capstone

0

BYE-BYE TOLERANCE, HELLO EQUITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE; A CRITICAL

ANALYSIS OF FACTORS NECESSARY IN CREATING AN EQUITY AND SOCIAL

JUSTICE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PROGRAM.

by Jill Sydney Madsen

A capstone submitted in partial fulfillment of

The degree of Master of Arts in Education

Hamline University

Saint Paul, Minnesota

April, 2006

Committee:

Primary Advisor: Dr. Paul Gorski

Secondary Advisor: Dr. Heather Hackman

Peer Reader: Amy Silberschmidt

1

ABSTRACT

My capstone project involves looking at the need to say goodbye to teaching tolerance,

and hello to equity and social justice through a critical analysis of factors necessary in creating

an equity and social justice early childhood education program. I begin my paper with my own

personal history of how I got involved with this work and then providing a definition for equity,

social justice, anti-bias, and tolerance as a framework to be used throughout the paper. In my

literature review I look at the definition and practices of teaching tolerance, a critique of teaching

tolerance, and the definition and practices of anti-bias education. The next section includes my

methodology and gives background information of Community Child Care Center, the school

where my research was conducted. This section also describes the surveys given to the

parents/caregivers and teaching staff, as well as information of the observations conducted in the

classrooms. From there I provide the results collected from my surveys and classroom

observations, while also providing my own discussion through a continuum of anti-bias

education in early childhood education, which I have created. This continuum includes teaching

tolerance, celebrating diversity, and equity and social justice education. Finally, I conclude with

recommendations and further questions that developed throughout this process.

2

DEDICATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Dedication

This capstone is dedicated to my family and friends, who continue to be my rock and

support in life. Without them this project would never have been possible. I also thank my

family for instilling the daily inspiration of tikun olam (repairing the world) and tzedakah (giving

to others and community service), as this foundation continues to guide me in the work I do.

Acknowledgements

Participants of research. I thank all of the family and staff at Community Child Care

Center for their participation in my research as well as their daily commitment to equity and

social justice. These individuals remind me each day of the importance of this work and the

impact it makes on the lives of others. I am truly blessed to have had the opportunity to work

with these families and educators.

Educators who influenced my research. I want to thank Louise Derman Sparks for

paving the way in the field of anti-bias education in early childhood education. Her work has

been the foundation of the philosophies used at Community Child Care Center and lay an

exceptional foundation for beginning equity and social justice education.

Sources of inspiration and support. Words can not begin to describe the inspiration and

support I have gained from my phenomenal capstone committee, Dr. Paul Gorski, Dr. Heather

Hackman, and Amy Silberschmidt. Paul, your assistance and support throughout the entire

Masters program has been greatly appreciated. I don’t feel like this entire process would have

been possible without you. Heather, you continue to amaze and inspire me. Your dedication,

passion, and knowledge to equity and social justice education have empowered me to be the

3

educator I am. I can not even begin to express how much I appreciate all your support with this

process. Amy, I am so thankful for all your guidance and support with this journey. It means so

much to me that you have been a part of this with me. You are an exceptional friend, role model,

and mentor.

I would also like to acknowledge the following quote which continues to provide

inspiration to do something and make change in our world, which is what I hope this project will

do. “You’ve got your whole life to do something and that’s not very long…why don’t you give

me a call when your willing to fight, for what you think is real, what you think is right.” (Ani

Difranco, “Willing to Fight”)

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter One: Introduction 6 - 13

My History 7

Definitions 9

Equity 9

Social Justice 9

Anti-Bias 9

Tolerance 10

My Research 10

Chapter Two: Literature Review 14 - 31

Teaching Tolerance 14

Definition 14

Teaching Tolerance in Practice 15

Critique of Teaching Tolerance 19

Anti-Bias Education 21

Definition 21

Anti-Bias Education in Practice 23

Chapter Three: Methodology 32 - 40

Surveys 36

Observations 38

Chapter Four: Results and Discussion 41 - 67

Results 41

Teaching Staff Surveys 41

5

Parent/Caregiver Surveys 45

Observations 53

Discussion 62

Teaching Tolerance 62

Celebrating Diversity 63

Equity and Social Justice 64

Chapter Five: Conclusion 68 - 71

References 72 - 74

Appendix A: Teaching Staff Survey 75

Appendix B: Parent/Caregiver Survey 76

Appendix C: Classroom Observation Field Notes Log 77

6

CHAPTER ONE

Introduction

“The highest result of education is tolerance” (Helen Keller, www.worldofquotes.com).

As the Director of an early childhood education program (Community Child Care Center, Saint

Paul, Minnesota), I am concerned by this quote. I am also concerned by the use of the “tolerance

model” that is typically used in early childhood education; that is, if the ideas of differences are

even broached. This is a model of recognizing differences on a very limited basis, while

reinforcing stereotypes and creating bias. Through my work in early childhood education, I have

seen something very different than teaching tolerance; I have seen the impact it has on children

and families. The type of education I have seen is an equity and social justice framework with

anti-bias education.

Through the use of this type of education, I have seen how comfortable and reassured

children feel when they can look around a classroom and find themselves and their families.

This can be done in the books and play materials found around the classroom and pictures on the

walls. It brings joy to my heart when I hear young children asking real questions about

differences and getting honest answers from their teachers, as opposed to being hushed because

the adults in their lives are too uncomfortable to provide answers. There is nothing like having

two moms come into my office and express gratitude for the environment that has sincerely

welcomed their family to the community. All of these experiences occurred because of the

equity and social justice based anti-bias philosophy, education, and environment we have

fostered at the center.

7

My History

For the past ten years I have worked with young children in early childhood education

facilities. I started as a Preschool Teacher. Each day I had the opportunity to watch children

grow and develop, changing right before my eyes. I quickly realized the impact education has at

this stage of a child’s development. Cole and Cole (1989) discuss that during the first five years

of a child’s life they change more physically, mentally, emotionally, and socially, than any other

period in ones life span. Children are discovering themselves and where they fit into the world

around them. At the same time we can look at Harro’s (2000) cycle of socialization that

describes the identities that are ascribed to us before we are even born. From the minute a child

is born they are socialized by the people around them. Through these experiences, children

develop their self-concept and self perceptions. Children learn quickly the rules that they are

supposed to follow that connect with their identities. Louise Derman Sparks (2000) describes

children being very aware of color, language, gender, and physical differences at a young age.

Children are aware of these differences and learn by observing the world around them and

absorbing both spoken and unspoken messages about these differences. Thus, the different

forms of oppression in our society have a profound influence on a child’s development of self

and those around them. With all of this going on within a child’s first five years, the

opportunities for what can be done to lay the foundation of a child’s life are enormous. In my

perspective, in order to make needed changes in our society, that is to create a place where equity

exists for all, this early foundation must be grounded in equity and social justice.

My experiences working as a Preschool Teacher, along with the knowledge of the impact

these years have on a child’s life, fostered my strong passion for the importance of providing

early childhood education for all children. As I worked at the preschool, I was also completing

8

my undergraduate degree in Education, with an emphasis in Human Relations and Multicultural

Education. This program helped me develop my philosophy of education, which is grounded in

social justice and equity. As I sat in classes discussing issues around social justice and equity in

education, everything seemed to be geared toward older children, with just a handful of resources

for even elementary school. I could not help but find myself wondering, why wait until children

are older to begin discussing the world they are immersed in?

At this time, I was not exactly sure how this could be done with young children, but I

knew it needed to be done. I had found my calling and a perfect fit, blending early childhood

education with all my teachings from my Human Relations and Multicultural Education

program. At that time I graduated and began working as the Director at Community Child Care

Center (CCCC).

CCCC is a non-profit, anti-bias and anti-violence based early childhood education

program located on the Saint Paul campus of the University of Minnesota. I was so excited

when I began at the center because I felt that my vision actually existed. What I quickly

discovered was I could not find other early childhood education programs in the area doing

similar work. I also discovered that our philosophy needed some fine-tuning. I felt lucky

though, because I had a group of teachers and parents/caregivers who stood behind the

philosophy and were willing to do the work needed to make it authentic. This led me to wonder

why other programs would settle with teaching tolerance. While considering this, I decided I

wanted to investigate saying “bye-bye tolerance, hello equity and social justice” through a

“critical analysis of the factors necessary in creating an equity and social justice early childhood

education program.”

9

Definitions

Equity, social justice, anti-bias, and tolerance are terms that will be found throughout this

paper. The following definitions will give you a starting place for the meaning behind these

words as I use them throughout the text.

Equity. Sonia Nieto (2000) describes equity as a more comprehensive term than equality,

which is often times used interchangeably. Equality encompasses the notion of providing

everyone with the same resources and opportunities, while also looking at the individual skills,

talents, and experiences people bring to the table. These individual skills, talents, and

experiences should be considered a valid starting point. The way equity takes this a step further

than equality is the suggestion of fairness.

Social justice. According to Webster’s New Millennium Dictionary of English (2003-

2005) social justice is the “distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society.” When

one discusses the concept of social justice or the goal of working toward social justice it is the

movement to create justice for all in society and eliminate the advantages and disadvantages for

different populations of people. Ann Pelo (2000) describes children’s connection to this with the

unfairness they wrestle with on a daily basis. Schools working towards social justice would

wholeheartedly promote action rather than ignoring as a response to the injustice in our society.

Anti-bias. According to Louise Derman Sparks (2000) anti-bias refers to, “an

active/activist approach to challenging prejudice, stereotyping, bias, and the ‘isms’” (p.3). A

non-biased person is highly unlikely; however it is necessary for all individuals to gain the skills

to actively intervene in situations where bias is present. This would be the goal of anti-bias

education; giving children the skills to feel empowered in such situations.

10

Tolerance. In Nieto’s (2000) four levels of multicultural education, she defines tolerance

as the, “…means to have the capacity to bear something, although at times it may be unpleasant.

To tolerate differences means to endure them, although not necessarily to embrace them” (p.

339). The idea of teaching tolerance is seen as the lowest level of diversity education in our

schools.

My Research

Working at the center I have had the opportunity to develop our anti-bias philosophy and

educational practices. I have found answers to my questions on how this type of education can

be used in early childhood education. I discovered how it needs to be embedded into the

curriculum, classroom environments, and the language we use. This means the curriculum is

developed based on the children, incorporating many different ideas and perspectives. If the

older preschool room is going to have a week on music, the teachers will give the children the

opportunity to hear many types of music, give the children a chance to explore with a variety of

instruments, and invite parents/caregivers in to share a musical piece. Through all of this the

children are gaining an opportunity to see differences. The differences are not the focus; rather

the teachers are normalizing diversity within the subject of music. This method steers clear of

the “us” and “them” model of thinking, which reinforces the norms of the powerful dominate

group and ignores and devalues the subordinate group. This model of thinking is extremely

problematic and only reinforces stereotypes and biases.

An equity and social justice based anti-bias philosophy and educational practice goes

deeper than the curriculum, the environment is an essential component. Each time the teachers

change the play materials in the classroom at CCCC, not only do they ensure children have a

variety of different materials to meet their developmental needs, but they also make certain that

11

the materials, books, pictures, etc. represent an assortment of people. This guarantees that each

child can look around and find themselves and their family accurately portrayed in the

classroom. This encourages a positive self image and a feeling of being a part of a community.

The past three and a half years at Community Child Care Center I have discovered a

selection of developmentally appropriate practices that embed the ideas of equity and social

justice in anti-bias education. The most important discovery however, was realizing that what

we do each day at the center is so valuable and worthwhile because it is truly making a

difference in the lives of the children and families we serve. This has been discovered through

regular program evaluations that are completed and continual feedback from parents/caregivers.

I could not agree more with the following quote: “To tolerate everything is to teach

nothing” (FJ Kinsman, www.worldofquotes.com). In my perspective, teaching tolerance is not

teaching our children anything except bias, it is a method of trying to seem inclusive, while

ignoring all the inequities and power structures that exist in our society. When we choose not to

address these components as well, we simply reinforce bias and are teaching children to just

“play nice”, as opposed to truly valuing one another’s differences and challenging the systems of

power that keep many oppressed. My hope is by the end of this paper early childhood educators

will be able to recognize the differences between teaching tolerance and anti-bias education

grounded in equity and social justice, while being able to distinguish what factors are necessary

to create this type of learning environment.

