In this part of the chapter I draw on five studies to closely understand what being prepared means to newly qualified early childhood teachers. Two studies, Mahmood (1996) and Giovacco-Johnson (2005), include participants from a single teacher education institution, whilst Renwick and Boyd (1995), Aitken (2005), and Ryan, Ackerman and Song (2005) involve participants from a range of teacher education institutions. Three are local studies (Aitken, Mahmood, and Renwick & Boyd), while the remaining two are North American (Giovacco-Johnson and Ryan et al.).
With the exception of Renwick and Boyd’s (1995) study that has a mixed design (survey and group discussions), each works solely with interview data. Giovacco- Johnson (2005), however, also observed her participants gaining a sense of what they were experiencing as special education teachers, and thus referred to in subsequent interviews. Mahmood (1996), Aitken (2005) and Giovacco-Johnson worked with small groups of participants, whereas Renwick and Boyd, and Ryan et al. each had much larger samples as reflected in surveys as the primary methodological tool. While Mahmood’s study is a rich source of data extracts, it is a ‘one shot’ study undertaken early in participants’ first months of teaching. Accordingly, the intensity of data extracts and of Mahmmod’s analysis is reflective of this. Although Mahmood originally set out to explore both practice that teacher education “equip[ped] them well for and “any difficulties” (p. 187) participants had experienced since beginning teaching, she ultimately focuses exclusively on their difficulties.
As noted above, sense of preparedness is a dynamic phenomenon whereby feelings of competence usually increase in proportion to teaching experience. Giovacco-Johnson (2005), Aitken (2005), and Renwick and Boyd (1995) each incorporate longitudinal
designs and thus capture participants’ shifting sense of preparedness. In all three studies participants experience adjustment issues, particularly in relation to connecting the knowledge brought with them from teacher education, including the discursive construction of the teacher, to the settings where they begin teaching. When set alongside these studies Mahmood’s findings are enhanced within the broader picture as discussed below.
While studies by Renwick and Boyd (1995) and Aitken (2005) each incorporate the notion of being prepared this was not the sole purpose of each study. More broadly, Renwick and Boyd were concerned to track the anticipated and actual employment preferences of (pre-service) diploma of teaching students and graduates in each of the newly introduced diploma of teaching programmes.
Aitken’s (2005) study incorporates pre-service and field-based graduates and, as mentioned previously, was interested in how newly qualified teachers experienced the transition from teacher education student to newly qualified teacher viewed through the lens of a community of practice. When she analysed her data, Aitken noted how participants’ stories of becoming members of their centre community of practice began with their sense of preparedness. This was significantly tempered by widely differing workplace contextual factors for which they were unprepared.
In some respects Ryan et al.’s (2005) study is an outlier. Their primary concern was to ascertain the effects of specific teacher education course content on respondents’ work as teachers. In contrast, the other studies gave participants more discretion over the topics they raised in the research process. Of relevance is that Ryan et al. were working in a context not unlike the one we currently have in this country where many early childhood teachers are having to upgrade their qualifications.
From my analysis of this literature I have discerned three highly interrelated themes. These are: the reality of first year teaching; the ‘sanitised’ curriculum of teacher education; and the discontinuity between the knowledges of teacher education and those of teaching. With the exception of the sanitised curriculum, the other two themes are consistent with those reported in the wider preparedness literature. I will now discuss each theme and then bring their threads together to suggest how collectively they indicate the long-standing tension between the bifurcation of theory and practice in teacher education.
The reality of the first year of teaching
A common theme in preparedness studies is on how the actual experience of teaching is more complex and challenging than newly qualified teachers’ expressed expectations. The storyline that is used to refer to this situation draws on the dichotomy between the real and the ideal whereby teacher education is said to present or explore the ideal, whereas newly qualified teachers’ experience the actual ‘reality’—there is a ‘gap’ between these. It is into this gap that newly qualified teachers are said to ‘fall’. It is the nature and size of the gap that is of interest to researchers wanting to understand issues of preparedness, and thus processes of learning to teach.
