learning from children

I realize that I tend to post a lot of videos, but they are what often inspires me as a teacher and teacher educator.  This one in particular because it is a child, a child (or mature human individual) who challenges us as adults and educators to see the full potential of children and their potential.  We as adults, our educational society and society as a whole sets low expectations for young children, leading to misdiagnoses and labelling of all types of disorders.  And yet, all children have the same potential as Adora, they just don't have the right adults to support them.  We set the bar so low, and as Adora so eloquently states, children will sink to that low expectation.  We so often talk about collaboration, critical thinking, and creativity as fundamental skills children will need, they don't need them, they exists, the problem is, in the words of Malaguzzi, we rob them of these skills.  No one has to teach a 2 or 3 year old how to be creative, it comes naturally, but we take that away from their lives.  And so I challenge us all to raise the bar, not only for children, but for ourselves.  I am currently reading Mind in the Making, but within this I am thinking about and pursuing the concept of passion and aesthetics.  These will be the topics and source of new postings as I feel they greatly connect to Adora's statement.  She had a passion for writing that is an aesthetic form of communication.  It took a nurturing environment to support and allow that passion to take root.  So consider this, what passions do children have that we can support and allow to take root? And with that, what are your passions, what brought you to teaching?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-bjOJzB7LY

Is our educational system modern day child labor and abuse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhpM_jbVopo


I was lucky enough to attend a TEDx conference at Miami University, OH and this is one of the presentations that truly stuck with me.  Fromberg poses such really thought provoking questions within this presentation which I also pose to my students, although not so eloquently and definitely not so strongly.  I urge you to watch this link and ask yourself what we are doing to our young children, what are our expectations and to see the detriments of an approach that truly is reflective of child labor and abuse.  Don't our children deserve more?

why do we need Enhancements in Early ChildhoodEducation?

I can't believe that it has been a week since I have returned from my conference and trip to Atlanta, but have yet to post anything since there were so many things I want to post and discuss.  I will start with post because for some reason it continues to be something I think about following our trip.  While I spent the majority of my day in sessions (of which I also hope to share), my last day following my sessions I was able to accompany my family to the Atlanta Aquarium.  I always struggle when I go to a zoo, aquarium or such because it calls me to question whether this is a better environment for them than their natural habitats.  As you can see this is similar to my questions about quality practices in early childhood.  This will become more explicit as you read the followign.
While we were looking at the Beluga Whales, one of them began to play with and pull to the surface of the water an object connected to an according type band.   While we were watching this, the woman from the aquarium discussed how they provide "enhancements" so the whales don't get board and are challenged.  I found myself thinking that if they were in their natural environment there would be no need for "enhancements", they would just naturally occur within their daily encounters within their habitat.  Having come from numerous sessions, I immediately began to consider how we do the same thing to children.  We put them in such artificial environments that we then have to provide "enhancements" to support their engagement in the classroom.  And yet, if we just allowed them to engage with their world in meaningful ways, there would be no need for ehancements or what are often called "specials" because children would naturally engage in meaningful ways with the knowledge, content and skills of the world.  This whole idea of artificially engaging students when there is such a context for natural, meaningful and authentic means of interacting with the world proves so meaningless and wasteful.  Projects provide the context for meaningfully embedding quality learning and teaching experiences through what Slyvia Chard defines as "local" topics.  By engaging children in things of their world, we don't need enhancements, we merely need to face the world with the same inquisitiveness as that of young children as they take a simple walk around the block. 

What ever happened to the pre-operational stage?

How many times have I taught my students and covered the stages of Piaget, particularly those which most affect the field of early childhood education, the sensorimotor and pre-operational stage?  And yet suddenly we were having the discussion about the shift from sensorimotor to pre-operational in one of my classes and it struck me that in many of our educational practices currently and the incredible high stakes testing push we are skipping this incredibly important stage and the repercussions I feel will be severe.  We quickly remove active learning for passive, abstract thinking when we know children cognitively cannot process half of what we ask of them, all in the name of what?  Worksheets according to Piaget would prove obsolete to the learning process and yet teachers continue to cling to them as proof that children are "learning".  Learning what, to follow directions and robotically complete them as fast as they can in order to escape this mundane work?  On the whole we continue to appropriately support children birth to three and yet the removal of developmentally appropriate practices continues to be pushed to younger ages.  One student shared with me that she observed word of the week in a toddler classroom (what are we doing to our young childen?)  We are robbing our children of childhood which in mind truly is a criminal act that will prove detrimental not only to the children, but society as a whole.  It is time to return childhood back to our youngest, to support them developmentally and stop cramming obsolete, unnecessary experiences into our early childhood classrooms.  We need to engage them with the things of the world, not disengage them from who they are and how they learn.

