Since beginning my journey into early childhood education, I have learned that early childhood education appears to have its own ‘language’.

When I think about language, I think first of Brian Friel’s Translations, and how it portrays the “the role and impact of language on human experience” (Larson, 2019). Set in 1833 Ireland, it tells the story of a moment of historical transition, a clash between language and culture that was instigated by a move to a national education system in which English would be the official language. A power shift is illustrated through the change in the use of language, and the use of a particular language is deeply connected to identity, “without language a thing or person has no meaningful existence, identity or presence” (Dreiling, 2015).

The early childhood education sector in Ireland has undergone significant changes in recent years, and its identity and presence has increased on a societal level. As a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, the criticality of a quality early childhood education and care system was clear for all to see. Nonetheless, the sector remains in a state of flux, and the struggle to achieve equality in relation to working conditions and a greater societal acknowledgment of the importance of early childhood education is ongoing. Perhaps it is this period of identify building and change that has led to what I have referred to as ‘The Great Early Childhood Language War’.

As a lecturer in Early Childhood Education who is a primary school teacher by ‘trade’, I have been struck by the apparent tension around the use of particular language in relation to early childhood education. I sensed early on in my journey that it was not okay to use the word ‘teacher’, that ‘educator’ or ‘practitioner’ were preferred. It was also not okay to use words like ‘lesson’ or ‘school’.

At first, it was difficult to get the hang of things. My brain had to employ the equivalent of the ‘replace’ tool on Microsoft Word. I had to replace ‘teacher’ with ‘educator’, ‘lesson’ with ‘activity’ and ‘school’ with ‘setting’. Sometimes I tripped up and I immediately corrected myself, because to use such language in the early childhood education sphere seems to imply that one does not fully ‘understand’ early childhood education.

The words ‘teacher’ and ‘lesson’ and ‘school’ appear to conjure up images of a didactic system, where the ‘teacher’ is an authoritarian, and where ‘lessons’ are teacher-led and involve only passive learning. The word ‘school’ seems to give the impression of a rigid, rule bound place where children conform and are not permitted to express their individuality. A place where children’s agency is not promoted or supported. In my experience as a ‘teacher’, this could not be further from the truth. And from my experience of ‘teaching’ infant ‘teachers’ this is certainly not the truth. I have observed a huge demand from teachers to educate and upskill themselves in relation to early childhood education. There is great understanding and knowledge among infant teachers that child-led learning is effective, that following children’s interests is critical and that enabling children to demonstrate agency is central to education.

For years, most teachers have been doing all of these things, albeit under another guise and using different language. Assigning daily ‘jobs’ to children who thrive on being given responsibility, asking children to share their stories and their news, acknowledging individual learning needs and interests, emphasising the uniqueness and individuality of all children and wholly embracing the idea of active, hands-on learning.

There is no doubt that the introduction of the Aistear Framework (NCCA, 2009) shone a light on the importance of play based learning in infant classrooms and beyond. It challenged teachers to reflect on their practice. And while many may have struggled to understand how to adapt their practice to make it more playful, so many schools and teachers across the country have embraced play-based learning. So many teachers have actively sought professional development about how to incorporate playful learning pedagogy across the infant day, in their own time and not remunerated. So many teachers are part of online sharing forums where playful learning is celebrated and championed. And so many ‘teachers’ from both the early childhood education sector and the primary sector want to, and are, learning from each other all the time. Nonetheless, the language war rages on, sometimes silently, sometime hidden, but always there.

It strikes me as odd that the words ‘teacher’ or ‘teach’ in relation to early childhood education come under great scrutiny, but that the language used within the early childhood education sector in relation to the children themselves appears to go without criticism. The commonly used term ‘Wobbler Room’ or ‘Wobblers’ refers to children aged between 12 and 24 months. At 20 months, the child can typically feed themselves and take off their clothes. They can turn the pages of a book and stack 3 to 6 small blocks on top of each other. They have developed sophisticated motor skills, problem solving skills and communication skills, with the Aistear Framework acknowledging such capacity and recognising children as “competent and capable learners” (NCCA, 2009, p.72), who are deserving of respect. The word ‘Wobbler’ does not invoke images of child who is capable, who is competent and who is respected as an individual with rights. Nor do some of the names of individual settings across the country.

The word ‘teach’ is defined by the Oxford dictionary as “to help somebody learn something by giving information about it”. Parker Palmer describes ‘teaching’ as a much richer endeavor than that. Parker describes the skill involved in using a knife – it takes skill to murder someone with a knife and it takes skill to heal someone with a knife. The difference between those two acts like not in the hand that moves the knife but in the heart that moves the hand. So much energy and focus is used talking about the language of ‘teaching’ or ‘educating’ when perhaps our energy would be better spent focusing on the heart of the ‘teacher’ or the ‘educator’ and on education. So that we can be the teacher or the educator the child and the world needs.

Returning to Friel and to Translations, perhaps “the old language is a barrier to modern progress” and perhaps our language around early childhood education needs to, and will change over time. But instead of a dividing over language and terminology, and focusing on the verbalisation of what we are and what we do, we could unite in our common goal to “love learners, learning and teaching life” (Palmer, 2017).