Pedagogical Silences in Australian Early Childhood Social Policy

Abstract

Growing international interest in the early childhood years has been accompanied by an expansion of public programs in Australia targeting young children and their families. This article explores some of the influences and rhetoric that frame these initiatives. It encourages critical examination of the discourses that shape the nature of early childhood programs in Australia and identifies a range of barriers that inhibit the involvement of early childhood teachers in the design and delivery of social policy initiatives for young children. As the imperatives of programs seeking to overcome social disadvantage take prominence in Australian early childhood policy initiatives, pedagogical perspectives that promote universal rights to more comprehensive early childhood experiences can easily be silenced. The article calls for pedagogical leadership to overcome these barriers and promote the democratic rights of all children to high-quality and publicly supported early childhood education and care programs.Moss (2001) observes that early childhood education and care can often be viewed as 'technology for social stability and economic progress, the young child as a redemptive vehicle to be programmed to become a solution to certain problems' (p. 13). This powerful observation sets a context for the following critical analysis of the influences on early childhood social policy in Australia. Often expressed in the separate domains of health, welfare and education, this article exposes the dichotomies that these artificial demarcations create in a social policy context. While early childhood teachers may consider themselves influential in the design and delivery of education and care programs, powerful policy agendas are dominating the discourses of early childhood education and care that favour health and welfare imperatives over more comprehensive and pedagogically driven possibilities. Within this context, the term 'pedagogies' is used to express approaches to curriculum, learning and teaching that recognise the complex interconnectedness of health, welfare and education in young children's lives -approaches that are grounded in images of children as capable and resourceful.The article begins by outlining the global impetus for public interest in early childhood as an important life phase. It then analyses Australian responses to these influences and describes consequent changes to public provisions for young children within this country, drawing on specific examples, particularly within New South Wales. It argues that the selective use of particular types of research evidence and reliance on a narrow range of evidence is diminishing the importance of early childhood pedagogies. The article highlights a subtle and yet powerful shift in the intentions and outcomes for children's services across Australia. It alerts early childhood teachers to pervading images of the 'vulnerable and needy' child within social policy and how these images are acting to shape curriculum and ways in which teachers work with childre...

An Analysis of the Conceptualisation of ‘Quality’ in Early Childhood Education and Care Empirical Research: Promoting ‘Blind Spots' as Foci for Future Research

“…Thus, research investigating quality ECEC may not be seen to be about education or, alternatively, researchers may target positivist approaches and psychology journals as a strategy to highlight the importance of, and thus lift the status of, quality ECEC. Third, the positioning of quality ECEC with developmental psychology may be indicative of health and welfare agendas being privileged in government policy, and ECEC research, as well as policy, being marked by 'pedagogical silences' (Cheeseman, 2007).…”

Thinking about Practice in Integrated Children's Services: Considering Transdisciplinarity

“…There needs to be a mediation of interpretations and an aligning of responses (Edwards, 2011). There is a very real risk that the important knowledge base that underpins work in the ECEC sector could well be marginalized in favour of other highly medicalised approaches such as those in medicine and associated therapies (Cheeseman, 2007). Macfarlane et al (2010) argue that this possible marginalisation of the knowledge base will become increasingly problematic, as it will limit the possibility of early years teachers and other early years educators being identified as leaders in such contexts.…”

“…However, in reality, silos of practice exist (Press & Woodrow, 2005), which act to restrict the opportunities for knowledge exchange meaning that new ideas and approaches in particular sectors are often misunderstood in others. This situation increases protectiveness of individual knowledge bases and fosters suspicion about whether decisions about particular practice approaches are evidencebased (Cheeseman, 2007). For early childhood teachers, who have long made claim to the early years' knowledge base, this current policy climate is creating significant tension.…”

“…For early childhood teachers, who have long made claim to the early years' knowledge base, this current policy climate is creating significant tension. Researchers such as Cheeseman (2007), Fenech, Sumsion & Shepherd (2010, Macfarlane, Cartmel & Nolan (2010) and Moss (2006Moss ( , 2010 highlight the problematic nature of current policy reform in relation to its contribution to the professional identity of early years teachers and other early years professionals, and the possible marginalisation of the ECEC knowledge base.…”

Child-Centred, Family-Centred, Decentred: Positioning Children as Rights-Holders in Early Childhood Program Collaborations

“…There is a risk, however, that when early childhood education and care programs are constructed primarily as adjuncts to programs for parents, the experiences of children and the quality of their programs can fall out of the line of vision. This blind spot might result from the assumption that children automatically benefit from support given to parents (Warin, 2006) or because the pedagogical experiences of children are not given the same priority (Cheeseman, 2007). For instance, in our studies (Press et al, 2010;Wong et al, under review), members of the research team observed instances where playgroups were established as a means of bringing parents together, but were not sufficiently organised or resourced to meaningfully engage children or to enable children to develop strong, supportive relationships with peers and caring adults outside the family.…”