). From the forest kindergartens abroad to the “plastic yards” of Cypriot kindergarten schools. Inpaideia.news. Retrieved from http://www. paideia-­news.com/index.php?id=109&hid=25675&url=%CE%91%CF%8 0%CF%8C-­%CF%84%CE%B1-­%CE%B4%CE%B1%CF%83%CE%B 9%CE%BA%CE%AC-­%CE%BD%CE%B7%CF%80%CE%B9%CE%B 1 % C E % B 3 % C F % 8 9 % C E % B 3 % C E % B 5 % C E % A F % C E % B 1 -­ %CF%84%CE%BF%CF%85-­%CE%B5%CE%BE%CF%89%CF%84 % C E % B 5 % C F % 8 1 % C E % B 9 % C E % B A % C E % B F % C F % 8 D -­ %CF%83%CF%84%CE%B9%CF%82-­%C2%AB%CF%80%CE%BB% CE%B1%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CE%AD%CF%82-­ % C E % B 1 % C F % 8 5 % C E % B B % C E % A D % C F % 8 2 % C 2 % B B -­ %CF%84%CF%89%CE%BD-­%CE%BA%CF%85%CF%80%CF%81% CE%B9%CE%B1%CE%BA%CF%8E%CE%BD-­%CE%BD%CE%B7 %CF%80%CE%B9%CE%B1%CE%B3%CF%89%CE%B3%CE%B5% CE%AF%CF%89%CE%BD Rentzou, K., Slutsky, R., Tuul, M., Gol-Guven, M., Kragh-Müller, G., Foerch, D. F., et al. (2018). Preschool teachers’ conceptualizations and uses of play across eight countries. Early Childhood Education Journal. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10643-­018-­0910-­1 Robertson, J., Martin, P., Borradaile, L., & Alker, S. (2009). Glasgow and Clyde valley forest kindergarten feasibility study. Glasgow: Forestry Commission Scotland. Rogoff, B., Matusov, E., & White, C. (1998). Models of teaching and learning: Participation in a community of learners. In D.  R. Olson & N.  Torrance (Eds.), The handbook of education and human development (pp.  388–414). Oxford: Blackwell. Shiakou, M., & Belsky, J. (2013). Exploring parent attitudes toward children’s play and learning in Cyprus. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 27(1), 17–30. Smith, J. A. (2017). Interpretative phenomenological analysis: Getting at lived experience. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 12(3), 303–304.

  The Case of a Self-Developed Community of Learners… 

267

Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2015). Interpretative phenomenological analysis as a useful methodology for research on the lived experience of pain. British Journal of Pain, 9(1), 41–42. Smith, J. A., & Osborn, M. (2008). Interpretive phenomenological analysis. In J. A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative psychology: A practical guide to research methods (2nd ed., pp.  53–80). New Delhi: Sage Publications Ltd. London, Thousand Oaks. Strife, S., & Downey, L. (2009). Childhood development and access to nature: A new direction for environmental inequality research. Organization and Environment, 22(1), 99–122. The Heritage Council. (2016). Children and the outdoors. Contact with the outdoors and natural heritage among children aged 5 to 12: Current trends, benefits, barriers and research requirements. Kilkenny: AnChomhairleOidhreachta, The Heritage Council. Turkanis, C. G., Bartlett, L., & Rogoff, B. (2001). Never-ending learning. In B. Rogoff, C. G. Turkanis, & L. Barlett (Eds.), Learning together: Children and adults in a school community (pp.  225–244). New  York: Oxford University Press. Ulset, V., Vitaro, F., Brendgen, M., Bekkhus, M., & Borge, A. I. H. (2017). Time spent outdoors during preschool: Links with children’s cognitive and behavioral development. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 52, 69–80. Waller, T. (2014). Voices in the park: Researching the participation of young children in outdoor play in early years settings. Management in Education, 28(4), 161–166. Weingarten, I.  M. (1975, April 3). Conceptualizing the reconceptualists. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Washington, DC. White, R., & Stoecklin, V. (1996). Children’s outdoor play & learning environments: Returning to nature. Retrieved May 25, 2018, from https://www. whitehutchinson.com/children/articles/outdoor.shtml Wilson, C. (2011). Effective approaches to connect children with nature. Principles for effectively engaging children and young people with nature. Wellington: Department of Conservation. Wishart, L., & Rouse, E. (2018). Pedagogies of outdoor spaces: An early childhood educator professional learning journey. Early Child Development and Care. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2018.1450250

The “Race” in “R.E.C.E.”: Reconceptualizing Play-Based Learning Through an Anti-racist Lens Kerry-Ann Escayg

Introduction The pedagogical value of play in relation to children’s learning and development remains central to early childhood research, policy, and practice. Indeed, it is widely acknowledged that play is the most natural way in which children learn (Yelland, 2011). Yet, while a precise definition of play has yet to be established (Briggs & Hansen, 2012; Fesseha & Pyle, 2016), Danniels and Pyle (2018) conceptualized play-based learning as “to learn at play” (p. 1). They further indicated that such is “distinct from the broader concept of play” (p. 1). Conceptually, however, developmental theories constitute the overarching framework of play-based learning (Pacini-Ketchabaw, 2014), although there have been attempts at conceptualizing play utilizing diverse theoretical frameworks (Roopnarine, K.-A. Escayg (*) Early Childhood Education, University of Nebraska-Omaha, Omaha, NE, USA e-mail: [email protected] © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Z. Kinkead-Clark, K.-A. Escayg (eds.), Reconceptualizing Quality in Early Childhood Education, Care and Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69013-7_12

269

270 

K.-A. Escayg

2015) and interpreting children’s play activities using critical race and anti-racist theories (e.g., Escayg, 2020b; MacNevin & Berman, 2017) As the literature shows, accenting the developmental impact of play on children’s social-emotional competence continues to shape much of the early childhood research, with many scholars reporting on the positive outcomes of pretend play, for instance (e.g., Hoffmann & Russ, 2012; Rao & Gibson, 2019; Spivak & Howes, 2011). Yet, while such focus dominates the research landscape, few scholars (for exceptions see, e.g., Adair & Doucet, 2014; Escayg, Berman, & Royer, 2017; Pacini-­ Ketchabaw, 2014) have moved beyond the confines of developmental research to not only situate play-based learning within contextual, critical race and ant-racist analyses, but also consider how children’s racial identities inform their interactions with peers, play-based learning environments, as well as the content of their play activities. Indeed, little reconceptualist literature focuses on children’s play, using race and racism as analytical tools to critique, re-define, and address limitations of play-­ based learning. In an attempt to address the gaps in the existing literature, particularly with respect to race and anti-racism in early childhood education, this chapter assesses the efficiency of play-based learning using an anti-racist lens. Concomitantly, it considers how such a pedagogical approach can be oriented toward specific anti-racist practices grounded in an awareness of children’s racial identities, the need for diverse theoretical perspectives and experiences in play-based scholarship, and the contextual factors that impinge upon racialized children’s well-being and academic success. In the first section, I provide a brief review of play and learning. Anti-­ racist precepts and reconceptualist literature serve as the conceptual backgrounds to discuss the defining features of anti-racism in play-based learning. In the concluding section, I further elaborate on these connections, but with an aim toward articulating implications for early childhood practices and teacher educators.

  The “Race” in “R.E.C.E.”: Reconceptualizing Play-Based… 

271

A Reconceptualist Review of Play and Learning Reconceptualist early childhood literature, characterized by an emphasis on asking new questions and challenging assumed truths (Yelland & Bentley, 2018), emerged in the mid-1980s to interrogate prevailing normative assumptions concerning children and learning, much of which were established through dominant discourses such as child development and Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP). Indeed, a central and sharp criticism in the early reconceptualist scholarship was the ways in which child development functioned as an exclusionary and hegemonic body of knowledge, excluding diverse perspectives, cultures, and experiences from non-Euro-Western societies contexts (Nagasawa & Swadener, 2018; Pacini-Ketchabaw, 2010). Since its inception, the reconceptualist movement has challenged discipline norms and the attendant classroom practices. In fact, postmodern theories inform this critical body of work: One which challenges marginalization and inequities, while also highlighting the voices/experiences of subjugated groups and racialized identities, and advocating for socially just approaches in early childhood classrooms across the globe (Escayg, 2020a; Pacini-Ketchabaw, 2010). Applying these central themes of social justice, postmodern theoretical influences, the centrality of racialized identity, and inclusion of diverse perspectives/epistemologies to play and learning, reveals several critical insights. First, it is important to point out that developmental psychology is the guiding theory of play-based learning and associated play-based pedagogies (Roopnarine, 2015). With such a limited scope, however, children’s racialized encounters with their peers (i.e., encounters in which racial markers are used to either exclude, racialize, or extend privilege) may be missed and or misinterpreted. Alternatively, narrow definitions of play reinforce a hierarchy of knowledges, as well as binary thinking, as such marginalizes the import of social theories derived from experiential knowledge, continued subjugation— but more importantly, resistance to such experiences through scholarly work (such as writing or research), and/or community activism. For instance, rather than solely focusing on developmental psychology,

