why do children go to school?’ consulting children in the reception class

6
This article was downloaded by: [FU Berlin] On: 28 October 2014, At: 04:39 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Early Years: An International Research Journal Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceye20 'Why Do Children Go To School?’ Consulting Children in the Reception Class Liz Brooker a a Teacher and Research Student Published online: 06 Jul 2006. To cite this article: Liz Brooker (1996) 'Why Do Children Go To School?’ Consulting Children in the Reception Class, Early Years: An International Research Journal, 17:1, 12-16, DOI: 10.1080/0957514960170103 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0957514960170103 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Upload: liz

Post on 03-Mar-2017

213 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Why Do Children Go To School?’ Consulting Children in the Reception Class

This article was downloaded by: [FU Berlin]On: 28 October 2014, At: 04:39Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Early Years: An International Research JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceye20

'Why Do Children Go To School?’ ConsultingChildren in the Reception ClassLiz Brooker aa Teacher and Research StudentPublished online: 06 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Liz Brooker (1996) 'Why Do Children Go To School?’ Consulting Children in the Reception Class,Early Years: An International Research Journal, 17:1, 12-16, DOI: 10.1080/0957514960170103

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0957514960170103

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”)contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitabilityfor any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy ofthe Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources ofinformation. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands,costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distributionin any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: Why Do Children Go To School?’ Consulting Children in the Reception Class

'Why Do Children Go To School?'Consulting Children in the Reception Class

Liz Brooker, Teacher and Research Student

Introduction: background to the enquiryThis article describes an enquiry into the attitudesand perceptions of children in their first year ofstatutory schooling, and an attempt to developshared expectations and understandings with them.It arises from a research project undertaken as partof an MA requirement, and has its origins in theresearch literature both on starting school and on theinfluence of social relationships on learning. Theproject used formal 'interviews' to discover theviews of children from pre-school until the point oftransition to Year 1, and revealed that the act ofconsulting children has its own positive effect onchildren's self-esteem, independence andreflectiveness. At the same time it promptedinitiatives designed to incorporate consultation intothe normal ongoing life of the classroom, byinvolving children in continuous self-assessmentand review, and asking them finally to plan andmonitor their own curriculum for a limited period.The outcomes, though partial and inconclusive,point to the benefits of formalising a regular channelof communication between very young children andtheir teacher.

The enquiry was carried out in a Reception classconsisting of a September intake of twenty-onerising-5s and the seven children who joined theclass the following Easter, in a school where I hadtaught across the primary age-range for severalyears. Twelve of the original intake and four of the'summer-born' graduated from the school's adjacentnursery class, the remainder having a variety ofdifferent pre-school experiences. The school'sintake is ethnically and socially mixed, and the classincluded children of white, Asian, Chinese, Africanand Caribbean origin.

My project was influenced by the socialinteractionism of Pollard (1985; 1987; 1993)particularly his identification of the conflicting'interests-at-hand' of teachers and their classes, andthe compromises involved in achieving a 'workingconsensus'. The enquiry method derived from thespiralling action-research model described in itsmany modifications by McNiff (1985), in whichongoing cycles of action and reflectionprogressively redefine and modify the research aimsand methods. My own enquiry had a very definitestarting-point (ascertaining the views of childrenbefore they started school), medium-term objectivesof implementing and monitoring inclusive anddemocratic classroom procedures, and a long-termaim of giving children more control over theirlearning. The actual course of the enquiry wasdetermined by the evidence gathered in each phase.

Phase One: interviewing the rising-5s.My recording of children's utterances was of crucialimportance. Not that any teacher or researcher canhope to gain full access to children's speech: as weknow from Tizard and Hughes (1984), children'sspeech is severely constrained by the context inwhich it takes place, both physical and social. Inparticular, the child's relationship with her/hisinterlocutor can be intimidating or liberating, and asHughes and Cousins have reported (in Perspectives40, quoted extensively in Desforges, 1989), thedifference made by familiar or unfamiliarsurroundings can be almost equally great.Nevertheless, despite the evidence that it is parentswho have the best access to a 5-year-old's linguisticskills, a careful teacher may become, over time,almost as privileged a recipient.

