Dear Team ...

Dear Team,

First, I should tell you where I’m coming from. I think about the children. I’m not always right, and I’m not always equally fair to absolutely everyone, but the first and foremost thought running through my mind is the children, both collectively and as a cluster of individuals.

I want the children to have the best experience they can in the space I am in - with the other individuals they are with, both adult and child. Now, I don’t mean I want them to be happy all the time. That’s not a realistic possibility, but I want them to be safe, valued and heard. I want them to feel connected to the learning community as well as the world as a whole. I want them to be on a journey of discovering who they are as an individual in this life.

One of the aspects of my role is to give directions and guidance in regards to interacting and supervising, setting up of learning spaces, routine tasks, as well as workplace health and safety.  I don’t give directions because I enjoy doing it. I do it because I need to.  I am trying to manage and lead a service community which is made up of children and their families, our local community, educators and the many other individuals who step inside our door. It’s not easy. I need your understanding and your assistance.

I want the children to be safe, well and engaged – getting the most out of the moments they are in. This means we have to create dynamic learning environments that will encourage children to play and learn. We should engage with the children with respect and not take overpower them. We need to move around and spread ourselves across the space and the children. Parking ourselves at the art table because we like crafting ourselves isn't what we are here for. We need to 'work the party' and be accessible to all, not just the few.

I want the educators to be safe. I don’t want you to injure yourself or your colleagues. I don’t want to see you stressed and miserable. I want you to enjoy the great many hours you are spending at work. I want to mentor you and support you as evolving and growing professionals. You’re not here to babysit or be babysat yourself. I want you to be the best educators you can possibly be. This is something we can work on together, but only if you will let me.

I’m not the perfect leader, but I can promise you I am trying my best. My best will fluctuate from one moment to another, one day to another. That doesn’t mean I’m inconsistent, it means I’m human, like you. It also means that I am growing. I too evolve as a professional and learn new things each and every day.

You and I are legally responsible for the children in our care. That means, each and every thing you do, don’t do, say or don’t say has consequences. Now these consequences might be minor, a scratch on a knee because you didn't speak to your colleagues about leaving the room for a moment, but they might also be major and result in a trip to the hospital with a fracture. We hold the children’s lives in our hands. We are answerable to the child – both the child as they are now and also as they will be as an adult.  This is why records are kept until children are 25 years old. 

We answer to the child’s parents and families. We answer to our managers at every level. We are also answerable to the licensing and regulatory bodies as well as the law. Please do not take this responsibility lightly, I don’t.

Please work with me. Together we could achieve so very much, but it is something we need to do together, as a team. I cannot do this alone. 

Kind Regards,

Your Leader

Extend Extending Extensions

DISCLAIMER: I shall have to preface this post and probably every post I write from now on with: I do not subscribe to the Assessment and Rating process. I am down with the NQS and QIPs and the EYLF – for the most part. I am a reflective practitioner and I love learning and improving.  I think A&R is a colossal waste of money that could be spent many other ways – research, educational support for current and future educators ... funding for services etc. I’m a teacher, an educational leader’s educational leader, a mentor, an educator, a weaver of curriculum. I do my own thing, as I was educated to do and I do it with pride and knowledge and experience sitting behind my pedagogical choices. I am a professional and I don’t need to be asked to prove it to others repeatedly.

Anyway, let’s start the show ... 

The inspiration for this article is from online forums where over and over I see educators asking about extension ideas for experiences or activities that they have observed children engaged in. I believe that the idea behind this is that these educators will then know what to plan for the child. I struggle with this notion for a few reasons. One of which is - a bunch of strangers on the internet do not know the child, nor do they know the learning that you are trying to foster for that child. They also don't know the learning that you have observed, unless of course you have articulated that - simply asking for an extension activity idea based upon another activity isn't the point of planning. Even when it is interest based.

It seems to me that by planning from one activity observed to another activity provided we are missing a critical element or two  - learning being the major part. We are missing the learning observed and identified through thoughtful analysis or reflection. And we are missing the potential learning we wish to foster. Activities or experiences do not equal learning. 

I have to acknowledge that I have a few personal professional issues with extensions as they are used in the early childhood education field today (I find "follow-ups" abhorrent).

I'd like to make a few points in regards to "extensions"  and I know I’m repeating myself a bit, but I so want to make these points. Repeatedly. 