272 

K.-A. Escayg

play-based curriculum can—and should—be shaped by multiple theoretical orientations, including Black feminist thought (Collins, 2000), anti-colonial Caribbean theory (Escayg, 2014), anti-colonial theory (Dei, 2012), Afrocentric education (Asante, 1991), Indigenous worldviews (Motegi, 2019), critical race and anti-racism theories in early childhood education (e.g., Abawi & Berman, 2019). While it is commonly acknowledged that play is a universal activity among all children, the long-standing legacies of colonization and racism continue to impact the quality of life for Indigenous children and children of color. To ensure theoretical multiplicity in the realm of play and learning, therefore, is to recognize and respect such realities. Of equal significance, particularly from a reconceptualist perspective and anti-racist perspective, are parents’ beliefs about children’s play. International scholarship indicates that parents’ views vary considerably, and these may stem from cultural, contextual, and demographic factors. Research conducted with Indo-Caribbean parents’ beliefs, for instance, revealed that they evaluated learning through play positively, owing to the belief that play fosters social, emotional, and cognitive benefits for young children (Roopnarine & Jin, 2012). It is important to note that such finding is limited to Caribbean immigrant parents; literature on Caribbean parents and teachers residing in the region, though sparse, shows that play-based learning is neither widely practiced nor understood (Roopnarine & Dede Yildirim, 2018). Concomitantly, Fogle and Mendez (2006), in their research with African American mothers, found a mixed pattern of results. Specifically, some of the participants valued play, while others believed in and supported an academic focus. In marked contrast, European American parents, particularly mothers, believed that play supported children’s overall development (Jiang & Han, 2016; Parmar, Harkness, & Super, 2004). The wide variation among parents’ beliefs concerning play and its developmental outcomes points to both scholarly and pedagogical implications. First, a reconceptualist and anti-racist analysis suggests that the cultural incongruity between play-based learning and racialized groups’ perspective of its relative significance, signifies underlying historical/ socio-cultural influences that inform how parents ascribe meaning to play and children’s development. More plainly, parents from historically

  The “Race” in “R.E.C.E.”: Reconceptualizing Play-Based… 

273

oppressed groups, such as African Americans, may place emphasis on academics instead of play, because not only they  were denied such an opportunity during slavery, but also, despite educational and legal interventions, inequities, such as the achievement gap, and biased discipline practices, persist across many levels of education, including the preschool years (e.g., Gansen, 2020; Paschall, Gershoff, & Kuhfeld, 2018; Wun, 2016). In a similar vein, conceptualizing play-based learning as the only effective approach to early years education engenders a simplistic binary—for an exclusionary approach to learning reveals the intimate link between early childhood education and Western knowledge systems, and how such partnership may be perceived as a neocolonizing instrument, given that it supplants other knowledges and culturally situated pedagogies. Simply stated, play is not the only way; other types of curriculum, namely, Indigenous and culturally relevant curriculum models exist; these not only reflect children’s cultural realities but also support their cognitive and social-emotional needs (Escayg, n.d.; Viruru, 2001). Moreover, when play-based pedagogy is “exported” to other countries, as Moland (2017) found in her research with Nigerian educators and a Sesame Square training program, considerations must be given to the culture of the context, logistics, as well as teachers’ training in and attitudes toward play-based learning. Specifically, the data showed that “many educators struggled to implement play-based learning approaches” (p. 18). Escayg’s (n.d.) research revealed a similar finding. Trinidadian early childhood educators who endorsed play-based learning also recognized the incongruities between such an approach, parents’ as well as primary school teachers’ expectations, and the academic rigor of the primary-level education system. In response, they enacted a “hybrid” curriculum: one which emphasized both play and academics. Divergent views between research that touts play as a primary example of “best practice” and the actual teaching practices in diverse societies require “context-appropriate play-based approaches that develop educators’ capacities to help all children thrive, while also incorporating local cultural beliefs about childhood and teaching” (Moland, 2017, p. 17). I have reconceptualized and re-imagined play-based learning by considering these important factors, while also addressing how an anti-racist

274 

K.-A. Escayg

lens applied to play-based learning can support racialized children’s identity development, foster a deeper appreciation for non-Western play activities, and cultivate anti-racist attitudes among young White children. To be sure, I am not dismissing the value of play in children’s lives. My position is quite clear: Similar to other scholars, I believe play holds much potential for shaping children’s developmental trajectories. What I oppose, and oppose vociferously, however, is the marginalizing of non-­ European/Western cultures, histories, and identities in the conceptualizations of play-based pedagogies and related classroom practices. Thus, I consider the present discussion to be an extension of reconceptualist scholars’ work who continue to challenge  the influence of hegemonic bodies of knowledge on early years education. By positioning “race” as a central analytical feature, however, I enrich and strengthen the reconceptualist literature, as there remains a need for anti-racist analyses of the field of early childhood education more broadly and curriculum (including play-based) in particular. Therefore, my central focus was to identify principles that while distinct, when applied collectively, would encourage meaningful and critical learning experiences from which children can develop understandings about race, identity, privilege, and power; and as a field, to continue the dialogue concerning the privileging of Eurocentric perspectives and the dominant knowledge systems influencing the professional practices of early childhood educators. In other words, I envisioned transformation as occurring within the classroom community, namely, among teachers and students, parents and teachers, and within the domain of scholarly literature. The questions that prompted such reflective and analytical processes included: How can play-based learning encourage students to think critically about race and racism? How can teachers create anti-racist, culturally relevant play environments so as to cultivate positive racial attitudes and anti-racist attitudes? My primary assertion, however, is that including a rich body of theoretical perspectives in the conceptualization of play moves us one step closer toward anti-racist early learning teaching practices and classroom environments. It should be noted that anti-racist play-based learning is congruent with, and builds on, my earlier conceptualization of anti-racist U.S. early

  The “Race” in “R.E.C.E.”: Reconceptualizing Play-Based… 

275

childhood education (Escayg, 2020a). I begin, however, by addressing the theoretical gaps of contemporary conceptualizations of play-based learning; in doing so, I illustrate the importance of acknowledging multiple perspectives of play as such stands to influence children’s learning, the classroom environment, and parent-teacher relationships.

 rinciple One: Broadening P the Conceptualization of Play The first principle argues that the theoretical landscape of play scholarship necessitates an inclusive conceptualization, one that is not merely predicated on Eurocentric cultural knowledges. As Roopnarine (2015) aptly noted, “traditionally, play has been conceptualized within a narrow band of theories on cognitive and social development (e.g., Piaget’s cognitive developmental theory; Parten’s play typologies) that were presumed to have universal applications” (p. 2). However, in recent years, scholars have challenged such an exclusionary focus, and instead have conceptualized play by way of drawing on a broad range of theoretical orientations (see, e.g., Roopnarine, 2015), though an anti-racist lens has been far less utilized (see Pacini-Ketchabaw, 2014, for a notable exception). In light of this, an anti-racism reconceptualization positions play as a political act by considering how play activities between White and racialized children operate as a site of racialization, through reproducing societal racial discourse that both reflects and normalizes the power dynamics and racial ideologies constituted in and through mechanisms of White supremacy. Additionally, an anti-racism perspective of play recognizes that while children utilize play to express their racial knowledge and lived experiences, play shapes and gives meaning to such identity, as it is an active process mediated by peers, the child, as well as parental and educational socialization. In short, play is a conduit for racial identity knowledge and development. Lastly, a conceptualization of play informed by anti-racism challenges the belief that Eurocentric/American forms of play are the “standard” or universal types of play against which others can and should be evaluated.

276 

K.-A. Escayg

More specifically, anti-racism identifies and problematizes how racialized power relations underpin the significance/value attached to certain types of play. As a result, an anti-racist lens recognizes and gives credence to the play activities of marginalized, non-dominant groups, including Indigenous children and children of the African Diaspora. For instance, in Gaskins’s (2013, 2015) research with Yucatec Mayan children, the author found that children’s pretend play did not incorporate “the element of fantasy” as is often the case in middle-class American children, but rather, reflected the children’s own lived experiences. Pretend play, in essence, expressed what the children had already encountered in their daily lives. In a similar vein, particularly with reference to the role of culture in shaping children’s play, Hale and Bocknek (2015) pointed out that “ movement, dance, music, environmental arts, folkore… have all been important to aspects of African American culture and therefore have influenced the play and development of African American children” (p. 70). Additionally, Roopnarine (2015) found that cultural beliefs about gender and gender roles influenced both the types of play Caribbean children enjoyed and their preference for specific play materials. In short, a more robust conceptualization of play, and one which accords with anti-racism principles, highlights how children enact racialized knowledge through play, and how these behaviors stem from and contribute to racial identity as well as racial attitudes. It also calls attention to and legitimates the varied forms of play in non-Western/European contexts, and addresses the cultural knowledges that undergird children’s perception of play and play activities.

