Waikato Journal of Education 9:2003

A PHILOSOPHICAL ANCHOR FOR

CREATING INCLUSIVE COMMUNITIES
IN EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION:
ANTI-BIAS PHILOSOPHY AND TE
WHÄRIKI: EARLY CHILDHOOD
CURRICULUM
ALEXANDRA C. GUNN
The University of Waikato/Christchurch College of Education

ABSTRACT The basic premise of this paper is that inclusion in early childhood
education in Aotearoa New Zealand is a worthy focus of early childhood education
curriculum and that an anti-bias philosophy assists in developing curriculum that is
inclusive. It is claimed that the early childhood curriculum in Aotearoa New Zealand is an
emancipatory one, and arguments for activism and anti-bias principles in support of
curriculum implementation are made. Drawing on anti-bias principles, the current
curriculum statement (Te Whâriki: Early Childhood Curriculum) is examined to ascertain
what support for anti-bias foci exists. Teaching strategies based upon discussion, critical
thinking and an awareness of diversity themes/difference are considered in support of
active anti-bias work in early childhood education.

INTRODUCTION

Creating early childhood education that is inclusive and welcoming to the

teachers, children and families who make up the community of an early childhood
centre is no easy task. All early childhood communities are unique and many
strive to reflect Sapon-Shevin's (1996) image of inclusion; communities "in which
all members feel they belong and feel that they can make a contribution" (p. 255).
Groups in New Zealand-based early childhood education that realise this image of
'community' resonate with a unique message of inclusion; "welcome to all, haere mai
ki te whakahotahi tatou i a tatou, let us join together to build a community" (Source
unknown).
In Aotearoa New Zealand there exists a legislative and philosophical
framework that provides structural support for the design and delivery of
inclusive early childhood education. The Revised Statement of Desirable Objectives
and Practices [DOPs], (Ministry of Education [MOE], 1996a); Te Whäriki: Early
Childhood Curriculum (MOE, 1996b, hereafter referred to as Te Whäriki) and
Education (Early Childhood Centres) Regulations (New Zealand Government, 1998)
each reflect inclusive ideals. They contribute to the creation of community
oriented, welcoming and inclusive early childhood services.
Even with such structural support, however, it is a challenge in my
experience in early childhood education to attain and sustain a state of inclusivity.
Programmes that enable children to "grow up as competent and confident learners
and communicators, healthy in mind, body and spirit, secure in their sense of
belonging and in the knowledge that they make a valued contribution to society"
130 Alexandra C. Gunn

(MOE, 1996a, 1998, p. 14) are difficult to negotiate and achieve. Nevertheless, it is
this challenge, and these difficulties, to which I am committed and with which my
current research is concerned. The prime aspiration articulated above encapsulates
my belief in the emancipatory purposes of early childhood education. It reflects
my conviction that an activist approach towards creating inclusive early childhood
communities is necessary in creating education for positive social transformation
and change. It opens me to deliberation in this paper about the possible merits of
using anti-bias education foci as a way to strategise inclusive teaching in early
childhood education.

TE WHÄRIKI: A TRANSFORMATIVE STATEMENT

"One has to constantly realise that all educational policies and practices have
social implications. They either perpetuate exclusion or injustice or they assist us
in constructing the conditions for social transformation" (Friere, in Apple, Gandin
& Hypolito, 2001, p. 129). Designing early childhood education that assists in
constructing conditions for social transformation requires clear guidelines, strong
conviction and real support for the teachers and family/whanau involved.
Contributing to the creation of conditions for social transformation, early
childhood services can provide support in the lives of young children and their
families/whanau to counter injustice and exclusion, a worthy aim according to
Shiraj-Blatchford (1996) and one which is reflected in the current curriculum
statement (MOE, 1996b).
The early childhood curriculum in Aotearoa New Zealand has, at its very
core, a theme to empower. The impetus to create curriculum that supports
children (and, by association, families) to develop skills and abilities to access that
which is necessary for independence and to direct their own lives (Carr, May &
Ministry of Education, 1992), is reflected in the principles, strands and goals of the
curriculum. This theme of empowerment resonates with Ritchie's (1995) notion of
education as a "political act of hope" (p. 81): the act of hope being the empowered
child, an image echoing Habermas' recognition of the need for an emancipated
society (McGee, 1997).
A clear commitment to inclusion and equity existed in the development
process of the early childhood curriculum document. It was, however, an
acknowledged challenge for the curriculum development project members (Carr,
1991). Turning equitable and inclusive aspirations of the curriculum into practice
remains, in my experience, a challenge. Strategising a progressive direction that
supports teachers' attempts to create inclusive settings is the focus of my current
deliberations about early childhood education. Anti-bias principles may provide a
pathway towards inclusivity. Carr (1993) suggests "a curriculum contributes to
making available to the next generation the knowledge, skills and attitudes valued
by the culture" (p. 15). She goes on to explain that different people make sense of
their worlds, communicate and live their lives in different ways. Communicating
and teaching with the support of anti-bias principles creates educational
communities where individuals and groups can contribute their perspectives to
the whole to make their educational experiences inclusive, equitable and
empowering.
 A Philosophical Anchor for Creating Inclusive Communities. . . 131