Mahmood’s (1996) study both explicitly and implicitly refers to the ideal-reality dichotomy. While Mahmood noted how participants’ experienced teacher education as “empower[ing]” (p. 80), she said they found the “reality [of teaching] particularly harsh” (p. 80). This was especially so for the younger teachers who “experienced a greater degree of discomfort or reality shock” (p. 79) than older participants in the study. The ‘reality shock’ most commonly mentioned was ‘working with staff’. Text examples point to how complex the situation was, particularly for those in childcare centres for whom their differences in teaching knowledge was very much at odds with colleagues and with centre practices. This situation was also noted by Aitken (2005).
Aitken (2005) described how “the day-to-day realities of teaching were frequently portrayed to be more difficult and problematic than the idealistic or perceived ‘reality’ held during teacher education” (p. 76). The ‘realities’ related to working alongside other teachers, the varying quality of these people’s work (according to participants’ accounts), and working in a profession of low status. It was the interpersonal and relational context of the centre that provided the most significant challenges for participants who cited conflict between staff as a key preparedness issue. One participant asserted; “it (teacher education) doesn’t really prepare you for the different way teachers interact with each other, as a student you’re not part if that [...] like how to deal with bad moods” (p. 76). Another believed “teacher education didn’t prepare me for all the bad teachers [...] everything I’ve worked for in the last four years [in teacher education], it didn’t prepare me for that” (p. 76).
Arguably, someone’s concept of a “bad” teacher rests on their conception of what a “good” teacher is. The latter, I suggest, is based on the discursive construction of the teacher this participant graduated with. In Aitken’s study, according to participants, it
appeared that ‘good teachers’ principally worked in community-based settings such as kindergartens and community education and care centres. Furthermore, community- based settings were largely the ‘reality’ that Aitken’s teachers felt prepared for.
Also, making the experience of the ‘real’ difficult was how to engage with the complexities of working within a pluralist (multicultural) society, and working with parents (Aitken, 2005; Giovacco-Johnson, 2005; Mahmood, 1996) Participants in Mahmood’s (1996) study who had prior experience working with parents, such as being a nanny or related life experiences, were less likely, however, to articulate such concerns. This finding is reflected in Housego and Badali’s (1996) study who report respondents rated the strength of life experiences as more powerful than their teacher education on 21 of 30 items in relation to sense of preparedness. Mahmood noted participants were aware of the need to have positive relationships with parents, thus suggesting a focus on working with parents was present in their teacher education programme. Similarly, it was clear from data extracts that as students, Mahmood’s participants had also encountered ideas about cultural difference in teacher education, yet their comments reflected a sense of uncertainty in knowing how to negotiate the intensities they subsequently experienced.
Aitken (2005) also mentioned how participants referred to aspects of their jobs they believed teacher education could not have prepared them for. Ironically, these were aspects related to the interpersonal dimensions of their work, the very aspects that they felt unprepared for. One participant appeared resigned to the problem, reporting in relation to parents: “I feel comfortable with my teacher education programme with what I learnt, I think just in practice it doesn’t always work” (p. 75). Another stated that “at teachers’ college you do things in, a sort of, perfect situation” (p. 75). This latter comment reflects the notion that what happens in teacher education takes place in the ideal that doesn’t necessarily reflect the ‘reality’ of teaching.
There is roughly 10 years between Mahmood’s (1996) and Aitken’s (2005) studies and yet it appears that working with parents, a key positioning of the early childhood teacher as outlined in the Report of the Working Party on Childcare Training (1986) remains a preparedness issue. Working in partnership with parents is a foundational principle of Te Whāriki and arguably a strong tenet of socio-cultural learning theory. This theme is one of the theoretical foundations underpinning the vision promulgated by the scholarly webs (Meade, 1997) whose insights guided the integration of the early
in the pedagogy of teacher education related to the theory to practice dichotomy, and what Kennedy (1999) has identified as the problem of enactment persists.
Renwick and Boyd (1995) did not, however, report such intensely dissonant situations as Mahmood (1996) and Aitken (2005). Overall, Renwick and Boyd’s participants were positive about their teacher education and their sense of preparedness. The authors note, however, that graduates from two particular colleges of education were more likely than others to express dissatisfaction with their teacher education than other graduates; a finding that accords with how sense of preparedness can be variable across different institutions (Darling-Hammond et al., 2002; Ingvarson et al., 2005).
