Final Version May 5 07

253
Felicia, and Layla are clear about their commitment to emergent curriculum. Mary has
had difficulty going beyond a thematic approach.
Beyond a thematic approach.
Felicia, Rose, Mary, and Layla described themes as the dominant approach to
early childhood education. Felicia recalls her past practice as “filling in the boxes” much
like what Wien (2004) describes as linear, lockstep, segmented by subject, and carried
out over a week. By observing the tightly controlled time frame of one week intervals,
themes do not incorporate the opportunity to “revisit” children’s work and include
principles of editing, which Clemens (1999) calls “the permission to start wrong” (p. 2).
Rose related that “by the end of the week your theme is done even if the children want to
know more.”
Fraser (2000) suggests that in the field of early childhood education sometimes
“experiences that happen in the classroom have little relationship to the written plans.”
Often the children “come up with more interesting ideas than the teachers had thought
of.” Teachers then “find themselves caught in the dilemma of sticking with the theme or
abandoning it and following the children’s interests” (p. 124). Felicia recalled that,
“When I was transforming from filling in the boxes to emergent curriculum, the boxes
couldn’t hold everything – one physical activity, one cognitive, one social – this is the
limitation.”
Mary claimed that themes were “more structured, more teacher directed. This is
what we are doing today, this is what we are doing tomorrow and this is what we are
doing next week.” The routine provides a level of comfort for those who use it. Except
for Felicia, the others had not questioned or deliberated on the practice of themes. Felicia