ANTI-BIAS EDUCATION: AN ACTIVIST STANCE

Reflecting the relevance of anti-bias ideas to a broad audience, anti-bias education

has been conceptualised in almost as many different ways as there have been
articles published on the topic. Derman-Sparks (in Dau, 2001) reveals the
international relevance of anti-bias discourse, saying that the "goals of anti-bias
education transcend national and cultural boundaries" and adding that "educators
must pay careful and respectful attenfion to the cultural contexts of the children
and families they serve ... each caregiver and teacher must recreate the specifics of
anti-bias education within their communities" (p. ix). It is unlikely that there
could ever be a unitary view on an application of anti-bias principles in an
educational context. This would be contradictory to the cause. What might exist,
however, is a collection of standpoints on the application of anti-bias principles
that foreground and background various anti-bias objectives in particular contexts.
It is, as Derman-Sparks (in Dau, 2001) suggests, for each community to interpret
and apply anti-bias principles according to their own needs and contexts.
There are, as I indicated above, a number of perspectives on anti-bias
education: as a philosophy (Davey Zeece, 1998), an approach (Wardle, 1996), a
programme (Hall & Rhomberg, 1995), an environment (Barta & Winn, 1996), and a
curriculum (Derman-Sparks, 1989; Hohensee & Derman-Sparks, 1992; Swadener &
Marsh, 1995). All these perspectives associate anti-bias with actual educational
settings at the practical level. They also centre anti-bias within diversity and equity
discourses. Combined they present an image of education in which children and
teachers are both challenged to counter oppression and asked to examine its
personal consequences. These perspectives reveal an activist approach to
education that asks teachers to work against negative effects of bias on children,
themselves and their communifies.
Activism and inclusion are familiar aims of several educational philosophies,
including, for example, equity and multicultural education. Anti-bias philosophy,
however, goes beyond traditional multicultural and equity education philosophies
and includes consideration of broader forms of bias, stereotyping and mis-
information such as classist stereotypes or heterosexist bias (see, for example,
Almeida, 1996; Byrnes, 1996). Social justice themes have long been intertwined
with early childhood education in Aotearoa New Zealand. Fairness, inclusion and
equity are commonly articulated values in the field (Early childhood education
strategic plan working group, 2001; May, 2001; May, 1990; Meade [Report of the
early childhood care and education working group], 1988; MOE, 1993, 1996b;
Smith & Swain, 1988). In the draft early childhood curriculum statement (MOE,
1993), there was a clearly articulated message that early childhood curriculum
included experiences which were "humanly, nationally, culturally,
developmentally, individually and educationally appropriate" (p. 13). There is, I
think, a far less visible concern in the presently adopted curriculum (MOE, 1996b)
with those ideas. However, the image of the "empowered" child suggests that
they remain in focus.
A good deal of contemporary literature about anti-bias education is seen in
North American, Canadian and, more recently, Australian contexts. Related
research concerning equity and multicultural educational foci are more commonly
found in the literature of Aotearoa New Zealand and the United Kingdom. There
are direct references to anti-bias foci in our early childhood philosophical and
legislafive guidelines (MOE, 1996a; MOE, 1998), yet, conceptually, anfi-bias has
stayed at the edges of theoretical deliberations. This is perhaps a consequence of
132 Alexandra C. Gunn

its perceived North American beginnings which lead some to question its
relevance to the Aotearoa New Zealand context, or perhaps in Aotearoa New
Zealand we have simply been more focused on our own curriculum development
and implementation processes. Anti-bias philosophy has featured somewhat in the
teacher education programmes in my workplace since before I became involved,
and has somehow seemed too significant to 'let go' amongst the process of
continual course review and revision. Perhaps more national debate and
consideration will eventuate as recent anti-bias literature finds its way into our
educational discourse. This paper sits for me as an invitation to investigate the
potential of and justification for active anti-bias work in early childhood education
in Aotearoa New Zealand. It is not my intention to 'sell' an anti-bias programme
but, rather, to use the concept of anti-bias philosophy to firm up a potential
worldview (an anti-bias lens, so to speak) with which to view inclusive early
childhood education. This paper is an invitation to consider an image of inclusive
early childhood settings and an opportunity to strategise curriculum to support
this.

