Putting Visions of Social Justice Education into Practice: Challenges and Contested Ground in Early Childhood Education
By Louise Derman-Sparks
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it’s the presence of justice.” Consistent with that perspective, the impetus for anti-bias education work is rooted in a desire to build just early childhood programs for all children. Early childhood education plays a part in the creation of socially just, culturally inclusive societies where all families are able to raise their children in the context of who they are and where all families have the resources to raise children who can truly thrive.
Early childhood education is a powerful bridge between the family and the larger society; however, this connection is not automatically a positive one. Why and how the bridge is constructed matters. Our societies are complex—exhibiting and promoting strong, contradictory themes regarding how we treat human beings. Early childhood programs can be grounded in the aspirations and rights articulated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Children. Or they can be created to ready children to conform to society as it is, with all of its existing racial, class, and gender power dynamics.
In order to unleash the power of early childhood education to help reduce racial and ethnic divisions and build peaceable communities, we must overcome major challenges. While children are at the heart of our work, they are not the only key element. Teachers and parents, infrastructures of early childhood education, and larger economic and social-political dynamics in our societies are all “contested ground” for the anti-bias education community.
Contested grounds are those places where we can and must work to create change. By identifying and analyzing obstacles, we can better prepare ourselves to build impactful, anti-bias early childhood education programs. In this piece, I explore a few key contested-ground issues. In the second piece, “Change Strategies,” I suggest ways for us to engage in these contested grounds—and in so doing, put anti-bias, culturally inclusive visions into practice in early childhood education.
Contested Ground One: Teacher Preparation and Practice
Teachers are the primary agents of quality anti-bias education. While diverse, accurate learning materials and curriculums are necessary, it is teachers who are central to effective early childhood programs. Disturbingly, however, a fundamental contradiction undermines teachers’ desires to practice quality anti-bias education. From their earliest years, depending on their various social identities (gender, race, culture, economic class, and sexual orientation), people’s interactions with societal systems and actors (e.g., educational institutions, courts and the police, the job market, health care institutions) carry economic, social, and cultural advantages or disadvantages, which influence their ideas and perspectives about the world and contribute to shaping who they are. Whether or not we like it, all of us from an early age, learn the misinformation and prejudices of our society to one degree or another, and the dynamics of internalized privilege and internalized oppression (Cross, 1991, Derman-Sparks & Edwards, 2010, Derman-Sparks & Ramsey, (2011), Tatum, 2003, Wijeyesinghe, C. & J. Jackson, 2012). Nevertheless, without the necessary preparation to do so, educators are expected to teach children not to absorb the same beliefs, attitudes and behaviors adults have been absorbing since their own childhood.
Teachers’ lack of self-awareness about the impact of socialization in a society where racial, class, gender, sexual orientation, and other forms of systemic advantage or disadvantage remain operative does serious damage to our young people. One disturbing example is the evidence of “unintentional “racial bias on display in pre-K –programs, as revealed in a recent large-scale study of pre-K programs (Barbarian & Crawford, 2006). Trained observers documented case after case in which early childhood teachers used stigmatizing practices directed at African American boys, including racially disparate punishment and rewards, greater use of isolation and exclusion with some children, and even open expressions of hostility toward certain children. Nevertheless, the teachers exhibiting these racially-biased behaviors claimed that they were “color-blind”, insisting that this meant that they did not ‘see’ racial differences or treat children differently because of them. However, as the Barbarian & Crawford study illuminates, claiming not to ‘see’ race, plays into the dynamics of racism by denying the social-political construction of race and radicalized identity that continues to have a powerful influence in how we think of ourselves and interact with others.
Practicing anti-bias education requires that teachers uncover, examine, and undo the impact that the dynamics of internalized privilege and oppression and learned prejudices have had on them. Consciousness-raising preparation courses for new teachers and ongoing in-service education with practicing teachers are necessary. This is happening in some two- and four-year teacher preparation programs, as well as in early childhood programs around the country. But it remains an important contested ground where those of us who want to see the vision of anti-bias, culturally inclusive education transmitted into practice must be active.
Contested Ground Two: The Canon of Early Childhood Education
Canon: refers to general laws, rules, principles, or criteria by which something is judged and accepted as being accurate and authoritative. (Concise Oxford American Dictionary, 2006)
Early childhood care and education programs exist within the larger context of society. Inevitably, they are deeply influenced by the power dynamics of a given society’s various systems, be they economic, social, political, cultural, or ideological.
Dominant-culture thinking continues to dominate much of Early Childhood Education (ECE) thinking and practices in the United States. Significantly, the criteria of “developmentally appropriate practices” (DAP) reflects this influence. DAP is at the heart of beliefs about what constitutes quality in early childhood education; it is the content into which teachers of all ethnic and cultural backgrounds are socialized. Consequently, even when teachers do understand the dominant culture’s influence on the ECE canon and how a home culture’s child-rearing or language differs from that dominant culture, their ECE training tells them to place a priority on the ECE canon above more appropriate practices.
