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 

More Postings on Observations

***  I am ranting right by your side! I can’t even remember exactly what I learned all those years ago at TAFE, nor can I remember what I even really learned at Uni and it wasn’t really that long ago, although time is certainly getting away from me. My rants are generally directed at the system and not the individual. I merely ask that the individuals ask WHY? WHAT? And WHERE? Three big questions.

I am currently working in a management role, and the amount of “he said, she said” is unbelievable. Even going back a year ago to when I was working for another mob, they were being told by someone higher up who heard it from somewhere else that they had to link all their observations to theory. So they held a training, and then the educators used the learning story which had the little box to write in the theorist’s names. They all said Vygotsky. Seriously, what purpose did that serve? Nothing really. The obs were still generic and poorly written anyway, adding Vygotsky on them in a box did not make them any more relevent to the child who’s name was written in pencil in the corner. Instructing a child in something isn’t even scaffolding. It was superficial.

I look back at my work from 2010 when we started working with the EYLF – very basic. I look back over 2011 and early 2012, and you can see improvements and growth. I continue to grow, each and every week, if not day by day. And that came with practice and reflection. I know that everyone will be different levels and understandings. You mentioned study, and I’m not even convinced that educational facilities are doing the best in supporting people in working with the EYLF and the NQS. AND consider that many people delivering the learning from the educational institutions haven’t necessarily worked directly with the EYLF as educators. Now I’m not saying they won’t understand, nor am I saying that they won’t be good tertiary educators or creator of ECE curriculum, but they will have a different perspective.

Program and planning is directed by the NQS as well as the EYLF – or whichever framework people are using depending upon their location and service. It’s become an incredibly complicated thing! And because of the way that the government chose to implement it – complicated beyond words.
My understanding is that the framework was written then distributed to services on a trial basis. These services then created some sample observations using the draft EYLF. The EYLF was published, then the educators guide, then the EYLF in practice book. They themselves may not even have had a specific idea of what it would look like in practice! I could be wrong. Seriously, I don’t know this from the inside, but I’m telling you what I witnessed as an educator on the outside.  And that is what it looked like. Even the change in the what is written in the NQS PLP newsletters is interesting. And I'm sure all the authors who write for the PLP will tell you that they have also grown and changed.

That's a large part of the NQS - growth through reflection. Not standing still and remaining the same.

I like that the framework is open ended because I like being creative and inventive. BUT in saying that, I think it leaves so many people lost. And I completely agree that they have the right to panic! Especially with the ratios they are working with!!!! I’d be panicking too! Believe me I would. That is why I’m saying that learning stories are NOT required as the only form of observation. And it’s also why I’m upset generally that there are so many companies popping up saying that they will solve everyone’s problems for them! And am frustrated by the “gossip” ... people panicking and changing things left right and centre. We don’t have to put everything (learning outcomes, principles, practices, being, belonging, becoming, theory, room reflections, group reflections, child reflections, personal reflections, philosophy, group goals, individual goals, NQS/QA reference numbers etc) into the observations of children’s individual learning. I just don’t want people pressured into the unnecessary – and this includes workload. Look at the image at the top of this page! Chaos!
 

If you have to do work at home, there is something wrong with the expectations of work and the system. And yes, I know a great many do this. I used to. A lot. The system is flawed. Or the perception of the system! Chicken or egg?  I think we need to be realistic about what we can do. I also question the focus on learning stories and portfolios vs the curriculum program. Which do we spend more time on?

And I question how much of this do we do to ourselves? Do we set an unrealistic expectation upon ourselves? Do we not stand up to our managers and owners etc and say that we can do this this and this in our work time, but we are not able to do that? So what should we be doing? What should it look like for our service as opposed to another's service? They don't all have to be the same!

Even when looking at a learning story or observation or whatever you call it holistically, and if you do two a month, or maybe one a month as I know some services are doing ... I don’t think you are going to get an adequate image and assessment of a child over the course of the year. I’ve spent more time thinking and writing about this than I can tell you here. Do more photos and jottings and write with outcome terminology eg (LO5) and stress less over the learning stories. Still do them, but be selective. All the while, reflect in your professional journals!

I’m simply suggesting the people look at QA1 for themselves and really read the EYLF. I know many who haven’t, or read it so long ago. My understanding of both those documents has changed and deepened over the last 12 months I can’t even articulate it!

Ok. I've said enough.

© Teacher's Ink. 2013