The next section of my paper will provide an overview of the current literature on both

teaching tolerance and anti-bias education. This will lay the foundation of what these two types

of education look like when used in early childhood settings. This will also give a working

definition of what teaching tolerance and anti-bias education mean to those in the field. In the

12

teaching tolerance section I will focus on the work of Paul Vogt, Sara Bullard, and Barbara

Thomson. Then for the anti-bias education component I will focus on the work of Louise

Derman Sparks, Ellen Wolpert, and Ann Pelo.

Following that I will describe my research methodology. This will describe how I

collected feedback from educators and parents/caregivers who embrace equity and social justice

based anti-bias education. It will also illustrate how I conducted classroom observations at

Community Child Care Center, to ensure my ability to give clear examples of the factors

necessary to create an equity and social justice based early childhood education program.

Then I will lay out the findings from my research. This will be done through a scale I

have developed, that depicts the three levels of early childhood education: teaching tolerance,

celebrating diversity, and equity and social justice based anti-bias education.

Finally, I will conclude with a synopsis of what I have learned through this process, what

I plan to do with this gained knowledge, and outline new questions that have arisen out of this

study. Throughout this paper my focus will be on early childhood education, meaning serving

children sixteen months to six years old. This is an important component to keep in mind, as

both teaching tolerance and anti-bias education have different principles and practices for

working with younger children. Clearly there are different methods of introducing and

discussing issues of bias with young children in comparison to young adults. It would be

developmentally inappropriate to sit with a group of three year olds and discuss the history of

bias and/or oppression as young children are not able to grasp that bigger picture; however

young children are able to see differences and unfairness in their daily lives and are able to

connect these experiences to others. These personal experiences can be connected to the bigger

picture, while empowering children to ask questions, think critically, and use their voice. In my

13

own practice, I have seen young children are not only able to grasp these concepts, but are also

much more willing to investigate them than adults.

A number of authors have written about teaching tolerance and anti-bias education. Their

findings are discussed in the next section.

14

CHAPTER TWO

Literature Review

Teaching Tolerance

Teaching tolerance is often linked to “important values” that should be learned in

schools; it is based on the general notion that differences exist between people. Throughout this

section I will focus on the writings of W. Paul Vogt, Sara Bullard, and Barbara Thomson. I will

provide definitions of what it means to teach tolerance, as well as give examples of how these

authors describe what this would look like in a classroom. I personally do not support this

philosophy of education, as it does not address issues of bias, inequity, or power structures that

keep people oppressed. It also does not acknowledge how other populations of people benefit

from the oppression of others. Despite my lack of support towards tolerance based education I

felt it was important to lay a concrete foundation for what “teaching” tolerance looks like. This

will help educators see the differences between “teaching” tolerance and anti-bias education, as

well as give a vivid picture of the factors necessary to create social justice and equity early

childhood education.

Definition. W. Paul Vogt (1997), author of Tolerance and Education: Learning to Live

with Diversity and Difference, has a working definition of tolerance that builds throughout his

book. He starts out with defining tolerance as, “putting up with something one does not like” (p.

xxiv). From there he adds, “…tolerance is putting up with something you do not like – often in

order to get along better with others” (p.1). Then he ends with, “…tolerance is intentional self-

restraint in the face of something one dislikes, objects to, finds threatening, or otherwise has a

negative attitude toward – usually in order to maintain a social or political group or to promote

harmony in a group” (p. 3). Vogt’s definition of tolerance is similar to author Sara Bullard’s,

15

who wrote the book, Teaching Tolerance: Raising Open-minded, Empathetic Children. Bullard

(1996) defines tolerance as:

1) ability to let people be who they are;

2) a way of living with differences; and

3) a way of thinking, feeling and acting.

As a part of her work she has created a list of characteristics of tolerance. These include:

1) ability to care for or feel connected to those that are different;

2) all people are capable of tolerance and intolerance;

3) we must practice tolerance to learn it; and

4) it does not require us to value all actions and opinions equally.

Both Vogt’s and Bullard’s definitions of tolerance focus on people needing to live with

differences. These differences don’t need to be something one accepts or respects, rather just

something we put up with in hopes of getting through the world. Vogt, Bullard, and Thompson

all discuss ways the notion of tolerance can be, and in their perspective, should be taught, in our

schools.

Teaching tolerance in practice. Vogt (1997) believes that in order for people to live

together they must learn to tolerate each other. He sees tolerance as a minimal, the lowest level

of positive relationships between people and groups. Since it is minimal it can be the first step

for people to look at others and civility. Vogt believes that teaching tolerance keeps negative

attitudes and beliefs from becoming actions. He also finds it a necessary skill for individuals to

function in society. Through his book he lays these ideas as the framework and then discusses

the use of teaching tolerance in schools.

16

Vogt (1997) discusses how tolerance can be taught both directly and indirectly, through

socialization and instruction. Directly, this is done through intergroup contact and civic

education. Intergroup contact exists by the sheerness of being in contact with people different

from oneself a person will develop tolerance towards those differences. This can be done

through creating meaningful interactions between people, providing equal status among peers,

and encouraging opportunities for cooperation. There are not concrete examples given on how

an educational practitioner could do these things in the classroom, rather they are presented as

philosophical ideas. Civic education means teaching classes like moral education. In these

classes, by including multicultural perspectives into the curriculum, students will develop

tolerance through knowledge and understanding. These include a broad realm of activities

focused on differences.

An example of Vogt’s teaching tolerance can be found in the Capstone Curriculum

Publishing’s Character Education (2002). This curriculum focuses on caring, consideration,

friendliness, honesty, peacefulness, respect, responsibility, and tolerance. For each area, students

read a story. Then they do different comprehension, vocabulary, and study skills activities to go

along with the book. Some examples from the curriculum guide with regard to tolerance are: fill

in the blank statements like “tolerant people do not always with everyone” (p.31); or write a

paragraph on “How can a person be tolerant in the community?” (p.31). Throughout the

curriculum students are exposed to the ideas of being tolerant of others and discuss this at a

surface level. The activities that go along with the curriculum allow students to both have

intergroup contact and gain civic education; which are the foundation of Vogt’s teaching of

tolerance.

17

Vogt (1997) also writes briefly about indirectly teaching tolerance. He explains that this

is done through personality development and cognitive development. The book does not give

specific examples of how this would be facilitated in a classroom. Directly and indirectly, Vogt

discusses the importance of both areas being included as a measure of teaching tolerance.

Bullard’s (1996) approach to how one would teach tolerance is a bit different. Bullard

encourages parents, rather than educators, to look at how to move from intolerance to tolerance.

She describes how children learn these ideas from all the adults in their lives. She also writes

extensively about self awareness and how we all need to recognize and try to heal the intolerance

in ourselves.

Bullard (1996) gives a variety of ideas on how we as adults can promote these ideas with

young children. These include, ensuring that children know there are many ways to look at

things; that we all can learn and grow from listening to each other; and that feelings are not right

or wrong, but rather are real. Bullard’s hope is that by instilling these ideas in young children

they will become tolerant of differences. Similar to Vogt many of these ideas are more

philosophy based, rather than actual techniques used in practice.

Barbara Thomson (1993), who is a preschool teacher and has written articles and a book

about building tolerance in early childhood settings, gives more concrete ideas of how one would

put teaching tolerance into practice. Thomson discusses how teaching tolerance and developing

the appreciation of people can be done through information, materials, and attitude. She believes

it should be started at a young level so children have the skills and knowledge to take with them

in life. Her hope is that children will develop a positive self-concept, develop and accept

differences in people, and encourage decision making. Thomson provides a variety of activities

that can be done in the classroom to assist in children developing these skills.

18

In both her article, Building Tolerance in Early Childhood (1989), and her book, Words

Can Hurt You (1993), she describes a variety of activities that teachers could use to promote

tolerance. She (1993) talks about developing activities that focus on similarities and differences,

as well as relating activities to cultural awareness. She describes this being done through

activities like comparing skin colors or giving children the opportunity to use chopsticks.

Thomson (1993) also discusses activities that can be done to build awareness of disabilities. She

gives tips for teachers on doing this through limiting children’s vision or hearing to gain

perspective. Lastly, she (1989) shares the importance of giving children activities that look at

stereotypes. Some examples of these include, demonstrating to the children the positives in a

beautiful box of new crayons and a dirty used box of crayons; or set up the classroom where

children would experience discrimination depending on what they are wearing to assist them in

developing empathy.

Many educators feel that “teaching” tolerance is important for us to instill in our students.

This philosophy is seen as a method to try to teach children to respect differences among people

and groups. It is seen as giving children the capacity for practicing the respect of others.

However, when people take a closer look at what tolerance actually is one finds views and

definitions similar to Barry Schwartz’s (1996) who defines tolerance as, “…to allow what is not

actually approved…when we say we tolerate something, we are implying a negative judgment

about it. We are saying, in effect, that we wish it wasn’t there, but for one reason or another we

aren’t prepared to do anything to stop it” (p. 24). In his article, he also makes it clear that people

can only tolerate things of which they disapprove. Considering this definition, I am baffled that

there is such significant support of teaching tolerance to children. I am certain I would not want

anyone to tolerate me and who I am. By this definition, tolerance would only create an

19

abundance of covert hostility towards others. In the next section I will offer a critique of

“teaching” tolerance.

Critique of Teaching Tolerance

By definition alone, I am left wondering why educators would choose to “teach”

tolerance. When I take Vogt’s (1997, p.xxiv) basic definition, “putting up with something one

does not like” and Bullard’s (1996) component on tolerance being a way of living with

differences, the negative connotations with the word alone seem enormous. Each day, my drive

home from work takes forever. The traffic is something I do not like, but I “tolerate” it because I

enjoy where I work and where I live, even if they are not close to one another. Traffic is

something many people tolerate each day. The comparison should never be made between

putting up with traffic and putting up with the differences in people. When we use tolerance as a

teaching strategy, this is the message we are giving. Bullard’s idea of living with differences is

just as harmful. No one wants to be “put up with” or “lived with” because of who they are.

People want to be respected and honored for who they are.

When we focus on tolerance based education we are ignoring issues of social justice and

power structures in our society, both past and present, which impact the lives of everyone. Nieto

(2000), states, “no educational program or philosophy is worthwhile unless it focuses on two

primary concerns: raising the achievement gap of all students and providing them with an

equitable and high-quality education; giving students an apprenticeship in the opportunity to

become critical and productive members of a democratic society” (p. 9). “Teaching” tolerance

does neither of these things; rather it glosses over differences and reinforces stereotypes and bias.

This is done through a “tourist approach” (Banks, 1997) were a school does something like

celebrate Black History Month and have a “soul” food lunch. This type of education is simply

20

acknowledging that there are black folks out there and generally they did some good things we

should know about. It never discusses the racism in our society that has been prevalent since

Africans were taken from their homes and brought to the United States as slaves. There is no

mention of white privilege and how white folks continue to benefit off the backs of others. And

it gives children the message that all black folks must eat these stereotypical foods all the time.

The teaching methods discussed by both Vogt and Thomson have outcomes similar to the

Black History Month explanation. Writing an essay on how one can be tolerant in their

community is just someone describing how they are going to play nice, with no understanding of

differences or inequities in their community. Giving children the opportunity to use chopsticks

only sends the message that all Asian people use chopsticks to eat, instead of discussing the

staple diet of different areas based on climate and crops. The most appalling suggestion given by

Thomson was limiting a child’s vision or hearing to build awareness of disabilities. We can

build awareness by simply talking to children about these differences when they have questions.

When a child asks why a person is in a wheelchair, instead of telling them to be quiet and pulling

them in the other direction we need to explain why some people need wheelchairs to help them

be mobile. Children can gain empathy, through connecting experiences they may have had with

experiences of others, without having a five minute experiment of not being able to hear, as after

the five minutes they get to go back to hearing. Young children may not understand that not

everyone can just go back to hearing once the activity is complete, but rather will spend their

whole life without hearing.

