Navigating Power and Subjectivity: Cultural Diversity and Transcultural Curriculum in Early Childhood Education

Abstract

Professional learning communities (PLC) can build partnerships among diverse stakeholders that support transformative change and uphold social justice. In this dialogic, reflexive piece, the authors explore how a newly formed PLC in Alberta is engaging individuals in relational practices and discussions about cultural diversity in early childhood education. Through sharing their subjectivities, field experiences, and current research, the group members are defining and exploring ways to coplan transcultural curricula in culturally diverse education settings. By recognizing subjectivities and differences and honouring the needs of all learners, the PLC is raising cultural awareness and mobilizing efforts to build capacity and strengthen professional relationships across Alberta.

Full text

WINTER/HIVER 2019 80 Vol. 44 No. 1
JOURNAL OF CHILDHOOD STUDIES ARTICLES FROM RESEARCH
Navigating Power and Subjectivity: Cultural Diversity and
Transcultural Curriculum in Early Childhood Education
Carolyn Bjartveit & Cheryl Kinzel
Carolyn Bjartveit, PhD, is assistant professor in the department of child studies and social work at Mount Royal University, Calgary.
Her doctoral research focused on the topics of teaching and learning and the complex intersections between the self (of students and
educators) and the curriculum in culturally diverse early childhood education postsecondary classrooms. Her research has appeared
in the Journal of Curriculum eorizing, the Journal of Applied Hermeneutics, and Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood. Email:
cbjartveit@mtroyal.ca
Cheryl Kinzel, EdD, is the director of the Centre for Early Childhood Development and Applied Research (CEDAR) at Bow Valley
College, Calgary. Her doctoral research will explore reconciliation and Indigenous epistemology and pedagogy as understood
through the storied experiences of early childhood education students. Her research interests are social-emotional well-being in the
early years, Indigenous epistemology and pedagogy in the early years, and culturally specic early childhood education curriculum.
Why are we here?
A professional learning community (PLC) was created in
the province of Alberta in 2015 to engage representatives
from educational institutions, the provincial government,
professional organizations, and practitioners in
critical dialogue about topics and issues related to
cultural diversity and transcultural curriculum in early
childhood education (ECE). A transcultural curriculum
moves beyond or transcends mere acknowledgments
or acceptances of cultural dierences. rough layering
diverse cultural ideas and beliefs, the PLC members are
forming new understandings of pedagogical theories and
educator practices. Marjorie Orellana (2016) writes that
“trans” is
a movement beyond borders, a transcendence
or transformation of things that were being held
apart, or articially constructed as separate
and distinct. This is not the same as hybridity,
which presumes an even and presumably
equitable blend of different forms. Nor is it
the erasure of difference. Rather, it is about
questioning the ontologies that hold things
apart. It involves the resolution of dialectic
tensions and the emergence of something new—something that we perhaps cannot even
imagine. (p. 91)
Designing and implementing a transcultural curriculum, therefore, is a creative and transformational process that
PLC members are critically considering and exploring in the context of their own praxis.
Since the PLC was formed, group membership and interest in the work has continued to grow beyond provincial
Professional learning communities (PLC) can
build partnerships among diverse stakeholders
that support transformative change and uphold
social justice. In this dialogic, reexive piece,
the authors explore how a newly formed PLC
in Alberta is engaging individuals in relational
practices and discussions about cultural diversity
in early childhood education. rough sharing
their subjectivities, eld experiences, and current
research, the group members are dening and
exploring ways to coplan transcultural curricula
in culturally diverse education settings. By
recognizing subjectivities and dierences and
honouring the needs of all learners, the PLC is
raising cultural awareness and mobilizing eorts
to build capacity and strengthen professional
relationships across Alberta.
Key words: early childhood education;
professional learning community; cultural
diversity; subjectivity; transcultural curriculum

