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.

change of direction

When I began this blog it was meant to be an interactive space created for dialogue between myself and a specific group of teachers.  It worked well and served as the impetus for discussion on teaching, education and art in the context of an inquiry into the Project Approach.  While the topic remains the same, that was a summer study group that no longer gets together and yet I find there are still so many things upon which I would like to reflect and write.  As an artist and early childhood educator I find myself often reflecting and wondering about the world of young children and the current educational practices and the society in which they find themselves.  The questions raised currently serve as the context for my dissertation and life long research and will become the topics of my blog postings.  I see this space as becoming the means of my sharing such reflections and wonderings with others that I hope challenge some of my perceptions and take my own thinking to a different level.  By merging both the written language and visual images within my blog in connection to current educational practices I seek to illustrate the possibilities and potential of early childhood education and beyond, many of which are yet to be realized in our current practices.