A new buzz

There is the curriculum. There is the unwritten curriculum that children hold dear. There is also the null curriculum and the hidden curriculum.

There are all sorts of curriculae.

I think that there is only the relationship between the teacher and the child. And back the other way.

And in this relationship there is also the question of power; to create and to be created.

The closeness of the child to the unwritten hope of the not yet become, that is the place of wordless magic. By this I mean the spirit of the child that seeks other, and can not find the words.

In that moment, i te wairua o te tamariki, is the moment beyond words, in which hope lives, and in which human life becomes other.

Curriculum that encourages the not yet, and the not yet become.

Quinn, S., & Manning, J. (2013). Recognising the ethical implications of the use of photography in early childhood educational settings. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 14(3), 270-278.

This paper is a timely reminder that practices which teachers may find unproblematic (that is, normal practice), may in fact be problematic from an ethical standpoint. Given that photography is widespread in early childhood education, as well as the fact that photos and video are often used in research and reflective practices, the authors point out that there is a need to highlight the ethical component of these practices in order to encourage further consideration amongst teachers.

 

The authors are critical of the power relationships that exist between photographer and photographed, highlighting that there is exploitative potential in terms of who has more and who has less power within this relationship. This article positions photography as a potential source of knowledge and power. There is also potential for photographs to be used as a technology for constructing institutionally sanctioned identities.

 

The goal of most photography in early childhood settings is making learning visible, both for children and for teachers to reflect upon the practice. The use of photography as an invitation to see what is going on places power in the hands of the photographer in terms of how the photograph is constructed, and the elements that are included and excluded. According to the authors, this creates an ethical dilemma. The authors argue for a democratic approach in which motivations are critically engaged and where children’s agency is prioritised.

 

The authors highlight two specific standpoints in relation to photography in early childhood settings: The first is that photographs are a meaningful tool for assessment, and the second is that photographs might also be a tool for control and surveillance – as a mechanism for the normalisation of sanctioned outcomes. This is so because the photographer has power over the construction, but in assessment, they also have power over the interpretation of what is in the photograph.

 

The authors suggest that teachers need to actively consider issues of consent in the use of photography: consent in this regard means consent to be photographed, as well is consent over how the photographs are to be used. The authors point out that although parents give consent, and often blanket consent for photographs to be used, this practice may in fact reflect a loss of agency for children. Questions are posed throughout this article that aim to problematize the non-critical use of photography in early childhood settings, for example, “do all stakeholders (anyone who is photographed or takes photographs) have a voice in determining the meaning of respect, dignity, and inclusivity?” (p. 275).

 

The authors suggest that we need to consider ethics when using photography to articulate learning. They also suggest that there is a need for discussion around how photography serves the best interests of the child, as well as engagement with the wider question over who has the right to determine what those best interests are.

ERO. (2013). Priorities for Children’s Learning in Early Childhood Services. Wellington: Author.

Dr.Bradley's buzz:

This national report accompanies the report entitled Working with Te Whāriki (2013), and is a response in part to the 2011 ECE Taskforce report which recommended that an evaluation of Te Whāriki take place. This report makes use of the curriculum direction that the learning valued in a service should guide planning, implementation, assessment, and self review. The sample size for this report was 387: 17% services were found to be highly effective in identifying priorities for children, 34% had good articulation of priorities but alignment between articulation and assessment needed more work. 24% had minimal reflection of priorities planning and assessment and poor or no alignment between documentation and articulation. 5% had not set priorities. Of this number only 40% considered responsiveness to Māori children is a priority, and a 20% had considered priorities for Pasifika.

ERO’s key recommendations were:

·         learning valued by the service should be visible in assessment information

·         curriculum should be responsive to Māori and Pacific children

·         self review should focus on priorities are realised through the curriculum

The report is broken into several sections identifying effective practice and less effective practice. In terms of identifying priorities for children’s learning, effective practice included: teachers walking the talk, priorities included whānau aspirations, and planning and assessment were clearly linked to identify curriculum priorities. Teachers were up-to-date with research and supported by professional development programs, service priorities were identified through self review and there was a culture of improvement within services. Leaders in these settings promoted a coherent approach to curriculum provision. In settings where there was less effective practice there was often: a lack of purpose, shared understanding, and intent when it came to linking curriculum to practice. Curriculum was largely focused on the provision of resources and activities, children were often viewed from a deficit perspective, and the services were often associated with weak leaders or high staff turnover.

In terms of assessing children’s learning, effective practices included: the principles and strands of Te Whāriki were valued and visible within assessment documentation, assessment informed the curriculum, and assessment showed planned next steps leading to progress over time. In those settings where assessment was less effective, only tentative links were made to the curriculum, there was limited evidence of teacher role in children’s learning progress, and for some, learning priorities had not been identified.

In terms of sharing information about children’s learning, effective practices included: well developed links between the curriculum and priorities for learning, opportunities for parents to contribute were offered and followed up, and assessment documents reflected identify priorities for learning. In those settings where practices were less effective, priorities were often not visible, assessment was not well aligned to strands and goals, assessments were records of things that happened rather than records of learning progression, and in transition to school, the focus was on social competency rather than recognising learning priorities.

