The Non-Tested Years: Policy’s Impact on Early Childhood Curriculum

Process quality, curriculum and pedagogy in early childhood education and care

“…Gupta (2015[132]) highlights how all cultures hold particular values about children, and that while these may not emphasise child-centredness as a mode of learning, they nonetheless influence the ultimate form in which pedagogy is enacted. Her argument strongly aligns with the findings from the Fung and Cheng (2012 [131]) (see 'Locus of control') study, in which the Hong Kong (China) curriculum, while advocating for play-based learning is mediated in practice by the perspectives of educators, families and principals concerning explicit teaching, thus generating a culturally-situated pedagogy in which play-based learning is present, but not necessarily in the same form as it is advocated for in the Western-European literature. Rentzou et al (2019[134]) encapsulate this cultural distinction in their investigation of the role of academics and play-based learning across eight countries, including Cyprus 1 , Denmark, Estonia, Greece, Italy, Spain, Turkey, and the United States.…”

“…Fung and Cheng (2012 [131]) similarly highlight tensions between curriculum mandated play-based learning and its provision in practice. This study, conducted in Hong Kong (China), examines the implementation of play-based learning by teachers in 20 schools catering for children aged 3-6 years.…”

“…In this review, eight of the 24 papers presented curriculum and pedagogy in this way. Either not defining the relationship between the two (Burchinal, 2018[2]; Fuligni et al, 2012[123]), or using the concepts interchangeably (Admas, 2019[121]; Bautista et al, 2019[130]; Farquhar and White, 2014 [140]; Fung and Cheng, 2012 [131]; Gupta, 2015[132]; Hedges, Cullen and Jordan, 2011 [133]). This is not a critique of the papers per se, but more recognition of the need for research moving forward to consider the distinction between curriculum and pedagogy for increased meta-level clarity regarding which ideas pertain to what and how children are taught, and how children learn in ECEC settings.…”

“…Establishing this relationship is important because the ideological position informing the locus of control within either curriculum or pedagogy may be identified according to culturally held expectations and values for learning, including those associated with the role of play and play-based learning (or otherwise) in ECEC. For example, Gupta (2015 [132]) and Fung and Cheng (2012 [131]) found that cultural values and expectations for learning mediated curriculum provision in practice via pedagogical adaptations by educators seeking to align curriculum expectations with locally-held, and historically significant, beliefs about learning. In contrast, those authors operating from a more implicit acceptance of play as culturally viable for learning argue for a combination of child-centred and adult-supported locus of control (Fisher et al, 2010[138]; Sproule, Walsh and McGuinness, 2019 [135]; Weisberg, Hirsch-Pasek and Golinkoff, 2013 [139]).…”

Primary teachers’ experiences of neo-liberal education reform in England: ‘Nothing is ever good enough’

“…Internationally there have been renewed drives for curriculum modification, for example, in the USA and Australia (Savage and O'Connor 2015). Across many countries, early childhood and primary curricula have been revised to further reflect a more formal pedagogy, with attendant standards (or competences), and enhanced assessment and accountability (Brown 2015;Nyland and Ng 2016;Gallo-Fox and Cuccuini-Harmon 2018). Such reform necessitates administrative, pedagogic and political adjustments for primary teachers, and has repercussions for professional identity (Hall and McGinity 2015;Aderet-German, Segal, and Vedder-Weiss 2019).…”