Consider the

Walls
Patricia Tarr

s a university professor in a teacher preparation

program, I regularly visit kindergarten and primary
classrooms to observe student teachers. One spring
day, as I observed a student teach a science lesson to
a group of 25 first-graders, my gaze wandered around
the room.
From a small chair in a corner, I counted 19 different,
decorated, scalloped borders segmenting portions of
the bulletin boards lining the walls. The boards were
filled with words: a word wall, class rules, calendar,
alphabets, numbers, shapes, and colors, and a plethora
of cartoon people and animals, each with a message
and at least 50 of them with horseshoe-shaped smiles
rather like a capital U. Blue-and-white snowflake borders hemmed in a group of winter paintingswhite
paint on blue paperadding to the visual busyness.
St. Patricks Day mobiles created from brightly painted
rainbows and black-line masters hung from the ceiling
just above the childrens heads. Rainbows, leprechauns,
and pots of gold jiggled before my eyes. Almost mute
amid the visual din were childrens drawings and
written work on the walls.
I wondered what it would be like to be a child in that
classroom day after day. Would I refer to the texts on
the walls? Would I daydream or tune out to escape the
cacophony of imagery? As an adult, I wondered about
the messages embedded in the extensive use of smiling
cartoon figures and stereotyped designs. I wondered
Patricia Tarr, PhD, is associate professor in the Faculty of
Education at the University of Calgary, Canada. As an art and
early childhood educator she has been interested in the Reggio
Emilia approach since the early 1990s.
Photos courtesy of the author except as noted.

Beyond the Journal Young Children on the Web May 2004

how long the images had been on the walls. At what

point would the texts and images fade from consciousness? I pondered the impact of this visual environment
on children who have difficulty concentrating and
staying focused on their work.
This classroom is not unique. Commercially produced
borders, posters, and informational materials have
become part of an accepted visual culture of North
American early childhood classrooms. It is assumed
that scalloped borders (which even line some of the
bulletin boards in the faculty of education where I
teach), commercial alphabets, and posters for shapes,
numbers, and colors are essential components of a
kindergarten or primary classroom.
Teachers who take a different approach may even feel
pressure from other teachers or parents to decorate so
that their room looks like a classroom should look. One
teacher who begins her year with very little on the
walls told me that her principal had tactfully inquired
about her classroom walls. She assured the principal
that the walls were deliberately bare, awaiting the rich
work the children would soon be creating.
As I began to think in more depth about classroom
walls and to explore some of the literature on environments, I found little that directly relates to wall space
other than how-to-books on creating attractive bulletin
boards. The Accreditation Criteria and Procedures of the
National Association for the Education of Young Children
states, The environment should be attractive, colorful,
and have childrens work and other pictures displayed
at childrens eye level (NAEYC 1998, 49). While these
standards are designed for preschool and kindergarten rooms, not primary classrooms, in my experience,
kindergarten programs typically contain the same

commercial materials as this primary classroom. The

Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale gives
positive ratings to classrooms in which most of the
display is work done by the children and is relevant
to their current experiences (Harms, Clifford, & Cryer
1998, 14). Highest rated on the scale are displays that
feature work in which children select the media or
the subject and create a personal response rather
than a formula response.
At face value, the classroom in my example was
colorful and did have current childrens work displayed
at a childs eye level. The room might have been rated
satisfactorily according to these standards. What seems
to be missing from these criteria are guidelines that
help teachers consider the purpose of displays, evaluate commercial materials, or think about classroom
aesthetics.
The Reggio Emilia approach stresses the environment as the third teacher (Gandini 1998, 177). Reggioinspired teachers are beginning to look more critically
at their classrooms and reconsider all aspects of
teaching environments, including the purposes of
display and classroom aesthetics. For example, following her visit to Reggio Emilia, Hertzog wrote, I can
strive for more aesthetically pleasing environments in
our classrooms. I can ask teachers to examine their
classrooms for clutter (2001, 7).
This article critically examines classroom walls from
four perspectives: reading the environment, walls that
silence, the purpose of display, and aesthetics. I offer
some suggestions for teachers to consider when
purchasing materials and in planning how to use
classroom walls to enhance the
educational setting.

