capstone

0
BYE-BYE TOLERANCE, HELLO EQUITY AND SOCIAL JUSTICE; A CRITICAL
ANALYSIS OF FACTORS NECESSARY IN CREATING AN EQUITY AND SOCIAL
JUSTICE EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION PROGRAM.
by Jill Sydney Madsen
A capstone submitted in partial fulfillment of
The degree of Master of Arts in Education
Hamline University
Saint Paul, Minnesota
April, 2006
Committee:
Primary Advisor: Dr. Paul Gorski
Secondary Advisor: Dr. Heather Hackman
Peer Reader: Amy Silberschmidt

1
ABSTRACT
My capstone project involves looking at the need to say goodbye to teaching tolerance,
and hello to equity and social justice through a critical analysis of factors necessary in creating
an equity and social justice early childhood education program. I begin my paper with my own
personal history of how I got involved with this work and then providing a definition for equity,
social justice, anti-bias, and tolerance as a framework to be used throughout the paper. In my
literature review I look at the definition and practices of teaching tolerance, a critique of teaching
tolerance, and the definition and practices of anti-bias education. The next section includes my
methodology and gives background information of Community Child Care Center, the school
where my research was conducted. This section also describes the surveys given to the
parents/caregivers and teaching staff, as well as information of the observations conducted in the
classrooms. From there I provide the results collected from my surveys and classroom
observations, while also providing my own discussion through a continuum of anti-bias
education in early childhood education, which I have created. This continuum includes teaching
tolerance, celebrating diversity, and equity and social justice education. Finally, I conclude with
recommendations and further questions that developed throughout this process.

2
DEDICATION AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Dedication
This capstone is dedicated to my family and friends, who continue to be my rock and
support in life. Without them this project would never have been possible. I also thank my
family for instilling the daily inspiration of tikun olam (repairing the world) and tzedakah (giving
to others and community service), as this foundation continues to guide me in the work I do.
Acknowledgements
Participants of research. I thank all of the family and staff at Community Child Care
Center for their participation in my research as well as their daily commitment to equity and
social justice. These individuals remind me each day of the importance of this work and the
impact it makes on the lives of others. I am truly blessed to have had the opportunity to work
with these families and educators.
Educators who influenced my research. I want to thank Louise Derman Sparks for
paving the way in the field of anti-bias education in early childhood education. Her work has
been the foundation of the philosophies used at Community Child Care Center and lay an
exceptional foundation for beginning equity and social justice education.
Sources of inspiration and support. Words can not begin to describe the inspiration and
support I have gained from my phenomenal capstone committee, Dr. Paul Gorski, Dr. Heather
Hackman, and Amy Silberschmidt. Paul, your assistance and support throughout the entire
Masters program has been greatly appreciated. I don’t feel like this entire process would have
been possible without you. Heather, you continue to amaze and inspire me. Your dedication,
passion, and knowledge to equity and social justice education have empowered me to be the

3
educator I am. I can not even begin to express how much I appreciate all your support with this
process. Amy, I am so thankful for all your guidance and support with this journey. It means so
much to me that you have been a part of this with me. You are an exceptional friend, role model,
and mentor.
I would also like to acknowledge the following quote which continues to provide
inspiration to do something and make change in our world, which is what I hope this project will
do. “You’ve got your whole life to do something and that’s not very long…why don’t you give
me a call when your willing to fight, for what you think is real, what you think is right.” (Ani
Difranco, “Willing to Fight”)

4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter One: Introduction 6 - 13
My History 7
Definitions 9
Equity 9
Social Justice 9
Anti-Bias 9
Tolerance 10
My Research 10
Chapter Two: Literature Review 14 - 31
Teaching Tolerance 14
Definition 14
Teaching Tolerance in Practice 15
Critique of Teaching Tolerance 19
Anti-Bias Education 21
Definition 21
Anti-Bias Education in Practice 23
Chapter Three: Methodology 32 - 40
Surveys 36
Observations 38
Chapter Four: Results and Discussion 41 - 67
Results 41
Teaching Staff Surveys 41

5
Parent/Caregiver Surveys 45
Observations 53
Discussion 62
Teaching Tolerance 62
Celebrating Diversity 63
Equity and Social Justice 64
Chapter Five: Conclusion 68 - 71
References 72 - 74
Appendix A: Teaching Staff Survey 75
Appendix B: Parent/Caregiver Survey 76
Appendix C: Classroom Observation Field Notes Log 77

6
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
“The highest result of education is tolerance” (Helen Keller, www.worldofquotes.com).
As the Director of an early childhood education program (Community Child Care Center, Saint
Paul, Minnesota), I am concerned by this quote. I am also concerned by the use of the “tolerance
model” that is typically used in early childhood education; that is, if the ideas of differences are
even broached. This is a model of recognizing differences on a very limited basis, while
reinforcing stereotypes and creating bias. Through my work in early childhood education, I have
seen something very different than teaching tolerance; I have seen the impact it has on children
and families. The type of education I have seen is an equity and social justice framework with
anti-bias education.
Through the use of this type of education, I have seen how comfortable and reassured
children feel when they can look around a classroom and find themselves and their families.
This can be done in the books and play materials found around the classroom and pictures on the
walls. It brings joy to my heart when I hear young children asking real questions about
differences and getting honest answers from their teachers, as opposed to being hushed because
the adults in their lives are too uncomfortable to provide answers. There is nothing like having
two moms come into my office and express gratitude for the environment that has sincerely
welcomed their family to the community. All of these experiences occurred because of the
equity and social justice based anti-bias philosophy, education, and environment we have
fostered at the center.

7
My History
For the past ten years I have worked with young children in early childhood education
facilities. I started as a Preschool Teacher. Each day I had the opportunity to watch children
grow and develop, changing right before my eyes. I quickly realized the impact education has at
this stage of a child’s development. Cole and Cole (1989) discuss that during the first five years
of a child’s life they change more physically, mentally, emotionally, and socially, than any other
period in ones life span. Children are discovering themselves and where they fit into the world
around them. At the same time we can look at Harro’s (2000) cycle of socialization that
describes the identities that are ascribed to us before we are even born. From the minute a child
is born they are socialized by the people around them. Through these experiences, children
develop their self-concept and self perceptions. Children learn quickly the rules that they are
supposed to follow that connect with their identities. Louise Derman Sparks (2000) describes
children being very aware of color, language, gender, and physical differences at a young age.
Children are aware of these differences and learn by observing the world around them and
absorbing both spoken and unspoken messages about these differences. Thus, the different
forms of oppression in our society have a profound influence on a child’s development of self
and those around them. With all of this going on within a child’s first five years, the
opportunities for what can be done to lay the foundation of a child’s life are enormous. In my
perspective, in order to make needed changes in our society, that is to create a place where equity
exists for all, this early foundation must be grounded in equity and social justice.
My experiences working as a Preschool Teacher, along with the knowledge of the impact
these years have on a child’s life, fostered my strong passion for the importance of providing
early childhood education for all children. As I worked at the preschool, I was also completing

8
my undergraduate degree in Education, with an emphasis in Human Relations and Multicultural
Education. This program helped me develop my philosophy of education, which is grounded in
social justice and equity. As I sat in classes discussing issues around social justice and equity in
education, everything seemed to be geared toward older children, with just a handful of resources
for even elementary school. I could not help but find myself wondering, why wait until children
are older to begin discussing the world they are immersed in?
At this time, I was not exactly sure how this could be done with young children, but I
knew it needed to be done. I had found my calling and a perfect fit, blending early childhood
education with all my teachings from my Human Relations and Multicultural Education
program. At that time I graduated and began working as the Director at Community Child Care
Center (CCCC).
CCCC is a non-profit, anti-bias and anti-violence based early childhood education
program located on the Saint Paul campus of the University of Minnesota. I was so excited
when I began at the center because I felt that my vision actually existed. What I quickly
discovered was I could not find other early childhood education programs in the area doing
similar work. I also discovered that our philosophy needed some fine-tuning. I felt lucky
though, because I had a group of teachers and parents/caregivers who stood behind the
philosophy and were willing to do the work needed to make it authentic. This led me to wonder
why other programs would settle with teaching tolerance. While considering this, I decided I
wanted to investigate saying “bye-bye tolerance, hello equity and social justice” through a
“critical analysis of the factors necessary in creating an equity and social justice early childhood
education program.”

9
Definitions
Equity, social justice, anti-bias, and tolerance are terms that will be found throughout this
paper. The following definitions will give you a starting place for the meaning behind these
words as I use them throughout the text.
Equity. Sonia Nieto (2000) describes equity as a more comprehensive term than equality,
which is often times used interchangeably. Equality encompasses the notion of providing
everyone with the same resources and opportunities, while also looking at the individual skills,
talents, and experiences people bring to the table. These individual skills, talents, and
experiences should be considered a valid starting point. The way equity takes this a step further
than equality is the suggestion of fairness.
Social justice. According to Webster’s New Millennium Dictionary of English (2003-
2005) social justice is the “distribution of advantages and disadvantages within a society.” When
one discusses the concept of social justice or the goal of working toward social justice it is the
movement to create justice for all in society and eliminate the advantages and disadvantages for
different populations of people. Ann Pelo (2000) describes children’s connection to this with the
unfairness they wrestle with on a daily basis. Schools working towards social justice would
wholeheartedly promote action rather than ignoring as a response to the injustice in our society.
Anti-bias. According to Louise Derman Sparks (2000) anti-bias refers to, “an
active/activist approach to challenging prejudice, stereotyping, bias, and the ‘isms’” (p.3). A
non-biased person is highly unlikely; however it is necessary for all individuals to gain the skills
to actively intervene in situations where bias is present. This would be the goal of anti-bias
education; giving children the skills to feel empowered in such situations.