1. An ‘extension’ or ‘extension of learning’ is not an obligatory blanket requirement of the NQS and EYLF nor is it a ‘must do’ for the ‘what’s next.’
2. We are the educators, we have the knowledge, experience, and the position to be able to choose what to extend upon, as well as how and when we extend it. We should own our professionalism. Like a boss. You earned it. (This is not to detract from the rights of children).
3. Where do children's rights fit into all of this? When do they get to choose their own extensions? And for how long they extend their own interest in learming? Why must the educator have all that power?
4. We don’t need to extend everything.
5. An extension does not need to be a separate activity or experience.
6. An extension can be something that we do in the moment - a sneaky little intentional teaching strategy.
7. An extension is not a follow-up. A follow-up is not an extension. Yet the two are often used interchangeably. 

Just so we're all on the same page,a follow-up and an extension can be defined as:

•   A follow-up - is “the act or an instance of following up” or “something that follows up
•  An extension - is “the action of extending:  state of being extended” or “a part constituting an addition”

I hate follow-ups (like, heaps) -- it's not a secret -- and I think that using “extensions” as the new “follow-up”  isn't the direction we have to go in. Who decided that this was the cycle of planning for early childhood services anyway? Who decided that this was quality and then started to perpetuate that myth. 

You observe a moment in time, analyse, plan a follow-up activity, implement that activity and then 'tick that box' - all to say that you've completed the cycle of planning for the (each) child? And if you do 40 of these, two times a month, then each child is sufficiently included in the planning cycle?!?!?!?! 

Go away. That's so superficial and not sustainable! How overworked and worn out and tired are you? Seriously? How much planning do you have to do at home because you cannot do the panning at work because you're too busy trying to catch up with the follow-ups/extensions/extensions of so called learning?!?!?!

Some of you are doing (are required to do by your Educational Leaders or your Managers) five of these a month per child - sometimes regardless of the child's attendance pattern!... I feel for you. I really do. It is beyond ridiculous. RIDICULOUS! I'm all about being genuine, human, and authentic. It's about relationships, connections, conversations. Learning and teaching is complex. It CANNOT be simplified into one learning story observation whatever the hell you want to call it and a follow-up-extended-extending-extension-of-learning. 

The NQS requires us to have a planning cycle which is informed and guided by our assessment of children's learning and development: "Element 1.2.1 Each child’s learning and development is assessed as part of an ongoing cycle of planning, documenting and evaluation."  We can plan using the broad learning outcomes, child developmental theory and our knowledge of each and every child in our care as a guide. There are of course so many other elements we can weave into our plans that I could explore here, but I'd run out of room. And honestly its difficult enough for me to maintain one train of thought, let alone 10. 

The NQS indicates that we should use teaching strategies intentionally to support and extend children’s learning potential. The NQS doesn’t tell us how. We work that little gem out for ourselves. The NQS does not demand that we extend everything we observe, everything we plan, everything we see. The NQS does not demand a follow-up activity attached to each and every written document. It just doesn’t. If you are convinced it does, please point me to where it says so... If an Assessor told you so (and I know that some have) ask them nicely to support you in understanding this, and could they please show you where - in the Early Years Learning Framework? In the Regulations? In the Law? In the Standards? WHERE!? it says so!?

It is my belief that 'follow-ups' and the current interpretation of 'extensions' as follow-ups is a leftover or residual understanding from the times before. The boxes. The Monday to Monday, Tuesday to Tuesday type of planning. Activity to activity. All those little boxes, little boxes ... Let's have a little sing-a-long shall we?

Little boxes all the same.

There's a green one and a pink one

And a blue one and a yellow one,

And they're all made out of ticky tacky

And they all look just the same.

- Malvina Reynolds - 

I love a good protest song ... 

I'd like to explore point number six further: “extension can be something that you do, such as a sneaky little intentional teaching strategy.” I mean we can support the child in the here and now. A word of encouragement, resources to extend the time the child engages in the play or resources that add a new level of complexity to that play, some open-ended questions that prompt the child’s thinking, a sustained conversation between educator and child, or a group of children... All these are teaching strategies. Teaching strategies, used intentionally to extend the opportunities for learning in the moment that the child is actively engaged in - that is an extension – I think that this should be our definition of an extension – the little thing or the big thing we did to support the child at the time which facilitated the learning potential further. 

An extension can be another experience flowing from the original moment - which may seem unrelated but is in fact quite related - Aunt Annie explores that in her blog article "Extending children's play, and the joy of red herrings" - so if you can do something in the moment, do it. And realise that it might not be 'like to like' or 'same to same'  - as Aunt Annie explores in her writing it can be 'like to different to very different'. 

If you can’t see the learning potential in that moment for the children or that particular child, then move onto another moment and devote some brain power to that. Be gentle with yourself. Don't belittle yourself or feel inadequate. You don't have to have the 'one answer' or the 'one right activity' - the perfect solution follow-up-future-extension-of-learning-idea.