Reading the environment

consumed by children through a transmission model of

learning. It was clear that children were expected to
know specific kinds of informationnumbers, colors,
shapes, and so onthat may or may not have had any
relationship to what this particular group of children
actually knew or was relevant to them at this time. The
displays read as a standardizedand unquestioned
assortment of materials that ought to be in the room. I
also suspect that the majority of these first-graders had
learned much of this long before they had entered this
classroom; it is precisely the kind of lessons that many
two-, three-, and four-year-olds learn in their homes or
preschools.
The atmosphere created by so many cartoon figures
with smiling faces spoke to me about the intended
atmosphere for learning. I assumed that the intent was
to create a fun atmospherea cheery, colorful environment, where childrens attention would be captured by
these smiling figures and their messages. However,
what I saw were cute and trivialized images of children
and childhood. The stereotyped images suggested a
dumbing down of the environment based on adults
conceptions of what children like.
Where such imagery is part of the educational
environment, children learn to value and accept stereotyped images as part of classroom culture (Rosario &
Collazo 1981), even though the displays may not be part
of the explicit curriculum. These images serve to
perpetuate a distinctive cultural aesthetic of school
think of designs of school buses, apples, little schoolhouses, and so forth (Tarr 2001). Such images do not
honor childrens potential to respond to the worlds
rich and diverse heritage of art forms
(Feeney & Moravcik 1987; Tarr 2001).
Neither do didactic commercial products
necessarily reflect childrens real interests;
lassroom environthey often do not invite engagement, wonder, or imagination, making them that much
ments are public
easier to be ignored at the conscious level.
statements about
The image of the learner embedded in these
materials is that of a consumer of informathe educational
tion who needs to be entertained, rather
values of the instituthan a child who is curious and capable of
creating and contributing to the culture
tion and the teacher.
within this environment (Dahlberg, Moss, &
Pence 1999; Rinaldi 2001; Tarr 2003).

Classroom environments are

public statements about the educational values of the institution and
the teacher. Arrangement of space
including desks, tables, materials
available, and what is displayed on
the wallsconveys messages about
the relationship between teaching
and learning, the image of the child
held by the teacher, and the expectations for behavior
and learning within that setting (Simco 1996; Gandini
1998; Rinaldi 1998). More specifically, there is the question of the value of commercially produced materials on
classroom walls and whether educators understand the
messages they convey (Shapiro & Kirby 1998).
The message I read in the classroom described above
was that there was a great deal of information to be

In that first grade classroom, I was struck by how the

displays of childrens work were lost amongst the many
visual images on the wall. The snowflake designs on the
borders surrounding the winter paintings made it
difficult to appreciate the quality of the individual chil-

Beyond the Journal Young Children on the Web May 2004

Walls that silence

drens responses to painting a winter scene. Likewise,

the scalloped borders and cartoon figures overpowered
the penciled texts; rather than honoring childrens
words, they rendered them invisible.
Work that follows formulaic schemas, such as prescriptive worksheets or the St. Patricks Day mobiles
hanging from the ceiling, stifles the true capabilities of
young children and consequently silences imagination
and creativity. So too
does the mass of commercial stereotyped
images silence the actual lived experiences
of those individuals
learning together. An
overload of commercial
materials leaves little
room for work created
by the childrenanother kind of silencing.
Finally, children are
muffled when what is
displayed does not
accurately reflect who
they are in terms of
gender, culture, and
ethnicity but rather in
stereotyped ways.

Purpose of display
The challenge for
early childhood educators is to think beyond
decorating to consider
how walls can be used
effectively as part of an
educational environment. In Reggio Emilia
the walls display
documentation panels
of projects that children
are engaged in. These
become the basis of
ongoing research and
dialogue between the
children, teachers, and
families. Panels of
photos, artifacts, and
text make learning
visible to participants
and to outsiders
(Rinaldi 2001).