A CONTINUUM OF ANTI-OPPRESSIVE PHILOSOPHIES

There are clear similarities amongst multicultural, equity and anti-bias

philosophies and I would not consider them exclusive to each other but, rather, as
positions on a continuum of philosophies concerned with discrimination,
oppression and social justice. Rodriguez (1986) identifies fair and just treatment of
all members of society as features of both equity and multicultural education. This
too is a central notion of anti-bias curriculum (Derman-Sparks, 1989). Equity,
multicultural and anti-bias philosophies all work to address access to and
inclusion in education settings. Working within an anti-bias philosophy, however,
requires teachers to go further than arguing for access to and inclusion in
education settings. Maintaining an activist orientation, it compels teachers to
question and work towards removing the barriers to inclusion that existed in the
first place.
Anti-bias philosophy asks teachers to move towards actively uncovering and
examining bias in education and society and examining the forces that enable
discrimination to occur. In Aotearoa New Zealand, the call for such activity is
reflected in literature that ascribes to an image of early childhood teachers as
altruistic advocates (see, for example. Early childhood education code of ethics for
Aotearoa New Zealand, 1995; Smith, Gollop, Marshall & Nairn, 2000). Here we see
teachers as people who can contribute to "recognising the rights of all children,
and responding by changing systems, policies and individuals to ensure that they
are given the opportunity to reach their potential and improve the processes
which affect their daily lives" (Smith et al., 2000, p. 191). The methodology of
activism that permeates anti-bias philosophy and challenges structural inequity
(Almeida, 1996; Byrne, 1996; Pelo, 2002; Swadener & Marsh, 1995) is that which I
consider makes anti-bias philosophy unique in relation to equity and multicultural
education initiatives. By default, working with an anti-bias philosophy requires a
dynamic approach to confronting diversity issues at individual, institutional and
societal levels (Adams, Bell & Griffin, 1997).
 A Philosophical Anchor for Creating Inclusive Communities. . . 133

A PHILOSOPHICAL ANCHOR FOR ANTI-BIAS WORK IN EARLY

CHILDHOOD EDUCATION

I have, through my reading of the literature, centred upon what I think of as a

philosophical anchor from which anti-bias work can support solutions for
countering discrimination and promoting equity causes in early childhood
education. My anchor's principles serve less as guideposts to practice (or
objectives for programming) and more as processes for thinking about
discrimination, oppression and anti-bias philosophy in early childhood education
as it relates to Aotearoa New Zealand. They resonate with other writers' ideas
about anti-bias work (Corson, 2000; Dau, 2001; Derman-Sparks, 1989) and allow
operational curriculum (McGee, 1997) in New Zealand-based early childhood
programmes that supports teachers to question oppression and exclusion, and to
critically examine effects of discrimination on both those who perpetuate and
those who experience it. My philosophical anchor is built around four' principles
that enable teachers and children:
• to challenge the oppression of individuals and groups on the basis of
ethnicity, gender, ability, religious conviction, sexual-orientation and socio-
economic status;
• to acknowledge, respect and value individuals and groups, thereby
nurturing a positive sense of identity;
• to challenge exclusion and to establish curriculum in which all populations
of a centre's community are included and represented; and
• to critically examine discrimination and oppression in order to minimise
their negative effects on individuals and groups.
Anti-bias Philosophy and Early Childhood Education

Early childhood education centres are often the first significant educational
institution outside of the home that children and families encounter, and they
provide an ideal context for the transmission of education anchored to anti-bias
principles. Vandenbroek (2000) asserts that early childhood educators can help
children experience negotiation between different reference groups because they
"represent the first new milieu that a child experiences outside the home
environment" (p. 5). Corson (2000) draws attention to the early role that early
childhood teachers can fulfil in countering bias, saying that early childhood
programmes play a critical role in children's learning and socialisation processes
because they link children and families between home and school. Further support
for anti-bias philosophy is given by Swadener and Marsh (1995) who point out
that anti-bias curriculum "challenges existing prejudices, stereotypes, and
discriminatory behaviour and attitudes in young children's development and
interactions just at a time when they are being internalised" (p. 176). Early
childhood education settings are potentially useful institutions in which the
principle of inclusion can permeate the foundation of young children's educational
experiences. As was alluded to in the introduction to this paper, in Aotearoa New
Zealand we find legislative and philosophical support for inclusive early
childhood settings. In part, this support comes through Te Whäriki (MOE, 1996b),
the current early childhood curriculum statement.
134 Alexandra C. Gunn

