Why isn’t it working?

This reading talked about how the laws and structure of the work force isn’t family value friendly. As I read these chapters, I kept thinking our society is based upon families and there are a lot of families but why aren’t these common practices. I’m sure at one point or another even the people who make laws had to take off work because of a sick child, why can’t they see what our work force is missing? It baffles me that we have to advocate so hard for these values when it seems like common knowledge.

I think one reason why low-income families don’t have many rights in the work force is because their jobs can be replaced. I think at a lot of places, especially companies with many workers will always have people willing to work for them. For example, at Wal-mart, they loose money if someone is out taking care of a sick child or if they are away on an extended maternity leave and it is easier to just find someone else willing to take that place. So why would Wal-mart change their policies to becoming more family-friendly when it could risk potentially losing some money?

The first chapter talked about early education being more universal and how early education should be a right and not a privilege. It is true; I do believe that every child should have the opportunity to attend a preschool. Yet I do see why it is hard for legislation to hear our advocates’ voices. Why would they be interested in starting a public preschool when in our state, they can’t even open schools every Friday. When it boils down to it, it’s always about money. If we had public preschools, it would cost a lot of money. There are more students because it seems that the younger children at schools seem to be the bulk of the enrollment. If there were a lot of preschoolers, you would have to hire more teachers because of ratios, which cost money. It is very pricey to have a preschool and I think that is one of the reasons why public preschool is not in the near future.

Have we really come that far?

The reading opened with children discussing the Brown vs. board of education and how the decision about integrating the classroom made a big impact. The discussion then moves nicely into interracial marriages that lead into same sex marriages. I often think about how far we have come as a society and I want to believe that we have become more open minded and accepting of all people. Yet I see how heated the debate between same sex marriages can get and it makes me think have we really come that far? When it boils down to it, we are arguing about who can marry whom.

One of the basics of early childhood education is to provide an environment where children and families are comfortable and accepted as they are. About a year ago, I receive a phone call from a family. Her first question to me was if our school accepted families with alternative lifestyles. At first, I was blown away and I didn’t think that a family had to ask that question. Once I assured her that we accept all families, it almost seems as if she was relieved. I was intrigued because I thought turning a family down based of sexual orientation is discrimination but I realized since most preschools are private, they can accept whomever they choose for whatever reasons.

But as a preschool teacher I realized how careful we have to be to all types of families and children. It surprised me to realize that 1 out of 10 children will grow up to become gay or lesbian adults. This makes me think that if that is the case I need to be more aware of what I say to these children. If their first experiences and foundations are taught in preschool I have to be conscious of my acceptance of gays and lesbians. I don't believe that being an activist should be for gays and lesbians preaching. I think as a teacher we can be strong activist for many families and children simply by just showing our support and acceptance of people. If we are trying to instill an accepting and loving attitude in the children we teach, we must reflect this attitude as well - even if you don't "agree" with their lifestyle. Being a teacher is not about "agreeing" with families lifestyle or juding it at all. If we are going to change society to become more open-minded and accepting of all people, we need to start in our classrooms and with this generation. I know that we look back at the Brown vs. BOE and can’t believe society use to be that way. But I can’t wait for the day when we can look back and think about the same thing about this issue.

How does a classroom move from a Multicultural curriculum to an anti-bias curriculum differ?

In all of our reading, it talked about the importance of anti-bias curriculum and how it is so important to include everyone and make all cultures feel welcome in the classroom. A NAEYC criterion reiterates the importance of culture in the classroom. When I was reading the examples of multicultural and anti-bias curriculum and reflected back into my classroom, I realized that I do some of both and made me question how do we move away from a multicultural curriculum into an anti-bias curriculum?

This year we were going through our NAEYC accreditation and while reading the criteria we saw how much emphasize NAEYC puts on culture in the classroom. While Hawaii is a very multicultural place, we realized that we (the teachers) are so mixed and most of us raised in Hawaii, that we don’t know much of our own culture. We felt that we were doing a disservice to the children because we didn’t know different songs in different languages, or colors or counting in different languages. What we realized is that we were just trying to find anything cultural and throwing it into our curriculum or classroom that we were really just bombarding our children with it and it really became meaningless. I think that the pressure from NAEYC did the opposite for our anti-bias curriculum. I realized that by trying to jam so many cultures into our curriculum, I would have to leave some cultures out and this made it biases. In the end, there are many activities that families can do with their children that represent the cultures in the classroom. It’s a great way for children and families to get involved but to create an anti-bias curriculum.

If we have the answers, why do aren’t we doing it?

From the first class in any Early Childhood Development, we are taught that play is how children learn. We learn the importance of play and everything a child can gain from in a play environment. There is even research to back of this fact. If we have the answers on how children learn, why aren’t we doing it? I understand and especially a 4-year-old teacher will understand the pressure that parents put on the school to make sure the child is “kindergarten ready.” I have a lot of parents who are so concerned that their child can’t retain information. I feel as if I am constantly reminding parents that we are setting a foundation for child on how to learn. We are not bombarding them with writing their name, identifying numbers and letters if it doesn’t make sense but we are teaching the children how to learn and become critical thinkers by asking open-ended questions. This way when the child is developmentally ready these things will click and it will be meaningful for them.

I still question where do we go wrong? I know that not every family will understand the importance of play and there will always that one person that says I only see my child play all day or criticize the school for just fostering the social aspect of the school. We read that in Finland they don’ rush the children to learn how to read and let the children explore through play and they score higher on test. Why can’t our Department of Education, government, administrators, Boards, etc. see the importance of play?