In Sonia Nieto’s book, Affirming Diversity (2000), she proposes a model of multicultural

education with four levels. The first and lowest level she discusses is tolerance. According to

Nieto, to tolerate differences means “…to have the capacity to bear something, although at times

21

it may be unpleasant” (p. 339). She continues by saying, “to tolerate differences means to

endure them, although not necessarily embrace them. We may learn to tolerate differences, but

this level of acceptance can be shaky because what is tolerated today may be rejected tomorrow”

(p. 339). She criticizes educators for the stress on tolerance because this type of support for

diversity does not go far enough. The term “tolerance” is rejected due to its negative

connotation. In Macedo and Bartolome’s book, Dancing with Bigotry (1999), they describe

“tolerance” as a paternalistic term used by white folks that ignores the confrontation with issues

of inequality, ethics, and power. In order to truly teach children about diversity, we need to

move beyond tolerance and address these issues through equity and social justice anti-bias

education. The concern about tolerance based education is, it seems like a very low level

response to human differences. Tolerance seems to imply attitudes of dominance and

subordinance. Throughout the rest of this section of the paper, I will look at anti-bias education,

a philosophy of teaching that embraces differences and empowers children.

Anti-Bias Education

The greatest difference between teaching tolerance and anti-bias education is that anti-

bias education is about moving beyond understanding that there are differences in the world. It

is about looking at what causes inequity and injustice in our society and discovering ways to

empower one another to make change. It is willing to ask the hard questions and confront power

and privilege in our society. Throughout this section I will provide a definition of anti-bias

education and explain teaching practices through the work of Louise Derman Sparks, Ellen

Wolpert, and Ann Pelo.

Definition. In the world of anti-bias education, specifically in early childhood settings,

Louise Derman Sparks has been a pioneer. Her groundbreaking book, Anti-Bias Curriculum:

22

Tools for Empowering Young Children, was first published in 1989 and has since been used as a

guiding resource for many progressive educators. Sparks (1989) defines anti-bias education as,

“…an active/activist approach to challenge prejudice, stereotyping, bias and the ‘isms.’ In a

society in which institutional structures create and maintain sexism, racism…it is not sufficient

to be nonbiased (and also highly unlikely), nor is it sufficient to be an observer. It is necessary

for each individual to actively intervene, to challenge and counter the personal and institutional

behaviors that perpetuate oppression” (p.3). This definition has laid the groundwork for other

anti-bias educators.

Ellen Wolpert, who is the author and producer of the book/video set Start Seeing

Diversity: The Basic Guide to an Anti-Bias Classroom (2005), has worked as a part of the

Washington-Beech Community Preschool. This preschool is located in a public housing

development in Boston and has been using the work of Louise Derman Sparks to develop and

implement an anti-bias program for over twenty years. In Wolpert’s (2005) definition of anti-

bias education she states that, “rather than assuming that inclusion alone creates respect, we

recognize the need to actively address stereotypes and prejudices that preschoolers and adults

around them experience and incorporate into their thinking and behavior” (p. x). Action is a key

component of Wolpert’s work and she discusses doing this through addressing stereotypes and

prejudice. This emphasizes that we have to do more than just recognize people are different.

Action is a component deeply connected to another author, Ann Pelo.

Ann Pelo, has been an early childhood educator for over ten years. During this time she

has written articles including, “Supporting Young Children as Activists: Anti-bias Project Work”

(2002), and a book entitled, That’s Not Fair! A Teacher’s Guide to Activism with Young Children

(2000). Pelo (2000) defines anti-bias education as a teacher practice that shines a spotlight on

23

social and cultural context, while allowing children to learn and grow as individuals. She sees

this practice as a foundation for children to notice, name, and actively respond to bias. In all her

writing she expresses that this type of practice moves beyond the limits of multicultural

curriculum, by focusing on helping children understand and confront bias.

In defining anti-bias education, Pelo (2000) also counters the notion that anti-bias

education or activism is not developmentally appropriate for young children. As many people

argue, to them it seems like it would be easiest to avoid such loaded subjects or to give a quick

response to a child’s questions. However, she argues that when we do this we fail to honor a

child’s interest in fairness with the same thoughtfulness that we provide for their other interests.

We can not ignore that children naturally notice and ask about differences, whether it be about

the differences in the girls and boys bathrooms, the homeless person they notice on the street, or

the person in a wheelchair they see having difficulty crossing the street. When we ignore these

questions, we as adults are not only forgetting to provide validation to a child’s question, but we

are also actively embedding prejudice in the minds of the young children we serve. Our

omission of information is telling children these differences are things we should not talk about.

Children connect the things we should not talk about with negative attributes.

All three authors use words like ‘active’, ‘challenge’, ‘confront’ when discussing bias.

They also address issues of oppression and child empowerment to recognize these and confront

them. The ideas described in their definitions give a general picture of what anti-bias education

means. They also provide a great deal of insight on what anti-bias education would look like in

practice.

Anti-bias education in practice. Louise Derman Sparks’s work has aided early childhood

educaters in developing their anti-bias education programs. Her work is cited in many books and

24

articles about early childhood anti-bias education. She begins her work (2000) by providing

educators with the notion that children are aware of language, gender, and physical ability

differences, which are connected with both privilege and power. Children are learning these

things through observing the similarities and differences we notice among people while also

absorbing the spoken and unspoken messages we as adults give about those differences. It is

crucial we realize the influence these experience have on the development of a young child’s

view of self and others. Young children recognize these differences and are fully capable of

engaging in the journey of developing an anti-bias identity and attitude.

Sparks (2000) has four main goals in anti-bias education. These include: nurturing a

child’s development of both self and group identity; promote a child’s ability to be comfortable

with interactions with people from diverse backgrounds; foster a child’s development of critical

thinking skills in regards to bias; and cultivate a child’s ability to stand up for themselves or

others when faced with bias. In Spark’s book (2000) she outlines how this is possible for

educators to do.

One of the main focuses of anti-bias education is the environment that is created in a

classroom. Sparks (2000) first describes the visual/aesthetic environment. A classroom should

have an abundance of images of all children. These pictures need to be real, not cartoon images

that often depict stereotypical images. The selection of pictures needs to include people from

different racial/ethnic groups that accurately reflect people in current daily lives. Sparks

describes the importance of ensuring there is a balance of females and males in the pictures, and

showing them doing a variety of tasks that would be considered home life or work life.

Classrooms need to have images of elderly people of various backgrounds, again doing various

tasks. Family structures are also important to be included in the picture collections. Children

25

should be able to look around and see examples of families that include two moms or two dads,

single parents, a mom and a dad, extended family as caregivers, and much more. It is also

important that there is a balance of racial and ethnic representation. If all the pictures in the

classroom are of white folks except one or two that represent people of color this simply displays

a token person and sends a strong message to the children. If all the pictures of females depict

them as caretakers and all the pictures of males are of people in professional roles that too gives

a clear message to children. The pictures in the classroom are a clear way for children to look

around and see themselves in their classroom and assist in their feelings of being part of the

community. If these images are not there, the message given to children is that a particular

group must not be important; or if the images are not accurate, the message further embeds false

stereotypes.

Sparks (2000) also describes the importance of specific toys and materials in the

classroom. All classrooms should have a large selection of books for the children to use at their

leisure. These books should include representation of the all the groups described above. These

should also include books in different languages, including sign language and Braille.

Classrooms also need to have a variety of dramatic play materials. Children need to have the

opportunity to explore in different environments and explore roles that occur in these

environments. These experiences open the doors for conversations about stereotypical roles

children may have noticed in the past or are trying to replicate in their play. As part of their

dramatic play, children gain a great deal through playing with babies. These baby dolls should

be available, be anatomically correct, and be representative of different racial groups. Educators

should steer clear of dress up clothes for children and babies that are so called cultural

representative. In practice, what this really means is for Native Americans there are clothes that

26

include stereotypical headdresses and feathers, and for African Americans there are more

traditional African clothes. These only add to stereotypes as they do not depict people in day to

day life in the United States. Language is another component Sparks discusses that should be

included in the toys and materials. Going beyond just the books in the classroom, children

should see posters and puzzles around the room in different languages. If everything is in

English, we are telling children other languages and forms of communication are not as valid.

The classroom should also have music that reflects various cultural styles and forms. These

should be incorporated in general listening, creative movement activities, and rest time. Art

materials are another significant area in which we can provide representation of differences.

Teachers need to include colors such as black and brown in everyday activities, oppose to just

using primary colors. It is also important that children have the opportunities to explore with

paper, crayons, and paints in a variety of skin tones when doing projects about themselves. The

environment that is set up by including these materials is open and inclusive. This lays the

foundation for children to feel comfortable and safe, and more willing to ask questions and

engage in conversations about similarities and differences.

Sparks (2000) has created an embedded approach to anti-bias education. The classroom

is set up as a place for children to see themselves and explore differences through the images and

materials they are using. This will lead children to initiating questions and thoughts about the

differences they notice. To ensure that this type of education is developmentally appropriate, it

must be child initiated. We must frame the work we are doing around their questions and

concerns about fairness and differences. These teachable moments give wonderful opportunities

to discuss not only issues of bias, but also equity and social justice.

27

Ellen Wolpert (2005), who uses Sparks’s framework, outlines slightly different main

goals for an anti-bias approach. These lay the foundation for creating the program and

environment.

1) “Nurture the construction of a knowledge, confident identity as an individual

and as a member of multiple cultural groups (such as gender, race, ethnicity,

and class)” (p.2). This means it is the teacher’s job to ensure the conditions of

the classroom make all children able to like themselves without having to feel

superior to others.

2) “Promote comfortable, empathic interaction with people from diverse

backgrounds” (p.3). Wolpert discusses how we as educators need to foster an

interest and empathy in children with differences, rather than fear and

judgment.

3) “Foster each child’s ability to recognize bias and injustice” (p.4). Children

need to develop the skills and knowledge to identify unfairness and stereotypes.

Children also need to be able to make the connection that bias hurts others.

4) “Cultivate each child’s ability to stand up, individually and with others, against

bias or injustice” (p.4). As early childhood educators we need to help all

children learn and have opportunities to practice ways they can act when they

are faced with bias.

These four goals are very important for early childhood educators to grasp before they

begin practicing anti-bias education.

28

Another component Wolpert (2005) focuses on in her book is a set of assumptions

that assist in providing the general framework for identifying why this work is done, with

whom, and how.

1) “Even very young children notice differences and begin to discriminate based

on them” (p. 8).

2) “It’s not a problem that children notice differences. The problem is that in our

society, some differences are valued as positive and others as negative, and

children absorb and act on these values” (p. 9).

3) “We do not all experience bias in the same way” (p.10).

4) “An anti-bias approach is important for everyone” (p.12).

5) “As adults, we are often unaware of our biases. Therefore we unintentionally

perpetuate the biases in environments we create” (p.14).

6) “Understanding bias and inequality is a long-term process that can be difficult

as well as exhilarating and fun” (p.17).

7) “It’s important to create an environment for adults as well as children where

everyone’s participation is sought after and valued and where it’s okay to

disagree” (p.18).

8) “It’s important to integrate an anti-bias approach into all parts of the program”

(p. 20).

Addressing the assumptions is the starting ground for early childhood educators. Once these are

grasped, an educator can begin to develop their teaching strategies for implementing anti-bias

education. The next section of her (2005) book/video looks at specific forms of bias and how

educators can incorporate these realities into their classroom and practice. The areas she focuses

29

on are: bias related to age, gender, sexual orientation, economic class, physical abilities and

physical characteristics, and race and ethnicity. She then describes how these biases can be

addressed through a variety of classroom strategies.

The classroom strategies Wolpert (2005) describes are focused around books, play

materials, curriculum themes, change of character names of stories, develop simplistic thinking,

problem solving through role playing, and activism. In essence, for each of the areas of bias

described above, one should have books, puzzles, music, games, and pictures that are equally

representative.

Pelo (2002), who uses the work of both Sparks and Wolpert as a framework, sees anti-

bias education and activism as tools that can address and give value to the questions young

children bring to the classroom or home. Her addition to their work is the heavy emphasis on

activism. She says, “anti-bias activism projects provide young children with a way of

challenging the biases they see in their own lives and in the lives of others” (p.38). Through this

type of education, “children are encouraged to pay attention to their feelings and experiences and

to the feelings and experiences of other people” (p.38). These experiences have great impact and

value for the lives of young children. Pelo describes encouraging the children to bring topics of

concern to the group. These may be anything from treatment of classmates to trash around the

school. Pelo encourages educators to focus on these areas of interest and embed them into the

classroom environment and curriculum. If the focus was going to be treatment of classmates,

activities may include drawing pictures of how they feel when people say hurtful things to them,

role playing situations where children can practice confronting hurtful words, and teacher

initiated team building activities. She discusses the importance of connecting these projects to

the lives of the children, making it real, while also incorporating it into the play of the children.