To construct inclusive early childhood education, we need curriculum that meets

the specific needs of individuals and groups within a frame that acknowledges
and works against ideological oppression in broader society:
It is necessary to go beyond content coverage of such topics such as
cultural diversity, human rights, tolerance and prejudice and consider
ways to engage children in rethinking any prejudice and
misinformation they may possess. We must involve students in
discussions that help them to justify, express and reconsider their view
in light of new information. (Wade, 1994, cited in Bymes, 1996, p. 16)
Curriculum is a multi-faceted concept, with its meaning negotiated differently in a
range of contexts. In this section of the paper, 'curriculum' is being used to
describe the 'product' variety of curriculum: Te Whäriki: Early Childhood
Curriculum, the statement of curriculum published by the Ministry of Education
(1996b). It is a prime intent of this article to ascertain what support this document
lends to anti-bias philosophical directions. Several anti-bias principles have earlier
been proposed and, in this section of the paper, each is used to 'read' aspects of the
curriculum statement with an anti-bias lens.
In order to investigate the support that Te Whäriki (MOE, 1996b) lends to
anti-bias philosophy, I have chosen to examine the preamble to the document's
principles and the actual principles themselves. The principles provide a
foundation upon which the rest of the curriculum strand and goal statements are
built. If anti-bias foci are to be found in the curriculum, they will first be
embedded in the principle statements. In examining the preamble (Part A) to the
curriculum strands and goals, I am seeking to interpret what support for anti-bias
foci exists in the parameters of the curriculum, the section of the document in
which the Government's Ministry of Education explains the context and
application of its curriculum aims. It is within 'Part A' of the document that an
interpretation of intent with regards the curriculum as an inclusive document
should, I think, be situated.

Te Whäriki and Anti-bias Principles

The first principle within my anti-bias philosophical anchor was:

• to challenge the oppression of individuals and groups on the basis of
ethnicity, gender, ability, religious conviction, sexual-orientation and socio-
economic status.
My reading of the curriculum statement reveals direct reference to most of these
diversity themes. Disability, ethnicity, relationships (in particular) between Maori,
Pakeha and Pacific Nations peoples (MOE, 1996b, p. 10); gender, economic status
(ibid, p. 17); and spirituality (a potential reference to religious diversity) (ibid, p.
41) are all directly mentioned. No specific mention of challenging heterosexism is
'read' in the text. In one sense this is not surprising, and it parallels the non-
inclusion of this diversity theme in early anti-bias literature. The curriculum
statement was developed in the early 1990s and much anti-bias literature was
developed around the same time. It has been only recently that concern for
heterosexist bias or homophobia has begun to enter into our educational
discourse, and our anti-bias one (see, for example. Carter, 1998; Dau, 2001).
 A Philosophical Anchor for Creating Inclusive Communities. . . 135