The core premise of DAP, a fundamental building block of the ECE cannon, is that children go through several stages of cognitive and social-emotional development, which must be understood and respected in order to provide quality early childhood education. Many cultures accept this basic idea; however, dominant culture thinking exerts particular influence in the specific criteria for DAP. Advocates of culturally inclusive, anti-bias education contend that many of the tenets of DAP are grounded in our country’s dominant culture (Western, affluent, Anglo-European) and some do not match what are considered “normal development” and “best practices” across all ethnic/cultural lines. Thus, children who do not come from dominant culture families are judged by criteria that contradict what they experience at home, creating cultural discontinuity and bias. Since home culture is fundamental to how children are socialized and how they learn, it must be taken into account in the criteria for quality education if children are to thrive.
The influence of dominant-culture thinking in the traditional ECE canon reveals itself in a number of ways. One example is the emphasis on young children’s early individual independence in their relationships and learning style. This contrasts with the interdependency that is a major element of several other cultures in within our country that prioritize creating a balance between individualism and cooperation, that is, learning cooperatively, rather than competitively, with peers. In addition, ECE curriculums focus on dominant culture holidays and often exclude the traditions of many of the families whom early childhood programs now serve. A third example of the dominant culture’s effects on ECE thinking and practices arises in the debate over the approach to children whose home language is not English. On one side are educators who believe that young children should be in programs that quickly move them into English and do not incorporate other home languages. On the other side of the debate are educators who argue that this early undermining of home language harms children’s cognitive development and connections to their families, and thus, young children need to continue developing in their home language while also learning English. These educators base their recommendations on research that shows the benefits of becoming bilingual and the dangers of too quickly losing home language.
Educators in the United States and several other countries are working to change ECE theory and practice to reflect the impact of diverse home cultures on children’s development. In the United States we took an important step forward when the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) acknowledged in the most recent version of DAP, after many years of advocacy from members of the ECE community, that culture and prejudice in society both play a role in children’s development (see right column for statement from “Developmentally Appropriate Practice”). Putting this knowledge into practice, however, and identifying the specific influences of sociocultural contexts in children’s development continue to be much-contested arenas within policy and ECE teacher preparation in which advocates for anti-bias, culturally inclusive education must engage.
Contested Ground Three: Political Opposition and Economic Climate
Currently, we are seeing a disturbing rise in racial hate groups and hate crimes. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has tracked hate groups for the past 40 years, reports, “Taken together, the three strands of the radical right—the hate-mongers, the atavists and the antigovernment zealots—increased from 1,753 groups in 2009 to 2,145 in 2010, a 22% rise” (Potok, 2011). We are also experiencing a disturbing and parallel rise in legislation that is anti-people of color, anti-immigrant, and anti-women. Recent laws in several states attempt to make voting more difficult for people of color, the poor, the young, students, and the elderly, undoing much of the hard work and gains of the civil rights movements of the past 40 years.
This political climate has led to organized political opposition that specifically targets multicultural, anti-bias social justice education—based on the misrepresentation of its goals and content. For the Right, “social justice education” amounts to nothing more than “a code word for anti-Americanism, because it means the United States is an unjust and oppressive society. . . . [It] concentrates on past mistakes in U.S. history rather than on our many remarkable accomplishments and opportunities and is given the highfalutin label ‘critical pedagogy’” (Schlafly,2009).
Several states have ended bilingual education in public schools, on the false claim that it intentionally does not teach children English, ignoring the fact that the “bi” in “bilingual” means two. Other legislation forbids public schools to offer classes designed to teach about the history and cultures of African American, Latino, and Native American people. Texas, the largest single purchaser of textbooks in the United States, passed legislation banning textbooks that provide a multifaceted view of American history. Phyllis Schlafly, a founder of the Eagle Forum, one of the oldest Far Right organizations, writes of the decrees from the Texas State Board of Education: “Schoolchildren will no longer be misled into believing that capitalism and the free market are dirty words and that America has an unjust economic system. Instead, they will learn how the free-enterprise system gave our nation and the world so much that is good for so many people.” She also points out that “publishers can hardly afford to print different versions for other states, so Texas curriculum standards have nationwide influence” (Schlafly, 2010).
The economic challenges faced by early childhood education, along with public schools, also undermine teachers’ abilities to engage in anti-bias education in various ways. For example, inadequate wages, lack of benefits, and low societal respect for the profession make high teacher turnover a regular part of early childhood education programs; it is not uncommon for half of the staff of an ECE program to leave at the end of a school year for economic reasons. Deep bonds and consistent relationships with children; ongoing, integrated curriculum; and strong family-school and inter-staff relationships are all placed at risk when staff come and go because they cannot afford to stay or because underfunded schools cannot afford to keep them on the payroll.
Until all children are growing up without the barriers of prejudice, discrimination, poverty, and war, and until valuing each individual and our collective diversity is an organic part of education, we must keep faith in the possibility of positive change—in ourselves, in others, in our programs. As activists we must find ways of sustaining ourselves through strong networks for the long-term commitment these goals require. And we must work with others to make changes in our education programs and in our society’s systems to ensure that all children, everywhere, will have what they need to wholly thrive.
Step by step the longest march can be won, can be won Many stones can form an arch, singly none, singly none. —Labor Song
This article adapted from a keynote speech to an international early childhood education conference, “Building Peaceable Communities: The Power of Early Childhood,” May 20, 2011. Sponsored by Una: The Global Learning Initiative on Children and Ethnic Diversity.
Putting our educational visions into practice requires ongoing, long-term commitment and persistence. Change efforts, which usually move one step at a time, must be strategic. What follows are suggestions for how stakeholders might begin to engage in efforts to make culturally inclusive, anti-bias early childhood education a reality.
