This is an amazing image, how can you have anything to communicate about if you have no life experiences?

Right, if we can guide others to see past this myth we've been sold of children who arent capable of thought and being active participants in thier own lives.

I love this. "They produce... communication with oneself, with things and with others." The development of the inner voice and how that ties into dialouge with peers, adults, and materials.

Arguably the best argument for hands on, project based, playful learning I've ever heard.

I feel this even now having graduated in my undergrad from a traditional education program. Sad, that all these years later we are seeing a lot of the same issues.

Can you imagine an America where one there are enough psychologists in school period, but two, that there are enough to go around that early childhood get them! A dream.

Again, to note, 50/60 years later and we are still asking for equitable childcare for working families.

Another subject we need to tackle 75 years later...

Not as empty vessels that need to be filled with knowledge.

This is a good reminder for us who sometimes get in a rut of paint, mark making, clay, shadow, repeat. It's more than those individual experiences.

Not that I don't appreciate the learning and creative processes that went on here but I'm curious as to why they did not provide the children with different measuring tools and then discuss which is the best use for the job. When discussing real world topics you wouldn't take a measurement of "four of my legs" to a carpenter.

Its interesting to me how verbally annotating what you are doing while you are doing it with young children seems to span most every educational philosophy. I enjoy finding the overlaps in best practices.

I like the tranferance of small grous, we know children work best in groups of 3-5, so why wouldnt the implications be the same for adults?

Again, I really feel as if this is a key missing component in our structure at BJS.

I appreciate that they are able to back this sureness up with years of expirence but we now know it works because of the intentional co-action of children.

I feel like this is a key piece we are missing at BJS. I feel like I don't have enough intentional planning time wiith my team and pod.

This is a great reminder of being active participants with children rather than a bystandard observer. You cant fully understand the game and it's rules if you don't play.

I appreciate the relevency I feel to this as we have been exploring our own identities in our PRL. In the past I'm not sure this would have resonated so deeply.

This reminds me so much of the Characteristics of White Supremacy, worship of the written word, just because it's written down on the "plan" doesn't mean it has to be done. Time, space, humans are fluid and ever changing and we need to be able to make those changes as needed.

I love this, children absolutely act with purpose and often seek out others in their endeavors.

This also brings to mind Making Visible learning where they speak of political knowledge. When making a collective idea, everyone must have an opportunity to voice their opinions. Children are easy to accept the voices and ideas of others to make a collective memory.

We've been discussing rights and safety around eating at meal times, particularly in tems of where and how we can and should sit.

I see this often in the toddler class where friends are focused on the task they know they must complete before moving on to the next.

This is something that resonates in my toddler class, oftentimes we, as adults, want to get diapers changed and hands washed as soon as possible to get outside. However, the children wish to climb up the steps by themselves, then climb down, turn the water on and off by themselves, etc, all of which takes additional time and coaching but is an important part of our day.

No only do children crave independence, they often have their own knowledge of the tools needed in which to do it on their own.

I was awakened to this notion after working with infants for the first time, they have plenty to say, if only you listen in the way that they speak.

Which is such the view of traditional American education, right? “Children are empty vessels of which to be filled with all the knowledge I as an adult have.”

This is one of the rights that I, as an adult, identify with most. Often as a child I was told "you're not hungry, you are bored," or "it's not time to eat yet." Both of which seem like things most parents say, but I really was hungry and it created a complex relationship with food and eating disorders as I grew older. We have to respect the autonomy children have over their bodies and the feelings they have within.

I've always used small groups in teaching, but after reading Making Visible Learning last week in Maher's class I was able to see an addition to the importance of small groups, especially when having hard conversations so that each child knows that they will be heard.

As I grow as an educator I continue to be enthralled with childrens case understanding of what is "right" or "wrong" at a very cellular level.

Something I've been dissecting over the years is the definition of "all." We as educators often have a romanticized view of childhood and education. We put on our rose tinted glasses and we do the best we can in the environments we are in, but unfortunatley in America that environment is often only served to middle-to-upper class white, heteronormative, families. How can we as teachers in an American context where we know a free appropriate public education is a pipe dream, reach underserved communities and offer them a good building, with good teachers, and good activities?

Educators as facilitators to the action around them.

Adults being the instigator and connector between ideas, thoughts, and people raises their value as more than just people meant to fill empty vessels with knowledge.

This has been a big change for me over the last few years implementing the Reggio Approach, growing as an educator by placing an emphasis on being present and connected with the children while engaged in work, not a passive viewer of errors to be corrected.

I've been speaking a lot lately about child lead environments and the role of the teacher. I feel like in some conversations my meaning has become lost in differing translations. This situation of allowing children to teach themselves something that can be mastered without intervention is of the highest importance when we are talking about the best and highest practices for children.