If you know the child, know their development, their needs, their strengths, their gifts and their challenges then you should know what to do. Know the child. Plan for the child. Don't plan for an activity. An activity is not learning.

If you know what learning you’re trying to facilitate then you might have a better idea of what you’re going to do to promote opportunities for further learning. [Did you note that I said 'opportunities'? As in plural? As in not just one?] Keep in mind that not all children will want to learn the same thing at the same time in the same way OR that all children are capable of learning the same thing in the same way at the same time ... Children are individuals who have unique learning interests and needs and speeds. Just like us. Children are people too. Don't forget that.

I would like us all (well, mainly them, the them that annoy me, the them that are the system) to embrace the fact that not all learning can be planned or forecast. 

Sometimes the best learning just happens.

- G

© Teacher’s Ink. 2014 All Rights Reserved 

My Identity: A Reflection

“When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.”

Lao Tzu

I've been thinking about myself. About who I am and what that means: Reflection and all that jazz. So last night I wrote a bit of a self-reflection introduction ... and today I find myself thinking more and more about Identity as I wrote documents for work ...

How do I define myself?

I am defined by the words from my lips rather than the colour of my lipstick, or lack thereof. I am defined by how I choose to treat others and how I let others treat me. I am defined by my kindness and the intentions in my heart. I am defined by the good and the not-so-good (and maybe the outright bad) that I choose to do. I am not defined by the shoes I wear, but the steps that I take on the many paths that I travel in my lifetime. I am not defined by the lines of my palms nor the cards pulled from a deck. Nor am I defined by the wrinkles on my face.

I am a complex creature. You cannot define me.

You cannot document the goings-on behind my eyes or within my heart.

So why are we trying to define and label and compartmentalise children as learning outcomes?

We will never know them. We should simply support them, in learning to be themselves. 

© Teacher’s Ink. 2014   All Rights Reserved

Well, Let Me Tell You A Little Bit About Me

Who am I?

I’m a 4 year educated teacher who proudly holds a Bachelor of Education.  I also have a Diploma in Child Care and Education and I am studying the Certificate IV in Assessment and Training.  I’m currently employed as an early childhood advisor or consultant or whatever you want to call it. My job is about supporting educators in regards to understanding curriculum planning and reflective practice. I don’t know everything, but I know a fair amount.

I believe that the National Quality Standards - Assessment and Rating process is, as it is, flawed.  I have little to no faith in it. I do however believe that the Standards and the Early Years Learning Framework are worthwhile and leading us down a path of quality improvement. It’s the inequities in the process of assessment that I have issues with.

I am going vegan. It’s a decision I made last week after umming and aaahing about it for months. I figure I would just jump and commit. I’m already a vegetarian ... might as well go all the way and walk the talk ... practice what I’m preaching and all that jazz.

I’m a strong believer in protecting our natural environments.  I love trees and forests and deserts and mountains and valleys and rivers and oceans and beaches and nature. I love my garden and I am amazed by it.  I pick birds up from road when they are terrified or injured. I find stray dogs like no  one’s business.  I am also involved in animal rights and small self-funded home based domestic animal rescues local to where I live. I HATE pet stores that sell puppies and kittens sourced from puppy mills and backyard breeders. I struggle with breeders – even the registered ones – when we have in our pounds hundreds of thousands of dogs and cats, puppies and kittens, rabbits and guinea pigs and so on and so forth killed each year. Unnecessarily.

I live in a home filled with eclectic furnishings from antiques to retro to designer to repurposed to opportunity shop finds, even from footpaths and council cleanups. I am house proud. I love my nest.

I hate racism and prejudice. I hate bullies. I have a not tolerance policy for physical, verbal or psychological abuse of anyone: adult or child. It’s not cool. I hate people exercising power over others. I hate bigotry.

I listen to all sorts of music. I’m a triple J fan and I have a particular fondness for Heavy Metal, Blues and Roots, Aussie Hip-hop ... I also love Latino Jazz, Classical and so on and so forth. I love art, architecture, design. I love writing and photography. I love expressing who I am. The older I get the less I care.

And, as a person,

I have politics. I swear from time to time.  I own and manage and control the content of this page and you are welcome to be here with me. Or if you feel that my opinions and offerings don’t sit with you and your philosophy of education and/or life, you may unsubscribe. The choice is yours. I support your decision whatever it may be. Teacher’s Ink. is my project. I’m not paid for it. I do not at this point derive any income from it. I do it because I like supporting educators beyond the scope of my paid employment and I like having an unrestricted space in which to voice my opinion. The key here is, my opinion.