Keep building your self-awareness, knowledge and skills. Examine your own biases and your culture, as well as the impact of both on your behavior with children, families, and colleagues. Develop skills in implementing anti-bias, culturally inclusive education and negotiating cultural differences. Gain an understanding of the impact of systemic forms of racism and other -isms on children’s development and on families’ access to resources. Become critical of early childhood education infrastructure and pedagogy and of the ways that the dominant culture directly informs the ECE canon and pedagogy. Seek insight into the connections between ECE work and larger societal dynamics and strategies for change.
If you are a student, take courses that address these topics—in your own and other departments. If no such courses are offered, find other students and faculty who agree that anti-bias education classes are necessary and work together to bring these courses to your school.
If you are a teacher, form a group for support, study, and action with other teachers interested in anti-bias, culturally inclusive education in your early childhood center, school, or community. In addition to creating a structure for building self-awareness, knowledge, and skills, a support group will enable you to share teaching experiences, assess and reflect on your work, and plan next steps—what Paulo Freire calls praxis (Pedagogy of the Oppressed). You only need five or six people to do this. (Several books listed at the resources link offer ideas about topics and techniques for these teacher groups.) One way to find people in your community who share your commitment is to attend workshops organized by local ,state, or national ECE professional organizations (e.g., NAEYC & AEYC Affiliates, Zero to Three, National Association for Family Child Care, and Head Start Associations). In addition, consider attending the conferences of national organizations that focus on diversity and equity issues. You will certainly meet other teachers who share your interests, and you’ll also find opportunities to review a range of published resources.
If you are a director of an ECE program, you play a key role in building anti-bias, culturally inclusive programs. You are in a position to facilitate strategic planning, foster a culture among staff that promotes anti-bias behavior and collaborative relationships with families, and carve out opportunities for teacher reflection groups. Bring together other directors in your city to form a group for support, study, and action and to strategize and support everyone’s efforts to integrate anti-bias education into their programs and to strengthen their self-knowledge. Your group can also work on ECE policy issues in your community and professional organizations. If forming a group like this is not feasible in your community, you can still work on diversity and equity issues in your local and state ECE professional organizations. Several local and AEYC state affiliates, for example, have diversity committees, and at the national level, NAEYC also offers various opportunities to work on these issues.
If you are a teacher trainer, offer opportunities for your students to gain the self-awareness, knowledge and skills they need to implement anti-bias, culturally inclusive education. Work with your colleagues to weave these topics into all aspects of teacher preparation and to create focused courses on anti-bias, culturally inclusive education. Attend conferences where you can deepen your knowledge and network with other teacher trainers who are committed to diversity and equitable educational practice.
All of usmust keep in mind that, while our work with children and teachers matters greatly, transforming education is only one part of the larger, long-term work of ending systemic racism and other forms of advantage and disadvantage. As much as possible, we also need to join with others in larger social justice change efforts. And, while we cannot take on all of it, we should keep the whole web of change in mind while we focus on our own specific work and areas of influence. Listed below are strategies for doing just that:
Be clear about the reasons for your educational work and engage a range of methods to get your message out to people within and beyond ECE. For example, find ways to make clear how the social-emotional and cognitive abilities promoted through anti-bias education increase the likelihood that children will be able to navigate the larger worlds of school and their communities constructively and effectively.
When colleagues, the families you serve, or college students disagree with an anti-bias approach, or specific topics it addresses, it is essential that you engage them in respectful conversations. Thoughtfully listen to their concerns and then explain your reasons for using an anti-bias approach, the benefits it offers children, and what it actually looks like. (Sometimes, what people imagine when they hear “anti-bias” is nothing at all like what these activities actually involve.) Share information and resources about the research on children’s construction of identity and attitudes. While asking people to be open to considering anti-bias education, also explore possible areas of agreement as a starting point and keep engaging in dialogue. Talk with your support group about ways to work with specific people who oppose your anti-bias education work.
Join with educator allies, both within and beyond early childhood education, who work on anti-bias and other social issues, such as bullying, as well as those who promote critical and constructivist pedagogy. We need to help each other to identify the connections that link our work
Join in anti-racism efforts and other human rights, social justice movements in your community, city, or state, or nationally. When we do this, not only do we help change the world, we also deepen other people’s understanding of the unique needs of young children and their families.
Putting our visions of anti-bias, culturally inclusive education into practice will require a long-term effort. I often hum a refrain from “The Garden Song” (from Rise Up Singing) to remind me of the value of staying in for the long haul:
“Inch by inch, row by row, Gonna make this garden grow”
Barbarin, O. & G. Crawford. (2006). “Acknowledging and Reducing Stigmatization of African American Boys”, Young Children, Nov. 2006, 79-87.
Mac Naughton, G. 2004. Learning from Young Children About Social Diversity: Challenges for Our Equity Practices in the Classroom. In Young Children Aren’t Biased, Are They?! How to Handle Diversity in Early Childhood Education and School, ed. A. van Keulen, 65–76. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: SWP.
NAEYC. 1995. “Responding to Linguistic and Cultural Diversity: Recommendations for Effective Early Childhood Education.” Position statement. Washington, DC: Author. Online: www.naeyc.org/positionstatements.