10
Tolerance. In Nieto’s (2000) four levels of multicultural education, she defines tolerance
as the, “…means to have the capacity to bear something, although at times it may be unpleasant.
To tolerate differences means to endure them, although not necessarily to embrace them” (p.
339). The idea of teaching tolerance is seen as the lowest level of diversity education in our
schools.
My Research
Working at the center I have had the opportunity to develop our anti-bias philosophy and
educational practices. I have found answers to my questions on how this type of education can
be used in early childhood education. I discovered how it needs to be embedded into the
curriculum, classroom environments, and the language we use. This means the curriculum is
developed based on the children, incorporating many different ideas and perspectives. If the
older preschool room is going to have a week on music, the teachers will give the children the
opportunity to hear many types of music, give the children a chance to explore with a variety of
instruments, and invite parents/caregivers in to share a musical piece. Through all of this the
children are gaining an opportunity to see differences. The differences are not the focus; rather
the teachers are normalizing diversity within the subject of music. This method steers clear of
the “us” and “them” model of thinking, which reinforces the norms of the powerful dominate
group and ignores and devalues the subordinate group. This model of thinking is extremely
problematic and only reinforces stereotypes and biases.
An equity and social justice based anti-bias philosophy and educational practice goes
deeper than the curriculum, the environment is an essential component. Each time the teachers
change the play materials in the classroom at CCCC, not only do they ensure children have a
variety of different materials to meet their developmental needs, but they also make certain that

11
the materials, books, pictures, etc. represent an assortment of people. This guarantees that each
child can look around and find themselves and their family accurately portrayed in the
classroom. This encourages a positive self image and a feeling of being a part of a community.
The past three and a half years at Community Child Care Center I have discovered a
selection of developmentally appropriate practices that embed the ideas of equity and social
justice in anti-bias education. The most important discovery however, was realizing that what
we do each day at the center is so valuable and worthwhile because it is truly making a
difference in the lives of the children and families we serve. This has been discovered through
regular program evaluations that are completed and continual feedback from parents/caregivers.
I could not agree more with the following quote: “To tolerate everything is to teach
nothing” (FJ Kinsman, www.worldofquotes.com). In my perspective, teaching tolerance is not
teaching our children anything except bias, it is a method of trying to seem inclusive, while
ignoring all the inequities and power structures that exist in our society. When we choose not to
address these components as well, we simply reinforce bias and are teaching children to just
“play nice”, as opposed to truly valuing one another’s differences and challenging the systems of
power that keep many oppressed. My hope is by the end of this paper early childhood educators
will be able to recognize the differences between teaching tolerance and anti-bias education
grounded in equity and social justice, while being able to distinguish what factors are necessary
to create this type of learning environment.
The next section of my paper will provide an overview of the current literature on both
teaching tolerance and anti-bias education. This will lay the foundation of what these two types
of education look like when used in early childhood settings. This will also give a working
definition of what teaching tolerance and anti-bias education mean to those in the field. In the

12
teaching tolerance section I will focus on the work of Paul Vogt, Sara Bullard, and Barbara
Thomson. Then for the anti-bias education component I will focus on the work of Louise
Derman Sparks, Ellen Wolpert, and Ann Pelo.
Following that I will describe my research methodology. This will describe how I
collected feedback from educators and parents/caregivers who embrace equity and social justice
based anti-bias education. It will also illustrate how I conducted classroom observations at
Community Child Care Center, to ensure my ability to give clear examples of the factors
necessary to create an equity and social justice based early childhood education program.
Then I will lay out the findings from my research. This will be done through a scale I
have developed, that depicts the three levels of early childhood education: teaching tolerance,
celebrating diversity, and equity and social justice based anti-bias education.
Finally, I will conclude with a synopsis of what I have learned through this process, what
I plan to do with this gained knowledge, and outline new questions that have arisen out of this
study. Throughout this paper my focus will be on early childhood education, meaning serving
children sixteen months to six years old. This is an important component to keep in mind, as
both teaching tolerance and anti-bias education have different principles and practices for
working with younger children. Clearly there are different methods of introducing and
discussing issues of bias with young children in comparison to young adults. It would be
developmentally inappropriate to sit with a group of three year olds and discuss the history of
bias and/or oppression as young children are not able to grasp that bigger picture; however
young children are able to see differences and unfairness in their daily lives and are able to
connect these experiences to others. These personal experiences can be connected to the bigger
picture, while empowering children to ask questions, think critically, and use their voice. In my

13
own practice, I have seen young children are not only able to grasp these concepts, but are also
much more willing to investigate them than adults.
A number of authors have written about teaching tolerance and anti-bias education. Their
findings are discussed in the next section.

14
CHAPTER TWO
Literature Review
Teaching Tolerance
Teaching tolerance is often linked to “important values” that should be learned in
schools; it is based on the general notion that differences exist between people. Throughout this
section I will focus on the writings of W. Paul Vogt, Sara Bullard, and Barbara Thomson. I will
provide definitions of what it means to teach tolerance, as well as give examples of how these
authors describe what this would look like in a classroom. I personally do not support this
philosophy of education, as it does not address issues of bias, inequity, or power structures that
keep people oppressed. It also does not acknowledge how other populations of people benefit
from the oppression of others. Despite my lack of support towards tolerance based education I
felt it was important to lay a concrete foundation for what “teaching” tolerance looks like. This
will help educators see the differences between “teaching” tolerance and anti-bias education, as
well as give a vivid picture of the factors necessary to create social justice and equity early
childhood education.
Definition. W. Paul Vogt (1997), author of Tolerance and Education: Learning to Live
with Diversity and Difference, has a working definition of tolerance that builds throughout his
book. He starts out with defining tolerance as, “putting up with something one does not like” (p.
xxiv). From there he adds, “…tolerance is putting up with something you do not like – often in
order to get along better with others” (p.1). Then he ends with, “…tolerance is intentional self-
restraint in the face of something one dislikes, objects to, finds threatening, or otherwise has a
negative attitude toward – usually in order to maintain a social or political group or to promote
harmony in a group” (p. 3). Vogt’s definition of tolerance is similar to author Sara Bullard’s,

15
who wrote the book, Teaching Tolerance: Raising Open-minded, Empathetic Children. Bullard
(1996) defines tolerance as:
1) ability to let people be who they are;
2) a way of living with differences; and
3) a way of thinking, feeling and acting.
As a part of her work she has created a list of characteristics of tolerance. These include:
1) ability to care for or feel connected to those that are different;
2) all people are capable of tolerance and intolerance;
3) we must practice tolerance to learn it; and
4) it does not require us to value all actions and opinions equally.
Both Vogt’s and Bullard’s definitions of tolerance focus on people needing to live with
differences. These differences don’t need to be something one accepts or respects, rather just
something we put up with in hopes of getting through the world. Vogt, Bullard, and Thompson
all discuss ways the notion of tolerance can be, and in their perspective, should be taught, in our
schools.
Teaching tolerance in practice. Vogt (1997) believes that in order for people to live
together they must learn to tolerate each other. He sees tolerance as a minimal, the lowest level
of positive relationships between people and groups. Since it is minimal it can be the first step
for people to look at others and civility. Vogt believes that teaching tolerance keeps negative
attitudes and beliefs from becoming actions. He also finds it a necessary skill for individuals to
function in society. Through his book he lays these ideas as the framework and then discusses
the use of teaching tolerance in schools.

16
Vogt (1997) discusses how tolerance can be taught both directly and indirectly, through
socialization and instruction. Directly, this is done through intergroup contact and civic
education. Intergroup contact exists by the sheerness of being in contact with people different
from oneself a person will develop tolerance towards those differences. This can be done
through creating meaningful interactions between people, providing equal status among peers,
and encouraging opportunities for cooperation. There are not concrete examples given on how
an educational practitioner could do these things in the classroom, rather they are presented as
philosophical ideas. Civic education means teaching classes like moral education. In these
classes, by including multicultural perspectives into the curriculum, students will develop
tolerance through knowledge and understanding. These include a broad realm of activities
focused on differences.
An example of Vogt’s teaching tolerance can be found in the Capstone Curriculum
Publishing’s Character Education (2002). This curriculum focuses on caring, consideration,
friendliness, honesty, peacefulness, respect, responsibility, and tolerance. For each area, students
read a story. Then they do different comprehension, vocabulary, and study skills activities to go
along with the book. Some examples from the curriculum guide with regard to tolerance are: fill
in the blank statements like “tolerant people do not always with everyone” (p.31); or write a
paragraph on “How can a person be tolerant in the community?” (p.31). Throughout the
curriculum students are exposed to the ideas of being tolerant of others and discuss this at a
surface level. The activities that go along with the curriculum allow students to both have
intergroup contact and gain civic education; which are the foundation of Vogt’s teaching of
tolerance.

