Swings and Roundabouts - something new? Or just in a new package?

In a recent conversation with my brother, a dedicated primary school teacher with over three decades of experience, we found ourselves having quite a passionate discussion on the ebb and flow of ‘new’ ideas in our different but similar professions. 

We share many perspectives, but we still disagree on some things.  Which is fine, it’s good to hear and learn from different people and even if you don’t agree you can still learn from that.  I am happy to say we are far nicer with our discussions than in our ‘moody’ teenage years.  I cherish our conversations now and feel very lucky to have him to bounce ideas off.  

The latest conversation revolved around the introduction of new ideas and the excitement that often prompts a rush to overhaul existing systems. I expressed my frustration with professionals who, in their enthusiasm for what they perceive as groundbreaking ideas, advocate for abandoning established practices. I understand when the practice is ineffective, but that is not what we were talking about. We are talking about established practices that are effective.  Perhaps not for every child but what new idea is going to be a perfect fit for everyone? Maybe not ditch or ‘diss’ the old system. Perhaps appreciate what merit it had and then adapt to the new ideas. But often people just diss and tell everyone about how awesome their new idea is. Not very friendly if you ask me.  

We also spoke about how the language we use is always changing and that sometimes people grab onto this new language like a badge of honour.  If you don’t use the ‘correct’ current terminology that you have practiced using for 30 years then you are being offensive.  I am not against changing the words I use but it may take me time to train my brain to say things differently then it is use to.  Just ask my boys - I still get their names wrong and have even been known to call out the dogs name instead once or twice :).  Whoops.  

Emotional Thermometer

With a career that started back in 1997, I've witnessed numerous new therapies and techniques when working with Autistic and neurotypical children.  Many professionals, myself included, have experimented with different approaches, experiencing both successes and failures. 

Take, for instance, the emotional thermometer concept introduced to me in the early days of my career when I was reading the text "Navigating the Social World." by …….  I liked it and starting using the ideas that ____ gave me.  

Not long after I was introduced to the thermometer I was collaborating with an occupational therapist, and she had adapted the thermometer in a very cool way.  Her idea really supported not only the child with prompts to teach self regulation skills but it also had prompts for the parents to know how to respond.  I thought it was a brilliant tool Hers was pretty - when I am created my own, mine were not so pretty but I found it really effective.  

Since then this concept, like others, has undergone multiple transformations as different individuals rebranded and commercialised it through platforms like TPT or Twinkle, leading to variations such as the Zones of Regulation.

Important to make clear, this is not a criticism. I love going into platforms such as  TPT and finding different resources to use that I think will be effective for the skill I need to teach. Saves me a lot of time and as I said - sometimes what I make is not so pretty.  What’s important is that these resources are essentially just tools – it is our application of them that truly matters. You can come up with what may look like an amazing idea but unless you really know how to use it then it is just a flashy new resource.   

Social Thinking Resources

Having utilised them for years, Social Thinking resources provide another illustration of this. I love their child-friendly language and their role as a springboard for different learning opportunities. 

When they were introduced, the concepts weren’t new to me.  They were a repackaging of concepts that I had been teaching for years.  They are great resources, but I recognise them as supplementary tools that I use when needed rather than assuming them to be some sort of revolutionary shift.  

Whether it's changes in literacy curricula or teaching methodologies, educators often find themselves adapting to the latest trends, each claiming to be supported by the newest research. 

This incessant cycle can be taxing, as witnessed in the numerous literacy curriculum changes I have observed not only while working within primary school but also as a parent with two boys with very different learning styles who had three different literacy curriculum changes during their time in primary school. It was frustrating and quite detrimental for both of my different reasons.   All had their research, all had their benefits but they all discarded the previous curriculum and felt theirs was superior and the only one to be teaching moving forward.  

Blind acceptance has no place in education; instead, critical thinking and a thoughtful evaluation of what aligns with our own proven practices should guide our decisions. 

Research, while valuable, does not provide a one-size-fits-all solution; everyone has their own agenda, and it's crucial to sift through information to make informed decisions based on our collective knowledge.

Dedication

On a more personal note, I dedicate this blog post to Dr Patricia Wise - best known as simply Pat, to those that knew her - was my honours supervisor at Griffith University.

Under her supervision back in 1996, I wrote an Ethnographic thesis on how mothers were being not listened to by doctors and other health professionals when they were going with concerns with their children’s behaviours. 

Their own observations lead them to believe their child might have autism, but no one would believe them or  know how to help them.

Pat helped to critique the subject and write reflexively about the circumstances that mothers were finding themselves in, well before I became a mother myself and understood their concerns inherently.

That was more than 20 years ago and fortunately things have moved on a lot since then.  An interesting point that relates is that at the time you had to write in the context of Children with Autism, as that was the correct way to define it then.

It was drilled into me to use that terminology,  so I wrote it hundreds of times in my 10,000-word thesis, but now it has changed and we speak or write of Autistic Children, which was an absolute no-no back then.

Sometimes my brain finds it a little hard to write or say it differently than how I have for so many years.  So, I apologise if I ever offend anyone with a now outmoded term, as I would never mean to. But again, I often wonder if one day it will change back or if people can just be ok that people may speak of it in similar but different ways. 

Who knows? That’s another blog in itself.