WINTER/HIVER 2019 81 Vol. 44 No. 1
JOURNAL OF CHILDHOOD STUDIES ARTICLES FROM RESEARCH
borders through online platforms and social media. Using a dialogic, reexive approach, this paper explores the
positioning and subjectivity of the cochairs and their hope of expanding the work through sharing the PLC’s
successes and challenges, building strong bridges that reach across and through contested spaces and a vision of
critical, transformative reection and action.
e PLC was formed in response to the requests of ECE professionals who attended Carolyn’s research presentation
at the Alberta Child Care Association conference in Calgary in May 2015. Carolyn’s PhD study ndings raised
critical questions about the time and opportunities provided to students in ECE postsecondary education
programs to discuss and compare their cultural beliefs about pedagogy and child care with relative Western early
learning theories and practices. During the research project, Carolyn interviewed educators, all recent arrivals
in Canada within the past ve years, who had completed their ECE postsecondary study programs in Alberta
and were working in child care centres and preschools in Calgary. e study participants juxtaposed Western
pedagogical theories and practices with their own cultural beliefs about child care and education and talked about
specic issues they had confronted in the postsecondary classroom and eld in Alberta (Bjartveit & Panayotidis,
2014, 2015). Some of the cultural dierences the educators described included child-centered pedagogy—allowing
children to make choices and guide their own learning; lenient Western child rearing and discipline policies and
practices; the strong focus on developing minds and bodies and little attention to children’s spiritual development;
and wastefulness and the questionable management of materials and food supplies in ECE settings.
Following Carolyn’s conference presentation, there was interest among the session participants to continue their
discussions about cultural diversity and transcultural ECE. In response to their requests, Carolyn sent an invitation
to the participants in her doctoral research study, conference session attendees, and professional contacts at various
postsecondary institutions and professional organizations in Alberta. In October 2015, 40 people responded to
her invitation and attended the rst PLC meeting, which was held at the Werklund School of Education at the
University of Calgary.
Shortly aer the initial PLC meeting, Cheryl joined the group as cochair. Her motivation to embark on the journey
with this work is related to her rst postsecondary teaching experience working with a cohort of First Nations
students in an ECE diploma program. e students had experience working at, and indeed returned to work in,
the early learning centres on their reserve when they completed their program. During the course of study, the
students identied that the early learning centres on the Nations’ territory did not have a specic curriculum that
they followed and there was very little of the Nations’ traditional culture practiced in the centres (Kinzel, 2015).
Exploration of the ECE postsecondary curriculum exposed another gap as the planned delivery of curriculum was
entirely Eurocentric in focus.
Troubling the dominant discourse
While Carolyn and Cheryl worked together as cofacilitators of the PLC, the content of this article came out of our
discussions and relational practices related to the work of the PLC, and about teaching and learning in culturally
diverse ECE settings. We view this work through practical and theoretical lenses and frame it with Hans-Georg
Gadamer’s (2004) and Ted Aoki’s philosophical and metaphorical ideas about dialogue and the “art of questioning”
(as cited in Pinar & Irwin, 2005, p. 361). e work is also informed by critical pedagogy, which explores social
justice education (Freire, 2000), and Indigenous methodology, which emphasizes a relational and decolonizing
approach to research and practice (Kovach, 2009). We recognize that these are multiple epistemological and
ontological positions, but we nd great value in bringing together diverse perspectives, and these ideas work
together to trouble perceived issues in the development and delivery of ECE curriculum in Alberta. We nd that

WINTER/HIVER 2019 82 Vol. 44 No. 1
JOURNAL OF CHILDHOOD STUDIES ARTICLES FROM RESEARCH
our theoretical tensions lead us to challenge each other and our ideas and thus further our dialogue.
Our aim in this piece is to interrogate the concept of transcultural ECE through the ongoing work of the PLC as
well as our personal positioning. Because we have chosen to focus on our own subjectivity within our pedagogical
practices, we believe it is tting to write this piece as a critical and honest conversation—an example of our relational
practice that underpins our work with the PLC. e dialogic style of the piece also reects the PLC members’
casual conversations at meetings and on social media. rough engaging readers in reection about social justice
in ECE, we hope to provoke critical thinking about ways to mobilize dialogue about dierence and diversity and
action in the eld. Following the ideas of Gaile Cannella (2002), we recognize that
within the context of social justice and care, respect would require appreciation of the value
of all other beings, acceptance of multiple ways of thinking and being in the world, and a
willingness to ght for an equitable and just community for everyone. (p. 169)
Ultimately, our intent in writing this dialogic piece is to disrupt and resist colonizing pedagogical practices and
understand authentic and meaningful ways to invite dialogue and reect all cultures in ECE programs (pre-K–
postsecondary), environments, and curricula (Louie, Poitras Pratt, Hanson, & Ottmann, 2017).
Wait a second, who are we to be doing this work?
Carolyn: I’m still wrestling with some of the questions we discussed at the education conference last May. How do
you think we can develop and support eective professional partnerships through the PLC to facilitate teaching and
learning in Indigenous and multicultural ECE settings? And how can we disrupt taken-for-granted professional
teaching and learning practices in culturally diverse classrooms?
Cheryl: You are launching into a conversation about dominant discourses. Before we can explore that idea, we
need to position ourselves in the work we are already doing related to identity, dierence, and diversity.
Carolyn: I’m really struggling to situate myself within the PLC and I wonder what right I have, as a woman of
“whiteness and privilege” (Carr & Lund, 2007), to facilitate discussions related to cultural diversity. I’m interpreting
ideas as an outsider and I’m far removed from the cultures that I’m talking and writing about, which makes it very
dicult to justify my position. My understandings of ECE theories and practices have been shaped by Euro-Western
cultural perspectives on “good” child care and pedagogy, and immigrant educators will have dierent child-rearing
practices and early learning philosophies, formed by their own cultural beliefs, histories, and traditions. You might
remember discussing the notion of the “good teacher/mother” (Ailwood, 2008, p. 162) in your university graduate
classes. e “good” educator upholds tenets of the dominant discourse about pedagogy and child rearing, adheres
to universal stages of child development theories, and manages students by ordering and measuring their learning
and behaviours (Langford, 2007, p. 343). According to Grieshaber and Cannella (2001),
the dominant discourse of developmentally appropriate practice (DAP) constructs the identity
of the good early childhood practitioner, the discourse creates both the desire to be the good
teacher and a denition of the good teacher in DAP terms. Good practitioners are constituted
and regulated within the claims of appropriate practice and learn to judge themselves as
“good” or “bad” teachers according to that discourse. (p. 15)
Although I am continuing to explore my own subjectivity, it is causing tensions and troubling me. Recently, I was
surprised—more shocked—when I came across a statement I had written in an academic paper a few years ago. I
was referring to the works of philosopher Paul Ricoeur (1992)1 and Richard Kearney (2003). Kearney posits that

