Recently I have disagreed with a colleague about the validity of some of the Primary Years Program (PYP/IB) components. We have discussed the focus of PYP in our teaching in detriment of language and mathematics skills. We have discussed that expecting young children to inquiry or show their learning and take responsibility for their learning, when they can barely speak, carry small tasks and socialize, is a unachievable expecattion in a context where the teacher-student radio is 2-10 and the day is structured in 40 minutes blocks. For instance, one of the focus of the PYP is on key concept skills such as connection, function, form, etc. While connection is an easy concept to work with, the others are way too abstract. I believe that when a 4 year old asks "what does a camel eat?" it is obviously our job to guide them to find the answer by themselves and prompting them to ways of finding answers. However, one of the focus is stating "Ah, that's a function question, because it talks about how it works".
The fact that PYP is delivered through inquiry is great, however, the early year's classroom in our school is not play based at all. Children inquiry through play and when the day is not designed to support inquiry; teachers are not trained or well-versed in helping children make sense of their play, we fail to facilitate learning.
We all have to meet standards and children must make some progress and develop their social and emotional skills, in addition to their language and mathematics skills. My point is that the PYP might be a disservice to young children because it is chaotic and it doesn’t necessary foster school readiness or ways to assess and track children's’ global progress.
The fact that PYP is delivered through inquiry is great, however, the early year's classroom in our school is not play based at all. Children inquiry through play and when the day is not designed to support inquiry; teachers are not trained or well-versed in helping children make sense of their play, we fail to facilitate learning.
We all have to meet standards and children must make some progress and develop their social and emotional skills, in addition to their language and mathematics skills. My point is that the PYP might be a disservice to young children because it is chaotic and it doesn’t necessary foster school readiness or ways to assess and track children's’ global progress.
My colleague is a hard-core PYP and has a way with words. I must admit, PYP sounds like a dream come true on paper, in reality, it is utter chaos.
My response to this conflict was to withdrawn and not go any further in the discussion. However, after exploring the readings and strategies this week, I have identified the following strategies I could have used to reach a productive resolution rather than just voicing opinions and ranting.
Introduction to Negotiation.
• Be hard on the problem and soft on the person: I could have gone harder on the problem sharing examples of struggling children in Kindergarten, and how our units of inquiry did not prepare them to cope with Kindergarten.
• Focus on needs, not positions: Again, focusing on the problem of school readiness and not my own opinion.
• Emphasise common ground: a compromise between inquiry and language and mathematics skills.
• Be inventive about options
• Make clear agreements: rather than withdrawing and deciding to do my own thing.
Win-Win Approach
"The win-win approach is about changing the conflict from attack and defense, to co-operation. It alters the direction of communication" (Conflict Resolution Network, n.d).
As teachers, we both want the best for our children.. We want them to inquiry into the world and be well-rounded individuals, we want them to be ready for the future school challenges.
A compromise and a plan regarding the issue mentioned above would have been a win-win situation for all, frustrated teachers and children.
A compromise and a plan regarding the issue mentioned above would have been a win-win situation for all, frustrated teachers and children.
Conflict Resolution Network ( n.d) retrieved from http://www.crnhq.org/content.aspx?file=66138|45515x
Hi Renata,
ReplyDeleteWhat an outstanding post! Thank you for the detail and allowing us to understand the situation and feel your emotions. As I read your closing paragraph, it's evident, you both have a common ground; the children. In my personal life, I often back down when a confrontation arises but in my work place, because so much of what I do is advocating for inclusion opportunities, it is the common ground of ensuring the best for all children that I ensure stays the focus. Also, with your mentioning of being hard on the topic and soft on the person is such a critical component but often difficult when the person you are communicating with isn't able to distinquish between personal attack and a proactive discussion. They may feel as if they are begin judged, challenged, or attacked as a human-being. Our roles are not easy but when we are able to understand the difference between negative and productive conflict, we are setting the stage for thoughtful, engaging conversations that can lead to, as you well put; a win-win.
Thank you, Renata,
Lynnette
The suggestions you made for this conflict are great to use in so many different situations! I can see myself using many of these in conversations during conflict to try to find common ground! Thank you for your suggestions and keep doing what is best for the young children you work with! As a kindergarten teacher I thank you for trying to encourage readiness!
ReplyDelete