Final Version May 5 07

245
Mary’s discussion of a project on animals was overshadowed by her concerns with
classroom control. “Should I be getting them to sit down? Should I be asking them to put
up their hands?” Why was Mary the only one of the four case study subjects so
preoccupied with the behaviour of the children in her classroom?
In the cases of Layla, Rose, and Felicia, the focus group was a forum to share the
success of emergent curriculum. For Mary, it was an opportunity to seek advice on the
issues of control and behaviour. Mary did not have a parallel positive experience with
project work in the same way as Felicia, Layla, and Rose had. Compared to the others,
Mary’s development has been limited. It could be that the particular location where she
was employed had a negative impact on progression. While her centre advertised itself as
Reggio inspired, the practices of her fellow teachers and the Director limited Mary’s
ability to implement an emergent curriculum.
On-site support.
Mary is the only one of the four employed by a commercial child care facility. It
was Mary’s perception that the lack of professional development opportunities was tied
to financial concerns of the owner. Mary was not given the impetus to move forward on
her journey. Mary continued to be what she described as “old school” and succumbed to
parental demands for more structured worksheets. Felicia, Layla, and Rose have had
parallel experiences of parental expectations for an elementary school model curriculum,
but they have continued to offer an emergent curriculum without the trappings of
structure—specifically worksheets. The Directors of Rose’s, Felicia’s, and Layla’s
centres were committed to educating parents about the benefits of emergent curriculum
and reinforcing an end to worksheets. In Mary’s centre, parent education was left