Reluctantly governed: The struggles of early educators in a professional development course that challenged their teaching in a high-stakes neo-liberal early education context

Abstract

This article documents the pedagogical and practical struggles of a sample of early educators in a large urban school district in the USA who engaged in a professional development course which offered them alternative conceptions of teaching that critically questioned the norms and practices of their high-stakes neo-liberal early education system. Examining the evolution of some of these teachers' conceptions and practices illuminates the challenges that exist in attempting to address culturally relevant issues with students in a highly scripted and surveilled teaching context. It also reveals three key issues that early educators, teacher educators, and those who advocate for early childhood education should consider when developing and/or enacting alternative conceptions of teaching in similar neo-liberal early education environments.

Neoliberal technological devices and articulations of teaching young children: A case study of preservice teachers using iPads in their teacher education program

“…This commodification of teacher education has also led to the expansion of non-traditional certification programs (e.g. Teach for America) that “dismiss the notion that teachers need formal teacher education before stepping in a classroom” (Baltodano, 2012: 496) and frame early educators as disposable commodities that are easily replaced by those who are willing to teach where and how their state or local system dictates (Brown et al, 2016; Einboden et al, 2013).…”

Questioning democratic notions of governance: A case study examining how a kindergarten teacher and her students give voice to and enact a neoliberal framing of schooling

“…While such arguments for change are appealing to those who seek to refute the neoliberal framing of schooling that emphasizes markets, credentials, and individualism, they tend to focus on educational change through directing either educators or education systems to create instructional opportunities or new spaces for learning (Brown et al, 2016; Smith et al, 2016). An important component that may be missing from these attempts to counter, resist, or reconceptualize the early education process is the actions of children, particularly peer interactions that reinforce the discourses of governing that mimic the neoliberal assemblage of an “apparatus of government and self-government” (Simons and Masschelein, 2008: 392).…”

Cultural Inclusion in Early Childhood and Primary Education

“…In-service PD primarily took place in primary education settings (65%) compared to early childhood settings (22%) such as Pre-K or day care centers. In three papers, teachers from both primary education and early childhood were included (i.e., Álvarez Valdivia & González Montoto, 2018;Brown, Weber, & Yoon, 2016;West-Olatunji, Behar-Horenstein, Rant, & Cohen-Phillips, 2008). Interventions targeting student teachers were also more often focused at students planning to work in primary education (59%) compared to early childhood settings (23%).…”

“…A third category that was coded, group-based PD, conveyed approximately half of the cases in both in-service (48%) and pre-service (54%) literature. Group-based was coded if the PD was organized for a group of teachers but had a focus on individual learning rather than collective learning (e.g., Brown et al, 2016;Haddix, 2008;Kidd, Sánchez, & Thorp, 2008;Lazar & Offenberg, 2016). Finally, the duration and intensity of the interventions varied greatly, ranging from two 1.5-hour sessions (i.e., Moore, 2016) to multiple years training programs (i.e., Kidd et al, 2008).…”

“…Moreover, we found that several studies addressed the context from a negative perspective, indicating that a mismatch between the intervention and the wider context could explain a lack of effectiveness. For instance, six studies referred to a lack of resources, either in terms of time available to follow PD and implement new practices (e.g., Biasutti et al, 2019;Brown et al, 2016) or in terms of insufficient culturally responsive materials (i.e., Daniel & Pray, 2017;Spies et al, 2017). In two studies, a lack of differentiation regarding participants' needs was mentioned as a downside of the intervention (i.e., Biasutti et al, 2019;Spies et al, 2017).…”