17
Vogt (1997) also writes briefly about indirectly teaching tolerance. He explains that this
is done through personality development and cognitive development. The book does not give
specific examples of how this would be facilitated in a classroom. Directly and indirectly, Vogt
discusses the importance of both areas being included as a measure of teaching tolerance.
Bullard’s (1996) approach to how one would teach tolerance is a bit different. Bullard
encourages parents, rather than educators, to look at how to move from intolerance to tolerance.
She describes how children learn these ideas from all the adults in their lives. She also writes
extensively about self awareness and how we all need to recognize and try to heal the intolerance
in ourselves.
Bullard (1996) gives a variety of ideas on how we as adults can promote these ideas with
young children. These include, ensuring that children know there are many ways to look at
things; that we all can learn and grow from listening to each other; and that feelings are not right
or wrong, but rather are real. Bullard’s hope is that by instilling these ideas in young children
they will become tolerant of differences. Similar to Vogt many of these ideas are more
philosophy based, rather than actual techniques used in practice.
Barbara Thomson (1993), who is a preschool teacher and has written articles and a book
about building tolerance in early childhood settings, gives more concrete ideas of how one would
put teaching tolerance into practice. Thomson discusses how teaching tolerance and developing
the appreciation of people can be done through information, materials, and attitude. She believes
it should be started at a young level so children have the skills and knowledge to take with them
in life. Her hope is that children will develop a positive self-concept, develop and accept
differences in people, and encourage decision making. Thomson provides a variety of activities
that can be done in the classroom to assist in children developing these skills.

18
In both her article, Building Tolerance in Early Childhood (1989), and her book, Words
Can Hurt You (1993), she describes a variety of activities that teachers could use to promote
tolerance. She (1993) talks about developing activities that focus on similarities and differences,
as well as relating activities to cultural awareness. She describes this being done through
activities like comparing skin colors or giving children the opportunity to use chopsticks.
Thomson (1993) also discusses activities that can be done to build awareness of disabilities. She
gives tips for teachers on doing this through limiting children’s vision or hearing to gain
perspective. Lastly, she (1989) shares the importance of giving children activities that look at
stereotypes. Some examples of these include, demonstrating to the children the positives in a
beautiful box of new crayons and a dirty used box of crayons; or set up the classroom where
children would experience discrimination depending on what they are wearing to assist them in
developing empathy.
Many educators feel that “teaching” tolerance is important for us to instill in our students.
This philosophy is seen as a method to try to teach children to respect differences among people
and groups. It is seen as giving children the capacity for practicing the respect of others.
However, when people take a closer look at what tolerance actually is one finds views and
definitions similar to Barry Schwartz’s (1996) who defines tolerance as, “…to allow what is not
actually approved…when we say we tolerate something, we are implying a negative judgment
about it. We are saying, in effect, that we wish it wasn’t there, but for one reason or another we
aren’t prepared to do anything to stop it” (p. 24). In his article, he also makes it clear that people
can only tolerate things of which they disapprove. Considering this definition, I am baffled that
there is such significant support of teaching tolerance to children. I am certain I would not want
anyone to tolerate me and who I am. By this definition, tolerance would only create an

19
abundance of covert hostility towards others. In the next section I will offer a critique of
“teaching” tolerance.
Critique of Teaching Tolerance
By definition alone, I am left wondering why educators would choose to “teach”
tolerance. When I take Vogt’s (1997, p.xxiv) basic definition, “putting up with something one
does not like” and Bullard’s (1996) component on tolerance being a way of living with
differences, the negative connotations with the word alone seem enormous. Each day, my drive
home from work takes forever. The traffic is something I do not like, but I “tolerate” it because I
enjoy where I work and where I live, even if they are not close to one another. Traffic is
something many people tolerate each day. The comparison should never be made between
putting up with traffic and putting up with the differences in people. When we use tolerance as a
teaching strategy, this is the message we are giving. Bullard’s idea of living with differences is
just as harmful. No one wants to be “put up with” or “lived with” because of who they are.
People want to be respected and honored for who they are.
When we focus on tolerance based education we are ignoring issues of social justice and
power structures in our society, both past and present, which impact the lives of everyone. Nieto
(2000), states, “no educational program or philosophy is worthwhile unless it focuses on two
primary concerns: raising the achievement gap of all students and providing them with an
equitable and high-quality education; giving students an apprenticeship in the opportunity to
become critical and productive members of a democratic society” (p. 9). “Teaching” tolerance
does neither of these things; rather it glosses over differences and reinforces stereotypes and bias.
This is done through a “tourist approach” (Banks, 1997) were a school does something like
celebrate Black History Month and have a “soul” food lunch. This type of education is simply

20
acknowledging that there are black folks out there and generally they did some good things we
should know about. It never discusses the racism in our society that has been prevalent since
Africans were taken from their homes and brought to the United States as slaves. There is no
mention of white privilege and how white folks continue to benefit off the backs of others. And
it gives children the message that all black folks must eat these stereotypical foods all the time.
The teaching methods discussed by both Vogt and Thomson have outcomes similar to the
Black History Month explanation. Writing an essay on how one can be tolerant in their
community is just someone describing how they are going to play nice, with no understanding of
differences or inequities in their community. Giving children the opportunity to use chopsticks
only sends the message that all Asian people use chopsticks to eat, instead of discussing the
staple diet of different areas based on climate and crops. The most appalling suggestion given by
Thomson was limiting a child’s vision or hearing to build awareness of disabilities. We can
build awareness by simply talking to children about these differences when they have questions.
When a child asks why a person is in a wheelchair, instead of telling them to be quiet and pulling
them in the other direction we need to explain why some people need wheelchairs to help them
be mobile. Children can gain empathy, through connecting experiences they may have had with
experiences of others, without having a five minute experiment of not being able to hear, as after
the five minutes they get to go back to hearing. Young children may not understand that not
everyone can just go back to hearing once the activity is complete, but rather will spend their
whole life without hearing.
In Sonia Nieto’s book, Affirming Diversity (2000), she proposes a model of multicultural
education with four levels. The first and lowest level she discusses is tolerance. According to
Nieto, to tolerate differences means “…to have the capacity to bear something, although at times

21
it may be unpleasant” (p. 339). She continues by saying, “to tolerate differences means to
endure them, although not necessarily embrace them. We may learn to tolerate differences, but
this level of acceptance can be shaky because what is tolerated today may be rejected tomorrow”
(p. 339). She criticizes educators for the stress on tolerance because this type of support for
diversity does not go far enough. The term “tolerance” is rejected due to its negative
connotation. In Macedo and Bartolome’s book, Dancing with Bigotry (1999), they describe
“tolerance” as a paternalistic term used by white folks that ignores the confrontation with issues
of inequality, ethics, and power. In order to truly teach children about diversity, we need to
move beyond tolerance and address these issues through equity and social justice anti-bias
education. The concern about tolerance based education is, it seems like a very low level
response to human differences. Tolerance seems to imply attitudes of dominance and
subordinance. Throughout the rest of this section of the paper, I will look at anti-bias education,
a philosophy of teaching that embraces differences and empowers children.
Anti-Bias Education
The greatest difference between teaching tolerance and anti-bias education is that anti-
bias education is about moving beyond understanding that there are differences in the world. It
is about looking at what causes inequity and injustice in our society and discovering ways to
empower one another to make change. It is willing to ask the hard questions and confront power
and privilege in our society. Throughout this section I will provide a definition of anti-bias
education and explain teaching practices through the work of Louise Derman Sparks, Ellen
Wolpert, and Ann Pelo.
Definition. In the world of anti-bias education, specifically in early childhood settings,
Louise Derman Sparks has been a pioneer. Her groundbreaking book, Anti-Bias Curriculum:

22
Tools for Empowering Young Children, was first published in 1989 and has since been used as a
guiding resource for many progressive educators. Sparks (1989) defines anti-bias education as,
“…an active/activist approach to challenge prejudice, stereotyping, bias and the ‘isms.’ In a
society in which institutional structures create and maintain sexism, racism…it is not sufficient
to be nonbiased (and also highly unlikely), nor is it sufficient to be an observer. It is necessary
for each individual to actively intervene, to challenge and counter the personal and institutional
behaviors that perpetuate oppression” (p.3). This definition has laid the groundwork for other
anti-bias educators.
Ellen Wolpert, who is the author and producer of the book/video set Start Seeing
Diversity: The Basic Guide to an Anti-Bias Classroom (2005), has worked as a part of the
Washington-Beech Community Preschool. This preschool is located in a public housing
development in Boston and has been using the work of Louise Derman Sparks to develop and
implement an anti-bias program for over twenty years. In Wolpert’s (2005) definition of anti-
bias education she states that, “rather than assuming that inclusion alone creates respect, we
recognize the need to actively address stereotypes and prejudices that preschoolers and adults
around them experience and incorporate into their thinking and behavior” (p. x). Action is a key
component of Wolpert’s work and she discusses doing this through addressing stereotypes and
prejudice. This emphasizes that we have to do more than just recognize people are different.
Action is a component deeply connected to another author, Ann Pelo.
Ann Pelo, has been an early childhood educator for over ten years. During this time she
has written articles including, “Supporting Young Children as Activists: Anti-bias Project Work”
(2002), and a book entitled, That’s Not Fair! A Teacher’s Guide to Activism with Young Children
(2000). Pelo (2000) defines anti-bias education as a teacher practice that shines a spotlight on