That’s me. 

The EYLF and NQS Programming Industry Brings Me To Tears

The EYLF and NQS programming industry brings me to tears ... tears of frustration. Firstly there is a product money driven industry that has sprung up around the roll out of the NQF. And not everything for sale is accurate or of a high quality.

I don't think programming, planning and documenting should be easy. I don't think it should be impossible either. I think it should be the right amount of challenge and reward. I think it should fit within the paid scope of your employment (i.e. you do your written work AT work), and I think that it should improve you as a professional and I think it should serve a purpose for the children and their families. 

In my role as an over-arching educational leader/mentor I work with programming and planning all day long. It sloshes around in my brain at the best of times. Sometimes it feels like its oozing out my ears. It's what I do. It's my main focus. I work with multiple different styles of programs and plans and not just one. I am essentially a critical friend who provides guidance and feedback for a number of services. Adult learning results from sustained shared conversations. I can't emphasize this enough.

If you don't understand Quality Area 1, don't beat yourself up. Its twisty and convoluted and I don't particularly like it. In fact the whole NQS is so interwoven it is impossible to unravel. Even for me. ANYONE promising you that they have unraveled it is full of the proverbial because it is an impossibility.

I'm looking online today at stuff. And all I can find is crap. Crap that dumbfounds me and makes me want to cry in frustration. I just don't get it. It's wrong. So WRONG. 

Crap that is for wrong and for sale. Crap that is for free. Crap that is about boosting an ego. Crap. 

Crap that has pretty colours, or visual themes, or circles instead of squares because squares are boxes and boxes are bad. Or trees. What the hell is it with trees? Who started this tree thing? What does a tree have to do with anything other than being a visual metaphor for something or other?

If someone tells you there is no wrong way to do the NQS or the EYLF I think they're wrong. If there was no wrong way, then centres wouldn't be getting "Significant Improvement Required" or "Working Towards." 

I think that there are many more right ways than wrong ways, but there is clearly a wrong. 

Please. Please. PLEASE think about what you buy. Just because its pretty doesn't mean its good. Just because its expensive and promises the world, doesn't mean it delivers. 

If you get exceeding at your service it is because YOU did the work and YOU earned it. No one else. Not even me :) 

I think I need to write something and self-publish it. It won't be free - but it will be backed up with evidence and it will be reasonable. And its probably going to take me forever to put it together ... But I just can't sit here and look at crap and not throw my hat into the ring. 

The Follow-up Fallacy

Fun Fact: Follow-up is mentioned once in the National Quality Standards (NQS) ... one time found on page 23 in the Guide to the Standard ...

In Quality Area 1: “Children learn best when the experiences they have are meaningful to them and are focused on the here and now. Because children constantly learn new skills and gain new insights into their world, educators and co-ordinators need to continuously assess and evaluate teaching and learning to update their knowledge of individual children and to plan new and follow-up experiences that are relevant to the child’s current context.” (ACECQA, 2012 p 23).

So, ask yourself if follow-ups as we understand them, were a core component of the programming and planning process, then the term “follow-up” would have been embedded in the terminology of the NQS right? Like a lot?

 “Children learn best when the experiences they have are meaningful to them and are focused on the here and now.” ... so where does the mentality of “follow-ups” a week later, or two, or sometimes three come into the “here and now”? 

I believe that it is important to support children. But that support doesn't necessarily need to be in the form of an activity. But this is what many of us do, or are told we have to do!  I'm not saying that activities are bad ... but they aren't everything, and they aren't the only avenue of support and teaching! They certainly aren't the only vehicle for learning, being, or knowing!

If children are constantly changing and evolving in their skills and knowings, then how do we support them by doing something (and sometimes long) after that moment has passed? 

So, what if we use ourselves, our teaching skills? (And I don’t mean over take or instruct, but I’m sure I’ll post on this later at some point). What if we are subtle in our approach? What if we take away the activity focus. What if we support in the here and now when it is most relevent to the child/ren? 

Don’t get caught up in the follow-up fallacy ...

If an Assessor, manager, power-that-be ask you “where’s the follow-up?” or the “what’s next” (I don’t like this one either!) ... Point out to them that follow-up is not part of the language of the National Quality Standards. Inform them respectfully that the new vernacular includes: support, enrich, scaffold, extend ... 

© Teacher’s Ink. 2013

The NQS/EYLF Product-Monster and Critical Literacy

Critical Literacy has been on my mind a great deal of late ... and I’ve been struggling to write a post on it. I thought it was because I couldn’t get my words out the way I wanted, but I realise now that it’s because it’s too broad a topic.

