"The" Professional Circles of Educators

Theory, practice and ourselves

I don't think there is a single specific recipe to be an educator, especially when it comes to the early years... we are all different with our own personal experiences, our different combinations of theory learned, as well as different practical skills...

What I think is essential is how we all combine these... not only so that we can continue to evolve as educators, but also so we can receive critique that can help us grow rather than experiencing it as a personal insult.

A long time ago I saw an explanation of professionalism as a series of circles, and I cannot find the source, despite multiple attempts to locate it... and I am not sure if I am remembering/interpreting it exactly as it was once shown - but this is how I have reflected and developed them.

model 1

This first image (model 1) demonstrates a teacher who has equal amounts of theory and practice. So not only is there plenty of hands on interactions with the children there is also equal amounts of reflection and application of theory. There is also an equal amount of the “person” coming to the job - with their own childhood experiences and history that can enrich the role of the educator. I also see this educator role as having three parts - teacher, facilitator and playworker.

model 2

In this model there is a great deal of theory but not much hands on practice. Lots of reflecting, lots of theory being discussed but not so much of it reaching and benefitting the children. It is like the failing to walk the talk. I am a big believer in reflection, but I also think that sometimes the reflection is not impacting the practice enough - maybe the wrong questions are being asked, maybe theories are too narrowly defined and limit the practice, maybe the reflections are too limited to only talk about how to re-enforce the practice rather than examine it.

I am also a big believer in reading research and knowing theories because they can protect your practice. If people critique our practice, we have the knowledge to explain why we do what we do, and that it is not only our own experience but also wisdom from research and theorists. But I am also wary when there is not enough practical experience to be able to fully understand how that translates in real life.

model 3

In this third model there is little theory and lots of hands on... the educator is active with the children but is not taking time to reflect about why or how this is affecting the children. They also do not have the same sense of theoretical protection when their practice is being questioned and can sometimes feel belittled or get defensive, neither of which is productive for the person themselves, the children or colleagues.

Taking time to reflect and dig deeper into research, to better understand the why and how of what we do, rather than just instinct (and this is no disrespect to instinct, because as I wrote above, without practice theory lacks the necessary human connection)

This makes me think about phronesis - it is Greek in origin and it sort of means something like common sense, but that really is not an adequate explanation - it is more like practical wisdom - the ability to figure out what to do in any given moment while also knowing what is worth doing - you are wise about your intentions, wise about your ends, and at the same time you have a clear understanding of the means that you need to actually get there. It is not learned from books and theories, but from practical experience.
In the education world this means that the educator is able to apply personal practical knowledge, taking into account the context of the present situation - and then will be re-applied to the educator's knowledge-base to expand on. It’s the knowledge gained by practical experience... practical experience that is reflected on. Essentially it is a mix of all three rings, and is why I advocate for the first model, and also why I have such high respect for practical knowledge. In my book the Original Learning Approach I bring this up, as well as the Sámi words “diehtu” (theoretical knowledge) and “mahttu” (practical knowledge) on page 87 - where Lisa-Ravna Finbog explains Indigenous Knowledge in a more complex and inclusive manner that belongs to us all.

model 4

In this fourth model the personal side of the teacher is takes up most of the space. This means that when their professional role is being critiqued it is taken personally as not neither enough practice and/or theory there to "protect" the individual with professionalism. It can also mean that personal incidents and sense of well-being can influence the children both positively and negatively. These people tend to get upset rather than having the ability to assess their professional role - their practice, their reflections and their theoretical understandings of their work, the children and play (and the subjects - if we don’t know enough about the content of what we are teaching then it is hard to ask open and productive questions)

model 5

And there is the fifth model where there is very little of the personal involvement of the teacher... the passion, the professional love, memories from their own childhoods that can be applied to understanding and empathising with children today. They know their stuff, the are hands on, but in an efficient way rather than an empathic way. We have to come with our own personal experiences and emotions to be able to form authentic relationships with children. Being professional does not mean devoid of feelings, it means that our theory and practice are in place to protect us in our roles as educators, and to provide children with a care and learning environment they have the right to - play-filled, caring, safe and brave, adventurous, explorative and more.


As mentioned already, I think we should be striving towards model one, where we can be holistic educators with a mix of theory, practice and personal that re-enforce each other and strengthen our professionalism as educators. Especially our professional roles with very young children.

Working philosophically.. not only with children but also with colleagues opens up the potential to discuss ideas respectfully... to be aware of being open to other perspectives and to understand that nothing is personally intended but that ideas are being challenged, argued for and against and distinctions being made. This, then can be a great way at practicing to be model 1. Because there will be times when our theory is a bit thinner than other times as we are pushed into something that requires us to learn something new in order to be able to meet the specific needs of the children in our care.

I hope these circles offer an opportunity to reflect on our professionalism and that they can aid your understanding not only of your own approach to your work, but maybe also understand colleagues. And through understanding we can make adjustments in our communication and enable us all to grow and extend.

I have now stopped using AI generated images here, as my new understandings are that they use up large amounts of energy. So all images in the future will be either photos or ones that I self generate.