23
social and cultural context, while allowing children to learn and grow as individuals. She sees
this practice as a foundation for children to notice, name, and actively respond to bias. In all her
writing she expresses that this type of practice moves beyond the limits of multicultural
curriculum, by focusing on helping children understand and confront bias.
In defining anti-bias education, Pelo (2000) also counters the notion that anti-bias
education or activism is not developmentally appropriate for young children. As many people
argue, to them it seems like it would be easiest to avoid such loaded subjects or to give a quick
response to a child’s questions. However, she argues that when we do this we fail to honor a
child’s interest in fairness with the same thoughtfulness that we provide for their other interests.
We can not ignore that children naturally notice and ask about differences, whether it be about
the differences in the girls and boys bathrooms, the homeless person they notice on the street, or
the person in a wheelchair they see having difficulty crossing the street. When we ignore these
questions, we as adults are not only forgetting to provide validation to a child’s question, but we
are also actively embedding prejudice in the minds of the young children we serve. Our
omission of information is telling children these differences are things we should not talk about.
Children connect the things we should not talk about with negative attributes.
All three authors use words like ‘active’, ‘challenge’, ‘confront’ when discussing bias.
They also address issues of oppression and child empowerment to recognize these and confront
them. The ideas described in their definitions give a general picture of what anti-bias education
means. They also provide a great deal of insight on what anti-bias education would look like in
practice.
Anti-bias education in practice. Louise Derman Sparks’s work has aided early childhood
educaters in developing their anti-bias education programs. Her work is cited in many books and

24
articles about early childhood anti-bias education. She begins her work (2000) by providing
educators with the notion that children are aware of language, gender, and physical ability
differences, which are connected with both privilege and power. Children are learning these
things through observing the similarities and differences we notice among people while also
absorbing the spoken and unspoken messages we as adults give about those differences. It is
crucial we realize the influence these experience have on the development of a young child’s
view of self and others. Young children recognize these differences and are fully capable of
engaging in the journey of developing an anti-bias identity and attitude.
Sparks (2000) has four main goals in anti-bias education. These include: nurturing a
child’s development of both self and group identity; promote a child’s ability to be comfortable
with interactions with people from diverse backgrounds; foster a child’s development of critical
thinking skills in regards to bias; and cultivate a child’s ability to stand up for themselves or
others when faced with bias. In Spark’s book (2000) she outlines how this is possible for
educators to do.
One of the main focuses of anti-bias education is the environment that is created in a
classroom. Sparks (2000) first describes the visual/aesthetic environment. A classroom should
have an abundance of images of all children. These pictures need to be real, not cartoon images
that often depict stereotypical images. The selection of pictures needs to include people from
different racial/ethnic groups that accurately reflect people in current daily lives. Sparks
describes the importance of ensuring there is a balance of females and males in the pictures, and
showing them doing a variety of tasks that would be considered home life or work life.
Classrooms need to have images of elderly people of various backgrounds, again doing various
tasks. Family structures are also important to be included in the picture collections. Children

25
should be able to look around and see examples of families that include two moms or two dads,
single parents, a mom and a dad, extended family as caregivers, and much more. It is also
important that there is a balance of racial and ethnic representation. If all the pictures in the
classroom are of white folks except one or two that represent people of color this simply displays
a token person and sends a strong message to the children. If all the pictures of females depict
them as caretakers and all the pictures of males are of people in professional roles that too gives
a clear message to children. The pictures in the classroom are a clear way for children to look
around and see themselves in their classroom and assist in their feelings of being part of the
community. If these images are not there, the message given to children is that a particular
group must not be important; or if the images are not accurate, the message further embeds false
stereotypes.
Sparks (2000) also describes the importance of specific toys and materials in the
classroom. All classrooms should have a large selection of books for the children to use at their
leisure. These books should include representation of the all the groups described above. These
should also include books in different languages, including sign language and Braille.
Classrooms also need to have a variety of dramatic play materials. Children need to have the
opportunity to explore in different environments and explore roles that occur in these
environments. These experiences open the doors for conversations about stereotypical roles
children may have noticed in the past or are trying to replicate in their play. As part of their
dramatic play, children gain a great deal through playing with babies. These baby dolls should
be available, be anatomically correct, and be representative of different racial groups. Educators
should steer clear of dress up clothes for children and babies that are so called cultural
representative. In practice, what this really means is for Native Americans there are clothes that

26
include stereotypical headdresses and feathers, and for African Americans there are more
traditional African clothes. These only add to stereotypes as they do not depict people in day to
day life in the United States. Language is another component Sparks discusses that should be
included in the toys and materials. Going beyond just the books in the classroom, children
should see posters and puzzles around the room in different languages. If everything is in
English, we are telling children other languages and forms of communication are not as valid.
The classroom should also have music that reflects various cultural styles and forms. These
should be incorporated in general listening, creative movement activities, and rest time. Art
materials are another significant area in which we can provide representation of differences.
Teachers need to include colors such as black and brown in everyday activities, oppose to just
using primary colors. It is also important that children have the opportunities to explore with
paper, crayons, and paints in a variety of skin tones when doing projects about themselves. The
environment that is set up by including these materials is open and inclusive. This lays the
foundation for children to feel comfortable and safe, and more willing to ask questions and
engage in conversations about similarities and differences.
Sparks (2000) has created an embedded approach to anti-bias education. The classroom
is set up as a place for children to see themselves and explore differences through the images and
materials they are using. This will lead children to initiating questions and thoughts about the
differences they notice. To ensure that this type of education is developmentally appropriate, it
must be child initiated. We must frame the work we are doing around their questions and
concerns about fairness and differences. These teachable moments give wonderful opportunities
to discuss not only issues of bias, but also equity and social justice.

27
Ellen Wolpert (2005), who uses Sparks’s framework, outlines slightly different main
goals for an anti-bias approach. These lay the foundation for creating the program and
environment.
1) “Nurture the construction of a knowledge, confident identity as an individual
and as a member of multiple cultural groups (such as gender, race, ethnicity,
and class)” (p.2). This means it is the teacher’s job to ensure the conditions of
the classroom make all children able to like themselves without having to feel
superior to others.
2) “Promote comfortable, empathic interaction with people from diverse
backgrounds” (p.3). Wolpert discusses how we as educators need to foster an
interest and empathy in children with differences, rather than fear and
judgment.
3) “Foster each child’s ability to recognize bias and injustice” (p.4). Children
need to develop the skills and knowledge to identify unfairness and stereotypes.
Children also need to be able to make the connection that bias hurts others.
4) “Cultivate each child’s ability to stand up, individually and with others, against
bias or injustice” (p.4). As early childhood educators we need to help all
children learn and have opportunities to practice ways they can act when they
are faced with bias.
These four goals are very important for early childhood educators to grasp before they
begin practicing anti-bias education.

28
Another component Wolpert (2005) focuses on in her book is a set of assumptions
that assist in providing the general framework for identifying why this work is done, with
whom, and how.
1) “Even very young children notice differences and begin to discriminate based
on them” (p. 8).
2) “It’s not a problem that children notice differences. The problem is that in our
society, some differences are valued as positive and others as negative, and
children absorb and act on these values” (p. 9).
3) “We do not all experience bias in the same way” (p.10).
4) “An anti-bias approach is important for everyone” (p.12).
5) “As adults, we are often unaware of our biases. Therefore we unintentionally
perpetuate the biases in environments we create” (p.14).
6) “Understanding bias and inequality is a long-term process that can be difficult
as well as exhilarating and fun” (p.17).
7) “It’s important to create an environment for adults as well as children where
everyone’s participation is sought after and valued and where it’s okay to
disagree” (p.18).
8) “It’s important to integrate an anti-bias approach into all parts of the program”
(p. 20).
Addressing the assumptions is the starting ground for early childhood educators. Once these are
grasped, an educator can begin to develop their teaching strategies for implementing anti-bias
education. The next section of her (2005) book/video looks at specific forms of bias and how
educators can incorporate these realities into their classroom and practice. The areas she focuses

29
on are: bias related to age, gender, sexual orientation, economic class, physical abilities and
physical characteristics, and race and ethnicity. She then describes how these biases can be
addressed through a variety of classroom strategies.
The classroom strategies Wolpert (2005) describes are focused around books, play
materials, curriculum themes, change of character names of stories, develop simplistic thinking,
problem solving through role playing, and activism. In essence, for each of the areas of bias
described above, one should have books, puzzles, music, games, and pictures that are equally
representative.
Pelo (2002), who uses the work of both Sparks and Wolpert as a framework, sees anti-
bias education and activism as tools that can address and give value to the questions young
children bring to the classroom or home. Her addition to their work is the heavy emphasis on
activism. She says, “anti-bias activism projects provide young children with a way of
challenging the biases they see in their own lives and in the lives of others” (p.38). Through this
type of education, “children are encouraged to pay attention to their feelings and experiences and
to the feelings and experiences of other people” (p.38). These experiences have great impact and
value for the lives of young children. Pelo describes encouraging the children to bring topics of
concern to the group. These may be anything from treatment of classmates to trash around the
school. Pelo encourages educators to focus on these areas of interest and embed them into the
classroom environment and curriculum. If the focus was going to be treatment of classmates,
activities may include drawing pictures of how they feel when people say hurtful things to them,
role playing situations where children can practice confronting hurtful words, and teacher
initiated team building activities. She discusses the importance of connecting these projects to
the lives of the children, making it real, while also incorporating it into the play of the children.