Principle Two: The “Play Counter-Narrative” In the critical race theory literature, counter-narratives refer to experiential knowledge, expressed through varied forms of resistance, such as stories and poetry that challenge hegemonic narratives about race and racism (Kumasi, 2011; McKinley, Brayboy, & Chin, 2018). Such offer critical perspectives through the prism of positionality, whereby lived experiences of subjugation, along with the will and persistence to challenge past

  The “Race” in “R.E.C.E.”: Reconceptualizing Play-Based… 

277

and present indignities and injustices (a type of agency that is transgenerational in nature) “speak against” dominant racial narratives. Although limited work has utilized critical race theory as a conceptual/theoretical lens to probe children’s performances of racial meanings (for exceptions, see MacNevin & Berman, 2017), I argue that young racialized children (and White children as well) can and do enact their own types of resistance by expressing racial perceptions that run counter to the belief in “whiteness as superior and normal” (Pacini-Ketchabaw, 2014, p. 75). In fact, I characterize such forms of children’s resistance as play counter-­ narratives, for such demonstrate children’s agency in refuting dominant racist ideologies. Naming one’s reality, and bridging the personal with the collective, while central to critical race counter-narratives, is also evident in a child’s play counter-narrative. The racialized child not only rejects a desire for “whiteness,” but also situates him/herself within a collective transformative agenda by affirming the value of his/her own group identity. Through play, the child performs an individual act of subversion, one which coheres around group solidarity, racial pride, and self-acceptance. A child’s counter-narrative may take the form of using play materials representative of his/her own racial group, rejecting peers’ racist remarks, and or verbally expressing pride in his/her racialized identity. Admittedly, there is scarce published ethnographic data on children exemplifying resistance to racial discourse through play activities. One of the few studies examining race and children’s play, however, found that one child chose only Black pictures to create her collage (Clarke & Watson, 2014). The authors interpreted this incident, although they offered additional explanations, as indicative of the child’s pro-Black attitudes. Similarly, interview data with Trinidadian teachers regarding their observations of children’s racial comments revealed how preschool-aged children react to and resist anti-Blackness discourse (Escayg, 2014). In Escayg’s (2014) study, one of the educators reported that she overheard an interaction between two students in which one child was demeaning an African Trinidadian child’s hair texture. According to the educator, the young girl retorted with an assertive expression of racial pride. Specifically, she informed her peer that “my mom told me that my hair is beautiful.” The teacher further remarked that the child stated her rebuttal with much

278 

K.-A. Escayg

confidence, thereby illustrating one of the many positive outcomes of parenting strategies (termed racial socialization in the existing literature) that socialize children and adolescents to cope with racist encounters and to feel proud about their racial ancestry. For instance, studies have shown that African American parents of young children routinely affirm children’s physical attributes, including skin color and hair texture, teach children about African American history, and provide opportunities for children to recognize and understand the importance of racial group solidarity (e.g., Coard, Wallace, Stevenson, & Brotman, 2004; Edwards & Few-Demo, 2016; Suizzo, Robinson, & Pahlke, 2008). Notwithstanding the critical role of parents, educators’ practices and beliefs, along with the curriculum and the classroom environment, also function as socialization agents that transmit race-related knowledge to young children (Escayg, 2020a). An anti-racist approach to teachers’ racial socialization practices, therefore, will involve committing to critical self-exploration (with the aim toward uncovering and disrupting any hidden biases or assumptions concerning race), organizing the play environment using anti-racist principles, and observing children’s play behaviors so as not only to record incidents of racialized play but also to use these incidents to create and structure  anti-racist discussions and learning activities (see Escayg, 2020a).

 rinciple Three: Organization and Structure P of Play-Based Learning Environment Broadening conceptualizations of play is an overarching principle of anti-­ racism play-based learning. Indeed, multiple perspectives of play contribute to anti-racist learning environments because such recognizes that how and what children play reflect the intersecting influences of cultural knowledges, social/local context, and parental socialization. As such, restructuring play-based environments requires educators to first consider the racialized culture of the child’s social context. For instance, in the United States, Canada, and across the globe, racism and neocolonization, through cultural, economic, and social forces

  The “Race” in “R.E.C.E.”: Reconceptualizing Play-Based… 

279

of domination, impose physical, psychological, and economic violence in the lives of those categorized as “other”; but at the same time, instantiating an ever-increasing body of anti-racist and anti-colonial scholarship and activism—ranging from grassroots activism to scholarly works that critique the color-blind rhetoric—offers counter-narratives and demands transformation at the educational, societal, and policy levels. Where there is injustice, there is and will always be individual and collective resistance. However, the global impact of racism—as well as its consequences— can be seen in the growing body of literature on children’s preference for whiteness, which often occurs at the expense of their own in-group affirmation (Escayg & Daniel, 2019). An anti-racist play-based learning environment, therefore, would ensure that diverse play materials reflective of the child’s culture are available (Escayg & Kinkead-Clark, 2019; Ng’asike, 2015) and supplemented with teacher-student discussions (Lane, 2008). Consulting with parents about the play activities specific to their cultural background(s) can also provide educators with a wealth of information that can be used to create culturally appropriate play-based environments. Furthermore, including parents in the curriculum of the classroom, and honoring their respective identities, is a critical step in developing an anti-racist relevant approach to play-based learning—as well as parent-teacher relationships. Anti-racist early childhood education proposes a broader definition of parental involvement, one that recognizes racial socialization and other strengths-based practices of African American and racialized families as valid forms of parental involvement (Escayg, 2020a). As has been discussed previously, racial socialization has been shown to develop racial pride in young children. Teachers can make use of such practices in the classroom, for instance, by asking parents about the types of strategies they use to cultivate racial pride, whether these may be through the use of discussions, books, visits to local community centers/organizations, art, or other forms of literature. By utilizing parents’ cultural knowledge and expertise, children experience a unique consistency between home and school learning activities, thereby further strengthening parent-­ teacher relationships, as well as positive outlooks of themselves and their community.

280 

K.-A. Escayg

 rinciple Four: Disrupting Whiteness Through P Analyzing Play Episodes from an Anti-racist Lens For the purposes of this chapter, I define whiteness as a social location of privilege and power, constituted within and through a larger system of racial hierarchy and oppression. The following discussion will utilize such a definition in the analysis of children’s racial attitudes and the suggestions offered to ensure an anti-racist early years classroom space. Although sparse, ethnographic data on children and race have revealed that White children routinely exclude Black  children from their play activities (Escayg, 2020b). One explanation for such finding, and one which dovetails with critical race and anti-racist tenets, is that majority group children, whether through parental or societal socialization, have developed a nascent understanding of one of the many privileges associated with White identity: the privilege of “belonging” to all spaces, largely because White identity is not construed as “the other.” A more critical exegesis, however, indicates that underlying this practice of exclusion is the recognition that White identity carries a particular power (Escayg et al., 2017). It is a power to control and to dominate the desires/behaviors of others; the recipients of such oppressive interactions have no other recourse but to accept and to obey. Simply stated, children’s exclusion of others reveals how they understand racial and power dynamics: one group dominates while another acquiesces. It stands to reason, therefore, that White children have internalized and practiced some of the fundamental assumptions undergirding the myth of White superiority. Taking into account the long-standing and contemporary effects of colonization and slavery, it becomes quite easy to see how young children can associate race with power and status, regardless of the context in which they are located. Indeed, owing to these historical events, White power is not limited to the U.S. or Canadian or even European societies. White hegemony is a global reality, with global consequences (Feagin, 2010). Apart from the economic ramifications, the socially constructed belief in White identity as “normal” and as “superior” remains as the

  The “Race” in “R.E.C.E.”: Reconceptualizing Play-Based… 

281

legitimating ideology that not only sanctions oppressive institutional practices, but also influences  personal  beliefs and interpersonal relationships. Such pervasive practices, deployed by the media, and reinforced within the home and the school, play a substantial role in shaping children’s racial attitudes. As a result of all these contributing spheres of influence, the educator must, therefore, examine White children’s peer interactions as these offer a glimpse into how they are interpreting and reworking racial discourse in ways that collude with the defining features of White supremacy, namely, reproducing the mechanisms of subjugation and control through acts of exclusion (Escayg, 2020b). Conversely, observing the peer interactions of racialized children can reveal if they have internalized the expected beliefs and patterns of behavior inherent to White supremacy (i.e., deference to White children’s attempt at control or exclusion). Conversely, however, educators can also examine children’s play to identify acts of defiance; for example, rejecting expressed beliefs in White superiority, selecting play materials reflective of their identity and or explicitly stating beliefs that reflect pride in and acceptance of their racial group. In order to effectively observe children’s play episodes to detect any of the aforementioned perceptions and behaviors, however, I suggest using Escayg’s (2020b) observational tool. Such instrument contains specific categories, such as race and intersectionality, as well as anti-Blackness, derived from an analysis of children and race, as well as anti-racist and critical race literature. As I have previously pointed out (Escayg, 2020b), the successful implementation of the instrument is contingent upon the educator interrogating his/her own assumptions, beliefs, and/or experiences with race as these may color how he/she interpret the child’s/children’s behavior and peer interactions. Once the educator has a firm grasp on issues of race and racism and anti-racism education, he/she is then able to determine the scope of children’s racial knowledge. The data from the educator’s observation can also inform or improve curriculum, teacher-student interactions, and additional classroom practices.