Within the document there is reference to the contribution that early

childhood services make "towards countering racism and other forms of
prejudice" (MOE, 1996b, p. 18). Whilst no direct anti-stereotyping messages were
interpreted from the examined sections of the document, there is an implied
expectation that stereotyping shall be countered, and this is linked to the notion
that in order "to learn and develop to their potential, children must be respected
and valued as individuals" (ibid, p. 40). These curriculum directions are supported
by DOPs' expectations that teachers model non-discriminatory behaviour and
include strategies to include all children as part of their teaching practices (MOE,
1996a).
The second principle was:
• to acknowledge, respect and value individuals and groups, thereby
nurturing a positive sense of identity.
Identity development is a feature once more in the DOPs (MOE, 1996a) where we
see teachers with a responsibility to implement curriculum and assessment
practices that enhance children's sense of themselves as capable and competent
learners. Te Whâriki shapes this position further by outlining specific directions for
supporting children's identity development in the New Zealand context.
Te Whâriki (MOE, 1996b) is the first example of a bi-cultural curriculum that
has been developed in Aotearoa New Zealand. This, coupled with the aspiration
of the curriculum that focuses on concepts such as competence, belonging and
making valued contributions to society, suggests concern for the level of respect
children are afforded in society and for their identity development. The
curriculum aims to preserve the cultural heritages of both partners to Te Tiriti O
Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi whilst broadening its perspective to recognise
the particular contribution that living in Aotearoa New Zealand makes to children
and families from Pacific Islands nations.
The curriculum document takes account of the range of environments
surrounding children that impact on their learning. The notion that the quality of
the relationships between children's significant settings, such as home and early
childhood centre, will have a direct impact on the quality of learning opportunities
that are offered to children is raised. Such a strong focus on partnership with
families shows concern in the curriculum with nurturing children's sense of
identity. Through creating learning settings that are connected to broader contexts
(home, neighbourhood, community) and using these to help plan programmes for
children's learning and development, the curriculum recognises the role early
childhood education can contribute to the development of individuals' identities
in their cultural context.
With respect to culture (noted specifically in relation to ethnicity), "the early
childhood curriculum supports the cultural identity of all children, affirms and
celebrates cultural differences and aims to help children gain a positive awareness
of their own and other cultiares" (MOE, 1996b, p. 18).
The curriculum principle of empowerment highlights the role of early
childhood curriculum in assisting children to develop an enhanced sense of self-
worth, identity, confidence and enjoyment. In striving for this principle within
early childhood settings, teachers plan programmes where children are "respected
and valued as individuals [and] they have rights to personal dignity, equitable
opportunities for participation, to protection from mental, physical and emotional
136 Alexandra C. Gunn

abuse or injury" (MOE, 1996b, p. 40). Few of these hopes could be realised without
a commitment to respect and children's identity development.
The third principle in my anti-bias anchor set out to:
• challenge exclusion and to establish curriculum in which all populations of a
centre's community are included and represented.
Within the curriculum statement, the opinion that early childhood services are
jointly involved (with family/whanau) in the education of young children is
stated. This supports an expectation that partnership in early childhood education
between early childhood services and their populations is paramount. Through
partnership, potential for the development of a sense of belonging (a curriculum
strand) for children and families is nurtured through connections between centre,
home and the broader community. The DOPs (MOE, 1996a) also takes up this
cause - containing an entire section of requirements relating to the way early
childhood teachers communicate and consult with their communities.
Inclusion is clearly an aim of the curriculum statement. This is interpreted
particularly in relation to working with families and children with disabilities. "It
is assumed through the curriculum that the care and education needs of children
with 'special needs' are encompassed within the principles, strands and goals set
out for all children" (MOE, 1996b, p. 11). Within the principle of 'family and
community' there is an acknowledgement of the interdependence between the
well-being of children and the well-being of whanau/family. "Children's learning
is fostered if their family, culture, knowledge and communities are respected and
if there is a strong connection and connectedness among all aspects of a child's
world" (ibid, p. 42).
Recognising the need for cormectedness between many aspects of children's
worlds' highlights the idea that early childhood curriculum is based on presenting
world-views negotiated between the significant adults in children's lives (teachers,
parents, caregivers, whanau). Multiple interpretations of and points of view
relating to curriculum must co-exist in early childhood settings and the curriculum
statement draws our attention to this proposing a vision of education that is
inclusive and representafive and connected.
The final principle anticipated:
• a critical examination of discrimination and oppression in order to minimise
their negative effects on individuals and groups.

Key curriculum requirements for young children identified in Te Whäriki include

the need to have caring adults in early childhood centres who can engage children
in sustained conversation that encourage complex thinking "including concepts of
fairness, difference and similarity" (MOE, 1996b, p. 26). The curriculum document
emphasises socially and culturally mediated learning processes whereby children
learn with and alongside adults and peers, and it uses relationships between
people as a central organising focus of curriculum. As a consequence, this implies
a potential for teachers to challenge children's positioning within discriminatory
discourses and to counteract inequity when it arises. This idea is supported in the
DOPs (MOE, 1996a) when they refer to the important role that teachers play in
extending children's thinking and actions through informed and sensitive
 A Philosophical Anchor for Creating Inclusive Communities. . . 137

