Teaching for social justice, social responsibility and social inclusion: a respectful pedagogy for twenty-first century early childhood education

2014 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 723-738 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Hawkins
Author(s):  
Sunmin Lee ◽  
Jennifer Keys Adair ◽  
Katherina A. Payne ◽  
David Barry

Education ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Underwood ◽  
Gillian Parekh

Inclusive education as a model of service delivery arose out of disability activism and critiques of special education. To understand inclusive education in early childhood, however, one must also engage with broader questions of difference, diversity, and social justice as they intersect with childhood studies. To that end, this article contains references that include other critical discourses on childhood and inclusivity as well as critiques of inclusive education. Inclusive education has a much deeper body of research in formal school settings than in the early years. School-based research, however, often examines social relationships and academic achievement as outcome measures. This research has established that education situated in a child’s community and home school is generally more effective than special education settings, particularly when classroom educators have access to appropriate training, resources, policies, and leadership. Schools, of course, are part of the education landscape of the early years, but they are not inclusive of the full spectrum or early years settings. The early years literature on inclusion is different in focusing more attention on development, family, and community (as described in the General Overview of Early Childhood Inclusion). A critique of early childhood education research has focused on school readiness and rehabilitation and the efficacy of early identification and early intervention. This research is largely informed by Western medical research, but this approach has led global institutions to set out priorities for early intervention without recognizing how our worldview shapes our understanding of childhood and difference. The dominant research domain, however, has also identified that family and community contexts are important. This recognition creates a fundamental difference between inclusion research in school settings and such research in early childhood education and care. Early childhood education and care has always focused on the child and their family as the recipients of services, while educational interest in the family has been viewed as a setting in which the conditions for learning are established. Support for families is at the center of early childhood inclusive practice, both because families are largely responsible for seeking out early childhood disability services and because families are critical in children’s identity. Inclusion in schools and early childhood education and care can both be understood through theories of disability, ability, and capability. In both settings, education and care have social justice aims linked not only to developmental and academic outcomes for individual children, but also to the ways that these programs reproduce inequality. Disability as a social phenomenon has its historical roots in racist and colonial practices, understood through critical race theory, that are evident today in both early childhood and school settings. Understanding the links between disableism and other forms of discrimination and oppression is critical both for teaching for social justice broadly and for better understanding of how ability, capability, and critical disability theory and childhood studies are established through practices that begin in the early years.


2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 4-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wendy Roberts

THIS ARTICLE IDENTIFIES some key enablers and barriers in early childhood education and care (ECEC) environments in Australia encountered by early childhood educators and professionals (ECEPs) and by the children and their families experiencing vulnerability and disadvantage. Improving educational outcomes can change the cycle of disadvantage for children and their families. This research asks both the providers and users of services concurrently about what they think is important and effective. This qualitative case study used Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) to analyse semi-structured interview data gathered from 30 families and their children and 33 qualified ECEPs. The research focused on the enablers and barriers around social inclusion, access, participation and engagement at the different levels of system, service, children and their families, and ECEPs. The study found that the participant groups shared an understanding that empathy, trust and time proved key to relationship building as a starting point in addressing some of the key barriers. Social inclusion, access, participation and engagement are key to early learning success in early childhood—a time integral to overall health, wellbeing and future role in society. This study has led to the development of a new model for engagement and relationship building.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document