Final Version May 5 07

250
“not engaged” with an emergent approach and did not support her efforts. Regarding her
current place of employment, Felicia relates that although “emergent curriculum brought
me here,” she has found that being in an environment where emergent curriculum “is not
embraced” was her biggest challenge; she stated that it had “affected my self-esteem.” In
Felicia’s program, during the course of this dissertation, parents once opposed to
emergent curriculum were beginning to embrace its practice. The culminating art show
for the “Great Artist’s Project” had, according to Felicia, a very positive impact, although
she did have a small, constant, and consistent number of “difficult and complaining
parents.” Felicia reflected often on parent concerns. Rather than allowing the concerns to
impact her negatively, Felicia saw them an opportunity for her own development. “I keep
asking – am I meeting their needs?” Recognizing that she is “in a state of cognitive
development,” Felicia accepts the provocation as a challenge to change.
Parent opposition to an emergent curriculum is rooted in their past experiences.
Parents are, themselves, products of a curriculum that supported worksheets, cutouts, and
themes. According to Dodge, Diluk, and Kulhanek (2001), parents feel pressure to have
the children ready for the next grade level, and they associate these practices with the
school model. Themes and their associated practices approximate school content and
have the purpose of preparation (Wien, 1995). Teachers may see themselves as
responsible for familiarizing children with material they will encounter in school. Parents
may expect it. Dodge (2001) suggests parent-teacher discussions and one-on-one
conversations in order to openly discuss curriculum and parental concerns. In Layla’s
case, she uses documentation to educate parents. “Parents need to be educated; they need
to see the incredible things their children can do.” “Parents may not see the worksheets