So. I am going to focus on Critical Literacy in relation to the big bad EYLF product-monster.  It seems that everyone is jumping on the EYLF bandwagon – both on the world wide web and the very accessible and free Facebook.

All over the internet there are apps and templates to buy as well as for free. There are web-pages to become paid members of so that you can download templates galore. Not to mention the EYLF program websites left right and centre. I don’t doubt that some are designed and sold by people with genuine intentions who are knowledgeable and experienced. There are also those who have genuine intentions, who simply lack sound knowledge.

Then there are the OTHERS. There are those that are merely using the letters E and Y and L and F to get your attention and then do nothing about it. There are those who distract you with ‘Bling’  - things that others have done. Do these places have something genuine to offer you that you otherwise couldn’t do yourself?  Are they even presenting you with original ideas? How are they even relevant to the EYLF and the NQS?

The EYLF is not about templates or computer programs. It’s not about putting EVERYTHING across a page and cross referencing it and saying that you are meeting all the requirements.

You are a consumer. We all are. It’s important that you critically reflect upon what others tell you. It is important that you make informed decisions about where you spend your time and money.  If a company tells you that their product will meet all the requirements, or that they will make it easy, then you need to ask yourself some serious questions ...

A super clever friend of mine posted somewhere sometime at some point on Facebook (she should know who she is) that if something is easy, is it worth it? So you need to ask yourself, if your job is easy, is it worth it? Are YOU worthy of the children in your care? Shouldn’t you be working hard to give them what they deserve?  Are you putting the effort in to understanding your responsibilities? Are you putting in effort to understand the children and what they want and need from you? Its not about ticking boxes to make sure that you are compliant. It’s not about being easy.

The whole NQS is about reflecting ... asking questions about intent and finding answers. It doesn’t mean that we are always going to come to the ‘right’ conclusion the first time around. Or the second or the third? It doesn’t mean that we are going to find the one ‘right’ way and then stay there ... The thing about the NQS and the EYLF is that there is a WRONG way ... but there are so many right ways. You need to find a right way for you ... and that way is not about a product (a computer program, a template, an app). Its not about a product, its about PROCESS! Process is how children learn, and it should be about how we work. We should work through process, a cycle of learning and planning rather than an end product. 

We are not, as Anne Stonehouse put it, an industry. We don’t produce!  She said it beautifully here: https://www.facebook.com/notes/national-quality-standard-professional-learning-program-nqs-plp/profession-or-industry-you-choose/551417674900216

So, I am questioning the content of some of these pages, their intent and purpose, and their ability to provide you: the consumer – with support, guidance and answers.  

Read the EYLF. Read the Principles and the Practices and reflect on them in relation to YOURSELF as an educator. What are you proud of? What are you challenged by? What are you learning about yourself? What are the children teaching you? What has surprised you about your teaching?

I know you’re possibly lost and scared and intimidated. I know that change does this. But I can tell you (I’ve written about this before). That reading the EYLF and the NQS over and over, and reflecting on them in relation to my professional practice have really deepened my understandings of the documents but most importantly MYSELF! I’m even at a point where I question the NQS/EYLF!

 *gasp*

You didn't see that one coming did you?

Yes it’s true. I question it. In fact, I’m starting to question almost everything! It’s driving me a bit mad actually. It’s making me a bit dizzy! I feel a little bit ADHD at times.

So. What’s my point?  Well. When you think of purchasing a product, do you ask yourself any questions? For example:  Who has designed this product, and are they qualified and experienced enough to be supporting me? Are they early childhood trained/educated? Have they worked in early childhood education and care for long? Can I do this myself with the resources I have at hand? (camera, computer and printer, word processing or publishing program such as MS Word or Publisher, paper, pens, glue/adhesive, photocopier etc.) ... Do I need to subscribe or buy a product to do what I have always done?

The EYLF has given us LANGUAGE and IDEAS which were based upon theories. Why are we now being sold products? And inappropriate books and ideas? Why are we desperately flocking to Facebook pages simply because they have EYLF somewhere in their page name? Why are we desperately buying apps and joining web pages as members to download things? Is it because THEY are telling us that we need them?

There are just so many companies it seems – using emotional manipulation and underhanded tactics to try and get you to buy their products. Don’t believe that they care about you and your work life balance. They are a business. They intrinsically want your money in exchange for their product or services. This is critical literacy! This is looking at what you are being told and questioning whether it’s true!