282 

K.-A. Escayg

Conclusion Advocacy, transformation, and knowledge deconstruction, particularly at the disciplinary level, comprise the chief hallmarks of the reconceptualist scholarship. In this chapter, I have continued such tradition by centering race in an analysis of play-based learning with the aim of suggesting practices congruent with an anti-racism approach to learning and teaching. In light of the ongoing systemic violence constituting the racial oppression of the U.S. and global White hegemony, the exigency of anti-racist perspectives and practices, at all levels of education, besets us even more. One possible way to transform teacher education, at least from an anti-­ racist perspective, is to incorporate a diverse range of cultural beliefs and knowledges, including alternative approaches to parental involvement, in the curriculum (Allen & White-Smith, 2018). Such is necessary as the student population in the United States becomes increasingly diverse, racially, linguistically, and culturally. Furthermore, abundant evidence confirms that teachers’ assumptions (e.g., Dixson & Dodo Seriki, 2014; McCarthy Foubert, 2019; Scott, Gage, Hirn, & Han, 2019) concerning Black and racialized children impact teacher-student relationships, students’ academic performance, and parent-teacher relationships. Therefore, anti-racist professional development opportunities for educators, along with mentor support and coaching, characterize additional efforts to improve the learning experiences and opportunities for racialized children. Learning through play should not come at the expense of disavowing the history, culture, and identities of racialized children. Play, the language of children’s souls, honors their essence, their being, their individuality, and their connection to the spiritual and natural worlds. To such a quality, one which is fluid, allowing for both exploration and self-­ discovery, we must now fix and retain our gaze.

  The “Race” in “R.E.C.E.”: Reconceptualizing Play-Based… 

283

References Abawi, Z., & Berman, R. (2019). Politicizing early childhood education and care in Ontario: Race, identity and belonging. Journal of Curriculum, Teaching, Learning, and Leadership in Education, 4(2), 4–13. Adair, J. K., & Doucet, F. (2014). The impact of race and culture on play in early childhood classrooms. In L. Brooker, M. Blaise, & S. Edwards (Eds.), The  Sage handbook of play and learning in early childhood (pp.  354–365). London, England: Sage. Allen, Q., & White-Smith, K. (2018). “That’s why I say stay in school”: Black mothers’ parental involvement, cultural wealth, and exclusion in their son’s schooling. Urban Education, 53(3), 409–435. https://doi. org/10.1177/0042085917714516 Asante, M. K. (1991). The Afrocentric idea in education. The Journal of Negro Education, 60(2), 170–180. Briggs, M., & Hansen, A. (2012). Play-based learning in the primary school. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Clarke, V., & Watson, D. (2014). Examining whiteness in a children’s centre. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 15(1), 69–80. Coard, S. I., Wallace, S. A., Stevenson Jr., H. C., & Brotman, L. M. (2004). Towards culturally relevant preventive interventions: The consideration of racial socialization in parent training with African American families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 13(3), 277–293.  https://doi.org/10.2304/ ciec.2014.15.1.69 Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment. New York, NY: Routledge. Danniels, E., & Pyle, A. (2018). Defining play-based learning. Encyclopedia on Early Childhood Development. Retrieved from http://www.child-­encyclopedia. com/sites/default/files/textes-­e xperts/en/4978/defining-­p lay-­b ased-­ learning.pdf Dei, G. S. (2012). Indigenous anti-colonial knowledge as ‘heritage knowledge’ for promoting Black/African education in diasporic contexts. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 1(1), 102–119. Dixson, A.  D., & Dodo Seriki, V. (2014). Intersectionality and pedagogy: Teachers and the quandry of race, class, and culturally relevant pedagogy. In A. D. Dixson (Ed.), Researching race in education: Policy, practice, and qualitative research (pp. 185–218). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Edwards, A. L., & Few-Demo, A. L. (2016). African American maternal power and the racial socialization of preschool children. Sex Roles, 75(1–2), 56–70.

284 

K.-A. Escayg

Escayg, K.-A. (n.d.). Caribbean teachers’ conceptualization of early childhood education. Unpublished raw data. Escayg, K.-A. (2014). Parenting and pedagogical practices: The racial socialization and racial identity of pre-school Trinidadian children (Doctoral dissertation). Available from Proquest Dissertation and Theses Global Database. (UMI 3711547). Escayg, K.-A. (2020a). Anti-racism in U.S. early childhood education: Foundational principles. Sociology Compass,  14(4), 1–15. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/soc4.12764 Escayg, K.-A. (2020b). In a language of their own: An observational tool to capture young children’s racial attitudes. In I.  Iruka, S.  Curenton, T. R. Durden, & K.-A. Escayg (Eds.), Don’t look away: Embracing anti-bias classrooms (pp. 89–102). Lewisville, NC: Gryphon House. Escayg, K.-A., Berman, R., & Royer, N. (2017). Canadian children and race: Toward an antiracism analysis. Journal of Childhood Studies, 42(2), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.18357/jcs.v42i2.17838 Escayg, K.-A., & Daniel, B.-J. (2019). Introduction: Children, race, and racism: Global perspectives. Journal of Curriculum, Teaching, Learning, and Leadership in Education, 4(2), 1–3. Escayg, K.-A., & Kinkead-Clark, Z. (2019). Promoting a positive racial identity in young African Caribbean children: An anti-colonial approach. Journal of Curriculum, Teaching, Learning, and Leadership in Education, 4(2), 29–36. Feagin, J.  R. (2010). The White racial frame: Centuries of racial framing and counter-­framing. New York, NY: Routledge. Fesseha, E., & Pyle, A. (2016). Conceptualising play-based learning from kindergarten teachers’ perspectives. International Journal of Early Years Education, 24(3), 361–377. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2016.1174105 Fogle, L.  M., & Mendez, J.  L. (2006). Assessing the play beliefs of African American mothers with preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 21(4), 507–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2006.08.002 Gansen, H.  M. (2020). Disciplining difference (s): Reproducing inequalities through disciplinary interactions in preschool. Social Problems, 1–22. https:// doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spaa011 Gaskins, S. (2013). Pretend play as culturally constructed activity. In M. Taylor (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the development of imagination (pp. 224–247). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Gaskins, S. (2015). Yucatec Mayan children’s play. In J.  L. Roopnarine, M. M. Patte, J. E. Johnson, & D. Kuschner (Eds.), International perspectives on children’s play (pp. 11–22). Maidenhead, England: Open University Press.

  The “Race” in “R.E.C.E.”: Reconceptualizing Play-Based… 

285

Hale, J. E., & Bocknek, E. L. (2015). The play behavior of African American children: The need for a cultural prism. In J. L. Roopnarine, M. M. Patte, J. E. Johnson, & D. Kuschner (Eds.), International perspectives on children’s play (pp. 62–73). Maidenhead, England: Open University Press. Hoffmann, J., & Russ, S. (2012). Pretend play, creativity, and emotion regulation in children. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(2), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026299 Jiang, S., & Han, M. (2016). Parental beliefs on children’s play: Comparison among mainland Chinese, Chinese immigrants in the USA, and European-­ Americans. Early Child Development and Care, 186(3), 341–352. https://doi. org/10.1080/03004430.2015.1030633 Kumasi, K. D. (2011). Critical race theory and education: Mapping a legacy of activism and scholarship. In B. A. U. Levinson (Ed.), Beyond critique: Critical social theories and education (pp.  196–219). Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. http://digitalcommons.wayne.edu/slisfrp/40 Lane, J. (2008). Young children and racial justice: Taking action for racial equality in the early years–understanding the past, thinking about the present, planning for the future. London, England: National Children’s Bureau. MacNevin, M., & Berman, R. (2017). The Black baby doll doesn’t fit:The disconnect between early childhood diversity policy, early childhood educator practice, and children’s play. Early Child Development and Care, 187(5–6), 827–839. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1223065 McCarthy Foubert, J. L. (2019). ‘Damned if you do, damned if you don’t:’Black parents’ racial realist school engagement. Race Ethnicity and Education, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2019.1631782 McKinley, B., Brayboy, J., & Chin, J. (2018). A match made in heaven: Tribal critical race theory and critical Indigenous research methodologies. In J. T. Decuir-­ Gunby, T. K. Chapman, & P. A. Schutz (Eds.), Understanding critical race research methods and methodologies: Lessons from the field  (pp. 51–63). New York, NY: Routledge. Moland, N.  A. (2017). Localizing play-based pedagogy: Nigerian educators’ appropriation of Sesame classroom materials. Global Education Review, 4(3), 17–36. Motegi, N. (2019). Reconciliation as relationship: Exploring Indigenous cultures and perspectives through stories. Journal of Childhood Studies, 44(4), 82–97. https://doi.org/10.18357/jcs444201919214 Nagasawa, M., & Swadener, B. B. (2018). Whose reconceptualizing?: Reclaiming spaces for engaged reconceptualizing in/of early childhood. In N. Yelland &