Preschool interviews, or informal chats, wereheld with all twelve children about to move up fromthe Nursery class, in the last weeks of the summerterm. The children were invited to accompany mefor formal question-and-answer sessions, in which, Iexplained, they could help me by telling me whatthey thought about things, and I would write downwhat they said as fast as I could. The conventionsoon evolved that I would say 'Stop' if I neededmore time to write what they were saying, and theywould pause until they saw I was ready, which inpractice often gave them time to reconsider or re-phrase their responses. The questions were:

Why do children go to school?What will you do at school?What are you good at? not so good at?What do you like doing best?

The children agreed unanimously that school wasfoF learning, though their actual expectations wereclearly play-centred. On the whole they wereconfident of their ability to tackle a broad'schoolwork' curriculum, with the possibleexception of 'numbers', at the same time asshowing a huge preference for creative play. Inother words, though looking forward a great deal toschool, they already saw it as a place where theirown preferences would take second place to theperceived adult preference for academic learning(the 3Rs, basically), of which one was alreadyviewed as potentially difficult. Their goodwill andenthusiasm for the new venture, which theyexpected would substitute 'hard work' for free play,was somewhat surprising.

This first interview sequence told me a lot aboutinterviewing, as well as about children's attitudes: Ihad to use all my ingenuity to keep some childrenfocused on the question, and eventually edited out agood deal of extraneous chat from my notes. But thechildren's views seemed clear enough and I used

12 Early Years Volume 17 Number 1 Autumn 1996

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

04:

39 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 3: Why Do Children Go To School?’ Consulting Children in the Reception Class

Figure 1: Andrew, age5.1How do you think youlearn things?Messages go throughyour brain and tell youthings; like whenyou're reading, youlook at the letters andread what the letterssay, because you 'vegot a mouth on yourbrain and a long hosepipe goes to your ear;the hands in yourbrain get the messagesin your brain and rollthem up and the waterpipes carry them allthe way down to yourface.

similar questions, with some additions, in the nextsequence, conducted halfway through the first term.

Of the next twelve children interviewed, ninewere 'non-nursery' recruits and their responses tothe questions were significantly different in someinstances. Some found it hard to listen or respond tothe questions, or were clearly groping to discernwhat was in my mind, assuming a 'correct' answer,or at any rate one that would please me. Manyresponses also showed what had been 'learned'about school in the first six or seven weeks. Alltwelve emphatically liked school, and wished theycould attend seven days a week, but showed someinsight into the coercive and compulsive nature ofschooling (variants of the phrase 'you have to...'occurred in almost every sentence of everyinterview!).

Most also gave ingenious descriptions of howtheir brain worked, with diagrams Figure 1 (inanswer to the new questions, 'how do you learnthings? are you good at learning?') and showedconfidence in their own ability to learn. Play wasstill their main priority, despite their assumption thatit was not high on the official (adult) agenda.

Ten further interviews took place in December,six of them with members of the original Nurserygroup. Children were now asked to look back on theterm and reflect on what they had learned, how theyhad learned it, and with what ease or difficulty, andwhat they would like to learn next. Overall theymade appropriate and sensible assessments of whatthey had already learned, but showed nounderstanding of what it might mean to plan ahead.

Phase Two: introducing self-assessment.My main project in the spring term was to developthe habit of self-assessment, at the same time ascreating a classroom ethos in which children's viewswere invited, listened to and taken into account as amatter of course. In these ways I hoped to transfersome of the responsibility for planning learningobjectives, and selecting activities, to the childrenthemselves.

The habit of regular, ongoing self-assessmentwas introduced gradually, rather than announced tothe children. I began by making my regularobservation notes while I was sitting with groups ofchildren working. The children were not used tosuch overt note-taking (my pad and pen on the tablewith their busy books) and I responded to theircuriosity by saying that I wanted to write down allthe really important things they said so that I wouldnot forget them. In addition to noting their skills,difficulties and strategies as usual, I recordedverbatim their spontaneous self-assessments ('I dogooder sixes than Catriona, she do big ones and I dolittle ones': remarks like these flow constantly fromchildren as they work). Many of these were usefulto quote back to the children in subsequentdiscussions, or to share with a group.