guidance and support. The curriculum's contribufion to countering prejudice can

be seen in its aim to provide "equitable opporturuties for all learrüng regardless of
gender, ability, age, ethnicity or background" (MOE, 1996b, p. 16). A corrunitment
to creating equitable opportunities to learn reflects the anti-bias idea of minimising
negative effects from discrimination and oppression.
This support Te Whäriki lends to anti-bias principles in early childhood
education has been interpreted through my content analysis of aspects of the
document's text. This interpretation argues a 'reading' of the curriculum statement
that offers significant possibilifies with respect to inclusive education and activism
based upon anti-bias principles. The current curriculum statement for early
childhood education in Aotearoa New Zealand suggests ways in which teachers
can create educational environments within which they, along with children, can
safely examine and counter negative bias, discrimination and oppression. My
attention now turns to consideration of three practical strategies or teaching
emphases that support an active anti-bias focus in early childhood education.
STRATEGIES FOR ANTI-BIAS PROGRAMMING IN EARLY CHILDHOOD
EDUCATION
Four activist based principles centred upon an anti-bias philosophical anchor have
been proposed as a pathway to inclusive early childhood education in this paper.
Turning this argument into practical activism is crucial for supporting posifive
change in education that is concerned with emancipatory outcomes. Three
strategies are interpreted from the anti-bias literature that suggest ways for
teachers to take positive steps towards creating inclusive programmes with
children and families. These are critical thinkirig, an awareness of
difference/diversity themes and discussion.
Critical Thinking
Critical thinking is strongly featured in anfi-bias educafion (Corson, 2000; Derman-
Sparks, 1989; Hohensee & Derman-Sparks, 1992). Small steps towards supporting
children to examine social situations critically are included in the everyday
activities, experiences and events in early childhood centre settings. An
assumption, for instance, that all families have two parents/caregivers may be
'unpacked' if children with one parent/caregiver are encouraged to contribute to a
discussion of 'what constitutes family'. In identifying divergent opinion and
helping children to verbalise alternate points of view, we ask young learners to
examine multiple interpretations of phenomena and to situate their own
understandings within this context. Understanding that the world is not
experienced in any one particular way is central to anti-bias education philosophy.
It is also reflected in the aspiration of early childhood education in Aotearoa New
Zealand that suggests young children will develop a sense of the contribution that
they give to our society (MOE, 1996a, 1996b).
Difference and Diversity
Writers on anti-bias education identify the concepts of diversity and equity as
central to the philosophy. These are highlighted through an emphasis on
identifying and valuing differences between people and through examining
oppression and the effects of discriminatory behaviours and attitudes about
138 Alexandra C. Gunn

oneself and others (Byrnes, 1996; Derman-Sparks, 1989; Hohensee & Derman-
Sparks, 1992).
Well-meaning adults often teach children to ignore differences and to focus
only on people's similarities. However, just as common experiences bind
communities together, understanding and respecting differences are essential for
inclusion and the construction of successful communities. In order to legitimise
diversity as a strength of society (Sleeter & McLaren, 1995), respect for and
awareness of differences must be embraced in educational discourse. This is not to
say that difference should drive education but, rather, that education should be
open to and aware of the potential impact that differences have on individuals'
experiences of it.
In Aotearoa New Zealand, we are supported in legitimising difference and
diversity by legislation that holds that it is illegal to discriminate against
individuals in various situations on the basis of several diversity
themes/differences. The legislation targets sex, disability, marital status, age,
religious belief, political opinion, ethical belief, employment status, colour, family
status, race, sexual orientation, and ethnic or national origin (New Zealand
Government, 1993). Anti-bias principles reflect several of the diversity themes
included in this legislation; gender, ability, sexual orientation and religious
diversity, ethnicity, economic status. Discrimination between children on the basis
of these differences, or stereotyping in relation to these aspects of individuals' life
experiences, are arguably the most likely to show up in young children's
curriculum experiences in early childhood programmes. In light of this,
encouraging children to recognise and counter the stereotyping to which
individuals with diverse experiences and differences can be subjected, are
legitimate strategies for teachers in early childhood education.

DISCUSSION

Through discussion and reflection, young children are guided into using thinking
skills that enable them to explore, interpret and question their own assumptions
about the world. We might see this in action when, for example, a teacher
mediates children's experiences with stereotypical behaviour such as gender-
based exclusionary play (see, for example, MacNaughton, 2000; Yelland, 1998).
According to Shor (1992) "education can socialise stud^ents into critical thought or
into dependence on authority, that is, into autonomous habits of mind or into
passive habits of following authority, waiting to be told what to do and what
things mean" (p. 13). This passive conceptualisation of education is certainly not
congruent with the vision of early childhood education in Aotearoa New Zealand
which asks teachers to provide curriculum for children that is empowering.
Discussion is a primary strategy in any early childhood teacher's repertoire and,
through sensitive and informed interactions, teachers can do well to support anti-
bias principles.
Finally, there is a principle in Te Whäriki that centres on 'Relationships'. The
principle states that "children learn through responsive and reciprocal
relationships with people, places and things" (MOE, 1996b, p. 43) and resonates
with a theory of learning and development that is based in social and cultural
contexts. Carr and May (1993) explain the significance of a social and cultural
context in relation to early childhood curriculum when they discuss Lev Vygotsky
and Jerome Bruner as theorists who helped guide the deliberations of the early
childhood curriculum development process. The sociocultural perspective on
 A Philosophical Anchor for Creating Inclusive Communities. . . 139