30
The activism approach connected with the classroom play materials that Sparks and Wolpert
describes creates an inclusive environment, where children are gaining the skills daily to
challenge bias and unfairness.
Pelo (2000) describes the values of anti-bias education. These include:
1) “Nurture self esteem and empowerment” (p.8).
2) “Develop empathy and appreciation for differences” (p.8).
3) “Facilitate critical thinking and problem solving” (p.8).
4) “Provide mental model of survival for children at risk from bias” (p.8).
5) “Provide a model of equity and justice for privileged, dominant culture children” (p.
8).
6) “Contribute to community building” (p. 8).
These values lay the foundation for the importance of this type of work with young children. In
order to make the needed impact on the young children in our lives we must be using anti-bias
approach. Knowing that leaves me mind boggled that so few programs seem to embrace and use
this type of education. It also leaves me wondering how can we take these anti-bias education
practices a step further and truly embed equity and social justice as key components of a schools
foundation. This means the philosophy is not just a part of the classroom curriculum and
environment, but embedded in the structure of the school and policies. When the focus is equity
and social justice based anti-bias education, the teaching is just one component. These questions
bring me back to my original statement, “bye-bye tolerance, hello equity and social justice; a
critical analysis of factors necessary in creating an equity and social justice early childhood
education program.”

31
Throughout the next section I will focus on my methods of research used to uncover
these factors.

32
CHAPTER THREE
Methodology
When reflecting on the question I have posed, I wanted to dig deep into the experiences
of equity and social justice based anti-bias education and those currently participating in it. The
experiences of such individuals, along with research from some of the previously discussed
authors, will provide the best description of what equity and social justice anti-bias education
looks like in a classroom, as well as factors necessary for creating this type of early childhood
education program.
I chose to use two research methods: surveys distributed to the fulltime teaching staff and
parents/caregivers at Community Child Care Center, and classroom observations during which I
looked specifically at the curriculum, classroom environment and materials, and language used
by the teachers. Before I go into depth about each of these research methods, my rationale for
choosing these methods, and the procedures for data collection and analysis, I am going to
describe the school I used for my research.
Community Child Care Center (CCCC) is a non-profit early childhood education
program in Saint Paul, Minnesota. The program has been serving families for over thirty years.
CCCC serves children 16 months old to 5 years old, in our toddler, younger preschool, and older
preschool classrooms. We are a nationally accredited program through the National Association
for the Education of Young Children. This honor means the program goes above and beyond
licensing requirements in the daily implementation of our programs. The most common
differences noticed are smaller class sizes, lower child to teacher ratios, larger variety of play
materials available and these changed on a regular basis, and formal education background of
teaching staff is required.

33
The mission of the Community Child Care Center is to provide affordable, high quality
early childhood education, in a warm, nurturing environment that encourages the development of
the whole child. The center seeks to provide a physically safe, emotionally secure, and inclusive
setting for all children and their families. The mission of Community Child Care Center is
implemented through an educare (the blend of an educational environment infused with
nurturing care), learning through play, anti-bias, and anti-violence philosophy. The center also
strives to provide support for parents/caregivers and university students in the areas of child
development, parenting, and early childhood education. I have served as the Director of the
center for the past three and a half years.
The anti-bias philosophy at Community Child Care Center lays the groundwork for how
everything at the center is developed and implemented. The philosophy was written by me, in
conjunction with the fulltime teaching staff. Excerpts were taken from the University of
Minnesota Child Care Center’s anti-bias philosophy and were developed to match the more in-
depth equity and social justice approach used within our community. It was important to us
when creating this document that a clear picture was provided of the goals of the philosophy and
how it would or would not be implemented into our programs. It is as follows:
Community Child Care Center demonstrates an ongoing commitment to integrate an anti-
bias philosophy into every aspect of its program. Because children live in a diverse and
complex world, they interact daily with people different from themselves. Anti-bias
curriculum is a process to help children develop and strengthen their sense of self and
group identities, while interacting respectfully with others in a multicultural environment.
Anti-bias curriculum is a proactive approach to reduce prejudice and promote
inclusiveness. The teaching staff guides children to think critically about unfairness and
stand up for themselves and others in the face of bias. The anti-bias approach is a
teaching strategy that values diversity and challenges bias, rather than ignoring and
therefore reinforcing children’s misunderstandings of differences. The anti-bias
philosophy at CCCC is a commitment to addressing societal bias and practice our value
for diversity in a developmentally appropriate way. CCCC strives to balance its unique
institutional culture with the individual cultural interests of each family served. Respect
for CCCC’s diverse community is reflected in the curriculum, classroom environments,

34
parent/caregivers/teacher/child interactions, staff development, hiring plans, and program
goals. The center does (and does not do) many things to ensure that we are creating this
anti-bias and inclusive environment. Some examples of these things are: not celebrating
any particular cultures holidays or birthdays; representing many different kinds of
families within our curriculum and books found in the classrooms; providing
opportunities for children to experience different cultural activities and ask questions; and
creating classroom environments where the children and families can find themselves in
the pictures on the walls, books, toys, and activities. All of these strategies implement
the anti-bias philosophy to our center’s program, while creating a welcoming, safe, and
inclusive environment for all children and families. CCCC is committed to anti-bias
education; which means we share a commitment to human rights, dignity of the
individual, and social justice. We strive to create a program that truly reflects the lives of
our children, families, staff, and communities.
Community Child Care Center’s anti-bias philosophy brings many families and educators
to the program. The center’s anti-bias philosophy is closely linked to the anti-violence
philosophy. Through this philosophy the center’s goal is to create a safe place for children to
develop socially, while developing skills of self respect, respect for others, empathy, and
empowerment. This philosophy is implemented through the use of the Committee for Children’s
violence prevention Second Step Curriculum, which is a developmentally appropriate approach
to social development. The uniqueness of the philosophies carries into the dynamics of the
program and families we serve.
The center is located in student family housing for the University of Minnesota on the
Saint Paul campus. Currently we are serving 57 children that range from sixteen months to six
years old. Based on our annual USDA food program (2005-2006), 70% of our families qualify
for free or reduced meals. In order for families to qualify for free, a family of two would need to
have an annual income of $16,679 or less; or a family of three would need to have an annual
income of $20,917 or less. To qualify for reduced, a family of two would need to have an annual
income of $23,736 or less; or a family of three would need to have an annual income of $29,767.
These ridiculous figures are just slightly above the federal poverty guidelines. The families at

35
the center that qualify for free or reduced meals also receive our tuition sliding fee scale to assist
with making child care affordable. The families that do not qualify for free or reduced meals live
in the surrounding Saint Anthony Park neighborhood or are University faculty or alumni. These
families typically chose to bring their children to the center based on the mission and
philosophies used. These families also pay a significant amount more per week for child care to
help us assist other families.
All families that enroll their children at Community Child Care Center also commit to
continual involvement. Families are required to do regular parent involvement hours, whether it
be doing center laundry over the weekend, assisting with regular playground maintenance,
volunteering to attend a field trip, serving on the Parent Board of Directors, or making play
dough at home for the classrooms to use. These options are flexible, the important component is
for all families to be involved and feel invested in the program.
Of the 57 children served 4% are Black, 81% are White, 13% are Asian, 2% are persons
reporting more than two races or other. (These percentages are determined by how the
parents/caregivers choose to categorize themselves and their children.) Of the 57 children we
serve there are sixteen different home languages spoken. Family structure among these children
differs greatly as well. We have children who live with a single parent, mom and dad, extended
family as caregivers, two moms, and two dads. The majority of the families have one
parent/caregiver that is a student at the University of Minnesota. Our center works with the
Student Parent HELP Center at the University of Minnesota to obtain child care assistance grants
to assist our parents/caregivers with affordable child care while completing their degrees.
Our fulltime teaching staff consists of twelve people: one Director, one Assistant
Director, seven Teachers, and three Assistant Teacher Floats. Each person comes from a very