During this period I was training myself also towithhold excessive praise and develop a moreneutrally appreciative tone towards children's work.I had become anxious about children's constantrequests for stars or smiley faces drawn on theirwork - not occasionally but always - and by thesmarter children's initiative of embellishing their

Early Years Volume 17 Number 1 Autumn 1996 13

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

04:

39 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 4: Why Do Children Go To School?’ Consulting Children in the Reception Class

own work with large ticks and stars, a practiceprobably learned from older siblings. Symbols likethese seemed to close down or altogether avoid anyreflection on the work, or discussion of it, and toturn teaching and learning activities into aproduction line. Some children had already workedout how to be a successful pupil: 'she gets us to dosomething, we do it, she says Lovely, and we put itaway in our trays'. Now that they were saying'Lovely' to themselves, in the form of a big tick,there was no need even for me to look at the workbefore it vanished into the tray. Was this all therewas to 'learning to be a pupil'?

Most children, nevertheless, wanted my approvalof their work before they considered an activity tobe completed and it was my habit of near-automaticapproval that I wished to break. I tried instead justsitting next to any child who said they'd 'finished',asking about their work, paraphrasing what theysaid fso this is the picture that goes with this bit ofwriting, is it?') and asking, 'how do you think yougot on then?' The children soon overcame theirslight surprise at this format, and declaredthemselves delighted with their work: after all, thiswas the kind of response they had learned to expectfrom me: 'I done a lovely picture and I done mybest letters and I told you a lovely story and you'repleased with me' was a typical response. But solong as I managed to remain reasonably neutral, oreven a little doubtful, or silent, a more consideredview often followed: 'well, I was a little bit lazybecause I didn't want to do writing, but then I trieda bit harder and the last bit's quite good'. Iresponded in turn by writing down their evaluations(on the work, in red), reading them back to the childand having them sign it with my pen. This process,which seemed slow and clumsy initially, soon fittedsmoothly into the classroom routine, and becamesecond-nature to the children. They acceptedwithout comment that they might have to wait todiscuss their work with me, and began to lookthrough it by themselves, discuss it with aneighbour and plan what they would say.

Just before Easter, sixteen children wereinterviewed; they were asked to reflect on what theyhad learned, and how, suggest what they would liketo learn next, and comment on their own work andplay. On the whole they revealed a relaxed attitudeto work and play, confidence in their own powers oflearning and an impressive grasp of the breadth ofcurriculum content and of their ability to tackle it.The question, 'What would you like to learn nextterm, after the holidays?' provoked a list of fifty-sixitems in all, ranging from 'all about the world'...'learn Punjabi'...'learn French' to 'make chairs forthe playhouse', 'make real pastry' and 'make peoplebetter'.

In particular, the gulf between 'what teacherswant you to do' and 'what we want to do' was nolonger evident, and I hoped to build on thisnarrowing of the gap in perceptions by introducingsome real power-sharing next term, once the intakeof 'summer-born' had been settled.

Phase Three: autonomy for five-year-olds?I initially selected a core group of eight children(four boys, four girls; mixed race and ability) and anadd-on group of four to join the project once it wasin progress. I met them for a lengthy discussion, forwhich I set the agenda, while they kept impressivelyon task, co-operating with each other's contributionsand with my note-taking, and commentingconstructively on each item. These were:

a review of the content and skills we had beencovering in relation to the 'wish-list' that hademerged from the Easter interviews;

my proposition that the group should plan theirown work for the next few weeks, and shouldimplement their plans in their own time andtheir own way; planning the first week'scurriculum;

planning its implementation.

The maturity and reflective ability of the group wassurprising. They recalled, between them, preciselywhat we had learned this term and whether it hadbeen on the 'list', and lamented specific intentionswhich had not yet been realised. They quicklyoutlined a joint proposal for a week's work, whichwas remarkably close to any conventional teacher'splan, so faithfully had they internalised curricularnorms. There was a small amount of disagreementover how many times a week they should 'do'certain activities (votes for construction toys variedfrom once a week to twenty times a week) but thiswas resolved by including some 'choosing' slots.