Look, I am a business. I’ve never kept it a secret. But, mine is a business that at this point in time doesn’t have a product to sell. Mine is a business that has sat dormant for over 3 years. I am clearly in no huge rush! Right now I’m just doing what I normally do on a day to day basis. I mentor. I think and engage in conversations. I reflect and I write. I am not here to take advantage of you, or indeed anyone.  If you don’t like what I think, or what I have to say, you are more the welcome, indeed, you are encouraged to go elsewhere.  I know that not everyone will ‘get’ me and that is ok.  

So, go forth and ask questions. Do your research – and I don’t mean ask a question on a Facebook page! Go deeper than that! Read. Think. Question. Reflect. Read some more. Think more. Question more! Get it? Got it? Great!

This is really not exactly the post I wanted to write ... It’s not where I wanted to go with Critical Literacy, but it’s where we ended up. I shall have to write the post I wanted to write later when the words come to me and I’m properly inspired!

Until then.

Ask questions!!!

© Teacher’s Ink. 2013

Dear Judith Sloan ...

Dear Judith Sloan,

I am one of those that you have deemed a “dim-witted” teacher with a bachelor degree (which actually enables me to work in primary schools, I just made an informed choice to work in the prior to school setting) from a “second rate university”. While I was at my second rate university (which some of you might know as Macquarie University) I learned how to research, think, critically reflect and challenge.

I don’t need to defend my fellow dim-wits. I trust that they can defend themselves well enough. I’m not going to bother to defend the value of early childhood education. It doesn’t need defending. It has been proven time and time again. And I have every faith that it will continue to be proven a valuable venture. I’m not going to stand up for Kate Ellis, because she has well and truly done that for herself. In fact I’m not even really going to waste my time questioning you, because that already happened and you faltered when put on the spot.

Look, I too am a blogger. The difference between you and your obviously superior intellect and education and my inferior second rate one, I suppose is the ability to engage in critical reflection and research. Let’s not mention intelligent articulation. I much prefer my honed dim-witted style of blogging. But, would I know any better? Probably not. 

Actually, while you were appearing on Q&A, I was busy writing an article on “Critical Literacy” in relation to popular culture and the media. I haven’t finished my article. It could be due to my slow mental abilities, or it could be due to the fact that I don’t want to publish something that I don’t think is written well and backed with a solid argument if not quality references and evidence.

So, ironically, here you were mouthing off about the ONE article that you read in the SMH. Your other evidence comes in for form of ONE relative with children in child care. 

You are basing your (un)informed opinion on TWO limited sources: ONE news article and ONE personal account from a relative. While The Sydney Morning Herald is a reasonably reputable media publication, it is not infallible.  It is also still sensationalist. It wants to sell papers and advertisements. The journalists want to make their name. The more attention they get, the more their reputation increases.   They, like you, have agendas. I learned in high school, as well as university that I should use reputable sources (ie an original source not here-say from a secondary source and not my second cousin twice removed) and seek strong evidence. You really have dropped the ball on this one.  

This might be the time to remind you about “Critical Literacy.” It’s about questioning what you are told and what you see. And you clearly didn’t do this when you read the SMH article and spoke to your relative. I actually agree with you about the triangle and orange thing. I don’t think that doing themes isindicative of high quality. But regardless, there are currently parents who want that. And clearly, your relative has not only chosen that particular service for her children, but she actively supports them by continuing to use them. That is her choice. Maybe she likes the triangle and orange? Just because you don’t, doesn’t mean she doesn’t, or shouldn’t.

Look, I can’t honestly waste any more of my time writing an open letter to you. I’ll simply say this final bit .... Yes the NQF is about providing “greater choice, diversity and competition” within high quality services. It’s not about conforming. Its not about making us all fit into the one box. In fact, it’s about throwing out the boxes! It’s about variety within quality, which will give children and families better outcomes.

So in conclusion, your evidence sucked and it makes you look ignorant and stupid. 

But hey, what do I know? I’m merely a dim-wit.

So as a dim-wit who is also a westie bogan, I am merely going to say “fuck you” and walk away. 

(G) @ Teacher’s Ink. 2013

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2013/06/23/childcare-the-new-protection-racket/

 http://www.smh.com.au/data-point/childcare-centres-missing-tougher-targets-20130622-2opog.html#ixzz2X0Zk6Kwj

Groups: Big or Small? Small of course!!!

I actually have two other posts that I have been wanting to publish - they are still works in progress ... but this idea about groups just needed to be written! Certainly to justify my choices - based on research as well as the Standards and Regulations and the EYLF. So here we have it ... My stance on large groups. Ready? It's 4 pages long in MS Word!