learning and development is one that brings to the fore interpersonal relationships
as a vehicle for learning. Discussion is a tool of relationships and is central to
weighing a philosophical anchor in early childhood education based on anti-bias
principles.
In Te Whäriki children are seen as competent and active learners able to
construct knowledge through responsive and reciprocal relationships with people,
places and things. Davey-Zeece (1998) reminds us that anti-bias programming
involves a mind-set that creates a permeating sense that everyone has value.
Measured change in supporting the development of this sense of value in relation
to this country's diverse communities in early childhood education is an ongoing
area for policy and theoretical consideration. Anti-bias philosophy requires a
commitment in education settings to reasonable, fair and sensitive attitudes and
actions by people towards people. It is my belief that such a view of education is
consistent with the aspirations of early childhood education in Aotearoa New
Zealand. Moreover, it leads us in the direction of constructing inclusive education
settings. As New (1999, p. 8) asks, "what should adults do to ensure that children
learn those skills, knowledges and concepts that reflect their individual needs,
interests and capabilities; promote their inclusion and full participation in a
democratic society; and protect their rights as citizens so that knowledge will
enhance their current and future lives and productivity". This question is central
to deliberations about anti-bias philosophy in early childhood education. A
philosophical anchor built upon anti-bias philosophy provides adults with a
framework upon which answers to these questions can be based.
REFERENCES

Adams, M., Bell, L., & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1997). Teaching for diversity and social
justice: A sourcebook. London: Routledge.
Almeida, D. A. (1996). Countering prejudice against American Indians and Alaskan
Natives through anti-bias curriculum and instruction. ERIC DIGEST: EDO-Rl-
96-4.
Apple, M., Gandin, L. A., & Hypolito, A. M. (2001). Paulo Friere, 1921-97. In J. A.
Palmer (Ed.), Fifty modern thinkers on education: From Piaget to the present (pp.
128-133). London: Routledge.
Barta, J., & Winn, T. (1996). Involving parents in creating anti-bias classrooms.
Children Today, 24(1), 28-30.
Byrnes, D. A. (1996). Addressing race, ethnicity and culture in the classroom.
Common bonds: Anti-bias teaching in a diverse society. In D. A. Byrnes & G.
Kiger (Eds.), Common bonds: Anti-bias teaching in a diverse society (2nd ed.)
(pp. 11-12). Wheaton, MD: Association for Childhood Education
Intemational.
Carr, M. (1991, November). Curriculum for early childhood: Establishing a framework.
Paper presented to New Zealand Association for Research in Education
(NZARE) Conference, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Carr, M. (1993, March). Choosing a model. Reflecting on the development process of Te
Whäriki: National early childhood curriculum guidelines in New Zealand. Paper
presented to the first Warwick International Early Years Conference, Building
Bridges: International collaboration in the 199O's, University of Warwick, United
Kingdom.
Carr, M., & May, H. (1993). National curriculum guidelines for early childhood in
Aotearoa New Zealand: A philosophical framework for development. In M.
140 Alexandra C. Gunn