36
different personal background (where they grew up, marital/relationship status, religion, hobbies,
etc). All of the fulltime staff started at the center with an Associates degree or higher in
education or a related field, such as child psychology, women’s studies, family social sciences,
social work, or early childhood special education. All of the fulltime staff have extensive
training and experience in anti-bias education. The demographics of the fulltime staff lacks the
diversity of the families we serve. Of the twelve fulltime staff members, all are female; eleven
are White; and all are between the ages of 22 and 30 years old. This reflects the typical
demographics of our hiring pool as well.
Surveys. According to Anderson (1998) surveys, also sometimes referred to as
questionnaires, are one of the most popular means of collecting data. Surveys are often used
when one has a need to collect a large amount of data. I chose this method because I wanted to
ensure that all the parents/caregivers and fulltime staff at Community Child Care Center had a
voice in my research. Also, surveys allow the parents/caregivers to act as a “check.” This data
allows me to discover how the parents/caregivers see the teachers are creating an anti-bias
environment, since it is inappropriate to ask the children at this age.
Fifty-seven parents/caregivers and eleven fulltime staff members received anonymous
surveys. They each have a great deal of knowledge and experience about anti-bias education and
I wanted to be able to incorporate this. This method offers the additional advantage of time
efficiency. The time constraints of both families and staff made individual interviews not viable.
One of the drawbacks Anderson (1998) mentions about surveys is the return rate. All of the
parents/caregivers and fulltime teaching staff are very supportive of this research and have
expressed interested in participating. I distributed the surveys to all the parents/caregivers and
teachers, putting them in their mailboxes at the center. Each person / family was given two

37
weeks to complete and return the survey. There was a locked box outside the office door at the
center for people to return these at their convenience. These steps made it very easy for
participants to complete and return the survey. The participation of parents/caregivers and
fulltime staff gave me a significant amount of data to analyze. Data authenticity is more likely
due to the confidentiality of response.
I developed two surveys that I used in my research. The first one was distributed to all of
the teaching staff at Community Child Care Center. This includes one Assistant Director, seven
Teachers, and three Assistant Teacher Floats. The questions asked in this survey can be found in
Appendix A. The teaching staff is a critical factor in the implementation of equity and social
justice early childhood education. These questions allow the teachers to demonstrate their
understanding of the differences between teaching tolerance and anti-bias education, while
giving a description of what tools (attitudes, beliefs, skills, etc) a teacher would need to be able
to facilitate this type of education. The responses will be used to describe how this type of
education is implemented in a classroom setting with young children. The questions asked of the
teaching staff are more general to an overall teaching practice. Thus the surveys could be
replicated and distributed to other educators in the field.
The second survey I developed was distributed to all the parents/caregivers of the
children at the center. The questions asked in this survey can be found in Appendix B. The
questions asked of the parents/caregivers are specific to Community Child Care Center, since
this is the program they are familiar with. Thus the surveys would not be able to be replicated,
without making changes to the questions. The questions asked allow parents/caregivers to
describe the factors that make equity and social justice education appealing for their family; how
they perceive the implementation of the center’s mission; the relationship with their child’s

38
teacher; and their own involvement in the program. The responses to the questions will be used
to describe how this type of education is implemented in a classroom setting with young
children.
The surveys are the broad base method I used to collect information from the primary
players, teaching staff and parents/caregivers, at the Community Child Care Center. These
individuals participate in equity and social justice anti-bias education on a daily basis. The other,
more specific method I used, were classroom observations.
Observations. There are four factors involved in implementing equity and social justice
anti-bias early childhood education programs that I am focusing on in my research. The surveys
focus on the “who” meaning parents/caregivers and teaching staff. These individuals are key to
the implementation of our program. The other crucial factors are the “what”, “where”, and
“how.” Data for these areas were collected through classroom observations. Observations are a
primary method used in action research (O’Hanlon, 2003) because they allow a practitioner or
outsider to collect specific evidence. I conducted an in-depth observation of all three of our
classrooms (toddler 16 months to 33 months, younger preschool 3 to 4 year olds, and older
preschool 4 to 5 year olds). These consisted of two observations in each classroom, each for a
half hour time span during January and February 2006. The classrooms each have two or three
teachers; therefore I scheduled these observations in order to have the opportunity to see each of
the teachers. During the observations, I gathered specific information on the curriculum (the
what), classroom environment and materials, the ecology of the room (the where), and language
used, which includes body language, tone, and teacher engagement (the how). During my
observations I completed a field notes log to ensure I was able to document what I was
observing. The logs include examples of: the curriculum, what activities were taking place in the

39
classroom while I was there, the classroom environment and play materials, a detailed list of the
pictures I saw around the classroom, the dramatic play stations they had set up, the variety of
books they had available, and different ways I noticed the children would be able to find
themselves in the classroom; and language used, descriptions of the interactions between the
teachers and children. A sample of this log can be found in Appendix C.
This component of my research provides concrete examples for educators on what this
type of education looks like in an actual classroom. Often I hear from educators that they are
interested in implementing equity and social justice anti-bias education in their classroom, but
they are uncertain of what this would look like. These components will later be described in my
analysis and discussion chapter.
It is important to mention with all research, bias exists. The elements of my bias in this
research include the following: I oversee all the operations of the program; wrote the mission
statement and pieces of the philosophies; interact daily with the parents/caregivers, teaching
staff, and children; I hire the teaching staff; I assist in curriculum development; and facilitate
teaching development training. While I oversee and am responsible for these components, the
teaching staff have autonomy of their classrooms and are responsible for the weekly curriculum
development and the regular room changes.
The methodology of my research includes surveys and classroom observations. All
pieces of my research were focused around the work done at the Community Child Care Center,
a nonprofit early childhood education program that is grounded in equity and social justice anti-
bias education. In my research I used the ideas from the parents/caregivers and fulltime staff, as
well as classroom observations to assist in laying the structure for what factors are necessary in
creating this type of educational program. In the next chapter I will summarize my data

40
collection and analysis, which consisted of looking for emerging themes, while laying the
framework for my continuum of early childhood education in my discussion.

41
CHAPTER FOUR
Results and Discussion
This research project started when I began to question the educational philosophies early
childhood education programs were using to address issues of differences in their programs. I
wanted to be able to create a framework for educators so they would be able to grasp an
understanding of why we need to say good-bye to the notion of teaching tolerance and say hello
to equity and social justice based education. The methods I used for my research, surveys and
classroom observations, assisted me in creating my continuum of early childhood education
philosophies of addressing differences. The results also assisted me in describing the factors
necessary for creating an equity and social justice early childhood education program.
Before I begin describing my continuum, which I will do in the discussion section of this
chapter, I will describe the analysis of my research and my response rate. The goal of my
research was to collect information from the main parties involved in Community Child Care
Center’s anti-bias equity and social justice education. Throughout the research I wanted to find
answers to the why (or why not), who (center staff and parents/caregivers), what (curriculum),
where (classroom environment), and how (teacher engagement and language used) of equity and
social justice education. I chose to conduct my research at Community Child Care Center as it is
a program that completely embraces a high level of commitment to equity and social justice
early childhood education.
Results
Teaching Staff Surveys
Of the eleven members of the teaching staff, all of them completed the surveys. Their
perceptions would not be able to be represented in any other manner than their own personal

42
reflections and responses. A majority of the teaching staff have had experiences in both teaching
tolerance and anti-bias education environments; knowing this, I felt they were able to critically
respond to these questions, while giving concrete examples of the factors necessary in creating
an equity and social justice early childhood education program.
Once all the surveys were returned, I compiled the responses electronically. Then, I
made five copies of the compiled data. This way, I had one copy to focus specifically on each
question area of the “why”, “what”, “where”, “how”, and “who.” Looking at each area, I then
looked for emerging themes in the teacher’s responses. Although I considered using a rubric for
the analysis of the surveys I decided against it as I did not want to limit the teacher’s responses.
Why. When asking the teaching staff what the word tolerance means to them or how
they would describe the idea of teaching tolerance the responses were all very similar. Teachers
described tolerance as a “sugar coated word for hatred” and as a method of “feeding oppression
and discrimination.” Teachers also described tolerance as “putting up with an attitude or
behavior” or “dealing with something out of pity or inconvenience.” In the responses all eleven
teachers suggested that there was a negative connection with the word. Six also worried that this
type of education may create more oppression or in fact teach stereotypes to young children.
The responses to what equity and social justice based anti-bias early childhood education
were polar opposites to the responses of what teaching tolerance is. Here all eleven of the
teachers described the notion of inclusion no matter what. Teachers discussed being welcoming
to all families and children; being willing to truly explore and ask questions, rather than ignoring
what children are noticing and experiencing; and teaching children respect. The key components
that stood out with these responses were: the need for these ideas to be embedded in all aspects

