Overturning the Rules
and Creating Amiable Classrooms

Click here to download PDF version of this article.

(cont.) - Page 4

Reexamining the rules

---

  How did changes to practice begin? Callaghan offered workshops for the early childhood community in which the match between values and practices was examined. Influenced by interpretations of the Reggio Emilia approach (Malaguzzi 1996; Cadwell 1997; Hendrick 1997; Edwards, Gandini, & Forman 1998), she invited teachers to explore their images of children, and she gently questioned some scenarios observed in the community, such as

Children told what position to lie in on their cots.

No toys allowed from home.

Weekly themes planned for the entire year without considering children’s interests.

Callaghan asked, “If we believe that children are unique and to be respected, and yet we are making children finish all the food on their plates before they get to have a drink, or there are designated times when they can go to the washroom, then what must the view really be?” The notion of a regulated child forced to follow prescribed institutional scripts for living had not occurred to those attending the workshop.

  The invitation to consider the contrast between the rule-based scenarios seen in their centers and the lovely images of children to which the teachers gave lip service prompted Bobbie-Jo to challenge teachers at her center to rethink their rules. This process was difficult. When they tried to discuss their rules as a group, individuals reacted so strongly to one another’s rules, laughing and making faces, that they had to make a rule not to be judgmental about rules. The teachers described so many rules that the group could not deal with all of them in one session.

  A decision to have a second meeting with a focus on one area only—outdoor play—allowed the staff to note 26 teacher-generated rules for children’s play. This was many more than they thought they had, but these rules had never been written down. Bobbie-Jo noted, “Individually we had only a few rules, but when you put all those rules together, for a child there were a lot of different rules because staff had different expectations.”

  Collaboratively, the teachers decided on three criteria for a rule: Did it [the behavior targeted by the rule] harm the child? Did it harm others? Did it damage property? With the criteria in mind, the group began to examine the rules. Someone noticed that play areas were closed when parents picked up children. Did this rule meet the criteria? No. The teachers asked, “So why do we have that area closed?”

  Applying the criteria to their rules opened up the process of discarding rules. On the outdoor playground, for example, the 26 rules were reduced to five:

Riding toys are for riding.

Riding toys stay off the climiber.

Sand in the sandbox.

Safe bike riding.

Hockey sticks stay down.

 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

<< Back to Articles Online