Beyond the Journal Young Children on the Web May 2004

Documentation differs from display in that it includes

explanatory text and childrens own words, helping the
viewer understand childrens thinking and their processes rather than just end products. Documentation is
ongoing and part of planning and assessment. It encourages children to revisit an experience and to share a
memory together. It can provide opportunities for further exploration or new directions (Gandini 1998).
Here are some questions teachers can ask themselves:
What is the purpose of the materials I am putting on
display? Who is the
display for? The
children? Families?
Other visitors?
What image of a
learner is conveyed
by the materials
displayed?
Does the display
honor childrens
work or has the
work become simply decorative by
being cut up into
shapes contrived
by an adult?
How can the
walls reflect the
lives, families,
cultures, and
interests of the
learners within?
Do the posters
invite participation
and active involvement or passive
reception of information (Shapiro &
Kirby 1998)?
What is the atmosphere of the classroom? How do the
materials on display contribute to
this atmosphere?
What are the
assumptions about
how children learn,
and how are these

reflected by the classroom walls?

Kindergarten and primary teachers are under increased pressure to support literacy development. Literature in this area suggests that teachers create classrooms that are rich in print, incorporating such things as
word walls (Houle & Krogness 2001), signs, labels, bulletin boards, and more. However, Neuman, Copple, and
Bredekamp caution that More does not mean better. In
a room cluttered with labels, signs, and suchprint for
prints sakeletters and words become just so much
wallpaper (2000, 38).
If a word wall, alphabet, or other material is intended
as a reference, is it located where children can actually
use it? Perhaps alphabet strips for desk use are more
helpful to children than alphabets hung high above
their heads (Neuman, Copple, & Bredekamp 2000). If
this applies to alphabets, could it also apply to other
didactic materials, such as number charts? Could the
wall space be used to better educational advantage?
Another question that should be asked: Is the information on posters and charts accurate? Tracey (1994)
argues, for example, that children should use mathematically correct terminology from the beginning,
replacing words such as diamond and oval with the
terms rhombus and ellipse (although oval and diamond
may be the common terms used on posters marketed
for young children). Similarly, there are many variations
of tints and shades of coloris a chart illustrating primary and secondary colors too simplistic a description?
Do children have any input into the design of displays? British educator Penny Hegarty (1996) links
childrens involvement in creating classroom displays
with curriculum goals in the area of visual literacy and
visual communication. Not only might children be
involved with selecting work that goes on display, they
also can be part of the process of creating the display.
Finally, are commercial materials a wise investment?
Teachers frequently spend their own money on materials to decorate their classrooms. Rethinking what is put
on the walls may help teachers make thoughtful choices
and save money.

educational environments that support

ot only might
childrens learning
through conscious use
children be involved
of design elements of
with selecting work
light, color, texture,
sound, and smell.
that goes on display,
Curtis and Carter
they also can be part
(2003) spotlight North
American classrooms
of the process of
that have consciously
creating the display.
used these design
elements to engage
childrens curiosity
and wonder. Their Designs for Living and Learning:
Transforming Early Childhood Environments is an
excellent reference for any teacher wishing to reconsider classroom aesthetics.
While much of the early childhood literature suggests
that rooms for young children be colorful, color is too
often used for its own sake rather than deliberately
chosen to enhance a particular area or to create a sense
of unity throughout the room. Walls painted in neutral
colors create a sense of calmness and allow other
features in the room to stand out. Observe how color is
used in homes, commercial buildings, public spaces,
and museums. Consider what makes a particular place
attractive and interesting. Notice how color is used to
create a supportive environment for objects and images
on display.
Childrens work usually shows to best advantage on
neutral walls or against backgrounds that do not
compete with the work. Brightly colored borders or
picture frames often detract from childrens work.
In the first grade classroom observed, there was no
empty space to allow the eyes to rest. The feeling was
of visual chaos and clutter. A balance was needed
between filled and empty spaces. The winter paintings

Beyond the Journal Young Children on the Web May 2004

William Geiger

Feeney and Moravcik (1987), concerned about the

aesthetics of classrooms, suggest that one of the ways
that educators could enhance the aesthetic education
of young children is through the design of the environment. This idea has been taken up more recently in
literature from Reggio Emilia, particularly in Children,
Spaces, Relations: Metaproject for an Environment for
Young Children (Ceppi & Zini 1998), that looks closely at

William Geiger

Aesthetics

4
4

Notice how color is used

to create a supportive
environment for objects
and images on display.

would have been much more visible and enjoyable had

they been displayed without the snowflake borders and
cartoon figures. Some empty space between each piece
would have allowed viewers to see each work as a
single entity as well as part of a larger group project. A
cleaner palette also would have freed space for some
text that described the winter project and included
childrens voices about their experience.