30

The activism approach connected with the classroom play materials that Sparks and Wolpert

describes creates an inclusive environment, where children are gaining the skills daily to

challenge bias and unfairness.

Pelo (2000) describes the values of anti-bias education. These include:

1) “Nurture self esteem and empowerment” (p.8).

2) “Develop empathy and appreciation for differences” (p.8).

3) “Facilitate critical thinking and problem solving” (p.8).

4) “Provide mental model of survival for children at risk from bias” (p.8).

5) “Provide a model of equity and justice for privileged, dominant culture children” (p.

8).

6) “Contribute to community building” (p. 8).

These values lay the foundation for the importance of this type of work with young children. In

order to make the needed impact on the young children in our lives we must be using anti-bias

approach. Knowing that leaves me mind boggled that so few programs seem to embrace and use

this type of education. It also leaves me wondering how can we take these anti-bias education

practices a step further and truly embed equity and social justice as key components of a schools

foundation. This means the philosophy is not just a part of the classroom curriculum and

environment, but embedded in the structure of the school and policies. When the focus is equity

and social justice based anti-bias education, the teaching is just one component. These questions

bring me back to my original statement, “bye-bye tolerance, hello equity and social justice; a

critical analysis of factors necessary in creating an equity and social justice early childhood

education program.”

31

Throughout the next section I will focus on my methods of research used to uncover

these factors.

32

CHAPTER THREE

Methodology

When reflecting on the question I have posed, I wanted to dig deep into the experiences

of equity and social justice based anti-bias education and those currently participating in it. The

experiences of such individuals, along with research from some of the previously discussed

authors, will provide the best description of what equity and social justice anti-bias education

looks like in a classroom, as well as factors necessary for creating this type of early childhood

education program.

I chose to use two research methods: surveys distributed to the fulltime teaching staff and

parents/caregivers at Community Child Care Center, and classroom observations during which I

looked specifically at the curriculum, classroom environment and materials, and language used

by the teachers. Before I go into depth about each of these research methods, my rationale for

choosing these methods, and the procedures for data collection and analysis, I am going to

describe the school I used for my research.

Community Child Care Center (CCCC) is a non-profit early childhood education

program in Saint Paul, Minnesota. The program has been serving families for over thirty years.

CCCC serves children 16 months old to 5 years old, in our toddler, younger preschool, and older

preschool classrooms. We are a nationally accredited program through the National Association

for the Education of Young Children. This honor means the program goes above and beyond

licensing requirements in the daily implementation of our programs. The most common

differences noticed are smaller class sizes, lower child to teacher ratios, larger variety of play

materials available and these changed on a regular basis, and formal education background of

teaching staff is required.

33

The mission of the Community Child Care Center is to provide affordable, high quality

early childhood education, in a warm, nurturing environment that encourages the development of

the whole child. The center seeks to provide a physically safe, emotionally secure, and inclusive

setting for all children and their families. The mission of Community Child Care Center is

implemented through an educare (the blend of an educational environment infused with

nurturing care), learning through play, anti-bias, and anti-violence philosophy. The center also

strives to provide support for parents/caregivers and university students in the areas of child

development, parenting, and early childhood education. I have served as the Director of the

center for the past three and a half years.

The anti-bias philosophy at Community Child Care Center lays the groundwork for how

everything at the center is developed and implemented. The philosophy was written by me, in

conjunction with the fulltime teaching staff. Excerpts were taken from the University of

Minnesota Child Care Center’s anti-bias philosophy and were developed to match the more in-

depth equity and social justice approach used within our community. It was important to us

when creating this document that a clear picture was provided of the goals of the philosophy and

how it would or would not be implemented into our programs. It is as follows:

Community Child Care Center demonstrates an ongoing commitment to integrate an anti-

bias philosophy into every aspect of its program. Because children live in a diverse and

complex world, they interact daily with people different from themselves. Anti-bias

curriculum is a process to help children develop and strengthen their sense of self and

group identities, while interacting respectfully with others in a multicultural environment.

Anti-bias curriculum is a proactive approach to reduce prejudice and promote

inclusiveness. The teaching staff guides children to think critically about unfairness and

stand up for themselves and others in the face of bias. The anti-bias approach is a

teaching strategy that values diversity and challenges bias, rather than ignoring and

therefore reinforcing children’s misunderstandings of differences. The anti-bias

philosophy at CCCC is a commitment to addressing societal bias and practice our value

for diversity in a developmentally appropriate way. CCCC strives to balance its unique

institutional culture with the individual cultural interests of each family served. Respect

for CCCC’s diverse community is reflected in the curriculum, classroom environments,

34

parent/caregivers/teacher/child interactions, staff development, hiring plans, and program

goals. The center does (and does not do) many things to ensure that we are creating this

anti-bias and inclusive environment. Some examples of these things are: not celebrating

any particular cultures holidays or birthdays; representing many different kinds of

families within our curriculum and books found in the classrooms; providing

opportunities for children to experience different cultural activities and ask questions; and

creating classroom environments where the children and families can find themselves in

the pictures on the walls, books, toys, and activities. All of these strategies implement

the anti-bias philosophy to our center’s program, while creating a welcoming, safe, and

inclusive environment for all children and families. CCCC is committed to anti-bias

education; which means we share a commitment to human rights, dignity of the

individual, and social justice. We strive to create a program that truly reflects the lives of

our children, families, staff, and communities.

Community Child Care Center’s anti-bias philosophy brings many families and educators

to the program. The center’s anti-bias philosophy is closely linked to the anti-violence

philosophy. Through this philosophy the center’s goal is to create a safe place for children to

develop socially, while developing skills of self respect, respect for others, empathy, and

empowerment. This philosophy is implemented through the use of the Committee for Children’s

violence prevention Second Step Curriculum, which is a developmentally appropriate approach

to social development. The uniqueness of the philosophies carries into the dynamics of the

program and families we serve.

The center is located in student family housing for the University of Minnesota on the

Saint Paul campus. Currently we are serving 57 children that range from sixteen months to six

years old. Based on our annual USDA food program (2005-2006), 70% of our families qualify

for free or reduced meals. In order for families to qualify for free, a family of two would need to

have an annual income of $16,679 or less; or a family of three would need to have an annual

income of $20,917 or less. To qualify for reduced, a family of two would need to have an annual

income of $23,736 or less; or a family of three would need to have an annual income of $29,767.

These ridiculous figures are just slightly above the federal poverty guidelines. The families at

35

the center that qualify for free or reduced meals also receive our tuition sliding fee scale to assist

with making child care affordable. The families that do not qualify for free or reduced meals live

in the surrounding Saint Anthony Park neighborhood or are University faculty or alumni. These

families typically chose to bring their children to the center based on the mission and

philosophies used. These families also pay a significant amount more per week for child care to

help us assist other families.

All families that enroll their children at Community Child Care Center also commit to

continual involvement. Families are required to do regular parent involvement hours, whether it

be doing center laundry over the weekend, assisting with regular playground maintenance,

volunteering to attend a field trip, serving on the Parent Board of Directors, or making play

dough at home for the classrooms to use. These options are flexible, the important component is

for all families to be involved and feel invested in the program.

Of the 57 children served 4% are Black, 81% are White, 13% are Asian, 2% are persons

reporting more than two races or other. (These percentages are determined by how the

parents/caregivers choose to categorize themselves and their children.) Of the 57 children we

serve there are sixteen different home languages spoken. Family structure among these children

differs greatly as well. We have children who live with a single parent, mom and dad, extended

family as caregivers, two moms, and two dads. The majority of the families have one

parent/caregiver that is a student at the University of Minnesota. Our center works with the

Student Parent HELP Center at the University of Minnesota to obtain child care assistance grants

to assist our parents/caregivers with affordable child care while completing their degrees.

Our fulltime teaching staff consists of twelve people: one Director, one Assistant

Director, seven Teachers, and three Assistant Teacher Floats. Each person comes from a very

36

different personal background (where they grew up, marital/relationship status, religion, hobbies,

etc). All of the fulltime staff started at the center with an Associates degree or higher in

education or a related field, such as child psychology, women’s studies, family social sciences,

social work, or early childhood special education. All of the fulltime staff have extensive

training and experience in anti-bias education. The demographics of the fulltime staff lacks the

diversity of the families we serve. Of the twelve fulltime staff members, all are female; eleven

are White; and all are between the ages of 22 and 30 years old. This reflects the typical

demographics of our hiring pool as well.

Surveys. According to Anderson (1998) surveys, also sometimes referred to as

questionnaires, are one of the most popular means of collecting data. Surveys are often used

when one has a need to collect a large amount of data. I chose this method because I wanted to

ensure that all the parents/caregivers and fulltime staff at Community Child Care Center had a

voice in my research. Also, surveys allow the parents/caregivers to act as a “check.” This data

allows me to discover how the parents/caregivers see the teachers are creating an anti-bias

environment, since it is inappropriate to ask the children at this age.

Fifty-seven parents/caregivers and eleven fulltime staff members received anonymous

surveys. They each have a great deal of knowledge and experience about anti-bias education and

I wanted to be able to incorporate this. This method offers the additional advantage of time

efficiency. The time constraints of both families and staff made individual interviews not viable.

One of the drawbacks Anderson (1998) mentions about surveys is the return rate. All of the

parents/caregivers and fulltime teaching staff are very supportive of this research and have

expressed interested in participating. I distributed the surveys to all the parents/caregivers and

teachers, putting them in their mailboxes at the center. Each person / family was given two

37

weeks to complete and return the survey. There was a locked box outside the office door at the

center for people to return these at their convenience. These steps made it very easy for

participants to complete and return the survey. The participation of parents/caregivers and

fulltime staff gave me a significant amount of data to analyze. Data authenticity is more likely

due to the confidentiality of response.

I developed two surveys that I used in my research. The first one was distributed to all of

the teaching staff at Community Child Care Center. This includes one Assistant Director, seven

Teachers, and three Assistant Teacher Floats. The questions asked in this survey can be found in

Appendix A. The teaching staff is a critical factor in the implementation of equity and social

justice early childhood education. These questions allow the teachers to demonstrate their

understanding of the differences between teaching tolerance and anti-bias education, while

giving a description of what tools (attitudes, beliefs, skills, etc) a teacher would need to be able

to facilitate this type of education. The responses will be used to describe how this type of

education is implemented in a classroom setting with young children. The questions asked of the

teaching staff are more general to an overall teaching practice. Thus the surveys could be

replicated and distributed to other educators in the field.

The second survey I developed was distributed to all the parents/caregivers of the

children at the center. The questions asked in this survey can be found in Appendix B. The

questions asked of the parents/caregivers are specific to Community Child Care Center, since

this is the program they are familiar with. Thus the surveys would not be able to be replicated,

without making changes to the questions. The questions asked allow parents/caregivers to

describe the factors that make equity and social justice education appealing for their family; how

they perceive the implementation of the center’s mission; the relationship with their child’s

38

teacher; and their own involvement in the program. The responses to the questions will be used

to describe how this type of education is implemented in a classroom setting with young

children.

The surveys are the broad base method I used to collect information from the primary

players, teaching staff and parents/caregivers, at the Community Child Care Center. These

individuals participate in equity and social justice anti-bias education on a daily basis. The other,

more specific method I used, were classroom observations.

Observations. There are four factors involved in implementing equity and social justice

anti-bias early childhood education programs that I am focusing on in my research. The surveys

focus on the “who” meaning parents/caregivers and teaching staff. These individuals are key to

the implementation of our program. The other crucial factors are the “what”, “where”, and

“how.” Data for these areas were collected through classroom observations. Observations are a

primary method used in action research (O’Hanlon, 2003) because they allow a practitioner or

outsider to collect specific evidence. I conducted an in-depth observation of all three of our

classrooms (toddler 16 months to 33 months, younger preschool 3 to 4 year olds, and older

preschool 4 to 5 year olds). These consisted of two observations in each classroom, each for a

half hour time span during January and February 2006. The classrooms each have two or three

teachers; therefore I scheduled these observations in order to have the opportunity to see each of

the teachers. During the observations, I gathered specific information on the curriculum (the

what), classroom environment and materials, the ecology of the room (the where), and language

used, which includes body language, tone, and teacher engagement (the how). During my

observations I completed a field notes log to ensure I was able to document what I was

observing. The logs include examples of: the curriculum, what activities were taking place in the

39

classroom while I was there, the classroom environment and play materials, a detailed list of the

pictures I saw around the classroom, the dramatic play stations they had set up, the variety of

books they had available, and different ways I noticed the children would be able to find

themselves in the classroom; and language used, descriptions of the interactions between the

teachers and children. A sample of this log can be found in Appendix C.