WINTER/HIVER 2019 83 Vol. 44 No. 1
JOURNAL OF CHILDHOOD STUDIES ARTICLES FROM RESEARCH
it’s necessary “to accept the truth that we are strangers-to-ourselves and we need not fear such strangeness or ‘act
it out’ by projecting such fear onto Others” (p. 8). I reasoned that because my own identity and ontological self is
always and forever changing based on my lived experiences and interactions in the world, I am therefore “Other”
to myself. Shiing my thinking from Self and Other to Self as Other and acknowledging that I am a “stranger” to
myself—might enable me to put my fears aside and be more accepting of cultural dierences. I now recognize that
in doing this, I was attempting to make the Other like me—only accepting folks if they had similar worldviews and
ideas—and not for who they truly are. Sonja Arndt (2015) stresses that
recognizing the foreigner within could become the catalyst for a humble, possibly frightening,
re-imagination of being together and of communicating across and despite differences (Todd,
2004). This ... is the essence of community as an ethical commitment to maintaining and
engaging with alterity, as a personal responsibility towards the other, to the individual and to
humanity. (p. 890)
So, rather than putting fears aside, the tensions that I experience are productive in prompting me to reimagine
dierent relationships and a “re-framing of a future in early childhood education that critically engages with the
complexity and uncertainty” (Arndt, 2015, p. 890) of otherness and with all others.
Cheryl: It’s okay to change and reassess how we approach our understanding, and critically question assumptions
and privilege. Sometimes we need to be uncomfortable to reect and grow. Exploring my own subjectivity has
been a signicant part of my work in graduate studies as I have wrestled with new knowledge about the world and
my relationships within it. Nêhiyaw scholar Margaret Kovach (2009) reminds me that
the supposition of subjectivity and the interpretative nature of qualitative research imply
a relational approach to research … reexivity is the researcher’s own self-reection in the
meaning making process…. Decolonizing methodologies demand a critical reexive lens that
acknowledges the politics of representation. (pp. 32–33)
My journey has located me at a place where I am interested, through my professional roles, in working toward
reconciliation. I am approaching this by specically working toward meeting the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission’s (2015) call to action #12, which calls for culturally relevant ECE programming for Aboriginal
children and families (p. 2). As a non-Indigenous person who is exploring Indigenous ways of being, knowing,
and doing, I feel uncomfortable with approaching this research from a solely Western-European framework, and
I believe that in coming to make sense of Indigenous ways of being, knowing, and doing, I need to take up the
work of Indigenous scholars and Indigenous methodology. I align my socio-constructivist and critical pedagogical
perspectives with Indigenous methodology as outlined by Kovach (2009) and Paulo Freire (2000). is alignment
carries over to my involvement with the PLC. I am hopeful that this group will provide a voice to articulate the
need for an Indigenous-led development of culturally appropriate ECE curriculum, because the Alberta ELCC
curriculum framework does not oer this (Prochner, Cleghorn, Kirova, & Massing, 2016). We need to step away
from the role of “expert” (because of our academic credentials), open dialogic spaces, and listen to the wisdom
of others (Louie et al., 2017). e diculty with trying to infuse or add Indigenous content into a Eurocentric
framework is well articulated by educator Emily Ashton (2015), who writes:
Curricular practices that espouse to embed, add-on, or infuse Indigenous pedagogical
principles to already established settler frameworks are extremely problematic. Ethical,
ontological, epistemological, and cosmological differences make such inclusions analogous
to acts of colonization. (p. 92)