In terms of using information about children’s learning, effective practices included: using a highly collaborative structure in evaluation processes, self review was responsive to priorities and linked to the principles and strands of the curriculum, there was a strong alignment between identified priorities, assessment practices, curriculum decisions, self review, and teaching practices. Children’s interests, strengths, and dispositions were used to inform priorities alongside parent aspirations. Less effective practices created self review processes that reinforced poor practice, teachers were not good at reflecting priorities in the practice, or recognising quality.

In terms of responsiveness to Māori children only 14% were found to be responsive, these services included whānau, consulted iwi, and responded in a coherent way to Ka Hikitia and Tātaiako. 25% were found to be partially responsive, 28% were limited in the provision for these children and 26% were found to not be providing a responsive curriculum. In terms of responsiveness to Pacific children only 6% were found to have responsive practices including robust self review, recognising the importance of Pacific Island cultures in practice, developing partnerships, forming relationships, and using external research to inform practice. 15% were found to be partially responsive 21% were limited in the provision for these children, 13% had no awareness of what responsiveness might entail, and 45% had no Pasifika children or strategy.

Education Review Office. (2013). Working with Te Whāriki. Wellington: Author.

Dr. Bradley's buzz:

This is a key report from the Education Review Office which builds upon the ECE Taskforce’s recommendation that Te Whāriki be evaluated, and the OECD report which found that there is a need to improve the curriculum approach to parental engagement, children’s agency, and strengthening communication and leadership skills. The study included 627 early childhood settings. It was found that 80% of these were making some use of Te Whāriki in planning and assessment documentation, that 10% were working in depth with the document, and that in 10% there was very limited use.

It was also found that in many services aspects of Te Whāriki were highlighted in documentation but those aspects were not often translated into practice. ERO found that the broad interpretation of Te Whāriki sometimes lead to inappropriate practices. There was a general concern over how services were implementing Te Whāriki with many services found not to be using Te Whāriki as a reflective or evaluative tool. These issues were aligned to the fact that Te Whāriki does not provide clear standards of practice. ERO put out a call for services to evaluate the extent to which they are implementing Te Whāriki. They also raise three specific questions:

·         when the curriculum should be reviewed or revised next

·         whether there is clearer alignment between the framework and the regulated standard

·         the implications of having a non-prescriptive curriculum

ERO’s analysis found six particular themes for curriculum use:

·         philosophical curriculum – many services linked philosophical statements to aspects of Te Whāriki however it was also found that there was often a lack of alignment between the philosophical curriculum and practice.

·         Implicit curriculum – many saw Te Whāriki as a given, as ‘what we do’ and therefore implicit. ERO found that where Te Whāriki was treated as implicit there was not always shared understanding of meaning or how it is put into action.

·         Selective curriculum – this treated the framework is a menu to choose from. It was found that the most popular choices were family and community, relationships, well-being, and belonging. Least favourite choices were found to be empowerment, holistic development, exploration, communication, and contribution. There was diversity in the extent to which the principles and strands were integrated into programs. Learning outcomes were far less evident than principles and strands.

·         Reference point – Te Whāriki could often be seen in artefacts around the setting, the document was often referenced in paperwork but far less observable in practice. For most services there was little evidence of principles and strands being used in assessment and planning documentation. ERO point out is that referencing curriculum does not necessarily equate to implementation.

·         Basis for bicultural curriculum – ERO found that across this sample teachers knew that Te Whāriki is a bicultural curriculum however there was little evidence that this was well understood particularly as a translated into action.

·         Basis for evaluation of curriculum – it was found that very few services used Te Whāriki to evaluate their curriculum or the learning program. There was also a need for ongoing review of how responsive service’s curriculum as to changing communities and changing needs within the community.

In the discussion, ERO point out is that the absence of a prescribed framework may have weakened the link between teaching programs and the principles and strands of Te Whāriki. They thought that perhaps Te Whāriki is too familiar and therefore possibly lacked the challenge for teaching teams. That said, ERO commented that although teachers knew the principles and strands they were not necessarily familiar with the whole document itself. ERO propose that more support and guidance may be needed to improve implementation, to work with goals and outcomes, and to enhance bicultural provision.

On the whole, this is a rather damning report which points to the fact that early childhood education in New Zealand has become complacent and has drifted away from the curriculum framework as a document to guide practice. I suggest that this report is the first step in the review and revision of our curriculum framework.

Brown, A., & Inglis, S. (2013). So what happens after the event? Exploring the realisation of professional development with early childhood educators. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 38(1), 11-15.

Dr. Bradley's buzz:

This paper reports on a case study carried out in Australia with four early childhood teachers. The article investigates supports and barriers to the effectiveness professional development (PD) in changing practice, based on the premise that PD can improve teacher skills and enhance outcomes for children. One of the key points that this article makes is that the quality of PD is not measured in simply attending a course or workshop, but rather is in the on-going change that occurs within early childhood settings afterward.