I offered to come back to them with a format forthem to approve and subsequently presented eachchild with a made-up Assignment Book listingtwenty-four items. I had realised whilephotocopying them that twenty-four was far too^many tasks for most children to complete in a week,as PE and assemblies and music would go ahead asusual for the whole class. The children wereunconcerned, and assumed they would just carry onuntil they had finished. The Assignments listed

were:Read with a grown-up: 3 times

Play in the cafe

Painting: bubble-prints

14 Early Years Volume 17 Number 1 Autumn 1996

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

04:

39 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 5: Why Do Children Go To School?’ Consulting Children in the Reception Class

Painting: wax-resist

Painting: ('with paintpots', ie. pictures orpatterns)

Maths: numbers /addition/ subtraction

Maths: pattern-making

Maths: missing-number games

Play in the sand

Write a story

Shared writing: make a big book

Wash the toys and dolls' clothes

Construction toys. 4 times, 4 different activities

Play in the water

Choosing times: 4

Phonics: my suggestion, unanimously adopted

That Friday afternoon I explained to the whole classthat one group would try 'working on their own'next week, and on Monday morning there was alarge (8-10 seater) table created to one side, close tothe sand and playhouse cafe, at which the 'group'sat together to discuss their Assignment Bookswhile I directed the rest of the class to relativelyquiet and static activities. When I returned they hadfinished their discussion and greeted me with thepleased expectation of a table of diners about toorder: 'We're all going to play in the cafe'.

I sat with them and disguised my alarm bysuggesting there were one or two problems with thisdecision, as a) the cafe is normally closed for thefirst part of the day, when most children are reading,and b) there is a 5-child limit on the cafe. The latterobjection was accepted but not the former (quiterightly: 'You said we could choose anything anytime') and I backed down gracefully while theyagreed a compromise: four in the water and four inthe cafe and then we'll swap over'.

This format, with mixed outcomes, was followedat the beginning of each morning and afternoon, andorganisational problems were minimal as childrenare well aware of the limitations imposed by theclassroom: they can anticipate, for instance, that ifpainting and printing are under way, we may haveto put the lid on the water tray for a few hours toaccommodate the results. No unreasonable demandswere made on me or the rest of the class by the'group', who quickly became, according to theirability, well-organised and purposeful in their use oftime and space, and sociable and supportive in theirinteractions. A great deal of negotiation took place

between them as to who should try any new activityfirst, and I was hardly required to intervene at all.After two days four more children joined theoriginal eight, so that about half the class waseffectively self-directing over the next few weeks;by then the approach of parents' evening, outingsand school performances were making normalclassroom organisation difficult to sustain.

I reviewed the children's choices every night bymonitoring which activities had been signed off, andwe met weekly as a group to check off thecompleted tasks on a master-list, and wonder at theresults. After one week, only five children hadactually remembered, or found time, to play in thecafe (some of these several times, while 'choosing')and no one had written a story. This prompted achorus of Met's all write a story after dinner', anddiscussion of what to write about, and eight of thetwelve went and did it.

After two weeks only one child had actuallyfinished the assignments, but in our final review alltwelve children were whole-heartedly in favour ofthe scheme and frank in their rejection of teacher-directed routines. The most docile, academic andconformist boy announced to my surprise that 'if ateacher says do that and do that you may want tosay no' (he never had, of course, but at what cost?).All were adamant, too, in response to my nextquestion, that you would 'learn just as much thisway', reminding me that we had agreed on theassignments together and that 'everyone exceptHelen did their reading in the end, but you do itwhen you want to'. (I never told them what Helen'sparents had told me, that she was insisting onreading at home every night so that she could go toher chosen activities with a clear conscience everyday.)