WINTER/HIVER 2019 84 Vol. 44 No. 1
JOURNAL OF CHILDHOOD STUDIES ARTICLES FROM RESEARCH
Bridges
Carolyn: e focus of our rst PLC meeting was to present current academic research about cultural diversity in
Alberta, and to be honest, I didn’t think it went well. Some members said they felt frustrated because they didn’t
have a voice or opportunities to share their ideas. inking back, we could have opened the meeting up and invited
practitioners working directly with children and families in the eld to present their work, too. But we are making
changes as we move forward—learning how to facilitate the group based on building relationships and knowing
the members. Relationships, relational practice, and storytelling are foundations of Indigenous epistemology and
in developing and supporting the PLC (Kovach, 2009). Aoki (as cited in Pinar & Irwin, 2015), describes cross-
cultural dialogue as a bridge. It is important to develop strong professional connections in the eld, and I view
the PLC itself as a metaphorical bridge. Aoki writes that “on this bridge, we are in no hurry to cross over; in
fact, such bridges lure us to linger … [it is] a site or clearing in which earth, sky, mortals and divine, long to
be together, belong together” (as cited in Pinar & Irwin, 2015, p. 53). e experience of meeting people on a
“bridge”—deepening our understanding about cultures, identities, and dierences, and creating new pedagogical
theories and practices through dialogue is important in developing relationships. But dialogue is also multilayered
and unpredictable and reects the complex, always changing self of subjects. Arndt (2017) emphasizes a need for
an “attentive, receptive and reciprocal ethics of care” (p. 918) in our dialogic interactions with others:
Linguistic encounters and developing subjects that are “innitely in construction” (Kristeva,
2008, p. 2) involve surprise, memories, dreams and fears, that can tear apart, in order to
again cohere, in different ways, in the present and in and for the future…. The unknown and
difcult implications—the ssures and bridges—of this life reassert the argument for depth,
criticality and consideration in educational dialogic relationships. (p. 916)
Cheryl: I also think that we need to move into a dialogic space where we can question the dominant discourse and
truly explore how this narrative may or may not t for those participating in early childhood spaces in Canada.
Culture itself is contingent and situated—always shiing and changing (Brooks, 2015)—and it shapes the ideas
that are upheld and communicated through economic, social, and political institutions. is has huge implications
for “learning” which we might understand as “overlapping, complementary or … conicting cultural practices”
(Nasir, Rosebery, Warren, & Lee, 2006, p. 489). Learning is a complex layering of cultural beliefs, ideals, traditions,
and practices.
I recognize that Western cultural beliefs have shaped my own image of the child and childhood and that historical
and institutional constructs of contemporary Western child-rearing practices and child development theories
point to issues of power. Jordan and Weedon (1995) stress that “power is at the centre of cultural politics. It is
integral to culture …all practices that have meaning—involve relations of power” (p. 11, italics added). If cultural
politics shapes the meaning of social practices and determines who has the authority to dene those meanings
(Jordan & Weedon, 1995, p. 5), it explains why ideas that are dierent from the dominant discourse, or from what
has been constructed and reproduced within Western cultural tradition, are oen challenged and not accepted.
When we talk about “culture” we are referring to the social relationships and practices that are historically
developed and shaped by communities to accomplish the purposes they value (Matusov, DePalma, & Drye, 2007).
ese practices include the tools we use, the social networks we connect with, the ways we speak to each other, and
what we speak about. e dominant discourse in ECE is coming out of Eurocentric cultural norms and does not
necessarily represent Indigenous and other non-European values, beliefs, and way of being, knowing, and doing
(Archibald, 2001, 2008; Cooke-Dallin, Roxborough, & Underwood, 2000; Greenwood, de Leeuw, & Fraser, 2007;
Kovach, 2009; Ledoux, 2006; Louie et al., 2017). But when we collaborate, as we are attempting to do through the

WINTER/HIVER 2019 85 Vol. 44 No. 1
JOURNAL OF CHILDHOOD STUDIES ARTICLES FROM RESEARCH
PLC, we are exploring the spaces in-between self and other, and are beginning to build connections and bridges.
Sharing the Space
Carolyn: I envision a transcultural curriculum as a story—curriculum topics layered with the cultural beliefs,
life experiences, dreams, imaginings, and pedagogical knowledge that individuals and communities share.
rough layering, new and dierent ideas emerge that can be developed into storylines. So rather than curricula
that promote Western cultural traditions and ideas, a transcultural curriculum might be imagined as “a set of
great stories … [with children and adults] as the storytellers of [their] culture[s]” (Egan, 1997, p. 64). Building
relationships through intercultural dialogue is crucial in supporting a transcultural curriculum. It requires an
“open and respectful exchange of views between [diverse] individuals … on the basis of mutual understanding
and respect” (Council of Europe, 2008, p. 10). Gadamer (2004) explained that the “rst condition of the art of
conversation is ensuring that the other person is with us…. To conduct a conversation means to allow oneself to
be conducted by the subject matter to which the partners in the dialogue are oriented” (p. 361). Attentive listening
on the part of conversation partners might mean giving up control and being willing to change one’s ideas based
on the unfolding conversation.
Cheryl: Working in relationship with others and working through a story is well articulated by Sto:lo academic Jo-
ann Archibald when she states, “one does not have to give meaning right aer hearing a story, as with the question-
and-answer pedagogical approach. An important consideration is hearing stories over time so that they become
embedded in memory” (p. 25, 2008). Building and sustaining relationships through storytelling and listening
is a path to understanding and respect. is understanding is something I am exploring in my own doctoral
research. I have become curious about dominant discourses in ECE and the hegemony of Western-European
epistemology and pedagogy. How does this relate to early childhood education? What are we seeing in the eld?
What conversations are occurring? I think these questions are what initiated the idea for the PLC.
From my own research, I know that Indigenous peoples have historically educated their communities in traditional
ways prior to and since colonization through successful methods of cultural transmission. is traditional system
of education was disrupted during the period of the Indian residential schools when children were forcibly
removed from their homes, and their families, and speaking their traditional language was punished (Truth and
Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015). e government-funded educational experiences of Indigenous
people in Canada from contact through to the current era are stories of colonization and violence. Many scholars
have explained that contemporary Canadian educational practices for Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples
frequently negate Indigenous knowledge traditions, continuing the history of cultural suppression (Archibald,
2008; Cooke-Dallin et al., 2000; Greenwood et al., 2007; Kovach, 2009; Ledoux, 2006; Matusov et al., 2007). Given
the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s Calls to Action (2015), I nd myself wondering how the dominant
discourse in ECE may or may not support call #12 which states, “we call upon the federal, provincial, territorial,
and Aboriginal governments to develop culturally appropriate early childhood education programs for Aboriginal
families” (p. 2). In working with communities and on a variety of ECE working groups, I repeatedly hear the call
for the development of culturally appropriate curriculum and the addition of Indigenous voices from community
members.
Carolyn: What can we do, as non-Indigenous professionals working in the ECE eld, to support the TRC’s calls
to action?
Cheryl: I see our role as doing the dicult work that moves us toward reconciliation (Poitras Pratt & Danyluk,
2017; Regan, 2010). I think exploring and recognizing our power and position is a place to start. Instead of being