The sense of preparedness reported by Renwick and Boyd (1995) may reflect the nature of the data collection – a postal survey inviting respondents to make written comments rather than verbal ones. However it may also reflect the fact that the data was gathered after nearly a year of teaching, when arguably any difficulties of the first few months were well behind respondents. Aitken (2005), for example, found that most of her participants were settled into their centres (communities of practice) by the end of the first year and were feeling more confident. It is significant however, that of the eight participants in the study four had changed places of employment in this time.
In a finding that concurs with Aitken (2005), Renwick and Boyd (1995) commented how “most of the negative comments” (p. 34) about the experience of beginning teachers were from those who worked in childcare (education and care) settings, rather than those teaching in kindergartens. Childcare settings provided realities respondents were less prepared for, with the majority of comments relating to working conditions “particularly long hours and low pay, and the stress of the job” (p. 34). These might not be teacher education issues per se, but they do represent contextual factors that may contribute to feelings of competence and preparedness. Aitken’s participants also raised issues concerning status, with participants believing that kindergarten teaching provided more status than did that in education and care centres.
In reporting how participants in education and care centres experienced the reality differently to those in kindergartens, Aitken (2005) noted how “participants had a qualification to teach young children and expected their practice would centrally involve this” (p. 109). In ‘reality’ most in education and care centres found there was a range of non-child focused tasks they were expected to engage in as teachers—many of which took place concurrently while working with children. Because of the differences in sense of preparedness between those in kindergarten and childcare (education and
care centres) Mahmood (1996) recommended this feature as an urgent area of study in order to “provide more effective preservice training” (p. 161). These differences appeared to provide a discontinuity between the focus of the teacher in teacher education and the focus of actual teaching with regards to the construction of the teacher in differing workplace settings. Data about this feature is limited. The dichotomy between the seemingly ‘sanitised’ curriculum of teacher education, compared with the ‘reality’ of teaching in early childhood is of interest to me. This was a strong feature of Mahmood’s (1996) accounts too. It is to the sanitised curriculum that I now turn.
The ‘sanitised’ curriculum of teacher education
As I engaged with other literature of learning to teach I came to reassess each of the early childhood preparedness studies in terms of McLean’s (1993) question: “Have teacher educators been guilty of presenting an overly sanitized version of teaching to students—one that has been stripped of its complexity and perplexity that are part of the real-life teaching experience?” (p. 266). McLean argues that “teaching is a very complex human activity characterized by paradox and uncertainty” (p. 266). Formal knowledge, Mclean suggests, is often stripped of its complexity or situatedness effectively sanitising it. In each of the studies cited there was very much a sense that while as students, participants had been introduced to (formal) knowledge such as working with parents, teaching in teams, and cultural difference the reality was highly confronting.
Mahmood (1996), a teacher educator, conveys a strong sense of being shocked by the stories her participants told. This explains her analytic decision to focus solely on what she terms their “negative experiences” (p. 74). I, too, was struck by the participants’ sense of being ‘ill-prepared’ for the complexity of both the role and identity of the early childhood teacher. Drawing on the discourse of the day Mahmood (1996) characterised this situation in terms of ‘reality shock’. However, I came to wonder about how the curriculum of teacher education emphasises ‘tidy’ or formal knowledge for teachers (Connelly & Clandinin, 2000). Aitken’s (2005) participants discussed problems with both children and colleagues in terms of conflict. I noted how many of the areas of difficulty reported by Mahmood and Aitken mirror those documented in the wider literature such as working with parents (Anthony & Kane, 2008; Hedges & Gibbs, 2005; Lang, 1996; Sumsion, 1999); cultural difference
(Anthony & Kane, 2008; Banks et al., 2005); managing children (Lang, 1996); and “organizational literacy” (Kuzmic, 1994), or what Kelchtermans & Ballet (2002) term the micropolitics of teaching. In each of these areas there is a significant element of the interplay between deeply held beliefs and professional knowledge, and what Hargreaves (2001) has referred to as the emotional politics of teaching. This is not ‘tidy’ knowledge whereby if one follows the general rules, or procedural knowledge, ‘real’ situations will necessarily ‘work out’.