Carr & H. May, Te whâriki curriculum papers (pp. 1-24). Hamilton: Early
Childhood Curriculum Project, Waikato University.
Carr, M., May, H., & Ministry of Education. (1992). Te whâriki: National early
childhood curriculum guidelines in New Zealand. Wellington: Learning Media.
Carter, M. (1998). Strategies to strengthen our anti-bias practices. Childcare
Information Exchange, 123, 85-87.
Corson, P. (2000). Laying the foundation for literacy: an anti-bias approach.
Childhood Education, 76(6), 385-389.
Derman-Sparks, L., & the A.B.C Task Force. (1989). Anti-bias curriculum: Tools for
empowering young children. Washington DC: National Association for the
Education of Young Children.
Dau, E. (Ed.) (2001). The anti-bias approach in early childhood (2"'^ ed). New South
Wales: Pearson Education.
Davey Zeece, P. (1998). Saving the pig, but missing the point! Observations on
antibias programming. Childcare Information Exchange, 120, 25-29.
Early childhood code of ethics national working group. (1995). Early childhood
education code of ethics for Aotearoa New Zealand. Wellington: Author.
Early childhood education strategic plan working group. (2001). Final report of the
strategic plan working group to the Minister of Education. Wellington: Author.
Hall, N., & Rhomberg, V. (1995). The affective curriculum: Teaching the antibias
approach to young children. Toronto: Nelson Canada.
Hohensee, L., & Derman-Sparks, L. (1992). Implementing an anti-bias curriculum in
early childhood. ERIC: EDO-PS-92-8 .
McGee, C. (1997). Teachers and curriculum decision making. Palmerston North:
Dunmore Press.
MacNaughton, G. (2000). Rethinking gender in early childhood education. NSW: Allen
& Unwin.
May, H. (1990). Growth and change in early childhood services: A story of political
conservatism, growth and constraint. In S. Middleton, J. Codd & A. Jones
(Eds.). New Zealand education policy today: Critical perspectives (pp. 94-109).
Wellington: Allyn and Unwin.
May, H. (2001). Politics in the playground: The world of early childhood in postwar New
Zealand. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books and New Zealand Council for
Educational Research.
Meade, A. (1988). Education to be more. Report of the early childhood care and education
working group. Wellington: Department of Education.
Ministry of Education (1993). Te whâriki: Draft guidelines for developmentally
appropriate programmes in early childhood services. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education (1996a). Revised statement of desirable objectives and
practices (DOPs) for chartered early childhood services in New Zealand. The
New Zealand Gazette, 3 October.
Ministry of Education (1996b). Te whâriki: He whâriki mâtauranga mö ngâ mokopuna
o Aotearoa. Early childhood curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education (1998). Quality in action: Te mahi whai hua. Implementing the
revised statement of desirable objectives and practices in New Zealand early
childhood services. Wellington: Learning Media.
New, R. S. (1999). What should children learn? Making choices and taking
chances. Early childhood research and practice, 1(2), [On-line] Retrieved,
26/02/02 14:29, from: http://ecrp.uius.edu/vln2/new.htinl
New Zealand Government (1993). Human Rights Act. Wellington: Government
Print.
 A Philosophical Anchor for Creating Inclusive Communities. . . 141

New Zealand Government (1998). Education (early childhood centres) regulations.

Wellington: Government Print.
Pelo, A. (2002). Supporting young children as activists: Anti-bias project work.
Childcare Information Exchange, 144, 38-41.
Ritchie, J. (1995, January). Tino rangatiratanga and the implementation of Te
whäriki. Paper presented to the Teacher Refresher Course, Te Whäriki: Te
Ahutanga Atu, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Rodriguez, R. (1986). Equity education, imperatives, issues and implementation. USA:
University Press of America Inc.
Sapon-Shevin, M. (1996). Celebrating diversity, creating community. In S.
Stainback & W. Stainback (Eds.), Inclusion: A guide for educators (pp. 255-270).
Baltimore: Paul Brookes Publishing.
Shiraj-Blatchford, I. (1996). Language, culture and difference: challenging
inequality and promoting respect. In C. Nutbrown (Ed.), Children's rights arid
early education (pp. 23-33). London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Shor, I. (1992). Empowering education. Critical teaching for social change. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
Sleeter, C. E., & McLaren, P. L. (Eds.) (1995). Multicultural education, critical
pedagogy and the politics of difference. New York: State University Press.
Smith, A., & Swain, D. (1988). Childcare in New Zealand: People, programmes and
politics. Wellington: Allen and Unwin.
Smith, A. B., Gollop, M., Marshall, K., & Nairn, K. (Eds.) (2000). Advocating for
children: International perspectives on children's rights. IDunedin: University of
Otago Press.
Swadener, B., & Marsh, M. (1995). Toward a stronger teacher voice in research: A
collaborative study of antibias early education. In J. H. Amos (Ed.),
Qualitative research in early childhood settings (pp. 173-190). USA: Praeger
Publishing.
Vandenbroeck, M. (2000, August-September). Self-awareness, cultural identity and
connectedness: Three terms to (re) define in anti-bias work. Paper presented at the
European conference on quality in early childhood education (EECERA)
conference (10*), London, England.
Wardle, F. (1996). Proposal: An anti-bias and ecological model for multicultural
education. Childhood Education, 72(3), 152-158.
Yelland, N. (Ed.) (1998). Cender in early childhood. London: Routledge.
Copyright of Waikato Journal of Education is the property of Waikato Journal of Education and its content may
not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.