WINTER/HIVER 2019 86 Vol. 44 No. 1
JOURNAL OF CHILDHOOD STUDIES ARTICLES FROM RESEARCH
the ones who direct and create, we need to move into positions where we ask and listen. Culture is unique to each
community, and it will not be possible for a single curriculum to be inclusive of all Indigenous cultures (Poitras
Pratt & Danyluk, 2017). We need to engage in the dialogue that recognizes this and works to change it. We need to
be genuine in our formation of relationship and do a lot more listening.
Carolyn: It also relates to my understanding of diversity and identity in the context of immigrants’ experiences in
the ECE eld. Newcomers to Canada are bringing their premigration, migration, and settlement experiences with
them. Schooling is a process through which immigrant and refugee children must come to terms with societal
expectations while also staying connected to family and culture (Kağitçibaşi, 2007; Knörr, 2005). ese children
are oen required to choose the world in which they will belong and are forced to navigate between dierent
identities (Henning & Kirova, 2012, p. 226), which points to a need for new pedagogical approaches and theories.
rough ongoing dialogue, listening, observing, and building relationships, ECE professionals must consider new
and dierent ways to coplan meaningful learning experiences for all children.
Cheryl: How do we check our privilege and support the facilitation of a PLC group that has the potential to disrupt
the dominant ECE discourse without having our own voices become overpowering?
Carolyn: We can turn to scholars who have taken up these same ideas and are addressing some of the questions
that we ourselves are struggling with. It is interesting that researchers in Canada today (e.g., Bjartveit & Panayotidis
2014; Massing, 2015; Prochner, Cleghorn, Kirova, & Massing, 2014) are asking similar questions to those that
Annette LaGrange, Dawne Clark, and Elizabeth Munro (1994) addressed 20 years ago in their research Cultural
Sensitive Child Care: e Alberta Study—a project funded by the government of Alberta and sponsored by the
Alberta Association for Young Children: How can professionals shi from “tourist” representations of culture,
where they focus on symbols of culture, and move toward deeper understandings of Self and Other? How do
educators recognize dierences and include cultures into facets of ECE programs (pre-K–postsecondary levels),
environments, and curricula in meaningful and authentic ways? And what can result when intercultural dialogue
is not initiated and supported in ECE playrooms and classrooms?
ECE curriculum frameworks in Canada
Carolyn: While early learning curriculum frameworks are being implemented across Canada, a subgroup of the
PLC is extending an invitation and asking educators and professionals to participate in critical conversations about
dierence and diversity and how it is reected in the Alberta ELCC curriculum framework. e members, many of
whom work in culturally diverse child care centres and day homes in the province, are discussing how the Alberta
ELCC curriculum framework concepts might be interpreted and implemented in Indigenous and multicultural
communities of practice in meaningful and authentic ways, and how members of diverse communities contributed
to the design, revisions, and implementation of the framework. We must remember that the curriculum is itself
dialogical and its development must be based on the complex layering of lived experiences, cultures, histories, and
diverse pedagogical theories and practices.
Earlier you mentioned that a single curriculum document is not inclusive of all cultures. I would argue that a
“framework” design has open spaces for members within communities of practice to construct their own unique
curriculum according to their needs and interests. Metaphorically speaking, I envision a curriculum framework
as the frame of a house with the broad play-based goals representing the structural support beams. Two A-frame
houses with the same structural design can look very dierent according to the materials that builders or owners
choose to construct the walls. Similarly, educators, children, and parents in a child care centre construct “walls,”
so to speak, or develop their curriculum based on how they themselves interpret the holistic goals and concepts.

