Email 1/4
Hi Catharine,
I want to pick up on our discussion the other night on the term ‘Child Centredness’. Our discussion highlighted our different subjectivities on this term and concept and later I decided to do some research about this dominant discourse in early childhood in Australia (and possibly other places in the world). I found an interesting article by Winkworth (2006) who claims that due to the absence of a distinct body of knowledge about the meaning of ‘child centred’ practice, her research for the purposes of child protection has drawn from provisions in the legislation to assist in understanding what ‘child centred’ practice is. Her paper suggests that the term, child centred has emerged from a historical welfare approach (Winkworth, 2006).
The welfare approach to pedagogy was highlighted by Loris Malaguzzi (2012). Malaguzzi was acutely aware of the importance of language (Cagliari, 2016) and sought new terminologies in the process of constructing the educational project of Reggio Emilia, to give value to a profession held in low esteem and one which had inherited many terms from the welfare and health. Hoyeulos, (2013) writes that Malaguzzi baptised this inheritance as paediatric pedagogy, which is only concerned with the health (care) of children instead of educational function. Malaguzzi used to say, “where peadiatrics operates, pedagogy cannot be done” (Malaguzzi cited in Hoyeulos, 2013, p. 308). Malaguzzi's strong belief about pedagogy informed the Reggio term, the image of the child (Edwards, 2012).
What are your thoughts about this? Where did the term child centred used in the NQS come from??
Cheers, Kerrie.
____________________________________________________
Email 2/4
Greetings Kerrie
You raise such an interesting question… where did our captivation for 'child centredness' come from? It's one of those epistemological questions that does your head in! How have we come to know this?
What is the origin of this way of knowing early childhood education? How did I come to know this? But perhaps more importantly, who and what is privileged or silenced from centring everything around the child.
I wonder if the Winkworth articles claim that there is an absence of a distinct body of knowledge about 'child-centredness' is about context. Perhaps it was born of growing unease in our sector rather than a well-researched position. Was it a post-modern reaction to an education system that seemed to be built to produce pre-determined outcomes rather than engage and inspire? Dalberg, Moss and Pence's (1999) work in the late 1990s identified a neoliberal paradigm that had pressured the early childhood sector to offer labour market solutions that produced profits for venture capitalists - the rights and best interests of children became an afterthought! This was certainly how it felt in Australia. The inclusion of a child centred approach in the NQF may well be an attempt by the sector (practitioners and policymakers) to claw back some ground.
A dilemma arises when attempts to position children as central and push beyond the post-modern narratives inadvertently creates a skewed system that see educators design program that follow children’s interests only without the dynamic contribution of others (human and non-human).
I agree that language matters and that perhaps new terminologies can help us navigate the times in which we find ourselves. We need new concepts to create pedagogical practices that honour our interdependence and reject hierarchies.
Catharine
Email 3/4
Hi Catharine
To restart our conversation on child-centredness and to consider your thinking about the human and non-human, I have been reading the article by Giamminuti, Merewether and Blaise (2022), Pedagogical documentation and the refusal of method: troubling dogmas and inviting collective obligations. This article troubles conceptual and terminology dogmas in Early Childhood, and as you know, many of them exist. The authors of this article, make particular mention to the phrase, children's interests. This phrase seems to currently dominate Early Childhood social media pages and practice. This terminology is troubled by Giamminuti, Merewether and Blaise as a child-centred humanist perspective, a view opposite to post-humanistic stances that honour relational pedagogy. The viewpoint of child-centredness dismisses the interconnectedness of learning and knowledge, materials and place, and the importance of the role of the teacher. It presumes that interests are created in a relational vacuum (Giamminuti et al., 2022).
Another dominant phrase that has emerged in recent years is the child's voice. I understand why this phrase is being used by so many, perhaps as you suggested to claw back ground when curriculum was predominantly adult initiated. Perhaps this phrase is used to counter and reconstruct the narrative of the past where educators were implementors who made all the curriculum decisions, controlled the rhythm of the day, and children were largely not listened to? I believe this phrase, the child's voice, and underlying belief are grounded in child-centredness and individualism. It dismisses Barad's (2007: 185) idea, that we are interconnected and entangled, ‘of the world’, we are part of the world in its differential becoming" (Ingold, 2013, p.5).
I believe that educators must listen to children, take them seriously, write down their ideas, theories and imaginings and use their observations to design curriculum, instead of taking hundreds of (parent pleaser) photos and objectifying children.
I favour the pedagogy of listening, a principle of the educational project from Reggio Emilia, "understood as a co-responsive practice involving humans, materials, spaces, places (and more) in relational entanglements" (Giamminuti et al., 2022, p. 215).
You are right. We need new terminologies; we need to transform and disrupt our patterns of thinking.
Cheers, Kerrie.
References:
Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham: Duke University Press.
Giamminuti, S., Merewether, J., & Blaise, M. (2022). Pedagogical documentation and the refusal of method: troubling dogmas and inviting collective obligations. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 30:2, 213-226, DOI: 10.1080/1350293X.2022.2046834
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2022.2046834
Ingold, T. (2013). Making : anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. Routledge.
Email 4/4
Hello again Kerrie
Language is so powerful isn’t it. There are many terms that haunt the early childhood sectors, and you have named two that are particularly problematic.
In and of themselves they speak to positive ideas. Of course, educators ought to pay attention to what children are drawn to, what captures their attention and what motivates and inspire them. But as you remind us, not at the expense of other ideas nor as a mean of privileging a human centred view of the world. We have to be so careful that our language doesn’t become a mental ‘short cut’ that end up offering children far less than they deserve and nothing that will equip them to navigate the complexity of the 21st century.
And of course, educators need to listen carefully to what children are telling (and not telling) us. Their voices and the ideas and opinions that are wrapped up in their self-expression provide rich data that support our curriculums decision making. The danger lies when educators pay lip service to this process or as you point out its lead to individualistic self-oriented understandings of our place in the community. The other day I was working with a group of educators who were telling me about a child who had complained that the book she found in the Punjabi section of their bilingual lending library (her section) was in fact a Tamil book. She was most put out! She wanted to know why it was in the wrong location. She went on to talk about how the books should not be mixed up because then children would not be able to understand them when they too them home their parents would also be confused.
It is in these moments where decision about how we truly listen to children are best realised.
When children have ideas and dare I say opinions – how do we, as you remind us - take them ‘seriously, write down their ideas, theories and imaginings’, instead of dismissing it as chatter….
We slow down join them in their wondering and work to create a better world!
Cheers, Catharine.