Summer Reading

     So, it's summer and my only teaching will be week-long summer camps at a local arts organization (not terribly conducive to the Reggio approach given the lack of time, connection with the family, etc). However, I have been using my free time to reconnect with Reggio literature. The Hundred Languages of Children, edited by Edwards, Gandini and Forman has garnered a large part of my time and contemplation. Not an easy read, but so worth it.

     This text is thick with provocations, and I am finding myself thinking, reflecting, digesting, organizing cognitively, inquiring and debating internally. I am so hungry for a regular group of Reggio educators with which to collaborate and create discourse! While waiting for that to bloom (some seeds have been planted!), I thought I would put down some of the many ideas and experiences described in the book that stood out for me. Some are direct quotes and some are notes I jotted down in a notebook while reading.

• A classroom environment is designed to explore the sharing of information between the realms of relationship, cognitive inquiry and affectivity.

• "...when children have experience using their drawings, paintings and so on, as a basis for further discussion and work, they attend to it with great care. Young children do not have to take work home everyday. When they do, the work is not being used for their learning." (44) (Italics added.)

• "We had to preserve our decision to learn from children, from events, and from families to the full extent of our professional limits, and to maintain a readiness to change points of view so as to never have too many certainties." (52)

• "If the children had legitimate rights, then they also should have opportunities to develop their intelligence and to be made ready for the success that would not, and should not, escape them. These were the parents' [in Reggio Emilia, Italy] thoughts, expressing a universal aspirations, a declaration against the betrayal of children's potential, and a warning that children first of all had to be taken seriously and believed in." (58) (Italics added.)

• "If the school for young children has to be preparatory and provide continuity with the elementary school, then we as educators are already prisoners of a model that ends up as a funnel. I think, moreover, that the funnel is a detestable object, and it is not much appreciated by children either. Its purpose is to narrow down what is big into what is small. This choking device is against nature. If you put it upside down, it serves no purpose." (88) (Italics added.)

• "...a clay figure of a runner is a symbol, but not itself a language. However, when 12 children make different clay figures in order to tell the other children how to play 'Drop the Handkerchief,' these clay figures become the elements in a proto language...These various media, when combines to tell a story, form the 100 languages." (249)

     So many thoughts branch out from just these few ideas! Like the children in Reggio schools, the educators and parents are meant to discourse and collaborate about the children, their explorations and their learning. We are meant to model what we seek to observe in them. Reggio, I am learning, is recursive and reflective. 

     I will end with a few inquiries of my own. I am beginning to see that a voracious appetite of intellectual curiosity is absolutely essential in order to widen the range of education possibilities and to live as a teacher-researcher.

• How do I observe the readiness of children? How does it present itself?

• How do I activate meaning-making competencies in the children?

• How would my teaching transform if I practiced this belief (which I hold to be true) posited by Loris Malaguzzi: "I believe there is no possibility of existing without relationship. Relationship is a necessity of life."

© 2015 Shelley Welch

Parent (Teacher)-Responsiveness (aka Mindfulness)

     After I wrote in You Try It A Hundred Times that "only then, when you can both communicate effectively, can you have a real relationship. I don't know if research supports me, but my experience has taught me that only in such a relationship can real learning occur," I became obsessed with finding out if, indeed, research would support me. Well, it does.
     In their book NurtureShock, Bo Bronson and Ashley Merryman address language development in young children. Firstly, they discredit the Baby Einstein-type products (a discrediting also based on research by a University of Washington team) as actually detrimental to language development in infants. Yes, detrimental. The opposite of helpful, according to the Washington researchers. Secondly, they acknowledge that the "richness of language exposure" correlates strongly with increased vocabulary in children zero to three. Speaking to children helps their language development. That seems obvious. But what isn't so obvious is what needs to happen when the children speak to us. And what does need to happen in order for language development to increase?
     Dr. Catherine Tamis-LeMonda explores parent-responsiveness to infants and how that responsiveness impacts language development. Here's what she found: the number of mother-initiated conversations did not predict how well a child's language developed, but the number of responses that a mother made to infant-initiated "conversations" positively impacted language development. Learning language, according to Tamis-LeMonda, correlates strongly with parental responsiveness. So research does support my intuition that mindful presence with young children establishes effective communication and real relationships and that then learning can occur.
     Michael Goldstein (Cornell University) shored up Tamis-LeMonda's work by showing that, more than just a correlation, parent-responsiveness causes infants to speed up their language development.
     Is this intuitive to teachers and parents? I'm not sure. It was to me as a parent and as a teacher. However, my goal was never to speed up language development. I simply wanted my own children and my students to feel heard. So, I worked (and still do) very hard to show by facial expression, voice response and touch that I am present, listening and responding. Dare I say that the simple act of loving another human creates fertile ground for brain development? It seems research would support me.

© 2015 Shelley Welch

You Try It 100 Times Or More

     Remember this question from the first post: Would the road between Pestalozzi and Robinson have twisted so violently had each individual attended mindfully to the children in her presence in each moment? Of course you remember. So, let's explore the answer.