This component of my research provides concrete examples for educators on what this

type of education looks like in an actual classroom. Often I hear from educators that they are

interested in implementing equity and social justice anti-bias education in their classroom, but

they are uncertain of what this would look like. These components will later be described in my

analysis and discussion chapter.

It is important to mention with all research, bias exists. The elements of my bias in this

research include the following: I oversee all the operations of the program; wrote the mission

statement and pieces of the philosophies; interact daily with the parents/caregivers, teaching

staff, and children; I hire the teaching staff; I assist in curriculum development; and facilitate

teaching development training. While I oversee and am responsible for these components, the

teaching staff have autonomy of their classrooms and are responsible for the weekly curriculum

development and the regular room changes.

The methodology of my research includes surveys and classroom observations. All

pieces of my research were focused around the work done at the Community Child Care Center,

a nonprofit early childhood education program that is grounded in equity and social justice anti-

bias education. In my research I used the ideas from the parents/caregivers and fulltime staff, as

well as classroom observations to assist in laying the structure for what factors are necessary in

creating this type of educational program. In the next chapter I will summarize my data

40

collection and analysis, which consisted of looking for emerging themes, while laying the

framework for my continuum of early childhood education in my discussion.

41

CHAPTER FOUR

Results and Discussion

This research project started when I began to question the educational philosophies early

childhood education programs were using to address issues of differences in their programs. I

wanted to be able to create a framework for educators so they would be able to grasp an

understanding of why we need to say good-bye to the notion of teaching tolerance and say hello

to equity and social justice based education. The methods I used for my research, surveys and

classroom observations, assisted me in creating my continuum of early childhood education

philosophies of addressing differences. The results also assisted me in describing the factors

necessary for creating an equity and social justice early childhood education program.

Before I begin describing my continuum, which I will do in the discussion section of this

chapter, I will describe the analysis of my research and my response rate. The goal of my

research was to collect information from the main parties involved in Community Child Care

Center’s anti-bias equity and social justice education. Throughout the research I wanted to find

answers to the why (or why not), who (center staff and parents/caregivers), what (curriculum),

where (classroom environment), and how (teacher engagement and language used) of equity and

social justice education. I chose to conduct my research at Community Child Care Center as it is

a program that completely embraces a high level of commitment to equity and social justice

early childhood education.

Results

Teaching Staff Surveys

Of the eleven members of the teaching staff, all of them completed the surveys. Their

perceptions would not be able to be represented in any other manner than their own personal

42

reflections and responses. A majority of the teaching staff have had experiences in both teaching

tolerance and anti-bias education environments; knowing this, I felt they were able to critically

respond to these questions, while giving concrete examples of the factors necessary in creating

an equity and social justice early childhood education program.

Once all the surveys were returned, I compiled the responses electronically. Then, I

made five copies of the compiled data. This way, I had one copy to focus specifically on each

question area of the “why”, “what”, “where”, “how”, and “who.” Looking at each area, I then

looked for emerging themes in the teacher’s responses. Although I considered using a rubric for

the analysis of the surveys I decided against it as I did not want to limit the teacher’s responses.

Why. When asking the teaching staff what the word tolerance means to them or how

they would describe the idea of teaching tolerance the responses were all very similar. Teachers

described tolerance as a “sugar coated word for hatred” and as a method of “feeding oppression

and discrimination.” Teachers also described tolerance as “putting up with an attitude or

behavior” or “dealing with something out of pity or inconvenience.” In the responses all eleven

teachers suggested that there was a negative connection with the word. Six also worried that this

type of education may create more oppression or in fact teach stereotypes to young children.

The responses to what equity and social justice based anti-bias early childhood education

were polar opposites to the responses of what teaching tolerance is. Here all eleven of the

teachers described the notion of inclusion no matter what. Teachers discussed being welcoming

to all families and children; being willing to truly explore and ask questions, rather than ignoring

what children are noticing and experiencing; and teaching children respect. The key components

that stood out with these responses were: the need for these ideas to be embedded in all aspects

43

of the program; and the importance of teaching children to recognize differences, while

empowering them to stand up for themselves and others in the face of bias.

The dichotomy of responses to the first two questions asked of the teachers depict to me,

the negative implications of teaching tolerance, while reinforcing the need for creating equity

and social justice based programs. The remaining questions asked of the teachers focused

specifically on equity and social justice early childhood education.

Who. When asking the teachers about the attitudes and beliefs an educator would need to

have in order to facilitate this type of education the responses were broad, but very similar.

Teachers described the need for educators to have an open viewpoint and be willing to change

and accept new teaching strategies. Seven teachers discussed the importance of educators

needing to actually believe that all children and families are equal regardless of differences; and

that educators need to embrace these differences. The message from these responses that spoke

loudest to me was the need for educators to understand the oppressive actions and opinions of the

dominant group in society and the implications these have on subordinate groups. With that,

educators must be willing to look within themselves and recognize their own biases and work

toward changing these. All eleven of the teachers felt that as the “who” in this type of education,

if these components are missing a true equity and social justice program can not exist.

These responses connected to the next question asked of the teaching staff about the type

of skill base an educator needs to be able to do this type of work. The teachers used words like

open minded, compassion, empathy, passion, respect, awareness, and knowledge as the general

base needed. Teachers shared how there needs to be an awareness of the role educators play in

being an active participant in an anti-bias frame work. From there, five teachers described the

need for educators to recognize bias in education and oneself. Seven of the teachers also

44

described the importance of being able to implement this form of curriculum into all areas of the

program. The teachers describe this as more than an additive approach, where there are just bits

and pieces, rather this is the core of everything one does. Another response made by five of the

teachers was the need for ongoing training and lots of tools readily available. All eleven of the

teachers felt in order to create this type of environment a great deal of support is needed. Again,

teachers mentioned as the practitioners of the work without the base they described in their

responses, the “what”, “where”, and “how” are irrelevant.

What, where, and how. With the previous questions teachers were asked more generally

about why we should or should not use different philosophies. Then they were asked to look

specifically at the teacher’s attitudes, beliefs, and skill bases needed to do equity and social

justice early childhood education. The last piece to which teachers were asked to respond to

were the actual practices in the classroom. This includes the curriculum, classroom environment,

teacher engagement, and language used.

All eleven of the teachers described similar components needed for these areas. Books in

the classroom were an area everyone mentioned. Books that depict a wide range of people (race,

class, gender, sexual orientation, language, martial status, etc.). Teachers also suggested that

books be available that not only show a range of people, but also tell stories of people addressing

negative attitudes and working toward change.

Posters and pictures around the room were also an area described by all of the teachers.

With this, nine of the teachers mentioned the importance of the posters and pictures being real

not cartoon depictions, as these representations would only reinforce stereotypes of different

populations. Books and posters/pictures reflect components of the classroom environment. The

classroom environment is enhanced through the curriculum.

45

In regard to the curriculum teachers also mentioned the need for it to be developed by the

teachers to reflect the children and their developmental needs. The teaching staff that works

directly with the preschool aged children described the need to focus curriculum around themes

that can encompass a variety of perspectives (example, music). Along with the curriculum,

teachers mentioned the importance of including different languages in their planning, and

activities that knock down stereotypes and give children the opportunity to role play. Teachers

discussed the need for a variety of materials like paint, crayons, paper that reflect different skin

tone which should be used on a regular basis.

Another area teachers described was the importance of teachers engaging in conversation

with children that promotes social justice and teachers answering questions about differences that

the children may have. Teachers gave examples that these questions could be in about another

person’s skin color, hair texture, use of a wheelchair, family structure, etc. The questions the

children have are real and not meant hurtfully. These are honest questions, based on differences

children notice and want to understand. The responses given by the teachers (or other adults) in

their life shape a child’s attitudes or beliefs about these differences.

The last component teachers mentioned, which ties directly into the next section, is

parent/caregiver involvement. All of the teachers mentioned the importance of having this

support and going above and beyond to reach out and encourage parent/caregiver involvement

through a variety of different ways.

Parent/Caregiver Surveys

The next component of my research was developing surveys for the parents/caregivers at

Community Child Care Center. All of the families received the survey and were given two

46

weeks to complete it. Of the fifty seven families at the center, forty nine of them completed the

surveys. This was an 85.96% response rate.

The parents/caregivers at Community Child Care Center are vital to the success of our

program. Focusing on the parent/caregiver perspective, their responses to these questions allow

me to see why families choose this type of education for their children, while also describing

how they feel Community Child Care Center meets the goals of its mission, which is grounded in

equity and social justice. Along with that, an essential component of equity and social justice

anti-bias education is parent/caregiver involvement. This stems from the relationships between

the parent/caregivers and their child’s classroom teachers to the other ways parents/caregivers

maintain involvement in the program. Nieto (2000) describes the importance of family

involvement in school to support and maintain the academic success of students, specifically in

equity and social justice based education. Parent involvement as typically defined by schools is

not always imperative for student success. Schools generally see this as joining the parent group,

attending school meetings or programs, or helping children with their homework. While these

are some aspects that can be included in parent involvement, schools need to broaden their

definition to include parent/caregiver roles in motivating children to be in school and be excited

about school. Schools also need to include the sacrifices parents/caregivers may make for their

children to be in school. This broader picture needs to be inclusive of creating more caring

environments in our schools, as this nurturance is a reflection of parents/caregivers, and creates a

welcoming sense for children. Nieto’s work in this area is connected to the questions I posed to

parents/caregivers specifically of how they see their relationship with the teachers and their role

at the center.

47

Once all the surveys were returned I compiled the responses electronically. Similar to the

teacher’s surveys, I then made five copies of the compiled data. This way, I had one copy to

focus specifically on each question of the “why”, “what”, “where”, “how”, and “who.” Looking

at each question I then looked for emerging themes in the parents/caregiver’s responses.

Although I considered using a rubric for the analysis of the survey’s I decided against it as I did

not want to limit the parents/caregiver’s responses.

Why. The first question asked of the parents/caregivers was what factors of Community

Child Care Center’s equity and social justice based anti-bias education are appealing to them.

There were four main themes that became apparent in their responses. The first theme, which all

forty nine families commented on, was the values taught through this type of education. Parents

mentioned that their own personal lives were grounded in equity and social justice and they

wished to instill these ideas in their children as well. Along with this, having their children in

this type of education was another way to reflect and reinforce their own values.

The second theme that emerged, which connects to values, was general descripters found

in most of the responses. These included: inclusive (mentioned 37 times), safe (mentioned 29

times), global awareness (mentioned 9 times), respect for self and others (mentioned 42 times),

diversity (mentioned 31 times), fairness (mentioned 14 times), peaceful (mentioned 8 times),

love (mentioned 11 times), acceptance (mentioned 17 times) and equitable (mentioned 36 times).

These were all words parents/caregivers used to describe factors that were important to them and

that they wished for their children to be exposed to and embrace.

These first two themes were very general, and focus more on the idea of what takes place

at Community Child Care Center. The next theme, which was more specific, was the importance

of an early start to this type of education. Forty two parents/caregivers mentioned that they felt it

48

was good to start early in showing children the differences in our world and that it is important

that we teach children from the early age. Twenty seven parents/caregivers discussed the

socialization that occurs during the early years and the hope that their children will learn the

values described before.

Thirty six parents/caregivers connected the early start with the last theme that emerged,

which was of providing their children with experience and practice. It was mentioned the

importance of children having experiences that may be different from the ones they have at

home; and that through this type of education children will grow up knowing not all children /

families look the same, celebrate the same things, eat the same food, or speak the same

languages. Parents/caregivers shared that they did not feel the wholeness of these types of

experiences could be gained from home life, rather socialization of young children needs to take

place in a social setting with their peers.