So strongly this, a child who is not happy and healthy, is not a child who is able to learn.

I like how this is phrased, oftentimes when I speak with new educators, especially those looking to implement the Reggio Approach they are often concerned with "How do I learn from children what I already know?"

I had to take a moment and digest this, and then I wrote it down separately. The idea that children should be meeting similar milestones at similar ages and therefore are similar beings is so detrimental to the individual child. We would never approach relationships with adults like that.

This is an idealism I strive for where children, families, and educators can have an open and continuous dialogue about what is happening in our spaces and outside. This being contrary to the traditional where they are two separate and distinct spaces.

I feel like this ties in heavily with some of the other readings we've been doing lately in terms of children's and families' funds of knowledge and the contexts that they bring into the environment.

This was something I had to unlearn myself after attending a very traditional Teacher Prep program for my BA and then teaching in public settings. Your internal views of children's competencies definitely affect your interactions with them, which in turn affects their abilities in the classroom.

This sentiment is one of the reasons that I hold an issue with seeing early childcare as a service rendered on to a family. We are not watching children while their parents are too busy to do so. We are helping and guiding future leaders and current citizens within our own communities.

Again, the topic must be desirable to the child to hold interest.

Motivation also comes from a place of desire, if a child has no desire to 'complete' the task at hand you will have a harder time gauging the child's true abilities. Connection, being the first bullet is also often required to express desires, so these items are not interchangeable. You may not do one without the others.

Generic praise a la "good job" also lacks any real context, in comparison to when a toddler completes a difficult climb and looks to you as they clap. A description of their actions goes a lot farther in encouraging repetition than empty praise.

I think this is an important addition to "welcomed" because you can have a welcoming environment but if a child doesn't feel connected to the people and things in the environment they will not feel included, and will most likely not be able to achieve the maximum benefit of the other experiences.

I most appreciate this item on the list, I feel we too often intervene in the first setback not allowing children to show their resilience and abilities to problem solve and be solution seekers.

My fear remains, that even with a reframing of standards to be measured that there is still a quantitative outcome expected over a qualitative one.

I sense a bit of foreshadowing here, Katz. Producing a "set" of children who are able to end result the same "outcomes" on demand.

Entirely to vauge of a descriptor.

Yes, especially since development is a spectrum and not every child is going to be "meeting" the same "standards" at the same time.

I find this rationale behind the need for "common core standards" extremely frustrating. As someone who has worked in education for the last eight years I have never met a teacher that did not try their hardest to meet every child where they were, and to help them succeed.

I am currently working on examining Reggio Inspired Practices through the lens of American's view on early childhood and Lisa Murphy said one of my favorite quotes of all time in regards to Americanised-Reggio. She said, "Just because you have wicker baskets, it doesn't make you Reggio." I appreciate they encourage others to question their own pedagogy as well as their own place within their community, and world.

Something I enjoy in my own practice is the blending of The Project Approach and Reggio Inspired Practices, I believe they lend a hand to each other well in respect to being child driven learning in a hands on atmosphere.

I like the idea of children experiencing the same or similar materials in various settings; the classroom, studio, outdoor classroom, etc.

Absolutely, I've found myself in traditional atmospheres where children are boxes to be checked "knows colors" check. "Counts to 10" check. I find it extremely stifling for both the children and adults.

An image we as American need to heavily address within the profession.

I have many feelings towards the consumer/provider atmosphere surrounding early childhood providers, I wish in the future to rescope my relationships from the beginning as co-constructivists in their child's development with both parties having their child's best and highest interest at heart.

In my own practice I strive to be as inclusive as possible, I appreciate how they frame the needs of children, particularly those with special rights, as having a higher priority in care rather than excluding them from cooperative learning with their neurotypical or physically-abled peers.

I appreciate that although they continuously study philosophers and leaders in educational research they also formulate their own unique interpretations of the works, analyzing how it will best fit the context in which they live and learn in.

The idea of cooperation taking route in American societies, typically those found in feeding the poor, is pleasing to see. We often live in an individualistic society rather than focusing on the greater 'we.' I appreciate how as a culture they’ve grown to care for and depend on each other, creating another layer of trust we as Americans are often missing.

I absolutely love this about Reggio Inspired Practice. Parents have such a hand in their child's learning and the respect held as a child first educator.

This is what I look forward to most in the progression of American education, less "daycares" and more places offering quality education and care.

I believe education is fully political. While it is inspiring to see so many people push forward such an important cause, my concern in seeing this translated into the United States is it becoming a bureaucratic nightmare rather than a safe place for children to receive education, care, and social services. I typically fear anything that is publicly funded due to not having a consensus on what is "equitable" for all learners and the thought of having a one-size fits all approach to infant and early childhood is rather terrifying.