http://www.earlychildhoodwebinars.org/presenters/dr-sylvia-c-chard/

Dr. Sylvia Chard has been a wonderful mentor for me and so I invite anyone interested in pursuing projects in more depth to explore this wonderful opportunity and resource.  Sylvia is open and willing to take you to another level of work in project work, but more importantly in how you see children, the world and teaching and learning.

The power of Nature

My students and I were truly lucky to have the possibility of having Linda Rose, teacher and administrator of Out and About Preschool.  The power of nature and outdoor experiences in the lives of young children must be advocated for over any other experience, skill, and knowledge in earl childhood education, but so far removed from children's experiences.  We truly must question the lack of scientific inquiry and hands-on experience that children used to naturally have. Linda discussed the role of emerging themes, building on children's interest and engaging them in the "skills and knowledge" deemed necessary in meaningful ways.  Consider this, how many preschoolers truly understand the life cycle. Linda took the teachable moment of a deer being hit outside of her preschool classroom and provided numerous experiences that build upon social skills (moving the deer off the road and into an area for investigation); science (decomposition and what leads to decomposition); social studies (the animals that live within the region of Ohio that live off of the deer); and language (oral discussions, vocabulary, observation drawings, etc).  While there is still so much I wish to share about her visit with my students and the power of projects I leave you with this at this time, when a parent responded to the documentation of this experience with young children in a repulsive way. "oh, that's gross", her daughter came up to her and said, "mom, that's not gross, that' life".  When do we stop protecting our children and begin to provide experiences that teach them how to engage in the content of the world and support them as the competent individuals we know them to be. 

I have been going back through Sylvia Chard's study guides recently as the means of finding the "spark" that would really get us to think about the value of Project Work to learning.  I didn't have to go far: right on page 2 of her Practical Guide 1 (found on her project approach web site - very user friendly and excellent source of information for anyone seeking to implement projects in their classroom).  She begins with "in making decisions about student learning, it is important to make sure the curriculum reflects considerations of the following:  knowledge, skills, dispositions and feelings". If we look at these four considerations, my first question is, how often do we hear words such as dispositions and feelings and yet, they are so key to education.  How we feel about what we do directly correlates to how we go about tasks and learn and yet, we so often seek to remove the emotional and social self from the picture.  Why?  All you have to do is look at these photos taken of a group of children engaged in the process of making adobe bricks to understand the role of feelings in learning.  As Sylvia discusses in her guide, students become absorbed in a task and take ownership of their work.  The children in these photos needed to: understand their different roles; know what their strengths; collaborate with others; problem solve and overcome some frustrations with the materials in order to work towards geting a "successful" brick.  Throughout the experience, I was able to observe the children's increased levels of competence and confidence.  I could return to the skills and knowledge they gained from this experience, but I think I will leave this for another time.  For now, I ask that you merely look closely at these photos and consider the role of feelings in learning.  And consider the role of the senses and the whole  body experience for young children.  When did we as adults last experience this full body, sensory engagement in a learning experience?

The power of Projects

Our body, something all children have experience with and which can generate many questions.  The above web is where this group of children  began, but through the facilitation of a wonderful teacher, look at the vocabulary and knowledge they gained. 

Just consider the vocabulary, knowledge and self awareness they have gained.  And this is just a small sampling of what this group of children did during this project.  The power of projects to differentiate (one  child was very intrigued by his butt and was able to build vocabulary to gluteus maximus) to the knowledge of the structure of our body.  Does this not show the benefits of a non-standardized curriculum and the power of projects.

disruptive wonder, kelli anderson

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvI5JuB6ThE

How do we create disruptive wonder in our current educational system, how do we discover the hidden talents in every day things?  I think this is a wonderful question to pose in our current educational environment.  Teachers who engage in project work help children discover the hidden talents in every day things, bu also help us discover the hidden talents in children and in ourselves.  I believe that through curricular approaches like the Project Approach, we push the boundaries of what is expected in education and we reject the normal order of traditional education.  The Project Approach calls for use to expect more than our current reality, a reality most teachers claim doesn't benefit the students or themselves as educators.  So, why do we continue to accept the normal order of things in education?  I would appreciate any comments or feedback because I struggle with this when working with teachers.  While they don't like the norm, they find it so difficult to make the paradigm shift towards discovery.  Thoughts?