Pierce, C. M. (1980). Social Trace Contaminants: Subtle Indicators of Racism. In S. Withey, R. Abeles, & L. Erlbaum (Eds.), Television and Social Behavior: Beyond Violence and Children. (pp 249-257). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. OUT OF PRINT.
Potok, M. (2010, Spring). Rage on the Right. SPLC Intelligence Report, 137, 1–3.
UNICEF. (1990). Fact Sheet: A Summary of the Rights Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: UN General Assembly. www.unicef.org/crc/.
Wong-Fillmore, L. 1991. Language and Cultural Issues in Early Education. In The Care and Education of America’s Young Children: Obstacles and Opportunities. The ninetieth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, ed. S.L. Kagan, 30–49. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Alvarado, C., L. Burley, L. Derman-Sparks, L.I. Jiménez, J. Labyzon, P. Ramsey, et al. 1999. In Our Own Way: How Anti-bias Work Shapes Our Lives. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.
Cronin, S., Derman-Sparks, L., Henry, S., Olatunji, C., & York, S. (1998). Future Vision, Present Work: Learning from the Culturally Relevant Anti-Bias Leadership Project. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf.
Derman-Sparks, L., & Phillips, C. B. (1997). Teaching/Learning Anti-racism: A Developmental Approach. New York: Teachers College Press.
Derman-Sparks, L., & Edwards, J. O. (2010). Anti-bias Education for Young Children & Ourselves. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. (has many activities to use with adults in support/study groups and courses).
Lesser, L. K. (2005) Making Room in the Circle: Supporting Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Ttransgender Families in Early Childhood Settings. San Francisco, CA: Parent Services Project
Tatum, B. D. (1992). Talking About Race, Learning About Racism: The Application of Racial Identity Development Theory in the Classroom. Harvard Educational Review, 62(1), 1–24.
Tatum, B. D. (1994). Teaching White Students About Racism: The Search for White Allies and the Restoration of Hope. Teachers College Record, 95, 462–476.
Transforming ECE Curriculum: A Few Examples
Anderson, M.L. & P.H. Collins. (1995). Shifting the Center and Reconstructing Knowledge. In: M.L. Anderson & P.H. Collins (Eds.) Race, Class and Gender: An Anthology, 4th edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 13-21. (explores theoretical basis for transforming curriculum).
Baker, C. (2007). A Parent’s and Teacher’s Guide to Bilingualism (2nd ed.). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
The National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE): www.nabe.org
National Black Child Development Institute (NBCDI): www.nbcdi.org
The National Association for Multicultural Education: Advancing and Advocating for Social Justice & Equity: www.nameorg.org
The White Privilege Conference: www.whiteprivilegeconference.com
Organizations–International
Diversity in ECE & Training Network: www.decet.org ( Europe)
“Equity & Childhood Programs of the Youth Research Center”, University of Melbourne, Australia: www.edfac.unimelb.edu.au
Louise Derman-Sparks is an internationally respected anti-bias educator. Author (with the ABC Task Force) of Anti-Bias Curriculum: Tools for Empowering Young Children, the original edition of the current volume, she has coauthored additional books with Dr. Carol Brunson Day and Dr. Patricia Ramsey. Derman-Sparks and Olsen Edwards (along with Ramsey) have also coauthored What If All the Kids Are White? She speaks throughout the United States and abroad. Louise has a lifelong commitment to building a more just society for all people. Her children Douglass and Holly, now grown, were her inspiration. A Pacific Oaks College faculty member for 33 years–when its mission and pedagogy reflected anti-bias education principles–Louise is retired. She served on the NAEYC Governing Board during 1998-2001.
An article from Social Justice Books, a Teaching for Change project.
Putting Visions of Social Justice Education into Practice: Challenges and Contested Ground in Early Childhood Education
By Louise Derman-Sparks
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, “True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it’s the presence of justice.” Consistent with that perspective, the impetus for anti-bias education work is rooted in a desire to build just early childhood programs for all children. Early childhood education plays a part in the creation of socially just, culturally inclusive societies where all families are able to raise their children in the context of who they are and where all families have the resources to raise children who can truly thrive.
Early childhood education is a powerful bridge between the family and the larger society; however, this connection is not automatically a positive one. Why and how the bridge is constructed matters. Our societies are complex—exhibiting and promoting strong, contradictory themes regarding how we treat human beings. Early childhood programs can be grounded in the aspirations and rights articulated in the Declaration of the Rights of the Children. Or they can be created to ready children to conform to society as it is, with all of its existing racial, class, and gender power dynamics.
In order to unleash the power of early childhood education to help reduce racial and ethnic divisions and build peaceable communities, we must overcome major challenges. While children are at the heart of our work, they are not the only key element. Teachers and parents, infrastructures of early childhood education, and larger economic and social-political dynamics in our societies are all “contested ground” for the anti-bias education community.
Contested grounds are those places where we can and must work to create change. By identifying and analyzing obstacles, we can better prepare ourselves to build impactful, anti-bias early childhood education programs. In this piece, I explore a few key contested-ground issues. In the second piece, “Change Strategies,” I suggest ways for us to engage in these contested grounds—and in so doing, put anti-bias, culturally inclusive visions into practice in early childhood education.