     Let me start with Simon (not his real name). Simon is a normally developing, vibrant three-year old with a wonderful family, including a brother I taught several years ago. Simon also happens to be a born artist. I use that term with caution: I don't normally believe in born anything. Hard work, dedication and consistent practice is what creates artists, musicians, doctors, etc. But sometimes, children show up knowing intuitively a perspective that takes some of us many years of practice to achieve. Simon is such a child. He sees like an artist and his drive to draw is incessant, passionate and magnetic.

     Last week, Simon prompted my co-teacher to search the web for a photo of Thomas the Train Engine for him. He was determined to draw it. With laptop poised, paper and Sharpie at the ready, he began to "art", as we call it in our classroom sometimes. Twenty minutes into the endeavor, Simon called to me with edgy nervousness in his voice and the hint of tears brimming.

     "I can't do it, Teacher Shelley. I can't draw it. It's not coming out on the paper."

     "I see that you have drawn most of the train, though. What's happening? Where are you having the trouble?"

     "I can't get it to look like that!" He points to the smokebox on the front of the engine. He's right. The way the train is positioned (at an angle) on the screen makes drawing it more challenging.

     "Have you drawn Thomas before now?"

     "No!" He's getting more intense.

     I get his brewing panic. I am an artist, too. I know that feeling - the dread and panic - of thinking that I may have finally met my edge. Perhaps this is all I have as an artist and I never will be able to create anything better than this. I take a deep breath and speak slowly.

     "So, Simon, you know I am an artist, right?" He nods.

     "Sometimes, when I am trying something new, I have to paint it a hundred times or more before my eyes can see how to paint it and how it really looks. All you must do right now is keep looking at the engine and continue to practice drawing it as your eyes see it. You will figure out exactly where to put your pen so that your paper shows what your eyes see. That's all you have to do. Just draw."

     The relief spread across his face.

     "Oh! That's all?" And he went back to drawing the smokebox.
     Now, you probably want to know whether he eventually figured it out, right? (He did.) But, that's not really the point. It never is because life is fun and rich only when exploration is a consistent offering. Life is fantastic because things are complex, tasks are challenging, people require more of us than we think we have, dreams are too delicious to abandon even though seemingly impossible. The lure of "what if" is irresistible. We all feel this way. We all want the job that challenges, stretches and makes us greater than we imagined.

     So why, why, why do we so often offer our children that which we would never willingly embrace: monotonous work that does not inspire, freedom that is more frightening than nurturing, activities that encourage a separation between mind and body, and relationships that lack presence and genuine warmth? Honestly, I don't know the real answer to my own question. I have an opinion, for what that's worth. I think it's fear: fear of intimacy, of our own power, of being "too big for our britches", of the intensity of living a mindful life and all the vulnerability such a life necessitates (and creates).

     Maybe knowing the answer is important in order to change our behavior; maybe not. Let's just talk about changing the behavior. How?

     Step 1. Shut up. I am sorry to be so blunt and those who now me well are probably thinking, "Hello pot, this is kettle!" But really that is the first step. Shut your mouth and open your eyes and ears (and heart) the next time a small child is speaking to you (it's easier to practice this stuff with little kids under three because they tend to be very truthful and that is easy on the ears).

     Step 2. Look at him. I mean, really look at his eyes, his mouth, his forehead, his arms gesticulating wildly trying to get you to understand what he wants you to know about him, his world and possibly his current dilemma. You will see a sparkle, a mouth wide open and probably too loud, a forehead filled with eyebrow hair raised nearly to the scalp as he explains how the pile of sand in front of you is your birthday cake and he is going to sing you Happy Birthday, in soprano and off-key. If you really look at him, he will notice. You will see him become aware that he is being seen and, honestly, it might make you cry the first time. The pure joy of a child listened to is the closest thing to God I have ever known. Hands down, these moments are the number one reason I teach.

     Step 3. With all the integrity you have, absorb this child's words and thoughts. Listen with presence and mindfulness. Don't think about what you need to do next or after work or next week. Just listen and absorb. This requires great effort at first, but it is a skill that improves with practice. As you listen, your goal is to know this child in this moment. He is showing you who he is, and you must listen without judgment, opinion or self-focus.

     Step 4. When you must respond, respond s-l-o-w-l-y. Adults process language at about 170 words per minute. The average 5- to 7-year old processes only 120 words per minute. (When children aren't "listening", try slowing down the pace instead of ramping up the volume.) The child wants to please you and know you. Let him know he has been heard and seen by speaking at a pace he can understand and absorb. Only then, when you can both communicate effectively, can you have a real relationship. I don't know if research supports me, but my experience has taught me that only in such a relationship can real learning occur.

     When you have experienced a child in this way - with this level of intimacy and relational commitment -, you simply cannot hand him a worksheet to practice his numbers. You can't do it. You know too much now. You've heard the old saying: once you have seen the city from the 30th floor, you never forget that image, even if you must live on the 1st floor ever after. Once you know the fabulously rich and vibrant thinking that happens in the mind and spirit of a young child, worksheets and empty learning are no longer an option. Only now can you call yourself an educator. And only on this platform can an education that empowers occur.