WINTER/HIVER 2019 87 Vol. 44 No. 1
JOURNAL OF CHILDHOOD STUDIES ARTICLES FROM RESEARCH
Although the framework goals and concepts are established, the curriculum will look and be lived out dierently
in child care settings. Peter Moss (2014) explains that “a broadly dened ‘framework’ curriculum … leaves plenty
of scope for local interpretation and for local supplementation to express local conditions and traditions and
locally determined values and objectives” (p. 181). Christine Massing (2017) emphasizes that discussions related
to cultural practices, beliefs, and knowledges must occur within local contexts to inform and construct broader
curriculum frameworks. e creative potential of a curriculum framework points again to our understanding of
a “trans” cultural curriculum—the ideas people share are transformative and can potentially create new concepts
and pedagogical approaches within unique communities of practice.
e PLC members are also addressing how language and terminology in the Alberta ELCC curriculum document
might be interpreted in diverse ECE settings. Although the image of a “mighty learner and citizen—strong,
resourceful and capable” (Makovichuk, Hewes, Lirette, & omas, 2014, p. 38) aligns with particular Western beliefs
about children, how do these images dier from the views of people from other cultural backgrounds? Referring
to a research study and bridging program—an ECE program of studies for refugee and immigrant women in
Edmonton, Alberta—Prochner et al. (2016) explain that the image of the child included in the Alberta curriculum
document was “a source of dissonance” (p. 54) for the study participants: “Images of children as innocent, precious,
and special seem consistent with participants’ concern for helping children to do things” (p. 54), as well as a strong
desire to protect children. So how can educators acknowledge and honour cultural dierences in views and beliefs
about young children in the context of the provincial curriculum document?
Cheryl: A framework is just that—a framing for later additions. However, I think that the framework itself, in this
instance, represents the dominant culture view of what an ECE curriculum framework should be (Battiste, 2013;
Kerr, 2014; Kincheloe, 2008; Kovach, 2009; Pidgeon, 2008, 2016). One of the challenges we face in early childhood
education in Canada is to articulate a vision for children and families, and for ECE curriculum that works outside
of dominant culture frameworks. e signicant dierences in epistemology and pedagogy of Indigenous and
Western cultures would mean to me that we could not use the same systems or frameworks for both. e Alberta
ELCC curriculum framework is not neutral and value free. It is developed from Western, dominant-culture norms
and expectations.
Carolyn: It is crucial to engage with dierent stakeholders to initiate conversations and develop the curriculum.
Building relationships through ongoing dialogue is the foundation of coconstructing a transcultural curriculum.
A group of PLC members are currently making plans to meet with members of Indigenous communities and
Elders to discuss concepts in the Alberta ELCC curriculum framework.
Where do we go from here?
Cheryl: We are working in what sometimes seems like a fractured eld-scape. Where is the network? e ECE
eld is made up of a variety of stakeholders with dierent perspectives and agendas. Reaching and engaging with
all the stakeholders can be challenging and at times contentious. We do not always speak to each other or engage
in a critical, forward-thinking, relational manner. We are not aware of all the work that is happening related to
culture and diversity in the eld. is is something that I am concerned about. How do we work together in a
collaborative manner while still asking dicult questions? Is this a safe space? How do we engage and mobilize in
a nonthreatening manner?
Carolyn: Any kind of change takes time, and mobilizing action to support rights-based education produces
tensions and requires risk taking. But rather than turning away from tough conversations, we might learn to live
within the tensions they produce—even invite tensions. By engaging in discussions, we might come to recognize

WINTER/HIVER 2019 88 Vol. 44 No. 1
JOURNAL OF CHILDHOOD STUDIES ARTICLES FROM RESEARCH
our dierences and understand the complex and multilayered nature and deeper meanings of culture. I truly
believe there is hope in continuing our dialogue, nding ways to disrupt dominant discourses and strengthening
relationships in the eld through the PLC.
In addition to our online and face-to-face meetings, we have launched a Facebook account to help mobilize
knowledge about transcultural curriculum and our PLC, with the hopes of engaging more stakeholders nationwide
in this larger conversation. rough online platforms we hope to share resources, children’s projects, and current
research in wider circles.
Cheryl: I think the eld recognizes that teaching and learning in multicultural classrooms, and particularly in
classrooms that include Indigenous children, calls for more than an acknowledgment of diversity. It requires
engagement, listening, reection, and action. Rather than ignoring cultural dierences, educators can recognize
dissimilarities as opportunities to initiate discussions and honour the needs of all learners by inviting dialogue
even when it is dicult and uncomfortablethis in itself is an act of social justice. However, dealing with the
tough questions of dierence must be determined according to the unique circumstances and contexts in which
individuals live and work together. We must consider how this work can be expanded and what actions it will
require to support and continue the PLC in the future.
Carolyn: How the work unfolds will be determined by the PLC members themselves as we continue to discuss
topics and issues related to diversity and dierence and transcultural education in ECE. rough continuing the
dialogue, we might learn how to listen and be more open to the ideas of others, as Gadamer (2004) suggests:
“Dialectic consists not in trying to discover the weakness of what is said, but in bringing out its real strength. It is
... the art of thinking” (p. 361).
I believe the hopefulness of this work—building professional connections and opening intercultural dialogue
through the PLC—will make the playroom “a real space in the middle, where we can all stop and rest and work
to nd the … epistemological forms that will mediate … oppositions” (Grumet, 1988, p. 20). Dierence is the
foundation on which a transcultural curriculum is built. In creating a transcultural ECE curriculum with diverse
paths of learning, educators, children, and families might arrive at new understandings of Self and Other and
intercultural relations will be strengthened in culturally diverse ECE settings.
Postscript
In recognizing that critical social justice requires dialogue and actions (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2012), three subgroups
of the PLC have been formed to further mobilize change and implement plans to support ECE in diverse child
care settings across Alberta. Recently, the entrance requirements and Canadian Language Benchmarks (CLB) for
admission into postsecondary early learning education programs have been increased in Alberta. e members
in one working group are discussing ways to build capacity in the eld, supporting individuals to meet CLB
requirements through the design of bridging programs that include concurrent language and ECE courses (Massing
& Shortreed, 2014). e group is also planning to propose ideas to postsecondary institutions regarding ways to
implement new bridging programs in partnership with community agencies and organizations.
Based on suggestions from the PLC members, a second subgroup is investigating postsecondary ECE programming
and opportunities for nondominant groups to explore their cultural beliefs in relation to the Western pedagogical
theories and practices included in the Alberta ELCC curriculum framework document. e members are
attempting to dene and understand a culturally responsive pedagogy within each of their professional contexts.
is includes developing coconstructed curriculum approaches that support the inclusion of the lived experiences

