scholarly journals Doing Anti-Homophobia and Anti-Heterosexism in Early Childhood Education: Moving beyond the Immobilising Impacts of ‘Risks’, ‘fears’ and ‘silences’. Can We Afford Not To?

2005 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 175-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerry Robinson

This article explores the notion of ‘risk’ and the consequences of both ‘taking risks' or ‘not taking risks' in doing anti-homophobia (or anti-heterosexist) education within broader anti-bias and social justice agendas in early childhood education. Informed primarily by the author's collaborative research and experience as a teacher educator in cultural diversity and social justice issues over the past decade, this discussion focuses on the discursive and material barriers that reinforce negative readings of taking risks, within personal, institutional and societal contexts, in relation to doing anti-homophobia education with children as part of early childhood education curricula. The article explores ‘risk’ as a social construction, operating as a powerful means of societal control in order to maintain the status quo and dominant power relations that underpin societal inequalities, especially those related to the rigid binary heterosexual us/homosexual them. The question of whether early childhood educators can afford to ‘risk’ not doing anti-homophobia education as part of their anti-bias or social justice agendas becomes the pertinent issue explored in this article.

Author(s):  
Sunmin Lee ◽  
Jennifer Keys Adair ◽  
Katherina A. Payne ◽  
David Barry

2000 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-170 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather Anne De Lair ◽  
Eric Erwin

The authors describe a model for feminist-based early childhood practice from two perspectives: the classroom teacher and the teacher educator. Using examples from their own work, the authors outline the assumptions and the principles which guide their work with children and adults. Implications for the field are discussed.


2021 ◽  
pp. 183693912110572
Author(s):  
Sene Gide ◽  
Sandie Wong ◽  
Frances Press ◽  
Belinda Davis

This paper reviews current literature and research relevant to the Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) Early Childhood Education (ECE) workforce in Australia, including data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Australia is a highly multicultural society, with one out of every three people born overseas. Anecdotally, the Australian early childhood sector is reported to have a highly multicultural workforce. Yet there is a noticeable lack of data and research concerning cultural diversity in the Australian ECE workforce. This paper reports on the data from the ABS-Census of Population and Housing (ABS-Census), the small body of literature on the CALD ECE workforce and literature pertaining to CALD in other Australian workforces to argue that more data and research is needed. Developing a richer understanding of the status, experience and contributions of CALD educators would enable the sector to recognise and support the potential benefits of such a workforce for children and families and social cohesion in Australia.


Author(s):  
Julia Rodríguez-Carrillo ◽  
Elena González-Alfaya ◽  
Rosario Mérida-Serrano ◽  
Mª Ángeles Olivares-García

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document