43
of the program; and the importance of teaching children to recognize differences, while
empowering them to stand up for themselves and others in the face of bias.
The dichotomy of responses to the first two questions asked of the teachers depict to me,
the negative implications of teaching tolerance, while reinforcing the need for creating equity
and social justice based programs. The remaining questions asked of the teachers focused
specifically on equity and social justice early childhood education.
Who. When asking the teachers about the attitudes and beliefs an educator would need to
have in order to facilitate this type of education the responses were broad, but very similar.
Teachers described the need for educators to have an open viewpoint and be willing to change
and accept new teaching strategies. Seven teachers discussed the importance of educators
needing to actually believe that all children and families are equal regardless of differences; and
that educators need to embrace these differences. The message from these responses that spoke
loudest to me was the need for educators to understand the oppressive actions and opinions of the
dominant group in society and the implications these have on subordinate groups. With that,
educators must be willing to look within themselves and recognize their own biases and work
toward changing these. All eleven of the teachers felt that as the “who” in this type of education,
if these components are missing a true equity and social justice program can not exist.
These responses connected to the next question asked of the teaching staff about the type
of skill base an educator needs to be able to do this type of work. The teachers used words like
open minded, compassion, empathy, passion, respect, awareness, and knowledge as the general
base needed. Teachers shared how there needs to be an awareness of the role educators play in
being an active participant in an anti-bias frame work. From there, five teachers described the
need for educators to recognize bias in education and oneself. Seven of the teachers also

44
described the importance of being able to implement this form of curriculum into all areas of the
program. The teachers describe this as more than an additive approach, where there are just bits
and pieces, rather this is the core of everything one does. Another response made by five of the
teachers was the need for ongoing training and lots of tools readily available. All eleven of the
teachers felt in order to create this type of environment a great deal of support is needed. Again,
teachers mentioned as the practitioners of the work without the base they described in their
responses, the “what”, “where”, and “how” are irrelevant.
What, where, and how. With the previous questions teachers were asked more generally
about why we should or should not use different philosophies. Then they were asked to look
specifically at the teacher’s attitudes, beliefs, and skill bases needed to do equity and social
justice early childhood education. The last piece to which teachers were asked to respond to
were the actual practices in the classroom. This includes the curriculum, classroom environment,
teacher engagement, and language used.
All eleven of the teachers described similar components needed for these areas. Books in
the classroom were an area everyone mentioned. Books that depict a wide range of people (race,
class, gender, sexual orientation, language, martial status, etc.). Teachers also suggested that
books be available that not only show a range of people, but also tell stories of people addressing
negative attitudes and working toward change.
Posters and pictures around the room were also an area described by all of the teachers.
With this, nine of the teachers mentioned the importance of the posters and pictures being real
not cartoon depictions, as these representations would only reinforce stereotypes of different
populations. Books and posters/pictures reflect components of the classroom environment. The
classroom environment is enhanced through the curriculum.

45
In regard to the curriculum teachers also mentioned the need for it to be developed by the
teachers to reflect the children and their developmental needs. The teaching staff that works
directly with the preschool aged children described the need to focus curriculum around themes
that can encompass a variety of perspectives (example, music). Along with the curriculum,
teachers mentioned the importance of including different languages in their planning, and
activities that knock down stereotypes and give children the opportunity to role play. Teachers
discussed the need for a variety of materials like paint, crayons, paper that reflect different skin
tone which should be used on a regular basis.
Another area teachers described was the importance of teachers engaging in conversation
with children that promotes social justice and teachers answering questions about differences that
the children may have. Teachers gave examples that these questions could be in about another
person’s skin color, hair texture, use of a wheelchair, family structure, etc. The questions the
children have are real and not meant hurtfully. These are honest questions, based on differences
children notice and want to understand. The responses given by the teachers (or other adults) in
their life shape a child’s attitudes or beliefs about these differences.
The last component teachers mentioned, which ties directly into the next section, is
parent/caregiver involvement. All of the teachers mentioned the importance of having this
support and going above and beyond to reach out and encourage parent/caregiver involvement
through a variety of different ways.
Parent/Caregiver Surveys
The next component of my research was developing surveys for the parents/caregivers at
Community Child Care Center. All of the families received the survey and were given two

46
weeks to complete it. Of the fifty seven families at the center, forty nine of them completed the
surveys. This was an 85.96% response rate.
The parents/caregivers at Community Child Care Center are vital to the success of our
program. Focusing on the parent/caregiver perspective, their responses to these questions allow
me to see why families choose this type of education for their children, while also describing
how they feel Community Child Care Center meets the goals of its mission, which is grounded in
equity and social justice. Along with that, an essential component of equity and social justice
anti-bias education is parent/caregiver involvement. This stems from the relationships between
the parent/caregivers and their child’s classroom teachers to the other ways parents/caregivers
maintain involvement in the program. Nieto (2000) describes the importance of family
involvement in school to support and maintain the academic success of students, specifically in
equity and social justice based education. Parent involvement as typically defined by schools is
not always imperative for student success. Schools generally see this as joining the parent group,
attending school meetings or programs, or helping children with their homework. While these
are some aspects that can be included in parent involvement, schools need to broaden their
definition to include parent/caregiver roles in motivating children to be in school and be excited
about school. Schools also need to include the sacrifices parents/caregivers may make for their
children to be in school. This broader picture needs to be inclusive of creating more caring
environments in our schools, as this nurturance is a reflection of parents/caregivers, and creates a
welcoming sense for children. Nieto’s work in this area is connected to the questions I posed to
parents/caregivers specifically of how they see their relationship with the teachers and their role
at the center.

47
Once all the surveys were returned I compiled the responses electronically. Similar to the
teacher’s surveys, I then made five copies of the compiled data. This way, I had one copy to
focus specifically on each question of the “why”, “what”, “where”, “how”, and “who.” Looking
at each question I then looked for emerging themes in the parents/caregiver’s responses.
Although I considered using a rubric for the analysis of the survey’s I decided against it as I did
not want to limit the parents/caregiver’s responses.
Why. The first question asked of the parents/caregivers was what factors of Community
Child Care Center’s equity and social justice based anti-bias education are appealing to them.
There were four main themes that became apparent in their responses. The first theme, which all
forty nine families commented on, was the values taught through this type of education. Parents
mentioned that their own personal lives were grounded in equity and social justice and they
wished to instill these ideas in their children as well. Along with this, having their children in
this type of education was another way to reflect and reinforce their own values.
The second theme that emerged, which connects to values, was general descripters found
in most of the responses. These included: inclusive (mentioned 37 times), safe (mentioned 29
times), global awareness (mentioned 9 times), respect for self and others (mentioned 42 times),
diversity (mentioned 31 times), fairness (mentioned 14 times), peaceful (mentioned 8 times),
love (mentioned 11 times), acceptance (mentioned 17 times) and equitable (mentioned 36 times).
These were all words parents/caregivers used to describe factors that were important to them and
that they wished for their children to be exposed to and embrace.
These first two themes were very general, and focus more on the idea of what takes place
at Community Child Care Center. The next theme, which was more specific, was the importance
of an early start to this type of education. Forty two parents/caregivers mentioned that they felt it

48
was good to start early in showing children the differences in our world and that it is important
that we teach children from the early age. Twenty seven parents/caregivers discussed the
socialization that occurs during the early years and the hope that their children will learn the
values described before.
Thirty six parents/caregivers connected the early start with the last theme that emerged,
which was of providing their children with experience and practice. It was mentioned the
importance of children having experiences that may be different from the ones they have at
home; and that through this type of education children will grow up knowing not all children /
families look the same, celebrate the same things, eat the same food, or speak the same
languages. Parents/caregivers shared that they did not feel the wholeness of these types of
experiences could be gained from home life, rather socialization of young children needs to take
place in a social setting with their peers.
The question of “why” was the starting ground to gain perspective from the
parents/caregivers on their decision to have this type of education for their child. The remaining
questions asked of the parents/caregivers are more specific to aspects of the program at
Community Child Care Center.
Who. When looking at the “who” of equity and social justice based education, there are
three main parties involved, the teachers, parents/caregivers, and children. Based on the age of
the children it would not be appropriate to collect data specifically from them, rather their
parents/caregivers serve as their voice. The questions asked, specifically about the “who,” to the
parents/caregivers looked at their relationship with their child’s teacher and their involvement in
the center.

