Some years ago, Magda and members of the Board of Directors asked me to write an article for the 'Educaring' magazine; this article referred to the work of Magda Gerber and the implementation of the RIE® philosophy after the age of two. I recently reposted the article on the 'Art of Caregiving' Blog page and on my Facebook page and my esteemed colleague and friend, Sue Martin, read the blog and asked to further expound on its content. Sue Martin's contribution to the 'Does RIE Exist After Age Two?' article:
"Oh....this comes at such an important moment. I hope you don't mind if I take a few minutes to talk around your topic, and link it to what I think is a pivotal moment in what's happening for children. Children of all ages are enduring stressors and in more need than ever for everything you have written about. Also, early years programs are in the news for their big picture economic value; while that's only part of the story (and not my primary objective) this makes for an opportunity. Thank you. You have said all this so well, Roseann, and captured the essence of an idea that's much bigger than where it was originally situated. I am not an RIE® expert, but I do support everything I know about Magda Gerber's work with reference to babies. Those same principles seem applicable to being with teens as much as babies and toddlers, and everyone in between. The ideas of respect, observing, space to play and develop, caring, giving boundaries, and providing a soft place to fall, seem an excellent cohesive approach, whether parent, grandparent, educator, coach or caregiver - although the specifics might differ according to relationships and responsibilities. Children of school-age (that's a societal assumption!), are attending school under special covid restrictions, or learning online, being homeschooled, or as my son describes his two boys " doing a lot of loafing around - but worried about stuff". That describes it in a nutshell. Those RIE® principles should help with supporting children at school or at home - hopefully in tandem- - with mutual understanding and collaboration. The three-sided connection of parent, teacher, and child(in no particular order) provides a wonderful triangulation that, as every good carpenter will tell you, offers some structure or stability and space between for a rich meaningful relationship. If we see the whole enterprise of living alongside childhood as relational rather than power- centered, then children have the emotional space to flourish. Those RIE® principles seem to fit into that really well. It's always easier said than done, as every parent knows. It's as though each child is able to devise innovative ways to challenge a parent, and it may feel that they push against you, but that's why the boundaries are important, along with unconditional love. The pushing feels like an expression of dislike, but it's usually quite the opposite under the surface. "Keeping on keeping on", is a useful motto of a well balanced single parent of three young boys who I know. Anyone who tells you that they have 'the recipe' for parenting successfully shouldn't be trusted; they may be extremely dictatorial, they have a child with a temperament that's easy-going and who is sadly apathetic and compliant, or the parent isn't truthful. The push-pull doesn't have to be difficult or approached as a series of negotiations, but the authoritative style tends to work more smoothly. Avoiding an 'us/ them' dynamic, listening and giving your time, being respectful and showing your interest, and working with a child's changing understanding of morality and fairness, can be helpful. I would imagine that those things would complement the RIE® approach, but I cannot be sure. Another thought...in our move to professionalize the field of early childhood education, 'we' have moved toward either a 'medical model' of systematizing what's on offer to children, so that the result a program might be overly institutionalized with strict age ranges, tight regulations, health and safety protocols, organized routines, scrubbed indoor environments, efficiency, limits on social interactions, infection control measures, the removal of potential risk and spontaneous play, normative assessments - and an attempt to sanitize and monitor every element of the day. Thereby... educators demonstrating how they can offer a safe and controlled environment. Alternatively, 'we' have moved toward the Academic Model' in which the focus is usually learning outcomes, measurable achievement, goal setting, monitoring development with 'next steps' carefully delineated, play designed to fulfill specific developmental purposes (mostly adult-guided), structured curricula, the teaching of the 3Rs as early as possible using phonics and purchasing systems, the absence of messy materials and freedom of discovery, emphasis on independence rather than interdependence, limited creative and open-ended experiences, expectations of self-regulation and possible punishment (and potential failure), testing and standardized assessment. We can see why both of these models offer some appeal to some people, although both make me very uncomfortable. They offer recognizable features to many parents who know they want the best for their child, but don't know what that might look like - other than via existing perspectives - health and education. Of course, both models carry some streaks of truth about quality, but their negative elements can be