Summary and conclusionsIn reviewing this project I am most struck by theclose fit between the initial method of the enquiry,and its aims: by consulting children regularly abouttheir attitudes, skills and knowledge, I wasimplicitly handing them some of the autonomy andresponsibility I wished them to acquire. My earliestinterviews had revealed a good deal, not only aboutchildren's attitudes and expectations, but also abouttheir reaction to, and pleasure in, the interviewsituation. Nursery children glowed with self-importance at having their views sought out andrecorded in a protected environment (nointerruptions or distractions, no other child musclingin and stealing the limelight). The 'writteninterview' formula, which I had feared might becumbersome, proved instead a multipurpose tool:

Early Years Volume 17 Number 1 Autumn 1996 • 15

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

04:

39 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014

Page 6: Why Do Children Go To School?’ Consulting Children in the Reception Class

it gave children status, in a protected session inwhich they possessed the knowledge an adultrequired, and their words were recorded;

it gave them the opportunity to think through,reconsider and revise their responses while Iwrote, encouraging reflectiveness;

it established that there was a record of thisinformation, to which they and I referred infuture sessions ('Remember when I told you Icouldn't read? Well, I can now!')

In addition, because the responses were answers toset questions, some of which recurred in the nextsequence, the information was relatively easy totabulate and compare over a period of months, sothat progression in attitudes could be identified.

The second initiative, recording child self-assessments, had a similar value in empoweringchildren, among other purposes:

it told me how children viewed their work(whether uncritically or not, whetherpleasurably or not), and the processes involved;

it gave authority to children's own opinions,substituting their judgements for dependence onpraise or teacher-approval;

it gave children the opportunity to reflect, andthereby to project forward: unprompted,children would announce that 'next time I'mnot going to do mix-up writing / use felt-tips /look at the number line'.

it provided opportunities for children to confertogether, in a form of spontaneous peer-appraisal, before conferring with me.

Lastly, but importantly, the inclusion of self-assessment in the daily routine enabled thereflective process to continue even when theprotected time for private interviews was lost toother school needs - a common occurrence inprimary schools.

The final initiative, the 'Assignment' project, hadalso worked in unforeseen ways to increase theconsultation and collaboration between children.Though I had asked each individual to takedecisions for her/himself, in practice each childfound s/he was operating as part of a well-knitgroup with common aims. From my perspective, allthree phases of the project contributed to a morerelaxed, less oppositional classroom ethos.Consulting children about school can avert orresolve many potential teacher-child antagonisms.Where particularly non-co-operative children areinvolved, the strength of the group ethos helps tocalm, rather than inflame, the flare-ups that still

threaten. An example of this came for me in mydealings with a rising-5 of enormous intelligence,powerful personality and a history of defiance anddisaffection at home and in the nursery, who on oneoccasion chose a peaceful moment to stand up fromhis table and announce loudly, 'I 'ate school, and I'ate teachers. School's boring and teachers areboring. Who else 'ates school?' Before I couldrespond, I saw the rest of the group giggle, grin andthen say, 'Sit down, Zac', and turn back to whatthey were doing, no longer interested in him. Farfrom having to intervene to protect my owninterests, I had observed the children looking afterthem for me - a scenario which lowers the stressinherent in every teaching situation.

My final measure of success became, not just thediminishing of the teacher/child gap, but thedisappearance of the work/play divide. The lastquestion I asked was, 'have you worked well, andplayed well, in this class?' Many of the answerswere a delight:

my best playing is bricks and working hard,because working hard is good fun.

my best playing was learning to read, and ifyou don't learn it soon then you're not going toknow it...

good playing is doing good work because it'sfun doing good work and making goodmodels...

making models is good playing...

writing at the writing table is my best playing...

As one child concluded, 'I've been busy; busy is thesame as working hard.' I knew what she meant.

ReferencesDesforges, C. (ed.) (1989) Early Childhood Education, The

British Journal of Educational Psychology, Monograph No.4,Edinburgh.

McNiff, J. (1988) Action Research, Principles and Practice,Routledge, London.

Pollard, A. (1985) The Social World of the Primary School, Holt,Rinehart, Winston, London.

Pollard, A. (ed.) (1987) Children and Their Primary Schools,Falmer, London.

Pollard, A. and Tann, S. (1993) Reflective Teaching in thePrimary School, Cassell, London.

Tizard, B. and Hughes, M. (1984) Young Children Learning,Fontana, London.

16 Early Years Volume 17 Number 1 Autumn 1996

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

FU B

erlin

] at

04:

39 2

8 O

ctob

er 2

014