scholarly journals Partnerships in Early Childhood Education and Care: Empowering Parents or Empowering Practitioners

2012 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 14-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Rouse

Research acknowledges that outcomes for young children are enhanced when effective partnerships are developed between educators and families. The Australian Early Years Learning Framework provides direction for the professional practice of early childhood educators by acknowledging the importance of educators working in partnership with families. In the Victorian state-based early years framework, family-centred practice has been included as the practice model. Family-centred practice has as its core a philosophy of professionals supporting the empowerment of parents as active decision makers for their child. The early childhood education and care sector in Australia, however, is made up of a workforce which is largely perceived as being undervalued as a profession. This raises questions as to the capacity of these educators to support the empowerment of parents when they themselves are coming from a position of disempowerment due to their professional status. This article reports on findings from a small-scale study of childhood educators working in a long day-care setting which aimed to identify perceptions of the partnerships that exist between themselves and parents. In the course of the investigation, it became evident that some of educators felt disempowered in the relationships that exist with some families.

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 404-416
Author(s):  
Jane M Selby ◽  
Benjamin S Bradley ◽  
Jennifer Sumsion ◽  
Matthew Stapleton ◽  
Linda J Harrison

This article evaluates the concept of infant ‘belonging’, central to several national curricula for early childhood education and care. Here, the authors focus on Australia’s Early Years Learning Framework. Four different meanings attach to ‘belonging’ in the Early Years Learning Framework, the primary being sociopolitical. However, ‘a sense of belonging’ is also proposed as something that should be observable and demonstrable in infants and toddlers – such demonstration being held up as one of the keys to quality outcomes in early childhood education and care. The Early Years Learning Framework endows belonging with two contrasting meanings when applied to infants. The first, the authors call ‘marked belonging’, and it refers to the infant’s exclusion from or inclusion in defined groups of others. The second, the authors provisionally call ‘unmarked’ belonging. Differences between these two meanings of infant belonging are explored by describing two contrasting observational vignettes from video recordings of infants in early childhood education and care. The authors conclude that ‘belonging’ is not a helpful way to refer to, or empirically demonstrate, an infant’s mundane comfort or ‘unmarked’ agentive ease in shared early childhood education and care settings. A better way to conceptualise and research this would be through the prism of infants’ proven capacity to participate in groups.


2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 340-355 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer Sumsion ◽  
Linda Harrison ◽  
Karen Letsch ◽  
Benjamin Sylvester Bradley ◽  
Matthew Stapleton

This article considers opportunities and risks arising from the prominence of the belonging motif in Australia’s Early Years Learning Framework and, more implicitly, in the National Quality Standard, against which the quality of the early childhood education and care services is assessed. A vignette constructed from case study data generated in the babies’ room in an early childhood centre in an Aboriginal community in rural Queensland is used to illuminate some of these opportunities and risks.


2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (2) ◽  
pp. 45-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Rouse ◽  
Deanna O'Brien

THE EXPECTATION THAT EDUCATORS will develop partnerships with parents is a key principle in early childhood education and care provision. This is particularly so in Australia where policy guidelines and quality standards list parent partnerships as key indicators of quality practice. However the language used across the two key policy documents, the Early Years Learning Framework and the National Quality Standard, is inconsistent in the way these partnerships are defined and intended to be enacted. This has resulted in an ambiguity in the way teachers and educators are engaging in partnerships in their work with families. Drawing on a framework for examining partnerships that positions the notion of mutuality and reciprocity in the centre of the relationship, and examining this through Bronfenbrenner's (1979) ecological perspective, this paper presents findings of a small scale case study that explored the extent to which these characteristics are reflected in the relationships between the teacher and parents. The study found that while the teacher was meeting identified performance standards, that a true partnership underpinned by mutuality and reciprocity was not evident in the relationships between the teacher and the families.


2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 23-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ioanna Palaiologou ◽  
Trevor Male

In this conceptual article, the authors examine the context of early childhood education and care in England and the underpinning predominant ideologies to explore how these impact on the framing of leadership. The English context entails several contradictions (antinomies) at ontological, epistemological and axiological levels, and is heavily influenced by an ideological struggle concerning the value of play within the sector as opposed to a climate of child performativity. Moreover, the predominately female workforce (a factor itself) has faced relentless changes in terms of qualifications and curriculum reforms in recent years. With the introduction of the graduate leader qualification (Early Years Teacher Status), a vast body of research has been seeking to conceptualise what leadership means for early childhood education and care. In this article, the authors argue that these attempts are helpful and contribute to this discourse of leadership, but it needs to be thought of not only abstractly, but also practically. Thus, the authors conclude, the (re)conceptualisation of leadership should locate it as pedagogical praxis after evaluating the inherent deep dispositions of leaders in conjunction with their history, surrounding culture and subjective perspectives/realities.


2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 258-275 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rasmus Kleppe

This article focuses on how Early Childhood Education and Care institutions provide for 1- to 3-year-olds’ risky play—a previously little researched topic—utilizing data from an exploratory, small-scale study investigating aspects of risky play in the age-group. The main findings describe how three essentially different Early Childhood Education and Care centers provide different opportunities for risky play. These environments are assessed with the theoretical concept of affordance and suggest that versatile, flexible, and complex environments and equipment—with little objective risk—are optimal for children’s risky play in this age-group. Being a new topic, the affordance assessment is discussed in relation to a standardized measurement, the Infant-Toddler Environment Rating Scale—Revised edition. Findings indicate that the two approaches partly coincide but also that there are discrepancies. Interpretations and implications are discussed.


2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 345-352 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith Archambault ◽  
Dominique Côté ◽  
Marie-France Raynault

Abstract Early childhood education and care (ECEC) can have substantial beneficial effects on overall child development and educational success for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. Unfortunately, it is well documented that they are underrepresented in quality ECEC programs. In order to improve access to quality ECEC, it is important to understand the factors leading to these inequities. This paper is based on a synthesis of published literature on interventions aimed at improving access to ECEC. We propose a framework identifying the spectrum of factors influencing access to quality ECEC for disadvantaged populations. We also present, in the context of our proposed framework, different interventions that have been taken to improve access to ECEC opportunities for children from low socioeconomic and/or new immigrant backgrounds. We believe that the framework proposed in this paper serves not only as a framework by which to understand the overlapping processes, factors, and stages affecting access to ECEC, but also as a model to help decision makers coordinate their efforts and maximize their impact towards more equity in access to quality early childhood education.


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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 255-278
Author(s):  
Daniela Ofner

AbstractEarly Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) professionals need specific knowledge and abilities to support children’s language development: language support competence (LSC). Research has shown varying levels of LSC of the personnel in early childhood education centers. However, only early childhood educators in monolingual institutions promoting the majority language were included in these studies. The growing interest in bilingual education in early childhood in many European countries raises the question whether ECEC professionals in bilingual institutions are better qualified for language-related tasks due to the evident focus on language and multilingualism. In a cross-sectional study, LSC and language proficiency of 115 ECEC professionals in monolingual and 24 ECEC professionals in bilingual early childhood education centers in Germany were assessed with standardized tests. Participants in bilingual institutions reached higher knowledge scores but did not differ from their colleagues in monolingual institutions in their abilities or language proficiency. Correlational and regression analyses revealed that LSC is related to several personal and professional background factors such as level of education or participation in professional development courses. The results are discussed with respect to language support practices in early childhood education and possible selection processes in personnel recruitment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document