Questions:
- Some of the children are the bosses who can decide who can play and who can’t, who is wanted and who is unwanted. Then the teacher has to deal with children like Clara, who is hidden in her cubby. What are the strategies proposed by Paley to deal with this type of situation?
- What are some examples of rejection in a classroom? Who was affected? The whole classroom or just the student who has been rejected?
- The understanding of other people’s perspectives being different from one’s own, requires flexible thinking that can be developed through socio-dramatic activities where children act out imaginary situations and stories and interact with each other, becoming different characters and pretending they are in different locations and times and trying to understand what’s going on in the minds of others. How important is that this type of activities and dynamics start early in the life of children to promote inclusion, diversity and empathy?
- Many of the children in Grade 4 believed that in order to the new rule :You can’t say you can’t play to be effective it needed to begin in the early grades. This is because a few mentioned “it‟s too late to give us a new rule”and, “if you want a rule like that to work, start at a very early age” (p. 63). Consequently, Paley is convinced of two certainties: first, the rule is critical, and second, it must begin in the early years, such as kindergarten. Do you think that the reaction of children in Grade 4 is due to the powerful and progressive social hierarchies that are often developed in classrooms as children grow up? Why is that?
- The younger children in grades 1 and 2 readily identified with the notion of “bosses” and “owners.” As she engaged in conversations with children in Grade 3 the habit of rejection became more public, and the children quickly identified those who were most often rejected. Some children in Grade 4 noted that exclusion is more noticeable and practiced more often among the female children in the class as one girl admits, “the boys accept themselves much more…we‟re definitely meaner to each other. A girl is more likely to tell another girl she can‟t play” (p. 59-60). Is rejection more common among girls? Why do you think this happens?
Hi – I am not certain that I will be in class today. There is a conference at the Grad Center that begins at 730, and I would like to attend. But I am not certain…
In the case that I don’t go, I wanted to throw a bit of my voice into the conversation.
First – Great questions, Lu!
Sort of round about addressing your questions – I was really surprised at the pushback from the children. Not only against the idea of inclusivity, but the nature of their relationship with an authoritative figure, at what I considered to be very young psycho-social ages (kindergarten and Year 4). Further, It had not occured to me that such social distinctions were not already discouraged in younger (under 7) children, if not explicitly, then at least in some overt, yet implicit manner. The story of Magpie, sort of fit into my mental construction of the purpose of early education, not an auxillary or supplementary notion. All this from some who did not attend any childminding pre-grammar education.
There is an article, that I can’t find now, about the socialisation of children (US) along gender lines. If I find it,I’ll post it. But to speak to your question (5), in short -no,I do not think this is more common amongst “girls,” but I think that the overt, language-based exclusion, which tends to form and inform gender roles (again US and being VERY general) is peculiar to “girls” and it around Year 4, is when it these roles sort of start to fossilise.