The 4C's

Communication, collaboration, critical thinking and creativity:  The 4C's.  With our fast paced world it is almost impossible to be able to dictate what exact knowledge and skills our children will need in the future.  Curricular approaches like the Project Approach and Emergent Curriculum naturally support the above "standards" or what Sylvia Chard and Lillian Katz (along with others) describe as dispositions.  The 4C's are no longer just a checklist of knowledge and skills, but dispositions (how we approach teaching, learning and problems). 

To generate some thinking about the 4C's I am posting this wonderful story/video created by one of my favorite children's authors, Peter Reynolds called Above and Beyond.  How do you consider the 4C's and how do you respond to this challenge of the 21st centruy.  How do you think schools are or should be supporting the 4C's?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KMM387HNQk&feature=player_embedded

Just going through the motions

Early childhood education is the one of the most difficult professions to go into, not only in relation to the amount of work, but also due to how the profession is seen by others.  Repetively teachers say they feel like glorified babysitters, but they are so much more.  They are children's first entry to school, they are nurturers, negotiators, and facilitators of children's first learning experiences.  So why, when they work so hard to provide quality experiences, does it become just an experience of getting by?  How do we help good teachers, those willing to provide quality, early childhood experiences, those who engage students in projects, to not be bogged down?  I know some really good teachers who provide incredibly positive experiences for young children through projects who have to justify such practices and to "compete" with those who merely teach to the standards.  Why is this when we know so much about quality early childhood experiences.  Should these teachers become so burned out that they resort to merely going through the motions?  If there are any of you out there, explain this struggle and tell your story so we as a group can advocate for quality teachers who struggle every day to provide authentic experiences for young children.  And let's dialogue about how to promote quality early chlidhood experiences to support quality, early learning experiences and the teachers who provide them.

podcast on the arts and education

The arts and meeting the needs of the whole child.  Integrating the arts into all facets of education (can we do it?


http://www.wholechildeducation.org/resources/wcpodcast-10710.mp3


thoughts, responses, extensions?

perceptions of early childhood

I am always struck by the composition of parents at my daughter's dance class.  The majority of us are teachers at some level, going from elementary to college level teaching.  When I went to pick her up this evening one was grading 3rd grade papers and complaining about how they just aren't "performing", as she dilgently graded a stack of worksheets.  She began discussing what I think is a valid point, elementary should be more about the basic facts, children can't seem to add the simplest of things in their head and application seems mute. At the same time she was calling her class stupid and idiots as she was eagerly ready to hand out the same packet, again, to her students tomorrow.  As an adult, how many of us would just quickly fill in a bubble to be done?
 A dad waiting to also pick up his daughter began discussing a study done which I found both interesting and troubling.  He was mentioning how they did a study specific to math where some children wer not provided any math instruction until 6th grade and others were.  The results of this particular study showed that by the end of the year of 6th grade, those with no instruction were at the same grade level as those with.  Troubling, yes, and more troubling were the results or analyses.  The conclusion was that early childhood educators have so much to teach that they don't have a firm grasp on math and so they are unable to "teach" it.  I find this untrue, but math and science do seem to be components that teachers are wary of or often try to avoid.  My question is why? I know early childhood educators know and are capable of making the content meaningful within project work, what I am unsure of is whether we document and assess enough to make this clear.  Teachers need to start making visible what it is young children in the proper environment are capable of doing and yet early childhood continues to be driven by standardization.  Imagine if those schools which did engage in things like project work or similar, began to be more intentional in collecting data ) - wouldn't we see a shift in teaching and learning?  As I progress in my work, look to find more evidence of this.

teaching and learning

The more I work with education students and inservice teachers the more I see a hear numerous definitions of  teaching and learning.  Even with this multiplicity of definitions what I repetitively see is the difficulty teachers have of giving up their "power" in the classroom to move towards more child initiated practices.  This loss of control seems to be a primary reason for teachers struggling to implement more creativity into the classroom and projects.  So, before I write more on this topic I am very curious to know what others think?  How do you define the role of the teacher, what does it mean to learn, and why is it so important for teachers to have this sense of power and control?

