Educational Psychology—Limitations and Possibilities

Beyond Readiness 433
instead be still listening to the unique sounds and watching the ways the child moves in the
group of students. The five-year-old who does not yet speak might no longer be described as
having abnormalities in development, but as having many ways of communicating and being
in the world that are a joy to her parents or caregivers. In other words, that child may be fully
appreciated “as she is,” and as being on an unusual yet nonetheless satisfying trajectory through
life, even if it does not look like the path predicted in a developmental textbook. In my experience,
teachers and psychologists do appreciate children’s uniqueness, but I think there are also likely
to be contradictory expectations that the child will improve at a particular pace, to develop, to fit
in to a display of speech often found in a “typical five-year-old.”
READINESS IN CONTEMPORARY PRACTICE
I do not want to downplay the importance of the concept of readiness for practitioners. I have
been involved in teaching and supporting child therapists in training. As one senior clinician said
to me, “It’s important for clinical trainees to know what “normal” is so that when a disturbed
child comes to them they can know what to do.” I felt uncomfortable being the arbiter of what
is “normal” in child development, because there may be so many different cultural views about
what is acceptable.
At present I am interviewing small groups of educational psychologists in the field in New
Zealand. Such professionals work in a variety of settings, as external consultants for schools
or within schools, but their government-mandated focus is on students identified with the most
pressing learning or emotional difficulties. (For an overview of special education provisions and
their place in the wider education system see New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2004). Instead
of using the word normal to indicate the child’s fit into a standard classroom, most psychologists
used the word regular. This simple difference in terminology suggests a focus on the wider
situation rather than on an individual child. Rather than concentrate on changing the actingout
or slower-reading child to “fit” the classroom, these psychologists spend much of their time
coordinating the links across various groups, such as the extended family, social workers, child and
youth services, teachers, principals, teaching assistants, special resource teachers for learning and
behavioral difficulties, and perhaps the police. What particular groups will be involved depends
on the particular issues for the student, such as whether their current difficulties are described as
“behavioral” or disability-related. So the focus is not on changing the child to be more “normal” to
fit the “standard” (unchanged) classroom, but on stretching the understandings and expectations
of all involved with the student. This idea of a two-way process in which the student better fits
the school and the school accommodates to better serve the student is called inclusion. However,
inclusion is an ideal that can be elusive in practice. I would like to take these professionals’ views
on board in next presenting some alternative ways to think about the students’ development and
their “readiness” for learning.
ALTERNATIVE CONCEPTIONS OF DEVELOPMENT AND READINESS
We have looked at criticisms of modernism in developmental theories, with its assumption that
there will be forward progress over time in the student’s development. Critics have presented
some alternative perspectives beyond the modern, which collectively could be called “postmodern.”
(Here “post” refers to questioning of modernism rather than to a later, more advanced
stage.) A postmodern perspective on development that questions the universal, linear, individual
path of development might emphasize a multiplicity of possible paths for a life-course full of
interconnections with other people.