286 

K.-A. Escayg

D. F. Bentley (Eds.), Found in translation: Connecting reconceptualist thinking with early childhood education practices (pp. 21–39). New York, NY: Routledge. Ng’asike, J. T. (2015). Take me to the (dry) river: Children’s play in Turkana pastoralist communities of Kenya. In J.  L. Roopnarine, M.  M. Patte, J. E. Johnson, & D. Kuschner (Eds.), International perspectives on children’s play (pp. 103–116). Maidenhead, England: Open University Press. Pacini-Ketchabaw, V. (2010). Introduction: Resituating Canadian early childhood education. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 56(3), 241–245. Pacini-Ketchabaw, V. (2014). Postcolonial and anti-racist approaches to understanding play. In L. Brooker, M. Blaise, & S. Edwards (Eds.), The Sage handbook of play and learning in early childhood (pp.  67–78). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Parmar, P., Harkness, S., & Super, C.  M. (2004). Asian and Euro-American parents’ ethnotheories of play and learning: Effects of preschool children’s home routines and school behavior. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 28(2), 97–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250344000307 Paschall, K. W., Gershoff, E. T., & Kuhfeld, M. (2018). A two decade examination of historical race/ethnicity disparities in academic achievement by poverty status. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 47(6), 1164–1177. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10964-­017-­0800-­7 Rao, Z., & Gibson, J. (2019). The role of pretend play in supporting young children’s emotional development. In D.  Whitebread, V.  Grau, & K. Kumpulainen (Eds.), The Sage handbook of developmental psychology and early childhood education (pp. 63–79). London, England: Sage. Roopnarine, J. L. (2015). Play as culturally situated: Diverse perspectives on its meaning and significance. In J. L. Roopnarine, M. M. Patte, J. E. Johnson, & D. Kuschner (Eds.), International perspectives on children’s play (pp. 1–7). Maidenhead, England: Open University Press. Roopnarine, J. L., & Dede Yildirim, E. (2018). Early childhood education in the Caribbean region. In J. L. Roopnarine, J. E. Johnson, S. F. Quinn, & M. M. Patte (Eds.), Handbook of international perspectives on early childhood education (pp. 13–30). New York, NY: Routledge. Roopnarine, J. L., & Jin, B. (2012). Indo Caribbean immigrant beliefs about play and its impact on early academic performance. American Journal of Play, 4(4), 441–463. Scott, T. M., Gage, N., Hirn, R., & Han, H. (2019). Teacher and student race as a predictor for negative feedback during instruction. School Psychology, 34(1), 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000251

  The “Race” in “R.E.C.E.”: Reconceptualizing Play-Based… 

287

Spivak, A. L., & Howes, C. (2011). Social and relational factors in early education and prosocial actions of children of diverse ethnocultural communities. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 57(1), 1–24.  Suizzo, M. A., Robinson, C., & Pahlke, E. (2008). African American mothers’ socialization beliefs and goals with young children: Themes of history, education, and collective independence. Journal of Family Issues, 29(3), 287–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X07308368 Viruru, R. (2001). Early childhood education: Postcolonial perspectives from India. San Francisco, CA: Sage. Wun, C. (2016). Unaccounted foundations: Black girls, anti-Black racism, and punishment in schools. Critical Sociology, 42(4–5), 737–750. https://doi. org/10.1177/0896920514560444 Yelland, N. (2011). Reconceptualising play and learning in the lives of young children. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(2), 4–12.  https://doi. org/10.1177/183693911103600202 Yelland, N., & Bentley, D. F. (2018). Found in translation: Reconceptualising early childhood education. In N. Yelland & D. F. Bentley (Eds.), Found in translation: Connecting reconceptualist thinking with early childhood education practices (pp. 8–20). New York, NY: Routledge. 

Correction to: Reconceptualizing Quality in Early Childhood Education, Care and Development Zoyah Kinkead-Clark and Kerry-Ann Escayg

Correction to: Z. Kinkead-Clark, K.-A. Escayg (eds), Reconceptualizing Quality in Early Childhood Education, Care and Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-­3-­030-­69013-­7 The first paragraph of the chapter 1 has been deleted and added to the abstract in the online version of this chapter. In addition to this, the order of author names in Chapter 2 has been updated from John P. Portelli and Darya (Dash)Shalimo to Darya (Dasha) Shalimo and John P. Portelli.

The updated version of these chapters can be found at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69013-7_1 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69013-7_2 © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Z. Kinkead-Clark, K.-A. Escayg (eds.), Reconceptualizing Quality in Early Childhood Education, Care and Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69013-7_13

C1

Index1

A

Academic, 5, 7, 13, 15, 16, 28, 35, 36, 41, 44, 48, 50, 92, 98, 143, 165, 181–200, 229, 244, 245, 252, 253, 261, 270, 272, 273, 282 Acceptance, 33, 167, 198, 233, 281 Access, 90, 91, 112, 113, 115, 128, 129, 138, 141–143, 145, 149, 152, 154–156, 230, 236 Accountability, 6, 15, 92, 148 Active, 32, 43, 44, 46, 48, 50, 67, 81, 88, 93–95, 100, 140, 153, 175, 247, 258, 259, 275 Activism, 43, 271, 279 Activities, 5, 7, 17, 19, 33, 40, 74, 78, 82, 121, 130, 145, 148, 151, 153, 167, 173, 177, 181–200, 223–225, 242, 245,

248, 249, 253, 254, 260, 270, 272, 274–280 Administrators, 117–121, 123, 124, 128–131, 204, 214 African, 140, 155, 182, 197, 206, 209, 210, 277 African American, 97, 98, 118, 272, 273, 276, 278, 279 African Diaspora, 276 Age, 10, 12, 33, 40, 41, 73, 99, 118, 120, 142, 143, 145, 146, 167, 189, 190, 226, 232, 235, 250, 254, 256, 258, 258n2 Agency, 34, 93, 95, 101, 114, 116–118, 122, 123, 125, 128, 129, 138, 146, 172, 177, 277 Agenda, 6, 7, 15, 26, 30, 31, 33, 35, 50, 87, 153, 206, 277 Agent, 25–52, 88, 115, 190, 278

 Note: Page numbers followed by ‘n’ refer to notes.

1

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 Z. Kinkead-Clark, K.-A. Escayg (eds.), Reconceptualizing Quality in Early Childhood Education, Care and Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69013-7

289

290 Index

Ambiguity, 17 America, 77, 79, 175 Anti-racism, 171, 270, 272, 275, 276, 278, 281, 282 Anti-racist, 49, 269–282 Application, 13, 28, 29, 31, 41, 50, 52, 275 Approaches, 6, 12–16, 19, 27, 29–31, 33–35, 43, 45, 48, 66, 70, 88, 97–103, 115, 117, 122, 130, 143–145, 147–149, 151, 153, 157, 164, 166, 178, 185, 186, 204, 207, 208, 212–213, 215, 233, 237, 247, 250, 251, 254, 256, 260, 261, 270, 271, 273, 278, 279, 282 Appropriate, 12, 16, 26, 31, 33, 68, 72, 80, 141, 142, 144–146, 149, 151, 152, 166, 172, 206, 223, 231, 233, 236, 237, 262, 279 Articulate, 26, 67, 68, 70, 75, 76, 81, 138, 163, 203, 224 Assumptions, 6, 27, 38, 39, 48, 70, 75, 84, 85, 90, 163, 243, 271, 278, 280–282 Attitudes, 79, 199, 223, 250, 256, 260, 261, 273, 274, 276, 277, 280, 281 Australia, 33, 46, 87–106, 205, 213 Awareness, 67, 75, 151, 171, 184, 261, 270 B

Backgrounds, 4, 46, 66, 68–71, 75, 76, 79, 83–85, 88–90, 92, 95, 97, 100, 118, 138, 139, 143,

165, 184, 198, 199, 233–236, 270, 279 Beliefs, 16, 29, 67–70, 75, 77, 79–81, 84, 93, 94, 102, 112, 116, 117, 126, 130, 139, 141, 143, 150, 152, 155, 162, 163, 172, 178, 207, 250, 263, 272, 275–278, 280–282 Belonging, 46, 94, 102, 112, 114, 187, 191–193, 195, 199, 244, 280 Best practices, 69, 112, 113, 204, 207, 273 Bildung, 5, 7, 14–20 Bilingual, 114, 117, 117n3, 118, 121, 123, 124, 128–130 Binary, 34, 50, 199, 271, 273 Building, 67, 93, 101, 106, 124, 146, 163, 170, 172, 178, 199, 203–215 C

Capable, 11, 93, 102, 127, 130 Care giver, 98 Caribbean, 138, 140–142, 144, 145, 182, 183, 187, 199, 203–215, 221–237, 272, 276 Child/children, 3–20, 25–52, 68, 87–106, 111–117, 138, 165, 181, 203, 221–237, 241, 269 Child development, 4, 11–13, 29, 35, 112–114, 116, 145, 146, 185, 207, 212–215, 224, 271 Childhood, 3, 27, 65–85, 88, 112, 137–157, 181–200, 203–215, 223, 246, 269 Church, 140, 151

