International perspectives on early childhood curricula

Abstract

The early years of childhood are receiving increased public policy attention in many countries around the world. Debates on providing quality services and ensuring a good foundation for lifelong learning are generating a new interest in curriculum issues. What understandings do we have of young children? How do they access and construct knowledge about the world around them? What can adults do to effectively enhance children's learning opportunities? According to prevailing values, traditions and priorities, countries differ in their approaches towards answering and regulating curriculum issues such as these. A recent research study based at the State Institute of Early Childhood Education and Research in Bavaria/Germany draws together innovative theoretical and empirical work on the curriculum by 30 scholars from 12 different countries worldwide. Curriculum models in 5 European countries (Denmark, France, Poland, Scotland, Sweden) and 5 non-European countries (Australia, Chile, China, New Zealand, Nigeria) are analysed with regard to their aims and theoretical orientation, key learning areas, approaches to evaluation, and links with primary school. The presentation outlines selected findings of this crossnational study, identifies similarities and differences between countries, and raises questions regarding research and policy approaches. RÉSUMÉOn accorde dans de nombreux pays une attention accrue aux premières années de l'enfance sur le plan des politiques nationales. Des débats portant sur le fait de fournir des services de qualité et d'assurer un bon fondement à une formation devant durer tout au long de la vie suscitent un nouvel intérêt pour toutes les questions relatives aux programmes scolaires. Que comprenons-nous des jeunes enfants? Comment apprennent-ils à connaître le monde qui les entoure et organisent-ils ce qu'ils en savent? Que peuvent faire les adultes pour améliorer de manière efficace les chances d'apprentissage offertes aux enfants? Selon les valeurs, les traditions et les priorités courantes dans un pays ou un autre, les pays diffèrent par leur manière d'appréhender les réponses possibles et de réglementer de telles questions quant aux programmes scolaires. Une étude récemment réalisée par l'Institut de l'Education et de la Recherche pour la petite enfance de l'Etat de Bavière en Allemagne rassemble des travaux théoriques et empiriques innovants sur les programmes scolaires avec les efforts conjoints de 30 spécialistes de 12 pays. On a analysé les modèles de programmes scolaires de 5 pays européens (Danemark, Ecosse, France, Pologne, Suède) et de 5 pays non-européens (Australie, Chili, Chine, Nigeria, Nouvelle-Zélande) par rapport à leurs objectifs et leur orientation théorique, aux principaux domaines d'apprentissage, à leurs approches d'évaluation et aux liens avec l'école primaire. La présentation expose les grandes lignes de conclusions choisies dans cette étude internationale, identifie les similitudes et les différences entre les différents pays et soulève des questions sur la manière ...

Discourses of the Early Years Learning Framework: Constructing the Early Childhood Professional

“…Consistent with the findings from international research (Oberhuemer, 2005;Alvestad & Duncan, 2006;Nuttall & Edwards, 2007;Sofou & Tsafos, 2010) was the way the EYLF provided a language and a vehicle for articulating the work of early childhood educators. In addition, the EYLF seems to have given authority to the education discourse of early childhood because of its positioning as 'independent', 'national' and supported by research and government.…”

“…This study found that teachers 'made sense of a national curriculum text within complex and contradictory contexts and discourses' (Sofou & Tsafos, 2010, p. 419). Enhanced professionalism, where practitioners have exercised autonomy in making their own interpretations and curriculum decisions within a unifying framework, allows practitioners to take ownership of the curriculum (Oberhuemer, 2005;Alvestad & Duncan, 2006). Oberhuemer (2005) argues that early childhood educators need the opportunity to clarify their own thinking on professionalism, and to reposition themselves in ways that can accommodate the new expectations that come with new curriculum documents.…”

Five preschool curricula —comparative perspective

“…She claims: "If we all believe that we are so unique in each culture, we end up in a relativity where there are no human rights!" Curricula for early childhood education and care vary not only in scope, objectives and evaluation (Oberheumer, 2005), but also in methods or perspectives on children and their play and learning (Alvestad & Pramling Samuelsson, 1999;Karlsson Lohmander & Pramling Samuelsson, 2002.…”

The preschool teachers’ beliefs about children’s general skills according to the Estonian national curriculum: an added explanation to the causes of the “schoolification” of early childhood institutions

“…Haridusteaduste instituut, Tallinna Ülikool, Narva mnt 25, 10120 Tallinn; neudorf@tlu.ee riiklikke õppekavu (Bennett, 2005;Oberhuemer, 2005aOberhuemer, , 2005bUrban & Dalli, 2008;Urban, Vandenbroeck, van Laere, Lazzari, & Peeters, 2012), pöö-rata suuremat tähelepanu laste koolivalmiduse tagamisele ning õpitegevustele (Belfield & Garcia, 2014;Einarsdottir, 2006;Platz & Arellano, 2011;Puccioni, 2015), standardiseeritult hinnata laste õpi-ja arengutulemusi (Gunnarsdottir, 2014) ning rangemalt reguleerida lasteaiaõpetajate professionaalsuse nõudeid (Osgood, 2009;Urban, 2008). Need tendentsid ilmnevad hoolimata sellest, et Euroopa Komisjoni, UNESCO ja teiste rahvusvaheliste organisatsioonide konsensusliku arusaama järgi on alusharidus laiapõhjaline ja holistlik ning toetab laste õpetamist, kasvatamist ja arendamist tasakaalustatult .…”