For my analysis on this scenario, I was able to look at commonality, individuality,
and context. For the commonality core considerations, it can be applied in this
scenario when the teacher asks, “Who is in the family photo?” and the student
replies “That’s daddy one and that’s daddy two!” I feel as if having two male
figures as parental units would be influential on a child. For the context core
consideration would not be able to be applied to this scenario because the
teacher did not use the family photos in her family tree to address the child’s
unique family dynamic. The individuality core consideration cannot be applied
here either instead of using this scenario as a learning opportunity the teacher did
not even attempt to integrate any learning opportunities. I feel as if the sixth
principle of child development is most defiantly violated in this scenario. The sixth
principle identifies the importance of making learning relevant to a child’s
interest, home lives and families. I also feel like the fourth focuses on the fact that
child development and learning sequences may vary by culture and family. I feel
like in this scenario the teacher was the one in the wrong. While I feel like her
activity did have good meaning behind it, she should have taken the time and
used this scenario as a learning opportunity for the children. I would have
explained to each of the children every family is different and unique, some
families may have two mommies and some families may just have a mommy and
daddy. I would place emphasis on regardless of the families dynamic that each
child is loved and a part of something bigger. I would not have just sent the photos
home without displaying them. I would have displayed all of them and used this
scenario as an age-appropriate learning opportunity. By displaying the photos
within the classroom, the teacher would have been able to address the child’s
individuality, the family photos would have allowed the child to express his/her
unique qualities.