The question of “why” was the starting ground to gain perspective from the

parents/caregivers on their decision to have this type of education for their child. The remaining

questions asked of the parents/caregivers are more specific to aspects of the program at

Community Child Care Center.

Who. When looking at the “who” of equity and social justice based education, there are

three main parties involved, the teachers, parents/caregivers, and children. Based on the age of

the children it would not be appropriate to collect data specifically from them, rather their

parents/caregivers serve as their voice. The questions asked, specifically about the “who,” to the

parents/caregivers looked at their relationship with their child’s teacher and their involvement in

the center.

49

The relationship with their child’s teacher by far received the most responses of all the

questions asked on the survey. Forty three parents/caregivers expressed this as one of the most

important components for them. Thirty nine parents/caregivers shared the need of having a

trusting relationship, creating a teamwork approach, and daily communication.

Parents/caregivers also discussed the value of feeling comfortable and feeling like the teachers

are responsive to their needs, concerns, and questions. In sum, forty two parents/caregivers felt

they have strong, open relationships, built on trust, that are warm, but professional. Thirty one of

the parents/caregivers connected the high level of these relationships to their own involvement in

the center.

Parents/caregivers described a variety of ways they were involved with the center. These

included: serving on the Parent Board of Directors; assisting with or planning activities for their

child’s classroom; attending and participating in center events such as potlucks or fundraisers;

weekly laundry; assisting with playground maintenance; and spending time in the classroom at

drop off and pick up. Another component that was described by parents/caregivers was how

they engage their child in conversation about the day, bringing school issues and activities home.

Parents/caregivers shared that all of these different involvements allow them to participate

regularly with the program and thus there is a feeling of connectedness for themselves, which

many felt transfers to their children.

What. All of the questions asked of the parents/caregivers gave some feedback about the

curriculum or what is done in the classrooms. I was able to generate five main themes for this

area based on the most common responses. First, twenty nine parents/caregivers discussed role

models as a key component of how this type of education is implemented. This was described as

being done through showing “alternative” role models like female firefighters, or changing

50

words in books to be gender inclusive, or simply the role models the children have within the

staff, who include a range of genders, sexual orientations, etc. These modifications, while

seeming small, demonstrate the commitment the center has to equity and social justice, while

providing one example of how the work is embedded into all aspects of the program.

The second theme that emerged was thirty six parents/caregivers mentioned specific anti-

bias techniques used in the curriculum or general program planning. These included: themes for

the weekly curriculum reflecting a global awareness, the environment, community, and respect

for others; and not celebrating holidays or birthdays in the classroom. Again, these components

are embedded in the work done at the center and create an environment where people are not

tokenized.

Connecting to the specific anti-bias techniques, forty one parents/caregivers also

mentioned the components used with our anti-violence philosophy and Second Step Curriculum,

which was the third theme that emerged. The general notion was that these aspects assist

children with dealing with their emotions, encourage children to behave respectfully to one

another, managing conflict, emphasizing cooperative behaviors, and empower children to use

their words and stand up for others. Twenty three parents/caregivers described these aspects as

ones needed to go hand and hand with the equity and social justice work that is done. As well as

promoting non-violence, it is also assisting children with their general social development, which

include self-respect, respect for others, empathy, and empowerment.

The next theme that emerged was “developmentally appropriate practices”. Thirty one

parents/caregivers mentioned that this type of education has to be very carefully and specifically

modeled to ensure it is delivered in a manner which the children can grasp and gain from. Forty

three parents/caregivers spoke of the curriculum being varied, developed by the teachers, and age

51

appropriate. Parents/caregivers described feeling like this was possible due to the low teacher to

child ratio (mentioned 26 times), educational background of the staff (mentioned 38 times), and

the commitment for quality early childhood education that is underlying at the center (mentioned

40 times).

The last theme generated was adult education. 91% of the parents/caregivers made some

reference to aspects of the center that provide them with education to assist in the care they

provide at home. These included: regular newsletters and brown bag lunch seminars that address

issues such as critique of Disney movies, gender roles, and media violence; teachers available

and willing to answer questions and assist in finding resources when needed; and a general

overall sense of support. One parent/caregiver summed the importance of this: “without parental

education your efforts might not yield much success both in the short and long term.” In sum,

parents felt they needed tools to carry on the work that is done at the center, at home as well.

Where. The curriculum would not be successful on its own, as the classroom

environment impacts every aspect of the day. Throughout the questions posed to the

parents/caregivers there were three main themes about the classroom environment that continued

to come up. First, a nurturing environment was provided. The words nurturing (mentioned 44

times), warm (mentioned 39 times), and compassionate (mentioned 31 times) were used

repeatedly. Parents/caregivers gave examples of this through the children being able to find

themselves in the classroom and the staff knowing and using both the children’s and

parents/caregivers names immediately.

The second theme was the play materials found in the rooms. Parents/caregivers

described seeing play materials that were representative and reflected the implementation of the

“no violence” policy. Parents/caregivers also felt that this type of education is enhanced through

52

toys such as wheelchairs and guide dogs for the dolls, as well as a variety of books available for

the children to look at that reflect many different types of people and families.

The last theme found was the pictures and posters around the room. Parents/caregivers

felt that these not only reflected the diversity at the center, but also on a global level.

Parents/caregivers described these as providing the children with real depictions of the world

around them.

How. All of the questions asked of the parents/caregivers collected answers specifically

about the teachers and the “how” of their work. The two themes generated for this area were

action and language. Parents/caregivers describe the action of equity and social justice based

education through: the teachers showing that they care for and about the preschoolers and their

families (mentioned 43 times) ; teachers consistently encouraging children to behave kindly

towards one another (mentioned 29 times), ask questions (mentioned 23 times), and critically

think about bias (mentioned 17 times); creating a warm and nurturing environment for both the

children and the parents/caregivers (mentioned 32 times); the teachers getting down at the child’s

level and really listening to them (mentioned 35 times); uniformly addressing children as

individuals (mentioned 24 times); being present and responsive to the children (mentioned 17

times); and genuinely taking an interest in the children and families (mentioned 39 times).

Parents/caregivers shared that these actions along with language that is inclusive, consistent, and

thoughtful, create the atmosphere for the education. Parents/caregivers felt that if these

components were not present, along with pieces of the classroom environment, they would not

feel as connected and their children may not feel that sense of belonging. The sense of belonging

for both children and parents/caregivers is needed for the children to be engaged with equity and

social justice work.

53

The surveys from both the teaching staff and the parents/caregivers collected a great deal

of general information about the factors present in an equity and social justice early childhood

education program. As a part of my research I also conducted classroom observations which will

be discussed in the next section.

Observations.

The center has three classrooms. For each classroom I conducted two, half hour

observations. While doing the observations I completed field notes logs compiling the details of

the what, where, and how. When conducting the classroom observations my focus was just on

the specific areas on the field notes log. I simply wrote what I saw or observed to obtain as

much objectivity as possible.

At Community Child Care Center, the teachers do what is called a room change on a

monthly basis. During these changes the teachers rotate the play materials in the classroom and

restructure the overall classroom environment. I ensured that I scheduled my classroom

observations so I would be able to collect information on two different room changes, for each

classroom. When all of my observations were completed this information was also compiled

electronically, allowing me to pull out the following emerging themes for each area.

What. The curriculum for each classroom varies greatly, as the teachers develop it on a

weekly basis based on the interest and developmental goals for the children. Each classroom

serves a different age group, thus what is appropriate for one group may not be for another.

The toddler room (children 16 months to 33 months) develops their curriculum based on

providing a teacher-initiated activity each morning and afternoon. These activities are not theme

based; rather the curriculum ensures the children will have the opportunity to explore with a

variety of different things focused on social, emotional, cognitive, and physical development.

54

The activities I observed when I was in the toddler room were taking a walk around the school

while practicing holding onto the rope, and a dance party where the children had the opportunity

to use different instruments and dancing ribbons. Other activities listed on the curriculum for the

weeks when the classroom observations were conducted included: a parent coming in to play the

trumpet, playing with snow in the sensory table, ABC block painting (taking blocks in the shape

of the letters, dipping them in paint, and putting the paint then on paper), baking bread, washing

the room, and shaving cream with animals (covering table with shaving cream and letting

children play with small plastic animals in the shaving cream). During the month of February

the toddler room highlighted parent involvement month and encouraged parents/caregivers to

come join them in anything they wished. Parents/caregivers assisted with classroom activities,

helped serve and clean up lunch, read stories in native languages, assisted with getting the

children dressed to go outside, and hanging out in the classroom.

Both preschool classrooms (younger 2 to 4 year olds and older 4 to 5 year olds) develop

their curriculum around a weekly theme. The schedule allows for the teachers to facilitate a

group time and follow up activity connecting to these themes. While observing the younger

preschool room they were focusing on their letters. One week’s theme was “K” and “L” and

then the other week was “E” and “F”. The themes for the older preschool room were

transportation and healthy bodies. During their group times I was able to observe them doing

their daily calendar and weather components, which involves all of the children having the

opportunity to participate in putting things up on the bulletin board or leading songs. The

children were practicing patience, taking turns, and providing positive encouragement for one

another.

55

The variety of activities provided through these themes allowed children to see multiple

perspectives. When the older preschool classroom was discussing transportation they discussed

the different methods that can be use to get around. Children shared ideas such as: walking,

biking, wheelchairs, cars, buses, planes, roller skates, and horses. During the week, the class had

a visit from someone working with Metro transit and a female auto mechanic. They ended the

week by working in small groups to construct any type of transportation they wanted using

miscellaneous supplies. When the younger preschool classroom was focusing on “K” and “L”

they did activities such as: making a kindness collage, creating a kindness book, and utilizing the

second step anti-violence curriculum. One of the group times I had the opportunity to observe

the children generated a list of actions that are kind and then role played using kind words with

their peers.

Where. Within equity and social justice early childhood education, the environment is by

far one of the largest components of how the philosophy is implemented. Based on the age of

the children and what is considered developmentally appropriate a nurturing and welcoming

environment is needed for children to feel safe and secure. When conducting the classroom

observations, there were a number of things I noticed in all three classrooms that create the

ecology of the room. The themes that emerged from these observations were: items that

personally reflect the individual children and their families, which allow them to find themselves

in the classroom; relevant play materials; books; and pictures/posters around the classroom

reflective of the global world. I will spend some time describing what I saw in the classrooms

for each of these themes.

As I sat in the classrooms observing the children and taking note of the items around the

room at some point in each observation a child had a positive experience with locating an item

56

that personally reflected them and their family. I infer that this was a positive experience based

on the words and body language the children used while engaging with this item. The items

around all three classrooms that depict the children and their families include: an individual

cubby for each child that has their name and picture on it; giant bulletin boards that have an item

on them that state the child’s name, birthday, parent’s/caregiver’s names, and a picture of the

child; giant bulletin boards that have pictures of the children participating in different activities

while at school; name cards on toy shelf or near writing center in preschool rooms that have a

picture of the child and their name written on it; craft sticks that have a picture of each child on

them that can be used for dramatic play; peek-a-boo pictures on top of toy shelves, where a

fabric piece is covering a picture of each child that they can find; art work created by the children

hanging on the walls and cabinets; photo albums with pictures of the children participating in

different activities at school; and family albums that have pictures of each child in the classroom

and their family that have been brought from home. Each of these items reflects the children as

individuals and show they are a part of the classroom environment.

The second emerging theme was relevant play materials available to the children in the

classrooms. All of the classrooms had a variety of play materials located on their selves. Items

that I saw that reflected people included: puzzles of families and children participating in

different activities; and multi racial/gender baby dolls and clothes, blankets, strollers, glasses,

wheelchairs, and guide dogs available for the children to use with the dolls. Within the dramatic

play areas created in each of the classrooms I also noticed a number of different ways the

children would be able to see themselves and others.

The older preschool classroom had a doctor’s office set up with a variety of supplies; a

cot for a person to lie on, pillows, pictures of the human body, x-rays, and pictures of doctor’s

57

helping children. The older preschool room also had a pizza shop set up that had: fabric pieces

of supplies for the children to make pretend pizzas; cleaning supplies for dishes; and pictures of

people cooking together and real food.

The younger preschool room had a baseball area that had baseball hats, gloves, shirts, and

soft balls, along with a variety of pictures of both boys and girls, multiracial, playing with balls.