 Index 

Citizen, 8, 38, 42–46, 50, 139, 141, 142, 144, 150, 152–153, 183, 185, 186, 188, 190, 198 Classrooms, 40, 44, 48, 50, 65–75, 77–85, 99, 116, 117, 119, 120, 122, 123, 127, 128, 130, 154, 161–163, 166, 171, 173, 175, 176, 182, 185, 187–189, 191, 198, 205, 207, 208, 213, 214, 223–226, 228–231, 236, 237, 258, 263, 271, 274, 275, 278–281 Cognitive, 30, 35, 88, 142, 143, 152, 165, 172, 173, 177, 184, 188, 223, 225, 226, 232, 233, 244, 251, 272, 273, 275 Colonialism, 35, 140, 154, 166, 182, 209 Colonization/colonisation, 45, 155, 188n1, 206, 209, 210, 272, 280 Communities, 38, 41–44, 46, 65, 68, 74, 76, 82, 87–106, 112–114, 116–118, 120, 122–125, 127, 129, 130, 138–141, 145–155, 162–166, 172, 177, 184–188, 192, 193, 197–199, 203, 205, 212, 214, 226, 235, 241–263, 271, 274, 279 Competent, 26, 28, 34, 37–39, 43, 93, 102, 106 Complexity, 12, 13, 28, 42, 45, 75, 78, 84, 85, 124, 166, 170, 188n1, 259 Concepts, 4, 4n2, 5, 7, 13, 15–19, 26, 28, 36, 38, 39, 41, 43–45, 48, 50–52, 99, 100, 102, 130,

291

145, 181, 182, 185–187, 204, 252, 269 Constructivist, 26, 32–36, 38, 50, 97, 148 Contemporary, 11, 26, 27, 37, 41, 143, 169, 174, 195n4, 222, 243, 259, 262, 275, 280 Contexts, 4–7, 14, 17–20, 27, 28, 33, 36, 37, 41, 43–45, 48, 49, 52, 67–70, 77, 81, 85, 88, 92, 94, 96–98, 100–103, 105, 116, 122, 126, 130, 142, 146, 148, 149, 154, 155, 162, 164–166, 184, 186, 189, 199, 205, 208, 212–214, 222, 229, 245, 246, 249, 256, 262, 273, 276, 278, 280 Contextual, 47, 89, 184, 208, 212–214, 270, 272 Cultural, 4, 26, 65, 88, 114, 138, 172, 182, 205, 225, 256, 272 Culture, 9, 34, 38, 42, 44, 47, 51, 52, 65–85, 91–94, 96, 99–106, 112, 123, 129, 140, 144, 145, 147, 150–152, 155–157, 181, 183, 186, 187, 204, 205, 207, 209, 215, 221–237, 250, 256, 260, 261, 271, 273, 274, 276, 278, 279, 282 Curriculum, 6, 12, 26–33, 35, 37, 38, 44, 45, 47, 50, 51, 68, 70–72, 74–75, 82, 83, 94, 95, 120, 145, 147, 153–157, 181–183, 185–200, 205, 222–225, 230, 236, 242, 243, 272–274, 278, 279, 281, 282 Cyprus, 243, 245, 249, 250, 256, 257, 258n1, 258n2, 261, 262

292 Index D

Daily, 51, 67, 82, 97, 98, 112, 130, 151, 205, 225, 228, 230, 236, 243, 245, 249, 250, 252, 253, 255, 276 Decisions, 7, 10, 16, 17, 19, 27, 37, 45, 46, 50, 51, 67, 69, 70, 75, 77, 80, 92–94, 117, 124–127, 167, 168, 170, 171, 175, 176, 178, 184, 190, 212, 229 Decolonizing, 128, 166 Deconstructing, 31 Defining, 28, 69, 77–79, 125, 270, 281 Development, 29, 68, 88–90, 112, 139, 171, 183, 204, 223, 245, 269 Developmental, 11–15, 17, 27, 29, 30, 32–34, 97, 98, 103, 104, 112–115, 121, 122, 146, 148, 157, 186, 187, 191, 204, 208, 215, 254, 259, 263, 269, 270, 272, 274, 275 Developmentally appropriate, 12, 33, 68, 142, 145, 146, 149 Developmental psychology, 27, 232, 271 Different, 4, 8, 20, 27, 34, 36–38, 40, 42, 47, 66–70, 72, 77–82, 84, 85, 112, 115, 119–121, 124–126, 154, 155, 162, 165, 172, 188n1, 189–192, 197, 199, 208, 241, 243, 244, 254, 255, 258, 259, 261 Disadvantaged, 30, 102, 103, 226 Discourse, 4–7, 4n2, 15, 16, 25–52, 112, 113, 116, 138, 162, 166, 172, 173, 176–178, 187, 190, 193, 204, 210, 212, 215, 246, 258, 271, 275, 277, 281

Disruptive, 163 Diverse, 29, 42, 46, 50, 74, 82, 84, 100, 118, 141, 148, 152, 177, 198, 211, 269–271, 273, 279, 282 Diversity, 12, 13, 42, 48–51, 66, 72, 73, 78, 79, 82–83, 93, 111–129, 145, 150, 156, 165, 171, 182, 183, 186, 187, 190, 195, 197–199, 208, 259 Domain, 17, 30, 45, 50, 88, 184, 259, 260, 274 Dominance, 15, 36, 42, 228–229, 263 Dominant, 4–7, 9, 14, 15, 28, 36, 44, 105, 112, 113n2, 116, 127, 130, 138, 153, 162, 163, 173, 178, 193, 229, 246, 258, 271, 274, 277 Duality, 3–20, 34 Dynamics, 5, 36, 41, 44, 67, 69, 78, 100, 184, 275, 280 E

Early, 3, 27, 65–85, 88, 111–129, 137–157, 162, 181–200, 203–215, 223, 241, 269 Eastern Caribbean, 137, 138, 142, 144, 153–155 Economic, 6, 26–28, 31, 35, 41, 47, 50, 117, 127, 137, 138, 141, 145, 149, 154–156, 184, 210, 278–280 Education, 26, 65–85, 87, 111–129, 138, 161–178, 203–215, 221, 241, 270 Educators, 17, 26, 28–31, 33–37, 39–45, 47, 50, 51, 65, 66, 78,

 Index 

81, 82, 84, 85, 88, 90, 92–94, 99, 102–104, 106, 123, 147–149, 163, 164, 175, 177, 221, 222, 224, 253, 270, 273, 274, 277–279, 281, 282 Emotional, 47, 81, 89, 95, 142, 143, 152, 165, 173, 174, 181–200, 223, 225, 233, 244, 272 Encounter, 16, 17, 31, 37, 162, 165, 171, 205, 214, 271, 278 Enrollment, 127, 255 Environment, 11, 32, 33, 43, 44, 46, 50, 51, 66, 82–84, 92, 96, 142, 144, 148, 150–152, 156, 184–187, 189, 204, 205, 224, 225, 233, 243–247, 257, 260, 261, 270, 274, 275, 278–279 Epistemological, 27, 28, 116 Ethics, 17–19, 28, 37, 38, 46, 183 Ethnicity, 37, 72, 75, 76, 83, 113, 113n1, 118, 125, 127, 181, 188, 195 Ethology, 29, 32 Euro-American, 4, 5, 7, 65, 71 Eurocentric, 112, 274, 275 Experience, 14, 31, 32, 35, 41, 45, 47, 65, 67, 70, 75–85, 88, 89, 91, 92, 94–99, 101, 103–105, 113, 115, 116, 121, 124–127, 139, 142, 144–146, 149, 154, 156, 157, 165, 172, 177, 186, 188n1, 192, 193, 197, 199, 205, 206, 209, 210, 214, 222, 224, 226–228, 234, 235, 237, 241–243, 246, 247, 249–263, 270, 271, 274–276, 279, 281, 282

293

F

Family/families, 45, 68, 70, 72–80, 82–85, 87, 89, 91–95, 98, 99, 104, 111–118, 120–131, 140, 143, 147, 148, 150–152, 154–156, 165, 167, 172, 175, 177, 184, 185, 188, 191–193, 205, 210, 214, 235, 242, 246, 247, 258, 260–263, 279 Feminism, 35 Field, 5, 6, 12, 15, 25–27, 30–33, 52, 66, 67, 70, 71, 75, 77, 83, 85, 112, 113, 119, 140, 146, 213, 274 Foucault, M., 27, 36, 37, 41, 42, 47 Framework, 33, 42, 43, 46, 67–71, 88, 99–102, 115, 123, 145, 146, 166, 171, 172, 176, 183, 269 Friendship, 183, 221–237, 252 Funds of knowledge, 203–215 G

Games, 6, 98, 99, 225, 226, 252, 254, 257 Gap, 20, 65, 85, 89, 90, 97, 103, 105, 199, 223, 255, 270, 273, 275 Gender, 36, 37, 39, 45, 48, 51, 52, 72, 74, 115, 163, 171, 172, 185, 206, 207, 209, 215, 250, 276 Global, 43, 45, 88, 212–213, 241–243, 279, 280, 282 Guidelines, 33, 92

294 Index H

Health, 89, 92, 151, 221, 244 Hegemony, 38, 41, 42, 112, 114, 128, 163, 164, 177, 280, 282 Heritage, 94, 165, 183, 195 Hierarchy, 51, 188n1, 229, 271, 280 Historical, 27, 28, 42, 43, 119, 121, 122, 124, 138, 149, 154, 192, 197, 272, 280 History, 76, 111, 114, 118, 121, 139–141, 147, 149, 150, 152, 154, 176, 183, 197, 211, 278, 282 Home, 72–74, 76–78, 83, 85, 101, 104, 112, 114, 115, 130, 140, 141, 143, 151–153, 165, 184, 190, 192, 199, 205, 206, 226, 227, 233–237, 241–243, 246, 279, 281 Human right, 27, 50, 150 I