Contested Ground One: Teacher Preparation and Practice
Teachers are the primary agents of quality anti-bias education. While diverse, accurate learning materials and curriculums are necessary, it is teachers who are central to effective early childhood programs. Disturbingly, however, a fundamental contradiction undermines teachers’ desires to practice quality anti-bias education. From their earliest years, depending on their various social identities (gender, race, culture, economic class, and sexual orientation), people’s interactions with societal systems and actors (e.g., educational institutions, courts and the police, the job market, health care institutions) carry economic, social, and cultural advantages or disadvantages, which influence their ideas and perspectives about the world and contribute to shaping who they are. Whether or not we like it, all of us from an early age, learn the misinformation and prejudices of our society to one degree or another, and the dynamics of internalized privilege and internalized oppression (Cross, 1991, Derman-Sparks & Edwards, 2010, Derman-Sparks & Ramsey, (2011), Tatum, 2003, Wijeyesinghe, C. & J. Jackson, 2012). Nevertheless, without the necessary preparation to do so, educators are expected to teach children not to absorb the same beliefs, attitudes and behaviors adults have been absorbing since their own childhood.
Teachers’ lack of self-awareness about the impact of socialization in a society where racial, class, gender, sexual orientation, and other forms of systemic advantage or disadvantage remain operative does serious damage to our young people. One disturbing example is the evidence of “unintentional “racial bias on display in pre-K –programs, as revealed in a recent large-scale study of pre-K programs (Barbarian & Crawford, 2006). Trained observers documented case after case in which early childhood teachers used stigmatizing practices directed at African American boys, including racially disparate punishment and rewards, greater use of isolation and exclusion with some children, and even open expressions of hostility toward certain children. Nevertheless, the teachers exhibiting these racially-biased behaviors claimed that they were “color-blind”, insisting that this meant that they did not ‘see’ racial differences or treat children differently because of them. However, as the Barbarian & Crawford study illuminates, claiming not to ‘see’ race, plays into the dynamics of racism by denying the social-political construction of race and radicalized identity that continues to have a powerful influence in how we think of ourselves and interact with others.
Practicing anti-bias education requires that teachers uncover, examine, and undo the impact that the dynamics of internalized privilege and oppression and learned prejudices have had on them. Consciousness-raising preparation courses for new teachers and ongoing in-service education with practicing teachers are necessary. This is happening in some two- and four-year teacher preparation programs, as well as in early childhood programs around the country. But it remains an important contested ground where those of us who want to see the vision of anti-bias, culturally inclusive education transmitted into practice must be active.
Contested Ground Two: The Canon of Early Childhood Education
Canon: refers to general laws, rules, principles, or criteria by which something is judged and accepted as being accurate and authoritative. (Concise Oxford American Dictionary, 2006)
Early childhood care and education programs exist within the larger context of society. Inevitably, they are deeply influenced by the power dynamics of a given society’s various systems, be they economic, social, political, cultural, or ideological.
Dominant-culture thinking continues to dominate much of Early Childhood Education (ECE) thinking and practices in the United States. Significantly, the criteria of “developmentally appropriate practices” (DAP) reflects this influence. DAP is at the heart of beliefs about what constitutes quality in early childhood education; it is the content into which teachers of all ethnic and cultural backgrounds are socialized. Consequently, even when teachers do understand the dominant culture’s influence on the ECE canon and how a home culture’s child-rearing or language differs from that dominant culture, their ECE training tells them to place a priority on the ECE canon above more appropriate practices.
The core premise of DAP, a fundamental building block of the ECE cannon, is that children go through several stages of cognitive and social-emotional development, which must be understood and respected in order to provide quality early childhood education. Many cultures accept this basic idea; however, dominant culture thinking exerts particular influence in the specific criteria for DAP. Advocates of culturally inclusive, anti-bias education contend that many of the tenets of DAP are grounded in our country’s dominant culture (Western, affluent, Anglo-European) and some do not match what are considered “normal development” and “best practices” across all ethnic/cultural lines. Thus, children who do not come from dominant culture families are judged by criteria that contradict what they experience at home, creating cultural discontinuity and bias. Since home culture is fundamental to how children are socialized and how they learn, it must be taken into account in the criteria for quality education if children are to thrive.
The influence of dominant-culture thinking in the traditional ECE canon reveals itself in a number of ways. One example is the emphasis on young children’s early individual independence in their relationships and learning style. This contrasts with the interdependency that is a major element of several other cultures in within our country that prioritize creating a balance between individualism and cooperation, that is, learning cooperatively, rather than competitively, with peers. In addition, ECE curriculums focus on dominant culture holidays and often exclude the traditions of many of the families whom early childhood programs now serve. A third example of the dominant culture’s effects on ECE thinking and practices arises in the debate over the approach to children whose home language is not English. On one side are educators who believe that young children should be in programs that quickly move them into English and do not incorporate other home languages. On the other side of the debate are educators who argue that this early undermining of home language harms children’s cognitive development and connections to their families, and thus, young children need to continue developing in their home language while also learning English. These educators base their recommendations on research that shows the benefits of becoming bilingual and the dangers of too quickly losing home language.
Educators in the United States and several other countries are working to change ECE theory and practice to reflect the impact of diverse home cultures on children’s development. In the United States we took an important step forward when the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) acknowledged in the most recent version of DAP, after many years of advocacy from members of the ECE community, that culture and prejudice in society both play a role in children’s development (see right column for statement from “Developmentally Appropriate Practice”). Putting this knowledge into practice, however, and identifying the specific influences of sociocultural contexts in children’s development continue to be much-contested arenas within policy and ECE teacher preparation in which advocates for anti-bias, culturally inclusive education must engage.