The younger preschool room also had an ice cream shop that had ice cream bins, topping

containers, cash registers, and pictures of children eating and serving ice cream together.

The toddler room had a huge kitchen area with a sink, refrigerator, stove, and oven, along

with pretend food, plates, pans, mops, and brooms. Near all of these items were pictures of

people (females/males and multiracial) working together in a kitchen. The toddler room also had

a building dramatic play area that had tool benches, tools, hard hats, pictures of real tools and

parts, and pictures of people (females/males and multiracial) using different tools. All of these

items are changed monthly when the teachers do their room change. This allows the children to

be exposed to a variety of different items, while also seeing how all people can participate or use

different things through the pictures the teachers have connected with these items.

The next theme was a variety of books available for the children to look at. Each

classroom had at least thirty books available for the children. The books, like the other play

materials are also changed monthly when the teachers complete their room change. The books

are categorized in the center library into the following groups: storybooks, board books, feelings

and emotions, everyday life, science, and ABC/123. The teachers mentioned that when they do

their room change they ensure there are a variety of books from each area. Some of the things I

noticed about the books included: they are in a variety of languages; they reflect all different

family structures; they show real life pictures of animals, food, seasons, weather, transportation,

58

etc. There were also a number of what I would consider equity and social justice based books.

These included books that talk about racial differences and provide positive affirmations about

these differences and books about different physical abilities and disabilities. When looking

through the books, I was also noticed that edits were made to ensure equity and inclusion. If the

word snowman was in a book, it was changed to snow person. There was also a book edited to

depict same sex parents, where the focus was not on the parents/caregivers being gay, rather the

child losing his first tooth. I walked away from the observations sensing the importance of

providing children with real depictions of people and the world around them for the children to

look at, which connects to the last theme.

The last emerging theme was pictures/posters around the classroom reflective of the

global world. In all three of the classroom on toy shelves, cabinets, and doors there were a

variety of pictures and posters that reflect people from all over the world. The pictures showed

different family structures, races, ages, abilities and disabilities, as well as languages. All of

these pictures were located at the child’s level so they would clearly be able to see them. One

specific component to this that I observed was that the teachers often placed these items to

connect with different areas in the classroom. For example, in the quiet area where there are

books, all three classrooms had pictures of children and adults looking at books either together,

as a family, or in a group. Another example was in one of the classroom’s block area there were

pictures of different buildings and people working on construction. These pictures reflected

building structures that are common in different areas around the world, as well as demonstrating

both females and males can participate in this type of work. Another important component to

mention in regards to the pictures and posters found around the classrooms is they all reflect

“real” people, not cartoon based images.

59

All of the components in the classroom environment, along with the curriculum, assist

the teachers in creating the equity and social justice based early childhood education program.

These areas would not be successful if it were not for the teachers that are implementing the

program and components they bring to the work each day. In the last section of the classroom

observations, I will discuss my observations on the “how” the teachers do this.

How. The “how” aspect of equity and social justice early childhood education is broad in

its inclusion of teacher engagement with the children and parents/caregivers, body language used

with children and parents/caregivers, and language used with the children. During my time in

the classrooms, I was able to observe a number of interactions for these areas.

The first two components of the “how,” engagement and body language, seem to go hand

and hand. When children were arriving or leaving the teacher welcomed and said goodbye to the

child and their parents/caregivers. The teachers always seem to have a smile on their faces.

During these interactions, the teachers refer to everyone using their first name and often times

made reference or inquired about something specific pertaining to the family’s life. For

example, one teacher asked a parent how they did on a midterm the day before. Another teacher

asked a mom how she was feeling after recent surgery and if she needed anything. If a child is

having a difficult time separating from their parent/caregiver, the teacher assisted the

parent/caregiver in leaving by providing comfort for the child and giving them some choices of

what they can do in the room to feel empowered. Teachers also let the parents/caregivers decide

when it is right to leave. Teachers never rush parents/caregivers out of the classrooms or make

them feel unwelcome in the classroom.

While the children are in the classroom the teachers are all on the floor engaging with the

play materials and the children. In the toddler room, one teacher was sitting at the sensory table

60

with the children. The sensory table was filled with water and plastic star fish. The teacher was

asking the children what color the star fish were, how it felt in their hands, and asking questions

about the differences between the star fish. When in the younger preschool room, a teacher was

sitting in the quiet corner reading stories with a group of children that are sitting around her and

on her lap. In the older preschool room, a group of children were dancing during free play time.

One of the teachers is participating as well, singing the songs along with the children. When one

of the children falls over the teacher asked if she is okay and if she needed a hug. The center of

what the teachers are doing is engaging with the children. The engagement and body language is

further enhanced through the language used by the teaching staff.

The language and communication between the teachers and children is one of respect,

honestly, and a general positive notion. When a child is upset in the older preschool room about

a toy being taken away from them the teacher sits with the upset child providing comfort. The

teacher validates the child’s feelings and models the words they could use to the child that took

the toy away from them empowering the child to use their voice. Teachers support children and

don’t talk for them. When the teacher is facilitating group time she begins by singing the

following song for each child: “Kelly’s (name changes with each child) here today, Kelly’s here

today, Yeah, Kelly!” This demonstrates the teacher’s excitement for the child being at school

and gives each child individual recognition that s/he is valuable. During that same group time

when the teacher is talking about the colors green and yellow, she asks the children to say the

colors using sign language and then gives the children a chance to say the others in their native

language if they wish. Giving the children a choice avoids making a child feel like they are an

ambassador for their language, while giving opportunity in showing their language is valuable.

This also shows other children there is more than one way to communicate the word yellow.

61

When observing the younger preschool room, the children were getting ready to go outside. The

teachers were offering encouraging words for the children as they worked to get their snow gear

on for play. If a child was getting frustrated the teacher offered words for them to ask for help.

When a child is upset about not having gloves, the teachers gives them choices between different

pairs they can use that belong to the center. In the older preschool room a child asks about why a

child has glasses. The teacher responds to the question by saying some people wear glasses and

some people don’t, explaining that glasses help some people see. She then mentions all the

different people that this child knows that wears glasses.

In the older preschool room I also observed a teacher having a conversation with the

children about blue batman toothbrushes and pink hello kitty toothbrushes that were brought

from a dentist that visited the classroom. The dentist had mentioned the batman ones were for

the boys and the hello kitty ones were for the girls. A few of the children were upset because

that was not the choice they would have made. The teacher facilitated the conversation with the

children ensuring that they could have which ever they wanted, it didn’t matter their gender or

the color of the toothbrush.

The classroom observations allowed me to see very specific examples of the “what”,

“where”, and “how” of equity and social justice early childhood education. When reflecting on

all the information I gathered from the classroom observations, I can hear in the back of my head

people asking, “what makes that equity and social justice early childhood education?” I often

sense people want concrete examples of how this is done and thus when someone sees a

Women’s History Month Celebration or Holidays around the World party, the thought is they are

creating the environment. The difference with equity and social justice education is how it is

embedded into all aspects of the program. In the discussion section of this chapter I will provide

62

the description of the factors necessary in creating an equity and social justice early childhood

education program.

Discussion

Throughout the remaining part of this section I will describe the following three

philosophies used in early childhood education: teaching tolerance, celebrating diversity, and

equity and social justice. I will use the analysis of the research results I collected from the

surveys and classroom observations in these descriptions, while including connections from the

literature review and my own discussion in regards to these philosophies.

On my continuum teaching tolerance is seen as the lowest level response, and equity and

social justice being the highest, the goal of quality early childhood education programs.

Outlining these philosophies in this manner will provide early childhood educations with an

analysis of the philosophies, while also painting a clear picture for educators of what equity and

social justice education looks like in practice.

Continuum of Anti-Bias Education in Early Childhood Education

* * *

Teaching Tolerance Celebrating Diversity Equity & Social Justice

Teaching Tolerance. As defined in the literature review, teaching tolerance is a way of

thinking, feeling, acting, and learning to live with differences (Bullard, 1996). This educational

philosophy is at the very lowest level of response to inclusion and differences. Teaching

tolerance is grounded in the idea that there are lots of different people in the world, and whether

we agree or support these differences, we need to be able to get along with one another. This

63

philosophy can be seen in schools that mention promoting tolerance in their mission and provide

classes like civic or moral education. The emphasis from this type of education, as described in

the literature review, includes friendliness, honesty, respect, responsibility, and tolerance, as

morals that should be instilled in children. Typical activities that can be found in schools that

use the teaching tolerance philosophy include giving the children the opportunity to use

chopsticks or wheelchairs for the day to give them the experience of the “other.” There is little

conversation about actual differences and no conversation about bias or oppression that different

populations experience. This playing nice philosophy typically has a great deal of subtle

inequities and oppression that surfaces and creates hostel school climates for many students and

parents/caregivers. Teachers in the field of equity and social justice described this philosophy as

a “sugar coated word for hatred” and as a method of “feeding oppression and discrimination.”

The teachers who completed the surveys also connected tolerance as “putting up with an attitude

or behavior” or “dealing with something out of pity or inconvenience.”

Celebrating Diversity. Celebrating diversity is the middle ground between teaching

tolerance and equity and social justice education and/or anti-bias education. The idea of

celebrating diversity is what I also call “food, folks, and festivals”. Here educators use an

“additive approach” (Banks, 1997) to their curriculum, meaning the curriculum stays the same

and at different times of the year bits and pieces of the “other” are incorporated. Schools using

this type of education may have special events for: Black History Month, where students may

discuss or read a book on a well known African Americans such as Martin Luther King or Rosa

Parks, while tasting different “soul” food items; Cinco De Mayo, students participate in a festival

where a piñata is broken, sombreros’ are worn, and tacos are eaten; or have a winter holidays

celebration where Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanza, and Ramadan are acknowledged. Some

64

educators argue that these events are important because it gives children the opportunity to be

exposed to culture they may not otherwise ever recognize. However, simply infusing facts or

presenting diversity here and there is not enough. These events typically tokenize different

populations and typically reinforce stereotypes. These are events that are “comfortable” for

those in power as they never acknowledge power or privilege and do not require a change in the

current system. The piece that is important when looking at this type of educational philosophy

is that schools are sending a very strong message to children that the “other” are not as important

as the “norm” since it is not embraced on a daily basis.

Equity and Social Justice. Equity and social justice education is what I call a program

that uses anti-bias education as a framework for their classrooms and embed issues of equity and

justice in all aspects of the program. These aspects include: curriculum, classroom environment,

relationships between teachers and children and teachers and parents/caregivers, parent/caregiver

involvement, and teacher education/commitment. All of these areas need to be present in order

for equity and social justice to exist.

The curriculum incorporates multiple perspectives and is presented in a manner where

there are no absolute truths. Multiple perspectives meaning, including groups of people who are

not commonly found in the curriculum because of their race, language, martial status,

socioeconomics, sexual orientation, abilities and disabilities, etc. It is not having one

lesson/activity, book, or poster in the classroom; rather it is present every minute of every day

throughout the entire school. Throughout the curriculum and/or classroom discussions

stereotypes, bias, power, and privilege are uncovered and discussed. The goal is to get at the

root of the problem, (what causes stereotypes or bias, who benefits from power and privilege in

society) so that we can empower children to make change. With young children this is most

65

often done through the questions they pose and comments they make. For example, if one of the

boys tells one of the girls she can’t play with the blocks because she is a girl; it is up to the

teacher to intervene in the situation. The teacher can ask the boy why he thinks girls can’t play

with blocks. The teacher then needs to give the child an opportunity to respond. Based on the

child’s response the teacher needs to challenge the stereotypes and use the teachable moment to

remind the children that they can use any of the play materials in the room, whether they are a

boy or girl is irrelevant. It is the teacher’s responsibility to address these situations when they

arise, while also regularly providing the children opportunities to talk about bias, feelings, and

practice role playing how children can address different situations.