WINTER/HIVER 2019 89 Vol. 44 No. 1
JOURNAL OF CHILDHOOD STUDIES ARTICLES FROM RESEARCH
of students and exploring how these lived experiences and coconstructed curricula can be reected through other
curriculum documents.
At a PLC meeting in April 2017, the members agreed on a new vision for the group: to share and increase
awareness of current research, projects, and programs related to cultural diversity and transcultural curriculum
in early learning in Alberta; to exchange ideas and engage in critical dialogue about topics and issues related to
child care and pedagogy in multicultural settings; and to build connections and relationships among professionals
working in culturally diverse child care and education settings. Since 2015, the membership has expanded to
include individuals working in diverse settings, including professional organizations, school boards, government,
postsecondary institutions, day homes, private and public child care centres, and preschools across Canada and
as far away as Singapore. What began as an academically focused, Alberta-bound group two years ago has since
become a growing community of professionals from diverse epistemological and pedagogical backgrounds,
supporting members nationally and internationally.
References
Ailwood, J. (2008). Mothers, teachers, maternalism and early childhood education and care: Some historical connections. Contemporary
Issues in Early Childhood, 8(2), 157–165.
Archibald, J. (2001). Sharing Aboriginal knowledge and Aboriginal ways of knowing. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 25(1), 1–5.
Archibald, J. (2008). Indigenous storywork: Educating the heart, mind, body, and spirit. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Arndt, S. (2015). Otherness “without ostracism or levelling”: Towards fresh orientations to teacher foreigners in early childhood education.
Educational Philosophy and eory, 47(9), 883–893.
Arndt, S. (2017). Dialogic ruptures: An ethical imperative. Educational Philosophy and eory, 49(9), 909–921.
Ashton, E. (2015). Troubling settlerness in early childhood curriculum development. In V. Pacini-Ketchabaw & A. Taylor (Eds.), Unsettling
the colonial places and spaces of early childhood education (pp. 81–97). New York, NY: Routledge.
Battiste, M. (2013). Decolonizing education: Nourishing the learning spirit. Saskatoon, SK: Purich.
Bjartveit, C., & Panayotidis, E. L. (2014). Practicing palimpsest: Layering stories and disrupting dominant western narratives in early
childhood education. Journal of Applied Hermeneutics. Retrieved from https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/jah/issue/
view/4284
Bjartveit, C., & Panayotidis, E. L. (2015). Running with Hermes: Imagining and traversing a transcultural curriculum path in the
postsecondary early childhood education classroom. Canadian Children 40(3), 4–15.
Brooks, D. (2015, April 17). When cultures shi. e New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/17/opinion/
david-brooks-when-cultures-shi.html
Cannella, G. (2002). Deconstructing early childhood education. Social justice and revolution. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Carr, P., & Lund, D. (2007). e great white north? Exploring whiteness, privilege, and identity in education. Rotterdam, e Netherlands:
Sense.
Cooke-Dallin, B., Rosborough, T., & Underwood, L. (2000). e role of elders in child and youth care education. Canadian Journal of
Native Education, 24(2), 82–91.
Council of Europe. (2008). White paper on intercultural dialogue: Living together as equals in dignity. Strasbourg, France: Author. Retrieved
from http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/intercultural/source/white%20paper_nal_revised_en.pdf
Egan, K. (1997). e educated mind. How cognitive tools shape our understanding. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