     So, my answer would be no. No, the road would not have twisted so violently. It would have twisted responsively and with authenticity and purpose. I strive to walk that road each day.

© 2015 Shelley Welch

Image of the Child

To create an educational environment and experience, begin with an image of the child. Begin with your beliefs and assumptions about children (are you aware of what your assumptions are about children?), the ways in which they learn and develop, and their interests. Why begin here? Because any other starting point will not be an image of the child, rather an image of you. Any other starting point will be your agenda, your strategies, your instructional outcomes. And well, haven't we pondered those topics long enough?

David Elkind in The Wisdom of Play summarizes the history of early childhood education:

The philosophical foundations of early childhood education were provided by John Amos Comenius, John Locke, and Jean Jacques Rousseau. Its curriculum and methodology were created by the likes of Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, Friedrich Froebel, Maria Montessori, and Rudolf Steiner. Most recently, it was scientifically grounded by the research and theories of Sigmund Freud, Jean Piaget, and Erik Erikson. While there are differences in the approaches of these progenitors of early childhood education, they are overshadowed by one common principle: that early childhood curriculum and practice must be adapted to the maturing needs, abilities, and interests of the child.

     Must be adapted to the child. Education must be adapted to the child - not society, technology, the workforce, religion or science. To the child. Do we believe - I mean, really believe - education should be adapted to the interests of the child, and if so, are we doing that? Even if we do believe this, how radically do we believe it?  How far do we take it? Is it possible to swing too far?  What are our beliefs and assumptions about children, their learning and their development that keep us from adapting education to the needs, abilities and interests of them? Does anyone in America actually believe that a worksheet comes anywhere near preschool educational practices that are adapted to the maturing needs, abilities and interests of the child? Yet, many preschools use worksheets and try to teach reading and math before children are even ready to sit still.

     Literacy no longer means literacy. Literacy means knowing how to read and write, but it didn't always mean only that. Prior to the late 19th century, literacy more commonly referred to those who were well-educated and familiar with literature. Literacy, in fact, comes from the Latin word literata, the meaning of which includes both "an alphabetical sign" and "a liberal education". Have we, indeed, sacrificed our liberal education for the almighty alphabetical sign? In doing so, have we sacrificed our children's freedom to reinvent our (their?) world?

Kate Silber quotes Pestalozzi as stating,

I wish to wrest education from the outworn order of doddering old teaching hacks as well as from the new-fangled order of cheap, artificial teaching tricks, and entrust it to the eternal powers of nature herself, to the light which God has kindled and kept alive in the hearts of fathers and mothers, to the interests of parents..."

     Pestalozzi died in 1827, yet his perspective could be applied just as fervently today as during his own lifetime. Both Pestalozzi and Froebel supported active learning, Pestolozzi calling his approach simply "Pestalozzi's Method" and Froebel coining the term "self-activity". Both educators placed emphasis on child-led activity and spontaneous exploration. Shocking, isn't it, to read the words "spontaneous exploration" in reference to education?

      200 years later, Sir Ken Robinson is attracting attention for bringing voice to these same ideas - ideas that organizations like AERO (Alternative Education Resource Organization) have, since 1989, been working towards manifesting in the world. Their mission is to "create an education revolution to make student-centered alternatives available to everyone." Sound familiar?

     
     So, what happened between Pestalozzi and Robinson? One argument is that the industrial revolution happened and that its influence careened through the world of education, culminating in Bush's No Child Left Behind rhetoric. Most discussions about education - both how to do it and how not to do it - center around poverty as the seminal point of social, economic and educational division. Those who have it (money) create communities to give it to their own. Those who don't, can't. No Child was poised to fix all of that messy poverty stuff. Except that it didn't. Why? Because poverty is the single most complex problem in the world. Furthermore, poverty fuels the spread (or at least blocks the solution) of nearly all other complex problems in the world.

     What if education in America adapted itself to the child? What might that resemble? What if we saw the goal of education as more than the sum of a child's developmental stage + cost of his education + his economic potential? What if we saw education like this:

Academics aren't all kids need. Kids need so much more. School should be where we teach the meaning of life; where kids learn they are needed; where they can learn community skills. We like to think that school is also important for developing a good self-image, a strong sensitivity to other people's feelings...and understanding it matters to take care of others. We definitely want to incorporate all those things in education.

     If we saw education like this, we'd be Finnish instead of American. More specifically, we'd be Krista Kiuru, Finland's Minister of Education. Yet even Finland's educational system is not immune to the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune (read: PISA poor). Even so, isn't there something about Kiuru's statement that resonates?
 
      So, what did happen between Pestalozzi and Robinson? Perhaps the more essential question is: what does the story of what happened on the road between Pestalozzi to Robinson have to do with this moment in educational time? what does this story mean for students in my classroom in this moment and this next moment and the one right after that? Would the road between Pestalozzi and Robinson have twisted so violently had each individual attended mindfully to the children in her presence in each moment?

     Shall we engage in a little "spontaneous exploration"? Let's see what happens in a year at a preschool in a three year-old classroom with two educators...

© 2015 Shelley Welch