This type of education is not just taught through curriculum, but is also modeled at all

times and is emphasized through the classroom environment. Louise Derman Sparks (1989)

mentions the environment created in the classroom as one of the main focuses of anti-bias

education. Throughout the surveys completed by parents/caregivers and teaching staff, as well

as the classroom observations I completed, it became apparent how vital the classroom

environment is to implementing equity and social justice education. The classroom needs to be a

warm and welcoming environment where the children are able to find themselves in the

materials around the room. This can be done through items that personally reflect the individual

children and their families (pictures of the children around the room, photo albums of the

children and their families, etc.), relevant play materials, books, and pictures/posters around the

classroom that are reflective of the global world. The classroom environment must be one of the

main focuses of the teachers. I suggest teachers do a room change (literally taking the toys,

books, pictures, posters out of the room once a month and exchanging them for new materials)

66

once a month. This allows the children to be exposed and explore even more materials than if

things stay the same all the time.

The relationships between teachers and children, and teachers and parents/caregivers are

also a vital component of equity and social justice education. The daily interactions between all

parties are so important. The teachers must be engaged with the work that they do. While in the

classroom, the children must always be the primary focus. Teachers should be sitting at their

level, talking with them, playing with them, and guiding their development. Greeting people by

their names and taking an interest in the children and parents/caregivers lives creates a sense of

community. All of these components together create an environment where people feel welcome

and included. A sense of trust, as many of the parents/caregivers described in their surveys,

exists. When this climate is created, it is then that children will feel confident to ask the

questions they have in regards to differences, and the teachers will feel confident to answer.

Parents/caregivers will see the teachers as a resource and utilize them in assisting their children

in understanding issues of equity and social justice in our society.

Parent/caregiver involvement is another critical component of equity and social justice

education. Nieto (2000) states in program with strong family involvement components, students

consistently achieve better. When teachers are developing their relationships with the

parents/caregivers it is so important to also make them feel included in the program. This sense

of inclusion makes parents/caregivers feel like they have a stake in what is taking place in their

child education and development. Parent involvement must go beyond someone joining the

board or helping with a cookie sale. Parent involvement can be seen with volunteering in the

classroom, planning an activity to do with the children, assisting with tasks around the school, or

even something as simple as discussing school events or issues at home. Parents/caregivers

67

feelings and perceptions of school are observed by children. These observations can impact a

child’s experiences at school, both in a positive and negative sense. Within equity and social

justice education the goal is for everyone to feel included in what is taking place.

Teacher education and commitment to equity and social justice education is a must. All

of the teachers commented in their surveys the importance of their own educational background,

as well as the need for continual education. Most of the components of equity and social justice

education are never discussed in teacher preparation courses, leaving new teachers to engage in

this process alone. This is a very difficult task as teachers need the support of the school policy

to make this type of environment work. It is also challenging because teachers must take the

time to review all the books, curricula, and other educational materials in order to ensure needed

changes are made. Teachers committed to equity and social justice education must recognize

their own bias and the bias within education. Teachers must continue to learn more and be

willing to confront and eradicate these inequities. Along with this commitment, teachers must

be open minded, compassionate, aware, respectful, and willing to make mistakes along the way.

This is a learning process for everyone and will take many years.

Pulling all of these areas together within equity and social justice education provides the

factors needed to create this type of educational environment. Using this discussion and the

specific examples provided from the surveys and observations conducted at Community Child

Care Center we create the framework for educators on what this type of education looks like in

practice. The continuum allows educators to see the distinct difference between teaching

tolerance and equity and social justice education.

68

CHAPTER FIVE

Conclusion

This research project began with looking at how we can say good bye to teaching

tolerance and hello to equity and social justice, through providing a critical analysis of the factors

necessary in creating an equity and social justice early childhood education program. I decided

to undertake this project after spending the past ten years working with young children in early

childhood education facilities. Each day of my work I realize more and more the impact

education has at this stage of a child’s development. During the early years children are like

sponges, absorbing the world around them. This becomes their “default” view of the world, their

unconscious, just the way things are, outlook of the world, that they can not remember where it

came from. Children are discovering themselves and how they fit in the world around them. As

early childhood educators we have the opportunity to impact children’s views of themselves,

others, and the world.

Before I began this project I was concerned with the idea of ‘teaching’ tolerance, a

philosophy that some early childhood education programs choose to use. I have always had such

a negative feeling when I hear the word tolerance, I was uncertain how anything positive could

come out of this type of education. Throughout my literature review and research these concerns

were only further emphasized. When we focus on tolerance based education, we are ignoring

issues of social justice and power structures in our society, both past and present, which impact

the lives of all of us. ‘Teaching’ tolerance glosses over differences and reinforces stereotypes

and bias.

On the opposite side of teaching tolerance lies anti-bias education grounded in equity and

social justice. This philosophy is a proactive approach to challenge bias and oppression, which

69

is embedded in all aspects of a program. This work gives young children the words and tools to

discuss issues of inequity and injustice and empowers them to stand up for themselves and others

when faced with bias. This work respects the knowledge and inquiry young children have about

differences and the reality of the world around them. Anti-bias education grounded in equity and

social justice is possible through the curriculum, classroom environment, relationships, and

parent/caregiver involvement. Both the literature review and research completed through this

project provide significant information on the factors necessary to create this type of

environment. These components, along with my work at Community Child Care Center, have

given me the opportunity to see the impact this type of education has on the children,

parents/caregivers, and teaching staff. I am inspired when a young child feels confident to

challenge another child who has told a girl it is not okay to play with the blocks since she is a

girl. I am moved when a mother comes into my office to tell me how grateful she is by the

acceptance her daughter with special needs receives each day by her classmates and how frank

the teachers are about acknowledging and discussing these needs when children bring up

questions. I am in awe when a teacher shares a story of how a group of children facilitated a

class discussion on how boys can marry boys and girls can marry girls and that teacher is able to

recognize the work she has done to make that conversation possible. The implications for

creating this type of educational environment for young children are enormous. We will be

sending children into the world feeling confident of themselves; with the tools necessary to stand

up for themselves and others when faced with bias and injustice; and willing to think critically

about bias, stereotypes, power, and privilege.

When completing this capstone project the only limitation I felt was I wished there was

another program I was familiar with that used equity and social justice early childhood

70

education. I feel like this would have given me an opportunity to see more classrooms and the

methods used for implementation. It also would have allowed me to gather more perspectives

from parents/caregivers and teachers. I feel the change needs to be made in early childhood

education to have all programs grounded in equity and social justice. I feel like educators would

be more willing to look at making these changes if there was a large research backing on the

impacts of implementing this type of education and more specifics on how educators can create

this environment. Thinking about this limitation empowers me to put my focus into connecting

with other programs and begin working with them to make the needed programmatic changes to

create an environment of equity and social justice.

This project has meant a great deal to me as I strongly support the need for implementing

this type of early childhood education for all children. It was extremely rewarding to have the

opportunity to take a step back and really look at the different aspects within the program at

Community Child Care Center. It was also very beneficial for me to read how the

parents/caregivers and teaching staff see this type of education is implemented; as their real life

experiences greatly assisted me in describing the factors necessary for creating an equity and

social justice early childhood education program. The piece I leave with as this project ends is

what can be done in teacher preparation programs to lay this foundation of education with future

teachers before they even begin in the classroom. While it is possible to spend time working

with current programs to create equity and social justice education in their schools it seems just

as crucial to begin this work with our future teachers.

I would like to end with a quote from Gandhi, “be the change you wish to see in the

world.” Right now there are unacceptable amounts of inequity and injustice in our society. In

order to make change, we as educators, must begin with young child in an environment where

71

equity and social justice are valued and tools are provided for children to take on the world. If

we do not do the work, we will not see the change.

72

References

Alvarado, C. (1999). In our own way: How anti-bias work shapes our lives. Saint Paul: Redleaf

Press.

Anderson, G. (1998). Fundamentals of education research. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.

Banks, J. (1997). Multicultural education: Characteristics and goals. In J. Banks (Ed.),

Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (3-28). Needham Heights: Allyn

and Bacon.

Banks, J. (1997). Approaches to multicultural curriculum reform. In J. Banks (Ed.),

Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (229-249). Needham Heights:

Allyn and Bacon.

Bullard, S. (1996). Teaching tolerance: Raising, open-minded, empathetic children. New

York: Doubleday.

Cirone, B. (April 2001). Moving beyond tolerance. Phi Delta Kappan, 82, 8, 635-636.

Cole, M., & Cole, S. R. (1993). The development of children (2nd

ed.). New York: Scientific

American Books.

Derman-Sparks, L. and the ABC Task Force. (2000). Washington, DC: National

Association for the Education of Young Children.

Derman-Sparks, L. and Brunson Phillips, C. (1997). Teaching learning anti-racism: A

developmental approach. New York: Teachers College Press.

Harro, B. (2000). The cycle of socialization. In M. Adams, W.J. Blumenfeld, R. Castaneda,

H.W. Hackman, M.L. Peters, and X. Zuniga (Eds.), Readings for diversity and social

justice (15-21). New York: Routledge.

Heller, C. and Hawkins, J. (1994). Teaching tolerance: Notes from the front line. Teachers

73

College Record, 95, 3, 337-368.

Lintner, Timothy. (January/February 2005). A world of difference: Teaching tolerance

through photographs in elementary schools. The Social Studies, 96, 1, 34-37.

Macedo, D. and Bartolome, L.I. (1999). Dancing with bigotry: Beyond the politics of tolerance.

New York: Saint Martin’s Press.

Marulis, L. (Spring 2000). Anti-bias teaching to address cultural diversity.

Multicultural Education, 7, 3, 27-31.

Nieto, S. (2000). Affirming diversity: The sociopolitical context of multicultural

education. New York: Addison Wesley Longman, Inc.

O’Hanlon, C. (2003). Educational inclusion as action research. England: Open University

Press.

Pelo, A. (2002). Supporting young children as activists: Anti-bias project work. The Child Care

Information Exchange, 38-41.

Pelo, A. (2000). That’s not fair: A teacher’s guide to activism with young children. Saint Paul:

Redleaf Press.

Reissman, R. (1994). The evolving multicultural classroom. Alexandria: Association

for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Schwartz, B. (1996). Tolerance: Should we approve of it, put up with it, or tolerate it?

Academe, 82, 24-28.

Stevens, R. and Charles, J. (2005). Preparing teachers to teach tolerance. Multicultural

Perspectives, 7, 1, 17-25.

Stewart, J., and Ruff, J. (2002). Character Education. Mankato: Capstone Press.

Teaching Tolerance: A Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center. (1997). Starting

74

small: Teaching tolerance in preschool and the early grades. Montgomery:

Teaching Tolerance.

Thomson, B. (1993). Words can hurt you: Beginning a program of anti-bias education.

Menlo Park: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Thomson, B. (October 1989). Building tolerance in early childhood. Educational Leadership,

47, 10, 78-79.

Tran, Anh. (Summer 2005). Tolerance revisited. Multicultural Education, 12, 4, 50-52.

Vogt, W.P. (1997). Tolerance and education: Learning to live with diversity and

difference. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Wolpert, E. (2005). Start seeing diversity: The basic guide to an anti-bias classroom. Saint

Paul: Redleaf Press.

75

APPENDIX A

Teaching Staff Survey

1. What does the word tolerance mean to you? How would you describe the idea of

teaching tolerance?

2. What is equity and social justice based anti-bias early childhood education?

3. From your perspective what attitudes and beliefs are needed for an educator to be able

to do this type of education?

4. From your own perspective what type of skill base does an educator need to be able to

do this type of education?

5. How would you describe the practices (actual classroom implementation tools) of

equity and social justice based anti-bias education?

76

APPENDIX B

Parent / Caregiver Survey

1. What are the factors of equity / social justice based anti-bias education that

make this program appealing for your family?

2. What aspects of Community Child Care Center support our mission statement

and how?

“Community Child Care Center’s mission is to provide affordable, high

quality early childhood education, in a warm nurturing environment that

encourages the development of the whole child. Our center seeks to provide a

physically safe, emotionally secure, and inclusive setting for all children and

their families. Our mission is implemented through out educare, learning

through play, anti-bias, and anti-violence philosophies. CCCC also strives to

provide support for parents/caregivers and university students in the areas of

child development, parenting, and early childhood education.”

3. Describe the degree of your relationship with your child’s classroom teacher.

How or why is this relationship important to you?

4. In addition to what you may have already mentioned what other ways are you

involved at the center?

77

APPENDIX C

Classroom Observations Field Notes Log

Classroom:

Date:

Time:

Curriculum

(The What)

Classroom Environment and

Relevant Play Materials ~

Ecology of the Room

(The Where)

Language ~ Teacher

engagement, body language,

tone

(The How)