disastrous.. We all want young children to be in safe environments, but we know that these need to be carefully balanced with children being able to learn to take risks and gradually take on a degree of self-generated discovery; safety can mean tight constraints. It is a huge area that educators need to investigate from both science and policy perspectives, but most importantly from a child's world view. Safety is much more than external rules! The Academic Model rises and falls in waves, in part propelled by educators wanting to be seen to 'teach', and therefore be seen to be doing something more valuable than standing around and watching children play. We know that 'standing around and watching' are far more complex skills (if done well) than any direct phonics teaching, yet even trained play advocates sometimes fall into the awful trap because of the pressures for accountability measures (demonstrating children's short- term achievement), political ideas/ policy based on seeing children as economic capital, parental perspectives on wanting their children to "get ahead" (obviously false paradigms given long term success), and misguided societal ideas about hurrying learning, advancement, and competition. We've all been influenced by some of these factors (or been aware of them) but held out against many of them. A third course, that might be characterized by RIE® - and with all due respect - the addition of an emphasis on developmental diversity and inclusion, cultural and familial perspectives (that might challenge some aspects of these views), democratic process - but with professional leadership, openness to an evolving space, diversified training and adult contributions, programming and hours that are flexible that meet real needs (shift workers, nannies who can participate alongside the children they care for, extended day, drop-in, etc), rich spontaneous play, professional love (a relatively new concept), a collaborative learning environment for all stakeholders (adults and children), reflective practice, and authentic assessment. It would have to overcome or re-write local/ municipal authority policies/ laws in many cases. Recently we've seen how childcare has been determined to be an essential service - and a vehicle for economic success. That success has primarily focused on the Province/state/municipality, and that of families - with women, in particular, being enabled to work. That's a huge part of getting society on board with appreciating childcare and early learning. However, the biggest part if all this, is that if we view the early years with reference to economics, it does have a significant role in the future success of the children who attend. I don't mean success in terms of children becoming professionals- doctors accountants, etc- although the early years may set the scene for that kind of absence and career success. What I do mean is that high-quality early childhood programs may provide children with the opportunity for sound development and play, that in turn, translates to the foundation for academic skills, and most importantly, long-term excitement for learning. That cannot happen if children's socio-emotional needs are not met. They must have the caregiving, responsive nurturing, understanding, and consistency of relationship. Conveyor belt childcare might fix immediate economic problems but not the life trajectories of the children. Governments tend to be interested in demonstrating short term achievements, but children are long term investments. That's the stumbling block for professionalizing the field. We don't need to fall back into the Early Years Medical Model, such as demonstrated (in extreme), by WW2/post-war Residential and Day nurseries in London England. We don't want to follow the path of the Academic Model, as seen very widely, but in extreme, in private Preschools and Kindergartens. The third model is more complex, responsive to real children - and different families and their needs. It takes time with solidly good proven results. Although I'm not keen on metrics, we shouldn't be shy about demonstrating how successful the early years (and beyond) RIE® ++ approach is/ will be. Rae Pica offers a clear message about the need to understand children's development. That's central. I don't think intrusive measurement of that development is acceptable, but to show that the outcomes can be positive, we need more longitudinal research. Qualitative methods are essential. HighScope managed to undertake some useful research that underscores the validity of their approach, but it's harder when we are advocating a philosophy that doesn't have a cohesive/ branded and funded organization behind it. Success isn't only about 'measurables', so we need authentic methods of recording the voices of children and parents who define success in personal, subjective, creative, self-actualizing, or other ways. Now is the time to recognize what Roseann Murphy is talking about in terms of the deep caring necessary, and I suggest that needs to be a core value, not something that diminishes a professional practitioner or is a trivial part of being a parent. Please forgive me Roseann for hijacking your excellent post."...Sue Martin
If you are interested in reading more of Sue Martin's work, add one or both of her excellent text books. They are books for sutdents, parents, providers, and center staff. The focus is on development and observation. I highly recommend both books.