49
The relationship with their child’s teacher by far received the most responses of all the
questions asked on the survey. Forty three parents/caregivers expressed this as one of the most
important components for them. Thirty nine parents/caregivers shared the need of having a
trusting relationship, creating a teamwork approach, and daily communication.
Parents/caregivers also discussed the value of feeling comfortable and feeling like the teachers
are responsive to their needs, concerns, and questions. In sum, forty two parents/caregivers felt
they have strong, open relationships, built on trust, that are warm, but professional. Thirty one of
the parents/caregivers connected the high level of these relationships to their own involvement in
the center.
Parents/caregivers described a variety of ways they were involved with the center. These
included: serving on the Parent Board of Directors; assisting with or planning activities for their
child’s classroom; attending and participating in center events such as potlucks or fundraisers;
weekly laundry; assisting with playground maintenance; and spending time in the classroom at
drop off and pick up. Another component that was described by parents/caregivers was how
they engage their child in conversation about the day, bringing school issues and activities home.
Parents/caregivers shared that all of these different involvements allow them to participate
regularly with the program and thus there is a feeling of connectedness for themselves, which
many felt transfers to their children.
What. All of the questions asked of the parents/caregivers gave some feedback about the
curriculum or what is done in the classrooms. I was able to generate five main themes for this
area based on the most common responses. First, twenty nine parents/caregivers discussed role
models as a key component of how this type of education is implemented. This was described as
being done through showing “alternative” role models like female firefighters, or changing

50
words in books to be gender inclusive, or simply the role models the children have within the
staff, who include a range of genders, sexual orientations, etc. These modifications, while
seeming small, demonstrate the commitment the center has to equity and social justice, while
providing one example of how the work is embedded into all aspects of the program.
The second theme that emerged was thirty six parents/caregivers mentioned specific anti-
bias techniques used in the curriculum or general program planning. These included: themes for
the weekly curriculum reflecting a global awareness, the environment, community, and respect
for others; and not celebrating holidays or birthdays in the classroom. Again, these components
are embedded in the work done at the center and create an environment where people are not
tokenized.
Connecting to the specific anti-bias techniques, forty one parents/caregivers also
mentioned the components used with our anti-violence philosophy and Second Step Curriculum,
which was the third theme that emerged. The general notion was that these aspects assist
children with dealing with their emotions, encourage children to behave respectfully to one
another, managing conflict, emphasizing cooperative behaviors, and empower children to use
their words and stand up for others. Twenty three parents/caregivers described these aspects as
ones needed to go hand and hand with the equity and social justice work that is done. As well as
promoting non-violence, it is also assisting children with their general social development, which
include self-respect, respect for others, empathy, and empowerment.
The next theme that emerged was “developmentally appropriate practices”. Thirty one
parents/caregivers mentioned that this type of education has to be very carefully and specifically
modeled to ensure it is delivered in a manner which the children can grasp and gain from. Forty
three parents/caregivers spoke of the curriculum being varied, developed by the teachers, and age

51
appropriate. Parents/caregivers described feeling like this was possible due to the low teacher to
child ratio (mentioned 26 times), educational background of the staff (mentioned 38 times), and
the commitment for quality early childhood education that is underlying at the center (mentioned
40 times).
The last theme generated was adult education. 91% of the parents/caregivers made some
reference to aspects of the center that provide them with education to assist in the care they
provide at home. These included: regular newsletters and brown bag lunch seminars that address
issues such as critique of Disney movies, gender roles, and media violence; teachers available
and willing to answer questions and assist in finding resources when needed; and a general
overall sense of support. One parent/caregiver summed the importance of this: “without parental
education your efforts might not yield much success both in the short and long term.” In sum,
parents felt they needed tools to carry on the work that is done at the center, at home as well.
Where. The curriculum would not be successful on its own, as the classroom
environment impacts every aspect of the day. Throughout the questions posed to the
parents/caregivers there were three main themes about the classroom environment that continued
to come up. First, a nurturing environment was provided. The words nurturing (mentioned 44
times), warm (mentioned 39 times), and compassionate (mentioned 31 times) were used
repeatedly. Parents/caregivers gave examples of this through the children being able to find
themselves in the classroom and the staff knowing and using both the children’s and
parents/caregivers names immediately.
The second theme was the play materials found in the rooms. Parents/caregivers
described seeing play materials that were representative and reflected the implementation of the
“no violence” policy. Parents/caregivers also felt that this type of education is enhanced through

52
toys such as wheelchairs and guide dogs for the dolls, as well as a variety of books available for
the children to look at that reflect many different types of people and families.
The last theme found was the pictures and posters around the room. Parents/caregivers
felt that these not only reflected the diversity at the center, but also on a global level.
Parents/caregivers described these as providing the children with real depictions of the world
around them.
How. All of the questions asked of the parents/caregivers collected answers specifically
about the teachers and the “how” of their work. The two themes generated for this area were
action and language. Parents/caregivers describe the action of equity and social justice based
education through: the teachers showing that they care for and about the preschoolers and their
families (mentioned 43 times) ; teachers consistently encouraging children to behave kindly
towards one another (mentioned 29 times), ask questions (mentioned 23 times), and critically
think about bias (mentioned 17 times); creating a warm and nurturing environment for both the
children and the parents/caregivers (mentioned 32 times); the teachers getting down at the child’s
level and really listening to them (mentioned 35 times); uniformly addressing children as
individuals (mentioned 24 times); being present and responsive to the children (mentioned 17
times); and genuinely taking an interest in the children and families (mentioned 39 times).
Parents/caregivers shared that these actions along with language that is inclusive, consistent, and
thoughtful, create the atmosphere for the education. Parents/caregivers felt that if these
components were not present, along with pieces of the classroom environment, they would not
feel as connected and their children may not feel that sense of belonging. The sense of belonging
for both children and parents/caregivers is needed for the children to be engaged with equity and
social justice work.

53
The surveys from both the teaching staff and the parents/caregivers collected a great deal
of general information about the factors present in an equity and social justice early childhood
education program. As a part of my research I also conducted classroom observations which will
be discussed in the next section.
Observations.
The center has three classrooms. For each classroom I conducted two, half hour
observations. While doing the observations I completed field notes logs compiling the details of
the what, where, and how. When conducting the classroom observations my focus was just on
the specific areas on the field notes log. I simply wrote what I saw or observed to obtain as
much objectivity as possible.
At Community Child Care Center, the teachers do what is called a room change on a
monthly basis. During these changes the teachers rotate the play materials in the classroom and
restructure the overall classroom environment. I ensured that I scheduled my classroom
observations so I would be able to collect information on two different room changes, for each
classroom. When all of my observations were completed this information was also compiled
electronically, allowing me to pull out the following emerging themes for each area.
What. The curriculum for each classroom varies greatly, as the teachers develop it on a
weekly basis based on the interest and developmental goals for the children. Each classroom
serves a different age group, thus what is appropriate for one group may not be for another.
The toddler room (children 16 months to 33 months) develops their curriculum based on
providing a teacher-initiated activity each morning and afternoon. These activities are not theme
based; rather the curriculum ensures the children will have the opportunity to explore with a
variety of different things focused on social, emotional, cognitive, and physical development.

54
The activities I observed when I was in the toddler room were taking a walk around the school
while practicing holding onto the rope, and a dance party where the children had the opportunity
to use different instruments and dancing ribbons. Other activities listed on the curriculum for the
weeks when the classroom observations were conducted included: a parent coming in to play the
trumpet, playing with snow in the sensory table, ABC block painting (taking blocks in the shape
of the letters, dipping them in paint, and putting the paint then on paper), baking bread, washing
the room, and shaving cream with animals (covering table with shaving cream and letting
children play with small plastic animals in the shaving cream). During the month of February
the toddler room highlighted parent involvement month and encouraged parents/caregivers to
come join them in anything they wished. Parents/caregivers assisted with classroom activities,
helped serve and clean up lunch, read stories in native languages, assisted with getting the
children dressed to go outside, and hanging out in the classroom.
Both preschool classrooms (younger 2 to 4 year olds and older 4 to 5 year olds) develop
their curriculum around a weekly theme. The schedule allows for the teachers to facilitate a
group time and follow up activity connecting to these themes. While observing the younger
preschool room they were focusing on their letters. One week’s theme was “K” and “L” and
then the other week was “E” and “F”. The themes for the older preschool room were
transportation and healthy bodies. During their group times I was able to observe them doing
their daily calendar and weather components, which involves all of the children having the
opportunity to participate in putting things up on the bulletin board or leading songs. The
children were practicing patience, taking turns, and providing positive encouragement for one
another.

55
The variety of activities provided through these themes allowed children to see multiple
perspectives. When the older preschool classroom was discussing transportation they discussed
the different methods that can be use to get around. Children shared ideas such as: walking,
biking, wheelchairs, cars, buses, planes, roller skates, and horses. During the week, the class had
a visit from someone working with Metro transit and a female auto mechanic. They ended the
week by working in small groups to construct any type of transportation they wanted using
miscellaneous supplies. When the younger preschool classroom was focusing on “K” and “L”
they did activities such as: making a kindness collage, creating a kindness book, and utilizing the
second step anti-violence curriculum. One of the group times I had the opportunity to observe
the children generated a list of actions that are kind and then role played using kind words with
their peers.
Where. Within equity and social justice early childhood education, the environment is by
far one of the largest components of how the philosophy is implemented. Based on the age of
the children and what is considered developmentally appropriate a nurturing and welcoming
environment is needed for children to feel safe and secure. When conducting the classroom
observations, there were a number of things I noticed in all three classrooms that create the
ecology of the room. The themes that emerged from these observations were: items that
personally reflect the individual children and their families, which allow them to find themselves
in the classroom; relevant play materials; books; and pictures/posters around the classroom
reflective of the global world. I will spend some time describing what I saw in the classrooms
for each of these themes.
As I sat in the classrooms observing the children and taking note of the items around the
room at some point in each observation a child had a positive experience with locating an item

capstone

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to capstone

Similar to capstone (11)

capstone