teaching and learning

Parker Palmer talks about "we are who we teach" which I find pertinent to my own work and teaching.  Having started out my educational pursuits and personal passions in the field of art, this permeates everything I do in my teaching.  Creativity is the source of my teaching and I cannot separate it from my work as a teacher educator.  But often, I find this conflicts with the current expectations of teachers to standardize and generalize experiences in the classroom.  Today in class with my students we  were discussing how even art class has become standardized.  A student raised the point that their child is given "directions" on how to do their art.  Is this art?  And more importantly, is this learning and creating, two skills we deem crucial, at least in theory.
In many art classes today children are expected to reproduce, not create, a product which the teacher deems worthy of duplication, but this is not art and definitely does not support creativity in children.  But I guess my question is, has even the field of art education fallen prey to a standardized curriculum?  Is this how art education "stays alive"?  And if so, what is the point when art is the one means of escaping high stakes testing, measurement and standardization? But I think this comes to a more fundamental question about what is teaching and learning.  Is learning just the mere absorption of what the teachers tells you or is it something more.  And so I would like to pose the question, how do you define teaching and learning? 

Fantasy vs. Reality

I have been struck lately by a phenomenon I have noticed in early childhood educators and it is in relation to the conception of fantasy and reality.  I think we as teachers are confused by how to facilitate these two forms of thinking and what I would define as children's ability to make sense of their world.  I believe this leads to a disconnect in how we facilitate learning in the classroom.  How often do teachers discredit children's level of creativity and imagination when they are engaged in the act of creating something.  For example, a child paints a tree purple or puts wings on a car, only to be told that trees are purple and cars can't have wings.  And yet, when we teach, more so than not, we shift out of reality in order to help children "learn" what it is we would like to "teach" them, let me provide two examples.
Recently during a study group session with a group of teachers we were reflecting on videos taken in the classroom that were to show discussions teachers had with children on their project topic.  The one classroom was doing a study on trees and had begun to identify different leaves and types.  The video was about a discussion on the parts of trees.  As the means of trying to give children a context to which they could relate, the teacher started talking about the trunk of the tree having legs and the branches were like the arms.  She kept making this analogy and yet, when she was trying to see if the children knew what the roots of a tree were called and a young  boy  called out that what held the tree in the ground were the shoes, the teacher said, "silly, trees can't wear shoes."  I am quite sure she was unaware of the disconnect and misinformation she was providing the child which led to his answer of a tree.  For me, he was only logically responding using the analogy of the body she was referring to and yet he was quickly told his answer was "silly".  We do this all the time to children.  Another instance was a group of teachers studying butterflies and when the children were on the playground and began to chase a butterfly the teacher cautioned them not to touch the wings.  When asked why, the teacher said, "the butterfly had fairy dust on her wings and if they touched it, the dust would fall off and she wouldn't be able to fly."  When asked why she used this explanation, the teacher responded that she couldn't remember what was on the wings of butterflies that shouldn't be touched and so she made things up.  Additionally she said that children wouldn't understand the real terminology anyway.  And yet, what does this do to children when we can "make things up" when we are unsure or don't know something, but children are quickly discredited when within the context of fantasy and imagination engage in something "not real".  Here is where the real disconnect comes in because children when engaged and interacting with the real world want to know the truth, not the fairy dust answers.  And they are fully cognizant of when they are manipulating reality within the context of fantasy.  Children know there are no purple trees for example, but when engaged in fantasy are taking what they know and making something new. 
As teachers, we are uncomfortable when we don't know how to answer children's questions about the real world, but children want to make sense of the world around them.  At the same time, when they truly are engaged in some form of fantasy play, drawing or other creative act, children wanted to manipulate and transform what they know about the world to something else.  We need to be comfortable and willing to support both, but more importantly we need to know, as children do, that when talking and studying the real world it is pertinent to provide the knowledge of the particular subject of investigation, not to trivialize it and "make things up."  Children know the difference and if we belittle them by figuring that they won't understand anyway.  They do and they know when we don't give them the true, hard facts about something they want to know.  And they also know how important it is within the context of play and the act of creating to manipulate what we know about the world and create something new that is truly unique to the creator/the child.  We need to step back and truly observe children as the means of our learning the role of both fantasy and reality within the classroom and how we need to be careful not to mix these two worlds.