The key findings of this research were: that being able to directly relate the information given in the PD to the lived experience of teaching was highly important for generating change. This was enhanced by on-going teacher experimentation and subsequent reflection on the effects of the PD within particular early childhood settings. Another finding was that teachers often gauged the value of PD programme by the visible effect it had on children and their behaviour. Sharing the positive outcomes of the PD with others in the setting was found to reinforce the value of the changes that were made to practice, and encourage further reflection. Similarly sharing ideas with parents enhanced parent/child relationships as a result.

Having a supportive management added to the effect of the PD, and having other team members at the PD raised perceptions of support. Successful change as a result of the PD was highly linked to having local mentors who acted as enablers, and help to identify key priorities that arose from the PD rather than applying everything that had been learnt. Concentrating on one priority at a time was found to be important for on-going development.

One key barrier to the effectiveness of PD was in finding time to talk with the mentors and connect to others in the busy life of the centre. It was found in regular time to discuss ideas that arose from the PD, and as well as ideas that had subsequently risen from practice was vital. Reflective discussion on changes to teaching practice was found to be a key reinforcer for changes in practice. It was highlighted that change after PD is a slow process and that is important to recognise that understandings are grasped through practice over time.

The article ends by suggesting three phases of capacity building within early childhood services:

1.       PD is actively prioritised within the service

2.       Teachers and managers attend relevant PD

3.       On-going support is provided to explore ideas arising from the PD as they are put into practice

Blaiklock, K. (2013). What are children learning in early childhood education in New Zealand? Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 38(2), 51-56.

Dr. Bradley's buzz:

In this latest instalment of his critical approach, Blaiklock constructs an argument around the proposition that we do not know what children are learning in early childhood education in New Zealand. To achieve this argument he looks at curriculum, assessment, Education Review Office data, and Ministry funded education projects. His approach is to undermine certainty and validity of each of these sources to make the following comments:

·         For curriculum, this document is largely unevaluated and is limited in two particular ways – in the framing of learning goals and outcomes there is a lack of recognition of developmental change between zero and five, and there is a lack of guidance around learning and outcomes, which is in turn derived from a lack of benchmarking in a perspective that allows that “each early childhood setting will develop its own emphasis and priorities” (Min. Ed., 1996, p. 44).

·         For assessment, individual teachers and individual settings may decide what to assess and what not to assess – this means that there is no clear requirement to assess particular areas of children’s learning. Without gathering empirical data across multiple learning areas Blaiklock points out that it is not possible to know what children are learning in early children settings. He highlights the learning stories approach to assessment as one that is unclear on this links between behaviour and dispositions, as one that is devoid of discussion of developmental changes in relation to dispositions, and as one that is largely untested and therefore questionable both in terms of validity and empirical effectiveness.

·         For ERO, given the lack of empirical evidence on the effectiveness of learning stories Blaiklock points out that ERO, in its function as an independent watchdog, is failing to highlight learning outcomes for children. In the reports produced by ERO, learning stories are the main source of data on children’s learning, given that their effectiveness is questionable, he points out that it is difficult to ascertain whether learning that occurs is a result of the programme or of the home or other environments.

·         For Ministry funded research projects, Blaiklock looks at the Centre of Innovation (COI) projects and the Teaching and Learning Research Initiative (TLRI). In both cases he provides evidence that neither project focuses on what children are learning in early childhood settings. In the case of the former he points out that there is no evidence that changes in teaching practice have an effect on changes in learning outcomes in multiple settings.

This article makes the point that more evidence of what children are learning in early childhood is needed. Blaiklock suggests that we need to move beyond hope to certainty and identifies that the adoption of international assessment tools might help in the drive toward more validity of assessment within the early childhood sector in New Zealand.

Alcock, S. (2013). Toddlers’ complex communication: playfulness from a secure base. Contemporary issues in early childhood, 14(2), 179-190.

Dr. Bradley's buzz:

This article focuses on the interface between attachment theory and sociocultural activity theory. Attachment processes are seen as a complex of relationships and interactions between human beings and between human beings and their environment. Within this framework teachers have a key responsibility to create reciprocal learning environments that engage children in both action and word/thought. Opportunities to co-create are linked to improved well-being.

The article frames attachment as something that is embodied, intersubjective, and socially connected, highlighting the importance of physicality and inventiveness to attachment. This article is about the nature of attachment processes rather than the use of more traditional attachment categories. The author suggests that perhaps intersubjectivity and interconnectedness are good synonyms to convey the idea of attachment in early childhood settings. The notion of an independent self is challenged by the idea that through playing together children come to recognise a self that is essentially relational.

The author understands “attachment concepts as fluid states of being and feeling, located within interconnecting systems of activity.” The body of the article consists of observational data which is reinterpreted through the authors understanding of attachment as an embedded in embodied activity. Within this understanding, teachers act as mediators, facilitators, and agents who enable and strengthen interconnectedness. Objects within the environment are seen as affordances which merge bodies and contexts with the key insight being that the self is distributed rather than segregated. Teachers are encouraged to initiate relationships to enhance attachment, which the author sees as bodies and minds connected through play, to ask the question – how do we create good enough spaces to encourage attachment as a social activity?