A notable strand in the learning to teach literature explores the relationship between student teachers’ beliefs and processes of learning to teach (Pajares, 1992; Wideen et al., 1998). It is widely accepted that beliefs (or discourses from a post-structural frame) can filter what is learned in teacher education. This can mean that topics such as ‘working with parents’ might seem ‘logical’ when addressed in the teacher education classroom, yet when that (formal) knowledge needs to inform practice teachers are confronted with their beliefs about parents simultaneously with their teaching beliefs. When this happens the ‘tidy’ context-free knowledge of teacher education might not ‘work’. This is known as the transfer problem (Lampert & Ball, 1998).
Knowing yourself in complex relationships is as significantly part of being a teacher as is knowing that these situations exist (McLean, 1993). If knowledge is presented as largely stripped of complexity, and if students are not supported to engage in a situated manner with knowledge that will inevitably challenge them, then the reality of teaching can come as a ‘culture’ or ‘reality shock’.
To illustrate this point, one of Aitken’s participants noted: “You can’t learn everything. In practice I mean. Like talking to parents, dealing with parents who come in (and ask) “why is my child only playing, not learning? Like at college, to write about [it] in an assignment that’s fine (laughs), but talking about it is a bit different” (p. 75). Here is the tension between what can be learned through an essay and what might better be learned through the building of situated knowledge—the knowledge of enactment (Kennedy, 1999). These findings beg the question—how could we better prepare teachers to understand their responses to these types of complexities (and realities) so as to work with these tensions and to consider them part of the landscape of early childhood teaching?
One of Aitken’s (2005) participants mentioned how the curriculum of teacher education is viewed through “rose coloured glasses [but] when you get out there and think ‘Ohh!’” (p. 75). Believing teacher education ‘looked on the bright side’ was also a
strong feature of Mahmood’s (1996) data. O’Neill (2003) argues that dominant discourses of teaching have constructed and maintained “enchanted images of teaching that often bear only passing resemblance with the dirty, uncertain realities negotiated hour after hour, day after day by ordinary hard working people in their classrooms” (p. 3). Similarly, Robinson’s (2007) study of early childhood teachers’ discourses of teaching found that these reflect the physically and emotionally intense nature of the work that early childhood teaching is:
The relentless responsiveness and the intense nature of the relationships put immense demands on the psychological and emotional resources of teachers. As teachers become exhausted, the team player discourse serves to keep the teacher doing the work, responding to others. In addition, the professional discourse, whilst bringing positive elements to the work, reinforces the foregrounding of the needs of others and the subjugation of the teacher’s own needs. (p. 89)
The discourses that newly qualified teachers appeared to more firmly hold in both Aitken and Mahmood’s studies related to working with children, rather than other important features of being a teacher such as working with colleagues and parents. Sumsion (2002) argues we do early childhood teachers “a disservice […] by privileging images that are inordinately difficult to sustain” (p. 10). By this, she means our allegiance to a combination of liberal humanism and child development theory does not sufficiently prepare teachers for the politicised and contested nature of teaching in early childhood.
Similarly, Manning-Morton (2006) is critical of teacher education programmes that do not address “the darker side” (p. 46) of being a teacher and working with very young children. Much of this work she argues “touches deeply held personal values and often deeply buried personal experiences, issues that are not able to be adequately addressed through standard, content focused training” (p. 46). Standard teacher education is known for knowledge accumulation but not for knowledge transformation, which is needed if one is to actually engage in a learning process.
Kane (2008) explored early childhood teachers’ perceptions of teaching she recommended that we “not disguise the complexity and challenges early childhood teachers face daily” (p. 4). While this is a recommendation relating to the recruitment of new teachers, it is based on stories of practicing teachers. As noted in Chapter 2, research points to the challenging nature of working in groups, a feature that prompted Sumsion (2003) to argue how it is timely to expand images and the identity of the early childhood teacher. The reviewed studies suggest that teacher education needs to explore
these complexities in a transparent manner taking account of what is known about how teacher education can be a weak intervention (Lampert & Ball, 1998) if formal knowledge is not supported through to enactment (Kennedy, 1999).