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?

Chu, M. (2012). Observe, reflect, and apply: ways to successfully mentor early childhood educators. Dimensions of Early Childhood, 40(3), 20-28.

Dr. Bradley's buzz:

This article looks at some of the strategies that make a mentoring relationship effective. The authors define the goal of mentoring as being “to connect effective strategies to teacher’s actual interactions with young children.” The focus of this article is on developing a research based practice for mentoring new or inexperienced teachers. They point out that effective professional development should be on-going, self-assessing, and associated with specific criteria. The authors point out that one off professional development is not useful for making lasting change to practice.

The authors take a humanistic approach to mentoring, identifying a process that begins with building trust. Having a supportive relationship with a focus on listening is seen as highly important. According to the authors, mentors “are most effective when they ask open-ended questions, listen, and employ a circle of enquiry.” The circle of enquiry is: observe (document), reflect (make meaning of), and apply (to teaching practice).

Key to this approach as a collaborative relationship which is built on empathy, shared problem-solving, and co-learning with a focus on identifying issues rather than giving lectures. The authors hold that a corrective approach is less likely to inspire meaningful change. Mentors are encouraged to engage teachers, and think about change and the reasons for change before taking action, this can be achieved through open-ended questions and active listening. By encouraging teachers to develop their own questions, mentors are able to ensure buy in for the process and direct those questions toward teaching practice. Mentors also need to encourage documentation.

The authors contend that introducing a process (the circle of enquiry) rather than providing information to answer the question allows teachers to develop their own problem-solving skills. Another role of the mentor, once the relationship has been established, is to find the gaps that prevent forward movement, as well as to link the teacher to other relevant professional development. Furthermore, mentors need to reflect on their own progress in order to move from a purely intuitive to an intentional practice. This approach to mentoring involves mentor self-knowledge with the upshot of that mentors are role modelling the circle of enquiry in their own practice.

Hedges, H., & Jones, S. (2012). Children’s working theories: the neglected sibling of Te Whāriki’s learning outcomes. Early Childhood Folio, 16(1), 34-39.

This article aims to provide a working definition of working theories so that teachers may use this definition to inform their practice. It is also an article which acts as an introduction to a larger research project on working theories. The authors begin by noting that there are two outcomes in Te Whāriki: dispositions and working theories. They note that the former has had plenty of attention but the latter has no operational definition.

The authors claim there is very little focus of working theories in initial teacher education, and that teacher understandings are generally intuitive and difficult to articulate. They point out that teachers often use children’s exploration as a means of describing what they mean by working theory. For this reason the authors believe it is necessary to construct a theory to support understanding and articulation.

The idea of learning theories borrows from Claxton’s neo Piagetian idea of minitheories, whereby children and adults seek to construct personal meaning. The authors claim that using a sociocultural lens can further complexify this notion of meaning making. To do this the authors identify six themes of working theory from a sociocultural perspective:

1.       Working theories developed through intentional observations and practice of the outcomes of those observations. For example, how friends look after each other.

2.       Working theories are developed through children being together and become the foundation of later learning. For example, children playing McDonalds links to understandings of commerce.

3.       Working theories are developed through social negotiation as children come to understand one another.

4.       Working theories are driven by the need to make sense of the world and are strongly linked to collaborations in learning.

5.       Working theories require active engagement with others.

6.       Working theories are treated by intellectual curiosity and as a curriculum event was clearly linked to thinking in the school curriculum.

This article puts a sociocultural lens on the notion of working theories providing the following definition “the evolving ideas and understanding is formulated by children as they participate in their family, community and cultural lives and engage with others.” My own suspicion is that this definition is not clear in itself, but rather a reworking of Vygotsky’s objections to Piaget. It will be interesting to see how this project develops.

Underwood, K., Valeo, A., & Wood. R. (2012). Understanding inclusive early childhood education: a capability approach. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 13 (4), 290-299).

This article explores how a capability approach to understanding inclusion can be applied to early childhood settings. Inclusion is defined as activity that promotes equitable outcomes. Equity is not cast as simply a matter of access, it also includes support and individual responsivity. The capability approach “emphasises that each person has capabilities that are individually defined by that which they value” (p. 291). This article sets out a theoretical framework for taking a capability approach to inclusion of children with diverse learning needs.

The capability approach entails three key concepts: capabilities – actions and states valued by the individual; functionings – capabilities that have been realised by the individual; and, differences – how an individual converts capabilities into functionings. “Acknowledgement of the range of experiences and individual characteristics of children with disabilities is an important starting point to understandings inclusive education” (p. 292). These definitions, and the pedagogical thrust, circulate an important question – how do we find out about the capabilities of diverse learners in our settings? The authors are clear that inclusion is as much about achieving the goals of individual children as it is about giving equal access to early childhood settings.

Some of the issues for early childhood teachers come in the form of young children not being able to articulate what they value. This is a problem for an early childhood education that is charged with “preparing children for later educational experiences or enhancing their developmental trajectory” (p. 293). So how then do teachers recognise the capabilities of all children? What do you do?

Dr Bradley's buzz:

The authors point to a central tension in inclusive education: how do teachers balance early intervention with the right to be different? Or put another way, how do ‘special’ differences differ from the ‘normal differences’ of a child’s culture? (My own interpretation of the problem posed). The answer put forward is simple – all children must be acknowledged for their own individual capabilities, whatever they may be. The authors state that this takes effort on the part of educators, specifically, it entails educators taking a non-deficit, pluralistic approach to capability. The challenge here is for teachers to reflect not only on their practice (behaviours) but also the motivation of that practice (assumptions on capability).

The three common principles of international reviews on inclusive education are: that instruction must be individualised; that instruction must occur across settings; and, that practice requires systemic support (e.g., policy etc). Each of these principles are shown to be consistent with the capability approach to inclusion (the approach that focuses on individual definitions of capabilities that are valued).

For the teacher, this article amounts to a challenge. It is a challenge to drop the schematic tool of knowing where a child should be in favour of knowing where a child wants to be, on their terms. There is much detail that I have missed in defending these propositions, but the article itself is a very engaging read. It is well worth a look.