WINTER/HIVER 2019 90 Vol. 44 No. 1
JOURNAL OF CHILDHOOD STUDIES ARTICLES FROM RESEARCH
Freire, P. (2000). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Bloomsbury.
Gadamer, H. G. (2004). Truth and method. New York, NY: Continuum.
Greenwood, M., de Leeuw, S., & Fraser, T. N. (2007). Aboriginal children and early childhood development and education in Canada:
Linking the past and the present to the future. Canadian Journal of Native Education, 30(1), 5–18.
Grieshaber, S., & Cannella, G. (Eds.). (2001). Embracing identities in early childhood education: Diversity and possibilities. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Grumet, M. (1988). Bitter milk. Women and teaching. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
Henning, K., & Kirova, A. (2012). e role of cultural artefacts in play as tools to mediate learning. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood,
13(3), 226–241.
Jordan, G., & Weedon, C. (1995). Cultural politics. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
Kağitçibaşi, C. (2007). Family, self, and human development across cultures: eory and applications (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum.
Kapuściński, R. (2008). e other. New York, NY: Verso.
Kearney, R. (2003). Strangers, gods, and monsters. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kerr, J. (2014). Western epistemic dominance and colonial structures: Considerations for thought and practice in programs of teacher
education. Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society, 3(2), 83–104.
Kincheloe, J. L. (2008). Critical pedagogy and the knowledge wars of the twenty-rst century. International Journal of Critical Pedagogy,
1(1), 1–22.
Kinzel, C. A. (2015). Developing culturally specic curriculum: Supporting Aboriginal early learners. Master’s thesis. Retrieved from http://
hdl.handle.net/2429/53779
Knörr, J. (Ed.). (2005). Childhood and migration: From experience to agency. London, UK: Transaction.
Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous methodologies. Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press.
LaGrange, A., Clark, D., & Munroe, E. (1994). Culturally sensitive child care: e Alberta study. Edmonton: Alberta Association for Young
Children.
Langford, R. (2007). Who is a good early childhood educator? A critical study of dierences within a universal professional identity in
early childhood education preparation programs. Journal of Early Childhood Teacher Education, 28(4), 333–352.
Ledoux, J. (2006). Integrating Aboriginal perspectives into curricula: A literature review. Canadian Journal of Native Studies, 26(2),
265–288
Louie, D., Poitras Pratt, Y., Hanson, A., & Ottmann, J. (2017). Applying Indigenizing principles of decolonizing methodologies in
university classrooms. Canadian Journal of Higher Education 47(3), 16–33.
Makovichuk, L, Hewes, J, Lirette, P., & omas, N. (2014). Play, participation, and possibilities: An early learning and child care curriculum
framework in Alberta. Retrieved from http://childcareframework.com/
Massing, C. (2015). Authoring professional identities: Immigrant and refugee women’s experiences in an early childhood teacher
education program. Canadian Children, 40(1), 73–99.
Massing, C. (2017, October). Immigration panel. Invited plenary speaker at the International Reconceptualizing Early Childhood
Education Conference, Toronto, Ontario.
Massing, C., & Shortreed, L. (2014). Teaching and learning with immigrant and refugee child care workers. A report prepared for the

WINTER/HIVER 2019 91 Vol. 44 No. 1
JOURNAL OF CHILDHOOD STUDIES ARTICLES FROM RESEARCH
Alberta Ministry of Human Services on behalf of the Intercultural Child and Family Centre.
Matusov, E., DePalma, R., & Drye, S. (2007). Whose development? Salvaging the concept of development within a sociocultural approach
to education. Educational eory, 57(4), 403–421.
Moss, P. (2014). Transformative change and real utopias in early childhood education. New York, NY: Routledge
Nasir, N. S., Rosebery, A. S., Warren, B. & Lee, C. D. (2006). Learning as a cultural process: Achieving equity through diversity. In R. K.
Sawyer (Ed.), e Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 489–504). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Orellana, M. F. (2016). Immigrant children in transcultural spaces: Language, learning, and love. New York, NY: Routledge.
Pidgeon, M. (2008). Pushing against the margins: Indigenous theorizing of “success” and retention in higher education. Journal of College
Student Retention, 10(3), 339–360.
Pidgeon, M. (2016). More than a checklist: Meaningful Indigenous inclusion in higher education. Social Inclusion, 4(1), 77–91.
Pinar, W., & Irwin, R. (Eds.) (2005). Curriculum in a new key. e collected works of Ted T. Aoki. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Poitras Pratt, Y., & Danyluk, P. (2017). Learning what schooling le out: Making an Indigenous case for critical service-learning and
reconciliatory pedagogy within teacher education. Canadian Journal of Education, 40(1), 1–29.
Prochner, L., Cleghorn, A., Kirova, A., & Massing, C. (2014). Culture and practice in early childhood teacher education: A comparative
and qualitative study. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Comparative Studies, 1(1), 18–34.
Prochner, L., Cleghorn, A., Kirova, A., & Massing, C. (2016). Teacher education in diverse settings. Rotterdam, e Netherlands: Sense.
Regan, P. (2010). Unsettling the settler within: Indian residential Schools, truth telling, and reconciliation in Canada. Vancouver: UBC Press.
Ricoeur, P. (1992). Oneself as another. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Sensoy, Ö., & DiAngelo, R. (2012). Is everyone really equal? An introduction to key concepts in social justice education. New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to action. Retrieved
from: http://nctr.ca/assets/reports/Calls_to_Action_English2.pdf
(Endnotes)
1 Paul Ricoeur (1997) has suggested that the notion of “oneself as another” implies otherness to the extent that “one cannot be
thought of without the other, that instead one passes into the other” (p. 3). is notion moves beyond comparisons of self to
another and points to “oneself inasmuch as being of other.” In other words, we understand that the Self is dened, understood
and aected in and through relationships with the Other (Kapuściński, 2008, p. 67).