Contested Ground Three: Political Opposition and Economic Climate
Currently, we are seeing a disturbing rise in racial hate groups and hate crimes. The Southern Poverty Law Center, which has tracked hate groups for the past 40 years, reports, “Taken together, the three strands of the radical right—the hate-mongers, the atavists and the antigovernment zealots—increased from 1,753 groups in 2009 to 2,145 in 2010, a 22% rise” (Potok, 2011). We are also experiencing a disturbing and parallel rise in legislation that is anti-people of color, anti-immigrant, and anti-women. Recent laws in several states attempt to make voting more difficult for people of color, the poor, the young, students, and the elderly, undoing much of the hard work and gains of the civil rights movements of the past 40 years.
This political climate has led to organized political opposition that specifically targets multicultural, anti-bias social justice education—based on the misrepresentation of its goals and content. For the Right, “social justice education” amounts to nothing more than “a code word for anti-Americanism, because it means the United States is an unjust and oppressive society. . . . [It] concentrates on past mistakes in U.S. history rather than on our many remarkable accomplishments and opportunities and is given the highfalutin label ‘critical pedagogy’” (Schlafly,2009).
Several states have ended bilingual education in public schools, on the false claim that it intentionally does not teach children English, ignoring the fact that the “bi” in “bilingual” means two. Other legislation forbids public schools to offer classes designed to teach about the history and cultures of African American, Latino, and Native American people. Texas, the largest single purchaser of textbooks in the United States, passed legislation banning textbooks that provide a multifaceted view of American history. Phyllis Schlafly, a founder of the Eagle Forum, one of the oldest Far Right organizations, writes of the decrees from the Texas State Board of Education: “Schoolchildren will no longer be misled into believing that capitalism and the free market are dirty words and that America has an unjust economic system. Instead, they will learn how the free-enterprise system gave our nation and the world so much that is good for so many people.” She also points out that “publishers can hardly afford to print different versions for other states, so Texas curriculum standards have nationwide influence” (Schlafly, 2010).
The economic challenges faced by early childhood education, along with public schools, also undermine teachers’ abilities to engage in anti-bias education in various ways. For example, inadequate wages, lack of benefits, and low societal respect for the profession make high teacher turnover a regular part of early childhood education programs; it is not uncommon for half of the staff of an ECE program to leave at the end of a school year for economic reasons. Deep bonds and consistent relationships with children; ongoing, integrated curriculum; and strong family-school and inter-staff relationships are all placed at risk when staff come and go because they cannot afford to stay or because underfunded schools cannot afford to keep them on the payroll.
Until all children are growing up without the barriers of prejudice, discrimination, poverty, and war, and until valuing each individual and our collective diversity is an organic part of education, we must keep faith in the possibility of positive change—in ourselves, in others, in our programs. As activists we must find ways of sustaining ourselves through strong networks for the long-term commitment these goals require. And we must work with others to make changes in our education programs and in our society’s systems to ensure that all children, everywhere, will have what they need to wholly thrive.
Step by step the longest
march can be won, can be won
Many stones can form an
arch, singly none, singly none.
—Labor Song
This article adapted from a keynote speech to an international early childhood education conference, “Building Peaceable Communities: The Power of Early Childhood,” May 20, 2011. Sponsored by Una: The Global Learning Initiative on Children and Ethnic Diversity.
Putting our educational visions into practice requires ongoing, long-term commitment and persistence. Change efforts, which usually move one step at a time, must be strategic. What follows are suggestions for how stakeholders might begin to engage in efforts to make culturally inclusive, anti-bias early childhood education a reality.
Keep building your self-awareness, knowledge and skills. Examine your own biases and your culture, as well as the impact of both on your behavior with children, families, and colleagues. Develop skills in implementing anti-bias, culturally inclusive education and negotiating cultural differences. Gain an understanding of the impact of systemic forms of racism and other -isms on children’s development and on families’ access to resources. Become critical of early childhood education infrastructure and pedagogy and of the ways that the dominant culture directly informs the ECE canon and pedagogy. Seek insight into the connections between ECE work and larger societal dynamics and strategies for change.
If you are a student, take courses that address these topics—in your own and other departments. If no such courses are offered, find other students and faculty who agree that anti-bias education classes are necessary and work together to bring these courses to your school.
If you are a teacher, form a group for support, study, and action with other teachers interested in anti-bias, culturally inclusive education in your early childhood center, school, or community. In addition to creating a structure for building self-awareness, knowledge, and skills, a support group will enable you to share teaching experiences, assess and reflect on your work, and plan next steps—what Paulo Freire calls praxis (Pedagogy of the Oppressed). You only need five or six people to do this. (Several books listed at the resources link offer ideas about topics and techniques for these teacher groups.) One way to find people in your community who share your commitment is to attend workshops organized by local ,state, or national ECE professional organizations (e.g., NAEYC & AEYC Affiliates, Zero to Three, National Association for Family Child Care, and Head Start Associations). In addition, consider attending the conferences of national organizations that focus on diversity and equity issues. You will certainly meet other teachers who share your interests, and you’ll also find opportunities to review a range of published resources.