Conclusion
I am not suggesting that teachers should never
purchase commercial materials. Many art reproductions and visuals are of educational value and appropriate to hang in a classroom. I am, however, encouraging
teachers to step back and critically examine the quality
and quantity of commercial materials on their walls to
determine whether they actually contribute to
childrens learning or whether they ultimately silence
children. We should respect children as active, curious
learners with ideas to communicate.

References
Ceppi, G., & M. Zini, eds. 1998. Children, spaces, relations: Metaproject for an environment for young children. Reggio Emilia,
Italy: Reggio Children.
Curtis, D., & M. Carter. 2003. Designs for living and learning: Transforming early childhood environments. St. Paul, MN: Redleaf.
Available from NAEYC.
Dahlberg, G., P. Moss, & A. Pence. 1999. Beyond quality in early
childhood education and care: Postmodern perspectives. Philadelphia: Falmer Press, Taylor & Francis.

Beyond the Journal Young Children on the Web May 2004

Feeney, S., & E. Moravcik. 1987. A thing of beauty: Aesthetic development in young children. Young Children 42 (6): 715.
Gandini, L. 1998. Educational and caring spaces. In The hundred
languages of children. The Reggio Emilia approachAdvanced
reflections, 2nd ed., eds. C. Edwards, L. Gandini & G. Forman,
16178. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
Harms, T., R. Clifford, & D. Cryer. 1998. Early childhood environment rating scale. Rev. ed. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hegarty, P. 1996. A childs eye-view: The development of childrens perceptual skills through display. In Display in the classroom, eds. H. Cooper, P. Hegarty, P. Hegarty, & N. Simco, 7893.
London: David Fulton.
Hertzog, N. 2001. Reflections and impressions from Reggio Emilia:
Its not about art! Early Childhood Research and Practice 3 (1).
Online: http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v3n1/hertzog.html.
Houle, A., & A. Krogness. 2001. The wonders of word walls. Young
Children 56 (5): 9293.
NAEYC. 1998. Accreditation criteria and procedures of the National Association for the Education of Young Children. Washington, DC: Author.
Neuman, S., C. Copple, & S. Bredekamp. 2000. Learning to read and
write: Developmentally appropriate practices for young children.
Washington, DC: NAEYC.
Rinaldi, C. 1998. The space of childhood. In Children, spaces,
relations: Metaproject for an environment for young children, eds.
C. Ceppi & M. Zini, 11420. Reggio Emilia, Italy: Reggio Children.
Rinaldi, C. 2001. Documentation and assessment: What is the
relationship? In Making learning visible: Children as individual
and group learners, eds. Project Zero & Reggio Children, 7889.
Reggio Emilia, Italy: Reggio Children.
Rosario, J., & E. Collazo. 1981. Aesthetic codes in context: An
exploration in two preschool classrooms. Journal of Aesthetic
Education 15 (1): 7182.
Shapiro, B., & D. Kirby. 1998. An approach to consider the semiotic
messages of school science learning culture. Journal of Science
Teacher Education 9 (3): 22140.
Simco, N. 1996. Whose work is it anyway? Display in a negotiated
classroom. In Display in the classroom: Principles, practice and
learning theory, eds. H. Cooper, P. Hegarty, P. Hegarty, & N. Simco,
7893. London: David Fulton.
Tarr, P. 2001. Aesthetics codes in early childhood classrooms:
What art educators can learn from Reggio Emilia. Art Education
54 (3): 3339. Online: www.designshare.com/Research/Tarr/
Aesthetic_Codes_1.htm.
Tarr, P. 2003. Reflections on the image of the child: Reproducer or
creator of culture. Art Education 56 (4): 611.
Tracey, D. 1994. Using mathematical language to enhance mathematical conceptualization. Childhood Education 7 (4): 22124.
Copyright 2004 by the National Association for the Education
of Young Children. See Permissions and Reprints online at
www.naeyc.org/resources/journal.