I’ll be upfront here about my bias. I don’t like whole groups for children. This is my personal belief around large groups. 

So. I’m tired of people talking about doing whole group experiences, especially with babies and toddlers. It is by no means appropriate. Please don’t justify it!  Just because a child is going to be in the preschool room next year doesn’t mean you need to prepare them when they are two! Just because a child is going to school next year, doesn’t mean you should start preparing them 12 months in advance!

“But the parents ask us to! They expect it.”

“The centre down the road offers it. We need to compete.”

“Their parents want to know what we are doing for ‘school readiness’”

“They want us to give their children homework!”

“They have to learn to be in a group at school!”

“Teachers from schools have told us they have to know!”

People. It is your job to stand up and advocate for what is right. What is right is developmentally appropriate and respectful for children. It doesn’t mean that this will look the same for all children – because all children are different! Services will be in different communities and have different social contexts. But it’s not natural for children to be grouped in large numbers at young ages. Think about our family units. Think about how many children we give birth to and have in our family units. Think about native communities. Think about your own childhood. We played in small groups in our community as children. I did attend preschool, and I only remember one circle time. I was singing. I mainly remember playing with my friends. Three of them. No more. No less. Three. Plus me.

Now this brings us to Dr. Louise Porter. Who? Well, she wrote: Young children’s behaviour: Practical approaches for caregivers and teachers(2008). In her book she talks about groupings of children. She points out that large groups or circle time, is a largely teacher-directed mandatory experience which does not support children in making choices. She also points out the obvious, that while some children may enjoy such events, there will be others who do not. These children often disrupt the event or might sit quietly in sufferance.

Looking at the rights of the child in the context of fairness and equity, how is a mandatory group time fair and equitable? There is NO WAY you are meeting the interests and the developmental level of all the children. If one child is left feeling disinterested or uninvolved or intimidated, how is it fair to that child? It isn’t. How is it fair to:

·         The children who aren’t interested in the topic being delivered?

·         The children who don’t have English as a primary language?

·         The children who are not at a high level of concentration?

·         The children who are full of energy and just want to be running or actively making something?

·         The children with developmental complexities who are NOT able to, either appreciate nor participate?

·         The children who are very introverted and would rather be sitting with two of their peers and their teacher, not sitting in a large group feeling uncomfortable and lost?

·         The educator who really wanted to read the story to a few of the chidlren?

·         The educator who has been told she “has” to do whole groups even though it goes against her personal philosophy?

It’s not fair. It’s not equitable. It’s not realistic. You can achieve the same goal with small groups.

Dr. Louise Porter says that children naturally group with others based on a rough formula: their age plus one. So for example I played with Troy, Kim, Joshua plus myself when I was three. That is my age plus one more (me!).  She also mentions the time frame for small groupings. The general formula is 3 times their age. So a 2 year old, MAY be able to engage for 6 minutes, where a four year old MAY be able to engage for 12 minutes. There is no hard and fast rule. Each child is a unique individual and should be treated accordingly.

So what do we do to offer children group times? Well, Dr. Porter suggests you approach a couple of children and offer them an opportunity to hear a story.  You tell them that story. As the story progresses, others will join based upon their choice to do so. If they aren’t interested, they have the right to leave. You are showing that you think children are capable and competent and able to make their own choices. You are respecting their sense of agency. So, if you repeat this a few times a day, every day of the week, you are giving children the opportunity to hear a “group” story ... It might be 2 children, it might be 5, it might be more. For those children who love stories, they can hear them over and over again. For those that aren’t so in love with them, they can hear less, and have the choice. If you want to see how effective this strategy is, keep a record for a week or two of who attends which groups, and see if everyone is included. If not, then approach those children who you know are missing out on the opportunity, and offer them a story or small group experience that will really inspire them to participate (Porter, 2008 p 148). Dr. Porter also talks about not preparing children for the future  – pointing out that most children will mature into school routines naturally.

 I can hear some of you saying “But what if they don’t mature into school?” Well, that might just be that individual child. There is no proof that if you had done large groups, that the child who takes longer to mature into school would have been more able to settle into the new learning environment. And, to be quite blunt it’s not your job to support children to settle into their first year of school. That is their new teacher’s job. It’s your job to support the transition. Not the actual settling into the new environment.

The EYLF talks about children having a strong sense of identity. Yup, you guessed it. That is Learning Outcome 1. Children will learn to interact in relation to others with care, empathy and respect show interest in other children and being part of a group. It goes on to say that educators will support this by  organising learning environments in ways that promote small group interactions and play experiences (DEEWR, 2009 p. 24).