If you are a director of an ECE program, you play a key role in building anti-bias, culturally inclusive programs. You are in a position to facilitate strategic planning, foster a culture among staff that promotes anti-bias behavior and collaborative relationships with families, and carve out opportunities for teacher reflection groups. Bring together other directors in your city to form a group for support, study, and action and to strategize and support everyone’s efforts to integrate anti-bias education into their programs and to strengthen their self-knowledge. Your group can also work on ECE policy issues in your community and professional organizations. If forming a group like this is not feasible in your community, you can still work on diversity and equity issues in your local and state ECE professional organizations. Several local and AEYC state affiliates, for example, have diversity committees, and at the national level, NAEYC also offers various opportunities to work on these issues.
If you are a teacher trainer, offer opportunities for your students to gain the self-awareness, knowledge and skills they need to implement anti-bias, culturally inclusive education. Work with your colleagues to weave these topics into all aspects of teacher preparation and to create focused courses on anti-bias, culturally inclusive education. Attend conferences where you can deepen your knowledge and network with other teacher trainers who are committed to diversity and equitable educational practice.
All of us must keep in mind that, while our work with children and teachers matters greatly, transforming education is only one part of the larger, long-term work of ending systemic racism and other forms of advantage and disadvantage. As much as possible, we also need to join with others in larger social justice change efforts. And, while we cannot take on all of it, we should keep the whole web of change in mind while we focus on our own specific work and areas of influence. Listed below are strategies for doing just that:
Putting our visions of anti-bias, culturally inclusive education into practice will require a long-term effort. I often hum a refrain from “The Garden Song” (from Rise Up Singing) to remind me of the value of staying in for the long haul:
“Inch by inch, row by row,
Gonna make this garden grow”
Barbarin, O. & G. Crawford. (2006). “Acknowledging and Reducing Stigmatization of African American Boys”, Young Children, Nov. 2006, 79-87.
Clark, K. B. (1963). Prejudice and Your Child. Boston: Beacon Press.
Concise Oxford American Dictionary, 2006, Oxford University Press, 129.
Cross, W. E., Jr. (1985). Black Identity: Rediscovering the Distinction Between Personal Identity and Reference Group Orientation. In M. B. Spencer, G. K. Brookins, & W. R. Allen (Eds.), Beginnings: The Social and Affective Development of Black Children (pp. 155–171). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cross, W. E., Jr. (1991). Shades of Black: Diversity in African-American Identity. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Derman-Sparks, L. & Edwards, J.O. (2010). Anti-bias Education for Young Children and Ourselves. Washington, DC: NAEYC.
Derman-Sparks, L. & Ramsey, P. (2011). Why Are All the Kids White? Anti-bias/Multicultural Education for Young Children and Families. 2nd edition. New York: Teachers College Press.
Levin, D., & J. Kilbourne. 2008. So Sexy So Soon: The New Sexualized Childhood and What Parents Can Do to Protect Their Kids. New York: Ballantine.
Mac Naughton, G. 2004. Learning from Young Children About Social Diversity: Challenges for Our Equity Practices in the Classroom. In Young Children Aren’t Biased, Are They?! How to Handle Diversity in Early Childhood Education and School, ed. A. van Keulen, 65–76. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: SWP.
NAEYC. 1995. “Responding to Linguistic and Cultural Diversity: Recommendations for Effective Early Childhood Education.” Position statement. Washington, DC: Author. Online: www.naeyc.org/positionstatements.
NAEYC. (2009). Developmentally Appropriate Practice in Early Childhood Programs Serving Children from Birth through Age 8. Position statement. Washington, DC: author.
Pierce, C. M. (1980). Social Trace Contaminants: Subtle Indicators of Racism. In S. Withey, R. Abeles, & L. Erlbaum (Eds.), Television and Social Behavior: Beyond Violence and Children. (pp 249-257). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. OUT OF PRINT.
Potok, M. (2010, Spring). Rage on the Right. SPLC Intelligence Report, 137, 1–3.
Ramsey, P. G. (2004). Teaching and Learning in a Diverse World (3rd Ed.). New York: Teachers College Press.
Schlafly, P. (2009). “‘Social Justice’: Code Word for Anti-Americanism”. The Phyllis Schlafly Report. 49. 6, Jan., 1-3. www.eagleforum.org/educate.
Schlafly, P. (2010). “Texas Kicks Out Liberal Bias from Textbooks”. The Phyllis Schlafly Report. March., 1-2. www.eagleforum.org/educate.
Sprung, B. 2007. Gender and Gender Stereotyping. In Early Childhood Education: An International Encyclopedia, eds. R. New & M. Cochran, 382–86. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Tatum, B. D. (2003). “Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria?” and Other Conversations About Race. 2nd Ed. New York: Basic Books.
UNICEF. (1990). Fact Sheet: A Summary of the Rights Under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: UN General Assembly. www.unicef.org/crc/.
Wijeyesinghe, C. & J. Jackson. (2012). New Perspectives on Racial Identity Development. 2nd Ed. NY: University Press.
Wong-Fillmore, L. 1991. Language and Cultural Issues in Early Education. In The Care and Education of America’s Young Children: Obstacles and Opportunities. The ninetieth yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, ed. S.L. Kagan, 30–49. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
References for Change Strategies
Blood, P. & Patterson, A. (Eds.) (2004). Rise Up Singing: The Group Singing Songbook. Bethlehem, Penn: Sing Out Publication.