Identity, 38, 67, 76, 85, 88, 93–95, 102, 103, 105, 106, 114–116, 152, 162, 176, 177, 181–195, 197–199, 209, 210, 270, 271, 274–277, 279–282 Ideology, 52, 162, 166, 172, 177, 275, 277, 281 Image, 25–52, 72, 77, 100, 119, 162, 164, 169, 170, 203 Immigrant, 70, 79, 112–115, 164, 272 Implications, 26, 28, 30, 44, 52, 85, 124, 191, 208, 211, 222, 270, 272 Income, 98, 112, 113n1, 150, 164

Indian, 71, 72, 140, 197, 199 Indigenous, 87–106, 157, 166, 186, 209, 210, 212, 272, 273, 276 Individualistic, 11, 17 Inequality, 42, 114, 188n1, 206, 207, 209, 210, 224 Infant, 10, 12, 68, 70, 71, 75, 77, 81, 119, 120, 126, 127, 130, 143, 199, 256 Injustice, 42, 44, 177, 207, 277 Instructional, 67, 70, 75, 77, 80, 82, 88, 97, 101, 105, 181–200 Interactions, 11, 17, 19, 68, 70, 72–75, 78, 92, 93, 95–99, 101–103, 115, 145, 146, 148, 172, 184, 189, 190, 222–231, 236, 244–246, 249, 254, 255, 270, 277, 280, 281 Interests, 8, 16, 25, 72, 82, 92, 93, 95, 101, 105, 148, 188, 197, 205, 212, 246, 247, 253 Interpersonal, 7, 96, 184, 281 Interpretive, 33, 67, 84 Intersectional, 116 Interventions, 6–8, 11–14, 17, 30, 36, 38, 103, 119, 228, 231–233, 236, 273 Involvement, 44, 70, 79, 83, 99, 118, 121, 127, 185, 247, 279, 282 Isolated, 18, 34, 91, 162 J

Jamaica, 181–183, 185–193, 193n2, 195, 197, 198, 210, 213, 225 Journey, 36, 77, 116, 182, 215 Justice, 35, 41, 44, 82, 83, 114, 129, 166, 170, 184, 197, 271

 Index  K

Key, 5, 7, 26, 31, 33, 44, 49, 68, 78–80, 82, 83, 88, 89, 95, 96, 100, 115, 125, 184, 185, 189, 204, 213–215, 226, 227 Knowledge, 7, 12, 32, 35, 38, 43, 44, 48, 51, 70, 85, 87, 92, 94, 96, 97, 99–101, 104, 112, 118, 124, 128, 130, 131, 146, 155, 156, 174, 177, 187, 203–215, 223, 225, 247, 252–254, 258, 259, 261, 271, 273–276, 278, 279, 281, 282 L

Language, 15, 18, 30, 34, 35, 40, 46, 72, 76, 79, 83, 88, 91, 93–98, 100, 101, 104, 105, 112–118, 113n1, 120–124, 126–130, 148, 151, 152, 163, 171–172, 174–177, 182, 186, 187, 192, 193, 195, 206, 207, 209, 230, 232, 282 Learners, 26, 27, 43, 93–95, 100, 104, 106, 137–157, 187, 241–263 Learning, 4–7, 13–16, 19, 29–35, 37, 38, 41, 43, 50, 66–70, 75, 79, 81, 84, 87–106, 115, 122, 127, 130, 142–149, 151, 152, 157, 170, 171, 173, 175, 176, 181–193, 200, 205–207, 214, 215, 221, 223–228, 230, 231, 236, 237, 241, 243–247, 252, 254, 259, 261, 269–282 Lessons, 72, 78, 97, 101, 104, 130, 185, 189, 191, 195, 197, 211, 223, 234

295

Linguistics, 28, 50, 97, 99, 111–129 Literacy, 6, 30, 34, 48, 87–106, 163, 168, 173, 175, 210 Literate, 88, 96, 156, 210 Local, 36, 45, 46, 65, 75, 82, 118, 139, 140, 142, 147, 151, 152, 154, 162, 166, 205, 208, 210, 212–213, 243, 249, 250, 278, 279 M

Marginalized, 4, 17, 276 Minority, 113, 113n2, 114 Modern, 26, 29–32, 35, 38, 40, 50 Monolithic, 115 Mothers, 72, 74, 76, 98, 112, 114, 140, 143, 148, 155, 167, 206, 235, 242, 243, 248–263, 272 N

Nationality, 76, 198, 250 Navigate, 79, 128, 214 Neoliberal, 26, 39, 41, 247, 263 Nettleford, R., 181–183, 192, 195, 198, 199, 207 Normalized, 11, 162, 171, 173 Norms, 12–14, 17, 30, 32, 84, 103, 140, 141, 145, 148, 151, 155, 166, 176, 184, 230, 263, 271 O

Observation, 45, 71, 75, 119, 182, 189, 191, 224, 227, 229, 237, 277, 281

296 Index

Organisation of Eastern Caribbean Member States, 152 Other, 3–20, 85, 93, 111–117, 175, 279, 280 Outdoors, 148, 223, 225, 226, 231, 241–263 P

Paradigm, 25–52, 112, 116, 126, 153 Parental, 89, 121, 127, 128, 261, 275, 278–280, 282 Parents, 10, 46, 72, 73, 76, 98, 103, 115, 117, 119, 120, 122–124, 129, 140, 143, 151, 153, 167, 170, 177, 184, 185, 188, 227, 233, 234, 241–243, 245–249, 252–254, 256–263, 258n2, 272–274, 278, 279 Pedagogical, 15, 19, 26–51, 92, 100, 102, 105, 170, 175, 207, 269, 270, 272 Pedagogy, 3–20, 27, 28, 30, 31, 33, 36, 37, 40–50, 52, 70, 72, 74–75, 99, 100, 154, 166, 175, 183, 185, 186, 199, 213, 224, 273 Peers, 15, 73, 91, 100, 145, 174, 184, 185, 191, 222–229, 231–236, 246, 248, 270, 271, 275, 277, 281 Personal, 3n1, 7, 14, 19, 70, 75–85, 116, 126, 140, 145, 164, 177, 185, 214, 250, 251, 255–258, 260, 277 Perspectives, 4, 5, 7, 13–15, 20, 26, 27, 30, 32, 36, 40, 44, 50, 51, 65–67, 69–71, 75–77, 79–81,

83, 84, 87, 100, 103, 113, 116, 124, 125, 138, 164, 177, 184, 185, 213–214, 223, 255, 258, 259, 262, 270–272, 274–276, 278, 282 Philosophical, 3n1, 25, 27, 38, 40, 47, 138, 143, 147, 153, 206 Play, 10, 18, 30, 47, 66, 67, 70, 72–74, 80, 83, 84, 88, 92, 93, 95, 96, 100–103, 146, 151, 154, 186, 192, 193, 198, 199, 203, 223, 225, 226, 230, 231, 234, 236, 242–246, 249, 252, 253, 259, 261, 262, 269–282 Policy/policies, 5, 6, 25, 33, 36, 45, 46, 51, 52, 70, 87–90, 103, 115, 138, 143, 147, 188, 189, 212–213, 247, 256, 260–262, 269, 279 Political, 13, 26–28, 31, 35, 39, 41–44, 50, 51, 114, 138, 149, 154, 155, 169–170, 172, 176, 177, 184, 195n3, 197, 198, 210, 212, 221, 222, 224, 275 Population, 51, 113, 140, 150, 155, 164, 182, 199, 210, 282 Post-colonial, 181–200 Postmodern, 26, 28, 32, 35–41, 43, 47, 50, 66, 271 Poverty, 6, 148, 156, 162, 164, 215 Power, 5, 7, 35, 38, 40–42, 48, 51, 52, 67, 69, 78, 113–117, 125, 127, 140, 163, 166, 175, 176, 178, 188n1, 195n3, 195n4, 197–199, 206, 274–276, 280 Practices, 4–6, 9, 13, 20, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32–36, 40, 41, 45, 48–50, 65–71, 73–85, 90, 92–94, 96,

 Index 

100–102, 112–118, 120, 121, 123, 124, 128, 130, 131, 138, 141, 147, 148, 151–156, 164, 166, 171, 172, 175, 176, 178, 182, 186, 188, 188n1, 189, 191–193, 197, 198, 203–213, 223, 224, 233, 236, 247, 254, 258, 262, 269–271, 273, 274, 278–282 Preschoolers, 30, 127, 225 Privatization, 6, 41 Professional, 10, 15–19, 70, 82, 85, 92, 116, 121, 123, 124, 126, 128, 129, 131, 145, 205, 274, 282 Programs, 6, 42, 66, 71, 74, 77, 88–95, 97, 98, 102–105, 111–129, 161–178, 247, 253, 256, 273 Psychologists, 29 Psychology, 11, 27, 31, 232, 271 Q

Quality, 3–7, 9, 11, 14–20, 36, 65–85, 88, 92, 105, 112, 113, 115, 116, 124, 127–129, 137–157, 215, 232, 254, 261, 262, 272 R