The EYLF also talks about children being connected with and contributing to their world (Learning Outcome 2). It goes on to say that children develop a sense of belonging to groups and communities and an understanding of the reciprocal rights and responsibilities necessary for active community participation: cooperate with others and negotiate roles and relationships in play episodes and group experiences (DEEWR, 2009 p. 26). 

And now we move on to Learning Outcome 4: Children are confident and involved learners. This is where children are encouraged to resource their own learning by connecting with people and place, technologies and processed materials. Educators are encouraged to think carefully about how children are grouped for play and to consider the possibility for peer scaffolding (DEEWR, 2009 p. 37). How this can happen in large groups?

I also question that not all children are going to experience the same activity in the same way, nor gain the same learning from a small experience much less a large or whole group one. You are not going to be able to give the children equal attention. Nor are you going to be able to articulate what they got from it. If a child doesn’t speak, or if a child repeats what another child says, they aren’t really sharing with you their ‘distance travelled’ ... they may be in the same place as they were before. Or they may have gone backwards a step or two. How often have you left a meeting or a class or a training session and thought to yourself: “Huh?” ... I’ve left meetings feeling particularly stupid. It wasn’t until following some serious reflection and discussion with peers, that I realised I wasn’t the stupid one! I’m an adult. How the hell are children going to feel?! Are you setting them up for failure and feeling small and insignificant! Please don’t do this!

Ok, let’s step over there to Learning Outcome 5. Children are of course, effective communicators. Children will interact both verbally and non-verbally with others for a range of purposes, contributing their ideas and experiences in play, in large and small group experiences (DEEWR, 2009 p. 40). I don’t read whole group. A large group of 3-5 year olds could be 10/11; of 2 year olds it could be 8; and of 0-2s it could be 4. Think of the ratios as a guideline.

Having said that, I have done large groups, and I didn’t like them. The freely-chosen large whole groups I did were free-form dancing discos – but not everyone had to participate! And they were loud and chaotic and silly and often due to long times stuck inside due to weather!

Now, let’s consider the National Quality Standards. The NQS talks about groups of children. It talks about minimising risks of injury and minimising conflicts between children. It discusses grouping children in ways that supports their learning and development. The guide to the standard also says that Assessors will observe your service’s approach to grouping children (DEEWR, 2012 p 86). I don’t see whole-group.

The NQS goes on to say that indoor learning environments provide children with opportunities to make choices and negotiate activities that can be quiet, active, routine, small and whole-group experiences. “These spaces:

·         support children’s emerging interests and allow them to demonstrate their innate creativity and curiosity

·         reflect children’s different cultures, interests, abilities and learning styles

·         recognise children as active learners and decision makers.

 (DEEWR, 2012 p 86)

Again, I question how we can do this confidently in large, whole-groups. How can you cater for everyone’s curiosity, creativity, interests, abilities, learning styles, decisions, etc all in the one experience?!?!? And define whole-group anyway! It might mean that all children have an opportunity to participate in an event, but not necessarily at the same time in the same way!

The Education and Care Services National Regulations talks about relationships in groups:

“PART 4.5 156 Relationships in groups

(1)   The approved provider of an education and care service must take reasonable steps to ensure that the service provides children being educated and cared for by the service with opportunities to interact and develop respectful and positive relationships with each other and with staff members of, and volunteers at, the service. (DEEWR, 2012 p 163)

(2)   For the purposes of subregulation (1), the approved provider must have regard to the size and the composition of the groups in which children are being educated and cared for by the service.” (DEEWR, 2012 p 164)

While it doesn’t specify group sizes, it does specify we need to have regard for it. Why are you doing what you are doing? What are the reasons for your groupings!? Can you have quality relationships with 20 children as opposed to 4 or 5?

Also, in  Element 1.2.3 “Critical reflection on children's learning and development, both as individuals and in groups, is regularly used to implement the program” (DEEWR, 2012 p. 327).  It doesn’t mean you have to work with children in whole groups. It just means you need to consider them as part of a group as well as an individual.

And last, but not least, “Element 1.1.3 The program, including routines, is organised in ways that maximise opportunities for each child’s learning. minimising the times during which children are expected to do the same thing at the same time” (DEEWR, 2012 p 30). And that my friends is pretty self-explanatory.

Well, I think that I have sufficiently stated my position on large group times. And crap. I’ve just realised I’ve spent my Sunday writing a four page essay for “fun” ... purely to make a point. And not for uni!

Thank you for reading!

T.ink.

© Teacher’s Ink. 2013 All Rights Reserved.