Adult Learning
Alvarado, C., L. Burley, L. Derman-Sparks, L.I. Jiménez, J. Labyzon, P. Ramsey, et al. 1999. In Our Own Way: How Anti-bias Work Shapes Our Lives. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.
Cronin, S., Derman-Sparks, L., Henry, S., Olatunji, C., & York, S. (1998). Future Vision, Present Work: Learning from the Culturally Relevant Anti-Bias Leadership Project. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf.
Derman-Sparks, L., & Phillips, C. B. (1997). Teaching/Learning Anti-racism: A Developmental Approach. New York: Teachers College Press.
Derman-Sparks, L., & Edwards, J. O. (2010). Anti-bias Education for Young Children & Ourselves. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children. (has many activities to use with adults in support/study groups and courses).
Howard, G. R. (2006). We Can’t Teach What We Don’t Know. 2 nd Ed. New York: Teachers College Press.
Jacobson, T. (2003). Confronting Our Discomforts: Clearing the Way for Anti-bias in Early Childhood. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Lesser, L. K. (2005) Making Room in the Circle: Supporting Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Ttransgender Families in Early Childhood Settings. San Francisco, CA: Parent Services Project
Tatum, B. D. (1992). Talking About Race, Learning About Racism: The Application of Racial Identity Development Theory in the Classroom. Harvard Educational Review, 62(1), 1–24.
Tatum, B. D. (1994). Teaching White Students About Racism: The Search for White Allies and the Restoration of Hope. Teachers College Record, 95, 462–476.
Transforming ECE Curriculum: A Few Examples
Anderson, M.L. & P.H. Collins. (1995). Shifting the Center and Reconstructing Knowledge. In: M.L. Anderson & P.H. Collins (Eds.) Race, Class and Gender: An Anthology, 4th edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, 13-21. (explores theoretical basis for transforming curriculum).
Baker, C. (2007). A Parent’s and Teacher’s Guide to Bilingualism (2nd ed.). Buffalo, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Bisson, J. (2017). Celebrate! An Anti-bias Guide to Enjoying Holidays in Early Childhood Programs (2nd ed.). St. Paul, MN: Redleaf Press.
Derman-Sparks, L. & J.O. Edwards. (2010). Anti-bias Education for Young Children and Ourselves. Washington, DC: NAEYC
Derman-Sparks, L. & P.G. Ramsey. 2007, 2011). What If All the Kids Are White? Anti-bias/Multicultural Education for Young Children & Families. NY: Teachers College Press.
Espinosa, L. (2009) Getting It Right for Young Children from Diverse Backgrounds: Applying Research to Improve Practice. Washington, DC: NAEYC
Gonzalez-Mena, J. Diversity in Early Care and Education: Honoring Differences (5th ed.)NAEYC
Howes, C. 2009. Culture and Child Development in Early Childhood Programs: Practices for Quality Education and Care. New York: Teachers College Press.
Pelo, A. (2008). (Ed.). Rethinking Early Childhood Education. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.
Examples of International Anti-bias Education Work (in English)
Brown, B. (1998). Unlearning Discrimination in the Early Years. London: Trentham Books.
Brown, B. (2001). Combating Discrimination: Persona Dolls in Action. London: Trentham Books.
Creaser, B & E. Dau (Eds.) ( 1996). The Anti-bias Approach in Early Childhood. Sydney, Australia: Harper Educational.
Lane , J. (2008). Young Children and Racial Justice. London: National Children’s Bureau.
Mac Naughton, G., & Davis, K. (Eds.). (2009). Race and Early Childhood Education: An International Approach to Identity, Politics, and Pedagogy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Van Keulen, A. (Ed.) ( 2004), Young Children Aren’t Biased, Are They?! (pp. 65–75). Amsterdam: SWP.
Organizations–U.S.
Rethinking Schools: www.rethinkingschools.org
Teaching for Change: www.teachingforchange.org/programs/anti-bias-education
The National Association for Bilingual Education (NABE): www.nabe.org
National Black Child Development Institute (NBCDI): www.nbcdi.org
The National Association for Multicultural Education: Advancing and Advocating for Social Justice & Equity: www.nameorg.org
The White Privilege Conference: www.whiteprivilegeconference.com
Organizations–International
Diversity in ECE & Training Network: www.decet.org ( Europe)
“Equity & Childhood Programs of the Youth Research Center”, University of Melbourne, Australia: www.edfac.unimelb.edu.au
Louise Derman-Sparks is an internationally respected anti-bias educator. Author (with the ABC Task Force) of Anti-Bias Curriculum: Tools for Empowering Young Children, the original edition of the current volume, she has coauthored additional books with Dr. Carol Brunson Day and Dr. Patricia Ramsey. Derman-Sparks and Olsen Edwards (along with Ramsey) have also coauthored What If All the Kids Are White? She speaks throughout the United States and abroad. Louise has a lifelong commitment to building a more just society for all people. Her children Douglass and Holly, now grown, were her inspiration. A Pacific Oaks College faculty member for 33 years–when its mission and pedagogy reflected anti-bias education principles–Louise is retired. She served on the NAEYC Governing Board during 1998-2001.
This article is part of Social Justice Books, a Teaching for Change project dedicated to curating and reviewing multicultural and social justice books for children, young adults, and educators. Browse the full collection at Social Justice Books.
Posted: April 8, 2017