Race, 37, 45, 49, 72, 75, 76, 82, 83, 113, 113n1, 115, 118, 125, 127, 163, 166–168, 171–175, 195, 206, 209, 269–282 Racism, 171, 270, 272, 274, 278, 279, 281

297

Ready, 8, 12, 252, 257 Reconceptualising, 20, 137–157, 203–215, 269–282 Reflection, 16, 26, 30–31, 34–35, 38–39, 41, 47–49, 66, 69–72, 75–78, 84, 85, 124, 168 Regime of truth, 31 Region, 43, 116, 138–142, 144–147, 150, 152–156, 204, 207–212, 221, 272 Relational, 16, 17, 37, 102, 248, 259 Relationships, 4n2, 5–8, 14–20, 29, 34, 35, 42, 43, 48, 51, 67, 68, 72, 76, 77, 83, 84, 91–96, 98, 99, 103, 106, 118, 120, 121, 124, 130, 131, 145, 146, 162, 174, 175, 184, 185, 192, 199, 224, 225, 229, 231, 235–237, 244, 248, 254, 255, 259, 260, 275, 279, 281, 282 Relevant, 92, 97, 100, 102, 103, 105, 115, 138, 150, 185, 186, 195n3, 204, 206, 207, 213, 273, 274, 279 Religion, 76, 83 Remote, 87–106 Research, 28, 29, 37, 40, 43, 45–47, 49, 66, 68, 96, 99, 103, 105, 112, 114, 120, 125–127, 148, 184, 203, 205, 208, 209, 211, 213, 214, 223, 225–228, 241–243, 246, 247, 251, 260–263, 269–273, 276 Resistance, 10, 41, 44, 184, 271, 276, 277, 279 Respect, 4, 11, 14, 15, 51, 73, 77, 78, 93, 144, 147, 150, 186, 187, 199, 225, 270, 272

298 Index

Responsive, 33, 66, 74, 81, 84, 85, 88, 93, 95, 100, 101, 129, 130 Rhizomatic, 37, 38 Roles, 25–52, 66, 68–71, 79, 81, 83, 84, 92, 96, 120, 121, 126, 138, 141–142, 144, 146, 151, 154, 155, 172, 173, 176, 186, 188, 189, 191–193, 197, 198, 223, 226, 233, 236, 245, 247, 248, 252, 254, 259, 263, 276, 278, 281 Rural, 91, 162–165, 213 S

School, 10, 12, 16, 26, 34, 38, 44, 69–71, 73, 74, 76, 80, 83, 87–92, 97, 99, 104, 118, 123, 143, 145, 148, 151, 153, 162–164, 166, 176, 177, 184, 185, 189, 192, 193, 198–200, 204–207, 210, 214, 222–230, 233–237, 245, 253, 260, 273, 279, 281 School readiness, 12, 103 Self-worth, 93 Settings, 8, 10, 16, 28, 29, 35, 41, 42, 66–71, 75, 77, 79, 84, 90, 95, 97–104, 114, 116, 140, 141, 154, 155, 181, 189, 193, 213, 230, 231, 241, 242, 244, 246, 247, 250, 253, 261, 263 Skills, 7, 14, 15, 17, 26, 34, 35, 48, 87, 88, 94–96, 100, 101, 103, 105, 120, 124, 127, 131, 142, 143, 146, 150, 152, 153, 156, 183–186, 193, 198, 205, 214, 223, 225, 226, 232, 235, 236, 244, 246, 247, 251, 252, 259, 260

Slavery, 140, 154, 155, 211, 273, 280 Social, 4, 6, 25–52, 81–83, 88, 89, 93, 95, 97, 99–101, 112–117, 113n1, 127, 129, 138, 142, 143, 145, 147–149, 152, 154–156, 162–166, 169–173, 177, 181–200, 206, 207, 209, 222–233, 235–237, 243, 244, 246, 248, 251, 252, 254, 258–260, 262, 271, 272, 275, 278, 280 Socialization, 34, 114, 222, 234, 251, 252, 254, 259, 260, 263, 275, 278–280 Society, 6–9, 11, 19, 34, 36, 42–44, 46, 47, 68, 80, 81, 88, 92, 95, 96, 105, 141, 142, 147, 149, 154–156, 163, 166, 170, 176, 181–200, 206, 224, 263 Socioeconomic status, 111 Stakeholders, 4, 139, 151, 153, 154, 204, 214, 215 Standards, 5, 15, 30, 70, 77, 80, 81, 89, 90, 92, 100, 105, 113, 153, 204, 275 Status, 9, 15, 20, 40, 84, 96, 112, 113, 113n2, 118, 123, 125, 148, 208, 228, 229, 280 Strengths, 78, 92–94, 99–103, 105, 121, 148, 237, 247 Students, 7, 14, 17, 18, 37, 44, 65–67, 69, 70, 72–76, 78–80, 82–85, 89–91, 97, 99, 100, 127, 162–164, 166–178, 189, 195, 205, 221–227, 237, 274, 277, 282 Subjective, 14, 66, 82 Subjectivity, 36

 Index 

Success, 14, 46, 97, 98, 123, 127, 128, 139, 140, 142–150, 184, 210, 215, 226, 270 Support, 4, 26, 27, 32, 35, 40, 43, 50, 75, 80–84, 89, 92, 100, 101, 104, 105, 112, 118, 123, 124, 126, 128, 130, 131, 143, 144, 146, 152, 177, 208, 214, 221, 230, 231, 233, 242, 243, 245–248, 250, 252, 253, 256, 258–263, 273, 274, 282 T

Teacher, 7, 12, 17, 20, 30, 43, 65–85, 87, 90–92, 94, 97, 100, 101, 103, 104, 106, 115, 117–131, 148, 152, 154, 161–178, 184, 185, 189, 195, 197, 204, 205, 208, 212–215, 223–225, 227–230, 232–237, 253, 256, 261, 270, 272–275, 277–279, 282 Teacher education, 65–85, 91, 161–178, 212, 213, 282 Teaching, 6, 16, 29–31, 33, 39, 41, 65–71, 75, 77–85, 88, 90–92, 97–104, 127, 128, 130, 161–178, 182, 183, 185, 186, 189, 192, 205, 207, 214, 215, 224, 225, 227, 242, 273, 274, 282 Theoretical, 28, 30, 32, 34, 40, 42, 43, 49, 52, 92, 207, 214, 215, 243, 269–272, 274, 275, 277 Theory, 11, 18, 29, 32, 40, 41, 43, 47, 49, 50, 85, 93, 94, 114, 146, 151, 152, 241, 247, 248, 263, 271, 272, 275–277

299

Toddler, 12, 68, 70, 71, 75, 77, 81, 119, 120, 126, 127, 130, 143, 241–263 Tool, 15, 33, 67, 96, 171, 172, 175, 189, 204, 209, 213, 270, 281 Traditional, 4, 5, 9, 13, 27, 32, 34, 45, 46, 51, 91, 94, 99, 105, 113, 127, 140, 148, 153, 167, 173 Traditions, 9, 15, 18, 27, 33, 67, 68, 76, 79, 84, 94, 103, 140, 192, 282 Training, 10, 97, 120, 124, 126, 273 Transformative, 36, 277 Transgenerational, 91, 277 U

Under-represented, 262 United States, 28, 39, 73, 79, 80, 97, 98, 111, 116, 117, 129, 145, 154, 163, 164, 169, 278, 282 Universal, 5, 12, 29, 34, 35, 96, 145, 185, 190, 272, 275 Upper middle class, 42, 112 Urban, 97, 213 V

Value-laden, 5, 66 Values, 4, 5, 8, 13, 15, 17, 20, 32, 43–45, 47, 50, 67–70, 75–81, 84, 93, 94, 96, 101, 102, 104, 112, 116, 144, 148, 151, 155, 166, 177, 184, 186, 187, 198, 199, 204, 206, 209, 212, 214, 224, 234, 235, 258, 261, 269, 274, 276, 277 Visible, 37, 82–84

300 Index

Voices, 38, 41, 45, 48, 52, 67, 78, 79, 93, 103, 113–115, 117, 122, 124, 125, 127, 177, 178, 258, 262, 271 Vulnerable, 34, 51, 88, 89, 103, 105, 124, 148, 150, 236 W

Well-being, 10, 18, 19, 34, 81, 221, 244, 247, 248, 259–261, 263, 270 Wellness, 186, 187 White, 42, 48, 65, 71, 76, 85, 112, 139, 162–164, 166, 168, 169, 171, 175–177, 211, 274, 275, 277, 280–282 Whiteness, 85, 164, 166, 168, 169, 171, 177, 277, 279–281

White supremacy, 275, 281 Women, 48, 85, 147, 162, 167, 169, 178, 243, 258n2, 262 World, 4, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 19, 26, 32, 33, 38, 42, 44, 51, 82, 83, 94, 95, 142, 146, 148, 152, 161–164, 170–173, 175, 177, 178, 182–186, 190, 195, 198, 225, 243, 252, 272, 282 Writing, 75, 77, 80, 96, 112, 174, 192, 251, 271 Y

Yunkaporta’s 8 Ways, 99–100 Z

Zenith, 206